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: 6894277, member: 695787"] Hi Chet, Output is looking better now. Only issue really is that we're producing a lot more solid CO2. The profiles look ok though. I reverted back to an older approach we had, where we used something like their "fudge factor". I also put in the previous correlation for ##k_{CO2}##. The fudge factor looks like this and only applies for sublimation (not desublimation): if ##P*y_{CO2}## < ##P_{sub,CO2}##: ##M_{CO2}''## = ##M_{CO2}''##*##(\frac{M_{CO2}}{M_{CO2}+0.1})## Tuinier uses 0.1 as their fudge factor. I'm using 0.1 also currently. We previously also discussed converting this 0.1 to a value suitable for us (different units), like this: factor = 0.1*1000*A_C*dz/mW_CO2 As we're now calculating ##k_{CO2}##, we can no longer use this as a tuning parameter, unless I'm wrong. I'm wondering if we can instead use this fudge factor to tune the amount of CO2 produced? Here's the output from the above. Note the output is a bit rough looking because I have used n=15. The the simulation takes a lot longer to run now so I'll increase this again once we're happy with the output: Gas temperature profile shows the constant temperature zone: [ATTACH type="full" alt="Screenshot 2023-05-17 at 16.36.00.png"]326677[/ATTACH] The amount of CO2 on the bed in kg/m3. Tuinier et al had values closer to 50kg/m3 for 50s and 150s: [ATTACH type="full" alt="Screenshot 2023-05-17 at 16.37.45.png"]326678[/ATTACH] Lastly, ##y_{CO2}## for each position. Each position does level out at 0.2 which is the inlet concentration. There is a bit of fluctuation but this is possibly down to the sublimation process (I'll check this): [ATTACH type="full" alt="Screenshot 2023-05-17 at 16.38.39.png"]326679[/ATTACH] If this looks ok to you, do you think it is reasonable to use the "factor" to tune the amount of CO2 on the bed to Tuinier et al? EDIT: If I take out the fudge factor and run it, the output looks like it did before (incorrect). I didn't think the fudge factor would have such an impact! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Engineering
Materials and Chemical Engineering
Modelling of two phase flow in packed bed (continued)
Back
Top