SPE
Society of PetroleLrn Engineers of A1ME
SPE 10255
Sucker Rod Pumping Systems Design - Another Look
by Paul M. Bommer, Bommer Engineering Co.
Member SPE-AIME
(c:Copyright 1981, Society of Petroleum Engineers of A1ME
This paper was presented at the 56th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, held in
San Antonio, Texas, October 5·7, 1981. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas 75206.
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a computer three
dimensional design profile of gear box torque,
maximum rod stress, and peak beam load as a function
of pumping speed and pumping depth. This approach
can be used to quickly define the optimum operating
limits of any beam pumping system. It can also be
used to compare various design methods, operating
conditions, and pumping system configurations.
The three dimensional profiles shown in this
paper are accompanied by a comprehensive review of
pumping unit types and design methods. A calcula-
tional technique is also suggested as an approximate
guide to the use of new pumping unit geometries.
INTRODUCTION
Sucker rod - beam pumping systems have his-
torically been the most popular, and cost effective,
method of artificial lift for oil reservoirs in the
United States and most of the world. The study of
these complex mechanical systems with the resulting
design recommendations began before 1930. Early
researchers of the many problems associated with
sucker rod systems were GilbertI, who investigated
pump dynagraphs in 1936, Rieniets 2 , who investigated
pump plunger travel in 1937, and Slonneger 3 , who
introduced techniques for evaluating vibrational
loads in pumping systems in 1937. One of the first
comprehensive treatments of what would today be
considered modern beam pumping techniques was pre-
sented Coberly4 in 1938. The work of these and
many researchers lead to the acceptance of the
classical methods of sucker rod pumping system de~
sign that have been presented by Craft, Holden, and
Graves 5 , and Nind 6 , to name but a few. These methods
are outlined in Appendix A.
During the mid 1960's the API supported a re-
search effort that produced the current API recom-
mended practice for the design of sucker rod pumping
systems, API RP 1IL7,8.9. This work, which extended
work done by Gibbs lO , was based on computer solutions
of the one dimensional wave equation subject to cer-
tajn boundary conditions. The data collected from
these simulations were represented in terms of
polished rod dynamometer cards and then correlated
into design charts for practical use. This work
was ·for conventional (Type 1) pumping units.
The API approach and the classical methods of
design for conventional (Type 1) pumping units con-
sider all of the effects of the operational variables
on the pumping system. The more important of these
variables are pumping speed, stroke length, fluid
load, rod string type, net lift. and tubing elonga-
tion. Both methods also assume, among other things,
that the polished rod movement can be described in
terms of simple harmonic motion, that the unit has
100% mechanical efficiency and perfect counterba1anc~
and that there is no gas interference at the pump
and no pump abnormalities. However, the API method
has included the effects of vibrational loads set
up in the rod string during the pumping cycle and the
effects of damping. These two important considera-
tions have been neglected in the classical methods.
PUMPING UNIT TYPES
There are essentially two COmmon types of
pumping units. These types are shown in Figure 1.
Type T is a cunventional unit with the sampson post
on the mid section of the beam, but not centered on
the beam. and the equalizer arm at the rear of the
beam, centered over the crank shaft of the gear box.
Type II is an air balanced unit with the equalizer
arm centered over the crank shaft and located on
the front part of the beam. and with the sampson
post located at the rear of the beam.
As shown in Appendix A the Type II unit has some
definite lifting advantages over the Type I unit.
The geometry of a Type I (conventional) unit causes
the maximum acceleration load to occur at the bottom
of the downstroke. or at the sanlC' time that the
fluid load is transmitted to the rod string. A Type
II unit geometry avoids this combination of peak
loads by generating the maximum acceleration load at
the top of the upstroke. The Type I unit in many
cases is more durable that the Type II because of the
paper.
2 SUCKER ROD PUMPING SYSTEMS DESIGN - ANOTHER LOOK
tendency of the air cylinder to require frequent
maintenance.
The Type III unit shown in Figure 1 has a similar
geometry as a Type II unit. Consequently it enjoys
the same reduced acceleration loads when compared
with a Type I (conventional) unit. However, the Type
III unit has the equalizer arm moved forward on the
beam and is no longer centered over the crank shaft
of the gear box. The counter weights are also out of
phase with the cranks. As shown in Appendix B this
has the additional advantage of further reducing the
acceleration loads on the upstroke and increasing
them on the downstroke. Thus, the maximum and the
minimum beam loads are brought closer together. This
allows for more efficient counterbalance and conse-
quently for reduced gear box torque loads when com-
pared to an equally loaded Type I (conventional) unit
or a Type II (air balanced) unit.
The Type IV unit shown in Figure 1 has a geometry
similar to a Type I unit except that it has the samp-
son post centered on the beam and the equalizer arm,
at the rear of the beam. is no longer centered over
the crank shaft. The counter weights have been
placed out of phase with the crank. These changes,
as shown in Appendix B. have given this unit
acceleration loads that are similar to a Type III
unit except that the maximum acceleration load still
occurs at the bottom of the downstroke when the fluid
load is transmitted to the rod string, just as a Type
I (conventional) unit. Therefore, the Type IV unit
will experience loads and torques that are less than
an equivalently loaded Type I unit, but they will not
be as low as the loads and torques carried by the
Type III unit. For most Type IV installations the
loads and torques carried by the unit should be
roughly the same as a Type II (air balanced) unit.
The API design approach has been generally
recognized as a superior design method for Type I
(conventional) pumping units. Design methods for
Type II and Type III units have been presented by the
manufacturers of these units ll • l2 and are generally
empirical variations and combinations of the API and
the classical design approaches. No design approach
that satisfies the geometry of the Type IV unit has
been presented. Appendix B presents a set of design
equations that generate results that fit the geometry
of this unit. These equations have been used in
this paper to illustrate the results predicted by
the analysis of the Type IV unit geometry. The
equations have not been tested by field measurements.
Until such data becomes available the equations
presented in Appendix B for the Type IV unit should
be used with caution.
THREE DIMENSIONAL DESIGN
Figures 2 and 3 show gear box torque versus
pumping depth at a fixed pumping speed for the
pumping system shown in Table 1. The figures
present the gear box torque predicted for Type I
(conventional) units. using the API method and the
classical method. From these figures it is obvious
that it is possible to predict the operating limit
of a given pumping system operating at a given speed.
However, many such graphs would be required in order
to determine the optimum combination of pumping speed
and pumping depth for a given system. Then addition-
SPE 10255
al calculations would be necessary to include the
operating limits of maximum rod stress and maximum
beam load.
In order to solve this problem a computer pro-
gram has been written that will calculate gear box
torque, maximum beam load, and maximum rod stress
for a given pumping system over a given range of
pumping speed and pumping depth. The calculated
values are then plotted as a three dimensional
surface of gear box torque as a function of pumping
speed and pumping depth. The program can generate
a surface for any pumping system, using any of the
four types of pumping units, over any pumping speed
and pumping depth range. Either the API or the
classical method can be used in the calculations.
Figure 4 is an example of the surface generated
using the data in Table 1 and API method. The
torque limit for the data in Table 1 has been drawn
across the surface as well as the maximum stress
limit for the rods and the maximum beam load. From
Figure 1 it can be seen that the operating limit
for the pumping system in Table 1 occurs at the
point where the beam load limit and the gear box
torque limit intersect. This occurs at a pumping
speed of 10.5 strokes/min. and a pumping depth of
8600 feet. At deeper pumping depths or faster
pumping speeds the pumping system would develop gear
box torques or beam loads that would exceed the
operating limits of the system. For this particular
set of data the maximum rod stresses that are
developed do not limit the operating range of the
system.
Figure 4 illustrates several interesting points
concerning the API calculation method. The surface
is irregular. There is a pronounced valley that
runs diagonally across it from 6500 feet and 15 spm
to 9500 feet and 5 spm. This valley is formed by
a leveling and in some areas a decrease in calculated
gear box torque with increases in depth for the lower
to medium pumping speeds. This calculational
phenomenon is illustrated for low pumping speeds in
Figure 2. The decrease in peak torque, using the
API method, at low pumping speeds and deep pumping
depths is due to large damping effects. Damping
effects increase with increases in depth, if the
pumping system is held constant, because the rod
string becomes more flexible as pumping depth is
increased. Also, at low pumping speeds the dynamic
loads are very small and are quickly nullified by
the damping effects at deep pumping depths. However,
as the pumping speed is increased the dynamic loads
become more important than the damping effects and
the calculated gear box torque increases steadily
as pumping depth is increased. This feature of
the API method is illustrated in Figure 3.
The classical methods do not consider damping
effects. Thus, as Figures 2 and 3 indicate, the
classical methods always predict increases in gear
box torque with increases in pumping depth. Figure
5 is a surface generated using the data in Table I
and the classical method of design. This surface is
smooth and always predicts an increasing torque with
increases in pumping speed and pumping depth.
Figure 5 predicts an operating limit of 10 spm and
9170 feet using the classical method. This illu-
strates the tendency of the classical methods to
predict smaller loads on the pumping system at
SPE 10255 PAUL M. BOMMER
medium to high pumping speeds than the API method.
At low speeds the API method predicts generally
smaller loads than the classical methods due to the
effects of damping.
Pumping unit designs tend to vary somewhat be-
tween manufacturers, even for the same type of unit.
Variations in the safety factors built into the de-
sign of unit components and variations in the way
the high stress points of the units are held together
can cause large differences in the safe loads that
the units can carry. Thus, when units are being
used that may have lower safety factors or somewhat
