1

Sucker Rod: Operational Parameters

Calculations

A Dissertation Submitted to the

Faculty of Engineering, The British

University in Egypt, in partial

fulfillment of the requirements of the

Bachelor Degree in Petroleum

Engineering and Gas Technology

Under the Supervision of:

Dr. Sayed Gomma

Feb 2020.

1|Page
2

Made By.

Tarek Wasfy 145864

Abdallah Zaghluol 145563

Yasmin khaled 145255

Ahmed Atef 149813

Mohab Ehab 145975

Abdellah Ashraf 125832

2|Page
3

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Introduction. .............................................................................................................................................. 12

1.2 Problem Statement.............................................................................................................................. 14

1.2 Research Aim. ..................................................................................................................................... 14

1.3 Research Questions. ............................................................................................................................ 15

Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 16

Literature Review. .................................................................................................................................... 16

2.1. API Pumps ......................................................................................................................................... 16

2.1.1. API Classification............................................................................................................................ 16

2.1.2. Characteristic of the API pump..................................................................................................... 17

2.1.2.1. Tubing Pumps .............................................................................................................................. 17

2.1.3. Stationary barrel of top anchor rod pump. .................................................................................. 19

2.1.4. The advantages of these pumps shall include. .............................................................................. 20

2.1.5. Drawbacks of those pump types .................................................................................................... 20

2.1.5. Stationary barrel bottom anchor rod pumps. .............................................................................. 21

2.1.5.1. The key benefits of those pumps are set out below ................................................................... 22

2.1.5.2. Drawbacks are follows: ............................................................................................................... 22

2.1.7. Traveling-barrel rod pumps . ........................................................................................................ 23

2.1.4.1. Drawbacks of traveling-barrel pumps . ..................................................................................... 24

2.1.6.2. Specification for Pump Assemblies. ........................................................................................... 25

3|Page
4

2.2. Structural Parts. ................................................................................................................................. 27

2.2.1 Barrels . ............................................................................................................................................. 27

2.2.2 Plungers. ........................................................................................................................................... 29

2.2.3. Pump valves . ................................................................................................................................... 30

2.2.4 GEAR REDUCERS. ........................................................................................................................ 30

2.2.5 .V-BELT DRIVES............................................................................................................................ 33

2.2.6 Valve cages........................................................................................................................................ 35

2.2.7 Hold down (pump anchors)............................................................................................................. 36

2.3. Energy Consumer. ............................................................................................................................. 37

2.3.1. Energy Loss rates and effect. ......................................................................................................... 37

2.3.2. Energy Losses. ................................................................................................................................. 38

2.3.2.1. Surface Losses. ............................................................................................................................. 38

2.3.3. Power Efficiency of the pumping system. ..................................................................................... 39

2.3.3.1 Lifting Efficiency. .......................................................................................................................... 39

2.3.3. 2. Surface Mechanical Efficiency. .................................................................................................. 40

2.3.3. 3. Motor Efficiency.......................................................................................................................... 41

2.3.3. 4. System Efficiency. ....................................................................................................................... 41

2.4 Measuring Efficiency of the Sucker Rod Pump. .............................................................................. 42

2.4.1 Introduction. ..................................................................................................................................... 42

2.4.2. The Device that used for measuring the Efficiency...................................................................... 43

2.4.2.1. Background on the dynamometer. ............................................................................................. 43

4|Page
5

2.4.2.1 Steps for Measuring the Pump Efficiency in Field. ................................................................... 44

Steps for using dynamometer in the field. ...................................................................................... 44

2.4.3. Interoperating the Card shaped. ................................................................................................... 47

2.4.3.1. surface and Pump cards. ............................................................................................................. 47

2.4.3.2. Gas interface. ................................................................................................................................ 48

2.4.3.3. Fluid pound interpretation. ......................................................................................................... 49

2.4.3.4. tagging interpretation. ................................................................................................................. 50

2.5. Rod String Alternatives. .................................................................................................................... 51

2.5.1. Qualifications and Assumptions. ................................................................................................... 52

2.5.1.1. Process of the Manufacturing for Third Generation Rods. ..................................................... 52

2.5.1.2. Application.................................................................................................................................... 53

2.5.1.3. Design Calculations. ..................................................................................................................... 54

2.6 Matching the pump Rate to Well Flow. ............................................................................................ 54

2.6.1. Continuous Pumping. ..................................................................................................................... 56

2.6.2. Systems analysis. ............................................................................................................................. 56

2.6.3. System performance curves. ............................................................................................................ 57

Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................................... 64

3.1 Objectives..................................................................................................................................... 64

3.2 Methodology. ............................................................................................................................... 64

3.2.1 Software Work Model. ............................................................................................................ 64

Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 65

5|Page
6

Software Work .......................................................................................................................................... 65

4.1. Discussion and Results. ...................................................................................................................... 65

4.1.1. Pumping Modes Operational Parameters Calculations. ............................................................. 65

4.1.1.1. Case Study Description (In terms of Fc factor). ........................................................................ 65

4.1.2.1. Case Study Description (without Fc factor)............................................................................... 71

4.1.2.2. PRODUCTION RATE CALCULATIONS. .............................................................................. 74

4.1.2.2. 1. Pump Displacement. ................................................................................................................ 74

4.1.2.2. 2. Pump Leakage Losses. ............................................................................................................. 74

Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................................................... 89

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 89

Chapter (8)................................................................................................................................................. 90

References .................................................................................................................................................. 90

Chapter (9)..................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Bibliography .................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Chapter (9)................................................................................................................................................. 93

Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 93

6|Page
7

 List of Figure.
 Figure 1. Cross-section of an API TH tubing pump (Takacs, 2015)

 Figure 5. the heavy wall barrels (Takacs, 2015)

 Figure 6. the thin barrels have box end (Takacs, 2015)

 Figure 7. the description of V-shaped belt (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991).

 Figure 8 . V-BELT DRIVES (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991).

 Figure 9.valve cages (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991)

 Figure 10. Hold down (pump anchors) (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991)

 Figure 11. Schematic Drawing of Power flow in a sucker rod pumping (Kilgore

&Tripp & Hunt,1991)

 figure 12 . dynamometer device used for giving a card diagram that provide the mean

data for measuring the sucker rod efficiency (Takacs, 2015).

 Figure 13. fixing dynamometer device while sucker rod working (Takacs, 2015).

 Figure 2. the putting the wire that connecting to the registration card (Takacs, 2015).

 Figure 14. Adjusting the dynamometer into the middle(Takacs, 2015).

 Figure 15. starting calculation in the registration unit (Takacs, 2015).

 Figure 16. displaying the calculation or surface card (Takacs, 2015).

 Figure 17. show the card and surface cards (Washington, 2008).

 Fig 18. helping in explanation of the complete cycle of the pump card (Washington,

2008).

 Figure 19. the gas interface description (Washington, 2008).

 Figure 20. Fluid pound interpretation (Washington, 2008).

7|Page
8

 Figure 21. tagging problem and pump card drawing (Washington, 2008).

 Figure 22. The production system of a rod pumping well (Kilgore &Tripp &

Hunt,1991)

 Figure 23. Flowchart of calculating system performance curves for rod pumping. (

American Petroleum Institute,2008)

 Figure 24. System performance curve sheet for a pumping system with a 1.25 in

plunger, API 76 rod string, and Grade D rods. ( American Petroleum Institute,2008)

 Figure 25. System performance curve sheet for a pumping system with a 1.25 in

plunger, API 86 rod string, and Grade D rods. ( American Petroleum Institute,2008)

 Figure 26. System performance curve sheet for a pumping system with a C 228D-

213-100 unit, a 1.25 in plunger, API 76 rod string, and Grade D rods (Washington,

2008)

 Figure 27. System performance curve sheet for a pumping system with a C 228D-

213-100 unit, a 1.25 in plunger, API 86 rod string, and Grade D rods. (Washington,

2008)

 Figure 28. System performance curve sheet for a pumping system with a C 228D-213-

100 unit, a 2 in plunger, API 76 rod string, and Grade D rods. (Washington, 2008)

 Fig 29. showing the Inputs required from the well and surface SRP components to

run the program.

 Fig 30. showing the Rod String Different Sized Sections, the ability to register Fc

factor from the API RP 11L.

 Fig 31. showing the Independent and Dimension Less variables.

8|Page
9

 Fig 32. showing the taken parameters from the API RP 11L

 Fig 33. showing the results of the Operational Parameters of the Conventional RP

 Fig 34. showing the Results of the Lufkin Industrial Parameters

 Fig 35. showing the evaluated results of the programmed software.

 Fig 36. showing the inputs taken from the previous application and the amount of

displaced fluid

 Fig 37. showing the real case data for the sucker rod book, and the amount of pump

slippages at different correlations and by using different plunger fits (the rest

parameters are constant).

 Fig 38. showing the Input features for calculating the pressure leakage losses.

 Fig 39. Showing the Slippage through OIL WELL DIVISION of US STEEL

 Fig 40. Showing the Slippage through ARCO_HF

 Fig 41. Showing the Slippage through Patterson model

 Fig 42 . Showing the Slippage through Patterson model

 Fig 43. Showing the Calculated Volumetric Efficiency with regarded leakage loss

rates.

 Fig 44. Showing the Calculated Volumetric Efficiency with regarded leakage loss

rates.

 Fig 45. showing the optional modes presented by the application to solve the

algorithm of volumetric efficiency

 Fig 46. showing the inputs and calculated volumetric efficiencies in case of full gas

pumped.

9|Page
10

 Fig 47. showing the volumetric efficiency in case of partial gas pumping after using

the gas separator

 Fig 48. showing the conventional calculations of the pump intake pressures and the

hydraulic pressures

 Fig 49. showing the proper calculations of the pump intake pressures and the

hydraulic pressures

 Fig 50. showing the inputs required to calculate the pump intake pressures and

hydraulic pressures.

 Figure 51. showing the inputs of polished rod power, the electrical power and the

mechanical power

 Fig 52. showing the chart of Gipson and Swaim to calculate the motor efficiency in

terms of the PRHP and Reducing torque rating.

 Fig 53. Showing the Availability of the application to calculate the motor efficiency

with different means.

 Figure 54. Fluid pound report case study ( American Petroleum Institute,2008).

 Figure 55. Gas interface report case study ( American Petroleum Institute,2008).

 Figure 56. Tagging problem report case study ( American Petroleum Institute,2008).

10 | P a g e
11

 List of Tables.

 Table 1. show the tubing size with it’s code (Abdelaziz, 2015).

 Table 2. show the tubing size with it’s code (Abdelaziz, 2015).

 Table 4. Showing the Case Well Data According to the API RP 11 L

 Table 5. Showing the opportunity of usage of certain diameter, besides its percent

from the total setting depth

 Table 6. Showing the taken data to calculate the pumping mode.

 Table 7 showing the real calculated parameters from the excel sheet

 Table 8 showing the example data of Sucker Rod Book, (Takacs, 2015)

 Table 9. Showing the production data (Takacs, 2015)

 Table 10. showing the difference cases of pumped gas, for used gas separator.

11 | P a g e
12

Chapter 1

Introduction.

Akchay L and et.al . In this research the authors seek to make a comparison between two type of

artificial lifting methods used in wells which both had the same production rate. The comparison

was done on the economic bases which net present value analysis method (NPV) was used. The

types of artificial lifting method in the comparison were Electric submerged pump (ESP) and rod

pump. in the beginning the author stated that it is preferred to select pumps which have the higher

run life expectancy so it will have a higher operational window than the other one. (Lea & Rowlan

& McCoy,1999) The comparison started with comparing rate of production between two types of

pumps unconventional Rod pump and the conventional beam pump, the comparison yielded that

the unconventional rod pump gave better results than the other type. Secondly, operating the ESP

pump at the same rate as the one attained by unconventional Rod pump using a simulation. At the

end, an economical comparison was made between ESP and unconventional Rod pump which

yielded a noticeable variation in results under the same operating conditions from setting depth

and production rate. The economic comparison focused mainly on the operating costs (OPEX) and

the net present value of these results. The authors argued that the simulation should have done

under the consideration when the pump is submerged it could be under pump-off condition instead

of making the simulation under specific submergence condition. The authors concluded that for

the long Rod pump comparison with the conventional type unit ,if the target was required for a

depth of 10,000 ft the SRP pump shall produce more than 100% of the required , but the same

could not be said if the target is at a depth less than 3000 ft as its rate only increases by 15% more

12 | P a g e
13

than the conventional type unit. For the second comparison between SRP and ESP for the same

rate wells and taking into consideration the profile of production , pros and cons and desired rate,

it was found that implementation costs for SRP is lower than ESP which made SR better choice

than ESP. Moreover, ESP have a shorter lifetime and requires complicated equipment to be

implemented. (Takacs, 2015).

13 | P a g e
14

1.2 Problem Statement.

The operational calculations for the sucker rods faces many problems related to the material of

used rod, the availability of the API RP 11L data (time consuming), and the collection of the

whole algorithms to be in one flow. Besides the different units used for different equations for the

same parameter. The positive and negative decisions for the least reductions could be held to

predict the installations of the SRP.

1.2 Research Aim.

The aim of this research is to perform an application for the engineers and users that collects the

whole operational calculations in one flow algorithm. Besides, decreasing the amount of

requirements, avoiding as hard as possible the usage of charts and external manual sources and

providing the same parameter with different availabilities and correlations. All of these

calculations should be evaluated with the least inherit errors, and with the simplest form of

exposure.

14 | P a g e
15

1.3 Research Questions.

1. What are the factors affecting operational parameters calculations of the sucker rod pump?

2. What is the extent of such out puts to be recalculated for other calculations related to the

surface or downhole components of the sucker rod pump?

3. How can any user evaluate the credibility of out puts especially if the same reservoir had

experienced?

4. What are the limits of the program and the user’s qualifications should be provided to

estimate his answers?

5. What are the different alternatives for the same parameter?

6. What is the influence of different fluid properties on the pump mode calculations?

7. How far is the success of the computational calculations to the simulation of the digitized

data taken from the surface dynamometers?

8. Is the gas separators with different anchors are recommended for all cases, and what are

the influencing parameters?

15 | P a g e
16

Chapter 2

Literature Review.

2.1. API Pumps

2.1.1. API Classification

Many sucker rod pumps utilized in the world’s petroleum industry comply with standards of the

American Petroleum Institute (API). The API Spec 11AX standardized pumps have also been

classified and labelled by the API letter. The classification is a two-letter code for tube pumps and

a three-letter code for rod pumps. The definition of these letter codes is as follows. (Lea &

Minissale,1992)

The first letter refers to the specific type of pump used:

 T for tubing pump

 R for rod pump

Metallic Plungers Usage

Smooth-Packed Usage
H Heavy wall Plungers
W Thin wall P Heavy wall
X Heavy wall, inside S Thin wall
threaded

16 | P a g e
17

The second letter refers for the type of the barrel, and whether it’s a heavy or thin-walled barrel;

the tubing pumps come in a heavy walled barrel only. Another code letter are being used pumps

with metallic plungers and pumps with smooth-packed plungers. (Lea & Minissale,1992)

The third letter is only used for rod pumps and indicates the location of the seat assembly.

Assembling or holding down is usually at bottom of the moving barrel pump; another rod pumps

may be placed at the top or bottom as seen below.

 A for top hold down (top anchor)

 B for bottom hold down (bottom anchor)

 T for the barrel of travel, bottom hold down

For instance, the TP pump stands for a heavy-wall tubing pump and a smooth-packed plunger; the

RWB pump is a rod pump is a rod pump with a thin-wall stationary barrel, a metallic plunger and

a bottom anchor. (Lea & Minissale,1992)

2.1.2. Characteristic of the API pump

The key features of the API pumps are listed below, together with a set of relative advantages and

drawbacks.

2.1.2.1. Tubing Pumps.

Tubing pumps are just the oldest part of sucker-rod pumps, with such a simple and robust

construction, yet always come with just a heavy wall barrel. Their inveterate advantage over most

pumps types is significantly larger pumping capacity because of the huge size of the barrel. The

schematic diagram of the tubing pump in the upright position is shown in fig. ( ). The figure

17 | P a g e
18

represents a metallic plunger pump, identified by the API TH code; a same pump with a soft-

packed plunger is marked TP. (Lea & Rowlan & McCoy,1999)

Figure 1. Cross-section of an API TH tubing pump (Takacs, 2015)

 The relative benefits of tubing pump will be as follows: (Kilgore &Tripp &

Hunt,1991)

1. They have the maximum pump size in a specified tubing dimension, with the internal

diameter of the barrel (ID) typically just ¼ in less than the tubing ID. These wide barrels

enable the processing of more fluid than any other form of pump.

2. The tubing pump have the best pump construction possible. The barrel is an essential part

of the tubing and can also handle heavy loads. The rod string is attached directly to the

18 | P a g e
19

plunger with no need for a valve rod, making the contact more secure than that in the rod

pumps.

3. The tubing pump is typically less costly than that of the rod pumps because it has less

components.

4. The larger size of the valve results in pressure losses in pump; the development of the

viscous fluid is also conceivable.

The key drawbacks of the tubing pumps are described below: (Lea & Rowlan & McCoy,1999)

1. Workover processes typically involve the tubing to be taken out. High cost of pump

maintenance is the biggest disadvantages in use of tubing pumps.

2. The tubing pumps work badly in the gas fields. The comparatively wide dead area, the area

between the stand valve and the travel valve at the bottom of the stroke, induces poor valve

operation and low pump performance.

3. Lifting depth could be restricted by the heavy fluid loads involved with the heavy plunger

areas and use of extra strength sucker rods may be required. Excessive loss of plunger

stroke because of huge quantities of rod and tubing stretch is expected at higher depths.

2.1.3. Stationary barrel of top anchor rod pump.

Figure () demonstrates the cross-section of the RHA pump while the upstroke. Its large wall

working barrel is kept in spot at top of pump assembly, preferred seating configuration for much

of the pumping facilities. The RHA pump plunger is made of metal. Some pumps throughout this

type are RWA, with a thin-walled barrel and a metallic plunger, and RSA, with a thin-walled barrel

and soft-packed plunger.

19 | P a g e
20

2.1.4. The advantages of these pumps shall include.

1. Top hold-down is required in sandy wells when sand particles will

not accumulate on over seating nipple because of continuous

washing acts of the pumped fluids.

2. As a result, the pump assembly generally will not get stuck and

could be swiftly removed if it has to be servicing.

3. While pumping gaseous fluids from wells at low fluid levels. This

pump works better due to standing valve is immersed deeply for

well fluids than that in the scenario of bottom hold-won pumps.

4. When free gas is available, the gas anchor may be directly attached

to the pump barrel.

5. If a long barrel tallness is needed, the top hold-down provides better

help for the pump assembly than that of the bottom hold-down.

Barrel motion could also be reduced by limited rubbing effect of

the barrel versus the tubing. (Norton,1960) Figure 2. Cross-section of an API RHA rod
(Lea & Rowlan & McCoy,1999)
(Takacs, 2015)
2.1.5. Drawbacks of those pump types
pump
1. According to the upper anchor place, the outside of barrel is under suction pressure,

although the inside is under large hydrostatic pressure of the liquid level in the tubing. A

wide pressure differential through the wall will distort or even outbreak the barrel,

particularly if it is of a thin-wall sort, restricting the use of RWA pumps to approximately

5,000 ft.

20 | P a g e
21

2. On the downstroke, the barrel will be under heavy tensile force caused by the weight of

liquid level helped by the stand valve. Therefore, the mechanical strength of the barrel

restricts the depth for which other pumps can be utilized.

3. The valve rod could be worn by rubbing against to its guidance which can be a vulnerable

link in the rod line.

4. Comparison ta travel-barrel pump, its pump has had more components and a high initial

cost. (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991)

2.1.5. Stationary barrel bottom anchor rod pumps.

The cross section od RHB pump is shown in Fig. (). Usually, it should be the

first pump to be considered for deep well operation. The operating barrel is

attached to the tube at bottom of pump assembly, which also has considerable

prose in the deep wells. RHB pump with metallic plungers and heavy-walled

barrels, RSB pumps have such a thin-walled barrel with soft-packed plunger.

The thin-walled RWB pump is most common form of all sucker rod pumps.

The newly launched RXB pumps are identical to RWB pumps but also have

internally threaded heavy-wall barrels with wider outer diameters which do

not move through the seat nipple; this will be the reason why they only come

in bottom anchor models. (Takacs, 2015)

Figure 3. Cross-section of an API

RHB rod pump (Kilgore &Tripp &
Hunt,1991)

21 | P a g e
22

2.1.5.1. The key benefits of those pumps are set out below.

1. The exterior of barrel is still under the hydrostatic pressure of the liquid column in tubing.

Thereby, the pressure differential around the barrel wall is also much less than the top

anchor type pump, providing the barrel less vulnerable to mechanical harm.

2. Using this pump is preferred in wells at low fluid levels so it can be operated very near

bottom, the lowest point of pumping assembly is the seat nipple.

3. The stand valve is typically wider than the travel valve and this function guarantees a

smoother of the pump. The foaming condition of well fluids is also minimized.

4. In deviated wells, the barrel will rotate above the seat nipple that decreases wear. (Kilgore

&Tripp & Hunt,1991).

2.1.5.2. Drawbacks are follows:

1. During NPT or sporadic operating condition, sand and other solids objects may be

deposited on the top of the plunger, and can be trapped in the barrel until the pump is

starting again.

2. The annulus between the tubing and barrel may be flooded up with sand or other solids,

avoiding the pump from pulling.

3. The valve rod could be a weak spot relative to the rod string.

4. The cost of pumping is greater than that of travelling-barrel pumps because of more

components. (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991)

22 | P a g e
23

2.1.7. Traveling-barrel rod pumps .

The process of any piston pump is related to the relative motions between the piston and the

cylinder. As a consequence, the same pumping operation is done in the rod pump while the plunger

is stable and the barrel shifts. The travel-barrel rod pumps work on this concept and keep the

plunger in position as the barrel is pushed by the rod string. The location of anchor or hold-down

is often at the base of pump assembly (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991)

Travelling-barrel rod pumps are flexible which can be utilized in sandy, normal, and corrosive

wells. Fig. (), provides a cross section of the RHT pump. The plunger is fixed to the bottom hold-

down by means of a small hollow pull tube, in which the well fluids reach the pump. The standing

valve, which is located at the upper of the plunger, is narrower than that of the travelling valve.

Travelling-barrel pumps are commonly utilized while sand output making a problem; their key

advantages as et out below.

23 | P a g e
24

1. The travelling-barrel holds fluid in movement throughout the hold-

down, avoiding sand or any other of solids from seating between both

the seat nipple and the hold-down. As a consequence, removing the

pump assembly is normally trouble-free.

2. This pump is intended for sporadic pumping of sand wells, as sand

could not be put between the plunger and the barrel while shutdowns.

3. The relation between both the rod string and the travel barrel is better

than that between the valve rod and rod string in the static barrel pump.

4. It is a rough design with fewer parts than static barrel pumps, at a

cheaper price.

2.1.4.1. Drawbacks of traveling-barrel pumps .

1. The diameter of standing valve is restricted since it needs to be

mounted to the tube. This comparatively smaller valve provides high

resistance to fluid flow, allowing the gas to burst out of the solution,

causing weak pump activity in the gas wells. Figure 4. Cross-section of an API RHT
rod pump. (Kilgore &Tripp &
2. In deeply wells, the raised hydrostatic pressure applied by
Hunt,1991)
the stand valve on the downstroke can lead the pull tube to bend and extreme wear can

occur between the plunger and the barrel. This reduces the height of the barrel and could

be utilized in deep wells.

3. Pumping of extremely viscous fluids is not advised since the small standing valve can lead

to unnecessary pressure drops at the intake of the pump. (Snyder & Bossert ,1963)

24 | P a g e
25

2.1.6.2. Specification for Pump Assemblies.

The American petroleum Institute has suggested for use of a multi-character classification in the

AOI 11AX in order to explicitly describe the sucker rod pumping assembly(Norton,1960). The

specification is utilized internationally and order for sucker rod pumps adhering to it are widely

accepted. The full designation consists a variety of classes identifying the various parts of pump

assembly. The first numerical category determines the nominal diameter of the tubing in which

the pump is to operate. (Abdelaziz, 2015).

Code Tubing Size, in

15 1.9

20 2 3/8

25 2 7/8

30 3½

40 4½

Table 1. show the tubing size with it’s code (Abdelaziz, 2015).

The second section is a three figure code that defines the dimension of the pump bore: this

corresponds to the internal diameter of barrel bore, which is essentially equal to outside diameter

of the plunger. Non-API pumps with greater diameters are often designed for use in wider tubing

sizes.

25 | P a g e
26

Code Pump Size, in

106 1 1/16

125 1¼

150 1½

175 1¾

178 1 25/32

200 2

225 2¼

250 2½

275 2¾

375 3¾

Table 2. show the tubing size with it’s code (Abdelaziz, 2015).

The third section is the API letter showing specification of pump, discussed earlier. The next

category is a single-letter code which it relates to type of seating assembly that may be either

mechanical (indicated by letter M) or cup form (indicated by letter C) held down. Last numeric

section of the designation corresponds to the pump length: the measurements are given in feet;

first number provides the length of barrel, second number reveals the approximate length of

plunger, and last two reveals the length of barrel extensions. Extensions should be applied at all

ends of barrel at mitigate any operating issues. (Snyder & Bossert ,1963)

The additional detail needed by the manufacturer to order a particular pump is the specification of

materials for barrel, the plunger, plunger fit, and valve material.

26 | P a g e
27

2.2. Structural Parts.

Pump size of the sucker rod is exact inside the simeter of barrel. The outside plunger diameter is

case of the metal plungers, only differs from ID of barrel used. fit plunger ,i.e., clearance between

barrel and plunger is in order few thousands of an inch. The pump sucker rod Specifications are

contained in the API Spec 11AX. (Snyder & Bossert ,1963)

2.2.1 Barrels .

Barrels working are most expensive and largest components of the downhole pump. There are

lengths of the cold drawn to metal tubing of honed and machined with inside polished wall to allow

the plunger smooth movement.API approved that the liner barrels also standard. The liner barrel

consist of outer jacket containing one sectional liners or more one ft length.

Depend on threads to the both ends, box end or pin end barrels are available. Thickness of wall of

barrel tubes and barrels is different for thin and heavy wall versions. The heavy wall thickness is

about 3/16 in or greater. And the thin wall barrels thickness is 1/8 in. the heavy wall barrels is pin

end (fig 4). And the thin barrels have box end (fig.5). manufacturing length of the barrels is

standard up to 24 ft. select pump barrel length is important and must select it first step in the design

of the sucker rod pump. Barrel must be long enough to contain plunger with the valve. (Lea &

Minissale,1992)

27 | P a g e
28

Figure 5. the heavy wall barrels (Takacs, 2015)

Figure 6. the thin barrels have box end (Takacs, 2015).

28 | P a g e
29

2.2.2 Plungers.

Earliest types of the plunger is used in the sucker rod pump were soft packed use cups made of the

resilient materials to seal on barrel wall and can safe used in both rod and tubing pumps and high

resistance of corrosion to the well fluids. strength of sealing cup , limit application of plunger to

moderate the depth of wells. In the deep wells, high of the hydrostatic pressure that above plunger

cause slippage of producing fluids past plunger so the displacement of the pump is reduced. There

for deep wells required fit close between plunger and barrel and effective seal, this can achieve

when use metal to metal sealing system. (Snyder & Bossert ,1963)

The solution in deep wells is metal plungers. There are different manufacture versions of metal

plunger with grooved or plain outside surfaces. Use the grooved plunger more useful when well

produced sand because the grooves trapped solid or sand particles. Plungers also like barrels are

manufactured in box end and pin end types. Surface of the plunger can be different metal like

sprayed metal, nickel plated, chrome or plain steel. When the conditions is normal used plain

metal. Plungers of chrome plated recommend to h2s corrosion conditions. The most popular are

sprayed metal plungers used in the moderately abrasive wells. To select length of the metal

plungers, plunger length 3 ft pumping for depth less than 3000 ft, if the well depth between 3000

ft and 6000 ft the length of the plunger 3 ft plus 1 ft/1,000 ft and if the well deeper more than 6000

ft the plunger long recommended is 6000.(American Petroleum Institute,1970)

29 | P a g e
30

2.2.3. Pump valves .

Valves consider as heart of sucker rod pump because the efficient pumping operation depend on

proper action of traveling and standing valves. Assemblies of the API valves are simple check

valve and its principle is ball and seat. Seats finished from erosion and corrosion resistant metals.

Each seat and ball combined together to provide perfect seal. If seat or ball damaged a new valve

must be used. there are different metals available for seats and balls. Stainless steel materials used

where corrosion are low. Tungsten carbide material cannot used in wells with CO2 or H2S content.

Ceramic seats and balls are resist to corrosion (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991).

2.2.4 Gear Reducer.

Speed, or more commonly, gear reducers (gearboxes for short) are the heart of a pumping unit and

account for about 50% of the investment cost of any pump unit. Its main function is to reduce

High rotation speed of the main motor to the required pumping speed, and at the same time

increasing the output torque to meet the well loads. The usual speed reduction ratio of the pumping

unit (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991).

The gearboxes are about 30 to 1, and the maximum output speed is about 20 SPM. The sizes of

the speed reducer are standardized by API. The rating relates to the maximum permissible

mechanical torque of the reducer. The standard peak torque range is from 6,400 to 3,648,000 lb.

Velocities used are a function of unit size. 2560 or larger gearboxes tested at 11 SPM, in smaller

volumes at relatively higher speeds: gearbox sizes 320 and smaller at 20 SPM. Two types of speed

reducers are used: geared and chain reducers. The gear reducers use double or triple reduction

gears displaying the most common double reduction unit diagram. It has three shafts: high speed

input shaft, middle shaft, and slow speed shaft. The high-speed axle is driven by the main motor

30 | P a g e
31

With a V-shaped belt, the slow speed shaft drives the arms of the pump unit. (American Petroleum

Institute,1970)

As the torque at each shaft increases with the decrease in speed, the shaft diameters also

increasespeed. They are designed to withstand high torsional and bending loads and ensure that

gear faces are in full contact even at the rated torque of the reducer. Shafts run in bearings that are

mounted in the reducer housing. Sleeve bearings (usually bronze) are used for slow speed bearings

and straight roller bearings on other shafts; All shafts are preferred to be equipped with wear-

resistant roller bearings, showing the gear arrangement and typical gearbox bearings, the teeth

shapes most used in gears are winding or double helical teeth, providing uniform loading and quiet

operation. Winding gears are less sensitive to misalignment and resist torque reversals better than

other types of gears. (American Petroleum Institute,1970)

Figure 7. the description of V-shaped belt (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991).

31 | P a g e
32

The gears are precisely machined for precise tolerances and heat treatment to achieve the required

rigidity. The ratio of gearbox speed reduction is found from the gear diameters, as shown in the

following formula; Typical values are about 30: 1, the high speed (input) shaft rotates at a speed

about 30 times higher than the slow speed (output) shaft. Provide an oil bath for the gears that

carry the oil up as it rotates. The oil that is brought to the top of the gears is removed by the wipers;

Excess oil is directed into the oil channels that lead the lubricant to each bearing. This only works

at high enough pumping speeds above 5 SPM when enough oil is being lifted by the gears. At

speeds below 5 SPM, an additional high-speed equipment wiper should be added to ensure proper

lubrication. Regular inspection and oil change are a prerequisite for a hassle-free operation. The

high-speed shaft of gearboxes may be driven by the motor in any direction; The gearboxes operate

correctly independently of the direction of rotation. However, during a normal pumping cycle, the

actual direction of rotation may change several times because the primer will change its spin feel

depending on the torque load. Under positive loads, the main motor drives the gearbox while it

causes negative torque: the gearbox becomes the motor member in the system, and the motor

becomes a generator. The operating modes and the reversal of the load are indicated by the usual

reaction sound emanating from the gearbox due to the transfer of the load from one side of the

gear teeth to the other. If coupled with heavy loads, this type of load reversal can eventually break

the gear teeth, especially under special conditions such as fluid flow. The service life of the gearbox

is most often determined by loading; Overload reducers fail much earlier than properly loaded

reducers, and it is paramount to monitor the torque load on gear reducers and the need to maintain

ideal equilibrium conditions. Data of different sizes of pump unit gearboxes. Reduction ratio of

the overall speed of gearboxes, output shaft diameter (slow speed), lubricant capacity, and the

range of beam sizes that can be attached to the crankshaft. Chain reducers use gears and chains to

32 | P a g e
33

reduce speed and are available in double or triple configurations. The chains used are double or

triple swivel chains (often) anti-friction. The use of chain reducers is not very common; Most

pumping units are equipped with gear reducers, called gearboxes. API specification. It covers both

types of speed reducers and gives detailed design parameters that manufacturers must adhere.

2.2.5 .V-BELT DRIVES.

The gearbox of the pumping unit is connected to the main motor through a belt drive and a belt

drive, or it is simply called a V-belt drive. The purpose of this drive is to reduce the relatively high

rotating speed of the main motor. In the case of the electric motor (NEMA D), the average engine

speed is approximately (1170 rpm), and this speed is reduced by a typical gearbox with a reduction

ratio (30: 1) to the pumping (Griffin,1976).

Fast (1,170 / 30 39) SPM. Since this speed will be very fast for any sucker rod pumping unit,

further reduction of the motor (V-belt) is required to reach practical pumping speeds.

Other purposes of the V-belt are:

Provides a means to change pumping speeds,

Its use allows the main motor to be installed away from the pump unit's rotating cranks.

The V belt drive consists of the following components.

• Gear box or beam unit delivered with pumping unit; Usually manufacturers supply

The largest size that can physically fit the gearbox.

Smaller main drive. Usually these beams are changed in the field to achieve them

Required pumping speed.

33 | P a g e
34

V belts: The appropriate number of belts to be used depends on the transport capacity and package

(Griffin,1976).

sizes.

Figure 8 . V-BELT DRIVES (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991).

Table 3. Typical technical data of pumping unit gearboxes (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991).

34 | P a g e
35

2.2.6 Valve cages.

The ball is periodically seated and unseated on the valve seat during valve operation.

The top hydrostatic pressure at depth of the pump causes the seat to hit the ball with high impact

forces. In case where the movement of the ball is not restricted i.e., move center line of seat bore

when it lifted. Then the ball can only hit one side of the seat during the closing. That result wear

to ball and seat. To reduce damage to the valve and improve its performance, valve cages which

guide and restrict the movement of the ball(Griffin,1976).

. Valve cages restrict vertical and lateral travel of valves balls, while provide least flow possible

restriction over assembly of the valve.API specifies close and open the valve cages to use in

traveling and standing valves. ( American Petroleum Institute,2008).

Figure 9. valve cages (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991)

35 | P a g e
36

2.2.7 Hold down (pump anchors).

Anchors used to attach stationary parts of the rod pump, it be plunger or barrel to tubing string.

Also prevent fluids of the well from follow back from tubing by the sealing the pressure of the

fluid column from the bottom hole. Anchors run into the seating nipple previous install in tubing,

it mechanically held down by force of fraction. Operation of pump vertical force on stationary of

pump assembly then the force transfer to hold down

( American Petroleum Institute,2008).

Figure 10. Hold down (pump anchors) (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991)

36 | P a g e
37

2.3. Energy Consumer.

2.3.1. Energy Loss rates and effect.

The force devoured by the pumping unit's engine involves, notwithstanding the energy needed to

lift well liquids to the surface, all the energy misfortunes happening in the well and in the surface

apparatus.

Accordingly, any endeavors to lessen these misfortunes should begin with an ideal comprehension

of their inclination what's more, extent. Figure 1 and the accompanying conversation present the

potential wellsprings of vitality misfortunes along the well's stream way, gathered into downhole

and surface misfortune classifications. (Griffin,1976).

The rod pumping framework's valuable yield work is finished by the down-hole pump when it lifts

guaranteed measure of fluid from the siphon setting profundity to the surface. This work is

typically depicted by the socalled water driven force, Phydr, and can be determined as the expansion

in expected vitality of the fluid pumped. (Griffin,1976).

At the opposite finish of the framework, the electric central player takes the necessary force from

the surface power flexibly, that force being precisely estimated. Since genuine force prerequisites

at the engine shift inside the siphoning cycle, a normal info power esteem, Pe, substantial for one

siphoning cycle is found from power meter readings. This force covers all prerequisites of the

siphoning framework, including the valuable force utilized for liquid lifting and all vitality

37 | P a g e
38

misfortunes happening in the downhole and surface frameworks, also, it speaks to the complete

vitality contribution to the framework.

Figure 11. Schematic Drawing of Power flow in a sucker rod pumping (Kilgore &Tripp &

Hunt,1991)

2.3.2. Energy Losses.

The rod string, the pump and the liquid column in the tub string are all the sources of the losses in

energy in the down-hole. Also there is hydraulic losses such as:

1. Pump losses.

2. Losses in rod string.

3. Losses in liquid column.

2.3.2.1. Surface Losses.

By all accounts, vitality misfortunes happen at a few spots from the cleaned pole to the central

movers’ electrical associations. These can be ordered by their event as mechanical misfortunes in

38 | P a g e
39

the drive train (siphoning unit, gearbox and V-belt drive) and misfortunes in the main player.

(Washington, 2008).

2.3.3. Power Efficiency of the pumping system.

In frameworks where energy misfortunes of various nature in arrangement associated framework

parts are included, the frameworks all out proficiency can be separated into singular efficiencies

speaking to the establishing effectiveness things. For our situation, one would need to relegate

separate productivity figures to all or a large number of the individual sorts of vitality misfortunes

itemized previously. In this methodology, it is important to assign efficiencies for the impacts of

the pole tubing contact, the liquid grating in tubing, and so forth. Be that as it may, as was talked

about previously, the vast majority of the individual vitality misfortunes in the siphoning

framework are troublesome or even difficult to anticipate, making this arrangement of faulty

worth. (Lea & Rowlan & McCoy,1999)

2.3.3.1 Lifting Efficiency.

The mechanical vitality needed to work the cleaned bar at the surface is the total of the valuable

work performed by the siphon and all the downhole vitality misfortunes definite already, i.e., those

happening in the sucker-bar siphon, the pole string, and the liquid segment. The measure of this

work is legitimately corresponding to the force required at the cleaned bar, the alleged cleaned bar

power (PRHP), an essential siphoning boundary. It speaks to the mechanical force applied on the

cleaned bar and can be found in a few different ways. The most dependable arrangement includes

taking a dynamometer card and performing counts dependent on the region of the card. On the off

chance that a dynamometer card isn't accessible, as on account of structuring another

establishment, the RP 11L method examined before (presently distributed as API TP 11L [9]) can

39 | P a g e
40

be utilized for regular siphoning units. Be that as it may, the arrangement of the damped wave

condition gives great appraisals to cases utilizing any sort of siphoning unit math. In view of the

above contemplations, the vitality effectiveness of the downhole segments of the siphoning

framework is described by the general measure of vitality misfortunes in the well. This boundary

is called the lifting proficiency, hlift, and is the remainder of the helpful pressure driven force and

the force required at the cleaned pole: (Washington, 2008)

2.3.3. 2. Surface Mechanical Efficiency.

Mechanical vitality misfortunes happening in the drive train spread frictional misfortunes emerging in the

siphoning unit, in the gearbox, and in the V-belt drive. Because of their belongings, the mechanical force

required at the main player's pole, Pmot, is consistently more noteworthy than the cleaned bar power, PRHP.

It is standard to depict these misfortunes by a solitary mechanical effectiveness, as given beneath: (

American Petroleum Institute,2008).

40 | P a g e
41

2.3.3. 3. Motor Efficiency.

An overall efficiency is been used to represent the all losses in the motor that allow also the

calculation of the electric power:

2.3.3. 4. System Efficiency.

The system efficiency in the rod pumping system is represented by the following equation:

To summarize, the fundamental prerequisite for accomplishing high generally system efficiency

productivity is to discover the most extreme conceivable estimation of the lifting effectiveness.

Since this is cultivated by the correct choice of the siphoning mode, the decision of the correct

blend of siphon size, cleaned pole stroke length, what's more, siphoning speed is of prime

importance. When structuring another siphoning framework or improving the execution of a

current establishment, this must be the essential objective of the bar siphoning expert's endeavors.

41 | P a g e
42

2.4 Measuring Efficiency of the Sucker Rod Pump.

2.4.1 Introduction.

Efficiency of the sucker rod pump is measuring of the power out put from the whole process of

the pump comparing to the power input which mean how much power is used in effective way for

the pump and how much power is west due to some factors for example friction factor or other

factors that coming from the environment that effect the power out put of the pump.

Efficiency of the sucker rod is measured in two separated parts surface and downhole, the

Efficiency of the sucker rod is measured by a very small and portable device this device is called

dynamometer . device this done by using two systems which are surface and downhole cards and

in next section will have the explanation of means of these cards.

42 | P a g e
43

2.4.2. Efficiency Measurement .

2.4.2.1. Background on the dynamometer.

Dynamometer is the device that mounted or instilling at the polishing rod at the surface of the

sucker rod , this device is portable and not fixed permeate ally in the sucker rod but it just used for

some seconds and then removed from the sucker rod to using it in another sucker rod which mean

this device could be used for whole field operating with sucker rods and this mean greater

economic value for this device. The device has a small size see figure 2.

figure 12 . dynamometer device used for giving a card diagram that provide the mean data

for measuring the sucker rod efficiency (Takacs, 2015).

The dynamometer is fixed on the polishing rod while the sucker rod working which mean there is

no stop in production also this mean more economic benefits for using this device see figure 3 .

43 | P a g e
44

Figure 13. fixing dynamometer device while sucker rod working (Takacs, 2015).

2.4.2.1 Steps for Measuring the Pump Efficiency in Field.

The steps are divided into two parts, first part is collecting the data by the dynamometer then make

wave equation on it to measuring the downhole card and knowing what’s going on downhole.

(Jennings, 1991).

 Steps for using dynamometer in the field.

1. instilling the dynamometer on the polishing rod when sucker rod make the downhole stroke

as shown in figure 3.

2. putting the cable in next downhole stroke that is connecting with the registration unit that

will display the calculation on it in the form of surface card diagram.

44 | P a g e
45

Figure 2. the putting the wire that connecting to the registration card (Takacs, 2015).

3. make small position changes for the dynamometer until it become in the middle lead and

the red light turned on to let you knowing it in the right position.

Figure 14. Adjusting the dynamometer into the middle(Takacs, 2015).

45 | P a g e
46

4. turning on the registration unit and wait 30 seconds to display the result on it .

Figure 15. starting calculation in the registration unit (Takacs, 2015).

Figure 16. displaying the calculation or surface card (Takacs, 2015).

46 | P a g e
47

The next part of the measurements coming with converting the surface card into the downhole card

or what’s called pump card which let the user know what’s going on underground.

2.4.3. Interoperating the Card shaped.

The previous device (dynamometer) was draw what’s called the surface card diagram and by using

the wave equation that is presented by Dr. Sam Gibbs that a lot of research thanks him for his great

work , this wave equation allow to convert the surface card into the pump card or downhole card

and by using this card the user allow to know what happening into the underground in the next

figure there is a discussion on how to interoperate huge amount of card pump and knowing what

is happing for it.

2.4.3.1. surface and Pump cards.

The pump card coming from the surface card using the wave equation as shown in next figure, the

diagram was drawn to show how much weight that the rod and pump carry and where is the pump

and rod position at that time.

Figure 17. show the card and surface cards (Washington, 2008).

47 | P a g e
48

Explanation of one complete cycle coming with looking into the next figure.

Fig 18. helping in explanation of the complete cycle of the pump card (Washington, 2008).

The normal process here is happening as when the pump going upward the draw going to increase

in the y axis direction that happens when the poll is turned off and the sucker rod start to raise the

fluid then the x-axis increases as the plunger moves upward and at the same time the y-axis which

is the loads is constant after this the pump goes down and this lead to decreasing in loads because

the sucker rod not carry any weight and at the same time the x-axis decreases because the pump

moving down then repeat the cycle again.

2.4.3.2. Gas interface.

The Gas interface is a problem face the sucker rod pump and can be detected using the pump card

or downhole card, as shown in the previous section how the pump card look like in the normal

condition but with gas what happens in the cycle will change . the cycle start with carry the weight

of the fluid which should to be only oil but with the presence of gas there is a shift from the straight

48 | P a g e
49

line as appear in the next photo , the load of the fluid appear in the diagram by increasing in the y-

direction then it become constant and just x-axis increase because the pump is moving now then

the pump start to goes down again but it faced the bubbles of the gas that needs to goes upward

due to the gravity so there is a shift from the start line again and see the original report of this case

in the appendix.

Figure 19. the gas interface description (Washington, 2008).

2.4.3.3. Fluid pound interpretation.

The fluid pound mean that the pump take more than the reservoir produce which mean the fluid

level is reduced , this appear on the pump card by showing the making also large gas volume and

when the pump tried to goes downward the gas tends to forcing it moving upward.

49 | P a g e
50

Figure 20. Fluid pound interpretation (Washington, 2008).

2.4.3.4. tagging interpretation.

Problem that appear in the sucker rod is the fast impact for the pump when going downward and

also appear in the card downhole pumping as there is a decrease in weight at the start of the process

because the some of the weight rod is not carried by the pump and when goes upward this chock

is helping the pump to going upward by the inertia and the whole real report is in the appendix.

50 | P a g e
51

Figure 21. tagging problem and pump card drawing (Washington, 2008).

2.5. Rod String Alternatives.

Fiberglass sucker rod developed for use in Beam-pumped oil wells in

1973 on the basis of need a sucker rod to pump under heavily loaded and highly corrosive

conditions.

Now evaluating third generation of The fiberglass sucker rods this used to pumped oil It has

developed three criteria of fiberglass sucker rod for comparison and Evaluate with steel

51 | P a g e
52

sucker rods: (1) total amount of the fluid production (2) Frequency of the failure , and (3) Analytics

of the torque at dynamometer peak . Each of those parameters was investigated in evaluation and

depth for each well.

2.5.1. Qualifications and Assumptions.

1.This analysis only concerns data from Amoco Production Company. In west Texas

2.The determining factor for each was economics Installation but economic objectives varied. This

goals Either reduced rod failures or increased production. The primary objective of each

installation was point of evaluation on each well ,and other two areas performed well.

3.Fiberglass pony rods were manufactured in Feb. 1979 Due to its high incidence of the

unexplained partings. Though 11 of these failures Form is included in the analysis, and won't be

factor in future installations. Fiberglass nowadays Pony rods had been replaced by the steel pony

rods.

2.5.1.1. Process of the Manufacturing for Third Generation Rods.

The process consists of the process of pultrusion and final fitting. Mechanism of pultrusion has

not changed conceptually, except that the glass fibers. It uses about 150 roving of glass filaments

per the rod. Every one consists of thousands of the glass filaments. About 1.5 million

glassfilaments, each one diameter is 15 microns, are wetted with thermosetting resin then pull

through heated forming die. Heat cause chemical reactions that bonds glass fibers together while

die forms rod. The bodies of fiberglass sucker rod are 75 % of its weight is glass fibers, and hence

the yielding dimensions and properties in table 1. Grade D of steel sucker rods. Such the results of

construction, rods are anisotropic and have high tensile strength. Failure in rod body because the

52 | P a g e
53

glass filaments were looping. A manufacturing before January 1978 change in the way the glass

was made, Filaments are drawn in a resin bath. Once looping has been solved, other problem

evident with rod pulling out. This was because of lack of epoxy resin bond with body of a rod.

Another modification in process of manufacture was made in August 1978 to eliminate problems.

The modification involve the automation of rod body end prepare application process, that was

done previously by hand. That eliminated human error and depend attachment of the rod to the

epoxy wedge resulted ending pullouts. Before the automation, the fitting pullouts were mainly due

to bonding epoxy which did not hold the rod and the rod slip from coupling. Space between end

fitting and the rod is fill with epoxy resin and designed according to cured epoxy that forms series

of wedges. Epoxy increase bonds to fiberglass sucker rod. (Jennings, 1991).

2.5.1.2. Application.

Strings of fiberglass sucker rod are design, operate and maintain similar to steel sucker rod. Failure

frequency, down hole pump cards, dynamometer cards and production data should consider on

each candidate well. Where possible, these data were obtained after and before fiberglass sucker

rods are installed to help application analyze. To drive maximum benefits from the fiberglass

sucker rod should has (1) high productivity index, (2) high level of fluid, (3) well with properly,

(4) conventional pumping unit, (5) A fiberglass calculation range of sucker rod load falling within

guidelines from diagram of load range. High pi and high level of fluid will result in an increase in

production which pays out incremental fiberglass sucker rods cost. Compression due to incorrect

distance of pump can happen. The proper spacing is 8 in / 1000 ft to steel rods and 18 in / 1000 ft

to fiberglass rods. Conventional pumping unit required less counterbalance and provides more

torque saving than air balance unit. Well anchored tubing should consider minimizing the rod on

the tubing wear. This will also optimize the net plunger travel and extend life of fiberglass sucker

53 | P a g e
54

rod. Fiberglass sucker rod with low module of elasticity don’t allow rods to fall properly in the

corkscrewed tubing, such dual completion with a tubing set on the compression packer. In a

situation like this, adding sinker bars or steel rods probably not help. Same problem exist in highly

deviated wells. Installation must able to produce at the level desired, without exceeding downtime

due to failures or the load range diagram. ( American Petroleum Institute,2008)

2.5.1.3. Design Calculations.

Analyzing the string of fiberglass sucker rod by API RP 11 L method with few modifications. API

practice was not applicable to fiberglass sucker rods, but this concept disproved since. Elasticity

of rods must changed to reflect characteristics of fiberglass sucker rod. Because string of fiberglass

sucker rod were determined empirically between range from 50% to 90% fiberglass of the top of

the rod string. These calculations are tedious to do by hand. The computer program use equation

of Lufkin industries for analyzing the pump to optimize string design on the general electric

company. This method to predict performance of rod pumping system has three assumptions: (1)

no effect of fluid acceleration (2) normal prime slip moves (3) no gas interference. Calculation

method to fiberglass sucker rods, the base form of the equation is( American Petroleum

Institute,2008)

2.6 Matching the pump Rate to Well Flow.

It was assumed that the volume of fluid that was lifted to the surface through the sucker rod pump

was available at the pump entrance in the well. From technically side, the inflow performance of

the well wasn't considered in pumping system's design. This system cannot resist the application

of practical, because naturally, the system of pumping and its all components must be selected in

conformity with deliverability of the well. The installation of the low capacity system in the well,

54 | P a g e
55

able to running a high capacity pump or high production rates in a low producer will lead to

ineffective total operation, regardless how quality of the components of the system were chosen.

Therefore, for realize an economical operation of the rod pumping; the selection of the operational

parameters and the design of the lifting equipment must be fundamentally being depended on the

deliverability of the well.

The main task of the design of the rod pumping is to realize a rate of pumping matching the inflow

rate to the well that given through choosing the right equipment components and through

modifying them correctly. The precondition of this is accurate knowledge of the inflow

performance relationship (IPR curve) of the well, which grants accessible rates of production

versus the pressure of flowing bottomhole. Incorrect or uncertain information on IPR is very usual

cause of ineffective and poor design operation. So, all effort has to be done to be ensuring that

sufficient information is available on deliverability of the well at the same time of the design of

installation.

There are three main options occur for ensuring that pumping rate matches well inflow:

1- With the system of pumping having a greater capacity than well inflow, the units of

pumping are work uninterrupted under a controlled changing pumping speed.

2- Choose the mode of pumping that delivers a volume of liquid to the expected well

production rate through operating a pumping unit uninterrupted at a constant speed of

pumping in its normal ranges of the speeds.

3- As long as the capacity of lifting of the pumping system is higher than the inflow rate of

the well, the system is worked by controlling its time of daily pumping. This is the case of

the interrupted pumping, when pending the period of production the pumping unit works

at a constant speed of pumping. ( American Petroleum Institute,2008)

55 | P a g e
56

2.6.1. Continuous Pumping.

Continuous pumping is the clear option for the well with enough past information on their

production of liquid. Wells with known and steady IPR curves are produced this way, and then the

select is done on the suitable mode of pumping to meet well inflow.

