SPE 109243

Predictions of Two-Phase Critical Flow Boundary and Mass Flow Rate across
Chokes

E. M. Al-safran, SPE, Kuwait University, and M. Kelkar, SPE, The University of Tulsa

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

slip model predictions outperformed their predictions
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical in the average percent error in both lab and field
Conference and Exhibition held in Anaheim, CA, U.S.A., 11 14 November
2007. validation and in the standard deviation in the lab
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee
validation only. This validation results indicates the
following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the importance of the slippage phenomenon.
author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the
Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
Introduction
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the The two common restrictions encountered in a
Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage
of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of production system are surface chokes and subsurface
the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in safety valves (SSSV). The purposes of installing
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not
be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where chokes and SSSVs are different; however, the basic
and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. equations which govern the flow through these
restrictions are very similar. There are two types of
flow behavior across chokes, namely, critical and
Abstract
sub-critical. The critical flow occurs when the fluid
The objective of this study is to develop and validate
velocity at the smallest cross section in the restriction
a theoretical slip model for two-phase flow through
is equal to the velocity of sound in that medium.
chokes. As opposed to the models1,2 currently used
When the velocity is less than the velocity of sound,
by the industry, the present model accounts for
we call it a sub-critical flow; if the velocity is greater
slippage between the liquid and gas phases as they
than the velocity of sound, we call it a critical flow.
pass through the choke. The theoretical basis of the
If the flow is sub-critical, the flow rate is related to
model is a 1D balance equation of mass, momentum
the pressure drop across the restriction. On the other
and energy with the assumptions of constant quality
hand, if the flow is critical, the rate is only related to
and incompressible liquid phase. The present slip
the upstream pressure, thus reduction in down stream
model is capable of predicting the critical/sub-critical
pressure does not affect the rate since the reduction
flow boundary and the critical and sub-critical mass
can never be transmitted upstream. Predicting the
flow rates. A model validation study demonstrated
flow pattern, critical/sub-critical boundary, as well as
the capability of the slip models to predict the critical
the flow rate across the choke is crucial for well
flow boundary with an average error and standard
productivity and optimization.
deviation of 5.2% and 15.5% respectively.
Extensive studies were conducted and several
Furthermore, in a laboratory validation, the present
models were developed on two-phase flow across
slip model predicted the mass flow rate with an
chokes which mainly fall into two categories, namely
average error and standard deviation of 2.7% and
empirical and theoretical models. The empirical
12.5%, respectively. Compared with field data, the
models such as Gilbert3, Ros4, Achong5, Pilehvari6,
present slip model predicted the mass flow rate with
Ashford and Pierce7, Osman and Dokla8, and Omana
1.2% average percent error and 15% standard
et al.9 were all developed on specific range of data
deviation, respectively. Compared to existing no-slip
and can not be extended beyond their range. The
models1,2 commonly used by the industry, the present
second category comprises the theoretical
2 109243
approaches, basically derived from mass, momentum
and energy balances such as Sachdeva et al.1,
Perkins2 and Selmer-Olsen et al.9 The theoretical
models are mostly used by the industry because of
their ability to simulate the physical phenomena, thus
they are considered more accurate. The following is a
brief description of these theoretical models.
Sachdeva et al.1 acquired experimental data for
critical, sub-critical flows and the boundary between
them using air/water and air/kerosene system for
different sizes of choke diameters ranging from 0.25
to 0.5 in. A theoretical model is developed from the
1D mass, momentum and energy balance equations
for a two-phase gas liquid mixture to predict the
critical and sub-critical mass fluxes, which is
considered comprehensive since fluid properties are
also involved. Perkins2 presented theoretical
equations that describe isentropic multiphase flow
across a choke valid for critical sub-critical flows.
The model incorporates the oil, gas and water
properties correlations to predict the critical/sub-
critical boundary. An expression for total mass flow
rate across the choke was developed through a
combined equation of conservation of mass and
isentropic expansion of a homogeneous multiphase
mixture. Selmer-Olsen et al.10 acquired experimental
data and developed the Hydro model which uses a
control volume approach for the choke orifice and its
downstream to mechanistically account for
irreversible loss process instead of using discharge
coefficient only. The model is derived from the local
cross-sectional averaged balance equations of mass,
momentum and energy for steady-state flow of a
multiphase mixture. Contrary to Sachdeva et al.1 and
Perkins2 models, the Hydro model accounts for
slippage between the phases. Although the Hydro
model is more accurate, it is complex in formulation
and solution for the boundary.
In a recent comprehensive study, Schuller et al.11
acquired experimental large scale oil/gas/water sub-
critical flow data across chokes where they measured
the mass flow rate and pressure drop across chokes.
The slip Hydro model was evaluated against the
experimental data and compared with Sachdeva et
al.1 and Perkins2 models. Schuller et al.11 study
revealed the accuracy of their improved slip Hydro
model over the no-slip Sachdeva et al.1 and Perkins2
models in predicting the sub-critical mass flow rate.
In another resent study by Schuller et al.12, critical
mass flow rate data were acquired from the same
experimental facility against which the three models
were evaluated. The improved slip Hydro model
outperformed Sachdeva et al.1 and Perkins2 model
with high accuracy. On the other hand, Schuller et
al.12 showed that the Hydro model is unable to
predict the critical/sub-critical flow boundary with a
reasonable accuracy and is considered, in this stage, a
qualitative tool only.
The above literature review on theoretical choke
studies demonstrates that modeling the slippage
phenomenon across chokes improves the accuracy of
mass flow rate predictions. Furthermore, the
literature review shows the need for a simple
theoretical, yet accurate slip model to predict the
critical/sub-critical flow boundary and the mass flow
rate which is the aim of this study.
Model
The present slip model is developed on the basis of
Sachdeva et al.1 and Perkins2 models. The model
accounts for conservation of mass, momentum and
energy for two-phase flow across restriction with the
following assumptions:
Flow is one dimensional.
Acceleration is the predominant pressure term.
Quality is constant frozen flow.
Liquid phase is incompressible.
Gas phase expands polytropically.
Slippage exists at choke throat.
The present slip model is capable of calculating
the critical/sub-critical flow boundary and the mass
flow rate for critical and sub-critical flow behaviors.
The complete model derivation is provided in the
Appendix. In the Appendix, we also demonstrate
that our model can be reduced to either Perkins or
Sachadeva et al.1 models if some simplifying
assumptions are made.
Critical Flow Boundary. The final form of the
critical/sub-critical flow boundary equation is
presented as follows.
(1 rc ) +
n
n 1
(rc )
1 1
{ }
n = 2
(1)
n n 1
+ 1 + rc n
n 1 2
Where
xg kCvg + (1 xg ) CL
n=
xg Cvg + (1 xg ) CL
. (2)
R(1 xg )vL
= (3)
xg vg1
in which rc=critical pressure ratio (p2/p1),
n=polytropic gas expansion exponent, k=gas specific
heat ratio, Cv=gas specific heat at constant volume,
CL=liquid specific heat constant, xg= gas quality,
109243 3

vg=gas specific volume, vL=liquid specific volume
and R=slip ratio (ug/uL). Eq. (1) is an implicit
equation that requires an iterative procedure to solve
for rc.
Critical and Sub-critical mass flow rate. The
complete derivation of the total mass flow rate
equation is presented in the Appendix. The final
form of the equation is as follows.
n
n 1
CA22 p1 (1 r ) + 1 r n
n 1
.. (4)
m 2 =
x g v g1 r n + x g + (1 x g )
1 2
1 suggests that the selection of specific slip model
R should partially depend on the fluids viscosity ratio.
in which A2=choke cross sectional area, p1 upstream
pressure and C is a constant and will change
depending on the units used (C=2000 CD for SI units
and C=2*CD2*gc*144). In this study, a value of
CD=0.75 was found appropriate to calibrate for the
model imperfections and irreversible losses. In the
case of critical flow (r<rc), rc is used in Eq. (4) to
calculate the critical total mass flow rate. On the
other hand, when flow is predicted as sub-critical
(r>rc), r is used in Eq. (4) to calculate the sub-critical
total mass flow rate. In this study and due to sub-
critical flow data availability, the model was
evaluated only for sub-critical flow.
Slip model. Due to high acceleration at choke throat,
gas phase flows past liquid phase resulting in
slippage between the two phases. To complete the
present slip model an algebraic expression is required
for the slip ratio. Several studies provided an
expression for the slip ratio with different
assumptions. These include Henry13, Tangren et
al.14, Henry and Fauske15, Chishom16, McNeil and
Morris17, Leung18,19, Grolmes and Leung20 and
Schuller et al.11. In this study, several slip models
were tested to improve the accuracy of the present
slip model critical flow boundary predictions and
sub-critical mass flow rate. Among all, Schuller et
value that is more reasonable for the sub-critical flow
behavior. Grolmes and Leung20 slip model is the
selected slip model for sub-critical flow behavior
which is presented as follows.
( a1 1) ( a 2 +1) a3
1 xg L L (6)
R = a0
x
g g g
in which =phase viscosity and the constants value of
a0=1, a1=1, a2=-0.83 and a3=0 are given by Simpson
et al.21
The analysis of different slip models in this study
In the case of high liquid viscosity, the gas will flow
past the liquid droplets leading to high slippage
between the two phases. This was tested for when
the Schuller et al. oil water mixture (high viscosity)
mass flow rate data is compared with water (low
viscosity) mass flow rate data, different slip model
models were found appropriate for each case.
Model Evaluation
The present slip model is evaluated on its predictions
of critical/sub-critical flow boundary as well sub-
critical mass flow rate. The evaluation results are
presented below.
Critical/sub-critical flow boundary. There is a
very limited published data on the critical flow
boundary. The present slip model is validated against
Sachdeva et al.22 critical flow boundary (110 points)
experimental data set. The present model predictions
were compared with Sachdeva et al.1 and Perkins2
models. Fig. 1 shows the present slip model critical
flow boundary prediction as a function of upstream
GLR against the critical and sub-critical flow data.
The model predictions separate the two flow
behaviors very well identifying the boundary
between them.
1.0

