Chemical Engineering Science, 1962, Vol. 17, pp. 245-255. Pergamon Press Ltd., London. Printed in Great Britain.

Fluid dispersion-generalization and comparison of mathematical models-I

Generalization of models

K. B. BISCHOFF~and OCTAVE LEVENSPIEL

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago 16, U.S.A.

(Received 25 November 1960; in revised form 5 May 1961)

Abstract-Many models have been used to characterize dispersion of fluids in flowing systems. Some
account for both transverse and longitudinal dispersion, while others account for longitudinal dispersion
alone. Inaddition, thevariety of experimental tracer methods used to find the parameters of the models
makes the resultant analyses seemingly unrelated.
We show here the relationship between these models and generalize all the previously presented
measurement techniques.
This gives a comprehensive picture of the field of dispersion, allows a quantitative evaluation of the
error incurred when a simple model is used in place of a more exact but more unwieldy model, and gives
future experimenters the necessary information to decide what combination of experimental set-up and
mathematical model yields, within prescribed limits of error, an analysis of desired accuracy.

THE field of fluid mixing in chemical processing
vessels has received much attention in recent years.
The most popular methods for handling the mixing
have been based on models that use diffusion
equations with modified diffusion coefficients. These
are called dispersion models, and the coefficients are
called dispersion coefficients. Table 1 lists the mathe-
matical equations corresponding to the various
dispersion models from the most general and
unwieldy [l] to the most restricted but most
easily handled. Equations I.4 and I.5 are the most
commonly used because of their simplicity.
The information necessary to use the various
equations in Table 1 for design work are values of the
dispersion coefficients. The usual way of finding
these coefficients is through tracer injection experi-
ments. This paper will be concerned with methods of
calculating dispersion coefficients from tracer
injection data, and the second paper will show the
interrelationships between the various models.
A. AXAL DISPERSED PLUG FLOW MODEL
We shall be concerned here with only pulse or
delta-function injections. Other methods such as
step or periodic injections have been used, but the
pulse method is probably the most convenient for
calculating dispersion coefficients from experimental
t Presently at Dept. Chem. Eng., Univ. of Texas, Austin
245
data. LEVENSPIEL and SMITH [2] showed that the
variance or second moment of a measured concen-
tration curve resulting from the injection of a pulse
of tracer across a plane of the flowing system could
be used for this purpose. In their solution they
assumed a perfect delta-function input and a doubly
infinite system (Table 2a). The equations relating
the axial dispersion coefficient and the (dimension-
less) mean and variance are also given there. VAN
DEX LAAN [3] extended this treatment for finite
vessels (Table 2b) using boundary conditions as
discussed by WEHNER and WILHELM [4]. Since a
perfect delta-function input is impossible to achieve
experimentally, ARIS [5], corrected by BISCHOFF [6],
showed that with the use of two measuring points
this restriction could be removed (Table 2c, d).
1. Extensions and generalizations
These previous workers considered many different
cases, but they all assumed that the measurements
could be taken inside the vessel. We shall consider
the case when measurements are taken outside the
vessel. This case along with the previous ones should
cover all possible physical set-ups of interest.
Table 2(e) and (f) shows these cases.
Since the injection point is not important, it is
convenient to base the dimensionless quantities on
the length between measurement points rather than
.
 K. B. BEHOFF and OCTAVE
LEVENSPIEL

Table I. Dispersion models

-
Simplifying assumptions
or restrictions in addition Parameters of
Name of model to those for the model model Defining differential equation
above
--
General dispersion:
includes chemical Constant density 0,‘;;
reaction and g+TVC=V.(DVC)+S+rc 0.1)
source terms
--
General dispersion Bulk flow in axial
in cylindrical direction only. D&O, D&9, v(R)
co-ordinates Radial symmetry
+i -&RDR(R)~+S+rc (I.21
--
Dispersion coefficients
Uniform dispersion independent of position
hence constant
--
Fluid flowing at mean
Dispersed plug flow velocity, hence plug DR, DL, o
flow
--
Axial dispersed No variation in
~+v;x=D’r.~+S+rc
plug flow properties in the radial DIL, u (1.9
direction
-

the length from injection to measurement points.

