MATHEMATICAL MODELING FOR

INTEGRATED THREE-PHASE COMPACT SEPARATORS

Carlos Avila, M.S.*
Shoubo Wang, Ph.D.**
Luis Gomez, Ph.D.**
Ram Mohan, Ph.D.** and
Ovadia Shoham, Ph.D.**
Departments of Petroleum and
Mechanical Engineering

Tulsa University Separation Technology

Projects (TUSTP)
The University of Tulsa
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104
(918) 631-2422, or -2075
carlos-avila@utulsa.edu
* Member, SPE
** Member, ASME, SPE

KEYWORDS
Compact Separators, Control Systems, Computer Simulation

ABSTRACT
An integrated compact separation system consisting of the Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (GLCC)
and Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (LLCC) in series was studied to investigate its capability to
perform three-phase oil-water-gas separation.
The GLCC/LLCC system was analyzed by combining the linear models for the control systems of
each separator and auxiliary models. The GLCC/LLCC system simulator developed was successfully
tested for different perturbations, such as changes of set points in the main control variables for each
separator and changes of the inlet flow rates into the system. Also, different applications including startup operations for the GLCC and LLCC individually, and two-stage LLCC separators were studied
based on the approach proposed.
Experimental data acquired for the GLCC/LLCC system confirmed the simulator predictions, such as
changes in the LLCC separation efficiency due to gas carried under from the GLCC.
Based on both the experimental and the developed simulator results, the GLCC/LLCC system is
found to be suitable for three-phase oil-water-gas separation. Also, it is found, controlling the amount of
gas that is carried under from the GLCC, enhance the performance of the LLCC. Start-up procedures
and recommendations for the GLCC and the LLCC operation are obtained based on the use of the
simulators developed. For a particular application, decisions for the optimal configuration of a two-stage
LLCC separator can be made based on the results of the simulator.
Copyright 2003 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.
Presented at ISA EXPO 2003; http:/www.isa.org

INTRODUCTION
In the past, oil-water-gas separation technology in the petroleum industry has relied mainly on
conventional vessel-type gravity separators, which are bulky, heavy and expensive. Recently, the
industry has shown keen interest in developing and applying compact separators that have low weight,
possess low cost and are highly efficient. This has been promoted by the challenges to reduce
production costs of offshore and marginal fields. Following is a brief review of available compact
separators.
One economically attractive alternative to conventional gravity separators is the Gas-Liquid Cylindrical
Cyclone (GLCC, copyright The University of Tulsa, 1994), as shown in Figure 1, on the L.H.S. The
GLCC is a simple, compact, low weight and low-cost separator. It is a vertical pipe section, mounted
with a downward inclined, tangential inlet located approximately at the middle. Separation in this
equipment is achieved mainly by centrifugal forces, created by the swirling motion at the inlet region,
due to the tangential inlet. Strategies for the GLCC liquid level and pressure control have been
developed (Wang, 2000, Wang et al., 2000). Following the theoretical development of the GLCC
control strategies, field implementations have demonstrated the concept validity.
Another example of a compact separator is the Liquid-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (LLCC, copyright
The University of Tulsa, 1998). The LLCC, shown in Figure 1, on the R.H.S., has a similar
configuration as that of the GLCC, namely, a vertical pipe section, but with a horizontal tangential inlet.
A swirl is created at the inlet region, promoting oil water segregation. A water stream is withdrawn
from the underflow, while oil rich stream leaves from the overflow. Thus, the LLCC is used for free
water knockout applications. Mathiravedu (2001) has demonstrated the use of a unique quality control
strategy in order to ensure the condition of maximum clean water in the underflow.
Figure 1 shows a simple compact separation system, consisting of combined GLCC and LLCC units. In
this configuration, the three-phase gas-oil-water mixture enters the GLCC, the first stage device, through
the inclined tangential inlet. The gas flows to the top of the GLCC and exits out of the system. The
liquid, an oil-water mixture, flows through the GLCC liquid leg into the second stage LLCC, where the
oil-water separation occurs. The present study presents the first attempt to study the GLCC/LLCC
compact separation system. The main contribution of this study is the analysis of the system as a whole,
ensuring the proper operation of each stage, while performing as a three-phase separations system.

