SPE/lADC 25712
Hard or Soft Shut-In: Which Is the Best Approach?
S.1. Jardine, Sedco Forex/Schlumberger; A.B. Johnson, Schlumberger Cambridge Research;
and D.B. White and William Stibbs, Sedco Forex/Schlumberg8r
Thb ~ w pmpmd for pmaonlntion M the 1S93 SPE/lAOC Dfllllw Coalefance held in Amsterdam 23-25 Februaw 1993.
Ilmabl, n Pmanm, - fW n.cw$mlti twikcl MV rxmitkm of tha WE or WOC, ltmk oltkml.
ABSTRACT
A concern relating to operational procedures
following detection of a kick is whether closure of
the blow-out preventer (BOP) with the choke valve
shut, termed a “hard” shut-in, is likely to cause
formation damage due to generation of a pressure
pulse in the well-bore fluid. This has prompted some
operators to opt for a “soft” shut-in whereby the
choke valve is left open at closure of the BOP. The
delay in closing the choke to obtain complete shut-in
of the well, however, results in additional influx
from the formation.
This paper describes a series of tests which have
been conducted using a full-scale drilling rig and test
well equipped with complete surface instrumentation
and including downhole pressure measurements to
resolve the hard or soft shut-in question. In this
way quantitative downhole pressure measurements in
a realistic well-bore environment were obtained for
comparison with theoretical predictions made from
analysis of the pressure wave propagation in the
well.
Test results and theoretical analysis are presented to
describe the issues relating to choice of shut-in
procedure. Agreement between experiment and
theory shows that the formation experiences
negligible additional pressure when using a hard
References anti Illustrations at end of pap=
359
I
w nwmbefs, Paows c.f-&cnted w SPE/lADC rneelimasam sibiect to nublkatkm i
shut-in procedure and that the additional influx and
well-bore pressures associated with the soft shut-in
are avoided.
INTRODUCTION
The operational procedures following the detection of
a kick are of key importance for the safety of
personnel and rig. For many years drilling
contractors and operators have debated the correct
method for shutting-in a kicking well. Sometimes
this has lead to confusion amongst drilling crews at
the rig site where it is not uncommon to find drilling
contractors and operators preferring differing
methods of shut-in.
Consequently contractors and operators have
predefine procedures for dealing with a kick and all
drillers are instructed in their use with the two
principal methods being either to hard shut-in or soft
shut-in the well. Nevertheless certain issues remain a
source of debate. One such concern is whether the
more rapid containment of the well which is possible
wi!.hthe choke manifold closed to the well-bore may
result in a pressure pulse or “water hammer” which
could lead to an underground blowout [1]. This
concern has prompted some operators to opt for a
soft shut-in whereby the choke manifold is left open
at the closure of the BOP. The delay in closing the
chc~ke to obtain complete shut-in of the well
however, leads to additional influx, higher shut-in
pressures and in some cases confusion in obtaining
2 HARQ OR SOFf’ SHUT-IN : WHICH IS THE BEST APPROACH ? ~PE 25712
accurate anmdus pressure readings. In addition there 255 kPa (37 psi). A further pressure pulse would,
are complexities in physically performing the initial however, be produced on closure of the choke.
shut-in procedure which differ from one method to
the other. Simplifying the task minimises the risk of
human error. This, coupled with the primary concern In reality BOPS do not close instantly. If the effective
for the sal’etyof personnel and rig, have encouraged closure time is larger than the pressure wave round
many opexators and contractors to elect for the hard trip in the well, then theoretical considerations [2]
shut-in procedure as their well control policy for show that the expected maximum pulse amplitude is
shutting in a well. given approximately by the relation:

To try and resolve the hard or soft shut-in issue, a AP~= = APln, & . .. ...... ... ... .. ... ... .. .... .. .. ..(2)
series of tests have been conducted using a 1430m
test well and full-scale drilling rig equipped with
complete surface instrumentation as well as .
downhole temperature and pressure measurements. where APlm is the maximum pressure for
The shut-in tests formed part of a suite of instantaneous BOP closure as calculated using
experiments to obtain accurate and detailed data for equation (1), tr is the pressure wave round-trip time
kick simulators which are currently under (i.e. the time taken for the pressure wave to travel
development. Consequently it was important that down the well, reflect at the bottom and travel back
experimental conditions were as close to true to surface) and Tc is the effective BOP closure time.
operational conditions as possible. Test nxults along
with supporting theory are presented to give
improved understanding of the issues involved. Effect of BOP closure time

