WATER TREATING INSIGHTS
Gas/Liquids Separators—Part 3
Quantifying Separation Performance
Mark Bothamley, John M. Campbell/PetroSkills
I
n this third article of a three-part series, the results of
selected gas/liquid separation case studies/sensitivities
are presented to show the effects of key separator
selection/sizing decision parameters, fluid properties,
and operational parameters. The results are generated
from an Excel spreadsheet model, which incorporates
the equations/methods outlined in Part 1 and 2 of this
series published in 2013 August and October Oil and Gas
Facilities issues, respectively. The Excel Solver add-in is used
to find the optimum separator size, in this case defined
as the lowest-weight vessel that satisfies the specified
separation performance requirements as well as any
applicable constraints.
Part 1 of the series in August provided a general
discussion of separation equipment classification, as well
as existing limitations to methods used for quantifying
separator performance. Part 2 in October discussed methods
for improved quantification of operating performances of
the gas gravity separation, the mist extraction, and the liquid
gravity separation sections of gas/liquid separators.
Parts 1 and 2 presented the equations and methods
that can be used to improve the quantification of gas/
liquid separation performance compared with traditional
techniques. The key aspects of the recommended
methodology include quantification of the following:
1. The amount of gas (liquid) entrained in the form of
droplets (bubbles)
2. The size distribution of the entrained droplets
(bubbles)
3. The continuous phase (gas or liquid) velocities
4. Droplet (bubble) separation performance based on
1–3 above and the geometry of the separator
The purpose of the articles is to present a more rigorous
approach to gas/liquid separator design and rating that more
accurately reflects the physics involved. The traditional
Ks/residence-time approach is inadequate for anything but
the smallest/simplest separator applications.
The expanding use of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) for separator design purposes has been useful, but
does not readily lend itself to the needs of the majority
of facilities engineers faced with separator design and
operational issues. CFD is expected to be an excellent tool
for refining several of the calculations presented in this
series of articles. The spreadsheet used to generate the results
34 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   December 2013
contained in this article, while complex from a calculational
point of view, is quite user friendly.
The spreadsheet will be made available for public
use in the near future. To be notified of its availability,
please contact the author’s company’s website at
www.jmcampbell.com/separatorOGF.
Definition of Base Case Parameters
The main assumptions and parameters used in the Excel
spreadsheet to generate the results discussed in this article
are as follows:
The fluid properties are assumed as 35°API crude oil;
0.7 SG gas; 100°F operating temperature, and 1,000 psig
operating pressure.
Various correlations are incorporated into
the spreadsheet to obtain the following fluid
properties: gas compressibility factor, gas in
solution, dead oil viscosity, live oil viscosity, and liquid
surface tension.
Table 1 shows the constraints of horizontal and
vertical separators relevant to the spreadsheet.
Vessel weight is estimated using the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers’ Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section
VIII equations to calculate shell and head thickness based on
the parameters in Table 2.
Vessel design pressure is set at 110% of the operating
pressure. Nozzle weights, including manway(s) are estimated
from a look-up table based on the nozzle size and American
National Standards Institute class rating. The weight of the
vessel internals is estimated based on the types and sizes of
the internals, such as inlet devices (Table 3), mist extractors
(Tables 4 through 6), and perforated plates.
Vertical Scrubber Base Case
The following assumptions and parameters define the vertical
scrubber base case that will be used as the reference point for
the case studies/sensitivities to be discussed in this article.
• Vertical orientation
• 100 MMscf/D, 10 bbl/MMscf
• 1,000 psig, 100°F
• Design factor=1.15
• Slug size = 1 second
• Half-pipe inlet device
• Standard mesh pad
• No perforated plates for flow straightening
TABLE 1-SEPARATOR CONSTRAINTS
Constraint Vertical Separator Horizontal Separator

Maximum separator length, ft 80.00

Maximum separator outside diameter, ft 20.00

Maximum length/diameter 10.0

Minimum length/diameter 1.5 2.5

Depends on inlet device ID≤6=0.5

Minimum distance between HLSD and inlet device, ft ID>6=1.0
(see Table 3)

ID≤6=0.75
Minimum distance between HLSD and mist extractor, ft N/A ID>6=1.0

Minimum distance between inlet device and mist Depends on inlet device (see N/A
extractor, ft Table 3) (minimum=1.5 ft)

ID≤6=1.17
Minimum distance for control volume (LLA–HLA), ft
ID>6=1.5

Minimum holdup time for control volume (LLA–HLA),

2
minutes

ID≤6=0.5
Minimum distance between alarm and shutdown, ft
ID>6=0.75

Minimum time between alarm and shutdown, minutes 0.75

ID≤6=0.5
Minimum distance between BTL/BV and LLSD, ft
ID>6=1.0

Maximum plug flow Souders-Brown sizing coefficient in

0.5 0.75
gas gravity separation section, Ks, ft/sec

Re-entrainment, ft/sec N/A Vr<Vr, max

Depends on mist extractor

Maximum HLSD/Di N/A type (see Tables 4
through 6)

December 2013  •   Oil and Gas Facilities 35

WATER TREATING INSIGHTS

0.25 20
18
TABLE 2-ESTIMATES OF VESSEL WEIGHT
0.20 16

Cumulative gal/MMscf
Parameter Value
14
gal/MMscf

0.15 12
S, allowable stress, psi 20,000
10
0.10 8 Joint efficiency, E 1.00
6
0.05 4 Corrosion allowance, in. 0.125
2 Steel density, lb/ft 3
489
0.00 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Droplet size, microns
The separation specifications are allowable
Fig. 1—Feed-pipe entrainment. liquid of up to 0.1 gal/MMscf in separated gas, and
allowable free gas of up to 2% v/v in separated oil. The
operational requirements, such as times between alarm and
0.80 40 shutdown, are defined by the separator constraints shown
0.70 35 in Table 1.
Cumulative gal/MMscf

0.60 30
Base Case Results
0.50 25
gal/MMscf

The results are shown in Tables 7 through 11 and Figs. 1

0.40 20 through 4. Droplet size distributions of liquid in gas at
0.30 15 different locations are shown in Figs. 1 through 4.
0.20 10 The vessel diameter is dominated by gas-
0.10 5 handling requirements and is dictated by the type of
0.00 0 mist extractor selected, in this case a standard mesh
0 500 1000 1500 2000 pad. This is typical for low liquid load applications.
Droplet size, microns Vessel diameter is significantly larger than would be
Fig. 2—Droplet size downstream of inlet device. calculated assuming uniform plug flow. The estimated
degree of gas-flow maldistribution is indicated by the value

TABLE 3-TYPES OF INLET DEVICES

Minimum Distance Minimum Distance From
Inlet Device Height,
ρV2 Limit, Between HLSD and Inlet Device to Mist
Type of Inlet Fraction of Inlet Nozzle
lb/ft-sec2 Inlet Device (Vertical), Extractor (Vertical),
Nominal Diameter
Fraction of Vessel ID Fraction of Vessel ID

No inlet device 700 0.4 1.0 0.6

Diverter/splash
950 0.4 1.5 0.5
plate

Half-open pipe 1,400 0.3 1.0 0.45

Multivane
(Schoepentoeter/ 4,000 0.2 1.1 0.3
Evenflow)

Cyclonic 10,000 0.2* 1.1 0.45

*Cyclonic inlets are partially submerged below the normal liquid level (NLL).