weaker couplings than other brands of the same unit
type it is advantageous to use the design method
that predicts the largest possible load on the unit.
This practice causes a larger unit to be used than
would be required for units with larger safety fac-
tors or more heavily reinforced stress points. The
three dimensional presentation can be used to form
a composite surface using the largest predicted loads
from the API and the classical methods. Figure 6
shows a composite surface using the largest predicted
values from both methods. This figure demonstrates
that the API method calculates larger loads except
at medium to low speeds and deep pumping depths
where the classical method predicts larger loads. If
a machinery factor is used in the classical method
then the classical method predicts larger loads than
the API method except at lower speeds and shallower
pumping depths. This is shown in Figure 7. The
machinery factor, as described in Appendix A, is a
of crank and pitman arm length. This
has been described as a correction for the
crank angle of the pitman arm and for variations in
angular velocity of the crank that lead to increases
in the acceleration loads on the system. As shown
in Figure 7 using a machinery factor of 1.318, with
the data of Table 1, has decreased the area of safe
operations across the surface when compared with
the API method or the classical method with no
machinery factor.
The surface can be used to examine several
torque limits over an operating range. Figure 8
shows a surface that was generated using the API
method and the data in Table 1. The beam load and
rod stress limits have been drawn on the surface and
a torque limit line for 228000 in-Lbs and 160000
in-Lbs has been constructed. This generates a series
of isotorque lines across the surface. These iso-
torque lines can be used to check at a glance the
operating limits of several sizes of pumping units.
A surface for a Type II (air balanced) unit is
shown in Figure 9. This surface is exactly the
same shape as the surface for the Type I (conven-
tional) unit shown in Figure 4. However, the loads
carried by the Type II unit are not as large as those
calculated for the Type I unit. The surface is the
same shape for both unit types because the API method
has been used for both units. The Type II unit loads
are less than the Type I units because the API
equations for the Type II unit have been adjusted to
account for the changes in the dynamic loads that are
brought about by the geometry of the Type II unit
(see Appendix A).
Figure 10 presents a surface for a Type III unit.
This surface illustrates the dramatic reduction in
3
load that this unit can achieve when compared to any
other unit type (see Appendix B). Had a heavier
beam been used with this unit it would be capable
of pumping from 9500 feet at a maximum pumping speed
of 14 strokes per minute. The equations used in the
design of this unit are a blend of the API and the
classical methods. The equation for gear box torque
comes from the classical approach. As was pointed
out earlier, the result is a smooth torque surface.
Figure 11 shows a surface for a Type IV unit.
Again, the loads predicted for this unit are less
than the Type I unit. However, the loads are still
considerably larger than those predicted for a Type
III unit. Figure 11 was generated using,the equa-
tions presented in Appendix B. These equations are
a blend of the API and the Classical methods and
they predict loads that follow the trends suggested
by the theory of Appendix B. It must be pointed out
that, unlike the equations for the other three types
of unit, the equations for the Type IV unit have not
been tested against measured data.
Many operational effects can be examined using
the three dimensional surface. Perhaps the most
important operational consideration that is commonly
neglected is that of pump submergence. When a well
has a fluid level in the annulus that is above the
pump setting depth a U-tube effect oCCurs. Thus,
the net lift of the pumping system is from the
fluid level to the surface rather than from the pump
depth to the surface. This effect can greatly re-
duce the loads on the pumping system because the
fluid is actually being lifted from a depth shallower
than the pump depth. Figure 12 presents a surface
for a Type I unit, using the data of Table 1. and
3000 feet of pump submergence at every depth. The
loads carried by this system are much less than the
loads on the same system without any pump submer-
gence (Figure 4). Unlike the system with no pump
submergence the maximum beam load and rod stress are
never reached and the gear box torque limit is
reached at a much deeper pumping depth and faster
pumping speed. Comparing the system with 3000 feet
of pump submergence (Figure 12) to the system with
no pump submergence (Figure 4) it can be shown that
the same pumping unit operates at deeper depths and
at higher speeds if pump submergence exists and
where pump submergence exists a smaller pumping unit
can be used to do the same amount of work.
CONCLIJSIONS
A three dimensional surface of gear box torque,
beam load, and rod stress as a function of pumping
depth and speed has been presented for four types
of pumping units. The surface can be generated
for any size pump, any sucker rod combination, any
pumping unit type and size, and over any range of
pumping depth and pumping speed.
The surface can be used to quickly define the
operating limits of a pumping system. It can also
be used to compare the importance of the many
variables that make up a pumping system. Further-
more, the surface can be used to examine the effects
of operational conditions such as pump submergence
and unanchored tubing.
The various pumping system design methods have
4 SUCKER ROD PUMPING SYSTEMS DESIGN - ANOTHER LOOK SPE 10255

