Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Study of Bubble Carry-Under in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators

F.M. Erdal, SPE, S.A. Shirazi, SPE, I. Mantilla, SPE, and O. Shoham, SPE, U. of Tulsa Summary The gas-liquid cylindrical cyclone GLCC separator is an attractive compact separator alternative to the conventional vessel-type separator. Thus, it is important to develop predictive tools for design and to be able to improve the technology of the GLCC. Previous studies on the GLCC have focused on mechanistic models capable of predicting the operational envelope for liquid carryover and on the understanding of the ow eld in the GLCC. The main objective of this work was to investigate the behavior of small gas bubbles in the lower part of the GLCC, below the inlet, and the related gas carry-under phenomena. This investigation was performed by ow visualization and by using a commercially available computational uid dynamics CFD code. Simulations of single-phase and two-phase ows were carried out and bubble trajectories were obtained in an axisymmetric geometry that represents the GLCC conguration. Bubble trajectory analysis was used to quantify the effects of the important parameters on bubble carry-under. These include bubble size, ratio of the GLCC length below the inlet to diameter, viscosity, Reynolds number, and inlet tangential velocity. tions were carried out by Erdal et al.15 and by Motta et al.16 These studies conrmed that a complex swirling ow occurs in the GLCC. In the present work, the effects of the gas phase on the ow behavior below the inlet are investigated by CFD simulations. Specically, bubble trajectory simulations are used to study the effects of the important parameters that contribute to gas bubble carry-under. Also, the effects of the free interface on the ow eld below the inlet is investigated. Flow Field Simulations The effect of the gas-liquid interface on the ow eld below the GLCC inlet was investigated by conducting CFD simulations of single-phase and two-phase ow using a commercially available CFD code CFX 4.1 .17 Both simulations were carried out by using the standard high-Reynolds-number kturbulence model.17 The k- turbulence model assumes that the turbulence is isotropic. However, it has been reported in the literature4,13,14 that turbulent swirling ow in pipes and cyclones is anisotropic. Thus, an anisotropic turbulence model should be used to accurately predict these ows. During this investigation, different turbulence models were used to study the sensitivity of the ow eld predictions to the turbulence model that is implemented. Using a differential Reynolds stress turbulence model, that is an anisotropic turbulence model, simulations showed only modest improvement over the k- model prediction of the ow eld in the GLCC. Therefore, for efciency of the calculations, the k- turbulence model was used in the present calculations. Single-Phase Flow Simulations. A two-phase ow case airwater, liquid mass ow rate, m l 0.92 kg/s, gas mass ow rate, m g 0.004 kg/s, and void fraction at the inlet 0.8 was simulated as a single-phase ow in an axisymmetric geometry using the axisymmetric model described previously by Erdal et al.15 Using this model, the corresponding equivalent tangential velocity 2.6 m/s and the radial velocity 0.39 m/s at the inlet were dened. The tangential velocity map and the axial velocity vectors are presented in Fig. 2. The highest tangential velocity occurs near the inlet region of the GLCC. This high tangential velocity decreases in the axial and radial directions. The axial velocity vectors show two distinct regions: upward ow near the center and downward ow near the wall. This surprising ow reversal at the center has also been observed experimentally by several other authors for single-phase swirling pipe ows.4,6,11 Two-Phase Flow Simulations. Two-Phase ow in the GLCC was simulated with the multiuid model that is available in CFX. The multiuid model can be used to simulate ows in which more than one uid exists. The transport properties mass, momentum, heat, and turbulence of each phase interact according to the interphase transfer terms. There are two available two-phase ow models in CFX for predicting momentum transfer between the phases: a so-called mixture model and a particle model. The mixture model treats all phases symmetrically. The particle model, used in this study, uses the results of ow past a sphere to account for the interphase momentum transfer between the gas and liquid phases. The so-called homogeneous k- turbulence model was used for the simulations. This model assumes that the values of the turbulent kinetic energy and the dissipation rates are the same for each phase. This means that the two phases are assumed to be well mixed. This is a simple extension of the single-phase k1064-668X/2000/15 4 /217/6/$5.00 0.50 217

