water

Article
Oil-Water-Gas Three-Phase Separation in Multitube
T-Junction Separators
Lele Yang 1,2 , Jing Wang 1,2 , Yong Ma 1,2, *, Sen Liu 1 , Jun Tang 3 and Yongbing Zhu 3
1 School of Marine Engineering and Technology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China;
yanglele@mail.sysu.edu.cn (L.Y.); wangjing27@mail.sysu.edu.cn (J.W.); lius35@mail2.sysu.edu.cn (S.L.)
2 Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Zhuhai 519000, China
3 Guangzhou Marine Geological Survey, Guangdong 510075, China; tangjun@hydz.cn (J.T.);
zhuyongbing@hydz.cn (Y.Z.)
* Correspondence: mayong3@mail.sysu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-155-4504-1300




Received: 21 October 2019; Accepted: 15 December 2019; Published: 16 December 2019


Abstract: Multitube T-junctions can be used as an oil-water-gas pre-separator in the oil and gas
industry. In this paper, the mixture model, coupled with the k-ε turbulent model, was applied for a
simulation of the oil-water-gas three-phase flow characteristics in the multitube T-junction separator.
The oil droplet size ranged from 1 to 4 mm. The water content ranged from 5% to 20% and the
gas content from 3% to 25%. According to the phase separation results for different droplet sizes,
it was found that, as the oil droplet size increased, the water content at the water outlet initially
increased and then tended to be stable. Therefore, it was necessary to increase the oil droplet size
through corresponding measures before flowing into the T-junction for separation. For the separator
with an inner diameter of 50 mm, the oil content at the inlet had a great influence on the water-oil
separation performance, and the water-oil separation performance was obviously improved as the
oil content decreased. Owing to increased residence time, the oil content had little influence on
the water-oil separation performance when the separator with an inner diameter of 100 mm was
applied. Moreover, for the separator with an inner diameter of 100 mm, the oil content had little
influence on the degassing effect, and more than 90% of the gas could be discharged from the gas
outlet. The separation performance of the multitube T-junction separator became worse as the inlet
gas content increased.

Keywords: oil-water-gas separation; multitube T-junction; oil droplet; oil content; gas content

1. Introduction
The separation of oil-water-gas mixtures, including oily wastewater, oil spills, and oil/gas content,
has attracted global interest. Various techniques such as gravity separation, membranes separation,
and coagulation and oil absorbing processes have been employed for further treatment of these
mixtures [1–3]. However, these approaches no longer meet the application requirements in terms of
treatment capacity and separation efficiency [4]. The T-junction separator, which mainly uses gravity
and expansion, can serve as a solution. The T-junction separator exhibits high performance and has a
relatively small size, owing to its short fluid residence durations.
In fact, whether onshore or offshore oil fields, oil and gas resources are generally transported
through complex pipe network systems. A large number of T-junction tubes exist in these complex
transportation networks [5]. When single phases occur, such as crude oil or natural gas flow in the
pipeline, uneven flow distribution will occur after passing through these T-junction tubes under
different incoming flow and operating conditions [6]. When multiphase media such as crude oil and
water, natural gas, and condensate, or oil, gas, and water coexist in the pipeline, the flow condition

Water 2019, 11, 2655; doi:10.3390/w11122655 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2019, 11, 2655 2 of 14

will become more complicated, and the phase maldistribution will occur. If the degree of this phase
maldistribution can be enhanced, T-junction tubes can be used as an oil-water-gas pre-separator in the
oil and gas industry [7].
Seeger et al. [8] tested the phase separation of air-water and steam-water in T-junction tubes.
By fitting a large number of experimental data, they obtained the prediction formula of phase separation
for different branch angles. Similarly, Chisholm [9] and Saba and Lahey [10] obtained the empirical
formula of the pressure drop by fitting experimental data. Reimann and Seeger [11] simplified these
empirical models, and compared them with those previously published and their new models with
experimental results. The agreement was good for the horizontal and vertical downward branches;
however, no model satisfactorily predicts the pressure drop in the upward branch flow. Baker et al. [12]
investigated the transient effects in gas-liquid phase separation in a pair of T-junctions. The separation
system underwent a rapid global change in the liquid hold-up when the gas inlet superficial velocity
changed. For changes in the inlet liquid superficial velocity, no unexpected flow regimes were observed.
He et al. [13] showed that the gas phase was easier to flow out of the branch pipe under slug slow.
The slug flow in T-junction tubes is rather unstable, it is difficult to describe it via a theoretical model.
Therefore, the separation results of T-junction tubes under slug flow are mainly predicted by fitting the
empirical correlation [8,14].
Besides the empirical model, many appearance models have been proposed, based on theoretical
analysis. In order to predict the phase separation in T-junction tubes, Hwang et al. [15] established a
prediction model of phase separation based on the idea of dividing streamlines. However, this model is
only applicable to the horizontal T-junction tubes. Based on this idea, Penmatcha et al. [16] deduced the
momentum equation, and considered the gravity action of the liquid, which contributed to expanding
the application scope of this model and enabled it to predict the phase separation results in vertical
T-junction tubes. Hart et al. [17] proposed the so-called double-streamline model based on the extended
Bernoulli equation. However, the hypothesis of the thin liquid film was used in the derivation process
of the double-streamline model, and thus the model was only applicable in the conditions where the
liquid hold-up at the inlet was less than 0.06. On the basis of the double-streamline model, Ottens [18]
developed a new model to predict the instantaneous characteristics of gas-liquid two-phase flow, and
the steady-state and time-dependent dynamic values predicted by the model were in good agreement
with the on-line measured experimental data.
Through a literature review, it is found that many efforts have concentrated on gas-liquid
separation in T-junctions, compared with very limited work concentrated on the liquid-liquid separation.
Yang et al. [19] first investigated the phase split of water-kerosene in T-junctions by experimental tests
and developed a simplified model for predicting the separation results. Through further experimental
investigation, Yang and Azzopardi [20] found the degree of phase maldistribution at a T-junction was
not very great and preferential emergence of either phase from the side-arm depended on the flow
rates of the two-phases.
Most previous research studied the phase separation in T-junction tubes via experimental tests,
and mainly studied gas-liquid or oil-water separation, respectively. In addition, nearly all the models
are either wholly empirical or based on flow analysis that still relies on empirical correlations, which
renders the predictability of phase separation largely dependent on the specific experiments. Today,
the prediction of phase maldistribution at a pipe junction remains a serious concern [21]. Some
scholars have indicated that increasing the number of T-junctions can improve the efficiency of phase
separation [22,23]. In this study, combined with the mixture model and the standard k-ε model,
a numerical model, suitable for simulating the three-phase separation of oil-water-gas in the multitube
T-junction separator, was established. The effects of oil droplet size and oil content on the oil-water-gas
separation performance of multitube T-junction separators have been studied.
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

