You are on page 1of 118

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY AND MODELING OF SURGE AND SWAB PRESSURES FOR YIELD-POWER-LAW DRILLING FLUIDS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE

By FREDDY ESTEBAN CRESPO MOLINA Norman, Oklahoma 2011

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY AND MODELING OF SURGE AND SWAB PRESSURES FOR YIELD-POWER-LAW DRILLING FLUIDS

A THESIS APPROVED FOR THE MEWBOURNE SCHOOL OF PETROLEUM AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

BY

Dr. Ramadan Ahmed, Chair

Dr. Subhash Shah

Dr. Samuel Osisanya

Copyright by FREDDY ESTEBAN CRESPO MOLINA 2011 All Rights Reserved.

"Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and your plans will succeed Proverbs 16:3

To God my Lord, You found me, saved me, and became the center of my life.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to express my most sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Ramadan Ahmed for giving me the opportunity to work on one of the most exciting topics in drilling engineering. I am extremely thankful for his patience, support, encouragement, inspiration and good humor during my graduate studies. I also would like to thank my thesis committee members Dr. Subhash Shah and Dr. Samuel Osisanya for their contributions and suggestions during the review process of my work. Special thanks to Mr. Joe Flenniken, for his help during the experimental study. Special thanks to the faculty and staff of the Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering especially Mrs. Shalli Young, Mrs. Sonya Grant and Ms. Summer Shije for their kindness and support. I want to thank my mom Janeth for her unconditional love and inspiration. Thanks for being my partner and helping me make this dream possible. You are the most amazing mom in the world. I want to express my gratitude to the love of my life: my sister Alejandra for being a source of continuous encouragement and laughter. Thank you for spending hours talking to me on the phone. I admire you deeply for being an overcomer. Thanks to my dad Freddy Humberto for opening

iv

his heart to me and giving us a second chance. I cannot wait for all the things God has in store for our relationship. Thank to my step dad Octavio for being such a blessing to my family. Thanks to my girlfriend Catherine Bosma for driving me crazy and being that spark that makes life more enjoyable. I will never forget the seeds you planted in my life. You are such a breath of fresh air Amorsito. Big thanks to my good friend Amin Mehrabian (MF). Thanks for his Nivel-ness, his friendship and for giving me a huge insight into the world of research. Thanks to my very special friends Paola, Andres Castano, Candace, Pedrito, Amanda, and other friends from the Latin Dance Club and COLSA for their friendship, support and all the fun. Special thanks to my spiritual mom Beth, my American mom Linda and my LifeGroup friends specially Nathan, Andrew, Ben and Amber for their prayers, blessings and encouragement during this journey with the Lord. Special thanks to my roommates La Bleeds for being my family here in Oklahoma and for all the fun. Thanks for all the memories and for helping me become a leader and a well rounded person.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. ix ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... xii 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 1.1. OVERVIEW................................................................................................. 1 1.2. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 2 1.3. OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................. 3 1.4. OUTLINE..................................................................................................... 4 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 5 2.1. PREVIOUS WORK ..................................................................................... 5 2.1.1. Field Studies .......................................................................................... 5 2.1.2. Laboratory Studies ................................................................................. 9 2.2. MODELING............................................................................................... 10 2.2.1. Steady-State Models ............................................................................ 10 2.2.2. Unsteady-State Models ........................................................................ 17 2.3. DYNAMIC EFFECTS ON SURGE AND SWAB PRESSURES ............. 17 2.4. ECCENTRICITY EFFECTS ON SURGE AND SWAB PRESSURES ... 18 3. SURGE AND SWAB PRESSURE MODELING ..................................... 20 3.1. THEORETICAL MODEL ......................................................................... 20 3.2. REGRESSION MODEL ............................................................................ 29 3.3. MODEL VALIDATION ............................................................................ 33 3.4. PARAMETRIC STUDY ............................................................................ 41 4. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ........................................................................ 45 4.1. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP ........................................................................ 45 4.1.1. Vertical Test Section ........................................................................... 47
vi

4.1.2. Guiding Rod ........................................................................................ 48 4.1.3. Variable Speed Motor .......................................................................... 49 4.1.4. Pressure Transducer ............................................................................. 50 4.1.5. Data Acquisition System ..................................................................... 50 4.1.6. Fluid Mixing and Collection Tanks ..................................................... 51 4.2. SYSTEM CALIBRATION ........................................................................ 52 4.3. TEST PROCEDURE.................................................................................. 53 4.5. TEST MATERIALS .................................................................................. 55 4.4. RECORDED DATA PROCESSING ......................................................... 58 5. RESULTS AND DISSCUSSION................................................................ 60 5.1. NEWTONIAN FLUIDS ............................................................................ 61 5.2. POWER-LAW FLUIDS ............................................................................ 63 5.3. YIELD-POWER-LAW FLUIDS ............................................................... 66 5.4. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 69 5.5. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ................................................................ 73 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 75 6.1. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 75 6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 76 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 77 NOMENCLATURE ............................................................................................ 85 APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................... 90 APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................... 93 APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................... 95 APPENDIX D ...................................................................................................... 99 APPENDIX E .................................................................................................... 102

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Rheological parameters of drilling fluids ............................................ 30 Table 3.2: Pipe-wellbore configurations ............................................................... 31 Table 4.1: Rheology of test fluids ......................................................................... 58 Table D.1: Fann model 35 (#1/5 spring) measurements for light mineral oil ...... 95 Table D.2: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for mineral oil .................. 95 Table D.3: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 1.0% PAC .................. 96 Table D.4: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 0.75% PAC ................ 96 Table D.5: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 0.56% PAC ................ 96 Table D.6: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for mix 0.28% + 0.22% Xanthan Gum ........................................................................................................ 97 Table D.7: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 1.0% Xanthan Gum ... 97 Table D.8: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 0.67% Xanthan Gum . 97 Table D.9: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 0.44% Xanthan Gum . 98 Table E.1: Surge pressure gradient readings for mineral oil ................................ 99 Table E.2: Surge pressure gradient readings for light mineral oil ........................ 99 Table E.3: Surge pressure gradient readings for 1.0% PAC ................................. 99 Table E.4: Surge pressure gradient readings for 0.75% PAC ............................. 100 Table E.5: Surge pressure gradient readings for 0.56% PAC ............................. 100 Table E.6: Surge pressure gradient readings for mix 0.28% + 0.22% Xanthan Gum..................................................................................................................... 100 Table E.7: Surge pressure gradient readings for 1.0% Xanthan Gum ................ 101 Table E.8: Surge pressure gradient readings for 0.67% Xanthan Gum .............. 101
viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Annulus pressure measured during swab tests (Wagner et al. 1993) ... 7 Figure 2.2: Typical pressure data while tripping-in (Rudolf and Suryanarayana, 1998) ....................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2.3: Schematic of back extrusion experiment (Osorio and Steffe, 1991) .. 10 Figure 2.4: Clinging constant determination plot (Burkhardt, 1961) ................... 12 Figure 2.5: Dimensionless pressure gradient determination plot for diameter ratio of 0.3 (Chukwu and Blick, 1989).......................................................................... 15 Figure 2.6: Annular and equivalent slot geometry................................................ 16 Figure 2.7: Effect of yield stress on surge pressures (Lal, 1983) ......................... 18 Figure 3.1: Representation of a concentric annulus as a slot ................................ 21 Figure 3.2: Velocity profile of yield-power-law fluid through a slot ................... 22 Figure 3.3: Characteristic curves to determine surge and swab pressure ............. 29 Figure 3.4: Comparison of predictions of numerical and regression models (Newtonian fluids) ................................................................................................ 33 Figure 3.5: Comparison of predictions of numerical and regression models (Power-Law Fluids) .............................................................................................. 34 Figure 3.7: Comparison of predictions of numerical and regression models (YieldPower-Law Fluids)................................................................................................ 35 Figure 3.8: Comparison between correlation and Newtonian model (Bourgoyne, 1986) Predictions .................................................................................................. 36 Figure 3.9: Comparison of Schuhs solution with regression model for different Power-Law Fluids ................................................................................................. 37 Figure 3.10: Comparison of correlation predictions and solution by Burkhardt (1961) for different Bingham-Plastic Fluids ......................................................... 38

ix

Figure 3.11: Comparison of the correlation predictions with the back extrusion technique (Osorio and Steffe, 1991) for a specific Yield-Power-Law Fluid ........ 39 Figure 3.12: Comparison of different models for Power-Law Fluid .................... 40 Figure 3.13: Comparison of different models for Bingham Plastic Fluid ............ 41 Figure 3.15: Effect of fluid behavior index on surge pressures for Power-Law Fluids at different speeds ...................................................................................... 42 Figure 3.16: Surge pressures vs. tripping speed for different yield stresses ......... 43 Figure 3.17: Surge pressure vs. diameter ratio for different tripping speeds ........ 44 Figure 4.1: Schematic view of experimental Setup .............................................. 46 Figure 4.2: Actual view of experimental setup ..................................................... 47 Figure 4.3: Vertical test section ............................................................................ 48 Figure 4.4: Variable speed motor.......................................................................... 49 Figure 4.5: Differential pressure transducers with pressure tapings ..................... 50 Figure 4.6: Personal computer .............................................................................. 51 Figure 4.7: Upward pipe speed as a function of voltage....................................... 53 Figure 4.8: Downward pipe speed as a function of voltage .................................. 53 Figure 4.9: Fann 35 rotational viscometer ............................................................ 55 Figure 4.10: Rheology of PAC based test fluids................................................... 57 Figure 4.11: Rheology of Xanthan Gum based test fluids .................................... 57 Figure 4.12: Surge pressure measurement with established steady flow condition ............................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 4.13: Surge pressure measurement without established steady flow condition (Mineral Oil; 0.7 ft/s) ............................................................................ 59

Figure 5.1: Friction Factor vs. Generalized Reynolds Number for experimental data ........................................................................................................................ 61 Figure 5.2: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with regular mineral oil. ........ 62 Figure 5.3: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with light mineral oil ............. 63 Figure 5.4: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 1.0% PAC ...................... 64 Figure 5.5: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 0.75% PAC .................... 65 Figure 5.6: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 0.56% PAC .................... 65 Figure 5.7: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed for polymer mix ..................... 66 Figure 5.8: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 1.0% Xanthan Gum ....... 67 Figure 5.9: Yield Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 0.67% Xanthan Gum ............................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 5.10: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 0.44% Xanthan Gum. .. 68 Figure 5.11: Surge Pressures at different annular eccentricities (1.0% PAC; 0.2 ft/s) ........................................................................................................................ 71 Figure 5.12: Effect of static time on surge pressure measurements (1.0% Xanthan Gum; 0.05 ft/sec) .................................................................................................. 72

xi

ABSTRACT

Surge and swab pressures can be generated during different stages of well construction operations by tripping-in, tripping-out or reciprocation of the drillstring in the wellbore. This phenomenon is of economic importance for the oil industry, especially in wells with narrow margin between pore and fracture pressure gradients. Moreover, an accurate surge pressure model is very vital in designing slim holes and casing operations with low annular clearance. Inaccurate prediction of surge and swab pressures can lead to a number of costly drilling problems such as lost circulation, formation fracture, fluid influx, kicks, and blowouts. Field measurements indicate that pressure surges strongly depend on drillpipe tripping speeds, wellbore geometry, flow regime, fluid rheology, and whether the pipe is open or closed. Although a large number of field and modeling studies were conducted in the past to investigate surge and swab pressures, experiments under controlled laboratory conditions have never been reported. Most existing surge/swab models have been developed for Bingham plastic and power-law fluids. However, these rheology models cannot adequately describe the flow behavior of most of drilling fluids used in the field. The yieldpower-law (YPL) model best describes the rheology of most used drilling and

xii

completions fluids. Despite its high accuracy in predicting the flow properties of drilling fluid, surge and swab pressure models for YPL fluid are lacking. This thesis presents a new steady-state theoretical model, which is casted into a simplified dimensionless correlation to predict surge and swab pressures for YPL fluids. An analytical solution for steady-state laminar flow in narrow slot is developed to approximate and model the flow in a concentric annulus with inner pipe axial movement. The analytical solution involves solving a system of nonlinear equations. Accurate predictions are presented as a family of curves, though not in convenient forms. Thus, a numerical scheme has been developed to solve the system of non-linear equations. After conducting an extensive parametric study and applying regression techniques, a simplified dimensionless correlation has been developed that does not require a cumbersome numerical procedure. Correlation predictions have been validated by direct comparison with other existing models and experimental measurements. A parametric study showing the effects of rheological parameters on surge and swab pressures has been carried out. Experimental investigation of the effects of fluid properties and drilling parameters on surge and swab pressures under laboratory conditions has also been undertaken. Tests were performed in an experimental setup that has the capability of varying the tripping speed and accurately measuring the surge or swab

xiii

pressure. The setup consists of fully transparent polycarbonate tubing and inner steel pipe which moves axially using a speed controlled hoisting system. During the experiments, several Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids were tested. The performances of both theoretical and regression models have been rigorously tested by direct comparison with experimental data. In most cases, a satisfactory agreement has been obtained between predictions and measurements. Results confirm that trip speed, fluid rheology and annular clearance have a significant effect on surge pressure.

xiv

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. OVERVIEW Wellbore hydraulics has received increased attention in the past few years as deepwater drilling and new technologies such as slim hole and casing drilling techniques have emerged in the industry. As thousands of wells are drilled every year, challenges associated with downhole pressure management have become more critical. Pressure variations in the wellbore may be caused by tripping-in or tripping-out drillstring, or reciprocation of casing in the borehole. The pressure change can increase (surge) or decrease (swab) the bottomhole pressure. Accurate prediction of surge and swab pressures is crucial in terms of estimating the maximum tripping speeds to keep the wellbore pressures within specific limits (pore and fracture pressure). It also plays a major role in running casings, particularly with narrow annular clearances. Surge and swab pressures have been a constant area of research. As the oil and gas industry is moving towards drilling more challenging and complex wells, the ability to accurately predict pressure variations in the wellbore allows a better optimization of wellbore hydraulics and can lead to more successful drilling operations.
1

1.2. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Surge and swab pressures have been known to cause formation fracture, lost circulation and well control problems. Often surge and swab pressures can be generated due to viscous drag of the fluid in contact with the drillstring and sudden pipe acceleration (inertial effects), both resulting from pipe movement and fluid displacement when the drillstring moves along the wellbore. High surge pressure can lead to lost circulation, either by sudden fracturing the formation, or continuous fluid loss into the permeable formation. The drilling fluid that has entered into the fractured formation causes a drop in the fluid level, resulting in a reduced wellbore hydrostatic pressure. This reduction in mud hydrostatic pressure allows formation fluids to enter the wellbore, which may lead to a kick and eventually a blowout. Pressure reduction due to swabbing can lead to the flow of formation fluid into the wellbore and generate a kick. Excessive swab pressures are a major source of blowouts. Also, pressure changes caused by alternating between surge and swab pressures due to reciprocation, such as those made on connections may cause hole sloughing, or other unstable hole conditions, including solids fill on bottom. The yield-power-law (YPL) model best fits the rheological properties of most of drilling fluids and aqueous clay slurries (Fordham et al., 1991; Hemphil et

al., 1993; Merlo et al., 1995; Maglione and Ferrario, 1996; Kelessidis et al., 2005; Kelessidis et al., 2007). However, no general analytical solution for annular flow of yield-power-law to calculate surge and swab pressures has been reported in the literature. The YPL rheology model involves three parameters to describe flow behavior of drilling fluids. However, this makes the mathematical modeling of the surge and swab flows more complex. Also, the lack of experimental studies under controlled laboratory conditions is a limiting factor in understanding surge and swab phenomena. Therefore, a continued research effort is required to develop more accurate models and better understand surge and swab pressures. 1.3. OBJECTIVES The principal objective of this study is to improve our understanding of surge and swab pressures and investigate the effects of fluid rheology, diameter ratio, and pipe velocity. The main objectives of this research are: 1. To develop a new model that allows accurate steady-state calculations of surge and swab pressures for yield-power-law fluids in concentric annulus. 2. To carry out a regression study in order to develop a simplified dimensionless correlation to predict swab and surge pressures in a more convenient way. 3. To develop a new test setup that has the capability to vary the trip speed and accurately measure the surge or swab pressures.

4. To validate the newly developed models, and other existing models, by direct comparison with experimental results. 1.4. OUTLINE A general overview and extensive literature review of surge and swab pressures, experimental studies, and theoretical models have been presented (Chapter 2). In order to develop a model that allows better prediction of surge and swab pressures, the steady flow of YPL fluid in concentric annuli is represented by a narrow slot (Chapter 3). The solution is presented numerically and as a family of curves. After performing parametric study, regression techniques were applied to develop a simplified regression model (dimensionless correlation). Comparison with experimental results and previously published analytical solutions validates the predictions of the correlation for Newtonian and Non-Newtonian fluids. Moreover, experimental investigations have been conducted to study the effects of different fluid properties and drilling parameters on surge and swab pressures (Chapter 4). Experiments were carried out using a newly developed test setup that has the capability to accurately measure surge or swab pressures. Experimental results were analyzed and compared with predictions of the new and existing models to rigorously test their performance (Chapter 5). Conclusions and recommendations for further studies have also been presented (Chapter 6).

2.

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. PREVIOUS WORK 2.1.1. Field Studies A number of studies (Moore 1965; Clark and Fontenot 1974; Lal 1983; Clark 1956) were undertaken to investigate the effects of fluid properties and drilling parameters on surge and swab pressures. Generally, it was found that pressure surges depend strongly on drillpipe tripping speed, wellbore geometry, flow regime, fluid rheology, and whether the pipe is open or closed. Early studies of surge and swab (Cannon, 1934; Horn, 1950; Goins et al., 1951) were carried out to investigate drilling problems associated with pressure variations in the wellbore. These studies demonstrated that lost circulation, formation fracture, fluid influx, kicks, and blowouts are connected to excessive surge and swab pressures due to high tripping speeds. Based on the outcomes of these studies, the following observations can be made: Surge and swab pressures increase with tripping speed; Swab pressures can potentially cause blowouts; Tripping-out of the wellbore may be a contributing factor to blowouts;

Surge pressure can be the main cause of lost circulation; Surge pressure with closed-end pipe are higher than those with open-end. Very limited field measurements that show detailed surge and swab

pressure tests are available. Burkhardt (1961) presents surge pressure data for a 100 ft study well, which was specially instrumented to measure bottomhole pressures. His data is very instructive and provides a good test reference for analytical models, but do not represent a real well situation since the well dimensions and smaller than a regular well. Much more useful data was gathered by Clark and Fontenot (1974), who conducted surge tests on two wells. The first was an 18,500 ft well in Mississippi. The second well was a 15,270 ft well in Utah. Clark and Fontenot provide very complete information on drillstring velocity and drilling fluid properties throughout the tests, and full information on pressure measurements. They found that control of pipe speed while tripping is necessary to minimize downhole pressure surges. Wagner et al. (1993) presents actual surge and swab field data during tripping and circulating operations which include both surface and downhole measurements. A series of three field tests were performed in each of the two study wells in the Gulf of Mexico. The first was a deep onshore exploration well in Mississippi that was drilled to a depth of 19,600 ft. The second was a slightly deviated development well in shallow waters of offshore Louisiana that was drilled to 15,384 ft depth. Results show that pipe velocity is proportional to the
6

surge/swab pressures (Fig. 2.1). Also, it is noted that the pressure is increasing with time due to the increase in hydrostatic pressure as a function of depth.
6700

Annulus Pressure (psi)

6600

6500

Swab Pressure

6400 0 100 200 300

Time (s)

Figure 2.1: Annulus pressure measured during swab tests (Wagner et al. 1993)

White and Zamora (1997) gathered surge and swab pressure data from a 12,710 ft well in the Gulf of Mexico. Although, measurements were limited by technical constraints, the effect of tripping speeds and acceleration is observed. Their results also showed a higher pressure surge at the bottom of the drillstring than at the top. Other studies (Rudolf and Suryanarayana, 1997; Rudolf and

Suryanarayana, 1998) showed swab measurements recorded on every stand of the


7

drillpipe while tripping in a 15,000 ft well. Results confirm that surge pressure peaks appear every time as the drillstring begins to trip (Fig. 2.2). The sudden increase in tripping speed results in acceleration that generates pressure surge. Also, they have shown that pipe elasticity, fluid compression and expansion, bottomhole temperature, wellbore expansion and contraction, and the drillstring oscillations, appear to all contribute to the pressure surge. Recent studies (Bing and Kaiji, 1996; Thorsrud et al., 2000; Robello et al., 2003; Mitchell, 2004; Rommetveit et al., 2005) presented extensive surge and swab pressure measurements and modeling results. Results and observations of the studies are consistent with many of previous investigations.

10000

Measured Pressure (psi)

9500

9000

8500

8000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (s)

Figure 2.2: Typical pressure data while tripping-in (Rudolf and Suryanarayana, 1998)

2.1.2. Laboratory Studies Laboratory data on surge and swab pressures is lacking. One technique that has similar flow conditions as the current problem is known as back extrusion. The procedure consists of forcing a cylindrical plunger down into a fluid trapped in a cylinder forcing the fluid to flow upwards through a concentric annular space (Fig. 2.3). This procedure is widely used to obtain rheology parameters of thick food products at low speeds. Osorio and Steffe (1991) presented a semi-empirical surge pressure model for a specific yield-power-law fluid based on back extrusion measurements.

