Carbon tetrachloride was evaporated into a stream of air over ranges of gas concentration
from 0 to 0.70 mole fraction carbon tetrachloride, Reynolds number from 600 to 15,000,
and Schmidt number from 0.23 to 1.17. The data were correlated by an equation and also
by a computer solution to the differential equation describing mass transfer from values
of eddy viscosity and eddy diffusivity obtained from the literature.
Investigations of mass transfer have Liquid enters the section through a 1in. %in, equilateral triangle centers. Liquid
resulted in the development of methods pipe a t A and is distributed over the test leaves the test section a t overflow weirs B
for correlation and prediction of mass area by the perforated plate PP. The plate and C and flows into a holding tank. Test
transfer rates in a variety of situations. is perforated by 1/16in. holes spsced on section details are given in Figure 2. The
The effect of Reynolds number, Schmidt
number, and similar variables has been
analyzed for many systems; however,
the effect of concentration level has
received little attention.
Various terms in mass transfer calcu
lations contain concentration level as a
variable. For example, the j factor for
mass transfer has been defined by LIQUID FLOW
Colburn ( 2 ) as
Fig. 1. Test section.
23d
2
7
= 0 . 0 2 1 ~(I)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
LIQUID
OUTLLT
112" PIPE
the ratio (pB,/P) was varied from 0.15
to 0.99 by Cairns and Roper, and con Fig. 2. Test section details; 1/8 in. sheet steel throughout inlet cross section and cross
centration level enters their correlation section for gas flow over liquid: 5 / 8  by 4 1/16in. length, 48 in. between weirs.
as an important variable.
The objectives of the present study
were to collect mass transfer rate data
in the aircarbon tetrachloride system
over a wide range of concentration level
and to study various methods of corre
lating the data.
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
j = (k,PSc0.56)/Gm. 30
Cairns and Roper were able to focus a a(wc)
attention on the (p,,/P) term, since the +
dx
(D,+
dc
E )   
dx dx
(11) 20
the ( p B m / P )term, as is shown by Equa for turbulent gas flow between parallel Fig. 5. Correlation of the data without a
tion (2). Hence the form shown by plates in the II: direction and mass transfer concentration term.
Equations (2) and (4) seems to be the in the y direction normal to the plates,
more general, as the form given by
Equation (3) will not correlate the data
of Cairns and Roper. Since Equations
(2) and (4) correlate the data of this
dc/dt = 0 and w = 0. For the experi
ments of this investigation du/dz, d/dz
[(D, + E)(dc/dz)],and v are negligible,
and so Equation (11) simplifies to

" 100
80
50
investigation with deviations of 16 and
7" 40
15% respectively, Equation (1) used by VI
data as well.
In the experimental work only small
X
Differential Equation changes in gas composition occurred in
In the case of molecular transport the 4ft. length of the test section.
I I l l I I
processes, the transfer rates for momen Temperature changes in the gas were 2000 4 6 8 10.000 20,000
tum, heat, and mass are given by small, as were changes in the gas volume. REYNOLDS NO.
Hence the assumptions that = 0
7
du
= p and (a/&) [ ( D v + E)(ac/dz)]= 0 are Fig. 6. Correlation of Cairns and Roper.
dY justifiable.
The assumption that v = 0, however,
is valid only over certain ranges of
operation. This assumption was necessary
in separating the variables in Equation
(11). The comparison of the evaporation
rates calculated by use of Equation (12)
with the experimental rates is shown in
Here the conductance terms are vis Table 2. Mathematical details are avail
cosity, thermal conductivity, and molec able elsewhere (6). The calculated values
ular diffusivity. The potential terms are are seen to be in error a t low Reynolds
the gradients of velocity, temperature, numbers. Previous workers have shown 2000 4 6 8 10nOOe 20,000
and concentration. Each potential term that the presence of a velocity normal
is in differential form. to the wall is important in momentum
REYNOLDS NO.
Similar treatment is made in the case transfer studies. Fig. 7. Data of Cairns and Roper.
of turbulent transfer processes. Expand Yuan and Finkelstein (9) have shown
ing the molecular transfer equations that the presence of a velocity normal
to the surface 1/100 as great as the main locity based on these data is shown in
stream velocity increases the friction by Figure 8.
