Proceedings of the ASME-JSME-KSME
2019 Joint Fluids Engineering Conference
MULTIPHASE FLOW SIMULATION OF IN-LINE GAS-LIQUID SEPARATOR FOR
MULTIPHASE METERING
Nakyeong Seo
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Khalifa University of Science and Technology
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Lyes Khezzar, Mohamed Alshehhi
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Khalifa University of Science and Technology
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
ABSTRACT
The present study addresses itself to the performance
assessment of a novel in-line gas-liquid separator. The
separator is developed by FRAMES company under the name
of SwirlSep based on the interaction of a swirling flow,
generated by an innovative devise called swirl cage, and a
hollow conical bluff body designed to deviate the gaseous
phase internally.. The separator is intended to be implemented
within a multiphase flow metering system in oil field gathering
stations in the Gulf region. The study represents a preliminary
step among a design process including elaborate lab-scale and
filed tests.
The flow in the gas-liquid separator is studied using
Computational Fluid Dynamics CFD. The Shear Stress
Transport (SST) k- ω turbulence and Eulerian-Eulerian
multiphase models, under different flow conditions, were used
to simulate real flow scenarios. The scenarios were chosen to
replicate flow conditions that could exist during the operation
of oil wells over their lifetime with the aim to provide guidance
for proper control of the separator valves. The fraction of the
total flow is prescribed at each outlet, using an outflow
boundary condition, to mimic the action of the control valves.
At the inlet, the phase velocity and volume fraction were
prescribed.
The outlet streams and their phase’s content were, then,
analyzed together with the distribution of the velocity and
concentration fields inside the separator. Velocity and pressure
drop were found to increase with the increase of the outflow in
one outlet when changing the flow split. Flow control, at the
outlets, caused an increase of the oil-in-gas entrainment when
trying to minimize gas-in-oil entrainment which is a non-trivial
AJKFLUIDS2019
July 28-August 1, 2019, San Francisco, CA, USA
AJKFLUIDS2019-4802
Nabil Kharoua
Ecole Nationale Polytechnique,
Constantine, Algeria
Mahmoud Meribout
Electrical Engineering Department
Khalifa University of Science and Technology
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
task. The effects of the flow split specified appeared
downstream of the conical bluff body only when the inflow
conditions were kept constant whereas the flow field remained
identical upstream of the cone. A recirculation zone was
generated in the annular space downstream of the cone and
affected the separator performance considerably. The
recirculation zone was due to the effect of the higher flow rate
towards the gas outlet and disappeared when the flow rate
towards the oil outlet tended to be equal or higher. The phase
distribution was identical upstream of the cone and depended
on the flow split downstream of the cone.
The cases considered served as an assessment of the
separator performance under different multiphase flow
conditions replicating realistic scenarios.
Keywords: Swirling flow; CFD; In-line separator; Gas-
liquid flow
INTRODUCTION
Multiphase flow meters, including phase separators, are
found in several industrial applications such as in well fluids
metering in the upstream oil and gas industry. Data acquisition
of hydrodynamic properties of well fluid is important in order
to facilitate reservoir management, field development,
operational control, flow assurance and production allocation
[1]. Swirling flow-based separators are efficient, compact and
cost-effective which justifies their use in several industrial
fields such as cement, food, steel and combustion applications
in addition to the oil industry. The centrifugal force ejects the
dense phase outwards against the walls of the separator while
the lighter phase agglomerates in the core region. The phases
are collected at different outlets directly connected to the
1 © 2019 by ASME
internal volume of the separator. In the present separation
technique, the lighter phase is deviated inside a hollow conical
bluff body interacting with an upcoming swirling flow.
Turbulent swirling flows are complex since they are unsteady,
possess streamline curvature and have a strong anisotropic
turbulent field [2].
There have been numerous numerical studies on swirling
flows inside classical separators with varying degrees of
success. For example, Gomez [3] found that the Eulerian-
Lagrangian model predicts the trajectories of bubbles migrating
towards the centerline of the cyclone with a high void fraction
and at the wall with a low void fraction. The Lagrangian-
Bubble tracking model predictions have been verified against
field data. Martignoni et al. [4] showed that large eddy
simulation (LES) model can capture features of turbulence
better than RSM. AbedelGayed et al. [5] studied general swirl-
stabilized combustor. SST k-ω model was adapted for the
turbulence model because of its capabilities in predicting
swirling flows over the realizable k-ε model near the wall.
Alekhin et al. [6] compared how various turbulence models,
which are k-𝜀, k-𝜀 RNG, SAS-SST (Scale-adaptive simulation
with Shear-Stress Transport model), RSM-LRR (Reynolds
Stress Model with Launder Reece Rodi model) and LES, could
perform on a double-circuit vortex tube. The LES model
predicted the most precise flow characteristics, whereas k-𝜀 and
k-𝜀 RNG exhibited the worst accuracy. However, the cost of
LES model cannot be ignored, so the authors suggested RSM-
LRR and SAS-SST models as an alternative.
There are undesirable phenomena in operating gas-liquid
cyclone separator such as Gas Carry-Under (GCU), Liquid
Carry-Over (LCO), and Precessing Vortex Core (PVC) for
example. Marti et al. [7] presented an attempt to improve a
mechanistic model to predict GCU at the gas-oil cyclonic
separator. Erdal et al. [8] investigated GCU and the behavior of
gas droplets in the lower part of gas-liquid cylindrical cyclone
through the flow visualization and CFD code. Hoekstra et al.
[9] observed a gas reverse-flow and noticed that the swirl
number has an effect on the mean flow characteristics,
maximum tangential velocity and core size of vortex. PVC
dominates the forced vortex region. Derksen and Van den
Akker [10] conducted a large-eddy single-phase simulation of a
cyclone separator with a Reynolds number of 14,000. They
found that the Strouhal number (St) was equal to 0.53 while it
was equal to 0.49 in the experiments [9]. Xianlin and Mingxian
[11] captured PVC inside of the cyclone separator by PIV. PVC
causes gas velocity fluctuation of certain amplitudes.
Vinokurov et al. [12, 13] studied the effects of dispersed
gaseous phase on vortex precession in a vortex chamber
experimentally. The drastic extension of the vortex diameter
prompts to a decline in the axial vorticity, pressure difference
and precession frequency. Luan and Sun [14] found that the
pressure drop depends on inlet velocity head and could be
quantified as a function. Yang and Wen [15, 16] simulated the
liquid particle behavior in the supersonic flow regime for gas
separation. They noticed that the suitable separation region
length of cyclone separator is about 16-20 times as long as the
nozzle throat diameter. Chen and Shi [17] defined pressure
drop over a reverse-flow cyclone separator. The authors have
found that the frictional loss (swirling loss and dissipation loss)
is the main factor causing pressure drop. The local loss
(expansion loss of inlet and contraction loss of outlet) gives a
minor contribution to pressure drop. The swirling loss also
depends on distribution of gas tangential velocity not only
friction from the wall. Elsayed and Lacor [18] designed an
optimized cyclone separator using a Muschelknautz modeling
method and CFD simulations with RSM model. The geometric
factors which can affect the performance of cyclones are
diameter of vortex finder, width and height of inlet and total
height of cyclone in order of influence. Relation between inlet
dimension and vortex finder diameter also can affect the
performance of cyclone.
The main aim of this study is to assess the performance of
a novel separator and the corresponding internal swirling
multiphase flow. The separator is a part of a multiphase flow
meter developed for the oil industry. A parametric study based
on variable inflows and outflow ratios is conducted in order to
study the operational behavior of the separator under different
existing and future flow scenarios inspired from oil fields in the
Gulf region. The study entails adjusting the outflow ratio to
mimic the control valves function and their effects on the
separation efficiency and internal flow structure.
SIMULATION METHODOLOGY
First, the geometry of the separator is presented followed
by a brief description of the mathematical models, boundary
conditions and simulation parameters.
Geometry and Computational Mesh
Figure 1 illustrates the in-line gas-liquid separator model
manufactured by FRAMES company [19] without the swirl
cage. Figure 1 shows a CAD representation of the geometry of
the present model separator used in the simulations.
The swirling flow is generated by the swirl cage through a
series of inclined passages connecting the inlet and the internal
volume. The separated liquid and gaseous phases follow, then,
the trajectories shown in Fig. 1. The gas stream wraps the
conical body and exits through its base. The annular liquid
layer progresses downstream along an annular space to reach
the liquid outlet.
The computational domain was divided into 3.2 million
hexahedral cells. Mesh convergence study was conducted with
5 million cells grid [20]. Profiles of velocity and volume
fraction, at different locations of the separator, were similar
with an acceptable error. Results from both meshes were
similar agreed well A further comparison was done with results
obtained using ANSYS CFX.
Mathematical model
The gas-oil flow in the multiphase separator was assumed
to be unsteady and turbulent. Hence, the Eulerian-Eulerian
2 © 2019 by ASME
multiphase and SST k- ω turbulence models within the turbulence intensity assumed to be equal to 5%. In the ideal
situation, there should be no gas entrainment at the liquid outlet
framework of Reynolds averaging were used in the simulation.
called ‘gas carry-under (GCU)’ and no oil entrainment at the
For large secondary phase volume fractions, the Euler-
gas outlet called ‘liquid carry-over (LCO)’. However, in
Euler approach is the appropriate model to use. The different
practice, both of these are non-zero and it remains, then, a
phases are treated mathematically as interpenetrating continua.
challenge to reduce them to a minimum for a specific operating
Each phase volume cannot be occupied by the other phases,
condition by proper adjustment of the outflow boundary
volume fractions are introduced as continuous functions of
conditions. Consequently, an outflow boundary condition was
space and time and their sum is equal to one.
imposed at the two outlets of the separator.
For the Eulerian-Eulerian model, equations for each phase
q, are solved individually. The continuity equation is Swirl
Inlet
Cage

x i

 q  q U i ,q  0 (1) Cone
o
x
y

k 1 k  1
n Cone
with the condition that for the phase fractions
The momentum equations for each phase are defined as

 p 
   
n Gas
 q  q U j,q U i,q   q  q   q  q g i   R pq Outlet
x j x i x j p 1
(2)

where the stress-strain for the qth phase is modeled as Liquid

Gas outlet Liquid
outlet
Outlet
    2 
q   qq  Ui, q  U j, q    q q ij U k,q
 x j x  3 x
 i  k
(3)
 FIGURE 1: GEOMETRY OF THE SEPARATOR WITHOUT THE
and the interaction force model between phases R pq is SWIRL CAGE AND RIGHT THE CAD MODEL

This boundary condition assumes a zero diffusion flux for

 R pq   K pq U p  U q 
n n
all the flow variables and an overall mass balance correction. It
(4)
allows imposing the appropriate flow split independently of the
p1 p1
phase concentration by prescribing the volumetric fraction of
K pq is the interphase exchange coefficient and is equal to the total flow that leaves from each outlet. At the walls, no slip
condition was used for both phases. The actual flow scenarios
 q p  p f considered are recapitulated on Table 2. The first column in
K pq  (5) table 2, indicates the different flow cases considered and the
p second one indicates the inflow compared to the base design
case. It is worth mentioning that cases N1, N2, N3 and N4 were
where  p is the particulate relaxation time, f is the drag taken from [23].
function.
Some additional forces, such as lift and virtual mass, were TABLE 1: MATERIAL PROPERTIES
neglected.
For the turbulence model, SST k-ω model performs better Density (kg/m3 ) Viscosity (kg/ms)
for wall-bounded flows and was used in this study to overcome Gas 27.137 6.923e-05
the limitations of the other two-equation RANS turbulence Oil 685.31 3.687e-04
models [21, 22] .
Simulation strategy
Boundary conditions
The first step for the simulation is to start with single-phase
The boundary conditions were set and chosen according to
flow with gas as the working fluid during 0.3 seconds of
the different scenarios envisaged. At the inlet, phase velocity
physical time for solution stability purposes. Then, a transient
and volume fraction were prescribed in addition to the
period of approximately 1 second, allowing the oil to reach the

3 © 2019 by ASME
oil outlet was required. Finally, the average flow variables were IV. Cases 8-10: mimicking a variable production scenario by
calculated during a subsequent period of more than 1.5 s. In decreasing the total inflow gradually. The phase
order to give the same effect of the flow split control, the flow fractions, at the inlet, and the flow split are kept constant
fractions at the two outlets were prescribed according to the for this scenario.
data shown the Table 2. It should be noted that case 2 was considered for extreme
throttling scenarios which altered the internal flow completely.
TABLE 2: BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR THE OFF-DESIGN This case is mentioned in Table 2 for reference only.
CASES
Flow structure
Inlet Total Flow The tangential velocity profiles, within the swirl chamber
Total Inlet
Volume Fraction at of the swirl cage (at x = -0.05 m) are presented in Fig. 2. The
Flow Velo- Concent- Outlet
# Inflow swirling flow has a Rankine vortex structure which consists of
Rate city
rations (Flow Split) inner forced vortex and outer free vortex for most of the cases
(kg/s) (m/s)
Oil Gas Oil Gas considered.
N1 0.17 0.83 Tangential velocity profiles exhibit a slight asymmetry
N2 0.25 0.75 because of single-inlet geometry, however, asymmetry is minor
N3 6.23 15 85 0.5 0.5 and acceptable.
1 0.65 0.35 Tangential velocity profiles of cases 3, 4 and 5 are identical
2 0.85 0.15 and decreased when mass flow rate was reduced (cases 8, 9 and
3 100% 10.49 0.65 0.35 10). Case 7 and 9 are mainly dominated by free vortex except
4 27.91 85 15 0.5 0.5 near the wall.
5 0.25 0.75
6 10.69 30 70 0.3 0.7 20
7 21.65 65 35 0.65 0.35 18
N4 27.23 83 17 0.83 0.17 16
Tangential velocity (m/s)

8 75% 20.94 8.205 14

9 50% 10.47 5.245 85 15 0.83 0.17 12
10 25% 5.24 2.62 10
8
6
4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2
Several operating scenarios are considered in this section 0
and their effect on gas entrainment, at the liquid outlet called -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
r/R
‘gas carry-under (GCU)’ and oil entrainment at the gas outlet
called ‘liquid carry-over (LCO)’, are analyzed. In this study, Case 1 Case 3 Case 4
controlling the outlet flow means an adjustment of the outflow Case 5 Case 6 Case 7
boundary condition which implies an adjustment of the total
flow fraction at each outlet. The flow cases considered in Table
FIGURE 2: MEAN TANGENTIAL VELOCITY PROFILES
2 are supposed to replicate off-design performance or behavior AT x = -0.05 m
of the separator and form the basis of the parametric study.
I. Cases N1-N3 and 1-2: Fixed inflow proportions with Figure 3 illustrates streamtraces in the symmetry vertical
high Gas-Liquid Ratio (GLR) at inlet. Effects of flow XY plane superimposed on the oil mean volume fraction
split at outlets. distribution. Because of a single inlet, the oil phase in the
II. Cases 3-5: Fixed inflow proportions with low Gas- annular space surrounding the swirl trim is not uniform and a
Liquid Ratio (GLR) at inlet. Effects of flow split at high oil concentration is located in the region diametrically
outlets. opposite to the inlet (Fig. 3b). This causes the accumulation of
III. Cases 6-7 and N4: Variable inflow proportions and flow oil.
split at outlets. It is assumed that the optimal flow split Streams escaping from the swirl cage move downward in
should be equal to the phase fractions at the inlet of the the x-direction within the annular space created by the bluff
separator. In other words, if the feed contains 80% gas body and the separator external walls (Fig. 3a). Some
and 20% oil, the flow split should be set such as to recirculation zones are generated right upstream of the cone due
impose 80% of the total flow through the gas outlet and to the vortex breakdown. Other recirculation zones are
20% through the liquid outlet. generated in the wake of the cone at the region where the gas

4 © 2019 by ASME
deviates inside the hollow bluff body (location of the sudden different rate of change. Calculated LCO remains constant and
expansion). negligible. Throttling the gas outlet by reducing the gas outlet
flow rate has a negligible influence on LCO and to some extent
on pressure drop; however, the GCU is greatly impacted.

Oil
High Oil
Concentration (a) Phase volume (b) Phase volume
Recirculation fraction at Gas outlet
s fraction at Oil outlet 100%
zones
18
% 34 80%
inlet % 64
76 60%
%
% 97% 99% 100 100
82 40% % %
% 66
% 36 20%
24
% 2.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%
% 0%
Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case
N-1 N-2 N-3 1 N-1 N-2 N-3 1
Oil Gas
(b) Swirl cage of case 1
FIGURE 4: PHASE VOLUME FRACTION AT THE (A) OIL
OUTLET (B) GAS OUTLET (THROTTLING GAS OUTLET)

60000 80%
(a) Separator of case 76%

Phase volume fraction

70%
Pressure drop (Pa)

1 50000
64% 60%
FIGURE 3: STREAMLINES WITH OIL MEAN VOLUME 40000
50%
FRACTION (A) XY-SYMMETRY PLANE (B) YZ PLANE
AT X = -0.092 (SWIRL CAGE) (THROTTLING GAS OUTLET) 30000 40%
34% 30%
20000
Throttling the gas outlet with high GLR at inflow 18% 20%
In this section, effects of throttling (i.e. reduction of flow), 10000
3% 1% 0% 10%
the gas outlet with high GLR flow is considered. 0%
0 0%
Figure 4 helps to better understand the behavior of phase Case N-1 Case N-2 Case N-3 Case 1
volume fraction at both outlets. Fig. 4a shows the phase volume
fraction at the oil outlet. For case N-1, GCU is 18% of the total Oil outlet Gas outlet GCU LCO
flow at the oil outlet. The gas phase overwhelms the oil phase
more than 50% for the other cases as throttling increases. Fig.
4b presents the phase volume fraction distribution at the gas FIGURE 5: PRESSURE DROP AND GCU & LCO
outlet. Oil entrainment for all the cases are insignificant. (THROTTLING GAS OUTLET)
In general, the pressure drop between inlet and outlet is
Throttling the liquid outlet with low GLR at inflow
one of the most important parameters that affect the separation
In this section effects of throttling (i.e. reduction of flow)
efficiency [18]. The calculated pressure drop between inlet and
the liquid outlet with low GLR at inflow is considered. The
gas and oil outlets are shown, in Fig. 5. In addition, GCU and
resulting velocity and pressure fields are also analyzed.
LCO are shown in Fig. 5 in order to evaluate the effect of
In the cases with low GLR at inflow (Fig. 6), multiphase
pressure drop on the separation efficiency. Case N-1 shows
flow spread over the swirl cage and produce recirculation zones
noticeable pressure drop difference (10,000 Pa) between oil
in the same location from the previous cases (Fig. 3) but with a
outlet and gas outlet. The lowest pressure difference is shown
larger size. Recirculation in the annular region leading
for case 1 but the pressure drop for the two outlets are almost
towards the gas outlet, entraps the gas phase. As the oil outlet is
the same. The pressure drop of oil outlet is slightly increased as
throttled, recirculation size is slightly reduced in the oil outlet,
the gas outlet is throttled whereas pressure drop of gas outlet is
gas phase reduced there whereas oil phase concentration at the
not changed. GCU shown also on Fig.5 is following the
gas outlet increases.
increasing trend of pressure drop in the oil outlet but with a

5 © 2019 by ASME
 Fig. 7 presents the phase volume fraction at both outlets.
All the cases present extremely low GCU (Fig. 7a). However,
LCOs show comparably huge amounts in the gas outlet (Fig.
7b). When throttling the oil outlet to 65%, LCO is 57% of total
flow at the gas outlet and oil outlet into 25%, LCO is 81% of it.
Tremendous amount of oil is leaked into gas outlet by throttling
the liquid outlet.
Oil
oil outlet is throttled. The effect on the GCU is negligible,
however, LCO is greatly impacted increasing from 58%,
corresponding to an oil content at the outlet equal to 65% of
total flow at outlet (case 3), to 81% which corresponds to an oil
content at the outlet equal to 25% of total flow at outlet (case
5).
350000 100%

Phase volume fraction

300000

Pressure drop (Pa)

81% 80%
250000
200000 60%
69%
57%
inlet 150000 40%
100000
20%
50000
0% 1% 0%
0 0%
Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Oil outlet Gas outlet GCU LCO

FIGURE 8: PRESSURE DROP AND GCU & LCO

(b) Swirl cage of case 3
(THROTTLING OIL OUTLET)

Effect of changing inlet flow concentration

Building on the previous calculations which corresponded
to throttling the gas outlet with a high GLR (85% of gas) at
(a) Separator of case 3
inflow, we now consider the effect of increasing the oil phase
concentration at inlet. In this scenario the flow split was
FIGURE 6: STREAMLINES WITH OIL MEAN VOLUME imposed to be equal to the phase fractions at the inlet as
FRACTION (A) XY-SYMMETRY PLANE (B) YZ PLANE AT X = - explained previously.
0.092 (SWIRL CAGE) (THROTTLING OIL OUTLET) Contours of the oil phase for case 6, shown on Fig. 9, are
similar to case 1 because both are mostly gas streams whereas
(a) Phase volume (b) Phase volume case 7 is similar to case 3 (mostly oil stream, Fig. 6). However,
fraction at Oil outlet fraction at Gas outlet in case 6, recirculation zones disappear in the annular region
100% leading toward the gas outlet.
0% 1% 0%
19% The phase volume fraction distribution at both outlets is
31% presented in Fig. 10. Case 6 has half GCU (9%) of the base
80% 43%
case N1 (18%) and LCO is ‘zero’ in the gas outlet. For case
60% 7, GCU is declined into half (4%) and LCO dramatically
100 100 increased to 14%. The amount of oil at the oil outlet follows a
99%
% % 40% 81% systematic trend while the amount of oil at the gas outlet
69%
57% exhibits an unstable behavior.
20% The pressure drop between inlet and the two outlets that
result from increasing oil phase ratio in the inflow is shown in
0% Fig. 11 together with GCU and LCO values. As the oil
Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 concentration increases in the inlet, the pressure drop also rise
Oil Gas equally in both liquid and gas outlet by about 4 times.
Pressure differences for all the cases between liquid outlet and
FIGURE 7: PHASE VOLUME FRACTION AT THE (A) OIL gas outlet remain the same. GCU is inversely proportional to
OUTLET (B) GAS OUTLET (THROTTLING OIL OUTLET) pressure drop so that the base case N1, which has low oil
concentration at the inlet, has the highest GCU (19%) in the oil
Pressure drop in the oil outlet declines approximately by
outlet. GCU reduces to 0.04% for case 7 which has 65% of
50,000 Pa from case 3 to case 5 (Fig. 8). Pressure drop in the
inlet oil concentration. LCO is shown as the lowest amount,
gas outlet rises by 50,000 Pa from case 3 to case 5. Therefore,
almost 0% for case 6 whereas LCO of the base case N1 and
pressure difference between two outlets is getting bigger as the

