Dispersed plug flow model comparison

Comparison of solutions of the axially dispersed plug flow model for different boundary conditions... 

Fig. 28. Comparison of performance of reactors for the plug flow and dispersed plug flow models. Reaction is of first order, aA- products, and constant density, occurring in a closed vessel (L14, L15).

Determinations of Peclet number were carried out by comparison between experimental residence time distribution curves and the plug flow model with axial dispersion. Hold-up and axial dispersion coefficient, for the gas and liquid phases are then obtained as a function of pressure. In the range from 0.1-1.3 MPa, the obtained results show that the hydrodynamic behaviour of the liquid phase is independant of pressure. The influence of pressure on the axial dispersion coefficient in the gas phase is demonstrated for a constant gas flow velocity maintained at 0.037 m s. 

The models of flow dispersion are based on the plug flow model. However, in comparison with the PF model, the dispersion flow model considers various perturbation modes of the piston distribution in the flow velocity. If the forward and backward perturbations present random components with respect to the global flow direction, then we have the case of an axial dispersion flow (ADF). In addition, the axial and radial dispersion flow is introduced when the axial flow perturbations are coupled with other perturbations that induce the random fluid movement in the normal direction with respect to the global flow. 

A further generalization of the Glueckauf approximation is suggested by comparison of the moments for the simple linear rate plug flow model (model la) and the general diffusion model with axial dispersion (model 46). One may define an overall effective rate coefficient (k ) which includes both the effects of axial dispersion and mass transfer resistance ... 

A comparison between Eqs. 10.11 and 10.12 and the conservation equations for the plug-flow model reveals that the radial dispersion model is the same as the plug-flow model in terms of average concentration and temperature if ... 

Dl/uL -> 0), and so for many practical cases of interest a comparison is possible. Thus, for small deviations from plug flow, either the dispersion model or stirred tanks model may be satisfactorily used depending on one s personal preference. 

As the Figure 8.12 reveals, the flow pattern deviates from plug flow. The residence time distribution function E(l) is calculated from the experimentally recorded responses, after which the F(t) function was obtained from integration of E(t). The experimental functions are compared to the theoretical ones. The expressions of E(t) and F(t) obtained from the analytical solution of the dynamic, non-reactive axial dispersion model with closed Danckwerts boundary conditions were used in comparison. A comparison of the results shown in Figure 8.12 suggests that a reasonable value for the Peclet number is Pe=3. 

---