SPE 107899

Integrated Analysis for PCP Systems

Oscar Becerra Moreno, Petrobras Energa S.A., and Maria Eugenia Mena Romero, Universidad Simon Bolivar

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1518 April 2007.
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, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

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

simplified models that dont establish a relationship between the

standard system variables and pump performance. Keeping in
mind that pump is the critical element of and PCP artificial lift
system. This work is dedicated to explain how to predict the
pump performance under a wide range of downhole condition
and how to recognize the optimum operational point or
downhole pump adverse condition.
The set of models that are presented in this study are based on
Vetter [8] and Gamboa [11] developments, whom presented
simplify models to predict and analyze the hydrodynamics
phenomena inside of twin screw pump and Progressive cavity
pump respectively.
Internal Forces in a PCP
When a PCP is operated some forces are generated due to the
differential pressure, the eccentricity and rotational speed, some
of these forces could affect the PCP duration and installation
integrity.
Figure 1, is used to visualize the direction of the forces that are
generated along of a half stage by differential pressure between
two cavities applied on the center of mass of rotor and stator.
Tracking the forces acting on the center of the rotor through out
a half cavity as figure 2 shows, a forces balances for X and Y
direction can be expressed as differential forces. The following
equation represents the differential force in X direction.
dFx = 2 P d r cos dl eq. (1)
Where,

2
l .eq. (2)
PLSt

Then to calculate a differential of length (dl),

dl =

PLSt
d .eq. (3)
2

Following the same procedure the forces balance in both

directions X and Y is found.

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

Solving equation 4 is found that forces in X direction are

equilibrated and therefore the resulting force is cero. For Y
direction the total force is expressed by equation 6.

Fy =

4 d r PLSt P
eq. (6)
2

This result indicates that a contact force between rotor and

stator is generated by differential pressure; therefore at any
section of the pump, the rotor is forced to be reclined to one side
of the stator cavity.
A centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the rotor around
stator is also acting on the center of mass of the rotor, the value
of this force is equivalent to the centrifugal acceleration times
the mass of the rotor.

RPM 2
Ac = r =
e eq. (7)
60

Solving equation 13 a final expression for hydraulic torque is

deduced.

hyd = 4 e d r PLst

P
..eq. (14)
2

Where 4.e.dr.PLSt , represents the volumetric capacity of the

pump for a single rotation
The internal forces analysis indicates that two important forces
are acting on the rotor during the pump operation. Fy is a
consequence of the differential pressure between two stages, so
that if the differential pressure changes through the pump this
force will be concentrated as well as hydraulic torque in these
stages where the differential pressure is higher. Although, the
centrifugal Force (Fc) will be distributed along of the pump
because it is a consequence of the rotational speed and the lineal
mass of the rotor.

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.

d hyd = 2 P d r e sin dl ..eq. (10)

Where,

( + ) 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)

Internal Slip in a PCP

The internal slip is the phenomenon that allows the PCP to
increase the pressure from one stage to the next one and defines
the pump performance in terms of volumetric efficiency and
lifting capacity. Field and laboratory studies have demonstrated
that slip and differential pressure between stages could change
along the pump [3], [9], [11], depending on fluid properties and
operational conditions. Some authors [7], [8], [11] have
developed simplify models to determine the pressure and slip
distribution. Nevertheless, these models have been formulated
for pure liquid under steady state operational conditions to be
validated with experimental data. Then, there is not an available
model to predict how an actual pump could operate in terms of
pressure and slip distribution through out the pump considering
two phases flow. Using Gamboa [9], [11] approach, a mass
balance for a single stage can be proposed taking into account
that fluid flow through the seal lines can be described as HagenPoiseuille Flow.
Using figure 3 representations, the mass change as a function
of time for a single cavity is:

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

interference or clearance change as a function of differential

pressure in case of elastomeric stator.
w = ao + a1 P ..eq. (16)
Where,

w=

d r de
..eq. (17)
2

If the stator is manufactured using a rigid material, a constant

clearance has to be supposed.
Relationship between operational torque and
downhole conditions
Anyone that has been in contact with PCPs operations knows
that torque and rotational speed (RPM) are the most important
variables to be observed to regulate and protect the system.
Nevertheless, the very close relationship between theses two
variables is not as well known.
According to equation 12, hydraulic torque expression can be
simplified as:

P
V p .eq. (18)
2

Fetkovich equation is used to describe the inflow performance

ratio for an oil well, and downhole flowing pressure is
represented by in taking pressure at the pump.
n

Pint 2
QL = C1 1 2 .eq. (19)
Pe

The amount of liquid that a PCP can handle is a function of the

rotational speed, volumetric efficiency and pump capacity as
equation 18 describes.
QL = V p RPM VOL .eq. (20)
The total differential pressure for an actual PCP installation
could be simplified as the difference between discharge pressure
and intake pressure, where discharge pressure is composed by
wellhead pressure plus hydrostatic pressure and flow pressure
losses.
P = Pwh + Phyd + Pf Pint .eq. (21)
To get an expression for hydraulic torque as a function of
RPM, equations from 18 to 21 are combined.

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

greatest part of the operational torque if viscous and friction

losses are lower.
PCP System Analysis
To explain the utility of the last set of equation predicting and
understanding a PCP system performance, some operational
condition for a typical installation are calculated.
Internal forces during a simulated operation
All the examples will be conducted for a 24 cavities PCP and
40 M3/Day at 100 RPM volumetric capacity. Some of the
parameters of the pump are: Eccentricity= 0.01 M, rotor minor
diameter=0.04 M, Pitch length=0.1656 M.
Centrifugal force is relatively low because the rotational speed
of a typical PCP is low. Nevertheless, this force excites the
vibration in the system and grows in quadratic form versus speed
(Figure 4). This vibration is a common cause of looseness and
fatigue because it acts at the edge of a pendulous system if it is
not anchored. That is why a good practice for PCP installation
consists on the use of anchors and centralizers.
Operating at total lifting capacity, the force Fy generated inside
the pump is over 6 Tons (Figure 5). Fy is also a contact force
between rotor and stator that acts over a small area along of the
sealing lines. Considering that, in some cases the differential
pressure could be concentrated only in some cavities; this
contact force will be higher in this cavities causing higher
deformation and stress on the elastomer of the stator. This
contact force is transfered to the stator generating a torque that
tries to unscrew the pump from the tubing.
Pressure distribution inside the pump
To calculate the pressure distribution inside the pump a simple
program was created. This program was also used to determine
the time when the pressure distribution along the pump could be
considered under steady state condition (Figure 6). To take into
account the transitory condition of the process changes in
boundary conditions due to the opening and closing of cavities at
the pump intake and discharge during the operation were
included in the mathematical model.
Some fluids properties considered for this simulation were:
specific gravity of liquid 0.86, viscosity of liquid 16 cp, specific
gravity of the gas 1.
Pressure distribution inside the pump was calculated for a total
differential pressure of 14000 kPa and 68.94 kPa of intaking
pressure.
The first example was performed for an elastomeric stator
PCP, changing the void fraction at pump intake for different
rotational speeds. The initial interference between rotor and
stator (a0) was assumed as 0.0024 mm and the proportional
constant (a1) of 0.004377 mm/Kpa.
For a pure liquid intake condition, a constant differential
pressure between stages was generated as a result of the
simulation. These distributions dont have any dependency with
rotational speed because the fluid is considered incompressible

(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

Recognizing operational conditions

To illustrate the operational conditions recognition using
equation 22, a typical system performance was simulated using
the same PCP that was used for previous examples. Some of the
parameters of the simulated system are:
Pump Depth= 1219.5 M
Pe= 8272 kPa
C1= 79.6 M3/Day
n= 0.5
Then, two different total slip rates at maximum differential
pressure at the pump (48 M3/Day and 96 M3/Day) were
supposed to compare the system performance. The first case was
performed for a void fraction of 0.2 at the pump intake under
atmospheric pressure.
Figure 13 shows, how operational torque under steady state
conditions change with rotational speed. It is easy to recognize a
slope change in both curves, where the operational torque
reduces the dependence with rotational speed. This change
indicates the point where the system has reached the maximum
allowable liquid rate as is shown in figure 14.
The volumetric efficiency of the pump drops, when the system
is getting close to the maximum rate due to the higher void
fraction entering to the pump. Spite of the different slip rate for
both simulated conditions the volumetric efficiency is the same
at higher speeds because the slip rate trends to cero at higher
rotational speeds as was previously explained. Nevertheless, the
pressure distribution inside the pump is better distributed when
the slip rate is higher, which means that internal forces inside the
PCP are better distributed and the average void fraction inside
the pump is lower, improving the heat transfer from PCPs
components to the fluid.
A second example was performed considering a void fraction
of 0.4 at pump intake for atmospheric pressure. Results in figure
15, show that the point where the system is lifting the maximum
flow rate is again recognizable on torque curves. But the slopes
change for toque versus RPM is smooth as long as the void
fraction and pumps slip is increased.
Results for both cases indicate the maximum flow rate is
reached at low volumetric efficiency (Figures 14 and 16). To get
the last 8% of the maximum flow rate, an average reduction of
volumetric efficiency of 10% is required. Thats why in some
cases a good practice consist on keeping some submergence in
order to reduce the void fraction entering to the pump improving
the volumetric efficiency. If the rotational speed is increased
beyond of the point for maximum flow rate, the volumetric
efficiency will be reduced while the lack of liquid at the pump
intake will be occupied by gas from the annulus.
Patterns recognition
Operational torque is affected by any irregularity that changes
the differential pressure, viscous torque or friction torque. Since,
abnormal or dangerous conditions in the system are normally
related to: sticking caused by elastomer swelling, plugging
caused by solids or paraffin deposition, low flow caused by
worn or leaks, no flow caused by parted rods or stator failure,

SPE 107899

etc. all of them affecting differential pressure or friction forces,

then each of these conditions could be related with a particular
torque versus RPM or time pattern. To explain how one of the
common abnormal conditions could looks like using a torque
versus time graphic, a simple example was simulated as is
shown in figure 17. The first part of the graphic represents the
optimization process when the speed of the system in increased
to get the optimum flow rate, which took more than 20 days.
Then the speed is kept stable to get the maximum flow rate.
After day 100 the operational torque started to increase. This
condition is a sign of an irregular condition like: elastomer
swelling or discharge plugging.
Figure 17 is only an example for one particular problem but
many different problems like inflow changes, tubing or rod
flaws can be recognized, understanding the operational torque
pattern that these flaws or changes would generate.
Conclusions
1. The downhole performance prediction for PCP is a very
complex process, because many variables are playing
an important role at the same time. Nevertheless a
simplified analysis described in this work could be
performed in order to determine the best operational
conditions.
2. A lineal pressure distribution inside the PCP represents
its best operational condition. Nevertheless, the
increase of pressure trends to be concentrated at the last
stages of the pump if void fraction and rotational speed
are increased. The way to equilibrate the pressure
distribution consists on increasing the slip by reducing
the initial interference between rotor and stator.
3. The hydrodynamic model for PCP pressure distribution
and slip that is proposed in this work can be use to
mach test bench data for PCPs by changing
interference or clearance constants. Once the model is
matched, downhole condition could be estimated. In
this way, the best test bench condition for any particular
PCP application could be established.
4. The PCPs performance curves are normally provided
for the entire pump. Nevertheless, these curves are not
directly comparable for different pumps if they dont
have the same amount of stages. A better ways to
compare different pumps consist on a single stage
performance representation for each one. It could be
done dividing the pump head by the stages number.
5. An equilibrate pressure distribution improves the
contact forces distribution between rotor and stator and
increases the average liquid fraction inside the pump
which means less stress concentration and better stator
refrigeration.
6. Operational torque versus RPM plots represents a
useful tool to determine the optimum operational
condition for a PCP system, while the representation of
operational torque as a function of time is suitable for
failures recognition and can be used to identify changes

in the system performance that in some cases could

require an operational regulation to avoid failures.
Acknowledgements
The Authors wish to acknowledge Petrobras Energia S.A for
all the support during this work preparation and publication.
Nomenclature
Fx : Force X direction (Nw)

Fy : Force Y direction (Nw)

P : Differential Pressure between two consecutive cavities
(KPa)
d r : Rotor Diameter (M)

: Angle force of the rotor (Rad)

PLSt : Stator Pitch Length (M)

Ac : Centrifugal Acceleration (M/S2)
: Angular velocity (Rad/S)
e : Eccentricity (M)
r : Radius (M)
RPM : Revolutions per minute
Fc : Centrifugal Force (Nw)
M r : Mass of Rotor (kG)
n stages : Total Stages number

Steel : Density of Steel (kG/M3)

hyd : Hydraulic Torque (Nw.M)
: Angle that is formed between

force at the rotor and

eccentricity (M)
VOL : Volumetric efficiency

Q L : Liquid Flow Rate (M3/S)

Pwh : Wellhead Pressure (kPa)

Phyd : Hydrostatic pressure (kPa)

