.
Determining Multiphase Pressure Drops and
Flow Capacities in Down-Hole Safetv Valves
--A--- ---
F. E. Ashford, SPE-AIME, Mene Grande Oil Co.
i P. E. pierce, SPE-AIME, Otis Engineering Corp.
Introduction
.A new relationship describing dynamic, multiphase
orifice pressure drops and fluid flow capacities has been
derived and tested with actual field data.
The mathematical model relates dynamic orifice be-
havior in both critical and noncritical flow regimes.
Orifice pressure drops and capacities are related to perti-
nent fluid properties and choke dimensions. Graphical
correlations are also presented to predict the ultimate
(critical) capacity of an orifice for any given set of
dynamic conditions.
To verify the model, a field test was designed and
:arried out in a flowing oil well. Both orifice pressure
drops and fluid flow rates were measured in the well and
the information was compared with analogous data pre-
dicted by the model, Comparable information was then
used to compute an orifice discharge coefficient that
enables calculation of actual orifice capacities from
theoretical ones. The discharge coefficients are presented
for 14/64-, 16/64- and 20/64-in. orifice diameters.
The collected data reflect the behavior of an Otis En-
gineering Corp. J-type 22J037 safety valve. However, the
model may be used to esrima?e multiphase pressure drops
through restrictive beans in safety valves of other internal
geometrical configurations.
I Discussion
The increased need for more accurate settings on down-
hole, self-contained, flowing safety devices (storm
chokes) has prompted efforts by many oil-producing
A new relationship describing dynamic multiphase orifice pressure drops and jluid jlow
capacities has been derived and tested with field data, The mathematical model relates
dynamic orifice behavior in both critical and noncritical jlow regions. Correlations
are presented for predicting the ultimate (critica[) capacity of an orijlce for any given
set of dynamic conditions.
I SEPTEMBER, 1975
d
I
companies to develop new multiphase orifice flow rela-
tionships.
Interest in antipollution devices, especially in offshore
oil. ; reducing areas, has also encouraged the major oil
companies to re-evaluate old, established procedures for
the design of oil- and gas-well mfet y valves,
A review of the existing orifice flow literaturemT and
analysis of standard safety-valve design procedures
yielded the following facts concerning noncritical mul-
tiphase orifice flow.
1. Most orifice flow models do not adequately reflect
the compressible nature of actual oilwell multiphase
orifice flow. Consequently, models now in use do not
adequately describe the dynamic behavior of orifice flow.
2. The existing orifice flow relationships become less
exact as the dynamic conditions approach the critical
value; that is, at a given upstream pressure, no further
flow-rate increase occurs through the orifice, regardless
of the pressure drcp across the orifice.
Those who are involved in manufacturing down-hole,
pressure-drop-operated safety valves are aware of the
problems associated with accurate prediction of orifice
flow behavior. Most agree that a more rigorous mwhemat-
ical model is needed to describe the mechanics of orifice
flow under all oilfield conditionm.
The orifice relationships used by design engineers,
fiough acceptable under certain flow conditions, are ques-
tionable for applications falling outside these specifica-
tions. A more rigorous procedure applicable to oilfield
1145
 conditions is needed to relate existing safety-valve pres-
s re drops to the flow rates of o~l, gas, and water thrGugh a
restriction. Such anew orifice ii NWrelationship has been
developed, The new development is an extension of the
theory initially presented by Ros and has definite advan-
tages over other existing procedures.
1. The model considers the adiabatic expansion of gas
flowing simultaneously with oil and water through the
orifice, using a polytropic expansion relationship.
2. The model considers both free gas and solution gas
flowing simultaneously with the oil in its liquid phase.
3. The model incorporates an improved expression for
I the liquid flowing per pound of fluid.
I 4. The relationship predicts the pertinent critical prop-
, erties oi the orifice under set conditions.
5. The model relates orifice pressure drops:0 oil, gas,
i and water flow rates and fluid properties.
And orifice flow model must relate the cynamic pres-
sure drop to fluid, as well as to orifice parameters. One
approach applied widely in the literature evolves from a
direct application of the energy balance:
Pa 2 11 L//l
144 ,,fdp= ...................(1)
J J ~r
P1 u)

Eq, 1 relates the loss in pressure volume energy to an

increase in the kinetic energy across the orifice.
While this approach is theoretically oriented and does
not consider friction losses or heat transfer in the vicinity
of the bean, it does offer an excellent point on which to
L.*

base future development in the orifice flow area.

Following the theory of Eq, 1 and writing another
useful expression involving the orifice fluid velocity, 142,
and the fluid specific volume, vf2,yields an expression for
the orifice mass flow rate:
IIg
w = CA t .) .3.0 .,, .,. .....# ,#t#. o.). (2)
vr2

The Appendix presents the development for the solution

of Eq. 1 and subsequent final form of W. 2. The final
form of the generalized multiphase orifice flow equations
can be written as

q.= C3.51d:cw,h,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)

where
a,~ = (B. + F,ro)-z .
and
P1O=

n 11-1
q
K n- )
~, Z,(A\ R,)(I CT) + 198.6P,(I e) 1

T] ZI
[
198.6 + (R
PI
Rg)r)
112
1
x [
(Yo + 0.0002 ]7Y,,Rs+ Fuwyw)
(YO+ 0.000217 yoR + F,r.yw)
1

C in Eqs. 2 and 3 is the orifice discharge coefficient. This

parameter is proportional to the orifice size as well as to
the fluid properties. It is included in the relationship to
I-:-i account for nonidealities not considered in the derivation
Fig. 1 Schematic storm-choke field test. of the expressions for U2and vf2.
1146 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 The evaluation of C is important in any practical appli-
cation of Eq. 3 to subsurface safety valve design. This
constant relates theoretical to actual orifice flow data
and enables the prediction of down-hole orifice pressure
losses under known set conditions.
A field tes~designee, to evaluate safety-valve behavior
was conducted by Gulf Research and Development Co.,
Gulf Oil Co. U. S., and Otis Engineering Corp. The test
was designed specifically to (1) compare the predicted
theoretical orifice pressure drops from known od and gas
flow rates with those measured in the well; (2) compare
the predicted theoretical fluid rates through the bean from
known pressure drops with those measured in the weli;
and (3) use the data from Eq. 2 to evaluate a series of
orifice discharge coefficients for various bean sizes.
Test Procedure
A flowing oil and gas well was selected for the field test.
The well was producing from a depth of about 12,000 ft.
An Otis F-type safety valve was instakd originally in a
landing nipple at 3,500 ft. Production of oil and gas was
through a 2-3/8 in, nominal tubing.
The test procedure was composed of two principal
parts:
1. The F valve was removed and the well was flowed to
ensure adequate response from the formation.
2. An Otis J-type 22J037 safety valve was installed in
the hmding nipple at 3,500 ft, with 16/64-, 14/64-, and
2@64-in. beans installed sequentially. A pressure bomb
attached directly to the J valve was located below the
current orifice. and a pressure bomb above the orifice was
suspended by a wireline. These bombs recorded flowing
upsfream and downstream pressures existing across the
orif!ce, A temperature recorder was also attached below
the upstream bomb to measure the flowing temperatures at
about 3,500 ft, A low-pressure test separator of 1 bbl total
liquid capacity was used to meter the liquid production,
while gas volumes associated with the produced oil were
measured using a 2-in. meter run.
Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the equipment as it was
installed in the test well. Each bean size installed in the
22J037 valve constituted a separate series of tests, during
which an attempt was made to flow the well at the three
separate stabilized rates (200, 375, and 550 B/D), Fig. 2
indicates a cross-section of the well with the safety valve
and pressure bomb installed below the valve and the upper
pressure bomb suspended by a wireline.
Tests Results
SukQurface Safety-Valve Pressure-Loss
Measurements
A total of three rates was achieved for the 16j64-in. bean
size. These rates ranged from 559 B/D at 478 GOR to 334
B/D at 429 GOR. Rates imposed on the well for this
orifice size began with the highest, Fig. 4 indicates the
recorded pressures downstream from (above) the safety
valve at 3,500 ft. The times corresponding to Conditions
1, 2, and 3 in Fig. 4 are shown in Table 1. The pressure
stabilization downstream from the choke was not always
complete because of the short time allocated to each rate
(30 to 60 minutes). However, two rates did show fair
stabilization where the pressure was pulsing; under
Condition 2. an average pressure was obtained by balanc-
ing the areas on the pressure vs time graph during the time
SEPTEMBER, 1975
interval when the rate occurred. During the tests, it be-
came apparent that the location of the flow-skirt/
pressure-bomb assembly downstream from the safety
valve was sufficiently removed from the orifice so that
measurements of actual vena confracta orifice pressures
were not obtained. The upstream pressure bomb was
placed as close as possible to the actual location of the
orifice in the safety valve; however, because of mechani-
cal limitations, it was physically impossible to measure
downstream orifice pressures at a pressure-tap location
cioser than that achieved during the tests. The distance
from the sensing unit to the bean seat was ~7.5 in. (as
indicated by the schematic of the valve assembly). The
downstream pressures shown in Figs. 3 through 5 are,
therefore, the best possible measurable approximations
to actual vend contracta pressures.
Fig. 3 shows a plot of the downstream pressures ob-
tained for the 14/64-in. bean. A critical part of this opera-
tion was the attempt to close the 22J037 valve. Closure
was achieved by flowing the well at a rate sufficiently high
(600 B/D) to incui the necessary pressure drop across the
safety-valve orifice and close the valve. Fig. 6 reflects the
various downstream pressure responses to the rate
changes, As can be seen, the rates fluctuated between261
and 596 B/D, at which time valve closure occurred. The
rate of 508 B/D, that existed for about 10 to 15 minutes
immediately after the valve closed reflected thu fluid
expansion from the wellbore to the test separator.
Valve closure was verified after the well was shut in by
the inability of the wireline fishing tool to retrievs the
valve. This condition occurs when a safety valve has
closed. High pressure from an independent source was
required to pressurize the 2-3/8-in. tubing to 1,000 ps:g to
equalize the pressure across the valve and reopen the
choke. The valve was then retrieved using the normal
wireline operations,
Fig. 5 presents the results for the 20/64-in. bean size
and the three corresponding rates for Conditions 1,2, and
3. The flowing temperature surveys revealed the fluid
,Low,w. ,s,,
I
I
L
.w.
s. 04 , ,[ > . : ~
0,,s .2,0,7 ,Arrfv VA.., 3502
-,.,
,.ow.sr
.0..
.. . *.( s,,, ) 3495.
now ,,, AT 34s
,,,,.,0 ,*,.* mu,
T. MP,..nJn, ,0., 35h3 ~ IPST* CA. ** C,*,,
=
J$w
Fig. 2 Weli schematic for upstream and downstream
storm-choke pressure measurements.
1147
 temperature just below the orifice to be about 156F. This
temperature was used as a constant throughout the subse-
quent computations. Unfortunately, the upstream pres-
sure bomb failed to operate properly during the days when
the 14/64- and 1tV64-in. beans were run. During the
20/64-in. tests, however, upstream pressures were ob-
tained. These recorded pressures are shown in Fig. 7. This
correlation subsequently was used to obtain the corre-
sponding upstream pressures for each of the 14/64- and
16/64-in. orifice rates. This procedure was not precise,
but was necessary under the circumstances.
Fig. 7 indicates the increase of the flowing upstream
safety-valve pressure at 3,500 ft as a function of increased
tubing oil rate. However, the upstream pressures recorded
during the test did not reflect stabilized conditions in the
vertical string. For this reason, a decrease in the flowing
tubing pressure yielded an increase in the production rate,
along with an increase in the upstream safety valve pres-
sure. The presence of the increased fluid rate in the vicin-
ity of the safety valve during the flow tests was not trans-
mitted to the producing horizon at 12,000 ft. Thus, de-
creased upstream safety-valve pressures for increased oil
rates, reflecting stabilized conditions, had not occurred in
the test well. The existing rates and pressures did, how-
ever, yield measureabie pressure drops across the orifice
installed in the safety valve. As long as the pressure drops
reflected the existing rates, the mathematical orifice rela-
tionships could be tested.
Test Analysis
The results of the pressure drop/flow-rate data are also
presented in Table 1. Average oil rates and solution
GORs for each subsurface bean test are shown, along
with the corresponding orifice size. The solution GOR at
1,200 psia was fixed at 120 scf/STB by an analysis of the
reservoir fluid. Errors incurred by different upstream
pressures were slight. The gas gravity was 0.6 (air = 1),
while the oil gravity was 0.89 (water = 1). The ratio of gas
specific heat at constant pressure to the specific heat at
constant volume was 1.275.
The measured pressure drops for all bean sizes are
usually lower than those predicted by Eq. 3 (with C = 1 ~)
for the same fluid rates. The necessary placement of the
downstream pressure recording bomb in its testing posi-
tion during the flow tests probably incurred some error in
the measurements of actual vena coturucta orifice pres-
sures. Thus, in the area where the pressures were re-
corded, these flowing pressures had partially recovered to
their downstream values. Most calculated pressure drops
are a reasonable estimate of the approximation measured,
except for the 16/64 -in,, 334 B/D test, which yielded a
measured pressure drop of only 13 psi. in view of the
larger pressure drops measured for almost the same rates
through the 20/64-in. bean size, the 334 B/D, 16/64-in,
point was discarded in the analysis of the data. The aver-
age absolute percent error for the predictions was 33.7.

. . .. .....

,,M

;1
.,> ,, ,.,.LI. i

:
3
, ,.,

I \ ! i+

i-P7=Ej ....,... !,*

i
. .-. -

w
i-. :.. L-

--nqq
:,

I I I
,,
--- ---- .-. .: ., . ..]_ +--1
L..,

I
. -
t
.

~ i

. ...c..
. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . ~.. ,,, .,. ..,,

,, I, . .. . . . . .....
.:_--L--u .l-,~iil!- -.-< . . . ... ....
.. 0
. . . . . .
A m. >.0 >.. -0

Fig. 3 Storm-choke test well downstream safety-valve Fig, 5 Storm-choke test well downstream safety-valve
flowing pressures, flowing pressures.

I I ,!? I I ,,.,
! L ,.,

Fig, 4 Storm-choke test well downstream safety-valve Fig, 6 Storm-choke test well upstream safety-valve
flowing pressures, flowing pressure.

I 1148 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 TABLE1 STORMCHOKEFIELDTEST PRESSUREDROPCOMWRISON
Sub- oil
surface Flow Sdlon Measun?d
Beaean Choke Rate Frcd&sd FlowingPressure Prylreremp$ross Oil Oischarge
Oiarneterf70 mesa (MScfl (psia) PressureOrop Rate Coefficient
(MUM in.) (B/0) (MScflsm) STB) Upstream Ownstream Measuml Calculated Percent Calc
Error C/Omea,h?calc

559 0.478 0120 1,015 211 -10.0 615 09089

f 484 0.444 ??5 1,135 80 i% + 53.8 402 1.2039
334 0.429 1,1B3 1,175 13 54 *

14 261 0.4% 1,171 1,125 +39.1 224 1.1652

14 427 0.4% 1,205 1,015 1$ 1: + 3.2 432 0.989
14 m 0.391 1,202 1,102 100 138 +38.0 35B 1.1425
14 382 0,417 1,197 1,120 124 +61.0 1.2403
14 596 0.344 1,230 l,04a lZ 283 + 55.5 M 1.2189

20 232 0.501 1,161 1,145 -25.0 270 0.8593

20 ;4 0.416 1,1!s) 1,165 ;: ;: -$0 363 0.9504
20 CM04 1,225 1,1s0 45 58 +2a9 493 1.1176
Vod datapm

When these measured pressure-drop data were used to and oil rates using the newly developed relationship are
compute theoretical oil rates through the storm choke, the not precise. The state of the art of characterizing the
agreements between computed and measured flow rates behavior of down-hole safety valves has not yet become
were much better. Excluding the last rate for the 16/64-in. standardized throughout the industry. Therefore, there
run, the absolute average percent deviation from the exists a need to collect more data reflecting noncritical
measured rates was 12.89. This shows that the orifice- orifice flow. Special care should be exercised in placing
fluid relationship tmly is rate sensitive; that is, the the downstream pressure recording device. This recorder
mechanical operation of the valve occurs in a behaviorrrl should be placed as close as possible to the actual bean
region where small changes in fluid rates incur larger location to insure accurate measurements of verra
changes in :he orifice pressure drop. While the pressure contracta pressures, Although the appl ~;at;on of theoreti-
drop across the valve does indeed actuate the closing cal orifice relationships to actual field conditions does not
mechanism, the term rate sensitive applies mainly yield exact information, the predicted results using an
because of the extreme sensitivity of this pressure drop to appropriate discharge coefficient are an improvement
total fluid rates, Table 1 also shows computed orifice over those derived from relationships used previously.
discharge coefficients, along with the predicted fluid
rates. This coefficient is the required constant that, when Graphical Presentation of Theoretical
used in the orifice relationship, will yield actual oil flow Pressure-Loss Data
rates from theoretically computed ones; that is, Eq. 3 has been represented graphically for a sample of
input parameters. A single curve or a family of working
~o. act.al = 40,calc x C.
curves could be constructed to predict orifice behavior in
Fig. 8 is a plot of the computed discharge coefficient vs any actual installation. The graph is shown in Fig. 9. The
orifice size, While no data are available to lend suppori to figure is for a bean size of 8/64 in. The solution GOR is
extrapolation of the correlation below 14/64 in. or above 200 scf/STB and the producing ratio is 600 scf/STB. Gas
20/64 in., the information presented does yield an in- gravity, oil gravity, orifice temperature, and a specific
dication of the range of C values expected for orifice heat ratio are held constant at 0,6,0,85, 150F, and 1.275,
sizes other than those tabulated. No correlations were at- respective] y. The graph shows the predicted orifice oil
tempted for describing the discharge coefficients as a flow capacity in barrels per day vs the downstream to
function of fluid properties. upstream pressure ratio, c. Upstream pressures vary from
The absolute values of the predictions of pressure drops 1,000 to 8,000 psia. A WOR of 0.01 is also assumed.

(__
---
tr+-- /
,..,
4..,** i ,,.,, &
/
....-.. :+!.
l!
c. ! . . . . .. . .

,,.
... .

.,. +

II ! ,
. ,,,.
II
,.
m. . . . . . .. ; .; fay/., ,0. I I
9., ..-.

ill! I
. . . .. -. . ,. .. . .1
r.o.q .,.,U.X, . ,,, i .

,,qwL
.,! Wm. ..,, - ,

fig. 7 Storm-choke test well flowin upstream

safety-valve pressure at 3,500 r t. Fig. 8 Noncritical flow orifice dischalge coefficient.

SEFtEMBER> 1975 1149

 As indicated by the plot, the critical pressure ratio, cC,is
predicted for each curve. At this value of e and a given
upstream pressure, the orifice is unable to allow any
further increase in the oil flow rate, regardless of the
pressure drop imposed across it. Stated mathematically,
the condition occurs such that
d~o=O ~=e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)
dc
The condition stipulated by Eq. 4 and depicted by Fig, 9
can be satisfied by the relationship
graphically obtained should the need arise.
The graph of Fig. 9 predicts only theoretical rates, and
the appropriate value of the discharge coefficient should
be applied to the theoretical rate to achieve an actual rate.
For bean diameters less than 14/64 in., a disdharge coeffi-
cient of 1.2 is recommended, while for beans larger than
20/64 in., a value of 0.95 may be used. These additional
discharge-coefficient values, recommended from purely
an infuirive basis following extensions of the correlation
of Fig. 8, are not supported by actual data.
It is hoped that the procedure presented here will be
helpful in providing flowing orifice information useful in

+(1q.) current oilfield safety procedures, and perhaps will indi-

1= ,,+11.,5) Conclusions
R(p,T)/n R(p,T) ~ cate areas in which improvements can be made.
[ (-%)
0.5 [1 + R(p, T) E; I]26~
A noncritical, multiphase, orifice flaw relationship has
Thus, formultiphase orifice flow the critical pressure ratio been found to yield the following information regarding
is a function of the gas-liquid ratio, R(p, T), and the the flow of oil and gas through an Otis 22J037 safety valve
specific heat ratio, n. The correct value of c, is the one that fitted with 14/64-, 16/64-, and 20/64-in. beans.
satisfies Eq. 5 for any R(p, T), and thus any value of 1. For known pressure drops, theoretically computed
pressure and temperature occurring at the orifice. The oil rates can be expected to yield answers within 15 to 20
utility of the curve in Fig. 9 is that the value of e, can be percent of the actual throughputs,
2. An orifice discharge coefficient computed for bean
sizes from 14/64 to 20/64 in. should aid in accurate] y
predicting either orifice oil rates from known pressure
drops or pressure drops across the bean for any given rate.
The discharge coefficients computed from mw-u~t~ flow-
ing data are the following.
Orifice Discharge
Size (in.) Coefficient, C
14/64 1.1510
16/64 1.0564
2oj64 0.9760

Nomenclature
A G orifice cross-sectional area. ftz
b = polytropic expansion equation constant
B. = oil formation volume factor. bbl/STB
C = orifice discharge coefficient
de = choke diameter, 64th in.
F,,.. = WOR
A. = gravitational constant. lb~ft/sec71b~
n = specific heat ratio
p, = t!pstream orifice pressure. lb/ft
PZ = downstream orifice pressure, lb/ftz
p,. = 14.7 lb/in.2
q,, = gas flow rate. B/D
qo = 011flow rate, B/D
qTF= totalflowrate, B/D
q. = water flow rate, B/D
R = producing GOR, scf/STB
R8 = solution GOR at p,, scf/STB
T, = upstream orifice temperature. R
T9C = 460 R
II = velocity of fluid. ftlsec

v, = total fluid specific volume, cu ft/lb~

v,. = liquid volume per pound of fluid
z! = nonideal gas factor at T, and PI
c = orifice downstream to upstream pressure
o ratio, p2/pl
OIL FLOW RATE -% ,PO

Fig. 9 Three-phase orificefflolowrates for noncritical orifice Ce = orifice downstream to upstream ratio at Critics]
conditions

1150 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 CYIO= (BO + WOR)-2
y. = gas gravity, (air= 1.0)
II* =
{
* (Vf, VJP1
(:1-1
[
1

y. = oil gravit y, (water = 1.0)

yw
p,
= water gravity
= gas density, lb/cu ft
2vd -k)]]
1 =upstream choke conditions The mass flow rate through Ihe choke can be written as
2 =downstream choke conditions
JV=CA1: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)
Acknowledgment
Replacing Eq. A-5 in Eq. A-6 gives
Special thanks are extended to the New Orleans Dist., Gulf
I 12
Oil Co. U. S., and to Otis Engineering Corp. for field
()
M t,
-

operations conducted during the test procedure. George CA 2p1g.

Grimmer, chief design engineer at Otis, was of great
assistance in on-site evaluations and served as a consultant
. {TT[-(:)-l+(-w
for the test operations.
References
1+ () -1{)1 R(p,T) :

