Bubble prediction

Reservoir engineers describe the relationship between the volume of fluids produced, the compressibility of the fluids and the reservoir pressure using material balance techniques. This approach treats the reservoir system like a tank, filled with oil, water, gas, and reservoir rock in the appropriate volumes, but without regard to the distribution of the fluids (i.e. the detailed movement of fluids inside the system). Material balance uses the PVT properties of the fluids described in Section 5.2.6, and accounts for the variations of fluid properties with pressure. The technique is firstly useful in predicting how reservoir pressure will respond to production. Secondly, material balance can be used to reduce uncertainty in volumetries by measuring reservoir pressure and cumulative production during the producing phase of the field life. An example of the simplest material balance equation for an oil reservoir above the bubble point will be shown In the next section. 

A general, approximate, short-cut design procedure for adiabatic bubble tray absorbers has not been developed, although work has been done in the field of nonisothermal and multicomponent hydrocarbon absorbers. An analytical expression which will predict the recovery of each component provided the stripping factor, ie, the group is known for each component on each tray of the column has been developed (102). This requires knowledge... 

Rate of Mass Transfer in Bubble Plates. The Murphree vapor efficiency, much like the height of a transfer unit in packed absorbers, characterizes the rate of mass transfer in the equipment. The value of the efficiency depends on a large number of parameters not normally known, and its prediction is therefore difficult and involved. Correlations have led to widely used empirical relationships, which can be used for rough estimates (109,110). The most fundamental approach for tray efficiency estimation, however, summarizing intensive research on this topic, may be found in reference 111. 

The velocity of a bubble ia a bubbling bed has been observed to be higher than equation 14 predicts, and it has been suggested that the actual bubble rise velocity in a bubbling bed (15) is... 

This empirical equation attempts to account for complex bubble coalescence, spHtting, irregular shapes, etc. Apparent bubble rise velocity in vigorously bubbling beds of Group A particles is lower than equation 16 predicts. 

This equation predicts that the height of a theoretical diffusion stage increases, ie, mass-transfer resistance increases, both with bed height and bed diameter. The diffusion resistance for Group B particles where the maximum stable bubble size and the bed height are critical parameters may also be calculated (21). 

The modeling of fluidized beds remains a difficult problem since the usual assumptions made for the heat and mass transfer processes in coal combustion in stagnant air are no longer vaUd. Furthermore, the prediction of bubble behavior, generation, growth, coalescence, stabiUty, and interaction with heat exchange tubes, as well as attrition and elutriation of particles, are not well understood and much more research needs to be done. Good reviews on various aspects of fluidized-bed combustion appear in References 121 and 122 (Table 2). 

For prediction of the densities of a defined Kquid mixtui e at its bubble point (Pfcp), the method of Spencer and Danneh is the simplest. The density is calculated from Eq. (2-86) using inputs from Eqs. (2-87) and (2-88). For hydrocarbons, T is calculated by Eqs. (2-89) through (2-92) if high accuracy is desired or by Eq. (2-93) for a less accurate answer. 

A similarly accurate but slightly more complex method for prediction of densities of defined hqiiid hydrocarbon mixtures at their bubble points was published by Hanldnson and Thomson and was previously cited for prediction of pure liquid hydrocarbons. 

G. Highly agitated systems solid particles, drops, and bubbles continuous phase coefficient [E] Use arithmetic concentration difference. Use when gravitational forces overcome by agitation. Up to 60% deviation. Correlation prediction is low (Ref. 118). (PA, ar.k) = power dissipated by agitator per unit volume liquid. [79][83]p.231 [91] p. 452... 

Flow Reactors Fast reactions and those in the gas phase are generally done in tubular flow reaclors, just as they are often done on the commercial scale. Some heterogeneous reactors are shown in Fig. 23-29 the item in Fig. 23-29g is suited to liquid/liquid as well as gas/liquid. Stirred tanks, bubble and packed towers, and other commercial types are also used. The operadon of such units can sometimes be predicted from independent data of chemical and mass transfer rates, correlations of interfacial areas, droplet sizes, and other data. 

Example 8 Calculation of Rate-Based Distillation The separation of 655 lb mol/h of a bubble-point mixture of 16 mol % toluene, 9.5 mol % methanol, 53.3 mol % styrene, and 21.2 mol % ethylbenzene is to be earned out in a 9.84-ft diameter sieve-tray column having 40 sieve trays with 2-inch high weirs and on 24-inch tray spacing. The column is equipped with a total condenser and a partial reboiler. The feed wiU enter the column on the 21st tray from the top, where the column pressure will be 93 kPa, The bottom-tray pressure is 101 kPa and the top-tray pressure is 86 kPa. The distillate rate wiU be set at 167 lb mol/h in an attempt to obtain a sharp separation between toluene-methanol, which will tend to accumulate in the distillate, and styrene and ethylbenzene. A reflux ratio of 4.8 wiU be used. Plug flow of vapor and complete mixing of liquid wiU be assumed on each tray. K values will be computed from the UNIFAC activity-coefficient method and the Chan-Fair correlation will be used to estimate mass-transfer coefficients. Predict, with a rate-based model, the separation that will be achieved and back-calciilate from the computed tray compositions, the component vapor-phase Miirphree-tray efficiencies. 

The method for estimating point efficiency, outhned here, is not the only approach available for sieve plates, and more mechanistic methods are under development. For example, Prado and Fair [Ind. Eng. Chem. Re.s., 29, 1031 (1990)] have proposed a method whereby bubbling and jetting are taken into account however the method has not been vahdated tor nonaqueous systems. Chen and Chuang [Ind. Eng. Chem. Re.s., 32, 701 (1993)] have proposed a more mechanistic model for predicting point efficiency, but it needs evaluation against a commercial scale distillation data bank. One can expect more development in this area of plate efficiency prediction. 

In hen of careful independent checks of predictive accuracy, the results of the comprehensive theoretical work will not be presented here. Simpler, more easily understood predictive methods, for certain important limiting cases, will be presented. As a check on the accuracy of these simpler methods, it will perhaps be prudent to calculate the bubble diameter from the graphical representation by Mersmann (loc. cit.) of the resiJts of Kumar et al. (loc. cit.). 

David W. Taylor Model Basin, Washington, September 1953 Jackson, loc. cit. Valentin, op. cit.. Chap. 2 Soo, op. cit.. Chap. 3 Calderbank, loc. cit., p. CE220 and Levich, op. cit.. Chap. 8). A comprehensive and apparently accurate predictive method has been publisned [Jami-alahamadi et al., Trans ICE, 72, part A, 119-122 (1994)]. Small bubbles (below 0.2 mm in diameter) are essentially rigid spheres and rise at terminal velocities that place them clearly in the laminar-flow region hence their rising velocity may be calculated from Stokes law. As bubble size increases to about 2 mm, the spherical shape is retained, and the Reynolds number is still sufficiently small (<10) that Stokes law should be nearly obeyed. 

Practical separation techniques for gases dispersed in liquids are discussed. Processes and methods for dispersing gas in hquid have been discussed earlier in this section, together with information for predicting the bubble size produced. Gas-in-hquid dispersions are also produced in chemical reactions and elec trochemic cells in which a gas is liberated. Such dispersions are likely to be much finer than those produced by the dispersion of a gas. Dispersions may also be uninten-tionaUy created in the vaporization of a hquid. 

The prediction of drop sizes in liquid-liquid systems is difficult. Most of the studies have used very pure fluids as two of the immiscible liquids, and in industrial practice there almost always are other chemicals that are surface-active to some degree and make the pre-dic tion of absolute drop sizes veiy difficult. In addition, techniques to measure drop sizes in experimental studies have all types of experimental and interpretation variations and difficulties so that many of the equations and correlations in the literature give contradictoiy results under similar conditions. Experimental difficulties include dispersion and coalescence effects, difficulty of measuring ac tual drop size, the effect of visual or photographic studies on where in the tank you can make these obseiwations, and the difficulty of using probes that measure bubble size or bubble area by hght or other sample transmission techniques which are veiy sensitive to the concentration of the dispersed phase and often are used in veiy dilute solutions. 

It is seldom possible to specify an initial mixer design requirement for an absolute bubble size prediction, particularly if coalescence and dispersion are involved. However, if data are available on the actual system, then many of these correlations could be used to predict relative changes in drop size conditions with changes in fluid properties or impeller variables. 

Bubble sizes at formation generally increase with surface tension and orifice diameter. Prediction of sizes in swarms from multiple orifices is difficult. In aqueous solutions of low surface tension, Bubble diameters of the order of 1 mm are common. Bubbles produced by the more complicated techniques of pressure flotation or vacuum flotation are usually smaller, with diameters of the order of 0.1 mm or less. 

Knowing the bubble rise velocity, the bed expansion can be predicted from a material balance on the bubble phase gas. Thus, total gas flow through the bubble phase equals absolute bubble velocity times the volume fraction E of bubbles in the bed. 

---