WATER HAMMER In practice equation (2) signifies that for BOP closure
times greater than the pressure wave round trip time,
the water hammer pulse amplitude is reduced due to
“Water hammer” is a general term describing pressure reduction caused by the upward traveling
pressure wave generation and propagation through wave, The effective BOP closure time is defined as
liquids in pipes and pipe networks. It can be the time taken from the start of pressu~ build at the
observed in domestic water systems, where if a valve BOP until a seal is formed at the drillpipe. For the
or tap is closed rapidly a bang can be heard from the experiments described in this paper, there was
pipes throughout the entire system. estimated to be a measurable pressure drop at the
BOP for 5 seconds while the pressure rise in the
If the BOP on a flowing well is closed rapidly then a hydraulic system lasted for approximately 10
pressure wave is produced and this propagates down seconds. The effective estimated closure time for
the well. In this section we calculate the likely these tests was therefore taken to be 5 seconds. In
pressure changes during a hard and soft shut-in. If the case above, for a 1400 m well, this would reduce
the BOP closes instantly and the flow stops the 120 psi pressure pulse to 50 psi.
completely the pressure rise, AP, is:
Provided that the effective BOP closure time exceeds
the traveling wave round trip time, there is expected
AP = f)CU, .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . (1) m be significant reduction in the pressure wave
amplitude due to the upwards reflected pressure
- where p is the mud density, c the wave speed wave for most field situations. Typical field annular
preventers take 30-60 seconds for pressure build in
through the mud and u, the initial mud velocity. the hydraulic system so 10 seconds is taken to be a
The derivation of this equation is discussed in the conservative estimate for “Tc”. Using a pressure
appendix and illustrated in Figure 1, For a typical wave velocity of 1350 m/s, as derived in the
kick with an influx rate of 0.014 m 3/s (5.5 Bbl/min) appendix, indicates that equation (2) is valid for hole
in 9~in casing his produces a pressure wave of depths up to 6700 m.
amplitude 827 kPa (120 psi). If the choke remains
open and fluid continues to tlow after the BOP is Although normally there is a significant reduction in
shut, the pressure jump is reduced. The size of the water hammer pressure due to the presence of an
reduction is a function of the choke line length, upward retlected pressure wave as in the tests
diameter and geometry. For the case of a 50 m long, described in this paper, it is possible to conceive of a
0.077m diameter line the pmsure wave is reduced to BOP closure where the effective inc~ase in pressure
. .
SPE 25712 S.1. JARDINE, A.B. JOHNSON, D.B. WHITE AND W. STIBBS
drop occurs on a short time scale compared to the
wave round-trip time. In such a case, a water-
hammer pulse will be produced of amplitude given
by equation (1); there behg no significant attenuation
as described by equation (2). For this situation,
however, there is still no benefit in using a soft shut-
in as the water-hammer pulse will then merely be
delayed until the choke valve is closed as eflective
closure of the choke is normally at least as rapid as
closure of the BOP,
IMPLICATIONS OF SHUT-IN METHOD
ON PIT GAIN AND CHOKE PRESSURE
Use of a soft rather than a hard shut-in can have
significant impact on the final volume of influx and
subsequent casing “shoe” pressures. A gas kick
simulator [3] was used to investigate the effect on the
influx and subsequent annulus pressure for a change
in the shut-in procedure from soft to hard. A 3048 m
(10,000 ft) well was modeled with the scenario of
drilling ahead to the 9 5/8 in (0.244 m) casing point
when an overpressured formation was entered. The
full well details used by the simulator are given in
Table 1.
The kick detection threshold was set at 10 bbls (1.6
m 3) for both the soft and hard shut-ins, At kick
detection both shut-ins followed the same pump
ramp down routine and then a short flow check.
After the flow check the two processes start m differ
as the HCR valves (failsafes) have to be opened prior
to actuating the annular preventer in the soft shut-in,
but both actions am carried out concurrently in the
hard shut-in. The time break downs are in Table 2.
The total time figures show that the extra time taken
by the soft shut-in route is estimated to he 50
seconds, although this may be greater in some cases.
Two separate model runs were carried out with the
same well and rig details but with the time break
downs being changed from one run to the next. The
model estimates both the pit gain and the well-bore
pressures during the kick, after the well hits been
closed in and during the well control phase. The
results for the pit gain and for the choke line pressure
were investigated and plotted in Figure 2. The soft
shut-in run can be seen to have produced a higher pit
gain and a higher choke line pressure than the hard
shut-in. The pit gain was 1.8 bbl (0.3 m~) or 12.5%
more for the soft shut-in than for the hard shut-in.
The maximum choke line pressure, whilst the well
was shut in for a 15 minute period, was 60 psi or
10% higher for the soft shut-in, Both of these
differences would be further increased if there were
either a greater time difference between the two
methods or a longer delay in detecting the kick. The
361
3
later the kick is detected the more rapidly the well is
flowing and the time delay between the two methods
would lead to larger pit gain and pressure
differences. A soft shut-in therefore leads to higher
pressures during shut-in and during the subsequent
well control operation.
EXPERIMENTAL DESCRIPTION
The 1430m experimental test well which was used
for the experimental test of shut-in procedure is
described in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 3. The
outer annulus contained lin (0.0254m) coiled tubing
to allow nitrogen injection and to give access to
cabling for pressure and temperature sensors at the
bottom and mid-point of the well. The usual rig
measurements of surface pressures and pit gain were
recorded. A unique feature of the experiments was
the inclusion of the following downhole
measurements:
(1) Shoe presswe and temperature at 708m.
(2) Bit presstue and temperature at 1430m.
Test Procedure
The real influx flow-rate during a kick would be
described by the behaviour of the producing
formation. To simulate the expected behaviour of a
formation during the kick tests, the nitrogen injection
rate at surface was controlled in a manner to produce
the expected influx behaviour downhole. For the
tests described here, the formation was modeled to
have permeability “K” of 100mD (9.87E-14 mz) and
overpressure of 200psi (1.38 MPa). The downhole
flow-rates in the coiled tubing were related to the
imposed surface flow-rates using a numerical
simulator which modeled the injection gas dynamic
behaviour and frictional loss m the coiled tubing.
This enabled predefine tlow schedules for the
nitrogen injection to be calculated.
For both the hard and soft shut-in experiments, the
surface nitrogen pressure was increased using the
predefine injection schedule so as to introduce 10
bbl (1.6 m~) of nitrogen at the bottom of the well,
The annular preventer was then closed and the
nitrogen flow-rate was brought to zero at an
exponential decay rate to simulate continued flow
from the formation until this is overcome by the
incwase in bottom hole pressure after shut-in.
For each test, the following procedure was carried
out :

4 HARD OR SOFT SHUT-IN: WHICH IS THE BEST APPROACH?
(1) Normal circulation of around 400 gpm was
established.
(2) Nitrogen injection was ramped according to the
predefine flow schedule.
(3) After 10 bbls (1.6 m~) influx, pumping was
stopped and pipe joints were moved clear of the
BOP.
(4) The BOP was closed.
(5) After 5 seconds, the nitrogen flow-rate was
ramped down according to the predefine schedule.
For the soft shut-in case, the choke was still open at
this point resulting in reduced pressw isation of the
well-bore.
Pumps were started to circulate out the kick ajer the
shut-in period analysed in this report.
. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Surface measurements
Pressures measured at the surface casing for both the
hard and soft shut-in are shown in Figure 4(a) and
on an expanded time scale in Figure 4(b). The casing
shoe and bit pressures corresponding to the time
range shown in Figure 4(a) are plotted in Figures
5(a) and 5(b).
In Figure 4(a) the BOP closure point is clearly
defined by the rapid pressure rise just before 125
seconds. With the expanded time scale shown in
Figure 4(b), an initial pressure pulse is evident of
amplitude 57 psi (390 kPa) in the hard shut-in case
and about 20 psi (138 kPa) in the soft shut-in case.
This is the water hammer effect and occurs on a
much shorter time scale than the casing pressure
increase associated with shutting in the kick. This
allows the two effects to be separiited in the data and
the relative importance of the two pressure incrcoses
to be accumtel y evaluated. For the hard shut-in case,
it takes around 60 seconds for the pressure incrtmse
due to the continued influx to stabilise I’cv-minga
short plateau in the pressure measurement ti m 210
to 230 seconds. A more gradual pressure increase
then results due to migration of gas in the annulus.
The water hammer peak pressu~ pulse amplitude is
clear]y less than the pressure build as the bottom hole
pressure stabilises to the formation pressure. The
water-hammer pulse width, measured at half the
maximum value, is about 2.7 seconds, which is in
agreement with the calculated pressure wove round-
362
.
SPE 25712
trip time. This confirms that the generatic n of the
pressure pulse is dominated by the upward traveling
wave arid the amplitude can be expected to be
reduced as described by equation (2).
For the soft shut-in case shown as a dashed line in
Figures 4(a) and 4(b), therv is only a limlted build-up
in pressure immediately after the BOP closure, the
exact value of this being determined by the choke
constriction. The offset between the hard and soft
shut-in curves after the choke is closed stays
reasonably constant after 250 seconds when further
pressure increases result only from the migration of
the gas in the annulus. This offset arises from the
fact that the tests were intended to simulate flow from
a formation using a nitrogen injection schedule which
assumed that the well was shut-in soon after the
pumps were stopped. In the soft shut-in case,
however, the choke was not closed until about 100
seconds after the injection had started so that the flow
of nitrogen had stopped. by the time the well was
shut-in. This deficiency in the modeling of the flow
from the formation in the soft shut-in case produces
the offset between the curves after shut-in shown in
Figure 4 but has no effect on the water-hammer
analysis presented hem.
Downhole measurements
The downhole pressure measurements corresponding
to those in Figure 4(a) are shown for the shoe (708
m) and for the bit (1430 m) in Figures 5(a) and 5(b)
respective] y. The features are similar to the surface
casing measurements with an offset due to the
hydrostatic head at the appropriate depth. However
the following features are noted:
(1) Initially a gradual drop in the pressures
measured at the bit is evident in Figure 5(b) due to
reduction in hydrostatic head as gas enters the
annulus.
(2) There is a drop in bottom hole pressure due to
loss of circulating pressure around 115 seconds
when the pumps are shut down . As expected from
the relative depths of the measurements, the drop at
the shoe is approximately half that at the bit, as seen
by compiuing Figures 5(a) and 5(b).
(3) The water hammer pulse is evident in Figure 5(a)
as a slight shoulder on the shut-in pressure ramp at
130 seconds. The shoulder is about 36 psi (248 kPa)
in amplitude and is smaller than the surface
measurement due to dispersion effec!s in the annular
!luid. Note that the shoulder is a small perturbation
. .
SPE 25712 S.1. JARDINE, A.B. JOHNSON, D.B. WHITE AND W. STIBBS
on the 150 psi (1.03 MPa) pressure rise associated
with stabilisation of bottom hole pressure.
Detailed calculations for the expected water hammer
pulse behaviour are presented in the appendix.
Analysis of results
For the test well, the pressure wave round-trip time
“Tr “ is calculated to be 2.1 seconds in the appendix
using a ctiiefully derived result for the expected
pressure wave velocity of 1350 m/s. A small BOP
unit was used foy the tests, for which effective BOP
closure was estimated to be 5 seconds. Applying
equation (2), the maximum pressure rise for the hard
shut-in case in the 1430m well is then reduced from
827 kPa (120 psi) to 345 kPa (50 psi), and for the
soft case from 372 kPa (54 psi) to 110 kPa (16 psi).
A comparison between the theoretical and
experimental results is made in Table 4 and it can be
seen that there is good agreement. The measured
difference in the water hammer pulse amplitude
between hard and soft shut-ins at surface was 37 psi
(255 kPa) , for an estimated effective annular
preventer closure time of 5 seconds. The hard shut-in
theoretical pulse amplitude was also in good
agreement with that measured experimentally and the
pulse width confirmed that the pressure pulse is
dominated by the pressure wave round-trip time in
the borehole.
When the effective preventer closure tiie exceeds the
pressure wave round trip for the well, as is the case
in most field situations, the difference between hard
and soft shut-in procedures produces a negligible
effect downhole and only a small effect at surface.
Neither the actual measured pressure increases nor
the theoretical pressures increases due to the water
hammer effect can be expected to produce any
damage to the well. For very rapid closure times, the
use of a soft shut-in is expected to merely delay the
water hammer pulse until the rapid effective closure
of the choke valve.
CONCLUSIONS
An experimental and theoretical study has been made
of the effect of shut-in procedure on the water
hammer pressure pulse. During shut-in tests this was
measured both in the surface casing and downhole at
the casing shoe and at the bit. The following points
regarding the water-hammer pulse amplitudes are
noted:
363
5
● They am much smaller than the stabilised shut-in
pressures when the influx ceases.
. In both cases the pressure pulse amplitude
produced by the water hammer effect is lower than
the pressure increase of 60 psi (414 kPa) associated
with the additional influx when using the soft shut-in
procedure in the simulated kick example. The
pressure increase due to the additional influx is more
serious as it can increase an already high value
whereas the pressure pulse due to the water-hammer
effect occurs before there is significant pressure build
in the annulus.
. Downhole measurements show a significantly
reduced pressure pulse amplitude at the shoe and at
the bit most probably due to dispersion effects in the
well-bore.
. Agreement between theory and experiment is good
confirming that pressure pulse amplitudes are
generally insignificant compared to other factors.
Given the results of the experiment the arguments
formeriy given against using the hard shut-in
procedure appear no longer to be valid. However,
the arguments against using the soft shut-in are
significant. The additional influx into the well-bore
can easily lead to increases in casing pressure which
exceed the amplitude of the water hammer pulse. In
addition there is the additional risk of human error
associated with the closing and opening of the
valves. Therefore in the interests of safety for
personnel, rig equipment and the V’~11-borethe hard
shut-in is the preferred procedure. This implies that
the well will be initially closed in with the annular
preventer’and while in the drilling mode the manual
~alves either upstream or downstream of the choke
will be maintained in the closed position.
NOMENCLATURE
a Inner radius
A Flowing area
U Change of flowing area
b Outer radius
Sound speed
c
d Pipe diameter
Friction factor
f
K Bulk modulus
1 Pipe length
nh Dynamic head loss in choke line
 .

