Anda di halaman 1dari 11

ChE 441: Advanced Transport Phenomena Problem Set #2 1. (2A.

4) Loss of Catalyst Particles in a Stacked Gas (a) Estimate the maximum diameter of micro spherical catalyst particles that could be lost in the stack gas of a fluid cracking unit under the following conditions: Gas velocity at axis of stack = 1.0 ft/s (vertically up) Gas viscosity = 0.026 cp = 0.00026 g/cm-s Gas density = 0.045 lbm/ ft3 Density of a catalyst particle = 1.2 g/cm3 Express your result in microns (1 micron = 10-6 m = 1) Solution

(I inch = 2.54 cm) Equation 2.6-17:


Convert to microns:

(b) Is it permissible to use Stokes Law in (a)? Solution Equation 2.6-17 used in 9a) was derived for Re<<1, but holds up to Re=1. For this system:

Thus, the result in (a) is correct.

2. (2B.6) Flow of a film on the outside of a circular tube In a gas absorption experiment a viscous fluid flows upward through a small circular tube and then downward in laminar flow on the outside. Set up a momentum balance over a shell of thickness r in the film, as shown in Figure 2B.6 (page 64).

(a) Show that the velocity distribution in the falling film (neglecting end effects) is:

Solution Momentum Balance: (Rate of momentum in)-(Rate of momentum out)+(sum of forces acting on system)=0

Divide by

and take the limit as

Which is equal to:

Boundary conditions from diagram, BC#1:


Group terms and substitute Newtons Law of Viscosity

B.C. #2:

(No-slip BC):



Combine terms,


(b) Obtain an expression for the mass rate of flow in the film. Solution Using Eq 2.2-21

Here Substitute in

from (a)


(c) Show that the result in (b) simplifies to Eq. 2.2-21 if the file thickness is very small. Solution Eq. 2.2-19



, then



is very small and expanding the powers,

Which agrees with


2B.7 Annular flow with inner cylinder moving axially

A cylinder rod of radius moves axially with velocity along the axis of a cylindrical cavity of radius R as seen in the figure. The pressure at both ends of the cavity is the same, so that the fluid moves through the annular region solely because of the rod motion. (a) Find the velocity distribution in the narrow annular region. Solution Momentum Balance:
(Rate of Momentum In)-(Rate of Momentum Out) +(Sum of Forces acting on System)=0

Area = Divide through by ,

Take the limit as

Substitute in Newton's law of viscosity,


B.C.#1: B.C.#2:

From B.C. #1:

From B.C. #2:


Now solve for

Plugging back into the equation for

Also note that:


(b) Find the mass flow rate through the annular region.


Integrate by parts,

(c) Obtain the viscous force acting on the rod over the length L. Solution

(d) Show that the result in (c) can be written as a "plane slit" formula multiplied by a "curvature correction". Solution Replace

and expand the Taylor Series to obtain:

4. 2. The No-Slip Boundary Condition [Richardson, J.Fluid Mech (1973) 59, 707]

As you know, the no-slip boundary condition is a key assumption and one that we use routinely. Please read Richardson's classic article that discusses the no-slip condition at solid walls. Please discuss (in no more than one page), the physical meaning of the noslip condition. Solution - this is one possible way to answer this problem (by a former student). It is well accepted that when a viscous fluid flows over a solid surface the effective velocity of the fluid at the solid-fluid interface is zero. The paper presented by Richardson proposes a simple model to support the physically observed claim that surface wall roughness contribute to an energy loss through viscous dissipation that is sufficient enough to bring the fluid at the interface to rest. The presented model proposes the use of three individual length scales: l describes the length of the molecular structure of the fluid, describes the roughness of the solid surface, and L characterizes the bulk fluid motion. A key assumption of the proposed model is that the size of is much larger than that of l in order to assure that the analysis of flow at, and within the rough solid surface can still be considered a continuum; an assumption that is valid for a microscopic analysis. By defining an average slip velocity of Us at a distance of from an averaged solid surface, the velocity gradients within the rough surface model can be claimed as on the order of Us / . Furthermore if the energetic distribution of energy at the wall surface is expressed by a shear rate kw it can be observed that this shear is on the order of Us / . By definition the shear rate is a finite element so it can be stated that Us / kw is on the order of indicating that macroscopic phenomenon will result from a macroscopically rough surface; the surface roughness influences the average slip velocity neighboring the solid wall. In continuation, it is assumed within the model that the surface roughness is not uniform but rather a distribution of roughness characteristics with various amplitudes a and wavelengths . Since the surface roughness varies with distance the model coordinates are assigned as unit-less dimensions of X / and Y / . If the model is constrained such that the variations in the surface roughness are periodic then only a single roughness-wavelength needs to be considered. The range of possible roughness amplitudes a is then allowed to vary between zero and one. When the roughness amplitude is equal to zero the surface is smooth and the slip velocity becomes a plug flow. The constraints applied by the model reduce the evaluation of the Navier-Stokes equation to the Stokes equation; which can be evaluated across the variations of roughness amplitude and wavelength in terms of pressure, vortocity, velocity, applied force, and stress distribution within the flow field. The establishment of this complexvariable evaluation is evaluated in two cases to establish an understanding of the physical meaning of the no-slip boundary condition. First, shear flow is evaluated over a rough surface with a no-slip condition to ascertain the effect of molecular interactions in the moving fluid with the periodicity of a rough wall. Second, shear flow is evaluated over a rough surface with a condition of zero-shear-stress to ascertain the effect of a planar smooth surface.

The results of the application of a no-slip condition verified the relationship between the wall roughness and the neighboring fluid velocity for a periodically rough surface structure. The application of zero-shear-stress condition assumed a planar surface (streamline) and the result showed that even with no relative resistance to motion at the fluid-solid interface, the roughness alone will ensure a macroscopic no slip boundary layer. From the experimental model presented by Richardson, it is shown that the physical meaning of the no-slip boundary condition lies in the interaction between the fluid molecules and the solid surface roughness. The energy dissipation resultant from molecular interaction with the rough surface topography is enough to bring the neighboring fluid to rest. As shown by Richardson this holds true for the cases of periodic surface roughness as well as planar, but microscopically rough surfaces.