Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The two-phase flow resulting from the bottom injection of gus into u liquid bath, constrained to be
axisymmetric, is modelled by governing eyuutions that incorporute the virtuul mass and purticle lift
forces and u diffusive interfuciul force. The equations ure solved numerically by using the transient,
two-fluid-jlow program K-FIX. Both the bath and the top space ure included in the culculation domain,
but attention is focused on the central plume. Inclusion of terms describing the virtual muss ,force
together with a force due to microscopic bulk pressure d$firences ure found to ensure formal stubility
of a simplified case for all admissible parameter values; this ulso en.sures numerical stability in pructice.
The particle lift force, together with a diff&sive interfuciul force, is shonpn to ticcount for the observed
spreading of the plume, the vertical variation in the centerline voidfruction, und the mugnitude of the
bubble rise velocity in the upper half of the plume: however, although the void,fraction is udequately
predicted uwuy from the centerline, the off-center bubble velocity rrmuins poorly determined despite
only small errors in the culculated gas jlonj rate ut d@erant heights.
Keywords: two-phase flow, gas injection, numerical model, lift force, diffusive force
0 1990 Butterworth Publishers Appl. Math. Modelling, 1990, Vol. 14, February 67
Two-phase flow in a liquid with bottom gas injection: M. R. Davidson
sion of interphase mass diffusion terms in a two-fluid Brimacombe13 (who measured the gas fraction and gas
model, such terms do not occur in existing two-fluid velocity in the plume) in a calculation covering both
model equations derived by averaging the microscopic the liquid and gas top space regions. The predicted
flow equations (see, for example, Refs. 14-16). In these steady void fraction and gas velocity distributions are
models, interpenetration of the phases occurs solely compared with the corresponding time-averaged ex-
by the advection of each phase separately according perimental data. Prediction of bath circulation using
to its own velocity field and is determined by the cou- this model is considered elsewhere.23
pling of phase interaction effects with the advection
and diffusion of momentum; only in the corresponding
mixture formulation of two-phase flow do terms appear
The model
in the continuity equations that are interpreted as dif-
fusion of the dispersed phase relative to the mixture. We consider isothermal, axially symmetric flow in a
An interaction force that may account for the ob- cylindrical vessel (shown schematically in Figure I) of
served spreading of the plume during bottom gas in- radius CIand height H having an initial depth h of liquid
jection, and that is not included in current models of and a centrally located orifice of radius r0 at the bottom
gas-agitated flows, is particle lift. This is an inertial through which gas is injected. Although the assumption
effect, which has been observed and analyzed for of axial symmetry is expected to be valid for the ex-
Poiseuiffe flow in tubes, whereby a spherical particle periment simulated here, it is not valid in general be-
travelling more quickly (or slowly) than the local fluid cause of the presence of surface waves and a preces-
velocity migrates away from (or toward) the faster- sion of the plume about the centerline. (Castillejos and
moving fluid at the centerline (see Ref. 17, p. 229). A Brimacombe mounted an annular baffle near the bath
similar lift force has also been predicted theoretically surface to dampen such motions.)
in unbounded simple shear flow (see the review by The equations governing the transient motion of each
Lawler and Lur8). Further, Drew and Laheyr5 and phase have the following general form,r6 assuming that
DrewI have presented generalized expressions for the each phase is incompressible and no phase change oc-
phase interaction force (including lift), and Drew and curs:
Laheyi9 have shown that inclusion of the lift force
together with the drag and their form of the virtual 2 + V*(Ly& = 0 (continuity) (1)
mass force is necessary for the combination to reduce
to that calculated for a single sphere. A familiar ex-
a~kpkuk
ample, which may well illustrate the action of lift, is ___ + v~(~&p&u&u&)
the suspension of a sphere in a vertical jet; since the at
sphere is either stationary or moving more slowly than = -~&VP& - ffkpkgf + (Pki - P~IV~I,
the fluid, any tendency for it to topple will be countered + Mx + v-(a& (momentum) (2)
by a restoring force toward the faster-moving fluid at
the center. Here p, cy, II, p, 7, g, and 2 denote density, volume
An inter-facial force associated with bubble disper- fraction, velocity vector, average pressure, viscous
sion is also of likely importance in the plume, where stress tensor (including turbulent stresses), gravita-
gradients in void fraction can be significant. Such a tional acceleration, and the upward vertical unit vec-
diffusive force, proportional to the gradient of void
fraction, has been proposed by Drew and Lahey.‘O
More recently, Lee and Weisler2’ described the phys-
ical mechanisms of particle dispersion in turbulent flow;
GAS TOP SPACE
1
the instantaneous drag on a fluid eddy is greatest, and
hence the amplitude of the oscillation is least, when
the eddy is moving in the direction of increasing par-
ticle concentration. The uneven amplitude of such os-
cillations results in the ratchetlike motion of entrained
particles away from the region of high particle con- H
centration. In general, the degree of particle dispersion
will depend on the concentration gradient, the fre-
quency and amplitude of oscillation, and the instan-
taneous drag force, which in turn depends on the par-
ticle/fluid properties.
In this paper the modelling of two-phase flow in a 1
liquid bath resulting from centered gas injection at the
bottom is reconsidered, with attention focused on the
plume, and the effect of including the particle lift and -220
diffusive inter-facial force is investigated. The transient,
two-phase fluid flow computer program K-FIX22 is Figure 1. Schematic representation of the liquid bath and the
used to simulate an experiment of Castillejos and central plume
tor, respectively. Subscript k refers to either the gas function of void fraction, bubble diameter, fluid prop-
(k = g) or liquid (k = 1) phase, and erties, and relative velocity. The second term describes
the virtual mass force that arises because the accel-
cryx+ cY/= I (3) eration of gas bubbles must overcome the inertia of
The pressure pki represents the average pressure of displaced liquid. The corresponding acceleration artm
phase k at microscopic phase interfaces, and MA con- is given in equation (10) in the frame-indifferent (math-
sists of phase interaction terms (for example, drag, ematically objective) form derived by Drew et al.‘x The
virtual mass, particle lift, diffusive force), where last term in equation (9) represents the lift force that
arises from the relative motion of the phases in cross-
M,= -M, (4) stream velocity gradients. (Note that Drew and Lahey’”
The term (pAi - pn)Vak in equation (2) has also been recently redefined the virtual mass and lift terms, keep-
derived by Pauchon and Banerjee,‘4 who noted that ing the sum of these terms unchanged; however, their
earlier partitioning is used in equation (9).) Here C,,,
Pxi - Pr = 0 (3
is the virtual mass coefficient, A is a parameter, and L
is a good approximation for gas bubbles and showed is the lift coefficient. Also, the lift term is written in
that terms of gradients of the mixture velocity (u,,) rather
than the liquid velocity; this is discussed later. For an
P/i - Pl = -&dug - U/I2 (6) isolated, rigid spherical bubble,”
with 5 = $ for potential flow around an isolated sphere
c,,,,, = a A=2 L = - 2C, ,,@I (12)
of constant radius. A similar expression has also been
proposed by Stuhmiller.25 Since pli - pl should ap- corresponding to the limit of low void fraction. Note
proach zero at high void fraction, we set that this expression for L differs by a factor of 2 from
that given in earlier work ‘h,2hbased on less convincing
I$= t( 1 - (Y&J (7) arguments. We now consider each term comprising M,
Assuming that equations (5) and (6) apply and neglect- and the viscous stress term in equation (2) in more
ing surface tension (relative to the much larger dynamic detail.
pressures) so that
Pai = P/i (8)
determines all but one of the four unknown pressures, Drug coefjcirnt
the remaining pressure forming part of the solution of
Following Cook and Harlow,2y we set
equations (1) and (2).