MATHEMATICAL MODELING
The mathematical model for the GLCC was developed by Wang (2000). The GLCC model is developed
based on gas and liquid mass balance equations, flow behavior of the respective phases in the GLCC,
and pressure drops across the gas and liquid legs. The control system model facilitates the design of the
controllers required to optimize the separator.
The LLCC model, developed by Mathiravedu (2001), is based on the water concentration in the
underflow as the measuring parameter. A linear model has been developed for the LLCC control loop to
conduct the controller design and dynamic simulation.
Copyright 2003 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.
Presented at ISA EXPO 2003; http:/www.isa.org

In this study, additional value has been added to the work of Wang and Mathiravedu while integrating
both strategies into a two-stage three-phase separation system. The methodology for GLCC/LLCC
control system is established, and simulators are developed using Matlab/Simulink to evaluate the
system dynamic behavior.

Gas
GAS

OIL
RICH
Oil
Rich

GAS / OIL / WATER

Gas / Oil / Water

DP

STARCUT
(WATERCUT
Starcut
METER)

Free
Water
FREE
WATER

FIGURE 1. GLCC / LLCC SYSTEM CONFIGURATION

GLCC GAS CARRY-UNDER AND LIQUID CARRY-OVER
Due to the complex nature of the GLCC dynamic system, a simple method is required to study the gas
carry-under in the liquid leg. Marrelli, et al. (2000) developed a correlation to predict the gas void
fraction in the GLCC underflow based on the in-situ gas volume fraction at the GLCC inlet (GVFi),
Reynolds Number in the liquid leg (Rel) and a dimensionless equilibrium liquid level (Led). This
equation is presented below:

GVF = 46.1 GVFi

0.307

Re l

1000

0.095

Led 3.51

Copyright 2003 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.

Presented at ISA EXPO 2003; http:/www.isa.org

(1)

Liquid carry-over in the GLCC is a very complex phenomenon under transient conditions. However, for
limited gas flow rates, simple correlations can be applied to predict this effect. Ishii and Mishima (1989)
introduced a correlation to predict the entrainment fraction under the quasi-equilibrium condition.
LLCC MODEL WITH GAS

In order to be able to predict the hydrodynamic flow behavior in the LLCC operating with small amount
of gas, it is important to understand the associated physical phenomenon. Little amount of gas into the
system does not affect the inlet flow patterns and behavior of the flow in the nozzle. However, when the
fluids reach the LLCC body, and as a result of the vortex forces produced by the swirling phenomenon,
gas is attached to the oil and the water phases. The gas gets attached mainly to the oil, reducing its
density. This causes lower drag between the oil droplets and the continuous water-phase, causing an
improvement in the separation efficiency. The water density is also affected, because some part of the
gas is attached to the water phase.
At the LLCC inlet, the gas phase splits, whereby part of the gas flows upwards into the upper LLCC part
and the other part flows downwards into the lower LLCC part. Using experimental data, Contreras
(2002) developed correlations for the gas void fraction in the oil phase (G(o)) and in the water phase
(G(w)) in the underflow of the LLCC, as follows:
Vsg
Fgl = GVF Fgl
Vsg + Vsl
Vsg
=
(1 Fgl ) = GVF (1 Fgl )
Vsg + Vsl

G (o) =

(2)

G ( w)

(3)

Next the densities of the oil and water phases (with the attached gas) are, respectively:

omod = o (1 G ( o ) ) + g G ( o )

(4)

wmod = w (1 G ( w) ) + g G ( w)

(5)

The GVF is the inlet gas void fraction and Fgl is a factor determined experimentally, which depends on
the inlet watercut, as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1. VALUES OF EMPIRICAL FACTOR, Fgl

