Está en la página 1de 8

Diffusion of Vapors into Air Streams

E. R. GILLILAND
IND T. K. SHERWOOD,
Rlassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.

‘T HE film concept has been


of great value in forming
the basis of a needed
mental picture of the chemical
Data are presented on rates of vaporization
of nine liquids into air flowing in a wetted-wall
column. The diffusional resistance to capori-
zation is expressed i n terms of the effectice film
The apparatus used consisted
of a vertical pipe, 2.67 cm. i. d.
and 117 cm. long, vaporization
taking place from a liquid falling
film covering the inner surface.
engineering p r o c e s s e s of heat Above and below the wetted-wall
flow betn-een fluid and solid, thickness, x , the thickness of a stagnant gas layer section were straight approach or
and of diffusion or mass trans- which would offer the same resistance to diffusion “calming” sections, each 150 cm.
fer to or from a moving fluid. long, which served to minimize
as is actually encountered. The results obtained entrance turbulence effects in the
The exact nature of the surface air stream. The liquid was fed at
film has been t h e s u b j e c t of in turbulent flow are well correlated by the di- the top through a cylindrical wire
much study, and numerous modi-
fications of the original simple
film theory have been proposed.
Although r e c e n t r e s e a r c h e s
mens ionless equation;
(,>
d = 0.023 dup 0.53
-

IC
($y’“ gauze forming a section of the pipe
and was withdrawn through an in-
clined slot a t the bottom, no liquid
being allowed to pass to the lower
calming section. This section of
show the structure of the film the apparatus is shown in Figure 1.
where d = inside diameter of column; u, p , As a precautionary measure the in-
to be very c o m p l i c a t e d , t h e side of the column was thoroughly
resistance offered to diffusion or p = linear eelocity, density, ciscosity of the
cleaned several times during the
heat flow may, n e v e r t h e l e s s , turbulent gas stream, respectively; and D = course of the experiments, and the
be pictured in terms of simple digusion coeficient for napor-gas system. liquids were found to spread easily
over the inner wall. No precau-
layer of stagnant gas of such an Tests were made over a range of total pressures tion was taken to reduce heat loss
“effective” thickness as to offer f r o m 110 to 2330 mm. of mercury, and the data from the c o l u m n , although this
the same resistance as is ac- loss was small in comparison with
tually encountered a t the phase were found to substantiate the applicability of that r e q u i r e d for vaporization.
boundary in question. These the Stefan equation to diffusion through surface The liquids used were recirculated
through the system by means of a
film t h i c k n e s s e s h a v e been films. small rotary pump. The liquid
determined for numerous The results are compared with the Colburn leaving the lower tee of the wetted-
cases of heat transfer between w a l l section shown in Figure 1
and the Arnold theories, and data obtained in passed through a small calibrated
fluids and solids and for absorp- orifice, a calibrated reservoir, and
tion of various gases in different viscous flow are correlated in a manner similar
a heater consisting of a length of
types of equipment, and have to that used in heat transmission, based on the steam-jacketed pipe. The liquid
been found t o b e d e p e n d e n t Graetz theoretical equation. passed from this heater to the
u p p e r t e e shown in Figure 1
mainly o n the turbulence through DiDes which were large
conditions of the fluid strpam. enouguh sd {hat the liquid flowgd
The possibility suggests itself that film thicknesses for these in calmly, not completely filling the pipe. The calibrated reservoir
various processes may be interchangeable if the turbulence which consisted of a short length of Pipe equipped With a gage glass
served to indicate a t any time the quantity of liquid
conditions are similar, and that accordingly heat transfer remaining In the system. The of within the
data might be employed in the design of equipment for gas column was determined by observing the rate of fall of the liquid
absorption. This is, of course, not a new idea, but little level in this reservoir. Care was taken to maintain a constant
Jvork has been done on data for the two processes. rate of liquid recirculation. since fluctuation of this >ate would
vary the head on the copper gauze weir and cause
Furthermore, a study of diffuiion t h r o u g h v a r i a t i o n of the gage glass level not due to
such films should lead to a sound basis for the vaporization. The liquid rate in all tests was
correlation of data on absorption of various approximately 790 cc. per minute. The column
gases in similar e q u i p m e n t a n d so greatly was supported on the concrete foundation of the
building and was practically free of vibration.
reduce the experimental work necessary as a The temperature of the liquid entering and leav-
basis for the design of gas absorption appara- GAUZE. ing the column was measured by means of cali-
tus. The relation between heat transfer and WEIR brated thermometers in the upper and lower tees.
diffusion, and between diffusion of different .4ir was supplied by a rotary compressor driven
by a 3 h. p. motor. The air was forced into a 50-
gases through surface films, under flow con- gallon steel drum which served to minimize the
ditions, offers a fruitful field for experimental pressure variation in the gas feed. The air flow
study. II was measured by means of calibrated sharp-edged
’’ WALL orifices, two sizes being used t o cover the desired
The present article describes the results of 1; SECTION range of air velocity. These orifices were cali-
a study of the rates of vaporization of nine brated against both a gasometer and a large gas
different liquids into a moving air stream. meter. Air temperatures were obtained by ther-
mometers downstream from the orifice and a t
Vaporization rather than absorption was em- points j u s t a t t h e e n t r a n c e andexit of the
ployed as simplifying the experimental technic column. The thermometer a t the air entrance
and making possible the study of the diffu- was in place only while temperature observations
sion of a number of different vapors. From were being made a t this point. Provision was
made t o supply t h e a i r e i t h e r at the top or
the results it is possible to compare the rates bottom calming section, so that both parallel and
of diffusion of the different vapors through CALMING,~ countercurrent runs might be made. In the tests
gas films under identical conditions of tem- SECTION vaporizing water, wet-bulb temperatures of the
perature, pressure, driving force, and air turbu- FIGURE1. CROSSSECTION air entering and leaving were measured. The
air supply pipes were provided with electric resist-
lence. OF WETTED-WALL COLUMN ance heaters, and in nearly every run the air en-
516
May, 1934 INDUSTRIAL AND E N G I N E E R I K G CHEMISTRY 517

TABLET. DATAON VAPORIZATION


OF WATER^
(Letter p after the run number indicates parallel flow of air and water: c denotes countercurrent flow)
DRY-BULB TEMP. d U p / p BASED ON:
OF A I R WATERTEMPERATURE Velocity
At top of 4 t bottom of At top of At bottom of RATEO F relative Velocity
Ass. HUMIDITY netted-wall netted-wall wetted-wall n etted-wall ABS -41R VAPORI- to water-film relative
RUN Inlet air Outlet air section section section section PRESSURE R A T E ZATION d/x velocity to pipe
G. w a t e r / y . d r y azr e. c. c. c. Cm. Hg G./min. Cc./min.
Wlp 0.002 0.016 30.8 27.0 31.1 26.1 77.0 250 3.8 43.7 9700 10800
w3p 0.001 0.017 29.6 27.9 29.8 27.8 77.2 243 3.6 40.0 9200 10300
W5C 0,008 0.021 32.1 25.8 32.5 24.9 77.7 125 1.6 23.5 6170 5200
w7c 0.010 0.022 32.2 26.7 32.9 26.1 77.7 163 1.9 29.6 7700 7100
w9c 0.010 0.023 32.6 28.3 33.1 27.4 77.7 143 1.8 25.5 6880 6200
Wllc 0.010 0.023 32.1 28.1 33.0 27.4 77.0 54 0.73 10.3 3260 2330
W13c 0.010 0.021 32.2 26.8 32.9 26.2 77.0 214 2.5 34.5 9900 9300
W15p 0.001 0.016 28.7 27.3 29.4 26.7 77.2 324 4.7 54.9 12100 14000
W17p 0.001 0.016 30.0 27.8 30.6 27.1 77.0 218 3.2 34.0 7830 9400
w19p 0.002 0.018 32.6 28.9 33.1 28.3 77.0 158 2.7 27.9 5370 6900
w21p 0.002 0.019 32.3 28.6 32.9 28.2 77.0 103 1.8 19.4 3100 4470
W23p 0.002 0.019 32.4 29.2 32.9 28.5 77.0 74 1.4 14.8 1810 3200
W25p 0.001 0.030 41.1 38.4 41.7 37.8 78.5 220 6.2 35.1 8330 9390
w27c 0.006 0.039 40.4 41.3 41.4 40.8 80.0 80 2.4 15.4 4380 3350
w29c 0.002 0.031 38.9 35.8 39.5 35.2 78.2 48 1.5 9.9 3100 2050
W31p 0.001 0.015 40.5 28.0 30.1 26.5 77.5 502 7.4 80.3 21800 ...
w33c
w35c
0.003
0.006
0.038
0.037
42.4
42.4
37.2
38.8
42.6
43.5
36.6
38.1
z7.7
17.5
111
141
3.7
4.4
22.2
23.8
4720
5980
...
...
w37c
w39c
0.002
0.002
0.035
0.035
42.0
41.7
36.9
37.4
43.1
42.2
36.7
36.9
77.7
76.0
174
215
5.4
7.4
28.5
39.3
7360
9100
..... .
15'4 1p 0.002 0.034 41.1 38.5 41.9 38.0 76.0 197 5.7 35.1 8350 ...
w43p 0.001 0.032 40.7 38.9 41.3 38.3 77.0 143 4.1 23.5 6050 ...
w45p
w47p
0.001
0.001
0.034
0.038
40.7
45.2
39.9
39.7
41.3
44.3
39.5
39.5
77.0
76.5
96
51
3.2
2.0
18.9
11.3
4050
2170
...
...
w49p 0.001 0.031 44.1 39.7 44.7 38.6 76.5 457 12.9 60.9 19300 ...
W51p 0.001 0.030 43.8 40.0 44.0 38.4 76.5 625 17.0 82.8 26300 ...
T53p 0.002 0.070 56.1 50.9 55.2 50.0 76.0 46 3.3 10.3 1930 ...
w55c 0.002 0.058 52.8 46.1 53.5 45.4 80.2 96 5 9 18.2 4010 ...
w57p 0.003 0.060 51.6 49.2 50.1 38.4 76.7 83 5.3 18.6 3690 ...
w59c 0.003 0.062 52.6 43.2 53.2 42.7 76.7 119 6.5 21.7 4960 ...
W61p 0.003 0.054 53.9 48.2 53.5 47.8 78.5 248 13.2 42.2 10400 .*.
W63p
W65p
0.003
0.004
0.058
0.050
54.6
53.1
49.1
48.3
54.3
53.3
48.5
47.0
78.5
78.7
168
475
9.6
22.8
30.4
73.0
7000
19800
...
...
W67p 0.004 0.064 52.1 49.6 54.7 49.1 78.2 126 8.1 26.6 5250 ...
P2P 0,002 0.029 34.9 33.4 35.6 33.2 77.2 63 1.6 14.8 2720 ...
P4c
P6c
0.001
0.001
0.201
0.010
33.8
36.2
32.1
34.9
34.5
36.4
32.0
34.6
11.4
200.6
60
66
1.2
0.65
11.3
13.1
2800
2820
*..
...
P8c 0.001 0.038 31.8 26.7 32.5 26.3 40.7 125 4.4 21.8 5420 ...
PlOC 0.001 0.01 32.6 27.6 32.8 27.1 148.0 127 1.1 21.5 5290 ...
P12p 0.001 0.053 31.9 28.1 33.0 27.9 26.9 122 6.0 20.4 5350 ...
P14p 0.001 0.015 33.1 28.6 31.0 28.0 94.1 123 1.6 22.5 5270 ...
Pl6p 0.001 0.007 31.4 28.8 32.0 28.5 196.6 12 1 0.75 20.9 5200 ...
P18p 0.001 0.025 32.8 28.3 32.5 28.0 55.6 217 4.8 36.2 9360 ...
P20p 0.001 0.009 31.0 28.1 32.0 27.5 141.9 216 1.75 35.9 9280 ...
P22c 0.001 0.031 30.8 26.0 31.9 25.2 42.4 214 6.7 34.4 9280 ...
P24p 0.002 0.009 35.8 35.1 36.0 34.6 232.5 65 0.44 12.9 2800 ...
P27c 0.001 0.012 31.9 27.6 33.6 27.1 124.8 2 13 2.3 34.7 9150 ...
P29c 0.001 0.007 32.1 26.7 32.7 26.2 195.8 218 1.5 37.7 9200 ...
P31p 0.001 0.015 32.9 29.1 34.1 28.7 91.9 374 4.8 53.9 15800 ...
P33p 0.001 0.038 43.8 38.9 44.3 39.5 76.5 61 1.9 10.7 2160 ...
P35p
P37p
0.001
0.001
0.300
0.018
40.8
42.8
37.0
40.4
41.9
43.6
36.5
40.2
11.2
169.5
47
51
15.0
0.8
9.5
11.5
2250
2140
.. .. ..
P39c 0.001 0.130 40.6 37.1 41.0 35.9 24.9 48 6.3 11.3 2120 ...
P41c 0.001 0.032 42.1 37.7 42.8 37.2 99.2 49 1.5 12.4 2080 ...
P430 0.001 0.016 42.7 39.4 43.3 38.9 192.2 50 0.9 11.3 2080 ...
P45p 0.001 0.049 42.6 38.4 43.2 37.9 50.5 138 7.0 24.1 5900 ...
P47p 0.001 0.019 42.8 39.7 43.2 39.2 138.5 137 2.4 24.8 5770 ...
P49c
P51c
0.001
0.001
0.070 41.8 35.8 42.3 35.3 39.6 134 9.1 24.5 5770 ...
0.020 41.8 37.8 42.5 37.2 118.3 147 3.0 23.5 5950 . . I