1. Baxendell, P. B. and Thomas, R.: Calculation of Pressure Gra- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7)

dients in High-Rate Flowing Wells: J. Per. Tech. (Ott. 1961)
1023-1028; Trans., AIME, 222. With
2. Ge.;r, G. E. and Rohrer, W. M.: Sudden Contraction Losses in R(p, T)=(V,, -V,, )/V,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-8)
Two-Phase Flow, J. Hear Transfer (Feb. 1966) 1-9.
3. Orkiszewski, J.: Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drop in Vertical defining a term
Pipes: J. Per. Tech. (June 1967) 829-838; Trans., AIME, 240.
112
4. Poettmann, F. H. and Beck, R. L.: New Charts Developed to
Predict Gas-Liquid Flow Through Chokes,Wor/d Oil (March 1963) q= &(* ) . ...................... (A-9)
95-1OI.
5. Ros, N. C. J.: An Analysis of Critical Simultaneous Gas/Liquid end differentiating q with respect to ~. the downstream
Flow Through a Restriction and Its Application to Flow Metering, to upstream pressure ratio yields
Appl. Sri. Res. (1961) 9, Sec. A.
6. Smith, R. V.: Steam Water, Critical Flow in a Venturi, NBS R(p,7-) R(p,T))?
Technical Note 608 (July 1971).
7. Streeter, V. L.: Fluid Mechanics, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., ,=

~1 [
-p(l 6y-1)+

0.5 [ 1 + R(/l,Tx;]E
(i 6,.)
1
New York (1958).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1o)

APPENDIX
Eq. A-10 is the appropriate relationship for evaluating the
Derivation of the Multiphase critical pressure ratio, G, in multiphase flnw.
The existing gas-liquid ratio can be expressed as
Choke Equation
Referring to Fig. 10, the general energy balance can be R(p,T)= *(R- RJ& . . . . . . . . . . (A-11)
written as
Many two-phase flow liquid holdup measurements
have supported the conclusion that liquid throughput
44rfd~+r %=0 +0 A-)
PI It, fractions are not actually representative of the amount
of liquid present in any volume of the conduit. In most
lf the gas flowing through the orifice is assumed to ex-
instances (except for exceptionally high rates). the
pand polytropically, then
liquid accumulation is greater than that predicted by the
p(v, v,.) = b , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2) volumetric throughput fraction. For this reason, the
expression for v). (at orifice upstream conditions), the
or, liquid flowing per unit mass of flowing fluid. has been re-
b I/n written in terms of the solutica GORS rather than the
v,= +V,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3) total producing GORS. The resulting expression for
() P
v,. thus is no longer the volume of liquid flowing per unit
Replacing Eq. A-3 into Eq. A- I and expanding with mass of flowing fluid, but rather is the actual liquid
111<< IIz gives specific volume. While this procedure is empirical, it
tends to increase the value of VJ., which is the desired
()5 (v, W)P2 + VLP2 result. Thus.

()
& (v, vl.)pl vLp, = ~2 ., . . (A-4)

Solving for the downstream fluid velocity, with

I/n
Vfz =V,, +( V,, VL): , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)
()
Eq, A-5 becomes Fig. 10 Derivation of the multiphase choke equation.

SEPTEMBER, 1975 1151

 B.+ FWO Eq. A-7, the final expression for the orifice oil flow
v~= (where R, replaces R). rate results:
~ + pWFWO
+ 5.615 q. = 3.51 Cd$alo/310, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-15)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-12)
where
The mass and fluid rates are related by
CXIO
= (BO+ FUJ-2.

.BO+r*)(R)(+)
+~uol and

1
Rpo
+ F ~OpW, J
/3,0 =

0+ ()5.615

wvLf=qtf~~
5.615
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-13)
{[( -w+1986(-6)1
;5 ),@-R-(l
The sum of the oil, gas, and water flow rate must be [ 1 TIZI (R _ R,)e-,l,,
198.6 +
P1
1/2
qtf=qo+qg+qw. [yO+ 0.0002 17YgR,+ F,,.oy,,]}
Thus, x
[Yo+ 0.0002 17Y,,R+ Fu.oyu.l
iTPT
,ti=,o[Bo+(~)f#) +FIS.o]. . . . ..A-14.
Original manuscript receivad in S-ciety of Petroleum Engineers office Aug. 5,
When the expressions for the volumetric flow rate, qv, 1974. Revised manuscript received JU e 5, 1975. Paper (SPE 5161) was first
presented at the SPE-AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting, held in Houston, Oct. 6-9,
the mass flow rate, w, and the revised vahIe of vL, (Eqs. 1974. @ Copyright 1975 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Pe
A-14, A-13, and A-1 2, respectively) are substituted in troleum Engineers, Inc.

1152