See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226772072

Dissolution of air bubbles in a turbulent water pipeline flow

Article  in  Heat and Mass Transfer · June 2003

DOI: 10.1007/s00231-002-0313-z

CITATIONS READS

18 1,262

4 authors:

Sergey I. Lezhnin Dmitry Eskin

Russian Academy of Sciences 106 PUBLICATIONS   1,295 CITATIONS   
102 PUBLICATIONS   360 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Yuri Leonenko Oleg Vinogradov

University of Waterloo The University of Calgary
64 PUBLICATIONS   676 CITATIONS    83 PUBLICATIONS   464 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

boron neutron-capture therapy View project

Droplet dispersion in turbulent flows View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sergey I. Lezhnin on 21 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Heat and Mass Transfer 39 (2003) 483–487
DOI 10.1007/s00231-002-0313-z

Dissolution of air bubbles in a turbulent water pipeline flow

S. Lezhnin, D. Eskin, Y. Leonenko, O. Vinogradov

483
Abstract The dissolution of large air bubbles in a pipeline U is the average flow velocity, m/s
under isothermal conditions, turbulent diffusion, and Urel water-bubble relative velocity, m/s
linear pressure change is studied. The developed model of Vl liquid volume in a cell, m3
dissolution takes into account the decrease of mass Vcell 2 cell volume, m3
transfer caused by the growth of volumetric concentration R
e ¼ Dt 0 non-dimensional parameter
of air bubbles. An analytical solution is obtained for the max
e0 the energy dissipation per unit mass
case of small air concentration.
in turbulent stream, m2/s3
k coefficient of mass transfer, j = q/DC,
List of symbols m/s
C concentration of air dissolved m kinematic viscosity of liquid, m2/s
in water, kg/m3 q gas (air) density, kg/m3
DC = C0sat – Casat concentration difference, kg/m3 s= Dt/R02 dimensionless time
D mass diffusivity of dissolved air, m2/s u air hold-up
db bubble diameter, m
sign of proportionality
H(T) Henry constant, Pa Æ m3/kg
Ja = DC/q0 Jacob number Subscripts
L pipe diameter, m a atmospheric conditions
l
5.3L Re–3/4 inner turbulence scale, m cell cell
M ¼ P0P
Pa non-dimensional parameter, g gas
0
P pressure, Pa 0 inlet (initial) pipe conditions
q specific mass flux on the bubble l liquid (water)
boundary (the mass flux per unit
area), kg/m2s
r spherical coordinate, m Superscripts
sat saturation condition
R bubble radius, m
~ ¼ RðtÞ=R0
R dimensionless bubble radius
Re = UL/m Reynolds number 1
Reb = UReldb/m bubble Reynolds number in chaotic Introduction
motion We consider the dissolution of air bubbles in water flowing
S pipeline length, m in a horizontal pipeline where pressure drops from several
Sc = m/D Schmidt number bars to the atmospheric one. The bubble sizes R studied
Sh = kdb/D Sherwood number are assumed to be significantly larger than the inner tur-
T temperature, K bulent scale estimated according to [1, 3] as 1
5.3L Re–3/4
t time, s (L is the pipe diameter, Re is the Reynolds number for the
pipe flow).
tmax residence time of a bubble in a pipe- The initial pressure, up to several atmospheres, at the
line, s pipe inlet transforms the nearly saturated water before the
pump into the unsaturated state after it. The latter state of
Received: 27 September 2001 water with bubbles in it creates conditions necessary for
Published online: 1 June 2002 mass transfer. In addition, if the water velocity in a pipe-
Springer-Verlag 2002 line is sufficiently high (several meters per second) the
mass transfer mechanism is a turbulent diffusion.
S. Lezhnin, D. Eskin, Y. Leonenko, O. Vinogradov (&) There are a significant number of researches, funda-
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, mental and applied, devoted to the dissolution of bubbles in
Calgary T2N1N4, AB, Canada a turbulent flow. It is not our intention here to review this
E-mail: vinograd@enme.ucalgary.ca field. However, we would like to note that we are not aware
 of any publications dealing with the problem of bubble An assumption that the exposure time equals the tur-
mass transfer in a pipeline with high pressure differential. bulence time scale se = (m/e)1/2 enables one to obtain the
The following expression for the mass flux from a Eq. 3. Thus, different approaches lead to the same esti-
bubble to ambient liquid is used herein: mation (Eq. 5) for the Sherwood number, and therefore
most of researchers employ Eq. 5 for empirical correla-
q ¼ kðCðRÞ
C1 Þ ð1Þ tions.
