Efficiency and Pressure Recovery in

Hydraulic Jet Pumping of Two-Phase

Gas/Liquid Mixtures
Baohua .llao, * SPE, Roger N. Blais, SPE, and Zellmlr Schmidt, SPE, U. of Tulsa

Summary. Hydraulic jet pumping of gas/liquid mixtures was studied experimentally, and a mathematical model is proposed to ex-
tend the standard single-phase model for predicting efficiency and pressure recovery to suction fluids with gas/liquid ratios up to 2,200
scf/STB. The experimental progrruv comprises 616 low-pressure tests in a plastic model pump designed for flow visualization and meas-
urement of pressure profile along the throat and diffuser, and 373 high-pressure tests on a stock pump. For the high-pressure tests,
power fluid was supplied at 200 to 3,000 psi and at 200 to 860 B/D; air was supplied from 0 to 185 MscflD. Discharge pressures
ranged from 800 to 2,000 psi.
The mathematical model extends a previous model that describes single-phase performance from mass and energy conservation. The
empirical loss coefficients for the nozzle and throat/diffuser are replaced by a nondimensional expression that varies as three dimension-
less parameters: nozzle-to-throat area ratio, discharge-to-power-fluid pressure ratio, and air/water ratio (which usually is in convention-
al units of cubic feet per stock-tank barrel but is, of course, basically dimensionless). The loss coefficient for the nozzle is constant,
but for the throat/diffuser it is a constant plus a product of a constant times the three parameters, each to a power.
Compared with the standard model, which always overpredicts pressure recovery and thus efficiency, the new model reduces the
standard error of the estimate to 18% of its former value.

Introduction The goal is to determine the power-fluid pressure, PP ' necessary

The accepted theory of jet-pump operation is derived from single-
phase assumptions. Power fluid and suction fluid are assumed to
be similar liquids. Since Rankine 1 developed the basic theory of
operation in 1870, using concepts of mass and energy conserva-
tion, most investigators have grappled with realistically assessing
frictional losses, not with addressing operation when suction fluid
is a multiphase mixture. Notable among these early studies are those
of Gosline and O'Brien 2 and Cunningham. 3 Petrie et al. 's4 stan-
dard installation design model cautions users to apply it only when
free gas is limited to < 10 scf/STB. Corteville et al. 5 recently pub-
lished results of a study on two-phase performance using kerosene
and N2 at power-fluid pressures up to 1,160 psi.
The two-phase model reported here is based on experiments con-
ducted with water as a power fluid and with water and air as the
suction fluid in a surface test loop operated at field-scale pressures
and flow rates. This model extends the applicability of the stan-
dard design model by adjusting an empirical loss coefficient for
the throat and diffuser. Rather than being a dimensionless constant,
this coefficient becomes a function of three dimensionless parame-
ters - one describing pump geometry; another, the operating pres-
sures; and a third, the gas/liquid ratio. Because all tests were
conducted with air and water, no empirical adjustment for physi-
cal properties of the suction or power fluid is attempted. The work
reported here is drawn from Refs. 6 and 7, which provide more
detailed information.
to lift fluid at a given pump-intake pressure, Pi' to the surface by
ensuring that the pump-discharge pressure, Pd' is sufficient.
These pressures are related by a dimensionless pressure-recovery
ratio, Fp:
Fp=(PrPi)/(p p -Pd)' ............................ (1)
The conservation laws imply that Fp will depend on a geomet-
ric factor of the pump and on the mass flow rates of the suction
and power fluids. These factors are FA =An/At' the ratio of noz-
zle cross-sectional area to throat area, and the dimensionless mass-
flow ratio, Fm' defined as
Fm=w;lwp' ...................................... (2)
Therefore, we seek a function of the form Fp =Fp(Fm,FA . .. ).
In practice, the simple theory based on conservation laws must
acknowledge the real work by including frictional loss factors for
energy irreversibly disspated in the nozzle and in the throat/diffuser
section. These two loss factors, fn and ftd' respectively, can be
evaluated only empirically. The form of the model given by Petrie
et at. is written most easily if we define a geometric factor to sim-
plify the algebra:
B=(1-2FA )Fl/(1-FA )2 . .......................... (3)
Then,

Theory and Definitions Fp= (1+fn)-2FA-BF~+(1+ftd)Fl(1+Fm)2 ........ (4)

The principal component of a jet pump (Fig, 1) is a nozzle fitted
to a throat/diffuser section. Power fluid, usually clean crude from
a surface pump, is injected into the nozzle under high pressure,
from which it issues at high speed. The resulting high-speed jet
is at low pressure by Bernoulli's principle. Thus, it entrains suc-
tion fluid, and the combined mixtured is allowed to decelerate in
a cylindrical throat and then passes through an expanding, conical
diffuser. Pressure is recovered as the slowing fluid swaps kinetic
energy for pressure.
The quantitative theory of jet-pump performance is based on mass
and energy conservation. Cunningham 3 gives a complete deriva-
tion, and Petrie et at. 4 provide an abridged form. This steady-state
model assumes uniform properties of a single-phase, incompressi-
ble discharge fluid resulting from complete mixing of power and
suction fluids in an axially symmetric, simplified pump geometry.
'Now at IntI. Training and Consulting Inc.
Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Petrie et al. give values of fn =0.03 and ftd=0.2 for a pump
operating on pure liquid. Note that the model is relatively insensi-
tive to small variations in fn' The approach in this study is to re-
lax the constraint that ftd be constant and instead regress on
additional parameters, including FA' Fpdp=Pd/P p ' and Faws' The
results of this regression are given in the Data Analysis and Model-
ing section.
First, however, it is necessary to clarify how Fm is to be defined
when gas is present in the suction fluid. Letting qi remain the in-
take volumetric liquid flow rate, we must add a gas flow rate. Be-
cause Fm is defined as a ratio of mass flow rates, the custom of
writing it as a ratio of volumetric flow rates applies only when the
densities of the power and suction fluids are identical. We define
qiaw as the volumetric flow rate of water that equals the mass flow
rate of air. Then, F m can be expressed as
F m =(qi +qiaw)/qp' ................................ (5)

SPE Production Engineering, November 1990 361


Fig. 1-Schematlc showing nomenclature.
Assuming API standard conditions (14.7 psia and 60F), if qja
is the volumetric flow rate of air at standard temperature and pres-
sure, then we can derive, from the ideal-gas law and appropriate
conversion factors,
qjaw=0.2178qja' .................................. (6)
Thus, Fm =(qi+0.2178qia)/qp' ........................ (7)
We must still consider pump efficiency, defined as
E==P/P j (8) Fig. 2-Jet-pump test facility: two-phase flow loop.
=[(Pd-Pi)(qj+qiaw)]l[(pp -Pd)qp] ................. (9)
=FpFm . ....................................... (10)
Thus, pump efficiency is merely the product of the pressure-
recovery and mass-flow-rate ratios.
Experimental Facility and Procedure
The hydraulic-jet-pump experimental facility 8 consists of an 85-
ft-taIl mounting tower and a multiphase flow loop (see Fig. 2). The
pump is mounted aboveground to facilitate instrumentation access.
Transducers on the pump and flow loop are connected to data-
acquisition devices housed in a portable building beside the tower.
Two-Phase-F1ow System
Fig. 2 shows the flow diagram of the test system. The power fluid
is water, while the simulated production fluid is a water/air mix-
ture. A centrifugal pump (1) supercharges water from the tank (2),
supplying up to 3,400 BID to both the production-fluid (3) and the
power-fluid (4) triplex pumps. Water from the low-pressure (max-
imum 1,480 psi) triplex pump (3) passes through a pulsation damper
(5a) and 1- or *-in. turbine flowmeter (6a) before entering the mixer
(7), where it merges with high-pressure air from the compressor
(8). Water from the high-pressure (maximum 3,730 psi) triplex
pump (4), which serves as the power fluid, likewise passes through
a pulsation damper (5b) and 1- or *-in. turbine meter (6b) before
entering the test pump (10). Ambient air is compressed (8) and
stored in a 264-ft3 reservoir (8a) before being sent through an
orifice flowmeter with a 3-in. meter run (9) and a screen plate at
the tee, just upstream from the mixer (7). The two-phase bubble-
flow production fluid from the mixer (7) enters the suction of the
test pump (10). The metered high-pressure power fluid is injected
directly into the test pump. Data are obtained from pressure and
temperature transducers (P and T) at various points on the flow
system. The spent power fluid from the pump's lower end, together
with the produced gas/liquid mixture, returns to the separator (11).
The separated liquid returns to the tank (2) after passing through
the heat exchanger (12), while the air is exhausted to the atmosphere
from the separator.
Instruments were recalibrated regularly with, for example, a dead-
weight tester for pressure. The accuracies attributed to the instru-
ments are 0.25% for pressure, 0.25% for the digital thermom-
eter, 0.5% for the turbine flowmeters, and 0.7% for the orifice
meter. Steady-state conditions were maintained during each test,
with a maximum allowed temperature drift 5 F.
Experimental Program. Some 373 tests were run with pumps hav-
ing four different throat/nozzle combinations (Table 1). The pump
was manufactured by Natl. Production Systems (NPS); thus, the
NPS nozzle and the throat numbers are given. Table 2 shows the
range of operating variables. Of the 373 tests, 263 were two-phase
and 110 were pure-liquid tests. Preliminary modeling based on the
616 tests performed at low pressure in the plastic model pump were
362
~ t-------------------l"'*T---1
I . . !~I I
~ I
II
I
I
.r-~I
I
::r1~'"'!"I!1!'IP1
I
.. t
~-----,qr
I. CIMTIlIf'UGA.t. t"I.ItIIr IJ. PULUTION OotoM'I" . OftI'ICr fl..0WtII1ET11I 15. POLl
I. TAN. t. TUflaIN( 'LOWIUTEft to. TUT '"U.... 14. WINCH
II.L.p.mpUlt T.IIIXVI: II SI'jlRATOft
... ",,.. TIIIPt.()( '.COYPftUSOft 12.MUfEXCH.lMIPt
reported in Ref. 6. Low-pressure tests were not included in the
model reported here to avoid giving undue weight to exploratory
results not in the normal range of field operations.
Data Analysis and Modeling
The goal of modeling was to produce an empirical expression for
ltd for use in Eq. 4. Predicted or calculated values of Fp were com-
pared with measured values determined from the defining expres-
sion, Eq. 1. Then, ltd was adjusted to minimize the sum of the
square deviations between calculated Fp' Fpc, and measured Fr
After numerous analysis-of-variation computations to determine the
significant parameters on which ltd can be modeled, three were
selected, as described in the Introduction: FA' Fpdp, and Faws'
Petrie et ai. reported constant values of fn =0.03 and ltd =0.2. We
adjustedfn to 0.04, which is the best fit to our data but does not
substantially differ from the Petrie et ai. model in predicting Fp
because the model is insensitive tofn' It wasfttl, however, that was
transformed from a constant to a function. The pure-liquid data were
segregated (Faws=O), and a constant value for ltd was found by
regression to be 0.1. The two-phase model was then forced to pro-
vide this value when Faws=O by regressing on iftd-0.1) when
Faws ;CO. The model was of the form
Itd=O.1 +a(Fpdp)b(Faws)C(FA)d. . ................... (11)
By taking logarithms of each variable and using regression pro-
grams in the SAS Statistical Package,TM Version 6.03, values for
a, b, c, and d were found:
a=4.1 Xl0- 3 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
b= -2.6, ....................................... (13)
c=0.62, ........................................ (14)
and d=0.53 . ...................................... (15)
The constant a presumes that Faws is measured in standard cu-
bic feet per stock-tank barrel. (If Faws truly is expressed in dimen-
sionless units, the exact conversion 539 scf==96 STB yields
a=1.2XlO- 2 .)
In this model, we elected to use the air/water ratio at standard
conditions because that is typically what the field operator knows
by direct measurement. The case can be made, however, that for
the model to be physically correct, it must use the in-situ air/water
ratio in the throat/diffuser. Even if the field operator knows the
necessary pressure in situ, it is very unlikely that he or she will
know the temperature of the turbulent fluid. If it is known, as in
our laboratory measurements, the standard error of the estimate
can be reduced slightly-e.g." for our 263 two-phase measurements,
from 0.067 to 0.057. This is a 15% improvement over the U. of
Tulsa Artificial Lift Projects model at standard conditions and
reduces the standard error to 15% of Petrie et ai. 's error, as op-
posed to 18 % for the standard-condition field model. For this case,
if Faw replaces Faws in Eq. 11, then the coefficients become
SPE Production Engineering, November 1990
 TABLE 1-PUMPS USED IN TESTS 1.2r-----------------~

Number in.2 Number in.2 FA(An/At}

1.0
.: .....

8
8
0.0131
0.0131
10
8
0.0562
0.0346
0.2331
0.3786
..*.. .. ...
4 0.0050 5 0.0167 0.2994
4 0.0050 4 0.0131 0.3817 0.8

TABLE 2-PUMP OPERATING VARIABLES u...'l..0.6

Power fluid
Pressure, psi 2,000 to 3,000
Rate, B/D 200 to 860
Suction-fluid pressure, psi 100 to 1,400
Liquid rate, BID 40 to 860
Gas rate, Mscf/D o to 185
F BWS' scf/STB o to 2,200
Discharge-fluid pressure, psi 800 to 2,000

