Proceedings of the ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

PVP2016
July 17-21, 2016, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

PVP2016-64018

NUMERICAL SIMULATION WITH A CFD-PBM MODEL OF HYDRODYNAMICS AND

BUBBLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF A RECTANGLE BUBBLE COLUMN

Yi-Gang Dinga, Xia Lua, Fu-Li Denga

a
School of Chemical and Engineering and Pharmacy,
Wuhan Institute of Technology,
WuHan City,
HuBei Province,
PR China

ABSTRACT chemical reaction engineering[1]. The most important factor

A coupled CFD-PBM (population balance mode) model
is adopted to investigate complex behavior in a rectangle
bubble column. In this work The Euler–Euler (E–E) model was
adopted for the liquid phase and gas phase, while accounting
for bubble coalescence and breakup a PBM discrete model
was employed . The total gas holdup for a range of superficial
gas velocities were studied and compared with the literature
and modest agreement was found. The simulation result shows
that the superficial gas velocity has great effect on bubble size
distribution, and a wider bubble size distribution is found at
higher superficial gas velocity. This indicates an increasing of
the superficial gas velocity increases the bubble coalescence
and break-up rate.
INTRODUCTION
Gas–liquid bubble column reactors are widely used in
phosphorus chemical industry due to its great advantage, e.g.
lager mass transfer area, good material mixing property, fast
reaction rate and so on. In practice, the reaction in phosphorus
chemical industry is fast and mixing is very important in
influencing mixing in such reactors is the local prevailing
hydrodynamics, and the gas-liquid interfacial area, which
depends on the bubble size distribution [2-4]. To optimize
design or scale up of bubble column processes, it is essential
to know the local hydrodynamics and bubble size distribution
at different operating conditions [5] .Bubbles in two phase flow
can interact with each other. They can aggregate to produce
larger bubbles and they can also break to generate smaller ones.
Accompanying with the gas superficial velocity increase, the
flow pattern change from the homogenous regime to
heterogeneous regime. Therefore it’s important to study the
bubble coalescence and breakup in flow pattern and bubble
size distribution prediction[6]. Considerable experiments have
been carried out to investigate the bubble size distribution in
different types of laboratory-scale bubble columns. Mena[7]
measured the bubble size distribution in a mass transfer system
in a lab-scale 3D column at a low superficial gas velocity of
2.8mm/s. Daeseong[8] discussed bubble size distributions in a
two-dimensional packed bed by using image processing
techniques with a large number of bubble samples,
considering the effect of coalescence and breakup.
In recent years, computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90486/ on 03/16/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 has emerged as a powerful tool for bubble column design and centrifugal force, the volume-averaged mass and momentum
scale up. CFD modeling of dispersed gas–liquid two-phase conservation equations are expressed as:
flows has shown remarkable progress over the last decade. ∂
∂t
( ρ gα g ) +∇ i( ρ gα g v g ) = 0 (1)
The Euler–Euler (E–E) model was employed to simulation gas-
liquid two phases flows, and the population balance model was ∂
( ρ lα l ) +∇ i( ρlα l vl ) = 0 (2)
incorporated to take into account break-up and coalescence of ∂t
∂
bubbles as well as growth or shrinkage of bubbles as a
∂t
( ρ gα g vg ) + ∇ ⋅ (α g ρ g vg vg ) = −α g ∇p
consequence of mass transfer[9]. Many attempts have been
(3)
made by coupling computational fluid dynamics with population +α g ρ g g + ∇ ⋅τ g + K gl (vl − v g )
balance model (CFD-PBM) to simulate the gas-liquid flows[10, +α g ρ g ( Flift , g + Fwl , g + FVm , g + Ftd , g )
∂
. Montante et al[12] investigated gas-liquid flow and bubble
11] ( ρlαl vl ) + ∇ ⋅ (αl ρl vl vl ) = −αl ∇p
∂t
(4)
size distribute on a stirred tank, presenting a good prediction of +α l ρl g + ∇ ⋅τ l + K gl (v g − vl )

the number mean bubble size but a significant under-prediction +α l ρl ( Flift ,l + Fwl ,l + FVm ,l + Ftd ,l )

of the Sauter mean diameter. Miriam Petitti[13] et al discussed
local gas hold-up and bubbles size distributions using an
Eulerian multiplied approach coupled with a PBM model. The
PBM has been solved by resorting to the quadrature method of
moments (QMOM), implemented through user defined
functions. A detailed modeling of two-phase flows via a four-
way coupling approach, combining the standard CFD analysis
with a Population Balance Modeling (PBM), for taking into
account the effect of bubble breakage and coalescence on the
bubbles size, has been performed, to estimate the local bubble
size distribution, key information for the correct evaluation of
the specific surface area and the mass transfer rate. However,
there is no universal model for different situation due to
complexity of the problem, the effect of different interface
interaction closure models and bubble coalescence and breakup
models should be evaluated. The objective of this paper is to
predicting the hydrodynamics and bubble size distribution using
a 2d model, and a full population balance model with detailed
bubble breakup and coalescence models is coupled in the CFD
Framework.
MATHEMATICAL MODELING
Governing equations of gas-liquid flow
Numerical simulations are performed with the Euler–
Euler two fluid model. In the Euler-Euler two fluid model, the
different phases are treated mathematically as interpenetrating
continua. For unsteady-state incompressible flow in the
absence of mass transfer, external body forces such as the
Where v represents the phase velocity, α denotes the
volume fraction of each phase, Flift ,l , Flift , g is lift force ,
Fwl ,l , Fwl , g is wall lubrication force, FVm,l , FVm, g is virtual
mass force, and Ftd ,l , Ftd , g is turbulent dispersion
force, p denotes the pressure shared by all phases, τ is the
stress-strain tensor, being defined as
2
τ g = α g µ g (∇vg + ∇v gT ) + α g (λg − µ g )∇ivg I (5)
3
2 (6)
τ l = α l µl (∇vl + ∇v lT) + α l (λl − µ l )∇ ivl I
3
µq λq
Here and are the shear and bulk viscosity of phase,
I is a unit tensor.
In this study the drag force, lift force, turbulent dispersion
force and interaction force are considered, and the wall
lubrication force and turbulent dispersion force are neglected.
Water is modeled as the primary fluid, since gas appears in the
form of bubbles.
Inter-phase momentum closure relations
The closure terms such as drag force, lift force, virtual
mass force, turbulent dispersion force and interaction force has
very strong influence on the simulation results. This section
discusses the closure terms be used by the study.
Modeling drag force
The drag force resists the bubble motion in the surrounding

2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90486/ on 03/16/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 liquid. In the framework of two-fluid model, the drag force is min 0.228 tanh ( 0.121Re ) , f ( Eod )  ( Eod < 4) 
 
characterized as the mean momentum transfer between the phases. CL =  f ( Eod ) (4 ≤ Eod ≤ 10) 
The momentum transfer between the phases is considered as the −0.27( Eo > 10) 
 d

(12)
product of inter-phase exchange coefficient K gl and the relative f ( Eo ) = 0.00105Eo − 0.0159 Eo − 0.0204 Eo + 0.474
′ ′3
′ 2
′
1

velocity between the phases .The exchange coefficient for these d h = d b (1 + 0.163Eo′0.757 ) 3

types of bubbly is defined as: Modeling virtual mass force

3 C
K gl = ρlα lα g D vg − vl (7) The virtual mass force, which is particularly important
4 db in gas-liquid flows, accounts the force necessary to accelerate
the fluid around a bubble. The virtual mass force is given as,
Where CD represents a drag coefficient, differing among
d v d v  (13)
Fvm, g = − Fvm ,l = Cvmα p ρ q  q q − p p 
[14]
the exchange-coefficient models. In this work, Tomiyama  dt dt 
model is adopted, because the model is well suited to gas-liquid
Where
Cvm is the virtual mass coefficient which
flows in which the bubbles can have a range of shapes. The value
is given by
dq
  24 72  8 Eo  (8)
Cd = Max  min 
 Re
(1 + 0.15 Re0.687 ) , Re , 
 3 Eo + 4 
typically has a value of 0.5.The term
dt
denotes the phase

