Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

157 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

8.1. Introduction

The current design and scale-up procedures for multiphase systems (flow systems, reactors,

separation equipment, etc.) need long commercialization time for generating confidence through the

extensive data generation in the laboratory, pilot and demonstration scales. It also results into high

capital as well as operating expenditure, long start-up and shut down times, etc. The genesis of these

drawbacks lie in the empiricism which originates from the lack of knowledge of fluid mechanics and

its relationship with the design objectives. In order to improve the lack of understanding, over the

past 50 years, continuous efforts are being made using Experimental Fluid Dynamics (EFD) and

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). The progress in CFD has been remarkable considering the

complexity of the three dimensional turbulent multiphase flows. This has been made possible by the

combined developments in numerical methods and computational speed. However, substantial

additional work is needed in understanding the physics of turbulence (of multiphase systems) so that

equations of conservation of mass, momentum, energy and scalar (enthalpy, tracer, reactant etc.) can

be solved with the first principles. Therefore, with the current status of knowledge, a good number

of assumptions are needed in the low order models such as k-and RSM. The standard k- model

has performed satisfactory in many flows, but the applicability of this model is limited due to the

uncertainties involved (because of simplifying assumptions) in the modeling of turbulence

production and dissipation, turbulent convective transport, etc. (discussed later). It is known that the

number of assumptions decreases as the order of turbulence models becomes higher in the sequence

of Reynolds Stress Model (RSM), Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and Direct Numerical Simulation

(DNS). Though the accuracy of predictions increases from k- to DNS, the demand on computational

time increases by orders of magnitude. In fact, the DNS simulation of even moderate size multiphase

equipment is possible only at places of super computational facilities. Therefore, it was thought

desirable to compare understand the k- RSM and LES approaches for gas-liquid bubble columns in

terms of quantitative values of errors versus the different simplifying assumptions.

158 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

At this stage, it may be pointed out that k- and RSM approaches are based on RANS and LES is

another completely different approach. RANS is based on Reynolds-average that transforms a chaotic

field (that is obtained by solving the governing equations with DNS) into a non-chaotic field. LES

instead, by filtering the equations, takes a chaotic field and transforms it into another chaotic field,

in which some scales are filtered out.

The conservation equations for k,  and Reynolds stress consist of convective transport, diffusive

transport, turbulent transport, production and dissipation. These terms are derived from the equations

of continuity and motion (through Reynolds averaging procedure) and are in the form of double and

triple correlations of fluctuating velocities (u′i ), fluctuating phase fractions (ϵ′G , ϵ′L) and their

gradients. These correlations were estimated by using instantaneous fluctuating values u′i , ϵ′G , ϵ′L

obtained from large eddy simulations (LES). In this paper, each of these correlations has been

quantified and an attempt has been made to give a clearer insight into each modeling assumption.

It is known that the LES is also simplified version as compared to DNS because the LES also needs

the modeling of subgrid scale turbulence. Therefore, though it is desirable that the comparison of low

order models (k- RSM and LES) be made with DNS, we still need to wait till the available

computational speed permits the DNS of moderate size bubble columns. Until then, we thought

desirable to use LES for understanding the gravity of assumptions made in k- and RSM. In order to

give some credibility for such comparison, we have implemented some care in LES simulations

which essentially is in the form of energy balance. The care has been taken at two levels: (1) while

implementing LES, it was ensured that, by proper selection of the grid size, more than 95% of the

turbulent kinetic energy is accounted in large scale fluctuations and (2) the LES simulation gives the

values of  at all the grid points. The volume integral of this  field gives the total energy dissipation

rate (ED) in the column. We have ensured that ED is within 100±5% of the energy input rate given

by:
π 2
Ei = D VG HD (ρL − ρG )g (8.1)
4
159 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

Thus the process of filtering loses the accuracy of less than 5% of the input energy. Even then, we

realize that the use of DNS would have given accurate comparisons. However, with the current status

of computational speed and the care taken for LES simulations, we are expected to get some insight

(into the gravity of assumptions made in the k- and RSM) and is the subject of the present paper.

8.2. Previous work

Though the activity of CFD simulations began in late 70s, it got firm ground in mid 90s. Joshi (2001),

Sokolochin et al. (2004) and Rafique et al. (2004) have critically analyzed the published literature

then and have made coherent presentation of the status. Since 2001, substantial development has

occurred in terms of the usage of turbulence models (k-, RSM, LES) and Table 8.1 shows the utility

pattern of these models. Dhotre et al. (2013) have presented a comprehensive review of LES (both

E-E and E-L) of dispersed bubbly flows and the same subject will not be repeated here. Since the

subject of this paper is comparison of three turbulence models, only those papers will be reviewed

which deal with the subject.

Deen et al. (2001) have carried out pioneering work for the comparison of k- and LES models for

gas-liquid flow in a square cross-sectional bubble column. They found that the k- model

overestimates the turbulent viscosity and could only predict low frequency unsteady flow. However,

LES has been shown to reproduce high frequency experimental data. Further, LES could predict the

transient movement of the bubble plume which was observed in experiments.

Milelli (2002) simulated a free bubble plume which was experimentally investigated by Anagbo and

Brimacombe (1990). The simulations have revealed that the mean quantities as well as the bubble

induced turbulence affected by the different SGS models. Further, Milelli (2002) has observed that

the lift coefficient value plays a major role in capturing the plume spreading. He further observed

that the values of lift coefficient may differ for LES as compared to the one which is justified in a

RANS approach. This is very important observation.

160 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

Table 8.1. Literature review for the turbulence models used in CFD simulations
Turbulence
No References
Model
1 k- Delnoij et al. (1999), Glover et al. (2000), Krishna and van Batan (2001),
van Batan and Krishna (2002), Buwa and Ranade (2002), Bertola et al.
(2002), Rampure et al. (2003), Ekambara and Joshi (2003a, 2003b),
Rigopoulos and Jones (2003), van Batan and Krishna (2003), Dhotre et al.
(2004), van Batan and Krishna (2004a, 2004b), Dhotre and Joshi (2004),
Chen et al. (2004), Ekambara and Joshi (2005), Dhotre et al. (2005),
Monaham et al. (2005), Ekambara et al. (2005), Rahimi et al. (2006),
Kulkarni and Joshi (2006), dos Santos et al. (2007), Dhotre and Joshi
(2007), Kulkarni et al. (2007), Wang and Wang (2007), Rampure et al.
(2007), Roy and Joshi (2008), Bhole et al. (2008), Tabib et al. (2008),
Simonnet et al. (2008), Ekambara et al. (2008), Rampure et al. (2009),
Chen et al. (2009), Cachaza et al. (2009), Laborde-Boutet et al. (2009),
Kulkarni et al. (2009), Li et al. (2009), McGuffie et al. (2010), Ekambara
and Dhotre (2010), Selma et al. (2010), Wang (2011), Yang et al. (2011),
Ribeiro et al. (2012), Studley and Battaglia (2011), Qi et al. (2013), Xing
et al. (2013), Xiao et al. (2013), Mehrnia et al. (2013), Silva et al. (2014),
McClure et al. (2014), Masoosd et al. (2014), Liu and Hinrichsen (2014),
Pourtousi et al. (2015a, 2015b), McClure et al. (2015a, 2015b, 2015c),
Zeigenhein et al. (2015), Yancheshme et al. (2016)
2 RSM Ekambara et al. (2008), Ekambara and Dhotre (2010), Silva et al. (2014),
Masood et al. (2014), Liu and Hinrichsen (2014)
3 LES Deen et al. (2001), Milelli et al. (2001), Milelli PhD Thesis (2002), Niceno
et al. (2009), Tabib et al. (2008),Dhotre et al. (2009), Dhotre et al. (2008),
Zhang et al. (2006a, 2006b), Lain (2009), Bove et al. (2004), Tabib and
Schwarz (2011), van den Hengel et al. (2005), Hu and Celik (2008),
Darmana et al. (2009), Sungkorn et al. (2011).
4 Bubble van Batan and Krishna (2004)6,7, Li et al. (2009)5,6, McClure et al. (2014)1,
induced Masoosd et al. (2014)2, Liu and Hinrichsen (2014)4, Zeigenhein et al.
turbulence (2015), Pourtousi et al. (2015a2, 2015b3), McClure et al. (2015a1, 2015b1)
Models for bubble induced turbulence:
1
Pfleger and Becker (2001), 2Sato and Sekoguchi (1975), 3Sato, Sadatomi and Sekoguchi (1981),
4
Arnold, Drew and Lahey (1989), 5BelF’dhilla and Simonin (1992), 6Elgobashi and Abou-arab
(1983), 7Launder and Spalding (1974)

Tabib et al. (2008) have performed 3D transient CFD simulations of a demonstration size bubble

column over a wide range of superficial gas velocities. In addition, the authors have simulated a pilot

scale bubble column with three different designs of spargers (single hole, perforated plate and

sintered plate) using three different turbulence closures (k-, RSM, LES) and the predictions have

been compared with the experimental data of Bhole et al. (2006). Near the sparger, none of the

161 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

turbulence model has been able to predict the axial velocity profiles and the gas holdup profiles as

reported experimentally. The predictive capability improves at higher axial locations, where the flow

gets developed. Contrary to the expectations, the RSM has not been able to show better predictive

performance than k–in predicting the average axial velocity profiles. The profiles of Reynolds stress

and kinetic energy for all the three turbulence models are in partial agreement with some deviations.

In predicting turbulent kinetic energy, RSM does a better job than k–, which could be due to its

intrinsic ability in capturing the anisotropic energy transfer mechanism. LES has been successful in

capturing averaged behavior of the flow. Though, at some locations, it slightly over predicts the

kinetic energy and stress profiles, which could be due to the consideration of a single Smagorinsky

constant model in majority of publications.

LES has been able to capture the instantaneous phenomena quite well. Further, the LES has been

able to identify the flow structures and also the flow regions of the vertical-spiral flow regime in the

sieve plate column. Further, LES has been shown to capture the bubble plume dynamics along with

vertical structures for the single hole sparger. Perhaps, the incorporation of bubble coalescence and

break up model in LES could help to distinguish the two regions (fast bubble region and central

bubble plume region) in the vertical-spiral regime, and thus help in better prediction of the flow fields

in these regions. For a column provided with a sintered plate distributor, LES gives nearly

homogeneous flow conditions with an absence of dynamic eddies. It has been shown by the authors

that LES can be effectively used for the study of coherent structures and instantaneous flow profiles.

Ekambara and Dhotre (2010) have analyzed the performance of different turbulence models

namely, k–ɛ, k–ω, RNG k–ɛ, Reynolds stress model (RSM) and large eddy simulation (LES) and the

predictions have been assessed against the experimental data of Bhole et al. (2006). All the non-drag

forces [turbulent dispersion (only RANS), virtual mass, lift and wall lubricant force] and drag force

were incorporated in the model. The comparison of prediction of axial liquid velocity, fractional gas

hold-up, turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent eddy dissipation rate, with the experimental data is

162 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

presented.

8.3. Experimental set-up and measurement techniques

Bhole et al. (2006) have given pertinent details of the experimental set-up and the measurement

techniques. The same has been briefly described below: An acrylic column of 150 mm diameter and

1 m height was employed as a bubble column. A schematic diagram for the experimental setup is

shown in Figure 8.1.

Figure 8.1. Schematic of experimental setup: (1) 5W Ar-ion laser, (2) bubble column, (3)
photomultiplier tubes, (4) burst spectrum analyzer, (5) personal computer, (6) rotameter, and
(7) compressor.

To avoid the laser beam distortion, the cylindrical column was enclosed by a square column, and the

gap between the two was filled with water. An oil-free diaphragm compressor was used to sparge the

air through the gas sparger. Air flow rate was monitored using a rotameter, which was precalibrated

using a soap-film meter. Ordinary tap water was used as the liquid phase, and oil-free compressed

air was used as the gas phase. The height of gas-liquid dispersion was kept about 900 mm. The bubble

column was mounted on a traverse, which allowed the accurate vertical movement so that the

163 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

measurements at various axial locations in the column are possible. At a fixed axial location, the

radial variation of the measurement volume was obtained by accurate movement of the laser-focusing

front lens along a guided horizontal platform. The measurements were made from the center of the

column up to the wall. Axisymmetry was ensured by circular symmetric sparger plate design and the

perfect vertical orientation of the column. A slight departure from the vertical orientation leads to a

considerable asymmetry in the flow profile.

Thus, the issue of the column orientation is not trivial. In fact, in our measurements, we ensured

axisymmetry by comparing the mean axial velocity at two points equidistant from the center (r=0).

The average gas holdup in the column was measured by noting the height of liquid with and without

gas dispersion. All the Laser-Doppler Anemometer (LDA) measurements were carried out at

superficial gas velocity of 20 mm/s. However, the average gas holdup was measured at various

superficial gas velocities. A multipoint perforated plate with 2 mm 25 holes was used as the sparger.

To maximize the data rate, the photomultiplier tube is placed almost collinear with the front lens and

measurement volume. This is because the intensity of scattered laser light (in the forward scatter

mode) is highest at the receiving angle of 0°. Data acquisition in bubbly flows is relatively difficult

compared to the single phase flows. Laser beams are blocked by bubbles rising through their path;

hence, the data rate gets reduced substantially. Various modes of bubble-beam interactions are

elucidated by Kulkarni et al. (2001a, 2001b, 2001c). In the center of the column, the lowest data rate

is observed. This is mainly due to the fact that the laser beams have to travel a larger distance through

the bubbly fluid and the frequency of beam interruption by the bubbles increases. Furthermore, the

gas holdup is also higher in the center of a typical bubble column. Bubbles also pose an important

difficulty due to multiple reflections of the laser light from their surfaces. In our work, we have

obtained the data rate as high as 1000 Hz near the wall and about 100 Hz at the center. To study the

turbulence quantities such as power spectra and Reynolds shear stresses, a higher data rate is

preferable. However, it must be noted that the data validity must also be high, and the photomultiplier

164 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

anode current must not exceed a certain value in order to keep the noise level in the acquired data to

a minimum level. Although, the mean velocities may not get affected, the RMS velocities increase

considerably if the data validation is poor and/or photomultiplier anode current is high. Thus, a

judicious optimization between the data rate, data validity and photomultiplier anode current must

be carried out to obtain a good signal from the LDA. In this work, we have maintained the data

validity of more than 90%. Typically, the data acquisition at a particular location is carried out for a

period of 300 s to ensure that the mean velocity is not affected by the total measurement time. LDA

measurements were carried out at four axial locations in the column (viz., z/D = 1, 2, 3, and 4). At

each axial location, the measurements were made from the center up to the wall with 5 mm gap

between the successive points. Due to extreme curvature effects, the LDA measurements very close

to the wall are not possible. In our column of 150 mm diameter, the measurement point closest to the

wall is about 3-4 mm away from the wall. This corresponds to the dimensionless radial distance (r/R)

of about 0.95.

8.4. Governing equations

8.4.1. Conservation equation for turbulent kinetic energy [Celik (1999)]

The momentum conservation equation for the liquid phase, under steady state conditions, for

instantaneous variables is given by the following equation:

∂ ∈L ∂P ∂ ∂ui
(∈L ui uj ) = − ( )+ (ν ∈L ( )) + FI (8.2)
∂xj ρL ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj

The conservation equation for k is obtained from Eq. (8.2) by the following stepwise procedure

[Celik (1999)]: (a) convert Eq. (8.2) into two conservation equations in terms of mean variables

(u̅𝑖 , u̅𝑗 , p̅, ϵ̅𝐿 ) and fluctuating variables (u′i , u′j , p′ , ϵ′L , etc. ).

(b) taking dot product of (u′𝑖 ) with each term in the conservation equation of fluctuating variables

(c) time averaging the resulting.

165 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

∂ ′
∂ ′ ′
∂ ′ ′ ′
∂ ′ ′ ′ ′
∂2 u̅i
̅ ̅
(∈L u̅i k) + ∈L u̅i 〈ui (u )〉 + u̅j 〈ui (∈ u )〉 + u̅i 〈ui (∈ u )〉 + 〈ui ∈L 〉ν 2
∂x
⏟j ⏟ ∂xj i ⏟ ∂xj L i ⏟ ∂xj L j ⏟ ∂x𝑗
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1

∂ ∂k ∂〈u′j 𝑘〉 ′ ′
∂ ′
∂ ∈′L ̅L
∂∈
+ ̅ ̅
(∈L ν ) + ∈L − 〈ui ∈L 〉 (u̅i u̅j ) − u̅i u̅j 〈ui 〉 − 〈u′i u′i u′j 〉
∂xj
⏟ ∂xj ⏟ ∂xj ⏟ ∂xj ⏟ ∂xj ⏟ ∂xj
2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

∂ P ′ u′i ∂u̅ ∂u̅ ̅

∂P ∂P ′ ∂u′ ∂u′
=− 〈 ̅ L 〈u′i u′j 〉 i − 〈∈′L u′i u′j 〉 i − 〈u′i ∈′L 〉
〉−∈ + 〈u′i ∈′L ̅L ν 〈 i i 〉
〉 −∈
∂x
⏟ j ρL ⏟ ∂xj ⏟ ∂xj ⏟ ∂xj ∂xj ⏟ ∂xj ∂xj
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1

+ S⏟k (8.3)
6.1

The above equation can be written in the following form every term is rate of energy (W/m3):

Convective Transport + Diffusive Transport + Turbulent Transport

= Production – Dissipation + Source (8.4)

As per Eq. (8.4), the terms in Eq. (8.3) such as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 correspond to convective transport,

terms 2.1, 2.2 correspond to diffusive transport, terms 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 correspond, to the turbulent

transport, terms 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 correspond to the production and term 5.1 corresponds to dissipation

of turbulent kinetic energy. Term 6.1 is the source term arising out of bubble induced turbulence

(BIT). This above mentioned classification of terms in k equation is shown in Table 8.2. The last

column shows the corresponding modelled terms in a standard k- ε model under steady state

condition, which is given as follows:

∂ ∂ ∂k ∂ νt ∂k Gk,L
(ϵ̅L kui ) = [ϵ̅L ν ] + [ϵ̅L ] + ϵ̅L + Sk − ϵ̅L ε (8.5)
∂xi ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj σk ∂xj ρL

The turbulent viscosity νt is given by Sato and Sekoguchi model (1975) as follows:

k2
νt = Cμ ϵG B |v̅𝑖 − u̅i |
+ Cμ,G ̅̅̅d (8.6)
ε

The production of turbulent kinetic energy from mean flow (Gk,L) is computed as:

∂u̅i
̅̅̅̅̅
Gk,L = −ρL u ′ u′ (
i j ) (8.7)
∂xj

166 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

Table 8.2. Budget for the turbulent kinetic energy (k) in k-model
Terms arising out of derivation of k equation [Eq. (8.3)] from the equation of motion and continuity for two- Modelled Terms in
phase flow standard k- model
Rate of ∂ ∂〈u′i u′j 〉 ∂ ∂ ∂
̅ u̅ k)
(∈ ̅L u̅i
+∈ +u̅j 〈u′i (∈′ u′ )〉 +u̅i 〈u′i (∈′ u′ )〉 ̅ ku̅ )
(∈
Convective ∂xj L j ∂xj ∂xj L i ∂xj L j ∂xj L j
Transport
Term 1.1 Term 1.2 Term 1.3 Term 1.4

Rate of Viscous ∂2 u̅i ∂ ∂k ∂ ∂k

Transport +〈u′i ∈′L 〉ν + ̅L ν )
(∈ ̅L ν )
(∈
∂x𝑗2 ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
Term 2.1 Term 2.2

Rate of ∂〈u′j 𝑘〉 ∂ ∂ ∈′L ̅L

∂∈ ∂ ν ∂k
̅L
∈ −〈u′i ∈′L 〉 (u̅ u̅ ) −u̅i u̅j 〈u′i 〉 −〈u′i u′i u′j 〉 ̅L t
(∈ )
Turbulent
∂xj ∂xj i j ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj σk ∂xj
Transport
Term 3.1 Term 3.2 Term 3.3 Term 3.4

Rate of ∂ P ′ u′i ∂u̅i ∂u̅i ∂P̅ ̅L u̅i

∂∈
Production − 〈 〉 ̅L 〈u′i u′j 〉
−∈ −〈∈′L u′i u′j 〉 〈u′i ∈′L 〉 −τij
∂xj ρL ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
Term 4.1 Term 4.2 Term 4.3 ∂P ′
+ 〈u′i ∈′L 〉
∂xj
Term 4.4
Rate of ∂u′i ∂u′i ̅L 𝜀
−∈
Dissipation ̅L ν 〈
−∈ 〉
∂xj ∂xj
Term 5.1
Source Term Sk Sk
Term 6.1
The overall modelled equation for turbulent kinetic energy is given by:
∂ ∂ ∂k ∂ νt ∂k ∂ϵ̅L u̅i
(ϵ̅L kui ) = [ϵ̅L ν ] + [ϵ̅L ] − τij ( ) − ϵ̅L ε + Sk
∂xi ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj σk ∂xj ∂xj

167 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

The term Sk is the source term that is included to model the turbulent interaction between gas and

liquid phases. For instance, Troshko and Hassan (2001) have modelled this term as follows:

Sk = Cke ϵ̅L ∑ K GL |v̅i − u̅i |2 (8.8)

G=1

Where, Cke (=0.75) is the constant for source term arising from bubble induced turbulence. K GL is the

drag coefficient. Substituting Eq. (8.7) in Eq. (8.5), we get:

∂ ∂ ∂k ∂ νt ∂k ∂ϵ̅L u̅i
(ϵ̅L kui ) = [ϵ̅L ν ] + [ϵ̅L ] − τij ( ) − ϵ̅L ε + Sk (8.9)
∂xi ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj σk ∂xj ∂xj

At this stage, we thought desirable to provide brief explanation on bubble generated turbulence [the

details are given in Joshi et al. (2016)]. The discussion is based on the energy balance approach

[Freedman and Davidson (1968), Joshi and Sharma (1976), Joshi (2001)]. For bubble column, the

energy supply is due to the introduction of gas and the rate is given by:
π 2
EiG = D VG (ϵ̅L ρL + ̅̅̅ρ
ϵG G )HD g (8.10)
4

The energy input rate via co-current liquid is given by:

π 2
EiL = D VL (ϵ̅L ρL + ̅̅̅ρ
ϵG G )HD g (8.11)
4

The gas and liquid leaving the column have the following rates, respectively:
π 2
EOG = D VG ρG HD g (8.12)
4
π 2
EOL = D VL ρL HD g (8.13)
4

From Eqs. (8.10) to (8.13), the net energy input rate is given by:

π 2 ϵG L
̅̅̅V
EN = D HD g ϵ̅L (ρL − ρG ) (VG − ) (8.14)
4 ϵ̅L

From the above net energy input, some energy is used for overcoming drag at the gas-liquid interface

and is given by:

π 2
ED = ϵG ϵ̅L (ρL − ρG )VS
D HD g ̅̅̅ (8.15)
4

168 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

The subtraction of Eq. (8.15) from Eq. (8.14) gives:

E = EN − ED

π 2 ϵG L
̅̅̅V
E= D HD g ϵ̅L (ρL − ρG ) (VG − − ̅̅̅
ϵG VS ) (8.16)
4 ϵ̅L

The energy given by Eq. (8.16) is used for generating convective circulatory motion in the column

which is eventually converted into turbulent kinetic energy. The estimation of turbulent kinetic

energy production [given by Eq. (8.16)] is represented by Eq. (8.7). The energy spent for bubble

generated turbulence is given by Eq. (8.15) and is represented by Eq. (8.8) in the revised manuscript.

It may be pointed out that, there are many other alternative ways to represent Eq. (8.15) and Eq. (8.8)

is one possible way.

The bracketed term in Eq. (8.16) gives us the relative estimate of energy available for bubble

generated turbulence. If the value of bracketed term (VG − ̅̅̅V

ϵG L ⁄ϵ̅L − ̅̅̅
ϵG VS ) is zero, then no energy

is available for generating convective flows and the gas –liquid dispersion becomes homogeneous.

Under these conditions, the energy spent for bubble generated turbulence is maximum. On contrast,

the energy spent for liquid circulation increases when the value of bracketed term increases or with

a decrease in ̅̅̅
ϵG and the sip velocity (VS ).

8.4.2. Conservation equation for turbulent energy dissipation rate [Celik (1999)]

Similar to the conservation equation for turbulent kinetic energy (k), by taking derivative of the

conservation equation for fluctuating variables with respect to 𝜕𝑥𝑘 and then multiplying it by

(2𝜈(∂u′i ⁄∂xk ))we get the conservation equation for the turbulent energy dissipation rate (ɛ) as

follows:

169 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

∂ ∂u′i ∂ϵ′L ∂ ∂u′i ∂2 ϵ′L ∂ ∂ε

̅
(∈L u̅i ε) − 2ν 〈 〉 (u̅i u̅j ) − 2ν(u̅i u̅j ) 〈 〉+ ̅L ν )
(∈
∂x
⏟j ⏟ ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ⏟ ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xj
⏟ ∂xj
1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1

2
2
∂2 u′i ∂〈u′j ε〉 ∂u′i ′ ∂2 (u̅i ϵ̅L ) ∂u′i ′ ∂3 u′i
̅ L 〈(
+ 2ν ∈ ̅L
) 〉+∈ − 2ν 〈 ui 〉 −ν〈 ϵL 〉 2
⏟ ∂xk ∂xj ⏟ ∂xj ⏟ ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ⏟ ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk
2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3

∂2 (u̅i 𝜖L′ ) ∂u′i ∂u̅i ∂u′i ∂(u̅j 𝜖L′ ) ∂u′j ∂u′i ∂(u̅j 𝜖L′ )
− 2ν 〈u′j 〉 − 2ν 〈 〉 − 2ν 〈 〉
⏟ ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ⏟ ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj ⏟ ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj
3.4 3.5 3.6

∂u′i ′ ∂2 (u̅i u̅j ) ∂u′i ∂u′j ∂(u̅i ϵ̅L ) ∂u′i ′ ∂2 (u̅i ϵ̅L )
= − 2ν 〈 ϵL 〉 − 2ν 〈 〉 − 2ν 〈 uj 〉
⏟ ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ⏟ ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ⏟ ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk
4.1 4.2 4.3

∂u′i ∂u′i u′j ∂ϵ̅L ∂u′i ∂u′i u′j ∂2 ϵ̅L ∂(u̅i ϵ̅L ) ∂u′i ∂u′i ∂u′j ∂2 u′i
− 2ν 〈 〉 + 2ν 〈 〉 − 〈 〉 − 2ν 〈 (u̅i 𝜖L′ )〉
⏟ ∂x k ∂x k ∂x k ∂x k ∂x k ∂x k ∂x k ∂x
⏟ k ∂x k ∂x j ⏟ ∂x k ∂x k ∂x j
4.4 5.1 5.2

∂u′i ∂u′i ∂ ∂2 (u̅j 𝜖L′ ) ∂u′i

− 2ν 〈 (u̅j 𝜖L′ )〉 − 2ν 〈u′j 〉
⏟ ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ⏟ ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk
5.3 5.4

+ S⏟ε (8.17)
6.1

As per Eq. (8.4), the terms in Eq. (8.17) such as 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 correspond to convective transport

of ε. The terms 2.1 and 2.2 correspond to diffusive transport of ε. Terms 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6

correspond to the turbulent transport of ε. The terms 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 correspond to production of ε

and terms 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 correspond to dissipation of ε, Sε is the source term. The above mentioned

classification of different terms in  equation is shown in Table 8.3. The last column shows the

corresponding modelled terms in a standard -equation which is given as follows:

∂ ∂ ∂ε ∂ νt ∂ε ε ̅L u̅i
∂∈ ε2
(ϵ̅L εui ) = [ϵ̅ ν ] + [ϵ̅ ] + ϵ̅L Cε1 τij − ϵ̅L Cε2 + Sε (8.18)
∂xi ∂xj L ∂xj ∂xj L σε ∂xj 𝑘 ∂xj 𝑘

Ctd
Sε = S (8.19)
τp k

170 | P a g e
 Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

Table 8.3. Budget for the kinetic energy dissipation rate () in k-model
Terms arising out of derivation of  equation [Eq. (8.17)] from the equation of motion and continuity for two-phase flow Modelled terms in
standard k- model
Rate of ∂ ∂u′i ∂ϵ′L ∂ ∂u′i ∂2 ϵ′L ∂
̅ u̅ ε)
(∈ −2ν 〈 〉 (u̅ u̅ ) −2ν(u̅i u̅j ) 〈 〉 (ϵ̅ εu )
Convective ∂xj L i ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk i j ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xi L i
Transport Term 1.2
Term 1.1 Term 1.3
2
Rate of ∂ ∂ε ∂2 u′i ∂ ∂ε
Viscous + ̅L ν )
(∈ +2ν2 ∈
̅L 〈( ) 〉 (ϵ̅L ν )
∂xj ∂xj ∂xk ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
Transport
Term 2.1 Term 2.2
Rate of ∂〈u′j ε〉 ∂u′i ′ ∂2 (u̅i ϵ̅L ) ∂u′i ′ ∂3 u′i ∂2 (u̅i 𝜖L′ ) ∂u′i ∂ νt ∂ε
Turbulent ̅L
∈ −2ν 〈 u〉 −ν 〈 ϵ 〉 −2ν 〈u′j 〉 (ϵ̅L )
∂xj ∂xk i ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk L ∂xj2 ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj σε ∂xj
Transport
Term 3.1 Term 3.2 Term 3.3 Term 3.4
∂u̅i ∂u′i ∂(u̅j 𝜖L′ ) ∂u′j ∂u′i ∂(u̅j 𝜖L′ )
2ν 〈 〉 2ν 〈 〉
∂xk ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj
Term 3.5 Term 3.6
Rate of ∂u′i 2
∂ (u̅i u̅j ) ∂u′i ∂u′j ∂(u̅i ϵ̅L ) ∂u′i ′ ∂2 (u̅i ϵ̅L ) ∂u′i ∂u′i u′j ∂ϵ̅L ε ̅ L u̅i
∂∈
Production −2ν 〈 ϵ′L 〉 −2ν 〈 〉 −2ν 〈 u〉 −2ν 〈 〉 ϵ̅L C1ε τij
∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk j ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk 𝑘 ∂xj
Term 4.1 Term 4.2 Term 4.3 ∂u′i ∂u′i u′j ∂2 ϵ̅L
− 2ν 〈 〉
∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk
Term 4.4

Rate of ∂(u̅i ϵ̅L ) ∂u′i ∂u′i ∂u′j ∂2 u′i ∂u′i ∂u′i ∂ ∂2 (u̅j 𝜖L′ ) ∂u′i ε2
Dissipation − 〈 〉 −2ν 〈 ′
(u̅i 𝜖L )〉 −2ν 〈 (u̅j 𝜖L′ )〉 −2ν 〈u′j 〉 −ϵ̅L C2ε
∂xk ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk 𝑘
Term 5.1 Term 5.2 Term 5.3 Term 5.4
Source Sε Term 6.1 Sε
Term
The overall modelled equation for turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate is given by:

∂ ∂ ∂ε ∂ νt ∂ε ε ̅L u̅i
∂∈ ε2
(ϵ̅L εui ) = [ϵ̅L ν ] + [ϵ̅L ] + ϵ̅L Cε1 τij − ϵ̅L Cε2 + Sε
∂xi ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj σε ∂xj 𝑘 ∂xj 𝑘

171 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

where, Ctd (=0.45) is the constant for source term in Eq. (8.19) arising from bubble induced

turbulence. τp is the characteristic time of the induced turbulence and is given by:

2CVM dB
τp = (8.20)
3CD |v̅i − u̅i |

Where, CVM and CD are virtual mass coefficient and drag coefficient, respectively.

Table 8.3 represents the governing equation for the turbulent energy dissipation rate. The production

and dissipation terms for  are proportional to the production and dissipation terms of k. The higher

order fluctuating terms arising due to the gas hold up are neglected in the RANS approach. The

transport of turbulent kinetic energy and the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy is primarily

modeled as a diffusive process that is a spatial derivative of order two. The analytic solution of this

transport process is Gaussian in nature, having the effect of smoothing fluctuations and sharp spikes.

Correctly handling the transport term so as to prevent this smoothing effect can be attributed to the

inclusion of the higher order fluctuating terms, which increases the computational requirement.

8.4.3. Reynolds stress model (RSM)

The transport equation for Reynolds stresses is derived by multiplying u′j with the momentum

equation for ith velocity fluctuating component (u′i ) and multiplying u′i with the momentum equation

for jth velocity fluctuating component (u′j ). Addition of these equations will lead to the conservation

equation for Reynolds stresses as follows:

172 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

̅̅̅̅̅
∂u ′ u′
i j ∂ϵ̅L ∂ϵ̅L ∂ϵ′L u′i ∂ ∂u′i ′ ∂ ∂u′i
′ ′
2(ϵ̅L u̅k ) − u̅i τij − u̅j τik −〈 u̅k ui 〉 + (ϵ̅ ν 〈 u 〉) + 〈uj (ϵ̅L ν )〉
⏟ ∂xk ⏟ ∂xk ⏟ ∂xk ⏟∂xk ∂xk L ∂xk j
⏟ ⏟ ∂xk ∂xk
Term 1.1 Term 1.2 Term 1.3 Term 1.4 Term 2.1 Term 2.2

′
∂ ∂u̅j ′
∂ ∂u′j ∂τik ∂τjk
〈u
− i ′
(ϵL ν 〈u
)〉 + i ′
(ϵL ν )〉 − ν 〈u′j ϵ̅L 〉 − ν 〈u′i ϵ̅L 〉
⏟ ∂xk ∂xk ⏟ ∂xk ∂xk ⏟ ∂xk ⏟ ∂xk
Term 2.3 Term 2.4 Term 3.1 Term 3.2

∂ϵ̅L u′i u′j u′k

− 2ν 〈 〉
⏟ ∂xk
Term 3.3

∂(ϵ̅L u̅k ) ∂(u̅i ) ∂(u̅j ) P ′ ∂u′i ∂u′j

̅̅̅̅̅
= − 2u ′ u′
i j
̅̅̅̅̅̅
′ ′
− ϵ̅L uk uj ̅̅̅̅̅̅
′ ′
− ϵ̅L uk ui − ϵ̅L ( 〈 + 〉)
⏟ ∂xj ⏟ ∂xk ⏟ ∂xk ⏟ ρ ∂xj ∂xi
Term 4.1 Term 4.2 Term 4.3 Term 5.1

P ′ ∂u′i ∂u′j 2
− ϵ′L (
〈 + 〉) − ϵ̅L εδij (8.21)
⏟ ρ ∂xj ∂xi ⏟
3
Term 5.2 Term 6.1

In Eq. (8.21), terms 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 correspond to rate of convective transport. Terms 2.1, 2.2,

2.3 and 2.4 correspond to the rate of diffusive transport. Terms 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 correspond to turbulent

transport of Reynolds stresses. Terms 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 correspond to the rate of production of

Reynolds stresses. Terms 5.1 and 5.2 represent pressure strain terms. Term 6.1 represents the rate of

dissipation of Reynolds stresses. The above mentioned classification of different terms in  equation

is shown in Table 8.4. The last column shows the corresponding modelled terms in a stress equation

which is given as follows:

̅̅̅̅̅
∂u ′ u′
i j ∂ ϵ̅L k ′ ′ ∂u ̅̅̅̅̅
′ u′
i j ∂(ϵ̅L u̅j ) ∂(ϵ̅L u̅i ) ϵ̅L ε ′ ′
(ϵ̅L u̅i ) = CS ( ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
uk um ) − ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
u′i u′m − ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
u′j u′m CR1 ̅̅̅̅̅
u u
∂xi ∂xj ε ∂xk ∂xm ∂xm k i j

2 ′ ′ ∂(ϵ̅L u̅i ) ϵ̅L ε 2 2

+ u̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
j um CR1 ϵ̅L δij − CR1 ϵ̅L (Pij − Pδij ) − ϵ̅L εδij (8.22)
3 ∂xm k 3 3

The pressure strain term in Eq. (8.22) is classified as: (i) interactions of fluctuating components

[terms 3 and 4 on RHS of Eq. (8.22)], and (ii) interaction of mean strain and fluctuating quantity

[term 5 on RHS of Eq. (8.22)].

173 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

Table 8.4. Budget for the turbulent kinetic energy (k) in Reynolds Stress Model
Terms arising out of derivation of k equation [Eq. (8.21)] from the equation of motion and continuity Modelled Terms in RSM
for two-phase flow
Rate of ∂u ̅̅̅̅̅
′ u′
i j ∂ϵ ̅L ∂ϵ̅L ∂ϵ′L u′i ̅̅̅̅̅
∂u ′ u′
i j
Convective 2(ϵ̅L u̅k ) −u̅ τ
i ij −u ̅ τ
j ik − 〈 u̅k u′i 〉 (ϵ̅L u̅k )
∂xk ∂x k ∂x k ∂xk ∂xk
Transport Term 1.1 Term 1.2 Term 1.3 Term 1.4
Rate of ∂ ∂u′i ′ ∂ ∂u′i ∂ ∂u̅j ∂ ∂u′j
Viscous (ϵ̅L ν 〈 uj 〉) 〈u′j (ϵ̅L ν )〉 − 〈u′i (ϵ′L ν )〉 〈u′i (ϵ′L ν )〉
∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk
Transport Term 2.1 Term 2.2 Term 2.3 Term 2.4
∂τ ∂τ ′ ′ ′ ̅̅̅̅̅
′ u′
Rate of ik jk ∂ϵ̅L ui uj uk ∂ ϵ̅L k ′ ′ ∂u i j
Turbulent −𝜈 〈u′j ϵ̅L 〉 −𝜈 〈u′i ϵ̅L 〉 −2𝜈 〈 〉 CS ( ̅̅̅̅̅̅
uk u1 )
∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj ε ∂xk
Transport Term 3.1 Term 3.2 Term 3.3 [CS = 0.20-0.25]
Rate of ∂(ϵ̅L u̅k ) ∂(u̅i ) ∂(u̅j ) ∂(ϵ̅L u̅k )
Production −2u̅̅̅̅̅
′ u′
i j −ϵ̅L̅̅̅̅̅̅
u′k u′j −ϵ ̅
L
̅̅̅̅̅̅
u ′ ′
ui
̅̅̅̅̅
−u ′ u′
i j
∂xj ∂xk k
∂xk ∂xj
Term 4.1 Term 4.2 Term 4.3
′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′
Pressure P ∂ui ∂u j P ∂ui ∂u j ∂(ϵ̅L u̅i ) ϵ̅L ε ′ ′
−ϵ̅L ( 〈 + 〉) −𝜖L′ ( 〈 + 〉) ̅̅̅̅̅̅
−u ′ u′
j 1 CR1 ̅̅̅̅̅
uu
Strain Term ρ ∂xj ∂xi ρ ∂xj ∂xi ∂x1 k i j
Term 5.1 Term 5.2 2 ′ ′ ∂(ϵ̅L u̅i ) ϵ̅L ε
+ ̅̅̅̅̅̅
uj u1 CR1 ϵ̅ δ
3 ∂x1 k L ij
2
− CR1 ϵ̅L (Pij − Pδij )
3
Rate of 2 2
− ϵ̅L εδij (Term 6.1) − ϵ̅L εδij
Dissipation 3 3
The overall modelled equation for Reynolds stresses is given by:

̅̅̅̅̅
∂u ′ u′
i j ∂ ϵ̅L k ′ ′ ∂u̅̅̅̅̅
′ u′
i j ∂(ϵ̅L u̅j ) ∂(ϵ̅L u̅i ) ϵ̅L ε ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ∂(ϵ̅L u̅i ) ϵ̅L ε 2
(ϵ̅L u̅k ) = CS ( ̅̅̅̅̅̅
uk u1 ) − ̅̅̅̅̅̅
u′i u1′ − ̅̅̅̅̅̅
u′j u1′ CR1 ui uj + ̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅̅ uj u1 CR1 ϵ̅L δij − CR1 ϵ̅L (Pij − Pδij )
∂xk ∂xj ε ∂xk ∂x1 ∂x1 k 3 ∂x1 k 3
2
− ϵ̅L εδij
3

174 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

Along with Eq. (8.22), the conservation equation for  is also solved, which is given by Eq. (8.18).

Table 8.3 represents the true terms arising out of derivation of  equation (Section 8.4.2) from the

equation of motion and continuity for two-phase flow and the corresponding modelled terms for

RSM.

8.4.4. Large eddy simulations (LES)

For the LES simulation, Eq. (8.2) was solved along with Smagorinsky model for

calculating μeff given by following equation:

μeff,l = μ + ρL (CS ∆)2 √Sij (8.23)

Where, μ is the molecular viscosity, CS is the Smagorinsky constant, Sij is the characteristic strain

tensor of filtered velocity and ∆ is the filter width (usually taken as the cubic root of the cell volume).

Further details pertaining to the LES model have been given by Tabib et al. (2008) and Dhotre et al.

(2013). The terms for  equation for LES are given in Table 8.5.

8.5. Method of solution

Bubble column of 150 mm i.d. was simulated at three different superficial gas velocities (20, 40 and

100 mm/s). The perforated plate sparger was replicated by injection points at the base of the column.

An Eulerian-Eulerian approach was used. Water was taken as the continuous phase and air bubbles

of 5mm diameter was the dispersed phase. In the present work the drag model of Ishii and Zuber

(1979) has been employed. The choice of dB to be 5 mm is based on the slip velocity which was

found to be 330 mm/s by iterations in CFD simulations. A no-slip boundary condition was considered

for all the walls and the degassing boundary condition was used for the outlet that allowed selectively

only the gas phase to escape while the liquid recirculated back into the column. The standard k-

model [given by Eqs. (8.9) and (8.18)] and RSM model [given by Eq. (8.22) and (8.18)] were used

to simulate the bubble column depicting the RANS approach. For the LES simulation Eq. (8.2) was

solved along with Smagorinsky model [Eq. (8.22)]. The flow was developed on a coarse grid of 0.6

175 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

Table 8.5. Budget for the kinetic energy dissipation rate () in LES model

Rate of ∂ ∂u′i ∂ϵ′L ∂ ∂u′i ∂2 ϵ′L

̅ u̅ ε)
(∈ −2ν 〈 〉 (u̅ u̅ ) −2ν(u̅i u̅j ) 〈 〉
Convective ∂xj L i ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk i j ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk
Term Term 1.1 Term 1.2 Term 1.3
Rate of ∂ ∂ε ∂2 u′i
2 ∂∈ ̅L ∂u′i ∂(u′i u′i ) ∂u′i ∂ϵ′L ∂(u̅i u̅j )
Viscous + ̅L ν )
(∈ 2
̅L 〈(
−2ν ∈ ) 〉 −2ν 〈 〉 −2ν 〈 〉
∂xj ∂xj ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj
Transport Term 2.1 Term 2.3
Term 2.2 Term 2.4
Rate of ∂〈u′j ε〉 ∂u′i ′ ∂2 (u̅i ϵ̅L ) ∂u′i ′ ∂3 u′i ∂2 (u̅i 𝜖L′ ) ∂u′i
Turbulent ̅L
−∈ −2ν 〈 u〉 −ν 〈 ϵ 〉 −2ν 〈u′j 〉
∂xj ∂xk i ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk L ∂xj2 ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk
Transport Term 3.1 Term 3.2 Term 3.4
Term 3.3
∂u̅i ∂u′i ∂(u̅j 𝜖L′ ) ∂u′j ∂u′i ∂(u̅j 𝜖L′ ) ∂u′i ∂2 (u′i u′i )
2ν 〈 〉 2ν 〈 〉 ̅
−2ν ∈L 〈 〉
∂xk ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj
Term 3.5 Term 3.6 Term 3.7

Rate of ∂u′i ′ ∂2 (u̅i u̅j ) ∂u′i ∂u′j ∂(u̅i ϵ̅L ) 𝜕𝑢𝑖′ ′ 𝜕 2 (𝑢̅𝑖 𝜖̅𝐿 ) ∂u′i ∂u′i u′j ∂ϵ̅L
Production −2ν 〈 ϵ 〉 −2ν 〈 〉 −2𝜈 〈 𝑢〉 −2ν 〈 〉
∂xk L ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk 𝜕𝑥𝑘 𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑘 ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk
Term 4.1 Term 4.2 Term 4.3 Term 4.4
∂2 u′i ∂(u̅i ϵ̅L ) ∂2 u′i u′j ∂(u̅i ϵ′L ) ∂u′i ∂u′i u′j ∂2 ϵ̅L
−2ν 〈u′i u′j 〉 −2ν 〈u′i 〉 −2ν 〈 〉
∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk
Term 4.5 Term 4.6 Term 4.7

Rate of ∂(u̅i ϵ̅L ) ∂u′i ∂u′i ∂u′j ∂2 u′i ∂u′i ∂u′i ∂ ∂2 (u̅j 𝜖L′ ) ∂u′i
− 〈 〉 −2ν 〈 (u̅ 𝜖 ′ )〉 −2ν 〈 (u̅ 𝜖 ′ )〉 −2ν 〈u′j 〉
Dissipation ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xj i L ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk j L ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk
Term 5.1 Term 5.2 Term 5.3 Term 5.4

176 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

million and the results were interpolated on a much finer mesh with 3.1 million grid points with a

time step of (∆t) =1x10-6.

As per the recommendations of Tomiyama et al. (2002), the lift coefficient works out to be 0.025.

However, it may be noted that these authors used a model flow pattern for the recommendation of

lift coefficient. Tabib et al. (2008) have comprehensively analyzed the parametric sensitivity of lift

coefficient and have recommended a value of -0.05 for lift coefficient for the same geometry and VG

of the present work. The same value has been used in the present work. The Smagorinsky model

constant, (CS) was set at 0.5. Lopez de Bertodano et al. (1991) has suggested a value of 0.3 for the

simulation of the turbulent dispersion force and was selected for the present simulations. The Sato

Enhanced Eddy Viscosity model was used for the modeling the interaction of the bubble with its

surrounding liquid. It may be pointed out that the Sato and Sekoguchi (1975) model was used (given

by Eq. (8.6)) for the estimation of eddy viscosity which determines the mean flow pattern. It is known

that the turbulence is also generated because of the motion of bubbles and is called Bubble Induced

Turbulence (BIT). This subject has been comprehensively researched by several investigators during

the past 40 years. A critical review of this published work has been recently presented by Joshi et al.

(2016). Thus, it is clear that the BIT needs to appear in the conservation equation of turbulent kinetic

energy and is given by Eq. (8.8). CFX Expression Language (CEL) step functions were embedded

to define the initial conditions for the volume fraction, liquid height and bubble diameter. The initial

volume fraction was set within a range of 0 to 0.15 and the initial liquid height was set at 0.9m. For

convergence, a high resolution advection scheme and the second order backward Euler transient

scheme were employed. Convergence was achieved with a residual target set at 1x10 -6. A control

was set on the fluid timescale, where the solution for convergence was looped in a range of 2 to 10.

The solver relaxation factor was set at 0.7. ANSYS CFX 13 was used to simulate the flow dynamics

in the bubble column. Simulations were run on the SGI Altix XE 371 which comprised of 16 compute

nodes. Each node has eight cores; two Intel Xeon Quad core linked via L2 cache (8 MB per node)

177 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

supported by 8 GB of RAM. Data were extracted in the CFD general notation system format (.CGNS)

and stored in a binary format. MATLAB 8.0 (2012b) was used to read in the data and all the

calculations were carried out on a quad core Intel i7, 3.13GHz with a minimum requirement of 12GB.

The API incorrectly estimates outliers and NaNs in the process of conversion and transference. Hence

pretreatment of data is an important step for the removal of outliers and singleton values. An

interpolation scheme was devised based on a predictive intelligent learning algorithm that locates the

outliers and NaNs value in the data set.

8.6. Method of estimation of terms in conservation equations (Tables 8.2 to 8.5)

The instantaneous velocities, pressure and volume fraction were ensemble averaged on a time basis

(spatially statistically invariant) on all the node points. Table 8.2 to 8.5 lists second order, third order

correlation terms and these were also ensemble averaged temporally. The data are arranged three

dimensionally in a four dimensional array; the fourth dimension representing the physical quantity

and the first three representing the coordinate locations with respect to their positions in the column.

A gradient operator method was written to calculate the first order derivatives with a fourth order

accuracy of the given physical quantity in all its respective dimensions and a fourth order accurate,

second order derivative.

8.7. Results and discussion

8.7.1. Large scale hydrodynamics

The predictive nature of the turbulence models has been compared for a bubble column at superficial

gas velocity of 20 mm/s. The radial profiles of mean axial velocity, fractional gas hold-up (ϵ̅G ) and

turbulent kinetic energy (k) have been compared with the experimental results of Bhole et al. (2006)

and Kulkarni et al. (2007). Figure 8.2 shows the comparison of axial velocity for the sieve plate

sparger. The cross over point for the flow was observed to be at 0.7. At this stage, a material balance

was established between the upflow and downflow. In principle the two flow rates need to be

178 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

identical and the difference was found to be within 2.5 per cent. Figure 8.3 shows the comparison of

experimental values of gas hold-up and the CFD predictions. It can be seen that all the three models

favorably predict radial profiles of axial velocity and fractional gas hold-up. However, the predictive

capability of turbulence models becomes demanding for turbulence parameters. For instance, Figure

8.4 compares the turbulent kinetic energy at an axial location HD/D = 4.

0.3
0.25 3
0.2
Axial Liquid Velocity, u (m/s)

2
0.15
0.1
1
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Dimensionless Radial Distance, r/R

Figure 8.2. Comparison between the simulated and experimental profiles of axial liquid
velocity at axial position HD/D=4 with sieve plate sparger at VG = 20 mm/s; (Δ) Experimental
data [Bhole et al. (2006)]; (1) LES model; (2) RSM and (3) k–ε model.

8.7.2. Comparison of turbulence models

8.7.2.1. Budget for turbulent kinetic energy

The fluctuating components of three dimensional velocities, gas hold-up and pressure were obtained

from LES. The time series data has been ensemble averaged and the ensemble velocities, turbulence

179 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

Figure 8.3. Comparison between the simulated and experimental profiles of gas holdup at
axial position HD/D=4 with sieve plate sparger at VG = 20 mm/s; (Δ) Experimental data [Bhole
et al. (2006)]; (1) LES model; (2) RSM and (3) k–ε model.

intensities and turbulent stresses have been calculated. Also double and triple correlations of

velocity, volume fraction and stresses have been calculated. Further, as per Table 8.2, convection

term, viscous transport term, turbulent transport term, turbulent energy dissipation term and the

production of turbulent kinetic energy term have been estimated (as per correlations given in Table

8.2) using the extracted velocities from each model. The volumetric conservation of the energy across

each of the cells has been calculated. The results are shown in Figures 8.5 to 8.7. Also shown is the

residual (subplot F in all the Figures) of the conservation of energy, [Eq. (8.3)] for all the models.

The LES model satisfies the energy balance. For the LES model the residual can be seen to be zero,

ensuring a complete balance and conservation of turbulent kinetic energy.

180 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

Figure 8.4. Comparison between the simulated and experimental profiles of turbulent kinetic
energy at axial position HD/D=4 with sieve plate sparger at VG = 20 mm/s; (Δ) Experimental
data [Bhole et al. (2006)]; (1) LES model; (2) RSM and (3) k–ε model.

Figures 8.5A, 8.6A and 8.7A represent the rate of convective transport of k at 20, 40 and 100 mm/s,

respectively. From Figure 8.5A it was observed that the rate of convective transport predicted by

using standard k- model (line 3) showed deviation (with the SD of 141%) from the LES predictions

(line 1). In case of RSM (line 2), though the rate of convective transport predicted is better than that

of the standard k- model, it still shows deviation (with the SD of 102%) from LES results. Terms

1.1 to 1.4 in Table 8.2, on addition, contributes to the net rate of convective transport of k. the

resulting sum is named as convection by true k-equation [conservation equation for k (Eq. (8.3))

without any modelling assumptions). In Figure 8.5A, this term is shown by line 4. When plotted

against the convection of k by using LES (line 1), it was found to be in good agreement with LES.

From Table 8.2 it can be seen that the convective transport term in standard k- model is same as that

181 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

of term 1.1. In the standard k- model, terms 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 are neglected. But the approach for true

k- model shows that these terms (terms 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4) also effectively contribute to the net rate of

convective transport in order to achieve the accuracy of the order of LES. Thus, it is clear that the

deviation in line 3 is mainly because of modelling assumptions, which can be excluded by using true

k- model. Similarly, in case of RSM terms 1.1 to 1.4 in Table 8.4 were added to get the net rate of

convective transport of k by RSM. The resulting term is called as convection by true-RSM [Eq.

(8.21)], which is represented by line 5 in Figure 8.5A. It also shows good agreement with that of the

LES data. Similar procedure was followed for the calculation of the rate of convective transport by

using true k-equation and true RSM at the superficial gas velocities of 40 mm/s and 100 mm/s and

results were plotted in Figure 8.6A and 8.7A, respectively. In all the cases, the rate of convection was

found to be maximum in the region between flow reversal point and the wall, where mean and the

fluctuating velocity gradients are dominating. At this stage, we emphasize one important point. The

lines 4 (true k- model) and 5 (true RSM) in all the plots show an excellent agreement (within 3

percent) with line 1 for LES. This observation validates the procedure for (a) constructing Tables 8.2

to 8.5 and (b) estimation of terms in these tables.

The rate of viscous transport is shown in Figures 8.5B, 8.6B and 8.7B at the superficial gas velocities

of 20, 40 and 100 mm/s, respectively. Line 1 to 3 shows the results for diffusive transport of k by

using LES model, RSM and standard k- model, respectively. Lines 2 and 3 show deviation (SD of

72.5% and 132% for standard k- model and RSM, respectively) from LES. The rate of diffusion of

k using true k- model was obtained by adding terms 2.1 and 2.2 in Table 8.2. The resulting term was

plotted in Figure 8.5B as line 4. Similar to line 4, line 5 was also plotted as rate of diffusive transport

arising out of true RSM. True RSM diffusive term is obtained by adding terms 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4

in Table 8.4. Lines 4 and 5 show good agreement with the LES results (line 1). In this case also

(similar to convective transport) the contribution of term 2.1 in Table 8.2 to get net rate of diffusive

transport is very important. Similar procedure was followed for the calculation of the rate of diffusion

182 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

0.2 0.01
0.005 2
Rate of convective transport of k

Rate of viscous transport of k

0.15 0
4 -0.005 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.1
-0.01
3 4 5
5 -0.015 1
0.05
1 -0.02
0 -0.025
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -0.03 B
-0.05 2 -0.035
3 -0.04
-0.1 -0.045
0 0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.18 D 3
Rate of turbulent transport of k

-0.02 2
0.16
Rate of production of k
C 5
0.14
-0.04
0.12
-0.06 5 0.1 1
4 0.08 4
-0.08 1
0.06
0.04
-0.1 3 0.02
2
0
-0.12
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 6.0E-06
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.01
4.0E-06 F
E 2.0E-06
Rate of dissipation of k

-0.02
0.0E+00
-0.03
Residual

2 -2.0E-06
4 5 1
-0.04 -4.0E-06 1
3 2
-6.0E-06
-0.05
-8.0E-06
-0.06 -1.0E-05
3
-0.07 -1.2E-05
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Radial Distance, r/R
Figure 8.5. Turbulent kinetic energy (k) budget in a bubble column at axial position HD/D=4
with sieve plate sparger at VG = 20 mm/s (1) LES model (2) RSM (3) k–ε model (4) True k–ε
model and (5) True RSM; (A) Rate of convective transport (B) Rate of viscous transport (C)
Rate of turbulent transport (D) Rate of production (E) Rate of dissipation and (F) Residual.
183 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

0.35 0.02
2
Rate of convective transport of k

0.3 3 B
A

Rate of viscous transport of k

0
0.25 5 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.2 -0.02
4
0.15 3
-0.04
0.1 1
4
0.05 -0.06
0 5 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -0.08
-0.05
-0.1 -0.1
0.15 0.4
0.1 5 3
Rate of turbulent transport of k

1 0.35 D 2
0.05 Rate of production of k
0.3 5
0
-0.05 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 4 1 0.25
0.2 1
-0.1
-0.15 4
0.15
-0.2 3 0.1
-0.25 C
2 0.05
-0.3
-0.35 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 4.E-06
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 F
-0.02 3.E-06
Rate of dissipation of k

-0.04 E 2.E-06
1 2
-0.06 1 3
1.E-06
Residual

-0.08 4 5 0.E+00
-0.1 -1.E-06
-0.12 -2.E-06
-0.14
-3.E-06
-0.16 3
2 -4.E-06
-0.18 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Radial Distance, r/R

Figure 8.6. Turbulent kinetic energy (k) budget in a bubble column at axial position HD/D=4
with sieve plate sparger at VG = 40 mm/s (1) LES model (2) RSM (3) k–ε model (4) True k–ε
model and (5) True RSM; (A) Rate of convective transport (B) Rate of viscous transport (C)
Rate of turbulent transport (D) Rate of production (E) Rate of dissipation and (F) Residual.
184 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

1 0.05
1
Rate of convective transport of k

0.8 A

Rate of viscous transport of k

0
4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.6
5 -0.05
0.4 2
-0.1 3
4
0.2
1
-0.15
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 B 5
-0.2 2 -0.2
3
-0.4 -0.25

0.4 1
2 3
5 0.9
Rate of turbulent transport of k

0.2 D 1
0.8
Rate of production of k

0 0.7
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.6
-0.2 1
0.5
-0.4 C 0.4
4 4
0.3
-0.6 0.2
3
-0.8 0.1
2
0
-1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 5.E-06
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.05
Rate of dissipation of k

-0.1 E 0.E+00
-0.15 1
Residual

5 -5.E-06
-0.2 4 2
-0.25
-1.E-05
3
-0.3
-0.35 2 F 1
-2.E-05
-0.4 3
-0.45 -2.E-05
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Radial Distance, r/R
Figure 8.7. Turbulent kinetic energy (k) budget in a bubble column at axial position HD/D=4
with sieve plate sparger at VG = 100 mm/s (1) LES model (2) RSM (3) k–ε model (4) True k–ε
model and (5) True RSM; (A) Rate of convective transport (B) Rate of viscous transport (C)
Rate of turbulent transport (D) Rate of production (E) Rate of dissipation and (F) Residual.
185 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

by using true k-equation and true RSM at the superficial gas velocities of 40 mm/s and 100 mm/s

and results were plotted in Figure 8.6B and 8.7B, respectively.

Figures 8.5C, 8.6C and 8.7C represent the rate of turbulent transport of k at the superficial gas

velocities of 20, 40 and 100 mm/s, respectively. In Figure 8.5C, lines 1, 2 and 3 represent the rate of

turbulent transport calculated using LES model, RSM and standard k- model. Both RSM and

standard k- model show deviation (with SD of 2% and 4%, respectively) from LES results. On the

other hand, true k- model (line 4 obtained by adding terms 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 in Table 8.2) and

true RSM (line 5 obtained by adding terms 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3) show good agreement with the LES

results. The turbulent transport (line 3) is calculated by using term given in the last column of Table

8.2, which neglects the terms 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 and considers the modelling of term 3.1, according to

Boussinesq’s approximation, as follows:

∂〈u′j k〉 ∂ ν ∂k
̅L
∈ = ̅L t
(∈ ) (8.24)
∂xj ∂xj σk ∂xj

This results into an inaccurate prediction of turbulent transport (line 3 in Figure 8.5C) as compared

with LES predictions (line 1). Again we point out that the accurate predictions need the inclusion of

neglected terms, which is possible by using true k- model (line 4) and true RSM (line 5). Thus the

assumption of Boussinesq’s approximation can be excluded in order to get the accuracy of LES

simulations by using the approach proposed in this work.

The rate of production of k at the superficial gas velocity of 20 mm/s are shown in Figures 8.5D.

Lines 1, 2 and 3 in Figure 8.5D represent production by LES model, RSM and standard k- model,

respectively. Deviation is observed between RSM and LES as well as standard k- model and LES.

This is mainly because of the modelling assumptions. While modelling rate of production of k, the

terms corresponding to pressure strain (terms 4.1 and 4.4) as well as 4.3 are neglected in the standard

k- model. The term 4.2 is modeled as:

186 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

∂u̅i ̅L u̅i
∂∈
̅L 〈u′i u′j 〉
∈ = τij (8.25)
∂xj ∂xj

The consequence of all the assumptions is the deviation (SD as mentioned in Table 8.6) in predictions

of standard k- model (line 3 in Figure 8.5D) and LES (line 1). Above mentioned assumptions were

made in deriving RSM also and hence the deviation (SD as mentioned in Table 8.6) is observed in

RSM and LES model. All the above assumptions were eliminated in true k- model (line 4) and true

RSM (line 5) and were plotted in Figure 8.5D. Both the models show very good agreement with the

LES results. Similar procedure was followed for the calculation of the rate of production by using

true k-equation and true RSM at the superficial gas velocities of 40 mm/s and 100 mm/s and results

were plotted in Figure 8.6D and 8.7D, respectively.

Figure 8.5E represents the rate of dissipation of k at the superficial gas velocity of 20 mm/s. It is

observed that standard k- model (line 3) shows much more deviation (SD of 31% as mentioned in

Table 8.6) from LES results (line 1). As compared to standard k- model, RSM (line 2) shows better

agreement with the LES with the SD of 16%, as shown in Table 8.6. The discrepancy arises in the

result of standard k- model in spite of the fact that only one term exists under dissipation. However,

no assumptions are made in this case and term 5.1 is exactly the same as that in the last column. This

discrepancy, however, is just apparent because the k equation in k- model also needs to be conserved

as per equation (4). True k- model (line 4) and true RSM (line 5) also shows very good agreement

with the LES. Thus, from the above discussion it is clear that we can get the accuracy of LES model

by properly deriving the k- model [Eqs. (8.9) and (8.18)] and RSM [Eq. (8.22)] in the form of true

k- model and true RSM. It is possible to get the desired accuracy with small computational demands

by using the new approach of writing true equations. In all the cases, the residuals were found to be

of the order of 10-6 as shown in Figures 8.5F, 8.6F and 8.7F. The residuals for LES model (line 1),

RSM (line 2) and standard k- model (line 3) almost of the same order. This is because all the

187 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

equations need to be conserved as per Eq. (4).

8.7.2.2. Budget for turbulent energy dissipation rate

Figures 8.8, 8.9 and 8.10 represents the budget for the energy dissipation rate at the superficial gas

velocities of 20, 40 and 100 mm/s, respectively. Figure 8.8A shows the rate of convective transport

of  at 20 mm/s. The predictions of standard k- model (line 3) and RSM (line 2) show deviations

(SD of 112% and 72%, respectively) from the LES predictions (line 1) in the central region of the

column. Near the wall, the predictions for both the models are comparatively in good agreement with

the LES model. True k- model and true RSM convective transport term can be obtained by adding

the terms 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 in Table 8.3. Both the models, true k- model (line 4) and true RSM (line

5), show good agreement with LES predictions. Similar results are plotted in Figures 8.9A and 8.10A

at the superficial gas velocities of 40 and 100 mm/s, respectively. Figures 8.8B, 8.9B and 8.10B show

the comparison of the rate of diffusive transport of  at the superficial gas velocities of 20, 40 and

100 mm/s, respectively.

As regards to turbulent transport, the term 3.1 is given by:

∂〈u′j ε〉
̅L
∈ (8.26)
∂xj

The term 〈u′j ε〉 is modelled as per second Boussinesq’s approximation as:

νt ∂ε
〈u′j ε〉 = − (8.27)
σε ∂xj

By substituting Eq. (8.27) in Eq. (8.26) gives:

∂〈u′j ε〉 ∂ ν ∂ε
̅L
∈ =− ̅L t
(∈ ) (8.28)
∂xj ∂xj σε ∂xj

188 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

Which is modelled turbulent transport term in the last column. Thus, the contribution of terms 3.2 to

3.6 is neglected in standard k- model and hence results into difference (SD as shown in Table 8.6)

in the predictions of LES (line 1) and standard k- (line 3) in Figure 8.8C. Similar trend is found

between the predictions of RSM (line 2) and LES model. When all the above modeling assumptions

are excluded, which is indication of the true k- model (line 4) and true RSM (line 5), the models

show very good agreement with the LES predictions. The results are plotted for the superficial gas

velocities of 40 and 100 mm/s in Figures 8.9C and 8.10C, respectively.

In case of the rate of production of  the term 4.2 in production is simplified as:

∂u′i ∂u′j ∂(u̅i ϵ̅L ) u′2 ̅ i ϵ̅L )

i ∂(u
2ν 〈 〉 ≈ 2ν 2 (8.29)
∂xk ∂xk ∂xk 𝑙 ∂xk

Similarly, term 4.3 is simplified as:

∂u′i ′ ∂2 (u̅i ϵ̅L ) u′2 ̅ i ϵ̅L )

i ∂(u
2ν 〈 uj 〉 = 2ν 2 (8.30)
∂xk ∂xj ∂xk 𝑙 ∂xk

Addition of equations (8.29) and (8.30) gives:

u′2 ̅ i ϵ̅L )
i ∂(u
4ν 2
𝑙 ∂xk

u′3 ′
̅ i ϵ̅L )
i 1 ui ∂(u
= 4ν
𝑙 u′2
i 𝑙 ∂xk

ν ε ∂u̅i ∂(u̅i ϵ̅L )

=4 𝑙
𝑙 k ∂xj ∂xk

ε ∂u̅i ∂(u̅i ϵ̅L )

= 4ν
k ∂xj ∂xk

ε ∂(u̅i ϵ̅L )
= Cε1 ν (8.31)
k ∂xk

189 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

Eq. (8.31) is modelled production term in the last column. The terms 4.1 and 4.2 are thus neglected.

In the above simplification, one Boussinesq’s approximation has been employed as follows:

∂u̅i
u′i = 𝑙 (8.32)
∂xj

Figure 8.8D shows that all the four terms have significant values (true k- model). These four lines

add up to contribute to the net rate of production of  (lines 4 and 5) which excellently agrees with

LES simulations as represented by line 1. However, the k- predictions (line 3) deviates (SD given

in Table 8.6) from LES simulations because of several simplifications explained above. The rate of

production of  at superficial gas velocities of 40 and 100 mm/s is shown in Figures 8.9D and 8.10D,

respectively.

The rate of dissipation of  using standard k- model (line 3) and RSM (line 2) was found to deviate

from LES prediction (line 1) at lower superficial gas velocity (VG = 20 mm/s) as shown in Figure

8.8E. At higher superficial gas velocities (VG = 40 and 100 mm/s), the deviation was found to be

reduced and all of them show the predictions in the range of 3% as shown in Figures 8.9E and 8.10E.

As expected, true k- model (line 4) and true RSM (line 5) show very good agreement with the LES

predictions in all these cases.

Another important simplification in the k- model is the assumption of isotropy which has already

been used while getting Eqs. (8.29), (8.30) and (8.31). The isotropy is also assumed while deriving

the following relation:

k2
νt = Cμ (8.33)
ε

Another set of great simplifications is the methodology of the estimation of standard turbulence

parameters Cε1 , Cε2 and Cμ . While assigning the respective values of 1.44, 1.92 and 0.009, we

consider simple model flows, the details of which are known to CFD community.

190 | P a g e
 Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

0.004 0.00016
3 3
Rate of convective transport of ε

0.002 2 0.00014

Rate of viscous transport of ε

B
0 0.00012
-0.002 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.0001
-0.004
-0.006 0.00008 2
4
-0.008 4 0.00006
-0.01 5 0.00004
-0.012 1
A 0.00002 1 5
-0.014
-0.016 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.018 -0.00002
0.02 0.035
2
Rate of turbulent transport of ε

C 0.03 3
0.015 D
Rate of production of ε
0.025
0.01 5
4 3 0.02
2
0.005
0.015 4
0 0.01 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.005 0.005
5 1
-0.01 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0 3.E-06
-0.001 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
3.E-06 F
-0.002 3 1
Rate of dissipation of ε

2.E-06 3
-0.003
Residual

-0.004 2.E-06
2
-0.005 1.E-06
-0.006 5
E 5.E-07
-0.007
1 0.E+00 2
-0.008 4
-0.009 -5.E-07
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Radial Distance, r/R
Figure 8.8. Turbulent energy dissipation rate (ε) budget in a bubble column at axial
position HD/D=4 with sieve plate sparger at VG = 20 mm/s (1) LES model (2) RSM (3) k–ε
model (4) True k–ε model and (5) True RSM; (A) Rate of convective transport (B) Rate of
viscous transport (C) Rate of turbulent transport (D) Rate of production (E) Rate of
dissipation and (F) Residual.
191 | P a g e
 Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

0.25 0.0015
3
0.2 2
Rate of convective transport of ε

A B

Rate of viscous transport of ε

4 0.001
0.15
1
0.1 0.0005 1
2
0.05
0
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.05 -0.0005
-0.1 4 5
3 -0.001
-0.15 5
-0.2 -0.0015

0.5 0.6
3 3
0.4
Rate of turbulent transport of ε

C 2 Rate of production of ε 0.5 D 2

0.3 4
4 0.4
0.2 5
0.1 0.3
0 0.2 1
-0.1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 11
0.1
-0.2
5
0
-0.3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.4 -0.1
0 8.E-05
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 3 1
-0.1 6.E-05 F
Rate of dissipation of ε

-0.2 4.E-05
Residual

-0.3 2.E-05
2
-0.4 4 0.E+00
2
-0.5 E 5 -2.E-05
1
-0.6 -4.E-05
1 3
-0.7 -6.E-05
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Radial Distance, r/R
Figure 8.9. Turbulent energy dissipation rate (ε) budget in a bubble column at axial
position HD/D=4 with sieve plate sparger at VG = 40 mm/s (1) LES model (2) RSM (3) k–ε
model (4) True k–ε model and (5) True RSM; (A) Rate of convective transport (B) Rate of
viscous transport (C) Rate of turbulent transport (D) Rate of production (E) Rate of
dissipation and (F) Residual.
192 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

0.2 0.025
3
Rate of convective transport of ε
0 B

Rate of viscous transport of ε

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.02
-0.2
2
-0.4 0.015
2
-0.6 3
0.01
-0.8 5 1
4
-1 0.005
4
-1.2 A 5
0
-1.4 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1.6 -0.005

2.5 2.5
3
Rate of turbulent transport of ε

C 3 D
2 2
2 Rate of production of ε
2
1.5 1
1.5
1 4

5 1 4
0.5 5

0.5 1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.5 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 2.0E-04
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.5E-04
-0.5
-1 1.0E-04 2
Rate of dissipation of ε

-1.5 5.0E-05
4 5
Residual

0.0E+00
-2 3
1 -5.0E-05
-2.5 2
-1.0E-04 3
-3 1 F
-1.5E-04
-3.5 E
-2.0E-04
-4 -2.5E-04
-4.5 -3.0E-04
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Radial Distance, r/R
Figure 8.10. Turbulent energy dissipation rate (ε) budget in a bubble column at axial
position HD/D=4 with sieve plate sparger at VG = 100 mm/s (1) LES model (2) RSM (3) k–ε
model (4) True k–ε model and (5) True RSM; (A) Rate of convective transport (B) Rate of
viscous transport (C) Rate of turbulent transport (D) Rate of production (E) Rate of
dissipation and (F) Residual.
193 | P a g e
Chapter 8: Development of new turbulence modeling approach for bubble columns

8.8. Conclusion

1. Using Reynolds averaging procedure, the k and  equations have been derived from the

equations of continuity and motion. The resulting equations have been termed as true k and

true  equations. The resulting equations involve double and triple correlations of fluctuating

u′i , ϵ′G , ϵ′L , P ′ and their gradients. In Tables 8.2 and 8.3, these are classified into rates of

convective transport, diffusive transport and turbulent transport, rate of production and rate

of dissipation [as per Eq. (8.4)]. Similar exercise was performed for RSM and the results are

given in Table 8.4.

2. Procedure has been developed for the estimation of all the terms in Tables 8.2 to 8.4.

3. One important conclusion of this paper is the excellent agreement between the LES

predictions and those of true k- model and true RSM. This observation validates the

procedure for constructing Tables 8.2 to 8.4 (in fact true k, and RSM equations) and

procedure for their estimation.

4. The predictions of standard k- model and RSM have been compared with those of LES.

Substantial deviations occur in all these cases. An attempt has been made to explain these

deviations on the basis of assumptions made in these models.

5. The present work is concerned with understanding the relationship between the flow patterns

and mixing/stratification. For better understanding of transport phenomena, the future work

should include the identification and dynamics of flow structures [Thorat et al. (1998),

Kulkarni et al. (2001c), Bhole et al. (2008), Joshi et al. (2009), Mathpati et al. (2009), Ranade

et al. (1989), Ranade and Joshi (1990), Nere et al. (2003) and Kumaresan and Joshi (2006)].

194 | P a g e