Mechanics of an Electric Submersible

Pump Failure Mode

Maston L. Powers, SPE, Consultant

Summary
The occurrence of electric submersible pump (ESP) failures
caused by spinning diffusers is tolerably frequent in moderateoperating-cost circumstances. However, extremely high wellservicing expenses are associated with many ESP applications.
Examples include deep wells, arctic locations, offshore wells that
must be killed with high-density fluids, and seafloor completions.
In these or other high-cost circumstances, early pump failures of
any mode cannot be tolerated.
Longitudinal compressive force is imposed on the diffuser
stack of ESPs during assembly to prevent diffuser rotation. If this
is done improperly, the diffusers can spin because of torque transferred from the impellers, resulting in early pump failure. This
paper analyzes the mechanics of the spinning-diffuser failure mode
and demonstrates why some pumps with inadequate compressive
force can pass common pump tests but fail in this mode. Equations
are developed to calculate the restraining force as it changes under
varying conditions and the minimum value required to prevent
diffuser spinning. Testing procedures are proposed to emulate the
effects of well conditions conducive to diffuser spinning, thereby
detecting the defective pumps currently being missed. Practical
examples are included that illustrate the utility of the concepts
presented herein.
Introduction
Longitudinal compression is imposed on the diffuser stack of ESPs
during assembly to prevent diffuser rotation. If this is done improperly, the diffusers can spin because of transferred impeller
torque, resulting in an impeded flow condition and early pump
failure. Examination of pumps that have failed in this mode may
disclose evidence of high temperature and diffusers with circumferential wear and/or shortening because of wear caused by relative movement at the contact with adjacent diffusers. This mode of
failure begins at or near the pump top and progresses downward,
as wear further loosens the diffuser stack and the head, developed
by upper stages, deteriorates.
Some pumps that pass API performance specifications during
common testing procedures subsequently fail because of diffuser
spinning. A possible explanation for a portion of these occurrences
is that an otherwise strong pump might meet test standards in spite
of an incipient diffuser-spin condition. It should be pointed out that
a spinning diffuser is audible when horizontal testing is employed
and would not go unnoticed. Most cases of tested pumps failing in
the subject mode are probably the result of service conditions.
The assumption of floating impeller pumps is made throughout
this paper. However, the effects described here are equally applicable to pumps with a fixed impeller design.
Restraining the Diffuser Stack
Impellers transfer torque to diffusers by three means: the mechanical drag of thrust-washer contact, which increases with increasing
impeller thrust; disk friction and other hydraulic drag; and the
dynamic portion of the head generated by the impeller. Torque of
a single impeller is defined in Eq. 1.

Copyright 2002 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 75295) was revised for publication from paper SPE 39813, first presented
at the 1998 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, 2527
March. Original manuscript received for review 22 April 1998. Revised manuscript received
1 September 1999. Paper peer approved 11 October 2001.

62

I = 5,252PI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
At shutoff, it is known that generated head is 12 dynamic and 12
static.1 A reasonable estimate of maximum transferable torque
would be one-half that calculated with Eq. 1, with PI at maximum
value. This assumption is made herein, although experimental data
would be more desirable.
Diffuser rotation is prevented by frictional contact between
stages and with the pump head and base. The contribution of
lateral contact with the housing is neglected here. The static torque
capacity of a diffuser/diffuser contact (or a diffuser/head or diffuser/base contact) is expressed in Eq. 2. The minus sign in this
equation reflects the fact that FN is a compressive force and, therefore, negative.

C = dDKSFN 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)

