SPE/IADC-189331-MS

Optimization of Tripping Speed to Minimize Surge & Swab Pressure

A. M. Al-Abduljabbar, KFUPM; M. Enamul Hossain, Nazarbayev University; S. Al Gharbi and M. Al-Rubaii, KFUPM

Copyright 2018, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 29-31 January 2018.

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 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 does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors,
its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors 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 SPE/IADC copyright.

Abstract
Pressure changes due to surge and swab has been a concern in the drilling industry for many years. The fast
and sudden movement of the drill string while pulling out of hole causes the wellbore pressure to decrease.
This is due to the frictional forces between the pipe moving upward and the drilling mud that is stationary,
which is known as the swab pressure. The opposite is also true, moving quickly inside wellbore will cause
the pressure to increase, and this is known as the surge pressure. If these pressure changes become very
high, the formation might get fractured which introduces influx leading to a kick. In severe cases, this kick
might lead to a blowout which endangers human lives and environment.
This article focuses on the fundamental theory of surge and swab in addition to the maximum pipe running
speed that avoids surging and swabbing the well. Further, calculations are carried out to optimizing the
maximum pipe tripping speed by employing different parameters as input values. Both laminar and turbulent
flows are considered in addition to closed ended pipes since it is the most critical one. The objective of this
study is to optimize the drilling parameters that specify the maximum pipe tripping speed with different
hole's sizes and pipe dimensions. Moreover, this research offers the optimized values to identify the factors
that heavily affect surge and swab pressures. The results show that annular space and bottom-hole assembly
(BHA) length have significant effects on surge and swab pressure values. Sensitivity analysis shows that
pipe size and mud rheology impacts surge and swab values, but not significant. In fact, it is the annular
velocity which is heavily affected by BHA length and size. When it comes to casing, the size was not an
issue because the annular space is larger compared to smaller casing sizes. In addition, study shows that
depth plays vital roles that can be seen with smaller casing sized. This study will enhance the understanding
of drilling problems while drilling due to surge or swab pressures.
keywords: pressure, surge, swab, pipe speed, trip speed, rheology, kick, losses, frictional pressure, cling
factor

Introduction
It has been stated by many researchers and field experts that easy wells are drilled already and we are only
left with challenging wells. These challenges include small window between pore and fracture pressure,
stability of the wellbore and formations that are depleted. The fast and sudden movement of the drill string
2 SPE/IADC-189331-MS

while pulling out of hole causes the wellbore pressure to decrease. This is due to the frictional forces between
the pipe moving upward and the drilling mud that is stationary, which is known as the swab pressure. The
opposite is also true, moving quickly inside wellbore will cause the pressure to increase, and this is known
as the surge pressure. Both surge pressure & swab pressures may lead to many drilling problems such as lost
circulations of drilling fluid and wellbore influx. When the drilling bottom hole assembly is lowered inside
the wellbore, an additional bottom hole pressure is created and it is called surge pressure. If this pressure
is high enough, then many of the problems mentioned earlier can occur. On the other hand, swab pressure
occurs when there is a sudden pressure drop inside the wellbore. To minimize such drilling troubles, a better
understatement of surge and swab pressure is required especially the parameters that affect them such as
drill string running speed.
The challenge becomes more with wells having small window between formation pressure and fracture
pressure. If this is located in a deep well, then the tripping speed becomes very critical since it takes longer
time and therefore higher cost. Thus, having a model to calculate or simulate the maximum pipe running
speed will be of very helpful, so that we are aware of the pressure difference that we are introducing. Many
operators consider adding a tripping margin to account for any pressure reduction in the wellbore without
running any simulation. Normally this value is between 100 psi to 300 psi depending on the type of the
well. The downside of that is not knowing the optimum tripping speed to save time and money, or not
knowing if the tripping margin value is enough. Wellbore stability also should be taken into consideration
when selecting the tripping speed. This will help in understanding if wellbore geo-mechanics are within the
limits. Higher surge pressure values can cause the formation to fracture which leads to losing the hydrostatic
column of the mud. Having a fractured formation causes the mud column to get lost inside the formation.
This reduces the hydrostatic pressure applied on the formation, thus inviting the well to flow and causing a
serious well control problem. On the other hand, pulling the drill string out of hole very fast simulates the
piston or syringe effect in which the mud is suddenly raised upward in a discontinuous way. This happens
since the swabbed hydrostatic mud column can no longer overcome the formation pressure. This is serious
problem knowing that any fluid gain in the wellbore causes a kick leading to a blowout.

