An Improved Finite-Difference

Calculation of Downhole
Dynamometer Cards for
Sucker-Rod Pumps
T.A. Everitt, * SPE, Chevron Oil Field Research Co., and J.W. Jennings, * * SPE, Texas A&M U.

Summary. This paper presents a finite-difference representation of the wave equation developed for diagnostic analyses of sucker-
rod pumping systems. A consistent method of computing the viscous damping term associated with the damped-wave equation is also
presented.

Introduction
Sucker-rod pumping is the most widely used means of artificial lift. Knapp 3 was the first to present a method for computing down-
About 85% to 90% of all producing wells in the U.S. are rod- hole dynamometer cards using finite differences. His formulation
pumped. Thus, a reliable method of analyzing these pumping sys- . does not account for variable rod diameter or rod material. Knapp's
tems is a necessity. theory was used in the development of the model presented here.
For many years, the surface dynamometer has been used to ana-
lyze sucker-rod systems. Interpretation of actual pump conditions Model Development
from surface dynamometer cards is often difficult, if not impossi- The behavior of the sucker-rod pumping system is complex. This
ble. Results obtained from surface cards are strictly qualitative and study entails modeling a portion of this system, namely the sucker-
are dependent on the analyzer's expertise. rod string from the surface to the pump. The wave equation is ideal
The ideal analysis procedure would be to measure the actual pump for this purpose because the problem at hand involves the propa-
conditions with a downhole dynamometer. However, this situation gation of waves in a continuous medium.
is not economically feasible. Therefore, an accurate method of cal-
culating downhole pump cards from measured surface cards is need- Wave Equation. The ID wave equation is a linear hyperbolic dif-
ed. This paper presents a method for calculating these downhole ferential equation that describes the longitudinal vibrations of a long,
cards that uses a finite-difference representation of the wave equa- slender rod. Using this equation with viscous damping, we can ap-
tion. First, a brief description of previous calculation techniques proximate the motion of the sucker-rod string. In its simplified form,
is given. the wave equation is given by

Previous Methods. Past work involving the analysis of sucker-rod a2 u a2 u au

pumping systems can be divided into two categories. One category
involves predicting the performance of new sucker-rod installations
by calculating surface load from known surface position and pump
load. The other category deals with the diagnosis of existing pump-
ing installations by determining actual pump conditions from meas-
ured surface conditions. This paper focuses on the latter category.
Snyder 1 was the first to develop a method for calculating down-
hole forces and displacements. His technique incorporates the
method of characteristics to solve the undamped-wave equation.
Snyder assumed that the tension in the rod is the result of two force
waves, I (downward wave) and g (upward w.ave). The values of
land g, calculated from the surface dynamometer card, would be
constant over the entire rod string for the undamped solution. Snyder
corrected for damping using a concentrated damping force to ad-
vance the values of I and g down the rod string. These two force
. waves are then used to compute the downhole pump card. Snyder's
method is rigorously valid only for a uniform sucker-rod string.
Gibbs and Neely2 developed an analytical technique in 1966 for
obtaining subsurface conditions. The method uses truncated Fou-
rier series approximations of the ID, damped-wave equation to de-
termine load and displacement. The relative smoothness of the
load/time and displacement/time curves is important in a Fourier
analysis; however, the load function approaches a square wave at
the pump. The Fourier series solution oscillates at the discontinui-
ties of this square wave, restricting the number of terms that can
be taken in the series solution and still preserve accuracy. In turn,
the smaller number of terms in the series causes the solution to be
less accurate. Gibbs and Neely's analytical method has become the
primary means of calculating downhole dynamometer cards.
• Now at Shell Offshore Inc.
"Now retired.
Copyright 1992 Society of Petroleum Engineers
v 2 - = - + c - , .............................. (I)
ax 2 at2 at
where v=.JI44Eg c/p.
Eq. 1 is for the simplified case of a constant rod diameter. Mul-
tiplying through by (pA/l44g c) modifies Eq. 1 to account for vari-
able rod diameter:
a2u pA a2u pA au
EA ax 2 = 144gc at 2 +c 144gc ar' .................. (2)
which is the form of the wave equation used to develop the finite-
difference model. Several researchers 4-6 gave a detailed deriva-
tion of the wave equation, beginning with a force balance on an
element of the sucker-rod string.
Generally, solving the wave equation would require two bound-
ary conditions and two initial conditions because the equation con--'
tains second-order derivatives in both time and space. However,
the problem solved here does not require initial conditions because
only periodic (steady-state) solutions are desired. Because the ef-
fects of the initial conditions have faded in periodic solutions, only
two boundary conditions are required.
The two required boundary conditions are time histories of
polished-rod load and displacement. These conditions can be ob-
tained directly from a surface dynamometer point plot, a graph of
polished-rod load vs. displacement recorded at evenly spaced incre-
ments of time. Surface cards are typically recorded as continuous
plots, however, and not as point plots at equal time increments.
In this case, pumping-unit kinematics must be used to attain a rela-
tionship between time and polished-rod displacement. Svinos 7 de-
veloped a versatile method for performing the kinematic analysis
of pumping units. His method was used in this study to obtain sur-
face position at evenly spaced time increments. Constant speed was
assumed for the prime mover, and inertia effects were neglected.

SPE Production Engineering, February 1992 121

 Timesteps 0)
1 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . n

o uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Eq. 3 is used to transmit the surface position downhole by cal-
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu culating displacements at each node along the rod string until the
last node just above the pump is reached. The Appendix gives a
2 ?uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu? complete derivation of Eq. 3.
Note that Eq. 3 requires knowing displacements two nodes be-
3 ??uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu?? hind in space, Uj,j and Ui-l,j relative to the node being calculat-

-
~
III
CD
???uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu???
~ ????uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu????
Z
?????uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu?????
??????uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu??????
???i???uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu???????
m ????????uuuuuuuuuuuuu????????
u - Displacements That Can Be Calculated
? - Displacements That Cannot Be Calculated
Fig. 1-Dlsplacements not calculated.
Finite-Difference Analogs. Finite differences are used in the model
development to obtain the numerical solution of the ID, damped-
wave equation. Taylor series approximations are used to generate
finite-difference analogs for the derivatives of displacement that ap-
pear in the wave equation. Eq. 3 is the result of substituting these
Taylor series approximations into Eq. 2.
Ui+l,j= ([a(l +C~t)]Ui,j+l -[a(2+c~t)-(E4/~x)+
-(E4/~x)-]ui,j+aui,j_l-(E4/~x)-Ui_l,j}/(E4/~x)+ ,
..................................... (3)
ed, ui+l,j. Therefore, to start the solution, the displacements uO.j
and Ul,j must be known for all timesteps. The displacements at
UO,j are known from the surface dynamometer card. The displace-
ments at Ul,j are calculated with Hooke's law:
F=E4(ou/ox). . ................................. (4)
Substituting the polished-rod load, FPR, for F and a first-order-
correct forward-difference analog for ou/ox yields
FpR,j=(EA/~x)(Ul,rUO,j) ........................ (5a)
or ul,j=(FpR,j ~/EA)+uO,j' ........................ (5b)
Thus, the displacements needed to start Eq. 3 are obtained. Note
that FPR is the dynamic polished-rod load (the surface-recorded
load minus the buoyed weight of the rods).
Another interesting aspect of Eq. 3 is that the determination of
ui+l,j requires knowing the displacements ui.j-l and Ui,j+l. At
the lower end of the timestep scale (whenj=O), Ui,j-l does not
exist; at the upper end of the timestep scale (whenj=n), Ui,j+l
does not exist. Therefore, the two endpoints at each node cannot
be calculated. Fig. 1 illustrates this phenomenon.
If the calculations are started from the surface' node (i =0) with
only one cycle ofloads and positions, the solution at the pump (i =m)
will not represent a complete cycle because the endpoints at Nodes
2 through m cannot be calculated. To solve this problem, enough
surface points (loads and positions) must be repeated before the
calculations begin so that when points are lost as the calculations
progress downhole, the pump card will still represent a complete
cycle. The number of points that will be lost can be determined

TABLE 1-DATA FOR CASE 1

Rod Data
Diameter, in. 0.75 Material Steel
Length, ft 2,000 Elasticity, psi 30.5x10 6

Downhole Data
Plunger diameter, in. 2.5 Pump depth, ft 2,000
Pumping speed, strokes/min 15 Fluid level, ft 2,000
Pump condition Full Fluid specific gravity 1.0

Pumping·Unit Data
Unit designation C·114·119·54 Stroke length, in. 54
Manufacturer Lufkin Rotation Clockwise

TABLE 2-DATA FOR CASE 2

Rod Data
Diameter Length Elasticity
(in.) ~ Material (psi)
1.250 3,000 Fiberglass 8.03 x 10 6
0.875 3,000 Steel 30.5 x 10 6

Downhole Data
Plunger diameter, in. 1.5 Pump depth, ft 6,000
Pumping speed, strokes/min 10 Fluid level, ft 6,000
Pump condition Fluid pound Fluid specific gravity 1.0

Pumping·Unit Data
Unit designation C·228·213·100 Stroke length, in. 100
Manufacturer American Rotation Clockwise

122 SPE Production Engineering, February 1992

 10000
20000

-
iii
.a -
iii
.a
::!. ::!.
'0 '0
II II
0 0
...I ...I

OL-________- L________ ________ ~ ~

o 20 40 60
Position (In.) Position (In.)

Fig. 2-Surface dynamometer card for Case 1. Fig. 3-Surface dynamometer card for Case 2.

from the number of nodes (number of lost points=number of
nodesx2-2). For example, if the rod string has 20 nodes, 38 of
the original surface points will not be transmitted to the pump. In
this case, 38 surface points must be repeated before the calcula-
tions begin (Le., Point n + 1= Point 1, Point n + 2 = Point 2 ... Point
n+38=Point 38) to obtain a complete pump cycle.
As mentioned before, Eq. 3 transmits displacements downhole
to the node just above the pump. To obtain pump displacement,
a different equation must be used because (EA) + and [pAl
(144g c )] + do not exist at the pump. The equation used is the sim-
plified form of Eq. 3 for constant rod diameter and rod material:
upump,j=(1 +c.:1t)U m _l,j+l -c.:1tu m - 1,j+Um -l,j-l -Um -2,j'
...................................... (6)
Now that pump displacement is known, pump load may be cal-
culated. Hooke's law (Eq. 4) is used, substituting a second-order-
correct backward difference for (juNk
Fpump,j = (EAI2.:1 x)(3u m ,j -4U m -l,j +U m -2,j)' ......... (7)
Thus, equations have been generated for calculating pump dy-
namometer cards. In the model development, higher-order Taylor
series approximations could have been chosen for the derivatives.
It is expected, however, that the additional accuracy would be small
and would not compensate for the increased computational speed
and supplementary storage requirements.
noted the stability criterion of the finite-difference predictive model
as
.:1xlv.:1t~ 1. ....................................... (8)
Remember that the predictive and diagnostic models solve two
different problems. The predictive model calculates (predicts) sur-
face dynamometer cards, whereas the diagnostic model calculates
downhole cards from known surface conditions. The diagnostic
model solves for displacements ahead in space; the predictive model,
on the other hand, solves for displacements ahead in time. Thus,
the stability criterion for the diagnostic model is not the same as
Eq. 8. Everitt 4 derived the stability criterion for the diagnostic
model. For brevity, only the final result is shown here:
.:1 xlv.:1t:ii 1. ...................................... (9)
This criterion is the converse of Eq. 8, the stability criterion of
the predictive model.
Model Verification
Using the finite-difference equations presented earlier, we devel-
oped algorithms and programmed them in FORTRAN on a personal
computer. Standards used to test the model were the finite-difference
predictive model and the Fourier series (analytical) diagnostic
model. Schafer and Jennings 5 programmed these two models and
studied the parameters involved. These programs were used to verify
the numerical diagnostic model developed here.

Stability Criterion. Because the model developed here is an ex- Predictive-Model Comparisons. The predictive model calculates
plicit finite-difference method, the stability of the solution is of sig- surface load from known surface position and pump load. The proce-
nificant importance and must be considered at this point. Gibbs 8 dure for comparison is as follows.

6000 6000
- - - Diagnostic Model
- - - - Predictive Model

4000

-iii
.a
::!. 2000
'0

S
0
- - Diagnostic Model
---- Predictive Model
-2OOO~----~------L-----~----~------...1 -2000
o 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100
Position (In.) Position (In.)

Fig. 4-Comparl80n of numerical diagnostic and predictive Fig. 5-Comparl80n of numerical diagnostic and predictive
models for Case 1. models for Case 2.

SPE Production Engineering, February 1992 123

 TABLE 3-DATA FOR CASE 3

Rod Data
Diameter length Elasticity
(in.) ~ Material (psi)
0.875 1,500 Steel 30.5x10 6
0.750 2,400 Steel 30.5x10 6

Downhole Data
Plunger diameter, in. 2.25 Pump depth, ft 3,900
Pumping speed, strokes/min 8 Fluid level, ft 2,850
Fluid specific gravity 0.92

Pumping-Unit Data
Unit designation M-228-256-120 Stroke length, in. 121
Manufacturer lufkin Rotation Counterclockwise

TABLE 4-DATA FOR CASE 4

Rod Data
Diameter, in. 0.75 Material Steel
length, ft 3, 179 Elasticity, psi 30.5x 10 6

Downhole Data
Plunger diameter, in. 1.5 Pump depth, ft 3,234
Pumping speed, strokes/min 10 Fluid level, ft 3,234
Fluid specific gravity 0.8

Pumping-Unit Data
Unit designation C-114-143-64 Stroke length, in. 64
Manufacturer Lufkin Rotation Counterclockwise

1. Generate surface cards from known downhole conditions with
the predictive model.
2. Calculate pump cards with the numerical diagnostic model by
use of the surface cards generated in Step 1.
3. Compare pump cards calculated with the numerical diagnos-
tic model to actual pump cards in the predictive model.
Tables 1 and 2 are examples of artificial data sets used in these
comparisons. Figs. 2 and 3 show the surface cards generated with
the predictive model for these data sets. Figs. 4 and 5 compare
the predictive-model and diagnostic-model pump cards. These ex-
amples demonstrate the diagnostic model's ability to reproduce the
actual pump cards from surface information.
Analytical-Model Comparisons. The Fourier series (analytical)
model is probably the most well-known means of calculating down-
hole dynamometer cards at this time. Tables 3 and 4 give exam-
ples of actual wells used to compare the numerical and analytical
diagnostic models. Figs. 6 and 7 show the recorded surface dy-
namometer cards for these wells, and Figs. 8 and 9 compare the
pump cards calculated with the two diagnostic models. These cases
illustrate good agreement between the two models.
Numerical vs. Analytical. After good agreement between the nu-
merical and analytical diagnostic models is shown, the question
arises as to which model is more accurate. A description of the
procedure used to answer this question follows.
1. Generate surface dynamometer cards with the predictive model.
2. Calculate pump dynamometer cards from these surface cards
with the numerical diagnostic model.
3. Calculate pump cards from the surface cards with the analyti-
cal diagnostic model.
4. Plot the pump cards calculated with both diagnostic models
on the same graph with the actual pump card from the predictive
model.

15000

_ 10000 _ 6000

£ !
~ 5000
i
-I 4000

2000 L..-_ _ _..1.-_ _ _--L._ _ _.....L.._ _ _- - l

25 50 75 100 125 o 20 40 60 80
Position (In.) Position (In.)

Fig. 6-Surface dynamometer card for Case 3. Fig. 7-Surface dynamometer card for Case 4.

124 SPE Production Engineering, February 1992

 - - Numerical Model 3000
7500 •••••••••. Analytical Model - - Nunierlcal Model
....;.#'.--...-....... ~ ••.••.• - Analytical Model

2000
- 5000
-
~
iii
.1:1
do
3 2500
"C

.9
1000

o ' ..... . ...... ..... 0

-1000
-25OO0~----2~5----~50~--~7~5~---1~OO~--~125 0 20 40 80

Position (In.) Position (In.)

Fig. 8-Comparlson of numerical and analytical diagnostic Fig. 9-Comparlson of numerical and analytical diagnostic
models for Case 3. models for Case 4.

5. The calculated pump card that matches the pump card from
the predictive model more closely is the more accurate model.
Data sets described in Tables 1 and 2 are examples used in per-
forming this analysis. The generated surface cards are shown in
Figs. 2 and 3. Figs. 10 and 11 illustrate the results of the compari-
sons. In each case, lO to 15 Fourier coefficients were used in the
analytical model, as suggested by Schafer and Jennings. 5 The an-
alytical model tends to round the comers of the pump card. This
is explained by the difficulty in approximating a square wave Ooad
at the pump) with a Fourier series.
Damping Calculation
Past methods of sucker-rod analysis lacked a consistent means of
simulating the damping forces inherent in sucker-rod pumping sys-
tems. Nicol 6 presented a workable method of calculating damp-
ing, but it requires knowledge of fluid viscosity.
The intent of this section is to define a viscous damping coeffi-
cient, c, that may be used in Eq. 2 to model these damping forces.
The damping coefficient used is similar to that presented by
Gibbs 9 :
(550)(144g c ) (HpR -HH)7 2
c , ................... (10)
.../21C' (Ep j A j L j )S2
where HH=7.36xlO- 6 q-yZ.
Eq. lO is valid for any rod material, whereas Gibbs' damping
coefficient is valid only for steel rods. Ref. 4 gives a complete deri-
vation of Eq. lO. Calculation of hydraulic horsepower, HH, re-
quires knowledge of the fluid level, which mayor may not be
known, and of pump production rate, which is dependent on the
net pump stroke. This net pump stroke may be obtained from a
pump dynamometer card; however, the damping coefficient must
be known before the pump card can be calculated accurately. This
predicament leads to an iterative procedure for calculating the cor-
rect damping coefficient.
1. Calculate the damping coefficient with a fraction of the
polished-rod stroke as a first guess for the net pump stroke.
2. Calculate the pump dynamometer card and determine the net
pump stroke from this pump card.
3. Recalculate the damping coefficient, calculate a new pump
card, and again determine the net pump stroke.
Experience has shown that the net pump stroke converges with-
in an acceptable tolerance in two iterations. The next task is iterat-
ing until the damping coefficient converges.
4. Recalculate the damping coefficient with the now-fixed net
pump stroke.
5. Calculate the pump dynamometer card with the new damping
coefficient.
6. Determine the pump horsepower by computing the area of the
pump card.
SPE Production Engineering, February 1992
7. If the difference between the pump horsepower and the hy-
draulic horsepower is within an acceptable tolerance, the proce-
dure is complete. Otherwise, adjust the damping coefficient
accordingly and repeat Steps 5 and 6.
Fig. 12 is a flow chart illustrating the damping calculation proce-
dure. Running many cases has shown that the damping coefficient
converges within at most four to five iterations.
To verify the damping calculation procedure, the predictive model
was used to generate surface cards with a damping coefficient of
unity. Pump dynamometer cards were calculated, allowing the nu-
merical diagnostic model to compute its own damping coefficient.
Pump cards from both models were then compared to verify the
damping calculation. Fig. 13 is an example of this comparison using
data listed in Table 2. For this example, the damping coefficient
calculated in three iterations is within 2 % of actual.
Conclusions
1. The finite-difference diagnostic technique is an excellent means
of analyzing the behavior of sucker-rod systems.
2. The equations presented are valid for tapered-rod strings, rod
strings with sinker bars, and steel and fiberglass rods.
3. The stability criterion for the fmite-difference diagnostic model
is the converse of the stability criterion for the finite-difference
predictive model.
4. The viscous damping term associated with the wave equation
may' be computed with knowledge of the fluid level.
5. The finite-difference solution better approximates square-wave
pump loads than the truncated Fourier series solution (10 to 15 Fou-
rier coefficients).
Nomenclature
A =. rod cross-sectional area, in. 2
c = damping coefficient, seconds- 1
E = Young's modulus of elasticity, psi
F PR = polished-rod load, lbf
Fpump = pump load, lbf
gc = units conversion factor, 32.20bm-ft)/Obf-sec 2 )
HH = hydraulic horsepower, hp
HPR = polished-rod horsepower, hp
L j = length of individual rod section, ft
q = pump production rate, BID
S = polished-rod stroke, ft
Sn = net pump stroke, in.
t = time, seconds
u = rod deformation (displacement), ft
v = velocity of force propagation in rods, ftlsec
x = axial distance along the rod string, ft
Z = fluid level or net lift, ft
-y = specific gravity of fluid, fraction
125
 - - Numerical Diagnostic - - Numerical Diagnostic
6000 ........ Analytical Diagnoatlc
...•.... Analytical Diagnostic 6000
- - - Predictive - - - Predictive
...... .. '"
4000
4000
';i
.Q
do ';i
.Q
'1:J 2000 do
3
~ .
'1:J

~
0
2000

0
0 ............. .... .
'

-2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 -2000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Position (In.)
Position (In.)

