IADC/SPE-178831-MS

Effect of Transient Surge Pressure on Stress Distribution around

Directional Wellbores
Z. Zamanipour and S. Z. Miska, University of Tulsa; P. R. Hariharan, Shell

Copyright 2016, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 1–3 March 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE 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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
Fluid displacement due to pipe movement in and out of the wellbore generates surge/swab pressure.
Surge/swab pressure could result in formation fracturing, lost circulation, kicks, and even blowouts.
Transient surge pressure depends on tripping velocity, mud viscosity, fluid compressibility, wellbore
expansion, and elasticity of the drillpipe. Considering wellbore stability, sudden pressurization of the
wellbore causes rapid change in stress distribution in the zone near the wellbore that may result in
wellbore instability. This makes it necessary to have an estimation of transient surge pressure and stresses
for safe and effective tripping operations.
In this work, for the first time, stress distribution and the stability around the wellbore are being
investigated when transient surge pressure is generated in the wellbore. Firstly, a transient surge pressure
model is developed to calculate the pressure along the wellbore during the tripping-in operation. The
model is based on transient wave propagation due to fluid compressibility and wellbore expansion. Then,
the following steps are taken to obtain stresses around the wellbore: 1- Stress distribution around
directional wellbore is calculated based on poroelasticity concept. 2- Induced pressure and stresses due to
constant borehole pressure change are calculated. 3- The model is modified to include the effect of time
dependency of surge pressure using Duhamel’s theorem (superposition principle). 4- Induced stresses are
calculated and added to existing stresses around the wellbore using the superposition principle.
The model is implemented for tripping into a directional wellbore with trapezoidal and parabolic
velocity profiles. The induced pressure, radial and hoop stresses versus radius are calculated at different
times. Results indicate that these induced effects almost vanish at a distance of about five times the
wellbore radius. Induced pressure increases with time until it reaches its maximum which is the maximum
of surge pressure and then dissipates with time. Its peak propagates into the formation and dissipates with
time. Induced radial stress shows similar trend as induced pressure. However, its peak is always at the
wellbore wall. Induced hoop stress is tensile with a maximum value of about 35% of induced radial stress
before it decays and dissipates in both cases of tripping velocities. Total radial stress peaks about 30% for
the case of trapezoidal velocity and 35% for the case of parabolic velocity compared to base value.
However, same comparison for total tangential stress shows a reduction of 7% decrease for the case of
trapezoidal velocity and 11% for the case of parabolic velocity which is due to the induced tensile stress.
2 IADC/SPE-178831-MS

Comparing results for both velocity profiles show no difference in the trend of induced pressure and
stresses. However, the magnitude of induced pressure and stresses depends on surge pressure which is
different in case of trapezoidal and parabolic velocity profiles. A failure criterion can be applied to analyze
the stability of the wellbore. It is noted that surge pressure changes as a function of time and dynamic rock
strength must be taken into account in wellbore strength management.
The developed model presents an effective tool for wellbore stability analysis in tripping operations.
The tool can be applied for optimization of tripping operations in vertical and directional wellbores.

