Algal Research 12 (2015) 1–9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Algal Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/algal

CFD simulation for reduced energy costs in tubular photobioreactors

using wall turbulence promoters
C.A. Gómez-Pérez a,b, J. Espinosa b, L.C. Montenegro Ruiz c, A.J.B. van Boxtel a,⁎
a
Biobased Chemistry and Technology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
b
Grupo de Automática de la Universidad Nacional GAUNAL, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín, Colombia
c
Laboratorio de Cultivo de Algas, Departamento de Biología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Tubular photobioreactors (PBR) have great potential for microalgae cultivation due to its high productivity com-
Received 20 February 2015 pared with open ponds. However, the energy uptake for fluid circulation and mixing is significant, impacting the
Received in revised form 14 July 2015 operation and production costs. In this work, we investigate by CFD simulation the effect of wall turbulence pro-
Accepted 17 July 2015
moters, i.e. profiles at the inner tube wall, at low flow velocities (0.1–0.3 m/s). The use of these wall turbulence
Available online xxxx
promoters is compared to the mixing behaviour in standard tubular PBRs at flow velocity of 0.5 m/s. It was found
Keywords:
that the wall turbulence promoters have at flow velocities of 0.2–0.25 m/s better mixing behaviour as in standard
Tubular photobioreactors PBRs while the energy uptake is 60–80% lower.
CFD © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Turbulence promoters
Particle tracking
Energy consumption

1. Introduction
Microalgae are a promising source for products as biofuels, feed,
food and pharmaceuticals. Nowadays, microalgae are cultivated in
open raceway ponds, but these cultivation systems have a moderate
productivity and are susceptible to contamination [1]. An alternative is
to cultivate microalgae in closed photobioreactors (PBR) to improve
the productivity and to prevent contamination [2–6]. The benefits of a
significant higher light yield of closed PBRs, the use of cheap resources
from nature (light and sea water) and from waste flows (CO2 and nutri-
ents), are partly cancelled by the operation costs which are higher than
those of open raceway ponds [7]. Therefore we are continuously chal-
lenged to improve closed PBR design and operation in order to obtain
low operation and production costs [8].
Norsker et al. [9] present a cost analysis of different PBRs. It was
demonstrated by a sensitivity analysis that the pumping costs for fluid
recirculation in tubular PBRs have an important contribution to the pro-
duction costs of algae biomass. Reducing the recirculation flow velocity
in tubular PBRs will result in important energy and cost savings. The
analysis was based on an average flow velocity of 0.5 m/s, which is a
common value used for commercial tubular PBRs [10–14]. Acién
Fernández et al. [14] and Molina et al. [11] motivate the choice of
the flow velocity by: 1) sufficient turbulence is required for mixing
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ton.vanboxtel@wur.nl (A.J.B. van Boxtel).
and to prevent biofilm formation, and 2) high flow velocities should
be avoided to prevent cell stress. Acién Fernández et al. [14] advise
that the flow velocity should not exceed 1 m/s. Molina et al. [11] evalu-
ated different flow velocities and conclude that 0.5 m/s was the optimal
value for the best productivity.
The mixing properties that arise from turbulence in tubular PBRs at
0.5 m/s result in good mass transfer, light exchange cycles and good
mixing conditions in microalgae cultures [10,15]. On the other hand,
from the work of Norsker et al. [9], we still see a need to reduce the
flow velocity to decrease the operational costs. Therefore we analyse
in this work by CFD simulation, the mixing conditions in tubular PBRs
to explore the possibilities to reduce the flow velocity while realising
good mixing conditions and reducing energy consumption.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a powerful tool to simulate,
evaluate and analyse the mixing behaviour of PBRs [16]. The mixing be-
haviour in different tubular PBRs can be explored without doing costly
experiments and new design ideas and improvements can be proposed.
Perner-Nochta et al. [17] applied CFD to a flat-panel reactor and found
critical points and death zones in the system. They proposed a new
design for the wall shape to avoid the critical points which yield
70% energy savings. Wongluang et al. [18] studied bend shapes in tu-
bular PBRs. L-shapes in tubular PBRs results in death zones and ener-
gy loss and therefore they redesigned the bend shapes with CFD.
Other authors used CFD to optimize the mixing behaviour with
good results [12,13,19–21]. Perner-Nochta and Posten [12] simulated
the fluid dynamics of tubular PBRs with static mixers. A turbulence

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2015.07.011
2211-9264/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 C.A. Gómez-Pérez et al. / Algal Research 12 (2015) 1–9

model to predict the velocity profile showed that the use of static The turbulence energy is given through solving:
mixers improves the light exposure. They also presented different strat- " ! #
1 Cμ k  2
2 2
egies to evaluate the data as a periodic function. Zhang et al. [13] simu- ∂k Cμ k
ρ −∇
μ þρ ∇k þ ρU
∇k ¼ ρ
∇U þ ð∇U ÞT −ρε
lated the fluid dynamics with a helical static mixer, and discuss the ∂t σ kε 2 ε
design of the mixer. They validated the simulations by experiments in ð2Þ
which the tubular PBR with static mixer is compared with a PBR with-
out static mixer. Using the static mixer resulted in a productivity im- and the dissipation through solving:
provement of 37%. However, the energy consumption of the whole
" ! #
system increased from 0.136 W/m to 0.4 W/m approximately, almost ∂ε Cμ k
2
1  2 ε2
ρ −∇
μ þρ ∇ε þ ρU
∇ε ¼ C ε1 C μ k
∇U þ ð∇U ÞT −ρC ε2
290% of increase. ∂t σεε 2 k
In previous work [12,13,19–21] high impact turbulence pro-
ð3Þ
moters, as static mixers, were investigated. In contrast to these
high impact turbulence promoters, profiles at the inner tube walls where σε, Cε1 and Cε2 are model parameters which are based on related
create extra mixing but may limit the increase of the energy con- literature [25]; see Table 1.
sumption. In this work, we present the potential of wall turbulence The model is completed with boundary conditions:
promoters, i.e. small flow disturbances due to profiles at the inner
tube wall. The concept of creating extra turbulence by wall profiles Wall U¼0
has been investigated in heat transfer applications. These investiga- Inlet U ¼ V avg : ð4Þ
tions were focussed on the improvement of heat transfer and estab- Outlet P ¼ P atm
lishing correlations for heat transfer and pressure drop [22,23]. In
contrast to these investigations, the potential of these wall turbu- Here, Vavg is a constant average flow velocity (m/s), normal to the
lence promoters is here investigated by CFD simulation to evaluate cross sectional tube area and Patm is the atmospheric pressure at the
multiple scenarios with respect to mixing properties and energy end of the tube (Pa). This boundary condition is required to accomplish
consumption during algae cultivation. the continuity equation.
Turbulence is related to the vector fields of flow velocities at differ-
ent locations in a system. These vector fields of flow velocities vary in 2.2. Particle tracking model
time and if these vector fields at different time moments and locations
are random then full turbulence is achieved. For algae it is essential The particle tracking model uses Newton's law to simulate forces
that they experience different conditions during the time they roam that act on spherical particles. COMSOL simulates the effect of the
through the photobioreactor. In that case the mixing behaviour is the gravity force and the drag force by:
key factor. Particle tracking is used to characterize microalgae roaming  
in a turbulent environment. A discrete random walk model is applied !
d up   !g ρp −ρ
! !
to simulate the chaotic effects of turbulence on the mixing and particle ¼ F D u − up þ ð5Þ
dt ρp
path [24]
The mixing behaviour can be analysed by methods used in signal ! !
where up is the particle velocity vector (m/s), u is the fluid velocity
processing and control. The first option is to regard periodicity of the ! 2
particle trajectories, which is expressed by the power spectrum derived (m/s), g is the gravitational force (m/s ), ρp is the particle density
from the Fourier transform. The more frequencies appear in the power (kg/m3) and ρ is the fluid density (kg/m3); also FD is the drag force co-
spectrum, the stronger the mixing. The autocorrelation function is an- efficient (kg/s) which follows from the fluid and particle characteristics:
other method to quantify mixing behaviour. If the correlation for
18μmp
succeeding particle locations is low, mixing is strong. These two FD ¼ 2
ð6Þ
ρp dp
methods are therefore used to compare turbulence behaviour in differ-
ent scenarios.
where mp is the mass particle (kg) and dp is the particle diameter (m).
The fluid velocity has two components:
2. Mathematical models and tools
! ! !0
2.1. Fluid dynamics model u ¼ U þu ð7Þ

! !
The turbulence k-ε model was used to simulate the fluid dynam- where U is the fluid average velocity (m/s), and u0 is a normal distrib-
ics behaviour. This simulation characterizes the velocity and pres- uted random fluid velocity variable (m/s).
sure over the tube length. The energy loss is calculated from this The k-ε model calculates the mean velocity, and is combined with a
model in combination with the Bernoulli equation. The k-ε model discrete random walk method to simulate the chaotic behaviour of the
equations are defined by the Reynolds Average Navier–Stokes (RANS) particle in the turbulent fluid. The instantaneous fluid velocity is calcu-
equations [25]: lated from the kinetic energy dissipation values and a random variable
with zero mean and standard deviation equal to one. The discrete
" ! # random walk method uses the eddy lifetime and the instantaneous
∂U
2
Cμ k  
−∇
μ þρ
∇U þ ð∇U ÞT þ ρU
∇U þ ∇P ¼ 0
∂t σ kε ð1Þ
Table 1
∇
U ¼0
k-ε model parameter's values.

Constant Value
where ρ denotes the density of the fluid (kg/m3), U represents the Cμ 0.09
averaged velocity (m/s), t the time (sec), μ the dynamic viscosity Cε1 0.1256
(kg/(m · s)), P the pressure (Pa), k the turbulence energy (m2/s2), ε Cε2 1.92
the dissipation rate of turbulence energy (m 2 /s 3 ), C μ and σk are σk 1.0
σε 1.6
model parameters.
 C.A. Gómez-Pérez et al. / Algal Research 12 (2015) 1–9 3

outlet

3.3 m
2.5cm

Front view
inlet

Fig. 1. Tubular PBR geometry.

flow velocity. The eddy lifetime is the period of time when the particle is evaluation of all scenarios with the same model allows the comparison
“trapped”, which follows from: of the discrete random walk of particles behaviour.

k 2.3. Pressure drop calculation

τe ¼ 2C L ð8Þ
ε
The average pressure at a cross sectional area of a tubular PBR is
where τe is the eddy lifetime (s) and CL is a coefficient, for tubular flow given by:
CL = 0.15 (−) [26].
The instantaneous flow velocity is the fluctuating component of ∬ S PdS
P avg ¼ : ð11Þ
flow velocity, which is a random variable with zero mean and standard S
deviation:
With P (Pa) the local pressure at a point on the cross sectional
rffiffiffiffiffiffi area S (m2 ). The pressure drop per metre is then defined as ΔP =
2k
σ¼ : ð9Þ ΔPavg/Δ L (Pa/m), with ΔPavg (Pa) as the pressure difference between
3
two different points on the tubular PBR axis with distance ΔL (m).

The instantaneous flow velocity is calculated according:

2.4. Discrete fourier transform (DFT)
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
!0 2k The Fourier transformation expresses any periodic function as a
u ¼ξ ð10Þ
3 combination of sinusoidal basis functions. The transformation is defined
as:
where ξ is a dimensionless random variable with zero mean and
Z ∞
standard deviation equals to one. This function is evaluated by using
F ðωÞ ¼ f ðt Þe−iωt dt ð12Þ
an external Matlab function. −∞
The discrete random walk is used in literature as a way to approach
the chaotic behaviour of turbulent fluid dynamics [24]. It is an empiric with ω the frequency variable (Hz), F(ω) the Fourier function and f(t)
relationship to evaluate what happens in different scenarios. The the time domain periodic function.

a) b)

c) d)
Fig. 2. Wall turbulence promoters. a) Triangular nozzle, b) inverse triangular nozzle, c) trapezoidal nozzle, d) rectangular nozzle.
4 C.A. Gómez-Pérez et al. / Algal Research 12 (2015) 1–9
0.5 m
1.5 m
Fig. 3. Tubular PBR with different distance between wall turbulence promoters.
Data obtained from CFD simulation is defined at discrete points [12].
Therefore, instead of the Fourier transformation, the Discrete Fourier
Transform (DFT) is used to evaluate the periodic behaviour of individual
simulated particles [27]:
1 nX
−1
xð jÞe =n ;
−2πijl
X ðlÞ ¼ l ¼ 0; 1; …; n−1
n j¼0
where x( j), j = 0, 1, …, n − 1 is an uniformly sampled sequence of data
points with time sampling interval Δt, n the total amount of samples
and X(l), l = 0, 1, …, n − 1 the l-th DFT coefficient. It is important to
say that DFT can be used to evaluate periodicity in time and (for a
given velocity) also on length base. In this work the length base period-
icity is applied for samples with interval length ΔL. From the DFT results,
the power spectrum is computed and analysed as a graphic tool to eval-
uate the frequency characteristics from the data [28].
2.5. Autocorrelation function
The covariance between two events xj and xj + l, of a stochastic pro-
cess is defined as [29]:
    
qðlÞ ¼ cov x j ; x jþl ¼ E x j −x x jþl −x
with l integer values. q(l) is the autocovariance function of xj and indi-
cates the covariance between events at a certain time or spatial distance
or lags l. Normalization of the autocovariance function gives the auto-
correlation function [27]:
qðlÞ qðlÞ
ϕðlÞ ¼ ¼ ð15Þ
qð0Þ σ 2SD
where σ2SD is the data variance and ϕ(l) the autocorrelation function.
This function is 1 at l = 0 and decreases towards 0 as l increase. The
autocorrelation function is a measure of how strong a signal data is cor-
related with itself. High values of the autocorrelation function indicate
low randomness over distance l and low values indicate that data be-
yond this distance l is random.
3. Tubular PBR and wall turbulence promoters and simulation
3.1. PBR and wall turbulence promoter geometries
The tubular PBR used for the simulation has a diameter of 0.05 m
which is recommended for industrial outdoor application [9,30] and a
simulation length of 3.3 m (Fig. 1). The input of the tubular PBR is set
as a boundary condition with constant flow velocity (Vavg). The first
0.3 m of the tube was considered as blank zone where the flow pattern
develops.
The turbulence promoters considered here are different nozzle
shapes in the tubular PBR wall (see Fig. 2). Fig. 2a and b show two
1.0 m
Straight
types of triangle nozzle shape, while Fig. 2c and d show a trapezoidal
and rectangular nozzle shape respectively. In all cases the smallest
cross sectional area has a diameter of 0.04 m. The triangle and rectangu-
lar nozzles have a length of 0.02 m, the length of the trapezoidal nozzle
is 0.06 m.
ð13Þ
3.2. Simulation details
Two different meshes were compared to obtain the best simula-
tion accuracy. The coarse and fine mesh yield similar behaviour, so
the coarse mesh was applied for the further simulations. Properties
and physical parameters were set by considering the fluid as water,
while particle tracking simulation concerns microalgae of 8 μm of
diameter, with density 1050 kg/m3 [31]. Particles are always re-
leased from the centre of the tubular PBR with 0 m/s velocity at
0.3 m from the tube inlet where the turbulent flow pattern was fully
developed.
Particle tracking experiments were used to evaluate the particle
movements that result from turbulence. Particle tracking was applied
for a tube of 90 m with 2000 samples over the tube (ΔL = 0.045 m).
This simulation was realised by repeating simulations for a short tube.
Hereby, the particle is released at the entrance of a 3.3 m tube, as de-
ð14Þ scribed above. As soon as the particle arrives at the end of the tube, a
new simulation is started for a tube of 3 m. The last coordinates and ve-
locity components of the particle and the flow pattern at the end of pre-
vious simulation are the initial conditions for the new simulation. This
method was programed in Matlab® using the linkage with COMSOL
Multiphysics. Organizing the data by putting together 30 simulations,
yields the signal for a tube of 90 m.
3.3. Selection of wall turbulence promoters
The wall turbulence promoters were evaluated in two steps: 1) a
selection of the most promising promoter by evaluating the pressure
drop and particle tracking behaviour, and 2) a detailed evaluation of
that promoter for different average flow velocities and distances
between the turbulence promoters. The selection step concerned an
average flow velocity of 0.5 m/s and one turbulence promoter inside
the tube. For each simulation the pressure drop per metre was calculat-
ed and the mixing behaviour was visually evaluated from 300 different
particle trajectories.
Table 2
Number of mesh elements applied in the different simulations of 3.0 m tube. For the 90 m
tube these 3 m tubes are repeated.
System Mesh size (# of elements)
Straight tube 268391
TP — 0.5 m distance between 379321
TP — 1.0 m distance between 320005
TP — 1.5 m distance between 301852
 C.A. Gómez-Pérez et al. / Algal Research 12 (2015) 1–9 5

a) b)

c) d)

Fig. 4. Flow velocity fields for the turbulence promoters. Average flow velocity 0.5 m/s for each system. a) Triangular nozzle, b) inverse triangular nozzle, c) trapezoidal nozzle,
d) rectangular nozzle. The behaviour in the benchmark system is equal to that left of the turbulence promoters.

3.4. Energy consumption evaluation The energy consumption for pumping per length of tube is given
by:
The selected wall turbulence promoter was simulated and compared
to the standard straight tubular PBR with average flow velocity of
E ¼ ΦΔP ; Φ ¼ vπr 2 ð16Þ
0.5 m/s. Wall turbulence promoter simulations were performed for dif-
ferent values of average flow velocity varying from 0.1 m/s to 0.5 m/s
and distance between turbulence promoters of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 m (see with E the energy consumption per metre of tube length (J/s · m), ΔP
Fig. 3). The number of mesh elements for the 3.0 m tubes are given in the pressure drop per metre (Pa/m), Φ is the volumetric flow (m3/s),
Table 2. and r the tube radius (m).

0.02 0.02 0.02

Radial position [m]

Radial position [m]

Radial position [m]

0.01 0.01 0.01

0 0 0

-0.01 -0.01 -0.01

-0.02 -0.02 -0.02

0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2

Pipe length distance [m] Pipe length distance [m] Pipe length distance [m]

a) b) c)
0.02 0.02
Radial position [m]
Radial position [m]

0.01 0.01

0 0

-0.01 -0.01

-0.02 -0.02

0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2

Pipe length distance [m] Pipe length distance [m]

d) e)
Fig. 5. Particle tracking experiment for screening. a) Triangular nozzle, b) inverse triangular nozzle, c) trapezoidal nozzle, d) rectangular nozzle, e) straight tube; benchmark. In all systems
a linear velocity of 0.5 m/s is applied.
6 C.A. Gómez-Pérez et al. / Algal Research 12 (2015) 1–9

Table 3 given in Fig. 5. The pressure drops for the systems are given in Table 3.
Pressure drop for the wall turbulence promoters and straight tube at a linear veloc- Table 3 shows that the trapezoidal nozzle yields the lowest energy
ity of 0.5 m/s during the screening experiments.
consumption, but the particle trajectories show modest mixing for this
Wall turbulent promoter Pressure drop [Pa/m] promoter. The other turbulence promoters (triangle, inverse triangle
Triangle nozzle 501 and rectangular) show an active particle roaming, which is stronger
Inverse triangle nozzle 410.37 than the straight tube. Since, the inverse triangle nozzle has the lowest
Trapezoidal nozzle 220.25 pressure drop and good mixing properties, this nozzle type was selected
Rectangular nozzle 501.25
to evaluate in detail the mixing conditions in the tubular PBR with wall
Straight tube, benchmark 58.6
turbulence promoter.

3.5. Benchmark 4.2. Mixing behaviour at low flow velocities

Molina Grima et al. [11] recommend for tubular photobioreactors a
flow velocity of 0.5 m/s. This flow velocity gives satisfactory turbulence
for a good light exposure of algae while roaming through straight tubes.
Lower flow velocities that result in lower energy consumption result in
a lower productivity, while higher flow velocities results in increased
shear stress. A similar recommendation is given by Acién Fernandez
[14], while Norsker et al. [9] use 0.5 m/s as a standard in tubular
photobioreactors. Therefore we compare in this work the mixing behav-
iour, pressure drop and energy consumption of the systems with wall
turbulence promoters with a straight tube with flow velocity 0.5 m/s.
4. Results
4.1. Turbulence promoter selection
Fig. 4 shows the velocity fields around the turbulence promoters.
The figures in which the flow goes from the left to the right, show that
the developed flow pattern is disturbed by the promoters. About
30 cm after the promoter the velocity field is restored. After all
promoters an region with low flow velocities is found, and for the
rectangular and inverse triangle promoters a small corner with low
flow velocities is observed before the promoter.
The flow velocity fields don't represent the mixing behaviour. For
that purpose the particle trajectories of 300 different particles are
The mixing behaviour for low average flow velocities is further in-
vestigated and quantified by using DFT and the autocorrelation function
for the particle trajectories. Four cases are presented here. The first con-
cerns the benchmark, i.e. the straight tube with average flow velocity of
0.5 m/s. The other three cases concern a tube with average flow velocity
0.2 m/s and turbulence promoters on a distance of respectively 0.5, 1.0
and 1.5 m.
Since the particle movements are result of random variable simula-
tion, 9 different particle experiments were performed, DFT and autocor-
relation function were calculated for each particle experiment and then
the average of the 9 results were computed. Fig. 6 shows the average
power spectrum of the defined 4 cases. For the benchmark, the frequen-
cies 0–0.15 cycles/m are dominant and refer to sinus trajectories for the
particles with a period length above 6 m. The amplitude of these sinus
functions varies between 0.002 to 0.01 m. For the systems with tur-
bulence promoters higher frequencies, up to 0.4 cycles/m, are more
represented in the spectrum. These frequencies correspond to period
lengths above 2.5 m and amplitudes between 0.002 and 0.005 m. The
higher frequency and smaller amplitude are representative for stronger
mixing.
Fig. 7 with the accumulated power spectrum function underlines the
differences in frequencies between the systems. For the benchmark the
saturation is achieved at 100 cycles/m, while for the turbulence pro-
moters saturation is not yet achieved at 250 cycles/m. It confirms the
presence of the high frequencies in the systems with promoters. So,

0.01 0.01

0.008 0.008
a b
magnitude

magnitude

0.006 0.006

0.004 0.004

0.002 0.002

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ω (cycles/m) ω (cycles/m)

0.01 0.01

0.008 0.008
c d
magnitude

magnitude

0.006 0.006

0.004 0.004

0.002 0.002

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ω (cycles/m) ω (cycles/m)

Fig. 6. Frequencies in the power spectrum, with ω is here expressed by the number of cycles over 1 m. a) Benchmark. Tubes with turbulence promoters flow velocity 0.2 m/s, distance
between promoters, b) 0.5 m, c) 1.0 m, d) 1.5 m. Compared to the benchmark, the spectra for the systems with turbulence promoters shifts to higher frequencies and lower magnitude.
 C.A. Gómez-Pérez et al. / Algal Research 12 (2015) 1–9 7

0.5 400

0.45
350

Pressure Drop per meter [Pa/m]

0.4
Accumulated magnitude

0.35 300

0.3
250
0.25
200
0.2

0.15 150

0.1
100
0.05
58.6 [Pa/m]

0
50
0 50 100 150 200 250
ω (cycles/m)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fig. 7. Accumulated power spectrum. Benchmark, i.e. straight tube flow velocity 0.5 m/s Average Velocity [m/s]
(\
\). Tubes with turbulence promoters flow velocity 0.2 m/s, distance between promoters
0.5 m (−.-), 1.0 m (···) and 1.5 m (−·-). ω is here expressed by the number of cycles over Fig. 9. Pressure drop (Pa/m) as a function of flow velocity. Distance between turbulence
1 m. promoters respectively 0.5 m (*), 1.0 m (▼) and 1.5 m (▲). Dashed line: benchmark
pressure drop in a straight tube at Vavg = 0.5 m/s.

compared to a straight tube with average flow velocity of 0.5 m/s,

the tubes with wall turbulence promoters achieve similar or higher
roaming frequencies at low flow velocities.
Fig. 8 shows the autocorrelation functions for the positions of the
particle along the tube length. The graph compares the autocorrelation
function for the benchmark and the tubes with turbulence promoters
with 0.2 m/s of average flow velocity. Autocorrelation function values
between −0.15 and 0.15 indicate that there is no meaningful correla-
tion between the positions of the particles along that distance. For the
benchmark the positions of the particles are not correlated for distances
longer than 8 m, while for the turbulence promoted tubes a similar level
is already reached after 2.5–4 m. This result confirms the strong mixing
in the turbulence promoted tubes at low flow velocity. Although the
tube with 0.5 m distance between the promoters has the strongest
mixing, the differences between promoters are not significant.
So, 1.5 m distance between the turbulence promoters is certainly
applicable.
The mixing results in Figs. 6–8 are given for flow velocities of 0.2 m/s,
which is considered as a worst case. From fluid dynamics it is known
that increasing the flow velocity to 0.3 m/s or higher, results in better
mixing and their analysis is therefore not shown here.
4.3. Energy consumption minimization and mixing conditions evaluation
Pressure drop per metre of tube length, derived from the k-ε model
solution, is given in Fig. 9. In this figure the results for the tube with tur-
bulence promoters with different distances between the promoters and
at different flow velocities are compared to the pressure drop for the
benchmark (horizontal dashed line).
As expected, due to the extra obstacles a tube with turbulence
promoter and a flow velocity of 0.5 m/s has a higher pressure drop
than the benchmark. However, the pressure drop for tubes with wall

0.4
1
Energy consumption per meter of pipe [J/s m]

0.35

0.8
0.3
Autocorrelation function

0.6 0.25

0.2
0.4

0.15
0.2
0.1

0 0.057 [J/s m]
0.05

-0.2 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Axial particle position [m] Average Velocity [m/s]

Fig. 8. Autocorrelation function based on equal length span. Benchmark: 0.5 m/s ( ). Fig. 10. Energy consumption per metre (J/s · m) as a function of flow velocity. Distance be-
Tubes with turbulence promoters flow velocity 0.2 m/s, distance between promoters tween turbulence promoters respectively 0.5 m (*), 1.0 m (▼) and 1.5 m (▲). Dashed line:
0.5 m ( ), 1.0 m ( ) and 1.5 m ( ). benchmark for energy consumption in a straight tube at Vavg = 0.5 m/s.
8 C.A. Gómez-Pérez et al. / Algal Research 12 (2015) 1–9
turbulence promoters and flow velocities below 0.2–0.3 m/s is equal or
below that of benchmark.
Fig. 10 compares the energy consumption the benchmark with the
tubes with turbulence promoters. Since the energy consumption is
proportional to the volumetric flow, the energy loss decreases with de-
creasing flow velocities. At 0.2 m/s, where the mixing in the tubes with
promoters is better than in the benchmark, the energy consumption is
reduced with 60 ~ 80% compared to the benchmark (horizontal dashed
line).
5. Discussion
Several authors suggest the use of static mixers as turbulence pro-
moter in tubular algae cultivation systems [12,13,20]. Although static
mixers can be used to improve the light exposure for algae and to
improve the cultivation performance [13], the main drawback is a sig-
nificant increase in energy consumption. From the work of Zhang
et al. [13] an increase of 290% is derived for the use of static mixers. As
an alternative we consider in this work the potential of wall turbulence
promoters as small disturbances in the tube wall surface.
A flow velocity of 0.5 m/s is generally considered as a good flow ve-
locity in tubular systems with enough turbulence for good mass trans-
fer, light exposure and to avoid biofilm formation [11,14]. For this
work we hypothesized that wall turbulence promoters create sufficient
mixing at low flow velocities, which results in a significant reduction of
the energy consumption. CFD-calculations with particle tracking are
used to investigate the efficiency of the turbulence promoters.
The autocorrelation function demonstrates that at low flow veloci-
ties (0.2–0.3 m/s) the mixing behaviour in the tubes with wall turbu-
lence promoters is stronger than in straight tubes under standard flow
conditions (0.5 m/s). So, the application of the proposed wall turbulence
promoter allows the use of low flow velocities, which reduces the
energy consumption with 60–80%. From the work of Norsker et al. [9]
it is estimated that for outdoor applications the costs for pumping
through the tubes accounts for 60% of the energy costs in tubular
systems. A 60–80% reduction of the pumping costs by application of
the wall turbulence promoter has a high impact on part of the opera-
tional costs. The extra costs for manufacturing these tubes are not yet
known, but from the work of Norsker et al. [9] a breakeven point can
be calculated. The energy consumption for pumping through the tubes
is 0.47 €/kg dry mass [9]. The potential energy reduction corresponds
to about 0.20 €/kg dry mass, while the costs of tubing are estimated at
0.13€/kg dry mass [9]. So the breakeven point is for 150% increased
tube manufacturing costs.
The power spectra show that, with wall turbulence promoters, the
mixing behaviour shifts to higher frequencies. Although the frequencies
are still below the optimal light exposure as presented by Vejrazka et al.
[32], who found that light exposure frequencies should be more than
10 Hz, it is expected that the increased frequencies have a positive effect
on the productivity.
Oxygen production limits the reactor length, because high oxygen
concentrations can inhibit the photosynthesis. Molina et al. [11] defined
the length of the tube, using the optimal mean flow velocity and the
photosynthetic rate. The tube length is given by:
 
V avg ½O2 out −½O2 in
L¼ ð17Þ
RO2
where L is the tube length (m), Vavg is the average flow velocity (m/s),
[O2] the oxygen concentration (mol/m3), and RO2 is the oxygen produc-
tion rate (mol/m3s), in and out indicate the inflow and outflow respec-
tively. According this expression, oxygen saturation is achieved at a
shorter PBR tube length when low average flow velocities are applied.
As a consequence the distance between degassers is smaller. For exam-
ple, by reducing the flow velocity from 0.5 m/s to 0.25 m/s a double
amount of degassers is required.
Drawback of any turbulence promoter is the risk of biofilm forma-
tion in the dead zones around the promoters (see Fig. 4). The CFD
calculations showed that for the benchmark, i.e. the straight tube
with average velocity 0.5 m/s, the flow velocity near the wall is still
0.19 m/s. In the system with wall turbulence promoters and average ve-
locity of 0.2 m/s, the flow velocity in the dead zones falls to 0.00102 m/s.
This significant lower value is still 200 times above the settling velocity
of algae particles, which is in the range 0.8–7.3 μm/s [33]. The risk of
biofouling increases in the dead zones after the turbulence promoter,
but seems still acceptable. Nevertheless, the impact of the turbulence
promoters on biofouling and cleaning has to be investigated during
long term experiments.
6. Conclusion
Particle tracking in CFD calculations demonstrated that the use of
wall turbulence promoters allows a reduction of the flow velocities in
tubular PBR's from 0.5 to 0.2 m/s or below, while maintaining good
mixing conditions. The energy consumption for pumping is reduced
with 60–80% compared to the current standard systems. Particle
tracking analysis by Discrete Fourier Transformation (DFT) and auto-
correlation function calculation proved that mixing conditions at low
flow velocities in tubes with wall turbulence promoters are better
than in straight tubes. So, the wall turbulence promoters are a strong
instrument to reduce the energy consumption for pumping in tubular
PBRs. Validation of these wall turbulence promoters is still necessary to
confirm the predicted effects and to optimize the process conditions for
reduction of energy losses, and to also study the effect on algae growth.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the support of the Enlaza-Mundos schol-
arship program from Alcaldía de Medellín and the Universidad Nacional
de Colombia Scholarship Program for the financial support which
makes this work possible.
References
[1] C. Posten, Design principles of photo-bioreactors for cultivation of microalgae, Eng.
Life Sci. 9 (2009) 165–177.
[2] S.-H. Ho, C.-Y. Chen, D.-J. Lee, J.-S. Chang, Perspectives on microalgal CO2-emission
mitigation systems—a review, Biotechnol. Adv. 29 (2011) 189–198.
[3] L. Brennan, P. Owende, Biofuels from microalgae — a review of technologies for pro-
duction, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 557–577.
[4] N.T. Eriksen, The technology of microalgal culturing, Biotechnol. Lett. 30 (2008)
1525–1536.
[5] Y. Lee, Microalgal mass culture systems and methods: their limitation and potential,
J. Appl. Phycol. 13 (2001) 307–315.
[6] R.H. Wijffels, M.J. Barbosa, M.H.M. Eppink, Microalgae for the production of bulk
chemicals and biofuels, Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 4 (2010) 287–295.
[7] Y. Chisti, Constraints to commercialization of algal fuels, J. Biotechnol. 167 (2013)
201–214.
[8] F. Lehr, C. Posten, Closed photo-bioreactors as tools for biofuel production, Curr.
Opin. Biotechnol. 20 (2009) 280–285.
[9] N.-H. Norsker, M.J. Barbosa, M.H. Vermuë, R.H. Wijffels, Microalgal production—a
close look at the economics, Biotechnol. Adv. 29 (2011) 24–27.
[10] O. Pulz, Photobioreactors: production systems for phototrophic microorganisms,
Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 57 (2001) 287–293.
