Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10 5923 J Ajfd 20130304 03 PDF
10 5923 J Ajfd 20130304 03 PDF
DOI: 10.5923/j.ajfd.20130304.03
1
M echanical Engineering Department, Petroleum Institute, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
2
Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operation (ADCO), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Abstract The performance and internal mult iphase flow behavior in a three-phase separator was investigated. The
separator considered represents an existing surface facility belonging to Abu Dhabi Co mpany for Onshore Oil Operations
ADCO. A first approach, using the Eulerian-Eu lerian mult iphase model imp lemented in the code ANSYS FLUENT,
assumed mono-dispersed oil and water secondary phases excluding the coalescence and breakup phenomena. Interesting
results were obtained but noticeable discrepancies were caused by the simp lifying assumption. Therefore, it was decided to
use the Population Balance Model PBM to account for the size distribution, coalescence, and breakup of the secondary
phases which were the key limitat ions of the Eulerian -Eulerian model. The separator configuration, with upgraded internals,
was represented with the maximu m of geometrical details, contrary to the simp lifying approach adopted in most of the
previous numerical studies, to minimize the sources of discrepancies. In the absence of field information about the droplet
size distribution at the inlet of the separator, three different Rosin-Rammler distributions, referred to as fine, mediu m, and
coarse distributions were assumed based on the design values reported in the oil industry. The simulat ion results are
compared with the scares laboratory, field tests, and/or semi-empirical data existing in the literature. The coarser size
distributions, at the inlet, enhanced the separator performance. It was found that the inlet device, called Schoepentoeter,
generates a quasi-mono-dispersed distribution under the effect of coalescence which persists throughout the whole volume
of the separator. The mean residence time obtained fro m the simulat ions agreed well with some of the existing approaches
in the literature. Finer d istributions generate higher mean residence times . The classical sizing approach, based on
representative values of droplet diameter and settling velocity remains limited although useful for design guidelines. In
contrast, CFD presents the advantage of calculating the flow variab les locally wh ich yields a mo re co mplete and detailed
picture of the entire flo w field. This is very useful for understanding the impact of the internal multiphase flow behaviour
on the overall performance of the separator.
Keywords Three-Phase Separator, Droplet Size Distribution, Population Balance Model, Coalescence, Breakup
mixtu re. At this stage, the liquid phase is separated fro m the
1. Introduction gas forming two distinct layers. Further downstream,
perforated plates are used to stabilize the liquid mixtu re
Different types of surface facilities are used for phase forming two distinct layers of water and oil. These two
separation in the oil industry[1-2]. Gravity-based facilities layers are separated by a weir placed at the end o f the
include horizontal three-phase separators consisting of large separator between two outlets for each liqu id phase. The gas
cy lind rical vess els d es ig ned t o p rov ide a su fficient phase leaves from its own outlet at the top of the separator.
res id ence t ime fo r g rav ity -based separat ion o f liqu id The design approach of three-phase separators is based
droplets. The gravity settling approach requires very long on semi-emp irical formula obtained fro m Stokes law[1].
cylinders wh ich is not practical and inconsistent with the The resulting equation, for the settling velocity based on a
space restrictions in the oil fields especially offshore. Hence, chosen cut-off droplet d iameter, contains a correction factor
three-phase separators are equipped with different types of which depends on the separator configuration[3]. Although
internals to enhance droplet coalescence and optimize their useful guidelines are provided by this approach, crucial
length. A mo mentum breaker device is implemented at the informat ion, affecting the separator performance, is not
inlet of the separator to reduce the high inlet velocity of the considered. At the inlet of the separator, different flow
regimes do occur and a realistic droplet size distribution
* Corresponding author:
lkhezzar@pi.ac.ae (L. Khezzar) needs to be considered and tracked throughout the separator
Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/ajfd compart ments to take into account the effects of
Copyright © 2013 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved coalescence and breakup. The internal mu ltiphase flow is
102 N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
assumed to be stable with three distinct gas/oil/water layers with mu ltiphase models due to its robustness, simplicity and
separated by sharp interfaces. This is not always the case reasonable co mputational cost[20]. Baffles were modelled
since previous studies showed that several co mplex as porous media. Last but not least, mono-dispersed
phenomena could take place under different conditions such secondary phases were frequently imposed excluding any
as liquid re -entrain ment[4], recircu lation zones within the possibility fo r droplet size variation either by coalescence or
liquid layers[5], and a dispersion emulsion band between breakup especially within the Lagrangian framework.
