10.1.1.476.6482 Tesis de DR Carlos Oropeza Vasquez

THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
MULTIPHASE FLOW SEPARATION IN LIQUID-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL

CYCLONE AND GAS-LIQUID-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE
COMPACT SEPARATORS
by
Carlos Oropeza-Vazquez
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Discipline of Petroleum Engineering
The Graduate School
The University of Tulsa
2001
ABSTRACT
Carlos Oropeza (Doctor of Philosophy in Petroleum Engineering).

Multiphase Separation in Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone and Gas-Liquid-Liquid
Cylindrical Cyclone Compact Separators (120 pp. - Chapter VI).
Directed by Dr. Ovadia Shoham and Dr. Ram Mohan
(411 words)
The hydrodynamics of multiphase flow in Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone
(LLCC 1) and Gas-Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (GLLCC 2) compact separators
have been studied experimentally and theoretically for evaluation of their performance as
free water knockout devices. In both GLLCC and the LLCC configurations, no complete
oil-water separation occurs. Rather, both separators perform as free water knockouts,
delivering a clean water stream and an oil rich stream.
A new state-of-the-art, two-inch, three-phase, fully instrumented flow loop has
been designed and constructed. Experimental data on oil-water separation efficiency in
the LLCC and the GLLCC have been acquired.
A total of 260 runs have been conducted for the LLCC for water-dominated flow
conditions.
Four different flow patterns in the inlet have been identified, namely,
Stratified flow, Oil-in-Water Dispersion Water Layer flow, Double Oil-in-Water
1
2
LLCC - Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone - Copyright, The University of Tulsa, 1998.

GLLCC Gas-Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Copyright, The University of Tulsa, 2000.
iii
Dispersion flow and Oil-in-Water Dispersion flow. For all runs, an optimal split ratio
exists, where the flow rate in the water stream is maximum with 100% water cut. The
value of the optimal (maximum) split ratio depends upon the existing flow pattern. For
the Stratified and Oil-in-Water Dispersion - Water Layer flow patterns, this maximum
split ratio is about 60%. For the Double Oil-in-Water Dispersion and Oil-in-Water
Dispersion flow patterns, the maximum split ratio ranges from 50% to 20%, decreasing
with the increase of oil content in the inlet stream.
Experimental data on oil-water separation efficiency in the GLLCC have been
acquired. A total of 220 experimental runs have been conducted, including the oil-water
separation efficiency for different combinations of oil and water superficial velocities,
and varying the split ratio for each combination. The GLLCC separation efficiency data
reveal that it performs, in addition to the separation of the gas phase, also as a free water
knockout. This occurs only for very low oil concentrations at the inlet, below 10%.
Also, lower separation efficiencies are observed, as compared to the LLCC configuration.
Novel mechanistic models have been developed for the prediction of the complex
flow behavior and the separation efficiency in the LLCC and GLLCC. The models
consist of several sub-models, including inlet analysis, nozzle analysis, droplet size
distribution model, and separation model based on droplet trajectories in swirling flow.
Comparisons between the experimental data and the LLCC and GLLCC model
predictions show excellent agreement. The models are capable of predicting both the
trend of the experimental data as well as the absolute measured values. The developed
models can be utilized for the design and performance analysis of the LLCC and
GLLCC.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I acknowledge Dr. Ovadia Shoham and Dr. Ram Mohan for their personal support
and encouragement as well as their supervision and guidance in this study. I also thank
Dr. Mauricio Prado and Dr. Leslie Thompson, for their willingness to serve as members
of the dissertation committee and for their useful suggestions and assistance.
I am very grateful to PEMEX Exploracin y Produccin for this once-in-alifetime opportunity, as well as the U. S. Department of Energy (Grant No. DE-FG2697BC15024) for supporting this project. I thank the TUSTP members and graduate
students for their valuable assistance during this project, especially to Jinli Liu and
Rajkumar Mathiravedu for their assistance in the experimental data acquisition. My
appreciation is extended to Ms. Judy Teal also.
This dissertation is dedicated to my beloved wife Carolina and my children Carlos
and Carolina. I fully appreciate their love and encouragement during my graduate studies
at The University of Tulsa. I dedicate this work to my family, especially to my mother
Teresa.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
APPROVAL PAGE
ii
ABSTRACT
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
ix
LIST OF TABLES
xii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GLCC Development
2.2 LLCC Development
2.3 Swirling Flow Field
2.4 Oil-Water Pipe Flow Pattern Prediction
10
2.5 Droplet Size Distribution
15
CHAPTER III: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
16
3.1 Experimental Facility
16
3.1.1 Metering and Storage Section
17
3.1.2 Modular Test Section
18
3.1.3
Instrumentation, Control and Data Acquisition System
19
3.1.4
GLLCC Design
20
3.1.5
LLCC Design
21
vi
3.2 Experimental Results

3.2.1
3.2.2
22
LLCC Experimental Results

Inlet Flow Patterns
23
Separation Efficiency
28
GLLCC Experimental Results
32
CHAPTER IV: MECHANISTIC MODELING

4.1
40
LLCC Mechanistic Model
40
4.1.1 Inlet Analysis
41
Inlet Flow Pattern Prediction
42
Stratified Flow Model
44
Oil-in-Water Dispersion - Water Layer Model
48
Oil-in-Water Dispersion Model
50
Double Oil-in-Water Dispersion Model
51
Nozzle Analysis
52
4.1.2 Separation Analysis
4.2
22
55
Entry Region Analysis
55
Flow Field
58
Droplet Trajectory
61
GLLCC Mechanistic Model
69
4.2.1
Physical Phenomena
70
71
4.2.3 Nozzle Analysis
74
4.2.4 Oil-Water Separation Analysis
77
vii
Equilibrium Split Ratio
81
Water-cut in Water Outlet
83
CHAPTER V: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
84
5.1 LLCC Comparison Study
84
5.2 GLLCC Comparison Study
89
CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
94
NOMENCLATURE
99
REFERENCES
104
APPENDIX A: LLCC EXPERIMENTAL DATA
110
APPENDIX B: GLLCC EXPERIMENTAL DATA
115
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Two-Stage System (GLCC and LLCC)
Figure 1-2. Gas-Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (GLLCC)
Figure 2-1. Trallero (1995) Model Flow Chart
14
Figure 3-1. Experimental Flow Loop
16
Figure 3-2. Tanks, Pumping Station and Metering Section
17
Figure 3-3. Test Section
18
Figure 3-4. GLLCC Design
20
Figure 3-5. LLCC Design
22
Figure 3-6. Horizontal Inlet Flow Patterns
24
Figure 3-7. Experimental Flow Pattern Map for LLCC Inlet
25
Figure 3-8. LLCC with Inclined Inlet (vSW = 1 m/s)
26
Figure 3-9. Horizontal vs. Inclined Inlets Comparison
27
Figure 3-10. LLCC with Horizontal Inlet (vSW = 1 m/s)
28
Figure 3-11. LLCC Separation Behavior as a Function of the Split Ratio

(vSW = 0.1, vSO = 0.05 m/s)
29
Figure 3-12. Experimental Results for Stratified Flow
29
Figure 3-13. Experimental Results for DO/W Water Layer Flow
30
Figure 3-14. Experimental Results for Double DO/W Flow
31
Figure 3-15. Experimental Results for DO/W Flow
32
Figure 3-16. Three-Phase Separation Feasibility
33
Figure 3-17. GLLCC Experimental Data Range
34
ix
Figure 3-18. GLLCC Experimental Results (Set 1)
35
36
Figure 3-20. GLLCC Separation Efficiency Results (Set 3)
37
Figure3-21. GLLCC Experimental Results (vSW = 0.3 m/s)
38
Figure 3-22. GLLCC Experimental Results (vSW = 0.5 m/s)
38
Figure 4-1. LLCC Schematic
41
Figure 4-2. Trallero (1995) Flow Pattern Prediction Model and Experimental Data
43
Figure 4-3. Modified Trallero (1995) Model Flow Pattern Map
44
Figure 4-4. Stratified Flow Model Geometry and Variables
45
Figure 4-5. Nozzle Schematic and Variables
53
Figure 4-6. Local Split at Entry Region and Reverse Flow
56
Figure 4-7. Fluid Transfer from Oil Leg to Water Leg for qunder > q50
58
Figure 4-8. Droplet Size Distribution
66
Figure 4-9. Schematic of Water Leg Separation Calculation Procedure
67
Figure 4-10. Oil Removal Based on Separated Oil Droplet Diameter
69
Figure 4-11. GLLCC Schematic
70
Figure 4-12. Two-Fluid Model Schematic and Variables for GLLCC Inlet
72
75
Figure 4-14. GLLCC Liquid Leg Separation: Calculation Procedure
80
Figure 5-1. LLCC Comparison Study: Stratified Flow
84
Figure 5-2. LLCC Comparison Study: DO/WWater Layer Flow (Runs 4, 7, 10)
85
86
Figure 5-4. LLCC Comparison Study: DO/WWater Layer Flow (Runs 1, 25, 26, 27) 86
87
Figure 5-6. LLCC Comparison Study: Double DO/W Flow (Runs 14, 17, 19, 21)
88
Figure 5-7. LLCC Comparison Study: Double DO/W Flow (Runs 30, 31)
88
Figure 5-8. LLCC Comparison Study: DO/W Flow
89
Figure 5-9. GLLCC Comparison Study for Data Set 1
90
91
Figure 5-11. GLLCC Comparison Study for Data Set 3 (vSW = 0.5 m/s)
92
92
93
93
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Exponents and Coefficients for Trallero (1995) Model
14
Table 4-1. Modified Coefficients for LLCC Inlet Flow Pattern Prediction
43
Table 4-2. Inlet Momentum Flux Ratio and Initial Water-cut Calculation
62
Table A-1. LLCC Experimental Data
111
Table B1. GLLCC Experimental Data Set 1: Oil Finder @ 30 inches Below Inlet
116
116
Table B3. GLLCC Experimental Data Set 3
117
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The presence of water along with the hydrocarbons produced from the reservoir is
a common phenomenon in the petroleum production. The amount of produced water
usually increases and tends to be the main product as the field becomes more mature. The
volume of produced water that must be processed in the separation facilities often
exceeds that of the produced hydrocarbons, increasing size and cost of the equipment.
The production of water also increases with secondary recovery methods, such as water
flooding and steam injection.
The oil -water-gas separation technology in the petroleum industry has been based
in the past on conventional vessel-type separators. These separators are bulky, heavy and
expensive. With the new trend in the petroleum industry toward hydrocarbons production
from offshore fields and economic challenges to reduce production costs, the petroleum
industry has recently shown keen interest in compact separators that are low weight, low
cost and efficient.
Gas-Liquid Separation: One alternative for gas-liquid separation, which is
economically attractive, is the Gas Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (GLCC)3. The GLCC is
a simple, compact and low-cost separator. It is a vertical pipe section, with a downward
inclined, tangential inlet located approximately at the middle. Neither moving parts nor
internal devices are used, reducing the need for maintenance. The separation in this
2
equipment is achieved by centrifugal and gravity effects. The inclined inlet promotes a
gravity driven pre-separation and the tangential inlet creates a swirling motion in the
vertical pipe, forcing the liquid toward the pipe wall and to the bottom, while the gas
moves to the center of the pipe and exits from the top. Control valves on both gas and
liquid outlets maintain the liquid level constant inside the vertical section. Mechanistic
models for design and performance prediction of the GLCC are now available. In these
models, the oil-water mixture is treated as a single liquid phase flow. The GLCC has
recently gained popularity in the industry, with more than 150 units installed in the field
around the world.
Liquid-Liquid Separation: Most of the studies on liquid-liquid separation have
been focused on conical liquid hydrocyclones (LLHC). The main application of the
hydrocyclone is to clean produced oily water for disposal, reducing oil concentrations to
the order of ppm in the effluent. This equipment is suitable only for water with very low
oil content. During the development of the conical hydrocyclone, attempts were made to
utilize cylindrical geometries. The use of cylindrical hydrocyclones for liquid-liquid
separation has not been deeply investigated primarily due to the fact that at high
velocities they perform as mixers rather than separators. However, by operating at
moderate velocities, the cylindrical hydrocyclone can be used to perform at least partial
liquid-liquid separation (free water knockout).
A pioneering study has been conducted by Afanador (1999) on the performance
of the cylindrical cyclone as a free water knockout. In that study the regular configuration
of the GLCC was used, i.e., a vertical pipe with an inclined tangential inlet. This
3
GLCC - Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone - Copyright, The University of Tulsa, 1994
3
equipment is referred to as the Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (LLCC). The reported
results indicated the capability of this device to provide a water-rich stream from the
bottom and an oil-rich stream from the top by using low and moderate liquid velocities.
Gas-Liquid-Liquid Separation: In order to extend the cylindrical cyclone
technology to three-phase gas-oil-water separation, two geometrical configurations are
proposed in this study.
Gas
Oil
3-phase
Flow
Water
Oil + Water
Figure 1-1. Two-Stage System (GLCC and LLCC)
The first configuration is called the Two-Stage System and it is shown in Figure
1-1. The Two-Stage System consists of a regular GLCC, as the first stage, to remove the
gas from the liquid, with the liquid outlet connected to a second stage LLCC to separate
the liquid mixture. In this configuration, the three-phase gas-oil-water mixture enters
through the inclined tangential inlet of the GLCC. The gas flows to the top and exits out
of the system. The liquid, an oil-water mixture, flows through the GLCC liquid leg into
4
the second stage LLCC.
The LLCC horizontal inlet promotes oil-water segregation and the liquid phases
enter the vertical section through a reducing area nozzle, increasing their velocity. The
swirling motion in the LLCC produces a centrifugal separation, thus, an oil-rich stream
exits through the top (overflow) and a water-rich stream leaves the system through the
bottom (underflow).
Gas
3-Phase
Flow
Water-Rich
Oil Finder
Oil-Rich
Figure 1-2. Gas-Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (GLLCC)
Figure 1-2 shows the second configuration. This configuration is a single stage
system called the Gas-Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (GLLCC). It consists of a
regular GLCC body with an inner concentric pipe extended through the bottom, called
the oil finder. In this case, the three-phase mixture enters through the inclined tangential
inlet, which promotes gas-liquid pre-separation by segregating the gas and the liquid
forming a stratified flow pattern. The tangential entry of the fluid produces a swirling
5
motion in the vertical pipe. The gas flows upwards to the gas outlet and leaves the
GLLCC, while the liquid swirls in the lower section of the vertical pipe. Due to the
difference in density, the centrifugal effect segregates the oil-water mixture,
concentrating the oil at the center of the pipe, while the water is thrown towards the wall
region. The oil-rich core formed at the center is taken out through the oil finder. The
water-rich liquid, present at the wall region, flows to the annulus between the pipe wall
and the oil finder and leaves the GLLCC through the tangential outlet.
Objective and Dissertation Structure: The objective of the present study is to
investigate experimentally and theoretically oil-water separation performance of the
LLCC; and the oil-water separation performance of the GLLCC, while performing gasliquid separation.
The next chapter presents a review of the literature relevant to this study. In
Chapter III, the new experimental facility is described as well as the experiments carried
out in the GLLCC and the LLCC. The developed models are presented in Chapter IV.
Chapter V includes the comparison between the experimental results and the modeling
predictions. Conclusions and recommendations are found in Chapter VI.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Liquid-Liquid-Cylindrical Cyclone (LLCC) and the Gas-Liquid-Liquid

Cylindrical Cyclone (GLLCC) are new technologies for multiphase flow separation that
followed the advances in the Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (GLCC) separator
development at The University of Tulsa. Pertinent literature on the GLCC and LLCC,
along with three other related topics, namely, swirling flow, oil-water flow patterns and
oil droplet size distribution, are given below.
2.1 GLCC Development

Previous experimental attempts using cylindrical hydrocyclones for gas-liquid
separation found in the literature include Davies and Watson (1979) and Davies (1984)
who studied compact separators for offshore production, where low size and weight of
the equipment are important.
They showed several advantages of using a cyclone
separator instead of conventional separator, such as compactness and low cost, while
improving the separation performance.
Nebrensky et al. (1980) developed a cyclone for gas-oil separation that included a
tangential rectangular inlet with a special arrangement to change the inlet area. Zhikarev
et al. (1985) developed a cyclone separator with a rectangular, tangential inlet located
near the bottom.
7
Based on experimental results, Fekete (1986) suggested the use of a vortex tube
separator due to its low weight and size. Another study by Oranje (1990) also showed
that cyclone type separators are suitable for applications on offshore platforms due to
their small size and weight.
Cowie (1992) tested vertical caisson slug catchers comparing radial and tangential
inlets. The tangential inlet configuration provided the best performance. Bandyopadhyay
et al. (1994) studied the separation of helium bubbles from water using cyclone
separators.
Weingarten et al. (1995) developed and tested the auger separator which is a
cylindrical cyclone with internal spiral vanes.
Based on experimental and theoretical studies performed at The University of
Tulsa, a mechanistic model for the GLCC was developed by Arpandi et al. (1995). This
model is able to predict the general hydrodynamic flow behavior in a GLCC, including
simple velocity distributions, gas-liquid interface shape, equilibrium liquid level, total
pressure drop, and operational envelop for liquid carry-over.
Marti et al. (1996)
attempted to develop a mechanistic model to predict gas carry-under in GLCC separators.