been examined and compared using the surface. The 3. J. C., "Vibration Problems in Oil
equations of each method for each type of pumping API. New York (1937),
unit have been studied and a set of equations has p.
been for use with the new Type IV pumping
unit. 4. Coberly, C. J., "Problems in Modern Deep-Well
Pumping", Oil Gas J. (May 12, May 19, 1938), p. 126-
A composite surface has been constructed using 137, p. 88-95.
the various design methods. The composite surface
depj~ts the largest loads predicted by each method. 5. Craft, B. C., Holden, W. R., and Graves, E. D.,
This surface could be used in the design of pumping
units that had smaller manufacturers safety factors
or less heavily reinforced stress points. p. 280-367.

The most common types of pumping units have been 6. Nind, T.

examined. The merits of each type have been outlined Production, York
and the units have been compared using the three (1964), p. 245-297.
dimensional surface.
7. Griffin, F. D., "New API Design Calculations
Three dimensional surfaces, like dynamoter cards, for Sucker-rod Pumping Systems",
can be collected for any combination of pumping sys- API, New York (1968), p.
tems and operating ranges. Once compiled the surfaces
could be referred to as a guide for pumping unit de- 8. Midwest Research Institute. "Electric Analog
sign. Study of Sucker-rod Pumping
Practice, API, New York (1968),

