SPE 56645
Optimal Design of Two- and Three-Phase Separators: A Mathematical Programming
Formulation
Evert O. Grødal, SPE, Kværner ASA Technology Development, Georgia Institute of Technology, and
Matthew J. Realff, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3–6 October 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Oilfield primary separator units are subject to nonlinear fluid
dynamic and mechanical constraints. Their design represents a
challenging and important problem. In this paper we present
separator design problems for which the lowest cost, optimal,
solution is found using sequential quadratic programming
techniques. The optimization models utilize existing separator
design theories and relationships. They consist of a declarative
set of equations and inequalities that is independent of the
solution method and hence it is easy to make modifications
and the assumptions are clear. The models are outlined and
discussed in the context of horizontal separators. The
efficiency and effectiveness of the suggested systematic
design method are exemplified by two illustrative design
cases.
Introduction
The basics of horizontal separator design methods have been
described elsewhere1-4. Typically, these methods assume half-
filled liquid vessels without level control issues and appear to
be somewhat simplified versions of industrial design
procedures. Two articles by Monnery and Svrcek5,6 outline
design procedures in a more comprehensive manner and are
claimed to be close to what is practiced. However, their
procedures are manual trial and error with extensive table
look-ups and require the application of many rules of thumb.
The procedures are not impossible to computerize, but to
establish a feasible and acceptable design still requires
significant manual iteration on the design variables values.
Such programs provide limited tools for the designer because
of the nature of multi-variable manual trial and error
procedures. The embedded nature of the solution procedure
within the model makes modification of either model or
procedure difficult. Moreover, such a program does not
represent an efficient analyzing interface for the assessment of
the optimality and flexibility of its design, as many operational
different cases must normally be analyzed to establish a single
separator design.
The separator models proposed in this paper, and their
solution algorithms, determine the optimal horizontal
separator design for a nominal set of design parameters. The
optimal solution is found using the objective of minimizing
the separator vessel manufacturing cost. The design is
constrained by a set of fluid dynamic and mechanical
relationships formulated from gravity settling theory, re-
entrainment models, controllability issues and includes a
simple model for separators mounted on moving vessels. We
believe, for several reasons, that the efficiency and
effectiveness of the separator design procedure are improved
significantly if formulated and solved as a mathematical
program. First, using mathematical programming techniques,
the optimum design is obtained through a simultaneous search
over all design variables. Second, the solution provides the
designer with insight into what constrains the design. Third,
the solution is obtained in mere seconds in an automated
procedure, which reduces the risk of human error. Finally, the
model is declarative and thus its components can be modified
with little effort. For example, the objective could be to
minimize operational weight, length or footprint area and this
would require minimal change to the model.
In this paper we focus on the design of single separator
units with a given operating point (i.e., fixed physical
properties). However, the presented formulation forms a basis
for several more advanced design problems. Some of these
studies are design for reuse, flexibility and of product lines7
(standardization issues), and the design for lifetime application
of more complete primary production separation systems8.
Process Unit Design and Mathematical Programming
Algorithmic mathematical optimization techniques have been
used extensively in systematic methods for chemical process
design. Mathematical programming formulations are used for
2 E.O. GRØDAL AND M.J. REALFF
the design of units, systems, and are even used at the
conceptual design level9. The power of a mathematical
program, if properly formulated, is that it can integrate and
simultaneously solve the traditional chemical process design
activities such as synthesis, analysis, evaluation and
optimization.
To cast the separator design problem into a mathematical
program it must be formulated in the following general form,
max (or min) z = f (x1 , x 2 ,.....x n ) , ………………….(1)
subject to g1 ( x1 , x 2 ,.....x n ) (≤, =, or ≥ ) b1
g 2 ( x1 , x 2 ,.....x n )(≤, =, or ≥ ) b2
M • The plug flow assumption.
g m ( x1 , x 2 ,.....x n ) (≤, =, or ≥ ) bm
The objective function (z), which is a function of the design
variables (xi ), is to be minimized or maximized subject to a set
of constraints (gi). The constraints are functions of the design
variables and describe physical design relationships expressed
as inequalities or equalities. A feasible solution of a
mathematical program satisfies all the constraints. A subset of
the inequality constraints will be active, that is satisfied at
equality. The active constraints will inform the designer which
physical relationships are constraining the design. The status
of the inactive constraints can be used to quantify the
flexibility of the design. This analysis is illustrated in the case
studies.
Many algorithms exist to solve mathematical programs10.
Because of nonlinearity in the separator design problem (both
in objective function and in constraints) we have chosen to use
sequential quadratic programming9,11,12 (SQP) to find the
optimal separator design. A globally optimal design is one for
which no other design have a higher (lower) objective function
value. A locally optimal design is one where within a certain
neighborhood no better solution exists. Although an explicit
proof of mathematical optimality is omitted here, we address
the optimality of the solutions in the case studies.
Foundations in Horizontal Separator Design Theory
Many geometrically different units for the separation of fluids
produced from hydrocarbon reservoirs have appeared in
industry throughout its history. There are several designs of
two- and three-phase horizontal separators. The major designs
include5,6; interface control, interface control with weir,
interface control with bucket, and bucket and weir.
The function of a separator is to separate the input,
containing water, oil, and gas, into phases that are relatively
free from each other at given operating points. Separator
sizing techniques are based upon both theoretical and
empirical formulas, which have worked quite well in practice.
Separators are designed to yield certain simultaneous gas, oil
and water capacities. These capacities are commonly
determined based on settling theory or on retention time
theory. Both theories have weaknesses and different literature
concludes in favor of either theory. In both theories it is
SPE 56645
perceived that the phase change is nearly complete as the fluid
enters the separators13. The two theories are often used in a
coupled fashion where settling theory applies to the separation
in the gas phase and retention time theory applies to the
separation in the liquid phases. Arnold and Koszela14 present a
comparison of the two methods.
In the following sections the settling theory and the
retention time theory are presented along with their following
three major underlying assumptions related to the design of
horizontal separators:
• The assumption that potential problems due to waxing,
foaming and emulsions are solved successfully through
chemical injections.
• The assumption of linear movements of droplets and
bubbles in the settling theory.
Settling Theory. Settling theory is an abstraction of the real
process that considers the velocities of the phases through the
separator and the settling velocity of the various bubbles and
droplets. Settling theory has been successfully applied to the
design of many other units, e.g., settling tanks for the
separation of formation particles from the drilling mud or the
many applications of skimmers15. To apply settling theory in
separator design, it is assumed that the droplets and bubbles
acts as spherical particles, and that they will settle in a
stagnant continuous phase because of gravity forces. For a
three-phase separator, the free settling velocity for 6 different
cases must be considered. These are:
• Water droplet settling in continuous gas phase
• Oil droplet settling in continuous gas phase
• Gas bubble settling in continuous oil phase
• Water droplet settling in continuous oil phase
• Oil droplet settling in continuous water phase
• Gas bubble settling in continuous water phase
In general, the net vertical force acting on a perfect
spherical bubble/droplet immersed in a stagnant phase is the
force resulting from the gravity force downwards and the
buoyancy force upwards. For oil droplets in continuous gas
phase, the following expression for free settling velocity is
obtained by equating the two forces3,
0.5
 4 d og ρo − ρ g 
u og = g  . …………………….....(2)
 3 C D,og ρ g 
The spherical drag coefficient for both laminar and turbulent
flow is given by
24 3
C D ,og = + + 0.34 , ……………….…...(3)
N Re,og N Re,og
where the droplet Reynold’s number is given by
ρ g uog d og
N Re,og = . ………………………………..…(4)
µg
SPE 56645 OPTIMAL DESIGN OF TWO- AND THREE-PHASE SEPARATORS: A MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING FORMULATION
To solve for the free settling velocity, Eqs. 2 to 4 must be used
in an iterative manner. We have found that a Newton-Raphson
iterative search10 is fast and works well on this problem. In
case of a laminar flow a simpler expression exists for the drag
coefficient, which neglects the two last terms in Eq. 3. This
allows an explicit solution for the settling velocity.
The challenge in the application of settling theory is to
determine which minimum droplet/bubble diameter will yield
the desired separation efficiency. Arnold and Stewart3 reports
that from field experience it appears that if 100-micron
droplets are removed by settling in the gas continuous phase,
then the mist extractors will not become flooded and will be
able to remove those drops between 10- and 100-micron in
diameter. They also report that a removal criterion of 500-
micron for both water droplets in oil and oil droplets in water
provides good overall separation. The separator design is
fairly sensitive to the selected diameters of the settled droplets
and bubbles, and thus some sort of experimental knowledge is
preferable, either on the actual oil or from experience about
similar oils from neighboring reservoirs.
Retention Time Theory. Retention time theory uses
experimental settling and coalescence data to approximate the
time that the various phases must spend in the vessel to enable
separation to occur. A weakness in the retention time theory is
that the retention time tests will limit the freedom of the
separator design, unless a quite extensive number of tests are
performed. First, the tests must be performed on the actual
fluids at the separator operating pressure and temperature.
Second, since the retention time tests are performed in a tank
with certain oil and water pad thickness, the actual oil and
water pad thickness in the separator design needs to be similar.
Typical retention times range in the area 30 sec to 3 min3.
In case of foaming crudes and severe emulsions the retention
time might be many times higher. However, these situations
call for the use of chemicals. Hafskjold et al.16 is a reference
clearly in favor of the retention time theory.
Chemical Injections. All natural occurring hydrocarbon
mixtures exhibit various degrees of waxing, foaming and are
subject to the creation of both oil-in-water and water-in-oil
emulsions. These problems are normally solved through the
injection of chemicals. However, providing higher retention
times of the oil phase or the water phase can solve small
emulsion and foaming problems. In the settling theory, this
could be achieved by simply reducing the minimum diameter
of the various settled bubbles or droplets to allow higher
residence times.
Even though research is underway to better understand the
mechanisms behind the above problems17, little is found in
open literature that easily converts into mathematical design
relationships. In this paper it is assumed that the above
problems are successfully solved through the use of chemicals.
Kaasa17 is a good reference for insight into the problem. He
discusses the synergistic effects that can be achieved if a better
understanding is reached. An interesting note Kassa makes is
3
that injection systems for production chemicals often are
added to the process system on a “just in case” basis.
Plug Flow Assumption. As depicted in Fig. 1, the plug flow
assumption is clearly an idealized picture of the complex flow
pattern in large diameter separators, especially since it violates
the no-slip flow condition at the wall and interfaces. Internals,
like baffle plates, are normally installed to improve this
assumption. As discussed by Asheim18 a more realistic
velocity profile in horizontal separators are as depicted in Fig.
1.
Realistic velocity pattern Assumed velocity pattern
Gas outlet
Gas
phase
ug ug
Inlet
Oil uo uo
phase
Water
phase
uw uw
Water outlet Oil outlet
Fig. 1 – Plug flow assumption visualized in three-phase separator.
Linear Movement Assumption. As a consequence of the
plug flow assumption and settling theory the bubbles and
droplets have linear settling paths. However, as illustrated by
numerical simulations of the flow in separators19, the linear
motion assumption is far from true. Because of the “random”
motion of droplets/bubbles in a turbulent flow, there is no
assurance that a larger droplet will settle before a smaller one,
even though this case is more likely. The real picture can
be explained by considering droplet/bubble diameter
distributions. The number of droplets/bubbles and their
diameter distributions that enters the separators are complex
functions of the fluids upstream path through chokes, valves
and bends that creates chaotic flow. The numerical studies by
Grødal19 demonstrated that for a certain entering size
distribution of particles, the shape of the distribution at the
outlet would be skewed towards smaller diameter droplets.
Thus, reducing the mean of all diameters, but not creating a
sharp cut at a certain diameter size. This observation has also
been found experimentally20.
Attempts to include information about the droplet
distributions in the separator design procedures have been
made16. However, in practice the minimum diameter size
parameter (settling theory) is viewed as an adjustable
parameter dependent on the droplet and bubble distributions at
the inlet of the separator and is determined based on
experience. Thus, settling theory is used to capture the
mathematical trend (i.e., a design with use of smaller
droplet/bubble diameter gives better separation), rather than
believing that all droplets or bubbles down to a certain
diameter are separated.
4 E.O. GRØDAL AND M.J. REALFF
Physical Separator Design Model
In this work settling theory is applied for separation in all
phases for two reasons. First, we believe that a general
optimization model should be based on first principles as
much as possible and that field specific experimental data
should be used within this framework rather than to usurp it.
Second, cyclones have been applied as inlet internals in
separators and have replaced the many designs of momentum
breakers or deviators21. It has been found that the cyclones
perform a better coarse separation by reducing both the
number of droplets and their size. The creation of foam and
emulsions is also reduced by cyclones. The experimental
coalescence tests, performed for the retention time theory,
might not simulate the actual separation mechanism for the
flow of small and scattered droplets coming out of cyclones.
The retention time theory can be applied by applying the
simple modifications presented in Appendix A. The detailed
horizontal separator configuration and an argument for a
simplified application of the settling theory are presented in
the following sections.
Specific Design, Internals and Controls. A horizontal
separator with interface control and weir, which is widely used
for offshore applications, has been chosen as the basis for the
models. A three-phase separator of this kind is depicted in Fig.
2. A two-phase separator of this design will be similarly
configured without the normal interface level. The water outlet
in the two-phase separator is a water vent for occasional
flushing of the separator to remove basic sediment and water
(BS&W). The weir in a two-phase separator avoids BS&W
reaching the oil outlet during flushing operations. Thus
converting the two-phase separator into a three-phase
separator, or vice versa, requires only simple modifications.
Lc Le Gas outlet
Vane
Cyclone Baffle
demister
plates
Inlet
Normal Liquid Level Lb
Weir
Normal Interface Level
Lh
Water jetting system Water outlet
Fig. 2 – Three-phase separator with interface control and weir.
The separators consist of three sections; initial separation
section, gravity settling section and the end section. The fluids
enter the separator in the initial separation section. This
section contains a cyclone that absorbs the fluid momentum
and directs the gas to the top and the liquid to the bottom of
the vessel. The fluids are directed into the gravity settling
section through a perforated baffle plate. The baffle plate
covers the whole cross-section of the cylindrical shell and
SPE 56645
enhances the linear momentum of the fluid along the
longitudinal axis of the separator. At the entrance to the
settling section the various phases will contain oil droplet,
water droplet and gas bubble distributions. In order for these
bubbles and droplets to be separated they must travel to their
respective continuous phases. This situation is analyzed by
using critical settling paths as will be introduced in next
section. The separator will be designed with perforated baffle
plates transversely mounted along the separator for moving
offshore vessel applications. The settling section contains a
water jetting system so that BS&W can be flushed out of the
bottom of the separator. The end section includes the outlet
nozzles, weir and a vane demister. The water and oil outlet
nozzles are equipped with vortex breakers. A weir separates
the water outlet/vent and the oil outlet to prevent water
escaping out of the oil outlet. A vane demister that removes
the very small droplets of liquid in one final separation
process is mounted ahead of the gas outlet nozzle. The level
controllers operate in conjunction with liquid discharge valves
to maintain the appropriate levels in the vessel. A pressure
controller, whose output is fed back to a gas outlet valve,
maintains the appropriate separator operating pressure.
Critical Settling Paths and Phase Levels. The critical
settling paths in a three-phase separator are illustrated in Fig.
3. The thinking behind these critical paths is that if the droplet
furthest away from its destination level is settled, all equal or
larger sized particles, having initially equal or shorter paths to
travel, will also reach their destination level. Thus, in order to
settle all 100-micron and larger water droplets, one 100-
micron water droplet must travel from the top of the separator
through the gas phase, cross the gas-oil interface, travel trough
the oil phase before it dissolves into the oil-water interface
(path 2 in Fig. 3). Similarly, to settle all 100-micron and larger
gas bubbles, one 100-micron gas bubble must travel from the
bottom of the separator through the water phase, cross the
water-oil interface, travel through the oil phase before it
L vx escapes into the gas phase (path 3 in Fig. 3).
Ln
1 Settling oil droplets 3 Rising gas bubbles. Gas outlet
2 Settling water droplets 4 Rising oil droplets.
Vortex D
breaker 1
Inlet
NLL
Oil outlet
2
3
NIL
4
Water outlet Oil outlet
Fig. 3 – Critical settling paths in three-phase horizontal separator.
As visualized in Fig. 3, the critical paths are related to the
normal liquid levels. However, two- and three-phase flows
through pipes and risers will often exhibit slugging and
SPE 56645 OPTIMAL DESIGN OF TWO- AND THREE-PHASE SEPARATORS: A MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING FORMULATION 5