Vp

Cylindrical Plunger

V(r)

Test Fluid

Figure 2.3: Schematic of back extrusion experiment (Osorio and Steffe, 1991)

2.2. MODELING 2.2.1. Steady-State Models Accurate surge/swab model predictions have been a constant area of research. In the past, Cardwell (1953) and Ormsby (1954) attempted to explain the physical causes, nature and magnitude of surge and swab pressures. Both studies presented quantitative prediction techniques to determine these pressures for Newtonian fluids in laminar and turbulent flow regimes. Only the pressure losses arising from the viscous drag of the moving fluid with stationary pipe wall was taken into consideration. Another study (Clark, 1955) introduced the case of a moving inner pipe through a concentric annulus with Bingham plastic fluid.
10

Pressure variations caused by sudden changes in pipe speed in addition to those arising from viscous drag were included in the analysis. Idealized graphs and equations for predicting surge and swab pressures in laminar and turbulent flow regimes were presented. Burkhardt (1961) presented a semi-empirical method describing quantitatively and theoretically pressure surges for a Bingham Plastic fluid. The drilling fluid velocity resulting from the tripping is related to the trip velocity: (2.1) where and are the effective fluid velocity and trip velocity, respectively.

is the proportionally constant known as clinging factor, which depends upon the ratio of the pipe to hole diameter according to the curves presented in Fig. 2.4. Burkhardt developed models that are used to predict the viscous drag surge pressure. Model predictions compare favorably with actual pressure surge measurements. In addition, Results showed that pressure surges are usually high when running closed-end casing or drillpipe in the hole.

11

Figure 2.4: Clinging constant determination plot (Burkhardt, 1961)

Later, a numerical model (Schuh, 1964) was developed to compute surge and swab pressure. Schuhs solutions were patterned after studies presented by Burkhardt (1961) and Clark (1955). Another study (Fontenot and Clark, 1974) presented a comprehensive technique for determining surge/swab pressure for both Bingham-plastic and power-law fluids. Models presented in previous studies (Melrose et al., 1958; Dodge and Metzner, 1959; Burkhardt, 1961; Schuh, 1964) were implemented in a computer program to investigate the effects of different parameters including mud properties, closed and open-ended pipe, well geometries, tool joints, drillpipe rubbers, and bit nozzles. Model predictions showed good agreement with field measurements.

12

Surge and swab pressure modeling have been also carried out by hydraulic analysis of annular flow with axial motion of the inner pipe (Lin and Hsu, 1980; Chukwu and Blick, 1989; Malik and Shenoy, 1991; Haige and Xisheng, 1996; Filip and David, 2003) for different pipe/borehole configurations and fluid rheology models. Lin and Hsu (1980) presented a numerical procedure for the case of power-law fluid in concentric annulus. However, the procedure is too complex for ready use in drilling applications. Some minor shortcomings to this approach were indentified (Macsporran, 1982) and subsequently corrected (Lin and Hsu, 1982). Another study (Chukwu and Blick, 1989) applied the Couette flow with pressure gradient to establish a relationship between inner pipe speed and pressure variation in the wellbore resulting from the pipe movement. They related the dimensionless flow rate and surge/swab pressure gradient resulting from tripping and presented their solutions as a family of curves for different diameter ratios (i.e. ratio of pipe diameter to hole/casing diameter). In order to find a specific solution, the dimensionless annular flow rate generated by fluid displacement by the inner pipe motion given by:

(2.2)

13

Having the value of the dimensionless annular flow rate, the dimensionless pressure gradient is obtained from a type curve as shown in Fig. 2.5. The surge/swab pressure value is obtained from the expression:

) ( )

(2.3)

where

is the hole inside diameter,

is the consistency index,

is the fluid

behavior index, and is the dimensionless pressure gradient. An analytical solution of the steady-state laminar flow of power-law fluid in annulus resulting from the fluid displacement and axial motion of the inner pipe was presented by Malik and Shenoy (1991). However, the solution was limited to the calculation of the volumetric flow rate, and no discussion was presented on its application to obtain surge or swab pressures. Later, Haige and Xisheng (1996) presented a model that predicts pressure surge in directional wells. The model considered the axial flow of Robertson-Stiff fluid in concentric annuli. The equations were solved numerically and solutions were presented as a family of curves. More recently, this approach has been adopted (Filip and David, 2003) to include the effect of the inner cylinder movement on the pressure gradient. The predictions of the model have shown a satisfactory agreement with previous data (Malik and Shenoy, 1991) for powerlaw fluids.

14

Figure 2.5: Dimensionless pressure gradient determination plot for diameter ratio of 0.3 (Chukwu and Blick, 1989)

Representation of the annulus as a slot (Fig. 2.6) is a commonly used technique to simplify the mathematical analysis of the annular flow. The slot model (i.e. approximate model) is valid for diameter ratios greater than 0.3 (Guillot and Dennis, 1988; Chukwu and Blick, 1989; Guillot, 1990; Bourgoyne et al., 1991; Kelessidis et al., 2007; Crespo et al, 2010). Newtonian slot flow

15

between two parallel plates, one moving at a constant velocity while the other is fixed, was carried out by Schlichting (1955). Their solution is simply the superposition of the solution of two problems: flow between two parallel walls, one of which is moving with no pressure gradient, and flow between two fixed parallel walls because of a pressure gradient. For non-Newtonian fluids such a simple superposition is not possible, as the flow coupling occurs due to the apparent viscosity function. A complete solution for this problem using Ellis fluid flow was presented by Wadhwa (1966). Later on, Flumerfelt et al. (1969) presented both tabular and graphical solutions for the steady-state laminar flow of power-law fluid and developed dimensionless correlations for general use.

rp rh

rh

rp
H

Figure 2.6: Annular and equivalent slot geometry

16

2.2.2. Unsteady-State Models Most field studies indicated that acceleration exacerbates surge and swab pressures. During the last couple of decades, unsteady-state (transient) models have been developed (Lal, 1983; Bing et al., 1995; Yuan and Chukwu, 1996) to determine bottomhole pressure fluctuations due to pipe acceleration while tripping which is a real-life situation in drilling operations. Model results are in agreement with field studies showing that pipe acceleration can generate pressure peaks. 2.3. DYNAMIC EFFECTS ON SURGE AND SWAB PRESSURES In addition to the transient flow behavior, a number of studies (Lubinski et al., 1977; Lal, 1983; Mitchell, 1988; Bing and Kaiji, 1996) included previously neglected dynamic effects such as fluid inertia, fluid and wellbore compressibility, and axial elasticity of moving pipe. Lal (1983) presented a parametric study showing the effects of yield stress on surge and swab pressures. Calculations indicate that when the fluid has high yield stress values, the magnitude of the generated surge/swab pressure increases (Fig. 2.7).

17

1500 YP=15 lbf/100 ft YP=30 lbf/100 ft

1000

Pessure (psi)

500

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

Figure 2.7: Effect of yield stress on surge pressures (Lal, 1983)

The model developed by Mitchell (1988) is one of the most accepted by the drilling industry. The model is based on a steady-state approach for power-law fluids. It has been extensively validated against field data (Wagner et al., 1993; Robello et al., 2003; Rommetveit et al., 2005). The model has also been enhanced to include the effects of temperature-dependent fluid rheology, fluid circulation, acceleration, well deviation and eccentricity (Robello et al., 2003). However, a detailed formulation of the model has not been published in the literature. 2.4. ECCENTRICITY EFFECTS ON SURGE AND SWAB PRESSURES Eccentricity can have a significant effect in surge and swab pressures. The surge pressures can be as much as 50 percent less than a concentric calculation when the inner pipe lies to one side of the hole. For power-law fluids, Yang and
18

Chukwu (1995) applied their analytical technique to determine the surge or swab pressure at specified steady velocity in an eccentric wellbore. The solutions of the equations are presented in both dimensionless form and as a family of curves for different eccentricity ratios and power-law fluid index values. A numerical study (Hussain and Sharif, 1997) indicated the reduction of surge pressure with the increase in eccentricity. For a partially blocked eccentric annulus with cuttings bed, the surge pressure decreases with the increase in the bed thickness. A simplified model using eccentricity geometry for Casson model fluids was presented by Sun et al (2010). Numerical solution was applied to calculate surge and swab pressures in horizontal wells.

19

3.

SURGE AND SWAB PRESSURE MODELING

The phenomenon of annular fluid flow due to axial motion of the inner pipe is modeled to predict surge and swab pressures using the narrow slot approximation technique. This approach is used to simplify the analysis of the surge and swab pressure for YPL fluid under steady laminar flow condition. The model is valid for diameter ratios greater than 0.4. Model solutions require iterative numerical procedures. Therefore, a simple dimensionless regression model (correlation) has been developed using numerically obtained results. 3.1. THEORETICAL MODEL The annular flow is induced by the axial motion of the drillpipe as it displaces the fluid trapped in the wellbore. The concentric annulus is represented by an equivalent narrow slot (Fig. 3.1) where the top plate represents the drillpipe that moves with a constant velocity and the lower plate represents a stationary

casing or hole. The following assumptions are made in the formulation of the theoretical model: Incompressible fluid (density of the fluid is constant); Axial flow under steady state and isothermal conditions;

20

Fully developed laminar flow of YPL fluid; A moving plate traveling at a constant velocity Vp; and No slip conditions at the walls.

YPL Fluid

p
YPL Fluid

Velocity Profile

Figure 3.1: Representation of a concentric annulus as a slot

The annular velocity profile (Fig. 3.2) in the wellbore during tripping operations is expected to have three distinct flow regions: i) outer sheared region (Region I) within the boundary limits the boundary limits the boundary limits ii) plug zone (Region II) within

and, iii) inner sheared region (Region III) within . The fluid in the plug zone (Region II) and outer

sheared regions (Region I and Region III) flows opposite to the direction in which the upper plate moves. Some part of the fluid in the inner sheared region (i.e. Region III which is close to the moving wall or drillpipe) moves in the same direction of upper plate.

21

Vp
Region III

y2

Region II

y2 y1
Region I

y1

Figure 3.2: Velocity profile of yield-power-law fluid through a slot

In order to develop a hydraulic model, momentum balance of each layer is first considered. For the sheared regions, applying the momentum balance the shear stress distributions are expressed as: Region I:

(3.1)

Region III:

(3.2)

where

is the shear stress at the stationary wall. For the yield-power-law fluid,

the local shear stresses in Regions I and III are related to the local shear rates using the constitutive equation as: ( )

(3.3)

22

and ( )

(3.4)

respectively, where k and n are fluid consistency and behavior index. The dimensionless velocity profiles in Region I and Region III are defined as:

(3.5)

Similarly, normalized

coordinates of any point are expressed as:

(3.6)

where H and W are the slot clearance and width, respectively. The dimensionless velocity distributions are obtained by combining Eqns. (3.1) through Eqn. (3.4), and applying the boundary conditions in Region I ( ) and Region III ( ).

Dimensionless velocity profiles in Region I and Region III are: For Region I: [( ) ( ) ] ; (3.7)

For Region III:

23

where

[(

) ] ;

(3.8)

is the dimensionless pressure defined as:

)( )(

(3.9)

The exponent

is a function of the fluid behavior index:

(3.10)

Geometric analysis shows that the dimensionless plug thickness is simply the difference between the dimensionless boundary limits. Hence: where are the dimensionless boundary limits defined as: (3.12) (3.11)

Applying momentum balance in Region II, the dimensionless plug zone thickness can be obtained from the following expression:

(3.13)

In the plug zone (Region II), the velocity distribution is uniform (i.e. plug velocity is constant) and expressed in dimensionless form as:

24

(3.14)

The velocity gradient is negative in the Region I and positive in the Region III. At the edges of the plug zone ( and ), the local velocity Eqns. (3.7) and

(3.8) should give the same value. Thus: ( ) ( )

(3.15)

The total dimensionless flow rate is the sum of the flow rate in each region. Hence: (

(3.16)

By substituting Eqns. (3.7), (3.8) and (3.14) into Eq. (3.16), the dimensionless fluid flow rate is expressed as: ( )( *( ) + ) [ ( ( ) ) ][ ] (3.17)

where the dimensionless fluid flow rate is: (3.18)

25

To represent the wellbore, slot geometry parameters terms of annular geometric dimensions
( )

and

are expressed in

and

as follows:

(3.19) )

(3.20)

For a closed-pipe case, the actual fluid flow rate in the annulus is equal to the rate at which fluid is being displaced by running the drillpipe into the wellbore. This means that circulation loss and wellbore ballooning effects are negligible. Hence, the flow is expressed as: ( ) (3.21)

Subsequently, substituting Eqns. (3.19), (3.20) and (3.21) into Eqn. (3.18), the dimensionless flow rate is calculated as:
( )

(3.22)

Combining Eqn. (3.17) and (3.22), we obtain: *(


( )

][

)(

( )

(3.23)

26

A simplified graphic solution procedure has been developed to obtain solutions for the analytical model. The procedure requires the mud rheology, wellbore geometry and pipe velocity as input parameters. To apply this method for a specific case (fluid rheology/wellbore geometry combination), first Eqn. (3.15) is expressed in this form:

( )

)(

)(

(3.24)

Grouping the constant parameters: (3.25)

)( )( )

(3.26)

Eqn. (3.24) can be expressed as:

( )

(3.27)

The following procedure is followed to determine the surge and swab pressures: The parameters and are calculated for the specific annular geometry and

fluid rheology combinations. The value of is obtained by solving Eqn. (3.27) by iteration or using the modified Newton-Raphson technique for all combinations of and .

27

Substituting the obtained values of into Eq. (3.17), the dimensionless fluid flow rates are determined for different values of .

A characteristic curve, which is a plot of different values of (Fig. 3.3).

versus is prepared for

From Eqn. (3.22), the dimensionless fluid flow rate is obtained. Using the value of from the previous step as an input parameter, and from the plot of obtained. , the corresponding value of at a given can be

Finally, the following equation is used to calculate the surge or swab pressure as: ( ) (3.28)

The procedure involving graphic methods, yields exact solutions for the slot model, though not in convenient forms. It is also time consuming. Hence, instead of this method, solutions were obtained using a direct numerical technique. To get the numerical solution, we developed a computer code that solves a system of four equations Eqns. (3.9), (3.13), (3.15), and (3.23). Since some of these equations are non-linear and solutions cannot be obtained using the conventional numerical methods, the computer code varies the pressure gradient until the system of equations is fully satisfied. Using the code, extensive

28

numerical solutions were obtained varying pipe velocity, fluid properties, and wellbore geometry.
0.020

0.019

Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.018

0.017

0.016

0.015 Vp = 1.0 ft/sec 0.014 Vp = 2.0 ft/sec Vp = 3.0 ft/sec 0.013 Vp = 4.0 ft/sec Vp = 5.0 ft/sec 0.012 -6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

Dimensionless Flow Rate

Figure 3.3: Characteristic curves to determine surge and swab pressure

3.2. REGRESSION MODEL A systematic regression analysis was carried out using the numerical results to develop a simple regression model. A wide range of diameter ratios ( ), various Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids (Table 3.1),

29

and wellbore/pipe configurations (Table 3.2) were considered. Tripping speeds of up to 3.0 ft/s were considered.
Table 3.1: Rheological parameters of drilling fluids
Fluid Type Newtonian Newtonian Newtonian Power-Law Power-Law Power-Law Power-Law Power-Law Power-Law Power-Law Power-Law Power-Law Power-Law Power-Law Power-Law Bingham Plastic Bingham Plastic Bingham Plastic Bingham Plastic Bingham Plastic Bingham Plastic Bingham Plastic Bingham Plastic Bingham Plastic Yield-Power-Law Test Fluid N1 N2 N3 A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 P1 P2 P3 P4 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 F1 F2 F3 C1 , lbf/100 ft2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.0 10.0 5.9 22.3 4.0 20.0 61.8 35.2 18.7 18.8 , lbfsn /100 ft2 0.05 0.16 0.43 4.38 1.74 1.74 1.93 1.37 0.52 0.73 0.78 4.72 1.44 0.35 1.62 0.20 0.13 0.10 0.16 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 8.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.53 0.56 0.52 0.36 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.57 0.67 0.80 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35

30

Fluid Type Yield-Power-Law Yield-Power-Law Yield-Power-Law Yield-Power-Law Yield-Power-Law Yield-Power-Law Yield-Power-Law

Test Fluid C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4

, lbf/100 ft2 21.9 23.0 14.6 13.0 10.4 10.4 6.5

, lbfsn /100 ft2 2.03 2.18 3.56 2.84 0.71 0.82 1.54 0.53 0.52 0.44 0.43 0.58 0.52 0.48

Table 3.2: Pipe-wellbore configurations


dh (Casing ID) 9.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 4.50 dp (Drillpipe OD) 5.00 4.50 5.50 5.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 2.88 3.50 (dp/dh) 0.56 0.50 0.79 0.71 0.50 0.57 0.64 0.58 0.78

The regression model predicts surge or swab pressures conveniently for laminar flow of yield-power-law fluids without requiring iterative procedure. Predictions can be made for Newtonian ( and Bingham plastic ( the friction factor as: ), power-law ( ),

) fluids as well. The surge pressure is obtained using

(3.29)

31

where

and

are fluid density and wellbore length.

and

are trip speed and

annular clearance (i. e. hydraulic radius for flow between two parallel plates), respectively. The relationship between the friction factor and generalized Reynolds number is established methodically to resemble the pipe flow equation. Hence, the friction factor Reynolds number is given as: is used. The expression for generalized

(3.30)

where

is the modified Reynolds number. The yield stress factor

is a

dimensionless parameter, which is greater than one for any fluid with yield stress. This parameter is defined as:

[( ) ( )

(3.31)

The modified Reynolds is expressed as:

) (

(3.32)

where (

and

are geometric parameters that vary with the diameter ratio

). The geometric parameters are determined as:

32

(3.33) (3.34)

3.3. MODEL VALIDATION The prediction regression model is first compared with numerical solutions to confirm its validity. Figures 3.4 to 3.7 compare predictions of the regression model with numerical results for different fluids. Results show excellent agreement between the model and numerical solutions. The maximum discrepancy is approximately 10%.

10.00

Friction Factor f (Numerical Solution)

1.00

10% -10%
0.10 Fluid N1 Fluid N2 Fluid N3 0.01 0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

Friction Factor f (Regression Model)

Figure 3.4: Comparison of predictions of numerical and regression models (Newtonian fluids)

33

10.00

Friction Factor (Numerical Solution)

1.00

10%
0.10

-10%

0.01

0.00 0.00

Fluid A1 Fluid A2 Fluid A3 Fluid A4 Fluid B1 Fluid B2 Fluid B3 Fluid B4 Fluid P1 Fluid P2 Fluid P3 1.00 10.00

0.01

0.10

Friction Factor f (Regression Model)

Figure 3.5: Comparison of predictions of numerical and regression models (Power-Law Fluids)
100.00

Friction Factor f (Numerical Solution)

10.00

10%
1.00

-10%

Fluid E1 Fluid E2 Fluid E3 Fluid E4 Fluid E5 Fluid E6 Fluid F1 Fluid F2

0.10

0.01

0.00 0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

Friction Factor f (Regression Model)

Figure 3.6: Comparison of predictions of numerical and regression models (Bingham Plastic Fluids)

34

10.00

Friction Factor f (Numerical Solution)

1.00

10%
-10%
Fluid C1 Fluid C2 Fluid C3 Fluid C4 Fluid D1

0.10

0.01

Fluid D2 Fluid D3 Fluid D4

0.00 0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

Friction Factor f (Regression Model)

Figure 3.7: Comparison of predictions of numerical and regression models (Yield-PowerLaw Fluids)

In order to further evaluate the performance of the regression model, its predictions have been also compared with predictions of existing models. Newtonian surge pressure predictions have been compared with the analytical slot flow (Fig. 3.8) solution for Newtonian fluids (Bourgoyne, 1986). Excellent agreement is observed for all tested cases.

35

1.000

Surge Presure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.100

0.010

=203.7cp (Regression Model) =76.6cp (Regression Model) =24.1cp (Regression Model) =203.7cp (Bourgoyne, 1986) =76.6cp (Bourgoyne, 1986) =24.1cp (Bourgoyne, 1986) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0.001

Tripping Speed(ft/sec)

Figure 3.8: Comparison between correlation and Newtonian model (Bourgoyne, 1986) Predictions

For the case of power-law fluids, surge pressure predictions are compared with the exact numerical solution presented by Schuh (1964). His model has been validated by direct comparison with field measurements (Fontenot and Clark 1974). Predictions show excellent agreement with the numerical results. Most of the predictions fall within 10% error bars (Fig. 3.9). A detailed calculation procedure of Schuhs model is presented in Appendix A.

36

800 700 Fluid A1 Fluid A2 Fluid A3 Fluid A4 Fluid B1 Fluid B2 Fluid B3 Fluid B4 Fluid P1 Fluid P2 Fluid P3 Fluid P4

Surge Presure Regression Model (psi)

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0

10% -10%

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Surge Pressure Schuh's Solution (psi)

Figure 3.9: Comparison of Schuhs solution with regression model for different Power-Law Fluids

To evaluate model performance with Bingham plastic fluid, model predictions are compared (Fig. 3.10) with those obtained from Burkhardts model. Predictions of the new model are predominantly between error bars,

demonstrating excellent agreement. As expected, surge and swab pressures increase with tripping speeds.

37

1000 900 Fluid E1 Fluid E2 Fluid E3 Fluid E4 Fluid E5 Fluid E6 Fluid F1 Fluid F2 Fluid F3

Swab Presure Correlation (psi)

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0

10% -10%

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Swab Pressure Burkhardt Model (psi)

Figure 3.10: Comparison of correlation predictions and solution by Burkhardt (1961) for different Bingham-Plastic Fluids

Surge and swab measurements with YPL fluid are very scarce. For YPL fluids, the new model predictions are compared (Fig. 3.11) with results of back extrusion experiments (Osorio and Steffe, 1991) that were obtained using 2.0% aqueous solution of Kelset (commercial sodium-calcium alginate). Despite very low extrusion pipe speeds, good agreement is obtained between the model and experimental observations.

