See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274747514

Gas/Liquid Separators: Quantifying Separation Performance - Part 1

Article in Oil and Gas Facilities · April 2015

DOI: 10.2118/0813-0021-OGF

CITATIONS READS

30 11,215

1 author:

Mark Bothamley
Mark Bothamley Consulting, LLC
8 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Bothamley on 10 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Gas/Liquid
Separators
Quantifying Separation Performance
Mark Bothamley • JM Campbell/PetroSkills

February 2013 • Oil and Gas Facilities 21

Vertical vane-type separators designed for entrained mist and slug removal. Photo courtesy of KingTool.
M
any two-phase and three-phase separators in the The major parts of a separator (Fig.1) are the feed pipe,
oil and gas industry continue to underperform. inlet device, gas gravity separation section, mist extractor,
Sometimes, the wrong type of equipment was and the liquid gravity separation section. Each of these parts
selected, or the correct type of equipment was selected, but will be discussed, with the objective of quantifying their
the sizing methodology was inadequate. effects on gas/liquid separation performance as measured
There is a wide range of sizing methods for two-phase by the quality of the separated fluid phases. The quality is
separators, varying from the simple “back-of-the-envelope” defined by how much liquid remains in the separated gas,
to the far more complicated. and how much gas remains in the separated liquid.
There are several weaknesses associated with most of The quality of the separated gas phase is an indicator of
these methods, including: separation efficiency. In the author’s experience, operational
1. Quantification of feed flow steadiness problems associated with too much liquid in the gas are far
2. Entrainment/droplet size distribution quantification more prevalent than those caused by too much gas in the
3. Velocity profile/distribution quantification liquid. On the liquid-handling side, the more common issue
4. Separator component performance quantification is how best to deal with intermittent (slugging) flow.

This article explores the weaknesses and proposes Feed Pipe

manageable approaches to quantifying each. The intent is to The significance of the sizing and geometry of a separator’s
develop a more consistent approach to separator sizing and feed pipe has only recently been quantified. The main
reduce the level of empiricism typically employed in the past. objective of most types of separation equipment is to
The equations in this article were incorporated into a remove droplets of a dispersed phase from a second
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, using Microsoft’s Solver add-in continuous phase. A secondary requirement is often for the
to optimize separator dimensions when given the operating separator to have some capability to deal with intermittent
conditions, a set of constraints, and the target separation flow (slugging).
efficiency specifications. The following questions are important in the sizing
and performance prediction of most types of separation
Separation Equipment equipment, including the individual components:
Separation equipment can be classified in various ways: • What is the flow pattern at the separator’s inlet?
two-phase or three-phase, vertical or horizontal, and • How much of the dispersed phase (liquid droplets) is
other categories. In the two-phase (gas/liquid) category, present in entrained form?
an additional breakdown of equipment can be made: slug • What are the sizes of the droplets?
catcher→conventional separator→scrubber→coalescing filter.
This article focuses on scrubbers and conventional Unfortunately, quantification of these values is difficult
separators. and typically requires simplifying assumptions. The validity
of these assumptions has a significant bearing on equipment
selection, sizing, and performance prediction.
Mist extractor
Inlet device

Gas gravity
Feed pipe
separation
section
Liquid gravity
separation Bubble Slug
section

Plug Annular
Mist extractor
Inlet device

Feed pipe
Gas gravity
separation section Stratified Spray

Liquid gravity separation section Flow

Wavy

Fig. 1—Parts of a separator (vertical and horizontal). Fig. 2—Horizontal two-phase flow patterns.

22 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   August 2013

 Superficial Gas Velocity, vSG, m/s Large inlet nozzle
- lower velocity/turbulence - larger droplet/bubble sizes
0.1 1 10 100 - less entrainment - less carry-over/-under
20
5
10 Dispersed Flow
Superficial Liquid Velocity, vSL, ft/sec

Bubble,

Superficial Liquid Velocity, vSL, m/s

Elongated 1
Bubble Flow Slug
Flow
1
Annular,
Annular Mist
Flow 0.1
Wave
Flow
0.1
Stratified
Flow
0.01

0.01
0.1 1 10 100 500 Small inlet nozzle
Superficial Gas Velocity, vSG, ft/sec - higher velocity/turbulence - smaller droplet/bubble sizes
- more entrainment - more carry-over/-under
Fig. 3—Horizontal flow pattern map.

