An Improved Method for Calculating Swab and Surge Pressures

and Circulating Pressures in a Drilling Well

SHELL OIL CO.
JOHN E. FONT ENOT
NEW ORLEANS, LA.

R, K, CLARK SHELL DEVELOPMENT CO,

MEMBERS SPE.AIME HOUSTON, TEX.

ABSTRACT to consider both the Bingham and the power-law

models for the fiuids. The works of Burkhardt,2
.T130rtmrni72gs u,vre found in tbc published
Melrose C( U1.,s and Dodge slid ,Uetzner6 were used
tc(hniqf~(’s for ra!r-uln[ing dou.n-l)rrlp prl ’ssurp.s in
to develop equations for the Bingham model. The
II drilling UC II. An improved mrtbnd wus dcl:rloped
equations for the power-law .=odel were developed
[/Jai predi(’ts doum-r)ole prrs.sures in good ugrccvrmrt
from the work of Schuh4 and !lcrd g c znd !.letzner.6
u~ith those nleasured in tlLrr u,rightcd mud.<, l“he
In the Appendix we develop alcl discuss the
new method UIIOWS drilling fluid properties to vary
equations as well as shortcomings found in the
with depth and has demonstrated the importance of
work ot 13urkhr+rdt 2 and Schuil,4 Equations are
properly modeling the drilling fluid properties in
provided for the calculation of circulating and
calcu, (zting down-bo)e pressure changes.
swab/ surSe pressures for both the Bingham and
power-law models. This provides a means of
INTRODUCTION
caIculatiftg the downholc pressures under two
Controlling down-hole pressure during drilling is assumptions. In many cases the results obtained
an essential part of well control. Circulating from the two models are in good agreement.
pressures connected with pump operation are usually The equations in the Appendix were programmed
calculated using nomography, slide rules, or simple for computer solution. Complex well geometries
computer programs. Bottom-hole pressure changes can be investigated, as the program can handle as
due to drillstring movement (swab/surge pressures) many as 10 sections of differevt geometry, where
have been described by Clark} Burkhardt,2 and each section has a uniform description. If reqc]rcd,
Moore,3 These pressure changes are generally the maxitnum number of sections can be increased
calculated using approximate methods developed by minor modifications to the program. The effects
by Burkhardt 2 (Bingham model) Or Schuh4 of tool joints, drillpipe rubbers, and bit nozzles
(power-law model). The drilling fluid properties are are included in the calculations.
generally assumed to be constant from the top to Mud properties are entered as the Bingham-plastic
the bottom of the hole. parameters, plastic viscosity and yield point. In
In applying the conventional methods of the power-law portion of the program, the Bingham
calculating down-hole pressures to actual well parameters are converted to power-law constants.
situations, various shortcomings in the techniques Mud properties are allowed to vary with depth by
were noted. ro overcome these and to obtain as specifying different fluid properties for each
accurate a simulation as possible, a c~mprehensive section. This is normally accomplished by allowing
theoretical technique using fundamental equations the mud properties corresponding to the temperature
was developed and programmed for Ct)rnPUtei and pressure at the midFoint of the section to be
solution. Down-hole pressures were measured in representative of the whole section. If only surface
two wells to verify the accuracy of the new program properties are known, they can be used throughout
and to provide insight into its shortcomings. the well, although pressure predictions will
generally not be so accurate. In addition, mud
CALCULATION OF PRESSURES properties can be different inside the pipe and in
the annulus.
To develop a comprehensive and general approach The program can be used to calculate circulating
to calculating down-hole pressures it was decided pressure losses and swab/surge pressures in the
wellbore, If mud flow rates are entered, circulating
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office Aug. 8, 197’3. Revised manuscript received June 28, 1974,
pressures losses are calculated. If pipe speeds
Paper (SPE 452 1) was first presented at the SPE-AIME 48th are entered, sv, ab/surge pressures are calculated.
Annual Fall Meeting, held in Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 30-Ott. 3,
1974. @ Copyright 1974 American Institute of Mining,
If both are entered, the circulating pressure losses
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. are calculated and the calculations of the
preferences listed at end of paper.
swab/surge pressure are made assuming the mud
oCTOBER. 1974 451
is being pumped at the various flow rates while the assumption that the mud behaves as either a
pipe is moving. Bingham-plastic fluid or a power-law fluid. In some
Pressure variations are calculated for any situations neither may be a precise representation
combination of flow rates (maximum of five) and of the fluid flow behavior. All calculations are
pipe speeds (maximum of eight). Pressure drops based on a fluid in steady-state flow in a cylindrical
inside the pipe and in the annulus are calculated pipe or a stationary concentric cylindrical annulus.
during circulation. The pressure drop across the Neither acceleration effects nor pressure variations
bit is included in the total pressure drop inside due to the breaking of the mud gel strength are
the pipe. The sum of the pipe and annular pressures included in the program’s capabilities. Of the two,
is the standpipe pressure, a quantity measurable gel strength is probably the more important and the
at the surface. easier to handle mathematically. The main reason
Swab and surge pressures can be calculated for for not including a consideration of gel strength is
the pipe open with the pump on or off, and for the the lack of information concerning the dependence
pipe closed, Sc that program results could be of gel strength on time over a period of hours or
compared with field data, statements were added days at down-hole temperatures.
to the program to print pressures at depths other
than that of the end of the drillstring. The program COMPARISON OF CALCULATED
as available does t]ot include this feature, The PRESSURES WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA
only pressure given in the program output is that
Down-hole pressure measurements we:e made in
corresponding to the bottom of the drillstring. The
two cased holes in Mississippi and Utah. In the
pressure calculated when the pipe is moved with
Mississippi well, tests were conducted at three
the pump on is the total change from the static
depths. The casing and drillstring configurations
pressure and thus contains contributions from both
for these tests are shown in Fig. 1, Three test
pump operation and pipe movement. When open pipe
series were also conducted in the Utah well with
is moved with the pump off, mud displaced by the
casing and drillstring configurations as shown in
pipe can move through the pipe as well as the
Fig. 2.
annul us. An iterative procedure is used to
The drilling mud used in the Mississippi tests
calculate a swab/surge pressure so that the pressure
was a 17.5 !b/gal oil-base mud that had been used
drop through the pipe equals the drop through the
to drill the well, The theological properties of this
annul us. This is a necessary step to determine the
mud at 115°F were a plastic viscosity of 88 cp, a
proper division of the flow between the two paths.
yield point of 34 lb/100 ft2 and gels of 10 and 17
The limitations of the program include the