Literature Review
There are many methods to estimate surge and swab in literature. However, each method has its own
assumptions and conditions. The most famous one is published by Burkhardt (1961) in which he compared
measured results with predicted results that's generated by his theory. His research was based on real
assumptions, equations that are empirical and comparison of measured surge pressure values to what he
calculated using his model. His model can calculate surge & swab pressure for ideal Bingham plastic fluids
with a uniform wellbore and a concentric annulus, in addition to a steady state flow. Schuh (1964) had the
same approach in which he developed a model for power-law fluids assuming stead state fluid flow and
concentric wellbore. In 1998, Mitchell's developed a dynamic model which was based on existing surge &
swab models with additional factors which are formation, cement and pipe elasticity, mud rheology change
with temperature and viscous forces associated with displacement. Freddy et. al. in 2012 presents a new
steady state model for power law fluids which accounts for fluid compressibility, formation compressibility
and pipe elasticity. Their model was based on lab measurements, and the results showed good match
compared to their model prediction. Fig. 1 shows a nice comparison between their model and others.
Srivastav et al. in 2012 performed laboratory experimental work to study the effect centric and eccentric
pipes on surge and swab pressures. Their results confirmed that surge and swap pressures are highly affected
by pipe running speed, mud properties, annular clearance and pipe eccentricity. Using regression analysis,
they developed a correlation that that account for pipe eccentricity in surge and swab predictions, which
showed in one case a 40% reduction in surge and swab pressure due to eccentricity. Kristian et al. in 2013
SPE/IADC-189331-MS 3

developed a model for Herschel-Bulkley fluids that is based on ordinary differential equations to predict
surge and swab in real time.

Figure 1—Freddy model compared to others

Mud Rheology
Drilling fluids mostly behave as non-Newtonian such that the shear stress and the share rate are not linearly
related. On the other hand, this relation in Newtonian fluids is liner and as a result the viscosity is always
constant for any shear rate value. A Bingham fluid is a fluid that behaves as a firm body when experiencing
a low shear stress values, and behave viscously under high shear stress. When the fluid exceeds a certain
shear value, it starts behaving similar to a Newtonian fluid. Four of the most famous rheology models are
shown in the equations below as well as in Fig. 2.
Herschel Bulkley model:
(1)
Power law model:
(2)
Bingham plastic model:
(3)
Newtonian model:
(4)
Gel strength is defined as the resistance of mud to flow in static condition. This property reflects the
ability of the mud to suspend drilling solids in static mode once the mud pumps are turned off. If the drill
string is moved up or down, then a pressure or extra force is required to break and shear the gel that formed
around the drill pipe surface. Alternatively, this gel can be broken by the mud that is being pumped down
the well. This means that the gel inside the drill pipe and in the annulus needs to be broken, leading to a
greater initial equivalent circulating density (ECD).
Frictional pressure drop is one of the main contributors to surge & swab pressure in the wellbore, which
results from the flow of the drilling mud. Methods for calculating these pressure losses were presented by
4 SPE/IADC-189331-MS

Burkhardt (1961), Schuh (1964) and Fontenot & Clark (1974). The source of pressure loss can be frictional
losses in annulus, or acceleration of the mud column or changes in the mud rheology.

Figure 2—Rheological models (redrawn from Skalle, 2012)

Flow Types
Both laminar and turbulent flows are dependent on the dimensionless Reynolds number value. In straight
pipe, the flow is considered laminar initially until Reynolds number value approaches 2,300 which is called
the critical value. This value defines the transition between laminar & turbulent flow. After that, transition
zone occurs until Reynolds number approaches 4,000 where the turbulent flow starts to dominate.

• Laminar flow if Ren < 2300

• Transient zone if 2300 < Ren < 4000

• Turbulent flow if 4000 < Ren

This value of Reynolds number can be obtained by different methods, and the most common one is the
equation below:

(5)

Laminar flow occurs when there is no disruption between the layers and they are parallel to each other
(Fig. 3). At low velocities, the fluid layers are parallel to each other and each layer slide on the other without
change in any direction. In addition, the fluid particles are moving in a straight line and parallel to the
pipe walls. On the other hand, turbulent flow occurs at high velocities where the fluid particles are moving
irregularly and the fluid flow is unpredictable. Looking at the equation above, it can be seen that turbulent
flow is associated with larger pipe diameters. Unlike Laminar flow which is mainly a function of viscosity,
turbulent flow is a function of density.

