Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991

www.elsevier.com/locate/ces
Explorations on the multi-scale owstructure and stability condition in
bubble columns
Ning Yang

, Jianhua Chen, Hui Zhao, Wei Ge

, Jinghai Li

State Key Laboratory of Multi-phase Complex Systems, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 353, Beijing 100080, PR China
Received 20 April 2007; received in revised form 19 July 2007; accepted 12 August 2007
Available online 22 August 2007
Abstract
Physical understanding of heterogeneous ow structure is of crucial importance for modelling and simulation of gasliquid systems. This
article presents a review and report of recent progress in our group on exploratory application of the variational (analytical) multi-scale approach
to gasliquid systems. The work features the closure of a hydrodynamic model with the incorporation of a stability condition reecting the
compromise between the dominant mechanisms in the system. A dual-bubble-size (DBS) model is proposed to approximate the heterogeneous
structure of gasliquid systems based on a single-bubble-size (SBS) model previously established. Reasonable variation of the gas holdup and
the composition of the two bubble species with operating conditions have been calculated and the regime transition can therefore be reasonably
predicted for air-water system, suggesting that stability condition may provide an insightful concept to explain the general tendencies in
gasliquid systems out of their hydrodynamic complexity, and to give simple models of their overall behaviors. Of course, the diversity of
the correlations for drag force and minimum bubble size and the sensitivity of the model predictions to these correlations may suggest the
necessity to clarify further the essential and robust results in the current model and to reduce the uncertainties involved.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bubble column; Multi-scale; Stability condition; Regime transition; Flow structure; Hydrodynamics
1. Introduction
Gasliquid and gasliquidsolid ows are widely encoun-
tered in a variety of chemical and physical processes in en-
gineering (Fan, 1989; Deckwer, 1992). Much work has been
devoted to describing the ow behaviors and the bubble char-
acteristics such as its shape, size distribution, rise velocity and
wake properties in these systems. A general picture of ow
regime transitions in these systems is also gradually revealed
by many studies (Deckwer, 1992; Chen et al., 1994; Zahradnik
and Fialova, 1996; Olmos et al., 2003; Thorat and Joshi,
2004). In bubble columns, homogeneous (bubbly ow), tran-
sition and heterogeneous (churn-turbulent ow) regimes can
be distinguished with the increase of gas owrate. The mono-
graphs and review articles by Fan (1989), Fan and Tsuchiya
(1990), Deckwer (1992), Mudde (2005), Kantarci et al. (2005)

Corresponding authors. Tel.: +86 10 62558318; fax: +86 10 62558065.

E-mail addresses: nyang@home.ipe.ac.cn (N. Yang),
wge@home.ipe.ac.cn (W. Ge), jhli@home.ipe.ac.cn (J. Li).
0009-2509/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2007.08.034
and more recently by Yang et al. (2007) have served as com-
prehensive accounts of the studies on the hydrodynamics of
gasliquid and gasliquidsolid systems. These studies are
crucial to the design, scaling-up and optimization of relevant
processes, inspiring explorations to the physical mechanisms
behind these ndings. Such explorations may in turn clarify
or generalize the applicability of the various correlations and
criterions summarized from these ndings.
In this paper, we try to explain the multi-modal bubble size
distribution and its variation with gas owrate in gasliquid
systems with the so-called variational (analytical) multi-scale
approach (Li and Kwauk, 2003; Li et al., 2005; Ge et al.,
2007) which employs stability condition to close dynamical
descriptions. As the approach has originally found application
in gassolid systems by establishing the energy-minimization
multi-scale (EMMS) model (Li, 1987; Li and Kwauk, 1994; Li
et al., 1999; Ge and Li, 2002), we will give a brief introduction
to this model rst. Previous efforts to establish a similar model
in gasliquid systems are then revisited, which have resolved
the energy consumption relating to the rising of gas bubbles
N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991 6979
into different portions and have proposed a stability condition
in terms of the relative dominance of these portions. Follow-
ing this modelling strategy, a dual-bubble-size (DBS) model is
established to approximately describe the heterogeneous struc-
ture of gasliquid systems instead of the previously proposed
single-bubble-size (SBS, Zhao, 2006; Ge et al., 2007) model,
and the physical implications of the results are analyzed. Lim-
itations of this work and further work are also discussed.
2. The analytical multi-scale approach for gassolid
systems
The analytical multi-scale approach to gassolid systems was
started with the EMMS model. This model was aimed to give
a simple but physically reasonable description of concurrent-
up gassolid ows on the macro-scale. The interactions in
such systems are resolved with respect to different scales. The
particle-rich dense phase is distinguished from the uid-rich
dilute phase by their respective voidages (
c
and
f
) and ow
velocities (U
dc
, U
df
for solids and U
c
, U
f
for gas). For fast
uidization, the dense phase occurs as discrete clusters amid
the continuous dilute phase, described by its volume fraction
f and cluster size d
cl
. The ow structure within each phase
is assumed to be homogeneous. The micro-scale interactions
of individual particles with the surrounding uid are described
by the drag correlations. In the dilute phase, the drag force
on the particles is fully balanced by their gravity. In the dense
phase, however, particle weight is only partially supported by
the gas ow in that phase; the rest is supported by the drag
force induced by the dilute phase gas ow around the parti-
cle clusters. This is indeed the meso-scale interactions between
the characteristic phase structures.
Six hydrodynamic equations are found for the eight param-
eters involved, U
c
, U
f
, U
dc
, U
df
,
c
,
f
, f and d
cl
. They are
the momentum balance and continuity equations of the two
phases, the pressure balance between the two phases and
the cluster size correlation. Apparently, these six equations are
still inadequate to construct a complete model for such hetero-
geneous multi-phase systems. The remaining free variables are
determined by the stability condition of these systems, which
reects the compromise between the so-called dominant mech-
anisms in these systems and correlates the descriptions on dif-
ferent scales.
The dominant mechanisms in gassolid systems are
identied as the tendency for the uid to pass through the par-
ticle layer with least resistance (W
st
min with W
st
standing
for the volume-specic energy consumption for suspending
and transporting particles) and the tendency for the particles
to maintain least gravitational potential ( min with
representing the local average voidage), and the stability con-
dition (N
st
= W
st
/
p
(1 ) min (with N
st
denoting the
mass-specic energy consumption for suspending and trans-
porting particles) reecting the compromise between these two
tendencies.
With the conservation equations and the stability condition,
the model can be solved with some optimization algorithms.
The typical ow regimes in circulating uidized beds can be
well captured by this simple model. In particular, the charac-
teristic state multiplicity, that is, the coexistence of a top di-
lute zone with a bottom dense zone in the bed at the so-called
choking point, is in accordance with the multiple minima of
N
st
found at that point. With the same expectation, this article
tries to explore the possibility of understanding the multi-scale
structure in gasliquid systems by analyzing the corresponding
stability condition.
3. Modelling gasliquid systems with SBS model
With encouraging development of the analytical multi-scale
approach in gassolid systems, it seems natural to explore
whether other multi-phase systems can be described in a sim-
ilar manner. In fact, the similarities between gasliquid and
gassolid systems have long been noticed (e.g., Ellenberger and
Krishna, 1994). Previous works (Ge et al., 2007) have noticed
that, though gasliquid systems lack meso-scale structures like
particle clusters in gassolid systems, the energy dissipation
process during the rising, breakage and coalescence of bubbles
is also characterized by a multi-scale nature. A model is then
established (Zhao, 2006; Ge et al., 2007) to determine a sin-
gle mean diameter for the bubbles in turbulent gasliquid ows
(basically for bubble column reactors) with a stability condi-
tion representing the minimization of direct energy dissipation
through microscopic interactions. This model is briey revis-
ited in this section, from which an improved model considering
bubble size distribution is proposed in the next section.
3.1. Resolution of energy consumption
When inlet and outlet effects as well as wall effects are not
considered, the energy consumption associated with the bubbles
in bubble column reactors occurs on two scales. On the meso-
scale, bubbles may break up under the bombarding of eddies
with characteristic sizes smaller than the target bubbles while
containing sufcient kinetic energy. A portion of the turbulent
kinetic energy contained in the eddies is therefore converted
to surface energy and is later dissipated when the resulting
daughter bubbles merged into other bubbles. This dissipation is
denoted as N
break
for unit mass of liquid. Even though a bubble
does not break up or coalesce, the bubble surface may oscillate
in response to the turbulence in the liquid, which produces
additional dissipation as compared with rigid solid particles of
the same size. This surface dissipation with respect to unit mass
of liquid is denoted as N
surf
. The rest of the dissipation which
occurs in the bulk of the liquid phase due to the rising bubbles
is denoted as N
turb
.
The total energy consumption per unit mass of liquid should
equal the net mechanical energy fed into the system when gas
inertia is negligible. Therefore, we have,
(N
surf
+N
turb
) +N
break
=U
g
g. (1)
The rst two portions compose the energy dissipation directly
through microscopic interactions, whereas N
break
represents the
energy consumption on meso-scales. The term meso-scale
should be understood from the angle that bubbles typically
6980 N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991
break up at one location and coalesce at another location cover-
ing a relatively longer temporal and spatial distance as com-
pared with the viscous dissipation and surface dissipation in
the liquid and on bubble surface, i.e., N
turb
and N
surf
.
N
surf
can be calculated fromthe difference of drag coefcient
for a bubble C
Db
and that of a rigid solid particle with the same
diameter C
Dp
(Zhao, 2006), that is,
N
surf
=U
g
g
C
Db
C
Dp
C
Db
=U
g
g
C
D0,b
(1 f
b
)
4
C
D0,p
(1 f
b
)
4
C
D0,b
(1 f
b
)
4
. (2)
On the other hand, N
turb
can be linked with the bubble break-
age rate through a kernel function. Considering that the energy
content of the colliding eddies to be greater than the corre-
sponding increase of surface energy in bubble breakage and that
the dynamic pressure of eddies to be greater than the capillary
pressure of the smaller daughter bubbles, we have
N
break
=

