See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290057720

Thermodynamic Model of a Twin-Screw Multiphase Pump

Article · January 2002

DOI: 10.1115/ETCE2002/PROD-29164

CITATIONS READS

16 2,726

3 authors, including:

Silvio De Oliveira Junior Elisio FILHO Caetano Filho

University of São Paulo Petróleo Brasileiro S.A.
197 PUBLICATIONS   1,642 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   325 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ph.D. Thesis at The University of Tulsa, 1982-6 View project

The 13th Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems – SDEWES2018 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elisio FILHO Caetano Filho on 30 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of ETCE 2002:
ETCE Production Technology Symposium
February, 2002 – Houston, Texas

Put Paper Number Here

Paper no. ETCE2002/PROD-29164 pp. 877-885
doi:10.1115/ETCE2002/PROD-29164
ASME 2002 Engineering Technology Conference on Energy (ETCE2002)
February 4–5, 2002 , Houston, Texas, USA
Sponsor: Petroleum Institute
Engineering Technology Conference on Energy, Parts A and B
ISBN: 0-7918-3591-X

THERMODYNAMIC MODEL OF A TWIN-SCREW MULTIPHASE PUMP

Celso Yukio Nakashima Silvio de Oliveira Júnior

Polytechnic School - University of São Paulo – Mechanical Engineering Department

Av. Prof. Mello Moraes, 2231 - Cidade Universitária Armando de Salles Oliveira - CEP 05508-900 -
São Paulo, SP – Brazil

Elisio F. Caetano

PETROBRAS – R&D Center(CENPES)

Ilha do Fundao - Quadra 7 - CEP 21949-900 - Rio de Janeiro, RJ – Brazil

ABSTRACT
The twin-screw multiphase pump has been studied as an
alternative system to substitute the conventional one (fluid
separation, liquid pumping and gas compression) in petroleum
boosting. By “pumping” simultaneously gas and liquid, the
multiphase pump could reduce production costs in deepwater
activities. This paper presents a thermodynamic model of a twin-
screw multiphase pump to determine performance parameters
such as: absorbed power, discharge conditions and efficiency.
To overcome problems with the complex flow field inside of this
novel equipment, the multiphase flow was divided into a
sequence of simpler processes. Such approach helps determine
energy and mass balances and enables the use of a process
simulator (Hysys.Process v2.1) to construct the model. The
model prediction when compared to the literature show that the
assumption of a smooth turbulent flow, considering the pressure
loss in the entrance and discharge of the gap, fits better the
phenomena than the turbulent flow when calculating the flow
through the gaps. In addition, the comparison for absorbed
power indicates that the assumption of gaps filled only with
liquid is not valid under all operation conditions.
1 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
1. INTRODUCTION
The twin-screw multiphase pump is one of several
alternatives being considered to reduce production costs in
offshore petroleum exploitation. By simultaneously “pumping”
gas and liquid, this pump could reduce capital and operational
expenditures, particularly in deep-water petroleum production,
among other advantages (see CAETANO et al. (1997)).
Although many prototypes have being successfully tested,
there are just some few works concerning the twin-screw
multiphase pump modeling. This lack of information became
clear when PETROBRAS decided to make a comparative
analysis between a novel (SBMS-500) subsea multiphase
pumping system (see KUJAWSKI and CAETANO (1999)),
equipped with a twin-screw multiphase pump, and a
conventional one (fluid separation, liquid pumping and gas
compression) . A model allowing predictions of the absorbed
power, backflow rate and discharge conditions could support not
only comparative analysis but also the pump design and studies
about thermodynamic behavior of a system operating with such
pump.
 The main objective of that project was then to develop a
model that would be able to predict the thermodynamic behavior
of a twin-screw multiphase pump. On the basis of suction
conditions, the model would determine, among other aspects, the
absorbed power, the pump discharge conditions and the pressure
profile along the screws.
2. TWIN-SCREW MULTIPHASE PUMP
pump, the rotation and meshing of the screws create one or more
chambers which moves continuously from the suction to the
discharge region (Fig.1). Therefore, any type of product (liquid,
gas or solid) that can be introduced into the cavities will be
carried along to the discharge. Such characteristic allows the
pump to transport multiphase fluids with GVF varying from 0 to
95% (100% if 5% of liquid can be recirculated).

The twin-screw multiphase pump is a positive displacement

device with an axial flow through the screws. In this kind of
NOMENCLATURE

Latin Symbols W : work (kJ), channel width (m) c : channel

B : thread width (m) x, y : orthogonal coordinates (m) D : discharge
GVF : gas volumetric fraction y : channel filling degree dp : pressure difference
H : channel height (m) F : flank clearance
k : roughness (m) Greek Symbols i : pump stage i
kf : number of threads   thread angle (rad) l : liquid
l : length (m)  : finite variation of some o : minimum radial clearance
NBM : number of pump stages quantity P : peripheral clearance
p : pressure (Pa) (x,y) shear rate (s-1) R : radial clearance
Ri : screw internal radius (m)  : efficiency rec : backflow
Re : screw external radius (m)  : cinematic viscosity (m2/s) S : suction
Re : Reynolds number  : friction coefficient th : theoretical
s : clearance height (m)  : dynamic viscosity (Pa.s)
st : thread pitch (m)   density (kg/m3) Superscript
,V : specific volume (m3/kg),  : quantity per time unity
volume (m3) Subscript
w, u : components of velocity (m/s) b : pump

The twin-screw pump has a series of clearances (peripheral, One working model was proposed by CHRISTIANSEN (in
radial and flank clearance) between the casing and the screws. WINCEK (1992)). In this model, the liquid is considered to
These clearances together with the screw rotation and pressure being impelled by centrifugal forces so it is kept in the periphery
difference allow some fluid to flow back. Therefore, there must of the screw. With this characteristic, just liquid would fill pump
be some liquid to fill these clearances , otherwise the pump clearances and, thus, only liquid would flow backwards through
would lose pumping capacity. However, as a result of the high these clearances. Such recirculation will compress the gas
centrifugal forces in the pump, a small quantity of liquid is contained in a particular chamber. Once there is a reduction in
enough to keep the pump capacity. Due to the backflow, the real gas volume, its original space must be filled with liquid. So, as
volumetric flow is always lower than the pump theoretical one chamber displaces towards the discharge, its pressure
capacity. increases and there is liquid accumulation. This accumulation is
possible only if the backflow rate, entering the chamber, is
chambers higher than its outflow. So, the pressure difference must be
higher near the discharge region.
The pressure profile along the screws depends on the GVF
of the pumped fluid. For GVF=0, the fluid is incompressible and
suction discharge the pressure profile is linear. However, with compressible fluid,
as the multiphase one, the profile is widely flat and with a
greater pressure gradient near the discharge region.
Further details about pumping principles and pump
casing characteristics can be found in the literature (COOPER et al.
peripheral
(1996), e.g.).
clearance
radial
clearence flank
clearence

Figure 1: Twin-screw multiphase pump: working

principle and clearances.

