Cited by 16Fluid Dynamics and MixingMinerals Flotation and Separation TechniquesParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows

Hydrodynamics of Bubble Columns: Turbulence and Population Balance Model

Open access
Braga Vieira, Camila, Litrico, Giuliana, Askari, Ehsan, Lemieux, Gabriel, Proulx, Pierre·2018·ChemEngineering

Abstract

This paper presents an in-depth numerical analysis on the hydrodynamics of a bubble column. As in previous works on the subject, the focus here is on three important parameters characterizing the flow: interfacial forces, turbulence and inlet superficial Gas Velocity (UG). The bubble size distribution is taken into account by the use of the Quadrature Method of Moments (QMOM) model in a two-phase Euler-Euler approach using the open-source Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code OpenFOAM (Open Field Operation and Manipulation). The interfacial forces accounted for in all the simulations presented here are drag, lift and virtual mass. For the turbulence analysis in the water phase, three versions of the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) k-ε turbulence model are examined: namely, the standard, modified and mixture variants. The lift force proves to be of major importance for a trustworthy prediction of the gas volume fraction profiles for all the (superficial) gas velocities tested. Concerning the turbulence, the mixture k-ε model is seen to provide higher values of the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate in comparison to the other models, and this clearly affects the prediction of the gas volume fraction in the bulk region, and the bubble-size distribution. In general, the modified k-ε model proves to be a good compromise between modeling simplicity and accuracy in the study of bubble columns of the kind undertaken here.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/chemengineering2010012

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Vieira et al. [308] found time-averaged axial liquid velocity and gas hold-up compare well against experimental results; modified k-# model delivers the best results, being a good compromise between simplicity and accuracy.

    “Nevertheless, the time-averaged axial liquid velocity and the gas hold-up compare well against experimental results [158,309,310]. They conclude that the modified k -# model delivers the best results, being a good compromise between simplicity of modeling and accuracy of the predictions.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 69 · Cited by 16

Authors
Braga Vieira, C., Litrico, G., Askari, E., Lemieux, G., & Proulx, P.
Affiliations
  • Chemical Engineering Department, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, J1K 2R1, Canada
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
Venue
ChemEngineering
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-03-19
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
12
ISSN
2305-7084 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2794149809
Cited by
16
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ChemEngineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Fluid Dynamics and Mixing
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Minerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Particle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Keywords
bubble column, hydrodynamics, turbulence modeling, population balance model, quadrature method of moments, bubble size distribution, interfacial forces, lift force, virtual mass force, drag force, k-epsilon turbulence model, void fraction, superficial gas velocity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review