Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ejemplo Análisis Nodal by Eduardo Proaño
Ejemplo Análisis Nodal by Eduardo Proaño
UNSOLKXTEE’)‘
~MAR 51979
ABSTRACT
by
Joe
Eduardo Proano
~~rmit E, Ezown .
The v:: ‘.OUSwell configurations may vary from the very simple
system of Fig. 1 to the more complex system of Fig. 2, or any Com-
bination thereof, and present day completions more realistically
include the various configurations of Fig. 2.
This paper will discuss the manner in which to interrelate
the various pressure losses. In particular, the ability of the
well to produce fluids willbe interfaced with the ability of the
piping system to take these fluids. The manner in which to treat
the effect of the various components will be shown by a new nodal
concept.
In order to solve the total producing system problem, nodes
are placed to se.,znentthe portion defined by different equations
or correlations.
Figure 3 has been prepared showing locations of the various
nodes. This figure is the same as Figure 2 except only the node
positions are shown. The node is classified as a functional node
when a pressure differential exists across it and the pressure or
flow
, rate response can be represented by some mathematical or phys- ‘
-,
ical function.
Node 1 represents the separator pressure which is usually reg-
ulated at a constant value. There are two pressures that are not
a function of flow rate. They are F= at Node 8 and PSEP at Node 1.
For this reason, any trial and error solution to the total system
problem must be started at Node 1 (PSEP), Node 8 (~r), or both
Node 1 and 8 if an intermediate node such as 3 or 6 is selected as
the solution node. Once the solution node is selected, the pres-
sure drops or gains from the starting point are added until the
solution node is reached. Example problems are worked to show
the nodal system approach. For example, the flow rate possible
can be determined by utilizing Node 8 (~r), Node 6 (Pwf), Node 3
(Pwh), or Node 1 (Psep). The nade selec%ed depends upon which com-
ponent we want to evaluate. The effect of tapered strings, suri~ace
chokes and safety
. valves can also be evaluated in this ma. ner.
In summary, a new (nodal) system has been presented in order
., . .. ’’,.”’”
● ✎
,..
,.q,if~t,i.f
“4-.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
A nodal and naw approach is presented for applying systemsanalysis to the complete wel I
system from the outer boundary of the reservoir to the sand face, across the perforations and completion
section to the tubing intake, up the tubing string including any restrictions and down h~le safety
Fig. 1 showsa schematic of a simple producing system. This system consists of three phases:
Fig. 2 shows the various pressure losses that can occur in the system from the reservoir to the separator.
AP8 = pwh - PSE~ Total Lossin Surface Flow line including Surface Choke
The various well configurations may vary from the very simple system of Fig. 1 to the more
~omplex system of Fig. 2P or any combination thereof, and present d~y completions more realistically
%
include the various configurations of Fig. 2.
. . . .,
,.. . -2”
0 ●
This paper will d[scuss themanner in which tointerrelate the various pressure losses. In
particular the ability of the well toproduce fluids will beinterfaced with the ability of the piping
1.21 Introduction
In order to solve the tot~! producing system problem, nodes are placed to segment
Figure 3 has been prepared showing Iocationsof the various nodes, This figure is
the same as Fig. 2 except ordy the node positions are shown. The node is classified as a functional
node when a pressure differential exists across it and the pressure or flow rate response can be
value. The pressure ~ node 1A is usually constant at either gas soIes Ii nes pressure or gas compressor
suction pressure. The pressure at node 1B is usually constant at O psig. Therefore, the separator
pressure wi 11be held constant at the higher of the two pressures needed to flow singIe phase gas
from node 1 to node 1A or to flow single phase liquid from node 1 to node 1B. For the remainder
of our discussion it will be assumed that he separator-pressure is constant for any flow rate, and it
wi !1 be designated as nade 1.
.
Notice now that im the system there are two pressures that are not a function of flow
rate. They are *~r at node 8 and P at node 1. For this reason any trial and error solution to the
SEP
total system problem must be started at node 1 (PSEP), node 8 (~r) or both node 1 and 8 if an inter-
mediate node such as 3 or 6 is selected as the solution node. Once the solution node is selected the
pressure drops o; gains from the s;arting point are added until the solution node is reached. The
fol Iow{ng four examples shew this procedure for the four possible nodes shown in Figure 4. Although
al I nodes are not shown the same node numbers wi I I be maintained as shown in Figure 3.
* ~. can be a function of flow rate or drainage distribution in th’e reservoir, however for the flow
. . -3: . . .. .
. .
1.22 Example Problem #l
~ade 8 = ~)
Using Node f~ to Find the Flow Rate Possible (
WOR: O
F: 2200 psi
r
Find the oil flow rate using node f$asthe solution point.
Procedure:
1. Select flow rates foratrial and error procedure: Assume flow rates of200, 400,
2. For each rate start at PSEP= 100 and dci al I the pr~ssure lossesuntil reaching ~
r
at node$. From Fig .“4 we note that these losseswould .be AP3-1 + AP
6-3 + ‘&6
or loss in surface flow line + loss in tubing string + loss in porous medium. These
TABLE 1.22
PRESSURELOSSES FOR EXAMPLE #l
t
Horiz. MultitAase Flow , Vertical Mul~iDhase Flow II IPR IIM I m4
q ‘SEP P3
“’P3-1 :4_ ‘P6-3
3. Plot thecreated pressure vs. flowrate (Fig. 5). This represents th~system
,5. The intersection of the reservoir pressure Iineand the system performance l;ne
Using scdution node #6 to find the flow rate (fl.w;g b%: hol~?r-wt
Given data: Same as Example Problem #l
For thfs solution pressure drops must be added from node 1 to node 6 and subtracted
Procedure:
(1) Since ~be prix!ieied flow rate is already known from Example 1, the same flow
rates will be assumed: 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1500 B/D.
.
(2) Determine the pressure Ioss from node 1 (sepamtor) tonode6(Pw,,). For each
TABLE 1.23(A)
PRESSURELOSSES IN FLOWLINE AND TUBING
FOR EXAMPLE PROBLE
Horiz. Multi Dhase Flow Vertica 1 MI ti~hase Flow
I — Assumed’
I Rate 1 ‘SEP
100
IP
wh
I
‘P3-1
II
‘6 ‘P6-3
115 15 750 635
400 100
I.
140 40 880 740
600 100 180 80 1030 850
800 100 230 130 1220 990
1000 100, 275 175 1370 1095
1500 100 420 320 1840 1420
3. Determine the pressure loss (AP&6) from node 8 (FJto node 6 (Pwf). For
1
a constant PI assumption this can be CUICUIated from’ the equation ~P84 =
Assumed Rate
These values are noted in Table 1.23(B).
PI ●
TABLE 1.23(B)
1
Assumed
Rate
Fr ‘P8-6 ‘ ‘6= ‘wf
4. Piot P6 vs. q from both step 2 and step 3 (Fig. 6). Node 6 is called the intake
node since this pw”nt is the i ntak’e from the reservoir into the production tubing.
5. The intersection of the PI !ine and the so-called intake curve is the predicted
..
flow rate for this system (900 BOPD) (Fig. 6). The presentation based on the
changing Pr’s or different IPR curves. Notice the answer is the same as Example
Using solution node 3 to find the flow rate [l~ew,tij wet/l?~4d pass+
.
Given Data:
For this solution we have selected the wellhead as the location of the solution node.
Therefore this is a common point at which we add the pressure lossesfrom node 1 to 3 and subtract
Procedure:
1. Assume the same flow rates as for the previous examples: 200, 400, 600, 800,
2. Determine the pressure !OSSfrom node 1 (separator) to node 3 (wel Ihead). For
each assumed rate and for PSEP = 100 psi we find AP3-1 and P3 (Pwh). These
‘P3-1 ‘or “
‘SEP Hdz. Multiphase F!ow ‘3 = ‘wh
.—. — ---- ..— .
