0
Journal of Solar Energy Engineering | Volume 129 | Issue 1 | Research Paper
RESEARCH PAPERS

CFD Analysis of the Radiation Distribution in a New Immobilized Catalyst Bubble Column Externally Illuminated Photoreactor

[+] Author and Article Information
Francisco J. Trujillo, Tomasz Safinski

Reactor Engineering & Technology Group, School of Chemical Engineering & Industrial Chemistry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia

Adesoji A. Adesina1

Reactor Engineering & Technology Group, School of Chemical Engineering & Industrial Chemistry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia

1

Corresponding author.

J. Sol. Energy Eng 129(1), 27-36 (Apr 28, 2006) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2391013 History: Received July 08, 2005; Revised April 28, 2006
Article
References
Figures
Citing Articles

A new externally irradiated photoreactor configuration combining the excellent mass transfer characteristics of a bubble column operation with the separation power of an immobilized catalyst on quartz plates has been investigated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation. The radiative transport equation (RTE) in conjunction with the Navier-Stokes equations were solved to obtain the light incident radiative flux and the light absorbed by the immobilized titania as a function of the gas superficial velocity, the angle of inclination, and the separating distance between the plates. The model employed water and air as the fluid phases and the results indicated that gas bubbling considerably increased the incident radiation in the gas-liquid mixture enhancing the radiative flux and the absorbed radiation on the titania-coated plates. The CFD results pave the way for the optimization of a solar photocatalytic reactor for the degradation of organic pollutants.
FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
+Reactor configuration. (1) Fluorescent UV lamp tubes. (2) Diffuser. (3) Quartz window. (4) Cooling jacket. (5) Mott perforated sparger plate. (6) Titania coated quartz plates.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Reactor configuration. (1) Fluorescent UV lamp tubes. (2) Diffuser. (3) Quartz window. (4) Cooling jacket. (5) Mott perforated sparger plate. (6) Titania coated quartz plates.
Figure 1

Reactor configuration. (1) Fluorescent UV lamp tubes. (2) Diffuser. (3) Quartz window. (4) Cooling jacket. (5) Mott perforated sparger plate. (6) Titania coated quartz plates.

Grahic Jump Location
+(a) Reflection and refraction on the bubble surface. (b) Light scattering on the bubble (taken from (30)). (c) Scattering phase function. βc=180-2θc=83.4°.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
(a) Reflection and refraction on the bubble surface. (b) Light scattering on the bubble (taken from (30)). (c) Scattering phase function. βc=180-2θc=83.4°.
Figure 2

(a) Reflection and refraction on the bubble surface. (b) Light scattering on the bubble (taken from (30)). (c) Scattering phase function. βc=180-2θc=83.4°.

Grahic Jump Location
+(a) Liquid velocity profile. (b) Gas hold-up. (c) Scattering coefficient. (i) Vertical quartz plate. (ii) 45° inclined plate.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
(a) Liquid velocity profile. (b) Gas hold-up. (c) Scattering coefficient. (i) Vertical quartz plate. (ii) 45° inclined plate.
Figure 3

(a) Liquid velocity profile. (b) Gas hold-up. (c) Scattering coefficient. (i) Vertical quartz plate. (ii) 45° inclined plate.

Grahic Jump Location
+(a) Intensity radiation in the middle of the reactor (δ=22.5°). (b) Local hemispherical radiative flux qλ on the directly illuminated wall surface of the plate. (c) Local hemispherical radiative flux on the undersidewall surface of the plate. (i) zero gas flow rate. (ii) Vs=0.025ms−1.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
(a) Intensity radiation in the middle of the reactor (δ=22.5°). (b) Local hemispherical radiative flux qλ on the directly illuminated wall surface of the plate. (c) Local hemispherical radiative flux on the undersidewall surface of the plate. (i) zero gas flow rate. (ii) Vs=0.025ms−1.
Figure 4

(a) Intensity radiation in the middle of the reactor (δ=22.5°). (b) Local hemispherical radiative flux qλ on the directly illuminated wall surface of the plate. (c) Local hemispherical radiative flux on the undersidewall surface of the plate. (i) zero gas flow rate. (ii) Vs=0.025ms−1.

Grahic Jump Location
+(a) qλ vs. Vs for the right wall surface of the vertical plate. (b) qλ vs. Vs for both walls of the plate inclined at δ=45°. (c) qλ,av vs. Vs at different inclination angles for 100% diffuse light. (d) qλ,av vs. Vs at different inclination angles for 50–50% diffuse-direct light.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
(a) qλ vs. Vs for the right wall surface of the vertical plate. (b) qλ vs. Vs for both walls of the plate inclined at δ=45°. (c) qλ,av vs. Vs at different inclination angles for 100% diffuse light. (d) qλ,av vs. Vs at different inclination angles for 50–50% diffuse-direct light.
Figure 5

(a) qλ vs. Vs for the right wall surface of the vertical plate. (b) qλ vs. Vs for both walls of the plate inclined at δ=45°. (c) qλ,av vs. Vs at different inclination angles for 100% diffuse light. (d) qλ,av vs. Vs at different inclination angles for 50–50% diffuse-direct light.

Grahic Jump Location
+(a) Incident radiation in the middle of the reactor with 3 vertical plates at different angles (Vs=0.025m∕s). (b) Both sides average hemispherical incident radiative flux qλ,av vs. plate separation distance at different angles (Vs=0.025m∕s).
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
(a) Incident radiation in the middle of the reactor with 3 vertical plates at different angles (Vs=0.025m∕s). (b) Both sides average hemispherical incident radiative flux qλ,av vs. plate separation distance at different angles (Vs=0.025m∕s).
Figure 6

(a) Incident radiation in the middle of the reactor with 3 vertical plates at different angles (Vs=0.025m∕s). (b) Both sides average hemispherical incident radiative flux qλ,av vs. plate separation distance at different angles (Vs=0.025m∕s).

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Members in Bending
Design & Analysis of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Components in the Creep Range> Chapter 3
Numerical Simulation Research on a Fixed Bed Gasifier
International Conference on Information Technology and Management Engineering (ITME 2011)
Short-Pulse Collimated Radiation in a Participating Medium Bounded by Diffusely Reflecting Boundaries
International Conference on Mechanical and Electrical Technology, 3rd, (ICMET-China 2011), Volumes 1–3
Research on Design of the Conical Liquid Hybrid Bearing Base on CFD Numerical Simulation
International Conference on Mechanical and Electrical Technology, 3rd, (ICMET-China 2011), Volumes 1–3
Genetic Approach for Predicting the Missing Value of the Pixel
International Conference on Mechanical and Electrical Technology, 3rd, (ICMET-China 2011), Volumes 1–3
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In