2. Numerical Model
Water 2019, 11, 2655 3 of 14
2.1. Geometry Model and Mesh Generation
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15
The multitube
2. Numerical ModelT-junction separator consists of three layers of horizontal pipes. The horizontal
2.pipes
Numerical
of each Model
layer are connected by inclined vertical pipes. Under the effect of gravity, the gas phase
risesGeometry
2.1. to the upper
Modelhorizontal pipe, the oil phase rises to the middle horizontal pipe, and the water
and Mesh Generation
2.1.
phaseGeometry
sinks toModel and Mesh
the lower Generation
horizontal pipe, finally realizing the oil-water-gas three-phase separation.
The multitube T-junction separator consists of three layers of horizontal pipes. The horizontal
Therefore, the outlet of the upper horizontal pipe ofis the airlayers
outlet,ofthe middle one is the oil horizontal
outlet, and
pipesThe multitube
of each layer are T-junction
connected separator consists
by inclined verticalthree
pipes. Under horizontal
the effect of pipes.
gravity,The
the gas phase
the lower
pipes ofthe onelayer
each is theare
water outlet. by
connected Two types of
inclined multitube
vertical T-junction separators were applied, with an
rises to upper horizontal pipe, the oil phase risespipes.
to theUnder
middle the effect of gravity,
horizontal the gas
pipe, and the phase
water
inner
rises todiameter
the upper of 50 or 100
horizontal mm. The
pipe, thegeometry
oil phase model
rises of
to the
the multitube
middle T-junction
horizontal separator
pipe, and is
the shown
water
phase sinks to the lower horizontal pipe, finally realizing the oil-water-gas three-phase separation.
in Figure
phase sinksthe1. There
tooutlet are
the lower five lower inclined pipes and five upper inclined pipes. The spacing between
Therefore, of thehorizontal pipe, finally
upper horizontal pipe isrealizing the oil-water-gas
the air outlet, the middle one three-phase
is the oil separation.
outlet, and
inclined pipes
Therefore, the is 1000
outlet ofmm,
the and the
upper inclination
horizontal angle
pipe is is air
the 60°.outlet, the middle one is the oil outlet, and
the lower one is the water outlet. Two types of multitube T-junction separators were applied, with an
the To improve
lower one isof thewater
the calculation accuracy, typesthe grid is regionally generated, as shown in Figure 2. Due
inner diameter 50 or 100outlet.
mm. TheTwogeometry of multitube
model of the T-junction
multitubeseparators
T-junctionwere applied,
separator iswith
shownan
to
innerthe flow
diameter complexity
of 50 in the T-junctions, compact tetrahedral cells are generated in T-junctions
in Figure 1. There areorfive
100lower
mm. The geometry
inclined pipesmodel
and fiveof the multitube
upper inclinedT-junction
pipes. Theseparator
spacing is shown
between
blocks,
in Figure while
1. hexahedral
There are five cells
lowerareinclined
produced in the
pipes and other
five blocksinclined
upper
◦ by Cooper. TheThe
pipes. distortion
spacing rate of the
between
inclined pipes is 1000 mm, and the inclination angle is 60 .
grid is controlled within 0.8, and the calculation
inclined pipes is 1000 mm, and the inclination angle is 60°. accuracy is within 10−3.

To improve the calculation accuracy, the grid is regionally generated, as shown in Figure 2. Due
to the flow complexity in the T-junctions, compact tetrahedral cells are generated in T-junctions
blocks, while hexahedral cells are produced in the other blocks by Cooper. The distortion rate of the
grid is controlled within 0.8, and the calculation accuracy is within 10−3.

Figure1.1. Geometry
Figure Geometry model
model of
of multitube
multitube T-junction
T-junctionseparator.
separator.

To improve the calculation accuracy, the grid is regionally generated, as shown in Figure 2. Due to
the flow complexity in the T-junctions, compact tetrahedral cells are generated in T-junctions blocks,
while hexahedral cells are produced in the other blocks by Cooper. The distortion rate of the grid is
Figure
controlled within 0.8, and the1.calculation
Geometry model of multitube
accuracy 10−3 .
is withinT-junction separator.

Figure 2. Mesh generation of multitube T-junction separator.

2.2. Transport Equations and Turbulent Model

The mixture model, a simplified multiphase flow model, is used to simulate the multiphase flow
Figure 2. Mesh generation of multitube T-junction separator.
with different velocities and 2.
Figure assumes local equilibrium
Mesh generation onT-junction
of multitube a short spatial scale [24]. It is also used to
separator.
2.2. Transport
simulate Equations multiphase
the isotropic and Turbulent Model
flow with strong coupling and the multiphase flow with the same
2.2. Transport
velocity. Equations
Typical and Turbulent
applications Modelmodel include sedimentation, cyclone separators, and
of the multiphase
mixture
The mixture model, a simplified flow model, is used to simulate the multiphase flow
bubble
with Theflows
mixture
different with low gas
model,
velocities volume
assumesfractions.
a simplified
and multiphase Byflow
analyzing
local equilibrium on athe
model, is lawspatial
used
short ofsimulate
to thescale
gas-liquid
the Itflow
multiphase
[24]. in the
is also flow
usedT-
junction
with
to simulatetubes,
different the mixture
thevelocities
isotropicand model can
assumes flow
multiphase also be used
local equilibriumto
with strong onsimulate the
a shortand
coupling hydrodynamic
spatial
the scale characteristics
[24]. It is
multiphase flowalsowith
usedtheof
to
the multiphase
simulate
same velocity. fluid in
the isotropic
Typical the T-junction
multiphase
applications flow tubes.
with
of the strongmodel
mixture coupling and the
include multiphase flow
sedimentation, with
cyclone the same
separators,
velocity.
and bubble Typical
flowsapplications
with low gasofvolume
the mixture model
fractions. Byinclude sedimentation,
analyzing cyclone
the law of the separators,
gas-liquid flow inand
the
bubble flows
T-junction with
tubes, thelow gas volume
mixture fractions.
model can also beBy analyzing
used the law
to simulate of the gas-liquid
the hydrodynamic flow in the T-
characteristics of
junction tubes, the
the multiphase fluidmixture model cantubes.
in the T-junction also be used to simulate the hydrodynamic characteristics of
the multiphase fluid in the T-junction tubes.
Water 2019, 11, 2655 4 of 14

In Fluent, the mixture model uses the concept of slip velocity, allowing the phases to move at
different speeds [25]. The continuity equation of the mixture model is:

∂ → .
( ρm ) + ∇ · ( ρm v m ) = m (1)
∂t
. →
where m is the mass transfer of the mass source, v m is the average mass velocity, and ρm is the
mixed density.
Pn →
→ αk ρk v k
v m = k =1 (2)
ρm
Xn
ρm = αk ρk (3)
k =1
The momentum equation of the mixture model can be obtained by summing the momentum
equations of each phase, which can be expressed as:

→ → → → →T → → n → →
∂
( ρ v ) + ∇ · ( ρm v m v m ) = −∇p + ∇ · [µm (∇ v m + ∇ v m )]+ρm g + F + ∇ · ( αk ρk v dr,k v dr,k )
P
∂t m m
(4)
k =1

→ →
where F is the body force, µm is the mixing viscosity, and v dr,k is the drift velocity of the second phase.
Xn
µm = αk µk (5)
k =1

→ → →
v dr,k = v k − v m (6)

The relative velocity is defined as:

→ → →
v qp = vp − vq (7)

The drift velocity and relative velocity is related as:

n
→ →
X αk ρk →
v dr,p = v qp − v (8)
ρm qk
k =1

The mixture model uses the algebraic slip formula. The basic assumption of the algebraic slip
formula is to specify the algebraic relationship of the relative velocity. The local equilibrium between
phases should be achieved on a short spatial length scale. The relative velocity is defined as:
→ →
v qp = τqp α (9)
→
where τqp is the relaxation time of the particle, and α is the acceleration of the second phase.
According to the Manninen theory [26], τqp can be given as:

(ρm − ρp )d2p
τqp = (10)
18µq fdrag

where dp is the radius of the second phase particle, and the drag coefficient refers to the study of
Schiller and Naumann [27].
1 + 0.15Re0.687
(
fdrag = (11)
0.0183Re
Water 2019, 11, 2655 5 of 14

The form of acceleration is expressed as:

→
→ → → → ∂vm
α = g − ( v m · ∇ v m) − (12)
∂t
The volume fraction equation of the second phase is given as:

∂ → →
(αp ρp ) + ∇ · (αp ρp v m ) = −∇ · (αp ρp v dr,p ) (13)
∂t
While the flow in the multitube T-junction separator is turbulent, the flow is relatively stable.
Therefore, the standard k-ε model is selected to simulate the turbulent motion, and the equation is
expressed as:
∂ µt,m
!
 → 
(ρm k) + ∇ · ρm v m k = ∇ · ∇k + Gk,m − ρm ε (14)
∂t σk
µ
∂ ε
 →  
t,m 
( ρm ε ) + ∇ · ρm v m ε = ∇ · ∇ε + C1ε Gk,m − C2ε ρm ε (15)
∂t σε k

2.3. Boundary Conditions

In this study, water, air, and oil were used as the test fluids, and their physical properties are
listed in Table 1. A uniform velocity profile was adopted at the inlet boundary. Taking the practical
working conditions of Bohai Oilfield in China as a reference, the inlet water-oil mixture flow rate
was set as 20 m3 /h for the multitube T-junction separator with an inner diameter of 50 mm, and the
inlet water-oil mixture flow rate was set as 50 m3 /h for the multitube T-junction separators with an
inner diameter of 100 mm. A free outlet boundary was employed at both outlets. Near-wall flow was
resolved by the standard wall function. The flow rate at each outlet was consistent with the flow rate
of the corresponding phase at the inlet.

Table 1. Physical parameters of water, air, and oil (20 ◦ C).

Fluid Density (kg/m3 ) Viscosity (mpa·s)

Water 998.2 1.003
Air 1.225 0.01789
Oil 840 31

The turbulent flow at the inlet was characterized by hydraulic diameter and turbulent intensity.
In this study, the hydraulic diameter DH was equal to the inlet pipe diameter. The turbulent intensity
was calculated as:
I = u0 /u = 0.16(ReDH )−1/8 (16)
DH u m ρ m
ReDH = (17)
µm

2.4. Verification of Simulation

The validation was made by comparing the results obtained from the simulation with the
experimental data obtained by Yang et al. [5]. They developed an experimental study on gas and liquid
separation at T-junction tubes. The experimental separator consisted of four connecting tubes, and the
angle between the straight arm and the lateral arm was 60◦ , and the pipe diameter was 50 mm. Air
and water were chosen as the test fluids. In Figure 3, the mixture flow rate was 4.53 m3 /h and the gas
content was 0.26 in case #1, and the mixture flow rate was 8.13 m3 /h and the gas fraction was 0.30 in
case #2. The split ratio was defined as the ratio of the mixture flow rate at the gas outlet to that at the
inlet. As can be seen, the variation of the gas content at the gas outlet with the split ratio obtained by
 The validation was made by comparing the results obtained from the simulation with the
experimental data obtained by Yang et al. [5]. They developed an experimental study on gas and
liquid separation at T-junction tubes. The experimental separator consisted of four connecting tubes,
and the angle between the straight arm and the lateral arm was 60°, and the pipe diameter was 50
mm. Air and water were chosen as the test fluids. In Figure 3, the mixture flow rate was 4.53 m3/h
Water 2019, 11, 2655 6 of 14
and the gas content was 0.26 in case #1, and the mixture flow rate was 8.13 m3/h and the gas fraction
was 0.30 in case #2. The split ratio was defined as the ratio of the mixture flow rate at the gas outlet
to that at the
numerical inlet. As can
simulation wasbe inseen, the variation
agreement with theof experimental
the gas content at the gas
results. Withoutlet with theinsplit
the increase the ratio
split
obtained
ratio, the by
gasnumerical
content at simulation wasgradually
the gas outlet in agreement with the
decreased. experimental
Therefore, results. With
the numerical modelthe increase
developed
in the
thissplit
studyratio,
wasthe gas content
adequate at thethe
to predict gasseparation
outlet gradually decreased.
behavior Therefore, the
and hydrodynamic numerical model
characteristics in the
developed in this study
multitube T-junction was adequate to predict the separation behavior and hydrodynamic
separator.
characteristics in the multitube T-junction separator.
100
#1 Simulation
Gas content at the gas outlet, %
#1 Experimental data
80 #2 Simulation
#2 Experimental data

60

40

20
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Split ratio
Figure 3.
Figure Comparison between
3. Comparison between simulations
simulations and
and experimental
experimental data
data by
by Yang
Yang et
et al.
al. [5].
[5].

3. Results and Discussions

3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Effect of the Oil Droplet Size on the Separation Performance
3.1. Effect of the Oil Droplet Size on the Separation Performance
Table 2 shows the effect of the oil droplet size on the separation performance of multitube
Table 2 shows the effect of the oil droplet size on the separation performance of multitube T-
T-junction separators with inner diameters of 50 mm under inlet 20 m3 /h flow rates. The content of
junction separators with inner diameters of 50 mm under inlet 20 m3/h flow rates. The content of each
each phase is based on volume. Figures 4–7 show the corresponding phase distribution in the separator
phase is based on volume. Figures 4–7 show the corresponding phase distribution in the separator
with oil droplet sizes of 1 and 2 mm. In the figures, blue represents low content of the corresponding
with oil droplet sizes of 1 and 2 mm. In the figures, blue represents low content of the corresponding
phase and red represents high content of the corresponding phase. When the oil droplet size increased
phase and red represents high content of the corresponding phase. When the oil droplet size
from 1 to 2 mm, the water content at the water outlet increased from 94.91% to 97.80%, and the water
increased from 1 to 2 mm, the water content at the water outlet increased from 94.91% to 97.80%, and
content at the oil outlet changed from 29.76% to 22.74%. However, the separation performance changed
the water content at the oil outlet changed from 29.76% to 22.74%. However, the separation
slightly for the oil droplet size of 2, 3, and 4 mm. When the oil droplet size increased, the gas content at
performance changed slightly for the oil droplet size of 2, 3, and 4 mm. When the oil droplet size
the gas outlet increased rapidly, which meant that the degassing effect became better. As there were
increased, the gas content at the gas outlet increased rapidly, which meant that the degassing effect
usually many elbows in the conveying pipeline, it is easy to cause emulsification when the oil, gas, and
became better. As there were usually many elbows in the conveying pipeline, it is easy to cause
water flowed in it, which made the oil droplet size smaller [28]. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the
emulsification when the oil, gas, and water flowed in it, which made the oil droplet size smaller [28].
oil droplet size through some measures before flowing into the T-junction for separation. For example,
Therefore, it is necessary to increase the oil droplet size through some measures before flowing into
chemical agents can be added for demulsification before separation.
the T-junction for separation. For example, chemical agents can be added for demulsification before
separation.
Table 2. Influence of the oil droplet size on the separation performance under inlet 20 m3 /h flow rate.