Introduction
Surge and swab pressure is one of the important parameters in well control area. Extensive studies have
been conducted on surge/swab pressure predictions and consequently several analytical and numerical
methods have been developed and utilized in drilling operations. Investigations were initiated by Cannon
(1934), Horn (1950), Goins et al. (1951) and Clark (1955) to understand drilling problems associated with
surge and swab pressures. It was shown that drilling problems such as formation fracture, kick, and lost
circulation had resulted due to surge/swab pressure.
A semi-empirical model introduced by Burkhardt (1961), successfully predicted the sequence and
magnitude of variation of pressure surges and established a basis for understanding this phenomenon. It
was concluded that pressure surge is usually due to viscous drag of the flowing mud. Later on, more
models were developed using computerized programs to predict and evaluate different parameters on
surge and swab pressures (Schuh (1964); Clark and Fontenot (1974)). The developed methods allowed
mud properties to vary with depth and they showed the importance of properly modeling the drilling fluid
properties in surge/swab pressure.
Lubinski et al. (1977) showed for the first time that steady state assumption for surge/swab pressure
calculation is invalid. They developed a transient surge pressure model based on transient wave propa-
gation considering fluid compressibility and wellbore expansion for tripping in Bingham plastic fluid. He
used moving observer concept to solve the governing equations and investigated different cases of
drillstring and wellbore configurations.
Lal (1983) proposed a transient model to predict surge and swab pressures for power law fluids. In his
work, surge pressure variations with time at different positions in the borehole, as well as safe maximum
tripping speed for a specified pressure margin were estimated. Pipe elasticity, fluid property variation with
temperature and pressure, formation elasticity, and cement elasticity are included in dynamic model
proposed by Mitchell (1988, 2004). The results show good agreement between model calculations and
field data.
Gjerstad et al.(2013) developed a model which uses real time data to predict responses that can be
utilized to optimize the tripping speed. The model can be coupled with parameter estimation techniques
to automatically adapt uncertain parameters to measured data. In addition, it can be calibrated manually,
as described by the authors.
The most recent transient surge/swab model was developed by Tarasevich et al. (2015) to estimate the
pressure fluctuations in a wellbore while tripping. They have utilized a numerical algorithm using
Riemann invariants. Their method has been programmed for fast computation of flow parameters for
non-stationary regimes. They concluded that the pressure fluctuations while tripping mainly depend on
fluid viscosity, lengths of borehole, immersed drillstring, and drillstring acceleration.
From the literature, it is well known that wellbore stability depends on several factors divided in two
groups of controllable and uncontrollable factors. Controllable factors are associated with wellbore
trajectory, drilling fluid, and drilling practices (Cheatham (1984), Nmegbu (2014)). Uncontrollable factors
are associated with in-situ stresses, rock strength, and pore pressure. Transient surge/swab pressure as a
controllable factor may cause wellbore enlargement, fracturing or collapse if not prudently managed.
IADC/SPE-178831-MS 3

Hence, it is felt that wellbore instability could be mitigated by the correct estimation of the stress
distribution around the wellbore based on surge/swab pressures as well.
There are extensive studies on wellbore stability problems and several models have been developed to
describe different aspects of the issue. Wellbore stability models are categorized as poroelastic (Yew et
al. (1992), chemo-poro-elastic (Dokhani (2015)), thermo-poro-elastic (Chen (2001)), and thermo-chemo-
poro-elastic (Yu (2003)). However, relatively fewer investigations have been performed on stress analysis
around the wellbore when the wellbore pressure is suddenly changed. This phenomenon was studied by
Rice et al. (1976), Detournay et al. (1988), Fjaer et al. (1992), and Wang (2000). They considered a
circular cylindrical hole in a body of porous material when a constant pressure change in the borehole fluid
was applied. A poroelastic response to this pressure change perturbation has been obtained and reported.
The problem has direct relevance to the initiation of hydraulic fracturing in boreholes (Haimson (1967),
Medlin (1979), Ito (1991, 2008)). However, to the authors’ best knowledge; there has been no study on
wellbore stability analysis when a transient surge pressure is generated in the wellbore.
This work introduces a mathematical modeling approach to calculate the surge pressure effect on stress
distribution around a directional wellbore. The transient nature of surge pressure is considered in these
calculations using Duhamel’s principle.

Transient Surge Pressure Modeling

Transient surge pressure depends on the fluid density, the compressibility of fluid, expansibility of the
wellbore, and the resistance to flow or friction. The fundamental equations that describe the transient
pressure change can be obtained from momentum balance, mass balance and continuity of flow. The
general partial differential equations can be written as (Lal, 1983):
(1)

(2)

where P is pressure, Q is flow rate, Vp is tripping velocity, z is distance along the wellbore, t is time,
A is cross sectional area, h is frictional pressure loss per unit length, and S is surge impedance (or
characteristic impedance) given by
(3)

where a is the acoustic speed of propagation:

(4)

where ␳ is mass density, C is the compressibility of the fluid, and B is the expansibility of the wellbore
.

The fundamental equations using Bergerons’s technique (moving observer) are expressed and solved
by Lubinski (1988). In his method, energy dissipation is concentrated at a discrete number of points along
a hydraulic line. In model calculations, frictional pressure loss can be replaced for various rheological
models. The equations for pressure loss calculations (Bourgoyne (1991), Mitchell and Miska (2011)) are
derived based on steady flow in stationary pipes. However, modified pressure loss equations which are
derived with including the effect of pipe movement are needed to be replaced in Eq.1. Lubinski (1988)
derived approximate model for the pressure drop for Bingham plastic fluids. Burkhardt (1961) introduced
4 IADC/SPE-178831-MS

a method to calculate steady state pressure loss using an effective fluid velocity in the annular flow
equations. The effective mean annular velocity is defined by:
(5)

where is fluid average velocity, and K is mud-clinging constant. Analytical expression to calculate
the K is given by Fontnote (1974). K is expressed in terms of diameter ratio (␣):
(6)

where . Schuh (1964), Fontenot (1974), and Lal (1983) used the effective mean
annular velocity to compute the steady state frictional pressure loss. In this work, the fundamental
equations are solved based on Lubinski’s approach and frictional pressure loss is calculated using
effective velocity along with pressure loss equations (Mitchell and Miska (2011)) for power law fluids.

Stress Distribution Modeling

To investigate the stress distribution change around the wellbore due to the transient surge pressure, it is
necessary to know the state of stresses around the wellbore. For this purpose, firstly, the stress distribution
due to the in-situ stresses is determined for directional wellbores. Secondly, the effect of surge pressure
on stress distribution is modeled. Then, the effect of time varying surge pressure is included using
superposition principle. The induced stresses are added to the stresses after applying surge pressure using
the superposition principle.
The stress state in the formation is defined in terms of the far-field principal stresses ␴H, ␴h, and␴v and
formation pore pressure Po. When a hole is drilled, the drilling mud applies a pressure Pw. The stress
equilibrium analysis determines the stresses acting on the wellbore wall. To find stresses around the
wellbore (Fjaer (1992); Aadenoy (2011)), it is assumed that:
1. Formation is homogeneous.
2. In-situ stress state is known.
3. The elastic rock properties are known.
4. The formation has a constant pore pressure Po.
The wellbore is modeled as a cylinder in a block. The inner radius of the cylinder is rw and the outer
radius is infinite compare to rw. The wellbore pressure is pw0.
The in-situ stresses define a Cartesian coordinate of x=y=z= such that ␴v is parallel to z=, ␴H is parallel
to x=, and ␴h is parallel to y= (Fig.1). The second Cartesian coordinate system (xyz) is attached to the
wellbore such that the z axis is along the wellbore axis, the x axis points toward the lowest radial direction
of the wellbore, and the y axis is horizontal. The direction of stress components is given by the wellbore
inclination (␾) and the azimuth (␽) angles with following transformation matrix:
(7)
IADC/SPE-178831-MS 5

Figure 1—In-situ stress states (␴H, ␴h, ␴v) around an inclined wellbore and transformation geometry.

Transferring the stress state to cylindrical coordinates and inserting them into the equilibrium equations
gives the governing equations. Solving the governing equations for the anisotropic case gives the Kirsch
type of equations as follows (Fjaer (1992); Jaeger (2007)):
8.a

8.b

8.c

8.d

8.e

where r␪z represents cylindrical polar coordinates such that r is the distance from the borehole axis, ␪
the angle relative to x axis, and z is the position along the borehole axis. Moreover, when the formation
pore pressure changes, it will induce stresses as expressed in the following equations:
9.a

9.b

9.c
6 IADC/SPE-178831-MS

where ⌬p(r,t) ⫽ p(r,t) - P0 is the change in pore pressure from initial Po. ␣ represents Biot’s coefficient
and ␯ is Poisson’s ratio. In this work, the sign convention for the stresses is assigned to be positive for
compression and negative for tension.

Sudden Pressurization of the Wellbore due to Surge Pressure

A surge pressure is generated in the wellbore due to tripping-in operation. Having stress distribution
around the wellbore, we consider a constant surge pressure, and then the problem is to find new stress
distribution due to this sudden external change of fluid pressure. The problem can be solved by
superposition of the solutions for two cases:
1. A step change in stress while maintaining constant pore pressure
2. A step change in pore pressure while maintaining constant stress
Due to long loading in the Z direction, the problem reduces to two dimensions in the x-y plane. The
displacement components are independent of z with radial symmetry assumptions; the only nonzero
displacement is the radial displacement (ur). The boundary conditions at the borehole wall (r⫽rw) are
(10)

11

where pw is the boundary pore pressure. The two boundary conditions are broken up into two separate
cases.
Case I: ␴rrI(rw,t)ⴝpw and pI(rw,t)ⴝ0
The solution of the poroelastic problem of a uniform radial stress, pw, on the walls of a hole at which p⫽0
(no pore pressure change) is given by the classical Lame solution (Haimson (1967); Wang (2000)):
(12)

(13)

(14)

The displacement and stresses are independent of time, and no pore pressure is induced. It is seen that:
(15)

Therefore, in this case poroelastic effects do not play a role, because there is no undrained response
in pore pressure.
Case II: ␴rrII(rw,t)ⴝ0 and pII(rw,t)ⴝpw
Constant stress means that poroelastic stresses are only due to the effects of a nonlinear pore pressure
distribution, and not to the boundary stresses. In this case, fluid pressure is uncoupled from stress.
Therefore a homogeneous diffusion equation is obtained:
(16)

(17)
IADC/SPE-178831-MS 7

where k is permeability of rock, ␮ is viscosity of formation fluid, and S is storage coefficient. Note that
the parameter c itself is diffusivity. The Laplace transform of Eq. 16 is:
(18)

where s is Laplace transform variable. The solution for the boundary conditions of:
(19)

is given by:
(20)

where .
The inverse Laplace transform of Eq.20 gives the induced pressure (Carslaw et al.(1959), Rice et
al.(1976), Detournay (1988), Ito (1991)):
(21)

The short time approximation (t⬍⬍r2/4c) of the solution is:

(22)

Therefore, knowing the induced pressure, the induced stresses can be calculated from Eqs. 9 for this
case.

Duhamel’s Theorem
Considering the practical problem of transient surge pressure generated in the tripping operation, it is
needed to modify the mathematical solution of the problem explained in the previous section and solve
the problem when the pressure change is not constant and varies with time. Here, Duhamel’s theorem (or
superposition principle) is used to determine the time dependent response of the system to transient sure
pressure. Duhamel’s theorem allows calculating response of a system to input parameters that vary in time
(Carslaw and Jaeger (1959); Medlin (1979)). This theorem is widely used in well testing analysis (Dake
(1978)).
To explain Duhamel’s problem in a physical system, suppose P(t) (can be pressure, temperature etc.)
depends on the time dependent parameter Ps(t). The value of Ps(t) at time t can be considered to be
composed of an infinite number of infinitesimal step functions that activate at different times ␶i. If we
know how the system responds to a step input, then we can construct its response to an input that varies
continuously in time by adding together the responses of all of these step inputs (McKelliget, 2002).
Therefore, the response of the system can be obtained by:
(23)

where P0(t) is the solution we would have if Ps had remained zero, and ␾(t) is the response of the
system to the unit time step. Using Eq.23 along with presented model, the induced pressure and stresses
due to transient surge pressure can be calculated.
8 IADC/SPE-178831-MS

Total Stress
The complete distribution of stresses (total stress) for pressurization of an inclined borehole due to
transient surge pressure is obtained by adding the solutions for case I and case II to the original stress
distribution which was there before generation of the surge pressure. This means that the final stress
components are:
(24)

Model Implementation
To implement the model, an inclined wellbore with the geometrical properties given in Table 1 is
considered. Parameters are chosen to show the worst case scenario. Transient surge pressure is calculated
when the drillstring runs into the wellbore with trapezoidal and parabolic velocity functions shown in Fig.
2(a) using Lubinski’s method as described earlier approach. Both velocity profiles provide 90ft displace-
ment of drillpipe which is the length of one stand. Maximum velocity of tripping-in operation is 3 ft/s for
trapezoidal velocity and 4 ft/s for parabolic velocity. Model calculations are performed using data in Table
1. Transient surge pressures are shown in Fig. 2(b). The maximum transient surge pressure is ~1200 psi
with trapezoidal velocity profile and ~1500 psi with parabolic velocity profile. Induced pressure and
stresses due to surge pressures are calculated using the explained model and the effect of time dependency
of surge pressure is included by applying the superposition principle. Results are shown in following
sections for ␪⫽0.

Table 1—Input parameters used for the simulation

IADC/SPE-178831-MS 9

Figure 2—(a) Tripping velocity and (b) generated transient surge pressure.

Results and Discussion

Tripping with Trapezoidal Velocity Profile
The induced pressures due to surge pressure generated by tripping-in with the trapezoidal profile at
different times are shown in Fig. 3(a) and induced pressure at the wellbore wall vs. time is shown in Fig.
3(b). As seen, the induced pressure increases with time and finally reaches the maximum surge pressure
(1200psi) at t⫽25s. With the reduction of surge pressure, induced pressure is decreased, too. The induced
pressure rapidly decreases as the radius increases and it vanishes at r/rw⫽5 at any time. Moreover, induced
pressure peak propagates into the formation and dissipates with time.

Figure 3—Tripping with trapezoidal velocity profile: (a) Induced pressure at different times. (b) Induced pressure versus time at
wellbore wall.
10 IADC/SPE-178831-MS

Induced radial and tangential stresses are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, respectively. Induced radial and
tangential stresses contain two different components which are explained in the model as case I (Lame
components) and case II (induced stress due to induced pressure). Induced radial stress is compressive and
has the same trend as the induced pressure with time. It increases until t⫽25s which has a maximum value
of 1200 psi, and then starts to decrease as the induced pressure decreases. Unlike the induced pressure
peak, the induced radial stress peak is always at the wellbore wall.

Figure 4 —Tripping with trapezoidal velocity profile: Induced radial stress at different times.

Figure 5—Tripping with trapezoidal velocity profile: Induced tangential stress at different times.

Induced tangential (hoop) stress (Fig. 5) is tensile and has different trends with time. It has its
maximum of 420 psi at⫽25s which is ~35% of maximum induced radial stress. This stress reduces and
dissipates with time with some fluctuations. As an instance, at t⫽35s, it is ~260 psi at the wellbore wall,
decreases to ~70 psi at r/rw⫽1.4, increases to ~150psi at r/rw⫽2.5, and then dissipates to zero. At longer
times, the fluctuations are much smaller in magnitude; furthermore, tangential stress turns to be com-
pressive around the wellbore.
The total radial and tangential stresses (Eq. 24), before and after applying the surge pressure, are
plotted in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, respectively. Total radial stress (Fig. 6) increases around the wellbore and
dissipates after t⫽25s to about the original value before surge pressure application. Maximum of total
IADC/SPE-178831-MS 11

radial stress at the wellbore wall reaches to 5400 psi at t⫽25s which shows ~30% increase compared to
the original value (4250 psi).

Figure 6 —Tripping with trapezoidal velocity profile: Total radial stress at different times.

Figure 7—Tripping with trapezoidal velocity profile: Total tangential stress at different times.

Total tangential stress decreases around the wellbore from the original value due to the induced tensile
stress and after 25s starts increase to about the original value. Total hoop stress has its peak around
~r/rw⫽1.5. At the wellbore wall, minimum of total tangential stress is ~3800 psi which shows a ~10%
decrease compared to original value (4250 psi). However, the peak which is at ~r/rw⫽1.5 decreases from
4800psi to 4470 psi which shows a ~7% reduction.
Total radial and tangential stresses at the wellbore wall versus time are plotted in Fig. 8. Total radial
stress at the wellbore wall (Fig. 8(a)) shows a similar trend of the induced pressure and total tangential
stress at the wellbore wall (Fig. 8(b)) shows inverse of the trend of the induced pressure.
12 IADC/SPE-178831-MS

Figure 8 —Total (a) radial, and (b) tangential stresses versus time at the wellbore wall.

Tripping with Parabolic Velocity Profile

Fig. 9 shows induced pressure due to transient surge pressure when the drillpipe is tripped into the
wellbore with a parabolic velocity profile (Fig. 2). Maximum induced pressure is ~1500 psi at t⫽21s
which is equal to maximum surge pressure. After this time induced pressure is dissipated by time while
its peak propagates into the formation.

Figure 9 —Tripping with parabolic velocity profile: (a) Induced pressure due to transient surge pressure, (b) Induced pressure versus
time at wellbore wall.

Fig. 10 shows induced radial stress at different times. It is compressive and it has similar trend as the
induced pressure. At t⫽21s, it reaches its maximum of 1500 psi and after that it starts to dissipate. The
peak is always at the wellbore wall. Induced tangential stress is shown in Fig. 11 at different times. It is
tensile and its maximum is 520 psi which is ~35% of maximum induced radial stress. Induced tangential
stress dissipates with time and has some fluctuations. At longer times, it has small fluctuations around zero
and it is a compressive stress close to the wellbore wall.
IADC/SPE-178831-MS 13

Figure 10 —Tripping with parabolic velocity profile: Induced radial stress at different times.

Figure 11—Tripping with parabolic velocity profile: Induced tangential stress at different times.

Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 show total radial and tangential stresses (Eq. 24) at different times. Total radial
stress has a maximum increase at t⫽21s which is about ~ 35% increase compared to original value. Total
tangential stress decreases until t⫽21s and then starts increasing to original value. Maximum decrease
compared to original value is ~14% at the wellbore wall and it is ~ 11% at r/rw⫽1.5.

Figure 12—Tripping with parabolic velocity profile: Total radial stress at different times.
14 IADC/SPE-178831-MS

Figure 13—Tripping with parabolic velocity profile: Total tangential stress at different times.

Total radial and tangential stresses at the wellbore wall versus time are plotted in Fig. 14. Total radial
stress at the wellbore wall (Fig. 14(a)) shows a similar trend of induced pressure and total tangential stress
at the wellbore wall (Fig. 14(b)) shows inverse of the trend of the induced pressure.

Figure 14 —Total effective (a) radial, and (b) tangential stresses versus time at the wellbore

Comparing the Results

Comparison of the stresses caused by surge pressure while the drillpipe is tripped with two different
velocity profiles shows that there is no difference in the trend of the induced pressure and stresses.
However, there is a difference in magnitude of maximum induced stresses which depends on the
maximum of generated surge pressure. Although both tripping velocities provide 90 ft displacement, the
maximum of surge pressure depends on acceleration and consequently maximum velocity. In this
example, as the parabolic velocity profile has greater maximum velocity (4ft/s), it generates higher stress
peaks.
Concluding Remarks
● In this work, the effect of transient surge pressure on stress distributions around the wellbore has
been studied utilizing a software tool developed for the purpose.
IADC/SPE-178831-MS 15

● Transient surge pressure is calculated considering the drilling fluid compressibility and wellbore
expansibility. Stress distribution around the directional wellbore is calculated using poroelasticity
theory. The induced pressure and stresses are modeled when a surge pressure is generated and the
model is adapted to take the effect of the time dependency of the surge pressure into account using
the Duhamel’s theorem.
● Stress distribution changes at the borehole face and inside the formation have been calculated
utilizing the developed tool when the drillpipe is tripped into the wellbore with trapezoidal and
parabolic velocity profiles.
● The results in both cases show that induced pressure decays and dissipates at a distance of about
five times the wellbore radius.
● Induced pressure surge wave into the formation is observed to reach a maximum and then
dissipates.
● Based on the induced pressures, the corresponding induced radial stress wave propagates into the
formation, reaches the maximum, and then starts to decay.
● Similarly, the induced tangential stress wave reaches a maximum value and decays. The induced
tangential stress is found to be tensile. It reaches a maximum at a certain time, and then starts to
dissipate with time with some fluctuations. Its maximum value is about 35% of induced radial
stress.
● Total radial stress shows an increase in its peak about 30% in the trapezoidal velocity case and
35% in the parabolic velocity case compared to original value. However, the same comparison for
total tangential stress shows a decrease in the peak value about ~7% for the trapezoidal velocity
case and ~ 11% for the parabolic velocity case.
● Results show no difference in trends of the induced pressure and stresses when the drillstring is
tripped with these two velocity profiles, except for the magnitudes reported.
● It is very important to include the time rate of surge pressure change, and dynamic rock strength
must be taken into account in wellbore strength management.

Acknowledgement
The authors greatly appreciate the sponsorship of this project by TUDRP ( www.tudrp.utulsa.edu)
Member Companies.

Nomenclatures
effective fluid velocity
average fluid velocity
Vp drillpipe velocity
K mud-clinging constant
␣ diameter ratio
rw wellbore radius
␸ inclination angle
A cross sectional area
␽ azimuth angle
␪ the angle relative to x axis in cylindrical coordinate
Ps time dependent parameter such as transient surge pressure
Pw wellbore pressure
Po formation pressure
␴H maximum in-situ horizontal stress
␴h minimum in-situ horizontal stress
16 IADC/SPE-178831-MS

␴v in-situ overburden stress

␴rr radial stress
␴␪␪ tangential stress
␴zz vertical stress
ur sradial displacement
k permeability of rock
␮ viscosity of formation fluid
S .storage coefficient
K0 modified Bessel functions of second kind
J0 Bessel functions of first kind
Y0 Bessel functions of second kind

References
1. Aadnoey, B.S., Looyeh, R., ⬙Petroleum Rock Mechanics⬙, GULF Professional Publishing, 2011.
2. Bourgoyne, A.T., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E., and Young, F.S., ⬙Applied Drilling Engineering⬙, SPE, Rich-
ardson, Texas, 1991
3. Burkhardt, J.A., ⬙Wellbore Pressure Surges Produced by Pipe Movement⬙, SPE 1546-G, June, 1961.
4. Cannon, G.E., ⬙Changes in Hydrostatic Pressure Due to Withdrawing Drillpipe from the Hole⬙, API Drilling and
Production Practices, pp 42–47, 1934.
5. Carslaw, H.S., J. C. Jaeger, ⬙Conduction of Heat in Solids⬙, Oxford University Press, 1959.
6. Cheatham, J.B., ⬙Wellbore stability⬙, Distinguished Author series, Journal of Petroleum Technology, June, 1984.
7. Chen, G., ⬙A study of wellbore stability in shales including poroelastic⬙, chemical, and thermal effects, PhD
Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 2001.
8. Clark, E.H.Jr, ⬙Bottomhole pressure Surges While Running Pipe⬙, Presented at the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Pet. Mech. Eng. Conf., Los Aneles, Ca. ASME 54-PET-22, 1955.
9. Clark, R. K. and Fontenote, J.E., ⬙Filed Measurements of the Effects of Drillstring Velocity, Pump Speed, and Lost
Circulation Material on Downhole Pressures⬙, SPE 4970, 1974.
10. Dake, L.P., ⬙Fundamentals of reservoir engineering⬙, Elsevier Science, 1978.
11. Detournay, E., Cheng, A, ⬙A Poroelastic Response of a Borehole in a Non-hydrostatic Stress Field⬙, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. Vol.25(3): 171–182, 1988.
12. Dokhani, V., Yu, M., Miska, S.Z., Takach, N.E., Ozbayoglu, E., ⬙Effects of Adsorptive Characterization of Shale on
Wellbore Stability⬙, 49th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco, CA, USA, 28 June- 1 July,
2015.
13. Fjaer, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M., Risnes, R., ⬙Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics⬙, The Netherlands,
Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. 1992.
14. Fontnote, J.F., Clark, R.K., ⬙An Improved Method for Calculating Swab and Surge Pressures and Circulating Pressures
in a Drilling well⬙, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, October, 1974.
15. Gjerstad, K., Sui, D., Bjorkevell, K. S., Time, R. W., ⬙Automatic Prediction of Downhole Pressure Surges in Tripping
Operations⬙, paper IPTC 16974 presented at the 2013 International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China,
26-28 March.
16. Gjerstad, K., Sui, D., Bjorkevell, K. S., Time, R. W., ⬙A medium-order Flow Model for Dynamic Pressure Surge in
Tripping Operations⬙, SPE/IADC 163465, 2013.
17. Goins, W.C., Weichhert, J.P., Burba, J.L., Dawson, D.D., and Teplitz, A.J., ⬙Down-the-hole Pressure Surges and Their
Effect on Loss of Circulation⬙, API Drilling and Production Practices, pp 125–132, 1951.
18. Haimson, B., Fairhurst, C., ⬙Initiation, and Extension of Hydraulic Fractures in Rocks⬙, Soc. Petrol. Engrs. J,
310 –318, 1967.
19. Horn, A.J., ⬙Well Blowouts in California Drilling Operations Causes and Suggestions for Prevention⬙, paper SPE
50112, 1950.
20. Ito, T., ⬙Effect of pore pressure gradient on fracture initiation in fluid saturated porous media⬙, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 75 (2008) 1753–1762.
21. Ito, T., Hayashi, K., ⬙Physical Background to the Breakdown Pressure in Hydraulic Fracturing Tectonic Stress
Measurements⬙, Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 28, No.4, p-285–293, 1991.
IADC/SPE-178831-MS 17