d
b

min

0.5
0
(d
b
, )
(1 f
b
)
l
+f
b

g
P
b
(d
b
, , f
BV
) c
f
d
2
b
df
BV
d, (3)
where the arrival frequency of eddies (d
b
, ) and breakage
probability P
b
(d
b
, , f
BV
) can be obtained from the classical
statistical theory of isotropic turbulence (Luo and Svendsen,
1996; Wang et al., 2003; Kostoglou and Karabelas, 2005), as
shown below.
(d
b
, ) =0.923(1 f
b
)n
b
N
1/3
turb
( +d
b
)
2

11/3
, (4)
P
b
(d
b
, , f
BV
) =exp

max{c
f
d
2
b
,
3
/(3d
b
f
1/3
BV
)}

l
(/6)
3
(N
turb
)
2/3

.
(5)
3.2. Conservation equations
For the steady state of the systems, the buoyancy force is
approximately balanced with the drag force. The conservation
equation can be formulated without consideration of boundary
effects as
f
b

l
g =
f
b
/6 d
3
b
C
Db

4
d
2
b

1
2

U
g
f
b

U
l
1 f
b

2
, (6)
where U
g
and U
l
denote the supercial gas and liquid veloci-
ties, respectively, and f
b
is the gas volume fraction. Numerous
correlations of drag coefcient C
Db
for a swarm of bubbles
can be found in the literature, as reviewed by Fan and Tsuchiya
(1990), Tomiyama (1998), Behzadi et al. (2004), Kulkarni
and Joshi (2005) and Simonnet et al. (2007). The correlation
proposed by Ishii and Zuber (1979) and Lo et al. (2000) is
employed in this model:
C
Db
=C
D0,b
(1 f
b
)
4
, (7)
where the drag coefcient for an isolated bubble in quiescent
liquid is given by
C
D0,b
=
4
3
gd
b
U
2
T

l
. (8)
According to Grace et al. (1976), the terminal velocity U
T
can
be obtained from
U
T
=

l

l
d
b
M
0.149
(J 0.857), (9)
where
M =

4
l
g(
l

g
)