Flow Pattern
Fig. 2 provides a visual classification of the flow patterns
most commonly encountered in horizontal two-phase flow.
In general, the flow pattern is primarily dependent on the
relative amounts of gas and liquid in the feed pipe and the
in-situ phase velocities.
Fig. 3 is a commonly used horizontal flow pattern map
(Mandhane 1974) corresponding to Fig. 2. The horizontal
axis parameter is the superficial gas velocity, while the vertical
axis parameter is the superficial liquid velocity. Superficial
velocity is defined as the in-situ (actual) volumetric flow rate
of the given fluid phase divided by the total cross-sectional
Fig. 4—Effect of feed pipe velocity on liquid entrainment.
flow area of the pipe.
The amount of liquid entrained into the gas phase as
droplets is generally small for most flow conditions, but will
typically begin to increase fairly rapidly as the transition Typical guidelines are:
to annular flow is approached. From the standpoint of the • Provide 10 diameters of straight pipe upstream of the
amount of liquid droplets entrained into the gas phase, it inlet nozzle without valves, expansions/contractions,
seems fairly obvious that the annular mist region of the or elbows.
flow pattern map will be the worst. Generally speaking, • If a valve in the feed line near the separator is required,
increasing gas velocity is going to strongly correlate with the it should only be a full port gate or ball valve.
increasing entrainment and with decreasing droplet sizes,
both of which will negatively affect separation. Taking into Entrainment
account both entrainment/droplet sizes and steadiness of The amount of liquid entrained as droplets entering the
flow, sizing the feed pipe for stratified/wave flow is desirable, separator will have a significant effect on the gas/liquid
if possible. separation performance and, ultimately, the amount of
liquid carry-over into the gas phase leaving the separator
Feed Pipe Geometry (Fig. 4).
The flow patterns and flow pattern map assume that the flow Ishii and Grolmes (1975) identified the causes of
conditions in the feed pipe have reached a well-established, liquid entrainment in gas/liquid systems and provided
stabilized state. This will not be true if the flow has changed guidelines for estimating entrainment inception criteria
direction, for example, at elbows and fittings, or experienced (Fig. 5). The applicable entrainment mechanism for a given
other flow pattern disruptions immediately upstream of set of conditions is strongly dependent on the liquid phase
the separator. Reynolds number.

August 2013  •   Oil and Gas Facilities 23

 GAS
TYPE 1 horizontal pipes. For nonannular (lower velocity) flow, the
LIQUID ROLL WAVE predicted entrainment fraction decreases toward zero.

GA 1/
S

( (( (
TYPE 2 DVg3 ρL ρg ρg1–mµgm (2-m)
(E/EM)
WAVE UNDERCUT =9E–08
1–(E/EM) σ d321+mgρL
.................................................(1)
GAS
TYPE 3

( (( (
BUBBLE BURST
ρgVgd32 d32
=0.0091
σ D
.................................................(2)

TYPE 4
LIQUID IMPINGEMENT
Foot-Pound-
Parameter
Fig. 5—Liquid entrainment mechanisms. Second (FPS) Units
E, fractional entrainment —

1.00 EM, maximum entrainment

—
0.90 fraction
0.80
E, Entrainment Fraction

D, pipe inside diameter ft

0.70
0.60 Vg, gas velocity ft/sec
0.50
0.40 ρl, liquid density lb/ft3
0.30
0.20
ρg, gas density lb/ft3

0.10
σ, liquid surface tension poundal/ft
0.00
Feed ρV2 μg, gas viscosity lb/ft-sec
Fig. 6—Example of liquid entrainment behavior.
g, acceleration due to gravity 32.17 ft/sec2

For many separation applications, the main liquid d32, Sauter mean diameter ft
entrainment mechanism is the shearing off of roll-wave crests
(Fig. 5, Type 1). The onset of entrainment by this mechanism m, settling law exponent —
would be expected to coincide approximately with the wavy/
annular transition shown in Fig. 3 and approximately with
the transition from slug flow to annular flow. Fig. 6 shows a typical plot of liquid entrainment
Estimating the amount of liquid entrained as droplets fraction (E) vs. inlet momentum (ρV2). Note that after the
into the gas phase is difficult and one of the main causes entrainment inception point is reached, the degree of
of uncertainty involved in sizing of separators and entrainment increases rapidly.
performance prediction.
The degree of liquid entrainment is a function of the Droplet Sizes and Distribution
following variables (among others): The Pan and Hanratty correlation includes a
• Entrainment increases with increasing velocity. method for estimating the Sauter mean diameter (d32)
• Entrainment increases with decreasing liquid surface of the entrained liquid droplet size distribution. The
tension. Sauter mean diameter can be converted to the volume
median diameter, dv50, which is used most often in
Pan and Hanratty (2002) have developed a correlation the droplet size distribution functions. There are a
for predicting liquid droplet entrainment for annular flow in number of other correlations to predict droplet sizes

24 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   August 2013

of entrained liquid that have been developed over the The volume median diameter (dv50) is defined as the
years. Most of this work has been focused on annular value where 50% of the total volume of droplets is made up
flow conditions. of droplets with diameters larger than the median value,
Eq. 3, developed by Kataoka et al. (1983), can be used to and 50% are smaller than the median value. The maximum
estimate dv50, the volume median diameter. droplet size is typically in the range of 3 to 5 times the
dv50 value.
As can be seen from Eq. 3, droplet size decreases with
–1/3 2/
increasing gas velocity, increasing gas density and decreasing
( ( ( (( (
3
σ 2 ρg µg
dv50 =0.01 Reg /3 liquid surface tension. Typical surface tension values for
ρgVg2 ρl µl
various liquids are shown in Table 1.

Upper-Limit Log Normal Distribution

Reg= DVg ρg Kataoka (1983) and Simmons and Hanratty (2001) have
µg
......................................................................(3) found the upper-limit log normal distribution to represent
droplets entrained in two-phase flow.
The normalized volume frequency distribution is given
by the following equations:
Parameter FPS
δdmax
dv50, volume median diameter ft fv(dp)= exp(–δ2z2)
√πdp (dmax–dp)
D, pipe inside diameter ft where

σ, liquid surface tension poundal/ft z=ln

( adp
dmax–dp (
ρg, gas density lb/ft3
dmax–dv50
a=
Vg, gas velocity ft/sec dv50

Re, Reynolds number — δ= 0.394

v
ρl, liquid density lb/ft3
( (
log v90
50

di
μg, gas viscosity lb/ft-sec vi=
dmax–di ......................................................................(4)
μl, liquid viscosity lb/ft-sec

The values of a, δ and dmax are obtained from

TABLE 1-TYPICAL LIQUID SURFACE experimental droplet size measurement data. Typical values
for these parameters are given below (Pan and Hanratty):
TENSION VALUES
Liquid surface a = 4.0 (dmax = 5.0 dv50)
Fluid system
tension, dyne/cm δ = 0.72
Water/gas 72
The dv50 value can be obtained from Eq. 3.
Light crude oil/gas 32
Heavy crude oil/gas 37 Integrating the volume frequency distribution function
results in the cumulative volume distribution given as:
Condensate/gas 25
Liquid petroleum gas/gas 10
Vunder=1–0.5 [1–erf(δz)] .................................................(5)
Natural gas liquids (high C2)/gas 5
Triethylene glycol 45 where erf(x) is the error function, which is often used in
probability- and statistics-related problems (Table 2). Values
Amine solutions 45–60
of erf(x) are typically available in table or chart form and are
Values at atmospheric pressure and 60˚F
1 dyne/cm=0.0022 poundal/ft
also available as a function in Excel.

