Professional Documents
Culture Documents
=
[3]
Neither enhancement of interface compared to geometric
packing area, as suggested by Henriques de Brito et al [7],
nor reduction due to liquid maldistribution effects is
considered here in order to specify the effective area A for
heat/mass transfer between humid air and water. Thus, the
total effective interface area in the computations was
assumed to be constant and equal to the nominal area of the
packing (indicated in Table 1).
Figures 5 to 10 show that the heat transfer coefficient (for
all three column sections considered) is strongly affected by
gas Reynolds number, as expected. It is also observed that,
for the lower and middle sections (Figures 6, 7, 9, 10), the
heat transfer coefficient U is almost independent of the
liquid flow rate. Indeed, a relatively small variation of U for
various liquid rates (for a fixed Re
G
) is not systematic and
appears to be within the experimental error ( 15%). This
behaviour of U may be attributed to a controlling resistance
to heat transfer residing at the gas side of the interface.
Furthermore, the insignificant effect of liquid rate in these
sections suggests that the condition of the falling liquid films
does not influence the transfer rates at the gas side.
Upon inspection of Figures 7 and 10 (for the lower
section), corresponding to absolute pressure 2 and 1.5 bar
respectively, one can make the following observations:
Session Thermalhydraulics: Fluidized
and Packed Beds 1
3
The magnitude of U is much greater than that for the
other two sections.
Figure 10 for P=1.5 bar depicts (at high Re
G
) a
decreasing U with increasing Re
G
.
The latter trend appears to be physically impossible
and may result from violation of assumptions involved in
determining the transfer coefficient U; i.e., that only
sensible heat transfer and condensation from a saturated
gas stream take place in this section. In reality, however,
it is possible that (at sufficiently high air velocities) the
packing section designated as saturation section
FIG. 5: Heat transfer coefficient vs Re of the upper section of the
column (P = 2.0 bar abs)
FIG. 6: Heat transfer coefficient vs Re of the middle section of the
column (P = 2.0 bar abs)
FIG. 7: Heat transfer coefficient vs Re of the lower section of the
column (P = 2.0 bar abs)
(between TI2 and TI3, Figure 1) may not be thick
enough, and the air residence time there may be too short,
to attain saturation. Thus, air saturation may be completed
in the next section (designated as lower in Figure 1).
Furthermore, it is not unlikely that in the same (lower)
section water evaporation (air humidification) may take
place first followed by condensation. Under these
conditions, Equ (2) would underestimate Q for that section
leading to reduced U values. Apparently, with increasing
Re
G
, U would keep decreasing as shown in Figure 10.
FIG. 8: Heat transfer coefficient vs Reynolds of the upper section
of the column (P = 1.5 bar abs)
FIG. 9: Heat transfer coefficient vs Re of the middle section of the
column (P = 1.5 bar abs)
FIG. 10: Heat transfer coefficient vs Re of the lower section of the
column (P = 1.5 bar abs)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Gas Reynolds number
H
e
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(
W
/
m
x
m
K
17,22
15,58
13,93
12,22
10,6
8,9
7,2
theoretical
prediction
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Gas Reynolds number
H
e
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(
W
/
m
x
m
17,22
15,58
13,93
12,22
10,6
8,9
7,2
thoretical prediction
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Gas Reynolds number
H
e
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(
W
/
m
x
m
K
)
17,22
15,58
13,93
12,22
10,6
8,9
7,2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Gas Reynolds number
H
e
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
ie
n
t
(
W
/
m
x
m
K
)
17,22
15,58
13,93
12,22
10,6
8,9
7,2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Gas Reynolds number
H
e
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(
W
/
m
x
m
K
)
17,22
15,58
13,93
12,22
10,6
8,9
7,2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Gas Reynolds number
H
e
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(
W
/
m
x
m
K
17,22
15,58
13,93
12,22
10,6
8,9
7,2
2001, ExHFT-5, Thessaloniki, Greece
4
The results in Figure 7 (P=2.0 bar absolute) show that
(unlike those in Figure 10) U increases monotonically with
Re
G
. In line with the above explanation, this may be
attributed to the higher air pressure and the relatively smaller
quantity of vapour required for saturation, which may then
be completed within the saturation section. Consequently,
Equation (2) would be satisfied in the next (lower) section
with the expected U versus Re
G
variation.
