Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

# An lmproved Finite-Difference Calculation of Downhole Dynamometer Cards for Sucker-Rod Pumps

T.A. Everltt, * SPE, Chevron Oil Field Research Co., and J.W. Jennlngs, * * SPE, Texas A&M U.
Summary. This paper presents a finite-difference representation of the wave equation developed for diagnostic analyses of suckerrod pumping systems. A consistent method of computing the viscous damping term associated with the damped-wave equation is also

lntroductlon Sucker-rod pumping is the most widely used means of artificial lift. About 85% to 90% of all producing wells in the U.S. are rod- pumped. Thus, a reliable method of analyzing these pumping systems is a necessity. For many years, the surface dynamometer has been used to analyze sucker-rod systems. Interpretation of actual pump conditions from surface dynamometer cards is often difficult, if not impossible. Results obtained from surface cards are strictly qualitative and are dependent on the analyzer's expertise. o The ideal analysis procedure would be t measure the actual pump conditions with a downhole dynamometer. However, this situation is not economically feasible. Therefore, an accurate method of caldating downhole pump cards from measured surface cards is needed. This paper presents a method for calculating these downhole cards that uses a finite-differencerepresentation of the wave equation. First, a brief description of previous calculation techniques is given.

Knapp3 was the first to present a method for computing downhole dynamometer cards using finite differences. His formulation does not account for variable rod diameter or rod material. Knapp's theory was used in the development of the model presented here. Model Development The behavior of the sucker-rod pumping system is complex. This study entails modeling a portion of this system, namely the suckerrod string from the surface to the pump. The wave equation is ideal for this purpose because the problem at hand involves the propagation of waves in a continuous medium.

Wave Equation. The 1D wave equation is a linear hyperbolic differential equation that describes the longitudinal vibrations of a long, slender rod. Using this equation with viscous damping, we can approximate the motion of the sucker-rod string. In its simplified form, the wave equation is given by
a2u ,,2-=ax2 a2u at2

Previous Methods. Past work involving the analysis of sucker-rod pumping systems can be divided into two categories. One category involves predicting the performance of new sucker-rod installations by calculating surface load from known surface position and pump load. The other category deals with the diagnosis of existing pumping installations by determining actual pump conditions from measured surface conditions. This paper focuses on the latter category. Snyderl was the first to develop a method for calculating downhole forces and displacements. His technique incorporates the method of characteristics to solve the undamped-wave equation. Snvder assumed that the tension in the rod is the result of two force waves, f (downward wave) and g (upward wgve). The values of f and g, calculated from the surface dynamometer card, would be constant over the entire rod string for the undamped solution. Snyder corrected for damping using a concentrated damping force to advance the values of f and g down the rod string. These two force waves are then used to compute the downhole pump card. Snyder's method is rigorously valid oniy for a uniform sucker-rod string. Gibbs and Neely2 developed an analytical technique in 1966 for obtaining subsurface conditions. The method uses truncated Fourier series approxirnations of the ID, damped-wave equation to determine load and displacement. The relative smoothness of the loadltime and displacement/time curves is important in a Fourier analysis; however, the load function approaches a square wave at the pump. The Fourier series solution oscillates at the discontinuities of this square wave, restricting the number of terms that can be taken in the series solution and still preserve accuracy. In turn, the smaller number of terms in the series causes the solution to be less accurate. Gibbs and Neely's analytical method has become the primary means of calculating downhole dynamometer cards.
'Now at Shell Ofkhore Inc. "Now retired. Copyright 1992 Society of Petroleum Engineers

fc-,
m

au at

..............................(1)

where v

Eq. 1 is for the simplified case of a constant rod diameter. Multiplying through by (pA/144gC)modifies Eq. 1 to account for variable rod diameter:
a2u m-=-ax2

PA

a 2 ~ at2

+c

PA

->
at

au

i44gr

i44gr

(2)

which is the form of the wave equation used to develop the finitedifference model. Several researchers4-6 gave a detailed derivation of the wave equation, beginning with a force balance on an element of the sucker-rod string. Generally, solving the wave equation would require two boundary conditions and two initial conditions because the equation con* tains second-order derivatives in both time and space. However, the problem solved here does not require initial conditions because oniy periodic (steady-state) solutions are desired. Because the effects of the initial conditions have faded in periodic solutions, only two boundary conditions are required. The two required boundary conditions are time histories of polished-rod load and displacement. These conditions can be obtained directly from a surface dynamometer point plot, a graph of polished-rod load vs. displacement recorded at evenly spaced increments of time. Surface cards are typically recorded as continuous plots, however, and not as point plots at equal time increments. In this case, pumping-unit kinematics must be used to attain a relationship between time and polished-rod displacement. Svinos7 developed a versatile method for performing the kinematic analysis of pumping units. His method was used in this study to obtain surface position at evenly spaced time increments. Constant speed was assumed for the prime mover, and inertia effects were neglected.
121

## SPE Production Engineering, February 1992

Timesteps

U)
where a = Ar2

1 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n

(pAl144gc)+ +(pAI144gc)2

o
1

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUu
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuUUUUUUUUUUUU

?uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu?

3 ??uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu??

=. t n
A

???uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu???

:. z
. . .

????uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu????
?????uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu?????

Eq. 3 is used to transmit the surface position downhole by calculating displacements at each node along the rod string until the last node just above the pump is reached. The Appendix gives a complete derivation of Eq. 3. Note that Eq. 3 requires knowing displacements two nodes behind in space, ui, j and ui- 1 , relative to the node being calculated, ui+l,i. Therefore, to start the solution, the displacements uo, and u l , must be known for al1 tirnesteps. The displacements at uo, are known from the surface dynamometer card. The displacements at u l , are calculated with Hooke's law:

??????uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu?????? ???????uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu???????

Substituting the polished-rod load, FPR,for F and a first-ordercorrect forward-difference analog for aulax yields

m ????????uuuuuuuuuuuuu????????
u
? - Displacements That Cannot Be Calculated -- - -

## Fig. 1-Dlsplacements not calculated.

Finite-DifferenceAnalogs. Finite differences are used in the model development to obtain the numerical solution of the ID, dampewave equation. Taylor series approximations are used to generate finitedifferenceanalogs for the derivatives of displacementthat appear in the wave equation. Eq. 3 is the result of substituting these Taylor series approxirnations into Eq. 2.

Thus, the displacements needed to start Eq. 3 are obtained. Note that FpR is the dynamic polished-rod load (the surface-recorded load minus the buoyed weight of the rods). Another interesting aspect of Eq. 3 is that the determination of ui+ l , , requires knowing the displacements ui,j - i and ui,j+ 1. At does not the lower end of the timestep scale (when j=O), u i j j - ~ exist; at the upper end of the timestep scale (when j=n), ui,j+i does not exist. Therefore, the two endpoints at each node cannot be calculated. Fig. 1 illustrates this phenomenon. If the calculations are started from the surface'node (i=O) with only one cycle of lo& and positions, the solution at the pump (i=m) will not represent a complete cycle because the endpoints at Nodes 2 through m cannot be calculated. To solve this problem, enough surface points (loads and positions) must be repeated before the calculations begin so that when points are lost as the calculations progress downhole, the pump card will still represent a complete cycle. The number of points that will be lost can be determined
FOR CASE 1

TABLE 1-DATA

07 .5 2,000

Steel

Clockwise

## Plunger diameter, in. Pumping speed, strokeslmin Pump condition

Downhole Data 25 . Pump depth, ft 1 5 Fluid level, ft Full Fluid specific gravity Pumping-Unit Data Stroke length, in. Lufkin Rotation

## Unit designation Manufacturer

C-114-119-54

TABLE 2-DATA

FOR CASE 2

Rod Data Diameter (in.) Length (ft) Material Fiberglass Steel Downhole Data Plunger diameter, in. Pumping speed, strokeslmin Pump condition Elasticity (PSi)

