D I S T I N G U I S H E D A U T H O R S E R I E S
STATE OF THE ART OF GAS/LIQUID
CYLINDRICAL-CYCLONE
COMPACT-SEPARATOR TECHNOLOGY
Ovadia Shoham, SPE, U. of Tulsa, and Gene E. Kouba, SPE, Chevron Petroleum Technology Co.
SUMMARY
The petroleum industry has relied mainly on conventional, vessel-
type separators to process wellhead production of oil/water/gas
flow. However, economic and operational pressures continue to
force the industry to seek less expensive and more efficient separa-
tion alternatives in the form of compact separators, especially for
offshore applications. Compared with vessel-type separators, com-
pact separators, such as the gas/liquid cylindrical cyclone (GLCC),
are simple, low-cost, low-weight separators that require little main-
tenance and are easy to install and operate. However, the inability
to predict GLCC performance adequately has inhibited its wide-
spread deployment. Current R&D is aimed at creating the neces-
sary performance-prediction tools for proper design and operation
of GLCC separators. This paper presents the status of the develop-
ment of the GLCC, the state of the art with respect to its simulation
and design, and current successful and potential applications.
INTRODUCTION
The GLCC (Fig. 1) consists of a vertical pipe with a tangential
inclined inlet and outlets for gas and liquid. The tangential flow
from the inlet to the body of the GLCC creates a swirl that produces
centrifugal and buoyancy forces on the fluids that are an order of
magnitude higher than the force of gravity. The combination of
gravitational, centrifugal, and buoyancy forces separates the gas
and liquid. The liquid is pushed radially outward and downward
toward the liquid exit, while the gas is driven inward and upward
toward the gas outlet. The low-cost, low-weight, compact GLCC
separator offers an attractive alternative to the conventional vessel-
type separator. A size comparison between the GLCC and conven-
tional vessel-type vertical and horizontal separators has been con-
ducted recently for a typical field application with oil and gas flow
rates of 100,000 B/D and 70,000 Mscf/D, respectively, at 100 psig.1
For this case, the required GLCC inner diameter and height are 5
and 20 ft, respectively. These dimensions are approximately one-
half of the corresponding dimensions of the required conventional
vertical separator (9 x 35 ft) and about one-quarter of the dimen-
sions of a conventional horizontal separator (19 x 75 ft).
The operational envelope of a GLCC is defined by two limiting
phenomena: liquid carry-over in the gas stream and gas carry-under
in the liquid stream. The onset of liquid carry-over is identified by the
first trace of liquid in the gas stream. Similarly, the first observable
bubbles in the liquid underflow mark the onset of gas carry-under.
Copyright 1998 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This is paper SPE 39600. Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive repre-
sentations that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent
developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by individu-
als recognized as experts in the area, these articles provide key references to more definitive
work and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to inform the gen-
eral readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engineering. A softbound
anthology, SPE Distinguished Author Series: Dec. 1981–Dec. 1983, is available from SPE’s
Customer Service Dept.
58
The difficulty in developing accurate performance predictions
arises largely from the variety of complex flow patterns that can
occur in the GLCC. The flow patterns above the inlet can include
bubble, slug, churn, mist, and liquid ribbon. Below the inlet, the
flow generally consists of a liquid vortex with a gas-core filament.
At liquid levels far below the inlet, the liquid flows from the inlet
to the vortex in a swirling film.
This difficulty in predicting the hydrodynamic performance of
the GLCC has been the single largest obstruction to broader use of
the GLCC. Even without tried and tested performance predictions,
several successful applications of GLCC’s have been reported.2 The
development of reliable performance-prediction tools will improve
GLCC’s through hardware modifications and, ultimately, will gov-
ern the speed and extent to which GLCC technology is deployed in
existing and new field applications.
HARDWARE DEVELOPMENTS
Few systematic studies of design configurations of different GLCC
mechanical features have been conducted. Recent laboratory obser-
vations and computer simulations indicate that hardware modifica-
tions to the GLCC can have a profound effect on GLCC perfor-
mance. Ref. 3 discusses these in some detail. The following is a sum-
mary and update of the most important hardware improvements.
Inlet Design. The inlet section determines the incoming gas/liq-
uid distribution and the initial tangential-inlet velocity in the
GLCC. Because GLCC performance is strongly dependent on the
tangential-inlet velocity, the inlet has been the single most
redesigned component of the GLCC.
Inclined Inlet. Conventional vertical separators typically use a
perpendicular inlet. Recent studies on the GLCC have demonstrat-
ed that an inclined inlet improves GLCC performance by reducing
liquid carry-over in the gas stream through two mechanisms.4
First, the downward inclination of the inlet promotes stratification
and provides preliminary separation at the inlet nozzle. Second, the
downward inclination causes the liquid stream to spiral below the
inlet after one revolution, preventing the liquid from blocking the
flow of gas into the upper part of the GLCC.
Inlet Nozzle.The nozzle is the last element of the inlet that influ-
ences flow distribution and the tangential velocity entering the
GLCC body. The tangential inlet nozzle is the most expensive part of
the GLCC to fabricate. Several nozzle configurations have been test-
ed, aimed at optimizing hydrodynamic performance cost-effectively.
The optimum configuration for hydrodynamic performance is a thin,
rectangular tangential wall slot, which is difficult to fabricate. On the
other hand, the concentric-circular tangential inlet is easy to fabricate
but exhibits lower performance. A preliminary experimental com-
parison of three different inlet-slot configurations (rectangular, con-
centric-circular, and crescent) with the same cross-sectional area
found that the concentric-circular nozzle (reduced pipe) configura-
JULY 1998 •
 Several alternatives for GLCC liquid-level control have been
implemented. For example, a commercial multiphase measure-
ment system has used conventional control equipment successful-
ly to maintain a tight control on liquid level by controlling the gas-
outflow rate of the GLCC. Another project explored low-power
alternatives to conventional level controls that exploit hydrostatic-
head difference in the GLCC to operate the controls.8 A recent
study examined GLCC performance with a passive control system
that uses only the flow energy and no external energy.5
Crucial future work is to develop robust, active liquid-level-con-
trol strategies. Because of the smaller residence time of the compact
separator and the stringent response time requirement of the control
valve, this is not a simple extension of the control technology avail-
able for large vessel-type separators. The strategies should enable the
GLCC to handle slugging, surging, and a wide range of flow rates,
from essentially full-gas-flow to full-liquid-flow conditions.

Integrated Separation System. Great economic incentives

Fig. 1—GLCC configuration.
tion had the poorest performance, while the crescent nozzle (tan-
gential flat plate) performed closest to the rectangular slot.5
Dual Inlet. Dual inclined inlets provide preseparation of the inlet
stream into a liquid-rich stream (lower inlet) and gas-rich stream
(upper inlet). Testing of the dual inlet indicated a significant improve-
ment in liquid-carry-over performance at low to moderate gas rates
(slug flow dissipating to stratified flow at the inlet) with less dis-
cernible improvement at high gas rates (annular flow at the inlet).6
exist for the industry to move away from conventional gravity-
based separators to compact separation systems. Depending on
the application, the GLCC can be used for full or partial sepa-
ration. Partial gas separation allows downstream equipment to
be smaller (and therefore less expensive) and perform more
efficiently. The GLCC has been particularly effective when
combined with multiphase meters, desanders, and liquid/liquid
hydrocyclones. Configured either alone or in combination with
other equipment, the GLCC can reduce cost and weight signif-
icantly. This is particularly important in designing or retro-
fitting offshore platforms, where savings in platform-construc-
tion costs may be many times greater than the cost of the sep-
aration equipment.

GLCC-Body Configuration. Despite the simple design of the

GLCC, several possible modifications to the body configuration
can influence performance.
Inlet Location. For GLCC’s without active liquid-level control, it
is important to locate the inlet section just above the liquid level.
Most testing to date indicates that the optimum liquid level in the
single-inlet GLCC is approximately 1 to 3 L/d below the inlet.
Liquid levels farther below the inlet than 3 L/d result in significant
decay in the tangential-inlet velocity, which compromises the
GLCC performance. If the liquid level is above the inlet, gas must
blow through the liquid and is more likely to cause carry-over.
Optimum Aspect Ratio. The aspect ratio is the ratio of GLCC
length to diameter. The dimensions of the GLCC influence perfor-
mance and cost. For a given diameter, the length of the GLCC
above the inlet provides liquid-surge capacity, while the length
below the inlet determines residence time for separating bubbles
from the liquid. In addition, centrifugal and buoyancy forces are
inversely proportional to diameter and tangential-velocity decay is
directly proportional to length. Because of the complexity of this
phenomenon, a fundamental set of criteria to determine optimum
aspect ratio has been proposed only recently.1
Cyclone-Body Taper. An investigation on diverging, converging, and
cylindrical cyclones concluded that cylindrical walls are slightly supe-
rior to either converging or diverging walls for gas/liquid separation.7

Liquid-Level Controls. Active liquid-level control in a GLCC for a

wide range of flow conditions is not straightforward owing to its
compact size. Several different liquid-level-control strategies are
being investigated, including flow control on the gas leg, flow con-
trol on the liquid leg, and flow control on both legs. Also being
considered are combinations of backpressure control on the gas leg
and liquid-level control on the liquid leg. Other issues of concern
include power requirements, robustness, and cost.