2 Copyright © 2002 by ASME


100
80
% of pressure
difference
60
40
20
0 The process simulator selected, which is called
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of screw length
Figure 2: Pressure profile.
3. THERMODYNAMIC MODEL
3.1 Introduction
The flow through the twin screw multiphase pump is very
complicated with a multiphase fluid flowing in cavities that
rotates and moves along the screw axis. In addition, there are
heat and mass exchanges between the fluid phases and between
the cavities due to the backflow rate. To overcome this problem,
instead of direct simulation of this complex flow, an alternative
approach was suggested and implemented based on a model
developed by WINCEK (1992).
In WINCEK’s (1992) model, the multiphase twin-screw
pump is represented by a particular number of chambers and the
continuous displacement of these chambers is considered to
occur in steps from the suction chamber to the discharge
chamber. With this division, it is possible to develop several
equations to calculate backflow and, consequently, pressure
profile. However, WINCEK’s (1992) model was developed for
water-air mixtures and thus did not take into account significant
thermodynamic processes by considering an isothermal flow.
Hence, to expand model capabilities, it was therefore decided to
adopt another solution method so as the model could predict the
pump thermodynamic behavior and work with fluids other than
water and air mixtures. In this new model, the processes inside
the pump will be simulated and the multiphase pump is
considered a sequence of separators, pumps, compressors and
mixers composing several compression stages (Fig. 3). The
suction fluid is separated into gas and liquid, the liquid is
pumped, the gas compressed, and they are mixed in order to
homogenize the temperature, and then proceeding to the next
stage. This is done successively until the multiphase fluid
reaches the discharge. By representing the process as a sequence
of simple processes, the simulation of energy and mass balances
needed for the model is facilitated and the model can be built
and simulated with a commercial process simulator.
The main assumptions for the construction of the model are
as follows:
a) Steady state;
b) Adiabatic flow: there is not heat exchange with the
environment, only between phases of the multiphase fluid;
c) Thermal equilibrium between fluid phases: the fluid phases
in a given chamber are at same temperature;
d) Liquid-only backflow: it is admitted that all clearances are
completely filled with liquid, so only liquid flows back
through the clearances;
e) No flashing inside clearances: it is considered that this
phenomena, which can alter the flow through the
clearances, does not occur and
f) Concentric peripheral clearances: the annular clearances in
95% de gás
líquido the screw peripheral region are admitted to be concentric.
Effects of shaft deflection are not taken into account.
Hysys.Process v2.1, allows a complete characterization of the
fluids to be used in the process. By providing the chemical
composition, temperature, pressure and flow rate, a particular
stream is defined. Another advantage concerns its various
previously defined operational units: separators, mixers, pumps,
compressors, pipelines, reactors, etc. Thus, by properly
connecting streams and operational units, it is possible to model
various processes and obtain energy and mass balances of
complex mixtures.
Since the multiphase pump is a positive displacement type
of equipment, there are at least two characteristics to be
contemplated by the model. First, the volumetric flow rate along
the stages must be constant since the pump chambers show a
constant volume. And second, the theoretical power consumed
by the model must be independent from the GVF at the suction,
since this power must be given by the product of the volumetric
flow rate at the suction and the total pressure difference.
In the model, these two conditions are fulfilled through
backflow streams. These backflow rates are the ones that
guarantee that the reduction in the gas volumetric flow rate, that
occur from the increase in pressure, will be compensated by an
increase in the liquid volumetric flow rate. The total volumetric
flow rate is thus kept constant. Figure 3 shows the configuration
implemented in the simulator. By analyzing this configuration
one can notice the need of calculating not only the backflow but,
also, the respective efficiency values for the pumps and for the
compressors used in the model. These efficiencies are
representing, specifically, the losses due to viscous friction.
Suction 1 2 Discharge
a- Separator
b- Compressor
c- Pump
d- Mixer
1 2
b
Suction a d Discharge
c
Figure 3: Twin-screw multiphase pump simulation model.
3.2 Modeling losses of a twin-screw multiphase pump
The model must calculate the losses of a real multiphase
pump in order to have a trustful representation of the pump
3 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
behavior. In the twin-screw pump, the main sources of losses are  l 
0.25
2p
the backflow rate, which reduces pump volumetric capacity, and 0.1397  B    w1.75  1.5w 2  0 (3.3)
  s 5  l
the friction losses due to fluid viscosity. Friction losses are used  l P 
to determine the pump and compressor efficiencies, per stages of
the model, while the backflow rate is used to determine the b) Radial clearance:
overall flow. A comprehensive description of the model can be
found in NAKASHIMA (2000). Volumetric flow due to pressure difference under smooth
turbulent flow is given by:
3.2.1 Backflow – Equations for backflow calculations were 1
developed based on the work of WINCEK (1992). Another  B  p 4  7
V R , dp  4.709   (3.4)
study about backflow was published by EGASHIRA et al. 4  3 
 2 xo  7  l 
(1996) where the calculated results were based on previous  1
dx 
experimental data. In both cases the equations are developed 
 0 s R ( x) 3 
starting from the relation between the pressure difference and  
the velocity of the flow, which is given by the following
equation for channel flow (EGASHIRA et al. (1996)): Where sR(x) is given by:
v 2  l  s R ( x )  R e  Ri  s o  R e2  ( x  x o ) 2
p   1.5  (3.1) (3.5)
2  2s 
 Ri2  ( x  x o ) 2

Where the indicated value 1.5 at the right hand part of the
equation corresponds to the local losses in entrance and
discharge regions of a clearance. The coefficient  depends on
the occurring flow regime.
WINCEK (1992) developed equations for the back-flow
through each clearance – including their particular geometry –
on a twin-screw multiphase pump. Such clearances were
considered completely filled with liquid and under rough
turbulent flow. Thus, the volumetric flow through the clearances
would be driven by two factors: (1) pressure difference between
two chambers; and, (2) screw rotation (referred, respectively, as
differential and rotational components of back-flow). Local
losses were not contemplated in this model. Thus, in the present
model, the referred equations for backflow were modified in
order to take into account the local losses. In addition, the
occurrence of smooth turbulent flow was assumed, as had been
proposed by EGASHIRA et al. (1996). A comparison between
these two approaches will be presented. Equations for laminar
and rough turbulent flow, without local losses, and for the
rotational component are the same as the ones proposed by
WINCEK (1992) and will not be presented here. On the
contrary, modified equations will be shortly described in the
following items. For further details, one should refer to
WINCEK (1992) or to NAKASHIMA (2000).
a) Peripheral clearance:
Equations for average velocity under laminar and smooth
turbulent flow, with local losses, are given respectively by:
2
 24 B l 
  12  l .p  24 B l

 s 2  2
 P  sP
w (3.2)
3 l
And thus describes the radial clearance geometry between
internal and external diameters of the twin screws.
In the radial clearance the coefficient for local losses is not
necessary due to the absence of corners.
c) Flank clearance:
Velocity v under laminar and smooth turbulent flow, with
local losses, is given respectively by:
2
 24l F  l 
   12  l  p  24l F  l
 s 2  2
 F  sF
v (3.6)
3 l
0.25
 l  2p
0.1397  l F    v 1.75  1,5v 2  0 (3.7)
  .s 5  l
 l F 
The total backflow of the pump is given by adding all of its
components occurring on the previously referred clearance
areas.
With the expressions for back-flow rate, which is a
function of shaft speed and pressure difference between two
cavities, it is possible to determine the multiphase pump pressure
profile. Initially, the model starts with any pressure profile. After
a compression stage takes place, there is a reduction in the
volumetric flow due to gas compression. If the back-flow rate
that comes from the downstream stage, added to the volumetric
flow that comes from the upstream stage, equals the theoretical
volumetric flow rate, then the pressure of the stage is kept
constant. However, if the resulting volumetric flow rate is higher
than the theoretical one, the stage pressure must be raised in
order to reduce the gas volumetric flow and the back-flow rates.
On the contrary, if the flow rate is lower than the theoretical one,
the pressure must be reduced. This correction is performed
successively until the volumetric flow rate along the model is
constant and equals the pump theoretical one.

4 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

3.2.2 Pumps and compressors efficiency – To calculate the
efficiency of pumps and compressors used to construct the
model, it is necessary to evaluate friction power in the real
multiphase pump. On the gas side there is almost no losses due
to the low gas viscosity value. So an efficiency of 100% for
compressors was considered. On the liquid side, the evaluation
of the friction power is divided into two parts: (1) losses at
 
peripheral clearance, W P ; and, (2) at the screw channel, W c .
The lubrication theory is used to calculate friction power at
peripheral clearance. The equation (3.8), used to evaluate
friction power at channel for screw extruders, was suggested by
MICHAELI e GREFENSTEIN (1995) and adapted to the
orthogonal system used and to the different type of screw filling:
 2k f  1 2 HW
 GFV (%)
Ec 
sen  y 0 

 l l   ( x , y ) dxdy

(3.8)
y  Re  Ri2  GVF Re2  Ri2   (3.9)
2 2
 u   w   w 
2
 b)
 ( x , y )          (3.10)
 y   x   y 
The velocity profile (u and w in equation 3.10) in the
screw, which is necessary to calculate friction power, is given by
CAMPBELL et al. (1996). Once both parts are calculated, the
efficiency of pumps in each model’s stage will be stated by:

V p i
b    
(3.11)
V p i  W P  W c
4. RESULTS
In a first stage (items 4.1 and 4.2), an attempt was made to
check how the model, working with efficiencies (volumetric
efficiency of pumps and compressors) of 100%, was capable of
reproducing the behavior of an ideal pump. Some parameters
were also evaluated to see how they would affect the model.
Initially, a fixed pressure profile was used for the model and the
backflow rates were adjusted so that the volumetric flow rate
along the model would be kept constant (and equal to the one at
the suction). Then, modifications that would allow the model to
determine the behavior of a real pump, including the backflow
and the pressure profile, were included. Finally, the simulation
results were compared with experimental data (item 4.3).
4.1 GVF and of the number of stages
Tables 1a and 1b show the theoretical power consumption

predicted by the model (W ) compared to the expected
 theoretical power smaller than the expected one. In the case of
theoretical power ( W th ), as a function of the GVF, for discharge
pressures (pD) of 2,600 and 4,528 kPa, respectively. The
efficiency adopted values for the pumps and compressors were
100%. The suction pressure (pS) was equal to 672 kPa.
 
