Proceedings of the ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2017
June 25-30, 2017, Trondheim, Norway

OMAE2017-62118

EFFECTS IN FREE WATER KNOCKOUT SEPARATOR CAUSED BY FPSO MOTIONS IN

OCEAN WAVES

Catharine Fernandez Martins Celso Kazuyuki Morooka

Graduate Program Faculty of Mechanical Engineering &
Petroleum Science & Engineering Center for Petroleum Studies
University of Campinas University of Campinas
Campinas-SP, Brazil Campinas-SP, Brazil

ABSTRACT Response Amplitude Operator (RAO)

In offshore operations, wind, waves and currents cause Significant wave height (m)
motions on Floating Production Storage and Offloading
(FPSO) platforms that can induce effects on equipment at the Initial emulsion thickness (m)
topside processing plant, such as on an oilfield separator. The Initial free water thickness (m)
purpose of this work is to propose a procedure to evaluate the Final emulsion thickness (m)
quality of the emulsion separated in a horizontal Free Water
Knockout separator (FWKO) under the influence of the FPSO Final free water thickness (m)
motions in ocean waves. In this paper, a software named Emulsion quality indicator
WAMIT© was used to obtain FPSO motions. Time series of roll Seam to seam length (m)
and pitch motions are calculated considering regular and Vessel effective length (m)
irregular waves and through these results the emulsion quality
indicator is obtained to evaluate the separator performance. Terminal velocity (m/s)
The main contribution from the present study is the estimation Motion response in time domain
of the quality of the emulsion separated on the FWKO, which
Oil retention time (min)
can contribute to improve the operational criteria for three-
phase separators commonly used in offshore applications. Water retention time (min)
Peak wave-frequency (rad/s)
Keywords: FPSO motions; waves; separator; performance
Circular frequency component (rad/s)
Pitch motion (degree)
NOMENCLATURE Roll motion (degree)
Wave amplitude component (m)
Arbitrary phase angle component (rad)
Emulsion cross section area that surpasses the
Free surface elevation (m)
weir (m2)
Maximum section area of emulsion to avoid the Incident wave amplitude, m
passage of free water (m2) RAOs phase (rad)
Free water cross section area that surpasses the 0.07 if or 0.09 if
weir (m2) Water viscosity (cP)
Total emulsion section area that surpasses the Oil viscosity (cP)
weir (m2)
Difference in specific gravities (oil/water)
Wave number component (m)
Viscosity of continuous phase (cP)
Water/oil droplet that settled/rise (microns)
FPSO Floating Production Storage and Offloading
Vessel diameter (m)
FWKO Free Water Knockout Separator

1 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 INTRODUCTION Pourahmadi Laleh et al. [6] have shown through CFD studies,
During the last decades, new technologies were developed that the performance of the FWKO separator can be greatly
to expand global oil and gas reserves given the increasing improved by introducing appropriate internal baffles.
demand of energy. The excessive motions of FPSO are caused Unlike previous studies, this paper proposes a new
not only by severe environmental conditions, but also in mild simplified methodology to calculate an indicator of the
environment may lead the platform unit with spread mooring emulsion quality separated in a FWKO influenced by roll and
system to unfavorable sea conditions, such as in beam seas [1]. pitch motions.
Chakrabarti [2] defines that one of the key elements in the
design of offshore platforms is to determine the environmental
loads acting on the floating structure for different operational
conditions. Knowledge of vertical motions and accelerations in
a floating structure are important to estimate excitation that
affect operations on the process plant equipment and to ensure
that the crew can work safely [1].
The separation process of crude oil is a combination of
different mechanisms that are dependent on the entire vessel
configuration, the fluid properties, particle size, and degree of
gas turbulence to achieve mixture separation. Recent studies
report the importance of vessel motions in the separation of oil,
gas and water, which is particularly difficult on floating
platforms since the wave motion tends to mix the phases.
According to Lapidaire et al. [3], these motions cause
accelerations that produce a secondary effect on liquid, which
creates resonant waves and dispersion of liquid phases at the
oil-water interface. The reduction of roll and pitch motions
amplitude is important to enhance the separator performance.
Many proposals can be found in the literature to increase
the oil and gas processing efficiency in floating platforms.
Recently, a new idea of larger scale “wash tank” is suggested as
a pre-processor for conventional separators. This tank is used
for initial separation of oil and water with the aid of de-
emulsifying fluid for maximizing process efficiency [5]. On the
other hand, subsea separators are also introduced for
maximizing production efficiency in deepwater oil wells. The
fluids separation on sea bottom is an alternative used to
minimize the production of undesirable fluid. The main
advantage is the reinjection of the water produced on the
separation process in order to reduce lifting costs [4].
The main objective of this paper is to propose a procedure
to evaluate the quality of the emulsion separated in a horizontal
Free Water Knockout separator (FWKO) influenced by pitch
and roll motions in ocean waves. For this analysis, the
environmental conditions adopted for the sea waves are
representative of the sea state from Santos Basin, Brazil.
The methodology adopted, as well as the case study
definition, the numerical simulation results and the main
conclusions, are described in the following sections.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the methodology proposed

