Effect of geometrical parameters of draft tubes and clear liquid height on gas holdup in a bubble column for gas dispersion into tubes

1999 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 789-794 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fukuji Yamashita
Keyword(s):  
Bubble Column ◽  
Gas Holdup ◽  
Geometrical Parameters ◽  
Clear Liquid ◽  
Gas Dispersion ◽  
Liquid Height ◽  
Draft Tubes

Effects of liquid height on gas holdup in air–water bubble column

2016 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 67-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shohei Sasaki ◽  
Kosuke Hayashi ◽  
Akio Tomiyama
Keyword(s):  
Bubble Column ◽  
Gas Holdup ◽  
Liquid Height

Study of gas holdup for bubble column at three phases

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laith A. Hameed ◽  
Omar Muhammad ◽  
Sarah Saad ◽  
Omar S. Dahham ◽  
N. Z. Noriman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bubble Column ◽  
Gas Holdup ◽  
Three Phases

CFD Simulation of Gas Dispersion in a Stirred Tank of Dual Rushton Turbines

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinju Li ◽  
Xiaoping Guan ◽  
Rongtao Zhou ◽  
Ning Yang ◽  
Mingyan Liu
Keyword(s):  
Flow Field ◽  
Size Distribution ◽  
Liquid Flow ◽  
Bubble Size ◽  
Great Influence ◽  
Gas Holdup ◽  
Bubble Size Distribution ◽  
Stirred Tank ◽  
Treatment Methods ◽  
Gas Dispersion

Abstract3D Eulerian-Eulerian model was applied to simulate the gas-liquid two-phase flow in a stirred tank of dual Rushton turbines using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The effects of two different bubble treatment methods (constant bubble sizevs. population balance model, PBM) and two different coalescence models (Luo modelvs. Zaichik model) on the prediction of liquid flow field, local gas holdup or bubble size distribution were studied. The results indicate that there is less difference between the predictions of liquid flow field and gas holdup using the above models, and the use of PBM did not show any advantage over the constant bubble size model under lower gas holdup. However, bubble treatment methods have great influence on the local gas holdup under larger gas flow rate. All the models could reasonably predict the gas holdup distribution in the tank operated at a low aeration rate except the region far from the shaft. Different coalescence models have great influence on the prediction of bubble size distribution (BSD). Both the Luo model and Zaichik model could qualitatively estimate the BSD, showing the turning points near the impellers along the height, but the quantitative agreement with experiments is not achieved. The former over-predicts the BSD and the latter under-predicts, showing that the existing PBM models need to be further developed to incorporate more physics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document