Therefore, we will call X0 the first measurement x 2 x, iI4
point rather than the injection point as in LINENSPIEL
and SMITH’s or VAN DER LAAN’S work. The position with boundary conditions
X,,, will be taken as the second measurement point, cg=c=cb=O at t=O (24
and the basis for the dimensionless variables will be
L = X,,, - Xo. The injection point need only be ckG3) = co (2b)
located upstream from X0. With the test section
running from X = 0 to X = X, we shall measure c,(O-) - k2
a
(0-j = I - i E co+) w
fkt at X0 I 0 and then at X,,, > 0, where the second
measurement point can be either within the test cdo-) = c(o+) (2d)
section X,,, I X,, or in the exit section, X,,, 2 X,.
dx,> = cb<x,‘> (24
Tracer is injected at X < X0. Let subscript “a”
refer to the entrance section, no subscript refer to the
test section, and subscript 3” refer to the exit
c(x,) - ; E (x,) = c&j+) - f
b
2 (x,‘) (2f)
section. The boundary value problem that must be
cb( + co) = finite (2g)
solved is then, from equation (15) with dimensionless
variables, There are no source terms in equation (1) since the
2 injection point is upstream from the sections over
~+~-$$$=o, X,~X~O (la) which the equations are to be used. The boundary
, (I
conditions are of the same type used by VAN DER
LAAN [3], except for equation (2b). This merely
0 IX 5 x, (lb)
states that we measure the concentration at X = X0,
.
246
 Fluid dispersion-generalization and comparison of mathematical models-I. Generalization of models

Table11 Expermeniol schemes used m relotlon to the owol dispersed plug flow model

Experimental scheme

Levenspwt and Smath

Cal
B t”ncllon dtput
input

:bl x=0 x:x.

YO” dcr Loon [3]

Ara&]ond eischoff [6]

any Input
d)
x=x.
7,, ,, /
-al x-x, x:x,
f
/; / /I/ Aris[S]ond EtschOff b]
L
any Input

---I
e) x:0 x=x.
Y////I AWL from equ (31
; xy,,j This work
A&m equ (41
1
any input ’

III
(0

s
x=0 x=x.
4,u fromequl51
4r’trom equ (6) Th,s work

and we call this cc,. The solution of equations (1) + 4(1 - a)Px, exp[P,x,] -
and (2) is accomplished by the use of Laplace - 4(1 - a’) exp[P,x,] +
transforms following the same scheme as given in
+ 4(1- b2) exp[-Px,] x
[5] and [6]. For details see [7]. Thus, for the second
measurement point within the test section, or x (exp[P2bl- e~~C%J)+
0 5 x, I x, + 2(1 - a)(1 - b) exp[-Px,] x
x (1 - exp[2P,x,]) + (1 - a)2 exp[2POxO] +
A~=/.J,,,-,u,,=l+ - expCPaxol)
+
+ 4(1- b) exp[-fi,] x
l-b
+ p expCP(x, - x31x x {P(x, exd3%J-
- ~3

x (exp[P,x, - Pxm] - 1)
- P(x,- ~3expCPa4+
(3)
Acr = 0; - 0:
+ (1 - b)2 exp[ - 2Px,] x
5a2 + 2(1- a)Px, + x (exp[2Pge] - exp[2Px,l) (4)

247
 and OCTAVELEVENSPIEL
K. B. BISCHOFF

For the second measurement point in the exit type of measurement is to be accurately made, the
section, or x, 2 x, full equation must be used. Equation (4) in its
general form is not too useful since usually if one
A,u = pm - ,no = 1+ 9 (1 - exp[P,x,]) - measurement can be taken inside the vessel then so
can both. Therefore, the general form of equa-
tion (4) in which one measurement is inside and the
- 7 (1 - exp[P,x, - Px,]) (5)
other outside is included only for completeness.
However, a special case of equation (4) is of
interest. This is the case when we take both measure-
ments inside the test section; i.e. a = 1 (Table 2d).
5a2 + 2b + 3b2 + This type of experiment is the best one to use if at all
possible, as will be discussed shortly. If we set
+ 2(1 - b)P(x, - x,) + a = 1, we find

+ 2(1 - a)Pxo +
Ap==,,,--~~=l-- J$ (1 - exp[ -P]) x
-t- 4(1 - a)(Px, - 1 - a) exp[P,x,] +
x exp[P(x, - xJ1 (7)
+ 4(1 - b){ 1 + b - P(x, - x,)} x
2 l-b
x exp[P,x, - PxJ + A.02= 0; - iTg= P -t- p2 exp[P(x, - x3] x

+(l - b)’ exp[2(P,xo - Px~)] + x {4(1 + b)(exp[ - P] - 1) + 4P(x, - x3 +

-t (1 - ~2)~exp[2P,xo] +
-t 2(1 - a)(1 - b) exp[-Px,] x x exp[P(x,
x (1 - exp[2P,xo]) (6)
where
a = P/P, and b = P/Pb
Therefore in order to use this method, the tracer
concentration is measured at two points x0 and x,,
and the variances calculated. The difference in
variances can then be found, and this number is
used in equation (4) or (6) along with the physical
dimensions of the experimental apparatus to calcu-
late P, hence 0;.
2. Comparison of uarious solutions
As far as the actual use of these complicated equa-
tions is concerned, the most important one in its
general form is equation (6). With this equation no
measurements need be taken inside the test section
itself, but only on either side of the section. This
type of measurement would probably be used for
determining the dispersion characteristics of a
process vessel in a plant where there would be no
means available for the insertion of a measurement
probe inside of the vessel itself. The equation is very
cumbersome for computational purposes, but if this
-t- (1 - b)(exp[-2P] - 1) x
- dl +
+ 4P(x, - x0) expC-Pl) (8)
These are the same equations, of course, that were
found in [6]. Equations (7) and (8) reduce to par-
ticularly simple forms for the case of an infinite tube,
where b = 1. Thus letting the subscript “co” refer
to the infinite tube case we find, as shown in Table 2c,
A~m=~~m-~o=l (9a)
(9
Since this is such a great simplification, it would be
convenient for computational purposes to determine
the magnitude of the end effects represented by the
second term in equation (8). As the second measure-
ment point is moved further in from the end of the
finite test section, the size of the second term with
respect to the first becomes negligible. The problem
then is to find, for a given allowable error, the distance
of the second measurement point from the end of the
test section such that the second term may be
neglected. Then, the experimental equipment could
be constructed with these dimensions, and equa-
tion (9b) used to determine P from the measured

248
 Fluid dispersion-generalizationand comparisonof mathematicalmodels-I. Generalizationof models
difference in variances. This problem will be con-
sidered presently. There is another reason why the
measurements should be made such that an infinite
vessel may be assumed, if at all possible. Theoreti-
cally, the end effects could be corrected for by the
use of equations (4), (6) or (8). However, these
equations were all derived assuming no special flow
characteristics at the boundary of the different
sections. Actually, complex flow patterns do exist
at such locations. These may be caused by obstruc-
tions such as flanges, reducers and elbows, among
other things. In packed beds the change from a
packed tube to an empty tube would probably
cause some swirling to occur. Since these effects
cannot be handled mathematically at the present 0.01
o., 0’2 0.4 0.6 00 I.0 z.0