This model predicts the separation efficiency based on bubble trajectory analysis. Gomez
(1998) developed a state-of-the-art computer code integrating improved models for the
different sections of the GLCC.
The models developed at the University of Tulsa have allowed the application of
the GLCC to real field cases as detailed by Kouba and Shoham. (1996) and Gomez et al.
(2000)
8
Movafaghian et al. (2000) reported the effects of fluid properties, inlet geometry
and pressure on the behavior of the GLCC. Gomez, L.E. (2001) developed a model to
predict the gas carry-under in this separator.
2.2 LLCC Development

Most of the published work on liquid-liquid separation in hydrocyclones has been
done on conical hydrocyclones (LLHC) consisting of mainly experimental studies. A
review of the important references on the LLHC is given by Gomez, C.H. (2001).
Very few studies have been published on the Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone
separator. Listewnik (1984) reported oil-water separation efficiency in a cylindrical
hydrocyclone with four inlets. Gay et al. (1987) presented a comparison between a static
conical hydrocyclone and a rotary cylindrical cyclone. Bednarsky and Listewnik (1988)
analyzed the effect of the inlet diameter on the separation efficiency of a hydrocyclone.
They concluded that small inlets cause droplet break-up and big inlets do not produce
enough swirl intensity. Seyda (1991) simulated numerically the separation of oil-water
dispersions in a small cylindrical tube.
Afanador (1999), at the University of Tulsa, performed a pioneering experimental
study on the separation efficiency of oil and water by using the LLCC separator. She used
a two-inch cylindrical cyclone with an inclined tangential inlet, similar to the GLCC
configuration. The mixture entered through the inclined tangential inlet and swirled
inside the vertical pipe providing an oil-rich stream from the top and a water-rich stream
from the bottom.
9
2.3 Swirling Flow Field
Nissan and Bressan (1961) measured experimentally the axial and tangential
velocities of swirling flow in pipes. They injected water through two tangential inlets and
used impact probes to measure the velocities. The axial velocity distribution showed a
flow reversal region near the center of the pipe.
Ito et al. (1979) studied the swirl intensity decay by using water and multielectrode probes. The measured tangential velocity distribution showed a forced vortex
structure near the pipe axis and a free vortex structure close to the wall. The swirl was
found to decrease with the axial distance.
Millington and Thew (1987) used Laser Doppler Anemometry to measure the
velocity inside a cylindrical cyclone section and reported the tangential velocity profile to
be a forced vortex structure. Algifri et al. (1988) conducted experiments on turbulent
swirling pipe flow using air and hot-wire probes. They concluded that the tangential
velocity distribution could be described as a Rankine-type vortex.
Kitoh (1991) measured the flow field in swirling flow by using hot wire
anemometers and found that the swirl intensity decays exponentially with the axial
distance. Chang and Dhir (1994), using air and hot-wire anemometers, studied the
turbulence in a swirling flow. It was found that the swirl intensity decays as a function of
the axial distance and the Reynolds number.
Using Laser Doppler Velocimetry and Pitot tube, Kurokawa (1995) located three
regions in the pipe swirling flow: a jet region in the center of the pipe with a forced
vortex structure, an intermediate region of reverse flow and a free vortex region near the
10
wall. He reported that when the pipe is long enough, the swirl intensity becomes weak
and the reverse flow disappears, leading to regular pipe flow.
By using published data and CFD simulation, Mantilla et al. (1999) developed
correlations for the axial and tangential velocities that take into account the reverse flow
region. Erdal (2001) presented experimental data on swirling flow of a single-phase
liquid in a vertical cylindrical pipe with tangential, horizontal and inclined inlets. He used
Laser Doppler Velocimetry, and glycerin and water as working fluids. Based on the
experimental results, he modified Mantillas correlations.
2.4 Oil-Water Pipe Flow Pattern Prediction

An extensive literature review on oil-water flow in pipes can be found in Trallero
(1995). Trallero (1995) acquired experimental data on oil-water flow patterns in
horizontal pipes. He proposed a new classification to standardize oil-water flow patterns
and developed a mechanistic model for their prediction. The model is based on the
stability analysis of the oil-water interface and droplet diameters comparison. The new
classification includes the following flow patterns.
Stratified Flow (ST). In this pattern the two liquid phases flow as layers with the
heaviest, usually the water, at the bottom and the lighter (usually oil) at the top.
Some waviness can be observed at the interface.
Stratified Flow with Mixing at the Interface (STMI). In this case the system tends
to be stratified, but the turbulence generates a mixing zone about the interface.
The mixing zone can be significant, but still pure fluids exist at the top and the
11
bottom of the pipe.
Dispersion of Oil in Water with a Water Layer (DO/W&W). The water is

distributed across the entire pipe. A layer of clean water is flowing at the bottom
and dispersed droplets of oil in water flow at the top.
Dispersion of Water in Oil with an Oil Layer (DW/O&O). This case occurs for
high oil content. The oil is distributed across the entire pipe, forming a pure oil
layer at the top and the water exists as droplets dispersed in oil in the lower
section of the pipe.
Dispersion of Oil in Water (DO/W). In this case, all the pipe area is occupied by
water containing dispersed oil droplets.
Dispersion of Water in Oil (DW/O). The oil is the continuous phase and the water
is present as droplets across all the pipe area.
Dual Dispersion (DO/W&DW/O). In this flow pattern, two different layers can be
identified. Both phases are present across the entire pipe, but at the top, the
continuous phase is the oil and it contains droplets of water. In the lower region of
the pipe, the continuous phase is the water and the oil exists as droplets.
Tralleros model predicts the flow pattern by performing both inviscid and
viscous stability analyses of the oil-water interface under equilibrium stratified flow
conditions. If the flow conditions comply with both stability criteria, the flow pattern is
stratified with a clean interface. If some of these criteria are not satisfied, a comparison
between transitional velocities based on different droplet size definitions and the
12
continuous phase properties is performed to predict the flow pattern.
The inviscid stability criterion is accomplished when
2
2
w o Ain (vw vo ) Ain ( w o ) g o , w Ain
CRI =
0.
Aw Ao m2
m Si
m Si
(2 - 1)
The viscous stability criterion is accomplished when:

2
2
E Ain w vw o vo
0.073 Ain
2
CRV = CRI +
2
+
+ (vw vo ) +
Ao
m
2 B m Aw
1
1
+ 0 , (2 - 2)
Aw Ao
where is a wave number defined as 2/(100d). B is a dispersion coefficient calculated

by means of a small disturbance in the water height level and E is a dispersion coefficient
obtained by small perturbations of the oil and water velocities. The value of is the
density of the faster moving phase.
The different transitional velocities considered in Trallero (1995) model are as
follows:
Transitional velocity of the oil based on the maximum water droplet diameter and
using the mixture velocity to calculate the friction factor:
vo, m , wd ,max
8 d wd , max w 1 g
o .
=
3 fm
(2 - 3)
Transitional velocity of the oil based on the maximum water droplet diameter and
using the oil velocity to calculate the friction factor:
13
Vo ,o , wd , max
8 d wd ,max w 1 g
o .
=
3 fo
(2 - 4)
Transitional velocity of the water based on the maximum oil droplet diameter and
using the water velocity to calculate the friction factor:
Vw, w,od ,max
8 d od ,max 1 o g
w
=
.
3 fw
(2 - 5)
Transitional velocity of the water based on the minimum oil droplet diameter and
using the water velocity to calculate the friction factor:
Vw, w,od ,min
8 d od ,min 1 o g
w
=
.
3 fw
(2 - 6)
Transitional velocity of the water based on the maximum oil droplet diameter and
using the mixture velocity to calculate the friction factor:
Vw, m ,od ,max
8 d od ,max 1 o g
w
=
.
3 fm
(2 - 7)
Figure 2-1 shows the flow chart for the liquid-liquid flow pattern prediction
using Tralleros model.
Trallero modified the Hinze (1955) and Levich (1962) models for maximum and
minimum droplet diameters respectively, by taking into account the dispersed phase
concentration as follows:
14
n
vSW
d .
= C
v
v
+
SO
SW
d mod
(2 - 8)
The constants and exponents utilized in Equation 2-8 are presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Exponents and Coefficients for Trallero (1995) Model
Droplet
Diameter
Friction factor
dod,max
fm
-3.5
dod,max
fw
15.1
dod,min
fw
2.2
-7
dwd,max
fm
744
1.832
dwd,max
fo
0.9
vw > vw,w,od,max
DW/O&O
N
CRI < 0
DW/O
Y
DW/O&DO/W
vo > vo,m,wd,max
DW/O
Y
N
N
vo > vo,m,wd,max
CRV < 0
vo < vw
STMI
Y
ST
vw < vw,w,od,min
N
N
STMI
vw< vw,m,od,max
Y
DW/O&DO/W
vo > vo,o,wd,max
vw > vw,w,od,max
vo < vo,o,wd,max
vo > vo,o,wd,max
vw > vw,w,od,max
Y
vo > vo,o,wd,max
vw > vw,w,od,max
DW/O&DO/W
Figure 2-1. Trallero (1995) Model Flow Chart
DO/W
DO/W&W
15
2.5 Droplet Size Distribution
Hinze (1955) published a model to calculate the maximum stable droplet size in
turbulent pipe flow. His model is based on the equilibrium between turbulent forces and
interfacial tension forces.
Levich (1962) showed that the Hinze (1955) model cannot predict the stable
droplet size in the region close to the pipe wall, and developed a new model that is
capable of predicting the minimum droplet size in the flow.
The Hinze (1955) and Levich (1962) models take into account the breakup
phenomenon, but not the coalescence. Trallero (1995) proposed the modification of these
models by using empirical functions of the dispersed phase concentration in order to take
into account the coalescence phenomenon.
Few works have been published on droplet size distribution when two
immiscible fluids flow in a pipe. Karabelas (1978) measured droplet size distributions
and found that the Rosin-Rammler and the log-normal distributions can describe his
experimental results. Crowe et al. (1998) states that the size distribution function
frequently used to correlate droplet size measurements is the Rosin-Rammler distribution.
The above literature review reveals a lack of systematic data and mechanistic
models for the LLCC and GLLCC. This is the scope and contribution of the present
study.
CHAPTER III
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
3.1 Experimental Facility

A new experimental flow loop has been constructed in the College of Engineering
and Natural Sciences Research Building, located in the North Campus of The University
of Tulsa. This indoor facility enables year around data acquisition and simultaneous
testing of different compact separation equipment. Figure 3-1 shows an overview of the
facility.
Figure 3-1. Experimental Flow Loop
The new oil-water-air three-phase flow facility is a fully instrumented state-ofthe-art, two-inch flow loop, enabling testing of single separation equipment or combined
separation systems. The three-phase flow loop consists of a metering and storage section
16
17
and a modular test section. Following is a brief description of both sections.
3.1.1 Metering and Storage Section

Air is supplied from a compressor and is stored in a high-pressure gas tank. The
air flows through a one-inch metering section, consisting of Micromotion mass flow
meter, pressure regulator and control valve. The liquid phases (water and oil) are pumped
from the respective storage tanks (400 gallons each), and are metered with two sets of
Micromotion mass flow meters, pressure regulators and control valves. The pumping
station, shown in Figure 3-2, consists of a set of two pumps (10 HP and 25 HP equipped
with motor speed controllers) for each liquid phase. Each set of pumps has an automatic
re-circulating system to avoid high pressures. Several mixing points have been designed
to evaluate and control the oil-water mixing characteristics.
Figure 3-2. Tanks, Pumping Station and Metering Section
18
The liquid and gas phases are then mixed at a tee junction and sent to the test
section. Downstream of the test sections, the gas, oil-rich and water-rich streams flow
through three Micromotion net oil computers to measure the outlet gas flow rate, and
total flow rate and water-cut of the two liquid streams. The three streams then flow into a
three-phase conventional horizontal separator (36-inch diameter and 10 feet long), where
the air is vented to the atmosphere and the separated oil and water flow back to their
respective storage tanks. A technical grade white mineral oil type Tufflo 6016 with a
specific gravity of 0.857 and a viscosity of 27 cp. (@ 75 F) is used as the experimental
fluid along with tap water.
Figure 3-3. Test Section
3.1.2 Modular Test Section

The metered three-phase mixture coming from the metering section can flow into
19
any of the four different test stations. This flexibility enables the testing of single
separation equipment, such as a GLLCC, LLCC, Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclones (LLHC)
or conventional separators and any combination of these, in parallel or series, forming a
compact separation system. Two 10-feet x 15-feet x 8-feet frames are installed in the test
section in order to support the equipment. Figure 3-3 shows a picture of the modular test
section.
3.1.3 Instrumentation, Control and Data Acquisition System

Control valves placed along the flow loop control the flow into the test sections.
The flow loop is also equipped with several temperature sensors and pressure transducers
for measurement of the in-situ pressure and temperature conditions. All output signals
from the sensors, transducers, and metering devices are collected at a central panel. A
state-of-the art data acquisition system, built using LabView, is used to both control the
flow into and out of the loop and to acquire data from the analog signals transmitted by
the instrumentation. The program provides variable sampling rates. The sampling rate is
set at 2 Hz for a 2 minutes sampling period. The final measured quantity results from an
arithmetic averaging of the 240 readings, when steady-state condition is established. A
regular calibration procedure, employing a high-precision pressure pump, is performed
on each pressure transducer on a regular schedule to guarantee the precision of
measurements. The temperature transducers consist of a Resistive Temperature Detector
(RTD) sensor, and an electronic transmitter module.
20
3.1.4 GLLCC Design
The GLLCC, shown in Figure 3-4, is a 7 feet, 3-inch ID vertical pipe, with a 5
feet, 3-inch ID, 27 degrees inclined inlet. The inlet slot area is 25% of the inlet full bore
cross sectional area and is connected tangentially to the vertical pipe. The inlet is located
3 feet below the top of the vertical section. The 2-inch ID gas outlet is located radially at
the top of the vertical pipe. The water 2-inch ID outlet is located tangentially at the
bottom of the vertical pipe. The oil finder is a movable, 3 feet, 1.5-inch ID pipe that
enters the lower end of the vertical pipe through a special seal arrangement. Four pins at
the top of the oil finder keep it concentric to the vertical pipe, allowing its up and down
movement. The oil finder is attached to an electromechanical lift device.
12
36
27
2
3
Nozzle
27
105
2
3
84
57
44
Gas
Oil
Water
36
3-Phase
Mixture
1.5
2
Hose
1.5
*Units in inches
*Not to scale
Figure 3-4. GLLCC Design
Because single-phase meters are used to quantify the flow rates and water-cuts
downstream of the test section, traps are provided to remove any entrained liquid in the
21
gas outlet and the entrained gas in both liquid outlets, as shown in Figure 3-4. The liquid
trap is a slightly downward inclined 6-inch ID pipe connected to the 2 inch ID gas outlet.
The liquid being carried over settles in this trap by reducing the gas velocity, and a
vertical 1-inch ID drain is provided to measure and remove the trapped liquid.
The gas trap in the water outlet consists of a vertical 4 feet, 8-inch ID pipe with a
2-inch ID tangential inlet located at the upper end. The water exits the trap through a
tangential 2-inch ID pipe at the bottom. The gas being carried by the liquid is separated
inside the trap by reducing the velocity and swirling the liquid, and it goes to the top of
the trap. A conical reduction 8 to 2 inches extends the upper end of the gas trap, and a 1
foot, 2-inch ID pipe with a inch valve is located at the top, enabling the measurement
and the relief of the trapped gas. A similar trap is used in the oil outlet, but the inlet is a 2inch ID tangential pipe connected with a 2-inch flexible hose to the 1.5-inch ID oil finder
to allow its movement inside the GLLCC body. Pressure and temperature transducers are
located at the inlet and pressure transducers are located on each of the three outlets.
Sampling ports are also provided on each outlet.
3.1.5 LLCC Design

The LLCC is a 6.4 feet, 2-inch ID vertical pipe, with a 5 feet, 2-inch ID horizontal
inlet. The inlet slot area is 25% of the inlet full bore cross sectional area. The inlet is
attached to the vertical section 3.3 feet below the top. A 1.5-inch ID concentric pipe
located at the top is used as the oil outlet, and the water outlet is a radial, 1.5-inch ID pipe
located at the bottom of the vertical section.
22
A temperature sensor is located at the inlet and a pressure sensor is located on
each outlet. Sampling ports are provided on each outlet as well as the inlet. Figure 3-5
shows a schematic of the LLCC. Valves in both the oil outlet and the water outlet allow
the control of the flow rates leaving the separator, namely, the split ratio.
40
Nozzle
1.5
40
2
2
37
60
Oil-rich
Water-rich
1.5
Oil-Water
Mixture
*Units in inches
*Not to scale
Figure 3-5. LLCC Design
3.2 Experimental Results

The experimental data acquired for both the LLCC and the GLLCC are presented
in the following section.
3.2.1 LLCC Experimental Results

Experiments on the LLCC have been conducted by Mathiravedu (2001) in order
to develop control strategies to maximize the free water knockout. The results of some
23
experiments are used in this study. Only the water-dominated case (superficial water
velocity greater than superficial oil velocity) is considered. The maximum total liquid
mixture superficial velocity used is around 1.3 m/s, since beyond this velocity the oilwater system forms a stable emulsion. Under this condition, no free water exists and the
LLCC only splits the entering emulsion into two distinct emulsions with different oil
concentrations. Table A-1 in Appendix A includes the 37 experimental runs analyzed in
this study. Several combinations of oil and water superficial velocities are used, within
the studied region, varying the split ratio for every combination of oil and water
superficial velocities.
Inlet Flow Patterns

During the experiments, four flow patterns were observed in the horizontal inlet,
as shown in Figure 3-6.
At low superficial velocities (vSW < 0.2, vSO < 0.1 m/s), the oil enters the inlet
through the upstream vertical pipe section in the form of large droplets. These oil
droplets immediately move to the top of the pipe forming a continuous oil layer.
The water remains at the bottom. This flow pattern is called Stratified (Figure
3-6.A).
When the superficial water velocity increases (0.2< vSW < 0.8 m/s) and the oil
content is low (vSO < 0.2 m/s), the droplets entering the inlet are smaller. They still
are able to move to the top of the pipe, but they do not form a continuous oil
phase. Thus, an oil in water dispersion flows at the top of the pipe and a free-
24
water layer flows at the bottom. This configuration is called Oil-in-water
Dispersion with Water Layer (DO/W&W) (Figure 3-6.B).
Figure 3-6. Horizontal Inlet Flow Patterns
At intermediate superficial water velocities (0.2< vSW < 0.8 m/s), but increasing
the oil content (vSO > 0.2 m/s), the bigger oil droplets move to the top and the
small ones remain at the bottom, and no free-water layer is observed. However,
the oil concentration is increasing from the bottom to the top of the pipe. Dividing
the pipe by a horizontal plane parallel to the pipe axis, it can be considered that
two dispersions with different oil content are flowing in the inlet. This flow
pattern is called Double Oil in Water Dispersion (Double DO/W) (Figure 36.C).
25
At higher superficial water velocities (vSW > 0.8 m/s), the oil droplets are small
and they are evenly distributed in the entire cross sectional area of the pipe. This
flow pattern is called Oil-in-Water Dispersion (DO/W), as seen in Figure 3-6.D.
Figure 3-7 shows the inlet flow pattern map obtained during the experimental data
acquisition. The superficial oil velocity is plotted in the horizontal axis and the superficial
water velocity is plotted in the vertical axis. The dashed line divides the water-dominated
region and the oil-dominated region. As can be observed, all the experimental data points
are located in the water-dominated region, and their location define well separated
regions according to their flow pattern.
1.2
Vsw (m/s)
1.0
0.8
0.6
DO/W
DO/W & W
0.4
ST
D DO/W
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Vso (m/s)
Figure 3-7. Experimental Flow Pattern Map for LLCC Inlet
Effect of Inlet Inclination: Afanador (1999) performed experiments on partial

separation of oil and water using a 2-inch ID LLCC with an inclined inlet. Figure 3-8
shows a plot of the water-cut in the water outlet versus the split ratio for a superficial
26
water velocity of 1 m/s and different oil contents at the inlet. The split ratio is defined as
the ratio between the underflow liquid flow rate and the inlet liquid flow rate, namely SR
= qunder/qin. It can be observed that there is a tendency to reduce the oil content in the
underflow as the split ratio decreases. However, no tendency of the lines to cross the
100% water-cut value is shown, for which clean water would be obtained at the
underflow.
Watercut Under %
100
95
Oil @ Inlet
90
20%
15%
8%
85
4%
80
75
Afanador (1999)
25
35
45
55
65
Split Ratio, SR , %
Figure 3-8. LLCC with Inclined Inlet (vSW = 1 m/s)
In order to investigate the effect of the inlet inclination angle, a qualitative

analysis of flow patterns in the inlet is performed. For this purpose, the model of Trallero
(1995) is used. The analysis shows that the horizontal inlet promotes better oil-water
segregation than the inclined inlet.
Figure 3-9 is a visual comparison between the two inlet configurations for the
same flow conditions. In the inclined inlet, a significant initial water layer is observed.
27
The height of the water layer decreases as the liquid advances through the pipe. On the
contrary, the horizontal inlet shows a significant initial water layer height and this layer
grows as the liquid moves towards the vertical LLCC section. In this case the water layer
entering the vertical section is bigger than in the inclined case, so a better separation
efficiency can be expected.
vSW = 0.4 m/s

vSO = 0.025 m/s
vSW = 0.4 m/s

vSO = 0.025 m/s
Figure 3-9. Horizontal vs. Inclined Inlets Comparison
Experimental results for a water superficial velocity of 1 m/s using the horizontal
inlet are presented in Figure 3-10. As it can be seen the lines are steeper than in the
inclined inlet case under same flow conditions (Figure 3-8) and even more important, the
lines reach the 100% water cut value, showing the presence of clean water in the
underflow at significant split ratios. This means that an important fraction of the
incoming liquid goes to the underflow as pure water, enabling this device to be
successfully used as a free water knockout. Thus, a horizontal inlet has been used
throughout this study.
28
Watercut Under %
100
95
Oil @ Inlet
90
20%
15%
85
8%
4%
80
75
This Study
25
35
45
55
65
Split Ratio, SR , %
Figure 3-10. LLCC with Horizontal Inlet (vSW = 1 m/s)
Separation Efficiency
Figure 3-11 shows the effect of the split ratio on the purity of the underflow by a
sequence of photographs of the lower section of the LLCC (water leg) for stratified flow
pattern at the inlet.
The superficial water velocity at the inlet is 0.1 m/s and the superficial oil velocity
at the inlet is 0.05 m/s yielding a water-cut of 67%. Under these conditions, the water
level in the inlet pipe is 50% of the inlet diameter. For a split ratio of 50%, only clean
water is observed in the water leg. When the split ratio is increased to 55%, oil droplets
are entering the water leg, but they are separated and go up to the oil leg. At 60%, more
oil is entrained, but still only clean water is leaving the water leg. At a split ratio of 65%
the entrained oil in the water leg increases even more and some quantity of oil leaves
with the underflow.
29
SR
50%
SR
55%
SR
60%
SR
65%
Figure 3-11. LLCC Separation Behavior as a Function of the Split Ratio