Where Eötvös number (Eo) are defined as material time derivative of the form
g ( ρl − ρ g ) d b2 d q (φ ) ∂ (φ )
Eo = (9) = + ( vq i∇ ) φ (14)
σ dt ∂t
Re denotes the relative Reynolds number and can be written Turbulence Model
as: In order to solve the Reynolds stress in the turbulent
ρ l d b u g − ul
momentum equations, the k -ε mixture turbulence model is
Re = (10)
µl
chosen for simulation, and expressed as follows:
Modeling lift force ∂ρ m k  µ  
+ ∇ρ m vm k = ∇   µm + t ,m  ∇k 
In addition to the drag force, the bubble experiences a ∂t  σ k  

lift force perpendicular to its relative motion. Lift forces act +Gk , m − ρ mε (15)
on a particle mainly due to velocity gradients in the primary- ∂ρ mε  µ  
+ ∇ρ m vmε = ∇   µm + t ,m  ∇ε 
phase flow field, as well as the shear resulting from the slip ∂t  σε  
between the phases. The wall peak distribution of radial gas ε
holdup profiles usually observed in upward bubbly flows, a
+
k
(C ε G
1 k ,m − C2 ε ρ m ε )

phenomenon which is predominant at small bubble ranging Where,

from0.4 to5mm due to action of the lift forces[15-17]. As mean
ρ m =α g ρ g + α l ρ l (16)
bubble diameter is increased, the peak shifts towards the
center of the pipe eventually resulting in core peaking[18]. In
µ m =α g µ g + α l µl (17)
this work the lift force is calculated as

Flift , g = − Flift ,l = −Cl ρlα g (vl − vg ) × ( ∇× vl ) (11) α g ρ g ug + α l ρl ul

vm = (18)
ρm
Where
Cl , the lift coefficient, is given by the Tomiyama
In bubble columns, both experimental and numerical
model. studies reported the turbulence characteristics of the
continuous phase as being affected by the presence of

3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90486/ on 03/16/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 dispersed entities[19]. In this work, viscosity of the slurry phase of volume V. ν is the number of child particles produced per
is modeled using the Sato enhanced turbulence model[20], as
parent. a (V − V ′, V ′) defines the rate coefficient of
the following equation:
aggregation of two particles with volumes V − V ′ and V ′ .
µ t , m = µ t , s + µ t ,b (19)
Breakage kernel
µt , s The breakage kernel[21], is expressed as
represents the conventional shear-induced turbulent
g (V ′ ) β (V V ′ ) (23)
viscosity and is obtained by the standard k -ε model as:
Where g (V ′ ) is the rate coefficient for the breakage of
k2 (20)
µ t , s = ρ m Cµ
ε
a particle size V ′ , and β (V V ′ ) defines the fragment
Cµ
is a constant, which is 0.09 . distribution function.
Luo and Lehr[21, 22] developed a theoretical model for the
µt ,b
is a bubble-induced component of turbulent breakup of drops and bubbles in turbulent suspensions. It is
viscosity given by: based on the concept that the bubble breaks up when it collides
with the turbulent eddy with sufficient energy. One advantage
µt ,b = Cµ ,b ρlα g db ug − ul (21)
is that this model does not include empirical parameters.
Another advantage is that the daughter size distribution is
C1ε , C2ε , σ k and σ ε are parameters in the standard
derived directly. This model has been widely used in the
previous work. The breakup rate coefficient is modeled as:
k -ε model and the following values are selected: C1ε = 1.44 ,
(1 + ξ )
1 2

g (V ′ ) = K ∫ exp ( −bξ m )d ξ
C2ε = 1.92 , σ k = 1.0 and σ ε = 1.3 . ξmin
ξn
(24)
(1 + ξ )
1/3
ε  1
Population balance model =0.9238 FB (1 − rd )  c2 
 di 
∫ξ min ξ 11/3
The population balance model was used to obtain a
 12  f BV
2/3
+ (1 − f BV ) 2/3 − 1 σ 
× exp  −  
reasonable result about the local void fraction. Let n(V , t )  βρcε c2/3 di5/3ξ 11/3 
 
represent the number density of particles of size V at time t.
Where f BV represents the volume fraction of the parent
The population balance equation can be written as
∂ bubble that constitutes the volume of one daughter bubble per
[ n(V , t )] + ∇ ⋅ [un(V , t )] =
∂t unit volume of the continuous phase. FB is a calibration
1 V
a (V − V ′, V ′)n (V − V ′, t )n (V ′, t ) dV ′
2 ∫0
(22)
coefficient, β is equalto2, ε c is the continuous phase eddy
birth − due − to − aggregation
V
− ∫ a (V , V ′)n (V , t )n(V ′, t )dV ′
0 dissipation rate, σ is the interfacial tension, and ξ is the
de ath − due − to − aggregation

+ ∫ ν g (V ′ ) β (V V ′ ) n (V ′, t ) dV ′ − g (V )n (V , t ) dimensionless size of eddies in the inertial subrange of

ΩV
death − due − to − breakage
birth − due − to − breakage
isotropic turbulence.

