1500 S.

Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Scrubber Design and Optimization Using Computational Fluid Dynamics

Robert W. Chin
CDS Separation Technologies, Inc.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441
Houston, TX 77077
Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393
rwchin@cds-separation.com

David Stanbridge
CDS Engineering B.V.
Business Park IJsseloord 2
Delta 101
6825 MN Arnhem
The Netherlands
Tel: (31) 26 353 1704 Fax: (31) 26 353 1719
davidst@cdsengineering.nl

Keywords: Computational fluid dynamics, CFD, cyclones, scrubber design,

troubleshooting, optimization

Abstract: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling is being used more extensively in the
oil and gas industry to design demisting equipment and to solve mist carryover problems.
Examples of scrubber troubleshooting and optimization and even cyclone design through the use
of CFD are discussed.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Introduction

The size of scrubbers and separators is based on a number of criteria, e.g. retention time for the
liquid phases, mist removal for the gas phase. In most cases, the vessels are large enough and
the demisters are properly sized. However, a poor flow distribution within the vessel and/or at
the face of the demister can cause liquid carryover with the gas phase. High velocity jets may
result from a poorly designed inlet. The same inlet can also create small drops that are then
carried up to the demister causing liquid overloading.

In order to determine the root cause of the carryover, computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
modeling is being used more extensively in the oil and gas industry. Basically, CFD modeling
consists of three steps:

1) building the vessel shell geometry and internals,

2) solving the governing fluid mechanics equations of motion, and
3) displaying the results.

Many commercially available programs integrate all three steps into user-friendly modules. An
overview of CFD is given herein followed by several application examples. Examples discussed
are:

1) demisting cyclone design,

2) inlet cyclone troubleshooting,
3) scrubber carryover due to high shear forces,
4) scrubber carryover due to jetting, and
5) flow distribution through use of mesh pads.

Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling

Obtaining knowledge of flow fields from experiments in pilot plants or novel test rigs is seldom
a practical way if the fluid flow pattern within flow volumes is to be known. This method is very
expensive, time consuming, and not flexible. This does not take away the importance of having
information on the flow pattern because it gives information on residence times and actual local
process conditions, which are essential in the process design.

The basic idea behind computational fluid dynamics is to set up equations for the conservation of
mass, momentum and energy for the volume in which the fluid flows. This is achieved by
dividing the flow volume into a finite number of smaller volumes (cells), for which the
conditions are considered to be constant or follow a fixed correlation. By solving these
equations, the conditions in all the cells can be calculated. The equations are solved by an
iterative process. As the number of calculations can become very high, a computer will be
needed to perform the calculations. Figure 1 shows an example of a demisting cyclone and its
CFD model representation.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

The accuracy of the model depends on the number of cells that describe the model. As the
number increases, the accuracy increases. In the ideal situation, an infinite number of cells will
give the possibility to solve the conservation equations analytical. This does not necessarily
mean that the exact flow will be predicted. Only when the used set of equations and flow
correlations give the exact representations of the physical phenomena, can this then be the case.
In case of turbulent flow, the amount of turbulence and the effect of the turbulence on the fluid
flow have to be modeled as well. Hence, the accuracy of the model will depend on the accuracy
of the turbulence model. Therefore, it is possible that increasing the number of cells does no
longer ameliorate the accuracy. Typical turbulence models are k-ε, realizable k-ε, and RSM. A
discussion of the appropriate turbulence models is beyond the scope of this paper.

The geometric model (for example, vessel walls) as described by boundary conditions is given as
input to the CFD software along with the process conditions (viscosity, density, and velocity at
the inlet). The internals are modeled as they exist in reality; however, in certain instances,
assumptions have to be made. For example, all the wire in a mesh pad cannot be modeled so it is
set up as a volume with a pressure drop. This is similar to the approach generally adopted when
modeling both vane packs and cyclones within a vessel. In these instances, the pressure drop
over the items concerned is identical to that that would occur in practice and so little accuracy is
lost in the overall simulation.

Once the calculations have converged to a reasonable accuracy, the results are displayed in terms
of velocity vectors or magnitudes.

Liquid
Slits

Gas
Recycle

Swirl
Liquid
Element
drain

Figure 1. Demisting cyclone and CFD model geometry.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Demisting Cyclone Design

Figure 2 shows three typical demisting cyclones. The first is the familiar reverse flow cyclone
with a tangential inlet. Flow enters tangentially around the gas outlet tube. The flow travels
down with liquid being spun to the outer wall and draining out the bottom. The gas reverses
direction and flows out the inner tube.

In axial flow cyclones, a stationary turbine in the tube spins the flow. Downstream of the
turbine, the liquid film is removed through slits along with some “secondary” purge gas. The
liquid drops to the bottom of a chamber enclosing the cyclone and flows out a drain tube. The
main portion of the gas flows straight out of the cyclone. The secondary gas usually has to be
cleaned up by a mesh pad.

In the recycling cyclone (Axiflow), the purge gas is educted back into the center of the cyclone
through the stationary turbine. A low-pressure region exists because of the spinning flow,
similar to that in a tornado. In this way, the purging gas is cleaned again and there is no need for
a mesh pad.

Reasons for improving the recycling cyclone are higher capacity, higher separation efficiency,
and lower pressure drop. Heavy use of CFD would be required, but it would be necessary to
verify that CFD could model the flow.

Figure 3 shows a comparison of model and measured tangential velocities and pressures. The
agreement is excellent and shows that CFD can be used to model such a swirling type of flow.
CFD has been subsequently used to improve the recycling cyclone. A new turbine has been
designed that extends the capacity and improves the separation performance. The old and new
tips are shown in Figure 4.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Reverse flow Non recycle Conventional

axial flow recycle axial
flow
Figure 2. Typical demisting cyclones.

Tangential Velocity
50
45
40
Velocity [m/s]

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

Radial Position [mm]

Measurement Model

D y n a m ic P r e s s u r e

1200
Dynamic Pressure [Pa]

1000

800

600

400

200

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

Radial Position [mm]

Measurement Model

Figure 3. Comparison of CFD model results and measurements.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Old New
Figure 4. Comparison of new and old turbines.

Inlet Cyclone Design and Troubleshooting

Inlets have received less attention and “science” than demisters, but are no less important.
Typical inlets are impact plates, half open pipes, vanes, and cyclones. In recent years, CFD has
been used to extensively design and troubleshoot inlet cyclones. Some cyclonic inlets have a
vortex finder while others do not. Figure 5 below is a pictorial of a basic inlet cyclone with a
tangential inlet and no gas vortex finder.

Figure 6 below shows the predicted velocities within a dual cyclone assembly. As expected,
some gas is able to exit out the top of the cyclone prior to a completing a revolution. This loss of
flow will decrease the separation performance. In addition, as this gas flows out the top, liquid is
sheared off of the gas lip causing potential demisting problems. A standard remedy is to install a
vortex finder.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Figure 5. Schematic of basic inlet cyclone with no gas vortex finder.

Short circuiting and droplet shearing at

the outlet of the cyclones

Figure 6. CFD results showing flow velocities in the cyclone.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Scrubber Carryover Due to High Shear Forces

Figure 7 below shows a client’s typical two-stage scrubber consisting of a vane type inlet, mesh
pad coalescer, and their proprietary swirl demisters. Figure 8 shows a picture of a similar vane
inlet. The vane inlet basically “slices” off a part of the incoming flow. During operation,
condensate was carried out the top with the gas phase. A CFD model of the inlet flow showed a
flow mal-distribution. The right side of Figure 7 shows the predicted velocities exiting the vane
inlet. The top half of the vane inlet has higher velocities with a hot spot toward the back.

Under uniform conditions, the gas velocity would be 1.2 m/s. The CFD model showed velocities
as high as 5 m/s. Other calculations show that this high velocity was responsible for shearing
liquids into fine drops that were then carried up to the demister.

To remedy the situation, the vanes were re-spaced and the top of the vane inlet was indented to
“push” the flow down. The modified geometry is shown in Figure 9 although the vane spacing is
not discernible. The maximum predicted velocity was now less than 3 m/s and the distribution
more uniform. When this modified inlet was installed, the carryover problem was resolved.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Swirl Poor vertical Hot

Demisters flow distribution spot

Mesh
pad
Vane inlet

Figure 7. CFD schematic representation of typical two stage scrubber.

Figure 8. An actual vane inlet.

Improved vertical flow

distribution.

Figure 9. CFD results of modified vane inlet.

th
Presented at the 14 Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Scrubber Carryover Due to Jetting

Figure 10 shows a pictorial of a client flare scrubber with carryover problems. Not only was the
scrubber not removing incoming liquids, it actually lost liquid as evidenced by a decreasing
liquid level with closed dump valves. The original scrubber with flow through nozzle N1 had an
impact plate diverting the flow downwards. The gas then reversed itself in order to flow through
the vane pack demister. During one retrofit, a hole was cut into the baffle as it was believed that
the impact plate was shearing the drops into a fine mist, but the problem remained.

The gas flow was modeled using CFD and the results are shown in Figure 11. The inlet jet flows
through the impact plate and hits the back wall. Some of the flow is diverted upwards, but a
large portion is diverted downwards across the liquid interface. The Figure also shows the
predicted velocities across the liquid surface, which are higher than 50 m/s. This high velocity is
predicted to re-entrain liquids which are then carried up to the vane pack. A second problem
with the scrubber is illustrated by the velocities across the vane pack. A poor flow distribution is
predicted. Although the vane pack may have had sufficient area under uniform flow, the mal-
distribution would result in local flooding which is compounded by the additional liquids being
swept up from the liquid surface.

The recommended solution was two-fold: 1) reduce the inlet velocities by splitting the flow
using a second inlet (N20), and 2) lowering the liquid level as low as possible. When these two
recommendations were implemented, the carryover problem was resolved.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Gas Outlet Nozzle (N2)

Vane Pack

Diverter Plate

Gas Inlet Nozzle (N1)

Liquid
Gas Inlet Nozzle (N20) level

Figure 10. CFD schematic representation of the vessel and internals.

Mal
Distribution

Recirculation

a b High c
velocities
Figure 11. CFD results showing a) swirling jet flow, b) velocity distribution
across liquid surface, and c) velocity distribution across vane pack.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Flow Redistribution With Mesh Pads

Figure 12 shows a side and top view of a scrubber section in the top of a contacting tower. The
internals were an inlet baffle/diverter plate and a vane pack. The client was interested in
improving the separation performance and had decided to install a vertical mesh pad in front of
the vane pack. Based on previous experience, it was recommended that the impact plate be
replaced by a vane type inlet to reduce droplet shatter and that a second, horizontal mesh be
installed to improve flow distribution as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 14 shows the velocity vectors with the vane inlet, vertical mesh pad, but without the
horizontal mesh pad. The gas that flows out of the vane inlet beneath the vane pack forms a jet
that hits the opposite wall before being turned downward through the vertical mesh. A
recirculation zone is set up in front of the mesh pad. The resulting velocity distribution across
the mesh pad is poor.

Figure 15 shows the velocity vectors with the horizontal mesh as well. The jet from beneath the
vane pack is diffused by the horizontal mesh and the recirculation zone is eliminated. The flow
distribution across the vertical mesh is significantly improved.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Vane Pack

Impact/diverter
plate

Figure 12a. Side view of scrubber section. Figure 12b. Top view of scrubber section.

Mesh Pad

Vane Inlet

Figure 13. Side view of scrubber section with modified internals.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Figure 14. Velocity vectors in vertical slice of column

showing recirculation pattern.

Figure 15. Velocity vectors in vertical slice of column

showing no recirculation pattern with a horizontal mesh

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.
1500 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 441 Houston, TX 77077 Tel: 281-589-8325 Fax: 281-589-8393

Summary and Conclusions

Computational fluid dynamics modeling is a very useful and effective tool in the design of
demisting equipment and in troubleshooting carryover problems. Once a root cause of a problem
area has been determined, a solution can be optimized using CFD, thus saving costs due to
product redesign or retrofit shutdowns.

Presented at the 14th Annual Technical Conference and Expo held in Tampa, FL, May 1-4, 2001,
and sponsored by the American Filtration and Separations Society.