International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 999–1007

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

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

CFD model simulation of bubble surface area flux in flotation column

reactor in presence of minerals
A.R. Sarhan a,b, J. Naser a,⇑, G. Brooks a
a
Department of Mechanical and Product Design Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Anbar, Ramadi, Anbar 31001, Iraq

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

Article history: Bubble surface area flux (Sb) is one of the main design parameter in flotation column that typically
Received 11 April 2017 employed to describe the gas dispersion properties, and it has a strong correlation with the flotation rate
Received in revised form 1 February 2018 constant. There is a limited information available in the literature regarding the effect of particle type,
Accepted 15 May 2018
density, wettability and concentration on Sb. In this paper, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simula-
Available online 21 May 2018
tions are performed to study the gas–liquid–solid three-phase flow dynamics in flotation column by
employing the Eulerian–Eulerian formulation with k-e turbulence model. The model is developed by
Keywords:
writing Fortran subroutine and incorporating then into the commercial CFD code AVL FIRE, v.2014.
CFD
Froth flotation
This paper studies the effects of superficial gas velocities and particle type, density, wettability and con-
Bubble surface area flux centration on Sb and bubble concentration in the flotation column. The model has been validated against
Solid properties published experimental data. It was found that the CFD model was able to predict, where the response
Bubble concentration variable as indicated by R-Square value of 0.98. These results suggest that the developed CFD model is
reasonable to describe the flotation column reactor. From the CFD results, it is also found that Sb
decreased with increasing solid concentration and hydrophobicity, but increased with increasing super-
ficial gas velocity. For example, approximately 28% reduction in the surface area flux is observed when
coal concentration is increased from 0 to 10%, by volume. While for the same solid concentration and
gas flow rate, the bubble surface area flux is approximately increased by 7% in the presences of sphalerite.
A possible explanation for this might be that increasing solid concentration and hydrophobicity promotes
the bubble coalescence rate leading to the increase in bubble size. Also, it was found that the bubble con-
centration would decrease with addition of hydrophobic particle (i.e., coal). For instance, under the same
operating conditions, approximately 23% reduction in the bubble concentration is predicted when the
system was working with hydrophobic particles. The results presented are useful for understanding flow
dynamics of three-phase system and provide a basis for further development of CFD model for flotation
column.
Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction conventional mechanical flotation machine, including simpler con-

Flotation column reactors (FCRs) are extensively used in indus-
try for separating valuable minerals from a mixture with gangue
minerals. They are utilized in petrochemical refining, water treat-
ment, mineral processing, and deinking of recycled paper, and
many other applications [1–7]. This is due to their ability to treat
complex and low grade ores where the mineral particle size is
too small for other separation techniques to be efficient [8]. One
of the most significant applications of FCRs is their utilization in
the process of purification. FCRs offer many advantages over the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jnaser@swin.edu.au (J. Naser).
trol procedure, lower operating and maintenance cost due to lack
of moving parts and improved metallurgical performance. Basi-
cally, gas bubbles are injected into pulp zone which contains one
or more suspended solids to be removed. Only hydrophobic parti-
cles have the opportunity to attach to the gas bubbles and com-
mence their journey to a froth layer where they are collected as
a concentrate. The hydrophilic particles are left behind in the pulp
zone and finally removed from a FCR as tailing [9–11].
The performance of a FCR depends on a number of interrelated
variables. Operation variables, such as feed rate, slurry concentra-
tion, particle size and gas flow rate, are considered to be the most
important parameters that can influence the flotation cell
hydrodynamics [11–13]. Gas dispersion shows how the gas phase

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2018.05.004
2095-2686/Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1000 A.R. Sarhan et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 999–1007
is distributed within a FCR. Gas holdup (eg), superficial gas velocity
(Jg), bubble size (db) and bubble surface area flux (Sb) are the main
parameters that typically used to describe the gas dispersion.
Therefore, the ability to accurately predict the effect of operating
parameters that control the flow behavior in the FCRs is important
for its design. The gas holdup is defined as the fraction occupied by
the gas bubble in the total volume of the mixture (gas, liquid, and
solids) in a FCR, commonly expressed as a percentage. Finch and
Dobby stated that gas holdup mainly depends on bubble size, gas
and feed flow rate, liquid properties, solids concentrations, and
the size and density of particles [14]. The gas holdup (eg), superfi-
cial gas rate (Jg), mean bubble diameter (d32) and bubble surface
area flux (Sb) are defined in the present study by Sarhan [7,15,16].
Hg  H
eg ¼ ð1Þ
Hg
Qg
Jg ¼
Ac
PN 3 flow, a phase can be described as an identifiable class of material
ni di
d32 ¼ Pi¼1
N 2
i¼1 ni di
6J g
Sb ¼
d32
where Hg, Qg and Ac are the height of the liquid after aeration, vol-
umetric gas flow rate and the column cross-sectional area, respec-
tively. Many attempts have been made by different research
groups to relate these parameters to flotation performance
[17–21]. For example, Jameson, Nam and Young proposed a funda-
mental relationship for the first-order flotation rate constant (kc) as
a function of superficial gas velocity, mean bubble diameter and the
collection efficiency (Ek) [21].
3Ek J g
kc ¼
2d32
The previous relationship has been successfully validated by
experimental testing at the laboratory and plant scale [22,23].
From Eqs. (4) and (3), the flotation rate constant can be expressed
in terms of Sb as follows: kc = 0.25EkSb.
In the last few decades, a considerable number of studies on
measurement of bubble surface area flux in a FCR have been
reported: includes studies by Bhunia et al. [9,16,22,24,25]. Gorain,
Franzidis and Manlapig conducted an experimental investigation
to determine the effect of gas dispersion properties on the flotation
rate constant in plant and pilot scale mechanical flotation cells
over a range of operating conditions [22]. They concluded that
the flotation rate constant was directly related to bubble surface
area flux. Finch, Xiao, Hardie and Gomez discovered a linear rela-
tionship between bubble surface area flux and the gas holdup for
a wide range of cell types and operating regimes [16]. As a result,
they suggested the following equation Sb = 5.5eg to replace bubble
surface area flux by gas holdup in the flotation performance eval-
uation. Leiva, Vinnett, Contreras and Yianatos using a pilot-scale
flotation column showed that for the same value of Jg, a greater
sensitivity in Sb estimation at lower values of d32 [24]. Bhunia,
Kundu and Mukherjee claimed that bubble surface area flux exhi-
bits a linear relationship with superficial gas velocity and frother
concentration [9].
Gas dispersion characterization enhances the understanding of
its relationship with the metallurgical performance and allows
control strategies to be developed in FCRs. Thus, the ability to accu-
rately predict gas dispersion in FCRs by using predicted bubble
size, superficial gas velocity and gas holdup is important for
designing optimum industrial scale FRC. It should be mentioned
that the effect of solid’s hydrophobicity on bubble surface area flux
in FCRs is not yet investigated or not reported in open literature.
Therefore, the objective of the present study is to predict the effect
of process variables, namely, superficial gas velocity, solid particle
concentration and type on the bubble surface area flux in a FCR.
The effect of slurry concentration and physical properties of solid
particle (hydrophobicity, type) on the number density of different
bubble sizes have also been investigated. In the present model,
three-dimensional flow of a flotation column similar to the exper-
imental model of Bhunia, Kundu and Mukherjee is simulated, and
then the model is used for further analysis [2].
2. Model development
2.1. Approaches to multiphase flow modeling
The term ‘‘multiphase flow” is referred to any fluid flow consist-
ð2Þ ing of more than one phase or fluid type. Physical phases used in
the present study are gas, liquid and solid; however, in multiphase
ð3Þ that has a particular inertial response to and interaction with the
flow and the potential field in which it is immersed [26]. The com-
putational fluid dynamics (CFD) has provided the basis for further
insight into the hydrodynamics of multiphase flows. There are two
ð4Þ
approaches that can be used for the numerical calculation of
multiphase flows, namely the Euler–Lagrange method and the
Euler–Euler method. In the Euler-Lagrange method, liquid phase
is treated as a continuum by solving the time-averaged Navier-
Stokes equations, whereas the dispersed phase is solved by tracking
a large number of particles, bubbles, or droplets through the calcu-
lated flow field. The liquid phase can exchange momentum, mass,
and energy with the dispersed phase. The Euler-Euler method is
based on the concept of interpenetrating continua where the con-
cept of phasic volume fraction is introduced as the volume of a
phase that cannot be occupied by the other phases. In this method,
ð5Þ volume fractions of continuous and dispersed phases are assumed
to be continuous functions of space and time and their sum is equal
to one. Therefore, from a computational perspective, the Euler–
Euler method is more comprehensive and more accurate to use.
In the current study, the Euler–Euler approach is used.
2.2. Volume fraction equation
Air–water–solid FCR can be described by three phases: liquid
continuous (primary) phase and the dispersed (secondary) gas
and solids phases. The volumes of gas phase Vg, liquid phase Vl
and solid phase Vs are respectively defined by [26].
Z Z Z
Vg ¼ ag dV; V l ¼ al dV and V s ¼ as dV ð6Þ
where ag, al and as are the gas, liquid and solid phases volume frac-
tions (phase holdups) respectively. The compatibility condition
must be observed: ag + al + as = 1.
2.3. Conservation equations
The governing equations used in the present model has been
described previously by Sarhan, Naser and Brooks [7]. For brevity,
a brief description of the governing equations that were used in the
CFD model will be introduced in this section. The flow in the air–
water–solid FCR is incompressible and Newtonian. The conserva-
tion of mass and momentum equations for each of the individual
phases are derived by ensemble averaging of the local instanta-
neous balances for each of these phases. Also, the interfacial mass
and momentum exchange between phases are included. In
 A.R. Sarhan et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 999–1007 1001

Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z), the conservation equations in FCR 2.4. Description of population balance equation (PBE)
are written as:
Continuity equation [7]: 2.4.1. Bubble-bubble interaction model
Ten different sizes of bubbles were chosen. The volume of the
@ðaqÞg !
þ r  ðaq u Þg ¼ Cgs ð7Þ upper bubble size was equal to twice the size of the lower bubble
@t size v n ¼ 2v n1 . The diameters of the bubble, which were tracked
in this simulation, were varied between 0.5 and 4.0 mm. It was
@ðaqÞl !
þ r  ðaq u Þl ¼ 0 ð8Þ assumed that the bubble of the lowest size entered the calculation
@t
domain through the inlet at the bottom of the column. In order to
@ðaqÞs !
predict the concentration number of different bubble classes, the
þ r  ðaq u Þs ¼ Cgs ð9Þ population balance equation (PBE) was employed in the present
@t
model. Population balance equation was introduced as scalar
!
where q and u are the phase density and ensemble averaged veloc- transport equation in AVL-Fire. The scalar transport equation was
ity, respectively. Last term on RHS of Eqs. (7) and (9) accounts for used to calculate the volume fraction of each bubble size. The pop-
inter-phase mass transfer and is described through Eq. (19). Sub- ulation balance equation is given as follows [29].
scripts g, l and s represent the gas, liquid and solid phases,
@
respectively. ðag qg /i Þ þ r  ag qg v g /i ¼ r  ag qg Dgi r/i þ qg ðBBi  DBi þ BC i  DC i Þ
Momentum equations [7]:
@t
ð16Þ
!
@ðai qi u i Þ !!
þ r  ðai qi u i u i Þ ¼ ai rpi þ r  ai ðsi þ T ti Þ þ ai qi f where BB and BC are the birth rates due to breakage and coales-
@t
cence; and DB and DC the death rates due to breakage and coales-
! X X
N N
þ ui Cij þ Mij ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; N cence, respectively. It should be noted that the density of gas
j¼1;j–i j¼1;j–i phase is defined in the present model as qg ¼ ðqatt p þ 1:225Þ. The
ð10Þ attached particle density qatt p is given as

np2 qs dsp þ ntb qg d32

3 3
where f is the body force vector which comprises of gravity g; and pi
the pressure which is assumed to identical for all phases (i.e., p = pi,
qatt p ¼ 3 3
 1:225 ð17Þ
np2 dsp þ ntb d32
i = 1, . . ., N). Last term on RHS of Eq. (10) accounts for the momen-
tum interfacial exchange between phases (i = gas, liquid and solid) where np2 is the number density of attached particles; ntb the num-
and is described through Eq. (14). Shear stress for each phase is ber density of bubbles; d32 the Sauter mean diameter of bubbles;
written as: and dsp the diameter of solids particles, respectively.
 
si ¼ leff ;i ðr! ! ! 2
u i þ r u Ti Þ  r: u i ð11Þ 2.4.2. Bubble-particle interaction model
3
For modeling flotation kinetic, the influence of attached parti-
where leff ;i is the effective viscosity for each phase. The effective cles in the kinetic equation was taken into account in the present
viscosity of the solid phase is defined as [27]. model by applying the source term of attachment and detachment
rffiffiffiffiffiffi processes in the population balance equation as follows [30].
Hs
leff ;s ¼ 0:8e2s qs ds g o ð1 þ eÞ @ðai ni /i Þ
p !
þ r  ðai ni /i u i Þ ¼ ua þ ud ð18Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi @t
10qs ds pHs
þ ½1 þ 0:8es g o ð1 þ eÞ2 ð12Þ
96ð1 þ eÞes g o where ua and ud are the source term of attachment and the source
!! term of detachment, respectively. The inter-phase mass transfer
where the granular temperature is defined as: Hs ¼ 0:334 u s u s , between gas bubbles and solid particles is given by:
and the
h
radial distribution
i
function is equal to

k1 np1 ntb ð1  bÞ þ k2 ntb b qg ag v sp

g o ¼ 1= 1  ðes =es;max Þ0:334
. Reynolds stress is determined using Cgs ¼ ð19Þ
dt
the following equation.
  where k1 and k2 are the kinetic constants of attachment and detach-
2 2
T ti ¼ lti ðrv i þ rv Ti Þ  r  v i I  qi K i I ð13Þ ment processes; np1 the number concentrations of free particles;
3 3 and b the loading parameter, respectively. Loading parameter takes
values which are positive real numbers. If b is equal to zero, the
where the turbulent viscosity of phase i is equal to lti ¼ C l qi ðK 2i =ei Þ.
bubbles are free of particles and particles can easily attach. If b is
The inter-phase momentum exchange term by considering the drag
equal to one, the attached particles only occupy about half of the
force is given as [26].
total bubble surfaces and bubbles are fully loaded and no extra par-
1 ticles can attach. In the present model, the bubble loading parame-
M p ¼ C D qp A000
i jV r jV r ¼ M q ð14Þ
8 ter b can be obtained from [31].

where C D , qp , A000 np2

i , and V r are the drag coefficient, density of primary b¼ ð20Þ
2
phase (p), the interfacial area density, and the relative velocity 2ðd32 =dsp Þ ntb
V r ¼ V q  V p , respectively. For bubble flows where the bubble diam-
eter is greater than 1 mm, [28] proposed an equation to calculate
2.5. Modeling of turbulence
the drag coefficient CD ;
    
24 72 8Eo The standard k-e approach that was proposed by Launder and
C D ¼ max min ð1 þ 0:15Re0:687 Þ; ; ð15Þ
Reb b
Reb 3ðEo þ 4Þ Spalding in 1974 is widely used in the CFD simulations of hydrody-
namics and heat transfer because of its feasible accuracy and its
where Bubble Eötvös number Eo ¼ gðql  qg Þd32 rl and the Reynolds
2
availability in most CFD codes [32,33]. It comprises three turbu-
number Reb ¼ ðV r d32 =v l Þ [7,28]. lence sub models: the mixture turbulence model, the dispersed
1002 A.R. Sarhan et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 999–1007

turbulence model, and a per-phase turbulence model [27]. The
mixture turbulence model assumes the computational domain as
a mixture and solves for k and e values which are common for all
phases. This approach can be only used when the densities of
phases are comparable. Since there is a huge difference in the den-
sity of dispersed and continuous phases, the mixture turbulence
model cannot be used in this work. Since the computational efforts
needed for the dispersed turbulence model are less than those are
required for the per-phase turbulence model, the k-e dispersed tur-
bulence model is used in this investigation. In the dispersed turbu-
lence approach, the modified k-e equations are solved for the
continuous phase and the turbulence quantities of dispersed phase
are calculated using Tchen-theory correlations. The fluctuation due
to turbulence was also taken into account by solving for the inter-
phase turbulent momentum transfer. The transport equation for
the turbulent kinetic energy k equals.
 
@ðai qi ki Þ ! lt
þ rðai qi u i ki Þ ¼ r  ai li þ i rki þ ai Pi  ai qi ei
@t rk
XN XN
þ K ij þ ki Cij ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; N
j¼1;j–i j¼1;j–i
2.6. Solution domain description and AVL FIRE v.2014 setup
In the present model, three-dimensional flow of a flotation col-
umn similar to the experimental model of Bhunia, Kundu and
Mukherjee has been simulated with AVL Fire version 2014 soft-
ware [2]. The simulations were performed in an unsteady state
on Intel Xeon Quad Core Z420 Machine with processor speed
3.60 GHz. The flotation column is 1.66 m high and 0.1 m in diam-
eter. Two different cell sizes with increasing number of elements
(50,343 and 154,787) were constructed to ensure mesh indepen-
dency of obtained results. In order to evaluate the impact of the
grid on the results, simulations were carried out on both grids
using a gas flow rate of 0.642, 1.072 and 1.485 cm/s and coal con-
centration of 10%. It has been verified that the percentage of
change of the solution in both cases is small. It was found that
there were no significant differences in the results. Therefore,
the mesh consisting 50,343 numerical meshes was chosen for fur-
ther simulations. Summary of the model formulation is given in
Table 1.
2.7. Intial and boundary conditions

ð21Þ Boundary conditions of the models are important for numerical

where the production term due to shear for phase i is equal to computation. In this study, the boundary conditions are an inlet,
! outlet, and wall boundary conditions. The gas velocity at the inlet
Pi ¼ T ti : r u i . The dissipation rate of energy from the turbulent flow
is computed based on superficial gas velocity. Since the volume
computes as
fraction of the gas is equal to 1, the inlet gas velocity is defined as.
  X
@ðai qi ki Þ ! lti N
J g AC
þ rðai qi u i ki Þ ¼ r  ai li þ rei þ Dij uginlet ¼ ð23Þ
@t rs j¼1;j–1 ag Ainlet
X
N
ei e2i
þ ei Cij þ ai C 1 Pi  ai C 2 Pi where uginlet and Jg are the gas inlet velocity and the superficial gas
j¼1;j–1
ki ki velocity, respectively; ag the volume fraction of gas at the inlet;
! and AC and Ainlet the cross-sectional area of the column and the total
þ ai C 4 qi ei r  u i ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; N ð22Þ
cross-sectional area of the sparger, respectively. The pressure
The standard values of all empirical constants in the k–e turbu- boundary condition is applied at the column outlet since it gives
lence model are C 1 ¼ 1:44; C 2 ¼ 1:92; C 4 ¼ 0:373; rk ¼ 1:0; better convergence results [34]. In all cases, pressure is specified
re ¼ 1:3; and C l ¼ 0:09. to atmospheric pressure at the column outlet. At the wall boundary,

Table 1
Summary of the model formulation.

General Linear solver type GSTB

Pressure formulation SIMPLE
Run mode Unsteady, Dt = 0.01 s
Gravitational body force Full body force–Y direction
Convergence criteria 0.0001
Inlet condition Normal velocity
Outlet condition Static pressure, 100000 Pa
Mesh type 50,343 grids, symmetric grid
Models Eulerian–Eulerian flow approach
Drag model Tomiyama2004 for gas bubbles Schiller–Neumann for particles
Viscous-standard k–e, dispersed
Control Number of phases = 3 Gas, liquid, and solid
Continuous phase = liquid phase
Secondary phase = gas, solid
Minimum volume fraction 1E-006
Materials Gas = air
Liquid = water
Solid = coal, hydrophobic
Solid = sphalerite, hydrophilic
Solver control Discretization Calculation of boundary values Extrapolate
Calculation of derivative Least sq. fit
Equation control Compressibility Incompressible
Wall treatment Hybrid wall treatment
Differencing scheme Momentum First order UDS
Continuity First order CDS
Turbulence First order UDS
Energy First order UDS
Scalar First order UDS
Volume fraction First order UDS
No. of iterations 5
 A.R. Sarhan et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 999–1007
free slip boundary conditions are used for gas bubbles, liquid and
particles, respectively.
Gas bubbles were introduced at the bottom of the column. The
superficial gas velocity was varied between 0.64 to 2.76 cm/s. This
specific geometry was used to validate CFD results in flotation col-
umn by comparing simulated gas holdup profiles with the experi-
mental data in an identical setup. The detail of the boundary and
initial conditions for flotation column as used in Bhunia, Kundu
and Mukherjee is presented in Table 2 [2].
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Model validation
Use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methodology makes
it possible to numerically solve mass and momentum conservation
equations in complicated multiphase systems. However, it is
always necessary to verify whether the simulated results are valid.
Therefore, laboratory scale experimental data studied by Bhunia,
Kundu and Mukherjee were used to validate the present CFD pre-
dictions for the selected set of conditions, then the model is used
for further analysis [2].
As part of the code validation, simulations were carried out for
ds = 64 mm at Jg = 0.64–2.75 cm/s and Cs = 0 to 15%, by volume. Two
types of solid were used in the present work, sphalerite and coal as
hydrophilic and hydrophobic particles, respectively. The density of
sphalerite and coal were 3160 and 1600 kg/m3, respectively.
The residual analysis for eg values have been plotted in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1a shows the predicted values versus the actual values plot.
This plot shows that the CFD model was able to accurately predict
the gas holdup inside the FCR as indicated by R-Square (R2) value of
0.98, adjust R-Square (R2adj) of 0.96 and residual sum of squares
(RSS) of 0.0029. Fig. 1b represents the residual plot. Fig. 1b shows
that the points are falling randomly on the both sides of zero, sug-
gesting that there are no unusual points that have influence on the
predicted results during the simulation. This random pattern also
indicates that a linear model provides a decent fit to the data. To
discover and show, the underlying frequency distribution of pre-
dicted results, the histogram graph is used (Fig. 1c). Fig. 1c shows
that the predicted data are symmetric which means the average is
a good approximation for the center of the predicted data. There-
fore, the predicted values are well fitted with the actual values.
Fig. 1d demonstrates that the residuals show a linear pattern,
which means the predicted values are well fitted with the actual
values. These results suggest that the developed CFD model is rea-
sonable for simulating FCR.
Table 2
Operation conditions used in the present simulation.
Item Value
Column dimensions 0.1 m
Column diameter 1.66 m
Column height 1.3 m
Initial liquid height, Ho qg = 1.1 kg/m3; mg = 0.00001 Pa s
Operation Parameters ql = 1000 kg/m3; ml = 0.001 Pa s
Gas phase Coal particles, qs = 1600 kg/m3
Liquid phase Sphalerite particles, qs = 3160 kg/m3
Solid phase 20 °C
Atmospheric pressure
Temperature Jg = 0.64, 1.07, 1.49, 1.91, 2.33, 2.76 cm/s
Pressure 0, 10, 15 vol.%
Superficial gas velocity 64 mm
Solid concentration
Particle size
1003
3.2. Effect of slurry concentration and gas velocity on eg
The gas holdup is one of the major design parameters that char-
acterizes transport phenomena of flotation column reactors [35]. It
defines the bubble surface area flux which is related to flotation
kinetics. Therefore, knowledge of the gas holdup is vital when diag-
nosing and controlling the operation of a flotation column. Fig. 2
shows the predicted and experimental values of eg through the
pulp zone in presence of sphalerite of different concentrations
(Cs = 0%, 5% and 10%, by volume) and different gas velocities. It
can be observed that the increase of superficial gas velocity affects
the gas holdup behavior in a similar manner as when the column is
operated without solids (Fig. 2). Predicted results of present model
agree with the findings of other studies, in which the gas holdup
increases linearly with increasing superficial gas velocity in the
pulp zone since the amount of gas fed into the column also
increases [7,36–39]. Fig. 2 also shows that gas holdup decreases
with addition of hydrophilic sphalerite particles, which is in good
agreement with experimental data. Approximately 11% reduction
in gas holdup is observed when solid concentration is increased
from 5% to 10%, by volume which can be attributed to increase of
bubble size in pulp zone. Increasing bubbles sizes leads to an
increase in the rise velocity of these bubbles which might be one
of the reasons for decreasing gas holdup. The increase in the bubble
size has been attributed to a reduced rate of bubble break-up and/
or an increase in the bubble coalescence rate in the pulp zone. This
is explained in Section 3.3 where a decrease of Sb value indicates
higher bubble diameter. Fig. 2 also demonstrates that the predicted
results of present model agree with the findings of other studies, in
which the gas holdup increases linearly with increasing superficial
gas velocity, simply because of the increased amount of gas fed
into the column [2,7,36–41].
3.3. Effect of solid concentration and gas velocity on Sb
The bubble surface area flux (Sb) obtained with present CFD
model in the presence of coal and under the different operating
conditions is shown in Fig. 3. The aim of this tests was to observe
the behavior of bubble surface area flux in the pulp zone as a func-
tion of the superficial gas velocity and solid concentration when
the slurry is made of hydrophobic solids (i.e., coal). Fig. 3 demon-
strates that the surface area flux increases linearly with increasing
superficial gas velocity in the pulp zone. This could be attributed to
the increase of the amount of gas that fed into the reactor. These
results are in agreement with those obtained by Bhunia, Kundu
and Mukherjee [9]. Such behavior was observed in all simulated
cases, with and/or without particles. Also, for a constant superficial
gas velocity, the surface area flux decrease with addition of solid
particles. Approximately 28% reduction in the surface area flux is
observed when coal concentration is increased from 0% to 10%,
by volume. This is due to increase of bubble size in pulp zone.
The increase in the bubble size has been attributed to either a
reduced rate of bubble break-up or an increase in the bubble coa-
lescence rate to an increase in the apparent viscosity of slurry due
to increasing solid concentration. The increase in bubble diameter
leads to a decrease of Sb. Also, this variation in the surface area flux
with increasing solid concentration is more prominent at higher
gas flow rate.
3.4. Effect of solid density on Sb
The bubble surface area flux has been extensively used as a
basic design parameter to predict the performance of flotation
column reactors. This parameter promotes the bubble-particle
1004 A.R. Sarhan et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 999–1007
Fig. 1. Residual analysis for predicted results by the present CFD model.
Fig. 2. Effect of gas velocity and sphalerite concentration on gas holdup (eg).
Fig. 3. Effect of gas velocity and coal concentration on bubble surface area flux (Sb).
attachment process and allows the bubble-particle aggregates to
move to the top of pulp zone [42]. In the present investigation,
two levels of hydrophobicity were investigated, i.e., sphalerite
(hydrophilic) and coal (hydrophobic). Tests were conducted at dif-
ferent superficial gas velocity (Jg = 0.64, 1.07, 1.49, 1.91, 2.33 and
2.76 cm/s); 64 mm particle size and solids concentration Cs = 10%.
Fig. 4 presents a comparison between bubble surface area flux
(Sb) values for the two cases studied here. Fig. 4 shows that the
bubble surface area flux in the coal slurry is slightly lower than
that in the sphalerite flotation. For the same solid concentration
Fig. 4. Effect of solid hydrophobicity on bubble surface area flux (Sb).
and gas flow rate, the bubble surface area flux is approximately
5% more in the presences of sphalerite. A possible explanation for
this might be that the presence of hydrophobic solids (coal parti-
cles) promotes the bubble coalescence rate leading to the increase
in bubble size. Coalescence of two bubbles occurs when they are
able to overcome the resistance existing in the liquid film separat-
ing them. The probability of bubble coalescence should increase
when the resistance in the liquid film is reduced. When water,
which is highly polar, is brought into contact with a non-
wettable solid surface such as coal, it cannot adhere to it. There-
fore, the presence of coal particles in the liquid film between two
bubbles reduces the resistance of the film leading to bubble coales-
cence. On the other hand, the presence of wettable solid particles
in the liquid film will increase the resistance to bubble coalescence.
This is due to the fact that strong physical bonds established
between water and the solid surface [42].
Fig. 5 shows the numerical predictions of Sb distributions as a
function of pulp height and superficial gas velocity in the presence
of solids of different hydrophobicities. The specific gravity of spha-
lerite and coal are 3.16 and 1.6, respectively. From Fig. 5, it can be
seen that increasing particle density leads to an increase in Sb val-
ues due to increase of pulp density and thus a slower rise velocity.
Thus, Sb increases slightly for high density particle. Further, this
reduction becomes more prominent at higher gas velocity.
3.5. Effect of solid density on bubble concentration
Numerical predictions of bubble concentration as a function of
gas velocity are shown in Fig. 6. Tests were conducted at different
superficial gas velocity (Jg = 0.64, 1.07, 1.49, 1.91, 2.33 and 2.76 cm/
s); 64 mm particle size and 10% solids concentration, respectively. It
can be seen from the plots that the increase in gas flow rate leads
to an increase in the bubble concentration in the pulp zone, which
can be attributed to the increase of the amount of gas that is fed
into the reactor [2,7]. Also, increasing gas flow rate promotes bub-
ble break-up by increasing bubble-eddy collision rate. Fig. 6 also
shows that the bubble concentration in the sphalerite slurry are
slightly higher than that in the coal flotation. The presence of
hydrophobic solids (coal particles) promotes markedly the increase
in bubble size.
Fig. 7 depicts contours of bubble plume in the pulp zone as a
function of solid density at H = 0.1 m. It was found that the pres-
ence of solids affects the bubble concentration in the pulp zone
in a similar manner as when the system is operated without solids
(Fig. 7). The predicted results obtained by the current CFD model
confirm that the bubble concentration would also decrease with
addition of hydrophobic particle (i.e., coal). Under the same operat-
ing conditions, approximately 23% reduction in the bubble concen-
tration is observed when the system was working with
hydrophobic particles. This is due to an increase in bubble coales-
cence in presence of hydrophobic particles. The gas holdup in the
presence of hydrophilic particles is slightly higher than that in
the presence of hydrophobic particles. Thus more reduction in
 A.R. Sarhan et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 999–1007 1005

Fig. 5. Numerical predictions of bubble surface area flux (Sb) distributions as a function of pulp height and superficial gas velocity, for 10% volume fraction of solid particles.

Fig. 6. Numerical predictions of bubble concentration as a function of solid density Fig. 8. Number density of bubbles at sphalerite = 5% (by volume) with different
and gas velocity, for 10% volume fraction of solid particles. superficial gas velocities.

Fig. 9. Number density of bubbles at sphalerite = 10% (by volume) with different
superficial gas velocities.

Fig. 7. Bubble plume as a function of solid concentration at H = 0.1 m.
the bubble concentration occurs in presence of hydrophobic parti-
cles (coal) than hydrophilic sphalerite.
Figs. 8 and 9 show the contours of bubble concentration for
various gas flow rate (Jg = 0.64–2.76 cm/s) and solid concentration
(Cs = 5% and 10%, by volume) at ds = 64 mm in the pulp zone for
sphalerite slurries. The colour scale given at the left of the graphs
depicts the change in the bubble concentration inside the flotation
column. The predicted results obtained by the present CFD model
confirm that the bubble concentration would also increase with
increasing superficial gas velocity in the collection zone. This is
because increased gas flowrate leads to an increase in the amount
of gas in the reactor [2]. Figs. 8 and 9 also show that the bubble
concentration at the column center especially near the sparger
region is relatively high. This is due to the fact that the bubbles
close to the bottom are subjected to higher turbulence at the inlet
region [7]. This is also explained in Section 3.3 where an increase of
1006 A.R. Sarhan et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 999–1007
Sb value indicates lower bubble diameter. These results also show
that increased solid concentration leads to a decrease in the bubble
concentration in the pulp zone. A possible explanation for this
might be that the concentration number of bubbles is a function
of the gas holdup in the cell. As solids concentration increased,
gas holdup decreased leading to a decrease in the concentration
number of bubbles. A possible explanation for this might be that
the presence of solid particles increases the apparent viscosity of
the liquid phase and thus promoting coalescence rate of the bubble
in the pulp zone. This increase in bubble size leads to an increase in
the rise velocity of bubbles leading to a decreased gas holdup at
higher solid concentration (Fig. 2).
4. Conclusions
A CFD simulations of three-phase flow (gas, liquid and solid) in
flotation column reactor were performed to predict the effects of
superficial gas velocities and particle type, density, wettability
and concentration on the bubble surface area flux (Sb). A mathe-
matical model of a gas–liquid–solid flow was built. The numerical
predictions were based on two fluid model, using the Eulerian–
Eulerian formulation along with a k-e turbulence approach.
Bubble–bubble interactions, such as bubble break-up due to
turbulence and bubble coalescence due to the combined effect of
turbulence and laminar shear have been included in the CFD code
by writing subroutines in Fortran. The interfacial exchange of mass
and momentum, as well as the bubble-particles interactions were
considered in the current model. The predicted results by the cur-
rent CFD model have been validated against published experimen-
tal data of Bhunia, Kundu and Mukherjee [2]. The residual analysis
and R2 value indicate that the CFD model was able to predict the
effect of operating parameters on gas holdup with reasonable accu-
racy. The results from the present CFD simulations show that the
bubble surface area flux (Sb) increases by increasing superficial
gas velocity (Jg) and decreases by increasing solid concentration
(Cs) and/or hydrophobicity (h) at any given Jg. Approximately 28%
reduction in the surface area flux is observed when coal concentra-
tion is increased from 0% to 10%, by volume. While for the same
solid concentration and gas flow rate, the bubble surface area flux
is increased by 7% (approx.) in the presences of sphalerite. A possi-
ble explanation for this might be that the presence of hydrophobic
solids (coal particles) promotes the bubble coalescence rate lead-
ing to the increase in bubble size. Also, it was found that the bubble
concentration would decrease with the addition of hydrophobic
particle (i.e., coal). For instance, under the same operating condi-
tions, approximately 23% reduction in the bubble concentration
is perceived when the system was working with hydrophobic
particles.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the Higher Committee for Education
Development in Iraq (HCED) for their financial support.
References
[1] Fan MM, Tao D, Zhao YM, Honaker R. Effect of nanobubbles on the flotation of
different sizes of coal particle. Miner Metall Proc 2013;30(3):157–61.
[2] Bhunia K, Kundu G, Mukherjee D. Statistical model for gas holdup in flotation
column in presence of minerals. Can Metall Q 2015;54(2):235–46.
[3] Ahmadi R, Khodadadi DA, Abdollahy M, Fan M. Nano-microbubble flotation of
fine and ultrafine chalcopyrite particles. Int J Min Sci Technol 2014;24
(4):559–66.
[4] Fan M, Tao D, Honaker R, Luo Z. Nanobubble generation and its applications in
froth flotation (part IV): mechanical cells and specially designed column
flotation of coal. Min Sci Technol (China) 2010;20(5):641–71.
[5] Ran JC, Liu JT, Zhang CJ, Wang DY, Li XB. Experimental investigation and
modeling of flotation column for treatment of oily wastewater. Int J Min Sci
Technol 2013;23(5):665–8.
[6] Shahbazi B, Rezai B, Chelgani SC, Koleini SMJ, Noaparast M. Estimation of
diameter and surface area flux of bubbles based on operational gas dispersion
parameters by using regression and ANFIS. Int J Min Sci Technol 2013;23
