CFD Analysis of Unbalance Liquid Level in Ulubelu Geothermal Power Central Separator

Project Title :
Document Number
Balance Liquid Level
Of Central Separator
XXX-XX-XXX-001
Ulubelu Geothermal
Power
PT. Rekayasa PT. 3S - Engineering

Industri
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Unbalance Liquid Level Of Central Separator Ulubelu Geothermal
Power
Revision Status
Owner
Rev Issue Date By Chk App Issue Purpose
Signature
PT. 3S Engineering Unbalance Liquid Level of Central Separator Ulubelu Geothermal Power
REVISION LOG REGISTER
Revisions had been performed on following pages:
Page Date Revision
Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REVISION LOG REGISTER ................................................................................................. 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. 5
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... 6
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 7
1.1. OBJECTIVE .............................................................................................. 7
1.2. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................. 7
2. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 8
2.1. GEOMETRY ............................................................................................. 9
2.2. ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................... 10
2.3. MATERIAL DATA AND FLUID PROPERTIES ........................................... 10
3. COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH ................................................................................ 11
3.1. 3D MODELLING..................................................................................... 11
3.2. MESHING .............................................................................................. 11
3.3. SETUP SIMULATION.............................................................................. 13
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 16
4.1. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 18
4.2. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 18
4.3. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 27
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 28
Page 4
LIST OF FIGURES
Page 5
LIST OF TABLES
Page 6
1. INTRODUCTION
Most conventional geothermal wells produce two-phase flow of water, steam and gas at
the well head. This fluid normally travels at the surface in the geothermal fluid
transmission system toward the separator where steam and water are separated.
This work evaluates some of the existing pipeline for estimating the hydraulic
phenomena in two-phase geothermal pipelines applied to field data from the Ulubelu
geothermal field, Lampung - Indonesia. The best accurate from pressure drop
calculation regarding that correlation will be selected to the further study.
The Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis for Ulubelu Separator is perform for Inlet
Header, Separator, Brine Line and Steam Line. This simulation required robust
calculation and analysis.
1.1. OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this project are as follow:
 To simulate the fluid flow through Separator Station (Inlet Header, Separator,
Brine Line and Steam Line).
 To predict cause of high liquid level on Internal Separator.
1.2. GLOSSARY
Some abbreviation used in this report, as follows:
3D : Three Dimension
IAWPS : The International Association for The Properties of Water and Steam
TFT : Tracer Flow Testing
Page 7
2. METHODOLOGY
In order to simulate the fluid flow inside the steam coil heater, we have to solve Navier-
Stokes equation. Computational Fluid Dynamics program is used to solve the Navier
Stokes computationally to obtain the fluid flow and their properties.
Start
Geometry,
Dimension,
Material, Fluid
Properties
Geometric 3D Model
Meshing
Boundary Condition
CFD Calculation
Mass Flow,
Verification &
Pressure, Vol.
Validation with TFT
Fraction
Data
Recommendation
Finish
Figure 1 Workflow of Ulubelu Separator Analysis
Page 8
2.1. GEOMETRY
Geometry used in the project was geometry of Separator Station provide by PT.
Rekayasa Industri. The geometry is as follows:
Figure 2 Separator Station Geometry (Top View)
Figure 3 Separator Station Geometry (Side View)
Page 9
2.2. ASSUMPTIONS
Some assumptions are used in the analysis, such as:
 Steady State Condition
 Multiphase (two-phase) Simulation
2.3. FLUID PROPERTIES
Material and fluid properties provide by PT. Rekayasa Industri are as follow:
Table 1 Fluid Properties
Fluid
Phase Liquid
Temperature 178 ͦC
Density 892 kg/m3
Viscosity 0.0148 cP
Steam
Phase Steam
Temperature 178 ͦC
Density 4.53 kg/m3
Viscosity 0.155 cP
Page 10
3. COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH
3.1. 3D MODELLING
3 D geometry modelling is done based on the given detailed geometry. 3D Drawing model
were created using CATIAV5 software. 3D drawing model were created to meet the
Computational Fluid Dynamics simulation needs There is 4 part that modeled for
Computational Fluid Dynamics approach, such as:
 Inlet Header
 Separator
 Brine Line
 Steam Line
3.1.1. Inlet Header
There is 3D model of Inlet Header:
Figure 4 3D Model Inlet Header
Page 11
3.1.2. Separator
There is 3D model of Separator:
Figure 5 3D Model Separator
3.1.3. Brine Line

There is 3D model of Brine Line:
Figure 6 3D Model Brine Line
Page 12
3.1.4. Steam Line

There is 3D model of Steam Line:
Figure 7 3D Model Steam Line
3.2. MESHING
Meshing is probably the most important part in any of the computer simulations,
because it can show drastic changes in results. Many fluid phenomena such as
turbulence flow or phase changing can happen inside the tube. All phenomena that
will be analyzed depend on the mesh that we created. ANSYS meshing used for does
the process. Hence, we created the mesh with the setup as follows.
3.2.1. Inlet Header

There is setup mesh of Inlet Header
Parameter Value
Total element 2.041.486
Average mesh quality 0.34887
There is mesh of Inlet Header
Figure 8 Isometric View Inlet Header Mesh

Page 13
3.2.2. Separator
There is setup mesh of Separator
Parameter Value
There is mesh of Separator
Figure 9 Isometric View Separator Mesh

3.2.3. Brine Line
There is setup mesh of Brine Pipe
Parameter Value
There is mesh of Brine Pipe
Figure 10 Isometric View Brine Pipe Mesh

Page 14
3.2.4. Steam Line

There is setup mesh of Brine Pipe
Parameter Value
There is mesh of Brine Pipe
Figure 11 Isometric View Steam Pipe Mesh
Page 15
3.3. SETUP SIMULATION
The simulation will be done in two conditions that are current condition (0.15 Vapor
Fraction) and full load condition (Vapor Fraction). This condition will be compared
to knowing the main issues that cause High-Level Liquid on internal Separator.
3.3.1. Inlet Header

In this case, the CFD simulation of the Fluid flow is assumed to be a 2 Phase Fluid
Stream (Brine and Steam). With the data obtained from PT. Rekayasa Industri
then the CFD simulation will be setup as follows:
Table 2 Boundary Condition Inlet Header

General
Analysis Type Steady State
Fluid Domain
Material Brine, Steam
Fluid Model Isothermal, K-Epsilon
Fluid Temperature 178 oC
Inlet Mass Flow Rate 3980 t/h
3.3.2. Separator
This simulation done for knowing the effect when the pressure on reinjection
well Cluster H become high. In Separator the CFD simulation of the Fluid flow is
assumed to be 2 Phase. The CFD simulation will be setup as follows:
Table 3 Boundary Condition Separator
General
Fluid Domain
Material Brine, Steam
Inlet Mass Flow Rate 1299 t/h
3.3.3. Brine Line

In Brine Line the CFD simulation of the Fluid flow is assumed to be 1 Phase and .
The CFD simulation will be setup as follows:
Table 4 Boundary Condition Brine Line
Page 16
General
Fluid Domain
Material Brine
Vapor Fraction 0.15
Inlet Mass from Sep 4 1033 t/h
3.3.4. Steam Line
In Brine Line the CFD simulation of the Fluid flow is assumed to be 1 Phase. The
CFD simulation will be setup as follows:
Table 5 Boundary Steam Line
General
Fluid Domain
Material Brine
Vapor Fraction 0.15

Page 17
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. ANALYSIS
The simulation will be done in two conditions that are current condition (0.15 Vapor
Fraction) and 0.21 (Full Load) Vapor Fraction. This condition will be compared to
knowing the main issues that cause High-Level Liquid on internal Separator.
4.1.1. Inlet Header

The result of Inlet Header Simulation is shown below:
Figure 12 Brine Superficial Velocity Simulation Inlet Header Current Condition (0.15 Vapor
Fraction)
Figure 12 presented Brine Superficial Velocity on current condition (0.15 Vapor

Fraction). Flow from inlet divided to three outlet with two phase flow. Brine
Superficial Velocity to Separator 6 higher than the other outlet. This condition
happen because configuration of Inlet Header (Fconfiguration)
Page 18
Figure 13 Brine Superficial Velocity Simulation Inlet Header Current Condition (0.21 Vapor
Fraction)
Figure 13 presented Brine Superficial Velocity on full load condition (0.21 Vapor
Fraction). Flow from inlet divided to three outlet with two phase flow. Brine Superficial
Valocity to Separator 6 higher than the other outlet too (same with current condition
simulation).
These two contours show that the full load condition, which contain 21% steam has
higher pressure for the overall part, in comparison to the actual condition. Another
finding is that pressure in inlet to separator 6 is always be the highest in both condition
(actual and full load).
This high pressure might happened because configuration of the Inlet Header provides
the flow in inlet to separator 6 to be full first before the rest.
Page 19
Table 6 Result of Inlet Header Simulation Current Condition (Vapor Fraction 0.15)
Full Load Condition (Vapor Fraction 0.21)
Mass Flow [t/h]

Location Pressure [bar]
Brine Steam
Outlet to Sep 4 843 224 7.20
Outlet to Sep 5 873 232 7.16
Outlet to Sep 6 1018 271 7.25
Gate Valve to Sep 4 0 0 7.21
Table 7 Result of Inlet Header Simulation Full Load Condition (Vapor Fraction 0.21)
Current Condition (Vapor Fraction 0.15)
Mass Flow [t/h]

Location Pressure [bar]
Brine Steam
Outlet to Sep 4 1055 186 7.18
Outlet to Sep 5 1131 200 7.15
Outlet to Sep 6 1198 211 7.24
Table 6 and 7 mass flow and pressure variation on the Outlet to Separator from
Inlet Header. Pressure drop can be obtained from a differential pressure between
Gate Valve Outlet to Separator 4, 5, and 6.
From Table 6 and 7 we can conclude that mass flow to outlet separator 6 higher
than separator 4 and 5. These conditions happen because of the geometry of inlet
header that can make flow tend towards to outlet separator 6. The geometry of
reducer also affects the flow. The geometry of eccentric reducer made the flow
especially Brine tend towards to Separator 6.
In the simulation with the current condition data (0.15 Vapor Fraction) obtained
a pressure drop is 0.2 bar while at the full load condition data (0.21 Vapor
Fraction) is obtained a pressure drop is only 0.1 bar. Thus, from the data above
Page 20
can be concluded that the higher Vapor Fraction will cause pressure drop getting
smaller.
Furthermore, the pressure to Outlet Separator number 5 has the smallest value
if compared to the other outlet. This issue will be explained in the Separator
simulation.
4.1.2. Separator
In the Separator simulation, we have done with pressure variation on the outlet
Brine Line (after LCV). Pressure Variation or delta pressure is a differential
pressure between an inlet to separator and outlet brine line (after LCV). The
pressure variation should not exceed 0.3 bar. The result of Separator Simulation
is shown below:
Figure 13 Result of Separator Simulation with Delta Pressure 0.3 bar Current
Condition (0.15 Vapor Fraction)
Page 21
Figure 14 Result of Separator Simulation with Delta Pressure 0.1 bar Current
Condition (0.21 Vapor Fraction)
Figure 13 shown that liquid level in Separator become high when delta pressure
is 0.3 bar. If we compare with Figure 14 that have delta pressure 0.1 bar, liquid
level in Separator on Figure 13 lower than Separator on Figure 14 that have delta
pressure 0.3 bar.
Based on Bernoulli equation:
1 1
𝑃1 + 𝜌𝑔ℎ1 + 𝑣 21 = 𝑃2 + 𝜌𝑔ℎ2 + 𝑣 2 2
2 2
If the fluid pressure is high, then the fluid velocity will be low and If the fluid
pressure is low, then the fluid velocity will be high. That is the reason if the brine
pressure become high, then the liquid level to.
When brine pressure become high, the velocity of liquid will be low and related
to mass flow that will be low to. The liquid retained in separator if the brine
pressure become high.
The reason that can made brine pressure become high is a pressure on
reinjection well Cluster H is higher than separator.
Page 22
These condition occur Result for several Delta Pressure variation presented:
Figure 15 Separator Simulation Result
Figure 15 shown liquid level in the Separator for several variation of pressure.
From Figure 15 we can conclude that simulation with full load condition (0.21
vapor fraction) have a lower liquid level than current condition (0.15 vapor
fraction) for several pressure variation. These condition happen because amount
of brine from current condition (0.15 Vapor Fraction) higher than full load
condition.
Page 23
4.1.3. Brine Line

