Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GRADUATE COLLEGE
A THESIS
Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
By
BY
Proverbs 16:3
To God my Lord,
You found me, saved me, and became the center of my life.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ahmed for giving me the opportunity to work on one of the most exciting topics
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
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
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.
that spark that makes life more enjoyable. I will never forget the seeds you
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
Pedrito, Amanda, and other friends from the Latin Dance Club and COLSA for
my LifeGroup friends specially Nathan, Andrew, Ben and Amber for their
prayers, blessings and encouragement during this journey with the Lord.
Oklahoma and for all the fun. Thanks for all the memories and for helping me
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 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 2.5: Dimensionless pressure gradient determination plot for diameter ratio
of 0.3 (Chukwu and Blick, 1989).......................................................................... 15
Figure 2.7: Effect of yield stress on surge pressures (Lal, 1983) ......................... 18
Figure 3.3: Characteristic curves to determine surge and swab pressure ............. 29
Figure 3.9: Comparison of Schuh’s solution with regression model for different
Power-Law Fluids ................................................................................................. 37
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 3.13: 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 4.12: Surge pressure measurement with established steady flow condition
............................................................................................................................... 59
x
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
drillstring in the wellbore. This phenomenon is of economic importance for the oil
industry, especially in wells with narrow margin between pore and fracture
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.
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
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 yield-
power-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.
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 non-
not in convenient forms. Thus, a numerical scheme has been developed to solve
has been developed that does not require a cumbersome numerical procedure.
effects of rheological parameters on surge and swab pressures has been carried
out.
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
Results confirm that trip speed, fluid rheology and annular clearance have a
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
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
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
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
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
mud hydrostatic pressure allows formation fluids to enter the wellbore, which
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
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.
most of drilling fluids and aqueous clay slurries (Fordham et al., 1991; Hemphil et
2
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
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
3. To develop a new test setup that has the capability to vary the trip speed and
3
4. To validate the newly developed models, and other existing models, by direct
1.4. OUTLINE
(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
analytical solutions validates the predictions of the correlation for Newtonian and
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
predictions of the new and existing models to rigorously test their performance
(Chapter 5). Conclusions and recommendations for further studies have also
4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
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
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
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
5
• 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
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
velocity and drilling fluid properties throughout the tests, and full information on
pressure measurements. They found that control of pipe speed while tripping is
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
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
6700
6600
Annulus Pressure (psi)
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
Their results also showed a higher pressure surge at the bottom of the drillstring
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
Also, they have shown that pipe elasticity, fluid compression and expansion,
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;
measurements and modeling results. Results and observations of the studies are
8
10000
9500
Measured Pressure (psi)
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)
that has similar flow conditions as the current problem is known as back
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)
9
Vp
V(r)
r
Cylindrical
Plunger
ΔL
Test Fluid
Figure 2.3: Schematic of back extrusion experiment (Osorio and Steffe, 1991)
2.2. MODELING
research. In the past, Cardwell (1953) and Ormsby (1954) attempted to explain
the physical causes, nature and magnitude of surge and swab pressures. Both
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
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.
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
measurements. In addition, Results showed that pressure surges are usually high
11
Figure 2.4: Clinging constant determination plot (Burkhardt, 1961)
and swab pressure. Schuh’s solutions were patterned after studies presented by
Dodge and Metzner, 1959; Burkhardt, 1961; Schuh, 1964) were implemented in a
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
complex for ready use in drilling applications. Some minor shortcomings to this
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
̃ (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
̃
( ) ( ) (2.3)
where is the hole inside diameter, is the consistency index, is the 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
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 power-
law fluids.
14
Figure 2.5: Dimensionless pressure gradient determination plot for diameter ratio of 0.3
(Chukwu and Blick, 1989)
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
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
L
rp rh rp
rh
H
16
2.2.2. Unsteady-State Models
Most field studies indicated that acceleration exacerbates surge and swab
have been developed (Lal, 1983; Bing et al., 1995; Yuan and Chukwu, 1996) to
agreement with field studies showing that pipe acceleration can generate pressure
peaks.
al., 1977; Lal, 1983; Mitchell, 1988; Bing and Kaiji, 1996) included previously
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 ft²
YP=30 lbf/100 ft²
1000
Pessure (psi)
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
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
detailed formulation of the model has not been published in the literature.
Eccentricity can have a significant effect in surge and swab pressures. The
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
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
bed, the surge pressure decreases with the increase in the bed thickness.
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
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
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:
20
Fully developed laminar flow of YPL fluid;
YPL Fluid
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 ii) plug zone (Region II) within
the boundary limits and, iii) inner sheared region (Region III) within
the boundary limits . 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
21
Vp
Region III
H
Region II y2 – y1
y2
y1 Region I
first considered. For the sheared regions, applying the momentum balance the
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
( ) (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)
̃ ̃ (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),
For Region I:
̃ [( ̃ ̃) (̃ ) ] ; ̃ ̃ (3.7)
23
̃ [( ̃ ) (̃ ̃ ) ] ; ̃ ̃ (3.8)
( )( )( ) (3.9)
(3.10)
Geometric analysis shows that the dimensionless plug thickness is simply the
̃ ̃ (3.11)
̃ ̃ (3.12)
Applying momentum balance in Region II, the dimensionless plug zone thickness
(3.13)
In the plug zone (Region II), the velocity distribution is uniform (i.e. plug velocity
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
( ̃ ) (̃ ) (3.15)
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
̃ *( )̃ + [ ( ̃ ) ][ ̃ ]
( )( ̃ ) (̃ ) (3.17)
̃ (3.18)
25
To represent the wellbore, slot geometry parameters and are expressed in
( )
(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,
( ) (3.21)
Subsequently, substituting Eqns. (3.19), (3.20) and (3.21) into Eqn. (3.18), the
̃ (3.22)
( )
*( )̃ + [ ( ̃ ) ][ ̃ ]
( )
( )( ̃ ) (̃ ) (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
( ̃ ) (̃ ) (3.24)
( )( )( )
(3.25)
( )( )( ) (3.26)
( ̃ ) (̃ ) (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
27
Substituting the obtained values of ̃ into Eq. (3.17), the dimensionless
Using the value of ̃ from the previous step as an input parameter, and from
obtained.
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,
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
̅
0.018
Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
0.017
0.016
0.015
Vp = 1.0 ft/sec
Vp = 3.0 ft/sec
Vp = 4.0 ft/sec
0.013
Vp = 5.0 ft/sec
0.012
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0
29
and wellbore/pipe configurations (Table 3.2) were considered. Tripping speeds of
30
Fluid Type Test Fluid , lbf/100 ft2 , lbfsn /100 ft2
Yield-Power-Law C2 21.9 2.03 0.53
and Bingham plastic ( ) 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),
( )
(3.30)
dimensionless parameter, which is greater than one for any fluid with yield stress.
[( ) ( ) ] (3.31)
(3.32)
( ) ( )
where and are geometric parameters that vary with the diameter ratio
32
̅ ̅
(3.33)
̅ ̅
(3.34)
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
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
33
10.00
Friction Factor (Numerical Solution)
1.00
10% Fluid A1
Fluid A2
0.10 -10% Fluid A3
Fluid A4
Fluid B1
Fluid B2
Fluid B3
0.01
Fluid B4
Fluid P1
Fluid P2
Fluid P3
0.00
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Figure 3.5: Comparison of predictions of numerical and regression models (Power-Law Fluids)
100.00
Friction Factor f (Numerical Solution)
10.00
10%
0.01 Fluid E6
Fluid F1
Fluid F2
0.00
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
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%
Fluid C1
-10%
Fluid C2
0.10
Fluid C3
Fluid C4
Fluid D1
0.01
Fluid D2
Fluid D3
Fluid D4
0.00
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Newtonian surge pressure predictions have been compared with the analytical slot
flow (Fig. 3.8) solution for Newtonian fluids (Bourgoyne, 1986). Excellent
35
1.000
Surge Presure Gradient (psi/ft)
0.100
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
1974). Predictions show excellent agreement with the numerical results. Most of
the predictions fall within ±10% error bars (Fig. 3.9). A detailed calculation
36
800
Fluid A1
700 Fluid A2
Fluid A3
Surge Presure Regression Model (psi)
600 Fluid A4
Fluid B1
Fluid B2 10%
500
Fluid B3
Fluid B4
400 Fluid P1 -10%
Fluid P2
300 Fluid P3
Fluid P4
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Figure 3.9: Comparison of Schuh’s solution with regression model for different Power-Law
Fluids
predictions are compared (Fig. 3.10) with those obtained from Burkhardt’s model.
37
1000
Fluid E1
900 Fluid E2
Fluid E3
800 Fluid E4
Swab Presure Correlation (psi)
Fluid E5
700 Fluid E6
Fluid F1 10%
600 Fluid F2
Fluid F3
500 -10%
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
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%
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
Figure 3.11: Comparison of the correlation predictions with the back extrusion technique
(Osorio and Steffe, 1991) for a specific Yield-Power-Law Fluid
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 Chukwu’s model are very close, as both rely on the narrow-
slot 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 Burkhardt’s model were previously validated using
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
40
Regression Model
Burkhardt, 1961
3000
Surge Presure (psi)
300
30
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
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
Schuh’s model.
1000
Surge Presure (psi)
100
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
Figure 3.15: Surge pressures vs. tripping speed for different yield stresses
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
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
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
pressure.
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 P
Tube
Drillpipe
Guiding Rod
46
Figure 4.2: Actual view of experimental setup
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
47
configuration. Blind flange and drain valve are installed at the bottom of the test
Inner
Pipe
Polycarbonate
Tubing
Guiding
Rod
Drainage
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
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
49
4.1.4. Pressure Transducer
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.
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
gallon 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
controller (Variable Frequency Drive) which receives analog signal from the
DAQ system. To carry the experiments at the desired pipe speed, the system was
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
52
3.0
2.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
Vp (ft/sec) = 0.2514*Volt(v) + 0.0279
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Volt (v)
3.0
2.5
2.0
Speed (rpm)
1.5
1.0
0.5
Vp (ft/sec) = 0.2498*Volt(v) + 0.0302
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Volt (v)
surge pressures. After establishing reliable and accurate procedure, the main
53
experiments were carried out. All tests were performed out using the same
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
Fluid Transfer: After the test fluid was prepared, it was transferred to the
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
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
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
..……….…………...……………...………….. (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
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
(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%
56
250
PAC 1.00%
PAC 0.75%
PAC 0.56%
200
Mix PAC 0.28% + Xantan Gum 0.44%
Shear Stress (lbf/100ft2)
150
100
50
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
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)
57
Table 4.1: Rheology of test fluids
Rheological Parameters
Temperature
Test Fluids Fluid Type
(°F) K
(lbf/100ft2) n
(lbf.sn/100ft2)
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
0.30
Readings
Average
Unsteady-State Steady-State
Condition
Surge Pressure (psi)
Condition
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
0.30 Average
Surge Pressure (psi)
0.20
0.10
0.00
10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)
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
( ) (5.1)
Then, the dimensionless total fluid flow rate during the experiment is computed
as:
̃ (5.2)
non-Newtonian fluids) have been analyzed and presented in Figure 5.1 as the
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
predictions, surge pressure predictions were made for all experimental data points.
Predictions from others studies have been included in the analysis. All recorded
100.00
Light Mineral Oil
Mineral Oil
1% PAC
0.75% PAC
0.56% PAC
10.00
Mix 0.22% PAC + 0.22 XG
1% Xantan Gum
0.64% Xantan Gum
Friction Factor f
0.10
0.01
0 1 10 100 1000
Figure 5.1: Friction Factor vs. Generalized Reynolds Number for experimental data
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.
small.
0.3
Measurements
Regression Model
Theoretical Model
Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Newtonian Solution
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 5.2: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with regular mineral oil.
62
0.05
Measurements
Regression Model
Theoretical Model
Durge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
0.04
Newtonian Solution
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Figure 5.3: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with light mineral oil
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
measurements and numerical results for thick test fluids (1.00% and 0.75% PAC
significant difference between predictions and test results. The flow behavior of
this fluid has been characterized by curve fitting the viscometeric measurements
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
0.4 Theoretical Model
Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Schuh, 1964
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 5.4: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 1.0% PAC
64
0.3
Measurements
Regression Model
Theoretical Model
Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Schuh, 1964
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 5.5: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 0.75% PAC
0.20
Measurements
Regression Model
Theoretical Model
Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Figure 5.6: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 0.56% PAC
65
0.15
Measurements
Regression Model
Theoretical Model
Schuh, 1964
Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 5.7: Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed for polymer mix
To further evaluate the performance the new model with YPL fluids,
compared (Figs. 5.8 to 5.10) with model predictions. For test fluid with the
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
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
0.4 Theoretical Model
Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
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
Measurements
0.05
Regression Model
Theoretical Model
0.00
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 5.9: Yield Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed with 0.67% Xanthan Gum
0.15
Measurements
Regression Model
Theoretical Model
Surge Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
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
and correlation validation for this special case lead us to establish that the
5.4. DISCUSSION
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
simplified models can be applied to many common field conditions and only
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
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
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
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
percent compared with a fully concentric test (Fig. 5.11). Adequate modeling of
unnecessarily low tripping speeds, reducing non-productive time and drilling cost
considerably.