time, the derived equations do not actually take them

(a e- 1 ,I
into account. Therefore, the various end corrections
of equations (4), (6) and (8) are only approximate FIG. 1. Error in assumingan infinitevesselfor P = 10.
for a real physical case. They are probably accurate
enough to be used for prediction of situations when as b gets larger the error gets larger. This is to be
end effects are negligible, but using them as actual expected since large values of b mean high degrees of
corrections in precise calculations might not be mixing in the downstream section, which would
justified. Therefore, to be safe, it would be best to increase the effects of the end of the finite vessel. For
take both measurements inside the test section, and a given error, as b gets larger, the distance of the
to have the second measurement point such that the measurement point from the end of the vessel must
end effects are negligible as determined by tlie above be made larger. If the mixing in the downstream
equations. section becomes infinite, x, - x, must also become
infinite. Thus end effect errors may force the use of
3. Numerical comparison for dlxerent boundary a much larger piece of equipment than originally
conditions anticipated. For example, if b = 20, for a 1 per cent
In order to quantitatively tell when end effects may error, (x, - x,,) x 1. If the measurement section
be neglected, a series of calculations were made is 3 ft long, then in order to have less than 1 per cent
using equations (8) and (9b). A value for P was end effects, there should be a length of at least 3 ft
chosen and AC? found from equation (8). This from the second measurement point to the end of the
value was then used in equation (9b) to calculate vessel. The total length thus must be more than
P, = 2/A& The value P, is the number which 6 ft, which is an appreciable change. One last point
is calculated on the basis of an infinite tube. The to notice from Fig. 1 is that the error rises extremely
fractional difference between these two values was rapidly once a “critical” value of x, - x, is reached.
determined : Therefore, once a set of experimental equipment
P-P dimensions are determined from the Figs., a safety
fL= -y factor should probably be used to insure that the
II total test section will be truly long enough.
This quantity was calculated for a series of values of Fig. 2 is of the same type as Fig. 1 except that
b and x, - x,,, and various graphs made, which are several different levels of P are used. The major
presented below. observation that can be made from Fig. 2 is that for
Fig. 1 shows the error&, plotted against x, - x,,, P > 100 and b c 50, the necessary length to insure
for various values of b(or Pb) for a constant level 1 per cent error is less than (x, - XJ = 0.1. If the
P = 10. Note that at a given measurement position, measurement point is less than this distance in from

249
 0 0. I 0.2 0.3 04

(5 - ‘J

RG. 2. Error in assuming an infinite vessel for various values of P.

the end of the vessel, then the error again rapidly
rises to appreciable values. So in order to avoid a
large error, it is necessary to have the measurement
device inside the vessel, although usually the distance
does not have to be very large. In other words, the
disturbance right at the boundary may be quite large,
but it is not propagated very far into the vessel.
Figs. 3 and 4 are cross plots made for convenience.
B. DISPERSEDPLUG FLOW MODEL
For certain systems a knowledge of radial dis-
persion is needed in addition to axial dispersion.
Tracer experiments are again used to determine the
radial dispersion coefficients. However, since we
axial dispersed plug flow model. In the present case,
however, the method must be modified in order to
keep both axial and radial dispersion in the equa-
tions. It will be recalled that the experimental
equipment is supposed to consist of three parts : the
upstream section X = - co to X = 0, the test section
X = 0 to X = X,, and the downstream section
X = X, to X = + co. In the present derivation
the injection takes place at X,(0 < X,, I XJ and
the measurement is at X,(X, -C X,,,).
Equation (1.4) in dimensionless form is written
for each section, and thus the boundary value
problem to be solved is:
2
$%+_-cypEp),

are now trying to measure radial effects, we will not La Ra

inject over a plane, as was done for the axial measure- XI0 (lOa)
ments, but rather on the axis of the tube. Many i a2c i 1 a ai ac
pg+---r---= -&x-x&f(r),
previous investigators have shown how to utilize L PR ri% ar ax

such information to find radial dispersion coefficients 0 I x 5 x, (lob)

[8-111. Each of their mathematical models, how- i ia acb ac,
ever, had a combination of at least two of the follow-
ing restrictions: infinite system, point source of
tracer (zero injector size), negligible axial dispersion,
axial and radial dispersion coefficients equal. These with f(r) = l/e2 when r 5 e
are summarized in Table 3. I (IO@
= 0 when e I r I 1)
1. Extensions and generalization
The term on the right-hand side of equation (lob)
The infinite system assumption was particularly is the source term that represents the tracer injection,
serious since the errors due to end effects could not and f(r) accounts for the finite injector size, e.
be estimated. The treatment presented below will The boundary conditions are
not use any of the preceding assumptions, and so
should be a generalization of all previous work. ac,_
ac ac,
=0 at r=l (11)
The method of solution is similar to that used for the ar -G=Z
250
 Fluid dispersion-generalization and comparison of mathematical models-I. Generalization of models

I.0
04

0,s

0..