85%. The actual value of o in this work Since the variation of eddy diffusivity
is given by N A / c , , the moles transferred with distance from the wall has not been
per unit time per unit area divided by reported in the literature, this informa
the total gas concentration in moles per tion must be obtained indirectly.
unit volume. When mainstream velocity It was noted that eddy viscosity, eddy
is lowered, this term becomes increasingly conductivity, and eddy diffusivity were
important for a given evaporation rate. defined by Equations (8) to (10) in the
The foregoing equations serve to define Consequently, it is felt that the poor hope that these quantities would be
em, eddy viscosity; ec, eddy conductivity; correlation of the data a t low Reynolds equal or proportional. Various researchers
and E, eddy diffusivity. I n each case numbers is caused by neglecting v. have conducted experiments to determine
the units are (distance)z per unit time. The solution of Equation (12) requires the relationship between the eddy prop
The definitions take this form in the that velocity u and eddy diffusivity E erties.
hope that the similarity of the definitions be known as a function of position. The Woertz (8) measured concentration
will result in simple relationships between variation of velocity with distance from distribution and mass transfer rates of
eddy properties; that is, it is hoped that the wall has been measured by Corcoran water through air between parallel
the eddy properties will be equal or et al. (3) for air passing between parallel plates. Eddydiffusivity values for the
proportional to one another. plates. The velocity distribution was center region between the plates were
In this work the primary interest is in measured in an isothermal as well as in obtained by differentiation of the con
the mass transfer rate equation (10). a nonisothermal system. Temperature centration data and use of Equation (10).
From this equation and a material differences between the plates of 20F. Woertz also measured pressure drop
balance, the equation for turbulent mass did not appreciably alter the velocity and velocity distribution while the mass
transfer is derived: distribution observed. Dimensionless ve transfer process took place. Eddy
0.7
and helium do not vary greatly, Woertz
could have used the product ( E p / p ) = 0.6 0.7 B.8 0.9 1.0
D,+El,
for the value of eddy diffusivity at the Fig. 12. Total diiksity values for run 6.
liquid surface. The viscosity of the air
carbon tetrachloride mixtures was calcu and
lated by use of the correlation and data
of Tlrilke and Bromley ( 7 ) . The surface velocity of the gas was
A final calculation was necessary to not high enough (a x 0.1) to alter
obtain the eddy diffusivity at the liquid greatly the velocity profile shown in
surface. Since one of the parallel plates Equation (22) gives the total viscosity Figure 8. As this velocity distribution
of this research was actually a liquid (v + r,) a t the surface as a function of was approximated in a computer solution
surface, it could not be considered as a the average velocity U,,, and the velocity by a step function, accuracy was not
fixed surface. The drag of the gas stream gradient a t the surface (du/dy).. improved by adding the correction at the
on the liquid surface causes a surface It was assumed that the velocity wall.
velocity in the liquid, as shown by Tek gradient a t the liquid surface was equal An electronic differential analyzer was
(5); hence the gas velocity does not drop to the velocity gradient a t the wall in used to solve the ordinary differential
to zero a t the liquid surface but instead Sages experiments. Accordingly, the equations (6) resulting from the separa
drops to a value equal to the surface values of (duldy), were calculated by tion of variables in Equation (12).
velocity of the liquid. differentiating the velocity data shown A summary of the outlet concentra
Tek has developed equations which in Figure 8 and the total viscosities tions calculated by computer solution
may be used to calculate the liquid surface calculated from Equation (22). of Equation (12) is shown in Table 2,
velocity and the surface shear from the Actually the velocity gradient at the which also shows the experimental outlet
mainstream gas velocity and the prop liquid surface will be somewhat less than concentration, which was calculated from
erties of the liquid. This calculation the velocity gradient a t a fixed boundary, the inletgas concentration, the inletgas
involves the use of Equations (17) and and therefore the values of total viscosity rate, and the evaporation rate.
