680 likes | 1.18k Views
Convective Mass Transfer. Mass transfer between two moving contacting phasesGas-liquid, or liquid-liquid (if immiscible)Overall mass-transfer convective coefficient. Equilibrium. Deviations from equilibrium is the concentration driving force within a phaseFor 2 phases, we consider interphase equilibriumUse equilibrium plots.
E N D
1. Tutorial/HW Week #11WWWR Chapter 29 & 30 Tutorial #11
WWWR # 29.4, 29.19, 29.24
To be discussed the week of Apr 2 – 6 2012.
By either volunteer or class list. Homework #11
(self practice)
WWWR # 29.18 and 29.25
2. Convective Mass Transfer Mass transfer between two moving contacting phases
Gas-liquid, or liquid-liquid (if immiscible)
Overall mass-transfer convective coefficient
3. Equilibrium Deviations from equilibrium is the concentration driving force within a phase
For 2 phases, we consider interphase equilibrium
Use equilibrium plots
5. Equations relating equilibrium:
Ideal liquid, use Raoult’s law
Ideal gas, use Dalton’s law
Dilute solutions, use Henry’s law
Immiscible liquids, use “distribution-law”
Basic concepts for interphase mass transfer:
Gibbs’ phase rule at fixed T, P
No net mass transfer at equilibrium
Mass transfer occurs at non-equilibrium
6. Example 1
8. Example 2
10. Two-Resistance Theory Transfer between 2 contacting phases
3 steps of interphase transfer
The theory:
Rate of transfer is controlled by diffusion through the phases on each side of interface
No resistance across the interface
13. Individual mass-transfer coefficient
Convective mass-transfer coefficient in gas/liquid phase
Combining both and rearrange to
15. Overall mass-transfer coefficient
Similar to overall heat-transfer coefficient
Using equilibrium partial pressure or concentration
Ratio of resistances in individual phase to total resistance
16. At low concentrations, we have linear equilibrium relations
From which, we get
And thus
17. And similarly,
The phase where major resistance occurs is controlling, ie. Gas-phase controlled.
Coefficient is dependent on concentration, unless linear equilibrium line
18. Example 3
23. Example 4
29. Mass transfer to plates Correlate experimental data with predictions from laminar/turbulent boundary layers:
ReL < 2 x 105,
ReL > 2 x 105,
30. At distance x from leading edge,
In terms of j-factor,
Laminar
Turbulent
0.6 < Sc < 2 500 and 0.6 < Pr < 100
31. If hydrodynamic and concentration boundary layers have different starting position along x,
Boundary conditions change:
0 ? x < X , cA = cA?
X ? x < ? , cA = cAs
Analogous to heat transfer situation,
33. Example 1
40. Single Sphere Mass-transfer correlation
If no forced convection, Sh = 2,
41. Transfer into liquid stream, the Brian-Hales equation for PeAB < 10 000,
For PeAB > 10 000,
Transfer into gas stream, the Fröessling eq,
2 < Re < 800 and 0.6 < Sc < 2.7
42. When no free or natural convection,
With natural convection, the Steinberger and Treybal correlation,
Where
ScGr < 108
ScGr > 108
2 ? Re ? 30 000 and 0.6 ? Sc ? 3 200
43. Spherical Bubble Swarm Eg. Bubbling of gas into liquid
2-part correlation from Calderbank and Moo-Young,
db < 2.5 mm,
db ? 2.5 mm,
44. To calculate flux, must know gass holdup ratio, ?g,
Propotional to ratio of superficial gas velocity and terminal velocity.
45. Example 2
52. Single Cylinder Bedingfield and Drew correlation,
400 < ReD < 25 000 and 0.6 < Sc < 2.6
53. Example 3
57. Flow Through Pipes From inner wall of tube to moving fluid, the Gilliland and Sherwood correlation,
2 000 < Re < 35 000 and 0.6 < Sc < 2.5
58. Combined with Linton and Sherwood correlation:
2 000 < Re < 35 000 and 1 000 < Sc < 2 260
For laminar flow, analogous to Sieder-Tate eq,
10 < Re < 2 000
59. Wetted- Wall Columns Gas flows up while liquid flows down the perimeter
Falling liquid film is thin and high velocity, evenly wets column surface
60. Convective mass-transfer coefficient for gas film similar to flow through pipes
Liquid film mass-transfer coefficient from Vivian and Peaceman correlation,
where
61. Example 4
68. Packed and Fluidized Beds For packed beds with single phase fluid and gas flow, Sherwood, Pigford and Wilke estimated
10 < Re < 2 500
where
69. Accounting for bed void fraction, ?, Wilson and Geankoplis correlation
0.0016 < Re’’’ < 55 and 165 < Sc < 70 600 and
0.35 < ? < 0.75
55 < Re’’’ < 1 500 and 165 < Sc < 10 690
Gupta and Thodos correlation
90 < Re’’’ < 4 000