• JULY 1998 59

yL0
vgs, ft/sec
Fig. 2—Zero-net-liquid-flow holdup in air/water system.2
Another GLCC combination is two GLCC’s used in series. A the-
oretical work successfully predicted that a second-stage GLCC on
the gas leg would increase the liquid-carry-over performance of the
two-stage GLCC to the onset of the mist-flow boundary, which was
anticipated as the theoretical performance limit.4 It was found that
at very low liquid loading, the centrifugal forces on the liquid
would allow the operational envelope to push well beyond the fully
developed annular-mist-flow boundary.
A commercial measurement system has been developed that uses
a second-stage horizontal pipe separator to remove any small gas
bubbles that may have passed along with the liquid underflow from
the GLCC. This has allowed extension of the system operation
beyond the “normal” operating range of the GLCC for complete
gas/liquid separation.
Miscellaneous Hardware Improvements. Several other potential
improvements have been considered; however, we have not dis-
cussed them here because little or no performance information is
available. These include a variable inlet-slot area and the config-
urations of the gas and liquid outlets.
SIMUL ATION
In the past, performance predictions of GLCC separators have
been carried out on the basis of experience, rules of thumb, and
empirical correlations. These methods are limited in their ability
to be extrapolated to different flow conditions and untried appli-
cations. Currently, efforts are under way to develop mechanistic
models for the GLCC and conduct computational fluid dynamic
(CFD) simulations.
Mechanistic modeling offers a practical approach to GLCC design
and performance prediction. Simplifying assumptions are used, but,
ideally, the models still capture enough of the fundamental physics of
the problem to allow interpolation and extrapolation to different
fluid-flow conditions. CFD simulations predict details of the com-
plex hydrodynamic-flow behavior in the GLCC, including flow field,
holdup distribution, and trajectories of discrete particles of the dis-
persed phase. While well-suited for local simulation of single-phase
or dilute dispersion flows, current CFD simulators cannot yet handle
the complexities of the full range of multiphase flow. Furthermore,
CFD models of large piping systems that include the GLCC typical-
ly are too unwieldy to be practical for design purposes.
Because mechanistic models are greatly simplified, they are not
as detailed, rigorous, or accurate as CFD models. However, mech-
anistic modeling has many advantages: speed of setup and compu-
60
vLs, ft/sec
vgs, ft/sec
Fig. 3—Operational envelope for liquid carry-over in a 3-in.
GLCC operated with air and water.2
tation, ability to model an entire system, and suitability for PC
operation. Consequently, these models are more accessible to engi-
neers as a design tool than are CFD models.
Mechanistic Modeling. The ultimate aim of modeling work to date
has been to predict the operating envelope for the GLCC with respect
to liquid carry-over in the gas stream and gas carry-under in the liquid
stream. Each fluid-flow path has its own particular set of calculations.
The starting point for either calculation path is the global distribution
of gas and liquid in the GLCC, namely, the equilibrium liquid level.
Equilibrium Liquid Level. The equilibrium liquid level in the
GLCC is determined by the pressure drop between the gas and liq-
uid outlets. Because the frictional losses in the GLCC are low, the
equilibrium liquid level is a reasonable indication of the amount of
liquid in the GLCC. The model is based on a pressure balance on
the gas and liquid legs. Ref. 2 gives details of this model.
Vortex Shape and Location. The shape and location of the vortex
are important for prediction of both liquid carry-over and gas carry-
under. The vortex model assumes rigid-body rotation (i.e., a linear
tangential-velocity profile in the radial direction).2 Coupling the cal-
culations for equilibrium liquid level and vortex shape makes deter-
mination of the location of the vortex and the height of the vortex
crown possible. This model of the global distribution of gas and liq-
uid provides the groundwork for the performance models.
Liquid Carry-Over. Liquid carry-over in the gas stream is largely
dependent on the flow pattern in the upper part of the GLCC. Flooding
may occur in the GLCC at high liquid levels and low gas rates, produc-
ing bubbly flow. The unstable liquid oscillations, characteristic of churn
flow at moderate gas rates, may splash liquid into the gas outlet. Liquid
can also be carried out in droplets at the onset of annular mist flow at
high gas rates. At very high gas rates, the centrifugal force of the swirling
gas pushes the liquid to the wall of the pipe, where it may form an
upward-spiraling continuous ribbon of liquid.
At present, the onset of liquid carry-over is predicted for low to
moderately high gas rates. The key to onset of liquid carry-over has
been to predict accurately the maximum liquid holdup (volume frac-
tion) occurring in the upper part of the GLCC under zero-net-liquid-
flow conditions and its effect on the pressure balance between the gas
and liquid legs. Fig. 2 compares model predictions with experimen-
tal results in plots of the maximum liquid holdup in the upper GLCC
region (i.e., zero-net-liquid-flow holdup, yL0, vs. the superficial gas
velocity, vgs, in the GLCC).2 Additional data collected for a range of
liquid viscosities from 1 to 10 cp showed negligible effect on the
zero-net-liquid-flow holdup.6 Once the maximum liquid holdup
JULY 1998 •
 100
vLs = 0.05 ft/sec
80 vLs = 0.1 ft/sec