L 1/2” D.I’.

9 5 Y“ 1.!. j 1 ,;” J.1.

.;., I:.
13.3. IJ’t’T. 9 518”
(. 1.’:”
6 1/8 X
? ]/]6” ;). C.
cr~,:, .,c3 10.03 11582’.
PER F(IRAI LD
!
,k\CHil R 4 1/2” D.P

lljb?’ _
BLLL!iO>L —
+ 9 5/8” c>,..

9 j, b’” c>!..
11s?!:”_ j 1/2”D.I,.

11
jj.5,,~Fl.

I
9 313”” <h%..
h 1/8 x 2 I/lb”’ D.C.
!j4&7,

4
CIRC. Sr’1}
l’ERF\)KAl I:D
A.’:[:HI)R ] B“ L). D. CAKRILR
HL’LL!:OSL

36;7
1 5iL7 3 1/2” D.P.
7“ LISF.R
38~, /FT. 15.i47 .

4
7“ l.1\r.1
7“ LrxcR
916’ G 1/8 X 2 1/16” D.C.
CIRU. SUB
-J_

18186’ PERFL)R\TllD ASCilOR

Q BULLWSE
1850. +.- .- _ 1850 I’(1C
——.—— 1850{
*OC

FIG. 1 — WELLBORE DRILLSTRING GEOMETRIES FOR SWAB/SURGE CIRCULATING PRESSURE TESTS IN

MIsSISSIPPI WELL.

452 SOCIETY OF PET RC)l,K1!M EX(71XEERS JOtl RX,tl.

 lb/100 ft2. A technique developed by Dresser pressure recorders on the cone and at the center of
Magcobar for estimating properties at elevated the bit was used in one of the tests. The locations
temperatures and pressures from low-pressure of the recorders in the drillstring are shown in
measurements was used to estimate theological Figs. I and 2. For increased accuracy and
properties at down-hole conditions. The estimation reliability, two recorders were used at each location.
technique is based on the assumption that oil mud Surface instrumentation consisted of a DATA
rheology varies with temperature and pressure in Unit (contributed by Dresser Swaco) equipped to
the same way that the viscosity of diesel oil — obtain a record of test parameters in both digital
the base fluid of the oil mud — varies. Lines of and analog form. In the Mississippi tests, these
constant diesel oil viscosity in a temperature- parameters included time (to correlate with
pressure coordinate system are used as lines of down-hole recorders), mud weight out, flowline
constant plastic viscosity and yield point. The temperature, pit level, pump pressure, pump strokes,
variation of mud properties with depth was estimated and drillstring velocity. Additional information
from the viscosity data for diesel oil, the gathered in the Utah tests were mud temperature in
theological properties of the oil-base mtld at low and mud wqight in. Swaco provided a specia! device
pressure and temperatures, and the temperature and for monitoring pipe speed. This device proved
pressure profiles of the well. (See Fig. 3,) reliable in the Utah tests, but inciement weather
It was somewhat easier to determine the down-hole caused some problems in the Mississippi tests.
theological properties of the water-base mud used Swab/surge pressures were measured with the
in the Utah tests. This mud was a 14.2 lb/gal drillstring closed and open with the pump both off
fresh-water lignosulfonate mud. Properties for each and on over a range of pipe speeds at each of the
of the three tests were measured as a function of depths shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Five minutes was
temperature for the temperature range found in the allowed between each movement of the pipe to allow
well (maximum temperature of 250° F) on a Farm the mud to stabilize. Circulating pressures were
model 50B rotational viscometer. The properties measured for a range of pump speeds in the tests
associated with a given temperature were assumed at 18,186 ft in the Mississippi well and in all three
to be representative of the mud at the depth where test series in the Utah well. The pump efficiency
that temperature existed. The theological properties was measured at each pump speed to ensure

,;,.
so determined are shown in Fig. 4 as a function of accuiate flow-rate data. The circulation tests were
depth for each of the three tests. long enough to obtain bottoms up and a stable
Down-hole pressure and temperature measurements pressure level.
were made with recorders provided by Otis The details of the Mississippi and Utah tests
Engineering Co. The recorders were in specially are discussed in Ref. 7, along with most of the
made carriers placed at various points in the test results.
drillstring. A specially designed Security bit with

It. sl Stklls

J]?’
,;],., ,,’ 1(1,s! KIM’}

>
‘i
:1. r. 11.P,

“1
\., ~\l!4 !,, ;,,,
l—+-.
., ,, ,,. . (,, !3, <I GK11K
.(r.,l. R

‘--l-r
. .. . ...’.
,,.,>,,.
)

t t ‘“
.,>., ,.
. ..$!

7
.-1

i,
‘,. :’.’. [, .11.$ .Ahkl!x
> .[,%,I N
:,, or, K

j _w ,,
1,.1.
. . ..~l J]:’
d >.(V, ,K
:,.r.
...... ,.,).,,,,},
\.(~,;) b }.[l\,).li
}.. ,J,,} K
,,, . . .,,,. ,,,l).!.,’,
hKlt}.
,,. .....>..
,.. . r ““ t,.
1) ,1,. ,, ....
,1.1,.
:,-
).. ,,. !E
)., ,,.,,.
.,. ,3.1%. , ..):kll}
X.,1!>.
>Ic,ull> 1’

,: . . . 31L11’ 11 .:!,.
A
:1. :.

I
X. O\! i

Cl Kc, SI
PER) . ,.., ,,~ >’” L] !\F.R I 1..
+ Rtr[lnl}tKb
P.1 LL ..,V I

CLtX:. UI 01 T 1( I
i “, , I “,.1 PBTD

FIG. 2 — WELLBORE DRILLSTRING GEOMETRIES FOR SWAB/SURGE CIRCULATING PRESSURE TESTS IN

I
I OCTOBER .1974
UTAH WELL.

453
I
I
 CIRCULATING PRESSURE LOSSES

Annular pressure losses and standpipe pressures

20
calculated using the power-law model with variable
fluid properties for the Mississippi test at 18,186
18 - ft are shown in Fig. 5. Also given are the field-
measured pressures. Variable fluid properties refer
16 \ to a different set of properties for each section.
In each case the properties of Fig. 3 at the midpoint
of each section were taken to be representative of
14
the properties for the section as a whole. The
agreement between calculated ssnd experimental
E PLASTIC Vlscosm
12 pressures is quite good, particularly those for the
: standpipe pressure, The 20- to 50-psi discrepancy
in the annular pressure loss can be attributed as
; 10
b
.
much to uncertainties in the measured pressures
as to the predictive technique. Additional
a comparisons of calculated and measured circulating
pressures from the Mississippi tests are given in
6
Tab] e 1. Measured pressures are compared with
values calctll~ted using constant (1 15°F) and
\
variable mud properties and the Bingl-, am-plastic
4 \
and power-law models. The use of variable
properties with the power-law model gives the best
2 agreement with the measured pressure data. NO
attempt was made to force fit the field-measured
data by varying the fluid properties. The m’~d
PUSTI?VISCOSITY (C?) U#YIW ?OIHI (Id ??t) properties used in the calculations were determined
independently by direct measurement or estimated
FIG. 3 — VARIATION OF MUD PROPERTIES WITH
DEPTH IN MISSISSIPPI WELL,
as outlined above.
Figs, 6 and 7 are comparisons of calculated and
measured annular and standpipe pressure for Tests
I and 3 in the Utah tests. Only power-law
calculations are given , since the calculations from
the Bingham model are only slightly higher.
Calculated pressures for Test I are considerably
50 .

Lo ~

l—
\
.?—-- 1 ~
\
30 ~
N. 3 —-—

Y’. I

20
% * Y Y .
‘ /. ~
. &“
- . ~ - —. -
10 . I

/-’””””

0 .
I

20 -

/
15 —

/
10 /

> /
/

o
2 4 6 8 10 12 M
DWlll -1000 w
FIG. 5 — COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND CALCU-
FIG. 4 — VARIATION OF MUD PROPERTIES WITH LATED STANDPIPE AND ANNULAR PRESSURES FOR
DEPTH IN UTAH WELL. TEST 3 — MISSISSIPPI WELL.

4s4 SOCIETY OF PET ROLE[” M ES CIXEERS JO I”RY.IL

lower than the measured values except at 5,735 closed and with the pipe open and the pump off
and 11,500 ft, where agreement is good. West Of are compared with those calculated using the
the discrepancy in the annular pressure loss can Bingham-plastic and power-law models. The
be accounted for by including the pressure loss calculations employ both constant and variable
around the down-hole recorder carriers, particularly mud properties. Differences between the results
around the carrier at 14,530 ft. The discrepancy for the Bingham-plastic model and for the power-
between calculated and measured pressures is Iaw model largely disappear at high pipe velocities,
most serious for the standpipe pressure, which is where shear rates are high and the two models
an absolute pressure as opposed to the annular should approach each other. The best over-all fit
losses, which are differentials between large to the data is given by the power-law model. The
pressures. Inclusion of the pressure losses around open-pipe calculations using constant properties
the carriers does not significantly reduce this compare as well with the measurements as those
discrepancy. The use of constant properties (surface generated using variable properties, if not better.
properties taken from Fig. 4) in the calculations This is in contrast with the circulating-pressure
for Test I yields standpipe pressures in excess of calculations (see Table 1) where variable properties
the measured values, an indication that the actual were by far the best. The quality of the data
flow properties producing the observed pressures obtained in the tests at other depths is not so
are somewhere between the constant surface values good as that obtained at 11,218 ft, but enough
and the variable properties shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 7 information is available to yield comparisons
shows calculated circulation pressures compared similar to those of Fig. 8. Good agreement was
with those measured in Test 3. The agreement is also found between calculated and measured
much better for Test 3 than for Test 1, particularly swab/surge pressures for the case with the pump
in the case of the standpipe pressure. Variable on.
mud properties provide the best results in these Swab/surge pressnres measured during Utah
calculations, although calculated annular pressure Tests 2 and 3 with the pipe both closed and open
losses are generally higher than the measured are compared with calculated pressures in Fig. $).
values. This figure shows pressure vs pipe velocity curves
fcr both open and closed pipe, calculated using the
SWAB/SURGE PRESSURES power-law model with constant properties and with
variable properties. The closed-pipe calculations
Fig. 8 concerns the Mississippi test at 11,218
with variable properties give a better over-all fit
ft. Measured swab/surge pressures with the pipe

...-.
—
to the pressure data, including those pressures

.--/--
—---—–
;,
+--
I 1

+..YI+/”” ‘ “—

z
—..
“’’’’’””:/ /:
-. --L-
:/ ;
. ...–- ..- fv J &qL
. !

‘// i
/~’~
-- . .. .--——,
— -_t------ _t__
1, p.br,rl:

—.. . L
-----# v-,- -~-+ -——L
ii
:

*4
/
__-~–...#!
..... .. .... -+..-:
150b3 ❑
1&539 L
11500
>715
A
0
~

D
PS%YS A Q ‘
/ -

.16>30
150b3
i/’
~‘:;:;’,:’w~;; ‘“’”
T_
——

7hR0 k
I
VARIABLE .- — —
PP4JPERT I H
IL

I
.——
11500
/{ ~ -
5735
A I tm~. u
I
12 Id.a I u I 1 I I 1 I -1 In I I I I I I
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 1:0 1,0 160 180 200 .$20 21,0
FLOW R,,T1 - GPV fLO. R4TE - c.PL!

FIG. 6 — COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND CALCU- FIG. 7 — COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND CALCU-
LATED STANDPIPE AND ANNULAR PRESSURES FOR LATED STANDPIPE AND ANNULAR PRESSURES FOR
TEST 1 — UTAH WELL, TEST 3 — UTAH WELL.

OCTOBER .1974 4s5

 TABLE 1 — COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND MEASURED CIRCULATING PRESSURES —
MISSISSIPPI WELL

Calculated Pressurss for Annul us/Standpipe

(psi/psi)
Measured Pressure
Variable Properties Constant Properties
Test Depth Pump* Rate Standpipe Annular
Number (ft) (strokes/rein) (psi) (psi) Bingham Power Law Bingham Power Law
— —
1 11,218 120 1,770 150 331/2,2!Xl 113/1,870 445/2,595 172/2,090
2 15,021 120 2,020 I 37 298/2,280 130/2,085 618/2,995 243/2,310
3 18,186 75 960 140 313/1,320 140/970 960/2,410 442/1,450
120 2,2.$0 245 420/2,460 242/2,209 1,110/3,630 628/2,770
165 3,920 355 555/4,080 370/3,930 1,245/5,440 800/4,640
168 4,020 415 578/4,250 382/4,030 1,254/5,540 810/4,730
‘Pump calibration gave 1.58 gal/stroke = 97 percent efficiency.

measured with the pipe open, It appears dlat as the effect of gel strength can be included in
long as the open area of the drillstring is small the computer program to more closely model and
compared with the area of the annulus, the calculate the open-pipe swab/surge pressures.
swab/surge pressures calculated on the basis of a The over-all comparison between the data obtained
closed pipe will give a very good representation of in the Mississippi and Utah tests and the
d]e actual open-pipe pressures. Apparently, the calculations using the power-law model with variable
gellation of the mud, which is not taken into properties is quite good, This is particularly true
account in the program, effectively plugs the pipe, of the circulating pressures, which are much more
particularly at low pipe speeds. As the pipe speed sensitive to the fluid properties (variable or
increases, the gel breaks down and the pipe behaves constant) than are the swab/surge pressures, The
more as if it were open. The magnitude of the gel Bingham-plastic model generally” gives calculated
strength should determine at what pipe velocity pressures that exceed the measured values and
the pressure response changes from closed-pipe to thus appears to be less accurate than the power-law
open-pipe behavior. As knowledge of the dependence model. As a rule, the use of variable fluid properties
of gel strength on time and temperature improves, is most desirable, but it may not be the most

1,,! 1, ——-t–
I - -- --—

..>.

. .. --— .

. ..

,,. ,

.,

,,, !
“,
I
i 1

~ 1,.!.1 — -—
.

;
:, ‘,, ,’4
RI ..,.,,..> : ,
/
1.1,.X.1 1<
~ /

j
: ‘.,,,,

(.\, l!l\:l!,
, ,, ,

~.

.,!, ! , —- :.

.,
. . . ,,. , , r ,1

.,, .. . . . . ..C ●
,,, (8

.,
.,
v
@- - “’”’’’”-<L’’” 0
3 Llrts A A
r, ,K, H

1 .Xx
,, I ) LLcI. LD + x
,7 1!.,! r, ,,1, . :,, ( , ,,, ,!, f.t. t! :(, r,

.!.,. ,..,... 1%. .,, ,(, ,, . ,.,., ),

FIG. 8 — COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND CALCU- FIG’. 9 — COMPARISON OF OPEN AND CLOSED PIPE
LATED SWAB/SURGE PRESSURES FOR TEST 1 — CALCULA’ITONS WITH SWAB/SURGE PRESSURES
MISSISSIPPI WELL. MEASURED IN TESTS 2 AND 3 — UTAH WELL.

4S6 SOCIETY OF PKTROLEI” M EXGISEERS JO I”RN’.i I.

practical approach, particularly in dealing with an surge pressure, psi
oil mud. The technique used to estimate down-hole swab pressure, psi
properties for oil muds from surface measurcnrents
total pressure loss in wel[bore, psi
appears to give good results, but more improvement
flow rate, gal/rein
is needed. The use of a high-temperature viscometer
(Farm Model 50B) for determining down-hole flow in annulus resulting from drillstring
properties of water-base muds appears to give motion, gal/rein
good results. flow inside drillstring resulting from
drillstring motion, gal/rein
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS qa 4 qb
Improved equations and methods were developed pump flow rate, gal/rein
for calculating down-hole pressures resulting from NRe = Reynolds number
fluid circulation and drillstring movement and were (~Re)~ - modified Reynolds number used
programmed for computer solution. Comparisons in power-law modeI calculations
between the results of the new program and the +lor- 1, depending upon direction of
field measurements show that the new program is flow in annulus
adequate in ~ost cases. These comparisons
fluid velocity in annul us, ft/sec
emphasize the importance of properly modeling the
component of fluid velocity due to pipe
drilling fluid properties and the fluid velocity
displacement, ft/sec
resulting from drillstring movement.
the total fluid velocity producing the
NOMENCLATURE surge pressure, ft/sec
the total fluid velocity producing the
B = Bingham number swab pressure, ft/sec
dh -, diameter of hole or casing, in. component of fluid velocity due to viscous
(ii= internal diameter of drillstring or liner, drag of pipe, ft/sec
in. velocity of pipe, ft/min
dN . diameter of nozzles or other orifices, in. (i P,”dl,
dP . outside diameter of drillstring or liner, proportionality constant in Eq. A-14
in. fluid conductance, dimensionless
2T . average diameter of tool joints and plastic viscosity of mud in annulus, cp
drillpipe rubbers, in. plastic viscosity of mud in drillstring or
f- friction factor liner, cp
/; ? ]aminar friction factor where RAf = 3,470 density of drilling fluid, lb/gal
-1,370 ??p
yield point of mud in annulus, lb/100 ft2
f; = turbulent friction fact( ~ :it. R,\f = 4,270
yield point of mud in drillstring or liner,
-1,370 rrp
lb/100 ftz
ka = viscosity coefficient in power-law model
(defined by Fq. A-31) SUBSCRIPTS

&p T viscosity coefficient in power-law model a =- annulus

(defined by Eq. A-30) b = inside drillstring or liner
L= length of section, ft i = index referring to specific pipe velocity
Lt = total length of tool joints and drillpipe being considered
rubbers in section, ft j - index referring to section number (j = 1
nr? = viscosity coefficient in power-law model to ?l~)
(defined by Eq, A-2!3) k = index referring to specific flow rate being
n~ = number of bit nozzles or other orifices considered
(maximum of eight) p = ir, side drillstring or Iiner
np z viscosity coefficient in power-law model
(defined by Eq. A-28) ACKNOWLEDGMENT
rr~ = number of sections of different geometry ‘We wish to thank Shell Oil Co. for permission to
(maximum of 10)
publish this work.
Ap = pressure loss, psi
A/)a = pressure loss in annulus, psi REFERENCES

ApN = pressure loss through nozzles or other E. H., Jr.: ((Bottom-Hole pressure SUrges While
1. Clark,
orifices, psi Running Pipe, ” Pet. Eng. (Jan. 19S5) B-68,
App = pressure loss inside drillstring or liner, 2, Burkhardt, J. A.: “Wellbore Pressure Surges Produced
psi by Pipe Movement, ‘p j. Pet. Tech (June 1961) 595-
605; Trans., AIME, Vol. 222,