Problems with numerical stability have plagued the
calculation of two-phase flo~s,~~ and in recent years, (13)
considerable effort has been devoted to the accurate
modelling of phase interaction effects as a means of where C,) is the drag coefficient for a single bubble
stabilizing numerical calculations. Apparently unim- and rh denotes bubble radius. Typically, large bubbles
portant physical effects can become important at short generated at the orifice break up to form a stable dis-
wavelengths, thus preventing their rapid growth and tribution of bubble sizes, bubbles at the edge of the
the consequent onset of instability.” Here we assume plume being smaller than those at the center.“’ How-
the following form for M,, based on the work of Drew ever, in the present work we ignore the distribution of
and Laheyrs and the review by Drew’? bubble sizes and factors such as bubble breakup and
coalescence by assuming a uniform value of Y,,.Equa-
M, = K u/ - u, - Drf(Vap + ax C,-,dvb,,, tion (I 3) is simply the expression for K for spherical
*I: ) bubbles at low void fraction multiplied by (I - CQ,)to
give the correct limit at high void fraction. This form
+ a,L(u, - u,1.; mm + (Vu,,JT) (9) for K gave better overall results than the alternative
of using the detailed mixture-based correlations of Ishii
where and Zuber” for steadily rising interacting bubbles.
From Ishii and Zuber” the drag coefficient of a
ar:m= ($+n,Cu,) - (%+u,.~u,)
single bubble in a liquid, corresponding to the various
flow regimes, is
+ (1 - h)(u, - u,).V(u, - u,) (IO)
Cnl = g(l + 0.1Re0.75)
and
(viscous regime) (14a)
nl?l = Lygug+ a/u/ (1 I) 2112
a-4 o.25
The first term in equation (9) represents the interfacial C,,, = - Re 7
3 ( P/c- )
drag force in which -D, V~,/(Y, denotes the appar-
(distorted particle regime) (14b)
ent mean drift velocity of liquid relative to the gas
phase due to turbulent dispersion and where K is a CL)3= B (churn turbulent regime) (14c)
ffY
of objectivity and added further support for their gen-
eralized formulation of the virtual mass force and par- upon substitution of equation (13). The effective bub-
V, = $fd, (26) From Figure 2 the spread of the plume is well pre-
dicted at all heights; the centerline void fraction is also
Since the orifice diameter has only an indirect effect
predicted within IO%, very close agreement occurring
on the bubble velocity at the orifice through equations
at heights exceeding 10 cm. However, for the 28 x 48
(23)-(26), we assume that the gas enters the bath with
grid the shape of the calculated void fraction profile
the bubble velocity V, through an apparent orifice hav-
progressively deviates from the observed Gaussian shape
ing a diameter equal to the bubble diameter d, and that
with increasing height as the profile maximum moves
the void fraction (Ye,immediately behind the orifice is
away from the centerline. (Offset void profile maxima
given by
are expected when the plume precesses, but this does
Q not occur here.) Coincidently, predicted vertical bub-
% = 0.25V,rd; ble velocities agree well with the corresponding ex-
perimental centerline values in the upper half of the
with the vertical liquid velocity at the orifice set to plume. However, they are too low away from the cen-
zero. Substituting equations (25) and (26) into (27) gives terline (Figure 3); this is attributed to the overpre-
a0 = 4/9. The above approach ensures that the correct diction of off-center void fractions, since the steady-
gas volume and momentum enter the bath and is similar state volume flux of gas through the plume must be
to the approach taken by Durst et al.* for very slow constant. Errors in the volumetric gas flow rate, cal-
bubbling. Note that the calculated void fraction im- culated at each height shown in Figures 2 and 3 by
mediately above the orifice depends on the total gas integrating the product of the void fraction and vertical
flux and the local flow and will usually be greater than gas velocity over the bath cross-section, were found
a,, . to range from 0.02% to 4%. Refinement of the mesh
We simulate an air-water experiment of Castillejos in a calculation that omits the gas top space (to mini-
and Brimacomber3 for which Q = 876 Ncm3/s, a = mize computation time) shows that the solution pre-
25 cm, h = 40 cm, and 2r,, = 0.635 cm, and we set sented here for the 28 x 48 grid is grid independent.