Oil Water Oil Gas Water Gas Water Gas Gas Water
Droplet Flow Flow Flow Content at Content at Content Content Content at Content at
Size Rate Rate Rate the Water the Water at the Oil at the Oil the Gas the Gas
(mm) (m3 /h) (m3 /h) (m3 /h) Outlet Outlet Outlet Outlet Outlet Outlet
4 16.9 3.1 0.62 0.9967 0.0087 0.2274 0.0313 0.9080 0.0920
3 16.9 3.1 0.62 0.9816 0.0105 0.2385 0.0210 0.8965 0.1035
2 16.9 3.1 0.62 0.9780 0.0034 0.2431 0.0068 0.5933 0.0697
1 16.9 3.1 0.62 0.9491 0.0014 0.2976 0.0014 0.4098 0.2318
 Water
Water GasContent
Gas Content Water
Water GasContent
Gas Content Gas
GasContent
Content Water
Water
OilDroplet
Oil Droplet WaterFlow
Water Flow Oil
OilFlow
FlowRate
Rate Gas
GasFlow
FlowRateRate Water Gas Content Water Gas Content Gas Content Water
Oil Droplet Water Flow Oil Flow Rate Gas Flow Rate Content
Contentat
atthe
the at
atthe
theWater
Water Content
Contentatatthe
the at
atthe
theOil
Oil atthe
at theGas
Gas Content
Contentatatthe
the
Size(mm)
Size (mm) Rate (m
Rate (m
3/h)
(m3/h)
3 /h) (m 3/h)
(m3/h)
3 /h) (m 3/h)
(m3/h)
3 /h) Content at the at the Water Content at the at the Oil at the Gas Content at the
Size (mm) Rate (m (m WaterOutlet
Water Outlet Outlet
Outlet OilOutlet
Oil Outlet Outlet
Outlet Outlet
Outlet GasOutlet
Gas Outlet
Water Outlet Outlet Oil Outlet Outlet Outlet Gas Outlet
44 16.9
16.9 3.1
3.1 0.62
0.62 0.9967
0.9967 0.0087
0.0087 0.2274
0.2274 0.0313
0.0313 0.9080
0.9080 0.0920
0.0920
33 16.9
16.9 3.1
3.1 0.62
0.62 0.9816
0.9816 0.0105
0.0105 0.2385
0.2385 0.0210
0.0210 0.8965
0.8965 0.1035
0.1035
Water 2019, 11, 2655 7 of0.0697
14
22 16.9
16.9 3.1
3.1 0.62
0.62 0.9780
0.9780 0.0034
0.0034 0.2431
0.2431 0.0068
0.0068 0.5933
0.5933 0.0697
11 16.9
16.9 3.1
3.1 0.62
0.62 0.9491
0.9491 0.0014
0.0014 0.2976
0.2976 0.0014
0.0014 0.4098
0.4098 0.2318
0.2318

Figure 4. Water content distribution for the oil droplet size of 1 mm under inlet 20 m333/h flow rate.
Figure 4. Water
Water content distributionfor
forthe
theoil
oildroplet
droplet size
size of
Figure
Figure 4.
4. Water content
content distribution
distribution for the oil droplet sizeofof111mm
mm under
mmunder
underinlet
inlet 20 m
20
inlet m /h
20/h flow
mflow rate. rate.
3 /h flow
rate.

Figure
Figure
Figure 5.Gas
5.
5. Gas
Figure 5. Gas
Gas content
content
content distribution
distribution
distribution
content for
distribution for
for
forthetheoil
the
the oildroplet
oil
oil dropletsize
droplet
droplet sizeof
size
size of
of1111mm
of mm
mm under
under
mmunder
under inlet
inlet 20m
20
inlet
inlet 20 m33/h
m
20 /h
/h
3
3flow
flow
mflow rate.rate.
/h flow
rate.
rate.

Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

Figure 6. Water
Figure
Figure
Figure 6.
6. content
6.Water
Water
Water distribution
content
content
content for
distribution
distribution
distribution for
forthe
for theoil
the
the oildroplet
oil
oil droplet
droplet size
dropletsize
sizeof
size of2222mm
of
of mmunder
mm
mm under
under
under inlet
inlet
inlet
inlet 20m
20
20 20 mflow
m333/h
m /h
/h /h flow
3flow
flow rate.rate.
rate.
rate.

Figure 7. Gas
Figure content
7. Gas distribution
content forforthe
distribution theoil
oildroplet
droplet size of22mm
size of mmunder
under inlet
inlet 20 20
m3/h /h flow
m3flow rate.rate.

TableTable
3 shows the the
3 shows effect of oil
effect droplet
of oil dropletsize
sizeon
onthe separationperformance
the separation performance of multitube
of multitube T-junction
T-junction
separators
separators withwith inner
inner diameters
diameters of of 100mm
100 mmunder
under inlet
inlet 50 m /hflow
m33/h flowrates.
rates. Figures 8–11
Figures show
8–11 the the
show
corresponding
corresponding phase phase distribution
distribution in the
in the separatorwith
separator withoil
oil droplet
droplet sizes
sizesofof1 and
1 and3 mm. TheThe
3 mm. separation
separation
performances
performances varied
varied significantly
significantly forfor
oiloildroplet
dropletsizes
sizes of
of 1
1 and
and33mm.
mm.The The water
water content at the
content at water
the water
outlet increased from 94.13% to 99.64%, and the water content at the oil outlet changed from 37.38%
to 18.43%. However, the separation performance changed slightly for the oil droplet size of 3 and 4
mm. This showed that, as the oil droplet size increased, the water content at the water outlet initially
increased and then tended to be stable. Unlike the 50 mm inner diameter (I.D.) separator, the oil
droplet size had little influence on the gas content at the gas outlet when the 100 mm I.D. separator
was used. This was because the large pipe provided sufficient space for gas-liquid separation.
 Figure 7. Gas content distribution for the oil droplet size of 2 mm under inlet 20 m3/h flow rate.

Table 3 shows the effect of oil droplet size on the separation performance of multitube T-junction
Water 2019, 11, 2655with inner diameters of 100 mm under inlet 50 m /h flow rates. Figures 8–11 show the8 of 14
separators 3

corresponding phase distribution in the separator with oil droplet sizes of 1 and 3 mm. The separation
performances varied significantly for oil droplet sizes of 1 and 3 mm. The water content at the water
outletoutlet increased
increased fromfrom 94.13%
94.13% to to 99.64%,and
99.64%, andthethe water
water content
contentatatthe oiloil
the outlet changed
outlet fromfrom
changed 37.38%37.38%
to 18.43%.
to 18.43%. However,
However, thethe separationperformance
separation performance changed
changed slightly for for
slightly the the
oil droplet size ofsize
oil droplet 3 and
of 43 and
4 mm.mm. This
This showed
showed that,asasthe
that, theoil
oil droplet
droplet size
sizeincreased,
increased,the water
the watercontent at the
content water
at the outlet
water initially
outlet initially
increased and then tended to be stable. Unlike the 50 mm inner diameter (I.D.) separator, the oil
increased and then tended to be stable. Unlike the 50 mm inner diameter (I.D.) separator, the oil
droplet size had little influence on the gas content at the gas outlet when the 100 mm I.D. separator
droplet size had little influence on the gas content at the gas outlet when the 100 mm I.D. separator
was used. This was because the large pipe provided sufficient space for gas-liquid separation.
was used. This was because the large pipe provided sufficient space for gas-liquid separation.
Table 3. Influence of the oil droplet size on the separation performance under inlet 50 m3/h flow
Table 3. Influence of the oil droplet size on the separation
rate. performance under inlet 50 m3 /h flow rate.

Oil Water Oil Gas Water Water Gas Gas ContentWaterWater Gas Gas ContentWater
Gas ContentGas
Water
Oil Droplet
Droplet Water
FlowFlow Flow
Oil Flow Flow
Gas FlowContent
Rate Content at
at Content at Content Content
Content at Content at Content
Content at at
at the Water at the Oil at the Gas
Size (mm)
Size Rate (m3/h) Rate
Rate Rate(m3/h) Rate(m3/h)the Water
the Water
the Water the Oilat the Oil
at the Oil the Gas the Gas
the Gas
Outlet Outlet Outlet
(mm) (m3 /h) (m3 /h) (m3 /h) Outlet Outlet Outlet OutletOutlet Outlet Outlet Outlet
Outlet
4 4 42.27
42.27 7.73
7.73 1.55 1.55 0.9975 0.9975 0.0071 0.0071 0.11110.1111 0.00970.0097 0.88190.8819 0.1181
0.1181
3 3 42.27
42.27 7.73
7.73 1.55 1.55 0.9964 0.9964 0.0066 0.0066 0.18430.1843 0.00870.0087 0.87810.8781 0.1033
0.1033
1 1 42.27
42.27 7.73
7.73 1.55 1.55 0.9413 0.9413 0.0021 0.0021 0.37380.3738 0.00020.0002 0.85540.8554 0.1207
0.1207

Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
8. Water content distribution 3 /h flow rate.
Figure
Figure 8. Water content distributionfor
forthe
theoil
oil droplet sizeofof1 1mm
droplet size mm under
under inlet
inlet 503/h
50 m mflow rate.

Figure 9. Gas
9. Gas content
content distribution
distribution forthe
for the oildroplet
droplet size
sizeofof111mm
mmunder inlet 50 50
m /h
mflow
3 rate.rate.
3 /h flow
Figure
Figure 9. Gas content distribution for theoil
oil droplet size of mm under
under inlet
inlet 50 m3/h flow rate.

Figure 10. Water

10. Water content
content distributionfor
distribution for theoil
oil droplet size
sizeofof333mm
mmunder inlet 50 m
503/h
mflow
3 rate. rate.
3 /h flow
Figure
Figure 10. Water content distribution forthe
the oildroplet
droplet size of mm under
under inlet
inlet 50 m /h flow rate.
Water 2019, 11, 2655 9 of 14
Figure 10. Water content distribution for the oil droplet size of 3 mm under inlet 50 m3/h flow rate.

Figure
Figure 11. Gas
11. Gas content
content distributionfor
distribution forthe
theoil
oildroplet
droplet size
sizeofof33mm
mmunder
underinlet 50 m
inlet 50 /h
mflow
3 rate. rate.
3 /h flow

3.2. Effect
3.2. Effect of theofOil
theContent
Oil Content
on theonSeparation
the Separation Performance
Performance
TableTable
4 shows4 showsthe the effect
effect of of
oiloil contenton
content onthe
the separation
separation performance
performance of of
multitube
multitubeT-junction
T-junction
separators with inner diameters of 50 mm under inlet 20 m33/h flow rates. Figures 12–15 show the
separators with inner diameters of 50 mm under inlet 20 m /h flow rates. Figures 12–15 show the
corresponding phase distribution in the separator for the inlet oil content of 15% and 20% when the
corresponding phase distribution in the separator for the inlet oil content of 15% and 20% when the oil
oil droplet size was 1 mm. The oil content has a great influence on the separation performance. When
droplet
thesize was 1 mm.
oil droplet The3oil
size was mm content
and thehas a great changed
oil content influencefrom on the
20%separation
to 15%, theperformance.
water content at When
the the
oil droplet
water outlet increased from 92.34% to 98.16%, and the separation performance was obviouslywater
size was 3 mm and the oil content changed from 20% to 15%, the water content at the
outletimproved.
increasedAsfrom 92.34%
can be to 98.16%,
seen from Figures and the14,separation
12 and performance
the inlet flows was obviously
were the stratified flow. Lowerimproved.
oil
As can be seen
content ledfrom Figures
to a thicker 12 and
water 14,which
layer, the inlet
madeflows were
it easier forthe
thestratified
oil to moveflow.
intoLower oil content
the lateral arm. Thisled to
conclusion
a thicker water was layer,also verified
which by the
made it study
easierabout theoil
for the kerosene
to move andinto
water two-phase
the flow at
lateral arm. a single
This T-
conclusion
junction
Water 2019,conducted
11, x FOR by
PEER Yang
REVIEW et al. [19]. When the oil droplet size was
was also verified by the study about the kerosene and water two-phase flow at a single T-junction 1 mm and the oil content
10 of 15

conducted by Yang et al. [19]. When the oil droplet size was 1 mm and the oil content changed from
changed from 20% to 15%, the water content at the water outlet changed from 92.10% to 94.91%. The
20% to 15%, the water content at the water outlet changed from 92.10% to 94.91%. The water content at
water content at the water outlet increased less obviously for the oil droplet size of 1 mm than the oil
the water outlet
droplet size ofincreased
3 mm. less obviously for the oil droplet size of 1 mm than the oil droplet size of
3 mm.
Table 4. Phase split results for different oil contents under inlet 20 m3/h flow rate.
Table 4. Phase split results for different oil contents under inlet 20 m3 /h flow rate.
Water Gas Gas Water
Oil Water Gas
Oil Water
Water OilOil Flow
Gas Gas Flow
Water Content Gas Content Water Gas GasContent WaterContent
Oil Droplet Content Content
Oil Droplet FlowRate Flow RateFlow
Flow Content at atContent
Rate the atat the
Content Content Content atattheContent
atat
the
Content Size at the Oil at the Oil
Content Size Rate
(m3/h) Rate(m3/h)Rate (m the
3/h)Water Water
the Water Water
at the Oil at the Oil the GasGas the Gas Gas
(mm)
(mm) (m3 /h) (m3 /h) (m3 /h) Outlet OutletOutlet Outlet Outlet OutletOutlet Outlet OutletOutlet Outlet
Outlet
15%
15% 33 16.9
16.9 3.1 3.1 0.62 0.9816
0.62 0.0105 0.01050.2385 0.23850.0210 0.0210 0.89650.8965
0.9816 0.1035
0.1035
20% 3 15.876 4.124 0.62 0.9234 0.0184 0.2596 0.0054 0.4815 0.3083
20% 3 15.876 4.124 0.62 0.9234 0.0184 0.2596 0.0054 0.4815 0.3083
15% 1 16.9 3.1 0.62 0.9491 0.0014 0.2976 0.0014 0.4098 0.2318
15%
20% 11 16.9
15.876 4.124 3.1 0.62 0.62
0.9210 0.9491
0.0018 0.00140.3279 0.29760.0053 0.0014 0.51650.4098 0.2318
0.2352
20% 1 15.876 4.124 0.62 0.9210 0.0018 0.3279 0.0053 0.5165 0.2352

Figure
Figure 12. Water
12. Water content
content distribution
distribution forthe
for theinlet
inlet oil
oil content
content of
of15%
15%and
andthethe
oiloil
droplet sizesize
droplet of 1 of
mm 1 mm
under inlet 20 m /h flow rate.
under inlet 3
20 m 3/h flow rate.
 Figure
Water 2019, 11, 265512. Water content distribution for the inlet oil content of 15% and the oil droplet size of 1 mm 10 of 14
under inlet 20 m3/h flow rate.

FigureFigure 13. Gas

13. Gas content
content distributionfor
distribution forthe
theinlet
inlet oil
oil content
contentofof15%
15%and thethe
and oil oil
droplet size size
droplet of 1 of
mm1 mm
Water2019,
Water 2019,11,
11,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 11of
11 of15
15
under inlet 20 m3/h flow
under inlet 20 m /h flow rate.
3 rate.

Figure 14.
14. Water
Water content
content distribution
distribution for
Figure
Figure 14. Water content distribution forforthe
the inlet
the inlet oil
inlet oil content
oil content of
content of 20%
of20% and the
andthe
20%and oil droplet
oil
the droplet size
oil size of
droplet of 11 mm
size mm
of 1 mm
under inlet
inlet 20
20 m33/h
/h flow
flow rate.
rate.
under inlet 20 m /h flow rate.
under 3 m

Figure 15. Gas

Figure
Figure 15. content
15. Gas
Gas distribution
content
content for
distribution
distribution forthe
for theinlet
the inletoil
inlet content
oil content
oil of20%
content of
of 20%and
20% and
and the
the
the oiloil
oil droplet
droplet
droplet sizesize
size of 11 of
of mm
mm 1 mm
under
underunder inlet
inlet inlet
20 m203 /hmflow
20 3/h flow rate.
rate.
m3/h flow rate.

Table
TableTable 55 shows
5 shows shows the
the the effect
effect of oil
of of
effect oil oil contenton
content
content onthe
on theseparation
the separation performance
separation performance
performance of of
of multitube
multitube
multitube T-junction
T-junction
T-junction
separators with inner diameters of 100 mm under inlet 50 m/h/hflow
m 33/h flow rates. Figures 16–19 show the
separators
separatorswithwith
inner diameters
inner diameters ofof100100mmmmunder
under inlet
inlet 5050 m 3 flowrates.
rates. Figures
Figures 16–19
16–19 showshowthe the
corresponding
corresponding
corresponding phase phase
phase distribution
distribution
distribution in
inin theseparator
the
the separator with
separator with oil
with oil content
oilcontent
contentof ofof
15%
15%15% and
andand 10%.
10%. As can
As
10%. can
As bebe seen,
can seen,
be seen,
almost pure
almost pure water
water can
can be obtained
obtained at the the water
water outlet
outlet for
for different oil oil content,
content, which
which waswas different
different
almost pure water can be be obtained atatthe water outlet fordifferent
different oil content, which was different
from the phase split at the multitube T-junction separator with an inner diameter of 50 mm. The inlet
from from the phase
the phase splitsplit at the
at the multitube
multitube T-junctionseparator
T-junction separator withwithan aninner
innerdiameter
diameter of 50
of mm.
50 mm. The inlet
The inlet
velocity was high, owing to the small pipe diameter. The residence time
velocity was high, owing to the small pipe diameter. The residence time of the incoming liquid in theof the incoming liquid in the
velocity was high,
multitube owingseparator
T-junction to the small
was pipeItdiameter.
short. became The residence
difficult to separate time
the ofphase
oil the incoming
from the liquid in
water
multitube T-junction separator was short. It became difficult to separate the oil phase from the water
the multitube
phase when T-junction
when the oil separator
oil content
content waswas high,short.
whichItwas became
was difficult
similar the to
to the separateseparation
gas-liquid the oil phase from
results at the
phase the was high, which similar to gas-liquid separation results at
waterhorizontal
phase when the
horizontal T-junctions, oil
T-junctions, ascontent was
as observed
observed byhigh, which
by Baker
Baker et was
et al. similar
al. [29].
[29]. As
As canto the
can be gas-liquid
be seen
seen from separation
from the the gas content at
results
gas content
horizontal T-junctions,
distribution,
distribution, the oilas
theoil observed
content
content had by Baker
hadlittle
little et al.on
influence
influence [29].
on As can beeffect.
thedegassing
the degassing seen from
effect. Under
Under the
allgas
all content
theconditions,
the conditions,distribution,
more
more
than
the oilthan 90% of
content
90% of
had thelittle
the gas was
gas was discharged
influence on the
discharged from
from the gas
gas outlet,
degassing
the outlet, which
effect.which
Under met
met the
allthetherequirements
conditions,of
requirements of degassing.
more than 90% of
degassing.
the gas was discharged from the gas outlet, which met the requirements of degassing.
Table 5.
Table 5. Phase
Phase split
split results
results for
for different
different oil
oil contents
contents under
under inlet
inlet 50
50 m
m33/h
/h flow
flow rate.
rate.

Water
Water Gas
Gas Water
Water Gas
Gas Gas
Gas Water
Water
Water Flow Oil Oil Flow
Flow Gas Gas Flow
Flow Content atat Content atat Content
Content atat Content
Content atat Content
Content atat Content
Content atat
Content Water Flow
Oil Content
Oil
Content Content
Rate (m 3/h) Rate(m 3/h) Rate (m3/h)
Rate (m /h) Rate(m /h) Rate (m3/h)
3 3 the Water
the Water the Water
the Water the Oil
the Oil the Oil
the Oil the Gas
the Gas the Gas
the Gas
Outlet
Outlet Outlet
Outlet Outlet
Outlet Outlet
Outlet Outlet
Outlet Outlet
Outlet
15%
15% 42.27
42.27 7.73
7.73 1.55
1.55 0.9964
0.9964 0.0066
0.0066 0.1843
0.1843 0.0087
0.0087 0.8781
0.8781 0.1033
0.1033
10%
10% 44.849
44.849 5.155
5.155 1.55
1.55 0.9979
0.9979 0.0073
0.0073 0.1579
0.1579 0.0073
0.0073 0.9157
0.9157 0.0843
0.0843
5%
5% 47.426
47.426 2.578
2.578 1.55
1.55 0.9982
0.9982 0.0048
0.0048 0.2453
0.2453 0.0049
0.0049 0.8871
0.8871 0.1129
0.1129
Water 2019, 11, 2655 11 of 14

Table 5. Phase split results for different oil contents under inlet 50 m3 /h flow rate.

