fsdfdsfs

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Просмотров: 52

fsdfdsfs

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Cyclones for Oil Water Separations
- Mesh Blankets
- Schoepentoeter
- Turbulent Flows - s Pope Cambridge, 2000)
- CaCO3 Particles Formation
- Crude Oil Emulsions - Petroleum Engineers Handbook.pdf
- GAS DEHYDRATION DESIGN STEPS
- etd-tamu-2004A-BAEN-Wang-1
- MODELING AND SIMULATION OF SELF-LOCKING DRIVES
- Chapter Ring Rolling En
- Cyclone Design
- Skinny Love - Birdy (sheet music)
- Jurnal Nanoteknologi
- Examen Final FISICA
- Planta Pelambres
- CALICUT UNIVERSITY 1ST YEAR B-TECH SYLLABUS
- The Benefits and Drawbacks of e
- Balancing Lab
- Controlled Study on the Effectiveness of Multimedia Learning Modules for Teaching Mechanics
- [39]Numerical Simulation of Wind Flow Over Hilly Terrain

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 109

A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR LIQUID

HYDROCYCLONES (LHC)

by

Juan Carlos Caldentey

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

in the Discipline of Petroleum Engineering

The Graduate School

The University of Tulsa

2000

iii

ABSTRACT

Caldentey, Juan Carlos (Master of Science in Petroleum Engineering)

A Mechanistic Model for Liquid Hydrocyclones (LHC)

(98 pp. Chapter V)

Directed by Professor Ovadia Shoham and Professor Ram S. Mohan

(180 words)

Hydrocyclones provide economical and effective means for liquid-liquid

separation in the petroleum as well as other industries. This study is focused on the

deoiling of produced water utilizing a liquid hydrocyclone, LHC.

A simple mechanistic model is developed for the LHC. The model is capable of

predicting the hydrodynamic flow field of the continuous phase within the LHC. The

separation efficiency is determined based on droplet trajectories, and the inlet-underflow

pressure drop is predicted using an energy balance analysis.

The predictions of the proposed model are compared with elaborate published

experimental data sets. Good agreement is obtained between the model predictions and

the experimental data with respect to both separation efficiency and pressure drop. The

underflow separation efficiency is predicted with an average relative absolute error of

4%, while the pressure drop is predicted with an average relative absolute error of 11%.

iv

A user friendly computer code is developed in Excel-Visual Basic platform based

on the proposed model. The code provides easy access to the input data and very fast

output, and can be used for design of LHCs by the industry.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my co-advisors Dr. Ovadia Shoham and Dr. Ram Mohan for

their continued support, guidance and for the freedom they gave me to work

independently, which allowed me to explore several alternatives during my research. I

wish to acknowledge Dr. Charles Petty of Michigan State University for his valuable

assistance in the recompilation of literature.

I want to express gratitude to my colleagues within the TUSTP group, from whom

I learned invaluable knowledge. I am especially grateful to Luis Gomez and Carlos

Oropeza for the many helpful suggestions and assistance. Also, Ferhat Erdal, Shoubo

Wang and Carlos Gomez with whom I held many helpful discussions, and to Judy Teal

whose collaboration made this project a reality.

The research was made possible by the financial support of the TUSTP member

companies.

It is also important to acknowledge the Petroleum Engineering Staff of The

University of Tulsa, outstanding full time professors who share their time and experience

with the alumni and make this Department one of the top in the nation.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends who are the source of my

inspiration and motivation. This work is dedicated to my beloved wife, Ana, who not

only encouraged me to pursue my Masters studies but also helped me complete this

thesis.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE i

APPROVAL PAGE ii

ABSTRACT iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF TABLES xi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Motivation and Objective 1

1.2 LHC Hydrodynamic Flow Behavior 2

1.3 LHC Geometry 4

1.4 Thesis Structure 6

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW 8

2.1 Solid Hydrocyclones 9

2.2 Liquid Hydrocyclones, LHC 13

2.2.1 LHC Modeling 14

2.2.2 Field Applications 15

2.2.3 Experimental Studies 16

2.2.4 Velocity Field measurements 19

CHAPTER III

LHC MECHANISTIC MODEL 23

3.1 Overview 23

3.2 Swirl Intensity 26

3.3 Velocity Field 29

vii

3.3.1 Tangential Velocity 29

3.3.2 Axial Velocity 31

3.3.3 Radial Velocity 33

3.4 Droplet Trajectories 34

3.5 Separation Efficiency 37

3.6 Pressure Drop 40

3.7 LHC Mechanistic Model Code 42

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 44

4.1 Swirl Intensity Prediction 44

4.1.1 Experimental Data Sets 44

4.1.2 Results 47

4.1.3 Discussion 50

4.2 Velocity Field Prediction 50

4.2.1 Experimental Data Sets 50

4.2.2 Tangential and Axial Velocity Results 51

4.2.3 Discussion 51

4.3 Droplet Trajectory Prediction 67

4.4 Separation Efficiency Prediction 69

4.4.1 Experimental Data Sets 69

4.4.2 Migration Probability and Underflow Purity Results 70

4.4.3 Discussion 77

4.5 Pressure Drop Prediction 78

4.5.1 Experimental Data Sets 78

4.5.2 Results 79

4.5.3 Discussion 81

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 82

5.1 Summary and Conclusions 82

5.2 Recommendations 85

NOMENCLATURE 88

REFERENCES 91

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 LHC Hydrodynamic Flow Behavior ............................................................... 3

Figure 1.2 Colman and Thews Hydrocyclone Design..................................................... 5

Figure 1.3 LHC Inlet Design ........................................................................................... 6

Figure 2.1 Tangential Velocity Diagram........................................................................ 11

Figure 2.2 Axial Velocity Profile From Colman (1984)................................................. 21

Figure 3.1 LHC Mechanistic Model Structure ............................................................... 24

Figure 3.2 LHC Characteristic Diameter ....................................................................... 28

Figure 3.3 Rankine Vortex ............................................................................................ 30

Figure 3.4 Axial Velocity Diagram................................................................................ 32

Figure 3.5 Droplet Velocities ........................................................................................ 34

Figure 3.6 Forces Acting on a Droplet........................................................................... 35

Figure 3.7 Droplet Trajectory and Migration Probability ............................................... 38

Figure 3.8 Migration Probability Curve......................................................................... 39

Figure 3.9 LHC Mechanistic Model Code .......................................................................43

Figure 4.1 Colmans Designs (1981) ............................................................................. 45

Figure 4.2 Swirl Intensity Prediction - Case 1................................................................ 48

Figure 4.3 Swirl Intensity Prediction - Case 2................................................................ 48

Figure 4.4 Swirl Intensity Prediction - Case 3................................................................ 49

Figure 4.5 Swirl Intensity Prediction - Cases 4 and 5..................................................... 49

ix

Figure 4.6 Tangential Velocity Prediction - Case 1........................................................ 53

Figure 4.7 Tangential Velocity Prediction - Case 2........................................................ 56

Figure 4.8 Tangential Velocity Prediction - Case 3........................................................ 56

Figure 4.9 Tangential Velocity Prediction - Case 4........................................................ 57

Figure 4.10 Tangential Velocity Prediction - Case 5...................................................... 58

Figure 4.11 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 1.............................................................. 59

Figure 4.12 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 2.............................................................. 62

Figure 4.13 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 3.............................................................. 62

Figure 4.14 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 4.............................................................. 63

Figure 4.15 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 5.............................................................. 64

Figure 4.16 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 6.............................................................. 65

Figure 4.17 Predicted Droplets Trajectories Case 7..................................................... 67

Figure 4.18 Trajectories of a 15 Microns Droplet Case 7........................................... 68

Figure 4.19 Migration Probability Curve - Case 7 ......................................................... 71

Figure 4.20 Underflow Purity,

u

- Case 7..................................................................... 71

Figure 4.21 Migration Probability Curve - Case 8 ......................................................... 72

Figure 4.22 Underflow Purity,

u

- Case 8..................................................................... 72

Figure 4.23 Droplet Size Distributions for Kuwait Oil (Colman et al., 1980) ................. 73

Figure 4.24 Droplet Size Distribution for Forties Oil (Colman et al., 1980) ................... 74

Figure 4.25 Migration Probability Curve Cases 16, 18 and 20 .................................... 75

Figure 4.26 Migration Probability Curve Case 23....................................................... 76

Figure 4.27 Migration Probability Curve Case 24....................................................... 76

Figure 4.28 Comparison of Model Underflow Purity and Experimental Data Set .......... 77

x

Figure 4.29 Pressure Drop Prediction Case 25............................................................ 79

Figure 4.30 Pressure Drop Prediction Case 26............................................................ 80

Figure 4.31 Comparison Between Pressure Drop Model and All Experimental Data ..... 81

Figure 5.1 Hypothetical Swirl Intensity Decay .............................................................. 87

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1 Drag Coefficient Constants............................................................................ 36

Table 4-1 Geometrical Parameters of Colmans Designs (1981).................................... 46

Table 4-2 Operational Conditions of Colmans Designs (1981) .................................... 46

Table 4-3 Geometrical Parameters of Hargreaves (1990)............................................... 47

Table 4-4 Geometrical Parameters, Wolbert et al. (1995) .............................................. 70

Table 4-5 Underflow Purity Results Cases 7 to 24......................................................... 75

Table 4-6 Geometrical Parameters, Young et al. (1990) ................................................ 78

Table 4-7 Pressure Drop Cases 27 to 35 ..................................................................... 80

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Motivation and Objective

The petroleum industry has traditionally relied on conventional gravity based

vessels to separate multiphase flow. They are bulky, heavy, expensive and have large

residence time. The growth of the offshore oil industry, where platform costs to

accommodate these separation facilities are critical, has provided the incentive for the

development of compact separation technology. Hydrocyclones have emerged as an

economical and effective alternative for produced water deoiling and other applications.

The hydrocyclone is inexpensive, simple in design with no moving parts, easy to install

and operate, and has low maintenance cost.

In the past, hydrocyclones have been used to separate solid/liquid, gas/liquid and

liquid/liquid mixtures. For the liquid/liquid case, both dewatering and deoiling have been

used in the oil industry. This study focuses only on the latter case, using the liquid

hydrocyclones (LHC) to remove dispersed oil from a water continuous stream.

In general, oil is produced with significant amount of water and gas. Typically, a

set of conventional gravity based vessels are used to separate most of the multiphase

mixture. The small amount of oil remaining in the water stream, after the primary

separation, has to be reduced to a legally allowable minimum level for offshore disposal.

Hydrocyclones have been used successfully to achieve this environmental regulation.

2

There is a large quantity of literature available on the LHC, including

experimental data sets and computational fluid dynamic simulations. However, no simple

and overall mechanistic model has been developed to date for the LHC. The objective of

the current work is to develop a mechanistic model for the LHC to predict the separation

efficiency and the flow capacity (pressure drop flow rate relationship).

The developed model will allow the performance prediction for a given geometry

and operating conditions, that can be utilized for LHC design. Also, it will permit the

design of alternative geometries under similar conditions for optimization purposes.

1.2 LHC Hydrodynamic Flow Behavior

The hydrocyclone, as shown in Figure 1.1, utilizes the centrifugal force to

separate the dispersed phase from the continuous fluid. The swirling motion is produced

by the tangential injection of pressurized fluid into the cyclone body. The flow pattern

consists of a spiral within another spiral moving in the same circular direction (Seyda and

Petty, 1991). There is a forced vortex in the region close to the LHC axis and a free-like

vortex in the outer region. The outer vortex moves downward to the underflow outlet

while the inner vortex flows in reverse direction to the overflow outlet. Moreover, there

are some recirculation zones associated with the high swirl intensity at the inlet. These

zones, with a long residence time and very low axial velocity, have been found to be

diminished as the flow enters the low angle tapered section (see Figure 1.1).

An explanation of the characteristic reverse flow in the LHC is well described by

Hargreaves (1990). With high swirl at the inlet, the pressure is high near the wall region

and very low toward the center. As a result of the pressure gradient profile across the

3

diameter, decreasing with downstream position, the pressure at the downstream end of

the core is greater than at the upstream, causing flow reversal.

As the fluid moves to the underflow outlet, the narrowing diameter increases the

fluid angular velocity and the centrifugal force. It is due to this force and the difference in

density between the oil and the water, that the oil moves to the center where it is caught

by the reverse flow and separated flowing into the overflow outlet. Instead, if the

dispersed phase is the heaviest, like solid particles, it will migrate to the wall and exit

through the underflow.

Figure 1.1 LHC Hydrodynamic Flow Behavior

The amount of fluid going through the different outlets differs with heavy and

light dispersion. That means that for these two different separation cases, two different

4

geometries are necessary (Seyda and Petty, 1991). In the deoiling case, usually between 1

to 10 percent of the feed flow rate goes to the overflow.

Another phenomenon that may occur in a hydrocyclone is the formation of a gas

core. As Thew (1986) explained, dissolved gas may come out of solution because of the

pressure drop, migrating very fast to the axis, and eventually emerging through the

overflow outlet. A significant amount of gas can be tolerated but excessive amounts will

disturb the vortex. An experimental study on this topic is found in Smyth and Thew

(1996).