OCTOBER, 1974 4s7

3. Moore, P. L.: ~~pre~~ure Surges and Their Effect on three cases: (1) pipe closed; (2) piPe open, PumP
Hole Conditions, ” OiZ and Gas J. (Dec. 13, 1965) 90, on; and (3) pipe open, pump off.
4. Schuh, F. J.: ~fcomputer Makes Surge-Pressure CalcLr-
Let us consider the first two cases. General
Iations Useful, ” Oil and Gas J, (Aug. 3, 1964) 96.
expressions for the fluid velocities in the case of
5. Melrose, J, C., Savins, J. C., Foster, W. R., snd surge and swab can be written as
Parish. E. R.: ~iA practical Utilization of the Theory
of Bingham Plastic Flow in Stationary Pipes and +uvi~, . .. (4)4)
‘SGij ‘“a~ + ‘dij
Annuli, “ ~f@ZS,, AIME (1958) 316-324.
6. Dodge, D. W., and Metzner, A. B.: llTurbulent Flow
of Non-Newtonian Systems, ” AIChE jour. (June
1959) vol. 5, 189. ‘S WI J=ua J-udl J-uV lJ’ ““ “
(A-5)
7. Clark, R. K., and Fontenot, J, E.: “Field Measure-
ments of the Effects of Drill String Velocity, Pump where tt ~j is the velocity in the section annulus
Speed, and Lost Circulation Material on Down-hole resulting from pump flow (Eq. A-2), udi. is, the
Press ures, ” paper SPE 4970 presented at SPE-AIME
velocity component due to the drillstring 4splace-
49th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Oct. 6-9, 1974.
ment, and u ~,ij is the velocity component due to
8. Wilkinson, W. L.: Non.i%eu,foniav Fluids, Pergamon
Press, Inc., New York (1960) Vol. 1, 86. the viscous drag of the drillstring.
As given by ‘Burkhardt,2 the ~elocity component
APPENDIX due to pipe displacement is
* -
EQUATIONS USED IN COMPUTER PROGRAM
1 ~ J2

The computer program is arranged to handle as

=—— (A-6)
‘dl J
many as 10 sections of different geometry (ns = 10). 601- @Jvpi ”””””
Each section is completely general with the lJ
exception of the bottom section, which is assumed
to con:ain nozzles or orifices, if any exist. Each The velocity component due to viscous drag is not
section may have tool joints and drillpipe rubbers. so simple. It will depend on whether the velocity in
The program is set up to consider multiple flow the section annulus results in Iaminar or turbulent
rates and pipe velocities for swab/surge calculations. flow. If the flow is laminar.
In the following discussion, no attempt will be
made to develop all equations. Rather, in most
cases, reference will be made to the literature.

1
The equations used to determine the mud velocity 1 1- ~J2 + 2U$2 in (UJ)
during the various operations will be presented -—
“pi ;
first, followed by the Bingham-fluid and power-law 60 2 (1- ~J2) in (~j)
model formulas. Calculation of the desired pressure [
from the fluid models using the proper velocity
. . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . (A-7)
equation will then be discussed. All symbols are
defined in the Nomenclature. and if the flow is turbulent,
VELOCITY EQUATIONS
0.5 “pi
Velocities N’bile L’irculatirrg ._,. ..(A . . . ..(A-8)
,. =
In the drillstring, the fluid velocity in each ‘vi J
60
section is given by
Eq. A-7 was derived for a Newtonian fluid in an
.408 qpk annulus. This is apparently the same equation
=—. . . . . . . . . .(A-l) used by Burkhardt, but presented in graphical form.
‘P $ Burkhardt gives a relationship in turbulent flow
d21j
that differs from Eq. A-8 in that the constant, 0.5,
In each section of the annulus, the co~esponding is replaced by a function depending on aj. AS ai
equation is varies from 0.4 to 1.0, Burkhardt’s curve shows
this function to vary from 0.45 to 0.50. l%e method
.408 qpk used by Burkhardt to derive his relationship for
= .(A-2) turbulent flow is not clear even from the references
‘a J
d cited. The constant 0.5 has been adwted for USe
h~2(l-%2)’””””o” in the computer program.
where
Schuh4 gives an equation for the velocity
component due to viscous drag that is independent
bfj ‘dpj/ahj”.”””.””.”.(A-sJ
of the flow regime. This equation was apparently
derived using the velocity profile in a slits in the
Veloci ties While hloving the Pipe
flow equation for an annulus. The resulting cu~e

To calculate the fluid velocity causing the swab falls between Burkhardt’s curves for Iaminar and
or surge, it is necessary to’ consider the following turbulent flow.

458 SOCIETY OF PETROLEIJM ENGINEERS JOrJRsAI.

 In general, it is not known in advance whether
the flow will be Iaminar or turbulent or whether APP =~qbi2, . . . . . . . .. (A-14)

Eq. A-7 or A-8 is applicable. In the program, the Using the /3 calculated from Eq. A-14 and the
flow is first assumed laminar. This assumption is pressure drops in the annulus, Apa, and inside the
then tested as described later, and Eq. A-8 is used drill string, ApP , a new guess for qb~ is given by
in the pressure calculation if the assumption is

()
found incorrect.
APa + APP %
Let us now consider the case where the drillstring . . . . . . (A-15)
is open to the annulus and the pump is off. Fluid
qb; = —
2P
displaced by the moving drillstring is free to flow
in the annulus or in the drillstring, In this case,
The new guess for qbi is not allowed to exceed
the determination of the fIuid velocity in the
qabi.
annulus is not so simple as above. The distribution
This sequence of steps is repeated until a flow
of flow between the annulus and the drillstring
distribution is obtained that results in pressure
must be determined so that the pressure drop
drops in the annulus and inside the drillstring within
inside the drillstring equals that in the annul us.
2 percent of each other.
The total volume displaced by the bottom section
of the drill string, can be written as BINGHAM-FLUID EQUATIONS
Referring to Melrose cl (J/. $ we can apply the
following equations inside each section of the
drillstring:
4.08 X 10-2 VPi[(Ln - L,n ) dpn 2
{ 39.9 d,j Tpj
Bingham number = B = .
P3
+ L7n ~yn
8 ,2’} ; (L,, } ~ o JA-9’
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-16)
where qai is the flow in the annulus from the
displaced volume and qbi is the corresponding Conductance
flow in the drillstring. The velocity inside the
drillstring in each section is given by 4