P53p 0.001 0.040 41.8 38.1 42.6 37.7 60.7 187 7.2 31.5 7920 ...
P55c 0.001 0.062 41.2 37.1 41.7 36.6 41.1 187 11.3 31.4 8000 ...
P57c 0.001 0.018 40.3 36.3 40.9 36.0 123.5 195 3.6 32.1 8150 ...
P59p 0.001 0.021 42.7 38.6 43.1 37.9 104.5 339 7.1 50.0 14200 ..
...
f

P61p 0.001 0.060 51.8 49.6 52.3 49.0 76.2 88 5.2 16.2 3690
P63c 0.001 0.035 51.9 47.9 53.1 48.8 132.1 88 3.2 15.8 3650 ...
P65p 0.001 0.178 53.4 49.4 56.0 49.0 32.0 121 20.8 21.8 5380 ...
P67p 0.001 0.031 55.1 49.9 55.6 49.6 141.8 123 4.0 20.6 5070 ...
P69c 0.001 0.105 53.9 47.6 55.2 48.5 51.8 120 13.1 21.3 5140 ...
P7lo 0.001 0.058 53.6 46.8 54.2 46.0 75.7 201 11.8 30.5 8400 ...
P73p 0.001 0.042 54.6 47.7 55.2 47.1 95.1 201 8.7 32.3 8320 ...
P75p 0.001 0.069 55.9 47.1 56.2 46.9 57.4 354 24.8 49.4 14900 ...
(1 Data on only every other run are given.
518 INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY Vol. 26,No. 5
tered the column within 3' C. of the liquid temperature at the air R = gas constantb cc. atm./gram mole/' K.
inlet. A condenser in the waste pipe served to recover most of T = abs. temp., K.
the liquid vaporized. PBM = logarithmic mean partial pressure of the inert gas
(air) through which the vapor diffuses, mm. Hg.
The liquids used were substantially constant-boiling cuts A mean difference between vapor pressure of liquid
A ~ =
obtained by distillation of the ordinary commercial grades. and partial pressure of vapor in air stream,
Careful measurements of the vapor pressures of each of the mm. Hg.
2 = Nm thickness, cm.
organic liquids used checked closely the data available in the
literature on the pure compounds. Duplicate measurements
were made on samples of each liquid before and after use, I n calculating APA,the liquid vapor pressures used were
a n d in no case was any appreciable change in vapor pressure those corresponding to the observed inlet and outlet liquid
noted. temperatures. The partial pressure of the vapor in the
entering air was zero for the organic liquids, and in the tests
OF CALCULATION
METHODS vaporizing water was obtained from the wet- and dry-bulb
The procedure in interpreting the results was to obtain temperatures of the inlet air. For the organic liquids the
values for each run of the effective film thickness, z, in the partial pressure of the vapor in the outlet air was calculated
.,
Stefan diffusion eauation (9) from the measured rate of vaporization and rate of air flow,
together with the above value of the partial pressure of the
N A = - DP
- ~ J A vapor in the inlet air. For the runs using water, the partial
RTx P B M (1)
pressure of water vapor in the outlet air was calculated from
where N A gram diffusing/secm/sq. Of interphase the measured dry- and wet-bulb temperatures. The value
surface
D diffusion coefficient, sq. cm./sec. of A p n used was a logarithmic mean of the values of the
P total pressure, atm. driving force a t the top and bottom of the column, respec-

TABLE11. DATAON VAPORIZATION OF VARIOUB ORGANIC LIQUIDV


(Letter p after the run number indicates parallel flow of air and liquid: c denotes countercurrent flow)
DRY-BULB DRY-BdLB
TEMP. LIQUIDTDMP. TEMP. LIQVIDTEMP.
Entar. T,rav- Enter- ~.Leav- Enter-
. Leav-
~. Enter- Leav-
ing ing ing ine RATD ing ing ing ing RATE
wetted- wetted- wetted- wetted- ABS. OF wetted- wetted- wetted- wetted- ABS. OF
wall wall w@ wtll PREB-AIR VAPOIII- wall wall wall wall PRES- AIS VAPORI-
Rna section section aection section SURD RATEZATION d / z d u p / P R V N section section aection section SUB^ RAT^ Z A T I O N d / z dud9
a,/ e!./ a./ cc.1
O c. C. C. a C. Cm. H a min. mzn. a C. 0 C. C. C. Cm. Ha min. mzn.
UECONDARY BUTYL ALCOHOL
Salp 35.7 34.1 35.9 34.3 76.5 143 11.6 45.5 54.2 47.2 77.7 249 22.3 73.0 10600
8 Sa3p 33.7 32.1 33.9 32.4 77.0 229 15.6 66.4 ClP 54.3 46.9
34.5 32.7 78.2 330 21.4 88.0 C3P 54.0 47.5 54.8 48.0 79.5 348 28.7 92.8 14600
Sa5p 34.5 32.6 53.3 46.9 54.0 47.2 77.2 204 18.1 59.2 8600
Sa7p 35.1 32.8 35.3 32.9 76.2 71 6.0 26.1 C5P
34.2 35.4 34.4 77.7 57 5.1 20.8 C7P 53.1 47.3 53.2 47.4 76.7 145 13.6 44.8 6190
Sa9c 35.8 54.1 48.1 53.8 48.5 76.5 95 9.7 31.4 4050
Salla 33.5 31.7 33.3 31.8 76.2 121 8.8 37.7 46.7 53.1 46.9 76.5 52 5.7 21.3 2230
35.3 33.3 34.8 33.4 78.2 243 17.0 65.6 8:fp 52.5
Sal30 C13c 54.1 47.6 54.0 47.9 79.0 71 8.2 27.1 3040
Sal5p 34.7 32.6 34.3 32.6 29.4 66 14.9 24.2 76.7 110 11.1 36.1 4730
34.6 33.5 34.8 32.7 93.4 72 4.6 24.8 C15c 53.3 45.9 53.1 46.3
Sal7p C17c 54.0 46.7 53.7 47.0 77.2 176 17.4 54.2 7480
Sal9p 34.5 32.8 34.7 32.9 142.0 72 3.0 24.2 53.9 45.8 78.5 2 50 22.9 72.4 10600
36.5 34.5 36.4 34.7 45.5 115 16.5 36.3 c19c 54.0 45.6
Sa2lp 47.5 53.9 47.7 50.6 65 11.3 25.5 2860
Sa23p 36.4 35.0 36.2 36.2 122.8 119 5.9 35.2 2%
vroy
54.1
53.8 47.8 54.0 48.0 118.0 67 4.7 24.9 2820
NORMAL BUTYL ALCOHOL c25n
___r 53.3 47.8 53.8 48.1 150.0 114 5.9 38.1 4740
53.2 49.4 54.1 49.6 77.0 123 10.4 42.1 3370 C27p 53.2 47.8 53.1 48.0 96.8 114 9 . 1 38.3 4830
51.6 47.5 52.8 47.8 78.7 44 3.9 17.4 1840 C29p 52.9 46.2 52.6 46.5 31.2 110 28.6 40.8 5040
52.0 48.9 51.6 48.8 77.7 97 7.0 28.4 4030
52.4 47.6 52.1 47.5 82.0 100 6.9 30.7 4150 SDCONDARY AMYL ALCOBOL
52.8 48.2 53.9 48.4 77.7 208 13.9 50.7 8700 SIP 50.3 42.0 50.5 42.4 77.0 108 10.2 3 8 . 3 4600
51.6 47.5 51.7 47.5 78.7 44 3.6 16.2 1840 93P 49.5 39.5 49.7 40.1 78.5 283 20.4 76.0 12000
52.5 47.3 52.7 47.4 77.2 226 16.2 64.1 9420 S5P 49.7 39.0 49.9 39.6 80.0 371 26.6 101 16000
53.3 49.7 54.1 50.1 77.0 203 15.4 53.6 8500 49.3 40.9 76.7 68 6 . 0 23.5 2940
50.9
62.7
47.1
56.5
51.0
62.5
47.1
56.4
77.7
77.5
351
52
20.0
7.8
86.6
21.0
14600
2210
E!
$110
48.8
49.2
49.1
40.5
43.7
42.5
49.0
48.6
44.9
42.2
78.2
80.2
53
83
5.3 19.5
7.6 28.3
2300
3570
50.7 47.7 51.2 47.9 24.8 68 18.1 26.8 3160 S13c 49.3 42.2 49.4 42.3 77.2 112 10.6 3 7 . 5 4820
50.0 47.6 50.7 47.8 96.0 75 4.2 24.4 3100 Sl5C 49.2 40.8 48.7 42.7 78.2 214 18.4 65.9 9170
50.3 48.4 50.5 48.4 147.0 75 2.9 25.2 3090 S17p 49.2 38.2 49.0 40.2 25.2 65 20.6 26.8 3040
52.7 46.8 52.6 47.1 39.6 153 25.0 51.6 6620 s19p 48.8 40.6 49.4 40.7 95.0 69 4.8 23.2 2950
52.0 47.2 52.1 47.2 90.3 160 10.1 48.8 6660 s21p 48.8 40.8 49.4 40.9 154.8 68 3.0 23.9 2880
TOLVQNQ S23p 49.0 40.7 49.3 40.9 53.9 107 14.6 3 9 . 5 4690
S25p 50.3 42.8 50.7 43.1 119.1 111 6.4 36.7 4720
Tlc 42.9 37.7 43.2 37.9 76.7 96 16.4 32.3 4250
T3p 41.3 38.8 41.8 40.1 77.0 140 22.0 45.2 6180 ETHPL AQETATm
T5p 42.2 38.7 41.9 38.8 77.5 216 31.2 61.4 9470
38.1 41.9 38.1 78.5 281 38.0 77.0 12300 Elp 20.2 15.1 21.0 16.0 77.7 235 30.4 62.0 11000
T7p 41.9 20.5 76.7 104 21.2 35.8 5000
41.2 39.3 41.6 39.4 76.7 296 15.9 32.5 4240 E3p 24.8 20.2 24.0
Tgp 2560 38.5 25.5 37.0 25.7 77.2 180 55.3 54.8 8650
Tllp 42.2 39.1 42.5 39.2 76.7 58 9.8 20.2 E5p
37.1 42.8 37.2 77.2 195 29.6 56.0 8570 E7p 21.8 16.2 23.4 16.4 78.5 278 38.0 76.6 13000
T13c 42.8 15.9 80.0 357 44.0 93.0 16500
T15c 43.4 39.1 43.5 39.2 76.7 54 10.1 19.4 2390 21.1 15.5 21.9
49.7 76.7 79 26.5 30.4 3690 E?P 25.4 21.6 24.8 21.9 76.7 70 15.8 25.8 3370
T17c 54.7 49.5 54.2 77.7 49 12.8 20.2 2420
Tl9c 53.4 46.8 53.7 47.1 76.7 208 56.1 66.8 9450 E130 26.0 22.1 25.1 21.8
41.7 38.3 42.6 38.4 25.9 188 49.2 32.3 4480 E15c 24.7 20.4 24.5 24.6 80.2 95 19.7 33.1 4550
T21p E17c 24.2 19.5 23.9 24.6 77.2 146 28.8 46.8 6950
T23p 41.5 39.3 41.5 39.4 100.5 96 12.2 33.1 4220
39.8 41.5 39.9 149.8 96 7.9 31.9 4120 E19c 24.0 18.6 23.6 24.8 78.0 232 41.0 66.7 10900
T25p 41.5 25.3 24.7 49.0 68 25.2 26.0 3500
T27c 44.0 37.8 44.0 38.0 127.6 73 8.1 26.5 3140 E21c 25.7 20.9
T29c 44.3 37.5 44.3 37.6 61.1 70 17.5 27.3 3200
ANILIND
Alc 102.3 97.6 103.4 97.9 76.2 75 9.0 26.1 2900 iiz ::; 3;: 338g:t :; Ti:: iii 2:;: ti:! 1~~~~
A3c
A5c
102.6
102.2
96.7
97.1
102.9
102.5
96.8
97.2
77.0
76.5
183
124
19.3
13.8
53.7
37.8
7000
4770 i;: 33;:; 3 ;: 3:; 3 :; ;:: ',$ ti:: ~~:~ 'ii;:
A7c
A9c
Allc
112.8
112.7
112.9
106.5
105.9
105.5
113.0
112.9
113.0
106.7
106.2
105.6
77.7
76.7
77.0
61
102
151
11.7
17.7
24.8
22.5
32.4
44.8
2400
3960
5820
;ifc zi:; ;:;3 3:; 3;: :;:T lt! li:i i!:: ~~~~

