Modeling and Design of Jet Pumps
D.T. Hatzlavramldls, SPE, Mobil R&D Corp.
Summary. Models for jet pumps currently are derived under the assumption that the power and well fluids are incompressible liquids
that, in many cases, are assumed to have equal densities. When either the well or the power fluid contains gas, current design practices
still use the equations for incompressible liquids and account for the presence of gas by modifying the mass-flow-rate ratio and the
friction-loss coefficients. This paper proposes a new approach to modeling pumps operating under multiphase-flow conditions.
Introduction
Jet pumps were initially used in the oil industry for artificial lift. 1,2
Only recently have these pumps been used in EOR processes 3-5
whenever lowering the bottomhole pressure (BHP), extending the
production stage, and limiting cavitation and/or sand erosion prob-
lems are desired.
The concept of jet-pump operation is simple. Power fluid enters
the nozzle at high pressure and leaves as a high-velocity jet (the
nozzle acts as a converter of potential into kinetic energy) that is
directed into a constant-area mixing tube or throat filled with stag-
nant or slowly moving well fluid. As the high-velocity jet pene-
trates the well fluid in the throat, momentum is transferred from
the fast- to the slow-moving fluid elements, and mixing between
the two fluids occurs. The mixture stream of the power-fluid jet
and the entrained well-fluid elements spreads, while the undisturbed
well-fluid core gradually decreases as the flow progresses. At the
throat exit, the mixture stream occupies the entire cross-sectional
area of the throat and has substantial kinetic energy. It is subse-
quently directed into an expanding area diffuser, where part of its
kinetic energy is converted into potential and its pressure rises to
a level sufficient to lift the mixture of the two fluids to the surface.
CUnningham 6 proposed comprehensive mathematical models for
liquidlliquidjet pumps in the late 1950's. Although his early models
address systems of equal-density liquids, they have been adopted
in their exact form by some designers 7.8 not only for liquidlliquid
systems of different densities but also for systems with free gas.
For the latter, slight modifications of the volumetric-flow-rate ra-
tio and the friction-loss coefficients 7,9 have been suggested. Re-
cent derivations of the liquidlliquid pump model 10, 11 account for
density differences between power and well fluids. In addition to
his liquidlliquid pump model, Cunningham 12 proposed in the early
1970's a complete model for a jet pump used to pressurize a non-
condensable gas. No model is available for a jet pump that uses
gas as the power fluid. Although it is recognized that both power
and well fluids generally can be multiphase mixtures, the design
of jet pumps for oil wells is based totally on a model for single-
phase, incompressible liquids.
Governing Equations
In the work presented here, Cunningham'sl2 nomenclature from
his liquid/gas model (i, n=the power fluid at the nozzle inlet and
exit, respectively; s=well-fluid intake, o=throat or mixing-tube
inlet; and 1,2=power and well fluids, respectively) is retained.
Liquid/Liquid Pump. The following assumptions are made.
1. ID flow conditions apply.
2. Power and well fluids are incompressible.
3. The pump operates isothermally and under steady-state con-
ditions.
4. The kinetic energies at the inlet and outlet of the jet pump are
negligible. . Gas/Liquid Pump. Retaining the same assumptions as for the liq-
5. The fluids are perfectly mixed at the throat outlet.
6. The average jet velocity is maintained between the nozzle outlet
and the throat inlet.
With these assumptions, application of the macroscopic mass,
momentum, and energy balances for the power fluid in the nozzle,
the well fluid between the suction port and the throat entry, and
Copyright 1991 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Production Engineering, November 1991
the mixture of the two fluids in the throat leads to the following
governing equations:
Pi-Po=(I+Knz)Z, ................................ (1)
FpFJ
Ps-Po=(l +Ken)--Z, .......................... (2)
Fla
J,
Pt-Po =
4 2
2FAn -(2+Kth )FAn (1 +FpFq)(1+Fq) +
2FpFJ Fln
I-FAn
.................................... (3)
and prPt=Z(1 +FpFq)(l+Fq)Fln(1-Kdi-Fld)' ....... (4)
In terms of compression ratio and efficiency, Eqs. 1 through 4
yield
rp = [2FpFJ Fln (1-FAn)+2FAn(1-FAn)2 -(1 +Kth +Kdi )
XFln (l-FAn )2(1 +FpFq)(1 +Fq)-FpFJFln (1 +Ken)]/
[(1 +Knz)(I-FAn )2 -2FpFJFln (I-FAn)-2FAn(1-FAn)2
+ (1+Kth +Kdi )Fln(1-FAn )2(l +FpFq)(1+Fq)] ...... (5)
Q2(Pd-Ps) (w/Ph(Pd-Ps)
and 1/= = =Fqrp . ............ (6)
QI(Pi-Pd) (w/ph(Pi-Pd)
The method of deriving Eqs. 1 through 6 is similar to that for
deriving the governing equations for the gas/liquid pump (Appen-
dix A).
It can be shown that the equations of two recent model deriva-
tions at the Inst. Francais du Petrole 10 and Delft U., 11 with proper
symbol conversion, reduce to the equations presented above. When
the symbols in Ref. 10 are converted into our notation and the iden-
tifications R=FAn , k=Fp , M=Fq , K I5 =Knz, K25 =Ken, K56 =
K th , and K67 = Kdi are made, the two derivations become equiva-
lent. Similarly, in Ref. 11, if the identifications FpD = rp' FAD = FAn'
FwD=FpFq' Ktd=Knz-FpFJFln/(l-FAn)2, Ppf/Pf=lIF p , and
Ppf/PM=(l +Fq)/(1 +FpFq) are made, the equations shown above
are obtained. In contrast, Cunningham's equations in the form used
by some designers, 7 with the identifications R=FAn , M=FpFq ,
KID =Kth + K di , KN=Knz + F~ FJ FIn /(1- FAn)2, yield
rp=[Fln (1-2FAn)F~Fi +2FAn (l-FAn )2 -(I-FAn )2Fln
x(1 +FpFq)2(1 +Kth+Kdi)]/[(1 +Knz)(1-FAn )2 -2Fln
X(I-FAn)F~FJ -2FAn (l-FAn )2 +(1-FAn )2Fln
X(1+FpFq)2(1+Kth+Kdi), ........................ (7)
which is equivalent to those presented here and in Refs. 10 and
II if and only if Fp = 1, i.e., if the two fluids have equal densities.
uid/liquid pump, except that now the power fluid is an ideal gas
and the well fluid is an incompressible liquid, we obtain (Appen-
dix A) the following governing equations:
Po In(p;lpo) =(1 +Knz)Z, ........................... (8)
FpFJo
Ps-p o =(I+Ken ) - - Z , .......................... (9)
Fla
413
 Finally, the problem can also be cast in terms of dimensionless
variables FAd, FAn' and (Pd-Ps)/Z or Po/Z, where the last two are
pump Euler numbers.
An important aspect of the problem in question is that, to ensure
physically realizable solutions to the governing equations, one needs
Po ] to place bounds on the parameters FAd and FAn and the indepen-
X-(I+F qt )+2FAn ............................ (lOa)
Pt dent variable Fq' These bounds result from enforcing the con-
ditions
Pd-P s <? (Pd)min -Ps <?O ............ : . (15a)
and 1/s1 ........................................ (15b)
for a positive F q' Thus, for a certain combination of flow-area ra-
tios, FAd and FAn' there exists a range of Fq for which predictions
of the jet pump are not physically realizaole.
To accommodate for the presence of gas in either the power or
the formation fluid, instead of the modifications to the flow-rate
ratio followed in current design practices, 7 I propose the follow-
ing. If the formation fluid contains gas, the jet-pump design can
be treated as an intermediate case between the liquid/gas and the

X(Po
Pd
y (1 +F qd ) 2 -KdiFln Po Fqo(1
Pt
+Fqt)]-~ln(Pd).
Fqo Pt
liquid/liquid cases, for which designing equations have been avail-
able for some time. If, on the other hand, the power fluid contains
gas, the jet-pump design can be treated as an intermediate case be-
tween the gas/liquid and the liquid/liquid cases. Because no equa-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11) tions were available for the gas/liquid pump, they are derived here .

In terms of performance efficiency, Eqs. 8 through 11 yield Model Subtleties

1/=Fqo(Pd-Ps)/[Po In(p;!Pd)]' ..................... (12) To determine the optimum flow-rate ratio, Fqopt, in addition to the
The governing equations for the liquid/gas pump 1 are given in area ratios FAd and FAn' the pressure-loss coefficients (Knz , Ken'
Kth' and K di ) need to be provided. In principle, these coefficients
Appendix B.
depend on the area ratios, the flow rates, and the viscosities of the
From energy analysis of the gaslliquid pump (Appendix C), the
fluids.
energy dissipation associated with the fluid mixing is
Area-ratio dependence can be introduced easily. At high Rey-
nolds numbers, the suction port can be approximated as a sudden
Z [ 1-2FAnFqo-Fln (Fqo)2
m=--- - (1 +FpFqo)(1+Fqt )2 expansion, the nozzle as a gradual contraction, and the diffuser as
PloFqo F qt a gradual expansion.
Viscosity and flow-rate dependence can be introduced together
F 2F F3 F2 F F3 ] through the Reynolds number. This dependence is of particular im-
+2F2 ~(I+F F )(I+F )F _ p qo An +~ portance for the pressure-loss coefficients in the throat and the
An F p qo qt qo I-F F2
qt An Aa diffuser where power and well fluids flow together. The flow mech-
anism is quite complicated in these regions.
The power fluid enters the throat as a high-velocity jet while the
-~ln(Pt). ................................ (13) well fluid flows originally through the annular area between the
PloFqo Po throat wall and the jet boundary. It is assumed that the throat inlet
coincides with the nozzle exit, although in practice the nozzle exit
Methodology is withdrawn upstream by a length equal to several nozzle diameters.
The problem of interest for oil wells is the following. Given the Two flow regions can be distinguished in the throat. In the an-
desired oil production rate, Q2s' the wellhead pressure and BHP, nular region, which begins at the throat entrance, formation fluid
Pwh and P bh, respectively, the depth, D, and the properties of the
is entrained by dragging action in the jet, high-velocity droplets
power and well fluid, Fluids 1 and 2, respectively, select the opti- of power fluid are shed (by wave disturbances) into the annular
mum size jet pump, i.e., the pump with the appropriate area ra- space, and a mixing layer forms on the jet boundary. As the jet
tios, FAd and FAn' and flow-rate ratio, F q , associated with the moves away' from the throat entrance, the mixing layer spreads out,
highest perfoniJ.ance efficiency. while the undisturbed high-velocity core progressively decreases.
The current methodology 7 for solving this problem is iterative, Eventually, a point is reached where the undisturbed high-velocity
does not consider the diffuser (FAd = 1), and does not involve com- core of the jet disappears and the jet is fully developed. Another
prehensive maximization of the efficiency, 1/. It is proposed that point of interest is the point where the outer boundary of the jet
a methodology that honors this maximization should be based on reaches the throat wall. Downstream of these points is the mixing
obtaining optimal FAn and F q from zone, where the two fluids undergo chaotic mixing. When the throat
is short or the backpressure, Pd, is sufficiently high, the mixing
(o1//oFq)(Fq ,FAn )=O ............................. (14a) zone is located near the throat entrance, the potential core is
and (01//oFAn )(Fq,FAn ) =0 ........................... (14b) diminished relatively little, and the mixing is poor. Very high back-
pressure causes flooding or backflow at the suction port. If the back-
Another methodology, which also considers diffuser size, is pro- pressure is reduced, the mixing zone will move downstream in the
posed as a parametric study with regard to FAd, FAn' and Pd' The throat. An optimum is achieved when the downstream of the mix-
area ratios FAd and FAn are chosen in the interval [0,1] (FAd=I ing zone is at the throat exit. Reduction of the backpressure be-
means no diffuser; FAd=O denotes a perfect diffuser), and a low- yond this point causes the mixing zone to move into the diffuser,
er "bound," Pwh +P3dgD (friction losses are negligible compared a situation where the pressure losses substantially increase and the
with static contributions), is placed on Pd' If the diffuser cross- performance efficiency decreases. According to Cunningham and
sectional area is selected to be equal to that of the tubing, Z is known. Dopkin, 13 the characteristic lengths for total mixing and jet break-
With FAd, FAn' and P d selected and with Z known, F q can be cal- down can be correlated with the nozzle Reynolds number, N Re ,
culated from the quadratic throat-pressure equation. Optimal FAd and the throat Reynolds number and Weber number, N Ret and
and FAn are selected as those that maximize 1/. N we , respectively.

414 SPE Production Engineering, November 1991

 50

..- 0

40

-
0
as
a:
M

n=1
n=2
n=4
..
CD
:J
30 0
6
c
n=8
n = 10
n = 15
..
III
III
CD n = 20
a.
20
n = 25

-..
as
0
.c 10
ZML

I-

1 234 5 6 8 9 10
Inlet Flow Rate Ratio,

Fig. 1-Pressure ratio, 'to, vs. inlet flow-rate ratio, F at different pump sizes, n. Gaslliquid
let pump FAd =0.0, FAn =0.10. "

If friction losses are neglected, the pressure-loss coefficient for
the annular region can be estimated 14 to be 5/144. In the mixing
zone, the fluid that wets the tube constitutes the continuous phase,
regardless of the mechanism of jet disintegration (disappearance
of the undisturbed high-velocity core or breakup of the fluid thread
into droplets or bubbles as a result of flow instabilities and subse-
quent droplet or bubble coalescence). The nonwetting fluid is in
the form of small droplets, small bubbles, or coarse slugs, depending
on its viscosity. Good estimates of the viscosity of the mixture in
this region, in addition to the viscosities and the volume fractions
of individual fluids, require knowledge of the surface tension, flow
rate, and dispersion type. When the sand content of the formation
fluid is not negligible, oil viscosity must be modified to account
for sand.
Pressure-loss coefficients have been determined through best fit-
tings of available experimental data. Cunningham 12 determined
from experiments that Knz varies with the je~ Reynolds number as
NRe Ih for 500:sNRe :s20,OOO. At very high Reynolds numbers,
however, Knz approaches a constant value, 0.10. Other investiga-
tors 8,9,l1 recommend Knz=0.03 to 0.05. Cunningham l2 re~om
mends Ken =0, particularly when Ken is combined with K nz , while
other investigators S suggest that Ken =0.03. Cunningham's experi-
ments show that, for NRet~3,SOO, Kth+Kdi=0.30. Other inves-
tigators S,9,l1 recommend that Kth + Kdi =0.20. In gener.al,
constant-value pressure-loss coefficients are valid at high Reynolds
numbers where viscous effects become less important.
One of the most important problems in jet-pump design is the
prediction of the onset of cavitation, which can be induced as a
result of increased velocity of the power-fluid jet, vI~' or reduced
suction or discharge pressure, Ps and Pd, respectively. When cavi-
tation occurs, the flow of the well fluid at the suction port ceases
to respond to backpressure reductions, and vapor cavities form at
the throat entrance to implode farther downstream where the pres-
sure is higher. In pumps handling liquid/vapor or liquid/gas mix-
tures, it is also possible for the velocity of the two-phase mixture
to reach the sonic velocity, which is another manifestation of cavi-
tation.
For the liquidlliquid pump, Cunningham et al. 15 defined a
cavitation-limited flow ratio as
F q,c/=C.J(Ps-Pv)/1.3Z, .......................... (16)
where pv=vapor pressure of the power fluid. This limit is applied
to the case where the power-fluid vapors fIll the suction chamber,
and suction flow for the well is drastically reduced. In current jet-
pump design,1 the above limit is modified by approximating
Ps-Pv by P s and Pi-Ps by Z. For flow-rate ratios higher than
Fq,c/, cavitation is predicted; thus, pump operation is restricted to
ratios lower than cP ct. Another way to determine the cavitation-
limited flow rate is to conduct parametric studies in which a and
b are kept constant but the flow-rate ratio changes. Through these
studies, a critical flow ratio can be defined, beyond which pump
efficiency decreases as the ratio of formation to power-fluid flow
rates increases.
Ideal Pump
In this work, "ideal pump" means a pump for which friction is
negligible and the mass-flow-rate ratio is infinitesimally small-
i.e., Knz=Ken=Kth=Kdi=O and FpFqo=O. Under these condi-
tions, Eqs. 1 and 3 reduce to
rio =p;/P o =exp(Zlpo) ............................. (17)
and ( -pt)2 - [2ZFln 1
- - - ( ---Fqo ) +1 JPt 2ZFl
_+ _ _n_=O,
Po Po FAn Po Po
.................................. (ISa)
respectively.
The dimensionless form of Eq. ISa is
rro -(nFi +l)rto +n=O, ........................... (ISb)
where n=2ZFln/Po and Fi= lIFAn -Fqo are the pump Euler num-
ber or pump size and a dimensionless flow-rate ratio, respective-
ly. Because F qo ~ 0, Fi:S lIFAn for physically realizable solutions.
Finally, for the ideal pump,
- F:o In(:~:). ................................. (19)
Eq. ISb has a minimum, equal to (nF;*+ 1)/2 at F;*=(2n Ih -1)/
n. Its solution is
r,o = [nFi + l..J(nFi + 1)2 -4n ]/2 ................... (20)
From the two roots, only the root with the" + .. sign is accepted
because only this leads to a finite-bounded Mach number.

SPE Production Engineering, November 1991 415

 100

110 o
~-
0
~- 80

70
//// o
i "-""'LG
~ ......... n 1 : rclo a:
---n.1: rto ""''''LG
i 80 '-'LG
.rt....... ...n.4 : rdo f ---"GL
~n.4: rto :I
i 50
....... ..n 10 : rdo ---GL
.---GL
1i no
a: 40
............., ...,
---n .10 : I -LL
-LL
f 30 -LL
:I
20
...................................................
f
II.
10 ................n
o ..................................
10 2
inial Flow Rata Ratio, F'"
a
a
~~-----------------------, ..i
0
ia: .LG : n .. 0.08
.........._. LG : n .. 0.32
.... LG : n .. 0.80
! ---.. -- GL : n .. 0.08
--..n 1 ; rdo :I
- n 1 : rto
.... -....n 4; rdo
---.-- GL : n .0.32
---.-- GL: n. 0.80
f _LL:n.O.08
- n 4: rto Ii.
10 .. ---~-n 10; rdo
_LL:n.O.32

~
-LL:n .. O.80
L-----:::::::::::::::::=i - - - n
.....................................................
10; rto
:I

=
is
----_......-.. _-_ . -_. -.. _...-......- ........---_.-_..- -- 1
0 1 2
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.B LSI 2.0 b inial Flow Rata Ratlcl,
Inlet Flow Rate Ratio, FI
b
..8
0
-- -... --- ...
ia:
............
..................
f
............. .LG : n. 0.08
:I ...LG : n .. 0.32
8 .... LG : n .. 0.80
---.. --GL : n '" 0.08
~
-"--"---n 1 ; rdo
I ---.--GL : n .. 0.32
- n 1 : rto ---.--GL : n .. 0.80
.. .... --n 4 ; rdo - L L : n .. O.08