H = 60 cm. The actual flow rate Q,) at operating con- When the coarser 14 x 24 grid is used, rather than the
ditions (assumed to be atmospheric pressure plus the 28 x 48 grid, the central dimple in the calculated void
hydrostatic head at 20°C) is 905.15 cm’/s. Calculations fraction distribution disappears, so the void fraction
are performed by using 14 x 12, 14 x 24, and 28 x profiles are almost geometrically similar and Gaussian,
48 internal grids. In the first two cases, Ar = 1.7857
cm and is approximately equal to id,. We set the virtual
mass parameters C, = 1 and A = I .8 and the bubble
radius rb = 0.35 cm, corresponding to the mean bubble
radius found experimentally at this flow rate.‘j
Initially, the bath is assumed to be stagnant with the
gas jet being turned on at time t = 0+ . We set the
time step At = 10d4 s for the first 100 steps and At =
10mi s thereafter. Time stepping is continued until there
is no apparent change in the void fraction and velocity
patterns over a 0.2-s time period. At each time step
after the initial few the internal pressure iteration is
r---lT-l
z=14cm z=19cm
continued until equation (1) is satisfied everywhere to 08
?3
within 10P3; this ensures that the calculated difference 5 0.6
between the overall gas flow rates in and out is ac- d
y 0.4
ceptably small (O-5%). However, in the first few time D
steps the error in the pressure iteration is relaxed to 9 0.2
lo-‘-lo-* to reduce the computational effort associ- 00
ated with rapid changes as the gas jet is turned on.
0.8
5
E
a 0.6
E
0
Notation References
a radius of the bath I Szekely, J., Wang, H. J. and Kiser, K. M. Flow pattern ve-
locity and turbulent energy measurements and predictions in
a“m virtual acceleration a water model of an argon-stirred ladle. Metall. Trans. B 1976,
CL) drag coefficient 7B, 287-295
Ct?? virtual mass constant in equation (17) 2 Deb Roy.T., Mazumdar, A. K. and Spalding, D. 9. Numerical
c urn virtual mass coefficient prediction of recirculation flows with free convection encoun-
tered in gas-agitated reactors. Appl. Math. Mode//kg 1978, 2,
4, d, major and minor axes of assumed ellip-
146-150
soidal bubbles at the orifice 3 Sahai. Y. and Guthrie, R. I. L. Hydrodynamics of gas stirred
effective bubble dispersion coefficient melts. Part II: Axisymmetric flows. Metall. Trans. B 1982,13B,
F bubble frequency at the orifice 203-2 I I
4 Grevet, J. H., Szekely, J. and El-Kaddah. N. An experimental
F? gravitational acceleration
and theoretical study of gas bubble driven circulation systems.
h initial depth of liquid Internat. .I. Heat Mass Transfer 1982. 25, 487-497
H height of liquid plus top space 5 Mazumdar, D. and Guthrie, R. I. L. Hydrodynamic modelling
K drag function of some gas injection procedures in ladle metallurgy operations.
