SPE 116764

A New Method of Plunger Lift Dynamic Analysis and Optimal Design for Gas Well
Deliquification
Yula Tang, SPE, Chevron Energy Technology Company, Zheng Liang, Southwest Petroleum Institute

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 21–24 September 2008.

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 have not been reviewed by the
Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic
reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract analysis on plunger lift based on the experimental work in

This work presents a new dynamic model to describe the
plunger motion by considering the changes of the tubing and
casing pressures, liquid accumulation, liquid fallback, and the
resistance force to the plunger. The characteristics of the
tubing and casing pressures in plunger-lifted gas well are
described quantitatively according to a field test data set. A
better liquid accumulation mechanism is proposed. The effect
of liquid falling back and liquid transfer from the tubing into
the annulus during shutting-in period is specially considered
for liquid accumulation and slug height modeling. The new
method improves the prediction precision compared to the
conventional methods that assume the constant tubing
pressure for the entire process. The resistance coefficients of
the plunge motion in four different phases are determined by
combining the dynamic model with field test data. An
example is given to illustrate the dynamic performance of
plunger lift and the optimal design. The principle and
approach to optimize plunger lift for dewatering gas well are
proposed and discussed.
Introduction
Plunger lift is a particular form of intermittent lift which
makes use of a metal plunger to supply a solid interface
between gas and lifted liquid load. Plunger lift has several
advantages over other artificial lift techniques. It is especially
suitable for dewatering loaded gas well that has low to
medium water influx. For this case, a plunger is held in the
lubricator for certain time to maximize gas production. If there
is sufficient gas supply from reservoir, no packer is used in the
well. This paper will focus on natural plunger lift with no
additional gas injected from the surface.
Foss and Goal[1] presented the first static force balance
Ventura oil field in the middle of 1960s. Hacksma[2] applied
nodal analysis to the plunger lift design for oil well with Foss
and Goal’s plunger performance charts in 1972. In 1982,
Lea[3] developed the first dynamic plunger lift model and built
the liquid accumulation equations. Later in 1988, Avery and
Evans[4] presented a general dynamic plunger lift model by
coupling reservoir’s capability IPR relationship. In 1992,
Chacin and Schmidt et al.[5] studied the design of plunger
assisted intermittent gas lift installations with mass and
momentum balance equations of the entire system.
On the plunger lift characteristics and performance,
White[6] studied experimentally intermittent gas lift with and
without a plunger in 1982. A surprising result from his study
is that the plunger with a hole through its center produced the
lowest fallback value. From this work one can conclude that
the classic picture of a plunger being a moving partition
between liquid slug above and gas below is neither correct nor
desirable. In 1985, Mower and Lea et al.[7] conducted a
laboratory measurement study with a 735-ft (224-m) test well.
It provided information on gas slippage, liquid fallback, and
plunger rise and fall velocities during the rise and fall of 13
different commercial plungers.
Among previous studies, there exist the following
limitations. (1) Constant tubing pressure is assumed; (2) No
vigorous dynamic model for plunger falling process.
Normally, an average falling velocity of plunger is assumed;
(3) No particular model on gas production and liquid
accumulation is built for plunger lift to unload liquid from gas
well; (4) Therefore, the optimal design for plunger lift in gas
well is not reliable.
This study describes a generalized dynamic model for the
plunger lift in gas well and presents optimal design approach.
2 SPE 116764

Analysis of Typical Curves of Wellhead Tubing and where,

Casing Pressures
t = any shutting-in time, sec.;
Characteristics of wellhead pressures during plunger-lift is an t1 = total shutting-in time, sec.;
important basis for this study. Fig-1 shows the typical curves Pc0 = starting casing pressure, MPa;
of tubing and casing pressures for one cycle of plunger lift Pt0 = starting tubing pressure, MPa;
based on a measurement from Sichuan gas field in China. It PtB = tubing pressure at transition point (point B), MPa.
can be divided into two different periods: shutting-in period
and opening period. In above equations, Kc1, Kt1, and Kt2 are the slopes
respectively for casing pressure line, the curved tubing
pressure line AB (representing it with straight line
8
Pc
approximately), and straight line of tubing pressure, BC,
7 which are
6

P − Pc 0
PRESSURE(MPa)

5
K c1 = c1 …………………………………….(4)
t1
4 F

3
Pt
C
S P − Pt 0
B K t1 = tB …………………………………….(5)
2
G
tB
A D E
1 SHUTTING-IN

P −P
OPENING

0 Kt 2 = t1 tB …………………………………….(6)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 t1 − t B
TIME (min.)

where,
Fig-1 Typical tubing and casing pressures for plunger lift in a
loaded gas well. Pc1 = ending casing pressure for shutting-in period, MPa;
Pt1 = ending tubing pressure for shutting-in period, MPa.
Shutting-in Period. The tubing pressure increases from
point A through B to C. The curved section, AB, reflects the Opening Period. Similarly, it was found that casing pressure
quick increase of the tubing pressure because a sudden decreases slowly at a straight line equation
shutting-in action forces the high-velocity gas stream stop
flowing in the tubing. Thus, the kinetic energy of high- Pc (t ) = Pc1 − K c 2 t ………………………………….(7)
velocity gas converts into potential energy (pressure). Due to
the elastic characteristics of the gas, the gas velocity would
change to zero gradually from the wellhead to the bottomhole.
P − Pc 0
Point B in Fig-1 represents the ending of elastic wave in the K c 2 = c1 ………………………………….(8)
tubing. The straight line, BC, is correspondent to the pressure t2
building-up because formation fluids enter into wellbore.
where,
For casing pressure, it is almost a straight line with casing
pressure increasing slowly.
t2 = total opening time, sec.;
If we measure the tubing and casing pressure and record
t = time during opening period (starting from zero), sec.
the correspondent time, the above curves can be described
approximately with following equations
The change of tubing pressure is somehow complicated as
shown in Fig-1. It can be subdivided into three different
Pc (t ) = Pc 0 (t ) + K c1⋅ t , (0 ≤ t ≤ t1 ) ………………….(1) sections: CDE, ESF, and FG.

Blow-Down Period (CDE). At the beginning when the

Pt (t ) = Pt 0 (t ) + K t1⋅ t , (0 ≤ t ≤ t B ) ………………….(2)
Pt (t ) = PtB (t ) + K t 2 (t − t B ) , (t B ≤ t ≤ t1 )
wellhead opens suddenly, high pressure gas in the tubing
blows down into the surface pipe, and tubing pressure
………….(3) decreases dramatically. Once the wellhead pressure drops to
surface pipeline pressure, Psp, the wellhead pressure keeps
constant until liquid slug arrives wellhead. During this period,
SPE 116764 3

the plunger and liquid slug are moving upward. At point E,

the top of liquid slug reaches wellhead.
Pt (t ) = Psp + K tt (t − t E ) ………………………….(17)
The tubing pressure in CD section can be described with
an exponential equation
Pt1 − Psp
K tt = …………………………………….(18)
Pt (t ) = f1 e − f 2 ⋅t
+ f 3 ………………………….(9) Δt ES

where, where,

t = time starting from zero, sec.;
f1, f2, f3 = coefficients depending on Pt1 (ending tubing
pressure for shutting-in) and surface pipeline pressure, Psp.
In the equations,
f1 = (− BZ + BZ 2 − 4⋅ CZ ) / 2 …………………….(10)
BZ = −(2.8Pt1 + 0.4 Psp ) / 2.4 …………………….(11)
tE = the time for liquid slug reaching wellhead which is
independent upon ΔtES, sec.
From this assumption, the dynamic plunger lift model
(described below) combining with Eq. (17) for the wellhead
tugging pressure (surface boundary conditions) can calculate a
new ΔtES for plunger and liquid slug leaving the wellhead.
Repeat above iteration until the calculation is convergent.
According to the observation from the field test, the time
period ΔtSF, and the correspondent pressure, PtF, can be
approximately expressed with the following correlation

CZ = −( Psp 2 + 2.4 Pt1 − Pt12 ) / 2.4 ………………….(12)

Δt SF = 0.5 Δt ES """"""""""""" (19)

f 2 = − LnU / 90 …………………………………….(13)
PtF = Psp + K tt ( Δt ES + Δt SF ) """"""" (20)
U =
[( Pt1 + Psp ) 2.4 − ( Pt1 − f1 )] ……………….(14)
f1
Gas Production Period (Section FG). During this period the
plunger is held in the lubricator and the well produces gas.
f 3 = Pt1 − f1 …………………………………….(15)
According to the characteristics of gas blowing-down, the
following analytical equation can be derived (refer to
If the calculated Pt(t)<Psp, let Pt(t)<Psp . Appendix A).

Plunger Arriving Period (ESF). It is observed that plunger

arrives lubricator at point S. During ES period, liquid slug is V PtF − 0.5 Psp + P 2tF − Psp PtF
t = ( t ) Ln "" (21)
leaving wellhead. According to the measurement, we get the C Pt (t ) − 0.5 Psp + P 2t (t ) − Psp Pt (t )
following empirical correlation

PtS = Pt1 ………………………………………….(16) π

[ ]
0.5
C= d 2s μ 2 * 8314.3 * Tav / (28.97γ g ) """" (22)
4
where,
where,
PtS = tubing pressure at point S, MPa;
Pt1 = tubing pressure at end of shutting-in period, MPa Vt = tubing volume, m3;
ds = surface pipe diameter, m;
The reason for pressure increasing continually from point E to Tav = average wellbore temperature, °K;
point F is due to the local friction resistance to the liquid γg = specific gravity of gas, (-);
existing wellhead.
μ = flow rate coefficient (≈1).
The time, ΔtES, represents the time for liquid slug exiting
the wellhead. It is an unknown parameter for different plunger If Pt(t)<Psp, let Pt(t)=Psp .
lift scheme. It can be solved by a trial-and-error method
combining with the plunger lift dynamic modeling.
Firstly, we assume a ΔtES’, and
4 SPE 116764

Dynamic Model of Plunger Lift for Downward Motion
As shown in
Fig-2, let x axis be along downward direction from the
wellhead. x, x', x'' stand for the position, velocity, and
acceleration of the plunger, respectively.
λgd = resistance coefficient for plunger moving downward in
the gas;
Hct,E = liquid level difference between tubing and casing
(discussed below), m;
ρL = liquid density, kg/m3.
The determination of liquid column heights in the annulus
and in the tubing as well as lifted liquid slug length will be
discussed later. The resistance coefficients for plunger moving
during different phases can be obtained from laboratory test
for particular plunger or from the comparison between the
results of modeling and the field test data. In this study, we
use the latter approach. It will be further illustrated in the
section of “Example of Plunger-Lift Optimal Design”.

Plunger Traveling in Liquid Column. By slightly modifying

the above equations, we obtain similar equations

m g + 10 −6 ( Ptu − Ptd ) At − Fld = m x" """" (28)

Ptu = Pt (t )e
[CN ⋅(depth− Hct ,E − H LC )]
+ ( x + H ct , E + H LC − depth) ⋅ ρ L g10 −6 """"" (29)

Ptd = Pc (t )e CN ⋅( depth− H LC ) − (depth − x − H LC ) ρ L g10 −6

Fig-2 Plunger downward motion ……………. (23)

Plunger Traveling in Gas Column. By applying Newton’s

second law to the plunger, we get Fld = λ ld x' """""""""""""" (31)

mg + 10 −6 ( Ptu − Ptd ) At − Fgd = mx" ………………….(23)

where,

Fld = friction resistance between falling plunger and liquid

CN ⋅ x column, N;
Ptu = Pt (t )e …………………………………….(24)
λld = resistance coefficient for plunger moving downward in
the liquid;
Ptd = Pc (t )e CN ⋅x − H ct , E ρ L g10 −6 ………………….(25) depth = tubing-stop depth, m;
HLC = liquid height in the casing when plunger travels
downward, m.
0.03415γ g
CN = ………………………………….(26) Dynamic Model of Plunger Lift for Upstroke Process
Tav z
As shown in Fig-3, let x axis along upward direction from the
Fgd = λ gd x ………………………………………….(27) bottomhole. This period can be divided into two distinct
phases. When liquid slug has not reached wellhead, we have
where,
( Ptd − Ptu ) At 10 −6 − m g − F1u = m x" """" (32)
m = plunger mass, kg;
g = gravity acceleration, m/s2;
Ptu = pressure applied upper side of the plunger, MPa; Ptu = Pt (t )e CN ⋅( depth − x − H lu ) + H 1u ρ L g ⋅10 −6 + FH …..(33)
Ptd = pressure applied on downside of the plunger, MPa;
At = tubing cross-sectional area, m2;
Fgd = friction resistance on falling plunger in gas column, N;
SPE 116764 5

Pc (t )e CN ⋅depth − H 1 ρ L g ⋅10 −6 ρ L x ' d ti

Ptd = …………. (34) N Re = """"""""""""" (37)
e CN ⋅( x − H1) μL

When liquid slug has already arrived the surface, we can

F1u = λlu x ………………………………………. (35) still use Eqs. (32)~(37) except that replacing F1u by F2u and

Ptu = Pt (t ) + (depth − x) ρ L g 10 −6 − FH
where,
""" (38)
F1u = friction resistance for first phase of plunger traveling
upward when liquid slug has not reaches wellhead, N;
F2 u = λ 2 u x' """""""""""""" (39)
λ1u = resistance coefficient for first phase of plunger traveling
upward;
Hlu = liquid slug height lifted by the plunger, m;
H1 = liquid height accumulated at the bottomhole in the tubing
during blowing-up period, m; where,
FH = pressure loss due to friction applied on liquid slug
(Hlu), MPa. F2u = friction resistance for the second phase of plunger
traveling upward when liquid slug arrives to wellhead, N;
λ2u = resistance coefficient for the second phase of plunger
traveling upward.

Liquid Accumulation and Slug Height

Lea[3] discussed the characteristics of liquid accumulation in

his study on high GLR well. Here, we adopt some of his
equation but with some modification. Especially, the effect of
liquid falling back and the liquid transfer from the tubing into
the annulus during shutting-in period will be considered.

Liquid Transfer from Tubing into Annulus during

Shutting-in Period. Generally, liquid level in the tubing
would be higher than that in the annulus as Lea explained.
From the tested tubing and casing pressure curves (Fig-1), the
difference of liquid level heights between the tubing and
casing during shutting-in period can be calculated by
following equations

Pc0 ⋅ e (
CN ⋅depth )
− Pt 0 ⋅ e
( CN ⋅(depth− Hct , B ))
Fig-3 Plunger motion of upstroke H ct , B = " (40)
ρ L g 10 −6
FH can be calculated with following formula
Pc1 ⋅ e (
CN ⋅depth )
− Pt1 ⋅ e
( CN ⋅(depth − Hct , E ))
H ct , E = " (41)
−6
ρ L g 10 −6
fρ L ( x ) H lu 10
' 2
FH = """"""""" (36)
2 d ti
H ct , B + H ct , E
H ct ,av = """""""""" (42)
2
where,

dti = tubing inner diameter, m; where,

f = friction factor, (-).
subscript B = at the beginning of shut-in;
f is the function of Reynolds number, NRe, and relative subscript E = at the end of shut-in;
roughness, ε. Here, NRe is calculated with following formula Hct,B = liquid level difference between tubing and casing at
6 SPE 116764

beginning of shutting-in, m; Appendix B).

Hct,E = liquid level difference between tubing and casing at
ending of shutting-in, m; CN ⋅depth

[( P − P )Va + ( Pt − Pto )(Vt − H ct ,av At )] ⋅ e

( )
Hct,av = average liquid level difference between tubing and c co
2
casing during shutting-in period, m. H2 =
CN ⋅depth
GLR ⋅ Ps ⋅ Tav ⋅ Z ( )
Because (Pc0 - Pt0 ) > (Pc1 - Pt1), Hct,B will be larger than Hct,E. ⋅ ( At + Aa ) + ( Pc Aa + Pt At ) e 2
Ts
It means that part of liquid in the tubing would transfer into
""""""""""""""""""" (44b)
the annulus. This is because the sudden shutting-in effect as
described above. The transferred liquid height, HL,tran can be
determined by Thus, HLC in Eqs. (29)~(30) (see
Fig-2 and Fig-4) can be calculated as follows
( H ct , B − H ct , E ) At
H L ,tran = """""""" (43)
( At + Ac ) H LC = H 2 + H L,tran …………………………………(45)

Liquid Slug Length Lifted by Plunger. As shown in Fig-4,

Liquid Accumulation during Shutting-in Period. Let H2
stands for the liquid height supplied by formation during the
shut-in period. From the field test (Fig-1), it was found that Pc
and Pt are almost parallel straight lines except for the
beginning time during this period. Thus, as Lea put, the liquid
from reservoir can be considered to enter the annulus and the
tubing simultaneously, as shown in Fig-4.
the initial liquid slug length lifted by plunger is
H lu ,i = H ct , E + H L,tran + H 2 ………………………(45)
where, H2 is the value correspondent to the ending time of
shutting-in cycle.
When plunger travels upward, there will be some liquid
falling back. As shown by Mower and Lea[7] et al., liquid
fallback is a linear function of the plunger velocity.

FB = a ⋅ x ' + b """""""""""""" (47)

where,

FB = liquid fallback coefficient, m3/s;

a, b = constants dependent upon the type of plunger used.

Mower and Lea et al. presented experimental curves for

thirteen commercial plungers. For each one of these curves, an
(a, b) pair can be obtained. If the engineer has no idea about
the plunger used, it is suggested to use an average straight line
among the thirteen plungers. Thus, by coupling plunger
dynamic model, fallback coefficient at any plunger velocity
( x' ) can be calculated. Therefore, at any time, the liquid slug
Fig-4 Liquid accumulation during shutting-in period length, Hlu, will be

Lea derived the following equation for H2 t

FB
H lu = H lu,i − ∫ At
dt """""""""" (48a )

H2 =
[ P (t ) − ( P
c to + ρ L gH1 10 −6
]
) (Vt + Va − H1 At ) )
or
0

⎛ GLR ⋅ Ps ⋅ Tav ⋅ Z ⎞
⎜ + Pc (t )⎟ ( At + Aa ) − ρ L gAt H1 10 −6 FB
⎝ Ts ⎠ H lu (t i +1 ) = H lu (t i ) − * Δt i """""" (48b)
A
""""""""""""""""""" (44a )
where, Δti = time step at the i-th time, sec..
In this work, a more accurate equation is derived (refer to
SPE 116764 7

Liquid Accumulation Height H1 during Opening Period.

However, during the opening period, because the casing is We let τ = 0 for the start time of the second phase. Combining
closed, formation liquid will enter the tubing preferably. Eqs. (53) and (54), and introduce the following intermediate
variables
Because of the different liquid accumulation mechanisms,
the liquid height at the bottomhole can be calculated
Cw ρ L
separately according to the two distinct phases of opening β= """""""""""""" (55a )
period. At ⋅ 8.64 ⋅ 10 9
Assume that water production can be described with a
τ = τ ⋅ β ……………………………………………..(55b)
straight line equation

Q w = C w ( Pres − Pwf )"""""""""""" (49) P ⋅ e CN ⋅depth + ρ L ⋅ g ⋅ H1 ⋅ 10 −6

H1' = t """" (55c)
3 Pres
where, Qw = water production rate, m /d.
PtF ⋅ e CN ⋅depth + ρ L ⋅ g ⋅ H 1,i ⋅10 −6
For the first phase when plunger has not arrived to the catcher, K= ………..…..(55d)
Pres
liquid rise velocity at the bottomhole is approximately
calculated with above steady-state equation, while bottomhole
The final equation for solving H1 can be derived as follows
pressure is expressed with average casing pressure, that is

H1' = 1 − (1 − K ) e −τ
'
Pwf = Pc,av e CN ⋅depth ……………………………….(50) """""""""""" (56)

The liquid height, H1, can be used to calculate bottomhole

H 1 (t ) = C w ( Pres − Pwf )t /(86400 At ) ……………….(51)
pressure when plunger is held in the lubricator.

At the end of the first phase (t=tF in Fig-1), the liquid height at
the bottomhole is termed H1,i Gas Production during Opening Period

tF With the above discussion, a new simulation model for

FB
H 1,i = C w ( Pres − Pwf )t F /(86400 At ) + ∫ At
dt"" (52) dynamic plunger lift has been formulated. However, the gas
production characteristics should be studied to obtain optimal
0
plunger lift scheme.
For the second phase when plunger is held in the Gas production during the opening period can be divided
lubricator, Lea derived his correlation for H1. He used into two phases as shown in Fig-5.
exponential equation of gas flow rate (assuming exponent n=1
in equation Qg=C (ΔP2 )n ) and treated liquid production as Qg
/GLR. However, assume n=1 is not reasonable. Moreover,
GLR under different Pwf for gas well is not constant. Here, a
modified Lea’s correlation is presented.
Bottomhole pressure can be expressed as

Pwf = Pt ⋅ e CN ⋅depth + ρ L ⋅ g ⋅ H1 ⋅ 10 −6 """" (53)

From the definition of liquid production rate, we have

d ( H1 At ) C w ( Pres − Pwf )
Qw = = """""" (54)
dτ 86400
Fig-5 the two stages for gas production from the tubing
where,
τ = the time for the second phase of opening (plunger is
keeping in the lubricator), sec.. The gas flow rate in phase 1 (plunger traveling in the
8 SPE 116764

tubing) is termed Qg1, while the gas flow rate in phase 2 should be taken into account. One is the lift frequency, N.
(plunger being held in the lubricator) is termed Qg2 . Obviously, pursuing maximum N, for example, shutting-in the
Qg1 can be derived as follows (refer to Appendix A) well once plunger arrives wellhead, can not obtain maximum
gas production (Qg2=0). The opening period must be chose
adequately. In addition, it is of great importance such as
Pt (t ) Ts ⎡ Psp ⎤ 0.5 starting shut-in casing pressure and ending shut-in casing
Q g1 (t ) = ⋅ C ⋅ ⎢1 − ⎥ """""" (57) pressure. Meanwhile, it must be guaranteed that plunger can
Ps Tav Z ⎢⎣ Pt (t ) ⎦⎥
arrive wellhead for the upstroke and fall down to the tubing-
stop for the downstroke, which is the pre-requisition condition
for any optional plunger–lift scheme.
where, the unit of Qg1 (t) is m3/s, and C is expressed in Based on the characteristics of wellhead tubing and casing
pressures during shut-in and opening, there are four kinds of
Eq. (22). plunger lift schemes which we may consider for optimal
design.
For Qg2 , it can be considered to be composed of two parts,
Qg2,1 and Qg2,2. Qg2,1 is the blowing-down gas flow rate
Scheme 1. The well is shut-in until the maximum tubing and
without gas supplying from formation. Qg2,2 is the gas flow
casing pressures (Pt,max, Pc,max) are reached, and the well is
rate supplied by the formation.
kept open until the minimum tubing and casing pressures
(Pt,min, Pc,min) are reached.
Q g 2 (t ) = Q g 2,1 (t ) + Q g 2,2 (t ) """""""" (58)
Scheme 2. The well is shut-in until certain tubing and casing
pressures (Pt,1, Pc,1) are reached, and is opening until the
where, Qg2,1 can be calculated with the same equation as Eq. minimum tubing and casing pressures (Pt,min, Pc,min) are
(57), while Qg2,2 should be expressed with the following reached, as shown in Fig-6. The entire cycle may be less than
equations that of Scheme 1.

n
2 − P 2 (t ) ⎤
Q g 2,2 (t ) = C g ⎡ Pres """""" (59)
⎣⎢ wf ⎥⎦
Pc1
Pc,max

Pc,min

Pwf (t ) = Pt (t ) ⋅ e CN ⋅ (depth − H1 ) + H1 ρ L g 10 −6 " (60)

Pt1 Pt,max F
where, C
Cg = coefficient of gas production rate; Pt,min
D
n = exponent of gas production rate. A E G
TT1 TT2
Here, H1 is calculated by use of Eqs. (52)~(56). The daily
gas production rate, Qg, is
Fig-6 Scheme 2 for plunger lift optimization in gas well

⎡t CD t FG t FG ⎤ Scheme 3. The well is shut-in until the maximum tubing and

⎢ Q g1 dt + Q g 2,1 dt + Q g 2,2 dt ⎥ N …(61)
Qg =
⎢ ∫ ∫ ⎥ ∫ casing pressures (Pt,max, Pc,max) are reached, but is opening up
until certain tubing and casing pressures (Pt,0, Pc,0) are
⎢⎣ 0 0 0 ⎥⎦
reached, as shown in Fig-7. The entire cycle may be less than
where, that of Scheme 1.

Qg = daily gas production rate, m3/d;

N = plunger lift frequency, times/d.

Optimal Design of Plunger Lift for Dewatering Gas

Well

The purpose of optimal design for gas well dewatering is to

obtain maximum daily gas production rate. Two aspects
SPE 116764 9

Example of Plunger-Lift Optimal Design

Pc,max An example is given below to illustrate the plunger lift
Pc0 dynamic performance and optimal design. The basic data is
given in Tab. 1. The measured tubing and casing pressures
Pc,min have been already given in Fig-1. This well was tested for
shut-in and opening according to Scheme 1.
Pt,max F
C
Pt0 Tab. 1 Basic Input Data for Example
A G dti (m) 0.062 Cg 39.537
D E
Pt,min dto (m) 0.073 ng 1.188
TT1 TT2
dci (m) 0.127 Pc,min (MPa) 6.8
Depth (m) 2668 Pt,min (MPa) 1.2
m (kg) 6.8 TB (s) 900
Fig-7 Scheme 3 for plunger lift optimization in gas well Twh (K) 313 Pt,B (MPa) 2.1
Tav (K) 353 Pc,max (MPa) 7.3
Scheme 4. The well is shut-in until certain tubing and casing Pres (MPa) 15 Pt,max (MPa) 2.7
γg 0.637 t1 (s) 3300
pressures (Pt,1, Pc,1) are reached, and is opening-up until
ρL (kg/m )
3
1056 t2 (s) 1380
certain tubing and casing pressures (Pt,0, Pc,0) are reached. as 3
GLR (m /m )
3
1214 Psp (MPa) 1.0
shown in Fig-8. The entire cycle may be less than that of 3
Cw (m /d/MPa) 6.977
Scheme 1.
The measured plunger-lift data (arriving time and
Before we perform the optimal design, the well shutting-in corresponding tubing pressure) were matched by adjusting the
and opening test should be performed to obtain the basic four coefficients of resistance. The time for liquid to arrive the
information for the characteristics of casing and tubing wellhead (tCE) is 460(s). The recorded time for tES is 120(s).
pressures. The well should be shut-in long enough to obtain In order to obtain some information on plunger traveling
the maximum tubing and casing pressures (at least to a time downward, a weighted wireline is run into the well following
when the straight line of casing pressure begins to become the falling plunger. The measured time for plunger dropping
flat). Also the tubing should be open long enough to reach the to the bottomhole is 1320(s). The time for plunger falls to the
minimum tubing and casing pressures. The correspondent liquid level in the tubing is estimated to be 870(s). Although
times should be recorded. It does not require running the this method to run the wireline after plunger is not precise, it
plunger in shut-in and opening test. However, the plunger-lift is better than no data on plunger downstroke.
test data from the neighboring wells with the same type of According to these data, the final results for the resistance
plunger should be acquired to calculate the resistance coefficients were found to be as follows for this well.
coefficients with the dynamic model. If no plunger lift has
been used in the field, a field test of plunger lift should be λgd = 700, λld = 1885, λ1u = 0, λ2u = 1160
performed to validate the dynamic model.
Fig-9 shows the performance of plunger moving upward
under test conditions (Scheme 1). It can be found that the
Pc,max
upward velocity of plunger increases sharply at the beginning,
Pc1 then keeps almost constant but slight increasing because of
Pc0 liquid weight reduction due to liquid falling back. When the
Pc,min
plunger arrives at wellhead, plunger velocity decreases
suddenly due to the additional local friction at the wellhead.
Then plunger velocity increases quickly and continuously
Pt1 Pt,max F
until liquid slug is produced out of the tubing. This is due to
C
Pt,min
Pt0 that liquid exits wellhead and slug length reduces, thus the
A D G liquid weight applied to plunger decreases.
E
DTT1 TT1 TT2

Fig-8 Scheme 4 for plunger lift optimization in gas well

10 SPE 116764

For other schemes, the four coefficients of resistance can

3000 12 be considered to be constants. But iteration is needed to obtain
the time, tES.
2500 10

PLUNGER VELOCITY (m/s)

PLUNGER POSITION (m)

2000 8
For Scheme 2, firstly input a shutting-in time, TT1, and
XPL calculate the correspondent Pc1, Pt1 and opening time TT2.
1500 VPL 6 Then run the dynamic model to check if the plunger can fall to
the bottom. For example, if TT1=3000s, plunger can drop to
1000 4 the bottom. If TT1=2400s, plunger can not reach to the
bottom , which means that the time is too short for the plunger
500 2
to fall to bottomhole. The calculation indicates that
0 0 TT1=2600s is the shortest time for plunger to fall to
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 bottomhole. On the other hand, we run dynamic model to
TIME(s)
check if plunger can be lifted to the wellhead for the given
time, TT2. It was found that, for TT1=2600s and TT2=1087s,
Fig-9 Dynamic performance of plunger lift in upward period the time for plunger traveling upward is only 486s. Thus,
TT1=2600 can unload liquid successfully. The calculation
Fig.10 describes the performance of plunger moving shows that if TT1>2600s, the gas production will decreases.
downward for the test condition (Scheme 1). During this Therefore, TT1=2600 is the best choice for scheme 2. The
process, the velocity of plunger increases continuously from results are listed in Tab. 3.
zero. When it dashes to tubing liquid level, the plunger
velocity reduces abruptly to certain value and then grows Tab. 3 Modeling Results for Plunger-Lift Scheme 2
slowly before its arriving to the bottom.
The result of Scheme 1 is listed in Tab. 2. The measured TT1 (s) 2600 TT2 (s) 1088
water production is 17.1(m3/d), and measured gas production Pc,max (MPa) 7.19 Pt,max (MPa) 2.53
is 14640(m3/d). The model gives a satisfactory prediction with Pc,min (MPa) 6.8 Pt,min (MPa) 1.2
the actual production measurement. Qg (m3/d) 16227 Ql (m3/d) 29

Similarly for Scheme 3, we input TT1 and run dynamic

Tab. 2 Modeling Results for Plunger-Lift Scheme 1
model to check if plunger can fall to the bottom and reach to
TT1 (s) 3300 TT2 (s) 1380 the wellhead. We optimize the TT1 to obtain the biggest Qg. It
Pc,max (MPa) 7.3 Pt,max (MPa) 2.7 was found that TT1=1750s is the best choice for Scheme 3.
Pc,min (MPa) 6.8 Pt,min (MPa) 1.2 Tab. 4 illustrates different results for Scheme 3.
3 3
Qg (m /d) 14789 Ql (m /d) 19
For Scheme 4, procedure for finding optimal design is as
follows.
1. As shown in Fig-8, assume a value of DTT1(e.g. 300s) .
Calculate Pt0, Pc0;
3000 6 2. Assume a value of TT1 and calculate TT2.
3. Run dynamic model to check if plunger can fall to the
2500 5 bottom and reach to the wellhead;
4. Repeat step 2 and 3, find possible shortest TT1 and
VELOCITY (m/s)

2000 4
correspondent TT2;
POSITION(m)

VPL 5. Increase TT1 gradually by starting from the possible

1500 3
shortest TT1. Calculate the daily gas production under every
1000 XPL 2
TT1;
6. Try different possible value of DTT1, repeat step 2~5;
500 1 7. Find the best design for scheme 4 by comparing the daily
gas production.
0 0 For this example, it was found that the best setting for
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 scheme 4 is just the same as the best one in scheme 3. For
TIME(s)
other input data, it is not necessary to obtain the same results.