the oil and water layers[6] or foaming[7]. Therefore, only few contributions dealt with the
The abovementioned limitations, of the semi-empirical secondary phases as poly-dispersed. Hallanger et al.[21]
approach, invoke the need of more fundamental and developed a CFD model based on the two -fluid model
thorough methods based on first principles fo r a mo re approach to simulate the three-phase flow in a
consistent design of separators and assessment of their 3.15mx13.1m horizontal gravity separator. They neglected
performance. Experiments represent a viable alternative or the effects of gas flashing, foaming and emu lsification,
complement as they can replicate real cases under realistic interactions between dispersed phases, droplet breakup and
conditions and provide more details using different coalescence. They represented the oil dispersed phase by an
measurement and visualization techniques. However, average diameter equal to 1000 μm and the water phase by
experimental techniques are costly and very difficult to 7 groups of sizes with an overall average diameter equal to
apply for sizes approaching real scale and using real fluids. 250 μm. They found that most of the water d roplets , smaller
Consequently, only few studies have dealt with such large than 150 μm, were entrained by the oil phase while most of
scales for limited purposes as done by Simmons et al.[8] for those larger than 500 μm were efficiently separated. Song et
the estimation of the Residence Time Distribution (RTD) al.[12] proposed a method to include the drop size
based on experiments with t racers. On the other hand, distribution in sizing grav ity separators through the
studies using laboratory-scale separators do exist in the Sauders-Brown equation. The equation required an
literature although for specific purposes as well. Wald ie and appropriate k factor for gas -liquid separation and a realistic
White[9] studied the damping effect of the baffles using retention time, obtained fro m laboratory or field tests, for
electrical conductance level probes. Simmons et al.[10] liquid -liquid separation. The method was tested on a
devoted their study to the RTD measurement using 4.42mx15.85m separator. They obtained a cut-off diameter
spectrophotometer placed downstream of the liquid outlets. equal to 90 μm for the o il and water droplets entrained by
Jaworsky and Daykowski[11] used a transparent separator the gaseous phase. In addition, 4.5% of water-in-o il would
to test their distributed capacitance sensors. The be lost in the oil outlet with d roplets smaller than 225 μm
experimental investigations remain crude with a focus on and 3500-4000 pp m of oil-in-water wou ld be lost in the
global parameters. Details of the internal flow field and water outlet with oil drop lets smaller than 60 μm. Grimes et
phase compositions still remain elusive with present day al.[13] developed a Population Balance Model PBM for the
techniques. separation of emulsions in a batch gravity settler. The
Co mputational fluid dynamics (CFD) represents an model considers the interfacial coalescence, using a film
alternative tool gain ing more confidence within the drainage model, and the deformat ion of the emulsion zone
industrial co mmunity due to the development of mo re due to the dynamic growth of the resolved dispersed phase.
robust numerical and physical models and the huge In addition, the accu mulated buoyancy force in the dense
development in terms of computing resources. It is more packed layer and the hydrodynamically hindered
universal than the semi-emp irical models and more flexib le sedimentation are also considered. The model developed by
than the experimental techniques. Among previous studies Grimes et al.[13] was tested by the same authors [14]. They
we can mention those developing appropriate models to used data obtained fro m experiments on gravity -based
take into account the droplet size distribution in conjunction separation of a heavy crude oil with two d ifferent, 10 ppm
with coalescence and breakup phenomena[12-14] or to and 50 ppm, concentrations of de-emulsifier using lo w-field
understand the effects of certain parameters on the separator Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. The tests, focusing on the
performance and internal flow[15-16]. Industrial dispersed water phase, permitted the calibration of the
investigations which focused on parametric CFD studies for model. The study highlighted the importance of
debottlenecking purposes include[17-19]. poly-dispersity and its effects on the coalescence rate and
Due to the complexity of the mu ltiphase flow in the separation rate by sedimentation. The authors noticed
horizontal gravity separators, simp lifying assumptions were that isolated small populations of the smallest droplets
always necessary which limited the accuracy of the CFD would aggregate above the active coalescence and
approach to an acceptable scale fro m an industrial po int of sedimentation zone permanently and might form reg ions of
view and provided useful guidelines for design and non-separated components with possible relatively high
troubleshooting of operational problem. The mu ltiphase concentrations (10%) due to the co mplex physics of
flow was usually assumed to include only two phases while collision and coalescence, combined with a simu ltaneous
three-phase simulat ions were scarce. The Reynolds sedimentation for poly-disperse emu lsions. Nevertheless,
averaged Navier-Stokes-based (RANS) k-ε turbulence they mentioned the low perfo rmance of the hindered
model, the work horse in industrial CFD, was combined sedimentation rate model, which d idn’t account for
American Journal of Fluid Dynamics 2013, 3(4): 101-118 103
poly-dispersity satisfactorily, and noticed some geometry is an existing configuration used by an oil
discrepancies with increasing residence time. operating Co mpany in one of its fields in Abu Dhabi as a 1st
In addition to the general simp lifying assumptions found stage separator. The present work adds on previous
in the literature, a major limitation is associated with the simu lations by using a geometrical meshed domain that
mu ltiphase models themselves. ANSYS FLUENT includes takes into account the detailed features of the different
several mu ltiphase models belonging to both the internal items. This necessitated a large mesh which should
Lagrangian and Eu lerian approaches [22]. The Eu lerian increase the degree of accuracy co mpared to previous
approach includes the volume of Fluid (interface tracking studies which emp loyed moderate grids. The results were
model), the mixture, and the Eulerian-Eulerian models. The compared with the scarce field data obtained fro m the
volume of flu id model is able to predict the interfaces, company and emp irical models available in the literature. In
separating the components, accurately but is limited by the view of the fact that detailed data on the inlet flow structure
demanding computational resources, for a sufficiently fine to the separator cannot be practically obtained, assumptions
mesh. The mixture model includes an additional equation on the liquid droplets distribution at the inlet of the
for the prediction of the slip velocity and is limited to separator are therefore necessary. Three Rosin-Rammler
mono-dispersed secondary phases. It is worth mentioning distributions that scan the realm of droplet sizes, intended to
that the turbulence models used in conjunction with the t wo represent fine, mediu m, and coarse size distributions
previous models are the same as those used for single phase respectively, were imposed at the inlet of the separator for
flows. The Eu lerian-Eulerian model solves indiv idual oil and water separately. In fact, the PBM model, as
mo mentu m equations for each phase and can be combined implemented in Ansys Fluent 14.0[22], cannot be applied
with appropriate multiphase turbulence models but still for more than one secondary phase. The other secondary
limited by the mono-dispersed secondary phases. In phase is represented by a mono-dispersed distribution with
addition to the size distribution limitation, the Eu lerian an appropriate mean diameter. The results, of this study,
models, being based on inter-penetrating media include the overall separator performance, the residence
assumptions, do not consider coalescence or breakup of time, the settling velocity, and the variation of the size
particles. The Discrete Phase Model (Lagrangian particle distribution to analyse the critical effects of the droplet size
Tracking) is a remedy for the limitations related to the size distribution in such types of industrial devices.
distribution, coalescence, and breakup. However, it requires
a background phase to interact with. Thus, an Eu lerian
model is used to obtain the overall flow structure, which in 2. Geometry and Computational Mesh
the case of separators and depending on location inside the
domain of integration, is characterized by three background The geometry of the separator is shown in Figure 1. The
phases for the DPM particles. Nevertheless, the Eulerian Schoepentoeter is an inlet device which dampens the inlet
mu ltiphase models consider only a single continuous phase velocity considerably in a smooth way between curved
throughout the computational domain. Th is assumption sheets acting as diffusers. Two perforated plates are added to
contrasts with the fact that the continuous phase changes stabilize the oil-water mixture by fo rcing the flo w towards
inside the separator as we move fro m one region to another. quiescent conditions so that to enhance the settling
In this case, the interaction of the DPM particles with the separation mechanism. The coalescer consists of inclined
background Eulerian phases is omitted in a relat ively parallel plates fixed in the lo wer part of the separator and
important portion of the computational domain. This occupying more than half of its cross -section. At the same
limitat ion can be overcome by the Population Balance location in the upper part, an agglo merator, formed by
Model used in an Eulerian framework. The PBM solves a corrugated parallel p lates, is used for mist ext raction. At the
transport equation for the nu mber density function tracking, gas outlet, a battery of cyclones, called Spiraflow, is used as
thus, the droplet size distribution inside the whole a mist extractor.
computational domain while, at the same time, accounting The computational domain was divided into about 8.5
for the effects of coalescence and breakup. In its present million hybrid cells (tetrahedral and hexahedral). It is worth
form however, the PBM model is also limited to a single to mention that the theoretical requirements in terms of cell
secondary phase. So, the other secondary phase is size are difficult to fulfil at the industrial scale in addition to
represented by a mean representative diameter. To the the complexity o f the internals geometry. Thus, the mesh
authors knowledge, apart fro m the work of Grimes et generated represented a compromise between accuracy and
al.[13-14] batch gravity separation of oil/ water emu lsions, computational cost. The same approach is adopted
the PBM model was not used to study three-phase throughout the literature related to CFD for gravity
separators. separators[3, 5, 21, 23]. Two different grids were tested and
In the present work, the PBM model is used to include compared. Although the resulting velocity fields were
the effects of the droplet size distribution on the separator similar; the coarse grid exh ibited a noticeable diffusivity
performance and the internal flow structure. The separator effect, for the volu me fraction fields, and was hence omitted.
104 N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
Inlet
Schoepentoeter
Agglomerator
Spiraflow mist
extractor
Gas outlet
1st baffle
2nd baffle
Coalescer
Weir
Vortex
breaker Water outlet
Oil outlet
14000
Ø482.6
12358.7
z
x
1300
1000
2600 5300
3100 Ø139.5 Ø431.8
12500
13000
13400
/ d
The arrival frequency of eddies with a g iven size λ on the
3
surface of drops or bubbles with size d is equal to
t I 2t max 1 ij
g L
31 1
L i
(10)
B, d d u n n
2 3
2
(3) ij ij
4
(11)
n is the number of eddies of size between λ and λ+dλ
PC exp c1
0.75 1 2 1 3 1/2
ij 2 1/2
ij L d i u ij
per unit volume and u is the turbulent velocity of eddies 3
1/2
of size λ[27]. g / L 1 ij
For the breakage probability, and based on the probability
Weij
theory, the probability for a particle of size V to break into a
The discrete method, of the PBM model[22], is used in the
size of VfVB , when the particle is hit by an eddy of size λ, is
present work to generate a solution. It consists in
equal to the probability of the arriv ing eddy of size λ having a
representing the continuous size distribution as a set of
kinetic energy greater than or equal to the minimu m energy
discrete size bins. The advantages of this method are its
required for the particle breakup.
robust numerics and the particle size distribution PSD which
Referring to the literature on turbulence theory,
is calculated directly contrary to the method of mo ments.
e.g.,[27-29], each parameter is replaced by its appropriate
However, the bins must be defined a priori and a large
formulat ion giving the final exp ression for the breakage rate
number of classes may sometimes be required.
1
1 2
The boundary conditions, at the inlet and the outlets of the gas/oil/water mixtu res, at this stage of separation, are scarce.
separator, are summarized in table 1. According to the inlet Hallanger et al.[21] mentioned a mean droplet diameter of
flow regime, a turbulence intensity of 2% was prescribed. 250 μm with a standard deviation equal to 3 estimated fro m a
The secondary phases (oil and water) were in jected as correlation based on data from some North Sea oilfields.
mono-dispersed or poly-dispersed droplets in the continuous They divided their distribution into 7 groups. Hansen and
gaseous phase. Table 2 indicates the physical properties of Rørtveit[5] in their simu lations assumed a distribution with
the three phases which are assumed to be constant an average diameter equal to 166 μm with a min imu m o f 75
throughout the computational domain since the flow is μm and a maximu m of 316 μm. Laleh[32] constructed a size
treated as isothermal and inco mpressible. At the walls, no distribution based on the approach of the maximu m stable
slip condition, with a standard wall function[22], was diameter which is estimated based on fluid properties and
imposed. It removes the need for very fine meshes at the flow characteristics. After calculat ing the maximu m stable
walls. It is believed that the dynamics of such a flow and diameter using several correlat ions existing in the literature,
scale are weakly governed by the presence of walls and Laleh[32] opted for a d istribution with a maximu m diameter
hence the numerical erro rs induced by the choice of the equal, appro ximately, to 2000 μm and 3700 μm fo r oil and
standard wall function would have a neglig ible effect on th e water respectively under the conditions of low operating
overall flow structure. A sy mmetry boundary condition was pressure (0.7-2.7 bars) and a Reynolds number larger than
applied on the median plane of the separator in order to 2300. The min imu m diameter for both phases was 100 μm.
reduce the number of grid cells considering, thus, only half For the spread parameter n (see Equation 12), Laleh[32]
of the separator geometry. A pressure boundary condition used an average value of 2.6 extracted fro m experiments
was adopted at the outlets of the separator, as shown in Table [33-34].
1. The pressure at the gas outlet was known wh ile those at the Furthermore,[1] stated that, in the absence of laboratory or
liquid outlets were monitored to maintain the liquid levels field data, water d roplets of diameter larger than 500 μm
and to ensure an overall phase mass balance. should be separated leading to 10% of water or less to be lost
Table 1. Boundary conditions
with the o il phase. In terms of gas-oil separation, the design
oil droplet diameter reco mmended by the Literature[1] is in
Inlet
Oil Water Gas the range 100-140 μm. Relying on the limited information
outlet outlet outlet
fro m the literature, a spread parameter o f 2.6 and three
Vel Vol Diam Press Press Press
(m/s) fract (μm) (Bar) (Bar) (Bar)
average diameters (150, 500, 800 μm for water and 50, 80,
100 or
140 μm fo r o il), were used in the present study. When oil was
Oil 7.49 0.06 17.2
See 17.26- 17.38- the poly-dispersed phase (Figure 2.a), water was represented
Water 7.49 0.02 Fig. 2 17.48 17.51 17.2 by a 400 μm mean diameter mono-dispersed distribution
Gas 7.49 0.92 17.2 while when water was the poly-dispersed (Figure 2.b) phase,
oil was represented by a 100 μm mean diameter
Table 2. Physical properties mono-dispersed distribution. The water poly-dispersed
Density Viscosity distributions were meant to compare an arbitrarily skewed
(kg/m 3) (kg/ms) distribution with two normal Rosin-Rammler ones (Fig. 2.b).
Oil 813.464 0.00227 It is important to ment ion that the Previous Eulerian-Eu lerian
Water 1015.097 0.001106 simu lations were conducted with mono-dispersed oil and
Gas 17.585 0.000011 water phases which average diameter was equal to 100 μm.
Other simulat ions, not shown here, were conducted with
4.2. Size Distribution different mean d iameters and led to different entrain ment
The size distribution used is represented by seven amounts indicating the necessity to employ appropriate
individual b ins. Naturally, the accuracy of the discrete-phase models to include poly-dispersed distributions, with
PBM model might be imp roved with a higher number of b ins, coalescence and breakup, rather than mono-dispersed ones.
but with a penalty on the computational cost that has to be
0.3
kept reasonable for any practical application. Fine distribution
0.25 Medium distribution
The size distribution to be used at the inlet can be assumed
Volume fraction
Coarse distribution
to be normally distributed using the Rosin-Rammler 0.2
function[22].
n 0.15
Yd e( d / d ) (12) 0.1
Yd is the mass or volu me fract ion of the droplets wh ich
0.05
diameter is greater than d.
The Rosin-Rammler approach requires two parameters 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
which are the mean diameter and the spread parameter n.
Droplet diameter (μm)
In the literature, details on size distribution for a)
American Journal of Fluid Dynamics 2013, 3(4): 101-118 107
droplet size d istribution considered. The fine distribution and are comparab le to the API12J reco mmended values.
generates slightly higher water-in-o il entrain ment (50%)
600
compared to the field tests while the mediu m and the coarse Present work: Equ. 13
1500
Present work: Equ. 13
1300
[1]
[37]
300
[39]
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Representative diameter (μm)
Figure 4.b. Mean residence time vs mean droplet diameter: liquid-liquid separation
only and the appropriate values in the positions mentioned intended to show the flow direction at different locations of
will be cited exp licit ly in the text. The streamtraces are the separator.
3.6
3.2 Schoep
top
2.8
Coalscer Spiraflow
x=0.58m x=4m x=10m top x=11.6m bottom x=14m
2.4
Schoep
2
z (m)
bottom
1.6
NLL
1.2
0.8
NIL
0.4
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
x velocity (m/s)
Figure 6. Profiles of axial oil velocity component plotted on vertical lines at different axial positions. The values underneath NLL are multiplied by 10.
The dashed lines represent boundaries of internals
3 Spiraflow
2 Agglomerator
Schoep
1 z=3.22m
0
-1
-2
2.8 Schoep
1.8 Agglomerator
0.8 z=2.44m
-0.2
-1.2
-2.2
0.03
2 z=1.41m Coalescer
0.01 baffles
-0.01
-0.03
0.1 Weir
-0.1
2 Coalescer
-0.3 baffles
z=0.7m water Oil
out out
-0.5
z velocity (m/s)
0.3
0.1 Weir
-0.1 2 z=0.09m
-0.3 baffles Coalescer Water Oil
out out
-0.5
-1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
x (m)
Figure 7.a. Profiles of vertical oil velocity component plotted on horizontal lines at different vertical positions. The dashed lines represent boundaries of
internals
American Journal of Fluid Dynamics 2013, 3(4): 101-118 111
3 Spiraflow
2 Schoep
1 z=3.22m
0
-1 Agglomerator
-2
2.8 Schoep
1.8
0.8 z=2.44m
-0.2
-1.2 Agglomerator
-2.2
0.03
2 Coalescer
0.01 baffles z=1.41m
-0.01
-0.03
0.5
2 Coalescer
0.3 Weir
baffles z=0.7m
0.1
-0.1
Water Oil
-0.3 out out
-0.5
z velocity (m/s)
0.5 2
0.3 Coalescer Weir
baffles z=0.09m
0.1
-0.1 Oil
-0.3 Water
out out
-0.5
-1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
x (m)
Figure 7.b. Profiles of vertical water velocity component plotted on horizontal lines at different vertical positions. The dashed lines represent boundaries
of internals
Towards the Shoepentoeter outlet, the vertical co mponent droplets the higher is the settling velocity. Immed iately
is about -2.5m/s fo r the three cases which should aid the early downstream of the baffles, another region with very high
droplet settling. In the mixing co mpart ment (upstream of the settling velocities can be seen with va lues reaching 2m/s for
baffles underneath the Schoepentoeter), the larger are the the mediu m and coarse distributions.
112 N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
This region of high settling velocit ies extends until the (oil entrain ment) persists only in the case of the fine
coalescer. The fine distribution, expected to cause more distribution and slightly for the med iu m d istribution. Within
entrainment, contains slightly high settling velocit ies near the water layer, rising velocit ies in the settling co mpart ment
the top of the separator in the settling compart ment meaning were equal to 0.01, 0.015, 0.02 m/s for the fine, mediu m, and
that the fine droplets reached very high positions contrary to coarse distributions respectively. This is in agreement with
the other distributions with larger droplets. This is confirmed the well-known behavior of oil d roplets in stratified o il-water
by the horizontal streamtraces directed towards the flow. The high rising velocities persist until the coalscer with
Spiraflo w. For the mediu m and coars e distributions, the higher values for the larger droplets.
streamtraces, within the gas compart ment, are directed For the water phase, the negative vertical-co mponent
downwards due to a more pronounced settling effect velocity (Figure 11), superimposed with streamtraces, is
especially downstream of the baffles. Recircu lation zones plotted with a range of values limited to -0.05÷0 m/s for
are observed for the mediu m distribution within the oil layer display purposes only and the appropriate values in the
which agrees with results from the literature[5]. positions mentioned will be cited explicitly in the text.
The settling velocity was noticeable in a limited region of Within the gas compartment, a reg ion with very high settling
the settling compartment. Representative values, within this velocities (-0.5 m/s) extends in the axial direction and
region, are co mpared with values extracted fro m the reaches the coalescer for the fine d istribution while shrinks
theoretical Stokes law in Figure 9. backwards for the two other distributions. Within the oil
layer, the settling velocity is very high upstream of the
0.6
Present work
baffles and decreases in the axial d irection. Within the oil
0.5 layer downstream of the baffles, the water settling velocity is
Settling velocity (m/s)
[1]
negligible for the fine distribution which justifies the
0.4
entrainment d iscussed in section 5.1 wh ilst it persists for the
0.3 two other distributions which explains the perfect separation
in these cases.
0.2
The descending streamtraces illustrate the important
0.1 settling effect within the mixing and settling compart ments.
The horizontal streamtraces, with in the oil layer for the fine
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 distribution, characterize the entrain ment of water with oil.
Diameter (μm)
Figure 12 co mpares the water settling velocity extracted
fro m CFD and Stokes law in the settling compartment with
Figure 9. Oil settling velocity vs representative droplet diameter
the same approach exp lained for Figure 9.
The representative diameters, for the simulation results, The CFD results are lower than the theoretical values with
correspond to the largest droplet since it was found that it is a discrepancy of about 43 %.
the predominant size in the settling co mpart ment (see section The rising velocity for the water phase (Figure 13) is
5.4). The CFD results are in good agreement with the marginal in almost the whole do main.
theoretical values with a discrepancy of about 25%.
However, CFD provided a fu ll description of the settling
velocity field while the semi-emp irical approach considered
a representative value in the settling compart ment. Such
more co mp lete view of the flow field is very important and
should be helpful for the design of more efficient separation
devices.
The positive vertical co mponent represents the rising
velocity and is useful to describe the oil-in-gas entrainment
and the rising of the oil droplets within the water layer
towards the oil-water interface (Figure 10). The range of
values plotted is limited to 0-0.1 m/s for display purposes
only and the appropriate values in the positions mentioned
will be cited explicitly in the text.
It can be seen that the first region with impo rtant oil
entrainment is located underneath the Schoepentoeter in the
mixing co mpart ment. Here, values reaching 0.1-0.15 m/s
were noticed. In the settling compart ment, the rising velocity Figure 10. Positive oil z velocity (m/s) distribution in the symmetry plane
American Journal of Fluid Dynamics 2013, 3(4): 101-118 113
0.03
Present work
Settling velocity (m/s)
[1]
0.02
Figure 14. Contours of the oil volume fraction in the symmetry plane. The
0.01 white vertical lines indicate- the planes created to quantify the amount of
entrained phase in kg/s
1.2
0 Inlet
Schoepentoeter outlet
250 350 450 550 650 750 850 1 Downstream Schoep
Mean diameter (μm)
Bin volume fraction
Upstream coalescer
Figure 12. Water settling velocity vs representative droplet diameter 0.8 Downstream coalescer
Upstream agglomerator
Downstream agglomerator
0.6 Spiraflow inlet
Gas outlet
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
a) Diameter (mm)
1.2
Inlet
1 Schoepentoeter outlet
Bin volume fraction
Downstream Schoep
0.8
Upstream coalescer
0.6 Downstream coalescer
Figure 13. Positive water z velocity (m/s) distribution in the symmetry 0.4
plane
0.2
5.4. Effects of the Internals
0
The total amount of the entrained oil or water, in addit ion 0 50 100 150 200
b) Diameter (mm)
to the local droplet size distribution, were tracked at different
114 N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
Downstream Schoep
the gas is almost equal to that at the inlet. This suggests that
0.8
the separator is designed to separate droplets larger than 92
0.6 μm while the fine d istribution of the PBM model is limited to
the maximu m imposed a priori.
0.4
1.2
Inlet
0.2 1 Schoepentoeter outlet
0
0 100 200 300
a) Diameter (mm)
1.2
Inlet
1
Bin volume fraction
Schoepentoeter outlet
0.8 Downstream Schoep W/O
0.6 Downstream Schoep W/G
0.4
0.2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
b) Diameter (mm)
Figure 16. Contours of the water volume fraction in the symmetry plane.
The white vertical lines indicate- the planes created to quantify the amount
of entrained phase in kg/s 1
0.9 Inlet
Schoepentoeter outlet
Bin volume fraction
incoming flo w by changing the flow path to generate a distribution, in the gas outlet reg ion is presented in Figure
centrifugal force co mponent that enhances liquid droplet 15.a. It was found that the entire amount entering the
separation being ejected towards the outer wall of the spiraflow is leaving through the gas outlet with zero
diffusers. Polderman et al.[42] ment ioned that the separation efficiency. Kremleva et al.[44] stated that the
Schoepentoeter may promote coalescence under the effect of Spiraflo w separation efficiency should be 99.99% when the
centrifugal acceleration. Figure 17 shows that the trend for liquid volu me fract ion doesn’t exceed 0.05. In the present
the water phase is identical with the droplets smaller than study, the oil volume fract ion, at the inlet of the Spiraflow,
200 μm being almost co mpletely eliminated under the was 0.055. Thus, the discrepancy might be due to several
coalescence effect in the Schoepentoeter. Hence, the causes among which the unknown, and hence approximated,
Schoepentoeter duty is to separate a major part o f the in let internal geo metry might be the major source.
stream and to generate coarser droplet size distribution, by In addition to the interesting phenomena related to the
coalescence, susceptible to be separated efficiently in the effects of the internals on the mu ltiphase flow behaviour for
downstream region. different size d istributions, Figures 14 and 16 show
noticeable diffusion bands nearby the characteristic
5.4.2. Coalescer and Agglomerator interfaces. Fro m Figure 14, it can be seen that an oil-reach
Ro mmel et al.[43] conducted experiments to develop a layer form above the gas -liquid interface, for the fine and
methodology for plate separators design (coalescer). They med iu m distributions, which should correspond in practical
investigated the effects of the plate inclination, the p lates cases to foaming. Fro m Figure 16, another diffusion band is
spacing and the dispersed phase load on the plates’ formed at the liquid-liquid interface level. It was found in the
separation efficiency. They stated that the plate separators literature [6-7] that similar phenomena are not unexpected in
are usually operated at inclination angles equal to 15°. In our such facilities. However, a deeper investigation is required to
case the inclination angle is equal to 60°. quantify the characteristics of these diffusion bands.
The distribution at the inlet of the coalescer, generated by It is worth mentioning that no noticeable breakup effects
the upstream internals (Schoepentoeter and baffles) is were observed for the cases considered. The separator, with
mono-dispersed for the oil phase (Figure 15) wh ile the upgraded internals, is meant to minimize the shearing
quasi-mono-dispersed for the water phase (Figure 17) with effects generated by the old internals [18-19]. Thus, if
diameters corresponding to the largest size for each breakup occurs in the upgraded separators, it is expected to
distribution which is really the maximu m attainable size be important through the perforated baffles. Unfortunately,
defined by the PBM d istributions imposed. the baffles, in the present study, were represented by porous
The water-in -oil dispersed load in the present study lies med ia which cannot replicate the shearing effects generated
within the ranges tested by the authors. Under the flow by the holes of the real baffles in an appropriate way. Indeed,
Conditions of the present study upstream of the coalescer, it was explained that the velocity increases locally through
the expected separation efficiency should be less than 95% the holes increasing, hence, the turbulence and shearing rates
according to Rommel et al.[43]. In the present study the and promoting the breakup effect[9].
separation efficiency of the coalescer is equal to 52% for the
separation of water droplets fro m o il (fine distribution). 5.5. Turbulence Fiel d
The volu me fraction of droplets, smaller than 200 μm, Figure 18 illustrates the turbulent kinetic energy contours
increases through the coalescer while that of droplets larger in the plane of symmetry. The maximu m turbulent kinetic
than 200 μm decreases. This can be explained by the fact that energy, for all the cases, is equal to about 6 m2 /s2 . However,
large droplets are more susceptible to gravity settling effects. the values were limited to 1 m2 /s2 for a clearer display. It is
At the oil and water outlets , the droplets smaller than 200 clear that the Schoepentoeter and the Spiraflow generate the
μm d isappeared due to coalescence in the space separating highest turbulence levels due to their co mplex geo metries
the coalescer outlet and the separator liquid outlets. and the high velocities they engender (see Figure 6). The
Concerning the separation of oil droplets fro m gas, it was space above the baffles is also seen to generate high levels of
found that the coalescer contributes with a separatio n turbulence because it creates a sudden contraction effect.
efficiency equal to 70% for the oil fine distribution wh ile This might disturb the plug flo w required fo r an efficient
inefficient for the coarser distributions. The agglomerator separation and increase the probability of the entrained
was involved in the separation process only for the case of o il droplets breakup. Within the liquid layers the turbulent
droplets with fine distribution. The simulat ion results kinetic energy is negligib le thus enhancing coalescence. The
predicted very low separation efficiency which cannot be most noticeable difference, between the cases considered, is
confirmed or rejected due to the absence of reliable data for that the turbulence-affected area, when oil is the
comparison. poly-dispersed phase, is more noticeable for the mediu m and
coarse distributions especially downstream of the baffles and
5.4.3. Spiraflow upstream o f the Sp iraflo w. It should be mentioned that the
The fine oil distribution is the only case where the liquid region downstream of the baffles is characterized by an
reaches the gas outlet (Figure 14). The corresponding size important settling of the o il droplets especially for the
116 N. Kharoua et al.: CFD M odelling of a Horizontal Three-Phase Separator: A Population Balance Approach
med iu m and coarse distributions (Figures 8 and 14). Overall, both oil and water as poly-dispersed secondary
However, when the water is the poly-d ispersed phase, almost phases lead to better separation efficiencies. As expected, it
all the droplets are separated within the mixing co mpart ment was found that the schoepentoeter plays a major ro le in
upstream of the baffles which exp lains the identical initiat ing droplet coalescence and deserves further
turbulence field for the three distributions. investigation. Indeed, the flow at its exit displays a
quasi-mono-dispersed distribution. Downstream, the size
distribution remains unchanged throughout the whole
remain ing liquid path inside the separator. The coalescer was
found to contribute for the fine distribution only.
Coalescence was found to be crucial for the correct
prediction of separation efficiency.
In terms of mean residence time M RT, finer d istributions
generated higher MRTs. The simu lation results were
comparable to existing experimental and semi-emp irical data
fro m the literature.
The present study highlighted the importance of th e
droplet size distribution in accurately predict ing the
performance of the separator and the internal mu ltiphase
flow behavior. Inversely, when the overall perfo rmance is
known a priori fro m experiments or field tests, the PBM
approach is useful for the prediction of the appropriate size
distribution, at the inlet of the separator. The results of the
present study showed that the PBM model, with an
additional equation for the transport of number density
function, represents a noticeable improvement over the
limited standard Eulerian-Eulerian model with no addit ional
computational cost.
The results of the present study can be further refined by
implementing the real configuration of the baffles instead of
the porous media model used but with a heavy penalty on
grid size and co mputational t ime. Although taking into
account breakup and coalescence, the PBM model still
imposes a priori limitations on the size d istribution. Future
studies could consider a more elaborate turbulence model
such as Large Eddy Simulat ion since the PBM model relies
on the predicted turbulence field to replicate the breakup and
coalescence phenomena more accurately.
Figure 18. Contours of the turbulent kinetic energy in the symmetry plane.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
6. Conclusions This study was funded by Abu Dhabi Co mpany for
Onshore Oil Operat ions (ADCO). The technical support
The Population Balance Model (PBM), in conjunction fro m the engineers of ADCO is gratefully acknowledged.
with the Eulerian-Eu lerian model, was used to simulate the
complex mu ltiphase flow in a horizontal separator. The
study focused on the effects of the size distribution of the
secondary phases on the performance of the separator and REFERENCES
the internal flo w behavior. Three secondary phase
distributions were used based on values recommended in the [1] K. Arnold and M . Stewart, Surface Production Operations,
Volume 1: third Edition, Design of Oil-Handling Systems and
literature for design purposes. Facilities, USA: Gulf Professional Publishing, 2008.
The three distributions, referred to as fine, med iu m, and
coarse, were found to be differently affected by the internals. [2] N. Kharoua, L. Khezzar and Z. Nemouchi, “Hydrocyclones
Their predicted effects were in a fair agreement with the for de-oiling applications – A review,” Petroleum Science and
Technology, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 738-755, 2010.
scarce data ranges existing in the literature; namely, ADCO
field tests and the semi-empirical approach based on Stokes [3] W. Y. Svrcek, and W. D. M onnery, “Design two-phase
law. separators within the right limits,” Chemical Engineerin g
American Journal of Fluid Dynamics 2013, 3(4): 101-118 117
process, pp. 53-60, Oct. 1993. In: SPE ATCE, 2010, paper 134090-M S.
[4] J. C. Viles, “Predicting liquid re-entrainment in horizontal [18] N. Kharoua, L. Khezzar and H. Saadawi, “Using CFD to
separators,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 45, no. 5, model the performance of retrofit production separators in
pp. 405-409, 1992. Abu Dhabi,” In: SPE ADIPEC, 2012, paper 161521-M S.
[5] E. W. M . Hansen and G. J. Rørtveit, Numerical simulation of [19] N. Kharoua, L. Khezzar and H. Saadawi, “Application of
fluid mechanisms and separation behavior in offshore gravity CFD to debottleneck production separators in a major oil field
separators, ser. Emulsions and Emulsion Stability: Surfactant in the M iddle East,” In: SPE ATCE, 2012, paper 158201-M S.
Science Series/61. Trondheim, Norway: CRC Press, 2006.
[20] N. Kharoua, L. Khezzar and Z. Nemouchi, “CFD study of the
[6] Arntzen, R. and Andresen. P. A. K.. Three-Phase Well-stream parameters affecting oil-water hydrocyclone performance,”
Gravity Separation, In Johan Sjöblom, editor, Emulsion Proceedings of the Institution of M echanical Engineers, Part
encyclopedia. New York, USA: M arcel Dekker inc., 2001. E: Journal of Process M echanical Engineering, vol. 224, no. 2,
pp. 119-128, 2010.
[7] H. I. Shaban, “A study of foaming and carry-over problems in
oil and gas separators,” Gas Sep. Purif. vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 81-86, [21] A. Hallanger, F. Soenstaboe and T. Knutsen, “A simulation
June, 1995. model for three-phase gravity separators,” In: SPE ATCE
1996, paper 36644-M S.
[8] M . J. H. Simmons, E. Komonibo, B. J. Azzopardi and D. R.
DICK, “Residence time distributions and flow behaviour [22] ANSYS Inc. Fluent User Guide and Fluent Theory Guide,
within primary crude oil–water separators treating well-head version 14.0., 2011.
fluids,” Trans. IChemE, Part A, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., vol. 82,
no. A10, pp. 1383-1390, Oct. 2004. [23] T. Frankiewicz and C. M . Lee, “Using computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) simulation to model fluid motion in process
[9] B. Waldie and G. White, “Damping characteristics of baffles vessels on fixed and floating platforms,” In: SPE ATCE,
for suppression of marine motion effects in primary paper 77494-M S.
separators,” Trans IChemE, Part A, Chem. Eng. Res. Des.,
vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 698-706, Jul. 2000. [24] D. Ramkrishna, Population Balances Theory and
Applications to Particulate Systems in Engineering. San
[10] M . J. H. Simmons, J. A. Wilson and B. J. Azzopardi, Diego, U SA: Academic Press, 2000.
“Interpretation of the flow characteristics of a primary
oil-water separator from the residence time distribution,” [25] H. Luo and H. F. Svendsen, “Theoretical model for drop and
Trans. IChemE, Part A, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., vol. 80, no. 5, bubble breakup in turbulent dispersions,” AIChE Journal, vol.
pp. 471-481, Jul. 2002. 42, no. 5, pp. 1225-1233, M ay 1996.
[11] A. J. Jaworski and T. Dyakowski, “M easurements of [26] H. Luo, “Coalescence, breakup and liquid circulation in
oil–water separation dynamics in primary separation systems bubble column reactors,” Dr. Ing. thesis, the Norwegian
using distributed capacitance sensors,” Flow M eas. Instrum., Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway , Dec. 1993.
vol. 16, no. 2-3, pp. 113-127, Apr. 2005.
[27] R. Kuboi, I. Komasawa, and T. Otake, “Collision and
[12] J. H. Song, , B. E. Jeong, H. J. Kim and S. S. Gil, coalescence of dispersed drops in turbulent liquid flow,” J.
“Three-phases separator sizing using drop size distribution,” Chem. Eng. Japan, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 423-424, 1972.
In: Offshore Technology Conference, 3-6 M ay 2010, Houston,
[28] H. Tennekes and J.L.Lumley, A First Course in Turbulence,
Texas, U SA, 2010, paper 20558-M S, DOI10.4043/20558-M
S. Cambridge, M assachusetts, USA: The M IT Press, 1972.
residence times,” Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 2, pp. 1-13, Feb. separator increases gas production in the North Sea,” In: The
1953. 85th GPA Annual Convention, 2006, paper P2006.40.
[36] O. Levenspiel, Chemical Reaction Engineering, 3 rd edition. [41] G. M osca, P. Schaeffer, B. Griepsma, “The new
New York City, USA: John Wiley and Sons, 1999. schoepentoeter plus: a step ahead in the bulk separation of
gas-liquid mixtures,” In: 2011 Spring M eeting & 7th Global
[37] API SPEC 12J: Specification for Oil and Gas Separators. Congress on Process Safety , 2011.
Eighth edition, 2008.
[42] H. G. Polderman, F. A. Hartog, W. A. I. Knaepen, J. S.
[38] C. H. M achado, J. P. Leclerc, E. Avilan, G. Landaeta, N. Bouma and K. J. Li, “Dehydration field tests on Draugen. In:
Añorga, O. Capote, “Flow modeling of a battery of industrial SPE ATCE, 1998, paper 48993-M S.
crude oil/gas separators using 113min tracer experiments,”
Chem. Eng. & Process., vol 44, no. 7, pp. 760-765, Jul. 2005. [43] W. Rommel, E. Blass and W. M eon, “Plate separators for
dispersed liquid–liquid systems: multiphase flow, droplet
[39] F. Boukadi, V. Singh, R. Trabelsi, F. Sebring, D. Allen, V. Pai, coalescence, separation performance and design,” Chem. Eng.
Appropriate separator sizing: a modified Stewart and Arnold Sci., vol. 47, pp. 555-564, Feb. 1992.
method,” M odelling and Simulation in Engineering, vol.
2012, Article ID 721814, 4 pages doi:10.1155/2012/721814 [44] E. Kremleva, R. Fantoft, R. M ikelsen and R.Akdim, “Inline
2012. technology - new solutions for gas-liquid separation,” In: SPE
ROGCE, 2010, paper 136390-M S.
[40] R. Viteri, D. Egger and H. Polderman, “Innovative gas-liquid