MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126574328 · doi:10.2118/196155-pa

A New Mechanistic Model for Emulsion Rheology and Boosting Pressure Prediction in Electrical Submersible Pumps (ESPs) under Oil-Water Two-Phase Flow

2021· article· en· W3126574328 on OpenAlexaff
Jianjun Zhu, Hanjun Zhao, Guangqiang Cao, Hattan Banjar, Haiwen Zhu, Jianlin Peng, Hongquan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial liftRheologyPressure dropVolumetric flow rateImpellerPetroleum engineeringEmulsionMechanicsMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringGeologyEngineeringChemical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary As the second most widely used artificial lift method in the petroleum industry, electrical submersible pumps (ESPs) maintain or increase flow rates by converting the kinetic energy to hydraulic pressure. As oilfields age, water is invariably produced with crude oil. The increase of water cut generates oil-water emulsions due to the high-shearing effects inside a rotating ESP. Emulsions can be stabilized by natural surfactants or fine solids existing in the reservoir fluids. The formation of emulsions during oil production creates a high viscous mixture, resulting in costly problems and flow assurance issues, such as increasing pressure drop and reducing production rates. This paper, for the first time, proposes a new rheology model to predict the oil-water emulsion effective viscosities and establishes a link of fluid rheology and its effect with the stage pressure increment of ESPs. Based on Brinkman's (1952) correlation, a new rheology model, accounting for ESP rotational speed, stage number, fluid properties, and so on, is developed, which can also predict the phase inversion in oil-water emulsions. For the new mechanistic model to calculate ESP boosting pressure, a conceptual best-match flow rate (QBM) is introduced. QBM corresponds to the flow rate whose direction at the ESP impeller outlet matches the designed flow direction. Induced by the liquid flow rates changing, various pressure losses can be derived from QBM, including recirculation losses, and losses due to friction, leakage, sudden change of flow directions, and so on. Incorporating the new rheology model into the mechanistic model, the ESP boosting pressure under oil-water emulsion flow can be calculated. To validate the proposed model, the experimental data from two different types of ESPs were compared with the model predictions in terms of ESP boosting pressure. Under both high-viscosity single-phase fluid flow and oil-water emulsion flow, the model predicted ESP pressure increment matches the experimental measurements well. From medium to high flow rates with varying oil viscosities and water cuts, the prediction error is less than 15%.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE JournalSame topicOil and Gas Production TechniquesFrench-language works237,207