As shown in column W W th , for both discharge
pressures, the predicted power is quite close to the theoretical
one, and for increasing GVFs there is a small tendency for such
predicted values to move away from the expected ones. Once the
efficiency of the pumps and compressors were taken as 100%,
the smaller than expected consumption values can be attributed
to how discrete the calculation was performed in the model – as
followed discussed.
 
Table 1. Predicted ( W ) and expected ( W th ) theoretical
power comparison: a) pD=2600 kPa; b) pD=4528 kPa
a)
  
W (kW) W / W th
0 141.5 0.9993
30 140.7 0.9936
60 137.2 0.9692
95 132.7 0.9371
  
GFV (%) W (kW) W / W th
0 283.1 1.0000
30 282.1 0.9964
60 275.9 0.9746
95 264.2 0.9332
When a chamber is displaced from the suction to the
discharge, the gas volume is continuously reduced due to the
increase in pressure. The space previously occupied by gas is
filled with the liquidflowing back and, therefore, for a given
reduction in the gas volume there is an increase of the same
magnitude in the volume of liquid. The sum of the volumes of
gas and liquid is constant since the volume of the chamber is
fixed. With the separation of the process into a sequence of
simpler processes, there is a difference in relation to the actual
process and how it is represented in the model - as shown in Fig.
4. The dashed line indicates the process involving a continuous
increase in pressure and volumetric flow rate that actually
occurs. In the model, however, the correction in the liquid
volume and the heat exchange between the phases occur only at
discrete points, and not continuously as in the actual process.
This difference is directly reflected in the calculation of the
power as shown in Fig. 4. The process (1-3) involving the
simultaneous increase in pressure and liquid volumetric flow
rate is represented in the model by a simple pumping process (1-
2) followed by a correction in the volume of the liquid (2-3)
through a backflow stream. Area 1-2-3 represents the power that
the model fails to take into account, which leads to a predicted
compression (process 4-6), it is represented by a compression
(4-5) and a cooling (5-6) process due to the mixture with the
liquid. Thus, the compression power calculated by the model is
larger than the actual power, and the difference is represented by
area 4-5-6. By further observing Fig. 4, it is possible to note that
the area of region 1-2-3 is larger than that of region 4-5-6. In
5 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
other words, the higher compression power which is only partly Table 3. Effect of pressure profile in the simulations of the
calculated by the model compensates the reduction in the model (pS=672 and pD=2600 kPa): a) =100%; b) =50%
calculation of the pumping power. Thus, the resulting theoretical a)
pumping power calculated by the model is smaller than the 
Pressure profile W (kW) TD (oC)
expected one. If the GVF is low, the slope of the curve is smaller
and as a result the cited areas (and so the deviation from the Increasing gradient 132.7 52.6
expected value) will also be smaller. Linear gradient 135.9 52.7
Decreasing gradient 133.4 52.4
V
b)
3

1 2
4 5 6 Pressure profile W (kW) TD (oC)
Increasing gradient 264.2 71.2
Linear gradient 271.3 71.9
2 Decreasing gradient 265.9 71.1
4 1 3
5

Backflow
6
p
Figure 4- Differences between the actual process and the
model representation.
The results analyzed up to now indicate that the use of a
larger number of stages could reduce the difference between the
predicted and the expected theoretical power. In fact, the results
obtained with the use of 16 stages are closer to the theoretical
power as shown in Table 2. However, as the deviations are lesser
and not expected to affect significantly the simulations, it is
more convenient to keep the model’s number of stages equal to
the pump’s number of stages. Then, it is possible to establish an
exact correspondence between one stage of the model and one
stage of the pump. The deviation in theoretical power can be
avoided by considering the theoretical power simply as a
product of total pressure by the theoretical volumetric flow.
 
Table 2. Predicted ( W ) and theoretical power ( W th ) -
comparison for calculation with 8 and 16 stages (pS=672 and
pD=2600 kPa; GVF=95%).
  
No. of stages W (kW) W / W th
8 132.7 0.9371
16 138.4 0.9775
4.2 Pressure profile influence
Due to the lack of information regarding the pressure
profile, it was decided to check the impact that occasional flaws
in the profile calculation of the model could cause in its
behavior. Studies were conducted for three different pressure
profiles: with an increasing pressure gradient, with a linear
pressure gradient and with a decreasing pressure gradient. The
results obtained, as shown in Tables 3a and 3b, indicate that
even large variations in the pressure profile have little effect on
the absorbed power and discharge temperature (TD) for different
efficiencies () in pumps and compressors.
The pressure profile has little effect on the behavior of the
model (for power calculations) since, regardless of which
pressure distribution is used in the model, it will be representing
the same process, but different points thereof. If the model has a
linear pressure distribution, for instance, this does not mean that
it is representing a multiphase pump with a linear pressure
profile, but that it is simulating the points of the pump in which
the process has reached that pressure, as shown in Fig. 5.
p p
Linear pressure distribution Correpondent geometric points
in the model in multiphase pump
pD
pS
Figure 5- Significance of linear pressure distribution in the
model.
Initially, it was found that an exact correspondence
between the pressure profile of the model and that of the actual
pump was important for power and temperature calculations.
However, with the results presented herein, one can conclude
that deviations in relation to the actual pump are allowable for
the calculation of the absorbed power. This does not mean that
the calculation of pressure profile is not important. Just that
when the model has calculated the pressure profile there is an
exact correspondence between one stage of the model and one
stage of the pump, which is important for evaluation of losses
(backflow and friction power).
4.3 Results analysis
Figure 6 shows a comparison between calculated data and
experimental data from EGASHIRA et al. (1996) for a pump
working with water only. Experimental points, whose tendency
is given by the continuous line, are shown in Fig. 6. The
6 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
 1.0
calculated values obtained with the simulation were plotted over

Dimensionless pressure
Test 1
EGASHIRA’s et al (1996) figure. Points under the experimental 0.8 Mesured
curve are the values obtained using equations for smooth

difference [ - ]
Egashira
turbulent flow with local losses. Above the experimental curve 0.6 Model
are values calculated with equations for rough turbulent flow, 0.4
with a roughness 4,0x10-6 (m) and without local losses. Inside
the investigated region, the values obtained with equations of 0.2

WINCEK (1992) are closer to the measured data. However, with

0.0
the values obtained for the Reynolds number inside of the 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
clearances (4,000 to 11,500), the assumption of rough turbulent Dimensionless length [ - ]
flow does not fit diagrams for friction factor. (a)
[m 50
1.0
3/Hr

Dimensionless pressure
1200 rpm Test 5
Backflow [m3/h]

] 40 1500 rpm 0.8 Measured

difference [ - ]
Re 1780 rpm Model
flu 30 0.6

xo
0.4
de 20

Va 0.2
10
zã
0.0
o 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
0 490.3 980.7 1471.0 1961.3 2451.7 2942.0 3432.3
Dimensionless length [ - ]
Pressure
Diferença difference[kPa]
dePressão [kPa] (b)

Figure 6: Comparison between calculated and experimental Figure 7: Pressure profile – comparison against
backflow results. experimental data: a) 1200 rpm; b) 1800 rpm.

Figure 7 shows the comparison between calculated and
measured pressure profiles for water-air mixtures (EGASHIRA
et al. (1996)). There is a good agreement, as shown in Fig. 7a
and 7b, although it is not possible to make a quantitative
comparison since experimental results were presented in graphic
format only. Dimensionless length and pressure difference used
in pictures are given respectively by:
i  p  pS
l dim ensionless  ; p dim ensionless   i
N BM  1  pD  pS
(4.1) and (4.2)
The comparison using several profiles for the pressure
shows that the flatter the profile the higher the deviation
between experimental and calculated data. Flat profiles indicate
higher amounts of gas and, also, less liquid accumulation in the
cavities since gas volume reduction occurs suddenly near
discharge region. These conditions reduce the possibility of
Figure 8 shows the influence of GVF and shaft speed
on the pressure profile calculated by the model. As shown in the
picture, lower GVF’s and higher shaft speeds contribute to
generate a flat parabolic pressure profile instead of the linear one
obtained when the pump operates with liquid only. Some other
simulations show that low suction pressure and pressure
difference and high viscosity flatten the pressure profile. This
behavior is in agreement with experiments and theory found in
the literature.



Table 4 shows values of backflow rate calculated by the
 model, with the assumption of clearances completely filled with
liquid, and those obtained experimentally by EGASHIRA et al.
(1996). Experimental values were calculated by subtracting real
volumetric flow from pump theoretical flow. As can be observed
in the table, despite the fact that the simulated values are
following the same tendency dictated by the experimental data,
there is still some difference between these values.
1.0
Dimensionless pressure

0.8 GVF 60%

clearances filled only with liquid so that this assumption does
GVF 90%
differencel [ - ]

not represent the reality anymore.

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Dimensionless length [ - ]

(a)

7 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

 accumulated liquid available, the assumption of completely
1.0 filled clearances approaches reality again.
Dimensionless pressure

The temperature follows approximately the same behavior

0.8 1200 rpm
of power, although larger errors are found when the GVF and
1800 rpm
difference[ -]

0.6
shaft speed increase. However, there is no simple cause-effect
relation for this deviation as in the case of power. Probably, the
0.4 isentropic efficiency of the compression has an important
influence on temperature besides the friction power.
0.2

0.0 2000 rpm, GVF 50%

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Dimensionless length [ - ]
300
(b)

Power (kW)
Figure 8: Influence of (a) GVF (n=1200 rpm) and (b) shaft 200 Modelo
Model

Potência
speed (GVF=60%) on pressure profile. Texaco
HATTON
100

Table 4: Backflow rate: Model x Experimental. 0

0 2000 4000 6000
Backflow rate (m3/h)
Test
Model Experimental  p (kPa)
Test 1 32.1 39.8
Test 2 27.2 38.0 (a)
Test 3 40.4 48.3
Test 4 35.4 44.7 3000 rpm, GVF 95%
Test 5 13.0 7.1
Test 6 6.4 0.9 500
Power (kW)

Test 7 16.8 3.5 400

Test 8 12.8 25.4 300 Modelo
Model
Potência

Texaco
200
HATTON
Figure 9 shows that with lower shaft speeds and GVF’s
(Figure 9a), the calculated power for the multiphase pump 100
agrees with HATTON (1993) measurements. Higher GVF’s and 0
higher shaft speeds (Fig. 9b), however, make the model 0 2000 4000 6000
overestimate the absorbed power. Again, this behavior is
explained by the little liquid accumulated in pump cavities when  p (kPa)
it operates under these conditions. In this case the gas, now
present in pump clearances, reduces average viscosity causing (b)
the real friction power to be less than the calculated one, which
was based on liquid viscosity. In Fig. 9b, when the differential Figure 9: Absorbed Power - comparison against
pressure values increase, the calculated and experimental experimental data: a) 2000 rpm, GVF=50%; b) 3000 rpm,
power becomes closer again. Table 5, with calculated errors, GVF=90%.
shows this behavior in details. The higher differential
pressures induce higher backflow rates and so there is an
increase in liquid accumulation inside chambers. With more
Table 5: Absorbed Power and Discharge Temperature - comparison against experimental data:
a) 2000 rpm, GVF=50%; b) 3000 rpm, GVF=90%.

Power (kW) TD (oC)

