Dynamic Surge/Swab

Pressure Predictions
R.F. Mitchell, SPE, Enertech Engineering & Research

Summary. It is generally accepted that the pulling and running of pipe causes pressure surges. The prediction of pressure surges
is of economic importance in wells where the pressure must be maintained within narrow limits to prevent lost circulation and
formation-fluid influx. For these wells, the drilling engineer needs the best possible method of calculating surge pressures to drill
wells with a minimum of trouble.
This paper presents a dynamic surge/swab model that extends existing technology with the following features: (1) pipe and
annulus pressures are coupled through the pipe elasticity; (2) longitudinal pipe elasticity and fluid viscous forces determine pipe
displacement; (3) fluid properties vary as a function of temperature and pressure; and (4) formation elasticity, pipe elasticity, and
cement elasticity are all used to determine the composite elastic response of the wellbore.
Comparisons between the model and field data demonstrate good agreement. Data matches have been made for both water- and
oil-based muds in both shallow and deep wells. Furthermore, the model matches data that had not been previously matched by
other models.

Introduction
Pressure surges have long been known to cause well-control prob-
lems. In 1934, Cannon l identified pressure surges resulting from
pipe swabbing as a possible cause of fluid influx, and in extreme
cases, blowouts. In 1951, Goins et ai. 2 measured positive pres-
sure surges and linked surge pressures with lost-circulation
problems.
In most wells, the magnitude of the pressure surges is not criti-
cal because proper casing design and mud programs leave large
enough margins between fracture pressures and formation-fluid pres-
sures. A certain fraction of wells, however, cannot be designed with
large surge-pressure margins. In these critical wells, pressure sur-
ges must be maintained within narrow limits. In other critical wells,
pressure margins may be large, but pressure surges may still be
a concern. Some operations are particularly prone to large pres-
sure surges-e.g., running of low-clearance liners in deep wells.
The need to predict pressure surges in critical wells has produced
a number of wellbore fluid-flow models. Burkhardt, 3 Fontenot and
Clark, 4 and Schuh 5 represent the most complete examples of
"steady-flow" pressure-surge models. In these models, the drill-
ing mud is perfectly displaced by the pipe motion. Fluid pressures
are calculated to be consistent with frictional pressure drops caused
by fluid motion. These models neglect fluid inertia (Burkhardt in-
cludes an approximate inertia effect) and the compressibility ofthe
fluid and wellbore. These models do consider the complexities of
the non-Newtonian flow of drilling muds. All these models are suffi-
ciently complex to require the use of a computer program for ef-
fective use. The lack of fluid compressibility is considered a
conservative assumption because it predicts a higher flow rate, which
generates a higher frictional pressure drop. The neglect of fluid
inertia is not a conservative assumption. The dynamic surge pres-
sures measured by Burkhardt3 cannot be predicted by a steady-flow
model, particularly the negative pressure surges resulting from fluid
backflow when the pipe is brought to rest.
The first fully dynamic surge-pressure model, developed by Lu-
binski et ai., 6 emphasized the importance of compressibility in
pressure calculations. Lal corrected a number of deficiencies in the
Lubinski et ai. model and began an investigation of parameters
affecting surge pressures. 7.8
Surge field data are much less common than surge-pressure
models. Surge data in critical wells are, understandably, even less
common. Burkhardt presents surge data in a 2, lOO-ft [640-m] well,
which is specially instrumented to measure pressures in the well-
bore and bottom hole. These data are instructive and provide a good
test for analytical models, but do not represent a real well situa-
tion. Much more useful are the data gathered by Clark and Fonte-
Copyright 1988 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988
not, 9 who ran surge and circulation tests on two wells. The first
was an 18,500-ft [5639-m] well in Mississippi that had been plugged
before it was abandoned. This well was completed with a 7-in.
[7.8-cm] liner, and the drilling fluid was a 17.5-lbm/gal
[2097-kg/m 3 ] oil-based mud. The second well was a 15,270-ft
[4654-m] well in Utah. This well was completed with a 5-in.
[12.7-cm] liner, and the drilling fluid was a 14.2-lbm/gal
[1702-kg/m 3 ] water-based mud. Clark and Fontenot provide very
complete information on drilling-fluid properties throughout the tests
and full information on pipe motion and resultant surge pressures.
Increased use of measurement-while-drilling (MWD) tools may pro-
vide additional surge-pressure data in the future. Ramsey et ai. 1O
provide an example of surge pressures recorded by MWD in an
1l,954-ft [3644-m] well with 9.45-lbm/gal [1l32-kg/m 3 ] mud.
Model Formulation Overview
The dynaniic-surge model consists of two analytical models: the
coupled-pipe/annulus model and the pipe-to-bottomhole model (Fig.
1). The coupled-pipe/annulus model has the following features.
1. The full balance of mass and balance of momentum for pipe
and annulus flow are solved.
2. Pipe and annulus pressures are coupled through the pipe elastic-
ity. Annulus pressures caused by pipe pressures may be significant.
3. Longitudinal pipe elasticity and fluid viscous forces determine
pipe displacement (Fig. 2). The velocity of the pipe end is not nec-
essarily equal to the velocity imposed at the surface.
4. Frictional pressure drop is solved for laminar flow in an an-
nulus with a moving pipe for power-law fluids. Turbulent-flow fric-
tional pressure drop uses the Dodge and Metzner II friction factor
for power-law fluids.
5. Fluid properties vary as a function of pressure and tempera-
ture. Plastic viscosity and yield point can vary significantly with
temperature.
6. Formation elasticity, pipe elasticity, and cement elasticity are
all considered in determining the composite elastic response of the
wellbore. For the case of a pipe cemented to the formation, use
of only the pipe elasticity will not give conservative surge pressures.
The pipe-to-bottomhole model has the following features.
1. Balance of mass and balance of momentum for the pipe-to-
bottomhole flow are solved.
2. Frictional pressure drop is solved for laminar flow in the pipe-
to-bottomhole region for power-law fluids. Turbulent-flow frictional
pressure drop uses the Dodge and Metzner II friction factor for
power-law fluids.
3. Fluid properties vary as a function of pressure and temperature.
4. Formation elasticity, pipe elasticity, and cement elasticity are
325
 SPECIFIED
VELOC ITY