The high U values in the lower section (e.g. Figure 7) are
difficult to explain. One may attribute this to supersaturation
of air entering that section, which would lead to an amount
of latent heat released greater than that accounted for in the
procedure used for determining U (equ 1 and 2).
Figures 5 and 8 as well as Figures 11 and 12 show that
whereas for the lower and middle sections U is practically
independent of water flow rate, for the upper section U is
roughly inversely proportional to Re
L
. This rather curious
trend of transfer coefficient U is not observed for the first
time in direct-contact experiments. Bontozoglou and
Karabelas [6] studying steam condensation in the same
experimental setup, reported similar trends. Karapantsios et
al [8] obtained experimental data of direct-contact steam
condensation on falling water films, inside a vertical tube, in
the presence of large amounts of non condensable gases; it
was also observed that, by increasing the liquid flow rate,
reduced values of integral heat transfer coefficient were
obtained. They hypothesized that (with increasing liquid
rate) the enhanced liquid waves trapped noncondensable
gases at the interface (or they caused a steam deplection of
the boundary layer at the gas side) promoting a reduction of
the mass transfer coefficient. It is uncertain whether the
above arguments apply to the present system, and this matter
requires more attention in future studies.
In view of the above observations that the resistance to
heat transfer resides at the gas side, an attempt is made to
predict integral heat transfer coefficients U in a section by
employing common correlations. Considering sensible heat
transfer, and latent heat transported to liquid films through
turbulent convective mass transfer, one obtains U as follows:
( ) ( ) ( )
, , , ,
, , , ,
h
T T
H H
K U
H H azAK T T azAh T T azAU
Q Q Q
ave
wtr
ave
air
ave
sat wtr T
ave
sat air T
ave
sat wtr T
ave
sat air T
ave
wtr
ave
air
ave
wtr
ave
air
lat sens
+
=
+ =
+ =
Following Fair & Bravo [9], Schpigel & Meier [10] one may
employ the same type of correlation for estimating transfer
coefficients K and h.
33 . 0 8 . 0
33 . 0 8 . 0
Re 034 . 0
Pr Re 034 . 0
gas gas gas
gas gas gas
Sc Sh
Nu
=
=
Predictions based on this approach are plotted in Figure 8
and 9 for the upper and middle sections where (as already
discussed) the assumptions involved in estimating U may be
better satisfied than in other sections. Predictions are in
rough (order of magnitude) agreement. It is interesting that
the exponent of the Re
G
dependence of U data is closer to
1.0 than to 0.8 employed in the above correlations.
FIG. 11. Heat transfer coefficient vs Re(liq)
(P =2.0 bar abs & Re(g) = 1600)
FIG. 12: Heat transfer coefficient vs Re(liq)
(P = 1.25 bar abs & Re(g) = 1470)
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The well-known air/water system employed here is
characterized by a relatively large enthalpy of
vaporization.Therefore, if there is a large difference of inlet
temperatures of the two streams, brought into direct contact,
latent heat effects dominate in certain sections of the
column. Moreover, if the incoming air is dry, both
humidification and de-humidification may take take place
within rather short sections of the packing that require
careful attention for data interpretation.
Under the conditions studied here, the liquid flow rate
appears to have no effect on the performance of the
structured packed bed as direct-contact condenser, except at
the top of the column. In intermediate sections, where latent
heat transfer is not excessive, the integral heat transfer
coefficient displays a dependence on Re
G
to a power near
unity. In these sections, common convective mass/heat
transfer correlations lead to acceptable (order of magnitude)
predictions. A rather curious apparent effect (also observed
in previous studies) of decreasing U with increasing liquid
rate, at the top section, requires additional work to be
confirmed and clarified.
(5a)
(5b)
10
100
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Liquid Reynolds number
H
e
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(
W
/
m
x
m
K
)
upper section middle section lower section
10
100
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Reynolds number of liquid
H
e
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(
W
/
m
x
m
K
)
upper section middle section lower section
(4)
Session Thermalhydraulics: Fluidized
and Packed Beds 1
5
SYMBOLS
A: Cross-sectional area of the column [=] m
2
c
wtr
: Specific heat of water [=] J/Kg
o
C
c
air
: Specific heat of air [=] J/Kg
o
C
D: Diffusivity [=] m
2
/s
d
h
: Hydraulic diameter of the packing (=4/) [=] m
G: Air flow rate [=] Kg/s
H
in
: Kg of water/Kg of dry air at the inlet
H
out
: Kg of water/Kg of dry air at the outlet
ave
sat , air , T
H : Air saturation humidity at
ave
air
T
ave
sat , wtr , T
H : Air saturation humidity at
ave
wtr
T
h: Heat transfer coefficient [=] W/m
2
K: Mass transfer coefficient [=] mol/m
2
s
K
g
: Mass transfer coefficient [=] mol/m
2
sbar
L: Water flow rate, [=] Kg/s
Q: Rate of heat transferred , [=] J/s
Q
sens
: Rate of sensible heat transferred [=] J/s
Q
lat
: Rate of latent heat transferred [=] J/s
Re
gas
: Gas Reynolds number :
h o
gas
air
gas
d
A G
45 cos
/
Re
=
Re
liq
: Liquid Reynolds number :
liq pack
liq liq
liq
a
u
sup ,
Re =
T
out,wtr
: Outlet temperature of water [=]
o
C
T
in,wtr
: Inlet Temperature of water [=]
o
C
T
out,air
: Outlet temperature of air [=]
o
C
T
in,air
: Inlet Temperature of air [=]
o
C
2
air , out air , in ave
air
T T
T
+
=
2
wtr , out wtr , in ave
wtr
T T
T
+
=
u
liq,sup
: Superficial liquid velocity [=] m/s
U: Heat transfer coefficient [=] W/m
2
K
z: Height of packed section [=] m
Greek Letters
: Specific area of the packing (=250) [=] m
-1
: Latent heat of water evaporation [=] J/Kg
liq/gas
: Liquid/Gas viscosity respectively [=] Kg/ms
liq/gas
: Liquid/Gas density respectively [=] Kg/m
3
Experimental Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics, and
Thermodynamics 2001, Proceedings p.p. 1695-1700.
G.P. Celata, P.Di Marco, A. Goulas and A. Mariani
2001 Edizioni ETS, Pisa. All rights reserved
REFERENCES
1. Fair J.R., Direct Contact Gas-Liquid Heat Exchange
for Energy Recovery, Trans. of ASME, Journal of
Solar Energy Engineering, vol. 112, (1990), pp. 216
222
2. Fair J.R., Designing DirectContact Coolers /
Condensers, Chem. Eng., Vol. 12, (1972), pp. 91
100, June
3. Fair J.R., Process Heat Transfer by Direct Fluid-Phase
Contact, AIChE Symp. Ser. No. 118, vol. 68, (1971)
4. Spigel L., Bomio P., Hunkeler R., Direct heat and mass
transfer in structured packings, Chem. Eng. & Proc.,
35, (1996), pp. 479 485
5. Huang Chen-Chia & Fair J.R., Direct Contact Gas-
Liquid Heat Transfer in Packed Column, Heat
Transfer Engineering, vol. 20, no 2, (1989), pp. 19 28
6. Bontozoglou V. & Karabelas A.J., Direct Contact
Steam Condensation with Simultaneous
Noncondensable Gas Absorption, AIChE J., vol. 41,
No. 2 (1995), pp. 241 250
7. Henriques de Brito M., von Stockar, A., Menendez
Bangerter, A., Bomio, P. and Laso, M., Effective
Mass-Transfer Area in a Pilot Plant Column Equipped
with Structured Packings with Ceramic Rings, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res., vol 33 (1994), pp. 647-656
8. Karapantsios T.D., Kostoglou M. & Karabelas A.J.,
Direct Contact Condensation of Dilute Steam/Air
Mixtures on Wavy Falling Films, Chem. Eng. Comm.,
vols. 141 142, (1996), pp. 261 285
9. Fair J.R, & Bravo J.L., Distillation columns
containing structured packing, Chem Eng. Progr. , vol
86(1), (1990), pp. 19-29
10. Schpigel L., Meier W., Performance characteristics of
various types of Mellapak packings (productivity,
pressure differential, and deficiency), Chemical and
Petroleum Engineering, vol 30, No. 3-4, (1994), pp.118
125
2001, ExHFT-5, Thessaloniki, Greece
6