In the drilling and completion arts, and indeed in all arts where flowing fluid is occasionally interrupted by a quickly closing valve, tube waves exist. Those of skill in arts associated with fluid flow are familiar with tube waves, known otherwise as “Stoneley waves” and in the vernacular as “water hammer”. These waves can range from low magnitude inconsequential forms to astoundingly high magnitude destructive forms characterized by hundreds to thousands of PSI pressure spikes.
A number of factors influence the amplitude, frequency and duration of tube waves. Some important factors are velocity and specific gravity of the moving fluid as well as the rapidity with which the flowing fluid is subjected to change in rate of flow. Each of these will affect how energetic and therefore destructive the tube wave will be. In downhole arts, in both injection and production systems, tube waves can be very significant with respect to equipment and formation face damage and therefore are a concern for operators. The art, then, would be very receptive to systems and methods capable of reducing, dampening, alleviating or eliminating tube waves.
A tube wave reduction system for a borehole includes a tubular member; one or more openings in the tubular member, the one or more openings having a through-passage and a deformation region surrounding the through-passage; and an absorber in fluid communication with the one or more openings.
A tube wave reduction system includes a tubular member; and one or more openings in the tubular member, the openings having a through-passage and a deformation region about the through-passage.
A method for reducing an effect of a tube wave includes burping at least pressure from a tube wave through one or more openings in a tubular member through which the tube wave propagates; and absorbing energy from the tube wave thereby reducing a magnitude of the tube wave.
Referring now to the drawings wherein like elements are numbered alike in the several Figures:
Referring to
In each embodiment, the openings 16 will lead from the channel 14 to an energy absorber 18. In the embodiment of
Still referring to
The chamber 20 is defined by a flexible material 22 connected to the tubular member 12 that may be a monomeric or polymeric material or may be another type of material such as metal providing that it has flexibility sufficient to allow the chamber it defines to expand in volume. In the case of a metal, one embodiment would be a metal bellows 22a (see
The material 22 may be elastic or inelastic. Elastic materials will absorb the pressure spike through elastic deformation as well as through friction and destructive wave reflection interference. Where the material is not elastic it must be loose enough to generally gather about the one or more openings 16 such that it is able to change volume as noted above. In the case of the material being inelastic or substantially inelastic, the pressure spike inherent in the tube wave will simply be absorbed through the work necessary to produce movement of the inelastic material 22 itself. Without an elastic property or in cases where an elastic property exists but the change in volume of the chamber defined by the material is less than that required to elastically deform the material, the energy of the tube wave effectively dies in the friction presented by the flow of fluid into the chamber and the work required to inflate the chamber 20.
In some embodiments configured generally as illustrated in
For each of the embodiments disclosed herein an option is to include within the downhole system an isolation device such as an isolation packer or seal 26 within the annulus 28 toward which the pressure is propagated through the one or more openings 16. The placement of the isolation packer or seal 26 would be within the annulus between the component or formation the operator wants to protect from the pressure spike and the location of the one or more openings 16. It is also contemplated that two packers or seals 26 might be employed in the annulus 28, one uphole and one downhole of the one or more openings 16. It is noted that the greater the distance between packers 26 in a two packer system, the larger the pressure spike that can be absorbed. Hence, packers should be placed as far as is convenient from the openings 16 in some embodiments while still being between those openings 16 and the feature that is to be the subject of protection.
Referring to
Referring to
Configured slightly differently, the lead in embodiments create a thinner wall thickness of the tubular 12 allowing the system to “burp”. “Burp” and formatives thereof in this disclosure refer to a pressure buildup on one side of a structure that is configured to deform under that enhanced pressure and release the pressure build up. The opening size returns to a low pressure configuration after pressure has begun to equalize. This is better described in connection with
Referring to
Referring to
Each of the embodiments described in this disclosure are described as singular entities but it is to be appreciated that systems can comprise multiple iterations of the described entities. Further, in systems where multiple entities are used, they can each be of the same type or they can be different types of the above described embodiments.
It is to be appreciated that configurations in accordance with the teaching herein offer no restriction to normal axial flow through the tubular member 12 nor any impediment to running of tools therethrough, each of which is advantageous to a downhole drilling and completions operator.
While one or more embodiments have been shown and described, modifications and substitutions may be made thereto without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, it is to be understood that the present invention has been described by way of illustrations and not limitation.
This application is a continuation of U.S. Non Provisional application Ser. No. 13/209,065 filed Aug. 12, 2011, the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1629018 | Coberly | May 1927 | A |
1861775 | Aseltine | Jul 1932 | A |
2196993 | Kidder | Apr 1940 | A |
2251880 | Beecher et al. | Aug 1941 | A |
2495693 | Byrd et al. | Jan 1950 | A |
2609001 | Hebard | Sep 1952 | A |
2712831 | Day | Jul 1955 | A |
2841180 | Pier | Jul 1958 | A |
2841181 | Hewitt et al. | Jul 1958 | A |
2854029 | Poore | Sep 1958 | A |
2875787 | Evans | Mar 1959 | A |
2875788 | Pier | Mar 1959 | A |
2896667 | Jumba | Jul 1959 | A |
3310114 | Dollison | Mar 1967 | A |
3903928 | Sykes et al. | Sep 1975 | A |
4109753 | Lyman | Aug 1978 | A |
4184565 | Price et al. | Jan 1980 | A |
4234054 | Chapin | Nov 1980 | A |
4239091 | Negrao | Dec 1980 | A |
4523662 | Tanaka et al. | Jun 1985 | A |
4580656 | Fukuda | Apr 1986 | A |
4589517 | Fukuda | May 1986 | A |
4598737 | Bentley | Jul 1986 | A |
4610369 | Mercier | Sep 1986 | A |
4742496 | Jennings, Jr. et al. | May 1988 | A |
4846273 | Anderson et al. | Jul 1989 | A |
4936383 | Towner et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
5810566 | Pauwels | Sep 1998 | A |
5821473 | Takahashi | Oct 1998 | A |
5892186 | Flugger | Apr 1999 | A |
6131613 | Jenski, Jr. et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6328071 | Austin | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6857502 | Naito | Feb 2005 | B2 |
7159692 | Frederiksen et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7246659 | Fripp et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7318471 | Rodney et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7380397 | Chang | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7444806 | Werber et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7448469 | Seyler et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7743825 | O'Malley et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
20050247411 | Shim | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060283660 | Cai et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20080073145 | Nakamura et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080196881 | Telfer | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080196898 | Jasser et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080314679 | Rowe et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090242206 | Goughnour et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20110247801 | O'Malley et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20120090830 | O'Malley et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20130032431 | Bussear | Feb 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
60247005 | Dec 1985 | JP |
061446844 | May 1994 | JP |
Entry |
---|
Gillessen, R. and H. Lange, “Water hammer production and design measures in piping systems ,” International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, vol. 33, Issue 3, 1988, pp. 219-234. |
Jianning et al. “Design of the Downhole Pulsation Dampener in the Rod Well System of High Pumping Rate and Forced Fluid Withdrawal,” Oil Field Equipment, vol. 27 Issue 1, 1998, 5 pages. |
Svinos, J. G. “Use of Downhole Pulsation Dampener to Eliminate the Effect of Fluid Inertia on a Rod Pump System,” SPE California Regional Meeting, Apr. 5-7, 1989, Bakersfield, California. |
Vaziri et al. “Computation of Sand Production in Water Injectors,” European Formation Damage Conference, May 30-Jun. 1, 2007, Scheveningen, The Netherlands. |
Wang et al. “Water Hammer Effects on Water Injection Well Performance and Longevity,” 2008 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., Feb. 13-15, 2008. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140209319 A1 | Jul 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13209065 | Aug 2011 | US |
Child | 14230399 | US |