4.1 Article

3D CFD study and optimisation of static mixer type feed spacer for reverse osmosis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ceja.2022.100335

关键词

Computational fluid dynamics; Static mixer; Feed spacer geometry; Reverse osmosis; Response surface methodology

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) , Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India
  2. Department of Science and Technology [DST/TDT/WMT/fouled Membranes/2021/01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study introduced an innovative static mixer type feed spacer design, which improved mass transfer efficiency through optimization of geometry and fluid flow velocity, allowing operation at lower Reynolds numbers for increased permeate recovery.
Innovative designs of feed spacers for various applications of membrane-based separation processes are required to be identified. We proposed the static mixer type flat sheet of feed spacer and studied the shear stress and mass transfer around it in the flow channel. The enhanced mass transfer could be obtained by increasing the feed flow velocity at the expense of increased pressure drop. Box-Behnken design (BBD) of response surface methodology (RSM) along with desirability function analysis was used for the optimisation of the geometry with the average mass transfer at the membrane surfaces, pressure drop along the flow direction and channel Reynolds number as the optimisation parameters. The optimum geometry found corresponds to (1/h) = 0.5 and theta = 45 degrees at the channel Reynolds number of 78. The spacer configuration efficacy of the optimised geometry was found to be 20.7 x 10(-6), which is in line with the reported data. However, the variation in the values of the average Sherwood number with the power number is slower than the commercial as well as other state-of-the-art geometries reported, opening up an opportunity to operate the system at lower Re, thereby increasing the permeate recovery at the same operating pressure. [GRAPHICS] .

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

4.1
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