The Savvy Separator Series: Part 2

The Effectof
inlet geometries
ON FLOW DISTRIBUTION
Robert Chin, Padden Engineering
 basic assumption in separator design is uniform
flow. The fluid velocities are assumed to be the
flow rate divided by cross-sectional area. In reality,
maldistribution and jetting may lead to loss of
retention time, foaming, re-entrainment, and high-velocity
hot spots on demisting devices causing carry-over.
The real-world examples in this article highlight
how some inlet geometries may cause poor flow
distribution, which leads to separation problems and loss of
separationefficiency.
The three main parts of a separator are the inlet
region,gravity separation region, and outlet polishing
region (Fig. 1). The inlet region prepares the rest of the
vessel for good separation performance by performing bulk
separation, mitigating droplet/bubble breakup and foam
formation, and straightening out fluid flows (Arnold 2007).
The latter is the most important because while
designing a separator, a uniform flow is typically assumed
in order to calculate a fluid velocity that may be used in a
sizing equation. For example, in the gravity section, droplet
settling is calculated by using Stokes law (Arnold 2007;
Bothamley 2013). In the outlet region, the area of a mesh
or vane packdemisting device is estimated using a K-factor
(Arnold2007).
A Reverse Elbow Inlet
Fig. 2 shows a horizontal separator with a reverse elbow
inlet. Because of piping requirements, the inlet nozzle is
placed on the vessel shell. The separator designer, aiming
Inlet Gravity Separation
Lower velocities Separate large droplets/bubbles
Bulk separate gas/liquid Coalesce small droplets/bubbles
Straighten out the flow Break foam
Break foam Drop out solids
Prevent short-circuiting
Prevent droplet shatter
Prevent foam formation
Fig. 1The main sections of a separator and their functions.
to use as much of the vessel space as possible, installed a
reverse elbow to direct the flow toward the head.
However, depending upon the inlet conditions, loss of
retention time may occur. As shown in Fig. 2, the curved
vessel head directs the flow downward into the liquid level.
The liquid follows the bottom of the vessel, resulting in a
recirculation cell. The gas phase also has such a cell.
Foaming and gas entrainment into the liquid are also
downsides of the design. A potential solution is to install
one or more perforated baffles to redistribute the flow more
quickly. A vane inlet to decrease velocities may also improve
the flow distribution (Bothamley 2013).
However, elbow inlets are still commonly used in
flare knockout drums in which internals of any kind are
generally not permitted. Design of flare knockout drums
is typically based on a droplet separation of 450 m. But
as previously mentioned, most designers assume uniform
plugflow.
Another common error is that designers sometimes
forget to calculate the liquid level during high liquid-flow
events, which results in liquid going up the flare stack
orvent.
A Baffled Inlet
Figs. 3a through 3c show a typically encountered
compressor scrubber. The inlet and outlet nozzles are at the
same elevation and diagonally opposite to each other. A
demisting device such as mesh or vanes is located between
the nozzles. A solid baffle surrounds the inlet, directing
Outlet Polishing
Remove small droplets
Prevent short-circuiting
Image courtesy of FMC Technologies
August 2015 Oil and Gas Facilities 27
 Reverse elbow inlet

Local recirculation cells

Unprotected
Fig. 2Loss of retention time due to recirculation zones created
pressure tap
by reverse elbow inlet flow.

High gas velocities

Maldistribution

Droplet
breakup

Re-entrainment
Fig. 4aSimple scrubber with an unbaffled inlet.
(b)

High gas velocities

(a) (c)

Images courtesy of FMC Technologies

V2=800 Pa V2=2,500 Pa
Fig. 3a) A scrubber design with a baffled inlet. Multiple
separation problems are shown. CFD flow simulation images of
local gas velocity hotspots across the demisting area (b) and high
gas velocities across the liquid surface (c).

the flow downward instead of toward the demisting device,

which also allows for potential bulk separation.
Figs. 3b and 3c show gas velocity profiles across the
demisting device and over the liquid surface, respectively,
modeled by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) V2=5,000 Pa V2=10,000 Pa
flowsimulation.
Three issues may result from this design. Firstly,
the impact of the fluids on the baffle plate may break up Images courtesy of FMC Technologies
the liquid into small drops and cause foam. Secondly,
the downward-directed flow may create foam and re- Fig. 4bEffect of inlet momentum (energy) on liquid interface.
entrainment from the liquid surface (resulting from the
high velocities over the liquid surface as shown in Fig. devices will always suffer from maldistribution over the
3c). Thirdly, the resulting swirling gas flow may cause a demisting device. A perforated plate on the back side of the
maldistribution across the demisting device area. Local demisting device may correct this issue.
gas velocity and liquid-loading hot spots will then lead to
increased carry-over. An Unbaffled Inlet
A future article in this series will discuss the revamp Figs. 4a and 4b show the impact of inlet momentum (V2,
of one such designed compressor scrubber. But even with actually inlet energy in this case, where is the bulk fluid
a good inlet design, vertically oriented low pressure drop density and V is bulk velocity) in a scrubber with a plain

28 Oil and Gas Facilities August 2015

 Photo courtesy of FMC Technologies
Fig. 5aThe effect of jetting from a flush nozzle in a vertical
vessel. Only air is flowing. The liquid seen on the wall of the
vessel is what is dragged up from the liquid surface because of
the flow pattern developed from air impacting and being deflected
downward by the vessel wall opposite the nozzle.
Images courtesy of Kranji Solutions
Fig. 6The effect of inlet pipe geometry on flow distribution: a)
asymmetric inlet piping with two elbows b) liquid distribution
leaving the vane inlet device.
inlet nozzle. The fluids flow directly into the vertical vessel
heading to the other diametrically opposite side.
As shown in Fig. 4b, as inlet momentum increases,
the liquid interface becomes increasingly disturbed. Re-
entrainment of liquid and bubble formation may occur.
Also, this will lead to the liquid level being measured
30 Oil and Gas Facilities August 2015
Photo courtesy of FMC Technologies
Fig. 5bThe effect of a vane-type inlet device in a vertical
vessel. Only air is flowing and at the same rate as in Fig. 5a.
Though the liquid surface is disturbed, no liquid is seen being
dragged up because of the reduced velocities achieved by the
inlet device.
incorrectly if the level sensor is placed near the depressed
region of the liquid surface. If an unprotected pressure tap
is located opposite of an inlet nozzle as shown, the fluid
momentum itself will provide a false reading.
Fig. 5a shows the effect on re-entrainment by a flush
nozzle as described earlier compared with a vane-type
inlet device (Fig. 5b) that reduces the velocity. Only air is
flowing, and the rate was the same in both vessels.
With the flush nozzle, liquid is being dragged up from
the liquid surface due to the flow pattern developed from
the air impacting and being deflected downward by the
vessel wall opposite the inlet nozzle.
With the vane-type inlet, though air is being deflected
downward and disturbs the liquid surface, no liquid is being
dragged up due to the reduced velocities achieved by the
inlet device.
Asymmetric Inlet Piping
Figs. 6a and 6b show the effect of inlet piping on flow
distribution. The figures are taken from a webinar
presentation held by the SPE Separations Technology
Technical Section that discussed separation issues
arising from inlet-piping effects on flow distribution
(Heijckers2012).
The scrubber is a vertical vessel with a vane-type inlet
and a demisting device. The inlet piping is not symmetric
with respect to the vertical axis of the vessel. Using CFD
flow simulation, liquid can be seen migrating to one side of
the inlet vane spreader and pushed up toward the demisting
device. The liquid distribution inside the vessel is such that
droplet creation, re-entrainment, and foaming may occur.
 Dish
deflector
Gas
diverter
Straightening Mesh
vanes
Fig. 7aA dish deflector leads to droplet breakup, poor flow
distribution, and liquid carry-over.
High velocities
over vane pack
Vane
pack
High velocities
over liquid
surface
Image courtesy of FMC Technologies
Fig. 7bA downward half-open pipe leads to re-entrainment and
poor distribution over the demisting device.
Other Inlet Geometries
Two other encountered inlet geometries are shown in Figs.
7a and 7b. It is left to the reader to contemplate the flow
distribution without the aid of CFD or directional arrows.
Fig. 7a shows a dish-shaped plate deflecting the fluids
entering from a nozzle located in the head of a horizontal
separator. The dish plate was evaluated to create small
droplets plus poor flow distribution over the mesh pad
despite the straightening vanes.
Fig. 7b shows a vertical scrubber with a half-open
downward-facing pipe inlet. The flow stirs up the liquid
surface leading to liquid and gas entrainment and foaming.
The velocity distribution over the vane pack is poor due to
the reversing and swirling gas flow.
Summary
Separation problems resulting from flow maldistribution
caused by inlet geometries have been discussed. The
examples, using typically encountered vessel inlets, will be
useful in troubleshooting or debottlenecking separators.
This knowledge may also be applied to the design of
separators for new facilities, thus avoiding operational
problems after startup.
I would like to thank Ed Grave and Victor van Asperen
for their valuable contributions to this article. OGF
For Further Reading
Arnold, K.E. ed. 2007. SPE Petroleum Engineering
Handbook, Volume III, Facilities and Construction
Engineering. Richardson, Texas: SPE.
Bothamley, M. 2013. Qualifying Separation Performance in
Gas/Liquid Separators. Oil and Gas Fac 2 (4): 2129.
Heijckers, C. 2012. Flow Conditioning Impact on
Separations, SPE Separations Technology Technical
Section webinar, https://webevents.spe.org/products/
flow-conditioning-impact-on-separations.
Robert Chin is a cofounder and past
chair of the SPE Separations Technol-
ogy Technical Section, past chair of the
SPE Gulf Coast Sections Projects,
Facilities, and Construction study
group, a member of the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibitions
Projects, Facilities, and Construction
paper selection committees, and the author of Chapter 3,
Oil and Gas Separators, in the SPE Petroleum Engineer-
ing Handbook, Volume III, Facilities and Construction
Engineering. He has more than 30 years experience in the
oil and gas industry, mainly with Shell. Chin joined Shell in
1981 and advanced research on multiphase flow, leak
detection, and separations. He left in 1999 to form a
separator design and supply company. He returned to Shell
in 2006 and led teams on facilities for enhanced oil
recovery and subsea processing research and development.
Chin retired from Shell last year. He is a cofounder of
Padden Engineering and a consultant in the industry. He
may be reached at r.w.chin@sbcglobal.net.
August 2015 Oil and Gas Facilities 31