()
‘tpj Bpj 1 ‘fPj ‘PJ
.408 qb~ =ypj=l - ~ +;—
=— . . . . . . . . . (A-1O) 8
‘bij
2 d, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,, . (A-I7)
J
is given by Eq. A-I. Fq. A-17
The velocity in each section of the annulus is the
sum of the velocities produced by the viscous drag ‘he‘elOcity’
‘P’
must be solved y trial and error for ypj. To do SO,
of the drillstring, u ~ij, and the total displacement the program uses a table of approximate values as
of the pipe reduced by a velocity corresponding to the first guess. This table was obtained from a
the volume of fluid flow in the drillstring. curve taken from Melrose rl uI,S (Note: in his paper,
Burkhardt2 determines the fluid conductance for
=Uvij +udi$-ua ij, . ..(ll)l) the drillstring and annulus from a graph as a
‘SG1 j
function of a dimensionless quantity called the
(A-12) plasticity. His graph is attributed to Melrose (’I a/s
‘S WiJ=-u SGi j’”””” ““’”
Upon checking Burkhardt’s graph for the annulus,
where it appears tha: an error was made in plotting this
graph, so that the fluid conductai]ce in the annulus
.408 qb ~ is always too low. This would result in pressure
Uaij = >. .,. (A-13) losses too high when calculated by his method. )
With ytj determined from Eq. A-17, the friction
factor IS computed from the following equations
taken from Melrose et al.s and Dodge and Metzner. b
and uvij and are given by Eqs. A-6, A-7, and
ud~j

A-8, Initially, It is assumed in the calculations

For Laminar F1OW
that qhi is given by the total volume displaced by
the bottom section, multiplied by the fraction of 16
the total area at the bottom of the string represented <2000, fpj ‘—”
by the open area of the drillstring. If the resulting YPJ RPj
pressure drops inside and outside the drillstring ~pJRP$
. . . . . . . . . . “s””” . . . . (A-18)
are not within 2 percent, then a second guess for
qbi is made as follows. It is assumed that the
pressure cirop inside the drillstring is given by

OCTOBER .197.l 4s9

 For Turbulent Flow

Yp$ RP~> 2000’ ‘p~ =

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-26)
[4.0 log (Rpj %3) - 0.40]-2 >
Eq. 25 is solved by trial and error for the turbulent
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-19) friction factor. The friction factor from Eq. A-24
or A-25 is used to cal~ulate the pressure IOSS in
where Rpj (the Reynolds number) is given by the section as

2
f aj
928 ‘\j ‘pJ %
. . . . . . .(A-20)
Pm ‘aj
. . ,( A-27)
R APa ~ =
PJ= 25.81 dhj (1 - ~j)
Vp J

POWER-LAW EQUATIONS
Eq. A-19is solvedby trial and errorin theprogram.
Using the friction factors from Eq. A-18 or Ac19, Before discussing the flow equations, it is
the pressure loss inside the drillstring is given as necessary to consider the equations needed in
determining the viscosity coefficients for use in
‘vJ %
Lj V2pj the power-law model in terms of the plastic viscosity
. . . . ! (A-21) and yield point as conventionally measured.
APpj =
As given by Schuh,4 the viscosity coefficients
25.81 dlj for the drillstring and annulus can be written as
Referring to .Melrose [>/ (1/.,5 we can apply the
following equations in theannu)us:

Bingham number

39.9 dh$ (1 - CYj) ‘raj

= B . .. . . 9
a~

Na5uaj
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-22)

Conductance
7P j +2 VP 3,...,.. .( A-30)
k =
PJ
100 (1022)n PJ

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..! (A-23) ‘ra j + 21Ja

j
k= >. . . . . . .( A-31)
8J
In the trial-and-error solution of this equation in 100 (1022)na J
the computer program, a table of approximate values
is used as the first guess. The friction factors as Equations are needed for flow inside the
given in Refs. 5 and 6 are drillstring and in the annulus. Referring to Dodge
and Metznerband Schuh$ we can apply the following
For Laminar Flow equation inside the drillstring:

24
Modified Reynolds number =
S2000, faj ‘—”
Ya$ ‘a~
Y.JR8J
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-24)

For Turbulent Flow

‘fa J ‘aj > 2000>

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-32)
f aJ = [400 log (Ra$ %$) - 0.40]-2
is given by Eq. A-1, The friction factor
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-25) where ‘Pi
IS a function of the type of flow; i.e., laminar,
where l?aj (the Reynolds number) is given by turbulent, or transitional.