36 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   December 2013

TABLE 4-MESH PADS
Wire Surface Nominal Minimum
Density, Percent Thick- Maximum
Description Diameter, Area, Design Ks, Gas-Space
lb/ft3 Voidage ness, ft HLSD/Di
in. ft2/ft3 V/H Height, ft
High-capacity
7 0.986 0.011 65 0.5 0.38 0.75 1.5
wire mesh
Standard wire
9 0.982 0.011 85 0.5 0.35 0.75 1.5
mesh
High-efficiency
wire mesh: 12 0.976 0.011 115 0.5 0.35 0.75 1.5
0.011
High-efficiency
wire mesh: 12 0.976 0.006 200 0.5 0.25 0.75 1.5
0.006
Note: Many of the above parameters are adjustable by the user.

TABLE 5-VANE PACKS

Nominal Minimum
Vane Spacing, Vane Angle, Number Maximum
Description Thickness, ft Design Ks, Gas-Space
in. degrees of Bends HLSD/Di
V/H Height, ft
Simple vane
0.5 45 6 0.7 0.50 0.65 2.0
design
High-
performance
0.5 45 6 0.7 0.80 0.65 2.0
vane design:
single pocket
High-
performance
0.5 45 6 0.7 1.00 0.65 2.0
vane design:
double pocket
Note: Many of the above parameters are adjustable by the user.

TABLE 6-AXIAL CYCLONES

Cyclone Nominal
Cyclone Spacing, Inlet Swirl Design Ks Minimum
Length, Maximum
Description Nominal Distance Angle, (Based on Gas-Space
in. HLSD/Di
Diameter, in. Between degrees Bundle Face Height, ft
Centerlines, ×D Area)
2-in. axial-
2 1.75 10 45 1.10 0.65 2.0
flow cyclone
3-in. axial
3 1.75 15 45 1.30 0.65 2.0
flow cyclone
Note: Many of the above parameters are adjustable by the user.

December 2013  •   Oil and Gas Facilities 37

WATER TREATING INSIGHTS

TABLE 7-SEPARATION PERFORMANCE

Parameter Design Actual Comments

Primary
Liquid carry-over in separated gas, gal/MMscf 0.10 0.00
specification
Primary
Free gas in separated oil, volume% 2.0% 0.3%
specification
Secondary
Separable gas bubble size from oil, microns 500 72
requirement
Secondary
Corrected oil-residence time (NLL), minutes 2.00 9.49
requirement

Entrainment fraction in feed pipe 3.1%

Entrainment in feed pipe, gal/MMscf 14.8

Inlet device separation efficiency 92.2%

Entrained liquid exiting inlet device, gal/MMscf 37.2

Plug flow Souders-Brown sizing coefficient in gas gravity separation

0.50 0.18 Constraint
section, Ks
Adjusted effective average gas velocity variation factor in gas gravity
1.52
separation section, Vactual/Vplug, F
Souders-Brown sizing coefficient in gas gravity separation section
0.27
adjusted for actual velocity, Ks
Separable oil droplet size from gas in gas gravity separation section,
274
microns

Gas gravity separation section droplet removal efficiency 69.9%

Liquid content of gas to primary mist extractor, gal/MMscf 11.2

Liquid content of gas to primary mist extractor, gal/min/ft2 0.03

Primary mist extractor Ks (actual velocity), ft/sec 0.27 0.27 Constraint

Primary mist extractor separation efficiency 100.00%

Liquid content of gas to secondary mist extractor, gal/MMscf N/A

Secondary mist extractor Ks (actual velocity), ft/sec N/A

Secondary mist extractor separation efficiency N/A

38 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   December 2013

 0.70 14
TABLE 8-CALCULATED VESSEL
DIMENSIONS 0.60 12

Cumulative gal/MMscf
0.50 10

gal/MMscf
Outside diameter, ft 6.5 8
0.40

0.30 6
Inside diameter, ft 6.1 0.20 4

0.10 2
Length s/s, ft 11.5 0.00 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Droplet size, microns
Length/diameter 1.76 Fig. 3—Droplet size at outlet of gas gravity separation section/
inlet to primary mist extractor.

Wall thickness, in. 2.21

0.00020 0.00020

Dry weight, lb 28,533

Cumulative gal/MMscf
0.00015 0.00015
gal/MMscf

0.00010 0.00010

TABLE 9-NOZZLES
0.00005 0.00005
Nozzles Size, in. Inlet Flow Pattern

0.00000 0.00000
Inlet nozzle 16 Slug 0 10 20 30 40 50

Droplet size, microns

Gas outlet nozzle 12 -

Fig. 4—Droplet size downstream of primary mist extractor.

Oil outlet nozzle 2 - of F=1.52 in Table 7, the ratio of the actual effective velocity/
plug flow velocity (see Fig. 11 in Part 1 of the series). A lower
F value, indicating a more uniform flow, could be achieved
by using a higher-performance inlet device or a perforated
plate, which would reduce the vessel diameter.
TABLE 10-LEVELS As far as liquid handling is concerned, the separator
easily achieves the specification of 2.0% free gas in oil, and
HLSD, ft 4.01 the liquid levels (alarm and shutdown points) are dictated by
the minimum distance constraints. Even the assumed
1-second slug size is accommodated in the control volume
HLA, ft 3.26 (LLA→HLA) using the minimum spacing, although
just barely.
NLL, ft 2.50 The half-pipe inlet has a relatively low ρV2
limit, which results in lower feed-pipe velocities, low
entrainment (3.1% of feed liquid, 14.8 gal/MMscf),
LLA, ft 1.75 and relatively large liquid droplet sizes.

The Effect of Inlet Liquid Content

LLSD, ft 1.00 Figs. 5 and 6 show the effects of the inlet liquid content
while other parameters remain the same as in the base case.

December 2013  •   Oil and Gas Facilities 39

WATER TREATING INSIGHTS

200,000 20
100 MMscf/D
1,000 psig
180,000 Gas capacity Liquid capacity 18 100˚F
constrained constrained Gas SG=0.7
Oil API=35˚
160,000 16 Std mesh pad
Half-pipe inlet
No perforated plates
140,000 14 0.1 gal/MMscf spec

Length and diameter, ft, L/D

2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec
Vessel weight, lb

120,000 12

Weight
100,000 10
Length

80,000 8 Diameter

L/D
60,000 6

40,000 4

20,000 2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid content, bbl/MMscf

Fig. 5—Vertical separator size and weight vs. the inlet liquid content.

Up to approximately 25 bbl/MMscf inlet liquid, the
separator size remains constant. The diameter is dictated by
gas-handling capacity via the mist extractor Ks value
(Ks=0.27/ft/sec). As for the base case, the mist extractor area
and vessel diameter are larger than would be required, based
on the assumption of uniform plug flow.
At more than approximately 25 bbl/MMscf inlet liquid,
the separator diameter begins to increase. This is necessary
to limit the downward oil velocity to satisfy the specification
of 2.0% v/v free gas in oil (Fig. 6).
Note that with respect to degassing performance,
residence time is a fairly meaningless criterion for a vertical
separator. It is the effective liquid velocity that matters. As
the separator diameter increases to handle more liquid,
the gas-handling capacity of the separator becomes
increasingly underutilized, indicated by the declining value
of Ks in Fig. 6. Even with the increasing liquid content
over the range shown, the liquid levels are still set by the
minimum distance constraints for the liquid level alarm and
shutdown points.

TABLE 11-VOLUME, TIME, AND DISTANCE BETWEEN LEVELS

Levels Volume, ft3 Distance, ft Time, sec Time, min

HLA-HLSD 22 0.75 260 4.34

LLA-HLA 44 1.51 524 8.74

LLA-LLSD 22 0.75 260 4.34

40 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   December 2013

 A higher-capacity mist extractor (higher Ks) would
result in a smaller diameter, lower-weight vessel, but the
2.0% v/v free gas in oil specification would be reached at a
lower inlet liquid content, because of the higher downward
oil velocities associated with the reduced diameter.
The Effect of the Feed-Pipe Size
Fig. 7 shows the effect of the feed-pipe size while other
parameters remain the same as in the base case.
In this case, the separator dimensions
are fixed at those obtained for the base case design
(ID=6.1 ft, length=11.5 ft). The feed-pipe size is varied
to determine the effect on separation performance, or
rating  calculations.
While the amount of liquid entrained at feed-pipe
conditions increases with decreasing feed-pipe size below
the design size of 16 in., the amount of entrainment
exiting the inlet device and reaching the mist extractor
increases much more significantly. This is mainly caused by
the increased entrainment, increased droplet shearing, and
reduced separation efficiency of the half-pipe inlet device
because of excessive ρV2 values associated with the smaller
feed-pipe sizes (see Fig. 9 in Part 1 of the series).
The difference in entrainment loads between the “exit
from inlet device” and “inlet to mist extractor” curves in
Fig. 7 reflects the separation performance of the gas gravity
separation section part of the separator.
The amount of free gas in oil was unchanged at 0.3% v/v
for all feed-pipe sizes.
The Effect of the Inlet Device
Fig. 8 shows the effect of the inlet device on vertical
scrubber weight while other parameters remain the same as
in the base case.
The main effect of inlet device type on diameter
relates to gas flow distribution as reflected by the F
factor. The selected inlet device also affects vessel length/
height via the minimum distance requirements as outlined
in Table 3.
Fig. 8 shows a slight increase in vessel size for the
cyclonic inlet. Inspection of the spreadsheet calculations
shows that if the feed pipe is sized for the limiting ρV2 value

0.35 3.5%
100 MMscf/D
1,000 psig
Gas capacity Liquid capacity 100˚F
0.30 constrained constrained 3.0% Gas SG=0.7
Oil API=35˚
Std mesh pad
Half-pipe inlet
0.25 2.5% No perforated plates
0.1 gal/MMscf spec
2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec
Free gas in oil, vol%

0.20 2.0%
Ks, ft/sec

Ks, actual velocity

0.15 1.5%
Free gas in oil

0.10 1.0%

0.05 0.5%

0.00 0.0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid content, bbl/MMscf
Fig. 6—Vertical separator gas handling (Ks) and oil degassing performance vs. the inlet liquid content.

December 2013  •   Oil and Gas Facilities 41

WATER TREATING INSIGHTS

500 1.00
100 MMscf/D
450 100 bbl/MMscf 0.90
1,000 psig
400 100ºF 0.80
Gas SG=0.7
350 Oil API=35º 0.70
Entrainment, gal/MMscf

Std mesh pad

Carry-over, gal/MMscf
Feed pipe
Half-pipe inlet 0.60
300
No perforated plates
2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec Exit from inlet
250 0.50 device

ID=6.1 ft 0.40 Inlet to mist

200 extractor
L=11.5 ft
L/D=1.8 ft
150 0.30 Carry-over
Design feed-pipe
size (16 in.)
100 0.20

50 0.10

0 0.00
12 14 16 18 20
Feed-pipe size, in.
The increase in feed-pipe entrainment
for 20 in. is caused by transition from the
intermediate settling law to Newton’s law
in the Pan & Hanratty calculation (2002).

Fig. 7—The effect of the feed-pipe size on entrainment and carry-over.

100,000 20

90,000 18

80,000 16
Length and diameter, ft
70,000 14
Vessel
Vessel weight, lb

60,000 12 weight

50,000 10 Length

40,000 8 Inside
diameter
30,000 6

20,000 4

10,000 2

0 0
No inlet device Diverter/splash Half-open pipe Vane-type Cyclonic
plate
Inlet device

100 MMscf/D Oil API=35˚ The design ρV2 for the cyclonic inlet was set at
10 bbl/MMscf Std mesh pad 8,000 lb/ft-sec2 to reduce the entrainment fraction
1,000 psig No perforated plates in the feed pipe and to minimize droplet size reduction.
100˚F 0.1 gal/MMscf spec A ρV2 value of 10,000 lb/ft-sec2 would not allow the
Gas SG=0.7 2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec 0.1 gal/MMscf carry-over spec to be achieved.

Fig. 8—The effect of the inlet device on the vertical scrubber weight.

42 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   December 2013

 35,000 14
All mist extractors oriented
for vertical flow
30,000 12

Length and diameter, ft

25,000 10 Vessel
weight

Length
Vessel weight, lb

20,000 8
Min diameter limited by 2%
free gas in oil spec Inside
diameter
15,000 6

10,000 4

5,000 2

0 0
High Standard High Simple High High 2-in. axial- 2-in. axial-
capacity wire eff. wire vane performance performance flow flow
wire mesh mesh design vane design- vane design- cyclone cyclone w/
mesh single double vane-type
pocket pocket inlet device*
Mist extractor type

100 MMscf/D Oil API=35˚ *ρV2 for the vane-type inlet reduced
10 bbl/MMscf Std mesh pad to 4,000 lb/ft-sec2 to achieve 0.1 gal/MMscf
1,000 psig No perforated plates carry-over spec.
100˚F 0.1 gal/MMscf spec
Gas SG=0.7 2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec

Fig. 9—The effect of mist extractor type on the vertical scrubber size and weight.

of 10,000 lb/ft-sec2 typically specified for a cyclonic inlet,
the liquid entrainment fraction in the feed pipe is high,
and the entrainment droplet size distribution is shifted to
smaller sizes.
Even though the cyclonic inlet is estimated to
achieve good liquid-separation efficiency at these
conditions, the amount of unseparated liquid and
its size distribution overwhelms the mist extractor
such that it cannot achieve the 0.1 gal/MMscf
specification. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the
design feed-pipe/inlet device ρV2 value. In Table 3, it has
been assumed that the cyclonic inlet also has a larger inlet
device–mist extractor distance requirement than the vane-
type inlet.
A standard cyclonic inlet device would not typically
be expected to be particularly good with respect to flow
distribution. In Part 1, Fig. 11, the curve for the cyclonic
inlet device assumes it is equipped with mixers on the fluid
outlets to substantially remove spin from the fluids and
thereby improve flow distribution. If the cyclonic inlet is
not equipped with these outlet mixers, flow distribution
can be expected to be poor, and a perforated plate would be
necessary to improve flow distribution.
The amount of free gas in oil was <0.4% v/v for all
inlet devices.
The Effect of Mist Extractor Type on the Vertical Scrubber
Figs. 9 and 10 show the effects of mist extractor types while
other parameters remain the same as in the base case.
For the low liquid loading base case conditions, vessel
diameter is essentially a function of the mist extractor Ks
value. The higher-capacity mist extractors allow higher gas
velocities and, therefore, smaller diameters for a given gas
flow rate.
As can be seen in Fig. 10, the high-performance
double pocket vane and 2-in. axial–flow cyclone cases are
actually constrained by the 2% free gas in separated oil spec.
The 2-in. axial-flow cyclone with vane-type inlet case is
constrained by the maximum vessel plug flow Ks value of Ks=
0.5 ft/sec limitation (Table 1).
While this may seem to be a conservative assumption
that negates the potential capacity advantages of high-

December 2013  •   Oil and Gas Facilities 43

WATER TREATING INSIGHTS

0.60 3.0%
All mist extractors oriented
for vertical flow
0.50 2.5%
Vessel plug flow Ks, ft/sec

0.40 2.0%

Free gas in oil, % v/v

Ks

1.5% Free
0.30 gas
Min diameter limited by 2%
free gas in oil spec
0.20 1.0%

0.10 0.5%

0.00 0.0%
High Standard High Simple High High 2-in. axial- 2-in. axial-flow
capacity wire eff. wire vane performance performance flow cyclone w/
wire mesh mesh design vane design- vane design- cyclone vane-type
mesh single double inlet device*
pocket pocket

Mist extractor type

100 MMscf/D Oil API=35˚ *ρV2 for the vane-type inlet reduced
10 bbl/MMscf Std mesh pad to 4,000 lb/ft-sec2 to achieve 0.1 gal/MMscf
1,000 psig No perforated plates carry-over spec.
100˚F 0.1 gal/MMscf spec
Gas SG=0.7 2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec

Fig. 10—The effect of mist extractor type on gas handling and liquid degassing performance.

performance vane and cyclone demister designs, there is
evidence from the field that this conservatism is warranted.
This view may change as more data become available and
vessel internals are improved further.
In this case, even though the vessel diameter went
down slightly, the amount of free gas in the separated oil
decreased. This is explained by the better flow distribution
of the gas and liquid phases achieved by the vane-type inlet
compared to the half-pipe inlet.
The Effect of Liquid Content
on Horizontal Separator Sizing
Figs. 11 through 13 show the effect of the liquid content
in horizontal separators while other parameters remain the
same as in the base case.
The diameter remains constant at approximately 5.0 ft
over the investigated range of inlet liquid content. For
these conditions, the diameter is set by two dimensional
constraints: 1) the minimum distances between alarm and
shutdown levels for the liquid, and 2) the vertical gas-space
height required to accommodate the mist extractor and the
required minimum space between HLSD and the bottom
of the mist extractor. The gas capacity of the gas gravity
separation section is acceptably below the Ks= 0.75 ft/sec
plug flow constraint across the range of inlet liquid contents
(Fig. 12).
The actual Ks value decreases slowly with increasing
inlet liquid content as the separator length increases
to accommodate the higher liquid loads. The reason
the actual Ks value is decreasing for constant gas flow
and constant cross-sectional area of the gas gravity
separation section is because of the improvement of the
gas velocity profile with increasing L/Di, as shown in
Part 1, Fig. 11. Across the range of inlet liquid contents
evaluated, the HLSD point is at 53% of the vessel
inside diameter. This may seem high for relatively low
inlet liquid contents, but is mainly the result of the
assumed minimum spacing criteria for liquid level alarm
and shutdown points, combined with the high operating
pressure that reduces the cross-sectional area required for
gas handling.
The constant vessel length of approximately 13.4 ft for
low liquid loads is set by the minimum L/D constraint of 2.5.
This length is not dictated by the separation requirements

44 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   December 2013

 40,000 40

100 MMscf/D
100 bbl/MMscf
35,000 1,000 psig 35
100ºF
Gas SG=0.7
Oil API=35º
30,000 Std mesh pad 30

Length and diameter, ft, L/D

Half-pipe inlet
No perforated plates
2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec
25,000 25
Vessel weight, lb

Weight
20,000 20
Length

Diameter
15,000 15
L/D

10,000 10

5,000 5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid content, bbl/MMscf

Fig. 11—The horizontal separator size and weight vs. inlet liquid content.