INLET WATERCUT (%)

Fgl

60-75
75-85
>85

0.58
0.54
0.53

This model is able to describe the phenomenon when the LLCC works with small amount of gas, up to
the maximum efficiency point of the LLCC. Beyond this point, a behavior reversal occurs and the LLCC
Copyright 2003 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.
Presented at ISA EXPO 2003; http:/www.isa.org

efficiency decreases. The LLCC model with gas does not describe this reversal process. However, the
description of this process is not critical, because the LLCC under these conditions is not efficient.
GVF EFFECT ON LLCC PERFORMANCE

Based on the experimental data from Contreras, a correlation is proposed in order to capture the GVF
effect on LLCC performance. This correlation establishes the relationship between the underflow
watercut and the split ratio for different GVF values.
WC % = A exp(B SR % )

(6)

where A & B are functions of the GVF%, given by

A = -1.739E-01*GVF%2 + 1.521E+00*GVF% + 1.481E+02
B = 2.161E-06*GVF%3 - 4.585E-05*GVF%2 + 2.779E-04*GVF% - 8.403E-03
It is important to notice that this correlation requires further development since effects such as LLCC
inlet watecut and LLCC geometry are not considered. Figure 2 presents the prediction of the developed
correlation, which follows the physical phenomenon.
Using the proposed correlation, the transfer function that converts the split ratio to the underflow
watercut in the LLCC control loop as developed by Mathiravedu can be replaced by one transfer
function, which depends not only on the split ratio but also on the gas void fraction.

WC %
= A exp(B SR% ) B
SR %

(7)

The values obtained using equation 6 are between 0.4 and 1.0. Although this correlation was developed
for LLCC inlet watercut of 60%, the correction for the watercut to split ratio gain for other inlet
watercuts should not make a significant difference in the analysis of the system.
70
60

SR%

50
40
SR%

30
20
10
0
0

10

15

20

GVF%

FIGURE 2. PREDICTION OF LLCC SPLIT RATIO AS A FUNCTION OF THE GVF

FOR 60% INLET WATERCUT
Copyright 2003 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.
Presented at ISA EXPO 2003; http:/www.isa.org

SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT

A common vector is defined in order to transmit all the information. This vector shares the same
format for every pipeline containing information, such as flow rates, pressure and continuous-phase of
oil and water mixture. A diagram of this vector is shown in Figure 3. The Emulsion variable has a
value of 1 for a water-continuous system and 0 for an oil-continuous system.
Qoil
Qwater
Qgas
Qsolids
Emulsion
Pressure

FIGURE 3. COMMON VECTOR FOR EACH PIPELINE

The simulator was built using Matlab/Simulink organized in modules and subsystems, as shown below.
SIMULATOR STRUCTURE

Input vector module

Properties vector module
GLCC module
o GLCC control subsystem
o GLCC liquid carry-over subsystem
o GLCC gas carry-under subsystem
GLCC/LLCC pressure losses module
LLCC module
o LLCC control subsystem
o Complementary LLCC subsystems
Results Displays

The main structure of the simulator is shown in Figure 4. The respective models required for the GLCC
and the LLCC are inside of each separator subsystem. It can be seen that the GLCC module has an
input for the liquid level set point and the LLCC model has an input for the underflow watercut set
point.

Copyright 2003 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.

Presented at ISA EXPO 2003; http:/www.isa.org

FIGURE 4. GLCC / LLCC SYSTEM SIMULATOR.

Copyright 2003 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.

