Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summary
Although regarded by many as obsolete, gunbarrels (or wash-tanks)
are still used for primary oil treating in many areas. This paper describes a modern gunbarrel constructed from an existing 5,000-bbl
tank. Oil treating without the addition of heat was feasible because
of the combination of relatively warm produced fluid and lenient basic sediment and water (BS&W) limits. The subject vessel provides
gas separation and contains two spreaders that were designed to provide good oil- and water-phase retention and to facilitate solids separation and removal. The oil-phase spreader has a diameter equal to
78% of that of the vessel. It incorporates a unique deep skirt, having
a pattern of restrictive exit ports that imposes uniform radial oil-phase
flow over a wide range of rates and is relatively insensitive to minor
misleveling, which is not the case for common serrated-skirt spreaders. The design of the unique vessel internals permitted assembly
without welding at the battery site. Differences in the contribution
of the water-bath zone of heated and nonheated gunbarrels are discussed, and it is shown that nonheated-vessel designs that increase
water-phase residence time and facilitate convection in the water-bath
are the most effective, a result of conservation of intrinsic
well-stream heat. It is also demonstrated that the optimum oil-blanket
thickness is a compromise between oil-residence time and oil temperature in nonheated vessels that capture water-phase heat. Vessel internals that entrap oil beneath water (such as the oil-phase spreader
of the subject vessel) are subjected to a buoyant force in addition to
the weight of water displaced by steel. This effect is discussed, and
design equations are developed to calculate the net buoyant force exerted upon a specific spreader and the gauge steel from which a
spreader must be constructed to preclude floating. An example is
included that illustrates the application of these equations to the subject vessel.
Introduction
The gunbarrel (or wash-tank) was devised for field processing at the
infancy of the oil-producing industry. If crude-oil dehydration required increased temperature, energy was added by heating the water
bath by means of an internal firetube, internal steam coils, or external
thermosiphon loop and direct heater. An alternative method was preheating the influent fluid. By either process, these vessels were considerably less energy efficient than modern heat-treaters. However,
during the era of the heated gunbarrel, low-pressure gas had little or no
value. Typically, gunbarrels would have the same diameter as battery
stock tanks, but would be somewhat taller to assure gravitational flow.
Thus, Lv /dv ratios generally exceeded 1.0. A generic gunbarrel is
equipped with a gas separation/fluid inlet device, such as the internally
installed flume (or gas boot), illustrated in Fig. 1a, or the external one
shown in Fig. 1b. With either configuration, the fluid stream is normally discharged beneath a serrated spreader having a diameter between one-fourth and one-half that of the tank, which provides a measure of flow distribution of the oil-continuous phase. Normally, the
water-continuous phase is free to short-circuit directly to the water outlet, minimizing energy consumption in the case of a heated vessel.
However, it results in the effluent water having approximately the same
oil content as the influent water. The oil outlet is normally a pipe coupling installed in the side of the vessel through which oil overflows,
maintaining a constant level. An internally or externally installed water siphon controls the oil/water interface.
Copyright 1996 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 10, 1994. Revised manuscript received
July 19, 1995. Paper peer approved Aug. 15, 1995. Paper (SPE 28538) first presented at the
1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 2528.
54
67, 858 K d 2F pT s o * g g
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
qg +
p sTz
Details of the new gunbarrel design are illustrated in Fig. 2. This
design employs large-diameter oil-phase and water-phase distributing spreaders. These were fabricated from bolted 3,000-bbl tankdeck segments and rafters because this construction method permitted assembly without welding at the tank-battery site. The rafters
of both spreaders extend from the tank wall to the flume, where they
are bolted to attachment rings welded to the flume. The flume was
removed from the battery site for installation of these rings. The upper-spreader rafters were supported at the outer end by attachment to
rolled-channel steel, which was bolted to the tank wall. The lowerspreader rafters were also attached to the tank wall. However, vertical
loading was supported by legs extending to the tank bottom. A vent
pipe from near the apex of the lower spreader extends up into the
upper spreader, and a second one extends from near the apex of the
upper spreader up into the flume dome. The upper spreader has the
normal 1:12 tank-deck pitch and a diameter of 30.0 ft. The lower
spreader was constructed with an 18.8 slope and is 28.5 ft in diameter. This was accomplished by using only 19 of the standard 20 tankdeck segments. This increased slope, in conjunction with a jetting
system, prevents sand accumulation on top of the lower spreader.
A steel plate seals the bottom of the flume, which is supported by an
angle iron framework from the tank bottom. Incoming fluid exits
the flume through 16 equally spaced 2-in. round inlet ports located radially around the flume. The bottoms of these holes are at the depth
of the bottom of the upper (oil-phase) spreader skirt.
Oil-Flow Regulation. Radial oil-phase flow is imposed within the
oil-phase spreader by outflow regulation, using 9/16-in.-diameter restrictive exit ports in the spreader skirt. Port flow rate is a function
of the interface depression (D), illustrated in Fig. 3, and may be calculated from Eq. 2. This equation was derived from Eq. B-4 by converting rate to barrels per day.
SPE Production & Facilities, February 1996
at the oil/water interface, which would effectively be a vertical projection of the spreader skirt. The water bath is very beneficial in the case
of a heated gunbarrel, such as the one described in Ref. 2, because it
serves as the heat-transfer medium. However, in the subject unheated
gunbarrel, the principal valve of the water-bath is to conserve
well-stream heat, as discussed in a later section. From the oil/water-interface impact zone, oil flow would be inward and upward to the oil
collector in an undefined, generally radial flow pattern. Thus, there
are, in effect, two stages of gravity separation. We show in Appendix
A that separation capacity is proportional to horizontal cross-sectional
area (AH ) regardless of the direction of bulk flow. Thus, effective separation is accomplished by efficient use of vessel horizontal area and not
directly by efficient use of vessel volume. Consequently, separation
effectiveness will not necessarily track with observed residence-time
data when comparing dissimilar vessels because the latter is a measure
of volumetric displacement. The functional relationship developed in
Appendix A between separation capacity and AH assumed plug flow
and that AH does not vary with depth. Real flow differs from plug flow
because of short circuiting and turbulence, which impede separation.
The greater the departure from plug flow, the greater will be the decrease in separation effectiveness. It is reasonable to assume that the
controlled radial (horizontal) flow within the oil-phase spreader more
closely approximates plug flow than the undefined flow regime in the
oil blanket. Therefore, any suspended contaminant of constant partial
size that is not removed from the oil while within the spreader would
not settle out of the oil phase if introduced at the top of the oil blanket.
55
However, oil from the spreader enters the oil blanket at the bottom.
Therefore, the oil blanket may provide a second stage of separation
of indeterminate effectiveness for particles not removed from the oil
while within the spreader. The greatest contribution of the oil blanket, however, is providing residence time for coalescence of small
water droplets into larger, separable ones.
Spreader-Design Equations. The oil-phase spreader separationcapacity equation (Eq. 3) was derived from Eq. C-2 by converting
rate to barrels per day. Eq. 4, the particle-design-diameter equation,
is a rearrangement of Eq. 3.
q MO + 2.1603
and d p + 6.8037
10 4q MO m od 2s * d 2Fg p * g o . . . . (4)
0.5
q MW + 2.1603
and d p + 6.8037
0.5
kBare Steel
(BTU/hr ft2 F)
2.96
3.12
4.20
5.00
Thickness
(in.)
11/32
5/16
9/32
17/64
1/4
15/64
7/32
13/64
3/16
11/64
5/32
9/64
1/8
7/64
Wu
(lbm/ft2)
13.750
12.500
11.250
10.625
10.000
9.375
8.750
8.125
7.500
6.875
6.250
5.625
5.000
4.375
Fig. 6 Effect of (a) radial flow and (b) vertical flow direction on separation.
t s + Lv t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
Flow rate may be expressed as Eq. A-2.
q + p d s L v s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
Residence time equals volume divided by rate (Eq. A-3).
tr +
p d 2s * d 2F L
4p d s L v s
d 2s * d 2F
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
4 ds vs
At capacity ts +tr. Equating Eqs. A-1 and A-3 yields Eq. A-4. Substituting this expression for vs into Eq. A-2 yields the separation capacity equation (Eq. A-5).
vs +
d 2s * d 2F
4d s L
v t, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
q + CA h(2gDh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-1)
In this equation, Dh pertains to the flowing fluid (oil phase), and
is developed by the interface depression, D, illustrated in Fig. 3.
The equation for Dh (Eq. B-2) is obvious from inspection of Fig. 3.
Dh + D(g w * g o)12g o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-2)
Eq. B-3 was derived by substituting Eq. B-2 into Eq. B-1.
0.5
q + CA hgD(g w * g o)6g o .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-3)
Eq. B-4 is the result of assigning values of 0.6 and 32.174 ft/sec2
to C and g, respectively, and substituting p dh 2/576 for Ah in Eq. B-3.
q + 7.578
0.5
0.5
. . . . . . . . (D-1)
The equation for spreader weight in air (Eq. D-2) was derived by
multiplying the surface area (expressed in Eq. D-1) by Wu , the unit
weight of sheet steel in lbm/ft2. Table 1 presents the thickness and
Wu for tank steel of various gauge numbers.
0.5
. . . (D-2)
2pr h ) p(r ) r )
W bw + W u 1g wg s
h2c ) (r s * rF)2
0.5
s s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-3)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-4)
The buoyant force resulting from water being displaced from the
conical component by oil is shown in Eq. D-5, which follows from
Eq. D-4.
F bc + 62.37(g w * g o) ph c3 r 2s ) r s r F * 2r 2F . . . . . . (D-5)
Eq. D-6 describes the buoyant force resulting from oil accumulation within the spreader skirt.
F bs + 62.37p Z r 2s * r 2F(g w * g o)12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-6)
The resultant buoyed weight of the oil-phase spreader follows.
W b + W bw * F bc * F bs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-7)
Eq. D-8 was derived by substituting Eqs. D-3, D-5, and D-6 into
D-7.
W b + W u 1 * g wg sp 2r s h s ) [r s ) r F]h 2c ) (r s * r F)
0.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-1)
Substituting Eq. C-1 into Eq. A-5 reduces to the following expression for qmo as a function of dp .
62.37(g w * g o) h c3 r 2s ) r s r F * 2r 2F ) h sr 2s * r 2F
1 * g wg s 2r s h s ) [r s ) r F]h 2c ) (r s * r F) 2
0.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-9)
If application of Eq. D-8 indicates that a net upward force could
occur, the value of Z resulting in a neutral force may be computed
with Eq. D-10. This equation was derived from Eq. D-8 by setting
Wb +0 and solving for Z.
2
W u 1 * g wg s 2r s h s ) [r s ) r F]h 2c ) (r s * r F)
Zn +
0.5
5.1975(g w * g o)r 2s * r 2F
59
4h cr 2s ) r s r F * 2r 2F
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-10)
r 2s * r 2F
SPEPF
60