SPE 63048
CONTROL: PCP – An Intelligent System for Progressing Cavity Pumps
P. G. Carvalho, SPE, Petrobras, C. Morooka, SPE, Unicamp, S. Bordalo, SPE, Unicamp, and I. Guilherme, UNESP
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper describes an intelligent system for the
management and control of petroleum wells operating
with progressing cavity pumps (PCP), named
CONTROL: PCP.
The purpose of CONTROL: PCP is to maintain
the operational conditions of PCPs within the established
limits, reduce the operational costs, maximize the useful
life of the equipment, and, consequently, increase the
profitability of the petroleum wells. The architecture of
the system involves expert knowledge for handling an
existing database.
Introduction
Artificial lift methods are employed to maintain a
reduced well-bottom pressure, a necessary condition for
the production of the reservoir fluids at a profitable flow
rate (Brown, 1980). Several artificial lift methods are
available, such as the gas lift, beam pump, electrical
submersible pump and progressing cavity pump.
Figure 1 illustrates a typical artificial lift system
and its pressure diagram, where ∆P represents the
pressure head supplied by the pump, which is equal to
the difference between the pump discharge and suction
pressures.
The progressing cavity pump is one of the newest
artificial lift methods. Although invented in the late
1920’s by Rene Moineau (Revard, 1995), it has only
been commercially used for lifting liquids in petroleum
wells since the early 1980's.
The initial PCPs were used to produce viscous and
abrasive fluids in shallow and low-profit wells, but the
development of new equipment furnished additional
options, and has led to their use for a larger range of
applications, under various conditions of viscosity, depth
and flow rate. Figures 2 and 3 present a general view of
a PCP and its construction details.
In addition to being able to work with abrasive
and viscous liquids (Dunn & Mattews, 1995), PCPs also
present economic advantages (Saveth, 1993), such as
reduced initial costs and smaller energy consumption,
providing a global economy of up to 40% in comparison
to beam pumps, for example.
After about twenty years of usage in the field, it
would have been expected that PCPs would be perfectly
understood by the operation crews. However, various
papers have reported unsatisfactory operational
performance, due to the reduced lifetime of the
equipment (Costa, 1996). Some authors indicate that
appropriate PCP operating conditions are relatively
unfamiliar to the operators (Clegg et alli, 1993). As with
other methods, PCPs should not be subjected to extreme
conditions, beyond the recommended limits.
Therefore, it is very important to understand the
characteristics and peculiarities of PCPs, to promote
appropriate follow up of well operation and pump
performance, and to identify necessary adjustments of
equipment parameters.
Intelligent System
The first step for ensuring rational control of the
operation of PCPs is to establish a cause and effect
relationship, using an Ishikawa Diagram (Ishikawa,
1985). Figure 4 shows such a diagram, identifying the
parameters that effectively contribute to most of the
results observed, whether positive or negative.
The CONTROL: PCP system does not replace the
design process that establishes the pump dimensions and
capacity. Therefore, in order to obtain a high quality
performance from the PCP, first and foremost, a good
2 PAULO GASSE CARVALHO, CELSO MOROOKA, SERGIO BORDALO AND IVAN GUILHERME
design is required for each specific well. Many
commercial programs are available for this purpose.
The main objective of CONTROL: PCP is to
provide a better control over the operating conditions of
wells, by monitoring its parameters and recommending
the proper adjustments to keep the equipment working
safely and efficiently, so that early failures can be
avoided and the useful life extended.
Architecture of the System. The CONTROL: PCP
system requires a database, which must contain all
information needed for the analysis of the well
performance. Management of this database should keep
the data as updated as possible. CONTROL: PCP
contains a knowledge base composed of algorithms and
"if... then" rules, so that a quick diagnosis about the well
operation can be made. Figure 5 shows the general
architecture of the system.
The CONTROL: PCP system analyses some of
the main operational parameters, advising field operators
to act before the incidence of damage to the equipment.
The diagnosis is informed to the user via messages and
graphs on a computer display. The flowchart presented
in Figure 6 describes the top level of the system's
architecture.
First, CONTROL: PCP reads the information
stored in the database, which is classified in three
groups:
- well data
- installed equipment data
- monitoring data
Well data should include information about the
open zone in the wellbore, such as treatment received,
well geometry and produced fluids.
Installed equipment data should contain
information about surface and subsurface equipment,
such as pump size and installed depth, motor rotation
speed, rod and tubing diameters, drivehead and prime
mover characteristics and dimensions etc.
The monitoring data should contain information
about the flow rate of oil, gas and water, dynamic and
static pressure or level in the well, and casing and tubing
well-head pressure. The last acquisition date for each
data is also needed.
Before providing any diagnosis, the system
verifies if all the necessary information is available in
the database, and if it has been properly updated. It is
very important to verify the reliability of the
information, because any incorrect data can lead to