~
SPECIFIED
VELOCITY

1 / SURFACE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

I-- ~ r-

t vt
t /
t- ~FLUID SHEAR
STRESS LOADS PIPE
COUPLED

\
PIPE- ~Pl-- / Pz
ANNULUS
~- FLUID PRESSURE
MODEL

~
CAUSES VERTICAL STRAINS IN PIPE

+ t
~ Is
~ FLUID PRESSURE ON END OF PIPE

_~~..-/V
I FORCE AND DISPLACEMENT COMPATIBILITY
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
t

PIPE- TO·
BOTM6°D~HlOlE _ . /\ ~ W£lLBORE AND FORMATION
I V ELASTICITY

~~'i'7,;'i'7,;;::::::;::::WRIGID BOTTOMHOLE

Fig. 1-Surge formulation flow regions. Fig. 2-Velocity at pipe end not equal to surface velocity.

all considered in determining the composite elastic response of the
wellbore.
The coupled-pipe/annulus model and the pipe-to-bottomhole
model are connected through a comprehensive set of force and dis-
placement compatibility relations.
1. The elastic force in the moving pipe is equal to the pressure
below the pipe times the pipe-end area. This means that a suffi-
ciently high pressure below the pipe could retard the pipe motion.
9-5/8". 40 PPF _ _
7". 23 PPF---+---.j
2. Mass-flow balances are calculated for flow through the pipe
nozzle, through the annulus return area, and into the pipe-to-
bottomhole region.
3. Pressure drops are calculated through the pipe nozzle and an-
nulus return area on the basis of cross-sectional area changes with
appropriate discharge coefficients.
4. Boundary conditions for floats were chosen to allow one-way
flow through the float. Fluid is allowed to flow out of the float;
otherwise, the float is treated as a closed pipe.
Surface boundary conditions set the fluid pressures in the tube
and the annulus to atmospheric pressure. The bottomhole bounda-
ry condition assumes a rigid floor, which requires a zero fluid ve-
locity.
The interpolated method of characteristics is used to solve the
fluid-flow part of the coupled-pipe/annulus model and the pipe-to-
bottomhole model. 12 The elastic pipe motion is solved by use of
finite elements to determine the pipe equations. 13 The equations
are solved for the pipe velocity by use of the tridiagonal al-
gorithm. 14 The fluid-flow and pipe-velocity equations are solved
subject to the boundary conditions given. For nonlinear boundary
conditions, Newton's method is used to solve the equations. 15
A more detailed discussion of the model formulation is given in
Appendices A through C.

Field-Data Comparisons
As a direct test of the surge model's validity, the surge field tests
of Burkhardt 3 and Clark and Fontenot9 were simulated. The well-
bore geometry, pipe motion, and fluid properties were taken directly
from these papers without modification. To study the importance

..................:----- B
JOINT 44
1812-1856'

····ZELOCITY .
...u
~ 2 2 >
t 1 S
i 0 ••• /'~~'~>·""'>----Z---·---·----·'\ ,,-', ' a g
~tl~ "'. .... ACCELERATION I,: ( -I
- - 1835' .... -2 ~ \..: I, I
-2
FLOAT COLLAR IA C
< ~:
-4 -'C

lIr.._ 2100' -6 I I I I
B 10 12 14 16 18
TIME. SEC
Fig. 3-Wellbore/drillstring geometry-Burkhardt 3 surge
data. Fig. 4-Velocity proflle-Burkhardt 3 surge data.

326 SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988

 ~r-------c-----,-------'------'-------' TEST SERIES 1
<'-,

lS>
~ f- .." ".•, , , ,................. I

a 4-1/2" D.P.
(j)
<L. 6600
~~
lS>
f-......................... ".,/., , -\\ ,.................. I 16.6#/FT

+t------i
(j)
(j)
w
'"<L
9-5/8" CSG. 3-1/2" D.P.
3677
47#/FT . 13.3#/FT.
lS>
VJ
" ' ' - - -_ _---'

'e. 4.
----L

8.
-'-

TIME (5)
12.

Fig. 5-Burkhardt 3 pressure predictions.

--'-_ _- - '

16. 2e. +t-----t

916
4-1/8 x
2-1/16 " D.C.

- ' - t-'l'l"-i CIRC. SUB

PERFORATED
of dynamic effects, a steady-state version of the surge model was ANCHOR
developed and used to model the field data. This ensured complete 11218 BULLNOSE
consistency between dynamic and steady-state models and allowed
the use of the same data sets for steady-state and dynamic calcula- 11582' -
tions. The results are overlaid to give a direct comparison between
steady-state and dynamic-surge predictions. 9-5/8" CSG.
The Burkhardt test well is illustrated in Fig. 3. The moving pipe
is 7-in., 23-lbm/ft [17.8-cm, 34-kg/m] casing with the float collar 53.5#/FT.
fixed in a closed position. The wellbore is fully cased with 97's-in.,
40-lbm/ft [24.4-cm, 60-kg/m] casing. The well was filled with
1O.8-lbrn/gal [1294-kg/m 3 ] water-based mud with a plastic viscosi-
ty of 12 cp [12 mPa' s] and a yield point of 7 Ibf/loo ft2 [3.4 Pal 15447' ... ~
measured at 70°F [21°C]. Fig. 4 shows the pipe-velocity profile.
A negative velocity is shown in the first 2 seconds as the pipe was
raised off the slips. Next, the pipe velocity increases to 6 ft/sec
[1.8 m/s] at 13 seconds and then slows rapidly to 0 ft/sec [O.m/s]
at 17 seconds. Fig. 5 shows the surge-test results overlaid on the
dynamic-surge predictions and the steady-state-surge predictions.
The initial pipe acceleration generates dynamic-pressure oscilla-
tions that are reasonably well matched by the dynamic-surge model 7" LINER
but are totally absent from the steady-state model. Dynamic oscil- 38#/FT .
lations are also produced when the pipe is brought to rest, includ-
ing a 2oo-psi [1379-kPa] backflow at the end of the test. An
important observation is that negative surge pressures can be gener-
ated by dynamic forces for pipe going into the hole. At the peak
velocity, the data and both models are in agreement. This result
is consistent with the Burkhardt3 and Lubinski et al. 6 model re-
sults. If the Burkhardt data were typical of surges in critical wells,
the steady-state model would seem to be suitable for predicting peak
surge pressures, though dynamic effects are sufficiently large to 18500' t--:..:...:..-----
TOC
require consideration. Clark and Fontenot' s9 field data indicate that
the Burkhardt data are not typical.
Fig. 6-Wellbore/drillstring geometry-Mississippi test well.
Fig. 6 shows the well completion and moving pipe used in Clark
and Fontenot's Mississippi well test. The well is completed with
97's-in., 47-lbm/ft [24.4-cm, 70-kg/m] casing to 11,582 ft [3530
m], 97's-in., 53.5-lbm/ft [24.4-cm, 80-kg/m] casing to 15,447 ft The steady-flow-surge predictions exceed the measured pressures
[4708 m], and a 7-in., 38-lbrn/ft [17 .8-cm, 57-kg/m] liner to 18,500 by about 100%. Fig. 9 gives the results for Test 1-5. The results
ft [5639 m]. The moving pipe consists of 916 ft [279 m] of are similar to Test 1-3, but the predicted surge falls about 14% low.
4Ysx2Y,6-in. [1O.5x5.24-cm] drill collars, 3,677 ft [1121 m] of The steady-flow-surge prediction exceeds the measured pressures
3~-in. [8.9-cm] drillpipe, and 6,600 ft [2012 m] of 4 1h-in. by about 50%. The Mississippi well measurements are quite differ-
[l1.4-cm] drillpipe. The drilling fluid was a 17.5-lbm/gal ent from Burkhardt's results. There is very little evidence of such
[2097-kg/m 3 ] oil-based mud with a plastic viscosity of 88 cp [88 dynamic effects as oscillations and backflow. One reason is that
mPa·s] and a yield point of 34 Ibf/loo ft2 [16.3 kg/m] measured the Mississippi well fluid viscosities are much higher. The dynamic-
at 115°F [46°C]. surge model predicts that these effects are completely damped out,
Fig. 7 shows the velocity profiles used in Test 1-3 and 1-5. Fig. though the field data suggest a small amount of backflow. In the
8 gives the results for Test 1-3. The dynamic-surge model matches Burkhardt tests, the steady-flow model matched the peak surge pres-
the peak pressure measured within 10%, and the qualitative shape sures very well, while in the Mississippi well tests, the steady-flow
of the surge profiles are similar, but the measured pressure surges model overpredicts pressures significantly. In the Mississippi well
are displaced by about 20 seconds from the predicted surge. In fact, tests, there was a large interval of compressible fluid below the
the peak pressure surge occurs about 20 seconds after the pipe mo- moving pipe, so that pipe volume going in the hole was balanced
tion ceases, suggesting that the time axis may be miscorrelated. partly by fluid flow and partly by fluid compression. In the Burk-
SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988 327
 600 TEST SERIES 1 AND 2
r\ SURGES

t ""
3-1/2" D.P.
TEST 1-3
5735. OS'

X-OVER

I \\EST I-

\ 7" CSG.
5.75" OD CARRIER
X-OVER
X-OVER

3-1/2" D.P.

o
o
V 10 20 30 40
X-OVER
TIME, SEC 9.98' 5.75" OD CARRIER

11:~:6·T
Fig. 7-Veloclty prOfile-Mississippi test well, Test 1. X-OVER
X-OVER
o
o
~,----------------------,

11,999' 3035.33' 2-7/8" D.P.

o
o
CIJ f- .,< , :., , , ·1
X-OVER
;:!;
Ul
0-.
8.82' 4" OD CARRIER
0
w

T
!5~ 1- , , , , "-.., , I X-OVER
Ul
Ul
W
~
0-
o 3-1/8" D.C.
~ f-,:· · I'··· ..··.. ·~·· ..·..· \, ,.., ,': ,..................... ·1 5" LINER 478.21'

10. 20.
TIME (S)

Fig. a-Pressure predictions-Mississippi test well, Test 1-3.

30, 40. 50, L X-OVER
CIRC. SUB
PERF. ANCHOR
+ RECORDERS

15,063.11' BULL NOSE

o
o , - -_ _---,,-,----
0 , - -_ _, - - --,

15,270' CLEANED OUT TO

" STEADY 15,150 PBTD
o
~ 1- , ,: , , ,..................... I
Fig. 10-Wellbore/drilistring geometry-Utah test well.
a
(j)
0-. to 15,270 ft [4654 m]. The moving pipe consisted of 478 ft [146
~~ 1- , ,/ m] of 3Ys-in. [7.9-cm] drill collars, 3,035 ft [925 m] of 2Ys-in.
:::)1JJ
Ul [7.3-cm] drillpipe, with the remainder of the string 3 Vz-in. [8.9-cm]
Ul
W
~
drillpipe. The end of the moving pipe was located at 15,063 ft [4591
0- m]. The wellbore was filled with 14-1bm/gal [1678-kg/m 3 ] water-
o based mud with a plastic viscosity of 11 cp [11 mPa' s] and a yield
1JJ
CIJ
point of 10 IbfllOO ft2 [4.8 Pal. Mud properties for the wellbore
were estimated from Fig. 10 in Ref. 9.
Fig. 11 gives the pipe velocity for Test I-AI. Fig. 12 gives the
results for Test I-AI. The predicted surge pressure matches the
10. 20, 30, 40. 50. peak pressure very well and matches the qualitative shape of the
TIME (S) pressure data. As in the Mississippi well data, there is some dis-
placement in time of the predicted and measured pressures. The
Fig. 9-Pressure predictions-Mississippi test well, Test 1-5.
Utah well data show some backflow with a negative pressure surge
of about 10% of the peak positive-surge pressure. This result is
hardt test, the pipe was near the bottom hole so that the wellbore- consistent with the lower fluid viscosities vs. the Mississippi well.
fluid system was nearly incompressible below the pipe. As a re- The steady-flow pressures exceed the measured pressures by 100%.
sult, Burkhardt's test behaved like a steady-flow model.
Fig. 10 ~ives the wellbore and moving pipe used in Clark and Conclusions
Fontenot's Utah test. This well was completed with 7-in. Comparison of the dynamic-surge model with field data suggests
[l7.8-cm] casing to 11,999 ft [3657 m] and a 5-in. [12.7-cm] liner the following conclusions.
328 SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988
 TEST I-AI
~
~,----:-----,------,------,----

200 .-+--+------1f-+---4----+- .... r

<D :, :.: : .· ·..·.· : .
a
Ul
100 H----+-----lf--+----I-----+--- 0..
~~ ri·.. · · : ~e--~?~ : , .
:>00
Ul
Ul
W

'"
0.

10 20 30 40
TIME'" SEC

Fig. 11-Veloclty profile-Utah test well, Test 1. .

'<:Sl'01... ....L -'--_ _-.--J'--_ _---'- _
10. 20. 30. 40. 50.
1. A fully-dynamic-surge model is necessary to match surge pres- TIME (5)
sures as a function of time. Surge pressures are produced by the
interaction of fluid inertia, fluid compressibility, and fluid viscous Fig. 12-Pressure predictions-Utah test well, Test 1.
forces. Field data indicate that negative surge pressures exist as
a result of fluid dynamic effects that cannot be predicted with a
steady-flow-surge model.
Pm = pressure in mth annulus, m= 1.. .N, psi [Pal
2. The dynamic-surge model predicted peak surge pressures, Pn = bit nozzle pressure, psi [Pal
negative surge pressures, and the qualitative surge response in all Pr = annulus return-flow pressure, psi [Pal
cases. Better data, such as pressures obtained with MWD tools, PI = pipe fluid ptessure, psi [Pal
will be necessary to evaluate the model time responses more fully. P2 = annulus fluid pressure, psi [Pal
3. Steady-flow-surge models are not conservative because they ~P = pipe frictional pressure drop, psi/in. [Palm]
cannot predict negative surge pressures. Peak surge pressures will ~P2 = annulus frictional pressure drop, psi/in. [Palm]
probably be overpredicted. , m = interface radius between casing and cement,
Several tentative conclusions about surge pressures can be drawn m= 1.. .N, in. [m]
from the model work and field test results.
'I = moving pipe inside radius, in. [m]
I. In shallow wells, inertial forces and friction forces seem most
'2 = moving pipe outside radius, in. [m]
important. Steady-flow-surge predictions match the peak field pres-
sures reasonably well. Flow oscillations and fluid backflow are sig- '3 = borehole radius or inside radius of first casing
nificant, on the order of 50% of the peak surge pressures. outside moving pipe, in. [m]
2. In deeper wells, fluid compressibility is important. Steady- '4 = outside radius of first casing outside moving pipe,
flow-surge models overpredict peak pressures, with the error in- in. [m]
creasing with depth. Negative surge pressures are relatively less t = time, seconds
than for shallow wells, about 10% of the peak surge pressure. um = displacement of mth interface between casing and
3. There is a definite need for more surge field data, particularly cement, m = 1. . .N, in. [m]
in cases typical of critical wells. ul = displacement of inside radius of moving pipe, in.
Nomenclature [m]
A = openhole cross-sectional area, in. 2
[m ] 2 U2 = displacement of outside radius of moving pipe, in.
A b = bit cross-sectional area, in. 2 [m 2 ] [m]
u3 = displacement of borehole wall or inside wall of
An = bit nozzle cross-sectional area, in. 2 [m 2 ]
A p = pipe cross-sectional area, in. 2 [m 2 ] first casing outside moving pipe, in. [m]
A r = return-flow cross-sectional area, in. 2 [m 2 ] v = openhole fluid velocity, in.lsec [m/s]
A I = pipe flow area, in. 2 [m 2 ] vn = bit nozzle velocity, in.lsec [m/s]
V r = annulus return-area velocity, in.lsec [m/s]
A 2 = annulus flow area, in. 2 [m 2 ]
VI = pipe fluid velocity, in.lsec [m/s]
~A I = change in pipe flow area, in. 2 [m 2 ]
V2 = annulus fluid velocity, in.lsec [m/s]
~A2 = change in pipe cross-sectional area, in. 2 [m2 ]
v3 = pipe velocity, in.lsec [m/s]
Cd = discharge coefficient, dimensionless
CGA = coefficient relating P2 to P3 for composite annulus z = depth, in. [m]
model, dimensionless (J = angle of inclination from vertical
C~,C~, Po = Poisson's ratio for steel
C~,C~ = coefficients for composite annulus model, Pof = Poisson's ratio for formation
m=l. ..N, in.lpsi [m/Pa] P = fluid density, Ibm/in. 3 [kg/m 3 ]
E = Young's modulus for pipe, psi [Pal PI = pipe fluid density, Ibm/in. 3 [kg/m 3 ]
Ef = Young's modulus for formation, psi [Pal P2 = annulus fluid density, Ibm/in. 3 [kg/m 3]
It, h = hoop-strain coefficients, dimensionless P3 = pipe density, Ibm/in. 3 [kg/m 3]
f3, 14, 15 = fluid shear force coefficients, psi-sec/in. 2
[Pa's/m 2 ] Subscripts
F3 = force on pipe, Ibf [N] 1 = properties inside pipe
g = gravitational constant, in.lsec 2 [m/s 2 ] 2 = properties inside annulus
K = openhole fluid bulk modulus, psi [Pal 3 = pipe properties
K I = pipe fluid bulk modulus, psi [Pal
K2 = annulus fluid bulk modulus, psi [Pal Superscripts
N = number of solid annuli in composite wellbore = upstream properties
P = openhole pressure, psi [Pal + = downstream properties
SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988 329
Reference.
1. Cannon, G.E.: "Changes in Hydrostatic Pressure Due to Withdraw-
ing Drill Pipe from the Hole," Drill. & Prod. Prac., API (1934) 42.
2. Goins, W.C. et al.: "Down-The-Hole Pressure Surges and Their Ef-
fect on Loss of Circulation," Drill. & Prod. Prac., API (1951) 125.
3. Burkhardt, J.A.: "Wellbore Pressure Surges Produced by Pipe Move-
ment," JPT(June 1961) 595-605; Trans., AIME, 222.
4. Fontenot, J.E. and Clark, R.K.: "An Improved Method for Calculat-
ing Swab and Surge Pressures and Calculating Pressures in a Drilling
Well," SPEJ (Oct. 1974) 451-62.
5. Schuh, F.J.: "Computer Makes Surge-Pressure Calculations Useful,"
Oil & Gas J. (Aug. 1964) 96.
6. Lubinski, A., Hsu, F.H., and Nolte, K.G.: "Transient Pressure Sur-
ges Due to Pipe Movement in an Oil Well," Revue de l'lnst. Fran.
du Pit. (May-June 1977) 307-47.
7. Lal, M.: "Surge and Swab Modeling for Dynamic Pressures and Safe
Trip Velocities," paper SPE 11412 presented at the 1983 SPE/IADC
Drilling Technology Conference, New Orleans, Feb. 20-23.
8. Lal, M.: "Analysis of Factors Affecting Surge and Swab Pressures,"
paper presented at the 1984 IADC/SPE Drilling Technology Confer-
ence, Houston (1984) 231-244.
9. Clark, R.K. and Fontenot, J.E.: "Field Measurements of the Effect
of Drillstring Velocity, Pump Speed, and Lost Circulation Material on
Downhole Pressures," paper SPE 4970 presented at the 1974 SPE An-
nual Meeting, Houston, Oct. 6-9.
10. Ramsey, M.S. et al.: "Bit Hydraulics: Net Pressure Drops Are Lower
Than You Think," World Oil (Oct. 1983) 65-67.
11. Dodge, D.W. and Metzner, A.B.: "Turbulent Flow of Non-Newtonian
Systems," AlChE J. (June 1959) 189-204.
12. Wylie, E.B. and Streeter, V.L.: Fluid Transients, corrected edition 1983,
FEB Press, Ann Arbor, MI (1982) 31-63.
13. Lapidus, L. and Pindar, G.F.: Numerical Solution ofPartial Differen-
tial Equations in Science and Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, New
York City (1982) 49-107.
14. Aziz, K. and Settari, A.: Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Elsevier Ap-
plied Science Publishers, New York City (1979) 434-36.
15. Carnahan, B., Luther, H.A., and Wilkes, J.O.: Applied Numerical
Methods, John Wiley and Sons, New York City (1969) 319-30.
16. Savins, F.J.: "Generalized Newtonian (Pseudoplastic) Flow in Stationary
Pipes and Annuli," Trans., AIME (1958) 325-28.
17. Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, J.N.: Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-
Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1951) 68-71.
Appendix A-Governing Equations
Pipe-to-Bottomhole Model. The fluid pressures and velocities in
the open hole below the drillpipe are determined by two coupled
partial-differential equations, the balance of mass and the balance
of momentum (see Refs. 6, 7, and 12).
Balance of Mass.
I~ : +il:+;; =0 (A-I)
The balance of mass consists of three effects: the expansion of the
hole caused by internal fluid pressure, dA/dp, the compression of
the fluid as a result of changes in fluid pressure, and the influx or
outflux of the fluid. The expansion of the hole is governed by the
elastic response of the formation and any casing cemented between
the fluid and the fornlation. The total effect of these elastic responses
is discussed in Appendix C. The fluid volume change is given by
the bulk modulus, K. For drilling muds, K varies as a function of
composition, pressure, and temperature. The reciprocal of the bulk
modulus is called the compressibility.
Balance of Momentum.
dv iJp
p-=--+ilp(v)+pg cos O (A-2)
dt iJz
The balance-of-momentum equation consists of four terms. The first
term in Eq. A-2 represents the inertia of the fluid-i.e., the ac-
celeration of the fluid (left side of Eq. A-2) equals the sum of the
forces on the fluid (right side of Eq. A-2). The final three terms
are the forces on the fluid. The first of these terms is the pressure
330
gradient. The second is the drag on the fluid caused by frictional
or viscous forces. The drag is a function of the type of fluid and
the velocity of the fluid and is given by the function ilp. Frictional
drag is discussed in greater detail in Refs. 3 through 5, 11, and
16. The last force is the gravitational force.
Coupled-Pipe/Annulus Model. The pressures and flow velocities
in the pipe and annulus are governed by four coupled partial-
differential equations, two balance-of-mass equations (one for the
pipe and one for the annulus), and two balance-of-momentum equa-
tions (one for the pipe and one for the annulus).
Pipe-Flow Balance of Mass.
Pipe-Flow Balance of Momentum.
d iJ
PI-vI = --PI +ilp(VI-v3)+PIg cos O (A-4)
dt iJz
Annulus-Flow Balance of Mass.
Annulus-Flow Balance of Momentum.
d iJ
P2-V2=--P2+ilP2(v2, v3)+P2g cos O (A-6)
dt iJz
These balance equations are similar to the equations for the pipe-
to-bottomhole model with two important differences. First, the ex-
pansivity terms in the balance-of-mass equations depend on the pres-
sures both inside and outside the pipe. For instance, increased
annulus pressure can decrease the cross-sectional area inside the
pipe and increased pipe pressure can increase the cross-sectional
area because of pipe elastic deformation. The second major differ-
ence is the effect of pipe speed on the frictional pressure drop in
the annulus, as given by the frictional-pressure-drop term, ilp2'
The final equation needed to describe the pipe/annulus model is
the balance of momentum for the pipe.
Elastic Pipe Balance of Momentum.
d d
+f4- v2+fs-v3' (A-7)
dt dt
In the development of the surge model, the pipe inertia, the left
side of Eq. A-7, was neglected. The remaining terms consist of
three elastic terms and three fluid friction terms. The first term on
the right side of Eq. A-7 is the longitudinal elasticity of the pipe
with Young's modulus, E. The second and third terms provide the
hoop-stress effect---,i.e., increased inside pressure shortens the pipe
and increased outside pressure lengthens the pipe. The final three
terms define the effect of viscous drag on the pipe. Variations in
fluid velocity, relative to the pipe velocity, inside the pipe and in
the annulus affect the shear stress at the pipe.
Appendix B-Boundary Conditions
Surface Boundary Conditions. Six variables can be specified at
the surface:
PI = pipe pressure,
VI = pipe fluid velocity,
SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988
 / f _ - - A, - - - + \ . - /

