SPE/IADC 67717

Field Validation of Transient Swab/Surge Response with PWD Data

*

G.Robello Samuel , Ashwin Sunthankar , Glen McColpin , Landmark Graphics, Peter Bern BP, Tim Flynn , Sperry-Sun
*SPE

Copyright 2001, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February1 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their
officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to
an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper describes the results of field validation of the
transient swab, surge model with PWD (Pressure while
drilling) data. The maximum pressures encountered during
tripping-or reciprocation are indispensable for making
appropriate well completion decisions. The prediction of swab
and surge pressures are of critical importance in wells where
the pressure must be maintained within narrow limits of pore
and fracture pressures. It also plays a major role in running
casing, particularly with narrow annular clearances. For these
critical cases, a fully dynamic model is required to better
estimate the maximum pressures encountered.
This paper presents actual surge and swab field data during
tripping and circulating operations collected using PWD tools.
These data were obtained from Alaska and North Sea wells
with a range of hole diameters and with different base fluid
muds. The data were compared and interpreted with a
dynamic surge model, which includes the effects of fluid
inertia and compressibility, wellbore elasticity, axial elasticity
of the pipe, and temperature dependent fluid properties.
The sampling rate was specifically increased to two seconds
and in some cases one second. This is done to prevent
downhole data attenuations and to capture the full waveforms
more accurately. Different operations were included in the
PWD runs to cover swabbing, surging, reciprocation and
simultaneous pumping operations during tripping. Model
predictions of downhole pressure behaviour were in excellent
agreement with the measured PWD data.

Introduction
Qualitative assessment and quantitative characterization of the
well pressures are of critical importance in many phases of the
well construction. They not only allow subsequent
adjustments to the wellplan when combined with payzone geo
steering tools but also successful completion of extended
reach and complex wells.
Increasingly more difficult wells are being drilled with a
narrow margin between pore and fracture pressures. This
requires swab/surge pressures be maintained within the narrow
limits while tripping drillpipe, running casing and cementing.
Operating outside this safe operating window for even short
durations has historically led to costly well complications.
Monitoring the actual downhole pressure in real-time with a
PWD tool is a reliable method however real-time data is
generally confined to periods of continuous circulation. In
addition, it is not possible to run conventional PWD
technology with casing strings. If a reliable predictive
validated model with the real time data is available, it will
help to accurately evaluate transient wellbore pressures at an
early stage of the well planning phase. It also offers a viable
tool to provide accurate data not only in the planning phase
but also to better define the operating limits for both drilling
and casing operations.
Developing confidence in computational predictions requires
the establishment of a rigorous procedure to assure the trends
and magnitudes of the results match reality.This paper focuses
on the validation process.
Background
Pressure surges in critical wells are commonly determined
using steady flow surge models. In these models, the drilling
mud is perfectly displaced by the pipe motion. These models
neglect fluid inertia and the compressibility of the fluid and
wellbore, and the axial elasticity of the pipe. The first fully
dynamic surge pressure model was developed by Lubinski(1).
This model emphasized the importance of compressibility in
pressure calculations. Lal(2) has corrected a number of
deficiencies in the Lubinski model and presented the influence
of various parameters affecting surge pressures. Both Lubinski
and Lal assumed rigid pipe displacement. Mitchell(3,4) added

SAMUEL, SUNTHANKAR, MCCOLPIN, BERN, FLYNN

the effect of pipe axial elasticity to dynamic surge analysis.

The Mitchell model is used in this paper for validation. Not
only does there need to be sufficient engineering detail to
accurately predict swab and surge pressures, but more
importantly issues involving the validity, accuracy, and lack of
data validation need to be addressed, before deciding whether
the model predicts reasonably well. This also allows the model
to be verified. This ensures that the computer simulation
mimics the conceptual model that has been designed and that
the simulation is an accurate representation of the actual
systems considered. Even though the model has been
extensively field validated(5) with an earlier generation of
downhole and surface data, the advent of highly accurate
downhole tools has provided an opportunity to re-validate the
model.

SPE/IADC 67717

The string was pulled out of the hole in singles with

circulation. The PWD data from 3712 ft to 3520ft was used
RKB
110 ft

16 C asing

9 7/8 Hole

INC: 33.5 o , AZ: 240 o ,

4286 ft M D
7 5/8 C asing

Methodology
The PWD data are compared with the dynamic surge/swab
model, which has the capability to include directional wells,
circulation while tripping, dynamic pipe behavior. The
enhanced dynamic model(3) includes fluid inertia, fluid
compressibility, wellbore elasticity, axial elasticity of moving
pipe, temperature dependent fluid rheology for both water and
oil based muds, simultaneous circulation and pipe movement
well deviation and eccentricity.
The data capture rates at the surface and downhole were of
major concern since full dynamic response to swabs and
surges are being studied. The sampling rate of the
measurement was adjusted to every two seconds and in certain
cases four seconds. Simulation indicated that this rate was fast
enough to adequately characterize any transient response. The
method and details of the model involved are beyond the
scope of this paper and explained elsewhere(3).

Well-A
The following case studies are from the data file of Well-A
from North Slope. The well schematic is presented in Fig.1.
Conductor casing of 16 was landed at 110 ft followed by 7
5/8 surface casing to a depth of 4286ft. Further 6 drilling
was in progress.
Case 1 (Swab)
After completion of the drilling 9 7/8 the string was pulled
out of the hole for the 7 5/8 casing job. The string consisted
of the following downhole tools, Jar, Stabilizers, PWD tool,
Positive displacement motor and Tricone bit
The distance to the PWD sensor from the bit = 43 ft
The mud properties at the time of pulling out were as follows:
Mud Weight 9.6 ppg
Plastic Viscosity 27 cP
2
Yield Point 39 lbf/100ft
2
Gel 12 lbf/100ft
Base Water

6 3/4 Open Hole

Figure 1 Well Schematic

for analysis. To account for the six singles pulling out
including the pipe breaking and making time, velocity profile
was used in the simulation for accurate prediction.
1900
Measured
Predicted

1800

Pressure (psi)

Case Studies:

INC: 19.6 o , AZ: 238 o ,

7100 ft M D

1700

1600

1500

1400

1300
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Time (sec)

Figure 2 Swab with circulation

Figure 2 provides the detailed comparison of the measured and
predicted results. As seen, the predicted results correlate well
with the actual data. In the above case study mud weight was
tuned to match the starting non-uniform hydrostatic gradient.
It can be seen that the peak pressure measured is slightly
higher than the predicted response pressure of the PWD data.

SPE/IADC 67717

FIELD VALIDATION OF TRANSIENT SWAB/SURGE PRESSURE RESPONSE WITH PWD DATA

The data adjustment is justified as settling might have

occurred in the mud column resulting in non-uniform
hydrostatic gradient.

operations including the transition period from the swab and

surge operations. The amplitudes of the characteristics are
very close which again confirmsthat the correlation is good for
each stage of the operation.

Case - 2
2000

1950

1900

Pressure(psi)

During pulling out, tight pull was encountered and after

clearing the tight spots, reciprocation was carried out at a
depth of 4,249.7 ft without circulation. The pipe was
reciprocated between 4,249.7 ft and 4180 ft with variable
stroke length to make sure the tight spot has been cleared. This
operation and data set provides a case for simulating
reciprocation when not circulating. In this case, due to variable
stroke rate velocity profile was used for the simulation. The
mud properties at the time of reciprocation were same as in
Case 1.
The swab and surge pressures during the reciprocation
predicted by the model compared extremelywell with the
PWD data. The peaks and troughs matched closely with wave
oscillation in time. Both the frequency response and amplitude
of the predicted waveforms matched the measured PWD data
closely. At the tail end of the pressure waveform, smoothing
of the peaks is observed and the pressure prediction are within
2%.

1850

1800

1750

1700

Predicted
Measured

1650

1600
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Time(sec)

Figure 4 Swab-Surge without circulation

Case 4 (Swab-Surge)

2200
Measured

The following case is concerned with a surge operation from

5,217 ft to 5,285 ft. The waveform character of the predicted
surge pressure agrees well with the data. The data comparison
exhibits the same transient behavior as that of the measured
data but with smaller amplitude at the start and matches
perfectly at the latter part of the waveform. The transient
peaks are strictly a dynamic phenomenon that would not be
predicted by a steady state model.