where C(R) is the mass concentration of air on a bubble In the following, we consider three empirical formulas
boundary, C1 is the gas mass concentration in an ambient for Sh found in the literature:
liquid, and k is the coefficient of mass transfer. The mass db
concentration of air C(R) is usually determined using Sh ¼ 0:34 Re0:94 Sc1=2 ; ð7Þ
L
484 common assumption [2] that water on the bubble
boundary is saturated. In this case it may be calculated by
db
using the Henry’s law, Csat = P/H(T), where H(T) is the Sh ¼ 0:228 Re0:7 Sc1=2 ; ð8Þ
Henry law constant, P is the pressure, and T is the absolute L
temperature. The concentration C1 is usually known from
the technical conditions. The more difficult problem is the Sh ¼ 0:38 db Re0:75 Sc1=2 ; ð9Þ
assessment of the coefficient of mass transfer k. L
The theoretical study of convective mass transfer from Kress and Keyes [8] obtained Eq. 7 for the horizontal
a liquid droplet (or a bubble) to the ambient fluid was pipeline flows correlating experimental results on the
done by Levich [2]. From the equation of convective dif- bubble mass transfer in a horizontal pipeline and keeping
fusion for a bubble (droplet) he received an estimation of the multiplier Sc1/2 from Eq. 5. Avdeev [9] derived Eq. 8
the Sherwood number: keeping the structure of Eq. 5. However, he decreased Re
kdb 1=2
to the power 0.7 instead of 0.75 (see Eq. 5) to offset the
Sh ¼ / Reb Sc1=2 ; ð2Þ replacement of the constant friction coefficient f in Eq. 4
D
by f = 0.184/Re0.2. It is important to underscore here that
where db is the bubble diameter, D is the diffusivity of gas Eq. 8 was obtained using experimental data for a bubble-
in liquid, Reb is the Reynolds number based on a bubble- liquid mass transfer as well as a vapour-liquid heat
liquid relative velocity, and Sc is the Schmidt number. transfer. Equation 9, which is also based on the Eq. 5, was
Most of authors [2]–[9], including Levich, employed derived for the developed turbulent flow in a bubble col-
the Kolmogoroff model of isotropic turbulence [10]. From umn [3]. Simple numerical analysis shows that in cases of
the equation of bubble motion during the turbulent fluc- high Re, Sherwood numbers calculated by Eq. 7, are sig-
tuation Levich found the maximum bubble-liquid relative nificantly larger then those by Eqs. 8 and 9. This factor
velocity and then used it to estimate the Reb. As a result, it will affect the rate of bubble dissolution as it will be seen
enabled him to present Eq. 2 as: later.
ðe0 mÞ1=4 db
Sh ¼ / ; ð3Þ 2
Sc1=2 D Process model
where e0 is the rate of energy dissipation by turbulence per Let us consider the dissolution of a spherical air bubble
unit mass, and m is the liquid kinematic viscosity. transported by a turbulent flow in a pipeline in isothermal
The rate of energy dissipation e0 for a pipe flow is conditions. At the initial moment t = 0, when the bubble
calculated as: enters the pipe, the water pressure P0 equals that after the
pump. The pressure decreases linearly along the pipeline
U3 until it reaches Pa at the outlet. Thus, the bubble pressure
e0 ¼ f ; ð4Þ
L changes in time, from 0 to tmax, as:
where f is the dissipation coefficient (f = 0.00125 by    
P0
Pa t
Townsend [1]), and U is the liquid velocity. Taking into PðtÞ ¼ P0 1
; ð10Þ
P0 tmax
account Eq. 4 we obtain the final form of the estimation
(3): In the following we assume that the initial concentra-
db tion of gas dissolved in the liquid equals the concentration
Sh ¼/ Re3=4 Sc1=2 ð5Þ of saturation at the atmospheric pressure:
L
sat
It is known that the same estimation can be received from Cð0Þ ¼ Ca ; ð11Þ
the Higbie’s penetration theory [11]. According to it, the The equation of mass conservation for a bubble is written
equation for the coefficient of mass transfer is written as: as [12]:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
D dR R dq
k¼2 ; ð6Þ qðtÞ þ ¼ q; ð12Þ
pse dt 3 dt
where se is the exposure time defined in the penetration where q is the specific mass flux on the bubble boundary.
theory. Using Eq. 1 we can write Eq. 12 as:
 dR R dq
qðtÞ þ ¼ kðCðRÞ
C1 Þ; ð13Þ
dt 3 dt
Assuming that inertial effects have a negligible influence
on the pressure field around the bubble, the external
pressure P(t) can be considered to be uniform around it. It
is reasonable also to assume that the gas inside the bubble
is ideal. For the isothermal process the air density can be
calculated by the following equation (using Eq. 10 for P(t)):
   
PðtÞ P0
Pa t
qðtÞ ¼ q0 ¼ q0 1
; ð14Þ
P0 P0 tmax 485
where q0 = qa(P0/Pa) is the air density at the inlet.
Substituting q(t) into Eq. 13 we obtain:
 
t dR R M
1
M þ ¼ kðCðRÞ
C1 Þ=q0 ; ð15Þ Fig. 1. Bubble in a cell of neighbors
tmax dt 3 tmax
where M = (P0 – Pa)/P0. "  #
u0 q ðtÞ R 3
The initial condition for solving Eq. 15 is the initial CðtÞ ¼ Csat
a þ q0 1
ð20Þ
radius of the bubble: 1
u0 q0 R 0

Rð0Þ ¼ R0 ð16Þ Taking into account Eq. 17, we have the following
result:
Since the thermodynamic equilibrium can be assumed on
the bubble’s boundary (r = R(t)) [2], the Henry law t
CðRÞ
C1 ¼ CðRÞ
CðtÞ ¼ Csat 0
DC
Csat
a
mentioned above is applicable: tmax
 sat  t "  3 #
PðtÞ ð Þ
CðRðtÞ; tÞ ¼ Csat ðtÞ ¼ ¼ Csat0
C 0
C sat
a
q0
u 0
1

q t R
HðTÞ tmax 1
u0 q0 R0
t
¼ C0sat
DC ; ð17Þ   "  #
tmax t u0 q ðtÞ R 3
¼ DC 1

q0 1
;
where DC = C0sat – Casat. tmax 1
u0 q0 R0
Equation 14 with initial (Eqs. 11, 16) and boundary
(Eq. 17) conditions describes the dissolution process for a ð21Þ
single bubble. And then Eq. 15 is written as:
In general, because of a small but finite air hold-up, it is
necessary to take into account the influence of the    
neighbouring bubbles. We employed the known approach t dR R M k t
1
M þ ¼ DC 1

[13] based on the assumption that a bubble is placed into tmax dt 3 tmax q0 tmax
"  3 # ð22Þ
the centre of a liquid cell of volume Vl (Fig. 1). u0 q ðtÞ R

k 1
;
@C 1
u0 q0 R0
ðRCELL ðtÞ; tÞ ¼ 0 ð18Þ
@r
The same equation can be re-written in a non-dimen-
We can take into account the effect of the surrounding sional form as:
bubbles by assuming that the concentration of the ambient
liquid is equal to some average value C(t). Considering dR ~ MeR ~ Sh ~
1
that the thickness of the diffusion layer is much smaller ð1
MesÞ
¼
R
than the distance between the bubbles we can write the  ds 3 2  ð23Þ
u 
equation of mass conservation for a gas inside the cell as: Jað1
esÞ
0
1
ð1
MesÞR 3
~ ;
1
u0
qa Vg;a þ Csat sat
a Vl ¼ q0 Vg;0 þ Ca Vl ¼ qðtÞVg ðtÞ þ CðtÞVl ;
2
where s ¼ Dt=R20 ; R ~ ¼ RðtÞ=R0 ; e ¼ R0 ; Ja ¼ DC=q0 .
Dt
ð19Þ Equation 23 has an analytical solution if u0 equals zero:
max

where Vg is the bubble volume.

Because in real pipeline flows the change of the liquid 3ShJa 3ShJa
RðtÞ 1
8M2 e þ 2M2 e ð1
MÞ 3Sh Ja
cell volume, Vl = (1 – u)VCELL, is small compared to the ¼ þ ð1
MesÞ
change of the void fraction volume, we assume that Vl = R0 ð1
MesÞ1=3 8M2 e ð24Þ
(1 – u0)V CELL,0  const. Using expressions for the bubble


3Sh Ja
ð1
MÞ
volume vg;0 ¼ u0 VCELL;0 ¼ 43 pR30 and Vg ðtÞ ¼ 43 pR3 , we 2M2 e
obtain:
 3
Examples of calculations and discussion
We performed a number of computations to illustrate the
bubble transformation in a turbulent flow. These compu-
tations showed that due to the large power of Re number
(0.94 against 0.7 in Eq. 8 and 0.75 in Eq. 9) the correlation
for the Sh number given by Eq. 7 results in much higher
values compared to those given by Eqs. 8 and 9.
In the following numerical examples we considered a
water flow with velocity U = 4 m/s in a pipe having di-
486 ameter L = 0.5 m. The inner turbulence scale in this case
equals l = 70 lm. Since the flow Reynolds number for the
above parameters is high (Re = 1170000), the differences
in Sherwood numbers calculated by different equations
are very significant. The Sherwood number calculated by
using Eq. 7 is approximately 17 times higher than that
when Eq. 9 is used, and 50 times higher when Eq. 8 is Fig. 3. Dependencies of bubble size change in time at various
used. initial sizes for different correlations of Sherwood number
~ of a
In Figs. 2 and 3 the changes of the relative radius R
single air bubble during the time period t = 1000 s for In Fig. 4 the effect of the air hold-up on the bubble size
three different initial bubble sizes db = 200, 500, 1000 lm evolution is shown. Note, that since the cases of Eqs. 8 and
are shown. Note that the bubble behaviour considerably 9 are numerically close, in this figure we show only the
differs depending on whether the Sherwood number is results obtained for the cases of Eqs. 7 and 8. As one can
given by Eq. 7 or by Eqs. 8 and 9. For this reason we see, the mass transfer intensity drops dramatically as the
showed the results for Eq. 7 and 8 in Fig. 2, while the air hold-up increases. We compared the rates of the size
results for Eqs. 8 and 9 are given in Fig. 3. Since the mass change for a bubble with initial diameter db = 200 lm and
transfer rate in the case of Eq. 7 is very high, the bubbles different initial air hold-ups (u0 = 0, 0.01 and 0.02). As it is
decrease in size. Note, that the smallest of the bubbles seen from Eq. 20, the air hold-up causes an increase in the
considered (db = 200 lm) were completely dissolved. In average concentration of air dissolved in the ambient water.
general, the smaller the bubble size the stronger its ten- As a result, the difference in concentrations on the bubble
dency to dissolve. This is because smaller bubbles are boundary and in the ambient water becomes smaller and it
characterized by higher specific (per unit volume) rate of causes the reduced mass transfer. The results based on Eq. 7
air dissolution in comparison with the larger bubbles. The clearly demonstrate the influence of the air hold-up. In this
change of the bubble size is the result of two competing case the bubble behaviour changes from complete dis-
factors: the air mass transfer to the ambient water, that appearance at u0 = 0 to a rapid size increase at u0 = 0.01 and
causes bubble shrinkage, and the pressure drop, that u0 = 0.02. According to Eq. 8, however, the bubble grows
causes its growth. Equations 8 and 9, in contrast to Eq. 7, at any u0, and the rate of bubble growth slightly increases
characterize low mass transfer rates thus causing the with the increase of the air hold-up.
bubble growth for any initial bubble size. Thus, the model developed enables us to analyse the
bubble behaviour if the proper correlation for the mass
transfer is known. The above numerical results indicate

Fig. 2. Dependencies of bubble size change in time at various Fig. 4. Dependencies bubble size change in time at various air
initial sizes for different correlations of Sherwood number hold-ups
 that uncertainty in the Sherwood number, caused by the
absence of conclusive data for the case of pipeline flow,
prevents reliable assessment of the bubble behaviour un-
der the conditions of pressure drop.
4 Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Fluids. Chemical Engineering
Conclusions
We developed a mathematical model that describes the
changing radius of a bubble moving in a pipeline under
conditions of turbulent diffusion. The change of the bubble 5. Calderbank P.H. and Moo-Young M.B.: The Continuous Phase
size is caused by two competing factors: one is the gas mass
transfer from the bubble to the ambient liquid leading to the
bubble shrinkage, and the other one is the pressure drop
resulting in the bubble growth. The governing equations
were derived for the case of linear pressure distribution
along the pipeline. For the case of a single bubble an
analytical solution was obtained. For the case of a periodic
bubble system the numerical results were presented. The
description of mass transfer was based on the empirical
correlations for the Sherwood number found in literature.
Our calculations showed that the bubble size evolution
strongly depends on both the initial bubble size and the air
hold-up. The smaller is the initial bubble size the higher is
the size change rate. The air hold-up, even as small as 1% 11. Higbie R.: The Rate of Absorption of a Pure Gas into a Still Liquid
to 2%, reduces the mass transfer rate and thus the bubble
shrinkage.
The scatter of numerical results for different correla-
tions of the Sherwood number indicate the need for ex-
perimental investigations of the bubbles flow in a pipeline.
View publication stats
References
1. Townsend A.A.: The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flows. Cam-
bridge University Press 1976
2. Levich V.G.: Physicochemical Hydrodynamics. N.J., Englewoods
Cliffs. Prentice-Hall 1962
3. Kawase Y., Halard B. and Moo-Young M.B.: Theoretical Prediction
of Volumetric Mass Transfer Coefficients in Bubble Columns for
Science 42 (1987) 1609–1617
4. Lamont J.C. and Scott D.S.: An Eddy Cell Model of Mass Transfer
into the Surface of a Turbulent Liquid. AICHE Journal 16 (1970)
513–519
Heat and Mass-Transfer Properties of Dispersions. Chemical 487
Engineering Science 16 (1961) 39–54
6. Skelland A. H. P. and Lee J.M.: Drop Size and Continuous-Phase
Mass Transfer in Agitated Vessels. AICHE Journal 27 (1981)
99–111
7. Kudrewizki F. and Rabe P.: Hydrodynamics and Gas Absorption
in Gassed Stirred Tanks in Presence of Tensids. Chemical Engi-
neering Science 42 (1987) 1939–1944
8. Kress T.S. and Kyes J.J.: Liquid Phase Controlled Mass Transfer to
Bubbles in Cocurrent Turbulent Pipeline Flow. Chemical Engi-
neering Science 28 (1973) 1809–1823
9. Avdeev A.A.: Laws of Growth, Condensation and Dissolution of
Vapor and Gas Bubbles in Turbulent Flows. High Temperature,
September (1988) 214–220
10. Kolmogoroff A.N.: The Breakup of Droplets in a Turbulent
Stream. Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR 66 (1949) 825–828
During Short Period of Exposure. Trans. AICHE 31 (1935)
12. Brennen C.E.: Cavitation and bubble dynamics. New York,
Oxford. Oxford University Press 1995
13. Nigmatulin R.I.: Dynamics of multiphase media. New York.
Hemisphere Pub. Corp. 1991