| Literature DB >> 27754412 |
Yanjun Wang1,2, Haoyu Li3, Xingbin Liu4, Yuhui Zhang5, Ronghua Xie6, Chunhui Huang7, Jinhai Hu8, Gang Deng9.
Abstract
First, the measuring principle, the weight function, and the magnetic field of the novel downhole inserted electromagnetic flowmeter (EMF) are described. Second, the basic design of the EMF is described. Third, the dynamic experiments of two EMFs in oil-water two-phase flow are carried out. The experimental errors are analyzed in detail. The experimental results show that the maximum absolute value of the full-scale errors is better than 5%, the total flowrate is 5-60 m³/d, and the water-cut is higher than 60%. The maximum absolute value of the full-scale errors is better than 7%, the total flowrate is 2-60 m³/d, and the water-cut is higher than 70%. Finally, onsite experiments in high-water-cut oil-producing wells are conducted, and the possible reasons for the errors in the onsite experiments are analyzed. It is found that the EMF can provide an effective technology for measuring downhole oil-water two-phase flow.Entities:
Keywords: electromagnetic flowmeter; flowrate measurement; magnetic field; oil-producing well; oil-water two-phase flow; onsite experiments; weight function
Year: 2016 PMID: 27754412 PMCID: PMC5087491 DOI: 10.3390/s16101703
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the uniform magnetic field EMF.
Figure 2Cross section top view of the downhole inserted EMF.
Figure 3Weight function distribution of the downhole inserted EMF. (a) 2D contour plot of the weight function; (b) 3D surface plot of the weight function.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of the magnetic dipoles of the downhole inserted EMF.
Figure 5Magnetic field distribution of the downhole inserted EMF. (a) 2D contour plot of the magnetic field; (b) 3D surface plot of the magnetic field.
Figure 6Diagrams of the downhole inserted EMF. (a) The diagram of the measuring principle of the EMF; (b) Photo of the measuring circuit; (c) Photo of the transducer; (d) Photo of the concentrating diverter; (e) Diagram of the downhole EMF; (f) Photo of the downhole EMF.
Figure 7The diagram of the vertical simulation well facility.
Figure 8The linear fitting chart of EMF No. 1.
Figure 9The linear fitting chart of EMF No. 2.
Figure 10The measurement data x histogram of EMF No. 1 (flowrate: 50 m3/d). (a) The histogram for water-cut 50%; (b) The histogram for water-cut 60%; (c) The histogram for water-cut 70%; (d) The histogram for water-cut 80%; (e) The histogram for water-cut 90%; (f) The histogram for water-cut 100%.
The ANOVA table for EMF No. 1.
| Source of Variation | Sum of Squares (Hz2) | Degrees of Freedom | Variance (Hz2) | F | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression, REG | SSREG: 14,670,981.14 | 1 | 14,670,981.14 | 9138.56 | F0.01: 7.31 |
| Lack of fit, LOF | SSLOF: 28,333.51 | 8 | 3541.69 | 1.02 | F0.01: 2.99 |
| F0.1: 1.83 | |||||
| Pure error, PE | SSPE: 173,091.59 | 50 | 3461.83 | - | - |
| Total | SST: 14,779,584.29 | 59 | - | - | - |
The ANOVA table for EMF No.2.
| Source of Variation | Sum of Squares (Hz2) | Degrees of Freedom | Variance (Hz2) | F | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression, REG | SSREG: 12,182,370.25 | 1 | 12,182,370.25 | 2934.80 | F0.01: 7.31 |
| Lack of fit, LOF | SSLOF: 33,009.10 | 7 | 4715.59 | 1.14 | F0.01: 3.29 |
| F0.1: 1.83 | |||||
| Pure error, PE | SSPE: 186,795.50 | 45 | 4151.01 | - | - |
| Total | SST: 12,402,174.85 | 53 | - | - | - |
The full-scale errors of EMF No. 1.
| Water-Cut | 100% | 90% | 80% | 70% | 60% | 50% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flowrate | |||||||
| 60 m3/d | 0.01% | 0.70% | −1.06% | −1.90% | 0.84% | 1.17% | |
| 55 m3/d | −1.72% | 0.03% | 0.93% | 1.62% | 0.47% | 0.08% | |
| 50 m3/d | 0.27% | 0.94% | 0.93% | 1.33% | 1.57% | 0.79% | |
| 40 m3/d | 1.40% | 4.21% | 4.20% | 3.60% | 3.56% | 3.00% | |
| 30 m3/d | 1.09% | 2.36% | 2.48% | 2.49% | 2.08% | 0.61% | |
| 20 m3/d | −0.03% | 0.79% | 0.92% | 1.13% | −0.14% | −8.72% | |
| 10 m3/d | −0.48% | −0.53% | −1.99% | 0.14% | 1.13% | −6.57% | |
| 5 m3/d | −0.13% | −3.78% | 2.18% | −0.33% | −4.50% | 5.93% | |
| 3 m3/d | −0.62% | −4.91% | −5.03% | 11.84% | 11.98% | −4.35% | |
| 2 m3/d | −0.11% | −2.73% | −6.48% | 18.37% | 19.26% | −40.78% | |
The full-scale errors of EMF No. 2.
| Water-Cut | 100% | 90% | 80% | 70% | 60% | 50% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flowrate | |||||||
| 60 m3/d | −2.87% | −2.56% | −2.44% | −3.08% | −2.27% | −3.86% | |
| 55 m3/d | −3.36% | −2.05% | −1.42% | −1.09% | −1.43% | −4.90% | |
| 50 m3/d | 1.06% | 1.86% | 2.17% | 3.57% | 3.65% | −0.52% | |
| 40 m3/d | 3.24% | 4.29% | 4.10% | −0.73% | −0.66% | −0.44% | |
| 30 m3/d | 3.19% | −0.70% | −0.74% | −0.89% | −1.01% | −1.38% | |
| 20 m3/d | −1.61% | −0.84% | −0.46% | −0.09% | −0.78% | −3.86% | |
| 10 m3/d | −1.12% | −0.67% | −0.28% | −1.55% | −0.50% | −5.48% | |
| 5 m3/d | −0.19% | 0.05% | −0.36% | −0.65% | 2.64% | 1.17% | |
| 2 m3/d | −1.17% | 3.02% | 6.86% | 25.54% | 30.39% | 47.88% | |
The contrast logging results of EMF No. 1 and the turbine flowmeter in the X-** well.
| Test Depth (m) | Perforated Zone | Turbine Flowmeter | No. 1 EMF | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First (m3/d) | Second (m3/d) | Third (m3/d) | First (m3/d) | Second (m3/d) | Third (m3/d) | ||
| 1083.4 | X1 | 34.6 | 34.9 | 34.9 | 52.2 | 52.2 | 52.3 |
| 1095.9 | X2 | 13.9 | 14.1 | 14.0 | 22.5 | 22.5 | 22.2 |
| 1100.7 | X3 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 10.8 | 10.4 | 10.6 |
| 1106.6 | X4 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 5.2 | 5.5 | 5.8 |
| 1180.0 | bore-hole bottom | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The contrast logging results of EMF No. 2 in the Y-** well.
| Test Depth (m) | Perforated Zone | Turbine Flowmeter | No. 2 EMF | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First (m3/d) | Second (m3/d) | Third (m3/d) | First (m3/d) | Second (m3/d) | Third (m3/d) | ||
| 1030.3 | Y1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37.0 | 37.3 | 37.8 |
| 1036.7 | Y2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.7 | 15.5 | 15.1 |
| 1045.2 | Y3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.8 | 10.4 | 10.6 |
| 1055.0 | Y4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.4 | 7.1 | 7.8 |
| 1139.9 | bore-hole bottom | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |