Powder Technology 116 Ž2001.

246–260
www.elsevier.comrlocaterpowtec

Numerical studies of bubble formation dynamics in gas–liquid–solid

fluidization at high pressures
Y. Li, G.Q. Yang, J.P. Zhang, L.-S. Fan )
Department of Chemical Engineering, The Ohio State UniÕersity, 140 West 19th AÕenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Received 31 March 2000; received in revised form 6 September 2000; accepted 20 September 2000

Abstract

A discrete phase simulation ŽDPS. is conducted to investigate multi-bubble formation dynamics in gas–liquid–solid fluidization
systems. A numerical technique based on computational fluid dynamics ŽCFD. with the discrete particle method ŽDPM. and volume
tracking represented by the volume-of-fluid ŽVOF. method is developed and employed for the simulation. A bubble-induced force ŽBIF.
model, a continuum surface force ŽCSF. model, and Newton’s third law are applied to account for the couplings of particle–bubble,
bubble–liquid and particle–liquid interactions, respectively. A close-distance interactive effect between colliding particles is considered in
the formulation of the particle–particle collision model. Two-dimensional simulations of the behavior of bubble formation from
multi-orifices in liquids and liquid–solid suspensions are conducted at high pressures up to 19.4 MPa under constant gas flow conditions.
Experiments are also conducted in this study to quantify the bubble formation behavior from a single orifice under comparable gas flow
conditions. The study indicates that the liquid flow dynamics induced by adjacent bubbles and bubble wake significantly affects the
multi-bubble formation process. The simulation results on the initial bubble size and bubble formation time under various pressures and
solids hold-up are found to be in good agreement with those obtained experimentally as well as those predicted based on the analytical
model developed earlier by the authors. q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Gas–liquid–solid fluidization; Discrete phase simulation; Bubble formation; Bubble dynamics; Volume-of-fluid method; Dispersed particle
method

1. Introduction have significant effects on the behaviors of these pro-

Bubble columns and three-phase fluidization systems
have been extensively applied in industry for chemical and
petrochemical processing such as resid hydrotreating,
methanol synthesis, Fischer–Tropsch synthesis and ben-
zene hydrogenation w6x. The operation of these systems for
such applications is commonly conducted under high pres-
sures. Extensive studies have indicated significant effects
of pressure and solids hold-up on the flow characteristics
in bubble columns and slurry bubble columns w11,12,
20,38,42x, especially on the gas hold-up and the bubble
size. The size of bubbles in gas–liquid–solid fluidized
systems is closely associated with the dynamics of bubble
formation, bubble coalescence and bubble breakup pro-
cesses. The system pressure and particle concentration
)
Corresponding author. Tel.: q1-614-292-4935; fax: q1-614-292-
3769.
E-mail address: fan.1@osu.edu ŽL.-S. Fan..
cesses.
The phenomena of bubble formation through the ori-
fices connected to a gas chamber can be described in terms
of the dimensionless capacitance number Nc defined as
4Vc g r lrp D 02 P w14,32x. Accordingly, bubbles are formed
mainly under two distinct conditions: constant flow condi-
tions when Nc F 1, and variable flow conditions when
Nc ) 1 w8x. The effects of pressure or gas density on the
initial bubble size in the liquid have been extensively
examined. It is found that an increase in system pressure or
gas density significantly reduces the initial bubble size
under variable flow conditions w15,33,39,43x. Under con-
stant flow conditions, however, the effect of pressure on
the initial bubble size is insignificant w11,19x. There are
relatively few studies concerning the effect of particle
presence on the initial bubble size. Luo et al. w19x and
Yang et al. w42x investigated the mechanism of bubble
formation in liquid–solid suspensions at elevated pres-
sures. It is found that the presence of particles increases
the initial bubble size for both constant flow and variable

0032-5910r01r$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 3 2 - 5 9 1 0 Ž 0 0 . 0 0 3 9 3 - 4
 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260
flow conditions, similar to the findings of Massimilla et al.
w23x, which was obtained at the ambient pressure.
These experimental studies on bubble formation in liq-
uids and liquid–solid suspensions were described in vari-
ous empirical correlations and analytical models in the
literature. Marmur and Rubin w22x developed a mechanistic
model to account for the bubble formation process from a
single orifice submerged in an inviscid liquid. Pinczewski
w27x and Terasaka and Tsuge w30x used the modified
Rayleigh equation to predict the bubble growth rate, for-
mation time and pressure fluctuation in the chamber under
different pressures. Luo et al. w19x and Yang et al. w42x
developed analytical models to account for the initial
bubble size in high-pressure liquid–solid suspensions un-
der various bubble formation conditions. The models took
into account various forces induced by particles, such as
the suspension inertial force and particle–bubble collision
force. Most of these models are based on the spherical
symmetry assumption, and their extension to nonspherical
bubble formation is unsuitable. Moreover, due to the lim-
ited range of experimental parameters employed, most of
the correlations and analytical models proposed are re-
stricted in their applicability.
Computational fluid dynamics ŽCFD. has offered a
viable approach to the study of local flow structures and
transient flow phenomena. To date, the gas–bubble-related
flows in bubble columns or slurry bubble columns have
been simulated principally by three main numerical ap-
proaches: the Eulerian–Eulerian multi-fluid model
w25,29,31,36,40x, the Eulerian–Lagrangian model w5,16,34x,
and the interface tracking method w35x. Since the
Eulerian–Eulerian multi-fluid model treats the gas bubble
as a pseudo-continuum phase and the Eulerian–Lagrangian
model treats the gas bubble as a non-deformable spherical
particle, both of these models are inappropriate for describ-
ing deformable bubble behavior during the formation pro-
cess.
In the interface tracking method, two approaches can be
followed: the front-tracking method based on the La-
grangian grid system and the volume-tracking method
based on the Eulerian framework. The front-tracking
method constructs a mesh system at the interface and
tracks the movement of the bubble surface w35x. The entire
Lagrangian grid mesh system moves with the interface.
The volume-tracking method, on the other hand, recon-
structs the interface using marker particles w9x or some
special functions such as fractional volume-of-fluid ŽVOF.
w10x. The VOF method constructs the interface as part of
the solution based on the same grid system and is flexible
and efficient for describing the changes in the topology of
the gas–liquid interface.
Two kinds of VOF techniques, the piecewise constant
and piecewise linear methods, are applied to reconstruct
the free surfaces. Interfaces within each cell are assumed
to be lines aligned with one of local coordinates in the
piecewise constant method w26x, or are additionally al-
247
lowed to be Astair-stepB aligned with more than one mesh
coordinate within a given cell in an improved piecewise
constantrstair-step VOF method w10x. In the piecewise
linear method, the interfaces are reconstructed by the lines
defined by a slope and intercept within each volume
fraction control cell w44x, which provides a more accurate
approximation.
The VOF method is employed in commercial CFD
codes, and has been widely used in simulations of liquid–
solid systems. However, little was reported in the literature
regarding the CFD study of bubble formation in three-phase
fluidized systems, especially at elevated pressures. Man-
asseh et al. w21x simulated single bubble formation in water
at ambient pressure by using the VOF method. Li et al.
w17x and Zhang et al. w45x used the modified VOF method
to examine the pressure effect on the rising behavior of a
gas bubble, which is initially at rest inside the system and
is of circular shape. In the present study, numerical analy-
ses of the bubble formation from multiple orifices under
different pressures are conducted based on the discrete
phase simulation ŽDPS. method developed earlier by Li et
al. w18x. The effects of pressure and particle concentration
on the characteristics of bubble formation, such as the
initial bubble size and bubble formation time under con-
stant gas flow conditions, are examined based on the
computation. The rising behavior of a gas bubble immedi-
ately after its detachment from the orifice is also studied.
The effects of the interactions between the leading bubble
and the trailing bubbles, as well as that between two
adjacent bubbles, on the bubble formation behavior are
emphasized. The effects of dynamic fluid flow induced by
adjacent bubbles and bubble wakes are also investigated.
The computation results are compared with the experi-
ments, as well as with those calculated based on a reported
analytical model.
2. Discrete phase simulation method
In order to investigate the characteristics of bubble
formation in liquid–solid suspensions and the behavior of
individual phases, a discrete phase simulation method is
adopted for the numerical simulations. Specifically, the
Eulerian volume-averaged method, the Lagrangian discrete
particle method ŽDPM. and the volume-of-fluid method
are employed in this study to describe the motion of liquid,
particles and gas bubbles, respectively.
2.1. GoÕerning equations for continuous phases
For the bubble formation process, liquid is the continu-
ous phase outside the gas bubble while gas is the continu-
ous phase inside the gas bubble. The volume-averaged
Navier–Stokes equations considering the presence of parti-
248 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260
cles can be obtained for the continuous phases as Ža.
continuous phase continuity equation:
E´ f
q = P Ž ´f U . s 0
Et
Žb. continuous phase momentum equation:
EŽ ´f U .
rf q r f= P Ž ´ f UU .
Et
s y=p q = P Ž ´ f t . q ´ f r f g q Fpf q F bl
where U is the velocity vector; ´ f is the hold-up of the
continuous fluid Ži.e., for the liquid–solid mixture outside
the gas bubbles ´ f stands for the liquid hold-up, ´ l , and
´ l q ´s s 1; for the gas phase with solid particles inside
the gas bubbles ´ f stands for the gas hold-up, ´g , and
´g q ´s s 1.; r f is the density; p is the scalar pressure; t
is the viscous stress tensor; Fpf is the force acting on the
continuous phase by the solid particles; and F bl is the
interaction force between liquid and gas bubbles.
Since the DPS method does not assume the particle
phase as a pseudo-continuum phase, the effect of solids
concentration is taken into account by the hold-up ´ f in
Eq. Ž2.. Therefore, the expression of the viscous stress
tensor for the liquid is identical to that for a single phase
flow, i.e.,
T
t s 2 m S s m Ž =U . q Ž =U .
Based on Newton’s third law of motion, the total forces
acting on particles yield a reaction force on the fluid. Thus,
the momentum transfer from particles to the continuous
phase is taken into account by the particle–fluid interac-
tion force term Fpf in Eq. Ž2.:
Ý Ffpk
Fpf s y , x pk g V i j
DVi kj
where the subscript ij defines the location of a computa-
tional cell; V and DV are the domain and volume of this
cell, respectively; x pk is the location of particle k; and Ffpk
is the fluid–particle interaction force acting on an individ-
ual particle, which will be discussed in Section 2.3.1.
The bubble–liquid interaction force, F bl , is obtained by
a continuum surface force ŽCSF. model w2x
F bl Ž x ,t . s "sk Ž x ,t . =F Ž x ,t .
where the plus sign is used for the liquid phase and the
minus sign for the gas phase; s is the surface tension of
the bubble interface; k is the curvature of the gas-free
surface; and F Ž x,t . is a scalar volume fraction function of
fluid, where F Ž x,t . s 1 in the liquid or liquid–solid mix-
ture, 0 - F Ž x,t . - 1 at the gas bubble surface, and F Ž x,t .
s 0 in the gas bubble.
2.2. Gas bubble interface tracking
Based on the definition of F Ž x,t . given in Section 2.1,
Ž 1. the movement of the gas bubble interface can be tracked
based on the distributions of F Ž x,t . w10x. The gas–liquid
interface exists in the computational cells where F Ž x,t .
lies between 0 and 1. From the values of F Ž x,t . in
neighboring cells, the size and shape of gas bubbles can be
constructed. The advection equation for F Ž x,t . is given
by:
Ž 2. EF Ž x ,t .
q Ž U P = . F Ž x ,t . s 0 Ž 6.
Et
The piecewise linear interface calculation ŽPLIC.
method w44x is applied to reconstruct the bubble-free sur-
faces with a multidimensional algorithm to determine the
slope of each reconstructed line. In order to simulate the
gas flow field inside the bubble as well as the liquid flow
field, a sharp variation in properties from one phase to the
other on the bubble interface is replaced by a smooth
variation from one phase to the other within a finite
interface thickness. The mixture properties are calculated,
using a volume fraction weighted average method, as:
r s r l P F Ž x ,t . q rg P Ž 1 y F Ž x ,t . .
m s m l P F Ž x ,t . q mg P Ž 1 y F Ž x ,t . . Ž 7.
Ž 3.
2.3. Particle goÕerning equations
2.3.1. Particle motion equations
Theoretically, if the relative velocity between the liquid
and solid phases is zero, the liquid–solid suspension can
be treated as one pseudo-homogenous medium. However,
this is not the case in the system of this study. The relative
motion between the liquid and solid phases is exhibited in
Ž 4.
various bubble–particle interactive phenomena Že.g., parti-
cle penetrating bubble.. Therefore, it is necessary to study
the behavior of the solid phase separately by using the
Lagrangian trajectory method.
The motion of a particle in the flow field can be
described in Lagrangian coordinates with its origin set at
the center of the moving particle. Translation and rotation
are considered for the particle motion. The particle rota-
tional acceleration or deceleration is assumed to be negligi-
ble. However, the change of particle rotation due to colli-
Ž 5. sion is considered as will be discussed in Section 2.3.2.
The motion of a single particle without collision is
governed by Newton’s second law:
d xp
s Up Ž 8.
dt
dUp
mp s m p g y Vp r g q F bp q Ffp Ž 9.
dt
 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260 249

where x p and Vp are the particle position and volume, force depends strongly on the local liquid hold-up in the
respectively, and the four terms on the right-hand side of vicinity of the particle under consideration. The effective
Eq. Ž9. are the gravity force, the buoyancy force, the drag coefficient can be obtained by the product of the drag
bubble-induced force on the particle and the fluid–particle coefficient for an isolated particle and a correction factor
interaction force. as given by w37x:
When particles approach the gas–liquid interface, the
surface tension force acts on the particles through the CXD s C D ´y4
f
.7
Ž 13 .
liquid film. Since the size of computational cell is larger where C D is a function of the particle Reynolds number,
than the thickness of the gas–liquid interface film, a Re p . For rigid spherical particles, the drag coefficient C D
bubble-induced force model is applied to the particle: can be estimated by the following equations w28x:
F bp s Vp sk Ž x ,t . =F Ž x ,t . Ž 10 . ° 24 Ž 1 q 0.15Re 0.687
. Re p - 1000
s~ Re
p
If the particle overcomes this bubble-induced force, the CD p Ž 14 .
particle would penetrate the bubble surface. If there is a ¢0.44 Re p G 1000
significant number of particles penetrating bubbles and
particle sizes are large enough, the bubble instability would The added mass force accounts for the resistance of the
clearly yield a reduction in the bubble size. However, in fluid mass that is moving at the same acceleration as the
the bubble formation process, the amount of the particles particle. For a spherical particle, the volume of the added
that actually penetrate is a handful compared to the num- mass is equal to one-half of the particle volume, Vp , so
ber of particles in the bulk and the bubble is able to that:
recover its original shape upon particle penetration. Al- 1 d
though it is difficult to observe the particle-penetrating FAM s r Vp Ž U y Up . Ž 15 .
phenomenon in the bubble formation process, this phe- 2 dt
nomenon has been experimentally observed under the free The Basset force induced by the particle acceleration or
bubbling conditions. More detailed accounts of the parti- deceleration in the liquid can be expressed by w24x:
cle–bubble penetration have been given in Chen and Fan
w3,4x. The particle-penetrating phenomenon manifests the t d Ž U y Up .
FBA s 3pm d p H0 K Ž t y t . dt Ž 16 .
validity of the discrete phase simulation method in ac- dt
counting for the interaction between the continuous liquid
where K Ž t y t . in Eq. Ž16. is given as
and discrete particles. The interaction between the particle
and gas bubble is represented by the source term F bp in
Eq. Ž9.. The interaction affects the VOF solutions through
° p Ž tyt .n
~
1r4

K Ž tyt . s
the liquid flow field. The balance between this force and ¢ r 2
p
other forces determines whether the particle could pene-
trate the gas bubble and whether the bubble could recover
its original shape. 1 Ž U q np y n .
3
2
¶•
1r2 y2

q p Ž tyt . ,
Due to the small particle size, the Saffman, Magnus and 2 rp n f H3 Ž Re . ß
pressure-gradient-related forces are ignored, and therefore,
the fluid–particle interaction force, Ffp , includes the drag f H Ž Re . s 0.75 q 0.105Re; Re s Ud prn . Ž 17 .
force, the added mass force and the Basset force. That is:
where n is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid, and U is
Ffp s FD q FAM q FBA Ž 11 . the mean stream velocity.

Note that the pressure gradient force is not included in

Eq. Ž11. as, for consistency w41x, this force has been
accounted for in the momentum equation of the continuous
phase as given in Eq. Ž2.. The drag force acting on a
suspended particle is proportional to the relative velocity
between the phases and has the following form:
1 before any collision.
FD s CXD r A < U y Up < Ž U y Up . Ž 12 .
2
where A is the cross-sectional area of the particle to the
direction of the incoming flow; and CXD is the effective
drag coefficient. In the liquid–solid suspension, the drag
2.3.2. Particle–particle collision analysis
In this study, it is assumed that the collisions between
spherical particles are binary and quasi-instantaneous, and
there is a sequence of collisions during each time step. An
equation similar to that in molecular dynamic simulation
w1x is used to locate the minimum flight time of particles
Differing from the gas–solid flow case, the liquid inter-
facial effect is important when two particles move close to
each other in liquid–solid systems, especially when the
distance between two particles is less than 0.1d p . Thus, the
close-distance interaction ŽCDI. model developed by the
250 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260

authors is used to calculate the particle contact velocity
upon collision. The model considers the strong damping
effect due to the liquid film prior to particle collision.
Details of the CDI model are described in Zhang et al.
w46x.
Based on above assumptions, the kinematic analysis can
be conducted to obtain the velocities of particles after
collision. Assuming that the collision occurs between parti-
cles a and b, the normal components after collision can be
given by the definition of the restitution coefficient and the
momentum conservation equation:
° X
UaN y UbN
X
The particle collision is important in simulating bubble
formation behavior, especially for high solids hold-up
conditions. The simulation without considering particle
collision leads to inappropriate non-uniformity of particle
distribution in the flow field and hence false flow field
information. The numerical instability may also occur as a
result of inappropriate particle accumulation in a computa-
tional cell. In the present model, only the binary-particle
collision mechanism is considered, which limits the model
to low solids hold-up conditions Žless than 30–40 vol.%..
For higher solids hold-up cases, the multi-particle collision
mechanism needs to be considered.

se
~ UbN y UaN Ž 18 .
¢m U a
N N
a q m b Ub s m aUa
N
X
q m b UbN
X 3. Simulation conditions

where U N is the normal velocity of the particle Ž a or b . at 3.1. CVD-2 code

the contact point before or after Žwith superscript X . the
collision. The numerical simulations of bubble formation in liq-
Neglecting the effect of particle torsion during the uid–solid suspensions are conducted in this study by using
collision, the simplified Mindlin’s contact theory account- the two-dimensional code CVD-2 developed by the au-
ing for particle–particle sliding or sticking contact is ap- thors. This code is developed by modifying the program
plied to obtain the tangential components after the colli- Ripple w13x, intended for incompressible flows with free
sion. If the incident angle, defined as the ratio of the surfaces, to account for compressible flows and internal
particle–particle relative velocity in the tangential direc- flows inside a gas bubble, and by programming the La-
tion to that in the normal direction, is less than the critical grangian formulation of the particle phase flow and pro-
angle Ž a cr s tany1 Ž2 f k ., where f k is the friction coeffi- gramming the couplings among individual phases. The
cient., the sticking collision occurs: flowchart of the computation using the code CVD-2 is
given in Fig. 1. The simulations are carried out using the
X X
UaT s UbT Ž 19 . Cray T-94 supercomputer at the Ohio State Supercomputer
Center; about 1.2 h of CPU time are required to compute
Otherwise, the sliding collision occurs, in which w7x: the flow behavior occurring in 1 s of real time.
X X
Ž UaT y UbT . y Ž UaT y UbT . s 2 f k Ž UaN y UbN . Ž 20 .
where U T is the tangential velocity of particle Ž a or b . at
the contact point.
Eq. Ž19. or Ž20., together with the momentum conserva-
tion equation, Eq. Ž21., gives rise to the tangential veloci-
ties:
X X
m aUaT q m b UbT s m aUaT q m b UbT Ž 21 .
As mentioned in Section 2.3.1, the collision induces the
change of particle rotation. The angular velocities after the
collision are determined by:
X
Ia Ž v Xa y v a . s m a Ž UaT y UaT . P r a
½ Ib Ž v Xb y v b . s m b Ž UbT y UbT . P r b
X Ž 22 .

where v is the angular velocity of the particle Ž a or b .,

and I is the moment of inertia defined by I s Ž2 m p rp2 .r5.
The tangential velocities of the particle centers are
given as:
X X
UacT s UaT y v Xa r a
½ X
UbcT s UbT y v Xb r b
X Ž 23 .
Fig. 1. The flowchart of the program CVD-2.
 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260
3.2. Boundary and initial conditions
In the simulations, an 80 Žwidth. = 50 mm Žheight.
domain is used with two orifices at the bottom, an exit at
the top and two side walls as boundary conditions. The
liquid initially fills the domain to a certain height. For the
case with particle presence, 1000 glass beads are randomly
positioned in the liquid. Particles then settle under gravity
in the liquid medium with an evenly distributed inlet
velocity. At a certain liquid inlet velocity, an almost
uniform solids hold-up of 22.3% is reached. A second
simulation case with a solids concentration of 37.9% is
conducted by using 1700 particles instead of 1000 parti-
cles. At the beginning of the simulation, gas is injected
into the liquid or liquid–solid suspension through two
orifices.
3.3. Selection of parameters
In the simulation, Paratherm NF heat transfer fluid,
nitrogen, and glass beads of 0.8 mm in diameter and 2,500
kgrm3 in density are used as liquid, gas, and solid phases,
respectively. The physical properties of the fluids under
the simulation conditions are given in Table 1. Bubble
formation in liquids and liquid–solid suspensions is nu-
merically studied for three pressure conditions: 0.1, 6.6
and 19.4 MPa, and for three solids hold-up conditions:
0.0,0.223 and 0.379, with a computation time step of
5 = 10y6 s. The terminal velocity of the particle in the
liquid is about 2.5 cmrs at ambient pressure and 1.4 cmrs
at a high pressure of 19.4 MPa. The restitution coefficient
used in the collision analysis is 0.9 and the frictional
coefficient is 0.3. These values are selected based on the
previous numerical and experimental studies using the
same particles w46x. The gas inlet velocity is 14.0 cmrs.
The diameter of each orifice is 6 mm. The simulations are
performed with 80 = 50 grids.
3.4. Experiments
In order to verify the simulation results, bubble forma-
tion experiments from a single orifice at elevated pressures
are carried out in a high-pressure slurry bubble column of
1.38 m in height and 0.102 m I.D. Nitrogen is injected into
the liquid–solid medium through a single orifice of 6.0
mm I.D. The particles are suspended by a uniform liquid
flow. The liquid flow is maintained at a relatively low
Table 1
Physical properties of the gas and liquid used in the simulations ŽT s
308C.
Pressure ŽMPa. 0.1 6.6 19.4
Gas density Žkgrm3 . 1.1 73.9 215.6
Liquid density Žkgrm3 . 868 877 895
Liquid viscosity ŽPa s. 0.0232 0.032 0.0399
Surface tension ŽNrm. 0.0292 0.0254 0.0233
251
Fig. 2. Comparison of initial bubble sizes obtained in 2-D and 3-D
columns Ž P s 0.1 MPa, ´ p s 0.0..
level and the effect of liquid flow on the bubble formation
process is negligibly small. The liquid and particles used in
the experiments are identical to those employed in the
numerical simulations. The system pressure and solids
concentration vary in the ranges of 0.1–10.3 MPa and
0–22 vol.%, respectively. A high-speed video camera Ž240
framesrs. is used to obtain the images of bubbles emerg-
ing from the orifice in the liquid, and an optic fiber probe
is used to detect bubbles in the slurry. The bubbling
frequency and initial bubble size are obtained based on the
probe signals and photographs. The details of the high-
pressure column, the experimental setup and the optic fiber
probe system are given by Luo et al. w19x and Yang et al.
w42x.
To verify the validity of the comparison between 2-D
simulations and 3-D experiments, bubble formation experi-
ments are also conducted in a two-dimensional column.
The cross-section of the 2-D column is rectangular with
dimensions of 1.2 = 20 cm. Two orifice sizes Ž1.6 and 6
mm in diameter. and two liquids Žwater and Paratherm NF
heat transfer fluid. are used in the 2-D experiments. The
3-D experimental data for the 1.6-mm orifice in the
Paratherm NF heat transfer fluid are from our previous
study w19x. The comparison of initial bubble sizes obtained
in the 2-D and 3-D columns is shown in Fig. 2. It can be
seen that initial bubble sizes measured in the 2-D and 3-D
columns are almost identical for both orifices and liquids,
indicating that the bubble formation process in the 2-D and
3-D columns is comparable. Therefore, it is reasonable to
compare 3-D experiments with 2-D simulation results in
this study.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Pressure effect on bubble formation
The two-bubble formation process in the liquid with the
initial bed height of 30 mm is numerically simulated for
252 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260

three pressures of 0.1, 6.6 and 19.4 MPa at 308C. In order

to isolate the pressure effect on the bubble formation
behavior, the two orifices are intentionally set far apart to
avoid interaction between bubbles. The distance between
the two orifices in this case is 35 mm. It is shown in Fig. 3
that the two bubbles formed in this simulation are identical
and symmetric, which indicates that the distance between
the two orifices is large enough so that the interaction
between the two bubbles is negligible. The distance of 35
mm is also applied in the next two cases to isolate the
effects of particle concentration and bubble wake structure
on the bubble formation behavior. The simulated bubble
formation process at 6.6 MPa is shown in Fig. 3, indicating
two typical formation stages: bubble expansion and bubble
detachment. It can be observed in Fig. 3 that two gas
bubbles formed on the orifices expand to a certain volume
first ŽFig. 3a., and then bubbles begin to detach from the
orifices with narrow necks beneath them ŽFig. 3b.. Two
bubbles separate from the orifices ŽFig. 3c., then rise
rectilinearly, and then formation of new bubbles starts
ŽFig. 3d..
This bubble formation process is validated by the exper-
imental observations described in Section 3.4. A sequence
of bubble images showing the process of bubble formation
in liquids at elevated pressure is shown in Fig. 4. It can be
seen that a bubble growing at the orifice remains roughly
spherical until it detaches from the orifice. The pho-
tographs also show the bubble formation process compris-
ing expansion ŽFig. 4a., detachment ŽFig. 4b., separation
ŽFig. 4c. and rising ŽFig. 4d., which is in qualitative
agreement with the simulation results shown in Fig. 3.
Figs. 5 and 6 compare the simulation results at 6.6 and
19.4 MPa with those at ambient pressure. It can be seen
that the size of bubbles formed from the orifice at 0.1 MPa
is similar to that at 6.6 and 19.4 MPa ŽFig. 5., which
indicates that the effect of pressure on the initial bubble
size under constant flow conditions is not significant.
Although an increase in pressure increases the inlet gas
momentum and decreases the bubble surface tension, which
promotes the detachment of the bubble, the increase in
pressure also increases the liquid viscosity and decreases
the buoyancy force, which impedes the detachment of the
bubble. Therefore, the overall effect of pressure on bubble
formation is insignificant. This finding agrees with the
experimental findings of Luo at el. w19x. Since the simula-
tions at 0.1, 6.6 and 19.4 MPa are conducted under
constant flow conditions with the gas inlet velocity of 14.0
cmrs, the bubble formation times at different pressures are
also comparable ŽFig. 6. due to similar initial bubble sizes. Fig. 3. Simulation results of multi-bubble formation in liquids Ž ´ p s 0.0,
The simulated initial bubble sizes and the bubble forma- P s6.6 MPa..
tion time are in quantitative agreement with the experimen-
tal findings.
The simulation results are also compared with the pre- tion model by taking into consideration various forces
dictions based on the analytical model proposed by Luo et acting on the bubble, especially the forces induced by
al. w19x and Yang et al. w42x. This analytical model is particles, such as the suspension inertial force and the
developed based on the two-stage spherical bubble forma- particle–bubble collision force. The analytical model has
 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260
Fig. 4. A sequence of bubble images showing the process of bubble formation in liquids under high pressures Ž P s 6.6 MPa, U0 s 14.0 cmrs, D 0 s 0.6
cm..
been verified by a large amount of experimental data under
various pressure and gas injection conditions. Therefore,
the calculated results of the analytical model serve as a
benchmark for comparison purposes with this study’s sim-
ulation results. The predictions by the analytical model are
also shown in Figs. 5 and 6, and they agree with the
simulation results well.
4.2. Particle effect on bubble formation
In order to study the particle effect on bubble forma-
tion, the same case as the one given above for 6.6 MPa is
simulated with 1000 and 1700 particles suspended in the
liquid. The solids hold-ups in the liquid–solid suspension
are 22.3% and 37.9%, respectively.
The simulation results are shown in Fig. 7, which also
demonstrates the typical formation process of expansion
ŽFig. 7a and b., detachment ŽFig. 7c. and separation ŽFig.
7d.. The same time series are chosen as those in Fig. 3. It
can be noted that the bubble formation time is 75 ms in the
pure liquid ŽFig. 3. and 120 ms in the liquid–solid suspen-
Fig. 5. Pressure effect on the size of bubbles formed in liquids Ž D 0 s 0.6
cm, U0 s14.0 cmrs, ´ p s 0.0..
253
sion ŽFig. 7., which indicates that the presence of particles
prolongs the bubble formation process. This is because the
presence of particles increases the inertial force acting on
the forming bubbles, which impedes the bubble detach-
ment from the orifice. These results agree well with the
experimental measurements and the predictions by the
analytical model ŽFig. 8..
Due to the longer formation time in the liquid–solid
suspension under constant flow conditions, the initial bub-
ble size in the liquid–solid suspension is larger than that in
the pure liquid. As shown in Fig. 9, the variation of the
solids hold-up from 0 to 22.3% yields an increase of about
14% in bubble diameter, which is in good agreement with
the experimental findings and the predictions by the ana-
lytical model. However, as the solids hold-up increases
further to 37.9%, the effect of the solids hold-up on the
bubble size becomes insignificant.
4.3. Dynamic effect of bubble wake
The bubble wake structure beneath a single rising bub-
ble was numerically studied by Li et al. w17x. They con-
Fig. 6. Pressure effect on bubble formation time in liquids Ž D 0 s 0.6 cm,
U0 s14.0 cmrs, ´ p s 0.0..
254 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260

Fig. 8. Effect of solids hold-up on the bubble formation time Ž D 0 s 0.6

cm, U0 s14.0 cmrs, P s6.6 MPa..

firmed that the DSP method could accurately simulate the

characteristics of the bubble wake structure. Therefore, this
method is used as a basis for the study of the effect of the
leading bubble wake on the trailing bubble in the bubble
formation process.
Since bubble formation is a dynamic process, numerical
simulations are performed to examine the continuous for-
mation process involving a series of bubbles from the
orifices at 6.6 MPa. As shown in Fig. 10, after the first two
leading bubbles separate, the formation process for the
trailing bubbles follows on. The typical stages of expan-
sion, detachment and separation of the trailing bubbles can
also be observed in Fig. 10b–d.
It is noted that the trailing bubbles are smaller than the
leading bubbles. Compared with the leading bubbles, the
size of the trailing bubbles in Fig. 10 is reduced by 40%.
The difference in size between two bubbles in the same
sequence is due to the dynamic characteristics of the flow
in the column. The corresponding flow field vectors of
Fig. 10 are shown in Fig. 11, in which the symmetric
dual-wake structures can be observed beneath the leading
bubbles. The dynamic fluid flow induced by the two
leading bubbles yields a strong fluid shear effect on the
trailing bubbles, rendering early detachment of the trailing
bubbles.

Fig. 7. Simulation results of multi-bubble formation in liquid–solid Fig. 9. Effect of solids hold-up on the initial bubble size Ž D 0 s 0.6 cm,
suspensions Ž ´ p s 0.223, P s6.6 MPa.. U0 s14.0 cmrs, P s6.6 MPa..
 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260 255

Fig. 10. Simulation results with bubble wake effect Ž P s6.6 MPa, Fig. 11. Velocity vector field of multi-bubble formation corresponding to
Lor s 35 mm.. Fig. 10 Ž P s6.6 MPa, Lor s 35 mm..
256 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260

Based on the simulation, it is also noted that the
fluctuations of flow in the liquid phase or liquid–solid
suspension significantly increase the instability of bubble
formation. The size of the bubble formed in the dynamic
fluid is found to be generally smaller than that of the
bubble formed in the quasi-still fluid.
4.4. Effect of distance between orifices
In all previous simulations, bubbles are formed from
two orifices that are situated far apart Ž35 mm., and thus
there is little interaction between these two bubbles as they
rise in the column. Bubble interaction takes place when the

Fig. 12. Simulation results with bubble–bubble interaction Ž P s 6.6 MPa, L or s 20 mm..
 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260 257

two orifices are situated closely. To study the interaction is conducted at 6.6 MPa. The simulation results are shown
of two bubbles from different orifices, a numerical simula- in Fig. 12. As can be seen from the figure, due to the
tion of two-bubble formation in a column with an orifice closeness of the orifices, the fluctuations of flow field
separation distance of 20 mm and a bed height of 42 mm induced by one forming bubble from one orifice have an

Fig. 13. Velocity vector field of multi-bubble formation corresponding to Fig. 12 Ž P s 6.6 MPa, L or s 20 mm..
258 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260
effect on the forming bubble from the other orifice. This
interactive effect yields varied bubble shapes, and an alter-
nate detachment pattern of bubbles from two orifices ŽFig.
12b–f.. In this simulation, initially the bubble from each
orifice rises rectilinearly ŽFig. 12a.; after detachment, how-
ever, the bubbles tend to move to the centerline, rise in
zigzag fashion, and break up at the free surface ŽFig.
12d–f.. The corresponding flow field vectors are shown in
Fig. 13, which explains the interactive behavior of the
liquid phase. It is seen in the figure that due to the
closeness of the orifices, two forming bubbles induce a
high liquid velocity in the area near the centerline. The
high velocity thus results in a lower pressure in this area
and drafts bubbles toward the centerline. In other words,
bubble and bubble wake interaction leads to a zigzag
bubble rising path, and induces a complicated wake flow
field, which, in turn, affects the bubble formation behavior.
Numerical tests of the single bubble formation in a
domain as shown in Fig.14a indicate that the wall effect
cannot be ignored when Dw , the distance between the
bubble edge and the wall, is smaller than the bubble
diameter Ž D .. That is, when the width of the domain is
larger than three times the bubble diameter, the wall effect
on bubble formation can be ignored. Based on this numeri-
cal finding, a simple analytical criterion could be devel-
oped to determine the critical distance between orifices
beyond which the bubble interaction is negligible.
For a multi-bubble formation case as shown in Fig. 14b,
it can be assumed that there is a symmetric plane between
the two orifices, and the nozzle interaction effect is signifi-
cant when Ds , the distance between the bubble edge and
the symmetric plane, is smaller than D. Thus, the critical
distance between two orifices for negligible interaction,
Dcr , would be 3 D. When the distance between two orifices
Fig. 14. Schematic of the analytical criterion for nozzle interaction effect.
is larger than Dcr , the interaction between two orifices
would not take place. The size of bubbles emerging from a
single orifice without the interaction can be predicted by
the analytical model developed earlier by Luo et al. w19x
and Yang et al. w42x. Thus, the critical distance Dcr can be
estimated for a given orifice size and inlet gas velocity.
Under the simulation conditions considered in this study,
the initial bubble size D is in the range of 8–10 mm as
shown in Fig. 9. Therefore, the critical distance between
two orifices would be about 24–30 mm. From the simula-
tion results, it can be seen that no nozzle interaction is
observed when the distance between two orifices, L or , is
35 mm ŽFigs. 3, 7 and 10.. On the other hand, when Lor is
reduced to 20 mm, nozzle interaction occurs ŽFig. 12.. The
current simulation results verify the above analytical crite-
rion. Further refinement and experimental verification of
the analytical criterion are in progress.
5. Concluding remarks
Numerical simulations are performed to study the bub-
ble formation behavior in liquids and liquid–solid suspen-
sions at various pressures. Numerical studies indicate that
pressure has a negligible effect on bubble formation under
the conditions of constant gas flow through orifices. On
the other hand, the bubble formation behavior varies sig-
nificantly with the presence of particles. Specifically, the
bubble formation time and bubble size are greater in
liquid–solid suspensions than those in pure liquids at given
gas and liquid velocities. The simulation also reveals the
dynamic characteristics of the multi-bubble formation pro-
cess. It is confirmed that the leading bubble affects the
formation process of the trailing bubble through the bubble
wake. It is also found that the behavior of bubble forma-
tion from multi-orifices is different from that from a single
orifice. The multi-bubble formation process is strongly
influenced by the complicated bubble wake flows induced
by the adjacent bubbles. The simulated bubble formation
behavior is shown to be in conformity with the experimen-
tal observations. Based on the simulation studies, the
critical distance between two orifices for negligible inter-
action is found to be three times the bubble diameter.
Notation
A Cross-sectional area of particle
CD Drag coefficient
CXD Modified drag coefficient
D Initial bubble diameter
Ds Distance between the bubble edge and the sym-
metric plane
Dw Distance between the bubble edge and the wall
Dcr Critical distance between two orifices for negligi-
ble interaction
Do Orifice diameter
d Diameter
 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260 259

e Restitution coefficient Superscripts

X
F Volume fraction of fluid Value after particle–particle collision
F Force k Particle index
fH Correction function N Normal direction
fk Friction coefficient T Tangential direction
g Gravity acceleration
I Moment of inertia
Lor Distance between two orifices
m Mass Acknowledgements
Nc Dimensionless capacitance number
p Scalar pressure
This work was supported, in part, by the NSF Grant
P System pressure
CTS-9906591, the U.S. Department of Energy Grant
r Radius
DEFC22-95 PC 95051 with a Cooperative Agreement with
Re Reynolds number
Air Products and Chemicals, and the Ohio Supercomputer
S Rate-of-strain tensor
Center. The helpful assistance of Mr. Z. Cui on the
t Time
experimental work shown in Fig. 2 and the constructive
U Velocity vector
comments of Dr. C. Chen on the simulation techniques and
U Mean stream velocity; particle velocity
results are greatly acknowledged.
U0 Orifice gas velocity
V Volume
Vc Chamber volume
Õ Velocity References
x Position vector
w1x M.P. Allen, D.J. Tildesley, Computer Simulation of Liquids, Oxford
Science Publications, New York, 1987.
w2x J.U. Brackbill, D.B. Kothe, C. Zemach, A continuum method for
Greek letters modeling surface tension, J. Comp. Phys. 100 Ž1992. 335.
´ Hold-up w3x Y.-M. Chen, L.-S. Fan, Bubble breakage mechanisms due to colli-
k Curvature of free surface sion with a particle in a liquid medium, Chem. Eng. Sci. 44 Ž1989.
117.
m Dynamic viscosity w4x Y.-M. Chen, L.-S. Fan, Bubble breakage due to particle collision in
n Kinematic viscosity a liquid medium: particle wettability effects, Chem. Eng. Sci. 44
r Density Ž1989. 2762.
s Surface tension w5x E. Delnoij, J.A.M. Kuipers, W.P.M. van Swaaij, Dynamic simula-
t Viscous stress tensor; time tion of gas–liquid two-phase flow: effect of column aspect ratio on
the flow structure, Chem. Eng. Sci. 52 Ž1997. 3759.
V Computation domain w6 x L.-S. Fan, Gas – Liquid – Solid Fluidization Engineering,
v Angular velocity Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 1989.
a Angle w7x L.-S. Fan, C. Zhu, Principles of Gas–Solid Flows, Cambridge Press,
New York, 1998.
w8x L.-S. Fan, G.Q. Yang, D.J. Lee, K. Tsuchiya, X. Luo, Some aspects
of high-pressure phenomena of bubbles in liquids and liquid–solid
Subscripts suspensions, Chem. Eng. Sci. 54 Ž1999. 4681.
AM Added mass w9x F.H. Harlow, J.E. Welch, Numerical calculation of time-dependent
a Particle index viscous incompressible flow of fluid with free surface, Phys. Fluids
ac Center of particle a 8 Ž1965. 2182.
w10x C.W. Hirt, B.D. Nichols, Volume of fluid ŽVOF. method for the
BA Basset
dynamics of free boundaries, J. Comp. Phys. 39 Ž1981. 201.
b Particle index; bubble w11x K. Idogawa, K. Ikeda, T. Fukuda, S. Morooka, Behavior of bubbles
bc Center of particle b of the air–water system in a column under high pressure, Int. Chem.
bl Bubble–liquid interaction Eng. 26 Ž1986. 468.
bp Bubble–particle interaction w12x J.R. Inga, Scaleup and scaledown of slurry reactors: a new method-
cr Critical point ology, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA, 1997.
w13x B.K. Kothe, R.C. Mjolsness, M.D. Torrey, RIPPLE: a computer
D Drag program for incompressible flows with free surfaces, AIAA J. 30
f Continuous phase Ž1992. 2694.
fp Fluid–particle interaction w14x R. Kumar, N.R. Kuloor, The formation of bubbles and drops, Adv.
g Gas phase Chem. Eng. 8 Ž1970. 255.
w15x R.D. LaNauze, I.J. Harris, Gas bubble formation at elevated system
ij Cell indices
pressures, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 52 Ž1974. 337.
l Liquid phase w16x A. Lapin, A. Lobbert, Numerical simulation of the dynamics of two
p Particle phase phase gas–liquid flows in bubble columns, Chem. Eng. Sci. 49
pf Particle–fluid interaction Ž1994. 3661.
260 Y. Li et al.r Powder Technology 116 (2001) 246–260
w17x Y. Li, J. Zhang, L.-S. Fan, Discrete-phase simulation of single
bubble rise behavior at elevated pressures in a bubble column,
Chem. Eng. Sci. 55 Ž2000. 4597.
w18x Y. Li, J. Zhang, L.-S. Fan, Numerical simulation of gas–liquid–solid
fluidization systems using a combined CFD-VOF-DPM method:
bubble wake behavior, Chem. Eng. Sci. 54 Ž1999. 5101.
w19x X. Luo, G.Q. Yang, D.J. Lee, L.-S. Fan, Single bubble formation in
high pressure liquid–solid suspensions, Powder Technol. 100 Ž1998.
103.
w20x X. Luo, D.J. Lee, R. Lau, G.Q. Yang, L.-S. Fan, Maximum stable
bubble size and gas hold-up in high-pressure slurry bubble columns,
AIChE J. 45 Ž1999. 665.
w21x R. Manasseh, S. Yoshida, M. Rudman, Bubble formation processes
and bubble acoustic signals,ICMF ’98, 3rd Int. Conf. on Mul. Flow,
Lyon, France, June 8–12, 1998.
w22x A. Marmur, E. Rubin, A theoretical model for bubble formation at
an orifice submerged in an inviscid liquid, Chem. Eng. Sci. 31
Ž1976. 453.
w23x L. Massimilla, A. Solimando, E. Squillace, Gas dispersion in solid–
liquid fluidized beds, Br. Chem. Eng. 6 Ž1961. 232.
w24x R. Mei, R.J. Adrian, Flow past a sphere with an oscillation in the
free-stream and unsteady drag at finite Reynolds number, J. Fluid
Mech. 237 Ž1992. 323.
w25x D. Mitra-Majumdar, B. Farouk, Y.T. Shah, Hydrodynamic modeling
of three-phase flows through a vertical column, Chem. Eng. Sci. 52
Ž1997. 4485.
w26x W.F. Noh, P.R. Woodward, SLIC ŽSimple Line Interface Method.,
in: A.I. van de Vooren, P.J. Zandbergen ŽEds.., Lecture Notes in
Physics, vol. 59, 1976, p. 330.
w27x W.V. Pinczewski, The formation and growth of bubbles at a sub-
merged orifice, Chem. Eng. Sci. 36 Ž1981. 405.
w28x P.N. Rowe, G.A. Henwood, Drag forces in a hydraulic model of a
fluidized bed—Part I, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 39 Ž1961. 43.
w29x A. Sokolichin, G. Eigenberger, Gas–liquid flow in bubble columns
and loop reactor: Part I. Detailed modeling and numerical simula-
tion, Chem. Eng. Sci. 49 Ž1994. 5735.
w30x K. Terasaka, H. Tsuge, Bubble formation under constant-flow condi-
tions, Chem. Eng. Sci. 48 Ž1993. 3417.
w31x R. Torvik, H.F. Svendsen, Modeling of slurry reactors, a fundamen-
tal approach, Chem. Eng. Sci. 45 Ž1990. 2325.
w32x H. Tsuge, S. Hibino, Bubble formation from an orifice submerged in
liquids, Chem. Eng. Commun. 22 Ž1983. 63.
w33x H. Tsuge, Y. Nakajima, K. Terasaka, Behavior of bubbles formed
from a submerged orifice under high system pressure, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 47 Ž1992. 3273.
w34x J.A. Trapp, G.A. Mortensen, A discrete particle model for bubble
slug two phase flow, J. Comput. Phys. 107 Ž1993. 367.
w35x S.O. Unverdi, G. Tryggvason, A front-tracking method for viscous,
incompressible, multi-fluid flows, J. Comp. Phys. 100 Ž1992. 25.
w36x C. Webb, F. Que, P.R. Senior, Dynamic simulation of gas–liquid
dispersion behavior in a 2-D bubble column using a graphics
mini-supercomputer, Chem. Eng. Sci. 47 Ž1992. 3305.
w37x C.Y. Wen, Y.H. Yu, Mechanics of fluidization, Chem. Eng. Prog.
Symp. Ser. 62 Ž1966. 100.
w38x P.M. Wilkinson, Physical aspects and scale-up of high-pressure
bubble columns, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Groningen, Groningen, The
Netherlands, 1991.
w39x P.M. Wilkinson, L.L. van Dierendonck, A theoretical model for the
influence of gas properties and pressure on single-bubble formation
at an orifice, Chem. Eng. Sci. 49 Ž1994. 1429.
w40x Y. Wu, D. Gidaspow, Hydrodynamic simulation of methanol synthe-
sis in gas–liquid slurry bubble column reactors, Chem. Eng. Sci. 55
Ž2000. 573.
w41x B.H. Xu, A.B. Yu, Authors reply to the comments of B.P.B.
Hoomans, J.A.M. Kuipers, W.J. Briels, and W.P.M van Swaaij,
Chem. Eng. Sci. 53 Ž1998. 2646.
w42x G.Q. Yang, X. Luo, R. Lau, L.-S. Fan, Bubble formation in high
pressure liquid–solid suspensions with plenum pressure fluctuation,
AIChE J. 46 Ž2000. 2162.
w43x D.H. Yoo, K. Terasaka, H. Tsuge, Behavior of bubble formation at
elevated pressure, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 31 Ž1998. 76.
w44x D.L. Youngs, Time-dependent multi-material flow with large fluid
distortion, in: K.W. Morton, M.J. Baines ŽEds.., Numerical Methods
for Fluid Dynamics, Academic Press, New York, 1982, p. 273.
w45x J. Zhang, Y. Li, L.-S. Fan, Numerical studies of bubble and particle
dynamics in a three-phase fluidized bed at elevated pressures, Pow-
der Technol. 112 Ž2000. 46.
w46x J. Zhang, L.S. Fan, C. Zhu, R. Pfeffer, D. Qi, Dynamic behavior of
collinear collision of elastic spheres in viscous fluids, Powder Tech-
nol. 106 Ž1999. 98.