(vSW = 0.1, vSO = 0.05 m/s)
Watercut Under %
100
80
60
40
LLCC Run 37
Stratified Flow
v SW = 0.1 m/s
v SO = 0.05 m/s
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
Figure 3-12. Experimental Results for Stratified Flow
The experimental results for this case of Stratified Flow are shown in Figure 3-12.
The water cut in the underflow outlet is plotted as a function of the split ratio. As can be
observed, for split ratios smaller than 62%, clean water is obtained in the underflow.
30
Increasing the split ratio beyond 62% the oil phase starts flowing into the underflow
along with the water. It can be observed that as the split ratio increases, the water-cut in
the underflow decreases, and about a split ratio of 80% the water-cut in the underflow
reaches the same value as the inlet water-cut. At this point no separation is occurring.
Increasing the split ratio, beyond 80%, the underflow water-cut continues decreasing, so
for this split ratios the underflow water-cut is smaller than the inlet water-cut. Finally, at
the split ratio of 100%, all the liquid is flowing down so the water-cut in the underflow is
the same as the inlet water-cut.
Watercut Under %
100
80
60
40
LLCC Run 26
DO/W - WL Flow
v SW = 0.40 m/s
v SO = 0.15 m/s
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
Figure 3-13. Experimental Results for DO/W Water Layer Flow
Figure 3-13 shows a representative case of separation for the Oil-in-water

Dispersion - Water Layer flow pattern. The water-cut in the underflow stream is plotted
as a function of the split ratio. Similar behavior is observed; at low split ratios, the watercut in the underflow is 100%; i.e. only clean water is obtained from the underflow. For
this case, the maximum split ratio for clean water is 55%.
31
The separation behavior in the LLCC for the Double Oil-in-Water Dispersion
flow pattern is shown in Figure 3-14. A similar behavior is observed, but the maximum
split ratio for 100% water-cut decreases to 18%. In all the experiments on this flow
pattern the maximum split for clean water was observed at low values. The maximum
split decreases as the oil content in the inlet increases.
Watercut Under %
100
80
60
40
LLCC Run 31
Double DO/W Flow
v SW = 0.7 m/s
v SO = 0.4 m/s
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
Figure 3-14. Experimental Results for Double DO/W Flow
The behavior of the oil-water separation in the LLCC when the Oil-in-Water
Dispersion flow pattern occurs at the inlet is presented in Figure 3-15. At low split ratios,
the underflow outlet provides clean water. For the present case, a maximum split ratio for
clean water of 48% can be reached. This maximum value is also affected strongly by the
oil content and the velocity of the mixture. For low oil content, maximum split ratios
around 50% are observed, but values of maximum split ratio around 20% occur for high
oil content. For a similar case, as the one shown here, but increasing the mixture velocity
32
to 1.15 m/s the maximum split ratio falls to 40%.
Watercut Under %
100
80
60
40
LLCC Run 32
DO/W Flow
v SW = 0.9 m/s
v SO = 0.1 m/s
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split (q_inderflow / q_inlet) %

Figure 3-15. Experimental Results for DO/W Flow
In summary, from the experimental observations, it can be concluded that better

separation efficiency is achieved for the Stratified and the DO/W & W inlet flow
patterns. The Double Dispersion cases show good efficiency near the DO/W & W region,
but the efficiency decreases as the oil content increases. The Oil-in-Water Dispersion
flow pattern is very efficient for very low oil content (less than 10%) and this efficiency
decreases, as the oil content in the inlet is higher. This last flow pattern is limited by the
emulsification phenomenon.
3.2.2 GLLCC Experimental Results

The oil-water-gas separation phenomenon in the GLLCC is shown in Figure 3-16.
As can be seen, the gas-liquid separation occurs as in a regular GLCC. However, in the
33
liquid section, due to centrifugal forces, the oil is segregated from the water forming an
oil core at the center of the pipe. The oil finder captures this oil core, which is an oil-rich
stream. Moreover, clean water flows downward through the annulus formed between the
oil finder and the pipe wall and exits through the water outlet.
Preliminary data have shown that for oil-dominated mixtures the swirl decays
rapidly in the liquid section of the GLLCC, and no good separation effect has been
observed. Based on those results, it was decided to work only into the water-dominated
region. Since the behavior of a gas-liquid mixture is known from previous studies, the gas
superficial velocity is kept constant at 0.75 m/s in all the experiments. This value was
chosen experimentally to achieve Stratified Flow at the inlet, for the range of liquid
velocities used.
Oil Finder
Figure 3-16. Three-Phase Separation Feasibility

The superficial water velocity is varied from 0.1 to 0.5 m/s. The oil superficial
velocity is varied from 0.025 to 0.5 m/s. The GLLCC pressure is varied between 22 and
34
27 psia and the temperature is in the range of 68 - 75 F. Figure 3-17 shows the data
region that includes only water-dominated conditions.
0.5
Vsw (m/s)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Vso (m/s)
Figure 3-17. GLLCC Experimental Data Range

Two limiting phenomena have been observed. At low liquid velocities, the flow in
the inlet is unstable due to churning in the vertical pipe that feeds the separator. Due to
these disturbances and a weak swirling effect, no oil core is formed, and poor separation
is obtained. On the other hand, at high liquid velocities, a gas core is formed all the way
through the liquid phase, providing a channel for the gas to be carried to the underflow.
In this case, even though the oil-water separation is efficient, the gas-liquid separation is
not accomplished. The points located between the two dashed lines in Figure 3-17 are
points where oil-water separation is achieved under the operational envelope of the gasliquid separation (with no gas carry-under).
Two hundred and twenty nine experimental points divided in three sets have been
acquired as presented in Appendix B. The first set of data has been taken at a constant
35
split ratio of 40%. The split ratio in the GLLCC is defined as the ratio between the liquid
flow rate leaving the GLLCC through the water outlet to the total liquid flow rate at the
inlet. For these experiments the oil finder was located 30 inches below the inlet. These
experimental results are summarized in Table B-1 in Appendix B and they are shown in
Figure 3-18. The water-cut in the water outlet is plotted as a function of the water
superficial velocity for different superficial oil velocities.
As can be observed from Figure 3-18, the GLLCC is capable of delivering clean
water at the water outlet only at very low oil content and high water velocity. All the
curves indicate that, for the same superficial oil velocity at the inlet, cleaner water is
obtained by increasing the superficial velocity of the water. On the other hand, as the oil
content in the incoming liquid increases, the purity of the water delivered through the
Water Outlet Watercut %
water outlet decreases.
100
80
Vso (m/s)
0.025
60
0.050
0.100
40
0.150
GLLCC Set 1
Split Ratio = 40%
Oil Finder @ 30 inches below inlet
vSG = 0.75 m/s
20
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Vsw (m/s)
36
100
80
Vso (m/s)
0.025
60
0.050
0.100
40
20
0
0.00
0.150
GLLCC Set 2
Split Ratio = 40%
Oil Finder @ 36 inches below inlet
vSG = 0.75 m/s
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.200
0.40
0.50
Vsw (m/s)
The second set of experiments has been acquired at the same split ratio, namely
40%, but the oil finder has been placed 36 inches below the inlet, to investigate the effect
of the oil finder position on the separation efficiency. The experimental results are
presented in Table B-2 in Appendix B. Figure 3-19 is a graphical representation of these
data. Comparison between Figure 3-18 and Figure 3-19 shows a slight improvement for
the oil finder location at 36 inches below the inlet.
The third set of experiments has been carried out with the oil finder located at 36
inches below the inlet. The superficial water velocity is varied from 0.1 to 0.5 m/s and the
oil superficial velocity is varied from 0.025 to 0.5 m/s. The split ratio is varied from 10%
to 100%. The experiments are summarized in Table B-3 in Appendix B.
Figure 3-20 shows the measured water-cuts in both liquid outlets of the GLLCC
as functions of the split ratio for superficial water and oil velocities of 0.5 m/s and 0.15
37
m/s, respectively. The horizontal line indicates the water-cut in the inlet, which is kept
constant during these experiments. The upper line is the water-cut in the water outlet
stream. As can be seen, this line is always located above the inlet water-cut line,
indicating the decrease of the oil fraction in this liquid stream. On the other hand, the
lower line, corresponding to the water-cut in the oil outlet, is always below the inlet
water-cut line, indicating the increase in oil content in the oil stream outlet. A similar
behavior has been observed in all the experiments.
Water Outlet
100
Inlet
Watercut %
80
60
Oil Outlet
40
GLLCC
vSW = 0.50 m/s
vSO = 0.15 m/s
vSG = 0.75 m/s
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
Figure 3-20. GLLCC Separation Efficiency Results (Set 3)
Since the purpose of the GLLCC is to obtain a water-rich stream (as rich as
possible) in the water outlet, a plot of the water-cut in this outlet versus the split ratio is
an appropriate way to present the separation efficiency. As a sample of the results, Figure
3-21 shows a plot of the water-cut in the water outlet as a function of the split ratio.
These experiments are acquired for a superficial water velocity of 0.3 m/s and the oil
superficial velocity is varied from 0.025 to 0.3 m/s. The split ratio is varied for every pair
38
of superficial velocities. It can be observed that the water-cut in the water-rich stream
increases as the split decreases. It can also be observed that the separation is better for
low inlet oil contents.
100
vSO (m/s)
80
0.025
0.050
60
0.100
0.150
0.200
40
0.250
GLLCC Set 3
v SW = 0.30 m/s
v SG = 0.75 m/s
20
0.300
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
100
vSO (m/s)
80
0.025
60
0.050
0.100
0.150
40
GLLCC Set 3
v SW = 0.5 m/s
v SG = 0.75 m/s
20
0.200
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR, %
39
Figure 3-22 presents a similar plot for a superficial water velocity of 0.5 m/s. A
similar behavior is observed but the curves are shifted upwards, indicating higher
separation efficiency due to increasing liquid velocity, and the resulted increase of the
centrifugal force.
It is important to notice that the experimental data presented for the GLLCC in
this study are partial. Several effects are not studied, namely, the change of the liquid
level in the liquid leg, which is kept constant at the inlet. The gas superficial velocity is
kept constant at 0.75 m/s. Consequently, the flow pattern in the inlet is not varied, and all
the experiments are for the stratified flow case only.
CHAPTER IV
MECHANISTIC MODELING
This chapter presents the mechanistic models developed for the LLCC and
GLLCC, respectively.
4.1 LLCC Mechanistic Model

The LLCC consists of a vertical pipe section (the separator) and a horizontal pipe
section (the inlet), as shown in Figure 4-1. Both pipes are attached through a reducing
area nozzle. The vertical pipe is divided by the nozzle into two sections. The upper
section is called the Oil Leg as it delivers oil-rich stream into the oil outlet or overflow.
The lower section is called the Water Leg and it delivers water-rich stream into the
water outlet or underflow. Valves in the oil and water outlets are used to control the flow
rates leaving the LLCC.
The ratio between the water outlet (underflow) flow rate to the total inlet flow rate
is defined as the Split Ratio (SR). The separation efficiency of the LLCC depends
strongly on the split ratio. To date, no simple and general definition of the liquid-liquid
separation efficiency has been developed. In this study, the separation efficiency is
described by means of the split ratio and the water fraction in the water leg. These two
parameters give information about how much liquid exits through the water outlet, and
the purity of this liquid stream. The purity and the flow rate in the oil leg can be
40
41
determined from continuity relationships between the inlet, water leg and the oil leg.
Overflow
Oil Leg
Inlet
Water Leg
Modeled
Region
Underflow
Figure 4-1. LLCC Schematic
In order to develop a model for the entire LLCC system, it is necessary to develop
sub-models for the different components of the separator, namely, the horizontal inlet
pipe, the reducing area nozzle (inlet analysis), and the water leg (separation analysis).
Note that by analyzing only the water leg, the system behavior is well defined, as the
flow into the oil leg is the difference between the flows of the inlet and the water leg.
These sub-models are given in the following sections.

The inlet consists of the horizontal pipe and the nozzle. Different flow patterns
can occur in the inlet, depending upon the oil and water flow rates combination, pipe
diameter and fluid properties. The determination of the existing flow pattern for a given
42
set of flow conditions is essential for the analysis, since all the design parameters of the
flow depend on the existing flow pattern. These include the spatial distribution of the
phases and their corresponding velocities. Models to predict the flow pattern in the inlet
pipe, individual models for each of the flow patterns and the nozzle analysis are
presented next.
Inlet Flow Pattern Prediction

The starting point for the LLCC modeling is the prediction of the occurring flow
pattern in the horizontal inlet. Trallero (1995) developed a mechanistic model for liquidliquid flow pattern prediction, applicable for horizontal and near horizontal pipes, as
presented in Chapter II. This model is adapted and modified in the present study for the
inlet section analysis.
Figure 4-2 shows the LLCC experimental data and the flow pattern boundaries
predicted by Tralleros (1995) model, considering only the water-dominated region. The
superficial oil velocity is plotted in the horizontal axis, while the superficial water
velocity is plotted in the vertical axis. The points represent the flow patterns observed
during the experiments and the lines are the predicted flow pattern boundaries.
As can be observed in Figure 4-2, the boundaries predicted by the model, except
the stratified non-stratified boundary, do not agree with the experimental data. This
discrepancy is because Tralleros (1995) model considers fully developed flow, while the
LLCC inlet is a short pipe section. Thus, there is not enough length to form fully
developed flow patterns. Moreover, only four flow patterns have been observed in the
43
water-dominated region during the experimental work (see Chapter III), as compared to
five defined by Trallero (1995).
1.2
DO/W & W
DO/W &
DW/O
vSW (m/s)
1.0
0.8
0.6
Data Points
STMI
ST
0.4
DO/W & W
D DO/W
0.2
DO/W
ST
Trallero (1995) Model
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
v SO (m/s)
Figure 4-2. Trallero (1995) Flow Pattern Prediction Model and Experimental Data
In order to improve the prediction of the observed flow patterns, the coefficients
in Equation 2-8 and Table 2-1 are modified for the present study, as follows.
Table 4-1. Modified Coefficients for LLCC Inlet Flow Pattern Prediction
Droplet
Diameter
Friction factor
dod,max
fm
0.33
-3.5
dod,max
fw
0.9
dod,min
fw
0.174
-7
dwd,max
fm
37.39
1.832
dwd,max
fo
0.043
44
In order to use the modified model to predict the four flow patterns observed in
the LLCC inlet, the Stratified with Mixing flow pattern is considered as Oil-in-Water
Dispersion Water Layer, and the Oil-in-Water and Water-in-Oil Dual Dispersion flow
pattern is considered as the Oil-in-Water Double Dispersion flow pattern. Figure 4-3
shows the LLCC experimental data and the boundaries predicted by the modified model.
As can be observed, the flow pattern boundaries predicted agree very well with the
experimental data.
1.2
DO/W
Vsw (m/s)
1
0.8
Double
DO/W
0.6
DO/W
&W
0.4
0.2
LLCC Flow Pattern Map

Modified Trallero (1995) Model
ST
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Vso (m/s)
Figure 4-3. Modified Trallero (1995) Model Flow Pattern Map
Stratified Flow Model

For low liquid velocities, stratified flow pattern is observed in the inlet. The
water flows at the lower section of the pipe, and a layer of oil travels at the top. A
suitable model for this flow configuration is the two-fluid model. Figure 4-4 shows the
geometry and the variables of the stratified flow pattern.
45
So
o
vo
Si
Ao
i
Aw
hw
vw
w
x
Sw
din
Figure 4-4. Stratified Flow Model Geometry and Variables
A momentum balance on each phase results in the following equations:
Aw
dP
w S w i Si = 0 ,
dx
(4 - 1)
Ao
dP
o So + i Si = 0 .
dx
(4 - 2)
Eliminating the pressure gradient from Equations 4-1 and 4-2, the combined
momentum equation is obtained:
1
o So w S w
1
= 0 .
i Si +
Ao
Aw
Ao Aw
(4 - 3)
The combined momentum equation (Equation 4-3) is an implicit function of the

water layer height, hw.
The shear stresses are calculated as:
46
f o o vo2
,
o =
2
(4 - 4)
w =
f w w vw2
,
2
(4 - 5)
i =
f i i (vw vo ) vw vo
.
2
(4 - 6)
If vw > vo, fi = fw and i = w ; for vo > vw fi = fo and i = o.

