Numerical Simulation of a Gas/Liquid/Solid Wringing Separator

A. Bennardo1), F. Podenzani1), L. Ciccarelli2), U. Spinelli3)

1)
ENI Division R&M, Via Maritano 26, 20097 S. Donato Mil (MI), Italy
2)
ENI Division E&P, Via Emilia 1, 20097 S. Donato Mil (MI), Italy
3)
Micronsep, Via Cavour 3, 20040 Briosco (MI), Italy

ABSTRACT

Offshore gas platforms badly need compact gas/liquid/solid separators with very high separation efficiency (>
98%), in order to reduce the size of the offshore production platform, potentially saving millions of euros in
construction and operating costs. Those requirements are fulfilled by the Wringing separator, where a very
complicated fluid dynamics situation is established and can be visualised only by CFD simulations.
CFD simulations have been helpful in describing the physical phenomena taking place in the separator and thus
improving the understanding of the separation mechanisms. These studies created the basis for the present work
in which the effect of geometrical changes in the Wringing separator such as the changing of the deflector or the
adding of one or two partition walls have been investigated both in terms of the fluid dynamics behaviour and
separation efficiency. The CFD approach allowed an easier way to evaluate the effect of those variations on the
apparatus performances compared to the cumbersome and expensive experimental testing.

1 INTRODUCTION
Gas and oil separators are essential in oil extraction..
They are used to separate gas, oil / water and
sometime sand before any other device on the
platform. The separator efficiency is very important for
the well productivity and has to be maintained in a
large range of flow rates.
The Wringing separator (Figure 1) has been designed
to fulfil all these requirements.
In a previous paper (1) the basic separation
mechanisms in the Wringing apparatus have been
highlighted by the use of the CFD. In particular the
combined effects of curved ducts (creating Taylor's
eddies) and boundary layer (where separation takes
place) has been proved to be crucial for the separation.
Starting from this point, the effects of geometrical
modifications of the apparatus has been studied and
presented in this paper both in terms of the fluid
dynamics behaviour and separation efficiency.

2 APPARATUS DESCRIPTION
The Wringing separator is a vertical separator divided
in two main parts: the upper part (Micronsep
proprietary), where the separation process is
performed, consisting of a cylindrical spiral made of
sheet metal, a holed disc and a hopper; and the lower Figure 1: the Wringing separator.
part acting as a reservoir.
apparatus). A part of the main flow entering the spiral
The mixture enters in the separator from the inlet (see
follows the spiral itself and exits directly from the gas
Figure 1) and is subdivided into two flows through a
outlet while a set of little secondary flows exits
deflector (not shown in the figure); the main flow (about
throughout the holes of the initial rounds of the spiral
75-80%) goes into the spiral while the other descends
into the hopper. Also the descending flow coming from
into the bottom reservoir through the small gap
the inlet comes up through the stump into the hopper.
between the skirt and the case (the outer wall of the
These two flows re-enters into the spiral throughout the
holes of the last rounds and exit from the gas outlet as
well.
The particles follow the gas flows and are separated
initially into the spiral and than definitively into the
hopper from where they go down, throughout the
stump, into the bottom reservoir. How much gas
follows each flow and, among the first flow, how much
gas goes into the hopper throughout the holes, has a
very strong impact on the separator performances and
is related to the different pressure drops associated to
the different flow paths. Pressure drops are than
related to the geometry (e.g. the spiral dimensions and
number of rounds or the type of deflector adopted) and
the physical conditions (mainly density) in the
separator.
We focused our attention on a particular configuration,
with a fixed geometry of the apparatus and a specific
mixture: air at 4.7 bar mixed with toner particulate (1-5
μm diameter range, about 0.03% in weight of the gas
and about 2000 kg/m3 of density).
Due to the their small size (1-5 μm), the particles follow
the gas flow that undergoes to a progressively higher
centrifugal force (the spiral has a growing bend radius),
creating a set of eddies perpendicular to the flow
direction (2, 3), the Taylor's eddies. The particles move
towards and concentrate at the external wall of the
spiral because of the centrifugal force and descend
along the wall because of their weight (Figure 2). Walls
presence is essential to the separation, because it is
right into the walls boundary layer that the separation is
actually performed due to the very low gas velocities.
Figure 2: the Taylor's eddies.
3 CFD SIMULATIONS
We have studied the effect of changing of the deflector
or the adding of one or two partition walls on the gas
fluxes and the separation efficiency of the first round of
the spiral.
Two different set of simulations were performed, the
first on the whole separator, the second focused on the
first round of the spiral, using the results of the
simulations of the whole separator to evaluate the
boundary conditions for the round.
All the calculations were performed with a commercial
code (Fluent 6.1). For the simulations of the whole
separator, we used the RNG k-ε model (4) for the
turbulence description with the “standard wall
functions” for the wall treatment. For the study of the
gas flow rates in the apparatus, the use of the wall
functions is adequate, as discussed in a previous
paper (1). For each geometrical configuration, the
number of cells required to simulate the whole
apparatus was about 1.5x106 and the cell dimension
near the walls was about 1 mm.
To evaluate correctly the separator efficiency, a fine
description of the boundary layer is needed, but this
means tens of millions of cells for the whole separator..
The CFD analysis was therefore concentrated on the
first round of the spiral, with the very high cell
refinement near the walls (with a cell adjacent the wall
of 20 μm) necessary to correctly simulate, by a
numerical point of view, the boundary layer. To
evaluate the separation efficiency, an Eulerian (gas) /
Lagrangian (particles) approach was used. In the
Lagrangian approach the motion equation of the single
particle is solved (4). The Eulerian / Lagrangian
approach allows to calculate separately the gas motion
first and the particles motion after. Besides the
calculation can be performed as a stationary one
instead of a transient one (much heavier for the CPU).
It's also very easy to evaluate the effect of particles
diameter on their behavior, introducing different particle
groups with different diameter. On the other hand this
approach has some shortcomings: the particle is
considered of zero dimension so that gas and solid
coexist in the same volume; the particle-particle
interaction is not considered. These limitations are not
severe for the conditions considered because the
amount of particulate is well below 1% in volume.
For both configurations we first checked both coupled
and uncoupled calculations for the Eulerian /
Lagrangian approach, but the differences were
negligible, allowing us to use the uncoupled simulation,
reducing considerably the CPU time to obtain a
solution.
3.1 Deflectors
A better flux distribution in the separator could allow a
more compact and/or more efficient apparatus to be
realized. We studied the following configurations:
1. actual configuration (plane deflector, Figure 3.1);
2. actual configuration with a cylindrical deflector
coherent with the coiling of the spiral (counter
clockwise, Figure 3.2);
3. actual configuration with a cylindrical deflector
opposite to the coiling of the spiral (clockwise,
Figure 3.3).
The configurations with the different deflectors are
almost undistinguishable from the point of view of the
general flow rates: the flow rates calculated into the
 Stump

(1) (2) (3)

Spiral inlet
Figure 3: Geometrical details of (1) the actual
configuration; (2) a cylindrical deflector coherent with
the coiling of the spiral (counter clockwise); (3) a Reservoir
cylindrical deflector opposite to the coiling of the spiral
(clockwise). (a)
hopper through the stump and through all the holes of
the spiral are respectively about 23% and 29-30% of
the inlet flow rate. Nonetheless the three deflectors
create quite different fluxes into the separator. In fact Hopper
the device equipped with the cylindrical deflector
coherent with the spiral has the lowest total pressure
drops, followed by that with the plane deflector and
eventually by the configuration with the cylindrical
deflector opposite to the coiling of the spiral. An
experimental work carried out with the three different
configurations in a scaled separator confirm this trend.
In the actual configuration the gas enters
perpendicularly into the device (see Figure 1). A part of
the entering flow rate (about 60-70%) is re-directed in
the same direction of rotation of the spiral (counter-
clockwise) by a plane deflector, inclined by 45° respect Stump
to the initial flux direction (see Figure 3.1). The main
portion of this deflected flux climbs rotating (counter-
clockwise) and enters into the spiral, while the (b)
remaining portion descends throughout the gap
between the skirt and the external wall into the Figure 4: Stump, actual configuration. Gas velocity
reservoir. The part of the entering flux which is not vectors: the intensity is proportional to the module of
deviated by the deflector passes up, down and on the the velocity, while the colour is a function of the
other side of the deflector, originating a flux rotating velocity component along the “X” axis [m/s].
clockwise (opposite to the coiling of the spiral), the
main portion of which descends into the reservoir pressure drops. If the cylindrical deflector directs the
through the gap, while the remaining portion climbs flux in the opposite direction, all the flux rotates
towards the spiral inlet. This flux “collides” with the clockwise. The flux ascending is forced at the spiral
main flux (rotating counter-clockwise) and causes a big inlet to change the direction of rotation (high pressure
turbulent zone right at the spiral inlet. The gas present drops), while the descending flux involves both the
into the spiral comes out into the hopper through the reservoir and the stump in its clockwise rotation.
holes of the initial rounds of the spiral and, given the Table 1. Particles/gas exited from the holes (% in
counter-clockwise coiling of the spiral, it rotates weight) of the 1st round of the spiral.
counter-clockwise. The gas descends towards the Type of deflector gas 1 μm 5 μm 10 μm
stump along the wall of the hopper and climbs (again
rotating counter-clockwise) at the center, re-entering (a) planar 14 14 18 23
the spiral through the holes of the last rounds. (b) coherent (c.clockwise) 14 13 15 26
On the other hand, the gas present into the reservoir (c) opposite (clockwise) 14 14 17 31
rotates clockwise, as in the stump (see Figure 4a, flux
into the stump), through which the gas climbs into the
hopper. It is right here, at the end of the stump, that the In table 1 are shown the separation efficiency for the
direction of rotation changes (see Figure 4b, flux out of three deflector configurations. In this contest, for
the stump), conforming to the main rotation in the separation efficiency we intend the whole mass of
hopper (and in the spiral, counter-clockwise). particles separated through the holes respect to the
total mass of particles entering the first round of the
When a cylindrical deflector coherent with the spiral is spiral. The 1 μm particles are easily dragged by the
used, the flux is totally directed counter-clockwise so fluid, therefore the amount of them separated
that both the ascending and descending portion of the throughout the holes corresponds to the gas entering
gas rotate counter-clockwise, thus allowing the lowest
into the hopper from the 1st round of the spiral, around
14%. The 5 and 10 μm particles have progressively
higher inertia, tend to accumulate into the wall
boundary layer and are more effectively separated.
Particles separation is maximum for the configuration
in which the cylindrical deflector is opposite to the
coiling of the spiral; at the contrary it is minimum when
the cylindrical deflector is coherent to the coiling of the
spiral. The actual deflector (planar) is in some way in
between, more similar to the opposite cylindrical
deflector. In fact the flow distribution into the
spiral/hopper is rather similar for the two cases. Semi-
quantitative evaluations of the separation efficiency
