Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022 April 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract 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 an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract 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
Multiphase pumps are modified liquid pumps that are capable
of pumping various combinations of oil, water, gas, and sand
in the same pipeline without separation. Minas Light Oil
Steam Flood (LOSF) Pilot Project will utilize the multiphase
technology to boost casing fluid with high steam and gas
content from wells to the Gathering Station without prior
separation. Hence, tremendous savings in capital and
operating costs are realized from strategic placement of
multiphase pumps since large separators, liquid pumps and
compressors are eliminated.
Two uniquely different multiphase pumps, a 500 hp twin-
screw pump and a 700 hp helico-axial pump, were recently
tested and qualified at the Texaco Multiphase Flow Facility,
where flow rates as high as 145,000 BPD and gas volume
fractions (GVF) up to 100% were achieved. An illustration of
each pumping unit is given followed by a presentation of
measured performance data relative to the operating conditions
chosen by Caltex Pacific Indonesia (CPI). Based on test
results, the advantages and disadvantages of the competing
technologies are compared, noting that CPI will eventually
consider these data to choose either twin-screw or helico-axial
technology for the Minas Light Oil Steam Flood project.
Results obtained at the Texaco Multiphase Flow Facility
indicate that twin-screw pumps are 25% more efficient than
helico-axial pumps. Furthermore, twin-screw pumps are
virtually insensitive to liquid slugs and large changes in inlet
gas density; helico-axial pumps require slug catchers upstream
of the pump inlet to absorb these intermittent slugs and large
variations in GVF. It is anticipated, however, that helico-axial
pumps are superior in resisting long-term wear from
continuous exposure of sand, which will be investigated in
Duri in the fourth quarter of 1998.
Introduction
The nature of steam flood in Minas field is quite unique since
the light Minas oil (32 API) is so volatile that casing vapors
must be produced. Production streams from both casing and
tubing must be piped to the Bulk Metering Station and then,
using the existing lines, to the gathering station. In these lines,
LOSF flow will be quenched by colder fluid from other parts
of the Minas field which are water injected.
Simulations show a significant percentage of the oil
production will be vapors. Closed casings would severely
hamper production rates, and vapors would be produced
through the tubing anyway. Having vapors in tubing is very
undesirable since this will seriously affect the performance of
multi-stages centrifugal pump downhole. Therefore a casing
vapor collection is required.
In order to promote both high rates of inflow from the
reservoir and natural flow, Minas wellhead casing pressures
must be drawn to a relatively low value, 60 psig. However,
preliminary calculations showed that the existing gathering
system would not support the expected amount of these steam-
dominant vapors at pressure below 60 psig. Some alternatives
could be adopted to solve this problem, among them are:
Cool the casing vapors at locations near the well heads.
Use multiphase pumps to boost casing streams to
gathering station.
The first option means that HC condensates and water must
be separated from steam. This choice would requires various
different equipment, higher OPEX (energy cost especially) and
more intensive maintenance efforts. If a separate line would
not be built to transport the liquids to the gathering station, the
stream must be piped to the existing lines. Hence, this cooling
would be inefficient since the streams will be quenched
anyway. Therefore, LOSF design team decided to implement
the later alternative.
Multiphase pump application becomes critical when steam
including light oil vapors reach producing wells. This will
happen 1.0 to 2.5 years after injection. The implementation of
multiphase pump is expected to:
SPE 54294
Multiphase Pumps for Minas Light Oil Steam Flood, Sumatra-Indonesia
Erwinsyah Putra, Caltex Pacific Indonesia and Donald D. Uphold, Texaco
2 E. PUTRA, D.D. UPHOLD SPE 54294
Boost casing stream to tubing stream pressure
Reduce volumetric flow rate of casing fluids through
condensations across the pump
Reduce wellhead pressures and therefore enhance well
productions.
The Minas multi phase pump must also be capable of
handling:
Unsteady flow rates and terrain slugs
Sand production
High temperature (up to 320 F)
Multiphase Pump Selection
Two commercially available technologies are being
considered, twin-screw and helico-axial.
Details of each technology will be presented later. To