9. API, "Recommended Practice for Design Cal-

a Maximum dimensionless acceleration
max
a . Minimum dimensionless acceleration
mln
Crank length m (ft)
Counter Balance Load N (Lb)
Upstroke acceleration (dimensionless)
Downstroke acceleration (dimensionless)
API maximum beam load factor (dimen-
sionless)
F2 API minimum beam load factor (dimen-
sionless)
h Pitman arm length m (ft)
MPRL Minimum polished rod load N (ft)
N Pumping speed strokes/s (strokes/min)
PPRL Peak (maximum) polished rod load
N (Lbs)
PT Peak (maximum) gear box torque
N~m (in-Lb)
S Stroke length m (in)
SKR Load required to stretch rods an amount
equal to the stroke length N (Lb)
time s
Constant angular velocity of crank rad/s
Weight of fluid lifted by the pump from
the working fluid level N (Lb)
Weight of rods in air N (Lb)
culations for Sucker Rod Pumping Systems (Conven-
tional Units)", API RPIIL, API, Dallas (1977).
10. Gibbs, S. G., "Predicting the Behavior of
Sucker-rod Pumping
Vol. 228. SPE of AIME, Dallas
11. Lufkin Industries, "Pumping Unit Design
Calculations", Lufkin Industries F-989-C, Lufkin
(1978).
12. Lufkin Industries, "Lufkin Pumping Units",
Lufkin Industries CAT 80-81 (1981).
Consider the crank and pitman arm assembly of
Figure 13 presented by Nind 6 in his treatment of
Type I pumping units. An expression for the
acceleration of the equalizer arm (point B) can be
derived as follows:
The triangle OAB can be described using the Law of
Cosines. In reduced form this is represented by
equation (A1).
2
x -2x[h+c(1-cosCwt»J+
2c(h+c)(l-cos(wt» 0 . (AI

Weight of rods in well fluid N (Lb) Here w is the constant angular velocity of the
crank. Using the quadratic formula the displacement
x Displacement of pitman arm from highest of the equalizer arm (x) can be obtained
point of travel m (ft)
z Pumping unit geometry factor (dimen- x = h+c(l-cos(wt» +
sionless)
2 k
(wt) + (h ] 2 . (A2

When x 0, wt == 0 so cos(wt) 1. Thus, the

1. Gilbert, W. E., "An Oil-Well negative root must be taken.
Drill. Prod. Practice, API, New York

2. R. W., "Plunger Travel of Oil-vJell

API, New York (1937),
p.
SPE 10255
x = h+c(l-cos(wt»
2 2 2 2
[c cos (wt)+(h -c )
An expression for the acceleration of the equalizer
arm (point B) can be obtained by taking the second
derivative of displacement with respect to time in
equation (A3).
2 2 2 post. as shown in Figure 1. For Type II units
d x/dt cw cos (wt) +
2 2 2 2 -3/2
~[c cos (wt)+(h -c )]
2 2 2 2
~[c cos (wt)+(h -c )]
2 2
c 2w cos(2wt)
The maximum acceleration of the equalizer arm occurs
for wt equal to zero or any even multiple of Pi.
The cos(wt) for wt equal to zero or any even
multiple of Pi is a positive one. Thus. the ex-
pression for the maximum acceleration of a Type I
pumping unit is
2 2 2
= w dl+c/h] (m/s or ft/s ) . • . (AS)
max
This occurs when the equalizer arm (point B) is at
the highest point of travel (z). At point z the
pumping unit is at the end of the downstroke where
the fluid load is being transferred to the rod
string. Therefore, a Type I unit, because of its
geometry. must carry a maximum load equal to the
fluid load plus the rod load plus the maximum
acceleration load.
The minimum acceleration load occurs for wt
equal to Pi or any odd multiple of Pi. At these
points the cos(wt) is equal to a negative one.
2 2 2
= w c[l-c/h] (m/s
The minimum acceleration occurs at the lowest point
of travel of the equalizer arm. For a Type I pumping
unit this occurs at the end of the up stroke.
The term [l+c/h] in equation (AS) for the
maximum acceleration and [l-c/h] in equation (A6)
for the minimum acceleration is defined as the
machinery factor.
The maximum acceleration load of equation (AS)
placed in practical units. translated to the
polished rod and made dimensionless by dividing by
the acceleration of gravity can be expressed by
a [l+c/hl
max
Similarly. the mlnlmum acceleration in a Type I unit
can be expressed by
PAUL M. BOMMER 5
2
SN
70560 [l-c/h] • • • (A8)
. . . (A3) Equations (An and (AS) when multiplied by the
weight that is supported by the polished rod at
the appropriate crank angle will predict the
maximum and the minimum force due to acceleration.
Type II (air balanced) units have the crank
and pitman assembly placed in front of the sampson
angle wt is zero or an even multiple of Pi, again
when the equalizer arm is at the highest point of
travel. However, since the crank assembly is in
front of the sampson post the highest point of
travel occurs at the end of the upstrok~ rather
than the end of the downstroke as with a Type I
unit. Thus, the maximum acceleration load occurs
-~
at the end of the upstroke with a Type II unit
and the minimum acceleration load occurs at the
end of the downstroke. A Type II unit experiences
• (A4)
the minimum acceleration load at the time when the
fluid load is transferred to the rod string. When
compared with a Type I unit the maximum polished
rod load for a Type II unit is reduced and the
minimum polished rod load is increased. Therefore,
the counterbalance for a Type II unit is more
effective in balancing the loads and the gear box
torque is reduced as a result.
The classical design equations for a Type I
and a Type II unit are as follows 5 • 6 :
PPRL W + W (lH'l) (A9)
f r
MPRL W .127G)
= (AlO)
r
CBL 0.5 (PPRL + MPRL) (All)
PT ~ (PPRL
:= CBL) (Al2)
2
is the upstroke acceleration term (Equa. CA7)
Type I units and Equa. (AB) for Type II units).
F is the downstroke acceleration term (Equa. (AB)
Z
for Type I units and Equa. CA7) for Type II units).
or ft/s ) . . . (A6)
Type III pumping units are similar to Type II
units in appearance and Type III units enjoy the
same load advantages as a Type II unit. Moreover.
a Type III unit has the equalizer arm shifted
forward on the beam such that it is no longer
centered over the crankshaft and the counterweights
are placed out of phase with the crank. Figure 14
illustrates the effects of these changes. The up-
stroke requires 195 degrees of crank rotation and
the downstroke requires 165 degrees of crank ro-
tation. Furthermore, the transition from upstroke
to downstroke and downstroke to upstroke is quite
slow. This is brought about by moving the equalizer
arm forward on the beam. This makes the upstroke
much slower than the downstroke which further
(Al) decreases the upstroke acceleration loads and
increases the downstroke acceleration loads. This
causes more effective counterbalancing and reduced
gear box torque. Since the up and downstroke
transitions are slow the shock loads due to these
6 SUCKER ROD PUMPING SYSTEMS DESIGN - ANOTHER LOOK SPE 10255

reversals are minimal. The counterweights are unit. This is necessary due to the increased
placed 7.5 degrees out of phase with the crank so acceleration loads during the downstroke of a
that the counterweight effect will be in phase Type IV unit.
195 degree upstroke and 165 degree down-
CBL 0.5 (PPRL + MPRL) (B3)