surging. Thus, first stage (i.e., three-phase) separators should
be designed to handle these transient flow rates and yield the
specified separation efficiency. There are two approaches to
handle unsteady flows that do not include a sophisticated
transient model for the control and discharge valve systems.
Either the separator can be designed for highest instantaneous
rates4,13 or the separator can be designed with slug and surge
volumes5,6. From an operational and economic perspective we
believe that the latter approach is most appropriate. First,
situation in the two-phase separator is mathematically simple,
the changing angle of the critical paths in the three-phase
separator (paths 2 and 3 in Fig. 3) requires simplification. This
simplification is achieved, with minor errors, by considering
the relative magnitudes of the settling velocities. The
simplified critical paths are illustrated in Fig. 6 and explained
below.
Gas outlet

when a slug enters the separator the liquid level will rise
because of the time constant of the control and discharge valve TV
systems. Thus, by including multiple levels the true critical
Inlet HHLL
paths can be defined. Since the slug can be bled off over a HLL
NLL
higher flow area, the horizontal flow velocity is marginally LLL
LLLL
altered from its value at the average rate. Second, the
instantaneous flow rate during slugging can be in excess of the HHIL WH
average flow rate, but not necessarily large in volume. For NIL
HIL
example, if the average rate consists of equal volumes of gas BV
LIL
LLIL
and liquids, the liquid instantaneous rate might be twice as
high when the slug enters the separator. Thus, potentially Water outlet Oil outlet
creating a quite expensive overdesign. This argument also
applies to surges when the gas rate is higher than the average Fig. 4 – Control levels in a three-phase separator with weir.
rate. In general, horizontal separators are not desired in cases
Gas outlet
of severe slugging and surging. In these cases it will be more 1 Settling oil droplets 3 Rising gas bubbles.
economical to install a slug catcher upstream of the inlet
separator.
In the case of two-phase separators, which receive a stable Inlet 1
oil from the upstream separator, we do not expect slugs and NLL
HLL

surges where the ratio of gas and liquid rates are altered from LLL

the ratio at the average rates. However, a two-phase separator 3

must be designed to separate the higher rates that the upstream
separator bleeds off while recovering from a slug.
Alternatively, one can let the first stage separator choke the
flow so that the outlet flow of the separator always has a
constant outlet rate, i.e., having the option to design the Water vent Oil outlet
succeeding separators in the train based on average rates. Fig. 5 – Critical settling paths in two-phase horizontal separator.
The models in this work are designed for average rates and
include slug and surge capacities for the three-phase separator 1 Settling oil droplets Gas outlet
model, and a set of level constraints based on operational 2 Settling water droplets 4 Rising oil droplets.
considerations from the NORSOK standards22. As depicted in
Fig. 4, 10 levels and the weir height have to be determined for 1
successful operation of a three-phase separator. The Inlet
abbreviations used are explained in the list of subscripts. In a HLL
NLL
two-phase separator the 5 levels related to the liquid level LLL
2
have to be determined.
The low and high levels are alarm levels that, if reached,
HIL
will notify the operator of some possible malfunction. The NIL
LIL
low-low and high-high levels are trip levels that, if reached, 4

will automatically shut down the separation system. Thus,

specified separation should take place at any time when the Water outlet Oil outlet

levels are between their low and high levels. The critical
settling paths are therefore related to the maximum travel
distance in the gravity settling section during normal transient
flow operations. The continuous phases will change their flow
directions in the end section and no effective gravity settling
can be expected. The critical settling paths used in the two-
phase separator model are depicted in Fig. 5. While the
Fig. 6 – Selected critical settling paths in three-phase separator.
The gas compartments must be designed so that most of
the oil and water droplets will settle and a relatively liquid free
gas will flow out of the separator to be further processed in the
compressors and scrubbers. However, since water is heavier
6 E.O. GRØDAL AND M.J. REALFF
than oil and if we expect their same particle size to be
separated from the gas phase, only the settling of oil droplets
will be critical. Thus, the procedure for designing the gas
capacity will be identical for the two-phase separator and the
three-phase separator.
The oil compartment must be designed so that most gas
and water will leave the phase and the phase can continue to
flash in a potential downstream separator. As the settling
velocity of water droplets in a continuous oil phase is slow, we
do not expect gravity settling of same particle size as in the
gas compartment. Since these water droplets have a much
higher settling velocity in the gas phase than in the oil phase,
the time it takes for these to fall through the gas phase is
comparably negligible. Thus, the critical path 2 in Fig. 3 is
simplified to path 2 in Fig. 6.
The water compartment must be designed so that most gas
and oil will leave the phase and the phase can continue to the
water cleaning system. Since the gas bubbles has much higher
settling velocity than oil droplets in the continuous water
phase, and than the water droplets in the continuous oil phase,
the settling of gas bubbles in the three-phase separator is never
considered critical. Thus, path 3 in Fig. 3 can be omitted as a
critical design path. However, in the two-phase separator
(where the water phase is not present) the oil compartment is
designed based on the critical settling velocity of a certain size
gas bubble (normally in the range 100 to 500 microns4).
Mathematical Formulation of Separator Models
In a mathematical program, the physical design relationships
must be expressed as inequalities or equalities. The industry
practice of using rules of thumb, individual experience and
table look-ups fit poorly in a mathematical program. In the
following sections, mathematical formulations of physical
separator design relationships are presented. Opposed to the
traditional unit system of the oil industry, the variables in all
equations have a self-consistent set of units, unless otherwise
noted. Many of the equations presented contain the variable A
with a subscript that express a part of a separators cross-
sectional area. This relationship is often given as graphical
correlations3,4 or as a ratio of two fitted polynomials5,6.
However, an exact equation for this area and its use is
presented in Appendix B. The volume in the separator heads
are conservatively neglected for the many volume expressions
presented below.
Gas Capacity Constraint. The design of gas capacity in both
three-phase and two-phase separators is based on oil droplet
gravity settling. The settling direction for the oil droplets will
be perpendicular to the gas velocity direction, thus, creating
settling paths 1 in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. The travel time for the gas
through the settling section and the settling time for an oil
droplet may respectively be stated as:
t g = Le u g ….….…………...………….………….…(5)
and t og = (Di − h LLL ) u og . ……...…..…..….……………..(6)
SPE 56645
The condition required to complete the settling of an oil
droplet of a certain size, is given by
t g ≥ t og . ……………………………………………….(7)
Substituting Eqs. 5 and 6 into Eq. 7 and rearranging yields
u g (Di − h LLL )
Le ≥ . ………………………………….(8)
u og
Expressing the gas velocity in terms of average volumetric
flow rate and the cross-sectional area for gas flow we obtain
q g (Di − hLLL )
Le ≥ . ….……………..……...……...(9)
u og ( ATV − ANLL )
Inequality 9 is the gas capacity constraint and applies to both
two- and three-phase separators.
Oil Capacity Constraint. The design of oil capacity in the
three-phase separator is based on the gravity settling of water
droplets according to path 2 in Fig. 6. The same derivation as
the gas capacity case results in
q o (hHLL − hLIL )
Le ≥ , ….…………………...……..(10)
u wo ( ANLL − ANIL )
as the oil capacity constraint for the three-phase separator.
The design of oil capacity for a two-phase separator is
based on the gravity settling of gas bubbles according to path
3 in Fig. 5. Following the same derivation as for Eq. 9, yields
qo hHLL
Le ≥ , ….…………………………...………(11)
u go ANLL
as the oil capacity constraint for the two-phase separator.
Water Capacity Constraint. The design of water capacity in
the three-phase separator is based on oil droplet gravity
settling according to path 4 in Fig. 6. This yields
q w hHIL
Le ≥ , ...……………………………………..(12)
u ow ANIL
as the water capacity constraint for the three-phase separator,
using the same arguments presented for Eqs. 9-11.
Slug and Surge Capacity Constraints. As discussed, the
separator should be designed to handle a certain slug and
surge flow without having the alarm to go off. The desired
slug and surge capacity can be determined based on
simulations of the flow in the risers and flowlines. The slug
and surge capacity constraints related to the normal liquid
level for both two- and three-phase separators are formulated
as:
Vslug ≤ (Lc + Le + Ln )( AHLL − ANLL ) .………………....(13)
and Vsurge ≤ (Lc + Le + Ln )( ANLL − ALLL ) . ……………….(14)
SPE 56645 OPTIMAL DESIGN OF TWO- AND THREE-PHASE SEPARATORS: A MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING FORMULATION
Slug and surge capacity constraints are also appropriate for
the liquid interface level in the three-phase separator to avoid
water from flowing over the weir and avoiding oil escaping
out the water outlet nozzle. Assuming that the liquid flow
contains a constant ratio of water and oil during slugging and
surging, the slug/surge capacity constraints can be formulated
as:
Vslug (q w qo ) ≤ (Lc + Le + 2d n ,w )( AHIL − ANIL ) ….…...(15)
and Vsurge (q w qo ) ≤ (Lc + Le + 2d n , w )( ANIL − ALIL ) , ….….(16)
where dn,w is defined in Fig. 8.
Slenderness and Liquid Re-Entrainment Constraint.
Slenderness is a structural relationship defined as the ratio
between the internal length and the internal diameter of the
separator. Since an infinite set of separator length and
diameters yields feasible designs3,4, it is common to determine
the slenderness ratio based on experience and economic
considerations. The slenderness ratio is upper bounded by high
gas velocities that may induce liquid re-entrainment, i.e.,
droplets breaking away from an unstable gas-oil interface. The
slenderness ratio is lower bounded by the geometry that
promotes plug flow. Arnold and Steward3 reports that
slenderness ratios on the order of 3 to 5 are common, while
Svrcek and Monnery5,6 constrain their design to slenderness
ratios between 1.5 and 6. In their design procedures the
slenderness criteria is checked in the final step. If the
slenderness criteria are violated the diameter is
increased/decreased and the design is recalculated until the
ratio is within the bounds.
Ideally, the upper slenderness ratio should be a function of
the separator operating point since re-entrainment forces vary
greatly with the physical properties of the fluids. Viles23
presents a procedure for predicting when re-entrainment is
possible in horizontal separators. His procedure is established
based on analysis of experimental data24 and is translated into
a relationship that constrains the maximum horizontal velocity
difference between the gas and the oil phases in the gravity
settling section according to
qg qo
u r max ≥ u g − u o = − . ……...(17)
ATV − ANLL ANLL − ANIL
The urmax is defined through the Reynolds film number and an
interfacial viscosity number that characterize the two-phase
flow. These are respectively defined as:
N Re f = ρ o u o D H µ o .…………………………….…(18)
[
and N µ = µ o ρ oσ og (σ og (g (ρ o − ρ g ))) 0.5 ] 0.5
. ………...(19)
The general hydraulic diameter is most critical (gives lowest
urmax) if related to the high liquid interface and is defined as
DH = 4 AHLL PHLL , ……………………...…………..(20)
7
where the wetted perimeter is given by
PHLL = Di cos −1 (1 − 2hHLL Di ) . ……………………..(21)
Viles23 suggest using the same formulation for both two- and
three-phase separators. The expression for urmax is different for
the various flow regimes and is for completeness presented
below (here presented in the units of m/s opposed to the
original units of ft/s).
For the low Reynolds number regime (NRef <160),
(
u r max = 0.4572 σ og µ o ) (ρ o ρ g ) 0.5 N Re f
−0. 5
. ……...(22a)
For the transition regime (160 ≤ NRef ≤ 1635),
u r max = 3.5905(σ og µ o ) (ρ o ρ g ) N µ N Re f −
0.5 0.8 1/ 3
,
if N µ ≤ 1 15 , ……………………………………..(22b)
and u r max = 0.4115(σ og µ o ) (ρ o ρ g ) N Re f
0. 5 −1 / 3
,
if N µ > 1 15 . ……………………………………..(22c)
For the rough turbulent regime (NRef >1635),
u r max = 0.3048(σ og µ o ) (ρ o ρ g )
0.5 0.8
Nµ ,
if N µ ≤ 1 15 , ……………………………………..(22d)
and u r max = 0.03493(σ og µ o ) (ρ o ρ g )
0.5
,
if N µ > 1 15 . ……………………………………..(22e)
The expressions for urmax will impose a set of 5 non-linear
disjunctive constraints on the overall separator mathematical
program.
The need for a lower bound on the slenderness is
inherently rare. This is because the economic factors that drive
the design will select the design with the smallest diameter
that will not support re-entrainment.
Oil-Water Interface Control Constraint. The oil and water
phases will normally flow with different velocities. This
imposes a drag force on their interface. If this drag force is
large the interface will be unstable and re-entrainment might
occur. Circulation in either phase might also appear in case of
very large difference in velocity. However, in general their
effects are not considered in the three-phase separator design.
Instead, the downstream oil and water cleaning systems are
relied upon to perform the finer separation. Ideally this
situation should be investigated and controlled as it might
reduce the sizes of the downstream units.
Alarm and Trip Level Constraints. As mentioned earlier the
model will use the operational constraints from the
NORSOK22 standards. There are two constraints that must be
simultaneously satisfied. The first constraint states that the
equivalent residence time between normal level and alarm
level and between alarm level and trip level should not be less
than 30 seconds (∆tNOR). Thus, requiring the following 4
constraints related to the liquid level:
8 E.O. GRØDAL AND M.J. REALFF
(qo + q w )∆t NOR ≤ (Lc + Le + Ln ) (Ai − A j ) , ………(23a-d)
where i and j are the sets {HHLL, HLL, NLL, LLL} and {HLL,
NLL, LLL, LLLL}, respectively. The following 4 constraints
related to the normal interface level in the three-phase
separator model are required:
( )
qw ∆t NOR ≤ (Lc + Le + 2d n ,w ) A p − Aq , …….…....(24a-d)
where p and q are the sets {HHIL, HIL, NIL, LIL} and {HIL,
NIL, LIL, LLIL}, respectively.
The second constraint states that the height between
normal level and alarm level and between alarm level and trip
level should not be less than 0.08 m (∆hNOR). This can be
formulated as 4 constraints as follows
( )
∆hNOR ≤ hi − h j , …………………….…..……...(25a-d)
and for the normal interface level in the three-phase model:
( )
∆hNOR ≤ h p − hq . …….…………………..…….(26a-d)
where i ,j, p and q are as defined in Eq. 23 and 24.
Moving Process Plant Constraint. When separators are to be
placed on floating vessels, a major concern is the effect of
motions on the separation performance. Rice25 discusses the
effects of the various degrees of movements. He states that the
most critical movement is the separator pitch. Piching causes
the spirit level effect by which interfaces move to be
perpendicular to the gravitational force. This may greatly alter
the cross-sectional area for flow of the various phases.
Installing perforated baffle plates may successfully control this
effect and others described by Rice.
In our model the inter-baffle baffle distance will be
constrained according to the geometry in Fig. 7 for the normal
liquid level and a similar geometry for the normal interface
level. The simplified design criterion is that no part of the
interfaces shall reach their high or low levels during maximum
pitch angle from initial normal level setting. We assume that
the pitching does not disturb the instantaneous rates through
the baffle plates. Conservatively, the maximum tilted NLL is
simplified to be linear from its low level to its high level.
HLL Lb
NLL
LLL Lb
α outlet. They also acknowledge that the superficial gas
α low gas velocities the impingement might be too low and at
g
g looked at the effectiveness of vane demisters. We have chosen
Fig. 7 – Model of interbaffle spaces at maximum pitch angle.
Thus, the effect of a pitching vessel is described by the
following 4 constraints:
SPE 56645
hu − hv ≥ tan(α ) Lb 2 , …………………………...(27a-d)
where u and v are the sets {HLL, NLL, HIL, NIL} and {NLL,
LLL, NIL, LIL}, respectively.
Inlet and End Section Design. We have chosen a cyclone as
the momentum breaker and for coarse separation in the inlet
section. Many cyclones are available for this task. They often
consist of multiple cyclones each designed to take a fraction of
the inlet flow. The cyclone design will in general not rule the
optimal size of separators and we have chosen not to present a
detail design procedure for this internal. In the design cases a
typical length, Lc, will be selected.
The end section and its internals are depicted in Fig. 8. The
minimum length of the end section can be formulated as
Ln ≥ max[ Lvx , d n , g , 2d n, w + 2d n ,o + Lweir ] , ……….….(28)
The minimum nozzle size is given by5 (here presented in
SI-units, i.e., the coefficient has units: m0.25s0.5/kg0.25),
d n ≥ 0.161 qρ 0.5 . ………………………………….(29)
The water and oil outlets are mounted with vortex
breakers. These are designed according to the suggestions by
Patterson26 of being twice the size of the inner diameter of the
nozzles.
dn,g
Gas outlet
Lvx
Baffle plate
Lweir
2dn,w 2dn,o
Water Oil
outlet outlet
dn,w dn,o
Fig. 8 – Details in three-phase separator end section.
Carpentier27 and Powers28 discuss the importance of mist
eliminators, and agree that they greatly improve the separation
and therefore should always be installed ahead of the gas
velocities must be maintained between appropriate levels. At
high gas velocities re-entrainment is possible. However, they
do not quantify what appropriate levels are. Verlaan29 has
to include and model a vane demister from his work (type
IIIa). This demister is designed for a top mounted gas outlet
nozzle as depicted in Fig. 9.
The gas flows vertically upwards through a set of parallel
vanes of total height of 0.20 m (hvdo-hvdi). Verlaan found that
SPE 56645 OPTIMAL DESIGN OF TWO- AND THREE-PHASE SEPARATORS: A MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING FORMULATION 9

this specific design is effective for a wide range in gas velocity gas escaping out the oil outlet. This scenario is avoided with
and that both flooding and re-entrainment is controlled by the the following constraint,
maximum gas velocity defined by
hLLLL − hWH ≥ ∆hs , …………………………………..(33)
0.5
 ρo − ρg 
0.25
qg  σ og g 
u g max = ≤ 2.38    , ……(30) for both two- and three-phase separators.
  ρ 
Lvx Lvz  ρo   g  To avoid the water phase from flowing over the weir and
escaping out the oil outlet before shut down, there must be a
where Lvz for our horizontal separator is given by safety margin between the high-high interface level and the
weir height,
Lvz = 2 Di hvdm − hvdm . …………………………….(31)
2

hWH − hHHIL ≥ ∆hs , …………………………………..(34)

Gas outlet for the three-phase separator model.

Finally, to avoid the scenario of oil being sucked out the
water outlet a safety margin constraint can be written as
vdm
vdo hLLIL ≥ ∆hs , ……………………...…………………..(35)
vdi
Lvz for the three-phase separator model.

Geometrical and Logical Constraints. Because of handling

Di and transportation separators have some practical upper
overall size limits:
Fig. 9 – Cross-section through vane demister at gas outlet.
L = Lc + Le + Ln + 2 Lh + 2t c ≤ 20 m .…….………..(36)
Safety Constraints. To be confident the separator shuts down
before certain undesirable states are reached safety margins and D = Di + 2t c ≤ 4.5 m , ………………………………(37)
are introduced. The safety margins are here conveniently set
equal to ∆ hs, as depicted in Fig. 10 for both two- and three- where the chosen elliptical heads gives Lh=Di /4. We must also
phase separators. specify that the normal liquid level should be larger than the
To avoid the oil phase from escaping out the gas outlet normal interface level. This can be stated with the absolute
before a shut down, there must exist a minimum distance from minimum distance between the two normal levels
the inlet of the vane demister to the trip level, formulated as hNLL − hNIL ≥ 4∆h NOR + 2∆hs . ……………………….(38)
hvdi − hHHLL ≥ ∆hs , …………………………………..(32)
The weir height is placed between the high-high interface
for both the two- and three phase separator models. level and the low-low liquid level according to:
hWH ≥ hHHIL + ∆hs , …………………………….…….(39)
Two-phase separator Three-phase separator
Gas outlet Gas outlet
and hWH ≤ hLLLL − ∆hs . ……………….…………...…….(40)
h vdi hvdi
∆ hs ∆ hs
HHLL HHLL
Mechanical Design Equations. The oil industry is very safety
NLL conscious and approaches the mechanical design of separators
NLL LLLL using codified design rules. The ASME Code for Unfired
∆hs
∆ hs Pressure Vessels30 is widely used. Using the ASME code the
HHIL
wall thickness in the cylindrical section is
LLLL
∆ hs NIL
LLIL p D Di
∆hs t cs ≥ + t c .……………………………...(41)
2σE − 1.2 p D
Water vent Oil outlet Water outlet Oil outlet
where the design pressure is the operating pressure with either
Fig. 10 – Detail of safety levels in separator end sections. 2 bar added to it or increased by 10%, whichever is greater:
The separator is to be shut down if the gas-oil interface p D ≥ max[ p + 200000, 1.1 p ] . ………………………(42)
reaches the low-low liquid level. The shutdown is to avoid gas
The allowable stress is a safety factor towards the material
phase escaping out the oil outlet. This might happen when the
tensile strength. ASME suggests a safety factor of 4. The
gas-oil interface approaches the weir height leaving marginal
tensile strength for the carbon steel commonly used for
flow over the weir. In this situation the liquid level on the oil
separators is 3800 bar (55000psi), i.e., σ = 950 bar. The joint
outlet side of the weir might fall rapidly and eventually having
10 E.O. GRØDAL AND M.J. REALFF SPE 56645

efficiency ranges from 0.6 to 1.0 for 100% X-rayed joints. The the stated constraints can by logical reasoning be found to
corrosion allowance typically ranges from 1.5 mm to 3.2 mm. always be active at the optimal solution for a specific
Many different designs of heads exist. Elliptical heads objective function (we have chosen Eq. 44). Thus, they can be
(2:1) provides an economic design with respect to material stated as equalities rather than inequalities. The equalities can
consumption because the code states that the overall vessel off course be kept inside the mathematical program (i.e., Eq.
wall thickness should be the larger of the cylindrical section 1), however, they can also be removed from the constraint list
and head. Ellipsoidal heads require the thickness and be used ahead of the mathematical program. This
approach will reduce the number of degrees of freedom, as it
p D Di
t eh ≥ + t c , ………………….….………(43) will fix one variable as a function of the remaining variables in
2σE − 0.2 p D that equation. This approach will speed up the computation for
two reasons. First, a reduction of the number of design
which is less than the wall thickness of the cylindrical section.
variables will reduce the search space. Second, removing
constraints will reduce the size of the Hessian matrix, which is
The Solution Algorithm and Mathematical Program
calculated for each SQP-iteration.
We propose the solution algorithm and mathematical program
The input to the algorithms has been divided into four
depicted in Figs. 11 and 12 for the design of a three- and two-
groups. The design parameters consist of the case specific data
phase separator, respectively. The algorithms consist of three
such as flow rates, physical properties and the specified
sections; input, SQP-loop and the output section. The SQP-
separation degree. The physical constants and fixed variables
loop consists of two segments that are constructed to reduce
consist of material, construction and safety constants and
the number of design variables, which is explained below. We
constants from the chosen standard. The fixed design variables
have reduced the problem to 4 and 3 design variables for
are the mounting point of the vane demister relative to the gas
three- and two-phase separators, respectively. These are: Di,
outlet, the thickness of the weir plate, and the length of the
Le, hNLL, and hNIL, without the latter for the two-phase
section containing the cyclone, as a detailed design of this
separator.
internal is omitted here. The third group of input consists of
parameters that are independent of the four selected design
INPUT SQP-LOOP variables, but dependent on the design parameters. The final
Design Parameters Calculate Design Variables group of inputs is the initial guesses of the four design
dog, dow, dwo, qg, qo, qw, hHLL (max) by Eqs. 13, 23b, 25b variables. In general, the closer the initial guess is to the
Vslug, Vsurge, α, σog, hHHLL (max) by Eqs. 23a, 25a solution, the faster a solution is found. However, the algorithm
µg, µo, µw, ρg, ρo, ρw. hLLL (min) by Eqs. 14, 23c, 25c will converge to the optimal design from any feasible guess.
hLLLL (min) by Eqs. 23d, 25d
Physical Constants hHIL (max) by Eqs. 15, 24b, 26b
and Fixed Variables hHHIL (max) by Eqs. 24a, 26a INPUT SQP-LOOP
E, Fa, Fc, Fh, hvdm, hvdo, hLIL (min) by Eqs. 16, 24c, 26c Design Parameters Calculate Design Variables
Lc, Lweir, tc, σ, ρs, hLLIL (min) by Eqs. 24d, 26d dog, dgo, qg, qo, hHLL (max) by Eqs. 23b, 25b
∆hNOR, ∆hs, ∆tNOR. hWH by Eq. 39, tcs by Eq. 41 α, σog, µg, µo, ρg, ρo, hHHLL (max) by Eqs. 23a, 25a
Lb (min) by Eqs. 27a-d hLLL (min) by Eqs. 23c, 25c
Calculated constants
Ln by Eq. 28, Lvz by Eq. 31 Physical Constants hLLLL (min) by Eqs. 23d, 25d
uog, uow, uwo by Eqs. 2-4
and Fixed Variables Lb (min) by Eqs. 27a-b
dn,g, dn,o, dn,w by Eq. 29
E, Fa, Fc, Fh, hvdm, hvdo, tcs by Eq. 41
LvxLvz by Eq. 30
hWH, Lc, Lweir, tc, σ, ρs, Ln by Eq. 28, Lvz by Eq. 31
PD by Eq. 42
Mathematical Program dn,w, ∆hNOR, ∆hs, ∆tNOR
Initial Guesses of min Eq. 44 (cost function)
Calculated constants
Design Variables subject to:
uog, ugo by Eqs. 2-4
Di, Le, hNLL, hNIL Eq. 9 (gas capacity)
dn,g, dn,o by Eq. 29,
Eq. 10 (oil capacity)
LvxLvz by Eq. 30 Mathematical Program
Eq. 12 (water capacity)
PD by Eq. 42 min Eq. 44 (cost function)
Eq. 17 (re-entrainment)
Eq. 32 (oil out gas outlet) subject to:
Initial Guesses of
Eq. 33 (gas out oil outlet) Eq. 9 (gas capacity)
Design Variables
Eq. 35 (oil out water outlet) Eq. 11 (oil capacity)
OUTPUT Di, Le, hNLL
Eq. 38 (normal levels apart) Eq. 17 (re-entrainment)
Eq. 36 (max separator length) Eq. 32 (oil out gas outlet)
OUTPUT Eq. 33 (gas out oil outlet)
Separator Design Eq. 37 (max separator diameter)
Eq. 46a-d (positive variables) Eq. 36 (max separator length)
Separator Design Eq. 37 (max separator diameter)
Eq. 46a-c (positive variables)
Fig. 11 – Solution algorithm for 3-phase separator model.

Fig. 12 – Solution algorithm for 2-phase separator model.