1.250 0.875

3,000 3,000 15 . 10
Fluid pound

1O0
Clockwise

C-228-213-100

## SPE Production Engineering, February 1992

10000

20 Position (In.)

40

60

Flg. 2-Surface

## dynamometer card for Case 1.

from the number of nodes (number of lost points=number of nodes X 2 -2). For example, if the rod string has 20 nodes, 38 of the original surface points wiU not be transmitted to the pump. In this case, 38 surface points must be repeated before the calculationsbegin(i.e., Pointn+l=Point 1, Pointn+2=Point2.. .Point n+38=Point 38) to obtain a complete pump cycle. As mentioned before, Eq. 3 transmits displacements downhole to the node just above the pump. To obtain pump displacement, a different equation must be used because (EA)+ and [pAl (144g,)] + do not exist at the pump. The equation used is the simplified form of Eq. 3 for constant rod diameter and rod material:

noted the stability criterion of the finitedifference predictive model as Remember that the predictive and diagnostic models solve two different problems. The predictive model calculates (predicts) surface dynamometer cards, whereas the diagnostic model calculates downhole cards from known surface conditions. The diagnostic model solves for displacements ahead in space; the predictive model, on the other hand, solves for displacements ahead in time. Thus, the stability criterion for the diagnostic model is not the same as Eq. 8. Everitt4 derived the stability criterion for the diagnostic model. For brevity, only the final result is shown here: A xlvAt 5 l. ...................................... (9) This criterion is the converse of Eq. 8, the stability criterion of the predictive model. Model Verltlcatlon Using the finitedifference equations presented earlier, we developedalgorithms and progra&ed them in FORTRAN on a personal computer. Standardsused to test the model were the fnitedifference predi~tivemodel and the Fourier series (analytical) diagnostic model. Schafer and Jenningss programmed these two models and studied the parameters involved. These programs were used to ve@ the numerical diagnostic model developed here.

Now that pump displacement is known, pump load may be calculated. Hooke's law (Eq.4) is used, substituting a second-ordercorrect backward difference for aulax: Thus, equations have been generated for calculating pump dynamometer cards. In the model development, higher-order Taylor series approximations could have been chosen for the derivatives. It is expected, however, that the additional accuracy would be small and would not compensate for the increased computational speed and supplementary storage requirements.

Stability Criterion. Because the model developed here is an explicit finitedifferencemethod, the stabiiity of the solution is of significant importante and must be considered at this point. Gibbs*
6000-

Predicave-Model Comparisons. The predictive model calculates surface load from known surface position and pump load. The procedure for comparison is as follows.

-Diagnostic Model

-- -- Predlctive Model
9
P

9 ID
P

d
P

## ---- Predictive Model

-2000
t
I
I

-Diagnostic Model
I
0

10

20 30 Position (In.)

40

50

-20000

20

40

60

80

100

Position (In.) Flg. 5-Comparison of numerlcal diagnostlc and predlctlve models for Case 2. 123

## Flg. 4-Comparison of numerical diagnostic and predlctlve models for Case 1.

SPE Production Engineering, February 1992

TABLE 3-DATA FOR CASE 3 Rod Data Diameter (in.) 0.875 O. 750 Plunger diameter, in. Pumping speed, strokeslmin Fluid specific gravity Unit designation Manufacturer Length (ft) 1,500 2,400 Material Steel Steel Downhole Data 2.25 Pump depth, ft 8 Fluid level, ft 0.92 Pumping-Unit Data M-228-256-120 Stroke length, in. Lufkin Rotation Elasticity (PS~) 30.5~ loe 30.5~ lo6
3,900 2,850

121 Counterclockwise

TABLE 4-DATA Diameter, in. Length, ft Plunger diameter, in. Pumping speed, strokeslmin Fluid specific gravity Unit designation Manufacturer

FOR CASE 4

Rod Data 0.75 Material 3,179 Elasticity, psi Downhole Data 15 . Pump depth, ft 10 Fluid level, ft 0.8 Pumping-Unit Data C-114-143-64 Stroke length, in. Lufkin Rotation

## Steel 30.5~ lo6

3,234 3,234

64 Counterclockwise

1. Generate surface cards from known downhole conditions with the predictive model. 2. Calculate pump cards with the numerical diagnostic model by use of the surface cards generated i Step 1. n 3. Compare pump cards calculated with the numerical diagnostic model to actual pump cards in the predictive model. Tables 1 and 2 are examples of artificial data sets used in these comparisons. Figs. 2 and 3 show the surface cards generated with the predictive model for these data sets. Figs. 4 and 5 compare the predictive-model and diagnostic-model pump cards. These exarnples demonstrate the diagnostic model's ability to reproduce the actual pump cards from surface information.

diagnostic models. Figs. 6 and 7 show the recorded surface dynamometer cards for these wells, and Figs. 8 and 9 compare the pump cards calculated with the two diagnostic models. These cases illustrate good agreement between the two models.

Analytical-Model Comparisons. The Fourier series (analytical) model is probably the most well-known means of calculating downhole dynamometer cards at this time. Tables 3 and 4 give examples of actual wells used to compare the numerical and analytical
15000 -

Numerical vs. Analyticai. Afier good agreement between the numerical and analytical diagnostic models is shown, the question arises as to which model is more accurate. A description of the procedure used to answer this question follows. 1. Generate surface dynamometer cards with the predictive model. 2. Caiculate pump dynamometer cards from these surface cards with the numerical diagnostic model. 3. Calculate pump cards from the surface cards with the analytical diagnostic model. 4. Plot the pump cards calculated with both diagnostic models on the same graph with the actual pump card from the predictive model .
8000 -

n
u
A

c. .

a
O

25

50 75 Position (In.)

100

125

2000

,
40 Position (In.)

20

60

80

Flg. 6-Suriace

## Flg. 7-Suriace dynamometer card for Case 4.

SPE Production Engineering, Febniary 1992

124

7500

## .......... Analytical Model

Numeriml Modo1

Nunmiul Uod.l

.......-Anrlytiul Uod.l

-2m0

-1000 25
I

50

75

100

125

20

40

60

Position (In.) Flg. 8-Comparlson of numerlcal and analytlcal diagnostic models for Case 3.

Position (In.) Flg. 9-Comparlson of numerlcal and analytlcal dlagnostlc models for Case 4.

5. The calculated pump card that matches the pump card from the predictive model more closely is the more accurate model. Data sets described in Tables 1 and 2 are examples used in performing this analysis. The generated surface cards are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Figs. 10 and 1 illustrate the results of the compari1 sons. I each case, 10 to 15 Fourier coefficients were used in the n analytical model, as suggested by Schafer and Jemings. The analytical model tends to round the corners of the pump card. This is explained by the difficulty in approximating a square wave (load at the pump) with a Fourier series.

Damplng Calculatlon Past methods of sucker-rod anaiysis lacked a consistent means of simulating the damping forces inherent in sucker-rod pumping systems. Nicol6 presented a workable method of calculating damping, but it requires knowledge of fluid viscosity. The intent of this section is to define a viscous damping coefficient, c, that may be used in Eq. 2 to model these damping forces. The damping coefficient used is similar to that presented by Gibbs9 :

7 . If the difference between the pump horsepower and the hydraulic horsepower is within an acceptable tolerance, the procedure is complete. Otherwise, adjust the damping coefficient accordingly and repeat Steps 5 and 6 . Fig. 12 is a flow chart iliustratingthe damping calculation procedure. Running many cases has shown that the damping coefftcient converges within at most four to five iterations. To verify the damping calculation procedure, the predictive model was used to generate surface cards with a damping coefficient of unity. Pump dynamometer cards were calculated, aliowing the numerical diagnostic model to compute its own damping coeflcient. Pum~ cards from both models were then com~ared verifv the to damPing calculation. Fig. 13is an example of &S comparison bing data listed in Table 2. For this exam~le. dam~ine the coefficient calculated in three iterations is withh 2% of ac&al.-

where HH=7.36 X 10-6qyZ. Eq. 10 is valid for any rod material, whereas Gibbs' damping coefficient is valid only for steel rods. Ref. 4 gives a complete derivation of Eq. 10. Calculation of hydraulic horsepower, HH,requires knowledge of the fluid level, which may or may not be known, and of pump production rate, which is dependent on the net pump stroke. This net pump stroke may be obtained from a pump dynamometer card; however, the damping coefficient must be known before the pump card can be calculated accurately . This predicament leads to an iterative procedure for calculating the correct damping coefficient. 1. Calculate the damping coefficient with a fraction of the polished-rod stroke as a first guess for the net pump stroke. 2. Calculate the pump dynamometer card and determine the net pump stroke from this pump card. 3. Recalculate the damping coefficient, calculate a new pump card, and again determine the net pump stroke. Experience has shown that the net pump stroke converges within an acceptable tolerance in two iterations. The next task is iterating until the damping coefficient converges. 4. Recalculate the damping coefficient with the now-fixed net pump stroke. 5. Calculate the pump dynamometer card with the new damping coefficient. 6 . Determine the pump horsepower by computing the area of the pump card. SPE Production Engineering, February 1992

Concluslons 1. The finitedifference diagnostic technique is an excellent means of analyzing the behavior of sucker-rod systems. 2. The equations presented are valid for tapered-rod strings, rod strings with sinker bars, and steel and fiberglass rods. 3. The stability criterion for the finitedifferencediagnostic model is the converse of the stability criterion for the finitedifference predictive model. 4. The viscous damping term associated with the wave equation may' be computed with knowledge of the fluid level. 5. The finte-difference solution better approximates square-wave pump loads than the truncated Fourier series solution (10 to 15 Fourier coefficients). Nomenclature A ='d cross-sectional area, in.2 c = damping coefficient, seconds-1 E = Young's modulus of elasticity, psi FpR = polished-rod load, lbf F,,, = pump load, lbf g, = units conversion factor, 32.20bm-ft)/(lbf-sec2) HH = hydraulic horsepower, hp HpR = polished-rod horsepower, hp Li = length of individual rod section, fi q = pump production rate, BID S = polished-rod stroke, ft S,, = net pump stroke, in. t = time, seconds u = rod deformation (displacement), ft v = velocity of force propagation in rods, ft/sec x = axial distance along the rod string, fi Z = fluid level or net lift, ft y = specific gravity of fluid, fraction

6000-

## -Numerical Dlagnostic ........ Analytlcal Disgnostlc - -- Predlctlve

? O

-Numerical Diagnostic
6000b

. ........

--- Predictiw

4060-

a
A

2000

....... .......
1

..... ...
1
1

- 2000

1O

20

30

40

50

- 2000

20

40

60

80

1O 0

p = T =

## rod density, lbmlft3 period of pumping cycle, seconds

Referentes
1. Snyder, W.E.: "A Method for Computing Down-Hole Forces and Disn placements i Oil Wells Pumped With Sucker Rods," paper 851-37-K presented at the 1963 Spring Meeting of the API Mid-Continent Distnct Div. of Production, Amarillo, March 27-29. 2. Gibbs, S.G. and Neely, A.B.: "Computer Diagnosis of Down-Hole Conditions in Sucker Rod Pumping Wells," JPT (Jan. 1966) 91-98; Trans., AIME, 237. 3. Knapp, R.M.: "A Dynamic Investigation of Sucker-Rod Pumping," MS thesis, U. of Kansas, Topeka (Jan. 1969). 4. Eventt, T.A.: "An Improved Finite Difference Calculation of Downhole Dynamometer Cards for Sucker Rod Pumps," MS thesis, Texas A&M U., College Station (Dec. 1987). 5. Schafer, D.J. and Jennings, J.W. : "An Investigation of Analytical and Numencal Sucker-Rod Pumping Mathematical Models," paper SPE 16919 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dalias, Sept. 27-30. 6. Nicol, T.H.: "Dynamic Analysis of Sucker Rod Pumping," MS thesis, U. of Oklahoma, Norman (Dec. 1982). 7. Svinos, J.G.: "Exact Kinematic Analysis of Pumping Units," paper SPE 12201 presented at the 1983 SPE Amual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8. 8. Gibbs, S.G.: "Predicting the Behavior of Sucker-Rod Pumping Systems," JPT (July 1963) 769-78; Trans., AIME, 228. 9. Gibbs, S.G.: "Method of Determining Sucker-Rod Pump Performance," U.S. Patent No. 3,343,409 (Sept. 26, 1967).

Subscrips i = axial distance @sitive downward) j = time m = node at pump Superscripts + = element below element of interest - = element above element of interest
Acknowledgments We thank the Texas Petroleum Research Cornmittee and those n responsible for the Hughes Tool Professorship i Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M U. for supporting this study.

I 1 1 1
Calculate c ~alculate u m ~ a r d l ~ p
1

Calculate HPhyd
1

I=l,+l

6000

3 lterati0nS

4000
m n d

2000

o
No
v

- 2000

20

40

60

80

100

Position (In.)

