Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T23:16:05.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mixing and reaction in turbulent plumes: the limits of slow and instantaneous chemical kinetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2018

N. Mingotti*
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Philippa Fawcett Drive, Cambridge CB3 0AS, UK
S. S. S. Cardoso
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Philippa Fawcett Drive, Cambridge CB3 0AS, UK
*
†Email address for correspondence: nm441@cam.ac.uk

Abstract

We investigate the behaviour of a reactive plume in the two limiting cases of slow and instantaneous chemical reactions. New laboratory measurements show that, whereas the slow reaction between the source and entrained chemical species takes place within the whole volume of each eddy in the plume, the fast reaction develops preferentially at the periphery of the eddies. We develop a new model that quantifies the mixing of the reactive buoyant fluids at the Batchelor scale and thereby the progress of the fast reaction. We present a series of new experimental results that suggest that a critical distance from the source, $z_{crit}$, exists at which the volume of fluid that is entrained from the ambient is equal to that which is mixed within the plume at the Batchelor scale. For $z>z_{crit}$, only a fraction of the entrained fluid is rapidly mixed and reacts with the plume fluid. The results of the new experiments enable us to quantify the distance from the source at which an instantaneous reaction reaches completion, and show that it can be significantly larger than the distance $L_{s}$ at which the stoichiometric dilution of the plume fluid is achieved. In the limit of an instantaneous reaction, the longitudinal profiles of source chemical concentration in the plume depend on $(z_{crit}/L_{s})^{5/6}$. The predictions of the model are validated against the experimental results, and the profiles of source chemical concentration in the plume for slow and fast reactions are compared.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Copyright
© 2018 Cambridge University Press 
Figure 0

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the experimental set-up.

Figure 1

Table 1. Reactive systems used in the experiments.

Figure 2

Table 2. Conditions for experiments (i): ammonium hydroxide and acetic acid (see § 3.1). Here $Q_{0}$ (m$^{3}$  s$^{-1}$) denotes the source volume flux; $r_{0}$ (m) is the radius of the nozzle; $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{b}^{0}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{a}$ is the ratio between the density of the plume fluid at the source and that of the ambient fluid; $B$ ($\text{m}^{4}~\text{s}^{-3}$) is the buoyancy flux; $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E4}_{0}$ is the Morton number at the source (see appendix A); $L_{M_{0}}$ (m) is the length scale for the near-source region in which the flow is affected by the supplied momentum flux (see appendix A); $C_{a}$ (M) is the concentration of acetic acid in the ambient fluid; $C_{b}^{0}$ (M) is the concentration of ammonium hydroxide in the plume fluid at the source; $D_{s}$ is the stoichiometric dilution coefficient given by (5.12); and $L_{s}$ (m) is the stoichiometric length scale given by (5.13). In our calculations, we use $\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}=1.0\times 10^{-6}~\text{m}^{2}~\text{s}^{-1}$ as the kinematic viscosity of water at $20\,^{\circ }\text{C}$ (Atkins 1978). In all experiments, the Reynolds number at the source is $Re_{0}=1061$, the Schmidt number associated with the plume fluid is $Sc_{b}=502$ (Perry & Green 2008), and that associated with the ambient fluid is $Sc_{a}=829$ (Vitagliano & Lyons 1956).

Figure 3

Table 3. Conditions for experiments (ii): sodium hydroxide and nitric acid (see § 3.2). In all experiments, the Reynolds number at the source is $Re_{0}=1061$, the Schmidt number associated with the plume fluid is $Sc_{b}=517$ (Noulty & Leaist 1984), and that associated with the ambient fluid is $Sc_{a}=337$ (Yeh & Wills 1971).

Figure 4

Table 4. Conditions for experiments (iii): methylene blue and ascorbic acid (see § 3.3). In all experiments, the Reynolds number at the source is $Re_{0}=1061$, the Schmidt number associated with the plume fluid is $Sc_{b}=1209$ (Leaist 1988), and that associated with the ambient fluid is $Sc_{a}=880$ (Shamim & Baki 1980).

Figure 5

Figure 2. (a) Photograph of an inert plume descending through fresh water. (b) The depth-averaged concentration of dye in the plume is visualised using false colours. (c) Time- and depth-averaged concentration of dye in the plume. This image has been obtained by averaging 200 photographs which were captured during 40 s over the course of the experiment.

Figure 6

Figure 3. Light attenuation produced by an aqueous solution of (a) phenolphthalein and (b) methylene blue dye. A 2 cm thick cell containing the dyed fluid was positioned in front of the experimental light sheet (see § 2.1). Different dye concentrations were tested, ranging between 0 and 0.2 ppm. The fraction $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}$ of light absorbed by the dyed fluid was measured using the experimental set-up described in § 2.1. Each experiment was repeated three times.

Figure 7

Figure 4. (a) Time series of the horizontally averaged profiles of dye concentration in the plume. (b) The measured profiles of the time-averaged eddy velocity, $u_{e}(z)$, compared with the expected top-hat speed profiles, $u_{e_{ref}}(z)$ (Morton et al.1956). (c) Each measured flux of dye in the plume, $F(z)$, is scaled by the vertically averaged mean flux, $\bar{F}$. It is seen that $F(z)$ is approximately constant in the tank, with deviations of the order of 5 %–7 % associated with the limitations of the image analysis technique. In panels (b) and (c), the vertical distance below the source, $z$, is scaled by the height of the tank, $H$ (m). Error bars are plotted for experiment 6 (see table 2).

Figure 8

Figure 5. (a,b) Instantaneous and (c,d) time-averaged concentrations of phenolphthalein dye in a plume of ammonium hydroxide descending through (a,c) fresh water or (b,d) a solution of acetic acid. A comparison of the time- and depth-averaged profiles of dye concentration along the plume’s centreline is given in (e).

Figure 9

Figure 6. Instantaneous images of a fast reaction, an alkaline plume descending through (a) fresh water and (b) an acidic environment: a rainbow colour map is used to illustrate the concentration of phenolphthalein dye in the plume. In (c) and (d), the same images are processed to highlight the descending eddies. A white/red colour map is used to highlight the regions of the plume in which the instantaneous dye concentration exceeds the time-averaged mean concentration.

Figure 10

Figure 7. Time-averaged mean (a,c) size of the parcels of reactive fluid relative to the size of the eddies in an inert plume, $D_{r}/D_{i}$, and (b,d) concentration of dye per unit volume in a parcel of reactive fluid relative to the concentration in a parcel of inert plume fluid, $C_{r}/C_{i}$, for (a,b) fast and (c,d) slow reactions. All data are presented as a function of the distance from the plume source, $z$, scaled by the tank’s height, $H$. In (a) and (b), error bars are plotted for experiment 6 (see table 2), while in (c) and (d) error bars are plotted for experiment 19 (see table 4). In (a,b) the variation between the results of different experiments is larger at small distances below the source, $z/H<0.05{-}0.01$ (i.e. $z<3.5$–7 cm below the nozzle approximately, see tables 2 and 3). In this near-source region, the flow in the plume is still transitional or just settling into full turbulence. It should be noted that the magnitude of the discrepancies between the results depicted in (a) and (b) is typically smaller than the expected errors associated with the image analysis technique, as discussed in § 2.

Figure 11

Figure 8. Cartoon illustrating the different distributions of reactants in the two cases of a fast and slow chemical reaction.

Figure 12

Figure 9. Comparison between the results of the slow reaction experiments (coloured lines) and the prediction of the model (black line, based on (5.18)). Error bars are plotted for experiments 19 and 21 (see table 4).

Figure 13

Table 5. Length and time scales used in the model.

Figure 14

Figure 10. Experimental measurements of (a) the ratio between the time scale for convective mixing of the fluid in an eddy and the Batchelor time scale, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}_{e}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}_{m}$ (Batchelor 1959; Fox 2003); (b) the ratio between the time-averaged mean diameter of the eddies and the Batchelor length scale, $D_{i}/L_{m}$; and (c) the ratio between the time-averaged mean diameter of the parcels of reactive fluid and the Batchelor length scale, $D_{r}/L_{m}$. All data are presented as a function of the distance from the virtual origin of the plume, scaled by $L_{s}$ (5.13).

Figure 15

Figure 11. (a) We use equation (5.32) to estimate the value of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}$ in our experiments, based on the measurements of $D_{i}$ and $D_{r}$ illustrated in figure 7; (b) equation (5.29) and the measured constant $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}Sc_{b}^{-3/2}(\ln Sc_{b})^{-2}$ are then used to estimate the distance below the source at which the instantaneous acid–base reaction is complete, $z_{r}$ (solid line). Filled and open circles are used to illustrate the results of experiments (i) and (ii), respectively (see tables 2 and 3). In plotting the symbols, horizontal error bars are included to illustrate the impacts of a $\pm 10\,\%$ deviation in the value of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}$.

Figure 16

Figure 12. Fraction of the supplied chemicals that are still reactive in the plume, $R$, as a function of time. Equations (5.18) and (5.35) are used to plot the model predictions for slow and fast reaction experiments (red and black lines, respectively). Symbols are used to illustrate the ratio between the time-averaged mean light attenuation produced by a reactive plume and that produced by an inert plume as measured during our experiments. On the horizontal axis, time is scaled by the stoichiometric time scale $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}_{s}$ given by (5.14).