(3):343–8.
[7] Sarhan AR, Naser J, Brooks G. CFD simulation on influence of suspended solid
particles on bubbles’ coalescence rate in flotation cell. Int J Miner Process
2016;146:54–64.
[8] Rahman RM, Ata S, Jameson GJ. The effect of flotation variables on the recovery
of different particle size fractions in the froth and the pulp. Int J Miner Process
2012;106:70–7.
[9] Bhunia K, Kundu G, Mukherjee D. Application of statistical analysis on the
bubble surface area flux in a column flotation cell. Sep Sci Technol 2015;50
(8):1230–8.
[10] Mirgaux O, Ablitzer D, Waz E, Bellot JP. Mathematical modeling and computer
simulation of molten aluminum purification by flotation in stirred reactor.
Metall Mater Trans B 2009;40(3):363–75.
[11] Bloom F, Heindel TJ. An approximate analytical expression for the probability
of attachment by sliding. J Colloid Interface Sci 1999;218(2):564–77.
[12] Khan MJH, Hussain MA, Mansourpour Z, Mostoufi N, Ghasem NM, Abdullah EC.
CFD simulation of fluidized bed reactors for polyolefin production – a review. J
Ind Eng Chem 2014;20(6):3919–46.
[13] Sha J, Xie G, Wang H, Liu J, Tang L. Effect of the column height on the
performance of liquid–solid fluidized bed for the separation of coarse slime.
Int J Min Sci Technol 2012;22(4):585–8.
[14] Finch JA, Dobby GS. Column flotation; 1990.
[15] Gallegos-Acevedo PM, Perez-Garibay R, Uribe-Salas A, Nava-Alonso F. Bubble
load estimation in the froth zone to predict the concentrate mass flow rate of
solids in column flotation. Miner Eng 2007;20(13):1210–7.
[16] Finch JA, Xiao J, Hardie C, Gomez CO. Gas dispersion properties: bubble surface
area flux and gas holdup. Miner Eng 2000;13(4):365–72.
[17] Gomez CO, Finch JA. Gas dispersion measurements in flotation cells. Int J Miner
Process 2007;84(1–4):51–8.
[18] Gorain BK, Franzidis JP, Manlapig EV. The empirical prediction of bubble
surface area flux in mechanical flotation cells from cell design and operating
data. Miner Eng 1999;12(3):309–22.
[19] Hernandez H, Gomez CO, Finch JA. Gas dispersion and de-inking in a flotation
column. Miner Eng 2003;16(8):739–44.
[20] Schwarz S, Alexander D. Gas dispersion measurements in industrial flotation
cells. Miner Eng 2006;19(6–8):554–60.
[21] Jameson GJ, Nam S, Young MM. Physical factors affecting recovery rates in
flotation. Miner Sci Eng 1977;9(3):103–18.
[22] Gorain BK, Franzidis JP, Manlapig EV. Studies on impeller type, impeller speed
and air flow rate in an industrial scale flotation cell. Part 4: Effect of bubble
surface area flux on flotation performance. Miner Eng 1997;10(4):367–79.
[23] Hernandez-Aguilar JR, Rao SR, Finch JA. Testing the k-S-b relationship at the
microscale. Miner Eng 2005;18(6):591–8.
[24] Leiva J, Vinnett L, Contreras F, Yianatos J. Estimation of the actual bubble
surface area flux in flotation. Miner Eng 2010;23(11–13):888–94.
[25] Deglon DA, Sawyerr F, O’Connor CT. A model to relate the flotation rate
constant and the bubble surface area flux in mechanical flotation cells. Miner
Eng 1999;12(6):599–608.
[26] AVL-FIRE, AVL advanced simulation technologies software documentation;
2014.
[27] Li WL, Zhong WQ. CFD simulation of hydrodynamics of gas-liquid-solid three-
phase bubble column. Powder Technol 2015;286:766–88.
[28] Tomiyama A, Kataoka I, Zun I, Sakaguchi T. Drag coefficients of single bubbles
under normal and micro gravity conditions. JSME Int J B-Fluid T 1998;41
(2):472–9.
[29] Sattar MA, Naser J, Brooks G. Numerical simulation of two-phase flow with
bubble break-up and coalescence coupled with population balance modeling.
Chem Eng Process 2013;70:66–76.
[30] Koh PTL, Schwarz MP. CFD model of a self-aerating flotation cell. Int J Miner
Process 2007;85(1–3):16–24.
[31] Koh PTL, Schwarz MP. CFD modelling of bubble-particle attachments in
flotation cells. Miner Eng 2006;19(6–8):619–26.
[32] Huang K, Lin S, Wang JJ, Luo ZH. Numerical evaluation on the intraparticle
transfer in butylene oxidative dehydrogenation fixed-bed reactor over ferrite
catalysts. J Ind Eng Chem 2015;29:172–84.
[33] Hosseini SH, Shojaee S, Ahmadi G, Zivdar M. Computational fluid dynamics
studies of dry and wet pressure drops in structured packings. J Ind Eng Chem
2012;18(4):1465–73.
[34] Akhtar MA, Tade MO, Pareek VK. Two-fluid Eulerian simulation of bubble
column reactors with distributors. J Chem Eng Jpn 2006;39(8):831–41.
[35] Prakash A, Margaritis A, Li H, Bergougnou MA. Hydrodynamics and local heat
transfer measurements in a bubble column with suspension of yeast. Biochem
Eng J 2001;9(2):155–63.
[36] Zhang W, Finch JA. Effect of solids on pulp and froth properties in flotation. J
Cent South Univ 2014;21(4):1461–9.
[37] Ojima S, Hayashi K, Tomiyama A. Effects of hydrophilic particles on bubbly
flow in slurry bubble column. Int J Multiph Flow 2014;58:154–67.
[38] Banisi S, Finch JA, Laplante AR, Weber ME. Effect of solid particles on gas
holdup in flotation columns—I. Measurement. Chem Eng Sci 1995;50
(14):2329–34.
 A.R. Sarhan et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 28 (2018) 999–1007 1007

[39] Tavera FJ, Escudero R. Effect of solids on gas dispersion characteristics:
addition of hydrophobic and hydrophilic solids. J Mex Chem Soc 2012;56
(2):217–21.
[40] Grevskott S, Sannæs BH, Duduković MP, Hjarbo KW, Svendsen HF. Liquid
circulation, bubble size distributions, and solids movement in two- and three-
phase bubble columns. Chem Eng Sci 1996;51(10):1703–13.
[41] Banisi S, Finch JA, Laplante AR, Weber ME. Effect of solid particles on gas
holdup in flotation columns—II. Investigation of mechanisms of gas holdup
reduction in presence of solids. Chem Eng Sci 1995;50(14):2335–42.
[42] Sarhan AR, Naser J, Brooks G. CFD analysis of solid particles properties effect in
three-phase flotation column. Sep Purif Technol 2017;185:1–9.