6 HARD OR SOFI’ SHUT-IN : WHICH IS THE BEST APPROACH? SPE 25712

Pi Inner pressure
[4] Massey, B. S., “Mechanics of Fluids”, Van
P. Outer pressute Nostrand Reinhold, 1989.
AP Pressure rise across shock
r Radius [5] Timoshenko, S.P., and Goodier, J,N,, “Theory
u, Initial velocity of Elasticity”, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1970.
%? Velocity after wave
U3 Velocity after wave in choke line APPENDIX A : WATER-HAMMER

& Radial strain In this section we make a quantitative analysis of

water hammer. We discuss the amplitude of the
P Mud density pressure waves, together with the effects of bypass
Ap Mud density change tlow and slow, rather than rapid, valve closure.
Massey [4] describes the water hammer process in
O@ Hoop stress greater detail.
or Radial stress
v Poissons ratio Pressure Wave Propagation

Subscripts If we consider the system shown in Figure [1] with

Css Casing
pip Drill pipe
Chk Choke line
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the numerous
contrihmm who helped to make these tests possible.
These include personnel from Sedco Forex
Engineering and North Sea Region in collaboration
with Schlumberger Cambridge Research, Dowell
Schlumberger and Anadrill Engineering. A special
mention goes to Gordon Lindsay, who performed
the kick simulator analysis described in the paper.
REFERENCES
[1] Grace, R., “Good Shut-in Procedures Optimize
Pressure Control”, Oil & Gas Journal, Aug8,
fluid flowing at a velocity q, through an open valve.
If the valve closes rapidly, a pressure wave
propagates back down the pipe at velocity c relative
to the original flow. This fluid pressure rises by Ap
vthe fluid density by Ap and the pipe area incmses
by AA. The flow velocity falls to ~ and generates a
flow through the bypass line with velocity u,. We
consider a control volume around the pressure wave
with a coordinate sytem moving with the wave.
Applying continuity across the wave we can write:
pAc=(p+Ap)(A +AA)(c- ul+uz) ..... ........[Al]
We also apply a momentum balance across the
control volume:
pA +pAc2 = (p + Ap)(A + ~)
. ..............[A2]
+(P +Ap)(A +AA)(C ‘lil +U~)2

1983, pp 130-131.
AA cc A we can calculate the pressure rise across
[21
. . Dau~hertv. R.L.. Franzini. J.B. and Finnemore. the wave as:
E.~., “~luid Mechanics with Engineering
# ~ations”, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
! . AP = PC(UI - U2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , [A3]

[3] White, D.B. and Walton, I.C.: “A Computer Wave Speed Calculation
Model for Kicks in Water- and Oil-Based
Muds,” SPE/IADC 19975, presented at the
W~ADC Drilling Conference, Houston, To calculate AP we must know the wavt?
. propagation speed along the pipe, c. This is a

3s4
 ●

SPE 25712 S.1. JARDINE, A.B. JOHNSON, D.B. WkMTEAND W. STIBBS 7

function of the compressibility of the drilling mud
and the stiffness of the casing string and drill pipe.
Here we calculate a typical wave propagation 0.12* 10-’0 <~<0.27* 10-10Pail.,.,,,.., .....[A6]
velocity. If we divide [Al] by pA and substitute for AP
u, -~ we find: ,
We make the same analysis for the drill pipe, and
show that for a typical 5 in drill pipe with a 4% in ID
the stiffness is approximately: -

~s +.27* lo-lopa”l .. .... .. ... ... ...... ..... .. .[A7:

The bulk modulus for a liquid, K, is defined as: AP

Ap AP From the annular geometry we know that

—=— ...... ........ .. ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ..... .[A5]
PK
A ‘c’”- Api ~
—-
:-2 “’AT A..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . [A8]
The bulk modulus of drilling mud is dominated by
Cas- A,ip
the compmsibility of the liquid phase. For a typical
water based drilling mud with a 10% solids volume
fraction the bulk modulus can be calculated So for a typical annular geometry
as K=2.2GPa.
0.65*10-10 <~< Lll*lO-10 I Pa.
To calculate the change in annular area, &4, we
must consider expansion of the casing and
contraction of the drill string. Timoshenko [5] We assume at this point that AP is small compared
showed that for a cylindrical shell of inner and outer with K, hence ~<el. Also we assume that
radii a and 6, with internal and external pressures
Pi and p, the radial and hoop stresses at some $<<1. Rearranging equation [A4] and removing
radius, r, can be expressed as: lower order terms we show tha~

pia2 - pob2 1

/(
c= . ... ..... ... .. .... .. ...... ..... ..[A9]
b2 -02 lAA
+ pia2 - pob2
b2 -02
. . . . . . . . ...[A6]
p Z+AAP -)
For a water based mud of density,
The radial displacement of the casing is calculated p = 1018.5 Kg/m3, in this geometry we calculate a
from se = Ar/r and for plain strain: wave speed in the range 1320< c e 1370m/s, If the
pipe and casing are assumed rigid the wave speed is
c = 1470 m/s. The well-bore and drillpipe rigidity
CO=;[OO(l-V2)-C,V( l+V)] .. ................[A7] make a significant cmection to the wave speed in the
system. For the purpose of the further analysis we
consider that the wave speed is c = 1350m/s.
We assume that the casing string is concentric in the
hole and that the cement has no gas channeling.
Then we can apply equations [A6] and [A7] for the Rapidly Closing Vaive - No Bypass
interfaces between the mud and the casing, the casing
and the cement, and the cement and formation and Considering a rapidly closing valve in a rigid pipe
thereby caiculate an effective stiffness for the casing with no bypass flow the pressure calculation is
string. A similar approach can be Men for a 9X in simple. Since there is no bypass U2= O, we know
casing tilde a 13%in string, The result is that for a the mud density and the sound speed. A typical
typical 9)( in casing string the well-bore stiffness formation influx rate is 0.014 m 3/s (5.5 Bbl/min)
ties in the range: which gives an initial velocity

8 tiARD oR son SHUT-IN: WHICH Is THE. BEST AppROACH ?
u, = 0.6 m/s (1.97 ft/s). Using equation [A3] we
can show that for the case considered here
AP = 827 kPa, (120 psi).
Rapidly Closing Valve - With Bypass
The choke line is short relative to the well depth, so
we neglect the acceleration of the fluids in the line
and only consider the frictional pressure drop. It
exhausts through a fully open choke to atmospheric
pressure. The pressuw rise across the pressure wave
propagating down the well is the same as the
frictional pressure drop down the choke line, hence:
AP = 4flchk
—+
1
nh :pu3 2
..... ... .. ... ... .......... [A1O]
() dClti
lcti and dc~ are the bypass line length and diameter
respectively. f is the friction factor, we assume the
flow is turbulent and .f = 0.04. n,, is the number of
dynamic head lost due to bends and the exit geometry
of the choke line, in this case nh =6. We can apply
continuity across the contraction and show:
U2 (
46
- d;Q )d=U3 : . ......... ..... ... .............[Ali]
Substituting equations [A1O]and [Al 1] into [A3] we
find a quadratic equation in AP:
-pcu, = o
w
.
SPE25712
Solving [A12] gives AP = 255 kPa (37 psi).
Slowly Closing Valve
The previous analysis assumed that the BOP closed
instantaneously, we know that this is not the case.
The critical period in pressure wave modeling is the
round trip time for a pressure wave to reach the
bottom of the well and its reflection to return to the
surface. In the case of the well considered here this
time is tr =2. ls . We consider the BOP closure
time to be TC=5. Os, The amplitude of the pressure
rise during valve closure is reduced as the positive
pressure waves propagating down the well are
reflected back up the well as negative waves, these
reduce the anplitude of the pressure step. Daugherty
et al, [2] show that for a slow closing valve the
maximum pressure rise, APnUX,coujd be calculated
from:
APttta,v= APin~~ . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [A13]
APiti, is the pressure rise for instantaneous valve
closure.
We apply this model to the pressure changes
calculated above for the valve closures with and
without bypass. We find that for a hard shut-in the
predicted pressure rise would be
AP,n,X= 372 kPa (54 psi), while for the soft shut-
in it would be APnWX = 110 kPa (16 psi).
.

WE25712

Table 1: WelI details used for kick simulation.

I Well G eometry 1

Table 2: Time break-down used for kick simulation.

kvent ShUt-irl Comment

soft
Kick Detection @ 10bbl
Stop Pumps 30 sees 30 sees 750 gpm to Ogpm at 25 gpmls
Flow Check 30 sees 30 sees Well is flowing
Open HCR ( failsafes ) 20 sees - Opened concurrently with annular
closing in hard shut=in
Close Annular 45 sees 45 sees
Close Choke 30 sees Choke pre=set to closed position

lTotal Time 12 min 35 sees] 1 min 45 sees lNet difference= 50 seconds. I

367
Table 3: Well and influx details for water-hammer experiment

Well Depth
Casing Shoe depth 708 m 2322 ft
Casing ID 0.216 m 8.5 in
Casing OD 0.244 m 9.625 in
Drill Pipe ID 0.108 m 4.25 in
Drill Pipe OD 0.127 m 5 in
Choke Length 50 m 165 ft
Choke Line ID 0.077 m 3 in
Choke Line Geometry 5 x 90 deg bends
Mud 1018 8.5 lb/gal
Density Kg/ins
Mud Solids Volume Fraction 10% -
Influx Rate ).01 4 m3/s 5.5 bbl/min
Mud velocity at shut-in 0.6 m/s
J__ 1.97 ft/sec

Table 4: Measured and predicted water-hammer pressures.

Premm s hut-in Difference

Sott Hard (Hard - Soft)
Surface predicted 16 pSi 50 psi 34 psi
Surfaco maawad 20 psi 57 psi 37 psi

Shoe predicted 16 psi 50 psi 34 psi

Shea measure . 36 psi .
.,.

? ? T P 7 - $)
!
.. . . . .. . ..-...-,,,
,.,.
.,,’-, ,’ ...-.,.., .,,’, . x

,,,
. ,.,,
”,,,,,,,. ,,
,,,.
,,. ,,,,
,,,,
,.. .,. .~

+
ii-
—
In

. .

-+
~

u)
.. ...
...,... .........-
—- ...”
....-------- ..
u
I
i
o
I
~ 90 * e
gg~~l
1 ~

R
(l(w)w!) WI

309
 Time (seconds)

~’:
150
(b)
\Vater-hamrne=r
puls
~ 100 Hard
u BOP
s closed I
; 50’ ..-
Sort .--------- —----
-..—-
#----~-
1 . ,’ . . .
0
110 120 1.X) 140 1.S)

Expanded wak (seconds)

Figure 4: {a) Surface prrssure measurements h hard and 4 shut-in experiments

(b) Expanded time scak showing water-hammer pulse.

{a)
‘W’nler
hammer”’
$
1150 - Pumps
2 so
2
t

A 1050

L a
o 2on Joo
Tbnc (seconds}

i I
Figure 3: Schematic diagmm oitti well showing prc.wre measurements.

Ttme (seconds)

Figure 5 (a) Casing “’shoe” and (b) bit pressu~ correwmdbw tO t~ SUfi~e
meawrmcnts thow n in FIgurc 4a).