Type IV units have the equalizer arm shifted

forward on the beam and the counterweights out of
PT = 1 (PPRL MPRL) (B4)

phase just like a Type III unit. This gives the

Equation (B4) can be derived from equations (All)
Type IV unit the same slow upstroke and fast down-
and (A12).
stroke as a Type III unit. However, the Type IV
unit has the same general geometry of a Type I unit
so the maximum acceleration loads still occur at This set of design equations predicts loads that
the end of the downstroke. Therefore, the Type IV are less than a Type I unit, but they do not pre-
dict the load reductions achieved by the Type II
unit is not as efficient as a Type III unit, but
or Type III units. This is consistent with the
it is more efficient than a Type I unit.
theory presented earlier for a Type IV pumping
unit.
Examples of the beam loads carried by each
pumping unit type are shown in Figure 15. Figure
15 illustrates the mechanical advantage that is
achieved by the Type III unit where the equalizer
arm is shifted forward on the beam. The Type II
unit achieves somewhat similar results over the
part of the stroke that is supported by the air
cylinder. However, the portion of the stroke that
is supported by the crank, because of the posi-
tioning of the equalizer arm on the beam, produces
higher loads. Overall, the Type II
unit generates loads that are roughly 16% less
than a Type I unit. The Type IV unit carries an
average beam load that is 7% less than a Type I
unit. The Type IV unit cannot achieve the load
reductions of a Type II or a Type III unit because
of the geometry of the Type IV unit. The sampson
post of a Type IV unit cannot be shifted forward
in order to gain additional mechanical advantage
and still maintain a usable stroke length.

A set of design equations for a Type IV unit

have been devised. These equations take on the
same form as those presented in Appendix A.
However, as with the currently design
equations for Type II and III units ,the equations
for the Type IV unit employ parts of the API method.

PPRL + +

. . . (Bl)

Here:

= API peak polished rod load factor

=Load required to stretch rods an
amount equal to stroke length
Z Dimensionless geometry coefficient

Since the Type IV unit has an average static load

reduction of 7% over a Type I unit and the current
design technique for a Type III unit uses an addi-
tional 10% load reduction for the reduced accelera-
tion loads, Z has been chosen as .83. This repre-
sents a load reduction of 17% for a Type IV unit.

MPRL PPRL - (Fl+F2)SKR . . (B2)

where API minimum load factor.

This equation predicts larger minimum loads for

a Type IV unit than the API method for a Type I
 TABLE I

PUMPING SYSTEN DATA

Torque Limit 228000 in-1b (25760.5 N-m)

Beam Load Limit 21300 1b (94,747.1 N)

Rod Stress Limit 40000 psi (27,579.028. Pa)

Stroke Length 86 in (2.18 m)

Plunger Diameter 1. 25 in (0.032 m)

Fluid Specific Gravity 1.0

Rod Type Number 76

Pumping Speed Range 5.0 - 15.0 spm (0.83 - .25 sps)

Pumping Depth Range 6500. - 9500. ft (1981.2 - 2895.6m )

Type I Type II

Type III Type IV

Fig. 1 - Pumping unit types

 UJ
r--

r--
UJ

Ln I

+ m
Ul
95
0
~··"i
95 ~

0
Ul

MF 1. 318
95 C)

CD
95 C) Classical.
Mi' 1.0
I

Z 95 C)

(\J /
(') I
I
('i C)
I
I
W ::r
/
("\J Cl
Q'!

o
f---
6 50

DE TH (F T x 1 0 3)
Fig. 2 - Gear box torque vs_ pumping depth at 5 spm

('J

::r

/C'J
(')

+ (\J
UJ (!j

.,----\
(')
"
I>
(') Clas:sic.31
HF 1.318
(1i
/ C)
/
aJ (') ;('i C)
/
(')
(J'j C)
Z /
/
MF 1.0
CD C)
CD

(\J

W (') C)
UJ
(\J
0 C)

er:: CD
(')

f- (\J ----L__
6.50 7. 10 7.70 .so
DEPT (F T X 1 0+3 )

Fig. 3 - Gear box torque vs. pumping depth at 15 spm

 368376

V;
~;z:
276282

W IBq168
::0
C!!

