You are on page 1of 11

SPE 49309 CFD Study of Bubble Carry-Under in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators

F. M. Erdal, S. A. Shirazi, SPE, I. Mantilla, SPE, O. Shoham, SPE, The Univ ersity of Tulsa
Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30 September 1998. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract The Gas Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (GLCC) is an attractive compact separator alternative to the conventional vessel-type separator. Thus, it is important to develop predictive tools for design and to be able to improve the technology of the GLCC. Previous studies on the GLCC have focused on mechanistic models capable of predicting the operational envelope for liquid carry-over and on the understanding of the flow field in the GLCC. The main objective of this work is to investigate the behavior of small gas bubbles in the lower part of the GLCC, below the inlet, and the related gas carry-under phenomena. This investigation was performed by flow visualization and by utilizing a commercially available computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code. Simulations of single-phase and two-phase flow were carried out and bubble trajectories were obtained in an axisymmetric geometry that represents the GLCC configuration. Flow visualization experiments and CFD simulations indicate that the flow field in the GLCC below the inlet is very complex. Bubble trajectory analysis was used to quantify the effects of the important parameters on bubble carry-under. These include bubble size, ratio of the GLCC length to diameter, viscosity, Reynolds number, and inlet tangential velocity. Introduction The GLCC separator is an attractive alternative to the conventional vessel-type separator, especially for offshore platforms in oil and gas production operations. The GLCC is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The gas and liquid mixture flows through an inclined inlet section, to enhance stratification, prior to reaching a tangential inlet slot. As a result of the tangential inlet, a vortex is formed causing the gas and liquid to separate due to the centrifugal/buoyancy forces. The liquid moves toward the wall and downward,

while the gas flows to the center and exits from the top. For certain operating conditions, some liquid flow with the gas and move up toward the gas leg. This phenomenon is referred to as liquid carry-over. On the other hand, some gas may be entrained with the liquid and exit from the bottom of the GLCC (gas carry-under). Experimental observations by Erdal et al. 1 in a 76 mm ID, 2.1 m high GLCC 2 indicate that a free interface forms between the gas and liquid phases, which has a parabolic shape. Flow visualization experiments also indicate that the flow below the inlet is composed mainly of a liquid phase. One does observe lots of tiny bubbles that are entrained in the swirling liquid flow and a gas filament core that is formed near the center of the GLCC, as shown in Fig. 1. Based on previous experimental and theoretical studies, a mechanistic model has been developed to predict the operational envelope for liquid carry-over and bubble trajectories.2,3 However, these models do not address details of the complex swirling flow behavior in the GLCC and related phenomena such as gas carry-under and separation efficiency. Swirling flows in pipes have been studied extensively4-14 in the past. However, most of the previous studies have considered only single-phase gas or liquid flow. To better understand the flow behavior in the GLCC, single-phase and two-phase flow simulations were carried out by Erdal et al. 15 and Motta et al. 16. These studies confirmed that a complex swirling flow occurs in the GLCC. In the present work, the effects of the gas phase on flow behavior below the inlet is investigated by flow visualization experiments and CFD simulations. Specifically, bubble trajectory simulations are used to investigate the effects of the important parameters that contribute to gas bubble carryunder. Also, the effects of the free interface on the flow field below the inlet is investigated. Flow field simulations The effect of the gas-liquid interface on the flow field below the GLCC inlet was studied by carrying out CFD simulations of single-phase and two-phase flow, utilizing a commercially available CFD code (CFX 4.1).17 Both simulations were carried out by using the standard high-Reynolds-number k- turbulence model.17 The k- turbulence model assumes that the turbulence is isotropic. However, it has been observed in the literature 4,13,14 that turbulent swirling flow in pipes and

F.M. ERDAL, S.A. SHIRAZI, I. MANTILLA, O. SHOHAM

SPE 49309

cyclones are anisotropic. Thus, an anisotropic turbulence model should be used to model these flows accurately. During this investigation, different turbulence models were used to study the sensitivity of the flow field predictions. Using a differential Reynolds stress turbulence model, which is an anisotropic turbulence model, simulations showed only modest improvement over the k-e model prediction of the flow field in the GLCC. Therefore, for efficiency of the calculations, the k- turbulence model was used in the present calculations. Single-Phase Flow Simulations. A two-phase flow case (airwater, liquid mass flow rate, m 1 = 0.92 kg/s, gas mass flow rate, m g = 0.004 kg/s, and void fraction at the inlet = 0.8) was simulated as single-phase flow in an axisymmetric geometry, as shown in Fig. 2, utilizing the axisymmetric model that was described previously by Erdal et al. 15 Using this model, the corresponding equivalent tangential velocity (2.6 m/s) and the radial velocity (0.39 m/s) at the inlet were defined. The tangential velocity map and the axial velocity vectors are presented in Fig. 3. The highest tangential velocity occurs near the inlet region of the GLCC. This high tangential velocity decays in the axial and radial directions. The axial velocity vectors show two distinct regions, upward flow near the center and downward flow near the wall. This surprising flow reversal at the center has been also observed experimentally by several other authors for single-phase swirling pipe flows.4, 6, 11 Two-Phase Flow Simulations. Two-Phase flow in the GLCC was simulated with the multi-fluid model that is available in CFX. The multi-fluid model can be used to simulate flows where more than one fluid exists. The transport properties (mass, momentum, heat, and turbulence) of each phase interact via inter-phase transfer terms. There are two available models in CFX for momentum transfer between the phases: the so-called mixture model and particle model. The mixture model treats all phases symmetrically. The particle model, used in this study, utilizes the results of flow past a sphere to account for the inter-phase momentum transfer between the gas and liquid phases. The turbulence model that was employed for the simulations is the so-called homogenous k-e turbulence model. This model assumes that the values of the turbulent kinetic energy and the dissipation rates are the same for each phase. This means that the two phases are assumed to be well mixed. This is a simple generalization of the single-phase k- model, neglecting any interaction between the two phases. Details of these different models are presented in CFX 4.1. 17 The two-phase flow case, which was simulated as a single-phase flow in the previous section, was simulated with the multi-fluid model by using the particle model and the homogenous k- turbulence model. Flow simulations were carried out in a 76 mm ID GLCC configuration that has been

used in the experimental program reported by Arpandi et al .2 The gas and liquid phases are first separated in the GLCC and then recombined downstream of the separator. Thus, there is only one single outlet for both phases. This case was simulated in an axisymmetric geometry, shown schematically in Fig. 4 (the GLCC dimensions are the same as those shown in Fig. 3). Figs. 5 shows the gas void fraction distribution near the inlet. As can be seen, the upper part of the GLCC is occupied by gas phase (air) while the lower part is occupied by liquid (water). A free interface, which has a parabolic shape, forms between the two phases. It is interesting to note that the tangential velocity and the gas flow above the inlet cause liquid to climb up above the inlet. This phenomenon has been also observed experimentally.1,2 The tangential velocity distribution map and the axial velocity vectors for the region below the inlet, where mostly liquid exits, are shown in Fig. 6. This figure shows that the highest tangential velocity occurs near the inlet region. Again, the axial velocity vectors show two distinct regions, namely, upward flow near the center and downward flow near the wall. It is very surprising that the axial velocity and the tangential velocity distributions below the interface are very similar to the ones obtained for single-phase simulation ( Fig. 3). One of the objectives of this study is to investigate the effects of the gas-liquid free interface on the flow field below the inlet. Figs. 7 and 8 show a comparison of tangential and axial velocity predictions obtained by single-phase and twophase model simulations, at x/D = 2.8 (just below the interface), and x/D = 10. Both simulation predict similar velocity profiles. The results are much closer at x/D= 10. Considering the differences between these two models, the velocity profiles obtained from the two-phase simulation and the single-phase simulation are similar. It is very interesting to see that the free interface only affects the regions near the inlet and its effect quickly dissipates as x/D increases. When using the multi-fluid model with particle model, one phase is defined as dispersed and the other is assumed to be continuous. In this case, simulations were carried out for different inlet void fraction distributions and different bubble sizes for the dispersed (gas) phase. The simulations with small bubble sizes (less than 0.5 mm) showed that smaller bubbles have the tendency to accumulate below the free interface to form the gas-bubble-filament. The results also indicated that the gas void fractions at the center were very small. The large bubbles separate immediately and flow to the free interface between the liquid and gas phases. Flow Visualization Experiments. To investigate the axial flow behavior that was observed in the simulations below the inlet, dye injection experiments were conducted for single-phase and two-phase flow. Fig. 9 shows photographs of the dye injection experiment in the 76