Water Oil Gas Water Gas Water Gas Gas Water

Oil Flow Flow Flow Content at Content at Content Content Content at Content at
Content Rate Rate Rate the Water the Water at the Oil at the Oil the Gas the Gas
(m3 /h) (m3 /h) (m3 /h) Outlet Outlet Outlet Outlet Outlet Outlet
15% 42.27 7.73 1.55 0.9964 0.0066 0.1843 0.0087 0.8781 0.1033
10% 44.849 5.155 1.55 0.9979 0.0073 0.1579 0.0073 0.9157 0.0843
5% 47.426
Water 2019, 2.578 REVIEW
11, x FOR PEER 1.55 0.9982 0.0048 0.2453 0.0049 0.8871 0.1129
12 of 15
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

Figure
Figure 16. Water
16. Water content
content distributionfor
distribution forthe
theinlet
inlet oil
oil content
contentofof15%
15%under
underinlet 50 m
inlet 50/h
mflow
333 rate. rate.
3 /h flow

Figure
Figure 17. Gas
17. Gas content
content distributionfor
distribution forthe
theinlet
inlet oil
oil content
contentofof15%
15%under
underinlet 50 m
inlet 50333/h 3 /h flow
mflow rate. rate.

Figure 18. Water content distribution for the inlet oil content of 10% under inlet 50 m /h flow
333 rate.
Figure 18. Water content distribution for the inlet oil content of 10% under inlet 50 m3 /h flow rate.

Figure 19. Gas content distribution for the inlet oil content of 10% under inlet 50 m333/h flow rate.
Water 2019, 11, 2655 12 of 14
Figure 18. Water content distribution for the inlet oil content of 10% under inlet 50 m /h flow rate. 3

Figure
Figure 19. Gas
19. Gas content
content distributionfor
distribution forthe
theinlet
inlet oil
oil content
contentofof10%
10%under
underinlet 50 m
inlet 50/h 3 /h flow
mflow rate. rate. 3

3.3. Effect of the Gas Content on the Separation Performance

Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15
The remaining inlet mixture flow rates and oil-water ratio were unchanged; the inlet gas content
3.3. Effectto
was adjusted ofinvestigate
the Gas Content on the
its effect onSeparation Performance
the separation performance of multitube T-junction separators.
Figure 20The shows the variations
remaining of the
inlet mixture flowwater
ratescontent at theratio
and oil-water waterwereoutlet and thethe
unchanged; gas content
inlet at the gas
gas content
was adjusted to investigate its effect on the separation performance of multitube
outlet with the inlet gas content. As the inlet gas content increased from 10% to 25%, the water content T-junction
at theseparators. Figure
water outlet 20 showsfrom
decreased the variations
97.63% to of the waterand
86.49%, content
the at thecontent
gas water outlet and
at the theoutlet
gas gas content
decreased
from at the gas
91.17% tooutlet
80.17%.with the inlet gas
Moreover, thecontent. As the
oil content inletoil
at the gas content
outlet alsoincreased
decreasedfrom 10%
from to 25%,tothe
48.81% 36.27%.
water content at the water outlet decreased from 97.63% to 86.49%, and the gas content at the gas
This indicated that the separation performance became worse as the inlet gas content increased. This is
outlet decreased from 91.17% to 80.17%. Moreover, the oil content at the oil outlet also decreased
because a slip velocity between the gas phase and liquid phase existed, and this slip velocity induced a
from 48.81% to 36.27%. This indicated that the separation performance became worse as the inlet gas
shearcontent
action.increased.
As the gas Thiscontent increased,
is because the shear
a slip velocity action
between theenhanced and liquid
gas phase and the carrying capacity
phase existed, andof the
gas stream improved gradually, as suggested by Yang et al. [30]. Gradually, the gas
this slip velocity induced a shear action. As the gas content increased, the shear action enhanced and stream was able to
overcome
the carrying capacity of the gas stream improved gradually, as suggested by Yang et al. [30]. pipe,
the gravity effect of the liquid phase and carried them upward via the inclined vertical
as can be seen from
Gradually, Figure
the gas stream21.was able to overcome the gravity effect of the liquid phase and carried
them upward via the inclined vertical pipe, as can be seen from Figure 21.
100 100
Water content at the water outlet, %

Gas content at the gas outlet, %

95
90

90

80
85

80 70
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
Inlet gas content, % Inlet gas content, %

Figure
Figure 20. Effect
20. Effect of inlet
of inlet gasgas contenton
content onthe
the separation
separation performance
performanceof of
multitube T-junction
multitube separator.
T-junction separator.

Figure
Figure 21.21. Water
Water contentdistribution
content distribution for
forthe
theinlet
inletgas
gascontent of 30%.
content of 30%.

4. Conclusions
The mixture model, coupled with the k-ε turbulent model, was applied for a simulation of the
oil-water-gas three-phase flow characteristics in multitube T-junction separators. The separation
performance of the separator for different inlet oil droplet size distributions and oil contents was
studied. The numerical results showed that, as the oil droplet size increased, the water content at the
water outlet initially increased and then tended to be stable. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the
Water 2019, 11, 2655 13 of 14