Figure 3—Turbulent vs. Laminar flow, Survey

SPE/IADC-189331-MS 5

Challenges and Considerations

Surge and swab pressures can lead to dangerous situations. If swab pressure is very high, then formation
pressure might exceed the wellbore pressure and introduce an influx to the wellbore. This happens since the
swabbed hydrostatic mud column can no longer overcome the formation pressure. This is serious problem
knowing that any fluid gain in the wellbore causes a kick leading to a blowout. On the other hand, surge
pressure applies an additional pressure to hydrostatic pressure. If formation and fracture pressure margin
are close to each other, then any additional pressure, such as surge pressure, are applied on the top of the
mud hydrostatic pressure will cause the formation to fracture. Having a fractured formation causes the mud
column to get lost inside the formation. This reduces the hydrostatic pressure applied on the formation, thus
inviting the well to flow and causing a serious well control problem.
Managing the ECD is very important especially with wells having narrow window between pore and
fracture pressure. ECD is mainly a function of the pressure losses in the annulus due to the wellbore friction
and the solids in annulus such as the cuttings. In addition, pressure changes due to drill pipe rotation and
surge & swab should be taken into consideration. In high pressure high temperature (HPHT) wells, ECD
becomes very difficult to predict since the mud properties are difficult to predict.

(6)

As shown in the Eq. (6), many factors are to be taken into consideration when calculating ECD. Other
than surge & swab pressure, only annular friction pressure will be considered since others are very minor.
In addition, pressure drop will be calculated using another equation. Having said that, Eq. (6) reduces to:
(7)
Cling factor is not mentioned heavily in the literature, and in most cases gets neglected. The concept
behind it is that the mud in the wellbore clings around the drill pipe (small film) and creates a new diameter
leading to a smaller area in the annulus and a smaller displacement.

Results
The objective is to calculate the maximum pipe tripping speed using a programming code including different
parameters input. The calculations considered both Laminar and Turbulent flows, also close ended pipes
since it is the most critical one. The aim is to publish a table that specifies the maximum pipe speed with
different hole sizes and pipe dimensions and also to identify the factors that heavily affect surge & swab
values. The model used will be Burkhardt model since it gives the worst-case scenario and the slowest
tripping speed, as shown previously in Fig. 3. The major reason is the ignorance of pipe and formation
elasticity which makes the pressure drop prediction higher that other models. The fixed data provided for
this study are as follows:

• Mud density of 13 ppg

• BHA length is 450 ft (if BHA includes Mud Motor, then the entire Motor length is 450 ft to be
conservative)
• Well depth is 13,000 ft

• Drill pipe OD is 5.5 inch

• PV is 26 cP, YP is 13 lb/100 ft2, 6 RPM & 3 RPM values are 5 & 4 respectively

The tripping margin pressure which varies between 100-200 psi, can be calculated as follows:
6 SPE/IADC-189331-MS

(8)

Since the minimum value is around 100 psi, it was considered as the threshold in calculating the pipe
speed. Keeping in mind that even if this pressure is lost, we still have some psi left from the overbalance.
It can be seen in Table 1 that more annular space leads to more tripping speed. This is only in case of 100
psi margin. Note that the fluid regime inside the 8-1/2" section is laminar, so the tripping speed change for
different BHA is very small. Off course the pipe speed can go higher if the margin increases as shown in
Table 2. If a certain tripping speed is needed, then it is possible to use smaller OD BHA with higher weight
per foot, or add more BHA length to achieve the same weight on bit values. The below two tables can be
summaries in the Fig. 4–5 as well.

Table 1—Tripping speed with 100 psi threshold

Pressure Limit (psi) 100 psi

Hole Size (in) 8.5″ 12.25″

BHA Size (in) 7-1/2 6-1/2 6-1/4 11 9-3/4 9-1/2

Trip Speed (ft/min) 14 22 23 52 161 180

Table 2—Tripping speed with 150 psi threshold

Pressure Limit (psi) 150 psi

150 psi 8.5″ 12.25″

BHA Size (in) 7-1/2 6-1/2 6-1/4 11 9-3/4 9-1/2

Trip Speed (ft/min) 27 48 50 76 227 255

Figure 4—Tripping speed with 100 psi threshold

SPE/IADC-189331-MS 7

Figure 5—Tripping speed with 150 psi threshold

One disadvantage of Burkhardt model is the inability to model the entire BHA piece by piece, especially
for the bit. Thus it can be assumed that the bit is matching the biggest BHA size in the previous tables. This
is due to the fact that each bit has many junk slots and free-flow area in them. For example, if the hole is
12-1/4" then the bit will be 11" only.
For sensitivity analysis, Fig. 6 was performed to determine the most influential parameter on pipe speed
and surge pressure. Those parameters are annulus clearance, BHA length, pipe size and mud rheology. A
base value was used then the parameter was alternated with maximum and minimum values. The base value
for the pressure is 100 psi. As shown below, annulus clearance was the most sensitive parameter where the
pressure increased by 75% when only 1" was reduced. BHA length also played significant role in affecting
the pressure change greatly. On the other hand, mud rheology and pipe speed did not affect the pressure
that much. However, when hole size drops below 7" then the pipe size will play a significant role since the
clearance is very small.

Figure 6—Sensitivity analysis in tornado chart

8 SPE/IADC-189331-MS

To capture the effect of laminar and turbulent flow, another sensitivity analysis is completed. Fig. 7 was
carried out to identify which flow regime influence the highest-pressure change. As shown below, turbulent
flow results in high pressure drop with increasing pipe movement. This is due to excessive friction between
the pipe and the mud itself. After a certain speed, the laminar flow disappears and turbulent flow becomes
the dominant flow type. This is usually around the BHA due to the smaller space. For drill pipe annulus,
the flow is typically laminar unless the pipe speed is very high. Off course this is affected by the annular
space in which it is less in surface section since the hole size is much greater than the drill pipe.

Figure 7—Sensitivity analysis for flow regimes

The same study was carried to determine the optimum running speed for casing. Three casing sizes are
selected which are 18-5/8," 13-3/8" and 9-5/8". The depth for them will be 5,000 ft, 9,000 ft and 13,000 ft
respectively. The results in Table 3 show that casing size does not necessary means higher surge and swab
pressures. This is due to the fact that larger casing sizes are associated with larger holes in addition to the
shallow depths. On the other hand, smaller casing sized have higher surge and swab impacts due to deeper
depth, and that can be seen in the limited running speed below.

Table 3—Casing tripping speed with 100 & 150 psi threshold

Pressure Limit (psi) 100 psi 150 psi

Casing Size (in) 18-5/8″ 13-3/8″ 9-5/8″ 18-5/8″ 13-3/8″ 9-5/8″

Trip Speed (ft/min) 59 16 9 76 28 21

Conclusion
From the study and the results stated earlier, one can conclude the following regarding surge and swab
maximum pipe running speed are as follows:

• Surge & swab pressure can be minimized by calculating the safe trip velocities. This will reduce
the possibility of causing a lost circulation or a kick.
• BHA length, annular space and tripping speeds have significant effects on surge and swab pressure.
SPE/IADC-189331-MS 9

• Larger casing sizes does not mean higher surge and swab values. Annular space is the governing
factor since it affects annular velocity.
• Shallower depths do not affect surge & swab values significantly. This can be seen with larger
casing sizes compared to smaller ones.
• To minimize changes in pressure, it is crucial to manage the speed and the size of the drilling
bottom hole assembly.

References
1. Bizanti, M. S., Mitchell, R. F., & Leturno, R. E. (1991, January 1). Are Improved Surge Models
Needed? Society of Petroleum Engineers.
2. Bourgoyne, A. T., Millheim, K. K., Chenevert, M. E., & Young, F. S. (1986). Applied drilling
engineering (2nd ed.; EversJ. F. & Pye,D. S. Eds.). Society of Petroleum Engineers.
3. Brooks, A. G. (1982, January 1). Swab and Surge Pressures in Non-Newtonian Fluids. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
4. Burkhardt, J. A. (1961, June 1). Wellbore Pressure Surges Produced by Pipe Movement. Society
of Petroleum Engineers.
5. Cannon, G. E. (1934, January 1). Changes in Hvdrostatic Pressure Due to Withdrawing Drill Pipe
from the Hole. American Petroleum Institute.
6. Cardwell, W. T. (1953, January 1). Pressure Changes in Drilling Wells caused by Pipe Movement.
American Petroleum Institute.
7. Clark, E. H. (1956, January 1). A Graphic View of Pressure Surges and Lost Circulation.
American Petroleum Institute.
8. Crespo, F. E., Ahmed, R. M., & Saasen, A. (2010, January 1). Surge and Swab Pressure
Predictions for Yield-Power-Law Drilling Fluids. Society of Petroleum Engineers
9. Gjerstad, K., Time, R. W., & Bjorkevoll, K. S. (2013, March 5). A Medium-Order Flow Model
for Dynamic.
10. Mitchell, R. F. (1988, September 1). Dynamic Surge/Swab Pressure Predictions. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
11. Mitchell, R. F. (2004, January 1). Surge Pressures in Low-Clearance Liners. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
12. Naley.H (2012). Swab pressures determined experimentally and theoretically.
13. Schubert, J. (2010, January 1). Technology Focus: Well Control (January 2010). Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
14. Skalle, P. (2012). Drilling fluid engineering. Ventus publishing Aps.
15. Srivastav, R., Enfis, M. S., Crespo, F. E., Ahmed, R. M., Saasen, A., & Laget, M. (2012, January
1). Surge and Swab Pressures in Horizontal and Inclined Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers.