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- ε turbulence model.17 The k- ε 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

liquid mass flow rate. A free interface. the velocity profiles obtained from the two-phase simulation and the single-phase simulation are similar. Therefore. the upper part of the GLCC is occupied by gas phase (air) while the lower part is occupied by liquid (water). Flow Visualization Experiments.8) was simulated as single-phase flow in an axisymmetric geometry. Thus. This model assumes that the values of the turbulent kinetic energy and the dissipation rates are the same for each phase. This high tangential velocity decays in the axial and radial directions. and turbulence) of each phase interact via inter-phase transfer terms. 11 Two-Phase Flow Simulations. an anisotropic turbulence model should be used to model these flows accurately. 3.2 F. I. simulations showed only modest improvement over the k-e model prediction of the flow field in the GLCC. neglecting any interaction between the two phases. which has a parabolic shape. utilizing the axisymmetric model that was described previously by Erdal et al. m g = 0. 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. used in this study.1. The tangential velocity map and the axial velocity vectors are presented in Fig. was simulated with the multi-fluid model by using the particle model and the homogenous k-ε turbulence model. Using a differential Reynolds stress turbulence model. MANTILLA. SHIRAZI. where mostly liquid exits. shown schematically in Fig. Details of these different models are presented in CFX 4. different turbulence models were used to study the sensitivity of the flow field predictions. Again.92 kg/s. m 1 = 0. This phenomenon has been also observed experimentally. In this case.A. The simulations with small bubble sizes (less than 0. This case was simulated in an axisymmetric geometry. The highest tangential velocity occurs near the inlet region of the GLCC. dye injection experiments were conducted for single-phase and two-phase flow.8 (just below the interface). 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. which was simulated as a single-phase flow in the previous section. namely. The multi-fluid model can be used to simulate flows where more than one fluid exists. momentum. the axial velocity vectors show two distinct regions. To investigate the axial flow behavior that was observed in the simulations below the inlet. 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. The axial velocity vectors show two distinct regions. Both simulation predict similar velocity profiles. and x/D = 10. there is only one single outlet for both phases. The results also indicated that the gas void fractions at the center were very small.ε model. 9 shows photographs of the dye injection experiment in the 76 . 15 Using this model. A two-phase flow case (airwater. 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 . the k. This is a simple generalization of the single-phase k. 2.4.M.2 The tangential velocity distribution map and the axial velocity vectors for the region below the inlet. heat.5 mm) showed that smaller bubbles have the tendency to accumulate below the free interface to form the gas-bubble-filament. one phase is defined as dispersed and the other is assumed to be continuous. 6. at x/D = 2. 5 shows the gas void fraction distribution near the inlet. upward flow near the center and downward flow near the wall. The transport properties (mass. as shown in Fig. ERDAL. When using the multi-fluid model with particle model. Two-Phase flow in the GLCC was simulated with the multi-fluid model that is available in CFX. It is interesting to note that the tangential velocity and the gas flow above the inlet cause liquid to climb up above the inlet. for efficiency of the calculations.6 m/s) and the radial velocity (0. The results are much closer at x/D= 10.ε turbulence model was used in the present calculations. S. 6. upward flow near the center and downward flow near the wall. Single-Phase Flow Simulations. Fig. are shown in Fig. Thus. simulations were carried out for different inlet void fraction distributions and different bubble sizes for the dispersed (gas) phase. the corresponding equivalent tangential velocity (2. utilizes the results of flow past a sphere to account for the inter-phase momentum transfer between the gas and liquid phases. 3). Considering the differences between these two models.39 m/s) at the inlet were defined. 4 (the GLCC dimensions are the same as those shown in Fig.1. The mixture model treats all phases symmetrically. The particle model. 3). The large bubbles separate immediately and flow to the free interface between the liquid and gas phases. Figs. O. This surprising flow reversal at the center has been also observed experimentally by several other authors for single-phase swirling pipe flows. As can be seen. This means that the two phases are assumed to be well mixed.004 kg/s. gas mass flow rate. There are two available models in CFX for momentum transfer between the phases: the so-called mixture model and particle model. Figs.2 The gas and liquid phases are first separated in the GLCC and then recombined downstream of the separator. 7 and 8 show a comparison of tangential and axial velocity predictions obtained by single-phase and twophase model simulations. and void fraction at the inlet = 0. During this investigation. forms between the two phases. 17 The two-phase flow case. This figure shows that the highest tangential velocity occurs near the inlet region. which is an anisotropic turbulence model. SHOHAM SPE 49309 cyclones are anisotropic. The turbulence model that was employed for the simulations is the so-called homogenous k-e turbulence model.

with turbulent dispersion. m g = 0. Bubbles were released from the inlet and were monitored (counted) at the outlet. as shown in Fig. bubble size. 14C. the bubble trajectory predictions by the CFD code were compared with data of Guo and Dhir5 for a 2. and L/D ratio (the ratio of the GLCC length below the inlet to the GLCC diameter). The CFD code stops bubble trajectory simulation for an individual bubble that reaches the axis of symmetry. on the other hand. Bubble trajectory simulations were carried out to investigate the effects of turbulent dispersion. This behavior is an indication of how the gas-core-filament is forming in the center. In some injection locations. 12. because all of the bubbles follow the same path according to bubble release location. simulations without turbulent dispersion indicate that all of the 50 mm bubbles are separated. This behavior of axial flow is very important for the separation process. 9 clearly shows that there is an upward flow at the center of GLCC (the average liquid flow is moving downward). Bubble sizes ranging from 300 mm to 1 mm were simulated (300. For the same case. and viscosity (0. simulations with turbulent dispersion show that 8% .s). a strong upward flow was observed. 13. 100% of very small bubbles are carried under. 99 bubbles were released from the inlet. the percent bubble carry-under increases and approaches a constant value.15 kg/s.3 m/s). tangential velocity. some of the bubbles (about 7%) were carried under. bubbles were released five diameters above the inlets (Z/D = 5. This behavior was also observed for different bubble sizes in different flow conditions. 100. because of the upward flow in the center of the GLCC. when trajectories of 200 mm bubbles were simulated without turbulent dispersion. Photograph A in Fig. single-phase flow below the GLCC inlet was simulated. 15 shows percent bubble carry-under as a function of bubble size. Although the dye was injected 61 cm below the inlet at the center. Fig. 305 mm below the inlet for a single-phase flow case (ml = 1. The darker thin line in the middle of the GLCC is the gas-bubble-filament. Good agreement was obtained between the CFD predictions and data for a range of average axial velocities. as shown in Fig. viscosity.2 mm diameter bubble. 11. And the axial distances traveled by the bubbles were measured before the bubbles reached near the center (dz/D. In the experiments that were conducted in a 8. For example. as post processing. shows a bubble that goes downward and reaches the axis of symmetry (center of the GLCC). 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. 5. . Details of the simulations. inlet tangential velocity (Vt = 4. at the center of the GLCC (photograph A) and near the wall (photograph B). For example. For the case without turbulent dispersion. However.17 For bubble trajectory simulations. Almost all individual bubbles followed different paths. For bubble trajectory simulations with turbulent dispersion. In addition. many bubbles were introduced at the inlet and their trajectories were predicted in the flow field. The figure reveals that as the bubble size decreases. Fig. but with turbulent dispersion. The CFD code allows bubble trajectory simulations to be carried out with and without the effects of turbulent dispersion. For this reason. an axisymmetric geometry of 76 mm ID GLCC with L/D of about 15 was used. To examine the accuracy of the bubble trajectory results. 25. 14-D. as shown in Fig. First. shown schematically in Fig. 200.SPE 49309 CFD STUDY OF BUBBLE CARRY-UNDER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE SEPARATORS 3 mm ID GLCC. This is a clear indication of downward flow near the wall. For example.001 Pa. The gas-core-filament is an evidence for the separation process of gas bubbles due to the centrifugal/buoyancy forces below the GLCC inlet. ml = 2. 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. Only nine bubbles were released for simulations without turbulent dispersion. Fig. 11). As shown in Fig. 50. the dye followed a downward helical path near the wall and was diffused. Dye injection experiments were also conducted for a two-phase flow case. and 1 mm) with and without turbulent dispersion. as shown in Fig.18 m/s). This means that it is assumed that the bubbles do not affect the flow field. 10. for the case with turbulent dispersion many bubbles reach the center of the GLCC and bubble trajectory simulation is terminated.0 kg/s). showed that many bubbles are dispersed in the liquid and many of them reach the center of the GLCC. These bubbles could be assumed to be separated. all of the bubbles were separated (move to the top). superficial liquid velocity (Vsl = 0.0). However.13 kg/s. the bubble trajectories with turbulent dispersion show that turbulence cause bubbles to disperse throughout the GLCC and many bubbles migrate below the inlet.99 cm ID pipe. This was also observed in flow visualization experiments and in two-phase flow simulations that were carried out. m g = 0. 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. Fig. Simulations indicated that trajectories with and without turbulent dispersion are very different. some bubbles go downward by following a helical path and reach the outlet. Dye was injected at two radial locations. The effects of different parameters on bubble trajectories were studied by considering the following base case: Reynolds number (Re =14000). 9). Then. it was observed that dye could go up about 300 mm above the injection location before it disappeared. Simulations with turbulent dispersion show that bigger bubbles can be carried under.015 kg/s. it is crucial to find out the important factors that affect gas bubble carry-under. When dye was injected near the wall (photograph B in Fig. the CFD code was used to simulate bubble trajectories. 10. 14 shows a few representative individual bubble trajectories for the case with turbulent dispersion.

M.001 Pa. pp. The CFD results surprisingly indicate that velocity profiles simulated with single-phase and two-phase flow models are similar. Chang.. 23-30. 3. The bubble trajectory results indicate that there is an optimal L/D ratio beyond which the percent bubbles that are carried under significantly decreases. I. REFERENCES 1. England. 16. simulations with turbulent dispersion showed small changes with varying the viscosity and tangential velocity. In general. ." SPE Journal . It increased the minimum bubble size that is carried under from 10 mm to 100 mm. Finally. The inlet tangential velocity of the base case was decreased from 4. April 2-4. 145. S. the results indicate that turbulent dispersion has a significant effect on bubble trajectories and the percent bubbles that are carried under. To obtain a more accurate representation of the percent of bubbles that are carried under. Johns College. June 20-25. November 25-30.s to 0. This information can be used to effectively size the GLCC to minimize gas carry-under. Shirazi.A. 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). this change had little impact on trajectories with turbulent dispersion. Dallas.. 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. G. An example that describes how bubble trajectory results can be used to size the length of the GLCC is provided. pp. Erdal. S. Therefore. Cambridge. pp.74 m/s and the effects of this change on the percent bubble carry-under is presented in Fig. No.K. Heat and Fluid Flow .A.01 Pa. TX.. Mantilla.. USA. HTD Single and Multiphase Convective Heat Transfer Winter Annual Meeting . support of the Turkish Ministry of Education for Ferhat Metin Erdal and the support of ECOPETROL for supporting Ivan Mantilla. 19 shows the effects of L/D ratio on percent bubble carry-under (with turbulent dispersion). A. V. 112. 346-356. Shoham.: "Turbulent Flow Field in Tangentially Injected Swirl Flows in Tubes. SHIRAZI. O. J. S. 93-100. Bubble trajectory simulations revealed that simulations without turbulent dispersion were generally sensitive to changes in both viscosity (Reynolds Number) and tangential velocity. bubble sizes ranging from 300 mm to 1 mm were simulated for each case.s (which decreases the Reynolds number from 14000 to 1400) and the results are presented in Fig. Erdal. Fig.M." Presented at the Hydrocyclones 1996 International Meeting .. Guo. O. 6. F. St. V. 1994. pp. The results indicate that there is an optimal L/D ratio beyond which the percent bubble carry-under significantly decreases. S. This changed the minimum bubble size that is carried under from 10 mm to 25 mm for the bubble trajectories without turbulent dispersion.A.. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work is supported by member companies of the Tulsa University Separation Technology Projects (TUSTP). 1996 (Also SPE paper SPE-30683.R." National Heat Transfer Conference . Z. Z. Dhir.M. Fig. This change had a significant impact on the percent bubble carry-under for trajectories without turbulent dispersion. F.: "Hydrodynamics of Two-Phase Flow in Gas-Liquid Cyclone Separators. 1995). Only small differences were observed near the inlet region below the interface. 1990.3 m/s to 2. 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. is much appreciated. SHOHAM SPE 49309 of the 50 mm bubbles are carried under.K. ERDAL. 5. 1989. 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." Int.E. This increased the minimum bubble size that is carried under from 100 mm to 300 mm for trajectories with turbulent dispersion. Marti. Vol. 427-436. I.K. O. It is clear from these bubble trajectory simulations that turbulent dispersion has a significant effect on the bubbles that are carried under. I. V. DC. Again. "Analysis of Gas Carry-Under in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclones. presented at the 1998 ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting .: "Simulation of Free Interface Shape and Complex Two-Phase Flow Behavior in a Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separator" paper FEDSM97-5206.: "Flow Reversal in Injection Induced Swirl Flow. Vol. turbulent dispersion should be considered in bubble trajectory simulations to estimate the separation efficiency of the GLCC based on percent bubble carry-under. it did not create a pronounced effect on the percent bubble carry-under with turbulent dispersion. Next. 17. Guo.. This information can be used to design GLCC to minimize gas carry-under. Dhir.A and Shoham. Also. HTD-Vol.: "An Analytical and Experimental Study of a Swirling Bubbly Flow. Vol. S.: ." ASME. On the other hand. Shoham.. 5. the viscosity was increased from 0. and Kouba. F. 15. MANTILLA. 4. However.K. Joshi. 1996. Shirazi. O.E. 500 bubbles were released from the inlet for all of the cases that were simulated.4 F. 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. 1998. and Dhir. G. Four different cases were considered including the base case. Shirazi. 2. and Kouba. 18 shows the effects of both viscosity and the inlet tangential velocity change on the percent bubble carry-under.. Arpandi. 1. On the other hand. Washington. 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.

11. 1993. x2. SI Metric Conversion Factors cp x 1.: "CFD Simulation of Single-Phase and Two-Phase Flow in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators. Johns College. P. Canada.I. 1997 (Also SPE paper SPE-36645.D. and Rao.1 Flow Solver User Guide. 436-446.. June 22-26. C. 1991. 600-605. 1994. April 2-4.s ft x 3. 17.K. Vol. Vol. CFX 4. A. Conover. pp. Erdal. Pan. 1988.SPE 49309 CFD STUDY OF BUBBLE CARRY-UNDER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE SEPARATORS 5 7. Bhardwaj and R. No.448222 E+00 = N psi x 6. S. UK. S. vol." Presented at the Hydrocyclones 1996 International Meeting . Y. ." International Chemical Engineering . 161. 1997. pp. Algifri. J. 7. and Kitoh O. Vol.E. Kitoh.. No. 21. No. Yu. Thew.: "Eddy Viscosity in Decaying Swirl Flow in a Pipe" . O.: "General Formulation for the Decay of Swirling Motion Along a Straight Pipe" . 445-479.E. Kumar. F. 1979. Shirazi. 719-728.: "Simulation of Single-Phase and Two-Phase Flow in GasLiquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators" paper FEDSM973554. 8..894757 E+00 = kPa ∗ Conversion factor is exact. 1996). and Kuroda. pp. S. Vol. and Bresan V..: "Three-Dimensional Turbulent Swirling Flow in a Cylinder: PTV Experiments and Computations. H. 1996. Shirazi. Vancouver. 5. A. " JSME International Journal .048* E-01 = m ft2 x 9. pp..: "Experimental Study of Turbulent Swirling Flow in a Straight Pipe" . 4.. M. British Columbia. 107-112.N.831685 in. 2. Vol. 15. 10.1: "CFX 4. Journal . Yoda.Ch. and Kouba. Applied Scientific Research .A and Shoham. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer . 13. Motta. 1987. Erdal.54* E+00 = cm lb x 2. 1961.: "Swirling Flow in Cylinders " ." AEA Technology. G. 30. 14. T. A.. of Fluid Mechanics . -.2 E+00 = kg lbf x 4..66-71. presented at the 1997 ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting . 16. 9.Axisymmetric GLCC Geometry. K. T. M.M." SPE Journal .T. 287-302.: "Decay Process of Swirling Flow in a Circular Pipe. O.0* E-03 = Pa.M. A." ASME Fluid Measurements and Instruments . No. St. B. Small. England.H. F. 19. R.A. Shoham.. 543-547. Figure 2.: "Modified k-e Model for Turbulent Swirling Flow in a Straight Pipe. Fitt. Ogawa.. 4. Kobayashi..Schematic of the GLCC Configuration.M. 19. pp.: " The Influence of Swirl and Turbulence Anisotropy on CFD Modeling of Hydrocyclones. 225. FED-Vol. S. 45. Cambridge. Figure 1.290304* E-02 = m2 E-02 = m3 ft3 x 2. Y. Oxfordshire.. pp. O. pp. 259.V. M. Ito.. 12. -. pp. C. Vol. D. Nissan.

ml = 0. -.004 kg/s. .Gas Void Fraction Distribution.004 kg/s. O. -.M. SHIRAZI.A. 76 mm ID GLCC.92 kg/s. 76 mm ID GLCC.Tangential Velocity Map and Axial Velocity Vectors. ml = 0. S. ERDAL.Tangential Velocity Map and Axial Velocity Vectors Below the Inlet. SHOHAM SPE 49309 Figure 3. ml = 0. mg = 0. -. mg = 0.Schematic of Axisymmetric GLCC Configuration with a Single Recombined Outlet. Figure 4. -.004 kg/s. I. Figure 6. mg = 0.6 F.92 kg/s. MANTILLA. Figure 5.92 kg/s.

92 kg/s.Dye Injection Pictures for Single-Phase.92 kg/s. Injection at the Center. mg = 0. ml = 0.13kg/s. ml = 2. mg = 0.015 kg/s. -. -.004 kg/s. -.0 kg/s. Figure 9.15 kg/s. mg = 0. 76 mm ID GLCC. Figure 8.Comparison of Single-Phase and TwoPhase Axial Velocity Predictions.004 kg/s. .Comparison of Single-Phase and TwoPhase Tangential Velocity Predictions. ml = 1. 76 mm ID GLCC. (B) Injection Near the Wall. ml = 0.Dye Injection for Two-Phase Flow. Figure 10. (A) Injection at the Center. mg = 0. -.SPE 49309 CFD STUDY OF BUBBLE CARRY-UNDER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE SEPARATORS 7 Figure 7.

S. SHIRAZI. -.Axisymmetric 7.8 F.) ID GLCC geometry for Bubble Trajectories.M. I. -.A. SHOHAM SPE 49309 Figure 11. . Figure 12. MANTILLA. ERDAL. O.Bubble Trajectory Comparison with Data of Guo and Dhir 5.6 mm (3 in.

s. Re = 1400. Figure 14. Vt = 2. -.s. Re = 1400.01 Pa. .SPE 49309 CFD STUDY OF BUBBLE CARRY-UNDER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE SEPARATORS 9 Figure 13. -. V sl = 0. Vsl = 0.Details of Bubble Trajectory Paths with Turbulent dispersion for 200 µm Bubble (Viscosity = 0.74 m/s).18 m/s.18 m/s.74 m/s).Comparison of Bubble Trajectory Paths with and without Turbulent dispersion for 200 µm Bubble (Viscosity = 0. Vt = 2.01 Pa.

18 m/s. (Viscosity = 0. (Base Case. Vsl = 0. S. Re = 14000. Re = 1400. Re = 14000. --Percent Bubble Carry-Under vs.74 m/s).3 m/s). Bubble Size. Figure 18. Vt = 2. Vt = 2. SHIRAZI. --Percent Bubble Carry-Under vs. MANTILLA. Vt = 4. O.s.001 Pa. (Viscosity = 0. Re = 1400. --Percent Bubble Carry-Under vs. Bubble Size. Bubble Size. Vt = 4.10 F. Vsl = 0.18 m/s.A.s.18 m/s.18 m/s. --Percent Bubble Carry-Under vs.74 m/s).s.01 Pa. Vsl = 0. Figure 16. Bubble Size. ERDAL. SHOHAM SPE 49309 Figure 15. Viscosity = 0.001 Pa. I. Vsl = 0.M.3 m/s). (Viscosity = 0.s.01 Pa. Figure 17. .

Re = 14000.s. Vt = 4.001 Pa. Vsl = 0.3 m/s). . (Viscosity = 0. -.18 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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times