~J(PT

Performance of Positive Displacement

Downhole Motors under Two-phase Flow
J. LI*, R. TUDOR
Canadian Fracmaster Ltd.

G. SONEGO
Black Max Downhole Tool Ltd.

B. VARCOE
Computalog Ltd.
* now with BJ-Nowsco Well Service Ltd.

Abstract
Positive displacement motors have been used extensively in
underbalanced drilling operations. Motor performance characteristics are essential to ensure drilling success and efficiency.
Pressure drop across the motor must be understood to accurately
simulate underbalanced conditions bottom-hole. In this study,
five positive displacement motors were tested under a variety of
mixing ratios of nitrogen and water with different back pressures. Comparing with the baseline test at maximum liquid flow
rate, the replacement of water with nitrogen decreased the motor
performance by as much as 95% in terms of maximum torque
output and maximum mechanical power output. The pressure
drop across the motor was lower with commingled fluid, and the
greater the nitrogen ratio, the lower the pressure drop across the
motor. It was also found that back pressure decreased the motor
performance. This paper also discusses the testing procedures,
the results, and how commingled fluid affects underbalanced
drilling operations.

Introduction
Underbalanced drilling is a process where the aerated or nitrified fluid is pumped through the drilling string to the bottom-hole.
The pressure at the bottom-hole should be less than the formation
pressure and allow wellbore fluids to flow during the drilling peri0d. The circulated fluids power the downhole motor to rotate the
drill bit to cut the formations. The cuttings are then picked up by
the jetting action of the nozzles on the bit and transported by the
drilling fluid to the surface through the annulus between the
drilling string and casing. Currently, there are two main types of
downhole motors: positive displacement (PDM) and turbines. In
general, turbine motors have a high rotational speed, whereas
PDMs have a low speed and high torque output. The application
of turbine motors has been limited to less than 1% of the total
footage drilled in the United States. PDMs are the most widely
used in the world at the present time(l).
The PDM is a hydraulically-driven downhole motor that is
based on the Moineau principle. It consists of a bypass valve,
power section, transmission assembly, and bearing assembly
(Figure 1). In the power section of a PDM, a helicoidal rotor with
one or more lobes is placed eccentrically inside a stator having
one more cavity than the rotor. This difference between the
rotor/stator lobe configuration creates cavities. Under pressure,
the drilling fluid will drive the rotor in an eccentric rotation,
which is then translated into concentric rotation through the transmission assembly and transferred to the drill bit.
Motor performance characteristics are essential to ensure
46

drilling success and efficiency. Pressure drop across the motor

must be understood to accurately simulate underbalanced conditions at the bottom-hole. In general, motor suppliers provide
motor performance data at the baseline condition. A baseline test
consists of testing a motor at designated flow rates with water and
motor outlet open to atmosphere. When conventional drilling fluids are used, output torque and bit speed are determined based on
differential pressure and flow rate. Due to the compressible nature
of gas, it is difficult to predict the gas flow and RPM/torque relationship based on baseline tests. In this study, the performance
characteristics of PDMs under two-phase flow were investigated
with a dynamometer.

Objectives
There were four primary objectives for dynamometer testing of
PDMs in this study. These were as follows:
1. Establish baseline motor performance with water. This provided baseline data for the condition of the rotor/stator for
quality control purposes and comparison to the published
data.
2. Determine relative performance characteristics of the motor
under different NiH 20 ratios. This provided a guideline for
motor performance expectations and operational efficiencies
under different operating conditions.
3. Determine operating range for flow rate which can be
pumped through motors. Modelling anticipated back presBypass Valve

Power Sectlon

Power Section

Transmission

Rotor

Cavlti89

Output ShaftJ
Bearing Assembly

Bit Box
FIGURE 1: Assembly of positive displacement motor.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

sures altered pressures and resultant flow rate through

motors due to compressible flow.
4. Establish operating parameters in terms of anticipated operating pressures and pressure drops. These parameters aided
in determining expected bottom-hole pressures and pump
pressures for simulation and job planning purposes.