Fig-10 Dynamic performance of plunger Lift in downward

Period
SPE 116764 11

Tab. 4 Modeling Results for Plunger-Lift Scheme 3 plunger lift for dewatering gas well are proposed and
discussed. An example is given to illustrate the dynamic
Design #1 performance of plunger lift and the optimal design.
TT1 (s) 850 TT2 (s) 355
Pc,max (MPa) 7.3 Pt,max (MPa) 2.7 Acknowledgments
Pc,0 (MPa) 7.17 Pt,0 (MPa) 2.49
Qg (m3/d) 12631 Ql (m3/d) 34 The authors wish to thank Jianyi Liu, and Yongquan Hu of
Southwest Petroleum Institute for their valuable discussion
Design #2
and help.
TT1 (s) 1150 TT2 (s) 480
Pc,max (MPa) 7.3 Pt,max (MPa) 2.7
Nomenclature
Pc,0 (MPa) 7.13 Pt,0 (MPa) 2.41
Qg (m3/d) 17970 Ql (m3/d) 31 a, b = fallback constants dependent upon the type of
Design #3 plunger used (Eq. 47);
TT1 (s) 1450 TT2 (s) 606
Pc,max (MPa) 7.3 Pt,max (MPa) 2.7 Aa= casing annulus cross-sectional area, m2;
Pc,0 (MPa) 7.08 Pt,0 (MPa) 2.34 At = tubing cross-sectional area, m2;
Qg (m3/d) 19951 Ql (m3/d) 29
C = coefficient for gas blow-down time (Eq. 22);
Design #4
TT1 (s) 1750 TT2 (s) 732 Cg = coefficient of gas production rate;
Pc,max (MPa) 7.3 Pt,max (MPa) 2.7 Cw = coefficient of water production rate;
Pc,0 (MPa) 7.03 Pt,0 (MPa) 2.26
Qg (m3/d) 20477 Ql (m3/d) 27 depth = tubing-stop depth, m;
Design #5 ds = surface pipeline diameter, m;
TT1 (s) 2050 TT2 (s) 857
dti = tubing inner diameter, m;
Pc,max (MPa) 7.3 Pt,max (MPa) 2.7
Pc,0 (MPa) 6.99 Pt,0 (MPa) 2.19 f = friction factor;
Qg (m3/d) 20241 Ql (m3/d) 26.3 f1, f2, f3 = coefficients for tubing pressure depending on Pt1
and surface pipeline pressure, Psp (Eqs. 10-15);
For this example, the best scheme for plunger-lift is
Scheme 3. That is, the well is shut-in until the maximum F1u = friction resistance for the first phase of Plunger
tubing and casing pressures, but is opening up until certain traveling upward before liquid slug arrives wellhead, N;
tubing and casing pressures. The well should shut in from F2u = friction resistance for the second phase of Plunger
casing pressure of 7.03 MPa and tubing pressure of 2.26 MPa. traveling upward after liquid slug arrives wellhead, N;
The opening time is 732 sec., and shut in time is 1750 sec.The
maximum shut in tubing pressure is 2.7 and casing pressure is FB = liquid fallback coefficient, m3/s (Eq. 47);
7.3 MPa. The maximum gas production rate is 20,500 m3/d, Fgd = friction resistance between the falling plunger and
and water production rate is 27 m3/d. gas column, N (Eq. 27);
Conclusion FH = pressure loss due to friction applied on upstroke
liquid slug (Hlu), MPa (Eq. 33);
A new dynamic model has been developed to describe the Fld = friction resistance between falling plunger and liquid
plunger motion by considering the changes of the tubing and column, N;
casing pressures, liquid fallback, and plunger resistance force.
The typical curves of the tubing and casing pressures were F1u = friction resistance for the first phase of plunger
measured, analyzed, and described quantitatively. traveling upward when liquid slug has not reached
The new dynamic model improves the prediction precision wellhead, N;
compared to the conventional methods that assume the g = gravity acceleration, m/s2;
constant tubing pressure for the entire process. The resistance
coefficients of the plunge motion in four different phases are GLR = production gas liquid ratio, m3/m3;
determined by combining the dynamic model with field test
H1 = liquid height in the tubing during opening period, m;
data. Better equations on liquid accumulation and slug
length are formulated. H2 = liquid height in the casing during shut-in due to
An optimization method is presented to ensure maximum formation after-flow, m;
daily gas production. The principle and approach to optimize
12 SPE 116764

Hct,av = average liquid level difference between the tubing t = time, sec.;
and the casing during shutting-in period, m;
t1 = the maximum shutting-in time, sec.;
Hct,B = liquid level difference between tubing and
t2 = the maximum opening time, sec.;
casing at the beginning of shutting-in, m;
Tav = average wellbore temperature, °K;
Hct,E = liquid level difference between tubing and casing at
the end of shutting- in, m; tB = the shut-in time when straight line tubing pressure
start, sec.;
HLC = liquid height in the casing when plunger travels
downward, m; tE = the time for liquid slug reaching wellhead, sec.;
Hlu, i = initial liquid slug height lifted by the plunger, m; TT1 = total shutting-in time, sec.;
Hlu = liquid slug height lifted by the plunger, m; TT2 = total opening time, sec.;
Kc1 = slope for casing pressure (shut-in) (Eq. 4), MPa/s; Va= casing volume, m3;
Kc2 = slope for casing pressure (opening) (Eq. 8), MPa/s; Vt = tubing volume, m3;
Kt1 = slope for curved tubing pressure (AB) (Eq. 5), MPa/s; Δti = time step, sec.;
Kt2 = slope for straight tubing pressure line (BC), MPa/s γg = specific gravity of gas, (-);
(Eq. 6);
λ1u = resistance coefficient for the first phase of plunger
Ktt = slopes for liquid slugging arriving wellhead period traveling upward;
(ES) (Eq. 18), MPa/s;
λ2u = resistance coefficient for the second phase of plunger
m = plunger mass, kg; traveling upward.
n = exponent of gas production rate; λgd = resistance coefficient for plunger moving downward
N = plunger lift frequency, times/d; in the gas ;
Pc = casing pressure, MPa; λld =resistance coefficient for plunger moving downward in
the liquid ;
Pc0 = starting casing pressure for shutting-in period, MPa;
μ = flow rate coefficient (≈1);
Pc1 = end casing pressure for shutting-in period, MPa;
ρL = liquid density, kg/m3;
PF = tubing peak pressure at point F (Fig-1), MPa;
Psp = surface pipeline pressure, MPa;
τ = the time for second phase of well opening, sec..

Pt = tubing pressure, MPa;

Pt0 = starting tubing pressure for shutting-in period, MPa; Subscript

Pt1 = end tubing pressure for shutting-in period, MPa; 1 = shut-in period (t1);
2 = opening period (t2);
PtB = tubing pressure at transition point (point B), MPa;
av = average;
Ptd = pressure applied on the downside of the plunger, B = beginning of shut-in for liquid height (HL);
MPa; c = casing;
ct = liquid level difference between tubing and casing for
PtF = tubing pressure at point F when peak tubing pressure
liquid height;
is achieved, MPa;
d = plunger downstroke;
PtS = tubing pressure at point S when plunger arrives the E = end of shut-in for liquid height (HL);
lubricator, MPa; ti = inner tubing ;
g = gas;
Ptu = pressure applied on the upper side of the plunger,
l = liquid;
MPa;
min = minimum;
Pwf = bottomhole pressure, MPa; max = maximum;
res = reservoir;
Qg = daily gas production rate, m3/d;
s = surface or standard conditions;
Qw = daily water production rate, m3/d; sp = surface pipeline;
t = tubing;
SPE 116764 13

tran = liquid transfer;

