Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/ces
Received 7 July 2004; received in revised form 6 January 2005; accepted 27 January 2005
Available online 23 March 2005
Abstract
A 3D discrete bubble model is adopted to investigate complex behavior involving hydrodynamics, mass transfer and chemical reactions
in a gas–liquid bubble column reactor. In this model a continuum description is adopted for the liquid phase and additionally each individual
bubble is tracked in a Lagrangian framework, while accounting for bubble–bubble and bubble–wall interactions via an encounter model.
The mass transfer rate is calculated for each individual bubble using a surface renewal model accounting for the instantaneous and local
properties of the liquid phase in its vicinity. The distributions in space of chemical species residing in the liquid phase are computed from
the coupled species balances considering the mass transfer from bubbles and reactions between the species. The model has been applied
to simulate chemisorption of CO2 bubbles in NaOH solutions. Our results show that apart from hydrodynamics behavior, the model is
able to predict the bubble size distribution as well as temporal and spatial variations of each chemical species involved.
䉷 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bubble column; Discrete bubble model; Mass transfer; Chemical reactions; CFD
Chemical reaction
ometries, experimental investigations by Becker et al. (1994)
and Chen et al. (1994) indicate that bubble columns gener-
ally show an unsteady flow with considerable spatial vari-
E ation of the key hydrodynamic quantities. Numerical sim-
kl ulations reported by Delnoij et al. (1999), Sokolichin and
db
Eigenberger (1994) and Deen et al. (2001) also show that
Mass transfer a Fluid flow unsteady vortical structures appear in 2D and 3D simula-
tions. These results suggest that a 1D plug flow model as
Fig. 1. Inter-dependency diagram of fluid flow, mass transfer and chemical
was used in Fleischers model is not able to capture the un-
reaction. steady hydrodynamics behavior of a bubble column.
In this paper we present a detailed 3D model for the hydro-
dynamics, mass transfer and chemical reactions in an isother-
Pan and Dudukovic, 2000). The number of bubbles present mal bubble column operated in the homogeneous regime.
in a computational cell is represented by a volume fraction The E–L model is adopted to solve the hydrodynamics since
and the information of the bubble size distribution is of- incorporation of the bubble size distribution and interphase
ten obtained by incorporating population balance equations mass transfer calculation is relatively straightforward. The
which take into account break-up and coalescence of bubbles model is applied to study the coupling of hydrodynamics,
as well as growth or shrinkage of bubbles as a consequence gas–liquid mass transfer and chemical reactions in a square
of mass transfer. The E–L model, on the other hand, adopts bubble column. First we will focus on the hydrodynamics
a continuum description for the liquid phase and addition- of the column and compare our results with experimental
ally tracks each individual bubble using Newtonian equa- and numerical results obtained by Deen et al. (2001). The
tions of motion. This allows for a direct consideration of ad- mixing characteristics of the column will subsequently be
ditional effects related to bubble–bubble and bubble–liquid studied with the use of hydrodynamics and species tracking
interaction. Mass transfer with and without chemical reac- models. Next the physical absorption of CO2 into water will
tion, bubble coalescence and re-dispersion can be incorpo- be addressed and finally the complete model will be used to
rated directly (Tomiyama et al., 1997; Delnoij et al., 1997; investigate chemisorption of CO2 bubbles into an aqueous
Sokolichin and Eigenberger, 1994). Unlike the E–E model, solution of sodium hydroxide.
the E–L model does not require additional models to predict
the bubble size distribution since this information is already
2. Model formulation
part of the solution. A drawback of the E–L model com-
pared to the E–E model is its limitation on the number of
The three-dimensional model described in this paper is
bubbles that can be handled (i.e. less than O(105 )) since for
an extension of the hydrodynamic E–L model of Delnoij
each individual bubble one equation of motion needs to be
et al., 1999, which is applicable to disperse (homogeneous)
solved. This makes this method less attractive in handling
regimes, which are characterized by low gas velocities and
large scale bubble columns.
relatively small spherical bubbles that do not coalesce nor
Based on the E–E model, Fleischer et al. (1996) have pio-
break-up. The interphase mass transfer is calculated for each
neered to combine hydrodynamics, mass transfer and chem-
bubble using the surface renewal theory which takes into
ical reactions into a one-dimensional plug flow model ac-
account both physical and chemically enhanced mass trans-
counting for axial dispersion and heat effects. The model
fer. The spatial distributions of chemical species residing
consists of a liquid mass balance for each chemical species
in the liquid phase are computed from the coupled species
involved and momentum and energy balances for the liq-
conservation equations formulatedd in the Eulerian frame-
uid phase. The mass transfer rate is calculated from the two
work. Moreover, the numerical implementation of direct
film theory based on the bubble size predicted by a popu-
bubble–bubble interaction and the two-way coupling be-
lation balance model. This model has been used to predict
tween phases will be addressed in Section 3.