d100, µm
60 vLs = 0.5 ft/sec

40
20
0

vtis/vz

Fig. 5—Effect of tangential-/axial-velocity ratio on d100 for a 3-in.

GLCC operated with air and water at atmospheric conditions.10

decreases with increasing vtis /vz ratio up to about 100 and remains
approximately constant for larger values of this ratio.
Fig. 4—Bubble-trajectory comparison of mechanistic model and The region from the bottom of the vortex to the liquid exit is
CFX simulations with v Ls = 0.25 ft/sec, v gs = 10 ft/sec,
vtis/vz = 34, d= 3 in., and db = 20 µm.9 where small bubbles are separated and captured by the gas-core fil-
ament. Because vortex height is a strong function of tangential-inlet
velocity and bubble-trajectory length diminishes with vortex
allowed in the upper part of the GLCC is known for a given gas rate, height, an optimum tangential-inlet velocity must exist that mini-
the pressure-balance calculation is used to determine the liquid rate mizes gas carry-under. A tangential-inlet velocity that is too low
required to achieve this holdup and initiate liquid carry-over. produces insufficient centrifugal and buoyancy forces, whereas the
Fig. 3 compares the experimental and predicted operational available length for bubble trajectory is too short with a tangential-
envelopes for a 3-in. laboratory GLCC in a loop configuration, inlet velocity that is too high. As yet, a general scheme to determine
operated with air and water at low pressures.2 The operational optimum velocity has not been presented.
envelopes are presented in terms of superficial liquid velocity, vLs, Work is now in progress to develop the methodology to predict
vs. superficial gas velocity, vgs, in the GLCC. The agreement of overall separation efficiency in a GLCC. This requires two addition-
model predictions with the data is very good. Comparison with
data from Ref. 6 showed that the model seems to capture the phys-
ical phenomena and predict well the reduction of the operational
envelope with increasing liquid viscosity.
Future improvements to liquid-carry-over modeling will include
expansion to different operational conditions (e.g., high gas rates)
as well as prediction of the quantity of liquid carry-over and
dynamic responses to flow-rate surges.
Gas Carry-Under. Three mechanisms have been identified as possi-
ble contributors to gas carry-under in the liquid stream: (1) shallow
bubble trajectories prevent small bubbles from escaping to the gas-core
filament, (2) rotational-flow instability causes helical whipping and
breaking of the gas-core filament near the liquid exit, and (3) liquid-
rate surges can produce a concentrated cloud of bubbles that hinders
bubble migration to the gas core. Currently, attempts to predict gas
carry-under have focused only on the first mechanism, discussed next.
Bubble-Trajectory Analysis. This analysis is carried out by
assuming successive steady-state force-balance calculations on a
bubble. The forces acting on the bubbles are centrifugal, buoyancy,
and drag. Recent work compared bubble trajectories predicted by
the mechanistic model and CFD simulations for the same flow con-
ditions.9 Fig. 4, where x/d and r/R are the dimensionless axial and
radial coordinates below the GLCC inlet, respectively, provides an
example of such a comparison. The figure shows good agreement
with respect to the trend and absolute value.
Bubble-trajectory analysis10 was used to predict the onset of gas
carry-under and separation efficiency for different sized bubbles in
a manner similar to the liquid/liquid analysis carried out for hydro-
cyclones.11 The minimum diameter of the bubble that always
migrates from the GLCC wall to the gas core and thus is separated
(i.e., d100) was predicted. Fig. 5 shows the effect of the ratio of the
tangential velocity at the inlet slot to the axial velocity in the GLCC
(namely, vtis /vz) on d100. The continuous line represents the regres-
sion curve of the simulation results. For these conditions, d100