1
200 100 15 115
400 100 40 14fl
600 100 180
800 100 !!9 230
1000 100 175
1500 1(H3 I 329
I
Ii -- .-.1
3. Determine t~e pressure loss from node 8 (~r) to node 3 (pwh). For each assumed
rate start at ~r and add AP8-6+ 4P6-3. These values are tabulated in Table
1.24(B).
TABLE 1.24(B)
PRESSURELOSSES FROM NODE 8 (~/.TO NODE 3 (Pwh)
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 3
h
I F- ‘6 ‘P*6 ‘3 ‘P6-3
200 2200 2000 200 610 1390
400 2200 1800 400 440 1250
600 2200 1600 600 450 1150
800 2200 1400 800 330 1070
1000 2200 1200 1000 180 1020
1500 2200 700 1500
4
4. Plot P3 vs. q from both step 2 and step 3 (Fig. 7). Node 3 is called the flowing
5. The intersection of the flow line pressure drop line and the downhole performance
curve is the predicted flow rate for the system (900 BOPD) (Fig. 7). The
is desired to evaluate different flow lines or wel Ihead back pressure. Notice the
Procedure:
,,
1. Assume flow rates of: 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1500 B/D.
TABLE
——- 1.25
----
PRESSURELOSSES FROM NODE 8 @r) TO NODE 1 (PSEP)
From Horizontal
+--’, !’ ‘:0” ‘?’ s1
Fr -@is Multiphase Flow
1’
200
II II. I
.1 r
‘“6 10
‘P6-3 ‘1 ‘P3-I
.Illl)
1390
409 I 2200 1800 400 Ssf) 125!)
600 2200 1600 600 450 1150
800 2200 1400 800 330 1070
1000 2200 1200 1000 180 1020
!’ 150(j 2200 700 1500 Iyo
.— — [ .
—. Is .. ---
5. The intersection of the separator pressure line and the system performance line is
the predicted flow rate (900 BOPD) (Fig. 8). The presentation based on the
the same.
.’, . .,, -8-
It is important to notice that when starting at the reservoir (node 8), the slope of the
resuIting system curve on the pressure-flow rate diagram at the solution node is zero or negative, his
can be observed clearly in Figures5 through 8. This is expected since any system curve developed by
starting at ~r (regardless of the solution node) i ncfudes reservoir performance in the form of PI ~r IPR.
,.
A pressure-flow rate curve generated by starting at F’ actually displays the “required” pressure at the
solutl on node for the reservoir to produce the stated flow rate. For example, the vertical and IPR
curve shown on Fig. 7 shows that if a flowing we I lhead pressure of 100 psi cou Id somehow be created,
.
the reservoir and wel I would produce 1100 B/D.
In contrast, notice that when starting at the separator pressure (node l), the slope of
the resuIting systems curve on the pressure-flow rate diagram at the solution node is zero or negative.
This is again sl,ewn clearly in Figures 5 through 8. The pressure-flow rate curve generated by starting
at the sepurator pressure displays the “created” pressure at the solution node for each flow rate. For
example, the flowline curve shown on Figure 7 shows that for a production rate of 1100 BOPD the
The total producing system wi I I produce only where the “created” pressure at any node
k equaltothe “required” pressure at that node for the stated producing rate. This occurs where the
twocurves
intersect as shown in Figures 5 through 8. Notice on Fig. 7 for 1100 BOPD the “required”
pressure is 100 psi at node 3 (wel Ihead pressure) and the “created” pressure is 300 psi. Therefore,
this system wi 1I not produce 1100 B:2PD. Obviously, the rate possible must be the same irrespective
of the node selected to solve the problem. Different nodes are selected for convenience based on
which system parameter is to be studied. For example, suppose in our example problem it is desired to
know what this well will produce with a 3“”lD flow line. A new flow line system curve could be
generated and overlayed on F!g. 7 as shown on Fig. 9. Node 3 was selected for the solution node
because of clarity of presentation showing the flow line pressure loss. Notice that the same vertical
.—
.—
,,,
.-9-’ ”’”
.“
1.3 CHANGES IN FLOW CONDUIT SIZE
1.31 Introduction
Thus far the discussion has pertained to the rather simple system shewn in Fig. 4.
Notice on this system there is only one flow line size and one tubing size. Of course it is possible
and sometimes advantageous to change one of these pipe sizes in the middle of the string ~ To
evaluate a system of this nature, the solutlon node could be placed at the point where the p!pe size
changes.
5uppcxe in the previous example that for some reason it was necess~ry to set o liner
from near 3S00’ through the producing zone at 5000’ and this liner was of such ID that 2-3/8” tubing
was the largest size tubing that cou Id be installed. Let us investigate the possible production rate
increases by insta I Iing larger than 2-3/8” tubing above the liner from 3500’ to the surface. Refer I
to Figure 10.
The solution node (node 5) selected to solve this probienl is located at the tubing
taper (Fig. 10). In this example the pressure drops must be added from node 1 to ncxk 5 and
subtracted from node 8 to node 5. In keeping with the same nomenclature as Fig. 3, we have
Procedure:
1. Assume flow rates of 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 1500 B/D.
2. Determine the pressure loss from node 1 (seprator) to node 5 (taper connection).
For each assumed rate and starting with PSEP= 100 psi we add AP3-, +AP5-3.
Table 1.26 summarizes these results, and both 2-7/8” and 3“ tubing are evaluated
TABLE 1.26(A)
PRESSURELOSSES FROM NODE 1 TO NODE 5 ●
‘T”
““W
‘
l“
i 2M ;i-
400 140 40’ 500 360
i 600 180 89 690 429 “
800 230 13~ 718 488
I 1000 ? 275 175 “ 820 545
.
I
1500
II .1
970 550
II . .
I
(3” ID tubing) \
Vertical Mu! tjphase Flow
‘SEP ‘5 ‘P5-3
1
T-
lo f-) 14f) 40 475 335
lqo 180 80 ::; ~~o
100 230 130 43f)
100 275 175 78~ . 505
109 420 320 .900 4$0
q____ I
3. Determine the pressure losses from node 8 to node 5. For each rate start at
~r = 2200 p~i’and subtract AP~6 + AP6-5. These results are noted in Table 1.26(B),
TABLE 1.26(B)
PRESSURELOSSES FROM NODE 8 TO NODE 5
(EXAMPLE PROBLEM #5)
5. The intersection the two performance curves ~t the taper connection predict a
flow rate of about 1020 BOPD for 2.5” ID tubing and 1045 BOPD for 3“ ID tubing. Remember for a
2.0” ID tubing string the predicted rate was 900 BOPD. 2.fY’ ID
tubing string the predicted rate was 900 BOPD. Notice the increase in rate from 2.0” ID to 2.5” ID
is much more significant than the increase in rate from 2.5” ID to 3“ ID. As pointed out previously
this problem could have been solved by placing the solution node at any point in the system. However,
this approach can simplify the procedure depending on the manner in which the curves or computer
programs avai fable are formated. This same procedure cou Id be used if a change in flow line con-
figuration occurs at some point along the path of the horizonta I system.
1.41 Introduction
In the previous discussion it has been assumed that no pressure discontinuity exists
across the so!ution node. However, in a total producing system there is usually at least one point or
node where this assumption is not true. When a pressure differential exists across a node, that node
is termed a “functional node” since the pressure flow rate response can be represented by some physical
or mathematical function. Figure 3 shows examples of some common system parameters which are
. 1
functional nodes.
Of course there are many other surface or downhole tools or completion methods which
cou Id create pressure drops with flow rate as those shown in Figure 3. However, the ensuing discussion
wi I I be limited to the surface we! Ihead choke. Other system restrictions such as safety valves,
perforations, etc., are discussed in separate publ iccationsby the authors of this paper.
It is important to notice that for each restriction placed in the system shown on Figure
3 the calculation of pessure drop across that node as a function of flow rate is represented by the same
general form.
.*,
.
& ~ qn ---------- ----- .--v- /*o
,. .,
●
-12-
That is, the pressure drop, AP, is proportiona I to the flow rate. In fact, there
are many equations avai lab Ie in the litemture to describe these pressure drops for common system
restrictions. It is not the purpose of the paper to discuss the merit of the different equations but
rather to show how to use them once the selection has been made, conside;i ng the entire producing
system.
Refer to Figure 12 for a physical description of the wel with a surface choke installed.
Since the wel !head choke is usuaI Iy placed at node 2, this wi 1I be the solution node
selected to solve the problem. It is necessary to solve this problem in two parts. The first part of
the solution is exactly the same as previously shown in Example 3. For the given data used in the
previous examples the resuIts of this analysis are shovn in Fig. 7. Inspection of Figures 12 and 7 show
that the “vertica I and IPR performance curve” actuul Iy represents the upstream pressure from node 2
(Pwh, Fig. 7) and the “horizontal system performance curve” actua I Iy represents the downstream
pressure from node 2 ((PD5C, Fig. 7). Thus far, we have considered no pressure drop across the node
and therefore the predicted rate is where upstream pressure equals the downstream pressure (Pwh =
p~s~).However, we know the wellhead choke wi 1I “create” a pressure drop across functional node
2 for each flow rate. This created LP can be ca!cu Iated with one of many pressure drop equations
for choke beans. Therefore, the solution procedure is to find and plot the required AP vs. q from
Figure 7 and overlay the created AP vs. q from the choke bean performance calculations.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 16- Determine Effect of Surface Choke Sizes Using Node 2 m the Solution Node
Procedure:
1. Generate the total system analysis curve using node 2 as the solution node exactly
2. Select arbitrary re~~ired pressure drops across node 2 (AP = pwh -PDSC) and
determine the flow rate for each AP as shown in Figure 13. (Notice Figure 13
-13-
“ ‘“””
.“
TABLE 1.27(A)
RESULTS OF EXAMPLE PROBLEM f6
1
I
Ap = ~wh - ‘~sc q, B/D
Iflo 800
200 69 f’)
300 560
400 410
1 J
,,
4. Calculate the created pressure drop vs. flow. rate forchoke beans of interest.
P
wh
=LK
,2
q
(from Gi lbert)z ------., -A. -
-z
-
R = GLR, MCF,/STB
Gi Ibert noted that his formula was good when the downstream pressure (P
Dst)
was. less than 7W0 of the upstream pressure (pwh) or pDSC/pwh ~ 0.7.
choke bean sizes: 16/64, 20/64, 24/64, 28/64. Table 1.27(B) is prepared
TABLE 1.27(B)
AP VS RATE FOR DIFFERENT CHOKE SIZES (PROBLEM 6)
=!2= JDs&’&
BOPD From From
Fig . 13 Ea.2
128 370 .35 242
140 494 .28 354
160 617 .26 457
180 741 .24 561
AP =~ wh “-PD5C
Fig. i.3 Eclo 2
..
b,
Ci ‘“Dsc
From
‘Wh ~-
From
Ap = ‘Dsc”rwh”
Fig. 13 ??0. 2
q. r .? psl Ap ‘tDsc-pw~
wh
From
Fig. 13 Eq. 2 .
800 227 322 . 7fl 95
1000 275 4f13 .68 128
i 1202 330 484 .68 154
1__”.. .L. . A_ .i
,
, -1.5-, .
.“
The 6P’s calculated are unique to the example sys~emsince the downstream
apply. If this is not the case a subcritical flow equation must be used to
5. From the tables generated, plot the choke bean performance as shown on
Fig. 15.
Figure 16 c@Ays the total system performance for different wel lhead choke sizes.
The system performance curve shows the “required” AP for various flow rates considering the entire
system from reservoir to separator. The choke performance curves show the “created” AP for
various flow rates considering choke performance for different choke sizes. The intersection points
of the created and required AP’s repr~sent the possible solutions. For example the rate will drop
from 900 BOPD to715 BOPD with the installation of a 24/64 welihead choke.
Figure 17 shows another presentation that is often used to evaluate wellhead choke’s,
The. presentation shows the entire system performance which sometimes is advantageous. The same
techniques discussed in this paper are used to generate this type of analysis. Notice that this
.
1.5 Summary and Conclusions
z
UJ
1-
U)
U >
to (n
● ✎
c!)
z
m
C@
0
@l
R’ilIN ‘A
1 OA
z
Hvi I ML\’i\\E!
z
\\
z
—-
.
.
ii? = (~sv-pDSC) –
.-. —
...—
FIG. 2 POSSIBLE PRESSURE LOS-SES–” IN COMPLETE
❑✌ ✎✎
I .
1
.-
,
v)
m
w
n
h
h 0
u)
-i3 3
f-
0
e
.
#-
(n”
a
\
;L2
nl&cs
a
>
L
0
0 d-.
0Lo ,
++
t+
*+
z
0
1
F++
h+
b++
l.+
}++
F++
l.++
~.
.
n.-
HORIZONTAL FLOWLINE
.
NODE LOCATION
@ SEPARATOR
@ p~h
@) Pwf
bp6.3= @ F,
“p~h)
. .
.—-. —.. .. .
..
o
0
u) -
-
o
1-
o Z
0 0
0
ho
w
IILJ
0
lSd ‘ ‘cJ
..
n
o
. m
o
0
m
d 0 u
0
0
——— ——
o
m
m
?$O
o
1-
o 2
0 0
Ln
,.
0 o
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
CJ lo g m
c yn
lSd d .
●
4
0
u’)
0m 0
:
0
IA! 0
n ~ “-l
0 \
z
o
0
lo
I I I I I 0
c) 0 0 0 0 0.
0 0 0 CJ 0 ~>
C9 tn *“ w
. . .. lSd ‘J+d
. .
.0
G
o
0
, [
‘o
1-
C5
L
o o 0 0 o
0 C& o 0 0
(9 . e IQ N
lSd
ctj~sd
.,
- .. \
iw
“u)
n
Q
0 w
m ●
z
‘m I 0
k_\ d- i
71 -
s
o
al
k
‘z
jn
“w
0
0
c)
0 0 ‘E
CD
J
., .*,
. . lSd ‘ ‘+d
.
..
1
HORIZONTAL FLOWLINE ~~ n.
.
AF
0
NODE LOCATION
#
%ep
12-7/8° OR 3“
. TUBING
@ TAPER CONNECTION
2-318”
TUBING
LINER —
dP “5
++
I++
1+
t+
‘1
.
I
,
.
. -. ..... .... .. . . ..- —.. . . . . ....
P
●
TAPERED STRING
5000’-3500’ 2“ TUBING
3500’- o’ 2-7/8” TUBING
2000 3500’- o’ 3“ TUBING
TUBING
.
~ 2- 7/8m
500 -“
0 I I
. ——
0 500 1000 1500
q., BOPD
..
LLl
‘c)
$
CJ
.!
LLl
I&
IC2
d
\\
..
. R.%
. .*
. .- ,.
Ptf , Psl
,- -P cm m
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0,
i
410
i BOPD — +
-—
%
m
o -q = 560 0
0 4
BOPD
———
q = 690
—BOPD—— !@
q = 800
0= —BOPD ——
o D
0
-0
a
o
z
b
500
9
400 .
.
300
200
!00 .
v
.
,
.
,.
— —— — m
‘o 1000 1500
. q o, BOPD
., . ..-. -.— .. . ..— —. ---- -. .. .... . .+- . —... ---- . . —- .
300
200
28/64
~ 100
0
‘o 500 1000 1500
qo, BOPD
..——— ....... . .-..—-----
_.
FIG. .15 CHOKE BEAN PERFORMANCE
, “
500 .-’ .’
,.
,</
* 4
16164 . e’
.
400 m
300 m .
. 24/64
-
.
>
200 D
28/64
loo .
0
‘o 500 1000 i500
.
q *, BOPD . .
.
—.—-. .-=- - .-.
.
FIG. 16 SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE FOR VARIOUS
2000
-
Cn 1500
Q
w“
a
=
m
m
“U&
1000
QD
50C
o I I I
‘o 500 1000 1500
q., BOPD
.-—
~lGe 17- “&jR~AcE - CHOKE ~vA~’j~TloN