460 SOCIETY OF PET ROLE I’31 ES CIYEERS JO II RX.\L

If RMj <3,470-1,370 tlpj (lafnhlar), Modified Reynolds number* =

=16/RMj . . ..-. .””” ”@33)

‘J
If RMj z 4,270-1,370 npj (turbulent),

f={-log F(f)’”np”g
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-36)

0.40 -2 where u ~i and uj have been defined in Eqs. A-2

.— . . . . . . . . (A-34) and A-3. The friction factors for the annulus are
1.2 calculated using equations similar to those for the
‘P J } drillstring (Eqs. A-33, A-34, and A-35) except that
If (3,470 - 1,370 npj) < RMj < (4,270 - 1,370 npj) the Iarninar friction factor is written as*
(transitional), =24/RM j, . . . . . . . . . . . (A-37)
‘J

-1
16 ‘M $ - (3470 - 1370 npj) and the viscosity coefficient for the annulus naj is
+ used in place of n ,. The pressure loss in the
‘~=—
RM3 800 section annulus is gf~en by Eq, A-27.
[
CIRCULATING PRESSURES
(f ’Tj-f ’4j)> . . . . . . . ..(A-3~) Two ~irculating-pressure losses are generally of
interest — the loss in the annulus, which adds to
where from Eq, A-34; the effective circulating density, Pee, and the total
f’TJ = 4270 - 1370 n, ~ , pressure loss in the wellbore, To obtain these,
= ‘J ‘or ‘M~ the pressure loss inside the drillstring and pressure
and from Eq. A-33, loss in the annulus are calculated in each section
and then the section losses are summed. The system
,’k J = fj for ~j = 3470 - 1370 nPj losses are then given as

Pressure loss inside drill string =

Eq. A-34 must be solved by trial and error. Fig.
10 is a plot of this equation (for various values n~
of n) taken from Dodge and Metzner.6 Also shown
APP = APP ~ + APN , . . . (A-38)
in this figure are points calculated using z
approximate equations given by Schuh.4 Schuh’s j=l
equations are used to obtain the first guess for /i
where ISp N is the pressure drop through the bit
in the trial-and-error solution. Once /j is known,
nozzles or other orifices, given by Schuh4 as
the pressure loss is given by !Zq. A-21.
In the annu)us, the following equation applies:
1.343 x 10-4 pm qpk2
., (A-j9)
APN =
(.95)2 nN2 dN4
. .I,,, ,,, .J. ,,,4 ..,,,,.. ,,,. ,
0.1111,0..,,,,,,,.,.. ,.,,. ,<., ,,,, ., ,,, ,.,.
Pressure loss in annulus =

na

. APa = AP&$.””””””s(A-40J
e“ 0.0 x
E
~ j=l
;
t
E

*This equation as given by Schuh 4 lacks the (2/.3) in the

denominator. Schuh’s equation is clearly in error and should be
corrected before it is used. This error causes calculated
0.00 vu annulus pressure drops to be too hiy,h in some cases and too
low in others.
MflP1~l E1 “NNcu 13S !/l .RFR . [t+,,]” **1” Schuh; s paper, a a second er-or is made in that the Li?taon
factor for Iaminar flow is 16/( Rejmolds number), instead of as
FIG. 10 — FRICTION FACTOR VS MODIFIED given in this equation. This error, coupled with the error in the
REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR VARIOUS VALUES OF n Reynolds number equation, produces s correct friction factor
(AFTER DODGE AND METZNER 6). for laminar flow, but not fcr turbulent flow.

OCTOBER, 1974 461

 The equivalent circulating density= Swab pressure .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-44)

where ~ is equal to +1 or -I, depending on whether

‘SWij IS positive or negative. To get the total
surge and swab pressures, the pressures for the
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-41) individual sections are summed as follows:

n
Pressure loss in wellbore=
APSG1 = APsG1$ , . . . . .( A-45)
APt = ApP+ Apa. . . . . .. (A-42) r
j=l
The program calculates circulating pressure !osses
using both the Bingham-fluid model and the n~
power-law model.
AP~w~ = APsW1 ~ . . . . . (A-46)
SWAB AND SURGE. PRESSURES I
j =1
In calculating swab and surge pressures, it is
first necessary to calculate the velocity of the
For the case where the drillstring is open to the
iluid that results from drillstring movement. The
annulus and the pump is off, there are several other
equations for these calculations are given above.
factors to cons~der. The flow of mud and the
The fluid velocity is calculated from the appropriate
resulting pressure drop inside the drillstring must
velocity equatior and is then used to calculate a
be evaluated. The surge or swab pressure in each
pressure bared on the Bingham or power-law models
section of the annulus is calculated u ‘;ng IZqs. A-11
as discussed previously.
and A- I 2 for the velocity, and Eqs. A-43 and A-44
Tor the cases where the drillstring is closed or
for the pressure. The resu!ting total pressure from
open with the pucip on, Eqs. A 4 and A-5 are used
Eqs. A-45 and A-46 is compared with the pressure
to calculate the velccity in each section. In the
drop inside the drillstring calculated from the
equations leading up to the pressure calculations,
velocity equation (Eq. A-1 0) and the pressure
al! velocity terr-, s (uaj) are replaced by USG:~ or
equation (Eq. A-38). If the drillstring and annulus
u~wij. The section pressures are given by pressures are not within 2 percent, the process is
Lepeated as discussed above.
Surge pressure = ● **

f: pm L$ ‘2 SG1$

APsGl~ =
25.81 dhj (1 - ~JJ

—
. ..*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (’$-43)

462 SOCIETY OF PET ROLEVM ENGINEERS JOURNAL.