Where g (V ′ ) is the breakage frequency of particle with

The breakage PDF function contains information on the
probability of fragments formed by a breakage event. It

( )
volume V ′ , and β V V ′ represents probability density
provides the number of particles and the possible size
distribution from the breakage, and the equation is given as,
function of particles breaking from volume V ′ to a particle

4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90486/ on 03/16/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 C 1 − C 2   V 
2
 V    (25) modeled as
β (V / V ′ ) = 0.5  + 24   − 24   + 6  
′ ′  ′   V ′   
 V V  V
π
θijT = FCT Sij ( u 2ti + u 2tj ) (d + d )
1/2 2
= FCT i j
4 (29)
Where V and V ′ are the daughter and parent particle
( ) +( )
2 1/ 2
× 
2
2ε d
1/3 1/3
2ε d 1/3 1/3

 
c i c j
volumes, respectively. C represents the shape factor of the
particle breakage distribution function. The buoyancy contribution to collision frequency is
Aggregation kernel modeled as:
π
θ ijB = FCB Sij u rj − u ri = FCB ( di + d j )
The aggregation kernel is expressed as 2

a(V ,V ′) 4 (30)
The model of Prince and Blanch[23] assumes that the 2.14σ 2.14σ
× + 0.505gd j − + 0.505gd i
coalescence of two bubbles occurs in three steps. First, the ρc d j ρc d i
bubbles collide trapping a small amount of liquid between
Where FCT and FCB are calibration factors.
them. This liquid film then drains until the liquid film
separating the bubbles reaches a critical thickness. The film NUMERICAL STRATEGY AND SCHEME
then ruptures and the bubbles join together. The coalescence
kernel is therefore modeled by a collision rate of two bubbles A schematic representation of the column is illustrated in
and a collision efficiency relating to the time required for Fig. 1(a).just as show in fig.1 (a), the whole column
coalescence, it can be calculated as follows, dimensions is 0.2 × 0.03 × 0.7 (width, depth and height). In
the rectangle column, two phases come in contact: a gas phase
a(V , V ′) = Q ( mi ; m j ) = (θijT + θijB + θijS )ηij (26)
(air) and water as a continuous phase.

Where ηij is the collision efficiency. θijT , θijB and

θijS are the collisions contributions of turbulence, buoyancy,

and shear respectively. In this study, the θ ij is neglected.

S

The collision efficiency is modeled by comparing the

time required for coalescence with the actual contact time
during the collision,
− tij τ ij
ηij = e
(27)
 ρc rij3  h
1/2
 Fig.1 Sketch of rectangle bubble column
tij =  ln  0 
 16σ  h Two dimensional (2D) simulation is adopted to reduce
   f 
rij2/3 calculation cost. Fig.1 (b) shows the mesh topology which is
τ ij = 1/3
εc constructed in ICEM CFD16.0. The CFD-PBM coupled
model is performed in Fluent 16.0(Ansys Inc., USA), the
Where h0 is the initial film thickness, h f is the
aggregation kernel is compiled through user defined functions
(UDFs). The Euler–Euler two fluid model is adopted to
critical film thickness when rupture occurs, and rij is the
simulate the flow and a PBM discrete model is employed to
equivalent radius: account for bubble coalescence and break-up. The coupling
−1 scheme of CFD model and PBM is discussed as following.
 1  1 1  (28)
rij =   +   The bubble volume fraction, particle velocity are obtained by
 2  ri rj  
  
the Eulerian–Eulerian two-fluid model, which are applied to
The turbulent contributions to collision frequency are solve the moment transport equations in PBM considering

5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90486/ on 03/16/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 break up and aggregation terms. Once the population balance
equations are solved by discrete method, the PSD are obtained
and sauter mean diameter is updated for further calculation of
the drag force and then the information of flow hydrodynamics
by CFD model is updated. Therefore, the coupling of
Eulerian–Eulerian two-fluid model with PBM is achieved.
By means of boundary and gradient adaption, Mesh
independence tests are carefully conducted to ensure that the
solutions do not obviously change with the increase number of
computational cells. The result showed that increasing the cell
numbers from 278901 to 326000 resulted in less obvious
variation of gas hold up and axial velocity. Herein, the mesh
number of 278901 is adopted to perform the simulation. With
the mesh refining technique, most additional mesh points are
put in regions of high gradients around the gas inlet.
According to the operating conditions, boundary
conditions and initial conditions are set for the numerical
simulation. At the gas inlets, gas velocities are set ranging
from 0.005m/s to 0.03cm/s. At the gas outlet, a degassing
boundary condition is employed at the free surface, from
where dispersed bubbles are permitted to escape but the liquid
phase is not allowed. Along the wall, gas and liquid are treated
as no-slip. Initial bubble size distribution in the CFD-PBM
model is obtained from the experimental measurements by
Y.M.Lau[24]. In this work, fifteen bubble classes are employed,
and the specific PSDs is shown in Fig. 2.
Fig.2 The particle size applied for simulation
The calculation are all implemented with ANSYS 16.0
with a double precision mode. The phase-coupled SIMPLE
algorithm is used for the pressure-velocity coupling and
correction. Regarding better convergence and less numerical
effort, the first-order upwind discretization is adopted to
discretize the equations. Temporal discretization scheme is set
as first-order implicit. The convergence criterion is set to 1e-
3, and time step is set as 1e-3 to ensure the stability and to
6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90486/ on 03/16/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
obtain more reasonable and accurate results.
RESULTS
Validation of results
In this work, CFD-PBM model was evaluated, comparing
the simulated data with the work of Y.M.Lau[24]. From Fig.3,
it can be seen that similar trend is observed for results of
experiment and simulation, and the comparison shows a
modest agreement within a deviation of13%. The gas holdup
increases with the increase of superficial gas velocity
accordingly. The simulation results are slightly larger than the
experimental results, and the difference increases with the
increase of superficial gas velocity. This is because the model
uses a single bubble drag force model, which is larger than
bubble group drag force in fact. In order to get more accurate
results, a more accurate model of bubble group drag force
based on experiment is needed. In general, the model is
capable to predict the gas holdup distribution of the rectangle
bubble column, and the calculation accuracy of the couple
CFD-PBM model is acceptable in this work.
Fig.3 Gas holdup versus superficial gas velocity
Bubble and liquid velocities
Fig.4-5 shows the snapshots of the instantaneous air and
liquid velocity. By analysis of the time series, the following is
observed. At low superficial gas velocity of 0.01m/s, the
bubbles rise upward in a homogeneous fashion at first. With
the increase of time, there are some regions where the bubbles
rise faster near the wall and small vortical structures are
formed. It is because the initial bubble size is approximate
4mm, and the flow appears wall peak at first. With time
increasing, coalescence and break-up of bubbles start to play
a role and mean bubble size increases accordingly. Hence, the
flow pattern transforms into core peak.
 (a) (a)

(b)
Fig.4 Snapshots of the instantaneous air velocity fields for
different superficial gas velocities. (a)ug=0.01m/s
(b)ug=0.02m/s
In fig.5 (a), it can be seen that the liquid (water) rises
upward near the wall and downward in the central region due
to wall peak at first, and the liquid flow patter become chaotic
near the wall due to bubble coalescence and break-up after a
few second of flowtimes. At a superficial gas velocity of
0.02m/s, the trend is similar to that at 0.01m/s, but the flow
pattern become more chaotic. Small vortices are forming in
the whole area due to intense bubble coalescence and break-
up. The results are consistent with the literature report[24].
(b)
Fig.5 Snapshots of the instantaneous liquid velocity fields for
different superficial gas velocities.(a)ug=0.01m/s
(b)ug=0.02m/s
Fig. 6 shows time-averaged profiles of the mean axial air
and liquid velocity at 0.30 m column heights. For a low
superficial gas velocity of 0.005m/s, a uniform up-flow of the
rising bubbles. By increasing the superficial gas velocity,
bubble down-flow regions near the side walls and a bubble up-
flow region in the centre across the width of the bubble column
are developed. A parabolic velocity profile character was
obtained and at high gas superficial velocities a radial
symmetry is observed in the fully developed region. Same
trends are observed in the liquid phase.

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90486/ on 03/16/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 (a)

(a)

(b)

(b)
Fig. 6 Time averaged plot of the mean axial velocity
component of the gas phase (a) and liquid phase (b) at 0.30 m
column heights for different superficial gas velocities.
Bubble size distribution
The length number density of axial bubble size (c)
distribution for different superficial gas velocities is
illustrated in Fig.7. It can be seen that the change of length
number density become more intense with the increase of
superficial gas velocity. For a low superficial gas velocity of
0.005m/s, the length number density of bubble drops a little
along the axial direction due to small amount of bubble
coalescence and break-up. For a superficial gas velocity of
0.01m/s, the length number density drops quickly below
0.3m column height, and little change is observed above (d)
0.3m column height. At the same time a wide bubble size Fig.7 The axial bubble size distribution for different
distribution can be seen. This indicates that bubble superficial gas velocities (a)ug=0.005m/s (b)ug=0.01m/s
coalescence and break up almost take place almost below (c)ug=0.02 m/s (d)ug=0.03 m/s
0.3m column height, and an equilibrium between coalescence At a superficial gas velocity of 0.02m/s(see Fig.7(c) a
and break up is almost reached in the bottom section. wider bubble size distribution is observed and the fraction of
small and large bubbles increase. This indicate the flow
pattern begins to change from homogeneous regime to

8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90486/ on 03/16/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 heterogeneous regime. The length number density declines
along the axial direction of the column. It seems that the
equilibrium between coalescence and break-up is not
obtained in the bottom section, but still develops throughout
the column. Increasing the superficial gas velocity to 0.03m/s
leads to similar effects, but also to more coalescence and
break-up. Compare to literature[24], large bubble fraction
seems higher. This is probably due to over estimation of
coalescence frequency.
CONCLUSIONS
The gas–liquid flow in a square cross sectioned bubble
column has been successfully simulated using a CFD-PBM
model. The flow was described with the Euler–Euler approach,
where the drag, lift, virtual mass forces, bubble coalescence
and break-up were taken into account. The turbulence
viscosity in the liquid phase was modeled with k − ε model.
An extra contribution in the effective viscosity for the
turbulence induced by bubbles was taken into account. A
discrete model was adopted to model bubble coalescence and
break-up. It can be seen that the comparison of gas holdup
shows a modest agreement with the experimental data. The
gas holdup increases with the increase of superficial gas
velocity accordingly. At a low superficial gas velocity of
0.005m/s, a uniform up-flow of the rising bubbles. For high
gas superficial velocities, a parabolic velocity profile character
was obtained and a radial symmetry is observed in the fully
developed region. The coalescence and break up become more
intense with the increase of superficial gas velocity. An
equilibrium between coalescence and break up is almost
reached in the bottom section at a superficial gas velocity of
0.01m/s. a wider bubble size distribution is observed and the
fraction of small and large bubble increase at a superficial gas
velocity of 0.02m/s. the equilibrium between coalescence and
break-up is not obtained in the bottom section, but still
develops throughout the column. The similar trend is observed
for a superficial gas velocity of 0.03m/s, but to more
coalescence and break up.it seems the coalescence frequency
is over estimated, and the size distribution is wider than the
literature. In order to obtain a more accurate bubble size
distribution, the modification of coalescence model is needed.
9 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90486/ on 03/16/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work is financially supported by the Natural
Sciences Foundation of China (No. ZRY2014000037).
REFERENCES
[1] Lifeng, H., L. Dadong, T. Xiaojin, et al., Study on the
hydrodynamics characteristics of external-loop airlift
slurry reactors. Petroleum Processing and
Petrochemicals, 2012. 43(6): p. 1-5.
[2] Yang, L., J. Cheng, P. Fan, et al., Micromixing of
Solid-liquid Systems in a Stirred Tank with Double
Impellers. Chemical Engineering & Technology,
2013. 36(3): p. 443-449.
[3] Weipeng, Z., Y. Yumei, Z. Guangji, et al., Mixing
haracteristics and Bubble Behavior in an Airlift
Internal Loop Reactor with Low Aspect Ratio.
Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2014(06):
p. 611-621.
[4] Cheng, D., X. Feng, J.C. Cheng, et al., Numerical
simulation of macro-mixing in liquid-liquid stirred
tanks. Chemical Engineering Science, 2013. 101: p.
272-282.
[5] Sujatha, K.T., B.G.J. Meeusen, J.A.M. Kuipers, et al.,
Experimental studies of bubbly flow in a pseudo-2D
micro-structured bubble column reactor using digital
image analysis. Chemical Engineering Science, 2015.
130: p. 18-30.
[6] Ghasemi;, H. and S.H. Hosseini, Investigation of
hydrodynamics and transition regime in an internal
loop airlife reactor using CFD. Brazilian Journal of
Chemical Engineering, 2012. 29(4): p. 821-833.
[7] Mena, P.C., Pons,M.N.,Teixeira,J.A.,Rocha,F.A.,
Using image analysis in the study of multiphase gas
absorption. Chem.Eng.Sci, 2005. 60: p. 5144-5150.
[8] Jo, D., Revankar, and S. T, Effect of coalescence and
breakup on bubble size distributions in a two-
dimensional packed bed. Chemical Engineering
Science, 2010. 65(14): p. 4231-4238.
[9] Darmana, D., Deen, N.G., Kuipers, J.A.M., Detailed
modelling of hydrodynamics, mass transfer and
chemical reactions in a bubble column using a
 discrete bubble model. Chemical Engineering Science Research, 2005. 44(14): p. 5107-5151.
2005. 60(12): p. 3383-3404. [20] Sato, Y., M. Sadatomi, and K. Sekoguchi, Momentum
[10] Bannari, R., F. Kerdouss, B. Selma, et al., Three- and heat transfer in two-phase bubble flow—II. A
dimensional mathematical modeling of dispersed two- comparison between experimental data and theoretical
phase flow using class method of population balance calculations. International Journal of Multiphase
in bubble columns. Computers & Chemical Flow, 1981. 7(2): p. 179-190.
Engineering, 2008. 32(12): p. 3224-3237. [21] Luo, H., Svendsen, H.F., Theoretical model for drop
[11] Chen, P., J. Sanyal, and M.P. Dudukovic, CFD and bubble breakup in turbulent dispersions. A.I.Ch.E.
modeling of bubble columns flows: implementation of Journal, 1996. 42: p. 1225-1233.
population balance. Chemical Engineering Science, [22] Lehr, F. and D. Mewes, A transport equation for the
2004. 59(22-23): p. 5201-5207. interfacial area density applied to bubble columns.
[12] Montante, G., Horn,D.,Paglianti,A., Gas-liquid flow Chemical Engineering Science, 2001. 56(3): p. 1159-
and bubblesize distribution instirred tanks. 1166.
Chem.Eng.Sci, 2008. 63(April(8)): p. 2107-2118. [23] Prince, M.J., Blanch, H.W., Bubble coalescence and
[13] Petitti, M., A. Nasuti, D.L. Marchisio, et al., Bubble break-up inair-sparged bubble columns. A.I.Ch.E.
size distribution modeling in stirred gas–liquid Journal 1990. 36: p. 1485.
reactors with QMOM augmented by a new correction [24] Lau, Y.M., K.T. Sujatha, M. Gaeini, et al.,
algorithm. AIChE Journal, 2010. 56(1): p. 36-53. Experimental study of the bubble size distribution in a
[14] Sakaguchi, T., A. Tomiyama, H. Minagawa, et al., pseudo-2D bubble column. Chemical Engineering
Three-dimensional distributions of particles and Science, 2013. 98: p. 203-211.
bubbles in gas-liquid-solid three-phase bubbly flow in
a vertical pipe. Experimental Thermal and Fluid
Science, 1993. 7(2): p. 165.
[15] Lucas, D. and A. Tomiyama, On the role of the lateral
lift force in poly-dispersed bubbly flows. International
Journal of Multiphase Flow, 2011. 37(9): p. 1178-
1190.
[16] Tomiyama, A., Zun, I., Higaki, H., Makino, Y.,
Sakaguchi, T., A three-dimensional particle tracking
method for bubble flow simulation. Nuclear
Engineering andDesign 1997. 175: p. 77-86.
[17] Wang, T., J. Wang, and Y. Jin, Population Balance
Model for Gas−Liquid Flows:  Influence of Bubble
Coalescence and Breakup Models. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research, 2005. 44(19): p.
7540-7549.
[18] Shen, X. and T. Hibiki, Interfacial area concentration
in gas–liquid bubbly to churn flow regimes in large
diameter pipes. International Journal of Heat and
Fluid Flow, 2015. 54: p. 107-118.
[19] Jakobsen, H., H. Lindborg, and C. Dorao, Modeling
of Bubble Column Reactors: Progress and
Limitations. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry

10 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90486/ on 03/16/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo