Optimisation of Three – Phase Separators: A Mathematical Model

Design
Ahmed, T., Russell, P. A and Hamad, F
School of Science and Engineering, Teesside University, Southfield Road Middleborough TS1 3BA United Kingdom

T.Ahmed@tees.ac.uk

Abstract: Multiphase separators are intrinsic to the recovery of crude oil. This work compares
extant separator design models with a newly developed procedure to optimise existing models
by minimising economic cost. The new method avoids the use of ‘fudge factors’ or undefined
variables in the solution of the design. A comparison between results obtained from this model
and four extant models is presented. The newly developed model gave results similar to models
based on retention time theory without the need for undertaking a laboratory testing.

Minimise: Cost (C)

1. INTRODUCTION
The changing nature of the oil and gas industry dictates
that multiphase separators must be optimised to improve
productivity and profitability. This can be achieved
through mathematical optimisation by selecting the best
element from a set of available elements. Mathematical
Optimisation has been used extensively in chemical and
process design. However, to achieve this, the problem
must first be designed to fit into the following general
form;
𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒: 𝑦 = 𝑓(𝑋1 , 𝑋2 … , 𝑋𝑛 ) (1)
≤ These variables are divided into calculated input
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡𝑜: 𝑔𝑗 (𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … , 𝑥𝑛 ) {=} 𝑏𝑗 𝑗
(2)
≥
= 1,2, … 𝑚
Equation 1 is the objective function which is
maximised or minimised subject to Eq. 2, which is the set
of constraints imposed on the solution. The variables x1,
x2, …, xn are the set of decision variables. The constraints
are expressed as equalities and inequalities see Eq. 2.
Satisfying all the constraints renders a feasible solution.
Winston (1994) reported that different algorithms can
be used to solve Mathematical optimisation. Therefore, it
is important to choose the right algorithms for each
optimisation problem. Therefore, due to the nonlinearity
in both the objective function and the constraints, the
Generalised Reduced Gradient (GRG) was chosen to
optimize the separator design.
2. MODEL THEORETICAL DESIGN
This section describes the theoretical design of the
objective function and the constraints used in
determining the optimum separator size.
2.1 Objective Function
It was decided to base this model on an objective
function formed from capital and operating cost variables
(see eq. 3). Initially, the operating cost was set to zero
because other models concentrate on the capital cost only.
(3)
= f(Capital cost, Operating cost)
The capital cost is based from the work carried out by
Powers (1990) for determining the capital cost of a
horizontal vessel. (see eq. 4).
2
𝐶 = 𝑓 ∗ 𝐹𝑐 ∗ 𝜌𝑠 ∗ (𝜋 ∗ 𝐷𝑚 ∗ 𝑉𝐿 + 2 ∗ 𝐹𝑎
3 (4)
∗ 𝐹ℎ ∗ 𝐷𝑚 )
We can break down eq. 4 into three different types of
variables;
2.1.1 Input variables
variable(s), manufacturer supplied input variables and
constants. The vessel shell thickness is a calculated input
variable. Vessel shell can be either thin or thick walled
and the rule of thumb used to differentiate between the
two categories is that, in the former, the vessel’s diameter
is at least ten time the vessel thickness, otherwise, it is
categorised as thick-walled vessel. Most separator
vessels in the process industries are thin – walled. The
design, fabrication and testing of pressure vessels is
commonly based on the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) code for the design of pressure
vessels. This code is widely used in the oil and gas
industry in the sizing of three-phase separators among
other pressure vessels. Hence vessel shell thickness (thin
walled) can be calculated using eq. 5 (Silla, 2003)
𝑃𝐷 ∗ 𝐷𝑖
𝑓= + 𝑡𝑐 (5)
2𝜎𝐸 − 1.2𝑃𝐷
The design pressure (PD) is typically the maximum of
either the operating pressure plus 10% or the operating
pressure plus 15 to 30 psi. Joint efficiency(E) ranges from
0.6 to 1, with 1 for 100% x – rayed joint. The tensile
strength (𝜎) of carbon steel commonly used due to its
ability to withstand high temperature is 950bar.
Corrosion allowance (tc) ranges from 1.6mm to 3.2mm
𝑃𝐷 = max(1.1 ∗ 𝑃, 𝑃 + 200,000) (6)
The second group of input variables are supplied by the
vessel manufacturer. These include the cost per unit mass
to manufacture the vessel (Fc), factor for determining
surface area of head from the vessel diameter (Fa) and the

1
 Optimisation of Three-Phase Separators: A Mathematical Model Design

ratio of cost per unit mass to manufacture vessel head 𝐿𝑔𝑟

𝑡𝑟 = ⁄𝑈 (10)
compared with that of the vessel shell (Fh). Default 𝑔
values were included in the model based on Grodal and 𝑄𝑔
Realff (1999). 𝑈𝑔 = ⁄𝐴 (11)
𝑔
Finally, the last group of inputs in the objective Retention time is equal to the length of the gravity
function are the constants. These are pi (π) and the density settling section divide by the flow velocity as in eq. 10.
of the steel, default is carbon steel. We can calculate the flow velocity by dividing the
2.1.2 Fitted variable flowrate by the area as in eq. 11. Substituting eq. 12 and
13 into 9 and solving for Lgr gives eq. 14 which is the
Vessel mean diameter is dependent on the vessel length required for gravity settling of the liquid droplets
internal diameter. out of a gas continuous phase.
𝐷𝑖 + (𝐷𝑖 + 2𝑓) 𝐿𝑔𝑟 𝐴𝑔
𝐷𝑚 = (7) 𝑡𝑟 = ⁄𝑄 (12)
2 𝑔

The internal diameter (Di) is fitted by the GRG non- (𝐷𝑖 − ℎ𝑁𝑂𝐿 )
linear solver in excel subject to constraints. 𝑡𝑜𝑔 = (13)
𝑈𝑜𝑔
2.1.3 Calculated variable
𝑄𝑔 (𝐷𝑖 − ℎ𝑁𝑂𝐿 )
The main calculated variable in the cost equation is the 𝐿𝑔𝑟1 = (14)
𝑈𝑜𝑔 (VA − 𝐴𝑁𝑂𝐿 )
separator length. The separator length is the sum of the
lengths of the separator inlet, gravity settling section and The settling velocity (in this case, of oil droplets out of
the outlet sections. The gravity settling section length is gas phase) is determined by equating the gravity force to
calculated from the eq. 9 – 19. It is important to point out the drag force. This calculation is an iterative process
that the design of the separator inlet is not considered which start with an assumption for the initial value of the
here, however, it is believed that whatever the inlet device drag coefficient. The terminal velocity is calculated and
chosen, the length should not exceed 1m and is set as used to calculate the Reynolds number which in turn is
default. Vessel length can therefore be calculated from used to calculate the drag coefficient. This value is then
equation 8 below; used as the input into the terminal velocity equation and
the procedure is repeated until the difference between the
𝑉𝐿 = 𝐿𝑖 + 𝐿𝑔𝑟𝑣 + 𝐿𝑜 (8) calculated value equals the assumed value. Terminal
Length of the gravity settling section is obtained as the velocity, Reynolds number and drag coefficient are
maximum length required for a dispersed phase to settle calculated using eq. 15 – 17.
out of the continuous phase in the three – phase separator.
This length can be calculated by setting the phase 1.333 ∗ 𝑑𝑝 ∗ 𝑔 ∗ (𝜌𝑜 − 𝜌𝑔
𝑢 𝑇 = √[ ] (15)
retention time in the vessel equal to the bubble / droplet 𝐶𝐷 ∗ 𝜌𝑔
rising / settling time (see eq. 9). For this model, rising /
settling paths were assumed and used to calculate the 24 3
𝐶𝐷 = 0.34 + + (16)
lengths required for separation of the gas, oil and water. 𝑁𝑅𝑒 √𝑁𝑅𝑒
In a continuous gas phase, oil and water settle, water 𝜌 ∗ 𝑈 ∗ 𝑑𝑝
settle faster than oil so the oil droplet settling is 𝑁𝑅𝑒 = (17)
µ
controlling and is considered from the vessel top to the
Normal Operating Level.
In a continuous oil phase, the gas bubbles rise and the The length required for settling water droplets from the
water droplet settle. The gas bubble rise faster so the oil continuous phase and that of rising oil droplets from
water droplet settling is controlling and is considered water continuous phase are obtained using equations 18
from the Normal Operating Level to the Normal Interface and 19 respectively;
Level. 𝑄𝑜 (ℎ𝑁𝑂𝐿 − ℎ𝑁𝐼𝐿 )
In a continuous water phase, the gas bubble and the 𝐿𝑔𝑟2 = (18)
𝑈𝑤𝑜 (𝐴𝑁𝑂𝐿 − 𝐴𝑁𝐼𝐿 )
liquid droplet rise. The gas bubble rise faster and so the
oil droplet rising from the bottom of the vessel to the 𝑄𝑤 ℎ𝑁𝐼𝐿
𝐿𝑔𝑟3 = (19)
Normal Interface Level is controlling and therefore 𝑈𝑜𝑤 𝐴𝑁𝐼𝐿
considered. Length of the separator outlet section is calculated as;
Equations 9 to 14 below are examples developed based 𝐿𝑂 = 2(𝑑𝑛𝑜 + 𝑑𝑛𝑤 ) + 𝐿𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟
on the separation of liquid droplet from the gas
continuous phase. The same procedure is used to The oil and water outlet nozzles can be calculated
determine the length required for gravity settling for the using Monnery and Svrcek, (1994) formula for
oil and water phases respectively. calculating nozzle sizes (see eq. 21);
𝑡𝑟 ≥ 𝑡𝑜𝑔 (9) 𝑑𝑛𝑝 = 0.146√𝑄 ∗ 𝜌0.5 (21)

2
 Optimisation of Three-Phase Separators: A Mathematical Model Design

Once the objective function is calculated, the next step is
to determine the constraints.
2.2 Constraints
The constraints set to the objective function are
grouped into three;
2.2.1 Phase Outlet Constraint
The first group of constraints are set to ensure the
various phases leave the separator through their
designated outlets. Firstly, to avoid oil from escaping
through the gas outlet, there should be a minimum length
between the high high liquid level (hHHLL) and the inlet
of the mist extractor. Secondly, to avoid gas leaving the
separator from the liquid outlets, there should be a
distance between the weir height (hWH) and the low low
liquid level (hLLLL). Thirdly, to avoid water level from
reaching and overflowing the weir and leaving through
the oil outlet, there should be a distance between the weir
height (hWH) and the high high interface level (hHHIL).
Finally, to avoid oil from leaving through the water
outlet, there should be a distance between the low low
interface level (LLIL) and the bottom of the vessel.
the outlet nozzle, the extractor’s efficiency will be
reduced since most of the flow will be directed towards
the centre.
We can obtain the height of high high liquid level from
the area of High High Liquid Level. Powers (1990) and
Svrcek and Monnery (1993) are among the several works
that reported on how to calculate dimensionless chord
height from dimensionless chord area and vice versa. In
this model, two user defined functions referred to as
“HTOA” and “ATOH” were developed. These functions
are explained in the excel model development sections of
this paper.
𝐴𝐻𝐻𝐿𝐿
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐿𝐿 = 𝐴𝑇𝑂𝐻 ( ) ∗ 𝐻𝑇 (22)
𝑉𝐴
To calculate hHHLL above we need to calculate
AHHLL. This can be calculated from the Norsok
Standard that states “In sizing the separators, the
equivalent residence time between normal and alarm
level and between alarm and trip level should not be less
than 30 seconds or 80mm for both high and low ranges”.
(𝑄𝑜 + 𝑄𝑤 )∆𝑡𝑁𝑆 ≤ 𝑉𝐿 ∗ (𝐴𝑎 − 𝐴𝑏 ) (23)

a = (HHLL, HLL, NOL, LLL)

b = (HLL, NOL, LLL, LLLL)

Substituting a and b for HHLL and HLL into eq. 36
and solving for AHHLL gives eqn. 37
(𝑄 + 𝑄𝑜 )∆𝑡𝑁𝑜𝑟
𝐴𝐻𝐻𝐿𝐿 = ( 𝑜 ) + 𝐴𝐻𝐿𝐿 (24)
𝑉𝐿
AHLL can calculated using the Norsok Standard
equation mentioned above or the Holdup and Surge
volume. The maximum value from the two equations is
chosen for the area of high liquid level. Holdup volume
is the volume from the vessel normal operating level to
the low liquid level while Surge Volume is the volume
from the vessel normal operating level to the high liquid
level. Holdup and surge volume can be used to set
distance from the Normal operating level to the Low and
Figure 1: Separator Outlet Section showing outlet constraints
High liquid levels respectively. The Holdup and surge
volumes are applicable to interface levels too. We can
These constraints can be defined as;
define the holdup and surge volumes for normal liquid
hMEI – hHHLL ≥ 0.10m
levels as;
hLLLL – hWH ≥ 0.10m
𝑉𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑢𝑝 = 𝑉𝐿 ∗ (𝐴𝑁𝑂𝐿 − 𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐿 ) (25)
hWH – hHHIL ≥ 0.10m
hLLIL ≥ 0.10m 𝑉𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒 = 𝑉𝐿 ∗ (𝐴𝐻𝐿𝐿 − 𝐴𝑁𝑂𝐿 ) (26)

1. Avoid liquid from leaving through the gas Therefore, we can calculate Area of HLL as;
outlet (hMEI – hHHLL ≥ 0.10m) (𝑄𝑜 + 𝑄𝑤 )∆𝑡𝑁𝑜𝑟
𝐴𝐻𝐿𝐿 = + 𝐴𝑁𝑂𝐿 (27)
The difference between the height of mist extractor 𝑉𝐿
inlet and the height of the high high liquid level should 𝑉𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒
be more than the safety factor which is 0.10m. Different 𝐴𝐻𝐿𝐿 = + 𝐴𝑁𝑂𝐿 (28)
𝑉𝐿
literature suggested different safety factors between the
mist extractor and the liquid level. Here, an average of To calculate the AHLL, the ANOL need to be
0.10m is used for this model. calculated. This can be calculated from the hNOL using
the dimensionless chord height formula as;
The Mist Extractor Inlet is obtained by subtracting the
vessel diameter by 0.3m. The mist extractor height is ℎ𝑁𝑂𝐿
𝐴𝑁𝑂𝐿 = 𝐻𝑇𝑂𝐴 ( )
usually set to be 0.15m (6inches). Another 0.15m is 𝐻𝑇 (29)
allowed from the top of the vessel to the mist extractor ∗ 𝐴𝑇
outlet. This height is set to obtain a uniform flow
distribution through the extractor. If placed too close to

3
 Optimisation of Three-Phase Separators: A Mathematical Model Design

𝜋 ∗ 𝐷2 𝑄𝑤
𝐴𝑇 = (30) 𝑉𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑢𝑝 ( ) ≤ 𝑉𝑙 ∗ (𝐴𝑁𝐼𝐿 − 𝐴𝐿𝐼𝐿 ) (39)
4 𝑄𝑜
Di and hNOL are assumed which are then set by the 𝑄𝑤
excel solver. 𝑉𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒 ( ) ≤ 𝑉𝑙 ∗ (𝐴𝐻𝐼𝐿 − 𝐴𝑁𝐼𝐿 ) (40)
𝑄𝑜
2. Avoid gas from leaving through the liquid outlets Rearranging eqn. 40 gives;
(hLLLL – hWH ≥ 0.10m) 𝑉𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒 ∗ 𝑄𝑤
𝐴𝐻𝐼𝐿 =
The difference between the low low liquid level and 𝑉𝑙 ∗ 𝑄𝑜 (41)
the weir height is set to be greater than 0.10 m to avoid + 𝐴𝑁𝐼𝐿
the gas phase from leaving through any of the liquid ANIL can be calculated from the hNIL
outlets. Once the height of the low low liquid level is ℎ𝑁𝐼𝐿
calculated, the weir height can then be set as the low low 𝐴𝑁𝐼𝐿 = 𝐻𝑇𝑂𝐴 ( ) ∗ 𝐴𝑇 (42)
liquid level minus 0.10m. Low low liquid height can be 𝐻𝑇
calculated from the area of the low low liquid level which hNIL is assumed from the initial guesses.
can be calculated by rearranging equation 23.
4. Avoid Oil from leaving through the Water outlet
(𝑄𝑂 + 𝑄𝑊 )∆𝑡𝑁𝑆 (hLLIL ≥ 0.10m)
𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = 𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐿 − ( ) (31)
Oil being lighter than water rise to the top of the water
𝑉𝐿
continuous phase. To avoid the oil from leaving through
(𝑄𝑂 + 𝑄𝑊 )∆𝑡𝑁𝑆 the water outlet, the height of the low low interface level
𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐿 = 𝐴𝑁𝑂𝐿 − ( ) (32)
𝑉𝐿 should be at least 0.10m. The height of the low low
interface level can be calculated as;
From eq. 25; 𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐼𝐿
𝑉𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑢𝑝 ℎ𝐿𝐿𝐼𝐿 = 𝐴𝑇𝑂𝐻 ( ) ∗ 𝐻𝑇 (43)
𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐿 = 𝐴𝑁𝑂𝐿 − (33) 𝐴𝑇
𝑉𝐿
ANOL is calculated from above 𝑄 ∗ ∆𝑡𝑁𝑆
𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐼𝐿 = 𝐴𝐿𝐼𝐿 − ( 𝑤 ) (44)
ℎ𝑊𝐻 = ℎ𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 − 0.1𝑚 (34) 𝑉𝑙
Water nozzle diameter (dnw) has been calculated using
3. Avoid Water from leaving through the Oil outlet equation 34
(hWH – hHHIL ≥ 0.10m) 𝑉𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑢𝑝 ∗ 𝑄𝑤
𝐴𝐿𝐼𝐿 = 𝐴𝑁𝐼𝐿 − (45)
In vessels with liquid outlets at the bottom of the 𝑄𝑜 ∗ 𝑉𝑙
vessel, weir is used to prevent the water phase from 𝑄 ∗ ∆𝑡𝑁𝑜𝑟
leaving the vessel through the oil outlet. To ensure this, 𝐴𝐿𝐼𝐿 = 𝐴𝑁𝐼𝐿 − ( 𝑤 ) (46)
the difference between the weir height and the high high 𝑉𝑙
interface level is set to be equal to or greater than 0.10m. ℎ𝑁𝐼𝐿
𝐴𝑁𝐼𝐿 = 𝐻𝑇𝑂𝐴 ( ) ∗ 𝐴𝑇 (47)
Failure to enforce this constraint in the separator might 𝑉𝐻
lead to the water flowing over the weir and escaping 2.2.2 Transportation Constraints
through the oil outlet at certain conditions. Therefore,
hHHIL is calculated from AHHIL using; The second group of constraints are new and are
default values. They were derived from the maximum
𝐴𝐻𝐻𝐼𝐿 dimensions allowed for road transport in the UK and US.
ℎ𝐻𝐻𝐼𝐿 = 𝐴𝑇𝑂𝐻 ( )
𝐴𝑇 (35) Most of the work carried out on the sizing of three-phase
∗ 𝐻𝑇 separators does not consider the transportation of these
vessels from the manufacturing to the operation sites.
As mentioned earlier, Norsok guidelines are applicable
Hence, it is necessary to ensure all manufactured vessels
to interface levels. Hence eq. 36 can be represented for
are within the road transport limits. From the literature,
interface levels as;
the maximum length that can be transported by road is
𝑄𝑤 ∆𝑡𝑁𝑆 ≤ 𝑉𝑙 ∗ (𝐴𝑥 − 𝐴𝑦 ) (36) 18.75m and a diameter of 4.23m (Loh, Lyons and White,
Where; x = (HHIL, HIL, NIL, LIL) 2002; UK Government Revenue and Customs; US
y = (HIL, NIL, LIL, LLIL) Department of Transport)
Vl = (𝐿𝐼 + 𝐿𝑔𝑟 + 2𝑑𝑛𝑤 ). Therefore, the following constraints were developed;
AHHIL can be calculated by substituting x and y for The maximum separator diameter (VD) should not be
HHIL and HIL into eq. 36 which becomes; more than 4.23m
𝑄 ∗ ∆𝑡𝑁𝑆
𝐴𝐻𝐻𝐼𝐿 = 𝑤 + 𝐴𝐻𝐼𝐿 (37) VD = Di + 2tc (48)
𝑉𝑙
AHIL can be calculated using the maximum of eqns. 51 The maximum separator length (LT) should not be
and 54; more than 18.75m
𝑄 ∗ ∆𝑡𝑁𝑆 LT = VL + 2(HL + tc) (49)
𝐴𝐻𝐼𝐿 = 𝑤 + 𝐴𝑁𝐼𝐿 (38)
𝑉𝑙 HL = Di/4 (50)
AHIL can also be calculated using the Holdup and surge 2.2.3 Positive Decision Variables Constraints
volume. For interface levels, eqns. 25 and 26 can be
represented as; The third group of constraints are the decision

4
 Optimisation of Three-Phase Separators: A Mathematical Model Design
variables. For optimisation to proceed, it is necessary to
set some inputs at the start and to constraint them towards
a possible solution. Therefore, the set inputs i.e. internal
diameter (Di), length of gravity settling section (Lgr),
height of normal operating level (hNOL) and height of
normal interface level (hNIL) are constrained to be
greater than 0.
The theoretical model developed was built into excel
spreadsheet to obtain numerical results. The following
section explains how the excel spreadsheet was
developed.
3. EXCEL SPREADSHEET DESIGN
The excel spreadsheet design is grouped into three
different parts;
Optimisation Solver: Different solvers are available in
excel for optimisation problems. In this model, the
Generalised Reduced Gradient (GRG) solver was chosen
because of the non-linearity in the separator design. GRG
solver uses iterative numerical methods that involve
using trial values for the adjustable cell and observing the
results calculated by the constraint cells and the optimum
cell. Each of this trial is known as an iteration. Because
the developed model consists of many adjustable cells
and constraints, ordinary trial and error will take
extremely long time, GRG solver performs an extensive
analysis of the observed output and their rate of change
as the inputs changes, to guide the selection of trial
values.
User Defined Functions (UDF): Two UDF’s were
developed into excel visual basic for applications to
speed-up the calculation processes. These are;
i. Dimensionless Chord Height: Calculation
of dimensionless chord height from the
dimensionless chord area (ATOH) is an
iterative operation which is converging
independently to the initial value of φ (See
eqn. 51).
2πA∗ − φi + sin φi
φi+1 = φi − (51)
cosφi − 1
ii. Dimensionless Chord Area: A function for
calculating the dimensionless chord area
from the dimensionless chord height
referred to as “HTOA”.
2h∗
φ = 2 cos −1 (1 − ) (52)
D
(φ − sin φ)
A∗ = (53)
2π
The two functions were developed to easily calculate
the dimensionless chord area from the dimensionless
chord height and vice versa without the trouble of using
more complicated ways as reported by Power (1990) and
Svrcek and Monnery (1993). Figure 2 presents the flow
diagram for the developed procedure.
5
Figure 2: Process Flow Diagram for Ahmed et al., (2016) Model
4. COMPARISON WITH OTHER MODELS
To determine if the developed model (referred to as
Ahmed et al. 2016) was producing representative results
it was decided to compare it with 4 extant models. The
models considered were; Abdel-Aal and Aggour (2003),
Arnold and Stewart (1998), Svrcek and Monnery (1994),
and Dokianos (2015). An excel spreadsheet was built for
each method and used to produce simulations for a fixed
set of conditions.
4.1 Comparison at Fixed Gas and Water Flows
Initially it was decided to fix the gas and water
flowrates at 5886m3/hr and 33.12m3/hr respectively and
vary the oil flowrate from 19.8 to 46.2 m3/hr. to
investigate the effect of oil fraction on the separator size.
From Figure 3, Abdel Aal and Aggour (2003) and Arnold
and Stewart (1998) produce very similar results. A linear
relationship is seen between the increase in oil flow rate
and the length of the vessel. This is not surprising because
both models were developed to use droplet settling theory
for gas–liquid separation and retention time theory for
liquid–liquid separation. In both cases, it was found that
liquid capacity constrained the design. Given this the
diameter is fixed and integral to both models is the fact
that length is set as being proportional to the product of
flowrate and retention time.
Dokianos (2015) model produces separator
dimensions that do not change with increasing oil
flowrate. This method is more closely constrained than
the others given the length to diameter ratio has to be four,
the separator has to operate at 80% full of liquids and the
liquid phase in the separator is assumed to operate under
laminar conditions. Taken together these constraints fix
the separator dimensions for all oil flows.
Finally, the Ahmed et al., (2016) and Svrcek and
Monnery (1994) models were developed from droplet
settling theory for both gas–liquid separation and liquid–
liquid separation. It is not therefore surprising that they
produce similarly shaped traces. What is interesting is
that while the Ahmed et al (2016) data gives a similar
diameter to the retention time-based methods, the Svrcek
and Monnery (1994) results give a diameter which is
systematically larger than the other methods. A further
graph (fig 4) was plotted where L/D is plotted as a
function of oil flow rate. In this case the trend obtained
from Ahmed et al., (2016) more closely matches that
 Optimisation of Three-Phase Separators: A Mathematical Model Design
obtained from the retention time models within the
expected range of 3. The results of Svrcek and Monnery
(1994) are systematically low and show a slight decrease
in the ratio as flow is increased. The consequences of
using the Svrcek and Monnery (1994) method are that the
increase in diameter would produce a more expensive
separator because of the increase in material thickness
required to maintain the internal pressure. It may
therefore be concluded that the use of optimisation of cost
in the Ahmed et al., (2016) model leads to a design which
is more in line with those predicted by retention theory
without the need for experimentation.
4.2 Comparison at Fixed Gas and Oil Flows
The next step was to fix the gas and oil flowrates at
5886m3/hr and 46.2m3/hr respectively and vary the water
flowrate from 6.6 to 33.12 m3/hr. to investigate the effect
of water fraction on the separator size. These results are
reported in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Again, the diameters
predicted by Svrcek and Monnery (1994) method are
systematically higher than the other methods. When
considering the slenderness ratio, the Svrcek and
Monnery (1994) trend is again systematically low and
does not show a rise with increasing flow rate. The lower
slenderness ratios of less than 2 across the range predicted
Svrcek and Monnery (1994) could be a cause for concern
Figure 3: A graph of length and diameter against Oil flowrate
AA – Abdel Aal and Aggour (2003); Arnold – Arnold and Stewart (2008); Svrcek – Svrcek and Monnery (1994)
Ahmed – Developed model; Williams – Dokianos (2015)
6
as low ratios lead to plug flow causing poor separation.
The Ahmed et al (2016) results show similar trends for
the retention time methods. The length of separators
modelled using Abdel Aal and Aggour (2003) and Arnold
and Stewart (1998) increases linearly as the water
flowrate increases. Ahmed et al., (2016) model produces
separator length that also increase as the water flowrate
increases. Dokianos (2015) was found to produce
constant dimensions as in the previous group. All the
diameters were found to be within 1.5 to 1.7 meters
excluding Svrcek and Monnery (1994). This same reason
makes its length to be smaller than those of the other
models. Slenderness ratio was found to be within the
range of 1.5 to 5 with Svrcek and Monnery (1994) having
the lowest.
4.3 Comparison at Fixed Oil and Water Flows
Finally, it was decided to keep the oil and water flows
constant and vary the gas flow to check the effects of gas
flows on the separator sizes. Results obtained in figure 7
and 8 indicated that liquid capacity constraint the design
in all the three models. Hence all the models produce
constant dimensions. Slenderness ratio was found to be
between 2 to 5. With Dokianos (2015) at 4 and Svrcek
and Monnery (1994) at 2.
 Optimisation of Three-Phase Separators: A Mathematical Model Design

Figure 4: A graph of slenderness ratio against Oil flowrate

10
AA (D) AA (L) Arnold (D)
Arnold (L) Svreck (D) Svreck (L)
Length and Diameter (m)

Ahmed (D) Ahmed (L) Williams (D)

8 Willaims (L)

0
0 10 20 30 40
Water flowrate(m3/hr)
Figure 5: Diameter and Length against water flowrate

5.0

4.0

3.0
L/D

2.0

AA (L/D) Arnold (L/D) Svreck (L/D)

1.0
Ahmed (L/D) Williams (L/D)

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Water flowrate (m3/hr)
Figure 6: Slenderness ratio against Water flowrate

7
 Optimisation of Three-Phase Separators: A Mathematical Model Design

10
AA (D)

Length and Diameter (m)

AA (L)
8
Arnold
(D)
6 Arnold (L)

Svreck (D)
4
Svreck (L)

Tariq (D)
2

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Gas Flowrate (m3/hr)
Figure 7: Diameter and Length against gas flowrate

5.0

4.0

3.0
L/D

2.0

AA (L/D) Arnold (L/D)

1.0 Svreck (L/D) Tariq (L/D)
Williams (L/D)

0.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Gas Flowrate (m3/hr)
Figure 8: Slenderness ratio against Gas flowrate

CONCLUSION 2. Svrcek and Monnery (1993): Similar to Arnold and

In conclusion, a new mathematical model was designed
that was aimed at optimising three-phase separator
design. The model was based on droplet settling theory
using Generalised Reduced Gradient (GRG) Nonlinear
optimisation solver in excel. Similarly, a comparative
study was carried out with four other extant models.
Based on the comparison conducted in this work, the
following conclusions can be made;
1. Arnold and Stewart (1998) and Abdel-Aal and
Aggour (2003): These two models are based on the
assumption that the separator operates half full.
They give very similar results which are directly
proportional to the retention time and liquid flow
rate except with high gas flows. Equal changes in
lengths is observed for every change in liquid flow
rate. No change was found when the gas flow rate
increase for the chosen flowrates. The models do
not give adequate information about the separator.
Stewart and Abdel Aal and Aggour, this model is
also based on the assumption of half-filled
separators. Separators sized using Svrcek and
Monnery models will tend to be more-costly due to
its wider diameters obtained in all the three sets of
simulations conducted. The model is also based on
a number of tables look-ups and manual iterations
which makes it less accurate.
3. Ahmed et al., (2016) model gives more details such
as the nozzle sizes, liquid levels, settling velocities
of Oil and Water, weir height and vessel wall
thickness. The newly developed model found out
that operating the separator at a liquid level of three
– quarter from the bottom of the vessel is more
beneficial rather than the mid-level. However, when
compared with other models at high gas ratios,
results obtained were inconclusive and hence need
more work.

8
 Optimisation of Three-Phase Separators: A Mathematical Model Design
REFERENCES
Abdel-Aal, H.K., Aggour, M.A. & Fahim, M.A.
2015, Petroleum and gas field processing, CRC Press.
Arnold, K.E. & Koszela, P.J. 1987, Droplet Settling vs.
Retention Time Theories for Sizing Oil/Water Separator,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas.
Arnold, K. & Stewart, M. 2008, "Chapter 5 - Three-Phase Oil
and Water Separation" in Surface Production Operations
(Third Edition), eds. K. Arnold & M. Stewart, Gulf
Professional Publishing, Burlington, pp. 244-315.
Arnold, K.E. & Koszola, P.J. 1990, "Droplet-Settling vs.
Retention-Time Theories for Sizing Oil/Water Separator",
vol. 5, no. 01, pp. 59-64.
Boiler, A. & Code, P.V. 1992, "Section VIII-Division
I", Pressure Vessels, Section UG-27, pp. 24.
Dokianos, W.P., 2015, March. A simplified approach to sizing
2 and 3 phase separators for low GOR and low pressure
onshore production batteries. In SPE Production and
Operations Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Grødal, E.O. & Realff, M.J. 1999, "Optimal design of two-and
three-phase separators: A mathematical programming
formulation", SPE Annual Technical Conference and
ExhibitionSociety of Petroleum Engineers.
Kaasa, O. 1995, SYNENERGI - Production Chemicals and
Process Design, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Loh, H., Lyons, J. & White, C. 2002, Process equipment cost
estimation.Final Report, National Energy Technology
Center, .
Manning, F.S. & Thompson, R.E. 1995, Oilfield processing of
petroleum: Crude oil, Pennwell books, Oklahoma.
Monnery, W.D. & Svrcek, W.Y. 1994, "Successfully specify
three-phase separators", Chemical Engineering
Progress, vol. 90, pp. 29-29.
Norwegian Technology Centre 2001, Process Systems,
Norwegian Technology Centre, Oslo, Norway.
Powers, M.L. 1990, "Analysis of gravity separation in
freewater knockouts", SPE Production Engineering, vol.
5, no. 01, pp. 52-58.
Sayda, A.F. & Taylor, J.H. 2007, "Modeling and Control of
Three-Phase Gravilty Separators in Oil Production
Facilities", 2007 American Control ConferenceIEEE, , pp.
4847.
Seider, W.D., Seader, J., Lewin, D.R. & Widagdo, S. 2008,
"Product and Process Design Principles: Synthesis,
Analysis, and Design, Section 9.3".
Silla, H. 2003, Chemical process engineering: design and
economics, CRC Press, United States of America.
Smith, H.V. 1987, "Oil and Gas Separators (1987 PEH
Chapter 12)" in Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Soffian, R.M. & Niven, T. 1993, "Emulsion Treatment
Program", SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
ConferenceSociety of Petroleum Engineers.
Svrcek, W. & Monnery, W. 1993, "Design Two-Phase
Separators Within", Chemical Engineering Progress.
Winston, W.L. 1994, "Operations research applications and
algorithms", Inc., Belmont, CA.