Introductiontoconclusionnick PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/335728535
DESIGN OF VERTICAL THREE-PHASE SEPARATORS WITH INTERNALS (MIST

EXTRACTOR) SUPERVISOR STUDENT DESIGN OF VERTICAL THREE-PHASE
SEPARATORS WITH INTERNALS (MIST EXTRACTOR)
Thesis · September 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28097.10081
CITATIONS READS
0 395
1 author:
Nick jordan Ngoba Nzouego

Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
DESIGN OF VERTICAL THREE-PHASE SEPARATORS WITH INTERNALS (MIST EXTRACTOR) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Nick jordan Ngoba Nzouego on 10 September 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DESIGN OF VERTICAL THREE-PHASE SEPARATORS WITH INTERNALS (MIST EXTRACTOR)
CERTIFICATION
GULF FIELD HIGHER INSTITUDE OF PETROLEUM –LIMBE
THE DEPARTEMEMNT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
We hereby certify that this end-of Course Report is the work of
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN
SUPERVISOR STUDENT
ENG. MFONTEMANJE OUSMANOU NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN i

DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my father, NGOBA PIERRE and my mother TENE YVONNE.
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN ii

AKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to take this opportunity to thank both my supervisor Mr. MFONTEMANJE
OUSMANOU for his unfailed help, support and patience. Also I am very grateful to those far or
close due to their kind advices, to do our research work. In this respect, I would like to thank the
Director of “Gulf Field National Advance School of Petroleum” Mr. POWOH KUMASE
SIMON for his encouragements, support and motivation during our formation.
I’m indeed grateful to all the staff, for their invaluable expertise, good humour and
motivation they gave me during my work. I will not forget my classmates for their collaboration,
may God grant each of you your heart desire.
A word of gratitude is reserved to my friends and relatives who were always providing me
with their unending support and love. A word of gratitude goes to my dormitory members
(FAMILLY DORMITORY) in particular to my dormitory captain which help us to develop the
team spirit which i think help us to enjoy dormitory life.
Finally I will like to address word of gratitude to my lovely parents and family which
encouraged me no matter the obstacle faced during my education life till now, I will not end
without acknowledging the lord almighty for all the glory he has been giving to me in my daily
life.
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN iii

ABSTRACT
During production operations the crude oil from the well contains impurities which are
being mixed together to form a homogeneous mixture. Our aim was to designing the oil
production facility to separate the crude oil of which if not can cause a substantial defect in the
process plant operation. Since oil production facilities exhibit complex and challenging dynamic
behavior. In the past dynamic mathematical modeling study were done to address the task of
design, control and optimization of such facilities. This work will be focused on the “designing
of a three phase separator” based on the crude properties of a given well (XZL) since the
designing of a separator is based on;
 Pressure
 Temperature
 Fluid stream composition
 Gas , water and oil flow rate
 Surging or slugging tendency of the fluid stream
 Corrosive tendency of the gas, water, and oil
 Presence of impurities
 Foaming tendency and corrosive tendency
Hence this parameters are taken in to consideration so as to design and efficient separator with
lower cost since it is one of the major objective of an oil company. This work uses model as
proposed by Monnery and Svrcek (1994) as basic design for vertical and horizontal separators to
obtain the diameters and lengths of these separators at different pressures. For the vertical separator
with mist eliminator, the heights were obtained as 3.48m with height/diameter ratios of 1.60. The
wire mesh pad was size in the separator at 80bar, the design velocity was obtained as 0.205m/s
and a cross section area of 0.19m. The separation capture efficiency of this pad was 95% of a
0.07m thickness element of the mesh for removal of 5µm droplets size and 87% for removal of
10µm droplets. For a 0.15m thickness of the mesh element, the separation capture efficiency was
96% for the removal of 5µm droplet and 90% for the removal 10µm droplets. Foamy crude,
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN iv

paraffin, sand, liquid carry over and emulsion were found as operating problems affecting
separation.
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN v

RESUMÉ
Au cours de la production d’un puits d’hydrocarbures, le produit brut peut avoir des impurités
qui sont homogenement mélangées au pétrole brut. Ce travail a pour objectif de concevoir un
équipement de surface capable de séparer ce brut qui peut entrainer des dommages colatéraux au
cours de la vie de production de ce puit, puisque ces équipements de production ont des
fonctionements flexibles, complex et challengent. Dans le passé les modelisations mathematiques
ont été effectuées pour remédier à la tâche du design, control et optimisation de ces facilités de
production. Ce travail se focalise sur le design des séparateurs du brut extrait d’un puit (XZL)
puisque le design des séparateurs est basé sur;
 pression
 température
 composition du fluide (brut)
 débit d’écoulement de gaz, d’eau et
 présence d’impurité
 capacité de mousser
Ces paramètres sont pris en considération pour pouvoir designer un séparateur efficient à des côuts
réduits puisque tel est l’objectif principal des societés pétrolieres. Ce travail est basé sur le model
proposé par Monnery et Svrcek (1994) comme base du design des séparateurs verticaux et
horizontaux pour obtenir les diametres et longeurs de ces séparateurs à differentes pressions. Le
séparateurs vertical qui a été designer a pour hauteur 3.48m avec 1.60 comme ratio de
hauteur/diametre. Le “mesh extractor” a été designer à une pression de 80bar, avec une vitesse
d’éoulement de 0.205m/s. Un “mesh pad” d’une epaisseur de 0.07m à une efficacité de capture de
95% pour les gouttes de 5µm et 87% pour les gouttes de 10µm. le “meshpad” d’une epaisseur de
0.15m à une efficacité de capture de 96% pour les gouttes de 5µm et 90% pour les gouttes de
10µm. la présence d’impuretés comme ( le sable, la paraffine) sont les potentiels problemes qui
peuvent affecter la séparation.
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN vi

Table of Contents
CERTIFICATION ....................................................................................................................................... i
DEDICATION............................................................................................................................................. ii
AKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................................................................................................ iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ iv
Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................................. ix
List of figures ............................................................................................................................................. xii
List of tables.............................................................................................................................................. xiii
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER I ................................................................................................................................................ 3
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 3
I.1 HISTORY REVIEW ON SEPARATORS .................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER II ............................................................................................................................................... 9
II.1 SEPARATORS CONFIGURATION ............................................................................................. 9
II.1.1 Horizontal separators configuration ....................................................................................... 9
II.1.2 vertical separators configurations ......................................................................................... 12
II.3 FUNCTIONAL SECTIONS OF A THREE PHASE SEPARATOR ........................................ 13
II.3.1 Inlet Diverter Section: ............................................................................................................ 13
II.3.2 Liquid Collection Section: ...................................................................................................... 14
II.3.3 Gravity Settling Section.......................................................................................................... 14
II.4 Vessel Internal ................................................................................................................................ 15
II.4.1 Inlet Diverters ......................................................................................................................... 16
II.4.1.1 Diverter or Baffle Plate: ...................................................................................................... 17
II.4.1.2 Half Pipe ............................................................................................................................... 18
II.4.1.3 Slotted Tee Distributor ........................................................................................................ 18
II.4.1.3 Tangential inlet with annular ring ..................................................................................... 19
II.4.1.4 Deflector Baffle..................................................................................................................... 19
II.4.1.6 Mist Extractors..................................................................................................................... 20
II.5 Separators sizing (Design) ............................................................................................................. 21
II.5.1 Factors affecting separation ................................................................................................... 22
II.5.2 Sizing procedure...................................................................................................................... 23
II.5.2.2 Vertical Separator design procedure ................................................................................. 26
II.5.2.3. Internal sizing ...................................................................................................................... 31
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN vii
II.5.2.4. OPERATING PROBLEMS ................................................................................................... 33

II.5.2.5. CASE STUDY ..................................................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER III ........................................................................................................................................... 41
RESULT AND DISCUSION ................................................................................................................ 41
III.1 Design of Vertical Separators with Internals (Mist Extractor)................................................ 41
III.2. Design of wire mesh pad (mist extractor).................................................................................. 42
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 45
RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 46
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 47
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN viii

Nomenclature
Symbols Definitions and unit
A Area of vessel,
Downcomer cross-sectional,
Gas cross-sectional area,
Cross section area of the light liquid,
Cross section area of heavy liquid,
Area of baffle,
Cross section area of normal liquid level,
Cross section area of liquid above bottom of vessel, m
Total cross sectional area,
Drag coefficient
D Vessel diameter, m
Vertical vessel internal diameter, m
Droplet diameter, μm, m
Nozzle diameter, m
Wire diameter, mm, m
ε Separation capture efficiency, %
Impaction efficiency fraction
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN ix

Liquid height from above baffle to feed nozzle, m
Disengagement height, m
Gas space height, m

Hold up height, m
Height from liquid phase, m
Height of heavy liquid, m

Height of light liquid, m
Low liquid level in light liquid compartment, m
Normal liquid level, m
Height from light liquid nozzle to baffle, m
Surge height, m
Total height of vertical vessel, m
Weir height, m
Demister capacity factor
Terminal settling velocity constant

L Vessel length, m
M Mass of particle, kg
Mass flow rate of gas, kg/s
Mass flow rate of light liquid, kg/s
Mass flow rate of heavy liquid, kg/s
P Pressure, bar, kPa
Q Volumetric flow rate , /s, , /s
Gas (vapor) volume flow rate, /s
Light liquid volume flow rate, /s
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN x

Heavy liquid volume flow rate, /s

Corrected pad specific surface area,
Surge time, sec, min
Temperature, °C, K
Residence time, retention time , sec, min
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN xi

List of figures
Figure 1: Typical scheme of a horizontal three-phase separator (Saeid et al 2006)..................................... 6

Figure 2: A typical scheme of a vertical three-phase separator (Saeid et al 2006) ...................................... 8
Figure 3: Schematic of a horizontal three-phase separator with a “bucket and weir” (oil and gas process
course by Slama Chedli) ............................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Determination of oil pad height (oil and gas process course by Slama Chedli) ......................... 10
Figure 5: A schematic of a horizontal FWKO (oil and gas process course by slama chedli) .................... 11
Figure 6: A schematic of vertical FWKO (oil and gas process course slama chedli) ................................ 12
Figure 7: a schematic of a vertical separator with interface level control (oil and gas process course slama
chedli) ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8: functional section of a three-phase vertical separators (chedli) .................................................. 15
Figure 9: showing example Baffle plates (Ken & Maurice, 2008) ............................................................ 18
Figure 10 : Showing half open pipes installation in horizontal and vertical vessels (Saeid, 2013) ........... 18
Figure 11: showing tee distributor (Saeid, 2013) ....................................................................................... 19
Figure 12: Tangential inlet entry arrangement (Saeid, 2013) .................................................................... 19
Figure 13: Showing a deflector baffle (Alvin & Ronaldo 2009) ............................................................... 19
Figure 14: wire mesh extractor for vertical separator (NATCO, 2009) ..................................................... 21
Figure 15: Basic design of three phase vertical separator (Monnery and Svrcek 1994) ............................ 27
Figure 16: Determining the down comer allowable flow (Monnery and Svrcek 1994) ............................ 29
Figure 17 : Mist elimination using wire mesh mist extractor (AMACS process tower internals) ............. 31
Figure 18: a graph of impact efficiency versus k ....................................................................................... 32
Figure 19: fluid properties for a given well (XZL) .................................................................................... 36
Figure 20: The plot of separation (capture) efficiency versus the droplet diameter in micron .................. 43
Figure 21: The graph below shows the design settling velocity of the mesh and the droplet diameter at
80bar for the horizontal separation ............................................................................................................. 44
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN xii

List of tables
Table 1: Typical values of holdup ( ) and surge (( )times (Monnery and Svrcek 1994) ..................... 24
Table 2: Separator -factors (Monnery and Svrcek, 1994) ...................................................................... 24
Table 3: L/D ratio guidelines (Monnery and Svrcek, 1994) ...................................................................... 25
Table 4: oil retention based on API gravity ............................................................................................... 26
Table 5: represent design calculation of the separator to be design ........................................................... 41
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN xiii

INTRODUCTION
Oil well streams are separated into three phases components (i.e. oil, water and gas) by a
production facility known as a “separator” and process into some marketable products or deposed
them in an environmentally acceptable manner (Arnold. & Stewart., 1999). Separator are classified
as two phases and three phases. We talk of a two phase separator, if it separate gas from the total
fluid stream and three phase if it also take into consideration the separation of the liquid stream
into it various component and water component. Modeling or designing such facilities has
becomes very crucial for controller design, fault detection, isolation, process optimization and
dynamic simulation. Knowing that operating petroleum companies usually face the problem of
having the appropriate separators in real time according to the fluid properties of a particular well
which may change during the producing life of the well. This work takes as main objective to carry
out the significance issue of the three phase vertical separators with internals as the main processes
in the upstream petroleum industry, since it has great significant economic impact on produced oil
quality and occupies less space as compare to horizontal separators. Placing a separator subsea
could help in handling excess water production by re-injecting it with the used of pumps thus
increasing the pressure down the reservoir leading to an increase in the total produced hydrocarbon
so separators should be design appropriately to the criteria of the produced fluid of a particular
well. This explains the fact that all separators are not similar since fluid composition and other
properties changes accordingly to a particular well. The main objective of this research work is to
bring out solutions to the problems encounter during the production life of a given well i.e. the
problem of changing separators due to changes that occurs in the fluid stream in the cause of
production. During this research work we will focus on the basic principles of separators design
so as to optimize the process plan, knowing that operating petroleum companies usually face the
problem of having the appropriate separators in real time according to the fluid properties of a
particular well which may change during the producing life of the well.
Trying to solve this problem we are subjected to the following questions when designing a
separator for a given well in a particular oil field:
 What is the fluid stream composition?
NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN 1

 What are the gas, oil and water flow rate ( , , )?

 What is the specific gravity of the fluids, which from it the retention time is determine for
complete separation?
 Is the gas or liquid corrosive if yes what is it tendency?
 What is the surging or slugging tendency of the fluid stream?
 What is the fluid stream foaming tendency?
As hypothesis, if good separators design simulation are being done with trained and
efficient expert to interpret, accurate design configuration will be obtain thus reducing the
expenditure of the companies in changing separators along the production process. In this work no
software was used due to limitation to access.
Since in designing a separator for a particular well we need to forecast the properties of the
fluid during simulation i.e. the well can produce sand at a certain point of the production life of
the well or the gas-liquid separation may not be effective due to the liquid entrain in the gas-phase,
so based on forecasting this work main objective is to design a three phase separator with internal
taking into account the changes which may occur on the fluid stream during the production life of
a well.

CHAPTER I
LITERATURE REVIEW
I.1 HISTORY REVIEW ON SEPARATORS
API and the chain belt company now called Siemens water developed separators which
brought a great improvement in the petroleum and water treating industries. The first API separator
was installed in 1933 at Atlantic Refining company (ARCO) refinery in Philadelphia ((API), 1990)
(Deychok & Milton, 1967). The majority of those company installed API separators using the
original design based on the specific gravity difference between oil, gas and water. This research
work root much more originates from Souder’s and Brown’s (1934) work on fractionating column
in the petroleum industry they stated in their paper that;
“Although their studies was exclusively done on plates fractionating columns, it was
necessary to indicate greater entrainment may be expected in other types of equipment which do
not contain plates or other types of entrainment separating devices. Since the actual entrainment
in a flash chamber of any separating device is more than twice the entrainment observed in a
fractionating tower since in the separators the vapor-liquid mixture enters the large chamber
through a single pipe at high speed hence gaining high kinetic energy which is an essential factor
for entrainment”
Miller (1971) developed recommendations for ammonia refrigerated accumulators and

separators that relies on the methodology of Souder’s and Brown. Richard (1985) like Miller based
his recommendations on Souder’s and brown and added that previously defined methods resulted
in preventing “more than 1% of liquid by mass from carry over”. The statement may have been
derived from a reference to Montross (1953) which states that “liquid droplet of 400-500 microns
falls in their own vapor at the separation velocities suggested by application of Souder’s and Brown
methodology”. The upward vapor flow in vertical separators is achieved by gravity counteracting
upward drag force. Smaller droplet will potentially settle out in a horizontal separator due to
increased net downward force on the droplet. This explains the fact that design criteria for
separators are not identical both for horizontal and vertical separators.

Fundamental methods of separators design that used a simple force balance and correction
for drag force on a spherical droplet was developed by Wu (1984). He recommended that design
vapor velocity for a vertical separating vessel should be 70% to 90% of the terminal velocity
however a specific design droplet size is never recommended. He focused on the use of nozzle
angle and it effect on vessel design for vertical separators.
Gerunda also referred to Souder and brown in his design criteria but instead of him using
the Souder’s and Brown coefficient his use the (K) value which is equivalent to the Souder and
brown coefficient (C) where K is as a function of droplet size and drag coefficient as a function of
vessel size, vapor properties, vapor flow rate, droplet size. Then he recommended that design vapor
velocity should not exceed 15% of terminal velocity calculated (Gerunda & A., 1981).
Svrcek and monnery (1993) provided a fundamental approach similar to Wu (1984) but
bridged the gap by calculating K as a function of desire drop size, if applicable or as function of
vapor pressure. The variation with pressure is independent of the substance. He then recommended
a design vapor velocity of 75% of the calculated terminal velocity. However, the droplet size
necessary to calculate the terminal velocity is not recommended (Svrcek & W.D, 1993).
All this was done based on how to improve separators or design efficient separators taking
into account the changes which may occur during the oil production. (ASHRAE, Handbook of
fundamentals, 1997) (ASHRAE, Refrigiration handbook, 1998) (Gerhart, P.M, & R.J, 1985)
(Miller & D.K, 1971) (Gerunda & A., 1981) (Montross, 1953) (Souders & G.G, 1934) (Wu, 1985)
(Svrcek & W.D, 1993).
I.2. SEPARATORS
The three phase separator works on the principle that the three components have different
densities, which allows them to stratify when moving slowly with gas on top, water on the bottom
and oil in the middle. Any solids such as sand will also settle in the bottom of the separator. These
separating vessels are normally used on a producing lease or platform near the wellhead, manifold,
or tank battery to separate fluids produced from oil and gas wells into oil, gas and water. Separators
are often classified by their geometrical configuration; vertical, horizontal, and spherical (Saeid et
al 2006) and their function, two-phase and three-phase separators. Separators are two-phase if they

separate gas from the total liquid stream and three-phase if they also separate the liquid stream into
its crude oil and water-rich phases (Ken and Maurice 1998).Additionally, separators can be
categorized according to their operating pressure; high, medium and low. Low-pressure units
handle pressure of about 0.7 to 12 bar (70 to 1200 kPa). Medium-pressure separators operate from
about 15 to 48 bar (1500 to 4800 kPa). High-pressure units handle pressure of about 65 to 103 bar
(6500 to 10300 kPa). In other words, they may be classified by applications (test, production, low
temperature, for this work, only three-phase separators (vertical) are design. The principle of
gravity settling, centrifugation and coalescing are involved in separators. In the gravity settling
section, gravitational forces control separation, and the efficiency of the gas-liquid separation is
increases by lowering the gas velocity. Because of the large vessel size required to achieve settling,
gravity separators are rarely designed to remove droplets smaller than 250m (Taravera, 1990) Also,
residence time in the vessel is an important criterion for better separation. In centrifugal separators,
centrifugal forces act on droplet at forces several times greater than gravity as it enters a cylindrical
separator. Generally, centrifugal separators are used for removing droplets greater than 100 µm in
diameter, and a properly sized centrifugal separator can have a reasonable removal efficiency of
droplet sizes as low as 10 µm. They are also extremely useful for gas streams with high particulate
loading (Talavera, 1990).Very small droplets such as fog or mist cannot be separated practically
by gravity. However, they can be coalesced to form larger droplets that will separate out.
Coalescing devices in separators force gas to follow a tortuous path. The momentum of the droplets
causes them to collide with other droplets or with the coalescing device, forming larger droplets.
These can then separate out of the gas phase due to the influence of gravity. Wire mesh screens,
Vane elements, and Filter cartridges are typical examples of coalescing devices.
I.2.1. Horizontal separators
Horizontal separators are almost always used for high GOR wells, for foaming well
streams, and for liquid-liquid separation (Beggs, 1984).They are available for two-phase and three-
phase operations. They vary in size (in diameter and in seam to seam). Figure 1 is a typical scheme
of a three-phase horizontal separator. The fluid enters the separator and hits an inlet diverter. This
sudden change in momentum generates the initial bulk separator of liquid and gas. In most designs,
the inlet diverter contains a down comer that directs the liquid flow below the oil-water interface.

This forces the inlet mixture of oil and water to mix with the water continuous phase in the bottom
of the vessel and rise through the oil-water interface. This process called ‘water-washing’ promotes
the coalescence of water droplets that are entrained in the oil continuous phase. The inlet diverter
assures that little gas is carried with the liquid, and the water-wash assures that the liquid does not
fall on top of the gas-oil or oil-water interface, mixing the liquid retained in the vessel and making
control of the oil-water interface difficult. The liquid-collecting section of the vessel provides
sufficient time so that the oil and emulsion form a layer or oil-pad at the top. The free water settles
to the bottom. The produced water flows from a nozzle in the vessel located upstream of the oil
weir. An interface level controller sends a signal to the water dump valve, thus allowing the correct
amount of water to leave the vessel so that the oil-water interface is maintained at the design height.
The gas flows horizontally and outs through a mist extractor (normally known as a demisting
device) to a pressure control valve that maintains constant vessel pressure. The level of gas-oil
interface can vary from half (50%) the diameter to 75% of the diameter depending on the relative
importance of liquid-gas separation and what purpose the separator has Metering, and stage
separators) and by principles (gravity settling, centrifugation and coalescing).
Figure 1: Typical scheme of a horizontal three-phase separator (Saeid et al 2006)

I.2.2. Vertical separators
A vertical separator can handle relatively large liquid slugs without carryover into the gas
outlet. It thus provides better surge control, and is often used on low to intermediate gas-oil ratio
(GOR) wells and wherever else large liquid slugs and more sands are expected. They are available
for two-phase and three-phase operations. They also vary in size (in diameter and height). Figure
2 is a typical scheme of a three-phase vertical separator. The flow enters the vessel through the
side as in the horizontal separator and the inlet diverter separates the bulk of the gas. The gas
moves upward, usually passing through a mist extractor to remove suspended mist, and then the
dry gas flows out. A down comer is required to transmit the liquid collected through the oil-gas
interface so as not to disturb the oil-skimming action taking place. As illustrated by Powers et al
(1990), vertical separators should be constructed such that the flow stream enters near the top and
passes through a gas-liquid separating chamber even though they are not competitive alternatives
unlike the horizontal separators. A chimney is needed to equalize gas pressure between the lower
section and the gas section. The spreader or down comer outlet is located at the oil water interface.
From this point as the oil raises any free water trapped within the oil phase separates out. The water
droplets flow countercurrent to the oil. Similarly, the water flows downward and oil droplets
trapped in the water phase tend to raise countercurrent to the water flow. The horizontal separators
have separation acting tangentially to flow, whereas vertical separators have separation acting
parallel to flow. In the vertical separator, level control is not critical, where the liquid level can
fluctuate several inches without affecting operating efficiency (GPSA, 1998). However, it can
affect the pressure drop for the down comer pipe (from the demister), therefore affecting demisting
device drainage.

Figure 2: A typical scheme of a vertical three-phase separator (Saeid et al 2006)

CHAPTER II
MATERIAL AND METHODS
II.1 SEPARATORS CONFIGURATION
The basic design aspect of three phase separators are identical to those of two phase
separator but the only addition are more concern on the liquid-liquid settling rates and that some
means of removing free water must be added. Separators are configured according to the
requirement and the properties of the crude if the gas is much more entrain in the liquid phase
measures should be taken as to solve the problem. Water removal is a function of the control
methods used to maintain separation and removal from the oil. The following configurations are
that of vertical and horizontal separators. Separators are designed and manufactured in horizontal,
vertical, spherical, and a variety of other configurations. Each configuration has specific
advantages and limitations. Selection is based on obtaining the desired results at the lowest life
cycle cost.
II.1.1 Horizontal separators configuration
Figure 3: Schematic of a horizontal three-phase separator with a “bucket and weir” (oil and gas
process course by Slama Chedli)
 The Figure beyond shows an alternate configuration known as a “bucket and weir” design.
This design eliminates the need for a liquid interface controller.
 Both the oil and water flow over weirs where level control is accomplished by a simple
displacer float.

 The oil overflows the oil weir into an oil bucket where its level is controlled by a level
controller that operates the oil dump valve. The water flows under the oil bucket and then
over a water weir.
 The level downstream of this weir is controlled by a level controller that operates the water
dump valve.
 The back of the oil bucket is higher than the front of the bucket this differential height
configuration assures oil will not flow over the back of the bucket and out with the water
should the bucket become flooded.
 The height of the oil weir controls the liquid level in the vessel.
 The difference in height of the oil and water weirs controls the thickness of the oil pad due
to specific gravity differences.
 The water weir height is sufficiently below the oil weir height so that the oil pad thickness
provides sufficient oil retention time.
 To obtain a desired oil pad height, the water weir should be set a distance below the oil
weir. This distance is calculated by using the following equation which is developed by
equating the static heads at point “A.”
Figure 4: Determination of oil pad height (oil and gas process course by Slama Chedli)
ₒ
∆ℎ = ℎₒ[1 − ( )] (eq.1)
Where
∆h=distance below the oil weir, in (min)
hₒ=desired oil pad height, in (min)
ρₒ= oil density, Ib/ft3 (kg/m3),