Introduction The GLCC separator is an attractive alternative to the conventional vessel-type separator, especially for offshore platforms in oil and gas production operations. The GLCC is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The gas and liquid mixture ows through an inclined inlet section, to promote stratication, prior to reaching a tangential inlet slot. As a result of the tangential inlet, a vortex is formed, causing the gas and liquid to separate due to the centrifugal/buoyancy forces. The liquid moves toward the wall and downward, while the gas ows to the center and exits from the top. For certain operating conditions, some liquid droplets are entrained with the gas, and ow up toward the gas leg. This phenomenon is referred to as liquid carry-over. On the other hand, some gas bubbles may be entrained with the liquid, and exit from the bottom of the GLCC, and this is gas carry-under. Experimental observations by Erdal et al.1 in a 76-mm inner diameter i.d. , 2.1-m high GLCC indicate that a free interface forms between the gas and liquid phases which has a parabolic shape. Flow visualization experiments also indicate that the ow below the inlet is composed mainly of a liquid phase. One does observe lots of tiny bubbles that are entrained in the swirling liquid ow below the inlet and a gas lament core that is formed near the center of the GLCC, as shown in Fig. 1. Based on previous experimental and theoretical studies, a mechanistic model has been developed to predict the operational envelope for liquid carry-over and bubble trajectories.2,3 However, these models do not address details of the complex swirling ow behavior in the GLCC and related phenomena such as gas carry-under and separation efciency. Swirling ows in pipes have been studied extensively4-14 in the past. However, most of the previous studies have considered only single-phase gas or liquid ow. To better understand the ow behavior in the GLCC, single-phase and two-phase ow simulaCopyright 2000 Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper (SP66500) was revised for publication from SPE 49309, prepared for the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 2730 September. Original manuscript received for review 24 March 1999. Revised manuscript received 5 April 2000. Paper peer approved 3 May 2000.

SPE Prod. & Facilities 15 4 , November 2000

Fig. 1Schematic of the GLCC conguration.

model to two-phase ow, neglecting any interaction between the two phases. Details of these different models are presented in CFX 4.117 and the Appendix. The two-phase ow case that was simulated as a single-phase ow in the previous section was simulated with the multiuid model by using the particle model and the homogeneous k- turbulence model. CFD simulations were carried out in a 76-mm-i.d. GLCC conguration that was used in the experimental studies reported by Arpandi et al.2 The gas and liquid phases are rst separated in the GLCC and then recombined downstream of the separator. Thus, there is only one single outlet for both phases. This case was simulated in an axisymmetric geometry which was described by Motta et al.16 Fig. 3 shows the gas void fraction distribution near the inlet. As can be seen, the upper part of the GLCC is occupied by gas phase air while the lower part is occupied by liquid water . A free

Fig. 3Gas void fraction distribution two-phase ow, 76-mmi.d. GLCC, m l 0.92 kgs, m g 0.004 kgs.

Fig. 2Tangential velocity map and axial velocity vectors single-phase ow, 76-mm-i.d. GLCC, m l 0.92 kgs, m g 0.004 kgs. 218

