Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
General Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Aerospace Engineering
Nuclear Engineering
Materials Engineering
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
General Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Aerospace Engineering
Nuclear Engineering
Materials Engineering
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Engineering
Materials and Chemical Engineering
Modelling of two phase flow in packed bed (continued)
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="casualguitar, post: 6613366, member: 695787"] It is a separate model. However if it so happens that using the same structure as the previous model is useful for this model also then great. But no my initial thought is that it would be better to not force the models to use the same structure if there is a better or more natural alternative I haven't fully defined this yet, however the core idea may be to answer the question: [B]How good can cryogenic packed beds get at separating CO2 from air (and how do they compare to alternatives)?[/B]'. Is this a reasonable question to answer? Understood Hmm I think our previous model is less accurate here because we don't consider that superficial velocity through the bed is dependent on phase. I'm not sure how much their assumption that the two depositions are independent would affect the model however I would imagine it is significant. So it seems to be correct to say the 'best' answer is somewhere between the two approaches: 1) Accounting for the differences in superficial velocities depending on phase 2) Dealing with the two dependent depositions which would result in non-perfect deposition at any point along the bed i.e. the deposition would be limited by bed surface area It seems we will definitely need to deal with the phase superficial velocity differences in this model. Luckily we won't have to deal with two dependent depositions as we do not have water in the feed (or any other solidifying component). So to deal with the superficial velocity my thoughts are that we could: 1) go back and add this functionality to the previous model 2) make a very basic model that just tracks superficial velocity along the bed as a function of temperature for a single component fluid 3) 'ignore' this for now and start developing a simple version of the CO2 model, considering superficial velocity/relative permeability once the model is slightly more developed I think either 2 or 3 here are the most suitable approaches. I'm happy with either. I would think #3 is probably best. Either way, both approaches will require that I understand the Tuinier et al paper so I will aim to get a summary/calculation flow of this model this evening. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Engineering
Materials and Chemical Engineering
Modelling of two phase flow in packed bed (continued)
Back
Top