• JULY 1998 61
 Rcap/R
6 in.
Vt, ft/sec

12 in.

vtis/vz

Fig. 7—Variation of capture radius with tangential-/axial-veloci-

ty ratio.14

Fig. 6—Axisymmetric-tangential-velocity prediction vs. data for
a 7.5-in. GLCC operated with air and water at atmospheric con-
ditions.14
al pieces of information: the amount of gas entrained and the bub-
ble-size distribution. Coupling these to the bubble-capture efficien-
cy ultimately will enable prediction of overall separation efficiency.
CFD Simulation. Verifying mechanistic models with real data is
not always practical or possible. CFD simulations are used to
validate and improve the mechanistic models. CFD simulations
for the GLCC can be lumped into two broad categories: single-
phase flow with particle tracking and two-phase flow.
Single-Phase Flow and Particle Tracking. The simplest and
most widely used approximation for CFD simulation of two-phase
flow is to consider single-phase flow populated with particles (bub-
persed phase on the flow of the continuous phase and the interface
between the two phases. Recent two-phase-flow CFD simulation
work has proceeded on two fronts: with CFX14,17 and through
development of a dedicated internal code.17 The two-phase simula-
tions provided details of the velocity field and gas-void-fraction dis-
tribution. The simulations also provided the free interface between
the gas and liquid phases (vortex), which compared favorably with
experimental data. Fig. 8, which shows the gas-void-fraction distri-
bution in the GLCC, gives an example of the results obtained. The
figure reveals that the gas-void-fraction values at the top and bottom
of the GLCC are nearly unity and nearly zero, respectively, indicat-
ing efficient separation. For the first time, results have predicted the
gas-core-filament diameter accurately and provided insight into the
mechanism for its formation (continuous entrainment and radial
migration of small gas bubbles into the gas core).*
*Unpublished results, F.M. Erdal, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1998).

bles) that neither interact with each other nor influence the flow.
This, in effect, is simply solving for a single-phase-flow field and
superimposing particle-trajectory tracking. α=0.98
CFD and bubble-trajectory analysis were used to investigate the
sensitivity of gas separation to bubble-size distribution.12,13 Two-
and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) simulations14 were carried out
with CFX, a commercially available CFD code.15 The authors con-
cluded that the axisymmetric simulations (2D) gave good results
compared with the 3D simulations. Fig. 6 compares single-phase
CFD simulations with experimental data.16 Both the data and CFD
simulations demonstrated that the tangential-velocity distribution
is dominated by a forced vortex, confirming this assumption in the
mechanistic models. Furthermore, the CFD simulations also veri-
fied the mechanistic model with respect to axial decay of tangen-
tial-velocity distribution (5 to 7% L/d decay).
The simulations in Ref. 14 also predicted the existence of an
axial-flow-reversal region where the flow is downward near the wall
and upward in the center core. The bubble-capture radius, Rcap, is
defined as the radial location where the axial-velocity component is
zero as the flow reverses from downward to upward. Bubbles that
migrate into the capture-radius area are separated and pushed
upward into the upper part of the GLCC. Fig. 7 shows the capture
radius as a function of the tangential-/axial-velocity ratio, vtis /vz, and
axial location below the inlet. The results indicate a rapid decline of
the capture radius as the velocity ratio decreases below 10. The cap-
ture radius and the reversal in the axial-velocity profile recently have
α=0.00
been incorporated into the mechanistic model.9
Two-Phase Flow. Actual two-phase-flow CFD simulation is still in Fig. 8—Void-fraction distribution for a 7.5-in. GLCC operated with
air and water at atmospheric conditions.14
its infancy. Such simulations should predict the influence of the dis-

