New Simple Analytical Surge/Swab Pressure Model for Power-Law and Modified Yield-Power-Law Fluid in Concentric/Eccentric Geometry

Abstract

The axial movement of pipe in and out of the well generates positive (surge) and negative (swab) pressures that will impact the well pressure. When the swab and surge effects cause well pressures outside the allowable operational limits, wellbore instability (well collapse/well fracture), kick, and induced drill string sticking issues will occur. The problems increase the operational and nonproductive time-related costs. Consequently, the drilling budget rises significantly. It is therefore, imperative to predict the differential pressures in order to mitigate the problems. Even though several models have been developed in the past, models work for the considered experimental setup and conditions. In this paper, a simple analytical model was derived for eccentric/concentric annuli. The fluid rheological behaviors were assumed to be described by power law and yielded power-law. The model is derived based on a steady state condition, and the effects of tripping speed, the power-law fluids, the yield-power-law fluids rheological parameters, and well geometries are considered. The model is compared with experimental data from the literature and with the existing model. Parametric sensitivity studies have been conducted. Results show that the model prediction exhibited quite good performance, with an average percentile error deviation of 9.9% and 6.2% for the power-law and yield-power-law fluids, respectively. However, more testing is required to determine the model’s limitations and application.

Field Telemetry Drilling Dataset Modeling with Multivariable Regression, Group Method Data Handling, Artificial Neural Network, and the Proposed Group-Method-Data-Handling-Featured Artificial Neural Network

“…Accurately predicting the equivalent circulating density (ECD) during tripping in/out and drilling operations is crucial in ensuring safe and cost-effective well drilling. There are several empirical and physics-based hydraulics models available in the literature [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. However, the application of the models is limited to the considered assumptions and model controlling parameters.…”

“…They have conducted several experiments and also developed various models based on assumptions such as steady-state and transient conditions, non-slip at the wall, different flow scenarios, fluid rheological properties, well configurations, and operational parameters. Amir et al (2022) [1,2] extensively reviewed existing swab and surge models, including contributions from Burkhardt (1961) [3], Schuh (1964) [4], Fontenot and Clark (1974) [5], Mitchell (1988) [6], Ahmed (2008) [7], Crespo (2010) [8], Srivastav (2012) [9], Gjerstad (2013) [10], [11], Fredy (2012) [12], Erge (2015) [13], [14], Evren M. (2018) [15], Ettehadi (2018) [16], Shwetank (2020) [17,18], Zakarya (2021) [19], and Amir et al (2023) [20]. However, these 2 of 19 models did not consider all the parameters that affect the swab and surge, and their applicability to estimate experimental data is limited to the specific assumptions and setup conditions.…”