Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

Volume 2012, Article ID 721814, 4 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/721814

Research Article
Appropriate Separator Sizing: A Modified
Stewart and Arnold Method

F. Boukadi,1 V. Singh,2 R. Trabelsi,1 F. Sebring,1 D. Allen,1 and V. Pai3

1 Universityof Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70506, USA
2 Statoil,
4035 Stavanger, Norway
3 Superior Energy, Lafayette, LA 70508, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to F. Boukadi, fxb1275@louisiana.edu

Received 10 April 2012; Accepted 4 October 2012

Academic Editor: Jing-song Hong

Copyright © 2012 F. Boukadi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Oil and gas separators were one of the first pieces of production equipment to be used in the petroleum industry. The different
stages of separation are completed using the following three principles: gravity, centrifugal force, and impingement. The sizes of
the oil droplets, in the production water, are based mainly on the choke valve pressure drop. The choke valve pressure drop creates
a shearing effect; this reduces the ability of the droplets to combine. One of the goals of oil separation is to reduce the shearing
effect of the choke. Separators are conventionally designed based on initial flow rates; as a result, the separator is no longer able
to accommodate totality of produced fluids. Changing fluid flow rates as well as emulsion viscosity effect separator design. The
reduction in vessel performance results in recorded measurements that do not match actual production levels inducing doubt into
any history matching process and distorting reservoir management programs. In this paper, the new model takes into account flow
rates and emulsion viscosity. The generated vessel length, vessel diameter, and slenderness ratio monographs are used to select
appropriate separator size based on required retention time. Model results are compared to API 12J standards.

1. Introduction to Arnold and Stewart [2], a preferred diameter of water

With the advent of computers and commercial simulators,
it is comparatively easier to obtain the production forecast
of a producing well, without having to rely on preset
analytical models which may or may not follow the exact
field conditions. Unfortunately, this advantage has not been
utilized in the design of separators. The basic separator sizing
is still being done on the basis of API 12J specifications and
the different flow rates that may arise during the production
lifetime are also not taken into account.
An obvious thought is to just use the production data
obtained through the simulator and use it in the simple API
12J calculations, but the flow rates are not enough. One of the
major problems in designing two- or three-phase separators
relate to the problem of emulsion. This can be taken into
account using the correlations developed by Choi [1] to
augment separator design as specified by Choi [1]. According
droplet (500 μm) to be separated from oil and a diameter
of liquid (water and oil) of 200 μm to be separated from gas
are preferred in the analysis. Furthermore, retention times
of oil and water are taken to be between 3 and 30 minutes,
respectively [1]. Viscosity of oil is obtained by using the Chew
and Connolly correlation [3] of gas saturated viscosity (μob )
with respect to dead oil viscosity (μod ).
2. Oil-Water Separation Theory
According to Stewart et al. [4], the oil-water separation is
governed by Stoke’s law for terminal velocity of spheres in
a liquid medium. The terminal velocity of the continuous
phase is defined by
G  
Vt = ρw − ρo D2 . (1)
18μ
2 Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

Table 1: Emulsion type resulting from phase dispersion coefficient. 35000

30000

Flow rates (Qo, Q w , Q g )

Phase dispersion coefficient, θ Result
<0.3 Light phase always dispersed 25000
0.3–0.5 Light phase probably dispersed 20000
0.5–2.0 Phase inversion possible 15000
2.0–3.3 Heavy phase probably dispersed 10000
>3.3 Heavy phase always dispersed 5000
0
Maximum 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
flow rate
Time (yrs)
Separator Compare and
capacity select maximum Qo (stb/d)
capacity Qg (Mscf/d)
Maximum Qw (stb/d)
emulsion
viscosity Figure 2: Simulated production forecast.

Figure 1: Separator sizing methodology. 6 350000

Emulsion viscosity (cp)

5 30000

Flow rates (Qo , Q w )

25000
4
As illustrated above, the terminal velocity is a function of an 20000
emulsion (oil-water) viscosity that takes into account an oil- 3
15000
rich or a water-rich system. The viscosity of an emulsion as 2
10000
given by Taylor is 1 5000
  
p + 2/5 0 0
μem = μc 1 + 2.5φ , (2) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
p+1
Time (yrs)
where p = μinner phase /μouter phase . Emulsion viscosity
As production goes on, inversion from oil-dominant to Qo (stb/d)
water-dominant emulsion takes place. This can be estimated Qw (stb/d)
by
Figure 3: Emulsion viscosity evolution over time.
  0.3
QL ρL μH oil, water, and gas production forecast for the well were
θ= . (3)
QH ρH μL produced.
It is clear from the 22-year simulated forecast, shown in
Table 1 summarizes types of emulsion based on the phase Figure 2, that the separator will not be able to accommodate
dispersion coefficient, θ. produced fluids if it is sized using a conventional design
For all practical purposes, we use θ of 0.5 as an inversion based on only initial flow rates.
point. Taking into account emulsion viscosity and using a
The emulsion viscosity obtained from the above proce- correlation developed by Viles [3], emulsion viscosity as a
dure can only be used to calculate the minimum capacity of function of simulation time plots as follows.
the separator; therefore, there is no limit on the size of the In Figure 3, we can see that the emulsion viscosity
separator as viscosity does not directly influence the capacity peaks at 9.1 cp, whereas the calculated oil viscosity which is
of a separator. For this purpose, we use a new retention time conventionally used in separator sizing is just 3.43 cp.
that is calculated using the following formula to yield a more The new retention time calculated using (4) for base
direct correlation to the size: retention times of 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 minutes are 8, 13, 26,
μfuture 39, and 53 minutes, respectively.
Tr(future) = Tr(base) . (4) As per the new proposed methodology these peak
μbase
emulsion viscosities and the peak flow rates were used to size
Figure 1 illustrates the new methodology of sizing separators. the separators.
The sizes were calculated based on the following.
3. Example Field Sizing (1) Conventional method:

For illustration purposes, an example was selected. The well (a) API 12J minimum sizing requirements (initial
produces from a fractured carbonate reservoir, with most of flow rates only);
the fractures connecting to an aquifer. Eclipse 100 reservoir (b) Arnold-Stewart’s method (initial flow rates on-
simulator was used to model the reservoir and the following ly).
Modelling and Simulation in Engineering 3

120 20 300 20
18 18
100 16 250 16

Vessel diameter (in)

Slenderness ratio
Slenderness ratio
Diameter (in)

80 14 14
12 200
12
60 10
150 10
8
40 6 8
100 6
20 4
2 50 4
0 0 2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 0
Length (ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
LCC 3 min SR 3 min Vessel length (ft)
LCC 5 min SR 5 min LCC 3 min SR 3 min
LCC 10 min SR 10 min LCC 5 min SR 5 min
LCC 15 min SR 15 min LCC 10 min SR 10 min
LCC 20 min SR 20 min LCC 15 min Sr 15 min
LCC 20 min SR 20 min
Figure 4: Sizing - API 12J.
Figure 6: Modified Arnold-Stewart’s method for peak flow rates.

300 20
18
250 300 20
16
Vessel diameter (in)

18
Slenderness ratio

200 14 250
12 16

Slenderness ratio
Vessel diameter (in)

150 10 14
200
8 12
100 6 150 10
4 8
50 100
2 6
0 0 50 4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2
Vessel length (ft) 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
LCC 3 min SR 3 min
LCC 5 min SR 5 min Vessel length (ft)
LCC 10 min SR 10 min LCC 8 min SR 8 min
LCC 15 min Sr 15 min LCC 13 min SR 13 min
LCC 20 min SR 20 min LCC 26 min SR 26 min
LCC 39 min Sr 39 min
Figure 5: Arnold Stewart Method. LCC 53 min SR 53 min

Figure 7: Modified Arnold-Stewart’s method using peak emulsion

viscosity.

(2) New method (modified Arnold-Stewart’s method):

(a) based on flow rates; considered as they may yield wrong sizing. The chart com-
pares different design methods and compares differences in
(b) based on emulsion viscosity.
design, indicating that the modified Arnold-Stewart method
Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 offer a unique opportunity to for emulsion viscosity yields the largest vessels; automatically,
select separators based on the appropriate retention time. taking care of increased total liquid flow rates that could be
The charts offer envelopes enclosing vessel diameter, vessel encountered later in the life of any production well.
length, and vessel slenderness ratio for calculated retention
times. Any combination within a selected envelope is capable
of handling a required capacity. 4. Conclusions
Now, as per the modified methodology, we have to (1) The new model resulted in an oversized separator
compare the sizes obtained from the modified method using that yielded an optimum performance throughout
peak flow rates and peak emulsion viscosity, this is illustrated
the life of the produced well.
below in Figure 8 using a Pareto chart (tr is retention time,
MASem is modified Arnold-Stewart’s method based on (2) The current design is based on 50% full capacity;
emulsion viscosity). however, separators maybe able to accommodate up
The above pareto chart is based on bulk volumes of to 60∼70% capacity while operating under optimal
various sizes. Actual volumes have been purposefully not performance, in such a case, the separator may
4 Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

D: Diameter of the separator (in)

API 12J AS method MAS method (FR) MAS method (Em)
tr (3 min, MASem = 8 min) tr (10 min, MASem = 26 min)
tr (3 min, MASem = 8 min) tr (15 min, MASem = 39 min)
tr (5 min, MASem = 13 min) tr (15 min, MASem = 39 min)
tr (5 min, MASem = 13 min) tr (20 min, MASem = 53 min)
tr (10 min, MASem = 26 min) tr (20 min, MASem = 53 min)
Figure 8: Pareto chart of sizes obtained from different methods.
μem :Emulsion viscosity (cp)
μc : Continuous phase viscosity (cp)
Φ: Volumetric ratio of inner phase to outer
phase
θ: Phase dispersion coefficient
QL : Flow rate of light phase (stb/d)
QH : Flow rate of heavy phase (stb/d)
Tr : Retention time (min)
ρL : Light phase density (lb/cuft)
ρH : Heavy phase density (lb/cuft)
μL : Light phase viscosity (cp)
μH : Heavy phase viscosity (cp)
Qo : Oil flow rate (stb/d)
Qw : Water flow rate (stb/d)
Qg : Gas flow rate (MMscf/d)
LCC: Liquid capacity constraint
SR: Slenderness ratio.

be downsized (based on the maximum required
diameter).
(3) The generated vessel length, vessel diameter, and
slenderness ratio monographs make can be used
to select appropriate separator size, based on the
required retention time.
(4) Despite the fact that computational fluid dynamics
offer a much more comprehensive design, developed
methodology, on the other hand, is intended to
address the already existing stocks of separators.
(5) Emulsion rheology model is based on Newtonian
flow model. This holds true when Newtonian fluids
are very dilute (this study well); however, it may
sometime not be the case and a non-Newtonian flow
model needs then to be incorporated.
References
[1] M. S. Choi, “Prediction of separator performance under
changing field conditions,” in Proceedings of the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, New Orleans, Lo, USA, 1998.
[2] K. Arnold and M. Stewart, Surface Production Operations, vol.
1, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Tex, USA, 3rd edition,
1999.
[3] J. C. Viles, “Predicting liquid re-entrainment in horizontal
separators,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 45, no. 5, pp.
405–409, 1992.
[4] A. C. Stewart, N. P. Chamberlain, and M. Irshad, “A new
approach to gas-liquid separation,” in Proceedings of the Euro-
pean Petroleum Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
The Hague, The Netherlands, October 1998.
[5] B. Guo, W. C. Lyons, and A. Ghalambor, Petroleum Production
Engineering: A Computer-assisted Approach, Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston, Tex, USA, 1st edition, 2007.

(6) Foam constraints have not been considered in the

design due to lack of proved foam rheology correla-
tions.

Nomenclature
API: American Petroleum Institute
μm: Micrometer
μob : Viscosity of gas saturated oil (cp)
μod : Viscosity of dead oil (cp)
μ: Viscosity (cp)
Vt : Terminal velocity (ft/sec)
G: Acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2 or 32 ft/sec2 )
ρw : Water density (lb/cuft)
ρo : Oil density (lb/cuft)
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2010
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
Chemical Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
International Journal of
Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014