Field Validation of Transient Swab-Surge
Response With Real-Time Downhole
Pressure Data
G. Robello Samuel, SPE, Ashwin Sunthankar, SPE, and Glen McColpin, SPE, Landmark-Halliburton;
Peter Bern, SPE, BP plc; and Tim Flynn, SPE, Halliburton
Summary
This paper describes the field validation results of the transient
swab-surge model with real-time downhole annular pressure data.
The maximum pressures encountered during tripping or recipro-
cation are indispensible for making appropriate well-completion
decisions. The prediction of swab and surge pressures is of critical
importance in wells in which the pressure must be maintained
within narrow limits of the 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 collected
with downhole-drilling-data measuring tools during tripping
and circulating operations. These data were obtained from Alaska
and North Sea wells with a range of hole diameters and differ-
ent base-fluid muds. The data were compared and interpreted
with steady-state calculations as well as a dynamic surge model,
which includes the effects of fluid inertia and compressibility,
wellbore elasticity, pipe axial elasticity, and temperature-depen-
dent fluid properties.
The sampling rate was specifically increased to 2 seconds and,
in some cases, 1 second. This prevents downhole data attenuations
and captures the full waveforms more accurately. Different opera-
tions were included in the downhole-drilling-data measuring tool
runs to cover swabbing, surging, reciprocation, and simultaneous
pumping operations during tripping. Model predictions for down-
hole pressure behavior were in excellent agreement with the mea-
sured real-time downhole pressure data.
Introduction
Qualitative assessment and quantitative characterization of well
pressures are of critical importance to many phases of well con-
struction. They allow not only subsequent adjustments to the well
plan 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 nar-
row margin between pore and fracture pressures. This requires that
swab-surge pressures be maintained within narrow limits while
tripping drillpipe, running casing, and cementing. Working outside
this safe-operating window for even short durations has histori-
cally led to costly well complications. Monitoring the actual down-
hole pressure in real time with a downhole-drilling-data measuring
tool is a reliable method; however, real-time data are generally
confined to periods of continuous circulation. In addition, it is not
possible to run conventional downhole-drilling-data measuring
submarine with casing strings. If a reliable, predictive, validated
model with the real-time data is available, it will help accurately
evaluate transient wellbore pressures early in the well planning
phase. It also offers a viable tool not only for providing accurate
data in the planning phase but also for better defining the operating
limits for both drilling and casing operations.
Copyright © 2003 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 85109) was revised for publication from paper SPE 67717, first presented
at the 2001 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 27 February−1 March. Original
manuscript received for review 11 May 2001. Revised manuscript received 2 May 2003.
Paper peer approved 6 May 2003.
280
Developing confidence in computational predictions requires
establishing a rigorous procedure to ensure that 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 with
steady-flow surge models. In these models, the drilling mud is
perfectly displaced by the pipe motion. These models neglect fluid
inertia, the compressibility of the fluid and the 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. He also
concluded, on the basis of steady-state flow, that the actual surge
and swab pressures are inadequate and could differ considerably
from those predicted. Lal2 corrected a number of deficiencies in
the Lubinski model and presented the influence of various param-
eters affecting surge pressures. Both Lubinski and Lal assumed
rigid pipe displacement. Mitchell3 added the effect of pipe axial
elasticity to the dynamic surge analysis. The Mitchell model is
used in this paper for validation. Engineering detail needs to be
sufficient to accurately predict swab and surge pressures; more
importantly, issues involving the validity, accuracy, and lack of
data confirmation need to be addressed before deciding whether
the model predicts reasonably well. This also allows the model to
be verified, which ensures that the computer simulation mimics the
designed conceptual model and accurately represents the actual
systems considered. Even though the model has been extensively
field-validated4 with an earlier generation of downhole and surface
data, the advent of highly accurate downhole tools has provided an
opportunity to revalidate it.
Methodology
The real-time downhole drilling data are compared with the dy-
namic surge/swab model, which includes directional wells, circu-
lation while tripping, and dynamic pipe behavior. The enhanced
dynamic model3 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, pipe movement, well deviation, and eccentricity.
The data capture rates at the surface and downhole were a
major concern because full dynamic response to swabs and surges
are being studied. The measurement’s sampling rate was adjusted
to every 2 seconds and, in certain cases, 1 second. Simulation indi-
cated 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 are explained elsewhere.3
Case Studies
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 in. was landed at 110 ft followed by 75⁄8-in.
surface casing to a depth of 4,286 ft. Further, 63⁄4-in. drilling was
in progress.
Case 1 (Swab). After completing drilling the 97⁄8-in. hole, the
string was pulled out of the hole for the 75⁄8-in. casing job. The
string consisted of the downhole tools, such as the jar, stabilizers,
December 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 1—Well schematic (Well A).
real-time downhole drilling-data-measuring tool, positive-dis-
placement motor, and tricone bit. Tool details are given in Table 1.
The distance to the pressure-while-drilling (PWD) sensor from
the bit was 43 ft. The mud properties at the time of pulling out
were as follows.
• Mud weight ⳱ 9.6 lb/gal
• Plastic viscosity ⳱ 27 cp
• Yield point ⳱ 39 lbf/100ft2
• Gel ⳱ 12 lbf/100 ft2
• Base ⳱ water
The string was pulled out of the hole in singles with circulation.
The real-time downhole drilling data from 3,712 to 3,520 ft were
used for analysis. To account for the six singles pulling out, in-
cluding the pipe breaking and making time, the velocity profile
was used in the simulation for accurate prediction. The velocity
profile for the complete tripping can be calculated easily for the
tripping depth from the real-time downhole data recordings at
various times.
Fig. 2 provides a detailed comparison of the measured, pre-
dicted, and steady-state results. As shown, the results predicted by
the transient model correlate well with the actual data as compared
to the results predicted by the steady-state model. In the previous
case study, mud weight was tuned to match the starting nonuni-
form hydrostatic gradient. It can be seen that the measured peak
Fig. 2—Swab with circulation.
December 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion
pressure is slightly higher than the predicted response pressure of
the real-time downhole drilling data. The data adjustment is jus-
tified because settling might have occurred in the mud column,
resulting in a nonuniform hydrostatic gradient.
Case 2 (Reciprocation Without Circulation). While 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 and 4,180
ft with variable stroke length to make sure the tight spot had been
cleared. This operation and data set provides a case for simulating
reciprocation when not circulating. Because of the variable stroke
rate, the velocity profile was used for the simulation in this case.
The mud properties at the time of reciprocation were the same as
in Case 1.
The swab and surge pressures during the reciprocation pre-
dicted by the transient model compared extremely well with the
real-time downhole drilling data and the steady-state model (see
Fig. 3). The peaks and troughs matched closely with wave oscil-
lation in time. Both the frequency response and amplitude of the
predicted waveforms matched the measured real-time downhole
drilling data closely when compared to the steady-state model. At
the tail end of the pressure waveform, smoothing of the peaks is
observed, and the pressure predictions are within 2%.
Case 3 (Swab-Surge). A swab operation followed by a sta-
tionary period and a surge operation is presented later. The opera-
tions were carried out between the measured depths at 2,384 (in-
clination ⳱ 23.87°, azimuth ⳱ 242.24) and 2,424 ft (inclination
⳱ 26.79°, azimuth ⳱ 241.43). Fig. 4 shows the prediction wave-
forms for the transient and steady-state models against the mea-
sured data. The transient model, as compared to the steady-state
one, closely predicts the previous operations, including the transi-
tion period from the swab and surge operations. The amplitudes of
the characteristics are very close, which again confirms that the
correlation is good for each stage of the operation.
Fig. 3—Reciprocation without circulation.
281
 Fig. 4—Swab-surge without circulation.
Case 4 (Surge Without Circulation). The following case is
concerned with a surge operation from 5,217 to 5,285 ft. The
waveform character of the predicted transient-model pressure
agrees well with the data (see Fig. 5). The data comparison ex-
hibits the same transient behavior as that of the measured data but
with a smaller amplitude at the start and matches perfectly at the
latter part of the waveform. Furthermore, it can be seen in Fig. 5
that the steady-state model predictions are lower than the measured
data and the transient model’s predicted values. The transient
peaks are strictly a dynamic phenomenon that would not be pre-
dicted by a steady-state model.
Well B. The following case study is from the data file of Well B
drilled in North Sea. This study is of the swab-surge pressures for
an offshore, deviated well with a 1,660-ft water depth. The well
schematic is presented in Fig. 6.
The string consisted of a 500-ft bottomhole assembly (BHA)
with the following tools: jar, PWD, stabilizers, positive-
displacement motor, and polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC)
bit. The details are given in Table 2. The distance to the PWD
sensor from the bit was 53 ft.
Fig. 6—Well schematic (Well B).
282
Fig. 5—Surge without circulation.
The mud properties while pulling out were as follows.
• Mud weight ⳱ 10.87 lb/gal
• Plastic viscosity ⳱ 37 cp
• Yield point ⳱ 40 lbf/100 ft2
• Gel ⳱ 27 lbf/100 ft2
• Gel type ⳱ synthetic-based fluid
Case 5 (Surge With Circulation and Rotation). To demon-
strate the ability of the transient model to predict the variable
reciprocation rate with circulation accurately, the following case
was selected from the real-time downhole drilling data. This helps
isolate the influencing parameters and quantify the model’s capa-
bilities. The model does not presently account for the rotation of
the workstring. Reciprocation with variable stroke lengths from
12,894 to 12,804 ft for approximately 20 minutes using mud cir-
culation and rotation allows a comprehensive comparison of the
model prediction with the data. This provides a continuous positive
pump pressure along with the drillstring rotation. The rotary speed
was 90 rpm, and the flow rate was 890 gal/min.