interface, which has a parabolic shape, forms between the two phases. It is interesting to note that the tangential velocity and the gas ow above the inlet cause liquid to climb up above the inlet. This phenomenon has also been observed experimentally.1,2 The tangential velocity distribution map and the axial velocity vectors for the region below the inlet, where mostly liquid exists, are shown in Fig. 4 which shows that the highest tangential velocity occurs near the inlet region. Again, the axial velocity vectors show two distinct regions, namely, upward ow near the center and downward ow near the wall. It is surprising that the axial velocity and the tangential velocity distributions below the interface are very similar to the ones obtained for single-phase simulation Fig. 2 . One of the objectives of this study was to investigate the effects of the gas-liquid free interface on the ow eld below the inlet. Fig. 5 shows a comparison of tangential and axial velocity predictions obtained by single-phase and two-phase model simulations, at x/D 2.8 just below the interface , and x/D 10. Both simulations predict similar velocity proles. The results are much closer at x/D 10. Considering the differences between these two models, the velocity proles obtained from the two-phase simulation and the single-phase simulation are similar. Interestingly, the free interface only affects the regions near the inlet and its effect quickly dissipates as x/D increases. When using the multiuid model with the particle model, one phase is dened as dispersed and the other is assumed to be continuous. In this case, simulations were carried out for different inlet void fraction distributions and different bubble sizes for the dispersed gas phase. The simulations with small bubble sizes less than 0.5 mm showed that smaller bubbles have a tendency to accumulate below the free interface to form the gas-bubblelament. The results also indicated that the gas void fractions at the center were very small. The large bubbles separate immediately and migrate to the free interface between the liquid and gas phases.
SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000

Erdal et al.: Computational Fluid Dynamics Study of Bubble Carry-Under

Fig. 4Tangential velocity map and axial velocity vectors below the inlet two-phase ow, 76-mm i.d. GLCC, m l 0.92 kgs, m g 0.004 kgs.

Bubble Trajectory Analysis To develop a reliable physical model for gas carry-under in the GLCC, it is crucial to investigate the important factors that affect gas bubble carry-under. For this reason, the CFD code was used to simulate bubble trajectories. First, single-phase ow below the GLCC inlet was simulated. Then, many bubbles were introduced at the inlet and their trajectories were predicted in the ow eld, as post-processing. Therefore, it is assumed that the bubbles do not affect the ow eld. Bubble trajectory simulations were carried out to investigate the effects of turbulent dispersion, bubble size, viscosity, tangential velocity, and L/D ratio the ratio of the GLCC length below the inlet to the GLCC diameter . The CFD code allows bubble trajectory simulations with and without the effects of turbulent dispersion.17 For bubble trajectory simulations, an axisymmetric geometry of 76-mm i.d. GLCC with L/D of about 15 was used. Bubbles were released from the inlet and monitored counted at the outlet. For bubble trajectory simulations with turbulent dispersion, 99 bubbles were released from the inlet. Almost all individual bubbles followed different paths. Only nine bubbles were released for simulations without turbulent dispersion, because all of the bubbles follow the same path according to the bubble release location. Simulations indicated that trajectories with and without turbulent dispersion are very different. For example, when trajectories of 200-mm bubbles were simulated without turbulent dispersion, all of the bubbles were separated i.e., they move to the GLCCs top . For the same case, but with turbulent dispersion, some of the bubbles about 7% were carried under. In addition, the bubble trajectories with turbulent dispersion show that turbulence causes bubbles to disperse throughout the GLCC and many bubbles migrate below the inlet. Fig. 6 shows a few representative bubble trajectories for the case with turbulent dispersion. For example, Fig. 6A shows a bubble that rst moves down in a helical path and then goes up as a result of the upward ow in the core. Fig. 6B, on the other hand, shows a bubble that goes downward and reaches the axis of symmetry center of the GLCC . The CFD code terminates the bubble trajectory calculations after an individual bubble reaches the axis of symmetry. The bubbles that reach the axis of the separator could be assumed to be separated, because of the upward ow in the center of the GLCC. As shown
Erdal et al.: Computational Fluid Dynamics Study of Bubble Carry-Under

Fig. 5Comparison of single-phase and two-phase tangential and axial velocity predictions 76-mm i.d. GLCC, m l 0.92 kgs, m g 0.004 kgs.