Predicted

Pressure (psi)

2100

2000

2540

1900

1800
0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (sec)

Figure 3 Reciprocation without circulation

Pressure (psi)

2515

2490

2465

Case 3 (Swab-Surge)

Measured
Predicted

A swab operation followed by a stationary period and a surge

operation is presented below. The operations were carried out
between the measured depths 2,384 ft (Inc-23.87 deg, AZM242.24) and 2,424 ft. (Inc-26.79 deg, AZM-241.43). The
Figure 4 shows the model prediction waveform against the
measured data. The model closely predicts the above

2440
0

30

60

90

Time (sec)

Figure 5 Surge without circulation

120

SAMUEL, SUNTHANKAR, MCCOLPIN, BERN, FLYNN

Well-B
The following case study is from the data file of Well-B
drilled in North Sea. This study of swab-surge pressures for an
offshore deviated well with a water depth of 1,660 ft,. The
well schematic is presented in Fig.6
The string consisted of 500 ft of BHA with the following tools
Jar, MWD tool, Stabilizers, Positive displacement motor and
PDC bit. The distance to the PWD sensor was 53 ft from the
bit.

SPE/IADC 67717

The same adjusted mud density was used in the simulation,

which effectively isolates the influence of the rotary speed. It
can also been seen from Figure 5 that the model predicted the
precise time that the pressure jumps as delineated by the
vertical dotted lines. The model predicted within 2% error.
4000
Measured
Predicted

Pressure (psi)

3900

Well Schematic
0 ft

RKB
Mean Sea Level

1660 ft

3800

Mud Line

3700

36" Structural Drive Pipe

20" Conductor Casing

3600

16" Surface Casing

200

800

1000

Figure 7 Surge with circulation and rotation

56 INC 215 AZM

5571 ft TVD
12 1/4" hole

Summary

62 INC 215 AZM

13287 ft

600

Time (sec)

13 3/8" Intermediate Casing

6023 ft

400

6656 ft TVD

Figure 6 Well Schematic

The mud properties at the time of pulling out was as follows:
Mud Weight 10.87 ppg
Plastic Viscosity 37 cP
2
Yield Point 40 lbf/100ft
2
Gel 27 lbf/100ft Type Synthetic base fluid

Case 3
To demonstate, the ability of the model to predict accurately
the variable reciprocation rate with circulation the following
case was picked from the PWD data. This helps to isolate the
influencing parameters and quantify the capability of the
model. The model presently does not account for the rotation
of the workstring. Reciprocation with variable stroke length
from ,12894ft to 1,2804ft for approximately 20 minutes with
mud circulation and rotation allows a comprehensive
comparison of the model prediction with the data. This
provides a continuous positive pump pressure along with the
drillsting rotation. The rotary speed was 90 rpm and flowrate
was 890 gpm.

Analysis of downhole pressure data show that the

transient model is capable of accurately simulating a
range of complex drilling operations.
The cases presented reinforce several non-intuitive
transient effects such as the observation of surge effects
while swabbing and vice versa.
The data clearly show dynamic and inertial effects not
anticipated by conventional practices but predicted by the
model. The unexpected transient effects observed also aid
in demonstrating that a steady-state analysis may not
always be conservative.
The minordeviation in the predicted values may at least in
part be attributed to the non-uniformity of the wellbore
and failure to account for the elastic response of the
surface equipment.
Based on the excellent agreement between the model and
the measured data, the model portrays accurately the
swab/surge pressures throughout the wellbore.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their appreciation to their
respective companies for the opportunity to present this paper.
Also, the authors would like to take this opportunity to
recognize the contributions of Mitch Bique, and Chris Dalton
of Sperry-Sun. In particular, the authors would lke to
recognize the contributions of Chris Ward, formerly with
Sperry-Sun.

1200

SPE/IADC 67717

FIELD VALIDATION OF TRANSIENT SWAB/SURGE PRESSURE RESPONSE WITH PWD DATA

References
1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

Lubinski, A., Hsu, F. H., and Nolte, K. G. Transient

Pressure Surges Due to Pipe Movement in an Oil Well.
Fevue de lInst. Franc. Du Pet., May June 1977
Lal, Manohar. Surge and Swab Modeling for Dynamic
Pressures and Safe Trip Velocities. Proceedings, 1983
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans.
Mitchell, R. F. Dynamic Surge/Swab Pressure
Predictions., SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988.
Mitchell, R.F. Surge Pressures: Are Steady-State Models
Adequate? SPE 18021 Annual Technical Conference,
Houston, October 2-5.
Wagner R.R, Halal A.S., Goodman M.A, Surge Field
Tests Highlight Dynamic Fluid Response SPE 25771,
1993 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cPx 1.0*E 03 = Pa.s
ft x 3.048*
E-03 = m
in. x 2.54*
E+00 = cm
lbf x 9.869 233 E-00 = N
md x 6.894 757 E-04 = m2
psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
Conversion factors exact