determine which technology is most suitable for Minas-LOSF
application, each pump would undergo several tests to evaluate
its performances. The design point is described as follows:
Suction pressure: 75 psig
Differential pressure: 100 psi
Gas Volume Fraction/GVF: 75%
Capacity: 125,000 ABPD
The first test was conducted at Texaco Flow Loop Test
Facilities at Humble. The test matrix consisted of:
Design point test
High speed test
High GVF test (up to 100% GVF, run dry)
At Humble, the process fluid was homogeneous multiphase
mixture of Fuji crude oil (30 API), water and methane heated
to 200 F.
The final test will be conducted in Duri field in last quarter
of 1998. Both pumps will be exposed to multiphase mixtures
containing oil, water, gases (including CO
2
and H
2
S), wet
steam and sand. The temperature may reach as high as 300 F.
Data from Humble and Duri plus pumps economics will
determine which technology is best for Minas-LOSF Pilot
Project.
Helico-axial Technology
A 7-stage rotodynamic pump equipped with a 700 hp motor
and a Variable Frequency Driver was chosen for testing.
Figure 1 and 2 illustrate the helico-axial pump. This pump is a
horizontal seven-stage multiphase pump of the helico-axial
design. The collection of stages accommodates variable
reduction in gas volume flow rate as the fluid moves through
the pump. The hydraulic components are designed to prevent
gas-liquid separation, which would otherwise produce
diminished head, or vapor lock, as is common in conventional
centrifugal pumps.
Each stage of the pump consists of a rotating helico-shaped
impeller and a stationary diffuser, yielding a hybrid between a
dynamic pump and an axial compressor that allows a wide
range of liquid flow rates and inlet gas concentration.
Each impeller provides pressure boost and the interstage
diffuser homogenizes and redirects the flow for the next set of
impellers. This interstage mixing increases the overall
efficiency and enables stable pressure-flow characteristics.
The nature of open-axial hydraulics allows higher total
flow rates compared to their competitive counterpart twin-
screw pump. This is especially important when considering
the production life of the field for maximizing oil recovery.
Additionally, open-axial passages accommodate solid particles
and minimize accumulation in the pump casing. Finally, open-
axial flow minimizes the risk of mechanical seizing due to
overheating at high GVF.
In theory, a rotodynamic pump creates pressure
dynamically, where shaft torque is converted into angular
momentum. Hence, differential pressure depends on motor
speed and inlet fluid density. This makes rotodynamic pumps
extremely sensitive to small changes in inlet conditions.
Hence, large changes in shaft torque under intermittent flow
are common with rotodynamic pumps. Three features are
offered to smooth these disturbances: mechanical design
improvements, flow homogenizer (buffer tank), and variable
speed capabilities. Firstly, the impellers are stacked with a
small interference shrink fit in order to maintain a small
residual unbalance. The torque is transmitted to the impeller
with a single key or pin. Two (2) anti friction roller bearings
stabilize radial thrust and one tilting-pad thrust bearing carries
the axial load. Secondly, the buffer tank, or static mixer, is
installed upstream of the pump to accommodate slug flow.
The buffer tank absorbs energy of liquid slug fronts and
smoothens out fluctuations in gas density and pressure. Hence,
repetitive torque changes within the pump are minimized.
Finally, the variable speed drive (VFD) adjusts the motor
speed to maintain constant inlet pressure. Differential
temperature across the pump casing is expected to increase
with increasing GVF. Special care has been taken to minimize
this differential temperature (i.e., internal design modification,
thermal insulation) as it could potentially damage the rotor and
diffusers due to thermal distortion of the shaft.
The rotodynamic pump utilizes only one rotating shaft, or
rotor. The pump rotor (with impellers), diffusers, bearings,
shaft seals and cover are designed as a cartridge assembly
which is introduced into the casing to reduce maintenance
downtime. The single shaft principle is simple and permits
higher rotational speeds (up to 3,600 rpm for this specific unit)
when compared to the twin-screw counterpart (up to 2300
rpm). Process fluid enters through a vertical inlet. The initial
stage homogenizes the fluid and prepares it for the first
boosting stage. Fluid is then pumped axially via seven
impeller/diffuser stages, where the fluid builds pressure
dynamically. The hydraulic stages are sized according to the
principle that most of the compression occurs during the later
stages. Process fluid then discharges vertically. Recall that a
tilt-pad thrust bearing assembly is installed at the non-drive
end of the pump to handle the axial load and maximize roller
SPE 54294 MULTIPHASE PUMPS FOR MINAS LIGHT OIL STEAM FLOOD, SUMATRA-INDONESIA 3
bearing life. The inherent balanced flow in the low-pressure
twin-screw pump diminishes the importance of axial thrust
bearings but is essential in the helico-axial concept.
The pump has two areas where process fluid is sealed from
leaking to the atmosphere and/or circulating lube-oil into
either the process or atmosphere. These areas are located at
each end of the rotor: the drive end and non-drive end.
Sealing is accomplished with single-acting hydraulically
balanced mechanical seals type. Two mechanical seals are
located at the suction side (drive end) and one mechanical seal
is located at the discharge side (non-drive end). All three
mechanical seals are identical. On the drive end, the two
mechanical seals along with the radial roller bearing form a
single cartridge assembly acting as a double mechanical seal.
On the non-drive end, the shaft is contained within the pump
casing, requiring only one mechanical seal (with radial and
thrust bearings) forming a single mechanical seal. The
bearings and seals are lubricated and cooled. The lube-oil
system is a closed circuit (similar to API 610, Plan 53)
maintained at a pressure about 10% above process discharge
pressure (i.e., about 200 psi). The circulation rate is
maintained at 15 gpm total flow rate. The system consists of
an oil tank, refill gear pump, overflow pressure control valve,
oil cooler, double filters, and associated instrumentation.
Twin-screw Technology
A twin-screw pump equipped with a 500 hp motor and a
Variable Frequency Driver was selected for testing. Figure 3
illustrates the twin-screw pump. This pump is a rotary, self-
priming positive displacement pump capable of handling fluids
of various gas volume fraction (GVF). In theory, an ideal
rotary screw pump continuously conveys fluids with a pressure
boost proportional to shaft torque. Shaft power is simply the
volumetric flow rate times the differential pressure, and shaft
torque is this product divided by shaft rotation. Hence,
changes in fluid density hardly affect shaft torque, so that
intermittent slugging will cause only small changes in shaft
torque.
The pump consists of a power and idler shaft with two
screw-shell rotors per shaft. The individual screws are
replaceable (i.e., the screw and shaft are detachable). The
power shaft is coupled to the 500 hp motor with a spacer
coupling while the idler is driven by the power shaft through
the timing gears on the outboard side of the pump. The timing
gears ensure the screws do not touch each other, hence there is
no contact between the pairs of screws or between the screws
and the surrounding housing. This allows the pump to handle
a variety of abrasive as well as non-abrasive fluids.
The incoming fluid is diverted to both ends of the pump.
As the screws rotate, fluid fills the volumetric chambers or
pockets between the individual screw flanks. The thread
profile axially transports fluid from both ends of the pump to
the center, where the fluid rejoins and leaves the pump through
the outlet. This inboard-to-outboard double-flow
feature renders an axially balanced rotor set, thus minimizing
bearing thrust load and ensuring long bearing life.
When pumping 100% liquid, pressure versus axial screw
length is constant. However, when pumping multiphase flow
at high GVF, the pressure-length profile is no longer linear.
Pressure develops slowly at the initial stages (or inlet ends) of
the screws and more rapidly at the final discharge stages (or
center) of the screws. Most of the gas compression occurs at
these final stages and leakage of gas back to the pump inlet is
minimized with liquid sealing features at the initial stages.
This liquid seal is accomplished internally with available
process liquid, where a small percentage of total discharge
liquid (approx. 3-5% total flow) is separated from the gas at
the discharge side of the pump, through a groove in an internal
by-pass valve, back to the feed screws where it acts as a screw
sealant.
At each end of each shaft the process fluid is sealed from
leaking to the atmosphere. Sealing is accomplished with
single-acting mechanical seals type. Rubbing between the seal
faces creates heat due to friction. This heat is dissipated by
means of seal flush and lubricating oil. The lubricating oil is
contained within the internal buffer fluid system. Lubricating
oil flows through the tube-side of the buffer system, integrated
within but isolated from the pump housing, to the space
between the radial shaft seal ring and the mechanical seal. The
motive energy for buffer fluid flow is natural convection that
develops from the temperature differences between the process
fluid and the external seal-flush fluid. Note that the buffer
lube-oil system is an internal closed system while the seal flush
is external (API 610 Plan 32), where the flush is discharged
directly into the process fluid. This continuous flush water
also cools the mechanical seal and minimizes deposits from
abrasive fluids. Flush water is delivered at 5 gpm per seal (20
gpm total) at 90-100 psig through the annulus of the buffer
fluid system and exchanges heat with the lubricating oil on the
tube side of the buffer fluid system. This heat-exchange
process minimizes differential temperature at the seal face and
thus minimizes distortion of the seal faces during flush while
still cooling the seals.
Helico-axial Pump Test Results
At design point, pump performance is satisfactory (table 1 &
figure 4). In particular, equipment vibrations are extremely
low (0.03-0.045 ips), indicating minimal mechanical fatigue if
maintained at this condition in the field. But at high motor
speeds, there exists significant discrepancy between prediction
and observation. Figure 4 shows considerable deviation at high
speeds between measurements obtained at the Humble flow
loop and calculations done by manufacturers. Perhaps this
arises from certain assumption built-in to the model,
particularly the effects of condensation during compression.
The curve was generated based on properties of Duri fluids,
where water is present in the gas composition. On the test,
however, the gas is water-free. Hence, less power is
4 E. PUTRA, D.D. UPHOLD SPE 54294
consumed to compress Duri gas, developing less differential
pressure at a chosen speed on the diagram. These effects will
be further studied in Duri.
The pump system performance at this high P condition is
quite impressive. It appears the system was intended to
operate at this point rather than the design point. Furthermore
as illustrated in Fig. 5, efficiency is optimized when operating
near this condition, suggesting the BEP occurs near the high-
P point. Alternatively, this finding confirms a safety factor to
withstand routine wear from elevated temperatures and solids
content while operating at the design point for an extended
period of time. If this is the case, this pump should fare much
better than the twin-screw pump over the production life in the
Minas LOSF.
The pump successfully demonstrated operation up to 94%
GVF with very little discharge temperature build-up over the
suction temperature. However, the pump was only capable of
developing 25 psi differential pressure at this GVF. In
addition, hydraulic efficiency dramatically dropped to 16%.
Attempting to increase the GVF above 94% caused inlet
pressure to drop below 60 psig, tripping the pump on low
suction pressure. These results question the effectiveness of
rotodynamic pumps at high GVF. Buffer tanks located
upstream of the pump may smooth off intermittent gas spikes
(as long as liquid is initially present in the tank).
Figures 6 and 7 contain families of curves generated from
test data. Figure 6 is differential pressure P (psi) versus total
flow rate; Q
tot
(bpd) at various pump speeds (rpm). Inlet
pressure is 75 psig and GVF is 75 %. Note that the slopes of
the curves increase with increasing rpm. This confirms that
rotodynamic behavior approaches pure axial-compression as
motor speed becomes large. At lower speeds, the flat curves
depict a hybrid between centrifugal and axial hydraulics. This
suggests low-rpm curves should exhibit inflection points upon
decreasing flow rate (this requires measurements at flow rates
below those in Figure 4 for verification).
Figure 7 illustrates P versus Q
tot
while varying GVF at
constant speed of 3575 rpm. Note that P dramatically
diminishes upon increasing GVF. As with decreasing rpm
above, increasing GVF here causes more hydraulic slip upon
increasing P. Our string tests conclude that maximum GVF
(without a buffer tank) is 94%. A buffer tank, or other liquid
source, preserves a reasonable operating range by keeping the
GVF below 90%. In addition, VFD maintains desired inlet
GVF conditions.
Figure 5 is
multiphase
versus P. Inlet pressure is 75 psig
and GVF is 75%. Measured data indicate BEP (37%) occurs
near 140 psi and 3350 rpm not at the design P (30%). This
arises from additional safety margin incorporated in the pump
design, allowing the pump to withstand long-time wear from
aggressive sand erosion and maintain intended design
condition during extended use. These pumps inherently have
large clearances between rotating and stationary parts, thus
maximizing sand throughput and minimizing erosion (and
consequently minimizing chances of mechanical seizure from
large thermal growth during high GVF operation). These
characteristics of long-term endurance highlight the strengths
of rotodynamic pumps over twin-screw pumps. These features
will be verified in the Duri later this year.

Twin-Screw Pump Test Results
The pump performed exceptionally with the test requirements
of the purchase order and the test matrix, table 2. This
includes process and mechanical requirements. At design
speed and moderate differential pressure (up to 150 psi),
measured and theoretical flow rates are almost equal, Fig. 8.
Hence, twin-screw pumps exhibit high volumetric efficiency at
conditions near the design point, Figure 9.
The pump system was successfully operated continuously
for 3 hours at maximum design speed and 75 psi differential
pressure. In particular, pump vibrations were measured at 0.13
ips, well below the required limit of 0.3 ips. Motor-winding
and pump-bearing temperatures asymptotically approached
150 F and 108 F, respectively, after only two hours of
continuous operation. The manufacturer suggested reducing
the pumps differential pressure from 100 psi to 75 psi to keep
the motor power below the design power rating. The
specification requires manufacturer to guarantee design
conditions only, which equates to about 367 hp. These results
are promising for occasional long-term operation at high load
conditions. It is not expected in the Minas LOSF to frequently
run at these conditions, allowing a comfortable safety margin
for long run times.
The test proved that the pump is capable of operated
continuously for 1 hour at 100 % GVF and 125 psi differential
pressure. Pump vibrations were measured at 0.08 ips. Fluid
temperature rose from 175 F inlet to 220 F outlet, a 45 F
increase. These results impressively demonstrate the pumps
capabilities at high GVF continuous operation. The internal
liquid recirculation (screw sealant) allows a safety cushion of
approximately one-hour of continuous operation during
intermittent periods of dry gas. In real case, it is anticipated
that steam condensation will increase this safety margin.
Figure 8 is total flow rate Q
tot
(bpd) versus differential
pressure P (psi). Measured data in the range of 100 - 150 psi
differential pressure correspond to 115,000 130,000 bpd,
which matches quite well with the pump curve supplied by
manufacturer. The variation in measurement is caused by
differences in GVF. At the same differential pressure, flow
rates at 80% GVF are larger than observations at 70% GVF.
Note that as differential pressure increases from 150 230 psi,
total flow rate drops to 95,000 bpd. A fraction of this decrease
is due to slip, however the majority of it arises from the wide
range of motor speeds used to generate this curve. In general,
lower flow rates correspond to lower motor speeds. The effect
of slip is more apparent in Figure 10.
Figure 10 is total flow rate Q
tot
(bpd) versus motor speed
(rpm). A conceptual linear relationship is plotted against the
SPE 54294 MULTIPHASE PUMPS FOR MINAS LIGHT OIL STEAM FLOOD, SUMATRA-INDONESIA 5
measurements done in the range 1500 1950 rpm. The
variation in measurement is a reflection of slip since the data
are taken over a wide range of differential pressures and motor
speeds. At 1800 rpm, total flow rate varies from 105,000 bpd
to 115,000 bpd with differential pressures ranging from 100
150 psi. Moreover at 1500 rpm and 100 psi, total flow rate
varies from 90,000 bpd to 95,000 bpd. Slip is calculated as
follows:
At 1800 rpm and 150 psi, percent slip is