Once spinning has begun, it will continue unless FN doubles, or
possibly triples, because the value of KK is 12 to 13 of KS. Values
of KS (and KK) should vary somewhat, depending on the fluid
wetting the diffuser surfaces; thus, the value of KS when a pump is
in service may be different from that during testing. This would affect
the minimum value of |FN| required to prevent diffuser spinning
and could account for the subsequent failure of some tested pumps.
The initiation of diffuser spinning can be illustrated by envisioning the diffuser stack as a torqued shaft restrained at the ends
with couples distributed throughout its length. The interstage contacts would be equally spaced planes of weakness. Fig. 1 illustrates
the couples (D) imposed by each diffuser, the interstage torque
transfers (i), and the end reactive torques for a six-stage pump.
Also shown is a plane view of a longitudinal line along the diffuser
stack, demonstrating (in great exaggeration) the distortion caused
by the distributed torque. Note that i is zero at midpump and
increases toward the ends, where it assumes values of nD/2. The
equation for torque capacity (C) of the interstage contacts was
derived from Eq. 2 by substituting the appropriate value of FN. At
the pump top, FNFDR. This is augmented by an additional force,
at subsequently lower contacts, equal to the sum of the pressurebased force and the buoyed weight of all stages listed previously.
Eq. 3 (in which 0nn) was, thus, derived.

C = dDKSFDR nhUdi2 dS2 4 + fBWU 24. . . . . . . (3)

Eq. 3 shows that the contact between the top diffuser and the
pump head (n0) has the least torque capacity, with C increasing at each successively lower interstage contact. Therefore, diffuser spinning should begin at the top stage, where i is maximum
and C is minimum. The previous analysis assumes that KS has the
same value at all interstage, diffuser/head, and diffuser/base contacts. Because some variation in KS occurs, spinning should begin
near the top of the diffuser stack but not necessarily with the top stage.
Fig. 2 graphically illustrates i and C for a pump with adequate
FDR, and C for a pump for which FDR0. Diffuser spinning may
occur at any contact for which C falls below the i curve. As the
head developed by upper stages declines, C of the lower stages is
diminished, and diffuser spinning progresses downward.
Effects of Varying Conditions on Reactive Force
During assembly, reactive forces are imposed on the diffuser stack
and pump housing by installing a spacer, called a compression
ring, between the pump head and the top stage. The compression
ring is cut to a length equal to the housing free space, with the head
installed plus tL, which is approximately 0.2% of the diffuserstack length. This is performed at a comfortable temperature with
February 2002 SPE Production & Facilities

Fig. 2Plot of i and c vs. diffuser location.

Fig. 1Schematic of a six-stage pump.

the pump horizontal and without external stress on the pump or

internal pressure. Some or all these conditions will change during
pump testing. Service conditions may vary greatly from those
present at the time of assembly or during testing.
Pump Testing. When a pump is tested in a test well, the housing
and diffuser stack are subjected to forces resulting from internal
pressure and weight. The resulting length changes cause a reduction of the equal but opposite reactive forces FHR and FDR. (FDR
is the only force acting at the top of the diffuser stack to prevent
spinning.) Tensile forces and elongations are considered positive
here, and compressive forces and contractions are considered
negative. During horizontal testing, weight is not a factor, and
longitudinal forces imposed on the housing because of internal
pressure and temperature changes are only partially effective because a portion of the housing is restrained between vise clamps.
Another difference between the two testing methods is that horizontal testing is performed with fresh water, and diesel is commonly
used for test-well testing. These fluids have different densities and
lubricities, which affect pressure-based forces and coefficients of
friction, respectively. Fluid temperature should be more consistent
with test-well tests. Because of the previously described differences, different results may be obtained from the two test methods.
Well Conditions. When a pump is placed in service, the housing
is subjected to an effective tensile force equal to the buoyed weight
of the motor(s), seal section, gas separator, lower pumps, and its
own buoyed weight less 12 the buoyed housing weight. Furthermore, it is stressed by a tensile force equal to the developed pressure plus that developed by lower pumps times the internal crosssectional area of the housing. Impeller thrust is an integral part of
this pressure-based force and need not be considered separately in
regard to either housing or diffuser stresses. It is demonstrated in
a later section that the head applicable to this pressure-based force
is shut-in (or maximum) head for pump installations equipped with
check valves. The diffuser stack is subjected to an average compressive force equal to hU(n+1)/2 times the housing/shaft annular
area. This force is augmented by an average compressive force
equal to 12 the buoyed stack weight, including impellers. Superimposed pressure from lower stages and lower pumps affects diffuser length only to the extent of bulk volume compression.
Except for some arctic applications,2 wellbore temperatures are
greater than those present during pump assembly and testing. The
net result of a temperature increase is an increase in reactive forces,
because the carbon steel housing has a coefficient of linear thermal
expansion of 6.7106 F1, while that of the iron alloy diffusers
is approximately 10.5106 F1. Wellbore temperature may also
affect KS and KK to the extent that fluid lubricity is altered.
Eq. A-10 (derived in Appendix A) defines DR2the diffuser
stack contractive strain at other than assembly conditions. This
equation requires values for housing and diffuser strains resulting
February 2002 SPE Production & Facilities