04

0.1
0.0s

0.06

0.0.

OQ’,o 20 so so,00 l 00 IO00

P
Fxci. 3. Distance from measurlment point to end of vessel FIG. 4. Error in assuming an infinite vessel when
for a 1 percent error in assuming an Smite vessel. measurement is made at end of vessel.

TableDI Experimental scheme used in relation to the dispersed plug flaw model

I
Where first
Experimental scheme Results
derived

Towle and
Sherwood [II

-_

Restriciion D,=D,

Eermrrd and
Wilhelm [a]

Klinkenberg
et at [IO]

Fahien and
Smith [S]

Equation (120) and (12b)

This work
Eauotion (I 20) and (I 2~1

251
 K.B.BI~CHOFFand OCTAVELEVENSPIEL

and the rest of the boundary conditions the same as and equation (111.4) follows. Thus their result is a
equation (2) except that equation (2b) becomes special case of equation (12).
c, PL and x throughout. Equation (11) means The result of KLINKENBERG may be obtained
etal.
c(- co) = finite, and c, P and x are replaced by by specifying the condition for a doubly infinite
physically that no mass is transferred through the tube, DLa = DLb = D, and DRo = DRb = DR or
solid pipe wall. All of the other boundary conditions PLa = PLI, = PL and PRa = PRL = PR, giving for
have been discussed previously [4]. These simul- equation (12b) or (12~)
taneous partial differentialequations were solved by a Nim= ewC(*- dP~(x,- X011 (13)
combination of finite Hankel [12] and Laplace
In addition for a point source at the origin x0 = 0
transforms for the two cases of interest: with the
and e + 0. If these are substituted into equation (12)
measurement point within the test section and in the
we get equation (111.3), so it is also included in the
exit section. For details see [7]. The solutions
general equation. BERNARD and WILHELM'S result
evaluated at the measurement point X = X,,, are
(equation 111.2)is a special case of the equation of
Jo(V) Ji(%e) N,
KLINKENBERG et al., so it is also included. Thus
c=l+ c r- equation (12) is a general solution which incorporates
ai>~ JO(ai> 4w ’

where (12a) all previous solutions as special cases.

J,(Ui)=O and 4=J(i+&--) J

3. Numerical comparison for different boundary
conditions
and for measurement within the test section,
x, I x, As was done for the axial dispersed plug model, a
comparison will be made between the doubly
Nj = exptG - q)PL(x, - x0)1x
(4 - 4&1 - 4A exp[ - %4(x, - x, + x0)1+ (4 + 4.X4+ 46)+
X + (4 - a)(4 + %) exp[-24pLxOl + (4 + 4.)(4 - 4b)exp[-24PL(xe- xm)l (12b)
(4 + 434 + 4h - (4 - 4.X4 - 4& ev[:-2P~4xel
and for measurement beyond the test section,
infinite case and the case including end effects in
x, 2 x,
order to see when end effects can be ignored. Again,
Xi = 24 exp[(+ - q)P,(x, - x0) + when the measurement point is moved far enough
+ (3 - 4b)PLb(X, - &>Ix into the vessel from the exit, the end effects finally
become negligible. The method of comparison is to
(4 + 4.)+ (4 - 4.1 exP[-2P,4xol calculate a concentration based on a doubly infinite
’ i(4 + 4A4 + 4h - (4 - 434 - 4& expl: - %4x,1 I vessel, cm, from equation (12a) using equation (13)
for N;:
WC)
Jo&r) Jl(aie)
2. Comparison of various solutions CC0 =l+ c
.*>ozmaie x
It is of interest to see how the previous investiga-
x expK3 - 4)Pk - ~011(14)
tors’ equations are all special cases of equation (12).
Then a value for the concentration for the general
To get the result OfFAHIEN and SMITH(equation 111.4)
case, c, is calculated from equation (12a) using
we must let D,, = DLb = DL --, 0 or PLa = PLb =
= PL + co. They also assumed a semi-infinite
(12b) for Ni. The fractional difference
tube so that PRb = PR and they took x0 = 0. If c - c,
fR= -
these values are substituted into Ni of equation (12b) I
C
I
we get can then be plotted against the various parameters of
Ni = exp F the system: r, PL, PR, PLa, PR,,, PLb, PRL, e, x,,,,
x0 and
[ R1 %

252
 Fluid dispersion-generalization and comparison of mathematical models-I Generalization of models

I.0 is semi-infinite in the upstream section, PL& = PL and

Pm = PR. Then equation (12b) becomes

- x718)1) (16)

where (xc - xm) is the (dimensionless) distance from the

0.90
o.so 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
,.I
R”
FIG. 5. Effect of injector tube size on calculated con-
centrations for an infinite tube with PR = 100, PL = 10
and xm - xo = L/R0 = 10.
However, because of the great number only certain
values of these parameters will be examined.
First of dfR will be examined only at the axis of symmetry,
r = 0, because the equations were found to be slightly more
sensitive to changes in the other parameters at this position.
By the same token dispersion coefficients should not be cal-
culated from data obtained only at r = 0 since they would
be subject to somewhat excessive fluctuations.
I) The next variable that will be specified is the injector tube
radius, e. In order to see the effect of e, the equations for a
doubly infinite vessel with typical values of PR = 100,
PL = 10 and (xm - XO) = 10 were used. Calculations were
performed using equation (14) (with r = 0) for various values
of e, and these were compared with the result for e = 0,
measurement point to the end of the vessel. Since the form of
the two equations is the same, we shall only consider down-
stream end-effect errors, or equation (16). Upstream end
effects errors can be found by replacing qb by q. and
(xc - xm) by xo in the final results.
A series of calculations were performed using
equation (16) in equation (12a). For the ranges
covered, maximum values for fR are found when
05 PLb = PRb = oc, and so these values were used
throughout. Two values of the distance from the
injection point to the measurement point divided by
vessel radius (L/R, = (x, - x,,) = 5,10) were used.
For these values we llnd that the error in assuming a
doubly infinite vessel, fR, drops sharply as the
measurement point is moved in from the end of the
vessel. Specikally, the end effect errors become less
thanonepercent at (x, - x,) < 0.1. Inother words
the measurement point need be just inside the vessel
in order that the doubly infinite vessel assumption
can be used. Of course, as discussed in Section A.2,
there are some end-effect disturbances in an actual

Cm,e_O = 1+ & ago&) exp[G- W&m - xo)l

The ratio of concentration where e is not zero to that where e 0.0
is zero is plotted against e in Fig. 5. This shows that for the
ratio ofinjector tube diameter less than two-tenths, ore < 0.2,
the difference between the two concentration calculations
is less than five per cont. Now e is usually chosen smaller than
0.2 so as to minimize flow-pattern disturbance caused by the
presence of the injector. With this restriction we can with
little error take e = 0 for subsequent calculations.
The error in ignoring the upstream and downstream end
effects can now be determined. As the total error can be
shown to be quite closely approximated by the sum of the two
individual errors, we shall treat these errors one at a time.
In other words we will compare semi-inlinite vessels with the
doubly intinite vessel.
The concentration values are calculated from equation (12a)
with the appropriate values of Ng for each case. For a doubly
infinite vessel, the Nr = Ngm are found from equation (13).
For a vessel that is semi-infmite in the downstream section,
PLb = PL and PRb = PR. Then equation (12b) becomes

1 +q~exp[-2qPLxo]) (15)
a
where xo is the (dimensionless) distance from the beginning FIG. 6. Error in assuming an infinite vessel when radial
of the vessel to the injection point. Similarly, for a vessel that measurements are made at end of vessel.

253
 K. B. BLWHOFFand OCTAVELEVENSPIEL

vessel that were not really taken into account, so a fL= l(P - PmYPI
fR = ICC- cm)lcl
safety factor should be used for the practical appli- h Defined by equation (7b) of Part II
cation of these criteria. I Injection rate of tracer
In order to get an’idea of the magnitude of the Jo, JI Bessel functions
k Moment order, see equation (4) of
errors involved, Fig. 6 was prepared which shows the Part II
error in assuming a doubly infinite vessel for measure- k’ = k”Ro/v Dimensionless parameter for first-
ment at the end of the vessel, (x, - x,,,) = 0. As the order reaction
k” First-order rate constant
experimental section, (x,, - x0), gets shorter, the L = X, - x0 Distance between measurement
error caused by end effects gets larger, as is to be points, or length of experimental
expected. section
mk k-th moment of tracer distribution
averaged over the cross-section of
NOTATION tube, defined by equation(4) of Part11
a = P/P,
Defined by equations (12b) and (12c)
Roots of h(ar) = 0 0 The order symbol
p = vLID’L Dimensionless parameter
b =P/P:
PL = VRO/DL Dimensionless parameter
c Tracer concentration
P’r, = vRo/D’r. Dimensionless parameter
C&i Integral average tracer concentra-
tion in vessel during steady state PL,,, = vRo/D~m Dimensionless parameter
injection PR = VRO/DR Dimensionless parameter
PRCZ = VRO/DR~ Dimensionless parameter
cm Mean concentration. of pulse of
tracer if uniformly distributed in g = l/l* + (“~~pf18~
experimental section of vessel of Radial position
length L. Ro = $dt Tube radius
c = ClCM Dimensionless concentration r = R/Ro Dimensionless radial position
c = c/cm Dimensionless concentration rc Rate of chemical reaction (mole/
d, Effective diameter, defined by equa- time-volume)
tion (12) of Part II Re = d,v/v Reynolds number
Source term
dp Particle diameter
SC = yID: Schmidt number
dt Tube diameter
T Time
D Dispersion coefficient
t = vt/Ro Dimensionless time
DL Axial dispersion coefficient, dis-
persed plug flow model . t = vt/L Dimensionless time
2%
D’L Axial dispersion coefficient, axial v
Velocity vector
dispersed plug flow model V
Mean velocity in axial direction
DL~ Mean value of DL(R) v(R) Velocity as a function of radial
WL?II Axial dispersion coefficient, uniform position
dispersion model vo = EV Mean velocity in a packed bed based
Da(r) = DL(R) Axial dispersion coefficient at on empty tube
radial position r or R, general X Axial position measured from start
dispersion model in cylindrical co- of test section
ordinates x = XiRo Dimensionless axial variable
DR Radial dispersion coefficient, dis- x = X/L Dimensionless axial variable
persed plug flow model 6 Dirac delta function
Darn Mean value of DR(R) 6’ Dirac delta function in cylindrical
D’R~IZ Radial dispersion coefficient, uni- co-ordinates
form dispersion model Fraction voids in packed bed
DR(r) = DR(R) Radial dispersion coefficient at Eigenvalues in equations (6) and (7)
radial position r or R, general of Part II
dispersion model in cylindrical
P Mean of tracer curve
co-ordinates
A/J = pm - PO Difference in means of the tracer
DV Molecular diffusivity
curves at the two measurement
E Radius of injector tube
points Xm and Xo
e = E/R0 Dimensionless radius of injector
tube Kinematic viscosity of fluid
h(R) = [v(R) - VI/v Measure of deviation of v(R) from
Variance of tracer curve
its mean value measurement point
fzU0 = DR(R)/DR, Measure of variation of DR(R) from Difference in variance of the tracer
its mean value curve at the two measurement points
A(R) = DL(R)/DL~ Measure of variation of DL(R) from XOand Xm
its mean value Tortuosity factor

254
 Fluid dispersion-generalization and comparison of mathematical models-I. Generalization of models

Subscripts Refers to the injection point or the

0
a Refers to entrance section lirst of two measurement points;
b Refers to exit section applies to X, x and x.
e Refers to end of test section; applies 00 Refers to the doubly infmite tube
to X, x and x.
m Refers to the single measurement
point or to the second of two
measurement points; applies to
X, x and x.

REFERENCES
BIRD R. B., STEWART W. E. and LIGHTF~~TE. N., Transport Phenomena. John Wiley, New York 1960.
:;; LEVENSPIEL 0. and Sr+nrrr W. K., Chem. Engng. Sci. 1957 6 227.
131 VANDERLAANE. TH., Chem. Engng. Sci. 1958 7 187.
141 WEHNERJ. F. and WILHELMR. H., Chem. Engng. Sci. 1956 6 89.
[51 Ares R., Chem. Engng. Sci. 1959 9 266.
I61 BI~CHOFFK. B., Chem. Engng. Sci. 1960 12 69.
r71 BI~CHOFFK. B., Ph.D. Thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology 1961.
PI BERNARDR. A. and WILHELMR. H., Chem. Engng. Progr. 1950 46 233.
r91 FAHIENR. W. and SMITHJ. M., Amer. Inst. Chem. Engng. J. 1955 128.
IlO1 KLINKENBERG A., KRAJENBRINKH. J. and LAUWERIERH. A., Zndustr. Engng. Chem. 1953 45 1202.
illI TOWLEW. L. and SHERWOOD T. K., Zndustr., Engng. Chem. 1939 31457.
1121 SNEDDON I. N., Fourier Transforms. McGraw-Hill, New York 1951.

Resume-Plusieurs mod&s mathematiques ont CtButilis& pour caracttriser la dispersion des fluides
dans des systemes en ecoulement. Certains tiemrent compte de la dispersion transversale et longitudi-
nale, tandis que d’autres ne tiem-rent compte que de la dispersion longitudinale. De plus la variete des
methodes experimentales avec traceurs, utilisQs pour la recherche des parametres rendent les analyses
qui en resultent, incoherentes.
Nous montrons ici les relations entre ces modeles et nous generalisons toutes les techniques de
mesure present& anterieurement.
Ceci donne une representation commode du champ de dispersion, permet une evaluation
quantitative de l’erreur commise quand on utilise un modele simple au lieu dun autre plus pr&is,
mais mains maniable. L’experimentateur futur aura a sa disposition les don&es necessaires pour le
choix de la combinaison montage experimental-modele mathematique qui donnera une analyse de
precision determinee dans la limite d’erreur permise.

Zusammenfassuru-Zur Charakterisierung der Dispersion strbmender Fliissigkeiten wurden viele

Modelle benutzt. Einige davon erfassen sowohl die Quer- als such die Lghgsdispersion, andere nur
die Liingsdispersion. AuBerdem entsteht durch die vielen verschiedenen experimentellen Tracer-
Methoden. mit denen die Parameter der Modelle bestimmt burden, der Eindruck, daB zwischen den
darauf aufbauenden Untersuchungen kein Zusammenhang bcsteht.
Wir zeigen hier die Beziehungen zwischen d&en Modellen und verallgemeinem alle frtiher an-
eeeebenen MeBmethoden. Dies eraibt eine umfassende Darstellung des Gebietes der Dispersion und
&&bt die quantitative Bestimm&g des Fehlers, der bei Benutzung eines einfachen Modells anstatt
eines genaueren aber aufwendigeren begangen wird. Zuktinftigen Bearbeitem werden damit die
notwendigen Informationen gegeben, mit denen sie entscheiden komren, welche experimentelle
Anordnung in Verbindung mit welchem mathematischen Model1 innerhalb gegebener Fehlergrenzen
eine Untersuchung der gewtinschten Genauigkeit ermiiglicht.

255