{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022490400438837082, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006034009873834339, 'mean_word_length': 4.864951768488746, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Experimental Study and Modeling of Slug Dissipation in a Horizontal Enlarged Impacting Tee-Junction


 A novel experimental and theoretical study on slug dissipation in a horizontal enlarged impacting tee-junction (EIT) is carried out. Both flowing-slug injection and stationary-slug injection into the EIT are studied, and the effects of inlet slug length and liquid-phase fluid properties on the slug dissipation in the EIT are investigated.
 A total of 161 experimental data are acquired for air-water and air-oil flow. The flowing-slug data (with a horizontal inlet) show that the slug dissipation length increases with increasing mixture velocity, demonstrating a nonlinear trend with a steeper slope at lower mixture velocities. The effect of superficial gas velocity on the slug dissipation length is more pronounced compared with the effect of superficial liquid velocity. For stationary-slug injection into the EIT (with a 5° upward inclined inlet), the injected slug lengths vary between 40d to 100d (d is the inlet diameter). The data reveal that, when increasing the superficial gas velocity or the inlet slug size, the dissipation length in the EIT branches increases. For this case, the ratio of the slug dissipation length to the inlet slug length is higher for air-water compared with air-oil.
 A slug dissipation model is developed using the slug-tracking approach, which is based on the flow mechanisms of liquid shedding at the back of the slug and liquid drainage and penetration of bubble turning at the front of the slug. These phenomena result in different translational velocities at the back and the front of the slug, which result in the dissipation of the slug body. Evaluation of model predictions against the acquired experimental data shows an average absolute relative error of less than 11%.