Gas–liquid Taylor flow in square micro-channels: New inlet geometries and interfacial area tuning

Leclerc, Arnaud; Philippe, Régis; Houzelot, Vivian; Schweich, D.; Bellefon, Claude de

doi:10.1016/j.cej.2010.08.021

Cited by 52 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is interesting to note that according to both Garstecki et al's (2006) and Pohorecki and Kula's (2008) models, the bubble lengths only depend on the continuous and dispersed phase flow rates and the microchannel dimensions; there appears to be no dependency on the physical properties of the fluids. Recently, Leclerc et al (2010) also proposed a unique scaling law for bubble generation in various T-junction geometries. Again, it enables bubble lengths to be predicted from flow rates and microchannel dimensions only.…”

Section: Bubble and Slug Lengthsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydrodynamics of gas–liquid Taylor flow in rectangular microchannels

Abadie

Aubin

Legendre

et al. 2011

Microfluid Nanofluid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of fluid properties and operating conditions on the generation of gas-liquid Taylor flow in microchannels has been investigated experimentally and numerically. Visualisation experiments and 2D numerical simulations have been performed to study bubble and slug lengths, liquid film hold-up and bubble velocities. The results show that the bubble and slug lengths increase as a function of the gas and liquid flow rate ratios. The bubble and slug lengths follow the model developed by Garstecki et al. (Lab chip 6:437-446, 2006) and van Steijn et al. (Chem Eng Sci 62: [7505][7506][7507][7508][7509][7510][7511][7512][7513][7514] 2007), however, the model coefficients appear to be dependent on the liquid properties and flow conditions in some cases. The ratio of the bubble velocity to superficial two-phase velocity is close to unity, which confirms a thin liquid film under the assumption of a stagnant liquid film. Numerical simulations confirm the hypothesis of a stagnant liquid film and provide information on the thickness of the liquid film.

show abstract

Section: Bubble and Slug Lengthsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydrodynamics of gas–liquid Taylor flow in rectangular microchannels

Abadie

Aubin

Legendre

et al. 2011

Microfluid Nanofluid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The bubble size was strongly influenced by the geometry of the confluence section in microchannel. Leclerc et al (2010) examined the effect of the confluence section (Figure 2) on the bubble length, and extended the model proposed by Garstecki et al (2006), to take account of the geometry of the confluence section.…”

Section: Gas Slug Lengthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluid Behavior and Mass Transport Characteristics of Gas–Liquid and Liquid–Liquid Flows in Microchannels

Sotowa

2014

J. Chem. Eng. Japan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been widely recognized that microchannels can be used to enhance mass transfer rate between two immiscible uids. This feature has attracted interests of many researchers in the eld of chemical engineering. To exploit such feature of microchannels, the ow characteristics and mass transfer behavior must be fully understood. In addition, to construct an industrial scale process consisting of microchannels, an e cient numbering-up technique is required. In this review, an overview of the recent literature on the uid ow and mass transfer behavior in multiphase ow in microchannels will be given. An attention is also paid to the numbering-up technique and extension to multiphase system involving three uids.

show abstract

“…These merits make slug flow an ideal regime for improving the reaction performance. Wide attention has been paid to the bubble formation process (Fu et al, 2009;Garstecki et al, 2006;Pohorecki and Kula, 2008;van Steijn et al, 2007), the gas bubble and the liquid slug length (Garstecki et al, 2006;Leclerc et al, 2010;Qian and Lawal, 2006;Sobieszuk et al, 2010), the liquid film thickness around bubbles (Fries et al, 2008;Han and Shikazono, 2009a;Thulasidas et al, 1995), the phase distribution (Choi et al, 2011;Kawahara et al, 2005;Saisorn and Wongwises, 2010), the pressure drop (Kreutzer et al, 2005a(Kreutzer et al, , 2005bYue et al, 2009), and the mass transfer (Sobieszuk et al, 2011;van Baten and Krishna, 2004;Vandu et al, 2005), etc. However, a full understanding of slug slow for optimizing the design of microreactor remains pendent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%