Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Separators

    Uploaded by

    Ali Shan Kakar
    8 views13 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views13 pages

    Separators

    Uploaded by

    Ali Shan Kakar

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 13
    etiyon 6 (2020) co4oss lor journal homepage: veww.cellcorheliyon a jew article Design and capital cost optimisation of three-phase gravity separators ® Soa ‘Tariq Ahmed®”, Paul A, Russell, Nura Makwashi", Faik Hamad”, Samantha Gooneratne” { eparmen of haa ant Pe Ege Unt Kar, Nie » Sal of Camp ini nd Digi Then ele Unive ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT omni runic hes ‘The pce spatter The separation of produced Rui ewer onee reaches the mace. Thi eparation i achiev in rity separators. The design and sing of separator can be challenging dv fo the namber of factors involved Injpoper separator design can btleneck and zed he prdueton of he ete fey This paper describes he development ofa apt cont optimisation made for sizing three phae separators. The developed made ws {GRG Nemtnear algorithms to determine the minimum cost score with the emsracton of harm sep ators sbjet to four sts of contains. A mumerical suing example was solved to provide the details associated ‘rth the exdl and the ease with which parameters can be varied to suit the wer needs Final. a seeadet ‘comparison beowcen rests abtsined fom the developed mel and four other extant models is cried ot ‘sults indicated that the developed model pede results within an asolate car of HS in mas eae ad 3 ‘maximum of £125" for ery high gas lows in comparison Io conventional models developed based on ‘tention ume theory. 1, Introduction Over the years the composition of produced fluids has changed [1 ‘This ean be atributed to inereasing demand and reducing supply of easly produced oll which ha led to the itzadietion of enknced ol recovery techniques and production from deeper wells. Hence, the types of res ‘ervoirs now in production, ure of enhanced ol recovery techniques and the inerasing concer about damage tothe environmen, dictate thatthe ‘design and operation ofthe surface separation techniques used to recover the oll from the produced fluids are re-examined and adapted for the ‘urtent market demands. Three-Phase Separators ae the Key component surface separation equipment (2. Ithas been established that some of the main factors affecting gs, of, ‘and water separation include; droplet size (3), physical properties ofthe fluids (4), and slenderness ratio [5]. A well-designed separator should separate the gas, ol, and water streams 10 ensure feeds to other down stream equipment are within design specification. These include, clean {25 stream to prevent compressor breakdown, a pure oil stream to avoid Pump cavitation, pipeline corrosion and hydrate formation, and finaly @ Pure water stream to minimise hydrocarbon loss as well as minimise produced water treatment cost. To achieve these functions, sveral ‘conventional separator sizing, models have been developed Based on retention time and droplet settling theory. In some cases, the droplet * Comesponding author. mal eres TAhme@tees ck CT. Ahmed Ieps//dolog/10.1016/ hliyon.2020 04065 settling i used for the separation of liquid from the gravity setting section while the retention time theory is used for liquid iguid separa tion (4, (6,71 ‘The limitation ofthe conventional sizing models is that they require a great deal of experience, involve extensive table lookups, and uses empirical constants. Therefore, more sophisticated design models have bbeen developed using computational uid dynamics and computational algorithms. CFD models [9, 10, 11, 12) are used to model the dynamics and hydrodynamics of phases and lows in three-phase separators. They fare mostly used to determine the effect of the separator interna fom which modifications ean be made to improve the performance of the separator [13 14, 15]. Comptational algorithm models [16 17 involve mathematical programming techniques that are flexible and can be assessed to determine the optimality of generated designs. These models ‘unlike CFD models are used to determine the dimensions of Ue sepa ator. A imitation of these madelss that they are over constrained snd often limit the separator design to empirical constants set by conven: tional separators suchas a slendemess rato of 3-5. This work presents the development ofa capital cost optimisation ‘model that ims to link the design of the separator to the economic costs sssocated with its construction, The model is based on capital cost ‘minimisation using Generalised Reduced Gradient (GRG) Non-linear a- gorithms in excel, The model provides accurate separator dimensions Received 23 August 2019; Received in revise form 30 March 2020; Accepted 21 May 2020 2405.8440/6 2020 The Authors. Published by Eleer Li This is an open ees article ander the CC BY-NCND license (hp//reatvecommons onlcensen by neni). with transparent calculations that do not rely on arbitrary table Took ups for constants that are not clearly defined. 2. Heonomic analysis ‘The first task in preparing an economic evaluation ofa process deals with obtaining a capital cost estimate. Diferent cost estimating methods have different errors and accuracy [18]. Idealy, the cost estimate of a specific plant can be obtained by costing the individual plant equipment. ‘The capital cost of pece of chemical equipments usually a function of its sie, the typeof material use! for its fabrication, design temperature, and design pressure [19]. As such the simplest way to determine the ‘capital cost of equipment is to multiply the equipment size by the cost per unit size provided by vendors. Cost per unit size can aso be obtained from tterature inthe form of graphs and charts [20]. This process ts referred to as cost estimation using correlations. Cost coreations do not ‘start from the origin because even for very low capacities, there i some ‘overhead costs associated with the equipment. Cost correlations have a slope of 1 meaning that the cost increases to infinity. AC this point, 8 more economical to install multiple unit rather than one (21). Eq, (1) ‘also known a the “sistent rule” i obtained fr intermediate capscty range. The “sith-tenths rule” states that ‘the ratio of cost of two plants producing the same product s proportional to the ratio oftheir capacities raised to the power of 0.6 “(@0,) o Where Gy and Qy are the cost and eapacity ofa predetermine size, m is ‘usually from 0.48 to 0.87 with an average value of 0.6, Often the cost of| ‘equipment has to be converted to account for inflation. Cost indices are used in such eases using (2). The cost indices are published monthly ‘or annually such as Chemical Engineering (CE) Plant Cost Index, et e=e(4) ® Where I represent the relevant index and C; and C2 represent different time periods ‘Asecond method of estimating the capital costs the factorial method. ‘Similarly, this method is based on an estimate of the purchase cost of major equipment required fora proces. However, other costs arc est rated as factors ofthe equipment cost (22. This method is ateibuted to Lang and has been used extensively to estimate the epital cost of process plats using Ea. (3) GG @ Where Gris the fixed investment, Cy isthe cost of major items of pro- ‘essing equipment and Fare the factors for the direct cost. Lang pro- Posed diferent values of F, for diferent processing plant. ‘Over the years, the Lang factor method has been modified to improve Its accuracy especially sine only one factor i wsed [23]. Hand suggested the use of equipment type factors rather than plant type which implies more details. Guthrie (24) proposed a module-based technique which waslater improved by Ulrich (25) These methods consider the plantas a ‘set of modules where each module consists of similar items. in modile based techniques, the cost ofeach modules ealeulated, and material and pressure corrections are also applied. respective ofthe cost estimate ‘method applied, the overall objective of process plantsistoamake prof. ‘One vray of achieving ths objective is through mathematical optimise. tion, which involves the selection of the best clement from a set of available elements yn (200) e408 3. Mathematieal optimisation Mathematical optimisation involves formulating an objective fune- tion that ean be minimised or maximised to an optimal solution fr a set fof independent variables. This method has been used extensively in chemical and process design. To achieve this, the problem must be designed to fit into the following general form; Optimize: y=F1Ki Nave) o 2p o Where, (4) i the objective function, whichis maximised or min- ised subject to, (5), which isthe set of constraints imposed on the solution The variables x, xa.» Xx are these of decision variables. The constraints are expressed as equalities and inequalities. Satisfying all the constraints renders feasible solution. Different algorithms are available for solving Mathematical optim sation problems. Therefor, itis important to choose te right algorithms for each optimisation problem. In ths case, due tothe nonlinearity in both the objective function and the constraints, the Generalised Reduced Gradient (GRG) was chosen to optimize the separator design. This method has been proven to be effetive and efficient fr such problems [261 The basie concept of GRG involves linearizing the non-linear objective and constraint functions at a local solution with the Taylor ‘expansion Equation. FO) =f1%) + /(KNX—X) o nfg) ha) +l) =, a a ‘The variables are divided into two subsets of basic (x) and non-basie (4 variables using the concept of reduced gradient. The basie variables fare then expressed in terms ofthe non-basie variables using the concept of implicit variable elimination. The constraints ae finaly eliminated, and the variable space is reduced to non-basc variables only. Other proven methods for non-constrained non-linear optimisation problems are then employed 1 solve the approximated problem. The nest optimal solution forthe approximated problems is obtained in this manner and the process repeats until the optimal conditions are met [27]. 3.1, Model theoretical design An objective function and some constraints are required for mathe- ‘matical optimisation. A generalised form ofthe optimisation problem is presented in Eqs. (9) and (10). Minimise: Cost (C Subject to; anton of (Capi cost) o ‘Outlet Safety Constrins ‘Gravity Satling Socion Comsat Logical and Gcomeareal Constants Decision Variable Consains a0 ‘The optimisation problem consists of many adjustable variables that would be dificult to fixby traditional trial and eror approaches. As uch, the General Reduced Gradient (GRG) non-linear algorithms were chosen asthe minimisation funetion for this model due to the non-linearity inthe separator design and to counteract the excessive number of independent ‘variables and constraints. The GRG solver uses an iterative nimerical method that uss trial values forthe adjustable ell and observes the results calculated by the constraint cells an the optimum cell. The GRG solver performs an extensive analysis ofthe observed output and thee rate ofchange a the inputs changes, fo guide the selection of tral values. ‘The low diagram in Figure 1 explains how the model works Summary of Programme Stat the spreadsheet model Inpot nal geser + Diameter (>) = Dy = (32) + Normal operating evel (NOL) = Di72 ¢ Normal nterfoe evel (MI) = Dis 4 tength (VD — Dis Caleiate Mean Diameter (Om) Calelate Leth of gravity stling section Sele the mimi length of gravity setling section. ‘The maximum length sletd is wed to enlelate the vest length ‘The vessel thickoes then ealclted “This then ed to cleat the vestel cost ‘Alltheconstaint are then caleulated ‘he GRG solver then es an Hetive numerical method that uses trial vals forthe atl ce nd observes the escalated by the constraint cells and the optimum cell. “The GRG solver pesfoms an extensive analysis tne observed utp and thee ete of changes the inputs changes, to guide the selection cial ales ‘The dimensions (Le. ameter and ese length) tha produced the tinimum Vessel Cost and als satis all the constants are chosen asthe outpat. Once stopped the values for ll the en igi evel side the sep tar aswel asthe inlet and outlet dimensions, and weir eight are shuined ‘The first step involves the input of initial gueses forthe Tength and ‘ameter ofthe separator, notmal operating level, and normal interface level. The inputted values are used 10 calculate the vessel mean diameter. ‘The length requires for gravity setting is then calculate fo, gas, of and yn (200) e408 water. The maximum length fr gravity setting i then selected fom the thre. This length is used to calculate the total vessel length The vessel thickness and vessel cost (objective function) are ealeulated next. The constraints are then calculated. Once valid, the objective function is ‘minimised, andthe proces is repeated until the minimum vessel costs ‘obtained that satisfies all the constraints. At this point sn optimal sl tion is obtained and the separator dimensions and capital cost are ob- tained, The following sections provide more details on the model objective function and constraints and how each parameter is calculated. B.LL. Objective faction 1 was decided to base this model on an objective function formed fom capital variables. Note that in thie work, only the capital cost ie considered. Once the vesel dimensions are obtaine, it can be used to obtain the Separation Performance Indicator (SPD), and then the oper ating cost can be determined. The capital cost i based on the work cried out by Powers [8] for determining the capital cost ofa horizontal vessel (see Equation 11. C= PF p (aD2VL+ 2F.F.D2) ay Where Cis the vessel capital eos, is the vessel thickness, Fs the cost per unit mass o manufacture vesel shell, is density of see, Dy isthe vessel mean diameter, VL isthe vessel length, Fi the factor for deer mining surface area of a vescel head from vessel diameter squared, Fy the ratio of cost per unit mass to manufacture a vessel head compared with that of vessel sell 5g (11) ean be broken down into input variables and ealeulated variables; 