from pressure, temperature changes, and weight. (Weight-based

strains are relatively small.) Equations for these quantities are
developed in Appendix B. Substituting values of DR2 into Eq. 4
(Hooks Law) results in the normal force exerted on the top diffuser. This is required for calculating torque capacity with Eqs. 2
or 3. The quantity AD (in Eq. 4) is the diffuser effective elastic area
and would need to be determined experimentally for each pump type.
FDR2 = DR2 AD ED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
Head Applicable to Stress Calculations
Maximum head occurs at shutoff. However, most ESP performance curves are relatively flat for the first 10 to 15% of best
efficiency point (BEP) flow rate, and some are reasonably flat to
50%, as shown in Fig. 3. Also, if a check valve is installed, flow
begins when the developed head equals the net lift (Eq. C-1), at
which time fluid acceleration begins. Eq. C-7 defines qT, the flow
rate when pump speed reaches T (assumed to be 3,500 rpm on 60
Hz power). The latter equation was developed so that the maximum head generated during start-up can be estimated, as demonstrated in the following example.
A 400-series ESP is designed to operate at the BEP, pumping
1,500 B/D from a depth of 5,000 ft. The controller will restart the
pump after 1 hour downtime, at which time pI450 psi and pS
20 psi. Terminal speed is reached in 20 cycles. Other variables are
dT1.995 in., 0.433 psi/ft, and hST6,500 ft. Applying Eq.
C-7 results in qT184 B/D, or 12.3% of the 1,500-B/D operating
rate. Most pumps would develop head very close to shutoff at
12.3% of BEP flow rate. Therefore, it is concluded that approxi-

Fig. 3Typical ESP performance curve.

63

mating head may be developed at start-up in installations equipped

with check valves.
Practical Applications. The following examples illustrate the utility of the concepts presented. In Example 1, a 400-series ESP is
selected to be set at 3,000 ft and produce 2,200 B/D with 100-psi
surface-tubing pressure and 60 psi pump-inlet pressure; power is
60 Hz. The well is equipped with 2.875-in. tubing, and a check
valve is installed. Other well data are 133-ft tubing friction loss,
100F formation temperature, and 1.0 fluid specific gravity. Pump
data include 21.5 ft/stage operating head, 30.5 ft/stage shut-in
head, maximum PI0.6 hp/stage for 1.0 specific gravity fluid, dS
0.6875 in., di3.5 in., eH0.25 in., AH2.9452 in.2, AD1.0
in.2, EH29.5106 psi, ED15.0106 psi, H0.29, D0.27,
KTH6.7106 F1, KTD10.5106 F1, KS0.24, and 73F
assembly temperature. A 150-stage, 350-lbm pump was selected,
as was a 100-hp motor and a seal section, weighing 950 and 100 lbm,
respectively. Single-impeller torque was calculated with Eq. 1 to
be 0.90 lbf-ft, and it was assumed that half this was transferred to
the diffusers. Total restraining torque at the pump head (and base)
is then equal to 0.45n/2 or 33.75 lbf-ft. The minimum |FN| required
to prevent the initiation of diffuser spinning can be computed from
Eq. 5 (a rearrangement of Eq. 2) by substituting this value for C,
dD3.5 in. and KS0.24. The result is 964 lbf. Thus, |FDR2|
must equal to or exceed 964 lbf to prevent diffuser spinning.
FN = 24C dDKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
The pump was tested in a test well at the 73F assembly temperature with 0.85 specific gravity diesel. The weight of the test
motor and seal section were equal to those chosen for field installation. When the pump was assembled, the value of t was below
specification, 7.7525104. Substituting this value into Eq. A-10
results in DR26.6667105. With this quantity known, Eq. 4 can
be applied, yielding FDR21,000 lbf. Diffuser spinning should
not occur during this test because |FDR2|>964. Before the pump
was sent to the field, it was retested on a horizontal test bench with
73F fresh water. During this test, only 50% of the housing was
free to elastically react with the pressure-based force because of
the housing interval restrained between clamps. Application of Eq.
A-10 results in DR24.6569105. Substituting this value into
Eq. 4 yields FDR2699 lbf. Because |FDR2|<964, a potential
diffuser-spinning problem should be detected.
A comparison of the results of the two tests shows that the
decrease in |FDR2| caused by the more dense fluid used in the
horizontal test outweighed the loss of effective housing length and
the absence of weight effects. The implicit assumption that KS was
not affected by the different contacting liquids used in these two
tests is probably not valid. If KS0.33 when the diffusers are clean
and immersed in water, the pump also would have passed the
horizontal test.
It is now assumed that the horizontal test was not performed.
When placed in service, the pump and fluid temperature was
100F. The value of KS may change because of diffuser exposure
to wellbore fluid rather than diesel (or fresh water); however, it is
assumed to remain constant. The well environment resulted in
DR25.0625105 and FDR2759 lbf. Because |FDR2|<964,
diffuser spinning may occur.
Tandem Pumps. The circumstances of Example 2 are the same as
Example 1, except that the pump is set at 6,100 ft, formation
temperature is 120F, and tubing friction loss is 265 ft. The 150stage pump of the prior example is an upper tandem in this installation, and a 165-stage, 380-lbm lower tandem was added. A 200hp tandem motor weighing 1,900 lbm was employed, as was a
100-lbm seal section. Applying Eq. A-10 results in a positive value
for DR2. Thus, the diffuser stack is unrestrained, and diffuser
spinning is assured.
Proposed Testing Procedures
If a horizontal test bench was designed that would grip a pump at
the top; provide lateral support at intermediate points, if required;
and grip the bottom with a mechanism that could impose any
desired tensile force on the housing, then reactive forces resulting
64

from well conditions conducive to diffuser spinning could be emulated. Alternatively, this result could be achieved with a device that
would grip the pump near the top, provide only lateral support
elsewhere, and provide either an adjustable pressurized pump suction or variable testing speed. Such extraordinary means might be
justified in high-cost situations, such as arctic locations, offshore
wells that must be killed with high-density fluids, and seafloor
completions. The utility of a test apparatus such as that described
previously is demonstrated in the following examples.
In Example 3, all conditions and equipment are identical to
those of Example 1 except that the well is in an arctic location
where the formation temperature is 63F, as has been reported,2
and a longer compression ring was installed during assembly, resulting in t8.7246104. At this value of t, the pump would
pass both the test-well and horizontal tests of Example 1. A horizontal pump test was performed with the full housing free to
elongate but without application of external force, resulting in
DR26.5105 and FDR2975 lbf. Because 975>964, the diffusers should not have spun during this test. Service conditions
resulted in DR21.3620105 and FDR2205 lbf, assuring
diffuser spinning. This faulty pump would not have been placed in
service if a tensile force had been applied to the housing during
testing that emulated well conditions.
Eq. 6 describes DR2 for a pump with an external tensile force
(FHE) applied to the housing. It was derived from Eq. A-10 by
adding a strain (HE) caused by FHE to the sum of H.
DR2 = AHEH AHEH + ADEDHP + HW + HT
+ HE DP DW DT t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
A pump test now can be designed to emulate any set of well
conditions more conducive to diffuser spinning than the preceding
relaxed-housing test. A value of HE is calculated that will
result in HD during testing being equal to what will occur
in service, resulting in the same value of DR2. With this value of
HE, the required external force can be calculated using Eq. 7
(Hooks law).
FHE = HE AH EH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
The HD term in Example 3 became 8.5648104
when the pump was put in service. It was 7.96244 during the
relaxed-housing test, which is 6.0243105 less. The external force
required to emulate service conditions is calculated to be 5,234 lbf
by substituting this last quantity into Eq. 7. Emulation of the inservice value of DR2 could have been similarly achieved with a
suction pressure (pE) of 830 psi. This value was calculated iteratively with Eqs. 8 and 9. Eqs. 8 and 9 were derived from Eqs. B-6
and B-11, respectively, by adding pE/ to all h terms and eliminating elements not pertinent to pump testing.
HP = di2hP1 + pE 4eHEHdi + eH
Hdi0.5hP1 + pE 2eHEH, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
DP = hUn + 1di2 dS2 8ADED 1
1

+ 1 KDB1hUn 1 2 + pE 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
To implement the variable-speed procedure, Eqs. 10 and 11
were derived from Eqs. B-6 and B-11, respectively, by multiplying
all head terms by a speed factor (fS) and eliminating elements not
pertinent to pump testing. The value of fS must be determined
iteratively such that the calculated value of DR2 equals that at
service conditions. The required test speed would be fS0.5T, or
3,631 rpm in this example. This procedure is also applicable to test
well testing and provides a slightly more severe test than the other
alternatives because the threshold value of |FDR2| is proportional to
fS, which would be 1.076964 in this case.
HP = di2hP1 fS 4eHEHdi + eH
HdihP1 fS 4eHEH, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
DP = hU fSn + 1di2 dS2 8ADED 1
1

+ 1 KDB1hU fSn 1 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)

February 2002 SPE Production & Facilities

In Example 4, all conditions and equipment are identical to

those in Example 3, except that the produced fluid temperature is
100F and the fluid specific gravity is 1.15. This pump would pass
the test-well and horizontal tests of Example 1 and the relaxedhousing test of Example 3. Service conditions result in FDR2
481 lbf. Because |FDR2| is less than the threshold value (in this
case 1.15964), diffuser spinning should occur. The value of
HD is 8.34874, which exceeds that of the relaxedhousing test by 3.8624105. The external force required to emulate service conditions is calculated with Eq. 7 to be 3,356 lbf.
Service conditions could likewise be emulated with a 530-psi suction pressure or a 3,584-rpm testing speed.
Example 5 is similar to the tandem installation of Example 2,
with all conditions and equipment the same except that the upper
pump is the more tightly assembled one of Examples 3 and 4 (T
8.7246104), which would pass the relaxed-housing test. Service conditions would result in F DR2 690 lbf. Because
690<964, diffuser spinning should occur. The value of the H
D term is 8.1856104, exceeding that of the relaxed-housing
test by 2.2318105. An external force of 1,939 lbf would emulate
service conditions, as would a 310-psi suction pressure or a 3,549rpm testing speed.
The same pump used in Examples 3 and 4 (and as the upper
tandem in Example 5) was employed in Example 6. This pump is
operated at 71 Hz and produces 2,600 B/D from 4,300 ft. Additional data are 216-ft tubing friction loss, 110F formation temperature, and 1.0 specific gravity. The required motor weighs
1,200 lbm. Other data are the same as in previous examples. The
threshold value of FDR2 would be 964(71/60)2 or 1,350 lbf.
Service conditions would result in a positive value for FDR2, indicating that the diffuser stack is unrestrained and assuring diffuser
spinning. This faulty pump would have been detected if a fraction
of the stress caused by service conditions had been applied during
testing by any of the three proposed methods.
The previous examples demonstrate the utility of the proposed
test procedures in cases in which formation temperature, fluid
density, and pumping speed had resulted in the circumstance of
pumps passing standard testing procedures and subsequently failing in the subject mode. Its value was also shown for tandem pump
applications. These procedures would be useful in any circumstances if KS is reduced in wellbore environments. A fourth procedure for testing pumps to a single elevated standard would consist of the described relaxed-housing test (or a test-well test) with
a dense test brine.
Conclusions
1. Values of the static coefficient of friction should vary somewhat
with different wetting fluids, affecting the compressive force
required to prevent diffuser spinning.
2. Once diffuser spinning has begun, it will continue unless FN
doubles, or possibly triples, because the value of KK is 12 to of KS.
3. Diffuser spinning should begin with the top stage, at which
interstage torque is maximum and torque capacity is minimum,
assuming KS is equal at all contacts and ignoring the effect of
lateral contact.
4. Different results may be obtained from the two common testing procedures.
5. The net result of increasing temperature is an increase in the
reactive forces, which helps prevent diffuser spinning.
6. Head approximating at shutoff may be developed at start-up in
ESP installations equipped with check valves. Consequently,
shutoff head should be used for determining the maximum effects of pressure-based forces.
7. Testing procedures are proposed that could emulate the effects
of well conditions conducive to diffuser spinning.
8. Rigorous application of the content of this paper requires experimentally determined values of diffuser effective elastic area
for each stage type, data on diffuser coefficients of friction in
various fluid environments, and experimental data on impeller
torque transfer.
February 2002 SPE Production & Facilities