At 1500 rpm and 100 psi, percent slip is
With a higher P and slip at 1900 rpm, these calculations
suggest that slip is more influenced by changes in differential
pressure than changes in motor speed. Regardless, at constant
motor speed, slip increases with increasing differential
pressure; at constant differential pressure, slip increases with
decreasing motor speed.
Figure 9 displays total multiphase efficiency versus
differential pressure at constant inlet pressure = 75 psig and
constant speeds of 1500, 1900, and 2100 rpm. Maximum
efficiency or BEP is 44% and occurs near the design point at
1900 2100 rpm. The efficiency curve for 1500 rpm is
approximately 10% lower than the curve at 1900 rpm. Hence,
for speeds at or below the design speed, a 20% decrease in
motor speed corresponds roughly to a 10% decrease in pump
efficiency. For speeds above the design speed, such as 2100
rpm, the optimum efficiency occurs at a value slightly less than
the design efficiency. Note that efficiency at 2100 rpm
decreases as 125 psi is reached. Also note that efficiency
increases with increasing rpm at P slightly lower than design
P.
Conclusions
The following table summarizes test key-results:
Twin-screw Helico-axial
Efficiency at
Design point
44% 30%
Shaft power at
design point
325 hp 500 hp
Maximum GVF 100% 94%
Test data also shows, for twin-screw pumps, efficiency slightly
decreases with increasing GVF. Meanwhile for rotodynamic
pumps, efficiency drop-off is more dramatic.
A head-to-head comparison between the twin-screw and
rotodynamic pump based strictly on results obtained at
Humble is inconclusive to determine which is the better
technology. The twin-screw pump is hydraulically more
efficient than the rotodynamic pump (44% versus 30%);
therefore OPEX is lower. The twin-screw pump is also
capable of handling slugs and 100% GVF without the need for
buffer tanks located upstream of the pump. In addition to that,
internal seal flush and lubrication system of the helico-axial
pump is more complicated and requires careful maintenance.
However, rotodynamic pumps are suppose to be superior
in high sand environments that suffer rapid temperature
changes due to process upsets and steam condensation. The
internal clearances between rotating impellers and stationary
parts in rotodynamic pumps are much larger than clearances in
screw pumps, enhance throughput of sand and relax thermal
deflection criteria. These effects should be related to better
mechanical seal reliability and an extended bearing life.
Consequently OPEX is lower since the pump requires less
maintenance and downtime. Although we foresee difficulty
with the pump in severe sand environments, short-term
economics will probably favor this technology over
rotodynamics based entirely on CAPEX.
Each pump will undergo a thirty-day field test in Duri.
Both pump will be exposed to multiphase mixtures at elevated
temperature (up to 300 F). This multiphase mixtures contain
production fluid (80% WC), wet steam (70% quality) and sand
(up to 0.2% by liquid volume). Duri test-results should yield
additional important-data to declare best available technology
for Minas Light Oil Steam flood project.
Acknowledgments
The following individuals gave instrumental contributions in
making this project completed, Lee Larson, John McSharry
from Chevron, Joe Anderson from Texaco and Kevin Kassner,
Hadi Prijono from Caltex Pacific Indonesia.
References
1. Uphold, D. D. 1998 Multiphase Twin-Screw Pump
Performance Test, Texaco EPTD, July, Houston, TX, Report
#98-0107
2. Uphold, D. D. 1998 Multiphase Rotodynamic Pump
Performance Test, Texaco EPTD, September, Houston, TX,
Report #98-0151
% 9 % 100
000 , 115
000 , 105 000 , 115

