mud pump from factory free sample

The 2,200-hp mud pump for offshore applications is a single-acting reciprocating triplex mud pump designed for high fluid flow rates, even at low operating speeds, and with a long stroke design. These features reduce the number of load reversals in critical components and increase the life of fluid end parts.

The pump’s critical components are strategically placed to make maintenance and inspection far easier and safer. The two-piece, quick-release piston rod lets you remove the piston without disturbing the liner, minimizing downtime when you’re replacing fluid parts.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

The “pond” is actually a man made dam which covers an area of about 40ha and has rockfill embankments of up to 53m high along the southern side that forms the impoundment.  It initially constructed in 1959 to act as a tailings pond to take the bauxite residue (red mud) from the Ewarton Plant situated about 5km away and 300m lower.  The red mud was pumped as a slurry comprising about 20% solids to the pond over a period of about 32 years up to 1991 when the pond was replaced by the Charlemount Mud Stacking and Drying Facility.  During this period the pond embankments (referred to as dams), were raised up to 7 times providing a final crest elevation of 472m.  The pond was however never filled to its final design capacity and the mud beach level remained at about 469m and the central area about 458m leaving a concave depression which held about 1.4mil m3 of water with elevated pH and some caustic content.

The remediation plan for the pond includes the removal of the ponded water and then the regrading of the mud surface to be free draining so that it can be stabilised and vegetated.  About 500,000 m3 of mud will need to be moved over a distance of up to 1km in order to create the required profile.  Due to the very soft nature of the surface muds (shear strength of less than 3kPa) its bearing capacity is less than 20kPa hence it is not accessible using even modified earthworks equipment.  In addition, the muds are thyrotrophic and under any vibration or shear loading, rapidly liquefy resulting in significant reduction in shear strength and loss of bearing capacity.  Using conventional earthmoving equipment would therefore require extensive “floating” haul roads with a high risk of machinery getting stuck or entire plant loss and risk to personnel.  It was therefore decided to investigate the possibility of pumping the in-situ red mud.

A mud pumping trial was undertaken to assess the feasibility of using this technique to do the bulk mud moving.  Pumping red mud is not unusual and the muds were initially pumped up to Mt Rosser Pond.  However, the muds are usually pumped at a solids content of 30% or less.  Once deposited, they can take years to reconsolidate and firm up sufficiently to allow access for light earthworks and agricultural plant.

In addition to the mud pumping, the trial included infilling three small scale geotubes to assess their performance as these may be needed as part of the regrading works.

The main aim of the pump trial was to determine if the muds could be pumped in their insitu state, and if not, what amount of water is required and how the variations in water content affect pump rates.

The mud pumping trial was undertaken using a 4” EDDY Pump.  This pump was recommended due to its ability to handle variable solids and robust operating mechanism.  The pump unit incorporated a hydraulic drive and cutter head.  The unit was mounted onto the boom of a JCB 220 excavator which also supplied the hydraulic feed to power the pump for the required range of 30-40 GPM at 3,500 to 4,000 psi (2428MPa).  The cutter head was powered by a standalone hydraulic power unit capable of providing the required 30gpm at 200psi (1.9 l/s at 13.8MPa).  If mounted on a 30-ton excavator with a System 14 hydraulic system and dual auxiliary feeds to the boom, all necessary hydraulic power for the pump and cutter head can be supplied by the excavator.  This equipment was however not available at the time in Jamaica.

In addition to the pump mounted on the excavator a Long Reach excavator (CAT 325) was used to move muds towards the cutter head but also to loosen up the muds and mix in additional water to facilitate pumping.  Water was added by pumping it directly from the pond using a 3” diesel water pump.

Prior to pumping the muds, the mud pump would operate in recirculation mode in order to prime the pump.  When in recirculation (re-circ) mode, the material pumped would be diverted to a short discharge pipe mounted on the pump directed back parallel to the cutter head. This action would help agitate and stir the muds.

The geotubes for the trials were 6m long and 1m high (filled) and were supplied by Tencate.  The tubes were made from a woven polyester – GT1000M and had a central top filling point.  A set of small bags with a polymer test set was also provided but this was not tried during this occasion.

A geotechnical soils investigation was undertaken on the muds within Mt Rosser pond in 2004.  It showed the material to be predominantly clayey silt with approximately 13% sand, 29% clay and 58% silt using conventional sieve analysis and hydrometer.  Atterberg limits indicate that the material is an intermediate to high plasticity clay.  The muds do however vary across the lake and also vertically. This is mainly as a consequence of the deposition process and discharge location.  Close to the discharge location the courser materials would settle out first and the finer materials would disperse furthest and to the opposite end of the pond.  The results are presented in figure 4.1.

Earlier this year, additional mud samples were tested as it was evident that standard soil mechanics tests did not provide an accurate assessment of this fine material.  This was particularly evident in tests done with dry sieving which shows the material as well-graded sand (see results for samples 5300, 5301, 5302 on figure 4.2).  When dispersed in water, even with an agent, the ‘yield-pseudo-plastic’ rheology of the muds appeared to affect the hydrometer results with large variations between tests (see results of samples PFT4&5 taken during mud pumping trials on figure 4.2).

The additional testing comprised of undertaking gradings using a Laser Particle Analyzer. The results indicated that the muds are predominantly Silt although the silt % varied from 30% to 80% with the material being either more sandy or more clayey (up to 15% clay). See results of samples ending in “L” on figure 4.2 below.

Moisture content tests on the muds taken from within the mud pond but below the ponded water ranged from 100% to 150% (50% to 40% solids).  The muds at the pump test location were 137% (42% solids).

Shear strength was generally very low ranging from 1kPa to 6kPa increasing with depth.  Dynamic probes previously undertaken indicated that the muds are “very soft” to 5m increasing in strength slightly to “soft” at a depth of 9m after which they increase to firm becoming stiff.

The pH of the muds ranged from 10.3 to 11.7, (ave 11.2).  Previous testing indicated that the surface muds have the lower pH although once through the crust, the pH tends to be higher. When doing the trials, the muds up to a depth of about 2.5m was intermixed, hence any stratification in pH could not be determined.

Initially, pumping was problematic mainly due to the excavator being underpowered. This was diagnosed as a hydraulic pump problem and the excavator was replaced.  The cutter head (which also acts to protect the intake) tended to blind with mud (Photo 5.1) and was also not providing enough agitation to liquefy the muds.  This was partly resolved by adding “stirrers” (2 steel loops welded either side) to the rotating cutter head and also a “comb” (Photo 5.2) to keep the gaps within the cutter head open.

Mud pumping rates varied from 21 l/s to 52 l/s (332 – 824gpm) and it was clearly visible that the more liquid the muds were the higher the pump rate was.  Samples were taken at different discharge rates and moisture content and percent solids determined by laboratory testing.  The results are plotted in Figure 5.1 and although scattered, do give an indication of the effects of solids content on flow rates.  The natural moisture content of the muds (insitu) at the test location was 137%, or 42% solids.  This is shown in Figure 5.1 as a vertical line.  Pumping muds close to the percent solids was achieved although flow rates were low.

As mentioned previously, the long reach excavator was used to loosen up the muds.  Water was pumped from the pond using a 3” pump into the excavation and the long reach would then work the muds to mix the water in.  The mud pump would then be used in recirculation mode to further mix the muds into a more consistent state.  Even with this mixing and agitation, the water tended to concentrate on the surface. This aided the initial process of priming the pump and once primed thicker muds at 1m to 2m below the surface could be pumped.  However, it was found that the deeper muds tended to be lumpy and this would significantly reduce or stop the flow requiring the pump to be lifted into thinner muds or having to go back into re-circ mode or having to fully re-prime.  The pump discharge was therefore very inconsistent as the suction intake position constantly needed adjustment in an attempt to get adequate discharge but also pump the thickest muds possible.

Discharge of the pumped muds was through 30m of flexible hose then 60m of 4” HDPE pipe which had an internal diameter of about 87mm (3.5”).    The muds were discharged onto the original mud beach which lies at a gradient of about 9%. On deposition the muds slowly flowed down gradient.  At times the flow would stop and the muds would build up then flow again in a wave motion.  The natural angle of repose would therefore be a few degrees less than this – probably 5% to 6%.

Although the muds have very low shear strength, and on agitation liquefy, the sides of the excavation had sufficient strength to stand about 2m near vertical.  Even overnight, there was limited slumping and the bank could be undermined by about 0.5m with the cutter head/agitator before collapsing.

On termination of pumping, in order to flush the pipeline, thin watery muds were pumped until the line was clear. A “T” valve system was then used to connect the 3” water pump line and this was then used to flush the pipe with water.

Three geotubes (1m x 6m) were filled with red muds pumped using the 4” Eddy pump. Fill rates were about 30 to 40l/s although it was difficult to assess as the flow and mud consistence was not visible.

Tube 1 was filled initially with more runny mud and then thicker muds as the pump operator got a better feel for conditions.  The tube was filled until firm.  The second tube was filled with thicker muds and filling continued until the tube was taut.  These two tubes were positioned on the sloping beach in order to form a small “U” impoundment area that would later be filled with pumped muds.  Although the area was prepared, the sloping ground caused the first tube to rotate through about 20 degrees. The tube was staked and the downslope side backfilled.  A more defined bed was created for the second tube and the same rotational issue was limited.  The two filled tubes with the ponded mud are shown in Photos 5.7 and 5.8.  Other than a small leak at the contact between the two geotubes, the ponding of the muds was successful.

The third tube was positioned on level ground. It was filled with medium runny (but consistent thickness) muds and was filled until the tube was taut.

In all three cases, there was very little mud loss or seepage from the tubes.  When stood on, some red water would squeeze out around the pressure area.  Once filled taut, the entire bag would have small red water droplets form on the outside (visible in Photo 5.11) , but the seepage was in general nominal.

The tubes have been monitored and the most recent photo’s taken on 10 October 2011 (6 weeks after filling) show how the tubes have reduced in volume due to the dewatering of the contained muds.  Volume loss is estimated to be around 30%.  The anticipated moisture content would therefore be about 90% and the solids around 53%.

The muds pumped into the trial pond behind the geotubes were medium thick to thick, probably in the order of 37 – 40% solids.  After 6 weeks the mud has not only firmed-up but had dried out significantly with wide and deep surface cracks as are evident in Photo 5.14 and 5.15.

The muds can be pumped at close to their insitu moisture content and most likely at their in-situ moisture content if they were agitated more and the pipeline system was designed to reduce friction losses.

Be able to access the mud surface and move around efficiently and safely. The suggestion is to have the pump mounted on a pontoon that is positioned using high strength rope (dynema) or steel cable.  The pump system should be remotely controlled as this would limit regular movement of personnel on the muds.

Have sufficient power and volume capacity to pump the muds at close to or at in-situ moisture content and discharge them about 1000m through a flexible pipeline.

It was also evident from the trials that the muds do not slump and flow readily.  It will therefore be necessary to have an amphibious excavator to loosen up the muds in the area around the pump head.  This weakened and more liquid mud would also aid the movement of the pump pontoon.  To also limit the amount of movement the pontoon will need to do, the amphibious excavator could also move muds towards the pump location.

Using the capacity of the 4” mud pump, mud moving would take about 1.5 to 2 years, the pump will however need to be more suited to the task.  A target period of 1 year however seems reasonable.  However, prior to this, equipment will need to be procured and imported into Jamaica. The 6 and 10 inch Excavator Dredge Pump Attachments are also being considered as an option for higher GMP and a more aggressive completion timeline.  A preliminary programme is as follows:

An innovative product policy and continuous advancement of essential design features make this pump a powerful, yet economical standard unit with a broad range of applications.

Professional China Mud Pump - BNS series Single Stage, End Suction Norm Centrifugal pumps – Beken, The product will supply to all over the world, such as: , , ,

Instead of using paper checklists when out in the field, drilling contractors and rig inspection services can generate a new inspection form from anywhere and the results are saved electronically.

Specifically designed for drilling companies and others in the oil and gas industry, the easy to use drilling rig inspections app makes it easy to log information about the drill rigs, including details about the drill rigs operators, miles logged and well numbers. The inspection form app covers everything from the mud pump areas and mud mixing area to the mud tanks and pits, making it easy to identify areas where preventative maintenance is needed. The drilling rig equipment checklist also covers health and safety issues, including the availability of PPE equipment, emergency response and preparedness processes, and other critical elements of the drilling process and drill press equipment.

The mud pumps market size is expected to grow at a significant rate during the forecast period. A mud pump is a large, high-pressure (up to 7500 psi), single-acting triplex reciprocating pump used to circulate mud in a well at a specific flow rate (between 100 and 1300 gallons per minute). Instead of a triplex reciprocating pump, a double-acting two-cylinder reciprocating pump is occasionally utilized as a mud pump. Typically, a rig operator keeps two or three mud pumps on hand, one of which is active and the others on standby in case of an emergency. Mud is gathered up with the use of mud pumps, which use suction to circulate the mud from the wellbore to the surface during the drilling process.

Increased demand for directional and horizontal drilling, higher pressure handling capabilities, and some new oil discoveries are the main drivers of this market"s growth. Mud pumps are specialized pumps that are used to transport and circulate drilling fluids and other related fluids in a variety of industries, including mining and onshore and offshore oil and gas. The global energy demand is boosting the market for mud pumps. However, high drilling costs, environmental concerns, and shifting government energy and power laws may stymie industry growth.

Innovation in technology is the key for further growth for example, MTeq uses Energy Recovery’s Pressure exchanger technology in the drilling industry, as the ultimate engineered solution to increase productivity and reduce operating costs in pumping process by rerouting rough fluids away from high-pressure pumps, which helps reduce the cost of maintenance for operators.

The major key player in global mud pumps market are Flowserve (U.S.), Grundfos (Denmark), Halliburton (U.S.), Sulzer (Switzerland), KSB Group (Germany), Ebara Corporation (Japan), Weir Group (U.K), and SRS Crisafulli, Inc (U.S.). Tsurumi Pump (Japan), Shijiazhuang Industrial Pump Factory Co. Ltd (China), Excellence Pump Industry Co.Ltd (China), Kirloskar Ebara Pumps Limited (India), Xylem Inc (U.S.), and Goulds Pumps (U.S.) are among others.

In the drilling business, MTeq uses Energy Recovery"s Pressure exchanger technology as the ultimate engineering solution to boost productivity and lower operating costs in the pumping process by rerouting abrasive fluids away from high-pressure pumps, which helps operators save money on maintenance. The latest trend reveals that regulatory agencies are persuading manufacturers and consumers to choose electric mud pumps over fuel engine mud pumps to reduce the environmental impact of fuel engine mud pumps.

The global mud pumps market is segmented on the basis of type (duplex pump, triplex pump, and others), component (fluid end and power end), application (oil & gas industry and building industry), and Region (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and Rest of the World).

Based on type, mud pumps can be segmented as duplex and triplex pumps. Triplex pumps are expected to progress because of the ~30.0% lesser weight than duplex pumps offering similar efficiency. The pump transfers the fluids with the help of mechanical movements.

Based on application, mud pumps market can be segmented as oil & gas industry and building industry. As oil and gas fields going mature, operators must drill wells with large offset, high laterals, widening their applicability by using mud motors, and high-pressure pumps. To fulfill the demand drilling companies increase their mud pumping installation capacity, with higher flexibility. For instance, LEWCO has developed W-3000 mud pump model for oil drilling, which can handle power up to 3000 HP.

Based on region, North America is predominant because of tight oil and shale gas sources, followed by Asia-Pacific due to the increased number of wells in the regions, especially in countries such as China and India due to the rapid urbanization and industrialization. Authorities in countries such as India, China are working on enhancing their production capacities for reducing the import bills, which ultimately help in the growth of mud pumps market.

This market is broadly driven by oil and gas industry as mud pumps are used to move massive amount of sludge and mud at the time of drilling. Countries such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. have the largest number of oil wells. The demand for mud pumps will increase with the number of oil wells, across the globe.

When choosing a size and type of mud pump for your drilling project, there are several factors to consider. These would include not only cost and size of pump that best fits your drilling rig, but also the diameter, depth and hole conditions you are drilling through. I know that this sounds like a lot to consider, but if you are set up the right way before the job starts, you will thank me later.

Recommended practice is to maintain a minimum of 100 to 150 feet per minute of uphole velocity for drill cuttings. Larger diameter wells for irrigation, agriculture or municipalities may violate this rule, because it may not be economically feasible to pump this much mud for the job. Uphole velocity is determined by the flow rate of the mud system, diameter of the borehole and the diameter of the drill pipe. There are many tools, including handbooks, rule of thumb, slide rule calculators and now apps on your handheld device, to calculate velocity. It is always good to remember the time it takes to get the cuttings off the bottom of the well. If you are drilling at 200 feet, then a 100-foot-per-minute velocity means that it would take two minutes to get the cuttings out of the hole. This is always a good reminder of what you are drilling through and how long ago it was that you drilled it. Ground conditions and rock formations are ever changing as you go deeper. Wouldn’t it be nice if they all remained the same?

Centrifugal-style mud pumps are very popular in our industry due to their size and weight, as well as flow rate capacity for an affordable price. There are many models and brands out there, and most of them are very good value. How does a centrifugal mud pump work? The rotation of the impeller accelerates the fluid into the volute or diffuser chamber. The added energy from the acceleration increases the velocity and pressure of the fluid. These pumps are known to be very inefficient. This means that it takes more energy to increase the flow and pressure of the fluid when compared to a piston-style pump. However, you have a significant advantage in flow rates from a centrifugal pump versus a piston pump. If you are drilling deeper wells with heavier cuttings, you will be forced at some point to use a piston-style mud pump. They have much higher efficiencies in transferring the input energy into flow and pressure, therefore resulting in much higher pressure capabilities.

Piston-style mud pumps utilize a piston or plunger that travels back and forth in a chamber known as a cylinder. These pumps are also called “positive displacement” pumps because they literally push the fluid forward. This fluid builds up pressure and forces a spring-loaded valve to open and allow the fluid to escape into the discharge piping of the pump and then down the borehole. Since the expansion process is much smaller (almost insignificant) compared to a centrifugal pump, there is much lower energy loss. Plunger-style pumps can develop upwards of 15,000 psi for well treatments and hydraulic fracturing. Centrifugal pumps, in comparison, usually operate below 300 psi. If you are comparing most drilling pumps, centrifugal pumps operate from 60 to 125 psi and piston pumps operate around 150 to 300 psi. There are many exceptions and special applications for drilling, but these numbers should cover 80 percent of all equipment operating out there.

The restriction of putting a piston-style mud pump onto drilling rigs has always been the physical size and weight to provide adequate flow and pressure to your drilling fluid. Because of this, the industry needed a new solution to this age-old issue.

As the senior design engineer for Ingersoll-Rand’s Deephole Drilling Business Unit, I had the distinct pleasure of working with him and incorporating his Centerline Mud Pump into our drilling rig platforms.

In the late ’90s — and perhaps even earlier —  Ingersoll-Rand had tried several times to develop a hydraulic-driven mud pump that would last an acceptable life- and duty-cycle for a well drilling contractor. With all of our resources and design wisdom, we were unable to solve this problem. Not only did Miller provide a solution, thus saving the size and weight of a typical gear-driven mud pump, he also provided a new offering — a mono-cylinder mud pump. This double-acting piston pump provided as much mud flow and pressure as a standard 5 X 6 duplex pump with incredible size and weight savings.

The true innovation was providing the well driller a solution for their mud pump requirements that was the right size and weight to integrate into both existing and new drilling rigs. Regardless of drill rig manufacturer and hydraulic system design, Centerline has provided a mud pump integration on hundreds of customer’s drilling rigs. Both mono-cylinder and duplex-cylinder pumps can fit nicely on the deck, across the frame or even be configured for under-deck mounting. This would not be possible with conventional mud pump designs.

The second generation design for the Centerline Mud Pump is expected later this year, and I believe it will be a true game changer for this industry. It also will open up the application to many other industries that require a heavier-duty cycle for a piston pump application.

The report covers comprehensive information about market trends, volume (Units) and value (US$ Mn) projections, competition and recent developments and market dynamics in the global mud pumps market for the study period of 2013 to 2026.

The global mud pumps market is expected to reach a little over US$ 1,085 Mn over the forecast period, registering a CAGR of 4.4%. Growth in drilling activities in the oil & gas Industry to increase hydrocarbon production and ease of the mud circulation operation in drilling holes are some of the factors expected to lay a robust foundation for the growth of the global mud pumps market.

Mud pumps can be classified on the basis of the number of pistons into duplex, triplex and quintuplex, which consist of two, three and five pistons respectively. The triplex segment is expected to dominate the mud pumps market in terms of value as well as volume during the entire forecast period.

Triplex mud pumps find extensive usage in circulating drilling fluid with high pressure for deep oil well drilling application. These usage characteristics make them preferable for use, primarily in onshore and offshore oil well drilling applications.

Mud pumps are widely utilized in the oil & gas industry. On the basis of the mode of operation, mud pumps can be classified as electric and fuel engine mud pumps.

Fuel engine mud pumps use petroleum oils as the key liquefying agent. These types of mud pumps release hazardous gases into the environment. In order to contain the hazardous impact of fuel engine mud pumps on the environment, regulatory authorities are compelling manufacturers and consumers to opt for electric mud pumps, which do not emit volatile organic compounds and operate with low noise and low vibration. Electric mud pumps offer smooth operations in drilling rigs and are environment-friendly, which is why they dominate the market for mud pumps.

The electric mud pumps segment is projected to grow with a 4.5% CAGR during the forecast period in view of the tightening emission control regulations and is expected to create an absolute $ opportunity worth US$ 134 Mn between 2018 and 2026.

Among all the applications analyzed in this global mud pumps market study, the onshore application of mud pumps is expected to register about 1.43X growth in terms of value between 2018 and 2026. The offshore application of mud pumps is projected to register moderate growth during the entire forecast period, led by land oil field discoveries.

In terms of incremental $ opportunity, onshore and offshore segments are expected to compete within large margins. The onshore application of mud pumps is expected to occupy over an 86% share in terms of value by the end of 2026.

Increasing oil-well exploration activities, stable economic conditions and consistent growth in oil well drilling rig sales in the region are expected to drive the demand for mud pumps in the region.

The comparatively well-established production sector in the region and increasing oil and gas industry and hydrocarbon consumption will create a healthy platform for the growth of the mud pumps market. Some regions including China and Europe are expected to gain traction in the latter half of the forecast period, owing to the anticipated growth of the oil & gas industry in these regions. North America is expected to register above-average 1.1X growth in the market. All the other regions are anticipated to exhibit moderate growth during the same period.

Apart from Europe and China, all other regions are anticipated to lose market value share over the forecast period. China and Europe are collectively expected to register a CAGR of 4.3% by value.

The global mud pumps market is consolidated with limited market players holding considerable double-digit market shares as of 2017. Globally, the top 12 players in the mud pumps market collectively hold between 53% and 58% of the market share.

Over the past few years, the mud pumps market has witnessed significant technological advancement from the competition perspective. Acquisitions, collaborations and new product launches are some of the key strategies adopted by prominent players to expand and sustain in the global mud pumps market.

In 2015, Flowserve opened a new pump manufacturing plant in Coimbatore, India. Through this new facility, the company aims to provide pump products for the oil and gas industry in Asia Pacific

Some of the key players involved in this market study on the global mud pumps market include National Oil Varco Inc., Schlumberger Limited, Gardner Denver Inc., Weatherford International Plc., China National Petroleum Corporation, Trevi-Finanziaria Industriale S.p.A., MhWirth, BenTech GmbH Drilling Oilfield systems, American Block Inc., Honghua Group Limited, White Star Pump Company LLC, Flowserve corporation, Ohara Corporation, Mud King Products, Inc. and Herrenknecht Vertical GmbH.