For bubbles

For bubble and dew-point calculations we have, respectively, the objective functions... 

The Newton-Raphson approach, being essentially a point-slope method, converges most rapidly for near linear objective functions. Thus it is helpful to note that tends to vary as 1/P and as exp(l/T). For bubble-point-temperature calculation, we can define an objective function... 

For bubble-point and dew-point pressure calculations, the appropriate forms are, respectively ... 

Single-Bubble Sonoluminescence. The spectra of MBSL and SBSL are dramatically different. MBSL is generally dominated by atomic and molecular emission lines, but SBSL is an essentially featureless emission that iacreases with decreasiag wavelength. For example, an aqueous solution of NaCl shows evidence of excited states of both OH- and Na ia the MBSL spectmm however, the SBSL spectmm of an identical solution shows no evidence of either of these peaks (30). Similady, the MBSL spectmm falls off at low wavelengths, while the SBSL spectmm continues to rise, at least for bubbles containing most noble gases (38). 

E-factor for bubble tray gas load moles of component j gas flow rate flow rate of iaert gas... 

Interfacial Forces. Neighboring bubbles in a foam interact through a variety of forces which depend on the composition and thickness of Hquid between them, and on the physical chemistry of their Hquid—vapor interfaces. For a foam to be relatively stable, the net interaction must be sufficiently repulsive at short distances to maintain a significant layer of Hquid in between neighboring bubbles. Otherwise two bubbles could approach so closely as to expel all the Hquid and fuse into one larger bubble. Repulsive interactions typically become important only for bubble separations smaller than a few hundredths of a micrometer, a length small in comparison with typical bubble sizes. Thus attention can be restricted to the vapor—Hquid—vapor film stmcture formed between neighboring bubbles, and this stmcture can be considered essentially flat. 

The open area for these plates ranges from 15 to 30 percent of the total cross section compared with 5 to 15 percent for sieve plates and 8 to 15 percent for bubble-cap plates. Hole sizes range from 6 to 25 mm (1/4 to 1 in), and slot widths from 6 to 12 mm (14 to V2 in). The Turbogrid and Ripple plates are proprietary devices. 

For bubble caps, Ki is the drop through the slots and Ko is the drop through the riser, reversal, and annular areas. Equations for evaluating these terms for various bubble-cap designs are given by BoUes (in chap. 14 of Smith, Equilibrium Stage Processes, McGraw-HiU, New York, 1963), or may be found in previous editions of this handbook. 

The aeration factor P has been determined for bubble-cap and sieve plates, and a representative correlation of its values is shown in Fig. 14-32. Values of P in the figure may be calculated from... 

For bubble-cap plates, hydraulic-gradient must be given serious consideration. It is a function of cap size, shape, and density on the plate. Methods for analyzing bubble-cap gradient may be found in the chapter by BoUes (Smith, De.sign of Equilibrium Stage Proce.s.se.s, Chap. 14, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963) or in previous edition of this handbook. 

For sieve or valve plates, h = h , outlet weir height. For bubble-cap plates, h = height of static seal. Tbe original references present vaH-dations against laboratoiy and small-commercial-column data. Modifications of tbe efficiency equation for absorption-stripping are also included. 

For bubble-cap plates, the eddy-diffusion correlation in the AlChE Bubble-Ti ay Design Manual should be used. 

For bubbles formed in water, the orifice diameter that permits bubbles of about its own size is calculated as 0.66 cm. Davidson and Amick [AJChE J., 2, 337 (1956)] confirmed this estimate in their observation that stable bubbles in water were formed at a 0.64-cm orifice but could not be formed at a 0.79-cm orifice. 

The q-line starts on the x-axis at Xp. The value of q is the same as for conventional McCabe-Thiele. The slope of the q-line in the Ryan graph is the McCabe-Thiele slope minus 1. Therefore for bubble point feed the q-line is vertical for the conventional McCabe-Thiele and Ryan. For dew point feed the slope is 0 for the conventional McCabe-Thiele and -1 for Ryan. 

Here are two quick approximation methods for bubble cap tray column diameter. 

Figure 4-8 shows a continuous reactor used for bubbling gaseous reactants through a liquid catalyst. This reactor allows for close temperature control. The fixed-bed (packed-bed) reactor is a tubular reactor that is packed with solid catalyst particles. The catalyst of the reactor may be placed in one or more fixed beds (i.e., layers across the reactor) or may be distributed in a series of parallel long tubes. The latter type of fixed-bed reactor is widely used in industry (e.g., ammonia synthesis) and offers several advantages over other forms of fixed beds. 

Shah, Y.T., Kelkar, B.G., Godbole, S.P. and Deckwer, W.D., 1982. Design parameter estimations for bubble column reactors. American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal, 28, 353. 

Figure 8-65. Slip-type cartridge assembly for bubble cap trays in small column, 1-ft-10 5<6-in. I.D. Used by permission, Glitsch, Inc.

These downcomers are suggested only where liquid flow is relatively small for the required tower diameter, allowing a maximum of space for bubble caps. 

Figure 8-116. Correlation of entrainment for bubble caps. Used by permission, Bolles, W. L., Pet. Processing, Feb. thru May (1956), using data of Simkin et al. [64].

Figure 8-117. Eduljee s entrainment correlation for bubble caps. Used by permission, Eduljee, H. E., British Chemical Engineer, Sept. (1958).

This may be calculated as recommended for bubble cap trays. Minimum weir height is 0.5-in., with 1-3 in. preferred. See Figure 8-67A. 

This creates the same type of cross-flow and improper distribution as was discussed for bubble cap tray operation. The recommendation of Hughmark and O Connell [31] includes corrections to the friction factor of Klein [39]. 

Fair [183] relates sieve trays and includes valve tray remarks to the extensive work done for bubble cap trays. Figure 8-137 and 8-139 show flooding data for 24-in. spacing of bubble cap trays from [81] and represents data well for 36-in. diameter columns, and is conservative for smaller columns. Fair s work has been corrected to 20 dynes/ cm surface tension by ... 

For bubble cap trays the phenomenon is believed to be induced by excessive hydraulic gradient it is recommended to keep hydraulic gradient to less than 40% of the dry pressure drop. 

From the residence time in dorvneomers for bubble cap trays, and at the very low tray spacing of 9 inches, select an allowable liquid velocity of 0.1 ft/sec. 

Tray efficiency is as high as for bubble caps and almost as high as sieve trays. It is higher than bubble caps in some systems. Performance indicates a close similarity to sieve trays, since the mechanism of bubble formation is almost identical. The real point of concern is that the efficiency falls off quickly as the flow rate of vapor through the holes is reduced close to the minimum values represented by the dump point, or point of plate initial activation. Efficiency increases as the tray spacing increases for a given throughput. 

Because it is known that the entrainment from perforated trays is considerably less than for bubble caps, the 2-ft, 8-in. diameter would be very conservative and perhaps excessively large. 

Tray Thickness (Net Required for Bubble Cdps) Type of Flow Split, Cross Inlet Weirs (Y No) ... 

---