A13c 113.2 105.3 113.0 105.4 77.2 211 34.4 61.5 8200 38*4 32*1 38'2 32*3 78*5 79 14*0 27*4 3600
A15p 112.5 105.8 112.7 106.0 76.2 99 16.4 32.4 3880 Il5P 38*4 30*6 38*8 30*7 25'9 48 28*2 l g e 8 2520
112.3 104.9 112.5 105.2 76.5 167 25.6 50.5 6400 Il7P 39*1 32*7 39-4 32*7 70*6 53 'Oal 2420
A17p
Al9p
A21p
112.6
113.0
104.6
104.3
112.4
113.2
104.8
104.7
76.5
77.0
221
281
38.6
39.0
63.1
74.5
8500
10750
g:: ;:3 Zi:: :"'g: !t 2t:i : ::$
A23p 112.9 105.9 112.8 106.3 28.5 57 31.8 22.1 2600 123p 38.8 31*8 39.2 31*9 92*6 94 12*' 29'8 4220
A25p 112 7 106 1 112 g 106.3 66.8 62 13.0 23.0 2440 125~ 38.0 31.2 38.1 31.3 134.0 95 8 . O 30.O 4190
A27p 112:6 10614 11217 106.6 144.2 61 5.6 22.1 2280
A29p 112.4 105.2 112.7 105.3 103.0 130 15.1 41.3 4950 0 Data on only every other run are given8
May, 1934 INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY 519

tively. The value of P B a t the air inlet was taken as the


logarithmic mean of the difference between the total pressure 0.02 200
and the vapor pressure of the liquid, and the difference be-
tween the total pressure and the partial pressure of the vapor
UPWARD FLOW
0- HEAT TRANSFER
DOWNWARD FLOW
-
in the air stream a t this point. The value of P B a t the air 010 I IO0
outlet was obtained in a similar manner, and ~ B wasM taken 0.008 80

as the arithmetic mean of these two quantities. The arith- 0.006 BO


hd

metic mean was used in this last step, since the value of p e f
a t the two ends of the column never differed greatly. 0.004 40

CALCULATION,
SAMPLE Rux NB7c
0.002 20
Air flow = 100 grams/min.; vaporization = 6.9 cc./min.
n-Butyl alcohol in outlet gas = 0.805 X 6.9 = 5.56 grams/min.
Partial pressure n-butyl alcohol in outlet gas =
5'56/74
5.56
74fm
X 820 = 17.5 mm.
100
0.001
1000 2000 4000 6000
*
IO000 20000 40000 00000
IO

2. EXPERIMENTAL
FIGURE DATAON FLUIDFRICTION AND
Vapor pressure n-butyl alcohol at inlet temp. = 38.0 mm. HEATTRANSFER
IN EXPEFUMENT.4L APPARATUS
Vapor pressure n-butyl alcohol at outlet temp. = 28.7 mm.
Mean driving force =
28.7 -
(38.0 - 17.5) = 24.4 mm.
I n the case of the tests on water, the measurements of
28.7
In - the outlet humidity made possible a check of the water
20.5
evaporated, against the water picked up by the air. The
p B M = 820 -
38.0 f 17.5 +
28.7 I799 -. calculated values of these quantities for the runs a t atmos-
4 pheric pressures checked within about 7 per cent, on the
D at 49.9"C. and 820 mm. = 0.0974 X 760 = 0.0903 sq. cm./sec. average, and the maximum deviation was 11 per cent. This
comparison serves as an indication of the accuracy of the
Wetted surface = 2.67 X T X 117 = 981 sa. em. method used in measuring rates of vaporization. The
5.56 values for outlet air humidity given in the tables were cal-
Nd = = 0.00000128 gram mole/sec./sq. em.
60 X 74 X 981 culated from the measured wet- and dry-bulb temperatures
of the outlet air.
In order to be able to compare the results on diffusion
-
- 2.67 X 82.07 X 323 X 799 X 0.00000128 = 30.7 with the theoretical analogies to friction and to heat transfer,
0.0903 X (820/760) 24.4 values of the friction factor, f, and the surface coefficient of
3 14 heat transfer, h, were obtained experimentally in the same
Cross section of pipe = - 4 (2.67)* = 5.61 sq. cm.
p - viscosity of air at 50' C. = 0.000197
apparatus as was used in the vaporization experiments.
Manometers were connected to pressure taps a t the ends of
the wetted-wall section, and the pressure drop was observed
a t various air velocities. This was done both with a dry
tower and with water circulating, but no change was ob-
Tables I and I1 show the principal data together with the served in the manometer levels when the water-circulating
more important calculated quantities. Table I11 gives pump was started or stopped. Within the precision of the
values taken from the vapor pressure curves used in the measurements, therefore, the falling liquid film had no in-
calculations. Table I V gives values for the liquid densities fluence on the pressure drop due to friction,
and for the diffusion constant, D, reduced to one atmosphere. I n order to measure the coefficient of heat transfer, the
The latter are smoothed values based on experimental de- wetted-wall section of the apparatus was steam-jacketed and
terminations described in another article (6). operated dry as an air heater. From the observed steam
temperature, air velocity, and temperature rise, the surface
TABLE111. VAPORPRESSURES
OF LIQUIDS coefficients of heat transfer from dry pipe to air were cal-

r
(Smoothed valuea from experimental determinations)

Iso-
TEMPERATURE
. sec- sec-
100 , l I ! I I I / I l l
VAPOR n-Butyl propyl Butyl Chloro- Amyl Ethyl
PRESSURE alcohol Toluene alcohol Aniline alcohol bensene alcohol acetate
M m . H p "C. "C. OC. OC. 'C. OC. OC. OC.
10
20
30.0
41.1
.... ..
.. ...
... .. .. ..
..
..
..
30
40
48.0
53.0 32:5 23:4
90.7 3i:5
97.3 37 1
42:4
49 0 4j:7
..
50 57.0 36.8 27.1 102.0 4115 53:s 52.5 i3:i
60 60.2 40.6 30.3 106.4 45.6 68.0 56.2 16.6
70
80
..
.. 43.8 33.3 110.3
40.7 35.9 ... ,.
..
..
.. 59.2
62.0
19,s
21.i
90 .. .. .. .. .. 23.9
100 .. .. .. .. .. 26.2