As formulated in the previous sections the separator
designs are functions of many variables. However, many of
SPE 56645 OPTIMAL DESIGN OF TWO- AND THREE-PHASE SEPARATORS: A MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING FORMULATION 11

The SQP-loop consists of two segments. The first segment Three-Phase Separator Case Study
calculates design variables that are fixed by the four chosen A three-phase separator is to be designed for a production rate
degrees of freedom. In this segment the control and alarm of 200 kg/s of hydrocarbons and 40 kg/s water. The
levels will be set as close as feasible to their normal levels hydrocarbon composition is taken from McCain’s31 black oil
along with the other inequalities that have been identified to reservoir fluid study. At stock tank conditions this will yield
always be active at optimal design. For example, to find hHLL about 110,000 bbl/day. The inlet three-phase separator is to
one must determine which of the Eqs. 13, 23b and 25b gives operate at 20 bara and 350 K. The flash is calculated by the
the highest value for the values of the design variables in each equilibrium constant (K-value) predictor of Varotsis32. The
SQP-iteration. For Eqs. 13 and 23b this requires a numerical physical properties of the fluids at the operating point are
scheme as hHLL must be calculated based on AHLL and Di. We calculated by correlations in McCain31. The separator shall be
accomplished this with a Newton-Raphson technique10 on Eq. designed to separate 100 micron oil droplets in the gas phase,
B.2. When hHLL is established one will find hHHLL with a 250 micron water droplets from the oil phase, and 250 micron
similar approach. The second segment in the SQP-loop oil droplets from the water phase. The separator shall be
consists of the mathematical program. As a mathematical baffled for 10 degree pitch angle and have capacity for slugs
program performs its search over an objective function, we and surges of 10 m3. The input values are summarized in Tab.
find it reasonable to let the solver minimize a manufacturing 1. The physical values and the fixed variables are listed
separator vessel cost function. Companies are likely to have alphabetically in Tab. 2.
different cost functions. However, applying the structure of a
cost function from Powers13 we obtain Tab. 1 – Design parameters to 3-phase separator case study.
3
ρg = 17.46 kg/m
-6 3
dog = 100×10 m Vslug = 10.0 m
C = t cs Fc ρ s [πDm (Lc + Le + Ln ) + 2Fa Fh Dm 2 ] , .….….(44)
3
ρo = 767.7 kg/m
-6 3
dwo = 250×10 m Vsurge = 10.0 m
α = 10.0 degrees ρw = 974.6 kg/m
-6 3
dow = 250×10 m
3
for our separator shell size where qg = 1.501 m /s µ g = 1.07×10 Pas
-5
σog = 1.78 × 10 kg/s
-2 2
3
µ o = 7.30×10 Pas
-4
qo = 0.226 m /s
Di + (Di + 2t cs )
2 2 3
µ w = 3.70×10 Pas
-4
qw = 0.041 m /s
Dm = . ……………………….....(45)
2 Tab. 2 – Physical constants and fixed variables for case studies.
The costs of the internals are only weak functions of the E = 1.0 hvdo = Di – 0.2 [m] ∆hNOR = 0.08 m
chosen design variables as their design and size is largely Fa = 1.09 Lc = 1.0 m ∆hs = 0.05 m
Fc =5.0 $/kg Lweir = 0.01 m ∆tNOR = 30 sec.
determined based on the various constant rates. Thus, we have
ρs = 7850 kg/m
3
Fh =3.0 tc = 0.0032 m
chosen to not consider the cost of the internals. This means hvdm = Di - 0.1 [m] σ = 950×10 Pa
5

that the internals are not directly subject to optimization. They

will merely adjust their shape according to what will yield the
less costly separator vessel. For example, the rectangular area
of the vane demister (LvxLvz) is fixed by parameters
independent of the design variables (Eq. 30 as an equation).
However, the rectangular shape is a function of Ln and Di in
the objective function, i.e., our assumption is that it is the
demister area that bears the cost and not the shape of the area.
The specified SQP-loop design has reduced the number of
constraints in the mathematical program according to Figs. 11
and 12. Although minimum values do exist for the design
The algorithm used 8 seconds and 30 SQP-iterations to
find the optimal solution on a Pentium I, 200 MHz processor.
The solution converged to Di = 2.410 m, Le = 16.55 m, hNLL =
1.386 m and hNIL = 0.378 m The initial guess was Di = 4.0 m,
Le = 15 m, hNLL = 2.0 m and hNIL = 1.0 m. The solution is
summarized alphabetically in Tab. 3 and the constraint status
is listed in Tab. 4.
Tab. 3 – Overall solution to 3-phase separator design case.
C = 225480 $ hLLL = 1.164 m PD = 22.0×10 Pa
5

variables it is normally wise to include constraints that state Cog = 1.72 hLLLL = 0.985 m tcs = 0.032 m
that they are positive, thus: Cow = 3.54 hNIL = 0.378 m tr,g = 20.4 sec.
Cwo = 13.8 hNLL = 1.386 m tr,o = 166 sec.
Di , Le , hNLL , hNIL ≥ 0 . ……………………………(46a-d) D = 2.474 m hWH = 0.588 m tr,w = 185 sec.
DH = 2.812 m L = 20.0 m tog = 6.8 sec.
The SQP-solver will iterate in the SQP-loop by suggesting Di = 2.410 m Lb = 0.907 m tow = 36 sec.
new values for the design variables until convergence is Dmean= 2.440 m Le = 16.55 m two = 166 sec.
reached. dn,g = 0.403 m Lh = 0.635 m ug = 0.812 m/s
dn,o = 0.403 m Ln = 1.181 m uo = 0.100 m/s
The output section consist of the optimal separator design dn,w = 0.182 m Lvx = 0.815 m uw = 0.0895 m/s
including values of all the used parameters, the objective hHHIL = 0.538 m Lvz = 0.961 m uog = 0.182 m/s
function value and the status of the constraints at the solution. hHHLL = 1.811 m NRef = 2.97×10
5
uow = 0.0128 m/s
To illustrate the method and models, a three- and a two-phase hHIL = 0.458 m NRe,og = 29.7 uwo = 0.00798 m/s
separator design case study are presented in the following two hHLL = 1.614 m NRe,ow = 8.43 ugmax = 1.92 m/s
hLIL = 0.298 m NRe,wo = 2.10 urmax = 0.712 m/s
sections. The two separators are connected in series, i.e., the
hLLIL = 0.218 m Nµ = 0.0050
input to the two-phase separator is the oil output from the
three-phase separator.
12 E.O. GRØDAL AND M.J. REALFF SPE 56645

The SQP-software33 requires the constraints to be This observation is not universally true as it is dependent on
rearranged as follows: the specific design and of the normal levels’ positions. From
g i (Di , Le , hNLL , hNIL ) ≤ 0 . …………………………...(47)
this discussion it should be evident that there does not exist a
feasible separator design with a smaller diameter.
Thus, the constraint status (surplus) as listed in Tab. 4 is the The optimality of the solution can be further investigated
value of gi at the solution. We observe that constraint number by constructing the feasible design space (FDS) as depicted in
2, 4 and 9 are constraining the design. These are the oil Fig. 13. The lower bound in the FDS was constructed by
capacity, re-entrainment and maximum separator length letting the algorithm run in a loop over a set of fixed values of
constraints. We note that both the gas capacity and water Di while finding the optimal values for Le, hNLL and hNIL. The
capacity are far from constraining as both have a surplus in upper bounds were constructed by a similar procedure,
gravity settling length of more than 10 meters. This means that maximizing the objective function instead of minimizing it.
at this diameter the effective gravity settling section could The optimal point is indicated as the design with the smallest
have been reduced by at least 10 meters and the specified size diameter in the FDS as this is the least costly design in the
of oil droplets in gas and in water would have been separated FDS. The relative cost to the optimal design of the designs on
according to settling theory. The result is that the separation in the lower bound is shown graphically and increases with the
the gas and water phases will be better than specified at diameter (thick arrows). For example, as shown by the dotted
optimal solution , 46 micron and 95 micron oil droplets in gas lines, choosing a design of Di = 3.5 m and Le = 9.54 m results
phase and water phase respectively. However, we cannot infer in a separator that is 70% more expensive than the optimal
that the separator design can accept a higher gas rate. A higher design.
gas rate would increase the relative velocity between the gas
and the oil, which would violate the active re-entrainment Tab. 4 -- Constraint status at optimal 3-phase separator design.
Constraint # Status Constraint # Status
constraint. On the other hand, the water rate can be (1) Eq. 9 -10.98 m (8) Eq. 38 -0.585 m
significantly increased, as this will not violate any other (2) Eq. 10 0.000 m (9) Eq. 36 0.000 m
constraints. This result, a separator with higher rating than (3) Eq. 12 -13.36 m (10) Eq. 37 -2.029 m
was specified, is interesting: how can this be the optimal (4) Eq. 17 0.000 m/s (11) Eq. 46a -2.408 m
design? Why cannot the oil phase use some of the available (5) Eq. 32 -0.150 m (12) Eq. 46b -16.55 m
(6) Eq. 33 -0.344 m (13) Eq. 46c -1.383 m
flow area of the water phase? The explanation for this
(7) Eq. 35 -0.168 m (14) Eq. 46d -0.378 m
seemingly peculiar result is found by considering the
maximum settling heights3 in the settling theory. The equation 18 8
Gravity settling section length [ Le, m]

Relative Cost [rel. to optimal design]

for oil settling, Eq. 10, can be written as
hHLL − hLIL ≤ Le u wo ( ANLL − ANIL ) q o , ………………(48)
16 7
Optimal Feasible
14 6
Design Design
which illustrates that there exist a maximum height for the oil
12 Space 5
pad thickness at the active constraint. In our case, uwo and qo
are constants and Le is at its maximum value constrained by 10 4
the active constraint, Eq. 36. Thus, the only approach to Relative cost for
increase the maximum oil pad thickness is to adjust the levels. 8 design on lower 3
constraint
Increasing ANLL by raising hNLL is not a feasible option as this 6 2
is constrained by the active re-entrainment constraint. The
final option is to reduce ANIL by lowering hNIL, i.e., using some 4 1
of the excess flow area of the water phase. However, this will 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Separator inner diameter [Di, m]
also fail. The extra area provided by lowering hNIL is not large
enough to reduce the oil velocity so that the water droplets can Fig. 13 – Feasible design space of 3-phase separator case study.
settle to the new hLIL, noting that hLIL is dependent on hNIL
through Eqs. 16, 24c or 26c, whichever gives the lowest value. It is interesting to note from Tab. 3 is that the settling of
Mathematically this can be proven by partially differentiating water or oil droplets in the liquid phases is not in the laminar
both sides of Eq. 48 with respect to hNIL at the solution. This region and thus Stokes law (applicable for Nre < 1) could not
will prove that the left-hand side grows faster than the right- have been used, which is often assumed for this settling. The
hand side at the solution, i.e., violating the active constraint. baffle plates have to be installed for every 0.907 m, which
Since Eq. 48 can be written as means that the separator would require a total of 19 baffle
plates. This is quite a large number and would represent a
hHLL − hLIL ≤ u wo t r ,o , ………………………………...(49) significant cost. This is the result of severe pitching and the
fact that the cost of the internals was not subject to
where tr,o is the oil retention time in the gravity settling optimization. However, including the baffle cost in the
section, one arrives at the conclusion that providing higher objective function and keeping Eq. 27 as an inequality and
retention times does not yield better separation. Which is in introducing Lb as a design freedom, the number of baffle
direct conflict with the retention time theory in Appendix A. plates can be optimized. If a lower number is found to be
SPE 56645 OPTIMAL DESIGN OF TWO- AND THREE-PHASE SEPARATORS: A MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING FORMULATION 13

optimal from and overall cost perspective, it will result in a
larger separator diameter as the distance between the normal
levels and the alarm level needs to be larger.
A general comment on the solution found by the algorithm
and the selected software is that the same solution is arrived at
for an extensive set of randomly chosen initial guesses.
Two-Phase Separator Case Study
The two-phase separator is fed the oil output from the three-
phase separator and is to operate at 1.5 bara and 340K.
Flashed at this operating point, the rates and physical
properties are as listed in Tab. 5, along with the separation
degree of 100 micron oil droplets in the gas phase and 250
micron gas bubbles in the oil phase. The physical values and
fixed variables are as for the three-phase separator design case
(Tab. 2).
Tab. 5 – Design parameters to 2-phase separator case study.
α = 10.0 degrees ρg = 2.417 kg/m
-6 3
dog = 100×10 m
The feasible design space has been constructed in a similar
procedure as for the three-phase separator and is depicted in
Fig. 14. Calculating the manufacturing cost along the lower
bound will again illustrate a significant increase as the
diameter increases (thick arrow). For example, as illustrated
by dotted lines, selecting the least expensive separator with a
diameter of 3.0 meters results in a design that is 56% more
expensive than the optimal design. The FDS illustrates that
there exists a minimum feasible diameter where an increase in
the gravity settling section does not deactivate the re-
entrainment constraint. In contrast to the three-phase
separator, the two-phase separator has an interbaffle distance
of 2.73 m, which results in 4 baffle plates for the separator
(same pitch design angle for both separators). This is because
the minimum distances between the normal levels and the
alarm levels are larger for the two-phase separator in the
optimal design.
18

Relative Cost [rel. to optimal design]

Gravity settling section length [ Le, m]
µ g = 6.43×10 Pas ρo = 795.2 kg/m
-6 -6 3
dgo = 250×10 m 13
3 16
µ o = 1.31×10 Pas σog = 2.18 × 10 kg/s
-3 -2 2
qg = 3.997 m /s Optimal
3 14
qo = 0.206 m /s Design 11
Feasible
12 Design 9
The algorithm used 4 seconds and 30 SQP-iterations to 10 Space
converge to the solution; Di = 1.998 m, Le = 10.95 m and 7
8
hNLL = 0.806 m. The initial guess was; Di = 4.0 m, Le = 15 m
6
and hNLL = 2.0 m. The solution is summarized alphabetically in 5
Tab. 6 and the constraint status is listed in Tab. 7. 4 Relative cost for
design on lower 3
2
constraint
Tab. 6 – Overall solution to 2-phase separator design case. 0 1
C = 29146 $ hLLLL = 0.250 m Nµ = 0.0077 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
5
Cog = 2.715 hNLL = 0.806 m PD = 3.5×10 Pa
Separator inner diameter [Di, m]
Cgo = 133.0 hWH = 0.200 m tcs = 0.0069 m
D = 2.012 m L = 13.951 m tr,g = 5.3 sec. Fig. 14 – Feasible design space of 2-phase separator case study.
DH = 2.056 m Lb = 2.731 m tr,o = 62.9 sec.
Di = 1.998 m Le = 10.951 m tog = 3.6 sec. Conclusions
Dmean = 2.00 m Lh = 1.006 m tgo = 62.9 sec. A fully automated, systematic, design method for the physical
dn,g = 0.401 m Ln = 0.987 m ug = 2.048 m/s
design of two-phase and three-phase primary separators has
dn,o = 0.388 m Lvx = 0.871 m uo = 0.174 m/s
dn,w = 0.100 m Lvz = 0.831 m uog = 0.399 m/s been developed. The model is based on settling theory and is
hHHLL = 1.290 m NRef = 2.171×10
5
ugo = 0.0167 m/s solved through the application of mathematical programming
hHLL = 1.046 m NRe,og = 15.0 ugmax = 5.52 m/s techniques. The suggested algorithm and solver finds the
hLLL = 0.552 m NRe,go = 0.191 urmax = 1.87 m/s optimal design for a series of stated objectives.
The application of mathematical programming techniques
Tab. 7 – Constraint status at optimal 2-phase separator design.
Constraint # Status Constraint # Status
to the separator design problem results in a convenient
(1) Eq. 9 -3.519 m (6) Eq. 36 -6.049 m environment for analyzing the separator design problem. The
(2) Eq. 11 0.000 m (7) Eq. 37 -2.488 m declarative form of the model provides a forum in which to
(3) Eq. 17 0.000 m/s (8) Eq. 46a -1.998 m pose and discuss problems. The model solution times are fast,
(4) Eq. 32 -0.258 m (9) Eq. 46b -10.95 m on the order of seconds, and the abstraction of the solution
(5) Eq. 33 0.000 m (10) Eq. 46c -0.806 m
technology from the model means that advances in solution
methods can directly be used in the overall solution scheme.
We observe that constraints 2, 3 and 5 are constraining the
design. These are the oil capacity, the re-entrainment and the Acknowledgments
constraint that avoids having gas being sucked out the oil The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of
outlet. As for the three-phase separator, the gas capacity Kværner ASA, Technology Development and the Norwegian
constraint is not constraining, but the gas velocity is Research Council.
constrained by the re-entrainment constraint. Thus, a design
with a smaller diameter is infeasible even for designs with
longer gravity settling sections.
14 E.O. GRØDAL AND M.J. REALFF SPE 56645

Nomenclature ∆hNOR = height interval NORSOK standard, L, 0.08 m

A= cross-sectional area of separator between BV to ∆hs = safety margin height, L, m
level indicated by the subscript, L2, m2
∆t NOE = time interval NORSOK standard, t, 30 sec
C= separator manufacturing cost, M, $
CD= spherical drag coefficient, dimensionless
D= total separator diameter, L, m Subscripts
DH= hydraulic diameter, L, m BV= bottom vessel
Di = inner separator diameter, L, m g= gas
Dm= mean separator dimater, L, m go= gas bubble in oil phase
d= droplet/bubble diameter, L, m HHIL= high-high interface level
E= joint efficiency, dimensionless HHLL= high-high liquid level
Fa= factor for determining surface area of a vessel head HIL= high interface level
from vessel diameter squared ( ≈ 1.09 for 2:1 HLL= high liquid level
elliptical heads)30, dimensionless i= the set {HHLL, HLL, NLL, LLL}
Fc= cost factor per unit mass to manufacture a vessel j= the set {HLL, NLL, LLL, LLLL}
shell, M/m, $/kg LIL= low interface level
Fh= ratio of cost per unit mass to manufacture a vessel LLIL= low-low interface level
head compared with that of vessel shell (usually LLL= low liquid level
1.5 to 3.0)13, dimensionless LLLL= low-low liquid level
g= gravitational acceleration, L/t2, 9.81 m/sec2 NIL= normal interface level
h= height from bottom of separator, L, m NLL= normal liquid level
L= length, L, m o= oil
Lb= interbaffle distance, L, m og= oil droplet in gas phase
Lc= length of separator section with cyclone, L, m ow= oil droplet in water phase
Le= length of gravity separation section, L, m p= the set {HHIL, HIL, NIL, LIL}
Lh= separator head section length, L, m q= the set {HIL, NIL, LIL, LLIL}
Ln= length of separator end section, L, m s= steel
Lvx= length of vane demister, L, m TV= top vessel
Lvz= width of vane demister, L, m u= the set {HLL, NLL, HIL, NIL}
NRe= droplet or bubble Reynolds number, dimensionless v= the set {NLL, LLL, NIL, LIL}
NRef= Reynolds film number, dimensionless vdi= vane demister inlet
N µ = interfacial viscosity number, dimensionless vdm= vane demister mounting point
vdo= vane demister outlet
P= wetted perimeter, L, m WH= weir
p= operating pressure, m/Lt2, Pa w= water
pD= design pressure, m/Lt2, Pa wo= water droplet in oil phase
q= volumetric rate, L3/t, m3/sec
t= time, t, sec References
tc= corrosion allowance, L, m 1. Arnold, K. and Stewart, M. Jr.: “Designing Oil and Gas
tcs= wall thickness of cylindrical section, L, m Production Systems: How To Size and Select Two-Phase
teh= wall thickness of elliptical (2:1) heads, L, m Separators,” World Oil (Nov. 1984) 73.
tr= retention time in Le, t, sec 2. Arnold, K. and Stewart, M. Jr.: “Designing Oil and Gas
u= velocity, L/t, m/sec Production Systems: How To Size and Select Three-Phase
ugmax= maximum gas velocity ahead of vane demister, L/t, Separators,” World Oil (Dec. 1984) 87.
m/sec 3. Arnold K., and Stewart, M. Jr.: Surface Production Operations:
Design of Oil-Handling Systems and Facilities, Volume 1, Gulf
urmax= maximum relative velocity between gas and oil
Publishing Company, Houston, TX, USA (1995).
phase, L/t, m/sec 4. Bradley, H.B.; “Petroleum Engineering Handbook,” (Editor in
Vslug= slug volume, L3, m3 Chief), Third Printing, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Vsurge= surge volume, L3, m3 Richardson, TX, USA (1992).
5. Svrcek, W.Y. and Monnery, W.D.: “Design Two-Phase
Greek Letters Separators Within the Right Limits,” Chemical Engineering
α = pitch degree, degrees Progress, (Oct. 1993) 53.
µ = dynamic viscosity, m/Lt, kg/msec 6. Monnery, W.D. and Svrcek, WY,: “Successfully Specify Three-
Phase Separators,” Chemical Engineering Progress, (Sep. 1994)
ρ = density, m/L3, kg/m3 29.
σ = tensile strenght, m/Lt2, Pa 7. Grødal, E.O., Realff, M.J. and Schug, B.: “A Product
σ og = surface tension between oil and gas, m/t2, kg/sec2 Positioning Approach for Optimal Product Lines in the
Hydrocarbon Production Separation Segment,” paper 217c
SPE 56645 OPTIMAL DESIGN OF TWO- AND THREE-PHASE SEPARATORS: A MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING FORMULATION
presented at the 1998 AIChE Annual Meeting of American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, Miami Beach, FL, USA, Nov.
15-20.
8. Grødal, E.O. and Realff, M.J.: “Optimal Lifetime Design of
Primary Hydrocarbon Separation Systems,” paper SPE 56639,
to be presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA, Oct. 3-6.
9. Biegler, L.T., Grossmann, I.G. and Weterberg, A.W.: Systematic
Methods of Chemical Process Design, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper
Saddle River, NJ, USA (1997).
10. Winston, W.L.: Operations Research: Applications and
Algorithms, third edition, Duxburry Press, International
Thompson Press, Belmont, CA USA (1994).
11. Han, S.P.: “Superlinearly Convergent Variable Metric
Algorithm for General Nonlinear Programming Problems,”
Math. Progr., (1976) 11, 263-282.
12. Powell, M.J.D.: “A Fast Algorithm for Nonlinearly Constrained
Optimization Calculations,” In Numerical Analysis, Dundee,
1977, G.A. Watson (Ed.), Lecture notes in Mathematics 630,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, (1978).
13. Powers, M.L.: “New Perspective on Oil and Gas Separator
Performance,” SPEPF, (May 1993) 77.
14. Arnold, K. and Koszela, P.L.: “Droplet-Settling vs. Retention-
Time theories for Sizing Oil/Water Separator,” SPEPE, (Feb.
1990), 59.
15. Perry, R.H. and Green, D.W. (eds.): Perry’s Chemical
Engineers’ Handbook, seventh edition, McGraw Hill Book Co.
Inc., New York City, NY USA (1997).
16. Hafskjold, B., Morrow, T.B., Celius, H.K.B. and Johnson, D.R.,
“Drop-drop coalescence in oil/water separation,” paper SPE
28536 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28.
17. Kassa, O.: “SYNENERGI – Production Chemicals and Process
Design,” paper SPE 30434 presented at the 1995 SPE Offshore
Europe Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, Sept. 5-8.
18. Asheim, H.: “Petroleumsproduksjon og Prosessering på
Plattformen, Tano A/S, Oslo, Norway, (1985).
19. Grødal, E.O.: “Numerical Studies of Flow in Oilfield Separators
and Their Internals,” unpublished, Georgia Institute of
Technology, June, 1998.
20. Flanigan, D.A., Stolhand, J.E., Scribner, M.E. and Shimoda, E.:
“Droplet Size Analysis: A New Tool for Improving Oilfield
Separations,” paper SPE 18204 presented at the 1988 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX,
Oct. 2-5.
21. Kosberg, J.A. and Reid, D.: “Design of Primary Sepration
Systems for FPSO’s,” presented at the 1996 FPSO-Norway, The
OCS Technology Group.
22. NORSOK standard,: “P-100 Process systems, 20 Separation and
Stabilization,” The competitive standing of the Norwegian
offshore sector, rev. 1, Aug. 1997. (http://www.nts.no/norsok/).
23. Viles, J.C.: “Predicting Liquid Re-Entrainment in Horizontal
Separators,” JPT, (May 1993) 405.
24. Ishii, M. and Grolmes, M.A.: “Inception Criteria for Droplet
Entrainment in Two-Phase Concurrent Film Flow,” AIChE J.
(March 1975) 308.
25. Rice, C.L.: “Effects on Motion on Design of Process Facilities
for Floating Production Systems,” Production Facilities,
Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1989) 25, 110-116
26. Patterson, F.M.: “Vortexing can be prevented,” The Oil and Gas
Journal, August 4, 1969.
27. Carpentier, P.L.: “Discussion of New Perspective on Oil and
Gas Separator Performance,” SPEPF, (August 1993) 222.
15
28. Powers, M.L.: “Author’s Reply to Discussion of New
Perspective on Oil and Gas Separator Performance,” SPEPF,
(August 1993), 223.
29. Verlaan. C.: “Performance of Novel Mist Eliminators,” PhD
dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, (1991).
30. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code, Sec. VIII, Div.1 (1986).
31. McCain, Jr. W.D.: The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, second
edition, PennWell Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
(1990).
32. Varotsis, N.: “A Robust Prediction Method for Rapid Phase-
Behavior Calculations,” SPERE, (1989), 237.
33. MATLAB with Optimization Toolbox, Version 5.2.0.3084, Jan.
17, 1998. The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA.
http://www.mathworks.com.
Appendix A
The solution algorithms in Fig. 11 and 12 apply settling theory
for separation in all phases. These algorithm can be modified
to apply retention time theory given by the following three
constraints:
Le ≥ q g t r , g ( ATV − ANLL ) , ………………………….(A.1)
Le ≥ qo t r ,o ( ANLL − ANIL ) , …………………………(A.2)
and Le ≥ q w t r ,w ANIL , …………………………….……(A.3)
for the gas, oil and water phases, respectively. Thus, Eq. 9, 10
and 12 in the constraint list of the mathematical program must
be replaced by Eq. .A.1, A.2 and A.3, respectively for the
three-phase separator. For the two-phase separator, Eq. 9 and
11 must be replaced by A.1 and A.2, respectively, where ANIL
in Eq. A.2 is set equal to zero. A mix of the two theories can
also be used, e.g., settling theory for the gas phase and
retention time theory for the liquid phases.
Appendix B
The functional relationship between the shaded area in Fig.
B.1, the diameter and an arbitrarily placed horizontal level h1
can be found by integration.
h
h1
Di
x
Fig. B.1 – Cross-section of horizontal separator.
The function describing the circle in Fig. B.1 is given by
x = ± Di h − h 2 . ……………………….………..…(B.1)
16 E.O. GRØDAL AND M.J. REALFF SPE 56645

Acknowledging the symmetry, twice the integrated positive

part of x from h=0 to h=h1 yields the following function for
the shaded area,

 D  D
2
 2h  πD 2
A =  h1 − i  Di h1 − h12 + i sin −1  1 − 1 + i .
 2  4  Di  8
………..…..(B.2)
For example, finding AHLL (A in Eq. B.2) requires the
substitution of h1 by hHLL. Finding h1 as a function of A and Di
requires a numerical scheme. (e.g., Newton-Raphson
technique10.

Conversion Factors
bar × 1.450 377 E+01 = psi
K × 1.8* E+00 = °R
kg × 2.204 623 E+00 = lbm
m × 3.280 840 E+00 = ft
m2 × 1.076 391 E+01 = ft2
m3 × 3.531 467 E+01 = ft3
Pa × 1.450 377 E-04 =psi
*
Conversion factor is exact