Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
.A new relationship describing dynamic, multiphase companies to develop new multiphase orifice flow rela-
orifice pressure drops and fluid flow capacities has been tionships.
derived and tested with actual field data. Interest in antipollution devices, especially in offshore
The mathematical model relates dynamic orifice be- oil. ; reducing areas, has also encouraged the major oil
havior in both critical and noncritical flow regimes. companies to re-evaluate old, established procedures for
Orifice pressure drops and capacities are related to perti- the design of oil- and gas-well mfet y valves,
nent fluid properties and choke dimensions. Graphical A review of the existing orifice flow literaturemT and
correlations are also presented to predict the ultimate analysis of standard safety-valve design procedures
(critical) capacity of an orifice for any given set of yielded the following facts concerning noncritical mul-
dynamic conditions. tiphase orifice flow.
To verify the model, a field test was designed and 1. Most orifice flow models do not adequately reflect
:arried out in a flowing oil well. Both orifice pressure the compressible nature of actual oilwell multiphase
drops and fluid flow rates were measured in the well and orifice flow. Consequently, models now in use do not
the information was compared with analogous data pre- adequately describe the dynamic behavior of orifice flow.
dicted by the model, Comparable information was then 2. The existing orifice flow relationships become less
used to compute an orifice discharge coefficient that exact as the dynamic conditions approach the critical
enables calculation of actual orifice capacities from value; that is, at a given upstream pressure, no further
theoretical ones. The discharge coefficients are presented flow-rate increase occurs through the orifice, regardless
for 14/64-, 16/64- and 20/64-in. orifice diameters. of the pressure drcp across the orifice.
The collected data reflect the behavior of an Otis En- Those who are involved in manufacturing down-hole,
gineering Corp. J-type 22J037 safety valve. However, the pressure-drop-operated safety valves are aware of the
model may be used to esrima?e multiphase pressure drops problems associated with accurate prediction of orifice
through restrictive beans in safety valves of other internal flow behavior. Most agree that a more rigorous mwhemat-
geometrical configurations. ical model is needed to describe the mechanics of orifice
flow under all oilfield conditionm.
I Discussion The orifice relationships used by design engineers,
The increased need for more accurate settings on down- fiough acceptable under certain flow conditions, are ques-
hole, self-contained, flowing safety devices (storm tionable for applications falling outside these specifica-
chokes) has prompted efforts by many oil-producing tions. A more rigorous procedure applicable to oilfield
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.
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
. . .. .....
,,M
;1
.,> ,, ,.,.LI. i
:
3
, ,.,
I \ ! 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.
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. ..,, - ,
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
Fig. 9 Three-phase orificefflolowrates for noncritical orifice Ce = orifice downstream to upstream ratio at Critics]
conditions
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)
.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