inappropriate decisions.
SPE 63048
Main Parameters. A logical structure, organized in
modules, promotes checks in relation to the parameters
that are being taken into consideration. Expert
knowledge, based on information available in published
papers, books and field production engineers'
experience, is used in the creation of the modules.
Presently, the following parameters were selected
for monitoring and control:
- pump submergence
- pressure capability
- temperature
- gas interference
- volumetric efficiency
- inflow performance relationship (IPR)
Pump submergence. Submergence (S) is defined
as the difference between the pump depth (Hp) and the
fluid dynamic level (Ld) above the pump. In order to
maximize the production of crude oil, a reduced dynamic
pressure should be maintained at the bottom of the well
(Pwb). The value of Pwb can be obtained from
measurements of the fluid dynamic level and casing
pressure (Pc). The critical condition of pump-off must be
avoided because it causes irreversible damage to the
pump stator. Consequently, it is necessary to measure
the well-bottom pressure periodically (or, alternatively,
the dynamic level), and to adjust the pump flow rate
accordingly (adjusting the pump rotation speed), thus
maintaining an adequate submergence level above the
pump.
Fuzzy sets are used in the system (Pedrycs and
Gomide, 1998) as an attempt to reproduce expert
reasoning in the decision process of how to adjust the
submergence. Rotation and submergence parameters are
converted into linguistic variables, to which qualification
values are assigned, such as "high", "medium" and
"low", for example. The following check is carried out:
Smin < S < Smax ?
If the submergence is not within the desired range
(between Smin and Smax), then, CONTROL: PCP advises
that the rotation speed of the pump must be adjusted as
necessary.
Pressure capability. If the pump is exposed to an
excessive pressure differential (between pump discharge
and suction) leakage is amplified and the lifetime of the
pump is reduced. Operating conditions must always be
maintained bellow the maximum capacity of the
equipment.
Certain conditions, such as the high viscosity of
fluids at lower environmental temperatures, can increase
SPE 63048 CONTROL PCP: AN INTELLIGENT SYSTEM FOR PROGRESSING CAVITY PUMPS
the well-head pressure (Pwh). Therefore, it is important to
know the average and the maximum values of the well-
head pressure, and to verify if the pressure is maintained
bellow the maximum pressure capacity of the pump.
The pressures in the well are calculated in a
simplified way, to estimate if something is potentially
wrong, as follows:
1) the available pressure differential, ∆Pavail, equal
to the pump head rating, is obtained as a function of the
number of cavities.
2) the required pressure differential, ∆Preq, is
calculated from the hydraulic head (Ph), friction head
loss (Pf), well-head pressure (Pwh), and casing pressure
(Pc), using basic fluid dynamics principles.
The question to be answered is:
∆Preq < ∆Pavail ?
If the answer is “not”, CONTROL: PCP flags that
some action must be taken. Excessive pressure must be
avoided; if it occurs, various options are available to
mitigate the problem, as follows:
- turn off the pump (in some cases);
- install a pressure control;
- resize and replace the pump.
Temperature. The elastomer of the stator can
withstand temperatures only up to a designed limit
(Cholet, 1998). Higher temperatures can expand, deform
and even burn the elastomer. Injection of steam water,
for example, is not recommended for PCP operated
wells. CONTROL: PCP checks the temperature.
Also, from calculations of the well-bottom
temperature (using the temperature gradient) and
considering the oil viscosity, CONTROL: PCP can
verify the rotor fitting.
Gas interference. If gas interference occurs in
the pump, the volumetric efficiency is greatly reduced,
becoming null, in some cases.
Such problem can be avoided with the correct
design and installation of the pump. The most common
and effective procedure is to set the pump bellow the
well's perforations (Revard, 1995). This is called a
natural anchor procedure. CONTROL: PCP checks the
position of the pump and informs if there is any
problem.
Volumetric efficiency. Combined with other
parameters, the volumetric efficiency ( η vol ) indicates if
the pump is providing satisfactory performance. It
indicates whether there is an operational problem in the
3
well. For example, in case of low volumetric efficiency,
it may not be recommended to increase the pump
rotation speed. The volumetric efficiency is presented
numerically and graphically by CONTROL: PCP.
Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR). Two
curves are shown in Figure 7, the linear IPR and the
Vogel IPR. For both, the maximum production (well
potential) is calculated for ideal operating conditions, i.
e., for the lowest dynamic pressure at the bottom of the
well.
The linear IPR curve is considered valid only for
static reservoir pressure (Ps) above the bubble point of
the produced fluid (Vogel, 1968). The dimensionless
relation is as follows:
Q P
= 1 − wb (1)
Qmax Ps
The IPR curve proposed by Vogel is valid for
solution drive wells (Vogel, 1968). Its dimensionless
equation is as follows:
2
Q P P 
= 1 − 0.2 wb − 0.8  wb  , (2)
Qmax Ps  Ps 
where, Q and Pwb represent current operating conditions
(e. g., from a recent and representative test).
Based on these curves, it is possible to estimate the
maximum well production (potential) for a given well
operational condition, while taking into consideration
the desired minimum submergence (or minimum
dynamic pressure). Then, CONTROL: PCP can indicate
if the execution of proposed actions to increase