ρw= water density, Ib/ft3 ( kg/m3)
 Three-phase separators with a bucket and weir design are most effective:
 With high water-to-oil flow rates and/or small density differences. Interface
control design here has the advantage of being easily adjustable to handle
unexpected changes in oil or water specific gravity or flow rates.
 In heavy oil applications or where large amounts of emulsion or paraffin are
anticipated where it may be difficult to sense more sophisticated interface
level. In such a case bucket and weir control is recommended.
 Interface control should be considered for applications with high oil flow rates and/or large
density differences.
Free-Water Knockout
 The term “free-water knockout” (FWKO) is reserved for a vessel that processes an inlet
liquid stream with little entrained gas and makes no attempt to separate the gas from the
oil .
Figures below illustrates a horizontal FWKO and a vertical FWKO.
Figure 5: A schematic of a horizontal FWKO (oil and gas process course by slama chedli)

Figure 6: A schematic of vertical FWKO (oil and gas process course slama chedli)
II.1.2 vertical separators configurations

 Flow enters the vessel through the side as in the horizontal separator. The inlet diverter
separates the bulk of the gas.
 A down-comer is required to route the liquid through the oil –gas interface so as not to
disturb the oil skimming action taking place.
 A chimney is needed to equalize gas pressure between the lower section and the gas section.
 The spreader, or down-comer, outlet is located just below the oil–water interface, thus
“water washing” the incoming stream.
 As the oil rises, any free water trapped within the oil phase separates out.
 The water droplets flow countercurrent to the oil. Similarly, the water flows downward and
oil droplets trapped in the water phase tend to rise countercurrent to the water flow.

Figure 7: a schematic of a vertical separator with interface level control (oil and gas process
course slama chedli)
II.3 FUNCTIONAL SECTIONS OF A THREE PHASE SEPARATOR

Each separators contains four major section regardless of the shape. This sections includes
 Inlet diverter section

 Liquid collection section
 Gravity settling section
 Mist extractor section
II.3.1 Inlet Diverter Section:

 The inlet stream to the separator is typically a high -velocity turbulent mixture of gas and
liquid. Due to the high velocity, the fluids enter the separator with a high momentum.

 The inlet diverter, sometimes referred to as the primary separation section, abruptly
changes the direction of flow by absorbing the momentum of the liquid and allowing the
liquid and gas to separate.
 This results in the initial “gross” separation of liquid and gas.
II.3.2 Liquid Collection Section:

 The liquid collection section, located at the bottom of the vessel, provides the required retention
time necessary for any entrained gas in the liquid to escape to the gravity settling section. In
addition, it provides a surge volume to handle intermittent slugs.
 The degree of separation is dependent on the retention time provided.
 Liquid-liquid separation requires longer retention times than gas-liquid separation.
II.3.3 Gravity Settling Section

 At the gravity settling section, small liquid droplets that were entrained in the gas and not separated
by the inlet diverter are separated out by gravity and fall to the gas liquid interface.
 The gravity settling section is sized so that liquid droplets greater than 100 to 140 microns fall to
the gas-liquid interface while smaller liquid droplets remain with the gas.
II.3.4 Mist Extractor Section:
 Gas leaving the gravity settling section contains small liquid droplets, generally less than
100 to 140 microns.
 Before the gas leaves the vessel, it passes through a coalescing section or mist extractor.
 This section uses coalescing elements that provide a large amount of surface area used to
coalesce and remove the small droplets of liquid. These droplets impinge and collect on
the coalescing elements, where they fall to the liquid collection section.

Gravity settling
section
Inlet diverter Mist extractor
Liquid
collection
section
Figure 8: functional section of a three-phase vertical separators (chedli)
II.4 Vessel Internal

Vessel internals are essential to enhance droplet coalescence processes in separators.
Generally, gas-liquid separators without any enhancement internals can only remove liquid
entrainment with sizes above 100 micron. By adding efficient internals, the corresponding droplet
size can be reduced to 5-10 microns (Yaojun, SPE, & and, 2009). This indicates that the gas-liquid
separation efficiency can be enhanced considerably by properly designed vessel internals. It is for
this reason that varieties of vessel internals have been developed which include; inlet devices,
perforated baffles, mesh pads, vane packs, and spiral flow demisters. The details of the various

internals below are based on the SPE paper of Yaojun Lu and John Green of FMC Technologies
Inc. and a research paper of Saeid Rahimi.
II.4.1 Inlet Diverters

Inlet diverters serve to impart flow direction of the entering vapor/liquid stream and
provide primary separator between the liquid and vapor. A number of different inlet devices are
available, with different working mechanisms. Their performances differ from each other, both in
efficiency and complexity. The inlet devices have large impact on the overall separator efficiency.
Inlet devices perform the following functions below;
 Separate bulk liquids:
One of the main functions of the inlet device is to improve the primary separation
of liquid from the gas. Any bulk liquids separated at the inlet device will decrease the
separation load on the rest of the separator and thus improve the efficiency. Good bulk
separation will also make the separator operation less sensitive to changes in the feed
stream. When mist extractors (mesh or vane pads) are utilized to enhance the liquid droplet
separation, the amount of liquid in gas in the face of mist extractor (liquid loading) adversely
affects the performance of the mist extractor. Therefore using an appropriate inlet device plays
a major role in achieving required separation.
 Ensure good gas and liquid distribution:
A properly sized inlet device should reduce the feed stream momentum and ensure
the distribution of the gas and liquid(s) phases entering the vessel separation compartment,
in order to optimize the separation efficiency. Misdistribution of liquid can lead to a large
spread in residence times, decreasing the separation efficiency. Also a gas misdistribution at the
entrance of the mist extractor or cyclone deck can locally overload the demister and cause severe
carryover.
 Prevent re-entrainment and shattering:
Re-entrainment of liquid droplets can be caused by blowing gas down or across the
liquid surface at very high velocities. This phenomenon often occurs when vessel s with

deflector baffles or half pipes are operated at the higher gas flow rates than what they were
designed for. Liquid shattering inside the inlet device can also happen in a vessel with no inlet
device or with a deflector baffle when the feed stream’s liquid smashes into the plate and is broken
up in extremely small droplets. This can create smaller droplets than were present in the feed
stream, making the separation in the rest of the separator even harder. Selecting a proper
inlet device and following common design guidelines for setting the distance between the
bottom of the inlet device and highest liquid level inside the vessel should minimize this problem.
 Facilitate de-foaming:
If the feed stream has a tendency to foam, an inlet device that prevents or even
breaks down foam can significantly improve the separation efficiency of the vessel, reduce the
size of the vessel and the use of chemicals. Common types of inlet devices include:
 Diverter plate
 Half pipe
 Slotted tee distributor
 Tangential inlet with annular ring
 Deflector baffle
 Wave beaker
II.4.1.1 Diverter or Baffle Plate:

A baffle plate can be a spherical dish, flat plate, angle iron, cone, elbow, or just about
anything that will accomplish a rapid change in direction and velocity of the fluids and thus
disengage the gas and liquid. The gas will flow around the diverter while the liquid strikes the
diverter and falls down in the liquid section of the vessel. The design of such devices is relatively
simple, it mainly needs to withstand the forces acting on it, but the geometry can vary according
to fluid conditions.

Figure 9: showing example Baffle plates (Ken & Maurice, 2008)
II.4.1.2 Half Pipe

A half pipe inlet is a horizontally oriented cylinder where the bottom half is removed
lengthwise. It has a simple design, but sends both gas and liquid downward into the separator and
some gas may be entrained in to the liquid. Half open pipes are the modified versions of 90°
elbow devices, suitable for both vertical and horizontal separators, with slightly improved
bulk liquid removal and reasonable gas distribution.
Figure 10 : Showing half open pipes installation in horizontal and vertical vessels (Saeid, 2013)
II.4.1.3 Slotted Tee Distributor

The slotted T-shaped distributor consists of a vertical pipe extended inside the vessel
to bring the distributor to the right elevation and a slotted pipe with large holes or rectangular
slots (perpendicular to the inlet pipe) ensuring a reduced feed stream velocity and minimized flow
turbulence. As shown in the Figure below, it can be used in both vertical and horizontal (top entry

only) separators. The openings of the slots are usually 120° (±60°) and towards the dish
end and liquid interface in horizontal and vertical vessels, respectively.
Figure 11: showing tee distributor (Saeid, 2013)
II.4.1.3 Tangential inlet with annular ring

Tangential inlet devices have been exclusively developed for vertical vessels. The feed
flow radially enters the vessel and accelerates passing through the inlet device, the cyclonic action
of the inlet device helps the liquid droplets flow on the wall of the vessel and the stripped gas to
flow through the central section of the inlet device (annular ring) to the gas outlet nozzle.
Figure 12: Tangential inlet entry arrangement (Saeid, 2013)
II.4.1.4 Deflector Baffle

Deflector baffles are historically one of the most common types of inlet devices in oil and
gas industries before the advent of inlet devices with higher separation efficiency become so
popular. This device simply uses a baffle plate in front of the inlet nozzle to change the direction
of the inlet stream and separate the bulk of the liquid from the gas. Figure below shows a horizontal
baffle designed so that settled fluid flows to the inlet end of the drum and down of the drum wall
to the bottom.
Figure 13: Showing a deflector baffle (Alvin & Ronaldo 2009)

II.4.1.5 Wave breaker
Wave breakers are perforated baffles or plates that are placed perpendicular to the flow
located in the liquid collection section of the separator. These baffles dampen any wave action that
may be caused by incoming fluids. The waves may result from surges of liquids entering the vessel.
In long horizontal vessels, usually located on floating structures, it may be necessary to install
wave breakers so that liquid level controllers, level safety switches, and weirs perform properly.
II.4.1.6 Mist Extractors

Mist extractors otherwise called demisters are a commonly used internal devices to
eliminate mist (very small disperse droplets) from gaseous streams. They are used in oil and gas
industry as internal devices to gravitational separators in primary oil processing unit, in order to
minimize carryover by affluent gas stream. The gas drag force causes small liquid particles to
follow the gas stream. Mist extractors must therefore somehow intervene the natural balance
between gravitational and the drag forces. This can be accomplished by reducing the gas velocity
(hence reduce drag), introduce additional forces by use of cyclones or increase gravitational forces
by boosting the droplet size (impingement).
The selection of mist extractor is based on evaluation of:
 Droplet sizes that must be removed.

 Tolerated pressure drop.
 Presence of solids and the probability or risk of plugging because of this.
 Liquid handling in the separator.
The rate of droplets following the gas stream is governed by simple laws of fluid mechanics; Mist
extractors’ operations are usually based on a design velocity and depend on the demister type and
the manufacturing company.
Some functions of mist extractors include;
 Collect/capture drops
 Remove drops
 Avoid maintenance problems

 Keep cost as low as possible
Common types of mist extractors are:
 Wire mesh pads

 Vane packs
 Demisting cyclones
This work is aimed at designing the wire mesh pad as internal.
Figure 14: wire mesh extractor for vertical separator (NATCO, 2009)
II.5 Separators sizing (Design)

Based on engineering design guidelines, separator sizing must satisfy several criteria for
good operation during the lifetime of the producing field. These include;
 Providing sufficient time to allow the immiscible gas, oil, and water phases to separate by
gravity.
 Providing sufficient time to allow for the coalescence and breaking of emulsion droplets at
the oil–water interface.
 Providing sufficient volume in the gas space to accommodate rises in the liquid level that
result from the surge in the liquid flow rate.
 Providing for the removal of solids that settle to the bottom of the separator.
 Allowing for variation in the flow rates of gas, oil, and water into the separator without
adversely affecting separation efficiency.
Gas-liquids separators may be sized for horizontal or vertical operation, but Younger (1955) found
that for seven separators in use, with L/D (length/diameter) varying from 1.7 to 3.6, all were
installed vertically. This is consistent with the rule given by Branan (1994) that if L/D > 5, a

horizontal separator should be used. Scheiman (1963) recommends that the settling length should
be to 0.75D or a minimum of 12in (0.305 m) whereas Gerunda (1981) specifies a length equal to
the diameter or a minimum of 3ft (0.914 m). Also, to prevent flooding the inlet nozzle, Scheiman
(1963) allows a minimum of 6in (0.152 m) from the bottom of the nozzle to the liquid surface or
a minimum of 12in (0.305 m) from the center line of the nozzle to the liquid surface. Branan (1994)
recommends using 12in (0.305 m) plus half of the inlet nozzle outside diameter or 18in (0.4570
m) minimum. Gerunda (1981) specifies a length equal to 0.5 D or 2 ft (0.610 m) minimum.
Scheiman (1963) recommends a surge time in the range of 2 to 5 min, whereas Younger (1955)
recommends 3 to 5 min. There is a minimum liquid height required to prevent a vortex from
forming. The design of the separator will have to include a vortex breaker. The minimum liquid
level should cover the vortex breaker plus an additional liquid height. Experiments conducted by
Patterson (1969) showed that the lower liquid level varies slightly with the liquid velocity in the
outlet nozzle. For a velocity of 7ft/s (2.13 m/s) in the outlet piping of a tank, with no vortex breaker,
a vortex forms at a liquid level of about 5in (0.127 m). The flow should be turbulent to break up
any vortex. Thus, Gerunda's (1981) recommendation, allowing a 2ft (0.610 m) minimum liquid
level, should suffice. The thickness of the mist eliminator must be specified, which must be thick
enough to trap most of the liquid droplets rising with the vapor. The thickness of the eliminator is
usually 6in (0.152 m). An additional 12in (0.305 m) above the eliminator is added to obtain
uniform flow distribution across the eliminator. If the eliminator is too close to the outlet nozzle,
a large part of the flow will be directed to the center of the eliminator, reducing its efficiency. The
total length of the separator can be calculated by summing up the dimensions. According to Branan
(1994), if L/D is greater than 5, use a horizontal separator. Also, Branan states that if L/D < 3,
increase L in order that L/D > 3, even if the liquid surge volume is increased. Increasing the surge
volume is in the right direction.
II.5.1 Factors affecting separation

Characteristics of the flow stream greatly affect the design and operation of a separator.
The following factors must be determined before separator design;
 Gas and liquid flow rates (minimum, average, and peak)

 Operating and design pressures and temperatures

 Surging or slugging tendencies of the feed streams

 Physical properties of the fluids such as density viscosity and compressibility
 Designed degree of separation (e.g., removing 100% of particles greater than 10 microns)
 Presence of impurities (paraffin, sand, scale, etc.)
 Foaming tendencies of the crude oil
 Corrosive tendencies of the liquids or gas.
II.5.1.1 Sizing Considerations
The following must be considered in designing separator vessel based on engineering

design guideline.
 The volumes of the dished heads are negligible as compared with the volume of the
cylinder.
 Unless specifically stated the length/diameter (L/D) is considered to be acceptable when it
is in the range 1.5 to 6.0. There is not a great change in cost over this ranger and other
factors such as foundations, plant layout, and symmetry are significant.
 For a vertical separator, the gas flows through the entire cross section of the upper part of
the vessel. The feed enters the separator just above the vapor-liquid interface, which should
be at least 2ft (0.61m) from the bottom and at least 4ft (1.22m) from the top of vessel. The
interface does not have to be at the center of the vessel.
 For a horizontal separator, the interface does not have to be at the centerline of the vessel.
In some cases, a smaller-diameter vessel may be obtained by making the interface location
off-center and a design variable. The feed enters at the end of separator just above the vapor
liquid interface, which should be at least 10in (0.25m) from the bottom and at least 16in
(0.41m) from the top of the vessel.
II.5.2 Sizing procedure

This section addressed the basics of three-phase separator (vertical and horizontal) design
and provides step-by-step procedures for three-phase gas/liquid/liquid separator design. This work
will focus on vertical three phase separator. In the separator design, it is also worthwhile to clarify
two definitions;

Holdup and surge times. Holdup is the time it takes to reduce the liquid level from normal
(NLL) to Low (LLL) while maintaining a normal outlet flow without feed makeup. Surge time is
the time it takes for the liquid level to rise from normal (NLL) to high (HLL) while maintaining a
normal feed without any outlet flow. Holdup time ( ) is based on the stream facilities, whereas
surge time ( ) is usually based on requirements to accumulate liquid as a result of upstream or
downstream variations or upset. Table below shows typical values of holdup time and surge time
(Svrcek & W.D)
Table 1: Typical values of holdup ( ) and surge (( )times (Monnery and Svrcek 1994)
Service
A. Unit feed drum 10 5
B. Separator
 Feed to column
 Feed to other drum or tankage with pump or 5 3
through exchange 5 2
 Without pump 2 1
 Fee to fire heater 10 3
Also, the separator factors based on York Demister and Gas Processors Suppliers Association
is obtain from table below.
Table 2: Separator -factors (Monnery and Svrcek, 1994)
Vendor: Otto H. York Company Inc.

With mist eliminator
1≤P≤15 ks = 0.1821 + 0.0029P + 0.0461InP
15≤P≤40 ks = 0.35
40≤P≤5,500 ks= 0.430 - 0.023InP
Where P is in Psia

Gas Processing Suppliers’ Association

0≤P≤1500 Ks= 0.35 – 0.0001(P – 100)
For most vapors under vacuum, Ks = 0.20
For glycol and amine solutions, multiply Ks by 0.6 to 0.8
For vertical vessel without demister, divide Ks by 2
For compressor suction scrubber, mole sieve scrubbers, and expander inlet
Separators, multiply by 0.7 to 0.8 where P is in psig.
Theoretically, equation (2 in the box above) can be used to obtain for separators without
mist extractors or typically one-half (½) of that used for vessels with mist extractors. Separators
can be any length, but the ratio of seam-to-seam length to the diameter of the vessel, L/D is usually
in the range of 2:1 to 4:1 or in the range of 1.5 to 6.0. Table 3 below shows the L/D ratio guidelines
as proposed by Monnery and Svrcek 1994.
Table 3: L/D ratio guidelines (Monnery and Svrcek, 1994)
Vessel operating pressure, psig L/D ( length/diameter) ratio

0 < P ≤ 250 (18 bar) 1.5 – 3.0
250 (18 bar) < P < 500 (35 bar) 3.0 – 4.0
P > 500 (35 bar) 4.0 – 6.0
II.5.2.1. RETENTION TIME
For vertical separators, the retention time of the liquid phase is obtain from the relationship
of the vessel diameter and liquid pads height which is given by;
( + )= +
Where
= oil (light liquid) pad height, m
= water (heavy liquid) pad height, m
Also the retention time depends on the API Gravity of the crude we are dealing with which is
represented on the table below.

Table 4: oil retention based on API gravity
Oil retention time

°API Gravity Minutes
Condensate 2-5
Light crude oil (30°-40°) 5-7.5
Intermediate crude oil (20°-30°) 7.5-10
Heavy crude oil (less than 20°) 10+
Note: if an emulsion exist in the inlet stream, increase above retention time by a factor of 2 to 4.
II.5.2.2 Vertical Separator design procedure
For a three-phase vertical separator, the total height can be broken into different sections,
as shown in Figure below. The separator height is then calculated by adding the height of these
sections. If a mist eliminator pad is used, additional height is added. The design is based on the
methodology of a basic design of three phase vertical separator (Monnery and Svrcek 1994).

Figure 15: Basic design of three phase vertical separator (Monnery and Svrcek 1994)
The calulations of diameter and height based on the methodology of Monnery and Svrcek (1994)
are detailed as follow;
1. Calculating the terminal settling velocity (TSV) of droplets.
(eq.1)
And setting (Tamagna 2010)
2. Calculation the vapor (gas) volumetric flow rate,
= (eq.2)
3. Calculating the vessel internal diameter,
= (eq.3)

If there is a mist eliminator; +3-6 inch (0.08-0.15m)
If there is no mist eliminator, D =
4. Calculating the settling velocity of heavy liquid out of the light liquid.(the maximum is
10in./min(0.0042m/s)
( )
= (eq.4)
5. Similarly, calculating the rising velocity of the light liquid out of the heavy liquid phase
( )
= (eq.5)
6. Calculating the light and heavy liquid volumetric flow rates, and
= (eq.6)
= (eq.7)
7. Calculating the settling time for the heavy liquid droplets to settle through a distance, (
minimum 1ft, 0.3042m) and for the light liquid droplets to rise through a distance
(minimum 1ft, 0.3042m).
, = eq.8
, = eq.9
8. Calculating the area of baffle plate (if any); , which is the settling area for the light liquid
= − eq.10
Where A is the vertical vessel cross-sectional area, and is downcomer cross-sectional
area given as;
= eq.11
eq.12
( )

Where the baffle liquid load (G) be obtained from the figure below;
Figure 16: Determining the down comer allowable flow (Monnery and Svrcek 1994)
Or using the equation below.
= − . ∗ + . + . −
. − . /{ . + . −
. + . − . }
Eq.12
9. Calculating the residence time ( ) of each phase based on the volumes occupied by the
light and heavy phase as;
, = eq.13
, = eq.14
Where =

If , < or , < this implies that the liquid separation is controlled, the diameter
needed to be increased and procedure repeated form step 7.
10. Calculating the height of the light liquid above the outlet (holdup height) based on the
required holdup time ( ) as
= eq.15
Check this value with the assumed in step 7 to ensure that the assumed value is reasonable.
11. If the surge is not specified, calculating the surge height( ) based on surge time ( )
( )
=( ) eq.16
12. Calculating the vessel total height ( ) as
= + + + + + eq.17
Where is liquid level above baffle, which is 6 in. (0.15m) minimum, and is liquid
height from above baffle to feed nozzle.
= + 2 (0.61 ) + 0.5 (0.15 )
= 0.5 Minimum of; 36 in (0.91m) + (without mist eliminator) or 24 in (0.61m) +
(with mist eliminator), Where the nozzle diameter ( ) is calculated using the following criterion:
≥ eq.18
are inlet mixture volume flow rate and density of mixture respectively. is
disengagement height. If a mist eliminator pad is used, additional height is added as shown in
figure in case if the is any internal certain assumption are made so that their size should not affect
the design phases of the separator.

II.5.2.3. Internal sizing
Separation of a gas-liquid stream in a vessel is assisted by process internals which provide

additional separation beyond that of gravity. As mentioned previously, many types of demisters
and other internals are limited by a maximum velocity given by equation 2-1 and depend upon
their types and the manufacturer specifications. Therefore sizing internals Droplets are removed
from a vapor stream through a series of three stages; collision and adherence to a target,
coalescence into larger droplets, and drainage from the impingement element. Knowing the size
distributions is important because empirical evidence shows that the target size is important in the
first step of removal and must be in the order of magnitude as the particles to be removed. These
steps are shown schematically in Figure below for mist elimination using wire mesh mist
elimination.
Figure 17 : Mist elimination using wire mesh mist extractor (AMACS process tower internals)
This work is limited to sizing wire mesh mist extractor and calculating its efficiency. The design
velocity is obtain as
= 0.074 = 0.205m/s
Then the cross sectional area is obtained as, A=0.05/0.205= 0.24
Calculating the removal efficiency of the mesh at 5 m and 10 m droplet size we have

( ) ( ) . ( ∗ )
K= = = 0.069m/s (0.2ft/s) at droplet size of
∗ . ∗ . ∗
5 m
( ) . ( ∗ )
K= =0.28m/s (0.92ft/s) at droplet size of 10 m
∗ . ∗ . ∗
From this the removal efficiencies at 10 m and 5 m the impact efficiency can be gotten from the
graph below which is ≅ 0.07 for 5 m and ≅ 0.30
Figure 18: a graph of impact efficiency versus k
Then the thickness and capture efficiency of the mesh is calculated respectively using,
SO = 0.67 S = 0.67* *0.2*85+36 = 5.2 for thickness

.
= 100 − = 100 − . ∗ . =95%
Also for 0.5ft thick;
SO = 0.67 S = 0.67* *0.5*85+36=12.9

.
= 100 − = 100 − . ∗ . = 87%
Where,
= the capture efficiency %

So= corrected pad specific surface area
E= impaction efficiency fraction
Calculating the capture efficiency at 10µm droplet size;
SO=0.67* *0.2*85+36 = 5.2

.
= 100 − = 100 − . ∗ . = 96%
Also for 0.5ft thick;
SO=0.67* *0.5*85+36 = 12.9

.
= 100 − = 100 − . ∗ . = 90%
Also the separating efficiency of a vane mist extractor depends on:
 The number of vanes in the element

 Distance between the vanes
 Angle of the vanes and
 Size of liquid particles
II.5.2.4. OPERATING PROBLEMS

Problems occasionally occurred in the operation of separators (Arnold and Stewart, 1998)
are as follows;
 Foamy crude
 Paraffin
 Sand
 Liquid carryover and gas blowby

 Emulsions
Foamy crude
The major cause of foam in crude oil is the appearance of impurities, other than water, that
are impractical to remove before the stream reaches the separator. Foam presents no problem
within a separator if the internal design assures adequate time or sufficient coalescing surface for
the foam to "break." Problem of foaming in a separating vessel is as follows;
 Mechanical control of liquid level is aggravated because any control device must deal with
three liquid phases, an emulsion is the third phase, and instead of two-phases.
 Foam has a large volume-to-weight ratio. Therefore, it can occupy much of the vessel space
that would otherwise be available in the liquid-collecting or gravity-settling sections.
 In an uncontrolled foam bank, it becomes impossible to remove separated gas or degassed
oil from the vessel without entraining some of the foamy material in either the liquid or the
gas outlets.
Essentially as the foam is dispersed, it creates very small liquid droplets, which carry over. The
amount of foam is dependent on the pressure drop to which the inlet liquid is subjected, as well as
the characteristics of the liquid at separator conditions. In some cases, the effect of temperature
may be significant. Foam will often be effective in increasing the capacity of a given separator.
Foam can be reduced by;
 Using a defoaming pack

 Using defoaming chemicals, and
 Utilizing heat to break it down.
Paraffin
Coalescing plates in the liquid section and mesh pad mist extractors in the gas section are
particularly prone to clogging by accumulations of paraffin waxes. Hand holes, and nozzles should
be provided to allow steam, solvent, or other types of cleaning of the separator internals. Also, the
bulk temperature of the liquid should always be kept above the cloud point of the crude oil to
prevent paraffin wax formation in the separators.

Sand
Sand is often troublesome in separators by causing cutout of valve trim, plugging of

separator internals, and accumulation in the bottom of the separator, thus leading to level control
problems. Traditionally, sand has only been removed once it has collected in the main production
separators. However, removal of sand upstream of these separators reduces sand problems to a
minimum, giving substantial operational benefits. To meet these needs, the Mozley Wellspin
desander has been developed to remove sand effectively in simple, compact systems based on
solid/liquid hydrocyclones, which remove the sand before it enters the separator. Sand problems
may be solved by using a filter or desanding cyclone before the separator. However, filters will
quickly block in sandy service and are not often used.
Liquid carryover and gas blowby
Liquid carryover occurs when free liquid escapes with the gas phase and can indicate high
liquid level, thus causing damage to vessel internals, foam, improper design, plugged liquid
outlets, or a flow rate that exceeds the design rate of the vessel. Gas blowby occurs when free gas
escapes with the liquid phase and can be an indication of low liquid level, vortexing, or level
control failure.
Emulsion
Emulsions are often troublesome in the operation of three-phase separators. Over a period
of time an accumulation of emulsified materials and/or other impurities usually will form at the
interface of the water and oil phases. In addition to adverse effects on the liquid level control, this
accumulation will also decrease the effective oil or water retention time in the separator, with a
resultant decrease in water-oil separation efficiency. The addition of chemicals and/or heat often
minimizes this difficulty. Also; lowering the settling time needed for oil-water separation by either
the application of heat in the liquid section of the separator, or the addition of demulsifying
chemicals.
II.5.2.5. CASE STUDY

During the producing life cycle of well (XZL) the separator used was faced with the problem of
liquid phase entrain in the gas phase so the gas which was separated from this separator needed and extra

separation which was costly to the company. After evaluating the cost of adding another separators which
will separate the liquid from the gas the company decided to change their initial separator with and efficient
want with internal part capable of coalescing the gas thus increasing the efficiency. The designer tried to
diagnostic the cause of the problem they found that the separator design simulation done in the pass was
not well done may be because the simulator used was not accurate, or forecasting were not well done. The
following data’s were obtained from the well and forecasting;
Figure 19: fluid properties for a given well (XZL)
Fluid properties Data’s
69.38Kg/m3
597.59Kg/
9691 Kg/
1161 psia (80 bar)
626°R
1.56 Pas
2.30 Pas
3.36 pas
0.5 /
0.011 /
0.00035 /
For designing the vertical separator with mist extractor the design calculation and result are made
on the basis of the following assumption;
 With mist eliminator

 Setting ( Tamagna 2012)
 = D =2m + 6in (0.15m).
 Height from liquid interface to light liquid nozzle, = 1ft (0.3042m)

 Downcomer width ( ) = 1in (0.1016m)

 Holdup time ( ) = 5min (300s) and surge time ( ) = 3min (180s)
 Liquid level above baffle ( ) = 6in (0.15m)
 Disengagement height ( ) = 0.5D
The ratio of the total height to the diameter of the separators is in the range of 1.5 to 6.0, which is
the acceptable range for 80bar
1. Calculating the terminal settling velocity (TSV) of droplets using Equation eq.1
. =0.205m/s
And setting ( . ) =0.14m/s
2. Calculation the vapor (gas) volumetric flow rate, using eq.1
3. Calculating the vessel internal diameter, since we are going to put a mist eliminator;
+3-6 inch (0.08-0.15m)
=D+0.15m
= 2.0m+0.15m= 2.15m
If there is no mist eliminator, D =
4. Calculating the settling velocity of heavy liquid out of the light liquid.(the maximum is
10in./min(0.0042m/s) using eq.4
( )
=
. ( )
= =0.0012m/s
.

5. Similarly, calculating the rising velocity of the light liquid out of the heavy liquid phase
using eq.5
( ) . ( )
= then = = .
.
6. Calculating the settling time for the heavy liquid droplets to settle through a distance, (
minimum 1ft, 0.3042m) and for the light liquid droplets to rise through a distance
(minimum 1ft, 0.3042m).
.
, = then , = = = (4min)
.
.
, = then , = = =( . )
.
7. Calculating the area of baffle plate (if any); , which is the settling area for the light liquid
= −
Where A is the vertical vessel cross-sectional area, and is downcomer cross-sectional
area given as;
. ∗ .
= = = .
.
= − . ∗ + . +
.
. . .
. − . − . /{ . +
. . .
. . .
. − . + . −
. . .
.
. }= 0.000829
.

Then, = ( )= 0.000829(3.6) = 0.03
Therefore,
= − = 3.6-0.03 = 3.57
8. Calculating the residence time ( ) of each phase based on the volumes occupied by the
light and heavy phase as;
. ∗ .
, = = = 99s = (1.6min)
.
. ∗ .
, = = = 3152s = (52min)
.
Where =
If , < or , < this implies that the liquid separation is controlling, the
diameter needed to be increasing and procedure repeated form step 7 but since , > ,
proceeding to the next step we have
9. Calculating the height of the light liquid above the outlet (holdup height) based on the
required holdup time ( ) as
. ∗
= = = 0.92m
.
Check this value with the assumed in step 7 to ensure that the assumed value is reasonable.
10. If the surge is not specified, calculating the surge height( ) based on surge time
( )
( ) ( . . )
= = = 0.57m
.
11. Calculating the vessel total height ( ) as
= + + + + +

Where is liquid level above baffle, which is 6 in. (0.15m) minimum, and is liquid height
from above baffle to feed nozzle.
= .
= + ( . ) + . ( . )
= + . ( . ) = 0.57+ 0.15 = 0.72
= . Minimum of; 36 in (0.91m) + (without mist
eliminator) or 24 in (0.61m) + (with mist eliminator) = . =

0.5 (2.15) = 1.08
Where the nozzle diameter ( ) is calculated using the following criterion:
Then,
= + + + + + =
0.3042+0.3042+0.92+0.15+0.72+1.08
=3.48m

CHAPTER III
RESULT AND DISCUSION
III.1 Design of Vertical Separators with Internals (Mist Extractor)
Separating vessels in oil and gas processing service are of two kinds; those substantially
without internals and those with internals. The main functions of the first kind, called drums or
tanks, are intermediate period for storage or to provide a phase separation by settling. Their sizes
may be established by definite process calculations or by general rules based on experience. The
second category comprises the shells of equipment whose housing can be designed and constructed
largely independently of whatever internals are necessary. The main aim of this work was to try to
solve the problem of changing separators in the cause of producing since it is very costly for a
petroleum company. This work was focus on the designing of a three phase separator with internal
(precisely with mist extractor). The separator with internal was design at a pressure of (80 bar).
The liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons separation is usually accomplished due to difference in
density but the liquid-gas separation is not very effective since some smaller droplet of liquid will
be entrain the gas phase thus needed one more separation so as to make the gas feted for the market.
To solve this crucial problem, during the design procedure the separator to be design it should be
necessary to use mechanical device commonly referred to as “mist extractor” to remove liquid
mist from the gas phase before it is discharged from the separator. The vertical separator with
internal (mist extractor) designed in this work had, the following data from design calculation;
Design report data

Table 5: represent design calculation of the separator to be design
Design properties Data obtained

Terminal settling velocity 0.205m/s
Settling velocity of heavy liquid out of light 0.00012 m/s
liquid
Rising velocity of the light liquid out of the 0.00082 m/s
heavy liquid phase
The surge time for the high light 6.2 minutes
The surge time of the heavy liquid 4.2 minutes

The retention time of the light liquid 1.6 minutes
The retention time of the heavy liquid 52 minutes
Total height 3.48m
The height/diameter ratio 1.6