The same adjusted mud density was used in the simulation and
effectively isolated the influence of the rotary speed. It can also
been seen from Fig. 7 that the model predicted the precise time the
pressure jumped, delineated by the vertical dotted lines, and was
within 2% error.
Practical Application of the Model
With the foregone study and analysis, it was observed that the
acquisition of the downhole pressure data together with the pre-
existing validation data give some confidence in using the transient
swab-surge model for predictive purposes. The user provides a
range of conventional wellbore geometry/profile data with input
on fluid properties. Downhole mud properties are extrapolated
December 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 7—Surge with circulation and rotation.
from surface properties based on published equations. It is recog-
nized that the previous input values will introduce a further degree
of uncertainty, but from a holistic sense, the trends prove to be
very valuable in guiding well planning decisions. That is to say,
the transient model provides improved confidence in the primary
variables, which influence the downhole pressures and the overall
sensitivity to the range of input variables. This information allows
the user to assess the range of options at both the planning and
execution stages.
Conclusions
1. Analysis of downhole pressure data shows that the transient
model is capable of accurately simulating a range of complex
drilling operations.
2. The cases presented reinforce several nonintuitive transient ef-
fects, such as the observation of surge effects while swabbing
and vice versa.
3. The data clearly show dynamic and inertial effects not antici-
pated 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.
4. The minor deviation in the predicted values may be attributed,
at least in part, to the wellbore nonuniformity and to failure to
account for the elastic response from surface equipment.
5. Based on the excellent agreement between the model and the
measured data, the model accurately portrays the swab-surge
pressures throughout the wellbore.
6. Despite the limitations in theoretical predictions of downhole
mud properties, the model will provide the planner or operations
engineer with an accurate, qualitative understanding of what is
happening downhole.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their appreciation to their re-
spective companies for the opportunity to publish this paper. Also,
the authors would like to take this opportunity to recognize the
contributions of Mitch Bique and Chris Dalton of Halliburton. In
December 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion
particular, the authors would like to recognize the contributions of
Chris Ward, formerly with Halliburton.
References
1. Lubinski, A., Hsu, F.H., and Nolte, K.G.: “Transient Pressure Surges
Due to Pipe Movement in an Oil Well,” Fevue de l’Inst. Franc. Du Pet.
(May−June 1977).
2. Lal, M.: “Surge and Swab Modeling for Dynamic Pressures and Safe
Trip Velocities,” paper SPE 11412 presented at the 1983 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 20−23 February.
3. Mitchell, R.F.: “Dynamic Surge/Swab Pressure Predictions,” SPEDE
(September 1988) 325.
4. Wagner, R.R, Halal, A.S., and Goodman, M.A.: “Surge Field Tests
Highlight Dynamic Fluid Response,” paper SPE 25771 presented at the
1993 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 23−25 February.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
cp × 1.0* E–03 ⳱ Pa·s
ft × 3.048* E−01 ⳱ m
ft2 × 2.831 685 E−02 ⳱ m2
gal × 3.785 412 E−03 ⳱ m3
in. × 2.54* E+00 ⳱ cm
lbf × 9.869 233 E−00 ⳱ N
lbm × 4.535 924 E−01 ⳱ kg
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 ⳱ kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.
G. Robello Samuel is a technical adviser in the R&D division of
Landmark Graphics. He has more than 17 years of experience
in domestic and international oil and gas drilling and comple-
tion operations, management, consulting, and teaching. He
started his career as a drilling engineer and is now the techni-
cal and engineering lead for well-planning application suite
for drilling, completions, and well-services operations. Samuel
holds BS and MS degrees in mechanical engineering from Ma-
durai and Anna U. and MS and PhD degrees in petroleum
engineering from Tulsa U. He presently is serving as a Technical
Editor on the SPE Drilling & Completion and ASME JERT Editorial
Review Committees. Ashwin Sunthankar currently is working as
a petroleum engineer in the R&D division of Landmark Graph-
ics Corp., a Halliburton company in Houston. His research in-
terests include underbalanced drilling, hydraulics of mul-
tiphase flows, design and analysis of wellbore tubulars, and
computer applications in the oil industry. Sunthankar holds a BS
degree in petrochemical engineering from the U. of Pune, In-
dia, and an MS degree in petroleum engineering from Tulsa U.
Glen R. McColpin is currently business manager for Landmark
Graphics’ drilling and well services division. He joined Land-
mark’s drilling software group in 1994 after 5 years with Sperry
Sun Drilling Services in MWD operations. McColpin holds a BS
degree in petroleum engineering from New Mexico Tech U.
Peter A. Bern is a fluids adviser in BP’s Upstream Technology
Group, Sunbury-on-Thames, U.K. He joined BP plc in 1978 and
has worked in a number of areas related to fluids technology
and modeling, including hydraulics, hole cleaning, and well
control. Bern holds a degree in physics from the U. of Bristol, U.K.
He is an active member of SPE and was a Distinguished Lec-
turer in 1997−98, covering fluids optimization for extended-
reach wells.
283