4.6 Article

Numerical investigation of the interphase forces and turbulence closure in 3D square bubble columns

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 154-168

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2014.01.004

关键词

Bubble column; lnterphase forces; Turbulence models; RNG; EARSM; Bubble induced turbulence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

3D time dependent numerical study has been performed to predict the flow hydrodynamics in bubble columns by employing explicit algebraic Reynolds stress (EARSM), re normalization group (RNG) and RNG bubble induced turbulence (BIT) k-epsilon models and the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) results are compared with experimental work of De en (20(11). This work shows the comparison between different drag force models (Ishii and Zuber, 1979; Schiller and Nauman, 1935; Grace et 1976) and drag coefficient). Moreover, the effects of the lift, virtual mass and suchlike other imperative non drag forces inclusive of wall lubrication as well as the turbulent dispersion have been examined. All the results show good quantitative agreement with experiments in case of turbulent kinetic energy, axial gas and liquid velocity profiles. EARSM k-epsilon has found to perform better than both the RNG k-epsilon modalities in estimating the turbulent kinetic energy profiles, but gave poor predictions of axial velocity profiles. Comparatively, RNG and RNG BIT models have successfully predicted the averaged flow field. Whereas the turbulent kinetic energy profiles at some locations, have been slightly under estimated by the RNG models. The inclusion of bubble induced turbulence led to slight improvement in estimation of the turbulent kinetic energy profiles. The advanced performance of RNG models stems in the better estimation of rate of turbulent dissipation and turbulent viscosity. Thus, both RNG and RNG BIT models can be readily utilized for the analysis of average flow fields and turbulent flow structures. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据