transient behavior of chemisorption of carbon dioxide into
an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide in a gas-lift reac- 2.1. Bubble dynamics
tor. A similar method was used by Márquez et al. (1999a,b)
to study the coupling between hydrodynamics and chemical The motion of for each individual bubble is computed
reaction without mass transfer in an external-loop gas liquid from the bubble mass and momentum equations. The liquid
reactor. This model also has been adopted in several CFD phase contributions are taken into account
by the interphase
software packages, which are used to solve a wide variety of mass transfer rate ṁ and the net force F experienced by
practical two phase problems (Al-Rashed and Jones, 1999; each individual bubble. For an incompressible bubble, the
Buwa and Ranade, 2002; Ranade and Tayalia, 2001). equations can be written as
The model of Fleischer is able to qualitatively predict the
transient behavior of a chemisorption process in a slender d(Vb )
b = (ṁl→b − ṁb→l ), (1)
cylindrical bubble column. However, for more general ge- dt
D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404 3385
The liquid phase hydrodynamics is represented by the where S j is the source term accounting for production or
volume-averaged Navier–Stokes equation, which consists of consumption of species j due to homogeneous chemical re-
continuity and momentum equations. The presence of bub- action and
bles is reflected by the liquid phase volume fraction l , the j eff,l
source term that accounts for the interphase mass transfer eff = . (10)
Scj
Ṁ, and the total interphase momentum transfer due to forces
and mass transfer For a mixture, which consists of NS chemical species, we
j only have to solve NS − 1 transport equations represented
(l l ) + · l l u = (Ṁb→l − Ṁl→b ), (4) by Eq. (9). The remaining species mass fraction can be cal-
jt
culated from the overall species balance using the following
j relation:
(l l u) + · l l uu = −l P − · l l + l l g + .
jt
NS
(5)
Yj = 1. (11)
The liquid phase flow is assumed to be Newtonian, thus the j =1
stress tensor l can be represented as
For a mixture consisting of NS species, the liquid density
l = −eff,l [((u) + (u)T ) − 23 I( · u)], (6)
and viscosity are taken as the average of properties of each
where eff,l is the effective viscosity. In the present model species as follows
the effective viscosity is composed of two contributions, the
S N j
molecular viscosity and the turbulent viscosity 1 Yl
= j
, (12)
eff,l = L,l + T ,l . (7) l
j =1 l
Atab
2
+ 2B tab + C = 0 (20) a
with
A = vab
2
− (Ṙa + Ṙb )2 ,
B = rab · vab − (Ra + Rb )(Ṙa + Ṙb ),
C = rab
2
− (Ra + Rb )2 .
If B > 0 then the two bubbles are moving away from each
other and they will not collide. Otherwise (if B < 0) there
Fig. 3. Area scanned for possible neighbors. Thick circle represent the
is a chance in a certain period that the bubbles will be col- neighbors boundary for bubble a. All bubble which has distance between
lide. Provided that Eq. (20) has a positive discriminant, two its perimeter and bubble a perimeter smaller than the boundary perimeter
positive roots will arise and the smaller will correspond to belongs to this neighbors.
the impact:
√
−B − B 2 − AC 3.3. Liquid flow field
tab= . (21)
A
A finite difference technique was adopted to discretize
In order to calculate the collision time efficiently we use the governing equations of the liquid phase. The volume-
the so-called bubble neighbor region. Only bubbles located averaged Navier–Stokes equations have been solved with
inside this region are considered to be possible collision a semi-implicit method for pressure linked equations
partners. Hoomans et al. (1996) and Delnoij et al. (1999) (SIMPLE-algorithm). A staggered grid is employed to
use a rectangular shape to represent the neighbor region, prevent numerical instability. First-order explicit time dif-
however in this work we choose a spherical shaped neighbor ferencing is applied for the time derivative. The convective
region since this shape is more natural with respect to the terms of the mass and momentum conservation equations
bubble shape. For all the bubbles inside the neighbor area are treated implicitly using a second-order accurate Bar-
of a certain bubble a (see Fig. 3), we calculate the collision ton scheme (Centrella and Wilson, 1984). Moreover, the
time tab between bubble a and the possible collision partner pressure gradient is treated implicitly, while the interphase
b using Eq. (20) . Note that the collision partner may also mass and momentum transfer and all other terms are treated
be one of the column walls or the top surface. explicitly. The resulting set of linear equations yields a
For all the possible collision pairs, the smallest tab is discretized pressure-Poisson equation, which is solved it-
selected. This tab will be used to update both size and po- eratively using the incomplete Choleski conjugate gradient
sition of all bubbles. However for bubbles a and b, which (ICCG) method, which is incorporated in the PETSc library
correspond to the smallest tab , a collision procedure is car- (Balay et al., 2001).
ried out and new velocities are determined.
