Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Summary of drilling fluids well over a wide range of shear rates. As a result,
Surge and swab pressures have been known to cause formation the YPL model is often preferable when accurate hydraulic pre-
fracture, lost circulation, and well-control problems. Accurate dictions are required. Failure to accurately predict surge and swab
prediction of these pressures is crucially important in estimating pressures may result in fracturing the formation, lost circulation,
the maximum tripping speeds to keep the wellbore pressure within excessive loss of drilling fluid, well-control problems, and in-
specified limits of the pore and fracture pressures. It also plays a creased drilling cost.
major role in running casings, particularly with narrow annular Pressure variations in the wellbore are caused by tripping in or
clearances. Existing surge/swab models are based on Bingham tripping out drillstring, or reciprocation of casing in the borehole.
plastic (BP) and power-law (PL) fluid rheology models. However, The pressure change can increase (surge) or decrease (swab) the
in most cases, these models cannot adequately describe the flow bottomhole pressure. High surge pressure can lead to lost circula-
behavior of drilling fluids. tion, either by sudden fracturing of the formation or by continuous
This paper presents a new steady-state model that can account fluid loss into the permeable formation. The drilling fluid that has
for fluid and formation compressibility and pipe elasticity. For the entered into the fractured formation produces a drop in the fluid
closed-ended pipe, the model is cast into a simplified model to level, causing a reduction in the wellbore hydrostatic pressure.
predict pressure surge in a more convenient way. The steady-state This reduction in mud hydrostatic pressure allows formation flu-
laminar-flow equation is solved for narrow slot geometry to ap- ids to enter the wellbore which may lead to a kick and eventually
proximate the flow in a concentric annulus with inner-pipe axial a blowout. Pressure reduction resulting from swabbing can lead to
movement considering yield-PL (YPL) fluid. The YPL rheology the flow of formation fluid into the wellbore, and generate a kick.
model is usually preferred because it provides a better description Excessive swab pressures are a major source of blowouts. Also,
of the flow behavior of most drilling fluids. The analytical solu- pressure changes caused by alternating between surge and swab
tion yields accurate predictions, though not in convenient forms. pressures resulting from reciprocation, such as those made on
Thus, a numerical scheme has been developed to obtain the solu- connections, may cause hole sloughing or other unstable hole con-
tions. After conducting an extensive parametric study, regression ditions, including solids fill on bottom. Therefore, prediction of
techniques were applied primarily to develop a simplified model accurate surge and swab pressure is a prerequisite for efficient
(i.e., dimensionless correlation). drilling operations (Moore 1974).
The performance of the correlation has been tested by use of Generally, pressure surge strongly depends on drillpipe trip-
field and laboratory measurements. Comparisons of the model ping speed, wellbore geometry, flow regime, fluid rheology,
predictions with the measurements showed a satisfactory agree- and whether the pipe is open or closed. Numerous studies (Clark
ment. In most cases, the model makes better predictions in terms 1956; Moore 1965; Clark and Fontenot 1974; Lal 1983) were
of closeness to the measurements because of the application of a undertaken to investigate the effects of fluid properties and dril-
more realistic rheology model. The correlation and model are ling parameters. The increase in surge or swab pressure is also
useful for slimhole, deepwater, and extended-reach drilling attributed to different flow phenomena including pipe eccentric-
applications. ity, geometric irregularities, acceleration, and dynamic effects.
The present study analyzes the bottomhole pressure variation
resulting from the reciprocation of the drillstring with the narrow-
Introduction slot model. YPL fluid is considered to flow in the slot, which is
Wellbore hydraulics has received increased attention in the past formed by a stationary wall and moving plate. By use of the con-
few years as new technologies such as slimhole- and casing-dril- servation equations and the application of the flow boundary
ling techniques have emerged in the industry. Moreover, deep- conditions, an analytical solution that constitutes a system of non-
water drilling presents several drilling challenges associated with linear equations (Appendix A) was obtained.
downhole-pressure management caused by the narrow margin
between pore and fracture pressures. Quantitative characterization
of the wellbore pressures within the narrow limits is critically im- Literature Review
portant in many phases of well construction such as tripping, run- In the past, numerous studies (Cannon 1934, Horn 1950, Goins
ning casing, and cementing operations. Operating outside this et al. 1951) were carried out to investigate drilling problems asso-
safe-pressure window for even a short duration has historically ciated with surge and swab pressures. All of these studies demon-
led to costly well problems. Therefore, significant efforts have strate that wellbore problems (e.g., lost circulation, formation
been directed toward accurately predicting the pressure losses fracture, fluid influx, kicks, and blowouts) are connected to exces-
during drilling operations. Hydraulic models to predict pressure sive pressure variations in the wellbore because of high tripping
losses while drilling and circulating drilling fluid have been well speeds. Early studies (Cardwell 1953, Ormsby 1954) attempted to
documented (e.g., Ahmed et al. 2010). However, models used to explain the physical causes, nature, and magnitude of surge and
predict downhole surge/swab pressure during tripping in or trip- swab pressures. Both of these studies presented quantitative pre-
ping out of the well have been limited to PL and BP fluids. The diction techniques to determine these pressures for Newtonian flu-
YPL (Herschel-Bulkley) rheology model describes flow behavior ids in laminar- and turbulent-flow regimes. Only the pressure
losses arising from the viscous drag of the moving fluid with sta-
tionary pipe wall were considered. Another study (Clark 1955)
Copyright V
C 2012 Society of Petroleum Engineers
introduced the case of a moving inner pipe through a concentric
This paper (SPE 138938) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Latin American and annulus with BP fluid. Pressure variations caused by inertial
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Lima, Peru, 1–3 December 2010, and
revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 19 February 2011. Revised effects, in addition to those arising from viscous drag, were
manuscript received for review 20 January 2012. Paper peer approved 6 August 2012. included in the analysis. Idealized graphs and equations for
H
y2
Region II y2 – y1
y1 Region I
Detailed mathematical derivations of the slot model are presented existing model and published field data. Although numerous
in Appendix A. articles presented field measurements in the past, only a few of
them show full viscometer data, which are required for accurate
determination of the YPL model parameters. Recently, White
Pipe-Flow Analysis
et al. (1997) measured surge pressures in a 12,400-ft-deep Gulf of
For an open-ended pipe case, surge-induced flow will be in the Mexico well. Annular temperatures and pressures were measured
pipe. Even though the pressure gradients in the pipe and annulus at three different locations (measuring stations) in the well. More-
are identical, the flow rate can be significantly different. The over, they presented complete rheology measurements (Fig. 2)
fluid-velocity profile inside the drillpipe caused by axial move- obtained from a high-temperature/high-pressure viscometer. The
ment of the drillstring is similar to the velocity profile caused by YPL rheology parameters (n ¼ 0.78, k ¼ 0.50 lbf-sec0.78/100 ft2,
pumping fluid down the inner pipe at the same flow rate (Bour- and s0 ¼ 8.9 lbf/100 ft2) were determined from these measure-
goyne et al. 1986). However, because of the pipe movement, the ments and used to predict surge pressure. The results (Fig. 3)
flow boundary conditions are different. Hence, the hydraulic anal- show significant discrepancies between the measurements and the
ysis will be slightly different from that presented in Appendix A. predictions of existing models. The new-model predictions are
The pipe-flow calculation provides the wall shear stress needed to comparable to the measurements. One possible explanation for
estimate the elasticity effects on the surge pressure. the inaccuracy of the existing models is that the BP and PL rheol-
ogy models fail to accurately represent the rheological property of
Numerical Procedure the fluid for a wide range of shear rate. Especially, discrepancies
To develop a surge/swab pressure model that accounts for fluid are high at low shear rate (Fig. 4). Because the displacement flow
and wellbore compressibility and pipe elasticity, the governing induced by tripping is often low-velocity flow, the shear rate gen-
flow equations (pipe- and annular-flow model equations) need to erated by the flow could possibly be in the low-shear-rate zone in
be coupled with compressibility and elasticity models. In addition, which BP and PL fluids poorly predicted the surge pressure. For
linearly varying surge pressure makes the numerical procedure dif- this particular case, the annular fluid velocity was 0.42 ft/sec that
ficult. To simplify the numerical computation, a robust calculation can generate a Newtonian equivalent wall shear rate (i.e., 12 ua/
algorithm has been established. The algorithm starts by assuming (dh–dpo) of 10 sec1. This indicates the occurrence of low-shear-
the fluid velocity in the pipe and determining the surge pressure by rate level in the annulus.
use of the pipe-flow model equations, Eq. A-41 or Eq. A-44. To In addition to the swab pressure predictions, the model results
initialize the iterative calculation procedure, the effects of com- show that fluid in the pipe moves approximately with the same
pressibility and elasticity must be neglected at the beginning. speed as the drillpipe. To further explore this observation, a pa-
Afterward, these effects can be included in the calculation as pre- rameter study was carried out by varying yield stress, pipe speed,
sented in Eq. 1a. The surge pressure obtained from the pipe is used and inner pipe diameter while maintaining other field-test parame-
to determine the flow rate in the annulus and subsequently the new ters. Fig. 4 shows mean fluid velocity in the pipe (i.e., relative to
value of the flow rate in the pipe with Eq. 1c. The calculation con- the stationary formation) as a function of yield stress during trip-
tinues until the flow rate in pipe converges to a fixed value. ping out of the hole. At low yield stresses, the fluid begins to slip
but still moves upward together with the pipe. The slippage (i.e.,
the relative velocity between the pipe and the fluid in the pipe) is
Model Validation higher at greater speeds. In addition to fluid rheological proper-
A computer code was developed to implement the numerical ties, the annular geometry and pipe inner diameter could play a
algorithm. The performance of the model is compared with the
7,400
1,000
Shear Stress (lbf/100 sq. ft)
7,200
100
7,000
6,800
10
Data
BP 6,600 New Model
PL
YPL Schuh Model
Data Burkhardt Model
1 6,400
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 30.60 30.65 30.70 30.75 30.80 30.85 30.90 30.95 31.00
Shear Rate (1/s) Time (hr)
Fig. 2—Rheological measurements and predictions of different Fig. 3—Comparison of field swab measurements (White et al.
rheology models. 1997) with predictions of different models.
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
Fig. 4—The effect of yield stress on the mean fluid velocity in Fig. 5—The effect of inner pipe diameter on the mean fluid ve-
the pipe. locity in the pipe.
great role in determining the flow behavior of the fluid in the pipe. where q and L are fluid density and length of the pipe, respectively.
To investigate the effect of geometry, the inner diameter of the Vp and H are trip speed and annular clearance, respectively. The rela-
pipe was varied, and the fluid velocity was determined. As the tionship between the friction factor and Reynolds number (Re) is
pipe’s inner diameter increases, the slip velocity between the pipe established methodically to resemble the pipe-flow equation. Hence,
and the fluid increases. However, for pipes with small inner diam- the friction factor f ¼ 16/Re. The expression for Re is given as
eters, such as collars and heavy pipes, the slippage is minimal. In
this case, the surge pressure can be estimated by assuming the 16Re
Re ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
pipe as closed-ended pipe. For the case shown in Fig. 5, the swab 2:83 þ 3:88ð1 e2:62ø Þ
pressure variation is minimal despite a substantial increase the
pipe diameter (Fig. 6). Therefore, a simple closed-ended-pipe where Re* is the modified Re. The yield stress factor ø is a dimen-
model can provide a reasonably accurate prediction of the surge/ sionless parameter, which is >1 for any fluid with yield stress.
swab pressure when a float or collar with small inner diameter is This parameter is defined as
used. " #
H H TL s0
Simple Correlation for Closed-Ended-Pipe Case ø¼ þ 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
dh Vp k
A computer code developed in the previous section is utilized to
generate numerous numerical results to formulate a simple corre- The modified Re is expressed as
lation for the closed-ended-pipe case. The correlation relates the
surge and swab pressures directly to the tripping velocity. qVp2
The correlation also neglects the compressibility and elasticity Re ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
effects because their contributions were found to be minimal dur- gc ½s0 þ kðA þ B=nÞn ðVp =HÞn
ing the numerical study. Numerical results showed that the com-
pressibility and elasticity effects become considerable if excessive where A and B are geometric parameters that are functions of di-
acceleration (i.e., Kt values <0.01) is used during tripping opera- ameter ratio (K ¼ dp/dn). The consistency index of the fluid is k.
tion. Kt is defined in Appendix A. The yield stress and fluid behavior index are s0 and n, respec-
The new correlation predicts surge or swab pressure conven- tively. All variables with units should be in SI metric units or con-
iently for YPL fluids without requiring an iterative procedure. The sistent field units (i.e., combinations of field units, which make
surge pressure is determined by use of the friction factor as the Reynolds number dimensionless). The unit conversion con-
stant gc ¼ 32.2 lbm ft/lbf sec2 is for consistent field units; and it
2q Vp2 f is unity when SI metric units are used. The geometric parameters
DPs ¼ L; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ are determined as
gc H
A ¼ 0:42 e2:92K þ 0:0024 e9:29K . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ
16.0
B ¼ 2:12 e1:7K þ 1:85 105 e14:5K : . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
Swab Pressure (psi/1000 ft)
12.0
Correlation Validation
To evaluate the performance of the correlation, first model predic-
8.0
tions for BP and PL fluids were compared with the predictions of
the existing models (Fig. 7). Different annular geometries and
various non-Newtonian fluids with a wide range of rheological
4.0 properties (Table 1) were considered. For the case of PL fluids
Vp = 1 ft/s
Vp = 2 ft/s (Fig. 7a), predictions of the correlation were compared with those
Vp = 3 ft/s of the existing model (Schuh 1964), which has been validated by
0.0 direct comparison with field measurements (Fontenot and Clark
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1974). The correlation predictions show excellent agreement with
Inner Pipe Diameter (inch) the model. Most of the predictions fall within 610% of the numer-
ical values. Also, the performance of the correlation was compared
Fig. 6—The effect of inner pipe diameter on the swab pressure with the semiempirical model developed by Burkhardt (1961),
at different trip speeds. which was validated with field measurements. As presented in
600 600
Fig. 7—Comparison of the new model with the existing models: (a) PL fluids and (b) BP fluids.
Fig. 7b, predictions of the correlation are predominantly between not taken into account in the present study. Pipe eccentricity and
610% error bars, demonstrating excellent agreement with Bur- tool joints can have substantial influence on the surge and swab
khardt’s method for BP fluids. pressures. Eccentricity is expected to reduce these pressures,
To further assess the performance of the correlation, compari- while tool joints enhance the piston effect of the drillstring and
sons were made between predictions and field measurements ob- tend to increase downhole pressure variations resulting from the
tained from a Mississippi well (Clark and Fontenot 1974). Results axial movement of the string. In addition, accurate prediction
(Fig. 8) show good agreement between predicted and measured from the YPL model can be obtained when the model parameters
data. Discrepancies between compared values could be resulting (sy, K, and n) are determined from full six-speed rotational vis-
from other dynamic effects and geometric irregularities that are cometer measurements. The correlation predictions presented in
Fig. 8 are based on two-speed measurements taken at 300 and 600
rev/min. Therefore, the source of the discrepancies could be the
TABLE 1—RHEOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF FLUIDS USED
error in the calculation of the model parameters.
IN THE EVALUATION OF THE NEW MODEL
The new correlation shows (Fig. 9) a satisfactory agreement
with surge pressure measurements reported by White et al.
Fluid Type s0, k, lbf-secn/
(1997). During the measurements, a bit sub with a float was in-
and Test Fluid lbf/100 ft2 100 ft2 n
stalled to protect reverse flow in the pipe; hence, the closed-
Power Law ended-pipe correlation predicts well. The figure also shows simi-
A1 0 4.38 0.38 lar predictions of the existing models, comparing their surge pres-
sure measurements with the predictions of the new correlation
A2 0 1.74 0.53
and existing models. The Burkhardt model overpredicts the surge
A3 0 1.74 0.56
pressure, while the Schuh model underpredicts the surge pressure.
A4 0 1.93 0.52 To validate the correlation, controlled laboratory experiments
B1 0 1.37 0.36 were carried out by using a 2 1.32-in. concentric annular test
B2 0 0.52 0.61 section that has a length of 10 ft. The setup has the capability to
B3 0 0.73 0.59 vary the trip speed and accurately measure the surge or swab pres-
B4 0 0.78 0.59 sures. The test section is clamped to a supporting structure as
P1 0 4.72 0.57 shown in Fig. 10. It is vertically aligned to keep the inner pipe in
P2 0 1.44 0.67 concentric configuration by using a 0.25-in. guiding rod, which is
P3 0 0.35 0.80 bolted to a blind flange at the bottom of the test section. The guide
protects the lateral movement of the pipe during the test.
P4 0 1.62 0.50
A variable-speed motor with a controller lifts the inner pipe
Bingham Plastic
at the desired speed (0.0–0.7 ft/sec), with an accuracy of 6 0.01
E1 34 0.20 1.00
E2 10 0.13 1.00
E3 6 0.10 1.00 600
Measured Surge Pressure (psi)
E6 20 0.05 1.00
400 –15%
F1 62 0.04 1.00
F2 35 0.02 1.00 300
F3 19 0.02 1.00
Yield Power Law 200
C1 19 8.00 0.35
C2 22 2.03 0.53 100
C3 23 2.18 0.52
0
C4 15 3.56 0.44
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
D1 13 2.84 0.43
D2 10 0.71 0.58 Predicted Surge Pressure (psi)
D3 10 0.82 0.52
Fig. 8—Field measurements (Fontenot and Clark 1974) vs. pre-
D4 6 1.54 0.48 dictions of the correlation.
7,000
ft/sec. The motor has a pulley with a thin hoisting cable (1.6-mm
steel) to move the pipe upward or downward by switching
the direction of the motor rotation. The experiment begins by fill-
ing the annulus with the test fluid and moving the inner pipe down-
ward at the desired speed while measuring and recording the surge
Drainage
pressure. Measurements were obtained under steady-state condi-
tions when the surge pressure increases and reaches its maximum
value and then stabilizes (Fig. 11). Every test was repeated three
times. Fig. 12 shows measured surge pressure along with model
predictions. The predicted surge pressures when using the correla-
tion are more accurate than those of the existing models. The test Fig. 10—Experimental setup.
fluid was highly shear-thinning with rheology (n ¼ 0.52, k ¼ 0.70
lbf-sec0.52/100 ft2, and s0 ¼ 6.74 lbf/100 ft2) that does not fit well The diameter ratio is expected to have a stronger influence on
to either the BP or the PL model. As a result, the models show pressure surges. Predictions shown in Fig. 14 indicate that surge
greater discrepancies, especially in low tripping speeds in which and swab pressures become higher when the annular clearance
the low-shear rheology becomes critical. The correlation predicts gets smaller. Moreover, at high diameter ratios, these pressures
the surge pressure accurately regardless of the tripping speed. become more sensitive to the increase in trip velocity and diame-
ter ratio which indicates the severity of the reciprocation of a fully
Parametric Study With New Correlation closed drillstring in wellbores with small annular clearance such
The relationship between pressure surges and pipe velocities as in the case of casing drilling.
depends on a number of drilling parameters including fluid rheol-
ogy and borehole geometry. After validating the new correlation, Discussions
sensitive analysis was carried out to examine the influence of Surge and swab pressures are strongly affected by the flow behav-
yield stress and diameter ratio on these pressures under different ior of the drilling fluid. The YPL rheology model describes the
conditions. The analysis was performed by considering a set of flow properties of most drilling fluids better than other commonly
field data (White et al. 1997) as the base-case input. Fig. 13 used models such as PL and BP constitutive equations. Especially,
presents predictions of the correlation that concern the effect of at low-shear rates (i.e., low trip speeds), the discrepancies between
yield stress on pressure surges. As anticipated, at high yield-stress the predictions of these models would become substantial, and the
values, the pressures become high and the influence of pipe veloc- use of the YPL model results in relatively accurate calculations. In
ity diminishes. addition to fluid flow properties, bottomhole pressure variations
during tripping strongly depend on the borehole geometry,
2.0 0.15
Readings
Average
Unsteady-State 0.12
Surge Pressure (kpa)
1.5 Condition
Surge Pressure (psi/ft)
Steady-State
Condition 0.09
1.0
0.06
Correlation
0.5 0.03 Schuh Model
Burkhardt Model
Data
0.00
0.0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
0 20 40 60 80 100
Trip Velocity (ft/s)
Time (s)
Fig. 12—Comparison of laboratory measurements with predic-
Fig. 11—Surge pressure development during the experiments. tions of different models.
100
τ0 = 0 lfb/100 ft2
τ0 = 5 lfb/100 ft2 100 n = 0.73
τ0 = 10 lfb/100 ft2 τ0 = 0.0664 lbf/ft2
τ0 = 20 lfb/100 ft2 k = 0.0057 lbf.secn/ft2
K = 0.42
τ0 = 30 lfb/100 ft2
Depth = 12,440 ft
10
1 2 3 4 5 10
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Pipe Velocity (ft/sec)
Diameter Ratio (dp/dh)
Fig. 13—Surge pressures vs. tripping speed for fluid with differ-
ent yield stresses. Fig. 14—Surge pressure vs. diameter ratio for different tripping
speeds.
particularly the diameter ratio or annular clearance. High diameter k ¼ consistency index
ratios (i.e., low annular clearances) make the pressure variations å ¼ wellbore diameter ratio
sensitive to the change in tripping speed. Besides this, for horizon- L ¼ length of the pipe
tal and inclined wells, the eccentricity of the drillpipe and the Lc ¼ length of cased section of the wellbore
thickness of the cuttings bed need to be considered in the analysis Lst ¼ length of a pipe stand
to optimize the trip speed. Unnecessarily low tripping speeds result n ¼ fluid-behavior index
in excessive nonproductive time and increased drilling cost. N ¼ generalized flow-behavior index
The model presented in this article is based on steady-state qa ¼ flow rate in the annulus
flow assumption; hence, the predictions are valid only when the qe ¼ equivalent flow rate caused by pipe elasticity
tripping speed remains constant. During the unsteady period, tran- qf ¼ equivalent flow rate caused by fluid compressibility
sient models should be used to estimate pressure spikes resulting qnet ¼ net displacement flow rate
from drillstring acceleration. qp ¼ flow rate in the pipe
qw ¼ equivalent flow rate caused by wellbore expansion
Conclusions q~a ¼ dimensionless annular flow rate
Re ¼ Reynolds number for closed-end-pipe case
This article presents a numerical model to calculate steady-state
Re* ¼ modified Reynolds number
surge/swab pressure in the wellbore with YPL fluid. For the closed-
end case, the numerical solutions of the model are presented in the Rea ¼ annular-flow Reynolds number
Rec ¼ critical Reynolds number
form of a dimensionless correlation. The predictions of the correla-
Rep ¼ pipe flow Reynolds number
tion have been analyzed and validated by means of previously
up ¼ mean fluid velocity in the pipe
published theoretical models along with field and laboratory meas-
ua ¼ mean fluid velocity in the annulus
urements. On the basis of our analysis, the following conclusions
v ¼ local fluid velocity
can be made:
v1 ¼ local fluid velocity in Region I
• A new model predicts the surge/swab pressure more accurately
v3 ¼ local fluid velocity in Region III
than the existing models that are developed for PL and BP rhe-
Vp ¼ average-trip velocity of the drillstring
ology models.
Vp;max ¼ maximum trip velocity observed at the surface
• Yield stress, diameter ratio, and pipe velocity have substantial
Vp;min ¼ minimum trip velocity at the bottomhole
effects on surge and swab pressures.