Al
A~

V,

t
t
VI
t
V,

tv,

t+
Vl
+
V,
1---------- A ---------~/

Fig. B-1-Balance of mass for cross-sectlonal-area changes. Fig. B-2-Balance of mass at the bit.

P2 = annulus fluid pressure, and

v2 = annulus fluid velocity,
F3 = force on the pipe, and .iA 2 =At -Ai +A; -Ai. . (B-5)
V3 = pipe velocity.
Pressures are considered constant across area changes in this for-
A maximum of three boundary conditions can be specified at the mulation:'
surface. For surge without circulation, the following boundary con-
ditions were chosen: PI and P2 are assumed to be atmospheric pt =pi (B-6)
pressure, and V3 is assumed to be the specified velocity.
and
Bottomhole Boundary Conditions. Two variables can be speci-
fied at the bottom hole: p=bottornhole pressure and v=bottornhole p! =P"2 (B-7)
velocity.
The boundary condition used in the surge model was a rigid bot- Strictly speaking, there would be a pressure discontinuity because
tom hole, which requires that of the change in velocity at the area change. This effect is discussed
in the next section.
v=o (B-1)
Moving Pipe-End Boundary Conditions. Eleven variables can be
Flow-Area-Change Boundary Conditions. Boundary conditions specified at the moving pipe end (see Fig. B-2):
are required where flow areas change. Fig. B-1 illustrates a cross-
sectional area change in the moving pipe and in the wellbore. The PI = pipe pressure,
superscript - denotes upstream properties and the superscript + VI = pipe velocity,
denotes downstream properties. Changes in the cross-sectional area P2 = pipe annulus pressure,
of the moving pipe generate an additional term to the balance-of- v2 = pipe annulus velocity,
mass equations:
Pn = pipe nozzle pressure,
vn = pipe nozzle velocity,
At vt =Ai vi +.iA I V3 (B-2) Pr = annulus return-area pressure,
vr = annulus return-area velocity,
and P = pipe-to-bottornhole pressure,
v = pipe-to-bottornhole velocity, and
Ai vi =A"2v"2 +.iA2V3, (B-3) v3 = pipe velocity.

where A total of seven boundary conditions can be specified at the mov-

ing pipe end. For the surge model, three mass-balance equations
M I =At -Ai (B-4) and four nozzle-pressure relations were used.

SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988 331

Pipe-to-Bottomhole Mass Balance. The expansion of the tubing cross-sectional area is governed by
the expansion of the pipe resulting from pressures in the tubing and
Arvr+Anvn +Abv3 -Av=O. . (B-8) the annulus. We can determine this dependence if we know the
change in pipe radius caused by these pressures. The displacement
Pipe/Annulus Mass Balance. of the inside wall of a thick-walled pipe, UI (Fig. C-1), caused by
inside and outside pressures, PI and P2, respectively, is given by
A2V2 -(A 2 -A r)v3 -Arvr=O (B-9) the following equation (see Ref. 17):

Pipe Mass Balance.

Pipe Nozzle Pressures. Therefore, the cross-sectional area of the pipe loaded by pressures
P I and P2 is given by
P 2 2
PI-Pn=-(V n -VI) (B-11)
2Cd Al =7I'(rl +UI)2 (C-2)

and If we assume that u I is small compared with rl, then we can cal-
culate the following equations from Eqs. C-1 and C-2:
p
P-Pn =--(V~ -v2) (B-12)
2Cd 1 dA I 21 (r~ +rr) I
~ dpl =E (r~-rr) +JL (C-3)
Annulus Return Pressures.
and
P 2 2
P2-Pr=-(V r -V2) (B-13)
2Cd dA I 4 r~
- -- - - - 2 2" (C-4)
and Al dp2 E (r2 -rl)
p
P-Pr=--(v;-v 2) (B-14) The displacement U2 of the outside wall of a thick-walled pipe, u2
2Cd
(Fig. C-l), caused by inside and outside pressures P I and P2, re-
spectively, is given by the following equation (see Ref. 17):
PThe quantity Cd is the discharge coefficient for the flow through
an area change. Flow into a smaller area results in a reversible pres-
sure drop plus an irreversible pressure drop. Flow into a larger
area results in a reversible pressure increase plus an irreversible u2= 2
I
r2 I 2Pl r 2l-P2[(l-JL)r2+(l+JL}rJJ·
2 2 I (C-5)
pressure drop. Thus the value of Cd is different for flow into a re- E(r2 -r2)
striction (reduced area) and flow out of a restriction (increased area).

Appendix C-Plpe and Borehole Expansion The displacement of the inside wall of an external thick-walled pipe,
u3 (Fig. C-l), caused by inside pressure P2 is given by the fol-
The balance-of-mass equations (Eqs. A-I, A-3, and A-5) all con-
lowing equation (see Ref. 17):
tain terms that relate the flow cross-sectional area to the fluid pres-
sures. For instance, in the pipe/annulus model, increasing tubing
pressure increases the tubing cross-sectional area and decreases the
annulus cross-sectional area. This section discusses the application
of elasticity theory to the determination of the coefficients dA/dp
in the balance-of-mass equations.

If the annulus outside this casing is fluid, P3 is considered constant

and does not affect further calculations. If the annulus outside the
casing is solid-Le, cemented-then P3 can be determined as a
function of P2, as will be shown later. Eq. C-6 is replaced with
the following equation if the exterior wall is the borehole:

r3
u3=-(l+ JLf)P2' (C-7)
Ef

The cross-sectional area of the annulus is given by

I-----r,

I------r,

If we assume that U2 is small compared with r2 and that U3 is small

1 - - - - - - - - - - - r, .. compared with r3, then we can calculate the following equations
from Eqs. C-5 through C-8:
1------------ r, ..
4r~rf
Fig. C-1- Thick-wailed pipe loads and displacements. 2 2 2 2" (C-9)
E(r3 -r2)(r2 -rl)

332 SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988

For cased hole with fluid outside, For N nested casing, the fmal point can be determined from Eq. C-7:

2r~[(I-14)rh(1 +14)rll CIv-lPN-l +C~-lPN=CNPN' (C-15)

---=
E(r~ -r~)(rl-r~) This system of equations can be solved by solving Eq. C-15 and
then successively back-substituting into Eq. C-14 to give
2r~[(1-14)r~+(1 +14)rrl
+ z Z 2 2 .. (C-lO) P3=CCAPZ, (C-16)
E(r3 -rZ)(rZ -rl)
which can be substituted into the full expression for U3:
For open hole,

... (C-ll)

These equations can be combined for the case of a composite Applying Eq. C-17 to Eq. C-8 gives
wellbore-i.e., more than one casing cemented together. This com-
posite wellbore consists of alternating casing and cement. Thus, 2r~[(l- 14)r~ +(1 +14)rl-2CcA rll
We can think of this composite~ wellbore as alternating annuli of
steel and cemeI1t. There are N solid annuli, where N equals twice E(r~ - r~)(rl- r~)
the number of cemented casings outside the first annulus. From
Eqs. C-1 and C-5, we can write the following equations for each 2r~[(1- 14)d + (1 +14)rfl
of the nested annuli: + Z Z Z Z (C-18)
E(r3 - rz)(rz - rl)
um=C}"Pm+C~Pm+l' m=l. .. N (C-12)
SI Metric Conversion Factors
and
ft x 3.048* E-OI m
um+l =C~Pm+C~Pm+l' m=l. . .N, (C-13) in. x 2.54* E+OO cm
Ibm/ft x 1.488164 E+OO kg/m
where for annulus m, U m is the displacement at the inside of the psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
annulus and u m+ 1 is the displacement at the outside of the annu-
lus. Note that the displacement at the outside of Annulus M equals 'Conversion factor is exact. SPEDE
the displacement at the inside of Annulus m + I, Combining Eqs.
C-12 and C-13 eliminates the displacements:
Original SPE manuscript received for review March 15, 1987. Paper accepted for publica-
tion Feb. 1, 1988. Revised manuscript received April 25, 1988. Paper (SPE 16156) first
C~Pm+C~Pm+l =C},,+lPm+l +C~+l +Pm+Z' (C-14) presented at the 1987 SPEJIADC Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, March 15-18.

SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988 333