SPE 49309

CFD STUDY OF BUBBLE CARRY-UNDER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE SEPARATORS

mm ID GLCC, 305 mm below the inlet for a single-phase flow case (ml = 1.15 kg/s, m g = 0.0 kg/s). Dye was injected at two radial locations, at the center of the GLCC (photograph A) and near the wall (photograph B). Photograph A in Fig. 9 clearly shows that there is an upward flow at the center of GLCC (the average liquid flow is moving downward). In some injection locations, it was observed that dye could go up about 300 mm above the injection location before it disappeared. When dye was injected near the wall (photograph B in Fig. 9), the dye followed a downward helical path near the wall and was diffused. This is a clear indication of downward flow near the wall. Dye injection experiments were also conducted for a two-phase flow case, ml = 2.13 kg/s, m g = 0.015 kg/s, as shown in Fig. 10. Although the dye was injected 61 cm below the inlet at the center, a strong upward flow was observed. The darker thin line in the middle of the GLCC is the gas-bubble-filament. This behavior of axial flow is very important for the separation process, especially for small size bubbles as described in the next section Bubble Trajectory Analysis To develop a reliable physical model for gas carry-under in the GLCC, it is crucial to find out the important factors that affect gas bubble carry-under. For this reason, the CFD code was used to simulate bubble trajectories. First, single-phase flow below the GLCC inlet was simulated. Then, many bubbles were introduced at the inlet and their trajectories were predicted in the flow field, as post processing. This means that it is assumed that the bubbles do not affect the flow field. Bubble trajectory simulations were carried out to investigate the effects of turbulent dispersion, bubble size, viscosity, tangential velocity, and L/D ratio (the ratio of the GLCC length below the inlet to the GLCC diameter). To examine the accuracy of the bubble trajectory results, the bubble trajectory predictions by the CFD code were compared with data of Guo and Dhir5 for a 2.2 mm diameter bubble. In the experiments that were conducted in a 8.99 cm ID pipe, as shown in Fig. 11, bubbles were released five diameters above the inlets (Z/D = 5.0). And the axial distances traveled by the bubbles were measured before the bubbles reached near the center (dz/D, shown schematically in Fig. 11). Good agreement was obtained between the CFD predictions and data for a range of average axial velocities. The CFD code allows bubble trajectory simulations to be carried out with and without the effects of turbulent dispersion.17 For bubble trajectory simulations, an axisymmetric geometry of 76 mm ID GLCC with L/D of about 15 was used, as shown in Fig. 12. Bubbles were released from the inlet and were monitored (counted) at the outlet. For bubble trajectory simulations with turbulent dispersion, 99 bubbles were released from the inlet. Almost all individual bubbles followed different paths. Only nine bubbles were

released for simulations without turbulent dispersion, because all of the bubbles follow the same path according to bubble release location. Simulations indicated that trajectories with and without turbulent dispersion are very different. For example, when trajectories of 200 mm bubbles were simulated without turbulent dispersion, all of the bubbles were separated (move to the top), as shown in Fig. 13. For the same case, but with turbulent dispersion, some of the bubbles (about 7%) were carried under. In addition, the bubble trajectories with turbulent dispersion show that turbulence cause bubbles to disperse throughout the GLCC and many bubbles migrate below the inlet. Fig. 14 shows a few representative individual bubble trajectories for the case with turbulent dispersion. For example, , Fig. 14-B shows a bubble that first moves down in a helical path and then it goes up as a result of the upward flow in the core of the GLCC. Fig. 14C, on the other hand, shows a bubble that goes downward and reaches the axis of symmetry (center of the GLCC). The CFD code stops bubble trajectory simulation for an individual bubble that reaches the axis of symmetry. These bubbles could be assumed to be separated, because of the upward flow in the center of the GLCC. As shown in Fig. 14-D, some bubbles go downward by following a helical path and reach the outlet. This behavior was also observed for different bubble sizes in different flow conditions. Details of the simulations, with turbulent dispersion, showed that many bubbles are dispersed in the liquid and many of them reach the center of the GLCC. This behavior is an indication of how the gas-core-filament is forming in the center. This was also observed in flow visualization experiments and in two-phase flow simulations that were carried out. The gas-core-filament is an evidence for the separation process of gas bubbles due to the centrifugal/buoyancy forces below the GLCC inlet. The effects of different parameters on bubble trajectories were studied by considering the following base case: Reynolds number (Re =14000), superficial liquid velocity (Vsl = 0.18 m/s), inlet tangential velocity (Vt = 4.3 m/s), and viscosity (0.001 Pa.s). Bubble sizes ranging from 300 mm to 1 mm were simulated (300, 200, 100, 50, 25, 10, 5, and 1 mm) with and without turbulent dispersion. Fig. 15 shows percent bubble carry-under as a function of bubble size. Percent bubble carry-under is defined as the ratio of the number of bubbles monitored (counted) at the outlet to the number of bubbles released from the inlet. The figure reveals that as the bubble size decreases, the percent bubble carry-under increases and approaches a constant value. For the case without turbulent dispersion, 100% of very small bubbles are carried under. However, for the case with turbulent dispersion many bubbles reach the center of the GLCC and bubble trajectory simulation is terminated. Simulations with turbulent dispersion show that bigger bubbles can be carried under. For example, simulations without turbulent dispersion indicate that all of the 50 mm bubbles are separated. However, simulations with turbulent dispersion show that 8%

F.M. ERDAL, S.A. SHIRAZI, I. MANTILLA, O. SHOHAM

SPE 49309

of the 50 mm bubbles are carried under. The values of the tangential velocity and viscosity were also changed from the base case values in the flow field predictions to study how they affect the percent bubble carryunder. Four different cases were considered including the base case. Again, bubble sizes ranging from 300 mm to 1 mm were simulated for each case. The inlet tangential velocity of the base case was decreased from 4.3 m/s to 2.74 m/s and the effects of this change on the percent bubble carry-under is presented in Fig. 16. This changed the minimum bubble size that is carried under from 10 mm to 25 mm for the bubble trajectories without turbulent dispersion. However, it did not create a pronounced effect on the percent bubble carry-under with turbulent dispersion. Next, the viscosity was increased from 0.001 Pa.s to 0.01 Pa.s (which decreases the Reynolds number from 14000 to 1400) and the results are presented in Fig. 17. This change had a significant impact on the percent bubble carry-under for trajectories without turbulent dispersion. It increased the minimum bubble size that is carried under from 10 mm to 100 mm. On the other hand, this change had little impact on trajectories with turbulent dispersion. Finally, Fig. 18 shows the effects of both viscosity and the inlet tangential velocity change on the percent bubble carry-under. This increased the minimum bubble size that is carried under from 100 mm to 300 mm for trajectories with turbulent dispersion. It is clear from these bubble trajectory simulations that turbulent dispersion has a significant effect on the bubbles that are carried under. Therefore, turbulent dispersion should be considered in bubble trajectory simulations to estimate the separation efficiency of the GLCC based on percent bubble carry-under. The following is an example of how bubble trajectory results could be used to estimate the required length of the GLCC below the inlet (L). The flow conditions that are considered are for the base case corresponding to a liquid flow rate of about 470 bpd and a gas flow rate of 80 MSCFD in a 3 inch (76 mm) diameter (D) GLCC. To obtain a more accurate representation of the percent of bubbles that are carried under, 500 bubbles were released from the inlet for all of the cases that were simulated. Fig. 19 shows the effects of L/D ratio on percent bubble carry-under (with turbulent dispersion). The results indicate that there is an optimal L/D ratio beyond which the percent bubble carry-under significantly decreases. This information can be used to effectively size the GLCC to minimize gas carry-under. Summary and conclusions Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations and flow visualization experiments were conducted to investigate the flow field below the inlet of a GLCC. Velocity profiles from the single-phase and two-phase flow predictions were compared. Different axial flow regions (upward and downward) below the inlet were observed even with the presence of the gas-liquid free interface. The CFD results

surprisingly indicate that velocity profiles simulated with single-phase and two-phase flow models are similar. Only small differences were observed near the inlet region below the interface. Bubble trajectory simulations revealed that simulations without turbulent dispersion were generally sensitive to changes in both viscosity (Reynolds Number) and tangential velocity. On the other hand, simulations with turbulent dispersion showed small changes with varying the viscosity and tangential velocity. In general, the results indicate that turbulent dispersion has a significant effect on bubble trajectories and the percent bubbles that are carried under. The simulations with turbulent dispersion indicate that many bubbles migrate to the center of the GLCC to form the gascore-filament below the gas-liquid free interface. An example that describes how bubble trajectory results can be used to size the length of the GLCC is provided. The bubble trajectory results indicate that there is an optimal L/D ratio beyond which the percent bubbles that are carried under significantly decreases. This information can be used to design GLCC to minimize gas carry-under.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work is supported by member companies of the Tulsa University Separation Technology Projects (TUSTP). Also, support of the Turkish Ministry of Education for Ferhat Metin Erdal and the support of ECOPETROL for supporting Ivan Mantilla, is much appreciated.

REFERENCES
1. Erdal, F.M., Mantilla, I. Shirazi, S.A and Shoham, O.: "Simulation of Free Interface Shape and Complex Two-Phase Flow Behavior in a Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separator" paper FEDSM97-5206, presented at the 1998 ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting , Washington, DC, June 20-25, 1998. 2. Arpandi, I., Joshi, A.R., Shoham, O., Shirazi, S.A. and Kouba, G.E.: "Hydrodynamics of Two-Phase Flow in Gas-Liquid Cyclone Separators," SPE Journal , Vol. 1, pp. 427-436, 1996 (Also SPE paper SPE-30683, 1995). 3. Marti, S.K., Erdal, F.M., Shoham, O., Shirazi, S.A. and Kouba, G.E.: , "Analysis of Gas Carry-Under in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclones," Presented at the Hydrocyclones 1996 International Meeting , St. Johns College, Cambridge, England, April 2-4, 1996. 4. Chang, F. and Dhir, V.K.: "Turbulent Flow Field in Tangentially Injected Swirl Flows in Tubes," Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow , Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 346-356, 1994. 5. Guo, Z., Dhir, V.K.: "An Analytical and Experimental Study of a Swirling Bubbly Flow," National Heat Transfer Conference , HTD-Vol. 112, pp. 93-100, 1989. 6. Guo, Z., Dhir, V.K.: "Flow Reversal in Injection Induced Swirl Flow," ASME, HTD Single and Multiphase Convective Heat Transfer Winter Annual Meeting , Dallas, TX, USA, Vol. 145, pp. 23-30, November 25-30, 1990.

SPE 49309

CFD STUDY OF BUBBLE CARRY-UNDER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE SEPARATORS

7. Ito, S., Ogawa, K., and Kuroda, C.: "Decay Process of Swirling Flow in a Circular Pipe," International Chemical Engineering , Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 600-605, 1979. 8. Kumar, R., Conover, T., Pan, Y.: "Three-Dimensional Turbulent Swirling Flow in a Cylinder: PTV Experiments and Computations," ASME Fluid Measurements and Instruments , FED-Vol. 161, pp. 107-112, 1993. 9. Algifri, A.H., Bhardwaj and R.K., and Rao, Y.V.N.: "Eddy Viscosity in Decaying Swirl Flow in a Pipe" , Applied Scientific Research , Vol. 45, pp. 287-302, 1988. 10. Kitoh, O.: "Experimental Study of Turbulent Swirling Flow in a Straight Pipe" , J. of Fluid Mechanics , vol. 225, pp. 445-479, 1991. 11. Nissan, A. H. and Bresan V. P.: "Swirling Flow in Cylinders " , A.I.Ch.E. Journal , Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 543-547, 1961. 12. Yu, S. C. M. and Kitoh O.: "General Formulation for the Decay of Swirling Motion Along a Straight Pipe" , International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer , Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 719-728, 1994. 13. Kobayashi, T., Yoda, M.: "Modified k-e Model for Turbulent Swirling Flow in a Straight Pipe, " JSME International Journal , Vol. 30, No. 259, pp.66-71, 1987. 14. Small, D.M., Fitt, A.D., Thew, M.T.: " The Influence of Swirl and Turbulence Anisotropy on CFD Modeling of Hydrocyclones," Presented at the Hydrocyclones 1996 International Meeting , St. Johns College, Cambridge, England, April 2-4, 1996. 15. Erdal, F.M., Shirazi, S.A., Shoham, O. and Kouba, G.E.: "CFD Simulation of Single-Phase and Two-Phase Flow in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators," SPE Journal , Vol. 2, pp. 436-446, 1997 (Also SPE paper SPE-36645, 1996). 16. Motta, B., Erdal, F.M., Shirazi, S.A and Shoham, O.: "Simulation of Single-Phase and Two-Phase Flow in GasLiquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators" paper FEDSM973554, presented at the 1997 ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting , Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June 22-26, 1997. 17. CFX 4.1: "CFX 4.1 Flow Solver User Guide," AEA Technology, Oxfordshire, UK, 19.

Figure 1. -- Schematic of the GLCC Configuration.

SI Metric Conversion Factors cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pa.s ft x 3.048* E-01 = m ft2 x 9.290304* E-02 = m2 E-02 = m3 ft3 x 2.831685 in. x2.54* E+00 = cm lb x 2.2 E+00 = kg lbf x 4.448222 E+00 = N psi x 6.894757 E+00 = kPa Conversion factor is exact.

Figure 2. -- Axisymmetric GLCC Geometry.

F.M. ERDAL, S.A. SHIRAZI, I. MANTILLA, O. SHOHAM

SPE 49309

Figure 3. -- Tangential Velocity Map and Axial Velocity Vectors, ml = 0.92 kg/s, mg = 0.004 kg/s.

Figure 5. -- Gas Void Fraction Distribution, 76 mm ID GLCC, ml = 0.92 kg/s, mg = 0.004 kg/s.

Figure 4. -- Schematic of Axisymmetric GLCC Configuration with a Single Recombined Outlet.

Figure 6. -- Tangential Velocity Map and Axial Velocity Vectors Below the Inlet, 76 mm ID GLCC, ml = 0.92 kg/s, mg = 0.004 kg/s.

SPE 49309

CFD STUDY OF BUBBLE CARRY-UNDER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE SEPARATORS

Figure 7. -- Comparison of Single-Phase and TwoPhase Tangential Velocity Predictions, 76 mm ID GLCC, ml = 0.92 kg/s, mg = 0.004 kg/s.

Figure 9. -- Dye Injection Pictures for Single-Phase, (A) Injection at the Center, (B) Injection Near the Wall, ml = 1.15 kg/s, mg = 0.0 kg/s.

Figure 8. -- Comparison of Single-Phase and TwoPhase Axial Velocity Predictions, 76 mm ID GLCC, ml = 0.92 kg/s, mg = 0.004 kg/s.

Figure 10. -- Dye Injection for Two-Phase Flow, Injection at the Center, ml = 2.13kg/s, mg = 0.015 kg/s.

F.M. ERDAL, S.A. SHIRAZI, I. MANTILLA, O. SHOHAM

SPE 49309

Figure 11. -- Bubble Trajectory Comparison with Data of Guo and Dhir 5.

Figure 12. -- Axisymmetric 7.6 mm (3 in.) ID GLCC geometry for Bubble Trajectories.

SPE 49309

CFD STUDY OF BUBBLE CARRY-UNDER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE SEPARATORS

Figure 13. -- Comparison of Bubble Trajectory Paths with and without Turbulent dispersion for 200 m Bubble (Viscosity = 0.01 Pa.s, Re = 1400, V sl = 0.18 m/s, Vt = 2.74 m/s).

Figure 14. -- Details of Bubble Trajectory Paths with Turbulent dispersion for 200 m Bubble (Viscosity = 0.01 Pa.s, Re = 1400, Vsl = 0.18 m/s, Vt = 2.74 m/s).

10

F.M. ERDAL, S.A. SHIRAZI, I. MANTILLA, O. SHOHAM

SPE 49309

Figure 15. --Percent Bubble Carry-Under vs. Bubble Size, (Base Case, Viscosity = 0.001 Pa.s, Re = 14000, Vsl = 0.18 m/s, Vt = 4.3 m/s).

Figure 17. --Percent Bubble Carry-Under vs. Bubble Size, (Viscosity = 0.01 Pa.s, Re = 1400, Vsl = 0.18 m/s, Vt = 4.3 m/s).

Figure 16. --Percent Bubble Carry-Under vs. Bubble Size, (Viscosity = 0.001 Pa.s, Re = 14000, Vsl = 0.18 m/s, Vt = 2.74 m/s).

Figure 18. --Percent Bubble Carry-Under vs. Bubble Size, (Viscosity = 0.01 Pa.s, Re = 1400, Vsl = 0.18 m/s, Vt = 2.74 m/s).

SPE 49309

CFD STUDY OF BUBBLE CARRY-UNDER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE SEPARATORS

11

Figure 19. -- Effect of L/D Ratio on Percent Bubble Carry-under, (Viscosity = 0.001 Pa.s, Re = 14000, Vsl = 0.18 m/s, Vt = 4.3 m/s).