4.6 Article

Gas-liquid hydrodynamics in a self-suction jet reactor with or without swirling addition

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 247, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2021.117059

关键词

Two-phase flow; Computational fluid dynamics (CFD); Mixing; Self-suction jet reactor; Swirling flow; Eulerian approach

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [22078058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the gas-liquid hydrodynamics in a self-suction jet reactor with or without swirling addition design through experimental and numerical methods. It was found that swirling addition significantly increases the gas suction rate. Numerical predictions indicate that swirling addition promotes radial pressure gradient generation, enhancing gas-liquid mixing efficiency. The proper selection of liquid flow rate and swirling intensity is crucial for balancing gas suction rate and dispersion efficiency in jet reactors with swirling addition design.
In this study, the gas-liquid hydrodynamics in a self-suction jet reactor with or without swirling addition design are investigated both experimentally and numerically. The experimental results are characterized by the gas suction rate and gas volume fraction. The Eulerian approach is used to analyze the hydrodynamics of two phases. The experimental results show that the gas suction rate with swirling addition is much larger than that without swirl. The numerical predictions indicate that due to the existence of centrifugal force, the swirling addition leads to the generation of radial pressure gradient, which pushes the gas towards the center of the pipe and liquid to the vicinity of the wall, resulting in effective mixing of two phases. Moreover, the liquid flow rate and swirling intensity should be well selected to balance the gas suction rate and the final gas-liquid dispersion efficiency for the fixed jet reactor configuration with swirling addition. (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据