Anda di halaman 1dari 15

I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF C HEMICAL

R EACTOR E NGINEERING
Volume 2 2004 Article A30

Application of CFD Modelling Technique in


Engineering Calculations of Three-Phase
Flow Hydrodynamics in a Jet-Loop Reactor

Roman G. Szafran∗ Andrzej Kmiec†


Wroclaw University of Technology, roman.szafran@pwr.wroc.pl

Wroclaw University of Technology, andrzej.kmiec@pwr.wroc.pl

ISSN 1542-6580
Copyright 2004
c by the authors.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, bepress, which has been given
certain exclusive rights by the author.
Application of CFD Modelling Technique in
Engineering Calculations of Three-Phase Flow
Hydrodynamics in a Jet-Loop Reactor
Roman G. Szafran and Andrzej Kmiec

Abstract
The hydrodynamics of a down flow jet-loop reactor with a gas-liquid-solid
three-phase system in semi-industrial scale were investigated. The Eulerian-Eulerian
modelling approach was applied to predict flow behaviour in the reactor. A com-
mercially available, control-volume-based code FLUENT 6.1 was chosen to carry
out the computer simulations. In order to reduce computational times and required
system resources, the 2D axisymmetric segregated solver was chosen. The influ-
ence of different k-e turbulence models, as well as, different types of meshes on
velocity profiles in each phase was analyzed. The unstructured mesh reduces dis-
crepancies on the axis of symmetry caused by the axisymmetric solver and is more
accurate. The prediction error of the water circulation rate ratio for a gas-liquid
system was only 3.6 % and about 15 % for gas-liquid-solid system. Unfortunately
the gas hold-up was not predicted properly.

KEYWORDS: CFD, Modelling, Jet-loop reactor, Multiphase reactors, Hydrody-


namics, Multiphase flow
Szafran and Kmiec: CFD Modelling of a Jet-Loop Reactor 1

1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays jet-loop reactors with gas-liquid and gas-liquid-solid systems are successfully applied in both the
chemical and petrochemical industries, as well as, in biotechnology and environment engineering. They are
characterized by high values of heat and mass transfer coefficients, excellent dispersion of gas phase and high gas
hold-up (Havelka et al., 2000). Also, they have a simple and compact design, a high degree of reliability and
consume relatively low power, which leads to low investment and operating costs. They are recommended to carry
out heterogeneous catalytic processes such as chlorinations, hydrogenations, phosgenations and amininations (Tinge
& Casado, 2002).
They may be utilized as bioreactors for fermentation, waste water treatment, biodesulfurization of petroleum,
enzymatic synthesis of organic acids and alcohols, and finally for production of acetate (Jamshidi et al., 2001).

The aim of this work is to verify an Eulerian-Eulerian modelling approach to determine the hydrodynamics
of the three-phase gas-liquid-solid system in a down flow jet-loop reactor on a semi industrial scale. There are many
works in which a great deal of agreement of simulations with experimental data were found but they were for single-
phase or gas-liquid two-phase flows only. Unfortunately, at the moment, CFD cannot be applied to simulations of
three-phase systems with the same level of confidence as in simple models. Recently Chen and Fan (2004) proposed
an advanced 3-D model based on the level-set interface tracking method (similar to VOF method) coupled with
Lagrangian particle motion equation for discrete simulations of a gas-liquid and a gas-liquid-solid bubble column,
which take into account the bubbles collisions, their breakage and coalescence. This model provides extensive
knowledge about bubble rising and its flow hydrodynamics, but is inapplicable for industrial scale reactors because
of its extremely high computational demand. Gamwo et al. (2003) proposed two CFD models based on Eulerian-
Eulerian approach for optimization of a three-phase pilot plant slurry bubble reactor for methanol synthesis. Also,
Mudde and Simonin (1999) conducted 2-D and 3-D simulations of a bubble plume using a two-fluid (Eulerian-
Eulerian) model.

The main aim of this work is to experimentally verify results of simulations and to answer the question: if
standard performance of popular, commercially available computational fluid dynamics code FLUENT 6.1 is
enough to solve the problem with the accuracy and productivity appropriate for engineering calculations on a PC
class machine? In particular, it is important to determine the optimal mesh and solution parameters while at the same
time providing evidence with experimental data and high computational efficiency. The Eulerian-Eulerian approach
and 2-D geometry of mesh were chosen in our study because of their computational advantages, simplicity and
ability to be applied in an industrial scale reactor. To qualify and quantify the heat and mass transfer behaviour, as
well as, reaction kinetics it is necessary to understand thoroughly the flow structure of these reactors.

2. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
In order to validate the numerical model the experimental investigations in a jet-loop reactor in semi-industrial scale
were carried out. The shape and arrangement of the reactor were as presented in Figure 1. The reactor consists of a
tank 0.296 m in diameter and 0.87 m high with the total volume of 55.6 dm3. The ejector, fixed at the top of the
cover, was a two-fluid nozzle consisting of a liquid nozzle of circular shape at the centre of which a stainless steel
tubing was rigidly fixed as shown in the paper by Kmiec (1997). The air stream sucked-in was circulated with water
and solid suspension inside of the reactor. The flow rate of liquid measured by rotameter is controlled by means of
valves. The silica gel particles were used as solids, whose density was 1730 kg/m3 and whose diameter measured 0.6
– 0.8 mm.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2004


2 International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering Vol. 2 [2004], Article A30

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of jet-loop reactor with three-phase system

The installation already used in our earlier investigations (Kmiec, Szczepaniak & Abdul-Latif, 1994, Kmiec et al.
2003) was improved as presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of experimental setup: 1 – reactor, 2 – air separation tank, 3 – pump, 4 – pipe in pipe
heat exchanger; 5, 6, 8 – valves, 7 – rotameter.

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol2/A30
Szafran and Kmiec: CFD Modelling of a Jet-Loop Reactor 3

3. EULERIAN-EULERIAN MULTIPHASE MODEL FORMULATION

The Eulerian multiphase model available in FLUENT 6.1 was chosen to carry out computer simulations. It requires
solution of the time averaged continuity and conservation equations for each phase, which are presented in Table 1
for simplicity in which no heat and mass transfer between phases occur.

Table 1. Equations of continuity and conservation

Name Expression
Continuity equation
∂ G
( ρiαi ) + ∇ ⋅ ( ρiαi vi ) = 0 (1)
∂t
Conservation of momentum for fluid phase
∂ G GG G G G n
G G
∂t
( (
α q ρ q vq ) + ∇ ⋅ (α q ρ q vq vq ) = −α q∇p + ∇ ⋅ τ q + α q ρ q g + Flift ,q + Fvm ,q + ∑ Kiq ( vi − vq )
i =1
) (2)

Conservation of momentum for solid phase


∂ G GG G G G n
G G
(α s ρ s vs ) + ∇ ⋅ (α s ρ s vs vs ) = −α s∇p − ∇ps + ∇ ⋅τ s + α s ρ s g + Flift ,s + Fvm,s + ∑ ( Kis ( vi − vs ) ) (3)
∂t i =1
Stress-strain tensor
G G ⎛ 2 ⎞ G
τ i = αi µi ( ∇vi + ∇viT ) + αi ⎜ λi − µi ⎟ ∇ ⋅ vi I (4)
⎝ 3 ⎠
Lift force
G G G
Flift ,i = − Clift ρ qαi ( vq − vi ) × ( ∇ × vq ) (5)
Virtual mass force
⎛d v dv ⎞
Fvm ,i = Cvm αi ρ q ⎜ q q − i i ⎟ (6)
⎝ dt dt ⎠
Phase material time derivative
d i (φ ) ∂ (φ ) G
= + ( vi ⋅ ∇ ) φ (7)
dt ∂t
The volume fraction of each phase is calculated from the continuity equation (1) with the condition that the
volume fractions of phases sum to one. Equations (2) and (3) describe momentum balances for fluid and solid
phases, respectively. Lift force (Equation 5) acts on a particle or a bubble mainly due to velocity gradients in the
primary phase flow field and the virtual mass force (Equation 6) acting on a secondary phase when this accelerates
relatively to the primary phase were taken into account in the simulations. ps is the s phase solids pressure, by
analogy to fluid pressure, introduced by the granular kinetic model (Gidaspow, Bezburuah and Ding, 1992). Kiq and
Kis are interphase momentum exchange coefficients for fluid-fluid and fluid-solid systems, respectively. Different
models of K were used for each pair of phases but nearly all definitions include a drag function f, drag coefficient
CD, particulate relaxation time τp and relative Reynolds number Re. These parameters are defined in different way
for different models. The Morsi and Alexander model (1972) was used for primary-fluid (water) and secondary-fluid
(air) system, the Gidaspow model (1994) was used for primary-fluid (water) and secondary-solid (silica gel) system
and the symmetric model (FLUENT, 2003) was used for secondary-fluid (air) and secondary-solid (silica gel)
system. The secondary-fluid phase (air) is assumed to form bubbles. The exchange coefficient for this type of
system can be written in the form of Equation (8). The advantage of Morsi and Alexander model (Table 2), over
other models, is that it is the most complete because it adjusts the function definition frequently over a large range of
Reynolds numbers. The Gidaspow model (Table 3), used to describe interactions between water and solid
suspension, is a combination of the Wen and Yu (1966) model and the Ergun equation. It is appropriate for dilute
and dense solid flow regimes and was investigated for fluidized beds. The symmetric model (Table 4) is

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2004


4 International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering Vol. 2 [2004], Article A30

recommended (FLUENT, 2003) for a description of interactions between dispersed phases: bubbles of air and solid
suspension. We did not take into account in our simulations the break-up and coalescence of bubbles nor the melting
of particles.

Table 2. Interphase exchange coefficients between primary-fluid and secondary-fluid phase


(Morsi and Alexander, 1972)

Name Expression
Interphase momentum exchange coefficient
α qα p ρ p f pq
K pq = (8)
τp
Particulate relaxation time
ρ p d p2
τp = (9)
18 µq
Drag function
CD , pq Re pq
f pq = (10)
24
Drag coefficient
a2 a
CD , pq = a1 + + 32 (11)
Re pq Re pq
Coefficients from equation (11)
⎧0, 18, 0 0 < Re ≤ 0.1
⎪3.690, 22.73, 0.0903 0.1 < Re ≤ 1

⎪1.222, 29.1667, −3.8889 1 < Re ≤ 10

⎪0.6167, 46.50, −116.67 10 < Re ≤ 100
a1 , a2 , a3 = ⎨ (12)
⎪0.3644, 98.33, −2778 100 < Re ≤ 1000
⎪0.357, 148.62, −47500 1000 < Re ≤ 5000

⎪0.46, −490.546, 578700 5000 < Re < 10000
⎪⎩0.5191, −1662.5, 5416700 Re ≥ 10000
Relative Reynolds number
G G
ρ q v p − vq d p
Re pq = (13)
µq

Table 3. Interphase exchange coefficients between primary-fluid and secondary-solid phase (Gidaspow, 1994)

Name Expression
Interphase momentum exchange coefficient for αq > 0.8
G G
3 α sα q ρ q vs − vq −2.65
K qs = K sq = CD ,sq αq (14)
4 ds
Drag coefficient for αq > 0.8
24 ⎡
1 + 0.15 (α q Re s ) ⎤
0.687
CD ,sq = (15)
α q Re s ⎣ ⎦

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol2/A30
Szafran and Kmiec: CFD Modelling of a Jet-Loop Reactor 5

Interphase exchange coefficient for αq ≤ 0.8


G G
α s (1 − α q ) µq ρ qα s vs − vq
K qs = K sq = 150 + 1.75 (16)
α q d s2 ds
Relative Reynolds number
G G
ρ q v s − vq d s
Re s = (17)
µq

Table 4. Interphase exchange coefficients between secondary-fluid and secondary-solid phase (FLUENT, 2003)

Name Expression
Interphase momentum exchange coefficient
α p (α p ρ p + α s ρ s ) f ps
K sp = K ps = (18)
τ ps
Particulate relaxation time
2
d +d
(α p ρ p + α s ρ s ) ⎛⎜ p 2 s ⎞⎟
τ ps = ⎝ ⎠ (19)
18 (α p µ p + α s µs )
Drag function
CD , ps Re ps
f ps = (20)
24
Drag coefficient
⎧ 24 (1 + 0.15 Re0.687
ps )
⎪ Re ps ≤ 1000
CD , ps =⎨ Re ps (21)

⎩ 0.44 Re ps > 1000
Relative Reynolds number
G G
ρ ps vs − v p d ps
Re ps = (22)
µ ps
Mixture viscosity
µ ps = α p µ p + α s µs (23)

To describe the rheology of a fluid-solid mixture the multi-fluid granular kinetic model (Gidaspow,
Bezburuah and Ding, 1992) was used.

The modelling of turbulence in multiphase flows is an extremely complex issue because of the large
number of terms that have to be modelled in the momentum equations. In this work three two-parametric k-ε models
available in solver were used which are appropriate for engineering computations: standard k-ε, RNG k-ε and
realizable k-ε. Turbulence models were solved for each phase to describe the effects of turbulent fluctuations of
velocities on scalar quantities. The semi-empirical formula called “wall function” proposed by Launder & Spalding
(1972) was used to bridge the near-wall region between the wall and turbulent core.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2004


6 International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering Vol. 2 [2004], Article A30

4. SIMULATIONS
As was mentioned above, the control-volume-based code FLUENT 6.1
was chosen to carry out computer simulations. The calculation domain
was divided into a finite number of control volumes. Because of the
system symmetry, to reduce computational times and required system
resources, the 2-D axisymmetric segregated solver was chosen and
simulations of only a half-domain were carried out. The choice of grid
layout and density, especially in the near-wall region, is a very important
issue in numerical simulations. Several meshes were generated and tested
to minimize grid-solution dependence. Finally, after some improvements,
the two hybrid, non-uniform meshes where obtained, which are presented
in Figure 3.

The first mesh (Figure 3a) is full structured with quadrilateral


cells in core and the near-wall region. The second mesh (Figure 3b) is
unstructured, composed of triangular cells in the core region and
quadrilateral cells in the near-wall region. These meshes have
approximately the same number of cells and the same density of boundary
layers – see Table 5 for more details. The cell squish index and the cell
equiangle skew, listed in Table 5, are parameters that are the measure of
the quality of a mesh. The numerical solutions of discrete governing
equations were achieved by a control volume method. Pressure-velocity
coupling is achieved by the SIMPLE algorithm. The second-order upwind
discretization scheme of momentum, volume fraction of phases,
turbulence kinetic energy and turbulence dissipation rate were chosen for
the unstructured grid and the QUICK scheme for the structured grid. In
Figure 3. Computational meshes: simulations, the standard values of the under-relaxation factors, proposed
a – structured, b – unstructured by Fluent, were used. For time dependent solutions the first-order implicit
time discretization was used.

Table 5. Parameters of 2-D grids for half of the domain

Name of parameter Grid A Grid B


Type of mesh structured unstructured
Number of cells 4005 4003
Number of faces 8196 6479
Number of nodes 4191 2476
Surface-weighted average cell surface, m2 3.900×10-5 3.841×10-5
Surface-weighted average cell squish index 0.00262 0.00907
Surface-weighted average cell equiangle skew 0.0180 0.0667

As criteria of convergence, the value of scaled residuals, and in addition, the volume integrals of the main
parameters were monitored. The solution was judged to have converged once the scaled residuals were less than
1×10-3 of all the variables except the continuity that criterion of convergence was set to 1×10-4 and volume integrals
reached nearly constant value. The time step in unsteady simulations varied, depending on the solution convergence,
which ranged between 5×10-3 s and 1×10-5 s. In order to prevent instability in the calculations, the W-cycle in an
AMG solver was set for pressure, as well as, the F-cycle for x-momentum and y-momentum. Unfortunately, the time
of solution was thereby increased. For all other parameters standard Fluents values were used.

The following boundary conditions were applied in every simulation:


– phases were incompressible, constant density and viscosity were assumed,
– walls were adiabatic and non-slip wall conditions were used for all phases,
– inlet condition was considered as velocity inlet boundary condition with uniform velocity profile,
– pressure boundary condition was considered at outlet,

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol2/A30
Szafran and Kmiec: CFD Modelling of a Jet-Loop Reactor 7

– the axis symmetry boundary condition was applied along the axis of symmetry.

Simulations were carried out for initial conditions collected in Table 6.

Table 6. Initial conditions for numerical simulations

Name of parameter Value


Volumetric flow rate of water, m3/s 3.19×10-4
Inlet velocity magnitude of air and water, normal to boundary, m/s 9.07
Inlet volume fraction of air, % 30
Inlet turbulence intensity, % 10
Volume fraction of solid inside reactor, uniform, % 0; 1; 1.5; 2
Diameter of bubble, uniform, m 3×10-4
Diameter of solid particle, uniform, m 7×10-4
Outlet gauge (relative to operating) pressure, Pa 1
Outlet turbulence intensity, % 10
Operating pressure, Pa 101325
Solid density, kg/m3 1730
Solid viscosity, Pa s 1.003×10-3
Water density, kg/m3 998.2
Water viscosity, Pa s 1.003×10-3
Air density, kg/m3 1.225
Air viscosity, Pa s 1.7894×10-5

They were chosen in order to achieve mild flow conditions inside the reactor, keeping in mind its
application in bioreactors. Following the investigations carried out by Varley (1995) for non-vertical submerged gas-
liquid jet, the diameter of air bubble was set to 3×10-4 m. Originally, simulations for steady-state problems were
carried out, but converged solutions were not obtained. To overcome the problem, time-dependent simulations were
conducted until volume integrals of water and solid velocity magnitude as well as gas hold-up reached
approximately constant value. 25 s computed real time (about 70 hours computational time on a PC workstation
with 2.66 GHz Pentium 4 processor) was found to give reasonable compromise between computation time demand
and solution accuracy. Some authors report that even for long computed time – about 320 s, in similar three-phase
systems, perfect stability was not achieved (Michele, 2002b).

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Precise prediction of velocity distribution inside the reactor is an important issue of design and scale-up of
bioreactors. Results of experimental research and its detailed discussion were published earlier by Kmiec et al.
(2003). In Table 7, the predicted circulation rate ratios and gas hold-up are compared with experimental data for 1 %
of solids concentration and for different turbulence models. The circulation rate ratio is defined as a ratio of mass
 out / m ejector .
flow rate at the outlet of draft tube and the inlet mass flow rate: C RR = m

Table 7. Comparison of predicted results with experimental data for different turbulence models,
1 % of solids concentration

k-ε model Standard RNG Realizable


Experimental circulation rate ratio of water, - 17.88
Predicted circulation rate ratio of water, - 20.71 21.68 21.77
Error, % 15.8 21.3 21.8

The smallest error for circulation rate ratio was achieved for standard k-ε model. The choice of turbulence
model had no influence on predicted gas hold-up. In Figure 4, the velocity profiles in a draft tube at the distance of

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2004


8 International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering Vol. 2 [2004], Article A30

215 mm from the outlet of ejector, achieved for different turbulence models, are compared with experimental data.
As it can be seen, new enhanced k-ε turbulence models did not bring better accuracy in simulations for an
investigated system.

Figure 4. Comparison of predicted water axial velocity profiles in draft tube at the distance of 215 mm from
the outlet of ejector, achieved for different turbulence models, with experimental data.

Velocity profile for a standard k-ε model is closer to the experimental data, but differences between the
models are insignificant in comparison to the total calculation error. Taking into account that the fastest solution
convergence and stability was achieved for the standard k-ε model, this model was chosen for further simulations
whose results are presented below.

In Figure 5, the results of air volume fractions obtained for a structured (a) and an unstructured (b) grid for
the same physical time are compared.

Figure 5. Axial intersection of the reactor. Predicted distributions of air volume fractions:
a – structured grid, b – unstructured grid

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol2/A30
Szafran and Kmiec: CFD Modelling of a Jet-Loop Reactor 9

It can be seen that there is a significant discrepancy between both profiles on the axis of symmetry. For the
structured grid, a “snake tongue” was obtained which has no physical explanation. It is caused by a computational
error in an axisymmetric solver. For an unstructured grid only an insignificant error was noticed. Overall, better
accuracy was achieved for this grid, so only results obtained for it will be presented below.

Velocity stream functions of water (a), air (b) and solids (c) are shown in Figure 6. As one can see, CFD
simulations predict strong circulation of each phase inside reactor as it was observed in experiments. Below the draft
tube arose the vortex whose presence was confirmed by experiment.

Figure 6. Axial intersection of the reactor. Predicted velocity stream functions: a – water, b – air, c – solids

Velocity distributions of water (a), air (b), and solids (c) are shown in Figure 7. For water and air, clear jet-
like distributions is observed. The maximum of velocity magnitude and the largest velocity gradient were observed
at the outlet of ejector and their values quickly decrease. Maximum value of solids particle velocity is achieved at
some distance from the ejector. It was expected and is caused by an air-water jet that accelerates particle motion.
Outside the central jet, flow conditions are mild and velocity magnitude distribution is almost even. The predicted
volume average velocity magnitudes of water, air and silica gel, for initial condition as described above, were
respectively: 0.18 m/s, 0.19 m/s, 0.16 m/s.

Figure 7. Axial intersection of the reactor, m/s.


Predicted velocity distributions: a – water, b – air, c – solid suspension

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2004


10 International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering Vol. 2 [2004], Article A30

In Table 8, the results obtained by experiment are compared with those obtained from simulations. The
difference between the experimental and the predicted circulation rate ratio of water for a two phase system was
only 3.6 %. For the three phase system the error was larger 6.25 % – 22.8 %, but acceptable. Good qualitative and
quantitative agreement was observed between the experimental and predicted total volumetric circulation flow rate
of water, especially for low volume fraction of solids. In general, discrepancy increases with the increase of a solids
concentration except in the case of 1.5 % solids concentration. In this case the predicted solids circulation rate is the
smallest. Circulation rate of air was not measured experimentally, but the difference between experimental and
predicted gas hold-up was an even 745 %. It may be caused by not taking into account bubble breaking and
coalescence, which seems to play an important role. Varley (1995) reported gamma distribution of bubble diameter
for submerged a gas-liquid jet. A strong dependence of gas hold-up on bubble diameter was observed during
simulation. The largest bubble diameter caused the smallest gas hold-up. This problem needs more investigation and
initial bubble diameter distribution should be taken into account in order to improve accuracy of simulations.

Table 8. Comparison of predicted results with experimental data for different solids concentrations

Volume fraction of solid, % 0 1 1.5 2


Experimental circulation rate of water, m3/s 9.38×10-3 5.71×10-3 6.85×10-3 6.03×10-3
Predicted circulation rate of water, m3/s 9.04×10-3 6.61×10-3 6.41×10-3 7.40×10-3
Experimental circulation rate ratio of water, - 29.4 17.88 21.44 18.88
Predicted circulation rate ratio of water, - 28.34 20.71 20.10 23.18
Error, % 3.6 15.8 6.25 22.8
Predicted circulation rate of air, m3/s 3.6×10-4 4.13×10-4 4.60×10-4 3.85×10-4
Predicted circulation rate ratio of air, - 2.64 3.02 3.36 2.30
Experimental gas hold-up, % 0.917 0.521 0.908 0.872
Predicted gas hold-up, % 2.7 4.4 4.22 3.17
Error, % 194 745 365 264
Predicted circulation rate of solid, m3/s - 1.28×10-4 7.95×10-5 1.63×10-4

In Figure 8, the axial velocity profiles of water in a draft tube at the distance of 215 mm from the outlet of
ejector for two- and three-phase systems are compared. Quite good agreement is observed between experimental and
numerically predicted profiles. It can be said that a general trend was well predicted, but values of velocity
magnitude were usually too high, especially in jet. The maximal error margin was 270 %. Predicted jet diameter was
about 25 % larger than measured. It seems to have been the main cause of error.

Figure 8. Comparison of predicted water axial velocity profiles in a draft tube at the distance of 215 mm from
the outlet of an ejector, achieved for different solid concentrations, with experimental data

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol2/A30
Szafran and Kmiec: CFD Modelling of a Jet-Loop Reactor 11

In Figure 9, the distributions of volume fractions of air (a) and solids (b) are shown. As one can see, there is
a nearly uniform distribution of air inside the reactor, except in the jet, where volume fraction of air is about three
times larger than in the rest of the reactor. The inverse situation is observed for solids, where volume fraction inside
the jet is smaller than outside of it. The distribution of solid particle volume fractions is less uniform than bubbles of
air. There are many zones in reactor where the concentration of solids is less than 0.1%, especially above the draft
tube. These zones may be inactive in the case of catalytic reaction.

Figure 9. Axial intersection of the reactor. Predicted distributions of volume fractions of: a – air, b – solids

6. CONCLUSIONS

At present, we cannot reach the same conformity between simulations and experiments as is reached for
one- or two-phase systems. The prediction errors of water circulation rate ratio for a gas-liquid system were
acceptable for engineering calculations and amounted to about 4 % for the two-phase system and about 15 % for the
three-phase system. A 2-D axisymmetric solver significantly shortens computation time, but leads to significant
computation errors on the axis of symmetry. These errors were reduced to acceptable values when an unstructured
grid was used. Standard k-ε turbulence model brings faster solution convergence and stability. Enhanced turbulence
models did not improve solution accuracy in our case, but led to extended computation time. In general, it can be
said, that simulations predict satisfactory flow behaviour especially in a continuous phase. Gas hold-up was not
predicted properly and therefore warrants more investigations. Also, initial bubble diameter distribution along with
its breakage and coalescence should be taken into account in order to improve the accuracy of future simulations. Of
chief interest to engineers are the distribution of velocities and volume fractions of phases which allow for the
prediction of inactive zones in the reactor and process optimization. Standard options available in the FLUENT 6.1
package enable fast engineering calculations of flow conditions in a three-phase jet-loop reactor with satisfactory
accuracy with the notable exception of the gas hold-up.

NOTATION

CD drag coefficient, dimensionless


Clift lift force coefficient, dimensionless
CRR circulation rate ratio, dimensionless
Cvm virtual mass force coefficient, dimensionless
dp bubble diameter, m
dps arithmetic mean of bubble and solid particle diameters, m

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2004


12 International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering Vol. 2 [2004], Article A30

ds solid particle diameter, m


G
Flift lift force, N/m3
G
Fvm virtual mass force, N/m3
f drag function, see Equations (10) and (20), dimensionless
G
g gravity acceleration, m/s2

I identity tensor
K interphase momentum exchange coefficient, kg/(m3 s)
n number of phases,
p pressure, Pa
ps solids pressure, Pa
Re Reynolds number, dimensionless
t time, s
V volume, m3
G
v velocity, m/s

Greek letters
λ bulk viscosity, Pa s
ρ physical density, kg/m3
µ shear viscosity, Pa s
µs solid shear viscosity, Pa s
α volume fraction, dimensionless
τp,τps particulate relaxation time, see Equations (9) and (19) respectively, s
µps mixture viscosity, see Equation (23), Pa s
π mathematical constant, dimensionless
τ stress-strain tensor, Pa

Subscripts
i,j different phases
ejector at the outlet of ejector
out at the outlet of draft tube
p secondary-fluid phase
q primary-fluid phase
s solid, secondary-solid phase

REFERENCES

Chen, C., Fan, L.-S., „Discrete Simulation of Gas-Liquid Bubble Columns and Gas-Liquid-Solid Fluidized Beds“,
AIChE Journal, 50, 2, 288-300, (2004).

FLUENT 6.1 User’s guide, Lebanon NH, Fluent Inc, (2003).

Gamwo, I.K., Halow, J.S., Gidaspow, D., Mostofi, R., “CFD models for methanol synthesis three-phase reasctors:
reactor optimization”, Chem. Eng. Journal, 93, 103-112, (2003).

Gidaspow, D., Bezburuah, R., Ding, J., “Hydrodynamics of Circulating Fluidized Beds, Kinetic Theory Approach.
In Fluidization VII, Proceedings of the 7th Engineering Foundation Conference on Fluidization”, 75-82 (1992).

Gidaspow, D., “Multiphase Flow and Fluidization”, Academic Press Inc., San Diego, California, (1994).

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol2/A30
Szafran and Kmiec: CFD Modelling of a Jet-Loop Reactor 13

Havelka, P., Linek, V., Sinkule, J., Zahradnik, J., Fialova M., “Hydrodynamic and mass transfer characteristics of
ejector loop reactors”, Chem. Eng. Sci., 55, 535-549 (2000).

Jamshidi, A.M., Sohrabi, M., Vahabzadeh, F., Bonakdarpour, B., “Hydrodynamic and mass transfer characterization
of a down flown jet loop bioreactor”, Biochemical Engineering Journal, 8, 241-250 (2001).

Kmiec, A., “An Experimental Study of Liquid-Solid Mixture Flows in a Jet-Loop Reactor”, 2-d Israel Conference
for Conveying and Handling of Particulate Solids, Jerusalem, May 26-28, 5.22-5.26 (1997).

Kmiec, A., Kowal, P., Szafran, R.G., Kmiec, G., Englart, S., “The effect of solids on liquid velocity distributions
and power input in a jet-loop reactor”, Chemical & Process Engineering (Polish journal), 24, 1, 33-46 (2003).

Kmiec, A., Szczepaniak, L., Abdul-Latif, S.S.H., “On Flow Dynamics in a Jet-Loop Reactor”, Collections of
Czechoslovak Chemical Communications, 59(11), 2426-2435 (1994).

Launder, B.E., Spalding, D.B., “Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence”, Academic Press, London, (1972).

Michele, V., “CFD modeling and measurement of liquid flow structure and phase holdup in two- and three-phase
bubble columns”, Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany, (2002).

Morsi, S.A., Alexander, A.J., “An Investigation of Particle Trajectories in Two-Phase Flow System”, J. Fluid Mech.,
55, 193-208 (1972).

Mudde, R.F., Simonin, O., “Two- and three-dimensional simulations of a bubble plume using a two-fluid model”,
Chem. Eng. Sci., 54, 5061-5069, (1999).

Tinge, J.T., Casado, A.J.R., “Influence of pressure on the gas hold-up of aqueous activated carbon slurries in a down
flow jet loop reactor”, Chem. Eng. Sci., 57, 3575-3580 (2002).

Varley, J., “Submerged gas-liquid jets: bubble size prediction”, Chem. Eng. Sci., 50, 901-905 (1995).

Wen, C.Y., Yu, Y.H., “Mechanics of Fluidization“, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Series, 62, 100-111 (1966).

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2004

Anda mungkin juga menyukai