0.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

a=0.23, ........................................ (16)
b= -2.0, ....................................... (17)
c=0.67, ........................................ (18)
and d=O.44 . ...................................... (19)
For practical application, this refInement is unnecessary. It is use-
ful to compare this model to the standard Petrie et at. model when
gas is present. Figs. 3 and 4 show the disagreement between pre-
dicted and measured values of pressure recovery, Fp, for the two
models. If a model were perfect, predicted values, Fpc, would lie
on the diagonal line. Clearly, the standard model overpredicts Fp
when gas is present. Expressed quantitatively, the standard error
of the estimate over the 263 data points in two-phase conditions
is 0.372 for the standard Petrie et ai. model and 0.067 for the pro-
posed field model. Thus, the new model reduces the error of the
estimate to 18% of its former value.
Fig. 5 shows the degradation of pump efficiency as gas is added
to the suction fluid. Assumed values for FA and Fp are given.
Application
A brief outline of how to apply this model interactively in an in-
stallation design follows. A casing-type open system is assumed.
1.2.----------------""71
1.0
Fp
Fig. 3-Fpc from Petrie et al.'s model vs. measured F p
pressure-recovery ratio: single-phase model.
The objective is to estimate production effIciency for a selected noz-
zle/throat combination. A variety of geometries are evaluated and
the optimum design is selected. For fIeld applicability, we use the
air/water ratio at standard conditions. The steps involved are as
follows.
1. Compute the pump-intake fluid gradient.
2. Compute the minimum throat annulus to avoid cavitation.
3. Select the nozzle and throat sizes from manufacturers' infor-
mation and calculate FA'
4. Select a surface power-fluid pressure and estimate the resulting
nozzle pressure and flow rate. First, compute the Reynolds num-
ber in the power tubing, determine whether the flow is laminar or
turbulent, and calculate the frictional loss.
5. Characterize the returning fluid, which consists of the suction
and the power fluids. The gradient, water cut, and gas/liquid ratio
are needed.
6. Determine the frictional loss of the return flow through the
casing/tubing annulus.
7. Estimate a reasonable pump-discharge pressure.
8. Setfn=O.04, and computeftd with Eqs. 11 through 15.
9. Compute Fm with Eq. 7.

40r---.---._---.---.--~r---._--._--_r--_,

0.8 Faws=OSCF/STB
35

()
30
~0.6
25

0.4 ~ 20
UJ

15

0.2 FA=2331
fn =.04
Fpdp=7

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

0~~0~.3~-0~.~6--~0~.9r--+1.2~~1.~5--~~-2~.~I--~2~A--~2~
Fp Fm
Fig. 4-F pc from this model vs. measured Fp pressure-
recovery ratio: two-phase model. Fig. 5-Efficiency at various air/water ratios.

SPE Production Engineering, November 1990 363

 Authors ltd = friction factor at throat and diffuser, dimensionless
Faw = in-situ air/water ratio, ft 3/STB
Faws = air/water ratio, scf/STB
FA = ratio of nozzle area to throat area, dimensionless
Fm = mass-flow-rate ratio, dimensionless
Fp = measured pressure-recovery ratio, dimensionless
Fpc = pressure-recovery ratio computed from model,
dimensionless
F pdp = ratio of discharge pressure to power-fluid pressure,
dimensionless
Pd = pump-discharge pressure, psi
Pi = pump-intake pressure, psi
Jlao Blais. Schmidt
Pp = pump power-fluid pressure, psi
Baohua "lao, currently employed by Inti. lhllning and Con- Pi = consumed input power
sulting Inc. In Tulsa, has 20 years' field experience In China.
He holds a BS degree In mechanical engineering from Qlng
Pt = transferred useful power
Hua U. and an MS degree In petroleum engineering from the qi = liquid-phase flow rate at pump intake, BID
U. of lUisa, where he has also completed a PhD dissertation. qia = air flow rate through pump in standard conditions,
Roger Blais has been associate director of the U. of Tulsa MscflD
Artificial Lift Projects since Its founding In 1983. He chaired qiaw = equivalent-volume flow rate of water, converted
the Physics Dept. during 1986-88 and currently Is Interim
from qia' B/D
provost and academic vice president. Blais holds a BA degree
qp = flow rate of power fluid through pump, BID
from the U. of Minnesota and a PhD degree from the U. of Ok-
lahoma, both In physics. Zellmlr Schmidt Is a professor of Wi = inlet mass flow rate, Ibm/sec
petroleum engineering at the U. of Tulsa and Director of the wp = power-fluid mass flow rate, Ibm/sec
U. of lUlsa Artificial Lift Projects. He spent 10 years as a pro-
duction engineer with INA-Naftaplln In Yugoslavia and has Acknowledgments
served as a consultant to various companies. Schmidt, who
was a 1987 Distinguished Lecturer, holds a BS degree In en- We thank NPS for donating many of the test-facility components,
gineering from the U. of Zagreb and MS and PhD degrees In including the two triplex pumps and two jet pumps. Hal Petrie and
petroleum engineering from the U. of lUlsa. Fred Christ of NPS also gave much-needed advice during the study,
although any errors are purely our responsibility. The 16 sponsor-
ing members of the U. of Tulsa Artificial Lift Projects also deserve
10. Compute Fp with Eq. 4. recognition for their support. Raymond Carr and Ed Barefoot helped
11. Recompute the nozzle and intake pressures from F p and Pd' with construction and operation of the facilities; Bill Coberly and
12. Recompute the surface pump operating pressure and maxi- Peyton Cook assisted with statistical modeling; and Carol Antle
mum noncavitating power-fluid flow rate. typed the manuscript.
13. Calculate efficiency, E, with FmFp in Eq. 10.
14. Determine the required horsepower ofthe surface pump from References
its operating pressure and power-fluid flow rate. 1. Rankine, J.M.: Proc., Royal Soc. of London (1870) No. 123,80-83.
15. Compare the efficiency and horsepower requirement to other 2. Gosline, J.E. and O'Brien, M.P.: The Water Jet Pump, U. of Califor-
nozzle/throat combinations. nia Publications in Engineering (1942) 3, No.3, 167-90.
As an example, let us select a pump at 6,000-ft depth with 51,6- 3. Cunningham, R.G.: "The Jet Pump as a Lubrication Oil Scavenge Pump
in. casing and 27's-in. tubing, a bottomhole pressure of 1,000 psi, for Aircraft Engines," Technical Report 55-143, Wright Air Develop-
ment Center, Dayton, OH (1955).
a temperature of 145F, a GOR of 1,000 scf/STB, a water gra-
4. Petrie, H.L., Wilson, P.M., and Smart, E.E.: "Jet Pumping Oil Wells,"
dient of 0.455 psi/ft, and a water cut of 0.25. The suction oil and World Oil (Nov. 1983) 51-56.
power fluid are both 35 API oil of 5-cp absolute viscosity. Set the 5. Corteville, J .C. et al.: "Research on Jet Pumps for Single and Multiphase
wellhead backpressure of 100 psi and the desired production rate Pumping of Crudes, "paper SPE 16923 presented at the 1987 SPE An-
of 600 BID. Choosing an NPS No.9 nozzle and No. 10 throat nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
(FA =0.0167/0.0562=0.2972), we findltd=0.4523, Fm =0.5018, 6. Jiao, B.: "Behavior of Hydraulic Jet Pumps When Handling a Gas-Liquid
Fp =0.4514, and E=23%. These values for pressure recovery and Mixture," MS thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1985).
7. Jiao, B.: "Performance Model for Hydraulic Jet Pumping of Two-Phase
efficiency appear reasonable.
Fluids," PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1988).
8. Blais, R.N. et al.: "Test Facilities for Gas-Lift Valves and Hydraulic
Conclusions Jet Pumps," Advances in Test Measurements, Instrument Soc. of America,
The pressure recovery and efficiency of hydraulic jet pumps de- Research Triangle Park, NC (1985) 22, 525-30.
grade when free gas is present in the suction fluid, but predicting
SI Metric Conversion Factors
pump performance is possible when gas is present if three dimen-
sionless parameters are used to model the frictional losses associated API 141.5/(131.5 + API) g/ cm 3
with the throat and diffuser. Such modeling reduces the standard bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol m3
error of the estimate by more than a factor of five compared with cp x 1.0* E+OO mPa's
the unadjusted Petrie et aZ. model. ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 m3
Nomenclature OF (OF-32)/1.8 =oC
in. x 2.54* E+OO cm
a = regression coefficient, dimensionless
in. 2 x 6.451 6* E+OO cm 2
An = nozzle area, in. 2 psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
At = throat area, in. 2 scf/S,TB x 1.801 175 E-Ol std m 3/stock-tank m 3
b,c,d = regression exponents, dimensionless
B = parameter used in computing Fp ' dimensionless
Conversion factor is exact. SPEPE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 2, 1988. Paper accepted for publication
E = jet-pump efficiency, dimensionless June 14, 1990. Revised manuscript received June 7, 1990. Paper (SPE 18190) first present
in = friction factor at nozzle, dimensionless ed at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston Oct. 2-5.

364 SPE Production Engineering, November 1990