1
126

Flg. 12-Flow

## chart of damplng calculatlon.

Flg. 13-Calculatlon of damplng coefflclent wlth numerlcal model for Case 2. SPE Production Engineering, February 1992

Appendlx-Derivatlon Equation 2,

of Eq. 3
Before joinlng Shell Offshore Inc. in New Orleans, T.A. Everltt worked at Chevron O 1 Fleld 1 Research Co. in La Habra, CA, for 3 years as a research englneer in the Artificial Llft Group. He wae lana-an " "" Everltt Jennlngs treasurer and 198889 Mlcrocomputer puter User Group chairman for the Los Angeles Basln Section. Everltt holds BS and MS degrees in petroleum englneerlng from Texas A&M U. Jlm W. Jennlngs is the Hughes Tool Professor of Petroleum Englneering at Texas A&M U., where he speclallzes in artificial llft and well-performance predlctions. He prevlously was vice presldent of production research at Gulf. A 1992 Dlstlnguished Lecturer, Jennings has also served on the Forum Serles, Reprint Serles, and Ferguson Medal committees. He holds BS and MS degrees from the Colorado School of Mines and a PhD degree from the U. of Pittsburgh.
m"""

the ID, damped-wave equation, is the basis used in deriving the finite-difference analogs. Taylor series approximations are used to generate initedifference analogs for the derivatives of displacement that appear in the wave equation. The analogs for the first and second derivatives of displacement with respect to time are straightforward. Note that the subscript i denotes axial distance (positive downward) and the subscript j denotes time:
( a u ~ a t ,)j ~ ( u ~ , -ui, j ) ~ ~. t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i = ,+ ., ('4-1)

and ( a 2 ~ 1 a t 2i ) j = (ui,+ -2ui, +ui, l ) / ~ t 2... . . . . . . .(A-2) 1, , The first derivative analog is a first-order-correct forward difference; the second is a second-order-correct central difference. Translating the second derivative with respect to distance into differences is not quite as straightforward. This derivative may be written as

,-

## where ( a u l a ~ ) l ~= (~u~~, + -uii ,)/AX . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-4) + ~, and (aulax)1 i =

Now, substituting Eqs. A-4 and A-5 into Eq. A-3 yields

.. ,

cui,, - U i -

l ,,)IAX.

................ (A-5)
-*]ui,

+ (144gcAt2

PA

)Ui. j - i

144gcb

( EXA )-

U i - 1, j -

.................................... (A-9)
and factoring out pAl(144g,At2) gives
U i ,j+ i

Multiplying through by Eq. A-6 can be recognized as a normal second-order-correct central difference that has been rearranged slightly. The rationale for treating this difference in this manner is to account for variations in rod diameter and rod material. However, Eq. A-6 is not the final form of the difference analog to be used for the space derivative. Another preferred aspect of the finite-difference model is the ability to allow for a variable Ax. With tapered-rod strings, the solutions at the rod tapers are often desirabie so that maximumrod stresses may be analyzed. A constantAx scheme would require interpolation at the rod tapers, whereas a variabledx method would permit a different Ax for each rod size, providing exact solutions at the rod tapers. Thus, rewriting Eq. A-6 to account for a variable Ax yields

Dividing through by (EAIAx)+ and taking an average for @A1144gc) gives the final form of the main working equation:
ui+l,j = { [ a ( l+ c A t ) ] ~ ~ -[a(2+cAt)-(EAlAx)+ ,j+~ - ( E A I A x ) - ] u ~ , ~ + ~-(EAIAx)-ui-1, j } l ( E A I A ~ ) + , u~,~-~

where &=[(Ax) + +(Ax) -112. Eq. A-7 is the final form of the finite-difference analog for the second derivative with respect to distance. The next step is to substitute Eqs. A-1, A-2, and A-7 into Eq. 2,

where

CY = .

Eq. A-1 1 is identical to Eq. 3, the equation used to transmit the surface position downhole by calculating displacements at each node along the rod string. SI Metrlc Converslon Factors ft x 3.048* E-01 = m E+OO = cm in. x 2.54* E+OO = N lbf x 4.448 222 psi x 6.894757 E+OO = kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-8) .
Grouping in similar terms yields

=(-)
Ax

E A + Ax
U'+'"=(

PA 144gcAt2

+*)ui,j+l

144gcAt

Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 2, 1988. Revised manuscript received July 5, 1990. Paper accepted for publication March 15, 1991. Paper (SPE 18189) first presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston. Oct. 2-5.

-

SPEPE