Equipment
The PDM was circulated with a commingled flow of nitrogen
and water and was tested on a dynamometer test bench. The layout of this equipment is shown in Figure 2. A circulation system
was designed to circulate water to cool the dynamometer. The N 2
unit pumped the liquid nitrogen at pressures of up to 70 MPa
(10,152 psi) using a cryogenic pump, and vapourized the liquid to
gas with a high capacity heat exchanger at rates of up to 170 standard cubic metres per minute (1,070 bbllmin). The pump can provide a steady supply of gaseous nitrogen at various rates and pressures. A fluid pump was used to pump water at a range of 10 to
600 liters per minute (2.6 to 159 gpm). A 3// adjustable choke
was installed at the return line to simulate annular back pressure.
Pressure transducers were located at the inlet and outlet of the
PDM to monitor the pressure in and pressure out. A RID thermometer was used to measure the flow temperature at the inlet of
the PDM. A turbine flow meter was installed on the water supply
line to determine the water pumped rate. The nitrogen (gas) rate
was measured by a metering system integrated with the N 2 pumping unit. A real time data acquisition system was used to collect
the data for pressures, temperature, torque, rotational speed, and
flow rates.

May 1999, Volume 38, No.5

FIGURE 2: Layout of dynamometer test system for PDM.

Test Parameters
Five different PDMs were tested. These were PDM #1: 2 7/ g"5:6 3.3 stage, PDM #2: 3 1/g" 7:8 4-stage, PDM #3: 3 3/g" 4:5 5stage, PDM #4: 3 3// 7:8 2.3-stage, and PDM #5: 3 3/g" 7:8 3stage. Detailed test parameters for these motors are listed in Table
1 and the general range of the parameters is summarized as
follows:
a) Baseline test with water at flow rates of 100%, 75%, and
50% maximum flow rate with no back pressure.

47

b) Baseline test with water at flow rates of 100%, 75%, and

50% maximum flow rate with back pressure per flow rate of
approximately lA, 4.1, and 6.9 MPa (203, 595, and 1,000
psi).
c) Slug flow tests at water rates no greater than 50% of maximum flow rate; nitrogen rate varied according to rotational
speed and back pressure of lA, 4.1, and 6.9 MPa (203, 595,
and 1,000 psi).
d) Mist flow tests at a water rate of 10 Ipm (2.6 gpm) or less;
nitrogen rate varied according to RPM and back pressure of
1.4,4.1, and 6.9 MPa (203, 595, and 1,000 psi).
e) Post baseline tests were conducted to determine whether the
motor performance changed.

when performing a baseline test with water, the motor outlet was
vented to atmospheric pressure, and was also choked back to
design pressures as listed above. Care was taken to allow stabilization of parameters before taking readings at progressively
increased loading. The motor was loaded to stall or near stall (i.e.,
60 RPM or less).
For multi-phase testing, both slug flow and mist flow regimes
were studied. In both cases, a choke was implemented downstream of the motor in order to simulate bottom-hole conditions.
Temperature was recorded, as temperature changes can have a
significant effect on effective volume rates through the motor.
Note that the choke required adjustment as loading was increased
to maintain a constant downstream back pressure.

Test Procedure

Results and Discussion

There are no standard PDM test procedures documented in the

PDM industry. Different test standards and conditions are being
used by different PDM manufacturers. However, in this project,

The main performance parameters of PDMs are: mechanical

power, torque, and pressure drop. The mechanical power developed by the motor can be calculated from the product of torque

48

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

50

600

1200

25
Q~208lpm

45

Q-4161pm
1000

500

800

400

w 600

300

or:

30

U
Z

25

ii:

20

<3

200

400

[
15

~"

..J

10

IL

u
Z

15

:I:

u
W

10

100

200

20

35

>-

::J

40

12

10

14

16

10

PRESSURE DROP (MPa)

12

14

16

PRESSURE DROP (MPa)

FIGURE 4: Efficiency and power vs. pressure drop for PDM #2

baseline test with different flow rates at atmospheric back
pressure.

FIGURE 3: Torque and RPM vs. pressure drop for PDM #2

baseline pre-test with different flow rates at atmospheric back
pressure.
and angular velocity.

_ HP -628 x 10-3 TN
11----.
HHP

PinQ

...........................................................(3)

HP= TN
9550

(1)

All variables in equations are defined in the nomenclature. The

hydraulic power is the product of the inlet pressure of the PDM
multiplied by the effective flow rate through the motor:
HHP= PinQ
60

(2)

In the previous study(l), the hydraulic power was defined as the

product of the pressure drop across the PDM multiplied by the
flow rate through the motor. In general, motor suppliers tested the
motor with water and the motor outlet opened to atmosphere.
Therefore, the pressure drop across the motor was equal to the
inlet pressure. In this study, the back pressure was not the atmosphere pressure and the inlet pressure of the PDM can be affected
by the back pressure. A higher back pressure results in a higher
inlet pressure. The hydraulic power calculated by Equation (2) can
be understood as the input available power for the PDM. It is
more reasonable to calculate the hydraulic power of PDM with the
inlet pressure of the PDM rather than with the pressure drop when
the outlet of a PDM is not open to atmosphere.
The efficiency of the motor is

The critical parameter when determining gas/liquid ratios

required to operate a motor is the effective volumetric flow rate at
the inlet to the motor. Hence, inlet pressure, temperature and flow
rates can be used to calculate an effective volumetric flow rate
through the motor. For the two-phase flow test, the effective volumetric flow rate was used to calculate the hydraulic horsepower
and efficiency in Equations (2) and (3).

Baseline Water Test

The performance of PDM #2: 3 1/8 ", 7:8, 4 stage is shown in
Figures 3 and 4 for the baseline tests. The curves in these figures
represent the best-fitted curves for the experimental data. As
shown in the figures, the torque increased with increasing pressure
drop across the motor, while the rotational speed of the motor
decreased with increasing pressure drop. The investigation of the
figures also showed that at a certain RPM, an increasing flow rate
resulted in increasing the pressure drop and the mechanical power
output. For the same pressure drop, the higher flow rate resulted
in a higher rotary speed and a lower operation efficiency.
The plot of the power and efficiency curves versus pressure
drop in Figure 4 indicates that for different flow rates, the optimum operating pressure range in which the motor efficiencies
have the maximum or close to the maximum value is different.
The maximum mechanical power output range is also different for

2000

1200
OP1Io0.l0l MPa
XPIIo1.4MP.
-P_MPa

1000

1600
1400

+PF7MPa

600

1200

1000

::J

aor:

"PDM 3 3/4" 7:8 2.3 Slap,_

1800

Qo4111pm

::J

600

"g

600
600

400

OkW

400
200

200
0

O........_ ........_-'-_--'--...:l__" " - - - ' - -.............---''-'I_"''--...J

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

100

200

300

400

500

RPM

RPM

FIGURE 5: Comparison of the performance for PDM #2: 31/8" 7:8

4-stage at baseline test with different Pb.
May 1999, Volume 38, No.5

FIGURE 6: Comparison of the performance for different PDMs at

baseline test.
49

1200

1100
1000

1000

900

800

700

!. 600
: ;)

500

I!

400

0:

800

!.
w

:;)

600

G
0:

400

300
200

200
100

0
0

0
~

400

different flow rates. Therefore, in order to operate the PDMs efficiently, the pressure drop across a PDM has to be controlled at the
optimum range.
Figure 5 plots the performance of PDM #2 at the water baseline
test with different back pressures. It shows that the back pressure
also affected the performance of the motor for baseline water test,
especially at a low RPM range with a higher flow rate. The
increased back pressure resulted in a lower torque output for a
given rotational speed. The water expands the cavity between the
rotor and stator due to the high back pressure, therefore, the performance of the PDM changed. A higher back pressure also
resulted in a lower operation efficiency. This is because a higher
back pressure resulted in a higher pressure at the inlet of the motor
and it needed higher hydraulic power to force the motor to rotate.
Figure 6 compared the performance for the five tested PDMs for
the baseline test at their maximum flow rates. The figure indicates
that PDM # 1, 2, and 3 have low-torque output and high rotational
speed, while PDM #4 and #5 have a high-torque output and low
rotational speed. For motors #1, 2, and 3, the mechanical power
output was more sensitive to the RPM, while for motors #4 and
#5, the mechanical power output was more sensitive to the torque.
Therefore, the motors shall be selected based on the application.
As shown in Figure 4, a higher mechanical output range corresponded to a higher operation efficiency range. Therefore, based
on the plot in Figure 6, the optimum operation ranges for different
PDMs can be determined. For example, for motor #3, the optimum operation range was between points A and B, which are the
cross-points between the power line of 20 kW and the performance curve of the motor.
Figure 7 shows the performance curves of pre- and post-baseline water tests for motor #2. The difference of torque between the
pre-test and post-test was only 5%. However, the torque for the
post-test was higher than that for the pre-test at a given rotational
speed. This is because after circulated with commingled fluid, the
swollen elastomer increased the friction between the rotor and stator and a higher friction resulted in a higher torque.

Two-phase Flow Test

The performance of the PDM with the commingled flow was
quite different from that with a water baseline test. Figures 8 and
9 plot the performance of motor #2 with different NzlHP ratios.
Compared with the baseline test, the PDM with a commingled
flow had a lower-torque output and a higher rotational speed,
especially with a lower water flow rate. The test results in this
study showed that the replacement of water with nitrogen
decreased the motor performance by as much as 95% in terms of
maximum torque output and maximum mechanical power output.
That is why the PDM circulated with aerated or nitrified fluids
was more often apt to run away or stall than it did when being circulated with drilling mud. It was also noted that the operating

50

100

1~

200

250

300

350

400

RPM

RPM

FIGURE 7: Comparison of the performance for PDM #2 31/8" 7:8

4-stage between pre- and post-baseline tests.

FIGURE 8: The performance of PDM #2: 3 1/87:8 4-stage twophase flow test with water flow rate of 0.2 m"3/min.
pressure window between the no-load condition and the stall condition for the commingled flow was significantly smaller (as
much as 94%) than with the baseline test(Z.3).
The NzIHzO ratio also affected the performance of the PDM.
As shown in Figures 8 and 9, increasing the nitrogen rate resulted
in increasing the torque output at a given rotational speed of the
PDM for a fixed liquid rate and back pressure. Comparing Figure
8 with Figure 9 also indicates that for a given gas flow rate, a
higher fluid flow rate resulted in a higher torque output. The
torque output was more sensitive to the fluid flow rate, and the
RPM was more sensitive to the nitrogen rate(Z).
In Figure 9, the effective flow rate for the test case with
NzIHzO = 2010.01 at P b = 3.9 MPa was 396 lpm; however, the
maximum torque output was approximately 78% lower than that
for the baseline test with a water flow rate of 416 lpm. This indicates that it is difficult to predict the performance of a PDM with
commingled flow based on the equivalent volume flow rate and
the baseline test.
As shown in Figure 10, the back pressure had a significant
impact on the performance of the PDM under the comlningled
flow. The higher back pressure decreased the effective flow rate
through the PDM inlet, therefore, resulted in a lower rotary speed
and the power output. For the same RPM, a higher back pressure
resulted in a lower torque output.
In order to run a PDM efficiently, the optimum combination
ratio of NzIHzO needs to be determined. Based on the test results
in this study, the higher the liquid rate with a lower gas rate, the
better the performance of the PDM in terms of the torque output
and operation efficiency. It was also noted that with a higher liq-

1200
1000

800

!.
w

:;)

600

G
0:

I!

400
200

FIGURE 9: The performance of PDM #2: 31/87:84 stage twophase flow test with water flow rate of 0.01 m"3/min.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

700

2500.,....--------------------,

600

2000

500

!.

!.

400

~ 1500

:l

II0
...

300

~ 1000
::I!

~ 500

200

100
0
0

100

300

200

400

500

RPM

FIGURE 10: The effect of back pressure on the performance of

PDM #2 circulated with water rate of 0,2 m"3/min. and nitrogen
rate of 10 std.m"3/min.
uid flow ratio, the hole-cleaning capacity was higher(4). However,
the liquid fraction of the drilling fluid was limited by the reservoir
pressure gradient and the degree of underbalance. A higher reservoir pressure gradient and a low degree of underbalance permitted
higher liquid contents.
It is also important to determine what the maximum torque output, pressure drop and RPM are and how much mechanical horsepower can be provided for a given pumped water rate and nitrogen rate at a certain annular back pressure. Based on the test
results in this report, the conversion factors of maximum torque,
power output and the pressure drop for the tested motors were
determined. The conversion factors were used to estimate the
maximum output of torque, mechanical horsepower, and the maximum pressure drop across the motor for a particular combination
of N z and water rates. The correlation between the maximum
torque, mechanical power, pressure and the pumped water rate, N z
flow rate, and back pressure were developed in a previous study(Z)
and were also used to predict the maximum torque, mechanical
power and pressure drop across a PDM.
Figure 11 plots the maximum torque output versus the corresponding pressure drop, at which the PDM generated the maximum torque for different combinations of water rate, nitrogen rate
and back pressure. It is interesting to note that for each particular
type of motor, the test data can be plotted linearly. If the maximum pressure drop across the motor can be defined for a particular combination of NzIHzO and back pressure, the stall torque for
the motor can be determined by the curve shown in Figure 11.
Figure 12 plots the maximum mechanical power output versus
the corresponding pressure drop, at which the PDMs provide the
maximum mechanical power. The figure shows that all tested data
for maximum mechanical power versus the corresponding pressure drop can be plotted linearly for all five tested motors with
different combinations of NzIHzO and back pressures. If the pressure drop can be defined in Figure 12, then the maximum power
output for any combinations of NzIHzO and back pressures and for
any type of motor can be determined by a plot similar to that
shown in Figure 12. However, the test results were limited to five
different types of motors. More tests need to be conducted to support such a conclusion.

Conclusions
In this study, five different PDMs were tested with nitrified
fluid. Based on the test results, the conclusions are summarized as
following:
1. The performances of PDMs were different with different
configurations. The mechanical power output was more sensitive to the rotation speed for the low-torque motor tested
(PDM #1,2 and 3), while it was more sensitive to the torque
for the high torque motor tested (PDM #4 and 5).
May 1999, Volume 38, No.5

10

12

14

16

PRESSURE DROP (MPa)

FIGURE 11: The maximum torque output vs. the corresponding

pressure drop for different PDMs.

2S
ot1PDM

20

xll3PDM

i...

i
.

x
x

"nPOM

15

:Ii

10

~
4

10

PRESSURE DROP (MPa)

FIGURE 12: The maximum mechanical power output vs. the

corresponding pressure drop for all five tested PDMs.
2. The performance of PDMs with commingled fluids was very
different from that with a water baseline test. With the commingled fluid at the same effective flow rate, the outputs of
torque and mechanical power and pressure drop across the
motor were lower than those for water baseline test. It was
difficult to predict the performance of PDMs with commingled fluids based only on the equivalent fluid flow rate and
the performance curve of PDMs under a baseline test.
3. The back pressure had a significant impact on the performance of a PDM for commingled fluids. For a certain combination of Nz/HzO, a higher back pressure resulted in a
lower output of torque, mechanical power and pressure drop
across the motor. The back pressure can also affect the performance of a PDM for a water baseline test. However, compared with the commingled fluids, such an effect was much
less for the baseline test.
4. The fluid flow ratio of NzIHzO affected the performance of a
PDM. The higher fluid fraction with a lower gas rate resulted in a better performance of a PDM in terms of the torque
output and operation efficiency.
Based on the present study, the performance of PDMs with
commingled fluids differed from that with water baseline test.
However, the test data in this project were limited. In order to
comprehensively evaluate the performance of PDM with commingled flow, more studies need to be conducted in the future.
It was also noted that there was no standard test procedure for
PDM testing documented in the PDM industry. Different test standards and conditions are being used by different PDM manufacturers. Therefore, it was difficult to evaluate the performance of
51