AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Article Link
Collect
Submit Manuscript
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research Article | Open Access

Comparison of upper boundary treatments for bubble column simulations with the two-fluid model

Fabian Schlegel1( )Susann Hänsch1Benjamin Krull1Richard Meller1Sesi Preetam Kota2( )
Department of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Bautzner Landstr. 400, Dresden, Germany
Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg, Fuchsmühlenweg 9E, Freiberg, Germany
Show Author Information

Abstract

A better understanding of multiphase flows is increasingly relevant for industrial applications, in particular with respect to the transition of the chemical and process engineering industry towards green energy. Therein, bubble columns play an important role. Hence, they have been subject to numerical simulations for decades. The literature is characterized by a large variety of numerical methods, interfacial closure terms, boundary conditions, and more. The current paper makes the attempt to exclude one parameter, namely the treatment of the upper boundary, from the discussions around the modelling of those bubble columns. Three different boundary conditions, a degassing boundary condition, a gas-only outlet boundary condition, and an outlet boundary condition are compared. Furthermore, two modelling strategies with a different number of numerical phases to include the physics of the free surface, are investigated. The five different treatments are implemented into the same numerical solver, and are then applied to four different bubble column experiments. All simulations are set up as consistent as possible, to exclude the influence of other parameters, e.g., the numerical method. Three different modelling strategies for the bubble size distribution have been checked as well, namely a monodisperse, a fixed-polydisperse and a poly-disperse one, the latter including bubble breakup and coalescence. The results show for bubble columns no significant influence of the treatment of the upper boundary. However, a prerequisite for an accurate analysis is stable statistics, which are found to require a very long averaging time for the bubble columns investigated here.

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
Experimental and Computational Multiphase Flow
Pages 227-244

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Close
Close
Cite this article:
Schlegel F, Hänsch S, Krull B, et al. Comparison of upper boundary treatments for bubble column simulations with the two-fluid model. Experimental and Computational Multiphase Flow, 2025, 7(2): 227-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42757-025-0241-6

893

Views

5

Crossref

7

Web of Science

7

Scopus

Received: 17 June 2024
Revised: 17 January 2025
Published: 18 June 2025
© The Author(s) 2025

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.