al.11 slip model was found to be the most appropriate 0.9

one to improve the present model accuracy for 0.8

Pressure Ratio, r (p2/p1)

critical flow boundary. For the range of quality of 0.7

the experimental critical boundary data in this study, 0.6

Schuller et al.11 slip model provided a high slip ratio 0.5

0.4
(3-4) which is reasonable for critical flow conditions.
Schuller et al.11 slip ratio expression is as follows. 0.3

0.2

0.1


[ ]
R = 1 + x g L 1 1 + 0.6e g . (5)

5.0 x 0.0
0.1 1 3
Insitu GLR (m /m )
3 10 100

g Critical data points Subcritical data points Sachdeva et al. model

in which =phase density. In the case of sub-critical Perkins model Present Model

mass flow rate predictions, a different slip model was Fig. 1- Comparison of predicted critical flow boundary
found more appropriate which provided lower slip with experimental data
4 109243

The present slip, Sachdeva et al.1 and Perkins2
models were compared with the experimental critical
flow boundary. Statistical error analysis was carried
out to calculate the average percent error (E1),
absolute average percent error (E2) and standard
deviation (E3) for each model. The statistical
parameters are defined in Eqs. (8-10). The results of
the error analysis are presented in Table 1.
Mass flow rate. Laboratory validation. A validation
study is carried to test the model against sub-critical
mass flow rate and compare it with Sachdeva et al.1
and Perkins2 predictions. In this validation study two
sub-critical data bases were used, namely Sachdeva
et al.22 and Schuller et al.11 Fig. 2, 3 and 4 are cross
plots of the present slip, Sachdeva et al.1 and Perkins2
models, respectively.

1 rc rc i ( m )
E1 = i ( c )
2.5

x100 (8)
n r c i(m) 2

Predicted mass flow rate (kg/s)

1
1.5
rc rc i ( m )
E2 = i ( c ) x100 (9)
n rc i ( m ) 1

0.5

2
rc i ( c ) rc i ( m )
E1 0

rc i ( m )
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

(10)
n
E3 =
Measured mass flow rate (kg/s)

i =1 n 1 Fig. 2 Present slip model predictions vs. lab measured

mass flow rate

Table 1: Model Comparisons 2.5

Model E1 (%) E2 (%) E3 (%)

2
Predicted mass flow rate (kg/s)

Present slip model 5.2 12.4 15.5

Sachdeva et al. 19.4 22.1 17.8
Perkins 10.6 16.6 17.4 1.5

Table 1 shows that the present slip model 1

outperformed the two no-slip Sachdeva et al.1 and

Perkins2 models. All the three model over predict the 0.5

experimental data with the lowest being the present

slip model with 5.2% average error and 15.5 standard 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
deviation. Measured mass flow rate (kg/s)
In the above validations, the experimentally
Fig. 3 Sachdeva et al. predictions vs. measured
measured p2 is the recovered pressure further
downstream of the choke and is neither the pressure mass flow rate
at the choke throat (p2), nor the pressure just 2.5

downstream of the choke (p2). Therefore, since the

critical pressure ratio is defined as the throat pressure
Predicted mass flow rate (kg/s)

(p2) to the upstream pressure (p1), the recovered

measure p2 should be related to p2. This is 1.5

accomplished in two steps, first relating p2 to p2,

then p2 to p2. Using a relationship suggested by 1

Perry22 as follows,
0.5

( p p ) .. (7)
"
p2' = p1
[1 (d d ) ]
1 2 0
1.85 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
c dp Measured mass flow rate (kg/s)

in which dc=choke diameter and ddp=downstream Fig. 4 Perkins predictions vs. measured
pipe diameter. In the case of boundary flow, p2=p2, mass flow rate
thus rc=p2/p1=p2/p1.
109243 5

The above Figs. show that Sachdeva et al.1 and 25

Perkins models underpredict the mass flow rate with
a large scatter specifically for values greater than 1

Predicted mass flow rate (kg/s)

20
kg/s. On the other hand, the present slip model
improved the results and reduced the scatter to 2.7% 15

average error and 12.5% standard deviation. Table 3

presents the error analysis of the present model 10

compared with Sachdeva et al.1 and Perkins2 models.

5

0
Table 3: Models Error Analysis 0 5 10 15 20 25
Model E1 (%) E2 (%) E3 (%) Measured mass flow rate (kg/s)
Present slip model 2.7 9.7 12.5
Sachdeva et al. -10.7 13.4 14.1 Fig. 6 Sachdeva et al. predictions vs. field measured
mass flow rate
Perkins -17.6 18.8 14.0

In this study, a value of CD=0.7-0.75 was found 25

appropriate to calibrate for the model imperfections

Predicted mass flow rate (kg/s)

20
and irreversible losses. The Sachdeva et al.1 and
Perkins2 modes use a discharge coefficient of 0.85 15

and 0.826, respectively, to account for irreversible

losses. 10

5
Field validation. A field validation study is carried
out in this study to test and compare the new model 0

with field data and other models, respectively. The 0 5 10 15 20 25

Measured mass flow rate (kg/s)
field data base consistes of 29 data points acquaired
from Middle East fields and 28 data points of Fig. 4 Perkins predictions vs. field measured
Ashford and Peirce7. The data is mixed of 47 critical mass flow rate
data points and only 10 sub-critical data points. Fig.
5, 6 and 7 are cross plots of the present slip, The above Figs. Illustrate the performance of each
Sachdeva et al.1 and Perkins2 models, respectively, model against the filed data. Sachdeva et al.1 model
against the field data. is the least accurate among the three models which
overpredicts the mass flow rate with a relatively large
dispersion of the data around its mean. On the other
25
hand, the present slip and Perkins2 models show
better accuracy and precision in their predictions.
20
Some of the error observed in this field validation is
Predicted mass flow rate (kg/s)

attributed to the noise and scatter existed in the field

15
data. In this validation, the the present slip model
10
showed its capability to predict high mass flow rate
in addition to the low mass flow rate observed in the
5 lab validation. Table 4 demonestrates the error
analysis of present model and compares it with both
0 Sachdeva et al.1 and Perkins2 models.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Measured mass flow rate (kg/s)
Table 4: Models Error Analysis
Fig. 5 Present slip model predictions vs. field Model E1 (%) E2 (%) E3 (%)
measured mass flow rate Present slip model 1.4 12.0 14.9
Sachdeva et al. 12.5 16.8 15.1
Perkins 4.0 11.0 12.6

The error analysis shows that the present slip

model outperformed the other two models in the
average percent error of 1.4% compared with
Sachdeva et al.1 and Perkins2 error of 12.5% and 4%,
repectively. However, Perkins2 models showed
6 109243

slightly lower standard deviation and abosolute error E1 = Average percent error (%)
than the present model. E2 = Absolute average perecent error
The lab and field verification study above shows (%)
that, overall, the proposed new model outperforms E3 = Standard deviation (%)
both the Sachadeva et al. and Perkins models. k = Heat capacity ratio = Cp/Cv (-)
Sachdeva et al.1 model perform better in sub-critical m = mass flow rate (kg/s)
condition (lab validation) than in the sub-critical n = Polytropic gas expansion
conditions (field validation). Conversely, the present coefficient (-) or number of data
slip and Perkins2 models are more accurate in points
predicting the critical mass flow rate (field p = Pressure (Pa)
validation) than the sub-critical mass flow rate. This p = Pressure just downstream of choke
result illustrates that the present model is the most (Pa)
accurate model in both cases of critical and sub- P = Recovered downstream pressure
critical. (Pa)
rc = Critical pressure ratio = p2/p1 (-)
Conclusions R = Slip ratio (-)
Several conclusions can be derived based on this v = Specific volume = 1/ (m3/kg)
study as follows: x = Quality
A new model accounting for slip between the Greek letters
two phases is derived on the basis of Sachdeva et = Viscosity (Pa.s)
al. and Perkins models of 1D balance equation of = Density (kg/m3)
mass, momentum and energy with the
assumptions of constant quality and Subscripts
incompressible liquid phase. c = choke, calculated, critical
The present slip model is capable of predicting g
i
=
=
Gas
elimental data point
the critical/sub-critical flow boundary and the
mass flow rate of critical and sub-critical flow L = Liquid
behaviors. m = Mixture, measured
dp = Downstream Pipe
A validation study demonstrated the capability of 1 = Upstream
the new model to predict the critical/sub-critical 2 = At choke throat
flow boundary with average error of 5.2% and
standard deviation of 15.5% outperforming Acknowledgement
Sachdeva et al. and Perkins models. The first author wishes to express his thanks to
A validation study on sub-critical mass flow rate Kuwait University for supporting this research. Both
showed that the present slip model accurately authors acknowledge the University of Tulsa and
predicted the mass flow rate with average error Tulsa University Fluid Flow Projects for making the
of 2.7% and standard deviation of 12.5% experimental data available. The authors also thank
outperforming Sachdeva et al.1 and Perkins2 Dr. Ciro Perez for checking the accurary of the
models. equations.
Slippage phenomenon between the two phases at
References
the choke entrance and throat is an important
parameter that should be accounted for in
modeling flow across the choke. Furthermore, 1. Sachdeva, R., Schmidt, Z., Brill, J. P., and Blais,
the selection of slip model depends on the type R.: Two-Phase Flow Through Chokes, SPE
of flow, quality range as well as fluids viscosity 15657 presented at the 1986 SPE Annual
ratio. Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, 5-8 October.
Nomenclature
A = Cross sectional area (m2) 2. Perkins, T. K.: Critical and Sub-Critical Flow
C = Heat capacity (KJ/kg/K) of Multiphase Mixtures Through Chokes, SPE
CD = Discharge coefficient 20633, SPE Drilling and Completion (December
Cv = Heat capacity at constant volume 1993), 271.
(KJ/kg/K)
d = Diameter (m)
109243
3. Gilbert, W. E.: Flowing and Gas-Lift Well
Performance, Drilling and Production Prac.
(1954) 126.
4. Ros, N. C. J.: An Analysis of Critical
Simultaneous Gas-Liquid Flow Through a
Restriction and its Application to Flow
Metering, Appl. Sci. Res. (1960) 9.
5. Achong, I.: Revised Bean Performance Formula
for Lake Maracaibo Wells, Internal Company
Report, Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX
(October 1961).
6. Pilehavri, A.A.: Experimental Study of Critical
Two-Phase Flow Through Wellhead Chokes,
M.Sc. Thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa OK 1981.
7. Ashford, F.E. and Pierce, P.E.: Determining
Multiphase Pressure Drop and Flow Capacities
in Downhole Safety Valves, JPT (September
1975) 1145.
8. Osman, M. E. and Dokla, M. E.: Gas
Condensate Flow through Chokes, SPE 20988,
Richardson, TX (1990).
9. Omana, R., Houssiere, C., Brown, K., Brill, J.,
and Thompson, R.: Multiphase Flow Through
Chokes, paper SPE 2682 presented at the 1969
SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Denver, Colorado 28
September-1 October, 1969.
10. Selmer-Oslen, S., Holm, H., Haugen, K., Nilsen,
P., and Sandbegr, R.: Subsea Choke Flow
Characteristics, paper presented in BHRG
Multiphase Production Conference, Cannes,
France (1995) 441.
11. Schller, R.B., Munaweera, S., Selmer-Olsen, S.,
and Solbakken, T.: Critical and Subcritical
Oil/Gas/Water Mass Flow Rate Experiments and
Predictions for Chokes, SPE Production and
Facilities (August 2006) 372.
12. Schller, R.B., Solbakken, T., and Selmer-Olsen,
S.: Evaluation of Multiphase Flow Rate
Models for Chokes Under Sub-Critical
Oil/Gas/Water Flow Conditions, SPE
Production and Facilities (August 2003) 170.
13. Henry, E.: Calculation Techniques for Two-
Phase Critical Flows, Two-Phase Flow
Dynamics, 1981, Hemisphere, 415-436.
7
14. Tangren, r., Dodge, C, and Seifert, H.:
Compressibility Effects in Two-Phase Flow, J.
Applied Physics, 1949, vol. 20, No. 7, 637-645.
15. Henry, R. and Fauske, H.: The Two-Phase
Critical Flow of two-Component Mixtures in
Nozzles, Orifices and Short Tubes, ASME J.
Heat Transfer, vol. 93, May 1971, 179-187.
16. Chisholm, D.: Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines and
Heat Exchangers, George Godwin (Longman
Group Ltd.) and IChemE, London (1983).
17. McNeil, D and Morris, S.: Simple Explicit
Method for Estimating Gas/Liquid Flow
Conditions in Pipeline Restrictions,
Proceedings of 2nd UK National Heat Transfer
Conference, Glasgow 1988, vol. 2, 1234-1256.
18. Leung, J.: A Generalized Correlation for One-
component homogenous Equilibrium Flashing
Coked Flow, AIChE Journal, vol 32, No. 10,
1986, 1743.
19. Leung, J.: Size Safety Relief Valves for
Flashing Liquids, Chemical Engineering
Progress, February 1992, 70-75 (Corrections in
March 1992, 108)
20. Grolmes, M. and Leung, J.: Chemical
Engineering Progress, 1985, vol 81, No. 8, 47.
21. Simpson, H., Rooney, d., and Grattan, E.: Two-
phase Flow through Gate Valves and Orifice
Plates, paper presented at the Int. conference on
the Physical Modeling of Multiphase Flow,
Coventry, England, 19-21 April 1983.
22. Sachdeva, R.: Two-Phase Flow Through
Chokes, M.Sc. Thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK,
1984.
23. Chemical Engineers Handbook, third edition,
John H. Perry, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New
York City, 1950, 404.
Metric Conversion Factors
o
F (oF-32)/1.8 x 1.0 E+00 = K
ft x 3.048 E-01 = m
ft2 x 9.29 E-02 = m2
3
ft x 2.831 E-02 = m3
in. x 2.54 E+01 = m
kg/m3 x 1.198 264 E+02 = lbm/gal
m3/s x 5.803 036 E+01 = bbl/D
8 109243

m3/h x 1.589 873 1 1

E-01 = bbl/hr
dp m 2
psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa = 2 2 2 2 (A.4)
m 2 m2 A2 m1 A1
APPENDIX A - Mathematical Derivation
In the above equation, we have ignored the
The two most common methods used to internal energy of gas. For values of n approaching
determine the flow through chokes are provided by one, this is a reasonable assumption. Substituting the
Sachdeva, et al. and Perkins. The approach used by mixture density from A.2 in equation A.4 and
both investigators is similar and, as will be pointed assuming isentropic expansion, we can write
out, with few reconciliations, both approaches give

the same result. Both equations assume no slip
between the two phases. However, they can be easily R(1 xg )vL ( p1 p2 ) +
xg n
n 1
[
p1v g1 p2 v g 2 ] x g +
1
(1 xg )
R
modified by accounting for slippage between the two
phases. m 2 m2 2 A22
= 1
2 A m2 1 A12
2
m2
2
2
We define the slip ratio as
(A.5)

ug where vL and vg are specific volumes of liquid and

R= (A.1)
gas respectively. Substituting the mixture density
uL
expressions and defining the equation in terms of r,
where ug and uL are in-situ gas and liquid velocities,
p2
the pressure ratio , we obtain
respectively. Typically, one would expect R to be p1
greater than one as gas would slip past the liquid.
n 1

In the presence of slip, we can write the
R (
1 x )v p (1 r ) +
xg n
p 1 g1
v 1 r n

mixture density, m , as n 1
g l 1

=
m 2
[ ]
xg vg 2 + R (1 xg )vL xg + (1 xg )
2 1
x R (1 xg )
xg + (1 xg )
2
1 1 2 A2 R
= g +
m 2 g 2 L 2 R x v + R(1 x )v 2 A 2
x 1 g g1 g l
2
xg vg 2 + R(1 xg )vL A1
(A.2)

where xg represents the mass fraction of gas. .. (A.6)

If we assume isentropic expansion through the Substituting vg2=vg1r-1/n, and defining

R(1 xg )vL
restriction, for mixture, we can define
=
xg kCvg + (1 xg ) CL
... (A.7)
xg vg1
n=
xg Cvg + (1 xg ) CL
.. (A.3)

We can simplify A.6 as

where k is the specific heat ratio for gas, Cvg and CL
n 1

p1 (1 r ) +
are specific heat values for gas and liquid at constant n
p1 1 r n
volume conditions respectively. m 2 n 1
=
2
2 A22 1 + A2
2 2
According to Perkins, the energy balance (x v ) r
g g1
1
n
+ 1 1

x g + (1 x g )
A
1

r + 1
equation for multiphase flow can be written as n R
... (A.8)

At critical point, we have to satisfy

109243 9

d m x g v g1
2 parts of the equation. The reason for this discrepancy
= 0 . (A.9) is the inconsistency in the development of the
dr 2 A22 p1 equation by Sachdeva, et al. In writing the
momentum balance equation, they assume that
Taking the derivative and rearranging, we obtain pvgn = constant [see equation A.17 in the Appendix
of Sachdeva, et al.s paper]. However, in integrating
(1 rc ) +
n energy balance equation, they assume that gas
(rc )1 n n 1 expands isotropically, or pv g = constant. Due to the
1 k
=
{
}
1 + A2
2
2
n n
+ 1 + rc
1
n
1 1
inconsistency in their equations, both k and n appear
n 1 2 rc n + A1 in their equations. If we will replace k with n in
equation A.14, we will obtain identical expressions as
(A.10) in A.12.

This equation requires a trial-and-error solution Rewriting equation A.8, we can write the mass
since rc is on both sides of the equation. If we flow rate equation as
assume that
n
n 1

A2 CA22 p1 (1 r ) + 1 r n

<< 1 .. (A.11) n 1
m 2 =
A1 2
1 + A2
2 2

x g v g1 r + 1 1 x g + (1 x g )
1 1
n
A
r + 1
n R
we can simplify the equation as
(A.15)

(1 rc ) +
n
n 1 A2
(rc )1 1n = << 1 , we can simplify
{ }
.. (A.12) If we assume
n n 1 2 A1
+ 1 + rc n
n 1 2
n
n 1

CA22 p1 (1 r ) + 1 r n
n 1
For comparison purposes, let us consider an
equation provided by Sachdeva, et al.:
m 2 =
x g v g1 r n + x g + (1 x g )
1 2
1
(1 rc ) +
k R
r
1 1
n
= k 1 .. (A.13)
( )
c 2
k n 1 x g L
v (A.16)
+ 1 +
k 1 2 xg vg 2 In the two equations above, C is a constant and
will change depending on the units used. For
This is the same as equation A.2 in the original comparison purposes, Sachdeva, et al. provides the
paper. If we assume slippage and substitute following equation for mass flow rate.
1
vg 2 = vg1rc k
, we can rewrite equation A.13 as
k
k 1

CA22 p1 (1 r ) + 1 r k
k 1

(1 rc ) +
k m =
2
2
k 1 x g v g1 r k +
1 1 1

{ }
r k
= .. (A.14)
c
k n 1 2
+ 1 + rc k
k 1 2
(A.17)
When we compare equations A.12 and A.14, we
observe that the two equations are similar except that If we substitute n for k, and account for slippage,
instead of using n, Sachdeva, et al. has k in some equation A.17 will become A.16.