Droplet-Settling vs.
Retention-Time
Theories for Sizing Oil/Water
Separator
Kenneth E. Arnold, SPE, and Paul J. Koszela, Paragon Engineering Services Inc.
Summary. This paper discusses two techniques for sizing oil/water separators. Droplet-settling theory, based on Stokes' law govern-
ing water-droplet movement through a continuous oil phase, is used to develop sizing equations for both horizontal and vertical separa-
tors. Retention-time theory, which calculates theoretical fluid-retention time within the separator by relating liquid flow rates to vessel
geometry, is also presented. Published separator data comparing vessel sizes to allowable capacities are analyzed using both sizing
techniques.
Introduction
The separation of oil and water phases is one of the most common
and least understood processes in a production facility. As fluids
flow into the bottom of the wellbore, up the tubing, and through
surface chokes and equipment, the oil and water are mixed thorough-
ly. The liquid must eventually be routed to a vessel where it is sepa-
rated into a continuous oil phase containing dispersed water droplets
(sometimes referred to as an emulsion) and a continuous water phase
containing dispersed oil droplets. These liquids are then routed to
oil- and water-treating systems, respectively.
The vessels that perform this separation are usually called three-
phase separators when a significant amount of gas must be sepa-
rated from the liquid in the same vessel, or freewater knockouts
(FWKO's) when there is little or no gas. In some areas, FWKO
refers to a vessel where very little gas must be separated and the
separated gas is recombined with the oil and flows out the oil out-
let. Other names that describe equipment performing this initial sepa-
ration of the liquid phases are wash tanks, settling tanks, and gun
barrels.
This paper discusses the validity of two different techniques
(retention-time and droplet-settling theory) for choosing vessel size.
Ref. 1 provides a detailed description of these theories and the deri-
vation of appropriate equations.
A review of the pertinent literature by the SPE Reprint Series
Committee while it was developing a volume on surface produc-
tion equipment indicated that operators have not published actual
data on flow rates, liquid properties, and vessel geometries so that
field experience can be used to validate these theories. In this paper,
we discuss data published by vendors on the capacities of standard
low-flow-rate separators. Operators and engineering companies have
used these data for several decades to size separators. If these data
can be shown to be consistent with one of the sizing theories de-
scribed, that theory may present an appropriate scaling factor to
size separators for modem conditions of much higher flow rates.
This paper does not discuss the further complicating factor of
chemical treatment. Conceptually, some optimum economic bal-
ance between vessel size and chemical usage should exist. Research
is under way to better our understanding of this phenomenon.
Equipment Description
Fig. 1 shows a typical horizontal three-phase separator. Fluid enters
the vessel and hits an inlet diverter, where the majority of the gas
is separated. The liquid falls to below an oil/water interface where
the liquid is "water washed." The oil and its entrained water
droplets flow horizontally to the oil weir, where a level controller
regulates the rate at which it leaves the vessel. The water-continuous
phase and oil droplets entrained in it flow horizontally to the water
outlet. The discharge rate is regulated by an interface controller.
As the oil- and water-continuous phases flow the length of the ves-
sel, gravity forces cause the water droplets to settle perpendicular
to the bulk flow in the oil-continuous phase and the oil droplets
to rise perpendicular to the bulk flow in the water-continuous phase.
Copyright 1990 Offshore Technology Conference
SPE Production Engineering, February 1990
Similarly, liquid droplets in the gas fall perpendicular to the bulk
flow of the gas phase.
Fig. 2 shows a horizontal FWKO where very little gas is expect-
ed and the gas is recombined with the oil. The oil/water separation
mechanics are identical to those in Fig. 1.
Oil/water separation can also occur in a vertical vessel, as shown
in Fig. 3. The liquid is routed to below the oil/water interface by
a downcomer. In a vertical vessel, the water droplets entrained in
the oil settle countercurrent to the upward oil flow and the oil
droplets entrained in the water rise countercurrent to the downward
water flow. Ref. 1 describes in more detail the different equipment
types and operating problems; Ref. 2 presents the droplet-settling
theory as it applies to the settling of liquid droplets in the gas-
continuous phase.
011 Treating vs. Water Treating
It is intuitively obvious that a separator designed to treat oil will
have a different flow pattern and internals than one designed to treat
water. Is the oil/water separator essentially an oil-treating or a water-
treating device? That is, besides its main function of separating the
liquid into two phases, is the quality of the oil or water outlet of
overriding concern? Certainly, if the oil outlet is not treated fur-
ther, as in a gun barrel and many light-oil and condensate facili-
ties, then the oil quality would govern. If the water is not treated
further, as in a skim vessel, then the water quality IS a primary
concern. Most oil/water separators, however, have both oil and
water treating downstream. In such cases, we must consider the
physics of the situation before concluding that its function is primar-
ily oil or water treating.
The oil viscosity is normally one or two orders of magnitude great-
er than the water viscosity. Thus, an oil droplet can rise through
the water much more easily than a water droplet can settle through
the oil. In addition, experience has shown that the natural emulsi-
fiers in the liquid tend to make much more stable water-in-oil emul-
sions than oil-in-water emulsions. The result is that a separator
properly sized to treat the oil will provide a reasonable water qual-
ity. The water-treating system may contain additional separators
designed primarily to ensure a low oil content in the outlet water.
Such devices are described in Ref. 1 and are not considered in this
analysis.
Inlet Dlverter
Some form of inlet diverter is required, even in the classic FWKO
shown in Fig. 2. The flow into this vessel normally comes from
a higher-pressure source. Gas is liberated as the liquid reaches its
new pressure and temperature conditions. If the gas is not separat-
ed by the inlet diverter and is forced to rise through the liquid, it
will bring water droplets with it, increasing the outlet-oil water cut.
Water Washing
It is extremely important that the inlet fluid be water washed. Be-
cause of the severe turbulence and unsteady-state flow conditions
to which the inlet fluid is subjected, immediately downstream of
59

Inlet Diverter
In~ Gravity Settling Section
Water
Water
Fig. 1-Horlzontal three-phase separator.
the inlet diverter some of the liquid will be in a water-continuous
phase with small oil droplets entrained in it (especially if there are
high water cuts) and some will be in an oil-continuous phase with
small droplets of water entrained in it. Because our goal is to separate
water out of this oil stream, we inject the stream below the oil/water
interface to increase the likelihood of water droplets in the oil con-
tacting and thus coalescing with a water homophase. The bulk oil
then rises above the oil/water interface carrying fewer water drops
(Fig. 4). In addition, the turbulent mixing in the water wash may
make the water droplets coalesce with each other, thus forming larg-
er water droplets that are easier to settle out of the bulk oil phase.
This phenomenon has been observed in the field for many genera-
tions and is a key to good design. 3
Sizing Techniques
Retention Time. One common method of determining the size of
an oil/water separator is to perform a batch test and to measure
the time for the free water to separate. Oil and water samples are
mixed and then allowed to separate. The water-column height is
measured vs. time and a graph is drawn, as in Fig. 5. At some
point, the slope of the curve becomes shallow enough that the re-
maining water in the oil can be classified as hard to separate. The
time to reach this point is recorded, and the water separated out
is called the free water. The separator is then designed to provide
an average retention time for the liquid that coincides with the time
recorded in the batch tests. The tests are often run several times
with different amounts of chemical treatment to determine the ef-
fect on retention time.
Little documentation is available comparing retention times de-
rived from batch tests and field results. In the few instances that
we are aware of, batch tests tended to overstate measured actual
retention time to get the same results, because of the coalescence
created by the water wash and turbulence in the actual separator.
The dimensions of the separator can be determined from the
retention-time equations 1 :
d2Le = 1.42[qw(tr)w +qo(tr)o] ........................ (1)
for a horizontal separator (one half-filled with liquid) and
~h=8.3[qw(tr)w +qo(tr)o] .......................... (2)
r Inlet Diverter
Inlet
~11
'-". ----.----------~--
------ -" --
60
for a vertical separator. The dimensions for a horizontal vessel with
a liquid/gas interface at 80% of the vessel diameter are
~Le =0.83[qw(tr)w+qo(tr )o]' ....................... (3)
Droplet Settling to an Interface. In droplet-settling theory, it is
assumed that the outlet-oil quality is related to the maximum size
of a water drop that can be carried above the interface by the bulk
oil flow. For example, if we envision the oil emulsion to have a
water-drop size distribution just above the interface (Fig. 6) and
we want an outlet-oil concentration of 10%, all water droplets great-
er than approximately 467 /Lm must be allowed to settle by gravity
out of the bulk oil flow and reach the interface before the oil leaves
the vessel. Each system would have a different drop size distribu-
tion depending on fluid properties, system configuration, and chem-
ical treatment. Fig. 6 is for illustrative purposes only and is not
meant to be representative of all systems.
The water droplets in an oil-continuous phase settle in accordance
with Stokes' law. In a vertical vessel, the relationship between flow
rate, vessel diameter, and minimum size of a water droplet that
will settle countercurrent to the oil flow is derived in Ref. 1 as
~ =6,691 {qo/L/[(d'Ywo)d~]} . ........................ (4)
In a horizontal vessel, we must allow the water droplets carried
above the interface by turbulence in the water-wash section to fall
to the interface perpendicular to the bulk oil flow. Ref. 1 shows
that this leads to a maximum diameter that is a function of the water
cut and a maximum oil-pad thickness given by
(ho)max = 1.28 X 1O-3[(tr)o(d'Ywo)d~/ /L]. . .............. (5)
For a horizontal vessel with an oil/gas interface at 80% of the
vessel diameter and the oil/water interface at the midpoint (which
is typical of early FWKO designs on which early manufacturers'
capacity data are based), this equation can be reduced directly to
a sizing equation of the form
dLe=468{qo/L/[(d'Ywo)d~]} . ........................ (6)
Unfortunately, very little guidance can be given in selection of
the d m value. Even if the drop size distribution of the inlet stream
to the separator were known, the effects on that distribution of the
inlet diverter, water wash, and flow through the interface are
unknown. Droplet-settling theory can be used, however, as a scal-
ing tool to infer a size from other separators in the area or to esti-
mate performance under changed conditions. We have had good
results in sizing separators for 500- to I,OOO-/Lm separation.
Relationship of Settling Theory and
Overflow Velocity
Many liquid/liquid separation problems are analyzed with an over-
flow velocity technique. 4 Overflow velocity is defined as the flow
rate of the continuous phase divided by the area of the interface.
Eqs. 4 and 6 can be rewritten as
qo/A =0.0274C ................................... (7)
and qo/A =0.0256C, ................................. (8)
respectively, where C=(d'Ywo)d~//L . ................... (9)
Oil &Gas
Outlet
Gas
'- .-
~
...
Oil
- --------.----.~----- - --"-
Water
~
Water
Outlet
Fig. 2-FWKO.
SPE Production Engineering. February 1990
 ~ Control Valve
,..---{)iQ--- G as Out
Mist Extractor
Inlet
CHIMNEY
Downcomer ---+---<+-I
Oil Out
Spreader---~~~===r~~
Water
Level Control
Valves
'-----()'::)-----Wa ter Out
Fig. 3-Vertlcal three-phase separator.
Fig. 4-Water washing.
These are overflow equations where the overflow rate is deter-
mined by the product of a constant derived from unit conversion
and geometry, and a constant, C, that is a function of the liquid
properties. That is, both Eqs. 4 and 6 are a form of overflow equa-
tion where the allowable overflow is fixed by the properties (i.e.,
difference in specific gravity and viscosity) of the liquids. It is un-
clear at this point whether the parameter d m is a constant or a func-
tion of the liquid properties or flow configuration in the vessel. In
the remainder of this paper, we use the term "overflow velocity"
when fluid properties are unknown and we are describing the con-
cept that qolA is the correct scaling factor. We use the term
"settling theory" to describe the more specific concept that the value
of overflow velocity can be derived from liquid properties by use
of C.
Importance of Difference Between Retentlon-
Time and Settling Theories
In sizing a separator, we must know which of the two theories gov-
erns. For given flow conditions, retention-time theory (Eq. 2) states
that the diameter of a vertical vessel changes as the height of liquid
volume changes. Settling theory (Eq. 4) states that the required di-
ameter is independent of fluid height. Fig. 7 illustrates the practi-
SPE Production Engineering. February 1990
~ ,~
Oil ~
~
~
Q)
Emulsion .J:
~
,~
3
Water .J:
~ ~,
%Water in sample
~--------(----
Time
Fig. 5-Growth of water layer with time.
cal results of this difference. For the given properties, retention-time
theory would indicate that a diameter smaller than 50 in. [127 cm]
is acceptable. Settling theory states that a diameter less than 50 in.
[127 cm] is unacceptable for removing water droplets greater than
500 JLm from the oil.
A similar problem exists for horizontal vessels. Retention-time
theory (Eq. 3) states that the product of diameter squared times
length is equal to a constant. Settling theory (Eq. 6) says that the
product of diameter times length is equal to a constant. Fig. 8 il-
lustrates the practical consequences of this difference for vessels
80% full of liquid.
Historical Basis for Sizing
Very little has been written on which of the two theories more ac-
curately models the process in the vessel. It is instructive to review
the sizing charts and concepts published and field-proven by
manufacturers to see whether they can provide guidance.
Table 1 shows capacities published by Parkersburg in their cata-
log in the 1950's. Both the oil and water capacities are based on
10 minutes of retention time. Table 2 shows similar data for verti-
cal FWKO's for Black, Sivalls and Bryson (1959). Except for the
12 x 12-ft [3.7 x3.7-m] vessel, the maximum fluid capacities list-
61
 calculated overflow rates and retention times, assuming a fixed
retention time for the high-flow-rate case. We can see that either
retention time or overflow velocity (i.e., settling theory) can
v reasonably be used to explain the different capacities for the different
v unit sizes. For the maximum limit on capacity, Tables 1 and 2 are
..J
(5 very similar in capacity and overflow velocity for all except the
12x 12-ft [3.7x3.7-m] vessel, for which Table 2 is slightly more
.: conservative.
a:
w it Table 3 indicates similar data from Natl. Tank Co. The over-
~
< w flow velocities and the capacities for vertical FWKO's are identi-
0
3: < cal to those in Table 2. The retention times for the same size of
'0 u.. I vessels are slightly higher than in Table 1 (which were assumed
a:
w w to apply to Table 2 as well) because there is apparently less gas
~
~
::::l ~ space above the gas/oil interface in the Natl. Tank Co. design. The
..J
0 W retention times calculated for the oil phase are much less for horizon-
> >
0 tal vessels and vary by a factor of five, depending on the diameter
W !Xl
> < of the vessel. It is important to note that the overflow velocities
i=
< / are constant for the horizontal vessels and apparently form the ba-
..J sis for the vessel capacities .
::::l
~ Comparing the overflow velocities for the vertical and horizon-
~ tal vessels, we see that the maximum capacity in all cases seems
::::l
0 to be based on 100 BID-ft2 [171 m 3 /d·m 2 ]. For vertical vessels,
v the capacity under worst-case fluid-property conditions seems to
be based on 20 BID-ft2 [34 m 3 /d'm 2 ] rather than the 50 BID-ft2
I [86 m 3 /d·m 2 ] used for horizontal vessels. We do not know
whether this difference results because the capacities for vertical
vessels are based on a greater range of fluid properties or whether
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 the geometry of flow is such that harder-to-separate fluids require
lower overflow velocities in vertical vessels, even though easier-
to-separate fluids can be separated with identical overflow veloci-
WATER DROP SIZE, MICRON ties. Whatever the reason, it is clear that overflow velocity repre-
sents a more consistent scaling parameter, considering all the
Fig. 6-Example drop size distribution. capacities listed in Tables 1 through 3, than retention time. The
next question is, how does one choose an overflow velocity for a
given set of fluid properties?
ed in Table 2 are identical to those for the oil capacities in Table The only guidance given is the footnote in Table 2 and the fol-
1. This, plus the footnote, indicates that "fluid capacity" means lowing information from Natl. Tank Co.'s 1963 catalog: "Capac-
"oil capacity. " Otherwise, we would have to conclude that Black, ities of free water knockouts are effected by a number of factors,
Sivalls and Bryson's FWKO's would be half as efficient as Par- the main ones being the specific gravities of the water and the oil,
kersburg's. The last two columns of Table 2 indicate the range of respectively. The biggest one factor in sizing a free water knock-

200

180

160

..
.<::
()
140 \ \
c: MINIMUM DIAMETER FOR
120 ~-------II\~-----~-r- SETTLING

\
( dm =500 MICRONS)

0
100
GIVEN: -r-
::> qo =qw =1000 bbl
0 (1')0 =(I,)w =10 Min.
::; 80 -r-
.<:: " ~=15cp
~ t.1 wo =0.15

~--------+-------
60 --
- - K , . / R E T E N T I O N TIME EQUATION

40

-----r----.. --il------II--------==----F::;:::::::::==t-
......
20 - 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - -
-
o -l--------t------~~L-----+_------1_-------r------_i--------t_
24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108
d ( Inches)

Fig. 7-Vertlcal three-phase separator.

62 SPE Production Engineering, February 1990

 60+--------r.\------~-------~--------~------1_------_+------__+
,,
\

\
\
\

50+--------r--~--~~------+_------_r------~--------+_------_+
\
\
\
\
\
-40+--------r------~~------+_-------r------~--------1-------_+
~

II
II \ GIVEN:
\
,
'" "0",
\ qo -qw =5000 bbl
(1')0 =(t,)w. to Min.
_ 30 +--------r--""",:--~-------"---1-------_+--
1'=20 cp

~
.1'Ywo· 0.15
d m -500 Microns

20 ____ ~~~--~-------+--------L-------~
~~SETTLING EQUATION

~
'----_!-------T-------__
10+--------r------~--------+_-----·---~------_+~~--_4--------+

RETENTION TIME EQUATIONY- -------

0+----~--r_~~--41--~1--_+--_+
24 36 46 60 72 84 96 108
d (Inches)

Fig. 8-Horlzontal three-phase separator 80% full of liquids.

TABLE 1-PARKERSBURG FWKO DATA (1950's) TABLE 2-BLACK, SIVALLS AND BRYSON
FWKO DATA (1959)
Vertical Design
Capacity" Vertical Design
(BID) Overflow Retention
Shell
Free Diameter Shell Fluid Capacity Velocity' Time"
Diameter Length
(ft) (B/D-ft2) (minutes)
(ft) ~ -Oil- Water
--
J!!L (BID)

1,300 1,300 4 10 300 to 1,300 24 to 103 43 to 10

4 10 10 .
2,900 2,900 6 600 to 3,000 21 to 106 50 to 10
6 10
5,100 5,100 8 10 1,000 to 5,000 20 to 100 50 to 10
8 10
10 10 8,000 8,000 10 10 1,500 to 8,000 19 to 102 53 to 10
10 12 10,000 10,000 10 12 1,800 to 10,000 23 to 127 56 to 10
14,400 14,400 12 12 2,200 to 12,000 19 to 106 55 to 10
12 12
Fluid capacities depend on amount oflree water, difference in specific gravities
Horizontal Design of 011 and water, viscosity, and inlet temperature.
4 10 1,400 1,400
·Calculated.
6 10 3,200 3,200 "Calculated with the same liquid height and assuming that higher flow rate
6 15 4,800 4,800 corresponds to 10 minutes.
8 15 8,500 8,500
10 15 13,500 13,500
10 20 18,000 18,000
10 30 24,000 24,000 assumed from data available to us. It appears that settling theory
12 30 39,000 39,000 assuming 500-1oIffi droplets provides reasonable agreement with pub-
lished data for crude oils between 15 and 30° API [0.97 and 0.88
'Based on lD-minute retention times. g/cm 3]. No definite conclusion can be reached because the data
of Tables 1 through 3 do not indicate the temperature and thus the
viscosity assumed by the manufacturers.
out is area of disengagement or the cross-sectional area of the water- If settling theory is valid, Fig. 9 shows the strong influence of
oil interface. In a vertical free water knockout, residence time is temperature on the design overflow rate. This results because of
more of a factor than in a horizontal, but it is a minor factor." the strong dependence of crude viscosity on temperature, especial-
Both comments list difference in specific gravity as an important ly for heavy crudes. It points out the importance of obtaining good
factor. Black, Sivalls and Bryson also list viscosity and tempera- data on the crude oil viscosity/temperature relationship early in the
ture. Eqs. 7 through 9 show that settling theory provides a basis design of any production facility.
for calculating overflow velocity for the difference in specific gravity More data are needed to prove that settling theory can be used
and viscosity. Settling theory also takes oil viscosity into account in this manner. We have been using this technique for several years
because it is a strong function of temperature. to size new equipment and to analyze existing equipment for chang-
Fig. 9 shows overflow rates computed from settling theory with ing conditions. Actual field data are sparse, however, and the ef-
an average unit conversion and geometry factor like fect of varying droplet diameter on water content in the oil outlet
is only now being studied. We hope that publishing this paper will
qo/A = O.0265[(d'Ywo)d;' I101]. . ........•.............. (10)
encourage others to share actual field data, including flow rates,
Fig. 9 is based on a water specific gravity of 1.03 and a droplet oil temperatures and viscosities, vessel configuration, and outlet-
diameter of 500 101m. A viscosity/temperature relationship was oil water cut.

SPE Production Engineering, February 1990 63

 TABLE 3-NATL. TANK CO. FWKO DATA (1963)
200

Vertical Design
N
Overflow Retention
Diameter Shell Water Capacity Velocity· Time·· a
0..
150
(B/D-ft2) en
(ft) J!!L (BID) (minutes)
4 10 300 to 1,300 24 to 103 52 to 12
...<w
0:
6 10 600 to 3,000 21 to 106 60 to 12 ;; 100
8 10 1,000 to 5,000 20 to 100 60 to 12 0 RANGE OF OVERFLOW
...I RATES RECOMMENDED
u.
10 10 1,500 to 8,000 19 to 102 64 to 12 0:
W
IN TABL.ES 11 & JJI

12 12 2,200 to 12,000 19 to 106 65 to 12 >

0 50
Overflow Retention
Size Oil Capacity Velocityt Time*
(ft) (BID) (B/D-ft2) (minutes)
2x 5 500 to 1,000 50 to 100 2.9 to 1.4
2xl0 1,000 to 2,000 50 to 100 2.9 to 1.4
2112 x 5 625 to 1,250 50 to 100 3.6 to 1.8
2112 x 10 1,250 to 2,500 50 to 100 3.6 to 1.8
3x 5 750 to 1,500 50 to 100 4.3 to 2.2 Fig. 9-0verflow rate from settling theory (for SOO-I'm
3x 10 1,500 to 3,000 50 to 100 4.3 to 2.2 droplet).
4x 10 2,000 to 4,000 50 to 100 5.8 to 2.9
6x 10 3,000 to 6,000 50 to 100 8.7 to 4.3
6x 15 4,500 to 9,000 50 to 100 8.7 to 4.3
8x15 6,000 to 12,000 50 to 100 11.6 to 5.8 Subscripts
lOx 15 7,500 to 15,000 50 to 100 14.4 to 7.2 0= oil
10x20 10,000 to 20,000 50 to 100 14.4 to 7.2 w = water
10x30 15,000 to 30,000 50 to 100 14.4 to 7.2

'Calculated assuming that oil capacity equals water clIPacity . Acknowledgments

•• Assumes that oil retention time is equal to that reported.
t Calculated. We express our appreciation to Paragon Engineering Services Inc.
* Assumes oillgas interface at 0.8d and oil/water interface at 0.5d. for permission to publish this paper and for providing the time to
develop and test the concepts discussed. In particular, the follow-
ing Paragon engineers contributed thoughts and helpful comments:
Conclusions Frank Colbert, Mike Mahoney, Norb Roobaert, and Carl Sikes.
1. There is a difference in the dimensions of both vertical and We also thank the 27 oil companies sponsoring the ParagonlIHRDC
horizontal vessels that could be specified, depending on whether Production Facility Bookware Series. Specifically, we thank the
one used retention-time or overflow-velocity (droplet-settling) original group of 14 supporters who reviewed and commented on
theory. the three-phase separator module, where these ideas were origi-
2. Overflow velocity provides a more consistent scaling technique nally presented.
to describe oil capacities published by the manufacturers of
FWKO's.
3. It is possible that settling theory based on 500-~m separation References
can provide a technique to determine allowable overflow rates from I. Arnold, K. and Stewart, M.: Surface Production Operations, Volume
known liquid properties. 1, Design of Oil Handling Systems and Facilities, Gulf Publishing Co.,
4. If settling theory is a correct scaling factor, then the allowa- Houston (1986) 104-14.
2. Arnold, K.E. and Sikes, C.T.: "Droplet Settling Theory Key to Under-
ble overflow rate depends strongly on the temperature (i.e., vis-
standing Separator Sizing Correlations," Oil & Gasl. (July 21,1986).
cosity) of the oil. 3. Smith, H.V. and Arnold, K.E.: "Crude Oil Emulsions," Petroleum En-
5. A need exists for operators to publish and share actual data gineering Handbook, H.B. Bradley (ed.), SPE, Richardson, TX (1987)
on flow rates, liquid properties, and vessel geometries so that these 19-19-19-20.
techniques can be tested and refined further. 4. "Oil-Water Separator Process Design," Manual on Disposal ofRefinery
Wastes, Volume on Liquid Wastes, API, Dallas, TX (1969).
Nomenclature
A = interface area, ft2 [m 2] SI Metric Conversion Factors
C = constant, (tl"{wo)d~/~ °API 141.5/(131.5 + °API)
d = vessel diameter, in. [cm] bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol
d m = minimum water-droplet diameter, ~m ft x 3.048* E-Ol
h = height of liquid, in. [cm] ft2 x 9.290 304* E-02
(ho)max = maximum oil pad thickness, in. [cm] OF (OF-32)/1.8
Le = vessel effective length, ft [m] in. x 2.54* E+OO
qo = oil flow rate, BID [m 3 /d]
qw = water flow rate, BID [m 3 /d] • Conversion factor is exact. SPEPE
(tr)o = oil retention time, minutes
(tr)w = water retention time, minutes
Original SPE manuscript received for review April 27. 1987. Paper accepted for publica-
tl"{ wo = difference in specific gravity between water and oil tion Jan. 4.1988. Revised manuscript received Oct. 3, 1989. Paper (SPE 16640) first present-
~ = oil viscosity, cp [mPa' s] ed at the 1987 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston. April 27-30.

64 SPE Production Engineering, February 1990