SPE 95272
Progressing Cavity Pump (PCP) Behavior in Multiphase Conditions
C. Bratu, SPE, PCM Pompes
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 – 12 October 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In operation, the Progressing Cavity Pumps (PCP) boosting
gaseous multiphase mixture faces reliability issues that can be
summarized as follows: the pump pressure is developed by the
stages nearest the discharge, then the high pressure gradient
causes heat to build up which commonly results in premature
failure of the elastomeric stator. This paper first describes our
recent testing program performed with an industrial PCP in
multiphase conditions, and then presents a new analytical
model that describes the thermo-hydraulic-mechanic processes
which occur when attempting to pump multiphase mixtures.
The objectives of our program are to: (1) examine the PCP
system operating at high gas volume fraction, (2) analyze the
pumping performance (delivered pressure, flow rate, and gas
void fraction) and, (3) describe the overheating generated
when the gas is compressed. This paper also describes our
PCP experimental program and presents resulting
experimental datas which clearly show the correlation between
the pressure distribution and the heat along the pump. We
formally explain this phenomenon by proposing a new
analytical model that evaluates the stator degradation and
failure risk. This paper should help operators and
manufacturers to design pumps with better system’s Mean
Time Between Failure (MTBF) performance.
Introduction
The PCP is a positive displacement pump type that can be
used to pump a wide range of multiphase mixtures, including
high viscosity fluids with entrained gas and solid particles in
suspension. However, PCP has a reduced ability to handle
high gas-liquid ratio due to limitations of its elastomeric stator
material required to overcome thermo and mechanical effects.
This paper studies PCP’s behavior in multiphase flow
conditions with high Gas Volume Fraction (GVF) (i.e., a GVF
from 0 to 90%) and liquid (water and viscous oil). Results
from our experimental testing program carried out with
industrial pumps, are presented in this paper. The objectives of
this experimental program was to: (1) examine the PCP
system operating in multiphase flow conditions, (2) analyze
the pumping performance (delivered pressure, flow rate and
gas void fraction), (3) describe the thermo-hydro-mechanical
process and overheating generated when the gas is compressed
and finally deduce the correlation between the pressure
distribution and developed temperature..
Based on the multiphase fluid equations (momentum and mass
conservation equations, fluid state function and gas
thermodynamic laws), we propose a new analytical model of
pressure-temperature distribution and compare it with data
obtained from the experimental testing program. We find that
the pump’s performance can be predicted using our deduced
formulas and that they help to predict more accurately the risk
of stator degradation and failure. Also, based on these results,
the pump’s design parameters can be better selected to comply
with production conditions and increase the pump’s
performance as well as the pump’s reliability.
Previous studies dealt with PCP performance in liquid and
multiphase mixture. The inventor of this pump system,
Moineau [1] have proposed to use Hagen-Poiseuille equation
for modeling internal slip flow and deduce the delivered
pressure in liquid flow. Recent studies (Vetter [2], Robello and
Saveth [3], and Gamboa [4]) introduce others effects such as
rotor rotation, liquid viscosity, rotor-stator gap variation and
mechanical properties of stator material (elastomer and metal).
Experimental work and analytical approache have shown that
multiphase boosting with positive displacement pumps ( PCP
and twin – screw ) is strongly affected by gas handling (Vetter
[2], Wietstock [5], Toma [6], Prang [7]). Extensive
experimental studies (Kenyery et al., [8] and [9]) dedicated to
PCP’s with two-phase flow show the pressure and temperature
distribution along the pump stator under different sets of
variables (gas void fraction, rotational speed and delivered
pressure). The objectives of these experiments were to
estimate how flow conditions can be affecting the pump’s life
and its lift performance.
Behavior of PCP in Multiphase Flow
It is common knowledge that PCP comprises a rigid metallic
rotor and a stator made of flexible material such as elastomer.
Between the rotor and stator there is a compressive fit, which
results in sealed cavities (or stages) of constant volume. As the
external pressure increases, the pump delivered pressure also
must increase, which is obtained by adding a number of
stages.
2 SPE 95272

Typical pressure distribution along the pump is the result of The thermo-hydraulic process. The slip flow rate (S)
slippage across the seal lines between the cavities, from the compensates the compressed gas volume and therefore
pump discharge (high pressure) to the inlet section transmits the pressure (P) to the last stages (Fig. 1). Moving
(low pressure). Therefore, when there is pressure in a cavity to towards to discharge (d, from section 1 to 2), increasing the
permit the slippage into the second cavity, the pressure is cavity’s pressure P, and letting heat to build-up. Consequently,
partially transmitted, due to pressure loss. Hence, the process the thermodynamic laws for polytropic process (Eq. 1)
is limited to a reduced number of cavities and the entire associates temperature gradient (T) to the pressure gradient
differential pressure is developed by the stages closer to the (P) and gas compressed density ( ρG ) :
discharge end of the pump. k −1
k
Multiphase fluids cause special problems for the PCP due to T2 ⎛ P2 ⎞ k P2 ⎛ ρG2 ⎞
the compressibility of the gas phase. The volume of the =⎜ ⎟ =⎜ ⎟ (Eq. 1)
multiphase mixture, which enters the cavity, is determined by T1 ⎝ P1 ⎠ P1 ⎝ ρG1 ⎠
the inlet pressure. Therefore, due to the increasing internal
pressure towards the discharge end, the gas volume does
compress. Close to the discharge end of the pump, the slippage where, k is the polytropic coeficient. In multiphase flow, the
flow rate compensates the gas compressed volume and the polytropic coefficient k and the mixture density ( ρ ) are both
pressure is transmitted between the cavities. However, typical functions of gas void fraction ( α ):
PCP has low slippage which can only compensate the ρ = α × ρG + (1 − α ) × ρG
compressed gas volume of few discharge cavities (stages).
Consequently, tests have shown that a disproportionate where, ρG and ρL are respectively the gas and the liquid
amount of the pressure is developed by the discharge stages, densities.
and the entire delivered pressure gets concentrated on only the The pressure-temperature relation (Eq. 1) along the pump
last stages of the pump. This excessive pressure distribution in stages will be compared with the measured experimental
the discharge stages causes significant thermo – mechanical results.
problems which commonly results in premature pump failure.
This thermo-hydraulic process is a result of well known gas P2
laws, which state that as the pressure increases the gas volume P1
decreases and the temperature increases. Since the cavity
volume is constant, the gas volume cannot decrease and the
high pressure gradient causes excessive heat buildup. Due to T1 T2
the temperature behavior of stator elastomeric materials, the
thermo- hydraulic process limits the PCP’s ability to pump
gaseous fluids. 1 2 d
Another thermo-mechanical process occurs as a result of S
disproportionate pressure distribution. As the differential
pressure between two contiguous cavities increases, the stator
flexing material is deformed and inside the low pressure cavity Fig.1 PCP pressure-temperature relationship due to gas
the stator is strained. This process is particularly apparent in compression
liquid or multiphase flow, when the cavities differential
pressure is relatively large. Then, the compression stress of the The thermo-mechanical process. Another effect of
rotor on the strained stator increases, and the rotor friction (or disproportionate pressure gradient is related to the rotor and
viscous torque) increases the failure risk. Thus, the increase of the stator frictional-viscous forces. We present a simple
friction temperature and viscous torque substantially decrease approach to analyze the stator reaction to differential pressure
the pump’s reliability. Moreover, the deformed stator will between the cavities 1 and 2 ( Fig. 1). It is assumed that a
create high local velocity fluid jets that could potentially cut plane element of the stator is compressed by the differential
the stator material. pressure (P) between the cavities 1 and 2 ( Fig.2 A). Based on
Accordingly, in multiphase flow conditions the excessive Boussines equation the stator deformation (Y) is:
pressure distribution in the discharge stages causes both
Pa − ax
thermo-hydraulic and thermo-mechanical physical processes, Y ( x) = P × φ ( x) with φ ( x) = × e × ( cos ax + sin ax )
which reduce the pump reliability and performance. 2b
Furthermore, the PCP reliability is related to the pressure b
a4 = and p = bY ( x ) = Pbφ ( x) (Eq. 2)
distribution which depends on the production conditions (i.e., 4EI
gas flow rate, delivered pressure, pump rotational velocity). where, a and b are material elastic characteristics and p is the
In order to comply with the field production requirements, the induced stress.
PCP design is a compromise between the reliability (MTBF Therefore, the stator compression is the maximum in the
parameters) and the pump’s hydraulic performance. cavity 2, while the surface stator is strained inside the cavity 1
This study introduces a new approach of the relationship (Fig. 2 A). Also, the stress developed by the material is a
between the pressure distribution and the reliability parameters compression (p+) inside the cavity 2 and the surface of the
in multiphase and liquid flow. cavity 1 is under tension (p-) .
SPE 95272 3

of slippage multiphase flow through rotor-stator contact. For

compressible flow, the slippage flow compensates the gas
compressed volume and transmits the pressure inside the
P2 cavities. Therefore, an iterative process is described: pressure
A distribution is related to slippage flow, but the slippage flow
P1 P rate compensates the cavities gas compressed volume which is
function of pressure distribution. To find the solution, an
analytical procedure is described and practical simplifications
Cavities are used.
1 2 P Finally, a simple formula gives the pressure distribution along
p(-) x the pump in multiphase flow
Stator p(+)
Y Px x
= 1 − F (α , ) (Eq. 4)
Pd L
Fn
B
where Px is the section x pressure, Pd is the pressure at the
Rotor discharge section, α = GVF is the inlet gas void fraction and
p(-) F is a polynomial function of α = GVF and x/L coordinate
(Fig. 3). The value of polynomial F is easy to calculate.
The new approach for modeling PCP’s internal slip in
Fig.2 .Stator deformation due to pressure gradient inside the multiphase flow shows that pump pressure distribution can be
cavities (A) and rotor-strained stator contact (B). analyzed with practical formulae. Therefore, it is not necessary
to use complex numerical method.
Such strained stator surface increases the stress due to the It is interesting to notice that the simplicity of this result is
rotor movement and the failure risk occurs ( Fig. 2B). And coherent with thermo- hydraulic - mechanic description.
yet , Bowden’s approach shows that thermal energy due to As an example , the Fig .3 shows the non dimensional pressure
the viscous friction between the rotor and stator depends on distribution ( Px / Pd ) along the pump , for α = GVF= 0,9 ;
the normal force Fn, friction coefficient f and rotor velocity N. the analytical pressure distribution ( Eq. 4) is compared with
The normal force Fn is the reaction to stator deformation the experimental data.
stress p (Fig. 2B). Following the equation 2, the pression
gradient P between the cavities is the cause of stator stress p.
1,2
Therefore, the viscous friction temperature T is a function of
the mechanical parameters: 1
0,8
Px/Pd

T ∼ P× f × N (Eq. 3) 0,6
0,4
The result is that the temperature T increases with the pressure 0,2
gradient P, friction coefficient f and pump velocity N. Then,
0
the viscous-friction temperature T is a measure of the force
(torque) developed by the rotor in order to run over the 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0
strained stator, and in this sense T is a measure of failure risk X/L
and reliability. As for the friction coefficient f, it is equivalent LIQUID
of Newton’s dynamic viscosity.
GVF = 0.9 Calculation
The thermo-mechanical process (See Eq. 3) is illustrated by
experimental data. GVF = 0.9 Experimental

i d
Finally, the pressure distribution in multiphase flow which
shows disproportionate pressure gradient near the discharge
x
stage is the cause of both processes leading to temperature
L x o
build up, i.e. gas fast compression (thermo-hydraulic) and
rotor-stator forced contact (thermo-mechanic).
Fig.3. Multiphase pressure distribution; analytical (Eq.4) and
experimental for α = GVF=0.9, N= 300 rpm, P= 40 bar.
The pressure distribution in multiphase flow. We have
seen that the pressure distribution is the key for the
According to experimental trend, the pressure distribution in
evaluation of pump behavior in multiphase flow (see
liquid flow is linear, which confirms the model aproach.
Appendix). Thus, classical momentum and mass conservation
In multiphase flow, with a gas content of α=GVF= 0.9 the
are applied to multiphase compressible flow. The pressure
pressure distribution curve shows a steeply gradient, roughly 4
distribution along the pump is determined by the pressure drop
time as big as the liquid gradient. Again, using the fact that
4 SPE 95272

pressure distribution gradient is the cause of temperature That is due to strong interference fit which seals the cavities
build-up in both processes, i.e. gas compression (thermo- and a very small variation ( 0,2 %) of uncompressible liquid
hydraulic) and rotor-stator viscous friction (thermo-mechanic), volume causes high pressure variation .On the other hand ,the
it is clear that multiphase PCP behavior is due to pressure slippage is located on the discharge stages ( P= 40 bar ).
distribution.
Pump characteristics
The Experimental Program. Pum Name: Pump PCM Oilfield 100 TP 600
An extensive test program was performed at the PCM’s 3
facility test rig and CREMHyG- Turbomachinery and Flow rate = 108 m /d (680 bpd)
Cavitation Research and Test Laboratory in Grenoble, France. Head = 600 m (2000 ft); N= 500 rpm
Main objective of the experimental program was to determine Experimental conditions
the PCP’s ability to handle multiphase fluids with gas fraction
up to 90%. Additionally, rotors and stators combinations were Liquid: water, oil and Gas: air
evaluated in liquid and multiphase flow. Tests in liquid and Flow rate (m3/d) = 10 to 60, Pressure = 0 to 40 bar
multiphase flow allow validating the physical processes and GVF = 0 to 0.9, Oil viscosity (cPo) = 1200 (20°C)
parameters related to stator reliability and pump performance. 600 (30°C)
The configuration of the CREMHyG test skid is shown in the Measured parameters
Fig. 4. Since the pressure and temperature distributions are
significant factors of PCP behavior in multiphase flow, Pressure = 21 sensors, Temperature = 10 sensors,
measurements were carried out at multiple locations and Flow rate: liquid, gas. Pump velocity (rpm)
different intervals of time. The presented temperature values
were measured during 20 minutes with multiphase flow stable Table 1: Test conditions
conditions. In actual operations, long term pump response to
thermal increase largely depends on initial temperature
gradient (system invariant) and surrounding factors. Pressure bar 40
35
Flow meters in gas and liquid lines were used to monitor the 30
gas fraction. Additionally, pump speed and delivered pressure 25
20
were also recorded. 15
The range of measured parameters is on the table 1. 10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Stages

P= 40 bar P = 0 - 6 bar

Fig. 5 Pressure distribution in liquid flow, N= 300 rpm

The temperature developed in liquid flow (oil) is presented in

Fig. 4 .The PCP test rig and the measurement installation
The pressure distribution along the pump was measured in
liquid flow (GVF= 0) and multiphase conditions for various
gas content (GVF), speed and discharge pressure.
Liquid flow. For example, Fig.5 shows the pressure
distribution in liquid flow when the discharge pressure is P=
40 bar and 0-6 bar;
Liquid pressure curve and related slippage are the result of
rotor-stator interference fit, particularly on the inlet sector.
Indeed, when the discharge pressure is low (0 – 6 bar) the
pressure increases through inlet stages (1-7) up to P =20 bar.
Figures 6 and 7. Measured fluid temperature, at different
pump velocities (Fig. 6: N= 300 and 100 rpm, P= 40 bar)
confirms that the temperature increases with the velocity (see
Eq. 3). However, the mean temperature ratio is half of the
velocity ratio, due to viscous coefficient (f) variation with Re
number of slippage liquid film. Taking into account both
effects, velocities and viscous-friction coefficient, the
experimental results (see Fig. 6) confirm the analytical
formula (Eq. 3).
Developed temperature, when the discharge pressure is P = 40
bar and 0 to 6 bar is shown in the Fig. 7. Using specific
notations, the parameters (see Eq. 3) become marked: suffix a,
for P = 40 bar and suffix b, for P= 0 to 6 bar.
Then, the ratio corresponding to the Eq. 3 becomes:
Ta Pa
∼ (Eq. 5)
Tb Pb
with both identical friction coefficients fa = fb, and velocities
Na = Nb = 300 rpm.
SPE 95272 5

According to Figures 5 and 7 the ratio of mean pressure
gradient and temperature are (Eq. 3 and 5):
Pa Ta
= 1.65 = 1.54
Pb Tb
This confirms the relationship between the pressure gradient
and friction-viscous temperature (Eq.3). Moreover,
temperature curves symmetry (see Fig. 7) is similar to pressure
trend (see Fig. 5). Therefore, even in liquid flow the pressure
gradient is the primary cause of friction-viscous torque and
related temperature. The temperature is then a measure of
viscous torque, reflecting the stator reliability.
even when the gas content is low (see Fig. 8). However, as the
analytical approach shows (see Appendix), the pressure
distribution depends on both flow rate (or N), and GVF. Then,
when the flow rate is high (N= 300 rpm) compressed large gas
volume requires slippage compensation and the pressure is
limited to discharge stages 10 to 13, and vice-versa , for low
flow rate (N= 100 rpm) the pressure is distributed to stages
8 to 13 (See Fig. 8).
45
40
35

Pressure bar
12 30
25
Temperature °C

10
20
8
15
6
10
4
5
2
0
0
8 9 10 11 12 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Stages Stages

T N= 300 rpm T mean GVF=0.1 N=3OO rpm GVF=0.9 N=300 rpm

t N= 100 rpm t mean GVF=0.1 N=100 rpm GVF=0.9 N=100 rpm

Fig. 6. Temperature in liquid flow (oil) for various Fig. 8 .Discharge stages pressure distribution in multiphase
pump velocities (N= 300, 100 rpm), P= 40 bar. flow .Experimental data for P= 40 bar, N= 300 and 100 rpm ,
GVF= α = 0,1 and 0,9.

12 Our new approach used for modeling the pressure distribution

in multiphase flow (see Apendix) is compared with
10
Temperature °C

experimental data (see Fig.3) and demonstrates that pressure

8 gradient can be predicted applying simple formula (Eq. 4).
6
Based on previous pressure gradient analysis one can correlate
with temperature experimental data. Figure 9 shows the
4 temperature along the pump for gas content GVF= 0.5 and 0.9,
2 P= 40 bar and fixed flow rate (N= 300 rpm). As the pressure
distribution is concentrated on discharge stages 10-13 (Figs. 3,
0
and 8), the temperature curves reflect the:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ̇ Thermo-hydraulic process on discharge stages 10 to
Stages 13; due to the pressur gradient the temperature is the
result of gas polytropic compression ( Eq. 1 )
P= 40 bar P= 0-6 bar ̇ Thermo-mechanic process on the inlet stages 1 to 9,
P= 40 bar mean P= 0-6 bar mean where the temperature is due to the viscous friction
multiphase lubrication (Eq. 3).
Therefore, the relationship between the pressure gradient and
Fig. 7. Temperature in liquid flow (oil) for discharge pressure the temperature increase due to polytropic compression (see
P = 40 bar and 0 to 6 bar, N = 300 rpm. Eq. 1) on the discharge stages 10 to 13 and pressure variation
of 40 bar, becomes (Fig. 9):
Multiphase flow. According to thermal process described in - For GVF = 0.9, the temperature variation (Eq. 1) is:
the previous section, the pressure distribution in multiphase 0,286
⎛ P13 ⎞ T
flow is the main cause of temperature increase. ⎜ ⎟ = 13 = 2.9
The slippage flow rate compensates the gas volume of few ⎝ P10 ⎠ T10
compressed cavities and, therefore, the pressure distribution is which corresponds to measured temperatures on the discharge
limited to discharge stages (see Fig. 3). Indeed, the lack of stages: GVF=0.9 , T13 / T10 = 20 °C / 7°C .
slippage flow rate results in steepness pressure distribution,
6 SPE 95272

- For GVF= 0.5 the temperature variation (Eq. 1) becomes: Therefore, the previous approach of thermo- mechanical
⎛ P13 ⎞
0,25 process is confirmed, i.e. the pressure gradient is the cause of
T
⎜ ⎟ = 13 = 2.5 viscous friction torque, whereas the temperature is the
⎝ P10 ⎠ T10 measure of this mechanical interaction.
wich corresponds to measured temperature on the discharge Furthermore, observed thermal behavior depends on pump
stages 10 to 13: GVF=0.5 , T13 / T10 = 10 °C / 4 °C. flow rate; Fig. 10 shows the temperature when flow rates vary
(N= 100 and 300 rpm), for P = 40 bar and GVF= 0.9. Indeed,
In multiphase flow, taking into account the liquid capacity to when gas flow rate is low (N= 100 rpm) the slippage
absorb heat flow the exponent (Eq.1) is a function of GVF. overcomes compressed volume and that limits the temperature
Nevertheless, when the gas content is high enough the liquid increase and improves the pressure distribution (stages 9 to
heat dissipation is not significant and the gas polytropic 13). As we pointed out above, throughout the discharge stages
coefficient can be used, without any multiphase mixture the gas is compressed and the polytropic approach is still
consideration. confirmed in both cases, high (N= 300 rpm) and low flow
Accordingly, this confirms the previous approach of thermo- rates (N= 100 rpm). Then, the gas content is GVF= 0.9 and the
hydraulic process i.e. the polytropic gas compression and temperature variation (between the stages 9-10 and 13)
temperature increase are related to pressure gradient. is T13 T9−10 ≈ 3 . However, through the inlet stages the
temperature ratio is due to viscous friction process (Eqs. 3,7):
Te f e Pe N e
∼ × × (Eq.7)
20 Th f h Ph N h
18 where suffixes are: e for N= 300 rpm, and h for N= 100 rpm.
16 At high gas flow rate the pressure is limited to discharge
Temperature °C

14 stages (10-13) and as the gas decreases the pressure

12
distribution is extended, then the pressure gradient ratio is
10
Pe/Ph = 1.6. Rotating velocities ratio is Ne/Nh = 3. As for
8
6
viscous friction coefficient ratio, fluid film lubrication effect
4 (Re number and oil- gas entrained) can be approximated and
2 fe/fh =1/2. Therefore the temperature ratio is Te/Th = 2.4,
0 which corresponds to measured mean values on the inlet
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 stages (Fig. 10).
Stages 20
18
GVF = 0,9 GVF = 0,5 16
Temperature ° C

14
12
10
Fig. 9. Temperature in multiphase flow. 8
GVF= α = 0.9 and = 0.5, P= 40 bar, N= 300 rpm. 6
4
The temperature due to viscous friction in multiphase flow, 2
0
with GVF = 0.9 and 0.5, is illustrated by the inlet stages 1 to 9
behavior (See Fig.9). Thus, according to previous thermo- 1 3 5 7 9 11 13
mechanical process (see Eq.3), for constant velocity N = 300 Stages
rpm, temperatures ratio is ( Eq.6 ):
N = 300 rpm N = 100 rpm
Tc Pc f c
∼ ∼ (Eq.6)
Td Pd f d Fig. 10. Temperature in multiphase flow for various flows
rates, N = 300 and 100 rpm, P= 40 bar, GVF = 0.9.
where suffixes are: c, for GVF= 0.9 and d, for GVF= 0.5.
Assuming that the rotor centrifugal acceleration results in a
liquid film (with some gas bubbles), the interference fit is oil Conclusions:
lubricated and the friction coefficients are equivalent. As for 1. A new approach of the PCP’s behavior and reliability in
the pressure gradient , the experimental data show that for two-phase flow is described:
GVF = 0.9 the pressure is distributed on 3 stages (see Fig. 8) , ̇ Thermo-hydraulic process: where the gas
whereas for GVF= 0.5 the pressure is on 4 stages . Then, the compression, due to pressure gradient, causes
pressure gradient ratio is 4/3 = 1.33, and the temperature ratio temperature to increase,
corresponds to the measured ones (Fig. 9), i.e. ̇ Thermo-mechanic process: where the pressure
gradient between the cavities induces strained stator
Tc Td = 8 °C 6 °C = 1.33 .
SPE 95272
effect that increases frictional (viscous) rotor-stator
torque and related temperature,
̇ Pressure distribution in two-phase flow that depends
on gas content (flow rate, GVF) and the
compensation of compressed volume due to the
slippage flow.
2. Experimental tests carried out on PCP’s confirm the
physical description; calculations correlate well with measured
values of pressure distribution and related temperature
increase.
3. The pressure distribution is the cause of temperature
increase in both two-phase and liquid flows. Moreover, the
temperature is a measure of gas compression effect and rotor-
stator frictional (viscous) torque. Accordingly, that is
equivalent of a criterion of PCP’s reliability and failure risk.
4. The temperature due to rotor-stator frictional (viscous)
torque is a function of pressure gradient, rotational velocity
and frictional coefficient .The temperature due to gas
compression depends on pressure distribution and gas flow
rate (GVF, rotational velocity).
In order to improve the PCP’s operational life, usually one
reduces the rotational velocity, delivered pressure and rotor-
stator fit. Therefore, the analytical formulas enable to optimize
the pump performance in both liquid and two-phase flows.
Acknowledgements:
The author wishes to acknowledge the management of PCM
Pumps for their permission to publish this work and the
permanent support of the research effort. Also, I would like to
thank those individuals at CREMHyG and PCM testing rig,
who have been involved in the experimental program.
Nomenclature:
P: pressure, differential pressure,
T: temperature,
GVF = α gas void fraction,
ρ : densities (mixture, gas ( G ) , liquid ( L )),
k: gas polytropic coefficient,
Y: stator deformation,
p: stator stress,
f : rotor-stator friction coefficient,
N: pump rotational velocity,
W: cavity volume,
W: gas compressed volume of the cavity,
S: total slippage flow rate,
q: slippage flow rate, compensating gas compressed
volume W,
h: pressure drop of slippage flow,
i: inlet section,
d: discharge section.
References :
1. Moineau René (1930), A New Capsulism, Doctoral Thesis,
The University of Paris.
7
2. Vetter G and Wincek M (1993) Performance Prediction of
Twin-Screw Pumps for Two-Phase Gas/Liquid Flow,
Pumping Machinery, 154, 331-340
3. Robello G and Saveth K. (1998) Progressing Cavity Pump
(PCP): New Performance Equations for Optimal Design.
SPE 39786.SPE Permian Basin Oil and gas Recovery
Conference, Midland.Texas.U.S.
4. Gamboa J, Olivet A and Espin S. (2003): New Approach for
Modeling Progressive Cavity Pumps Performance,
SPE 84137, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA.
5. Wietstock P and White W. (1993): Studies in Multiphase
Pumping with Screw Pumps. 6-th International Conference on
Multiphase Production, pp. 389-414.
6. Toma P. et al. (1998): Field assessment of Multiphase
Progressing Cavity Pumping, SPE Progressing Cavity Pump
Workshop, Tulsa U.S.
7. Prang J. (1991): Rotary Screw Pumps for Multiphase
Products, British Pump Manufacturers Association, 12th
international Pump Technical Conference, London U.K.
8. Martin A., Kenyery F. and Tremante A. (1999):
Experimental Study of Two Phase Pumping in progressive
cavity pumps, SPE 53967. SPE Latin American and
Cararibbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas.
9. Olivet A, Gamboa J and Kenyery F. (2002): Experimental
Study of Two-Phase Pumping in a Progressing Cavity Pump
Metal to Metal, SPE 77730, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio, USA.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
1 inch ( in ) = 2.54 cm
1 foot ( ft ) = 0.305 m
3
1 barrel (B) = 0.159 m
5
1 bar = 10 Pa
1 psig = 6.89 K Pa
( 5/9) ( °F-32) = °C
Appendix: Multiphase Pressure Distribution
We propose a schematic hydraulic flow to understand the
pressure distribution. The multiphase mixture of the cavity
(W) moves from inlet section ( i ) toward the discharge (d),
while the leakage (S) through the rotor-stator contact is
slipping from the discharge high pressure Pd (Fig.11). Due to
pressure P variation, the compressed gas volume ∆W is
compensated by a part q of overall leakage flow S. Therefore,
the pressure distribution P is a function of leakage flow S
curve, which depends of gas compression volume ∆W. Since
∆W is a function of gas flow rate and pressure P, there is an
iterative process.
Fluid mixture momentum and mass conservation equations
describe the slippage multiphase compressible flow. Assuming
that the kinetic energy can be neglected and the slippage
pressure drop controls the pump pressure distribution, there
results the nonlinear integral equation 8:
(1-α ) ρ L ∫ dP + ρG bα ∫ P.dP = C ∫x S 2 ( x, P, α ).dx
0
(Eq. 8)
8 SPE 95272

where b and C are: system constants (inlet pressure, pressure multiphase flow the entire slippage flow Sd compensates few
drop coefficient, hydraulic diameter and flow section). cavities Sd = Sc, and the flow rate has the form:
This equation (8) shows that the pressure distribution P (left
side) is primarily due to pressure drop of slippage flow (right ⎡ 2α ⎛ x ⎞ ⎤
Sx (x) = Sd × ⎢1 − ⎜1 − ⎟x
L ⎝ 2L ⎠ ⎥⎦
side), which S flow rate varies while the compressed gas is (Eq. 13)
compensated. Therefore, it is necessary to solve the ⎣
relationship between the gas compressed – compensated Now, one can turn to pressure drop expression hx (Eq. 8, right
volume (∆W) and local slippage flow rate (S). side) from the dischage d to x section, and the integral is:

S ⎛ x⎞
h x = C × Sd 2 × F ⎜ α, ⎟ (Eq. 14)
i q d ⎝ L⎠
Wo where, F is a polynomial function of: α, x and L.
x For liquid flow (α=0), the pressure drop function is linear
L x (i.e., F = x /L), and the overall liquid pressure drop is:
Wx h 0,L = C × Sd 2 , x = L
Pd
Then, the pressure drop in multiphase flow becomes:
Pi Px P ⎛ x⎞
h x = h 0,L × F ⎜ α, ⎟ (Eq. 15)
⎝ L⎠
Wi ∆Wx W It is now easy matter to get the pressure distribution (left side
of the equation) and the integral becomes:
Sd
(1 − α ) ρL ( Pd − Px ) + αρG
1
2Pi
( Pd 2 − Px 2 ) = h x (Eq. 16)
S
Sx qd q The pressure distribution of PCP in multiphase flow is then
given by simplified analytical solution:
qx
Fig. 11. Multiphase pressure distribution: compressed- Px ⎛ x⎞
compensated volume and slippage flow rate. = 1 − F ⎜ α, ⎟ (Eq. 17)
Pd ⎝ L⎠
Mass conservation of pump flow rate, including compressible where, F denotes the pressure drop function depending of gas
gas volume, gives the volume ∆Wx that have to be flow rate (α) and the coordinate along the pump (x /L).
compensated in the section x: This result is still valid for liquid flow (α = 0 and F = x / L)
that gives a linear pressure distribution:

∆Wx = α × Wi × ⎛⎜1 − i ⎞⎟
P
(Eq. 9) Px x
⎝ Px ⎠ =1− (Eq. 18)
Pd L
Assuming linear approximation of pressure distribution, the The new approach for modeling PCP’s internal slip in
compressed volume is a part of initial gas volume (αWi). multiphase flow shows that pump pressure distribution can be
Therefore, the slippage flow rate qx that compensates ∆Wx in analyzed with practical formula. Therefore it is not necessary
the section x, becomes: to use complex numerical method.
q x ∆Wx It is interesting to notice that the simplicity of this result is
⎛ x⎞
= = α × ⎜1 − ⎟ (Eq. 10) coherent with thermo-hydraulic-mechanic description.
qd Wi ⎝ L⎠ In order to illustrate the pressure distribution along the pump,
in multiphase flow, the calculated non-dimensional pressure
Consider the total slippage flow rate consumed between the ratio (see Eqs.17,4) is compared with experimental data (See
dischage d and the section x: Fig. 3). The discharge stages are compensated by the slippage
flow and pressure distribution is limited to 1/3 of the overall
⎛ x ⎞ stages.
Scx = ∫ qx .dx = α × qd × ⎜1 − ⎟× x (Eq. 11)
⎝ 2L ⎠
The slippage flow in the section x is:

S x = S d − Scx (Eq. 12)

So, the flow through the section x is the difference between
the discharge initial slippage flow rate Sd and consumed one
S cx to compensate the compressed gas volume. Actually, in