Dynamic Performance Testing

of Single-Element Unbalanced
Gas-Lift Valves
H.W. Winkler, SPE, consultant
G.F. Camp, * SPE, Arabian American Oil Co.
Summary. Reliable predictions of injection gas passage through gas-lift valves are important for unloading
and lifting high-capacity wells. This paper outlines the procedure for conducting static and dynamic tests
required to evaluate gas-lift valve performance. Limited test results are presented for the 1- and 1l/2-in. [25.4-
and 38.1-mm] unbalanced bellows-charged gas-lift valves with three-ply monel bellows.
Introduction
Dynamic gas-throughput performance of gas-lift valves
is a complex topic because of the many factors that influ-
ence valve performance; therefore, the scope of this proj-
ect is limited to the basic type of single-element gas-lift
valve. The primary purpose of this paper is to provide
guidelines for testing gas-lift valves rather than to offer
specific valve performance data for well installation de-
sign. Test equipment and procedures are illustrated and
described.
A gas supply was made available in Saudi Arabia for
this gas-lift valve test program. A skid-mounted test unit
was designed to control and to measure the upstream and
downstream pressures and volumetric gas t:ates across fix-
'tures for installing gas-lift valves and other devices.
Benchmark valves and a probe tester were built to obtain
vital information related to the characteristics that are
unique to a particular type of gas-lift valve.
The valve:testing program was divided into several
major test phases. Different sizes of gas-lift valve seats
were tested to determine discharge coefficients. These
seats were tested fully open without restrictions upstream
or downstream. Benchmark valves with identical seats as
above were installed in an encapsulatingtester, and dis-
charge coefficients were calculated for four stem posi-
tions that generated equivalent areas less than the fully
open port area and for a fifth position for the fully open
port area. The bellows-assembly load rate of the single-
element, unbalanced, bellows-charged gas-lift valve was
established with the probe tester. Volumetric gas-
throughput tests were performed with the same gas-lift
valve bellows assembly as previously probed and with the
identical seat sizes as tested above. Gas-throughput pro-
files were plottep on the basis of performance data. Curves
of initial injection gas opening pressure vs. production
pressure were established for each ball/seat combination
tested in the benchmark and gas-lift valves. Examples of
pertinent data and results' of each phase of the test pro-
gram are presented.
Now retired.
Copyright 1987 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Production Engineering, August 1987
Unbalanced Single-Element
Gas-Lift Valves
The most widely used gas-lift valve in the oil industry is
an unbalanced single-element injection-pressure-operated
valve that operates in the same manner as an unbalanced
backpressure gas regulator. This type of valve is offered
by all major gas-lift equipment manufacturers. The clos-
ing force for a gas-lift valve can be a gas-pressure-charged
bellows, a spring in compression or elongated, or a com-
bination of both. The analogy between the unbalanced
single-element bellows-charged gas-lift valve and the
unbalanced backpressure gas regulator is illustrated in
Fig. 1.
1
"Single-element" implies that the principle components
of the gas-lift valve are a bellows-and-dome assembly,
stem and tip (the tip is generally a high-quality polished
carbide ball), and a metal seat. The entire unit is housed
in a valve body that may be threaded for attachment to
a tUbing mandrel, or the body may include packing and
a latch for installation in a wireline-retrievable valve man-
drel. "Unbalanced'; implies that the production pressure
is applied over the ball/seat contact area as an opening
force at the instant the gas-lift valve opens or closes.
Generally, the primary initial opening force is the injec-
tion gas pressure applied over an area equal to the effec-
tive bellows area minus the ball/seat contact area.
King
2
filed the original patent for a pressure-operated,
unbalanced, single-element bellows-charged gas-lift valve.
This type of gas-lift valve became the industry standard
soon after its introduction. These valves have been used
successfully for 45 years without published dynamic
injection-gas-throughput performance. Typical gas-lift in-
stallation design calculations include many safety factors
to offset this lack of information. In most gas-lift wells,
little or no flowing bottomhole pressure drawdown occurs
from the top one or two valve stations while control fluids
are unloaded. These continuous-flow gas-lift installations
were designed to ,be unloaded and operated efficiently
without the need of precise injection-gas-throughput per-
formance of the valve. With the increased worldwide ap-
plication for gas-lifting high-rate production wells, these
design methods proved inadequate. If the final point of
gas injection cannot be reached by the simple U-tubing
183
SYST,M
BLHD DRlFlC,
M(T,R
LOW
GAS LIN, CHOK, M(T,R TUB,

VOLUM, TANK
FLOW ORIFIC,
COMPUTER M'HR
HIGH
GAS LIN, . M,HR TUB, CHDK,
Gas
Flow
Spring-Loaded
Product ion
Pressure
Downstream
Unbalanced backpressure regulator for
controlling injection gas pressure.
