Why Fluid Mechanics, Importance of Fluid Mechanics To Chemical Engineers, 2012

Why Fluid Mechanics?
Importance of Fluid Mechanics to chemical engineers & Life in general
K. Nandakumar
Gordon A and Mary Cain Endowed Chair Professor
Cain Department of Chemical Engineering
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70810, USA
Lecture at The Petroleum Institute

November 2012
About Chemical Processes and

People who Engineer them
What do chemical engineers do?
We separate things that are mixed. =>

Distillation, absorption, extraction, gravity separation, floatation etc.
We mix things that are separated. =>
Stirred tanks, twinscrew extruders, blenders, inline mixers etc.
We change things from one form to another =>
Reactors, CSTRs, Plugflow reactors, fluidized bed reactors etc.
Where did they evolve from
We evolved from industrial chemists in early 1900s. =>

We saw the unity in operations => first level of synthesis => Unit Ops
We evolved into chemical engineering scientists 1950s
We recognized the power of mathematics (Bird etal, Amudson et al).
We embraced computers to analyze chemical processes 1980s
Process simulators such as ASPEN-HYSYS, ANSYS-FLUENT
Presentation at The PI Nov 2012
Bernoulli ball explain what happens and why?
Explain what happens and why?
Explain what happens and why?
Links to fluid related sites
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/video.php?subjectId=105101082
- NETPL lessons IIT & IISc
http://www.efluids.com/
http://wolframalpha.com
http://www.wolfram.com/solutions/stem/
http://www.youtube.com/cheleckumar
http://www.learncheme.com/page/fluids-screencasts
Technology as a transformative agent
Through sustained, incremental improvement

What is the story in chemical industry?

Certainly innovation has helped in mass producing chemicals, fertilizers, and
pharmaceuticals etc.
But sustained improvements in technology have not occurred .
1940
2000
Two phase vapor-liquid

contact device
8
Examples - Tray hydraulics on sieve tray

Films courtesy of FRI Inc
Weeping
Froth
Spray
Increasing vapor flow rate
Tray hydraulics on sieve tray

Flow Regimes on Sieve Trays
Divide and conquer

G. K. Batchelor
10
Examples - Tray hydraulics on sieve tray
Sieve trays are widely used as gasliquid contacting devices in

distillation columns.
du
Lg
dt
u 0
in \ P (t )
The NSE is valid in all these scales, but can we compute such complex
multiphase flows?
11
Graphical method of McCabe-Thiele

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCabe%E2%80%93Thiele_method
The McCabe-Thiele method was presented

by two graduate students at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), Warren L.
McCabe and Ernest W. Thiele in 1925.
Assumptions:
Constant molar over flow makes the

operating line a straight line? Is that always
true or needed in the age of computers? NO!
ASPEN/HYSYS in fact removes this
assumption
Well mixed stage. Composition is uniform in a
tray? Is that true or needed in the age of
computers? NO! Advanced CFD modeling can
remove that! [That is the focus of my talk]
12
Evolution of ChE process design

Time lines
1925: McCabe and Thiele present a graphical method for
computing the number of equilibrium plates required in a

fractionating column for binary mixtures
1947: ENIAC computer uses Monte Carlo methods to solve
neutron diffusion problem in atomic bombs.
1981: Chemical Process Simulation software is released for
the PC. Soon packages like DESIGN II, ASPEN, SIMSCI (PROII),
HYSIM, & CHEMCAD start appearing on engineering desktops.
1994: More computers than television sets are sold.
2000 onwards: Advanced Simulation Based Engineering &
Science has emerged to help design and improve processes.
13
Tray hydraulics on sieve tray - TFM
Getye Gesit, K. Nandakumar and Karl T. ChuangAIChEJ. 49 (2003) pp 910-924.
14

Examples heterogeneous nature of vapor-liquid flow
15
CFD simulation of Tray hydraulics - TFM
16
Tray hydraulics on sieve tray - EXP
Experimental probe positions of

Solari and Bell (1986).
The plane of the probes is at an
elevation of 0.038m above the tray
floor
17
Sensitivity of the liquid velocity profile prediction to grid spacing, and hole
number and size (CFX4.4), QL = 17.8x10-3m3/s, FS = 0.462.
18
Injection of a bubble through an orifice

with cross flow (Distillation) DNS-LS
19
Multiphase flows challenges

Multiphase flows are ubiquitous in chemical, petroleum, mineral, food processing
industries.
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, Heavy-oil with sand and water, progressive cavity pumps,
Gravity separation vessels, Hydrotransport in pipelines, Crude distillation towers,
packed towers, tray columns, Erosion problems and many many more.
Fluid mechanics is often ignored by assuming well mixed, homogeneous

conditions and using effective properties.
CSTR (=> RTD studies), - Can we predict it from CFD modeling?
Ideal tray (=> Murphree tray efficiency) - Can we predict it from CFD?
Packed Column => Can we predict HETP?
But large scale flow pattern can change with changing operating conditions or scale
up of devices.
Will the measured tray efficiency or RTD remain the same? What are the scaling
laws? Can MCFD aid in scaling up equipment without the need for expensive pilot
scale experiments?
To answer these questions has been my quest over the last decade,
20
Types of Advanced multiphase models

1.
Two-fluid, interpenetrating continua models - TFM

Model fidelity is lost about the dispersed phase
Need scale invariant closure models for general applicability
2.
Discrete Particle models - DPM

Accounts for finite size and high particle concentration
Needs collision models, drag laws
Good for granular flows limited to 10,000,000 particles
Particle size < Grid size
3.
Direct Numerical Simulations DNS & DNS-LS for fluid-fluid

Rigorous coupling of rigid body dynamics with flow field
Need collision models limited to about 20,000 particles
Grid size is < particle size fully resolved
21
Turbulent flow - what is it?
22
Turbulent flow - what is it?
23
Volume Averaging Concept Graphical view

For multiphase flows Volume Averaged Continuity and
Momentum Equations from the Navier-Stokes equations
form the basis for the model equations.
Volume averaging illustrated =>
24
Two-fluid models (TFM) used in

CFX/FLUENT
Continuity
U 0
t
Momentum
L, G
T
U U U e U U B p M
t
L, G
Species conservation
N
Yi UYi i Yi mi
t
1,
L, G
i 1,
, NC
Need closure models. They must be scale invariant
Multiphase flow: Need to describe
25
Particle collision dynamics

Hard-sphere model: event-driven
Relative velocity
v12 G12 (r1 r2) n , G12 v1 - v 2
Normal and tangential unit vectors
0
0
v12
(G12
n)n
t
0
0
x1 x 2
v
(
G
12
12 n )n
n
x1 x 2
Collision impulse equation
m1 ( v1 v10 ) J
0
v12
n
J n m1m2 (1 en )
(m1 m2 )
m2 ( v 2 v 02 ) J
I1
(1 10 ) J n
r1
en f et
I2
( 2 02 ) J n
r2
0
2m1m2 (1 et ) v12
t
(sliding) f 7(m m ) J
n
1
2
f J n
0
J t
2m1m2 v12
t
(sticking)
(1 et )
7(m1 m2 )
0
2m1m2 (1 et ) v12
t
7(m1 m2 ) J n
26
Direct Numerical Simulations

Rigid particles in a Newtonian fluid
Solid
Fluid
du
Lg
dt
u 0
in \ P (t )
BC : u u (t ) on
IC : u t 0 u0 in \ P(0)
Coupling
u Ui i ri
on Pi (t ), i 1..N
Fi
n dS ;
Ti
ri n dS
Pi ( t )
Pi ( t )
in P (t )
d i
Ii
i I i i Ti
dt
Mi
Pi (t )
Pi (t )
dUi
M i g Fi
dt
dX i
Ui
dt
di
i
dt
IC : X i t 0 X i ,o ; i
t 0
i ,o
C. Veeramani, P. D. Minev and K. Nandakumar, A Fictitious Domain Formulation for Flows with
Rigid Particles: A non-Lagrange multiplier version, J. Comp. Physics 224(2) (2007), 867-879.
27
Direct Numerical Simulations DNS-LS

Deformable droplets/bubbles (Newtonian fluid)
i pi 2 / Rei D[ui ]
Fluid 1
Du1
f1 1
Dt
u1 0
in 1
Fluid 2
D[ui ] 0.5[ui (ui )T ]

BC : u1 u1, (t ) on
Du2
f2 2
Dt
u2 0
in 2
Coupling
(1 2 ) n
1
n, u1 u2 on
We
(u ) 0
t
Chen, T., P. D. Minev and K. Nandakumar, A projection scheme for incompressible multiphase flow using
adaptive Eulerian grid: 3D validation, Int. J. Numerical Methods in Engineering 48 (2005) pp 455-466
28
29
Why study drop breakup/morphology generation?
Extruder
(from Tadmor &
Gogos, 1979)
Blending Process
Properties
Morphology
Impact Strength
Nylon/Rubber Blends
25% Rubber
15 wt.%
10 wt.%
(from Wu, 1985)

Rubber Particle Size
30
31
Example for polymer processing
Blending in twin-screw extruders

Visualization of PE/PC (90:10) blend
32
Visualization of polymer drop deformation & breakup
Experimental part (done by Ms. Bin Lin)

33
Visualization of polymer drop deformation & breakup

(PE2-melt/PC1-drop) => Illustrates Erosion mechanism
1 mm
Temp ramped
from 160C to
230C. Constant
shear rate.
17rad / s
r 9
34
PE2 melting & breakup in PE2 matrix under shear flow

Illustrates erosion mechanism
Volume fraction
35
Mini-batch Mixer (MBM)

16.5mm
29mm
36
Mesh of MBM
No.
of elements: 61,900; No. of nodes: 19,547;

Flow boundary conditions
Thermal boundary conditions
37
Flow Pattern (z-direction) - fixed time

Velocity(m/s)
38
Flow Pattern with time Velocity (m/s)
39
Mixing in twin-screw extruder-CFD simulation
Outlet: z=-0.06m
Inlet: z=0
IntroductionPragmatic
using Averaging Rigorous
Presentation
at The Approach
PI Nov 2012
Approach using DNS
40
Mixing in twin-screw extruder Particle tracking
Outlet
Inlet
41
Mixing in twin-screw extruder Particle tracking
Outlet
Inlet
42
Initial position
After 2s
After 4s
After 16s
0.03
0.02
Y (m)
0.01
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
X (m)
Y (m)
Initial position
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
-0.024
After 2s
After 4s
After 16s
Hakke batch mixer

-0.016
-0.008
0.008
0.016
0.024
Z (m)
43
Progressive cavity Pump

Dynamics
44
Progressive cavity pumps

Stator Design
1 pitch segment of a progressive cavity pump
46480 hexahedral elements: 83 divisions in Z-directions,
560 quadrilateral divisions on XY-Plane
45
Rotor Motion
46
Velocity Distribution in PCP
47
Micro-mixer
Design & Optimization
for Lab-on-a-Chip
48
Floor Groove Micromixers

Z
Inlet 2
X
Y
Outlet
T-mixer: (a) Unidirectional axial flow; (b) Mixing is due to molecular diffusion.
Inlet 1
Inlet 2
C* = 1
The Concentration Surface Plot for a T-mixer

W
Outlet
C* = 0
Outlet
Inlet 1
Groove-mixer: (a) Transverse/non-axial/secondary flows;

(b) Mixing performance is improved due to advection.
Stroock A. D., Dertinger S. K. W., Ajdari A., Mezic I., Stone H. A., and Whitesides G. M., Chaotic Mixer for Microchannels, Science, 25, 647-51, (2002).
Johnson T.J, Ross D., and Locascio L.E., Rapid microfluidic mixing, Anal Chem, 74(1), 45-51, (2002).
49
Geometric Details
Length, L
Width, W
HG
50
Optimization Approach
W
a
W
a
51
Optimization Implementation
2
optimal
52
Single Groove Optimization

