# An Experimental Analysis of Gas Reduction in Multiphase Flow with a KMS Helical Static Mixer
## 6 Experimental Validation of the Numerical Result
### Results  
Even though a sample composed mainly of water is expected, the bottom layer exhibits different proportions of water-oil, as depicted in Figure 13 for each configuration. It can be noticed that water is increasingly dominant over time in all cases; however, the KMS in Cases B-D, which were implemented to reduce the gas from the mixture, contributes a homogenization of the liquids, producing a delay in the sedimentation and letting the oil remain for a longer time at the bottom layer. The findings of a 2-element KMS appear to be comparable to those of 4 elements, differing approximately 3% among Cases C and D. This implies that for these configurations, 2 elements are enough to generate the cyclonic effect that allows the gas deviation, reducing the drop in pressure by half (\(\Delta P_{sm}=0.43\) Kg/cm\({}^{2}\)) according to Equation (1), enabling even a higher mounting distance \(r\) before a critical drop in pressure.  
Although Case A seems to be the optimum scenario since the oil is effectively segregated, the presence of gas at the IML is an important consideration to allow operating the injection pump efficiently. An analysis of the IML was developed for a longer time, since it was focused on the decrement rate regarding how the three phases involved were segregated by gravity into their corresponding layer. For the configuration cases, a sample at \(t=200\) min is shown in Figure 14, where it can be appreciated that Case A holds 29.2% of gas. The other cases clearly exhibit a gas reduction, Case D being the one where the gas completely vanishes from the layer.  
The average behavior of the IML thickness over time is shown in Figure 15 with respect to the total volume of the mixture in the reservoir. In contrast with the KMS implementations, Case A, the configuration without the KMS, shows a higher decrement rate (0.32) compared to the KMS implementation cases, which means that the presence of gas in the mixture favors the separation of the liquids more quickly. The similitude between Cases C and D holds since both exhibit a decrement rate of 0.26, with a slight difference in consistency with Figures 12 and 13.  
Considering the total volume at the IML, the quantification of each fraction of volume of phases can be seen in Figure 16 for all cases, where the behavior of the gas reduction versus the remaining mixture water-oil to be still separated can be compared. Case A exhibits the lowest mixture, but the highest gas concentration, the opposite of Case D, where no gas is present, but a high mixture portion is included.  
Figure 13: Samples from the bottom layer at \(t=10\) min (Sample 1), \(t=20\) min (Sample 2), and \(t=30\) min (Sample 3) after filling.  
Figure 16: Mean performance of the cases of study in the intermediate layer over time. Observe a decrease in the amount of gas is observed form case A to case D.  
Figure 14: Proportions of phases at \(t=200\) min in the IML for different cases of study.  
Figure 15: Mean dynamics performance in the intermediate layer over time for different cases.