2.6.2. Systems analysis.

It is easily described the simultaneous operation of the productive formation and the oil well drilled

through the methods of systems analysis. In the next, this methodology is done to the sucker rod

pumping for improving a design of pumping system that includes suitable regards for the inflow

performance of the well. The graphic figure of a pumping well, illustrating the various components

of the production system along with the different nodes disconnecting them, as Fig. 1 shows the

analysis of system basics have shown that the equipment of production and the formation are

attached in the series at the bottom of well. ( American Petroleum Institute,2008)

Figure 22. The production system of a rod pumping well (Kilgore &Tripp & Hunt,1991)

56 | P a g e
57

2.6.3. System performance curves.

To characterize the performance of a rod pumping system, the rate of pumping negotiable at

various cases have to be found. The cases having the most important effect on the rate of

production are the mode of pumping utilized such as (the length of polished rod stroke, design of

rod string, the size of combination of pump, and the speed of pumping), and the depth of pump

setting. In these cases, the performance of the pumping system can be characterized efficiently by

plotting rates of pumping versus depth of pump setting for various modes of pumping. These plots

are described here as system performance curves and can be structured by using any calculations

steps that correctly borders the operational parameters of pumping. ( American Petroleum

Institute,2008)

In the next explication, the system performance curves are improved with the main presumptions

as mentioned herein. Though these limitations can impact extremely the ability of the method of

analysis, there are many cases in which these requests are met like (wells produced from a strong

water drive reservoir): ( American Petroleum Institute,2008)

 Traditional rate of pumping units are considered, permitting for PR 11L steps to be utilized.

 Pumping of a liquid single phase is supposed, and the impacts of any free gas in the annulus

are neglected.

 Pumped off cases are assumed, with the level of dynamic liquid being at the depth of pump

setting.

The steps to build system performance curves is shown on the flow diagram illustrate in Fig 2 after

the givens of the substantial main data, the parameters of mode of pumping are input: Size of

plunger (d), length of polished rod stroke (S), and speed of pumping (N). A value for depth of

pump setting (L) is supposed and RP 11L calculations are utilized to find the operational

57 | P a g e
58

parameters of pumping at the given cases. The most substantial of these is rate of pumping (PD)

which if plotted in the depth of setting (L), gives one point on the curves of system performance.

After that, the measured operating parameters are tested for overload cases by estimating the

loading on the rods and on the units of pumping. In overall other conditions the depth of pump

setting (L) is increased, and the calculations are reiterated for every new depth. Then after a

specified maximum depth (𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) is accomplished, the other mode of pumping is chosen, and the

all steps are reiterated.

Figure 23. Flowchart of calculating system performance curves for rod pumping. ( American

Petroleum Institute,2008).

58 | P a g e
59

The two figures 3 and 4 illustrate an example of the system performance curves for a diameter of

pump that equal 1.25 inch and for API tapers of 76 and 86. Every sheet includes pumping rates

that calculated plotted versus depth of pump setting for chosen length of polished rod stroke and

speeds of pumping. The size of pump, number of API taper, and material of rod are held stable on

each sheet. The various curves, thus, represent the various modes of pumping. Each performance

curve starts at a depth of pump setting at zero that could be calculated with length of plunger stroke

equal length of polished rod stroke. As depth of pump setting increases, a point is achieved where

maximum rod stress, due to the common impacts of the load of fluid, weight of rod string, and

dynamic forces, exceeds the permissible stress for the material of rod. From the comparison of Fig

3 and 4 illustrates that the utilize of a stronger string (86 taper instead of 76 taper) permits pumping

from the greater depths. But this is not applied except only the strength of rod is considered to be

the only limiting factor.

Figure 24. System performance curve sheet for a pumping system with a 1.25 in plunger,

API 76 rod string, and Grade D rods. ( American Petroleum Institute,2008)

59 | P a g e
60

Figure 25. System performance curve sheet for a pumping system with a 1.25 in plunger,

API 86 rod string, and Grade D rods. ( American Petroleum Institute,2008)

To describe the correct for the performance system, also the operational characteristics of the

equipment of surface must be taken into account. So, the constructional capacity of the unit of the

pumping, as well as the permissible torque rating of the speed reducer must not be override through

the peak load of polished rod and the peak torque. These impacts are considered in Fig. 5 and 6,

righteous for a C-228D-213-100 pumping unit. From comparison of the last figures (3 and 4), the

single curves end at smaller depths than strength of rod alone would permit. As seen before, the

utilize of the heavier string with the API 86 taper overloads the unit pumping at much shallower

depths than the API 76 string. Therefore, in in the against to the deductions drawn from fig. 3 and

4, the lighter rod string can be worked at the greater depths than the heavier one. So, fig 7 illustrates

identical curves for a two in plunger and an API 76 taper string.

60 | P a g e
61

Figure 26. System performance curve sheet for a pumping system with a C 228D-213-100

unit, a 1.25 in plunger, API 76 rod string, and Grade D rods (Washington, 2008)

61 | P a g e
62

Figure 27. System performance curve sheet for a pumping system with a C 228D-213-100

unit, a 1.25 in plunger, API 86 rod string, and Grade D rods. (Washington, 2008)

Figure 28. System performance curve sheet for a pumping system with a C 228D-213-100

unit, a 2 in plunger, API 76 rod string, and Grade D rods. (Washington, 2008)

62 | P a g e
63

2.6.4. The use of performance curves.

After determined of the performance of the lifting equipment, the operation of another system (the

productive formation) must be characterized. It can be illustrates that IPR curves draw as the

straight lines in the system of the coordinate of the production rate vs the level of the dynamic

fluid, utilized for showing the system performance curves. System analysis, thus, can be done

through superimposing the IPR of the well on the system performance curve sheet righteous for

the given conditions. ( American Petroleum Institute,2008)

The intersections of these curves give rates of pumping accessible under various cases and permit

the determination of the different likely common operating of the rod pumping system and the

formation. To show the steps, an example like well with a productivity index of PI ¼ 0.46 bpd/psi

and the next data were utilized to structure the straight-line IPR curves in Figures 5 and 7:

• Depth of well ¼ 3,000 𝑓𝑡,

• Static liquid level ¼ 1,000 𝑓𝑡, and

• Dynamic liquid level at 400 𝑏𝑏𝑙/𝑑𝑎𝑦 liquid productions ¼ 3,000 𝑓𝑡.

The intersections of the IPR line with the system performance curves indicate to the various modes

of pumping, the rates accessible, side by side the identical depths of pump setting requested to

obtain those rates. As long as that system performance curve sheets for various units of pumping

are available, one has only to choose the correct sheet and to plot the real IPR on it, according to

analyze the performance of various systems of pumping. As long as, this method can be used for

the design of the sucker rod pumping system with due regard to deliverability of the well and to

ensure an effective pumping operation. The utilize of this steps, thus, is restricted by the requisite

presumptions that indicated earlier, and for conditions in which enough information is available

on well inflow performance. (American Petroleum Institute,2008).

63 | P a g e
64

Chapter 3

3.1 Objectives.

The objectives of this design project :

1- To perform a deep description for the sucker rod pump, related to the overall loads exposed at

the downhole, or at surface but related mainly to the loads of pumping.

2- Showing the different calculated modes, methods and correlations to have a sensitive idea about

the same result with different values to show the extent of the errors.

3- The limits of any programmed software for such calculations, the advantages and the parameters

that should be measured as scalar values from the field.

4- The program satisfies the user as close as possible, where the qualification of the answers help

him to select the optimum pump directly.

3.2 Methodology.

The methodology of this project was divided into collecting the equations and algorithms,

programming the results and evaluating it through valid case studies or available data.

3.2.1 Software Work Model.

The experimental work was divided into hard and soft wares. The software was the MATLAB

program to design the application accurately. The hard system was a small dynamic model for the

sucker rod pump that switches on/off electrically. It shows the master parts for the sucker rod.

64 | P a g e
65

Chapter 4

Software Work

4.1. Discussion and Results.

In this project, one can see a complete performance for the operational calculations that should be

made at the companies to predict the loads on the rod. This enables to calculate some out puts

(would be seen later) called the pump modes. Despite of the high accuracy of these calculations,

that occasionally should be held even if they were not high, do not give the right estimations for

the periodic loads, maximum and minimum fatigues for each point in the sucker rods along the

time of production extended from the (beginning of the upstrokes till the downstroke ends).

Most of the companies depend on programmed excel sheets to calculate the modes of the pump

units. Besides, the applications provides many methods of calculation depending on the API RP11

L, and Luctifer calculations for Conventional, Air Balanced and Mark II Units Modes.

4.1.1. Pumping Modes Operational Parameters Calculations.

4.1.1.1. Case Study Description (In terms of Fc factor).

The API RP 11L guide has an inserted case study to be run, for evaluations and right comparing

between the results and taken methods. The following well and mechanical data are the inputs and

requirements to run such a program to complete the calculations of sucker rod pumping modes.

65 | P a g e
66

Table 4. Showing the Case Well Data According to the API RP 11 L

Well and Mechanical Data Value Units

Pump Setting Depth (L) 5000 Feet

Dynamic Liquid Level (H) 4800 Feet

Plunger Size (d) 1.5 Inch

Tubing Size d(t) 2.875 Inch

Pumping Speed (N) 10 Strokes/min

Stroke Length (S) 120 Inch

Specific Gravity 0.95 Dimensionless Unit

66 | P a g e
67

Rod String 1 1/4 1 1/8 1 7/8 6/8 5/8 ½

different

Sizes

Rod String

length for
0 0 0 0 42.3% 40.4% 17.3%
each

section

Table 5. Showing the opportunity of usage of certain diameter, besides its percent from the

total setting depth

This Tubing case is not anchored, and according to fig (), the Elastic Constant (Et (in/lb/ft)) is

2.208*10-7. Actually this table is not registered inside the MATLAB GUI Application due to the

variety of elastic constants for the same tubing size, but the program had suppressed this problem

through the automatic options showed to the user for selection according to the Tubing Size (and

in our case the tube was not anchored).

67 | P a g e
68

Fig 29. showing the Inputs required from the well and surface SRP components to run the

program.

The material’s component of the rod sections is important as it influence the nominal rod weight

in air and the elasticity, in case of using the steel, the Matlab would allow the user to complete

with automatic registered values, while the usage of any other material (Fiber Glasses with

different classes) forces the user to register its properties manually.