N GVF p
(rpm) (%) (kPa) HATTON HATTON
Model Error* (%) Model Error* (%)
(1993) (1993)
2000 50 215 45.4 44.6 1.8 24.8 24.3 2.1
2583 168.4 169.1 -0.4 27.5 28.1 -2.1
4664 274.7 276.9 -0.8 29.2 30.1 -3.2
3000 90 464 120.4 83.8 43.8 27.7 24.7 11.8
2063 243.1 215.4 12.9 33.5 33.5 0.0
4157 404.6 381.7 6.0 42.8 47.6 -10.2
8 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a model developed to simulate the
thermodynamic behavior of a twin-screw multiphase pump. The
model must be fed with data such as fluid composition, suction
conditions and discharge pressure. Pump geometric parameters
are also needed. With these data the model can calculate
discharge conditions, pressure profile along the screw, backflow
rate and shaft power.
The results of simulations compared against experimental
data shows model capability of predicting absorbed power
mainly in low GVF cases. Under some conditions such as high
GVF and shaft speeds, the comparisons clearly indicate that the
assumption of clearances completely filled with liquid is not
valid anymore. Focusing backflow calculations, and the
equations developed by WINCEK (1992) are a good basis once
he took into account clearance geometry. However, the
assumption of rough turbulent flow does not agree with friction
coefficient diagrams for the studied cases. Reynolds number
involved in backflow is not high enough. Equations developed
with EGASHIRA’s et al. (1996) assumption of smooth turbulent
flow with local losses are physically more adequate in the
studied cases. In the clearances, local losses have a great
influence in the backflow and must be studied with care since
there are factors (chamfers and roundness for instance) that
could alter them. The calculations for backflow and pressure
profile, under two-phase flow pumping, show qualitatively good
agreement with experimental data. In order to enhance the
robustness of the model, under all possible operational
conditions, it is found necessary to include a treatment to predict
gas infiltration in the clearances.
EGASHIRA, K. ; SHODA, S. ; TOCHIKAWA, T. and
FURUKAWA, A. (1996). “Backflow in Twin-Screw-Type Multiphase
Pump”. Production Operations and Engineering General Proceedings
of the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibiton, v Pi,
Denver, CO, USA, p. 221-230.
HATTON, G. (1993). “Performance Evaluation of the Neptunia and
L4H Pumps and Multiphase Meters”, JIP Report, TEXACO Inc., E&P
Technology Division, Houston.
HYPROTECH (1996), Hysys version 1.1 – Reference vol. 1 e 2.
Hyprotech Ltd., 1996.
KUJAWSKI, J.M. and CAETANO, E.F. (1999), “Demonstration of
a subsea multiphase flow pumping,” Proceedings of the 7th. European
Congress on Fluid Machinery for the Oil, Petrochemical and Related
Industries, The Hague, pp. 55-77 (April 1999).
MICHAELI, W. ; GREFENSTEIN, A. and BERGHAUS, U. (1995).
“Twin-Screw Extruders for Reactive Extrusion”. Polymer Engineering
and Science, v 35, n 19, p. 1485-1504 (October 1995).
NAKASHIMA, C.Y. (2000). Modelo de Comportamento
Termodinâmico de uma Bomba Multifásica do Tipo Duplo Parafuso.
São Paulo, 2000. M.Sc. Dissertation, Polytechnic School of the
University of São Paulo.
WINCEK, M. (1992). Contribuição para o Cálculo do
Comportamento de Transporte de Bombas de Fuso Helicoidal no
Transporte de Misturas Líqüido-Gás. Portuguese Translation. by
Adriana B. Costa. Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1992. Ph.D. Thesis, Friedrich-
Alexander University of Erlangen-Nürnberg.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank PETROBRAS for all the

information shared which helped the model development, as
well as the USP’s Chemical Engineering Department which
allowed the use of the Simulation Laboratory and the program
Hysys.Process v2.1, and Soteica do Brasil S.A. and Engo.
Marcos Pereda for supporting the Hysys.Process v2.1 usage.

REFERENCES
CAETANO, E.F. ; SILVA, R.M. ; da SILVA, R.G. ; CAMARGO,
R.M.T. and ROHLFING, G. (1997). “Cooperation on Multiphase Flow
Pumping”. Proceedings of the 1997 29th Annual Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC'97, v.3, Houston, TX, USA, p. 109-118.

CAMPBELL, G. A.; SWEENEY, P.A. ; DONTULA, N. and WANG,

C.H. (1996). “Frame indifference: Fluid flow in single screw pumps and
extruders”. International Polymer Processing, v11, n 3, p. 199-207
(September 1996).

COOPER, P. ; SCHIAVELLO, B. ; DE MAROLLES, C. ; DE

SALIS, J. ; PRANG, A. J. and BROUSSARD, D. H. (1996). “Tutorial
on Multiphase Gas-Liquid Pump,” Proceedings of the Thirteenth
International Pump Users Symposium, Texas A&M University, p.159-
173 (March 1996).

9 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

View publication stats