Fig. 1-Analogy between the un,balanced backpressure
gas regulator and unbalanced gas-11ft valve.
1
,
Injection-pressure-operated gas-lift valve
responds to injection gas pressure.
Valve Test Skid Facility
A schematic of the skid-mounted valve test facility, which
was described by Camp,3 is illustrated in Fig. 2. The up-
stream and downstream pressures and volumetric gas flow
rates through the test unit were controlled by the two ad-
justable metering chokes. Instrumentation on the test skid
represents typical oilfield equipment, including high-
quality pressure gauges, 3-in. [76.2-mm] ball-valve orifice
fittings in the meter tubes with straightening yanes,
Fig. 2-Valve test skid unit.
19 - BALL VALVE <V- PR,SSURE GAUGE IIJ - HMP,RATUR, GAUG,
bellows-type orifice meters, and a flow computer. The
upstream 2.899-in. [73.6-mm] -ID meter tube was locat-
ed between the connection of the high-pressure gas line
to the test unit and the upstream adjustable metering
choke. This upstream meter-tube pressure remained rela-
tively constant and equal to the injection-gas-line pres-
sure for all tests. The gas volume was measured by means
of a flow computer in parallel with a bellows-type orifice
meter with a differential range of 0 to 100 in. [0 to 2S40'
mm] of water. The downstream orifice meter was a bel-
lows type with a range of 0 to 200 in. [0 to S080 mm]
of water. The 2.897-in. [73.6-mm] -10 meter tube was
located between the gas-lift valve fixtures and the down-
stream adjustable metering choke. Because the differen-
tial range of the downstream orifice meter was doubled,
the same orifice bore size could be used in the upstream
and downstream meter tubes for most tests.
The gas-lift valve fixtures included two retrievable side-
pocket valve mandrels and an encapsulating tester. One
mandrel had a side-pocket (receiver) for I-in. [2S.4-mm]
-OD retrievable gas-lift valves, and the other mandrel had
the larger side pocket for II/2-in. [38.l-mm] -OD valves.
The valves could be installed and removed by hand with
standard wireline tools. A valve to be tested was latched
into the pocket in the same manner as required for instal-
lation in a mandrel in an actual well. The complete gas-
lift valve unit, including the check assembly, was tested
in the appropriate mandrel. An encapsulating tester
provided a means to test seats, check 'assemblies; and
benchmark and, gas-lift valves without check assemblies
or possible entry area restrictions in the side pocket of
a retrievable valve mandrel.
The large-capacity gas volume tank located beneath the
skid floor is an important feature for successful' testing
of certain types of gas-lift valves. The volume tank can
be included as a volume accumulator or buffer in the up-
stream or downstream portion of the test loop or can be
completely shut off from the system. Large ported gas-
lift valves require the additional capacity in the down-
stream section of the system to stabilize the volumetric
gas flow rate through the valve and to prevent severe
surging.
, The encapsulating tester was designed to. provide a
means of monitoring the dome pressure in the valve and
to set the charge pressure after the valve had been installed
Nitrogen-Charged
Port
_ Injection Gas
Pressure
Flowing
Product ion
Pressure
process in high-rate wells with large production conduits,
successful gas-lift operations depend on the gas-
, throughput performance of the unloading valves to attain
the desired point of gas injection. '
Injection-gas capacity characteristics are not generally
published with the valve specifications. The valve speci-
fications noqnally include only the bellows area, port size,
and certain area ratios used in static-force balance equa-
tions. Manufacturers are reluctant to publish gas passage
characteristics, because one type of valve with a 7kin.
[7.9-mm] -ID port may have a much greater injection-
gas-throughput capacity than another type of valve with
a %-in. [9.S-mm] -ID port for the saine operating condi-
tions. Specifications based on physical dimensions will
not describe the dynamic gas-throughput performance of
a gas-lift valve. The equivalent port area open to flow may
be a small fraction of the fully open port area under nor-
mal gas-lift operations. The assumption that a valve with
a %-in. [9.S-mm] -ID port has an opening equal to a %-in.
[9.S-mm] -ID orifice for gas passage will seldom be
correct.
184 SPE Production Engineering, August 1987
NITROGEN
SOURCE
VALVE
INLET GAS
TEMPERATURE
1.
i
2-IN fIPE OUTLET
Fig. 3-Encapsulatlng tester with an external connection
Into the valve dome.
in the tester. This feature is essential for accurate force-
balance calculations. It became apparent from previous
valve performance tests that the closirig force based on
the bellows-charged pressure could not be calculated as
accurately as the initial opening forces. Although the flow-
ing'gas temperature could be monitorl'ld, the temperature
of the nitrogen dome pressure was questionable, and the
exact bellows-charged pressure could only be approxi-
mated. The encapsulating tester is schematically illustrated
in Fig. 3. The Yrl-in. [ 3 ~ m m ] -OD tubing to the dome
of a gas-lift valve could be disabled for valve-seat, bench-
mark-valve, and other tests.
Benchmark Valves
The purpose ofthe berlchniark valve is to establish a dis-
charge coefficient for various stem travel positions. This
information could be applied to predict the stem travel
for actual gas-lift valves when the volumetric gas rate and
upstream and downstream pressures are known. The
benchmark valve has the same physical dimensions for
the inlet section as its corresponding gas-lift valve. The
valve body, stem OD, ball/seat assembly, etc., are the
same parts as the actual valve. There is no bellows or
dome section, and the stem position in relation to the valve
seat is adjustable. A schematic of a benchmark valve is
illustrated in Fig. 4. Neely et al, 4 built a similar type of
benchmark valve to study gas-lift valve operation in an
intermittent gas-lift installation. Their benchmark valve
,was designed to record pressure information, whereas the
SPE Production Engineering, August 1987
VALVE BODY,
STEM, TIP
AND SEAT
ARE ACTUAL
VALVE PARTS.
ADAPTER FOR
___ ENCAPSULATING
TESTER BASE
Fig. 4-Benchmark valve with an adjustable stem.
benchmark valve for these tests was designed to deter-
mine discharge coefficients for calculating stem travel of
an actual gas-lift valve.
The test procedure for a benchmark valve was to ad-
just the stem to generate four equivalent areas open to
flow that would be less than the port area, an equivalent
area equal to afully open port area, and a final stem po-
sition with the ball moved completely out of the flow path.
Discharge coefficients were back-calculated for each stem
setting. The final stem setting with the ball completely
out of the flow path should verify the calculated discharge
coefficient for the same size and taper valve port test. Dis-
charge coefficients for this final position of the stem com-
pared favorably with the port-only coefficients. The.valve
body inlet ports did not restrict gas flow.
Gas Measurement Calculations
The following general orifice meter equation for gas flow
with six principal factors in the orifice flow constant, C' ,
was used to calculate the volumetric gas flow rates:
qgsc=C'.JPfh
w
, .................. (1)
where C'=F
b
(Fpb)Ftb (Fg)Ftj{F
pv
) and
Fb = basic orifice factor,
Fpb = pressure base factor,
F
tb
= temperature base factor,
F
g
= specific gravity factor,
185
Va 1ve Stem
(a) seats have an effective
A
p
equal to the bore area through
the seat. The A
p
may be based on a
diameter slightly greater than the
seat bore 10 if the port has a minor
taper to eliminate a
contact.
(b) Tapered seat with a 46
0
chamfer
measured from the horizontal (90
0
included angle). The effective A
p
in the Ap/A
b
ratio is the
contact area and not the bore area
through the seat.
Fig. 5-Sharp-edged seat and tapered seat with a 45
Q
chamfer.
1
Ftf = flowing temperature factor, and
F
pv
= supercompressibility factor.
Most of these factors can be calculated or determined from
tables in Ref. 5. The pressure was measured downstream
of the orifice plate.
The supercompressibility factor, Fpv, is the reciprocal
of the square root of the compressibility factor. Because
all meter tube pressures were <1,000 psig [ <6895 kPa],
the following simplified compressibility'factor equation
was used to calculate the z factor:
z= 1+ 0.257(pj) _ 0.533(pj)T
pc
(2)
Ppc Tj(ppc)
and
1
F
pv
= .JZ' ' (3)
Eq. 2 is accurate for hydrocarbon gases at pressures
< 1,200 psig [< 8274 kPa].
The volumetric gas rate was calculated in the same
ner for the flow computer and the orifice meters. The
dividual readouts from the computer end devices-which
were monitoring the pressure, differential, and
ture-were recorded these values used in the general
orifice meter equation.
The calculated flow rates were compared with the flow
rates from the computer for verification.
The gas measurement and choke calculations were
based on the following information: 'Yg = 0.601 , Ppc =671
psia [4626 kPa], T
pc
=358R [199 K], R
h
=1.28, stan-
dard conditions were 14.65 psig and 60
0
P [101.0 kPa and
15.6C], and atmospheric pressure was 14.3 psia [98.6
186
kPa]. Methane gas from the plant was analyzed several
times during the test program, and the specific gravity
remained relatively constant. No liquids or hydrates were
present in the system.
Converging Nozzle or Choke Equation
Gas flow through a restricted flow area can be derived
from the general energy-balance equation. The expansion
of gas through a reducedlilrea is assumed to be adiabatic
because the gas is believed to expand so rapidly that there
is insufficient time for heat transfer. The most widely used
basic converging nozzle or choke equation in the oil in-
dustry is referred to as the Thornhill-Craver equation.
6
As initially published, this equation did not include'the
compressibility factor. An analysis of these tests revealed
the need for including the zfactor in this choke equation.
The calculated discharge coefficient exceeded the value
of one for several tests of valve seats with a taper. The
following equation was used to calculate the discharge
coefficients: .
....................... (4)
The coefficient of 155.5 in the Thornhill-Craver equa-
tion is based on field units and standard conditions of
14.65 psia and 60F [101.0 kPa and 15.6C].
The compressibility factor was calculated with the same
simplified z-factor equation used to calculate the super-
compressibility factor for the orifice meter equation. This
equation is accurate at the relatively low inlet pressure
for these valve tests.
SPE Production Engineering, August 1987
TABLE 1-CALCULATED DISCHARGE COEFFICIENTS
FOR GASLIFT VALVE PORTS ONLY
TABLE 2-CALCULATED DISCHARGE COEFFICIENTS
FOR BENCHMARK VALVES WITH SHARPEDGED SEATS
Port
ID

0.250
0.3125
0.3125
0.375
0.375
0.375
Type of
Seat
Entry
Sharp-edged
Sharp-edged
60 taper
Sharp-edged
45 taper
60 taper'
Calculated
Discharge
Coefficient
0.94 to 0.96
0.89 to 0.90
0.98 to 1.00
0.88 to 0.90
0.93 to 0.97
0.96 to 1.00
Port
ID

0.250
0.3125
0.375
Ball
OD

0.3125
0.375
0.4375
Calculated
Discharge
Coefficient
0.92 to 0.94
0.88 to 0.89
0.83 to 0.85
Discharge Coefficients for Valve Seats
and Benchmark Valves
Different valve port sizes with a sharp-edged seat and
several seat tapers were tested in the encapsulating tester.
The body of the valve was removed so that no flow re-
striction existed in the upstream gas flow path, and the
bore through the downstream adapter between the tester
base and valve seat was larger than the largest port ID.
The valve seat became a positive choke in the gas flow
system. '
The volumetric gas flow rate through the seat was con-
trolled by the upstream and downstream metering chokes
on the test skid. The. discharge coefficient was back-
calculated from the measured gas flow rate and the record-
ed upstream and downstream pressures. Discharge coeffi-
cients were calculated for several seat sizes with a sharp
edge and for 45 and 60 [0.8 and 1.0 rad] of taper at the
seat entry. The degrees of seat taper as defined here are
measured from the seat face. Sharp-edged and 45
[0.8-rad] tapered seats are illustrated in Fig. 5.
1
Dis-
charge coefficients differ for tapered and sharp-edged
seats.
The sensitivity of a calculated discharge coefficient to
the downstream pressure was apparent as the downstream
pressure approached the upstream pressure. For exam-
ple, a I-psi [7-kPa] difference in downstream pressure
can result in a 5%or more change in the calculated coeffi-.
cient for some tests. The discharge coefficients in Tables
1 and 2 should be considered approximate for predictive
calculations. The discharge coefficients for the benchmark
valves are an average value for several stem positions.
These calculated coefficients did not vary significantly for
the different stem positions in the throttling range. Over-
all, discharge coefficients for sharp-edged seats were
higher than anticipated.
Probe Test for Bellows-Assembly
Load Rate
One of the most important static tests for checking gas-
lift valves is a probe test of the bellows assembly. A probe
test is used to measure the bellows-assembly load ratc,
the range of linear stem travel, and the maximum stem
travel. In addition, this test procedure reveals problems
associated with stem movement, such as limited linear
stem travel, stacking of bellows convolutions or coils of
a compressed spring in a spring-loaded valve, and errat-
ic stem movement because of frictional drag or an inter-
. nal restriction. If a valve has an unacceptable probe test,
the dynamic valve performance will be unsatisfactory.
Good probe test results are essential for acceptable valve
SPE Produ.ction Engineering, August 1987
performance, but a good probe test does not necessarily
ensure acceptable injection-gas-throughput characteristics.
The load rate of a gas-lift valve and the probe test are
discussed in Ref. 7.
A probe tester assembly is illustrated in Fig. 6. A depth
micrometer is attached to a tester below the valve seat
in this figure. Gas pressure is applied over the entire bel-
lows area, and the stem movement away from the valve
seat is measured for incremental increases in pressure.
The rod on the micrometer is insulated from the tester
and valve. When the rod contacts the valve stem tip, the
circuit is closed and a micrometer reading is recorded for
the tester pressure. Stem travel is calculated from these
readings. Pressure exerted over the bellows area vs. the
stem travel can be plotted to determine the bellows-
assembly load rate and range of linear stem travel for a
gas-lift valve.
One definition of load rate is the required increase in
pressure per inch of stem travel. The bellows-assembly
load rates for the valves used in this series of perform-
ance tests were approximately 400 psi/in. [109 kPa/mm]
for the Ph-in. [38.1-mm] -OD valve and 1,000 psi/in.
[271 kPa/mm] for the I-in. [25.4-rnrri] -OD valve.
Bellows-assembly load-rate curves for these valves are
presented in Fig. 7. Both valve sizes had three-ply monel
bellows. The published areas are 0.77 in. 2 [497 rnm
2
]
for the 1V2-in. [38.1-mrn] -OD valve and 0.31 in.
2
[200
mm
2
] for the I-in. [25.4-mm] -OD valve. Port size does
not affect the load rate because the pressure is applied
over. the entire effective bellows area.
The bellows-assembly load rate for a given valve is not
constant and will change with the bellows-charge pres-
sure. Most small bellows and springcloaded gas-lift valves
will have a rnuch higher load rate than a large valve. The
complexity of predicting the bellows-assem,?ly load rate
and the range of linear stem travel for different types of
valves (or even the same valve at various operating pres-
sures) is beyond the scope of this paper.
Initial Opening Pressure vs. Production
Pressure Tests
These tests provide the information necessary to estab-
lish the basic valve specifications accurately. A curve of
initial opening pressure vs. production pressure for a valve
with a sharp-edged %-in. [9.5-mm] port and YI6-in.
[Il.l-mm] -OD ball on the stem is shown in Fig. 8. The
absolute value of the slope of this curve represents the
production pressure factor for a valve. The production
pressure factor is a ratio that defines the change in initial
injection-gas opening pressure for a given change in pro-
187
VALVE.
1 AND 1-1/2 lNCH 0.0. BAS LIFT VALVES
700-,------r---..,----r----r---/t
Fig. 6-Gas-lIft-valve probe tester.
duction pressure. The ratio of the ball/seat contact area
to the bellows area can be calculated from this curve. If
the ball/seat contact area is known, the effective bellows
area can be calc.ulated. The accuracy of these calculations
improves with larger ball/seat contact areas relative to the
effective bellows area. This is a static rather than dynamic
test because the volumetric gasthroughput performance
of a gas-lift valve cannot be predicted from the curve.
The procedure for conducting these tests is simple. Only
a tester for setting gas-lift valves plus an additional pres-
sure gauge and metering needle valve are required. A gas
lift valve is installed in a tester with an upstream pres-
.06 04 .06
smf TRAVEL, INCHES .
.02
Actual Opening and Closing Forces for a
Partially Open Gas-Lift Valve
The initial opening pressure of an unbalanced, single-
element gas-lift valve can be calculated with the appro-
sure gauge between a needle valve for the tester gas source
and the tester. This represents a typical valve-testbench
assembly. A pressure gauge and needle valve are con-
nected downstream of the valve seat. The downstream
pressure gauge is located between the needle and gas-lift
valves. The upstream needle valve is barely opened to al
Iowa very small gas flow rate through the gas-lift valve.
The initial pressure on the upstream gauge would be the
test-rack opening pressure of the valve. The downstream
needle valve is partially closed until a desired downstream
pressure is attained. The downstream pressure is increased
in increments by further closing the downstream needle
valve, and the upstream pressure is recorded for eayh
downstream pressure until these pressures equali;ze. The
downstream pressure is then decreased in increments by
partially opening the downstream needle valve. This in-
formation is recorded until the downstream needle valve
is fully open and the upstream pressure equals the test-
rack opening pressure of the valve.
Fig. 7-Bellows-assembly load-rate curves.
600-+"""--''-1------1-----11---+--''"'-1
620-+----:*"---
66Q-,
TESTER
GAS
PRESSURE
GAUGE
MICROMETER
/
I """!--l_J--l-_J-l "'f---
TESTER

-
BLEED'----"l.-J
3/B PORT 7/16 BALL SHARP-EDGED SEAT
650
. VAL E a 1- /2 I O.
(!)
.....
en
BOO a. -a...
'-s- LU"
[--e.. Op(
ce
"--t>- NINa ::>
en
r--u... .......cORCts. C
fiJ
750
ce
10 .
a.
---k
SING
.(!)
___ cORCt
:z
t--<C"--t>-
H
:z
700 LU
"'n-
o.
.............
<:)
...J
...
H
I-
650 H
:z
H
600
0 50 100 150200 250 300 .350 400 450 500 550 600 650
PRODUCTION PRESSURE,PSIG
Fig. 8-Curve of Initial opening pressure vs.
pressure.
5/16 PORT 3/B BALL SHARP-EDGED SEAT
100Q-r----,,-----r--,..---,..----,---,----r-.........,
a 1-1/2-INCH 0.0. VALVE
600
l? "\
/ \

700

u
600
"'
Y 1\
:>:
LU"
500
f-
/ \ CE
400
U')
/
... '
'"
300
/
200
100
/
/
0
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
PRODUCTION PRESSURE,PSIG
Fig. 9-Pel:formance profile for 11/2 In.-ODvalve with %,-In.
port and sharp-edged seat.
188 SPE Production Engineering. August 1987
o 1 INCH 0,0, V LVE
600',--,----,.---,-.,-----.r---r-.,.---r---r-,
500+-t--t--+---\--1I--+-+-+--+--I
5/16 PORT: 3/8 BALL: SHARP-EDGED StAT
650 700 600 50 100 450 00 50
PRODUCTION PRESSURE, PSIG
300 250
Cl .,A'f-o-'>""
:;:.
\
300-f--t--t--+--+
V
---:7F-+--+--t---t-h-,\-I
'" 200+--1---1---+----"7"1--1'---1---+--+---+-+-1
J;i
100+--1---+---,""1---1--1--1---+--+---+-+-1
/V
o+--f-.L..+--+--+--f--+-+-+--+--tlf-j
200
3/8 PORT: 7/16 BALL: SHARP-EDGED SEAT
110
1/2 INC/;

"'"""
0 0.0. VI!. E
100
Y
'0
\
90
/
lioo
Cl II
\
:;:. 70
I
'-'
lJ)
::E
60
/ \
u.i
50
I}

0:
U)
...
40
/
'"
30
/C
200
V
10
0
I
300 350 00 0 . 50 600 650 70
PRODUCTION PRESSURE,PSIG
Fig. 10-PerJormance profile for 11/2-ln.-00 valve with
%-In. port and sharp-edged seat.
Fig. 11-Performance profile of 1-ln.-00 valve with o/1o-ln.
port and sharp-edged seat. .
priate static-force balance equations for the valve. The
areas and pressures are known at the instant a valve opens.
Mathematically defining the exact pressures and areas be-
comes complicated as the stem moves away from its seat.
Therefore, gas-lift valve performance data are generally
determined empirically.
Defining the exact areas over which the upstream in-
jection pressure and the downstream flowing production
pressure are applied and the value of the downstream pres-
sure is not straightfdrward. The area open to flow gener-
ated by a ball centered over a sharp-edged seat is in the
lateral area of the frustrumof a right circular cone as this
ball is moved away from the ball/seat contact until the
frustrum area equals or exceeds the fully open port area.
As the valve stem travel increases, injection-gas pressure
is exerted over a theoretically larger area because of the
decrease in the area of the upper base of the frustrum.
The area of the lower base remains constant and is equal
to the ball/seat contact area. The downstream pressure
will be less tnanthe production pressure as a function of
the velocity change when the frustrum area is less than
the port area.
The problem is further complicated by a tapered seat
and the depth of the taper with regard to the ball/seat con-
tact. The maximum area open to flow is not necessarily
based on the minimum distance between the ball and seat
where the side of the frustrum is perpendicular to the seat
taper.
Gas-Lift Valve Performance Profiles
One type of display used to exhibit the performance of
a gas-lift valve is a plot of the vblumetric gas-throughput
rate vs. the flowing production (downstream) pressure for
a constant injection-gas (upstream) pressure. DeMoss and
Tiemann8 illustrated similar gas-lift valve performance
curves. The effects of the port size and bellows-assembly
load rate on the valve characteristics Can be observed from
a comparison of these displays for different gas-lift valves.
The operating pressure for each valve was set after the
valve was installed in the encapsulating tester. The dome
pressure was adjusted so that the valve would close at a
low flowing production pressure with an upstream pres-
sure of 680 psig [4688 kPa}. A constant upstream
injection-gas pressure of 680 psig [4688 kPa] was main-
tained for all flow rates in this series of performance tests.
Performance profiles for 1- and Plz-in. [25.4- and
38.1-mm] -OD valves are illustrated in Figs. 9 through
12. Two of the displays are the same lY2-in. [38.1-mm]
900
16 PORr
,r
"\
BOO
,oo.onr.,
/ \
70
Cl
/
:;:.
600
/
'-'
\
U)
::E
500
u1
1/ \
....
...
--
......
0:
400
U)
/ ./"
V
...
1\
'"
300
V
/V
\
200
/ /
100
IY
0
300 350 00 50 00 50 600 650 70
PRODUCTION PRESSURE, PSIG
650 700 350 400 50 00 50 600
PRODUCTION PRESSURE, PSIG
00 250
60o-r--.,---,----,.---,---r----,--,--,-Jl,-,--,
o 1 INCH 0.0. V VE / I
50O+--\--1f--+-+-+--l--t----,+-il---i
//0 1\
40O+--f--t--t--+---\---<b'''-t-+--i+-l
't; IJf
/
w 30'O+--f--t--t--+---trf-l--+-+-t--\-l

tB 20O+--f--t--t-7"f----\--1f--+-+-+-H
p/

//
o+-t-L-+--t---f--t--t--+---\--I--<!>-i
200
Fig. 12-Performance profile for 1-ln.-00 valve with o/1o-ln.
port, 1%2-ln. ball, and 60 taper seat.
Fig. 13-Comparlson of gas rate performance of 1- to
1-Vz-ln.-00 gas-11ft valves with the same saat size.
SPE Production Engineering, August 1987 189
-OD gas-lift valve with sharp-edged seats having a 116-
and %-in. [7.9- and 9.5-mm] -ID port. The other two dis-
plays illustrate the performance of I-in. [25.4-mm] -OD
valves. One valve has a sharp-edged 116-in. [7.9-mm]
-ID port, and the other valve has a 116-in. [7.9-m,m] port
with a 60 [LO-rad] taper. The difference in perform-
ance between the 1 and I
t
l2-in. [25.4- and 38.1-mm]
-OD valves having the same YI6-in. [7.9-mm] -ID port with
a sharp-edged seat is illustrated in Fig. 13. These curves
were adjusted so that each port size has the same initial
opening flowing production and injection-gas pressures
of 300 and 680 psig [2068 and 4688 kPa], respectively.
It is apparent in Fig. 13 that the injection-gas-throughput
rate for the I-in. [25.4-mm] -OD valve will be much lower
than the gas passage for a 1Y2-in. [38.1-mm] -OD valve
with the same port size for most pressure differentials en-
countered during gas-lift operations. The injection-gas
flow rate through the larger valve will be approximately
double that of the smaller valve for pressure differentia.ls
of 50 to 200 psi [345 to 1379 kPa] between the flowing
production and injection-gas pressures at valve depth.
Conclusions and Recommendations
An analysis of only a selected segment of the test data
collected dUring this project has revealed severafimpor-
tant conclusions and recommendations.
1. Static-force balance equations for calculating test-
rack opening or closing pressures and the published areas
and area ratios do not provide the information required
to predict injection-gas passage of a gas-lift valve at oper-
ating conditions.
2. A simple mathematical model to predict gas-lift valve
performance for all types of valves is unlikely because
of the many factors affecting valve performance, includ-
ing the effect of the operating pressure level on bellows-
assembly load rate and linear stem travel for many valves.
3. Because of the wide range of performance charac-
teristics for different valves, reliable gas passage infor-
mation is essential for determining port sizes and the
number of valves required for gas lifting high-rate wells.
4. The 1Y2-in. [38.1-mm] -OD bellows-charged gas-
lift valve with the large bellows is recommended for high-
rate wells because this type of valve has the greatest
injection-gas throughput capacity.
5. The basic injection-pressure-operated gas-lift valve
is a metering device that operates in the same manner as
a backpressure regulator and does not fullyopen' and re-
main fully open until the closing pressure is' attained.
6. An empirical evaluation of the' noncritical-flow choke
equation in the midrange between no flow and critical flow
appears warranted from an analysis of the gas pressure
and volume data recorded during this study.
7. The test information required to define the dynamic
performance of every type of widely used gas-lift valve
currently available and future new valves should'eventu-
ally become the responsibility of the manufacturer.
8. Reliable valve performance data allow the individu-
als responsible for gas-lift operations to become more con-
fident in their installation designs.
Nomenclature
A == area open to flow, in.
2
[mm
2
]
Cd == discharge coefficient
190
C' == orifice flow constant, scflhr [std m3Is]
Fb == basic orifice factor
Fg == specific gravity factor
Fpb == pressure base factor
Fpv == supercompressibility factor
F tb ;::; temperature base factor
FIf == flowing temperature factor
g == acceleration of gravity, ft/sec
2
[m/s
2
]
Pf == flowing gas pressure, psia [kPa]
Ppc == pseudocritical pressure, psia [kPa]
Pw == differential pressure, in. water [mm water]
P I == upstream gas pressure, psia [kPa]
P2 == downstream gas pressure, psia [kPa]
qgsc == gas flow rate, [stct m
3
Is]
Rh == specific heat ratio
T
f
== flowing gas temperature, OR [K]
T
pc
== pseudocritical OR [K]
T
I
== upstream gas temperature, OR [K]
z == gas compressibility factor
z1 == gas compressibility factor at PI and TI
'Yg == gas specific gravity
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Petrole-
um and Mineral Resources and the Arabian American Oil
Co. (Aramco) for permission to publish this paper. Spe-
cial thanks are due Aramco personnel in field operations
and engineering for their assistance in the test projects.
References
I. Winkler, H.W.: "Gas Lift," Petroleum Engineering Handbook,
SPE (1987) Chap. 5.
2. King, W.R.: "Time and Volume Control for Gas Intermitters,"
U.S. Patent No. 2,339,487 (Jan. 18, 1944).
3. Camp, G.F.: "A High-Rate Gas-Lift Test in Saudi Arabia," paper
SPE 13740 presented at the 1985 SPE Middle East Oil Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, March 11-14.
4. Neely, A.B., Montgomery, J.W., and Vogel, J.V.: "A Field Test
and Analytical Study of Intermittent Gas Lift," SPEl (Oct. 1974)
502-12; Trans., AIME, 257.
5. "Orifice Metering of Natural Gas-Gas Measurement Committee
Report No.3," American Gas Assn., Arlington, VA (June 1972).
6. Cook, H.L. Jr. and Dotterweich, F.H;: "Report on the Cl\libration
of Positive Flow Beans as ManUfactured by Thornhill-Craver
Company," Texas A&I U., Kingsville (1946).
7. Gas Lift, Book 6, Vocational Training Series. API Production Dept.,
Dallas (1984) 59.
8. DeMoss, E.E. and Tiemann, W.D.: "Gas Lift Increases High
Volume Production from Claymore Field," JPT (April 1982)
696-702.
51 Metric Conversion Factors
degree X 1.745 329 E-02 == rad
ft3 X 2.831 685 E-02 m
3
in. X 2.54* E+Ol mm
psi X 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
'Conversion lactor is exact. SPEPE
Original manuscript received In the Society of Petroleum Engineers office Sept. 22,
1985. Paper accepted for pUblication July 7,1986. ReVised manuscript received Nov;
13,1986. Paper (SPE 14348) first presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Con-
lerence and Exhibition held in Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
SPE Production Engineering, August 1987