Abstract
One of the concerns that artificial lift engineers have to face
when they are working with PCP systems is the lack of
information about effective procedures for PCP diagnosis and
optimization. Most of the information available is limited to
explaining the importance of keeping the fluid level over the
pump to avoid dry run. On the opposite side, there are some
studies that explain the hydrodynamics of the pumps, and how
some variables, like intake void fraction and fluid viscosity
affect the pump performance.
However, there is no information available that may help field
engineers understand the relationship between operational
conditions and internal performance of the pump to know how
each condition in the well could affect the pump, and how to
determine and understand which condition is best for the system.
This paper introduces a new procedure to be used for
understanding PCPs wells performance and therefore determine
the best condition for system operation. Based on a set of simple
mathematical models and patterns recognition techniques, this
procedure is a useful tool to reduce the timing to analyze PCP
systems and to automatically determine the best operational
conditions in terms of production and performance.
Introduction
PCP system is a fast growing artificial lift application, during
the last years many operator have been introducing this method
to lift light oil and high WOR wells, thus the application window
of PCP system is on expansion and the method is been used to
lift lighter, gassy and low viscosity fluid a better understanding
of the system performance is required. Unfortunate the
information that is available to understand the downhole pumps
performance is limited to some experimental studies and
2
l .eq. (2)
PLSt
dl =
PLSt
d .eq. (3)
2
Fx =
P d r PLSt
2 cos d ...eq. (4)
0
2
Fy =
2 P d r PLSt
sin d eq. (5)
0
2
SPE 107899
Fy =
4 d r PLSt P
eq. (6)
2
RPM 2
Ac = r =
e eq. (7)
60
hyd = 4 e d r PLst
P
..eq. (14)
2
Fc = M r AC .....eq. (8)
Where the mass of the rotor (Mr), could be calculated using
the following simplified equation.
n
dr 2
4e nstages + PLSt stages
M r =
2
4
Steel
.eq. (9)
For position of the rotor illustrated in figure 2, the centrifugal
force is orientated to the positive side of X axe. Both resulting
forces from equations 6 and 9, generates a reactive force on the
stator.
An additional analysis can be done to infer the hydraulic
torque. Using figure 2, an expression for differential torque is
represented by equation 8.
( + ) PLSt
..eq. (11)
l=
2
Then,
P
dl = LSt d ..eq. (12)
2
To get the Hydraulic Torque for a complete stage length
equation 8 has to be integrated from to 0 as is shown in
equation 13.
hyd =
0
P d r e PLSt
2 sin d eq. (13)
dm n
= Q sl (( n 2 ) n ) n 2 + Q st (( n 1 ) n ) n 1
dt
Q sl ( n ( n 2 )) n Q st ( n ( n 1 )) n
...eq. (15)
A lineal pressure distribution is assumed to start a trial and
error process to calculate slippage flow rates between stages.
Since this original condition is transitory, the process has to be
calculated for sufficient time steps to get the definitive slippage
and pressure distribution.
Elastomeric PCPs are manufactured with interference between
stator and rotor, which means that differential pressure between
stages, has to be higher enough to defeat the seal lines and create
a gap that allows the fluid flow. The following lineal
formulation was proposed for Gamboa [11] to describe the
SPE 107899
w=
d r de
..eq. (17)
2
P
V p .eq. (18)
2
Pint 2
QL = C1 1 2 .eq. (19)
Pe
hyd
2
V p
Vp
n
2
=
Pwh + Phyd + Pf 1
RPM vol Pe
2
C1
.eq. (22)
The last equation is representing only hydraulic torque. The
operational torque that is measured at surface must be higher
because the viscous and friction torque inside the pump and at
the rod string. Therefore, the hydraulic torque can represent the
(Figure 7). The total slip calculated for these conditions was 1.53
M3/Day.
When the intaking void fraction is increased (figures 8 and 9)
the pressure distribution developes a dependence with rotational
speed as a consequence of the change in the amount of mass that
can slip during a pumps rotation,[3], [8]. The fluid
compressibility also plays an important role to generate this
dependence because it increases the amount of flow that is
required to boost the pressure of one cavity.
The amount of mass that a cavity receive during a rotation is
proportional to the rotation duration, so that at higher speeds the
pressure gradient in the last part of the pump has to be higher to
allow more slip compressing the fluid to reach the discharge
Pressure.
For 250 and 500 RPM there is not any differential pressure
between stages close to the pumps intake, it means that there is
not any slip between these stages too. All the fluid that is
slipping front the discharge is kept inside the pump to compress
the fluid at last stages.
The second example was performed for a rigid stators PCP; it
means that a constant clearance between stator and rotor was
assumed. Higher slip was also allowed in order to observe the
effect of this variable on pressure distribution.
For pure liquid operation simulation, a slightly quadratic
pressure distribution inside the pump was negated. This
distribution doesnt have any dependence with rotational speed
(Figure 10). In the same way as PCPs with elastomeric stator,
the pressure distribution when the void fraction is increased
change with rotational speed (Figure 11 and 12). Nevertheless,
this dependence is very weak due to the higher slip rate (5.5
M3/day). For elastic stator, clearance between cavities depends
on differential pressure. This condition allows the clearance to
work as flow regulator of the cavity. If one cavity is losing
pressure the downsteam clearance is reduced and the upstems
clearance is increased to keep more mass inside of the cavity. In
case of rigid stator the clearance is constant and the pressure of
the cavity is controlled only by the pressure drop caused by the
fluid flow trough the seal lines that have a constant geometry,
allowing slippage if any differential pressure exists between
cavities.
If the void fraction is increased a higher change in pressure
distribution with rotational speed is observed (Figures 11 and
12). Nevertheless, this change is lower compared with the same
condition for elastomeric stator. This difference is cause by the
combined effect of higher slip and constant clearance for PCP
with rigid stator. In the same way, the reduced differential
pressure between cavities close to the pump intake indicates the
absent or reduced slip between cavities.
The previous exercise shows that higher slip helps the PCP to
establish a more equilibrate pressure distribution when void
fraction and rotational speed are increased. If total differential
pressure is concentrated in some cavities the stress on stator and
rotor material due to contact forces will be also concentrated.
SPE 107899
SPE 107899
eccentricity (M)
VOL : Volumetric efficiency
SPE 107899
SPE 107899
Figure 3. Simplified Longitudinal Representation of a PCP Showing Cross section slip and longitudinal slip in a PCP
SPE 107899
Void Fraction=0
1600
25
1000
20
800
15
600
14000
12000
10
400
200
0
0
100
200
300
400
Pressure(kPa)
1200
Ac(M/S2)
1400
Fc (Nw)
16000
30
RPM 100
RPM 250
10000
RPM 500
8000
6000
4000
2000
500
RPM
CAVITY
16000
60000
14000
50000
12000
Pressure(kPa)
Fy (Nw)
70000
40000
30000
20000
RPM100
RPM 250
10000
RPM 500
8000
6000
4000
10000
2000
0
0
5000
10000
15000
0
1
P (kPa)
16
21
26
CAVITY
1000
Void Fraction=0.6
900
16000
800
14000
RPM100
700
12000
RPM 250
600
Pressure (kPa)
Pressure
11
500
400
300
200
100
RPM 500
10000
8000
6000
Cavity
4
Serie1
4000
Cavity
10
Serie2
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
Rotations
0
1
11
16
21
26
CAVITY
SPE 107899
Void Fraction=0
700
16000
600
14000
Troque (Nw-M)
Pressure (kPa)
500
RPM 100
12000
RPM 250
10000
RPM 500
8000
6000
400
Torque Slip 96
300
Torque Slip 48
200
4000
100
2000
0
11
16
21
100
200
26
RPM
300
400
500
CAVITY
Figure 13. Operational Torque versus RPM for void fraction =0.2
Figure 10. Pressure distribution along the Pump for pure liquid and
rigid stator
Void Fraction =0.4
Flow Rate (M3/Day)
16000
14000
RPM100
12000
Pressure (kPa)
RPM 250
10000
RPM 500
8000
6000
80
0.9
70
0.8
0.7
60
0.6
50
0.5
40
0.4
30
0.3
20
0.2
10
0.1
4000
Volumetric
Eficiency
100
200
2000
300
0
500
400
RPM
0
1
11
16
21
26
CAVITY
Figure 14. Flow Rate versus RPM for void fraction =0.2
Figure 11. Pressure distribution along the Pump for 0.4 void fraction
and rigid stator
700
16000
600
14000
RPM100
500
RPM 250
Torque (Nw-M)
Pressure(kPa)
12000
RPM 500
10000
8000
6000
400
Torque Slip 96
300
Torque Slip 48
200
100
4000
2000
100
200
300
400
500
RPM
1
11
16
21
26
CAVITY
Figure 12. Pressure distribution for along the Pump for 0.6 void
fraction and rigid stator
Figure 15. Operational Torque versus RPM for void fraction =0.4
10
SPE 107899
0.9
70
0.8
0.7
60
0.6
50
0.5
40
0.4
30
0.3
20
0.2
10
0.1
0
500
0
0
100
200
300
Volumetric Efficiency
80
400
RPM
Flow Rate Slip 96
Figure 16. Flow Rate versus RPM for void fraction =0.4
Historical Torque
800
700
600
Torque (Nw-M)
500
400
Torque
300
200
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Day
140