Pergamon ChemicaI Engimeeting Science, Vol. 49. No. 24B, pp. 5735-5746.

1994
Copyrifit 0 1995 Ekvier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. AU rights reserved
rmoP-m/94 $7.00 l o.rm
0009-2509(94)00289-4

GAS-LIQUID FLOW IN BUBBLE COLUMNS AND LOOP

REACTORS: PART I. DETAILED MODELLING AND
NUMERICAL SIMULATION

A. SOKOLICHIN and G. EIGENBERGER*

lnstitut fiir Chemische Verfahrenstechnik, Universitat Stuttgart, Bijblingerstr. 72, D-70199 Stuttgart,
Germany

(Received 10 May 1994; accepted for publication 15 September 1994)

Abstract-The state of the art of the modelling of gas-liquid flow in bubble columns and loop reactors
is critically reviewed. Recent results obtained with dynamic multidimensional two-fluid models are
compared with respective steady state simulations. It will be shown that no steady state solution for
uniformly aerated bubble columns can be obtained above a certain gas velocity if a sufficiently fine
space grid is used. A dynamic state is obtained instead where large and rising vortices are subsequently
generated at the gas distributor. Only after a long time averaging is the well known flow structure with
increased gas hold-up and liquid upflow in the column centre and reduced gas hold-up with downflow
near the walls obtained. The above results are based upon a two-dimension Euler-Euler model. The
underlying assumptions and simplifications are discussed and the advantages and drawbacks of a
corresponding Euler-Lagrangian formulation are considered. The model is used in Part II of this
contribution for a detailed comDarison with the experimental results from a flat bubble column with
various circulating flow patterns.

1. INTRODUCTION pseudo-continuum and balance equations are

The detailed modelling of gas-liquid flow is a
necessary prerequisite for the scale-up of gas-liquid
reactors. Early work in this field was initiated by
loss-of-coolant simulations in nuclear power plants
where rather simple one-dimensional models were
used. At this early stage the gas-liquid mixture was
treated as quasi-homogeneous, the gas velocity was
calculated through an algebraic slip relation, and a
constant turbulent two-phase wall friction factor
was used to account for the pressure drop. Such
models have also been used for the calculation of
bubble columns with and without internal recycle
since the end of the 1960s. Axial dispersion was
introduced to account for backmixing of gas and
liquid. The existence of numerous and sometimes
conflicting correlations for the axial dispersion
coefficients demonstrates that the predictability of
these models is rather limited. In more recent
attempts for a two-dimensional modelling of bubble
columns, the radial profile of the gas hold-up was
taken from experiments and the resulting liquid
velocity profile was calculated using a simplified
liquid momentum balance (Geary and Rice, 1992).
Since the early 198Os, the general advancement
of numerical flow simulations together with the
substantial increase in computing power initiated a
number of projects in which more detailed two-
phase models for multidimensional flow simulations
were developed and tested. For two-phase bubble
flow the so called Euler-Euler formulation is most-
ly used, where the gas phase is treated as a
*To whom correspondence should be addressed.
formulated for both phases. These models have
been used essentially for three different types of
two-phase reactors: stirred ranks, uniformly aer-
ated and nonuniformly aerated bubble columns.
Table 1 gives a list of some important publications.
Throughout, the following assumptions were used:
l steady state, turbulent flow
l isothermal conditions
l quasi-continuous gas phase, usually incompress-
ible
l one bubble class.
The model equations used are usually the same
except for a few model parameters. Finite volume
discretization and iterative solutions, mostly based
on the SIMPLER algorithm of Patankar (1980) and
extensions thereof, have been applied for the
numerical solution.
Only very recently papers appeared where the
simulation is based upon a dynamic model (Webb
et al., 1992; Hjertager and Morud, 1993; Becker ei
al., 1994; Lapin and Liibbert, 1994; Liibbert and
Lapin, 1994; Sokolichin et al., 1994). In a number
of cases these simulations exhibit a substantially
different behaviour, which seems to be much closer
to what is observed experimentally than the steady
state results. This will be discussed in more detail in
subsequent sections_
2. FLUID-DYNAMICAL MODEL
the different fluid-dynamical models found
From
in the literature, multi-dimensional two-fluid mod-

5735
5736 A. SOKOLICHIN and G. EIGENB~RGER

Table 1. Literature on steady state modeling of two-phase reactors

Type of reactor Author(s) Year of publication

Stirred tank Issa and Gosman 1981

Harvey and Greaves 1982
Salcudean et al. 1985
TrtigPrdh 1988
Kresta and Wood 1991
Gosman et al. 1992

Nonuniformly aerated bubble column Grevet et al. 1982

Johansen et al. 1987
Lai and Salcudean 1987
Johansen and Boysan 1988
Schwarz and Turner 1988
Celik and Wang 1990
Ranade 1992

Uniformly aerated bubble column Torvik and Svendscn 1990

Grienbereer and Hofmann 1992
Svendsen-et al. 1992
Jakobsen et al. 1993
Hillmer el al. 1994

els with balance equations for both phases present- mass as long as they are in the two-phase
ly allow for the most detailed description of two- domain, that means that
phase flow. The two-fluid models can be divided -bubble coalescence and redispersion is neglected,
into Euler-Euler and Euler-Lagrange models, de- -the coupling between the two phases will be
pending upon how the dispersed phase (particles, described through an interaction force term Fw_
droplets or bubbles) is treated. In the Euler-
Lagrange model, one quasi-homogeneous gas- 2.1. Continuity equation
liquid phase is considered within which the flow of Since no mass exchange is considered between
the dispersed phase particles is tracked. That gas and liquid, the continuity equation can be
means for bubble flow, the traces of all individual formulated for both phases independently without
bubbles in the (moving) continuous phase have to exchange term
be obtained through solving the respective equa-
tions of motion. The Euler-Euler model on the
- + v. (&@Jk) = 0, k = l,g. (1)
other hand treats the dispersed phase as a quasi- at
continuum, assuming that each element of finite 2.2. Momentum balance
volume of the space domain contains a respective
fraction E of the continuous and of the dispersed 4%Pk&)
+ v * (Ekpkzkifk)
phase. To be physically meaningful, the minimum at

size of a space volume element must be substantial-

ly larger than a single dispersed particle. Since the = E*Q-?~- QV~ + E,‘P~~&& k = 1,g. (2)
volume fractions E are considered constant within a The only difference between the two phases is the
volume element, its size must on the other hand be
sign of the force term Fw which is positive for the
small with respect to the dimensions of the appar- gas phase and negative for the liquid phase, The
atus considered. In the following, the equations of
first term on the right hand side considers the
motion derived from the constitutive equations for molecular momentum transfer of laminar flow
mass and momentum for a volume element are
where
given for the Euler-Euler formulation. They con-
sist of the Navier-Stokes and continuity equations ?k = j&(Viik + Vi&). (3)
for the gas phase (index g) and the liquid phase
(index 1), where the following additional assump- Because of the difference in the densities pf and pg,
tions have been made: a gravity term must be considered in each phase.
Buoyancy effects, leading to a slip between the two
-isothermal conditions, phases, are a result of the coupling of both phases
-constant liquid density p,, through the same pressure. If bubbles of different
-gas density pE depending on local pressure p as masses have to be considered, the bubbles must be
described by the ideal gas law, grouped into separate classes of constant bubble
-no consideration of turbulence, mass and separate continuity equations and
-all bubbles of one bubble class are generated momentum balances are required for each bubble
with constant mass at the sparger and retain this class.
 Gas-liquid flow in bubble columns and loop reactors-Part
3. INTERPHASE FORCE TERM
The force term Fw describes the interaction
forces between the continuous and the dispersed
phase. Only pressure and gravity forces are acting
on a motionless bubble in a motionless liquid. Since
there is usually a relative motion between the
bubble and the liquid, the liquid flow around
individual bubbles leads to local variations in pres-
sure and shear stress. The resulting interaction
forces due to these variations cannot be considered
in detail within the frame of a two-fluid model but
have to be approximated through more or less
empirical correlations. Usually three different con-
tributions for the interaction force term are taken
into account, a friction force term Fs, an added
mass force term pa and a lift force term pm, leading
to the following approximation for the force of
interaction:
3r.V = Fs+ZO+Fm. (4)
The three contributions will be briefly discussed in
the following subsections.
3.1. Friction force
A bubble that moves relative to a liquid acceler-
ates part of the liquid around it and is in turn
slowed down by the surrounding liquid. The fric-
tion force is the dominant force contribution and
often it is the only one considered. It is common to
describe the friction force F* by
i$ = - EgC&s - ii,) (5)
where C, is a friction coefficient for which a large
number of correlations can be found in the litera-
ture, depending upon whether single bubbles or
bubble swarms in stagnant or moving liquid are
considered (see, e.g. Johansen, 1990). In general
C, has to depend upon the bubble size but this
dependence is weak for air bubbles of I-1Omm
mean diameter in water. According to Schwarz and
Turner (1988), the single value
c, = 5 x 104-
kg
m3s
can be used, leading to a mean bubble slip velocity
of about 2Ocm/s, which agrees well with ex-
perimental values of air bubbles in tap water.
3.2. Added mass force
The friction force takes account of the interac-
tion forces between liquid and bubbles in a uniform
flow field under non-accelerating conditions. If
however the bubbles are accelerated relative to the
liquid, part of the surrounding liquid has to be
accelerated as well. Typical examples comprise the
flow fields at the upper and lower end of a loop
reactor, This additional force contribution is called
I 5737
the “added mass force” and can be calculated from
the additional force of acceleration by
where the coefficient C, corresponds to the volume
fraction of liquid which is accelerated with the
bubble. Again a number of different correlations
can be found for C, in the literature (see, e.g.
Rietema, 1982). If the volume fraction of the
dispersed phase is low, C, = 0.5 is a common
value, however, Cook and Harlow (1986) recom-
mend to use C, = 0.25 for gas bubbles and
C, = 0.5 only for particles with a rigid surface.
3.3. Lift force (Magnus force)
If a particle with a rigid surface moves in a
nonuniform flow field, the flow field may induce
particle rotation which in turn causes an additional
force of interaction, perpendicular to the main flow
direction. (The well known ping-pong ball, balanc-
ing on top of an air jet, is a typical example.) The
lift force, often also referred to as “Magnus force”,
can be approximated for the case of potential flow
by (see Thomas et al., 1983)
Fm = -&,c,p,~~--Z,)x(vxZ,) (8)
The Magnus force has recently been used in the
modelling of bubble columns to account for the
experimentally well documented effect that in a
uniformly aerated bubble column the rising bubbles
tend to accumulate in the centre of the column {see
Torvik and Svendsen, 1990; Grienberger and Hof-
mann, 1992; Svendsen et al., 1992; Jakobsen et al.,
1993; Hillmer et al., 1994). However to achieve the
required result, the authors cited had to change the
sign of eq. (8). Aside from this unjustified “trick” it
can be questioned whether gas bubbles really rotate
in a nonuniform flow field and whether a lift force
as described by eq. (8) plays a noticeable role. The
accumulation of gas bubbles in the middle of a
bubble column will be further discussed and a
different explanation presented for the ex-
perimental observations in Section 5.3.
4. EULER-EULER VERSUS EULER-LAGRANGE
FORMULATION
The above model equations are given for the
Euler-Euler formulation; similar equations can be
derived for the Euler-Lagrange case. Both for-
mulations should lead to identical results, provided
that similar terms are accounted for in both cases
and the numerical discretization is sufficiently fine.
The basic difference in the two approaches lies in
the numerical solution procedure. In the Euler-
Lagrange case the flow field is calculated in a first
step from the balance equations of the quasi-
homogeneous gas-liquid dispersion where the
mean density varies with the local gas hold-up. In a
 5738 A. SOKOLICHIN~~~
second step the local gas hold-up is determined by
tracking all individual bubbles of the system in the
actual flow field and both steps are repeated until
convergence is obtained. In the Euler-Euler
approach the balance equations of the gas and of
the liquid phase are-in principle-sopd simul-
taneously on a similar space grid.
A big and obvious advantage of the Euler-
Lagrangian formulation comes from the fact that
each individual bubble is modelled in its flow
through the column. This allows for a direct
consideration of additional effects related to
bubble-bubble and bubble-liquid interaction. Mass
transfer without and with chemical reaction, bubble
coalescence and redispersion can-in principle-be
added directly to an Euler-Lagrangian hydrodyna-
mic model. A second advantage lies in the fact that
no numerical diffusion will be introduced into the
dispersed phase since each bubble trace can be
calculated accurately within a given volume ele-
ment.
These important advantages are however com-
pensated by a number of drawbacks. For steady
state solutions the calculations are fairly straightfor-
ward. Since the coupling between the two phases is
brought about by the gas volume fraction Ed and
the force term FW, the trajectory of each bubble is
followed continuously from the gas distributor until
it leaves the reactor and its contributions to eg and
-E&vare stored but not the trajectory itself. For
dynamic calculations also the bubble positions after
each time step have to be stored. The tracing of all
bubbles (i.e. the solution of the equations of
motion for all bubbles) soon becomes infeasible as
the size of the bubble column increases. Therefore,
instead of following all individual bubbles, only a
restricted number of representative bubbles is fol-
lowed or the concept of bubble clusters is intro-
duced (Lapin and Liibbert, 1994). Here a single
bubble, representing the centre of a bubble cluster,
is tracked but the appropriate consideration of the
dispersion (i.e. the gradual spread of the bubbles in
a cluster) poses additional problems.
The above mentioned difficulties do not arise
with the Euler-Euler formulation. Here storage
requirements and demand of computer power de-
pend only on the number of volume elements
considered and not on the number of bubbles. The
necessity to solve the coupled balance equations of
gas and liquid simultaneously has been overcome
.by efficient iterative solution techniques (Patankar,
1980; Spalding, 1985). The numerical diffusion in
the gas phase can be controlled if the gas phase is
computed on a finer grid than the liquid phase,
which is possible at small additional expense since
the gas transport equatiog usually converges after
2-3 iterations. The consideration of different bub-
ble sizes requires separate gas phase balance equa-
tions for each bubble class which increases the
computer load but presents no general problem.
In conclusion, it can be stated that for the
G.EIGENBERGER
calculation of column hydrodynamics alone, the
Euler-Euler formulation is easier to handle and has
therefore been preferred by many research groups.
The Euler-Lagrange formulation seems to offer
substantial advantages if the hydrodynamic model
has to be extended to include mass transfer with
reaction as well as bubble coalescence and redisper-
sion, provided that the bubbles followed can be
limited to a manageable number.
Present commercial flow simulation programs
have their roots in the calculation of single phase
flow. It is fairly straightforward to extend their
capabilities into multi-phase flow simulations, using
the Euler-Lagrangian concept. Then the Row
simulation for the quasi-homogeneous gas-liquid
phase will be performed as in single phase flow and
the calculation of the dispersed particle trajector-
ies, from which the local mean density is obtained,
can be added for a frozen flow field. The same
program modules as in single phase flow can be
used, and only the interaction force term &.+, has to
be added if the coupling between two phases
cannot be neglected. Many of the more widespread
commercial programs, using the Euler-Lagrangian
concept, are presently restricted to steady state
simulations for multiphase flow. This hampers their
general applicability, since many problems exhibit
an essentially unsteady state hehaviour and there-
fore steady state solutions do not converge. This
will be discussed in the following section. Another
drawback is the limitation to a moderate number of
individual particles.
The following results are based upon a laminar,
dynamic, two-dimensional two-phase Euler-Euler
model and refer to gas-liquid bubble flow in flat
loop reactors or bubble columns. As a result, the
velocity components of both phases, the pressure
and the gas hold-up at each position in the column
are obtained at each time step. The model results
will be compared with detailed measurements in
Part II of this contribution.
5. STEADY STATE VERSUS DYNAMIC MODELLING AND
SIMULATION
In the literature, basically three different gas
liquid bubble flow problems have been studied in
detail so far: the stirred tank reactor, the locally
aerated bubble column with circulating flow and
the uniformly aerated bubble column (see Table 1
for references). Because of computer power limita-
tions, usually a steady state formulation has been
used. It will be shown that this is justified in a
number of cases but may lead to wrong conclusions
in others.
5.1. Stirred tank reactors
In stirred tank reactors the fluid is driven mecha-
nically by the impellers, no matter whether gas is
introduced or not. In this case the flow has an
essentially steady state character and the applica-
tion of steady state models leads to physically
 Gas-liquid flow in bubble columns and Ioop reactors-Part I 5739

reasonable results as was demonstrated in the where liquid vortices are created close to the gas
papers cited. Similar conditions apply if the main distributor and move upwards and sideways in a
flow profile is determined by, for example, an rather irregular way. Long term measurements of
externally set pressure difference like the flow in a the gas hold-up distribution and of the liquid
straight or bent pipe with specified feed and exit velocities show the well known picture of an
pressure (Ellul et al., 1985; Carver and Salcudean, increased gas hold-up in the middle of the column,
1986; Dohmen et al., 1990). leading to an overall liquid circulation with upflow
in the centre and downflow near the walls (Torvik
and Svendsen, 1990).
5.2. Loop reactors and locally aerated bubble
A large number of papers has been devoted to
c0lumtl.s
the description of this flow structure. The models
In loop reactors, on the other hand, the fluid
used can be grouped into the so called circulating
motion is a result of the feed momentum and of
cells models (see Joshi and Sharma, 1979; Zchner,
density differences between the aerated and the
1982) and into models where a more detailed
non-aerated parts. However, since by construction
description based upon the steady state balance
the flow is forced into a general pattern between
equations of a two-fluid model was attempted (see
downcomer and riser, overall visual observation
Table 1 for references). In the circulating cell
also shows a fairly steady state flow behaviour.
models, a regular and stationary sequence of vor-
Closer inspection reveals some local instabilities in
tices in the bubble column is assumed, where the
the form of small vortices that change their position
height of a vortex corresponds to the bubble
periodically but it can safely be assumed that these
column diameter. Recently, a more detailed deriva-
local instabilities will not affect the overall hyd-
tion of circulating cell models was presented by
rodynamics and the reactor behaviour. Since on a
Millies and Mewes (1994), who showed that a
coarse spatial grid the local instabilities are dam-
stability analysis of the simplified equations of
pened out by numerical diffusion, reasonable re-
motion exhibits instabilities that can be attributed
sults can be obtained with steady state models and
to the recycle of liquid and thus mark the height of
with a not too fine discretization (Part II, Fig. 14).
a circulation cell. Values of the height of a circula-
Only if one attempts to refine the space grid
tion cell corresponding to about one column dia-
further, convergence fails since the steady state
meter were calculated.
equations are not able to describe the essentially
The steady state models, based upon the detailed
dynamic local phenomena.
two-fluid equations, had to cope with the following
Similar observations can be made for locally
problem: if only the friction force was considered in
aerated bubble columns; Fig. 4 of Part II shows a
the coupling force term and a fairly coarse space
flat bubble column which is aerated through a
grid was used, the only solution obtained was the
single frit in the left part of the column. A
homogeneous one with a stagnant liquid phase.
circulating flow structure similar to that in a Aat
Obviously a mechanism was lacking that drives the
loop reactor develops, if the gas flow is sufficiently
bubbles towards the column centre and induces the
high (superficial gas velocity wG exceeding about
overall liquid circulation measured. One attempt to
3.3mm/s). Again, a steady state flow simulation on
introduce such a mechanism, was the addition of
a not too fine grid leads to completely sufficient
the Magnus force [eq. (S)]. however its sign had to
agreement with experimental results (Part II, Fig.
be changed to obtain the desired effect (Torvik and
4). However if the gas flow rate is reduced, the flow
Svendsen, 1990; Grienberger and Hofmann, 1992;
structure changes from one big vortex over the
Svendsen et al., 1992; Jakobsen et al., 1993; Hill-
whole column to three smaller vortices, and the
mer ef al., 1994). Another attempt was the assump-
centre of these vortices is no longer constant but
tion that the friction coefficient C, varies over the
moves up and down. As long as a coarse grid is
cross-section of the column with a maximum in the
used, a flow pattern with three stationary vortices
centre (Grienberger and Hofmann, 1992; Hillmer
and reasonable agreement with the experimental
et al., 1994). Both assumptions lead to an increase
results can be obtained by steady state simulation
of the gas hold-up in the column centre.
(Part II, Fig. 6) but again convergence fails if the
The “wrong Magnus force” moves the bubbles to
grid is further refined (Part II, Figs 8, 9).
the region of greater liquid upflow velocity. The
assumption of low C, values near the walls leads to
5.3. Uniformly aerated bubble column larger bubble rise velocities than in the centre
The conditions are drastically different if a bub- and-since the aeration is assumed to be uniform-
ble column is considered which is aerated uniformly results in a lower gas hold-up eg in the wall region.
over its entire bottom. Visual observation shows It turned out that with both assumptions it was
that at low superficial gas velocity a so-called possible to model the experimentally observed
homogeneous flow structure prevails, where the overall circulation with reasonable accuracy pro-
bubbles rise uniformly through an essentially stag- vided that the free model parameters were properly
nant liquid. As the superficial gas velocity is adjusted. This reflects a general observation that by
increased, an instationary flow structure develops, a small variation of the gas hold-up distribution the
5740 A. SOKOLICIIIN and G. EIGENBERCER

Table 2. Model assumptions for the uniformly aerated bubble column (Figs 1 and 2)

Apparatus Geometry Flat bubble column

Height 75 cm
Width 15 cm
Model Grid ooints 25 x 75
Gas Momentum balance iis = ii, +ii+,
Sparger
_ - simulation Gas enters the column
through every second
grid cell at the bottom
with equal Bow rate