Friction factors are calculated as:
d v
f o = Co o o o
o
no
d v
f w = Cw w w w
w
(4 - 7)
nw
(4 - 8)
For laminar flow Cw = Co = 16 and nw = no = 1. For turbulent flow Cw = Co = 0.046 and

nw = no = 0.2.
The hydraulic diameters depend on the relative velocity between the phases, as
follows:
For vo > vw
do =
4 Ao
S o + Si
For vo < vw
; dw =
4 Aw
.
Sw
(4 - 9)
47
do =
4 Ao
So
; dw =
4 Aw
S w + Si
(4 - 10)
4 Aw
.
Sw
(4 - 11)
For vo = vw
do =
4 Ao
So
; dw =
The geometrical variables are functions of hw, as follows:
2h
S w = d in cos 1 w 1 ,
d in
(4 - 12)
2h
So = d in cos 1 w 1 ,
d in
(4 - 13)
Si = d in
2h
1 w 1 ,
d in
(4 - 14)
2 hw
2 hw
d in2
1 2 hw
Aw =
cos
1 ,
1 1
1 +
d in
d in
d in
4

(4 - 15)
2 hw
d in2 1 2 hw 2 hw
Ao =
cos
1 .
1 1
1
d
d
d
4

in
in
in
(4 - 16)
The actual velocities are calculated as:
vw =
A
vsw ,
Aw
(4 - 17)
48
vo =
A
vso .
Ao
(4 - 18)
The combined momentum equation, Equation 4-3, and the auxiliary relationships,
can be solved using the operational variables (oil and water superficial velocities), the
geometry (pipe diameter), and the fluids properties (density and viscosity of oil and
water) that are known, to determine the water layer height hw and the actual velocity of
each phase vo and vw.
Oil droplet size distribution: The oil droplets are generated in the LLCC vertical
pipe section, just in front of the inlet slot. However, the oil droplet size distribution is
correlated with the horizontal pipe inlet flow conditions. The same model developed for
Oil-in-Water Dispersion Water Layer flow (to be presented in next section) is used, but
considering the velocity, properties and geometry of the oil layer, instead of the
dispersion layer.
Oil-in-Water Dispersion Water Layer Model
The most common flow pattern observed in the horizontal inlet during the
experiments is an oil-in-water dispersion flowing at the top of the pipe with a layer of
free water flowing at the bottom. Considering the free water layer as a phase and the
dispersion as a second phase, this flow pattern can be analyzed as the case of stratified
flow, applying the two-fluid model. However, the dispersion must be characterized
through the determination of its properties, namely, average density and viscosity. In this
case, the combined momentum equation becomes
49
1
1
d Sd w Sw
= 0 .
i Si
+
Ad
Aw
Ad Aw
(4 - 19)
The dispersion properties can be calculated by assuming a no-slip condition

between the oil droplets and the water in the dispersion phase (which is a sound
assumption for horizontal flow), as follows:
d = w w, d + o (1 w, d ),
(4 - 20)
d = w w,d + o (1 w,d ),
(4 - 21)
where w,d is the local no-slip water holdup in the dispersion. Several attempts to use the
two-fluid model to describe the Oil-in-Water Dispersion-Water Layer flow pattern can be
found in the literature, but none provides a method to predict w,d. In this study, a
correlation for w,d is developed, based on the experimental data, as follows:
hw
w , d
2
Ain vSO
= 1
.
Aw (vSW + vSO )
(4 - 22)
Equation 4-22 is a function of the water and oil superficial velocities, which are
known, and the height of the water layer. Thus, simultaneous solution of the equation for
w,d and the combined momentum equation, yields the water layer height hw and the
actual velocities of the dispersion layer vd , and the water layer vw.
Oil droplet size distribution: The determination of the maximum and minimum
oil droplet diameters in the dispersion is performed by using modified Hinze (1955) and
Levich (1962) models, respectively, and considering the velocity and geometry of the
50
dispersion layer and its average properties, as follows:
d od ,max
w0.,5in
o,w
=
0.725
d
1.9
d od ,min
0.5
2
o,w d
,
= w,in 2
1.5
2 3
2
.
5
(
)
25
v
0
.
5
f
d d
d
0.6
2 f d vd3
dd
0.4
(4 - 23)
(4 - 24)
where w,in is the no-slip holdup of the water in the inlet flow, and dd, the hydraulic
diameter of the dispersion, is calculated as given in equations 4-9 to 4-11.
Oil-in-Water Dispersion Model
For high liquid velocities, the oil droplets entering the inlet pipe cannot coalesce
and they move along with the water phase and no water layer is observed. For this flow
pattern, the homogeneous no-slip model is applicable. The oil and water velocities are the
same, namely, vw = vo = vm = vSW + vSO , and the dispersion properties are averaged based
on w,in, the inlet no-slip water holdup.
Oil droplet size distribution: Determination of the maximum and minimum oil
droplet diameters for this flow pattern is performed by using modified Hinze (1955) and
Levich (1962) models, respectively, and considering the mixture velocity and properties,
as follows:
d od ,max
o,w
1
0
.
725
=
2.14
m
0.6
2 f m vm3
d
in
0.4
(4 - 25)
51
1
d od ,min
2
o ,w m
1
.
2
=
1.5
2 3
1.43 25 m vm (0.5 f m )
(4 - 26)
Double Oil-in-Water Dispersion Model
At intermediate liquid velocities and high oil contents, the bigger oil droplets are
able to move to the top while the smaller ones remain at the bottom. Under these
conditions, the local water holdup increases gradually from the top to the bottom of the
pipe. It is assumed that the flow can be divided into two layers of dispersion with
different oil concentrations. The division plane is located at the middle of the pipe and the
velocities of both layers are considered the same, equal to the mixture velocity.
The water fraction in the upper and lower dispersions is calculated, respectively,
as:
vSO
w,u = 1 2 a
vSO + vSW
vSO
w,l = 1 2 (1 a )
vSO + vSW
(4 - 27)
(4 - 28)
where the parameter a, varying in the range [0, 1], is the fraction of oil in the upper
dispersion and is correlated with the mixture velocity as follows:
a = 1 0.4 vm .
(4 - 29)
The maximum and minimum oil droplet diameters are calculated in the same way
52
as in the Oil-in-Water Dispersion model, i.e., by using the mixture velocity and the
mixture properties, averaged with w,in, the inlet no-slip water holdup.
Nozzle Analysis
The inlet pipe delivers the liquid into the LLCC vertical section through a
reducing area tangential nozzle. The effect of the nozzle is to increase the velocity of the
flow. Also, it affects the height of the water layer in the Stratified and in the Oil-in-Water
Dispersion- Water Layer flow patterns, before entering into the LLCC.
In the Oil-in-Water Dispersion and the Oil-in-Water Double Dispersion flow
patterns no water layer exists, so the effect of the nozzle is only to increase the velocity as
follows:
vis =
(vSW + vSO ) Ain

Ais
(4 - 30)
Next, the nozzle analysis for the Stratified flow pattern is presented. The same
model is applied to the Oil-in-Water Dispersion Water Layer case, but the oil phase is
replaced with the dispersion phase.
Figure 4-5 shows a schematic of the nozzle geometry and the variables considered
in the model. The nozzle is formed by a vertical plate located inside the horizontal inlet.
The plate forms the nozzle from the full inlet bore to the reduced inlet-slot-area tangential
to the LLCC vertical pipe section. The inlet slot has the shape of a circular sector. In this
model, however, it is considered as a rectangle, keeping the same height of a circular
53
sector and the same area, which is 25% of the inlet cross sectional area.
Wis
vo
vo,is
din
Lis
hw
Water Layer
vw
vw,is
hw,is
The height of the inlet slot is calculated from:

2
2y
1 ,
Lis = 1
d in
(4 - 31)
where y is the solution of

2
2y
2 y
Ais 1
1 2 y
=
1 +
1 1
1 .
cos
Ain
d
d
d
in in
in
(4 - 32)
The inlet slot width is
Wis =
Ais
.
Lis
(4 - 33)
Application of the Bernoullis equation to the top of the water layer, between the
54
inlet pipe and the inlet slot, results in:
Pin +
v2
L
w vw2
d
+ o g (d in hw ) = Pis + w w,is + o g in is + hw,is .

2
2
2
2
(4 - 34)
Applying Bernoullis equation to the top of the oil layer yields
o vo2,is
L
o vo2
d
Pin +
= Pis +
+ o g in is .
2
2
2
2
(4 - 35)
By continuity, the velocities of the oil and water phases at the inlet slot are:
vw,is =
vSW Ain
,
hw,is Wis
(4 - 36)
vo,is =
vSO Ain
.
(Lis hw,is )Wis
(4 - 37)
Eliminating the pressure drop from equations 4-34 and 4-35, the following
polynomial in hw,is is obtained:
C1 hw5 ,is + C2 hw4 ,is + C3 hw3 ,is + C4 hw2 ,is + C5 hw,is + C6 ,
(4 - 38)
where the coefficients are:

C1 = 2 Wis2 o g ,
(4 - 39)
C 2 = Wis2 2 o g (hw d in ) + o vo2 w vw2 2 Lis C1 ,
(4 - 40)
C3 = L2is C1 2 Lis Wis2 2 o g (hw d in ) + o vo2 w vw2 ,
(4 - 41)
C4 = w (vSW Ain ) + L2is Wis2 2 o g (hw d in ) + o vo2 w vw2 o (vSO Ain ) , (4 - 42)
2
55
C5 = 2 Lis w (vSW Ain ) , and
(4 - 43)
C6 = L2is w (vSW Ain ) .
(4 - 44)
Solution of Equation 4-38 yields the height of the water layer at the inlet slot
location, hw,is. Only one root is obtained in the interval hw,is[0, Lis]. In summary, the
nozzle model utilizes the velocities and flow geometry in the inlet to provide the spatial
configuration and the velocities of the phases at the inlet slot, which are the input for the
separation analysis in the vertical section. This is given in next section.
4.1.2 Separation Analysis
Once the spatial distribution and the velocities of the fluids at the inlet slot are
determined from the inlet analysis, the water fraction of the underflow stream, as a
function of the split ratio, can be calculated. The liquid coming from the nozzle enters
the vertical section of the LLCC tangentially and rotates, creating a swirling flow. The
liquid splits into two streams, one going upwards through the oil leg and the other going
downwards through the water leg. As mentioned before, the analysis of the flow in the
water leg is sufficient to define the system behavior in the entire LLCC. The separation
analysis characterizes the centrifugal separation occurring in the water leg of the LLCC.
Entry Region Analysis
The zone of the vertical pipe, just downstream of the inlet slot, is termed the entry
region. Because of the horizontal inlet geometry configuration, a local geometrical split
56
is assumed at the inlet slot, shown schematically in Figure 4-6, as follows; the middle
plane of the inlet (the dashed line in Figure 4.6) divides the incoming liquid flow locally
into two streams. One stream, consisting of the fluid flowing in the inlet above the
dividing middle plane, flows upwards into the oil leg, while the other stream, consisting
of the fluid flowing in the inlet below the dividing middle plane, flows downward into the
water leg.
q50
qin
q 50
Figure 4-6. Local Split at Entry Region and Reverse Flow
The local flow rate of the incoming liquid going downward is designated q50
and it is calculated as:
Ais
2
0
q50 = vis dAis .
(4 - 45)
It is important to note that q50 describes a local split at the entry region. However,
the net flow going downward is dictated by the operation of the valve in the water leg
outlet and/or the valve in the oil outlet. This results in re-circulation and rearrangement of
57
the fluid. The actual liquid flow rate going downward through the water leg is determined
by the split ratio as follows.
qunder = (vSW + vSO ) Ain SR .
(4 - 46)
In swirling pipe flow, a reverse flow region is generated at the center of the pipe. Thus,
the general movement of the liquid in the water leg is downwards, but a core region in the
center moves up and delivers additional liquid to the oil leg. The reverse flow region is
indicated in Figure 4-6 as a central core moving upwards.
It is important to note that the incoming liquid enters tangentially at high velocity
and is spread on the pipe wall forming an annular configuration. The centrifugal effect,
due to the rotation of the liquid, generates a low potential region between the incoming
flow and the reverse flow region. Liquid can be transferred from one leg to the other
through this low potential zone. Two cases are considered. When the liquid flow rate
produced through the water outlet is smaller than the liquid flow rate entering the water
leg according to the local geometrical split, namely, qunder < q50, the difference is going
up to the oil leg, passing through the low potential zone. On the other hand, when the
liquid flow rate taken from the water outlet exceeds the flow rate entering the water leg
from the inlet, namely, qunder > q50, the difference is taken from the oil leg through the
low potential zone into the water leg. The last case is depicted in Figure 4-7.
Due to the swirling motion of the liquid in the entry region, the oil droplets tend
to concentrate at the center. Thus, the liquid transferred from the oil leg to the water leg,
has a modified local water holdup that is termed w,e. Expressions for this modified oil
content are presented in the next section.
58
qin
q50
q under > q 50
qunder
Figure 4-7. Fluid Transfer from Oil Leg to Water Leg for qunder > q50
Flow Field
Based on experimental results, Erdal (2000) improved previously published

correlations for the velocity flow field of a liquid flow injected tangentially into a vertical
cylinder and rotating downward. These correlations are used in this study.
The swirl intensity dimensionless number, as a function of the vertical distance
from the inlet z, is calculated as:
= 0.1182 M
0.93
Re
0.13
0.7
0.36 z
0.35
; for
exp 0.1355 M Re
d wl
z
2.
d wl
(4 - 47)
The Reynolds number is evaluated in terms of the axial liquid superficial velocity vSZ, the
mixture properties and the LLCC diameter dwl, namely,
59
Re =
m vSZ d wl
.
m
(4 - 48)
The axial liquid superficial velocity in the water leg is a function of the split ratio
and is calculated as
vSZ =
(vSO + vSW ) Ain SR .
(4 - 49)
Awl
The momentum flux ratio at the inlet, M, is taken as the ratio of the horizontal
(tangential) momentum at the inlet slot to the total axial momentum in the vertical
cylinder:
M=
Mt
,
MT
(4 - 50)
where t indicates tangential and T indicates total.

The tangential velocity profile, as a function of the radius and the swirl intensity,
is given by:

0.9 0.05)rwl vSZ
(
=
1 exp 3.6 + 20 exp

0.6 rwl
(4 - 51)
The axial velocity profile, as a function of the radius, can be determined from:
1 r
vz = vSZ 1 + 2
C r
wl
r
3
rwl
+ 0.7 .

(4 - 52)
The parameter C is a function of rrev, the radius of the reverse flow region,
60
namely,
r
r
C = rev 3 2 rev 0.7 ,
rwl
rwl
(4 - 53)
where the radius of the reverse flow region is a function of the swirl intensity:
rrev = 0.023 rwl 0.33 .
(4 - 54)
Inlet Momentum Flux Ratio: The inlet momentum flux ratio is required in order
to predict the velocity field in the water leg (Equation 4-47). Chang and Dhir (1994), who
developed the original correlation for the swirl intensity, also defined the inlet
momentum flux ratio as:
2
qt t ) AT
(
M=
(qT T )2 At
(4 - 55)
In the LLCC the tangential momentum is carried by the liquid entering the water
leg from the nozzle, namely q50. The density of q50 depends on the spatial distribution of
phases at the inlet slot. As this liquid flows through half of the inlet slot area, the
following relationships apply:
q t = q 50
qT = qunder
t = 50
T = under
At =
Ais
2
AT = Awl .
(4 - 56)
(4 - 57)
Thus, the momentum flux ratio in the LLCC is given below. (This definition is
applied to every flow pattern).
61
2 (q50 50 ) Awl
M=
.
(qunder under )2 Ais
2
(4 - 58)
The amount of oil entering the water leg depends on the spatial distribution of the
fluids at the inlet slot and the split ratio, and it defines the initial water holdup in the
water leg (w,ini). This water holdup has to be calculated separately for every flow pattern.
The set of equations to calculate the inlet momentum flux ratio, w,e and w,ini for
the Oil-in-Water Dispersion Water Layer flow pattern is shown in Table 4-2. The same
equations are used for Stratified flow, replacing the dispersion variables with the oil
variables. The second part of Table 4-2 includes the set of equations to calculate the inlet
momentum flux ratio, w,e and w,ini for the Oil-in-Water Dispersion and Double Oil-inWater Dispersion flow patterns.
It is important to notice that the equations for the water holdup in the entry region,
w,e, are empirical expressions based on data. The initial water holdup in the water leg
w,ini results from mass balances between the oil and water flow rates entering either from
the inlet or from the oil leg.
Droplet Trajectory
With the determination of the tangential velocity and the axial velocity profiles,
and considering no radial flow of the continuous phase, the oil droplet trajectory for a
given droplet diameter is calculated, as proposed by Mantilla et al. (1999).
62
Table 4-2. Inlet Momentum Flux Ratio and Initial Water-cut Calculation
qunder q50
No oil flows into water leg
hw,is > 0.5 Lis
q50 = Ais vw,is 2
w , e = 1
qunder > q50
vSO Ain
(1 w,d )(1 SR )
(vSO + vSW ) Ain q50
e = w w,e + o (1 w,e )
2 (q50 w ) Awl
(q50 w + (qunder q50 ) e )2 Ais
2
w,ini = 1
(qunder q50 )(1 w,e )

qunder
q50 = vw,is Wis hw,is + vd ,is Wis (0.5 Lis hw,is )

qunder q50
M=
2
Awl
2 q50
2
qunder Ais
w,ini = 1
hw,is < 0.5 Lis
Oil-in-Water Dispersion - Water Layer
M=
vd ,is Wis (0.5 Lis hw,is )(1 w, d )

q50
q50 = vw,is Wis hw,is + vd ,is Wis (0.5 Lis hw,is )
50 =
qunder > q50
w vw,is Wis hw,is + d vd ,is Wis (0.5 Lis hw,is )

q50
w,e = w,d (1 w,d )(1 SR ) ; e = w w,e + o (1 w,e )

2 (q50 50 ) Awl
M=
(q50 50 + (qunder q50 ) e )2 Ais
2
w,ini = 1
vd ,is Wis (0.5 Lis hw,is ) (1 w,d ) + (qunder q50 ) (1 w,e )

qunder
63
Table 4.2 Inlet Momentum Flux Ratio and Initial Water-cut Calculation (Continued)
q50 = Ain (vSW + vSO ) 2
Oil-in-Water Dispersion
qunder q50
2
Awl
2 q50
M= 2
qunder Ais
; w,ini = w,in
w,e = w,in 0.52 (1 SR )2w,in

e = w w,e + o (1 w,e )
qunder > q50
2 (q50 m ) Awl
(q50 m + (qunder q50 ) e )2 Ais
2
M=
w,ini = 1
q50 (1 w,in )+ (qunder q50 )(1 w,e )

qunder
Double Oil-in-Water Dispersion
qunder q50
2
Awl
2 q50
M= 2
qunder Ais
w,ini = 1 2 a (1 w,in )
q50 = Ain (vSW + vSO ) 2 ; 50 = w w,l + o (1 w,l )
w,e = w,u (1 w,u )(1.05 SR )2w,in

e = w w,e + o (1 w,e )
qunder > q50
under =
50 q50 + (qunder q50 ) e

qunder
2 ( 50 q50 ) Awl
(under qunder )2 Ais
2
M=
w,ini = 1
2 a q50 (1 w,in )+ (qunder q50 )(1 w,e )
qunder
64
The relative (slip) velocity between the water phase and the oil droplet is:
vo, slip
4 ( m o )d od
=
3 w CD
2
2 2 v 4
g + .
r

(4 - 59)
The axial and radial components of the slip velocity are:
4 ( m o )d od
vz ,o , slip =
3 w CD
,
vo, slip
(4 - 60)
4 ( m o )d od
vr ,o, slip =
3 w CD
v2
.
r vo, slip
(4 - 61)
The drag coefficient is calculated as:
C D = 0.36 +
24
0.573
+ 5.48 Reod
.
Reod
(4 - 62)
The Reynolds number in this case is defined based on the mixture properties, the
relative velocity and the oil droplet diameter, as follows:
Reod =
m vo , slip d od
.
m
(4 - 63)
The trajectory of the droplet is computed by the numerical integration of the

following equation,
r v z vz ,o , slip
z=
dr .
rwl vr ,o , slip
(4 - 64)
65
Droplet Size Distribution: Crowe (1998) and Karabelas (1978) reported the use
of the Rosin-Rammler distribution to describe the size distribution of droplets. The