Nomenclature
A
AD
AH
At
dD
di
dS
dt
DP
eH
E
ED
EH
fB
fS
F
FDR
FDR2
FHE
FHR
FN
g
h
hi
hP1
hP2
hPn
hS
hST
hU
KDB
KDT

KHT
KK
KS
L
m
n
n
pB
pC
pE
pI
pM
pS
pT
PI
qT
SHx
SHy
Sx
Sy
Sz
t
ti
tT
v
WG
WH1
WM
WP1
WP2
WPn

area, L2, in.2

diffuser effective elastic area, L2, in.2
housing cross-sectional area, L2, in.2
tubing internal area, L2, in.2
mean diameter of diffuser contact, L, in.
housing internal diameter, L, in.
shaft diameter, L, in.
tubing internal diameter, L, in.
pump inlet depth, L, ft
housing thickness, L, in.
Youngs modulus, m/Lt2, psi
Youngs modulus of diffuser, m/Lt2, psi
Youngs modulus of housing, m/Lt2, psi
buoyancy factor, dimensionless
speed factor, dimensionless
force, mL/t2, lbf
diffuser reactive force, mL/t2, lbf
FDR at other-than-assembly conditions, mL/t2, lbf
external force applied to housing, mL/t2, lbf
housing reactive force, mL/t2, lbf
force normal to diffuser contact plane, mL/t2, lbf
acceleration of gravity, L/t2, 32.174 ft/s2
head, L, ft
pump head at initial flow, L, ft
head of pump or tandem section analyzed, L, ft
head of first tandem below the analyzed pump, L, ft
head of bottom tandem pump, L, ft
pump shut-in head, L, ft
pump shut-in head at terminal speed, L, ft
single stage head, L, ft
diffuser bulk modulus, ED/3(12D), m/Lt2, psi
diffuser coefficient of linear thermal expansion,
T1,F1
housing coefficient of linear thermal expansion, T1, F1
kinetic coefficient of friction, dimensionless
static coefficient of friction, dimensionless
diffuser stack length, L, ft
mass, m, lbm
number of stages in the analyzed pump
number of stages above a specific diffuser contact
superimposed pressure, m/Lt2, psi
casing pressure at pump depth, m/Lt2, psi
suction pressure during test, m/Lt2, psi
pump inlet pressure, m/Lt2, psi
pressure at midpump, m/Lt2, psi
surface tubing pressure, m/Lt2, psi
pressure at pump top, m/Lt2, psi
input power of one impeller, mL2/t3, hp
flow rate when pump reaches terminal speed, L3/t, B/D
longitudinal housing stress, m/Lt2, psi
housing hoop stress, m/Lt2, psi
stress in the x direction, m/Lt2, psi
stress in the y direction, m/Lt2, psi
stress in the z direction, m/Lt2, psi
time, t, s
time when flow begins, t, s
time when pump reaches terminal speed, t, s
velocity, L/t, ft/s
weight of gas separator, mL/t2, lbf
housing weight of analyzed pump, mL/t2, lbf
weight of motor(s), mL/t2, lbf
weight of analyzed pump, mL/t2, lbf
weight of first pump below the one analyzed, mL/t2, lbf
weight of bottom tandem pump, mL/t2, lbf
65

WS
WU

T
D
DP

DR
DT
DW
H
HP

HR
HT
HW
HE

D
DR1
DR2

H
HR1
t

D
H

C
D
I
i

weight of seal section, mL/t2, lbf

weight of a single stage, mL/t2, lbf
gradient, m/L3, psi/ft
pump temperature minus assembly temperature, T, F
total change in D, dimensionless
change in D because of pressure-based force,
dimensionless
change in D caused by reactive force, dimensionless
change in D caused by thermal-based force, dimensionless
change in D caused by weight-based force, dimensionless
total change in H, dimensionless
change in H because of pressure-based force,
dimensionless
change in H caused by reactive force, dimensionless
change in H because of thermal-based force, dimensionless
change in H caused by weight-based force, dimensionless
change in H because of FHE, dimensionless
strain, dimensionless
diffuser strain, dimensionless
diffuser reactive strain at assembly, dimensionless
diffuser reactive strain at other-than-assembly
conditions, dimensionless
housing strain, dimensionless
housing reactive strain at assembly, dimensionless
compression ring length minus housing free space
with head installed divided by diffuser stack length,
dimensionless
Poissons ratio, dimensionless
Poissons ratio of diffuser material, dimensionless
Poissons ratio of housing material, dimensionless
density, m/L3, lbm/ft3
torque capacity of diffuser contact, mL2/t2, lbf-ft
torque transferred to one diffuser, mL2/t2, lbf-ft
torque of one impeller, mL2/t2, lbf-ft
interstage torque transfer, mL2/t2, lbf-ft
angular velocity, t1, rpm
terminal angular velocity, t1, rpm

References
1. Stepanoff, A.J.: Centrifugal and Axial Flow Pumps, second edition,
John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York City (1948) 53.
2. Andrew, J.H. and Augustine, B.G.: Initial Experience with ESPs on
the Alaskan North Slope, paper OTC 7062 presented at the 1992
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 47 May.
3. Singer, F.L.: Strength of Materials, Harper & Brothers, New York City
(1951) 17.

Appendix ADerivation of the Equation for

Diffuser Reactive Strain
During pump assembly, the housing and diffuser stack are subjected to the reactive forces FHR and FDR, respectively. Throughout this paper, tensile forces and elongations are considered positive, and compressive forces and contractions negative. Eq. A-1
defines the relationship between FHR and FDR.
FHR = FDR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
The initial values of these reactive forces result in the initial
reactive strains defined in Eq. A-2.
HR1 DR1 = 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)

Equations for H and D follow.

H = HP + HW + HT + HR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
D = DP + DW + DT + DR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)
Eq. A-6 is an expression of Hooks law.
F = AE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)
Combining Eq. A-6 and the equality FHRFDR results in
Eq. A-7.
HR = DRADED AHEH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7)
Eq. A-8 was derived by combining Eqs. A-3, A-4, A-5, and A-7.
DR = AHEH AHEH + ADED
HP + HW + HT DP DW DT. . . . . (A-8)

Eq. A-9 was derived from Eqs. A-1, A-2, and A-6.
DR1 = AHEHt AHEH + ADED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-9)
Eq. A-10 was derived from Eqs. A-8 and A-9 by observing that
DR2=DR1+DR.
DR2 = AHEH AHEH + ADED
HP + HW + HT DP DW DT t.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-10)

Appendix BDerivation of Equations for Strains

Resulting From Pressure, Weight, and
Temperature Changes
Eq. B-1 is the common equation for longitudinal strain under
triaxial loading.3
X = E 1SX Sy + Sz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-1)
The common equation for longitudinal housing stress caused
by pressure is as follows.
SHx = pT di2 4eH di + eH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-2)
The pressure at the top of the pump section being analyzed is
expressed in Eq. B-3.
pT = hP1 + hP2 + . . + hPn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-3)
Eq. B-4 is based on the common is equation for hoop stress
SHy = pM di 2eH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-4)
Pressure at the midpoint of the pump is expressed as
pM = 0.5hP1 + hP2 + . . hPn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-5)
Stress normal to the housing surface (SHZ) would equal PC,
which, in many cases, could be neglected.
Eq. B-6 defines HP and was derived from Eqs. B-1 through B-5.
HP = di2hP1 + hP2 + . . + hPn 4eHEHdi + eH
H di0.5hP1 + hP2 + . . + hPn 2eH EH + H PC EH.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-6)
The following equations define HW and HT.
HW = fBWP1 0.5WH1 + WP2 + . . + WPn + WM + WS + WG
AHEH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-7)

HT = TKHT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-8)
The average pressure-based longitudinal stress imposed on the
diffuser stack equals the product of hU(n+1)/2 times the annular
area between the housing and shaft divided by the effective elastic
area of the diffuser stack. Combining this and the relationship
SE yields Eq. B-9.