22. Jaeger, J. C., Cook, N.G.W., and Zimmerman, R. W., ⬙Fundamentals of Rock mechanics⬙, Forth Ed. 2007.
23. Lal, M., ⬙Surge and Swab Modeling for Dynamic Pressures and Safe Trip Velocities⬙, paper IADC/SPE 11412
presented at the 1983 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 20-23 February.
24. Lubinski, A., Hsu, F.H., Nolte, K. G., ⬙Transient Pressure Surges due to Pipe Movement in an Oil Well⬙, revue de
L’Inst. Franc. Du Pet., No.3, p.307–347, 1977.
25. McKelliget, J. W., ⬙Duhamel’s Theorem⬙, University of Massachusetts at Lowell, Lecture notes, 2002.
26. Medlin, W. L., Masse, L., ⬙Laboratory investigation of fracture initiation pressure and orientation⬙, Soc. Petrol. Engrs
J, 19, 129 –144 (1979).
27. Mitchell, R.F., ⬙Dynamic Surge/Swab Pressure Predictions⬙, SPEDE (September, 1988) 325.
28. Mitchell, R.F., ⬙Surge pressures in low-clearance Liners ⬙, IADC/SPE Drilling conference, IADC/SPE 87181, Dallas,
Texas, USA, 2004.
29. Mitchell, Robert F, and Miska, Stefan Z, ⬙Fundamentals of Drilling Engineering⬙, Published by Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 2011.
30. Nmegbu, C. J., Ohazuruike, L. V., ⬙Wellbore Instability in Oil Well Drilling: A Review⬙, International Journal of
Engineering Research and Development, Vol. 10, Issue 5, PP. 11–20, May 2014.
31. Rice, J. R., and Cleary, P. M., ⬙Some basic stress diffusion solutions for fluid-saturated elastic porous media with
compressible constituents⬙, Reviews of Geophysics and space physics, vol.14, no. 2. 1976.
32. Schuh, F. J., ⬙Computer Makes Surge Pressure Calculations Useful⬙, The Oil and Gas Journal, August, 1964.
33. Srivastav, R., Enfins, M., Crespo, F., Ahmed, R., ⬙Surge and Swab Pressures in Horizontal And Inclined Wells⬙, paper
SPE 152662 presented at the 2012 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Mexico
City, Mexico, 16-18 April.
34. Tarasevich, V., Podryabinkin, E., Bocharov, O., May, R., ⬙Modeling of Pressure Fluctuations in Wellbore While
Tripping⬙, OMAE 2015, May 31-June 5, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.
35. Wang, H. F., ⬙Theory of Linear Poroelasticity with Applications to Geomechanics and Hydrology⬙, Princeton
University Press, 2000.
36. Yew, C. H., and G. Liu., ⬙Pore fluid and wellbore stabilities⬙, SPE 22381, International Meeting on Petroleum
Engineering. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1992.
37. Yu, M., Chenevert, M.E., and Sharma, M. M., ⬙Chemical–mechanical wellbore instability model for shales: Account-
ing for solute diffusion⬙, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 38(3): 131–143, 2003