~

- n 4 : rto _LL:n.O.32
-"--4---"
....__... _--.......... ....-.
10 ; rdo - L L : n .. O.80
:I
...................... ..........
. . __ .. _-_ ..................----_ ... _- _
- n 10 ; rto
=
e .. ............................................ 4 ....
1i
e ::::::........................................................... ..
...... ,

. . ------..--a---------.-.. .------..---.. . -----

1.00 1.02 1.04 1.08 1.08 1.10 1. 12 inial Flow Rata Ratio,
C
c Inlet Flow Rata Ratio,

Fig. 3-(a) Throat pressure retlo, "0' (b) diffuser pressure ra-
Fig. 2-Pressure ratio, '10
or, do' vs. Inlet flow-rate retlo, F tio, rdI' and (c) overall pressure ratio, rdo' vs. Inlet flow-rate
at different pump sizes, n. Gas/liquid Jet pump FAd = 0.0; (a) " ratio, q, 0' at different pump sizes, n. FAd = FAn = 0.20.
FAn =0.10; (b) b=0.50; (c) FAn =0.90. (GL = gas/liquid; LG = liquid/gas; LL = IIquld/llquld.)

For the ideal gaslliquid pump, the equation for the fluid-mixing containing gas is bounded by the performance of the liquid/gas and
energy dissipation is liquid/liquid pumps, while the performance of a pump that han-
dles power fluid containing gas is bounded by the performance of
Em-
_ npo F; - (Fqo
- [2 )2] -In rto ' ............... (21) the gaslliquid and liquid/liquid pumps.
Fig. 1 shows the throat compression ratio vs. inlet flow-rate ra-
2PloFqo Fqt
tio at different pump sizes in the case of the gas/liquid pump. In
The energy dissipation becomes zero at an inlet flow-rate ratio Fig. 1, the points corresponding to zero fluid-mixing energy dissi-
wZ, which, from a combination of Eqs. 20 and 21, is found to be pation are designated as ZML points. Meaningful solutions to the
Ff=(2rfo In rfo-rfo+1)/rfo(rfo-l) . ................. (22) throat compression ratio exist at F; fii=Fl-
In Figs. 2a through le, the diffuser compression ratio vs. inlet
Meaningful solutions to the equation of the throat compression flow-rate ratio at different pump numbers and different nozzle/
ratio exist for F; <:!.Ff. throat-area ratios are presented. They are for pumps with an ideal
diffuser-i.e., FAd=O. It can be seen that the diffuser compres-
Results sion ratio is more sensitive to the throat/inlet flow-rate ratio than
The results presented here are for ideal pumps, liquid/liquid, liq- the corresponding throat compression ratio. As F; increases (i.e.,
uid/gas, and gaslliquid only. These results reinforce the sugges- as Fqo decreases), the compression ratios for the ideal gas/liquid
tion that the performance of a pump that handles formation fluid pumps increase. However, as FAn-+l (i.e., no nozzle), the same