6 © 2019 by ASME
case 7 follow the pressure drop trends. Case 7 shows the
300000 20%
maximum LCO of 14%.

Phase volume fraction

18%

Pressure drop (Pa)

250000
15%
200000 14%
9%
150000 10% 10%
Oil fraction
100000
4% 5%
inlet 50000 3%
3% 0%
0 0%
Case N1 Case 6 Case 7 Case N4
Oil outlet Gas outlet GCU LCO

FIGURE 11: PRESSURE DROP AND GCU & LCO (CHANGING

INFLOW RATIO)

(b) Swirl cage of case 6 Phase volume fraction contours of case 8 (Fig. 12) are
similar to case 3 (Fig. 6) except that oil phase is less entrained
into the gas outlet. Moreover, it is hard to identify a difference
between cases 8, 9, and 10 in both oil phase distribution and
streamlines.

(a) Separator of case 6

FIGURE 9: STREAMLINES WITH OIL MEAN VOLUME Oil fraction

FRACTION (A) XY-SYMMETRY PLANE (B) YZ PLANE
AT X = -0.092 (SWIRL CAGE) (CHANGING INFLOW RATIO)
inlet

(a) Phase volume (b) Phase volume

fraction at Oil outelt fraction at Gas outlet
4% 3% 100%
9%
18%
80%

60%
100 86% 90%
96% 97% 97%
91% %
82% 40%

20% (b) Swirl cage of case 8

10.0
2.7% 0.0% 14%
0% %
Case N1 Case 6 Case 7 Case N4 Case N1 Case 6 Case 7 Case N4

Oil Gas

FIGURE 10: PHASE VOLUME FRACTION AT THE (A) OIL

OUTLET (B) GAS OUTLET (CHANGING INFLOW RATIO)
Decreasing the total inflow
In this section, the effect of reducing the total inflow on the
separation efficiency is addressed. All the cases considered for
this scenario were conducted with the same outlet condition of
flow split (17:83) and with low GLR (15:85) at the inlet. Three
mass flow rates at inlet were considered representing 75, 50 and
25% of the base case (N4).
(a) Separator of case 8
FIGURE 12: STREAMLINES WITH OIL MEAN VOLUME
FRACTION (A) XY-SYMMETRY PLANE (B) YZ PLANE
AT X = -0.092 (SWIRL CAGE) (DECREASING MASS FLOW
RATE)
Looking at Fig. 13 which presents the phase mean volume
fraction at oil and gas outlet, LCO shows a large difference (20-

7 © 2019 by ASME
50%) while GCU is small (0-5%). For case 8 (75% of inflow) - Variable GLR with the flow split equal to the phase
LCO is about 20%. Decreasing the inflow by 50% (case 9) proportions at the inlet.
yields a higher LCO (57%). A further decrease of the inflow
by 75% generates 21% LCO and 5% of GCU due to the The figures describe the behavior of GCU when throttling
unstable swirling flow caused by the decreasing swirl intensity. the gas outlet (Fig. 15) and LCO when throttling the liquid
The pressure drops of two outlets are the same in all cases outlet (Fig. 16). It is clear that a perfect separation cannot be
and decrease as inflow rate reduces from 150,000 Pa for case 8 reached. However, it should be noted that the separator,
to 40,000 Pa for case 10 (Fig. 14). GCU is negligible under 5% which is part of a multiphase metering system, is used to
in all the cases. However, the change of LCO is noticeable. produce two streams with mainly gas and oil, separately, within
two separate circuits for flow measurement purposes. The
(a) Phase volume (b) Phase volume two streams are then, mixed again within a common piping
fraction at Oil outlet fraction at Gas outlet system. According to [25] a stream with GCU and LCO
0% 100% lower than 20% should be suitable for the downstream
3% 3% 5% measurement equipment using a combination of ultrasonic
probe and Coriolis flow meter.
80% 43%
80%
60% 80% 79% 70%
100 90%
97% 97% % 95% 85% 60%

GCU fraction
40% (Gas VF at inflow) 50%
57.12
0% 40%
20%
19.95 21.34 85% 30%
10.00 0% 0% 35%
0% 0% 20%
70%
case case 8case 9 case case case case case
15% 10%
N4 10Oil Gas N4 8 9 10
0%
90% 75% 60% 45% 30% 15%
FIGURE 13: PHASE VOLUME FRACTION AT THE (A) OIL Flow split: fraction at the gas outlet
OUTLET (B) GAS OUTLET (DECREASING MASS FLOW RATE)
GLR = 85% at inlet GLR = 15% at inlet
Change GLR at inlet
300000 57% 60%
Phase volume fraction

250000 50% FIGURE 15: GCU AT OIL OUTLET WHEN THROTTLING THE
Pressure drop (Pa)

GAS OUTLET
200000 40%
90%
150000 30% 15%
80%
(Gas VF at
100000 20% 21% 20% inflow) 70%
10%

LCO fraction
60%
50000 3% 3% 10%
5% 50%
0 0% 0% 40%
case N4 case 8 case 9 case 10 30%
35% 20%
Oil outlet Gas outlet GCU LCO 70% 85%
85% 10%
FIGURE 14: PRESSURE DROP AND GCU & LCO 0%
(DECREASING MASS FLOW RATE) 75% 60% 45% 30% 15%
Flow split: fraction at the Liquid outlet

Figures 15 and 16 summarize the cases considered in this GLR = 85% at inlet GLR = 15% at inlet
study which are: Change GLR at inlet
- Constant high GLR at the inlet (85% of gas) with
FIGURE 16: LCO AT GAS OUTELT WHEN THROTTLING THE
throttling the gas outlet. OIL OUTLET
- Constant low GLR at the inlet (15% of gas) with
throttling the liquid outlet.

8 © 2019 by ASME
CONCLUSION
CFD simulation of gas-liquid flow inside a separator was
conducted to assess the performance and internal flow
structure. The device is based on an innovative separation
technique using a hollow conical bluff body. The separator is
a key element of a complex multiphase flow meter.
The results show that GCU is mainly dependent upon the
amount of gas phase at the inlet. The most challenging task,
in the control of the separator performance, is to reach a
compromising scenario for reasonable GCUs and LCOs
simultaneously. In fact, it is possible to minimize GCU but on
the expense of increasing LCO and vice versa.
In more details the results show that:
 The structure of the velocity profile was slightly
asymmetric and composed of a Rankine vortex structure in
almost all the cases.
 Pressure drops also did not significantly impact the
separation efficiency.
 For both high (85:15) and low (15:85) GLR at inflow, it is
advisable to set the outflow split between gas and liquid
outlets at the same inlet proportions to ensure low GCU
and LCO.
 The present separator can work satisfactorily in a range of
inlet flow concentrations (GLR ranges gas/oil of 85:15,
65:35, 50:50, 25:75, and 15:85). It was found that for low
GLR the maximum LCO is less than 13.8% and for high
GLR inflow the maximum GCU is less than 18%. This
remains true only if the outflow split between gas and
liquid outlets is set at the same inlet phase proportions.
 For low GLR at inlet, a reduction of the inlet velocity and
mass flow rate leads the LCO to remain constant and equal
to 20% except for the 50% reduction case.
As a part of a multiphase metering system, the separator
can provide the necessary purity for the downstream
measurement equipment although the CFD results still require
complementary experimental and field tests for an optimal
tuning of the separator performance using control valves.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are thankful to ADNOC on Shore Company
for funding this study and Khalifa University of Science and
Technology in Abu Dhabi for providing High Performance
Computing facilities.
ABBREVIATIONS
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
GCU Gas Carry-Under
LCO Liquid Carry-Over
LES Large eddy simulation model
PVC Precessing Vortex Core
RANS Reynolds-Averaged Navie-Stokes
RSM Reynolds Stress Model
SST Shear Stress Transport
REFERENCES
[1] Falcone, G., Hewitt, G., and Alimonti, C., Multiphase
flow metering: principles and applications vol. 54:
Elsevier, 2009.
[2] Stewart, M. and Arnold, K., Gas-liquid and Liquid-
liquid Separators: Gulf Professional Publishing, 2008.
[3] Gomez, L. E., "Dispersed two-phase swirling flow
characterization for predicting gas carry-under in gas-
liquid cylindrical cyclone compact separators,"
University of Tulsa, 2001.
[4] Martignoni, W., Bernardo, S., and Quintani, C.,
"Evaluation of cyclone geometry and its influence on
performance parameters by computational fluid
dynamics (CFD)," Brazilian journal of chemical
engineering, vol. 24, pp. 83-94, 2007.
[5] AbdelGayed, H. M., Abdelghaffar, W. A., and El
Shorbagy, K., "Flame vortex interactions in a lean
premixed swirl stabilized gas turbine combustor–
Numerical computations," American J. of Scientific
and Industrial Research, ISSN, pp. 449-467, 2013.
[6] Alekhin, V., Bianco, V., Khait, A., and Noskov, A.,
"Numerical investigation of a double-circuit Ranque–
Hilsch vortex tube," International Journal of Thermal
Sciences, vol. 89, pp. 272-282, 2015.
[7] Marti, S., Erdal, F., Shoham, O., Shirazi, S. and
Kouba, G., "Analysis of gas carry-under in gas-liquid
cylindrical cyclones," in Hydrocyclones 1996
International Meeting, St. John College, Cambridge,
England, April, 1996, pp. 2-4.
[8] Erdal, F. M., Shirazi, S., Mantilla, I. and Shoham, O.
"CFD study of bubble carry-under in gas-liquid
cylindrical cyclone separators," in SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1998.
[9] Hoekstra, A. J., Van Vilet, E. and Derksen, J., "Vortex
Core Precession in a Gas Cyclone," presented at the
7th European Turbulence Conference, 1998.
[10] Derksen, J. and Van den Akker, H., "Simulation of
vortex core precession in a reverse‐flow cyclone,"
AIChE Journal, vol. 46, pp. 1317-1331, 2000.
[11] Xiaolin, W. and Mingxian, S., "Visualization of the
precessing vortex core in a cyclone separator by PIV,"
Chinese J. Chem. Eng, vol. 11, pp. 633-637, 2003.
[12] Vinokurov, A., Shtork, S., and Alekseenko, S.
"Experimental study of precessing vortex core in two-
phase flow," in EPJ Web of Conferences, 2015, p.
02107.
[13] Vinokurov, A. Shtork, S. and Alekseenko, S., "The
influence of the dispersed gaseous phase on
characteristics of vortex precession in a swirling gas–
liquid flow," Technical Physics Letters, vol. 41, pp.
844-846, 2015.
[14] Luan, Y. and Sun, H., "Experimental and numerical
study on the resistance performance of an axial flow
cyclone separator," Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, vol. 2015, 2015.
9 © 2019 by ASME
[15] Yang, Y. and Wen, C., "CFD modeling of particle
behavior in supersonic flows with strong swirls for gas
separation," Separation and Purification Technology,
vol. 174, pp. 22-28, 2017.
[16] Yang, Y., Wang, S. and Wen, C., "Gas-liquid two-
phase flows in double inlet cyclones for natural gas
separation," Cogent Engineering, vol. 4, p. 1373421,
2017.
[17] Chen, J. and Shi, M., "A universal model to calculate
cyclone pressure drop," Powder technology, vol. 171,
pp. 184-191, 2007.
[18] Elsayed, K. and Lacor, C., "Optimization of the
cyclone separator geometry for minimum pressure
drop using mathematical models and CFD
simulations," Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 65,
pp. 6048-6058, 2010.
[19] Willink, M. B. C. T., "SwirlSep separator Unit," 2010.
[20] Kharoua, Nabil, Khezzar, Lyes, Alshehhi, Mohamed
Saeed "The interaction of confined swirling flow with
a conical bluff body: Numerical simulation," Chemical
Engineering Research and Design, vol. 136, pp. 207-
218, 2018.
[21] ANSYS, "ANSYS Fluent User's Guide," vol. 17.2,
ed. U.S.A.: ANSYS, Inc., 2016.
[22] Menter, F. and Egorov, Y., "A scale-adaptive
simulation model using two-equation models," AIAA
paper, vol. 1095, p. 2005, 2005.
[23] Seo, N., "Multiphase flow Simulation in a Novel in-
Line Gas-Liquid Separator for Multiphase Metering,"
M.Sc Thesis, Dept. Mech. Eng., Khalifa University of
Science and Technlogy, United Arab Emirates, 2018.

10 © 2019 by ASME