70
0.300
0.250
Concentric Annulus
0.200
Pressure (psi)
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)
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,
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
0.0008
Test After 15 s
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
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
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
end pipe geometry also needs to be included in surge and swab pressure analysis.
Surge and swab pressures are very critical in designing slim holes, low
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
Ignoring the effect of eccentricity on surge and swab pressures may lead to
73
productive time and operation costs. Therefore, eccentricity effects must be taken
avoid excessive surge and swab pressures. A highly gelled drilling fluid can
create significant swab and surge pressures even if pipe movement is minimal
point for correct estimation of optimal pipe running speed during tripping
operations.
74
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. CONCLUSIONS
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
investigation was carried out using different fluids. Based on the investigation, the
comparison with other existing models that are only valid for Newtonian,
The model provides reasonable predictions when the diameter ratio is greater
Tripping speeds and diameter ratio have substantial effects on surge & swab
pressures;
75
In horizontal and inclined wells, pipe eccentricity can reduce significantly the
For fluids with high yield stress, the influence of trip speed on surge and swab
6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
This analysis is based on steady state flow assumption. It also uses narrow
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).
Drillpipe from the Hole, API Drilling and Production Practices, pp 42-47.
Clark, E. H. 1956. A Graphic View of Pressure Surges and Lost Circulation, API
77
Clark, R. K. and Fontenot, J. E. 1974. Field Measurements of the Effects of
(6-9 October).
Crespo, F., Ahmed, R., and Saasen, A. 2010. Surge and Swab Pressure
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
October.
Goins, W. C., Weichhert, J. P., Burba, J. L., Dawson, D. D., and Teplitz, A. J.
Accurately Predicts Mud Rheology, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 91, pp 45–50.
112-128.
eccentric annuli due to axial motion of the inner pipe, The Canadian
79
Kelessidis, V. C., Christidis, G., Makri, P., Hadjistamou, V., Tsamantaki, C.,
Control with Lignite Addition, Applied Clay Science, Vol. 36, pp 221–
231.
Lal, M. 1983. Surge and Swab Modeling for Dynamic Pressures and Safe Trip
21, pp 98-99.
Lubinski, A., Hsu, F. H., and Nolte, K. G. 1977. Transient Pressure Surges Due to
(May-June).
80
Macsporran, W. C. 1982. Comments on: Generalized Couette Flow of a Non-
Newtonian Fluid in Annuli, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol 21, pp 98.
Maglione, R., and Ferrario, G. 1996. Equations Determine Flow States for Yield-
Pseudoplastic Drilling Fluids, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 94, pp 63–66.
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
Merlo, A., Maglione, R., and Piatti, C. 1995. An Innovative Model for Drilling
Fluid Hydraulics, Paper SPE-29259, presented at the Asia Pacific Oil &
Moore, P. L. 1965. Pressure Surges and their Effect on Hole Conditions, Oil and
81
Moore, P. L. 1974. Drilling Practices Manual, Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa,
pp 241-252.
pp 549-558.
Robello, G., Sunthankar, A., McColping, G., Bern, P., and Flynn, T. 2003. Field
C., Campos, J., Aragao, A., Arcelloni, A., and Ohara, S. 2005.
Rudolf, R., and Suryanarayana, P. 1998. Field Validation of Swab Effects While
March).
Rudolf, R., and Suryanarayana, P. 1997. Kicks Caused by Tripping-In the Hole on
82
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
62.
Singh, A., and Robello, S. 2009. Effect of Eccentricity and Rotation on Annular
Sun, Y., Li, Q., and Zhao, J. 2010. New Method of Predicting Surge Pressure
No.12, pp 1494-1399.
