Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SEPARATORS
Quantifying Separation Performance
Mark Bothamley JM Campbell/PetroSkills
Gas gravity
Feed pipe
separation
section
Liquid gravity
separation Bubble Slug
section
Plug Annular
Mist extractor
Inlet device
Feed pipe
Gas gravity
separation section Stratified Spray
Wavy
Fig. 1—Parts of a separator (vertical and horizontal). Fig. 2—Horizontal two-phase flow patterns.
Bubble,
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 500 Small inlet nozzle
Superficial Gas Velocity, vSG, ft/sec - higher velocity/turbulence - smaller droplet/bubble sizes
- more entrainment - more carry-over/-under
Fig. 3—Horizontal flow pattern map.
Flow Pattern
Fig. 2 provides a visual classification of the flow patterns
most commonly encountered in horizontal two-phase flow.
In general, the flow pattern is primarily dependent on the
relative amounts of gas and liquid in the feed pipe and the
in-situ phase velocities.
Fig. 3 is a commonly used horizontal flow pattern map
(Mandhane 1974) corresponding to Fig. 2. The horizontal
axis parameter is the superficial gas velocity, while the vertical
axis parameter is the superficial liquid velocity. Superficial
velocity is defined as the in-situ (actual) volumetric flow rate
of the given fluid phase divided by the total cross-sectional
Fig. 4—Effect of feed pipe velocity on liquid entrainment.
flow area of the pipe.
The amount of liquid entrained into the gas phase as
droplets is generally small for most flow conditions, but will
typically begin to increase fairly rapidly as the transition Typical guidelines are:
to annular flow is approached. From the standpoint of the
amount of liquid droplets entrained into the gas phase, it inlet nozzle without valves, expansions/contractions,
seems fairly obvious that the annular mist region of the or elbows.
flow pattern map will be the worst. Generally speaking,
increasing gas velocity is going to strongly correlate with the it should only be a full port gate or ball valve.
increasing entrainment and with decreasing droplet sizes,
both of which will negatively affect separation. Taking into Entrainment
account both entrainment/droplet sizes and steadiness of The amount of liquid entrained as droplets entering the
flow, sizing the feed pipe for stratified/wave flow is desirable, separator will have a significant effect on the gas/liquid
if possible. separation performance and, ultimately, the amount of
liquid carry-over into the gas phase leaving the separator
Feed Pipe Geometry (Fig. 4).
The flow patterns and flow pattern map assume that the flow Ishii and Grolmes (1975) identified the causes of
conditions in the feed pipe have reached a well-established, liquid entrainment in gas/liquid systems and provided
stabilized state. This will not be true if the flow has changed guidelines for estimating entrainment inception criteria
direction, for example, at elbows and fittings, or experienced (Fig. 5). The applicable entrainment mechanism for a given
other flow pattern disruptions immediately upstream of set of conditions is strongly dependent on the liquid phase
the separator. Reynolds number.
GA 1/
S
( (( (
TYPE 2 DVg3 ρL ρg ρg1–mµgm (2-m)
(E/EM)
WAVE UNDERCUT =9E–08
1–(E/EM) σ d321+mgρL
................................................(1)
GAS
TYPE 3
( (( (
BUBBLE BURST
ρgVgd32 d32
=0.0091
σ D
................................................(2)
TYPE 4
LIQUID IMPINGEMENT
Foot-Pound-
Parameter
Fig. 5—Liquid entrainment mechanisms. Second (FPS) Units
E, fractional entrainment —
0.10
σ, liquid surface tension poundal/ft
0.00
Feed ρV2 μg, gas viscosity lb/ft-sec
Fig. 6—Example of liquid entrainment behavior.
g, acceleration due to gravity 32.17 ft/sec2
For many separation applications, the main liquid d32, Sauter mean diameter ft
entrainment mechanism is the shearing off of roll-wave crests
(Fig. 5, Type 1). The onset of entrainment by this mechanism m, settling law exponent —
would be expected to coincide approximately with the wavy/
annular transition shown in Fig. 3 and approximately with
the transition from slug flow to annular flow. Fig. 6 shows a typical plot of liquid entrainment
Estimating the amount of liquid entrained as droplets fraction (E) vs. inlet momentum (ρV2). Note that after the
into the gas phase is difficult and one of the main causes entrainment inception point is reached, the degree of
of uncertainty involved in sizing of separators and entrainment increases rapidly.
performance prediction.
The degree of liquid entrainment is a function of the Droplet Sizes and Distribution
following variables (among others):
method for estimating the Sauter mean diameter (d32)
of the entrained liquid droplet size distribution. The
tension. Sauter mean diameter can be converted to the volume
median diameter, dv50, which is used most often in
the droplet size distribution functions. There are a
for predicting liquid droplet entrainment for annular flow in number of other correlations to predict droplet sizes
di
μg, gas viscosity lb/ft-sec vi=
dmax–di .....................................................................(4)
μl, liquid viscosity lb/ft-sec
1.4 Momentum
Average Good Good Good
reduction
1.5 Bulk liquid
Average Good Good
separation
1.6
1.7 Average-
re-entrain- Average Good
Good
ment
1.8
Minimize
1.9
droplet Average Good Good
shattering
2.1 Aver-
Good
age
2.2
Low pres-
Good Good Good Good Average
2.3 sure drop
2.4 Ensure
good
Good Average
2.5 gas distri-
bution
2.6
2.7
Fig. 7 is an example of the entrainment droplet size
2.8 distribution for a given set of feed pipe operating conditions.
2.9
Inlet Device
The main function of an inlet device (Fig. 8) is to
3.1 improve separation performance, which is achieved in the
following ways:
3.2 1. Maximization of gas/liquid separation efficiency based
3.3 on inlet feed conditions
2. Minimization of droplet shearing
3.4
3.5 in the separated phases
1.40 0.14
1.20 0.12
No inlet Diverter Reversed Vane-type Cyclonic
Cumulative Volume Fraction, V
0.80 0.08
0.60 0.06
0.40 0.04
Half-pipe Dished head
0.20 0.02
0.00 0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Droplet Size, microns
Cumulative volume undersize Cumulative volume oversize
Volume fraction
ρV LIMITS
0.6
No inlet device
0.4
0.2
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Vane-type ρV , lb/ft-sec
2 2
Inlet Device Separation Efficiency with increasing inlet ρV2, it would also be expected that the
Fig. 9 has been developed from mostly anecdotal droplet size distribution of the unseparated entrained liquid
information obtained from various sources, mainly technical exiting the inlet device would be shifted to smaller sizes.
There are limited to no data available that quantify this effect.
area that requires additional research and study. Only the qualitative guidance provided in Table 3 is available.
The amount of unseparated liquid as predicted by For the purposes of this work, a “droplet size distribution
Fig. 9 is assumed to be in the form of entrained droplets shift factor” will be used as indicated in Fig. 9, which should
2.0
Gas/Liquid
Inlet
1.5
Vl
1.0
Liquid Drain
0.5
Fig. 10—Ideal and actual gas velocity profiles.
0
be a reasonable reflection of the droplet shattering/shearing 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
effect of the different inlet devices. L/Di
No inlet device Cyclonic
Quality of Flow Distribution Downstream Simple diverter/baffle plate Vane-type
of Inlet Device
Half-pipe
of interest (gas, oil, or water) in a separator has been
calculated from: Fig. 11—Effect of inlet device on downstream gas and liquid
velocity profiles (without flow-straightening devices).
Q
V= .............................................................................(7)
A
Other than the qualitative guidance provided in Table
where Q is the in-situ volumetric flow rate of the continuous
phase, usually in units of volume/second, and A is the cross- studies, there is little quantitative information available on
sectional area for flow occupied by the continuous phase. the quality of the flow distribution (gas or liquid phase) at
Use of this equation results in a velocity corresponding to the exit of the inlet device. This information is required to
the idealized plug flow situation. In reality, this condition perform the droplet settling calculations for the gas gravity
is rarely, if ever, achieved, and sometimes we do not even separation section (and to a lesser extent, for the liquid
get close. gravity separation section) downstream of the inlet device.
Actual information regarding velocity profiles was, in Fig. 11 shows the assumptions regarding the effect of the
years past, obtained from tracer surveys, which provided an selected inlet device on downstream velocity profiles that are
approximate indication of velocity uniformity, or lack thereof, used in this analysis. There are two components:
of the continuous phase of interest. In more recent years, the 1. The quality of the flow distribution immediately upon
exit of the inlet device (L/Di
more insight and a better definition of the flow behavior of 2. The development of the flow profile with distance
downstream of the inlet device.
basis for significant improvements in separator and separator
internals design (Fig. 10). The quality of the flow distribution is characterized
If fluid velocity profiles are anticipated to be highly by the factor F, the actual average velocity/ideal plug flow
nonuniform, it is now common practice to install specifically velocity. F
designed internals to straighten out the velocity profile of sectional flow area. Use of this factor will allow estimation
the given continuous phase(s). Examples include perforated of the effective actual velocity, which can then be used in the
plates, straightening vanes, and components that resemble droplet settling calculations for the gas (and liquid) gravity
structured packing as used in fractionating columns. Some sections. Note also that the calculated effective actual velocity
of these components are also intended to help promote for the gas gravity section will be the entrance velocity to the
droplet coalescence or foam collapse to improve separation mist extractor section.
The separation performance of inlet devices is another
be used when considering coalescing internals in production area that requires more research.
separators, as they have a tendency to become plugged (for The next article in the series will discuss performance
example, with sand and wax) over time. These internals will quantification of the gas gravity separation, mist extraction,
be discussed further in the second part of this series. and liquid gravity separation sections. OGF
Ishii, M. and Grolmes, M.A. 1975. Inception Criteria for Mark Bothamley is the technical director
Droplet Entrainment in Two-Phase Concurrent Film and chief engineer of John M. Campbell
Flow. AIChE J. 21 Training and a consultant at John M.
Kataoka, I., Ishii, M., and Mishima, K. 1983. Generation and Campbell Consulting. His experience
Size Distribution of Droplets in Gas-Liquid Annular covers the areas of design, operation,
Two-Phase Flow. ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering 105 troubleshooting, and optimization
of offshore and onshore oil and gas
production and treating facilities. Before
Mandhane, J.M., Gregory, G.A., and Aziz, K. 1974. A Flow- joining the company, he served with BP/
Pattern Map for Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes. Amoco for 24 years in several locations around the world. He is
Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1 (4): 537–553. a member of the SPE Separations Technology Technical Section,
past specialty coordinator/chairman of the SPE Facilities and
Correlation of Entrainment Construction Subcommittee, and a former member of the
for Annular Flow in Horizontal Pipes. International GPSA Data Book Editorial Review Board. He holds a BS in
Journal of Multiphase Flow 28 chemical engineering from Lakehead University in Canada and
a diploma in natural gas and petroleum technology from the
Droplet Size British Columbia Institute of Technology in Canada.
Measurements in Horizontal Annular Gas-Liquid Flow.
Int. J. Multiphase Flow 27 (5): 861–883.