TABLEIV. PHYSICAL OF LIQUIDS


PROPERTIES
SP.GR.
DIFFCBION COEFFICIENT, D OF LIQUID -
II
30' C. 50' C. AT 30° C. PD
Sq. em. p e r sec.
aec-Amyl alcohol 0.0721 0.0811 0.802 2.26
n-Butyl alcohol 0.0880 0.0975 0.807 1.875
Toluene 0.0876 0.0981 loo0 2000 4000 6000 B o o 0 lQ000 20, 1
0
0.857 1.800
Aniline 0.0749 0.0850 1.013 2.10
Isopropyl alcohol 0.1011 0.1137 0.777 1.61 9
see-Butyl alcohol 0.0903 0.1018 0.797 1.80
Chlorobenzene 0.0750 0.0846 1.095 2.17
FIGURE 3. DATAON WATERAT ATMOSPHERICPRES-
Ethyl acetate 0.0887 0.1005 0.873 1.83 SURE, SHOWING OF ALLOWANCE
EFFECT FOR LIQUID
Water 0.263 0.292 0.996 0.60 VELOCITY IN CALCULATING
THE REYNOLDSNUMBER
520 INDUSTRIAL AND E N G I N E E R I X G CHEMISTRY Vol. 26, No. 5

pipe. Both parallel and countercurrent flow tests fall to-


gether when plotted in this way, proving the liquid velocity
to be a variable of negligible importance for the type of
experiment described. This rather surprising result is
probably due to the relatively low ratio of length to diameter
of the wetted-wall section of the apparatus. I n passing
through this short length of pipe, the velocity gradients in
the air stream were unable to adjust themselves to the effect
of the falling film of liquid. Had the pipe been longer, or
had it been possible to provide falling films on the walls of
the calming sections, an effect of liquid surface velocity
might have been found.

TABLE Ir. LAMINAR FLOWDAT-4


TEMP.
OF LIQCID
At air .it air P A Q ~- P A Q ~ W
entrance exit -
PA% PAGL DpL
c. c.
ETHYL A C E T A T E
LIP 35.4 20.3 14.4 0.49 50.5
L2P 13.6 23.2 20.4 0.68 19.0
TOLUENE
~~

L3c 18.6 35.0 35.7 0.71 25.9


L4c 38.1 31.6 32.5 0.62 53.7
FIGURE
4. vAPORIZ.4TIOX DATAOBTAINED UNDER CON- L5c 6.4 32.1 34.5 0.89 8.6
DITIONS OF TURBULENT
AIR FLOW L6p 15.8 35.1 32.6 0.62 22.5
L7P 40.3 36.2 33.2 0.52 57.1
WATER
culated. Figure 2 shows the experimental values off plotted L8c 12.2 31.8 34.4 0.95 5.6
L9c 36.8 30.8 31.6 0.78 16.8
against the Reynolds number, and on the same figure the heat LlOC 24.5 34.3 33.6 0.90 11.2
transfer data are plotted as hd/k against the same abscissa. Lllp 36.8 41.7 41.4 0.72 16.8
L12p 12.2 35.6 35.4 0.89 5.6
The latter are seen to agree excellently with the equation ISOPROPYL ALCOEOL
recommended by McAdams (10) for heat transfer to air L13c 19.5 24.3 25.9 0.iO 20.2
L14c 34.5 25.6 26.1 0.62 35.3
flowing in turbulent motion in a round pipe. L15p 10.0 23.2 23.0 0.80 10.7
SECONDARY A M Y L ALCOHOL
DISCUSSI~N OF RESULTS L16p 44.0 33.5 29.6 0.50 71.0
L17p 14.5 34.2 32.0 0.59 23.6
L18c 34.5 33.2 33.5 0.56 55.0
The factor which may be expected to have the greatest L190 7.3 34.1 37.0 0.90 11.8
influence on the effective film thickness for diffusion is the CHLOROBENZENE
L20p 25.9 44.2 43.2 0.55 37.6
turbulence condition of the air, and the best criterion of this L21c 15.9 43.6 45.2 0.62 23.3
variable is doubtless the Reynolds group, d u p / p . At first L220 10.0 42.1 45.2 0.67 14.3
NORMAL BUTYL A L C O H O L
though it. might seem that the velocity, u, should be the L23p 20.9 48.2 47.2 0.62 27.0
velocity of the air relative to the surface of the liquid. Since L24p 44.0 49.3 42.2 0.51 57.3
L25c 13.6 48.3 49.3 0.77 17.5
the liquid rat,es were sufficiently low to indicate viscous flow L26c 31.8 47.6 48.0 0.59 41.4
conditions in the liquid film, the theoretical formulas (8)
were used in calculating the surface velocity of the falling Figure 4 shows the data on water obtained a t all pressures
film. To obtain a relative velocity, the calculated surface used, together with the turbulent flow data for the various
velocity,' usually about 0.7 meter per second, mas added organic liquids. The group d/x is entirely analogous t o the
to or subtract'ed from the linear velocity of the air, depending corresponding group hd/k for heat transfer, since h / k repre-
on whether the flow was countercurrent or parallel. The sents the thickness of a stagnant air layer which would have
type of correlation obtained, using the Reynolds number the same thermal resistance as is actually encountered a t
based on this relative velocity, is shown in Figure 3, in the gas-solid interface. I n order to compare the results with
which the dimensionless group, d/x, is plotted against the heat transfer data, a dotted line representing McAdams'
Reynolds number on this basis. Only t'he first thirty runs recommended equation for heat transfer to air has been
for vaporization of water a t atmospheric pressure are shown. added to Figure 4. CompariSon of this curve with the d 8 u -
The correlation is good for both parallel flow and counter- sion data shows that the effective film thickness for heat
current flow, but the lines representing each of these groups transfer is greater than the effective film thickness for diffu-
of runs diverge widely a t low velocities. Since these lines sion a t the same Reynolds number, for each of the vapors
could clearly be brought much closer together if the surface used. The approximate check of the heat transfer line with
velocity corrections were omitted, these data are shown on the data on vaporization of water a t low Reynolds numbers
Figure 3 plotted us. the actual gas velocity relative to the substantiates the Maxwell theory of the wet-bulb thermome-
1 The effect of air velocity on this calculated velocity of the liquid surfaoe ter as applied to the determination of water vapor in air
was estimated by introducing the measured friction factor, f , into an inte- (12). The spread of the points on Figure 4 shows that a t a
grated form of the equation: given Reynolds number the effective film thickness for one
bpd p du vapor may be nearly twice that for a second vapor. The
(4-z)pf- = - -
4L Q dz
lack of correlation for the various vapors is clearly due to
where Q = thickness of falling liquid film; z = distance from stationary the omission of an important variable or group of variables
wall to any point in film; u = lineal velocity a t the point; p , p = viscosity
and density of liquid; d = diameter of pipe; g = gravitational acceleration;
representing the physical properties of gas and diffusing
A p = pressure drop due to friction in a length of pipe, L. Any consistent vapor. Both dimensional analysis and the Colburn equa-
units may be used. The sign before the second term is positive or negative tion discussed below suggest that the missing group is p / p D ,
depending on whether the flow is parallel or countercurrent. The allowance representative of the properties of the film. Values of the
for the effect of air velocity b y the inclusion of the second term was found
t o make a negligible difference in the calculated surface velocity for the
group p / p D , which is essentially independent of temperature,
conditione of the tests described. are given in Table I V for the vapor-air systems used in the
May, 1934 I N D U S T R I A L -4ND E N G I N E E R I S G CHEMISTRY 521

TABLEVI. HEAT TRANSFER AND PRESSURE DROPDETERMI- sorption of one vapor when data are available on the per-
NATIONS
formance of the same tower for the absorption of another
d@~ PRESSURE CONDITION AIR FLOW vapor.
II. DROP f h O F T O W E RD I R E C T I O N
G . cal./sec./ The data shown on Figures 4 and 5 cover a range of total
M m . HtO sq. m./"C. pressures from 110 to 2330 mm. of mercury, and a somewhat
3460 0.61 Dry wider range of variations in the inert partial pressure, EM.
4300 0.71 .. Dry ",wn
5980 1.42 .. Dry Down The Stefan equation calls for a variation in rate of diffusion,
6250 1.52 Dry Down
7300 1.75 Dry UP N A , with DP/pa.vr. However, since D varies inversely with
7880 2.21 Dry Down P , ;VA should vary inversely with P B M . Values of x calculated
9600 3.26 .. Dry Down
17000 8.85 . . Dry Down from the experimental data should not vary with pressure,
25200 18.0 .. Dry Down
5730 1.27 .. Wet UP since proper values of P E M were used in Equation 1 in cal-
5730 1.22 .. Wet Down culating the results. This prediction is verified by Figure 6
8240 2.28 Wet UP
8240 2.41 Wet Down which shows djz, corrected for variations in Reynolds num-
12300 4.62 Wet
12300 4.65 .. Wet 2 w n
... .... ..
-
2350 15.2 UP
3620 . I . 21.4 .. Down
?
...
3
3980 21.0 0.04
5920 ... 30.6
7820 ... 36.9 Down
10000 ... ....
.. UP x
14800 ... .... Down PIX 0.02
16900 ... UP
24200 ... Down
25900 ... UP
0.01
80 100 ZW 400 600 1000 Zoo0 4000
present investigation. The data are, in fact, brought to- TOTAL PRESSURE-mm Hq.
gether by the introduction of the group, (,LLL/PD)O.~~. This is
shown b y Figure 5 in which d/x divided by ( , L L / ~ D ) is O.~~ FIGURE6. EFFECTOF TOTALPRESSURE
shown plotted US. the Reynolds number. All of the points
for the various vapors here fall very close to a single line, ber by dividing by ( d u p / ~ ) O . plotted
~~, US. total pressure for
the equation of which is: the turbulent flow data, No trend of variations with pres-
sures is evident, and the data consequently substantiate the
--- 0.023 ( -
d ~ ) " . ~ ~
(s)"~~ use of the Stefan equation for interphase transfer through
gas films. The dotted line shown represents the empirical
Equation 2 for each of three vapors.
Each of the three groups is dimensionless and any self-
Colburn ( 2 ) has treated the problem of interphase material
consistent set of units may be emplpyed. This equation,
transfer through a gas in turbulent motion in a manner
which is of general applicability under conditions of turbulent
entirely analogous to the Prandtl modification of the Rey-
gas flow in wetted-wall towers, is similar to the corresponding
nolds equation for heat transfer. He applies the basic
Reynolds assumption to the turbulent core or eddy layer
200
, and treats the transfer through the laminar surface layer as
I a process of true diffusion. The resulting equation is:
0 - N-BUTYL ALCOHOL
(4)
100

80
0 -
150-PROPYL ALCOHOL
-
I Y C - A M Y L ALCOHOL where k , = coefficient of material transfer, grams/(sec.)
(sq. cm.)(atm.)
1- 60 f = friction factor in Fanning equation for pressure
drop due t o friction
p = density of main gas stream, grams/cc.
40 MA = mol. wt. of diffusing vapor
MJf = av. mol. wt. of main gas stream
= mean partial pressure of nondiffusing or inert gas
in laminar laver
20 4 =i-r+r($j
r = ratio of fluid velocity a t boundary between
laminar and eddy layers, t o av. velocity u of
main fluid stream
10
1000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 20.000 40 000 p = av. abs. viscosity of laminar layer, grams/(sec.)
(cy.)
D = diffusion coefficient, sq. cm./sec.
FIGURE 5. ENPIRKC~L
CORRELiTIOS OF TURBULEVT
FLOW
DATA The value of T is given approximately by the equation ( 2 1 ) :

general equation recommended by hfcddams ( I O ) for heat r = 5.9 fl (5)


t,ransfer to fluids flowing in turbulent motion in pipes: Equation 4 may be rewritten as:

k
= 0.0225 ( d2
; )o.8 (y)"" (3)

This equation is represented by the dotted line on Figure 5.


The correlation obtained and summarized by Equation 2 is Figure 7 shows the present data replotted, using the left-
believed to be of considerable practical value in absorption hand side of this equation as an ordinate and the right-hand
tower design. If due allowance is made for possible liquid side as abscissa. The values of r used in calculating 4 were
film resistances, Equations 1 and 2 may be used as a basis obtained from Equation 5 . The values of f were obtained
for the prediction of the performance of a tower for the ab- from Figure 2. The correlation of the points is good, but
522 INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY Vol. 26, No. 5
fluid. Consequently, for heat transfer, 1 - r represents the
core resistance, and rcp/lc represents the resistance of the
laminar film. For heat transfer if BH represents the thick-
ness of the laminar layer, then

where +H = 1 - r +T %'
k
X H = effective total a m thickness for heat transfer

Arnold assumes that BD = BH; whence it follows that the


groups dpD+/xp and dhqb/cpt should be the same function of
the Reynolds number. I n addition to the diffusion data,
Figure 8 shows a line representing Equation 3 recommended
by McAdams for heat transfer to gases in pipes, and also the
data of Figure 2 on heat transfer to air flowing in the same
apparatus in which the vaporization tests were carried out.
On this basis, ~ / B appears
H to be some 30 to 35 per cent less
than ~ / B D This
. may be compared with the analysis by
Sherwood and Comings (12) of Marks' data on wet-bulb
measurements for various liquids, which showed a deviation
from the Arnold theory of some 15 to 25 per cent in the op-
posite direction.
FIGURE7. COXPARISON THEO-
OF DATA WITH COL~URN
RETICAL EQUATION DATAOBTAINEDIN VISCOUS FLOW
the solid line representing the theoretical equation falls The discussion so far has referred only to the data ob-
roughly 30 per cent below the data. This is apparently tained in turbulent flow. At values of d u p / p below about
not due to the use of incorrect values of f, for these were 2000, the flow is viscous and the interphase transfer is pre-
determined experimentally and check within a few per cent sumably by true diffusion, not only through a laminar film,
of the best correlations of data on turbulent-flow friction
(6). Somewhat better agreement would be obtained if the 2 00

values of T used were greater than those given by Equation 5. Ll I I 1


The maximum value of T is unity, however, so that only a
limited improvement could be made by using other values of
this ratio.
From the derivation of Equation 4 i t follows that:

where pa, p / , p i = partial pressures of diffusing vapor in main


gas stream, at boundary of laminar layer,
and at interface between phases, respec-
tively
The respective resistances of eddy and laminar layers may
be taken as proportional to the driving forces p a - p/ and
p/ - pi, and it follows that the right-hand side of Equation 7 1000 2000 4000 0000 W l M O O =,OW 40.000
represents the ratio of eddy or core to laminar film resistance. *d
Thus 1 - r represents the resistance of the former, and
FIGURE8. COMPARISON OF VAPORIZATION AND OF HEAT
~ p / p Drepresents the resistance of the Iaminar layer. TRANSFERDATA.BASEDON ARNOLD THEORY
Arnold (1) has made the logical suggestion that the thick-
ness of the assumed laminar layer may be the same for heat but throughout the air stream. Under conditions where the
transfer and for diffusion, provided, of course, that the turbu- inert pressure, I ) B , is nearly equal to the total pressure, P,
lence conditions are the same. If this assumption is made, the basic differential equation for diffusion reduces to :
and if BD represents the thickness of the laminar layer from
the point of view of diffusion, then from the above resistance
ratios,
This may be integrated to give an equation for diffusion
into a viscous stream flowing in a round pipe. The pro-
cedure is the same as that followed in deriving the similar
BD should be a function of the Reynolds number only, as is relations for heat transfer (3, 4).
the ratio, r . Hence, for each vapor, dpDq5/xp should be For rodlike flow-i. e., assuming a uniform velocity across
the same function of the Reynolds group. Figure 8 shows the diameter of the pipe-the integration leads to the equa-
this group plotted vs. d u p / p for the turbulent flow data of tion :
the present investigation. The correlation is seen to be
" - m
excellent. The Prandtl equation for heat flow is similar to
Equation 4, but the group p / p D is replaced by cp/lc, where
c is the specific heat and k the thermal conductivity of the
where P A M - partial pressure of ditfusing gas in mairi gas stream
at outlet
on a parabolic velocity gradient. This effect in heat transfer
has been ascribed (4) to free convection effects caused by
p i e , = partial pressure of diffusing gas in main gas stream
a t inlet temperature gradients through the fluid, or to the fact that
P A S = partial pressure of diffusing gas at phaso boundary the parabolic velocity gradient is but partially attained in a
(innor surface of t.ube), assumed constant
throughout length L
D = diffusion coeficient.. sa.. cm./soc.
.
rr = 3.1410
iV = weight rate of gas floa, gramslsec.
I, = tube Ienglh, cm.
p = density of main gas stream, gramslco.
an = nth root of Bossel function .I& = 0)

Iii isothernial viscous flow tlie velocity is a parabolic function


of the distance from tlie central axis, and the cylinders of
fluid near the axis have a greater vapor-carrying capacity
23.
tlian those near the wall of the pipe. If the parabolic ve-
locity gradient is allowed for in the derivation, the result is DATAOWAINEDIN Vrscous FLOW
F i w n E 9. VAPOR~ZATLON
soniewliat more complicated than E q u d o n 11, but iriny be COMPARE^ NETEXDAT.~ OP H a s ~ k x ,H E ~ S H EAND
Y . KEN ON
reiluced t o AssonPno~or Sumon Droxio~AND Axxorm

sliort length of pipe. I n the present tests, however, the


flow was substantially isothermal and tile tube vertical;
consequently, free convection eddies due to thermal gradients
should have been a t a minimum. The vaporization data
In the derivation of Equations 11 and 12, the partial pressure plotted represent both parallel and counterflow tests; thus,
PA; is assumed constant throughout the length of the pipe, the falling film could not have been a disturbing factor.
and diffusion in a direction parallel to the axis of tile pipe is The agreement of the data with the theoretical equation for
neglected. rodlike flow is not justified theoretically, but the theoretical
Both theoretical equations are shown plotted in Figure 9 line sliown repres0nt.s an enipirical correlation of the data.
pnm - pnGl
as vs. W/DpL. The maximum value of the CITEO
LITERATURE
PA< - prm
~

ordinate is unity, which corresponds to equilibrium a t the 11) Amold, J. H.. Phlisiu. 4. 255 (1933)
wall and is approached at ION velocities, in long tubes, or (2) Colburn, IND.ENQ.C ~ E M22,.967
., (1930)
(3) Drew, T. B., Tnm. Am. Inst. Chem. E n p a . , 26,26 (1931).
for large values of D. On the same plot are shown tlie (4) Drew. Hogan, and McAdams. IND.Em. CHEX..23.936 (1931).
vaporization data obtained in the viscous flow region in the ( 5 ) Drew. Koo. and MoAdams. T ~ a n s .Am. Inst. Chem. Enom.. . .
present investigation, and the data on absorption of sulfur 2 8 ’ 5 6 (1932).
dioxide and of ammonia obtained by Haslam, Hershey, and Gilliland. to be published in IND.ENR.Caax.
Haslam. Hershey. nnd Kean. IND,Em.Caea., 16, 1224 (1924).
Kean (7), using a wetted-wall column with air flowing below Lamb. “Hydrodynamios,” 5th ed.. p. 550, Cambridge Uni-
its critical velocity. versity Press, 1924; see aLao Colburo and Hougesn. UniV. Wb.
Both vaporization and absorption data fall together on Eng. Enpt. Sta., Bull. 70, 31 (1930).
1.ewi~and Cheng, Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Engrs., 21. 127 (1928).
the line representing the theoretical equation for rodlike MoAdanw, “Host Transmission,” MoGraw-Hill, New York,
flow. Since the flow was viscous, a parabolic velocity 1 n*tl
I-““.

doubtless existed, and the data would be expected to check I111 Prandtl, Z. Ph:vsik. 11, 1072 (1910); 29, 457 (I!X?S).
the lower line for Equation 12. I n a siinilar way, tlie data (12) Sherwood and Comings. Tnms. Am. Insf. Chem. Engrs.. 28,
on heat transfer in viscous RON check the equation for rod- 107 (3032).
like flow hetler tlian they do tlre theoretical equation based R r c m r v ~ o December 28. 1835.

También podría gustarte