Mass calculated dispersion field

Most studies on heat- and mass-transfer to or from bubbles in continuous media have primarily been limited to the transfer mechanism for a single moving bubble. Transfer to or from swarms of bubbles moving in an arbitrary fluid field is complex and has only been analyzed theoretically for certain simple cases. To achieve a useful analysis, the assumption is commonly made that the bubbles are of uniform size. This permits calculation of the total interfacial area of the dispersion, the contact time of the bubble, and the transfer coefficient based on the average size. However, it is well known that the bubble-size distribution is not uniform, and the assumption of uniformity may lead to error. Of particular importance is the effect of the coalescence and breakup of bubbles and the effect of these phenomena on the bubble-size distribution. In addition, the interaction between adjacent bubbles in the dispersion should be taken into account in the estimation of the transfer rates... 

This includes the Pauli repulsion and (attractive) dispersion terms. The polarizability of the ions is included using the shell model (Dick and Overhauser, 1964) which, as discussed in Chapter 3, models the polarizability using a massive core linked to a mass-less shell by a spring. The theoretical basis of this model is uncertain, but its practical success has been attested over 20 years. Probably the best way to consider it is as a sensible model for linking the electronic polarizability of the ions to the forces exerted by the surrounding lattice. It is therefore a many-body term, a fact that should be remembered if one wishes to consider three-body potentials in the description of the crystal. A recent development in the field has been the use of quantum calculations. These are discussed in detail elsewhere (Chapter 8) but some results will be compared with the classical simulations in this chapter. 

The QM calculations at any selected level of approximation are generally susceptible to systematic errors, but empirical corrections for these inaccuracies can be applied. Finally, the London dispersion interaction term is lit by performing simulations on a condensed phase to get the correct crystal structure, or in the case of liquids, the correct mass and cohesive energy densities. The dihedral terms in equation 1 are of considerable importance for polymer conformations and their transitions, and require careful treatment because of the coupling between nonbond and torsion terms (59). Even with some automation, the construction of a widely representative force field is a major imdertaking. 

The model species, total mass, momentum, and energy continuity equations are similar to those presented in Section 13.7 on fluidized bed reactors. Constant values of the gas and liquid phase densities, viscosities, and diffusivities were assumed, as well as constant values of the interphase mass transfer coefficient and the reaction rate coefficient. The interphase momentum transfer was modelled in terms of the Eotvos number as in Clift et al. [1978]. The Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes approach was taken and a standard Computational Fluid Dynamics solver was used. In the continuous liquid phase, turbulence, that is, fluctuations in the flow field at the micro-scale, was accounted for using a standard single phase k-e model (see Chapter 12). Its applicability has been considered in detail by Sokolichin and Eigenberger [1999]. No turbulence model was used for the dispersed gas phase. Meso-scale fluctuations around the statistically stationary state occur and were explicitly calculated. This requires a transient simulation and sufficiently fine spatial and temporal grids. 

---