Society 01 Petroleum Engineers

POS SPE 25474 Predicting Liquid Re-Entrainment In Horizontal Separators

J.C. Viles, Paraqon Engineering Services Inc.
SPE Member

Copyright

1993.

Society of Petroleum

Engineers.

Inc. Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City. OK. U.S.A .. March 21-23. 1993.

This paper was prepared

for presentation

at the Production

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Comminee followir.g review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper. as presented. have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented. does not necessanty reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. its oHicers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 warns. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknow1edgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian. SPE. P.D. Box 833836. Richardson. TX 75083-3836. U.S.A. Telex. 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT

The design procedure for horizontal separator sizing results in a range of configurations of vessel diameter and length that will perform adequate gas-liquid separation. The actual diameter chosen depends on a trade-off between smaller, more economic diameters, and the larger diameters needed to prevent re-entrainment of previously separated liquid droplets that can break away from the gas-liquid interface. The lower diameter limit has been previously determined by design guidelines based on the slenderness ratio of the vessel. This article presents a procedure for determining the lower diameter limit and for calculating the maximum gas capacity of a horizontal separator based on liquid reentrainment. The method is based on correlations for predicting the onset of liquid re-entrainment developed previously by Ishii and GroImes. The procedure uses known and predicted liquid and gas properties and may be used in conjunction with normal design procedures for more economic horizontal separator designs.
INTRODUCTION

cause disturbances in the two-phase boundary. These disturbances manifest themselves as waves and ripples. Gas to liquid momentum transfer to the disturbed interface is more efficient than to a smooth surface, and this allows droplets to be broken away from the liquid phase. Re-entrainment must be avoided in horizontal separators because it is the reverse of the gas-liquid separation desired. In practical terms, this necessity imposes an upper limit on the allowed gas velocity across the liquid surface within the. separator, putting a lower limit on the cross-sectional area within the vessel for gas flow. The vessel design is thereby limited by a combination of minimum vessel diameter and maximum liquid level since these determine the crosssectional area. Previously, rules of thumb, such as a maximum slenderness ratio of 4 to 5, have been used in design to avoid re-entrainment.' This article presents a procedure for predicting when reentrainment is possible based on previously developed correlations and discusses modifications to design procedures to produce more economic horizontal separator designs.
r

Entrainment refers to liquid droplets breaking away from a gas-liquid interface to become suspended in the gas phase. The term re-entrainment is used in horizontal separator design because it is generally assumed that droplets have settled to the liquid phase and are then removed back to the gas phase. Re-entrainment of liquids is caused by high gas velocities. Momentum transfer from the gas to the liquid and its associated pressure variations on the gas-liquid interface

RE-ENTRAINMENT

THEORY

Re-entrainment is a physical phenomenon of two-phase stratified fluid flow. The onset of re-entrainment occurs at the boundary of the stratified wavy and annular mist twophase flow regimes at relatively high gas-to-liquid velocities, as shown in Figure 1.2 Re-entrainment is caused by rapid momentum transfer from the gas to the liquid. For purposes of this article, only the onset of re-entrainment must be

591

SPE 25474 predicted, since no amount of re-entrainment in a horizontal separator.

JOHN C. VILES can be allowed The Ishii and Grolmes equations APPLICATION appear in the Appendix

Isbii and Gr olmcs.':' have proposed correlations for predicting the minimum velocity required for re-entrainment of liquid into gas for eo-current flow. The equations are based on i.nterpretation of experimental data taken from several gas-liquid systems, including water or oil and nitrogen or helium. The correlations use the Reynolds film number and an interfacial viscosity number to characterize the two-phase flow. These are defined as:
(1)
ilL

Design of horizontal separators allows for some flexibility in choosing a combination of length and diameter to perform the separation required. The design constraints for liquid and gas capacity are;' Gas Capacity Constraint:

OG T Z d Lerr ~ 420 ----=-P

(1 - 13) (1 - a)

[r21~Dl l
hp

0.5

(3)

dm

and

Liquids Capacity Constraint: d

2

[PL 0

(_0_)0.5]0.5

(2)

Lerr

t ra

00

+ t rw

Ow

2 ---:--:----

(4)

1,4 a

hp

The Reynolds film number, Re., is a measure of the turbulence of the liquid phase, and it indicates which mechanism of re-entrainment is most likely for the flow conditions considered. Ishii and Grolmes proposed three distinct mechanisms for re-entrainment. For Reynoids film numbers less than 160, a wave undercut mechanism was proposed whereby gas impinges 'on the gas-liquid interface, undercutting it and breaking displaced liquid away from the interface. At higher Reynolds film numbers, roll wave shear becomes the dominant mechanism, where the tops of waves are sheared off by high relative velocities between gas and liquid. Reynolds film numbers above 1635 indicate a highly turbulent condition dominated by interfacial properties. As Reynolds number increases, the liquid surface becomes more rough, and the importance of Re! diminishes asymptotically. These mechanisms occur in three flow regimes, referred to as low Reynolds number 160), transition (160-1635), and rough turbulent (> 1635). Re-entrainment is more likely at high Reynolds film numbers. The interfacial viscosity number, N~, is a measure of the resiliency of the liquid surface under turbulent conditions. In physical terms, it is the ratio of viscous forces induced in the liquid by flow to the surface tension maintaining the gasliquid interface. Re-entrainment becomes more likely with higher interfacial viscosity numbers. The tendency of liquids to re-entrain increases appreciably as NI' exceeds 1/15.

Seam-to-seam vessel length may equations appearing in the Appendix.

be

estimated

from

Only one constraint will govern for a given design. Each constraint imposes a limit on either diameter or effective length, but not both, The design engineer is free to select one variable, usually the diameter, thus fixing the other variable, For a given diameter, the design is said to be gas dominated if Equation 3 controls the design and liquids dominated if Equation 4 controls. For gas dominated separator designs, smaller diameters (requiring longer lengths) tend to be less costly due to smaller wall thicknesses required. Smaller diameters, however, leave less area for gas flow, resulting in higher velocities and potential re-entrainment problems, Thus, there is an optimum vessel diameter that minimizes cost but does not support re-entrainment The correlations of ISM and Grolmes can be modified to predict re-entrainment in horizontal separators, allowing the best design to be found. First, the correlations must be rearranged to give the maximum gas velocity explicitly. These modified re- _ entrainment criteria are presented in Table I. Next, the equations must be integrated into the design procedure. The hydraulic diameter and surface tension must be evaluated so that the Reynolds film number and interfacial viscosity number can be computed,

592

PREDICTING

LIQUID

RE-ENTRAINMENT

IN HORIZONTAL

SEPARATORS

SPE 25474

The general hydraulic diameter for a duct is defined as four times the hydraulic radius, which is the cross-sectional area for liquid flow divided by the wetted perimeter. Therefore:

selected from Table I to calculate the maximum permissible gas velocity relative to the oil phase. Comparison of this value with the actual velocities calculated in equations 9 and 10 indicates if re-entrainment is possible. DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM VESSEL DIAMETER

(5)

The area for liquid flow is given by:

(6)

Two strategies may be employed concurrently to optimize a horizontal separator design to minimize cost. In equations 3 and 4, the engineer has a choice of vessel diameter. Since smaller diameter separators of the same capacity are typically less costly, the first strategy is to use the minimum diameter that will not support re-entrainment. The minimum diameter cannot be solved for explicitly due to its influence on Re, and the series of equations that depend on it. Solution requires an iterative procedure. An inside diameter is assumed and then (Vr)max and the actual gas velocity relative to the oil phase are calculated and compared. New diameters are tried until (Vr)max equals the relative gas velocity, V r. Figure 2 illustrates the design constraints for a high pressure, gas dominated design as the vessel diameter is varied. This design is liquid dominated for diameters less than 35 inches and gas dominated for larger diameters. Acceptable designs, based on equations 3 and 4, lie above both the gas and liquids design lines. Vessel weight, calculated from estimating equations presented in the Appendix, is also plotted. Since vessel cost correlates closely to vessel weight, it is clear that the most economic designs lie to the left on the graph. When solved for minimum diameter, the equations predict re-entrainment in any designs with diameters less than 42 inches in this example. This coincides with a slenderness ratio of 4. Therefore, the optimum acceptable design for this case has standard dimensions close to, but greater than, 42 inches inside diameter and 13 ft. seam-to-seam length. DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM LIQUID HEIGHT

where a is the fraction flow and is given by: a =2.cos-1 (1-28)

1!

of total vessel area used for liquid

- ~ (1 -2~ )(~
1!

_~2)0.5

(7)

where fi is the fractional liquid height within the vessel. The wetted perimeter is given by:

(8)
For the most common case of a half-full separator, hydraulic diameter equals the vessel inside diameter. Gas velocity, as a function full, is given by: of vessel diameter .the

and fraction

(9)

While liquid (oil) velocity is given by

V =
o

00
15387AL

(10)

If it is not known from experimental data, the surface tension may be calculated by a variety of methods." One useful correlation? is: o =0.0022 [42.4 -0.D47(T - 460) -0.267

CAPI)

Je

-{)OOO7P

(11)

In three phase applications, only surface liquid (oil) and gas properties are used in the above equations. The wetted perimeter is based on total fluids, and liquid velocity is based on the surface (oil) phase. Once the Reynolds film number and film viscosity numbers have been evaluated, the appropriate equation can be

The second approach to optimized design is to adjust the 'liquid height in the vessel. Depending on the requirements for gas and liquid capacity, the liquid level can be increased or decreased to bring the required gas and liquid seam-toseam lengths into closer agreement. As in the case above, an explicit solution is not possible, and a trial and error procedure must be-used to find the maximum liquid height. An assumption for the vessel diameter is required, Figure 3 plots the design constraints for a liquids dominated

593

SPE 25474

JOHN C. VILES

4 30 API gravity and lighter in high pressure applications. Lower pressures can allow more slender, and therefore more economical, designs to be used. It is obvious again that heavier crudcs are more susceptible to re-entrainment, particularly when the film viscosity number exceeds 1/15 (0.0667). Due to their higher viscosity, these heavy crudes are more likely to exhibit low Reynolds number behavior, indicating that wave undercutting is a likely re-entrainment mechanism for them. In addition to re-entrainment of liquid into gas, gas is trapped in the liquid phase by this method. Thus, "foaming" of heavy crudes observed in some horizontal separators can actually be caused by re-entrainment effects rather than an inherent problem of the crude type. Most separators designed for heavy crude applications are sized on liquids capacity constraints. Gas velocity for such designs is usually low. For this reason, re-entrainment is not as common a problem for separators in heavy crude service as Figure 5 would suggest. CONCLUSIONS The correlations presented here provide a means for predicting when re-entrainment can occur in horizontal separators, and they can be used directly for economical separator design. The techniques discussed here confirm the general guidelines on slenderness ratio that are usually used in horizontal separator sizing. The following guidelines 1) apply to re-entrainment prediction:

design as the fractional liquids height is varied. The equations presented here predict re-entrainment possible at liquid heights above 72% full, even though gas capacity (Equation 3) is not the governing design constraint for this liquid level. In theory, both liquid height and vessel diameter must be optimized concurrently. This involves a trial and error procedure in which different vessel diameters and liquid heights are tried until the lowest cost standard size vessel is chosen. The most economic liquid level should be that at which the required -gas and liquid vessel lengths are equal. However, considerations for vessel surge capacity, clearances for vessel internals, and room for instrumentation, often dictate that other combinations of diameter and length be selected. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS General treatment of re-entrainment potential is difficult due to the dependency of Re, on individual vessel geometries. If only rough turbulent (Re, > 1635) re-entrainment is considered, and oil velocity is assumed to be negligible compared to gas velocity, however, dependency on vessel geometry disappears, and a more general analysis can be . performed. Conservative velocity limits versus operating pressure and API gravity of liquids are plotted in Figure 4 . Re-entrainment tendency is over predicted since horizontal separators do not always operate in the rough turbulent liquid regime and oil velocities are not zero. Required oil properties are correlated to API, surface tension is based on Equation 11, and viscosity comes from reference 1. From the graph, it can be seen that less gas velocity is permissible at higher pressures because of higher gas densities and reduced liquid surface tension. The critical velocity is 2-20 ft/s for most light crude applications at ambient temperatures. Critical velocity decreases for heavier crudes, particularly where NI' > 1/15. The higher viscosity of heavy crude oils interferes with oil/water separation, however, so these crudes are processed at higher temperatures where Figure 4 does not apply. By utilizing the rough turbulent liquid re-entrainment correlations, in conjunction with the gas capacity constraint (Equation 3), one can determine the generalized maximum slenderness ratio allowed for a wide range of gas capacities. Results are plotted in Figure 5. It is clear that the re-entrainment correlation treated here follows the slenderness ratio rule of thumb for crude oils of

Re-entrainment should be considered in high pressure separators sized on gas-capacity constraints. A maximum slenderness ratio of 4 to 5 for half-full horizontal vessels applies to this case. Higher slenderness ratios are possible at pressures less than 1000 psia. Re-entrainment becomes more likely at higher operating pressures. This tendency is a result of increased gas density and reduced gas-liquid surface tension. Higher pressures may require less slender designs. Re-entrainment IS more likely as oil viscosity increases. As a result, re-entrainment is much more likely for heavier crudes, especially below ~ API. Higher operating temperatures reduce the tendency for re-entrainment in horizontal separators by reducing the viscosity of the crude oil.

2)

3)

594

PREDICTING

LIQUID

RE-ENTRAlNMENT

IN HORIZONTAL

SEPARATORS

SPE 25474

NOMENCLATURE
a

REFERENCES
1.

g
Let!

L
jl Nil

o
p

PL

OG
ReI
6p

a
t

Vessel fraction full based on liquid area APT gravity at 600 F Vessel area for liquid flow Vessel fraction full based on liquid height Droplet drag coefficient for gravity setting Vessel inside diameter, in. Vessel inside diameter, ft. Liquids hydraulic diameter, It. Droplet maximum diameter removed, microns acceleration of gravity, 32.2 ft/S2 Vessel effective length for separation, ft. Vessel seam to seam length, ft. Dynamic liquid viscosity, Ibm/ft-s Interfacial viscosity number, dimensionless Absolute pressure, psia Vessel wetted perimeter, ft. Liquid flow rate, BPD Gas flow rate, MMSCFD Reynolds film number, dimensionless Density, lbm/fr' Density difference between liquid and gas, lbm/fr' Surface tension between liquid and gas,

Arnold, K. and Stcwart, M., Surface Production Operations, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston (1986), pp. 65,104-114,135-138. Griffith, P., "Multiphase Flow (March 1984), pp. 363-367. in Pipes", JPT,

2.

3.

Ishii, M. and Grolmes, M. A., "Inception Criteria for Droplet Entrainment In Two-Phase Concurrent Film Flow," AlChE Journal (Mar. 1975), Vel. 21, No. 2, pp. 308-318. Ishii, M. and Kaichiro, M. "Droplet entrainment correlation in annular two-phase flow," Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer (1989), Vol 32, No. 10, pp. 183518460 Perry Ro Ho, and Green, Do w., Edso Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook. Sixth Edition. McGraw Hill, New York (1984), Set. 3, pp 288-2890 Baker, 00, and SwerdJoff, Wo, "Finding Surface Tension of Hydrocarbon Liquids", Oil and Gas Journal, Jan 2, 1956, p. 1250 One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow. McGraw New York (1969) ppo 320, 345-351, 376-391. Hill,

4.

50

60

lbm/s'
T t,
V

V,
W Z

Vessel wall thickness, in. Absolute temperature, OR Liquid residence time, min. Velocity, ft/s Gas velocity relative to liquid, ft/s Vessel estimated weight, Ibs. Gas compressibility factor

70

Subscripts L G Liquid (surface) phase Gas phase Oil Water

o
W

ACKNO~EDGEMENTS
The Author wishes to express his appreciation to Paragon Engineering Services Incorporated for assistance in publishing this article. Special thanks go to Mary E. Thro, Kenneth E. Arnold, and John E. Van Meter for their criticism and editorial assistance.

595

SPE 25474 APPENDIX

JOHN C. VILES Vessel wall thickness in inches (based on 17500 psi allOWf.l stress) is calculated as:
t

Additional Equations The Ishii and Gr olmes'' Inception Criteria are as follows: For the low Reynolds number regime (Re, < 160),

= -:::3~5000=-+-:::-0.-;;-8-;::;-P
to be:

Pd

(A-8)

Vessel weight in pounds is then estimated (A-I) W=1O.7IdL "

For the transition

t+

d2t

12

(A-9)

regime (160

.s. Re, .s.

if

1635),

N~~

1 15

(A-2)

if

N >~ ~ 15

(A-3)

For the rough turbulent

5 JlLVr [PG

regime (Re, > 1635): 1 15 (AA)

10

N:.s

if

N~~

PL

05

11

V
a

[~ 1
PL

>0.1146

Jf

N >1 ~ 15

(A-5)

Entrainment satisfied.

is possible

if the appropriate

equation

is

The minimum vessel seam-to-seam length was estimated from the vessel effective length by the following equations: If Leeris based on the gas capacity constraint then: La = the larger of [ ~ Leeror Leer + (Equation 3)

0]

(A-6)

If Leeris based on the liquid capacity constraint (Equation then: L= the larger of [ ~ Leeror Let!+

4)

2.5]

(A-7)

596

I
I !
TABLE I RE-ENTRAINMENT CRITERIA FOR MAXIMUM GAS VELOCITY

Eg.
A.