A pair of colliding bubbles will bounce during the colli-
3.4. Chemical reactions and species transport equations
sion event. The velocities of both bubbles after the bounce
are determined by splitting the initial velocities into a nor-
All the terms in the species transport equation are dis-
mal and tangential component with respect to the line con-
cretized using a fully implicit method, except for the
necting the centers of mass of both bubbles. The tangential
interphase mass transfer and chemical reaction rate, which
component does not change due to a collision, while the new
appear as source terms and are treated explicitly. The con-
normal component is calculated from
vective flux is treated using a first-order accurate upwind
ma vn,a + mb vn,b scheme which is corrected using deferred correction method
vn,a
aftercollision
=2 − vn,a , (22) (Ferziger and Peric, 1999) in order to be consistent with
ma + m b
the second-order Barton scheme method, which is used
where the new velocity of bubble b is calculated in a similar in solving the Navier–Stokes equation. The resulting dis-
way. cretized equations for all species are solved simultaneously
3388 D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404
Bubble
Cube representation
ζ cellVbubble
H z E Initialization
λ6
D A
if t < tend Finalization
λ3 Q
G λ2 λ5 y
λ1 F
Solve interphase mass and momentum transfer for bubbles
λ4
C
x B
Update bubbles size and position
Resolve direct bubble-bubble interaction
Fig. 5. Notation used for mapping Eulerian data at points A–H to La-
grangian point Q (after Tomiyama et al., 1997).
Solve liquid hydrodynamics
icell
Fig. 6. Computational sequence diagram of the DBM.
where is calculated with the cubic shape representation,
which was introduced earlier.
ery Eulerian computational cell. The interphase mass and
3.5.3. Euler to Lagrange mapping momentum transfer rate, which was previously calculated
To evaluate forces experienced by each bubble, we need from every individual bubble is also mapped to the Eulerian
information of liquid quantities which are defined on the cell using the Lagrangian to Eulerian mapping technique
Eulerian grid. For this purpose we adopt the volume weigh- (Section 3.5.2). Using the new liquid porosity as well as
ing method, which was used by Delnoij et al. (1999) and the interphase mass and momentum transfer rate, the liquid
Tomiyama et al. (1997). As shown in Fig. 5, the value of hydrodynamics are solved to obtain the liquid phase hydro-
any physical quantities at point Q (denotes as ) can be dynamics at the new time level (Section 3.3). Finally, the
calculated as chemical reactions and species transport equation are solved
=
1
2
3 A +
1
2
6 B +
1
5
6 C to obtain a chemical species distribution at the new time
+
1
5
3 D +
4
2
3 E +
4
2
6 F level (Section 3.4). This sequential procedure is repeated
+
4
5
6 G +
4
5
3 H , (26) until a specified simulation end time is reached.
where 0
k 1 and
1 +
4 =
2 +
5 =
3 +
6 = 1.
4. Geometry and boundary condition
3.6. Computational sequence
Deen et al. (2001) performed particle image velocimetry
The complex phenomena involving hydrodynamics, mass (PIV) measurements in a 3D bubble column filled with dis-
transfer and chemical reactions are solved in a sequential tilled water. The column has a square cross-section (W ×D)
manner. A diagram of the computational sequence is pre- of 0.15 × 0.15 m2 and a height (L) of 0.45 m. Air with a
sented in Fig. 6. For every flow time step tflow , first, the in- superficial gas velocity of 4.9 mm/s was introduced into the
terphase mass and momentum transfer are calculated explic- system through a perforated plate. The plate contained 49
itly for each individual bubble. The liquid quantities required holes with a diameter of 1 mm, which were positioned in
to calculate these terms are obtained from the Euler to La- the middle of the plate at a square pitch of 6.25 mm.
grange mapping technique (Section 3.5.3). Using the inter- The column is modeled using the DBM code, which was
phase mass and momentum transfer, the bubbles size and po- described in the preceding section. The computational grid
sition are updated taking into account direct bubble–bubble consists of 30 × 30 × 90 cells and the flow time step (tflow )
and bubble–wall interaction (Section 3.2). is 1.0 × 10−3 s. Preliminary calculations revealed that this
The available bubble size and positions are mapped to configuration gives a grid and time step independent solu-
the Eulerian mesh using the porosity mapping method tion. The boundary conditions are imposed to the column
(Section 3.5.1) to obtain the liquid phase porosity in ev- using the flag matrix concept of Kuipers et al. (1993) as can
3390 D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404
4/6 1 4/6 NY
NZ
3/6 1 3/6 3/6 3/6
NX
5 3/6 5
NX
Fig. 7. Typical boundary conditions used in simulations with the discrete bubble model. The vertical plane is at j = N Y /2 while a slit is defined at
k = N Z − 1.