METHODOLOGY The methodology developed has been structured in three

Recently published studies in Computational Fluid parts, as shown in Figure 1. Initially, the Response Amplitude
Dynamics (CFD), about three-phase separators, provide an Operator (RAO) for the FPSO is calculated. Then, the time
enhanced simulation of fluid phase separation during the most histories are obtained from the JONSWAP spectrum.
complicated motions. Frankiewicz et al. [5] evaluated the Afterwards, time series of roll and pitch motions in FWKO
design of internal devices for a three-phase separator in order to separator are calculated, respectively. Based on these results,
mitigate sloshing and improve the separation performance of the emulsion quality indicator is obtained to evaluate the
liquid phases caused by floating platforms motions. separator efficiency.
2 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 FPSO RAO
When a large three-dimensional body interacts with
incident waves, the hydrodynamic coefficients and wave
exciting forces and moments can be obtained by using the first
and second order diffraction/radiation theory. In the where, is the motion response, is the incident wave
diffraction/radiation theory, the total velocity potential can be
amplitude, is the wave frequency component, is the
decomposed into incident, diffraction, and radiation potentials
RAOs phase component, δr is the arbitrary phase component
[7]. The total velocity potential satisfies the Laplace equation as
and is the RAO.
a governing equation and all the required boundary conditions
along the closed boundary, including bottom, free surface, body
Regular Waves. Harmonic progressive waves are
boundary, and radiation boundary. To solve the problem in
described by sinusoidal signals that have as properties the
question, one must take into account the six degrees of freedom
amplitude, the period, and the wavelength. If the wave moves
of the floating unit [7-8].
in the positive x-direction, the wave profile can be expressed as
In the present work, the WAMIT © was used to obtain the
follows:
Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) for FPSO motions in the
frequency domain. This program is based on linear wave
theory, sea water depth finite, motion amplitude assumptions
and the Green’s method, used to determine the intensity of the
source and dipole distributions over the panels used in where, is the free surface elevation, is the wave amplitude,
discretization of the hull wetted surface [9]. is the wave number, is the wave frequency and is the
The procedure for defining the body geometry is essential arbitrary phase angle.
in this analysis. For this purpose, MultiSurf© was used to model Given the wave amplitude, phase and angular frequency,
the FPSO surface geometry with a high degree of accuracy and respectively, it is possible to determine the system motion as
the integration with the WAMIT © has been achieved by linking described by Eq. (1).
RGKernel, which enables a geometry model designed in
MultiSurf© into WAMIT© [7]. Irregular Waves. An irregular wave can be be represented
If the motion of the FPSO gravity center is known for six by the superposition of N sinusoidal regular waves [2].
degrees of freedom, it is easy to calculate the motion of any Due to the random nature of waves, a real sea state is
point on the floating structure using absolute motion usually described in terms of statistical wave parameters such
as significant wave height, spectral peak period, among others.
superposition. The absolute displacement of point of the
A wave spectrum is used to describe a sea state in which the
vessel can be calculated as body displacement due to the
energy distribution over the wave frequencies is known. The
superposition of the translational and rotational motions [10].
most appropriate spectrum would be one measured locally;
The angles of rotation ( -roll, -pitch, γ-yaw) are assumed to
however, since this is uncommon, standard model of wave
be small, which is a requirement for linearization.
spectrum is used. There are many wave spectral formulations,
and the JONSWAP spectrum is frequently used to represent