u = plunger upstroke. By combining Eqs. (A-1)~(A-3), we get

References qg = C
( Pt − Psp ) """"""""""( A − 4)
Pt
1. Foss, D.L. and Gaul, R.B.: “Plunger Lift Performance Criteria
with Operating Experience - Ventura Avenue Field”, Drilling and
Production Practice, API, (1965)120-140. 0.5
2. Hacksma, J.D.: “Predicting Plunger Lift Performance”, presented π ⎡
2 * 8314.3 * Tav ⎤
at Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Texas, 1972. C= d 2s μ ⎢ ⎥ """""" ( A − 5)
3. Lea, J.F.: “Dynamic Analysis of Plunger Lift Operations”, paper
4 ⎢⎣ (28.97γ g ) ⎥⎦
SPE 10253 presented at the 1981 Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, Oct. 5-7. Let Qgs be the gas flow rate at standard conditions
4. Avery, D.J. and Evans, R.D.: “Design Optimization of Plunger
Lift Systems”, paper 17585 presented at the SPE International Pt Ts
Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Tianjin, China, November 1- q gs = qg """""""""""" ( A − 6)
4, 1988. Ps Tav Z
5. Chacin, J., Schmidt, Z. and Doty D.: “Modeling and Optimization
of Plunger Lift Assisted Intermittent Gas Lift Installations”, paper
23683 presented at the 1992 SPE Latin American Petroleum If the differential pressure is dPt and the differential gas
Engineering Conference. volume at standard condition is dVgs correspondent
6. White, G.W.: “Combine Gas Lift Plungers to Increase Production differential time, dt,
Rate”, World Oil (Nov. 1982) 69-76.
7. Mower, L.W.., Lea, J.F., Beauregard, E. and Ferguson, P.L.:
“Defining the Characteristics and Performance of Gas lift Vt Ts
dV gs = dPt """""""""" ( A − 7)
Plungers”, paper SPE 14344 presented at the 1985 Annual Tav Z Ps
Technical Conference and Exhibition , Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 22-
25.
From the definition of qgs, we have

Appendix A⎯Derivation of Tubing Pressure and Gas

dV gs Vt Ts dPt
Flow Rate For Well Blow-Down q gs = − =− """""" ( A − 8)
dt Tav Z Ps dt
When the plunger is captured in the lubricator, the compressed
gas in the tubing blows down into surface pipeline in a short
Solving Eqs. (A-4), (A-6) and (A-8) simultaneously yields
period.
Let ds is the surface pipeline’s diameter, Psp is the surface
pipeline’s pressure. Based on the equation of gas flowing Vt dPt
through a hole from a cylinder vessel (homogeneous pressure − dt = """"""""" ( A − 9)
C Pt2 − Psp Pt
in the vessel) with pressure difference, Pt - Psp, we have

π Assuming Pt = Pt1 for t = 0, integrating Eq. (A-9) results in

qg = d s2 μ 2 g Δh """"""""""( A − 1)
4
Pt1 − 0.5 Psp + P 2t1 − Psp Pt1
Δh =
( Pt − Psp ) 10 6 """"""""""( A − 2)
t=(
Vt
C
) Ln
Pt (t ) − 0.5 Psp + P 2t (t ) − Psp Pt (t )
" ( A − 10)
ρg g

Approximately, the equation above is similar with the Eq. 9,

28.97 γ g Pt 10 6 Pt = f1 EXP(-f2 t) +f3 .
ρg = """"""""" ( A − 3)
8314.3 Tav Z
Appendix B⎯Derivation of Liquid Accumulation
Height H2 during Shutting-in Period
where,
qg = gas flow rate in situ, m3/s; Obviously, H2 is the function of tubing and casing pressures,
μ = flow coefficient. Pc and Pt. Firstly, assume that the initial liquid height in the
14 SPE 116764

tubing is Hct,B, and no liquid in the annulus. For simplicity, CN ⋅depth

[( Pc − Pco )Va + ( Pt − Pto )(Vt − Hct ,B At )] ⋅ e

( )
liquid transfer from tubing to the annulus is not considered at 2
the time being. If G1 stands for the gas volume (at standard H2 = CN ⋅depth
GLR ⋅ Ps ⋅ Tav ⋅ Z ( )
⋅ ( At + Aa ) + ( Pc Aa + Pt At ) e
condition) in the well at the beginning of shutting-in , then 2
Ts
CN ⋅dept """"""""""""""""" ( B − 5)
Pt 0 e 2 ⋅ Ts
G1 = (Vt − H ct , B At )
Ps Tav Z Because there exists liquid transfer from the tubing to the
CN ⋅dept annulus, Hct,B in the tubing should be replaced by the average
P e 2 ⋅ Ts liquid height, Hct,av .
+ c0 Va """"""" ( B − 1)
Ps Tav Z

where, subscription s stands for standard condition.

For any time during pressure building-up, the liquid level
in the casing increases to H2. The correspondent gas volume
produced is G2.

G2 = H 2 ⋅ ( At + Aa ) ⋅ GLR """""" ( B − 2)

Summation of Eqs. (B-1) and (B-2) yields

CN ⋅dept
Pt 0 e 2 ⋅ Ts
G1 + G2 = (Vt − H ct , B At )
Ps Tav Z
CN ⋅dept
Pc0 e 2 ⋅ Ts
+ H 2 ⋅ ( At + Aa ) ⋅ GLR + Va
Ps Tav Z
""""""""""""""""" ( B − 3)

On the other hand, the total mole of gas should be equal to

the gas mole in the tubing and in the casing, that is

CN ⋅dept
P Pc e 2 ⋅ ( Va − H 2 Aa )
( G1 + G2 ) Ts =
Tav Z
+
s
CN ⋅dept
Pt e 2 [
⋅ Vt − ( H ct , B + H 2 ) Aa ] """ ( B − 4)
Tav Z

By combining Eqs. (B-3) and (B-4) and separating the items

of H2 independent results in