3.11.1. Inpueveriabes, These variables are dived into calestated input variable(s), manufaeturersupplied input variables, and constants. The vessel shell thickness isa calculated input variable. Vessel shell can be cither thin oF thick-walled. The rule of thumb used to differentiate be tween the 10 categories is that, for a thin-walled vessel, the vessels diameter is an order of magniuide bigger than the vessel thickness, otherwise, i i categorised as a thick-walled vessel. Most separator c = worse [ae er =e > 7 EA = Figure 1. Process How Digram forthe eatent Model ‘vessels in the process industries are thin-walled. The design, fabrication, ‘and testing of pressure vessel s commonly based on the American So: ‘ety of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code for the design of pressure vessels [25] This code is widely used inthe land industry inthe sizing ‘of three-phase separators among other pressure vessels. Hence vessel shell thickness (hin-walled) is calculated using Ea. (12) [29] Po, Jaf a2 ‘The design pressure (P) (See Equation 13) is typically the maximum ‘of either the operating pressure plus 10% or the operating pressure plus 15 to 30 psi (71. Join efficiency (E) ranges from 0.6 to 1, with 1 for @ 100% x-rayed joint. The tensile strength (a) of carbon stel commonly used dueto its ability to withstand high temperature is 950bar. Corrosion allowance (te) anges fom 1.6mm to 3.2m Pp = max(L.1P, P $200,000) aa) Manufacturer supplied input variables are supplied by the vessel, manufacturer. They include the cost per unit mass to manufacture the ‘vessel (F) factor for determining surface area of head from the vessel liameter(F,) and the ratio of cost per unit mass to manufacture vessel head compared with the vessel shell F,). Default values of 5, 1.15 and 3 were included [11] Finally, the last group of inputs in the objective function are the ‘constants, These are pi (x) and the density of the carbon stel, Note that this value can be changed for other materials such as stainless tel 3.11.2. Calculated varable, The vessel mean diameter and vessel length ‘are the caleulated variables, The vessel mean diameter (Dj) in (11) ‘obvained using Eq. (14). ay ‘Where Dis the separator internal diameter, fis the vessel shell thickness. “The separator intemal diameter i ited by the GRG function How ‘ever, it equites an initial gues (Dy). F.(15) is used to obtain the initial gues for the model v.-(22) as The es eg a fo (1) edd te son fe sags oe punting od pe rua eee mune ee el State der of eo VE= bt lay be ae Similar to the separator internal diameter, the length ofthe gravity ‘setlng seeton is also fitted by the GRG function and therefore requires ‘an inital guess. This is assumed to be four times dhe intemal diameter (Di ealeaate from Ea, (15). The length ofthe separator outlet section is ‘calculated asthe sum of twice the liquid outlets and the length ofthe weit ‘aspresented in (17). Theil and water outlets ae calculated using, aa) m1, Lo=2dae a) + Lae an dy = td) Q, x o> as) yn (200) e408 ‘Where do and dao at the diameters of land water outlets, Lael s the length of weir, dois the diameter of phase (ol oF water) outlet, Qs the hase (olor water) ow rate and is the phase (ol or water) density. ‘Once the objective function is calculated, the next step isto determine the constraints. These are explained in the following section, 51.2. Constraints ‘The constraints that confine the objective function are dived into four groups. 3.12.1, Outs safety consraints. A well-designed separator should produce outlet qualities specified for each product depending on the requirement and dovenstream process f the normal operating level de ates far from its intended setings, the separator cannot produce acceptable effluents. Trip/shutdown levels were assigned at very low and very igh levels (low-low interface level, high-high interface level, low: low liquid level, and highshigh liquid leveb. This is to ensure the ceffient quality is within the desired standard and to also provet downstream equipment such as pumps and compressors Alarm levels (low interface level, high interface level, low liquid level, and high liquid level) were asigned in berween the shutdown levels to enable operators to intervene in cases where the automated contol system is unable to manage the level [31] Figure 2 present the separator ‘with the ten liquid levels, The normal levels represent the ol levels while the interface levels represent the water level. The height between the liquid level and mist extractor inet has been proposed by [14] and (16) For this work, an average height of 0.175m is used asthe safety factor between the liquid levels highlighted above. ‘The liquid levels presented in Figure 2 can be related to into and water flow rates through the Norsok Standard [22] and Holdup and Surge Equations. The Norsok standard states that “inthe sizing of the Separators, the equivalent residence time between normal and alarm level and between alarm and trp level should not be less than 30 s oF 100mm vehichever fs greater, for both high and low ranges”. This state ‘ment ean be expressed as Eg. (19) and (20) for normal levels and Eqs (21) and 23) for interface level (Q.4+.Q.)8in5 = VUUA, =A) a9 ‘lhe < (hehe) 20) For interface levels, only the water flow rate i significant. Similarly, the length ofthe vessel available for interface control ends a the wer. ‘Therefore, these two Equations can be represented as; vd < VHA. —A,) en u (4+ ban +2) ey ow < (he) @) Where Q, and Qyarecil and water flow rate, Atys isthe time proposed by NNorsok standard! as 30, Vis the vessel length, V1 isthe vessl length up to the wer, wo is the water outlet dlameter, Aa and Ab are the areas corresponding to liquid levels an b. Li is the length of separator inlet section, Lye the length of gravity settling section, i the height proposed by Norsokas 100mm, hy and hy are the height coresponding to levels a and b. Ay and Ay are the areas corresponding to the interface levels x and y, hy and hy are the heights coresponding to interface levels x and y. Note that subscripts a and b are replaced by liquid levels whereas subseript x and y are replaced by interface levels as showin belo, yn (200) e408 Figure 2. Separator Outlet Seeion showing out constrains: HII ~ High igh gid level, HL gh teste level, NIL Nowa ntefae bevel, LL ~ Low interface level, guid evel LLL ~ Lowlow lig level, I~ High igh interlace lve, lL Lancto interface level, BV ~ Vesel bottom, TV = Vessel Top a= (LLL, NUL, HLL, HELL) x= (UL, NIL, MIL, HHL) b= (LULL, LUL, NLL, HLL) y = (LUIL, LiL, NIL, iL) Holdup and surge volume Equations can be used to sta distance from the Normal operating level to the Low and High liquid levels using Eqs. (24) and (25). Vinay = VEC — Avs) en Vang = VE(Ans — Ave) oe) For interface levels, the holdup and surge Equations are presented as Bas (26) and (27) Vasie ($2) < vA) 08) on) 015m @ ‘The height of the low-low interface level ean be calculated fom the Area of low-low interface level using Pa. (32). Remember this requires conversion from area to height and hence the word “ATOH which uses qs. (24) and (25) f/}-—— tern ——§+ Figure 3. Cylinder partly filed with igi =o) 0 © Teen ug (he iia 2) an 2) wets say rn ing an ier he aaa gs a 9 A te i ia econanrito sesh rman ue Au ~ (22) o un =H 880, 09 = 36) 7 In Eqs (34) and (35) A, is equired. Thisis calculated by substicting ‘and y for NIL-and LIL into Eqs. (21), (23), and (26) and solving for ALL gives Eqs. (97), (38) and (39) fant (2) om A = ron (at, oa) sie Au. = Av oe Height of Low interface level (ha) in (95) isealelated from fa, 40. ruc -aron() wo ‘ett i On. ed = iil tn tobom ag san =on(t) a a Tek other esr once che wel dae da ne Toes mes pe pede rime lien paaeemr esr Mah mere ee 1, Avoid Water fom leaving through the Oil oet. “Three-phase separators are usually equipped with a weir for ease of interface evel control. The weit i located in between the oil and water ‘outlets and itis used to prevent the water phase fom leaving through the yn (200) e408 oil outlet. To avoid overflow of the water into the ol section, the dif: ference between the weit height and the high-high interface level isto be equal to or greater than 0.175m as presented in Eg, (42). Failure to enforce this constraint in the separator might lead to water overflow into the oil compartment and leaving through the ol outlet. gy a > 0178 a ‘The height of high-high interface level is calculated from the Area of hhigh-high interface level Da aron(“e) a Astin iin ny HL Lin eno an es e*Atns we + Am coy Aue Aaa =o (eh) «s Substituting x andy for HL and NIL nto Eqs. (21), (23),and(27),and solving for Ay gives Eqs. (46), (47), and (48). tm tm = 25 6 c= ron at), w Met, ‘The maximum value obtained from Eqs (46), (47), and (48) suse as the value for Ay by is calculated fom Aya, using Eo 4. Ae c= aron(%2) snd ad ed ee a 2 sua =1ron() oo ee ee shige blond ean aa TI. Avoid gas from leaving through the liquid outlets. ‘The low-low liquid level was set to be the greather than the weir height as shown in Eg, (51), The weir height was set inthe previous section to be a minimum of hyua, plus 0.175m. As such it has tobe be tween the high high interface level andthe low low liquid level. This constraint will prevent the gas phase from leaving through the oil outlet. ‘ow-low liquid level height can be ealeulated from the area ofthe low: Jow liquid level. Note “HTOA" in the Equation converts height to area, MLL >buy + O75 on ‘The area of low-Low ligui levels ealelated