0
Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Experimental Study of Horizontal Bubble Plume With Computational Fluid Dynamics Benchmarking

[+] Author and Article Information
Shao-Wen Chen

School of Nuclear Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2017;
Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Science,
National Tsing Hua University,
Hsinchu 30013, Taiwan
e-mail: chensw@mx.nthu.edu.tw

Christopher Macke, Takashi Hibiki, Mamoru Ishii, Peng Ju

School of Nuclear Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2017

Yang Liu

School of Nuclear Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2017;
Nuclear Engineering Program,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Subash Sharma

School of Nuclear engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2017

Yoshiyuki Kondo, Koichi Tanimoto

Takasago Research and Development Center,
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.,
2-1-1 Shinhama Arai-Cho Takasago,
Hyogo 676-8686, Japan

Tsutomu Kawamizu, Takashi Yoshimoto, Seiji Kagawa

Hiroshima Research and Development Center,
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.,
Kan-on-Shin-Machi4-Chome,
Nishi-ku, Hiroshima City,
Hiroshima 733-8553, Japan

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received June 10, 2015; final manuscript received April 11, 2016; published online July 15, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Mark R. Duignan.

J. Fluids Eng 138(11), 111301 (Jul 15, 2016) (14 pages) Paper No: FE-15-1395; doi: 10.1115/1.4033560 History: Received June 10, 2015; Revised April 11, 2016

In order to study the two-phase flow behaviors of a horizontal bubble plume in a tank, experimental tests along with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations were carried out in this paper. An experimental facility was designed and constructed which allows air–water bubble jet being injected horizontally into a water tank by three-parallel injector nozzles with different gas and liquid superficial velocities (〈jgin = 2.7–5.7 m/s and 〈jfin = 1.8–3.4 m/s). Two sizes of injector nozzles (D = 0.053 m and 0.035 m) were tested to examine the injector size effect. Important parameters including void fraction, fluid velocity, bubble Sauter mean diameter, and their distributions in the tank were measured and analyzed. In addition to the experimental work, selected flow conditions were simulated with ANSYS CFX 13.0. Compared with the experimental data, the present CFD simulation can predict the general trends of void and flow distributions and the recirculation fluid velocity with an accuracy of ±30%. The present CFD simulation methodology has been validated by the experimental results and can be applied to bubble plume analyses and design.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the experimental facility: (a) experimental bubble plume tank and (b) schematic of an injector nozzle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Measurement locations of anemometer and conductivity probes: (a) measurement locations of anemometer (for fluid velocity), (b) measurement locations of conductivity probes (for void fraction), and (c) locations of inlet conductivity probes (D = 5.3 cm and 3.5 cm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Void fraction measurement results (D = 0.053 m, flow 1: 〈jgin = 2.7 m/s, 〈jfin = 1.8 m/s; flow 3: 〈jgin = 5.7 m/s, 〈jfin = 3.4 m/s): (a) flow 1, probe A, (b) flow 1, probe B, (c) flow 1, probe C, (d) flow 3, probe A, (e) flow 3, probe B, and (f) flow 3, probe C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Measurement results of fluid velocity along the centerline (x = 0.4 m, D = 0.053 m, flow 1: 〈jgin = 2.7 m/s, 〈jfin = 1.8 m/s; flow 2: 〈jgin = 4.1 m/s, 〈jfin = 2.7 m/s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Measurement results and benchmark of inlet bubble diameter for various test cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Schematic of simulation geometry and boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of void fraction results (probe C, along x = 0.4 m centerline, D = 0.053 m): (a) flow 1: 〈jgin = 2.7 m/s, 〈jfin = 1.8 m/s and (b) flow 3: 〈jgin = 5.7 m/s, 〈jfin = 3.4 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of recirculation fluid velocity results (at YA4, ZA3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Void fraction contours by CFD along the centerline, x = 0.4 m (black symbols represent the measurement locations ofin-tank conductivity probes): (a) D = 0.053 m, flow 1, (b) D = 0.053 m, flow 2, (c) D = 0.053 m, flow 3, (d) D = 0.035 m, flow 1, (e) D = 0.053 m, flow 2, and (f) D = 0.035 m, flow 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Fluid velocity contours by CFD along the centerline, x = 0.4 m (black circles represent the measurement locations of anemometer): (a) D = 0.053 m, flow 1, (b) D = 0.053 m, flow 2, (c) D = 0.053 m, flow 3, (d) D = 0.035 m, flow 1, (e) D = 0.053 m, flow 2, and (f) D = 0.035 m, flow 3

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In