[11] E. Molina, J. Fernández, F.G. Acién, Y. Chisti, Tubular photobioreactor design for algal
cultures, J. Biotechnol. 92 (2001) 113–131.
[12] I. Perner-nochta, C. Posten, Simulations of light intensity variation in photobioreactors, J.
Biotechnol. 131 (2007) 276–285.
[13] Q. Zhang, X. Wu, S. Xue, K. Liang, W. Cong, Study of hydrodynamic characteristics in
tubular photobioreactors, Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 36 (2013) 143–150.
[14] F.G. Acién Fernández, J.M. Fernández Sevilla, J.A. Sánchez Pérez, E. Molina Grima, Y.
Chisti, Airlift-driven external-loop tubular photobioreactors for outdoor production
of microalgae: assessment of design and performance, Chem. Eng. Sci. 56 (2001)
2721–2732.
[15] J.C. Merchuk, M. Ronen, S. Giris, S. Arad, Light/dark cycles in the growth of the red
microalga Porphyridium sp, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 59 (1998) 705–713.
[16] J. Bitog, I. Lee, C. Lee, K. Kim, Application of computational fluid dynamics for model-
ing and designing photobioreactors for microalgae production: a review, Comput.
Electron. Agric. 76 (2011) 131–147.
 C.A. Gómez-Pérez et al. / Algal Research 12 (2015) 1–9
[17] I. Perner, C. Posten, J. Broneske, CFD optimization of a plate photobioreactor used for
cultivation of microalgae, Eng. Life Sci. 3 (2003) 287–291.
[18] P. Wongluang, Y. Chisti, T. Srinophakun, Optimal hydrodynamic design of tubular
photobioreactors, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 88 (2013) 55–61.
[19] J. Pruvost, L. Pottier, J. Legrand, Numerical investigation of hydrodynamic and
mixing conditions in a torus photobioreactor, Chem. Eng. Sci. 61 (2006) 4476–4489.
[20] L.B. Wu, Z. Li, Y.Z. Song, Numerical investigation of flow characteristics and irradi-
ance history in a novel photobioreactor, Afr. J. Biotechnol. 8 (2009) 4672–4679.
[21] J.D. Smith, A.A. Neto, S. Cremaschi, D.W. Crunkleton, CFD-based optimization of a
flooded bed algae bioreactor, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52 (2013) 7181–7188.
[22] R.L. Webb, E.R.G. Eckert, R.J. Goldstein, Heat transfer and friction in tubes with
repeated-rib roughness, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 14 (1971) 601–617.
[23] T.S. Ravigururajan, A.E. Bergles, Development and verification of general correla-
tions for pressure drop and heat transfer in single-phase turbulent flow in enhanced
tubes, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 13 (1996) 55–70.
[24] A.K. Moberg, G.K. Ellem, G.J. Jameson, J.G. Herbertson, Simulated cell trajectories in a
stratified gas — liquid flow tubular photobioreactor, J. Appl. Phycol. 24 (2012)
357–363.
9
[25] S.B. Pope, Turbulent Flows, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[26] ANSYS, Ansys Fluent 12.0 Theory Guide, 2009. (Chapter 15).
[27] D. Sundararajan, The Discrete Fourier Transform Theory, Algorithms and Applica-
tions, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, London, 2001.
[28] R.N. Bracewell, The Fourier Transform and its Applications, 2000.
[29] P.M.T. Broersen, Automatic Autocorrelation and Spectral Analysis, Springer, London,
2006.
[30] P.M. Slegers, P.J.M. van Beveren, R.H. Wijffels, G. van Straten, A.J.B. van Boxtel,
Scenario analysis of large scale algae production in tubular photobioreactors, Appl.
Energy 105 (May 2013) 395–406.
[31] R. Bosma, W.A. van Spronsen, J. Tramper, R.H. Wijffels, Ultrasound, a new separation
technique to harvest microalgae, J. Appl. Phycol. 15 (2002) 143–154.
[32] C. Vejrazka, M. Janssen, M. Streefland, R.H. Wijffels, Photosynthetic efficiency
of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii in flashing light, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 108 (2011)
2905–2913.
[33] J.E. Coons, D.M. Kalb, T. Dale, B.L. Maronne, Getting to low-cost algal biofuels: a
monograph on conventional and cutting-edge harvesting and extraction technolo-
gies, Algal Res. 6 (2014) 250–270.