Table 2 formula:
Cell flags and corresponding cell types used in defining boundary condi-
tions vs b W × D
vz,enter = (27)
Flag Boundary conditions N h Vb
1 Interior cell, no boundary conditions specified with vs the superficial gas velocity, W ×D the cross sectional
2 Impermeable wall, free slip boundary area of the column and Nh is number of holes.
3 Impermeable wall, no slip boundary
4 Prescribed pressure cell, free slip boundary
For all of the holes, the vertical position of the bubbles
5 Corner cell, no boundary conditions specified underneath the bottom plate is generated in such way that
6 Neumann boundary for species transport equation (∇Y j · −
→
n = 0) none of the bubbles enters the column at the same time. This
was implemented in order to prevent (artificial) pulsing be-
havior of the incoming bubbles, which would occur if bub-
bles enter the column through all holes simultaneously. By
be seen in Fig. 7. The definition of each boundary condi- doing so, the occurrence of undesired pressure fluctuations
tion can be seen in Table 2. The configuration of boundary at the top of the column was prevented.
conditions used in the simulations has been carefully inves- When a bubble hits the top boundary of the column, the
tigated. The prescribed pressure cells close to the column bubble is marked to be removed from the column. The re-
surface wall are required as inlet as well as outlet channel to moval procedure is very important since it can influence the
compensate for the change of liquid volume due to bubbles overall flow inside the column and in some case may in-
entering and leaving the column. The width of this pressure duce instabilities in the numerical solution. When a bubble
cell slit is one third of the total width of the column and is marked to be removed from the column, its velocity and
located in the middle. It was found that this configuration interphase mass and momentum transfer to the liquid phase
avoids hydrodynamic instabilities developing at the top sur- are no longer updated. The bubble is still however, moving
face of the column. Furthermore, for the species transport with a constant velocity using the last velocity value calcu-
equations, a Neumann boundary condition is used in all of lated immediately before it touches the top boundary. Using
the boundary cells. this velocity, the bubble is passing the top boundary accord-
Each hole in the perforated plate is modeled as a position ing to the normal bubble time step. The portion of bubble
in the bottom of the column where bubbles with specific which still resides in the column is still accounted for in
size enter the column with a fixed velocity. All the bub- the calculation of the liquid phase volume fraction. When
bles entering the column have a diameter of 4 mm as has the entire bubble is completely above the top boundary, the
been experimentally observed by Deen et al. (2001). The bubble is disposed from the bubble list which concludes the
distance between the center of two consecutive bubbles re- bubble removal procedure.
leased from a single hole b is set to 2.5 × Rb . This ar- For a typical bubble size used in the simulation, the whole
rangement is made to avoid unnecessary collisions between process of removing a bubble takes around 10−2 s and within
two consecutive bubbles immediately after they enter the this interval the liquid phase gradually adapts the change
column. The velocity of bubbles entering the column is de- in the volume fraction. Compared with the instantaneous
termined from the superficial velocity through the following bubble removing technique used by Delnoij et al. (1999),
D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404 3391
the method presented here can eliminate numerical insta- Bubble Rise Velocity vs distance (vertical direction)
0.25
bilities at the top boundary especially when removing a
bubble which has bigger size than the computational grid
cell. 0.2
5. Verification 0.15
Vz [m/s]
To verify the method for calculating liquid phase porosity,
0.1
the Lagrangian to Eulerian mapping as well as the Eulerian
to Lagrangian mapping, we consider a case in which a bubble
rises through a quiescent liquid. The terminal rise velocity of 0.05
Analytical solution
the bubble resulting from our simulations is compared with Bubble radius 2 mm, grid size 10 mm
the analytical solution. For a bubble rising with a constant Bubble radius 2 mm, grid size 5 mm
Bubble radius 5 mm, grid size 5 mm
velocity through a quiescent liquid the buoyancy force equals 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
the drag force. The drag coefficient is calculated based on distance [m]
Eötvös number as given in Table 1.
When the terminal rise velocity is reached the buoyancy Fig. 8. Single air bubble rise velocity in an initially quiescent column filled
with water. Several combinations of bubble and grid size as compared
force is equal to the drag force, hence the terminal rise
with the analytical solution.
velocity can be determined as
8(l − b )Rb g 1/2 x 10
-3 Bubble radius vs time
vterminal = 8
3CD l
1/4 7
4 l − b g
= . (28)
2l 6
Bubble radius [m]
see from this figure, the model can reproduce the termi-
Fig. 9. Time integration verification of a single air bubble size ris-
nal rise velocity accurately. For the 10 mm bubble how- ing in an initially quiescence water. Bubble initial diameter 4 mm;
ever, the terminal rise velocity shows small wiggles. These j j∗
kl (Yl − Yl ) = 4 × 10−6 m/s. Simulation results with two different grid
(very small) wiggles can be attributed to the mapping tech- size practically coincide with the analytical solution.
nique and occur when the bubble crosses the face of a com-
putational cell. The order of this wiggle however is very of the bubble size becomes
small compared to the magnitude of the terminal rise ve-
j j ∗ l
locity, thus we can conclude that the proposed mapping Rb (t) = kl Yl − Yl t + Rb (0). (29)
method performs satisfactory and can be used for further b
simulations. A bubble with an initial diameter of 4 mm is released at
Another simulation was performed to verify the time in- the bottom of the column. The bubble size is tracked in
tegration procedure that has been implemented to track the time and the result is compared with the analytical solution.
bubble size as well as bubble mass due to mass transfer. The Fig. 9 shows the comparison of the analytical solution and
verification was carried out by simulating the rise of a sin- single bubble simulation with grid sizes of 5 and 10 mm. This
gle bubble with mass transfer. The mass transfer rate was figure shows that the simulation results and the analytical
set to be constant by selecting the initial conditions of the solution practically coincide. These results verify that the
j j∗ j j∗
species Yl , kl and Yl in such a way that kl (Yl − Yl ) = time integration of the bubble size is correctly implemented
4 × 10−6 m/s. With this arrangement, the analytical solution and can be used for further simulations.
3392 D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404
Terminal rise velocity and size vs time uid down flow, some bubbles close to the wall are dragged
0.3
downwards to the lower region of the column before being
dragged again to the column surface by the upward flow.
1.5
The bubble plume is meandering in a random fashion.
Using animation representation of our simulation results as
0.2 suggested by Delnoij et al. (1997) we can see that this mean-
dering behavior is due to random formation of vortices close
d bubble /dX
1
Vz [m/s]
Fig. 11. Series of corresponding velocity fields and bubble position obtained from simulation of air–water bubble column at different time after the air
was switched on. Gas superficial velocity = 4.9 mm/s.
minimum in the middle, which is also predicted nicely in after bubbles are injected by making use of three different
the DBM simulation. The velocity fluctuations predicted by tracers. The column is divided into three equal regions in
the two fluid model, however, do not show this feature. the vertical direction. Initially, only one tracer is present in
each region as can be seen in Fig. 15. The tracer is treated
6.2. Mixing as a passive scalar, which is described by Eq. (9), where the
source terms are all set to zero.
The liquid velocity induced by the motion of the bubbles Fig. 16 shows the mixing sequence immediately after bub-
generates mixing in the bubble column. The characteristics bles are introduced into the column. As can be seen, the
of the mixing is very important, since it will determine the tracers that are initially separated are pushed upward in the
homogeneity of chemical species present in the reactor. The center region of column, because of the bubble motion. This
mixing rate is normally determined by injecting a pulse of upward motion is balanced by downward motion close to
tracer containing a specified amount of tracer and by mon- the column wall. The tracers, which come from the three
itoring tracer concentrations within the reactor at single or regions then hit the top and bottom part of the column. The
multiple points (Ranade and Tayalia, 2001). vortices present in these regions mix the tracers even fur-
In the present study, the mixing mechanism of the ther. The process is continued until all the tracer is mixed
air–water bubble column system is investigated immediately evenly.
3394 D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404
0.8
DBM
LDA (Deen, 2001)
0.6
0.4
uz [m/s]
0.2
-0.2
Fig. 12. Time history of the vertical liquid velocity at the centerline of the column and at a height of z/H = 0.56.
0.2 tion given by Eq. (32) within the time interval 0–500 s. As
can be seen in this figure, the macro balance shows good
0.18
agreement with the DBM results. The discrepancy observed
0.16 is less than 5%, which might come from the fact that DBM
employs the exact number of bubbles as well as the bub-
0.14 bles and liquid properties in calculating the mass transfer,
in contrast with the average value and constant size used in
u’z [m/s]
0.12
the macro balance model. Furthermore, in the macro bal-
0.1 ance model it is assumed that the transferred components
are ideally mixed in the liquid, which is in contrast to the
0.08 findings of the DBM.
0.06 DBM
PIV (Deen, 2001) 6.4. Bubble column under reactive conditions
CFX (Deen, 2001)
0.04
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/D In this case study, we combine all the models described in
0.12 Section 2 to obtain a complete, comprehensive model for a
bubble column under reactive conditions. The chemisorption
0.1
of CO2 into aqueous NaOH solution is chosen as a test
case, since it accounts for important phenomena that are
encountered in practice.
0.08
The reaction mechanism of the chemisorption of carbon
dioxide in an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide is well
u’x [m/s]
where k1,1 and k1,2 are the forward and backward reaction
L
rate constants, respectively.
3 Yl0 (0) = 1 The influence of the chemical reaction on the gas absorp-
tion process is usually accounted for by an enhancement
factor, E. This factor can be calculated numerically by solv-
Fig. 15. Initial condition used for the mixing study. The column is divided ing the (coupled) diffusion equations in the boundary layer
into three different regions. Only one species is initially present in each surrounding the bubbles. The equations should be solved
region.
for each individual bubble, hence in the case where a large
number of bubbles is present this method becomes imprac-
Fig. 19 shows the concentration of CO2 at the centerline tical. In the present study, an approximate solution of the
of the column, at a height of z/H = 0.5 resulting from the enhancement factor is used. The enhancement factor takes
DBM simulation compared with the macro balance calcula- a simple algebraic form as a function of the Hatta number
3396 D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404
Fig. 16. Set of corresponding velocity fields (top), bubble position (middle) and isosurface of 30% tracer mass fraction (bottom) obtained from simulation of
air–water bubble column with additional three passive scalar act as tracer at different time after the air was switched on. Gas superficial velocity = 4.9 mm/s.