Thorsrud, A., Ekeli, Ø., Hilbig, N., Bergsvik, O., and Zamora, M. 2000.
83
Wagner, R. R., Halal, A. S., and Goodman, M. A. 1993. Surge Field Tests
Ward, C., and Beique, M. (2000). Pore and fracture pressure information from
149-157 (September).
Yuan, W., and Chukwu, G. A. 1996. Unsteady Axial Laminar Couette Flow of
84
NOMENCLATURE
= Constant
= Geometric parameter
= Geometric parameter
= Bingham number
= Hole/Casing diameter
= Pipe diameter
= friction factor
= Slot Thickness
= Consistency Index
̅ = Diameter ratio ( ̅ ⁄ )
N = Spring factor
85
= Flow rate
= Radius
= Surge/Swab pressure
= Hole radius
= Pipe radius
86
= Surface effective pipe velocity
Volt = Voltage
= Pipe velocity
= Slot width
= x-coordinate
̃ = Dimensionless x-coordinate
87
̃ = Dimensionless upper boundary limit of Region II
Greek Letters
= Dimensional parameter
= Dimensional parameter
= Conductance number
= Fluid density
= Pi
= Dimensionless pressure
= Dial reading
= Shear stress
= Yield stress
88
= Shear rate
= Pressure drop
Subscripts
h = Hole
= Pipe
= Total
r = Radius
89
APPENDIX A
POWER-LAW FLUIDS
In the annular space between the drillstring and the borehole, the fluid velocity is
given by:
(B-1)
⃗
( ⃗
) (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)
* +
(B-6)
* ( ) + (B-7)
( )
* +( ) (B-8)
where is the friction factor for Reynolds Number at the end of the laminar flow
friction factor must be calculated by trial and error using Eqn. (B-7). Then, the
91
⃗)
(B-9)
(
92
APPENDIX B
( ⃗)
(C-5)
* + (C-6)
(C-7)
( ⃗)
(C-9)
[ ( √ ) ] (C-8)
93
Eqns. (C-6) and (C-8) must be calculated by trial and error. Finally, the friction
⃗)
(C-10)
(
94
APPENDIX C
Table D.1: Fann model 35 (#1/5 spring) measurements for light mineral oil
N Θ τ
(rpm) (reading) (1/sec) (lbf/100 ft^2)
3 0.3 5.1 0.32
6 1.1 10.2 1.17
30 2.6 51.1 2.77
60 5.1 102.2 5.44
90 7.6 153.3 8.10
100 8.3 170.3 8.85
180 15.0 306.5 15.99
200 16.4 340.6 17.48
300 24.4 510.9 26.01
600 47.8 1021.8 50.95
Table D.2: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for mineral oil
N θ τ
(rpm) (reading) (1/sec) (lbf/100 ft^2)
3 1.8 5.1 1.87
95
Table D.3: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 1.0% PAC
N Θ τ
(rpm) (reading) (1/sec) (lbf/100 ft^2)
3 10.0 5.1 10.66
6 17.5 10.2 18.66
100 95.0 170.3 101.27
200 129.0 340.6 137.51
300 152.0 510.9 162.03
600 194.0 1021.8 206.80
Table D.4: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 0.75% PAC
N Θ τ
(rpm) (reading) (1/sec) (lbf/100 ft^2)
3 3.5 5.1 3.73
6 7.0 10.2 7.46
100 51.0 170.3 54.37
200 73.5 340.6 78.35
300 89.0 510.9 94.87
600 119.0 1021.8 126.85
Table D.5: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 0.56% PAC
N θ τ
(rpm) (reading) (1/sec) (lbf/100 ft^2)
3 1.0 5.1 1.07
6 2.5 10.2 2.67
100 25.5 170.3 27.18
200 40.0 340.6 42.64
300 50.5 510.9 53.83
600 72.0 1021.8 76.75
96
Table D.6: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for mix 0.28% + 0.22% Xanthan Gum
N θ τ
(rpm) (reading) (1/sec) (lbf/100 ft^2)
3 3.5 5.1 3.73
6 4.8 10.2 5.06
100 19.5 170.3 20.79
200 28.5 340.6 30.38
300 35.0 510.9 37.31
600 48.0 1021.8 51.17
Table D.7: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 1.0% Xanthan Gum
N θ τ
(rpm) (reading) (1/sec) (lbf/100 ft^2)
3 39.0 5.1 41.57
6 42.5 10.2 45.31
100 59.0 170.3 62.89
200 67.5 340.6 71.96
300 75.0 510.9 79.95
600 92.0 1021.8 98.07
Table D.8: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 0.67% Xanthan Gum
N θ τ
(rpm) (reading) (1/sec) (lbf/100 ft^2)
3 19.0 5.1 20.25
6 21.0 10.2 22.39
100 31.0 170.3 33.05
200 38.0 340.6 40.51
300 43.0 510.9 45.84
600 53.0 1021.8 56.50
97
Table D.9: Fann model 35 (#1 spring) measurements for 0.44% Xanthan Gum
N θ g τ
(rpm) (reading) (1/sec) (lbf/100 ft^2)
3 8.0 5.1 8.53
6 9.5 10.2 10.13
100 17.0 170.3 18.12
200 21.0 340.6 22.39
300 25.0 510.9 26.65
600 32.5 1021.8 34.65
98
APPENDIX D
Vp ΔP/ΔL ΔP/ΔL
ft/s inH₂O/ft psi/ft
0.1 1.70 0.0613
0.2 2.95 0.1064
0.3 4.40 0.1587
0.4 5.80 0.2093
0.5 7.00 0.2526
Table E.2: Surge pressure gradient readings for light mineral oil
Vp ΔP/ΔL ΔP/ΔL
ft/s inH₂O/ft psi/ft
0.3 0.29 0.0207
0.4 0.38 0.0271
0.5 0.46 0.0334
0.6 0.56 0.0406
Vp ΔP/ΔL ΔP/ΔL
ft/s inH₂O/ft psi/ft
0.1 4.80 0.1732
0.2 7.20 0.2598
0.3 9.00 0.3247
0.4 10.60 0.3824
0.5 11.20 0.4041
0.6 12.20 0.4402
99
Table E.4: Surge pressure gradient readings for 0.75% PAC
Vp ΔP/ΔL ΔP/ΔL
ft/s inH₂O/ft psi/ft
0.1 2.30 0.0830
0.2 3.40 0.1227
0.3 4.40 0.1587
0.4 5.30 0.1912
0.5 5.80 0.2093
0.6 6.50 0.2345
Vp ΔP/ΔL ΔP/ΔL
ft/s inH₂O/ft psi/ft
0.1 1.30 0.0469
0.2 1.80 0.0649
0.3 2.40 0.0866
0.4 2.80 0.1010
0.5 3.20 0.1155
0.6 3.60 0.1299
0.7 3.80 0.1371
Table E.6: Surge pressure gradient readings for mix 0.28% + 0.22% Xanthan Gum
Vp ΔP/ΔL ΔP/ΔL
ft/s inH₂O/ft psi/ft
0.1 1.30 0.0469
0.2 1.80 0.0649
0.3 2.20 0.0794
0.4 2.50 0.0902
0.5 2.70 0.0974
0.6 2.90 0.1046
100
Table E.7: Surge pressure gradient readings for 1.0% Xanthan Gum
Vp ΔP/ΔL ΔP/ΔL
ft/s inH₂O/ft psi/ft
0.1 6.15 0.2219
0.2 6.90 0.2489
0.3 7.10 0.2562
0.4 7.60 0.2742
0.5 7.80 0.2814
Table E.8: Surge pressure gradient readings for 0.67% Xanthan Gum
Vp ΔP/ΔL ΔP/ΔL
ft/s inH₂O/ft psi/ft
0.1 3.40 0.1227
0.2 3.60 0.1299
0.3 4.00 0.1443
0.4 4.20 0.1515
0.5 4.25 0.1533
Table E.9: Surge pressure gradient readings for 0.44% Xanthan Gum
Vp ΔP/ΔL ΔP/ΔL
ft/s inH₂O/ft psi/ft
0.1 1.90 0.0685
0.2 2.20 0.0794
0.3 2.35 0.0848
0.4 2.50 0.0902
0.5 2.60 0.0938
101
APPENDIX E
1986):
(A-1)
( )
( ) ( )
(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
102
(A-5)
(A-2), (A-3), (A-4) and (A-5) numerically for a given combination of annular
103