Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CFD Modelling of A Horizontal Three-Phase
CFD Modelling of A Horizontal Three-Phase
CFD Modelling of A Horizontal Three-Phase
DOI: 10.5923/j.ajfd.20130304.03
M echanical Engineering Department, Petroleum Institute, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operation (ADCO), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Abstract The performance and internal mult iphase flow behavior in a three-phase separator was investigated. The
separator considered represents an existing surface facility belonging to Abu Dhabi Co mpany for Onshore Oil Operations
ADCO. A first approach, using the Eulerian-Eu lerian mult iphase model imp lemented in the code ANSYS FLUENT,
assumed mono-dispersed oil and water secondary phases excluding the coalescence and breakup phenomena. Interesting
results were obtained but noticeable discrepancies were caused by the simp lifying assumption. Therefore, it was decided to
use the Population Balance Model PBM to account for the size distribution, coalescence, and breakup of the secondary
phases which were the key limitat ions of the Eulerian -Eulerian model. The separator configuration, with upgraded internals,
was represented with the maximu m of geometrical details, contrary to the simp lifying approach adopted in most of the
previous numerical studies, to minimize the sources of discrepancies. In the absence of field information about the droplet
size distribution at the inlet of the separator, three different Rosin-Rammler distributions, referred to as fine, mediu m, and
coarse distributions were assumed based on the design values reported in the oil industry. The simulat ion results are
compared with the scares laboratory, field tests, and/or semi-empirical data existing in the literature. The coarser size
distributions, at the inlet, enhanced the separator performance. It was found that the inlet device, called Schoepentoeter,
generates a quasi-mono-dispersed distribution under the effect of coalescence which persists throughout the whole volume
of the separator. The mean residence time obtained fro m the simulat ions agreed well with some of the existing approaches
in the literature. Finer d istributions generate higher mean residence times . The classical sizing approach, based on
representative values of droplet diameter and settling velocity remains limited although useful for design guidelines. In
contrast, CFD presents the advantage of calculating the flow variab les locally wh ich yields a mo re co mplete and detailed
picture of the entire flo w field. This is very useful for understanding the impact of the internal multiphase flow behaviour
on the overall performance of the separator.
Keywords Three-Phase Separator, Droplet Size Distribution, Population Balance Model, Coalescence, Breakup
1. Introduction
Different types of surface facilities are used for phase
separation in the oil industry[1-2]. Gravity-based facilities
include horizontal three-phase separators consisting of large
cy lind rical vess els d es ig ned t o p rov ide a su fficient
res id ence t ime fo r g rav ity -based separat ion o f liqu id
droplets. The gravity settling approach requires very long
cylinders wh ich is not practical and inconsistent with the
space restrictions in the oil fields especially offshore. Hence,
three-phase separators are equipped with different types of
internals to enhance droplet coalescence and optimize their
length. A mo mentum breaker device is implemented at the
inlet of the separator to reduce the high inlet velocity of the
* Corresponding author:
lkhezzar@pi.ac.ae (L. Khezzar)
Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/ajfd
Copyright 2013 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved
mixtu re. At this stage, the liquid phase is separated fro m the
gas forming two distinct layers. Further downstream,
perforated plates are used to stabilize the liquid mixtu re
forming two distinct layers of water and oil. These two
layers are separated by a weir placed at the end o f the
separator between two outlets for each liqu id phase. The gas
phase leaves from its own outlet at the top of the separator.
The design approach of three-phase separators is based
on semi-emp irical formula obtained fro m Stokes law[1].
The resulting equation, for the settling velocity based on a
chosen cut-off droplet d iameter, contains a correction factor
which depends on the separator configuration[3]. Although
useful guidelines are provided by this approach, crucial
informat ion, affecting the separator performance, is not
considered. At the inlet of the separator, different flow
regimes do occur and a realistic droplet size distribution
needs to be considered and tracked throughout the separator
compart ments to take into account the effects of
coalescence and breakup. The internal mu ltiphase flow is
102
N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
poly-dispersity
satisfactorily,
and
noticed
some
discrepancies with increasing residence time.
In addition to the general simp lifying assumptions found
in the literature, a major limitation is associated with the
mu ltiphase models themselves. ANSYS FLUENT includes
several mu ltiphase models belonging to both the
Lagrangian and Eu lerian approaches [22]. The Eu lerian
approach includes the volume of Fluid (interface tracking
model), the mixture, and the Eulerian-Eulerian models. The
volume of flu id model is able to predict the interfaces,
separating the components, accurately but is limited by the
demanding computational resources, for a sufficiently fine
mesh. The mixture model includes an additional equation
for the prediction of the slip velocity and is limited to
mono-dispersed secondary phases. It is worth mentioning
that the turbulence models used in conjunction with the t wo
previous models are the same as those used for single phase
flows. The Eu lerian-Eulerian model solves indiv idual
mo mentu m equations for each phase and can be combined
with appropriate multiphase turbulence models but still
limited by the mono-dispersed secondary phases. In
addition to the size distribution limitation, the Eu lerian
models, being based on inter-penetrating media
assumptions, do not consider coalescence or breakup of
particles. The Discrete Phase Model (Lagrangian particle
Tracking) is a remedy for the limitations related to the size
distribution, coalescence, and breakup. However, it requires
a background phase to interact with. Thus, an Eu lerian
model is used to obtain the overall flow structure, which in
the case of separators and depending on location inside the
domain of integration, is characterized by three background
phases for the DPM particles. Nevertheless, the Eulerian
mu ltiphase models consider only a single continuous phase
throughout the computational domain. Th is assumption
contrasts with the fact that the continuous phase changes
inside the separator as we move fro m one region to another.
In this case, the interaction of the DPM particles with the
background Eulerian phases is omitted in a relat ively
important portion of the computational domain. This
limitat ion can be overcome by the Population Balance
Model used in an Eulerian framework. The PBM solves a
transport equation for the nu mber density function tracking,
thus, the droplet size distribution inside the whole
computational domain while, at the same time, accounting
for the effects of coalescence and breakup. In its present
form however, the PBM model is also limited to a single
secondary phase. So, the other secondary phase is
represented by a mean representative diameter. To the
authors knowledge, apart fro m the work of Grimes et
al.[13-14] batch gravity separation of oil/ water emu lsions,
the PBM model was not used to study three-phase
separators.
In the present work, the PBM model is used to include
the effects of the droplet size distribution on the separator
performance and the internal flow structure. The separator
103
104
N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
Schoepentoeter
Gas outlet
Inlet
Agglomerator
Spiraflow mist
extractor
2nd baffle
1st baffle
Coalescer
Weir
Vortex
breaker
Oil outlet
Water outlet
14000
482.6
12358.7
610
2350
3400
545
2450
z
x
2600
3100
1300
1000
5300
139.5 431.8
12500
13000
13400
3. Mathematical Model
The unsteady turbulent multiphase flow was solved using
the Reynolds averaged multiphase Eulerian-Eu lerian and
turbulence standard k- models implemented in the
commercial code ANSYS Fluent 14.0[22]. As mentioned in
the introduction, the k- model is a robust and simp le
turbulence model which provides the optimal perfo rmance in
terms of accuracy and co mputational cost at the large scale of
industrial applications. The mixture turbulence model is used
in this study. The Eulerian-Eu lerian model assumes
mono-dispersed secondary phases represented by their
average diameter and omits coalescence and breakup.
The model was found, in previous studies [19], to predict
unrealistic results in terms of separation and entrainment of
phases. It was necessary, hence, to use a more elaborate
model to overcome the limitations of the Eulerian-Eu lerian
model. The Population Balance Model (PBM )[22] is thought
nV ,t .u nV ,t V.
GV nV ,t
t
1V
a V V ' ,V ' nV V ' ,t nV ' ,t dV '
2 0
Birthdue to Aggregation
(1)
B V : Vf BV
B, V
B, V d (2)
PB V : Vf BV ,
min
B, d
2
d u n n
4
B V : Vf BV K
min
where / d
exp bm d (4)
(5)
n 11 / 3
2/ 3
1 f BV
2/ 3
1 1 2 / 3 d 5 / 3 1
2.047
The Luo coalescence model[26], developed originally for
bubble coalescence in bubble columns, suggests that the
coalescence rate is a product of collision frequency and the
coalescence efficiency.
C ( Vi : V j ) C ( Vi : V j )PC ( Vi : V j )
(6)
Only b inary collisions are considered since collision of
more bubbles has a very small probability. The collision
frequency C ( Vi : V j ) , based on the approach of[30] for
binary drop collisions in turbulent air, is a function of the
bubbles velocities and diameters based on the assumption
that the collid ing bubbles take the velocity of the eddies with
the same size, e.g.,[31].
di d j 2 ni n juij
(7)
4
For the coalescence efficiency PC ( Vi : V j ) , the idea is to
C ( Vi : V j )
t
PC ( Vi : V j ) exp C
tI
Luij d i2
tC 0.5
1 ij 2
t I 2t max 1 ij
(3)
K 0.923813d 2/3
b 12 f BV
m 11 / 3
Growthterm
105
(8)
(9)
/ d
31 1
g
2
ij
3
ij
3
i
(10)
(11)
0.75 1 2 1 3 1/2
2 1/2
ij
ij L d i u ij
PC exp c1
3
1/2
g / L 1 ij
Weij
4. Simulation Approach
4.1. Boundary Conditions
N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
Vol
fract
Oil
7.49
0.06
Water
7.49
0.02
Gas
7.49
0.92
Diam
(m)
100 or
See
Fig. 2
Oil
outlet
Press
(Bar)
Water
outlet
Press
(Bar)
17.2617.48
17.3817.51
Gas
outlet
Press
(Bar)
17.2
17.2
17.2
Oil
Water
Gas
Viscosity
(kg/ms)
0.00227
0.001106
0.000011
Yd e( d / d )
(12)
106
Fine distribution
Medium distribution
Coarse distribution
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
a)
50
100
150
200
250
Droplet diameter (m)
300
350
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
400
800
b)
1200 1600
Diameter (m)
2000
2400
Oil (mm)
Water (mm)
LLLL
875
LIL
350
MNLL
1075
NIL
700
NLL
1300
HIL
800
MXLL
1450
where LLLL: Low Low Liquid Level, MNLL: Minimum Liquid Level, NLL:
Normal Liquid Level, MXLL: Maximum Liquid Level, LIL: Low Interface
Level, NIL: Normal Interface Level, HIL: High Interface Level
Water-in-oil
(% v/v)
Fine distribution
Medium distribution
Coarse distribution (skewed)
30
20
10
0
Oil-in-gas
(USG/mmcf)
0.35
107
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
108
N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
Figure 4.a.
separation
MRT
V phase
Q
(13)
phase
tc t dt
MRT 0
0 c t dt
(14)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
Mean diameter (microns)
150
109
1500
[1]
1100
900
700
500
300
[39]
100
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Figure 4.b. Mean residence time vs mean droplet diameter: liquid-liquid separation
110
N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
3.6
3.2
Schoep
top
2.8
z (m)
2.4
2
1.6
x=0.58m
x=4m
x=10m
Coalscer
top
x=11.6m
Spiraflow
bottom
x=14m
Schoep
bottom
NLL
1.2
0.8
0.4
NIL
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
x velocity (m/s)
-3 -2 -1 0
Figure 6. Profiles of axial oil velocity component plotted on vertical lines at different axial positions. The values underneath NLL are multiplied by 10.
The dashed lines represent boundaries of internals
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
2.8
1.8
0.8
-0.2
-1.2
-2.2
0.03
Spiraflow
Agglomerator
Schoep
z=3.22m
Schoep
z=2.44m
2
baffles
0.01
z=1.41m
Agglomerator
Coalescer
-0.01
-0.03
0.1
Weir
-0.1
2
baffles
z velocity (m/s)
-0.3
-0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5
Coalescer
water
out
z=0.7m
Oil
out
Weir
z=0.09m
2
baffles
-1
Coalescer
7
x (m)
Oil
out
Water
out
11
13
15
Figure 7.a. Profiles of vertical oil velocity component plotted on horizontal lines at different vertical positions. The dashed lines represent boundaries of
internals
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
2.8
1.8
0.8
-0.2
-1.2
-2.2
0.03
111
Spiraflow
Schoep
z=3.22m
Agglomerator
Schoep
z=2.44m
Agglomerator
0.01
Coalescer
2
baffles
z=1.41m
2
baffles
z=0.7m
-0.01
z velocity (m/s)
-0.03
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5
Coalescer
Weir
Water
out
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5
2
baffles
z=0.09m
Coalescer
Weir
Oil
out
Water
out
-1
7
x (m)
Oil
out
11
13
15
Figure 7.b. Profiles of vertical water velocity component plotted on horizontal lines at different vertical positions. The dashed lines represent boundaries
of internals
112
N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
0.6
Present work
[1]
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Diameter (m)
Figure 10. Positive oil z velocity (m/s) distribution in the symmetry plane
113
0.03
Present work
[1]
0.02
Figure 14. Contours of the oil volume fraction in the symmetry plane. The
white vertical lines indicate- the planes created to quantify the amount of
entrained phase in kg/s
0.01
1.2
Inlet
Schoepentoeter outlet
Downstream Schoep
Upstream coalescer
Downstream coalescer
Upstream agglomerator
Downstream agglomerator
Spiraflow inlet
Gas outlet
0
350
450
550
650
Mean diameter (m)
750
850
250
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
a)
20
40
60
Diameter (mm)
80
100
1.2
Inlet
Schoepentoeter outlet
Downstream Schoep
0.8
Upstream coalescer
Downstream coalescer
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
b)
50
100
Diameter (mm)
150
200
114
N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
1.2
1
Schoepentoeter outlet
Downstream Schoep
0.8
0.6
0.4
1.2
0.2
0
c)
100
200
Diameter (mm)
300
Figure 15. Oil droplet size distribution at different locations inside the
separator: a) Fine distribution, b) Medium Distribution, c) Coarse
distribution
Inlet
Inlet
Schoepentoeter outlet
Downstream Schoep W/O
Downstream Schoep W/G
Upstream coalescer W/O
Downstream coalescer W/O
Oil outlet
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
100
200
Diameter (mm)
a)
300
1.2
Inlet
Schoepentoeter outlet
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Figure 16. Contours of the water volume fraction in the symmetry plane.
The white vertical lines indicate- the planes created to quantify the amount
of entrained phase in kg/s
b)
5.4.1. Schoepentoeter
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
400
600
Diameter (mm)
800
1000
Inlet
Schoepentoeter outlet
Downstream Schoep W/O
Downstream Schoep W/G
0
c)
200
500
1000
1500
2000
Diameter (mm)
2500
3000
Figure 17. Water droplet size distribution at different locations inside the
separator: a) Fine distribution, b) Medium Distribution, c) Coarse
distribution
115
116
N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
Figure 18. Contours of the turbulent kinetic energy in the symmetry plane.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
6. Conclusions
The Population Balance Model (PBM), in conjunction
with the Eulerian-Eu lerian model, was used to simulate the
complex mu ltiphase flow in a horizontal separator. The
study focused on the effects of the size distribution of the
secondary phases on the performance of the separator and
the internal flo w behavior. Three secondary phase
distributions were used based on values recommended in the
literature for design purposes.
The three distributions, referred to as fine, med iu m, and
coarse, were found to be differently affected by the internals.
Their predicted effects were in a fair agreement with the
scarce data ranges existing in the literature; namely, ADCO
field tests and the semi-empirical approach based on Stokes
law.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
117
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
118
N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
[37] API SPEC 12J: Specification for Oil and Gas Separators.
Eighth edition, 2008.
[38] C. H. M achado, J. P. Leclerc, E. Avilan, G. Landaeta, N.
Aorga, O. Capote, Flow modeling of a battery of industrial
crude oil/gas separators using 113min tracer experiments,
Chem. Eng. & Process., vol 44, no. 7, pp. 760-765, Jul. 2005.
[39] F. Boukadi, V. Singh, R. Trabelsi, F. Sebring, D. Allen, V. Pai,
Appropriate separator sizing: a modified Stewart and Arnold
method, M odelling and Simulation in Engineering, vol.
2012, Article ID 721814, 4 pages doi:10.1155/2012/721814
2012.
[40] R. Viteri, D. Egger and H. Polderman, Innovative gas-liquid