416 SPE Production Engineering, November 1991

 1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
s=-
>-
C)
a
0.8
c 0.5
4D
....-..
C)
0.4
W 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 2
Inlet Flow Rate Ratio,
Fig. 4-Efflclency, fI, va. Inlet flow-rate ratio, q,o'
ratios become weak functions of F j At constant F j , as the pump
size, n, increases, both the throat and diffuser compression ratios
increase, regardless of the nozzle/throat-area ratio.
Figs. 38 through 3c show the results of a comparative study of
three types, i.e., liquid/gas, gas/liquid, and liquidniquid of ideal
pumps.
Fig. 3a shows that, at constant inlet flow-rate ratio, the throat
compression ratio increases as the pump size increases, regardless
of the pump type. At constant pump size, the throat compression
ratio decreases as the throat/inlet flow-rate ratio increases, regard-
less of the pump type. Also, at constant throat/inlet flow-rate ratio
and pump size, the throat compression ratio of the gas/liquid ideal
pump is higher than the compression ratio for the liquidlliquid ideal
pump, which in turn is higher than that of the liquid/gas ideal pump.
Fig. 3b shows the diffuser compression ratio. It can be seen that,
at constant throat/inlet flow-rate ratio, the diffuser compression ratio
increases as the pump size increases, regardless of the pump type.
At constant pump size, the diffuser compression ratio increases as
the throat/inlet flow-rate ratio increases, regardless of the pump
type. Also, at constant throat/inlet flow-rate ratio and pump size,
the diffuser compression ratio of the liquid/gas ideal pump is higher
than that of the liquid/liquid ideal pump, which in tum is higher
than that of the gas/liquid ideal pump.
Fig. 3c shows the overall compression ratio r do =(rdt)(rto ). Ac-
cording to Fig. 3c, at constant throat/inlet flow-rate ratio, the overall
compression ratio increases as the pump size increases, regardless
of the pump type. At constant pump size, as the throat/inlet flow-
rate ratio increases, the overall compression ratio decreases for the
gaslliquid and liquidniquid ideal pumps and increases for the liq-
uid/gas ideal pump. The overall compression ratios for the gaslliquid
and liquid/liquid ideal pumps are about equal. At constant throat/
inlet flow-rate ratio (lower than "" 3) and constant pump size, the
overall compression ratio of the gasniquid ideal pump is higher than
that of the liquidlliquid ideal pump, which in tum is higher than
that of the liquid/gas ideal pump. At constant throat/inlet flow-rate
ratio (higher than "" 3) and constant pump size, the overall com-
pression ratio of the liquid/gas ideal pump is higher than that of
the gaslliquid ideal pump, which in tum is higher than that of the
liquidlliquid ideal pump.
Finally, Fig. 4 shows the performance efficiencies for the three
types of ideal pumps. Note that at constant throat/inlet flow-rate
ratio, as the pump size increases, the efficiency increases for the
liquid/gas and gas/liquid pumps, while the efficiency of the liq-
uid/liquid pump is not a function of pump size (this can be shown
SPE Production Engineering, November 1991
.......... LG : n = 0.08
... +. LG : n = 0.32
=
........ LG : n 0.80
---a-GL : n = 0.08
----GL in = 0.32
---GL : n = 0.80
-LL;n=O.08
-LLin=0.32
---LL in=0.80
3
Fqo
FAd = FAn =0.20.
to be true by use of the governing equations, if we make the ap-
proximation rso = 1). At constant pump size, efficiency increases
as the throat/inlet flow-rate ratio increases, regardless of the pump
type. At constant throat/inlet flow-rate ratio and pump size, the ef-
ficiency of the liquid/liquid pump is higher than that of either the
liquid/gas or the gaslliquid pump. Depending on the values of the
pump size and the throat/inlet flow-rate ratio, the efficiency of the
gas/liquid pump will exceed that of the liquid/gas pump or vice
versa.
Conclusions
1. The governing equations for the liquidlliquid pump were de-
rived and shown to be identical to those recently derived indepen-
dently by other investigators. It is also shown that the equations
used by some designers are limited to fluids of equal density.
2. A number of alternative methodologies, iterative and direct,
were proposed for selecting the optimum size and flow-rate pump
for a given production rate.
3. A critical review of design correlations was made and numer-
ous mod~fications regarding the dependence of the pressure-loss
coefficients on area ratios, flow rates, and fluid viscosities were
suggested.
4. It was proposed that design of a pump that handles well fluid
containing gas be considered an intermediate case between the liq-
uid/gas and liquid/liquid pumps, while the design of a pump that
handles power fluid containing gas should be considered an inter-
mediate case between the gas/liquid and liquid/liquid pumps.
5. Governing equations fo~ the gaslliquid pump were derived and
an energy analysis was made for the same pump.
6. Results of calculations of compression ratios and efficiencies
for all three pump types (liquid/gas, liquid/liquid, and gas/liquid),
operating under conditions of negligible mass-flow-rate ratio and
friction, were compared to determine the effect of gas and its loca-
tion (as power or as well fluid) on performance.
7. In general, the presence of gas in either the power or well fluid
reduces pump efficiency. When gas is present in the well fluid,
the overall compression ratio of the pump is lower than that of a
pump with gas in the power fluid operating under identical con-
ditions.
Nomenclature
A = cross-sectional area, ft2
C = constant in Eq. 16
d = diameter, ft
D = depth, ft
417
 FAa = annular area ratio, (At-An)/An=(I-FAn)/FAn
FAd = throat/diffuser-area ratio, At/Ad
FAn = nozzle/throat-area ratio
F; = dimensionless ratio for ideal gaslliquid pump,
(lIFAn )-Fqo
F;* = F; at which r,o becomes minimum
Ff = F; at which becomes zero
Fq = volumetric flow ratio, q2/ql
Fq,cI = cavitation-limited volumetric ratio
Fqd = volumetric flow ratio, qU/qld
Fqo,Fqt = volumetric flow ratios, q20/qlo' q2,1qlt
Fp = density ratio, P2o/Plo
FpFqo = mass flow ratio, w2/wl
g = acceleration of gravity, ft/sec 2
gc = 32,174 (lbm-ft)/sec 2 -lbf
Kdi = friction-loss coefficient, diffuser
Ken = friction-loss coefficient, throat entrance
Knz = friction-loss coefficient, nozzle
Kth = friction-loss coefficient, throat
n = jet-pump number, 2ZF},,/po for gas/liquid pump
NRe,NReI = Reynolds number, vlodnPlo/lLl> V3tdtP3,1IL3t
N We = Weber number, v~tdtP3,1u
P = pressure, psia
q = volumetric flow rate, ft 3 /sec
rio = pressure ratio, p;lpo
rp = compression ratio, (Pd-Ps)/(p;-Pd)
rto,rdt = pressure ratio, P'/Po' Pd/Pt
R = gas constant divided by molecular weight,
ft-psi/(lbm- OR)
T = temperature, OR
v = velocity, ft/sec
w = mass flow rate, lbmlsec
Z = jet velocity head, Plovl~/2gc' Ibf/ft 2
= specific energy dissipation, lbf-ftllbm
7J = pump efficiency, Fqrp
IL = viscosity, Ibf-sec/ft2
P = density, Ibmlft3
u = surface tension
Reference.
1. Gosline, J.E. and O'Brien, M.P.: The Water Jet Pump, U. of Califor-
nia Publications in Engineering, U. of California Press, Berkeley, CA
(1942) 3, No.3, 167-70.
2. Brown, K.E. and Petrie, H.: The Technology ofArtificial Lift Methods,
PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK (1980) 2b, Chap. 6.
3. Galate, J.W. and Mitchell, R.F. m: "Downward Two-Phase Flow Ef-
fects in Heat-Loss and Pressure-Drop Modeling of Steam Injection
Wells," paper SPE 13622 presented at the 1985 SPE.Califomia Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, March 27-29.
4. Galate, J.W.: "Heat Loss Factors Affecting the Design of Deep Arc-
tic Steam Wells," Proc., ASME 31st Annual Petroleum Mechanical
Engineering Conference, Mexico City (Sept. 1976) 244-53.
5. Tjondrodiputro, B., Gaul, R.B., and Gower, G.H.: "Hydraulic Jet
Pumping in a Remote Location," World Oil (Dec. 1986) 35-37.
6. Cunningham, R.G.: "Jet Pump Theory and Performance With Fluids
of High Viscosity," Trans., ASME (1957) 79, 1807-20.
7. Petrie, H.L., Wilson, P.M., Smart, E.E.: "Jet Pumping Oil Wells,"
World Oil (Nov. 1983, Dec. 1983, Jan. 1984) 51-56,101-08,111-14.
8. Smart, E.E.: "Jet Pump Geometry Selection," Southwestern Petrole-
um Short Course, Lubbock, TX (1985).
9. Jiao, B., Schmidt, Z., and Blais, R.N.: "Efficiency and Pressure Recov-
ery in Hydraulic Jet Pumping of Two-Phase Gas/Liquid Mixtures,"
SPEPE (Nov. 1990) 361-65.
10. Corteville, J.C. et al.: "Research on Jet Pumps for Single and Mul-
tiphase Pumping of Crudes," paper SPE 16923 presented at the 1987
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
11. Grupping, A.W., Coppes, J.L.R., and Groot, J.G.: "Fundamentals
of Oilwell Jet Pumping," SPEPE (Feb. 1988) 9-14.
12. Cunningham, R.G.: "Gas Compression With the Liquid Jet Pump,"
J. Fluid Eng. (1974) 203-15; Trans., ASME, Series I, 196.
13. Cunningham, R.G. and Dopkin, R.J.: "Jet Breakup and Mixing Throat
Lengths for the Liquid Jet Gas Pump," J. Fluid Eng. (1974) 216-26;
Trans., ASME, Series I, 96.
14. Bird, R.B., Stewart, W.E., and Lightfoot, E.N.: Transport Phenome-
na, John Wiley & Sons Publishers, New York City (1960) 220-22.
15. Cunningham, R.G., Hansen, A.G., and Na, T.Y.: "Jet Pump Cavita-
tion," J. Basic Eng. (1970) 11-20; Trans., ASME, SeriesD, 92,11-20.
Appendix A-Governing Equations for the
Ga./Uquld Pump
Energy Equation for the Nozzle.
0dp. JO [0
J; -P+I ; v1dvI+j; dio=O ...................... (A-l)