Pf : Pressure losses due to friction (kPa)
Pint : Intake pressure (kPa)
Pe : Static Pressure (kPa)
dmn
: Change in mass of a cavity as a function of time
dt
Qsl : Slippage rate between two cavities (M3/S)
w : Diametric Interferential or Clearance (M)
ao : Initial interference between rotor and stator (M)
a1 : Proportional constant for interference reduction versus
pressure (M/kPa)

de : Stator cavity minor diameter (M)

Q L : Liquid Rate (M3/S)
C1 : Maximum flow rate (M3/Day)
n : Cavity number
References
[1] Gamboa J and Mendez J (2002) Experimental Study
of the effect of Fluid Temperature and Running Time
on Performance of a Progressive Cavity Pump. Paper
prepared for presentation at the 2002 Progressing
Cavity Pump Workshop. Calgary, Canada, 16-17
September.
[2] International Standard for Downhole Progressing
Cavity Pump (ISO 15136-1) 2000.Intenational
Standard Organization.
[3] Martin, A., Kenyery F. and Tremante A. (1999).
Experimental Study of Two Phase Pumping in
Progressive Cavity Pumps. SPE 53967.Paper
presented at the 1999 SPE Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference.
Caracas, Venezuela, 21-23 April.
[4] Gamboa, J., Olivet, A., Gonzalez P and Iglesias, J
(2002) Understanding the performance of progressive
Cavity Pump with a Metallic Stator. Proceedings of
the 20th International Pump Users Symposium.
[5] Moineau, Rene. (1930). A New Capsulism. Doctoral
Thesis. The University of Paris.
[6] Vetter, G. and Paluchowski, D. (1997). Modeling of
NPSHR for Progressing Cavity Pumps. ASME Fluids
Engineering Division Summer Meeting.
[7] Robello, G and Saveth K. (1998). Progressing Cavity
Pump (PCP): New Performance Equations for optimal
Design. SPE 39786. Paper presented at the 1998 SPE
Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference.
Midland, Texas US.
[8] Vetter, G., Wirth, W. and Pregler, S., (2000).
Multiphase Pumping with Twin-Screw PumpsUnderstand and Model Hydrodynamics and
Hydroabrasive Wear. Proceedings of the 17th
International Pump Users Symposium.
[9] Olivet, A., Gamboa J. and Kenyery F. (2002)
Experimental Study of Two-Phase Pumping in a
Progressive Cavity Pump Metal to Metal. SPE77730.
Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio, Texas, 29
September-2 October.
[10] Gamboa, J. (2002) New Approach for understanding
the Behavior of Progressive Cavity Pumps. Paper
prepared for representation at the 2002 Progressing
Cavity Pump Workshop. Calgary, Canada, 16-17
September.
[11] Gamboa, J., Olivet, A., Gd Solutions C.A. Espin, S.
Universidad Simon Bolivar (2003) New Approach for
Modeling Progressive Cavity Pumps Performance.

SPE 107899

SPE 84137. Paper presented at the SPE Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition. Held in
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5-8 October. 2003.

SPE 107899

Figure 1. Forces acting on rotor and stator originated by differential

pressure along of half stage.

Figure 2. Position and direction of forces acting at the center of the

rotor through out a half cavity

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

Figure 7. Pressure distribution inside of a PCP for pure liquid and

elastomeric stator

Figure 4. Centrifugal acceleration and centrifugal force for a

simulated example

16000

60000

14000

50000

12000
Pressure(kPa)

Fy (Nw)

Void Fraction = 0.4

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

Figure 8. Pressure distribution along of PCP for 0.4 void fraction

and elastomeric stator

Figure 5. Force in Y direction

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

Figure 6. Pressure evolution in two stages during PCP operation

simulation

0
1

11

16

21

26

CAVITY

Figure 9. Pressure distribution along of PCP for 0.6 void fraction

and elastomeric stator

SPE 107899

Void Fraction 0.2

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

Void Fraction 0.2

90

100

200

2000

300

0
500

400

RPM

0
1

11

16

21

26

Flow Rate Slip 96

Flow Rate Slip 48

Volumetric efficiency Slip 96

Volumetric Effiency Slip 48

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

Void Fraction 0.4

Void Fraction =0.6

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

Flow Rate Slip 48

Volumetric efficiency Slip 96

Volumetric efficiency Slip 48

Figure 16. Flow Rate versus RPM for void fraction =0.4
Historical Torque
800
700
600
Torque (Nw-M)

Flow Rate ((M3/Day)

Void Fraction 0.4

90

500
400

Torque

300
200
100
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Day

Figure 17. Operational torque versus time

140