4. Conclusions
The mixture model, coupled with the k-ε turbulent model, was applied for a simulation of the
oil-water-gas three-phase flow characteristics in multitube T-junction separators. The separation
performance of the separator for different inlet oil droplet size distributions and oil contents was
studied. The numerical results showed that, as the oil droplet size increased, the water content at the
water outlet initially increased and then tended to be stable. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the oil
droplet size through some measures before flowing into the T-junction for separation. For the separator
with an inner diameter of 50 mm, the oil content at the inlet had a great influence on the separation
performance, and the water-oil separation performance was obviously improved as the oil content
decreased. When the separator with an inner diameter of 100 mm was applied, the oil content had
little influence on the water-oil separation performance, owing to the increased residence time. For the
separator with an inner diameter of 100 mm, the oil content had little influence on the degassing effect,
and more than 90% of the gas could be discharged from the gas outlet. The separation performance of
multitube T-junction separators became worse as the inlet gas content increased. This work indicates
that multitube T-junction separators can realize good oil-water-gas separation performance, which
proves that T-junction tubes have very good prospects.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.Y.; methodology, L.Y.; software, L.Y.; validation, J.W. and S.L.; formal
analysis, J.T.; investigation, J.W.; resources, L.Y.; data curation, J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, L.Y.;
writing—review and editing, L.Y.; visualization, J.W.; supervision, L.Y.; project administration, L.Y.; funding
acquisition, Y.M. and Y.Z.
Funding: This research was funded by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2019M663242),
the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 19lgpy86) and the Dedicated Fund for
Promoting High-Quality Economic Development in Guangdong Province (Marine Economic Development Project)
(No. GDOE[2019]A43).
Acknowledgments: Authors gratefully acknowledge Jingyu Xu in the Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy
of Sciences.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Goh, P.S.; Ismail, A.F.; Ng, B.C.; Abdullah, M.S. Recent progresses of forward osmosis membranes formulation
and design for wastewater treatment. Water 2019, 11, 2043. [CrossRef]
2. Halim, A.; Syakinah, N.; Wirzal, M.D.H.; Bilad, M.R.; Nordin, M.; Hadi, N.A.; Faungnawakij, K. Electrospun
nylon 6, 6/ZIF-8 nanofiber membrane for produced water filtration. Water 2019, 11, 2111. [CrossRef]
3. Liang, B.; Zhang, G.; Zhong, Z.; Sato, T.; Hozumi, A.; Su, Z. Substrate-independent polyzwitterionic coating
for oil/water separation membranes. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 362, 126–135. [CrossRef]
4. Saieed, A.; Pao, W.; Hewakandamby, B.; Azzopardi, B.J.; Wood, D.A.; Ali, H.M. Experimental investigation
on the effect of diameter ratio on two-phase slug flow separation in a T-junction. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2018, 170,
139–150. [CrossRef]
5. Yang, L.L.; Xu, J.Y. An experimental study on gas and liquid separation at Y-junction tubes by pressure
control. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2017, 52, 1496–1503. [CrossRef]
6. Wang, L.Y.; Wu, Y.X.; Zheng, Z.C.; Guo, J.; Zhang, J.; Tang, C. Oil-Water two-phase flow inside T-junction.
J. Hydrodyn. 2008, 20, 147–153. [CrossRef]
7. Yang, L.L.; Liu, S.; Li, H.; Zhang, J.; Wu, Y.X.; Xu, J.Y. Gas-Liquid flow splitting in T-junction with inclined
lateral arm. J. Hydrodyn. 2018, 30, 173–176. [CrossRef]
8. Seeger, W.; Reimann, J.; Müller, U. Two-Phase flow in a T-junction with a horizontal inlet. Part I: Phase
separation. Int. J. Multiphas. Flow. 1986, 12, 575–585. [CrossRef]
9. Chisholm, D. Pressure Losses in Bends and Tees During Steam-Water Flow (NEL Report); National Engineering
Laboratory: Glasgow, Scotland, 1967.
10. Saba, N.; Lahey, R.T., Jr. Phase separation phenomena in branching conduits. Topical report Dec 78–Dec 81.
Rensselaer Polytech. Inst. 1982, 14, 14732094.
Water 2019, 11, 2655 14 of 14

11. Reimann, J.; Seeger, W. Two-Phase flow in a T-junction with a horizontal inlet. Int. J. Multiphas. Flow Part II
Press. Differ. 1986, 12, 587–608. [CrossRef]
12. Baker, G.; Clark, W.W.; Azzopardi, B.J.; Wilson, J.A. Transient effects in gas-liquid phase separation at a pair
of T-junctions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2008, 63, 968–976. [CrossRef]
13. He, K.; Wang, S.; Huang, J. The effect of flow pattern on split of two-phase flow through a micro-T-junction.
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2011, 54, 3587–3593. [CrossRef]
14. Yang, B.; Su, W.; Deng, S.; Zhao, L.; Lu, P. State-of-Art of branching T-junction: experiments, modeling,
developing prospects and applications. Exp. Therm. Fluid. Sci. 2019, 109, 109895. [CrossRef]
15. Hwang, S.T.; Soliman, H.M.; Lahey, R.T., Jr. Phase separation in dividing two-phase flows. Int. J.
Multiphas. Flow 1988, 14, 439–458. [CrossRef]
16. Penmatcha, V.; Ashton, P.; Shoham, O. Two-Phase stratified flow splitting at a T-jun. Int. J. Multiphas. Flow
1996, 22, 1105–1122. [CrossRef]
17. Hart, J.; Hamersma, P.J.; Fortuin, J.M.H. A model for predicting liquid route preference during gas-liquid
flow through horizontal branched pipelines. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1991, 46, 1609–1622. [CrossRef]
18. Ottens, M.; Hoefsloot, H.C.J.; Hamersma, P.J. Transient gas-liquid flow in horizontal T-junctions.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 2001, 56, 43–55. [CrossRef]
19. Yang, L.; Azzopardi, B.J.; Belghazi, A.; Nakanishi, S. Phase separation of liquid-liquid two-phase flow at a
T-junction. AIChE J. 2006, 52, 141–149. [CrossRef]
20. Yang, L.; Azzopardi, B.J. Phase split of liquid-liquid two-phase flow at a horizontal T-junction. Int. J.
Multiphas. Flow 2007, 33, 207–216. [CrossRef]
21. Saieed, A.; Pao, W.; Ali, H.M. Prediction of phase separation in a T-junction. Exp. Therm. Fluid. Sci. 2018, 97,
160–179. [CrossRef]
22. Chen, J.; He, K.; Huang, J. Study of Phase Splitting at a Micro-T-Junction. Heat Transf. Eng. 2014, 35,
1114–1121. [CrossRef]
23. Wren, E.; Azzopardi, B.J. The phase separation capabilities of two T-junctions placed in series. Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 2004, 82, 364–371. [CrossRef]
24. Yin, J.L.; Li, J.J.; Ma, Y.F.; Wang, D.Z. Numerical approach on the performance prediction of a gas-liquid
separator for TMSR. J. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 2017, 8, 1134–1141. [CrossRef]
25. Brennan, M. CFD simulations of hydrocyclones with an air core-comparison between large eddy simulations
and a second moment closure. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2016, 84, 495–505. [CrossRef]
26. Manninen, M.; Taivassalo, V.; Kallio, S. On the Mixture Model for Multiphase Flow; V.T.T.: Espoo, Finland, 1996;
pp. 3–67.
27. Schiller, L. A drag coefficient correlation. Zeit. Ver. Deutsch. Ing. 1933, 77, 318–320.
28. Shao, S.; Li, Y.; Lü, T.; Qi, D.; Zhang, D.; Zhao, H. Removal of emulsified oil from aqueous environment by
using polyvinylpyrrolidone-coated magnetic nanoparticles. Water 2019, 11, 1993. [CrossRef]
29. Baker, G.; Clark, W.W.; Azzopardi, B.J.; Wilson, J.A. Controlling the phase separation of gas-liquid flows at
horizontal T-junctions. AIChE J. 2007, 53, 1908–1915. [CrossRef]
30. Yang, L.L.; Zhang, J.; Ma, Y.; Xu, J.Y.; Wang, J. Experimental and numerical study of separation characteristics
in gas-liquid cylindrical cyclone. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2019, 115362. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).