(18), which were developed by Tek ( 5 ) . obtained by the foregoing procedure are Table 2 shows good agreement between
low. As a result, the values of eddy con the calculated and experimental evapora
ductivity or eddy diffusivity derived from tion rates for Reynolds numbers over
the eddy viscosity will also be low and 7,000. The average deviation is 10.5%
will tend to decrease the rate calculated for these runs. Even though numerous
from Equation (12). approximations must be made in using
where (dhldx) = ~ T = Usurface
~ ~ ~ ~
Sage reports values of the ratio of total Equation (11) to correlate mass transfer
inclination due to gas velocity, viscosity (v + em) to total conductivity data, the outlet concentrations predicted
and [k/(pc,) + E , ] , and these are shown as a by this equation agree closely with the
function of Reynolds number and position experimental concentrations for Reynolds
in Figure 11. Thus Figure 11 can be used numbers over 7,000, as seen in Table 2.
to evaluate the total conductivity a t the No arbitrary constants are used in the
surface from the total viscosity calcu equation a t any point. This suggests that
Eliminating (u,)from Equations (17) lated from Equation (22). The total Equation (11) may prove as useful in
and (18) gives diffusivity a t the surface was taken as mass transfer as the FourierPoisson
equal to the total conductivity a t the equation has in heat transfer.
surface. Certain predictions may be made
This step is somewhat inconsistent concerning the effect of concentration
with the use of the data of Woertz and level on mass transfer by examination of
Equation (19) may be used to calculate Sage to show that e,/E = 1. Consistency Equation (12). I n addition to the terms
the shear stress at the liquid surface, would require that (k/pc,) be subtracted containing concentration gradient, this
which is also given by Equation (8). For
the case of the liquid surface, in units
from total conductivity values to give equation contains the term (Do + E),
eddy conductivity and eddy diffusivity. which is a function of concentration
consistent. with Equation (19), Equation Total diffusivity would be obtained for level. This term depends on concentra
(8) becomes use in Equation (12) by adding D, to tion level because of the variation of E
the eddy diffusivity. with concentration, as has been discussed.
However the equation eJE = 1 is Hence Equation (12) suggests that for
verified only for the center region of gas a system in which there is no change in
flow, and the approximation of taking eddy diffusivity with concentration, there
total conductivity equal to total diffu would be no effect of concentration level.
sivity is probably as accurate as assuming Also if (eddy diffusivity)/(kinematic vis
that rJE = 1 throughout the flow cosity) = constant, a mixture with a
domain. Once a total diffusivity a t the kinematic viscosity independent of con
liquid surface is known, i t may be used centration should also have a n eddy
as a limiting value for the total diffu diffusivity independent of concentration.
sivities (6) in the main gas stream, as The airwater system is one which has
shown in Figure 12. a gas kinematic viscosity largely inde
of Cairns and Roper makes it unlikely cw = concentration Of the gas at the 1. Cairns, R. C., and G. H. Roper, Chem.
that Equation (12) is adequate to corre liquid surface Eng. Sci., 3, 97 (1954).
late their data. c = concentration, moles per unit 2. Colburn, A. P., and T. H. Chilton, Znd.
If the airwater system is to be used volume Eng. Ghem., 26, 1183 (1934).
to study the effect of concentration level, F = dimensionless concentration, 3. Corcoran, W. H., F. Page, W. G.
(c  c,)/(co  )c, Schlinger, and B. H. Sage, ibid., 44,
the temperature drop in the gas must be
c, = heat capacity 410 (1952).
held at a minimum. This suggests that 4. Deissler, R. G., Natl. Advisory Gomtn.
an apparatus similar to that used in this D, = molecular diffusivity Aeronaut. Tech. Note 3145, 15 (1954).
study might prove more successful than d = characteristic diameter 5. Tek, M. R., Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Mich.,
a wettedwall column, where control of E = eddy diffusivity, (distance)z per Arbor (1953).
gas temperature is difficult. unit time 6. Westkaemper, L. E., Ph.D. dissertation,
gc = conversion factor, (32.2 pounds Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor (1955).
mass/pound force)(feet/second)z 7 . Wilke, C. R., and L. A. Bromley, Ind.
CONCLUSION
G, = flow rate, moles per unit time per Eng. Chem., 43, 1641 (1951).
I n summary, the facts that data of this unit area 8. Woertz B. B., and T. K. Sherwood,
investigation may be correlated equally h = heat transfer coefficient zbid., 31, 1034 (1939).
= a modified j
9. Yuan, s. w., and A. 3. Finkelstein,
well by Equations (I), ( 2 ) , and (3) and j factor for General Proceedings of Heat Transfer
that the data of Cairns and Roper may transfer and Fluid Mechanics Institute, Los
be correlated best by Equation (1) and j, = the j factor for transfer de Angeles, Am. SOC.Mech. Engrs. (1955).
less satisfactorily by Equation (4), fined by Colburn, (krpBmSc2/3)/
which is similar in form but not in G, Presented at A.I.0h.E. New Orleans meeting