Y
Z
X
Optimization is carried out at Q = 2 l/min (Pe ~4200, based on average axial velocity)
53
Single Groove Optimization

T-Mixer
SGM
Optimal
T-mixer
SGM
Optimal
54
Feed well design &

Optimization
for Gravity settler
55
Gravity separation - TFM

0.3
Feeding
0.2
Y
Y=0.05
Y=0.15
Y=0.25
Overflow
0.3
X=0.1
17
X=0.3
0.46
X=0.2
35
X=0.4
0.39
X=0.5
Middling
X=0.6
X=0.7
0.24
X=0.8
3
0.0
0.13
X=0.9
Tailing
56
Gravity separation
Qualitative comparison of CFD vs Expts
Min-Hua Wang, B. Bara, L. Hackman, J. Czarnecki, A. Afacan, K. Nandakumar and J. H. Masliyah,

Hydrodynamics in a gravity settling vessel: CFD modeling with LDA validation, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 78
(2000) pp 1046-1055.
57
Gravity separation-Comparison
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.05
0.15
0.3
0.25
0.0
Exp.
CFD
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.06
0.9
0.9
0.0
-4
1.0
0.06
Q=2.31x10 m /s
-4
1.0
0.0
Q=2.31x10 m /s
58
CFD Results: present design in pilot plant

Quantitative analysis
Clear Juice
Floc formation
& growth
Upward velocity
0.004 m/s
1) Volume having upward velocity > 0.004 m/s

Settling
4) Volume weighted average velocity =

59
Analysis of the
Turbulence Reduction Device (TRD)
60
Validation
61
CFD Results: present design in pilot plant

Velocity Magnitude
Z = 0.02 m plane
Diagonal plane
62
CFD Results: angled secondary baffles
Presentation at The PI NovY2012

= 0 plane
63
CFD Results: Comparison

Volume Weighted
Velocity (m/s)
% volume
Vz > 0.004 m/s
% volume
Vz >0.01m/s
% volume
Vz > 0.05m/s
Only flat plate

Present TRD
Close baffles, no diagonal
gap
48
45
40
37
6.7
3.3
0.030
0.0249
37
30
6.6
0.0294
Cross secondary baffles
44
17
0.1
0.012
39
16
0.0115
34
23
0.3
0.0164
Large width rectangular

secondary baffles in the end
27
14
0.013
Cylindrical secondary baffle
29
7.1
0.0084
Inverted cone having flat

plate at bottom
14
1.7
0.0068
Model
Rectangular secondary
baffles in the middle
Rectangular secondary
baffles in the end
Ideal value 0.004 m/s
64
Multiphase flows
in
Pipelines
65
Gas-Liquid flow in horizontal pipes - TFM
Even for two-phase flows the pattern

varies widely from bubbly flow, to
slug flow to annular flow. Very little
is known about bubble size
distribution, velocity distribution,
volume fraction distribution etc.
66
Flow map for pipeline flows

Divide and conquer
67
Bubbly flow in pipes

Experimental Technique
6
Upstream
Downstream
6
Upstream
Downstream
5.5
Voltage (V)
5
4.5
Voltage (V)
Stainless-steel wire sensor = 0.112 mm dia.

Distance between two sensors = 2.5 mm
Sampling rate = 25 K
Measurements made 11 vertical position (every
2mm distance)
5.5
3.5
3
0
4.5
25
50
75
Data Rate (Hz)
100
125
150
4
3.5
0.8 mm o.d
1.25 mm o.d
25
50
75
Data Rate (Hz)
100
125
150
FLOW DIRECTION
2.5
mm
This technique has following advantages over photographic technique

For High gas flow rates
with sand particles
Local Gas volume fraction, bubble diameter, interfacial area and
bubble velocity
Spatial variation
68
Bubbly flows in horizontal pipes - TFM

Geometry & BC
Inlet
Outlet
69
Comparison CFD & Expts

1
VERTICAL POSITION, y/D (-)
0.8
Expt.
0.6
CFD
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.6
CFD
Expt.
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
GAS VOLUME FRACTION (-)
0.6
2
4
6
AXIAL LIQUID VELOCITY (m/s)
VG = 0.25 m/s; VL = 4.67 m/s; G = 0.043 and dS = 2mm

70
Visualization of flow field
Gas volume fraction
Axial liquid velocity
VG = 0.25 m/s; VL = 4.67 m/s; G = 0.043 and dS = 2mm

71
Comparison CFD & Experiments

Effect of VG (PBM + CFD)
1
0.5
Expt.
0
CFD
-0.5
Expt.
CFD
-0.5
-1
-1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2
4
6
8
10
BUBBLE SAUTER MEAN DIAMETER (mm)
Expt.
CFD
-0.5
0.5
VL = 5.1 m/s
VG = 0.25 m/s
1
0.5
0.5
G = 0.043
CFD
0
Expt.
-0.5
-1
-1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
INTERFACIAL AREA CONCENTRATION (1/m)
K. Ekambara, R.S. Sanders, K. Nandakumar, J.H. Masliyah, CFD simulation of bubbly two-phase
flow in horizontal pipes, Chem Eng Journal, 144 (2008) 277288.
72

1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Expt.
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
CFD
CFD
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2
4
6
8
SAUTER MEAN BUBBLE DIAMETER (mm)
10
VG = 0.80 m/s
0.8
0.6
0.4
Expt.
0.2
VL = 5.1 m/s
Expt.
0.2
G = 0.139
0.8
0.6
CFD
0.4
Expt.
0.2
CFD
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
10
73

1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Expt.
CFD
0.2
0
0.6
0.4
Expt.
0.2
VL = 5.1 m/s
CFD
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2
4
6
8
SAUTER MEAN BUBBLE DIAMETER (mm)
10
VG = 1.34 m/s
0.8
0.6
0.4
Expt.
0.2
1
0.8
G = 0.204
0.8
0.6
CFD
Expt.
0.4
0.2
CFD
0
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
10
74
Effect of inlet distribution

(TFM+PB)
Outlet
Inlet
1.2
0.8
SIZE FRACTION (-)
SIZE FRACTION (-)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0
1
3
5
7
9
BUBBLE MEAN DIAMETER (mm)
11
3
5
7
9
11
VG = 0.25 m/s; VL = 4.67 m/s; G = 0.043 and dS = 1.24mm

75

TFM+PB)
Outlet
0.8
0.8
SIZE FRACTION (-)
SIZE FRACTION (-)
Inlet
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
3
5
7
9
11
VG = 0.25 m/s; VL = 4.67 m/s; G = 0.043 and dS = 1-10mm

76

(TFM+PB)
Outlet
Inlet
1.2
0.8
SIZE FRACTION (-)
SIZE FRACTION (-)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
3
5
7
9
11
VG = 0.25 m/s; VL = 4.67 m/s; G = 0.043 and dS = 9.34mm

77
Solid-liquid slurry flows - TFM

particle size of
90 m,
velocity of 3.0
m/s
average particle
concentration of
19% and
pipe diameter of
103mm
Ekambara, K.R. Sean Sanders, K. Nandakumar and Jacob H. Masliyah, Hydrodynamic Simulation of
Horizontal Slurry Pipeline Flow Using ANSYS-CFX, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 48 (2009)
8159-8171.
78
Solid-liquid slurry flows

particle size of
165 m,
velocity of 4.17
m/s,
average particle
concentration of
18.9% and
pipe diameter of
51.5mm.
Examples - Experimental validation data from Alberta Research Council
79
Solid-liquid slurry flows - TFM

particle size of
270 m
velocity of 5.4
m/s and
average particle
concentration of
20% and
pipe diameter of
103mm.
80
Solid-liquid slurry flows

particle size of
480 m
velocity of 3.44
m/s and
average particle
concentration of
20.34% and
pipe diameter of
51.5mm
81
Understanding the
Dynamics of Packed Columns
(Amine units etc)
82
Assume plug flow in both phases
No radial/circumferential variation in
porosity, flow & concentration profiles
Gas
Negligible dispersion
Mass transfer coefficient is constant
y2
G
dy
Z
HTU NTU
KGaP y1 y y *
Liquid
Such a model is not scale invariant.

Hence scale up is a problem.
83
Two feet air-water column
84
Schematic of Experimental Facility

Liquid
Distributor
Rotameter
Manometer
Global
Valve
Hot-Wire
Anemometer
Window
Liquid
Collecting
Device
KCL
Solution
Centrifugal
Pump
20HP Blower
Liquid Storage
Tank
Centrifugal
Pump
85
Schematic of Liquid Distributor

Uniform
distributor
Center distributor
Active holes
Inactive holes
86
Schematic of Liquid Collector

Top View
Side View
298.5
293.8
250
200
150
100
140
Liquid Drain Tube

Gas Rising Tube
87
Closure models for TFM in packed beds

Leva equation for pressure drop:
Lf
p
C L
C1G 2f 10 2 f 0.774
z
20000
0.1
C G 10
C2 L f
2
f
1000
L
L
Lf
1000
L
1.2 0.5 F 0.5

G pd
for p 1 atm
G 65.62
Gf
0.5
0.5
1.2 F pd
0.0187 G
for p 1 atm
G
10
G 65.62
Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs.: part A. Chem.

Eng. Res. & Des. 78 (2000) pp 378-388.
0.5
Fpd 0.1
L
65
.
62
for Fpd 15
0.5
65.62 0.1
L
F
pd
for Fpd 15
Ondas mass transfer correlation:

2
3
1
3
g L L
kL 0.0051 L

L aw L L DL
G
kG k p a p DG
a
p G
7
10
D
G
G
1
3
1
2
a d
p
a d
p
2
5
Input as closure
model to CFD
2.0
88
Validation of Pressure drop from CFD

1200
Experiment, w ater/air
Pressure drop (Pa/m)
1000
Prediction, w ater/air
Experiment, isopar/air
800
Prediction, isopar/air
600
400
200
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
F-factor (m/s(kg/m 3)0.5)
Is it a glorified curve fitting? yes but once done it can be used for scaleup!
89
Packed column - TFM

Validation of radial flow profile from CFD
uniform inlet distribution, water/air,
L=4.78 kg m-2 s-1, G=0.75 kg m-2 s-1

5
Bed depth: 0.9m
Experiment
u/uav
u/uav
Simulation
2
1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Bed depth: 3m
Simulation
Experiment
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Radial position, r (m)

C. G. Sun, F. H. Yin, A. Afacan, K. Nandakumar and K. T. Chuang, Modeling and simulation of flow
maldistribution in random packed columns with gas-liquid counter current flow, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs.:
part A. Chem. Eng. Res. & Des. 78 (2000) pp 378-388.
90
Packed column
Validation of radial flow profile from CFD
43% inlet distribution, water/air
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Bed depth: 0.9m
Simulation
Experiment
u/uav
u/uav
L=4.78 kg m-2 s-1, G=0.75 kg m-2 s-1
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Radial position (m )
0.3
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Bed depth: 1.8m
Simulation
Experiment
0.05
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Radial position (m)
0.3
91
Validation of mass transfer from CFD

FRI data on concentration: System-C6/C7,
50.8mm Pall rings. uniform inlet, 165.5 kPa
Concentration profiles, ln(x/(1-x))
2.0
Prediction
Measurement
1.0
0.0
-1.0
Fs=0.76
-2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
Fs=1.02
-2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
F. H. Yin, M. Song, A.
Afacan, K. Nandakumar and
K. T. Chuang, CFD
Modeling of Mass Transfer
in Randomly Packed
Distillation Columns, Ind. &
Eng Chem Research 39:(5)
(2000) pp 1369-1380.
4.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Fs=1.52
-1.0
-2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Packed bed height (m)
92
Prediction of HETP from CFD

System-C6/C7, 25.4mm Pall rings. uniform inlet, 33.3 kPa
Experimental data
CFD models
Traditional models
0.8
HETP (m)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
3 0.5
F-factor [(m/s)(kg/m ) ]
93
Understanding the
Erosion Mechanism and Patterns
in
Process Vessels
94
Erosion in jet flow TFM-DPM

Geometry and slurry flow
Wang MH, Huang Cunkui, Nandakumar K, Peter D. Minev, Luo J, Chiovelli S, Computational fluid dynamics modeling
and experimental study of erosion in slurry jet flows International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics,: 23 No 2
(2009) 155-172.
95
Erosion in pipe flow

Lagrangian Particle Tracking
du
Mp
F FD FA FB
dt
1
FD d 2 CD VR VR
2
FA
1
du
d 3
12
dt
CD 24(1 0.15Re0.687 ) / Re
VR d
Re
1 3
FB d ( P )g
6
96
Erosion in pipe flow

C.K Huangs Erosion Model of Cutting Wear
4.6 104 m1.125V 2.25 (cos )2 (sin )0.25

QE
(1 B )0.125 EB0.125 B0.7 1.2
B
6
1.25 10 E d
1.1
B
0.98 1.44
B
B
0.05
p
mV sin
1 B
2
1.15
V impact velocity,
impact angle,
dp diameter of the particle,
, , E etc are material properties.
97
Erosion in jet flow

Wear pattern from experiment and simulation
98
Erosion in jet flow

Weight loss distribution on the surface
4.0E-08
EXP SHAPE
3.5E-08
CFD-Takakoff
CFD-CKH
3.0E-08
CFD-Combined
CFD-Forder
2.5E-08
CFD-FINNIE
2.0E-08
CFD-Hutchings
1.5E-08
1.0E-08
5.0E-09
-8.0E-03
-6.0E-03
-4.0E-03
0.0E+00
-2.0E-03
0.0E+00
2.0E-03
4.0E-03
6.0E-03
8.0E-03
DISTANCE FROM JET CENTRE in [m]
99
Erosion in jet flow

Total weight loss at 2% sand conc.
EXP
CFD
Weight Lost in [kg]
2.5x10
2.0x10
1.5x10
1.0x10
5.0x10
-4
-4
-4
-4
-5
0.0
10
12
14
Inlet Velocity in [m/s]
100
Deep water
Oil Spill Modeling
101
Concepts & Physical principles
Thibodeaux, L. J., K. T. Valsaraj, et al. (2011). Environmental Engineering Science 28(2): 87-93.
Involves a complex set of physicochemical processes

Significant gas release (in GoM - GOR is 2380)
Hydrate formation
Dissolution of lighter material followed by sinking
Intrusion layer formation in stratified fields
Advection of gas and oil at different rates
Surface evaporation (followed by sinking?)
Yvon-Lewis, Hu et al. (2011)
102
Goal:
to develop dynamic models based on CFD to capture the oil

breakup processes
Use VOF at low Re to track detailed
interface dynamics and interface mass
transfer of surfactants => predict diameter,
jet breakup length
use two-fluid model to study dynamics of
jets/plumes
Use population balance models at high Re
to predict droplet size distribution.
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. (1997)
Masutani & Adams (2001), EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

OF MULTI-PHASE PLUMES WITH APPLICATION
TO DEEP OCEAN OIL SPILLS
103
0.3
Z v/s t
0.258m
Height
0.25
Ascent
0.2
Descent
0.15
0.1
8.5s
0.05
0
0
Velocity (m/s)
0.06
10
15
20
Time t
0.0491
0.04
Uz v/s t
0.02
0
-0.02
10
15
20
Time t (s)
-0.04
-0.0483
-0.06
250
220.676
216.980
Re
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
Time t (s)
15
20
Droplet
diameter
Initial density
Time taken to reach max

height
4.5mm
939.3 kg/m3
8.5 s
Mass Conservation Equation
= k
Droplet volume

1 +
Rate of change
of mass of
droplet
Mass fraction of
transferring
species in droplet
Interfacial
mass transfer
Instantaneous
mixture density
Momentum Balance Equation
= 2 2
1
Surface Area of droplet
( )
= +
24
(1+0.15 0.687 )
Trajectory Equation
FB
FB
FD
- Schiller Neumann
FD
Fg
Fg
Single parameter optimization ( as a parameter)
=1.08 10
Two parameter optimization
=1.25 10
(M and a as parameters)
0.5
150
250
1.8266E-05
0.09
Z (cm)
kl(m/s)
50
(m/s)
0.1
Re
-50
(m/s)
0.08
0.07
0.06
Model
0.05
1.00E-05
Exp
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
2.3285E-06
0
0
1.00E-06
Acetonitrile chlorobenzene system
10
t (s)
15
Acetone chlorobenzene system
Droplet
diameter
Initial density

height
Droplet
diameter
Initial density

height
4.5mm
939.3 kg/m3
8.5 s (25.8cm)
5.5mm
964.1 kg/m3
5.5 s (9.22cm)
Effect of surface tension on series of oil droplets

Transport of surfactant with mass transfer model and surface tension
as function of absorbed surfactant in oil drop
With out surfactant
Low surfactant
mass fraction
High surfactant
mass fraction
107
Rotating drum DPM
Radial Segregation in a tumbler - Poincare

section.(Fiedor & Ottino 2005, JFM )
UofA-PIMS-AMI Seminar
108
DPM code test - Bubbling fluidized bed
Experiment
(Bokker et al. 2004 Powder Tech)
Mixing of particles in bubbling

fluidized bed
109
DPM code test - Spouted bed
Experiment (Zhao et al. 2008,

Powder Tech.)
110
DPM code test - Settling of particle cloud
Experiment ( Nitsche and Batchelor. 2001, JFM)
111
Cloud of settling suspension

Medium fidelity simulation - DPM
112

Why Fluid Mechanics, Importance of Fluid Mechanics To Chemical Engineers, 2012

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Why Fluid Mechanics, Importance of Fluid Mechanics To Chemical Engineers, 2012

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Why Fluid Mechanics?

Importance of Fluid Mechanics to chemical engineers & Life in general

Lecture at The Petroleum Institute

About Chemical Processes and

We separate things that are mixed. =>

Where did they evolve from

We evolved from industrial chemists in early 1900s. =>

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Bernoulli ball explain what happens and why?

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Explain what happens and why?

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Explain what happens and why?

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Links to fluid related sites

- NETPL lessons IIT & IISc

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Technology as a transformative agent

Through sustained, incremental improvement

What is the story in chemical industry?

Two phase vapor-liquid

Examples - Tray hydraulics on sieve tray

Increasing vapor flow rate

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Tray hydraulics on sieve tray

Divide and conquer

Examples - Tray hydraulics on sieve tray

Sieve trays are widely used as gasliquid contacting devices in

Graphical method of McCabe-Thiele

The McCabe-Thiele method was presented

Constant molar over flow makes the

Evolution of ChE process design

1925: McCabe and Thiele present a graphical method for

computing the number of equilibrium plates required in a

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Tray hydraulics on sieve tray - TFM

Getye Gesit, K. Nandakumar and Karl T. ChuangAIChEJ. 49 (2003) pp 910-924.

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Tray hydraulics on sieve tray - TFM

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

CFD simulation of Tray hydraulics - TFM

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Tray hydraulics on sieve tray - EXP

Experimental probe positions of

Tray hydraulics on sieve tray - TFM

Injection of a bubble through an orifice

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Multiphase flows challenges

Fluid mechanics is often ignored by assuming well mixed, homogeneous

Types of Advanced multiphase models

Two-fluid, interpenetrating continua models - TFM

Discrete Particle models - DPM

Direct Numerical Simulations DNS & DNS-LS for fluid-fluid

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Turbulent flow - what is it?

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Turbulent flow - what is it?

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Volume Averaging Concept Graphical view

Presentation at The PI Nov 2012

Two-fluid models (TFM) used in

Need closure models. They must be scale invariant

Multiphase flow: Need to describe