Figure 16 Pressure Contour Brine Line Current Condition (Vapor Fraction 0.15)
Figure 17 Pressure Contour Brine Line Full Load Condition (Vapor Fraction 0.21)
Figure 16 and 17 presented pressure through Brine Line (after LCV). Total
pressure in Brine Line simulation with 0.21 vapor fraction condition lower than
Brine Line simulation with 0.15 vapor fraction. This condition explain that total
mass flow brine from separator directly proportional with total pressure. Mass
flow data presented below:
Page 24
Table 8 Result Data of Brine Line Simulation (0.21 Vapor Fraction)
Vapor Fraction 0.21
Location Mass Flow [t/h] Total Pressure [bar]

Outlet from Sep 4 1037 7.12
Outlet Brine Total 3096 7.10
Table 9 Result Data of Brine Line Simulation (0.15 Vapor Fraction)
Vapor Fraction 0.15
Location Mass Flow [t/h] Total Pressure [bar]

Outlet Brine Total 3492 7.11
Table 8 and 9 presented that amount of brine in the Brine Line at current
condition (0.15 Vapor Fraction) is higher than full load condition (0.21 Vapor
Fraction). Furthermore, total pressure from outlet separator number 5 lower
than the other outlet. This condition also occurs on Inlet Header Simulation.
4.1.4. Steam Line
Figure 19 Pressure Contour Steam Line at Current Condition (0.15 Vapor Fraction)
Page 25
Figure 18 Pressure Contour Steam Line at Full Load Condition (0.21 Vapor Fraction)
Figure 19 presents pressure contour through Brine Line (after LCV). As can be
seen, Steam Line simulation with full load condition (0.21 vapor fraction)
condition has lower pressure than simulation with current condition (0.15 vapor
fraction). This condition explain that total mass flow steam from separator
directly proportional with pressure. Mass flow data presented below:
Table 10 Result Data of Steam Line Simulation (0.21 Vapor Fraction)
Location Mass Flow [t/h]
Inlet from Sep 4 277

Outlet to Scrub 3 414
Table 11 Result Data of Steam Line Simulation (0.21 Vapor Fraction)
Location Mass Flow [t/h]

Page 26
Table 10 and 11 presented that amount of steam in the Steam Line at full load
condition (0.21 Vapor Fraction) is higher than current condition (0.15 Vapor
Fraction). Furthermore, total pressure from outlet separator number 5 lower
than the other outlet. This condition also occurs on Inlet Header Simulation.
4.2. CONCLUSIONS
From the simulation above we can conclude:

 Pressure on Head Separator is to low
 Pressure in Separator number 5 lower than Separator number 4 and 6
4.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
From the simulation we have some recommendation such as:

 Minimize Pressure Loss
 Put something to equalize the pressure on the separator 5
 Vapor Fraction must be raised from 0.15 to 0.21, because amount of brine when
Vapor Fraction 0.21 (Full Load) lower than Vapor Fraction 0.15
Page 27
REFERENCES
Document used as reference of this report consists of:

Project Document
1. TFT Sumur Unit-34
2. UBL3_4-E-6-L0-IM-AA0-3105R_R2_AB Isometric Drawing Inlet Header
5. UBL3_4-E-6-L0-IM-AA0-3130R_R2_AB Isometric Drawing Brine Line
18. UBL3_4-E-6-L0-IM-AA0-3170R_R2_AB Isometric Drawing Steam Line
22. UBL_4-E-6-M2-GA-MS3-001R_R6_GA DRAWING FOR STEAM SEPARATOR_AB
APP
23. UBL3_4-E-0-J1-DS-IC2-001R_R5_DS OF CONTROL VALVE FOR SAGS
AREA_FC_STAMP AS BUILT
24. UBL3_4-E-0-J1-DS-IC2-00R_R_DS FOR PITOT TUBE FOR SAGS AREA_FC_STAMP
AS BUILT
Page 28

CFD Analysis of Unbalance Liquid Level in Ulubelu Geothermal Power Central Separator

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CFD Analysis of Unbalance Liquid Level in Ulubelu Geothermal Power Central Separator

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Title :

PT. Rekayasa PT. 3S - Engineering

REVISION LOG REGISTER

Revisions had been performed on following pages:

Page Date Revision

REVISION LOG REGISTER ................................................................................................. 3

Figure 1 Workflow of Ulubelu Separator Analysis

Figure 2 Separator Station Geometry (Top View)

Figure 3 Separator Station Geometry (Side View)

3.1.1. Inlet Header

There is 3D model of Inlet Header:

Figure 4 3D Model Inlet Header

Figure 5 3D Model Separator

3.1.3. Brine Line

Figure 6 3D Model Brine Line

3.1.4. Steam Line

Figure 7 3D Model Steam Line

3.2.1. Inlet Header

There is mesh of Inlet Header

Figure 8 Isometric View Inlet Header Mesh

There is mesh of Separator

Figure 9 Isometric View Separator Mesh

There is mesh of Brine Pipe

Figure 10 Isometric View Brine Pipe Mesh

3.2.4. Steam Line

There is mesh of Brine Pipe

Figure 11 Isometric View Steam Pipe Mesh

3.3. SETUP SIMULATION

3.3.1. Inlet Header

Table 2 Boundary Condition Inlet Header

Inlet Mass Flow Rate 3980 t/h

Inlet Mass Flow Rate 1299 t/h

3.3.3. Brine Line

Table 4 Boundary Condition Brine Line

Inlet Mass from Sep 4 1033 t/h

Inlet Mass from Sep 5 747 t/h

Inlet Mass from Sep 6 1303 t/h

3.3.4. Steam Line

Vapor Fraction 0.15

Inlet Mass from Sep 5 144 t/h

Inlet Mass from Sep 6 248 t/h

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1.1. Inlet Header

Figure 12 presented Brine Superficial Velocity on current condition (0.15 Vapor

Full Load Condition (Vapor Fraction 0.21)

Mass Flow [t/h]

Current Condition (Vapor Fraction 0.15)

Mass Flow [t/h]

Figure 15 Separator Simulation Result

4.1.3. Brine Line

Table 8 Result Data of Brine Line Simulation (0.21 Vapor Fraction)

Vapor Fraction 0.21

Location Mass Flow [t/h] Total Pressure [bar]

Table 9 Result Data of Brine Line Simulation (0.15 Vapor Fraction)

Vapor Fraction 0.15

Location Mass Flow [t/h] Total Pressure [bar]

4.1.4. Steam Line

The result of Inlet Header Simulation is shown below:

Table 10 Result Data of Steam Line Simulation (0.21 Vapor Fraction)

Location Mass Flow [t/h]

Inlet from Sep 4 277

Table 11 Result Data of Steam Line Simulation (0.21 Vapor Fraction)

Location Mass Flow [t/h]