Subscripts gives
bh = bottomhole
d = diffuser RTo In(p;lpo) = IhPlov1n + IhKnzPlov1n, ............ (A-2)
f = friction but vln=vlo ..................................... (A-3)
i = entrance to nozzle
and RTo=Po/Plo' ................................. (A4)
m = mixing loss
min = minimum Hence, Po In(p;lpo)=(l +Knz)Z. .................... (A-5)
n = nozzle
o = exit of nozzle, throat inlet Energy Equation for the Suction Port.
opt = optimal Ps=Po+ IhP2v~o + IhKenP2v~, .................... (A-6)
s = suction port
but v2o=(Fqo/FAa )Vlo ............................. (A-7a)
t = throat exit
v = vapor and P2o=FpPlo' ................................. (A-7b)
wh = wellhead Hence, Ps-Po=(1 +Ken)(FpF~o/FA~)Z, .............. (A-8)
1 = power fluid
2 = well fluid Momentum Equation for the Throat.
3 = mixture of power and well fluid wlvlo +w2 v 20 -(WI +W2)V3t-IhKt~tP3tV~t=At(pt-Po)'
Superscript .................................. (A-9)
z = zero mixing loss
WI+W2 wI(l +FpFqo)
but P3t=---
Acknowledgment. qlt+q2t qlt(l +Fqt ) l+Fqt
I acknowledge Bill Bartlett and Donn Pedersen of Mobil E&P Serv-
ices Inc. for introducing me to this problem. I am grateful to Peder- qlt+q2t qlt(l +Fqt ) (Po/Pt)Qlo(l +Fqr)
sen for providing me with useful references and information on field and V3t=
At An(l/FAn) An (l/FAn )
conditions and for many helpful discussions. I thank Mobil R&D
Corp. management for permission to publish this paper. =FAn(po/pt)(l+Fqr)Vlo' .................... (A-H)