68 | P a g e
69

Fig 30. showing the Rod String Different Sized Sections, the ability to register Fc factor from

the API RP 11L.

Fig 31. showing the Independent and Dimension Less variables.

69 | P a g e
70

The calculations take place at stages to help in usage of these information to look up for the

dependent dimensionless variables in API RP 11L, the book has complicated system of charts (as

it would can be seen in the appendix)

Fig 32. showing the taken parameters from the API RP 11L

All these dependent dimensionless parameters are taken graphically from the API RP 11L.

Actually, there was a trial to convert the graphs into correlations by using the

Fig 33. showing the results of the Operational Parameters of the Conventional RP 11L.

70 | P a g e
71

4.1.2. Calculations.

This results are shown for the conventional RP 11L conventional calculations, however, this is not

accurate for the Air Balanced and Mark II Units. Consequently, the application had took in

consideration the effect of other geometrical features and led the user to select the Lufkin by his

own will.

Fig 34. showing the Results of the Lufkin Industrial Parameters

4.1.2.1. Case Study Description (without Fc factor).

The next case study, was a spread sheet data has been got from the Khalda Company, where the

calculations depended on the crank to pit man ratio, pump volumetric efficiency and fluid

formation factor, as he had compensated the usage. The following data were taken:

Pump setting depth (D): 3,500 ft

Depth to the liquid level in annulus (H): 3,500 ft

Flowing tubing head pressure (ptf): 100 psia

Tubing outer diameter (dto): 3.5 in.

Tubing inner diameter (dti): 2.992 in.

71 | P a g e
72

Tubing anchor (1 = yes; 0 = no): 0

Plunger diameter (dp): 2.25 in.

Rod section 1, diameter (dr1): 1 in.
length (L1): 0 ft
Rod section 2, diameter (dr2): 0.875 in.
length (L2): 3,500 ft
Rod section 3, diameter (dr3): 0.75 in.
length (L3): 0 ft
Rod section 4, diameter (dr4): 0.5 in.
length (L4): 0 ft

Type of pumping unit (1 = conventional; -1 = Mark II or Air-

-1
balanced):

Polished rod stroke length (S) 86 in.

Pumping speed (N) 18 SPM

Crank to pitman ratio (c/h): 0.3246
o
Oil gravity (API): 45 API

Fluid formation volume factor (Bo): 1 rb/stb

Pump volumetric efficiency (Ev): 0.8

Safety factor to prime mover power (Fs): 1.35

Table 6. Showing the taken data to calculate the pumping mode.

The engineer in this algorithm did not depend on much parameters more than done in terms of the

Fc, but he had avoided the usage of the API RP 11L guide, suppressing the inherited errors.

Pump Modes Out Puts Values

Ai 2.59

Ap 3.98

Ar 0.600

Wf 4835

Wr 7162

72 | P a g e
73

M 0.68

Sp 77

Q 651

Ln 3788

Ph 14.54

Pf 7

Ppm 29.1

Table 7 showing the real calculated parameters from the excel sheet

Fig 35. showing the evaluated results of the programmed software.

The calculated data from the software showed approximately no error relative to the programmed

excel (taken from the previous equations). This table just proves the extent of our programming.

On the other side, there was no additives or differences from the programmed excel sheets, as the

all inputs depend on the real measured values that does not require empirical correlations.

73 | P a g e
74

4.1.2.2. PRODUCTION RATE CALCULATIONS.

4.1.2.2. 1. Pump Displacement.

Completing the same case study, the pump displacement would be as in fig (), the user is not forced

to recalculate all the parameters, but just getting them from the previous application, or he has the

choice to assume:

Fig 36. showing the inputs taken from the previous application and the amount of

displaced fluid

4.1.2.2. 2. Pump Leakage Losses.

The pump leakage loss rates are calculated in frame of four industrial correlations only, and each

is different according to the best for different plunger sizes and stroke lengths. However, the user

can apply the four of them to analyze the right one to depend on. For the following case taken from

the Sucker Rod Pump book (Takacs, 2015).

74 | P a g e
75

Dynamic Pump Plunger Plunger Pressure Plunger

Viscosity Speed Fit Size Length

1 cp 6 SPM .003-.01 2.5 3000 psi 48

Inchs Inchs

Fig 37. showing the real case data for the sucker rod book, and the amount of pump slippages

at different correlations and by using different plunger fits (the rest parameters are

constant).

75 | P a g e
76

4.1.3 The Programmed Application for the Pump Leakage Loss

Rates.

Fig 38. showing the Input features for calculating the pressure leakage losses.

The Pump Speed is not obligatory for all of them, except the Patterson correlation. Thus, its input

is not worthy for the other used correlations, besides, its calculations so closed to the ARCO HF,

that reduces the users requirements in case of leakage of data. However, that is not the case for

high Plunger fits, as the results were 124 and 118 bpd for ARCO HF & Patterson respectively,

(Error (%) = 5% ).

76 | P a g e
77

Fig 39. Showing the Slippage through OIL WELL DIVISION of US STEEL

Fig 40. Showing the Slippage through ARCO_HF.

Fig 41. Showing the Slippage through Patterson model

77 | P a g e
78

Fig 42 . Showing the Slippage through Patterson model .

As a comment, the Patterson correlation has no big difference than the ARCO HF model (the error

is 4.37 %). However the Modified Robinson & Reekstin Model, has a fault related to the

calculations itself not the correlation as it is should be corrected for cases of eccentricity, that

explains why there is difference by factor 3.9 for the conventional calculations and eccentric

calculations respectively.

78 | P a g e
79

4.1.2.2.3. Volumetric Efficiency of Pumping.

4.1.2.2.4. Single Phase Liquid Production.

Pump & Production data Value Units

Water Flow Rate 100 STB/Day

Oil Flow Rate 500 STB/Day

Bo 1.05 BBL/STB

Bw 1.00 BBL/STB

Leakage Losses Rate 58 STB/Day

Table 8 showing the example data of Sucker Rod Book, (Takacs, 2015)

The volumetric efficiencies for the single liquid phases are held according to two considerations,

where the pump leakages are regarded, thus the total efficiency decreases (as it would be seen),

while for the neglected cases, water/oil ratios only compensate for usages.

Volumetric Efficiency (regarded leakage) Volumetric Efficiency (not regarded leakage)

88% 96%

79 | P a g e
80

Fig 43. Showing the Calculated Volumetric Efficiency with regarded leakage loss rates.

Fig 44. Showing the Calculated Volumetric Efficiency with regarded leakage loss rates.

80 | P a g e
81

4.1.2.2. 5. Gas & Oil Production.

The single phase production (or no gas insertion due to the gas separators and increasing the pump

intake pressure) has been covered through the first phase application, while if the user has produced

gas, the volumetric efficiency would be influenced by that production, and even the full and part

of gas insertion should be decided, as the algorithm takes two different conduits.

Fig 45. showing the optional modes presented by the application to solve the algorithm of

volumetric efficiency

The presented data from the Sucker Rod Book, shows the usage of a packer type gas separator,

of coefficient .03 and cross sectional area 10 in2, while the pump intake pressure has been installed

at 300 psi, where there is no sufficient information about exceeding the bubble point pressure or

not.

81 | P a g e
82

Production data Value Units

Oil Flow Rate 1000 STB/Day

Production GLR 100 Scf/BBl

Oil Specific gravity 30 API

Water Rate 100 STB/Day

Pump Suction Temperature 150 Fahrenheit

Gas Specific Gravity 0.6 --

Table 9. Showing the production data (Takacs, 2015)

Before showing the results, the application had suppressed different problems to the user, first of

all, dealing with a gas requires the Z Compressibility Factor and Gas Formation Volume Factor

are calculated automatically. However, the correlation (Papay, and Vasques & Bregg’s) as they

are the most used correlations. Besides, the availability of the oil and water formation volume

factors in case of gas produced can cause a restriction for the user to be estimated before using it

as an input. This had been programmed as an optional input for the user to depend on the

correlations or to use specific Bo & Bw calculated before. Same for the solution gas oil ratios (Rs).

Due to the large amounts of correlations, the program depended on the (relatively) most accurate

ones to avoid the confusion of the user, besides the incompressible fluid’s formation factor

estimations does not cause problems for low errors (Koatamodgo, 2007)

82 | P a g e
83

The gas production volumetric efficiency The gas production volumetric efficiency

(Full Insertion of free gas) (Partial Insertion of free gas)

58.9% 39.7

Table 10. showing the difference cases of pumped gas, for used gas separator.

Fig 46. showing the inputs and calculated volumetric efficiencies in case of full gas pumped.

83 | P a g e
84

Fig 47. showing the volumetric efficiency in case of partial gas pumping after using the gas

separator.

Actually, this case, according to the industrial recommendations, is not valid for using gas

separators. That returns mainly to the flow rates the pump works on. The case where the whole

gas is pumped with the liquid flow rates of water and oil has an efficiency of approximately 59 %

which is greater in case of the partial insertion (35.6%). There is a little shift from the answer in

case of partial gas pumped, as they have used approximated value for the gas anchor type (Packer

Type). This can be considered another privilege, as they anchor types are required as the type only,

and different scenarios can be created for constant cases.

84 | P a g e
85

4.1.3. Power Requirements of Sucker Rod Pumping.

4.1.3.1. Case Study.

The pump was set at 6,000 feet for a 6,500-ft-deep well, the overall oil and water rates are 500

bpd (375 bpd for oil and 125 bpd for water) with a ‘WOR of factor 3. At 200 psi wellhead pressure

the dynamic liquid level was measured at 4,500 ft, water and oil specific gravities were 1.03

and0.85, respectively. The aim is to calculate the system’s hydraulic power @ the original

wellhead pressure and at 400 psi. Static gas column pressures are of gradients of .005 psi/ft & .006

psi/ft.

Fig 48. showing the conventional calculations of the pump intake pressures and the

hydraulic pressures.

85 | P a g e
86

Fig 49. showing the proper calculations of the pump intake pressures and the hydraulic

pressures

The calculated hydraulic powers differs for the same intake pressure, depths and fluid levels for

the proper calculations taking in consideration the effect of the well head pressure and the

hydraulic losses as they are wasted, so there is no place for the effective pure power. (Lea et al).

4.1.3.2. Case Study (Calculating the Overall System Efficiency).

Example 4.23: an 1 1/4 inch pump was at 4,329 ft, where the DLL was above at 1,449 ft. The

pump produces 94.445 BOPD and 75.556 BWPD, The specific gravities were 1.02 and 0.82 for

water and oil respectively. The surface pressure is maintained at 30 psi. The mechanical efficiency

is 0.746, the power of motor was 6kw, and the polished rod power taken from the surface

dynamometer was 4.9 horse powers. (Takacs, 2015)

86 | P a g e
87

Fig 50. showing the inputs required to calculate the pump intake pressures and hydraulic

pressures.

Figure 51. showing the inputs of polished rod power, the electrical power and the mechanical

power efficiency.

The real practical applications does not calculate the motor efficiency, it is taken as an input due

to the availability of such data mechanically. Besides, the electrical powers and polished rod power

readings taken from the dynamometer. But the mechanical power efficiency has some restrictions

87 | P a g e
88

related to its availability, and some time the *** is available to calculate the efficiency graphically.

From the following figure:

Fig 52. showing the chart of Gipson and Swaim to calculate the motor efficiency in terms of

the PRHP and Reducing torque rating.

To suppress such a problem the program had converted this chart to maximum approximated

results, which depends on the interpolation to find the closed out put (Motor Efficiency) at specific

reducer torque rating and PRHP.

Fig 53. Showing the Availability of the application to calculate the motor efficiency with

different means.

88 | P a g e
89

Chapter 5

Conclusion

All of the held operational parameters calculations are efficient only before installation. The key

to the proper estimation of the pumping system’s loads is to set a simulation for the rod string’s

behavior through the programmed dynamometers. This is only may provide the necessary accuracy

for evaluating the operational parameters valid at the surface and at downhole conditions. Besides,

from this project perspective, the mathematical handling equations for the digitized periodic

readings plays an important role, thus modifying (Fourier and Taylor’s) series would decrease any

error for the directed track readings.

Discussing the production displacements and pump leakage losses. The .006 plunger fits are so

critical for any correlation to depend on, as the Oil Well Division of the US Steel, over estimates

the results and shows a deflection of 2.5 times in estimated leakage rates for eccentricity modes

relative to the centric ones. For the completely eccentric cases, the pump sizes of 1.5 inch and 72

inch length are covetable. Patterson is the most recommended due to its consideration for the pump

speed.

89 | P a g e
90

Chapter (6).

References

 Takacs, G. (2015). Sucker Rod Pumping Hand Book. Hungary : Gulf

Professional.

 Griffin FD. (1976). An update on pumping unit sizing as recommended by API

RP 11L. JCPT;1:45–51.

 Norton JR. 1960 .Dynamic loads in sucker rods. PE; April. p. B-33–B-41.a

 Abdelaziz, A. L. (2015). Economic Comparison between the ESP and Rod

Pump for same rate wells. Riyadh: SPE.

 Jennings, J. F. (1991). Application of a Pattern-Matching Expert System to.

Texas: SPE.

 Takacs, G. (2015). Sucker Rod Pumping Hand Book. Hungary : Gulf

Professional.

 Lea JF, Minissale JD. Beam pumps surpass ESP efficiency. Oil Gas J May 18,

1992:72–5.

 Lea JF, Minissale JD. 1992. Efficiency of artificial lift systems. Proc. 39th

Annual Southwestern petroleum short course, Lubbock, Texas.. p. 314–323.

90 | P a g e
91

 Lea JF, Rowlan L, McCoy J. 1999. Artificial lift power efficiency. Proc. 46th

Annual Southwestern petroleum short course, Lubbock, Texas. p. 52–63.

 Kilgore JJ, Tripp HA, Hunt CL. 1991. Walking beam pumping unit system

efficiency measurements. Paper

 SPE 22788 presented at the 66th Annual technical conference and exhibition

of SPE, Dallas, Texas. October

 Snyder WE, Bossert AJ. 1963.Analog computer simulation of sucker rod

pumping systems. Paper SPE 587 presented at the Rocky Mountain joint

regional meeting of SPE, Denver, Colorado. May 27–28,

 Snyder WE. How to find downhole forces and displacements. OGJ August 19,

1963:96–9.

 Washington, 2008.API TL 11L Design calculations for sucker-rod pumping

systems (conventional units). 5th ed. D.C. American Petroleum Institute;

 American Petroleum Institute.11L3., A. B. (1970). Sucker rod pumping system

design book. 1st ed. Dallas, Texas: AB., N. (March 1976:58–66.). Sucker rod

string design. PE

91 | P a g e
92

 American Petroleum Institute .(2008)..Design calculations for sucker-rod

pumping systems (conventional units). Washington,:

92 | P a g e
93

Chapter (7)

Appendices

𝐹1
PPRL = Wrf + 𝑆𝑘𝑟
𝑆𝑘𝑟

𝐹2
MPRL = Wrf + 𝑆𝑘𝑟
𝑆𝑘𝑟

PPRL = Peak Polished Rod Load, lb

MPRL = Minimum Polished Rod Load, lb

Wrf = Buoyant Rod String Weight

𝐹1 /S/ 𝑘𝑟 = dependent variable taken form the API RP 11L

𝐹2 /S/ 𝑘𝑟 = dependent variable taken form the API RP 11L

S = Polished Rod stroke length, in

𝑘𝑟 = spring constant of rod string, lb/in

𝐹3
PRHP = 2053E-6 𝑆𝑘𝑟
𝑆 2 N 𝑘𝑟

PRHP = polished rod horse power

𝐹3 /S/ 𝑘𝑟 = dependent variable taken form the API RP 11L

S = polished rod stroke length , in

93 | P a g e
94

N = Pump speed, strokes per min

𝑘𝑟 = spring constant of the rod string

CBE = 1.06(Wrf + 0.5 𝐹𝑜 )

CBE = ideal counter balance effect at the polished rod

Wrf = buoyant rod string weigth, lbs

𝐹𝑜 = fluid load on the plunger, lb

2𝑇 𝑆 2 W
PT = 𝑆 2 𝑘 𝑘𝑟 [ 1 + 10 ( 𝑆𝑘rf – 0.3 ) 𝑇𝑎 ]
𝑟 2 𝑟

PT = Peak net torque on the speed reducer

2T /𝑆 2 / 𝑘𝑟 = dependent variable taken form the API RP 11L

S = stroke length, inch

𝑘𝑟 = spring constant of the rod

𝑊𝑟𝑓 /S/ 𝑘𝑟 = dimensionless independent variable

𝑇𝑎 = torque adjustment factor.

𝑑^∆𝑝 ∆𝑑𝐵
𝑞𝑠 − 𝐾
𝑢𝑙

Where:

94 | P a g e
95

qs=plunger slippage,bpd,

d=plunger diameter, in,

∆𝑝= pressure differential across plunger,

∆𝑑= plunger fir,in,

U=liquid viscosity, cp, and

L= plunger length, in.

1.006𝐸6 𝑑 ∆𝑝 ∆𝑑3
𝑞𝑠 −
𝑢𝑙

Where:

qs=plunger slippage,bpd,

d=plunger diameter, in,

∆𝑝= pressure differential across plunger,

∆𝑑= plunger fir,in,

U=liquid viscosity, cp, and

L= plunger length, in.

95 | P a g e
96

Air balanced units:

𝐹1
𝑃𝑃𝑅𝐿 − 𝑊𝑟𝑓 + 0.85( 𝑆𝐾 − 𝐹𝑜 )
𝑆𝐾𝑟 𝑟

𝐹1 𝐹2
𝑀𝑃𝑅𝐿 − 𝑃𝑃𝑅𝐿 − ( + )𝑆𝐾𝑟
𝑆𝐾𝑟 𝑆𝐾𝑟

𝑃𝑃𝑅𝐿 + 𝑀𝑃𝑅𝐿
𝐶𝐵𝐸 − 1.06
2

2𝑇 𝑆 2 𝑊𝑟𝑓 𝑇𝑎
𝑃𝑇 − 0.96 2
𝐾𝑟 [1 + ( − 0.3) ]
𝑆 𝐾𝑟 2 𝑆𝐾𝑟 10

Mark II units:

𝐹1
𝑃𝑃𝑅𝐿 − 𝑊𝑟𝑓 + 0.75( 𝑆𝐾 − 𝐹𝑜 )
𝑆𝐾𝑟 𝑟

𝐹1 𝐹2
𝑀𝑃𝑅𝐿 − 𝑃𝑃𝑅𝐿 − ( + )𝑆𝐾𝑟
𝑆𝐾𝑟 𝑆𝐾𝑟

𝑃𝑃𝑅𝐿 + 1.25 𝑀𝑃𝑅𝐿

𝐶𝐵𝐸 − 1.04
2

𝑆
𝑃𝑇 − (0.93𝐹𝑝 𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 1.2 𝐹𝑝 𝑚𝑖𝑛 )
4

1.006 𝐸6 𝑑 ∆𝑝 ∆𝑑3
𝑞𝑠 =
𝜇𝑙

96 | P a g e
97

𝑑0.7 ∆𝑝 ∆𝑑3.3
𝑞𝑠 = 7𝐸6
𝜇𝑙

𝑑 ∆𝑝 ∆𝑑1.52
𝑞𝑠 = 870
𝜇𝑙

𝑑 ∆𝑝 ∆𝑑1.52
𝑞𝑠 = 453(1 + 0.14 𝑁)
𝜇𝑙

𝑄𝑜 + 𝑄𝑊
𝜂𝑣𝑜𝑙 =
𝑄𝑂 𝐵𝑂 + 𝑄𝑊 𝐵𝑊 + 𝑞𝑠

𝑄𝑜 + 𝑄𝑊
𝜂𝑣𝑜𝑙 =
𝑄𝑜 + 𝑄𝑊 [𝐺𝐿𝑅 (1 + 𝑊𝑂𝑅 ) − 𝑅𝑠] 𝐵𝑔
𝑄𝑂 𝐵𝑂 + 𝑄𝑊 𝐵𝑊 +
1 + 𝑊𝑂𝑅 5.614

𝑄𝑜 + 𝑄𝑊
𝜂𝑣𝑜𝑙 =
0.5 ( 𝐵𝑜 𝑊𝑂𝑅
𝑄𝑂 𝐵𝑂 + 𝑄𝑊 𝐵𝑊 + 𝐶 𝑃𝐼𝑃0.666 𝑣𝑠𝑙 𝑄𝑜 + 𝑄𝑊 ) (1 + 𝑊𝑂𝑅 + 𝐵𝑤(1 + 𝑊𝑂𝑅 ))

97 | P a g e
98

Figure 54. Fluid pound report case study ( American Petroleum Institute,2008).

98 | P a g e
99

Figure 55. Gas interface report case study ( American Petroleum Institute,2008).

99 | P a g e
100

Figure 56. Tagging problem report case study ( American Petroleum Institute,2008).

100 | P a g e