2
l

3
, (10)
J =

0.94H
0.757
(2 <H59.3),
3.42H
0.441
(H >59.3),
(11)
H =
4
3
Eo M
0.149

ref

0.14
(12)
and
Eo =
g(
l

g
)d
2
b

. (13)
3.3. Stability condition
Based on the resolution of multi-scale interaction and energy
consumption, the stability condition is proposed as the mini-
mization of the energy dissipation directly through microscopic
interactions,
N
surf
+N
turb
min . (14)
It also implies that the energy consumption induced by meso-
scale structures and eventually dissipated on micro-scale needs
to be maximized (Ge et al., 2007), i.e.,
N
break
max . (15)
From the viewpoint of gasliquid interaction, the stability con-
dition can be understood as the compromise between two dom-
inant mechanisms, i.e., N
surf
reecting the bubble oscillation
due to eddy bombardment, and N
turb
involving the process of
energy extraction from bubbles and of energy cascade from
larger eddies to smaller eddies. According to Ge et al. (2007),
lower N
surf
leads to smaller bubbles whereas lower N
turb
cor-
responds to larger bubbles. The joint effects of these two dom-
inant mechanisms lead to an equilibrium bubble diameter (or
distribution in reality). The stability condition provides a clo-
sure for the model, which includes two variables (f
b
, d
b
) and a
conservation equation, namely, Eq. (6). With the given super-
cial gas velocity, f
b
and d
b
can be obtained by using some
optimization algorithms.
3.4. Results and discussion
Fig. 1 illustrates the variation of dimensionless energy dis-
sipation with the trial value of bubble diameter. N
surf
+ N
turb
N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991 6981
Fig. 1. Variation of dimensionless energy dissipation directly through micro-
scopic interactions with trial value of bubble diameters, calculated from the
SBS model of Zhao (2006). (U
g
=0.05 m/s, airwater system).
Fig. 2. Comparison between calculation from the SBS model of Zhao (2006)
and experiments of Patel et al. (1989), Sada et al. (1987) and Camarasa et al.
(1999): variation of bubble diameter with supercial gas velocity in airwater
system.
reaches its minimum at a bubble diameter under given operat-
ing conditions. Fig. 2 shows that the calculated average bubble
diameter d
b
decreases with the increase of supercial gas ve-
locity U
g
for airwater system, which is in reasonable agree-
ment with experimental results for U
g
<0.1 m/s. The variation
of total gas holdup calculation from the SBS model will be pre-
sented in the next section in comparison with the prediction of
the DBS model, the experiments of Camarasa et al. (1999) as
well as three other empirical correlations.
The variation of average diameters can be explained by
allocating the total energy to different parts, as shown in Fig. 3.
When U
g
is low, N
surf
+N
turb
almost equals to unity and N
break
is much lower, suggesting that most energy is consumed to resist
the hindrance of the liquid and little is used to break the bubble,
Fig. 3. Variation of dimensionless energy consumption with supercial gas
velocity in airwater system, calculated from the SBS model of Zhao (2006).
which corresponds to the characteristics of the homogeneous
regime of bubble columns. With increasing U
g
, N
surf
+ N
turb
decreases and N
break
increases, indicating that more energy is
consumed in bubble breakage to decrease the average bubble
diameter, corresponding to the characteristics of the heteroge-
neous regime.
4. Modelling gasliquid systems with DBS model
Although energy consumption is reasonably resolved in the
SBS model, yet only the averaged bubble diameter and the over-
all gas holdup can be calculated. The parameters reecting the
heterogeneous structure, however, are not taken into account.
In this section we try to consider this structural heterogeneity
by introducing two equivalent bubble diameters.
4.1. Structure resolution
Experiments have already revealed that the heterogeneity of
the gas phase assumes a bimodal bubble size distribution in
bubble column reactors (De Swart et al., 1996; Krishna and
Ellenberger, 1996; Camarasa et al., 1999; Ribeiro and Lage,
2004). Accordingly, the aforementioned SBS model can be ex-
tended to a DBS model involving small and large bubbles, as
shown in Fig. 4. While interacting with the surrounding liquid,
each bubble class can be characterized respectively by its equiv-
alent bubble diameters (d
S
and d
L
), its corresponding volume
fractions (f
S
and f
L
) and supercial gas velocities (U
g,S
and
U
g,L
). Correspondingly, the total energy consumption can be
decomposed into N
turb
, N
break,S
, N
break,L
, N
surf,S
and N
surf,L
.
We assume that the small and large bubbles share the same
liquid ow eld and the bubbles breakup under the common
circumstances of turbulent ow, and hence N
turb
is not further
resolved in this model. It should be pointed out that the struc-
ture resolution in this preliminary study is limited to the gas
phase, whereas liquid ow structure, which was described by
multiple circulation cells (Joshi and Sharma, 1979; Joshi et al.,
6982 N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991
Fig. 4. Schematic drawing for structure resolution of overall gasliquid system into liquid, small bubbles, large bubbles and two interphases in the DBS model.
2002), is not considered for simplicity. Whether new dominant
mechanisms will be introduced by the liquid phase is still an
open question.
4.2. Conservation equations
Fig. 4 illustrates that both small and large bubbles interact
with the surrounding liquid through the phase interfaces. Sup-
pose that the slip velocities between the bubbles and the liquid
are positive. Hence the force balance equations can be formu-
lated for small bubbles and large bubbles, respectively, as
f
S

l
g =
f
S
/6 d
3
S
C
D,S

4
d
2
S

1
2

U
g,S
f
S

U
l
1 f
b

2
(16)
and
f
L

l
g =
f
L
/6 d
3
L
C
D,L

4
d
2
L

1
2

U
g,L
f
L

U
l
1 f
b

2
, (17)
where the drag coefcients for small and large bubbles can be
obtained from Eq. (7) by modifying the drag coefcients for
isolated single bubbles in quiescent liquid:
C
D,S
=C
D0,S
(1 f
b
)
4
(18)
and
C
D,L
=C
D0,L
(1 f
b
)
4
. (19)
It should be noticed that the correction factor is also related
to the bubble diameter and the bubble shapes of the small and
large bubbles. As a rst approximation, we use the overall gas
holdup f
b
to consider the effects of other bubbles on the drag
coefcient.
The mass conservation law leads to
U
g,S
+U
g,L
=U
g
(20)
and
f
S
+f
L
=f
b
. (21)
Now we have a model involving six variables (d
S
, d
L
, f
S
, f
L
,
U
g,S
, U
g,L
) and three conservation equations (Eqs. (16), (17)
and (20)). It can be readily proved that for the case of uniform
bubble size distribution (d
S
= d
L
= d
b
), the above equations
of the DBS model reduce to Eq. (6) of the SBS model for any
combination of f
S
and f
L
. In what follows, we shall extend
the stability condition of the SBS model to provide a closure
for this DBS model.
4.3. Stability condition
Conforming to the resolution of energy consumption shown
in Eq. (1), the total energy consumption in the DBS model can
be formulated as
N
surf
+N
turb
+N
break
=(N
surf,S
+N
surf,L
) +N
turb
+(N
break,S
+N
break,L
)
=U
g
g, (22)
N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991 6983
where
N
surf,S
=U
g,S
g
C
D,bS
C
D,pS
C
D,bS
=U
g,S
g
C
D0,bS
(1 f
b
)
4
C
D0,pS
(1 f
b
)
4
C
D0,bS
(1 f
b
)
4
, (23)
N
surf,L
=U
g,L
g
C
D,bL
C
D,pL
C
D,bL
=U
g,L
g
C
D0,bL
(1 f
b
)
4
C
D0,pL
(1 f
b
)
4
C
D0,bL
(1 f
b
)
4
, (24)
N
break,S
=

d
S

min

0.5
0
(d
S
, f
S
, )
(1 f
b
)
l
+f
b

g
P
b
(d
S
, , f
BV
) c
f
d
2
S
df
BV
d, (25)
N
break,L
=

d
L

min

0.5
0
(d
L
, f
L
, )
(1 f
b
)
l
+f
b

g
P
b
(d
L
, , f
BV
) c
f
d
2
L
df
BV
d. (26)
The arrival frequency of eddies and breakage probability P
b
can be obtained from the classical statistical theory of isotropic
turbulence, similar to Eqs. (4) and (5), for the small and large
bubble classes, respectively. Then the stability condition can
be expressed as the minimization of energy dissipation directly
through microscopic interactions, i.e.,
N
surf
+N
turb
min . (27)
The total energy consumption can be expressed as gU
g
in the
same manner for both the SBS and DBS models, as shown in
Eq. (1). For the case of uniform bubble size distribution in the
DBS model, namely, d
S
=d
L
=d
b
, summing Eqs. (23) and (24)
yields
N
surf,SBS
=N
surf,DBS
=N
surf,S
+N
surf,L
, (28)
where N
surf,SBS
and N
surf,DBS
denote the energy consumption
in the process of bubble oscillation in the SBS and the DBS
models, respectively. In a similar manner, from Eqs. (25) and
(26), we obtain
N
break,SBS
=N
break,DBS
=N
break,S
+N
break,L
, (29)
where N
break,SBS
and N
break,DBS
are the energy consumption
in the process of bubble breakage in the SBS and the DBS
models, respectively. Consequently, we have
N
turb,SBS
=N
turb,DBS
=N
turb
. (30)
The above derivation indicates that the portions of energy con-
sumption in the DBS model are equivalent to those in the SBS
model for the case of uniform size distribution.
4.4. Solution procedure
Now that the DBS model is closed by the stability condi-
tion, we are in a position to obtain the six structure variables,
provided the supercial gas velocity is given. To ensure a cor-
rect and complete solution to this non-linear optimization prob-
lem, we have employed an ergodic global search algorithm to
nd the minima among all valid combinations of d
S
, d
L
and
U
g,S
and, at the same time, to obtain the variation of all model
variables with these parameters. Fairly complicated landscapes
of the stability criterion were found, which displays multiple
local and global minima and strong dependence on the drag
correlations. This dependence suggests the necessity of further
quantication of these correlations and constraints, and on the
other hand, implies the limitations of our discussions on the so-
lutions of the current model. Therefore, to void any confusion,
we would clarify that the results presented hereafter are only
based on the drag correlation shown in Eqs. (7)(13) and the
minimum bubble diameter (0.55 mm) constrained by the valid
range of this correlation. The behavior of the gasliquid ows
predicted with other correlations and constraints are subject to
further research.
Fig. 5 illustrates the global minimum point which lies in the
intersection points of three proles at U
g
=0.06 m/s. Note that
the subscripts of the bubble diameters d
S
and d
L
have only
symbolic signicance and the identication of small and large
bubbles is practically dependent on the relative magnitude of the
calculated value of d
S
and d
L
. Moreover, the three dimensional
distribution of N
surf
+N
turb
should be essentially symmetrical
with respect to the z-plane of U
g,S
=0.5U
g
.
Fig. 6 shows the two-dimensional contour plot of the dimen-
sionless energy dissipation directly through microscopic inter-
actions for the z-plane of U
g,S
=0.0222 m/s which contains the
global minimum searched from the results for all the combina-
tion of the three free variables (U
g,S
, d
S
, d
L
) at U
g
=0.06 m/s.
It is indicated that there are two local minimum points in the
contour plot and the global minimum point lies in the valley
located in the upper-left area. However, another valley appears
in this area when U
g
increases from 0.07 to 0.09 m/s, as il-
lustrated in Fig. 7. Note that only the upper-left area of the
overall domain is zoomed in the two insets, indicating that the
global minimum point is in the left valley for U
g
= 0.09 m/s.
The situation is further changed when U
g
increases from 0.12
to 0.13 m/s. Fig. 8 illustrates that for U
g
less than or equal to
0.12 m/s, the local minimum value in the left valley is smaller
than that in the right, that is, the global minimum point lies in
the left valley, as shown in Inset (a); whereas for U
g
equal to
or greater than 0.13 m/s, the position of the global minimum
point jumps from left to the right valley, as illustrated in In-
set (b). The more accurate position of this jump change of the
global minimum point can be further located by inserting more
data points of calculation for gas velocities between 0.12 and
0.13. It is found that the jump change occurs approximately at
U
g
=0.128 m/s.
Our calculation indicates that the model solution is sensitive
to the selection of drag coefcient correlations and this inu-
ence needs further investigation. Anyway, the jump change
shown above may reect the multiplicity of the states in
gasliquid systems. This idea has already been demonstrated
in gassolid systems by using the EMMS model. The choking
point, which represents the regime transition between dilute
6984 N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991
Fig. 5. Dimensionless energy dissipation directly through microscopic interactions as a function of the trial values of diameters for two bubble classes (d
S
, d
L
)
and the supercial gas velocity of the small bubble (U
g,S
), calculated from the DBS model as described in Section 4. The position of the global minimum
lies in point a intersected by the three proles (U
g
=0.06 m/s, airwater system).
Fig. 6. Two-dimensional contour plot of (N
surf
+N
turb
)/(gU
g
) for the z-plane
of U
g,S
=0.0222 m/s extracted from Fig. 5. The global minimum point lies
in the upper-left valley (U
g
=0.06 m/s, airwater system).
transport and fast uidization, is captured by the jump change
between two stable solutions of the EMMS model. Consid-
ering the analogy between gasliquid and gassolid systems,
we expect that the jump change found in this study may
also supply a physical explanation of the regime transition in
gasliquid systems, although it needs further verication under
appropriate drag coefcient correlations and minimum bubble
diameter constraints.
4.5. Results and discussion
Fig. 9 compares the prediction of total gas holdup with
the DBS and SBS models and the experiments of Camarasa
et al. (1999) as well as other empirical correlations. The predic-
tion from the DBS model is fairly consistent with experimental
results when U
g
is less than 0.07 m/s, and therefore more ac-
curate than the prediction from the SBS model. Compared to
the SBS model, the improvement of model prediction is con-
sidered to result from the introduction of structure resolution in
the DBS model. It can also be noticed that the transition point
at U
g
=0.04 m/s where the slope of the curve begins to change,
can be correctly captured by the model, presumably reecting
the regime transition from homogeneous to transition regimes.
For U
g
greater than 0.07 m/s, the total gas holdup rst in-
creases to a maximum approximately at 0.128 m/s and then falls
down to a smaller value at 0.129 m/s. Although the decrease of
holdup is not quantitatively consistent with the shoulder area of
the experimental results cited in Fig. 9, the jump change may
reect the ow regime transition from the homogenous and
transition regimes to the fully developed heterogeneous regime.
The jump change of the total gas holdup can be understood as
a switch of the relative magnitude between the two local min-
ima, as illustrated in Fig. 8. The global minimum point there-
fore jumps from the left to the right so that the small bubble
diameter changes to a larger value and thereby gives rise to the
jump change of other structure parameters.
The model prediction of gas holdup for small and large bub-
bles is compared with experimental measurements of Camarasa
N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991 6985
Fig. 7. Zoomed contour plot of (N
surf
+ N
turb
)/(gU
g
) for the upper-left area of the overall domain of d
S
and d
L
. Inset (a) indicates that only one valley
occurs for U
g
= 0.07 m/s. Inset (b) shows the existence of two valleys for U
g
= 0.09 m/s. (a) U
g
= 0.07 m/s, U
g,S
= 0.0252 m/s and (b) U
g
= 0.09 m/s,
U
g,S
=0.0315 m/s.
Fig. 8. Jump change of the global minimum point between the two valleys: the global minimum (solid line) lies at the left valley in Inset (a) at U
g
=0.12 m/s;
whereas it moves to the right valley in Inset (b) at U
g
=0.13 m/s. The dash line represents another local minimum. (a) U
g
=0.12 m/s, U
g,S
=0.0408 m/s;
and (b) U
g
=0.13 m/s, U
g,S
=0.0377 m/s.
et al. (1999) for the case of multiple orice nozzle in Fig. 10.
Apparently, the model prediction is comparable to the experi-
mental results. Moreover, the jump change of total gas holdup
results from the abrupt decrease of small bubble holdup.
The variation trend of the calculated results for rise veloc-
ities of large bubbles (U
g,L
/f
L
), as shown in Fig. 11, agrees
reasonably with the experiments of Camarasa et al. (1999), in-
dicating that the rise velocity of large bubbles increases with
increasing U
g
. Krishna et al. (1999) proposed a correlation for
the rise velocity of large bubbles with the large bubble diame-
ter, the column diameter, the supercial gas velocity and the gas
velocity at the regime transition point, the last of which can be
obtained from experimental correlation of Reilly et al. (1994).
For the small bubbles, experimental results in Fig. 11 indicate
a slight decrease of rise velocity with increasing U
g
, whereas
the rise velocity calculated from the DBS model (U
g,S
/f
S
)
increases to higher value when the regime transition happens
(U
g
>0.128 m/s), which seems to be related to the unrealistic
decrease of small bubble holdup illustrated in Fig. 10.
Fig. 12 shows that the calculated number density of large
bubble increases with increasing U
g
, whereas the number den-
sity of small bubbles rst increases gradually to form a ridge,
and then falls down dramatically at the end of the ridge, which
corresponds to the jump change in Figs. 9 and 10 where the
holdup of small bubble decreases dramatically at this point.
The small bubble diameter shifts to a larger value, as illustrated
in Inset (b) of Fig. 8. Therefore, the joint effect of holdup and
diameter for the small bubble leads to the jump change of its
number density.
To show the inuence of supercial gas velocity on bubble
size distribution, the calculated relative frequency (the num-
ber density of each bubble classes divided by the total number
6986 N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991
Fig. 9. Comparison between calculation from the DBS and the SBS mod-
els and correlations of Bach and Pilhofer (1978); Hikita et al. (1980) and
Hughmark (1967) as well as experiments of Camarasa et al. (1999): variation
of total gas holdup with supercial gas velocity for airwater system.
Fig. 10. Comparison between calculation from the DBS model and experi-
ments of Camarasa et al. (1999): variation of the holdup of small and large
bubbles with supercial gas velocity.
density of small and large bubbles) is illustrated in Fig. 13. It is
indicated that the small bubble diameter ranges from 1 to 3 mm
and the large bubble diameter is in the range of 721 mm, which
is in reasonable agreement with literature reports (Clift et al.,
1978; De Swart et al., 1996; Krishna et al., 2000). The number
density of large bubbles is generally far less than that of small
bubbles due to its large volume, and the bimodal size distri-
bution is more distinct with increasing U
g
. Similar trend can
also be observed in Fig. 14 which illustrates the gas holdup of
corresponding bubble diameters at different gas velocities. The
jump change illustrated by the arrows in Figs. 1314 shows that
when U
g
increases from 0.12 to 0.13 m/s, both the small bubble
diameter and the large bubble relative frequency increases dra-
matically and the small bubble holdup decreases, which may
suggest that gas tends to ow out of the columns in the form
of large bubbles at higher gas velocity.
Fig. 11. Comparison between calculation from the DBS model and experi-
ments of Camarasa et al. (1999): variation of rise velocity of small and large
bubbles with supercial gas velocity.
Fig. 12. Variation of the number density of small and large bubbles calculated
from the DBS model.
It should be pointed out that the variation of the gas holdup
and the bubble size distribution is also inuenced by other
important factors, like sparger types and column sizes, which
are, however, not taken into account in our current model. As
a preliminary study, we do not expect close coincidence of
calculation with experimental reports; rather, the DBS model
only serves as a conceptual model to study the general trend of
variation of structure parameters in gasliquid systems through
the analysis of the compromise between dominant mechanisms,
which is expressed as the stability condition in the model.
Fig. 15 compares the variation of the dimensionless energy
dissipation directly through microscopic interactions calculated
from the SBS and DBS models, respectively. N
surf
+ N
turb
calculated from the DBS model is much lower than that from
the SBS model. This can be explained by the resolution of
structure of gas phase in the DBS model, which reects the
N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991 6987
Fig. 13. Bubble size distribution at different supercial gas velocities. The
two arrows show the jump change of small bubble diameter and of large
bubble number density at from U
g
=0.12 m/s to U
g
=0.13 m/s.
Fig. 14. Gas holdup of corresponding bubble diameters at different gas
velocities. The two arrows show the jump change of small bubble diameter
and of small bubble holdup at U
g
=0.12 m/s to U
g
=0.13 m/s.
physical situation better than the SBS model. Since the total
energy is equal for the two models, this difference shown in
Fig. 15 corresponds to that of N
break
shown in Fig. 16. The
difference suggests that the system consumes more energy for
bubble breakup and coalescence in the case of non-uniform
bubble size distribution reected in the DBS model. For both the
models, N
break
increases with increasing U
g
. Fig. 17 compares
the variation of N
break
for small and large bubbles. Apparently,
almost all N
break
is consumed on the large bubble breakage and
the small bubble consumes little.
4.6. Exploring the compromise between dominant mechanisms
The stability conditions shown in Eqs. (14) and (27) try to
reect the joint effects of two dominant mechanisms, that is,
Fig. 15. Comparison of the dimensionless energy dissipation directly through
microscopic interactions calculated from the SBS and DBS models.
Fig. 16. Comparison of the dimensionless energy consumption for bubble
breakage calculated from the SBS and DBS models.
the compromise between N
surf
min and N
turb
min.
According to Ge et al. (2007), smaller bubbles dominated by
surface tension tend to achieve lower N
surf
, whereas larger
bubbles interacting with turbulent ow tend to achieve lower
N
turb
. The joint effects of these two dominant mechanisms pro-
duce an equilibrium bubble diameter. This has been veried
by performing CFD simulation incorporating with a popula-
tion balance model (PBM) (Zhao, 2006; Ge et al., 2007) in
which the coalescence model of Prince and Blanch (1990) and
the breakup model of Luo and Svendsen (1996) are employed.
The number density for each bubble size classes can be ob-
tained by solving the population balance equations and then
the average bubble diameter at local points can be calculated.
It can be seen from Figs. 18(b) and (c) that larger bubbles ex-
ist at some local points (e.g., point B) whereas smaller bubbles
distribute at other points (e.g., point A), implying the differ-
ence of dominant mechanisms between these different points,
6988 N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991
Fig. 17. Comparison of the dimensionless energy consumption in bubble
breakage for the small and large bubbles.
Fig. 18. Relationship between bubble size distribution and energy consumption in airwater system (U
g
=0.048 m/s, U
l
=0 m/s,
l
=998 kg/m
3
,
g
=1.2 kg/m
3
,
=0.072 N/m,
l
=0.001 Pa s, from Zhao, 2006; Ge et al., 2007).
i.e., N
turb
min for the former whereas N
surf
min for the
latter. The statistics for the global systemshown in Fig. 18(d) in-
dicates the bi-modal bubble size distribution, supplying further
evidence of the alternative dominance of the two mechanisms.
The dependence of the energy dissipation directly through mi-
croscopic interactions N
surf
+ N
turb
on the average bubble di-
ameters for points A and B and for the global system can be
seen in Fig. 18(e). While points A and B lie on the left and
right slopes of the curve, respectively, the global mean bubble
diameter locates almost in the valley, which corresponds to the
minimum of N
surf
+N
turb
and in this way the proposed stability
condition seems reasonable.
5. Further extension
We nd that some model prediction, like the position and
the number of minimum points, is inuenced by the drag coef-
cient correlation. In literature, there is no general agreement
N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991 6989
on the form of the drag coefcient correlation. Therefore, the
inuence of different drag coefcient correlations needs further
investigation. On the other hand, in gasliquid systems, inertia
and inertia-induced forces like the virtual-mass force and the
shear-induced lift may affect the ow structure signicantly
(Magnaudet and Eames, 2000). The force balance equation used
in the study, i.e, Eqs. (16) and (17), considers only the effects
of buoyancy and drag force for simplicity. The effects of inertia
should be taken into account in further study.
Bubbles in real systems have a continuous size distribution,
and therefore the DBS model can be further extended to accom-
modate multiple bubble sizes. Suppose that we have m classes
of bubbles, each with a volume fraction of f
i
, a diameter of d
i
and a corresponding supercial gas velocity of U
i
. For the ith
class, the conservation equations can be written as
f
i

l
g =
f
i
6 d
3
i
C
Di

4
d
2
i

1
2

U
g,i
f
i

U
l
1 f
b

2
, (31)
where

U
g,i
=U
g
(32)
and

f
i
=f
b
. (33)
By the same token, the stability condition can be expressed as
the minimization of energy dissipation directly through micro-
scopic interactions for all classes of bubbles, namely,

i
(N
surf
+N
turb
) min . (34)
The model involves 3m variables and m + 1 equations, and
the stability condition may serve as a closure for the model to
calculate the number density of each bubble class.
The stability condition may also change with the scale of the
system when a certain level is reached. A good example can
be found in the nano-gasliquid ow enclosed in a segment of
straight pipe with periodic boundaries in the axial direction and
driven by a constant bulk force eld, as investigated by Ge et al.
(2007). It was found that extreme tendencies still take effect
and the dominant mechanisms have been identied as the min-
imization of viscous dissipation and the interfacial potential. It
would be interesting to see how a more generalized stability
condition can be proposed for different gasliquid systems.
6. Conclusions and prospects
Gassolid and gasliquid systems are characterized by
heterogeneous structures and multi-scale behaviors. The com-
plexity of these systems can be understood from the angle of
stability condition and the compromise of different dominant
mechanisms in the systems. This study shows that the strategy
of establishing and utilizing a stability condition can possi-
bly be applied to gasliquid systems also. The prediction of
structural parameters from the single-bubble-size (SBS) and
the dual-bubble-size (DBS) models for gasliquid systems
based on this strategy has shown reasonable agreement with
experimental measurements and correlations. The variation of
the structural parameters and the different portions of energy
consumption can qualitatively reect the evolution tendencies
of the structures in these systems, and the two gas velocities
at which regime transition occurs in air-water system can be
reasonably predicted with the DBS model. Moreover, similar
stability condition has been found for nano-gasliquid ows,
suggesting that the strategy in seeking stability condition, as
presented in this study, may be of general relevance and hence
of signicance to the fundamentals of multi-phase ow.
We anticipate further extension of the gasliquid models
based on stability conditions. First, as the models based on this
strategy embody information of the multi-scale interaction of
eddies and bubbles, and can reect the compromise between
dominant mechanisms, the models could be further developed
to provide closures for the interphase momentum transfer for
CFD models to predict more detailed ow structure. Second,
the model established in this study is still at its preliminary
stage. Some specic aspects of the theoretical predictions in
the current model are still dependent on the phenomenological
inputs to the model, such as the drag coefcient, minimum bub-
ble diameters and bubble oscillation characters. These inputs
need further quantication in both experimental measurements
and micro-scale simulations, and correspondingly, the model is
subject to further improvement, extension or even integration
of additional dominant mechanisms. At this preliminary stage,
we expect no more than these conceptual results due to the
limitation of knowledge on the complexity of gasliquid multi-
scale interactions. However, with the future works discussed,
it would be promising to develop a relatively simple model
for describing the multi-scale behavior in practical gasliquid
systems with a reasonable accuracy.
Notation
c
f
coefcient of surface area increase, c
f
= f
2/3
BV
+
(1 f
BV
)
2/3
1, dimensionless
C
Db
drag coefcient for a bubble in a swarm, dimen-
sionless
C
D0,b
drag coefcient for a bubble in a quiescent liquid,
dimensionless
C
Dp
drag coefcient for a particle in multi-particle sys-
tems, dimensionless
C
D0,p
drag coefcient for a particle in a quiescent uid,
dimensionless
d
b
bubble diameter, m
d
L
bubble diameter of large bubbles, m
d
min
minimum bubble diameter, mm
d
S
bubble diameter of small bubbles, m
D
T
column diameter, m
Eo Eotvos number, dimensionless
f
b
volume fraction of gas phase, dimensionless
f
L
volume fraction of large bubbles, dimensionless
6990 N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991
f
S
volume fraction of small bubbles, dimensionless
f
BV
breakup ratio of daughter bubble to its mother bub-
ble, dimensionless
g gravitational acceleration, m/s
2
Mo Morton number, dimensionless
n
b
number density of bubbles, 1/m
3
N
break
rate of energy consumption due to bubble breakage
per unit mass, m
2
/s
3
N
surf
rate of energy dissipation due to bubble oscillation
per unit mass, m
2
/s
3
N
turb
rate of energy dissipation in turbulent liquid phase
per unit mass, m
2
/s
3
N
st
rate of energy dissipation for suspending and trans-
porting particles per unit mass, m
2
/s
3
P
b
bubble breakup probability, dimensionless
U
g
supercial gas velocity, m/s
U
g,L
supercial gas velocity for large bubbles, m/s
U
g,S
supercial gas velocity for small bubbles, m/s
U
l
supercial liquid velocity, m/s
W
st
rate of energy dissipation for suspending and trans-
porting particles per unit volume, m
2
/s
3
Greek letters
voidage, dimensionless
character size of eddy, m
viscosity, Pa s
density, kg/m
3
surface tension, N/m
collision frequency, 1/s
Subscripts
DBS double-bubble-size
g gas
l liquid
L large bubble
p particle
S small bubble
SBS single-bubble-size
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their appreciation to Prof.
Mooson Kwauk for his encouragement and valuable sugges-
tions to this work. Thanks are also extended to Dr. Yushan Zhu
of Tsinghua University for his help on trying the method of
simulated annealing, to Dr. Wei Wang for some literature sur-
vey, to Mr. Limin Wang and Mr. Guangzheng Zhou for their
help on data visualization and to Ms. Bona Lu and Mr. Feiguo
Chen for analyzing the solutions of a non-linear model dur-
ing the exploration. The long term supports from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China, in particular, Grant nos.
20406022, 20221603, 20490201 and 20336040, as well as the
support from the hi-tech research and development program
of China under Grant 2006AA030202, are gratefully acknowl-
edged.
References
Bach, H.F., Pilhofer, T., 1978. Variations of gas hold-up in bubble columns
with physical properties of liquids and operating parameters of column.
German Chemical Engineering 1, 270275.
Behzadi, A., Issa, R.I., Rusche, H., 2004. Modelling of dispersed bubble and
droplet ow at high phase fractions. Chemical Engineering Science 59,
759770.
Camarasa, E., Vial, C., Poncin, S., Wild, G., Midoux, N., Bouillard, J., 1999.
Inuence of coalescence behaviour of the liquid and of gas sparging on
hydrodynamics and bubble characteristics in a bubble column. Chemical
Engineering and Processing 38, 329344.
Chen, R.C., Reese, J., Fan, L.-S., 1994. Flow structure in a three-dimensional
bubble column and three phase uidized bed. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 40, 1094
1104.
Clift, R., Grace, J., Weber, M.E., 1978. Bubbles, Drops and Particles.
Academic Press, New York.
De Swart, J.W.A., Van Vliet, R.E., Krishna, R., 1996. Size, structure and
dynamics of large bubbles in a two-dimensional slurry bubble column.
Chemical Engineering Science 51 (20), 46194629.
Deckwer, W.D., 1992. Bubble Column Reactors. Wiley, Chichester.
Ellenberger, J., Krishna, R., 1994. A unied approach to the scale-up of
gassolid uidized bed and gasliquid bubble column reactors. Chemical
Engineering Science 49 (24), 53915411.
Fan, L.-S., 1989. GasLiquidSolid Fluidization Engineering. Butterworth,
Stoneham, MA.
Fan, L.-S., Tsuchiya, K., 1990. Bubble Wake Dynamics in Liquids and
LiquidSolid Suspensions. Butterworth-Heinemann, Stoneham, MA.
Ge, W., Li, J., 2002. Physical mapping of uidization regimesthe EMMS
approach. Chemical Engineering Science 57, 39934004.
Ge, W., Li, J., Chen, F., Gao, J., Gao, S., Huang, J., Liu, X., Ren, Y.,
Sun, Q., Wang, L., Wang, W., Yang, N., Zhang, J., Zhao, H., 2007.
Analytical multi-scale method for multi-phase complex systems in process
engineeringbridging reductionism and holism. Chemical Engineering
Science 62, 33463377.
Grace, J.R., Wairegi, T., Nguyen, T.H., 1976. Shapes and velocities of single
drops and bubbles moving freely through immiscible liquids. Transactions
of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 54, 167173.
Hikita, H., Asai, S., Tanigawa, K., Segawa, K., Kitao, M., 1980. Gas hold-up
in bubble columns. Chemical Engineering Journal 20, 5967.
Hughmark, G.A., 1967. Holdup and mass transfer in bubble columns.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development
6, 218220.
Ishii, M., Zuber, N., 1979. Drag coefcient, and relative velocity in bubbly
droplet and particulate ows. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 25 (5), 843855.
Joshi, J.B., Sharma, M.M., 1979. A circulation cell for bubble columns.
Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 57, 244251.
Joshi, J.B., Vitankar, V.S., Kulkarni, A.A., Dhotre, M.T., Ekambara, K., 2002.
Coherent ow structures in bubble column reactors. Chemical Engineering
Science 57, 31573183.
Kantarci, N., Borak, F., Ulgen, K.O., 2005. Bubble column reactors. Process
Biochemistry 40, 22632283.
Kostoglou, M., Karabelas, A.J., 2005. Toward a unied framework for
the derivation of breakage functions based on the statistical theory of
turbulence. Chemical Engineering Science 60, 65846595.
Krishna, R., Ellenberger, J., 1996. Gas holdup in bubble column reactors
operating in the churn-turbulent ow regime. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 42 (9),
26272634.
Krishna, R., Urseanu, M.I., Van Baten, J.M., Ellenberger, J., 1999. Inuence
of scale on the hydrodynamics of bubble columns operating in the
churn-turbulent regime: experiments vs. eulerian simulations. Chemical
Engineering Science 54, 49034911.
Krishna, R., Van Baten, J.M., Urseanu, M.I., 2000. Three-phase Eulerian
simulations of bubble column reactors operating in the churn-turbulent
regime: a scale up strategy. Chemical Engineering Science 55, 32753286.
Kulkarni, A.A., Joshi, J.B., 2005. Bubble formation and bubble rise velocity
in gasliquid systems: a review. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research 44, 58735931.
N. Yang et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 69786991 6991
Li, J., 1987. Multi-scale modelling and method of energy minimization
for particle-uid two phase ow. Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Chemical
Metallurgy, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing.
Li, J., Kwauk, M., 1994. Particle-Fluid Two-Phase FlowThe Energy-
Minimization Multi-Scale Method. Metallurgical Industry Press, Beijing.
Li, J., Kwauk, M., 2003. Exploring complex system in chemical
engineeringthe multi-scale methodology. Chemical Engineering Science
58 (36), 521535.
Li, J., Cheng, C., Zhang, Z., Yuan, J., Nemet, A., Fett, F.N., 1999. The
EMM modelits application development and updated concepts. Chemical
Engineering Science 54, 54095425.
Li, J., Ge, W., Zhang, J., Kwauk, M., 2005. Multi-scale compromise and multi-
level correlations in complex systems. Chemical Engineering Research
and Design 83 (A6), 574582.
Lo, S., Bagatin, R., Masi, M., 2000. The Development of a CFD analysis
and design tool for air-lift reactors. In: Proceedings of the SAIChE 2000
Conference, Secunda, South Africa.
Luo, H., Svendsen, H.F., 1996. Theoretical model for drop and bubble breakup
in turbulent dispersions. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 42 (5), 12251233.
Magnaudet, J., Eames, I., 2000. The motion of high-Reynolds-number bubbles
in inhomogeneous ows. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 32, 659708.
Mudde, R.F., 2005. Gravity-driven bubbly ows. Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics 37, 393423.
Olmos, E., Gentric, C., Poncin, S., Midoux, N., 2003. Description of ow
regime transitions in bubble columns via laser Doppler anemometry signals
processing. Chemical Engineering Science 58, 17311742.
Patel, S.A., Daly, J.G., Bukur, D.B., 1989. Holdup and interfacial area
measurements using dynamix gas disengagement. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 35
(6), 931942.
Prince, M.J., Blanch, H.W., 1990. Bubble coalescence and break-up in air-
sparged bubble columns. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 36 (10), 14851499.
Reilly, L.G., Scott, D.S., De Brujin, T.J.W., Macintyre, D., 1994. The role
of gas phase momentum in determining gas holdup and hydrodynamic
ow regimes in bubble column operations. Canadian Journal of Chemical
Engineering 72, 312.
Ribeiro, C.P., Lage, P.L.C., 2004. Direct-contact evaporation in the
homogeneous and heterogeneous bubbling regimes. International Journal
of Heat and Mass Transfer 47, 38253840.
Sada, E., Kumazawa, H., Lee, C.H., Narukawa, H., 1987. Gasliquid
interfacial area and liquid-side mass-transfer coefcient in a slurry bubble
column. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 26, 112116.
Simonnet, M., Gentric, C., Olmos, E., Midous, N., 2007. Experimental
determination of the drag coefcient in a swarm of bubbles. Chemical
Engineering Science 62, 858866.
Thorat, B.N., Joshi, J.B., 2004. Regime transition in bubble columns:
experimental and predicitions. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science
28, 423430.
Tomiyama, A., 1998. Struggle with computational bubble dynamics.
Multiphase Science and Technology 10, 369405.
Wang, T., Wang, J., Jin, Y., 2003. A novel theoretical breakup kernel function
for bubbles/droplets in a turbulent ow. Chemical Engineering Science 58,
46294637.
Yang, G.Q., Du, B., Fan, L.S., 2007. Bubble formation and dynamics in
gasliquidsolid uidizationa review. Chemical Engineering Science 62,
227.
Zahradnik, J., Fialova, M., 1996. The effect of bubbling regime on gas and
liquid phase mixing in bubble column reactors. Chemical Engineering
Science 51 (10), 24912500.
Zhao, H., 2006. Multi-scale modeling of gasliquid (slurry) reactors. Ph.D.
Thesis, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Beijing.