resulting steady state circulation pattern can be
driven in any desired direction.
Another general observation is that steady state
simulations of empty bubble columns using either
Euler-Euler or Euler-Lagrange models converge
only if a rather coarse space grid is used. This
seems to be the reason why in all of the above cited
papers the (two-dimensional) space grid did not
exceed more than 20 x 20 grid points.
The attempts to simulate empty bubble columns
therefore concentrated on the dynamic solution,
using a sufficiently fine space grid. An Euler-Euler
model as described in Section 2 with the simplifica-
tions detailed in Section 6 was used. Simulation
results for an example specified in Table 2 are given
in Fig. 1. The simulations show that above a
minimum value of the superficial gas velocity of
about 2 cm/s an unsteady flow structure develops
where a sequence of vortices is created near the gas
distributor. The vortices have a mean diameter
corresponding to the column diameter. Contrary to
the approximation of Millies and Mewes (1994)
they are not stationary but move upwards at
alternating sides of the column walls. Figure 2
shows results for a column with a different aspect
ratio (column height to width), showing that the
mean number of vortices present corresponds to
the aspect ratio of the column. This agrees with
resuits for thermal buoyancy flow (see Charlson
and Sani, 1970).
If the calculated local velocities and the gas
hold-ups 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. l(d), Fig. 2(b)]. The long time
averaged values agree qualitatively well with mea-
sured data.
This leads to the conclusion that the circulation
cell models of Joshi and Sharma (1979), Zehner
(1982) and Millies (1993) are reasonable steady
state approximations of an essentially dynamic flow
behaviour and that the experimental observation of
an apparently steady overall circulation caused by
an increased gas hold-up in the column centre is an
artifact due to long time averaging. This conclusion
agrees with recent results of Liibbert and Lapin
(1994) obtained with an Euler-Lagrange model for
a substantially larger uniformly aerated bubble
column.
Since the true phenomena are essentially insta-
tionary, they cannot be calculated with steady state
models. Also the long time average flow patterns
cannot be obtained from steady state models since
it is a well known fact from turbulence theory that
the long time integrals over flow fluctuations do not
vanish but lead to additional terms which, at
present, cannot be approximated for the large scale
fluctuations observed in bubble columns.
It therefore can be stated that the development
and the applications of dynamic models for two-
phase flow systems is of essential importance for a
better understanding of the basic phenomena pre-
sent. This holds not only for transient calculations
but in many cases also for the proper description of
apparently steady flow structures since-due to the
reasons discussed-a convergence of the steady
state solution is not guaranteed.
An efficient solution of the dynamic equations
however requires different and generally more
complex numerical solution techniques than for the
steady state. This will be addressed in the following
section.
6. NUMERICAL SOLUTION
The examples discussed demonstrate that impor-
tant characteristics of the flow structure may only
be obtained by dynamic simulation on a sufficiently
fine space grid. It will be shown in Section 6.4 that
the accurate integration in time is of equal import-
ance. Since the dynamic solutions have to be
obtained over a longer real time period, the availa-
bility of efficient numeric solution procedures is of
decisive importance.
The numerical load depends on the one hand
upon the number and the complexity of the diffe-
rent terms in the modelling equations, on the other
hand on the rate of convergence of the iteration
loops which, in turn, depends on the number and
the character of the coupling terms between the
model equations. It is therefore essential for the
speed of numerical solution, to know which model
simplifications can be accepted.
The influence which different model simplifica-
tions have on the accuracy of the solution in
specific situations is at present not sufficiently
understood. Its systematic investigation presents an
important future task. In the following, some often
used model assumptions and simplifications will be
 Gas-liquid Bow in bubble columns and loop reactors-Part 1 5741

0.60 0.60 0.60.

0.45

0.30

0.15

0.00
0.R 0.05 0.10 ws 0.0-O 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 -kls 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

a b C d

Fig. 1. Uniformly aerated bubble column, height to width ratio equals 5: instantaneous (a,b,c) and
long time averaged (d) simulation results of liquid velocity field.

described and their influence-as
known-will be discussed.
6.1. Modelling of turbulence
All publications referenced in Table 1 use the
standard k-s model of single phase flow to account
for the influence of liquid turbulence. However it is
presently not at all clear how far turbulence models
for single phase flow can be extended into the
two-phase flows regime. The dispersed phase-here
the rising gas bubbie~bviously have an influence
upon the turbulent viscosity of the gas/liquid dis-
persion. Our simulations in Part II of this contribu-
tion show that gas-liquid bubble flow can often be
described with good qualitative and reasonable
far as presently quantitative accuracy using laminar two-phase flow
models. In case of insufficient quantitative agree-
ment, a moderate increase in the liquid viscosity
leads to a substantial improvement. A liquid viscos-
ity corresponding to the standard k--E model
however results in the cases considered to a viscos-
ity increase by four orders of magnitude. This
changes the llow structure substantially in that it
completely dampens the transient character of the
flow and eliminates vortices visible in experimental
observation. In the often cited paper of Schwarz
and Turner (1988) the authors studied the applica-
bility of the standard k--E model for the case of a
locally aerated bubble column and found good
agreement with the measurements. However their
5742 A. SOKOLICIJIN and G. EIGENBERGER

0.45 . _ - _ _ - . . . _ _ _ _- WI
,‘___..
1
I

0.30-

1:

1
0.15-.,

o.oo-’
5 0.00 0.05 0.10

Fig. 2. Uniformly aerated bubble column, height to width ratio equals 3: instantaneous (a) and long
time averaged (b) simulation results of liquid velocity field.

result should not be generalised since in their
experiments the gas bubbles rose only through a
small portion in the middle of the reactor while the
rest of the column was essentially gas-free. A
comparison by the same authors with a constant
liquid viscosity also led to reasonable agreement
with the experiments.
It therefore can be stated that the applicability of
different turbulence models for the description of
gas-liquid bubble flow has to be studied further.
This applies in particular to the case where aerated
and unaerated parts are connected in the same
apparatus like in loop reactors with an aerated riser
and an essentially bubble free downcomer.
 Gas-liquid flow in bubble columns
6.2. Pressure equation
The set of equations describing the hydrodyna-
mics in a gas-liquid system can only be solved
effectively if it is possible to decouple the solution
procedure so that an efficient iterative scheme can
be used. Since the mode1 contains no explicit
equation for the determination of the pressure,
such an expression was derived by Patankar (1980)
through a transformation of the continuity equa-
tion. In a two-phase system the derivation of a
respective equation is much more difficult than in
the single phase case, since two continuity equa-
tions have to be considered instead of one (Spald-
ing, 1985). The resulting pressure equation is no
longer linear but quadratic and requires additional
iterations. An apparent simplification consists in
neglecting the variation of the volume fraction of
the dispersed phase in the continuity equation of
the continuous phase in time and space. The
continuity equation
asI _ form of the gas momentum balance is used, the
-+vE$, = 0
at
is thus transformed into
vi?, = 0 (IO)
which allows one to derive a pressure equation as
in the single phase case. The continuity equation of
the gas phase can then be used to obtain the local
gas hold-up. The permissibility of this simplification
has so far only been tested by comparison with the
detailed calculation procedure for a small number
of test examples. Its general applicability has still to
be verified.
6.3. Momentum balancefor the gas phase
It has already been mentioned that in gas driven
gas-liquid flow the resulting flow pattern depends
directly upon the gas hold-up distribution in the
reactor. For the gas hold-up distribution the gas
velocities, as given by the gas momentum balance,
are of prime importance. However it is quite
common to use different simplifications for the gas
momentum balance.
Usually the balance is only considered in its
quasi-steady state form since, due to the small gas
density, the inertia force of the gas bubbles can
safely be neglected against other terms in the gas
momentum balance at low to medium pressures.
Different simplifications exist primarily with re-
spect to the interphase force term. The added mass
force term is often neglected since it is assumed
that the slip velocity between both phases is con-
stant. This is definitely not true for regions where
the liquid flow changes its direction as in vortices
and at the ends of a loop reactor. The lift force is
also usually neglected since its physical importance
for gas bubbles with a non-rigid surface is still
unclear. An exception is the use of the Magnus
and loop reactors-Part I 5743
force with the wrong sign in the simulation of
bubble columns which was discussed in Section 5.3.
If the inertia force, the lift force and the added
mass force are all neglected, the gas momentum
balance turns into the well known slip relation
Z* = Z[ + i&ii, (II)
where the slip velocity i&i, between the two phases
is either assumed constant or calculated from the
pressure gradients with a given friction coefficient
C,. Different correlations are used for C,,, by
different research groups.
The fact that small changes in the terms of the
gas momentum balance used lead to substantially
different flow profiles has been exploited by some
research groups to obtain agreement between ex-
periments and simulation results. It is therefore of
great importance to test the validity of different
assumptions in the gas momentum balance.
Throughout out simulations the quasi-steady
added mass force and the lift force are neglected
and a constant value for the friction factor C, [eq.
(6)] is considered.
6.4. Time step control
Another important feature for the dynamic
simulation of multi-phase flow turned out to be the
accurate integration of the model equations in
time. To ensure accuracy it is necessary to base the
time step control upon an efficient estimate of the
time integration error. Such an error-based time
step control is not available in many commercial
flow simulation programs. A constant time step has
to be chosen instead and if the convergence of the
solution during one particular time interval fails,
the time step has to be repeated with a smaller step
size. However convergence of a time step is no
criterion for a reasonably accurate transient solu-
tion since it is well known from ordinary differen-
tial equation theory that in some cases convergence
may be obtained with, for example, an implicit
Euler integration step with infinite step length.
The choice of the appropriate time step size has
therefore to be placed upon a time error estima-
tion, e.g. using a second order extrapolation (Hair-
er and Wanner, 1991). The respective procedure
implemented in our program requires that during
each time step three time integrations have to be
performed (two with half and one with the full time
step size) which results in a factor 1.5 in the
computation time (with respect to the smaller time
step) and in a doubling of the required storage. The
big advantage is that the appropriate time step size
is always used which saves a multiple on computer
time as compared with a sufficiently small but
constant time step.
The necessity of an error-based time step control
is particularly pronounced in the dynamic simula-
tion of buoyancy driven flow systems since here
5744 A. SOKOLICHIN
small errors introduced by too large time steps may
lead to different solutions. Experience shows that
sometimes two fully different solutions of the same
test case could be obtained, if during the time
integration two different constant time step sizes
(0.1 s and 0.01 s) were used.
6.5. space grid control
The choice of an appropriate space grid is also of
decisive importance since it has a strong influence
on the solution obtained. It turned out that loop
reactors can be calculated best on a not too fine
space grid (20 x 70 grid points in the examples
considered in Part II of this contribution). With a
more refined grid the basic flow structure stays
constant but local flow instabilities are resolved.
This increases the required computation load since
in addition to the larger number of grid points
smaller time steps are also required to correctly
calculate the fast variations in the local vortices.
The influence of the space grid can be rather
different for the calculation of the flow in empty
bubble columns. Here the flow structure changes
substantially if a coarse grid is subsequently re-
fined. Typically, the numerical dispersion is so
strong on a coarse grid that flow instabilities are
dampened out completely and only a homogeneous
flow structure remains. The transient flow be-
haviour discussed in Section 5.3 can only be
obtained if the number of grid points exceeds a
certain lower limit (about 25 X 75 grid points for
the example of Fig. 1). Increasing the number of
grid points further leads to a more detailed flow
structure through which the actual position of the
large vortices is influenced, but in the examples
considered so far, the general behaviour and the
result of the long time average remain the same.
7. CONCLUSIONS
1. Multidimensional two fluid models can be
used for the detailed modelling of gas-liquid
bubble flow in bubble columns. The results
are in good qualitative agreement with ex-
perimental observations even if only friction
force interaction is considered between the
two phases and Iaminar viscosity is used in the
liquid phase.
2. In a number of cases only dynamic simula-
tions lead to a converged solution. This ap-
plies in particular to uniformly aerated bubble
columns above a minimum gas flow velocity,
calculated on a not too coarse space grid. The
resulting solution shows an essentially dyna-
mic picture with rising vortices being gener-
ated sequentially at the gas distributor. Long
time averaging of the dynamic solution leads
to the familiar picture of increased gas content
with liquid upflow in the column centre and
reduced gas content with liquid downflow at
the walls.
and G. EIGENBERGER
3. A comparison between the Euler-Euler for-
mulation of the two fluid model used in our
simulations and a corresponding Euler-
Lagrangian formulation shows advantages for
the Euler-Euler approach for the case of fluid
dynamic simulations in large scale geometry
but the inclusion of gas-gas and gas-liquid
interactions seems to be more straightforward
in the Euler-Lagrangian case. For both for-
mulations efficient iterative numerical solution
techniques based upon the SIMPLER algor-
ithm of Patankar are available.
4. The question of appropriate turbulent viscos-
ity models in the gas-liquid bubble flow reg-
ime is not yet sufficiently answered. The
present results show that in most cases good
qualitative agreement is obtained if only larni-
nar viscosity is assumed. This point is further
addressed in Part II of this contribution.
5. Further work is also necessary to elucidate the
influence of force terms other than the friction
force considered in our examples. Added
mass force could be important at both ends of
a loop reactor and in the case of vortices. The
application of a Magnus force term with a
wrong sign as used in some recent publica-
tions seems neither appropriate nor necessary
to obtain the overall circulation behaviour
observed by long time measurements in bub-
ble columns. As mentioned under conclusion
2 and supported by visual observation, the
real flow structure in uniformly aerated bub-
ble columns is usually strongly dynamical. It
can in principle not be simulated by steady
state models unless additional terms are used
to account for the influence of the long time
averaged fluctuations.
6. A number of simplifying assumptions in the
gas phase balance equations also need further
clarification. This applies in particular to the
neglect of the time and space variation of the
gas content [eqs (9, lo)] which allows for a
substantial simplification in the solution pro-
cedure.
7. The examples studied so far point at the
importance of an efficient automatic time step
control for dynamic simulations and of an
appropriate space grid. With a too coarse grid
important flow characteristics may be dam-
pened out by numerical diffusion while a too
fine space grid exhibits so many flow details
that very small time steps are required and the
computational load would be uneconomically
high, without gaining additional insight into
the overall flow behaviour.
Acknowledgement-Support of this work through BASF
AG, Ludwigshafen is gratefully acknowledged.
NOTATION
C, constant in added mass force term, dimen-
sionless
 Gas-liquid flow in bubble columns and loop reactors-Part I 5745

constant in Magnus force term, dimension- and modelling of bubble columns. Chem. Engrzg Sci.
less 47, 2215-2220.
constant in interfacial drag force term, kg/ Hairer, E. and Wanner, G., 1991, Solving Ordinary
Differential Equalions II. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
cm3 ~1 Harvey, P. S. and Greaves, M., 1982, Turbulent flow in
Fl2 added mass force, N/m3 an agitated vessel. Trans. Inst. Chem. Engrs 60, 195-
F, Magnus force, N/m3 210.
drag force, N/m3 Hillmer, G., Weismantel, L. and Hofmann, H., 1994,
F, Investigations and modelling of slurry bubble columns.
Fw interphase force, N/m3
Chem. Engng Sci. 49, 837-843.
g gravitational constant, 9.81 m/s2 Hjertager, B. H. and Morud, K., 1993, Computational
P pressure, N/m’ fluid dynamics simulation of bioreactors. Paper pre-
t time, s sented at Bioreactor Performance Symposium,
ii velocity vector, m/s Helsingor, Denmark, 15-17 March.
Issa, R. 1. and Gosman, A. D., 1981, The computation of
V volume element, m3 three-dimensional turbulent two-phase flows in mixer
WC superficial gas velocity, m/s vessels, in Numerical Methods in Laminar and Turbu-
lent Flow. Pineridge Press, Swansea.
Greek letters Jakobsen, H. A., Svendsen, H. F. and Hjarbo, K. W.,
1993, On the prediction of local flow structures in
E hold-up, dimensionless
internal loop and bubble column reactors using a
viscosity, kg/(ms) two-fluid model. European Symposium on Computer
G gradient operator (= (a&x, a/@, a/az)) Aided Process Engineering-2, pp. 531-536.
density, kg/m2 Johansen, S. T., Boysan, F. and Ayers, W. H., 1987,
Mathematical modelling of bubble driven flows in
; stress tensor, N/m’
metallurgical processes. Appl. Sci. Res. 44, 197-207.
Johansen, S. T. and Boysan, F., 1988. Fluid dynamics in
Subscripts bubble stirred ladles: Part II. Mathematical modeling.
g gas phase Met. Trans. B 19B, 755-764.
k gas or liquid phase Johansen, S. T., 1990, On the Modelling of Disperse
Two-Phase Flows. Ph.D. Thesis, The Norwegian Insti-
1 liquid phase tute of Technology, Trondheim.
Joshi, J.-B. and Sharma, M. M., 1979, A circulation cell
model for bubble columns. Trans. lnstn Chem. Engrs
REFERENCES 57,244-2x.
Becker, S., Sokolichin, A. and Eigenberger, G., 1994, Kresta, S. M. and Wood, P., 1991, Prediction of the
Hydrodynamics of gas/liquid loop reactors- three-dimensional turbulent flow in stirred tanks.
comparison of detailed experiments and flow simula- A.I. Ch.E. J. 37, 448-460.
tions. Preprints of the 3rd German/Japanese Symposium Lai, K. Y. M. and Salcudean, M., 1987, Computer
on Bubble Columns. Schwerte. Germanv..zr 13-15 June. analysis of multi-dimensional, turbulent, buoyancy-
pp. 225228. ’ induced, two-phase Bows in gas-agitated-liquid reac-
Carver, M. B. and Salcudean, M., 1986, Three- tors. Comput. Fluids 15, 281-295.
dimensional numerical modelling of phase distribution Lapin, A. and Liibbert, A., 1994, Numerical simulation
of two-fluid flow in elbows and return bends. Numer. of the dynamics of two-phase gas-liquid Aows in bubble
Heat. Trans. 10, 229-251. columns. Chem. Engng Sci. (in press).
Celik, I. and Wang, Y.-Z., 1990, Numerical simulation of Liibbert, A. and Lapin, A., 1994, A numerical fluid
liquid circulation in a bubble column. Numerical dynamics approach to structures in bubble columns.
Methods for Multiphme Flows, FED 91, ASME, pp. Preprints of the 3rd GermanNapanese Symposium on
19-26. Bubble Columns, Schwerte, Germany, 13-15 June, pp.
Charlson, G. S. and Sani, R. L., 1970, Thermconvective 79-88.
instability in a bounded cylindrical fluid layer. ht. J. Mill&, M., 1993, Fluiddynamik, Vermischung und Stoff-
Heat Mass Transfer 131, 1475’-1496. iibergang in Zirkulationszellen in Blasendulen. VDI
Cook, T. L. and Harlow, F. H., 1986, Vortices in bubbly Fortschritt-Berichte, Reihe 3, Nr. 307, VDI-Verlag
two-phase flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 12, 35-61. Diisseldorf.
Dohmen, H.-J., Janssen, M. and Grahl, K. G., 1990, The Millies, M. and Mewes, D., 1994, Zirkulations-
calculation of three-dimensional parabolic flows with striimungen und die Vermischung der kontinuierlichen
arbitrary boundary geometries. ht. Chem. Engng 30, Phase in Blasenstiulen. Chem. Zg. Techn. 66, 332-342.
21-35. Patankar, Suhas V., 1980, Numerical Heat Transfer and
Ellul, I. R., Issa, R. I. and honey, M. K., 1985, Fluid Flow. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Numerical computation of multi-dimensional multi- Ranade, V. V., 1992, Flow in bubble columns: some
phase Aow. Numerical Methods in Laminar and Turbu- numerical experiments. Chem. Engng Sci. 47, 1857-
lent Flow, Proceedings of the Fourth International 1869.
Conference held at Swansea. Rietema, K., 1982, Science and technology of dispersed
Geary, N. W. and Rice, R. G., 1992, Circulation and two-phase systems-I and II. Chem. Engng Sci. 37,
scale-up in bubble columns. A.I.Ch.E. I. 38, 7682. 1125-1150.
Gosman, A. D., Lekakou, C., Politis, S., Issa, R. I. and Salcudean, M., Lai, K. and Guthrie, I. L., 1985, Multi-
Looney, M. K., 1992, Multidimensional modeling of dimensional heat, mass and flow phenomena in gas
turbulent two-phase flows in stirred vessels. A.I.Ch.E. stirred reactors. Cnn. J. Chem. Engng 63, 57-61.
J. 38, 1946-1956. Schwarz, M. P. and Turner, W. J., 1988, Applicability of
Grevet, J. H., Szekely, J. and El-Kaddah, N., 19s1 An the standard k--E turbulence model to gas-stirred baths.
experimental and theoretica’ study of gas bubble driven Appl. Math. Modeiling 12, 273-279.
circulation systems. ht. J. Heat Mass Transfer 25, Sokolichin, A., Becker, S. and Eigenberger, G., 1994,
487497. Modellierung und numerische Simulation van G/L-
Grienberger, J. and Hofmann, I-I., 1992, Investigations Blasen-Str6mungen. Chem. Ing. Techn. 66, 505-510.
5746 A. SOKOLICHIN an id G. EIGENBERGER

