Data processing: measuring – calibrating – or testing – Measurement system in a specific environment – Mechanical measurement system
Reexamination Certificate
2001-09-25
2003-07-08
Barlow, John (Department: 2863)
Data processing: measuring, calibrating, or testing
Measurement system in a specific environment
Mechanical measurement system
C702S046000, C702S047000, C702S050000, C702S051000, C700S281000, C700S282000, C700S301000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06591201
ABSTRACT:
REFERENCE TO FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH
Not applicable
REFERENCE TO A COMPUTER PROGRAM LISTING APPENDIX
A computer program listing appendix is incorporated-by-reference. Programs and data, included on “write-once” Compact Disc-Recordable (CD-R) discs, operate computer equipment that control, collect, interpret, and print Fluid Energy Pulse Test System data. Two identical CD-R discs labeled COPY 1, created Sep. 18, 2001 and COPY 2, created Sep. 18, 2001 each contain machine language code converted to American Standard Code for Information Interchange code. Each disk contains: [Program FEPTS.ASC for data acquisition, May 2, 2000, 157212 bytes], associated [Data FCOLOR.ASC, Sep. 17, 2001, 84 bytes], and associated [Data EPTS.ASC, Sep. 17, 2001, 57 bytes]; and [Program 2CONTROL.ASC for control sequences, Mar. 8, 2001, 153,393 bytes], and associated [Data COLOR.ASC, May 28, 1999, 149 bytes].
FIELD OF INVENTION
The invention disclosed relates to testing fluid control devices, including pressure sensitive gas-lift valves used to produce hydrocarbons from underground formations, as well as to testing other general types of fluid systems, and more specifically, to test equipment and to test methods that use high-pressure, high-fluid-flow-rate energy pulses to identify fluid performance parameters in order to evaluate the dynamic operating properties of such fluid control devices and fluid systems.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The high cost and complexity of dynamic testing and of evaluating the performance of electro-mechanical, pneumatic, and hydraulic fluid control devices have lead to a rich body of teachings with objectives to reduce the test cost and to simplify the performance evaluations for these devices. However, the cost of dynamic testing to evaluate high-pressure, high-fluid-flow-rate [HPHFFR], pressure sensitive fluid control devices remains high. High pressures and high fluid flow rates occur at fluid pressure above 3,549 kPa (500 psig) and fluid flow rate greater than 0.05663 cubic meters per second (two cubic feet per second). HPHFFR tests are commonly conducted at 6,996 kPa (1000 psig) and 0.14158 cubic meters per second (five cubic feet per second). In some industrial process control areas, such as the production of hydrocarbons, only a sample of a manufacturer's production run of HPHFFR fluid control devices in service has been tested to determine if all of the devices in that lot can control fluid flow in accordance with the manufacturer's design parameters. It is well known that dynamic tests should be conducted on all fluid control devices in order to diagnose potential problems prior to their use. If dynamic tests of HPHFFR fluid control devices and fluid systems are not undertaken, diagnosis of problems or potential problems cannot be made.
Limited testing of HPHFFR pressure sensitive fluid control devices is done by device users, manufacturers, and rebuilders. This situation is a direct result of the high cost and technical difficulties associated with the current HPHFFR test environment. Generally, manufacturers' tests only determine if a HPHFFR device opens, closes, or leaks. The limited number of dynamic tests and performance evaluations of HPHFFR devices is especially notable in the petroleum industry in which such devices are used in the production of hydrocarbons from underground formations. Producing hydrocarbons depends upon many types of pressure sensitive devices, including tubing retrievable or wire line retrievable injection pressure operated gas-lift valves [IPO-GLVs] and production pressure operated gas-lift valves [PPO-GLVs]; differential pressure valves; pilot valves; single- and double-check valves; orifice valves; subsurface safety valves; and subsea gas-lift kill valves. The dimensions of these pressure sensitive fluid control devices include gas-lift valves of varying lengths with outside diameters of 1.5875 centimeters (five-eighths inches), 2.54 centimeters (one inch), and 3.81 centimeters (one and one/half inches); and a variety of larger valves, including 8.89 centimeter (three and one-half inch) diameter subsurface safety valves.
These types of valves are essential to the petroleum industry. The economics associated with gas lift have demonstrated that gas lift technology is competitive with, and in most instances initial costs are less and operating costs are lower than, other types of lift technologies for various types of wells, including deep wells; sand producing wells; high gas-liquid ratio wells; very low capacity stripper wells; wells with changing depths of lift; wells with unknown depths of lift; multi-zone well completions; and wells with large tubing. Gas-lift technology may be the only technology that can be used for the production of petroleum and gas from off-shore platforms. Applications include lifting petroleum until a well is depleted, “kicking off” wells that later flow naturally, backflowing water injection and disposal wells, and unloading water from gas wells. Continuous and/or intermittent gas-lift system designs may require many gas-lift valves, for example, twelve valves in a single well.
Historically, the principal reason for the lack of testing and evaluation is the high cost and complexity of test facilities and equipment. Conventional test systems focus upon continuous (also called, steady state or average), fluid flow rate measurement technology. This test technology generates steady state flow data, but requires extensive resources to build and to operate HPHFFR test facilities. As a result, testing pressure sensitive fluid control devices with continuous flow test technology is very expensive.
Previous investigators have approached the problems of testing fluid control devices dynamically in a number of ways, several of which are briefly discussed. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,616,824 to Abdel-Malek et. al. (1997), teaches a valve diagnostic system for installed electromechanical control valves. The system identifies and compares to file data, a time-signature of valve operation to detect or predict potential valve failure. U.S. Pat. No. 5,524,484 to Sullivan (1996), teaches a diagnostic system for solenoid valves that are installed in line and which are in service. U.S. Pat. No. 5,329,956 to Marriott (1994), teaches a method of time signature analysis for electrically actuated, pneumatically controlled valves. U.S. Pat. No. 5,197,328 to Fitzgerald (1993), teaches a diagnostic method for pneumatically operated control valves. U.S. Pat. No. 5,272,647 to Hayes (1993), teaches a portable device that perturbs a valve actuator and monitors valve stem displacement, actuator pressure, and other valve parameters for steady state flow conditions. U.S. Pat. No. 4,903,529 to Hodge (1990), teaches a method and apparatus to analyze a hydraulic control valve and actuator assembly during plant shut-down periods. U.S. Pat. No. 4,893,494 to Hart (1990), teaches a method to evaluate safety valves removed from an installation by using either pneumatic or hydraulic fluids. U.S. Pat. No. 4,464,931 to Hendrick (1984), addresses steady state dynamic valve testing with an apparatus that checks a valve calibration (closing) pressure, checks valve closing integrity, and checks valve flow rate at a pressure greater than the valve calibration pressure.
The concept of a pressure pulse is derived from unsteady fluid flow and the propagation of large amplitude nonlinear waves, from which shock waves can be generated as a result of the physical attributes of non-steady-state fluid flow. An initially continuous waveform that advances into a uniform, stationary fluid is termed a pressure pulse. Pressure pulses are referenced in U.S. Pat. No. 4,549,715 to Engel (1985), which teaches an apparatus to generate gaseous pressure pulses to rapidly open an exhaust path to create a high volume, low pressure pulse. U.S. Pat. No. 4,686,658 to Davison (1987), teaches an apparatus and method for actuating a valve for imparting pressure pulses in a pressur
Barlow John
Walling Meagan S.
LandOfFree
Fluid energy pulse test system does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Fluid energy pulse test system, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Fluid energy pulse test system will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3066415