in Fig. 6C, some bubbles go downward by following a helical path and reach the outlet. This behavior was observed for different bubble sizes under other ow conditions. Details of the CFD simulations, with turbulent dispersion, showed that many bubbles are dispersed in the liquid and many of them reach the center of the GLCC. This behavior is an indication of how the gas-core lament is forming in the center of the sepa-

Fig. 6Details of bubble trajectories with turbulent dispersion 200 m bubbles, viscosity0.01 Pa"s, N Re1,400, V sl 0.18 ms, v t 2.74 ms. SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000 219

Fig. 7Percent of bubble carry-under vs. bubble size base case, viscosity0.001 Pa"s, N Re14,000, v sl 0.18 ms, v t 4.3 ms.

Fig. 9Percent of bubble carry-under vs. bubble size viscosity0.01 Pa"s, N Re1,400, v sl 0.18 ms, v t 4.3 ms.

rator. This was also observed in ow visualization experiments18 and in the two-phase ow simulations. The gas-core lament is evidence of the separation process of gas bubbles that migrate to the center of GLCC due to the centrifugal/buoyancy forces below the inlet. The effects of additional parameters on bubble trajectories were also studied by considering the following parameters as a base case: Reynolds number (N Re 14,000), supercial liquid velocity ( v sl 0.18 m/s), inlet tangential velocity ( v t 4.3 m/s , and liquid viscosity 0.001 Pas . Bubble sizes ranging from 300 to 1 mm were simulated 300, 200, 100, 50, 25, 10, 5, and 1 mm with and without accounting for turbulent dispersion in the CFD code. Fig. 7 shows the percent of bubble carry-under as a function of bubble size. Percent of bubble carry-under is dened as the ratio of the number of bubbles monitored counted at the outlet to the number of bubbles released at the inlet. Fig. 7 reveals that, as the bubble size decreases, the percent of bubble carry-under increases and approaches a constant value. For the case without turbulent dispersion, 100% of very small bubbles are carried under. However, for the case with turbulent dispersion many bubbles reach the center of the GLCC and bubble trajectory simulation is terminated. CFD simulations with turbulent dispersion show that bigger bubbles can be carried under. For example, CFD simulations without turbulent dispersion indicate that all of the 50 mm bubbles are separated. However, simulations with turbulent dispersion show that 8% of the 50 mm bubbles are carried under. The values of the tangential velocity and viscosity were also changed from the above base case values in the ow eld predictions to study how they affect the percent of bubble carry-under. Four different cases were considered including the base case. Again, bubble sizes ranging from 300 to 1 mm were simulated for each case. The inlet tangential velocity of the base case was decreased from 4.3 to 2.74 m/s. As a result see Fig. 8 , the mini-

mum bubble size carried under was increased from 10 to 25 mm for the bubble trajectories without turbulent dispersion. However, it did not have a pronounced effect on the percent of bubble carryunder with turbulent dispersion. Next, the liquid viscosity was increased from 0.001 to 0.01 Pas which decreases the Reynolds number from 14,000 to 1,400 and the results are presented in Fig. 9. This change in the viscosity has a signicant impact on the percent of bubble carry-under for bubble trajectories without turbulent dispersion. The minimum bubble size that is carried under is increased from 10 to 100 mm. On the other hand, this viscosity change had little impact on bubble trajectories with turbulent dispersion. Finally, Fig. 10 shows the effects of viscosity and the inlet tangential velocity changes on the percent of bubble carryunder. For these conditions, the minimum bubble size that is carried under increased from 100 to 300 mm for trajectories with turbulent dispersion. It is clear from the above results that turbulent dispersion has a signicant effect on gas bubbles that are carried under. Therefore, turbulent dispersion should be considered in bubble trajectory simulations to estimate the separation efciency of the GLCC based on percent of bubble carry-under. The following demonstrates how bubble trajectory results could be used to estimate the required length of the GLCC below the inlet L . The base case ow conditions are considered, corresponding to a liquid ow rate of about 470 B/D and a gas ow rate of 80 MscfD in a 3-in. 76-mm diameter GLCC. To obtain a more accurate representation of the percent of bubbles that is carried under, 500 bubbles were released from the inlet for all of the cases that were simulated. Fig. 11 shows the effects of the L/D ratio on the percent of bubble carry-under with turbulent dispersion . The results indicate that there is an optimal L/D about 14.5 for this case ratio beyond which the percent of bubble carryunder signicantly decreases. This information can be used to effectively size the GLCC length to minimize gas carry-under. Summary and Conclusions Computational uid dynamics simulations were conducted to investigate the ow eld below the inlet of a GLCC. Velocity pro-

Fig. 8Percent of bubble carry-under vs. bubble size viscosity0.001 Pa"s, N Re14,000, v sl 0.18 ms, v t 2.74 ms. 220

Fig. 10Percent of bubble carry-under vs. bubble size viscosity0.01 Pa"s, N Re1,400, v sl 0.18 ms, v t 2.74 ms. SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000

Erdal et al.: Computational Fluid Dynamics Study of Bubble Carry-Under

Acknowledgments This work was supported by member companies of the Tulsa University Separation Technology Projects TUSTP . Also, support by the Turkish Ministry of Education for one of the authors F.M.E. and by ECOPETROL for a second author I.M. is much appreciated. GLCC the gas-liquid cylindrical cyclone, is a copyright of The University of Tulsa 1994 . References
1. Erdal, F.M. et al.: Simulation of Free Interface Shape and Complex Two-Phase Flow Behavior in a Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separator, paper FEDSM97-5206 presented at the 1998 ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, 2025 June. 2. Arpandi, I. et al.: Hydrodynamics of Two-Phase Flow in GasLiquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, SPEJ December 1996 427. 3. Marti, S.K. et al.: Analysis of Gas Carry-Under in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclones, presented at the 1996 Hydrocyclones Intl. Meeting, St. Johns College, Cambridge, England, 24 April. 4. Chang, F. and Dhir, V.K.: Turbulent Flow Field in Tangentially Injected Swirl Flows in Tubes, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 1994 15, No. 5, 346. 5. Guo, Z. and Dhir, V.K.: An Analytical and Experimental Study of a Swirling Bubbly Flow, Proc., National Heat Transfer Conference 1989 112, 93. 6. Guo, Z. and Dhir, V.K.: Flow Reversal in Injection Induced Swirl Flow, Proc., ASME, HTD Single and Multiphase Convective Heat Transfer Winter Annual Meeting, Dallas 1990 145, 23. 7. Ito, S., Ogawa, K., and Kuroda, C.: Decay Process of Swirling Flow in a Circular Pipe, Proc., Intl. Chemical Engineering 1979 , 19, No. 4, 600. 8. Kumar, R., Conover, T., and Pan, Y.: Three-Dimensional Turbulent Swirling Flow in a Cylinder: PTV Experiments and Computations, Proc., ASME Fluid Measurements and Instruments 1993 161, 107. 9. Algifri, A.H., Bhardwaj, R.K., and Rao, Y.V.N.: Eddy Viscosity in Decaying Swirl Flow in a Pipe, Appl. Sci. Res. 1988 45, 287. 10. Kitoh, O.: Experimental Study of Turbulent Swirling Flow in a Straight Pipe, J. Fluid Mech. 1991 225, 445. 11. Nissan, A.H. and Bresan, V.P.: Swirling Flow in Cylinders, AIChE J. 1961 7, No. 4, 543. 12. Yu, S.C.M. and Kitoh, O.: General Formulation for the Decay of Swirling Motion Along a Straight Pipe, Proc., Intl. Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 1994 21, No. 5, 719. 13. Kobayashi, T. and Yoda, M.: Modied k- Model for Turbulent Swirling Flow in a Straight Pipe, JSME Int. J. 1997 30, No. 259, 66. 14. Small, D.M., Fitt, A.D., and Thew, M.T.: The Inuence of Swirl and Turbulence Anisotropy on CFD Modeling of Hydrocyclones, presented at the 1996 Hydrocyclones Intl. Meeting, St. Johns College, Cambridge, England, 24 April. 15. Erdal, F.M. et al.: CFD Simulation of Single-Phase and Two-Phase Flow in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, SPEJ December 1997 436. 16. Motta, B. et al.: Simulation of Single-Phase and Two-Phase Flow in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, paper FEDSM97-3554 presented at the 1997 ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia, 2226 June. 17. CFX 4.1 Flow Solver User Guide, AEA Technology, Oxfordshire, U.K. 1995 . 18. Erdal, F.M. et al.: Simulation of Free Interface Shape and Complex Two-Phase Flow in a Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separator, paper FEDSM98-5206 presented at the 1998 ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, 2125 June.

Fig. 11Effect of L D ratio on the percent of bubble carry-under viscosity0.001 Pa"s, N Re14,000, v sl 0.18 ms, v t 4.3 ms.

les from single-phase and two-phase ow simulations were compared, with the following main conclusions. Different axial ow regions upward and downward below the inlet were observed even with the presence of the gas-liquid free interface. The CFD results surprisingly indicate that velocity proles simulated with single-phase and two-phase ow models are similar. Only small differences were observed near the inlet region below the gas-liquid interface. Bubble trajectory analysis was conducted to quantify the effects of the important parameters on bubble carry-under. The parameters include bubble size, ratio of the GLCC length to diameter, liquid viscosity, Reynolds number, and inlet tangential velocity. The following were observed. Bubble trajectory simulations revealed that simulations without turbulent dispersion were generally sensitive to changes in both viscosity Reynolds number and tangential velocity. Simulations with turbulent dispersion showed small changes when the viscosity and tangential velocity were varied. The results indicate that turbulent dispersion has a signicant effect on bubble trajectories and the percent of bubbles that is carried under. The simulations with turbulent dispersion indicate that many bubbles migrate to the center of the GLCC to form the gas-core lament below the gas-liquid free interface. The bubble trajectory results indicate that there is an optimal L/D ratio beyond which the percent of bubbles that is carried under signicantly decreases. This information can be used to design GLCCs that minimize gas carry-under.

Nomenclature
z

D L mg ml N Re r U v sl vt W x Z

axial distance traveled by bubble above the inlet, mm diameter of GLCC, mm GLCC length below the inlet, mm gas mass ow rate, kg/s liquid mass ow rate, kg/s Reynolds number, dimensionless radius of GLCC, m axial velocity, m/s supercial liquid velocity, m/s or ft/sec inlet tangential velocity, m/s tangential velocity, m/s length below the inlet, mm bubble release location above the inlet, mm

Appendix: Governing Equations Used in CFX Here in the Appendix, a brief discussion of the equations and solution procedure used in CFX17 is given for single-phase ow simulations, two-phase ow simulations, and bubble trajectories. Single-Phase Flow. Conservation of mass: u 0, A-1

where u is velocity vector. Conservation of momentum: u u

eff

eff

B,

A-2

where B is a body force, p is the pressure, and superscript T stands for transpose.
SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000 221

Erdal et al.: Computational Fluid Dynamics Study of Bubble Carry-Under

TABLE A-1 EMPIRICAL CONSTANTS IN THE k TURBULENCE MODEL C 0.09

k

du dt

FT ,

A-10

C1 1.3 1.44

C2 1.92

where F T is the total force on the particle. FT FD Fp FB FA , where F D is drag force. A-11

