A Dynamic Plunger Lift Model
for Gas Wells
Sandro Gasbarri, SPE, and Michael L. Wiggins, SPE, U. of Oklahoma
Summary
Many low-volume gas wells produce at suboptimum rates because
of liquid loading caused by an accumulation of liquids in the well-
bore that creates additional backpressure on the reservoir and
reduces production. Plunger lift is an artificial lift method which
can use reservoir energy to remove these accumulated liquids
from the wellbore and improve production. Lacking a thorough
understanding of plunger lift systems leads to disappointing
results in many applications. This study develops a plunger lift
model that couples the dynamic nature of the mechanical plunger
lift system with the reservoir performance. The model takes
advantage of previous work and incorporates frictional effects of
the liquid slug and the expanding gas above and below the
plunger. The model considers separator and flowline effects and
includes modeling of transient production behavior after the liquid
slug has arrived at the surface. An improved understanding of
plunger lift dynamics can lead to improved efficiency, increased
production and recovery, and extended well life.
Introduction
A free piston or plunger traveling up and down the tubing has been
used for different applications in oil and gas production for decades.
The most widespread use is in conventional plunger lift. This
method is an artificial lift technique characterized by the use of
reservoir energy stored in the gas phase to lift fluids to the surface.
Fig. 1 is a schematic of a typical plunger lift installation. The
plunger acts as an interface between the liquid slug and the gas
which helps reduce the characteristic ballistic-shape flow pattern
of the higher velocity gas phase breaking through the liquid phase
during production.
With appropriate installation and well-production characteristics,
gas produced by the reservoir is stored primarily in the tubing-
casing annulus while a liquid slug is accumulated in the tubing.
During this condition, called the buildup stage, the flowline valve
at the surface is closed with some gas also accumulated in the
tubing above the liquid slug. After a time, when the casing pressure
at the wellhead is believed to be adequate, the flowline valve opens
and production begins. Gas at the top of the liquid slug expands
and the plunger, along with the accumulated liquid, begins traveling
up the tubing in a period called the upstroke stage. Gas stored in
the tubing-casing annulus expands and provides the energy
required to lift the liquid slug. As the plunger approaches the surface,
the liquid slug is produced into the flowline.
In some cases, especially for gas wells, additional production
after the plunger has surfaced is appropriate, increasing the flow-
ing time for each cycle. Such a period is called afterflow in oil
wells and blowdown in gas wells. After this period of flow, the
flowline is closed, the buildup stage starts again, and the plunger
falls to the bottom of the well starting a new cycle.
Using the plunger as a solid interface between the expanding
gas in the annulus and the liquid slug helps prevent gas breaking
through the slug and decreases liquid fallback. Liquid fallback is
undesirable because it represents volume loss from the original
liquid slug during each cycle. The additional liquid increases the
bottomhole flowing pressure and, hence, decreases production.
Copyright © 2001 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 72057) was revised for publication from paper SPE 37422 first presented
at the 1997 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 9–11
March. Original manuscript received for review 4 April 1997. Revised manuscript received
28 November 2000. Paper peer approved 8 January 2001.
May 2001 SPE Production & Facilities
In general, plunger lift installations are used to produce high
gas-liquid ratio (GLR) oil wells or for unloading liquids in gas
wells. Major advantages over other artificial lift methods for lifting
liquids, such as sucker rod pump installations, are the relatively
small investment and reasonable operating costs. Limitations
include having a sufficient GLR to supply the energy for lifting
liquids from the wellbore, and sand-production problems. The main
disadvantages of plunger lift systems, however, are the complexity
of the lifting process and a lack of understanding of optimizing and
troubleshooting the lift method.
Several authors have addressed the modeling of plunger lift
installations. Static models have been proposed and are accepted
widely for design due to their simplicity.1–3 Dynamic models also
have been published to describe the phenomena of a plunger lift
cycle.4–10 Accuracy of the dynamic models does not always out-
weigh the time and data required for designing and analyzing
plunger lift system performance.
The dynamic model developed in this paper overcomes some of
the assumptions used in previous models. It includes reservoir per-
formance, gas expansion with friction effects, and the transient
behavior of the gas above the slug when the surface valve is
opened. It also incorporates a blowdown or afterflow period for
production after the liquid slug surfaces. The upstroke modeling
includes a transition phase that accounts for the production of the
slug to the flowline.
Plunger Lift Model
Fundamental conservation equations were used to derive the model,
which analyzes the dynamics of the plunger lift system using proper-
ties in multiple control volumes, one next to the other, including the
flowline, tubing, and annulus. The model is divided into upstroke,
blowdown, buildup, and reservoir performance components.
The upstroke component separates the dynamics of the plunger
and liquid upstroke from the boundary conditions given by the gas
system above the slug and the gas system behind the plunger. The
blowdown component produces the slug to the separator and
accounts for additional gas production after the plunger surfaces.
The buildup component describes the increase in system pressure,
the accumulation of fluids (liquids and vapors) in the system during
shut-in, and accounts for the downstroke behavior of the plunger.
Finally, the reservoir performance component describes the influx
of fluids into the wellbore throughout the plunger cycle.
Upstroke Component. To model the dynamics of the system during
the upstroke, three different elements are used. Fig. 2 is a schematic
of the system being modeled. The liquid slug traveling from the
bottom of the well to the surface is analyzed as a separate element
with given boundary conditions consisting of the pressures at the
top of the slug and at the bottom of the plunger which are deter-
mined in the second and third elements. The pressure at the top of
the slug is obtained by analyzing the gas expansion above the slug
when the valve is opened. The pressure at the bottom of the plunger
is determined by analyzing the gas expansion in the tubing below
the plunger and in the tubing-casing annulus.
Plunger and Liquid Slug Dynamics. For the liquid slug travel-
ing through the tubing, a control volume occupied by the liquid
contained in the slug with average properties is used. As Lea4 orig-
inally did in his work, the equation of momentum is applied for a
single-phase liquid, assuming the liquid density is constant. If no
liquid is gained or lost from the control volume shown in Fig. 3,
the equation of momentum can be solved for the acceleration of the
slug in the tubing.
89
 Flowline
Separator
Lubricator