August 2013  •   Oil and Gas Facilities 25

 TABLE 2-VALUES OF THE ERROR TABLE 3-INLET DEVICE
FUNCTION, erf(x) PERFORMANCE MEASURES
x erf(x) x erf(x) No
Diverter Half- Van-
Function inlet Cyclonic
plate pipe type
0.00 0.000000 1.3 0.934008 device

0.05 0.056372 1.4 0.952285 Momentum

Poor Average Good Good Good
reduction
0.10 0.112463 1.5 0.966105 Bulk liquid
Poor Poor Average Good Good
separation
0.15 0.167996 1.6 0.976348
Prevent
0.20 0.222703 1.7 0.983790 Average-
re-entrain- Poor Poor Average Good
Good
ment
0.25 0.276326 1.8 0.989091
Minimize
0.30 0.328627 1.9 0.992790
droplet Poor Poor Average Good Good
0.35 0.379382 2.0 0.995322 shattering
0.40 0.428392 2.1 0.997021 Aver-
Defoam Poor Poor Poor Good
age
0.45 0.475482 2.2 0.998137
Low pres-
Good Good Good Good Average
0.50 0.520500 2.3 0.998857 sure drop

0.55 0.563323 2.4 0.999311 Ensure

good
Poor Poor Poor Good Average
0.60 0.603856 2.5 0.999593 gas distri-
bution
0.65 0.642029 2.6 0.999764
0.70 0.677801 2.7 0.999866
Fig. 7 is an example of the entrainment droplet size
0.75 0.711156 2.8 0.999925 distribution for a given set of feed pipe operating conditions.
0.80 0.742101 2.9 0.999959
Inlet Device
0.85 0.770668 3.0 0.999978 The main function of an inlet device (Fig. 8) is to
0.90 0.796908 3.1 0.999988 improve separation performance, which is achieved in the
following ways:
0.95 0.820891 3.2 0.999994 1. Maximization of gas/liquid separation efficiency based
1.00 0.842701 3.3 0.999997 on inlet feed conditions
2. Minimization of droplet shearing
1.10 0.880205 3.4 0.999998 3. Provision of good downstream velocity distributions
1.20 0.910314 3.5 0.999999 in the separated phases

1.40 0.14

1.20 0.12
No inlet Diverter Reversed Vane-type Cyclonic
Cumulative Volume Fraction, V

device plate pipe

1.00 0.10
Volume Fraction

0.80 0.08

0.60 0.06

0.40 0.04
Half-pipe Dished head
0.20 0.02

0.00 0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Droplet Size, microns
Cumulative volume undersize Cumulative volume oversize
Volume fraction

Fig. 7—Example of entrainment droplet size distribution. Fig. 8—Inlet devices.

26 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   August 2013

 1.2

TABLE 4-INLET DEVICE ρV LIMITS

Liquid Separation Efficiency/Droplet

2
1.0

Size Distribution Shift Factor

Inlet Device Type ρV2 , lb/ft-sec2 0.8

0.6
No inlet device 700
0.4
Diverter plate 950
0.2

Half-pipe 1,400 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Vane-type 5,400 ρV , lb/ft-sec

2 2

No inlet device Half-pipe Cyclonic

Cyclonic 10,000
Diverter plate/baffle Vane-type

Fig. 9—Inlet device liquid separation efficiency and effect on

In newer, large-capacity separators, the vane-type and droplet sizes.
cyclonic inlet devices are more commonly being used. The
simpler—and less expensive—impact or diverter plates are immediately downstream of the inlet device (at the
still used on smaller, less critical separation applications. entry to the gas gravity separation section). The falloff
The half-pipe inlet is simple and inexpensive and provides in separation performance with increasing feed ρV2
relatively good all-round performance. Table 3 shows typical reflects a larger fraction of the feed liquid in entrained
qualitative performance guidelines for different inlet devices. droplet form, breakup of bulk liquid into droplet form,
and smaller droplet sizes associated with the higher
Inlet Momentum inlet velocities.
Inlet devices are typically selected and sized based on
the inlet momentum (sometimes referred to as dynamic Droplet Size Distribution of Unseparated Liquid
pressure) of the separator feed stream. The intent is to reduce Downstream of Inlet Device
the energy/velocity of the feed fluids to provide conditions The Pan and Hanratty entrainment correlation combined
favorable for phase separation. Inlet momentum is defined as: with the Kataoka droplet size distribution allowed for
approximate characterization of the entrainment load in
ρmvm2 ................................................................................(6) the separator feed pipe. For a separator without an inlet
device, which is not an uncommon situation, a simplifying
Table 4 shows typical design values (limits) for inlet assumption would be that the entrained liquid enters the
momentum for various inlet devices. gas gravity section of the separator while the nonentrained
Correlation of inlet momentum values (ρV2) with the portion of the feed liquid (bulk liquid) falls into the liquid
performance characteristics for the various inlet devices as gravity section of the vessel.
shown in Table 4 is imprecise at best, and the suggested limits However, the presence of the inlet device will modify
on ρV2 are not meant to represent desired values, but upper this scenario by a) coalescing some of the inlet entrainment
limits. The following discussion provides an approximate into the bulk liquid phase, b) causing some of the inlet
attempt to quantify two of the primary performance bulk liquid to be re-entrained into the gas phase because
attributes of the various inlet devices: overall liquid of turbulence/shearing in the inlet device, and c) changing
separation efficiency and quality of flow distribution. the droplet size distribution of the resultant entrained
While it may not always be practical to avoid higher liquid exiting the inlet device. As mentioned, there is very
feed pipe velocities and corresponding ρV2 values, it must little, if any, data available quantifying these effects. The
be recognized that failure to do so will result in higher earlier simplifying assumption regarding the overall liquid
entrainment loads, smaller droplet sizes, and more difficult separation efficiency of the inlet device approximates the
separation conditions. combined effect of a) and b), but does not help with c).
Corresponding to the falloff in separation efficiency
Inlet Device Separation Efficiency with increasing inlet ρV2, it would also be expected that the
Fig. 9 has been developed from mostly anecdotal droplet size distribution of the unseparated entrained liquid
information obtained from various sources, mainly technical exiting the inlet device would be shifted to smaller sizes.
literature available in the public domain. However, this is an There are limited to no data available that quantify this effect.
area that requires additional research and study. Only the qualitative guidance provided in Table 3 is available.
The amount of unseparated liquid as predicted by For the purposes of this work, a “droplet size distribution
Fig. 9 is assumed to be in the form of entrained droplets shift factor” will be used as indicated in Fig. 9, which should

August 2013  •   Oil and Gas Facilities 27

 Ideal 3.5

F, Actual Velocity/Average (Plug Flow) Velocity

Actual 3.0

Clean Gas Outlet

2.5
Vg

2.0
Gas/Liquid
Inlet
1.5
Vl

1.0
Liquid Drain

0.5
Fig. 10—Ideal and actual gas velocity profiles.

0
be a reasonable reflection of the droplet shattering/shearing 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
effect of the different inlet devices. L/Di
No inlet device Cyclonic
Quality of Flow Distribution Downstream Simple diverter/baffle plate Vane-type
of Inlet Device
Historically, the velocity profile for the continuous phase Half-pipe
of interest (gas, oil, or water) in a separator has been
calculated from: Fig. 11—Effect of inlet device on downstream gas and liquid
velocity profiles (without flow-straightening devices).
Q
V= ..............................................................................(7)
A
Other than the qualitative guidance provided in Table
where Q is the in-situ volumetric flow rate of the continuous 3 and scattered information obtained from published CFD
phase, usually in units of volume/second, and A is the cross- studies, there is little quantitative information available on
sectional area for flow occupied by the continuous phase. the quality of the flow distribution (gas or liquid phase) at
Use of this equation results in a velocity corresponding to the exit of the inlet device. This information is required to
the idealized plug flow situation. In reality, this condition perform the droplet settling calculations for the gas gravity
is rarely, if ever, achieved, and sometimes we do not even separation section (and to a lesser extent, for the liquid
get close. gravity separation section) downstream of the inlet device.
Actual information regarding velocity profiles was, in Fig. 11 shows the assumptions regarding the effect of the
years past, obtained from tracer surveys, which provided an selected inlet device on downstream velocity profiles that are
approximate indication of velocity uniformity, or lack thereof, used in this analysis. There are two components:
of the continuous phase of interest. In more recent years, the 1. The quality of the flow distribution immediately upon
use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has provided exit of the inlet device (L/Di = 0).
more insight and a better definition of the flow behavior of 2. The development of the flow profile with distance
fluids inside separation equipment. CFD has provided the downstream of the inlet device.
basis for significant improvements in separator and separator
internals design (Fig. 10). The quality of the flow distribution is characterized
If fluid velocity profiles are anticipated to be highly by the factor F, the actual average velocity/ideal plug flow
nonuniform, it is now common practice to install specifically velocity. F values greater than 1.0 imply unused cross-
designed internals to straighten out the velocity profile of sectional flow area. Use of this factor will allow estimation
the given continuous phase(s). Examples include perforated of the effective actual velocity, which can then be used in the
plates, straightening vanes, and components that resemble droplet settling calculations for the gas (and liquid) gravity
structured packing as used in fractionating columns. Some sections. Note also that the calculated effective actual velocity
of these components are also intended to help promote for the gas gravity section will be the entrance velocity to the
droplet coalescence or foam collapse to improve separation mist extractor section.
performance and/or reduce separator size. Caution should The separation performance of inlet devices is another
be used when considering coalescing internals in production area that requires more research.
separators, as they have a tendency to become plugged (for The next article in the series will discuss performance
example, with sand and wax) over time. These internals will quantification of the gas gravity separation, mist extraction,
be discussed further in the second part of this series. and liquid gravity separation sections. OGF

28 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   August 2013

 For Further Reading

Ishii, M. and Grolmes, M.A. 1975. Inception Criteria for Mark Bothamley is the technical director
Droplet Entrainment in Two-Phase Concurrent Film and chief engineer of John M. Campbell
Flow. AIChE J. 21 (2): 308–318. Training and a consultant at John M.
Kataoka, I., Ishii, M., and Mishima, K. 1983. Generation and Campbell Consulting. His experience
Size Distribution of Droplets in Gas-Liquid Annular covers the areas of design, operation,
Two-Phase Flow. ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering 105 troubleshooting, and optimization
(2): 230–238. of offshore and onshore oil and gas
production and treating facilities. Before
Mandhane, J.M., Gregory, G.A., and Aziz, K. 1974. A Flow- joining the company, he served with BP/
Pattern Map for Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes. Amoco for 24 years in several locations around the world. He is
Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1 (4): 537–553. a member of the SPE Separations Technology Technical Section,
past specialty coordinator/chairman of the SPE Facilities and
Pan, L. and Hanratty, T.J. 2002. Correlation of Entrainment Construction Subcommittee, and a former member of the
for Annular Flow in Horizontal Pipes. International GPSA Data Book Editorial Review Board. He holds a BS in
Journal of Multiphase Flow 28 (3): 385–408. chemical engineering from Lakehead University in Canada and
a diploma in natural gas and petroleum technology from the
Simmons, M.J.H. and Hanratty, T.J. 2001. Droplet Size British Columbia Institute of Technology in Canada.
Measurements in Horizontal Annular Gas-Liquid Flow.
Int. J. Multiphase Flow 27 (5): 861–883.

eProcess_Adverts_Generic_FA.pdf 1 18/06/13 2:55 PM

A Catalyst For Change

Want to increase your production?
We are global leaders in compact separation,
and our technology is located in every part of
the oil and gas process – production facilities,
wellhead, and subsea. eProcess Technologies
deliver intelligent, knowledge based, project
specific solutions that have an immediate and Contact us today to discuss
measurable impact on your bottom line. your application.
Turning Process Into Progress

For solids removal from multi-phase or produced [email protected]

water streams, and oil from produced water. www.eprocess-tech.com AUS l MAL l USA l UAE l UK

View publication stats