The Savvy Separator Series

UNDERPERFORMING
GAS SCRUBBERS
HOW TO FIX
THEM AND
HOW TO
AVOID THEM

Elizabeth Morillo, Victor van Asperen, and Sander

Baaren, FMC Technologies Separation Systems Inc.
I
n this sixth article of the Oil and Gas Facilities Savvy
Separator series, underperforming gas scrubbers are
discussed. Introduced last June, the series presents
helpful design know-how, lessons learned, and solutions for
separation problems.
Traditionally, the main drivers for sizing gas scrubbers
in the oil and gas industry have been performance
requirements, process conditions, and project specifications.
Unfortunately, too often space limitation, deadlines, and
budgetary constraints seem to take priority over the sizing
task, leaving the fundamentals of phase separation as
just an afterthought in the design process. It is frequently
overlooked that optimizing cost, delivery times, and
weight is not the same as improving scrubber performance.
In reality, it is difficult to point out a single reason,
as there are numerous ones, to explain why actual
performance is so easily disregarded in the design process,
often leading to inadequate gas scrubber sizing. Just a few
worth mentioning follow:
• Old-fashioned practices that rely on criteria-based
design methodologies
• Lack of consideration of the system as a whole (effects
on processing equipment downstream, and actual
performance of upstream equipment)
• Compartmentalized design teams, piping engineers,
process engineers, project engineers, and contractors
working separately on their portion of the project
• Overconfidence in process guarantees provided by
vendors without being able to validate them
These common practices, however, have to be
questioned when their shortcomings so often result in the
need for expensive fixes just after plant startup. Adequate
phase separation has to be achieved through proper flow
Max Case
Operating Pressure barg
Gas Flow MMSCF/D
Gas Density kg/m3
Liquid Density kg/m3
Liquid Viscosity cP
Interfacial Tension dyne/cm
Liquid Volume Fraction % 0.10
Vessel k-value* m/s
Inlet Momentum kg/(m⋅s2)
*Vessel k-value from the Souders-Brown equation (Bothamley 2013b).
Fig. 1—The original gas scrubber main geometry and basis for design. (1) Vane-type inlet device and (2) vane-type demister in vertical
orientation.
conditioning in the pipe upstream and inside gas scrubbers
from day one to decommissioning. Otherwise, scrubbers
become no more than expensive containers that can cause
multiple operational problems, or even downtime, inside a
production facility.
A systematic and holistic approach for scrubber design
should be the result of an iterative process that begins by
clearly defining the basis for design (relevant process data
conditions*) and the performance requirements for the
vessel. But it also must comprise the use of tools such as
inlet flow regime analysis, empirical efficiency correlations,
and in some cases, computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
simulations to support the results. The method should also
consider the effects of high-pressure conditions and low
interfacial tension on gas demisting and upstream piping on
flow distribution when necessary. Mark Bothamley’s series
of articles in the Oil and Gas Facilities magazine (2013a,
2013b, 2013c) provides clear guidelines for the task of
separator/scrubber design.
This article uses a case study to illustrate how
an inadequate sizing methodology hinders scrubber
performance. In this case, the scrubber was causing
contamination of the downstream equipment due to
excessive liquid carry-over. The causes for the carry-over
are identified, and later in this article a potential solution
is presented for revamping this vessel. For illustration
purposes, a new scrubber is designed based on a systematic
design approach, and the newly designed vessel is compared
to the original design. The comparison is based on three
different aspects in order to highlight the benefits of
using a more consistent design methodology: the final
*Startup, shutdown, and blowdown scenarios; normal, maximum, and minimum
operating conditions; and correct fluid properties shall be included (Chin 2015).
8.20
121.70 2
8.41
674.90
0.39
1 Main Geometry
17.01
Vessel ID 1920 mm
Tan/Tan 4500 mm
0.18
6892
April 2016 ¥ Oil and Gas Facilities 17

• Liquid load • Gas momentum per tube • Surface tension
• k-value • Liquid load factor (G/L ratio) • Surface tension
Droplet-size distribution in inlet pipe and
flow regime and entrainment of droplets in the pipe
Fig. 2—Factors used in the analysis of key components of a gas scrubber to evaluate separation performance.
configuration of the equipment, estimated carry-over, and
flow distribution through the vessel based on CFD analysis.
Case Study: First-Stage Suction
Scrubber
The case study comes from an underperforming gas
scrubber that was sized using criteria-based design
methodologies. The separation performance requirement
specified for the vessel was 0.1 USG/MMSCF (maximum
allowable liquid carry-over in the gas), as expected for this
type of application. However, high levels of liquid carry-
over were detected when the vessel was operated at the
higher end of the flow rate envelope (max design case).
Crude oil contamination of downstream compressors
caused by excessive liquid carry-over prompted the
separation performance evaluation presented below.
Fig. 1 shows the main geometry of the gas scrubber
and the basis for design. The following process internals
were originally installed in the first-stage suction scrubber:
(1) a vane-type inlet device, and (2) a vane-type demister in
vertical orientation.
Scrubber Performance Evaluation
The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate how partial
understanding of the fundamentals of phase separation when
sizing a scrubber can lead to operational problems (e.g.,
excessive liquid carry-over). The conclusions drawn from the
analysis will be used for the following.
• The redesign of a new version of this gas scrubber
that would work properly under the stated
conditions.
• The recommendation of modifications to improve
the performance of the existing vessel for a retrofit
scenario.
18 Oil and Gas Facilities • April 2016
Separation Performance
Demisting
Efficiency Correlation
Agglomerator
Efficiency Correlation
Gravity Separation
theoretical cut size
Inlet Arrangement
Separation of bulk liquid
Upstream Piping
Flow regime and
entrainment of droplets in the pipe
Fig. 2 was used as a guide to perform the design
evaluation. It is a diagram for a separation performance
evaluation showing some of the factors that must be
considered when designing and assessing gas scrubbers.
An inherently important aspect for all separation stages
is the flow distribution, which strongly depends on the
configuration of internals, vessel layout, and inlet piping.
This will be demonstrated in the analysis below.
Upstream piping. Layout of the upstream piping can have
a positive or negative influence on the separation efficiency
of a vessel, and these effects are usually underevaluated.
Unfavorable piping arrangements may, for example, lead to
swirling flow, slugging behavior, liquid re-entrainment, and
reduction in droplet size distribution affecting the overall
performance of the scrubber. (Heijckers 2012).
Upstream piping layout and geometry of this vessel
complies with general inlet piping requirements: there are
no out-of-plane bends with a straight pipe length equivalent
to 10 times the inlet nozzle inside diameter (ID) in front of
the vessel.
However, an important aspect was possibly overlooked,
perhaps not even calculated: the entrainment of droplets
in the pipe. Depending on the flow regime, liquids can be
found in both bulk and droplet form and their proportion
can vary depending on the actual momentum and the
liquid volume fraction of the system. That is why the first
tool needed when designing a gas scrubber is one that can
approximate the theoretical amount of entrained liquid in
the form of droplets inside the inlet pipe so appropriate
measures can be taken regarding the size of the inlet pipe or
inside the vessel, if required.
In this case, it was found that a high proportion of
droplets (approximately 65% of the total liquid) were
formed within the upstream piping of this vessel, preventing
the removal of liquid within the gravity settling section and
allowing only a portion of liquid to be separated by the inlet
device. Therefore, one of the first issues observed in this
original design was that the majority of the incoming liquid
was expected to reach the demister device.
Inlet Arrangement. The use of a vane-type inlet device was
expected to be appropriate. The calculated inlet momentum
for the max case [6892 kg/(m⋅s2)] was relatively high but
still inside the acceptable range for this type of inlet device.
The calculated inlet momentum number (ρv2) is
widely used for the selection of inlet devices in our
industry; nevertheless it should not be used blindly. The
main functions of an inlet device are to minimize droplet
shearing, dissipate the momentum, and improve the
distribution of gas over the scrubber’s cross-sectional
area. Attaining an even distribution of the gas (and
entrained liquids) requires that high gas velocities inside
the inlet device must be avoided when possible, or that
additional measures must be taken to minimize the
effect of unpreventable high gas velocities. There are
many different effects influencing the overall efficiency
of the inlet device. A CFD simulation is required in
order to predict the gas distribution across the originally
installed demisting device illustrated in Fig. 1. Uneven gas
distribution is expected across the upstream face of the vane
pack demister. This will lead to premature flooding of the
equipment due to a combination of localized high gas and
liquid loadings.
Gravity Separation. The vessel k-factor was approximately
0.18 m/s. Again, this value is considered adequate for this
New design includes
• Two horizontal vane pack
mist eliminators
• Vane-type inlet device
c mist eliminator
a
Fig. 3—A schematic of the original and new designs of the gas scrubber.
type of vessel (gas scrubber). However, it is still only a rule
of thumb that, when applied without further analysis, could
hinder the final performance of the vessel.
The gravity settling section plays an important role
in defining the separation efficiency of a scrubber since it
provides an opportunity for some of the entrained liquid
(mist) to be removed from the gas stream. The effectiveness
of the gravity section in removing droplets will be a
function of gas velocity and physical properties. It can be
estimated by the use of Stokes’, Intermediate, or Newton’s
laws, depending upon the Reynolds number around the
droplet. A table with these correlations can be found in
Bothamley (2013b).
Gravity-based separation calculated for this design
was negligible due to the poor distribution resulting in
high gas velocities and the small size of the liquid droplets.
Consequently, a high mist loading was expected to reach
the demister, reducing the demister’s overall droplet
removal efficiency.
Demisting Device. The original design was found to have a
vane-type demister in vertical orientation, with a properly
sized open area for the service (2.18 m2) assuming even gas
distribution across the vane pack flow area.
However, the geometry of the horizontal-flow vane
pack mist eliminator in this vertical vessel creates the
potential for uneven gas distribution over the device’s open
area (Fig. 1). Gas entering the vessel must change direction
multiple times before reaching the demister, making an
even distribution over the total vane area difficult. It is
important to realize that this mist eliminator device only
operates properly when the gas flow is evenly distributed
over the vane pack’s total open area. Another potential
Original design includes
• Vertical vane pack
• Vane-type inlet device
April 2016 • Oil and Gas Facilities 19
 (a) (b) (c) (d)

CFD Results Description

(a) Gas Velocity Streamlines Visualized gas-flow field throughout the scrubber, colored by gas velocity

Red: Velocity too high

(b) Effective Area Vane Pack Demister Yellow: Velocity too low
Green: Velocity within requirements (62% of vane pack area)

(c) Gas Velocity Streamlines Visualized gas-flow field throughout the scrubber, colored by gas velocity

Red: Velocity too high

(d) Effective Area Vane Pack Demister Yellow: Velocity too low
Green: Velocity within requirements (99% of vane pack area)

Fig. 4—A comparison of CFD analysis of the original ([a] and [b]) and the new scrubber designs ([c] and [d]).

drawback to the geometry in Fig. 1 is the suction effect of
the gas outlet nozzle. The close proximity to the vane pack
leads to preferential flow through the vane pack’s center,
increasing the chance for gas maldistribution and higher
k-values.
In this case, the combination of very small droplet
formation and large mist fraction in the vapor phase in the
inlet line, and the orientation of the demisting device, is
expected to lead to excessive liquid carry-over.
A CFD study was done to determine the gas flow
path through the vessel and gas velocity profiles across the
original vane pack open area. The results of the study are
shown in Fig. 4 as a part of the final comparison between
the original design and new scrubber design (which also
contains a vane pack demister) and are discussed later in
the article.
In summary, after the analytical evaluation was
completed, the main areas of concern in this vessel were
as follows:
• Feed characteristics (higher mist load in gas phase)
• Bulk and gravity separation (velocity was too
high to separate incoming drops by gravity)
• Location of the gas outlet nozzle (poor flow
distribution over the demisting device)
• Gas distribution and velocity profiles over the
open area of the vertically oriented vane-type mist
eliminator
Because of these issues, it was anticipated that the
total liquid load entering the demister would prove to
be excessive, especially at the higher end of the gas flow
rate envelope for which the vessel was designed. At these
conditions, the demister was expected to be overloaded,
which would explain the high levels of liquid carry-over
observed by operations.
Based on the findings, the following recommendations
were made to build a new gas scrubber for the same
process conditions.
Recommendations for Scrubber
New Vessel Design
Fig. 3 shows the basic differences between the final
equipment configuration in the original design and a
newly designed gas scrubber The letters a, b, c, and d
in the figure correspond to the recommendations
that follow.
a) To avoid the detrimental effect of excessive liquid
droplets in the new vessel, it was determined using

20 Oil and Gas Facilities • April 2016

 Revamped design includes
:
• Cyclonic-type demisting
device
• Vane pack agglomerator
• Vane-type inlet device
Fig. 5—The schematic for the internal design and gas flow path through the retrofitted vessel modeled by CFD.
engineering models that it was necessary to increase the
inlet piping size from 18 in. (original design) to 20 in.
This will significantly reduce the entrainment of liquid
droplets into the gas phase from approximately 65% to
45%, improving the “bulk” separation. Although the mean
droplet size at the inlet was also increased due to the larger
inlet pipe diameter, this had a negligible impact on the
“gravity” separation.
b) To improve the gas flow distribution over the
mist eliminator device, based on CFD results it was
recommended to change the location of the outlet nozzle,
shifting the gas flow through the mist eliminator device
from horizontal to vertical.
c) To meet the specified performance requirement
of 0.1 USG/MMSCF, it was determined using CFD
simulations and performance estimation tools that
two demisting steps were necessary. Two vane packs
were selected in this case. The first vane pack will
bring the additional benefits of improving the gas
flow distribution over the cross-sectional area of the
vessel and the second vane pack. Another option
would have been to use a cyclone deck instead of the
second vane pack; the former was mainly preferred for
comparison purposes.
d) To enable the vane packs to operate in nonflooding
regime, it was necessary to increase the vessel ID from
1920 mm (original design) to 2223 mm. This also increases
gravity-based separation inside the vessel.
Comparisons of the CFD Analysis
for Original and New Designs
The CFD analysis of the original and new designs is
illustrated in Fig. 4.
The CFD analysis of the original design shows the
following.
b
c
• Gas flow field through the scrubber. The streamlines
in Fig. 4a show a turbulent and chaotic flow pattern,
indicating that the original internals configuration led
to a maldistribution of gas flow.
• Gas velocity (k-value) through the vane pack.
When the gas velocity through the vane pack
demister is too high, liquid carry-over will occur.
A critical velocity can be computed based on fluid
properties, interfacial tension, and liquid load.
When this critical velocity is exceeded, carry-over
is expected. The separation performance of the vane
pack also diminishes if the velocity is too low and
liquid load too high.
The maldistribution of gas flow means that certain
areas of the vane pack may be overloaded (gas velocity and/
or liquid load too high) while in other areas the velocity
is too low. The area where the velocity through the vane
pack is too high is highlighted in red in Fig. 4b. The area
where the velocity is too low is highlighted in yellow. This
leaves just 62% of the vane pack area where the velocity was
considered to be within acceptable limits.
The CFD analysis of the new design shows the
following.
• Gas flow field through the scrubber. The streamlines
in Fig. 4c also show a turbulent and chaotic flow
pattern below the vane pack agglomerator in which
the flow is straightened. Downstream of the vane
pack agglomerator, the gas flow is equally distributed
across the vessel cross-sectional area.
• Gas velocity (k-value) through the vane pack. There
is no gas flow maldistribution coming into the vane
pack mist eliminator as shown in Fig. 4d. Therefore,
the velocity is considered to be within acceptable
limits for 99% of the open area available.
April 2016 • Oil and Gas Facilities 21
 Before After New
Estimated Performance Retrofit Retrofit Design
Separation Efficiency (%) 67.0 98.0 99.0%
Liquid Carry-over 25.0 1.5 0.1
(USG/MMSCF)
TABLE 1—Comparison of the vessel performance before
and after retrofit.
To improve the performance of the existing
vessel, recommendations were made based on
the evaluation.
Recommendations for
Scrubber Revamp
Fig. 5 illustrates the modifications proposed for the
retrofitting of the gas scrubber (indicated as a, b, and c
in the diagram) and a CFD simulation that was done to
validate the design.
a) To include an additional separation stage, a vane-
pack agglomerator, in order to reduce the liquid loading
to the demisting device. Gravity separation and bulk
separation in this vessel are negligible. Most of the incoming
liquid in the original design was reaching the vane-type
demister and overloading the device. The added stage will
prevent this in the retrofitted design. It will also improve gas
distribution and gas velocity profile over the mist eliminator
device, while reducing the liquid load and increasing
droplet size distribution of the liquid coming into the mist
eliminator device. The vane-pack agglomerator was selected
due to the fouling nature of the service.
b) To modify the gas outlet arrangement in order to
mitigate suction effects and gas maldistribution in the mist
elimination section.
c) To use a cyclonic-type demisting device, instead
of the vane-type demister selected previously. The limited
cross-sectional area available now that the gas outlet has
been corrected requires the use of a high-capacity mist
elimination device. This type of device also creates a bigger
pressure drop, dampening the effect of gas maldistribution.
The placement of the cyclones will change gas flow from
horizontal to vertical through the demisting device.
Table 1 presents the estimated performance of the
gas scrubber before and after the retrofit as well as for
the newly designed gas scrubber. Notice that the estimated
liquid carry-over for the revamp design is still higher
than 0.1 USG/MMSCF, the separation performance
requirement specified for the vessel by the engineering
contractors. However, in this case, the downstream
equipment was able to function properly after the
retrofitting of the scrubber.
This table also reveals that for these process conditions
a separation efficiency of at least 99.9% is required in order
to achieve 0.1 USG/MMSCF. This is one of the most poorly
22 Oil and Gas Facilities • April 2016
Good Design Matters
• The downsides of bad designs can range from
damages to downstream equipment and disruption
of operations to safety concerns.
• There are many options to fix underperforming
scrubbers, but this approach always will come with
restrictions and extra expenditure.
• Saving money upfront may be a bad trade-off when
compared to the required expenses in the future.
used specifications for liquid carry-over in production
separators (Chin 2015); it is also a very stringent one. It can
only be attained when vessels are specifically designed with
that purpose in mind, or if the liquid/gas ratio at the inlet is
already very low. In addition, this requirement is not always
needed when looking at the downstream equipment, as this
example has shown.
Commonly used scrubber design practices in the
industry are in need of serious reviewing. Many criteria-
based design methodologies that are still in use today
lack the support of representative test data, and rely on
incorrect assumptions regarding flow distribution. All
of this leads to undersized and/or poorly designed gas
scrubbers that in turn could cause multiple operational
problems (equipment damage, disruption of operations,
and safety concerns).
Application of proper design methodologies and setting
of realistic performance requirements are crucial. These
important steps, many times ignored or oversimplified, can
mean the difference between underperforming facilities
in need of costly post-startup vessel upgrades and full
operational plants that are able to attain the required
separation performance and throughput from day one
to decommissioning.
A well-conceived scrubber design that is able to achieve
the required separation performance from day one is always
the best option, both from a technical and economical point
of view.
The authors would like to thank members of the
SPE Separations Technology Technical Section Ed Grave,
Cris Heijckers, Richard Arntzen, Jimmie Riesenberg, and
Robert Chin for their valuable review and contributions
to this article.
Introduced in the June 2015 issue of Oil and Gas
Facilities, The Savvy Separator series was conceptualized by
Robert Chin, Padden Engineering LLC, and developed in
conjunction with the SPE Separations Technology Technical
Section (STTS). Chin, a cofounder and past chair of the
STTS, serves as the editor of the series and works with STTS
members to present helpful design approaches and solutions
for separation problems. He may be reached at r.w.chin@
sbcglobal.net. OGF

References
Bothamley, M. 2013a. Qualifying Separation Performance
in Gas/Liquid Separators. Oil and Gas Fac 2 (4): 21–29.
Bothamley, M. 2013b. Qualifying Separation Performance
in Gas/Liquid Separators—Part 2. Oil and Gas Fac 2 (5):
35–47.
Bothamley, M. 2013c. Gas/Liquid Separators—Part 3:
Quantifying Separation Performance. Oil and Gas Fac 2
(6): 34–47.
Chin, R. 2015. The Savvy Separator Series: Part 4—The
Ghosts of Separators Past, Present, and Future. Oil and
Gas Fac 4 (6): 18–23.
Heijckers, C. 2012. Flow Conditioning Impact on
Separations, SPE Separations Technology Technical
Section webinar, https://webevents.spe.org/products/
flow-conditioning-impact-on-separations.
Elizabeth Morillo is a process
engineer at FMC Technologies based
in Houston. In her current role, she
oversees the design of separation
systems for the Americas. During her
9 years of experience in the oil and
gas industry, she has held various
positions in operations, engineering,
and research and development, focusing on pressure
pumping services and hydrocarbon processing (crude oil
dehydration and stabilization and gas and water
treatments). She holds two US patents and has a degree in
chemical engineering from Universidad Simón Bolívar.
Morillo may be reached at elizabeth.morillo@fmcti.com.
Victor van Asperen has several years
of experience in separation, including
the process design of more than 150
separator projects. He has worked at
FMC Technologies Separation Systems
(formerly CDS Engineering) for the
past 16 years in different geographical
areas: The Netherlands, United Arab
Emirates, and the US. He has worked in research and
development, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), process
engineering, and sales and management. Van Asperen
holds an MSc in chemical and biochemical engineering and
a professional doctor of engineering degree in process and
systems design from the Delft University of Technology.
Sander Baaren has worked at FMC
Technologies Separation Systems
(formerly CDS Engineering) in The
Netherlands and US since 2012 in
CFD, process engineering, and
research and development, and was
responsible for the CFD evaluation of
separation equipment for more than 50
projects. Baaren holds an MSc in mechanical engineering
from the University of Twente in The Netherlands.

OTC is where energy professionals meet to exchange ideas and opinions to advance
scientific and technical knowledge. Gain access to leading-edge technical information,
the largest equipment exhibition, and valuable new professional contacts.

ENDLESSINNOVATION
Offshore Technology Conference 2016
2–5 May | NRG Park | Houston, Texas, USA

Registration open now. Visit 2016.otcnet.org for more information.