1.0

High Reynolds number k- turbulence model:

eff t

FD

1 8

d2 CD VR Vr ,

C D 24 1 0.15 Re0.687 /Re, Re VR d , A-12

and
t

k2

A-3

The transport equations for the turbulent kinetic energy k and turbulent dissipation are uk
t k
2 3

eff

u u
eff

u
eff

u u u k

where d is bubble diameter, and are the density and viscosity of the continuous uid, respectively, and V R is the relative velocity between the uid and the bubble. F p is the pressure gradient force. Fp
1 4

d 3 p,

A-13

k u C2
T

A-4

C1

k u

u
eff

where p is the pressure of the continuous uid. F B is the buoyancy force. FB

1 6

d3

g,

A-14

2 3

A-5

see Table A-1. Two-Phase Flow Two-Fluid Model. Conservation of mass: r u r 0, A-6 where the phases are labeled by , and r denotes volume fraction of phase . is turbulent dispersion of the volume fraction, which is scaled by the turbulent viscosity of the corresponding phase , 0.1 . t/ Conservation of momentum: r u u u u T
2

where B is the density of the bubble and g is the gravitational acceleration. F A is the added mass force. FA du 1 . d3 12 dt A-15

r B

p
1

cd u

u ,

A-7

where c( d ) gives interphase transfer of momentum between two phases. There are two available models for this term in CFX, the particle model and the mixture model, respectively. Particle Model: 3 CD cd r u u , A-8 4 d where d is the particle diameter and C D is the drag coefcient based on ow past a sphere. Mixture Model: CD cd r r u u , A-9 d where d is an interfacial length scale d 1 mm in this study and is the mixture density. The homogeneous k- model is used in two-phase ow simulations. In this model, single-phase k- equations are used with mixture quantities e.g., density, velocity, viscosity . The Dirichlet boundary condition is used at the inlet all the variables are dened . The Neumann boundary condition is used for the outlet boundary conditions all transported quantities have zero normal gradient except for the velocity which is modied to conserve global mass continuity17 . Both the singlephase and the two-phase ow equations are solved iteratively by using the control volume approach in CFX. A hybrid differencing scheme is used for discretization. Convergence is assumed to be reached when the relative residuals reach 10 4 . Bubble Trajectories. The equation of motion for bubbles according to Newtons second law is
222

SI Metric Conversion Factors cp 1.0* ft 3.048* ft 9.290 304* ft3 2.831 685 in. 2.54* lb 4.535 lbf 4.448 222 psi 6.894 757
*Conversion factors are exact.

E E E E E E E E

03 01 02 02 00 01 00 00

Pas m m2 m3 cm kg N kPa SPEPF

Ferhat M. Erdal is a PhD degree student in the Mechanical Engineering Dept. at U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma. e-mail: erdalfm@tustp.pe.utulsa.edu. He holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering from Middle East Tech. U. Ankara, Turkey, and an MS degree in mechanical engineering from U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Ivan Mantilla currently works for Ecopetrol in its production area. His responsibilities include surface facilities and pipeline and articial-lift design. e-mail: ivan.mantilla@ecopetrol.com.co. He holds a BS degree from U. Ind. de Santander, Colombia, and an MS degree from U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, both in petroleum engineering. Siamack A. Shirazi is an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma. e-mail: siamackshirazi@utulsa.edu. He teaches and conducts research in the area of computational uid dynamics of multiphase ow, specializing in multiphase separation and erosion/corrosion. Shirazi holds BS, MS, and PhD degrees in mechanical engineering from the U. of New Mexico. Ovadia Shoham is a professor of petroleum engineering at the U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma. e-mail: os@utulsa.edu. He received his PhD degree in mechanical engineering from Tel Aviv U., Israel, and holds MS and BS degrees in chemical engineering from the U. of Houston, Houston, Texas, and Technion, Israel. He teaches and conducts research in the area of modeling two-phase ow and its application in the oil and gas production, transportation, and separation. Shoham received the 1995 SPE Production & Facilities Best Paper Award. SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000

Erdal et al.: Computational Fluid Dynamics Study of Bubble Carry-Under