,
_

x slip
% 5 % 100
000 , 95
000 , 90 000 , 95

,
_

x slip
6 E. PUTRA, D.D. UPHOLD SPE 54294
Appendix : Multiphase Efficiency
It is worthwhile to investigate multiphase pumping efficiencies to establish estimates for baseline comparisons with other hydraulic
technologies, such as gas-lift, ESPs, compact separators, surface liquid pumps and gas compressors. In general, multiphase pumping
efficiencies are 30 50 %, liquid pumping is 50 70 %, gas compression is 70 90 %, and gas-liquid separation is above 90 %.
Project economics will suggest if savings derived from conventional component efficiencies will offset their high CAPEX cost.
Multiphase pumps are less expensive than conventional technologies, yet operating cycles and current MTBF of multiphase pumps are
not yet appealing to production operators. These issues define our goals to improve and deploy multiphase pumps throughout the
industry, or search for more appealing alternatives.
In this section, we introduce multiphase efficiency (
multiphase
) in terms of actual shaft horsepower (hp
shaft
) and multiphase hydraulic
horsepower (hp
multiphase
). Multiphase efficiency is a single parameter that accounts for the individual contributions from liquid pumping
and gas compression (polytropic):
where z is compressibility factor, Q
gas,std
is gas flow rate (mmscfd), Q
oil
is oil flow rate (bpd), R
s
is gas solubility (scf/st.bbl), T
s
is
suction temperature (F), P
s
is suction pressure (psig), P
d
is discharge pressure (psig), and is the ratio of gas specific heats. Note that
the choice of polytropic compression is arbitrary. The polytropic assumption is acceptable for large GVF. If GVF is small, then the
thermodynamic path resembles isothermal compression. Since we are interested in GVF > 75%, the polytropic process is more
appropriate than the isothermal process. hp
liquid
and hp
shaft
can be calculated as follows:
hp
liquid
is calculated from the standard hydraulic pump equation modified for two-phase flow, where Q
water
and O
oil
are water and oil
flow rates (bpd), P is differential (psi), and B
o
is the formation volume factor of oil (bbl/st.bbl). Gas compression follows a
polytropic process: Power consumed by the motor is determined from measured and known electrical properties, where V is volts, A is
amps, p
f
is power factor and hp
shaft
is motor efficiency.
Table 1 : Helico-axial Pump Test-Results
Test Time, hr Qtot, bpd Speed, rpm
P, psi
GVF, % hpshaft, hp
multiphase, %
Design point 1 125,000 3050 100 75 520 30
High-speed 3 145,000 3575 75 75 700 20
High-P 1 125,000 3245 140 75 570 37
High-GVF 1 125,000 3550 25 94 250 16
Table 2: Twin-Screw Pump Test Results
Test Time, hr Qtot, bpd Speed, rpm P, psi GVF, % hpshaft, hp
multiphase, %
Design point 1 125,000 1925 100 75 330 44
High-speed 3 145,000 2280 75 75 390 42
High-GVF 1 125,000 1925 100 100 360 39
multiphase
multiphase
shaft
hp
hp

( )( ) P B Q P Q hp o oil water liquid + 000017 . 0

( )( )( )( )
hp
V A p
shaft
f motor

3
746

liquid gas multiphase hp hp hp +

( ) ( )
1
1
1
]
1

+
+

,
_

1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

1
7 . 14
7 . 14
1
460
10
0857 . 0
1
6
,
s
d
s
oil s
std gas gas
P
P
T
Q R
Q z hp

SPE 54294 MULTIPHASE PUMPS FOR MINAS LIGHT OIL STEAM FLOOD, SUMATRA-INDONESIA 7
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1 : Helico-axial Pump Diagrams
Figure 2 : Details of a Helico-axial Pump Stage
Rotating flow impeller
Stationary diffuser
8 E. PUTRA, D.D. UPHOLD SPE 54294
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
** *
*
* * *
*
*
*
*
High-pressure test
Design-point test
High-speed test
Figure 3: Twin-screw Pump Diagrams
Figure 4 : Pump Manufacturers Curve and Test-Points Loci - Helico-Axial Pump
SPE 54294 MULTIPHASE PUMPS FOR MINAS LIGHT OIL STEAM FLOOD, SUMATRA-INDONESIA 9
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 5 : Differential Pressure vs. Multiphase Efficiency
at Various Speeds - Helico-Axial Pump
Figure 6 : Total Flow Rate vs. Differential Pressure
at Various RPM - Helico-Axial Pump
Figure 7 : Total Flow Rate vs. Differential Pressure
at various GVF Helico-axial Pump
10 E. PUTRA, D.D. UPHOLD SPE 54294
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 8 : Differential Pressure vs. Total Flow Rate Twin-Screw Pump
Figure 9 : Differential Pressure vs. Multiphase Efficiency Twin-Screw Pump
Figure 10 : Pump Speed vs. Total Flow Rate Twin Screw Pump