RCr < 160

NI'

(Vr)mu

---

.1.5-"-[-'-']"' Re,<'
III Pr;

B.

160s Rc,s 1635

s 0.0667

11.78~

III PG

2 []"'

N~8Rer-1 ,

C.

160s Rers 1635

> 0.0667

1.35-

III PG

[r '
Pl

Re,

-1

D.

> 1635

s 0.0667

_~-[-'-'1\~
III PGJ

E.

> 1635

>0.0667

0.1146

-"-[-'-'r
III PG

597

Horizontal Two-Phase Flow Regime Map

::::
>.

U)

100 10 1 0.1
Slr;n;~.ao Smooth
o,spers&d Bu~e

o o

-1I SIUQ

-I

>
U
EIOrlQated BvooIe

<l>

er :::::i

::J

Int9fTT'11nerrt

:g
<l> Q ::J
Cl)

<U

0.01
0.1

10

100

1000

Superficial Gas Velocity, fVs

Adapted from: P. Griffith. "Multi phase Flow in Pipes", JPT, March 1984, pp. 363-367

Figure 1. General multiphase flow regime map. Line positions depend on fluids and conditions.

Horizontal Separator Design Limits

..c <l>
-l

.30 -r-------------...,..17000
100 MMSCFD (0_65 SG, 140 micron removal) 5,000 BOPD (40 APt. 2 min. retention) 80 deg F. 1000 psia
Design Transition

Half-Full Vessel Diameter Optimization

g>25
liquids

.0

en

14000 _
x:
.Ql
Q)

~ en
Q)

20
Gas

> ~15 Q)
Cl)

11 000 ~
X

CO

-10
E
C'O Q)

- -l-4d

- - j -

8000

E o 'Q
Q

I
~ Entrainmen~1 No Entrainment ..

-c
55

Cl)

5 ~--~--~---+--~---~--~5000 25 35 40 45 50 30
Inside Diameter, in.

Figure 2. Design constraints on vessel diameter for a gas-dominated 598

horizontal separator.

Horizontal Separator Design Limits

Liquid Height Optimization

75 I-------;:::::::;;~==:::~====~50000 _......: 65
50 MMSCFD (0.65 SG. 140 micron removal) U 'd
~ qUI S . -

50.000 BOPD (30 API. 3 min. retention) 80 dag F. 250 psia

.r::
Q)

66 in. 1.0.

Cf)

'0>55 c 45
CO

I
.

45000 D ....
.r::
Q)

0>
-

-J

~- - - -

- - - -

40000 ~

~ 35
o

2
co E

~ 25
CO
Q) Vessel Weight

-x
Gas -

35000 ~

Cl)

15 0.4

---~- ~ __~__ ;...;,._ ...... _ -._.._.0.-----~No Entrainment

"'7' -----~

1 Entrainment

5 r----+----+----+----~~_~~-430000

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Fractional Liquid Height

Figure 3. Design constraints on liquid height for a liquids-dominated

horizontal separator.

Critical Re-entrainment Gas Velocity

(Based on zero velocity turbulent oil)

1001r=======~-----------------'
l80cIogF.O.65~G"

L_---------SOpsia
~
LL

10
1

.l.C===_-------SOO

'g
CD
Cf)

>. ....

..:~~:...:.~~;;;....;::=:::::::2SO :-:=-_---:::=====1000 ~C==::"_------1500

psia psia psia psia

>
CO

CJ

0.1 0.01
20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

API Gravity of Crude Oil

Figure 4. Maximum gas velocity based on conservative

liquid phase assumptions.

599

Critical Slenderness Ratio

o -.....
~
C"?

12

Gas Cap.cty eon.hinod FIAHorizor<aI ~"" Size Bewd on 1.w mc:ron ct'op6cIt r~ eo dog F. 0 65 GrM!y Go.

-~
o en en
ID

'<:t

~ 10 8

50 psia

250 psia

500 psia

c
L-

4
2

=-_--__ ~
':-;1'=0.0667

1000 psia 1500 psia .

-g
o:
ID

G.)

o~~~~~~~~--~~~
20
25 30 35 40

45

50

55

60

API Gravity of Crude Oil (In Turbulent Flow)

Figure 5. Maximum slenderness ratio based on conservative liquid phase assumptions.

600