62 JULY 1998 •

Fig. 9—GLCC in a multiphase metering loop configuration.
APPLIC ATIONS
A variety of GLCC applications have requirements that may vary
from partial to complete gas/liquid separation. Recent technologi-
cal development has helped increase deployment of GLCC separa-
tor systems in the industry.
Successful Applications. The GLCC modeling effort to date has
resulted in successful deployment of the GLCC in a variety of
selected applications, as discussed next.
Multiphase Measurement Loop. Most of GLCC’s deployed to
date (approaching 100) have been configured in a multiphase
metering loop. Fig. 9 is a schematic of the GLCC in a multiphase
metering loop, first introduced by Liu and Kouba,18 and Fig. 10
shows a GLCC field prototype operated by Chevron in Oklahoma.
Fig. 10—Chevron-operated GLCC field prototype.
• JULY 1998
This type of measurement-loop configuration affords several
advantages over either conventional separation with single-phase
measurement or nonseparating multiphase meters. The loop con-
figuration is somewhat self-regulating, which can reduce or even
eliminate the need for active level control. The compactness of the
GLCC allows the measurement loop to weigh less, occupy less
space, and maintain less hydrocarbon inventory than a conven-
tional test separator. The advantages of a GLCC metering loop over
a nonseparating three-phase meter include much improved meter-
ing accuracy of individual phases over a wider range of flow rates
and significantly lower cost.
For flow conditions where gas carry-under cannot be prevented,
a three-phase metering system is required on the liquid leg. In gen-
eral, the accuracy of a multiphase meter on the liquid leg benefits
significantly from removal of some of the gas. Most multiphase
meters have an upper limit on the gas volume fraction allowed
through the meter to maintain their accuracy specifications. Apart
from improved accuracy, partial gas separation provides the addi-
tional benefit of a smaller, less expensive multiphase meter. For
multiphase meters (whose price scales directly with size), the cost
savings of using a smaller meter in conjunction with a GLCC can
be four times the cost of the GLCC.
Partial Processing (Separation). A compact GLCC is often very
appropriate for applications where only partial separation of gas
from liquid is required. One such application is the partial separa-
tion of raw gas from high-pressure wells to use for gas lift of low-
pressure wells. The GLCC was a central feature in an offshore raw-
gas-lift system designed by Chevron that allowed elimination of gas
compressor and lift-gas pipelines.19
Compact Separation Systems. Compact separation systems are a
key element in reducing cost of production operations through
reduction of size and weight. Furthermore, separating a significant
63

Fig. 11—Enhancement of existing conventional separator with a
GLCC.1
portion of the gas reduces fluctuations in the liquid flow and may
result in improved performance of other downstream separation
devices, such as a wellhead desanding hydrocyclone. Chevron is
investigating the series combination of a GLCC with a free-water-
knockout hydrocyclone and a deoiling hydrocyclone in an effort to
improve discharge-water quality.
The GLCC was used to control gas/liquid ratio of a two-phase-
flow mixture entering a multiphase pump to improve pumping effi-
ciency.20 Another study showed several combinations of GLCC and
jet pumps that could be used to extract energy from high-pressure
multiphase wells to enhance production from low-pressure wells.21
Enhancement of Existing Separators. Cyclone separation
already has proved useful in internal separation devices for large
horizontal separators. The GLCC may also function as a useful
external preseparation device to enhance performance of existing
horizontal separators (Fig. 11). By separating part of the gas, the
separator level might be raised to increase residence time without
encountering the mist-flow regime in the vessel. Petrobrás Brazil
has retrofitted an existing separator in one of its fields with a GLCC
preseparator.1 Another company is evaluating enhancement of
their existing test separators with GLCC preseparation.
Commercial GLCC Products. Most GLCC’s to date have been field
fabricated for relatively straightforward applications. Applications of
and demand for GLCC’s are growing rapidly. Several vendor compa-
nies are in the process of incorporating the GLCC into their com-
pact-separator product line. Also, as mentioned before, a commercial
multiphase metering system that uses a GLCC and a second-stage
horizontal separator is now available. Greater commercialization will
be needed to meet the growing industry demand.
Future Applications. Current successful GLCC applications lend
confidence to future potential GLCC configurations. This requires
enhancement of the existing models and is currently under way.
The following are two of the most compelling applications.
Subsea Production. The biggest impact to the petroleum industry
from GLCC technology may be in subsea separation applications.
Conclusions in Ref. 22 state that “wellhead separation and pumping is
the most thermodynamically efficient method for wellstream transfer
over long distances, particularly from deep water.” In a recent study,
Prado et al.23 argued that this is applicable to shallow and moderately
deep waters. Undoubtedly, development of marginal offshore fields will
depend on development of efficient and economical technologies.
Subsea applications require a high degree of confidence in separator
design and performance while demanding that the equipment be sim-
ple, compact, robust, and economical. Here again, the virtues of the
GLCC should place it in good standing among competing technologies.
Production Separation. Vertical separators with tangential inlets
are fairly common in the oil field. These predecessors of the GLCC
are often big and bulky, with perpendicular low-velocity tangential
pipe inlets. The tangential velocities are usually so low that gravi-
tational, centrifugal, and buoyancy forces contribute approximate-
64
ly equally to separation. Technological developments in both
GLCC hardware and software should reduce the size and improve
the performance of vertical separators. One challenge in optimizing
the size of a GLCC for production separation is designing a system
that can respond quickly to surges without serious upsets.
CONCLUSIONS
The GLCC is a compact, low-cost separator suitable for a wide range
of applications. The single biggest impediment to widespread imple-
mentation of the GLCC is the lack of proven performance-prediction
tools that are valid over a wide range of operating conditions. These
tools are essential to reliable deployment of GLCC technology.
Performance-prediction tools based on empirical formulations are
limited in their ability to interpolate or extrapolate to new conditions.
CFD simulations can capture much detail of local hydrodynamics but
are too computationally intensive, time-consuming, and complicated
to apply to large systems. While CFD modeling is essential to improv-
ing our understanding of the flow hydrodynamics in a GLCC, it is
impractical and therefore insufficient as a general design tool.
Mechanistic modeling is a reasonable compromise between the
simplicity of empirical formulations and the complexity of CFD.
Mechanistic modeling can be validated with CFD simulations to
capture the fundamental physics of the flow without excessive
detail. The combination of CFD and mechanistic modeling pro-
vides a realistic approach to obtaining useful tools for design of and
performance predictions for the GLCC.
New applications and improved designs are rapidly being
explored and developed. Several companies are already using the
GLCC for some applications (e.g., the multiphase metering loop)
and exploring new applications. The GLCC is now commercially
available through some vendors and is being evaluated by other
companies. Deployment of GLCC’s in new and existing applica-
tions will flourish as understanding of and confidence in predict-
ing flow behavior and performance of the GLCC matures.
NOMENCL ATURE
d= GLCC diameter, L, in.
db = bubble diameter, L, µm
d100= minimum bubble diameter that always migrates from
GLCC wall to gas core, L, µm
L= length, L, ft
p= pressure, m/Lt2, psig
r= radial coordinate, L, ft
R= GLCC radius, L, in.
Rcap = bubble-capture radius, L, in.
vgs = superficial gas velocity, L/t, ft/sec
vLs = superficial liquid velocity, L/t, ft/sec
vt = tangential velocity, L/t, ft/sec
vtis = tangential velocity at inlet slot, L/t, ft/sec
vz = axial velocity, L/t, ft/sec
yL0= zero-net-liquid-flow holdup, fraction
x= axial coordinate, L, ft
α= void fraction
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Chevron Petroleum Technology Co. and the other mem-
bers of the Tulsa U. Separation Technology Projects (TUSTP) for
supporting this work.
REFERENCES
1. Gomez, L.E.: “A state-of-the-art Simulator and Field Application
Design of Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators,” MS thesis, U.
of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1998).
2. Arpandi, I. et al.: “Hydrodynamics of Two-Phase Flow in Gas/Liquid
Cylindrical-Cyclone Separators,” SPE Journal (December 1996) 427.
JULY 1998 •
3. Kouba, G.E. and Shoham, O.: “A Review of Gas-Liquid Cylindrical SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
Cyclone (GLCC) Technology,” paper presented at the 1996 Intl. IBC cp ↔ 1.0* E−01 =Pa.s
Conference on Production Separation Systems, Aberdeen, 23–24 April. ft ↔ 3.048* E−01 =m
4. Kouba, G.E., Shoham, O., and Shirazi, S.: “Design and Performance of in. ↔ 2.54* E+00 =cm
Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators,” Proc., BHR Group psi ↔ 6.894 757 E+00 =kPa
Seventh Intl. Conference on Multiphase Flow, Cannes, France
(1995) 307. *Conversion factor is exact.

5. Wang S.: “Control Strategies for Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone

Separators,” MS thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1997). Ovadia Shoham is Professor of petroleum engineering and
6. Movafaghian, S.: “The Effects of Geometry Fluid Properties and Director of TUSTP at the U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma. He
Pressure on the Flow Hydrodynamics in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical teaches and conducts research in modeling two-phase flow
Cyclone Separators,” MS thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1997). and its application in oil and gas production, transportation,
7. Millington, B.C. and Thew, M.T.: “LDA Study of Component and separation. Shoham holds BS and MS degrees in chem-
Velocities in Air-Water Models of Steam-Water Cyclone Separators,” ical engineering from the Technion, Israel, and the U. of
Proc., Third BHRA Intl. Conference on Multiphase Flow, The Hague, Houston, respectively, and a PhD degree in mechanical
The Netherlands (1987) 115. engineering from Tel Aviv U., Israel. A current member of
8. Kolpak, M.: “GLCC Level-Pressure Sensitivity, Level Control and the Production Operations Technical Committee, he served
Turbulent Diffusion” internal report, Arco Oil and Gas Co., Plano, as a 1991–92 member of the Forum Series in North
Texas (1994). America Steering Committee and a 1989–92 member of the
9. Mantilla, I.: “Bubble Trajectory Analysis in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Production Operations Technical Committee. Gene E.
Cyclone Separator,” MS thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1998). Kouba is a senior research engineer at Chevron Petroleum
10. Marti, S.K. et al.: “Analysis of Gas Carry-Under in Gas-Liquid Technology Co. in La Habra, California. His research inter-
Cyclones,” Proc., Intl. Conference on Hydrocyclones, Cambridge, ests include compact separation, multiphase metering, and
U.K. (1996) 399. multiphase-flow simulation. Kouba holds BS and MS
11. Wolbert, D. et al.: “Efficiency Estimation of Liquid-Liquid
degrees in mechanical engineering from Oklahoma State
Hydrocyclones Using Trajectory Analysis,” AIChE J. (June 1995) 41,
U., Stillwater, Oklahoma, and a PhD degree in petroleum
No. 6, 1395.
engineering from the U. of Tulsa. He was a 1991–92 mem-
ber of the Forum Series in North America Steering
12. Bandopadhyay, P.R., Pacifico, G.C., and Gad-el-Hak, M., “Sensitivity of
Committee and a 1989–92 member of the Production
a Gas-Core Vortex in a Cyclone-Type Gas-Liquid Separator,” Proc. ,
Operations Technical Committee.
ASME Meeting, Fluid Eng. Div. (1994) 192, 37.
13. Bandopadhyay, P.R., Pacifico, G.C., and Gad-el-Hak, M.: “Gas Core
Configurations in a Cyclone-Type Gas-Liquid Separator,” NUWC-
NPT Technical Report 10,308, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Div.,
Newport, Rhode Island (January 1994).
14. Erdal, F. et al.: “CFD Simulation of Single-Phase and Two-Phase in
Gas/Liquid Cylindrical-Cyclone Separators,” SPE Journal (December
1997) 436.
15. “CFX 4.1 Flow Solver User Guide,” AEA Technology, Oxfordshire,
U.K. (1995).
16. Farchi, D.: “A Study of Mixers and Separators for Two-Phase Flow in
M.H.D. Energy Conversion Systems,” MS thesis (in Hebrew), Ben-
Gurion U., Beer-Sheva, Israel (1990).
17. Motta, B.R.F. et al.: “Simulation of Single-Phase and Two-Phase Flow
in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators,” Proc., ASME Summer
Meeting, Fluid Eng. Div., Vancouver, Canada (1997).
18. Liu, K.T. and Kouba, G.E.: “Coriolis-Based Net Oil Computers Gain
Acceptance at the Wellhead,” Oil & Gas J. (27 June 1994) 42.
19. Bodunrin, A. et al.: “The Application of the GLCC in Gas Lifting,”
paper presented at the 1997 Nigerian Assn. of Petroleum
Explorationists (NAPE) Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, November.
20. Arato, E.G. and Barnes, N.D.: “In-line Free Vortex Separator Used for
Gas/Liquid Separation within a Novel Two-Phase Pumping System,”
Hydrocyclones—Analysis and Application, L. Svarovsky and M.T. Thew
(eds.), Kluwer-Academic, Brookfield, Vermont (1992) 377–96.
21. Sarshar, M.M. and Loh, W.L.: “Applications of Wellcom Systems to
Enhance Production,” Proc., BHR Group Seventh Intl. Conference on
Multiphase Flow, Cannes, France (1995) 147.
22. Baker, A.C. and Entress, J.H.: “The VASPS Subsea Separation and
Pumping System,” Trans., Inst. of Chemical Engineers (January 1992)
70, Part A, 9.
23. Prado, M.G., Alves, I.N., and Camargo, R.M.T.: “Advances on
Artificial-Lift and Boosting Systems for Subsea Completions,” paper
SPE 39417 presented at the 1997 Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, 5–8 May.

• JULY 1998 65