Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Abstraet--A dynamical, two-phase flow model in two- and three-space coordinates is presented. The gas-liquid flow is modeled by a Navier-Stokes system of equations in an Eulerian
representation. The motion of gas is modeled by a separate continuity equation. The Eulerian
approach with U P W I N D or TVD discretization and the Lagrangian approach for solving the
gas-phase equation are compared with each other on two two-dimensional test problems: the
dynamical simulation of a locally aerated bubble column and of a uniformly aerated bubble
column. The comparison shows that the results obtained with the TVD-version of the
Euler/Euler method and the Euler/Lagrange technique agree quantitatively. On the other hand,
it has not been possible to obtain similar agreement even qualitatively with the U P W I N D
technique, due to the influence of the numerical diffusion effects, which are inherent in the case
of U P W I N D discretization. Copyright 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Keywords: Modeling;
simulation;
Euler/
Lagrange.
1. INTRODUCTION
Numerical simulation is being recognized as a primary tool for improving the performance of process
equipment. In particular, for scale-up of chemical
reactors a reliable fluid dynamic reactor model is of
great benefit. Dynamic numerical simulation is thus
on the agenda of most big chemical companies and
many scientific research laboratories.
While the computing power of workstations and
mainframe computers, necessary to perform adequate
numerical simulations, increased considerably over
the last years, the appropriate basic simulation software is currently lagging behind. This is particularly
true for numerical codes which can be used to simulate gas-liquid two-phase flows.
As demonstrated by Lapin and Liibbert (1994),
Sokolichin and Eigenberger (1994) and Devanathan
* Corresponding author.
*Present address: Institut fiir Bioverfahrenstechnik,
Martin-Luther-Universifftt Halle-Wittenberg, Weinbergweg
23, D-06120 Halle, Germany.
611
612
A. Sokolichin et al.
MODEL
a-7 + v . (pu) = 0
(1)
stress tensor:
f ~ui
~u;
- -
dt
+ V.(puu) = -- Vp + V.T + pg
(2)
?~u,\
(3)
(4)
(5)
Cdrag
(6)
(7)
Opu
2.
p
Pg = RTo"
(8)
(9)
Together with the equations representing the relationship between the velocities of both phases and the
(10)
613
D=:~
dxi [
(11)
(12)
u = ut.
(13)
and
where
Vp
Ug = u + u~lip = u - Cdra--g"
(15)
614
A. Sokolichin et al.
(16)
At
if U / > 0
if U < 0.
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
Oi =
C'I - - e l - 1
(22)
~i - - E i - 1
(17)
where
I =
i-1
+1
if U ~ > 0
if U < 0 .
(23)
615
Ax
is satisfied for each i. If the implicit TVD method is
used, eq. (17) leads to a system of non-linear algebraic
equations, which has to be linearized and to be solved
iteratively. Violation of condition (25) may lead to
negative central coefficients in the resulting system of
linear equations which may cause severe convergence
problems. That is why we prefer to use the explicit
approximation to the convective fluxes if the TVD
method is applied. At high space resolution of the
solution domain, condition (25) requires very small
time steps, which leads to a considerable increase of
computation time. The computation time can be drastically reduced if one uses a finer time mesh only for
solving the gas holdup equation and keeps larger time
increments for solving the other model equations.
For the diffusion term we exclusively use the implicit second-order central-difference flux approximation
'~ii -- ~;i
D(<i) = D - Ax
nm
(24)
The implicit TVD method described above is unconditionally stable, while the explicit one is stable only if
the condition
UAt
126)
VGppd
= -
Pg
where n is the number and m the mass of the GPPs in
the cell volume and p is the density of the gas.
However, if the total number of GPPs is not very
high, this way of calculating the gas holdup can lead
to sharp discontinuities in the gas holdup profiles
which might lead to convergence problems during the
solution for the Navier Stokes equation. In order to
avoid these difficulties, the GPPs are represented by
spatial density distribution functions as described in
detail by Lapin and Liibbert (1994). The density functions may overlap each other and also extend across
the boundaries of the computational cells. In this way
each G P P may contribute to the gas holdup not only
within the actual control cell but also, in particular
while it is moving near the cell border, in adjacent cells.