Rosin-Rammler distribution is given by:
d
Vcum = 1 exp C od ,

(4 - 65)
where Vcum is the cumulative volume fraction of droplets smaller than dod, varying from
zero to infinity. The parameter is a characteristic diameter in the distribution and C is a
constant that normalizes the distribution.
Karabelas (1978) found the coefficient n to have a value between 2.3 and 2.9. An
average value of 2.6 is used in the present study. In order to use the maximum oil droplet
size as the characteristic diameter , it is considered that Vcum (dod,max) is 0.999, for which
conditions C = 6.9077. Thus, the Rosin-Rammler distribution reads as:
Vcum
2.6
d od
.
= 1 exp 6.9077
d od ,max
(4 - 66)
Figure 4-8 shows a plot of the oil droplet size distribution. The oil droplet
diameter is plotted versus the Rosin-Rammler cumulative oil volume fraction. The
maximum droplet diameter defines the entire distribution. In this study, the minimum
droplet diameter is used as a limiting value. No droplets smaller than dod,min are
considered to exist in the flow, even though the distribution might indicate their
existence.
66
1.0
Cumulative Volume Fraction
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
dod,min
dod,max
Droplet Diameter
Figure 4-8. Droplet Size Distribution
Calculation Procedure: In the water leg, the swirling motion promotes the
migration of the oil droplets to the center region of the pipe. The oil droplets that reach
the reverse flow region at the center of the pipe are carried upwards, and they are
separated into the oil leg. By analyzing oil-droplet trajectories in the water leg, it is
possible to determine the droplets that will not be separated but rather carried under, and
thereby, the underflow purity.
The liquid flowing in the water leg loses oil as it moves down because the bigger
oil droplets migrate to the center of the pipe and move to the oil leg when they reach the
reversal flow region. The continuous medium for the oil droplets remaining in the stream
is modified due to the oil removal process. In order to model this phenomenon
appropriately, the water leg is divided into small vertical segments from the middle of the
inlet to the middle level of the water outlet, as shown in Figure 4-9, and the following
procedure is carried out.
67
INLET
w,ini
(1)
m1
m1
dod,sep (1)
w2
dod,sep(2)
dod,sep (N)
(2)
m2
m2
wN
UNDERFLOW
(N)
mN
mN
Figure 4-9. Schematic of Water Leg Separation Calculation Procedure
The first segment corresponds to the top of the water leg. The local water holdup
of the liquid entering the water leg ( w,ini), is known from the inlet analysis. It is assumed
that this water holdup prevails in the entire first segment, so the liquid mixture properties
in the first segment are calculated based on it, as follows:
w (1) = w,ini ,
(4 - 67)
68
m (1) = w w (1) + o (1 w (1)) ,
(4 - 68)
m (1) = w w (1) + o (1 w (1)) .
(4 - 69)
By applying the droplet trajectory model, a trial and error scheme is used to
determine the size of the oil droplet that reaches the reverse flow radius exactly at the
lower end of the first segment (dod,sep), as shown in Figure 4-9. Droplets bigger than this
size are able to reach the reverse flow and they are separated. Droplets smaller than dod,sep
will remain in the flow, going downwards, and will pass to Segment 2. The determined
dod,sep is introduced into the droplet size distribution, Equation 4-66, to obtain the
volumetric fraction of oil remaining in the flow as indicated in Figure 4-10. This
volumetric fraction determines the water holdup for Segment 2, as:
w (2 ) = 1 (1 w,ini ) Vcum .
(4 - 70)
The properties of the liquid in Segment 2 are calculated based on the water holdup
w(2), as follows:
m (2) = w w (2) + o (1 w (2)) ,
(4 - 71)
m (2 ) = w w (2) + o (1 w (2)) .
(4 - 72)
Again, the droplet trajectory model is applied in order to calculate the diameter of
the oil droplet that reaches the reverse flow region exactly at the end of Segment 2. The
droplets are released at the middle of the inlet slot and they pass through Segment 1 and
2, taking into account the different properties of the continuous medium in each of these
segments. Droplets bigger than the diameter calculated are separated from the downward
69
liquid flow, while the smaller ones pass to Segment 3. Thus, the dod,sep for Segment 2 is
used in the Rosin-Rammler distribution to calculate the water holdup in Segment 3.
1.0
Cumulative Volume Fraction
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Remaining
Oil
Droplets
Separated
Oil
Droplets
0.1
0.0
dod,sep
Droplet Diameter
Figure 4-10. Oil Removal Based on Separated Oil Droplet Diameter
This procedure is repeated for all the segments until the bottom of the water leg is
reached. At that point the calculated water holdup of the liquid leaving the LLCC through
the water outlet is the water-cut in the underflow, which is the objective of the LLCC
model.
4.2 GLLCC Mechanistic Model
This section presents the GLLCC mechanistic model, including the physical
phenomena description, inlet analysis, nozzle analysis and the oil-water separation
analysis.
70
4.2.1 Physical Phenomena
Figure 4-11 shows a schematic of the GLLCC. The GLLCC is a modified gasliquid cylindrical cyclone. It is a regular vertical pipe with an inclined inlet connected at
the middle by means of a reducing area nozzle that conveys the fluid to enter tangentially
into the vertical pipe. The vertical section from the inlet to the top is called the gas leg
and the vertical section from the inlet to the bottom is called the liquid leg. The
modification is the addition of an inner, concentric pipe, entering the liquid leg through
the bottom, namely, the oil finder.
Gas
3-Phase
Mixture
Oil Finder
Water-Rich
Oil-Rich
Figure 4-11. GLLCC Schematic
The gas and liquid phases flow downwards through the inclined inlet, segregated
by gravity, to form a Stratified flow pattern. The gas flows in the upper part of the pipe
and the liquid (a mixture of water and oil) flows in the lower part. When the fluids reach
the nozzle, both phases are accelerated due to the reduction of the cross sectional area,
and the inlet liquid level is modified. The gas flows to the top of the GLLCC while the
71
liquid swirls downward in the liquid leg. The rotational motion generates a centrifugal
effect that forces the oil droplets to migrate to the center of the pipe. The flow field
exhibits a reverse flow region that is considered as the oil droplets capture region. At
some distance below the inlet, the oil finder removes the oil-rich liquid, while the liquid
flowing in the annulus (formed by the oil finder and the vertical pipe) exits through a
tangential water outlet.
The oil-water separation primarily occurs only in the liquid leg region from the
inlet to the top of the oil finder. The oil separated at this distance is considered to be in a
central region, while the remaining oil flows in the outer region.
The only flow pattern considered in this study in the GLLCC inlet is Stratified
flow. In Stratified flow, the liquid flows at the lower section of the pipe as a layer and
the gas travels at the top. A suitable model for this phenomenon is the two-fluid model.
Figure 4-12 shows the geometry and the variables for the model. The liquid is treated as a
homogeneous no-slip mixture of oil and water.
A momentum balance for each phase results in the following equations:
AL
dP
L S L + i S i L AL g sin = 0 ,
dL
(4 - 73)
AG
dP
G SG i S i G AG g sin = 0 .
dL
(4 - 74)
72
G
g
vG
SG
i
vL
AG
Si
d
AL
hL
SL
Figure 4-12. Two-Fluid Model Schematic and Variables for GLLCC Inlet
Eliminating the pressure gradient between Equation 4-73 and Equation 4-74, the
combined momentum equation is obtained:
1
G SG L S L
1
( L G ) g sin = 0 .
+ i Si
+
AG
AL
AL AG
(4 - 75)
The combined momentum equation is an implicit function of the liquid level, hL.
The shear stresses are calculated as:
f L L vL2
,
2
(4 - 76)
f G G vG2
,
G =
2
(4 - 77)
i = G .
(4 - 78)
L =
Friction factors are calculated as:
73
d v
f L = CL L L L
L
nL
d v
f G = CG G G G
G
(4 - 79)
nG
(4 - 80)
For laminar flow CL = CG = 16 and nL = nG = 1. For turbulent flow CL = CG =

0.046 and nL = nG = 0.2. The hydraulic diameters are given by
dL =
4 AL
SL
; dG =
4 AG
.
SG + Si
(4 - 81)
All the geometrical parameters are functions of the liquid level, hL, as follows:
2h
S L = d in cos 1 L 1 ,
d in
(4 - 82)
2h
SG = d in cos 1 L 1 ,
d in
(4 - 83)
Si = d in
2h
1 L 1 ,
d in
2 hL
2 hL
d in2
1 2 hL
1 +
1 1
1 ,
AL =
cos
4
d in
d in
d in
2 hL
d in2 1 2 hL 2 hL
1
1 1
1 .
AG =
cos
4
d in
d in
d in
(4 - 84)
(4 - 85)
(4 - 86)
74
The actual velocities are calculated from:
vL =
A
vSL ,
AL
(4 - 87)
vG =
A
vSG .
AG
(4 - 88)
The combined momentum equation, Equation 4-75 and the auxiliary

relationships, can be solved based on the operational variables (gas and liquid superficial
velocities), the geometry (pipe diameter and inclination angle), and the fluid properties
(density and viscosity of gas and liquid), which are known, to give the liquid level hL and
the actual velocities of the phases, vG and vL.
4.2.3 Nozzle Analysis
The inlet pipe delivers the fluids into the GLLCC vertical section through a
reducing area nozzle. The area is reduced to 25% of the inlet pipe cross sectional area.
The effect of the nozzle is to increase the velocity, but it also affects the liquid level to
some extent. Prediction of the phenomenon occurring in the nozzle is performed by
means of a frictionless analysis, as proposed by Gomez (1998).
Figure 4-13 shows a schematic of the nozzle and the variables considered. The
nozzle is constructed by a vertical plate inserted into the inlet pipe, located from a full
bore inlet to the reduced inlet slot, which is a circular sector. In order to perform this
analysis the inlet slot is considered as a rectangle having the same height as the circular
sector and its width is calculated based on the area of the inlet slot (25% of the inlet area).
75
Wis
vG
din
Lis
LN
hL
LN sin
vL
vGis
hLis hL
cos
hLis
vLis
Lis
The length of the inlet slot is calculated as:

2
2y
Lis = 1
1 ,
d in
(4 - 89)
where y is the solution of the following equation

2
2y
2 y
Ais 1
1 2 y
=
1 +
1 1
1 .
cos
Ain
d
d
d
in
in
in
(4 - 90)
The inlet slot width is:
Wis =
Ais
.
Lis
(4 - 91)
Applying the Bernoullis equation to the top of the liquid layer between the inlet
76
pipe and the inlet slot yields
v2
h hL
L vL2
.
= Pis + L L ,is + L g LN sin L ,is
2
2
cos
Pin +
(4 - 92)
Applying Bernoullis equation to the top of the gas phase results in
G vG2 ,is
G vG2
= Pis +
.
Pin +
2
2
(4 - 93)
From continuity relationships, the liquid and gas inlet slot velocities are given,
respectively, by
vL ,is =
vSL Ain
,
hL ,is Wis
(4 - 94)
vG ,is =
vSG Ain
.
(Lis hL,is )Wis
(4 - 95)
Combining Equations 4-92 to 4-95, the following polynomial in hL,is is obtained:
C1 hL5,is + C2 hL4,is + C3 hL3,is + C4 hL2,is + C5 hL ,is + C6 ,
(4 - 96)
where the coefficients are:
C1 =
2 L g
,
cos
C2 =
h
4 Lis L g
+ G vG2 L vL2 + 2 L g LN sin + L ,

cos
cos
2 L2is L g
h
C3 =
2 Lis G vG2 L vL2 + 2 L g LN sin + L ,
cos
cos
(4 - 97)
(4 - 98)
(4 - 99)
77
C4 =
h
L (vSL Ain )2 G (vSG Ain )2
+ L2is G vG2 L vL2 + 2 L g LN sin + L , (4 - 100)

2
2
Wis
Wis
cos
C5 = 2 Lis
C6 = L2is
L (vSL Ain )2
,
Wis2
L (vSL Ain )2
.
Wis2
(4 - 101)
(4 - 102)
Solving Equation 4-96 the inlet slot liquid level, hL,is, can be obtained. Only one
root exists in the interval hL,is[0, Lis]. Once the liquid level is determined, the inlet slot gas
and liquid velocities can be determined from Equations 4-94 and 4-95.
4.2.4 Oil-Water Separation Analysis
The fluids accelerated in the nozzle enter the vertical section of the GLLCC
tangentially, and rotate creating swirling flow. Once the velocity of the liquid at the inlet
slot is determined from the inlet analysis, the oil fraction in the water outlet stream, as a
function of the split ratio, can be calculated. The following is an analysis of the
centrifugal separation occurring in the liquid leg of the GLLCC, from the inlet to the top
of the oil finder. In this section, the swirling motion of the liquid promotes migration of
the oil droplets to the center of the pipe. The oil droplets concentrate at the center
forming an oil core. By analyzing oil droplet trajectories, the purity of the liquid at the
water and oil outlets can be determined. The oil droplets reaching the flow reversal radius
above the oil finder are separated, while the other droplets are carried into the water
stream. A small fraction of gas that is entrained into the liquid flow is neglected in the
78
present study, as well as the formation of a gas core in the center of the liquid leg for
some flow conditions.
The Erdal (2001) model for the flow field and the Mantilla et al. (1999) model for
the droplet trajectory are used in the same way as in the LLCC, just taking into account
that all the liquid phase is going to the liquid leg.
The momentum flux ratio at the inlet is taken as the ratio of the horizontal
(tangential) momentum at the inlet slot to the axial momentum:
M=
Mt
.
MT
(4 - 103)
Chang and Dhir (1994) defined the momentum flux ratio as:
2
qt t ) AT
(
M=
(qT T )2 At
(4 - 104)
In the GLLCC, the area through which the liquid enters the vertical pipe is
defined using the height of the liquid layer leaving the nozzle. The momentum flux ratio
for the GLLCC can be written as:
AC (cos )
,
hL ,is Wis
2
M=
(4 - 105)
where AC is the cross sectional area of the GLLCC vertical pipe section.
Droplet size distribution: The Hinze (1955) model is modified to determine the
maximum oil droplet size:
79
d od ,max
1
o,w
=
0.725
w,in
L
0.6
2 f L vL3
d
L
0.4
(4 - 106)
The Rosin-Rammler model is used to describe the cumulative oil droplet diameter
distribution:
Vcum
2.6
d od
.
= 1 exp 6.9077
od ,max
(4 - 107)
Calculation Procedure: The same procedure utilized in the LLCC model is
followed. Two regions are considered; the reverse flow radius defines the central region
and the outer region is the space between the reverse flow radius and the pipe wall. The
liquid flowing in the liquid leg loses oil as it flows downwards because the bigger oil
droplets migrate to the center of the cylinder, reach the reverse flow region and are
separated, flowing into the oil finder. The continuous medium for the oil droplets
remaining in the stream is modified due to the oil removal process. In order to model this
phenomenon appropriately, the water leg is divided into small vertical segments from the
middle of the inlet to the top of the oil finder, as shown in Figure 4-14, and the following
procedure is followed.
The local water holdup of the liquid entering the water leg, w,ini , is the same as in
the inlet. It is assumed that this water holdup prevails in the entire first segment, so the
liquid mixture properties are calculated as:
w (1) = w,ini ,
m (1) = w w (1) + o (1 w (1)) ,
(4 - 108)
(4 - 109)
80
m (1) = w w (1) + o (1 w (1)) .
(4 - 110)
INLET
(1)
d od ,sep (1)
m1
m1
(2)
d od ,sep (2)
m 2
m2
(N)
d od ,sep ( N )
mN
mN
WATER
OUTLET
OIL OUTLET
Figure 4-14. GLLCC Liquid Leg Separation: Calculation Procedure
By applying the droplet trajectory model, a trial and error scheme is used to
determine the size of the oil droplet that reaches the reverse flow radius exactly at the
lower end of the first segment, namely, dod,sep, as shown in Figure 4-14. This droplet size
81
is introduced into the droplet size distribution, Equation 4-107, to obtain the volumetric
fraction of oil remaining in the flow, Vcum, which determines the water holdup for the
next segment as:
w (2) = 1 (1 w,ini ) Vcum .
(4 - 111)
This procedure is repeated for all the segments until the top of the oil finder is
reached. At this point, the oil flow rate in the central region, is calculated as:
qo , sep = qo,in (1 Vcum ) .
(4 - 112)
Equilibrium Split Ratio
In the previous section, the separated oil flow rate in the central region (qo,sep) and,
thus, also the oil flow rate in the outer region are known, but not the corresponding water
flow rates. In order to determine the split of the water phase between the oil and water
outlets, an equilibrium split concept is used. The equilibrium split ratio, SReq, is the split
that will occur if the valves on the oil and water outlets are fully open. It can be
determined by equating the pressure gradients in the water and oil pipe outlets. Since the
oil and water outlets in the GLLCC are horizontal pipes, the only existing component of
the pressure gradient is the frictional component. The pressure gradients in the oil and
water outlets are given, respectively, by:
dP 2 f OP OP
=
dx
d OP
q L SReq
,
A
OP
(4 - 113)
82
dP 2 fWP WP
=
dx
dWP
q L (1 SReq )
.
A
WP
(4 - 114)
Solving Equations 4-113 and 4-114 by trial and error, it is possible to determine the
equilibrium split ratio SReq.
The basic assumption of the proposed model is that the separated oil flows
through the oil outlet, while the rest of the oil flows through the water outlet. Thus, the
average oil fraction in each pipe for the equilibrium split is given by:
o,OP =
o ,WP =
qo , sep
qL (1 SReq )
qo ,in qo, sep
q L SReq
(4 - 115)
(4 - 116)
The operational split ratio, which is the ratio of the flow rate going through the
water leg to the total inlet flow rate, is adjusted by the valves on the water and oil outlets.
Thus, when the split ratio is greater than the equilibrium split, i.e., the liquid flow rate
going into the water outlet is larger than the flow rate in the outer region, the extra liquid
is taken from the central region, where the oil is already separated. On the other hand,
when the actual split ratio is smaller than the equilibrium split ratio, the liquid in the
central region, containing the oil already separated, flows into the oil finder, and some
extra liquid is taken from the outer region.
At this point, the average oil fractions and the flow rates in the oil finder and the
water outlet are known. Thus, simple mass balances can yield the water-cut of the liquid
going into the water outlet for the given actual split ratio. These are given in the
83
following section.
Water-cut in Water Outlet
When the actual split ratio is less than SReq, the water holdup of the liquid in the
water outlet is:
w,WP = 1
qo ,in qo , sep ,oWP F1 qL (SReq SR )

qL SR
(4 - 117)
When the actual split ratio is greater than SReq, part of the already separated oil
flows to the water outlet. For this case the water-cut in the water outlet is:
w,WP = 1
qo,in qo , sep + ,oOP F2 qL (SR SReq )

qL SR
(4 - 118)
F1 and F2 are empirical functions based on data and are defined as:
SR
F1 = 1 +
SR
eq
F2 = 2 SR .
(1+ 2 w ,in )
(4 - 119)
(4 - 120)
The proposed model enables the prediction of the water-cut in the water outlet as
a function of the split ratio for the given conditions at the inlet, namely, superficial gas,
water and oil velocities, the pressure and temperature, the geometry of the GLLCC and
the fluid properties.
CHAPTER V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents comparison between the acquired experimental data and the
predictions of the mechanistic models for the LLCC and GLLCC, respectively.
5.1 LLCC Comparison Study
As presented in the experimental program, four flow patterns are observed at the
inlet of the LLCC. The LLCC comparison study is given below separately for each of the
different flow patterns.
Stratified Flow: Figure 5-1 shows the experimental data along with the results
predicted by the LLCC model for Runs 34 and 37 (see Appendix A), for superficial water
velocities of 0.2 and 0.1 m/s, respectively, and superficial oil velocity of 0.05 m/s.
Watercut Under %
100
80
Run 34
60
Model
Run 37
40
Model
LLCC Stratified Flow
Run 34 v SW = 0.2, v SO = 0.05 m/s
Run 37 v SW = 0.1, v SO = 0.05 m/s
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
Figure 5-1. LLCC Comparison Study: Stratified Flow
84
85
The split ratio, namely the ratio between the liquid underflow rate to the inlet
liquid flow rate, is plotted in the horizontal axis. The purity of the underflow, depicted by
the water-cut, is plotted in the vertical axis. The points in the figure represent the
experimental data and the continuous lines are the model predictions. As can be
observed, the agreement between the mechanistic model predictions and the experimental
data is very good both with respect to the maximum split ratio for 100% water-cut,
around SR = 60%, and for higher split ratios with lower water-cuts.
Oil-in-Water Dispersion Water Layer Flow: This is the most observed flow
pattern in the studied operational region. Next four figures are used to compare the
experimental data with the model predictions. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 present the
experimental runs 4, 7, 10 and 13, 16, 18, respectively, for the lowest superficial water
velocity of 0.32 to 0.37 m/s and different superficial oil velocities.
Watercut Under %
100
80
Run 4
60
Model
Run 7
40
Model
LLCC DO/W & WL Flow

Run 4: v SW = 0.37, v SO = 0.04 m/s
Run 7: v SW = 0.35, v SO = 0.06 m/s
Run 10: v SW = 0.32, v SO = 0.08
20
Run 10
Model
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
86
Watercut Under %
100
80
Run 13
60
Model
Run 16
40
LLCC DO/W
Run 13: v SW
Run 16: v SW
Run 18: v SW
20
Model
& WL Flow
= 0.32, v SO = 0.11 m/s
= 0.32, v SO = 0.13 m/s
= 0.32, v SO = 0.17 m/s
Run 18
Model
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
Figure 5-3. LLCC Comparison Study: DO/WWater Layer Flow (Runs 13,16,18)
Watercut Under %
100
80
Run 1
Model
60
Run 25
Model
LLCC DO/W & WL Flow
Run 1: v SW = 0.4, v SO = 0.025 m/s
Run 25: v SW = 0.4, v SO = 0.10 m/s
Run 26: v SW = 0.4, v SO = 0.15 m/s
Run 27: v SW = 0.4, v SO = 0.20 m/s
40
20
Run 26
Model
Run 27
Model
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
Figure 5-4. LLCC Comparison Study: DO/WWater Layer Flow (Runs 1, 25, 26, 27)
As can be seen, for all 6 runs, the agreement between the model predictions and
the experimental data is very good with respect to maximum split ratio for 100% watercut and higher split ratios. Similarly, Figures 5-4 and 5-5 present the comparison for
87
increasing superficial water velocities, for runs 1, 25, 26, 27 (vSW = 0.4 m/s) and 5, 8,11
(vSW = 0.62 to 0.67 m/s), respectively. The agreement between the data and the model
predictions is very good for these runs, too.
Watercut Under %
100
80
Run 5
Model
60
Run 8
Model
40
Run 11
LLCC DO/W & WL Flow

Run 5: v SW = 0.67, v SO = 0.07 m/s
Run 8: v SW = 0.64, v SO = 0.11 m/s
Run 11: v SW = 0.62, v SO = 0.16 m/s
20
Model
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
Double Oil-in-Water Dispersion Flow: The experimental data versus model
predictions comparison for this flow pattern is presented in Figures 5-6 and 5-7, for
superficial water velocities of 0.6 and 0.7 m/s, respectively, for several superficial oil
velocities. The comparisons of both cases reveal excellent agreement between the data
and the predictions. This includes the prediction of the maximum split ratios that yield
100% water cut in the underflow. For the Double Oil-in-Water Dispersion flow pattern,
this maximum split ratio is lower, as compared to the stratified flow patterns. Also, the
model follows well the trend of the data, where the maximum split ratio decreases with
increasing oil superficial velocity, from 50% at vSO = 0.2 m/s to 20% for vSO = 0.4 m/s.
88
Watercut Under %
100
80
Run 14
Model
60
Run 17
LLCC Double DO/W Flow
Run 14: v SW = 0.62, v SO = 0.20 m/s
Run 17: v SW = 0.61, v SO = 0.26 m/s
Run 19: v SW = 0.61, v SO = 0.31 m/s
Run 21: v SW = 0.62, v SO = 0.40 m/s
40
20
Model
Run 19
Model
Run 21
Model
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
Figure 5-6. LLCC Comparison Study: Double DO/W Flow (Runs 14, 17, 19, 21)
Watercut Under %
100
80
60
Run 30
Model
40
Run 31
Model
LLCC Double DO/W Flow

Run 30 vSW = 0.7, vSO = 0.2 m/s
Run 31 vSW = 0.7, vSO = 0.4 m/s
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
Figure 5-7. LLCC Comparison Study: Double DO/W Flow (Runs 30, 31)
Oil-in Water Dispersion Flow: Figure 5-8 shows the results comparison for this
flow pattern, for runs 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15. The superficial water velocity is about 1 m/s,
while the superficial oil velocity varies from 0.058 to 0. 32 m/s. The agreement between
89
the data and the model predictions is very good for this case, too. Similar to the Double
DO/W flow, with increase in oil superficial velocity, the maximum split ratio for 100%
water-cut in the underflow decreases.
Watercut Under %
100
Run 3
80
Model
Run 6
60
Model
LLCC DO/W Flow
Run 3: v SW = 1.1, v SO = 0.058 m/s
Run 6: v SW = 1.04, v SO = 0.116 m/s
Run 9: v SW = 1.04, v SO = 0.192 m/s
Run 12: v SW = 1.0, v SO = 0.24 m/s
Run 15: v SW = 1.0, v SO = 0.32 m/s
40
20
Run 9
Model
Run 12
Model
Run 15
Model
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
Figure 5-8. LLCC Comparison Study: DO/W Flow
Even though it is not relevant for the free-water knockout process, it is important
to notice that both the data and model predictions show that at high split ratios the watercut in the underflow is smaller than the inlet water-cut. Under these conditions the LLCC
separation behavior is reversed and an oil-rich stream is obtained in the underflow and a
water-rich stream is obtained in the overflow.
5.2 GLLCC Comparison Study
Three sets of data for the GLLCC, as presented in the experimental program
chapter, are compared to the predictions of the GLLCC model. The first set of data, taken
90
with the oil finder located at 30 inches below the inlet, is presented in Figure 5-9. The
water-cut in the water outlet is plotted in the y-axis, as a function of the superficial water
velocity in the x-axis, for different oil superficial velocities.
The scattered points
represent the experimental data and the continuous lines represent the predictions of the
GLLCC mechanistic model. Similarly, the comparison for data set 2, for which the oil
finder is located at 36 inches below the inlet, is given in Figure 5-10. For these 2 sets of
data, the split ratio is constant, namely, SR = 40%. Also, the superficial gas velocity is
maintained constant around 0.75 m/s.
100
v SO (m/s)
0.025
80
Model
0.05
60
Model
0.100
40
Model
GLLCC Set 1
v SG = 0.75 m/s
SR = 40%
Oil Finder @ 30" below inlet
20
0.15
Model
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
v SW (m/s)
Very good agreement between the model predictions and the data is observed,
both with respect to the trend and the absolute values. The model predicts well the
decreasing separation efficiency with increasing oil superficial velocity, and also the
increasing separation efficiency with increasing water superficial velocity.
91
100
v SO (m/s)
0.025
80
Model
0.05
60
Model
0.1
40
Model
GLLCC Set 2
v SG = 0.75 m/s
SR = 40%
Oil Finder @ 36" below
i l t
20
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.15
Model
0.2
Model
0.3
0.4
0.5
v SW (m/s)
The more detailed experimental work for the GLLCC behavior is presented in
data set 3. For this set, the water-cut in the water outlet is measured for different
combinations of oil and water superficial velocities. For each combination of oil and
water superficial velocities, the split ratio is varied from 10% to 100%. The superficial
gas velocity is maintained constant around 0.75 m/s. The oil finder is placed 36 inches
below the inlet. Plots for different superficial water velocities are presented next.
Figures 5-11, 5-12, 5-13 and 5-14 show the comparison for superficial water
velocities of 0.5, 0.4, 0.3 and 0.2 m/s, respectively. The water-cut in the water outlet is
plotted as a function of the split ratio. The parameter for the different curves is the
superficial oil velocity, ranging from 0.25 m/s to 0.3 m/s. As can be observed, the
agreement between the model prediction and the experimental data is very good.
92
v SO (m/s)
100
0.025
80
Model
0.05
Model
60
0.1
Model
40
0.15
Model
GLLCC Set 3
v SW = 0.5 m/s
v SG = 0.75 m/s
20
0
0
20
0.2
Model
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
100
v SO (m/s)
0.025
80
Model
0.05
60
Model
0.1
Model
40
0.15
Model
GLLCC Set 3
v SW = 0.40 m/s
v SG = 0.75 m/s
20
0.21
Model
0.26
20
40
60
Split Ratio, SR , %
80
100
Model
0.31
Model
93
v SO (m/s)
100
0.025
Model
80
0.05
Model
60
0.1
Model
40
0.15
Model
20
GLLCC Set 3
v SW = 0.3 m/s
v SG = 0.75 m/s
0.2
Model
0.25
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Model
0.3
Split Ratio, SR , %
Model
100
v SO (m/s)
0.025
80
Model
0.05
60
Model
0.1
40
Model
0.15
GLLCC Set 3
v SW = 0.20 m/s
v SG = 0.75 m/s
20
Model
0.2
Model
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Split Ratio, SR , %
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following have been accomplished during the present study on oil-water-gas
separation in compact separators.
A new indoor state-of-the-art versatile three-phase flow loop for testing individual
compact separators and compact separation systems has been designed and
constructed.
Two configurations to separate gas-oil-water mixtures using cylindrical cyclones

are designed and built for the first time. One is the Gas-Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical
Cyclone (GLLCC), which is a modified Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (GLCC),
with two liquid outlets: an inner concentric oil finder for removing the oil stream
and a regular tangential outlet for the water stream. The second configuration is a
two-stage system consisting of a first-stage GLCC, where the gas phase is
separated, and a second-stage Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (LLCC) for the
separation of the oil and water phases.
In both GLLCC and the LLCC
configurations, no complete oil-water separation occurs. Rather, both separators

are capable of performing as free water knockouts, delivering a clean water
stream and an-oil rich stream.
The originally proposed inclined LLCC inlet has been modified to a horizontal
inlet. This modification is based on a flow pattern analysis. Comparing the
94
95
behavior of both LLCC inlets, the inclined inlet promotes mixing while the
horizontal one provides better phase segregation and pre-separation.
Experimental data on oil-water separation efficiency using the LLCC

(Mathiravedu, 2001) for water-dominated flows, including 260 runs, have been
analyzed. Four different flow patterns in the inlet have been identified, namely,
Stratified flow, Oil-in-Water Dispersion Water Layer flow, Double Oil-inWater Dispersion flow and Oil-in-Water Dispersion flow.
For the LLCC, at low split ratios, the effluent in the underflow is clean water. At
some split ratio the oil phase starts flowing into the underflow. There always
exists an optimal split ratio, where the water stream is maximum with 100%
water-cut. The value of the optimal (maximum) split ratio for 100% water-cut in
the underflow varies, depending upon the existing flow pattern; for the Stratified
and Oil-in-Water Dispersion - Water Layer flow patterns this maximum split ratio
is about 60%. For the Double Oil-in-Water Dispersion and Oil-in-Water
Dispersion flow patterns, the maximum split ratio ranges from 50% to 20%,
decreasing with the increase of oil content in the inlet.
Experimental data on oil-water separation efficiency in the GLLCC, while

performing gas-liquid separation, have been acquired. A total of 220 experimental
runs, including 3 sets of data, have been conducted. Sets 1 and 2 correspond to a
split ratio of 40%, with the oil finder located at 30 and 36 inches below the inlet,
respectively. No significant effect of the oil finder location is observed. Set 3
includes more detailed data, reporting the oil-water separation efficiency for
96
different combinations of oil and water superficial velocities and varying the split
ratio for each combination.
The GLLCC experimental data show the capability of this separator to provide a
clean water stream in the water outlet pipe for low oil contents and high water
superficial velocities. The other cases show an enhancement of the quality of both
liquid streams. The oil outlet delivers an oil-rich liquid stream, while the water
outlet yields a water-rich liquid stream. This behavior enables the GLLCC to
perform as a gas-liquid separator with free-water knockout or as a gas-liquid
separator with liquid pre-conditioning to improve further oil-water separation.
A novel mechanistic model has been developed for prediction of the complex
flow behavior in the LLCC and its separation performance. The model consists of
several sub-models as follows. The first sub-model predicts the inlet flow pattern.
Separate models for the prediction of the spatial distribution and velocities of the
oil and water phases in the inlet are provided for each of the flow patterns. The
nozzle analysis predicts the oil and water distribution and velocities at the LLCC
inlet slot. Models to predict the droplet size distribution based on inlet flow
conditions are also provided. The centrifugal separation in the LLCC lower
vertical pipe section (the water leg) is analyzed by means of droplet trajectories in
swirling flow, resulting in the global separation efficiency of the LLCC.
A novel mechanistic model has been developed for the prediction of oil-water
separation performance of the GLLCC. The model consists of several sub-models
as follows. The inclined inlet is analyzed with the two-fluid model for gas-liquid
97
flow, in order to predict the spatial configuration and velocities of both gas and
liquid phases. The oil and water phases are treated as a single homogenous phase
with average properties. A model is provided to analyze the nozzle effect on the
flow, predicting the spatial configuration and velocities of the gas and liquid
phases at the inlet slot. The droplet size distribution model is based on inlet flow
conditions. The centrifugal oil-water separation in the GLLCC liquid leg is
predicted based on droplet trajectory analysis from the inlet slot to the top of the
oil finder. Mass balances between the oil and water flow rates in the water outlet
and the oil outlet yield the purity of the liquid in the water outlet as a function of
the split ratio.
Comparison between the experimental data and the LLCC model predictions
shows an excellent agreement. The model is capable of predicting both the trend
of the experimental data as well as the absolute measured values.
Similar
comparison for the GLLCC also reveals excellent agreement between the
experimental data and the mechanistic model predictions.
Recommendations: The following recommendations are provided for future studies on
both the LLCC and the GLLCC compact separators.
The actual combination of the first stage GLCC and the second-stage LLCC
should be studied experimentally. The existing mechanistic models for the GLCC
and LLCC should be combined to give the performance of the two-stage system.
The effect of the inlet length should be investigated in order to optimize its
design.
98
The oil leg shows oil segregation, so the oil is concentrated at the center and clean
water remains in the wall region. Modifying the LLCC configuration it is possible
to increase the separation efficiency by taking free water from the oil leg. The
flow in the oil leg should be investigated both experimentally and theoretically.
Detailed experimental investigation should be conducted on the LLCC for the oildominated region and the validity of the mechanistic model should be verified
with the data.
More experimental and theoretical work needs to be done for the GLLCC. The
oil-water separation behavior under different gas-liquid flow patterns at the inlet,
besides the stratified flow analyzed here, needs to be investigated. The effect of
the liquid level in the GLLCC should be further studied, too. Local measurement
of the flow field of liquid swirling flow with a gas-liquid interface needs to be
acquired in order to better understand and quantify the physical phenomenon.
Also, both analytical and experimental investigations should be conducted to

evaluate the role played by dual inlet in the GLLCC separator, especially for
stratified flow pattern.
NOMENCLATURE
cross sectional area (m2)
dispersion coefficient (-)
constant or coefficient (-)
CRI
gas-liquid interface inviscid stability criterion (-)
CRV
gas-liquid interface viscous stability criterion (-)
CD
drag coefficient (-)
diameter (m)
dispersion coefficient (-)
friction factor (-)
F1, F2 =
empirical functions
acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2)
layer height (m)
length (m)
inlet momentum flux ratio (-)
exponent
99
100
P
pressure (pa)
volumetric flow rate (m3/s)
radius (m)
Re
Reynolds number (-)
perimeter (m)
SR
Split Ratio
Vcum
cumulative volume fraction (-)
velocity (m/s)
width (m)
horizontal distance (m)
vertical distance (m)
Greek Letters
characteristic diameter
holdup (-)
viscosity (Pa-s)
wave number
swirl intensity (-)
101
density (Kg/m3)
interfacial tension (N/m)
shear stress (N/m2)
Subscripts
liquid leg
dispersion
entry region
eq
equilibrium
gas phase
GP
gas pipe outlet
interface
in
inlet
ini
initial
is
inlet slot
lower
liquid phase
mixture
102
max
maximum
min
minimum
mod
modified
nozzle
oil phase
od
oil droplet
OP
oil pipe outlet
rev
reverse flow region
sep
separated
SG
superficial gas
SO
superficial oil
SW
superficial water
tangential
total
upper
under =
underflow
water phase
103
wd
water droplet
WP
water pipe outlet
wl
water leg
REFERENCES
1.
Afanador E.: Oil-Water Separation in Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone

Separators, M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa, 1999.
2.
Algifri, A.H., Bhardwaj, R.K. and Rao, Y.V.N.: Turbulence Measurements in

Decaying Swirl Flow in a Pipe, Applied Scientific Research, January 1988, Vol. 45,
pp. 233-250.
3.
Arpandi I.A., Joshi A.R., Shoham, O., Shirazi, S. and Kouba, G.E.:
Hydrodynamics of Two-Phase Flow in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone
Separators, SPE 30683 presented at SPE 70th Annual Meeting, Dallas, October 2226, 1995, SPE Journal, December 1996, pp. 427-436.
4.
Bandyopadhyay, P.R., Pacifico, G.C. and Gad-el-Hak, M.: Gas Core Configurations
in a Cyclone-Type Gas-Liquid Separator, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division,
Division Newport, Rhode Island, Technical report No. 10308, January 1994.
5.
Bednarski, S. and Listewnik, J.: "Hydrocyclones for Simultaneous Removal of Oil

and Solid Particles from Ships' Oily Waters," Filtration and Separation, March/April
1988, pp. 92-97.
6.
Chang, F. and Dhir, V.K.: Turbulence Flow Field in Tangentially Injected Swirl
Flows in Tubes, Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, October 1994, Vol. 15, pp. 346-356
104
105
7.
Cowie, D.: Vertical Caisson Slugcatcher Performance, presented at the Institution

of Chemical Engineers Conference Subsea Separation and Transport III, London,
May 23-24, 1991, Trans IChemE., Vol. 70, part A, January 1992, pp. 25-31.
8.
Crowe, C.T., Sommerfeld, M. and Tsuji, Y.: Multiphase Flows with Droplets and
Particles, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1998.
9.
Davies, E.E.: Compact Separators for Offshore Production, Proceedings of the

2nd, New Technology for the Exploration & Exploitation of Oil and Gas Resources
Symposium. Luxembourg, 5 Dec. 1984. London, BP Research Center, 1985, Vol.
1, pp. 621-629.
10. Davies, E.E. and Watson, P.: Miniaturized Separators for Offshore Platforms,
Proceedings of the 1st New Technology for Exploration & Exploitation of Oil and
Gas Reserves Symposium, Luxembourg, April 1979, pp. 75-85.
11. Erdal, F. Local Measurements and Computational Fluid Dynamic Simulations in a

Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separator, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of
Tulsa, 2001.
12. Fekete, L.A.: "Vortex Tube Separator May Solve Weight/Space Limitations, World
Oil, July 1986, pp. 40-44.
13. Gay, J.C., Triponey, G., Bezard, C. and Schummer, P.: Rotary Cyclone Will
Improve Oily Water Treatment and Reduce Space Requirement/Weight on Offshore
Platforms, SPE 16571, 1987.
106
14. Gomez C.H.: Oil-Water Separation in Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclones (LLHC).
Experiment and Modeling, M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa, 2001.
15. Gomez, L.E.: A State-of-the Art Simulator and Field Application Design of GasLiquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa, 1998.
16. Gomez, L.E., Mohan, R.S., Shoham, O., Marreli, J. and Kouba, G.E.: Enhanced
Mechanistic Model and Field Application Design of Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone
Separator, SPE 49174, proceedings of the SPE 73rd SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, September 27-30, 1998, SPE Journal, June
2000, pp. 190-198.
17. Gomez, L.E.: Dispersed Two-Phase Swirling Flow Characterization for Predicting
Gas Carry-Under in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Compact Separators, Ph.D.
Dissertation, The University of Tulsa, 2001.
18. Hinze, J.O.: Fundamentals of the Hydrodynamic Mechanism of Splitting in

Dispersion Processes, AIChE Journal, 1955, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 289-295.
19. Ito, S., Ogawa, K. and Kuroda, C.: Decay process of Swirling Flow in a Circular
Pipe, International Chemical engineering, October 1979, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 600611.
20. Karabelas, A.J.: Droplet Size Spectra Generated in Turbulent Pipe Flow of Dilute
Liquid-Liquid Dispersions, AIChE Journal, 1978, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 170-180.
107
21. Kitoh, O.: Experimental Study of Turbulent Swirling Flow in a Straight Pipe, J. of
Fluid Mechanics, 1991, Vol. 225, pp. 445-479.
22. Kouba, G.E. and Shoham, O.: A Review of Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone
(GLCC) Technology, presented at the Production Separation Systems
International Conference, Aberdeen, England, April 23-24, 1996.
23. Kurokawa, J.: Gas-Liquid Flow Characteristics and Gas-Separation Efficiency in a

Cyclone Separator, ASME FED, Vol. 225, Gas Liquid Flows, 1995, pp. 51-57.
24. Levich, V.G.: Physicochemical Hydrodynamics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,

N.J., 1962.
25. Listewnik, J.: Some Factors Influencing the Performance of De-Oiling

Hydrocyclones for Marine Applications, Second International Conference on
Hydrocyclones, England, September 19-21 1984.
26. Mantilla, I., Shirazi, S.A. and Shoham, O.: Flow Field Prediction and Bubble
Trajectory Model in GLCC Separators, Proceedings of the ASME Energy
Resources Technology Conference and Exhibition, ETCE, Houston, TX, February 12 1999, ASME J. Energy Resources Technology, Vol. 121, March 1999, pp. 9-14.
27. Marti, S., Erdal, F., Shoham, O., Shirazi, S. and Kouba, G.: Analysis of Gas CarryUnder in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclones, presented at the Hydrocyclones 1996
International Meeting, St. John College, Cambridge, England, April 2-4, 1996.
108
28. Mathiravedu, R.S.: Design, Performance and Control Strategy Development of
Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (LLCC) Separator, M.S. Thesis in progress, The
University of Tulsa, 2001.
29. Millington, B.C. and Thew, M.T.: LDA Study of Component Velocities in AirWater Models of Steam-Water Cyclone Separators, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Multiphase Flow, The Hague, Netherlands, May 18,
1987, pp. 115-125.
30. Movafaghian, S., Jaua-Marturet, J., J., Mohan, R., Shoham, O. and Kouba, G.: The
Effects of Geometry, Fluid Properties and Pressure on the Hydrodynamics of GasLiquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, June 2000, Vol. 6,
No. 6, pp. 999-1018.
31. Nebrensky, N.T., Morgan, G.E. and Oswald, B.J.: Cyclone for gas/oil separation,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydrocyclones, Churchill College,
Cambridge, UK, 1980, Paper No.12, pp. 167-177.
32. Nissan, A.H. and Bressan, V.P.: Swirling Flow in Cylinders, AIChE Journal,
December 1961, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 543-547.
33. Oranje, I. L.: Cyclone-type Separators Score High in Comparative Tests, Oil &
Gas Journal, January 1990, Vol. 88, No. 4, pp. 54-57.
34. Seyda, B.: Separation of a Light Dispersion in a Cylindrical Vortex Chamber,

Report, Michigan State University, 1991.
109
35. Trallero, J. L.: Oil-Water Flow Patterns in Horizontal Pipes, Ph.D. Dissertation,
The University of Tulsa, 1995.
36. Weingarten, J.S., Kolpak, M.M., Mattison, S.A. and Williamson, M.J.: New Design
for Compact Liquid-Gas Partial Separation: Downhole and Surface Installations for
Artificial Lift Applications, SPE 30637, presented at the SPE 70th Annual Meeting,
Dallas, October 22-25, 1995.
37. Zhikarev, A.S., Kutepov, A.M. and Solovev, V.: Design of a Cyclone Separator for
the Separation of Gas-Liquid Mixtures, Chemical and Petroleum Engineering,
March 1985, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 196-198.
APPENDIX A
LLCC EXPERIMENTAL DATA
110
111
Table A-1. LLCC Experimental Data
SR
(%)
w,under
(%)
Run 1: DO/W&W Flow

0.40
0.025
0.40
0.025
0.40
0.025
0.40
0.025
0.40
0.025
0.40
0.025
40
50
60
62
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.4
95.0
Run 3: DO/W Flow

1.10
0.058
1.10
0.058
1.10
0.058
1.10
0.058
1.10
0.058
1.10
0.058
30
35
43
45
50
55
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.1
98.4
Run 5: DO/W&W Flow

0.67
0.070
0.67
0.070
0.67
0.070
0.67
0.070
0.67
0.070
0.67
0.070
40
50
60
62
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
95.4
91.8
Run 7: DO/W&W Flow

0.35
0.062
0.35
0.062
0.35
0.062
0.35
0.062
0.35
0.062
0.35
0.062
40
50
58
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.8
94.0
89.5
Run 9: DO/W Flow

1.04
0.192
1.04
0.192
1.04
0.192
1.04
0.192
1.04
0.192
1.04
0.192
1.04
0.192
1.04
0.192
30
38
41
48
55
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
96.4
93.9
91.1
89.0
86.8
84.7
v SW
(m/s)
v SO
(m/s)
SR
(%)
w,under
(%)
Run 2: DO/W&W Flow

0.70
0.042
0.70
0.042
0.70
0.042
0.70
0.042
0.70
0.042
0.70
0.042
30
40
50
62
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.6
96.5
Run 4: DO/W&W Flow

0.37
0.040
0.37
0.040
0.37
0.040
0.37
0.040
0.37
0.040
0.37
0.040
40
50
55
62
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.2
91.7
Run 6: DO/W Flow

1.04
0.116
1.04
0.116
1.04
0.116
1.04
0.116
1.04
0.116
1.04
0.116
1.04
0.116
1.04
0.116
35
38
40
45
55
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
99.7
99.2
97.7
94.7
93.0
91.2
Run 8: DO/W&W Flow

0.64
0.110
0.64
0.110
0.64
0.110
0.64
0.110
0.64
0.110
0.64
0.110
40
53
58
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
98.8
95.6
93.5
87.3
Run 10: DO/W&W Flow

0.32
0.080
0.32
0.080
0.32
0.080
0.32
0.080
0.32
0.080
0.32
0.080
40
50
58
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
96.8
91.1
85.5
v SW
(m/s)
v SO
(m/s)
112
Table A-1. LLCC Experimental Data (Continued)
SR
(%)
w,under
(%)
Run 11: DO/W&W Flow

0.62
0.155
0.62
0.155
0.62
0.155
0.62
0.155
0.62
0.155
0.62
0.155
30
45
51
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.5
89.6
84.3
Run 13: DO/W&W Flow

0.32
0.110
0.32
0.110
0.32
0.110
0.32
0.110
0.32
0.110
0.32
0.110
40
50
56
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
94.6
88.4
84.5
Run 15: DO/W Flow

1.00
0.320
1.00
0.320
1.00
0.320
1.00
0.320
1.00
0.320
1.00
0.320
1.00
0.320
1.00
0.320
1.00
0.320
20
27
33
40
48
55
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
97.5
90.0
85.6
82.1
78.8
76.7
74.8
Run 17: Double DO/W Flow

0.61
0.260
0.61
0.260
0.61
0.260
0.61
0.260
0.61
0.260
0.61
0.260
0.61
0.260
0.61
0.260
0.61
0.260
25
33
35
41
48
55
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
99.9
98.9
94.1
85.7
82.4
79.3
74.1
v SW
(m/s)
v SO
(m/s)
v SO
(m/s)
SR
(%)
w,under
(%)
Run 12: DO/W Flow

1.00
0.240
1.00
0.240
1.00
0.240
1.00
0.240
1.00
0.240
1.00
0.240
1.00
0.240
1.00
0.240
1.00
0.240
1.00
0.240
25
33
37
41
48
55
60
65
70
80
100.0
100.0
96.2
93.7
91.4
87.6
84.4
83.0
79.8
79.8

0.62
0.200
0.62
0.200
0.62
0.200
0.62
0.200
0.62
0.200
0.62
0.200
0.62
0.200
35
40
48
56
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
91.1
88.3
85.8
80.8
Run 16: DO/W&W Flow

0.32
0.130
0.32
0.130
0.32
0.130
0.32
0.130
0.32
0.130
0.32
0.130
40
50
55
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
92.6
87.1
82.6
Run 18: DO/W&W Flow

0.32
0.170
0.32
0.170
0.32
0.170
0.32
0.170
0.32
0.170
0.32
0.170
0.32
0.170
40
50
53
55
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
96.2
88.9
82.8
78.4
v SW
(m/s)
113
SR
(%)
w,under
(%)

0.61
0.310
0.61
0.310
0.61
0.310
0.61
0.310
0.61
0.310
0.61
0.310
0.61
0.310
0.61
0.310
20
30
34
40
46
50
60
70
100.0
100.0
98.1
94.3
88.4
84.1
80.4
77.3

0.62
0.400
0.62
0.400
0.62
0.400
0.62
0.400
0.62
0.400
0.62
0.400
0.62
0.400
0.62
0.400
10
13
17
23
30
35
40
43
100.0
100.0
98.9
96.8
93.7
88.1
83.5
78.2
Run 23: DO/W&W Flow

0.80
0.100
0.80
0.100
0.80
0.100
0.80
0.100
0.80
0.100
0.80
0.100
45
50
55
60
62
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.4
93.3
90.0
Run 25: DO/W&W Flow

0.40
0.100
0.40
0.100
0.40
0.100
0.40
0.100
0.40
0.100
0.40
0.100
40
50
55
60
70
89
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.0
86.0
78.3
Run 27: DO/W&W Flow

0.40
0.200
0.40
0.200
0.40
0.200
0.40
0.200
0.40
0.200
0.40
0.200
0.40
0.200
0.40
0.200
40
50
55
60
68
80
91
100
100.0
100.0
95.5
90.4
79.6
68.4
64.5
67.0
v SW
(m/s)
v SO
(m/s)
SR
(%)
w,under
(%)
Run 20: DO/W&W Flow

0.32
0.200
0.32
0.200
0.32
0.200
0.32
0.200
0.32
0.200
0.32
0.200
0.32
0.200
40
45
49
55
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.7
83.9
79.4
76.1
Run 22: DO/W&W Flow

0.40
0.100
0.40
0.100
0.40
0.100
0.40
0.100
0.40
0.100
0.40
0.100
40
50
55
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.6
94.0
87.0
Run 24: DO/W&W Flow

0.50
0.050
0.50
0.050
0.50
0.050
0.50
0.050
0.50
0.050
50
55
60
65
70
100.0
100.0
100.0
96.0
93.0
Run 26: DO/W&W Flow

0.40
0.150
0.40
0.150
0.40
0.150
0.40
0.150
0.40
0.150
0.40
0.150
0.40
0.150
0.40
0.150
40
55
60
65
70
80
89
100
100.0
100.0
94.0
89.1
83.9
73.9
69.8
72.7

0.40
0.300
40
0.40
0.300
45
0.40
0.300
50
0.40
0.300
60
0.40
0.300
67
0.40
0.300
80
0.40
0.300
91
0.40
0.300
100
100.0
93.0
88.0
75.0
66.7
59.3
58.4
57.0
v SW
(m/s)
v SO
(m/s)
114
SR
(%)
w,under
(%)
50
57
59
70
80
88
100
100.0
100.0
97.6
88.7
85.1
86.3
87.5

0.70
0.400
7
0.70
0.400
20
0.70
0.400
30
0.70
0.400
40
0.70
0.400
50
0.70
0.400
58
0.70
0.400
65
0.70
0.400
80
0.70
0.400
90
0.70
0.400
100
100.0
97.1
90.8
82.8
75.5
70.2
65.0
58.8
60.4
63.0
Run 33: DO/W Flow

0.90
0.300
0.90
0.300
0.90
0.300
0.90
0.300
0.90
0.300
0.90
0.300
0.90
0.300
0.90
0.300
25
31
35
40
50
58
70
78
100.0
100.0
94.0
92.0
84.0
78.9
72.5
70.0
Run 35: DO/W&W Flow

0.20
0.100
0.20
0.100
0.20
0.100
0.20
0.100
0.20
0.100
40
52
59
69
84
100.0
100.0
91.2
81.5
67.6
Run 37: ST Flow

0.10
0.050
0.10
0.050
0.10
0.050
0.10
0.050
0.10
0.050
30
40
50
55
60
100.0
100.0
99.6
98.3
95.3
v SW
(m/s)
v SO
(m/s)
Run 29: DO/W&W Flow

0.70
0.100
0.70
0.100
0.70
0.100
0.70
0.100
0.70
0.100
0.70
0.100
0.70
0.100
SR
(%)
w,under
(%)

0.70
0.200
30
0.70
0.200
39
0.70
0.200
50
0.70
0.200
59
0.70
0.200
69
0.70
0.200
78
0.70
0.200
90
0.70
0.200
100
100.0
100.0
96.0
88.3
80.0
74.6
75.8
77.7
Run 32: DO/W Flow

0.90
0.100
0.90
0.100
0.90
0.100
0.90
0.100
0.90
0.100
0.90
0.100
40
48
55
60
70
81
100.0
100.0
98.0
95.4
91.8
89.6
Run 34: ST Flow

0.20
0.050
0.20
0.050
0.20
0.050
0.20
0.050
0.20
0.050
0.20
0.050
0.20
0.050
40
50
62
70
80
90
100
100.0
100.0
100.0
88.0
80.0
76.0
80.0
Run 36: DO/W&W Flow

0.20
0.200
0.20
0.200
0.20
0.200
0.20
0.200
0.20
0.200
0.20
0.200
0.20
0.200
30
40
50
60
65
75
86
100.0
100.0
86.0
72.1
66.1
59.9
54.9
v SW
(m/s)
v SO
(m/s)
APPENDIX B
GLLCC EXPERIMENTAL DATA
115
116
SR
(%)
40
40
40
40
v SW
(m/s)
0.48
0.40
0.30
0.20
v SO
(m/s)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
v SG
(m/s)
0.70
0.73
0.70
0.70
w,W P
(%)
100.0
100.0
99.6
96.7
Temp
(F)
69.4
69.6
70.0
70.3
P OP
(psia)
26.0
25.7
25.4
25.1
PW P
(psia)
25.5
25.1
24.6
24.2
P in
(psia)
24.3
23.7
23.2
22.9
P GP
(psia)
23.9
23.2
22.8
22.6
40
40
40
40
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.050
0.050
0.049
0.051
0.71
0.72
0.70
0.70
99.4
98.8
96.5
90.0
69.5
69.8
70.2
70.6
26.2
25.7
25.4
25.1
26.0
25.3
24.7
24.3
24.7
23.9
23.3
22.8
24.3
23.5
23.0
22.6
40
40
40
40
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.098
0.100
0.103
0.100
0.73
0.68
0.70
0.72
76.9
87.7
92.6
94.3
71.2
71.3
71.6
71.9
25.3
25.7
26.0
26.4
24.6
25.1
25.6
26.2
23.2
23.6
24.3
24.9
22.9
23.3
23.9
24.4
40
40
40
40
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.151
0.151
0.150
0.150
0.69
0.71
0.69
0.71
65.6
78.7
85.7
88.2
69.7
69.9
70.2
71.6
25.8
26.0
26.5
26.8
25.1
25.5
26.3
26.7
23.9
24.2
25.1
25.5
23.6
23.7
24.6
24.7
SR
(%)
40
40
40
40
v SW
(m/s)
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
v SO
(m/s)
0.025
0.024
0.026
0.026
v SG
(m/s)
0.70
0.74
0.73
0.73
w,W P
(%)
93.7
99.4
99.7
99.9
Temp
(F)
68.0
69.3
70.6
67.2
P OP
(psia)
25.2
25.2
25.5
25.9
PW P
(psia)
24.5
24.7
25.2
25.7
P in
(psia)
23.1
23.2
23.8
24.4
P GP
(psia)
22.9
22.8
23.5
23.8
40
40
40
40
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.051
0.050
0.051
0.050
0.73
0.71
0.71
0.72
90.6
98.3
99.0
98.9
69.1
68.0
73.3
72.6
25.0
25.2
25.6
26.1
24.5
24.8
25.3
26.1
22.9
23.3
23.9
24.7
22.7
23.0
23.5
24.2
40
40
40
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.099
0.100
0.102
0.73
0.73
0.73
80.3
89.2
94.6
71.8
76.9
76.2
25.3
25.5
25.6
24.8
25.1
25.5
23.4
23.7
24.1
23.2
23.4
23.7
40
40
40
40
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.150
0.152
0.152
0.150
0.73
0.74
0.70
0.70
69.9
82.0
86.5
90.6
74.2
79.3
74.4
70.5
25.4
25.7
26.1
26.6
25.0
25.4
26.0
27.0
23.5
24.1
24.7
25.9
23.1
23.8
24.1
25.4
40
40
40
40
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.198
0.199
0.202
0.199
0.72
0.73
0.68
0.72
61.1
75.2
82.8
85.0
76.1
81.6
78.6
72.5
25.5
25.9
26.1
27.0
25.1
25.6
26.2
27.3
23.8
24.3
24.9
26.1
23.5
23.8
24.5
25.6
40
40
0.30
0.50
0.251
0.251
0.72
0.71
67.8
80.9
73.5
73.9
26.1
27.5
26.0
28.8
24.7
27.7
24.3
27.0
117
Table B3. GLLCC Experimental Data Set 3
Run
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SR
(%)
9.0
20.4
31.6
49.1
60.6
70.5
79.8
vSW
(m/s)
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
vSO
(m/s)
0.026
0.025
0.025
0.026
0.026
0.025
0.025
vSG
(m/s)
0.765
0.771
0.758
0.745
0.766
0.739
0.768
w,WP
(%)
99.0
100.0
99.8
96.9
96.0
95.0
93.3
Temp
(F)
70.5
70.6
70.8
70.9
71.1
71.3
71.5
POP
(psia)
25.8
25.5
25.3
25.1
25.0
25.2
25.4
PWP
(psia)
25.3
24.9
24.6
24.3
24.2
24.3
24.4
Pin
(psia)
23.8
23.4
23.2
23.0
22.8
22.9
22.9
PGP
(psia)
23.5
23.0
22.9
22.8
22.6
22.6
22.7
2
2
2
2
2
2
29.9
40.8
51.1
60.5
70.6
79.8
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.051
0.051
0.051
0.051
0.051
0.052
0.752
0.764
0.757
0.768
0.776
0.777
99.1
96.7
94.2
91.7
90.0
87.0
75.8
75.8
75.9
76.0
76.2
76.4
25.3
25.2
25.5
25.3
25.5
25.6
24.7
24.5
24.6
24.4
24.5
24.5
23.2
23.2
23.3
23.2
23.2
23.2
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9.4
20.3
30.4
40.3
50.6
60.8
68.8
77.8
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.103
0.104
0.104
0.105
0.105
0.102
0.101
0.101
0.775
0.744
0.779
0.771
0.786
0.781
0.779
0.752
91.7
92.5
92.4
90.1
86.4
85.2
81.3
77.0
73.7
73.7
73.8
73.8
73.9
74.0
74.0
74.1
25.9
25.6
25.4
25.2
25.0
25.0
25.2
25.4
25.5
25.2
24.8
24.6
24.3
24.2
24.3
24.4
24.1
23.7
23.4
23.3
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.2
23.7
23.4
23.0
23.0
22.7
22.8
22.8
23.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
20.9
29.6
40.5
50.9
62.0
71.0
80.7
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.153
0.155
0.155
0.154
0.154
0.154
0.153
0.775
0.769
0.770
0.763
0.776
0.747
0.782
87.6
85.3
83.3
81.2
77.1
72.6
69.5
75.1
75.2
75.4
75.5
73.3
73.3
73.5
26.1
25.8
25.6
25.4
25.1
25.2
25.8
25.9
25.3
25.0
24.7
24.4
24.4
24.8
24.6
24.1
23.7
23.4
23.2
23.2
23.6
24.3
23.8
23.2
23.1
22.9
22.8
23.3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
9.9
20.3
30.1
40.0
52.3
58.8
70.6
80.1
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.205
0.204
0.207
0.204
0.209
0.204
0.207
0.207
0.743
0.769
0.753
0.771
0.757
0.760
0.754
0.761
81.5
83.1
79.2
77.2
72.9
71.6
67.1
63.7
73.8
73.9
74.0
74.2
74.4
74.6
72.6
72.7
26.7
26.2
25.9
25.9
25.4
25.5
25.5
26.0
26.5
26.0
25.6
25.5
24.8
24.8
24.6
25.0
25.2
24.7
24.3
24.4
23.5
23.9
23.5
23.9
24.6
24.1
23.9
24.1
23.1
23.6
23.2
23.6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
19.3
30.5
39.9
49.8
59.5
69.6
81.5
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.260
0.258
0.257
0.259
0.259
0.257
0.260
0.738
0.757
0.765
0.764
0.784
0.775
0.721
71.8
73.7
70.7
69.2
66.6
62.2
57.9
73.4
73.6
71.4
71.5
71.7
71.9
72.0
26.8
26.4
26.1
25.7
25.4
25.6
26.6
26.6
26.1
25.9
25.2
24.9
24.9
25.6
25.3
24.8
24.5
23.9
23.6
23.7
24.5
24.5
24.3
24.0
23.2
23.3
23.2
23.8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
11.8
18.5
28.9
40.5
49.1
59.5
70.2
82.1
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.308
0.311
0.305
0.307
0.311
0.308
0.309
0.306
0.752
0.759
0.788
0.759
0.754
0.784
0.758
0.771
62.5
63.8
67.0
63.8
61.5
59.5
57.4
53.2
73.0
71.3
71.4
71.6
71.9
72.0
72.2
72.3
27.9
27.3
26.9
26.5
26.2
25.8
26.1
27.0
28.4
27.6
26.8
26.2
25.8
25.2
25.3
26.0
27.1
26.4
25.5
24.9
24.6
24.2
24.2
25.0
26.7
25.9
24.9
24.3
24.1
23.8
23.7
24.6
118
Table B3. GLLCC Experimental Data Set 3. (Continued)
Run
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
SR
(%)
10.0
19.1
26.5
36.9
49.6
62.5
68.8
79.0
vSW
(m/s)
0.20
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
vSO
(m/s)
0.025
0.025
0.026
0.025
0.026
0.025
0.026
0.026
vSG
(m/s)
0.751
0.746
0.751
0.754
0.745
0.778
0.787
0.797
w,WP
(%)
94.0
100.0
98.0
97.6
96.2
94.3
92.2
89.9
Temp
(F)
71.7
71.8
72.0
72.1
72.2
72.4
72.6
72.7
POP
(psia)
24.8
24.7
24.9
24.9
24.8
24.7
24.8
24.9
PWP
(psia)
24.1
24.0
24.0
24.0
23.8
23.7
23.7
23.8
Pin
(psia)
22.6
22.4
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.5
22.6
22.7
PGP
(psia)
22.5
22.2
22.4
22.4
22.4
22.4
22.4
22.5
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10.4
21.6
31.5
40.9
49.8
63.3
68.4
80.1
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.052
0.051
0.051
0.051
0.051
0.050
0.053
0.052
0.770
0.753
0.753
0.709
0.746
0.750
0.772
0.782
92.3
93.6
92.4
91.1
89.6
87.4
84.7
80.3
71.3
71.5
71.6
71.8
72.0
72.2
72.5
72.8
24.9
24.9
24.8
24.7
24.7
24.7
24.7
24.9
24.2
24.1
24.0
23.9
23.8
23.7
23.7
23.8
22.9
22.7
22.7
22.4
22.5
22.4
22.3
22.4
22.7
22.6
22.5
22.2
22.3
22.3
22.2
22.3
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8.0
19.5
29.7
41.1
51.0
61.2
69.5
80.6
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.104
0.102
0.104
0.102
0.104
0.101
0.102
0.102
0.767
0.775
0.742
0.796
0.772
0.746
0.755
0.749
82.7
83.1
81.3
79.9
76.6
75.1
71.8
68.7
75.3
75.1
75.3
75.4
75.5
75.7
75.9
76.1
25.3
25.2
25.1
25.0
24.9
24.9
24.9
25.1
24.6
24.5
24.4
24.2
24.1
23.9
23.9
24.1
23.2
23.3
23.0
22.8
22.7
22.5
22.6
22.8
23.0
23.1
22.7
22.6
22.4
22.3
22.4
22.5
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10.8
20.1
31.1
40.4
50.8
61.3
68.9
81.6
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.155
0.151
0.156
0.157
0.150
0.151
0.154
0.153
0.759
0.724
0.747
0.747
0.752
0.741
0.735
0.764
72.7
75.1
71.5
70.2
69.2
65.2
62.5
59.7
73.3
73.4
73.4
73.5
73.5
73.6
73.5
73.6
25.4
25.3
25.1
25.0
25.0
24.8
25.1
25.2
25.0
24.8
24.5
24.3
24.2
24.0
24.1
24.2
23.5
23.3
23.0
22.9
22.9
22.7
23.0
23.0
23.2
22.9
22.7
22.6
22.7
22.4
22.8
22.6
12
12
12
12
12
12
10.3
19.3
30.5
41.9
50.4
59.7
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.210
0.202
0.206
0.207
0.206
0.208
0.744
0.752
0.744
0.769
0.765
0.766
61.9
66.5
63.5
60.5
59.2
56.4
73.8
71.9
72.0
72.1
72.2
72.5
25.9
25.9
25.5
25.2
25.1
24.9
25.5
25.4
25.0
24.6
24.4
24.2
24.1
24.1
23.6
23.3
23.1
22.9
23.7
23.7
23.3
22.9
22.9
22.6
13
13
13
13
13
40.7
49.6
59.6
71.1
81.5
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.026
0.025
0.026
0.025
0.026
0.739
0.746
0.739
0.749
0.750
99.4
99.3
99.2
97.2
94.7
72.2
73.9
74.0
74.5
74.7
25.0
25.1
24.9
25.3
25.6
24.5
24.4
24.1
24.5
24.6
23.1
23.0
22.7
23.1
23.2
22.9
22.4
22.4
22.5
22.7
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
9.7
20.2
29.2
40.7
49.4
61.4
69.9
80.1
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.052
0.051
0.051
0.051
0.052
0.052
0.051
0.052
0.757
0.779
0.747
0.737
0.750
0.788
0.761
0.741
99.0
100.0
99.1
98.8
98.3
97.3
93.1
90.3
74.9
75.0
72.4
72.5
72.6
72.7
72.8
72.9
26.0
25.7
25.3
25.1
24.8
24.7
25.0
25.4
25.9
25.4
25.0
24.7
24.3
24.0
24.2
24.4
24.5
24.0
23.6
23.3
23.0
22.8
22.9
23.2
24.0
23.4
23.3
22.9
22.7
22.5
22.5
22.7
119
Run
15
15
15
15
15
15
SR
(%)
19.7
29.6
39.3
49.0
60.9
69.1
vSW
(m/s)
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
vSO
(m/s)
0.102
0.100
0.104
0.105
0.101
0.103
vSG
(m/s)
0.750
0.740
0.767
0.738
0.758
0.752
w,WP
(%)
92.8
97.0
93.7
92.0
89.6
86.4
Temp
(F)
70.6
70.8
70.9
71.0
71.1
71.2
POP
(psia)
25.0
25.4
25.9
25.7
25.5
25.8
PWP
(psia)
24.4
24.7
25.5
25.2
24.8
25.1
Pin
(psia)
23.1
23.4
24.1
23.8
23.5
23.8
PGP
(psia)
22.6
22.7
23.8
23.4
23.0
23.5
16
16
16
16
16
16
20.6
29.8
40.0
49.8
61.0
70.9
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.154
0.156
0.152
0.155
0.152
0.154
0.761
0.797
0.756
0.753
0.758
0.782
92.4
91.6
91.0
88.9
84.4
80.7
74.5
74.6
72.1
72.2
72.3
72.4
26.2
25.9
25.6
25.3
25.1
25.5
26.2
25.9
25.4
24.9
24.6
24.8
24.9
24.6
24.0
23.5
23.3
23.6
24.3
24.1
23.6
23.2
22.7
23.2
17
17
17
17
17
17
19.4
28.5
39.6
50.8
61.1
71.1
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.211
0.208
0.206
0.206
0.206
0.208
0.758
0.784
0.806
0.773
0.770
0.783
84.0
85.4
84.1
82.5
80.2
74.4
72.6
72.8
72.9
72.7
72.8
73.0
26.7
26.2
25.8
25.7
25.3
25.8
27.1
26.3
25.8
25.2
24.8
25.1
25.8
25.0
24.5
24.0
23.7
23.9
25.4
24.5
24.1
23.5
23.4
23.4
18
18
18
18
18
18
20.6
28.9
39.7
48.9
60.5
69.6
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.259
0.252
0.258
0.256
0.256
0.258
0.755
0.757
0.771
0.775
0.768
0.737
79.7
83.1
78.6
77.5
73.7
70.4
73.2
73.3
73.4
73.5
73.6
73.7
27.0
26.6
26.1
25.8
25.4
26.0
27.3
26.7
26.1
25.5
24.9
25.3
26.1
25.5
24.9
24.3
23.8
24.3
25.3
24.5
24.3
23.7
23.2
23.7
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
10.0
19.5
29.0
39.4
50.5
60.9
69.3
81.0
9.4
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.304
0.307
0.308
0.311
0.309
0.309
0.305
0.310
0.353
0.788
0.810
0.771
0.761
0.763
0.787
0.777
0.768
0.767
74.5
74.6
75.2
73.5
71.9
69.4
66.3
61.4
77.3
73.4
73.7
73.9
74.2
71.5
71.7
71.9
72.1
72.8
28.5
27.7
27.2
26.7
26.4
25.9
26.4
27.3
29.3
29.0
28.0
27.3
26.5
26.1
25.5
25.8
26.4
30.5
27.8
26.8
26.1
25.4
25.0
24.4
24.8
25.6
29.3
27.0
25.9
25.0
24.5
24.3
23.9
24.0
24.8
28.4
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
12.1
21.4
26.5
41.5
51.5
59.9
69.8
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.74
0.75
0.73
0.72
0.71
0.74
0.70
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.3
75.6
75.7
75.8
75.8
75.9
76.0
76.0
26.5
26.1
25.7
25.4
25.0
24.9
25.4
26.5
25.9
25.3
25.0
24.4
24.2
24.6
25.1
24.6
24.0
23.6
23.1
22.9
23.3
24.6
24.0
23.4
23.3
22.7
22.6
22.9
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
8.3
21.5
31.3
40.3
49.0
59.3
69.3
79.7
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.051
0.050
0.051
0.051
0.70
0.72
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.73
0.70
0.70
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.7
99.1
99.6
97.3
94.3
73.9
74.1
74.3
74.6
74.7
74.9
75.1
75.2
26.7
26.0
25.6
25.3
25.1
24.9
25.4
25.9
27.3
26.0
25.5
25.0
24.6
24.2
24.5
25.0
25.9
24.7
24.1
23.6
23.3
22.9
23.3
23.8
25.5
24.0
23.7
22.9
22.8
22.2
22.7
23.4
120
SR
(%)
vSW
(m/s)
vSO
(m/s)
vSG
(m/s)
w,WP
(%)
Temp
(F)
POP
(psia)
PWP
Run
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
10.2
20.9
30.0
40.7
50.6
60.1
69.5
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.101
0.099
0.100
0.100
0.101
0.100
0.100
0.76
0.78
0.72
0.74
0.76
0.77
0.72
98.5
99.6
98.4
96.9
97.4
96.2
93.1
75.4
75.6
75.8
75.9
76.1
76.3
76.4
27.2
26.7
26.1
25.7
25.3
25.1
25.7
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
9.8
18.3
29.8
40.4
50.4
60.7
69.8
81.8
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.152
0.151
0.152
0.150
0.151
0.152
0.151
0.153
0.72
0.73
0.77
0.73
0.77
0.76
0.76
0.73
97.4
95.0
93.6
92.5
92.4
91.1
86.8
80.9
74.9
75.2
75.5
75.8
76.1
76.4
76.6
76.9
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
9.4
19.3
29.9
40.6
49.6
59.6
70.9
80.8
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.199
0.201
0.202
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.200
0.201
0.73
0.71
0.71
0.73
0.71
0.71
0.68
0.67
95.8
91.1
88.6
88.0
87.2
86.6
81.0
76.4
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
19.0
25.1
45.5
50.1
56.6
81.9
93.7
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.025
0.026
0.025
0.025
0.026
0.025
0.025
0.764
0.762
0.762
0.766
0.763
0.757
0.760
26
26
70.8
74.1
0.10
0.10
0.047
0.047
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
7.9
17.7
33.5
42.9
50.4
62.2
68.5
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.103
0.104
0.103
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.101
(psia)
Pin
(psia)
PGP
(psia)
27.5
26.9
26.2
25.4
24.9
24.5
24.9
26.2
25.5
24.9
24.1
23.6
23.3
23.7
25.5
24.9
24.4
23.7
23.1
23.0
22.9
27.5
27.0
26.3
25.9
25.6
25.2
25.9
26.7
28.5
27.6
26.5
25.9
25.2
24.6
25.1
25.7
27.1
26.2
25.2
24.6
24.0
23.5
24.0
24.7
26.4
25.6
24.5
24.1
23.4
22.7
23.5
24.0
75.3
75.4
75.6
75.9
76.0
76.3
76.5
76.7
28.2
27.3
26.7
26.2
25.8
25.5
26.3
27.1
29.0
28.0
26.9
26.2
25.6
25.0
25.6
26.2
27.8
26.7
25.7
24.9
24.4
23.9
24.5
25.2
26.8
25.9
25.0
24.4
24.0
23.2
23.9
24.5
94.0
93.0
87.7
84.2
79.3
78.9
80.1
71.4
70.1
70.3
70.9
71.1
72.0
72.1
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.4
24.4
24.5
24.5
23.6
23.5
23.5
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
22.0
22.1
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.1
22.0
21.8
21.9
21.9
21.9
21.9
22.0
21.9
0.755
0.758
69.3
67.4
71.0
71.2
24.4
24.4
23.5
23.4
22.0
22.0
21.9
21.8
0.737
0.770
0.741
0.71
0.73
0.79
0.74
40.8
52.6
51.4
52.9
53.9
54.2
52.2
73.1
73.4
73.6
71.9
72.2
72.3
72.7
24.8
24.7
24.6
24.5
24.5
24.4
24.4
23.9
23.8
23.7
23.5
23.5
23.3
23.3
22.5
22.5
22.3
22.4
22.2
22.1
22.1
22.4
22.3
22.1
22.2
22.1
22.0
22.0

10.1.1.476.6482 Tesis de DR Carlos Oropeza Vasquez

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

10.1.1.476.6482 Tesis de DR Carlos Oropeza Vasquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

MULTIPHASE FLOW SEPARATION IN LIQUID-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

Carlos Oropeza (Doctor of Philosophy in Petroleum Engineering).

Stratified flow, Oil-in-Water Dispersion Water Layer flow, Double Oil-in-Water

LLCC - Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone - Copyright, The University of Tulsa, 1998.

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GLCC Development

2.2 LLCC Development

2.3 Swirling Flow Field

2.4 Oil-Water Pipe Flow Pattern Prediction

2.5 Droplet Size Distribution

CHAPTER III: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3.1 Experimental Facility

3.1.1 Metering and Storage Section

3.1.2 Modular Test Section

Instrumentation, Control and Data Acquisition System

3.2 Experimental Results

LLCC Experimental Results

GLLCC Experimental Results

CHAPTER IV: MECHANISTIC MODELING

LLCC Mechanistic Model

4.1.1 Inlet Analysis

Inlet Flow Pattern Prediction

Stratified Flow Model

Oil-in-Water Dispersion - Water Layer Model

Oil-in-Water Dispersion Model

Double Oil-in-Water Dispersion Model

4.1.2 Separation Analysis

Entry Region Analysis

GLLCC Mechanistic Model

4.2.2 Inlet Analysis

4.2.3 Nozzle Analysis

4.2.4 Oil-Water Separation Analysis

Equilibrium Split Ratio

Water-cut in Water Outlet

CHAPTER V: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 LLCC Comparison Study

5.2 GLLCC Comparison Study

CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A: LLCC EXPERIMENTAL DATA

APPENDIX B: GLLCC EXPERIMENTAL DATA

Figure 1-1. Two-Stage System (GLCC and LLCC)

Figure 1-2. Gas-Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (GLLCC)

Figure 2-1. Trallero (1995) Model Flow Chart

Figure 3-1. Experimental Flow Loop

Figure 3-2. Tanks, Pumping Station and Metering Section

Figure 3-3. Test Section

Figure 3-4. GLLCC Design

Figure 3-5. LLCC Design

Figure 3-6. Horizontal Inlet Flow Patterns

Figure 3-7. Experimental Flow Pattern Map for LLCC Inlet

Figure 3-8. LLCC with Inclined Inlet (vSW = 1 m/s)

Figure 3-9. Horizontal vs. Inclined Inlets Comparison

Figure 3-10. LLCC with Horizontal Inlet (vSW = 1 m/s)

Figure 3-11. LLCC Separation Behavior as a Function of the Split Ratio

Figure 3-12. Experimental Results for Stratified Flow

Figure 3-13. Experimental Results for DO/W Water Layer Flow

Figure 3-14. Experimental Results for Double DO/W Flow

Figure 3-15. Experimental Results for DO/W Flow

Figure 3-16. Three-Phase Separation Feasibility

Figure 3-17. GLLCC Experimental Data Range