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

net/publication/358167735

Comparative study between SST, and k- viscous model used for the analysis
of fluid behavior in a jet pump oil system

Conference Paper · January 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 33

3 authors:

Zied Turki Naceur Selmi

University of Gabès University of Gabès
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mouldi Chrigui
Technische Universität Darmstadt
54 PUBLICATIONS   462 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Numerical simulation of combustion View project

Aerodynamic performance of Vertical Axis Wind Turbine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Naceur Selmi on 28 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Renewable & Sustainable Energies and Green Processes
17-19 December 2021 Jerba Tunisia

Comparative study between SST, and k- viscous model used for the analysis of
fluid behavior in a jet pump oil system

Zied Turki, Naceur Selmi, Mouldi Chrigui

Abstract

When the depth and deviation of producing wells rise and pressure depletion occurs, a jet pump is one kind of
artificial lift. Numerical analysis was used in this work to investigate the flow dynamics and determine the performance
of the jet pump. Averaged by Reynolds For simulations, Navier Stokes equations were solved and the SST, k-
turbulence viscous model was utilized.
Pumping water, light oil, or crud oil to produce oil as major fluids. The mixing tube's area and length to diameter
ratios were used as design criteria. For the downhole circumstances, the pump efficiency was deemed to be optimal.
The jet pump has no moving components and can handle corrosive and abrasive well fluids. It is also resistant to
various power or primary fluids. Deep wells, directional wells, crooked wells, subsea production wells, wells with
high viscosity fluid, high paraffin, high sand content, and especially wells with a reasonably high gas oil ratio are all
suited for the pump.
Depth study of fluid behavior in the jet pump is necessary to understand fluid behavior, as well as a comparative
study between the SST and k- viscous models, allow us to know which of the two models, is the most accurate, which
brings us to know later, which pumping fluid is optimal for the Jet Pump.

Keywords: CFD simulation, SST & k- turbulence viscous model, jet pump, hydraulic lift, well pumping, primary and secondary
fluid, single and multiphase phase flow.

1. Introduction
A jet pump is a hydraulic pumping machine that has no internal moving parts, extracts liquid (water or oil) from a surface
reservoir, pumps it via a reciprocating multiplex piston pump, and then injects the pressurized liquid (power fluid) down-hole
through a tubing string. The power fluid is guided into the nozzle of a jet pump or the hydraulic engine of a piston pump at
the bottom of the injection tubing string, both of which are set well below the generating fluid level. Surface injection pressures
usually range from 1500 to 5000 pounds per square inch. [1]
The nozzle and throat are the most important parts of a jet pump. The area ratio is the ratio of the nozzle to throat areas, and
it impacts the pump's performance characteristics. The performance and efficiency curves of pumps with the same area ratio
are the same. [2]
The power fluid is injected at a certain rate (Q1) to the downhole jet pump, where it reaches the nozzle at a total pressure of
PN. This high-pressure liquid is changed from a low-velocity, high-static-pressure flow to a high-velocity, low-static-pressure
flow at the nozzle (Ps). Well fluids can flow at the required production rate (Q1) into the well bore and pump because of the
low static pressure (Ps), as illustrated in Figs. 1. The amount of power fluid utilized is related to the nozzle's size. [3]

Figure 1: Flow Rates and Pressures Into and Out of a Jet Pump [4]

* Corresponding author e-mail: Ziedtruki.24@gmail.com

1
Renewable & Sustainable Energies and Green Processes
17-19 December 2021 Jerba Tunisia

A many problems and damages of Jet Pumps are frequently encountered at oil fields, where in most times are expensive.
To avoid this damages, we need to understand the fluid behaviour inside Jet Pump, to be able to understand the major causes
of these anomalies. So a comparative study between SST, and k- viscous model is essential to :
• To find the best numerical model;
• To know which is the best fluid to inject (oil or water);
• To choose the most efficient viscous model (validation).

