Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gas-Liquids Separators Part 3
Gas-Liquids Separators Part 3
Gas-Liquids Separators Part 3
Gas/Liquids Separators—Part 3
Quantifying Separation Performance
Mark Bothamley, John M. Campbell/PetroSkills
I
n this third article of a three-part series, the results of contained in this article, while complex from a calculational
selected gas/liquid separation case studies/sensitivities point of view, is quite user friendly.
are presented to show the effects of key separator The spreadsheet will be made available for public
selection/sizing decision parameters, fluid properties, use in the near future. To be notified of its availability,
and operational parameters. The results are generated please contact the author’s company’s website at
from an Excel spreadsheet model, which incorporates www.jmcampbell.com/separatorOGF.
the equations/methods outlined in Part 1 and 2 of this
series published in 2013 August and October Oil and Gas Definition of Base Case Parameters
Facilities issues, respectively. The Excel Solver add-in is used The main assumptions and parameters used in the Excel
to find the optimum separator size, in this case defined spreadsheet to generate the results discussed in this article
as the lowest-weight vessel that satisfies the specified are as follows:
separation performance requirements as well as any The fluid properties are assumed as 35°API crude oil;
applicable constraints. 0.7 SG gas; 100°F operating temperature, and 1,000 psig
Part 1 of the series in August provided a general operating pressure.
discussion of separation equipment classification, as well Various correlations are incorporated into
as existing limitations to methods used for quantifying the spreadsheet to obtain the following fluid
separator performance. Part 2 in October discussed methods properties: gas compressibility factor, gas in
for improved quantification of operating performances of solution, dead oil viscosity, live oil viscosity, and liquid
the gas gravity separation, the mist extraction, and the liquid surface tension.
gravity separation sections of gas/liquid separators. Table 1 shows the constraints of horizontal and
Parts 1 and 2 presented the equations and methods vertical separators relevant to the spreadsheet.
that can be used to improve the quantification of gas/ Vessel weight is estimated using the American Society of
liquid separation performance compared with traditional Mechanical Engineers’ Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section
techniques. The key aspects of the recommended VIII equations to calculate shell and head thickness based on
methodology include quantification of the following: the parameters in Table 2.
1. The amount of gas (liquid) entrained in the form of Vessel design pressure is set at 110% of the operating
droplets (bubbles) pressure. Nozzle weights, including manway(s) are estimated
2. The size distribution of the entrained droplets from a look-up table based on the nozzle size and American
(bubbles) National Standards Institute class rating. The weight of the
3. The continuous phase (gas or liquid) velocities vessel internals is estimated based on the types and sizes of
4. Droplet (bubble) separation performance based on the internals, such as inlet devices (Table 3), mist extractors
1–3 above and the geometry of the separator (Tables 4 through 6), and perforated plates.
The purpose of the articles is to present a more rigorous Vertical Scrubber Base Case
approach to gas/liquid separator design and rating that more The following assumptions and parameters define the vertical
accurately reflects the physics involved. The traditional scrubber base case that will be used as the reference point for
Ks/residence-time approach is inadequate for anything but the case studies/sensitivities to be discussed in this article.
the smallest/simplest separator applications. • Vertical orientation
The expanding use of computational fluid dynamics • 100 MMscf/D, 10 bbl/MMscf
(CFD) for separator design purposes has been useful, but • 1,000 psig, 100°F
does not readily lend itself to the needs of the majority • Design factor=1.15
of facilities engineers faced with separator design and • Slug size = 1 second
operational issues. CFD is expected to be an excellent tool • Half-pipe inlet device
for refining several of the calculations presented in this • Standard mesh pad
series of articles. The spreadsheet used to generate the results • No perforated plates for flow straightening
ID≤6=0.75
Minimum distance between HLSD and mist extractor, ft N/A ID>6=1.0
Minimum distance between inlet device and mist Depends on inlet device (see N/A
extractor, ft Table 3) (minimum=1.5 ft)
ID≤6=1.17
Minimum distance for control volume (LLA–HLA), ft
ID>6=1.5
ID≤6=0.5
Minimum distance between alarm and shutdown, ft
ID>6=0.75
ID≤6=0.5
Minimum distance between BTL/BV and LLSD, ft
ID>6=1.0
0.25 20
18
TABLE 2-ESTIMATES OF VESSEL WEIGHT
0.20 16
Cumulative gal/MMscf
Parameter Value
14
gal/MMscf
0.15 12
S, allowable stress, psi 20,000
10
0.10 8 Joint efficiency, E 1.00
6
0.05 4 Corrosion allowance, in. 0.125
2 Steel density, lb/ft 3
489
0.00 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Droplet size, microns
The separation specifications are allowable
Fig. 1—Feed-pipe entrainment. liquid of up to 0.1 gal/MMscf in separated gas, and
allowable free gas of up to 2% v/v in separated oil. The
operational requirements, such as times between alarm and
0.80 40 shutdown, are defined by the separator constraints shown
0.70 35 in Table 1.
Cumulative gal/MMscf
0.60 30
Base Case Results
0.50 25
gal/MMscf
Diverter/splash
950 0.4 1.5 0.5
plate
Multivane
(Schoepentoeter/ 4,000 0.2 1.1 0.3
Evenflow)
*Cyclonic inlets are partially submerged below the normal liquid level (NLL).
Primary
Liquid carry-over in separated gas, gal/MMscf 0.10 0.00
specification
Primary
Free gas in separated oil, volume% 2.0% 0.3%
specification
Secondary
Separable gas bubble size from oil, microns 500 72
requirement
Secondary
Corrected oil-residence time (NLL), minutes 2.00 9.49
requirement
Cumulative gal/MMscf
0.50 10
gal/MMscf
Outside diameter, ft 6.5 8
0.40
0.30 6
Inside diameter, ft 6.1 0.20 4
0.10 2
Length s/s, ft 11.5 0.00 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Droplet size, microns
Length/diameter 1.76 Fig. 3—Droplet size at outlet of gas gravity separation section/
inlet to primary mist extractor.
Cumulative gal/MMscf
0.00015 0.00015
gal/MMscf
0.00010 0.00010
TABLE 9-NOZZLES
0.00005 0.00005
Nozzles Size, in. Inlet Flow Pattern
0.00000 0.00000
Inlet nozzle 16 Slug 0 10 20 30 40 50
Oil outlet nozzle 2 - of F=1.52 in Table 7, the ratio of the actual effective velocity/
plug flow velocity (see Fig. 11 in Part 1 of the series). A lower
F value, indicating a more uniform flow, could be achieved
by using a higher-performance inlet device or a perforated
plate, which would reduce the vessel diameter.
TABLE 10-LEVELS As far as liquid handling is concerned, the separator
easily achieves the specification of 2.0% free gas in oil, and
HLSD, ft 4.01 the liquid levels (alarm and shutdown points) are dictated by
the minimum distance constraints. Even the assumed
1-second slug size is accommodated in the control volume
HLA, ft 3.26 (LLA→HLA) using the minimum spacing, although
just barely.
NLL, ft 2.50 The half-pipe inlet has a relatively low ρV2
limit, which results in lower feed-pipe velocities, low
entrainment (3.1% of feed liquid, 14.8 gal/MMscf),
LLA, ft 1.75 and relatively large liquid droplet sizes.
200,000 20
100 MMscf/D
1,000 psig
180,000 Gas capacity Liquid capacity 18 100˚F
constrained constrained Gas SG=0.7
Oil API=35˚
160,000 16 Std mesh pad
Half-pipe inlet
No perforated plates
140,000 14 0.1 gal/MMscf spec
120,000 12
Weight
100,000 10
Length
80,000 8 Diameter
L/D
60,000 6
40,000 4
20,000 2
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid content, bbl/MMscf
Fig. 5—Vertical separator size and weight vs. the inlet liquid content.
Up to approximately 25 bbl/MMscf inlet liquid, the Note that with respect to degassing performance,
separator size remains constant. The diameter is dictated by residence time is a fairly meaningless criterion for a vertical
gas-handling capacity via the mist extractor Ks value separator. It is the effective liquid velocity that matters. As
(Ks=0.27/ft/sec). As for the base case, the mist extractor area the separator diameter increases to handle more liquid,
and vessel diameter are larger than would be required, based the gas-handling capacity of the separator becomes
on the assumption of uniform plug flow. increasingly underutilized, indicated by the declining value
At more than approximately 25 bbl/MMscf inlet liquid, of Ks in Fig. 6. Even with the increasing liquid content
the separator diameter begins to increase. This is necessary over the range shown, the liquid levels are still set by the
to limit the downward oil velocity to satisfy the specification minimum distance constraints for the liquid level alarm and
of 2.0% v/v free gas in oil (Fig. 6). shutdown points.
0.35 3.5%
100 MMscf/D
1,000 psig
Gas capacity Liquid capacity 100˚F
0.30 constrained constrained 3.0% Gas SG=0.7
Oil API=35˚
Std mesh pad
Half-pipe inlet
0.25 2.5% No perforated plates
0.1 gal/MMscf spec
2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec
Free gas in oil, vol%
0.20 2.0%
Ks, ft/sec
0.10 1.0%
0.05 0.5%
0.00 0.0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid content, bbl/MMscf
Fig. 6—Vertical separator gas handling (Ks) and oil degassing performance vs. the inlet liquid content.
500 1.00
100 MMscf/D
450 100 bbl/MMscf 0.90
1,000 psig
400 100ºF 0.80
Gas SG=0.7
350 Oil API=35º 0.70
Entrainment, gal/MMscf
Carry-over, gal/MMscf
Feed pipe
Half-pipe inlet 0.60
300
No perforated plates
2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec Exit from inlet
250 0.50 device
50 0.10
0 0.00
12 14 16 18 20
Feed-pipe size, in.
The increase in feed-pipe entrainment
for 20 in. is caused by transition from the
intermediate settling law to Newton’s law
in the Pan & Hanratty calculation (2002).
100,000 20
90,000 18
80,000 16
Length and diameter, ft
70,000 14
Vessel
Vessel weight, lb
60,000 12 weight
50,000 10 Length
40,000 8 Inside
diameter
30,000 6
20,000 4
10,000 2
0 0
No inlet device Diverter/splash Half-open pipe Vane-type Cyclonic
plate
Inlet device
100 MMscf/D Oil API=35˚ The design ρV2 for the cyclonic inlet was set at
10 bbl/MMscf Std mesh pad 8,000 lb/ft-sec2 to reduce the entrainment fraction
1,000 psig No perforated plates in the feed pipe and to minimize droplet size reduction.
100˚F 0.1 gal/MMscf spec A ρV2 value of 10,000 lb/ft-sec2 would not allow the
Gas SG=0.7 2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec 0.1 gal/MMscf carry-over spec to be achieved.
Fig. 8—The effect of the inlet device on the vertical scrubber weight.
Length
Vessel weight, lb
20,000 8
Min diameter limited by 2%
free gas in oil spec Inside
diameter
15,000 6
10,000 4
5,000 2
0 0
High Standard High Simple High High 2-in. axial- 2-in. axial-
capacity wire eff. wire vane performance performance flow flow
wire mesh mesh design vane design- vane design- cyclone cyclone w/
mesh single double vane-type
pocket pocket inlet device*
Mist extractor type
100 MMscf/D Oil API=35˚ *ρV2 for the vane-type inlet reduced
10 bbl/MMscf Std mesh pad to 4,000 lb/ft-sec2 to achieve 0.1 gal/MMscf
1,000 psig No perforated plates carry-over spec.
100˚F 0.1 gal/MMscf spec
Gas SG=0.7 2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec
Fig. 9—The effect of mist extractor type on the vertical scrubber size and weight.
of 10,000 lb/ft-sec2 typically specified for a cyclonic inlet, can be expected to be poor, and a perforated plate would be
the liquid entrainment fraction in the feed pipe is high, necessary to improve flow distribution.
and the entrainment droplet size distribution is shifted to The amount of free gas in oil was <0.4% v/v for all
smaller sizes. inlet devices.
Even though the cyclonic inlet is estimated to
achieve good liquid-separation efficiency at these The Effect of Mist Extractor Type on the Vertical Scrubber
conditions, the amount of unseparated liquid and Figs. 9 and 10 show the effects of mist extractor types while
its size distribution overwhelms the mist extractor other parameters remain the same as in the base case.
such that it cannot achieve the 0.1 gal/MMscf For the low liquid loading base case conditions, vessel
specification. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the diameter is essentially a function of the mist extractor Ks
design feed-pipe/inlet device ρV2 value. In Table 3, it has value. The higher-capacity mist extractors allow higher gas
been assumed that the cyclonic inlet also has a larger inlet velocities and, therefore, smaller diameters for a given gas
device–mist extractor distance requirement than the vane- flow rate.
type inlet. As can be seen in Fig. 10, the high-performance
A standard cyclonic inlet device would not typically double pocket vane and 2-in. axial–flow cyclone cases are
be expected to be particularly good with respect to flow actually constrained by the 2% free gas in separated oil spec.
distribution. In Part 1, Fig. 11, the curve for the cyclonic The 2-in. axial-flow cyclone with vane-type inlet case is
inlet device assumes it is equipped with mixers on the fluid constrained by the maximum vessel plug flow Ks value of Ks=
outlets to substantially remove spin from the fluids and 0.5 ft/sec limitation (Table 1).
thereby improve flow distribution. If the cyclonic inlet is While this may seem to be a conservative assumption
not equipped with these outlet mixers, flow distribution that negates the potential capacity advantages of high-
0.60 3.0%
All mist extractors oriented
for vertical flow
0.50 2.5%
Vessel plug flow Ks, ft/sec
0.40 2.0%
1.5% Free
0.30 gas
Min diameter limited by 2%
free gas in oil spec
0.20 1.0%
0.10 0.5%
0.00 0.0%
High Standard High Simple High High 2-in. axial- 2-in. axial-flow
capacity wire eff. wire vane performance performance flow cyclone w/
wire mesh mesh design vane design- vane design- cyclone vane-type
mesh single double inlet device*
pocket pocket
100 MMscf/D Oil API=35˚ *ρV2 for the vane-type inlet reduced
10 bbl/MMscf Std mesh pad to 4,000 lb/ft-sec2 to achieve 0.1 gal/MMscf
1,000 psig No perforated plates carry-over spec.
100˚F 0.1 gal/MMscf spec
Gas SG=0.7 2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec
Fig. 10—The effect of mist extractor type on gas handling and liquid degassing performance.
performance vane and cyclone demister designs, there is of the mist extractor. The gas capacity of the gas gravity
evidence from the field that this conservatism is warranted. separation section is acceptably below the Ks= 0.75 ft/sec
This view may change as more data become available and plug flow constraint across the range of inlet liquid contents
vessel internals are improved further. (Fig. 12).
In this case, even though the vessel diameter went The actual Ks value decreases slowly with increasing
down slightly, the amount of free gas in the separated oil inlet liquid content as the separator length increases
decreased. This is explained by the better flow distribution to accommodate the higher liquid loads. The reason
of the gas and liquid phases achieved by the vane-type inlet the actual Ks value is decreasing for constant gas flow
compared to the half-pipe inlet. and constant cross-sectional area of the gas gravity
separation section is because of the improvement of the
The Effect of Liquid Content gas velocity profile with increasing L/Di, as shown in
on Horizontal Separator Sizing Part 1, Fig. 11. Across the range of inlet liquid contents
Figs. 11 through 13 show the effect of the liquid content evaluated, the HLSD point is at 53% of the vessel
in horizontal separators while other parameters remain the inside diameter. This may seem high for relatively low
same as in the base case. inlet liquid contents, but is mainly the result of the
The diameter remains constant at approximately 5.0 ft assumed minimum spacing criteria for liquid level alarm
over the investigated range of inlet liquid content. For and shutdown points, combined with the high operating
these conditions, the diameter is set by two dimensional pressure that reduces the cross-sectional area required for
constraints: 1) the minimum distances between alarm and gas handling.
shutdown levels for the liquid, and 2) the vertical gas-space The constant vessel length of approximately 13.4 ft for
height required to accommodate the mist extractor and the low liquid loads is set by the minimum L/D constraint of 2.5.
required minimum space between HLSD and the bottom This length is not dictated by the separation requirements
100 MMscf/D
100 bbl/MMscf
35,000 1,000 psig 35
100ºF
Gas SG=0.7
Oil API=35º
30,000 Std mesh pad 30
Weight
20,000 20
Length
Diameter
15,000 15
L/D
10,000 10
5,000 5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Fig. 11—The horizontal separator size and weight vs. inlet liquid content.
of either the gas or liquid phases. As inlet liquid content be lighter than the horizontal over much of the inlet
increases to more than 35 bbl/MMscf, the separator length liquid content range evaluated, if it was equipped with
also increases. a higher-capacity vane type or axial cyclone demister.
This is a lower-cost (weight) means of handling the The horizontal would show less benefit from these mist
increased liquid volumes than increasing diameter would extractors, mainly because of the liquid-level requirements,
be to satisfy the “time between level” constraints, which gas-space height needed to accommodate the mist extractor,
would override the minimum distances between liquid and the Ks= 0.75 ft/sec plug flow constraint assumed for the
level alarm/shutdown points that are controlling at lower gas gravity separation section.
liquid loads.
As shown in Fig. 12, the horizontal separator can easily Conclusions
achieve the 2.0% free gas in outlet oil spec across the range of A sampling of results from a new gas/liquid separator
inlet liquid contents evaluated, which reflect gas-dominated sizing/rating methodology has been presented. The
conditions. This situation changes for higher liquid loads results have been generated from an Excel spreadsheet
and lower gas/liquid ratios, in which cases the separator size that uses an optimization algorithm to determine the
is primarily dictated by liquid-handling requirements. In no “optimum” vessel size, given a set of separation performance
case did the horizontal separator exceed the re-entrainment requirements and constraints.
constraint caused by excessively high gas velocities across the The methodology not only provides a more quantitative
liquid surface. basis for analyzing separator design and operation
Fig. 13 compares the calculated weights for both than traditional methods, it also provides significant
the vertical and horizontal orientations over the range insight into the interactions and sensitivities of the
of inlet liquid contents. The horizontal vessel is lighter numerous variables, parameters, and design decisions
than the vertical vessel in all cases, even at the lowest involved. While further work is needed in certain areas,
inlet liquid contents. However, the vertical vessel would it is anticipated that that this tool and the underlying
WATER TREATING INSIGHTS
0.40 0.8%
Ks, actual velocity
0.30 0.6%
Free gas in oil
0.20 0.4%
0.10 0.2%
0.00 0.0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid content, bbl/MMscf
Fig. 12—Horizontal separator gas handling (Ks) and oil degassing performance vs. inlet liquid content.
150,000
100 MMscf/D
125,000 100 bbl/MMscf
1,000 psig
100ºF
Gas SG=0.7
Oil API=35º
100,000 Std mesh pad
Half-pipe inlet
No perforated plates
Vessel weight, lb
Horizontal
50,000
25,000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid content, bbl/MMscf
Fig. 13—The effect of vessel weight on liquid content in horizontal and vertical separators.
methodology will advance the oil and gas industry’s Pan, L. and Hanratty, T.J. 2002. Correlation of Entrainment
capability in the field of gas/liquid separation.OGF for Annular Flow in Horizontal Pipes. Int. J. Multiphase
Flow 28 (3): 385–408.
Nomenclature
ρV2 = Inlet momentum value
ID = Inside diameter Mark Bothamley is the technical director and chief engineer
Di = Inside diameter of John M. Campbell Training and a consultant at John
s/s = Seam-to-seam M. Campbell Consulting. His experience covers the areas
HLSD = High-level shutdown of design, operation, troubleshooting, and optimization of
LLSD = Low-level shutdown offshore and onshore oil and gas production and treating
HLA = High-level alarm facilities. Before joining the company, he served with BP/
LLA = Low-level alarm Amoco for 24 years in several locations around the world.
BTL/BV= Bottom tangent line/bottom of vessel He is a member of the SPE Separations Technology Technical
Vr = Difference between gas- and liquid-phase Section (http://connect.spe.org/SeparationsTechnology/
horizontal velocities Home/), past coordinator/chairman of the SPE Facilities and
Construction Subcommittee, and a former member of the
For Further Reading GPSA Data Book Editorial Review Board. He holds a BS in
chemical engineering from Lakehead University in Canada
Grødal, E.O. and Realff, M.J. Optimal Design of Two- and and a diploma in natural gas and petroleum technology from
Three-Phase Separators: A Mathematical Programming the British Columbia Institute of Technology in Canada. He
Formulation, SPE 56645. can be reached at mark.bothamley@petroskills.com.