L lift coefficient Metal/. Trans. B 1985, 16B, 83-90
interfacial forces on phase k 6 McKelliget, J. W., Cross, M. and Gibson, R. D. A turbulent
Mk fluid flow model of gas agitated reactors. Appl. Math. Mod-
N dimensionless group defined by equation el/inn 1982, 6, 469-480
(22) 7 Cross, M., Markatos, N. C. and Aldham, C. Gas injection in
Pk, Pki bulk pressure and pressure at micro- ladle processing. CONTROL ‘84: Proceedings of‘ the First In-
scopic interfaces, respectively, in ternaiional Symposium on Automutic Control in Mineral Pro-
cessinP and Process Metalluwv. AIME-SME, 1984, PP. 291-297
phase k 8 Durst:‘F., Schonung, B., Sel&ger, K. and Winter, .G. Bubble-
Pn7Pni bulk pressure and pressure at micro- driven liquid flows. J. Fluid Mech. 1986, 170, 53-82
scopic interfaces, respectively, in the 9 Koh, P. T. L., Markatos, N. C. and Cross, M. Numerical
gas phase simulation of gas-stirred liquid baths with a free surface. Phys-
ice-Chemical Hydrodynumics 1987, 9, 197-207
Pl? P/i bulk pressure and pressure at micro-
10 Schwarz, M. P.. Wright, J. K. and Baldock, B. R. Measure-
scopic interfaces, respectively, in the ment and simulation of the flow in an iron bath stirred with
liquid phase bottom-injected nitrogen. Muthematical Modelling of Mute-
Q, Qo volumetric gas flow rate at STP and at riuls Processing Operations. The Metallurgical Society, War-
operating conditions, respectively rendale. PA, U.S.A., 1987. pp. 565-579
II Schwarz. M. P. and Turner, W. J. Applicability of the standard
r, Ar radius and radial grid spacing, respec- k-6 turbulence model to gas-stirred baths. Appl. Muth. Mod-
tively elling 1988, 12, 273-279
rb mean bubble radius 12 Schwarz, M. P. Two and three dimensional models of a gas-
r, orifice radius stirred bath of molten pig iron. PHOENICS J. 1989, 1, 282-
half-value radius of the plume 310
rI/2
13 Castillejos, A. H. and Brimacombe, J. K. Structure of turbulent
Re bubble Reynolds number defined by gas-liquid plumes in vertically injected jets. SCANINJECT IV:
equation (16) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on lnjec-
time and time step, respectively tion Metallurgy, Lulea. Sweden. 1986, pp. 16:l-16:34
velocity of phase k 14 Ishii, M. Thermo-Jluid Dynumic Theory of Two-Phase Flow.
Eyrolles. Paris, 1975
velocity of gas and liquid phases, and I5 Drew, D. A. and Lahey, R. T. Application of general consti-
mixture, respectively tutive principles to the derivation of multidimensional two-
u,, vk radial and vertical velocity components, phase flow equations. Internut. J. Multiphase Flow 1979, 5,
respectively, of phase k 243-264
bubble rise velocity at the orifice 16 Drew, D. A. Mathematical modelling of two-phase flow. Ann.
Rev. Fluid Mech. 1983. 15, 261-291
height above the orifice and vertical grid 17 Clift, R., Grace, J. R. and Weber, M. E. Bubbles, Drops, und
spacing, respectively Particles. Academic, London, 1978
upward vertical unit vector 18 Lawler, M. T. and Lu, P. The role of lift in the radial migration
volume fraction of phase k of particles in a pipe flow. Advances in Solid-Liquid Flow in
Pipes and its Application, ed. I. Zandi. Pergamon, New York,
volume fraction of gas and liquid phases, 1971, pp. 39-57
respectively I9 Drew, D. A. and Lahey, R. T. The virtual mass and lift force
mean plume void fraction on a sphere in rotating and straining inviscid flow. Internat. J.
apparent void fraction behind the orifice Multiphase Flow 1987, 13, 113-121
parameter in equation (10) 20 Drew. D. A. and Lahey, R. T. Interfacial dissipation in two-
phase flow. Basic Mechanisms in Two-Phase Flow and Heat
liquid viscosity Transfer. ASME, Chicago, 1980, pp. 47-51
eddy viscosity of phase k 21 Lee. S. L. and Wiesler, M. A. Theory on transverse migration
gas-liquid interfacial tension of particles in a turbulent two-phase suspension flow due to
density of phase k turbulent diffusion-l. Internat. J. Multiphase Flow 1987, 13,
99-111
density of gas and liquid phases, respec-
22 Rivard, W. C. and Torrey, M. D. K-FIX: A computer program
tively for transient, two-dimensional, two-fluid flow. Rept. No.
viscous stress tensor LA-NUREG-6623, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 1977
given by equation (7) 23 Davidson, M. R. Numerical simulation of two-phase flow aris-