Fig. 10-Accuracy of numerical and analytical diagnostic Fig. 11-Accuracy of numerical and analytical diagnostic
models for Case 1. models for Case 2.

p = rod density, Ibm/ft 3 Reference.

T = period of pumping cycle, seconds 1. Snyder, W .E.: "A Method for Computing Down-Hole Forces and Dis-
placements in Oil Wells Pumped With Sucker Rods," paper 851-37-K
Subscripts presented at the 1963 Spring Meeting of the API Mid-Continent Dis-
i = axial distance (positive downward) trict Div. of Production, Amarillo, March 27-29.
j = time 2. Gibbs, S.G. and Neely, A.B.: "Computer Diagnosis of Down-Hole
m = node at pump Conditions in Sucker Rod Pumping Wells," JPT(Jan. 1966) 91-98;
Trans., AIME, 237.
3. Knapp, R.M.: "A Dynamic Investigation of Sucker-Rod Pumping,"
Superscripts MS thesis, V. of Kansas, Topeka (Jan. 1969).
+ = element below element of interest 4. Everitt, T.A.: "An Improved Finite Difference Calculation of Down-
- = element above element of interest hole Dynamometer Cards for Sucker Rod Pumps," MS thesis, Texas
A&M V., College Station (Dec. 1987).
Acknowledgments 5. Schafer, DJ. and Jennings, J.W.: "An Investigation of Analytical and
We thank the Texas Petroleum Research Committee and those Numerical Sucker-Rod Pumping Mathematical Models," paper SPE
responsible for the Hughes Tool Professorship in Petroleum Engi- 16919 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
neering at Texas A&M U. for supporting this study.
6. Nicol, T .H.: "Dynamic Analysis of Sucker Rod Pumping," MS the-
sis, V. of Oklahoma, Norman (Dec. 1982).
7. Svinos, J.G.: "Exact Kinematic Analysis of Pumping Vnits," paper
SPE 12201 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
8. Gibbs, S.G.: "Predicting the Behavior of Sucker-Rod Pumping Sys-
tems," JPT(July 1963) 769-78; Trans., AIME, 228.
9. Gibbs, S.G.: "Method of Determining Sucker-Rod Pump Perform-
ance," V.S. Patent No. 3,343,409 (Sept. 26, 1967).

- - Numerical Model, C = 1.02, 3 Iterations

- - - Predictive Model, C = 1.0 (Actual)
6000
No

4000
';i
.Q
do
'1:J 2000

C
HPPump )
= c· - - ~
( HPhyd
0
No

-2000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Position (In.)

Fig. 13-Calculatlon of damping coefficient with numerical

Fig. 12-Flow chart of damping calculation. model for Case 2.

126 SPE Production Engineering, February 1992

Appendix-Derivation of Eq. 3 Authors
Equation 2,
Before Joining Shell
a 2u pA a 2u pA au Offshore Inc. In
EA--=----+e---, New Orleans, T .A.
ax 2 I44gc at 2 I44gc at Everitt worked at
Chevron 011 Field
the ID, damped-wave equation, is the basis used in deriving the
Research Co. In La
finite-difference analogs. Habra, CA, for 3
Taylor series approximations are used to generate finite-difference years as a research
analogs for the derivatives of displacement that appear in the wave engineer in the Ar-
equation. tificial Lift Group.
The analogs for the first and second derivatives of displacement He was 1989-90
with respect to time are straightforward. Note that the subscript Everitt Jennings treasurer and 1988-
i denotes axial distance (positive downward) and the subscript j 89 Microcomputer
denotes time: puter User Group chairman for the Los Angeles Basin Sec-
tion. Everitt holds BS and MS degrees In petroleum engineer-
(aulat)ii,j=(Ui,j+I-Ui,j)/llt, ...................... (A-I) Ing from Texas A&M U...1m W • .Jennings Is the Hughes Tool
Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M U., where
and (a 2ulat 2)ii,j=(Ui,j+ I -2Ui,j +Ui,j_I)/llt2 . ......... (A-2) he specializes in artificial 11ft and well-performance predic-
tions. He previously was vice president of production research
The first derivative analog is a first-order-correct forward differ-
at Gulf. A 1992 Distinguished Lecturer, Jennings has also
ence; the second is a second-order-correct central difference. served on the Forum Series, Reprint Series, and Ferguson
Translating the second derivative with respect to distance into Medal committees. He holds BS and MS degrees from the
differences is not quite as straightforward. This derivative may be Colorado School of Mines and a PhD degree from the U. of
written as Pittsburgh.