Motion Response
wave spectrum for the Santos Basin, Brazil.
In most cases, the response of an offshore floating structure By knowledge of wave spectrum for operational conditions
includes the vessel motion influenced by a sea state, the for Santos Basin, a JONSWAP energy spectrum can be
structure vibration and the mooring system. In the most of obtained from the following equation.
cases, these structures are treated as rigid bodies with six
independent degrees of freedom, named as the surge, sway,
heave, roll, pitch and yaw motions.
The analysis of the dynamics of floating structures can be
on either the time domain or the frequency domain. The where, is the significant wave height, is the peak wave
equations of motion for different degrees of freedom are the frequency and is the Peakedness parameter.
same regardless of the selected method of analysis. The major Free surface elevations can be simulated for a given wave
restriction for working in the frequency domain is the viscous energy spectrum by linear superposition of regular wave
damping effects that must be linearized [10]. components [11]. It can be written as:
Based on the sea state, it was possible to obtain the
platform motion response, and it can be regular or irregular
waves. To obtain the motion response it was assumed that the
system is linear and the waves can be superposed. The
amplitude of the incident wave is small; thus causing small
motions on six degrees of freedom. where, is the wave amplitude component, is the wave
In the present study, time histories of the motion response number component, is the wave frequency component and
are obtained for pitch and roll, in regular and irregular waves, is the arbitrary phase component.
according to Eq. (1).
3 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Since the RAO is obtained and the wave time history is
simulated from the wave energy spectrum, the motion response
in time domain can be obtained from the Eq. (1).
where, is the oil retention time and is the oil
Three-Phase Separator Performance
viscosity.
The three-phase separator is the major equipment for oil The rising oil droplets from free water phase are
and gas separation that produces the primary separation of fluid determined as defined by the Stokes’ law. The free water pad
stream that comes from the wellhead. There are different thickness is given by:
separator configurations but each disposition is specific to a
given operational condition. Horizontal vessels are most
economical for normal oil-water separation, particularly where
there might be problems with emulsions, foam or high gas
liquid ratios [12].
The oil-water separation processes rely on a combination where, is the water retention time and is the water
of mechanical relationships formulated from gravity settling viscosity. Finally, the seam to seam length (Lss) that satisfy the
theory to achieve mixture separation. The Free Water Knockout gas capacity constraint can be calculated as:
(FWKO) with weir, the separator considered for the present
research, is a horizontal gravity separator used to remove the
free water produced with crude oil [12]. It corresponds to the
first separation stage in an offshore process plant.
where, is the vessel effective length and is the vessel
FWKO Fundamental Design. Arnold and Steward [12] diameter.
propose a design procedure to estimate separator dimensions The next step is to define diameter and length for the
(diameter and height) based on inlet fluid properties and separator. The usual ratio between length and diameter is
liquids capacities. This method assumes half-filled liquid around 3 to 5, based on the API [13].
vessel without level control issues and it can be considered a
simplified version of industrial design procedures.
Assumptions are based on the API separator design criteria
[13], for instance:
 foaming is solved through chemical injections;
 steady state and Stokes’ law are considered;
 plug flow assumption and linear movements of
droplets in the settling section is taken, and;
 the ratio between length and diameter of the separator
is considered.

The settling theory considers the force balance equation to

calculate the setting velocity for several droplets. It assumes
that bubbles act as spherical particles with a standard
diameter. Water droplets, present in the oil phase, settle under
a terminal velocity and oil droplets in water phase rise to oil
interface with rising speed. Both velocities can be estimated
by the Stokes law, as shown in the following equation:

where, is the terminal velocity, ∆SG is the difference in

specific gravities (oil/water), is the viscosity of continuous
phase and is the water/oil droplet that settled/rise.
The distance that a water droplet can settle may be
determined if the velocity of water droplets setting through oil
phase and time retention of oil phase are known. The oil pad
thickness is given by:

Figure 2. FWKO design process flowchart

4 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 2 presents the flowchart to define main dimensions
of a three phase horizontal separator (FWKO). Initially, the
drag coefficient is calculated through an iterative process. In
addition, the gas and liquid capacity is used to calculate the
final separator dimensions.
When the separator is subjected to motion, the thickness
(height) of the phases (free water and w/o emulsion) changes
due to pitch angle suffered by vessel, as shown in Figures 4 and
5.

FWKO Quasi-Static Approach. When an oilfield

separator is placed on a floating structure subject to motion,
the greatest concern becomes the motion effect on the
separator performance. Rice [14] discusses five effects of
different degrees of motions on process equipment: Spirit
level effect, resonant waves, primary liquid turbulence,
secondary liquid turbulence and process control effects. All
these effects reduce the effectiveness of emulsion-free water
separation and it does not always result from six marine vessel
motion, only pitch, roll, heave and surge are significant.
The quasi-static approach adopted was necessary in order
to understand what happens with the separator performance Figure 4. FWKO positive angle
subjected to pitch and roll motion. It only takes into account the
inclination (pitch) and rotation (roll) suffered by the separator,
without considering the fluid inertia. In addition, motion
combinations and mixtures of the phases are neglected. For this
reason, the present study emphasizes analysis on the quality of
the emulsion separated on FWKO separator once it will affect
the operation in some of the equipment downstream in the
separating plant. From the equations deduced, all simulations
are performed and the results of this work are obtained.

Case A: FWKO Separator Performance Influenced by Pitch

Motion with Wave Heading of 180 degrees
Since the FWKO dimensions, the liquids layer heights in
separator settling section (previously calculated) and the
separator motion is known, it is possible to define an indicator
of emulsion quality based on the amount of free water that
accompanies the fluid passing through the weir, as shown in
Figure 3.
Figure 5. FWKO negative angle
When the separator is pitched back and forth, the rising
and falling action causes the cross-sectional area above the
liquid level to decrease and increase as the level goes up. This
effect only occurs due to the separator cylindrical geometry.
For this reason, the calculation of the emulsion quality indicator
is specified in terms of the “cross section area of fluid that
surpasses the weir”, shown on Figure 6 and calculated by:

Hoi
Hwi

Figure 3. Definition of emulsion quality indicator based on the

highest point in the weir
Figure 6. Cross section area of fluid that surpasses the weir in
pitch motions

5 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 where, is the emulsion cross section area that
surpasses the weir, is the free water cross section
area that surpasses the weir and is the total
emulsion section area that surpasses the weir.
The only parameters upon which the indicator of emulsion
quality depends are the emulsion and free water thickness. If
> the free water passes to the final section as well;
otherwise, only the emulsion passes as desired. These thickness
variations from the initial state (static) to the final state (quasi-
static) are given by the following geometric expressions:
Figure 8, differently from the pitch motion, in which the free
water could only pass if the whole emulsion had passed as well.
It is necessary to know the instant in which the free water
begins to pass to the final section. With the knowledge of the
minimum angle at which free water begins to pass to the final
section, it is possible to obtain the maximum section area of
emulsion to avoid passing free water ( ). If
> then the free
water passes to final section, otherwise only the emulsion
passes.

where, is the initial emulsion thickness, is the final

emulsion thickness, is the initial free water thickness and
is the final free water thickness.
The indicator maximum value represents a fluid flow rate
through the weir greater than the design flow rate, caused by
separator motions (Figure 4); meanwhile, the indicator achieves
minimum values if just the designed fluid flow rate passes
(Figure 5).

Case B: FWKO Separator Performance Influenced by Roll

Motion with Wave Heading of 90 degrees
Similarly, to the previous case, the calculation of the
emulsion quality indicator is based on the cross section area of
fluid that surpasses the weir, as seen on Figure 7 and calculated
by the following equation:
Figure 8. The variation cycle of the fluid area
CASE STUDY
An actual FPSO in fully loaded operating condition is
considered in this case study. Table 1 contains the main
characteristics used to model the FPSO hull structure.

Table 1. Main dimensions of the FPSO

Characteristic Value (m)
Total length 288.00
Breadth 54.00
Depth 31.50
Draft 25.32

Figure 7. Section area of fluid that surpasses the weir in roll

motions

The same assumptions established at the beginning of this

analysis are maintained for the calculation of the section area of
fluid influenced by roll motion. For this case, the free water can
surpass the weir without the whole emulsion passing, as seen on
Figure 9. FPSO hull modeling
6 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The wetted hull surface was divided into 7800 square
panels. Figure 9 shows a perspective of the FPSO panel
distribution. Then, the WAMIT© was used to solve the radiation
and diffraction problems for the FPSO, without mooring
system. Different incident wave conditions were simulated with
WAMIT© to obtain the Response Amplitude Operator (RAO)
of the floating unit. The FPSO reference system is used to set
the FPSO heading with to the North. It is oriented clockwise
from North direction.
For motion in regular waves, it was simulated two loading
cases for wave heading of 180 and 90 degrees (WAMIT ©). The
operational wave condition adopted for case 1 presented
constant wave amplitude of 5m and for case 2, a wave
amplitude of 15 m. All of these simulations were performed
Properties of the fluid produced from the petroleum
reservoir for all cases in this study are as shown in Table 3.
These properties are used to analyze the FWKO separator
performance influenced by FPSO motions.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Normalized amplitude and phase for the roll and pitch
motions, respectively are shown in. Figures 10 and 11.
ROLL
3,50
3,00

RAO (degree/m) Roll

varying the excitation period in the range of 10 up to 40 2,50

seconds. The environmental conditions adopted for motion in 2,00

irregular waves are representative of the sea state from Santos 1,50
Basin. It was selected a wave scenario for a return period of 100 1,00
years and a hypothetical case (case 2). Sea state is described by
0,50
the JONSWAP wave spectrum, and waves from the south are
selected because it represents the largest and longest waves in 0,00
0 10 20 30 40
the Santos Basin. Table 2 illustrates the loading cases for Period (s)
irregular waves using wave conditions for the Santos Basin. 180
Loads due to wind are not included in the present analysis.
120
Phase (degree)

60
Table 2.Irregular waves in the study 0
0 10 20 30 40
Return Period (100 years) -60
Case 1 Hs (m) Tp (s) -120
11.60 16.30 -180
Period (s)
Hypothetical Case
Case 2 Hs (m) Tp (s) Figure 10. Roll results of computational simulation for wave
30.00 13.09 heading of 90 degrees

PITCH
3,50
Table 3. Production fluid properties data
Properties Value Unit 3,00
RAO (degree/m) Pitch

28 °C 2,50
Operating temperature
2,00
Operating pressure 2300 kPa
1,50
Oil rate 216 m3/hr
1,00
Gas rate 4587 m3/hr
0,50
Water rate 1026 m3/hr
0,00
Oil density 863 kg/m3 0 10 20 30 40
3 Period (s)
Gas density 16.95 kg/m
180
°API 32 120
Phase (degree)

Oil specific gravity 0.87 60

Gas specific gravity 0.60 0
0 10 20 30 40
Water specific gravity 1.00 -60

Oil viscosity 10 cP -120

Gas viscosity 0.01 cP -180

Period (s)
Water viscosity 1 cP
O/W retention time 10 min Figure 11. Pitch results of computational simulation for wave
heading of 180 degrees

7 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Peak values for each motion can be observed around the consequence, the separated emulsion quality decreases. From
resonant period (Figs 10 and 11). The first order motions in this the value of resonant period and for the same amplitude value,
study play an important role, and they present resonant period if the excitation frequency continues to increase, then the
in the range of energy of the sea energy spectrum. Then, natural angular motion decreases, as seen on Table 5.
periods of the FPSO roll and pitch motions are relevant in the
analysis, and they are shown in the Table 4. Table 5. Results of pitch motions in regular waves
Case 1: amplitude 5m
Table 4. Natural periods of motions for the FPSO Period (s) Frequency (rad/s) Motionmax (degree)
Condition Natural period (s) 39.27 0.16 0.71 0.10
Roll 19.29 31.42 0.20 1.23 0.18
19.04 0.33 2.61 0.38
Pitch 14.41 15.71 0.40 3.18 0.47
13.09 0.48 2.63 0.39
The procedure developed in this study was applied for the 11.02 0.57 0.46 0.07
case studies, in regular and irregular waves, and the separator
Case 2: amplitude 15m
motion simulated. The quality of emulsion separated,
influenced by pitch and roll motions, in quasi-static separator Period (s) Frequency (rad/s) Motionmax (degree)
performance was evaluated following the methodology 39.27 0.16 2.13 0.31
described in the previous section. The first step was to solve a 31.42 0.20 3.69 0.54
set of mathematical equations, based on the fluid properties 19.04 0.33 7.83 1.15
data given by Table 3, and the FWKO separator was defined.
15.71 0.40 9.53 1.41
Then, simulations have been done and the emulsion quality
indicator for the quasi-static state was calculated. 13.09 0.48 7.88 1.14
Figure 12 illustrates one of the most important case in 11.02 0.57 1.38 0.20
which the separator motion was greatest, for pitch motion in
head sea. In the same manner, the FWKO motion and emulsion
indicators were obtained for irregular waves (Table 2). Figure
Incidence Wave 13 shows the result for pitch motions in irregular waves.
16
12
8
4 Incidence Wave
30
0
ζ(m)

-4 20
-8 10
-12
-16 0
ζ(m)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 -10
Time (s) -20
Separator’s Angular Motion -30
Angular Motion (degree)

9 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
6 Time (s)
3
Separator’s Angular Motion
Angular Motion (degree)

0 9
-3 6
-6 3
-9 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
-3
Time (s)
-6
Emulsion Quality Indicator -9
1,4 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
1,2 Time (s)
1,0
0,8
Emulsion Quality Indicator
1,4
IE

0,6
1,2
0,4
1,0
0,2
0,8
0,0
IE

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 0,6
Time (s) 0,4
0,2
0,0
Figure 12. Wave elevation, separator motion and indicator for 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
pitch motion (amplitude 15m and period 13.09s) Time (s)

Figure 13. Wave elevation, separator motion and indicator for

Table 5 shows results for regular waves. When the wave pitch motion (Hs=11.60m and Tp =16.30s)
excitation frequency is close to the pitch resonant frequency
(0.43 rad/s), the amplitude of motion is maximum and a greater FWKO performance was analyzed for the survival
amount of free water passes into the separator final section. In condition, with 100 years return period. The FPSO is designed
8 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 for extreme conditions of the Santos Basin, following the Table 7. Results of roll motions in regular waves
recommended practices by DNV-RP-C205 [15]. For this Case 1: amplitude 5m
reason, the maximum pitch motion of seven degrees was Period (s) Frequency (rad/s) Motionmax (degree)
established. Results for the case of pitch motions in irregular
39.27 0.16 1.10 0.06
waves are shown in Table 6.
31.42 0.20 2.00 0.10
Table 6. Results of pitch motions in irregular waves 19.04 0.33 16.50 0.70
15.71 0.40 5.00 0.22
Case Period (s) MotionMax (degree)
13.09 0.48 2.40 0.12
1 16.30 6.22 0.90 11.02 0.57 1.65 0.09
2 13.09 7.44 1.10 Case 2: amplitude 15m
Period (s) Frequency (rad/s) Motionmax (degree)
The separator motion was the greatest in the case 2 in the
Table 6. Therefore, the separated emulsion quality decreased 39.27 0.16 3.30 0.16
because the free water crossed the weir. Moreover, in this case, 31.42 0.20 6.00 0.27
the indicator reached a value larger than the unity. 19.04 0.33 49.50 2.08
Figure 14 illustrated one of the most important case in 15.71 0.40 15.00 0.64
which the separator motion was greatest, for roll motion, in 13.09 0.48 7.20 0.31
beam sea regular waves.
11.02 0.57 4.95 0.22
Incidence Wave
16 Figure 15 shows extreme values of the separator motion
12
8 under survival conditions.
4
0
ζ(m)

-4 Wave Incidence
-8 30
-12
20
-16
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 10
Time (s) 0
ζ(m)

Separator’s Angular Motion -10

9 -20
Angular Motion (degree)

6 -30
3 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
0 Time (s)
-3
Separator’s Angular Motion
-6
Angular Motion (degree)

20
-9 15
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 10
Time (s) 5
0
Emulsion Quality Indicator -5
1,4 -10
1,2 -15
1,0 -20
0,8 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time (s)
IE

0,6
0,4
0,2 Emulsion Quality Indicator
1,4
0,0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 1,2
Time (s) 1,0
0,8
IE

0,6
Figure 14. Wave elevation, separator motion and indicator for roll 0,4
motion (amplitude 15m and period 13.09s) 0,2
0,0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
A range of operational conditions was also investigated for Time (s)
the roll motion. However, the case 2 resulted as the largest
angular amplitude. In this case, it is noted that, when the value Figure 15. Wave elevation, separator motion and indicator for roll
of excitation frequency is close to the roll resonant frequency motion (Hs=11.60m and Tp =16.30s)
(0.30 rad/s), the amplitude of motion is maximum and greater
amount of free water passes into the separator final section. In Based on the recommended practice (DNV-RP-C205) [15],
consequence, the separated emulsion quality decreased. From a maximum roll motion angle of fifteen degrees was
the value of resonant period and for the same amplitude value, established. Results for roll motions in irregular waves are
if the wave excitation frequency continues to increase, then the indicated in Table 8.
angular motion decreases, as seen on Table 7.

9 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 8. Results of roll motions in irregular waves
MotionMax (degree)
Case Period (s)
1 16.30 19.31 0.92
2 13.09 51.77 2.03
Return period of 100 years was taken to obtain results for
cases of pitch motion (Figure 13) and roll motion (Figure 15),
respectively. Although the same wave energy spectrum is taken
for head sea as well as for beam sea, an important difference is
observed between the pitch and roll motion maximum
amplitudes. In addition, this affects directly values of the
emulsion quality indicator.
CONCLUSIONS
In the present paper, the separation performance of a Free
Water Knockout separator (FWKO) under influences of pitch
and roll motions was evaluated. The performance of horizontal
three-phase separator was defined through an indicator of
emulsion quality based on the amount of free water that
surpasses the weir in the separator final section. It was observed
that the offshore separator performance is highly dependent on
the amplitude and frequency of FPSO motions, particularly
angular motions such as pitch and roll.
In extreme sea conditions, the separation performance
decreases as the free water level exceeds the weir height with a
FWKO positive angle (pitch motion effects) or high roll angles
(roll motion effects), as observed from the regular and irregular
waves simulations.
From the study, the roll motion was observed as the most
critical angular motion for FWKO operation, and it is a current
concern of the offshore industry.
As future work, more simulations are desired with different
sea wave and FPSO load conditions, respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support from
CAPES and the BG group for the present academic research.
REFERENCES
[1] Cueva, D.E.; Faria, F., 2014, "Roll Motions of FPSOs",
Available in http://oceanicabr.com/files/downloads/roll-
motions-of-fpsos-1.pdf
[2] Chakrabarti, S.K., 1987, "Hydrodynamics of Offshore
Structures", Illinois, USA: WIT Press.
[3] Lapidaire, P.J.; Leeuw, P.J., 1996, "The Effect of Ship
Motion on FPSO Topsides Design", Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, USA.
10
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[4] Gjengedal, C., 2013, "Subsea Separation of Water and
Oil", Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied
Geophysics, Ph.D.Thesis, pp. 52. NTNU, Trondheim.
[5] Frankiewicz, T.C.; Lee, C.M., 2002, "Using
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Simulation to
Model Fluid Motion in Process Vessels on Fixed and
Floating Platforms", SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Texas,
USA.
[6] Laleh, A. P.; Svrcek, W.Y.; Monnery, W., 2012,
"Computational Fluid Dynamics-Based Study of an
Oilfield Separator - Part I: A Realistic Simulation”, Oil
and Gas Facilities, Vol.1, pp. 57-58.
[7] Newman, J.N., Lee, C.-H., 2002, "Integration of
Geometry Definition and Wave Analysis Software",
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, Oslo, Norway.
[8] Newman, J.N., 1997, "Marine Hydrodynamics", MIT
Press.
[9] American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), 2010, "Dynamic
Loading Approach for FPSO Installations", Houston,
USA.
[10] Journée, J.M.J., Massie, W.W., 2001, "Offshore
Hydromechanics", Delft University of Technology, Delft.
[11] Morooka, C.K., Yokoo, I.H., 1997, "Numerical
Simulation and Spectral Analysis of Irregular Sea
Waves", International Journal of Offshore and Polar
Engineering, Vol.7, pp. 189-199.
[12] Steward, M., Arnold, K., 2008, "Gas-Liquid and Liquid-
Liquid Separators", Gulf Professional Publishing,
Elsevier.
[13] American Petroleum Institute (API), 1989, "Specification
for Oil and Gas Separators", Spec.12J, Washington, USA.
[14] Rice, C.L., 1985, "Effects of Motion on Design of Process
Facilities for Floating Production Systems", Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas.
[15] Det Norske Veritas (DNV), 2010, "Environmental
Conditions and Environmental Loads", Recommended
Practice DNV-RP-C205, Norway.
Copyright © 2017 ASME