by substituting a and b for Uk and ULL and solving for A in Bas. (19) and 20) Note “HOA” in (5%) converts height to ae, (0s + On ain ae Aan ~ ($22 Gels % Aue = 104 (ME A) 6 Substituting‘ andb for NOL and LLL nto Bas. (19), (20), and (25), and solving for Au gives Eas. (54), (55), and (59). A= Ay — (Weel oo trot) ay 5) Aue = Ans “eae 60, exited fem. ou =1ox() o Csi 9) is (9 uu =aron © ‘ {he ih tonne! a ow ed ele a scl oth sae sete ac cea an tis cng NS ain a IV, Avoid ol from leaving dough the gas outlet “The difference between the height of mist extractor inlet and the height ofthe high high liquid level should be more than safety factor as shown in Ea, (59) rat ~ has > 0475 oe “The Mist Extractor Inlet is obtained by subtracting the vessel diameter (Di by 0.3m, Note that the difference between the internal diameter and high-high liquid level is set to be greater than 0.175m for separators Without mist extractors. The mist extractor height i usally set to be (0.15m (6 inches). Another 0.15m is allowed from the top of the vessel to the mist extractor outlet. This height is set to obtain a uniform flow listribution through the extractor. If placed too else tothe outlet nozzle, the extractor’ efficiency will be reduced since most of the flow willbe rected towards the centre. The height ofhigh-high liquid level can be ‘obianed from the area of High-high Liquid Level using a, (60) ra = avon (“se ), co) Sohn and for HHL nd HL nt a (19) and (20) and solving for Aus gives Bes (61 and (62) fan = (228) Ag ts + =o), @ ‘Auu.can is calculated from the maximum of Es. (63), (64), and (65) ‘biained from Eqs. (19), (20), and (25) Petes hey 6 A = Ton (St a ey = “+ As cy yn (200) e408 Avot iscaleufated using F957). The height of HLL i calculate from the Atea of HLL using Ea (65). von), ra na All the liquid and interface levels ae obtained using the outlet safety constraints presented in this section. The next section presents the gravity sealing section constraints. These constraints were set to ensure the length of gravity setlng is sufficient forthe phases to separa 3.1.2.2 Graviy sing setion consis. The minimum length required for gravity setlng is set asa constrain, ean be eaeulated by setting the phase retention time in the vessel equal to the bubble/droplet rsing/ setting time (se Eaton 68), For thismodel, rising/seting paths were assumed and used to calculate the lengths required for separation ofthe sol and water. bee (3) ‘Thre criteria that exist for this behaviour depending upon the bale phase that is present: «Ina continuous gos phase, ol and water droplets settle, water droplets settle faster than oil droplets, so th ol droplet setling is controlling ‘nd is considered from the vessel top tothe Normal Operating Level. + Ina continuous ol phase, the gas bubbles ise, andthe water droples settle. The gas bubbles rise faster so the water droplet settling i ‘controlling and is considered from the Normal Operating Level othe Normal interface Level Ina continuous water phase, the gas bubbles and the ol droplets ris. ‘The gas bubble ise faster and so the ol droplet rising from the bottom ofthe vesel to the Normal Interface Level is controlling. qs. (69) and (70) below are examples developed based on the sep- aration of oil droplets from the gas continuous phase. The same pro- cedure is used to determine the length required for gravity sting forthe ol and water phases, respectively 9) oe Ola, a Retention time is set to be equal tothe Tength ofthe gravity seting section divided by the low velocity a in Pa, (69). The low velocity can be calculated by dividing the flow rate by the area as in (70). Substituting Eq. and solving for Lgr gives Hx. (71) which is the length required fr gravity setting ofthe droplets or bubbles out of continuous phase. 1 bello, om ‘Time for ol droplets to sete through the gas phase in F. (68) ean be expressed as; @ a or Ox(0,— han) ~alVA— Are) ‘The setling velocity (inthis cas, of oil out of gas phase) is deter mined by equating the gravity force tothe drag force. Caeulating the setting velocity using Eqs. (78) and (75) requires an iterative process Which starts with an assumption for the intial value ofthe drag coef cient. Te terminal velocity is calculated and used to calulate the Rey ‘olds number whieh in tur ie use to calelate the drag coetiient. This valueisthen used as the input into the terminal velocity Equation and the procedures repeated untl the difference between the calculated and the assumed valves ae equal. 13Mle. =P) Cory . Me 3) mis C9044 +e 6) ‘The length required for setling water from the ol continuous phase ‘an that of ising ol from water continvous phase are obtained using Es (77) and (78); Qn — haw) Tose = Aw) om Ta os) 3.12.3 Logica and geometric conairais. ‘The third group of constraints was derived feom the maximum dimensions allowed for road transport in the UK and the US. Most ofthe work carried auton the siting of three phase separators does not consider the transportation of these vessels from the manufacturing to the operation sites. Hence, iis necessary to ‘ensure all manufactured vessels are within the road transport limits. From te literature, the maximum length that ean be transported by road is 18.75m and a diameter of 423m. “Therefore, the following constraints were developed ©The maximum separator diameter (VD) should not be more than 42am, VD=D, +24 <4.25m 9) © The maximum separator length (1) should not be more than 18.75 UT = ML + 2(HL + 16) < 18750 cc) HL = Dit wp 1.24, Decision variables constrains. The final group of constraints are ‘sot on the decision variables. For optimisation to proceed, itis necessary to set some inputs at the start and to constraint them towards a possible solution. Therefore, the set inputs i. internal diameter (Di), length of gravity Setingsoetion (Lg), heights of normal operating, and normal Interface levels (hNOL, NIL) are consrained to be greater than 0. Dislyshnssn > 0 we) Note thatthe constraints can be easily modified to fit the users needs. For example, the constraints can be modified to include oversized loads, remove shut doven or alarm eves there isn requirement to sh down the processor if there willbe no time for operators to react. Once the separator dimension, liquid levels, and capital (equipment) cost are ob- tained from the minimisation function, the separator fixed capital cost ‘an then be determined, 3.2. Excel spreadsheet model design “The Capital cast model was formulated into an excel spreadsheet. User-defined funetions (UDF) and subroutines were designed to gain faceuracy and speed up the calculation process using Visual Basic yn (200) e408 Application (VBA), The model uses Graphic user interface (GUI) also develope using VBA for simplicity and ease of usage. ‘The excel spreadsheet model comprises 4 tabs; the fst tab contains the nomenclature which states the meaning of all the abbreviations wed {nthe model. The user can sleet the button o insert all he fluid prop- cties and operating conditions (sce Figure 4. Default values are given forall inputs but can be overwritten if propriety data isavailablefor all or some ofthe variables. A second option is provided for data relating to operating costs including the cost of crude oil, cost of Produced water treatment, cost of eletricty, and transportation cost. Once submitted the data is automatically stored into the capital and operating cost models ‘The capital cst tab uses the input variables supped by the user to calculate the separator capital cost. The capital cost page ie divided into four sections from left to right. Te fist section is where the input var {ables are stored. The second section consists of intermediate variables. ‘These are caleulated from the input variable, Thre buttons that call the goal seek function were developed using VBA fo solve the iterative pro- ‘cess ofcaleulatng the terminal velocities of oll in ga, ol in water and water in ol The thied section is comprised of the fitted variables. These variables are invally calculated using iia guesses and later fitted by the GRG solver. The objective function and decision variables fall under this section. The ast group of parameters are the constraints that were {imposed on the objective function. The outpt from the two models in terms of separator diameter, length, and various liquid level within the Separator and capital cos are displayed in the output tab. 3.3. Numerical sizing example for capltal cost model To study the economies of the separation process, a numerical ‘example is provided. It involves calculating the appropriate separator length, diameter, liquid levels setting velocities, dag coefficients, outlet 2s, ol and water diameters, equipment cost, and cst related tothe day to day operation ofthe separator. 3.3.1. Numerical sizing example question Design a horizontal three-phase separator with a flat pl diverter and overflow weir to separate a mixture of gas, oil, and water and determine te total investment required to set up the equipment. The ‘ud properties and operating conditions are presented in Table 1, Other {input variables and physical constant ae given in Table 2, 3.3.2, Numerical sling example rests ‘The step by step procedure developed is presented in Appendix 1 ‘This was used to obtain the results presented in Table 9. The GRG solver used agolution ime of ,093seconds and? iterations to obtain converged Solution with the following values forthe decision variables; Di = 1 48m, 1e=7.13m, KNOL = 074m, KNIL = 0.37m, 1/D = 5. ‘Appendix: presents moe information about the satus and values of the constraints at optimal conditions. The status column indicates the constraints constraining the design i in tis ease the three safety con- straints with binding status. All other constraints are not binding which rans there is some slack between the constraint and its limit. For example, if the gas, oll and water capacities are analysed, it will be observed that a slack of 0.04, 7.10 and 7.11 were obtained. What this ‘means is that for this diameter, the length ofthe gravity setling section coud be reduced to 7. 11m which isthe maximum vale among the three values and the specified bubble/drop sizes would still have been separated, 4. Comparison with other models An excel spreadshect was built for [4, 14, 83, 34], and the current work, For the comparison, flow rates of 2100-8200 m/h (2 to 7MMSCFD), 20-46 mh (3000-7000BPD), and 7-33 m®/h (1000-50008D) were used for gas, ol, and water respectively. yn (200) e408 aaa eee peaoy cate = cxdoue -— cote wasteater —. come nmers —— cto —— Figure 4. Screenshots of input page for developed mel “Table 1. id properties for thee phase veprator numeri izing example. id Pope Ga or won a te 00 108) 5 easy | 1 50 1000 ‘vicasty gms) 794008 0046 ooo “Table 2. ln variables and physical conta Ve Smbet vai Nonaka Tm te ‘0 Seon ook Redene Heit sh 10s Sty Height ah 75m Deny fie ” 730 bem? Separate net eng 4 te. ‘ont Fc fr Vel Sel % sig sei ey 5 1 ‘oren Awance « ‘ons2 ‘Tene Senet ° 210 x1 eng 08 Wee = aot “These flow rates were based on real data (see Figure 5). The data shows that the initial production contains small amount of water with high gas and ofl fractions. However, afer some years, the ofl and gas production declined while the water production increased significantly During oil and gas production, the gas phase is usually much higher than the liquid phase. In fact, the gas can be as high as 95% with the liquid (oil and water) taking up only about 5% of the total production volume fraction As such the comparison carried out focused on similar Table 3. Numerical sing example resus ‘Sepamtetoe € 5 “Septal Deter o 4m Separate tenet w 730m ight gd evel aa 0m gh iui Leet ae am ‘Noma Operating el cs 7am ve ia Level om 6m Lo Lad Level om 9580 wai ee a osm gh igh nec Leet ea sam gh tere Lee oo ase Nona mce Level he osm tow trace ol ma 20m Diameter of Gis Oe ne 0744 ‘ent Seen eth i 7360 Seperate Diameter > ry 8,000 ‘4000 £000 % 2000 3 1.000 F ° S00 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 “me Days) Figure 5 ly ol nd water procon dat. 8 7 -e Es Ba Bs 2 1 ° 2 a0 Ot Flowrate (mtr) Figure 6. Length and diameter against Oil Flow rate at Fixed Gas and Water Flows, Where (39) ts Abdel Aa, Aggour and Fahir (2002) (4, Amol snd ‘Stewart (2008) (7, Steck nl Monnery (1994) and (34 & Wiliam (2015) yn (200) e408 16 4 12 f 183) a Emp 4 gep Mm 5 gf —+This Work s ae 2 ° o 10 4 (80 2 30 Ot Flowrate (mr) igure 7. A graph of volume againt Howrate at Fixed Gas and Water Flows 60 50 es Baof Tin Bah ~m BoE new Bf ea = oo ow om 2 39 ‘Oi Flowrato(m°/n) Figure &. A graph of Slendemess ratio galt Ol Flow rate at Fixed Gas and 8 10 1 2 wm de eo ene Es sae= ters 16 E ae = z s 2 Ts werrcof 4 & 6 ered < ae 1 a2 Bay ° ° . 0 o 0 4 50 Water Flowrato (mr) igure 8. Diameter and Length against water ow rate at Faed Gas and Of Rowe 16 “ _w E10 ge ge af oq 4) of ots Ais won 134) ° ° 10 20 20 20 Water Flowcate (mfr) Figure 10. graph of volume against Fowrate at Fed Gas and Ol Hows, ow conditions (high gas to liquid ratio). The effect of nereasing the flow rate of each phase on the separator sizing models was determined ‘and preseated inthe following subsections. 4.1. Comparison of model at fved gas and water flow rates Initially it was decided to fx the gas and water flow rates at 5886 m"/ bh (GMMSCFD) and 33.12 mh (S0O0BPD) respectively and vary the oi flow rate from 19.8 to 46:2 m'/he (3000-70008PD) to investigate the ‘effect ofl faction on the separator size. Results from these comparisons are presented in Figure 6. ‘The William (54 model produces separator dimensions that do not ‘change with increasing oil flow rate. This method is more closely con- strained than the others given the slendernes ratio is fixed at four and the separator has to operate a 80% fll of liquids. Taken together these ‘constraints fc the separator dimensions for all ol flows. ‘The cafeulators of [33] and [4 produce very similar results. A linear relationships seen between te increas noi low rate andthe length of| the vessel, Thisis nt surprising because these models were developed to tse droplet setding theory for gas-liquid separation and retention time theory for liquid-liquid separation. In both cases, i was found that liquid

    You might also like