38

2.5 Regression Model Osorio and Steffe, 1991 2.0

Pressure Drop (psi)

1.5

1.0

0.5 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030

Pipe Velocity (ft/sec)

Figure 3.11: Comparison of the correlation predictions with the back extrusion technique (Osorio and Steffe, 1991) for a specific Yield-Power-Law Fluid

Generally, it is considered that the narrow-slot modeling approach is applicable when the annular diameter ratio is high (i.e. greater than 0.3). To test this hypothesis, the new model predictions are compared with exact numerical solutions (Schuh, 1964) as depicted in Fig. 3.12. Model predictions are consistent with the numerical solutions at high diameter ratios. However, as the diameter ratio approaches the value of 0.3, discrepancies become substantial. Models based on the narrow slot approximation over predict the surge pressure. Similar results have been obtained for different fluids. It is also shown that the predictions of the regression model and Chukwus model are very close, as both rely on the narrowslot approximation. Model comparison for Bingham plastic fluids (Fig. 3.13)

39

shows good agreement with the existing model (Burkhardt, 1961). It is important to note that the predictions of Burkhardts model were previously validated using field measurements. A detailed calculation procedure of Burkhardts model is presented in Appendix B.
10000.0 Regression Model Chukwu, 1989 Schuh, 1964

1000.0

Surge Presure (psi)


100.0 10.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Diameter Ratio (dp/dh)

Figure 3.12: Comparison of different models for Power-Law Fluid

40

Regression Model Burkhardt, 1961 3000

Surge Presure (psi)

300

30 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9

Diameter Ratio (dp/dh)

Figure 3.13: Comparison of different models for Bingham Plastic Fluid

3.4. PARAMETRIC STUDY The relationship between pressure surges and pipe velocities depends on a number of drilling parameters including fluid rheology and borehole geometry. After validating the model, sensitive analysis was carried out to examine the influence of fluid behavior index, yield stress and diameter ratio on these

41

pressures under different conditions. Figure 3.15 is a plot of surge pressures versus diameter ratio for different power-law fluids that have the same consistency index. It is shown that surge pressure and its sensitivity to trip speed decreases as the fluid becomes more shear thinning. Therefore, in addition to the trip speed and fluid rheology, adjustment may be considered to mitigate excessive downhole pressure surges. Results are also in agreement with the predictions of Schuhs model.

1000

Surge Presure (psi)

100 n=0.3 (Regression Model) n=0.5 (Regression Model) n=0.7 (Regression Model) n=0.3 (Schuh, 1964) n=0.5 (Schuh, 1964) n=0.7 (Schuh, 1964) 10 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 n=0.4 (Regression Model) n=0.6 (Regression Model) n=0.8 (Regression Model) n=0.4 (Schuh, 1964) n=0.6 (Schuh, 1964) n=0.8 (Schuh, 1964)

Pipe Velocity (ft/sec)

Figure 3.14: Effect of fluid behavior index on surge pressures for Power-Law Fluids at different speeds

The sensitivity analysis for YPL fluids was performed considering a set of field data (White and Zamora, 1997) as the base case input. Figure 3.16 presents predictions of the new model showing the effect of yield stress on surge pressure.

42

As anticipated, at high yield stress values, the surge pressure increases and the influence of pipe velocity diminishes as the fluid becomes more shear thinning. This is consistent with the previous observation with power law fluids.
1000

Swab Pressure, Psi

100

= 0 lbf/100 ft = 5 lbf/100 ft = 10 lbf/100 ft = 20 lbf/100 ft = 30 lbf/100 ft 10 1 2 3 4 5

Pipe Velocity, ft/sec

Figure 3.15: Surge pressures vs. tripping speed for different yield stresses

The diameter ratio is expected to have a stronger influence on pressure surges. Model predictions shown in Fig. 3.17 indicate that surge and swab pressures become higher when the annular clearance gets smaller. Moreover, at high diameter ratios these pressures become more sensitive to the increase in trip velocity indicating the severity of reciprocation of a fully closed drillstring in wellbores with small annular clearance such as in the case of casing drilling.

43

10000 Vp = 1.0 ft/sec Vp = 2.0 ft/sec Vp = 3.0 ft/sec Vp = 4.0 ft/sec Vp = 5.0 ft/sec

Surge Pressure (psi)

1000

100

10 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Diameter Ratio (dp/dh)

Figure 3.16: Surge pressure vs. diameter ratio for different tripping speeds

44

4.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

This investigation is aimed at studying both experimentally and theoretically the effects of fluid properties and drilling parameters on surge and swab pressures. To achieve the objectives of the investigation and validate the predictions of the new model, experiments were carried out under fully controlled laboratory conditions. All tests were conducted at ambient temperature and pressure. 4.1. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP The experimental study was conducted at the Well Construction Technology Center (WCTC) of the University of Oklahoma. A test setup has been developed (Fig. 4.1) to carry out the proposed experiments. The setup has the capability to vary the tripping speed and accurately measure surge or swab pressure. A schematic of the setup is shown in Fig. 4.2. It consists of: i) vertical test section; ii) guiding rod; iii) variable speed motor; iv) pressure transducer; v) data acquisition system; and vi) fluid mixing and collection tanks.

45

Motor Polymer Water

Cable Guide Motor Controller Mixing Tank

Pressure Transducer Transparent Polycarbonate Tube Drillpipe

Guiding Rod

Collector Tank

Computer

Figure 4.1: Schematic view of experimental Setup

46

Figure 4.2: Actual view of experimental setup

4.1.1. Vertical Test Section A 10-ft vertical test section is formed by a fully transparent polycarbonate tubing (2 inches ID) acting as the casing or borehole and inner steel pipe (1.32 inches OD) acting as a drillstring (Fig. 4.3). The test section is clamped to a supporting structure. It is vertically aligned to keep the inner pipe in concentric
47

configuration. Blind flange and drain valve are installed at the bottom of the test section. The flange supports the guiding rod.

Inner Pipe

Polycarbonate Tubing

Guiding Rod

Drainage

Figure 4.3: Vertical test section

4.1.2. Guiding Rod In order to ensure concentric annular geometry as assumed by the presented model, a thin guiding rod (0.25-in OD) is used (Fig. 4.3). The guiding rod is bolted at the center of the blind flange. The bottom the pipe was plugged

48

and 0.27-inch hole was made for the guide rod. The guide protects the lateral movement of the pipe during the test. 4.1.3. Variable Speed Motor A variable speed motor (Fig. 4.4) with a controller lift the inner pipe at the desired speed (0 - 1.0 ft/s) with accuracy of 0.01 ft/sec. The motor has a pulley

with a thin hosting cable (1/16-in steel cable) to move the pipe upward or downward by switching the direction of the motor rotation. The test setup allows a maximum stroke of 4.0 ft.

Figure 4.4: Variable speed motor

49

4.1.4. Pressure Transducer A digital Pressure transducer (Fig. 4.5) is connected to the test unit to measure the pressure differential across the annular section. The maximum differential pressure span for the transducers is 0 - 1.0 psi with accuracy of 0.005 psi.

Figure 4.5: Differential pressure transducers with pressure tapings

4.1.5. Data Acquisition System A Data Acquisition System consists of a personal computer (Fig. 4.6) and a data acquisition card (Omega DAQ 3000) was used to record test parameters

50

and control the pipe speed. Measurements are displayed and recorded as a function of time using Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) program. The tripping speed is set in the VBA program before the test. Then, the controller switch is used to start the motor. As the motor turns, the pipe moves downward while the pressure transducer readings (i.e. pressure drop across the annulus) are being recorded by the VBA program at the rate of 5 samples/second.

Figure 4.6: Personal computer

4.1.6. Fluid Mixing and Collection Tanks Newtonian and non-Newtonian test fluids were prepared and stored in a 2gallon mixing tank prior to transfer to the test section. After the experiments, the
51

test fluid is discharged from the test section through a drain valve (Fig. 4.3) for appropriate disposal using a waste collector tank. 4.2. SYSTEM CALIBRATION As previously mentioned, pipe speed is controlled using a motor speed controller (Variable Frequency Drive) which receives analog signal from the DAQ system. To carry the experiments at the desired pipe speed, the system was first calibrated to develop a relationship between controller input voltage and measured pipe speed. The calibration was conducted by varying the voltage and measuring the travel time for full stroke (4 ft) using a digital chronometer (stop watch) to determine the pipe velocity. The procedure was repeated three times per voltage value and the respective average pipe speed was calculated. The result shows that the speed linearly varying with voltage. Expressions for upward (Fig. 4.7) and downward (Fig. 4.8) pipe speed as a function of voltage were developed: ........... (4.1) .................. (4.2) Both expressions are implemented into the VBA program in the data acquisition system to accurately control the pipe speed.

52

3.0 2.5

Speed (rpm)

2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 2

Vp (ft/sec) = 0.2514*Volt(v) + 0.0279


4 6 8 10

Volt (v)

Figure 4.7: Upward pipe speed as a function of voltage


3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5

Speed (rpm)

Vp (ft/sec) = 0.2498*Volt(v) + 0.0302


0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10

Volt (v)

Figure 4.8: Downward pipe speed as a function of voltage

4.3. TEST PROCEDURE Preliminary test were conducted to develop a test procedure to measure surge pressures. After establishing reliable and accurate procedure, the main

53

experiments were carried out. All tests were performed out using the same procedure that consists of the following steps: Fluid preparation: Each experiment begins by preparing the test fluid with the desirable polymer concentrations. First, powder polymer and water were mixed in a tank that has a variable speed agitator. Adequate time was allowed for the mixture to fully hydrate. The fluid rheology was measured using a Fann 35 rotational viscometer (Fig. 4.9). Fluid Transfer: After the test fluid was prepared, it was transferred to the test section. This process is done carefully so there is no formation of bubbles along the annular space. The fluid was left for 15 minutes in the cylinder to allow any air bubbles to escape. A fluid sample was collected during and after the test to check for any possible change in rheology under test conditions. Surge Pressure Test: Surge test begins by moving the inner pipe downward at the desired speed while measuring and recording the pressure loss.

54

Figure 4.9: Fann 35 rotational viscometer 4.5. TEST MATERIALS Extensive experiments were performed using regular and light-weight mineral oil (Newtonian fluids), and different concentrations of polyanionic cellulose (PAC) and Xanthan Gum suspensions (XG). The rheological properties of the fluids tested were measured using a standard rotational viscometer (Model 35) that has a diameter ratio of 0.936. The dial readings were converted to obtain wall shear stress values, using the following equation: ........... (4.3)

55

where

is the wall shear stress (

),

is the spring factor and

is the dial

reading. Wall shear rates were calculated from the speeds of the sleeve using the following equation: .............. (4.4) where, is the wall shear rate ( ). Logarithmic curve fitting of wall shear

stress versus wall shear rate were made to determine the rheological parameters of the fluids. All rotational viscometer readings are presented in Appendix C. As expected viscosities of regular and light weight mineral oils were constant and 203.7 cP and 24.1 cP, respectively. PAC based fluids show considerable shear thinning (Fig. 4.10). The flow behavior of the PAC based fluids best fit the power-law rheology model. Behavior of Xanthan Gum suspensions is best represented by the yield-power-law (Herschel-Bulkley) model (Fig. 4.11). Three different concentrations of PAC (1.00%, 0.75% and 0.56% by weight) and Xanthan Gum fluids (1.00%, 0.67% and 0.44% by weight) were tested. Also, a polymer mix of Xanthan Gum and PAC (0.28% PAC and 0.22% Xanthan Gum by weight) was considered in this study. Rheological properties of the fluids are presented in Table 4.1.

56

250

200

PAC 1.00% PAC 0.75% PAC 0.56% Mix PAC 0.28% + Xantan Gum 0.44%

Shear Stress (lbf/100ft2)

150

100

50

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Shear Rate (1/s)

Figure 4.10: Rheology of PAC based test fluids


1000 Xantan Gum 1.00% Xantan Gum 0.67% Xantan Gum 0.44%

Shear Stress (lbf/100ft2)

100

10

1 3 30 300

Shear Rate (1/s)

Figure 4.11: Rheology of Xanthan Gum based test fluids

57

Table 4.1: Rheology of test fluids


Rheological Parameters Test Fluids Fluid Type Temperature (F) (lbf/100ft2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.9 17.9 7.2 K (lbf.sn/100ft2) 0.43 0.05 4.72 1.44 0.36 1.62 1.61 1.21 0.75 n 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.67 0.80 0.50 0.52 0.50 0.52

Mineral Oil Light Mineral Oil 1.00% PAC 0.75% PAC 0.56% PAC 0.28% PAC+0.22% XG 1.0% Xanthan Gum 0.67% Xanthan Gum 0.44% Xanthan Gum

Newtonian Newtonian Power-Law Power-Law Power-Law Power-Law Yield-Power-Law Yield-Power-Law Yield-Power-Law

74 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

4.4. RECORDED DATA PROCESSING Surge pressure was measured at each tripping speed. To avoid the effects of pipe acceleration, enough time was allowed to stabilized and reach steady-state conditions. Fig. 4.12 shows a typical pressure loss measurement. As the pipe begins to move, first the fluid particles accelerate and the pressure loss increase with time for a short period. Then, the flow establishes steady state condition and the pressure loss becomes constant. Average pressure reading under steady state condition was determined for each tripping speed. Steady state flow conditions were established during low tripping speed (0.1 ft/s to 0.5 ft/s) tests. As depicted in Fig 4.13, at high tripping speeds, it was not possible to establish state flow

58

conditions due stroke length limitation. As a result, experiments were limited to the maximum trip speed of 0.7 ft/s.
0.30

Readings Average Unsteady-State Condition Steady-State Condition

Surge Pressure (psi)

0.20

0.10

0.00 0 20 40 60 80 100

Time (s)

Figure 4.12: Surge pressure measurement with established steady flow condition (1% PAC; 0.2 ft/s)
Readings Average

0.30

Surge Pressure (psi)

0.20

0.10

0.00 10 20 30

Time (s)

40

50

60

Figure 4.13: Surge pressure measurement without established steady flow condition (Mineral Oil; 0.7 ft/s)

59

5.

RESULTS AND DISSCUSSION

The presence of the guiding rod slightly reduces the displaced fluid flow rate. Therefore, the displaced fluid flow rate equation (Eqn. 3.21) needs to be modified to account for the effect of the guiding rod as:

(5.1)

Then, the dimensionless total fluid flow rate during the experiment is computed as:

(5.2)

Experimental measurements obtained from the test fluids (Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids) have been analyzed and presented in Figure 5.1 as the friction versus generalized Reynolds number (Re). Experimental results were highly correlated with the regression model ( ). The strong correlation

between the regression model line and the experimental data points indicate that

60

laminar flow is observed during the measurements. It also shows that the accuracy of the experimental measurements. To perform a comparative study between test measurements and model predictions, surge pressure predictions were made for all experimental data points. Predictions from others studies have been included in the analysis. All recorded surge measurements are presented in Appendix D.
100.00 Light Mineral Oil Mineral Oil 1% PAC 0.75% PAC 0.56% PAC Mix 0.22% PAC + 0.22 XG 1% Xantan Gum 0.64% Xantan Gum 0.22 Xantan Gum f = 16 / Re*

10.00

Friction Factor f

1.00

0.10

0.01 0 1 10 100 1000

Generalized Reynolds Number Re

Figure 5.1: Friction Factor vs. Generalized Reynolds Number for experimental data

5.1. NEWTONIAN FLUIDS Newtonian test results have been compared with predictions obtained with the theoretical and regression model predictions. Both sets of data show a satisfactory

61

agreement with measurements over wide range of tripping speeds. In order to revalidate the results for Newtonian fluids, measurements are compared with exact numerical solutions (Appendix E). Surge test results with regular mineral oil and light mineral oil are depicted in Fig. 5.2 and Fig. 5.3, respectively. Discrepancies between measurements and exact numerical solutions are very small.
0.3 Measurements Regression Model Theoretical Model Newtonian Solution 0.2

Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.1

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Pipe Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 5.2: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with regular mineral oil.

62

0.05 Measurements Regression Model Theoretical Model Newtonian Solution

Durge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Pipe Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 5.3: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with light mineral oil

5.2. POWER-LAW FLUIDS For power law fluids (i.e. fluids with flow behavior that best fit the power law rheology model), the performances of the regression and theoretical model are evaluated (Figs. 5.4 to 5.6) using experimental results and exact numerical solutions (Schuh, 1964). Model predictions show excellent agreement with measurements and numerical results for thick test fluids (1.00% and 0.75% PAC suspensions). However, for thin suspension (0.56% PAC), we observed significant difference between predictions and test results. The flow behavior of this fluid has been characterized by curve fitting the viscometeric measurements to the power-law rheology model. However, it is observed that there is significant deviation between the fitted curve and the actual data points at low shear rates.
63

These deviations could be the cause of discrepancies between surge pressure measurements and predictions. For this case, it could be more appropriate to use other constitutive equations such the Ellis model that best fits the rheology measurements of polymeric fluids at low and medium shear rates (Matsuhisa and Bird, 1965). For the polymer mix (0.28% PAC and 0.22% Xanthan Gum by weight), results show good agreement between test results and predictions (Fig. 5.7).

0.5 Measurements Regression Model Theoretical Model Schuh, 1964

Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Pipe Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 5.4: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 1.0% PAC

64

0.3 Measurements Regression Model Theoretical Model Schuh, 1964 0.2

Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.1

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Pipe Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 5.5: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 0.75% PAC

0.20 Measurements Regression Model Theoretical Model Schuh, 1964

Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Pipe Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 5.6: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 0.56% PAC

65

0.15 Measurements Regression Model Theoretical Model Schuh, 1964 0.10

Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.05

0.00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Pipe Velocity (ft/s)

Figure 5.7: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed for polymer mix

5.3. YIELD-POWER-LAW FLUIDS To further evaluate the performance the new model with YPL fluids, experiemtal measurements obtained using Xanthan Gum suspensions are compared (Figs. 5.8 to 5.10) with model predictions. For test fluid with the lowest yield stress (0.44% Xanthan Gum suspension), a satisfactory agreement between measurements and predictions has been observed. However, for fluids with higher yield stresses (1.00% and 0.67% Xanthan Gum suspensions) predictions are slightly higher (10% to 15%) than measurements. One possible explanation for the discrepancies could be overestimation of the yield stress resulting from the regression technique that uses very limited data points at very

66

low shear rates. Accurate viscometric data is necessary for better validation of the new model.

0.5 Measurements Regression Model Theoretical Model

Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Pipe Velocity (ft/sec)

Figure 5.8: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 1.0% Xanthan Gum

67

0.20

Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.15

0.10

0.05

Measurements Regression Model Theoretical Model

0.00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Pipe Velocity (ft/sec)

Figure 5.9: Yield Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 0.67% Xanthan Gum
0.15 Measurements Regression Model Theoretical Model 0.10

Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.05

0.00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Pipe Velocity (ft/sec)

Figure 5.10: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 0.44% Xanthan Gum.

68

It is important to note that experimental tests were not performed for Bingham-Plastic fluids. However, results obtained for Xanthan Gum solutions and correlation validation for this special case lead us to establish that the correlation provides good results for this fluid rheology. Experimental measurements are presented in tables in Appendix C for all cases. 5.4. DISCUSSION New theoretical and regression models have been developed to predict surge and swab pressures and optimum safe trip velocities for yield-power law fluids. Thus, time and operational cost is reduced and the possibility of kick and lost circulation in tripping process or running a casing can be prevented. These simplified models can be applied to many common field conditions and only require knowledge of moving pipe velocities, fluid rheological parameters, and wellbore geometry. Surge and swab pressures are strongly affected by the flow behavior of the drilling fluid. The yield-power-law rheology model describes the flow behavior of most of drilling fluids better than other commonly used constitutive equations such as power-law and Bingham plastic models. Especially, at low shear rates (i.e. low trip speeds), the discrepancies between measurements and predictions can be substantial and the use of yield-power-law model results in relatively accurate predictions. Furthermore, the new model is valid for special cases of YPL fluids

69

such as Newtonian, Bingham plastic and power-law fluids, which makes the model more versatile and applicable. In addition to the properties of fluid, bottomhole pressure variations during tripping strongly depend on the borehole geometry. Particularly, the diameter ratio or annular clearance has considerable effect on pressure surge. It has been shown that high diameter ratios (i.e. low annular clearances) make the pressure variations very sensitive to the change in tripping speed. This condition can be commonly observed during slimhole and low-clearance casing operations. For horizontal and inclined wells, eccentricity of the drillpipe and thickness of the cuttings bed need to be considered in the analysis to optimize the trip speed. Eccentricity has a significant effect on surge and swab pressures. During the experimental investigation, it was observed that when the inner pipe was eccentric, surge pressures measurements were reduced as much as 42% percent compared with a fully concentric test (Fig. 5.11). Adequate modeling of eccentricity effects on surge and swab pressures can reduce significantly unnecessarily low tripping speeds, reducing non-productive time and drilling cost considerably.

70

0.300

0.250

Concentric Annulus

Pressure (psi)

0.200

0.150

Eccentric Annulus
0.100

0.050

0.000 0 20 40 60 80 100

Time (s)

Figure 5.11: Surge Pressures at different annular eccentricities (1.0% PAC; 0.2 ft/s)

The analysis the present investigation is based on steady state flow assumption; hence, the surge and swab pressure predictions are only valid when the tripping speed remains constant. In real drilling operations, pressure spikes resulting from drillstring acceleration during the starting and ending periods of the trip are observed. Therefore, transient flow (unsteady) models should be used in order to estimate these pressure spikes. Also, in order to minimize pressure surge, changes in trip speed should be gradual.
71

The effects of gel strength (static time) on Xanthan Gum suspensions were also studied. Surge pressure tests were run at 0.05 ft/s after shearing the fluid at high speeds by reciprocation of the pipe and allowing it to rest for short (15 seconds) and long (6 minutes) periods. The same surge pressure values were measured in both cases for different Xantham Gum based fluids (Figure 5.12). Results show minimal gelling effect on surge pressure with Xantham Gum fluids.
0.0010

Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

0.0008

Test After 6 min Test After 15 s

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002

Yield Stress Effect


0.0000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Figure 5.12: Effect of static time on surge pressure measurements (1.0% Xanthan Gum; 0.05 ft/sec)

It was also observed that when the pipe was brought to rest the pressure transducers did not record zero pressure drop across the test section as other test fluids. This is due to the effect of the yield stress of the test fluid that generates static pressure difference between pressure tapings.
72

A complete dynamic modeling should include drillstring elongation caused by axial loading, drilling fluid and formation compressibilities, and other mechanisms such as wellbore ballooning that may have some influence on the bottomhole pressure response of the wellbore during tripping operations. Openend pipe geometry also needs to be included in surge and swab pressure analysis. 5.5. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Surge and swab pressures are very critical in designing slim holes, low clearance casing operations and deepwater applications. In these cases, specifying and maintaining a safe maximum tripping speed is an important part of the drilling program. When running casing in these scenarios, excessive surge pressure in the wellbore can occur. Thus, the bottomhole pressure can be increased sufficiently to exceed the formation fracture gradient and often results in fluid losses and well control issues. The use of a diverter valve above the liner has been suggested as a possible solution to this problem. This surge reduction tool mitigates this problem by diverting the fluid through the ports into the annulus, allowing the casing or liner to be run much faster without the risk of surging the formation excessively. Ignoring the effect of eccentricity on surge and swab pressures may lead to overestimation of tripping speeds. Inefficient tripping speeds increase non-

73

productive time and operation costs. Therefore, eccentricity effects must be taken into account to minimize non-productive time and drilling cost. Rheological properties of the fluid must be monitored during drilling to avoid excessive surge and swab pressures. A highly gelled drilling fluid can create significant swab and surge pressures even if pipe movement is minimal (Ward and Beique, 2000). Continuous control of drilling fluid rheology considering physical characteristics of bottomhole assembly (BHA) is the main point for correct estimation of optimal pipe running speed during tripping operations.

74

6.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1. CONCLUSIONS New theoretical and regression models have been developed to predict surge and swab pressure for yield-power law fluids. The theoretical model is based on the narrow slot flow approximation. The regression model has been developed from numerical solution of the theoretical model. To validate the models and better understand surge and swab phenomena, experimental investigation was carried out using different fluids. Based on the investigation, the following conclusions can be made: The present model accurately predicts surge and swab pressures in comparison with other existing models that are only valid for Newtonian, power-law and Bingham plastic fluids; The model provides reasonable predictions when the diameter ratio is greater than 0.4 due to the use of narrow slot approximation; Rheology parameters such as yield stress, fluid behavior index and consistency index have substantial effects on surge and swab pressures; Tripping speeds and diameter ratio have substantial effects on surge & swab pressures;

75

In horizontal and inclined wells, pipe eccentricity can reduce significantly the value of surge and swab pressure.

For fluids with high yield stress, the influence of trip speed on surge and swab pressures diminishes considerably.

6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS This analysis is based on steady state flow assumption. It also uses narrow slot approximation to represent concentric annular geometry. In order to improve the accuracy of surge pressure predictions, the following effects must be incorporated in the development of surge and swab pressure models: Open-end pipe geometry; Transient (unsteady-state) flow; and Eccentricity effects.

76

REFERENCES

Bing, Z., Kaiji, Z., and Qiji, Y. 1995. Equations Help Calculate Surge and Swab Pressures in Inclined Well, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 93, pp 74-77 (18 September). Bourgoyne, A. T. 1986. Applied Drilling Engineering, SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 2, Richardson, Texas, pp. 167-171. Burkhardt, J. A. 1961. Wellbore Pressure Surges Produced by Pipe Movement, Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp 595-605 (June). Cannon, G. E. 1934. Changes in Hydrostatic Pressure due to Withdrawing Drillpipe from the Hole, API Drilling and Production Practices, pp 42-47. Cardwell, W. T. 1953. Pressure Changes in Drilling Wells Caused by Pipe Movement, API Drilling and Production Practices, pp 97-112. Chukwu, G. A. and Blick, E. F. 1989. Couette Flow of Non-Newtonian PowerLaw Fluids, Applied Simulation & Modeling, Acta Press, Anaheim, California (13-15 November). Clark, E. H. 1955. Bottom-Hole Pressure Surges while Running Pipes, Petroleum Engineer International, pp 68-96. Clark, E. H. 1956. A Graphic View of Pressure Surges and Lost Circulation, API Drilling & Production Practices, pp 424-438.

77

Clark, R. K. and Fontenot, J. E. 1974. Field Measurements of the Effects of Drillstring Velocity, Pump Speed, and Lost Circulation Material on Downhole Pressures, Paper SPE-4970, presented at the 49th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Houston, Texas (6-9 October). Crespo, F., Ahmed, R., and Saasen, A. 2010. Surge and Swab Pressure Predictions for Yield-Power-Law Drilling Fluids, Paper SPE-138938, presented at the SPE Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Lima, Peru (13 December). Filip, P. and David, J. 2003. Axial Couette-Poiseuille flow of Power-Law Viscoplastic Fluids in Concentric Annuli, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 40, pp. 111 119. Flumerfelt, R. W., Pierick, M. W., Cooper, S. L. and Bird, R. B. 1969. Generalized Plane Couette Flow of a non-Newtonian Fluid, Industrial and Chemical Engineering Fundamentals, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp 354-357 (May). Fontenot, J. E. and Clark, R. K. 1974. An Improved Method for Calculating Swab and Surge Pressures and Circulating Pressures in a Drilling Well. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, pp 451-462 (October). Fordham, E. J., Bittleston, S. H., and Tehrani, M. A. 1991. Viscoplastic Flow in Centered Annuli, Pipes and Slots, IEC Research, Vol. 29, pp 517-524.

78

Guillot, D. 1990. Rheology of Well Cementing Slurries, in E.B. Nelson, Ed., Well Cementing, Schlumberger, Houston, Texas, pp 4:0137. Guillot, D. and Dennis, J. D. 1988. Prediction of Laminar and Turbulent Friction Pressures of Cement Slurries in Pipes and Centered Annuli, Paper SPE18377, presented at the European Petroleum Conference, London, 18-19 October. Goins, W. C., Weichhert, J. P., Burba, J. L., Dawson, D. D., and Teplitz, A. J. 1951. Down-the-Hole Pressure Surges and their Effect on Loss of Circulation, API Drilling and Production Practices, pp 125-132. Haige, W. and Xisheng, L. 1996. Study on Surge Pressure for Yield-Pseudoplastic Fluid in a Concentric Annulus, Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp 15-23 (January). Hemphil, T., Campos, W. and Tehrani, M. A. 1993. Yield-Power-Law Model Accurately Predicts Mud Rheology, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 91, pp 4550. Horn, A. J. 1950. Well Blowouts in California Drilling Operations, Causes and Suggestions for Prevention, API Drilling and Production Practices, pp 112-128. Hussain, Q. E. and Sharif M. A. R. 1997. Viscoplastic fluid flow in irregular eccentric annuli due to axial motion of the inner pipe, The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 75, issue 6, pp. 10381045.

79

Kelessidis, V. C., Christidis, G., Makri, P., Hadjistamou, V., Tsamantaki, C., Mihalakis, A., Papanikolaou, C., and Foscolos, A. 2007. Gelation of Water-Bentonite Suspensions at High Temperatures and Rheological Control with Lignite Addition, Applied Clay Science, Vol. 36, pp 221 231. Kelessidis, V. C., Mihalakis, A., and Tsamantaki, C. 2005. Rheology and Rheological Parameter Determination of Bentonite-Water and BentoniteLignite-Water Mixtures at Low and High Temperatures, Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of Chem. Engg., Glasgow. Lal, M. 1983. Surge and Swab Modeling for Dynamic Pressures and Safe Trip Velocities, Paper SPE-11412, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana (20-23 February). Lin, S. H., and Hsu, C. C. 1980. Generalized Couette Flow of a Non-Newtonian Fluid in Annuli, Industrial & Chemical Engineering Fundamentals, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp 421-424. Lin, S. H., and Hsu, C. C. 1982. Response to Comments on Generalized Couette Flow of a Nan-Newtonian Fluid in Annuli, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol 21, pp 98-99. Lubinski, A., Hsu, F. H., and Nolte, K. G. 1977. Transient Pressure Surges Due to Pipe Movement in an Oil Well, Fevue de lInstitut Francais du Petrole, (May-June).

80

Macsporran, W. C. 1982. Comments on: Generalized Couette Flow of a NonNewtonian Fluid in Annuli, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol 21, pp 98. Maglione, R., and Ferrario, G. 1996. Equations Determine Flow States for YieldPseudoplastic Drilling Fluids, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 94, pp 6366. Malik, R., and Shenoy, U. V. 1991. Generalized Annular Couette Flow of a Power-Law Fluid, Industrial and Engineering Chemical Research, Vol. 30, pp 1950-1954. Matsuhisa, S., and Bird, B. 1965 Analytical and Numerical Solutions for Laminar Flow of the Non-Newtonian Ellis Fluid, A.I.Ch.E. Journal, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 588-595. Melrose, J. C., Savings, J. C., Foster, W. R., and Parish, E. R. 1958. A Practical Utilization of the Theory of Bingham Plastic Flow in Stationary Pipes and Annuli, Trans. AIME, pp 316-324. Merlo, A., Maglione, R., and Piatti, C. 1995. An Innovative Model for Drilling Fluid Hydraulics, Paper SPE-29259, presented at the Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conf., Kuala-Lumpur, Malaysia. Mitchell, R. F. 1988. Dynamic Surge/Swab Pressure Predictions, SPE Drilling Engineering Journal, pp 325-333 (September). Moore, P. L. 1965. Pressure Surges and their Effect on Hole Conditions, Oil and Gas Journal, pp 90 (13 December).

81

Moore, P. L. 1974. Drilling Practices Manual, Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa, pp 241-252. Ormsby, G. S. 1954. Calculation and Control of Mud Pressures in Drilling and Completion Operations, API Drilling and Production Practices, pp 44-55. Osorio, F. A. and Steffe, J. F. 1991. Evaluating Herschel-Bulkley Fluids with Back Extrusion (Annular Pumping) Technique, Rheological Acta, Vol. 30, pp 549-558. Robello, G., Sunthankar, A., McColping, G., Bern, P., and Flynn, T. 2003. Field Validation of Transient Swab-Surge Response with Real-Time Downhole Pressure Data, SPE Drilling & Completion, pp 280-283 (December). Rommetveit, R., Bjorkevoll, K. S., Gravdal, J. E., Goncalves, C. J. C., Lage, A. C., Campos, J., Aragao, A., Arcelloni, A., and Ohara, S. 2005. Ultradeepwater Hydraulics and Well-Control Tests with Extensive Instrumentation: Field Tests and Data Analysis, SPE Drilling and Completion, pp 251-257 (December). Rudolf, R., and Suryanarayana, P. 1998. Field Validation of Swab Effects While Tripping-In the Hole on Deep, High Temperature Wells, Paper SPE39395 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas (3-6 March). Rudolf, R., and Suryanarayana, P. 1997. Kicks Caused by Tripping-In the Hole on Deep, High Temperature Wells, Paper SPE-38055, presented at the 1997

82

Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (14-16 April). Schlichting, H. 1955. Boundary Layer Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 6062. Schuh, F. J. 1964. Computer Makes Surge-Pressure Calculations Useful, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 62, No. 31, pp 96-104. Singh, A., and Robello, S. 2009. Effect of Eccentricity and Rotation on Annular Frictional Pressure Losses with Standoff Devices, Paper SPE-124190, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana (4-7 October). Sun, Y., Li, Q., and Zhao, J. 2010. New Method of Predicting Surge Pressure Apply to Horizontal Well Based on Casson flow, Natural Science, Vol.2, No.12, pp 1494-1399. Thorsrud, A., Ekeli, ., Hilbig, N., Bergsvik, O., and Zamora, M. 2000.

Application of Novel Downhole Hydraulics Software to Drill Safely and Economically a North Sea High-Temperature/High-Pressure Exploration Well, Paper SPE-59189, presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana (2325 February). New Orleans, Louisiana, 2325 February 2000. Wadhwa, Y. D. 1966. Generalized Couette Flow of an Ellis Fluid, A.ICh.E. Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp 890-893.

83

Wagner, R. R., Halal, A. S., and Goodman, M. A. 1993. Surge Field Tests Highlight Dynamic Fluid Response, Paper SPE-25771, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam (23-25 February). Ward, C., and Beique, M. (2000). Pore and fracture pressure information from PWD data. AADE Drilling Technology Forum, February 912. White, Z., Zamora, M., and Svodoba, C. 1997. Downhole Measurements of Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluid in an Offshore Well Quantify Dynamic Pressure and Temperature Distributions, SPE Drilling and Completion, pp 149-157 (September). Yuan, W., and Chukwu, G. A. 1996. Unsteady Axial Laminar Couette Flow of Power-Law Fluids in a Concentric Annulus, Industrial & Engineering Chemical Research, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp 2039-2047.

84

NOMENCLATURE

= Constant = Geometric parameter = Geometric parameter = Bingham number = Hole/Casing diameter = Pipe diameter = Guiding rod diameter = friction factor = Slot Thickness = Consistency Index = Diameter ratio ( L = length of the wellbore n = Fluid behavior index N = Spring factor
85

= Flow rate = Modified total flow rate = Total flow rate = Radius = Dimensionless pressure gradient = Surge/Swab pressure Re = Modified Reynolds number = Generalized Reynolds number = Hole radius = Pipe radius = Fluid velocity in Region I = Fluid velocity in Region = Fluid velocity in Region III = Velocity component due to displacement = Downward pipe velocity

86

= Surface effective pipe velocity Volt = Voltage = Pipe velocity = Total fluid velocity = Upward pipe velocity = Velocity component due to viscous drag = Dimensionless velocity of Region I = Dimensionless velocity of Region II = Dimensionless velocity of Region III = Slot width = x-coordinate = Dimensionless x-coordinate = Lower limit of Region II = Upper limit of Region II = Dimensionless lower boundary limit of Region II

87

= Dimensionless upper boundary limit of Region II Greek Letters = Dimensional parameter = Dimensional parameter = Yield stress factor = Conductance number = Wall shear rate = Fluid density = Pi = Dimensionless pressure = Dimensionless plug thickness = Dial reading = Shear stress = Shear stress at the wall = Yield stress

88

= Shear rate

= Slot length/Wellbore depth = Pressure drop Subscripts h = Hole = Pipe = Total r = Radius

89

APPENDIX A
SCHUHS MODEL TO PREDICT SURGE AND SWAB PRESSURES FOR POWER-LAW FLUIDS In the annular space between the drillstring and the borehole, the fluid velocity is given by: (B-1) where is the velocity component due to fluid displacement given by:

(B-2)

and

is the velocity component due to viscous drag. This velocity depends on

whether the velocity in the annular section results in laminar flow or turbulent flow condition. If the flow is laminar, then the velocity due to viscous drag is given by: (
( )

(B-3)

For turbulent flow, the velocity due to viscous drag is calculated as: (B-4)

90

Applying the Dogde and Metzner (1959) method, a modified Reynolds number for the annular flow can be calculated with the following expression:
( * ) +

(B-5)

The friction factors are calculated using the expressions: For (laminar flow):

(B-6)

For * For (

( ) *
(

(fully developed turbulent flow): ) (


)

+ +( )

(B-7)

) (transitional flow):

(B-8)

where regime (

is the friction factor for Reynolds Number at the end of the laminar flow ) and is the friction factor for Reynolds Number ). The

at the beginning of the turbulent flow regime (

friction factor must be calculated by trial and error using Eqn. (B-7). Then, the surge/swab pressure is:

91

(B-9)

92

APPENDIX B
BURKHARDTS MODEL TO PREDICT SURGE AND SWAB PRESSURESFOR BINGHAM PLASTIC FLUIDS According to Melrose et al (1958) the Bingham number and the conductance number can be obtained from the expressions:
( )

(C-5)

(C-6)

The friction factor is calculated as follows: For (laminar flow):

(C-7)

where the Reynolds number is given by:


( )

(C-9)

Where For

is calculated from Eqn. (B-1) (turbulent flow): [ ( ) ]

(C-8)

93

Eqns. (C-6) and (C-8) must be calculated by trial and error. Finally, the friction factor is used to obtain the surge/swab pressure as given by:

(C-10)

94

APPENDIX C
ROTATIONAL VISCOMETER MEASUREMENTS OF TEST FLUIDS
Table D.1: Fann model 35 (#1/5 spring) measurements for light mineral oil
N (rpm) 3 6 30 60 90 100 180 200 300 600 (reading) 0.3 1.1 2.6 5.1 7.6 8.3 15.0 16.4 24.4 47.8 (1/sec) 5.1 10.2 51.1 102.2 153.3 170.3 306.5 340.6 510.9 1021.8 (lbf/100 ft^2) 0.32 1.17 2.77 5.44 8.10 8.85 15.99 17.48 26.01 50.95

Table D.2: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for mineral oil
N (rpm) 3 6 100 200 300 (reading) 1.8 3.8 62.5 135.5 206.0 (1/sec) 5.1 10.2 170.3 340.6 510.9 (lbf/100 ft^2) 1.87 4.00 66.63 144.44 219.60

95

Table D.3: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 1.0% PAC
N (rpm) 3 6 100 200 300 600 (reading) 10.0 17.5 95.0 129.0 152.0 194.0 (1/sec) 5.1 10.2 170.3 340.6 510.9 1021.8 (lbf/100 ft^2) 10.66 18.66 101.27 137.51 162.03 206.80

Table D.4: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 0.75% PAC
N (rpm) 3 6 100 200 300 600 (reading) 3.5 7.0 51.0 73.5 89.0 119.0 (1/sec) 5.1 10.2 170.3 340.6 510.9 1021.8 (lbf/100 ft^2) 3.73 7.46 54.37 78.35 94.87 126.85

Table D.5: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 0.56% PAC
N (rpm) 3 6 100 200 300 600 (reading) 1.0 2.5 25.5 40.0 50.5 72.0 (1/sec) 5.1 10.2 170.3 340.6 510.9 1021.8 (lbf/100 ft^2) 1.07 2.67 27.18 42.64 53.83 76.75

96

Table D.6: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for mix 0.28% + 0.22% Xanthan Gum
N (rpm) 3 6 100 200 300 600 (reading) 3.5 4.8 19.5 28.5 35.0 48.0 (1/sec) 5.1 10.2 170.3 340.6 510.9 1021.8 (lbf/100 ft^2) 3.73 5.06 20.79 30.38 37.31 51.17

Table D.7: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 1.0% Xanthan Gum
N (rpm) 3 6 100 200 300 600 (reading) 39.0 42.5 59.0 67.5 75.0 92.0 (1/sec) 5.1 10.2 170.3 340.6 510.9 1021.8 (lbf/100 ft^2) 41.57 45.31 62.89 71.96 79.95 98.07

Table D.8: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 0.67% Xanthan Gum
N (rpm) 3 6 100 200 300 600 (reading) 19.0 21.0 31.0 38.0 43.0 53.0 (1/sec) 5.1 10.2 170.3 340.6 510.9 1021.8 (lbf/100 ft^2) 20.25 22.39 33.05 40.51 45.84 56.50

97

Table D.9: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 0.44% Xanthan Gum
N (rpm) 3 6 100 200 300 600 (reading) 8.0 9.5 17.0 21.0 25.0 32.5 g (1/sec) 5.1 10.2 170.3 340.6 510.9 1021.8 (lbf/100 ft^2) 8.53 10.13 18.12 22.39 26.65 34.65

98

APPENDIX D
SURGE PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS
Table E.1: Surge pressure gradient readings for mineral oil
Vp ft/s 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 P/L inHO/ft 1.70 2.95 4.40 5.80 7.00 P/L psi/ft 0.0613 0.1064 0.1587 0.2093 0.2526

Table E.2: Surge pressure gradient readings for light mineral oil
Vp ft/s 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 P/L inHO/ft 0.29 0.38 0.46 0.56 P/L psi/ft 0.0207 0.0271 0.0334 0.0406

Table E.3: Surge pressure gradient readings for 1.0% PAC


Vp ft/s 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 P/L inHO/ft 4.80 7.20 9.00 10.60 11.20 12.20 P/L psi/ft 0.1732 0.2598 0.3247 0.3824 0.4041 0.4402

99

Table E.4: Surge pressure gradient readings for 0.75% PAC


Vp ft/s 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 P/L inHO/ft 2.30 3.40 4.40 5.30 5.80 6.50 P/L psi/ft 0.0830 0.1227 0.1587 0.1912 0.2093 0.2345

Table E.5: Surge pressure gradient readings for 0.56% PAC


Vp ft/s 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 P/L inHO/ft 1.30 1.80 2.40 2.80 3.20 3.60 3.80 P/L psi/ft 0.0469 0.0649 0.0866 0.1010 0.1155 0.1299 0.1371

Table E.6: Surge pressure gradient readings for mix 0.28% + 0.22% Xanthan Gum
Vp ft/s 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 P/L inHO/ft 1.30 1.80 2.20 2.50 2.70 2.90 P/L psi/ft 0.0469 0.0649 0.0794 0.0902 0.0974 0.1046

100

Table E.7: Surge pressure gradient readings for 1.0% Xanthan Gum
Vp ft/s 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 P/L inHO/ft 6.15 6.90 7.10 7.60 7.80 P/L psi/ft 0.2219 0.2489 0.2562 0.2742 0.2814

Table E.8: Surge pressure gradient readings for 0.67% Xanthan Gum
Vp ft/s 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 P/L inHO/ft 3.40 3.60 4.00 4.20 4.25 P/L psi/ft 0.1227 0.1299 0.1443 0.1515 0.1533

Table E.9: Surge pressure gradient readings for 0.44% Xanthan Gum
Vp ft/s 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 P/L inHO/ft 1.90 2.20 2.35 2.50 2.60 P/L psi/ft 0.0685 0.0794 0.0848 0.0902 0.0938

101

APPENDIX E
SURGE AND SWAB PRESSURES IN CONCENTRIC ANNULAR GEOMETRY WITH NEWTONIAN FLUIDS For a concentric annular, the velocity profile is expressed as (Bourgoyne, 1986):

(A-1) Applying the boundary conditions ( ( ) equations are obtained to determine the values of
( ( ) ) ( )

and

( )

), the following

and and

(A-2)

( (

) ) ( )

(A-3)

Then, the flow rate is obtained upon integration of the of the velocity profile: {
( )

+ (A-4)

For closed pipe geometry, the flow rate is equal to the rate at which the fluid is being displaced by the inner pipe. Hence:

102

(A-5)

The surge and swab pressure is obtained by solving simultaneously Eqns. (A-2), (A-3), (A-4) and (A-5) numerically for a given combination of annular geometry and fluid rheology.

103