The reactive forces will assume different values during pump

testing and when the pump is in service. As long as they do not go
to zero, the lengths of the pump housing and diffuser stack will be
equal. Eq. A-3 is an obvious result.

Superimposed pressure affects difuser length to the extent of

bulk volume compression. This is expressed in Eq. B-10.

H = D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)

DP = 1 pB kDB3 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-10)

66

DP = hU n + 1di2 dS2 8ADED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-9)

February 2002 SPE Production & Facilities

Eq. B-11 expresses the total contraction caused by pressurebased forces and was derived by adding Eqs. B-9 and B-10 and
substituting [hU(n1)/2+hP2+. .+hPn+pC/] for pB.
DP = hU n + 1di2 dS2 8AD ED 1
1

+ 1 KDB1hU n 1 2 + hP2 + . . . + hPn + pC 3.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-11)
The following equationd define DW and DT .

Eq. C-6 was derived by substituting equivalent quantities.

3mv = 1.9495 104DP qT g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-6)
Eq. C-7 was derived by equating Dqs. C-5 and C-6 and substituting dt2/4 for At and 144 for .
qT = 27.977 gdt2tT

hST + 3pI pS DP

DP.
+2hST0.5 DP pI pS 1.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-7)

DW = fBnWU 2ADED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-12)

DT = TKDT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-13)
Appendix CDerivation of Equations for Initial
Terminal Speed Flow Rate
Assuming a check valve is employed, flow is initiated during
startup when the following condition occurs.
hi = DP pI pS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-1)
Eq. C-2 follows from the pump-affinity laws.
hS = hST T2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-2)
For simplicity, it is assumed that increases linearly with t
during startup. Thus, t/tT/T for 0ttT . Note that hi occurs at
ti . With these two relationships, Eq. C-3 was derived by equating
Eqs. C-1 and C-2.
ti = tT hST0.5 DP pI pS 0.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-3)
Tubing fluid is accelerated during the interval ti<t<tT . Eq. C-4
was derived from momentum considerations by assuming that
head remains equal to hS during this interval and that a separation
vessel is located at the wellhead.
mv =

Fdt = A h
tT

tT

ti

ti

2
ST t tT

+ pI pS DP dt. . . . (C-4)

Performing the previous integration and substituting the expression for ti shown in Eq. C-3 results in the following.
3mv = AttT

hST + 3pI pS DP
+2hST0.5 DP pI pS 1.5

February 2002 SPE Production & Facilities

. . . . . . . . . . . . (C-5)

SI Metric Conversion Factors

B/D 1.589 873
E01 m3/d
ft 3.048*
E01 m
F (F32)/1.8
C
hp 7.456 999
E01 kW
in. 2.54*
E+00 cm
E+00 cm2
in.2 6.451 6*
lbf 4.448 222
E+00 N
lbf-ft 1.355 818
E+00 N.m
psi 6.894 757
E+00 kPa
rpm 1.047 198
E01 rad/s
*Conversion factor is exact.

Maston L. Powers was a consulting petroleum engineer at the

time of his death on 12 March 2001. He spent the majority of his
career working for Conoco until his retirement in the mid-1990s.
Powers held BS and MS degrees in petroleum engineering from
the U. of Oklahoma. He was a 45-year member of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers and was active in the Oklahoma City
Section. He served as both a Technical Editor and as a Review
Chairman for SPE Production & Facilities. He received a Regional Service Award and the prestigious SPE Production Engineering Award. Active in many SPE committees over the years,
Powers is most often remembered for his work with the SPE
Production and Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City,
where he chaired or co-chaired the Technical Program Committee for seven conferences.

67