USMS

020152 Design of Sucker-Rod Pump Systems

J.W. Jennings, Texas A&M U.

Copyright 1989 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This manuscript was provided to the Society of Petroleum Engineers for distribution
and possible publication in an SPE journal. The material is subject to correction
by the author(s). Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words. Write SPE Book Order Dept., Library"Technician, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083·3836 U.S.A. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.
 NEW MEXICO TECH
CENTENNIAL SYMPOSIUM

SPE 20152

The Design of Sucker Rod Pump Systems

James W. Jennings, Texas A&M University

This paper was prepared lor pr_nlation at the Centennial Symposium Petroleum Technology Into /lie Second Century at N_ Mexico Tech. Socorro. NM. October 16-19. 1989.

This paper was ..1ec1ed lor pre..nlation by lhe New Mexico Tech Centennial Symposium Committee. Contents of the paper. as pr_nted, have not been revi_ed by the Society
of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, doss not necesaanly reflect any posItIon of the Society 01 Petroleum EngIneers.
its officers, or members. II submitted for publication, this paper Is subject to publication review by Editorial Committees 01 the Society 01 Petroleum EngIneers. PermIssion to copy
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
is presented. Write Publications Manager. SPE. P.O. Box 833836. Richardson, TX 75Q83.3836. Telex. 730989 SPEDAL.

INlRODUCIJON The last step of the design procedure requires that the engineer
compare the pump displacement, loads, and stresses obtained
The complete design of a sucker rod pumping system is an from the calculations with those from the initial estimates. If the
involved trial and error process. An "optimum" design requires assumed design is not adequate, then appropriate changes are
that the engineer specify pump size and type; rod string size, made in the initial estimates and the process is repeated. Three
taper, and material; surface unit type and size, gear box rating, methods have generally been used to perform the necessary
beam rating, and stroke length; and prime mover type and size. calculations, the Mills method 2, the API RPIIL method!, and
The procedure requires that the engineer first assume an the Gibbs method3.
appropriate combination of pump, rod, unit, and prime mover
and then perform calculations which lead to refining that initial The Mills' method was developed in the 1930's and is
assumption. This paper is intended to be a review of the several commonly used in the industry "calculation sheets". A number
techniques commonly used to solve the problem. The author simplifying assumptions are made in the Mills' method,
has taken the libeny to introduce several improvements to these including the assumption of simple harmonic motion,
techniques that have become apparent over the past several concentrated rod mass, and neglecting fluid inertia and damping.
years.
The API method is based on work performed by Midwest
As a minimum, the following information is required to stan the Research Institute completed in the late 1960's. The API
design procedure: 1 method offers a much more complete solution of the rod motion
problem than the Mills' method, but has limiting assumptions
(1) Fluid level such as simplified polished rod motion and full pump.
(2) Pump depth
(3) Pumping speed The Gibbs' method, that of solving the partial differential
(4) Length of stroke equations with a numerical simulator, has the fewest simplifying
(5) Pump plunger diameter assumptions. The author has chosen to name all methods which
(6) Fluid specific gravity involve numerical solutions of the partial differential equations
(7) Tubing size and whether anchored or not the Gibbs' method, even though some of the techniques
(8) Sucker rod size and design currently used can be attributed to others. It is possible to solve
(9) Unit geometry the complete problem with the Gibbs' method, including the
motion of the fluid, the motion of the rods, and the motion of the
The next step of the design procedure requires, as a minimum, surface unit with a slipping prime mover. This paper presents
the determination of the following operating characteristics of the each of the three methods discussed above with examples. The
design selection: pumping unit selections used in each of the three methods are
given in Table I.
(1) Plunger stroke
(2) Pump displacement MILLS' METIlOD
(3) Peak polished rod load
(4) Minimum polish rod load The method discussed here is generally attributed to Mills,
(5) Peak Torque although some of the features of the method have evolved since
(6) Polished rod horsepower the original development. The equations for peak polished rod
(7) Counterbalance effect load (PPRL) and minimum polished rod load (MPRL) for steel
n
rods and conventional (Class units are:
References and illustrations at end of paper.

77
2 SPE 2 0 15 2 The Design of Sucker Rod Pump Systems
NMTEOI 890012
--'l
PPRL - W, + W,(1 +a) ...................... (1) Bp =40.8 L~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(14)
MPRL= W, (1 - a- 0.127G) .................. (2) The constant (40.8) in Equation 14 is commonly replaced
empirically with 46.5 when designing a tapered steel rod
where: system.
_ SN2 -12(W, + 0.127 GW,)L
a - 70.500 ............................. (3) Bt- AtYr ...•............. (15)
and
B,= 12W.[
L1
I Y.A
1 r1
+ ... +v=-
Ln ]
~m ••••••••••••••••• (16)
~ - 0.433 GL(Ap- A,) ..................... (4)
The corresponding equation for pump displacement is:
These equations assume that only the rods undergo acceleration
and that the acceleration that occurs is the maximum under
simple harmonic motion. Friction is neglected in both loads. PD =0.1484 ApSpN ....................... (17)

A similar set of equations is used for Class m units4. For air Equations 1 through 17 form the basis for a pumping system
balance units: design by the Mills' method. These equations may be easily
extended to cover the tapered and fiberglass rod systems. An
PPRL. W, + W, (1 + 0.7 a) ................... (5) example of the Mills' method is given later in this paper.

MPRL. W,(1 - 1.3a - ~.127G) ...........•....(6)
For the Mark: n units (product of Lufkin Industries. Inc.):
PPRL. W, + W, (1 + O.Sa) .••••••••••••.••••• (7)
MPRL. W,(1 -1.4a- 0.127G) ................ (8)
These minor changes in the equations are made to account for
the difference in the off-bottom and off-top accelerations on the
Oass m units.
The counterbalance effect. the force that the counterbalance
weights put on the polished rod when the weights are at 900,
may be approximated by the following equation:
CBE =PPRL + MPRL
2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . (9)
APIMEDiQP
The API design method is based upon correlations developed
from analog computer solutions of the damped wave equation.
The damped wave equation describes the motion of a sucker rod
string. These correlations are presented in the form of
dimensionless variables and parameters. The solution.
therefore. involves casting the problem in its dimensionless
form, obtaining the dimensionless solution from which the
dimensional solution is obtained. The API method is most
easily explained through the use of a computation form (API
Form IlL-I). Figure 1 is an example of that type of form with
additions to make it suitable for use with fiberglass/steel sucker
rod systems and Class m
units.
The fIrSt section of the form contains the required data, all of
which is self explanatory except for rod volume. V,. Rod
volume is defined by Equation 18:
n

As an approximation, the following equation may be used to

V,. L L.;A,;
~1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•• (18)
obtain the peak torque for a balanced conventional or air
balanced unit: This volume is used to determine the buoyant force on the rods.
Line number 17 of the form has a factor of 7% built in to
PT =0.283 S(PPRL - MPRL) ................ (10) account for the volume of the couplings in the rod system.

for the Mark n unit: In the second section of the form, the first three factors are taken
from Table 4.1 of API RP IlL if steel rods are being used. The
PT =0.25 S(PPRL - 1.3 MPRL) ...............(11) fourth factor is taken from Table 4.2. If fiberglass rods are
being used, the frrst three factors are calculated from the
The polished rod horsepower is often approximated by: following equations: S
n
PRHP .. SN(PPRL - MPRL)
750,000 ................. (12)
W, =i- L L.; W,.
..1 ••••••••.•••••.••••••••.••• (19)

The nameplate horsepower rating of the prime mover should be n

from 1.5 to 2 times the polished rod horsepower, the lower -12. ~ ....!:L
E,- L k ViA,;
value being used for high slip motors and the higher value for ..1 I ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• (20)
normal slip motors.

An approximation for the effective plunger stroke commonly

used with the Mills' method is as follows:
Equation 21 is for 2-taper rod strings. a recent papers shows
Sp. S + Bp - (Bt + B,) .......................(13) how to apply these equations to the fiberglass problem and also
gives the equation for Fe for a three-way taper system.
where:
78
NMlECH 890012 James W. Jennings SPE 2 0152 3