with the three deflectors on a scaled Wringing
separator gave similar trends.
3.2 Partition walls
The spiral is the key element of the separator, as it is
in the boundary layer of its external wall (due to the
centrifugal force) where the particles are separated.
Keeping fixed the internal section of the spiral (thus
maintaining the same gas flowrate and velocity), a
higher extension of this surface allows a greater
amount of particles to be trapped in it. For this reason
the coils are tall and narrow. Nevertheless a coil too tall
and narrow means a reduction of the Taylor eddies
which re-supply the wall of particles. The ratio between
the height and the width of the spiral is a balance
between two contrasting needs, to trap and separate
the particles in the boundary layer and to supply it with
the particles coming from the main flux. Besides, a
higher spiral (with the same section) causes an
increase in the particle residence time in the boundary
layer (the particles have to be disposed of throughout
the holes at the base of the spiral) thus increasing the
time needed to separate the particles, meaning that
the particles have to travel a greater portion of the
spiral before to be disposed of.
The insertion of a vertical partition wall in the spiral,
subdivides the duct into two or more sub-ducts,
increasing the useful surface (actually doubling it in the
case of a single insertion wall), avoiding a spiral too tall
and thus avoiding an increase of the particulate
residence time.
Unfortunately, with the computer available, it was not
possible to simulate the boundary layer for more than
one duct at full height. So we simulated the first round
of the spiral at half height. The results are shown on
Tab.2.
Adding a partition wall increases the particles
separation. As before, the 1 μm particles are easily
dragged by the gas and come out of the holes in more
or less the same quantity than the gas; while the 10
μm particles have a much higher inertia and are more
easily accumulated on the external walls of each duct
and then disposed of through the holes. Adding a
partition wall has a dramatic effect on the separation
efficiency. Adding a second partition wall, i.e. creating
three ducts, increases even more the separation
efficiency for the 1 μm particles, while reducing that for
the 10 μm particles. This effect is not physical but
numerical. In the case of the single or double duct, the
grid is very fine near the wall (and very similar for both
geometry), while in the case of the three ducts, due to
the computer memory constriction, some compromises
had to be made. The Lagrangian approach used for
tracking the particles is, unfortunately, quite sensible to
the grid. The gas, on the contrary, is not influenced by
the kind of refinement adopted near the wall as
confirmed by simulations performed with much coarser
meshes (with the standard wall functions). As the 1 μm
particles follow the gas, their behaviour is very little
influenced by the grid refinement adopted near the
wall.
Table 2. Particles/gas exited from the holes (% in
weight) of the 1st round of the spiral.
Simulation cells gas 1 μm 10 μm
1 duct 1076284 13 14 55
2 duct 1911968 25 25 76
3 duct 2175024 36 36 48
4 CONCLUSIONS
The CFD has been used to optimize the actual
geometrical configuration, investigating the effects of
different geometrical variations such as changing the
deflector type and orientation or putting partition walls
in order to increase the separation surface.
The three deflectors investigated create quite different
fluxes into the separator and consequentially different
total pressure drop (as confirmed by experimental
work). Also separation is affected by the deflector
configuration and the simulation have shown that the
clockwise configuration has a slight better separation
than the counter clockwise.
A modification which greatly affect the separator both
in terms of gas flow rate into the hopper and separator
efficiency into the spiral, is the adding of one or more
partition walls. Adding a partition wall increases the
particles separation, and a second partition wall, i.e.
creating three ducts, increases even more the
separation efficiency.
REFERENCES:
[1] A. Bennardo, F. Podenzani, L. Ciccarelli, U.
Spinelli: CFD Simulation of a Gas/Solid Wringing
Separator, Proceedings of Partec 2004.
[2] S. V. Patankar, V. S. Pratap et al.: “Prediction of
turbulent flow in curved pipes”, Journal Fluid
Mechanics, Vol.67, part 3 (1975), pp. 583-595.
[3] P. A. Mees, K. Nandakumar et al.: “Secondary
instability of flow in a curved duct of square cross-
section”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol.323 (1996),
pp.387-409.
[4] Fluent User's Guide, Vol 2 (1998).