Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gas-Liquids Separators Part 2
Gas-Liquids Separators Part 2
Gas-Liquids Separators Part 2
net/publication/274747519
CITATIONS READS
2 884
1 author:
Mark Bothamley
Mark Bothamley Consulting, LLC
8 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Bothamley on 04 March 2017.
Gas/Liquids Separators—Part 2
Quantifying Separation Performance
Mark Bothamley, John M. Campbell/PetroSkills
I
n this second article of a three-part series, methods for
improved quantification of operating performances of
the gas gravity separation, the mist extraction, and the Inlet device
Mist extractor
liquid gravity separation sections of gas/liquid separators
Gas gravity
are discussed. These methods can be used for the selection Feed pipe
separation
and design of new separators, as well as the rating of section
existing separators. Liquid gravity
Part 1 of the series in August provided a general separation
discussion of separation equipment classification, as well section
as existing limitations to methods used for quantifying
separator performance.
The main parts of a typical gas/liquid separator, vertical Mist extractor
or horizontal, are shown in Fig. 1, including the feed pipe, Inlet device
3.5
Vertical
F, Actual Velocity/Average (Plug Flow) Velocity
3.0
2.5
Vg
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Horizontal
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
L/Di Vg
No inlet device Cyclonic
Half-pipe
Fig.4—The geometry associated with the droplet settling Direction Gravitational force
calculations for a horizontal separator. of gas flow on droplet
gd 2p ( ρl – ρg)
Stokes' Law <2 Vt=
18µg
................................(4)
0.1529g0.714dp1.142( ρl – ρg)0.714
Vt=
Intermediate Law 2–500 ρg0.286µg0.428
.........(5)
ρl – ρg
Vmax=Ks
Newton's Law 500–200,000 ρg
................................(6)
Note: For calculations involving separation of gas bubbles from liquid, the gas viscosity (µg) in the equations is replaced with the liquid viscosity.
Cd vs Rep
100,000.00
10,000.00
1,000.00
Cd
100.00
10.00
1.00
Rep
Fig. 6—The relationship of the drag coefficient (Cd) to the Reynolds number (Rep) for spheres.
to Fig. 4, the residence time for the gas in the gas gravity into the appropriate settling velocity equation in Table 1 to
separation section can be defined as: determine the corresponding droplet diameter (dp). This
droplet size, along with all larger droplets, will be separated
Le
tr,g= with 100% efficiency for the given conditions (dp,100).
Vg
..................................................................... (7) Because of the assumption made earlier that droplets
are released uniformly over the vertical height (hg) of the gas
A droplet of liquid is considered to be separated/ space, an additional calculation is required to determine the
removed from the gas if it falls vertically from its release separation efficiency of droplets smaller than dp,100.
point to the liquid level (h) within the time (tr,g) it takes for
the gas to traverse the horizontal length of the gas gravity Eq. 8 is rearranged to give:
section (Le).
VtLe
Equating the droplet drop time with the horizontal gas h=
Vg
transit time gives: ................................................................... (10)
h L
= e =tr,g For droplets smaller than dp,100, terminal velocities can
Vt Vg
.......................................................... (8) be calculated using the equations in Table 1. As droplet size
decreases, the terminal settling velocities will also decrease,
If h is set equal to hg, the vertical distance between the resulting in decreasing values for h, the maximum allowable
liquid level and the top of the vessel, the droplet trajectory release-point height that results in separation of the droplet.
shown in Fig. 4 is obtained. Eq. 8 can then be rearranged This leads to the following relationship between droplet
to give: size and removal efficiency for droplets smaller than the
calculated dp,100 size:
hgVg
Vt=
Le
.................................................................... (9) Separation efficiency for dp<dp,100= h
hg
................... (11)
This is the terminal (settling) velocity of the droplet
corresponding to the trajectory shown in Fig. 4. The value For the purposes of this article, the distance hg and gas
for the terminal settling velocity can then be substituted velocity Vg have been based on the liquid level at high-level
Standard mesh
9 98.5 0.011 85 0.35 0.75
pad
High-capacity
5 99.0 0.011 45 0.4 1.5
mesh pad
High-efficiency
0.011 83
co-knit mesh 12 96.2 0.25 0.5
x 0.0008 1100
pad
Notes:
1) Flow direction is vertical (upflow).
2) Assume mesh pad Ks values decline with pressure as shown in Table 3.
3) If liquid loads reaching the mesh pad exceed the values given in Table 2, assume capacity (Ks) decreases by 10% per
gal/min/ft2.
4) These parameters are approximate. The cyclone manufacturer should be contacted for specific information.
Ew fraction
likely will require a well-designed and properly sized
coalescing filter, though some of the highest efficiency 0.6
mist extractor designs can approach this level of
0.4
droplet removal performance, and often with a more
robust piece of equipment. 0.2
• Gas capacity. Gas capacity is usually determined
by the maximum allowable velocity before re- 0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
entrainment becomes excessive. Capacity is typically
Stokes’ number (inertial impaction parameter)
quantified using the Souders-Brown equation (Eq. 1).
Each mist extractor type has its own Ks factor,
Fig. 8—Single-wire droplet capture efficiency. (This chart
usually different from the values used to size the gas
assumes the motion of the droplets relative to the gas phase is
gravity separation section. Ideally, there should be governed by Stokes' law.)
correlations/equations that quantify Ks values for mist
extractors as a function of the mist extractor design/
construction details and the in-situ fluid properties performance is substantially degraded (usually
and flow conditions. Although some information is because of re-entrainment).
available about this, further work is required. Most Secondary considerations include turndown
mist-extractor capacity information is based on low- performance and fouling tendency.
pressure air/water tests, which do not scale up well to
real-world conditions. Mesh Pads
•L iquid handling. This refers to the amount Droplet Removal Efficiency
of entrained liquid load (gal/min/ft2) that the The primary droplet capture mechanism used by wire-mesh
mist extractor can handle before separation mist extractors is inertial impaction. A methodology that
Notes:
1) A 45º blade angle is the most common.
2) Assume vane-pack Ks values decline with pressure as shown in Table 3.
3) I f liquid loads reaching the vane pack exceed the values given in Table 4, assume capacity (Ks) decreases by 10% per gal/
min/ft2.
4) Th
ese parameters are approximate only. The cyclone manufacturer should be contacted for specific information.
Notes:
120
Standard mesh pad, An approximate curve fit of Fig. 8 is given by the
100
Removal efficiency, %
20 2 in. cyclones, L=10 in., 3. Convert the single-wire capture efficiency into the
swirl=45 deg, Ks=0.8 ft/sec mesh-pad removal efficiency using the following
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 equation based on the work by Carpenter and
Droplet size, microns Othmer (1955).
Epad= 1−e −0.238STEw
..................................................... (14)
Fig. 9—An example of the calculated droplet removal efficiency
for three mist extractors for 35ºAPI oil and 0.7 SG gas at 500 psig
and 100ºF. Mesh Pad Capacity
Mesh pad capacity is defined by the Ks value as used in the
Souders-Brown equation. Information, including Ks values,
can be used to quantify droplet capture efficiency of a mesh- for several mesh pad designs is provided in Table 2.
type mist extractor is as follows:
Ks Deration for Pressure
1. Calculate the Stokes’ number (sometimes called the It has been found that the capacity of most mist extractor
inertial impaction parameter) from the following types, including mesh pads, declines with increasing
equation pressure. This behavior is believed to be mainly due to
the increasing gas density/liquid density ratio (ρg/ρl) and
( ρl – ρg)(d 2p )Vg
Stk= decreasing liquid surface tension that occurs with increasing
18µgDw
................................................. (12) pressure. Table 3 was originally developed for mesh pads,
but is used as an approximation for other mist extractor
(Note: Some literature sources define the Stokes’ types (Fabian et al. 1993).
number with a value of 9 in the denominator instead
of 18.) Vane-Type Mist Extractors
Droplet Removal Efficiency
2. Calculate the single-wire removal efficiency from Similar to mesh pads, the primary droplet capture
Fig. 8 (Langmuir and Blodgett 1946). mechanism used by vane-type mist extractors is inertial
impaction. The following equation (Monat et al. 1986) of mist extractor. At high gas-flow rates, the mesh pad will
can be used to estimate droplet separation efficiency: be operating above its capacity limit and will be entraining
(carrying over) liquid from its downstream face. However,
−(d 2p)(ρl −ρg)Vgnθ it has been found experimentally that the re-entrained
Evane=1−exp liquid exiting the mesh pad is in the form of droplets
515.7µgbcos2θ
................................ (15) substantially larger than those at the inlet to the mesh pad.
When operated above its capacity, the mesh pad acts as a
This equation does not account for the effect of pockets, coalescer, shifting the entrainment droplet size distribution
if present. It also includes a variation of the Stokes’ number to larger sizes. These larger droplets are easier to remove by
defined earlier. the secondary downstream vane-pack or demisting cyclone
Table 4 provides construction and design bundle. The mesh pad provides good low-flow droplet
parameters, including Ks values, for several generic vane- removal performance, while the secondary vane-pack or
pack types. demisting cyclone bundle provides high-flow capacity with
improved droplet removal performance as a result of the
Demisting Cyclones larger droplets exiting the mesh pad.
Droplet Removal Efficiency It is possible to quantify the performance of the series
The following formula can be used for calculating mesh pad configuration by estimating how carry-over
the droplet removal efficiency of an individual varies with Ks values above design for the primary mist
axial-flow cyclone tube (Austrheim 2006). extractor (usually a mesh pad) and how the droplet size
is shifted by the mesh pad when operating above its re-
Lcycl entrainment point.
Ecycl= 1−exp −8Stkcycl
Dcycltan2α Fig. 10 shows the assumed approximate relationship
between the percentages of carry-over vs. the percentages
where of design Ks. For simplicity, this article assumes an
adjustable shift factor of 2 that is applied to the droplet
(ρl −ρg )d 2pVg,cycl
size distribution calculated at the inlet to the primary
Stkcycl= mist extractor.
18µgDcycl
.............................................. (16)
Liquid Gravity Separation Section
Vg,cycl is the superficial gas velocity through a single The functions of the liquid gravity separation section
cyclone tube. Given the in-situ volumetric gas-flow rate, to depend on the type of separator and its application,
determine the velocity through an individual cyclone it is including the following:
necessary to know the number of cyclones and their sizes 1. Degassing of the liquid.
(cross-sectional flow area/cyclone). This information should 2. Smoothing out of intermittent inlet flow surges
also correlate to the Ks value used to quantify capacity for to provide steadier liquid flow to downstream
a demisting cyclone bundle, based on bundle face area. equipment/processing.
For the purposes of this article, it is assumed that the 3. To maintain a liquid seal at the bottom of
individual cyclones are laid out on a square pitch pattern the separator, a minimum requirement for
with a centerline to centerline spacing of 1.75Dcycl (cyclone instrumentation layout and process control.
inside diameter).
Fig. 9 provides an example of the droplet removal Degassing of the Liquid
calculations using the equations given earlier. This process separates the free gas out of the liquid (oil) to
prevent excessive gas carry-under. Associated issues include
Use of Different Mist Extractor Types in Series the following:
It is often advantageous to use two different types of mist • Degassing does not usually control the gas carry-
extractors in series. The most commonly used arrangements under, especially in high-pressure gas/oil separators.
are a mesh pad followed by a vane pack, and a mesh pad • Degassing can be an issue for cold, high-viscosity
followed by a demisting cyclone bundle. heavy oil.
At low flow rates, the mesh pad does nearly all of the • Historically, liquid residence time guidelines (for
work to remove droplets. Mesh pads have good droplet example, API 12J 1989), have been used to size the
removal efficiency and good turndown performance, liquid-holding part of the separator for degassing
generally speaking. Their main weakness is that they have purposes. A more accurate and consistent method
elatively low capacity (Ks values) compared to other types is to use the droplet settling theory equations
120 the removal of a target bubble size, such as 200 to 300 µm,
with the assumption being that the resulting liquid would
100 contain less than, say 1%, free gas by volume.
There has been little work done to estimate the amount
Carry-over, % of inlet liquid load
Inlet to separator
Gas
Vertical
Oil
Flow
Time
Outlet to separator
Vl Gas
Oil
Flow
Time
Hortizontal
HLSD
TABLE 6-design factors to account Hold-up for 30 sec–1 min for operator intervention
6 in. or 0.15 m minimum
operator
for unsteady flow HLA
intervention + foaming allowance
Service Factor
For Further Reading Monat, J.P., McNulty, K.J., Michelson, I.S., Hansen, O.V.
1986. Accurate Evaluation of Chevron Mist Eliminators.
API 12J, Specification for Oil and Gas Separators. 7th Chem. Eng. Prog. December: 32–39.
edition. 1989. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Viles, J.C. 1993. Predicting Liquid Re-Entrainmen in
Institute. Horizontal Separators. J Pet Tech 45 (5): 405–409.
Austrheim, T. 2006. Experimental Characterization of
High-Pressure Natural Gas Scrubbers. PhD thesis, Univer-
sity of Bergen, Norway (September 2006). Mark Bothamley is the technical director and chief engineer
Bin, A.K. 1993. Gas Entrainment by Plunging Liquid Jets. of John M. Campbell Training and a consultant at John
Chem. Eng. Sci. 48 (21): 3585–3630. M. Campbell Consulting. His experience covers the areas
Carpenter, C.L. and Othmer, D.F. 1955. Entrainment of design, operation, troubleshooting, and optimization of
Removal by a Wire-Mesh Separator. AIChE J. 1 (4): offshore and onshore oil and gas production and treating
549–557. facilities. Before joining the company, he served with BP/
Fabian, P., Cusack, R., Hennessey, P., Neuman, M. 1993. Amoco for 24 years in several locations around the world.
Demystifying the Selection of Mist Eliminators, Part 1: He is a member of the SPE Separations Technology Technical
The Basics. Chem. Eng. 11 (11): 148–156. Section, past specialty coordinator/chairman of the SPE
Ishii, M. and Grolmes, M.A. 1975. Inception Criteria for Facilities and Construction Subcommittee, and a former
Droplet Entrainment in Two-Phase Concurrent Film member of the GPSA Data Book Editorial Review Board. He
Flow. AIChE J. 21 (2): 308–318. holds a BS in chemical engineering from Lakehead University
Langmuir, I. and Blodgett, K.B. 1946. A Mathematical in Canada and a diploma in natural gas and petroleum
Investigation of Water Droplet Trajectories. Technical technology from the British Columbia Institute of Technology
Report No. 5418, US Army Air Forces, Washington, DC. in Canada.