1.3 LHC Geometry

The deoiling LHC consists of a set of cylindrical and conical sections. Colman

and Thews (1988) design has four sections, as shown in Figure 1.1. The inlet chamber

and the reducing section are designed to achieve the higher tangential acceleration of the

fluid, reducing the pressure drop and the shear stress to an acceptable level. The latter has

to be minimized to avoid droplet breakup leading to reduction in separation efficiency.

The tapered section is where most of the separation is achieved. The low angle of this

segment keeps the swirl intensity with high residence time. An integrated part of the

design is a long tail pipe cylindrical section in which the smallest droplets migrate to the

reversed core at the axis. This configuration gives a very stable small diameter reversed

flow core, utilizing a very small overflow port.

5

Figure 1.1 Colman and Thews Hydrocyclone Design

Young et al. (1990) achieved similar results to Colman-Thews LHC, in terms of

separation efficiency, with a different hydrocyclone configuration. Three sections were

used instead of four. The reducing section was eliminated and the angle of the tapered

section was changed from 1.5 to 6. Later, Young et al. (1993) developed a new LHC

design, which resulted in an improvement in the separation performance. The principal

modification of the enhanced design was a small change in the tail pipe section. A minute

angle conical section was used rather than the cylindrical pipe.

Another important parameter in the LHC geometry is the inlet design (Figure 1.2).

Rectangular and circular, single and twin inlets have been most frequently used by

different researchers. The main goal is to inject the fluid with higher tangential velocity

avoiding the rupture of the droplets. The twin inlets have been thought to maintain better

symmetry and for this reason maintain a more stable reverse core (Colman et al., 1984;

6

Thew et al., 1984). Good results have also been achieved with the involute single inlet

design.

Figure 1.2 LHC Inlet Design

The last element of the LHC is the overflow outlet. This is a very small diameter

orifice that plays a major role in the split ratio, defined as the relationship between the

overflow rate and the inlet flow rate. Most of the commercial LHC permit changing the

diameter of this orifice depending on the range of operating conditions.

1.4 Thesis Structure

Current chapter is a brief preface to the study. It begins with a statement of the

incentive to develop this project from the oil industry point of view. It is followed by the

objective and the scope of the thesis. Then, the principles of operation of a hydrocyclone

is discussed, focusing in the hydrodynamic behavior. The last section contains the typical

geometry of a deoiling hydrocyclone including two different patent designs.

7

The second chapter is a review of some works pertinent to solid and liquid

hydrocyclones. A general review of solid hydrocyclones is presented in the first section

while a more detailed review is done for LHC. The LHC section is divided into

theoretical, experimental and applications studies. The last topic of the LHC literature is

related to the velocity field measurements and CFD simulations.

Chapter III consists of description of the developed LHC mechanistic model. This

chapter is divided into sections presented in the same order as the calculations that the

model follows. The first topic is the swirl intensity, an important parameter for defining

the velocity field which is the next subject. The velocity field allows the calculation of

the droplet trajectories which define the separation efficiency. These two are discussed in

the following sections. The LHC pressure drop - flow rate relationship is covered next

and the last topic of the chapter is related to the developed LHC mechanistic model code.

The accuracy of the mechanistic model is evaluated in Chapter IV through

comparison with available data from other researchers. The results include the swirl

intensity, the velocity profile, the separation efficiency and the pressure drop as well. The

conclusions and suggestions for further work are covered in Chapter V.

8

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

For many years hydrocyclones have been used in different industries such as pulp

and paper production, food processing, chemical industries, power generation,

metalworking, and oil and mining industries. Both solid-liquid and liquid-liquid

separation are possible with this technology. Most of the available literature on

hydrocyclones is related to solid-liquid separation. Since the 1980s, liquid-liquid

separation has become popular due to the relevant application area in the oil industry.

This work is focused on liquid-liquid separation, specifically for a lighter

dispersed phase. However, a brief review of solid hydrocyclones is imperative for

understanding the principle of operation of this device and the evolution of the different

models. It is important to stress up-front what are the main differences between these two

types of separation processes.

The density difference is much smaller for liquid-liquid mixtures, making

the separation more difficult and creating the necessity of operating with

higher centrifugal forces.

The solid particles can be considered rigid unlike the liquid droplets which

deform with the interaction of external forces. If high shear stress is

present, this may cause droplet break up, reducing the probability of the

smaller droplets to be separated. In the opposite case, if two droplets get

close enough, a coalescence effect can occur, whereby the larger droplets

9

can be separated more easily.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the amount of fluid going through

the different outlets differs with either heavy or light dispersion. For solid-

liquid separation, more than 90% of the fluid exits from the top of the

hydrocyclone while a similar quantity goes to the underflow outlet in the

liquid-liquid case. This characteristic may suggests that the velocity field

of the continuous flow differs for the two different cases.

Because of the centrifugal force, the solid particles move outward until

they reach the wall and fall to the underflow outlet. Therefore, the

boundary layer is an important zone for this case and should be considered

in any modeling (Bloor et al., 1980). In the LHC for lighter dispersed

phase, more attention has to be centered on the region away from the wall

where the separation occurs.

More information about the differences between solid and liquid hydrocyclones

can be found in Thew (1986).

Two textbooks that condense pioneering works in hydrocylones and fundamental

theories, including experimental data, design, and performance aspects, are Bradley

(1965) and Svarovsky (1984). Both refer in most of the chapters to solid hydrocyclones

with only a small section in liquid-liquid separation and other application areas.

2.1 Solid Hydrocyclones

The hydrocyclone was introduced after World War II by the Dutch State Mines as

a new tool to separate dispersed solid material from a liquid of lower density (Rietema,

1961). Although widely used nowadays, the selection and design of hydrocyclones are

10

still empirical and experience based. Even though quite a few hydrocyclone models are

available, the validity of these models for practical applications has still not been

established (Kraipech et al., 2000). A thorough review of the different available models

can be found in Chakraborti and Miller (1992) and Kraipech et al. (2000).

The models can be divided into empirical and semi-empirical, analytical solutions

and numerical modeling (Chakraborti and Miller, 1992). The empirical approaches are

based on correlations of the key parameters, considering the separator as a black box. The

semi-empirical approach is focused on the prediction of the velocity field in the main

flow using existing data as a major support. The analytical and numerical solutions solve

the non-linear Navier-Stokes Equation. The first one is a mathematical solution, which is

achieved neglecting some of the terms of the momentum balance equation. The

numerical solution uses the power of computational fluid dynamics to develop a

numerical simulation of the flow. As Svarovsky (1996) comments, it seems that the

analytical flow models have been abandoned in favor of numerical simulations.

Based on the experimental data taken by Kelsall (1952) using an optical method,

many researchers have attempted to correlate the velocity field inside the hydrocyclone,

especially the tangential velocity. It can be determined using the following relationship

(Kelsall, 1952, see also Bradley and Pulling, 1959):

Constant

n

Wr (2.1)

This implies that the tangential velocity (W) increases as the radius (r) decreases

for positive values of the empirical exponent (n). The exponent, n is usually between 0.5

and 0.9 (Svarovsky, 1984) in the outer vortex, while in the core region it is close to -1

(see Figure 2.1). If n = 1 a free vortex is obtained where a complete conservation of

11

angular momentum is implied or no viscous effect is considered. However, if n = -1 a

forced vortex or a solid body rotation type is expected. Also, Kelsall's results are an

evidence of the low dependence of the tangential velocity on the axial position.

Figure 2.1 Tangential Velocity Diagram

Analytical flow models have been pursued by Bloor and Ingham for many years

(Bloor and Ingham, 1973, 1984 and 1987 and Bloor, 1987). The momentum and

conservation of mass equations are mathematically solved for an incompressible and

inviscid fluid using the stream function concept in an axi-symmetric flow. Kang (1984)

and Kang and Hayatdavoudi (1985) follow this approach. But unlike the Bloor and

Ingham's model, a cylindrical coordinate system was used instead of spherical. In this

work, it was assumed that the velocities do not depend on the axial position. Kang

considered that the axial and radial velocity obtained from this inviscid model can be

applied without serious error. However, the addition of the turbulence effect had to be

12

included for the tangential component. A constant eddy viscosity was considered to

account for the turbulence fluctuation following a procedure similar to Rietema (1961).

Presently, numerical simulations or CFD are used widely to investigate flow

hydrodynamics. As expressed by Hubred et al. (2000), the solution of the Navier Stokes

Equations for simple or complex geometry for non-turbulent flow is feasible nowadays.

But current computational resources are unable to attain the instantaneous velocity and

pressure fields at large Reynolds numbers even for simple geometries. The reason is that

traditional turbulence models, such as k-, are not suitable for this complex flow

behavior. On the other hand, more realistic and complicated turbulence models increase

the computational times to inconvenient limits.

The flow inside hydrocyclones has been numerically simulated by Rhodes et al.

(1987). A commercial computer code, PHOENICS, was used to solve the required partial

differential equations which govern the flow. Prandtl mixing-length model was used to

account for the viscous momentum transfer effect. In further work, Hsieh and Rajamani

(1991) (see also Rajamani and Hsieh, 1988; Rajamani and Devulapalli, 1994) used a

modified Prandtl mixing-length model with a stream function-vorticity version of the

equation of motion. Good agreement with experimental data was observed in this study.

The authors mention that the key for success is choosing the appropriate turbulence

model and numerical solution scheme. In 1997, He et al. used a fully three dimensional

model with a cylindrical coordinate system and curvilinear grid for the calculation of the

flow field. A modified k- turbulence model was proved to achieve good results.

In most of the work reviewed in the previous paragraph, excluding Rhodes et al.

(1987), the models were evaluated through comparison with laser-doppler anemometry

13

(LDA) data. LDA has many advantages over other techniques. It is not as tedious as the

optical technique and does not cause flow distortion like the Pitot tubes (Chakraborti and

Miller, 1992). Many researchers have used this technique to measure the velocity field

and the turbulence intensities (Dabir, 1983; Fanglu and Wenzhen, 1987; Jirun et al.,

1990; Fraser and Abdullah, 1995).

2.2 Liquid Hydrocyclones, LHC

The modern renaissance in deoiling hydrocyclones was instigated by Martin

Thew and Derek Colman at the University of Southampton (Young et al., 1990). Works

published in the First International Conferences on Hydrocyclones (Colman et al., 1980;

Colman and Thew, 1980; Thew et al., 1980) were the motivators that generated the

application of this technology in the field a few years later. Today, the deoiling

hydrocyclones have become the standard world-wide equipment for cleaning produced

water offshore and have extensive use on-shore (Thew and Smyth, 1997).

A thorough review of LHC is found in Thew and Smyth (1997). As mentioned in

this work, in spite of the steady advances in analytical theories, and more recently CFD

simulations, hydrocyclones have principally been designed based on experimentation. A

comprehensive review on LHC is given below in four sections. Starting from the

modeling, field applications and experimental studies and finally, the velocity field

measurements and CFD simulations. These topics are treated separately because of their

significance to the present study.

14

2.2.1 LHC Modeling

From extensive experimental tests, Colman and Thew (1983) developed some

correlations to predict the migration probability curve, which defines the separation

efficiency for a particular droplet size in a similar way that the grade efficiency does for

solid particles (see 2.1.6 Grade efficiency in Svarovsky, 1984). Later it was found that the

optimized Stokes Number vs. Reynolds Number correlation used in this work was

erroneous (Nezhati in Thew and Smyth, 1997). However, relevant conclusions can be

extracted from this study, such as that the separation efficiency is independent of the split

ratio in the range 0.5 to 10%.

Seyda and Petty (1991) evaluated the separation potential of the cylindrical tail

pipe section. A semi-empirical model to predict the velocity field in a cylindrical

chamber was developed to calculate the particle trajectories, and hence, the grade

efficiency. In the model, the axial velocity was assumed to be independent of the axial

location and a constant eddy viscosity was considered. The theoretical results showed an

optimum split ratio, as opposed to previously reported results, and an increment in the

efficiency when the feed flow rate was increased.

Estimation of LHC efficiency based on a droplet trajectory was the target of

Wolbert et al. (1995) work. The velocity distribution in the tapered section of Colman

and Thew's design was modeled. This was achieved using a modified Helmholtz law for

the tangential velocity, a polynomial correlation for the axial component, and the

continuity equation and wall condition (Kelsall, 1952) for the radial velocity. The

importance of the tail pipe section to the LHC separation efficiency was confirmed by

comparing the model with experimental results.

15

An extension of Bloor and Ingham (1973) model (see section 2.1 Solid

Hydrocyclones) for LHC was elaborated by Moraes et al. (1996). The modification takes

into account the difference in the split ratio for liquid and solid hydrocyclones. Although,

this model is sophisticated, results shown by the authors, where no reverse flow is

achieved in the parallel section, disagree with existing data.

2.2.2 Field Applications

Field trials of deoiling units began in 1983-84, with the first permanent

installation in the North Sea and Bass Strait, Tasmania, in 1985. By the end of 1985, a

North Sea installation of 42 units in parallel was handling nearly 15 m

3

/min (135,860

bpd) successfully (Thew and Smyth, 1997). The field tests conducted by Serck Baker

have demonstrated that a single deoiling unit can maintain effluent oil content below 300

ppm in spite of the large fluctuations in oil content of the inflow up to 2000 ppm. A

comparison of this field data with laboratory measurements showed that two or three

units of hydrocyclones in series can provide substantial improvements (Colman et al.,

1984).

Meldrum (1988) discussed the operational performance of the four-in-one

hydrocyclone concept on the Murchison platform. It was found that the separation

efficiency falls for low flow rates as well as for high flow rates. This was attributed to the

low swirl generated for the lower flow rate limit and due to droplet break up in the higher

flow rate case. Meldrum also found that the efficiency increases as the split ratio

increases until it gets to a point where it remains constant.

16

Usually, hydrocyclones have been used, where adequate system feed pressure for

satisfactory operation is present. Flanigan et al. (1992) revealed successful field trials

with a low shear progressive cavity pump that overcame this limitation.

LHC have been successfully applied not only offshore but also in standard

oilfields. Stroder and Wolfenberger (1994) showed how this technology can be applied to

high water cut electric submergible pump (ESP) wells, as a much more economical

alternative instead of expanding the conventional water separation facilities. Also, good

results in application of hydrocyclones for heavy oil treatment were achieved by Hashmi

et al. (1996). A two stage hydrocyclones system accomplished similar performance to

that of the free water knockout (FWKO) vessels.

The oil industry has realized the benefits of downhole separation. High water cut

wells are produced re-injecting the water and pumping the oil to the surface. Field trials

and description of this application using LHC with an ESP system are found in Bowers et

al. (1996). As it is expressed by the authors, this technology has the potential to become

as significant a revolution in oilfield production as the LHC itself was to the oil industry

in the 1980's.

2.2.3 Experimental Studies

Before reviewing the experimental studies, let us consider the definition of

underflow efficiency as given below (Young, 1990):

Feed the at esented Pr Oil

Discarded Oil

(2.2)

Utilizing continuity equation:

u u i i o o

Q k Q k Q k (2.3)

17

where k is the concentration, Q is the flowrate and the subscripts o, i, and u are for the

overflow, inlet and underflow streams.

Rewriting Equation (2.2), yields:

i i

u u

i i

o o

Q k

Q k

1

Q k

Q k

(2.4)

Since very small amount of flow is taken out of the overflow, Q

u

/Q

i

is almost

equal to one. This is the basis used by many authors and also in the current study when

considering oil/water separation. This efficiency is called underflow purity, defined as

follows:

i

u

u

k

k

1 (2.5)

If k

u

tends to 0,

u

becomes 1. On the other hand, if k

u

is equal to k

i

,

u

is 0. In the

latter case, the hydrocyclone splits the flow without achieving any separation.

Colman et al. (1980) examined oil/water separation efficiency of a series of LHC.

In this work, the performance criterion used was the underflow purity,

u

. Important

observations can be made from this study. The

u

is independent of the k

i

within a range

of 100 to 1000 ppm. The authors concluded that this is a sign of no interaction between

the oil droplets. Also, constant values of

u

were found for different split ratios. However,

for split ratio values less than 2.5% it was found that

u

begins to decrease. It was also

observed that under these conditions, breakdown of the flow structure finally leads to a

complete loss of separation.

Nezhati and Thew (1987) investigated the effect of variation in the inlet area and

other parameters, such as temperature, on the performance of the LHC. The principal

18

objective of this work was to see the variation of dimensionless groups, namely, Stokes,

Euler and Hydrocyclone Number with the flow conditions. Relevant conclusions from the

experimental results are that the separation increases as the cylindrical length (tail pipe

section) is increased and that the pressure drop increases following a simple exponential

relationship with flowrate, given by

n

i

Q P (2.6)

As mentioned in section 1.3 LHC Geometry, Young et al. (1990) searched

through a broad set of experiments for optimum dimensions of the LHC. Similar to

Nezhati and collaborators, Young found that the separation efficiency increases with the

underflow length until it gets to a point where no additional separation occurs. Contrary

to this, as the inlet chamber length is increased the separation efficiency reduces. Other

variables studied were the angle of the conical section, the overflow outlet diameter, the

underflow diameter and the oil properties. In this work, it is noted that the oil droplet size

distribution at the inlet of the LHC has the greatest impact on the separation, namely, that

the bigger the droplets are, the better the separation will be.

In 1991, Weispfennig and Petty explored the flow structure in a LHC using a

visualization technique (laser induced fluorescence). Different types of inlets were

studied including an annular entry. A parameter that measures the strength of the swirling

flow, the Swirl Number, was used to characterize most of the results. This is defined as

the ratio of the axial flux of the axial component of angular momentum to the axial flux

of the tangential component of angular momentum. Vortex instability and recirculation

zones were strongly dependent on the Swirl Number and a characteristic Reynolds

Number.

19

The performance of a small hydrocyclone was summarized by Ali et al. (1994).

Deoiling hydrocyclones of 10 mm-diameter have achieved high performance with cut

size as low as 4 microns. The cut size (d

50

) is the particle size which has a 50% chance of

being separated.

Experiments have also been carried out in dewatering hydrocyclones where the

dispersed phase is water and the continuous phase is oil (Smyth et al., 1980, 1984; Smyth

and Thew, 1987; Smyth, 1988; Young, 1993; Sinker and Thew, 1996). Due to the high

viscosity of the oil, this type of separation is more difficult than the deoiling case but with

an adequate geometry good results may be achieved.

2.2.4 Velocity Field Measurements

Flow field measurements within hydrocyclones can be obtained using

photographic, optical, Pitot tubes and Laser Doppler Anemometry (LDA) (Chakraborti

and Miller, 1992). LDA has been the preferred method in the last two decades because it

permits high speed data acquisition and also because it is a non intrusive technique that

consequently does not cause any flow perturbation.

Thew et al. (1980), used a Residence Time Distribution (RTD) technique to

complement the information gathered from LDA measurements. The authors used a

tracer method in zones where the LDA is limited, i.e. near the boundary wall. Later,

Thew et al. (1984) showed results using the same technique in an improved hydrocyclone

design. The effect of changes in operational parameters, such as split ratio and inlet flow

rate, on the RTD were studied. Good separation efficiency was achieved using split ratios

down to 1%, as opposed to previously reported results.

20

Colman (1981) measured the velocity field in four different hydrocyclone

configurations. Axial and tangential velocities at different axial locations were acquired

using LDA technique. Detailed information of the flow structure was used to improve the

LHC geometry. The observed tangential velocity was a combination of a semi-free vortex

in the outer region and a forced vortex in the core region. In most of the cases, the axial

velocity measured has a reverse flow region in the LHC axis which is inside the forced

vortex region. Both axial and tangential velocities are reduced close to the cylindrical

section wall as the flow moves downward, due to the frictional losses. The reverse flow

begins to decrease as the swirl intensity decays.

Analyzing the LDA axial velocities (Figure 2.1), Colman et al. (1984) concluded

that 85% of the fluid that exits the overflow outlet comes from the reverse flow contained

in the tapered and tail pipe section, while the rest (15%) is made up from the radially

inward moving fluid at the top wall boundary layer. This effect is known as a short circuit

where part of the feed flow rate goes directly to the reject orifice.

Similar results to Colmans (1981) were obtained by Hargreaves (1990) in a

single LHC. Several flow rates and split ratios were explored, measuring the velocity and

the turbulence quantities. It was confirmed that the reverse flow is a body rotation type

and the magnitude of the axial velocity was found to be four times greater than that of the

mean axial velocity in the cylindrical section, and six times more than in the tapered

region. In this study a CFD simulation flow field was compared with LDA

measurements. The turbulence model used in the numerical solution was the Four

Equation Algebraic Stress Model. A review of this modeling and CFD applied to

deoiling hydrocyclones is found in Hargreaves and Silvester (1990).

21

Figure 2.1 Axial Velocity Profile From Colman (1984)

22

The rankine vortex behavior of the tangential velocity was confirmed by

Weispfennig et al. (1995). LDA measurements in the cylindrical section of the

hydrocyclone show how the angular momentum flux ratio decreases with the axial

distance. A flow control was used in order to increase the angular momentum. Parks and

Petty (1995) solved a numerical model using a constant eddy viscosity Boussinesq

approximation to predict the angular momentum distribution in the LHC.

After a critical analysis of the extensive literature available on LHC, it becomes

evident that researchers have directed great efforts toward understanding not only the

separation mechanisms but also the highly complex velocity and pressure field within

hydrocyclone. A large number of experiments have permitted the design of successful

configurations for specific industrial applications. However, it is the authors impression

that an optimum design can be achieved for each range of operational conditions. A

robust mechanistic model, in which the swirling motion and the collateral mechanisms

that influence the LHC efficiency are predicted, is developed in this study as described in

chapter III. This model has the potential to become an excellent tool to predict

performance of existing design, or even to design optimum LHC over a broad range of

operational conditions.

23

CHAPTER III

LHC MECHANISTIC MODEL

3.1 Overview

The mechanistic model is an intermediate approach between the empirical

approach and the exact solution. In this approach a simplified physical model is built,

which attempts to describe closely the nature of the physical phenomenon. This physical

model is then expressed mathematically to provide a tool for prediction and design

purposes. The closer the physical model is to the real phenomenon, the better the

mathematical model is, as well as its prediction. One must remember that a mechanistic

model is not a rigorous solution as the physical model is approximated by taking into

consideration the most important processes, neglecting other less important effects that

can complicate the problem without considerably adding to the accuracy of the solution.

The present work focuses on the development of a simple mechanistic model for

deoiling hydrocyclones, which captures the nature of the hydrodynamic flow behavior in

the LHC. The model is capable of predicting the separation efficiency and the pressure

dropflow rate relationship. In order to obtain these desired output, the LHC Mechanistic

Model needs as input variables, the geometry of the LHC and the operational conditions

such as fluid properties, flow rate and feed droplet size distribution.

The structure of the model can be seen in Figure 3.1. The first step of the model is

the prediction of a parameter known as swirl intensity. With the swirl intensity

24

the velocity field of the continuous phase is determined within the LHC, in terms of axial,

tangential and radial velocities. The model then predicts the separation efficiency and the

pressure drop from the inlet to the underflow outlet of the LHC.

Migration Probability Underflow Purity

Separation

Efficiency

Droplet Trajectories Pressure Drop

Velocity Field

Swirl Intensity

Figure 3.1 LHC Mechanistic Model Structure

The separation efficiency is computed based on droplet trajectories of the

dispersed phase and can be expressed in two modes: the migration probability curve and

the underflow purity (see section 2.2.3 Experimental Studies). The former yields the

separation probability for a specific droplet size, while the latter gives the ratio of the oil

concentration at the clean stream to the one at the inlet, for a given feed droplet size

25

distribution. All these concepts will be explained in more detail in the subsequent

sections.

There are some key parameters that must be considered in the LHC Model. The

angle of the tapered section is one of them. As the angle is increased, the tangential

velocity will be increased and with this the centrifugal force. This may suggest that better

separation can be achieved. However, as the angle is increased the resulting smaller cross

sectional area increases the axial velocity of the fluid which will give less residence time

for the droplets to separate. Thus, there is a compromise between the centrifugal force

and the residence time. The model considers this relationship with the prediction of the

swirl intensity, which is a parameter that defines the strength of the swirling motion

compared to the mean axial velocity.

Another geometrical parameter to be considered is the inlet configuration. The

swirl intensity, as well as the velocity field, is strongly dependent on how the swirling

motion is promoted at the inlet. In the present model the two most commonly used inlet

configurations are included, the involute single inlet and the twin inlets (see Figure 1.2).

The model does not consider the shape of the inlet at all, as rectangular and circular inlets

are treated in the same manner. Only the cross sectional area is considered crucial in the

calculations.

As mentioned before, some effects have to be neglected in order to arrive at a

sufficiently simple solution. The main assumptions that reduce the numerical effort are

listed as follows: 1) axisymmetric flow is considered where there is no variation in the

tangential component; 2) no deformation or interactions within the droplets, namely, no

coalescence or droplet break up occur; 3) no presence of a gas core and 4) no turbulence

26

effect on the droplet trajectory. Some of these assumptions as well as others will be

explained in greater detail in later sections.

3.2 Swirl Intensity

Diverse definitions of swirl intensity have been used by researchers in different

fields. The importance of this parameter, characterizing the swirling flow in liquid-liquid

hydrocyclones, is recognized by Weispfenning and Petty (1991) (see section 2.2.3

Experimental Studies) and also by Thew and Smith (1997). In both cases the swirl

number concept was used. For deoilers the swirl number is commonly within the range of

8-10 which is high enough to achieve a good separation, but low enough to avoid droplet

break up and vortex core instability (Thew and Smyth, 1997).

In the current model the swirl intensity, , is defined as the ratio of the rate of

tangential to total momentum flux at a specific axial location, given by (Mantilla, 1998

and Chang and Dhir, 1994):

avz

2 2

z c

R

0

c

U R

uwrdr 2

z

(3.1)

where u and w are the axial and tangential velocities of the continuous fluid, respectively,

r is the radial position,

c

is the continuous phase density and R is the radius. U

av

is the

bulk axial velocity and the subscript z is for a given axial position.

Several published data sets on cylindrical cyclones indicate that the swirl intensity

decays exponentially with the axial position (Mantilla, 1998). Mantilla also developed a

modification of Chang and Dhir (1994) correlation to account for fluid properties and

inlet effects. In the current study, based on analysis of experimental data sets, a modified

27

correlation of Mantillas model is developed. The modified correlation takes into account

the semi-angle, , of a tapered section, resulting in:

) ) tan( 2 . 1 1 ( I

M

M

48 . 1

15 . 0

93 . 0

2

T

t

+

,

_

( )

1

]

1

+

,

_

,

_

,

_

,

_

12 . 0

7 . 0

16 . 0

z

35 . 0

4

T

t

) tan( 2 1

Dc

z

Re

1

I

M

M

2

1

EXP (3.2)

This correlation was developed using experimental data for small semi-angles, ,

from 0 to 0.75. However, a good prediction has also been obtained for 3 case (see

section 4.5 Pressure Drop Prediction). Due to this limitation and lack of experimental

data for larger angles, this equation is mainly valid for the tapered and tail pipe sections

of Colman and Thews LHC Design (Figure 1.1).

In the above equation Dc, also shown in Figure 3.1, is the characteristic diameter

of the LHC, measured where the angle changes from the reducing section to the tapered

section in the Colman and Thews Design, and at the top diameter of the 3 tapered

section of the Youngs Design (see section 1.3 LHC Geometry); z is the axial position

starting from Dc.

T

t

M

M

is the ratio of the momentum flux at the inlet slot to the axial momentum flux

at the characteristic diameter position, calculated as follows:

is

c

c c

is c

avc

is

T

t

A

A

A / m

A / m

U m

V m

M

M

&

&

&

&

(3.3)

where V

is

is the velocity at the inlet, U

avc

is the average axial velocity at Dc, m& is the

mass flow rate, A

c

is the cross sectional area at Dc and A

is

is the inlet cross sectional area.

28

Figure 3.1 LHC Characteristic Diameter

The Reynolds number is defined in the same way as for pipe flow with the

caution that it refers to a given axial position, yielding:

c

z avz c

z

D U

Re

(3.4)

where

c

is the viscosity of the continuous fluid.

The inlet factor, I, which was modified from Mantilla (1998), is defined as:

( )

n EXP 1 I (3.5)

where n = 1.5 for twin inlets and n = 1 for involute single inlet.

29

The LHC Mechanistic Model considers only the separation occurring at the

tapered and the tail pipe sections. This is a good assumption for the following reasons:

1) Several researchers have reported that most of the separation is achieved in the low

angle tapered section. 2) It can be expected that the biggest droplets that may separate

close to the inlet section will be separated anyway in the consecutive sections of the LHC

and 3) the length of the inlet and reducing sections is usually less than 10% of the total

length of the LHC.

3.3 Velocity Field

The swirl intensity is related, by definition, to the local axial and tangential

velocities. Therefore, it is assumed that once the swirl intensity is predicted for a specific

axial location, it can be used to predict the velocity profiles (Mantilla, 1998). Both

tangential and axial velocities are calculated following a similar procedure as proposed

by Mantilla (1998). The radial velocity, which is the smallest in magnitude, is computed

considering the continuity equation and the wall effect.

3.3.1 Tangential Velocity

It has been experimentally confirmed that the tangential velocity is a combination

of forced vortex near the hydrocyclone axis and free-like vortex in the outer wall region,

neglecting the effect of the wall boundary layer (Figure 3.1). This type of behavior is

known as a Rankine Vortex.

30

Figure 3.1 Rankine Vortex

Algifri et al. (1988) proposed the following equation for the tangential velocity

profile:

'

1

]

1

,

_

,

_

2

c

c

m

avc

R

r

B EXP 1

R

r

T

U

w

(3.6)

where w is the local tangential velocity, which is normalized with the average axial

velocity, U

avc

, at the characteristic diameter; r is the radial location and R

c

is the radius at

the characteristic location.

T

m

represents the maximum momentum of the tangential velocity at the section

and B determines the radial location at which the maximum tangential velocity occurs.

The following expressions were obtained by curve-fitting several sets of the experimental

data.

31

m

T (3.7)

Involute Single Inlet:

7 . 1

7 . 55 B

(3.8)

Twin Inlets:

35 . 2

8 . 245 B

(3.9)

It can be seen that the above equations are only functions of the swirl intensity, .

Thus, for a given axial position, the tangential velocity is only function of the radial

location and the swirl intensity.

3.3.2 Axial Velocity

In swirling flow the tangential motion gives rise to centrifugal forces which in

turn tend to move the fluid toward the outer region (Algifri 1988). Such a radial shift of

the fluid will result in a reduction of the axial velocity near the axis, and when the swirl

intensity is sufficiently high, reverse flows can occur near the axis. This phenomenon

causes a characteristic reverse flow in the LHC axis, which allows the separation of the

different density fluids.

A typical axial velocity profile for LHC is illustrated in Figure 3.1. Here, the

positive values represent the downward flow near the wall, which is the main flow

direction, and the negatives values represent the upward reverse flow near the LHC axis.

The reverse radius, r

rev

, is the radial position where the axial velocity is equal to zero.

32

Figure 3.1 Axial Velocity Diagram

To predict the axial velocity profile, a third-order polynomial equation is used

with the proper boundary conditions. The general form is as follows:

4 3

2

2

3

1

a r a r a r a ) r ( u + + + (3.10)

where a

1

, a

2

, a

3

and a

4

are constants. The boundary conditions considered are:

1. 0

dr

) R r ( du

z

2. 0 ) r r ( u

rev

zero velocity at the location of reverse flow, r

rev

,

3. 0

dr

) 0 r ( du

4.

2

z

c

R

0

avz c

R U rdr ) r ( u 2

z

Mass Conservation.

Substituting the boundary conditions in Equation (3.10), yields the axial velocity

profile, which is a function of the swirl intensity, only:

33

1

C

7 . 0

R

r

C

3

R

r

C

2

U

u

2

z

3

z avz

+ +

,

_

,

_

(3.11)

7 . 0

R

r

2 3

R

r

C

z

rev

2

z

rev

,

_

,

_

,

_

(3.12)

358 . 0

z

rev

293 . 0

R

r

(3.13)

Several assumptions are implicit in these equations. First, an axisymetric

geometry is imposed. Then, the effects of the boundary layer are neglected, and finally

the mass conservation balance does not consider the split ratio. The last assumption can

be considered a good approximation for small values of split ratios used in the LHC,

usually less than 10%.

3.3.3 Radial Velocity

The radial velocity, v, of the continuous phase is very small, and has been

neglected in many studies. In our case, in order to track the position of the droplets in

cylindrical and conical sections, the continuity equation and wall conditions suggested by

Kelsall (1952) and Wolbert, (1995) are used for the radial velocity profile, yielding:

) tan( u

R

r

v

z

(3.14)

The radial velocity is a function of the axial velocity and geometrical parameters.

In the particular case of cylindrical sections, where tan( ) = 0, the radial velocity, v, is

equal to 0.

34

3.4 Droplet Trajectories

The droplet trajectory model is developed using a Lagrangian approach in which

single droplets are traced in a continuous liquid phase. The droplet trajectory model

utilizes the flow field presented in the previous section.

Figure 3.1 presents the physical model. A droplet is shown at two different time

instances, t and t + dt. The droplet moves radially with a velocity V

r

and axially with V

z

.

It is assumed that in the tangential direction the droplet velocity is the same as the

continuous fluid velocity, as no force acts on the droplet in this direction. Therefore, the

trajectory of the droplet is presented only in two dimensions, namely r and z.

Figure 3.1 Droplet Velocities

During a differential time dt, the droplet moves at velocity V

r

= dr/dt in the radial

direction and V

z

= dz/dt in the axial direction. Combining these two equations and

solving for the axial distance yields the governing equation for the droplet displacement:

dr

V

V

z

V

V

dt

dr

dt

dz

dr

dz

r

z

r

z

(3.15)

35

Neglecting the axial buoyancy force (no-slip condition), the droplet axial velocity,

V

z

becomes the axial velocity of the fluid, u. This simplification is reasonable when the

acceleration due to the centrifugal force in the radial direction is thousand times larger

than the aceleration of gravity. Due to this, the LHC is not sensitive to external

movements and it can be installed either horizontally or vertically.

The droplet velocity in the radial direction is equal to the fluid radial velocity, v,

plus the slip velocity, V

sr

. Rearranging Equation (3.15) yields the total trajectory of the

droplet, namely:

r

V v

u

z

2

1

r r

r r

sr

,

_

(3.16)

The only unknown parameter in Equation (3.16) is the slip velocity, which can be

solved from a force balance on the droplet in the radial direction, as shown Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Forces Acting on a Droplet

Assuming a local equilibrium momentum yields:

4

d

V C

2

1

6

d

r

w

) (

2

2

sr c D

3 2

d c

(3.17)

where the left side of the equation is the centripetal force, and the right side is the drag

force. Solving for the radial slip velocity, results in:

36

2

1

D

2

c

d c

sr

C

d

r

w

3

4

V

,

_

,

_

(3.18)

where d is the droplet diameter;

d

is the density of the dispersed phase and C

D

is the

drag coefficient calculated using the following relationship (Morsi and Alexander, 1971

and Hargreaves, 1990):

2

d

3

d

2

1 D

Re

b

Re

b

b C + +

(3.19)

The coefficients b are dependent on the Reynolds Number of the droplets,

defined as:

c

sr c

D

V d

Re

(3.20)

The values for the b coefficients as function of the range of Re

D

are shown in

the Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Drag Coefficient Constants

Range b

1

b

2

b

3

Re

D

< 0.1 0 24 0

0.1 < Re

D

< 1 3.69 22.73 0.0903

1 < Re

D

< 10 1.222 29.1667 -3.8889

10 < Re

D

< 100 0.6167 46.5 -116.67

Finally, a numerical integration of Equation (3.16) determines the axial location

of the droplet as a function of the radial position. The trajectory of a droplet of a given

37

size is mainly a function of the LHC velocity field and the physical properties of the

dispersed and continuous phases.

3.5 Separation Efficiency

The separation efficiency of the LHC can be determined based on the droplet

trajectory analysis presented above. Starting from the cross sectional area corresponding

to the LHC characteristic diameter, it is possible to follow the trajectory of a specific

droplet, and determine if it is either able to reach the reverse flow region and be

separated, or if it reaches the LHC underflow outlet, dragged by the continuous fluid and

carried under.

As illustrated by Figure 3.1, the droplet that starts its trajectory from the wall

(r = Rc) is not separated, but rather carried under. However, if the starting location is at

r < Rc, the chance of this droplet to be separated increases. When the starting point of the

droplet trajectory is the critical radius, r

crit

, the droplet reaches the reverse radius, r

rev

, and

is carried up by the reverse flow and is separated.

Therefore, assuming homogeneous distribution of the droplets, the efficiency for a

droplet of a given diameter, (d), can be expressed by the ratio of the area for which the

droplet is separated, defined by r

crit

, over the total area for flow. This assumption has also

been applied by other researchers (Seyda and Petty, 1991; Wolbert et al., 1995 and

Moraes et al., 1996).

38

Figure 3.1 Droplet Trajectory and Migration Probability

As proposed by Moraes et al. (1996), the efficiency is given by:

'

< <

c crit

c crit rev 2

rev

2

c

2

rev

2

crit

rev crit

R r if , 1

R r r if ,

r R

r r

r r if , 0

) d (

(3.21)

Repeating this procedure for different droplet sizes, the migration probability

curve is obtained (Figure 3.2). This function has an S shape and represents the

separation efficiency, (d), vs. the droplet diameter, d. It can be seen that small droplets

39

have an efficiency very close to zero and as the droplet size is increased, (d) increases

sharply until it reaches d

100

, which is the smallest droplet size with a 100% probability to

be separated.

Figure 3.2 Migration Probability Curve

The migration probability curve is the characteristic curve of a particular LHC for

a given flow rate and fluid properties. This curve is independent of the feed droplet size

distribution and it is used in many cases to compare the separation of a given LHC

configuration.

Using the information derived from the migration probability curve and the feed

droplet size distribution, the underflow purity,

u

, can be determined as follows:

i i

i

i i

u

V

V ) d (

(3.22)

where

u

is expressed in %, and V

i

is the percentage volumetric fraction of the oil

droplets of diameter d

i

.

The underflow purity is the parameter that quantifies the LHC capacity to separate

the dispersed phase from the continuous one (see section 2.2.3 Experimental Studies).

40

3.6 Pressure Drop

The pressure drop from the inlet to the underflow outlet is calculated using a

modification of the Bernoullis Equation:

( ) L sin g h h U

2

1

P V

2

1

P

c f cf c

2

U c U

2

is c is

+ + + + + (3.23)

where

c

is the density of the continuous phase; P

is

and P

u

are the inlet and outlet

pressures respectively; V

is

is the average inlet velocity and U

u

is the underflow average

axial velocity; L is the hydrocyclone length, is the angle of the LHC axis with the

horizontal; h

cf

corresponds to the centrifugal force losses and h

f

is the frictional losses.

The frictional losses are calculated similar to pipe flow:

2

) z ( V

) z ( D

z

) z ( f ) z ( h

2

R

f

(3.24)

where f is the friction factor and V

R

is the resultant velocity.

In the case of conical sections, all parameters in Equation (3.24) change with the

axial position, z. The conical section is divided into m segments and assuming

cylindrical geometry in each segment, the frictional losses can be considered as the sum

of the losses in all the m segments, as follows.

)

2

z

) 1 n 2 (( at V

2

D D

z

2

) z ( f

h

2

R

m

1 n

n 1 n

) conical ( f

(3.25)

The resultant velocity, V

R

, is calculated as the vector sum of the average axial and

tangential velocities, The annular downward flow region is only considered, as presented

in the following set of equations:

41

2

Z

2

Z

2

R

W U ) z ( V + (3.26)

2

0

R

r

2

0

R

r

z z

rev

z

rev

rdrd

Wrdrd

W

(3.27)

For simplification purposes, the average axial velocity in Equation (3.26), Uz, is

calculated assuming plug flow, namely, Uz is equal to the total flow rate over the annular

area from the wall to the reverse radius, r

rev

. The Moody friction factor is calculated using

Halls Correlation (Hall, 1957).

'

1

]

1

,

_

+

3 / 1

6

4

) z Re(

10

) z ( D

10 x 2 1 0055 . 0 ) z ( f (3.28)

where is the pipe roughness and Re is the Reynolds Number, calculated based on the

resultant velocity computed in Equation (3.26).

The centrifugal losses are the most important one in Equation (3.23), and account

for most of the total pressure drop in the LHC. They are calculated using the following

expression:

( )

u

rev

R

r

2

u

cf

dr

r

) r ( nW

h (3.29)

where W

u

is calculated from Equation (3.27) at the underflow outlet and the centrifugal

force correction factor, n = 2 for twin inlets, and n = 3.2 for involute single inlet.

The centrifugal force correction factor compensates for the use of Bernoullis

Equation under a high rotational flow condition. Its meaning is similar to the kinetic

energy coefficient used to compensate for the non-uniformity of the velocity profile in

42

pipe flow (Munson et al., 1994). Rigorously, the Bernoullis Equation is valid for a

streamline and the summation of the pressure, the hydrostatic and the kinetic terms can

only be considered constant in all the flow field if the vorticity is equal to zero.

3.7 LHC Mechanistic Model Code

In order to validate and compare the model with published experimental data, a

computer code was built, which includes the equations shown in this chapter. The

program was developed in Visual Basic for Excel Application. Excel/VBA platform can

provide great advantages such as user-friendly interface forms and easiness to manipulate

the output data.

Figure 3.9 presents the multipage form used in the computer code where the user

can interact with the program. All the input such as geometry, operating conditions, fluid

properties and feed droplet size distribution are located in this form as separate folders.

Buttons to run the program, as well as save and open input cases are also included. All

the results of the program are presented in the worksheets of the Excel Application.

The code uses mainly two different numerical methods to obtain the results. The

tangential velocity, given by Equation (3.27), is solved using the Trapezoidal Rule, and

for the droplet trajectory, a fourth-order Runge-Kuttta method is used to solve Equation

(3.16). Also, a commercial program (Mathematica 4.0) was used to verify the resulting

numerical values given by the computer code.

43

Figure 3.9 LHC Mechanistic Model Code

44

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents a comparison between 35 published experimental data sets

and the prediction of the LHC mechanistic model developed in the present study. The

outline is similar to the previous chapter, starting from the swirl intensity prediction and

ending with the pressure drop prediction. In each section, the source of the experimental

data is described followed by the results and discussion. The only section that differs

from this structure is the droplet trajectory, where only the model predictions are shown.

4.1 Swirl Intensity Prediction

4.1.1 Experimental Data Sets

The swirl intensity, which is the ratio of the local tangential momentum flux to

the total momentum flux, can be obtained from the numerical integration of Equation

(3.1). The numerical method employed for this purpose was the trapezoidal rule. The

experimental data sets used to compare with the swirl intensity predicted by the model,

are described next:

45

Colmans (1981) work, where the flow field was measured using a

Laser Doppler Anemometer. In this study four different hydrocyclone

designs were used. However, only designs II, III and IV, as named in

the original work, are used here. The configurations of these

hydrocyclones are shown in Figure 4.1 and the geometrical and

operational conditions of each study case are detailed in Table 4-1 and

Table 4-2, respectively.

Figure 4.1 Colmans Designs (1981)

46

Table 4-1 Geometrical Parameters of Colmans Designs (1981)

Case Design Dc(mm) L As

1

2

D

2

L

2

Ds Ls Du

1 II 58 30Dc 0.125 - 90 0.5Dc 22Dc - - 0.14Dc

2 III 30 20Dc 0.0625 10 10 0.5Dc 21Dc 2Dc 3Dc 0.14Dc

3 IV 30 - 0.0625 10 0.67 0.5Dc 21Dc 2Dc 3Dc 0.14Dc

Table 4-2 Operational Conditions of Colmans Designs (1981)

Case Design Dc(mm) Flowrate (lpm) T (C) F (%)

1 II 58 175 25 10

2 III 30 60 25 10

3 IV 30 60 25 10

where F(%) is the split ratio.

Hargreaves data (1990) were taken with a LDA in a similar LHC

configuration as that of Colmans Design IV, but with a single involute

inlet instead of the twin inlets. The cross sectional area of the inlet is 644

mm

2

. Figure 4.1 is used as a reference for the rest of the geometrical

parameters expressed in Table 4-3. The flow rate used in these cases is

180 lpm and two different split ratios, F, were tested. Case 4 with F =

10%, which corresponds to Du = 0.117 Dc, and the Case 5 with F = 1%,

which corresponds to Du = 0.04 Dc.

47

Table 4-3 Geometrical Parameters of Hargreaves (1990)

Case Design Dc(mm)

1

2

D

2

L

2

Ds Ls

4 and 5 IV 60 10 0.6365 0.5Dc 15Dc 1.5Dc 1.67Dc

The amount of experimental data, presented for each case in the next section,

depends on the availability of axial and tangential velocity measurements at specific axial

locations published by the above mentioned authors.

4.1.2 Results

The experimental data shown in Figure 4.1 to Figure 4.4 correspond to cases 1, 2,

3, 4 and 5 mentioned in the previous section. All the data used from design II and III

(Figure 4.1) correspond to the cylindrical sections with Dc diameter, while the data

shown for design IV correspond to the small angle tapered section.

The results display the swirl intensity versus the dimensionless axial position,

where z is the axial distance from the characteristic diameter (see Figure 3.1).

48

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

z / Dc

S

w

i

r

l

I

n

t

e

n

s

i

t

y

,

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.1 Swirl Intensity Prediction - Case 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 5 10 15 20 25

z / Dc

S

w

i

r

l

I

n

t

e

n

s

i

t

y

,

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.2 Swirl Intensity Prediction - Case 2

49

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

z / Dc

S

w

i

r

l

I

n

t

e

n

s

i

t

y

,

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.3 Swirl Intensity Prediction - Case 3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

z / Dc

S

w

i

r

l

I

n

t

e

n

s

i

t

y

,

Experimental Data F=1% (Case 5)

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.4 Swirl Intensity Prediction - Cases 4 and 5

50

4.1.3 Discussion

It has been experimentally proved by several researchers that the swirl intensity

decays exponentially with axial position in cylindrical pipes due to the wall frictional

losses (Chang and Dhir, 1994 and Mantilla, 1998). The results in Figure 4.1 show that the

swirl intensity in a cylindrical hydrocyclone predicted by the modified model of Mantilla

(1998) agrees very accurately with the experimental data.

The model also shows good agreement for the low angle conical sections (Case 3,

4 and 5). However, there are not sufficient experimental data to ensure the reliability of

the modified correlation to predict the swirl intensity as a function of a variety of angles.

In this sense, a question that remains open is to what extent can the correlation predict the

swirl intensity for larger angles of the conical sections.

4.2 Velocity Field Prediction

4.2.1 Experimental Data Sets

The velocity field predicted by the proposed mechanistic model is compared with

the same experimental data sets used for the swirl intensity prediction, namely, cases 1, 2,

3, 4 and 5. The only new sets of data incorporated are from Case 6 (Hargreaves, 1990),

which is for the same geometry of Case 5 but with a change of the flow rate from 180

lpm to 150 lpm. In the latter case only the axial velocity was published for the lower

angle conical section.

51

4.2.2 Tangential and Axial Velocity Results

Figure 4.1 to Figure 4.5 present the comparison between the data and model

prediction for the tangential velocity at different axial positions. The y-axis of each chart

corresponds to the axis of the LHC, and the x-axis represents the radial position. The

units used originally were conserved, namely, millimeters per second for the tangential

velocity, and millimeters for the radial position.

Next, the axial velocities predicted by the model are compared with the

experimental data at different axial locations in Figure 4.6 to Figure 4.11. In all the charts

the positive values of axial velocities correspond to downward flow, which is the

direction of the main flow, while the negative values represent the reverse flow.

Figure 4.11 shows the axial velocity in the entire cross sectional area of LHC. In

the rest of the figures, the axial velocity is only shown from the center line to the wall of

the LHC.

4.2.3 Discussion

In general, the model predictions are close to the experimental data. The closer

the prediction of the velocities is to the real phenomenon, the better will be the prediction

of the separation efficiency and the pressure drop.

Tangential Velocity

The experimental data of case 1 (Design II) cannot be predicted accurately by an

axy-symmetric model. It seems that if the data are shifted to the right, as if to get a zero

velocity value in the LHC axis, the model predictions will get much closer to the

experimental data. The non-symmetry of this case compared with the others is one of the

52

reasons that this design had an inferior separation performance to the Design III and IV

(Colman, 1981) Cases. Except for Case 1, the model predicts with acceptable accuracy

the tangential velocity at the wall, the peak velocity and the radius where it occurs. The

experimental data and the model display a Rankine Vortex shape, namely, a combination

of forced vortex near to the LHC axis and a free like vortex in the outer region.

It can also be seen from Case 1 that the experimental data and the model

predictions follow the same tendency as the fluid moves downward. The tangential

velocity at the wall decreases and the peak velocity value increases approaching the LHC

axis.

Axial Velocity

The mechanistic model performance is excellent with respect to the axial velocity,

in the downward flow region, and not so good in the reverse flow. Considering the

calculations that the model follows to compute the separation efficiency, the prediction of

the reverse flow velocity profile is not so important. What is really important is the

prediction of the radius of zero velocity since beyond this point the droplet is assumed to

be separated.

Further, it can be observed how the model and the experimental data show a

reduction in the reverse radius as the axial position increases and the swirl intensity

decreases.

53

z / Dc = 9

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 10.5

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 12

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.1 Tangential Velocity Prediction - Case 1

54

z / Dc = 15

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 18

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 21

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.1 Tangential Velocity Prediction - Case 1 (Contd.)

55

z / Dc = 24

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 27

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 28

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.1 Tangential Velocity Prediction - Case 1 (Contd.)

56

z / Dc = 10.5

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

0 4 8 12 16

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.2 Tangential Velocity Prediction - Case 2

z / Dc = 10.5

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

0 4 8 12

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.3 Tangential Velocity Prediction - Case 3

57

z / Dc = 3.75

F = 10%

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 7.5

F = 10%

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 15

F = 10%

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.4 Tangential Velocity Prediction - Case 4

58

z / Dc = 3.75

F = 1%

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 7.5

F = 1%

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 15

F = 1%

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25

Radius (mm)

T

a

n

g

e

n

t

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.5 Tangential Velocity Prediction - Case 5

59

z / Dc = 10.5

-6500

0

6500

-30 0 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 12

-6500

0

6500

-30 0 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 15

-6500

0

6500

-30 0 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.6 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 1

60

z / Dc = 18

-6500

0

6500

-30 0 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 21

-6500

0

6500

-30 0 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 24

-6500

0

6500

-30 0 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.6 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 1 (Contd.)

61

z / Dc = 27

-6500

0

6500

-30 0 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 28.5

-6500

0

6500

-30 0 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.6 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 1 (Contd.)

62

z / Dc = 10.5

-7000

0

7000

0 4 8 12 16

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.7 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 2

z / Dc = 10.5

-8000

0

8000

0 4 8 12

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.8 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 3

63

z / Dc = 3.75

F = 10%

-6000

0

6000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 7.5

F = 10%

-6000

0

6000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 15

F = 10%

-6000

0

6000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.9 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 4

64

z / Dc = 3.75

F = 1%

-6000

0

6000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 7.5

F = 1%

-6000

0

6000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 15

F = 1%

-6000

0

6000

0 5 10 15 20 25

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.10 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 5

65

z / Dc = 3.75

-5000

0

5000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 7.5

-5000

0

5000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.11 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 6

66

z / Dc = 11.25

-5000

0

5000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

z / Dc = 15

-5000

0

5000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

V

e

l

o

c

i

t

y

(

m

m

/

s

e

c

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.11 Axial Velocity Prediction - Case 6 (Contd.)

67

4.3 Droplet Trajectory Prediction

The prediction of the separation efficiency is based on the droplets trajectories.

Once the velocity field of the continuous phase is known, the slip velocity of the droplets

can be calculated and consequently, the trajectory can be determined.

Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 present the model prediction for the droplet trajectory

for a case study. The geometry and operational conditions selected for this analysis are

from Case 7, detailed in the experimental data sets of the Separation Efficiency

Prediction (Section 4.4.1). Only model predictions are shown for droplet trajectory due to

non-availability of data. In Figure 4.1, the path that the different droplet sizes follow

within the LHC are shown starting from the radius at Rc only. On the other hand, Figure

4.2 describes the trajectory of a 15 microns droplet only, with different starting trajectory

radial positions.

Reverse Flow

Radius

d=15 m

d=25 m

d=29 m

d=35 m

d=45 m

d=60 m

0

350

700

1050

1400

0 5 10 15

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

P

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

(

m

m

)

Figure 4.1 Predicted Droplets Trajectories Case 7

68

Reverse Flow

Radius

Droplet Size

Diameter

15 m

0

350

700

1050

1400

0 5 10 15

Radius (mm)

A

x

i

a

l

P

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

(

m

m

)

Figure 4.2 Trajectories of a 15 Microns Droplet Case 7

As can be seen from Figure 4.1, the larger droplets are separated easily, but the

smallest droplets of 25 and 15 microns diameter are not able to reach the reverse flow

region, even when their starting trajectory point is at the wall.

Figure 4.2 demonstrates the concept in which the separation efficiency is

calculated by the model. A 15 microns droplet is dragged by the fluid when it enters the

top cross sectional area near the wall. However, as the droplet is introduced closer to the

LHC axis the probability of this droplet to be separated is increased. It can be observed

that this droplet reaches the reverse flow region when it is released at a radius equal to 11

mm, which is close to the critical radius, r

crit

for this case.

If we consider that the tangential velocity increases considerably as it approaches

the LHC center, and that the axial velocity behaves in an opposite manner, once the

69

droplet is able to reach these zones of very high centrifugal forces and moderate resident

times, it migrates very fast to the center, reaching the reverse flow region and is

separated. This is the reason why the case study droplet (15m diameter) passes

suddenly from a starting radius where it cannot be separated, to one where it is easily

separated.

4.4 Separation Efficiency Prediction

The main objective of the LHC is to produce very clean water through the

underflow outlet, while minimizing the amount of water loss that exits with the oil core

through the overflow outlet. An expression that helps to evaluate the separation

performance is the underflow purity given by Equation (2.2). This variable expresses the

ratio of the difference in concentration from the feed to the underflow stream over the

feed concentration. Another common way of looking at the efficiency of the

hydrocyclone is through the migration probability curve. This kind of chart represents the

separation efficiency of a particular droplet size.

Both, the underflow purity and the migration probability curve predicted by the

model are evaluated through comparisons with published experimental data. In order to

calculate the underflow purity, the LHC model needs as an input the feed droplet size

distribution which is also shown in the results section.

4.4.1 Experimental Data Sets

The experimental data sets used for the separation efficiency comparisons are

from four sources:

70

Case 7 is from Colmans (1981) study. This case is the same as Case 3 but the

experimental temperature was 50C, which corresponds to a water viscosity of 0.55 cp.

The dispersed phase used were solid particles (polypropylene) instead of oil droplets. The

density of these particles at the operational temperature is 0.89 g/cc.

Case 8 includes the geometry and operational conditions reported by Wolbert et

al. (1995). Using Figure 4.1 as a reference, the following table gives the details of the

geometrical parameters for this case. The flow rate used in this case was 32 lpm with an

oil dispersed phase density of 0.902 g/cc. The feed droplet size distribution for Case 7

and 8 are shown in Figure 4.20 and Figure 4.4 respectively.

Table 4-1 Geometrical Parameters, Wolbert et al. (1995)

Case Design Dc(mm)

1

2

D

2

L

2

Ds Ls Di

8 IV 20 10 0.75 0.5Dc 30Dc 2Dc 2Dc 0.35Dc

where Di is the inlet diameter of one of the twin inlets (mm)

Cases 9 to 23 are part of the set of experiments published by Colman et al. (1980)

and Case 24 by Colman et al. (1984). These experimental data sets are for the same

configuration as the one shown in the Table 4-1 and the characteristic diameter and

operational conditions are reported together with the results in Table 4-1.

4.4.2 Migration Probability and Underflow Purity Results

The results of Cases 7 and 8 can be seen in Figure 4.1 to Figure 4.4. Initially the

migration probability curve is illustrated, followed by a chart that contains the underflow

purity and the experimental feed droplet size distribution, and the underflow droplet size

distribution, as calculated by the model. Next, the feed droplet size distribution of Cases

71

9 to 24 are plotted for two different oils, from Kuwait and Forties, as shown in Figure 4.5

and Figure 4.6.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64

Droplet Diameter (microns)

S

e

p

a

r

a

t

i

o

n

E

f

f

i

c

i

e

n

c

y

(

%

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.1 Migration Probability Curve - Case 7

0

10

20

30

40

12.75 15.9 20 25 31.4 39.6 50 62.6 79.8 100 129

Droplet Diameter (microns)

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

F

r

a

c

t

i

o

n

(

%

)

Feed (Experimental) Underflow (LHC Mechanistic Model)

Experimental

u = 91%

LHC Mechanistic Model

u = 93%

Figure 4.2 Underflow Purity,

u

- Case 7

72

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64

Droplet Diameter (microns)

S

e

p

a

r

a

t

i

o

n

E

f

f

i

c

i

e

n

c

y

(

%

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.3 Migration Probability Curve - Case 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

1.5 5 7 10 14 20 28 40 56

Droplet Diameter (microns)

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

F

r

a

c

t

i

o

n

(

%

)

Feed (Experimental) Underflow (LHC Mechanistic Model)

Experimental

u = 81%

LHC Mechanistic Model

u = 76%

Figure 4.4 Underflow Purity,

u

- Case 8

73

0

5

10

15

20

25

3.5 5 6.4 8.12 10 12.75 16.25 20 25.15 31.62 39.75 50 81.23 81.23

Droplet Size (microns)

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

F

r

a

c

t

i

o

n

(

%

)

Mean Drop Size =17 m

Oil Density = 0.84 g/cc

0

5

10

15

20

25

3.5 5 6.4 8.12 10 12.8 16.3 20 25.2 31.6 39.8 50 63.7 81.2 100 115

Droplet Size (microns)

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

F

r

a

c

t

i

o

n

(

%

)

Mean Drop Size =35 m

Oil Density = 0.84 g/cc

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

5 6 8 10 13 16 20 25 32 40 50 64 81 100 115 135

Droplet Size (microns)

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

F

r

a

c

t

i

o

n

(

%

)

Mean Drop Size =70 m

Oil Density = 0.84 g/cc

Figure 4.5 Droplet Size Distributions for Kuwait Oil (Colman et al., 1980)

74

0

5

10

15

20

25

6.4 8.12 10 12.75 16.25 20 25.15 31.62 39.75 50 63.73 81.23 100 115

Droplet Size (microns)

V

o

l

u

m

e

t

r

i

c

F

r

a

c

t

i

o

n

(

%

)

Mean Drop Size =41 m

Oil Density = 0.87 g/cc

Figure 4.6 Droplet Size Distribution for Forties Oil (Colman et al., 1980)

The experimental underflow purity results and the one computed by the LHC

model for cases 7 to 24 are described in Table 4-1. The migration probability curve for

the Cases 16, 18, 20, 23 and 24 are reported in Figure 4.7 to Figure 4.9 as examples.

75

Table 4-1 Underflow Purity Results Cases 7 to 24

Case Dc (mm)

Flowrate

(lpm)

Oil

Density

(g/cc)

Mean

Drop Size

( c)

Experimental

Underflow

Purity (%)

Model

Underflow

Purity (%)

7 30 60 0.89 91 93

8 20 32 0.902 81 76

9 30 60 0.87 41 88 86

10 30 40 0.84 35 78 73

11 30 50 0.84 35 82 79

12 30 60 0.84 35 84 83

13 30 70 0.84 35 88 86

14 58 160 0.84 35 72 65

15 58 190 0.84 35 74 69

16 58 220 0.84 35 78 74

17 58 250 0.84 35 81 79

18 58 220 0.84 17 43 42

19 58 250 0.84 17 47 47

20 58 220 0.84 70 96 92

21 58 250 0.84 70 97 93

22 58 220 0.87 41 80 76

23 58 250 0.87 - - -

24 51 150 0.84 - - -

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64

Droplet Diameter (microns)

S

e

p

a

r

a

t

i

o

n

E

f

f

i

c

i

e

n

c

y

(

%

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.7 Migration Probability Curve Cases 16, 18 and 20

76

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80

Droplet Diameter (microns)

S

e

p

a

r

a

t

i

o

n

E

f

f

i

c

i

e

n

c

y

(

%

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.8 Migration Probability Curve Case 23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72

Droplet Diameter (microns)

S

e

p

a

r

a

t

i

o

n

E

f

f

i

c

i

e

n

c

y

(

%

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.9 Migration Probability Curve Case 24

77

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Experimental Underflow Purity (%)

L

H

C

M

e

c

h

a

n

i

s

t

i

c

M

o

d

e

l

U

n

d

e

r

f

l

o

w

P

u

r

i

t

y

(

%

)

Average Relative Error (%) = -3.7

Average Relative Absolute Error (%)= 4

Figure 4.10 Comparison of Model Underflow Purity and Experimental Data Set

4.4.3 Discussion

Figure 4.10, incorporates all the data sets, showing how well the model predicts

the underflow purity for such broad range of conditions. The characteristic diameter of

the hydrocyclone varied from 20 to 58 mm, and the flowrate studied from 32 to 250 lpm.

The average relative absolute error is 4% and the average relative error is 3.7%, which

confirms what can be seen in the chart, that the model is consistently under predicting the

underflow purity. This difference stems from the discrepancy between the theoretical and

experimental values of the migration probability.

In most of the cases the model estimates lower separation efficiency for droplet

diameters less than 25 microns. On the other hand the biggest droplets that have

experimental efficiencies around 95%, are predicted by the model to be completely

separated. Both effects may compensate each other and give more realistic results.

78

It is interesting to note that the only case in which the model predicts higher

efficiency is Case 7, which is the case with a solid particle dispersion. This may suggest

that the under-prediction of the separation efficiency by the model may be due to the

effect of droplet coalescence.

From Table 4-1 it can be concluded that the model and the experimental data

follow the same trends:

Higher droplet diameters produced better underflow purities (Case 17,

d35,

u

=81% and Case 19, d17,

u

=43%).

The separation efficiency increases at higher flow rates (see Cases 10 to

13).

4.5 Pressure Drop Prediction

In this section the pressure drop from the inlet to the underflow outlet is

calculated by the model and compared with the experimental data described as follows.

4.5.1 Experimental Data Sets

Young et al. (1990) conducted experiments using Colman and Thews (1988)

design. The configuration that the authors used consisted of an involute inlet of area

equal to 197 mm

2

. Referring to design IV of Figure 4.1, the following table gives the

details of the geometrical parameters.

Table 4-1 Geometrical Parameters, Young et al. (1990)

Case Design Dc(mm)

1

2

D

2

L

2

Ds Ls

25 IV 35 10 0.75 0.73Dc 26Dc 2Dc 2Dc

79

The source of Case 26 is from the specification of a commercial 2 inch

hydrocyclone called MQ HYDRO-SWIRL manufactured by MPE/NATCO. This is the

only experimental data collected for a design different from Colman and Thews and is

the only case in which the model is evaluated against a LHC with a semi-angle greater

than 0.75. This 3 semi-angle LHC was designed by Young et al. (1993) and the

differences with Colman and Thews (1988) design is explained in section 1.3 LHC

Geometry.

The last experimental data set used for the pressure drop is from Colman and

Thew (1983). Cases 27 to 35 are defined with the geometry of Table 4-1 and the

experimental results are provided in Table 4-1. In this study the effect of the viscosity of

water on the pressure drop was studied by varying the temperature.

4.5.2 Results

The pressure drop comparison between the data and model predictions are given

in Figure 4.29, Figure 4.30 and Table 4-7.

0

40

80

120

160

0 40 80 120

Pressure Drop (psi)

F

l

o

w

r

a

t

e

(

l

p

m

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.1 Pressure Drop Prediction Case 25

80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250

Pressure Drop (psi)

F

l

o

w

r

a

t

e

(

l

p

m

)

Experimental Data

LHC Mechanistic Model

Figure 4.2 Pressure Drop Prediction Case 26

Table 4-1 Pressure Drop Cases 27 to 35

Case Dc (mm)

Flowrate

(lpm)

Water

Density

(g/cc)

Water

Viscosity

(cp)

T (C)

Experimental

Pressure Drop

(psi)

LHC Mechanistc Model

Pressure Drop (Psi)

27 58 250 1.00 1.23 12 32.63 31.37

28 58 250 1.00 1.27 11 32.49 31.08

29 58 250 0.99 0.55 50 36.98 38.87

30 58 220 1.05 1.32 14 35.24 24.40

31 58 220 1.00 1.14 15 27.56 23.93

32 30 60 1.00 1.10 16 19.14 20.86

33 30 40 1.00 1.10 16 7.83 8.17

34 30 60 0.99 0.55 50 26.83 25.42

35 30 50 0.99 0.55 50 17.55 16.72

The model is now evaluated with the results of Cases 25 to 35 in Figure 4.3.

81

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210

Experimental Pressure Drop (psi)

L

H

C

M

e

c

h

a

n

i

s

t

i

c

M

o

d

e

l

P

r

e

s

s

u

r

e

D

r

o

p

(

p

s

i

)

Average Relative Error (%) = -7.9

Average Relative Absolute Error (%)= 11.1

Figure 4.3 Comparison Between Pressure Drop Model and All Experimental Data

4.5.3 Discussion

Satisfactory results for pressure drop prediction were achieved by the model for

the Colman and Thews Design (Case 25) and in Youngs Design (Case 26).

Figure 4.3 shows the evaluation of the model for all the data gathered. The

average relative absolute error equal to 11.1% and average relative error equal to 7.9%

are evidences of good performance of the model.

The pressure drop model exhibits correct sensitivity to the fluid properties. Table

4-1 shows that the experimental data and the model predictions have the same trend with

respect to the variation of the water viscosity.

82

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary and Conclusions

A simple mechanistic model is developed for the LHC. The model is capable of

predicting the hydrodynamic flow field of the continuous phase within the LHC. The

separation efficiency is determined based on droplet trajectories, and the inlet-underflow

pressure drop is predicted using an energy balance analysis. A user friendly computer

code is developed based on the proposed model. The code provides easy access to the

input data and very fast output, and can be used for the design of LHC by the industry.

The prediction of the proposed model are compared with elaborated published

experimental data sets. Good agreement is obtained between the model predictions and

the experimental data with respect to both separation efficiency and pressure drop.

A summary of the tasks performed during this study and the most important

conclusions are described as follows.

A set of correlations are developed to predict the hydrodynamic flow

behavior of the continuous phase in the LHC. The swirl intensity, which is

the ratio of tangential momentum flux to the average axial momentum

flux, can be predicted using a modified form of Mantilla (1998) model,

incorporating the semi-angle of a conical section and adjusting the inlet

factor for LHC geometry. Good agreement with experimental data is

83

observed for a small angle range, from 0 to 0.75. These are the range of

values used in the Colman and Thew (1988) Design.

It is confirmed that the swirl intensity defines the velocity field within the

LHC. The tangential velocity exhibited a forced vortex near the axis and

free-like vortex in the outer region. This behavior and the order of

magnitude are well predicted by the model, utilizing some of the

parameters of the Rankine Vortex Equation used by Mantilla (1998) and

Algifri et al (1988).

The axial velocity, which shows a reverse flow in the core region, is

predicted by a third order polynomial equation, as suggested by Mantilla

(1998). A modification of the relationship between the reverse flow radius

and the swirl intensity is proposed. The prediction of the downward flow

by the model is excellent as opposed to the reverse upward flow. No

attempt to correct this is done in this study mainly because the critical

parameter considered by the model is only the downward flow, where the

separation is achieved.

The radial velocity is predicted using the continuity equation and wall

conditions suggested by Wolbert et al. (1995). There are no data available

for this velocity component.

A droplet trajectory analysis is developed assuming local momentum

equilibrium. The only forces acting on the droplet are the centripetal and

drag forces in the radial direction. For simplification it is assumed that the

droplet moves at the fluid velocity in the axial and tangential directions.

84

Based on the droplet trajectory the separation efficiency of the LHC is

determined using a similar procedure proposed by Wolbert et al. (1995).

The underflow purity can be computed for a given feed droplet size

distribution.

Through comparison with 17 cases, where the characteristic diameter of

the hydrocyclone, Dc, varies from 20 to 58 mm and the flowrate ranges

from 32 to 250 lpm, the model predicts the underflow purity with an

average relative absolute error of 4%. One of these cases is the study by

Wolbert et al. (1995), where their model predicted 90% of underflow

efficiency, while the experimental results reported 81%. However, the

proposed LHC model predicted 76% underflow efficiency for this same

case. This may suggest that in general the present model predicts a more

realistic velocity field within the LHC.

Based on the velocity field of the continuous phase and using an energy

balance equation, the pressure drop is predicted by the model. Comparison

with 20 data points reveals an average relative absolute error of 11.1% and

an average relative error equal to 7.9%. The pressure drop is compared

not only with the Colman and Thews Design but also with the Youngs

(1993) Design, and good results are also achieved for the latter. It is

important to mention that Youngs design has a conical section of a 3

semi-angle, what goes beyond the range for which the velocity correlation

was developed.

85

After a critical analysis of several experimental data available for the LHC, it is

possible to conclude that the LHC mechanistic model predicts with a good confidence

level the performance of liquid hydrocyclones with geometrical proportions similar to the

Colman and Thews (1988) Design.

5.2 Recommendations

The developed mechanistic model has proven to be a good tool to predict the

performance of various LHC sizes, for Colman and Thews Design. Unfortunately, most

of the experimental data published to date comes from this LHC Design. In order to use

the current model as a design tool, further comparisons with experimental data from

different designs are needed.

Some recommendations that may improve the performance of the model and help

to understand the limitations of its application are as follows.

Acquire local velocity measurements for the axial and tangential velocity

distribution at different tapered section angles, from 0 to 10 semi-angle

section. These data can be used to improve the set of correlation that

defines the LHC flow field.

The axial velocity profile needs to be further investigated, since under

high values of swirl intensity double reversal may occur, for which the

equation that the model uses will no longer be valid.

The model assumes a stable core. However, vortex instability may occur

under certain conditions, as confirmed by Weispfenning and Petty (1991).

They found that this phenomena is strongly dependent on the swirl

86

intensity and a characteristic Reynolds Number. Knowledge of the swirl

intensity values where these undesirable conditions occur will provide a

realistic range of applicability of the model.

This proposed model does not consider recirculation zones or short

circuits at the inlet. These two phenomena cause either the return to the

main flow of some of the fluid that goes with the oil core to the overflow

outlet, or cause the feed to go directly to the reject orifice. These

conditions may affect to some degree the separation efficiency, and they

have to be included in order to have a more robust model.

The model does not consider the overflow to underflow split ratio. This

parameter is crucial for a desirable operation of the LHC but does not

affect considerably the LHC flow field. At this point the model assumes

that the split ratio is sufficient to accommodate the volume of oil that is

separated and that the efficiency does not change with the split ratio, as

many researchers have reported. This assumption may be true in the

typical range of operation of the LHC, namely, 1 to 10 %, but outside this

range a change of the velocity field may occur, and that must be accounted

for.

There is a relationship between the swirl intensity and the reverse flow

radius. As shown by the experimental data and followed by the models

prediction, the reverse flow radius is reduced as the swirl decays. But there

is a point where there is no longer reverse flow and still some swirling

motion can occur. Under this condition the model will still consider a

87

reverse flow. A proper improvement will be to know for which small swirl

intensity values the flow will not exhibit reverse flow and incorporate this

aspect in the model.

Finally, to use this model as a design tool, a good prediction of the swirl intensity

with the axial position for different taper sections is crucial. It is believed that in the small

angle tapered section the swirl intensity decreases at a slower rate as compared to a

cylindrical section. Nevertheless, a point can be reached at the conical section where

lower values of swirl intensity are generated, as illustrated in the next hypothetical

diagram.

Figure 5.1 Hypothetical Swirl Intensity Decay

At this point, not sufficient information is available to confirm this notion, but it is

important to note that the swirl intensity is crucial for the LHC performance and also for

design purposes. If a model is able to predict accurately the swirl intensity, this can be

used as a design parameter, where an optimum design will be the one with the highest

possible swirl intensity.

88

NOMENCLATURE

A = cross sectional area

B = factor that determines the peak tangential velocity radius

C

D

= drag coefficient

d = droplet diameter

D = diameter

Dc = LHC characteristic diameter

f = friction factor

h = losses

I = inlet factor

k = concentration

L = length

m& = mass flow rate

M

t

= momentum flux at the inlet slot

M

T

= axial momentum flux at the characteristic diameter position

n = centrifugal force correction factor

P = pressure

Q = volumetric flow rate

r = radial position

R = LHC radius

89

Re = Reynolds Number

t = time

T

m

= maximum momentum of the tangential velocity at the section

u = continuous phase local axial velocity

U = bulk axial velocity

v = continuous phase local radial velocity

V = volumetric fraction / velocity

V

r

= droplet radial velocity

V

sr

= droplet slip velocity in the radial direction

V

z

= droplet axial velocity

w = continuous phase local tangential velocity

W = mean tangential velocity

Greek Letters:

= swirl intensity

= taper section semi-angle

= efficiency / purity / pipe roughness

= axis horizontal angle

= viscosity

= density

90

Subscripts:

av = average

c = characteristic diameter location / continuous phase

cf = centrifugal

crit = critical

d = dispersed phase / droplet

f = frictional

g = gravity acceleration

i = inlet

is = inlet section

o = overflow

r = resultant

rev = reverse flow

u = underflow

z = axial position

Abbreviations:

CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics

ESP = Electric Submergible Pump

LDA = Laser Doppler Anemometry

LHC = Liquid Hydrocyclones

91

REFERENCES

Algifri, A., Bhardwaj, R. and Rao, Y., 1988, Turbulence Measurements in Decaying

Swirl Flow in a Pipe. Applied Scientific Research, Vol. 45, pp. 233-250.

Ali, S., Wesson, G., Petty, C. and Parks, M., 1994, The Use of Small Hydrocyclones for

Produced Water Clarification. Hydrocyclone Development Consortium, Michigan State

University.

Bloor, M., 1987, "On Axially Symmetric Flow Models for Hydrocyclones". In 3rd

International Conference on Hydrocyclones, Wood, P. (ed), Elsevier, Oxford, England,

pp. 83-89.

Bloor, M. and Ingham, D., 1973, "Theoretical Investigation of the Flow in a Conical

Hydrocyclone". Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., Vol. 51, pp. 36-41.

Bloor, M. and Ingham, D., 1984, "The Influence of Vorticity on the Efficiency of the

Hydrocyclone". In 2nd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Bath,

England, paper B2, pp. 19-21.

Bloor, M. and Ingham, D., 1987, "The Flow in Industrial Cyclones". Journal of Fluid

Mechanics, Vol. 178, pp. 507-519.

Bloor, M., Ingham, D. and Laverack, S., 1980, "An Analysis of Boundary Layer Effects

in a Hydrocyclone". In International Conference on Hydrocyclone, Cambridge, England,

paper 5, pp. 49-62.

92

Bowers, B., Lloyd, D., Schrenkel, P. and Matthews, C., 1996, "Downhole Application of

Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclones". In Hydrocyclones 96, Claxton, D., Svarovsky, L. and

Thew, M. (eds), M.E.P., London, England, pp 423-434.

Bradley, D., 1965, "The Hydrocyclone". Pergamon Press.

Bradley, D. and Pulling, D., 1959, "Flow Patterns in the Hydraulic Cyclone and Their

Interpretation in Terms of Performance". Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., Vol. 37, pp. 35-44.

Chakraborti, N. and Miller, J., 1992, "Fluid Flow in Hydrocyclones: A Critical Review".

Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review, Vol. 11, pp. 211-244.

Chang, F and Dhir, V., 1994, Turbulent flow field in tangentially injected swirl flows in

tubes. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 15, pp. 346-356.

Colman, D., 1981, The Hydrocyclone for Separating Light Dispersions. Ph.D. Thesis.

University of Southampton, England.

Colman, D. and Thew, M., 1980, "Hydrocyclone to Give a Highly Concentrated Sample

of a Lighter Dispersed Phase". In International Conference on Hydrocyclones, BHRA,

Cambridge, United Kingdom, paper 15, pp. 209-223.

Colman, D. and Thew, M., 1983, "Correlation of Separation Results From Light

Dispersion Hydrocyclones". Chem. Eng. Res. Des., Vol. 61, pp. 233-240.

Colman, D. and Thew, M., 1988, "Cyclone Separator". U.S. Patent 4764287.

Colman, D., Thew, M. and Corney, D., 1980, "Hydrocyclones for Oil/Water Separation".

In International Conference on Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Cambridge, United Kingdom,

paper 11, pp. 143-165.

93

Colman D., Thew, M. and Lloyd, D., 1984, "The Concept of Hydrocyclones for

Separating Light Dispersions and a Comparison of Field Data with Laboratory Work". In

2nd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Bath, England, paper F2, pp.

217-232.

Dabir, B., 1983, "Mean Velocity Measurements in a 3''-Hydrocyclone Using Laser

Doppler Anemometry". Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State University, Michigan.

Fanglu, G. and Wenzhen, L., 1987, "Measurements and Study of Velocity Field in

Various Cyclones by Use of Laser Doppler Anemometry". In 3rd International

Conference on Hydrocyclones, Wood, P. (ed), Elsevier, Oxford, England, pp. 65-74.

Fraser, S. and Abdullah, M., 1995, "LDA Measurement on a Modified Cyclone". ASME

Laser Anemometry, FED-Vol. 229, pp. 395-403.

Flanigan, D., Stolhand, J., Shimoda, E. and Skilbeck, F., 1992, "Use of Low-Shear

Pumps and Hydrocyclones for Improved Performance in the Cleanup of Low-Pressure

Water". SPE Production Engineering, August, pp. 295-300.

Hall, N., 1957, Thermodynamics of Fluid Flow. Longmans, Green, New York.

Hargreaves, J., 1990, Computing and Measuring the Flowfield in a Deoiling

Hydrocyclone. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Southampton, England.

Hargreaves, J. and Silvester, R., 1990, Computational Fluid Dynamic Applied to the

Analysis of Deoiling Hydrocyclone Performance. Trans. IchemE., Vol. 68, Part A, pp.

365-383.

Hashmi, K., Friesen, W., Bohun, D. and Thew, M., 1996, "Application of Hydrocyclones

for Treating Produced Fluids in Heavy Oil Recovery". In Hydrocyclones 96, Claxton, D.,

Svarovsky, L. and Thew, M. (eds), M.E.P., London, England, pp 369-382.

94

He, P., Salcudean, M., Branion, R. and Gartshore, I., 1997, "Mathematical Modeling of

Hydrocyclones". In ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, FEDSM97-

3315.

Hsieh, K. and Rajamani, R., 1991, "Mathematical Model of the Hydrocyclone Based on

Physics of Fluid Flow". AIChE Journal, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp 735-746.

Hubred, G., Mason, A., Parks, S. and Petty, C., 2000, "Dispersed Phase Separations: Can

CFD Help?". Proceeding of ETCE/OMAE Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Jirun, X., Qian, L. and Qui, J., 1990, "Studying the Flow Field in a Hydrocyclone With

no Forced Vortex I, II". Filtration and Separation, July/August, pp. 276-278,

September/October, pp. 356-359.

Kang, J., 1984, "On the Analysis of the Flow and Particle Motion in a Hydrocyclone".

Society of Petroleum Engineers, paper 13407.

Kang, J. and Hayatdavoudi, A., 1985, "Analytical Model Determining the Flow Pattern

and the Distribution of d50 in a Hydrocyclone". Society of Petroleum Engineers, paper

15202.

Kelsall, D., 1952, "A Study of the Motion of Solid Particles in a Hydraulic Cyclone".

Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., Vol. 30, pp. 87-108.

Kraipech, W., Chen, W. and Parma, F., 2000, "Prediction of Hydrocyclone Performances

- How Much Can the Models Do?". American Filtration & Separation Society Annual

Conference, Myrtle Beach, SC, March 14-17.

Mantilla, I., 1998, Bubble Trajectory Analysis in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone

Separators. M.Sc. Thesis. The University of Tulsa.

95

Meldrum, N., 1988, "Hydrocyclones: A Solution to Produced-Water Tratment". SPE

Production Engineering, November, pp. 669-676.

Moraes, C., Hackenberg, C., Russo, C. and Medronho, R., 1996, "Theoretical Analysis of

Oily Water Hydrocyclones". In Hydrocyclones 96, Claxton, D., Svarovsky, L. and Thew,

M. (eds), M.E.P., London, England, pp 383-398.

Morsi, S. and Alexander, A., 1972, An Investigation of Particle Trajectories in Two-

Phase Flow Systems. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 55, part 2, pp. 193-208.

Munson, B., Young, D. and Okiishi, T., 1994, Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. John

Wiley & Sons, Inc. Second Edition.

Nezhati, K. and Thew, M., 1987, Aspects of the Performance and Scaling of

Hydrocyclones for Use with Light Dispersions. In 3rd International Conference on

Hydrocyclones, Wood, P. (ed), Elsevier, Oxford, England, pp. 167-180.

Parks, S. and Petty, C., 1995, Prediction of Angular Momentum Distribution in Deoiling

Hydrocyclones Using a Constant Eddy Viscosity Model. Technical Report No. HDC-

R2. Hydrocyclone Development Consortium, Michigan State University.

Rajamani, K. and Devulapalli, B., 1994, "Hydrodynamic Modeling of Swirling Flow and

Particles Classification in Large-Scale Hydrocyclones". KONA Powder and Particle, No.

12, pp. 95-104.

Rajamani, K. and Hsieh, K., 1988, "Hydrocyclone Model: A Fluid Mechanic Approach".

In Society of Mineral Engineers Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, preprint # 88-163.

Rhodes, N., Pericleous, K. and Drake, S., 1987, "The Prediction of Hydrocyclone

Performance with a Mathematical Model". In 3rd International Conference on

Hydrocyclones, Wood, P. (ed), Elsevier, Oxford, England, pp. 51-58.

96

Rietema, K., 1961, "Performance and Design of Hydrocyclones - I,II,III,IV". Chemical

Engineering Science, Vol. 15, pp. 298-320.

Seyda, B. and Petty, C., 1991, "Separation of a Light Dispersion in a Cylindrical Vortex

Chamber". Technical Report No. HDC-R6. Hydrocyclone Development Consortium,

Michigan State University.

Sinker, A. and Thew, M., 1996, Drop Size Distribution in De-watering Type

Hydrocyclones. In Hydrocyclones 96, Claxton, D., Svarovsky, L. and Thew, M. (eds),

M.E.P., London, England, pp 345-356.

Smyth, I., 1988, Cyclonic Dewatering of Oil. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Southampton,

England.

Smyth, I. and Thew, M., 1987, A Comparison of the Separation of Heavy Particles and

Droplets in a Hydrocyclone. In 3rd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, Wood,

P. (ed), Elsevier, Oxford, England, pp. 193-204.

Smyth, I. and Thew, M., 1996, A Study of the Effect of Dissolved Gas on the Operation

of Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclones. In Hydrocyclones 96, Claxton, D., Svarovsky, L. and

Thew, M. (eds), M.E.P., London, England, pp 357-368.

Smyth, I., Thew, M. and Colman, D., 1984, The Effect of Split Ratio on Heavy

Dispersion Liquid-Liquid Separation in Hydrocyclones. In 2nd International Conference

on Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Bath, England, paper E2, pp. 177-190.

Smyth, I., Thew, M., Debenham, P. and Colman, D., 1980, Small-Scale Experiments on

Hydrocyclones for De-watering Light Oils. In International Conference on

Hydrocyclone, Cambridge, England, paper 14, pp. 189-208.

97

Stroder, S. and Wolfenberger, E., 1994, "Hydrocyclone Separation: A Preferred Means of

Water Separation and Handling in Oilfield Production". Society of Petroleum Engineers,

paper 27671.

Svarovsky, L., 1984, "Hydrocyclones". Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Svarovsky, L., 1996, "A Critical Review of Hydrocyclones Models". In Hydrocyclones

96, Claxton, D., Svarovsky, L. and Thew, M. (eds), M.E.P., London, England, pp 17-30.

Taitel, Y., 1995, Advances in Two Phase Flow Mechanistic Modeling. Society of

Petroleum Engineers, paper 27959.

Thew, M., 1986, "Hydrocyclone Redesign for Liquid-Liquid Separation". The Chemical

Engineer, July/August, pp. 17-21.

Thew, M., Silk, S. and Colman, D., 1980, "Determination and Use of Residence Time

Distribution for Two Hydrocyclones". In International Conference on Hydrocyclones,

BHRA, Cambridge, United Kingdom, paper 16, pp. 225-248.

Thew, M. and Smyth, I., 1997, "Development and Performance of Oil-Water

Hydrocyclone Separators - A Review". In Innovation in Physical Separation

Technologies Conference, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Falmouth, United

Kingdom, pp. 77-89.

Thew, M., Wright, C. and Colman, D., 1984, "R.T.D. Characteristics of Hydrocyclones

for the Separation of Light Dispersions". In 2nd International Conference on

Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Bath, England, paper E1, pp. 163-176.

Weispfennig, K., Parks, S. and Petty, C., 1995, An Experimental Study of Internal Flow

Structures of a Deoiling Hydrocyclone. Technical Report No. HDC-R3. Hydrocyclone

Development Consortium, Michigan State University.

98

Weispfennig, K. and Petty, C., 1991, "Flow Visualization in a Confined Vortex Flow".

Technical Report No. HDC-R5. Hydrocyclone Development Consortium, Michigan State

University.

Wolbert, D., Ma, B. and Aurelle, Y., 1995, "Efficiency Estimation of Liquid-Liquid

Hydrocyclones Using Trajectories Analysis". AIChE Journal, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp 1395-

1402.

Young, G., 1993, Desalting Crude Oil Using Hydrocyclone-Centrifuge Arrangement.

Produced in Amoco Production Company Research Department Tulsa Production

Research Division.

Young, G., Taggart, D. and Hild, D., 1993, Improved Understanding of Deoiling

Hydrocyclones Leads to Significant Performance Improvement. Produced in Amoco

Production Company Research Department Tulsa Production Research Division.

Young, G., Walkley, W., Taggart, D., Andrews, S. and Worrel, J., 1990, Oil-Water

Separation Using Hydrocyclones: An Experimental Search for Optimum Dimensions.

American Filtration Society, Advanced in Filtration and Separation Technology, Vol.3,

Conference held in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

- Cyclones for Oil Water SeparationsЗагружено:Anonymous QzDwHSK
- Mesh BlanketsЗагружено:modesty
- SchoepentoeterЗагружено:tutuionut
- Turbulent Flows - s Pope Cambridge, 2000)Загружено:protosss
- CaCO3 Particles FormationЗагружено:SIPNET
- Crude Oil Emulsions - Petroleum Engineers Handbook.pdfЗагружено:Michael Grayson
- GAS DEHYDRATION DESIGN STEPSЗагружено:Muhammad Saadullah
- etd-tamu-2004A-BAEN-Wang-1Загружено:Instrumentasi Smart
- MODELING AND SIMULATION OF SELF-LOCKING DRIVESЗагружено:Felipe_Palmeiro
- Chapter Ring Rolling EnЗагружено:skrolek_854403784
- Cyclone DesignЗагружено:Cristian Marcelo Maureira Rozas
- Skinny Love - Birdy (sheet music)Загружено:Nigel Smith
- Jurnal NanoteknologiЗагружено:Dewi Aryani
- Examen Final FISICAЗагружено:nicolas dionisio ordonez barrueta
- Planta PelambresЗагружено:Rodrigo Alcaino
- CALICUT UNIVERSITY 1ST YEAR B-TECH SYLLABUSЗагружено:tigersayooj
- The Benefits and Drawbacks of eЗагружено:saikumar
- Balancing LabЗагружено:dr_oxide2
- Controlled Study on the Effectiveness of Multimedia Learning Modules for Teaching MechanicsЗагружено:Uni La'Queen FromEllesmera
- [39]Numerical Simulation of Wind Flow Over Hilly TerrainЗагружено:Victor Hugo Vieira
- Homework 3Загружено:Raúl Spinoza
- PROJECT_STANDARDS_AND_SPECIFICATIONS_solid_liquid_separator_systems_Rev01.pdfЗагружено:lokeshsharma4433
- OFcheatSheet.pdfЗагружено:Alysson Dantas Ferreira
- 07805257 Accurate Angular Velocity Estimations With an Event CamersЗагружено:Marsala Nisto
- M3TC Technical Report UG Mine Ventilation 2Загружено:Mc Hunt
- Rig Equipment (Ok)Загружено:Mahmoud Ahmed Ali Abdelrazik
- ME-311 Machine Design - Lecture 19Загружено:Farhan Ellahi
- PHY11L E203Загружено:Jeanne Liston
- moments of inertiaЗагружено:victororero
- CronЗагружено:Tina Lowe

- 1-s2.0-S0307904X10004178-mainЗагружено:Deniz ümit Bayraktutar
- Assign4 RANSЗагружено:ankitsaneet
- ofAppsLucchiniЗагружено:Nashrif Karim
- Fluid Mechanics (16)Загружено:AhmedTaha
- The Savvy Separator SeriesЗагружено:Mario Chaparro
- Exact Solutions Navier Stokes WangЗагружено:Toddharris
- Micro and Nano scale flow - Direct Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC)Загружено:Behzad Mohajer
- Implementation of Latching Control in a Numerical Wave TankЗагружено:gertruna3
- Seibold DissertationЗагружено:anand_cfd
- Prediction of Wing Downwash Using CFDЗагружено:Burak
- Abstract Aptecs 3 (1)Загружено:Chiaki Nishimuraya
- OpenFOAMЗагружено:Olabanji Shonibare
- Porous MediaЗагружено:msloveindia
- Liu 2006Загружено:Mohammad Sabouhi
- Butterfly Valve and FlowЗагружено:Murugan Rangarajan
- ARC2D.pdfЗагружено:Gholamreza Mahmoodi
- 2006 Cooling Airflow Simulation for Passenger Cars Using Detailed Underhood GeometryЗагружено:sdwjsdwj
- f 113126911025874Загружено:Bhaskar Nandi
- JTM-TURBO-04-1179Загружено:fazarbadhusha
- Porous Plates With Varying ViscosityЗагружено:Majid Khan
- Ch 6 Differential Analysis of Fluid FlowЗагружено:Mubashir Gulzar
- Thesis Viscous - Inviscid InteractionЗагружено:garystevensoz
- Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics_SF AnwerЗагружено:Kishore Chand
- Viscous Incompressible FlowЗагружено:Eduardo Lalo
- genetic algorithm for fluid dynamicsЗагружено:Shivan Biradar
- torre de enfriamientoЗагружено:Andre Rosado
- Master ThesisЗагружено:Fabio Carvalho
- PropuestaЗагружено:Yahveh Vehuiah
- AAE 333 - Fluid MechanicsЗагружено:Francisco Carvalho
- Differential Equations (Simplified)Загружено:Rafa Martínez