Valve Controller
Gas Expansion Above the Liquid Slug

Full Bore Plunger and Liquid Slug

To Flowline Master Valve Well

Gas Expansion Behind the Plunger

Motor Valve

Liquid Slug

Plunger New Liquid Slug

Bumper Spring Reservoir

Tubing Stop
Fig. 2—Schematic of the three elements in the upstroke component.

é

2
Reservoir f L ρ | v |2 f L ρ | v |2 æ A ö
at = ê p1 − p3 − t t l l ,t − L L l l , L ç t ÷
ê 2d t g c 2d L g c è AL ø
ë
kρl vl ,t wù æ ml ,t ml , L At ö
2

− − ú çç A + A 2 ÷÷ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
2g At úû è t L ø
Fig. 1—Schematic of a conventional plunger lift installation.
where k=an empirical coefficient of friction in the flow tee.

Depending on the location, Eq. 1 or 4 is used for calculating the
f L ρ | v |2
p1 At − p2 At − t t l l ,t At − w instantaneous acceleration of the plunger and liquid slug. The
2d t g c instantaneous velocity and distance traveled can be estimated from
at = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
ml ,t

This equation applies for the vertical direction while the liquid slug p 2 At
is still in the tubing.
When the top of the liquid slug arrives at the surface, the mass,
weight, and length of the vertical control volume begin to decrease
because of fluid moving into the flowline as shown in Fig. 4.
Solving the equation of momentum for the wellhead pressure yields

1
p2 =p1 −
At
åv
cs
ρ u At
l ,t l l ,t
Slug


m a f L ρ | v |2 w
− l ,t t − t t l l ,t − . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
At 2d t g c At

ml,t at
w
At this stage, the liquid mass in the flowline starts to increase as the
liquid slug surfaces. The equation of momentum, applied to the
pfrict At
control volume in the flowline shown in Fig. 5, also can be solved
for the wellhead pressure.

1
p2 =p3 +
AL
åv
cs
ρ ul , L AL
l ,L l

ml , L aL f L LLρl | vl , L |2
+
AL
+
2d L g c
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) Plunger
As the slug and plunger surface, the liquid mass and length of
a control volume in the flowline begin to increase. Applying the
continuity equation with constant density for the surfacing liquid
slug obtains relations for the parameters between the control volume
in the tubing and the control volume in the flowline. Using these
relations, solving Eqs. 2 and 3 simultaneously, and including the
friction effects created by the fluid passing through the flow tee at p1 At
the wellhead yields an equation for the acceleration of the liquid
slug in the tubing when the slug is surfacing. Fig. 3—Control volume of the liquid slug and plunger in the tubing.

90 May 2001 SPE Production & Facilities

 p 2 At v t ρVt At and pressure for each control volume at a given timestep. Fig. 6
depicts the use of multiple control volumes to conserve mass and
perform the calculations. The gas velocity is assumed to be lower
than the local sonic velocity so no shock waves occur in the system.
By integrating the momentum equation for a control volume in
the vertical direction over a small time increment and assuming
the acceleration term is negligible compared to the body and sur-
face forces, the velocity of the gas at the boundary between two
Open Boundary consecutive control volumes can be determined. The resulting
relationship is
Slug
2dg c ∆p
vg =
w f ∆hρg
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)

p frict At For flow in the vertical direction, the pressure differential

mt a t between control volumes can be estimated from

p j +1
∆p = − pj , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
æ M γ ∆h ö
exp ç air g ÷
è zRT ø
Plunger and the density can be determined from the equation of state for a
real gas,

Mg p
ρg = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
zRT
To analyze the system, the continuity equation for a control
volume is integrated over a small increment of time. The equation
p1 At for averaging the properties for both open control surfaces can be
written as
Fig. 4—Control volume of the liquid slug and plunger in the tub-
ing when surfacing. mgn +, j1 = mgn , j + (m g , j +1/ 2 − m g , j −1/ 2 )∆t , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)

a discretization of the equations of motion. Implementing a backward where

difference formulation for convenience, Eq. 5 is used for calculating
the time, dt, required to travel a predefined distance, dx. m g , j = ρg , j vg , j Aj , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)

(v ) and the pressure in the control volume for a given time is

2
−vln,t−1 + n −1
l ,t + 4at dx
dt = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
2at
Solving the momentum equation for the timestep determines
the time when the slug arrives at the wellhead to switch equations.
The distance can be adjusted systematically depending on the mag-
nitude of the acceleration. Because the friction factor depends on
the instantaneous velocity, trial and error have to be used for each
step to obtain the corresponding value.
Gas Expansion Above the Liquid Slug. At the end of the
buildup stage, the valve at the flowline opens. Pressure at the
wellhead is considerably higher than the pressure at the flowline,
which is assumed to be the separator pressure. This high pressure
differential results in high instantaneous gas flow rates within the
wellhead location. Pressure in the flowline increases while pressure
in the tubing decreases. After a period of time, the pressure at the
top of the liquid slug decreases so the slug starts to move. This
gas-expansion phenomenon is analyzed by using multiple control
volumes with gas properties determined at the local temperature
mgn , j zRT j
p nj = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
VjM g
Particular boundary conditions apply above the liquid slug
where it is assumed no gas influx occurs and at the end of the
flowline where there is no mass accumulation. Special control
volumes must be created to account for these conditions.
For a given time interval, Eq. 10 is used to calculate the instanta-
neous mass flow rate between each control volume. The pressure in
each control volume is calculated with Eq. 11. Values are determined
for each timestep and control volume from the separator to the well-
head and down the tubing to the top of the liquid slug. The condi-
tions calculated are used as initial conditions for the next timestep
until the required time is obtained. The length of each control vol-
ume is distributed along the system such that they are shorter close
to the wellhead, where high flow rates occur. Gas temperature is
assumed to follow a linear gradient. Properties like gas viscosity, gas

mt aL
p2 AL
p3 AL Slug Open Boundary
v L ρV L A L
pfrict AL
Fig. 5—Control volume of the liquid slug in the flowline when surfacing.

May 2001 SPE Production & Facilities 91

 åmi
n +1
g ,i + å mgn +, j1 = å mgn ,i + å mgn , j + mgn ,in
j i j
. . . . . . . . . . . . (12)

where the subscript j=control volumes in the tubing, subscript

i=control volumes in the tubing-casing annulus, and the subscript
p j– 1 in=influx from the reservoir.
Analysis of the pressure below the plunger assumes that liquid
vj – 1 2 produced accumulates at the bottom of the tubing; friction forces in
the new liquid slug being accumulated are negligible; no liquid is
carried out by the gas; friction forces in the annulus are negligible;
pj instantaneous gas-mass flow rate is the same throughout the tubing;
and the equation of state for real gas applies.
v j +1 Under these assumptions, the following relationships can be
2
developed for the system. For the control volumes in the tubing-
pj +1 casing annulus,

pin +1
pin++11 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
æ M γ ∆h ö
exp ç air g i +1/ 2 ÷
z RT
è i +1/ 2 i +1/ 2 ø

Fig. 6—Characteristic control volumes for calculating the pres-
sure at the top of the slug.
deviation factor, and density are calculated at the local temperature
and pressure of each control volume at each timestep.
Gas Expansion Behind the Plunger. During the upstroke stage,
the energy required to carry the liquid slug to the surface is supplied
by the pressure below the plunger resulting from the expansion of
the gas originally in the tubing-casing annulus. While the slug is
moving to the surface, fluids are produced from the reservoir. The gas
being produced and that expanding in the annulus help maintain the
pressure in the system while the liquid tends to decrease the pressure.
By dividing the tubing-casing annulus volume into small control
volumes as shown in Fig. 7 and including the gas production from
the reservoir, the continuity equation can be written as
pin++11Vi +1M g
and mgn +,i1+1 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
zi +1RTi +1
The pressure at the lower boundary of the first control volume in
the tubing-casing annulus is the flowing bottomhole pressure.
At the lower boundary in the tubing, one must consider the liquid
column accumulating due to mass influx. Under these conditions,
the pressure becomes
p nj +1 = pwf
n +1
− ρl ghln +1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
The velocity to account for gas-friction forces is obtained from
the gas-mass flow rate through the tubing. The properties for cal-
culating the velocity and the friction factor for the different control
volumes are obtained at local conditions of pressure and tempera-
ture for each control volume. The gas-mass flow rate includes both

i=N

Plunger
pj=M+ 1 2
i +1 j =M

∆ hi
i

j+1

∆h j j

j=1
pj= 1
i =1 hL 2
pwf
pwf
Tubing-Casing Annulus Tubing
Fig. 7—Characteristic control volumes for calculating the pressure behind the plunger.

92 May 2001 SPE Production & Facilities

the mass coming from the reservoir and the mass coming from the
annulus and is calculated as the total mass difference in the tubing
between two consecutive timesteps.
åm n +1
g, j − å mgn , j
m g , j = j j
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
dt n
Equations for the control volumes in the tubing containing gas become
p nj +1
p nj++11 =
æ M γ ∆h ö
exp ç air g j +1/ 2 ÷
ç z j +1/ 2 RT j +1/ 2 ÷
è ø
f j +1/ 2 ∆h j +1/ 2ρ g , j +1/ 2vg2 , j +1/ 2
− ,
2d t g c
p nj++11V j +1M g
and mgn +, j1+1 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
z j +1RT j +1
Special conditions apply at the first control volume in the tubing
and for the control volume bordering the plunger.
A flowing bottomhole pressure for the next timestep is assumed for
calculating the gas mass contained in the system with Eqs. 13–18. The
equation of continuity for the total system, Eq. 12, is checked then by
trial and error. The pressure at the bottom of the plunger can be deter-
mined with Eq. 17 considering the upper half of the last control volume.
Gas Blowdown Component. The gas blowdown stage occurs
after the liquid slug above the plunger has surfaced and the plunger
has arrived at the wellhead. The wellhead valve remains open for a
given period of time called blowdown. At the beginning of this
period, liquid produced from the slug is in the flowline and the
instantaneous liquid flow rate increases because the liquid slug
weight is no longer a force involved in the dynamics.
From the equation of motion for single-phase liquid flow, and
using the same assumptions made for analyzing the upstroke stage,
the equation for the instantaneous acceleration of the slug in the
flowline is obtained.


f L LLρl | vl , L |2
p2 AL − p3 AL − AL
2d L g c
aL = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
ml , L
Eq. 5 from the upstroke model can be applied to calculate the
instantaneous slug velocity in the flowline. The slug is assumed to
fill the cross-sectional area of the flowline while its length is con-
stant throughout its path until it reaches the separator. The same
model for gas expansion behind the slug described for the upstroke
model is used for the blowdown stage with isothermal expansion
in one additional control volume for the flowline.
If the slug arrives at the separator and the blowdown stage has
not finished, the well continues producing to the separator. In this
case, the gas-mass flow rate equation (Eq. 16) has a new term
representing the gas production leaving the total system.
åm n +1
g, j − å mgn , j − mg ,out
m g , j = j j
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)
dt n
The mass produced to the separator can be calculated as
mg ,out = m g , j dt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
The gas-mass flow rate increases suddenly until the friction
forces in the tubing and flowline along with the losses in the outlet
of the separator are overcome. To account for this phenomenon, the
pressure at the end of the flowline for the blowdown model is cal-
culated numerically by modifying the mass going to the separator
May 2001 SPE Production & Facilities
through time. This is accomplished by matching the separator pres-
sure plus the losses in the outlet with the pressure at the end of the
flowline calculated by the model.
The blowdown stage stops when either the predetermined
blowdown time or minimum tubing pressure is reached.
Buildup Component. The buildup stage occurs after the wellhead
valve is closed and the plunger starts to fall. A method similar to the
“gas expansion behind the plunger” of the upstroke component is
used for this purpose. In this case, the bottomhole flowing pressure
increases with time. It is assumed no friction occurs in any phase.
A bottomhole flowing pressure for the next timestep is
assumed for calculating the gas mass contained in the system with
Eqs. 13–18 using zero gas velocity. Then, by trial and error, the
equation of continuity for the total system is checked. The buildup
stage stops when either the preset buildup time or maximum casing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
pressure is reached.
The plunger downstroke also is analyzed to verify the plunger
arrives at the bottom before the buildup stage ends and the well-
head valve opens. The velocity of the plunger is assumed to be
1,000 ft/min while in the gas phase and 172 ft/min in the liquid.
These constant values3 have been widely accepted; however, these
values may be adjusted in the model to represent observed field
conditions. A method for determining the downstroke behavior of
the plunger falling to bottom should be investigated.
Reservoir Performance Component. During all stages, the
reservoir is producing depending on the instantaneous bottom-
hole pressure. The Rawlings and Schellhardt11 model is chosen to
describe the inflow performance relationship (IPR) of a gas well.
( ).
n
qg = C pR − pwf
2 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
It is assumed that over small increments of time the transient
behavior of the flow can be represented by a series of stabilized
flows. The deliverability coefficient, C, and exponent, n, are esti-
mated from a representative deliverability test.
The liquid production can be calculated using the gas flow rate
assuming the gas-liquid ratio of the producing well remains con-
stant. The liquid volume accumulated at the bottom of the well and
the gas mass that has entered the wellbore during the period of
time, dt, can be estimated, respectively, using
Vl ,in = ql dt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
and mg ,in = qg ρg , sc dt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
For each stage during the plunger cycle, Eqs. 22 to 24 are used to deter-
mine the instantaneous flow rates and influx of fluids to the system.
Model Implementation
A computer program was written in FORTRAN to implement the
dynamic model described in the previous section. With approxi-
mated initial flowing bottomhole pressure and slug size, the
dynamic analysis begins with the buildup component until one of
the parameters, time or maximum casing pressure, used for
buildup control is obtained. The final buildup values of bottom-
hole pressure and slug size are used as initial conditions for the
upstroke model.
After analyzing the upstroke stage, and if the plunger arrives at the
wellhead, the blowdown component continues until the blowdown
time or minimum tubing pressure is reached. Then, the buildup stage
starts again with initial conditions given by those at the end of the
blowdown stage. The program iterates to a solution based upon the
convergence of the conditions for the various components. The
program checks for undesired conditions during the simulation, such
as the well died, the plunger did not reach bottom during buildup, or
the plunger did not arrive at the surface during the upstroke.
Model Validation. The upstroke model described in this work dif-
fers basically from other models in two ways. First, in this model
93
 300 8,000 0

7,000 -1,000
250
-2,000
6,000

Flow rate, Mscf/D

200 -3,000
Pressure, psi
5,000

Depth, ft
-4,000
150 4,000
-5,000
3,000
100 -6,000
2,000
-7,000
50 Wellhead Pressure
1,000
Top Slug Pressure -8,000
Gas Flowrate 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
0 0 -9,000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time, seconds Instantaneous Velocity, ft/min

Fig. 8—Simulated behavior with gas expansion at the top of the Fig. 9—Comparison of simulated velocity with Lea’s4 model
slug using Lea’s4 example well data. determinations for a one barrel liquid slug.

the pressure at the top of the slug is dependent not only on gravity
but also on the transient friction effects in the tubing and flowline
when the surface valve is opened. Second, gas and liquid production
from the reservoir is accounted for during the entire plunger cycle.
An example 8,000-ft well with a 1-bbl liquid slug reaching
1,000 ft/min surfacing velocity was used to analyze the transient
pressure at the top of the slug. Well characteristics used for this
example were taken from Lea.4 Fig. 8 shows the simulated behavior
of the gas expansion at the top of the slug. The plot includes the
surface gas flow rate at standard conditions. As can be seen, the
flow rate increases rapidly until it reaches a maximum value, then
it decreases slowly while the tubing is blown down. Although there
are no data for comparing this result, the behavior of the system
appears reasonable.
Fig. 9 shows the velocity profile of three different slug-surfacing
velocities with a 1-bbl liquid slug analyzed by Lea.4 It shows the
effect of the transient gas pressure at the top of the slug on the
upstroke stage. The profile is compared to the same cases when the
option neglecting this effect is chosen. When the valve opens, the
velocity of the plunger does not increase as drastically as assumed
in previous models. Indeed, it increases somewhat slowly while
friction effects of the gas flow above the slug are considerable, 5 to
50% of the depth in this example. When the frictional effect
becomes negligible, the upstroke-velocity profiles coincide with
TABLE 1—BARUZZI10 FIELD DATA AND
MODEL PREDICTIONS
Field Model
Data Case 1
Gas production rate, Mscf/D
Liquid production rate, STB/D 46.5
Minimum casing pressure, psi 303
Maximum casing pressure, psi
Minimum tubing pressure, psi 303
Maximum tubing pressure, psi 342
Cycles per day 95.3
Average upstroke velocity, ft/min 1,341
Slug surfacing velocity, ft/min
Slug surfacing arrival time, sec 128
Plunger surfacing arrival time, sec 171
Slug size, ft
Blowdown time, sec 54
Blowdown wellhead pressure, psi
Buildup time, sec 682
Buildup casing pressure, psi 366
the profiles neglecting friction. This frictional effect causes the
average upstroke velocity of the plunger and liquid slug to be less
than anticipated when friction is ignored.
The other main difference of this model compared to the pre-
vious ones is the analysis of the upstroke when the slug is sur-
facing. During this period, the length of the slug in the tubing
decreases which results in decreased frictional effects and liquid
slug weight in the tubing. The mass of liquid in the system is the
same but two new forces, the friction in the wellhead and in the
flowline, affect the system. In addition, the force component in the
direction of flow due to the weight decreases as the flow becomes
horizontal. When the slug is surfacing, these factors usually result
in an acceleration of the plunger and the liquid in the tubing as
shown in Fig. 9. Recall though, the velocity of the liquid in the
flowline is related to the velocity of the liquid in the tubing by a
ratio of the corresponding areas.
For the case with high surfacing velocities there is a sudden
reduction in velocity just when the slug arrives at the surface. This
is because of substantial friction losses at the tee in the wellhead.
Field Comparison
An actual field case was used to test the performance of the dynamic
model. Data consist of well characteristics, production information,
and wellhead pressures for a complete cycle from a field case pub-
lished by Baruzzi.10
Table 1 shows results from the dynamic model used to simulate
the plunger lift cycle. The buildup stage was set to obtain a maxi-
mum casing pressure of 366 psi, as reported. Table 1 presents
model results for two cases. Case 1 represents a blowdown time of
Model 54 seconds, corresponding to the actual well. Case 2 corresponds
Case 2 to a blowdown time of 15 seconds, which was used to match the
250 245 minimum observed casing pressure.
Three main differences with respect to the real data can be
47.0 46.0
observed. The average upstroke velocity is higher; the minimum cas-
265 302 ing pressure is lower; and the elapsed time for the buildup is higher.
366 367 However, the model describes the observed data reasonably well.
70 70 Figs. 10 and 11 are the profiles of the tubing and casing pres-
sures from Case 1 compared to the field data. The time scale starts
311 332
at the beginning of the buildup stage. Owing to the shorter period of
67.3 101 time of buildup in the real well, the field data points were shifted on
1,910 2,415 the time scale to correlate with the model results.
1,834 2,388 At the end of the buildup stage, when the valve opens, the tubing
pressure decreases rapidly and the casing pressure decreases slowly
116 93 while the gas at the top of the slug and behind the plunger expands.
121 95 After a short period of time, the tubing pressure reaches the sepa-
181 117 rator pressure. When the slug arrives at the wellhead and while it is
being produced to the flowline, the tubing pressure increases. Then,
54 15
the blowdown stage begins and the tubing pressure starts to decrease
142 226 again while the slug is carried out through the flowline. For this
1,078 697 example, a change in the slope of the modeled tubing pressure
366 366 occurs after a short period of blowdown, probably caused by the
higher gas flow rate when the slug reaches the separator. For this

94 May 2001 SPE Production & Facilities

 400 400

350 350

Casing Pressure, psi

Tubing Pressure, psi 300 300

250 250

200 200

150 150

100 100
Model Prediction Model Prediction
50 Field Data 50 Field Data

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, seconds Time, seconds

Fig. 10—Comparison of predicted tubing pressures for Case 1 Fig. 11—Comparison of predicted casing pressures for Case 1
to Baruzzi’s10 field data. to Baruzzi’s10 field data.

field case, the model does an adequate job of reproducing the actual Nomenclature
performance of the plunger lift cycle. a = acceleration of the control volume, L/t2
The slope of the casing pressure during buildup is somewhat A = cross-sectional area, L2
higher than the slope of the tubing pressure resulting from liquid
C = deliverability coefficient, L3+2nt 4n-1/m2n
accumulation in the tubing. The assumption made in the model
about liquid only accumulating in the tubing holds as long as the d = pipe diameter, L
slope of the modeled tubing pressure is positive during buildup. The f = friction factor, dimensionless
increasing tubing pressure during this stage means that gas is being g = acceleration due to gravity, L/t2
stored above the liquid slug in the tubing. The difference in the g c = conversion constant, dimensionless
slopes between the casing and tubing pressures indicates a higher h = height, L
fluid level in the tubing than the tubing-casing annulus. Based on k = frictional loss coefficient, dimensionless
matching this field data, the model appears to represent the distri- L = length of liquid slug, L
bution of fluids between the tubing and tubing-casing annulus. m = mass, m
Fig. 12 shows a profile of the plunger velocity and position sim- M = molecular weight, m
ulated by the plunger lift model for this example. The time scale
Mair = molecular weight of air, m, 28.97 m/m-mol
starts at the beginning of the buildup stage. Note the downstroke
occurs during buildup, where the plunger velocity is assumed to be n = deliverability exponent, dimensionless
1,000 ft/min through gas and 172 ft/min through liquid. p = pressure, m/Lt2
pR = reservoir pressure, m/Lt2
Conclusions pwf = bottomhole flowing pressure, m/Lt2
A dynamic model to describe plunger lift performance in gas wells p1 = pressure below the plunger, m/Lt2
has been proposed. The model overcomes several assumptions used p2 = pressure at the top of the liquid slug in tubing, m/Lt2
in previous models devised for plunger lift applications in oil and p3 = pressure at the front of the liquid slug in flowline, m/Lt2
gas wells. Upstroke modeling includes the transient behavior of the q = flow rate, L3/t
gas at the top of the slug when the tubing valve is opened and adopts R = universal gas constant, mL2/t2T
a transition stage to account for the production of the slug to the
t = time, t
flowline. It also incorporates a blowdown period usually required in
gas wells. In addition, the model couples the dynamics of the T = temperature, T
mechanical plunger with the performance of the reservoir. u = velocity referenced to the control volume, L/t
Complete details regarding the model are included in Ref. 12. v = velocity, L/t
1. The proposed model was implemented in a computer program V = volume, L3
and tested using the example well of Lea4 and the field case
well of Baruzzi.10 The model was able to replicate the results
of Lea and match the field data of Baruzzi with reasonable 5,000 0
engineering accuracy. Velocity -500
2. The model allows the study of plunger lift systems and can be 4,000 Position
Plunger Velocity, ft/min

a useful tool for system design and analysis. It can be used to -1000
Plunger Location, ft

develop an optimization strategy for plunger lift installations. 3,000

3. The transient behavior of the gas expansion at the top of the -1500
slug when the tubing valve is opened creates substantial effects 2,000 -2000
in plunger velocity for gas wells based on comparisons with
Lea’s work. 1,000 -2500
4. Accuracy in modeling the blowdown stage for plunger lift sys-
tems is essential because it directly influences the casing pressure, -3000
0
slug size, and upstroke velocity as indicated in model results. -3500
Several aspects of modeling plunger lift performance require
-1,000
further study. One is fluid by-passing the plunger as it moves up the 600 -4000
0 200 400 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
tubing including liquid fallback from the slug and gas slippage past
-2,000 -4500
the plunger. Another is the velocity of the plunger as it falls to the Time, seconds
bottom of the tubing after the well has been shut in. Incorporating
these phenomena should improve the utility of the model. Fig. 12—Simulated plunger velocity and position for Case 1.

May 2001 SPE Production & Facilities 95

 w= weight of liquid slug and plunger, mL/t2 7. Avery, D.J.: “Optimization of Plunger Lift Systems for Solution
z= gas deviation factor, dimensionless Gas Drive Reservoirs,” MS Thesis, U. of Oklahoma, Norman,
Oklahoma (1988).
g= specific gravity, dimensionless
8. Marcano, L. and Chacín, J.: “Mechanistic Design of Conventional
r= density, m/L3
Plunger Lift Installations,” paper SPE 23682 presented at the 1992 SPE
m= viscosity, m/Lt Second Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas,
8–11 March.
Subscripts
9. Hernandez, A. et al.: “Liquid Fall-Back Measurements in
g = gas Intermittent Gas Lift With Plunger,” paper SPE 26556 presented at
i = control volume index for tubing-casing annulus the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
in = influx from reservoir Houston, 3–6 October.
j = control volume index for tubing and flowline 10. Baruzzi, J.O.A. and Alhanati, F.J.S.: “Optimum Plunger Lift
L = flowline Operation,” paper SPE 29455 presented at the 1995 SPE Production
l = liquid Operation Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2–4 April.
out = outflow to separator 11. Rawlings, E.L. and Schellhardt, M.A.: Back-Pressure Data on Natural
sc = standard conditions Gas Wells and their Application to Production Practices, USBM
(1937) 7.
T = total
12. Gasbarri, S.: “Development of a Plunger Lift Model for Gas Wells,”
t = Tubing
MS thesis, U. of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma (1996).
Superscripts
n = timestep index SI Metric Conversion Factor
Acknowledgments bbl ´ 1.589 873 E - 01 = m3
ft ´ 3.048* E - 01 = m
The authors thank the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of
Science and Technology (AR5-018), Intevep S.A., and Sandia ft3 ´ 2.831 685 E - 02 = m3
Natl. Laboratories (AP-9357) for financial support of this psi ´ 6.894 757 E + 03 = Pa
research and the participants in the U. of Oklahoma Plunger Lift *Conversion factor is exact. SPEPF
Research Program.

References Sandro Gasbarri is an associate professional research engineer

1. Foss, D.L. and Gaul, R.B.: “Plunger lift Performance Criteria with
Operating Experience—Ventura Avenue Field,” Drilling and
Production Practice, API (1965) 124.
2. Hacksma, J.D.: “Users Guide to Predict Plunger Lift Performance,”
Proc., Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Texas (1972).
3. Abercrombie, B.: “Plunger Lift,” Technology of Artificial Lift Methods,
Vol. 2b, K.E. Brown (ed.), PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa, Oklahoma
(1980) 483.
4. Lea, J.F.: “Dynamic Analysis of Plunger Lift Operations,” JPT,
(November 1982) 2617; Trans., AIME, 273.
5. Rosina, L.: “A Study of Plunger Lift Dynamics,” MS thesis, U. of
Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1983).
6. Mower, L.N. et al.: “Defining the Characteristics and Performance of
Gas-Lift Plungers,” paper SPE 14344 presented at the 1985 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada,
22–25 September.
for PDVSA Intevep in Los Teques, Venezuela. e-mail: gasbarris@
pdvsa.com. Employed by Intevep since 1989, he has worked
primarily in the areas of production engineering and artificial
lift. Gasbarri holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering
from U. of Zulia in Maracaibo and received an MS degree in
petroleum engineering from the U. of Oklahoma in 1997.
Michael L. Wiggins is an associate professor of petroleum
and geological engineering at the U. of Oklahoma. e-mail:
mwiggins@ou.edu. He has industry experience with major and
independent E&P companies. Wiggins’ technical interests
include production operations, artificial lift, well performance,
production optimization, and reservoir management. He holds
BS, MEng, and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from
Texas A&M U. Wiggins currently serves on the SPE Editorial
Review Committee. A member of the SPE Production and
Operations Symposium Program Committee since 1992, he
also served as a member of the SPE Engineering Registration
Committee from 1996–99.

96 May 2001 SPE Production & Facilities