2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2016.07.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determination of diffuser bubble size in computational fluid dynamics models to predict oxygen transfer in spiral roll aeration tanks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, accurate prediction of the overall mass transfer coefficient, k L a, relies on correct estimation of the initial bubble size at the diffuser level, requiring either in situ bubble diameter measurements (Fayolle et al, 2010) or implementation of an add-on model to estimate inlet bubble size. Similarly, the need for bubble diameter calibration has been emphasized in more recent CFD work by Terashima, So, Goel, and Yasui (2016), involving use of the same modeling approach to determine k L a values in a number of full-scale activated sludge systems and clean water tanks that differed in their dimensions, diffuser types (coarse and fine-pore, ceramic, plastic and membrane diffusers), their configuration (single and dual spiral roll) and operating airflow rates. Others (Cockx et al, 2001;Talvy, Cockx, & Line, 2007) have explored the use of a Eulerian model to determine axial dispersion and oxygen mass transfer in a pilot-scale airlift reactor.…”
Section: Previous Modeling Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, accurate prediction of the overall mass transfer coefficient, k L a, relies on correct estimation of the initial bubble size at the diffuser level, requiring either in situ bubble diameter measurements (Fayolle et al, 2010) or implementation of an add-on model to estimate inlet bubble size. Similarly, the need for bubble diameter calibration has been emphasized in more recent CFD work by Terashima, So, Goel, and Yasui (2016), involving use of the same modeling approach to determine k L a values in a number of full-scale activated sludge systems and clean water tanks that differed in their dimensions, diffuser types (coarse and fine-pore, ceramic, plastic and membrane diffusers), their configuration (single and dual spiral roll) and operating airflow rates. Others (Cockx et al, 2001;Talvy, Cockx, & Line, 2007) have explored the use of a Eulerian model to determine axial dispersion and oxygen mass transfer in a pilot-scale airlift reactor.…”
Section: Previous Modeling Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bubble size also depends on the orifice or pore size of the diffusion aerator (Wang et al, 2009), although this is not modelled in this study. A uniform mean bubble size of 4 mm in this study is taken as an average value from the literature (Lei and Ni, 2014;Le Moullec et al, 2010;Terashima et al, 2016;Xu et al, 2010).…”
Section: Two Phase Flowmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, fine bubbling is favored because it achieves high interfacial area, which facilitates more efficient mass transfer between phases and minimizes stripping of the liquid phase as vapor (Hasanen et al, 2006). Fine‐bubble diffusers such as perforated flexible membrane, porous rigid ceramic, jets, mechanical turbines, and perforated cap diffusers are the most commonly used in industrial applications (Terashima et al, 2016). Due to their energy efficiency, fine‐bubble diffusers made of perforated membranes and porous ceramics are the most common technology of choice in biological wastewater treatment (Rosso, 2019; Tchobanoglous et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%