Petroleum Engineering

Iranian Journal of Oil & Gas Science and Technology, Vol. 6 (2017), No. 3, pp 29-40
http://ijogst.put.ac.ir

Modeling Critical Flow through Choke for a Gas-condensate Reservoir

Based on Drill Stem Test Data

Ahmad Lak1, Reza Azin2*, Shahriar Osfouri3, and Rouhollah Fatehi4

1
Instructor, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Petroleum, Gas and Petrochemical Engineering,
Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran
2
Associate Professor, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Petroleum, Gas and Petrochemical
Engineering, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran
3
Associate Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Petroleum, Gas and Petrochemical
Engineering, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran
4
Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Persian Gulf University,
Bushehr, Iran

Received: November 27, 2016; revised: January 12, 2017; accepted: April 24, 2017

Abstract
Gas-condensate reservoirs contain hydrocarbon fluids with characteristics between oil and gas
reservoirs and a high gas-liquid ratio. Due to the large gas-liquid ratio, wellhead choke calculations
using the empirical equations such as Gilbert may contain considerable error. In this study, using drill
stem test (DST) data of a gas-condensate reservoir, coefficients of Gilbert equation was modified;
26.7% of DST data has uncertainty. In these data, due to a problem of flow transmitter, the water
flow rate is recorded equal to zero. This makes the mean absolute error of 5% in the measuring of
total liquid phase flow rate. Because of uncertainty in the water flow rate in some DST data, the
coefficients were optimized for two sets of data to investigate the effect of water flow rate on the
calculations. The first dataset was the complete set of DST data, and, in the second, data were filtered
with the elimination of uncertain data. The regression results showed that the whole data have a mean
absolute error of 5.1%. For this regression, the uncertain data had a mean absolute error of 8.6%,
while the error of the remaining data was 3.9%. In this case, for 38% of uncertain data, the mean
absolute error was more than 10% indicating that these data are the major factor of the error. Mean
absolute error for the filtered dataset was 3.0%. Error reduction was due to the elimination of data
with uncertainty. In this case, 3% of the total data had a mean absolute error of more than 10%. In
other words, 5% error of the liquid phase flow measurement that includes 26.7% of data caused an
increase of 2.1% in the error of calculations. This showed that the elimination of uncertain data causes
a remarkable reduction in error. To study the effect of temperature on choke calculations, wellhead
temperature was considered as a variable in the Gilbert equation form. The regression results showed
that the mean absolute error of 3.0% does not change, and the wellhead temperature has no
considerable effect on the choke calculation accuracy.

* Corresponding Author:
Email: [email protected]
 30 Iranian Journal of Oil & Gas Science and Technology, Vol. 6 (2017), No. 3

Keywords: Gas-condensate Reservoir, Gas-liquid Ratio, Choke Modeling, Gilbert Equation, Drill
Stem Test (DST)

1. Introduction
Gas-condensate reservoirs are important sources of hydrocarbon considered as an intermediate of oil
and gas reservoirs. As the hydrocarbon production starts, these reservoirs behave as a single phase gas
reservoir. Initial fluid pressure is above the dew point curve, and as a result of reservoir production and
pressure decrease, the condensate will form as a separate phase within the reservoir. Gas-liquid ratio in
gas-condensate reservoirs changes between 3200 to 150000 SCF/STB (Danesh, 1998).
Wellhead choke is a type of valves installed to control the well flow and to protect surface facilities
from damage due to pressure variation. Positive and adjustable chokes are the main types used on
wellheads. Positive chokes has a fixed cross section, but the cross section of adjustable chokes can be
controlled instrumentally. Fluid flow through chokes may be either critical or subcritical.
There are theoretical and empirical methods for choke modeling. In 1949, Tangren et al. (1949)
presented the first theoretical investigation on two-phase flow across the restrictions like chokes.
Ashford and Pierce (Ashford et al., 1975) also presented a theoretical model for calculating pressure
drop for multiphase flow through chokes and Sachdeva et al. (1986) extended the investigation of
Ashford and Pierce. In 1954, Gilbert (1954) proposed a simple empirical correlation for critical flow
through chokes and this correlation became a base for some other researchers such as Ros (1960),
Baxendell (1957), Achong (1961) and Pilehvari (1981). Al-Attar and Abdul-Majeed (Al-Attar et al.,
1988) compared some choke flow correlations such as Gilbert and Ashford model with production data
from 155 well tests. They showed that the Gilbert model had the minimum average error within the
studied model for flow calculations through chokes. Osman and Dokla (Osman et al., 1990) analyzed
field data to present empirical correlations for chokes in gas-condensate wells. Perkins (1993) generated
equations from general energy equation that described isentropic flow of multiphase mixtures through
chokes. Al-Towailib and Al-Marhoun (Al-Towailib et al., 1994) employed more than 3500 production
test data from ten fields in the Middle East to present an empirical correlation for two-phase critical
flow through chokes. Elgibaly and Nashawi (Elgibaly et al., 1998) proposed empirical correlations for
two-phase flow through wellhead chokes based on data from the Middle East oil wells. Esmaeilzadeh
et al. (Esmaeilzadeh et al., 2006) proposed different empirical forms of choke equation considering
various parameters such as pressure drop and upstream temperature and verified them with data from
five gas-condensate reservoirs in Iran. Lak et al. (2014) made a comparison between some of
experimental and theoretical models for well flow splitting calculations in a gas-condensate field and
showed that the theoretical mechanistic model has more accuracy in flow calculation.
In this paper, the Gilbert equation form is adjusted for a gas-condensate reservoir fluid. The
experimental data for this study is taken from DST data conducted for several production wells of this
reservoir. Also, the effect of wellhead temperature on choke calculation is investigated for Gilbert form
of choke equation.

2. The field and drill stem test data

The studied gas-condensate field is located at the Persian Gulf offshore. It includes 11 operating
platforms in the studied block. Each platform contains several wells. Well production streams pass
 A. Lak et al. / Modeling of Critical Flow through Choke for a Gas-condensate … 31

through a flexible choke valve to reduce pressure, and then they are mixed together at the surface and
sent to refinery.
A set of drill stem test (DST) data were collected from different wells of this gas-condensate field in
the time period from 1992 to 2013. This set of data contains wellhead pressure and temperature, choke
diameter, separator pressure and temperature, and flow rates of gas, condensate, and water. A schematic
of surface process is shown in Figure 1.
Choke Valve Separator Gas
Total Gas (qg)

Stock Tank Gas (qgs)

Test Separator
Separator
Condensate Stock Tank
Wellhead Flow Stock Tank Condensate (qc)

Separator Water (qw)

Figure 1
A schematic of surface process.

According to this figure, wellhead flow production enters a test separator after passing across a choke
valve with a specific opening diameter. Gas, condensate, and water separation is performed in the test
separator. Then, separator condensate enters a stock tank in standard conditions (60 °F and 1 atm), and
condensate and gas leave the stock tank. Total gas flow rate (qg) is the sum of separator gas and stock
tank gas flow rates. Gas-liquid ratio (GLR) is calculated by dividing total gas flow rate by total liquid
(water and condensate) flow rate (qc+qw) as shown in Equation 1:

 qg 
R  (1)
 q c  qw 
A sample of surface DST data is given in Table 1. Totally, 864 DST datasets are collected and studied
in this work. Plot of GLR versus wellhead pressure is shown in Figure 2. As seen in this figure, wellhead
pressure range is 1580 to 4180 psi, and GLR changes between 13900 and 43300 SCF/STB. In average,
water content is 5% of total liquid flow rate. Ranges of operational variables are presented in Table 2.
50000

45000

40000

35000
GLR (SCF/STB)

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Pwh (psi)
 32 Iranian Journal of Oil & Gas Science and Technology, Vol. 6 (2017), No. 3

Figure 2
Values of GLR versus wellhead pressure of DST data.

The data presented in Tables 1 and 2 show that the water flow rate is recorded as zero in 231 data entries
or 26.7% of all the data. It is due to the uncertainty of water flowmeter because sometimes the flow
transmitter does not operate properly and results in a water flow rate of zero in recording DST data.
This makes the mean absolute error of 5% in the measuring of total liquid phase flow rate.

Table 1
A sample of surface DST data.
s
R
Pwh (psi) Twh (°F) (1/64 Psep. (psi) Tsep. (°F) qg (MMSCFD) qc (STBD) qw (STBD)
(SCF/STB)
in)

3906.0 111.0 24 554.0 92.0 11.622 426.0 18.0 26176

3921.0 115.0 24 551.0 91.0 11.507 427.0 9.0 26392

3923.0 115.0 24 543.0 31.0 11.324 440.0 2.0 25620

3927.0 118.0 24 543.0 90.0 11.348 412.0 17.0 26452

3542.0 125.0 32 532.0 70.0 17.848 754.0 8.0 23423

3544.0 128.0 32 525.0 73.0 17.666 680.0 12.0 25529

3548.0 128.0 32 526.0 75.0 17.803 665.0 14.0 26219

3547.0 131.0 32 521.0 75.0 17.761 547.0 35.0 30517

3001.0 139.0 40 535.0 80.0 24.097 917.0 5.0 26136

3006.0 141.0 40 536.0 80.0 24.075 916.0 0.0 26283

2993.0 141.0 40 543.0 80.0 24.265 914.0 0.0 26548

Table 2
Ranges of operational variables in DST data.
Variable Range
Pwh (psi) 1580-4180
Twh (°F) 95-151
1
s ( /64 in) 24-64
Psep. (psi) 265-1095
Tsep. (°F) 31-126
qg (MMSCFD) 10.7-47.3
qc (STBD) 281-2520
qw (STBD) 0-195
R (SCF/STB) 13900-43300
 A. Lak et al. / Modeling of Critical Flow through Choke for a Gas-condensate … 33

3. Choke modeling
As mentioned before, the wellhead chokes are installed to control the well flow or downstream pressure.
If flow velocity through the choke is less than the sound speed, it is called subcritical flow. Otherwise,
flow in the choke is critical when flowing velocity is greater than the sound speed. In a critical flow,
the flow rate is not dependent on downstream conditions. For a compressible fluid, the flow rate
increases when pressure ratio decreases. Once critical pressure ratio has been reached at the sonic
velocity, the flow becomes choked and the flow rate remains constant (Holland et al., 1995).
Several empirical models have been developed for critical choke flow modeling. The general form of
these models is presented in Equation 2 that is based on Gilbert investigations on chokes (Guo et al.,
2007).

CR m qL
Pwh  (2)
sn

where, C, m, and n are empirical constants related to fluid properties in this equation. Gilbert calculated
the values of 10, 0.546, and 1.89 for C, m, and n respectively on the basis of production data from the
ten section field in California (Gilbert, 1954).
Other values for the constants were proposed by other researchers such as Ros (1960), Baxendell (1957),
Achong (1961), and Pilehvari (1981). These values are presented in Table 3. The optimized values of
the constants are not unique, and there is rather a large variation in the constants, mostly for C, and to
a less extent for m and n.

Table 3
Empirical parameters of Equation 2.
Model C m n
Gilbert (Gilbert, 1954) 10.00 0.546 1.89
Ros (Ros, 1960) 17.40 0.500 2.00

Baxendell (Baxendell, 1957) 9.56 0.546 1.93

Achong (Achong, 1961) 3.82 0.650 1.88

Pilehvari (Pilehvari, 1981) 46.67 0.313 2.11

Because of different ranges of operational parameters such as flow rate, pressure, and GLR, the
optimized constants of a certain dataset cannot be used to make predictions from another dataset, and
this can lead to a considerable error. For example, if the original Gilbert equation (Gilbert, 1954) is used
to predict wellhead pressure for sample surface DST data of Table 1, a mean absolute error (ME%) of
28.2% will be resulted, as shown in Table 4. The relative error and mean absolute error percent are
calculated from Equations 3 and 4.

Pwh,cal  Pwh,rep
RE  %    100 (3)
Pwh,rep
 34 Iranian Journal of Oil & Gas Science and Technology, Vol. 6 (2017), No. 3

1 N Pwh,cal  Pwh,rep
ME  %    P
N i 1
 100 (4)
wh , rep i

Table 4
Wellhead pressure calculations with original Gilbert (Gilbert, 1954) equation (C=10.00, m=0.546, and n=1.89).
GLR
Pwh,rep (psi) s (1/64 in) qL (STBD) Pwh,cal (psi) RE (%)
(SCF/STB)

3906 24 444 26176 2825 27.7

3921 24 436 26392 2786 28.9

3923 24 442 25620 2779 29.2

3927 24 429 26452 2745 30.1

3542 32 762 23423 2649 25.2

3544 32 692 25529 2521 28.9

3548 32 679 26219 2510 29.3

3547 32 582 30517 2337 34.1

3001 40 922 26136 2232 25.6

3006 40 916 26283 2224 26.0

2993 40 914 26548 2231 25.4

ME (%) 28.2

Standard deviation from the mean absolute error is defined by Equation 5. This parameter shows the
dispersion of error values around the mean error.

1 N
  RE (%)i  ME (%) 
2

SD  (5)
N  1 i 1

Mean absolute error is calculated for the entire DST data with the mentioned models. The calculation
results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5
The mean absolute error of models for the entire DST data.
Model ME (%)
Gilbert (Gilbert, 1954) 27.7

Ros (Ros, 1960) 46.3

Baxendell (Baxendell, 1957) 40.0

Achong (Achong, 1961) 18.5

Pilehvari (Pilehvari, 1981) 85.1

 A. Lak et al. / Modeling of Critical Flow through Choke for a Gas-condensate … 35

As these calculations show, the error of the studied models is between 18.5 to 85.1%. Respectively,
Achong and Pilehvari have the minimum and maximum errors between these models. Also, the
parameter C of the choke Equation 2 is minimum and maximum for these two models (respectively
3.82 and 46.67). Generally, it appears that high C values cause a higher error in choke calculations for
this gas-condensate fluid. In other words, lower values of C should be used for the modeling of wellhead
chokes in this gas-condensate reservoir.

4. Method of DST data regression

In Gilbert equation and similar equations, parameters such as gas-liquid ratio and choke size appear in
power form. Therefore, after taking logarithm, equation converts to a linear equation to obtain constants
with the minimization of the calculation error.
Taking logarithm from both sides of Equation 2 results in Equation 6:

ln Pwh  ln C  m ln R  ln qL  n ln s (6)

The error of pressure calculation for a given point (ei) and the sum of square of errors (S) are defined as
Equations 7 and 8:

ei  ln Pwh,cal  ln Pwh,i (7)

Then, S is defined as the summation of error squares:

N N
S   ei    ln C  m ln Ri  ln qL,i  n ln si  ln Pwh,i 
2
2

(8)
i 1 i 1

Parameter S will be minimized provided that all partial derivatives are equal to zero. In other words:
S S S
  0 (9)
C m n
Writing the equations for three derivatives leads to a set of equations with C, m, and n as unknowns.
These equations are shown with Equations 10 to 12.
N N N N
N ln C  m ln Ri   ln qL ,i  n ln si   ln Pwh ,i  0 (10)
i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1

N N N N N
ln C  ln Ri  m (ln Ri )   ln qL ,i ln Ri  n ln si ln Ri   ln Pwh ,i ln Ri  0
2
(11)
i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1
N N N N N
ln C  ln si  m ln Ri ln si   ln qL,i ln si  n( ln si )   ln Pwh,i ln si  0
2
(12)
i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1

By solving this set of equations, the optimum values for parameters C, m, and n are calculated.
In order to investigate the effect of temperature on choke calculations, Gilbert equation was changed
and wellhead temperature was considered in the equation, as follows:
k
CTwh R m qL
Pwh 
sn (13)
For this case, S is defined with Equation 14.
 36 Iranian Journal of Oil & Gas Science and Technology, Vol. 6 (2017), No. 3
N N
S   ei    ln C  k ln Twh,i  m ln Ri  ln qL ,i  n ln si  ln Pwh,i 
2
2
(14)
i 1 i 1

Taking derivatives of Equation 14 with respect to constants n, m, C, and k results in set of Equations 15
to 18:
N N N N N
N ln C  k  ln Twh,i  m ln Ri   ln qL,i  n ln si   ln Pwh,i  0 (15)
i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1
N N N N N N
ln C  ln Twh,i  k ( ln Twh,i )  m ln Ri ln Twh ,i   ln qL ,i ln Twh ,i  n ln si ln Twh ,i   ln Pwh ,i ln Twh ,i  0
2

(16)
i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1

N N N N N N
ln C  ln Ri  k  ln Twh,i ln Ri  m( ln Ri )   ln qL,i ln Ri  n ln si ln Ri   ln Pwh,i ln Ri  0
2

(17)
i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1
N N N N N N
ln C  ln si  k  ln Twh,i ln si  m ln Ri ln si   ln qL ,i ln si  n( ln si )   ln Pwh,i ln si  0
2

(18)
i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1

5. Results and discussion

In this study, the calculations are performed for two sets of DST data. The first dataset includes all 864
data points. The second dataset involves those points for which water flow rate is available; this set
includes 633 data points. The results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6
Regression results.
Dataset N C m N ME (%) SD
All Data 864 0.25 0.899 1.76 5.1 5.1
Data with specified water flow
633 0.72 0.811 1.80 3.0 3.0
rate

Figure 3 compares the calculated versus reported wellhead pressure for all the data. The 45° line is also
shown for better comparison. The reported wellhead pressure versus the calculated wellhead pressure
for data with a specified water flow rate is shown in Figure 4.
 A. Lak et al. / Modeling of Critical Flow through Choke for a Gas-condensate … 37

5000

Data without water flow rate

ME% = 8.6
4500

4000

3500
Pwh,cal (psi)

3000

2500

2000
Data with water flow rate
ME% = 3.9
1500
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Pwh,rep (psi)

Figure 3
The reported wellhead pressure versus the calculated wellhead pressure for all the data.
 38 Iranian Journal of Oil & Gas Science and Technology, Vol. 6 (2017), No. 3

5000

4500

4000
Pwh,cal (psi)

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Pwh,rep (psi)

Figure 4
The reported wellhead pressure versus the calculated wellhead pressure for the data with a specified water flow
rate.

According to the results, data without a water flow rate are scattered at the top of the graph. Uncertain
data have a mean absolute error of 8.6%, while the error of the remained data is 3.9%; the mean absolute
error is 5.1% for all the data. It is between two mentioned errors. In this case, for 38% of the uncertain
data, the mean absolute error is more than 10%, which indicates that these data are the major factor of
the error. In other words, uncertain data increase the regression error of all the data.
The results show that the regression for the data containing water flow rates is more accurate with a
mean absolute error of 3.0%. In this case, 3% of the total data has more than 10% error. Better regression
is due to the elimination of the uncertain data. In other words, 5% error of the liquid phase flow
measurement, which includes 26.7% of all the data, cause an increase of 2.1% in the error of
calculations. This implies that the elimination of uncertain data causes a considerable reduction of error
in calculations, and removing uncertain data in data filtering will result in more accurate calculations.
The parameters obtained from this regression can be used for the choke calculation of gas-condensate
fluid with proper accuracy.
Therefore, although the water-condensate ratio is not high, and in average water forms 5% of the total
liquid phase, choke calculation accuracy decreases due to neglecting water flow rate.
 A. Lak et al. / Modeling of Critical Flow through Choke for a Gas-condensate … 39

The results of the regression of Equation 13 for data with a specified water flow rate are shown in Table
7. Also, the wellhead pressure calculated by Equation 2 versus the wellhead pressure calculated by
Equation 13 for this regression is shown in Figure 5.

Table 7
Regression results for Equation 13.
ME
Dataset N C m n k SD
(%)
Data with specified water flow
633 0.40 0.821 1.82 0.115 3.0 2.9
rate

5000

4500

4000
Pwh,cal with Equation (13) (psi)

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Pwh,cal with Equation (2) (psi)

Figure 5
The wellhead pressure calculated by Equation 2 versus the wellhead pressure calculated by with Equation 13.

The regression results for Equation 13 show that the mean absolute error of 3.0% does not change, and
there is not a considerable difference between the wellhead pressures calculated by Equations 2 and 13.
Therefore, considering the wellhead temperature in the Gilbert equation form has no tangible effect on
choke calculation accuracy.

6. Conclusions
In this work, critical flow calculations through chokes were studied based on DST data from a gas-
condensate reservoir. The water flow rate of 26.7% of these data was zero because of uncertainty in
water flowmeter. Therefore, DST data was divided into two sets; the first dataset contained all the data,
 40 Iranian Journal of Oil & Gas Science and Technology, Vol. 6 (2017), No. 3

and, in the second, the uncertain data was eliminated. The base form for choke calculation was Gilbert
model. Using DST data, the equation parameters was modified.
The results showed that uncertainty in water flow rate decreases the accuracy of regression. Uncertain
data had a mean absolute error of 8.6%. The mean absolute error was 5.1% for all the data and 3.0%
for data with a specified water flow rate. This shows that the elimination of uncertain data causes a
remarkable reduction in error.
For studying the effect of wellhead temperature on calculations, temperature was considered in the
calculation equation, and specified data and parameters were modified again. The results showed that
the mean absolute error is 3.0%, and there is no significant difference between the wellhead pressure
values calculated by the new equation and those calculated by Gilbert form equation. Therefore,
wellhead temperature has no considerable effect on choke calculation.

Nomenclature
C : Choke equation constant
e : Pressure calculation error [psi]
GLR : Gas-liquid ratio [--]
k : Choke equation constant [--]
m : Choke equation constant [--]
ME (%) : Mean absolute error percent [--]
n : Choke equation constant [--]
N : Number of data [--]
Psep. : Separator pressure [psi]
Pwh : Wellhead pressure [psi]
Pwh,cal : Calculated wellhead pressure [psi]
Pwh,rep : Reported wellhead pressure [psi]
qc : Condensate flow rate [STBD]
qg : Total gas flow rate [MMSCFD]
qgs : Stock tank gas flow rate [MMSCFD]
qL : Liquid flow rate; summation of water and condensate flow rates [STBD]
qw : Water flow rate [STBD]
R : Gas-liquid ratio [SCF/STB]
RE% : Relative error percent [--]
s : Choke diameter [1/64 in]
S : Summation of error squares [--]
SD : Standard Deviation [--]
Tsep. : Separator temperature [°F]
Twh : Wellhead temperature [°F]

References
Achong, I., Revised Bean Performance Formula for Lake Maracaibo Wells, Shell Internal Report, 1961.
 A. Lak et al. / Modeling of Critical Flow through Choke for a Gas-condensate … 41

Al-Attar, H.H. and Abdul-Majeed, G., Revised Bean Performance Equation for East Baghdad Oil
Wells, SPE Production Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 127-131, 1988.
Al-Towailib, A.L. and Al-Marhoun, M.A., A New Correlation for Two-phase Flow through Chokes,
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 33, No. 5, p. 40-43, 1994.
Ashford, F.E. and Pierce, P.E., Determining Multiphase Pressure Drop and Flow Capabilities in Down-
hole Safety Valves, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 27, No. 9, p. 1145-1152, 1975.
Baxandell, P., Bean Performance-Lake Wells, Shell Internal Report, 1957.
Danesh, A., PVT and Phase Behavior of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids, 400 p. Elsevier, 1998.
Elgibaly, A.A.M. and Nashawi, I.S., New Correlations for Critical and Subcritical Two-phase Flow
through Wellhead Chokes, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 37, No .6, p. 36-43,
1998.
Esmaeilzadeh, F., Bimkar, F. and Pirakeh, J., Correlation Determines Gas-condensate Flow through
Chokes, Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 104, No .6, p. 48-51, 2006.
Gilbert, W.E., Flowing and Gas Lift Performance, Drilling and Production Practice Conference, New
York, January 1954.
Guo, B., Lyons, C., and Ghalambor, A., Petroleum Production Engineering, 312 p. Elsevier Science
and Technology Books, 2007.
Holland, F. and Bragg, R., Fluid Flow for Chemical and Process Engineers, 2nd Edition, 384 p.
Butterworth-Heinemann, 1995
Lak, A., Azin, R., Osfouri, Sh., Gerami, Sh., and Chahshoori, R., Choke Modeling and Flow Splitting
in a Gas-Condensate Offshore Platform, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, Vol.
21, p. 1163-1170, 2014.
Osman, M.E. and Dokla, M.E., Gas Condensate Flow through Chokes, SPE Paper 20988, 1990.
Perkins, T.K., Critical and Subcritical Flow of Multiphase Mixtures through Chokes, SPE Drilling and
Completion Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4, p. 271-276, 1993.
Pilehvari, A.A., Experimental Study of Critical Two-phase Flow through Wellhead Chokes, Tulsa
University Fluid Flow Projects Report, 1981.
Ros, N.C.J., An Analysis of Critical Simultaneous Gas/Liquid Flow through a Restriction and its
Application to Flow Metering, Journal of Applied Sciences Research, Vol. 9, p. 374-389, 1960.
Sachdeva, R., Schmidt, Z., Brill, J.P., and Blais, R.M., Two-phase Flow through Chokes, 61st SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, October 1986.
Tangren, R.E., Dodge, C.H., and Seifert, H.S., Compressibility Effect of Two-phase Flow, Journal of
Applied Physics, Vol. 20, No. 7, p. 637–645, 1949.