Simple model of electric submersible pump in gassy well

Zhou, Desheng; Sachdeva, Rajesh

doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2009.11.012

Cited by 47 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This model was presented by Zhou and Sachdeva in 2010 [10]: (4) where K 2 is a unit-less coefficient, C is pressure unit factor, e.g. 1, 1000 or 0.145 for psi, ksi or kPa.…”

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to [10], for 8 stages of I-42B radial ESP, K 2 =1.971988, E 4 =1.987838, E 5 =9.659664 and E 6 =0.905908.…”

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a matter of fact, the parameters of the presented empirical models have been identified based on the data collected at a fixed rotational speed of 3500 rpm; thus, the models are valid at this speed only. The estimated head can be adapted for other rotational speeds using 'affinity laws' detailed in [2,10].…”

Section: Summary and Limits Of Empirical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, they are not assumed to be trustworthy. On the contrary, empirical models of GFPs in ESPs are widely trusted and used in practice [10,11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Estimate of the Head Produced by Electrical Submersible Pumps on Gaseous Petroleum Fluids, A Radial Basis Function Network Approach

zaheri¹,

Ghodsi²,

Alqallaf³

2018

IJAIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports successful development of an exact and an efficient radial basis function network (RBFN) model to estimate the head of gaseous petroleum fluids (GPFs) in electrical submersible pumps (ESPs). Head of GPFs in ESPs is now often estimated using empirical models. Overfitting and its consequent lack of model generality data is a potentially serious issue. In addition, available data series is fairly small, including the results of 110 experiments.All these limits were considered in RBFN design process, and highly accurate RBFNs were developed and cross validated.

show abstract

“…This model was presented by Zhou and Sachdeva in 2010 [10]: (4) where K 2 is a unit-less coefficient, C is pressure unit factor, e.g. 1, 1000 or 0.145 for psi, ksi or kPa.…”

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to [10], for 8 stages of I-42B radial ESP, K 2 =1.971988, E 4 =1.987838, E 5 =9.659664 and E 6 =0.905908.…”

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary and Limits Of Empirical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, they are not assumed to be trustworthy. On the contrary, empirical models of GFPs in ESPs are widely trusted and used in practice [10,11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Estimate of the Head Produced by Electrical Submersible Pumps on Gaseous Petroleum Fluids, A Radial Basis Function Network Approach

zaheri¹,

Ghodsi²,

Alqallaf³

2018

IJAIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The flow behaviors inside ESPs under gassy conditions, such as pressure surging and gas pockets, further deteriorate ESP boosting pressure. Surging may result in vibrations and short service life, and gas pockets can severely limit liquid production rates [5]. Although handling gas-liquid mixture has gradually become common for ESPs, the physical mechanism of two-phase flow affecting ESP hydraulic performance is not well understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Experiments and Modeling of Gas-Liquid Flow in Electrical Submersible Pumps

Zhu

Zhang

2018

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the second most widely used artificial lift method in petroleum production (and first in produced amount), electrical submersible pump (ESP) maintains or increases flow rate by converting kinetic energy to hydraulic pressure of hydrocarbon fluids. To facilitate its optimal working conditions, an ESP has to be operated within a narrow application window. Issues like gas involvement, changing production rate and high oil viscosity, greatly impede ESP boosting pressure. Previous experimental studies showed that the presence of gas would cause ESP hydraulic head degradation. The flow behaviors inside ESPs under gassy conditions, such as pressure surging and gas pockets, further deteriorate ESP pressure boosting ability. Therefore, it is important to know what parameters govern the gas-liquid flow structure inside a rotating ESP and how it can be modeled. This paper presents a comprehensive review on the key factors that affect ESP performance under gassy flow conditions. Furthermore, the empirical and mechanistic models for predicting ESP pressure increment are discussed. The computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based modeling approach for studying the multiphase flow in a rotating ESP is explained as well. The closure relationships that are critical to both mechanistic and numerical models are reviewed, which are helpful for further development of more accurate models for predicting ESP gas-liquid flow behaviors.

show abstract