VW ¼ wellbore fluid volume
• For fluids with high-yield stress, the influence of trip speed
diminishes considerably. V~1 ¼ dimensionless velocity profile in Region I
• The model is based on the narrow-slot approximation; there- V~2 ¼ dimensionless velocity profile in Region II
fore, it is expected to give reasonable predictions when the di- V~3 ¼ dimensionless velocity profile in Region III
ameter ratio is >0.4. W ¼ slot width
WW ¼ wellbore fluid volume
x ¼ x-coordinate
Nomenclature x~ ¼ dimensionless x-coordinate
A ¼ geometric parameter y ¼ y-coordinate
Ap ¼ cross-sectional area of the pipe y~ ¼ dimensionless y-coordinate
Api ¼ flow cross-sectional area of the pipe y1 ¼ lower limit of Region II
b ¼ constant y2 ¼ upper limit of Region II
B ¼ geometric parameter y~1 ¼ dimensionless lower boundary limit of Region II
cf ¼ fluid compressibility y~2 ¼ dimensionless upper boundary limit of Region II
dc;i ¼ inner diameter of the casing a ¼ dimensional parameter
dc;o ¼ outer diameter of the casing b ¼ dimensional parameter
dh ¼ hole diameter Drs ¼ change in axial stress in the drillstring
dp;i ¼ inner diameter of the pipe Drt ¼ change in tangential stress in the casing
dp;o ¼ outer diameter of the pipe DLe ¼ change in length of the pipe caused by elasticity
E ¼ modulus of elasticity DPs ¼ surge/swab pressure in the pipe and annulus
f ¼ friction factor DRwc ¼ increase in casing radius caused by expansion
fa ¼ fractional flow in the annulus DRww ¼ increase in wellbore radius caused by expansion
h ¼ arbitrary pipe length measured from the bottom of the DVwc ¼ increase in casing volume caused by expansion
hole DVww ¼ increase in wellbore volume caused by expansion
H ¼ slot thickness DVp ¼ reduction in trip velocity caused by elasticity
8qðua þ Vp =2Þ2 By applying the momentum balance, one can relate the surge
Rea ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–32Þ pressure under laminar- flow condition to the wall shear stress:
gc sa
4ssi
The mean annular fluid velocity relative to the formation is DPs ¼ L: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–41Þ
dpi
calculated as ua ¼ qa/Aa. The average annular wall shear stress sa
is calculated by adopting the annular flow equation with the effec-
tive mean annular velocity:
Flow Regime in the Pipe. The generalized Re for the flow of
nþ1 YPL fluid in a pipe (Ahmed and Miska 2009) can be adopted for
12ðua þ Vp =2Þ ðsa so Þ n 3n n surge-induced flow with the relative velocity of the fluid:
¼ sa þ s0 :
dh dpo k1=n s2a 1 þ 2n nþ1
8qðup þ Vp Þ2
ðA-33Þ Rep ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–42Þ
gc ssi
Eq. A-33 requires iterative procedure to obtain the wall shear
stress. The following approximate equation can be used to deter- The critical Re for pipe flow is estimated by use of Eq. A-35.
mine wall shear stress from the mean annular velocity: The value of N should be calculated from the wall shear stress
with the constitutive equation:
n
9:326 5:325å 2ðua þ Vp =2Þ n 1 ssi s0 1=n dp;i
sa ¼ s0 þ k ; ¼ 3: . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–43Þ
n0:8 dh dpo N k 2ðup þ vp Þ
ðA-34Þ
For turbulent flow (Rep > Rec), the surge pressure is obtained
where å is the wellbore diameter ratio, å ¼ dpo/dh. The critical from the Fanning friction factor:
Re for pipe and annular flows can be estimated from the general-
ized flow behavior index N as qðup þ Vp Þ2
DPs ¼ 2f L: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ðA–44Þ
gc dp;i
Rec ¼ 3; 470 1; 370N: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–35Þ
The value of N in the annulus can be obtained from the wall Freddy Crespo is an applications engineer for the Research
shear stress by use of the constitutive equation: and Development Group at the Halliburton Technology Cen-
ter in Houston. His main areas of interest include laboratory
1 sa s0 1=n dh dpo characterization and field implementation of conformance
¼ 2: . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–36Þ gel systems and hydraulic fracturing fluids. Crespo holds a BS
N k 4ðua þ Vp =2Þ
degree in petroleum engineering from Universidad Industrial
For turbulent flow (Rep > Rec), the surge pressure should be de Santander and an MS degree in petroleum engineering
estimated from the Fanning friction factor (Dodge and Metzner from the University of Oklahoma.
1959) with the use of Rea and N, which are determined from Eqs. Ramadan Ahmed is an assistant professor of petroleum engi-
A-32 and A-36: neering at the University of Oklahoma, where he teaches