D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404 3397
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 Species 1
Species 2
0.1 Species 3
Σ Species 1,2,3
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time [s]
Fig. 17. Variation of the tracer during the mixing sequence at the centerline of the column and at a height of z/H = 0.5.
(Westerterp et al., 1998) meets this criteria, it will be disposed from the column and
no longer being tracked.
− 2(EH∞a−1)
2
The chemisorption problem is simulated using the DBM
E= + H a(4 H a2 (39) model. CO2 gas is fed into the column filled with NaOH
2 + E∞ E∞ −1 + 1; E∞ > 1,
4(E∞ −1) solution with an initial pH of 14. Three species transport
1; E∞ 1, equation are utilized to track mass fractions of CO2 (aq),
OH− and CO2− 3 . A summary of the initial conditions and the
where
source terms used in each transport equation is presented in
DOH− [OH− ] DCO2 Table 3.
E∞ = 1 + , (40) Fig. 21 shows the transient behavior in the column imme-
2DCO2 H [CO2 (g)] DOH−
diately after the CO2 bubbles are injected into the column.
Shortly after bubbles are released into the column, a typ-
k1,1 DCO2 [OH− ]
Ha = . (41) ical mushroom like shape appears. This shape is however,
kl less pronounced compared to the case without absorption as
This approach provides a much cheaper solution for the en- described in Section 6.1. Due to the chemically enhanced
hancement factor for each individual bubble. The variation mass transfer, the bubbles are completely dissolved within
of the enhancement factor, E, for pH ranging from 7 to 14 0.15 m from the bottom and remain in that position for quite
can be seen in Fig. 20. As we can see the physical mass a while. Although the bubbles only appear in the lower part
transfer rate is significantly enhanced by the chemical re- of the column, the liquid circulation induced by the bubbles
action at pH > 12. Compared to the detailed simulation re- extends to the top portion of the column. Compared to the
sult using the two-film model by Fleischer et al. (1996), the case without absorption, the liquid phase oscillation is only
approximate relation can represent the enhancement factor observed in the higher part of the column. Since no bubbles
quite well. Small discrepancy is observed at high pH range. are present in this region, these oscillations do not interact
However, since this is only a test case to demonstrate the with bubbles, which makes them less pronounced.
capabilities of the E–L model, the approximate relation for Fig. 22 shows the transient behavior of chemical species
the enhancement factor given by Eq. (39) is considered to distribution in the column. Since bubbles are only present
be adequate to describe the physical phenomena. in the lower part of the column, the mass transfer and reac-
During the chemisorption process, due to the high inter- tions only take place close to the gas inlet. CO2 gas, which
phase mass transfer rate, it is possible that bubbles are com- dissolves into the liquid from the bubbles immediately re-
pletely dissolved in the liquid. In our model a bubble is con- acts with hydroxide to produce carbonate, hence only very
sidered to be completely dissolved in the liquid when the small traces of dissolved CO2 can be found in the vicinity
bubble radius is less than 1 m, while the bubble growth rate of the bubbles. The hydroxide ions that have been consumed
is negative (i.e. the bubble is still dissolving). If a bubble by the reaction as well as the newly formed carbonate ions
3398 D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404
Fig. 18. Set of corresponding velocity fields (top), bubble position (middle) and distribution of dissolved CO2 concentration (mol/l) (bottom) obtained from
simulation of the physical absorption of CO2 gas in water at various time after the CO2 gas was switched on. CO2 gas superficial velocity = 4.9 mm/s.
D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404 3399
1 Table 3
Initial conditions and source terms used in the species transport equations
j j
0.8 j Species Yl (t = 0) S j /Mw (kmol/m3 s)
0.4
20
Approximate relation 7. Conclusions
18 Two film model of Fleischer et. al. (1996)
16 A model that combines hydrodynamics, mass transfer and
chemical reaction in a bubble column has been success-
Enhancement factor [-]
14
fully formulated and implemented. The simulation results
12 obtained shows that the model can be used to investigate
10 those phenomena in more detail than before.
Simulation of a single rising bubble in a quiescent liquid
8
shows that the model is able to predict the terminal rise ve-
6 locity correctly. In combination with a constant mass trans-
4
fer rate, the model also accurately produces the bubble size
as a function of time.
2 The hydrodynamics model has been validated using the
0 experimental data of Deen et al. (2001). Both instantaneous
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 and time-averaged liquid velocities predicted by the model
pH are in good agreement with the experimental data. The ex-
Fig. 20. pH-dependence of the enhancement factor E determined using
perimentally observed meandering of the bubble plume is
approximate relation compared with the detailed simulation with the also nicely predicted by the present model.
two-film model of Fleischer et al. (1996). By combining the hydrodynamics and chemical species
transport equations, the mixing mechanism in the column
can be studied in more detail. Our simulations indicate that
will be transported by the circulation flow to the top of the intense mixing prevails at regions where sudden changes in
column in the center region and return back again through flow direction occur.
the downflow zone close to the column walls. This behav- One of the key features of the model presented in this pa-
ior suggests that the reactions taking place in the bottom per is its capability to track individual bubbles in time. By
part of the column are always supplied with relatively fresh calculating the mass transfer rate for each individual bub-
reactant, since the product of the reaction is immediately ble and combining this information with a chemical species
transported by the liquid flow. transport equation, gas absorption in reactive liquids can be
With time, the pH is decreasing and the carbonate con- described.
centration is continuously increasing. As the pH decreases, In the case of the physical absorption of CO2 bubbles in
the enhancement factor, as shown in Fig. 20, also decreases, water, it was found that the distribution of dissolved CO2
resulting in a lower mass transfer rate. In time the posi- is not uniform. Relatively high dissolved CO2 was found in
tion where the bubbles are completely dissolved will slowly the vicinity of bubbles. In time the dissolved CO2 is accu-
move upward. This behavior has been experimentally ob- mulated in the water until the equilibrium is attained. This
3400 D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404
Fig. 21. Set of corresponding velocity fields (top), bubble position (bottom) obtained from simulation of the chemisorption of CO2 gas in liquid NaOH
at various time after the CO2 gas was switched on. Initial NaOH pH = 14, CO2 gas superficial velocity = 4.9 mm/s.
behavior shows good agreement compared with theoretical neck especially for problems which involve a large number
calculations. of bubbles and chemical species. In the current work, co-
The model was also used to investigate the chemisorption alescence and break up were not considered. However, ap-
of CO2 gas in NaOH solution. This process has been stud- propriate coalescence and break up models can readily be
ied experimentally by Fleischer et al. (1996). The model is implemented due to the Lagrangian treatment of the bubble
able to reveal liquid phase hydrodynamics, bubble size and phase.
position as well as chemical species distribution involves in
the reaction. In simulations with initial pH = 14, bubbles are
only present close to the gas inlet. Only very small traces
Notation
of dissolved CO2 can be found in the vicinity of the bub-
bles while the hydroxide ion that have been consumed and
newly formed carbonate ions are transported through all the A interfacial area, m2
column region. In time the pH is decreasing while the car- C model coefficient, dimensionless
bonate ions is increasing. The model is also able to predict d diameter, m
the position of completely dissolved bubbles due to chemi- D diffusivity m2 s−1 , depth, m
cally enhanced mass transfer. Variation of initial pH shows E enhancement factor, dimensionless
that this position shifts upward in the column as the pH de- E ö Eötvös number, E ö = (l − b )gdb2 /, dimension-
creases. less
Due to the complexity and detailed information that the F force vector, N
present model provides, calculation time is still the bottle- g gravity acceleration, m s−2
D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404 3401
Fig. 22. Set of corresponding dissolved CO2 concentration (mol/l) (top), CO2−
3 concentration (mol/l) (middle) and liquid phase pH [−] (bottom) obtained
from simulation of the chemisorption of CO2 gas in liquid NaOH at various time after the CO2 gas was switched on. pH0 = 14; pure CO2 gas superficial
velocity = 4.9 (mm/s).
3402 D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404
Fig. 23. Snapshot of bubble position at time t = 10 s after the CO2 gas was switched on with variation of initial liquid NaOH pH. CO2 gas superficial
velocity = 4.9 (mm/s).
u liquid velocity vector, m s−1 Allen, M.P., Tildesley, D.J., 1987. Computer Simulation of Liquids. Oxford
u liquid mean velocity, m s−1 Science Publications, Oxford.
Balay, S., Buschelman, K., Gropp, W.D., Kaushik, D., Knepley, M.,
u liquid velocity fluctuation vector, m s−1 McInnes, L.C., Smith, B.F., Zhang, H., 2001. PETSc home page.
v bubble velocity vector, m s−1 http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc.
V volume, m3 Becker, S., Sokolichin, A., Eigenberger, G., 1994. Gas–liquid flow in
W width, m bubble columns and loop reactors: Part II. Comparison of detailed
experiments and flow simulations. Chemical Engineering Science 49,
Y mass fraction, dimensionless
5747–5762.
[.] concentration, kmol m−3 Bird, R.B., Stewart, W.E., Lightfoot, E.N., 2002. Transport Phenomena.
second ed.. Wiley, New York.
Greek letters Buwa, V.V., Ranade, V.V., 2002. Dynamics of gas–liquid flow in a
rectangular bubble column: experimental and single/multi-group CFD
simulations. Chemical Engineering Science 57, 4715–4736.
species diffusion coefficient, m2 s−1 Centrella, J., Wilson, J.R., 1984. Planar numerical cosmology. II. The
b distance between two consecutive bubble, m difference equations and numerical tests. Astronomy & Astrophysics
Journal Supplement Series 54, 229–249.
$ subgrid length scale, m Cents, A.H.G., Brilman, D.W.F., Wijnstra, P.J., Regtien, P.P.L., Versteeg,
volume fraction, dimensionless G.F., 2003. Measurement of bubble, drop and particle size distribution
volume fraction of a bubble included in a cell, di- in multi-phase systems using ultrasonic spectroscopy. Canadian Journal
mensionless of Chemical Engineering.
viscosity, kg m−1 s−1 Chen, R.C., Reese, J., Fan, L.S., 1994. Flow structure in a three-
dimensional bubble column and three-dimensional fluidized bed.
density, kg m−3 A.I.Ch.E. Journal 40, 1093–1104.
interfacial tension, N m−1 Deen, N.G., Solberg, T., Hjertager, B.H., 2001. Large eddy simulation
stress tensor, N m−2 of the gas–liquid flow in a square cross-sectioned bubble column.
volume averaged momentum transfer due to inter- Chemical Engineering Science 56, 6341–6349.
phase forces, N m−3 Delnoij, E., Lammers, F.A., Kuipers, J.A.M., van Swaaij, W.P.M., 1997.
Dynamic simulation of dispersed gas–liquid two-phase flow using a
Lagrangian quantity discrete bubble model. Chemical Engineering Science 52, 1429–1458.
Eulerian quantity Delnoij, E., Kuipers, J.A.M., van Swaaij, W.P.M., 1999. A three-
dimensional CFD model for gas–liquid bubble columns. Chemical
Engineering Science 54, 2217–2226.
Indices Ferziger, J.H., Peric, M., 1999. Computational Methods for Fluid
Dynamics. Springer, Berlin.
aq aqueous Fleischer, C., Becker, S., Eigenberger, G., 1996. Detailed modeling of
the chemisorption of CO2 into NaOH in a bubble column. Chemical
b bubble
Engineering Science 51, 1715–1724.
cell computational cell Hjertager, B.H., 1998. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis
D drag of multiphase chemical reactors. Trends in Chemical Engineering 4,
eff effective 44–92.
G gravity Hoomans, B.P.B., Kuipers, J.A.M., Briels, W.J., Swaaij, W.P.M.V., 1996.
Discrete particle simulation of bubble and slug formation in a two-
j j th species
dimensional gas-fluidised bed: a hard-sphere approach. Chemical
l liquid Engineering Science 51 (1), 99–118.
L lift Kuipers, J.A.M., van Duin, K.J., van Beckum, F.P.H., van Swaaij, W.P.M.,
P pressure 1993. Computer simulation of the hydrodynamics of a two dimensional
s superficial gas-fluidized bed. Computational Chemical Engineering 17, 839.
Láin, S., Sommerfeld, M., 2004. LES of gas–liquid flow in a cylindrical
S subgrid
laboratory bubble column. Yokohama, Japan. 5th International
T turbulent Conference on Multiphase Flow, ICMF’04. Paper no. 337.
VM virtual mass Márquez, M.A., Amend, R.J., Carbonell, R.G., Sáez, A.E., Roberts, G.W.,
∗ interfacial equilibrium value 1999a. Hydrodynamics of gas-lift reactors with a fast, liquid-phase
reaction. Chemical Engineering Science 54, 2263–2271.
Márquez, M.A., Sáez, A.E., Carbonell, R.G., Roberts, G.W., 1999b.
Acknowledgements Coupling of hydrodynamics and chemical reaction in gas-lift reactors.
A.I.Ch.E. Journal 45 (2), 410–423.
Pan, Y., Dudukovic, M.P., 2000. Numerical investigation of gas-driven
The authors would like to thank DSM and the Institute of flow in 2-d bubble columns. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 46, 434–449.
Mechanics, Processes and Control - Twente (IMPACT) for Ranade, V.V., Tayalia, Y., 2001. Modelling of fluid dynamics and mixing in
their financial support to the project. shallow bubble column reactors: influence of sparge design. Chemical
Engineering Science 56, 1667–1675.
Smagorinsky, J., 1963. General circulation experiment with the primitive
References equations. Monthly Weather Review 91, 99–165.
Sokolichin, A., Eigenberger, G., 1994. Gas–liquid flow in bubble columns
Al-Rashed, M.H., Jones, A.G., 1999. CFD modelling of gas–liquid reactive and loop reactors: Part i. Detailed modelling and numerical simulation.
precipitation. Chemical Engineering Science 54, 4779–4784. Chemical Engineering Science 49, 5735–5746.
3404 D. Darmana et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 3383 – 3404
Tomiyama, A., Zun, I., Higaki, H., Makino, Y., Sakaguchi, T., 1997. A Euler–Lagrange approach. Computational Fluid Dynamics in Chemical
three-dimensional particle tracking method for bubble flow simulation. Reaction Engineering III, Davos, Switzerland.
Nuclear Engineering and Design 175, 77–86. Westerterp, K.R., van Swaaij, W.P.M., Beenackers, A.A.C.M., 1998.
van den Hengel, E.I.V., Darmana, D., Deen, N.G., Kuipers, J.A.M., Chemical Reactor Design and Operation. Wiley, New York.
2003. Large eddy simulation of a bubble column reactor using the