Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

change ventilation coefficient placement in MM drop growth eq. (heat vs. mass diffusion) #1321

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

slayoo
Copy link
Member

@slayoo slayoo commented Apr 30, 2024

No description provided.

@slayoo slayoo changed the title fix ventilation term placement in MM drop growth eq. fix ventilation coefficient placement in MM drop growth eq. Apr 30, 2024
@slayoo slayoo requested a review from kaitlyn-loftus April 30, 2024 11:19
@slayoo
Copy link
Member Author

slayoo commented Apr 30, 2024

@kaitlyn-loftus here's a "tiny" fix that changes how the ventilation factor (introduced in #1282) is used in the drop-growth formula - IIUC, the ventilation factor should multiply the diffusion coefficient, and not the density gradient. In an ordinary Fick's formula that is the same, but in Maxwell-Mason approximation, there is a difference. Essentially, the question is if we assume that the ventilation acts equally on mass and heat transfer. Previous logic assumed that it acts in the same way. This version assumes that there is no ventilation for heat, while the ventilation coefficient - which we compute using the Schmidt number - affects mass transfer only. IIUC, for including ventilation for heat, we would need to compute the Prandtl number.

So, there are three options:

  • should we keep it as is (Schmidt number drives heat ventilation),
  • should we merge this PR (Schmidt number drives mass ventilation, there is no heat ventilation),
  • should we introduce Prandtl number (so that Sc and Pr drive mass and heat ventilation, respectively).

The last option is best and likely the goal, but what to do in the interim?

Also, do you have any hints where to look for a good (=simple) test case in literature which we could assert against?

@slayoo slayoo changed the title fix ventilation coefficient placement in MM drop growth eq. change ventilation coefficient placement in MM drop growth eq. (heat vs. mass diffusion) Apr 30, 2024
@kaitlyn-loftus
Copy link
Collaborator

I think as you say the best option will be the last one: introduce Prandtl number (so that Sc and Pr drive mass and heat ventilation, respectively). In the interim, I think assuming the heat and mass ventilation coefficients are the same is preferable to neglecting heat ventilation wholesale.

When you ask for a test case in the literature, do you mean for the heat ventilation coefficient specifically or for evaporating drops with both mass and heat ventilation?

@slayoo
Copy link
Member Author

slayoo commented May 1, 2024

Thanks for replying.

When you ask for a test case in the literature, do you mean for the heat ventilation coefficient specifically or for evaporating drops with both mass and heat ventilation?

Basically, anything that could help address the current situation - this PR changes how ventilation is computed, but there is not a single test that fails, proving that it is not covered.

Copy link

Stale pull request message

@slayoo slayoo marked this pull request as draft November 24, 2024 23:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants