You are on page 1of 5

The gasliquid separation technology employed by the oil industry over the last several

decades has been mostly based on gravity-driven processes. These conventional


separator systems use large and heavy vessels. The technology is especially costly for
offshore operations: the required size and weight are a major burden for naval
structures. The need to exploit offshore oil reserves, as well as to cut down equipment
costs, have been motivating the research on new, compact, gasliquid separation
techniques.

One of the most promising developments uses the cyclone concept. The equipment is
characterized by simplicity (no moving parts), compactness and low weight and
reduced cost. These features are rapidly promoting its use in the industry as an
alternative to the conventional gravity-based separators. Currently, the cyclone
concept is being applied in the design of various systems. To quote a few, one may cite
the Vertical Annular Separation and Pumping System (VASPS), the GasLiquid
Cylindrical Cyclone (GLCC), and the Cyclone Separator (CS) to be presented in this
paper.

VASPS is a UK patent application issued to the British Petroleum in 1988. It was


designed for gas liquid sub-sea separation. A description of its operational principles
can be found in Gregory (1989), in a
BP report (1990) and discussed by Entress et al. (1991). The GLCC resulted from a joint
development by Chevron Petroleum Technology and Tulsa University. The GLCC is
especially suited for applications requiring partial separation, such as stand-alone
preseparators and partial separators composing with multiphase meters. Kouba et al.
(1995), Kouba and Shoham (1996) and Marti et al. (1996) described the conceptual
design and applications.

The Cyclone Separator (CS), subject of this paper, was a joint development by
Petrobras and the State University of Campinas. The CS was primarily developed as
part of a sub-sea boosting technology for oil production from deepwater fields, Franc_ a
et al. (1996). The fluids are separated at the wellhead level, so that they could flow to
the platform in individual lines: a conventional Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP)
pumps the oil (or oilwater mixture); the gas is driven upward by the pressure
difference that exists between the separator and the collecting vessel on the platform.
Its compact configuration can be shortly described as a vertical case composed by
three subseparators. The CS does not have moving parts. Within the unit, the mixture
mostly flows in a helical path. Therefore, an enhanced separation process, combining
the action of the centrifugal and gravitational forces acting on the gasliquid mixture,
results. This makes a separator with smaller footprint and lower weight.

Separating the gas and liquid at the wellhead level has a number of advantages: it
increases the reservoir recovery as the pressure at the wellhead is lowered; a
centrifugal pump may be installed to transport the separated oil stream; using distinct
pipelines to transport the phases to the platform avoids, or at least reduces, the
occurrence of typical problems in multiphase flows (intermittent flow, severe slugging,
hydrates deposition). Moreover, it makes easier the measurement of the separated
streams, resulting in a better reservoir management. Such benefits spotlight the
cyclone separator as a promising technology when developing marginal oil fields in
deepwater scenarios. Sub-sea installation is not the sole possibility for the CS. Other
offshore and even onshore applications have been devised. It can be used as a
combination of slug catcher and pre-separator, receiving and preprocessing the phases
before they enter a smaller conventional unit. More recently, its design has been
modified, making it able to work as a three-phase (gas, liquid and solids) in drilling
processes. Andrade et al. (1999) discussed its use in underbalanced drilling operations.
Despite the uncomplicated design and simplicity of operation, cyclone gasliquid
separators are not so widely used by the oil industry as they are by other industries in
general. Marti et al. (1996) mentioned the difficulty in predicting the hydrodynamic
performance is the largest obstacle to a broader application. Trying to overcome this
lack, this paper reports the tests performed with scaled-down models of gasliquid
cyclone separators and full-size prototypes. The laboratory models were designed,
constructed and operated by the Multiphase Flow Laboratory (Multlab)at the State
University of Campinas, in Brazil, under contract with Petrobras. The test data taken in
laboratory refer to the operation with air and water and water-based viscous fluids.
They set the basis for the development and tune up of mechanistic models
representing the flow hydrodynamics and the gasliquid separation processes. The
mechanistic models are, also, the scope of this paper. The reliability of the models was
checked against field test data. The field test were conducted using actual fluids and
full dimension prototypes at the ENI-Agips Multiphase Test Loop in Trecate, Italy, and at
the Petrobras Test Site for Multiphase Equipment in Atalaia, Southeast Brazil. The
analysis of the field tests and how they compare with model prediction are part of the
paper. Finally, the paper provides a discussion on prospective field applications.

2. Set-up for the scaled-down model tests The set-up assembled for the laboratory
tests of scaled-down models of the Cyclone Separator consisted of a closed loop for the
liquid and an open circuit for the air. The main components appear in Fig. 1. Three
different working liquids were used during the tests: tap water and two water-based
solutions of hydroxyl-ethyl-cellulose (HEC) and BuffaloR 1650, a commercial brand of
corn syrup. The fluids were Newtonian with viscosity ranging from 1 up to 150 cP, at 25
_C. The tests were conducted at near atmospheric pressure, with gas flow rates ranging
from 5 to 50 g/s (3603600 Nm3/day). As the liquid flow rate varied from 1 to 7 kg/s
(86600 m3/day), the gas-to-liquid (or oil) input volumetric ratio, GOR, spanned from 1
to 40. Due to space limitations, the inlet pipe transporting the gasliquid mixture into
the separators had a short length, 15 equivalent diameters, measured from the mixer.
This pipe was transparent, made of Plexiglas, to allow visual observation of the gas
liquid flow pattern. The observed flow patterns were, basically, intermittent (slug) and
annular flow.

Pressure and temperature were measured with diaphragm transducers and


thermocouples, respectively. Vortex flow meters measured the inlet and outlet gas flow
rates; a turbine flow meter measured the inlet liquid flow rate. The liquid level inside
the separator was measured by a differential pressure transducer and controlled by a
digital controller actuating on a valve connected to liquid discharge line. The data were
acquired and recorded by a National InstrumentsR data acquisition board and
multiplexer running on a bus of a 486-66 MHz PC computer. The software
LabWindowsR, supplied by the data acquisition board manufacturer, was used to
process the data.

Two variables define the separator performance: the liquid carry-over (LCO), meaning
the liquid content in the gas discharge flow, and the gas carry-under (GCU), meaning
the gas content in the liquid outlet flow. A demister with a calibrated chamber was used
to separate the remaining liquid in the gas outflow and measure the LCO. An electrical
resistance needle probe was used to measure the distribution of the gas concentration
the void fractionin the liquid outlet pipe, making possible the calculation of the
GCU. Besides, a transparent pipe allowed the direct visual inspection of the gas content
in the liquid outflow. The gas and liquid inventories were calculated taking the inflow
and the outflow readings from the flow meters and adding the measurements of the
GCU and the LCO, when they existed. Additional measurements of the liquid film
thickness, void fraction, liquid velocity, pressure drop and interface position were also
taken using needle and doublewire electrical probes, ultra-sound techniques, Pitot
tubes and pressure transducers. These measurements were helpful for establishing the
closure relations needed by the mechanistic modeling.

Three down-sized, scaled-down prototypes, Models I, II-A and II-B, were tested. Their
main dimensions are depicted in Fig. 2. Model I is roughly three times larger than
Models II A. The upper part of the separator, the so-called expansion chamber, differs
Model II-A from Model II-B. In Model II-A, the expansion chamber is a conical body, while
Model II-B is crowned with a cylindrical body. They were made of transparent Plexiglas
to allow flow visualization.
Three stainless steel helices with different pitches were tested: Model I used one helix
with 10_ of inclination; Model II used replaceable helices, with inclination angles of 10
and 18.

3. The flow hydrodynamics and the phase segregation processes

In order to develop a design tool based on the mechanistic modeling of the phase
segregation processes taking place inside the equipment, extensive flow visualization
and tests in regular and limiting operational conditions were performed. Operating the
separator on the verge of flooding occurrence or on the limit of gas down flowing is
helpful to identify the processes acting to separate the phases. This section addresses
the processes and phenomena observed in regular and limiting operational conditions,
linking them to the hydrodynamics of the flow through the various sections composing
the separator.

A successful operation is achieved when the inlet gasliquid mixture separates into
clean streams. The gas outflow must be free of liquid or its liquid content must be very
small. Vice-versa must be true for the liquid outflow. Ideally, the LCO and the GCU,
which are the liquid content in the gas outflow and the gas content in the liquid
outflow, must be null. Fig. 3 is a sketch of the flow when the separator operates under
regular condition. Due to the distinct nature of the gasliquid separation processes
occurring within the separator, it could be conceived as formed by a primary, a
secondary and a tertiary separator. The overall performance of the separator depends
on the performance of each of these parts.
Primary separation occurs when the two-phase mixture leaves the nozzle and flows, as
a liquid film with dispersed bubbles, over the inner wall of the expansion chamber. A
large amount of the gas content in the mixture separates at that point.

The film losses tangential inertia due to the shear stress and accelerates along the
vertical direction.
Then it enters the helix channel, where an open channel flow takes place and the
secondary separation happens. The amount of the gas that separates in this section
flows through the existing holes into the inner pipe and then gets to the gas pipeline.

Leaving the helix channel, the liquid and some eventual dispersed bubbles plunge into
the tertiary separator, i.e., the pool formed at the bottom of the equipment. The pool,
besides acting as a conventional gravitational separator for the residual gas, directs the
liquid to the pump suction line.
The hydrodynamics of the flowing mixture and the phase segregation processes taking
place in each of these three sections will be detailed next.

3.1 Primary separator

At the expansion chamber the inlet nozzle imparts momentum to the gasliquid
mixture and discharges it, along a tangential direction, over the cylindrical wall. Some
gas separates from the liquid at this point, but a mixture still persists. This mixture
starts rotating over the wall, forming a liquid film with dispersed bubbles. Under the
action of a strong centrifugal field, the bubbles tend to move along the radial direction
and eventually get to the interface. Thus, as the film rotates, more gas separates and
adds to the inner gas stream.

The above-described scenario is likely to occur under a regular operation condition, as


depicts Fig. 4A. Fig. 4B and C shows two limiting conditions in the expansion chamber,
due to the excess of gas and liquid flow rates, in that order. When the former occurs,
there is liquid carry-over, LCO, resulting from the fact that the film climbs the wall and
hits the orifices and slots that connect the chamber to the discharge line. The above-
described scenario is likely to occur under a regular operation condition, as depicts Fig.
4A. Fig. 4B and C shows two limiting conditions in the expansion chamber, due to the
excess of gas and liquid flow rates, in that order. When the former occurs, there is
liquid carry-over, LCO, resulting from the fact that the film climbs the wall and hits the
orifices and slots that connect the chamber to the discharge line.

3.2. Secondary separator

Along the secondary separator, the mixture flows downward the helix channel as an
open channel flow. The gravity is the main driving force, composing with a moderate
centrifugal field and the wall shear stress to pull the liquid against the outer wall, to
shape the film interface and to size the cross-sectional area. The hydrodynamics
development of the flow occurs along a distance of 46 equivalent helix pitches. There
is residual gas dispersed as bubbles in the liquid film. Thus, the two-phase flow pattern
can be classified as a dispersed-bubble mixture flowing as a stratified film flow. The film
interface is inclined in relation to the main axis of symmetry. The free gas flows along
the upper-inner part of the helix before venting to the gas outlet line through the holes
drilled at the top of the channel inner wall. The pitch of the helix rules the maximum
liquid flow rate and sets the liquid hold-up for a given operational condition and
channel size.

Fig. 5 shows a sketch of the flow inside the helix. Fig. 5A represents regular operational
condition; Fig. 5B and C depicts limiting operational conditions, which are, respectively,
the choke of the helix channel and the existence of dispersed bubbles in the film at the
exit of the helix channel. Choking, Fig. 5B, is likely to occur along the first helix pitches,
just after the expansion chamber. When it happens, the pressure increases and a two-
phase jet discharges into the gas collector, i.e., the inner tube.
The liquid, entering the inner tube, may trap gas and causes flow instabilities,
triggering the liquid carryover (LCO). For these reasons, the flow pattern in the
upstream pipeline is a subject of main concern when sizing the separator. If
intermittent flows occur, or the inlet piping geometry induces severe slugging, the helix
channel may not be able to handle the largest instantaneous liquid flow rates. It chokes
and floods the expansion chamber. In a later evolution of the equipment, there is a
linking piece that transitions the film flowing between the succeeding sections: a
double helix with variable pitch allows a smooth flow path from the expansion chamber
to the helix channel.
The upper limit of the instantaneous liquid flow rate could be extended this way.
There are dispersed bubbles in the liquid film at the end of the helix (Fig. 5C) when
their residence time within the channel is shorter than the time they spend to travel
across the film to reach the gasliquid interface. The centrifugal and gravitational field
set the bubble relative velocity and trajectory in regard to the film. And thus, the
existence of dispersed bubbles at the end of the helix is a function of the shape of the
film cross section, the liquid flow rate, the gasliquid density ratio, the liquid viscosity,
the bubble size and shape and the length and number of helix pitches.
Ultimately, when designing the secondary separator one has: (1) to accomplish for a
smooth flow transition between the expansion chamber and the helix; (2) to set the
helix dimensions so that the liquid hold-up stays less than a critical value; (3) to
estimate the helix length so that a certain critical bubble (in terms of size and form)
reaches the interface before the film leaves the helix channel and, (4) set the diameter
of the gas collecting tube to avoid upstream velocities that drag liquid droplets and
film. To calculate these variables one refers to the instantaneous gas and liquid flow
rates, which are closely connected with the two-phase flow pattern.

You might also like