2. Some problems examples due to fluid behaviour

At the workshop of MARETAP at EZZAOUIA field in Zarzis (oil company), Many issues and failures with the Jet pump
are observed in practice, especially damage at the Nozzle and Throat levels.
In the table below, we have some example photos of the issues that were encountered:

Table 1: Some problems examples

Photos

Explosion of a nozzle end

Problems Throat erosion Throat cavitation
(very siruse problème)

3. Realizable k- and SST k- viscous model

We start by making a brief reminder that exploits the strengths for the different models used in this work:
3.1. Standard and Realizable k- viscous model
3.1.1. For standard K-
It is a two-equation model that gives a general description of turbulence by means of two transport equations (PDEs) one
for turbulent kinetic energy (k) and the other for dissipation (epsilon). Turbulent dissipation is the rate at which fluctuations in
speed dissipate. The coefficients are derived empirically; Valid only for turbulent flows. In the standard k- model, the turbu-
lent viscosity is determined from a single turbulence length scale, so the calculated turbulent diffusion is that which only occurs
at the specified scale, when in reality all scales of motion will contribute to the turbulent diffusion. The k-e model uses the
gradient diffusion hypothesis to relate Reynolds stresses to mean velocity gradients and turbulent viscosity. This model proves
to be inefficient for currents involving an inverse pressure gradient, separation, strong curvature of the pipes.
The most troubling weakness is the lack of sensitivity to negative pressure gradients; Another disadvantage is the numerical
rigidity when the equations are integrated through the viscous underlayer which are treated with damping functions which
have stability problems. [5]
3.1.2. For realizable k-
The realizable K- model differs in two important ways from the standard k- model: the first one, the realizable model
contains an alternative formulation for the turbulent viscosity, the second, a modified transport equation for the dissipation
rate  , has been derived from an exact equation for the transport of the mean-square vorticity fluctuation. [6]
The "realizable" term means that the model satisfies certain mathematical constraints on the Reynolds stresses, consistent
with the physics of turbulent flows.
3.1.3. Transport equations for realizable k- model
The modeled transport equations for k and  in the realizable k- model are [6]:

𝜕 𝜕 𝜕 𝜇𝑡 𝜕𝑘
(𝜌𝑘) + (𝜌𝑘𝑢𝑗 ) = [(𝜇 + ) ] + 𝐺𝑘 + 𝐺𝑏 − 𝜌𝜀 − 𝑌𝑀 + 𝑆𝑘 (1)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜎𝑘 𝜕𝑥𝑗

And

𝜕 𝜕 𝜕 𝜇 𝜕𝜀 𝜀2 𝜀
(𝜌𝜀) + (𝜌𝜀𝑢𝑗 ) = [(𝜇 + 𝑡 ) ] + 𝜌𝐶1 𝑆𝜀 − 𝜌𝐶2 + 𝐶1𝜀 𝐶3𝜀 𝐺𝑏 + 𝑆𝜀 (2)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜎𝜀 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝑘+√𝑣𝜀 𝑘

2
Renewable & Sustainable Energies and Green Processes
17-19 December 2021 Jerba Tunisia

Where

 𝑘
𝐶1 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 [0.43 ] ,  = 𝑆 , 𝑆 = √2𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑖𝑗
+5 𝜀
3.2. SST k- viscous model
The k-w SST (Shear Stress Transport) model is based on the k-ω model. It combines the original Wilcox k-w model which
is effective near walls and the standard k-ε model away from walls using a blending function. The turbulent viscosity formu-
lation is modified to account for the transport effects of the main turbulent shear stress [7]. It also limits turbulent viscosity.
The transition and shear options are borrowed from the k-ω model.
This model offers similar advantages to the k-ω standard. The SST model represents the transport of turbulent shear stress
and gives very accurate predictions of the occurrence and amount of flow separation under negative pressure gradients. SST
is recommended for high precision boundary layer simulations.
The dependence on the distance between the walls makes this method less suitable for free shear flows compared to the k-
w norm. It requires mesh resolution near the wall.

3.2.1. Transport equations for SST model

The transport equation for the intermittency  is defined as [6]:
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕 𝜇𝑡 𝜕𝛾
(𝜌𝛾) + (𝜌𝛾𝑢𝑗 ) = [(𝜇 + ) ] + 𝑃𝛾1 − 𝐸𝛾1 + 𝑃𝛾2 − 𝐸𝛾2 (3)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜎𝛾 𝜕𝑥𝑗

The transition sources are defined as follows:

𝑃𝛾1 = 𝐶𝛼1 𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝜌𝑆[𝛾𝐹𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑡 ]𝐶𝛾3
𝐸𝛾1 = 𝐶𝑒1 𝑃𝛾1 𝛾
The destruction/re-laminarization sources are defined as follows:
𝑃𝛾2 = 𝐶𝛼2 𝜌𝛾𝐹𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏
𝑬𝜸𝟐 = 𝑪𝒆𝟐 𝑷𝜸𝟐 𝜸
4. The geometry and boundary conditions of Jet Pump
We will use the jet pump model 2.5 D-short with 21.5 pitch length TRICO industries inc. provided by Weatherford/ALS
TUNISIA with part number 00747054. The experimental data base of Weatherford is used for the validation of the numerical
CFD results, as illustrated in Figs. 2.
SOLIDWORKS software tools is used to sketch the various sections of the jet pump one by one, then integrated them into
an assembly drawing, which then transferred to the SpaceClaim, an Ansys tool, to extract the volumetric fluid model on which
we would work in the rest of the CFD analysis.

Mandrel 409-444 Spacer 409-445 Housing L420-343 Nozzle Throat Diffuser 420-328

Fluid volume

Figure 2: geometry of Jet pump from SpaceClaim

The boundary conditions are extracted from the experience data base of Weatherford intervention well at EZZAOUIA field:
(Run ID: 081652-04), Oilmaster 7X Jet Pump Performance Summary for User Specified Production rate of 144 STB/d, pump
vertical depth 6853,7 ft (2089 m), Casing/Liner: 7", Completion Fluid: Fresh Water, Final Completion to be Landed with 7
Tons Tension.

5. CFD result analysis

In this work, we used a RANS approach to calculate a turbulent flow. The first step is to change the boundary conditions
each time, and the fluid type to be injected and produced (in 1st water injection, 2nd oil injection…), after which, we compare
the results of k- and SST viscous models. The second step is to choose the most efficient viscous model, for at the end we
can make a conclusion.

3
Renewable & Sustainable Energies and Green Processes
17-19 December 2021 Jerba Tunisia

5.1. Pressure comparative study

• For water injection

Figure 3: Pressure WWKE & WWSST chart Figure 4: Pressure WWSST & WWKE contours

• For oil injection

Figure 5: Pressure OOKE & OOSST chart Figure 6: Pressure OOSST & OOKE contours

We notice that the pressure energy injected at the outlet of the Nozzle (location x = 0,07) is transformed into kinetic energy,
to create at the inlet of the throat a negative pressure (location x = 0,12) (fig.3 and 5). When we inject water, we notice that
there is not a big difference between WWKE and WWSST at the inlet of throat (fig.4). But when oil is injected, we can clearly
see a large difference in negative pressure at the inlet of Throat (-3705 psi for OOSST and -798 psi for OOKE) (fig.5 and 6).

5.2. Velocity comparative study

• For water injection

Figure 7: Velocity WWKE & WWSST chart Figure 8: Velocity WWSST & WWKE contours

• For oil injection

Figure 9: Velocity OOKE & OOSST chart Figure 10: Velocity OOSST & OOKE contours

4
Renewable & Sustainable Energies and Green Processes
17-19 December 2021 Jerba Tunisia

As a first interpretation, we have not a big difference between WWKE and WWSST velocity (fig. 7 and 8), but we have a
important difference when oil is injected (fig. 9 and 10).
We notice that the influence of the viscosity of the fluid is very important between WW&OO model, and it’s the viscosity
which makes the big difference between the injection of water or the injection of oil.

5.3. Turbulence kinetic energy (k) comparative study

• For water injection

Figure 11: Turbulence kinetic energy (K) Figure 12: Turbulence kinetic energy (K)
WWKE & WWSST chart WWSST & WWKE contours

• For oil injection

Figure 13: Turbulence kinetic energy (K) Figure 14: Turbulence kinetic energy (K)
OOKE & OOSST chart OOSST & OOKE contours

The turbulence kinetic energy (k) charts and contours in fig. 13 and 14, show us that the viscous model of k- in the oil
injection phase clearly illustrates the zone of cavitation and erosion damage (1: cavitation zone, 2: erosion zone (fig. 14)) at
the inlet of the throat already seen in table 1.

5.4. Flux reports and numerical errors

WWKE WWSST Note that the net mass flow rate of mixture outlet (Net
ejector_outlet 6,025 ejector_outlet 5,732 [kg/s]) is a small fraction of the inlet and outlet flow rates
primary_inlet 1,930 primary_inlet 1,927
secondary_inlet 4,094 secondary_inlet 3,805
(<0,1%), indicating that mass is conserved.
Net [Kg/s] 0,001 Net [Kg/s] 0,000 The error is calculated by the following formulas:
𝑚 𝑚
= = 2,121 = = 1,975
𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑝
𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑗 + 𝑄𝑝𝑟𝑜 Production Rate
=
𝑚 𝑢𝑡
= 1,000 =
𝑚 𝑢𝑡
= 1,000 𝑒𝑥𝑝 = = 1+ = 1,072
𝑚𝑖 𝑚𝑖 𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑗 Injection Rate
ErrorWWKE 49,46% ErrorWWSST 45,71%
𝑒𝑥𝑝 − 𝑡ℎ
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | |
OIL KE OIL SST
𝑡ℎ
ejector_outlet 3,200 ejector_outlet 4,269
primary_inlet 1,601 primary_inlet 1,630
secondary_inlet 1,597 secondary_inlet 2,638
Net [Kg/s] 0,002 Net [Kg/s] 0,000 ErrorWWKE  ErrorWWSST
𝑚 𝑚 But
= = 0,997 = = 1,619
𝑚𝑝 𝑚𝑝
𝑚 𝑢𝑡 𝑚 𝑢𝑡
ErrorOOKE << ErrorOOSST
= = 1,001 = = 1,000
𝑚𝑖 𝑚𝑖
ErrorOOKE 7,47% ErrorOOSST 33,77%

5
 Renewable & Sustainable Energies and Green Processes
17-19 December 2021 Jerba Tunisia

6. Conclusions
This work presents a numerical design method for analysis of Jet Pump performance system in oil field, in a foreground a
comparative study between SST, and k- viscous model is very important to understand the behavior of fluid in a jet pump oil
system and which model can describe better the behavior of the fluid.
Two analysis are used: the first is a comparative study between injection water or oil, for Primary and Secondary inlet
injection. The goal of this work is to find the best fluid to inject for a better efficiency.
The second is a comparative study between SST and k- viscose model, we compare their velocity, pressure and turbulence
kinetic energy to collect more information in the behavior of fluid inside Jet pump, as well as the zone of cavitaion ans erosion
damage.
At the end of this work, we can notice, that the injection of oil is more efficient than the injection of water and the k-
viscous model is more precise than the SST viscous model and gives better results (𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑂𝑂𝐾𝐸 = 7,47%, 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑂𝑂𝑆𝑆𝑇 =
33,77%).

Nomenclature
Q1 The fluid inlet injected from surface (Primary inlet)
Q2 The fluid inlet at the level of downhole well (Secondary inlet)
Q3 The fluid outlet through the Throat (Ejector outlet)
Ps Low-static-pressure flow at the nozzle
PN Total pressure injected from triplex pump
𝐺𝑘 Represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients
Is the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to buoyancy, calculated as described in Effects
𝐺𝑏
of Buoyancy on Turbulence in the k-ε Models.
Represents the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible turbulence to the overall
𝑌𝑀 dissipation rate, calculated as described in Effects of Compressibility on Turbulence in the k-
ε Models
𝐶2 and 𝐶1𝜀 Are constants
𝜎𝑘 and 𝜎𝜀 Are the turbulent Prandtl numbers for k and 
𝑆𝑘 and 𝑆𝜀 Are user-defined source terms
S Is the strain rate magnitude
𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ Is an empirical correlation that controls the length of the transition region
𝐶𝛼1 and 𝐶𝑒1 Hold the values of 2 and 1, respectively
 Is the vorticity magnitude
STB/d Stock tank barrels per day (1 STB= 1 barrel = 159 L = 0.159 m3)
WWKE/WWSST Injection water, production water with k-epsilone or SST viscose model
OOKE/OOSST Injection oil, production oil with k-epsilone or SST viscose model

References

[1] Chapter 9 of Gas Well Deliquification Book • Second Edition • 2008, Authors: James F. Lea, Henry V. Nickens and
Mike R. Wells.
[2] Mohan S, Samad A. Jet pump design optimization by multi-surrogate modeling. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser, 2014
[3] David A. Simpson P.E., in Practical Onshore Gas Field Engineering, 2017, Journals & Books, ScienceDirect.
[4] Oil and gas production handbook: Edition 3.0 Oslo, August 2013, Harvard Devold, ©2006 - 2013 ABB Oil and Gas
[5] B. E. Launder and D. B. Spalding. Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence. Academic Press, London, Eng-
land. 1972.
[6] ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide, Release 2021 R1, January 2021, registered ISO 9001: 2015.
[7] F. R. Menter, “Zonal Two Equation k-w Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic Flows,” AIAA Paper # 93-2906, 24th
Fluid Dynamics Conference, July 1993; F. R. Menter, “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for En-
gineering Applications,” AIAA Journal, vol. 32, no. 8, pages 1598-1605, 1994
6

View publication stats