418 SPE Production Engineering, November 1991

Hence, Author
Pt -Po =Z[2(1- FAn)(FpFio IF1a) -(2 + Kth)F1n
DlmHrl Hablavramldls Is a research
x(l +FpFqo)(P oIPt)(1 +Fqt )+2FAn ]. .............. (A-12) associate with Mobil R&D Corp. In Dal
las. He previously worked for Arco 011 &
Energy Equation for the Diffuser. Gas Co. In Plano and Shell Development
Co. In Houston. From 1981 to 1984, he
ddp was assistant professor of chemical en
I +IdV3dV3+rddi=o, ..................... (A-13) glneerlng at the Illinois Inst. of Technol
t P3 t t ogy. He holds a BS degree from the Natl.
Technical U. of Athens, Greece, an MS
but degree from the U. of Manchester, Eng
P3=PI(1+FpF qo )/(1+Fq) ...................... (A-14a) land, and a PhD degree from the U. of
illinois, all In chemical engineering.
and V3d =q3dlA d = FAdFAn (1 +Fqd)Vlo' .............. (A-14b)
Hence,
FpFJO]
+--Z - - -Po
I n(Pt)
- -Plo(J +m)=O, .......... (C-2)
FAd Fqo Po
where J and m are the friction and mixing losses at the throat,
respectively.

Fqo(1+Fqt)]-~ln(Pd).
The momentum balance for the throat can be written as
x(1+Fqd)2-Kdi F1n Po
Pd Fqo Pt Z [2FpFJo 2 Fqo
Pt-P o= - ----(2+Kth)FAn(1+FpFqo)-
................................. (A-15) Fqo I-FAn F qt
The above derivation used the following relationships:
Polplo =plpl' ................................. (A-16a) X(l+Fqt)Fq~+2FAnFqoJ. ........................ (C-3)

pql =Poqlo' .................................. (A-16b)

Combining Eqs. C-3 and C-4, and in view of
and PoIFqo=pIFq . .............................. (A-I6c)
KthF1n (1 +Fqt )(1 +FpFqo)Fqo=PloJ' .............. (C-4)
Appendix a-Governing Equations for the we obtain the following expression' for the mixing losses:
Llqul~/Gas Pump (after Cunningham'
___ Z_[ _ 2 ( Fqo)2 2
Pi-Po=(I+Knz )Z, .............................. (B-1) m- I 2FpFqo+FAn (1 +FpFqo)(l + Fqt )
PloFqo F qt
Po In(pslpo)=(1+Ken)(FpFioIF1a)Z, ............... (B-2)
Pt-Po=Z[2FAn -(2 +K th )F1n (1 +FpFqo)(1 +Fqt ) F 2F F2 F3 F F3
+2F z ~(l+F F )(1+F )F _ p An qo +~
+2FpFioF1nl(I-FAn)], .......................... (B-3) An F p qo qt qo I-F FZ
qt ~ ~
and prPt=Z(1 +FpFqo)[F1n (1 +Fqt )2 -F1dF1n (1 +Fqd)2
-KdiF1nFqo(1 +Fqt)]-PoFqo In(Pdlpt) ............. (B-4) _~ln(Pt)] . .............................. (C-5)
PloFqo Po
Appendix C-Energy Analysis for the
Gas/Llquld Pump For the ideal pump (negligible friction and mass-flow-rate ra-
The total energy balance can be written in the form tio), Eq. C-5 becomes

dp dp 2 2
wI-+ w2-+ w ldv I +w2dv 2 +(WI +w2)d=O . ..... (C-l)
ZF1n [( I
m= PloF FAn -Fqo
)2 -
(Fqo
F
)Z] Po (Pt)
- PloF In Po .
PI P2 qo qt qo
.................................. (C-6)
Eq. C-l, when integrated from the entrance to the exit of the
throat and rearranged, leads to
SPEPE
Fq Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 9. 1989. Paper accepted lor publication
Pt-P o =Z- [ I-FAn
2 ( - o)2 (1+Fqt)Z(1+FpFqo) April 3. 1991. Revised manuscript received May 10. 1991. Paper (SPE 19713) first presented
Fqo F qt at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and exhibition held In San Antonio, Oct. 8-11.

SPE Production Engineering, November 1991 419