Presented at ISA EXPO 2003; http:/www.isa.org

SIMULATION RESULTS

Details of the simulation results can be found in Avila (2003). Three kind of simulations were run for
testing the GLCC and the LLCC models, including:
i) GLCC/LLCC system for different GLCC liquid level setpoints (not shown)
ii) GLCC/LLCC system for different LLCC underflow watercut setpoints (not shown)
iii) GLCC/LLCC system for different inlet flowrates
The controller settings used for all these simulations, as defined below, are specified in Table 2.
TABLE 2. PID SETTINGS FOR GLCC / LLCC CONTROLLERS SIMULATOR

GLCC SETTINGS
P
I (s-1)
D (s)

0.1100
0.0300
0.1000

Kp
Ti (min)
Td (min)

LLCC SETTINGS
0.1100
0.0611
0.0152

P
I (s-1)
D (s)

1.6500
0.9500
0.0000

Kp
Ti (min)
Td (min)

1.6500
0.0289
0.0000

GLCC/LLCC SYSTEM FOR DIFFERENT INLET FLOWRATES

After successfully investigating the sensitivity of the control systems with respect to their setpoints,
simulations are carried out to test the field application for which the system is intended to be used. For
this, the setpoints of the GLCC and the LLCC remain constant while introducing changes in the gas (0.2
to 0.3 ft3/s @ time = 10 s) and water inlet flowrates (as shown in Figure 5), keeping the oil flowrate
constant (9.4x10-3 ft3/s). These perturbations allow creating, first, a perturbation in the gas-liquid
mixture flowing into the GLCC activating the liquid level control system. At the same time, the change
in the water flowrate produces a change in the liquid watercut, which eventually reaches the LLCC,
activating the watercut control system. The different changes in the water flowrates define the cases 1 to
3 as seen in Figure 5. GLCC liquid level setpoint = 3 ft. LLCC underflow watercut setpoint = 97%.
3.5E-02
Water in (ft 3/s)

3.0E-02
2.5E-02
Case 1

2.0E-02

Case 2

1.5E-02

Case 3

1.0E-02
5.0E-03
0.0E+00
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

t (s)

FIGURE 5. GLCC WATER FLOWRATES INDUCED

Copyright 2003 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.

Presented at ISA EXPO 2003; http:/www.isa.org

The dynamic response of the system for these perturbations, while controlling the GLCC liquid level, is
shown in Figure 6. It can be seen that the case with the largest overshoot is Case 1, which presents the
smallest change in the liquid flowrate of the three cases studied. The change in the gas flowrate is the
same for all cases. Based on this observation, since both perturbations are in the same direction
(increasing), it is clear that the liquid flowrate change actually helps to compensate the perturbation
introduced by the change in the gas flowrate.
3.2

Liq. Level (ft)

3.1
3.0

Case 1

2.9

Case 2
Case 3

2.8
2.7
2.6
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

t (s)

FIGURE 6. GLCC LIQUID LEVEL FOR DIFFERENT WATER FLOWRATES INDUCED

GVF (%)

Since Case 1 reaches the lowest GLCC liquid level, this results in the highest gas void fraction carried in
the liquid leg into the LLCC, as seen in Figure 7. The variation in the gas content in the oil-water
mixture leads to changes in the performance of the LLCC, as can be appreciated in Figure 8.
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

Case 1
Case 2
Case 3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

t (s)

FIGURE 7. GLCC UNDERFLOW GVF FOR DIFFERENT WATER FLOWRATES INDUCED

Copyright 2003 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.

Presented at ISA EXPO 2003; http:/www.isa.org

SR (%)

60.0
59.0
58.0
57.0
56.0
55.0
54.0
53.0
52.0
51.0
50.0

Case 1
Case 2
Case 3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

t (s)

FIGURE 8. LLCC SPLIT RATIO FOR DIFFERENT WATER FLOWRATES INDUCED

The controlled variable in the LLCC, the underflow watercut, undertakes the largest overshoot for Case
3, as this case presents the most important change in the mixture watercut. This is shown in Figure 9.
100.0

wc (%)

95.0
90.0

Case 1
Case 2

85.0

Case 3

80.0
75.0
10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

t (s)

FIGURE 9. LLCC UNDERFLOW WATERCUT FOR DIFFERENT WATER FLOWRATES

INDUCED
ADDITIONAL GLCC AND LLCC SIMULATIONS

Given that the dynamic models for the GLCC and LLCC have already been developed, there are other
situations that can be studied without any significant additional effort. These situations include
operations such as start-up, shut down and also the set of separation systems composed of multiple
stages. In this study, examples of such applications were tested, including: GLCC start-up, LLCC startup and a two-stage LLCC separation system, both stages with underflow watercut control. The results
(not shown) were encouraging proving capabilities to advice the operation of these separators and
optimize their use.
Copyright 2003 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.
Presented at ISA EXPO 2003; http:/www.isa.org

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
An experimental investigation of the GLCC/LLCC system and the control systems was conducted.
Different experiments were performed in order to test the system response for different scenarios, such
as GLCC liquid level setpoint as a perturbation, LLCC underflow watercut setpoint as a perturbation and
the change in the inlet flowrates as a perturbation. The results followed the trend predicted by the
simulations including the GLCC liquid level, GLCC gas carry-under and LLCC efficiency dependence.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The complexity of the GLCC/LLCC system can be analyzed combining their linear models for the
control systems and auxiliary models, aimed at the study of its actual performance.

The developed GLCC/LLCC system simulator has been successfully tested for different
perturbations. The set of perturbations included changes in the GLCC liquid level setpoint, changes
in the LLCC underflow watercut setpoint and changes in the inlet gas and liquid flowrates and inlet
mixture watercut, simultaneously.

Extended capability has been demonstrated for additional field operations. Different applications
including start-up operations and multiple stage separators can be studied based on the approach
proposed in this study.

NOMENCLATURE
SYMBOLS

Fgl
GVF
S.R
t
Vsg

=
=
=
=
=

empirical factor
Gas Void Fraction (%)
Split Ratio (%)
Time, t, seconds
Superficial gas velocity, L/t, ft/s

Vsl

Superficial liquid velocity, L/t, ft/s

GREEK LETTERS

=
=

gas void fraction

Density, m/L3, lbm/ft3

Copyright 2003 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.

Presented at ISA EXPO 2003; http:/www.isa.org

SUPERSCRIPTS
mod

Modified variable

SUBSCRIPTS

o
w

=
=

oil phase
water phase

REFERENCES
1. Avila, C.: Modeling And Control Systems Development For Integrated Three-Phase Compact
Separators, M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa, 2003.
2. Contreras, W.: The effect of inlet gas void fraction on the performance of liquid-liquid cylindrical
cyclone (LLCC) separator, M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa, 2002.
3.

Ishii, M. and Mishima, K.: Droplet entrainment correlation in annular two-phase flow, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer, 1989, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 1835-1846.

4.

Marrelli, J.D., Tallet, M., Yocum, B., Dunbar, D., Mohan, R.S., Shoham, O. and Rubel, M.T.:
Methods for Optimal Matching of Separation and Metering Facilities for Performance, Cost, and
Size: Practical Examples from Duri Area 10 Expansion, ETCE00-ER-10165, Proceedings of
ASME ETCE 2000 ASME Energy Sources Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX,
Feb. 14-17, 2000.

5. Mathiravedu, R.S.: Design, Performance and Control Strategy Development of Liquid-Liquid

Cylindrical Cyclone (LLCC) Separator, M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa, 2001.
6.

Wang, S.: Dynamic Simulation, Experimental Investigation and Control System Design of GasLiquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Tulsa, 2000.

7.

Wang, S., Mohan, R., Shoham, O., Marrelli, J. and Kouba, G.: Control System Simulators for
Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, ETCE00-ER-036, proceedings of the ASME Energy
Sources Technology Conference and Exhibition, ETCE '00, New Orleans, February 14-17, 2000.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
DOE and Tulsa University Separation Technology Projects support this work.

Copyright 2003 by ISA The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.

Presented at ISA EXPO 2003; http:/www.isa.org