Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 6351–6358

www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

2D and 3D simulations of an internal airlift loop reactor on the basis

of a two-&uid model
R. F. Mudde ∗ , H. E. A. Van Den Akker
Kramers Laboratorium voor Fysische Technologie, Delft University of Technology, Prins Bernhardlaan 6, 2628 BW Delft, Netherlands

Abstract
Two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) simulations of an airlift reactor under steady state conditions at low gas &ow rates
are presented. The simulations are based on a two-&uid model with a k– model for the turbulence and as little as possible ad
hoc closure terms. The results are compared with an one-dimensional mechanical energy balance and are found to be in good
agreement. The 2D results show sensitivity to the gas inlet geometry: whether or not the gas is partially sparged into the liquid
directly next to a wall a4ects the liquid velocity distribution and thereby the gas disengagement at the top of the airlift. The
three-dimensional calculations make a more realistic geometry possible. The friction in the system is found to be about a factor of
two larger in the 3D case at the same gas inlet conditions. For a given gas &ow rate, the mean gas fraction in the riser is the same
for the 2D and 3D simulations, the liquid circulation rate is about 30% higher in the 2D case than in the 3D one. A comparison
is made with experimental data obtained in an airlift of the same dimensions. The simulated overall gas fraction is in agreement
with the experimental 6ndings. The simulated super6cial velocity in the riser is compared to LDA data. For the lowest super6cial
velocities the LDA data coincide with the results from the 2D simulations, for higher gas &ow rates the LDA results switch over
towards the 3D results. ? 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Airlift; CFD; Two-&uid model; Turbulence; k– model

1. Introduction can be treated on the basis of a simple one-dimensional

Bubbly &ows are found in numerous chemical engi-
neering and bio-technology processes. These processes
rely on a good contact between a gas and liquid phase.
The airlift reactors are among di4erent types of reactors
available for such applications. The airlift is made of two
sections interconnected at top and bottom. One section
(the riser) is gassed, while the other (the downcomer) is
not. As a consequence of the density di4erence between
the bubbly mixture in the riser and the liquid in the down-
comer, the liquid starts to circulate. The airlift is popular
as a gas liquid contactor because it can handle large quan-
tities of liquid and gas on a continuous basis. Besides, it
has no moving parts, requires limited amount of energy
for its operation and exhibits good mass and heat trans-
fer characteristics. The hydrodynamics of airlift reactors
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: 31-15-278-1400; fax: 31-15-278-
2838.
E-mail address: r.f.mudde@klft.tn.tudelft.nl (R. F. Mudde).
mechanical energy balance that calculates the liquid
circulation by balancing the energy input via the gas
&ow to the dissipation due to friction (see e.g. Hsu &
Dudukovic, 1980; Verlaan, Tampert, Van’t Riet, & Luy-
ben, 1986; Chisti, Halrd, & Moo-Young, 1988; Van Ben-
thum, Van der Lans, Van Loosdrecht, & Heijnen, 1999;
See, Roberts, & SCaez, 1999). Mass and heat transfer as
well as chemical reactions are in one-dimensional forms
added to the hydrodynamical equations (e.g. Dhaouadi
et al., 1997; Muroyama, Norieda, Morioka, & Tsuji,
1999). The one-dimensional models are simple and
hence easy to solve. However, they do rely on empirical
input, like friction factors and axial dispersion coeF-
cients. These vary from one airlift to another. More im-
portantly, the details of the &ow at the top and bottom of
the riser and downcomer cannot be completely resolved.
As a result, the initial stages of contacting at the position
of the gas sparger and the phase separation zone cannot
be fully incorporated in the modeling. A greater degree
of detail of these &ows can, in principle, be obtained
via CFD. During the last few years several papers have

0009-2509/01/$ - see front matter ? 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 9 - 2 5 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 2 2 - 6
6352 R. F. Mudde, H. E. A. Van Den Akker / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 6351–6358

been published that deal with the bubbly two-phase &ow in the present simulations:
in airlift reactors (see e.g. Sokolichin & Eigenberger,  
@ṽr
1994; Cockx, LinCe, Roustan, Do-Quang, & Lazarova, Ĩ2 = −Ĩ1 = 2 1 fD ṽr + 2 1 CA + ṽ2 ·  ṽr
1997; Bagatin et al., 1999). In Cockx, Do-Quang, LinCe, @t
and Roustan (1999), hydrodynamics, mass transfer and +  · 2 1 CA ṽ2

ṽr

2 − 1 ṽ1

ṽ2

2 ·  2 : (1)
chemical reactions are calculated using CFD. In the
present paper, we present CFD simulations of the &ow in The drag is modeled as
a rectangular airlift reactor using a two-&uid model that 3 CD

takes into account the e4ects of the so-called drifting fD = |ṽ r |; |ṽ
r | = ṽr · ṽr + ṽr

· ṽr

2 (2)
4 d
velocity, virtual mass as well as bubble induced modi6-
cations of the turbulence. Both two-dimensional (using with
an in-house developed code (Lathouwers, 1999)) and 24
three-dimensional simulations (using FLUENT.V4.5) CD = (1 + 0:15 Re0:687 ): (3)
Re
are presented. The aim is to compare the two mutually
as well as with the simple one-dimensional mechanical The Reynolds number is based on the bubble motion
energy balance. Furthermore, we present gas fraction and and size. In Eq. (3) sometimes a term 1−1:7 is included.
liquid velocity data measured in an experimental facility Here, this is left out as the gas fractions are very low. The
of the same size as simulated. The liquid velocities were above drag formulation expresses that the slip velocity an
obtained by using laser doppler anemometry. individual bubble sees, is not equal to the relative mean
velocity, v2 − v1 . As a consequence of correlation between
the bubble motion and the turbulence in the liquid 6eld,
a drifting velocity, vd , has to be taken into account (see
2. Two-uid model Simonin & Viollet, 1990):

The two-&uid model can be derived by conditionally
ensemble averaging of the local instant conservation
equations of single-phase &ow (Delhaye, 1974; Drew,
1983). This results in two sets of mass, momentum and
energy balances that describe the &ow 6eld in terms of
averaged quantities. Both phases are treated incompress-
ible in the sense that the densities of the gas and liquid
are constant. As the system is isothermal, the energy
balances are not needed. Furthermore, mass transfer be-
tween the bubble and water phases is neglected. The
turbulence in the continuous water phase is modeled us-
ing a modi6ed k– model, giving rise to two additional
balance equations: for the turbulent kinetic energy, k1 ,
and for the dissipation rate, . The governing equations
are summed up in Table 1 (continuous: k = 1, dispersed:
k = 2).
In Table 1 k is the volume fraction, k the density,
ṽk the (averaged) velocity of each phase, p the mean
pressure of phase 1, ˜ ˜k the (molecular) shear stress and
Ĩk the interfacial momentum transfer between the phases
that remains after subtraction of the mean pressure of the


continuous phase; obviously 2k=1 Ĩk = 0. The quantity
k1 and

ṽk

is the &uctuating part of the local instantaneous ve-
locity of phase k, de6ned as the di4erence between the
ki 1 and
i include the e4ect of the in-
local instantaneous and the ensemble averaged velocity.
The terms denoted by
represent production of turbu- mer is given by (Bel F’Dhila & Simonin, 1992):
lent kinetic energy and dissipation.
ki 1 = 2 1 fD [ṽ1

· ṽ2

2 − 2k1 + ṽd · ṽr ]
2.1. Interfacial momentum transfer
Ĩk accounts for drag, virtual mass e4ects and turbulent
pressure. The lift force has not been taken into account
ṽr = [ṽ2 − ṽ1 ] − ṽd ;
 
˜t · 1 1
ṽd = ṽ1

2 = − D̃ 12  2 −  1 ; (4)
2 1
where the &uid-bubble turbulent dispersion tensor D12 t
is
expressed in terms of the turbulence characteristics of
the two phases, i.e. the covariance tensor between the
turbulent velocity &uctuations of the two phases and a
&uid-bubble turbulent characteristic time. The drifting
velocity is an important e4ect since the mass balances
do not contain a di4usive term that would be responsible
for the dispersion of the bubbles.
The second and third terms on the r.h.s. of Eq. (1)
represent the e4ects of virtual mass, while the last term
accounts for the correlation between the instantaneous
distribution of the particles and undisturbed &uid pressure
&uctuations, i.e. the e4ects of turbulent pressure (for a de-
tailed discussion see e.g. Bel F’Dhila & Simonin, 1992).
2.2. Turbulence modeling
In k– type turbulence models, the terms
denote the ordinary one-phase production and dissipation
terms. The terms
terfaces on the turbulence of the carrier phase. The for-
2
2 + 1 CA
(5)
with CA being the added-mass coeFcient, taken equal to
0.5. The latter is modeled according to Elgobashi and
 R. F. Mudde, H. E. A. Van Den Akker / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 6351–6358 6353

Table 1
Two-&uid equations
D k  k k
Mass =0
Dt
Dk k k ṽk  
Momentum = − k  p + k k g̃ −  · k [˜
˜k + ṽk  ṽk  k ] + Ĩk
Dt
 
D 1 1 1 k1 t
Kin. energy =  · 1 1  k1 + 1
k1 +
ki 1
Dt k 1

D 1 1 1  t
Dissipation =  · (1 1  ) + 1
 +
i
Dt 

Abou-Arab (1983):


i = C; 3
ki 1 : (6)
k1
For a more complete discussion, see e.g. Thai Van,
Minier, Simonin, Freydier, and Olive (1994); Bel F’Dhila
and Simonin (1992) or Lathouwers (1999).

2.3. Particle 8uctuations

The turbulent predictions of the dispersed bubble

phase are found by an extension of Tchen’s theory
(Simonin, 1990). Three time scales are of importance:
t1 , the characteristic time of the energetic turbulent
eddies (t1 = 32 C k1 =); F12 , the characteristic time of par-
ticle entrainment by the continuous &uid motion; t12 , the
Fig. 1. Geometry of the airlift reactor.
characteristic time of the &uid turbulence viewed by the
bubbles. The last two are given by

F 1 2
12 = + CA ;
fD 1
(7) 3. Airlift geometry
t t1 2 −1=2
12 = [1 + C r ]
k 1 The airlift is rectangular in shape, with a central riser
with r being the ratio of the characteristic time of the en- and two downcomer channels, one at each side of the
ergetic turbulent eddies to the characteristic transit time, riser, see Fig. 1. Air and water are taken as the two
t12 , required for the bubbles to cross the large eddies: phases.
The depth of the reactor is 12 cm. The riser and down-
t |ṽr |
comer are 13 and 10 cm in width, respectively. The height
r = t1 =  : (8)
12 2
k of the bubbly mixture is 6xed at 102 cm for all simula-
3 1
tions and experiments reported. Each internal wall sep-
The parameter C is set at 0.45 in the direction parallel arating the riser from the downcomer has a width of
to the mean relative velocity and at 1.80 in the normal 0:5 cm; it starts at a height of 10 cm above the bottom
directions. and ends 12 cm below the free surface of the mixture.
Finally, the turbulent kinetic energy of the dispersed The sparger is located in the bottom part of the riser. It
phase and the covariance ṽ1

· ṽ2

2 is given by is a rectangular box with the same cross-sectional area
 2 
b + r as the riser and a height of 6 cm. The gas enters the riser
k2 = k1 ; (9)
1+ r through the porous top lid of this box at 16 cm above the
  bottom of the airlift. The water circulation from down-
b+ r comer into the riser is made possible by having 4 × 4 &ow
ṽ1

· ṽ2

2 = 2k1 ; (10)
1+ r channels vertically through the sparger-box. At the bot-
r = t12 =F12 ; (11) tom, these channels are rectangular and ‘6ll’ the entire
cross-section. At the top of the box, their cross-section is
1 + CA circular with a diameter of 2:54 cm. The pitch is 3:04 cm;
b= : (12)
2 =1 + CA the minimum distance to the wall is 0:5 cm. This way,
6354 R. F. Mudde, H. E. A. Van Den Akker / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 6351–6358

the liquid enters the riser with vertical velocities only and
does not disturb the homogeneous gas distribution. The
height of the bubble mixture in the riser is 74 cm. The
air is introduced in the form of spherical bubbles with an
equivalent diameter of 3 mm.

3.1. Simulations

For the simulations, the boundary conditions at the

air inlet are set by prescribing a 6xed inlet velocity of
0:25 m=s and a given gas fraction . For the water phase,
all velocities are set zero at the sparger. The boundary
conditions at the solid walls are treated using standard
wall functions. The free surface is modeled as a free slip
surface for the water phase with zero normal velocity,
while for the gas phase it acts as an outlet with a 6xed,
vertical velocity of 0:20 m=s.
4. Mechanical energy balance
A one-dimensional model for the &ow is set up as-
suming: (i) steady-state, (ii) uniform gas fraction in the
riser, R , (iii) zero gas fraction in the downcomer: D = 0.
Then, a mechanical energy balance can be used to cal-
culate the liquid circulation velocity. The essence is that
the integral of the pressure gradient along a closed loop
through riser and one of the downcomers is zero. This
leads to the following relation between the driving grav-
itational force and the balancing friction:
Fig. 2. Two-dimensional air inlet: (a) air inlet next to internal wall
(2Da), (b) water channel next to internal wall (2Dw).
5. CFD results
5.1. Two-dimensional simulations
The 2D-version of the airlift is obtained by ignoring
the depth direction (see also Oey, Mudde, Portela, & Van
den Akker, 2001). The sparger is then made of several
aerating ‘strips’ separated by &ow channels. Two possi-
bilities are explored here (see Fig. 2): (a) the aerating
cells touch the internal wall (called 2Da), (b) there is a
water channel next to the wall (named 2Dw).
For the 2D simulations, grids of 34 × 102 (= hor ×
vert) cells are used. The two-dimensional code is a
6nite-volume based code, employing multi-grid and
GMRES techniques. Furthermore, it uses tvd-schemes to
keep the (bounded) scalar quantities, like the void frac-
tion ‘sharp’ (reduce the e4ects of numerical di4usion,
etc., see e.g. Lathouwers, 1999). A (false) time step of
 1 30 ms has been used. The choice of the time step in&u-
2
R liq gHR = Kj · liq Uliq; R (13)
j
2
with HR being the length of the gassed part of the riser.
Note that in this equation the downcomer velocity has
been eliminated for the averaged riser liquid velocity,
Uliq; R , by using the liquid mass balance. The riser gas
fraction and the gas and liquid &ow rate are coupled via
the Richardson and Zaki relation:
(1 − R )Ugas; R − R Uliq; R = v∞ R (1 − R )n (14)
with Ugas; R and Uliq; R the gas and liquid super6cial ve-
locities in the riser, respectively; v∞ is the slip veloc-
ity of a single bubble. The coeFcient n is a function
of the bubble-Reynolds number and is equal to 2.39 for
the present bubbles. The above two equations for the un-
known riser gas fraction and liquid circulation velocity
are easily solved. The friction factors are estimated us-
ing standard relations for wall friction and appendages.
The friction in the airlift is dominated by the ‘sudden’
expansion after the &ow channels through the sparger
and by the &ow reversal at both the entrance and exit
of
the riser. This gives, for the 3D-case, an estimate
of j Kj = 4:3.
ences the convergence behavior: if taken too large the
simulations diverge, if taken too small the computation
times go up. A typical simulation requires about 3000
(false) time steps for convergence, which is equivalent
to 2 h (lowest super6cial velocities) to 6 h (highest su-
per6cial velocities) of wall clock time on a 600 MHz
PC. The higher the super6cial velocity the slower the
convergence, the limiting factor being the pressure cor-
rection equation that requires more and more iterations
per time step for increasing gas &ow rate. All data pre-
sented concern steady state conditions. This limited the
simulation to the relatively low super6cial gas veloc-
ities reported here; at higher super6cial gas velocities
the simulations showed oscillations and convergence
became problematic. Two results are presented for a
mean riser gas fraction of 1.2% (Ugas; R = 0:58 cm=s) in
Fig. 3.
From Fig. 3 it is clear that a relatively small change
in the inlet geometry has serious consequences for the
&ow. In case the sparger touches the wall, the entire gas
distribution in the riser ‘leans over’ to the internal wall.
Consequently, the liquid velocity is also higher in the
wall region than in the center of the riser. This a4ects the
gas separation at the top. When increasing the gas &ow
 R. F. Mudde, H. E. A. Van Den Akker / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 6351–6358
Fig. 3. Liquid velocity 6eld and gas fraction distribution for 2D-simulations at Ugas; R = 0:58 cm=s: (a) sparger touches internal wall (2Da),
(b) water channel next to internal wall (2Dw).
rate, gas is dragged into the downcomer at lower values
of the gas &ow in case of the sparger touching the wall.
Indeed, the results of 2Dw are closer to the experiment
than the 2Da ones. Already at a super6cial gas velocity of
1:15 cm=s in case 2Da, a signi6cant gas fraction is found
at the entrance of the downcomer, whereas in case 2Dw
gas does not enter the downcomer at all. The latter is in
reasonable agreement with the experiments. The size of
the circulation cell at the entrance of the downcomer is
overpredicted by case 2Da. This is due to the liquid ve-
locity being high at the internal wall side of the riser exit.
In both cases the mixing of the separate bubble streams
is relatively slow: over roughly 1=3 of the riser the indi-
vidual plumes can still be seen.
For the 2Dw-cases, the mechanical energy balance has
been used to calculate the liquid &ow rate and the mean
gas fraction in the riser. Compared to the 3D case, the
friction is lower as the front and back wall are absent. Fur-
thermore, the friction at the top of the water channels in
the sparger is less. An e4ective value of K = 2:7 is used.
The results are given in Fig. 4. The agreement is quite
good on both the liquid &ow rate and the mean riser gas
fraction up to a super6cial gas velocity of 1:0 cm=s. Be-
yond that, the mechanical energy balance predicts higher
liquid circulation rates. This is caused by gas bubbles en-
trained in the downcomer: the mechanical energy balance
used here assumes that the downcomer is bubble free.
The simulation shows, that the gas bubbles can no longer
6355
escape completely from the increased liquid &ow at the
exit of the riser at the higher velocities.
5.2. Three-dimensional simulations
The three-dimensional simulations are performed us-
ing FLUENT.V4.5. Only one-quarter of the reactor is
simulated: the vertical plane through the riser as well as
the vertical plane between front and back wall through
the riser and both downcomers are assumed to be planes
of symmetry. Note that the two-&uid modeling used by
FLUENT.V4.5 deviates slightly from the model used in
the in-house developed 2D code. The production of tur-
bulence by the gas–liquid interphase does not contain the
6rst factor on the r.h.s. of Eq. (5). This is, for the ab-
solute value of the bubble induced production term, a
not-negligible di4erence as the virtual mass coeFcient is
of order 1. Furthermore, the interfacial drag coeFcient
fD is based on the relative mean velocity rather than on
the slip velocity corrected for the drifting velocity. Fi-
nally, FLUENT.V4.5 does not use the tvd-schemes.
The 3D base case grid has 104 × 36 × 10 (= height ×
width × depth, including walls, free surface and
symmetry planes) grid cells, giving a cell size of
Uh = 1 cm; Uw = 0:5 cm; Ud = 0:75 cm. A (false)
time step of 10 ms is choosen. As in the 2D simulations
this is based on the convergence behavior. A typical
6356 R. F. Mudde, H. E. A. Van Den Akker / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 6351–6358

Fig. 4. Comparison of mechanical energy balance and CFD simulations for various gas &ow rates. The open squares show the sensitivity in the
3D simulations to grid doubling in the x; y; z directions, respectively; the diamonds represent the riser velocity obtained from the LDA-exp.

Fig. 5. Sparger geometry: (a) top view of checker board con6guration of the gas inlet: i = inlet (gray), L = life cell (white), wall = front wall
(dark), internal wall = wall separating left downcomer from riser (dark), symm = symmetry plane (light gray); (b) cells of the inlet neighboring
a life cell are split, outer cells are set to wall.

simulation on the standard grid used about 2 days of wall
clock time on a 450 MHz PC.
Originally, the aerating cells at the outside of a sparging
area were directly connected to life cells that form the
&ow channels through the sparger. As this con6guration
led to convergence problems, the outer cells of a sparger
area were split in the horizontal planes such that the inner
parts were still sparging and the outer parts were turned
into walls (see Fig. 5). This re6nement resulted in a grid
of h × w × d = 104 × 44 × 14. Fig. 6 gives the gas fraction
distribution and liquid velocity in a few representative
planes (horizontal ones for the gas fraction, vertical for
the velocity). Again the in&uence of the separate plumes
can be seen high in the riser. Furthermore, the gas fraction
above the two air inlet parts touching the internal wall is
higher than at other positions in the same horizontal plane.
Once gas moves along the wall, it is not easily mixed
into the bulk. This a4ects the liquid velocity distribution
as can be seen in Fig. 6b. The velocity is larger close
to the internal wall than in the center of the riser. This
e4ect is stronger in vertical planes that cut through the
sparger touching the internal wall (k = 3 in Fig. 6b). The
liquid velocity pro6les show similarities with case 2Da.
However, no gas is dragged into the downcomer at the
gas &ow rates investigated.
5.2.1. Comparison simulations and energy balance
A comparison between simulated circulation velocities
and calculated from the mechanical energy balance shows
that the two are in agreement when an e4ective friction
coeFcient of 5 is taken, which is close to the estimated
value of 4.3. However, the simulated mean riser gas frac-
tion is lower than the calculated ones. This is in contrast
with the 2D simulations, where both the liquid circula-
tion rate and the mean gas fraction can be made to agree
with the mechanical energy balance. In the 3D case, the
individual plumes penetrate further into the riser. This is
probably causing the missmatch between simulations and
one-dimensional analysis (where the riser gas fraction is
assumed to be uniform).
To test the accuracy, simulations with a doubling of
the grid in the x; y and z directions, respectively, are per-
formed. The in&uence is small, see Fig. 6 at a super6cial
gas velocity of 0:374 cm=s.
 R. F. Mudde, H. E. A. Van Den Akker / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 6351–6358
Fig. 6. Gas fraction and liquid velocity distribution for a 3D-simulation at Ugas; R = 0:374 cm=s: (a) gas fraction; (b) liquid velocity.
Fig. 7. Comparison of simulated overall gas fraction and experimental
data.
5.2.2. Comparison simulations and experimental data
The increase of the liquid level as a function of the
gas &ow rate is measured experimentally. From the data,
the relation between the averaged total gas fraction in the
airlift reactor is obtained. The predictions of the simula-
tions (both 2D and 3D) are compared to the experiments
in Fig. 7.
6357
As expected, the 2D simulations under predict the
overall gas fraction due to the relatively high circulation
rate. According to Fig. 7 the 3D simulations over pre-
dict the gas fraction suggesting that the circulation rate
might be under predicted. This is con6rmed by compar-
ing LDA-data obtained in the riser. A scan through the
center of the riser at a height of 74 cm was made with a
reference beam LDA-set up, measuring the vertical liq-
uid velocity. From the scan it was found, that the liquid
velocity pro6le was asymmetric: the velocity increases
from the front wall to the back. To compare the simu-
lated data with the experimental ones, the space-averaged
experimental data were taken. They are plotted in
Fig. 6b together with the simulated super6cial riser liquid
velocities and the predictions by the mechanical energy
balance. The experimental data seem to cross over from
the 2D to the 3D predictions. However, due to the asym-
metry in the liquid velocity data, no 6rm conclusions can
be drawn.
6. Concluding remarks
Two- and three-dimensional simulations of a rectangu-
lar airlift at low gas fractions have been performed using
a two-&uid model that takes into account the e4ect of the
drifting velocity, virtual mass and turbulence production
6358 R. F. Mudde, H. E. A. Van Den Akker / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 6351–6358
and dissipation by the bubbles. The results are found to
be sensitive to the exact geometry of the gas sparger. The
dispersion of the bubbles in the riser is found to be too
weak to eliminate the inlet e4ect. This has consequences
for the liquid velocity distribution, that in its turn a4ects
the disengagement of the bubbles at the top of the air-
lift. The simulations show a reasonable to good agree-
ment with predictions of the riser gas fraction and liq-
uid circulation velocity from a simple one-dimensional
model. The two-dimensional simulations do predict the
right behavior, albeit that the circulation rate is overpre-
dicted and consequently the gas fraction underpredicted
due to the lower friction present in a 2D system. The in-
vestigation indicates that CFD of airlift reactors can be
used to model, design or tune airlift reactors. A detailed
comparison with experiments is needed to see whether or
not the details of the &ow are simulated well.
References
Bagatin, R., Andrigo, P., Protto, L., Maestri, F., Di Muzio, F., Masi,
M., & CarraCa, S. (1999). Fluid dynamics of gas–liquid airlift
reactors through cfd packages. In PVP-Vol. 397-1, Computational
technologies for 8uid=thermal=structural=chemical systems with
industrial applications (pp. 293–303). New York: ASME.
Bel F’Dhila, R., & Simonin, O. (1992). Eulerian prediction of a
turbulent bubbly &ow downstream a sudden pipe expansion. Sixth
workshop on two-phase 8ow predictions, Erlangen, Germany.
Chisti, M. Y., Halrd, B., & Moo-Young, M. (1988). Liquid circulation
in airlift reactors. Chemical Engineering Science, 43(3), 451–457.
Cockx, A., Do-Quang, Z., LinCe, A., & Roustan, M. (1999). Use of
computational &uid dynamics for simulating hydrodynamics and
mass transfer in industrial ozonation towers. Chemical Engineering
Science, 54(21), 5085–5090.
Cockx, A., LinCe, A., Roustan, M., Do-Quang, Z., & Lazarova,
V. (1997). Numerical simulation and physical modeling of the
hydrodynamics in an air-lift internal loop reactor. Chemical
Engineering Science, 52(21=22), 3787–3793.
Delhaye, J. (1974). Jump conditions and entropy sources in
two-phase systems. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 1,
395–409.
Dhaouadi, H., Poncin, S., Hornut, J., Wild, G., Oinas, P., & Korpijari,
J. (1997). Mass transfer in an external-loop airlift reactor:
Experiments and modeling. Chemical Engineering Science,
52(21=22), 3909–3917.
Drew, D. (1983). Mathematical modelling of two-phase &ow. Annual
Review of Fluid Mechanics, 15, 261–291.
Elgobashi, S., & Abou-Arab, T. (1983). A two-equation turbulence
model for two-phase &ows. Physics of Fluids, 26(4), 931–938.
Hsu, Y., & Dudukovic, M. P. (1980). Gas holdup and liquid
recirculation in gas-lift reactors. Chemical Engineering Science,
35, 135–141.
Lathouwers, D. (1999). Modelling and simulation of turbulent
bubbly 8ow. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, The
Netherlands.
Muroyama, K., Norieda, T., Morioka, A., & Tsuji, T. (1999).
Hydrodynamics and computer simulation of an ozone oxidation
reactor for treating drinking water. Chemical Engineering Science,
54, 5285–5292.
Oey, R., Mudde, R., Portela, L., & Van den Akker, H. (2001).
Simulation of a slurry airlift using a two-&uid model. Chemical
Engineering Science, 56(2), 673–681.
See, K. H., Roberts, G., & SCaez, A. E. (1999). E4ect of darg
and frictional losses on the hydrodynamics of gas-lift reactors.
A.I.Ch.E. Journal, 45(11), 2467–2471.
Simonin, O. (1990). Eulerian formulation for particle dispersion in
turbulent two-phase &ows. In: Sommerfeld & Wennerberg (Eds.),
Fifth workshop on two-phase 8ow predictions. (pp. 156 –166).
Erlangen, Germany.
Simonin, O., & Viollet, P. (1990). Modelling of turbulent two-phase
jets loaded with discrete particles. In: F. G. Hewitt et al. (Eds.),
Phenomena in multiphase 8ow. (pp. 259 –269). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Sokolichin, A., & Eigenberger, G. (1994). Gas–liquid &ow in
bubble columns and loop reactors: Part i. Detailed modelling and
numerical simulation. Chemical Engineering Science, 49(24B),
5735–5746.
Thai Van, D., Minier, J., Simonin, O., Freydier, P., & Olive,
J. (1994). Multidimensional two-&uid model computation of
turbulent dispersed two-phase &ows. ASME, Numerical Methods
in Multiphase Flows, FED-185, 277–291.
Van Benthum, W., Van der Lans, R., Van Loosdrecht, M., & Heijnen,
J. (1999). Bubble recirculation regimes in an internal-loop airlift
reactor. Chemical Engineering Science, 54, 3995–4006.
Verlaan, P., Tampert, J., Van’t Riet, K., & Luyben, K. (1986). A
hydrodynamic model for an airlift-loop bioreactor with external
loop. Chemical Engineering Journal, 33, B43–B53.