Lines 5 through 23 of Fig. 1 are calculated or detennined as they

would be on the standard API Form 11L-l except for lines 9. 10
and 17. The So term in lines 9 and 10 is equal to 16.333 ft/sec
for steel and this is the value used in the API form. When
fiberglass combination rod strings are used. the value of So is
different and must be calculated as shown on Fig. 1. Line 17 of
Fig. 1 has a different formula for calculating the weight of the
rods in fluid than that found on the API form as explained
above.
The remaining lines (24 through 28) of Fig. 1 have the API
solutions for PPRL. MPRL. PT. PRHP and CBE for the
conventional unit. In addition. the corresponding equations6 for
approximating these operating characteristics for the Mark II and
air balance units are included to make the method more general.
An example of the application of this method is given later.
GIBBS' METHOD
The method referred to here is the general numerical solution of
the partial differential equations that describe the motion of the
rod system. Actually. this method has been applied in
substantial detail. including the modeling of the motion of the
fluid column and accounting for prime mover slip and inertia and
geometry of the surface unit by a number of different authors.
The Gibbs' method has the flexibility to simulate almost any
arbitrary sucker rod system with almost any set of boundary
conditions. It is especially useful in simulating pumping
systems undergoing abnormal pump operating conditions. such
as fluid pound and gas interference. The discussion in this
paper will be limited to the modeling of the rod system and the
geometry of the surface unit. Only constant speed. that is no
slip. is considered in these examples.
'I i _ (l-CD1'-) 'I,i-' ( :..';."t"I-' -f, .',1-,)
, 1+C~
for i = 1 to tr1 ........................... (24)
The first subscript on V and f refers to position in the rod string
and the second refers to time.
The next step in the solution involves relating the motion of the
pump itself to the .fl~id forces on the p!lmp.. In a norm~ly
operating pump. thIS IS handled as descnbed In the follOWIng
section.
There are three possible configurations of the pump valve
system. i.e. the standing valve and traveling valve. One of these
conditions must exist at any time. namely: (1) both valves
closed (beginning of either upstroke or downstroke). (2)
standing valve open. traveling valve closed (upstroke). or (3)
standing valve closed. traveling valve open (downstroke). Once
the state of the valves is determined. the velocity and force at the
pump may be determined and the solution continued. Th~ next 7
steps show the logic needed to find pump force and velOCIty:
(1) Assume both valves closed. This requires that v(L,t) be
zero for the anchored tubing case. The force on the
pump under this assumed condition may be calculated
from:
f~j =f n,j.1 + 12 ..M Vn~'i
L1x , ................(25)

The motion of the rod string is governed by the damped wave (2) If:
equation. which may be described as follows:
f~j ~ (Ptop - Pbottom) Ap ................. (26)
W, dv(X.~ _ d~X.t) =-C !!t .Ax A
gc dt dX D gc ~\ "1
(3) Then:
............. (22)

1.2. dv(X.t) _ allx.t} =0 fn,j = (Ptop - Pbottom) Ap ................. (27)

E, dX dt ...................•. (23)
This means that the standing valve must be open (or
This coupled system of fIrSt order equations is equivalent to the opening), implying that v(L,t) is not zero as assumed in
second order equation normally used to describe the rod motion. step 1.
In some ways. this system is easier to use that the second order
system. Along with the governing differential equations. the (4) Else if:
appropriate boundary conditions are needed at the surface and at
the pump. The initial conditions are of little consequence in that f~j ~ 0 ............................. (28)
the periodic solution is desired in which all of the initial effects
have been damped out. The equations are normally solved using (5) Then the traveling valve must be open (or opening)
a finite difference scheme. although the method of characteristics requiring:
or a finite element scheme may be easily used.

The motion of the polished rod as a function of time may be fn,j =0 ............................. (29)
calculated from the equations describing the kinematics of the
various units given in API SPEC lIE or in a recent paper by (6) If one of the valves is open (test in either step (2) or step
Svinos. 7 Given the surface motion. i.e. v(0.t). and all forces in (4) is true) then the velocity of the pump is not zero as
and on the rod string at the previous time step. the velocities at assumed and must be calculated from:
the discretized interior points on the rod string may be calculated
explicitly from a finite difference form of Equation 22. For
simplicity. Wrand Erare considered to be constant throughout ( 1-CD~)
2
Vn,j.1 + L1tgc (fn .1,j.1- fn,j.1)
L1x W,
the rod string in the following development. In general. this is
not true and the following procedure should be modified to
accommodate variable (tapered) rod properties. . (30)

(7) Otherwise:

vn,j .. 0 .............................(31)

79
4 SPE 2 0152 The Design of Sucker Rod Pump Systems NMTECH 890012
The next step is to calculate all of the forces at the interior nodes SOLUTION, API MEl1:IOD
of the rod from:
The solution by the API method is summarized in Figure 1.
Table ill shows the values of PPRL, MPRL, CBE, PT, and
~J', = ~J·.1
,
+~(\1.1,rVi+1,j),
.:1X E, PRHP for the conventional, air balance and Mark n unit.

SOLUTION, GIBBS' METIlOD

for;= 1 to ~1 ........................... (32)
At the polished rod, the force is calculated from:
fa j =fa i·1 + 12.AL(Vo,i ~ V1,j)
, , .:1X E, ................(33)
This completes the computa~onal .steps for det~ning th~
behavior of the system. The sImulanon must be .cor,tnnued. unt~.l
all of the initial transients have decayed and a penodic solunon IS
being obtained. This takes a minimum of 4 or 5 pumping cycles
for a constant crank speed simulation. Once the surface and
downhole dynamometer cards are obtained, a conventional
torque analysis is performed to to determine balance and torque
curves.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM
The following example problem taken from API RP IlL.
The solution to the problem by Gibbs' method is su~arized in
Table IV. In addition, Figures 2 through 7 show detaIled results
graphically. In comparing the results from the different types of
units, the writer cautions against reaching any conclusion as to
the relative merits of the units. Only one example is covered
here, and no general conclusion is appropriate. For ~y giv~n
installation design, the engineer should study the relanve ments
of any available pumping system for the problem.
SUMMARYANP CONCLUSIONS
The engineer has a choice of at least three methods of designing
sucker rod pumping systems. This paper has dealt more with
the selection of the surface unit than the rod and pump and rod
system, however the same procedures may be used to determine
the design of the rod system and to analyze the effects of
different sizes of pumps. Except for peak torque and pump
stroke length, all three methods seem to check reasonably well.

Fluid level, H = 4500 ft Pump depth, L = 5000 ft The author has seen cases where the API and Gibbs' methods
Pumping speed,N = 16 SPM Length of stroke, S = 54 in check much more closely. In some cases, the API method
Plunger dia.,D = 1.50 in Spec. grav. of fluid, G = 0.9 seems to match results obtained in the field better than the other
two methods.
Tubing size = 2 in, 4.60 lb/ft, not anchored
Sucker rods = 33.8% - 7/8" & 66.2% - 3/4" (steel)
In conclusion, both the API and Gibbs' methods seem to give
SOLUTION, MILLS' MEl1:IOD reasonably good results and they are probably both adequate for
most design situations where the precise operating conditions are
From Eqs. 3 and 4: not known anyway. The Mills' method is useful for helping to
get the design process started in either the API or Gibbs'
2 method.
=54x16 =0.1961
a 70,500 Peak torque is the most difficult operating characteristic to obtain
from any simplified method of calculation. This is because the
peak load does not always occur at the crank angle
~ = 0.433 x 0.9 x 5000 x (1.767 -0.442) = 2582lbs corresponding to peak torque factor. Nor does the peak load
always occur at the same crank angle. In this particular example
From rod properties: problem, the peak torque for the Mark II is less than the peak
torque from the conventional unit. The author has seen other
w,. = 9165 lbs cases, with fiberglass rods, where the peak torque fo~ the M~
II is greater than the peak torque for the conventIonal ~D1t.
The values of PPRL MPRL, CBE, PT, and PRHP calculated When there is disagreement among the methods, the GIbbs'
from Eqs. 1-12 for a ~onventional, air balance and Mark II unit method should always be considered the more reliable.
are shown in Table II From Eqs. 13-16:
NOMENOATIJRE
2
6p =46 .5 x500029.5XO.1961
E6
·
=.773 tn. a = Mills accelleration factor, (dim).
Bj Velocity of sound in rod section i, (ft/sec).
(2582 + 0.127xO.9x9165)x5000 566 . Ap = Cross-section area of pump plunger, (in 2).
6t = 12 x =. tn.
1.304x29.5E6 Ar = Cross-section area of rod, (in2).
At = Cross-section area of tubing wall, (in 2).
6, = 12x258i 1690 + 331 0 ] CBE Counter balance effect, (lbf).
l29.5E6xO.601 29.5E6xO.442 CD = Viscous damping coefficient, (l/sec).
,M = TIlDe step size, (sec).
= 10.82 in. L1x = Space step size, (ft).
and

Sp = 54 + 7.73 - (5.66 + 10.82) = 45.42 in.

t:
6r
=
=
=
Elongation of rods due to acceleration, (in).
Elastic constant of rod, (in/ft-Ibf).
Elongation of rods due to gravity, (in).
6t = Elongation of unachored tubing due to fluid load
Finally, from Eq. 17: (in).
f = Force in rod string (positive upward), (lbf).
PD - 0.1484 x 1.767 x 45.42 x 16 =191 BID Fe = Frequency correction factor, (dim).

BO
~CH890012 James W. Jennings
SPE 2 0152 5
G = Fluid specific gravity, (dim). REFERENCES
gc = 32.2, (ft-Ibm/sec2-lbf). -
L = Length of rod, (ft). 1. "API Recommended Practice for Design Calculations of
MPRL = Minimum polished rod load, (lbf). Sucker Rod Pumping Systems," API RPIIL, Third
N = Pumping speed, (t/min). Edition, Washington, D.C., (1977); Supplement 1 (1979).
Pbottom = Pressure on underneath side of pump
plunger, (psia). 2. Mills, K.N., "Factors Influencing Well Loads Combined
PD = Theoretical pump displacement, (BID). in a New Formula," Petroleum Endneerine; (Apri11939).
PPRL = Maximum polished rod load, (lbf).
PT = Peak gear box torque, (in-Ibf). 3. Gibbs, S.G., "Predicting the Behavior of a Sucker Rod
PRHP = Polished rod horsepower, (hp). Pumping System," .lIT, (1963) 769-778.
Ptop = Pressure on top side of pump plunger, (psia). 4. Brown, K.E., The Technoloe;y of Artificial Lift Methods,
S = Polished rod stroke length, (in). Vol. 2a, Pennwell Publishing, Tulsa, OK (1980) 30.
Sp = Pump stroke length, (in).
t = Time, (sec). 5. Jennings, lW. and Laine, R.E., "A Method for Designing
v = Rod velocity (positive upward), (ft/sec). Fiberglass Sucker Rod Strings Using API RPIIL," SPE
V, = Rod volume, (ft-in 2 ). 18188, presented at 63rd Annual Technical Conference,
w, = Weight of fluid on net plunger area, (lbf). Houston, TX, October 2-5,1988.
w, = Weight of rods in air, (lbf).
6. Foley, William, Chevron Oilfield Research Co., La Habra,
x = Distance along rod from pump (positive upward), CA, personal communication.
(ft).
Y, = Youngs modulus for rod material, (psi). 7. Svinos, J.G., "Exact Kinematic Analysis of Pumping
Yt Youngs modulus for tubing material, (psi). Units," SPE 12201 presented at 58th Annual Technical
Conference, San Francisco, CA October 5-8, 1983.
indices:
= index in space
j index in time

TABLE I - PUMPING UNIT SELECTIONS TABLE 11- OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

CALCULATED BY MILLS' METHOD
MILLS' METHOD
.QQnY.. AirBal.
Conventional C-114D-173-54
Air Balance A-114D-173-64 (54) PPRL (Ibf) 13,544. 13,005. 12,825.
Mark II M-114D-143-64 (52) MPRL (Ibf) 6,320. 5,781. 5,601.
CBE (Ibf) 9,932. 9,393. 9,213.
API RP 11L METHOD PT (in-Ibf) 110,400. 110,400. 74,840.
PRHP 8.3 8.3 8.3
Conventional C-160D-163-54 PD (BID) 191. 191. 191.
Air Balance A-114D-173-64 (54) Sp (in) 45.4 45.4 45.4
Mark II M-160D-173-74 (46.8)
Conventional Unit C-114D-173-54
Air Balance Unit A-114D-173-64 (54)
GIBBS' METHOD Mark II Unit M-114D-143-64 (52)
Conventional C-160D-163-54
Air Balance A-160D-200-74 (54)
Mark II M-114D-143-64 (52)

81
 SE.E 2 0152

TABLE 111- OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

CALCULATED BY API METHOD

Conv. Air Bal. Mark II

PPRL (Ibf) 14,378. 13,906. 13,591.

MPRL (lbf) 5,271. 4,798. 4,483.
CBE (Ibf) 10,262. 10,350. 9,579.
PT (in-Ibf) 131,378. 97,238. 126,123.
PRHP 8.5 8.5 8.5
PD (B/D) 175. 175. 175.
Sp (in) 41.7 41.7 41.7

Conventional Unit C-160D-163-54

Air Balance Unit A-114D-173-64 (54)
Mark II Unit M-160D-173-74 (46.8)

TABLE IV - OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

CALCULATED BY GIBBS' METHOD

Conv. Air Bal. Mark II

PPRL (Ibf) 13,977. 13,759. 13,353.

MPRL (Ibf) 5,112. 4,965. 5,094.
CBE (Ibf) 10,216. 8,473. 10,230.
PT (in-Ibf) 139,245. 127,440. 99,098.
PRHP 9.7 9.5 9.0
PD (B/D) 212. 209. 202.
Sp (in) 50.5 49.7 48.2
BALANCE (in-Ibf) 267,827. 265 psi 271,674.

Conventional Unit C-160D-163-54

Air Balance Unit A-160D-200-74 (54)
Mark II Unit M-114D-143-64 (52)

82
 SPE 2 0152
Fig. 1 •• DESIGN CALCULATIONS for SUCKER ROD PUMPING SYSTEMS (based on API RP IlL)

Required Data:

Fluid Level. H = 4500 ft. Pumping Speed. N - 16 SPM Plunger Diameter. D = 1 ,50 in,
Pump Depth. L = 5000 ft Length of Stroke. S - 54 in. Spec. Grav, of Fluid. G - _ _~O, , , 9
TubingSrze,_ _ _ _ _ _2"-----in Anchored? Yes,_=X_N> _ _
Socket Rod 33,8% - 718" & 00.2% - 3/4" Rod Volume. Vr- _ _ _---'2.:::14~79iL...-_ _ _ ft_in2

Factors from API Tables I & 2 (Calculated from formulas for Fiberglass rod strings)

1. Wr = 1,833 lb/ft 2 FC= _ _-Lo:1,08Wlo!a2_ __ 3. &--_ _ _ _lLIO,~80oCl4u.E~-61...--_ _in/lb-ft

4.EC 0,307E-P in/lb_ft

Calculate Non-Dimensional Variables:

5. =
Fo = 0.34 x G x D2 x H 0.34 x 0,9 x 2,25 x 4500 = 3098 lbs.
6. =
l/kr Er x L = 0804E-6 x 5000 = 4,02E-3 in/lb.
7. =
Skr S + l/kr = 54 + 4,02E-3 = 13433 lbs.
8. FdSkr - 3098 + 13433 0231
9. 30= 19.7+...J(ErWr)= 19.7+...J( 0,804E-6 x 1,833 )- 16228 ft/sec
10. NINo = N x L + (15 x 30) = --1a- x 5000 + (15 x 1fi22B )- _ _ _ _---loOWol'3oLi2-.. c.9
11. NINo'=NINo +Fc= 0,328 + 1,002 - 0.304
12. 1/lct= Et x L = 0307E-6 x 5000 1 535E-3 inJIb.

Solve for Sp and PD:

13. Sp"S = 0 86 (API RP IlL Figure 4.1)

14. Sp = [(SI>"S) x S] - [Fo x l/ktl = [ 086 x 54] - [ 3098 x 1 535E-3] = 41,7 in.
15. PD = 0.1166 x Sp x N x D2 = 0.1166 x 417 x 16 x 225 - 175 BtD
Determine Non-Dimensional Parameters:

16. W=WrxL= 1,833 x 5000 - 9165 lbs

17. Wrf= W - 0.463 x G x Vr = 9165 -0.463 x 0,9 x_--,,2::tJ479~_ 8132 lbs
18. WrflSkr = 8132 + 13433 - 0,605

Record Non-Dimensional Factors from API RP IlL Figures

19. FI/Skr -,_....lOIl".;.4:u65A11-_ __ ~.~kr-_~0,~21~3~_ __ 21. 2T1S 2kr - _ _. . J0tL.a.l,3.u. .7

22. F3/Skr= _ - l t0""',29""--_ __ ~.Ta= _ _ _ _ _ _~0~.9~7~9

Solve for Operating Characteristics (C = Conventional. M = Mark II. A = Air Balance)

24. PPRL(C) = Wrf + [(Fl/Skr) x Skrl = 8132 + [ 0.465 x 13433 1- 14378 lbs.
PPRL(M) = W r f+0.75x[(FI/Skr)xSkrl+O.25xFo - 8132 +O.75x[ 0.465 x 13433 ]+O.25x 3098 = 13591 lbs,
PPRL(A) = Wrr+Q.85x[(Fi/Skr)xSkr]+O.15xFo = 8132 +O.85x[ 0,465 x 134331+0.15x 3098 = 139061bs.

25. MPRL(C) = Wrf - [(F2ISkr) x Skr] - 8132 - [ 0,213 x 13433 ]- 5271 lbs.
MPRL(M) = PPRL(M) - [({F2+Fl}/Skr)xSkrl = 13591 - [( 0213 + 0465 )x 13433 ]- 4483 lbs.
MPRL(A) = PPRL(A) - [({F2+Fl}/Skr)xSkrl = 13906 - [( 0,213 + 0.465 )x 13433 ]- 4798 lbs.

26. PT(C) = 0.5 x (2T/S2kr) x Sk r x S x Ta = 0.5 x 037 x 13433 x 54 x 0,979 - 131378 in-Ibs.
PT(M) = 0.48 x (2T/S2k r) x Skr x S x Ta = 0.48x 0,37 x 13433 x_--,,54a-_X 0,979 = 126122 in-Ibs,
PT(A) = [0.233xPPRL(A)-0.3xMPRL(A)] x S = [0.233x 13906 - O.3x 4798 }x 54 = 97238 in-lbs.

27. PRHP = 2.53xl0-6x(F3/Skr)xSkrxSxN = 2.53x 1O-6x 0,29 x....._---Jll.lol343~3!...-x 54 x 16 - 8,5 q,

28. CBE(C) = 1.06 x (Wrf+O.5 xFo)= 1.06 x ( 8132 +0.5x _ _ _~3098r1JiCoL_-'!)- 10262 lbs.
CBE(M) = 0.53 x (pPRL + MPRL) = 0.53 x ( 13591 + 4483) - 9579 Ibs.
CBE(A) = 0.52 x (pPRL + 1.25 x MPRL) = 0.52 x ( 13906 + 1.25 x 4798) = 10350 lbs.

83
 SPE 2 0152
DESIGN CALCULATIONS for SUCKER ROD PUMPING SYSTEMS (based on API RP IlL)

Required Data:
Fluid Level, H = _ _ _ _ _,ft. Pumping Speed. N= SPM PhmgerDiametfr,D= _ _ _ _ _ in.
PumpDe¢t,L= ft. l..engthofStroke,S- in. Spec.Gmv.ofFluid,G= _ _ _ __
T~Size in. Anchored? Yes Nl_ __
&da:rRai _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RaiVdmr, V - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ft-in 2
r

Factors from API Tables I & 2 (Calculated from formulas for Fiberglass rod strings)
1. Wr= ________-·lb/ft. 2 Fc= _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 3. &--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .i~b-ft.

~&- i~~~

Calculate Non-Dimensional Variables:

5. Fo =O.34xGxl)2xH=O.34x _ _ _ _ _x x_ _ _ _~ _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs.
6. 1/kr=&-xL= x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i~b.
7. Skr= S + l/kr = + = lbs.
8. FdSkr= + ,....-_ _ _ _ = _ _ _ __
9. ao= 19.7+.J(&-Wr)= 19.7+.J( x )- ft/sec
10. NINo = N xL + (IS x 80) = x +(15 x )= _ _ _ _ __
11. NlNo'=N/No+Fc= +_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
12 1ftct=&xL= x i~b.

Solve for Sp and PO:

13.¥= _____
14. Sp = [(SlY'S) x S] - [Fo x IIktJ = rl-_ _ _ _ x_ _ _-.l] - L-r_ _ _ x_ _ _-']-_ _ _ _ in.
15. PD=O.ll66xSpxNxl)2=O.ll66x _ _ _ _ _ _ x_ _ _ _ x_ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ BPD

Determine Non-Dimensional Parameters:

16. W=WrxL= x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _lbs
17. Wrf=W-0.463xGxVr = -O.463x _ _ _ _ x_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs
18. WrflSkr= +_ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _

Record Non-Dimensional Factors from API RP IlL Figures

19. Fl!Skr= _ _ _ _ _ __ 21. zrJS2kr-______
~F3!Skr- _ _ _ _ _ __ ~~=-------------
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
~.Ta-

Solve for Operating Characteristics (C = Conventional, M = Mark II, A = Air Balance)

24. PPRL(C) = Wrf + [(Fl/Skr> x Skr] = +[ x ]= lbs.

PPRL(M) = Wrf+O.75x[(FI/Skr)xSkrl+O.25xFo = -+<l.75x[ M.25x = lbs.
PPRL(A) = Wrr+O.85x[(Flt'Skr)xSkrl+O.15xFo = -+<l.85x[ "" M.l5x lbs.

25. MPRL(C) = Wrf - [(F2fSkr) x Skrl = -[ x ]=_lbs.

MPRL(M) = PPRL(M) - [( {F2+FIl/Skr)xSkr] = -[( + )" j= lbs.
MPRL(A) = PPRL(A) - [({F2+Fl}/Skr)xSkr] = -[( + )" j- Ibs.

26. Pf(C) = 0.5 x (2T/S2kr) x Skr x S x Ta = 0.5 x x x x = in-Ibs.

Pf(M) = 0.48 x (2T/S2kr) x Skr x S x Ta = 0.48x x x x in-Ibs.
Pf(A) = [0.233xPPRL(A).Q.3xMPRL(A)] x S = [0.233x -03x ]x = in-Ibs.

27. PRHP = 2.53xlD-Ox(F3ISkr)xSkrxSxN = 2.53xl0-6x = hp

28. CBE(C) = 1.06 x (Wrf + 0.5 x Fo) = 1.06 x ( +0.5 x

" " )=
" lbs.
CBE(M) = 0.53 x (pPRL + MPRL) = 0.53 x ( + )- lbs.
CBE(A) = 0.52 x (pPRL + 1.25 x MPRL) = 0.52 x ( + 1.25 x )= lbs.

84
 SPE 2 0152
20000
51 SURFACE LOAD
18000
• PUMP LOAD
16000

14000

III
12000
:e
10000
Q
CC
0 8000
-'
6000

4000

2000
••••••••••••••••••••
0
-10 o 10 20 30 40 50 60

POSITION, In

Fig. 2 -- CONVENTIONAL UNIT DYNAMOMETER CARDS

20000

18000
m SURFACE LOAD
16000
• PUMP LOAD
14000

12000
III
:e 10000
Q
CC 8000
0
-'
6000

4000

2000

0
-10 o 10 20 30 40 50 60

POSITION, In

Fig. 3 -- AIR BALANCE UNIT DYNAMOMETER CARDS

85
 SE.E 2 0152
20000

18000

16000

14000

III
12000
:e
C 10000
CC
0 8000
..J

6000

4000
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2000

0
-10 o 10 20 30 40 50

POSITION, In

Fig_ 4 -- MARK n UNIT DYNAMOME1ER CARDS

200000~----------------------------------------------~

150000

u.i
:::I
a
a:
o
I-

-100000L---~--~--~--_~1--~---L--~--~~------~--~---J
o 60 120 180 240 300 360

CRANK ANGLE, deg

Fig_ 5 -- CONVENTIONAL UNIT TORQUE CURVE

86
 SPE 2 0152
200000

150000

100000
EI
/'~
III II
II III
S'" I!I iii
C 50000 II
iii
ui I!I
::l
aa: '0
0
~

·50000

·100000
0 60 120 180 240 300 360

CRANK ANGLE, deg

Fig. 6 -- AIR BALANCE UNIT TORQUE CURVE

120000 . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

100000 I-
"\ A
.. II II ..

80000
:~ II II
.. II

,..
II II
!fa II

....
60000 II II
ui II
::l
aa:
II \
o~ 40000
/
II
..II

2000:1/
.20000L--~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~--'~-~~360
o 60 120 180 240 300

CRANK ANGLE, deg

Fig. 7 -- MARK n UNIT TORQUE CURVE

87