4.7 Article

A reduced-order model of concentration polarization in reverse osmosis systems with feed spacers

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 675, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2023.121508

关键词

Reverse osmosis; Concentration polarization; Feed spacers; Computational fluid dynamics; Reduced model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Feed spacers in reverse osmosis systems limit computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, but a reduced model with an analytical approach provides a 10,000-fold speedup and accurately reproduces CFD predictions for solute transport in membrane fouling phenomena. This model serves as a simple testbed for studying multispecies transport and membrane fouling for which simulating spacers is often impractical.
Feed spacers in reverse osmosis systems generate complex fluid flows that limit computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations to small length and time scales. That limits our ability to simulate mineral scaling and other membrane fouling phenomena, which occur over longer length and time scales. Thus motivated, we develop a reduced model that replaces the CFD simulation of the velocity field with an analytical model that mimics spacers. This focuses the remaining numerical effort on simulating the advection-diffusion equation governing solute transport. We motivate and validate the model with CFD simulations and bench-scale experiments of spacer filaments in three different arrangements, including cases of unsteady vortex shedding. We show that the model produces a roughly 10,000-fold speedup compared to CFD, and accurately reproduces CFD predictions of not only the average and maximum concentrations, but also the local concentration distribution along the membrane. We also demonstrate the model for simulating a feed channel with a length-to-height ratio of 200. The model provides a simple testbed for exploratory studies of multispecies transport, precipitation, and membrane fouling phenomena for which simulating spacers is often prohibitive.

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

4.7
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