production is worthwhile, and also how much will be the
gain in undertaking them.
Results
CONTROL: PCP was applied to a real oilfield,
and the results are shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10, from
shots of actual computer displays (the text is originally
in portuguese).
The main menu (top of the window) provides the
following options, from left to right: system start-up;
identification data; well data; equipment data; follow-up;
submergence calculation; pressure calculation;
statistical analysis, IPR calculation; well diagnosis; field
summary.
Figure 8 shows the "Diagnosis Summary" for one
of the wells in the field (notice the highlighted item of
the main menu). The well-ID would have appeared in
the top-right 3-segmented-box, but it was erased for
4 PAULO GASSE CARVALHO, CELSO MOROOKA, SERGIO BORDALO AND IVAN GUILHERME
publication. From top to bottom, and left to right, there
are 8 frames with the following informations in its boxes
(in the paragraphs below, the frames' titles are in italics,
the boxes' names are in quotes, and the values of the
records in the boxes for this particular well are listed
after the colons, in bold):
Frame 1, Updated status of the data – "Production
test": ok!; "Dynamic level": ok!; "Static level": old > 4
years; "Static pressure": old 3 to 4 years;
"Recommendation": verify data. Frame 2, Well
Production – "Submergence": excessive; "Volumetric
eficiency": 25 to 50%; "Production limit": ok!;
"Recommended rpm": 259 rpm; "Recommendation":
increase rpm. Frame 3, Gas interference –
"Recommendation": ok!. Frame 4, Consistency of the
data – "Production test": ok!; "Dynamic level": ok!;
"Static level": ok!; "Static pressure": ok!;
"Recommendation": ok!. Frame 5, Pump pressure –
"Minimum pressure": ok!; "Maximum pressure": ok!;
"Recommendation": ok!. Frame 6, Workover – "Number
of times": 8; "Average period between workover": 57
months; "Comment": (null). Frame 7, Current status –
"Oil production": 2.3 m3/d; "BSW": 2 %, "Working
code": 1; "Volumetric eficiency": 26 %; "Pump": 18.3;
"Rotation speed": 220 rpm; "Submergence": 68 m;
"Temperature": 43 oC. Frame 8, Production Potential –
"Linear IPR": 3.8 m3/d; "Vogel IPR": 3 m3/d.
Figure 9 shows the "Field Summary" presenting
the quantities of wells falling under each diagnosis
status. Following the frame sequence as before, one
finds:
Frame 1, Field selection – "Field ID": (erased for
publication). Frame 2, Working status of PCP wells –
"Active (code 1)": 57; "Active with problems (code 2)":
0; "Shutdown": 6; "Total": 63 (below, a pie-chart depicts
the activity distribution). Frame 2, Abnormalities, has
four subframes. Subframe 2.1, Submergence – "Low":
27; "High": 26. Subframe 2.2, Pressure differential –
"Minimum too high": 0; "Maximum too high": 0.
Subframe 2.3, Outdated data – "Production test": 39;
"Static pressure": 53; "Static level": 57; "Dynamic
level": 28. Subframe 2.4, Gas Interference – "Without
natural anchor": 17. Frame 3, Other data, has three
subframes. Subframe 3.1, Volumetric efficiency – "0 to
25%": 14; "25 to 50%": 23; "50 to 75%": 13; "75 to
100%": 4; "above 100%": 3. Subframe 3.2, Bottom
temperature – "above 100 oC": 0. Subframe 3.3,
Workover periodicity – "less than 12 months": 11; "less
than 18 months": 39; "Global average": 32 months.
Finally, Figure 10 shows the "Submergence and
Volumetric Efficiency" verification for one of the wells.
SPE 63048
As before, the display reads:
Frame 1, Volumetric efficiency – "Theoretical
pump flow rate": 8.8 m3/d; "Actual total flow rate":
2.3 m3/d; "Volumetric efficiency": 26 %. Immediately
below, a sliding rule depicts the volumetric efficiency
against a linear scale, showing also the desired range.
Frame 2, Submergence – "Pump depth": 570 m;
"Dynamic level": 502 m; "Current RPM": 220 rpm;
"Submergence": 68; "Recommended RPM": 259 rpm.
Frame 3, Comments – Increase de rotation speed. On
the right, a drawing depicts the current submergence
level and the desired level.
Conclusions
Current computational resources allow
implementation of new approaches in production
management in order to obtain increments on petroleum
production with reduction of operational failures.
Through careful monitoring of the variation in
operating conditions, the CONTROL: PCP system
provides advice on how to improve the performance of
operation of progressing cavity pumps. In order to reach
this goal, the system advises the operator when abnormal
conditions occur, and proposes the necessary
adjustments to keep the pump operating continuously for
as long as possible.
The philosophy of the present system allows a
slight reduction in precision in order to get faster results
and prevent failures on time.
New modules can be incorporated in the
knowledge base, if necessary. All required information
must be available in a general database, and it is
essential that this database be constantly updated with
reliable information. The CONTROL: PCP system
allows the user only to consult the information stored in
the database, avoiding any modification of the stored
information. At the present time, the system is
implemented as a prototype, undergoing some field tests
with the use of real data to validate the designed
inference procedures.
Moreover, the principles evaluated here can be
employed to develop the same kind of control system for
other types of artificial lift methods.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Petrobras and the
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory team of the Petroleum
Engineering Department at Unicamp
References
BROWN, K. E. The technology of artificial methods. Vol.2a.
Tulsa: Pennwell Books, 1980. 720p.
SPE 63048 CONTROL PCP: AN INTELLIGENT SYSTEM FOR PROGRESSING CAVITY PUMPS 5

CHOLET, H. Progressing Cavity Pumps. Paris: Éditions

Technip, 1997. 120p.
CLEGG, J. D., BUCARAM, S. M., HEIN Jr., N. W.
Recommendations and comparisons for selecting
artificial-lift methods. SPE 24834. Journal of Petroleum
Technology. Vol. 45, n. 12, Dec. 1993. p.1128-1167.
COSTA, R. O. Estudo comparativo do Bombeamento por
Cavidades Progressivas (BCP) com o Bombeamento
Mecânico Alternativo (BM). Petrobras. Aug. 1997. 12p.
DUNN, L. J., MATTHEWS, C. M. Progressing Cavity
Pumping System application in heavy oil production.
Alberta: International Heavy Oil Symposium. SPE
30271, June 1995. 10p.
ISHIKAWA, K. What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese
way. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1985. 215p.
PEDRYCS, W., GOMIDE, F. An introduction to fuzzy sets –
analysis and design. London: MIT Press, 1998. 485p. Figure 1 – Artificial lift: schematic pressure diagram
REVARD, J. M. The Progressing Cavity Pump Handbook.
Tulsa: Pennwell Books, 1995. 167p.
SAVETH, K. J. Field study of efficiencies between
Progressing Cavity, Reciprocating and Electric
Submersible Pumps. Oklahoma: Production Operations
Symposium. SPE 25448, March 1993. p.389-394.
VOGEL, J. V. Inflow performance relationship for solution-
gas drive wells. Petroleum Transactions, v. 243. Dallas:
Inst. of the Ofice. of SPE. 1968. p.83-92.

Nomenclature
Hp = pump depth
IPR = inflow performance relationship
Ld = fluid dynamic level
Ls = fluid static level
P = pressure
Pc = casing pressure
Pd = dynamic pressure
Pdis = pump discharge pressure
Pf = tubing head loss due to friction
Ph = column hydrostatic head
Ps = reservoir static pressure
Psep = separation pressure
Psuc = pump suction pressure Figure 2 – PCP's principal components.
Pwb = well-bottom pressure
Pwh = well-head pressure
Q = flow rate
Qmax = maximum flow rate under ideal conditions
Qo = oil flow rate
Qp = theoretical pump flow rate
Qt = total liquid flow rate = Qo + Qw
Qw = water flow rate
S = submergence = Hp - Ld
Smin = minimum desired submergence
Smax = maximum desired submergence
∆P = pump pressure differential = Pdis - Psuc Figure 3 – Longitudinal and traverse sectional views of a
∆Pavail = available pump pressure differential single-lobe PCP.
∆Preq = required pump pressure differential
η vol = volumetric efficiency = Qt/Qp
6 PAULO GASSE CARVALHO, CELSO MOROOKA, SERGIO BORDALO AND IVAN GUILHERME SPE 63048

Figure 4 – Ishikawa Diagram adapted to PCP operation.

Figure 6 – Basic flowchart of the CONTROL: PCP.

Figure 5 - General architecture of the system.

Figure 7 – Inflow performance relationship.
SPE 63048 CONTROL PCP: AN INTELLIGENT SYSTEM FOR PROGRESSING CAVITY PUMPS 7

Figure 8 - Screen shot: well diagnosis (edited and enhanced for publication).

Figure 9 - Screen shot: field summary (edited and enhanced for publication).
8 PAULO GASSE CARVALHO, CELSO MOROOKA, SERGIO BORDALO AND IVAN GUILHERME SPE 63048

Figure 10 - Screen shot: submergence and volumetric efficiency (edited and enhanced for publication).