Numerical analysis of the interphase forces in bubble columns using euler‐euler modelling framework

Abstract

In the context of modelling the gas‐liquid multiphase flow in bubble columns, interface forces, such as drag, lift, and virtual mass forces, are of fundamental importance with regard to the accurate representation of physical phenomena. The approach used in this study was the Eulerian‐Eulerian modelling of turbulence in the continuous phase using the standard k‐ϵ model. Different models for the drag coefficient (CD) found in the literature were tested to obtain the best representation of the experimental data available in the literature. The relevance of the lift and virtual mass forces was also studied. The results show that the inclusion of lift contributes significantly to improving the representation of the experimental data when used in conjunction with the drag force. The inclusion of the virtual mass force did not prove to be relevant.

Investigation of Breakup and Coalescence Models for Churn-Turbulent Gas-Liquid Bubble Columns

“…With regard to the gas holdup, this was overpredicted at the wall by all of the models and the Symmetric model presented a very good agreement at the column center with a relative error of 2.2%. Similar results were obtained by Soccol et al, (2015) applying the Zhang and Vanderheyden (2002) and Schiller and Naumann (1935) models.…”

“…Frequently, turbulence is applied only for the continuous phase, and the contribution for it made by the bubble passage is accounted modeling bubble induced turbulence (Chen et al 2005;Joshi et al, 2017;Silva et al, 2012;Silva et al, 2014 andSoccol et al, 2015).…”

“…The standard k-ε approach proposed by Launder and Spalding (1972) has four empirical constants and is known to overpredict the gas void fraction close to the wall (Yamoah et al, 2015;Deju et al, 2013). However, this approach has been proven to be efficient with a lower computational cost than other turbulence modeling (Chen et al 2005;Silva et al, 2012 andSoccol et al, 2015).…”

Evaluation of models for bubble-induced turbulence by DNS and utilization in two-fluid model computations of an industrial pilot-scale bubble column

“…For the EE simulations, the top-level solver twoPhaseEulerFoam is used that is frequently employed to study flows in bubble columns [12,53,54]. The code solves the conditionally averaged (ca) continuity and momentum equations in the following form…”

Numerical investigations into two‐phase turbulent modalities for bubble column flows

“…As conveyed in Figure 5, for the single‐phase‐and‐BIT modality, a reasonable POP between 10 and 20 seconds is observed, whereas the POP predicted by the mixture is not so satisfactory since it is uneven and the time of 30 seconds is comparatively too long. Based on the works of Soccol et al [ 35 ] and Fleck and Rzehak, [ 69 ] where detailed investigations of the POP at various superficial gas velocities have been researched, an approximate POP between 10 seconds and 20 seconds can be estimated. For the single‐phase and per‐phase modalities, similar abnormal POPs of about 80 seconds are displayed, which again proves that the two modalities are highly consistent and may have some applicable problems in the absence of the BIT modification.…”