Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of Gas–Liquid Cylindrical Cyclones, Geometrical Analysis

The gas–liquid cylindrical cyclone (GLCC) is a widely used alternative for gas–liquid conventional separation. Besides its maturity, the effect of some geometrical parameters over its performance is not fully understood. The main objective of this study is to use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) m...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of energy resources technology 2018-09, Vol.140 (9)
Hauptverfasser: Carlos Berrio, Juan, Pereyra, Eduardo, Ratkovich, Nicolas
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 9
container_start_page
container_title Journal of energy resources technology
container_volume 140
creator Carlos Berrio, Juan
Pereyra, Eduardo
Ratkovich, Nicolas
description The gas–liquid cylindrical cyclone (GLCC) is a widely used alternative for gas–liquid conventional separation. Besides its maturity, the effect of some geometrical parameters over its performance is not fully understood. The main objective of this study is to use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling in order to evaluate the effect of geometrical modifications in the reduction of liquid carry over (LCO) and gas carry under (GCU). Simulations for two-phase flow were carried out under zero net liquid flow, and the average liquid holdup was compared with Kanshio (Kanshio, S., 2015, “Multiphase Flow in Pipe Cyclonic Separator,” Ph.D. thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK) obtaining root-mean-square errors around 13% between CFD and experimental data. An experimental setup, in which LCO data were acquired, was built in order to validate a CFD model that includes both phases entering to the GLCC. An average discrepancy below 6% was obtained by comparing simulations with experimental data. Once the model was validated, five geometrical variables were tested with CFD. The considered variables correspond to the inlet configuration (location and inclination angle), the effect of dual inlet, and nozzle geometry (diameter and area reduction). Based on the results, the best configuration corresponds to an angle of 27 deg, inlet location 10 cm above the center, a dual inlet with 20 cm of spacing between both legs, a nozzle of 3.5 cm of diameter, and a volute inlet of 15% of pipe area. The combination of these options in the same geometry reduced LCO by 98% with respect to the original case of the experimental setup. Finally, the swirling decay was studied with CFD showing that liquid has a greater impact than the gas flowrate.
doi_str_mv 10.1115/1.4039609
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>asme_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1115_1_4039609</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>368232</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a249t-b035acb521a9ec68662bcd7e972b156bb275077d9f52ce2e3692041c90c16e23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkLFOwzAYhC0EEqUwMLNkRSLF_-_YiccqtAUpiKW7cRwHuUriEqdDNt6BN-RJSNVOJ52-O52OkHugCwDgz7BIKJOCygsyA45ZnEmZXJIZBcljmrLsmtyEsKMUIEtwRj5z3-4Pgx6c73QTrZuDq6KXsdOtMyF695VtXPcV-Tra6PD381u47yORj5Nd9c5MmXw0je9seIo21rd2OLnLqW4MLtySq1o3wd6ddU6269U2f42Lj81bvixijYkc4pIyrk3JEbS0RmRCYGmq1MoUS-CiLDHlNE0rWXM0Fi0TEmkCRlIDwiKbk8dTrel9CL2t1b53re5HBVQdn1Ggzs9M7MOJ1aG1aucP_bQ1KCYyZMj-AQpLYCA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of Gas–Liquid Cylindrical Cyclones, Geometrical Analysis</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>ASME Transactions Journals (Current)</source><creator>Carlos Berrio, Juan ; Pereyra, Eduardo ; Ratkovich, Nicolas</creator><creatorcontrib>Carlos Berrio, Juan ; Pereyra, Eduardo ; Ratkovich, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><description>The gas–liquid cylindrical cyclone (GLCC) is a widely used alternative for gas–liquid conventional separation. Besides its maturity, the effect of some geometrical parameters over its performance is not fully understood. The main objective of this study is to use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling in order to evaluate the effect of geometrical modifications in the reduction of liquid carry over (LCO) and gas carry under (GCU). Simulations for two-phase flow were carried out under zero net liquid flow, and the average liquid holdup was compared with Kanshio (Kanshio, S., 2015, “Multiphase Flow in Pipe Cyclonic Separator,” Ph.D. thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK) obtaining root-mean-square errors around 13% between CFD and experimental data. An experimental setup, in which LCO data were acquired, was built in order to validate a CFD model that includes both phases entering to the GLCC. An average discrepancy below 6% was obtained by comparing simulations with experimental data. Once the model was validated, five geometrical variables were tested with CFD. The considered variables correspond to the inlet configuration (location and inclination angle), the effect of dual inlet, and nozzle geometry (diameter and area reduction). Based on the results, the best configuration corresponds to an angle of 27 deg, inlet location 10 cm above the center, a dual inlet with 20 cm of spacing between both legs, a nozzle of 3.5 cm of diameter, and a volute inlet of 15% of pipe area. The combination of these options in the same geometry reduced LCO by 98% with respect to the original case of the experimental setup. Finally, the swirling decay was studied with CFD showing that liquid has a greater impact than the gas flowrate.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0195-0738</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-8994</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1115/1.4039609</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>ASME</publisher><subject>Energy Systems Analysis</subject><ispartof>Journal of energy resources technology, 2018-09, Vol.140 (9)</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a249t-b035acb521a9ec68662bcd7e972b156bb275077d9f52ce2e3692041c90c16e23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a249t-b035acb521a9ec68662bcd7e972b156bb275077d9f52ce2e3692041c90c16e23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,38497</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Carlos Berrio, Juan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pereyra, Eduardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ratkovich, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><title>Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of Gas–Liquid Cylindrical Cyclones, Geometrical Analysis</title><title>Journal of energy resources technology</title><addtitle>J. Energy Resour. Technol</addtitle><description>The gas–liquid cylindrical cyclone (GLCC) is a widely used alternative for gas–liquid conventional separation. Besides its maturity, the effect of some geometrical parameters over its performance is not fully understood. The main objective of this study is to use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling in order to evaluate the effect of geometrical modifications in the reduction of liquid carry over (LCO) and gas carry under (GCU). Simulations for two-phase flow were carried out under zero net liquid flow, and the average liquid holdup was compared with Kanshio (Kanshio, S., 2015, “Multiphase Flow in Pipe Cyclonic Separator,” Ph.D. thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK) obtaining root-mean-square errors around 13% between CFD and experimental data. An experimental setup, in which LCO data were acquired, was built in order to validate a CFD model that includes both phases entering to the GLCC. An average discrepancy below 6% was obtained by comparing simulations with experimental data. Once the model was validated, five geometrical variables were tested with CFD. The considered variables correspond to the inlet configuration (location and inclination angle), the effect of dual inlet, and nozzle geometry (diameter and area reduction). Based on the results, the best configuration corresponds to an angle of 27 deg, inlet location 10 cm above the center, a dual inlet with 20 cm of spacing between both legs, a nozzle of 3.5 cm of diameter, and a volute inlet of 15% of pipe area. The combination of these options in the same geometry reduced LCO by 98% with respect to the original case of the experimental setup. Finally, the swirling decay was studied with CFD showing that liquid has a greater impact than the gas flowrate.</description><subject>Energy Systems Analysis</subject><issn>0195-0738</issn><issn>1528-8994</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotkLFOwzAYhC0EEqUwMLNkRSLF_-_YiccqtAUpiKW7cRwHuUriEqdDNt6BN-RJSNVOJ52-O52OkHugCwDgz7BIKJOCygsyA45ZnEmZXJIZBcljmrLsmtyEsKMUIEtwRj5z3-4Pgx6c73QTrZuDq6KXsdOtMyF695VtXPcV-Tra6PD381u47yORj5Nd9c5MmXw0je9seIo21rd2OLnLqW4MLtySq1o3wd6ddU6269U2f42Lj81bvixijYkc4pIyrk3JEbS0RmRCYGmq1MoUS-CiLDHlNE0rWXM0Fi0TEmkCRlIDwiKbk8dTrel9CL2t1b53re5HBVQdn1Ggzs9M7MOJ1aG1aucP_bQ1KCYyZMj-AQpLYCA</recordid><startdate>20180901</startdate><enddate>20180901</enddate><creator>Carlos Berrio, Juan</creator><creator>Pereyra, Eduardo</creator><creator>Ratkovich, Nicolas</creator><general>ASME</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180901</creationdate><title>Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of Gas–Liquid Cylindrical Cyclones, Geometrical Analysis</title><author>Carlos Berrio, Juan ; Pereyra, Eduardo ; Ratkovich, Nicolas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a249t-b035acb521a9ec68662bcd7e972b156bb275077d9f52ce2e3692041c90c16e23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Energy Systems Analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Carlos Berrio, Juan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pereyra, Eduardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ratkovich, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of energy resources technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Carlos Berrio, Juan</au><au>Pereyra, Eduardo</au><au>Ratkovich, Nicolas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of Gas–Liquid Cylindrical Cyclones, Geometrical Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of energy resources technology</jtitle><stitle>J. Energy Resour. Technol</stitle><date>2018-09-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>140</volume><issue>9</issue><issn>0195-0738</issn><eissn>1528-8994</eissn><abstract>The gas–liquid cylindrical cyclone (GLCC) is a widely used alternative for gas–liquid conventional separation. Besides its maturity, the effect of some geometrical parameters over its performance is not fully understood. The main objective of this study is to use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling in order to evaluate the effect of geometrical modifications in the reduction of liquid carry over (LCO) and gas carry under (GCU). Simulations for two-phase flow were carried out under zero net liquid flow, and the average liquid holdup was compared with Kanshio (Kanshio, S., 2015, “Multiphase Flow in Pipe Cyclonic Separator,” Ph.D. thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK) obtaining root-mean-square errors around 13% between CFD and experimental data. An experimental setup, in which LCO data were acquired, was built in order to validate a CFD model that includes both phases entering to the GLCC. An average discrepancy below 6% was obtained by comparing simulations with experimental data. Once the model was validated, five geometrical variables were tested with CFD. The considered variables correspond to the inlet configuration (location and inclination angle), the effect of dual inlet, and nozzle geometry (diameter and area reduction). Based on the results, the best configuration corresponds to an angle of 27 deg, inlet location 10 cm above the center, a dual inlet with 20 cm of spacing between both legs, a nozzle of 3.5 cm of diameter, and a volute inlet of 15% of pipe area. The combination of these options in the same geometry reduced LCO by 98% with respect to the original case of the experimental setup. Finally, the swirling decay was studied with CFD showing that liquid has a greater impact than the gas flowrate.</abstract><pub>ASME</pub><doi>10.1115/1.4039609</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0195-0738
ispartof Journal of energy resources technology, 2018-09, Vol.140 (9)
issn 0195-0738
1528-8994
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1115_1_4039609
source Alma/SFX Local Collection; ASME Transactions Journals (Current)
subjects Energy Systems Analysis
title Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of Gas–Liquid Cylindrical Cyclones, Geometrical Analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T02%3A57%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-asme_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Computational%20Fluid%20Dynamics%20Modeling%20of%20Gas%E2%80%93Liquid%20Cylindrical%20Cyclones,%20Geometrical%20Analysis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20energy%20resources%20technology&rft.au=Carlos%20Berrio,%20Juan&rft.date=2018-09-01&rft.volume=140&rft.issue=9&rft.issn=0195-0738&rft.eissn=1528-8994&rft_id=info:doi/10.1115/1.4039609&rft_dat=%3Casme_cross%3E368232%3C/asme_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true