IPA18-279-E
PROCEEDINGS INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
Forty-Second Annual Convention & Exhibition, may 2018
SAVING MILLIONS USD BY KNOWING STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS OF VARIOUS
WELLHEAD CHOKE VALVES FOR SANDY WELLS
Atria Jarot Herwibowo*
Sulistiyo*
Armon*
Humisar Alprialdus Sinaga*
ABSTRACT
Proper choke valve selection for wellhead (later
addressed as ‘choke’) sandy wells from the
beginning can save millions of dollars. For example
if after procurement found that choke are not sand
resistance and need replacement, with field size as 1
field in Delta where new wells in minimum 40/year,
cost for replacement would be 1.2MUSD for choke
only (USD 30K/choke) and 1.6MUSD for piping
modification (USD 40K for piping modification in
swamp area). More years with wrong choke valves
will accumulates number of wells requires
correction.
Delta Mahakam is a mature field with bottom-top
perforation strategy. Recent wells have more
possibility as sandy wells than before. Today 50%
are sandy wells with increasing percentage. Depend
on economical evaluation, various sand controls
already been used to reduce risk, but nevertheless
sand still being produced. Damages due to sand
erosion are found at surface facilities, especially at
wellhead choke.
Choke is the first device to choke fluid pressure.
Higher pressure drop across choke, higher fluid
velocity travelling across choke. From record in the
observed field, 85% of leak due to sand located in
choke valves. Choke receives most severe sand
erosion impact due to gas contaminated with sand
flowing at sonic velocity. If eroded chokes not
being replaced by proper ones, sand may penetrate
choke bodies and cause hydrocarbon leak to
environment. Obviously leak causes production
loss. It may cause fatality as well, but unfortunately
it never happens in Delta Mahakam. From last 10
years, from chokes which found eroded, around
10% were causing gas leak.
This paper describes effort in Delta Mahakam to
choose sand resistance choke based for sandy wells.
* Pertamina Hulu Mahakam
Several choke technologies under observation are:
fixed bean; multiple orifice disc; needle & seat;
plug & cage; single orifice disc; and external sleeve
type. Several key performances to be compared are:
price, material strength and toughness, flow
direction inside choke relate with jetting effect,
width of operating range, maintenance cost,
duration for maintenance, and trim design.
Proper choke selection will lead to less shortfall due
to shut down (for maintenance or due to accident)
and OPEX efficiency for choke operation (less
spare parts, longer service time duration, etc).
INTRODUCTION
Sand in shallower reservoir has less compaction
compare to deeper reservoir. As perforation is
getting shallower, Delta Mahakam is facing more
challenges to continue production in sandy
environment. Sand management already been
established and being updated as per current
challenges. Sand management in PHM contains
various information to reduce risk of sand
erosion, include 3 aspects which being discussed
in this paper: Acoustic Sand Detector (ASD),
MASR (Maximum Allowable Sand Rate), and
Choke selection.
ASD: Wells with higher sand risk will receive
closer observation compare to well with lower
sand risk. One element to define sand risk level is
sand rate. ASD is a technology to measure sand
rate, by converting noise trigger by sand hitting
elbow at production line into sand rate. ASD in
swamp wells are not fixed type. Dedicated teams
equipped with portable ASD monitor sand
production from all wells regularly based on
priority. Sand production could not be predicted,
there are sand bursts, occasions where sand in
high quantity suddenly being produced by wells.
Sand burst may not be detected because ASD is
not yet programmed for that well, although sand
detection program exist.
MASR: it is not possible to have 100% sand free
production, but the more produced sand the
higher risk to surface facilities. MASR is
maximum limit of sand can be produced per well.
If sand rate measured by ASD is higher than
MASR, well must be choked down to reduce sand
production.
Choke Selection: this is the main emphasize in
this paper. As operation in Delta Mahakam
already been more than 40 years, various chokes
exist. Damages observed in these chokes become
the lesson learn to better select proper choke type
with better durability in sandy environment.
Based from experience, there are 3 parameters
which need to be carefully set to avoid severe
damages due to sand production. They are:
a) Sand content: amount of sand passing through
choke valve, b) Valve opening: small valve
opening, higher differential pressure and faster
sonic velocity across choke, higher sand erosion
impact, c) Jetting effect: fluid flow characteristic
in each choke type is different, direction of
discharge is called jetting. There are certain
choke types whose jetting hit body and increase
risk to have leak in choke.
OBJECTIVES
There are 2 objectives in subsequent chapter:
Cost and robust choke for sandy wells.
Concerning cost:
a) Worst cost consequences are if choke
replacements are required. This already been
explained previously in abstract part.
b) Other cost consequences relate with
production loss during maintenance and
frequent spare part replacement/maintenance
cost.
Knowing that cost impact is significant; the next
discussion is methodology to find choke type
with better sand resistance. For this purpose,
there are 2 actions to perform evaluation: by CFD
simulation, by real choke erosion test in a flow
loop.
COST DUE TO PRODUCTION LOSS
In case of suspicion that chokes already being
eroded by sand, the only way to ensure is visual
inspection. This action requires to shut down the
well, open the choke, perform inspection, re
assembly choke, perform function test and leak test,
and re POP the well. Estimated production loss
during choke inspection for well with 3 MMscfd is
USD 7,500/day for half day shut in. More frequent
choke investigation, higher production lost.
Following 2 items NEVER happened in the
observed fields in Mahakam. But consequences due
to non proper choke could be worst as following
imaginary scenarios:
- Reserves Loss: sand erosion rate is so high
which damage selected choke frequently. As
long as choke type not being modified, the
reserve could not be recovered due to safety
issue: leak at choke. In this case lost of reserve
for 1 well can be 0.5 Bcf or equivalent with
USD 2,500,000.
- Facility Loss: in case during hydrocarbon leak
from eroded choke trigger for fire exist, fire can
consume entire production facilities.
COST DUE TO MAINTENANCE
Maintenance consist of seal kits replacements for
choke inspection. And if during inspection found
internal parts are eroded, higher cost is required.
The less sand resistance of the selected choke
types, the higher cost to do maintenance.
Cost example for choke inspection: 1 well need
with critical sand risk require 2x choke inspection
per month, each require seal kits USD 500 (not
taking into account man power and transport). In
case 100 active wells with critical sand risk will
resulting a USD 100K only for choke inspection.
Cost example for further damage due to sand: If
any erosion occurred in choke internal parts,
replacement cost USD 13,000. Typical damage
for internal parts, are shown in Figure 1. If severe
damage where sand penetration up to choke body,
replacement of the whole unit will cost USD
30,000/choke. Without proper choke selection
and operation, internal parts replacement can be
around 10 times per month which cost impact:
USD 130K per month.
DESCRIPTION OF VARIOUS CHOKES
Evolution since 1900 gives various type of chokes
which today available in the market:
a. Fixed Bean Choke: choke with fixed size of
bean orifice.
b. Needle & Seat Choke: adjustable choke with
plug needle for throttling device and seating
area for shut off. Common usage for quick open
characteristic valve.
c. MOV or Disc Style Choke: adjustable choke
with two adjacent disc orifice. Common usage
for linear open characteristic valve and not
recommended to operate below 85% opening.
d. Cage with Internal Plug Choke, adjustable
choke with solid plug for throttling device, cage
with symmetric holes for orifice area and
seating area for shut off. Common usage for
linear and equal percentage characteristic valve.
e. Cage with External Sleeve Choke, adjustable
choke with external sleeve for throttling device,
cage with symmetric holes for orifice area and
seating area for shut off. Common usage for
linear and equal percentage characteristic valve.
(see Figure 2)
Each choke has advantages and disadvantages based
on trim design and usage. This study is focusing
which choke valve is better for sandy environment,
high differential pressure, and risk of jetting to
body. From above mentioned typed, 2 choke valves
already clearly stated as non sand resistance choke,
they are: a) Fixed Bean choke, no ramp-up facility
considered high risk for non sand consolidated
reservoirs; b) Needle and Seat choke, considered
non sand resistance due its quick open
characteristic.
METHODOLOGY TO SELECT SAND BEST
RESISTANCE CHOKE
Two methods are used in this study:
a. CFD (Computational Flow Dynamics)
CFD uses computational model to predict
erosion based on: inside geometrical area, flow
simulation, and erosion equations (Peri and
Rogers, 2007). Results of CFD are:
- Detailed velocity distribution inside choke
trim area.
visualization of flow direction inside choke
on certain choke opening. In this case,
below 20% opening for all choke types
under observation.
b. Choke Erosion Test
Experimental loop test for each choke type by
including triangle erosion parameters. Test was
done by creating close loop flowline
configuration, choke valve installed in the
configuration as the only flow restriction. By
flowing water and massive amount of sand into
the system, choke valve was expected to have
erosion exposure during the test.
This method is widely used by choke
manufacturers to have their product tested and
often called “slurry test”.
- Sand content: Flowing 13.2 g/s sand mixed
with water into the loop and pumping rate
2.5 Bpm to create abrasive fluid into the
system.
- Large differential pressure: 700 Psi
differential pressure across choke valve was
introduced to get sonic velocity inside area.
- Jetting effect: Install various type of choke
valve that categorized as Sand Resistant
Choke into the system and analyze how
each design manage jetting effect in the
trim. Choke types are: Disc single orifice
with lengthened bean on back disc (1
provider), Cage with Internal Plug (1
provider) and Cage with External Sleeve (3
provider)
- The test was running for 24-hours non-stop
for each choke valve.
- Sand Acoustic Detection was installed on
flowline elbow upstream of choke valve.
This was to check sand distribution
throughout the system from pump + mixer
is equally distributed, hence, no sand
clogging or solid plugged in the system.
- The closed loop system was having mixer
tank to mix water with sand in a way sand
could distributed evenly, then serve pump
to flow 2.5 Bpm pumping rate and goes
straight to choke valve installed. (see Figure
3)
CFD ANALYSIS RESULTS
1. Needle and Seat Type
Result: high jetting angle on downstream of
trim to outer side of body choke outlet (Figure
4). Needle part as sacrificial material when
opening below 20% will not withstand abrasive
environment and immediately wash out one
side of needle. Once one side of needle part
 being washed out, jetting angle becomes more
severe and hits outer side of body choke
causing erosion on body choke and worst case
is hydrocarbon leak.
Even though not being simulated, we observe
that above 20%, fluid flow on needle & seat
type still hit one side of body choke outlet. So,
for abrasive fluid presence, this choke is in high
risk of being eroded.
2. Disc Orifice Type
Result: Small opening will cause sonic velocity
across two orifices, front disc orifice and back
disc orifice (Figure 5). Depends on orifice
configuration, jetting angle impacts both side of
body choke outlet for double orifice disc and to
one side of body choke outlet for single orifice
disc. Jetting angle negligible only when valve
opening is within range 85-100% or when both
orifices are aligned. For this choke type,
opening above 85% is recommended when
abrasive fluid presence.
3. Cage with Internal Plug Type
(Gharaibah et al, 2013)
Result: Fluid flow energy is well distributed
through the cage port to dissipate kinetic energy
by directing flow to 360 degrees before
collapsing in the middle of cage port. Figure 6
shows that velocity is still high on sacrificial
part, which is the plug. Even though plug
material is hardened tungsten carbide, if the
opening valve below 20% and abrasive fluid
presence, primary wear will located at plug side
in front of inlet port. When the shape of plug is
no longer symmetrical, the flow began to have
jetting angle to one side and trigger risk of
hydrocarbon leak through body choke.
Maintenance and condition monitoring strategy
have to be applied frequently on this choke
type.
4. External Sleeve Type
Result: No high velocity on CFD for this choke
type. Fluid flow directed to center and to top of
the sleeve. First, fluid flow will be distributed
equally through cage port and meet at the
middle to dissipate kinetic energy. Secondly, at
the same time, flow is directed to top of the
sleeve as sacrificial part with hardened tungsten
carbide. So, even though the sleeve wear down
by abrasive fluid, the velocity on the outlet
body choke is still low and will not create any
jetting effect downstream trim. There is still
erosion potential on the trim choke, for sand to
penetrate choke body will require long period of
time. (See Figure 7)
CHOKE EROSION TEST ANALYSIS
In this test, only sand resistant choke being
evaluated. Cage with internal plug, single orifice
disc with lengthened back disc and external sleeve.
Single orifice disc: tested with 100% opening but
still maintain differential pressure of 700 Psi by
installing smaller orifice. Small erosion detected on
front disc and also inlet of back disc, but no major
erosion. This result indicate that disc orifice valve is
good with condition of full opening. The
consequence: Various size of orifice disc is needed
to be in stock in order maintaining full opening on
this choke valve. Even no erosion in the internal
parts, internal parts required to be replaced to match
with flow rate (See Figure 8)
Cage with internal Plug: There were erosion
indicated on the plug and internal port of the cage.
Plug erosion observed non-symmetrical and cage
orifice port also eroded. As result flow distribution
is no longer balance. Longer exposure of abrasive
fluid will eventually affecting body trim outlet. In
this case, CFD simulation was proven valid. (see
Figure 9)
Cage with External sleeve: Erosion indicated on
cage port and External sleeve. However, erosion
level was very minor and there was no sign of
erosion could lead to erosion to outlet body choke.
The erosion controlled and maintained only on cage
port and external sleeve part. Different providers
have different design. Some recommendations for
external sleeve in extreme sandy environment are:
seating have to be separated from fluid flow to
maintain tight shut-off; Trim material to include
toughness beside strength only; Number of orifice
port in cage part have to be minimized, this is to
prolong orifice port life from erosion and avoid over
turbulence flow; concentric trim part (see Figure
10); and non treaded internal parts (to reduce
maintenance time)
CONCLUSIONS
Following are conclusions for this work:
 External sleeve type is the better choice for
choke valve for extreme sandy environment
well.
 Disc orifice type can handle sand erosion, but
must limited operating range, only 85% to
 100%. As consequence internal parts needs to
be replaced even though not yet eroded, this at
the end will not be cost effective.
 Choke selection for new wells must take into
account OPEX not only CAPEX. CAPEX for
various type of choke may not be significantly
different. But OPEX to operate non sand
resistance choke in sandy environment is costly.
As per previous explanation in observed field,
choke with low level sand resistance may
require internal parts replacement 10 times per
month, cost USD 130K. While with external
sleeve result in much lower internal parts
replacements. Calculation must take into
account down time and production loss due to
frequent maintenance for choke with low level
sand resistance, each choke inspection may
impact production equal to USD 7.5K per
inspection. Imagine if the inspection need to be
done on hundreds of wells having sand risk.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors would like to thank to SKK Migas and
PERTAMINA Hulu Mahakam for permission to
publish this paper.
REFERENCES
Peri, S., & Rogers, B. M. (2007). Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Erosion Study For
Chokes. International Petroleum Technology
Conference.
E. Gharabah, Y. Zhang. R. Paggiaro, J.
Friedemann (2013). TC 24271: Prediction of
Sand Erosion in Choke Valves – CFD Model
Development and Validation against
Experiments. Offshore Technology Conference
Brasil.
 Figure 1 – Damages in Disc Orifice, Plug & Cage due to erosion during Operation
Flow (%)

Valve Opening (%)
Figure 2 – Choke Valve Opening Characteristics. Choke characteristics, to be selected depend on
requirement. In sandy environment, equal percentage is preferred
Figure 3 – Choke Erosion Test Schematic.Equipment arrangement during choke erosion test, to check
which choke type has better sand resistance level.

Needle

0‐20 m/s
20‐60 m/s
70‐300 m/s

Figure 4 – Needle & Seat CFD shows one side jetting effect to outer body. high risk to have body choke
erosion and leak and sonic velocity occurred on primary needle, which will wear first where it is
the main pressure control.
 Front
Back 

0‐20 
20‐60 
70‐300 

Figure 5 – Disc Orifice CFD shows sonic velocity occurred between discs. first wear will occur there and
controllability will not working properly. Outlet flow will jetting to one side of body when
operating in small opening

Plug
Seat

0‐20
20‐60
70‐300

Figure 6 – Plug & Cage CFD shows sonic velocity and primary wear occurred in plug area, which is the
flow controlling device. If plug is still in good condition, flow will collapse in the middle and no
jetting effect will be created. However, once plug eroded, outlet flow will directed to one side of
body choke and risk of leak will be higher.
 Extern
al 
Seat 
Sleeve
Cage
0‐20 m/s
20‐60 m/s
70‐300 m/s

Figure 7 – External Sleeve CFD able to handle choked flow better. High velocity is pulled away from valve
outlet into the external sleeve trim, which is the primary wear and material already hardened.
Notice that primary wear is not on the controlling device, which are external sleeve lip and cage
flow.

Figure 8 – Single Disc Orifice Type after choke erosion test shows erosion on both discs (front & back
disc). Noted that disc choke was operated above 85% due to disclaimer from manufacturer to
not open below 85% for well with sand presence
Figure 9 – Plug & Cage Type after choke erosion test show erosion on plug and cage area which affected to
flow controllability

Figure 10 – External sleeve type after choke erosion test shows minor erosions which do not affect
controllability and do not have indication of jetting to body.