Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Typical pressure distribution along the pump is the result of The thermo-hydraulic process. The slip flow rate (S)
slippage across the seal lines between the cavities, from the compensates the compressed gas volume and therefore
pump discharge (high pressure) to the inlet section transmits the pressure (P) to the last stages (Fig. 1). Moving
(low pressure). Therefore, when there is pressure in a cavity to towards to discharge (d, from section 1 to 2), increasing the
permit the slippage into the second cavity, the pressure is cavity’s pressure P, and letting heat to build-up. Consequently,
partially transmitted, due to pressure loss. Hence, the process the thermodynamic laws for polytropic process (Eq. 1)
is limited to a reduced number of cavities and the entire associates temperature gradient (T) to the pressure gradient
differential pressure is developed by the stages closer to the (P) and gas compressed density ( ρG ) :
discharge end of the pump. k −1
k
Multiphase fluids cause special problems for the PCP due to T2 ⎛ P2 ⎞ k P2 ⎛ ρG2 ⎞
the compressibility of the gas phase. The volume of the =⎜ ⎟ =⎜ ⎟ (Eq. 1)
multiphase mixture, which enters the cavity, is determined by T1 ⎝ P1 ⎠ P1 ⎝ ρG1 ⎠
the inlet pressure. Therefore, due to the increasing internal
pressure towards the discharge end, the gas volume does
compress. Close to the discharge end of the pump, the slippage where, k is the polytropic coeficient. In multiphase flow, the
flow rate compensates the gas compressed volume and the polytropic coefficient k and the mixture density ( ρ ) are both
pressure is transmitted between the cavities. However, typical functions of gas void fraction ( α ):
PCP has low slippage which can only compensate the ρ = α × ρG + (1 − α ) × ρG
compressed gas volume of few discharge cavities (stages).
Consequently, tests have shown that a disproportionate where, ρG and ρL are respectively the gas and the liquid
amount of the pressure is developed by the discharge stages, densities.
and the entire delivered pressure gets concentrated on only the The pressure-temperature relation (Eq. 1) along the pump
last stages of the pump. This excessive pressure distribution in stages will be compared with the measured experimental
the discharge stages causes significant thermo – mechanical results.
problems which commonly results in premature pump failure.
This thermo-hydraulic process is a result of well known gas P2
laws, which state that as the pressure increases the gas volume P1
decreases and the temperature increases. Since the cavity
volume is constant, the gas volume cannot decrease and the
high pressure gradient causes excessive heat buildup. Due to T1 T2
the temperature behavior of stator elastomeric materials, the
thermo- hydraulic process limits the PCP’s ability to pump
gaseous fluids. 1 2 d
Another thermo-mechanical process occurs as a result of S
disproportionate pressure distribution. As the differential
pressure between two contiguous cavities increases, the stator
flexing material is deformed and inside the low pressure cavity Fig.1 PCP pressure-temperature relationship due to gas
the stator is strained. This process is particularly apparent in compression
liquid or multiphase flow, when the cavities differential
pressure is relatively large. Then, the compression stress of the The thermo-mechanical process. Another effect of
rotor on the strained stator increases, and the rotor friction (or disproportionate pressure gradient is related to the rotor and
viscous torque) increases the failure risk. Thus, the increase of the stator frictional-viscous forces. We present a simple
friction temperature and viscous torque substantially decrease approach to analyze the stator reaction to differential pressure
the pump’s reliability. Moreover, the deformed stator will between the cavities 1 and 2 ( Fig. 1). It is assumed that a
create high local velocity fluid jets that could potentially cut plane element of the stator is compressed by the differential
the stator material. pressure (P) between the cavities 1 and 2 ( Fig.2 A). Based on
Accordingly, in multiphase flow conditions the excessive Boussines equation the stator deformation (Y) is:
pressure distribution in the discharge stages causes both
Pa − ax
thermo-hydraulic and thermo-mechanical physical processes, Y ( x) = P × φ ( x) with φ ( x) = × e × ( cos ax + sin ax )
which reduce the pump reliability and performance. 2b
Furthermore, the PCP reliability is related to the pressure b
a4 = and p = bY ( x ) = Pbφ ( x) (Eq. 2)
distribution which depends on the production conditions (i.e., 4EI
gas flow rate, delivered pressure, pump rotational velocity). where, a and b are material elastic characteristics and p is the
In order to comply with the field production requirements, the induced stress.
PCP design is a compromise between the reliability (MTBF Therefore, the stator compression is the maximum in the
parameters) and the pump’s hydraulic performance. cavity 2, while the surface stator is strained inside the cavity 1
This study introduces a new approach of the relationship (Fig. 2 A). Also, the stress developed by the material is a
between the pressure distribution and the reliability parameters compression (p+) inside the cavity 2 and the surface of the
in multiphase and liquid flow. cavity 1 is under tension (p-) .
SPE 95272 3
T ∼ P× f × N (Eq. 3) 0,6
0,4
The result is that the temperature T increases with the pressure 0,2
gradient P, friction coefficient f and pump velocity N. Then,
0
the viscous-friction temperature T is a measure of the force
(torque) developed by the rotor in order to run over the 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0
strained stator, and in this sense T is a measure of failure risk X/L
and reliability. As for the friction coefficient f, it is equivalent LIQUID
of Newton’s dynamic viscosity.
GVF = 0.9 Calculation
The thermo-mechanical process (See Eq. 3) is illustrated by
experimental data. GVF = 0.9 Experimental
i d
Finally, the pressure distribution in multiphase flow which
shows disproportionate pressure gradient near the discharge
x
stage is the cause of both processes leading to temperature
L x o
build up, i.e. gas fast compression (thermo-hydraulic) and
rotor-stator forced contact (thermo-mechanic).
Fig.3. Multiphase pressure distribution; analytical (Eq.4) and
experimental for α = GVF=0.9, N= 300 rpm, P= 40 bar.
The pressure distribution in multiphase flow. We have
seen that the pressure distribution is the key for the
According to experimental trend, the pressure distribution in
evaluation of pump behavior in multiphase flow (see
liquid flow is linear, which confirms the model aproach.
Appendix). Thus, classical momentum and mass conservation
In multiphase flow, with a gas content of α=GVF= 0.9 the
are applied to multiphase compressible flow. The pressure
pressure distribution curve shows a steeply gradient, roughly 4
distribution along the pump is determined by the pressure drop
time as big as the liquid gradient. Again, using the fact that
4 SPE 95272
pressure distribution gradient is the cause of temperature That is due to strong interference fit which seals the cavities
build-up in both processes, i.e. gas compression (thermo- and a very small variation ( 0,2 %) of uncompressible liquid
hydraulic) and rotor-stator viscous friction (thermo-mechanic), volume causes high pressure variation .On the other hand ,the
it is clear that multiphase PCP behavior is due to pressure slippage is located on the discharge stages ( P= 40 bar ).
distribution.
Pump characteristics
The Experimental Program. Pum Name: Pump PCM Oilfield 100 TP 600
An extensive test program was performed at the PCM’s 3
facility test rig and CREMHyG- Turbomachinery and Flow rate = 108 m /d (680 bpd)
Cavitation Research and Test Laboratory in Grenoble, France. Head = 600 m (2000 ft); N= 500 rpm
Main objective of the experimental program was to determine Experimental conditions
the PCP’s ability to handle multiphase fluids with gas fraction
up to 90%. Additionally, rotors and stators combinations were Liquid: water, oil and Gas: air
evaluated in liquid and multiphase flow. Tests in liquid and Flow rate (m3/d) = 10 to 60, Pressure = 0 to 40 bar
multiphase flow allow validating the physical processes and GVF = 0 to 0.9, Oil viscosity (cPo) = 1200 (20°C)
parameters related to stator reliability and pump performance. 600 (30°C)
The configuration of the CREMHyG test skid is shown in the Measured parameters
Fig. 4. Since the pressure and temperature distributions are
significant factors of PCP behavior in multiphase flow, Pressure = 21 sensors, Temperature = 10 sensors,
measurements were carried out at multiple locations and Flow rate: liquid, gas. Pump velocity (rpm)
different intervals of time. The presented temperature values
were measured during 20 minutes with multiphase flow stable Table 1: Test conditions
conditions. In actual operations, long term pump response to
thermal increase largely depends on initial temperature
gradient (system invariant) and surrounding factors. Pressure bar 40
35
Flow meters in gas and liquid lines were used to monitor the 30
gas fraction. Additionally, pump speed and delivered pressure 25
20
were also recorded. 15
The range of measured parameters is on the table 1. 10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Stages
P= 40 bar P = 0 - 6 bar
According to Figures 5 and 7 the ratio of mean pressure even when the gas content is low (see Fig. 8). However, as the
gradient and temperature are (Eq. 3 and 5): analytical approach shows (see Appendix), the pressure
Pa Ta distribution depends on both flow rate (or N), and GVF. Then,
= 1.65 = 1.54 when the flow rate is high (N= 300 rpm) compressed large gas
Pb Tb
volume requires slippage compensation and the pressure is
This confirms the relationship between the pressure gradient limited to discharge stages 10 to 13, and vice-versa , for low
and friction-viscous temperature (Eq.3). Moreover, flow rate (N= 100 rpm) the pressure is distributed to stages
temperature curves symmetry (see Fig. 7) is similar to pressure 8 to 13 (See Fig. 8).
trend (see Fig. 5). Therefore, even in liquid flow the pressure
gradient is the primary cause of friction-viscous torque and
related temperature. The temperature is then a measure of 45
viscous torque, reflecting the stator reliability.
40
35
Pressure bar
12 30
25
Temperature °C
10
20
8
15
6
10
4
5
2
0
0
8 9 10 11 12 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Stages Stages
Fig. 6. Temperature in liquid flow (oil) for various Fig. 8 .Discharge stages pressure distribution in multiphase
pump velocities (N= 300, 100 rpm), P= 40 bar. flow .Experimental data for P= 40 bar, N= 300 and 100 rpm ,
GVF= α = 0,1 and 0,9.
- For GVF= 0.5 the temperature variation (Eq. 1) becomes: Therefore, the previous approach of thermo- mechanical
⎛ P13 ⎞
0,25 process is confirmed, i.e. the pressure gradient is the cause of
T
⎜ ⎟ = 13 = 2.5 viscous friction torque, whereas the temperature is the
⎝ P10 ⎠ T10 measure of this mechanical interaction.
wich corresponds to measured temperature on the discharge Furthermore, observed thermal behavior depends on pump
stages 10 to 13: GVF=0.5 , T13 / T10 = 10 °C / 4 °C. flow rate; Fig. 10 shows the temperature when flow rates vary
(N= 100 and 300 rpm), for P = 40 bar and GVF= 0.9. Indeed,
In multiphase flow, taking into account the liquid capacity to when gas flow rate is low (N= 100 rpm) the slippage
absorb heat flow the exponent (Eq.1) is a function of GVF. overcomes compressed volume and that limits the temperature
Nevertheless, when the gas content is high enough the liquid increase and improves the pressure distribution (stages 9 to
heat dissipation is not significant and the gas polytropic 13). As we pointed out above, throughout the discharge stages
coefficient can be used, without any multiphase mixture the gas is compressed and the polytropic approach is still
consideration. confirmed in both cases, high (N= 300 rpm) and low flow
Accordingly, this confirms the previous approach of thermo- rates (N= 100 rpm). Then, the gas content is GVF= 0.9 and the
hydraulic process i.e. the polytropic gas compression and temperature variation (between the stages 9-10 and 13)
temperature increase are related to pressure gradient. is T13 T9−10 ≈ 3 . However, through the inlet stages the
temperature ratio is due to viscous friction process (Eqs. 3,7):
Te f e Pe N e
∼ × × (Eq.7)
20 Th f h Ph N h
18 where suffixes are: e for N= 300 rpm, and h for N= 100 rpm.
16 At high gas flow rate the pressure is limited to discharge
Temperature °C
14
12
10
Fig. 9. Temperature in multiphase flow. 8
GVF= α = 0.9 and = 0.5, P= 40 bar, N= 300 rpm. 6
4
The temperature due to viscous friction in multiphase flow, 2
0
with GVF = 0.9 and 0.5, is illustrated by the inlet stages 1 to 9
behavior (See Fig.9). Thus, according to previous thermo- 1 3 5 7 9 11 13
mechanical process (see Eq.3), for constant velocity N = 300 Stages
rpm, temperatures ratio is ( Eq.6 ):
N = 300 rpm N = 100 rpm
Tc Pc f c
∼ ∼ (Eq.6)
Td Pd f d Fig. 10. Temperature in multiphase flow for various flows
rates, N = 300 and 100 rpm, P= 40 bar, GVF = 0.9.
where suffixes are: c, for GVF= 0.9 and d, for GVF= 0.5.
Assuming that the rotor centrifugal acceleration results in a
liquid film (with some gas bubbles), the interference fit is oil Conclusions:
lubricated and the friction coefficients are equivalent. As for 1. A new approach of the PCP’s behavior and reliability in
the pressure gradient , the experimental data show that for two-phase flow is described:
GVF = 0.9 the pressure is distributed on 3 stages (see Fig. 8) , ̇ Thermo-hydraulic process: where the gas
whereas for GVF= 0.5 the pressure is on 4 stages . Then, the compression, due to pressure gradient, causes
pressure gradient ratio is 4/3 = 1.33, and the temperature ratio temperature to increase,
corresponds to the measured ones (Fig. 9), i.e. ̇ Thermo-mechanic process: where the pressure
gradient between the cavities induces strained stator
Tc Td = 8 °C 6 °C = 1.33 .
SPE 95272 7
effect that increases frictional (viscous) rotor-stator 2. Vetter G and Wincek M (1993) Performance Prediction of
torque and related temperature, Twin-Screw Pumps for Two-Phase Gas/Liquid Flow,
̇ Pressure distribution in two-phase flow that depends Pumping Machinery, 154, 331-340
on gas content (flow rate, GVF) and the 3. Robello G and Saveth K. (1998) Progressing Cavity Pump
compensation of compressed volume due to the (PCP): New Performance Equations for Optimal Design.
slippage flow. SPE 39786.SPE Permian Basin Oil and gas Recovery
2. Experimental tests carried out on PCP’s confirm the Conference, Midland.Texas.U.S.
physical description; calculations correlate well with measured 4. Gamboa J, Olivet A and Espin S. (2003): New Approach for
values of pressure distribution and related temperature Modeling Progressive Cavity Pumps Performance,
increase. SPE 84137, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA.
3. The pressure distribution is the cause of temperature 5. Wietstock P and White W. (1993): Studies in Multiphase
increase in both two-phase and liquid flows. Moreover, the Pumping with Screw Pumps. 6-th International Conference on
temperature is a measure of gas compression effect and rotor- Multiphase Production, pp. 389-414.
stator frictional (viscous) torque. Accordingly, that is 6. Toma P. et al. (1998): Field assessment of Multiphase
equivalent of a criterion of PCP’s reliability and failure risk. Progressing Cavity Pumping, SPE Progressing Cavity Pump
Workshop, Tulsa U.S.
4. The temperature due to rotor-stator frictional (viscous) 7. Prang J. (1991): Rotary Screw Pumps for Multiphase
torque is a function of pressure gradient, rotational velocity Products, British Pump Manufacturers Association, 12th
and frictional coefficient .The temperature due to gas international Pump Technical Conference, London U.K.
compression depends on pressure distribution and gas flow 8. Martin A., Kenyery F. and Tremante A. (1999):
rate (GVF, rotational velocity). Experimental Study of Two Phase Pumping in progressive
In order to improve the PCP’s operational life, usually one cavity pumps, SPE 53967. SPE Latin American and
reduces the rotational velocity, delivered pressure and rotor- Cararibbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas.
stator fit. Therefore, the analytical formulas enable to optimize 9. Olivet A, Gamboa J and Kenyery F. (2002): Experimental
the pump performance in both liquid and two-phase flows. Study of Two-Phase Pumping in a Progressing Cavity Pump
Metal to Metal, SPE 77730, SPE Annual Technical
Acknowledgements: Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio, USA.
The author wishes to acknowledge the management of PCM
Pumps for their permission to publish this work and the SI Metric Conversion Factors
permanent support of the research effort. Also, I would like to
thank those individuals at CREMHyG and PCM testing rig, 1 inch ( in ) = 2.54 cm
who have been involved in the experimental program. 1 foot ( ft ) = 0.305 m
3
1 barrel (B) = 0.159 m
5
1 bar = 10 Pa
Nomenclature:
1 psig = 6.89 K Pa
P: pressure, differential pressure,
( 5/9) ( °F-32) = °C
T: temperature,
GVF = α gas void fraction,
Appendix: Multiphase Pressure Distribution
ρ : densities (mixture, gas ( G ) , liquid ( L )), We propose a schematic hydraulic flow to understand the
k: gas polytropic coefficient, pressure distribution. The multiphase mixture of the cavity
Y: stator deformation, (W) moves from inlet section ( i ) toward the discharge (d),
p: stator stress, while the leakage (S) through the rotor-stator contact is
f : rotor-stator friction coefficient, slipping from the discharge high pressure Pd (Fig.11). Due to
N: pump rotational velocity, pressure P variation, the compressed gas volume ∆W is
W: cavity volume, compensated by a part q of overall leakage flow S. Therefore,
W: gas compressed volume of the cavity, the pressure distribution P is a function of leakage flow S
S: total slippage flow rate, curve, which depends of gas compression volume ∆W. Since
q: slippage flow rate, compensating gas compressed ∆W is a function of gas flow rate and pressure P, there is an
volume W, iterative process.
h: pressure drop of slippage flow, Fluid mixture momentum and mass conservation equations
i: inlet section, describe the slippage multiphase compressible flow. Assuming
d: discharge section. that the kinetic energy can be neglected and the slippage
pressure drop controls the pump pressure distribution, there
results the nonlinear integral equation 8:
References :
1. Moineau René (1930), A New Capsulism, Doctoral Thesis,
(1-α ) ρ L ∫ dP + ρG bα ∫ P.dP = C ∫x S 2 ( x, P, α ).dx
0
The University of Paris. (Eq. 8)
8 SPE 95272
where b and C are: system constants (inlet pressure, pressure multiphase flow the entire slippage flow Sd compensates few
drop coefficient, hydraulic diameter and flow section). cavities Sd = Sc, and the flow rate has the form:
This equation (8) shows that the pressure distribution P (left
side) is primarily due to pressure drop of slippage flow (right ⎡ 2α ⎛ x ⎞ ⎤
Sx (x) = Sd × ⎢1 − ⎜1 − ⎟x
L ⎝ 2L ⎠ ⎥⎦
side), which S flow rate varies while the compressed gas is (Eq. 13)
compensated. Therefore, it is necessary to solve the ⎣
relationship between the gas compressed – compensated Now, one can turn to pressure drop expression hx (Eq. 8, right
volume (∆W) and local slippage flow rate (S). side) from the dischage d to x section, and the integral is:
S ⎛ x⎞
h x = C × Sd 2 × F ⎜ α, ⎟ (Eq. 14)
i q d ⎝ L⎠
Wo where, F is a polynomial function of: α, x and L.
x For liquid flow (α=0), the pressure drop function is linear
L x (i.e., F = x /L), and the overall liquid pressure drop is:
Wx h 0,L = C × Sd 2 , x = L
Pd
Then, the pressure drop in multiphase flow becomes:
Pi Px P ⎛ x⎞
h x = h 0,L × F ⎜ α, ⎟ (Eq. 15)
⎝ L⎠
Wi ∆Wx W It is now easy matter to get the pressure distribution (left side
of the equation) and the integral becomes:
Sd
(1 − α ) ρL ( Pd − Px ) + αρG
1
2Pi
( Pd 2 − Px 2 ) = h x (Eq. 16)
S
Sx qd q The pressure distribution of PCP in multiphase flow is then
given by simplified analytical solution:
qx
Fig. 11. Multiphase pressure distribution: compressed- Px ⎛ x⎞
compensated volume and slippage flow rate. = 1 − F ⎜ α, ⎟ (Eq. 17)
Pd ⎝ L⎠
Mass conservation of pump flow rate, including compressible where, F denotes the pressure drop function depending of gas
gas volume, gives the volume ∆Wx that have to be flow rate (α) and the coordinate along the pump (x /L).
compensated in the section x: This result is still valid for liquid flow (α = 0 and F = x / L)
that gives a linear pressure distribution:
∆Wx = α × Wi × ⎛⎜1 − i ⎞⎟
P
(Eq. 9) Px x
⎝ Px ⎠ =1− (Eq. 18)
Pd L
Assuming linear approximation of pressure distribution, the The new approach for modeling PCP’s internal slip in
compressed volume is a part of initial gas volume (αWi). multiphase flow shows that pump pressure distribution can be
Therefore, the slippage flow rate qx that compensates ∆Wx in analyzed with practical formula. Therefore it is not necessary
the section x, becomes: to use complex numerical method.
q x ∆Wx It is interesting to notice that the simplicity of this result is
⎛ x⎞
= = α × ⎜1 − ⎟ (Eq. 10) coherent with thermo-hydraulic-mechanic description.
qd Wi ⎝ L⎠ In order to illustrate the pressure distribution along the pump,
in multiphase flow, the calculated non-dimensional pressure
Consider the total slippage flow rate consumed between the ratio (see Eqs.17,4) is compared with experimental data (See
dischage d and the section x: Fig. 3). The discharge stages are compensated by the slippage
flow and pressure distribution is limited to 1/3 of the overall
⎛ x ⎞ stages.
Scx = ∫ qx .dx = α × qd × ⎜1 − ⎟× x (Eq. 11)
⎝ 2L ⎠
The slippage flow in the section x is: