The Savvy Separator Series: Part 1

Design of Cyclone
Separators
Internals and Liquid Levels
Robert Chin, Padden Engineering

Southwest Research Institute’s (SwRI) multiphase flow facility is used to conduct high-pressure, three-phase (oil/water/
gas) research and testing under field-like multiphase and wet gas conditions. Photo courtesy of SwRI.
The SPE Separations Technology Technical Section (STTS) is
excited to launch “The Savvy Separator,” a series of articles
that will present helpful design know-how, lessons learned,
and solutions for separation problems. The articles will stem
from our members' experience.
Although the section's board members will initially
provide the articles, we encourage our members to submit
articles for review or suggest topics. We will also look at
the questions being asked on the section’s message board
to identify topics of interest (http://connect.spe.org/
separationstechnology/home?_ga=1.205968086.497644149.1
418664419).
The main goal of the STTS is knowledge transfer. Toward
this purpose, the section has established an annual webinar
series and a special session at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition.
We welcome your feedback on the articles and look
forward to the sharing of your own knowledge.
—Hank Rawlins, eProcess Technologies Fig. 1—The empty-cylinder inlet cyclone has a tangential inlet,
top gas outlet ring, and a bottom liquid outlet blocking plate.
Rawlins is the chairman of the STTS and may be reached at Photo courtesy of Cameron.
hrawlins@eprocess-tech.com.

Separators range from a simple empty vessel to one packed

with internals such as cyclonic inlets and mist eliminators,
perforated baffles, and passive and electrostatic media. A
separator generally serves a dual purpose of cleaning up gas
and liquids. Some internals, however, affect the separator's
gas- and liquid-handling capability because of their effects
on the liquid level. In this article, the interdependency of
cyclonic inlets, cyclonic mist eliminators, and liquid level
is highlighted.
Gas/liquid separators have evolved over the past
15 years to improve efficiencies and reduce the size and
weight of the separator. Mark Bothamley’s series of articles in
Oil and Gas Facilities (2013a, 2013b, and 2013c) summarized
general separator design and the sizing of internals.
A major factor to be considered in the design of a
cyclonic separator is the pressure drop (energy usage)
associated with its operation. Internals such as mesh
and vane eliminators and inlet vane diffusers result in a
relatively low pressure drop and, thus, have a relatively small
effect on the liquid level.
Because of the associated high pressure loss, some
internals such as inlet cyclones and demisting cyclones
affect the liquid level in the separator, which in turn affects
degassing, level control, liquid/liquid separation, and surge
control. An understanding of the interdependency of the
internals and the liquid level is required in order to properly
design, troubleshoot, and debottleneck a separation system.
Inlet Cyclone Design
Inlet cyclones separate the gas and liquid phases by
inducing a spin to the fluids, with the heavier liquid phase
moving to the cyclone’s perimeter and the gas phase moving
to the interior (Chin et al. 1999). The cyclones range from
a simple empty cylinder to ones packed with turbine blades
(Figs. 1 and 2). A common feature is a top gas outlet and a
Fig. 2—The inlet cyclone with turbine blades has an internal
vortex tube, a gas blocking plate, and liquid antispin blades.
Photo courtesy of FMC Technologies.
bottom liquid outlet, which is typically sealed in the liquid
phase. The sizing of cyclones is dictated by the energy, or
pressure, required to push the gas out of the top and the
liquid out of the bottom.
Fig. 3 shows the factors related to the pressure
balance in the separator. P1 is the pressure inside the
cyclone experienced by the gas and liquid phases, P2 is
the vessel pressure, ΔPGas is the gas pressure loss, ΔPLiq is
the liquid loss, H is the liquid level in the vessel, and ΔHI
is the difference in the liquid levels inside the cyclone and
the vessel.
For simplicity, a single liquid phase is assumed.
Depending on the cyclone’s design, the gas phase must
overcome the pressure losses (ΔPGas ) to exit the top,
and the proximity of the top outlet to the vessel wall may
contribute additional backpressure.
The pressure loss typically ranges from inches of water
for simple cyclones to approximately 1 bar for cyclones

June 2015  •   Oil and Gas Facilities 33

 with internals. As gas rates increase, P1 must increase
to overcome higher pressure losses. Similarly, the liquid
∆Pgas phase must overcome a drop in internal pressure to exit
the bottom of the cyclone. As the liquid rate increases, P1
and/or the liquid level inside of the cyclone must increase
P2
to push the liquid out of the bottom, overcoming the liquid
P1 loss. The liquid loss includes the liquid static head from the
∆HI H liquid level in the vessel (although this is counterbalanced
by the liquid head inside the cyclone).
The pressure balance in Fig. 3 is represented by
the following equations, in which gas hydrostatic head
differences are ignored:
∆PLiq

P1 - ΔPGas = P2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
P1=Cyclone pressure
P2=Vessel pressure
H=Liquid level
and
∆Pgas=Internal pressure losses for gas phase
∆Pliq=Internal pressure losses for liquid phase
∆HI=Difference between liquid levels inside the cyclone and the vessel P1 + ΔHI - ΔPLiq = P2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)

Fig. 3—An inlet cyclone’s pressure balance. The pressure

required to push gas out of the top of the cyclone and liquid out of where ΔHI is the difference in liquid levels inside the cyclone
the bottom dictates the cyclone's size.
and the vessel.
Assuming the liquid rate is constant, the pressure (P1)
Inlet cyclone
maximum level
inside of the cyclone will increase and push down on the
liquid as gas rates increase. Gas blowby is a condition when
Inlet cyclone
minimum level
the gas rate is high enough to blow out through the liquid
Liquid Level

outlet and into the vessel liquid volume. The separator

problems that may result from blowby are the following:
• Foaming
• Loss of level control
• Gas carry-under/liquid carry-over to the next vessel

Recovery from blowby may require a temporary

Gas Rate
Fig. 4—General trends in the minimum and maximum liquid
levels for inlet cyclones. The liquid level must remain above the
minimum curve to avoid gas blowby and below the maximum
curve to avoid liquid carry-over.
Fig. 5—Demisting cyclones for a horizontal vessel. The vertical
pipes are drain tubes connected to a header, which will have
its own drain tubes sealed in the liquid. Photo courtesy of FMC
Technologies.
reduction in production rates or, in extreme cases, a
process shutdown to allow the resealing of the bottom of
the cyclone.
Assuming the gas rate is constant, the liquid level inside
of the cyclone increases to push more liquid out of the
bottom of the cyclone as the liquid rates increase. Liquid
carry-over is a condition when the liquid flows out of the
top gas outlet and into the gas phase of the vessel, possibly
resulting in a higher liquid loading to the mist eliminator.
The liquid level plays an important role in the operating
range of an inlet cyclone and in the avoidance of gas blowby
and liquid carry-over. Fig. 4 shows the trend in the vessel
operating liquid level range as a function of the gas rate for
a given liquid rate. The dashed curve is the maximum liquid
level allowed to avoid liquid carry-over, and the solid curve
is the minimum liquid level allowed to avoid gas blowby.
The vessel’s liquid level operating range, which includes
normal, low/high alarms, and low/high shutdown levels,
must fall between the two curves. In the case of a higher
liquid rate, both curves shift downward.
Pressure also affects the design of the inlet cyclone. For
the same gas and liquid mass rates, the difference in liquid

34 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   June 2015

 fluid spinning and maldistribution at the inlet. Simple
cyclones with a low pressure drop are more susceptible
P3
P4
to maldistribution from poor piping geometry. Mal-
distribution should be considered in the estimates of
P2
blowby and carryover levels.
Also, there is usually some level of gas carry-under
from the inlet cyclones that affects the liquid density. In
∆HD some cases, more gas may be entrained out of the bottom of
H
the cyclone as the liquid level decreases before the blowby
level is reached. The actual operating experience will
determine the critical liquid level at which the cyclone will
remain sealed for satisfactory performance of the separator.

Demisting Cyclone Design

In a typical demisting cyclone installation for horizontal
P2=Vessel pressure separators (Fig. 5), the horizontal flow cyclones are encased
P3=Vessel pressure in a gas box with a drain tube sealed in the liquid below
H=Liquid level
P4=Gas pressure downstream of the cyclone outlet
the shutdown level (Stewart et al. 1988). The same cyclonic
∆HD=Difference between liquid levels inside the drain tube and the vessel separation principle and sizing for the inlet cyclone applies.
Fig. 6 shows the cyclone pressure balance. P2 is the
Fig. 6—The pressure balance within a demisting cyclone. The vessel pressure, P3 is the pressure inside the cyclone gas box
gas phase may experience an additional loss of pressure as it
flows out of the cyclone.
experienced by the liquid phase, and P4 is the gas pressure
just downstream of the cyclone outlet. For simplicity, we
will assume a single liquid phase. The loss of pressure from
P3 to P2 is due to the energy required to spin the fluids and
push the liquid into the drainage box. The gas phase may
experience an additional pressure loss as it flows out of the
gas exit, for example, because of a lip on the gas outlet.
Liquid Level

Based on this information, one may conclude that P4

Mist eliminator
maximum level
Mist eliminator
minimum level
Gas Rate
Fig. 7—A general trend in minimum and maximum liquid levels
for demisting cyclones.
levels inside the cyclone and the vessel (ΔHI) will decrease
as the pressure increases.
When designing a separator with these cyclonic
internals, it is important to cover the entire range of
operating conditions because of the effect the internals can
have on the pressure balance, including
• Minimum/maximum gas and liquid rates
• Minimum/maximum gas/oil ratio
• Operating pressure
The process conditions can differ significantly in
early, middle, and late field life. If certain combinations are
missed, the design may not work under all conditions.
Of course, the real world is not as ideal as described
above. For example, a two-phase distribution becomes
important as premature blowby and carry-over may
occur with multiple cyclones. The inlet piping geometry
plays an important role in the cyclone’s ability to handle
< P3 < P2. Because P3 is less than P2, the liquid height in
the drain tube must be higher than the liquid height in the
vessel to provide the hydrostatic head to push the liquid
out. The head requirement (ΔHD) can range up to several
feet. For any demisting device, the drain pipes should be
designed for a self-venting flow with a Froude number
of less than 0.3 (McKetta 1991). The Froude number is a
dimensionless parameter measuring the ratio of fluid inertia
to the gravitational force.
Ignoring the gas head, the following equation describes
the process:
P2 = P3 + HD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
If pressure losses are too high due to high gas rates or
liquid loading, P3 can become so low that the drain tube
acts as a siphon, leading to massive carry-over. Fig. 7 shows
the trend in the maximum liquid level as a function of the
gas rate. As with inlet cyclones, ΔHD will decrease with
increasing pressure for the same gas and liquid mass rates.
Maldistribution is usually not a concern with these high
pressure drop intervals: Entrained gas will affect liquid
density, hence the drainage height.
The minimum liquid level is dictated only by the
need to keep the drain tube sealed in the liquid phase. The
location of the drain leg relative to the liquid outlet needs to

June 2015  •   Oil and Gas Facilities 35

be considered, especially in revamps in which a high liquid
outlet velocity may lead to a vortex. This could create a low Inlet cyclone maximum level

pressure drop and suck the liquid out of the drain leg if the Inlet cyclone minimum level
drain leg is above the liquid outlet.
The vortex can also occur with poor antivortex

Liquid Level
Inlet/demisting
breakers. The design needs to also account for solids that cyclone
governance

could block the drain leg. Inlet cyclone

governance
Mist eliminator
maximum level
Demisting cyclone

Operating Liquid Levels

governance

Fig. 8 combines the operating liquid levels for a typical Mist eliminator
minimum level
design of a vessel that has both inlet cyclones and demisting
Gas Rate
cyclones. The three areas of operation are
• Inlet cyclone governance. At low gas rates, the Fig. 8—A combination of operating liquid levels for a vessel with
minimum and maximum liquid levels are governed inlet cyclones and demisting cyclones. Each arrow represents the
three areas of liquid level operation for the vessel.
by the inlet cyclone. The liquid level must be lower
than the liquid carryover curve and higher than the
gas blowby curve.
• Inlet and demisting cyclone governance. At higher
gas rates, the drainage head of the demisting cyclones
comes into play and dictates the maximum liquid
level. The gas blowby curve of the inlet cyclone
dictates the minimum liquid level.
• Demisting cyclone governance. At even higher gas
rates, the drainage head of the demisting cyclones
dictates the liquid level settings. The liquid level
must seal the tube at a low level and be below the
maximum level to allow for drainage.

Poor level control, liquid carry-over or gas carry-under

into the next vessel, and pump gas locking are all signs of
poor separation efficiency. Understanding how the inlet
Fig. 9—A weir may be installed to maintain a liquid level for the
and demisting cyclones are affected by the liquid level and
inlet cyclone different from the liquid level in the main part of the
the knock-on effects of improper level setting will improve vessel.
separator troubleshooting.
Other factors, such as process condition changes,
flow regime, liquid surface re-entrainment, droplet size
distribution, and foaming can contribute to poor separator
efficiency. However, after checking and eliminating the
instrumentation as a cause, determining whether the
internals are properly designed for the actual operating
process conditions is generally the first task on a
troubleshooting list.

Atypical Design Considerations

There are several examples of operating conditions that
can challenge liquid level settings. Firstly, the vessel liquid
level may need to be lower than the blowby level of the
inlet cyclone. High retention or reaction time requirements
between levels may require low alarm or shutdown levels.
High gas rates require low liquid levels for a high mist
eliminator drainage head. Liquid sloshing due to platform
motion results in low levels at the inlet cyclone location.
A possible solution to this problem is to place a weir
just downstream of the inlet cyclones to maintain a liquid
level above the blowby unit, but below the liquid carryover Fig. 10—Demisting cyclones installed in a larger gas outlet or
limit as shown in Fig. 9. Liquid sloshing is generally dome.

36 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   June 2015

not a factor for short spacing. The disadvantages of this
design are the possible buildup of solids behind the weir,
impeded vessel access, and an additional vessel drain in the
inlet section.
Secondly, for a high gas rate, a large mist eliminator
drainage head may be required. A solution to this problem
is to install an overflow weir just upstream of the drain
tube that can maintain a lower level for the cyclones.
The downsides to this solution are added controls and
complexity, vessel access, and sloshing of the main part of
the vessel.
Another possible solution is the use of a mist
eliminator in the gas outlet/dome (Fig. 10), where the entire
gas space can be used for the drainage head. However,
potential downsides to this solution are the added size
of the nozzle and flow maldistribution across the mist
eliminator, although this is not a major concern due to the
high pressure drop across the cyclones.
Conclusion
Three operating regions in which the liquid level
settings are dictated by the inlet cyclones, the demisting
cyclones, or both have been identified. Understanding the
interdependency of internals and liquid level will improve
the designing, troubleshooting, and debottlenecking of a
separation system.
The second part of “The Savvy Separator” series, which
discusses the effect of inlet geometries on flow distribution,
will appear in the August issue of Oil and Gas Facilities.
I would like to thank Ed Grave, Victor van Asperen, and
Jimmie Riesenberg, members of the STTS, for their valuable
contributions to this article. OGF
For Further Reading
SPE 50685 A New Approach to Gas-Liquid Separation by
A.C. Stewart, N.P. Chamberlain, and M. Irshad, Kvaerner
Paladon.
SPE 56705 Chemical Defoamer Reduction with New
Internals in the Mars TLP Separators by R.W. Chin, CDS
Separation Technology et al.
Arnold, K.E. ed. 2007. SPE Petroleum Engineering
Handbook, Volume III, Facilities and Construction
Engineering. Richardson, Texas: SPE.
Bothamley, M. 2013a. Qualifying Separation Performance
in Gas/Liquid Separators. Oil and Gas Fac 2 (4): 21–29.
Bothamley, M. 2013b. Qualifying Separation Performance
in Gas/Liquid Separators—Part 2. Oil and Gas Fac 2 (5):
35–47.
Bothamley, M. 2013c. Gas/Liquid Separators—Part 3:
Quantifying Separation Performance. Oil and Gas Fac
2 (6): 34–47.
McKetta Jr., J.J. 1991. Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing
and Design: Volume 38, Piping Design. New York City:
CRC Press.
Robert Chin is a cofounder and past
chair of the SPE Separations Technol-
ogy Technical Section, past chair of the
SPE Gulf Coast Section’s Projects,
Facilities, and Construction study
group, a member of the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition’s
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.
June 2015  •   Oil and Gas Facilities 37