If random bubble motion effects cannot be neglected, they can be described by random shifts of the
positions of the individual GPPs which are computed
in the following way:
x n ( t ) -~ x n ( t ) q-
~ix~tdi
(27)
(28)
(29)
The analytical solution of this equation is the threedimensional Gaussian distribution function
1
e(x,t)=
I~
i=1,2.3
2 ~'>4D''.x/vitr~
~/:__e -
{30)
(31)
can be calculated as
t~2(t) =
616
A. Sokolichin et al.
(33)
(34)
From eqs (32) and (34) we are now able to express the
relationship between d~ and D~:
di
2~t'.
(35)
trol cell with lower gas holdup into the control cell
with the higher one. As an example we can imagine
a random jump of one G P P from a control cell
containing a single G P P to the adjacent cell containing two GPPs. In the following, examples of twophase flow with many small bubbles are considered.
Then it is no problem to represent the diffusional
component in eq. (14) adequately with a Lagrangian
approach.
6. T E S T
CASE
In order to compare the simulation results produced with both methods we use the example of
a partially aerated flat bubble column. This test case is
described in detail in Becker et al. (1994), hence only
a brief description will be given here. The apparatus
has a rectangular cross-section with the following
dimensions: width 50cm, depth 8 cm and height
150 cm.
Glass walls on the front and the back allow observation and photographic documentation of the
multiphase flow. For gas dispersion a single frit, flushmounted on the bottom of the apparatus at the distance of 14.5 cm from the left side of the column has
been used. In this flat column, an essentially twodimensional flow structure develops, depending on
the gas flow rate used. At superficial gas velocities
below 1.5 mm/s, the flow depicts a transient character.
This is shown by results obtained with a gas throughput of 0.66 mm/s. Several liquid circulation cells can
be observed in the column. They continuously change
: 4,,'."
""
'
~"
.. "..,_ . , ~ ~ . ~ :
.:.
;' : "~"~"2 "
y ~ . . ' ~ , ,.
. ~Y,,'.::-
/g-i::
~.
!~.
~l,
All numerical simulations assume a two-dimensional rectangular geometry with height 150 cm and
width 50 cm. A regular numerical grid with 150 x 50
grid points was used. The simulation results obtained
with three different numerical algorithms were compared with each other: the Eulerian approach with
U P W I N D discretization of the gas holdup equation
(short: UPWIND), the Eulerian approach with TVD
discretization (short: TVD) and the Lagrangian approach for the gas equation (short: LAGRANGE).
Let us first neglect the path diffusion effects in the
gas phase. This means that the coefficients Dj in
eq.(14) and di in eq. (27) are assumed to be zero.
Figure 2 depicts the gas holdup pattern in the bubble
column, 5 s after the onset of the aeration. A tremendous influence of the numerical diffusion in the Eulerian solution obtained with the UPWIND discretization
technique can be recognized. This is not due to the
Eulerian approach as the results obtained with the
TVD method demonstrate. The results obtained with
the TVD method look much more similar to the gas
distribution which results from the Lagrangian simulation. We thus can conclude that the U P W I N D
technique leads to strong numerical diffusion effects.
The amount of numerical diffusion in vertical and
horizontal directions is proportional to the local vertical and horizontal gas velocity components. In the
UPWIND
TVD
617
LAGRANGE
[]
0.28%
[]
0.42%
0.56%
0.69%
0.97%
[]
1.25%
N
1.39%
[]
Fig. 2. Locally aerated bubble column. Distribution of the gas holdup 5 s after the beginning of the
aeration calculated with three models. Diffusion term is assumed to be zero.
A. Sokolichin et al.
618
Time: 9.4 s
Time: 11.2 s
Time: 13.0 s
..-,
Time: 15.0 s
Time: 19.0 s
~1~;i, :. :-:-:,~,l
td'
'r
',~'.'l
I'
~ , :
' ','t
'"'""~ ~
~'"'-~/
< :.:,:,,,,
:: :'I I
I ~'/illl~ ','.'~t
,:I
,,t,,:-;i
'-~II~iittb
"i:','
h;.. ",'.<.>:,:,:,
:,:..:t~:,.,:,:,..:,:+ !~"."71','<,
i!!~i}
.~,:;: ...:.:.:,:.:
,,,h~ ,..:.:.:.:,:, l~:.::::',:::
:::::::::::::::::::::::!::'-
,'>,]~l{r6-?,h'--'")ilNi
,,',~t~-::,S;J, u ~ ,i
:.i,?) i:::':.;:;':;.'.
tu.
',~llt,{--_<f/>,,,
i~..,,rll.>_-'..;,',,,,,,,
Time: 27.0 s
Time: 35.0 s
~..',, },,.-:---:..,?
'..>:. >>>>>>: i.
t)
~-'~l I
t~)t,.:,
,
t! 7#/D}~,,'.",
l,j~tll',: : : '
ff~fif;
I1
[!:J:71
".-
Time: 42.0 s
!t,.
f ";'7.~>>1
'?i
Time: 48.0 s
['r//,
~.~'~ i~
,'t','."
,,,'-~?! ~--',
~_
,:,;.,.
It,'.i~t
~!I,!%I1[1" ;':-,-.,#1
.'--'J1
I/b-:,II.-:--:-.'.',,,,,
P,:::.: ::::: :.: :;:,.::
"."
Time: 22.0 s
iglIlI
~////~4,': :'
~/~,~,..-.,
lit,':i~ [~f!2"::',
i!ti! '>':::
N\\':::-:';
71 "><
fthttltih]i:
I 'J
~I,':'
;Ii
,':i
i
tI!::Nt!L::
dlltlfftl,',:::,'i
iltfJl/t!(,:.::+
#-','
7zi,,]ttlt4
:,~tIlIl[?:::::!Nltl
t,\\\"~.-_"!,Jlttt
iI',t;i,,g
-:,,',
7,~.",: : 7;17tmI
Fig. 3. Locally aerated bubble column. Evolution of the liquid velocity field during the first 48 s after the
beginning of the aeration. Lagrangian approach without diffusion. (Here and subsequently velocity vectors
are shown only at each 8th grid point; the vertical vector in the left bottom corner of each plot corresponds
to the velocity of 10 cm/s.)
619
TVD
LAGRANGE
Fig, 4. Instantaneous liquid velocity field at 60 s after beginning of the aeration calculated with different
methods (no diffusion is considered).
20
""N
10
~'/ ...."........................
~,,"*~.....
/
/
,.-'
.-"
.....
\
....,....
/,."
-'II....
-10
x\
...............i !
LAGRANGE
UPWIND
-20
-30
0
....
S. S I M U L A T I O N
10
20
30
40
DISTANCE FROM THE LEFT WALL [cm]
50
RESULTS
WITH DIFFUSION
620
A. Sokolichin et al.
UPWIND
TVD
LAGRANGE
Fig. 6. Instantaneous liquid velocity field at 120 s after beginning of the aeration calculated with different
methods (no diffusion is considered).
UPWIND
TVD
LAGRANGE
Fig. 7. Instantaneous liquid velocity field at 180 s after beginning of the aeration calculated with different
methods (no diffusion is considered).
621
20
~ .
']'wrjD
..
t
10
......... UPWIND
i
i"
i~
..,.
,
1500
.....
[tl
/01
90o
35]1_
-10
-20
-30
3O
60
90
120
150
180
TIME [s]
Fig. 8. Vertical liquid velocity at position A calculated with different methods (no diffusion is considered).
15
0
-15
-30
>[..,
15
>
-15
-30
15
0
-15
-30
0
500
1000
1500
TIME [s]
2000
2500
3000
Fig. 9. Long-time vertical liquid velocity fluctuation at position A (see Fig. 8) calculated with different
methods (no diffusion is considered).
8.1. T e s t p r o b l e m
Let us consider the gas holdup equation (14) in two
dimensions. We assume the components of ug and the
diffusion coefficients Di to be known and constant,
and consider uniform convection only in the vertical
direction and diffusion only in the horizontal direction. U n d e r these assumptions eq. (14) simplifies to
e t = - - (~U)x + Deyy
(36)
horizontal diffusion coefficient. We assume the following values for u and D: u = 20 cm/s, D = 4.1(6) cm2/s;
the latter corresponds to the disturbance coefficient
d = 10 cm/s t/2. This means that two G P P s with the
same coordinates at time t = to can be a maximum
distance of 10 cm apart at time t = to + 1, if time step
At = 1 s is used.
We solve eq. (36) in the same calculation domain
as described in Section 7 and with the initial condition e(t = 0, x, y ) = 0, and the boundary condition
e(t, x, y = 0) = 0.05 for x ~ [ 1 3 em, 16 cm]. After 7.5 s
622
A. Sokolichin et al.
UPWIND
LAGRANGE
TVD
0.13%
0.25%
0.38%
0.63%
0.76%
1.01%
I
1.14%
[]
1.27%
[]
Fig. 10. Locally aerated bubble column. Distribution of the gas hold-up 60 s after the beginning of the
aeration calculated with three models. Diffusion term is assumed to be zero.
~.44
0.89
1.33
1.77
2.66
3.10
4.43
[]
a
Fig. 11. Simulation results for convection-diffnsion test problem with constant vertical velocity and
constant horizontal diffusion:(a) stationary TVD solution; (b) instantaneous positions of 45,630 GPPs in
Lagrangian method; (c)Lagrangian solution with 45,630GPPs; (d) Lagrangian solution with
180,566 GPPs.
only slightly in time, so we can speak of a quasistationary solution of the Lagrangian approach. One
such quasistationary distribution of the gas holdup is
shown in Fig. 1l(c). At that time the total number of
GPPs in the calculation domain equals 45,630. Although a good qualitative agreement can be found
between Figs 11 (a) and (c), the Lagrangian solution is
not very smooth. Only after increase of the generation
rate of GPPs by a factor 4 can we get the smooth
solution presented in the Fig. 11 (d) (corresponding to
623
t.0
[-~.-~, LAGRANGE(180566GPP~)~
LAGRANGE
UPWIND
630 GPPs )l
.:.,,
:.
I m ~ . ,rv D
~TVD
0.8
t0
0.6
-10
0.4
>
0.2
0,0
-20
-313
0
10
20
30
40
DISTANCE FROM THE ~
WALL [crn]
50
t
t
30
60
90
TIME lsl
120
150
180
15
0
-15
TVD
15
0
-15
LAGRANGE ]
15
0
-15
0
500
1000
TIME [s]
1500
2000
Fig. 14. Long-time vertical liquid velocity fluctuation at position A (see Fig. 8) calculated with different
methods (d2 = 5 cm/st'2).
624
A. Sokolichin et al.
again show very similar long-time behavior and the
U P W I N D method gives a totally different solution.
Figure 15 shows the distribution of the GPPs in
L A G R A N G E solution at two different times, and we
can now observe a great similarity with the photographs in Fig. 1.
Fig. 15. Simulation results for a locally aerated bubble column with Lagrangian approach (dz = 5 cm/sl/2). Instantaneous positions of GPPs at two different times.
9. UNIFORM AERATION
The next test example is the dynamical simulation
of a bubble column which is aerated uniformly over
its entire bottom. Visual observation shows that at
low superficial gas velocity a so-called homogeneous
flow structure prevails, where the bubbles rise uniformly through an essentially stagnant liquid. As the
superficial gas velocity is increased, an instationary
flow structure develops, where vortices are created
close to the gas distributor and move upwards and
sideways in a rather irregular way. Long-term
measurements of the gas holdup distribution and of
the liquid velocities show the well-known picture of
an increased gas holdup in the middle of the column,
leading to an overall liquid circulation with upflow in
the center and downflow near the walls (Grienberger
and Hofmann, 1992).
The simulation results for the same flat column as
specified in section 6 with uniform aeration over the
entire bottom obtained with the Lagrangian approach
(d2 = 5 cm/s 1/2) are given in Fig. 16. The simulations
show that above a minimum value of the superficial
gas velocity of about 2 cm/s an unsteady flow structure
Fig. 16. Uniformly aerated bubble column: instantaneous (left, middle) and long-time-averaged (right)
simulation results of liquid velocity field. Lagrangian approach with diffusion (d2 = 5 cm/sl/2). Superficial
gas velocity equals 2 cm/s.
625
20
0
-20
-40
20
0
-20
-40
2 1
0
-20
--40
0
10
20
30
40
50
DISTANCEFROMTHE LEFTWALL[cm]
Fig, 17. Uniformly aerated bubble column: long time averaged vertical liquid velocity profilesat three differentheights
calculated with different methods.
develops. If the calculated local velocities are averaged over a longer time period, as is done in the
usual bubble column measurements, a regular flow
structure with one overall circulation cell results
(Fig. 16, right).
It is not possible to make a direct quantitative
comparison between instantaneous flow pattern resuits obtained with all three methods, because of the
chaotic character of the solution. However, we can
make an indirect comparison through the calculation
of the long-time-averaged velocity patterns. The corresponding vertical liquid velocity profiles at three
different heights calculated with LAGRANGE, TVD
and U P W I N D methods are shown in Fig. 17. As in
the case of a locally aerated bubble column we can
state a very good quantitative agreement between the
TVD and the LAGRANGE solutions. The U P W I N D
method leads again to quantitatively different results.
The influence of the numerical diffusion in the case of
a uniformly aerated bubble column is, however, not so
high as in the case of a locally aerated bubble column,
due to the smoother distribution of the gas phase.
For the transport phenomena in the two-phase
flow, the instantaneous and not the long-time-averaged velocities are of decisive importance. If we now
take a look at the representative instantaneous liquid
velocity patterns calculated with the LAGRANGE
(Fig. 16, middle), the TVD (Fig. 18, left) and the
U P W I N D (Fig. 18, right) methods, we can see that the
U P W I N D solution depicts a qualitatively different
behavior with a much lower number of vortices as in
the other two solutions. So we can state that also in
the case of a uniformly aerated bubble column, the
U P W I N D method leads to a qualitatively different
solution compared to the LAGRANGE and the TVD
approaches.
10. CONCLUSIONS
From the chemical reaction engineering point of
view, fluid dynamical models are required for a proper
description of fluid mixing and contacting patterns,
i.e. they model the way by which materials flow
through the reactor and contact each other in order to
react chemically (e.g. Levenspiel, 1989). Hence, the
local transport properties are of primary importance.
In this light it is essential that numerical diffusion
effects which corrupt the numerical simulation results
are kept under control. Such numerical diffusion effects are of particular importance for the bubble column reactors considered in this paper, since flow in
bubble columns is essentially buoyancy driven. Strong
diffusional transports, however, may degradate the
density gradients. Numerical diffusion will, thus, lead
to incorrect driving forces in the simulations.
Simple numerical solution techniques such as the
commonly applied U P W I N D technique may lead to
unacceptable numerical diffusion effects. This artificial diffusion exceeds the naturally appearing diffusion considerably, often by orders of magnitude. In
principle it would be possible to compensate for this
deficiency by using finer numerical grids. Practically,
this counter measure is limited by the available computing power. Even with the finest grids which can be
handled with today's computers, the numerical diffusion effects appearing in the U P W I N D solutions are
much larger than the real ones.
Consequently, more sophisticated numerical integration schemes must be applied which are much
more immune to numerical diffusion. Here we
discussed the TVD as a reasonable alternative. It is
626
A. Sokolichin et al.
Cdrag
d
D
g
P
t
T
U
NOTATION
drag force coefficient, g/(cm 3 s)
disturbance coefficient, cm/s 1/2
diffusion coefficient, cm2/s
acceleration due to gravity, 981 cm/s 2
pressure, dyn/cm 2
time, s
stress tensor, dyn/cm 2
velocity vector, cm/s
Greek letters
6(x)
three-dimensional Dirac's delta function
e
gas holdup, dimensionless
/~
viscosity, g/(cm s)
p
density, g/cm 3
V
gradient operator, cm-1
Subscripts
eft
g
l
effective
gas phase
liquid phase
REFERENCES