Based on the table of oil retention time in figure From the design calculation since in this
case we were dealing with a crude of API less than 20, based on the entry terminal velocity of
0.205m/s calculated and appropriate retention time of 52 minutes for the heavy liquid and 1.6
minutes for the light phase from design calculations ensure us that the gas-liquid phase separation
will be efficient since the settling velocity of the heavy phase is quite greater than the settling
velocity of the light phase thus due to first of all density difference the and retention time which is
being achieved by the separator total height is adequate so as to have complete separation.
According to the retention time of 52 minutes we had, from design calculation we had a total height
of 3.48m which was the adequate height so as to satisfy the retention time we had thus giving
satisfactory result which help to improve on separator efficiency based on the fluid properties of
well (XZL).
III.2. Design of wire mesh pad (mist extractor)
Wire-mesh or Mesh pads are used to separate liquid from gas phase. Wire Mesh mist
extractors are made by knitting wires into tightly packed layers which are stacked to achieve the
thickness needed. They are installed horizontally in vessels with gas stream flowing vertically
upwards through the pad. Mesh pads can be installed in both vertical and horizontal vessels. Mesh
pads removes liquid droplets by impingement of droplets onto the wire by coalescing them into
larger droplets. These larger and heavier droplets will subsequently disengage and drop to the
bottom leaving dried gas moving out of the vessel.
In this work, the designed velocity for horizontal style 4CA mesh pad was obtained as
0.205m/s with a cross sectional area of 0.24 . The separation efficiency of 0.09m thickness of
the thick element of the mesh was 95% for the removal of 5µm droplet size and 96% for the
removal of 10 µm droplet size. Also the separation efficiency of 0.15m thickness of the thick
element of the mesh was 87% for the removal of 5µm droplet size and 90% for the removal of 10
µm droplet size.
A graph of separation capture Vs droplet diameter is being represented below
separation (capture) efficiency Vs droplet diamter

120
100
saparation (capture) efficiency
80
60
0.07m, thick
0.15m, thick
40
20
0
0 5 10 15
droplet diameter, µm
Figure 20: The plot of separation (capture) efficiency versus the droplet diameter in micron
From the graph analyzing, we observed that both meshes of thickness 0.15m and 0.07m will help
in having effective separation since both can remove up to 90% and 87% respectively but the
design mesh for this situation is preferable to have a thickness of 0.15m since the removing
efficiency is greater than in that of 0.07m.

settling velocity, m/s Vs droplet diameter, µm

0.6
0.5
0.4
settling velocity, m/s…
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15
Figure 21: The graph below shows the design settling velocity of the mesh and the droplet diameter
at 80bar for the horizontal separation
From the graph it is observe that the settling velocity at 5µm is lower than of 10µm since droplet
size of 5µm has greater density than 10µm which is light.

CONCLUSION
The most important gas/liquid separation that take place in oil and gas processing fields
operation are gas-liquid and liquid separations. The condition under which the separations have to
take place and requirements are to be fulfilled. The present available separator types have to be
sized with or without internals and evaluated with respect to the suitability to fulfill the separation
requirements and perhaps in stages. The number of stages in stage separation is actually
determined by the form and the quantity of the liquids offered to the separator and the maximal
amount of liquid quantity permitted in the outlet of the separator. The effectiveness of stage
separation resulted in the maximum stabilization of the resultant phases; gas, oil and water leaving
the separator. The terminal settling velocities of the droplets increases in the separators as the
pressure decreases in the different stages of the separators.
The vertical three-phase separators with mist extractor (mesh pad), had a retention time
which is the effective time which is the effective time available for each phase droplets to be
separated from the other phase of the heavy liquid (oil) which is more100% higher than that of
vertical separators without mist extractor Also the surge time which is the time the vessel can
accommodate inlet flow rate if outgoing flow rate cuts off was greater in vertical vessels without
mist extractor than in the vessel with mesh. Thus vertical separators with mesh pad is preferable
so as to acquire effective separation.
For the separator design in this work had and acceptable range of D/L ratio which was 1.6
and the mesh pad incurred in the separator was the horizontal style 4CA had a design settling
velocity of 0.205m/s with cross sectional area of 0.24 .The separation capture efficiency of
0.07m thickness of the thick element of the mesh was 95% for the removal of 5µm droplet size
and 87% for the removal of 10µm droplet size.
Also the separation efficiency of 0.15m thickness of the thick element of the mesh was
96% for removal of 5µm droplet size and 90% for the removal of 10µm droplet sizes as depicts.
This show that for the effective removal 5µm droplet size and above, a 0.15m thick element of the
mesh should be used.

RECOMMENDATIONS
This sections considers possible further work which could help improve the efficiency of
gas-liquid separation in a vertical three phase separator with internals (mist extractor). Before
performing any separator design, proper design simulations should be done so as to forecast the
well fluid properties over the producing life of the well. Separators used in the petroleum well
should be design with internals since properties of the fluid may change during the production
process.
I recommend petroleum companies to used vertical three-phase separators with internals

since it occupies less space on the platform and is very efficient on gas removal and provide great
space to permits gas- liquid settling thus leads to proper separation. Also if any mist extractor is to
be incurred in to a separator like the case of this work use the mist extractor which has high
efficiency and small thickness.

REFERENCES
1. (API), A. p. (1990). management of water discharges: design and operation of oil-water
separators (1st ed ed.). (API, Ed.)
2. Arnold., K., & Stewart., M. (1999). Surface production operation : Design of oil handling system
and facilities (2nd ed., Vol. I). (Woburn, & Butterworth-Heinemann, Eds.)
3. ASHRAE. (1997). Refrigeration and air conditon engineers (Vol. 1). (A. S. Heating, Ed.)
Atlanta.
4. ASHRAE. (1998). Refrigerting and Air Conditioning Engineers (Vol. 2). (A. s. Heating, Ed.)
Atlanta.
5. chedli, s. (n.d.). oil & gas process course.
6. Deychok, & Milton, R. (1967). Aqueos wastes from petroleum and petrochemicals plants (1st ed
ed.). (W. &. John, Ed.)
7. Gerhart, P.M, & R.J, G. (1985). Fundamental Fluid Mechanics. (Reading, & MA, Eds.) Addison-
wesly Publishing Co.
8. Gerunda, & A. (1981). How to size liquid-vapor separators. Retrieved May,v 88 n9,
9. Ken, & Maurice. (2008). Gas-Liquid and Liquid-Liquid separators.Science. Direct Elsevier Inc.
10. Miller, & D.K. (1971). Design and Application Guide For Gravity Gas an Liquid Separtors,
Suction Traps and Low Pressure Accumulator Recievers Used in Refrigiration System. York
Division: Borg-Warner Corporation Engineering Department.
11. Montross, C. (1953). Entrainment Separation. (C. Engineering, Ed.)
12. Saeid, R. (2013). Three Phase Separator-Gas internals.
13. Souders, J. M., & G.G, B. (1934). Design of fractionating columns:I Entrainment and Capacity.
14. Svrcek, W., & W.D, M. (1993). Design Two Phase Separator Within the Rigth Limits.
15. Taravera, P. (1990). "Selecting gas-liquid separators,” Hydrocarbon processing.
16. Wu, F. (1985). Drum Separator Design.
17. Yaojun, L., SPE, & and, J. G. (2009). FMC Technical Inc.SPE Technical Paper presented at
2009 Annual Technical Confrence and Exhibition. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
View publication stats

Introductiontoconclusionnick PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introductiontoconclusionnick PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

DESIGN OF VERTICAL THREE-PHASE SEPARATORS WITH INTERNALS (MIST

Thesis · September 2019

Nick jordan Ngoba Nzouego

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GULF FIELD HIGHER INSTITUDE OF PETROLEUM –LIMBE

THE DEPARTEMEMNT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

We hereby certify that this end-of Course Report is the work of

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN

ENG. MFONTEMANJE OUSMANOU NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN i

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN ii

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN iii

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN iv

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN v

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN vi

II.5.2.4. OPERATING PROBLEMS ................................................................................................... 33

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN viii

Gas cross-sectional area,

Cross section area of the light liquid,

Cross section area of heavy liquid,

Cross section area of normal liquid level,

Cross section area of liquid above bottom of vessel, m

Total cross sectional area,

Droplet diameter, μm, m

Wire diameter, mm, m

ε Separation capture efficiency, %

Impaction efficiency fraction

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN ix

Liquid height from above baffle to feed nozzle, m

Gas space height, m

Height of heavy liquid, m

Low liquid level in light liquid compartment, m

Normal liquid level, m

Height from light liquid nozzle to baffle, m

Terminal settling velocity constant

Q Volumetric flow rate , /s, , /s

Gas (vapor) volume flow rate, /s

Light liquid volume flow rate, /s

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN x

Heavy liquid volume flow rate, /s

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN xi

Figure 1: Typical scheme of a horizontal three-phase separator (Saeid et al 2006)..................................... 6

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN xii

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN xiii

 What is the fluid stream composition?

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN 1

 What are the gas, oil and water flow rate ( , , )?

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN 2

Miller (1971) developed recommendations for ammonia refrigerated accumulators and

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN 3

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN 4

I.2.1. Horizontal separators

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN 5

Figure 1: Typical scheme of a horizontal three-phase separator (Saeid et al 2006)

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN 6

I.2.2. Vertical separators

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN 7

Figure 2: A typical scheme of a vertical three-phase separator (Saeid et al 2006)

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN 8

II.1.1 Horizontal separators configuration

NGOBA NZOUEGO NICK JORDAN 9