Soaldine. D. B.. 1985. Cornouter simulation of two-ahase slurry reactors: a fundamental approach. Chem. Engng
a flowswith spdcial reference to nuclear reactor systems, Sci. 45,232s2332.
in Computational Techniques in Heat Transfer, pp. 14 TrlgBrdh, Ch., 1988, A hydrodynamic model for the
(Edited bv R. W. Lewis. K. Morgan. _ J. A. Johnson simulation of an aerated agitated fed-batch fermentor,
and W. R. Smith). Pineridge Press, Swansea. in Bioreactor Fluid Dvnamics. DD. 117-134. Elsevier
Svendscn, H. F., Jakobscn, H. A. and Torvik, R., 1992, Applied Science, Londbn. ’’
Local flow structures in internal loop and bubble Webb, C., Que, F. and Senior, P. R., 1992, Dynamic
column reactors. Chem. Engng Sci. 47, 3297-3304. simulation of gas-liquid dispersion behaviour in a 2-D
Thomas, N. H., Auton, T. R., Sene, K. and Hunt, bubble column usine a eraohics mini-suaercomnuter.
J. C. R., 1983, Entrapment and transport of bubbles in Chem. Engng Sci. 47: 33;5-j312. s ’
transient large eddies in multiphase turbulent shear Zehner. P., 1982, Impuls-. Stoff- und Wtirmetransport in
flows. International Conference on the Physical Model- Blasenslulen Teil i: Strijmungsmodell der Blas&slule
Iing of Multi-Phase Flows, pp. 16%184. Coventry, UK. und Fliissigkeitsgeschwindigkeit. VT Verfuhrenstechnik
Torvik, R. and Svendsen, H. F., 1990, Modelling of 16, 347-351.