of either the gas or liquid phases. As inlet liquid content
increases to more than 35 bbl/MMscf, the separator length
also increases.
This is a lower-cost (weight) means of handling the
increased liquid volumes than increasing diameter would
be to satisfy the “time between level” constraints, which
would override the minimum distances between liquid
level alarm/shutdown points that are controlling at lower
liquid loads.
As shown in Fig. 12, the horizontal separator can easily
achieve the 2.0% free gas in outlet oil spec across the range of
inlet liquid contents evaluated, which reflect gas-dominated
conditions. This situation changes for higher liquid loads
and lower gas/liquid ratios, in which cases the separator size
is primarily dictated by liquid-handling requirements. In no
case did the horizontal separator exceed the re-entrainment
constraint caused by excessively high gas velocities across the
liquid surface.
Fig. 13 compares the calculated weights for both
the vertical and horizontal orientations over the range
of inlet liquid contents. The horizontal vessel is lighter
than the vertical vessel in all cases, even at the lowest
inlet liquid contents. However, the vertical vessel would
be lighter than the horizontal over much of the inlet
liquid content range evaluated, if it was equipped with
a higher-capacity vane type or axial cyclone demister.
The horizontal would show less benefit from these mist
extractors, mainly because of the liquid-level requirements,
gas-space height needed to accommodate the mist extractor,
and the Ks= 0.75 ft/sec plug flow constraint assumed for the
gas gravity separation section.
Conclusions
A sampling of results from a new gas/liquid separator
sizing/rating methodology has been presented. The
results have been generated from an Excel spreadsheet
that uses an optimization algorithm to determine the
“optimum” vessel size, given a set of separation performance
requirements and constraints.
The methodology not only provides a more quantitative
basis for analyzing separator design and operation
than traditional methods, it also provides significant
insight into the interactions and sensitivities of the
numerous variables, parameters, and design decisions
involved. While further work is needed in certain areas,
it is anticipated that that this tool and the underlying
WATER TREATING INSIGHTS

1.00 2.0% 100 MMscf/D

100 bbl/MMscf
1,000 psig
0.90 1.8% 100ºF
Gas SG=0.7
Oil API=35º
0.80 1.6%
Std mesh pad
Half-pipe inlet
0.70 1.4% No perforated plates
2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec

Free gas in oil, vol%

0.60 1.2%
Ks, ft/sec

0.50 1.0% Ks, plug flow

0.40 0.8%
Ks, actual velocity

0.30 0.6%
Free gas in oil

0.20 0.4%

0.10 0.2%

0.00 0.0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid content, bbl/MMscf

Fig. 12—Horizontal separator gas handling (Ks) and oil degassing performance vs. inlet liquid content.

150,000

100 MMscf/D
125,000 100 bbl/MMscf
1,000 psig
100ºF
Gas SG=0.7
Oil API=35º
100,000 Std mesh pad
Half-pipe inlet
No perforated plates
Vessel weight, lb

2.0% v/v free gas in oil spec

75,000
Vertical

Horizontal

50,000

25,000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid content, bbl/MMscf

Fig. 13—The effect of vessel weight on liquid content in horizontal and vertical separators.

46 Oil and Gas Facilities  •   December 2013

 WATER TREATING INSIGHTS

methodology will advance the oil and gas industry’s Pan, L. and Hanratty, T.J. 2002. Correlation of Entrainment
capability in the field of gas/liquid separation.OGF for Annular Flow in Horizontal Pipes. Int. J. Multiphase
Flow 28 (3): 385–408.
Nomenclature
ρV2 = Inlet momentum value
ID = Inside diameter Mark Bothamley is the technical director and chief engineer
Di = Inside diameter of John M. Campbell Training and a consultant at John
s/s = Seam-to-seam M. Campbell Consulting. His experience covers the areas
HLSD = High-level shutdown of design, operation, troubleshooting, and optimization of
LLSD = Low-level shutdown offshore and onshore oil and gas production and treating
HLA = High-level alarm facilities. Before joining the company, he served with BP/
LLA = Low-level alarm Amoco for 24 years in several locations around the world.
BTL/BV= Bottom tangent line/bottom of vessel He is a member of the SPE Separations Technology Technical
Vr = Difference between gas- and liquid-phase Section (http://connect.spe.org/SeparationsTechnology/
horizontal velocities Home/), past coordinator/chairman of the SPE Facilities and
Construction Subcommittee, and a former member of the
For Further Reading GPSA Data Book Editorial Review Board. He holds a BS in
chemical engineering from Lakehead University in Canada
Grødal, E.O. and Realff, M.J. Optimal Design of Two- and and a diploma in natural gas and petroleum technology from
Three-Phase Separators: A Mathematical Programming the British Columbia Institute of Technology in Canada. He
Formulation, SPE 56645. can be reached at mark.bothamley@petroskills.com.

December 2013  •   Oil and Gas Facilities 47