~
.....
~
0::
w
"-

226 C~NVENtlONRL
21300 L6 aERM
9S IN STR~KE
1, 2S I~ PLUNCER
TYPE 76 RODS
_ l~RgU< LIMIT
. qOOOO PSI ROD STRESS LIMIT
BEAM LIMIT

Fig, 4 - API method - Type I unit

3~7976

If)

':lI 2S09B2

:z
::
w 173908
::0
C!!
0::
C
I-
e699~
"-
a:
w
CL

228 CONVENTlONRL
21300 La aERM
B6 IN STROKE
1.25 IN PLUNCER
TYPE 76 R"DS
lOR(,IUE LIMI1
PSI ROD STRESS LIMIT
LIMIT

Fig. 5 - Classical method - Type I unit

368376

V;
co 276282
....J
I
:z
,~

w le~188
::0
0

'"
C
I-

~ 9209~
cr:
w
CL

228 CONVENTIONAL f>u. 6'$00

~~ 3i~ ~~R~~~M f1t,o.ltVc

I. 25 IN PLUNGER
TrPE 76 RODS
_ TORQUE LIMIT
qDDOO PSI ROO STRESS L1HIT
_BERM LlM!T

Fig, 6 - API and classical method composite surface - machinery factor =1.0
 ~1~I05

U;
a:l 309079
-'
I
::z

w 206053
5
""
~
103026

:''"5
<L

228 CeNVENTiONAL
21300 LB BEAM
8S IN STROKE
1.25 IN PLUNCER
TYPE 76 RODS
TeRQUE LIMIT
•. ~oooo PSI ~oo STRESS LIMIT
_ _ BEAM LlMlT

Fig. 7 - API and classical method composite surface - machinery factor =1.318

36837S

!.f1
cc
-'
I
::z
::;
UJ la~la8
:::l
c:l
'".....
<:J

'"tt
UJ
a..

~~~o~e~~E~~~~NAL "'U/.tp ~soo

86 IN STROKE II\lC
1.25 IN PLUNGER
TYPE 76 RODS
TeRQUE LIMIT
~OOOO PS I ROO STRESS L I MIT
BEAM LIMIT

Fig. 8 -Isotorque lines for Type I unit - API method

3536~1

;;:;
a:l 265231
-7
z
::;
UJ 176620
:::l
c:l
:;s,...
'"tt
UJ
a..

228 Alii BALANCED

21300 LB BEAM
86 IN STROKE
1.25 IN PLUNCER
TYpe '76 Rn05
_TORQUE LIMIT
. . . ~OOOO PSI ROO STRESS LIMIT
_ BERM LIMIT

Fig. 9 - Type II unit

 266936

U;
~
I
Z
::
lI.J U3Y66
::J
C>

::'"
'"ct:
lI.J
"-

228 CONYoNTIONAL S,sOO

21300 LB BEAM
66 IN STRClk:E
1.25 IN PLUNGER
TYPE 76 RMS
_TORQUELlMlT
YOOOO PSI ROD StREss LIMIT
_ _ BEAH LIMIT

Fig. 12 - Type I unit with 3000 It pump submergence - API method

 Fig. 13 - Crank
and Pitman arm
assembly - Ty·
pe I unit

J._ Dovml:iLrokc

Hid u p;~; t roke S ta rt: downs t roke Mid downs t roke Start upst roke

Fig. 14-Type III unit pumping cycle

Type I
LS"
8.0'
9.2.') ,

Type II
a = 4.67' 20075 Ib
6.25' 35075 Ib
crank supports F3 15000 Ib

0
11. 46 1b
a ~ 7.29' F ~ 22 1.79 Ib
Z
)13 15000 Ib
ail;: cylinder suppot'ts

III
F 2903 Ib
,~ 1
'" F 2 = 18624 Ib

J !C: 1
1 F
2
F
3
F) ~ 15000 1b

Type I V
b 8. I ' F 15741 Ib
I I I 1
8.5' ~ :JQ741 Ib
!F1
f
F2
1
F
)
F
3
15000 Ib

Fig. 15 - Beam loads for 228D - 213 - 86 units