aUI
2 (aulax)ii+ 'h,j- (aulax)ii_ Y2,j
............ (A-3)
ax 2 I,j
.. Ilx 1 (EA)+ 1 (EA)-
2pA

where (aulax)ii+'h,j=(Ui+I,j-uU)/llx ............... (A-4) + [ Ilx Ilx + Ilx Ilx

1:~1lt }i,j+C4~~llt2 )Ui,j-I- :x ( : ) - Ui-I,j'

and (aulax)ii-'h,j=(Ui,rUi-I)lllx . ................ (A-5)
Now, substituting Eqs. A-4 and A-5 into Eq. A-3 yields -
.................................... (A-9)
2
aU
2
I Ui+l,j-Ui,j Ui,j-Ui-I,j
---'..:'----=. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)
Multiplying through by Ilx and factoring out pAI(144g cllt 2) gives
ax ..
I,j
Ilx 2 Ilx 2
Eq. A-6 can be recognized as a normal second-order-correct cen-
tral difference that has been rearranged slightly. The rationale for
EA)+ u'+I'= [ (l+ellt)---
( -Ilx
Ilx pA U· '+1 J
1 ,j Ilt2 144gc I,j
treating this difference in this manner is to account for variations

~_(EA)+ -(EA)-JUi'j'
in rod diameter and rod material. However, Eq. A-6 is not the fi-
nal form of the difference analog to be used for the space deriva- -[(2+ellt) Ilx
tive. Another preferred aspect of the finite-difference model is the Ilt 2 I44gc Ilx Ilx
ability to allow for a variable Ilx.
With tapered-rod strings, the solutions at the rod tapers are often
desirable so that maximum rod stresses may be analyzed. A constant-
+( Ilx ~)u.
Ilt2 I44g
c
'_I_(EA)
I,j Ilx
-u'_1 '.......... (A-lO)
1 ,j
Ilx scheme would require interpolation at the rod tapers, whereas
a variable-Ilx method would permit a different Ilx for each rod Dividing through by (EAlllx) + and taking an average for
size, providing exact solutions at the rod tapers. Thus, rewriting (pA/144g c) gives the final form of the main working equation:
Eq. A-6 to account for a variable Ilx yields
ui+l,j = ([a(I +ellt)]ui,j+1 -[a(2+ellt)-(EAlllx) +
__
2
a U I I
= ___ u'+1
1 ,J,-u,I,j. ____ I u·I,j,-u'_1
1 ,j.
-(EAlllx) - ]Ui,j+aui,j_1 -(EAlllx) - Ui-I,j }/(EAlllx) + ,
ax 2 I,j
.. (Ilx) + Ilx (Ilx) - Ilx ' ................................... (A-II)

................................... (A-7)
where 1lx=[(llx) + +(llx)-]/2.
Ilx [(PA/144g c) + +(pA/144g c) -
where a = - -
J.
Eq. A-7 is the final form of the finite-difference analog for the Ilt 2 2
seconq derivative with respect to distance. Eq. A-II is identical to Eq. 3, the equation used to transmit the
The next step is to substitute Eqs. A-I, A-2, and A-7 into Eq. 2, surface position downhole by calculating displacements at each node
along the rod string.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
-e I::g (Ui,j+~~Ui,j)= l::g (Ui,j+I-2:::-Ui,j_I). in. x 2.54*
lbf x 4.448222
EHJO
E+OO
cm
N
c c
psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
................................... (A-8)
Grouping in similar terms yields ·Conversion factor is exact. SPEPE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Del. 2, 1988. Revised manuscript received

=Ilx1 (EA)
-Ilx + ui+l,j= (PA + ePA) Ui,j+1
144gcllt2 144gcllt
July 5, 1990. Paper accepted for publication March 15, 1991. Paper (SPE 18189) first
presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Del. 2-5.

SPE Production Engineering, February 1992 127