Eulerian Two-Phase Simulation of The Flotation Process With OpenFOAM

Eingereicht von
DI Gerhard Holzinger
Angefertigt am
Department for
Particulate Flow
Modelling
Erstbeurteiler
Eulerian Two-Phase Prof. Dr. Stefan Pirker

JKU Linz, Austria
Zweitbeurteiler
Simulation of the Dr. Phil Schwarz
CSIRO, Australia
Floation Process September, 2016
with OpenFOAM
Dissertation
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
Doktor der Technischen Wissenschaften
im Doktoratsstudium der
Technischen Wissenschaften
JOHANNES KEPLER
UNIVERSITÄT LINZ
Altenbergerstraße 69
4040 Linz, Österreich
www.jku.at
DVR 0093696
Contents
Contents i
Abstract iv
Zusammenfassung v
Publications vii
List of Figures viii
List of Tables x
Acronyms xi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 Mineral processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.3 Other areas of application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Flotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1 Physical core phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.2 Flotation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.3 Flotation machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.4 Modelling flotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3 Organzation of this work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3.1 Two-phase flow in flotation machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3.2 Flotation kinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 Theory 13
2.1 Computational fluid dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.1 Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.2 Frames of reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.3 Simulation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 Eulerian two-phase modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.1 Governing equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.2 Interfacial momentum transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.3 Turbulence modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.4 Poly-dispersity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.3 Flotation Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.3.1 Chemical Reactor Engineering (CRE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.3.2 Macrokinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
–i–
2.3.3 Probabilistic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.3.4 Extended linear kinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.3.5 Mass and species transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.4 Flotation microkinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.4.1 Collision frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.4.2 Detachment frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.4.3 Collision models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.4.4 Attachment models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.4.5 Models of stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.4.6 Non-spherical bubbles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.5 Suspension properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.5.1 Continuity approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.5.2 Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.5.3 Viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3 Numerical Simulation 84
3.1 Numerical method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.1.1 Finite volume method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.1.2 Solution of linear equation systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.1.3 Solution algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.1.4 The MRF approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.2 OpenFOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.2.1 A little introduction to OpenFOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.2.2 Flow equations in OpenFOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.2.3 Eulerian two-fluid modelling in OpenFOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.2.4 Features of OpenFOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4 Simulation of Bubbly Flow 101

4.1 Becker bubble column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.1.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.1.2 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.1.3 Numerical simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.1.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.2 Deen bubble column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.2.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.2.2 Simulation set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.3 Stirred tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.3.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.3.2 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.3.3 Mesh generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.3.4 Single-phase validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.3.5 Two-phase validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5 Application 133
5.1 Stirred tank flotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.1.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.1.2 Operating conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.1.3 Simulation setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.1.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.2 Hybrid floation column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.2.1 Operating principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
– ii –
5.2.2 Geometry and mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.2.3 Operating conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.2.4 Simulation setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.2.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6 Conclusion and Outlook 143
A Implementation Details 145

A.1 Flotation solvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
A.1.1 Code organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
A.2 Flotation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
A.2.1 The flotation model class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
A.2.2 The sub-process model classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
A.2.3 The collision and detachment frequency model classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
B Derivations 153
B.1 Derivation of the MRF approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
B.1.1 Preliminary observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
B.1.2 Mass conservation equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
B.1.3 Momentum conservation equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
B.2 Derivation of the IATE model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
B.2.1 Derivation of the governing equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
B.2.2 Interaction models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
B.2.3 The proof for Eqn. (B.41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
B.3 Mathematical proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
B.3.1 Proof of the equivalence of Equations (2.328) and (2.329) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
B.3.2 Proof of the equivalence of Equations (2.332) and (2.332) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
B.3.3 Proof of Equation (2.147) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
B.3.4 Proof of Equations (4.9) and (4.10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Nomenclature 166
Bibliography 169
About the author 186
– iii –
Abstract
The objective of this work was to implement a kinetic model for mineral flotation into the framework of
an existing computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code. The open source CFD framework of OpenFOAM
was selected for this task, as it allows for the greatest freedom in terms of model implementation.
In the course of this work several examples of dispersed two-phase flow were studied. Although, these
simulations of bubbly flows are not directly related to the work on flotation, they serve to illustrate
the chosen simulation method and, in the case of the stirred tank, lay some ground work for the later
application of the flotation model.
Two sorts of bubble columns have been simulated and validated with data from various sources. First,
a bubble column following Becker et al. was validated against data gathered from in-house experiments.
Then, the Deen bubble column was validated using simulation and measurement data from published
literature.
The investigated stirred tank featured a cylindrical vessel with baffles and a Rushton impeller. This
widely used configuration is rather well suited for validation, as there is a large body of literature available.
The simulations of both the bubble column cases and the stirred tank fit well to the validation data.
The flotation model has been implemented following the example of OpenFOAM’s own implemen-
tation making use of the concept of object orientation. This leads to a modular and easily extendible
design of the flotation model.
Finally, the implemented flotation model has been applied to two cases. The first application is an
aerated, generic stirred tank, representing mechanical flotation cells. This test case features a well defined
geometry and has been extensively studied in several aspects.
The second application is a scaled-up version of an industrial flotation apparatus produced by the
industrial partner. This apparatus represents a continously operating flotation device in contrast to the
first case, which represents a batch process.
The simulations demonstrate the feasibility of a combined simulation of the two-phase flow and the
flotation kinetics within a flotation apparatus. However, the simulations also reveal an issue related to
the different time scales of the flow dynamics and the kinetic process.
– iv –
Zusammenfassung
Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist ein Flotationsmodell in ein bestehendes CFD Werkzeug zu integrieren. Das
quell-offene (open-source) CFD Programmpaket OpenFOAM wurde für diese Zwecke gewählt, da es die
größte Freiheit bietet im Bezug auf Modell-Entwicklung und Implementierung.
Im Zuge dieser Arbeit wurde einige Beispiele einer reinen, dispersen Zweiphasen-Strömung unter-
sucht und mit Daten von diversen Quellen validiert. Diese Simulationen sind, obwohl kein Bezug zur
Flotation vorhanden ist, ein Beispiel zur Illustration der gewählten Simulationsmethode der Zweiphasen-
Strömung. Am Beispiel des begasten Rührkessels werden einige Vorarbeiten zur späteren Anwendung
des Flotationsmodells erledigt.
Es wurden zwei verschiedene Blasensäulen simuliert und validiert mit Daten aus diversen Quellen.
Zum einen wurde eine Blasensäule nach Becker et al. im eigenen Labor aufgebaut und zur Validierung
der eigenen Simulationen verwendet. Zum anderen wurde eine Blasensäule nach Deen validiert anhand
von Mess- und Simulationsdaten aus der veröffentlichten Literatur.
Der untersuchte Rührkessel besteht aus einem zylindischen Tank mit Stromstörern und einem Schei-
benrührer (Rushton-Turbine). Dieser weit verbreitete Aufbau ist Gegenstand vieler Untersuchungen und
es ist dementsprechend viel Literatur dazu verfügbar. Die Simulations-Ergebnisse der beiden Blasensäulen
und des Rührkessels passen gut zu den Validierungsdaten.
Die Implementierung des Flotationsmodells folgte dem Beispiel von OpenFOAM im Bezug auf die
von OpenFOAM praktizierte Objekt-Orientierung. Dies führt zu einem modularen und sehr einfach
erweiterbarem Design des Flotationsmodells.
Schließlich wurde das entwickelte Flotationsmodel an zwei Beispielen getestet. Die erste Anwendung,
ein begaster Rührkessel, ist eher ein akademischer Testfall. Der begaste Rührkessel zeichnet sich durch
eine wohl definierte, quasi standardisierte Geometrie und große Auswahl an Literaturdaten zur Validerung
der Strömungsverhältnisse aus. Darüberhinaus enthält der begaste Rührkessel alle Komponenten einer
mechanischen Flotationszelle im diskontinuierlichen Betrieb.
Das zweite Anwendungsbeispiel für das Flotationsmodell ist eine Flotationssäule unseres Industrie-
partners. Diese arbeitet kontinuierlich und weist, im Gegensatz zum Rührkessel, reale Maßstäbe der
industriellen Anwendung auf.
Die Anwendungsbeispiele zeigen die Machbarkeit einer kombinierten Simulation von Zweiphasen Strö-
mung und kinetischem Flotationsprozess in einer Flotationszelle. Die stark unterschiedlichen Zeitskalen
von Strömung und kinetischem Prozess zieht jedoch sehr lange Rechenzeiten nach sich.
–v–
Acknowledgement
Thank you.
Gerhard Holzinger
I would like to express my gratitude to all who accompanied me on my way and to all who made this
journey possible in the first place. The path towards this thesis wound through the efforts of getting into a
scientific field and aquiring knowledge, over the actual work done and finally, writing this thesis. Without
helping hands and minds from a wide variety of people this journey would have been unthinkable.
First and foremost my thanks go to Prof. Stefan Pirker for giving me the opportunity to join his
research group twice, first as a summer intern and later as PhD student. In my four years as member
of the CD-lab’s pack of PhD students, I experienced a stimulating work environment with well balanced
mix of liberty (creative anarchy at times) and superivision.
I also thank my other colleagues from the CD-lab and university’s Institute for Fluid Mechanics and
Heat Transfer for providing a pleasant workplace and for all the help given over the last years. I guess
a large part of academic progress is owed to the (working) environment. At the technical faculty of the
JKU in general I never had any difficulties of finding helpful people.
I would further like to thank the various people from the industrial partner, who were part of the
flotation group over the years, for the input and support for this project. The funding from the industrial
partner and the Christian Doppler Society is appreciated.
I would like to express special thanks to my friends for providing company and distraction, and for
keeping in touch despite my frequent absence from our circles. I am further grateful for all the friends
found in the course of my studies.
Finally, my biggest thanks goes to my family, for the never ending support and to my parents for
providing the freedom to choose my own path in life.
– vi –
Publications
Proceedings
Holzinger, G., Wierink, G., Pirker, S. (2014), Towards Modelling Mineral Flotation implemented in
OpenFOAM(R), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on CFD in the Oil & Gas, Metallurgical
and Process Industries (CFD2014)
Holzinger, G., Grossmann, L., Pirker, S. (2012), Analytical considerations and numerical simulations of
counter current columnar flotation, Proceedings of the 9th International Mineral Processing Conference
(PROCEMIN 2012)
Presentations
Holzinger, G. (2014), Simulation of a Stirred Tank with Rushton Impeller with OpenFOAM, 2nd Open-
FOAM User Conference, October 7-9, Berlin, Germany
Holzinger, G., Wierink, G., Pirker, S. (2014), Towards Modelling Mineral Flotation implemented in
OpenFOAM(R), 9th OpenFOAM Workshop, June 23-26, Zagreb, Croatia
Holzinger, G., Pirker, S. (2013), Dynamic flow behavior of a rectangular bubble column, 8th International
OpenFOAM Workshop, June 11-14, Jeju, South Korea
OpenFOAM User Manual

As a part of getting to know the software package OpenFOAM, the creation of some sort of user manual
has been started. The mistakes that where made by the author, identified or experienced pitfalls and
some background information has been collected to serve as a knowledge base and as an aid for future
users of OpenFOAM.
The manual is published within the framework of the PFM1 collection of simulation tools (OSCCAR2 ).
The manual can be found online at https://github.com/ParticulateFlow/OSCCAR-doc.
1 Department for Particulate Flow Modelling

2 Open Source CFD Customized for Application and Research
– vii –
List of Figures
1.1 Flowchart of mineral processing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2 Schematic representation of pneumatic, column and mechanical flotation devices. . . . . . 9
2.1 Representatives for the different geometric scales within a flotation apparatus. . . . . . . . 14
2.2 Frames of reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Resolution of two-phase simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4 Modelling approach on the example of a gas-liquid two-phase system. . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5 Interfacial forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.6 The curves of CD over Re various draw models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.7 Exemplary plots of filters used in large eddy simulation (LES) modelling. . . . . . . . . . 31
2.8 Modelling poly-dispersity in Eulerian multi-phase modelling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.9 Idealized reactor types, reproduced and adapted after [163]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.10 A schematic representation of a batch flotation apparatus in operation. . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.11 Exemplary characteristics of the kinetic models presented in this section. . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.12 An exemplary, complex flotation plant layout, reproduced from [300]. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.13 Interaction between the bubble and particle populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.14 A particle attached to a much larger bubble. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.15 Particles of different size attached to a much larger bubble. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.16 An exemplary control volume containing both phases (liquid and gaseous) as well as float-
able particles; both free and attached. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.17 Schematic representation of collision mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.18 Bubble surface mobility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.19 Schematic representation of particle bubble interaction; reproduced after Schulze [256]. . . 68
2.20 The model constant A of (2.340) over contact angle θC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.21 Comparison of experimentally determined induction times with model predictions. . . . . 71
2.22 Bubble particle attachment in flotation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.23 Schematic representation of a particle attached to a bubble. Reproduced after Schulze [255]. 74
2.24 Curves for equations (2.370) and (2.371) with AS = 0.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.25 Geometry of the spherical cap bubble; reproduced after Söder et al. [272]. . . . . . . . . . 77
2.26 Representations of the slurry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.27 Exemplary curves of viscosity models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.1 A polyhedral control volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.1 Geometry of the centrally aerated bubble column. The coloured patch marks the gas inlet.
The dimensions can be found in Table 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.2 Air supply of the bubble column. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.3 The different steps of image processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.4 Processing the colour value profile at z ≈ 0.25 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.5 Identified center of the bubble plume for full inflow at two different heights. . . . . . . . . 105
– viii –
4.6 Modelling strategies for the outlet of bubble columns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.7 Snapshots of the experiment and the simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.8 FFT of the identified parameters for full inflow at z ≈ 0.35 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.9 Identified bubble plume oscillation frequencies from experimental and simulation data. . . 108
4.10 Time history of the axial liquid velocity near the wall at z ≈ 0.25 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.11 Iso-volume α ≥ 0.04 and liquid velocity vectors of the diagonal plane. . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.12 Influence of interfacial momentum transfer models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.13 Iso-volume α ≥ 0.04 and liquid velocity vectors of the diagonal plane. . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.14 Influence of turbulence modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.15 Influence of turbulence modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.16 The schematic configuration of the stirred tank with the relevant geometric parameters. . 117
4.17 A single generic block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.18 The generation of infinitely thin internal structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.19 A demonstration of how the rotor geometry is generated as infinitely thin structure. . . . 119
4.20 Angular and (simplified) radial block decomposition of the stirred tank geometry. . . . . . 121
4.21 Radial and axial block decomposition of the stirred tank geometry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.22 The surface mesh of the rotating zone (in white) surrounding the rotor (blue) and a section
of the stator wall (grey). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.23 The power number over the impeller Reynolds number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.24 Normalized velocity profiles at r/T = 0.185 in the x − z plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.25 Normalized velocity profiles at r/T = 0.285 in the x − z plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.26 Normalized profiles of turbulent kinetic energy at two sampling lines in the x − z plane. . 125
4.27 Normalized velocity profiles in the 45◦ plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.28 The 45◦ planes and the symmetry planes of the domain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.29 Normalized velocity profiles at r/T = 0.185 and r/T = 0.285. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.30 The stirred tank with an annular aerator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.31 Regime map for a fully baffled, aerated stirred tank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.32 The three main flow regimes in an aerated stirred tank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.33 Gas phase volume fraction field values α in the 45◦ plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.34 Case III: flooding regime. Field values of the gas phase volume fraction in the 45◦ plane. . 131
4.35 Regions within the stirred tank used to generate Figure 4.36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.36 Overall gas content and gas content in three zones of the stirred tank. . . . . . . . . . . . 132
5.1 Regime of the stirred tank flotation case as discussed in Section 4.3.5. . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.2 Identified flotation rate constant k over particle size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.3 The configuration of a hybrid flotation column. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.4 The geometry of the FTC32 hybrid flotation column. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5.5 Full section view of the interior of the FTC 32 flotation column. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.6 Normalized particle mass in a control volume at the outlet of the simulation domain. . . . 141
5.7 Recovery R determined from the particle mass curves shown in Figure 5.6. . . . . . . . . . 141
A.1 The class diagram showing the hierarchy of the flotation model classes. . . . . . . . . . . . 147
A.2 The class hierarchy of the sub-process models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
A.3 The class hierarchy of the implemented collision models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
A.4 The class hierarchy of the implemented attachment models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
A.5 The class hierarchy of the implemented stability models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
A.6 The class hierarchy of the implemented collision frequency models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
A.7 The class hierarchy of the implemented detachment frequency models. . . . . . . . . . . . 152
– ix –
List of Tables
2.1 The classical LES filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.2 Definitions of average diameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3 Values for the parameters A and n of Eq. (2.311), after Yoon and Luttrell [302]. . . . . . 65
2.4 Rheological models for non-Newtonian fluids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
2.5 Rheological models for non-Newtonian fluids implemented in OpenFOAM. . . . . . . . . . 82
4.1 The main dimensions of the Becker test case following Pfleger et al. [216]. . . . . . . . . . 102
4.2 The main dimensions of the Deen bubble column. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.3 The considered interfacial momentum transfer terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.4 Summary of the applied models for the simulations presented in Figure 4.14. . . . . . . . 113
4.5 Summary of the applied models for the simulations presented in Figure 4.15. . . . . . . . 115
4.6 The investigated configurations of the stirred tank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.7 The approximate cell numbers of the investigated grids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.1 The configuration of the investigated stirred tank, largely following Pyke et al. [224]. . . . 134
5.2 Simulation parameters of the stirred tank flotation simulation, largely following Pyke et al.
[224]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.3 Simulation parameters of the hybrid flotation simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
–x–
Acronyms
ADM axial dispersion model FEM finite element method

API application programming interface FFT fast Fourier transform
BC boundary condition FOAM field operation and manipulation
BIT bubble induced turbulence FSF Free Software Foundation
BSD bubble size distribution FV finite volume
CC columnar column FVM finite volume method
CCM computational continuum mechanics GAMG geometric-algebraic multigrid
CDF cumulative distribution function GNU GNU is not Unix
CDS central differencing scheme GPL GNU Public Licence
CFD computational fluid dynamics GSE Generalised Sutherland Equation
CFSTR continuous flow stirred tank reactor IAF induced air flotation
IATE interfacial area transport equation
CG conjugate gradient
IB immersed boundary
CGS centimetre-gram-second
IUPAC International Union of Pure and
CM method of classes
Applied Chemistry
CPU central processing unit LDA laser Doppler anemometry
CRE chemical reactor engineering LES large eddy simulation
CSTR continuous stirred tank reactor LHS left hand side
CV control volume LPT Lagrangian particle tracking
DAF dissolved air flotation MOM method of moments
DCF dissolved carbon dioxide flotation MRF multiple reference frame
DEM discrete element method MUSIG multiple size groups
DOF dissolved ozone flotation ODE ordinary differential equation
DPE disperse phase element OOP object-oriented programming
DQMOM direct quadrature method of moments PBE population balance equation
FDM finite difference method PC pneumatic column
– xi –
PDE partial differential equation RTD residence time distribution
PDF probability density function RTS run-time selection

PE polyethylene SGS sub-grid scale
PFR plug flow reactor SI Système International d’Unités
PIMPLE merged PISO-SIMPLE SIMPLE Semi-Implicit Method for
Pressure-Linked Equations
PISO Pressure-Implicit with Splitting of
Operators TDMA tri-diagonal matrix algorithm
PSD particle size distribution TPC three-phase contact
PVC polyvinyl chloride
TPCL three-phase contact line
QBMM quadrature based moment methods
UML unified modeling language
QMOM quadrature method of moments
URANS unsteady Reynolds averaged
RAS Reynolds averaged simulation Navier-Stokes
RANS Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes USC United States customary
RHS right hand side VOF volume of fluid
– xii –
Chapter 1
Introduction
Quamvis enim melius sit benefacere quam nosse,

prius tamen est nosse quam facere.
Right action is better than knowledge; but in order

to do what is right, we must know what is right.
Carolus Magnus
1.1 Mining
A great part of industrial production relies directly or indirectly on mining. Mining is – in a wide sense
of the word – the extraction of valuable minerals from the earth’s crust. Mining can also refer to the
whole industry or to the actual excavation of material.
The process of producing the final product (e.g. a metal) can be divided into three steps: excavation,
separation and extraction. A mining operation may feature any of these steps in any combination. In
some cases the mining operation – the mine – focuses only on the excavation. In other cases, the mine
also features a processing plant which deals with separation, extraction or both processes. Especially in
mines at very remote places or mines dealing with low grade ores, on-site processing becomes important
in order to reduce shipping cost and effort.
1.1.1 Terminology
The mined materials can be divided into categories by any kind of distinction criteria. The following list
defines some terms used in this work [99, 296]:
Mineral A naturally occuring inorganic element or compound with an orderly internal structure, chemical
composition and physical properties.
Rock Any naturally formed aggregate of one or more types of mineral particles. E.g. granite consists of
three minerals (quartz, feldspar and mica).
Ore A mineral deposit that has sufficient value to be economically exploited. The ore is the final product
of the mining operation and one of the raw materials of the subsequent process, e.g. iron and steel
making.
Ore mineral A mineral associated with the production of a specific product. In the case of iron pro-
duction, iron ore may consist of several iron-bearing minerals, e.g. hematite (Fe2 O3 ), magnetite
(Fe3 O4 ) and pyrite (FeS2 ) among others [296].
–1–
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. MINING
Complex ore An ore that contains profitable amounts of more than one mineral. These can be associ-
ated with the same final product, e.g. copper ores containing chalcopyrite (CuFeS2 ) and bornite
(Cu3 FeS2 ), or these minerals can be the raw material for the production of different products, e.g.
lead-zinc ores containing galena (PbS) and sphalerite (ZnS) [296].
Gangue Valueless mineral particles within an ore deposit that must be discarded.
Waste The material associated with an ore deposit that must be mined in order to get at the ore and
then must be discarded. Gangue is a special type of waste. In open-pit mining the overburden –
the rock above the ore deposit – is also part of the waste.
Grade The amount of the valuable mineral within an ore. The grade of an ore strongly influences the
profitability of a mining operation. E.g. gold may be mined profitably with a grade of 1 ppm1 ,
whereas iron ore with a grade of 45 % is considered low grade [296].
Excavation
The step of excavation of the raw materials is often referred to as mining. Materials can be excavated
from open-pit mines (coal, copper, etc.) or deep mines. Open-pit mining is generally used for deposits
near the surface or when the overburden is structurally unsuitable for tunneling. In deep mining the
deposit is accessed from the surface via shafts and tunnels.
A special case of deep mining is solution mining of salt. There, instead of bringing the salt carrying
minerals to the surface, the salt is dissolved in water which is pumped into the deposit. In this case the
excavation and separation are combined in a single step.
Another special case is coal mining. Depending on the quality of the deposit, the separation stage
can be unnecessary. In coal production flotation is usually used to separate the fines2 from the waste
[274, 296].
Separation
The separation stage is necessary when the run-of-mine – the excavated material – contains also other
materials than the ore. Then, in order to keep costs and resource consumption at the extraction stage
low, the ore has to be separated from the gangue material. The process used in the separation stage
depends on the physical and chemical properties of the involved materials.
The most important separation methods are [296]:
Sorting Separation is based on optical and other properties.
Gravity separation Separation is based on differences in density. Examples of gravimetric separation
equippment are settling tanks or spiral concentrators.
Froth flotation Separation is based on different physico-chemical surface properties.
Magnetic separation Separation is limited to the separation of magnetic and non-magnetic materials.
This separation method is widely used in the processing of iron ore.
The choice of the separation method depends on the materials delivered from the mine and also on
the intended extraction process. In many cases a combination of two or more of these methods is used.
The degree to which separation is necessary varies from material to material and from mine to mine,
since the mineralogical composition of the ore determines the necessary processing steps. Some materials
may require no separation at all, whereas other materials can not be produced at all without proper
treatment in a separation plant.
1 Part per million
2 In mineral processing the size of the mineral particles typically covers a range of sizes. Thus, the particles are divided
into size-classes. The term fines usually refers to the fine fraction of the particles. The actual size or size range of the fines
depends on the operation.
–2–
Ore bodies may contain one major ore-bearing mineral or the primary ore mineral occurs in association
with one or several other ore minerals. Common associated ores are lead-zinc with galena and sphalerite
as the ore minerals or copper-lead-zinc ores with chalcopyrite, galena and sphalerite [296].
Separation usually takes place on-site, i.e. the mineral processing plant is located in the vicinity of
the mine. Extraction usually takes place off-site. Extraction is usually energy intensive. Thus, extraction
plants are usually located where energy is cheap. The application of the separation stage reduces the
cost of the extraction stage, because less material needs to be shipped.
Extraction
The processes used in the extraction stage are described by the field of extractive metallurgy. There three
main subjects.
Hydro-metallurgy This processes involve aqueous chemistry to extract metals from their ores. An example
for such a process is the gold cyanidation (cyanide process).
Pyro-metallurgy The processes used to extract the metal from the ore involve high temperatures. The
blast furnace process in steel and iron making is a well known example.
Electro-metallurgy The metal is extraced from the ore by the use of electrolytic processes. Most of the
worldwide aluminium production relies of the electrolytic extraction of aluminium from bauxite.
In order to extract a metal from an ore one process can be sufficient or a combination of several
processes may be needed. In the blast furnace iron ore is converted to raw iron in a single step. In
the production of gold, first in a hydro-metallurgical stage (leaching) the gold is dissolved from the
ore with the cyanide process. Subsequently to the leaching stage, there is an electro-metallurgial stage
(electrowinning). There, the gold is extracted from the gold-cyanide solution.
If a certain mineral can not be removed in the extraction stage or if a certain material has negetive
influence on the extraction efficiency then this material has to be removed from the ore in the separation
stage. E.g. silica is removed by reverse flotation from iron ore if the prior magnetic separation stage fails
to reach the required grade (usually 1 - 4 % by weight [114, 203, 296]).
1.1.2 Mineral processing

The exploitation of low grade ore deposits in mining increases the need for mineral processing in order
to recover a reasonable part of the ore. Flotation enables mine operators to exploit low grade ores with
a grade below 1 % [74]. Analysis of available data in the field of mining shows that the ore grades are
gradually declining over the decades [186].
Mineral processing can be divided into three steps:
Comminution In this stage the size the excavated material is reduced to ensure liberation of the targeted
valuable material. Devices used in this stage are crushers and mills. The grade of comminution
depends on the properties of the ore (size, dissemination, association and shape of the valueable
mineral within the ore). The aim is to liberate the valueable mineral particles embedded in the
material of the deposit. Comminution is usually divided into two stages crushing and grinding.
Crushing is usually a dry process, whereas grinding is usually a wet process to produce a slurry
stream. Crushing and grinding have an overlapping size area of operation [296]. Wills and Napier-
Munn [296] give a distiction between crushing and grinding:
Crushing is accomplished by compression of the ore against rigid surfaces, or by impact

against surfaces in a rigidly constrained motion path. This is contrasted with grinding
which is accomplished by abrasion and impact of the ore by the free motion of unconnected
media such as rods, balls, or pebbles.
–3–
Sizing The output material of the comminution stage is divided in size classes. Material larger than an
intended size is fed back to comminution. Material finer than a certain lower size limit is often
discarded. Sizing operations are generally divided into screening and classification. Screening is
based on the flow of material over screens with various geometrical patterns. Classifiers use the
particle motion itself for size control, e.g. in a hydrocyclone [176].
Concentration In the concentration stage valuable material is separated from non-valuable materials
(gangue material). Widely used methods in mineral processing are gravimetric separation (settling),
flotation, magnetic separation and leaching. The choice of separation method is determined by the
minerals contained within the ore.
Flotation is one of many methods used in mineral concentration plants. The presumably best known
method3 is panning (e.g. gold panning). This method expoits the difference of material density. This
method requires a certain density difference and a minimal particle size. Below a certain size volume
forces become evanescent and surface forces dominate. Thus, methods such as panning or settling are
becoming less and less efficient for decreasing particle size.
Figure 1.1 shows the a flowchart of a mineral processing plant. The ore is crushed and ground to the
appropriate size to ensure liberation of the valuable mineral. After each comminuition stage the material
is sized. Oversized material is fed back for reprocessing and undersized material passed to the next stage.
Material below a certain size may be detrimental for subsequent operations. The removal of the very fine
particles is referred to as desliming.
(– –) desliming
Tailings
(–) (–)
Ore Crushers Screens Grinding Classifiers Separation
Concentrate
(+) (+)
recrushing regrinding
Figure 1.1: Flowchart of the operations in a mineral processing plant. The (+) indicates oversized material
returned for reprocessing (recrushing or regrinding); the (–) indicates undersized material allowed to
proceed further; the (– –) indicates the desliming operation. Reproduced and adapted after [296].
Besides processing low grade ores, flotation is also used to reprocess the material discarded in tailings
dams. Due to rising prices of raw materials reprocessing of tailings becomes economically interesting
[74, 296]. Franca and Couto [74] report of lab- and pilot-scale tests to process low grade nickel ores (0.3
% Ni).
This means not only reprocessing aiming for the same mineral, but also aiming for other associated
minerals [90, 296]. Gomez and Gonzalez [90] describe the flotation of gold- and silver-bearing pyrite from
the tailings of a lead-zinc processing plant.
When the floated material – the material that is concentrated in the froth – is in fact the gangue,
then this process is called reverse flotation. I.e. not the valueable mineral is removed from the slurry but
the impurities. Reverse flotation can be used as a method for the purification of a (raw) material e.g.
used to remove silica impurities from iron ore [114, 296].
Flotation circuits can be divided into two classes [28, 296]. Simple separation circuits produce one
concentrate stream from the pulp. However, simple separation circuits or one-product separators may
have complex flowsheets as well.
Complex flotation circuits or selective flotation circuits produce several concentrates from one pulp
feed. The key difference from several one-product circuits in series is that in selective flotation circuits
the valuables are in a first stage floated together to form a bulk concentrate, which is subsequently fed
3 From classic western movies.
–4–
through a series of flotation cells to selectively remove the individual valuables [28]. Some flotation plants
are known to produce more than five concentrates [296].
A major field of application of selective flotation is the treatment of complex ores, in which several
valuables are associated, e.g. lead-zinc and copper-lead-zinc ores. Over the time the ore bodies being
developed are getting more and more complex [186]. An example for the importance of selective flotation
is the fact that over 80 % of the world’s silver production stems from lead-zinc ores [27].
High value by-products such as gold and silver might have a significant impact in the economy of
low-grade mining operations [296]. E.g. a significant portion of Australia’s gold production is the by-
or co-product of copper mining [186]. Furthermore, a considerable amount4 of the molybdenum (Mo)
production is a by-product of the processing of porphyry copper ores [296].
1.1.3 Other areas of application

Besides the application in mineral processing, which was the initial field of use of the flotation process,
flotation is nowadays used in many fields [296]. Thus, understanding and the ability to model the flotation
process is important for many more industries other than the mining industry and industries based on
the processing of minerals, e.g. iron and steel making.
1.1.3.1 Recycling and wastewater treatment

In paper recycling the waste paper is chopped up mixed with water to form a mixture of cellulose fibers
and waste paper contaminants (i.e. printing ink, fillers, adhesives, etc.), which is called pulp. Removing
the ink particles from the waste paper pulp is an essential step in paper recycling [172]. Froth flotation
is utilized in waste paper deinking since the 1960s and has become the standard practice for deinking in
Europe and North America [247, 284]. The efficiency of flotation in deinking has a direct impact on the
cleanliness and brightness of the recycled paper [247].
In waste water treatment flotation is used in a broad range of applications from the treatment of
processing waters to general waste water treatment [18, 237]. In waste water treatment flotation is used
in all sorts of operations such as removing solid particles or oils and greases [159, 172, 309].
In recycling of waste plastics the purity of the collected waste plastics is of key importance. Cross-
contamination of various polymers can lead to severe degradation of the recyclate’s properties [26, 286].
E.g. for polyvinyl chloride (PVC) recycling it is necessary to remove or reduce polyethylene (PE) con-
tamination. Due to the special properties of plastics separation by means of flotation is a rather recent
and challenging topic [286].
1.1.3.2 Petroleum industry

In the global crude oil production, on average 3 - 5 barrels of water are produced for every barrel of oil.
This water originates from various sources and is referred to as produced water 5 [183, 233]. In addition
to hydrocyclones and gravity settlers, flotation columns are used to remove fine oil droplets from the
produced water [233].
1.1.3.3 Metallurgy
In secondary steel-making the crude steel undergoes several processes to reach the desired final product
quality. One of those processes is deoxidation, i.e. the removal of dissolved oxygen [105]. As the solubility
of oxygen is much lower in solid steel than in liquid steel, the oxygen has to be removed from the steel
melt prior to the casting of the steel, otherwise gas pores would form within the steel. This is achieved
by adding so-called deoxydation agents, i.e. strong oxide-forming elements such as aluminium, silicon
4 For the year of 2012 primary molybdenum production accounts for 53 % of the total U.S. molybdenum production, the
remaining 47 % stem from by-products [220].

5 Produced water refers to water which is produced along with crude oil. This water may originate from the oil reservoir
itself or may be the result of water injection to boost recovery.
–5–
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.2. FLOTATION
or manganese [105]. The deoxidation agent binds the free oxygen within the steel melt, in the case of
aluminium as deoxidation agent via the reaction 2[Al] + 3[O] = (Al2 O3 ). As the deoxidation agent reacts
with the free oxygen, oxides precipitate out. The resulting oxide particles are referred to as non-metallic
inclusions.
Being lighter than the liquid steel, the non-metallic inclusions float out of the melt. However, very
small oxide particles feature a too small of a terminal velocity to float out in finite time. The remain-
ing oxide particles remaining in the liquid steel form non-metallic inclusions within the solidified steel.
These inclusions strongly affect the properties of the final product [106]. Argon bubbles are used in the
production of clean steel to remove non-metallic inclusions [235].
1.2 Flotation
1.2.1 Physical core phenomenon
Flotation – or froth flotation – is a general physico-chemical technique to separate particles from a
suspending liquid. Generally, flotation is used for selective removal of particles from a slurry, e.g. in
mineral processing [255]. There are also, however, applications in which flotation is used as a non-
selective process, i.e. removing all solids from a liquid. This is the case e.g. in waste water treatment
[309].
Flotation involves besides a liquid and a solid phase also a gas phase. The liquid and solid phase6
compose the slurry. This is the feed material from which solids are to be removed. The gas phase involved
in flotation are air or gas bubbles introduced into the slurry. Hydrophobic particles that collide with the
gas bubbles adhere to the bubbles and are subsequently transported upwards to the froth layer.
Selectivity of the flotation process is achieved by a difference of hydrophobicity of the involved mate-
rials. Hydrophobic particles have a higher probability of being attached to a gas bubble once they collide.
The attached particle will ascend to the surface with the bubble. Thus, the hydrophobic fraction of the
suspended solids is concentrated in the froth forming on the liquid surface. As the froth is removed from
the flotation apparatus, the overall concentration of hydrophobic particles decreases.
Flotation is applicable in a certain particle size range. The upper limit of this range is determined
by the weight of the particle. Above a certain particle size an air bubble is not capable of carrying the
particle to the froth layer. The lower size limit is determined by the probability of an air bubble to collide
with an ore particle. Below a certain particle size the separation process becomes inefficient.
Besides the hydrophobic particles collected by true flotation, also a portion of valueable and gangue
particles are recovered by entrainment or entrapment [296]. The froth layer on top of a flotation apparatus
consists of air bubbles and liquid regions between the bubbles. The process of liquid reporting to the
concentrates is generally referred to as water recovery. This liquid contains suspended particles of both
valuables and gangue. These entrained gangue particles dilute the concentrate and thus lower the grade
of the concentrate. This issue is generally adressed by applying several subsequent stages of flotation
[296].
It has been found that the recovery of gangue strongly correlates with the water recovery [190].
Furthermore, fine and very fine particles are prone to entrainment as these are easily suspended in the
liquid. Larger particles, however, settle out of the froth [191, 287]. Froth height or froth retention time
sets the time available to entrained particles to settle [287].
1.2.2 Flotation process

1.2.2.1 Flotation reagents
This section gives a very brief overwiew of the flotation reagents and is largely based on literature [27, 296].
Flotation reagents are classified based on their function. Reagents are an essential part of the flotation
6 The entirety of solid matter suspended within the liquid phase is referred to as solid phase. The liquid phase might
also be a mixture of several liquid constituents.
–6–
process, as Bulatovic [27] puts it:
Without reagents there would be no flotation, and without flotation the mining industry, as
we know it today, would not exist. Reagents in mineral processing are therefore an inseparable
part of the flotation process.
and further
Reagents are the most important part of the flotation process. In the early stage of the devel-
opment of the flotation process, the major advances were due to better flotation reagents.
The classification of the reagents is as follows:
Collectors are used to form a hydrophobic layer of the targeted mineral’s surface; thus, enabling or
boosting flotation.
Frothers are surface-active chemicals that absorb on the air bubble-water interface and lower the surface
tension of water. The performance of some of the frothers strongly depends on the pulp’s pH.
Furthermore, frothers need to achieve a deep and stable froth layer allowing entrained pulp enough
time to drain.
Regulators or modifiers are chemicals that modify the action of the collector on the mineral surface
(activators and depressants). Another kind of reagents falling under the label of regulators are the
pH-regulators.
Activators react with the mineral’s surface and improve the interaction of the collector with the mineral’s
surface to promote flotation.
Depressants are chemicals that render certain minerals hydrophilic; thus, preventing of hindering their
flotation.
pH-regulators are used to create acidic, neutral or alkaline conditions. The most widely used reagents
for pH control are sulfuric acid (H2 SO4 ) and lime (CaO). The control of the pulp’s pH is a critical
issue in the operation of a flotation plant, since in many selective flotation circuits pH strongly
affects collection.
Flocculants are organic or inorganic polymers whose action can be to promote the agglomeration (floc-
culants and coagulants)7 of particles or to reduce it. This is specifically important when very fine
particles are to be floated or are part of the slurry’s solids [27, 177, 296]. Very fine valuables are less
likely to collide with bubbles, whereas the presence of very fine gangue particles may have negative
effects on floatability (slime coating) [27]. Flocculation is widely used in waste water treatment.
Flotation reagents are typically introduced in the grinding circuit or between the grinding cicuit and
the flotation circuit in special conditioning tanks [296].
1.2.2.2 Gases used in flotation

Air is by far the most common gaseous medium in flotation due to its availability and abundance. The
use of air for bubble generation poses the least technical challenge. Every other gas is either difficult or
expensive to provide. However, flotation is by no means not limited to air bubbles.
7 The terms flocculation and coagulation are sometimes used synonymously. The IUPAC notes the following: When
a sol 8 is colloidally unstable the formation of aggregates is called coagulation or flocculation. Some authors distinguish
between coagulation and flocculation, the latter implying the formation of a loose or open network which may or may not
separate macroscopically. The loose structure formed in this way is called a floc [204].
8 A sol is defines as follows: A fluid colloidal system of two or more components, e.g. a protein sol, a gold sol, an
emulsion. [204]
–7–
Besides using chemical reactions or electrolysis for gas generation there are other applications for
flotation mediated by gases other than air. There are various reasons for using gases other than air in
flotation.
Inert gases may be used in flotation to protect activated surfaces from oxidation, as it is the case in
flotation of auriferous9 pyrite at the Lone Tree Plant in Nevada [78, 181, 182]. Nitrogen is also used at
the Norilsk concentrator processing a copper-nickel ore in the nickel flotation circuit [27, 297]
Kim and Kwak [134] compare the separation efficiency and the properties of the generated bubbles
by air and carbon dioxide (CO2 ) in dissolved air flotation (DAF) and dissolved carbon dioxide flotation
(DCF). Carbon dioxide has a higher solubility in water than air in water. Gas solubility is an important
operational parameter in DAF.
In oil production installations field gas, consisting mostly of methane (CH4 ) is often used to float
oil droplets from produced water [183, 233]. In such cases the use of air may lead to adverse chemical
reactions, corrosion or biological growth (fouling) [233]. Furthermore, the air may form explosive mixtures
with the present hydrocarbons [183].
Ozone (O3 ) is reportedly utilized in a dissolved ozone flotation (DOF) plant for wastewater treatment
[159, 160]. In addition to the removal of solids of dissolved air flotation the oxidizing capability of ozone
is used to kill microorganisms and to improve colour and odor of the treated water.
In secondary steel-making argon (Ar) is widely used for the buoyancy-driven stirring of melts [88].
This is due to argon being the most abundant of the noble gases [112]. Furthermore, the negligible
solubility of argon in liquid steel allows for its use [23]. In the degassing process of secondary steelmaking
other dissolved gases are removed from the melt due to their detrimental effects on steel properties [88].
1.2.2.3 Flotation research

Flotation research can be divided into two major categories, hydrodynamics (of the flotation apparatus
and of the encounter bubble-particle) and (surface) chemistry [294]. This distinction can also be in-
terpreted as viewing the process of flotation on different scales. From the molecular scale (the surface
chemistry) via the micro scale (bubble-particle encounter) to the macro scale (the flow within the flotation
apparatus).
It is apparent that processes on the different scales influence each other. The distribution of reagents
in the bulk influence their action on the single bubbles and particles. The global flow strongly affects the
local hydrodynamics governing aggregate formation or disintegration.
1.2.3 Flotation machines

The entirety of flotation devices can be divided into categories by some distinguishing features
1.2.3.1 Gas bubble generation

There are several methods to create gas bubbles for flotation. Here the most commonly used methods to
generate bubbles in flotation are described in brief [18, 188, 237].
In dissolved air flotation (DAF) the gas is dissolved into the liquid in high-pressure vessels. After
reducing the pressure, gas bubbles form in the then super-saturated suspension. DAF has been used for
water treatment for several decades [63]. In DAF there is another mechanism for particles to get into
contact with gas bubbles other than the encounter by collision. Particles suspended in a super-saturated
suspension serve as nucleation sites. This gives rise to a mechanism independent of hydrophobicity and
allows for the flotation of hydrophilic particles [237].
In induced air flotation (IAF), also referred to as dispersed air flotation, gas and liquid are mechanically
mixed to induce bubble formation. In dispersed air flotation air can be mixed with the slurry at the inlet
of the flotation apparatus or at a different location.
9 auriferous: gold bearing; from Latin aurum (gold) and Ancient Greek φέρω (phérō, "to bear, to carry")
–8–
In electro-flotation bubbles are generated by water electrolysis. Electrolytic flotation introduces with
the electrochemistry, taking place between the electrodes submerged in the suspension, a whole new mode
of action [296]. This allows electro-flotation to be superior to other methods in the removal of algae from
water [82, 229]
Each of the described methods has its advantages and disadvantages as well as its fields of applica-
tion. Ramirez [229] compared DAF, IAF and electro-flotation and concludes that the finest bubbles are
generated in dissolved air flotation. However, power costs are lowest in dispersed air flotation. In waste
water treatment DAF and electro-flotation are widely used [229].
Other methods of bubble generation are boiling or chemical reactions (generation of CO2 bubbles
from a reaction of lime and acid [79].
This work focuses on induced air flotation. Simulating dissolved air flotation and electro-flotation
would necessitate the modelling of bubble formation and growth.
1.2.3.2 Operating principle
Figure 1.2 shows a pneumatic flotation cell, a flotation column and a mechanical flotation cell. There
appears to be no clear distinction between pneumatic and column flotation. Wills and Napier-Munn
[296] discriminate between mechanical and pneumatic flotation cells. Both, pneumatic flotation cells and
flotation columns have no moving parts.
However, there are some distinctive feature between pneumatic flotation cells and flotation columns.
In pneumatic flotation cells, the slurry is brought into contact with the air bubbles, outside the main
vessel, by a contactor, usually generating a high degree of turbulence to encourage encounter between
particles and bubbles [113]. The aerated slurry enters then the main separating vessel. A schematic
pneumatic cell is shown in Figure 1.2.(a).
Flotation columns, in contrast, are generally operated in counter-current flow, i.e. slurry enters the
column near the top of the column, whereas the aerator is at the bottom of the column [296]. Thus,
slurry and air bubble flow is in opposite directions. The flow directions are schematically shown in Figure
1.2.(b). Furthermore, flotation columns generally have a much greater height than diameter.
Standpipe
Concentrate Concentrate Concentrate
Feed
Air
Feed Air
Air
Tailings Tailings
(a) Pneumatic flotation (b) Column flotation (c) Mechanical flotation
Figure 1.2: Schematic representation of pneumatic, column and mechanical flotation. The blue arrows
indicate the path of the air bubbles, grey arrows indicate the flow of the slurry.
–9–
Mechanical flotation machines (see Figure 1.2.(c)) are characterised by the mechanically driven im-
peller which maintains agitation [296]. Mechanical cells can be aerated either by pressurized air or by
self-aspiration (self-aeration). Self-aerated mechanical cells utilize the suction created by the fast moving
impeller to draw air through the hollow standpipe which encloses the shaft of the rotor into the cell.
Mechanical cells that use pressurized air can either be aerated through a standpipe or by spargers at the
bottom of the vessel. Yianatos et al. [301] characterize the distinction between self-aspired and forced-air
mechanical flotation cell by the location of the rotor. Self-aspired cells have a rotor located near the top
of the cell’s interior, whereas in forced-air flotation cells the rotors are placed near the bottom of the cell
[301].
In literature on the modelling or operation of mechanical flotation cells, self-aeration is referred to as
induced air, while aeration by pressurized air or blowers is referred to as forced air [45]. However, both
methods of aeration fall under induced air flotation or dispersed air flotation in the sense of the previous
section.
1.2.4 Modelling flotation

1.2.4.1 Kinetic models
Modelling the efficiency of the flotation process is a prerequisite for planning and operating a mineral
processing plant – and therefore also the mine – in a cost and resource efficient way. On this level
macrokinetic models are widely used.
The simplest models consider the whole flotation apparatus as a first order kinetic process [19, 21].
This leads to an ordinary differential equation (ODE) for the concentration. For this kind of model
empirical or semi-empirical parameters are used. Thus, a flotation plant can be described by a set of
ODEs. See Section 2.3.2 for a discussion on macrokinetic flotation models.
Such models are important for the design of the whole minerals processing plant as material flow
and throughput has to be assessed in advance. These kind of models, do not resolve the flow within the
flotation apparatus. The flow conditions within the flotation apparatus are reduced to single numbers.
1.2.4.2 Flotation modelling using CFD

For the design of a flotation apparatus a global kinetic model would be a desired result, rather than a
modelling tool. Therefore, flotation machines have mostly been designed based of expert knowledge and
operation experience in the past. With the ever increasing computing power in recent decades CFD has
become a widely used tool for the design of industrial appliances.
Using CFD to investigate a flotation apparatus allows for detailled inspection of the inner workings
of the studied device. Adverse flow condition can be easily indentied or dead zones within the device.
CFD-backed flotation kinetics

The CFD technique can be used in two stages to deepen the knowledge about the inner workings of a
flotation apparatus. In a first step only the flow is resolved in a detailed manner by applying the CFD
method. Thus, the flow can be studied and problematic regions can be identified. The flotation kinetics,
however, is computed with averaged flow quantities.
In a further step also the flotation kinetics can be modelled with the CFD method. The basic
idea in incorporating flotation models into CFD models is to regard the control volume of the finite
volume method (FVM) as the control volume of the kinetic model. Thus, governing equations fit for
implementation in CFD can be derived.
As the submodels of flotation microkinetics depend on turbulent quantities such as the dissipation
of turbulent kinetic energy , which goes into the collision frequency Z and the stability model, see
Section 2.4, CFD can be used to predict the fields of the relevant flow quantities. Thus, a greater
accuracy can be achieved by resolving the flow field within the flotation apparatus instead of using global
operational parameters to infer flow properties. In the case of mechanical flotation cells the (mean)
– 10 –
turbulent dissipation can be computed from the power P drawn by the stirrer and the liquid mass m
[255]. Schulze [255] states that the peak value of local dissipation might be orders of magnitude higher
than the mean dissipation. Thus, it is evident, that the local distribution of turbulent dissipation is
important to advance the knowledge of flotation.
P
= (1.1)
m
Koh et al. [140] use a two-phase Eulerian simulation to compute and compare the collision rates within
two different mechanical flotation cells. They conclude:
Finally, the collision rate distribution obtained by CFD is essential for locating positions
within the flotation cell where contacts between bubbles and particles are made, and is useful
for understanding design modifications that can lead to flotation performance improvements.
This highlights the need to improve the accuracy of flotation models by resolving the flow within the
flotation cell instead of using mere singular numbers obtained from global operational parameters, as in
equation (1.1).
The precondition to computing collison rates or subsequently flotation rates with CFD is the ability
to accurately resolve the flow within a flotation apparatus. For mechanical flotation cells the stirred
tank with a Rushton turbine is a widely used starting point, as there exists a vast amount of literature
and validation data [155, 157]. Apart from the purpose of generating a starting point for the research of
mechanical flotation cells, the Rushton stirred tank is intensively studied, as it is one of the work horses
of the chemical and process industries [14, 43, 124, 231].
The Rushton stirred tank has also been widely used as a benchmark geometry for flotation rate
predictions. Since the geometry is rather simple and the flow has been studied extensively in the past,
the Rushton stirred tank has become some kind of standard test case. The advantage of the Rushton
stirred tank for validation purposes is that its geometry is standardized to some degree and can be
described by a small number of geometric parameters. Furthermore, no patented design is involved as it
is the case with the flotation equippment of commercial suppliers.
A number of researchers have published experimental data on the flotation of various materials.
Among those researchers Deglon [48], Newell and Grano [192], Pyke et al. [224] published experimental
data on the flotation of quarz. Duan et al. [59] published experimental data of chalcopyrite flotation and
Pyke [225] published flotation data of quartz, chalcopyrite and galena.
From the fairly simple Rushton stirred tank, modelling efforts evolve to more realistic industrial
geometries [141]. Koh et al. [140] compare a lab-scale Rushton stirred tank and a lab-scale Denver
flotation cell10 . Koh et al. [141] compare the flow generated by two different flotation mechanisms –
namely scaled down versions of the Metso Minerals and Outokumpu mechanisms11 – for mechanical
flotation cells. Salem-Said et al. [248] studied the two-phase flow with a Dorr-Oliver mechanical flotation
cell12 . Govender et al. [94] study the two-phase flow and the flotation rates within a Wemco13 and a
Dorr-Oliver flotation cell.
Koh and Schwarz [142] computed collision rates and sub-process probabilities from the CFD flow
solution. The recovery was then computed by integrating the fields associated with the flotation kinetics
(collision rate and sub-process probabilities) over the volume of the flotation cell.
A similar approach was chosen by Karimi et al. in [131] for validation with data on the flotation of
quartz published by Newell and Grano [192] and in [132] for validation against experimental data on the
flotation of chalcopyrite and galena published by Pyke [225].
10 A certain type of mechanical flotation cell named after the manufacturer, Denver Equipment Company.
11 Both Metso Minerals and Outotec are manufacturers of mineral processing equippment. Each company builds mechan-
ical flotation cells with their specific and mostly patented designs [176, 208].
12 Dorr-Oliver refers to a certain type of flotation mechanism named after the original manufacturer, the Dorr-Oliver
Company.
13 A certain kind of mechanical, self-aspired flotation cell named after its original manufacturer, Western Equippment
Manufacturing.
– 11 –
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.3. ORGANZATION OF THIS WORK
Fayed [70] studied the flow, the collision rates and the resulting flotation rates in a Wemco and a
Dorr-Oliver cell.
Flotation kinetics implemented in CFD

The next logical step to refine flotation modelling is to include the flotation kinetics into the CFD model.
Thus, in addition to the two-phase flow, equations for the mass or volume fraction of the floatable particles
are solved. Capturing and detachment is handled by source and sink terms of the governing equations
for the floatable particles. This was demonstrated by Koh and Schwarz in [143, 144].
Flotation on the micro-scale

However, CFD can also be employed down to the micro scales flotation. In Wierink [294] ore particles
were modelled as Lagrangian particles. Thus, processes as particle-bubble collision or three-phase contact
formation can be resolved and need not to be modelled with probabilistic models.
Aoki et al. [12] and Zhang et al. [306] applied CFD with Lagrangian particle tracking (LPT) to
determine the probability of collision and attachment for non-metallic inclusions and non-spherical argon
bubbles in a metallurgical application of the flotation process. The results of this micro-scale investigation
were subsequently used for a macro-scale flotation simulation to determine the global particle separation
efficiency.
1.3 Organzation of this work

1.3.1 Two-phase flow in flotation machines
The first part of this work deals with the Eulerian method for the simulation of two-phase flow. The first
part of Chapter 2 presents the backgrounds of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for two-phase flows.
Chapter 3 discusses the numerical methods used in CFD in general, and some background information
on OpenFOAM specifically.
In a first step, the two-phase flow within bubble columns and aerated stirred tanks is studied and
validated in the cases for which validation data is publicly available.
In Chapter 4 some examples of the simulation of bubbly flow are presented. These simulation cases
are validated with experimental values or with data reported in literature wherever possible.
1.3.2 Flotation kinetics

The second part of this work deals with the implementation of a kinetic flotation model in a CFD
framework. The second part of Chapter 2 deals with the modelling of the flotation process.
In Chapter 5 we apply the implemented flotation solver to a stirred tank and a hybrid flotation
column. The stirred tank serves as an abstraction of a mechanical flotation cell and it is operated in
batch-mode. The hybrid flotation column, however, is operated continuously.
In Chapter A details on the implementation, of the flotation model and solver within the framework
of OpenFOAM, are provided.
– 12 –
Chapter 2
Theory
Hier sehen Sie die Kraft des reinen Denkens.
Here you can see the power of pure reasoning.
Prof. Hans Irschik
This chapter begins with the introduction of some basic concepts of multi-phase
computational fluid dynamics. Furthermore, the basics behind the Eulerian
two-phase model are reviewed. Special attention is paid to the topics of interfacial
momentum transfer, turbulence modelling in general and within two-phase mod-
elling in particular, and the modelling strategies for poly-disperse flows.
The second part of this chapter is dedicated to flotation modelling. Starting from
global, macroscopic modelling approach the chapter reviews the probabilistic, mi-
crokinetic models found in literature.
The chapter ends with a brief discussion on the fluid mechanical treatment of slurries.
2.1 Computational fluid dynamics

2.1.1 Scales
Fluid dynamic problems are governed by processes on multiple scales. In a bubble column the gas flow
rate has influence on a global scale, the drag of a single bubble is a property of small scales, and the
swarm behaviour of a group of bubbles is a phenomenon of an intermediate scale.
Large scale simulations of industrial plants do not resolve small scale processes, as this would drive the
computational cost unreasonably high. Therefore models are needed to represent small scale processes
on the large scales with reasonable accuracy.
Whether something is considered macro or micro scale depends on the problem under consideration.
For an industrial scale bubble column reactor the behaviour of a single bubble is considered micro scale.
Otherwise when determining the collision rate between a bubble and suspended particles, the motion of
the bubble might be considered to happen of the large scale.
We divide the scope of a physical system under consideration into different gauges.
Macro scale from Ancient Greek μακρός (makrós, “long”). Processes or phenomena that are referred
to as macro scale are taking place on a scope which is comparable to the physical domain under
– 13 –
CHAPTER 2. THEORY 2.1. COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
consideration. When examining a flotation apparatus the global flow pattern within the flotation
device is taking place on the macro scale.
Micro scale from Ancient Greek μικρός (mikrós, “small”). Processes of phenomena on the micro scale
involve the smallest entities of the physical system which have a significant contribution to overall
process under consideration. In a flotation cell the interaction between bubbles and particles and
turbulent eddies is clearly on the micro scale.
Meso scale from Ancient Greek μέσος (mésos, “middle”). The meso scale is inbetween macro and micro
scale. The interaction between a swarm of bubbles and the surrounding flow field might fall in the
meso scale.
hydrophobic
particle
Bubble
hydrophilic
particle
(a) Micro scale (b) Meso scale (c) Macro scale
Figure 2.1: Representatives for the different geometric scales within a flotation apparatus. Scales range
from the interaction of the individual particles and bubbles over the interaction of bubble plumes with
the flow to the global flow pattern within the flotation device itself.
In this work a flotation apparatus is modelled by means of CFD, i.e. the global flow pattern is resolved
by the governing equations and the discretized domain. For this model to be computationally usable, the
micro scales cannot be resolved. Industrial scale simulations are made possible by applying appropriate
models for the scales that need to remain unresolved.
In this study the ore particles (O (dP ) = µm) will remain unresolved. The particles are accounted for
by solving transport equations for the volume fraction of the particles. Thus, the particles are considered
collectively for each control volume of the discretized domain.
The gas bubbles within the flotation apparatus (O (dB ) = mm) will also remain unresolved. By using
an Eulerian two-phase approach the gas phase is treated as a continuum.
2.1.2 Frames of reference

Before being able to describe a physical problem mathematically, the frame of reference needs to be
established. For the mathematical formulation of mechanical problems there are two choices.
Lagrangian In a Lagrangian frame of reference all computed quantities are observed at their current
position. The discrete element method (DEM) is an example of a Lagranian method. There
discrete particles are tracked in space and time.
Figure 2.2.(a) shows an example of the Lagrangian desciption of two bodies Bi . The Lagrangian
formulation is generally used to describe the motion of solid bodies, e.g. in the DEM method.
– 14 –
CHAPTER 2. THEORY 2.1. COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
Eulerian In an Eulerian frame of reference all quantities are observed at fixed points in space. The FVM
is an example of an Eulerian method. There the domain in discretised in finite volumes fixed in
space and time1 .
Figure 2.2.(b) shows the flow in a convergent-divergent nozzle as an example when an Eulerian
formulation is useful. For fluids the Eulerian description is advantageous, as it makes no sense to
track individual material particles over space and time.
This work makes use of Eulerian simulation methods. Liquids, gas bubbles and particles are modelled
as continuous Eulerian phases. This model assumption is justified for gas bubbles and particles when the
number density of those is large and their size is small compared to the mesh fineness.
The fundamental difference between Eulerian and Lagrangian methods are the governing equations
which need to be solved. Simulating fluid motion using an Eulerian method requires the solution of the
Navier-Stokes equations on the discretized computational domain.
With Lagrangian methods Newton’s second law of motion needs to be solved. Since this equations
are expressed in the position and velocity of the particle under consideration, there is no need for a
computational grid as with Eulerian methods. Thus, Lagrangian methods are sometimes referred to as
meshless methods. This is, however, not the case for the boundaries. Complex, non-analytic boundaries
require a discretized representation. However, the solution domain itself does not need to be discretized.
In Lagrangian simulations the comutational costs is growing with the number of discrete elements.
At some point it is computationally cheaper to model the disperse phase elements (DPEs) collectively as
a continuous dispersed phase, as the computational cost of Eulerian simulations is proportional to the
number of grid cells and is independent of the number of DPEs constituting the dispersed phase.
Besides computational cost in terms of run-time also the memory requirements behave similar for
Lagrangian and Eulerian methods. In Lagrangian methods the state (position and velocity) of each
individual particle needs to be stored. This makes the required memory also proportional to the number
of particles. In Eulerian methods the state of the flow is stored at every grid point (e.g. the centroid of
the cells). This makes the cost in terms of memory proportial to the number of cells.
B1
v1
r1
z B2 v2 ui,j
r2
y
x
(a) Lagrangian (b) Eulerian
Figure 2.2: Frames of reference
2.1.3 Simulation methods

In the computational treatment of multi-phase flow, simulation methods can be chosen on a per-phase
basis. As each simulation method (Eulerian and Lagrangian) has its own strengths and weaknesses, each
combination of these methods has its own set of characterists.
Figure 2.3 shows an exemplary computational mesh laid over some disperse phase elements. The
relative size between the mesh and the particles as well as the physics involved determine the method of
simulation.
1 With moving and/or deforming meshes the control volumes are not fixed in space and time. However, the FVM is
generally referred to as an Eulerian method.
– 15 –
CHAPTER 2. THEORY 2.2. EULERIAN TWO-PHASE MODELLING
(a) Large gas bubbles compared to (b) Small bubbles compared to the
the grid size. grid.
Figure 2.3: Resolution of two-phase simulations.
In Figure 2.3.(a) the DPE is large compared to the computational grid. In these cases, methods such
as immersed boundary (IB) methods and volume of fluid (VOF) are methods of choice. These methods
resolve the interface between the phases and are referred to as resolved methods.
If the DPEs are smaller than the grid size, as in Figure 2.3.(b), then unresolved methods are better
suited. This can be either the Eulerian-Eulerian method – in short Euler-Euler – or the Eulerian-
Lagrangian method. The Euler-Lagrange method treats the suspending phase as a continuum and the
dispersed phase is accounted for by solving Newton’s second law of motion for each particle. The choice
whether to use the Euler-Euler method or the Euler-Lagrange method is mainly based on the compu-
tational cost associated with the number of dispersed particles and the need to resolve particle-particle
interactions.
2.2 Eulerian two-phase modelling

In Eulerian two-phase modelling both phases are considered continua even though one phase might consist
of disperse phase elements (DPEs) such as bubbles, drops or particles. In these simulations the two phases
can be distinguished into a continuous phase and a dispersed phase. This naming scheme refers to the
physical situation. Within the (Eulerian) mathematical description, however, both phases are continua.
As two momentum equations are solved (one per phase), each phase has its own velocity field. How-
ever, there is only one pressure field. Thus, the pressure is the same for both phases; this also applies to
the VOF method. Due to the fact that two continuity2 and two momentum equations are solved, this
approach is often referred to as two fluid model.
The Eulerian description of multi-phase flow is not limited to two phases, however, for reasons of
simplicity, we limit ourselves to the case of two phases.
As the DPEs are considered to be a continuous phase, their properties are averaged over each cell of
the computational domain. Thus, the properties of the dispersed phase are the mean properties of the
dispersed matter. If all DPEs have equal properties (e.g. diameter, density, etc.), then the dispersed
phase is referred to as being mono-disperse. Only in the case of mono-dispersity, the averaging over the
cells introduces no additional errors. If the DPEs have variable properties (e.g. a diameter range), then
the dispersed phase is referred to as being poly-disperse. The correct handling of poly-dispersity requires
additional considerations on the models.
!
The constraint that the sum of all volume fraction fields must yield unity, i.e. α = 1, allows for one continuity
2
P
i i
equation to be eliminated. In the case of two phases, only one continuity equation needs to be solved. However, both
continuity equation can be combined as shown in Section 2.2.1.3.
– 16 –
gas
liquid
(a) Discrete bubbles in a continuous (b) Continuum approach.
liquid.
Figure 2.4: Modelling approach on the example of a gas-liquid two-phase system.
2.2.1 Governing equations

2.2.1.1 Single-phase flow equations
Since all multi-phase flow techniques are based on the solution of a set of flow equations, we repeat the
governing equations for a continuous fluid. The derivation of these equations can be found in textbooks
on fluid mechanics [7, 285].
∂ρ
+ ∇· (ρu) = 0 (2.1)
∂t
∂ρu
+ ∇· (ρuu) = −∇p + ∇·τ (2.2)
∂t
For incompressible flow, i.e. ρ = const, the continuity equation simplifies to
∇·u = 0 (2.3)
and the momentum equation can be written in the following form
∂u
ρ + ρ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇·τ (2.4)
∂t
∂u p τ
+ ∇· (uu) = −∇ + ∇· (2.5)
∂t ρ ρ
for matters of convenience some authors use the symbol p for the pressure divided by the density p/ρ and
τ for the stress tensor divided by the density τ /ρ
∂u
+ ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇·τ (2.6)
∂t
A note on notation
Tensor calculus up to rank 2 can be used to describe the governing equations of fluid motion. Scalars are
considered tensors of zeroth order and vectors are tensors of first-order [62, 89, 138, 293].
In this document we use bold symbols to denote tensors of non-zero rank. First order tensors are
generally denoted by lowercase letters, whereas second order tensors are denoted with capital symbols.
– 17 –
The use of bold symbols to signify vectors in contrast to scalars goes back to Oliver Heaviside [95],
whereas the notation currently in use was to great extent standardized by J. W. Gibbs [89] and is thus
referred to as Gibbs notation [171].
However, as there is no rule without exception, in this document e.g. the force density in the derivation
of the multi-phase momentum equation is denoted by a capital letter to follow the notation used in the
source code of OpenFOAM.
In textbooks and other publications on continuum mechanics equations are written in either vector
notation or tensor notation. In this work we use vector notation which was explained in the paragraph
above3 . The tensor notation or index notation writes equations in terms of the tensor components. For
brevity in index notation the Einstein summation convention P is used. If an index appears twice in a
product, summation over this index is implied, i.e. ai bi = i ai bi [138]. Thus, equation (2.1) reads in
tensor notation as follows.
∂ρ ρui
+ =0 (2.7)
∂t ∂xi
One special (second-rank) tensor – the unit tensor – is frequently used. This is usually defined using
the Kronecker delta δij .
I = δij (2.8)
(
1 i=j
δij = (2.9)
0 i=
6 j
For general tensors there are several products defined. The tensor product of a tensor of rank M and
a tensor of rank N yields a tensor of rank M + N [138]. In this work the tensor product is denoted by
simply writing the tensors next to each other, as in (2.10). The tensor product is also denoted by using
the symbol ⊗ as in (2.11).
c = ab (2.10)
c=a⊗b (2.11)
In the special case of the tensor product of two vectors, we gain a tensor of rank 2.
cij = ai bj (2.12)
The tensor contraction or dot product of a tensor of rank M and a tensor of rank N yields a tensor of
rank M + N − 2 [138]. In the case of two vectors, the dot product is the scalar product. The dot product
is denoted by a dot (·) between the two tensors [89].
c = A·B (2.13)
c = aij bjk (2.14)
The double contraction or double dot product of two second-order tensors yields a tensor of zeroth
order. The double contraction is indictated by the colon (:) or two dots (··).
c=A:B (2.15)
c = aij bij (2.16)
3 At some points of this work, certain equations may appear in both notations to match the notation used in literature.
For the sake of brevity even a mixed notation might be used, as in (2.8).
– 18 –
2.2.1.2 Conditional averaging

Drew and Passman [57] state that in the realm of continuum mechanics governing equations for multi-
phase or multi-component flow can be gained by either postulating them or by using averaging techniques.
Furthermore, they find using postulation or averaging yields the same results, provided proper constitutive
equations for the involved fluids are used.
The theoretical basis for the two-phase model used in this work was laid by Weller [290]. The derivation
of the governing equations for Eulerian two-phase flow is covered in [102, 238, 292]. Weller [290] uses the
so called conditional averaging technique.
The govering equations are gained with the conditional averaging technique by multiplying the Navier-
Stokes equations for both fluids with an indicator function Iϕ , which is one for areas where the phase ϕ
is present and zero for where it is absent4 . These conditioned equations are then averaged by applying a
conventional averaging technique [290].
(
1 if phase ϕ is in (x, t)
Iϕ (x, t) = (2.17)
0 otherwise
The use of the indicator function Iϕ by Weller [290] in the conditional averaging approach is very
similar to the ensemble averaging technique used by Drew and Passman [57]. They introduce a component
indicator function or characteristic function in any realization µ.
(
1 if phase ϕ is in (x, t) in realization µ
Xk (x, t; µ) = (2.18)
0 otherwise
The phase volume fraction αϕ , which gives the probability for the phase ϕ to be present at (x, t), can
be gained by applying the ensemble average on the indicator function Iϕ (x, t) [292].
αϕ = Iϕ (x, t) (2.19)
The conditional average Qϕ of an arbitrary quantity Q is
Iϕ Q = αϕ Qϕ (2.20)
The governing equations for multiphase flow are gained by multiplying the local governing equations
with the indicator function and applying the ensemble average. Thus, we gain governing equations for
the ensemble averaged flow fields. The derivation of the governing equations for multiphase flow with the
conditional averaging technique can be found in detail in Marschall [171] and Weller [292].
2.2.1.3 Continuity equation

The general continuity equation for two-phase flows reads as follows [57, 292].
∂αq ρq
+ ∇· (αq ρq uq ) = 0 (2.21)
∂t
for the assumption of constant densities ρi = const
∂αq
+ ∇· (αq uq ) = 0 (2.22)
∂t
4 As a physical location can not be occupied by two or more phases, the values of the indicator function I are strictly
ϕ
between 0 and 1, i.e. Iϕ (x, t) ∈ {0, 1}.
– 19 –
We can define the relative velocity between the phases uR and the mixture velocity uM
uR = uq − up (2.23)
uM = αq uq + αp up (2.24)
Adding the continuity equations for the two phases (q and p) yields the incompressibility constraint
[292].
∂αq ∂αp
+ + ∇· (αq uq ) + ∇· (αp up ) = 0 (2.25)
∂t ∂t
∂αq + αp
+ ∇· (αq uq + αp up ) = 0 (2.26)
∂t
∇·u = 0 (2.27)
with
αq + αp = 1 (2.28)
Weller [292] derived a way to closely couple the phase continuity equations of both phases to ensure
boundedness of the solution.
∂αq
+ ∇· (αq uM ) + ∇· (αq (1 − αq )uR ) = 0 (2.29)
∂t
2.2.1.4 Momentum equation

The momentum equation is given by [57].
∂αq ρq uq X X
+ ∇· (αq ρq uq uq ) − ∇· (αq ρq τq ) = Fq,i + Kpq,i (up − uq ) (2.30)
∂t i i
with
Fq,i = −Fp,i
Kpq,i = −Kqp,i
Kqq,i = 0
2.2.2 Interfacial momentum transfer

On the right hand side (RHS) of the momentum equation (2.30) there are two types of source terms. The
first term Fq,i is a force density acting on the phase q. The second term is a force (density) coefficient
Kqp,i which is multiplied by the relative velocity uR = up − uq between the phases q and p.
The models for interfacial momentum transfer in OpenFOAM are implemented in a way, such that
these models return either a force or a force coefficient5 .
5 The correct denomination would be force density and force density coefficient. In the source files of OpenFOAM related
to these models, Fq,i and Kqp,i are referred to as force and force coefficient, most probably for the sake of reducing typing
effort. As OpenFOAM keeps track of the physical units of its variables, we can see from the actual source codes, that the
force Fq,i is in fact a force density.
– 20 –
The distinction between forces and force coefficents is a matter of convenience. Contributions directly
proportional to the velocity, e.g. drag, can be treated differently than contributions indirectly proportional
to the velocity, e.g. the virtual mass force which is proportional to the time derivative of the relative
velocity. Terms directly proportional to the velocity are numerically treated differently than other terms.
The interfacial momentum transfer due to drag, lift and virtual mass are based on the force acting
on a single bubble. The turbulent dispersion force is observed when the turbulent eddies of the liquid
phase interact with a swarm of bubbles. This interaction tends to disperse bubble swarms [171]. Figure
2.5 gives a schematic representation of the different momentum exchange mechanisms between the liquid
and the gas phase.
Flift
Fdrag
(a) Drag; the black arrow indicates the relative velocity (b) Lift
Virtual mass
Fvirtual mass
Ft.-disp.
(c) Virtual mass; the purple arrow indicates the relative acceleration (d) Turbulent dispersion
Figure 2.5: Interfacial forces; reproduced after [171].
2.2.2.1 Drag
OpenFOAM implements a number of drag models, some of which are specifically for gas-solid systems.
However, in this Section we will list a selection of the implemented drag models that are used for gas-liquid
systems.
The momentum interchange force density term due to drag Fdrag is defined following Drew and
Passman [57]:
3 αρL
Fdrag = CD kuR k uR (2.31)
4 dB
Fdrag = Kqp,drag uR (2.32)
with the force coefficient Kqp,drag
3 αρL
Kqp,drag = CD kuR k (2.33)
4 dB
– 21 –
Schiller-Naumann
The Schiller and Naumann [250] drag model is one of the most widely used in CFD.
(
24
1 + 0.15Re0.687 if Re ≤ 1000

CD = Re (2.34)
0.44 if Re > 1000
with the bubble Reynolds number
dB UR
Re = (2.35)
νL
Tomiyama
Tomiyama proposed drag correlations for bubbles in liquids with a varying degree of contamination with
surfactants Tomiyama et al. [277]. In [205, 277] the following correlations are reported:
16 48 8 Eo

CD = max min 1 + 0.15Re0.687 , , (2.36)
Re Re 3 Eo + 4
for a clean liquid;
24 72 8 Eo

CD = max min 1 + 0.15Re0.687 , , (2.37)
Re Re 3 Eo + 4
for a slightly contaminated liquid; and
24 8 Eo

CD = max 1 + 0.15Re0.687 , (2.38)
Re 3 Eo + 4
for fully contaminated liquids.

The Eotvos number Eo represents the ratio of the buoyancy forces and the surface tension.
g(ρL − ρG )d2B
Eo = (2.39)
σ
In OpenFOAM there are actually two drag laws implemented with the name Tomiyama attached.
One of them is the correlation stated above (CD = CD (Re, Eo)) and the other one is a correlation with
regard to surface tension dominated regimes (CD = CD (E, γ, Eo, Re)) taking special care of the bubble’s
shape [278]. OpenFOAM implements the Tomiyama drag correlation (CD = CD (Re, Eo)) in a generic
way.
1 3 8 Eo

CD = max A min 1 + 0.15Re0.687
, , (2.40)
Re Re 3 Eo + 4
When the model constant A is chosen A = 24, then equation (2.40) yields the drag correlation for
slightly contaminated liquids (2.37). If the constant A = 16, then equation (2.40) gives the correlation
for pure liquids (2.36).
In Fluent the correlation for slightly contaminated liquids (2.37) is implemented [9]. However, no
statement is made on the different contamination regimes.
– 22 –
Ishii
There are a number of drag models in literature associated with the name Ishii. All of these are drag
models for gas-liquid systems in which bubble deformation can not be neglected. The naming convention
across literature is not perfectly consistent.
In Fluent the drag model of Ishii [115] is implemented for boiling flow only as [9] states.
2√
CD,distorted = Eo (2.41)
3
24
CD,sphere = 1 + 0.1Re0.75 (2.42)

Re
CD = min (CD,distorted , CD,sphere ) (2.43)
Ishii-Zuber
The drag model of Ishii and Zuber [118] is the standard drag model of CFX for droplets and bubbles when
shape deformation begins to play a role [11]. In the CFX-Solver Theory Guide [11] the drag coefficient for
the spherical regime deviates CD,sphere,CFX from the coefficient CD,sphere given in Ishii and Zuber [118].
8
CD,cap = (2.44)
3
2√
CD,ellipse = Eo (2.45)
3
24
CD,sphere = 1 + 0.1Re0.75 (2.46)

Re
24
CD,sphere,CFX = 1 + 0.15Re0.687 (2.47)

Re
CD = max (CD,sphere , min (CD,ellipse , CD,cap )) (2.48)
In Deen et al. [42] the authors refer to the drag model of Ishii and Zuber [118] and state only the
relation for the drag coefficient in the distorted regime CD,ellipse .
Ishii-Chawla
The drag law reported by Ishii and Chawla [116] covers three regimes for the bubble shape. The Ishii-
Chawla drag model is applicable for contaminated liquids [205]. The Ishii-Chawla drag model is rather
similar to the Ishii-Zuber model implemented in CFX.
24 2√ 8

CD = max 1 + 0.1Re0.75 , min (2.49)

Eo,
Re 3 3
2.2.2.2 Lift
The lift force is implemented in the form of a force term Flift,q . The force term due to the lift force (2.50)
depends on the lift coefficient CL . OpenFOAM implements a number of lift models, which return the lift
coefficient CL .
Flift,q = CL αρL (uR × (∇ × uL )) (2.50)
– 23 –
102
Schiller-Naumann
Ishii-Chawla
Tomiyama
101
CD
100
10−1 0
10 101 102 103 104
Re
Figure 2.6: The drag curves CD over Re of the Schiller-Naumann, Ishii-Chawla and Tomiyama drag
models. Fluid properties (dB , ρi , σ) are set according to [42].
Constant coefficient
The most straight-forward approach is to prescribe a constant lift coefficient CL . However, bubbles of
different diameter exhibit a different motion due to the lift force [101, 279]. Thus, prescribing a constant
value seems only justified for mono-disperse systems which do not exhibit bubble coalescence and break-
up.
Tomiyama
The Tomiyama lift model is reported in Tomiyama et al. [279] and computes the lift force coefficient
depending on the bubble’s size and shape. The shape is considered by using a modified Eotvos number
Eod , which uses the maximum horizontal diameter dH as a characteristic length, and relation (2.52) for
the aspect ratio E reported by Wellek et al. [289].
g(ρL − ρG )d2H
Eod = (2.51)
σ
dV 1
E= = (2.52)
dH 1 + 0.163Eo0.757
f (Eod ) = 0.00105Eo3d − 0.0159Eo2d − 0.0204Eod + 0.474 (2.53)
(
min [0.288 tanh(0.121Re), f (Eod )] for Eod < 4
CL = (2.54)
f (Eod ) for 4 ≤ Eod ≤ 10.7
2.2.2.3 Virtual mass
Accelerating disperse phase elements (bubbles, droplets or particles) involves not only the ineria of the
DPE itself. A certain amount of fluid, which is entrained by the moving DPE, needs also to be accelerated
[124]. In Figure 2.5.(c) the entrained fluid is indicated by the light blue area.
The virtual mass force term of the momentum equation can be computing by multiplying the force
coefficient Kpq,virtual mass with the total time derivative of the relative velocity.
– 24 –
duR
Fvirtual mass,q = CV M αρC (2.55)
| {z } dt
Kpq,virtual mass
The virtual mass coefficient CV M is for spherical bubbles CV M = 1

2 [57, 171].
2.2.2.4 Turbulent dispersion

The turbulent dispersion force is the interaction between the turbulent eddies of the continuous phase
and swarms or clusters of DPEs. There are two main directions in modelling the turbulent dispersion or
turbulent drag force. In both approaches the interfacial momentum exchange term is proportial to the
gradient of the gas-phase volume fraction field.
Gosman
The model of Gosman et al. [93] computes the momentum exchange due to turbulent dispersion propor-
tional to the drag force coefficient Kdrag [93].
νL,t
FT D = Kdrag ∇α (2.56)
σ
Davidson
The model of Davidson [39] has a very similar formulation as the model of Gosman [39, 263].
νL,t
FT D = Kdrag (1 − α)∇α (2.57)
σ
Lopez de Bertodano
The model of Lopez de Bertodano computes the momentum exchange term proportional to the turbulent
kinetic energy k [41].
FT D = CT D ρL k∇α (2.58)
2.2.3 Turbulence modelling

2.2.3.1 Strategies
The problem of turbulence modelling in multi-phase problems can be tackled in one of the following
fashions. The methods are sorted by their perceived computational cost. Whereas the first two methods
may be equivalent, the last is definitely more expensive in terms of memory and computational time.
However, each of these methods has its strengths and weaknesses, and its use cases.
Continuous phase only This model solves computes the turbulent properties of the continuous phase
and assumes an algebraic relationship between the turbulent properties of the continuous and
the dispersed phase. The influence of turbulence on the dispersed phase can also be neglected
alltogether. In the Fluent Theory Guide [9] it is noted: ‘[. . . ] is the appropriate model when the
concentrations of the secondary phases are dilute. In this case, interparticle collisions are negligible
and the dominant process in the random motion of the secondary phases is the influence of the
primary-phase turbulence.’ In Fluent this approach is referred to as dispersed turbulence model.
– 25 –
Mixture In this approach the turbulence model is evaluated for the mixture of all phases. The turbulent
quantities of each phase are computed with the density ratio between the mixture and the corre-
sponding phase. The applicability of this model is described in [9] as follows: ‘[. . . ] is applicable
when phases separate, for stratified (or nearly stratified) multiphase flows, and when the density
ratio between phases is close to 1.’
Per-phase In this case each phase has its own turbulent properties. Because there are two additional
transport equations to be solved per phase, this model is the most computational intensive. The
Fluent Theory Guide [9] states ‘[. . . ] is the appropriate choice when the turbulence transfer among
the phases plays a dominant role.’
2.2.3.2 RANS modelling
This section covers the basics of the Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) turbulence models. With-
out any loss of generality we limit ourselves to the governing equations of incompressible single-phase
flow.
RANS turbulence models are based on the decomposition6 of all flow quantities φ(x, t) into a mean
value φ(x) and a fluctuating part φ0 (x, t) which was introduced by Reynolds [234], as cited in Wilcox
[295]. Then, the time average of the continuity and Navier-Stokes equations is formed [9, 295].
φ(x, t) = φ(x) + φ0 (x, t) (2.59)

1 t+T
Z
φ(x) = lim φ(x, t)dt (2.60)
T →∞ T t
φ0 = 0 (2.61)
In the strictest sense of equation (2.60) Reynolds averaging is only justified for steady-state flows.
The are, however, flows which vary on a much larger time-scale T2 (slow time-scale) than the turbulent
fluctuations T1 (fast time scale) [295]. Thus, equation (2.60) can be modified to represent a time-averaging
procedure over only the fast time-scale. This approach is similar to the concept of a sliding average, which
is used in signal processing to filter out noise without loosing the time-dynamics of the signal. When
equation (2.62) is employed in the Reynolds averaging, the resulting equations are sometimes referred to
as URANS [11]. In a strict sense, the governing equations for unsteady turbulence need to be derived from
using ensemble averaging instead of time averaging [71]. However, the argument of using time averaging
with two time-scales is more illustrative.
1 t+T
Z
φ(x) = φ(x, t) dt, T1 T T2 (2.62)
T t
By inserting the decomposition of all flow quantities (2.59) into the (exact) Navier-Stokes equations7
we gain the Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations.
The usage of the incompressible flow equations as an example poses no limit in generality of the
Reynolds averaging technique. By using a mass-average8 for the velocity as proposed by Favre [69] we
can apply the same method to the compressible flow equations [295].
6 Also referred to as Reynolds decomposition.

7 Wilcox [295] writes explicitely of the continuity and the Navier-Stokes equations, whereas other authors refer to the
continuity and the momentum equation as a whole as the Navier-Stokes equations [9]. This author generally tends to the
latter use of the term and asks the reader to excuse any possible inconsistent use.
8 Also referred to as Favre-average.
– 26 –
In the derivation of the Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations we utilize the mathematical prop-
erties of the linear operation of averaging:
φ+ψ =φ+ψ (2.63)

cφ = cφ with c = const (2.64)
φ=φ (2.65)
Since averaging is a linear operation, all averaged linear terms will retain their form and give the
identical term for the mean quantity [71].
∂φ ∂φ
= (2.66)
∂t ∂t
∇φ = ∇φ (2.67)
Only averaging the non-linear terms of the Navier-Stokes equations gives additional terms. Averaging
the product of two quantities φ and ψ gives:
φψ = (φ + φ0 )(ψ + ψ 0 ) = φψ + φ0 ψ 0 (2.68)
Although the fluctuating parts φ0 and ψ 0 have a zero mean-value, the product of two fluctuating
quantities have in general a non-zero mean value. The two quantities φ and ψ are called uncorrelated if
the following relation holds φ0 ψ 0 = 0. For flow quantities such as the components of a velocity vector,
this is generally not the case.
Since the incompressible continuity equation contains only linear operations, we demonstrate the
derivation of the Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations on the incompressible momentum equation.
∂u
ρ + ρ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇·τ (2.69)
∂t
∂(u + u0 )
ρ + ρ∇· [(u + u0 )(u + u0 )] = −∇p + ∇·τ (2.70)
∂t
∂u
ρ + ρ∇·[uu + uu0 + u0 u + u0 u0 ] = −∇p + ∇·τ (2.71)
∂t
∂u
ρ + ρ∇·[uu + u0 u0 ] = −∇p + ∇·τ (2.72)
∂t
∂u
+ ρ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇·τ − ρ∇· u0 u0 (2.73)

ρ
∂t
the last term of Equation (2.73) is referred to as Reynolds stress tensor R
R = −ρ u0 u0 (2.74)

∂u
ρ + ρ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇·τ + ∇·R (2.75)
∂t
(2.76)
Applying the Reynolds averaging technique to the Navier-Stokes equations leads to the Reynolds
averaged Navier-Stokes equations which contain correlation terms which need to be closed by appropriate
models. To quote the words of Wilcox [295]:
The function of turbulence modeling is to devise approximations for the unknown correlations
in terms of flow properties that are known so that a sufficient number of equations exists. In
making such approximations, we close the system.
– 27 –
Modelling Reynolds stresses

A great number of turbulence models are based on the so-called Boussinesq hypothesis which computes
the Reynolds stresses from an eddy viscosity µt and the mean strain-rate tensor, and was proposed by
Boussinesq [25] [285].
2
R = µt ∇u + ∇uT − ρI k (2.77)
3
1X 0 0 1 0 0
k= u u = u ·u (2.78)
2 i i i 2
The quantity k is the specific kinetic energy of the turbulent fluctuations. A great part of literature
refers to k as turbulent kinetic energy [9, 11, 71, 222], most probably for reasons of keeping the vocabulary
short. The unit tensor I is often denoted with the Kronecker delta δij in literature.
The inherent assumption made by the Boussinesq-hypothesis is that of the turbulence being isotropic.
The information borne by the six individual components of the Reynolds stress tensor is reduced to a
scalar. In this process looses all directional information is lost. If the assumption of isotropic turbulence
is not justified by the flow, then the Reynolds stress model can be applied which models and solves
transport equations for the six independent components of the Reynolds stress tensor.
The Reynolds stress tensor can be split into an isotropic part and an anisotropic or deviatoric part
[222]. Equation (2.79) shows the general definition [123].
1 1
T= T − tr(T) I + tr(T) I (2.79)
| 3{z } |3 {z }
deviatoric part dev(T) isotropic part
T = dev(T) + tr(T)I (2.80)

If we now apply equation (2.79) to the definition of the Reynolds stresses in (2.77) to compute the
deviatoric part of the Reynolds stress tensor, we get
2 1 2

dev(R) = µt ∇u + ∇u T
− ρIk − tr µt ∇u + ∇u − ρIk I
T
(2.81)

3 3 3
with the following relations for a general tensor T and a general vector field u [123]
3
X
tr(T) = Tii (2.82)
i=1
tr(TT ) = tr(T) (2.83)
tr T = I : T (2.84)
tr(∇u) = I : ∇u = ∇·u (2.85)
tr(I) = 3 (2.86)
we get
2 2 12
dev(R) = µt ∇u + ∇uT − ρIk − µt ∇·u I + ρk tr(I)I (2.87)
3 3 33
for incompressible flow the continuity equation reads ∇·u = 0
2 2 2
dev(R) = µt ∇u + ∇uT − ρI k − µt tr(∇u) + ρk I (2.88)
3 3 3
dev(R) = µt ∇u + ∇uT (2.89)
– 28 –
The isotropic part of the Reynolds stress tensor evaluates to
1 2
tr(R)I = ρk I (2.90)
3 3
Now, we insert the Reynolds stress tensor, decomposed into isotropic and deviatoric part, into the
Reynolds averaged momentum equation.
2

∂u
ρ + ρ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇·τ + ∇· dev(R) + ρk I (2.91)
∂t 3
2

∂u
ρ + ρ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇· (τ + dev(R)) + ∇· ρk I (2.92)
∂t 3
with the following relation for a general tensor T and a general scalar φ
∇· (T φ) = φ∇·T + T·∇φ (2.93)

∂u 2
ρ + ρ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇· (τ + dev(R)) + ρ∇k (2.94)
∂t 3
2

∂u
ρ + ρ∇· (uu) = −∇ p + ρk + ∇· (τ + dev(R)) (2.95)
∂t 3
The pressure and the isotropic part of the Reynolds stress tensor can be absorbed into a modified mean
pressure p0 [222].
∂u
ρ + ρ∇· (uu) = −∇p0 + ∇· (τ + dev(R)) (2.96)
∂t
For the sake of brevity and readability the overbars denoting averaged quantities are usually dropped,
also the modified mean pressure is denoted by the symbol p. Since there are no fluctuating part left in
the fluid equations, dropping the overbars should not lead to confusion. The viscous stresses and the
deviatoric part of the Reynolds stresses form the effective stress tensor τ ef f .
Thus, the final RANS momentum equation reads
τ ef f = τ + dev(R) (2.97)
ef f
= (ν + νt ) ∇u + (∇u) T
(2.98)

τ
ef f
= νef f ∇u + (∇u)T (2.99)

τ
∂u
ρ + ρ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇·τ ef f (2.100)
∂t
Equation (2.100) bears great similarity with the instantaneous single-phase momentum equation. This
fact proves to be very handy when implementing a numerical solver for fluid flow which should be capable
to handle both laminar and turbulent flows.
What remains is the calculation of the turbulent viscosity νt . This is the task of the RANS-type
turbulence models. These can be divided into categories according to the computational effort introduced
by the turbulence model.
Zero-equation models also referred to as algebraic models are turbulence models which compute the
turbulent viscosity νt from already known quantities with algebraic relations.
One-equation models require the solution of one additional transport equation to close the system of
governing equations. A well known example of this group of turbulence models is the model of Spalart
and Allmaras [266].
– 29 –
Two-equation models introduce two additional transport equations to the system of governing equa-
tions. Two widely used two-equation turbulence models are the k- and the k-ω model.
The three groups discussed above represent the most widely used turbulence models. However, there
are also three-, four- and six-equation RANS-type turbulence models [9].
k- model
The probably most widely used RANS turbulence model is the k- model, which goes back to Launder
and Spalding [158], as cited in [9]. The k- model is a prominent example of a two-equation RANS
model. The k- model is based on two quantities k (turbulent kinetic energy) and (the dissipation of
the turbulent kinetic energy) to describe turbulence.
A transport equation for the Reynolds stress tensor can be derived from the Navier-Stokes equations
by multiplying them with the proper fluctuating quantities and averaging the result. From this transport
equation of the Reynolds stress tensor a transport equation for the turbulent kinetic energy k can be
derived by taking the trace of the Reynolds stress equation [295].
1X 0 0 1
k= u u = u0·u0 (2.78)
2 i i i 2
The dissipation of the turbulent kinetic energy is defined by the following relation [295]. For the k-
model a transport equation for is derived from the Navier-Stokes equations.
∂u0i ∂u0i
=ν = ν (∇u0 ) : (∇u0 ) (2.101)
∂xk ∂xk
The transport equation contains a number of unknown terms which are modelled by the k- model.
The final governing equations of the k- model are as follows:

∂k µt
ρ + ρu·∇k − ∇· µ + ∇k = Pk − ρ (2.102)
∂t σk
2

∂ µt
ρ + ρu·∇ − ∇· µ + ∇ = C1 Pk − C2 ρ (2.103)
∂t σ k k
∂ui
Pk = τ : ∇u = τij (2.104)
∂xj
k2
µt = ρCµ (2.105)

with the model constants:
C1 = 1.44 C2 = 1.92 Cµ = 0.09 σk = 1.0 σ = 1.3
2.2.3.3 LES modelling

The basis of LES turbulence models is the spatial filtering of the flow quantities. Similar to the de-
composition of flow quantities into an average and a fluctuating part, the LES approach is based on a
decomposition into a resolved part (large scales) and an unresolved part (small scales). The unresolved
or small scales are referred to as sub-grid scale (SGS).
This decomposition is achieved by spatial filtering which follows the same idea as the time-averaging
in RANS modelling [217].
φ = φ + φ0 (2.106)
Z
φ= G(x, y, ∆(x))φ(y)dy (2.107)
D
– 30 –
with the filter function G:

Z
G(x, y, ∆(x))dy = 1 (2.108)
D
LES models are widely based on homogeneous, localized filters [76]. If the filter function is homo-
geneous (i.e. ∆ = const) and depends only on the difference x − y, then filtering and differentiation is
commutative [217].
G(x, y, ∆(x)) = G∆ (x − y) (2.109)
with
kx − yk = O(∆) (2.110)
∆ = const (2.111)
Spatial filtering as proposed by Leonard [162] allows to differentiate between large and small flow
scales [76]. The spatial filtering is applied to the Navier-Stokes equations in order to get equations for
the resolved parts (large scales) of the flow quantities. The unresolved parts (small scales), similar to
the RANS modelling, need to be modelled. The denomination of the unresolved scales as sub-grid scale
implies a relation with the grid. However, the unresolved parts of the flow are of sub-filter scale. Even
though sub-filter scale would be the correct term, sub-grid scale is widely used in literature [76].
The three classical filters used in LES modelling are the box or top-hat filter, the Gauss filter and
the Fourier or cutoff filter [76, 246]. Figure 2.7 shows these filters in the mono-dimensional case. The
definition of the filters is given in Table 2.1.
1.0 Box
Gauss
0.8 Fourier
0.6
G∆ (x − ξ)
0.4
0.2
0.0
−0.2
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x−ξ
Figure 2.7: Exemplary plots of filters used in LES modelling.
The box filter and the cut-off filter are analogous to each other. The cut-off filter has the shape of
the box filter in the frequency domain or Fourier space and vice versa [246]. In Table 2.1 we see, that
the filter function and the transfer function of the Gauss filter have the same functional dependency of
x − ξ respectively k.
In Table 2.1 the mathematical definitions of the filter function in the physical space and the transfer
function in the Fourier space are listed. In the Fourier transformation the time domain (physical unit:
– 31 –
Filter Physical space Fourier space

(
1
if |x − ξ| < ∆ sin(k ∆
2 )
Box G∆ (x − ξ) = ∆ 2 Ĝ(k) =
0 otherwise k∆
2
1/2 2
2 2
Gauss G∆ (x − ξ) = π∆γ
2 exp −γ|x−ξ|
∆2 Ĝ(k) = exp −∆4γ k
(
sin(kc (x−ξ)) 1 if |k| < kc
Fourier G∆ (x − ξ) = Ĝ(k) =
kc (x−ξ)
0 otherwise
with kc = π
∆
Table 2.1: The classical LES filters
s) is transformed into the frequency domain (physical unit: 1/s). For functions in space, the Fourier
transformation maps the physical space (physical unit: m) into the wave number domain (physical unit:
1/m).
We start with the incompressible momentum equations which are already divided by the density and
we use convenient symbols for the pressure and the stress tensor which have been both divided by the
density (2.6) to follow the notation of Fureby et al. [80].
∂u
+ ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇·τ (2.6)
∂t
Applying filtering gives:
∂u
+ ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇·τ (2.112)
∂t
∂u
+ ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇·τ (2.113)
∂t
as it was the case for the RANS modelling, the nonlinear convective term requires a two step treatment.
First, we insert the decomposition of u
uu = (u + u0 ) (u + u0 ) (2.114)
uu = uu + uu0 + u0 u + u0 u0 (2.115)
uu = uu + uu0 + u0 u + u0 u0 (2.116)
We now apply the decomposition of Leonard [162] and introduce the Leonard stress tensor L, the cross
stress tensor C and the Reynolds stress tensor R [80]:
uu = uu − uu +uu + uu0 + u0 u + u 0 u0 (2.117)

| {z } | {z } |{z}
L C R
uu = uu + B (2.118)
Now, we introduce the SGS stress tensor B:
uu = uu − uu +uu (2.119)
| {z }
B
with (2.117), we get
B=L+C+R (2.120)
– 32 –
Finally, we insert (2.118) into the filtered momentum equation
∂u
+ ∇· (uu + B) = −∇p + ∇·τ (2.121)
∂t
∂u
+ ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇· (τ − B) (2.122)
∂t
dropping the overbars denoting filtered quantities, we get the final momentum equation for LES turbu-
lence modelling
∂u
+ ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇· (τ − B) (2.123)
∂t
The reason why the filtering operation of the convective term produces more terms than in the case
of Reynolds averaging is the following property of the filtering operation:
φ 6= φ (2.124)
thus, it follows:
u u 6= u u (2.125)
uu0 6= uu0 (2.126)
The SGS stress tensor B plays the same role in LES modelling as the Reynolds stress tensor does in
RANS modelling.
From the stress tensors introduced in the derivation of the filtered momentum equation only the
Leonard stress tensor can be calculated from known (grid-scale or resolved) quantities. Either the cross
and the Reynolds stress tensor, or the SGS stress tensor need to be modelled [80].
A great number of LES turbulence model directly model the SGS stress tensor B by applying the
Boussinesq hypothesis to relate the SGS stress tensor to the resolved strain-rate tensor S.
1
S= ∇u + (∇u)T (2.127)

2
2
B = kSGS I − 2νSGS S (2.128)
3
1
kSGS = tr(B) (2.129)
2
Again, we decompose the SGS stress tensor into an isotropic part and an deviatoric part. The isotropic
part gets added to the resolved pressure [9]
1
B = dev(B) + tr(B)I (2.130)
3
since tr(S) = 0
dev(B) = 2νSGS S (2.131)

2
tr(B) = kSGS I (2.132)
3
Inserting (2.130) and (2.131) into the filtered momentum equation (2.123) yields
– 33 –
1

∂u
+ ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇· τ − dev(B) − tr(B) (2.133)
∂t 3
2

∂u
+ ∇· (uu) = −∇ p + kSGS + ∇· (τ − dev(B)) (2.134)
∂t 3
Again, we simplify the notation by using the symbol p for the modified pressure
∂u
+ ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇· dev(Bef f ) (2.135)
∂t
with
dev(Bef f ) = 2(ν + νSGS )S (2.136)

As in the case of the RANS modelling it is the task of the LES turbulence models to provide the
sub-grid scale viscosity νSGS .
The final formulation of the Reynolds averaged momentum equation (2.100) and the final formulation
of the spatially filtered momentum equation (2.135) bear a strong similarity. Although the physical
nature of the flow quantities is different in both cases, the structure of the momentum equation is the
same.
Smagorinsky model
The SGS model of Smagorinsky [262] is a very simple closure for the LES turbulence model [218]. It
computes the SGS viscosity from a model constant CS and the strain-rate.
2
νSGS = (CS ∆) |S| (2.137)
with
p
∆= 3
VCV (2.138)
In literature the definition of the strain-rate is not unanimous. The formulation (2.139) can be widely
found in literature [9, 11, 87, 167, 179, 218]. However, formulation (2.140) can be found with other
authors,
√ e.g. [71, 295]. The reason for this differences is not known to the author. However, the factor
2 can be absorbed into the model constant CS .
q
|S| = 2S ij S ij (2.139)
q
|S| = S ij S ij (2.140)
The magnitude of a general tensor T is defined as follows [123]:

√
kTk = T : T = Tij Tij (2.141)
p
Dynamic Smagorinsky model

The dynamic Smagorinsky model proposed by Germano et al. [87] and extended by Lilly [167] computes
the SGS model constant CS dynamically as the simulation progresses [87]. The model is derived by
applying two different filter levels to the governing equations and exploiting the algebraic identity between
the SGS stresses and the resolved turbulent stresses [87]. The two filter levels applied are the the grid-
scale filter (filter size denoted by ∆) and a test filter (filter size denoted by ∆,
b e.g. in [167], or by ∆,
e
e.g. in [87]. The test filter is larger than the grid-scale filter and Germano et al. [87] reports an optimum
scale ratio of ∆
b/∆ = 2 [167].
– 34 –
One-equation model
For LES turbulence models a transport equation for the sub-grid scale kinetic energy can be derived. This
model is attributed to Kim and Menon [136], as cited in [9]. The derivation of the transport equation for
the SGS kinetic energy can be found in [146].
The SGS kinetic energy is defined as the trace of the SGS stress tensor and the SGS viscosity is
computed from a model constant and the SGS kinetic energy.
1
kSGS = tr (B) (2.142)
2 p
νSGS = Ck ∆ kSGS (2.143)
The transport equation for the SGS kinetic energy kSGS can be derived from the Navier-Stokes equation
[38, 258].
∂kSGS
+ u·∇kSGS + ∇· (Dk ∇kSGS ) = −B : ∇u − SGS (2.144)
∂t
with
Dk = νSGS (2.145)
3/2
kSGS
SGS = C (2.146)
∆
with incompressible flow the following relation holds, see Section B.3.3
B : ∇u = −2νSGS S : S (2.147)
The model constants Ck and C need to be evaluated based on turbulence theory or adjusted dynam-
ically [136, 218].
The diffusion constant Dk is in large parts of the literature the SGS viscosity, e.g. in [9, 136, 218],
whereas in OpenFOAM the effective viscosity is used.
2.2.3.4 Turbulence in a multi-phase frame
k- turbulence
In multi-phase simulations the standard k- turbulence model is used in a general multi-phase formulation.
The multi-phase RANS equations are generally derived using a phase-weighted averaging process (2.150),
which is similar to the Favre averaging technique (2.149) [9, 93, 295]. To distinguish between Reynolds-
and Favre-averaged quantities, the latter are usually denoted with an overtilde.
u=u e + u00 (2.148)

1 t+T
Z
e=
u ρ(τ )u(τ )dτ (2.149)
ρ t
1
Z t+T
fq =
u α(τ )uq (τ )dτ (2.150)
αq t
– 35 –
Using the phase-weighted averaging technique to derive the multi-phase RANS equations avoids the
introduction of correlations containing volume fraction fluctuations [93, 295].

αq ρq ∂kq µt
+ ∇· (αq ρq uq kq ) − ∇· αq µ + ∇k = αq Pk − αq ρq + Sα,k (2.151)
∂t σk
2

αq ρq ∂q µt
+ ∇· (αq ρq uq q ) − ∇· αq µ + ∇ = αq C1 Pk − αq C2 ρ + Sα, (2.152)
∂t σ k k
Pk = τ : ∇uq (2.153)
2
k
µt = ρCµ (2.154)

with the model constants
C1 = 1.44 C2 = 1.92 Cµ = 0.09 σk = 1.0 σ = 1.3 (2.155)

The additional source terms Sα,k and Sα, are introduced to account for the influence of the other phase
(i.e. inter-phase turbulent interaction) [9, 215]. Turbulent phase interaction is covered in Section 2.2.3.5.
In literature the formulation of the multi-phase k- turbulence model may differ from the formulation
given here and elsewhere [102, 215]. Other authors state the turbulent viscosity µt as diffusion constant
found in the transport equations for k and [9, 44, 122]. In OpenFOAM the effective viscosity is used
for the transport equations of k and .
Algebraic LES
Algebraic LES models are by far the simplest model to implement in a multi-phase framework. Since
there is no transport equation to be solved, no modifications to the model need to be made. As the
contribution of SGS quantities are computed from resolved quantities the use of algebraic LES models in
multi-phase simulations is straight-forward.
However, with LES and Eulerian multi-phase simulation one encounters conflicting requirements on
the mesh. LES in general demands fine meshes, however, for the continuum approach of the Eulerian
multi-phase modelling the mesh size needs to be larger than the size of the disperse phase elements. This
observation was first reported by Milelli et al. [180] and Milelli [179], who reports a range (1.5 – 2) for the
optimum ratio between cell size ∆ and bubble diameter dB . This lower limit is referred to in literature
as Milelli condition [201, 202].
∆
≥ 1.5 (2.156)
dB
(2.157)
One-equation LES
The one-equation LES turbulence model can be applied to multi-phase flows in a similar fashion as RANS
models are. Ničeno et al. [202] state the transport equation for kSGS for multi-phase flows as follows.
∂αq ρq kSGS
+ ∇· (αq ρq uq kSGS ) + ∇· (αq Dk ∇kSGS ) = −αq Pk − αq ρq SGS (2.158)
∂t
with
Dk = µq + µq,SGS (2.159)
Pk = µq,SGS S : S (2.160)
3/2
kSGS
S = sym (∇uq ) SGS = C (2.161)
∆
Ck = 0.07 C = 1.05 (2.162)
– 36 –
Ničeno et al. [201] introduced additional source terms to account for the influence of the dispersed
phase.
2.2.3.5 Phase interaction

Algebraic relations
When computing the turbulence properties only for the continuous phase, there are several choices for
the dispersed phase to account for the influence of turbulence of the continuous phase. The dispersed
phase could be considered as laminar [201, 215], or the turbulence of the dispersed phase could be related
to the turbulent properties of the continuous phase by an algebraic model, e.g. as in Deen et al. [42].
One way to consider turbulence of the dispersed phase is usually refered to as the model by Gosman
et al. [93, as cited in [238]]. This model computes the effective viscosity of the gas phase from the
turbulent viscosity of the continuous phase.
νef f,Gas = Ct2 νt,Liquid + νGas (2.163)
This model requires one parameter Ct . This can be a constant or it can be computed from other
quantities [102, 238].
Another way to relate the turbulent properties of the dispersed phase to the turbulence of the con-
tinuous phase is the model by Jakobsen [42]. This model couples the effective viscosities νef f,i by the
density ratio.
ρGas
νef f,Gas = νef f,Liquid (2.164)
ρLiquid
In Pfleger et al. [216] a similar model is used with reference to Grienberger [96]. In this approach the
turbulent viscosities νt,i are coupled by the density ratio.
ρGas
νt,Gas = νt,Liquid (2.165)
ρLiquid
Turbulent interaction models

The previous section focused on models that account for the influence of turbulence when there is no
turbulence model computed for the respective phase. If a turbulence model is computed for a phase,
there might be a need to account for the influence of the other phases. This class of models is referred to
as turbulence interaction models [9].
These models can be either simple algebraic models or modifications to existing models. Algebraic
models account for the influence of dispersed gas bubbles on the turbulence of the liquid phase by
an additional viscosity due to bubble induced turbulence. Modifications of existing models account for
the influence of the other phase by additional source terms in the governing equations of the utilized
turbulence model).
A widely used turbulent interaction model is the algebraic model for bubble induced turbulence (BIT)
by Sato and Sekoguchi [249]. Equation (2.166) shows the definition of the additional viscosity νBIT , which
is caused by the turbulence due to the motion of the bubbles. As the description of this model suggests,
this model applies to the (continuous) liquid phase in gas-liquid systems. Equation (2.167) shows the
calculation of the effective viscosity νef f,L from the contributions due to molecular viscosity, turbulence
and bubble induced turbulence.
νBIT = Cµ,BIT α dB kuR k (2.166)

νef f,L = νL + νt,L + νBIT (2.167)
This model is agnostic of the utilized turbulence models. It has been used together with both RANS
[42, 43, 51, 52, 263, 304] and LES [42, 52, 53, 304] turbulence models.
– 37 –
Pfleger and Becker [215] considered the influence of BIT by an additional source term in the governing
equations of the k- turbulence model they used.
Pk,BIT = Ck/ kFdrag k kuR k (2.168)
with the model constants of the k- turbulence model
Ck = 1.44 C = 1.92 (2.169)
The approach of Pfleger and Becker [215] has been adopted by Ničeno et al. [201] to apply to an LES
turbulence model with an one-equation SGS model. Ničeno et al. [201] included an additional production
similar to (2.168) term into the transport equation for the SGS turbulent kinetic energy kSGS .
When an algebraic SGS model is used in LES turbulence modelling, then only algebraic turbulent
interaction models, such as the model by Sato and Sekoguchi [249], can be used. Since there is no
transport equation for turbulence quantities, such as the SGS turbulent kinetic energy kSGS , turbulent
interaction can not be considered by adding source terms to the governing equations of the turbulence
model.
Troshko and Hassan [280] followed a similar approach as Pfleger and Becker [215].
Ničeno et al. [201] considered the influence of BIT following Pfleger and Becker [215] and added an
additional source term to the transport equation of the SGS kinetic energy.
Pk,BIT = Ck kFdrag k kuR k (2.170)
2.2.4 Poly-dispersity
2.2.4.1 Motivation
In multi-phase flow the disperse phase elements are generally not of the same size. Thus, we speak
of poly-disperse systems. In gas-solid systems the poly-dispersity stems from the size-distribution of
the solid particles. In gas-liquid systems bubbles or droplets can break-up or coalesce. Thus, the size
distribution of the DPEs changes over time in contrast to well-mannered gas-solid systems.
There exists a number of modelling approaches to consider poly-dispersity within CFD. These models
vary in their resolution and their computational cost and can be divided into two categories. Figure 2.8
shows a schematic representation of a mono-disperse situation (Figure 2.8.(a)) and the poly-disperse
situation with increasing level of detail (Figures 2.8.(b) and 2.8.(c)).
One class of models (Figure 2.8.(b)) considers poly-dispersity on a global level, i.e. the diameter
of the DPEs varies over the domain. However, it is one scalar value per computational cell. One can
think of using the mean diameter for each cell. We refer to this class of models as models to be globally
poly-disperse.
The second class of models (Figure 2.8.(c)) is able to represent the poly-dispersity on a local level.
Thus, we refer to these models as being locally poly-disperse.
Naturally, the locally poly-disperse models contain more information of the actual poly-disperse prob-
lem. Consequently, they require a greater amount of modelling (mathematical closures) and are in most
cases computationally more costly than globally poly-disperse models.
2.2.4.2 Bubble size distribution

A particle or bubble size distribution9 can take the form of a continuous function f (x), i.e. the probability
of a bubble or particle to be smaller than a certain diameter x. A size distribution may also come in a
discrete representation, i.e. as a result of a measurement, e.g. a sieve analysis. A discrete size distribution
may also be the result of a discretisation of a continuous size distribution, i.e. the continuous range of
particle sizes is divided into a finite number of bins.
9 In this section bubble size distribution and particle size distribution are used synonymously.
– 38 –
(a) Mono-disperse (b) Globally poly-disperse (c) Locally poly-disperse
Figure 2.8: Modelling poly-dispersity in Eulerian multi-phase modelling.
Mathematically, a bubble size distribution can be described by a probability density function f (x) or
a cumulative distribution function F (x). We refer to the bubble size as x to avoid confusion with the
differential operator d and to follow the notation of the literature. Equations (2.171) and (2.172) list the
defining properties of these two functions [213].
Z x
F (x) = f (x) dx (2.171)
0
Z ∞
f (x) dx = 1 (2.172)
0
For discrete size distributions equations (2.171) and (2.172) become
i
X
F [xi ] = f [xi ] (2.173)
0
N
X
f [xi ] = 1 (2.174)
0
A BSD may be expressed in terms of frequency (numbers), i.e. F (x) is the (number) fraction of all
particles below the size x. Alternatively the size distribution may also be expressed in terms of mass, i.e.
F (x) is the mass of all particles smaller than x [213]. We indicate the base of a size distribution with
an index r which corresponds to number (r = 0), length (r = 1), area (r = 2) or volume (m = 3) basis.
Since we assume a uniform density for all particles volume is equivalent to mass [281].
In order to avoid confusion we refer to the probability density function for the particle size as the
density function and to the cumulative distribution function for the particle size as cumulative distribution.
If we assume a shape common to all particles we can relate the different distributions to another as, e.g.
the diameter, the surface and the volume of a sphere are related. We can now transform the density
function fr (x) to another basis by using equation (2.175) [281].
xs−r fr (x)
fs (x) = R ∞ (2.175)
0
xs−r fr (x) dx
Thus, we can transform between a number-based and a volume-based density function, which are the
most commonly encountered size distributions.
– 39 –
x−3 f3 (x)
f0 (x) = R ∞ (2.176)
0
x−3 f3 (x) dx
x3 f0 (x)
f3 (x) = R ∞ (2.177)
0
x3 f0 (x) dx
In statistics the n-th moment of a probability density function f (x) taken about a point a is defined
as follows
Z ∞
Mn = (x − a)n f (x) dx (2.178)
0
Equation (2.178) can be used to define the moments of a particle density function with a = 0 [107, 281].
Z ∞
Mk,r = xk fr (x) dx (2.179)
0
With the moments of the particle size density function we can define certain average quantities
[107, 281]. Table 2.2 lists two of the most common average particle diameters.
s
Mk+r,0
= k Mk,r = (2.180)
p k
x̄k,r
Mr,0
Average diameter Symbol

Arithmetic average diameter x̄1,0
Weighted average surface diameter (Sauter mean diameter) x̄1,2
Table 2.2: Definitions of average diameters.
2.2.4.3 Population balance equation

So far, from the modelling perspective, we encountered the balance of mass and the balance of momentum.
For poly-disperse flows we need to extend our set of governing equations with a description of the fate
of the size distribution of the DPEs. This additional governing equation is usually a population balance
equation [230].
The concept of the particle size distribution (PSD) is extended to account for spatial variation of
the particle population’s state Y. The state of the population Y = Y(x, r, t) depends on internal
coordinates10 (x), external coordinates (r) and time (t) [230]. The internal coordinates (x) contain the
information to describe the population at a fixed point in space and time. In the case of poly-disperse
particles, the size distribution is the internal coordinate. The external coordinates denote the position
vector r.
The dimension of the population state vector Y and the internal coordinates x is determined by the
level of detail that is applied to the representation. In the case of a discrete BSD the internal coordinates
are the size classes xi and the value of the state vector Y is the list of weights for the individual size
classes. Thus, for a discrete size distribution with N size classes the dimension of the state vector is N ,
i.e. Y ∈ RN .
10 We follow in this section the nomenclature of Ramkrishna [230].
– 40 –
In the remainder of this section we assume to deal with a continuous particle size distribution. Thus,
the population state vector simplifies to the particle number density f0 (x, r, t). The population balance
equation with the net birth rate h reads [230]:
∂f0
+ ∇x·(Ẋf0 ) + ∇r ·(Ṙf0 ) = h (2.181)
∂t
2.2.4.4 Globally poly-disperse models

The interfacial area transport equation (IATE) model is a model proposed by Ishii et al. [120]. This
model is derived from a continuous bubble number density function f (V, x, t) with the bubble volume V
as internal coordinate11 . The population balance equation for the bubble number density function reads:
dV
X
∂f ∂
+ ∇· (f u) + f = Sj + Sph (2.182)
∂t ∂V dt j
In equation (2.182) we dropped the index on the nabla operator as we stated the derivative of the in-
ternal coordinate explicitely. The RHS of (2.182) features source terms due to the j-th bubble interaction
Sj and a source term due to phase change Sph [120].
The equation for the bubble number density distribution is much too detailed for most flow studies
[139]. Thus, we derive a transport equation for the area concentration ai . The area concentration is a
moment of the bubble number density distribution. Besides the area concentration we can define further
quantities based on the moments of the number density distribution.
Equation (2.183) lists the general definition of the k-th moment M (k) of the probability density
function12 f (ξ).
Z b
M (k) = f (ξ) ξ k dξ (2.183)
a
We now define some moments of the bubble number density distribution.
Z Vmax
Total number of bubbles per unit volume n(x, t) = f (V, x, t)dV (2.184)
Vmin
Z Vmax
Volume fraction of bubbles α(x, t) = f (V, x, t)V dV (2.185)
Vmin
Z Vmax
Area concentration of bubbles ai (x, t) = f (V, x, t)Ai (V )dV (2.186)
Vmin
The phase change term can be modelled directly [119], but within the frame of this work we omit
phase change. The derivation of equation (2.187) can be found in Section B.2.
2
2 α̇ X1 1
∂ai α
+ ∇· (u ai ) = ai + Sj (2.187)
∂t 3α j
3Ψ ai
11 In this section we follow the nomenclature of Ishii et al. [120]. Thus, the symbol x denotes the position vector in
contrast to the previous section.

12 Large parts of the mathematical literature use f (x) for a probability density function. In order to avoid confusion with
the position vector we use f (ξ).
– 41 –
By solving equation (2.187) in addition to the phase continuity equation we can globally account for
poly-dispersity. The relation for the Sauter mean diameter is given by equation (2.188). As the IATE
model yields a non-constant Sauter mean diameter, the disperse phase is globally poly-disperse with a
locally constant diameter of the DPEs.
6α
dsm = (2.188)
ai
2.2.4.5 Locally poly-disperse models

Method of classes (CM)
There are a number of models which resolve poly-dispersity on the local level. The straight-forward
approach to model poly-dispersity is to utilize a discrete size distribution, i.e. N size classes, and consider
each size class to be an individual disperse phase. This approach is generally referred to as method of
classes (CM).
The CM can be simplified by assuming an equal velocity of all size classes; thus, reducing the need
of solving for N momentum equations for the disperse phase to solving for one momentum equation
common to all size classes. This approach is referred to as homogeneous, multiple size groups (MUSIG)
[11].
A less strict simplification is to solve one momentum equation common to all N size classes and to
allow for a slip-velocity between the disperse phases. This slip-velocity is proportional to the bubble size;
thus, allowing for bubble separation due to their different rise velocities.
Another simplification of the method of classes (CM) was presented among others by Krishna et al.
[153]. The N size classes are divided into two groups of "small" and "large" bubbles. For each of those
groups a momentum equation is solved, however, the velocities of the different bubble sizes within a group
are assumed to be equal. No interaction between the two disperse phases is taken into account with the
exception of the indirect coupling via the continuous liquid phase [153]. The distinction between small
and large bubbles is generally made based on the bubble shape. Small bubbles are mostly spherical,
whereas large bubble assume the spherical-cap shape [153]. A generalization of this approach is to divide
the N size classes into M < N velocity groups. This approach is referred to as inhomogeneous, multiple
size groups (MUSIG) [11, 75, 164].
The CM is able to deal with mono-, bi- and multi-variate size distributions provided a large enough
number of size classes is used.
Method of moments (MOM)

The method of moments (MOM) is based on the idea to describe the temporal and spatial evolution of
a particle number density distribution function f (x, V, t) by a finite set of lower order moments of that
number density distribution [273].
∂f (x, V, t) ∂
+ ∇· (f (x, V, t)u) + (f (x, V, t)G(V )) = Sj (2.189)
∂t ∂V
multiplying (2.189) with V k , integrating over the particle size V and applying (2.183) leads to
∞
∂M (k) Z
+ ∇· M (k) u + i V k−1 G(V )f (x, V, t)dV = Sk (2.190)
∂t 0
To obtain a closure for the last term of the left hand side (LHS) of equation (2.190), G(V ) must
fulfill certain requirements in its dependence on V (2.191), or G(V ) must be approximated as such, or
the shape of the distribution function, such as log-normal, needs to be assumed a priori [273].
– 42 –
G(V ) = β0 + β1 V (2.191)
Quadrature method of moments (QMOM)

The quadrature method of moments (QMOM), proposed by McGraw [173], alleviates the severe restriction
of equation (2.191) [173].
Z ∞ n
X
M (k)
= V k f (V )dV ≈ rik wi (2.192)
0 i=0
With this expression for the moments of the distribution in terms of quadrature abscissas ri and their
weights wi . Equation (2.192) is inserted into (2.190). This, eliminates the restrictions introduced by
equation (2.192) on the model for particle growth [273]. If the growth model, however, satisfies (2.192)
the QMOM reduces to the MOM.
The QMOM also solves the transport equations for the moments M (k) of the particle size distribution.
In order to reconstruct the actual size distribution from the moments a step referred to as moment
inversion is necessary. McGraw [173] introduces an algorithm which avoids solving equation (2.192)
directly, which is possible when 2n moments are used.
Direct quadrature method of moments (DQMOM)

The direct quadrature method of moments (DQMOM) takes a step further and solves transport equations
for the weights wi and the weighted abscissas ri instead of the moments itself. Thus, the computationally
expensive procedure of moment inversion is eliminated. This also increases the robustness of the method
[73].
Marchisio and Fox [169] note that, as each node of the quadrature approximation of equation (2.192)
has its own transport equation, it can also have its own velocity. They conclude that this makes this
method particularly useful for poly-disperse multiphase systems. This is demonstrated among others in
Carneiro et al. [29].
– 43 –
CHAPTER 2. THEORY 2.3. FLOTATION MODELLING
2.3 Flotation Modelling

The mechanisms governing the flotation process are not well enough understood to derive a model for
the metallurgical perfomance of a flotation apparatus purely from theory [219, 299]. On the macro-scale
quantitative models for flotation can be divided into empirical and phenomenological models [219].
Empirical models seek to relate the amount of floated material to input and output parameters of
the flotation apparatus by using statistical methods. The resulting model parameters have no physical
significance [219]. Phenomenological models are based on the physics of the processes involved.
These models can be divided into kinetic and probabilistic models. Kinetic models employ the chem-
ical reactor analogy and consider the process of flotation as a reaction between bubbles and suspended
particles. The probabilistic models are based on the probabilities of sub-processes such as collision, ad-
hesion and stability and serve to bridge the macroscopic and the microscopic description of the flotation
process [219].
2.3.1 Chemical Reactor Engineering (CRE)

The global description of the flotation process within a flotation apparatus is largely based on reaction
kinetics widely used in chemical engineering. The two most common idealized reactor types in chemical
reactor engineering (CRE) are the continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and the plug flow reactor
(PFR). A special case of the CSTR is the batch reactor. Figure 2.9 shows these reactor types. The batch
reactor is operated discontinuously, whereas the CSTR and the PFR are operated in steady state.
Feed
Feed
Product
Product
(a) Batch reactor (b) Plug-flow reactor (c) Continually stirred tank
Figure 2.9: Idealized reactor types, reproduced and adapted after [163].
The global kinetics of these idealized reactors are described by the mass balance of the component A.
The variation of the mass mA is due to in- and outgoing mass flow (Fin and Fout ) and generation due to
reaction R. The mass balance (2.193) is divided by the reactor volume V to gain a balance in terms of
concentration CA . As the ideal reactors with non-zero in- and outflow are operated in steady state, the
in- and outgoing volumetic flows are equal, i.e. Qin = Qout = Q.
dmA
= Fin − Fout − R (2.193)
dt
dCA Q Q
= CA,in − CA,out − r (2.194)
dt V V
by assuming a first order reaction r = kCA , we gain:
dCA Q Q
= CA,in − CA,out − kCA (2.195)
dt V V
– 44 –
2.3.1.1 Continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR)

The main assumption of the CSTR is the ideal mixing. The contents of the reactor are uniformly mixed.
There are no reagent concentration gradients within the reactor [124, 163, 232]. The term "continuous"
is related to the continuous in- and outflow and not to the stirring. Thus, CSTRs are sometimes referred
to as continuous or constant flow stirred tank reactors (CFSTR) [163].
The assumptions behind the CSTR neglect bypass or short-circuit flow and the existence of stagnant
regions. This may result in deviations of the predictions from actual conversion rates. The accuracy of the
predictions can be enhanced by considering the state of mixing and the residence time distribution (RTD)
of the reactor [232].
The incoming feed is assumed to be mixed immediately and the outflow is assumed to have the same
concentration as the whole reactors interior. Due to the assumption of uniform mixture diffusive transport
within the reactor can be neglected. Thus, the CSTR is governed by a zero-dimensional equation [232].
Continuous stirred tank reactor

For the CSTR which is operated in steady state, and perfect mixing is assumed, it follows:
dCA
=0 (2.196)
dt
CA,in = C0 = const (2.197)
CA,out = CA = const (2.198)
leading to
Q Q
0= CA,in − CA − kCA (2.199)
V V
Q Q
CA + k = CA,in (2.200)
V V

V
CA 1 + k = CA,in (2.201)
Q
With the time-constant τ = V /Q, the residence time
CA (1 + kτ ) = CA,in (2.202)
CA,in
CA = (2.203)
1 + kτ
The recovery R is the amount of removed particles with respect to the initial amount13 . The flotation
performance of a certain apparatus is often represented by plots of R or 1 − R, e.g. in [59, 236].
C0 − CA
R= (2.204)
C0
kτ
R= (2.205)
1 + kτ
Batch reactor
As the batch reactor is operated discontinuously, there is no in- or outflow (Q = 0).
dCA
= −kCA (2.206)
dt
13 In CRE this quantity is referred to as conversion.
– 45 –
integration leads to
CA = C0 e−kt (2.207)
Thus, the recovery R of the batch reactor is defined as
R = 1 − e−kt (2.208)
2.3.1.2 Plug flow reactor (PFR)

The plug flow reactor features a dominant spatial dimension such as tall, lean bubble columns. The
flow within a PFR is assumed uni-directional. Furthermore, it is assumed that no mixing occurs in the
direction of the flow, and there are no gradients in the planes normal to the flow direction [124, 163, 232].
Since the PFR features a dominant spatial dimension, the mass balance for the component A or the
governing equation for the concentration CA needs to be derived for a differential slice of the plug flow
reactor [124]. Thus, we obtain:
dCA ∂CA ∂CA dz

= + (2.209)
dt | ∂t dt
{z } ∂z |{z}
=0 =u
for steady state, the dominant spatial dimension is the only independent variable; thus, we can write
∂CA/∂z = dCA/dz .
dCA
u = −k CA (2.210)
dz
dCA
= −k 1/u CA (2.211)
dz
integration leads to
CA (z) = CA (0)e−k (2.212)

z/u
evalutation at the outlet (z = L) yields
CA,out = CA,in e−k (2.213)

L/u
with the time constant τ = L/u
CA,out = CA,in e−kτ (2.214)
The mathematical structure of (2.214) is similar to the solution of the batch reactor. This similarity
only holds for systems of constant density [163].
CA,in − CA,out
R= (2.215)
CA,in
CA,out
R=1− (2.216)
CA,in
R = 1 − e−kτ (2.217)
In real reactors a non-uniform flow field may cause non-uniformity in planes normal to the flow
direction. This can be considered using the axial dispersion model (ADM) [124, 163].
– 46 –
2.3.1.3 Application of idealized reactors to flotation

In mineral processing plants lab tests are frequently carried out to determine the proper flotation reagent
scheme and the floatability of various ores. These lab tests are generally performed with small mechanical
batch flotation cells. By the use of the idealized reactor models, the flotation rate identified by the
discontinuous lab tests, are applicable, to some degree, to the large scale, continuously operating flotation
banks at the processing plant.
Mendez et al. [174] give an overview of models used in flotation modelling based on the idealized
chemical reactors. Flotation models based on idealized reactors are used in optimisation of flotation
circuit design [174].
2.3.2 Macrokinetics
Flotation kinetics can be studied from a macroscopic point of view (macrokinetics) or from a microscopic
point of view (microkinetics) [48]. Macrokinetics and microkinetics are defined by Deglon [48] as
Flotation macrokinetics ignores all fundamental interactions and models flotation using clas-
sical rate theories and equations while flotation microkinetics attempts to understand flotation
from an analysis of the fundamental subprocesses.
Historically, the macroscopic models preceded the microscopic models [77], as flotation macrokinetics
requires less understanding of the micro-processes of flotation, which were long poorly understood [37].
This section focuses on the kinetics in general and the macroscopic perspective, i.e. macrokinetics. As
flotation macrokinetics is not the focus of this work, we will present only a selection of models to present
the general modelling approach. Polat and Chander [219] and Mendez et al. [174] reviewed macroscopic
first-order flotation models. Microkinetics is elaborated on in Section 2.4.
2.3.2.1 First order flotation kinetics

The classic kinetic model for flotation (2.218) is a first order kinetic process expressed e.g. in terms
of particle concentration C within the flotation apparatus. Any other order of equation (2.218) other
than one is commonly rejected, as arguments for a non-first-order model are found to be purely empirical
[48, 219]. The first order kinetic model was first proposed by Garcia-Zuñiga [83], as cited in [48, 294, 299].
dC
= −k C (2.218)
dt
Macrokinetic models aim to provide a relation for the concentration of floatable particles over time
C(t). In literature macrokinetic models are often formulated in terms of recovery R, which relates the
concentration over time C(t) with the initial concentration C0 .
C(t)
R=1− (2.219)
C0
In flotation it is observed that particles of different size exhibit a different flotation behaviour. Thus,
several approaches have been devised to extend (2.218) to account for this observation. Equation (2.218)
inherently assumes all particles exhibit the same floatabilty.
The relationship between particle size and flotation behaviour has first been studied by Gaudin et al.
[86] and subsequently by Sutherland [269], who considered the total flotation rate as the sum of the
flotation rates of the individual size classes [48, 294].
dC X
= ki Ci (2.220)
dt
– 47 –
Froth layer R(t) C0
C0
(1 − R(t)) C0
(a) Initial situation, C0 is the (b) During operation; the amount of removed parti-
initial particle concentration. cles is expressed by the recovery R(t); the remaining
amount of particles can be expressed with 1 − R(t).
Figure 2.10: A schematic representation of a batch flotation apparatus in operation. By skimming the
froth from the top of the column floated ore particles are removed from the inventory.
Mineral particles may not only differ in size but also in other aspects such as surface properties.
Particle floatability models consider the total flotation rate as the sum over all classes of different par-
ticle floatability. The variation in floatability can be represented by discrete classes or by a continuous
distribution function. These models are more flexible in the analysis of flotation kinetics [48].
2.3.2.2 Discrete floatability models
Kelsall [133] introduced the distinction of floatable particles within the slurry into a fast and a slow
fraction. Thus, the model features two rate constants (kfast and kslow ) and another parameter a to
specify the ratio of the fast and the slow floating fractions. However, the model parameters of the Kelsall
model are purely empirical and bear no significant physical meaning [236].
R(t) = a 1 − e−kfast t + (1 − a) 1 − e−kslow t (2.221)

2.3.2.3 Distributed floatability models
Distributed particle floatability models feature a distributed kinetic constant [236]. The most general
formulation (2.222) is expressed in terms of the material distribution by floatability f (k) and the process
separation characteristics s(k, t) [236]. For a batch flotation device the separation characteristics is given
by s(k, t) = exp(−k t).
Z ∞
1 − R(t) = f (k) s(k, t) dk (2.222)
0
The Klimpell model assumes a uniform floatability distribution up to a maximum floatability kmax .
– 48 –
This leads to a one parameter model with a different characteristic than the classic model.
(
−1
kmax at 0 ≤ k ≤ kmax
f (k) = (2.223)
0 at k > kmax
Z kmax
R(t) = 1 − f (k) exp(−k t)dk (2.224)
0
1 − e−k t
R(t) = 1 − (2.225)
kt
Besides the rectangular floatability distribution Klimpell [137], there are other distributed floatability
models which assume other shapes of the floatability distribution such as gamma, triangular, Gaussian
or sinusoidal [219].
2.3.2.4 Imperfect flotation

Macrokinetic flotation models can be extended to account for imperfect floation. I.e. even after infinite
time a certain amount of floatable particles remains within the slurry. Thus, recovery never reaches unity.
An unfloatable portion of the ore can exist for several reasons. Some of which are improper liberation,
too small or too large particles.
Equation (2.226) shows the recovery classical model for batch flotation extended with a factor R∞ to
account for imperfect flotation.
R = R∞ 1 − e−kt (2.226)

with
0 < R∞ < 1 (2.227)
Polat and Chander [219] note that R∞ is not an arbitrary parameter. It can be derived from the
general particle floatability model by using two independent distribution functions, f1 (k) and f2 (k) with
their respective fractions F0 and 1 − F0 . With f2 (k) being the dirac-delta function f2 (k) = δ(k) [219].
Thus, the macrokinetic models of Kelsall (2.221) and Klimpell (2.225) presented above can be modified
to account for imperfect flotation.
R(t)
Kelsall model [133] = a 1 − e−kfast t + (1 − a) 1 − e−kslow t (2.228)

R∞
R(t) 1 − e−k t
Klimpell model [137] =1− (2.229)
R∞ kt
Figure 2.11 shows the characteristics of the presented kinetic models.
2.3.2.5 Application of macrokinetic flotation models

Macrokinetic models are widely used in simulating or controlling complex plant layouts [219]. Figure 2.12
shows an example for a rather complex flotation plant layout. To simulate the performance of a whole
plant with tens or hundreds of flotation cells using macrokinetic models for the single cells is a way to
keep computational cost in reasonable dimensions.
These macrokinetic models need to be more complex than the first order model of equation (2.218).
Macrokinetic models need to account for variable particle sizes and therefore for variable flotation rates.
Macrokinetic models can be extended even further to account for other phenomena such as two-stage
recovery (pulp phase and froth layer), the entrainment of gangue particles into the concentrate, the
effect of wash water and multiple floatable materials, and particle sizes [259, 260]. However, to keep the
simulation effort feasible each cell is modelled by a finite number of ODEs.
– 49 –
0.8
Recovery R
0.6
0.4 Classic, k = 1
Klimpell, k = 1
0.2 Kelsall, a = 0.3, kfast = 3 kslow
Kelsall, a = 0.9, kfast = 9 kslow
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time t in s
Figure 2.11: Exemplary characteristics of the kinetic models presented in this section. The rate constant
of the one parameter models k is equal to the slow rate constant kslow of the Kelsall model.
From Grinding
Rougher
Tailings
Pre-Rougher
Regrinding
Circuit
First Cleaner Scavenger
Second Cleaner
Concentrate
Figure 2.12: An exemplary, complex flotation plant layout, reproduced from [300]. The layout of an
actual concentration plant strongly depends on the ore’s mineralogy and other operational requirements
[296].
– 50 –
Macrokinetic models may divide the description of a single flotation cell into a collection zone and a
froth zone to increase their predictive accuracy [301]. Thus, processes, such as water recovery and gangue
recovery, can be included into the models [301].
Commercial marcokinetic models allow to build the model of a flotation plant based on the flow-
sheets of the flotation circuit [259, 260, 301]. These simulators are provided with model parameters of
macroscopic models for each individual item in the flowsheet. Such simulators are used to compute mass
flows and predict grades across a processing ciruit [259, 260]. The accuracy of such models is assessed by
comparing the predictions with data from sample points across the circuit and lab-scale flotation tests.
Besides simulating the performance of an existing flotation circuit, macroscopic models may also be
used to determine optimal circuit flowsheets [110]. Since a typical flotation circuit may contain several
flotation banks with several flotation cells each, the number of different circuit configurations becomes
extremely large [24].
2.3.3 Probabilistic models

The flotation process can be divided into several aspects and sub-processes. With a model for each of
these sub-processes the flotation rate constant can be computed. First, the question of how many particles
and bubbles if of interest and then, what happens at such an interaction. The interaction between a single
bubble and a single particles can be divided into three sub-processes. The collision between bubble and
particle, the formation of the three-phase contact (TPC), and the stability of the TPC.
The study of the complex process of particle collection is most commonly divided into three separate
domains: collision, attachment and stability. This division can be traced back to Sutherland [269], as
cited in [302]. The formal dissection of the collection efficiency Ecoll into three parts is by some authors
attributed to Derjaguin and Dukhin [50], as cited in [177, 228], however, a probabilistic model involving
the probabilities of collision, adhesion and stability was also proposed by Schuhmann Jr. [254], as cited
in [111].
The flotation rate for the linear kinetic model of flotation can be written in the general form of
equation (2.232) [19]. The collision frequency Z gives the number of collisions between bubbles and
particles per second.
Ecoll = EC EA ES (2.230)
k = Z Ecoll (2.231)
k = Z EC EA ES (2.232)
Probabilistic models are based on the assumption that collision, attachment and stability are inde-
pendent processes and that the individual probabilities for a given particle are not correlated [255]. If
two statistical processes are independent, then the probability P (A ∩ B) for both A and B to occur is
the product of the probabilites for A and B.
P (A ∩ B) = P (A)·P (B) (2.233)
Since the efficiencies Ei – for the sub-processes as well as overall collection – are regardes as proba-
bilities, they are also denoted as Pi in literature. These two conventions for denoting the efficiencies in
flotation modelling are widely used in literature.
Modelling the flotation rate k in dependence of the macroscopic operational parameters of the flota-
tion apparatus is crucial in the macroscopic description of flotation [294]. The models for the flotation
rate constant are typically deterministic and probabilistic nature, i.e. they combine known operational
parameters and the collection probability Ecoll [294].
Jameson et al. [126] propose a relation (2.234) for k that combines global parameters (gas flow Q,
froth height h and flotation cell volume V ) and local parameters (bubble diameter dB ) of flotation. This
relation, however, is not valid for turbulent systems [225, 294].
3Qh
k= Ecoll (2.234)
2dB V
– 51 –
Gorain et al. [91] derived a model for the flotation rate constant (2.235) that is proportional to the
bubble surface area flux Sb in the flotation cell.
6Jg
k= Ecoll (2.235)
dB
|{z}
Sb
The first order kinetic model is the basis for the CFD implementation of the flotation kinetics in
this work. However, this implemention will make use of the microkinetics presented in Section 2.4.
The first order kinetic model is also the foundation of many works in literature dealing with flotation
[19, 20, 143, 269].
2.3.4 Extended linear kinetics

2.3.4.1 Detachment
Bloom and Heindel [19] extended the kinetic model to account for the break-up of bubble-particle ag-
gregates. Equation (2.236) shows an ODE for the number density of free particles with linear flotation
kinetics. When the kinetic model is extended to account for aggregate break-up the model has to be
extended to keep track of the number of aggregates besides the number of free particles.
The number of aggregates naB can be modelled as an algebraic function of the initial and current
number of free particles, or a second kinetic equation can be solved for the aggregates.
The first term on the RHS of equation (2.236) models the collection of free particles by bubbles,
whereas the second term on the RHS models the detachment of particles, i.e. break-up of bubble-particle
aggregate. Bloom and Heindel [19] were the first to consider detachment as a particular process with its
rate constant k2 similar to the process of collection with the rate constant k1 [6].
dnfP
= −k1 nfB nfP + k2 naB (2.236)
dt
They proposed for the rate constant of detachment relation (2.237). In Bloom and Heindel [20] the
same authors extended the detachment rate constant k2 by a detachment frequency Z 0 (2.238).
k2 = ED = 1 − ES (2.237)
k2 = Z ED = Z (1 − ES )
0 0
(2.238)
Figure 2.13 schematically shows the interaction between the populations of free and attached particles.
The basic kinetic flotation models consider only collection, this is represented in Figure 2.13.(a). The
extended kinetic model also considers detachment as a separate process. Thus, particles may detach from
a bubble-particle aggregates, portrayed in Figure 2.13.(b).
Attachment k Attachment k1
Bubbles Particles Bubbles Particles
Detachment k2
(a) Basic flotation kinetics. (b) Extended flotation kinetics.
Figure 2.13: Interaction between the bubble and particle populations.
Thus, in addition to equation (2.236) we need to solve another transport equation in order to keep track
of the bubble-particle aggregates. Instead of formulating a transport equation for the number density
– 52 –
of bubble-particle aggregates naB , we formulate a transport equation for the number density of attached
particles naP . Since particles can be either freely suspended in the surrounding liquid, or attached to a
bubble, we identify two particle populations. The population balance for the free particles has already
been formulated in equation (2.236).
The total number of particles is the sum of free and attached particles (2.239). As the total number
of particles is unaltered by collection or detachment, we can state, that the time derivative of the total
number of particles vanishes14 (2.240).
From
nP,total = nfP + naP (2.239)

dnP,total
=0 (2.240)
dt
it follows, that
dnaP dnf
=− P . (2.241)
dt dt
Thus, we can formulate a transport equation for the number density of attached particles (2.242),
which has the same structure as the transport equation of the free particles (2.236):
dnfP
= −k1 nfB nfP + k2 naB (2.236)
dt
dnaP
= k1 nfB nfP − k2 naB . (2.242)
dt
2.3.4.2 Bubble-load
Koh and Schwarz [143] expressed the number density of bubbles free of particles nfB and the number
density of bubbles with particles attached naB with a bubble load factor β. This bears the inherent
assumption that bubbles are either free or fully loaded [143].
nB = naB + nfB (2.243)

naB = βnB (2.244)
nfB = (1 − β)nB (2.245)
Since a bubble can not bind an arbitrary number of particles. The finite surface of a bubble provides
a natural limit for particle accretion. Introducing a bubble load factor β reflects this fact mathematically.
A clean bubble is characterized with β = 0 and a fully loaded bubble by β = 1. The introduction of the
bubble load factor β allows for the elimination of nfB and naB . Koh and Schwarz [143] argue, that the
flotation kinetics in equations (2.246) and (2.247) is thus based on the available bubble surface area.
dnfP
= −k1 (1 − β)nB nfP + k2 βnB (2.246)
dt
dnaP
= k1 (1 − β)nB nfP − k2 βnB . (2.247)
dt
Due to the assumption that the particles are much smaller than the bubbles, the area occupied by
an attached particle on the surface of a bubble is its projected area which is also the cross-sectional area
as the particles are assumed to be spherical. Figure 2.14 demonstrates this assumption. The green line
– 53 –
Particle Bubble
Figure 2.14: A particle attached to a much larger bubble. The particle’s cross-sectional area is marked
green; the portion of the bubble’s surface shadowed by the particle is marked red.
represents the cross-sectional area of the particle. The red line represents the area which is really taken
up by the particle.
Koh and Schwarz [143] assumed that only half the bubble’s surface can be occupied by particles.
Thus, the maximum number of attachable particles on one bubble is half the ratio between the bubble’s
surface area and the projected area of a single particle (2.250). This derivation, however, considers only
monodisperse particles. The derivation for poly-disperse particles is given in Section 2.3.4.3.
SB = d2B π (2.248)
d2P π
AP = (2.249)
4
2
1 SB 1

dB
Nmax = = (2.250)
2 AP 2 dP
With the maximum number of attachable particles Nmax defined, the bubble load factor β can be
expressed as the ratio of the number of attached particles and the maximum number of attachable
particles in a certain control volume (CV) (2.251). Dividing by the CV’s volume yields a formulation in
terms of number densities (2.252) rather than absolute numbers.
Nattached naP VCV

β= = (2.251)
Nmax. attachable Nmax nB VCV
naP
β= (2.252)
Nmax nB
2.3.4.3 Considering poly-dispersity
In order to simulate the flotation behaviour of poly-disperse particles, we need to extend the relations of
flotation kinetics, as expressed in equation (2.236) for an arbitrary number of size classes. This approach
follows the general idea discussed earlier in Section 2.2.4 with the method of classes (CM). However, now
this concept is applied to the ore particles’ size fractions.
Thus, we formulate equations (2.236) and (2.242) for the free and attached particles of the i-th size
14 This argument seems to disregard the removal of particles due to convective transport to the froth layer. However, even
if froth is skimmed off, the attached particles within the froth remain in their population.
– 54 –
fraction:
dnfP,i
= −k1 nfB nfP,i + k2 naB,i (2.253)
dt
dnaP,i
= k1 nfB nfP,i − k2 naB,i . (2.254)
dt
For considering poly-disperse particles, we need to restate the number density of bubbles with particles
attached naB . The number density of bubbles free of any particles nfB remains unchanged. Bubbles are
assumed to be either completely free of particles, or to form aggregates with particles of one size class.
Thus, the number of free bubbles nfB remains as is. The number density of bubble-particle aggregates
naB,i is formulated to be the number density of bubble-particle aggregates of the size class i.
Further, we define a fractional load factor δi , linking the number density of bubble-particle aggregates
if the size class i with the total number density of bubbles (2.257). The load factor β now assumes the
role of a cumulative bubble load factor (2.258).
X
nB = nfB + naB i (2.255)
i
nfB = (1 − β)nB (2.256)

= δi nB
naB,i (2.257)
X
β= δi (2.258)
i
naP,i
δi = (2.259)
Nmax nB
Figure 2.15 shows three particles attached to a much larger bubble. Since, we assume our bubbles to
be much larger than the floatable particles dB dP,i , we assume the area covered on the bubble by a
particle is equal to the particle’s projected area AP,i . For simplicity we assume that there is no overlap
between the particles.
AP,i
Bubble
Figure 2.15: Particles of different size attached to a much larger bubble. The area occupied by a particle
on the bubble’s surface is assumed to be equal the cross-sectional, or projected, area of the particle. An
overlap of the projected areas AP,i , as it is the case with the grey and the red particle is not considered.
The calculation of Nmax only considers non-overlapping particles such as the grey and the green particle.
The calculation of the maximum number of attachable particles in the poly-disperse case needs to
consider the size distribution of the floatable particles. We use the number-based distribution15 f0 [i] to
15 The description of size distributions is discussed in Section 2.2.4.2.
– 55 –
compute an average projected area of the particles:
1 SB
Nmax = (2.260)
2 AB
1 d2B π
Nmax = P (2.261)
2 i f0 [i] (d2P,i/4) π
d2B
Nmax = 2 P . (2.262)
i f0 [i] dP,i
2
The number density of attached particles is already given by the number density of attached particles
naP,i and the maximum number density of attachable particles can be computed by the maximum number
of attachable particles of one bubble Nmax times the number density of bubbles nB :
P a
i nP,i
β= . (2.263)
Nmax nB
The fractional bubble load factor δi is defined likewise:
naP,i
δi = . (2.264)
Nmax nB
Inserting the definitions of the fractional and cumulative bubble load factors δi and β into equa-
tions (2.253) and (2.254), yields the poly-disperse, flotation kinetics formulation in equations (2.265)
and (2.266):
dnfP,i
= −k1 (1 − β)nB nfP,i + k2 δi nB (2.265)
dt
dnaP,i
= k1 (1 − β)nB nfP,i − k2 δi nB (2.266)
dt
Finally, we insert the definition of the fractional bubble load δi
naP,i
δi = (2.264)
Nmax nB
dnfP,i naP,i
= −k1 (1 − β)nB nfP,i + k2 (2.267)
dt Nmax
dnaP,i n a
P,i
= k1 (1 − β)nB nfP,i − k2 . (2.268)
dt Nmax
2.3.5 Mass and species transport

2.3.5.1 General transport equations
The general transport equation for the mass fraction Yk,c of a chemical species c of phase k reads as
follows [9, 124]:
∂
(αk ρk Yk,c ) + ∇· (αk ρk uk Yk,c ) − ∇· (ρk Dk ∇Yk,c ) = Rk,c . (2.269)
∂t
In the case of the flotation process, there are two species: the free particles within the liquid phase
f
YP,L , and the attached particles within the gaseous phase YP,G
a
.
– 56 –
On the RHS of the transport equations of the particles’ mass fraction we only have one heterogeneous
reaction term (collection and detachment of particles from bubbles):
∂ f

f

f

αL ρL YP,L + ∇· αL ρL uL YP,L − ∇· ρL DL ∇YP,L = Rf (2.270)
∂t
∂ a
+ ∇· αG ρG uG YP,G
a a
= Ra (2.271)

αG ρG YP,G − ∇· ρG DG ∇YP,G
∂t
with the constraint for heterogeneous reactions:
Rf = −Ra . (2.272)
2.3.5.2 Phases & species

In the derivation of flotation kinetics, the amount of floatable particles present was expressed in terms
of number density. However, in the implementation of the flotation model, the governing equations are
formulated in terms of mass fraction. Thus, we need to relate the number density of particles nP within
a certain control volume (CV) to their respective mass fraction YP .
Attached particles
Gas phase
Free particles
Liquid phase
Figure 2.16: An exemplary control volume containing both phases (liquid and gaseous) as well as floatable
particles; both free and attached.
The number density nP is defined as the absolute number of particles NP , within a CV, divided by
the volume of the CV:
NP
nP = . (2.273)
VCV
The cumulative volume VP of the particles16 can be computed by using the absolute number of
particles, the number density or the particle volume fraction γP :
VP = NP VP = nP VCV VP = γP VCV . (2.274)
Thus, we gain a relation between number density and volume fraction:
γP = nP V P . (2.275)
16 We use the symbol V , in order to distinguish the cumulative volume of all particles V
P P from the volume of a single
particle VP .
– 57 –
We can apply the rationale behind the derivation of equation (2.275) also to the gas bubbles suspended
in the slurry. Equation (2.276) is needed to express the number density of bubbles found in the flotation
model in terms of the known gas-phase volume fraction:
αG = nB VB . (2.276)
Similar to the calculation of the cumulative volume of particles,the cumulative mass MP of the
particles17 is computed:
MP = ρP VP NP = ρP VP nP VCV . (2.277)
We now introduce the mass fraction YP , which is the ratio of the cumulative mass of all particles MP
and the mass of the suspending phase ML
MP
YP ≡ (2.278)
ML
ρP VP nP VCV
YP = . (2.279)
ρL αL VCV
Thus, we gain a relationship between number density nP and mass fraction YP
ρP VP nP
YP = . (2.280)
ρL αL
In general the mass fraction of a species c is the mass of the species divided by the mass of the respective
species [124]. For simplicity we neglect any influence of particle removal on the slurry properties, i.e.
ρL = const. Otherwise, the slurry density would be a function of the densities of the suspending liquid
and the suspended solids as well as the amount of suspended solids.
ρP VP nfP
YPf = (2.281)
ρL αL
ρP VP naP
YP =
a
(2.282)
ρG αG
The relation between number density and mass fraction is used to get from the number density based
flotation kinetics to a transport equation for mass fraction.
ρL αL f
nfP = Y (2.283)
ρP V P P
ρG αG a
naP = Y (2.284)
ρP VP P
17 The symbol MP is used in order to distinguish the cumulative mass of particles from the mass of a single particle mP .
– 58 –
2.3.5.3 Mass-based flotation kinetics

Equations (2.283) and (2.284) are inserted into equations (2.267) and (2.268) to gain a mass-based
formulation of flotation kinetics
dnfP,i naP,i
= −k1 (1 − β)nB nfP,i + k2 (2.267)
dt Nmax
dnaP,i n a
P,i
= k1 (1 − β)nB nfP,i − k2 (2.268)
dt Nmax
d ρL αL f ρG αG a 1

ρL αL f
Y = −k1 (1 − β)nB Y + k2 Y (2.285)
dt ρP VP P ρP V P P ρP VP P Nmax
d ρG αG a ρG αG a 1

ρL αL f
Y = k1 (1 − β)nB Y − k2 Y (2.286)
dt ρP VP P ρP V P P ρP VP P Nmax
Furthermore, relation (2.276) is used to eliminate the bubble number density nB .
αG = nB VB (2.276)
d ρL αL f ρG αG a 1

αG ρL αL f
YP = −k1 (1 − β) YP + k2 Y (2.287)
dt ρP VP VB ρP VP ρP VP P Nmax
d ρG αG a ρG αG a 1

αG ρL αL f
YP = k1 (1 − β) YP − k2 Y (2.288)
dt ρP VP VB ρP VP ρP VP P Nmax
Since the density ρP and the volume VP of the particles are constant, we may eliminate these from the
equations:
d αG 1
ρL αL YPf = −k1 (1 − β) ρL αL YPf + k2 ρG αG YPa (2.289)
dt VB Nmax
d αG f 1
(ρG αG YP ) = k1 (1 − β)
a
ρL αL YP − k2 ρG αG YPa
(2.290)
dt VB Nmax
Comparing equations (2.289) and (2.290) with the general transport equations (2.270) and (2.271).
∂ f

f

f

αL ρL YP,L + ∇· αL ρL uL YP,L − ∇· ρL DL ∇YP,L = Rf (2.270)
∂t
∂ a
+ ∇· αG ρG uG YP,G
a a
= Ra (2.271)

αG ρG YP,G − ∇· ρG DG ∇YP,G
∂t
Rf = −Ra (2.272)
Comparing equations (2.289) and (2.290) and equations (2.270) and (2.271) yields expressions for the
source terms Rf and Ra , which obey the constraint (2.272):
αG 1
Rf = −k1 (1 − β) ρL αL YPf + k2 ρG αG YPa (2.291)
VB Nmax
αG 1
Ra = k1 (1 − β) ρL αL YPf − k2 ρG αG YPa (2.292)
VB Nmax
– 59 –
CHAPTER 2. THEORY 2.4. FLOTATION MICROKINETICS
2.4 Flotation microkinetics

Flotation microkinetics studies the fundamental subprocesses of flotation. Microkinetic models provide
relations for the efficiencies or probabilities of the subprocesses involved.
2.4.1 Collision frequency

The models termed interaction models provide the collision frequency, i.e. the frequency at which a
bubble interacts with a particle. Commonly used models for the collision frequency are based on the
works of Saffman and Turner [245], Smoluchowski [264] and Abrahamson [3] [294]. Deglon and Meyer
[47] give a review on models for collision frequency.
Smoluchowski [264] derived a mathematical relation for the coagulation kinetics of colloids in shear
flow [6, 294]. Saffman and Turner [245] extended the Smoluchowski model to turbulent conditions [6].
The model of Saffman and Turner is valid in the viscous sub-range of turbulence [6].
Abrahamson [3] is attributed to be the first to consider the collision process in a vigorous turbulent
regime [6]. Thus, the Abrahamson model is valid in the inertial sub-range of turbulence [6, 20].
The model of Saffman and Turner

The model of Saffman and Turner [245] is applicable for fine particles and bubbles that follow the fluid
streamlines. The model was developed for droplets that are smaller than the size of the turbulent eddies
[245].
3 1/2
8π dP + dB
r

Z= (2.293)
15 2 νF
The model of Abrahamson

The model of Abrahamson [3] assumes a Gaussian distribution of velocity fluctuations and is applicable
for the inertial sub-range of turbulence [6, 20].
2
√ dP + dB
1/2
Z= 8π B + uP
u02 02 (2.294)
2
The model of Schubert and Bischofberger

Schubert and Bischofberger [253] stated a model for the particle-bubble collision frequency for the case
in which inertial effects have a strong influence [143, 252,√253]. The Schubert and Bischofberger model is
based√on the work of Abrahamson [3]. The prefactor of 8π of the Abrahamson model is roughly equal
to 5, 8π ≈ 5.013.
The model of Schubert and Bischofberger computes the collision frequency from the root-mean-square
value of the relative turbulent velocity fluctuations between the bubble or particle and the fluid [252].
Equation (2.296) was derived by Liepe and Möckel [166].
2
dP + dB
1/2
Z=5 B + uP
u02 02 (2.295)
2
4 7/9
/9 di ρi − ρF
q
i = 0.4
u02 1/3
i ∈ {B, P } (2.296)
ν ρF
F
The nomenclatureqof Eq. (2.295) in literature is not uniform. The root-mean-square of the relative
velocity fluctuations u02
i is often denoted as Ui .
– 60 –
The prefactor of (2.296) is assigned the value of 0.33 instead of 0.4 in [59, 251, 252]. The factor 0.4
is used among others in [21, 143].
The simplified model of Schubert and Bischofberger

In Duan et al. [59] the Schubert and Bischofberger model is simplified by neglecting the particle’s influence
as the bubble diameter dB is much larger than the particle diameter dP .
2 7/9
0.4 /9 dB ρB − ρF
4
dB
Z=5 (2.297)
2 ν
1/3
ρF
F
2.4.2 Detachment frequency

In equation (2.238) the detachment rate constant k2 requires the computation of the detachment frequency
Z 0 . The treatment of detachment is based on Mika and Fuerstenau [178], as cited in [20]. The detachment
of particles from particle-bubble aggregates is found to be analogous to floc disruption in turbulent flows
[20]. Bloom and Heindel [21] suggest a value of C1 = 2 for the empirical constant C1 of (2.298).
− 2/3
p
Z0 = C1 /3 (dP + dB ) (2.298)
1
2.4.3 Collision models

Developing models to predict the efficiency of bubble-particle collisions requires knowledge or assumptions
on the local flow around the bubble and its influence on the particle’s trajectory.
2.4.3.1 Collision mechanisms

There are several collision mechanisms that can be accounted for by a collision model. Figure 2.17
contains a graphic representation of four collision mechanisms. Which of these mechanisms are relevant
depends of the particle’s size.
Inertial deposition (trajectory (a) in Figure 2.17) is most likely for large and dense particles, which
are not able to follow the fluid streamlines. Inertial deposition is the main mechanism behind the removal
of aerosol particles by collision with larger objects, e.g. the collision of the water droplets in fog with the
cables of power lines.
Particles denser than the surrounding fluid have a certain settling velocity. This can cause the particles
to deviate from the fluid streamlines (trajectory (b) in Figure 2.17).
Particles following the streamlines collide with the bubble due to their finite size. This mechanism is
referred to as collision due to interception (trajectory (c) in Figure 2.17).
Very small particles in the sub-micron range (dP < 1 µm) follow the fluid streamlines perfectly,
however, they exhibit random Brownian motion [177]. Thus, particles collide with the bubble due to
their random motion (trajectory (d) in Figure 2.17).
Thus, the main collision mechanisms in flotation are due to gravity and interception. However, some
collision models take inertial effects into account [36, 195].
2.4.3.2 Flow regimes

To assess the flow conditions around the bubble and the regime for particle deposition, two dimensionless
numbers are of significance.
The bubble Reynolds number ReB can be used to characterize the flow around the bubble.
uB dB
ReB = (2.299)
νF
– 61 –
The flow regime around the bubble, is bounded by two cases. In the case of a very small bubble
Reynolds number, inertial forces can be neglected. Thus, the Navier-Stokes equations can be solved
analytically. Miettinen et al. [177] gives ReB 1 as limit for the Stokes or creeping flow regime.
For a sufficiently large Renolds number, the flow can be considered inviscid. In this case, the viscous
forces can be neglected. Thus, an analytical solution to the Navier-Stokes equations can be obtained.
The Stokes number18 K is the ratio of the magnitude of the inertial force to the viscous resistance of
the fluid as the particle is deposited on the bubble surface.
ρP uB d2P
K= (2.300)
9dB µF
For the importance of inertial forces on particle deposition, there are two limiting cases [228]:
K 1, inertial forces have no effect on the particle trajectory. The particle can be considered inertia-free.
K > 3, the particle’s trajectory deviates slightly from a straight line as it approaches the bubble.
In Dai et al. [36] these limits are reported as K Kcr and K Kcr with Kcr = 1/12.
RC
Ψ = const
a
b
r
θ
dB
c
Figure 2.17: Schematic representation of collision mechanisms; reproduced after [177]. The bold coloured
lines denote the trajectories of particles that deviate significantly from the fluid streamlines (Ψ = const).
This deviations stem from the influence of particle inertia (a) and gravity (b). Other collision mechanisms
are interception (c) due to the particle’s finite size and Brownian motion (d) for very small particles
[36, 177].
2.4.3.3 Bubble surface properties

The presence of surface-active substances has a great impact of the motion of bubbles [30]. Figure 2.18
shows the three possible regimes. These influence many properties related to gas bubbles in liquids, e.g.
the drag coefficient [189, 276].
18 In flotation literature the symbol K is widely used for the Stokes number, e.g. [36, 226, 228]. Whereas other sources
use the more familiar St to denote the Stokes number, e.g. [177].
– 62 –
In a pure liquid the bubble’s surface will be fully mobile, i.e. the gas within the bubble will have
the same velocity as the liquid right at the interface [30]. Figure 2.18.(a) shows a representation of this
regime. The liquid’s streamlines as well as the internal circulation within the bubble are indicated.
The other limiting case is a completely rigid bubble surface. In this case the bubble’s surface is covered
with surfactants. The layer of surfactants leads effectively to a no-slip condition on the bubble’s surface.
Thus, the gas bubble behaves as a solid body. Figure 2.18.(c) schematically shows this situation. The
red line indicates the no-slip condition, the lack of internal circulation is also indicated. The presence
of surface-active substances also alters the surface tension. However, Clift et al. [30] state, that at low
Reynolds numbers the effect of surface-active substances on the shape of the bubble is negligibe.
The regime between the two limiting cases (rigid and fully mobile) is the stagnant cap regime. Figure
2.18.(b) shows a representation of a bubble with a partially mobile surface. The forward part of the
bubble exhibits a mobile surface and a limited internal circulation. At the rear stagnation pole the
surfactants accumulate due to the flow around the bubble, thus, forming a stagnant cap [54, 209, 244].
In the derivation of collision models it is widely assumed, that bubbles in Stokes flow regime (ReB < 1)
have a rigid surface. Clift et al. [30] states that there is no internal circulation in small bubbles. Bond
and Newton [22] reported a limit above which internal circulation within bubbles occurs (2.302) [30].
g(ρL − ρG )d2B
Eo = (2.301)
σL
Eo > 4 (2.302)
Whereas in the potential regime, the bubbles are assumed to have a completely mobile surface [255].
The assumption behind the mobile bubble surface in the potential flow regime is that surface-active
contaminants are swept back to the rear hemisphere of the bubble. Nguyen [194] reports that fresh
bubbles and the forward hemisphere of aged bubbles exhibit a mobile surface. The assumption of a fully
mobile bubble is an approximation of the stagnant cap regime since the interaction between the bubble
and a particle will happen at the upper hemisphere of the bubble [195].
(a) Mobile (b) Stagnant cap (c) Rigid
Figure 2.18: Bubble surface mobility. The blue line indicates a stress-free boundary condition, while the
red line indicates a no-slip condition on the boundary between bubble and liquid.
2.4.3.4 Collision models

Sutherland
Sutherland [269] laid the basis for modelling particle-bubble collisions based on a fluid stream function
for the flow past a sphere (bubble) [36]. Sutherland [269] assumed potential flow conditions past a rigid
– 63 –
sphere and inertia-less behaviour of the particles. Eq. (2.303) shows the stream function for potential
flow conditions.
x2 1

ΨPotential = 2
uB RB sin θ2
− (2.303)
2 2x
Sutherland [269] computes the critical streamline which is also called grazing trajectory [36]. A particle
following this streamline will touch the bubble when it passes the bubbles equator, see trajectory (c) in
Figure 2.17.
The value of the streamfunction can be computed by evaluating Eq. (2.303) at the polar coordiates
(π/2, RB + RP ). The radius of the critical streamtube RC can be computed by evaluating the critical
streamline for a particle location far ahead of the bubble, i.e. for θ → 0 and r → ∞.
Sutherland [269] computes the collision efficiency from the ratio of the critical streamtube’s area and
the projected area of the bubble.
2
πRC
EC,Sutherland = 2 (2.304)
πRB
Sutherland finds RC to be
r
3dP dB
RC = (2.305)
4
this, leads to
dP
EC,Sutherland = 3 (2.306)
dB
Gaudin
The same modelling approach was applied by Gaudin [84, 85], who assumed Stokes flow conditions. Thus,
the stream function takes the following form
x2 3 1

ΨStokes = uB RB
2
sin2 θ − x+ (2.307)
2 4 4x
Solving for the radius of the critical streamtube RC and evaluating Eq. (2.304) leads to
2
3

dP
EC,Gaudin = (2.308)
2 dB
Yoon-Luttrell
Yoon and Luttrell [302] followed the same strategy but derived a stream function for intermediate con-
ditions.
x2 3 1 Re0.72 1 1

ΨYL = 2
uB RB sin θ
2
− x+ + B
− +x−1 (2.309)
2 4 4x 15 x2 x
The collision efficiency derived by Yoon and Luttrell [302] is
– 64 –
2
3 4Re0.72

dP
EC,YL = + B
(2.310)
2 15 dB
Gaudin [84, 85] and Yoon and Luttrell [302] also neglect inertial effects of the particles; thus, incor-
porating only the interception collision mechanism [36].
Schulze [255] lists the assumptions made in the derivation of collision models that are based purely
on the interception mechanism:
• the particle and the bubble are both of rigid spheres,
• the bubble is significantly larger than the solid particle; thus, the curvature or the bubble’s surface
can be neglected,
• the influence of the solid particle on the flow around the bubble can be neglected,
• the flow around the bubble is not influenced by neighbouring bubbles; models are based on the flow
around a singular sphere (the bubble) in an infinite domain,
• the particles exhibit no Brownian motion,
• the particles exhibit no sedimentation.
We can summarize the presented models so far with a generic expression for the collision efficiency.
n
dP
EC = A (2.311)
dB
Flow regime Model A n

Stokes flow Gaudin [84, 85] 3/2 2
4 Re0.72

Intermediate Yoon and Luttrell [302] 3
2 + B
15 2
Potential flow Sutherland [269] 3 1
Table 2.3: Values for the parameters A and n of Eq. (2.311), after Yoon and Luttrell [302].
Weber-Paddock
Weber and Paddock [288] derived a collision model which took also graviational effects into account
[36]. They characterized the flow around the bubble by the Stokes stream function and a Taylor series
expansion [36]. The collision probablity by Weber and Paddock neglects particle inertia and takes bubble
surface mobility into account [36].
g
EC,WP = EC,WP + EC,WP
i
(2.312)
with
2
g dP uP
EC,WP = sin2 (θC ) 1 + (2.313)
dB uB
2

i,mobile dP
EC,WP = 1+ (2.314)
1 + ( /ReB )
37 0.85 dB
2
3

3/16 ReB dP
i,retarded
EC,WP = 1+ (2.315)
2 1 + 0.249 Re0.56
B d B
– 65 –
Nguyen collision model

The collision models based on analytical solutions for creeping (Stokes) or potential flow around a sphere
feature an inherent flow symmetry around the bubble’s equatorial plane (fore-and-aft symmetry) [195].
Also models which are based on a combination of those flow solutions, such as the Yoon and Luttrell
model share this fundamental property [195]. However, the flow around a sphere is not fore-and-aft
symmetric at intermediate Reynolds numbers.
Nguyen [193] derived a collision model from numerical solutions of the flow around a bubble at
intermediate Reynolds numbers [195]. This model is considered valid for Reynolds numbers Re < 500 ∼
600 [194, 195, 197]. This model was formulated for bubbles with rigid and mobile surfaces, yielding
slightly different expressions.
The Nguyen model for rigid bubbles reads as follows:
2
dP uB
mobile
EC,Nguyen = [X + C + Y cos(θc )] sin2 (θc ) (2.316)
dB uB + uP
3 9 ReB
X= + (2.317)
2 32 ReB + 9.888 Re0.694
B
3 ReB
Y = (2.318)
8 + 1.736 Re0.518
B
−2
uP dP
C= (2.319)
uB dB
(X + C)2 + 3Y 2 − (X + C)
p
cos(θc ) = (2.320)
3Y
For bubbles with mobile surface, the collision efficiency reads:

" 2 #
dP dP uB
EC,Nguyen =
mobile
− [X + C + Y cos(θc )] sin2 (θc ) (2.321)
dB dB uB + uP
0.0637 ReB
X =1+ (2.322)
1 + 0.0438 Re0.976
B
0.0537 ReB
Y = (2.323)
1 + 0.031 Re1.309
B
" 2 #−1
uP dP dP
C= − (2.324)
uB dB dB
Nguyen and Kmet [196] extended the model to account for effects of gas hold-up. Furthermore, the
model of Nguyen [195] was also extended to account for effects of particle inertia, leading to an implicit
relation for the collision angle θc , which needs to be solved numerically.
The Generalized Sutherland Equation

When the particle size is larger, inertial and gravity effects have to be taken into account. The Generalized
Sutherland Equation (GSE) couples the original model of Sutherland with additional effects [177]. Dai
et al. [34] proposed to call Equation (2.330) the Generalised Sutherland Equation (GSE) to emphasize
Sutherland’s remarkable contributions to flotation history [294]. Main contributions to the GSE are
attributed to Dukhin [34, 37].
Equation (2.330) shows the final relation for the GSE. In the derivation the particle Stokes number
K and a modified Stokes number K3 are used. The collision efficiency of the original Sutherland model
Ec,Sutherland is used several times.
– 66 –
Eqns. (2.328) and (2.329) are equivalent [37]. The former equation is used in [34, 36, 37, 177] and the
latter in [34, 37, 199]. The proof for the equivalence of Eqns. (2.328) and (2.329) is provided in Section
B.3.1.
Also for the term I2 used in (2.330) two equivalent formulations can be found in literature. Equa-
tion (2.332) is used in [37, 177, 199], whereas equation (2.333) can be found in [34, 36]. In Section B.3.2
the equivalence of (2.332) and (2.333) is shown.
The factor f in equation (2.327) was introduced to characterise the short range hydrodynamic inter-
action between the particle and the bubble’s surface [226]. A value of f = 2.034 is proposed for a free
non-retarded bubble surface [226, 228].
ρP uB d2P
K= (2.325)
9ρF νF dB
ρP − ρF uB (ρP − ρF )d2P
K3 = K = (2.326)
ρP 9ρF νF dB
2f Ec,Sutherland
β= (2.327)
9K3
r !
p
θt = arcsin 2β 1 + β2 − β (2.328)
p
θt = arccos 1 + β2 − β (2.329)
Ec,GSE = Ec,Sutherland sin (θt ) exp (I1 + I2 )
2
(2.330)
3

I1 = 3K3 ln − 1.8 cos θt (2.331)
Ec,Sutherland
3

4 cos θt 23 + cos3 θt − cos θt
I2 = − (2.332)
sin4 θt
3

9K3 23 + cos3 θt − cos θt
I2 = − (2.333)
2Ec,Sutherland sin2 θt
2.4.4 Attachment models

Not all particles, that collide with a bubble adhere to it. Thus, there is a certain probability EA for
a particle and a bubble to form a bond after collision occured. Nguyen [195] gives in this sense a very
generic definition of the attachment probability as the ratio of the number of particles that adhered to
the bubble and the number of particles that collided with the bubble.
Nattached
EA = (2.334)
Ncollided
Calculation of the probability of attachment requires knowledge or assumptions on the local flow
around the bubble. The process of attachment is governed by the thinning and rupture of the liquid film
separating the bubble and the particle, and the formation of a three-phase contact (TPC). This process
is also referred to as adhesion.
The actual processes taking place in the interaction between bubble and particle are not well under-
stood and hard to quantify [195, 225]. Modelling the attachment process is therefore based on an idea of
Sutherland [269]: ‘a finite time of contact between bubble and particle is needed to ensure adhesion [i.e.
the induction time ti ]’ [37, 225].
The induction time represents all processes involved in the formation of the TPC. It is usually
determined experimentally or calculated using empirical models [48, 294].
– 67 –
Following the idea of Sutherland [269] the contact time between particles and bubble needs to be
known, in order to estimate the fraction of particles that are longer than the induction time in contact
with the bubble. This leads to the need of estimating the sliding time tsl of a particle once it has collided
with a bubble. This estimation is generally based on the study of the flow around a sphere (i.e. the
bubble). The sliding time is the time the particle slides along the surface of the bubble, from the point
of collision to the point where it leaves the bubble [177].
2.4.4.1 Induction time

An important parameter of attachment models is the induction time ti . This is essentially the time
needed to establish a stable TPC. When a particle collides with a bubble, the particle slides along the
bubble. During this sliding time tsl – the time a particle slides along the bubble’s surface – the TPC can
be formed [302].
Thus, a particle adheres to a bubble subsequently after collision if condition (2.335) is fulfilled, i.e.
the time the particle is in contact with the bubble is sufficient to form a TPC.
tsl > ti (2.335)
Elementary steps
The formation of a stable TPC can be divided into three steps [197, 256]:
1. thinning of the intervening liquid film to a critical thickness at which the film ruptures,
2. rupture of the liquid film and formation of a TPC,
3. expansion of the TPC line from a critical radius to a stable wetting perimeter.
The first of the three elementary steps, film drainage, i.e. the thinning of the intervening liquid film,
down to a critical film thickness hcrit is well understood. Schulze [256] reports two limiting cases as an
approximation for film drainage: The Reynolds equation for the drainage of plane-parallel finite thin film
and the Taylor equation for a solid sphere approaching a wall with point contact [256].
Figure 2.19.(a) schematically shows two possible interactions between a colliding particle and a bubble.
Sufficiently large particles may have enough inertia to deform the bubble surface at collision. Unless the
disjoining liquid film drains during the time of collisional interaction, the particle rebounds from the
bubble. Smaller particles cause weak bubble deformation and slide along the bubble after collision. In
this case, attachment is determined whether the intervening liquid film drains during the sliding time.
impact
and
repulsion
sliding
h2
α
h1
hF
RF
(a) Collision and sliding interaction (b) Deformation of the gas liquid interface by a colliding particle.
Figure 2.19: Schematic representation of particle bubble interaction; reproduced after Schulze [256].
In the case of particles causing a strong deformation of the bubble’s surface, the Reynolds model for
film drainage (2.336) is applied. Figure 2.19.(b) schematically shows the gas-liquid interface deformed
– 68 –
by the particle. The Reynolds equation for the drainage of plane-parallel thin films is applied to the
spherically deformed meniscus (h1 ) with the film radius RF = αdP /2. The mobility factor k (2.338) is
introduced to consider bubble surface mobility.
However, as the particles under common flotation conditions are much smaller than the bubbles, the
Taylor equation (2.337) – for point contact – is more relevant, especially for angular particles (as sharp
edges pierce the thin film and form point contact) [37, 256]. The classical Taylor equation was derived for
immobile surfaces, however, the equation can be modified similarly to the Reynolds equation to account
for surface mobility [4].
3µL α2 d3P
tReyolds = (2.336)
64h2crit k σ

6µL ln 2hdcrit
P
tTaylor = (2.337)
k (2/3 dP ∆ρg + 36µL uB/dB ) cos(θ)
(
1 for rigid bubble surfaces
k= (2.338)
4 for mobile bubble surfaces
The critical film thickness can be determined with an empirical relation [37]:
0.16
hcrit = 23.3 [σ(1 − cos(θAC ))] ·10−9 (2.339)
The two limiting cases, film drainage between two plane-parallel surfaces and for point contact, are
two ideal model cases. The Reynolds model assumes a smooth spherical particle, which is seldom the
case in flotation practice.
The time for film rupture at the critical film thickness hcrit has been found to be in order of 10−9 s
[302]. Thus, this process is often neglected, since film drainage is generally much larger.
When the intervening liquid film reached the critical film thickness, the thin film ruptures and an initial
three-phase contact is established. After the rupture the three-phase contact line (TPCL) expands driven
by the uncompensated air-water interfacial tension [4]. This process has been investigated, however, the
parameters employed in the corresponding models are hard to determine experimentally with particles
and bubbles of the size typically encountered in flotation [4].
As these three steps are difficult to depict analytically, empirical models have been proposed for the
induction time. No full prediction of the induction time is yet available [4, 195].
In the case of mineral flotation there are plenty of available experimental techniques to determine the
induction time, e.g. moving a captured bubble towards and then away from a particle bed, or using a
special test device such as the Hallimond tube [37, 58]. Thus, there are empirical models for the induction
time based on experimentally determined attachment times [4, 37].
The model of Dai

Dai [37] proposed an empirical model that links the induction time ti with the particle diameter dP .
ti = AdB
P (2.340)
He reported that A decreases with increasing contact angle θc [35, 37]. The parameters A and B serve
as empirical parameters to fit the model to experimental data. Dai [37] proposes an iterative procedure
to determine the model constants A and B of (2.340) from an experimentally determined EA versus dP
curve.
Dai [37] described an iterative procedure to determine A and B. Dai obtained a value of B = 0.6
which is rather independent of particle size and contact angle [35, 37]. In equation (2.340) the particle
diameter is inserted in centimetre rather than metre, since Dai uses the centimetre-gram-second (CGS)
unit system19 .
19 The first coherent metric unit system, introduced in 1874 [1].
– 69 –
The model of Koh and Schwarz

Koh and Schwarz [143] proposed the following model based on the model of Dai [37]. The value for B
was taken from Dai, while for the value of A an inverse proportiality to the contact angle was proposed.
In (2.341) the contact angle θC is inserted in degrees instead of radians.
75 0.6
ti = d (2.341)
θC P
|{z}
A
Figure 2.20 shows a comparison of the model constant A determined by Dai [37], which is based on
flotation experiments with quartz, and the corresponding model constant AKS of the Koh and Schwarz
model. In the case of the Koh and Schwarz model, the model constant AKS contains the prefactor of
(2.341) and the conversion factor between m and cm.
75 0.6
AKS = 10−2 (2.342)
θC
0.25
Dai fitted data, I = 10−2 M
Model constant A in (cm)0.6
Dai fitted data, I ≈ 0 M

0.20 Koh and Schwarz model
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
30 40 50 60 70 80
Contact angle θC
Figure 2.20: The model constant A of (2.340) over contact angle θC . Experimentally determined values
of Dai [37] for various ionic strengths and a bubble diameter of dB = 1.52 mm.
Figure 2.21 shows a comparison of experimentally determined values of the induction time, and the
values provided by the models presented above. The experimental data was gathered by Hewitt et al. [100]
with quartz particles, as reported by Nguyen et al. [198]. The two models provide reasonable agreement,
however, there are further parameters affecting induction time other than particle size and contact angle.
Dai [37] reports a weak dependence of A on the bubble size dB and also a very weak dependence on the
ionic strength I.
2.4.4.2 Sliding time

The sliding time tsl is derived from a detailled model of the flow around a sphere. Figure 2.22.(a) shows
the coordinates on a spherical bubble. The liquid flow around the bubble can be predicted using analytical
solutions (for Stokes or potential flow) or semi-analytical solutions (for the intermediate Reynolds number
range) [198]. All particles that collide with the bubble slide from their point of impact over the bubble
surface. The sliding distance is measured from the point of impact till the maximum collision angle.
– 70 –
Induction time ti in ms
4.0
Hewitt, θC = 65◦
Hewitt, θC = 88◦
Koh and Schwarz, θC = 65◦
Koh and Schwarz, θC = 88◦
2.0 Dai, θC = 68◦
Dai, θC = 74◦
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Particle diameter dP in µm
Figure 2.21: Comparison of induction times. The data of Hewitt et al. [100] was gathered with bubbles
of dB = 0.75 mm, whereas, in the experiments of Dai [37] larger bubbles (dB = 1.52 mm) were used.
Thus, the sliding time tsl can be calculated from the collision angle θ and the liquid velocity at the
bubble surface.
Figure 2.22.(b) shows the maximum angle of collision θc beyond which no particles collide with the
bubble. The critial attachment angle θa is the angle at which the particle sliding time is equal to the
induction time. Thus, the critial attachment angle is the angle, the furthest away from the stagnation
point, at which particles can collide and adhere to the bubble.
Inserting the induction time ti into a relation for the sliding time yields a relation for the critical
attachment angle θa . For reasons of brevity we omit discussing models for sliding time. The sliding time
model is the base for the attachment models discussed in Section 2.4.4.3.
Attachment
No attachment
Sliding distance
θ
θa θc
dB dP
No collision
(a) Local polar coordinates on a single bubble used to (b) Definition of the critical angle of attachment θa
determine the probablity of adhesion. Reproduced af- and the maximum collision angle θc . Reproduced after
ter Yoon and Luttrell [302]. Nguyen et al. [198].
Figure 2.22: Bubble particle attachment in flotation.
– 71 –
2.4.4.3 Attachment models

The Dobby-Finch model
Dobby and Finch [55] extended the model of Sutherland [269] which assumed potential flow over a
bubble with mobile surface [37]. Dobby and Finch derived their model for bubbles with rigid surface in
an intermediate Reynolds number range [55].
The attachment model of Dobby and Finch [55] is based on the relative magnitudes of induction time
and sliding time [227]. They assume collisions are distributed uniformly over the frontal section of the
bubble’s surface from the polar angle θ = 0 to θ = θc , see Figure 2.22. Furthermore, Dobby and Finch
assume that particles slide from the point of collision to the bubble’s equator, where the particles are
assumed to leave the bubble [37, 177].
The attachment efficiency is calculated from the ratio of the projected areas due to the maximum
possible collision angle θc and the adhesion angle θa . The adhesion angle is the angle for which the sliding
time equals the induction time. Any particles colliding with a higher collision angle than θa lack the time
to establish a TPC, i.e. for θ > θa the sliding time is less than the induction time (tsl < ti ).
sin2 θa
EA = (2.343)
sin2 θc
The relation for the collision angle (2.345) suggested by Ralston et al. [227] was derived from results
by Jowett [130], as cited in [294].
  3  
2(uP + uB ) + (uP + uB ) dB
dP +dB
θa = 2 arctan exp −ti (2.344)
  
dP + dB

 78.1 − 7.37 ln ReB : 20 < ReB < 400


θc = 85.5 − 12.49 ln ReB : 1 < ReB < 20 (2.345)

85.0 − 2.5 ln ReB : 0.1 < ReB < 1

Ralston et al. [227] used a modified Dobby-Finch model with a relation for the collision angle taken
from the GSE, as discussed in Section 2.4.3.4.
The Yoon-Luttrell model

The model of Yoon and Luttrell [302] assumes a maximum collision angle θc = 90◦ , i.e. collisions take
place everywhere on the forward hemisphere of the bubble [227]. This is represented in Figure 2.22. With
θc = 90◦ the relation for the attachment probability reduces to (2.346).
Yoon and Luttrell [302] report three equations for θa , each corresponding to a particular flow regime
[227, 294].
EA = sin2 θa (2.346)
θa = 2 arctan (exp(Ci )) (2.347)
−3uB ti
for Stokes flow Ci = (2.348)
dB ddB P
+ 1
−(45 + 8Re0.72 )uB ti
for intermediate flow Ci = B (2.349)
15 dB dP + 1
dB
−3uB ti
for potential flow Ci = (2.350)
dB + dP
– 72 –
The Nguyen model

The Nguyen model accounts for the fore-and-aft asymmetry in the calculation of the sliding time, i.e. a
particle slides from the point of collision to the maximum collision angle.
Nguyen [195] provide a relation between the induction time ti and the angle of attachment θa , which
needs to be evalutated numerically. The critical collision angle θc needs to be determined as discussed in
the section on the Nguyen collision model.
In the limit of the Dobby and Finch [55] expression for EA , the angle of attachment θa and critical
collision angle θc can be eliminated from (2.351) and derive a relation between the induction time ti and
attachment efficiency EA [198].
B !
dP + dB tan(θc/2) csc(θc ) + B cot(θc )

ti = ln (2.351)
2uB (1 − B 2 )A tan(θa/2) csc(θa ) + B cot(θa )
For bubbles with rigid surface:

2
X + C + Y cos(θa ) sin(θa )

EA = (2.352)
X + C + Y cos(θc ) sin(θc )
and for mobile bubbles:
(X + C) sin2 (θa ) − 1/3 C1 X 2 (cos3 (θa ) − 3 cos(θa ) + 2)

EA = (2.353)
(X + C) sin2 (θc ) − 1/3 C1 X 2 (cos3 (θc ) − 3 cos(θc ) + 2)
2
StP ρL dB
C1 = 1− (2.354)
2 ρP dP
Equation (2.352) reduces to known relations from literature under certain conditions. If the first term
of (2.352) is 1, the equation reduces to the relation of Dobby and Finch [55]. Also (2.353) reduces to
Dobby and Finch relation when inertia (C1 = 0) is ignored. By assuming Stokes or potential flow, the
flow field becomes fore-and-aft symmetric (θc = 90◦ ), then the model reduces further to the relation of
Yoon and Luttrell [302].
2.4.5 Models of stability

2.4.5.1 The Schulze stability model
The probability of aggregate stability ES is computed by calculating the probability of particle detachment
ED .
ES = 1 − ED (2.355)
A model for the stability of a particle-bubble aggregate can be derived by balancing the forces that
act on an attached particles. Figure 2.23 schematically shows a spherical smooth particle attached to
a much larger bubble (dB dP ). The forces acting on the particle can be divided into forces tending
to separate the particle and bubble (detaching forces) and forces supporting the stability of the particle-
bubble aggregate (attaching forces).
Schulze [255] lists the following forces acting on the particle attached to a bubble, cf. Figure 2.23.
The gravitational force acting on the particle due to its mass is:
4 3
Fgravity = πr ρP g (2.356)
3 P
– 73 –
Undisturbed gas-liquid interface
ρG
z0
θC rP
R0 Gas-liquid interface
ω
ρL ρP
Figure 2.23: Schematic representation of a particle attached to a bubble. Reproduced after Schulze [255].
the buoyancy force acting on the immersed part of the particle
π 3
Fbuoyancy = rP ρF g (1 − cos ω)2 (2 + cos ω) (2.357)

3
a force on the contact area due to the hydrostatic pressure of a liquid column of height z0
Fhydrostatic = −πR02 ρF gz0 (2.358)
the capillary force at the three-phase contact
Fcapillary = −2πR0 σ sin(ω + θC ) (2.359)
a detaching force due to an additional acceleration20 a caused by the turbulent flow within the flotation
apparatus
4 3
Facceleration = πr ρP a (2.360)
3 P
−1/3
a = 1.9 /3 (rB + rP ) (2.361)
2
and the force due to the capillary pressure inside the gas bubble
2σ

Fcapillary pressure = πR02 − 2rB ρF g (2.362)
rB
We use for the radius of the contact area R0 the following relation
R0 = rP sin(π − ω) = rP sin ω (2.363)
By adding up all forces leading to attachment and detachment respectively, we can characterize the
strength of the aggregate by a dimensionless number analogous to a Bond number [19, 255].
20 This acceleration is also termed turbulent machine acceleration bm in e.g. Schulze [255].
– 74 –
Fdetaching
Bo0 = (2.364)
Fattaching
F gravity − Fbuoyancy + Facceleration + Fcapillary pressure
Bo0 = (2.365)
Fcapillary + Fhydrostatic
Schulze [255] gives approximations for the calculation of the detaching and attaching forces. Under
flotation conditions the hydrostatic force is negligible compared to the other forces [255]. Equation (2.366)
can be used for the central angle to estimate the maximum forces. Furthermore, the buoyant force of the
immersed part of the sphere is approximated by the buoyant force of the whole particle, cf. (2.367) [255].
ω ≡ ω ∗ = π − θC/2 (2.366)
4
Fbuoyancy ≈ πrP3 ρF g (2.367)
3
Thus, the modified Bond number Bo0 reads
h i
3 πrP ρP (g + a) − 34 πrP3 ρF g + πrP2 sin2 ω ∗ − 2rB ρF g
4 3 2σ
rB
Bo0 = (2.368)
2πrP sin ω ∗ σ sin(ω ∗ + θC )
which simplifies to
h i
4rP2 [(ρP − ρF )g + ρP a] + 3rP sin2 (π − 2 )
θC 2σ
rB − 2rB ρF g
Bo0 = (2.369)
6σ sin(π − 2 ) sin(π
θC
+ 2 )
θC
The stability efficiency ES can be related to the modified Bond number Bo0 as in (2.370) [257].
1

ES = 1 − exp 1 − (2.370)
Bo0
In Bloom and Heindel [21] an empirical model constant in introduced into (2.370) which varies between
0 and 1.
1

ES = 1 − exp AS 1 − (2.371)
Bo0
Bloom and Heindel [21] reported a value of AS = 0.5 for the model constant, obtained by fitting
recovery curves to data from deinking flotation experiments.
In the actual implementation the value of ES needs to be limited due to the nature of the mathematical
relation between ES and Bo0 . Figure 2.24 shows the value of ES given by (2.370) over Bo0 . For Bo0 > 1
the relation yields negative values of ES . Since Schulze [255] defines the modified Bond number as the
ratio of detaching forces and attaching force, a value larger than unity means that the detaching forces
on the particle outweigh the attaching force. Thus, the particle detaches from the bubble. Therefore,
Schulze [255] lists the following situations:
Bo0 < 1 particles float, since Fdet < Fatt ,

Bo = 10
maximum floatable particle size, forces are evenly balanced,
!
Bo0 > 1 particles do not float, ES = 0.
– 75 –
1 f (Bo0 ) = 1 − exp 1 − 1

Bo0
f (Bo0 ) = 1 − exp AS 1 − 1
Bo0
0.5
f (Bo0 )
0
−0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Bo0
Figure 2.24: Curves for equations (2.370) and (2.371) with AS = 0.5.
2.4.6 Non-spherical bubbles

The models presented in this section up to this point have been derived for non-deforming spherical
bubbles. In general the shape of bubbles in a liquid falls into one of three regimes: spherical, ellipsoidal
and spherical cap [30].
Small bubbles are spherical. As the bubble size increases, the bubble assumes an ellipsoidal shape.
Also shape-oscillations are common in this regime. Large bubbles adopt a flat base, thus this regime is
referred to as spherical cap regime.
The study of flotation by non-spherical bubbles is motivated by applications in metallurgy. There
argon is introduced via porous refractory material. Commonly used refractory materials are non-wetting
to liquid steel, thus bubbles formed tend to be larger than it would be the case with wetting materials
[235].
2.4.6.1 Spherical cap bubbles
The literature on mineral flotation is generally restricted to the assumption of spherical bubbles. Söder
et al. [272] identified the need to expand flotation modelling to the domain of spherical cap bubbles for
the analysis of vacuum treatment in gas stirred ladles.
The general condition for the formation of spherical cap bubbles is expressed in terms of the Eotvos
number Eo > 40.
The geometry of a spherical cap bubble can be described by three diameters or radii. The radius of
the enclosing sphere rs defines the radius of the spherical cap. The flat base of the spherical cap bubble
is measured by the base radius rb . In general we can define the equivalent radius re , which is the radius
of a sphere with equal volume. The equivalent radius or diameter is widely used parameter in modelling,
when dealing with non-spherical particles [30].
Flow modelling
For larger Reynolds numbers Re > 150, the base of a spherical cap bubble is flat, and the wake angle θw
becomes independent of Reynolds with a value of θw = 50◦ [30].
Davies and Taylor [40] found a relation (2.373) for the terminal velocity of spherical cap bubbles by
relating the flow around the spherical cap to the potential flow around a sphere of radius rs . Habermann
and Morton [97] found a relation (2.374) for the terminal velocity depending on the equivalent bubble
radius re .
– 76 –
r0
θw
rb rs
Figure 2.25: Geometry of the spherical cap bubble; reproduced after Söder et al. [272].
s
4 dB (ρS − ρA ) g
uT = (2.372)
3 ρS CD
2√
uT = g rs (2.373)
3
√
uT = 1.02 g re (2.374)
√
The generic expression for the terminal velocity (2.372) also shows a dependence uT ∝ d similar to
the relations for the terminal velocity for spherical cap bubbles. This implies, that spherical cap bubbles
have a constant drag coefficient CD .
With the relations (2.373) and (2.374) we can derive a relation between the radius of the enclosing
sphere rs and the equivalent radius re . We gain:
re = 0.4272 rs (2.375)
Joseph [129] gives the following, rather similar, relation:
re = 0.445 rs (2.376)
The radius of the cap’s base rb is given by:
rb = rs sin(θw ) (2.377)
It follows with θw = 50◦
rb ≈ 1.8 re (2.378)
Collision modelling
For the calculation of the collision probability EC Söder et al. [272] assume potential flow around a sphere
of radius rs following Davies and Taylor [40]. Thus, the collision model of Sutherland [269] is employed
to calculate EC . This model computes the probability of collision from the ratio of the cross-sectional
area of the critical stream tube A0 and the projected area of the bubble Ab .
– 77 –
2
A0 r0
EC = = (2.379)
Ab rb
The radius of the critical stream tube r0 can be computed from the stream function for the grazing
trajectory. For the spherical cap bubbles it is assumed, that a particle following the grazing trajectory
touches the spherical cap bubble at its very edge. Thus, the collision angle is assumed to be θc = 50◦ .
The collisional efficiency EC follows to be:
rP
EC ≈ 2.3 (2.380)
rs
Attachment modelling
For the modelling of attachement Söder et al. [272] follow the idea of Dobby and Finch [55] with the wake
angle as the maximum collisional angle θc = θw , and the attachment angle θa which is determined from
the stream function.
This yields a relation similar to the relation of Yoon and Luttrell [302] for potential flow. The induction
time ti was determined using the relations of Reynolds and Taylor for liquid film drainage as limiting
cases.
3uB ti

θc
EA ≈ 1.7 sin 2
2 arctan tan exp − (2.381)
2 2(rs + rP )
2.4.6.2 Numerically derived models

In the Section above, a model for spherical cap bubbles was discussed, which is based on a model for the
flow around a sphere. In the same field of application – the removal of non-metallic inclusions from liquid
steel – there is also another approach, to tackle the problem of non-sperical bubbles, reported in literature.
Aoki et al. [12], and Zhang et al. [306] computed the flow around a bubble using axi-symmetric, two-
dimensional computational fluid dynamics simulations. The terminal velocity of the investigated bubble
size was determined using well established correlations from literature. This velocity was then imposed
on the upstream boundary condition (BC) for the liquid velocity field.
These simulations were coupled with Lagrangian particle tracking (LPT) to incorporate the motion
of the suspended particles into the simulation. A particle was considered attached, when it remained in
close proximity, i.e. closer than the particle’s radius, to the bubble longer than the induction time [306].
In this modelling approach non-sphericity of the bubble is covered by the mesh geometry of the
simulation. The effect of liquid turbulence on particle motion is accounted for by adding a certain
amount of random walk to the particle’s trajectories proportional to the local turbulent kinetic energy
[12].
From the results of a large number of simulations, covering the intended parameter-space, a model
for collection can be devised by model-parameter fitting. This kind of model includes both collision and
attachment in the sense of Section 2.3.3. In modelling the capture of non-metallic inclusions by argon
bubbles in liquid steel, detachment is generally not considered, thus, collection is achieved by subsequent
collision and attachment. Hence, we refer to it as a model for collection in contrast to the original authors.
Zhang et al. [306] devised a regression model (2.382) for the collection probability based on the
numerical results. It solely depends on geometric parameters, since fluid properties were not part of the
investigated parameter space.
P = CA dC
P
B
(2.382)
– 78 –
with
CA = 0.268 − 0.0737 dB + 0.00615 d2B (2.383)

−0.334
CB = 1.077 dB (2.384)
In (2.382) the particle diameter dP is inserted in microns (µm) and the resulting probability is given
in percent (%). For the model constants in (2.383) and (2.384) the bubble diameter dB needs to be
inserted in millimeters (mm).
The applicability of (2.382) is limited by the Zhang et al. [306] to bubbles in the range of dB =
1 mm − 10 mm and rather quiescent conditions (k < 10−2 m2 /s2 ).
Aoki et al. [12] investigated the attachment probability of spherical and non-spherical bubbles in a
ladle under turbulent conditions. However, the authors did not publish a regression model similar to the
aforementioned model.
– 79 –
CHAPTER 2. THEORY 2.5. SUSPENSION PROPERTIES
2.5 Suspension properties

2.5.1 Continuity approach
In Section 2.1.1 the scales of the problem involved are discussed. The suspended solid particles are very
small (O (dP ) = µm); thus, it is preferable to treat the liquid-solid suspension as a contiuous fluid.
Therefore, appropriate fluid properties need to be found.
Figure 2.26 shows the possible representations of a liquid-solid slurry. Figure 2.26.(a) resolves the
suspending liquid and the discrete particles. In Figure 2.26.(b) the liquid-solid mixture is modelled as a
continuum with the average properties of the mixture.
As an illustrative example and to motivate the unresolved modelling approach for the suspended
solids we calculate the number of solid particles present in 1 kg of slurry with a solids content of 30 % by
weight. Typical flotation slurries contain between 25–40 % solids by weight [296]. If we assume a particle
diameter of dP = 50 µm and a solids density21 of ρP = 5250 kg/m3 , we get a number of solid particles
per kilogram of slurry in the order of billions (O (NP ) = 109 ).
VS
VL VSlurry
(a) Resolved suspended solid particles (b) The fluid slurry representing the liquid-
solid mixture
Figure 2.26: Representations of the slurry.
VSlurry = VS + VL (2.385)
mSlurry = mS + mL (2.386)
First of all the composition of the suspension needs to be specified. This is easily done by specifying
the solids content per volume or mass. Thus, the solid content per mass wS and the solids volume fraction
φS can be defined.
Also the solids may be mixture of various solid materials, which is definitely the case in mineral
processing. Thus, all properties of the solids are average properties of the mixture of solids.
mS
wS = (2.387)
mL
VS
φS = (2.388)
VS + VL
wS
φS = (2.389)
wS + ρρLS
21 This density is the mean value for the two primary iron ore minerals (haematite and magnetite) [145, 282].
– 80 –
2.5.2 Density
The density of a liquid-solid slurry can be very easily computed when the composition of the slurry is
known.
mSlurry = mS + mL (2.390)
mSlurry = ρSlurry VSlurry (2.391)
mSlurry = ρS VS + ρL VL (2.392)
ρS V S + ρL V L
ρSlurry = (2.393)
VS + VL
ρSlurry = ρS φS + ρL (1 − φS ) (2.394)
2.5.3 Viscosity
The presence of solid particles suspended in a liquid also has an effect on the viscosity of the suspension.
In Horri et al. [108] different viscosity models for suspensions are summarized. In this section a brief
overwiew of modelling strategies is given.
2.5.3.1 Newtonian modelling

The earliest model linking the concentration of suspended rigid particles with the viscosity of the re-
sulting suspension came from Einstein [64, 66, 108]. Einstein’s model is only valid for rigid spherical
non-interacting particles and dilute mono-disperse suspensions (φS < 0.02) with a Newtonian fluid.
µsus
µr = (2.395)
µF
µr = 1 + 2.5 φS (2.396)
A higher order expansion of Einstein’s model extends applicability to higher particle concentrations.
There is a great number of models extending Einstein’s model to O(φ2S ) [108]. As one example we will
pick the model of Batchelor [15, 103].
µr = 1 + 2.5 φS + 6.2 φ2S (2.397)
From the models listed in [108] we chose one model that is valid for high particle concentrations.
The model of Krieger and Dougherty [108, 148] – as many other model specifically designed for high
solid volume fractions – introduces an additional parameter φm , the maximum solid fraction. The model
parameters are B = 2.5 and φm = 0.6 [108].
−B φm
φS
µr = 1+ (2.398)
φm
Although the slurry viscosity depends on the volume fraction of solids φS it is still a constant scalar.
Thus, the slurry is still modelled as a Newtonian fluid. The alternative to this approach is to fit the
model parameters of a non-Newtonian viscosity model to measurements of the actual slurry.
2.5.3.2 Non-Newtonian modelling

Equation (2.399) shows how the shear stress τ can be computed from the shear rate γ̇ using the viscosity ν.
– 81 –
τ = ν γ̇ (2.399)
A fluid is referred to as Newtonian if the viscosity is a constant. The distinction in Newtonian and
non-Newtonian fluids is independent of any temperature dependence of the viscosity.
When solid particles are suspended in water that rheological behaviour of the resulting slurry is
different to the carrier liquid. The slurry may behave Newtonian or non-Newtonian [32].
Non-Newtonian viscosity models

A collection of well known non-Newtonian viscosity models can be found in [32]. The model parameters
are usually fit to measurement data. In the case of slurries the model parameters not only vary with
temperature but also with solids concentration [32].
Model name Model equations

Power-Law τ = Kp γ̇ n µ = Kp γ̇ n−1
1/2 1/2
Casson τ /2 = τc + (µc γ̇) /2 µ /2 = µc + (τc/γ̇ ) /2
1 1 1 1
Herschel-Bulkley τ = τ(h + Kh γ̇ p
µ=K ( h γ̇
p−1
+ h/γ̇
τ
τb for τ < τb
Bingham τ= µ=
τb + µb γ̇ for τ > τb µb + τb/γ̇ for τ > τb
Table 2.4: Rheological models for non-Newtonian fluids.
The Bingham model in Table 2.4 is for certain fluids which exhibit a yield stress. Below the yield
stress the fluid behaves like an elastic body, only when the yield stress is exceeded the fluid behaves like
a viscous fluid. For the case of shear stresses below the yield stress it is not possible to state a viscosity
as the fluid does not obey equation (2.399). In order to circumvent this restriction CFD programs such
as FLUENT combines the Bingham model with a power-law model [10]. In this case the fluid acts as a
very viscous power-law fluid below the yield stress.
OpenFOAM’s non-Newtonian viscosity models

OpenFOAM implements a number of non-Newtonian viscosity models. We will list the implemented mod-
els and their model equations. Apparently, the viscosity models are only implemented for incompressible
solvers. Hence, Table 2.5 contains the definitions for the kinematic viscosity.
Model name Model equation


νmin
 for ν < νmin
Power-Law ν = Kp γ̇ n−1 otherwise
for ν > νmax

νmax

n−1
Bird-Carreau ν=( ν∞ + (ν0 − ν∞ )(1 + K γ̇) 2
ν0 for ν > ν0
Herschel-Bulkley ν=
τ0/γ̇ + K γ̇ n−1 for ν < ν0
Cross-Power-Law ν = ν∞ + 1+(m
ν0 −ν∞
γ̇) n
Table 2.5: Rheological models for non-Newtonian fluids implemented in OpenFOAM.
Figure 2.27 shows a comparison of the viscosity models from Tables 2.4 and 2.5. The curves are based
on arbitrary numbers and are intended for demonstration. The Power-Law and the Herschel-Bulkley
– 82 –
model – as they are implemented in OpenFOAM – feature cut-off values. These cut-off values most
probably are intended to prevent instability of the simulation caused by very large or very small viscosity
values. The Bird-Carreau and the Cross-Power viscosity models inherently return finite values for very
small or very large shear rates.
103
Newtonian
Power-Law
Herschel-Bulkley
102 OF Power-Law
OF Herschel-Bulkley
Casson
OF Bird-Carreau
Viscosity in m2 /s
101 OF Cross-Power
100
10−1
10−2 −2
10 10−1 100 101 102 103 104
Shear rate in 1/s
Figure 2.27: Exemplary curves of the viscosity models from Tables 2.4 and 2.5. The models implemented
in OpenFOAM are preceded with OF.
– 83 –
Chapter 3
Numerical Simulation
Mathematical analysis is not the grand thing

it is said to be;
it solves only the simplest possible equations.
As soon as equations get a little more complicated,
just a shade – they cannot be solved analytically.
Richard P. Feynman
The following chapter is dedicated to introduce the finite volume method in general
and the open source CFD code OpenFOAM in particular. A full introduction to the
finite volume method and OpenFOAM would be far beyond the scope of this work.
Thus, the reader is referred to the cited literature, such as Moukalled et al. [185] of
Marić et al. [170].
3.1 Numerical method

Govering equations – such as the Navier-Stokes equations – are mostly derived in differential form. They
are expressed in terms of the sought-for fields and their derivatives. To illustrate this, equation (3.1)
shows a general transport equation for an arbitrary quantity ψ [210]. Note that we use the symbol ψ as
a shorthand for ψ(x, t). This partial differential equation is valid for every point in the solution domain
and for all times.
∂ρψ
+ ∇· (ρuψ) − ∇· (Γψ ∇ψ) = Sψ (3.1)
∂t
For the Navier-Stokes equations analytical solutions exist only for special cases. In general these
equations can not be solved analytically. The mathematical proof of existence and smoothness of a
solution to the Navier-Stokes equations in three space dimensions and time is one of the seven Millenium
Prize Problems formulated by the Clay Mathematics Institute in 20001 .
As there is no general analytical solution to the Navier-Stokes equations in sight, we need to employ
CFD to solve them numerically. The most prominent solution methods in CFD are the finite difference
method, the finite volume method and the finite element method. These methods solve the equations in
question in the time domain, in contrast to spectral methods which solve in the spectral domain.
The purpose of the finite difference method (FDM), the FVM and the finite element method (FEM)
is to transform a partial differential equation (PDE) that is to be solved numerically into a system of
1 http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems
– 84 –
CHAPTER 3. NUMERICAL SIMULATION 3.1. NUMERICAL METHOD
algebraic equations. This process is referred to as discretisation. It can be sub-divided into two basic
steps: domain discretisation and equation discretisation [104, 128].
The FDM dates back as far as the late 1920s, notably to the paper of Courant, Friedrichs, and Lewy
[31], and is by far the oldest method to solve PDEs [275]. The FEM has been developed from the 1960s
onwards [275, 307]. Although, this method suffers several difficulties in the field of fluid dynamics2 , it
can be applied to flow problems as well [308]. The FVM is the most widely applied method in CFD
[104]. Zienkiewicz and Taylor [307] show that the FVM is ‘[. . . ] simply another kind of finite element
form’ [308]. However, the FVM has some key advantages which make it especially appropriate for flow
problems: ‘That is the fact that with the finite volume approximation the local conservation conditions
are satisfied within one element.’ [308].
3.1.1 Finite volume method

In contrast to the FDM, which discretizes the differential form of the governing equations, the FVM
discretizes the integral form, which ‘[. . . ] is the most general expression of a conservation law, [. . . ]’
[104].
3.1.1.1 Integral form of the governing equations

Equation (3.1) is the equation we want to solve in differential form. As this PDE in question is valid
locally in any point within the solution domain, integrating it over an arbitrary volume V does not change
anything about the equation. Since integration is a linear operation, we might also integrate the terms of
our equation individually. Linearity also allows for exchanging integration over the volume and derivation
with respect to time
Z Z
∂ρψ
+ ∇· (ρuψ) − ∇· (Γψ ∇ψ) dV = Sψ dV (3.2)
V ∂t V
Z Z Z Z
∂
ρψ dV + ∇· (ρuψ) dV − ∇· (Γψ ∇ψ) dV = Sψ dV (3.3)
∂t V V V V
Applying the divergence theorem3 allows for the elimination of the divergence terms in (3.3)
Z I
∇·FdV = F·n dS (3.4)
∂V
Thus, we yield the integral form (3.5) of our original PDE (3.1).
Z I I Z
∂
ρψ dV + (ρuψ) ·n dS − (Γψ ∇ψ) ·n dS = Sψ dV (3.5)
∂t V ∂V ∂V V
3.1.1.2 Discretization in space

The integral form of a conservation equation is valid for any control volume of arbitrary shape and size
[104]. Hence, the solution domain of our PDE is divided into a finite number of CVs, as the integral
equation applies to all CVs as well as the solution domain as a whole [71].
The main assumption of the FVM is to treat all the variables as being constant troughout the CV. By
approximating the integral terms in this way for each individual CV, we gain a system of linear equations
for the flow variables.
Z
a(x, t)ψ(x, t) dV ≈ aP (t)ψP (t) ∆V (3.6)
V
ψP (t) = ψ(xP , t) (3.7)
2 The incompressibility of many fluids and – more importantly – the treatment of convection [308].
3 Also known as Gauss’s theorem.
– 85 –
Note that we use a shorthand notation to improve legibility

Z
aψ dV ≈ aP ψP ∆V (3.8)
V
the index P in e.g. ψP denotes the value of ψ at the control volume’s centroid xP .
Z
(x − xP ) dV = 0 (3.9)
V
Surface integrals over the boundary S = ∂V of a volume V are approximated in a similar manner.
Since our CVs are polyhedrals4 , the surface integral over S = ∂V can be reduced to a sum over a finite
number of faces Sk by applying the assumption that fields are constant throughout the face of the CV.
The face value of a field is approximated by the value at the face centroid.
I XZ
F·dS = F·dS (3.10)
S=∂V k Sk
Where Sk , the area of the face k, F the convective (F = ρuψ) or diffusive flux (F = Γψ ∇ψ), and Ff
denotes the face normal value of the flux F at the face centroid xf , thus Ff = F(xf , t)·n.
I X
F·dS = Ff Sk (3.11)
S=∂V k
Figure 3.1 shows an exemplary polyhedral control volume. Each control volume is bounded by a finite
number of flat faces. Fields are approximated by their values at the control volume’s centroid. The values
at the faces of the control volume are approximated the the value at the face’s centroid. Determining the
face-values of the fields in question is controlled by the choice of the interpolation scheme.
The face-normal vector can be represented by a normal vector n with unity magnitude and the face
area Sf .
Sf = nSf (3.12)
knk = 1 (3.13)
Applying the approximations of the volume and surface integrals, leads to:
∂ψP X X
ρP ∆V + (ρf uf ψf ) Sk − (Γψ,f ∇ψf ) Sk = Sψ,P ∆V (3.14)
∂t
Sk Sk
In the convective term, we introduce the flux φψ,f of the variable ψ. The sub-script f indicates that this
flux is evaluated at the faces of the computational cell.
φψ = ρf uf Sk (3.15)
∂ψP X X
ρP ∆V + φψ,f ψf − (Γψ,f ∇ψf ) Sk = Sψ,P ∆V (3.16)
∂t
Sk Sk
Thus, the original PDE is spatially discretized. Discretizing the temporal derivative yields a linear
equation system in cell-centre values of ψ. Prior to discussing discretisation in time, some rearrangements
of equation (3.16) are made.
4 In contrast to the FDM, the FVM can be applied to any type of grid (structured and unstructured) [71].
– 86 –
Sf
xf
z P
Figure 3.1: A polyhedral control volume with its centroid P. The centroid of the blue-marked face is
marked with xf ; it is the base of the face-normal vector Sf which – by OpenFOAM’s convention always
points outwards. The magnitude of this vector is proportional to the face’s area.
3.1.1.3 Source term linearisation

The source term Sψ,P can be split into two parts, one that is independent of ψ and one that linearly
depends on ψ. This procedure is referred to as source term linearisation [207] as an arbitrary Sψ ∼ ψ
relationship may be linearized in this fashion [210]. For the sake of legibility the index P denoting a
cell-centered value is dropped for the source term.
Sψ = Su + Sp ψ (3.17)
∂ψP X X
ρP ∆V + φψ,f ψf − (Γψ,f ∇ψf ) Sk − (Su + Sp ψP ) ∆V = 0 (3.18)
∂t
Sk Sk
We now subsume all terms dependent on ψ resulting from spatial discretisation under the term S ψ.
The constant part of the source term is brought to the RHS. This is done to mirror the structure we aim
for, which is a linear system of equations in the form A x = b.
∂ψP
ρP ∆V + S ψP = Su ∆V (3.19)
∂t
3.1.1.4 Discretisation in time

To fully discretize the equation, we need to deal with the issue of time. The time domain is discretized
into finite intervals, time steps. These can be either constant (i.e. equidistant discretisation in time) or
variable. Thus, we need to express all time dependent quantities in terms of their values at fixed time
levels.
The remaining tasks are to discretise the first term of equation (3.19) containing the time derivative
(equation discretisation) and to assign a time level to the variables (domain discretisation).
To shorten notation and to help legibility we denote the time level with upper indices (symbols in
super-script). The current time level is in the context of solving for the new time step the old time step.
– 87 –
Thus, the current time level t is denoted by the upper index o.
ψ(t) ⇔ ψ o
The previous time level is the second old or old-old time level, hence denoted with oo. The new time
level is consequently denoted with the upper index n.
ψ(t − ∆t) ⇔ ψ oo
ψ(t + ∆t) ⇔ ψ n
Treatment of the time derivative

The first term on the LHS of equation (3.19) is the actual time derivative of the field we want to solve
for. This first time derivative is approximated using a finite difference approach. The finite difference
representation is commonly derived by using a Taylor series expansion [7]
∂ψ ∂2ψ ∆t2
ψ(t + ∆t) = ψ(t) + ∆t + + O(∆t3 ) (3.20)
∂t t ∂t2 t 2
by applying the shorthand notation for the time levels yields

o o
∂ψ ∂2ψ ∆t2
ψn = ψo + ∆t + + O(∆t3 ) (3.21)
∂t ∂t2 2
By truncating the Taylor series after the first order derivative, we yield a first order backward finite
difference approximation of the time derivative. The time derivative is solely expressed in terms of the
current (t) and next time level (t + ∆t). In OpenFOAM’s nomenclature, this scheme is referred to as
Euler differencing scheme.
o
∂ψ
ψn = ψo + ∆t + O(∆t2 ) (3.22)
∂t
o
∂ψ ψn − ψo
⇒ ≈ (3.23)
∂t ∆t
If the Taylor series is truncated after the second derivative, we yield second order approximations of
the time derivative.
o o
∂ψ ∂2ψ ∆t2
ψn ≈ ψo + ∆t + (3.24)
∂t ∂t2 2
o o
∂ψ ψn − ψo ∂2ψ ∆t
⇒ ≈ + (3.25)
∂t ∆t ∂t2 2
So far the gain is minor as we traded the need to approximate the first time-derivative for the need to
approximate the second time-derivative. However, now we have two choices: first, we can approximate
the second time-derivative using a central differencing scheme. This leads to the backward differencing
scheme.
o o
∂ψ ψn − ψo ∂ 2 ψ ∆t
≈ + (3.25)
∂t ∆t ∂t2 2
o
∂ψ n
ψ −ψ o
ψ − 2ψ + ψ oo
n o
≈ + (3.26)
∂t ∆t 2∆t
o
∂ψ 3ψ − 4ψ + ψ oo
n o
≈ (3.27)
∂t 2∆t
– 88 –
Secondly, we can also approximate the second time-derivative using a forward difference scheme. This
leads to an expression, that contains the difference of two first-derivatives. One of them can be approxi-
mated by a backward difference and the other has to known explicitely. This time differencing scheme is
known to OpenFOAM as Crank-Nicolson scheme.
o o
∂ψ ψn − ψo ∂2ψ ∆
≈ + (3.25)
∂t ∆t ∂t2 2
o n o
n o
1 ∂ψ

∂ψ ψ −ψ ∂ψ
≈ + − (3.28)
∂t ∆t ∆t ∂t ∂t
o o
ψn − ψo 1 ψn − ψo

∂ψ ∂ψ
≈ + − (3.29)
∂t ∆t ∆t ∆t ∂t
These are the three choices for the discretisation of the temporal derivative OpenFOAM implements.
For the sake of simplicity we apply the first-order Euler discretisation scheme to the temporal derivative
of equation (3.19).
∂ψP
ρP ∆V + S ψP = Su ∆V (3.19)
∂t
ψ − ψo
n
ρP ∆V + S ψP = Su ∆V (3.30)
∆t
ρP ∆V n ρP ∆V o
ψ + S ψP = Su ∆V + ψ (3.31)
∆t ∆t
Finally, a time level needs to be assigned to the remaining occurences of ψP .
Temporal discretisation
The second term on the LHS of equation (3.31) is actually a collection of terms that depend on ψP . In
the case of any additional dependency of the coefficient S on ψP , always the old values of ψP are used.
However, ψP can be of the old or the new time step. This opens the choice between an explicit temporal
discretisation and an implicit temporal discretisation.
ψ + S ψP = Su ∆V + ψ (3.31)
∆t ∆t
using explicit temporal discretisation, i.e. all occurances of ψp in (3.31) are assigned to the current
time-level ψP = ψ o .
ψ = −S ψ o Su ∆V + ψ (3.32)
∆t ∆t
The equations above follow the general arrangement of a system of linear equations (A x = b). The
vector of the new values of ψ serves as the vector x we want to solve for. All coefficients that are multiplied
by ψ n are collected within the coefficient matrix A. All other terms of the discretized equation go into
the source vector b at the RHS.
The choice of explicit or implicit temporal discretisation determines the effort necessary to gain a
solution of the algebraic equation system. The explicit temporal discretisation allows for a direct solution
for ψ n , since the coefficient matrix A reduces to a diagonal matrix. The drawback of this method is its
limited stability which was recognized by Courant, Friedrichs, and Lewy [31]. This stability issue gives
rise to the Courant number limit or Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) condition. The Courant number is
the ratio of a characteristic convective time scale and the time step. The explicit Euler becomes unstable
when the Courant number is larger than unity [71].
u∆t
Co = (3.33)
∆x
– 89 –
Equation (3.33) shows the definition of the Courant number Co for the one-dimensional case. For
two- and three dimensional cases the Courant number computes from a superposition of the velocities in
the different spatial directions. OpenFOAM computes the characteristic convective time for the Courant
number by summing the face-fluxes φf = uf ·nf of all faces of a cell and dividing this by the cell’s volume
∆V . The origin of the factor 1/2 in equation (3.34) is believed to be a result of the rationale behind the
implementation of computing Co in OpenFOAM5 .
1
P
f φf

Co = max ∆t (3.34)
2 all cells ∆V
ρP ∆V ρP ∆V o

+ S ψ n = Su ∆V + ψ (3.35)
∆t ∆t
The implicit temporal discretisation method, i.e. all occurances of ψP in (3.31) are assigned to the
new time level (ψP = ψ n ), is stable and no Courant number limit applies. However, the additional
terms in the coefficient matrix A now require the solution of a linear equation system. Thus, the greater
stability and the larger possible time step come at the price of higher computational cost.
3.1.2 Solution of linear equation systems

The outcome of any discretization method is an algebraic system for the flow variables associated to the
mesh points [104]. The resulting linear equation system is of the following structure:
Ax = b (3.36)
The discretisation applied by the FVM generally leads to large sparse matrices, i.e. the majority of
matrix elements are zero [71]. This property of the coefficient matrix reduces the necessary amount of
memory to store the matrix, since the zero elements do not need to be stored [243]. Saad [243] gives a
very general definition of sparse matrices:
[. . . ] a matrix can be termed sparse whenever special techniques can be utilized to take advan-
tage of the large number of zero elements and their locations.
Solution methods for linear equation systems are assessed by their associated computational cost.
This cost consists of the number of necessary floating-point operations and the amount of necessary
storage. In the discussion of solution algorithms the number of operations is prominently or even solely
examined, since computer storage can easily expanded. The number of operations determines the time
the solution takes.
3.1.2.1 Direct methods

In general there are two solution methods for systems of linear equations. There are direct methods which
yield the exact solution to the equation system. Note that the exact solution of the linear equation system
resulting from discretizing the flow equations is not the exact solution of the flow problem itself as we
accumulated model errors, discretisation errors and we make round-off errors due to the finite accuracy
of computers.
The most straight-forward way to solve (3.36) is to compute the inverse of A and multiply the
equation from the left with A−1 . However, there are solution algorithms to solve linear equations without
computing the inverse of the coefficient matrix. Alan Turing adresses this issue in his 1948 paper in which
he introduces the LU decomposition, which today is the basis of some iterative solution methods [71].
5 A more detailed discussion on OpenFOAM’s method to compute the Courant number can be found at https://github.
com/ParticulateFlow/OSCCAR-doc.
– 90 –
It seems probable that with the advent of electronic computers it will become standard practice
to find the inverse. This time has, however, not yet arrived and some consideration is therefore
given in this paper to solutions without inversion. A form of compromise involving less work
than inversion, but including some of the advantages, is also considered.
A linear equation system can be solved directly using Gaussian elimination or one of it’s variants.
However, due to the associated computational costs, direct solution methods are rarely used in CFD
without modification [71]. The number of operations performed with Gaussian elimination and LU
decomposition, which is a more efficient implementation of Gaussian elimination scales proportional to
1/3 n3 with n being the number of unknowns [71]. The computational cost of the most efficient direct
solution method, the tri-diagonal matrix algorithm (TDMA), is proportial to n. However, this method is
only applicable to tri-diagonal matrices, i.e. the coefficient matrix A has non-zero elements only at it’s
main diagonal and the diagonals immediately above and below the main diagonal [71].
A direct solution method involves less work than computing the inverse of the coefficient matrix.
Computing the inverse of A can be regarded as solving n equation systems A x(r) = b(r) with b(r) = δir
on the RHS. The number of necessary operations in this case is proportional to n3 [283]. Thus, computing
the inverse is more work than solving the equation system. If the inverse is to be used several times,
computing the inverse might pay off in this situation.
3.1.2.2 Iterative methods

In contrast to direct methods, iterative methods solve a system of linear equations only approximately.
Iterative solution algorithms generally work their way from an initial (guessed) solution to the exact
solution of the equation system. The advantage of iterative methods is the ability to stop evaluation
after a certain error margin has been reached by the intermediate solution. As the number of necessary
operations per iteration is of a lower order (O(n2 )) than with direct methods, a fast-converging iterative
method yields a "good enough" solution faster than a direct method. Thus, the computational cost of
solving a linear equation system iteratively is proportional to the product of operations per iteration and
the number of iterations.
There are several classes of iterative solution methods for linear equation systems [242, 243]. Two
methods that are widely used are Krylov subspace methods (which are a subset of projection methods) and
multigrid methods. One prominent member of the Krylov subspace familiy of methods is the conjugate
gradient (CG) method, of which a number of variants exist [243].
OpenFOAM offers a number of solvers based on the CG method and a multigrid solver (geometric-
algebraic multigrid (GAMG)). Furthermore, there is also a direct solver implemented for situations in
which the coefficient matrix A is a diagonal matrix.
3.1.2.3 Preconditioning
The convergence of iterative solution methods can generally be improved by the use of preconditioning.
Here a preconditioning matrix M−1 is multiplied from the left to the original equation system.
M−1 A x = M−1 b (3.37)
The improvement of convergence depends strongly on the choice of the preconditioning matrix. How-
ever, there is a trade-off between the extra cost associated with the preconditioner and the benefit.
The two extreme cases are a diagonal matrix being the preconditioner, e.g. in Jacobi preconditioning
M = diag(A) or in element-wise notation [13].
(
aii for i = j
mij = (3.38)
0 otherwise
– 91 –
This method of preconditioning adds little cost, however, the improvement in convergence is rather
poor. Thus, other methods are favoured.
The other extreme case of preconditioning would be to use the coefficient matrix as a preconditioner.
Then, (3.37) would immediately yield the solution to the linear system. The construction of the precon-
ditioner, however, would involve inverting the coefficient matrix.
The discussion of the two extreme scenarios indicates the requirements on a suitable preconditioner.
The preconditioning matrix M should approximate the coefficient matrix A in a way that the precondi-
tioned system (3.37) has the same solution as the original system (3.36) and the preconditioned coefficient
matrix M−1 A leads to better convergence of the iterative method.
A widely used class of preconditioners are based on an incomplete factorisation of the coefficient matrix
A. Equation (3.39) shows the incomplete LU decomposition. In the case of a symmetric positive definite
coefficient matrix, an incomplete Cholesky decomposition (3.40) is used. These incomplete factorisations
are the base for many preconditioning methods [242].
A = LU − R (3.39)
A = LL − R
T
(3.40)
OpenFOAM offers the choice of a diagonal preconditioner (Jacobi preconditioning) and precondition-
ers based on incomplete Cholesky and incomplete LU factorisation.
3.1.3 Solution algorithm

The analysis of the incompressible flow equations reveals two problems which need to be addressed. The
momentum equations are coupled by the pressure gradient, which appears in the source term. However,
there seems to be no equation for the pressure to solve for. Furthermore, the convective term of the
momentum equation is nonlinear in the velocity [71, 210, 285].
For three-dimensional flows the Navier-Stokes equations provide three transport equations for the
three velocity components. Additionally, the continuity equation provides a kinematic constraint on the
velocity.
The resulting flow equations, i.e. the momentum equations and the pressure equation, can be solved
simultaneously or in a segregated fashion [128]. For a coupled solution the system matrices of the
discretized equations need to be combined into a new common system matrix. The resulting equation
system is then solved by an appropriate solver.
With the segregated approach to resolve the pressure-velocity coupling solution algorithms such as
SIMPLE [211] or PISO [121] are employed. The segregated approach to resolve the pressure-velocity
coupling has found widespread use in CFD [7, 71, 128].
Besides the PISO algorithm for transient problems, OpenFOAM features the PIMPLE algorithm for
transient solvers. The PIMPLE algorithm is a merge of the PISO and SIMPLE algorithms. This allows
for larger time steps in transient simulations.
The two-phase Eulerian multiphase solver twoPhaseEulerFoam was initially based on a modified
two-phase PISO algorithm proposed by Weller [291], as cited in Rusche [238]. Since the release of
OpenFOAM-2.0 the solver is based the PIMPLE algorithm.
3.1.4 The MRF approach

In Section 4.3 a stirred vessel is simulated. These simulations were carried out using the multiple reference
frame (MRF) method, also referred to as frozen rotor approach. The main feature of the MRF method
is that the actual rotation of the impeller within the stirred tank is not resolved. Instead, the domain is
divided into an inner cylindrical region containing the rotating components and an outer zone.
For the inner zone, the governing equations are formulated in a rotating frame of reference, hence the
name of the method multiple reference frame. The derivation of the continuity and momentum equations
for a single-phase problem are shown in Section B.1. The derivation for multi-phase problems works
analoguously.
– 92 –
The main advantage of the MRF method is that there is no mesh motion involved. Resolving the
rotation of the impeller would require a rotation of the inner zone relative to the outer zone (sliding mesh
approach). Modifying the mesh during the simulation is costly in terms of computational effort [14].
Furthermore, the MRF method makes little demands on the solver implementing it. The implemen-
tation of the MRF method breaks down to the use of modified fluxed in the convective term and a source
term for the Coriolis forces in the momentum equation. In contrast, the sliding mesh approach requires
the inner and outer zones to be able to move relative to each other.
The major disadvantage of this method is a rather poor temporal resolution of the results since the
periodic variation caused by the moving impeller is neglected. This approach is used when only global flow
characteristics are of interest or to gain an initial flow estimate for a subsequent sliding mesh simulation
[14, 156].
– 93 –
CHAPTER 3. NUMERICAL SIMULATION 3.2. OPENFOAM
3.2 OpenFOAM: An open-source CFD code

3.2.1 A little introduction to OpenFOAM
OpenFOAM is an open source CFD framework based on its predecessor field operation and manipula-
tion (FOAM) [293]. By definition OpenFOAM is not strictly a CFD code6 . Weller et al. [293] originally
describe FOAM as a ‘field operation and manipulation (FOAM) C++ class library for continuum me-
chanics’ and conclude:
In essence, FOAM is a high-level language, a CCM [computational continuum mechan-

ics (CCM)] meta-language, that closely parallels the mathematical description of continuum
mechanics.
OpenFOAM was first released publicly7 as free and open source software under the GNU Public
Licence (GPL) in 2004 [206].
As FOAM and therefore also OpenFOAM implements the finite volume method, the framework
evolved in a CFD framework as the FVM is the method of choice for CFD. The developers of OpenFOAM
demonstrate the generality of OpenFOAM by providing also solvers for stress analysis, heat transfer
and electro magnetics. However, the features currently available are mainly focused on CFD, thus,
OpenFOAM is generally referred to as a CFD framework [170, 206].
Weller et al. [293] created a framework which provides data structures that closely resemble the
standard vector and tensor notation. This is achieved by exploiting many of the features on the object-
oriented programming (OOP) paradigm. This corresponds well with one of the basic principles observed
in open source software development by Eric S. Raymond:
Smart data structures and dumb code works a lot better than the other way around.
Weller et al. [293] give no special reason for choosing C++ as their implementation language. However,
they note especially the operator overloading feature8 of C++ ‘[. . . ] which is essential in order construct
an interface that resembles standard mathematical notation.’ [293].
3.2.2 Flow equations in OpenFOAM

This section provides a glance at the actual implementation of a flow solver. The syntax and the con-
cepts of OpenFOAM are without loss of generality demonstrated on a solver for transient incompressible
flow. With equation (2.6) we repeat the incompressible momentum equation. Listing 3.1 shows the
implementation of this equation in OpenFOAM and demonstrates the close resemblance of the top-level
code of OpenFOAM to the standard mathematical notation. We note that the pressure gradient term
is considered in a separate pressure equation and the term on the RHS of the Listing accounts for other
momentum sources.
∂u
+ ∇· (uu) = −∇p + ∇·τ (2.6)
∂t
6 E.g. Jasak and Weller [127] apply the FOAM C++ library to three example cases from the field of structural analysis
with linear elasticity.

7 http://www.openfoam.org/download/version1.0.php
8 Operator overloading means the user can define an operator, e.g. +, - or * for arbitrary data types. These operators
are initially only valid for some of the standard data types, i.e. + and - are only valid for numerical types such as int or
float. Stroustrup [268] – the inventor of C++ – notes that operator overloading is ‘a mere convenience’, however, ‘[. . . ]
the use of conventional operators is so firmly entrenched in people’s minds that their definition is almost mandatory.’
– 94 –
1 tmp<f v V e c t o r M a t r i x > UEqn

2 (
3 fvm : : ddt (U)
4 + fvm : : d i v ( phi , U)
5 + t u r b u l e n c e −>d i v D e v R e f f (U)
6 ==
7 f v O p t i o n s (U)
8 );
Listing 3.1: The momentum equation of the transient incompressible solver pimpleFoam.
The use of phi

After the local time derivative of the velocity field comes – in both Listing 3.1 and equation (2.6) – the
convective term. In contrast to the local time derivative, which features the velocity field and some kind
of temporal derivative, the convective term differs between the source code and the governing equation.
Examining this difference brings us to the question whether the two forms are equivalent.
?
∇·(uu) ⇔ fvm::div(phi, U)
| {z }
div(uu)
In the convection term of equation (3.16) the flux across the CV’s boundaries was introduced. In this
section we repeat the basic steps of discretization of the convective term.
Z I
∇·(uu) dV = (uu)·dS (3.41)
V ∂V
I X
(uu)·dS ≈ (uu)f ·Sf (3.42)
∂V f
X X
(uu)f ·Sf ≈ (uf uf )·Sf (3.43)
f f
A general rule of tensor calculus for arbitrary vectors a, b and c states
a ⊗ b·c = (ab) ·c = a(b·c) (3.44)
which yields
X X
(uf uf )·Sf = uf (uf ·Sf ) (3.45)
f f
X X
uf (uf ·Sf ) = uf φf (3.46)
f
| {z } f
φf
Thus, the discretized convective term of the momentum equation reduces to a sum of the momentum
fluxes and the velocity.
OpenFOAM features several types of fields. Typically in CFD variables are stored in the centroids
of the cells of the mesh. In OpenFOAM’s terms this kind of field is referred to as a volume field. In
case of a velocity the corresponding field is a volume vector field, or volVectorField in OpenFOAM’s
terms. The definition of a flux of some quantity only makes sense in conjunction with a control surface
(the boundary faces of a cell). Thus, a flux field in OpenFOAM stores its values at the centroids of the
faces of the mesh. This kind of field is referred to as a surfaceScalarField as the values are defined on
the faces of the cells and the flux is a scalar value.
The use of the field phi in the divergence terms of governing equations in OpenFOAM reflects the
fact, that after discretization flux values are inserted in the discretized equation system. The appendix
of the thesis of Kärrholm [154] elaborates on the reasons for the use of the phi field.
– 95 –
A note on stress
The stress tensor in equation (2.6) is an effective stress consisting of the viscous stress due to molecular
viscosity and the turbulent stresses due to averaging. Stresses are considered in the momenum equation
by the divergence of their deviator, since the trace of the stress tensor vanishes [295].
The term turbulence->divDevReff(U) is the divergence of the effective stresses, both viscous and
those introduced by the turbulence model in use9 . This term is handled by the generic turbulence
framework. The method divDevReff(U) is declared in the base class of all turbulence models. Each
implemented turbulence model must implement this method. The implementation follows the rules set
by the turbulence model. Thus, the top-level code – in this case the transient solver – can access the
relevant quantities provided by any turbulence model derived from the base class. This is an example
of OpenFOAM making use of the concept of polymorphism. Stroustrup [267] describes polymorphism as
follows:
[. . . ] providing a single interface to entities of different types. Virtual functions provide

dynamic (run-time) polymorphism through an interface provided by a base class. Overloaded
functions and templates provide static (compile-time) polymorphism.
3.2.3 Eulerian two-fluid modelling in OpenFOAM

As OpenFOAM is an open-source project which is under constant development, the implementation of
the two-phase Eulerian solver developed over the course of this work. The evolution of the solver can be
divided into two stages.
Initially, the Eulerian two-phase solver was released in the so-called phase-intensive formulation. At
a later point the two-phase Eulerian solver was rewritten in a fully conservative formulation10 .
3.2.3.1 Phase-intensive solver formulation
The two-phase Eulerian solver twoPhaseEulerFoam was first released in 2005 with OpenFOAM-1.211 .
We will now follow the most basic steps in the derivation of the phase-intensive formulation.
The reason for the phase-intensive formulation is the treatment of regions in which the volume fraction
field tends to zero (αq → 0). For a vanishing volume fraction field, the momentum equation (2.30) becomes
singular.
To circumvent the problems arising from a vanishing volume fraction field, the value of αq could be
limited, such that αq → δ with 0 < δ 1 [292]. Another approach is to factor out the volume fraction
field of the transport terms of equation (2.30) and solve the momentum equation directly [292].
Equation (2.30) is the momentum equation in conservation form. The momentum interaction terms
are combined into the term Mq,i to follow the notation in Weller [292].
∂αq ρq uq X X
+ ∇· (αq ρq uq uq ) − ∇· (αq ρq τq ) = Fq,i + Kpq,i (up − uq ) (2.30)
∂t i i
| {z }
Mq,i
9 In Section 2.2.3 it is demonstrated that the contribution due to the stresses can be expressed via the deviatoric part of
an effective stress tensor.

10 The attribute of being formulated fully conservative or being in conservation form refers to the formulation of the
momentum equation and other possible conservation equations. If on the LHS of the equation the conserved quantity (e.g.
momentum) appears in the derivatives, the equation is said to be in conservation form.
11 http://www.openfoam.org/download/version1.2.php
– 96 –
Next, we apply partial differentiation to the temporal and the spatial derivative. Partially differentiating
the local (time) derivative is straight forward. For the convective term the following relation for two
arbitrary vectors is applied: ∇·(vw) = (∇·v)w + (∇w)·v [89].
∂uq ∂αq ρq
αq ρq + uq + ∇· (αq ρq uq ) uq + (αq ρq uq ) ·∇uq − ∇· (αq ρq τq ) = Mq,i (3.47)
∂t ∂t
∂uq ∂αq ρq
αq ρq + + ∇· (αq ρq uq ) uq + (αq ρq uq ) ·∇uq − ∇· (αq ρq τq ) = Mq,i (3.48)
∂t ∂t
| {z }
∗
In the term denoted by (∗) we recognize the continuity equation (2.21), which needs to be fulfilled. Thus,
the (∗) denoted term equals zero.
∂αq ρq
+ ∇· (αq ρq uq ) = 0 (2.21)
∂t
∂uq
αq ρq + (αq ρq uq ) ·∇uq − ∇· (αq ρq τq ) = Mq,i (3.49)
∂t
Weller [292] notes that uq times the continuity equation is subtracted from (3.48). In this way a continuity
error introduced by non-ideally fulfilling continuity equation can be considered. Next, the diffusive term
is split into two terms by applying the product rule of differentiation.
∂uq
αq ρq + (αq ρq uq ) ·∇uq − αq ρq ∇·τq + ∇ (αq ρq ) ·τq = Mq,i (3.50)
∂t
Equation (3.50) is now divided by αq ρq
∂uq ∇ (αq ρq ) 1
+ uq ·∇uq − ∇·τq + ·τq = Mq,i (3.51)
∂t αq ρq αq ρq
With (3.51) we gained a phase-intensive momentum equation. This means that the volume fraction field
αq of the phase q was eliminated from the momentum equation. Weller [292] notes, that the fourth term
of the LHS of equation (3.51) does not diverge when the phase fraction approaches zero [238, 292].
The RHS of equation (3.51) is also divided by the volume fraction field. To ensure that no numerical
problems arise, the interaction terms subsumed under Mq,i are multiplied by the product of the phase
fractions αp αq to ensure good behaviour [238].
The multiplication of the momentum interaction terms with the product of the phase fractions also
helps in the treatment of phase inversion [238, 292]. This denotes a state in which the volume fraction
of the initially dispersed phase tends to unity, thus, becoming essentially the continuous phase. The
momentum interaction needs to tend to zero when the volume fraction of the respective phase tends to
either zero or one [238, 292].
Turbulence treatment
The older implementation of the two-phase Eulerian solver twoPhaseEulerFoam had a k- model for the
liquid phase hardcoded 12 . The influence of turbulence on the dispersed phase was modelled with Gosman’s
turbulent phase interaction model.
Interfacial momentum transfer

The twoPhaseEulerFoam solver up to version 2.2 offers a number of run-time selectable drag models.
However, there are no drag models specific to gas-liquid systems, such as Tomiyama, Ishii and others.
The interaction due to the lift force and virtual mass force are implemented with a constant coefficient,
which needs to be provided by the user in the case set-up.
12 In contrast to the run-time selectable turbulence framework of most other solvers, the k- model was implemented
directly in twoPhaseEulerFoam.
– 97 –
Extensions
The original phase-intensive two-phase Eulerian solver was extended to support more models for dispersed
gas-liquid systems. Turbulent dispersion models of Davidson [39] and de Bertodano [41] were added to
the solver. The catalogue of drag models was extended by some gas-liquid drag models (Tomiyama,
Ishii-Chawla).
The solver was extended to support run-time selectable lift models. The lift model with a constant
lift coefficient and the Tomiyama lift model were implemented in this frame. The turbulent interaction
model was extended to offer the choice between a laminar gas-phase and the models of Gosman and
Jacobsen. Furthermore, the Sato model for bubble induced turbulence was implemented.
3.2.3.2 Conservative solver formulation
With the release13 of OpenFOAM-2.3.1 the two-phase Eulerian solver was rewritten based on a conser-
vative formulation. The solver was also implemented to make stronger use of abstraction. Thus, the
current implementation of twoPhaseEulerFoam is far more general than the initial incarnation.
Since the twoPhaseEulerFoam in conservative formulation included models specifically for gas-liquid
systems, this solver requires no extension for the simulation of bubbly flow.
Turbulence treatment
With the release of OpenFOAM-2.314 a general modelling framework for turbulence models was intro-
duced. In the release notes the developers of OpenFOAM describe this framework as follows:
This new framework is very powerful and supports all of the turbulence modelling requirements
needed so far. It will be enhanced and extended in future OpenFOAM releases to include a wide
range of models and sub-models, with the expectation to replace the current dual hierarchies
of turbulence models, to aid code maintainability and sustainability.
The new turbulence modelling framework is universal for incompressible and compressible flow, as
well as single-phase and multi-phase flows. Among the newly available models are turbulence models
specific for multiphase problems. The new framework implements a per-phase treatment of turbulence,
i.e. each phase is assigned an individual turbulence model. This follows the per-phase modelling strategy
outlined in Section 2.2.3.1. In this context, treating a phase as laminar is achieved by assigning the
laminar turbulence model. By the time of writing, also a multi-phase mixture k- Reynolds averaged
simulation (RAS) model is available.
In Section 4.2 two multi-phase LES models have been used to revisit the investigation of the Deen
bubble column conducted with OpenFOAM-2.2’s phase-intensive formulation of twoPhaseEulerFoam.
The SmagorinskyZhang, with reference to Zhang et al. [304] is a Smagorinsky LES model with BIT
treatment following Sato and Sekoguchi [249], i.e. correcting the effective viscosity by an additional BIT
viscosity νBIT . The Niceno turbulence model, with reference to Ničeno et al. [201] is a one-equation LES
model. The BIT treatment is user-selectable to be either following Sato and Sekoguchi [249], or Pfleger
and Becker [215], which adds a production term for the SGS turbulent kinetic energy KSGS .
Interfacial momentum transfer
With the release of OpenFOAM-2.3, also the interfacial momentum transfer models of twoPhaseEuler-
Foam have been extended. Momentum exchange due to drag, lift, virtual mass and turbulent dispersion
are available.
13 http://www.openfoam.org/version2.3.1/
14 http://www.openfoam.org/version2.3.0/multiphase.php
– 98 –
3.2.4 Features of OpenFOAM

Open-source
OpenFOAM – just as any other open-source software – can be modified deep into its inner workings.
Thus, user-defined models are not limited by the application programming interface (API) and can take
full advantage of the inner machinery of the software. In fact, OpenFOAM was designed to provide just
that kind of capability, e.g. its very mathematical-like notation for top-level code.
Physical unit checking

One example of how closely OpenFOAM parallels the mathematical description of physical problems is
OpenFOAM’s built-in system to account for the physical units of variables. Essentially, there is a data
type that implements a unit system. The Système International d’Unités (SI) unit system is the default,
however, the unit system can also be based on the United States customary units (lb, ft, s, R, mol, A,
cd). The unit system used by OpenFOAM has to be a coherent system. Thus, a derived unit, such as
the unit for pressure, is the product of its base units with no other proportionality factor than unity [2].
In a coherent system derived units can be expressed by a product of all seven base units [1]. Thus, a
derived unit can be expressed by a list of the appropriate exponents of the base units.
The unit checking framework maps all mathematical operations to their effect on the physical units.
Thus, derived units are automatically assigned. If the units of, e.g. summands, do not match, then the
unit checking system issues an error message and ends the program. Weller et al. [293] write:
All seven base SI dimensions are stored, and all algebraic expressions implemented above this
level are dimensionally checked at execution. It is therefore impossible to execute a dimen-
sionally incorrect expression in FOAM.
The physical units are an integral part of the data types available in OpenFOAM. Thus, unit checking
happens always and automatically. This is especially important when modifying or writing new solvers
and libraries.
Parallelism
Due to open-source nature of OpenFOAM the deployment on larce-scale parallel clusters poses no licens-
ing issues whatsoever. It has been demonstrated that OpenFOAM can be used on large-scale clusters
(O (NProcesses ) = 104 − 105 ) [33, 221]. The actual scalability of a specific computing case, however, is
dependent among other factors on the solver used and on the properties of the mesh and the mesh
decomposition.
Freedom
OpenFOAM is released as open source software to the public under the terms of the GNU Public Licence
(GPL). As people may have varying interpretations of what the term open source actually means15 , the
licence under which a software is distributed gives a detailed, and sometimes quite legalese, definition of
what the publishers of a software originally intended. Open source software is distributed under a wide
range of licences16 .
However, regardless of the specific terms of the licence, from the user’s perspective open source software
grants a number of freedoms.
Freedom of charge The software is provided free of charge and free oy royalties.
15 The terms open source and free software are sometimes used synonymously. See https://opensource.org/osd for the
open source definition of the Open Source Initiative, or http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software for the Free
Software Foundation (FSF)’s definition of free software.
16 See https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical for a list of open source licences approved by the Open Source
Initiative.
– 99 –
Freedom to use The user is granted a perpetual, worldwide and non-exclusive right to use the software.
This freedom has several ramifications: the software can be used on any scale from a single work-
station to a massively parallel computing cluster. Furhtermore, the software can be used as long
as the user has access to a machine capable of running the software. The advent of hardware
virtualisation made this easier than ever, as it alleviates the need to keep legacy hardware up and
running. Eric S. Raymond expands on this point further by remarking, that open source software
enables the user to still use, and get support for, the software after the software’s vendor has gone
belly-up [68]. This is what Eric S. Raymond refers to as open source software being future proof.
Freedom to study and modify The user is allowed to study and modify the original software. The openness
of the software’s sources eliminates the need of reverse engineering.
Freedon to redistribute The user is free to redistribute the software in its original or modifed state. The
exact terms on how this redistribution may happen is one of points where the software licences for
open source software generally differ.
– 100 –
Chapter 4
Simulation of Bubbly Flow
Form your vision,

forge your key,
don’t proceed to in silence.
Stefan Hertrich
This chapter is dedicated to the simulation of bubbly flow. Two bubble columns
and an aerated stirred tank are studied.
The bubble column in general is well studied by simulation and experiment.

Therefore, a vast body of literature on the flow within bubble columns and the
simulation of such is available. As pneumatic flotation columns are essentially
bubble columns, simulating bubble columns is of importance in order to be able
to successfully simulate flotation columns. The flow within both bubble columns
investigated in this chapter is buoyancy driven due to the large density ratio
between air and water.
Additionally an aerated stirred tank has been studied, which is a workhorse in

the chemical and process industries too. A large body of literature available for
the stirred tank for validation as well. In this work the stirred tank serves as an
abstraction for a mechanical flotation cell.
4.1 Becker bubble column

The Becker bubble column is a partially aerated flat bubble column. This set-up is referred to as Becker
bubble column, or Becker case, due to the experimental part of an extensive study by Becker et al. [17]
on bubble columns [17, 265].
4.1.1 Geometry
A flat bubble column similar to the set-up used by Becker et al. [17] has been built to perform simple
validation experiments. However, the exact dimensions follow the set-up of Pfleger et al. [216].
The walls of the bubble column were made of transparent material to enable the application of optical
measurement methods. A bottom plate separates an air chamber from the bubble column above. Into
the bottom plate a small, sintered plate was fitted. Through this porous plate, which has a mean pore
diameter of 100 µm air enters the bubble column.
– 101 –
CHAPTER 4. SIMULATION OF BUBBLY FLOW 4.1. BECKER BUBBLE COLUMN
D
H
t
le
in
D
Winlet
Figure 4.1: Geometry of the centrally aerated bubble column. The coloured patch marks the gas inlet.
The dimensions can be found in Table 4.1.
W D H Winlet Dinlet
0.2 m 0.05 m 0.5 m 0.03 m 0.015 m
Table 4.1: The main dimensions of the Becker test case following Pfleger et al. [216].
– 102 –
4.1.2 Experiments
4.1.2.1 Set-up
The aerator of the bubble column is connected to the air supply of the lab via a pressure regulator and
a rotameter. The rotameter is calibrated using nitrogen at an inlet pressure of 4 bar. However, the flow
rate for other gases and other inlet pressures can be calculated [175]:
Q = f1 f2 Qcal (4.1)
with
r
pinlet
f1 = , (4.2)
pcal
r
ρair
f2 = . (4.3)
ρN2
Equation (4.1) gives the rated flow rate for gas in use. The rotameter features a dial reaching from
0 % to 100 %. The flow rate can be adjusted by the integrated control valve of the rotameter. If the float
indicates a flow rate of 50 %, then the actual flow rate is 50 % of the rated flow rate.
The inlet velocity is calculated by dividing the inlet flow rate by the area of the sparger plate:
Q
uinlet = . (4.4)
Ainlet
pinlet
Figure 4.2: Air supply of the bubble column.
4.1.2.2 Image processing
The bubble column experiment was filmed with a digital camcorder. The video was then broken up into
single frames. These images were then processed with MATLAB. Figure 4.3.(b) shows a frame of the
video taken during the experiment. Figure 4.3.(a) shows a blank image. This blank image is subtracted
from all frames of the video. The result is shown in Figure 4.3.(c). This image is reduced to 3 colours
(black, white and grey). Figure 4.3.(d) shows the final resulting image.
– 103 –
(a) Blank image (b) Snapshot (c) Subtracted image (d) Reduced image
Figure 4.3: The different steps of image processing.
4.1.2.3 Data extraction
The reduced image, as shown in Figure 4.3.(d) is the basis for the video analysis to determine the lateral
position of the bubble plume. This analysis is based on Puttinger et al. [223].
Figure 4.4.(a) shows the location at which the profile of the colour values of the reduced image is
determined. At this height the colour values of 11 pixels in vertical direction are averaged. Eq. 4.5 shows
the definition of this averaging process. There, c̄vi denotes the vertically averaged colour values and cij
denotes the colour values of the reduced image (e.g. Figure 4.3.(d)). The possible values of cij are 0,
1 or 2. Each number representing one of the remaining colours (black, grey or white). The averaging
is necessary to make the fitting procedure more robust. In total the colour profile is extracted at three
different heights.
h2
1 X
c̄vi = cij (4.5)
Navg
j=h1
Navg = h2 − h1 + 1 (4.6)
Figure 4.4.(b) shows the gained profile of the vertically averaged colour value as well as a fitted
Gaussian bell curve. Eq. 4.7 shows the definition of the Gaussian bell curve. This definition differs
from the definition of the Gaussian distribution in the factor A. This factor is needed to circumvent the
property of the normal distribution that the integral over the distribution is equal to one.
A (x−µ)2
f (x) = √ e− 2σ2 (4.7)
σ 2π
The parameter µ, the mean value, of the Gaussian bell curve serves as identified lateral coordinate of
the bubble plume center. Conducting the fitting of the bell curve for every frame of the video yields in
conjunction with the known frame rate of the video a time series of the radial coordinate of the bubble
plume. Figure 4.5 shows the curves of the identified bubble plume center at different heights.
– 104 –
2
Average profile
Fitted Gauss curve
1.5
0.5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
x in pixel
(a) Location of the profile with(b) Lateral profile of the vertically averaged reduced colour profile with
respect to the reduced image fitted Gauss curve.
Figure 4.4: Processing the colour value profile at z ≈ 0.25 m.
1,000
z = 0.25 m
Identified plume center in pixel
z = 0.35 m
800
600
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time in s
Figure 4.5: Identified center of the bubble plume (parameter µ in equation (4.7)) for full inflow at two
different heights.
– 105 –
4.1.3 Numerical simulations

4.1.3.1 Modelling
There are two strategies to model the outlet of a bubble column. Each has its strengths and limitations
[125]:
Closed domain The upper boundary of the domain is at the liquid level. Thus, the liquid surface is
modelled as rigid frictionless wall for the liquid phase and as an outlet for the gas phase.
Open domain The computational domain includes the liquid surface. Thus, the upper boundary serves
as pure outlet. This model configuration is referred to as opening boundary condition in [305]. This
approach leads to phase inversion, a sitatuion at which the volume fraction of the continuous phase
vanishes in some regions of the domain. This poses higher demands on the well-posedness of the
used models and capabilities of the numerical solver [125].
Closed domain Open Domain
Figure 4.6: Modelling strategies for the outlet of bubble columns. The red dashed line indicates the
boundaries of the simulation domain.
4.1.3.2 Data extraction

The same fitting process was applied on the simulation data as on the experimental data, which is
described in Section 4.1.2.3. The raw data for the fitting process was gained from sampling points
located on a line which traverses the domain at h = 0.35 m.
4.1.4 Results
Figure 4.8 shows the fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the time series of the identified parameters from
the curve fitting process. The parameter µ denotes the lateral position of the bubble plume, and the
parameter σ is proportional to its width. The frequency computed from the parameter µ is the lateral
oscillation frequency of the bubble plume. The frequency associated with the parameter σ indicates a
periodic expansion of the bubble plume.
In the data of the experiments (Figure 4.8.(a)) only one dominant frequency is visible. Furthermore,
the frequency curve computed from the time series of the bubble plume’s width σ shows no significant
peak. In the data of the simulations (Figure 4.8.(b)), however, there are two dominant frequencies in
both frequency curves.
Figure 4.9 shows the comparison of the plume oscillation frequencies identified from the video data
of the experiment and the data extracted from the simulations.
– 106 –
(a) Still image of the experiment. (b) Volume fraction field of the dispersed phase at the
midplane of the bubble column.
Figure 4.7: Snapshots of the experiment and the simulation.
40
µ µ
σ σ
0.02
30
20
0.01
10
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Frequency in Hz Frequency in Hz
(a) Experiment (b) Simulation
Figure 4.8: FFT of the identified parameters µ and σ of equation (4.7) for full inflow at z ≈ 0.35 m.
– 107 –
0.4
Identified frequency in Hz
0.3
0.2
0.1 Experiment
Simulation; µ
Simulation; σ
0
20 40 60 80 100
Inflow percentage
Figure 4.9: Identified bubble plume oscillation frequencies from experimental and simulation data.
– 108 –
CHAPTER 4. SIMULATION OF BUBBLY FLOW 4.2. DEEN BUBBLE COLUMN
4.2 Deen bubble column

4.2.1 Motivation
In order to validate the two-phase solver a bubble column well known in scientific literature has been
studied. This bubble column was studied by Deen [42, 44] by means of simulation and measurement.
4.2.2 Simulation set-up

4.2.2.1 Geometry
The setup of the Deen bubble column follows the diagram shown in Figure 4.1. It has a square cross-
section with W = D = 0.15 m. In the center of the bottom face of the bubble column is a square inlet
area of Ain = 0.03 × 0.03 m. The bubble column is filled with water to a level of 0.45 m. Table 4.2 lists
the geometric dimensions.
If the water surface is modelled with a frictionless wall the simulation domain has a height of 0.45 m.
If the water surface is included into the simulation the domain has to be larger to include a part of the
air volume above the water surface.
W =D H Winlet = Dinlet
0.15 m 0.45 m 0.03 m
Table 4.2: The main dimensions of the Deen bubble column.
4.2.2.2 Simulation set-up
A superficial gas velocity of ug,sup = 4.9 × 10−3 m/s. was reported by Deen [44]. The gas velocity at the
inlet boundary follows from equation (4.8):
ug,sup W D
ug,in = . (4.8)
αin Ain
Deen and subsequent authors compared mean and fluctuating flow quantities obtained from their
simulations with measured data. Equations (4.9) and (4.10) show the definition of the mean value and
the mean squared fluctuations of the velocity of the phase q [44]. The index n denotes the current
time step and n0 denotes the time step when averaging was started. The derivation of equations (4.9)
and (4.10) is shown in Section B.3.4.
n − n0 − 1 1
uq,n = uq,n−1 + uq,n (4.9)
n − n0 n − n0
n − n0 − 1 0 2 1 2
02
uq,n = uq,n−1 + (uq,n − uq,n ) (4.10)
n − n0 n − n0
4.2.2.3 Investigated topics
With the Deen bubble column the influence of various models for interfacial momentum transfer (drag,
lift, etc.) was studied [42, 44]. Also a comparison between the k- turbulence model and the Smagorinsky
LES turbulence model was conducted.
In Dhotre et al. [52] an LES model with a dynamic SGS model was applied to the Deen bubble
column. Ničeno et al. [201] applied a one-equation LES turbulence model.
– 109 –
4.2.3 Results
4.2.3.1 Influence of turbulence modelling
Figure 4.10 shows the axial liquid velocity at a selected point within the bubble column at the height
z ≈ 0.25 m. The LES model results in a more realistic dynamic flow behaviour than the k- model, which
is consistent with Deen [44]. Figure 4.11 shows two snapshots of the simulation.
k-
0.2 LES
Axial liquid velocity Uz,water
−0.2
−0.4
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Time in s
Figure 4.10: Time history of the axial liquid velocity near the wall at z ≈ 0.25 m.
4.2.3.2 Influence of interfacial momentum transfer models

To investigate the influence of the different terms in interfacial momentum transfer four simulation cases
of the Deen bubble column have been set up. Momentum transfer between the phases can be caused by
drag and lift forces on the DPE and the virtual mass force.
Table 4.3 shows the four cases that were simulated in order to determine the influence of the interfacial
momentum transfer terms. Table 4.4 lists the actual models.
Figure 4.12 shows the profiles of different flow properties and compares them with available measure-
ment data. The findings are in accordance with the findings in Deen et al. [42] to some extent. The two
cases considering drag and lift forces yield very similar results. The two cases neglecting the lift force
differ from the other cases as well as from each other.
When the lift force is not considered in the simulation, the profiles of the flow quantities show a
distinct peak in the center of the bubble column. In contrast to the results from [42], the case considering
only the drag force shows a less pronounced peak in the profiles.
However the cases 1 and 2 show the best accordance with the measurement data. This finding is
consistent with Deen et al. [42].
Figure 4.13 shows the iso-volume of α ≥ 0.04 and liquid velocity vectors. The Figures 4.13.(a) and
4.13.(b) show snapshots from the same case at different times. This demonstrates the dynamic nature
of the flow inside the bubble column. Therefore, the flow profiles in Figure 4.12 are taken from averaged
quantities. The simulation was initialized to t = 20 s and then continued to t = 160 s. In Deen et al. [42]
the results were also averaged over the last 140 s of the simulation.
Figure 4.13.(c) shows a snaphot of Case 4, which consideres only the drag force. There the gas phase
is much less dispersed. The bubble plume is much more compact than in Case 1 (4.13.(a) and 4.13.(b)).
This finding is consistent with Deen et al. [42].
– 110 –
(a) RANS, k- model (b) LES, Smagorinsky model
Figure 4.11: Iso-volume α ≥ 0.04 and liquid velocity vectors of the diagonal plane.
Drag Lift Virtual mass

Case 1 x x x
Case 2 x x
Case 3 x x
Case 4 x
Table 4.3: The considered interfacial momentum transfer terms.
– 111 –
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 PIV

(a) Legend
0.8
1.0
U1Mean in m/s
U2Mean in m/s
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/W x/W
(b) Axial gas velocity (c) Axial liquid velocity
0.2 0.2
k in m2 /s2
alpha in 1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0 0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/W x/W
(d) Gas volume fraction (e) Turbulent kinetic energy
0.6 0.2
U20 x in m/s
U20 z in m/s
0.4 0.1
0.2 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/W x/W
(f) Axial velocity fluctuation (g) Lateral velocity fluctuation
Figure 4.12: Influence of interfacial momentum transfer models. Flow quantity profiles at z = 0.25 m.
Comparison of simulation results with measured data from [42, 44]. The labels of the ordinates of the
presented plots follow the naming convention of the two-phase Eulerian solver of OpenFOAM in the
phase-intensive formulation.
– 112 –
(a) Case 1: t = 155 s (b) Case 1: t = 160 s (c) Case 4: t = 160 s
Figure 4.13: Iso-volume α ≥ 0.04 and liquid velocity vectors of the diagonal plane.
4.2.3.3 Influence of turbulence modifications

This section studies the influence of Sato’s model for bubble induced turbulence (BIT) and the dynamic
Smagorinsky model. The dynamic Smagorinsky model computes the Smagorinsky model constant CS
from the velocity and the strain rate in a way proposed by Germano et al. [87] and Lilly [167]. Thus, the
need to choose an arbitrary value for CS is circumvented.
Figure 4.14 shows the comparison of the three simulation cases with measured data. The addition of
the BIT model has less influence on the results compared to the dynamic Smagorinsky model. Especially
the velocities show a better agreement to the measured values when the dynamic Smagorinsky model is
included.
Model
Drag Ishii-Zuber
Lift Constant Coefficient CL = 0.5
Virtual mass Constant Coefficient CV M = 0.5
Turbulent interaction Jakobsen
BIT model Sato Cµ,BIT = 0.6
LES model Liquid-phase
SGS model Smagorinsky CS = 0.1
Table 4.4: Summary of the applied models for the simulations presented in Figure 4.14.
4.2.3.4 Influence of turbulence modifications, revisited

The influence of turbulence modifications of LES models was studied again with an updated version of
OpenFOAM1 . The simulation results presented so far, have been gained by using an extended version of
1 See Section 3.2.3 for a discussion on the phase-intensive formulation of the two-phase Eulerian solver used up to
OpenFOAM-2.2.x and the conservative formulation introduced with OpenFOAM-2.3.x.
– 113 –
case 1 case 1 + BIT case 1 + dyn. Smag. PIV

(a) Legend
0.2
0.4
U1Mean in m/s
U2Mean in m/s
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0 −0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/W x/W
· 10−2
0.06 4.00
3.00
0.04
k in m2 /s2
alpha in 1
2.00
0.02
1.00
0.00 0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/W x/W
0.15
0.2
0.10
U20 x in m/s
U20 z in m/s
0.1
0.05
0.0 0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/W x/W
Figure 4.14: Influence of turbulence modifications. Flow quantity profiles at z = 0.25 m. Comparison of
simulation results with measured data from [42, 44].
– 114 –
the twoPhaseEulerFoam solver provided by OpenFOAM-2.2.x. The simulations presented in this section
have been gained by an updated version of twoPhaseEulerFoam, using OpenFOAM-2.3.x.
The simulations were started from trivial initial conditions and initially run for a simulated time of
t = 100 s. The simulations were then continued to a simulated time of t = 400 s. During this period the
flow quantities were averaged, to obtain results for post-processing. This procedure is following Ničeno
et al. [201].
LES model BIT model

Case 1 One equation model Sato Cµ,BIT = 0.6
Case 2 One equation model Production term
Case 3 Smagorinsky Sato Cµ,BIT = 0.6
Table 4.5: Summary of the applied models for the simulations presented in Figure 4.15.
The comparison of Figures 4.14 and 4.15 shows, that the axial gas phase velocity is less overpredicted
by the new solver. The one-equation LES models underpredict the axial liquid velocity, a finding that is
consistent with Ničeno et al. [201]. The predicted velocity fluctuations are of similar accuracy, also the
profiles of the turbulent kinetic energy match quite well.
– 115 –
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 PIV

(a) Legend
0.4 0.2
U1Mean in m/s
U2Mean in m/s
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0 −0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/W x/W
0.05 0.03
0.04
0.02
k in m2 /s2
alpha in 1
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/W x/W
0.20
0.10
U20 x in m/s
U20 z in m/s
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/W x/W
Figure 4.15: Influence of turbulence modifications. Flow quantity profiles at z = 0.25 m. Comparison of
simulation results with measured data from [42, 44].
– 116 –
CHAPTER 4. SIMULATION OF BUBBLY FLOW 4.3. STIRRED TANK
4.3 Stirred tank

4.3.1 Motivation
Mechanical flotation cells can be seen as the geometrically complex cousin of the stirred tank. Stirred
tanks are also among the work-horses of the chemical and processing industry. Thus, we will validate our
simulations with published results from literature.
4.3.2 Geometry
The study of the stirred tank is limited to a rather generic geometry. We focus on a cylindrical stirred
tank with a Rushton impeller. The Rushton impeller is a flat-bladed impeller with six rotor blades. This
rotor geometry is named after Rushton et al. [240] – one of the first researchers to conduct an entensive
study on the power requirements of an impeller in mixing applications [239].
Figure 4.16 shows the schematic representation of a stirred tank with a Rushton impeller. The
geometries investigated in a great number of publications can be described by the parametric sketch in
Figure 4.16. This leads to the impression that the baffled stirred tank with a Rushton impeller is a
standard geometry to some degree.
A large number of authors state all geometric parameters relative to the tank’s diameter T or derived
dimensions. Thus, a stirred tank can be described by the diameter and a number of dimensionless
parameters. Table 4.6 list the geometrical parameters of configurations used by the author.
T
w
b
a
d
H
C
D
Figure 4.16: The schematic configuration of the stirred tank with the relevant geometric parameters.
Case T H/T C/T w/T D/T d/D a/D h/D b/D
Deglon and Meyer [46] 0.14 m 1 1/3 1/10 1/3 3/4 1/4 1/5 1/5
Deen [43, 44] 0.222 m 1 1/2 1/10 1/3 3/4 1/4 1/4 1/5
Koh and Schwarz [143] 0.195 m 1 1/3 1/10 1/3 3/4 1/3 1/5 3/20
Table 4.6: The investigated configurations of the stirred tank.
– 117 –
4.3.3 Mesh generation

The parametric mesh for all stirred tank simulations was generated with OpenFOAM’s own meshing
tool blockMesh, which is a tool that creates block-structured hexahedral meshes2 . blockMesh provides a
simple mean to create the geometry and the mesh in a single step from a text configuration file [206].
OpenFOAM’s basic meshing tool blockMesh merely creates structured hex-meshes of an arbitrary
number of hexahedral blocks. Each block is meshed individually and the resulting meshes are subsequently
merged. Figure 4.17 shows such a block. All information needed by blockMesh needs to be provided in a
single text file, the blockMeshDict. This file contains a list of vertices, which are used to define the blocks
and the patches.
7 2 →
6
% %
7 6
3 → ↑
4 ↑
5 10
11
↑
↑
3 9 2
8 1 →
z %
%
4 5
y
x 0 →
0 1
Figure 4.17: A single generic block
To create a mesh of a complex geometry, this geometry has to be divided into individual hexagonal
blocks. Internal structures, such as rotor and baffles, can be modelled either by resolving them with
blocks or by modelling them as infinitely thin structures.
For simplicity of mesh generation all internal structures are assumed to be infinitely thin. Thus, these
internal structures are easily created by not connecting the appropriate, neighbouring blocks. Figure 4.18
is exemplary for this approach.
blockMesh automatically connects the meshes of blocks, which share a common face. Thus, internal
structures can be created by using a block-topology, in which the blocks neighbouring such an internal
structure do not share a common face. This can be achieved by using collocated, but separate points. If
δ is zero in Figure 4.18 the points A1 and A01 are at the same geometrical location. Since A1 and A01 are
different points, the block containing A1 and the block A01 will not be connected.
Figure 4.19 demonstrates the application of the principle shown in Figure 4.18 on the rotor geometry.
In Figure 4.19.(a) a non-zero separation δ was chosen to demonstrate the approach. In Figure 4.19.(b)
the separation δ is zero, thus, the rotor with infinitely thin structures is created.
Figures 4.20 and 4.21 show how the geometry of the stirred tank was decomposed into hexahedral
blocks. blockMesh allows for the blocks to feature curved faces, thus cylinder segments as indicated by
the grey areas in Figure 4.20 are perfectly valid blocks. In total the block decomposition of the stirred
tank consists of 459 single blocks.
Splitting the geometry in block in order to mesh the individual blocks with blockMesh seems a rather
peculiar approach. However, with commercial meshing tools the user follows a similar approach bottom-
up3 , or the mesher offers a feature to perform such a decomposition top-down4 . In both cases, this helps
the mesher to generate high quality meshes.
2 OpenFOAM supports unstructured meshes of arbitrarily shaped cells. Thus, the block-structured mesh of blockMesh
is converted into OpenFOAM’s unstructured mesh format [170].

3 E.g. with Gambit [72].
4 As it is the case with ICEM CFD [8].
– 118 –
δ
A0 A1 A01 A2
B0 B1 B2
Figure 4.18: The generation of infinitely thin internal structures. By defining two points at location A1 ,
unconnected blocks are generated. As δ is negligibly small, the resulting baffle is infinitely thin.
(a) Non-collapsed points (b) Collapsed points
Figure 4.19: A demonstration of how the rotor geometry is generated as infinitely thin structure.
– 119 –
In Figure 4.20 the decomposition in angular direction is shown. The decomposition in radial direction
is simplifies for clarity. The geometry can be divided into two halves, below and above the rotor disc
plane. Figure 4.20.(a) shows the decomposition of the lower part. In Figure 4.20.(b) the decomposition
of the upper part is shown. The circle in center marked with the grey checkerboard pattern is the room
taken up by the rotor shaft, which is not meshed. This is the primary reason for having two slightly
different decompositions. The decompositions, however, must match in regions where the blocks are to
be connected. Thus, the only difference in decomposition topology is allowed in the region separated by
the rotor disc.
The geometric domain was divided into 12 segments in angular direction. This allows the parametric
mesh, that the number of stator baffles and rotor paddles can be independently chosen to be any number
that is an integer divisor of 12, i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 or 12.
The labels in Figure 4.20 refer to a naming scheme used to denominate the vertices used to define
the individual blocks. The first character (a letter) indicates the radial position. The keys for the radial
coordinates are shown in Figure 4.21. The second part of label (a number) denotes the angular position, as
shown in Figure 4.20. The last part of the label (the letter "h" followed by a continuous number) indicates
the axial coordinate as shown in Figure 4.21. The letter "h" within the label carries no information and
serves as a separator, allowing to distinguish the numerical coordinates for the angular and axial position.
Alternatively, letters could have been used to indicate the axial position similar to the radial coordinate.
These labels allowed for the automated generation of the blockMeshDict file by a Python5 script. This
script computes all necessary internal dimensions, such as the coordinates of the vertices, from a small
number of global dimensions, such as the tank’s diameter and height, provided by the user. With this
automated approach, geometric variations of the geometry can swiftly be meshed and investigated.
Defining blocks is done by looping over the axial and angular coordinates. Thus, the body of the
loop contains the definition of one layer of a slice of the geometry. However, special cases need to be
considered, e.g. are the blocks below or above the rotor plane, see Figure 4.20. Another special case is
the introduction of the internal structures, i.e. the rotor and the stator baffles. Defining the boundaries
is done in a similar fashion.
Tables 4.6 and 5.1 list the different configurations of stirred tanks investigated in the course of this
work. Although studying the stirred tank was not the primary objective of this work, this case provides
a well defined, extensively documented test case. In total four different configurations were studied for
validation purposes, as the respective authors used slightly different configurations of the otherwise quite
standardized stirred tank. Even for the low number of four investigated configurations a parametric mesh
comes in handy, as creating the mesh for each additional geometric variation requires little extra work.
Figure 4.21 shows the axial and radial decomposition in detail. Marked by the blue lines are the tank’s
outline, the stator baffles and the rotor. The thin dashed lines indicate the axial and radial coordinates.
The green rectangle marks the cylindrical rotor zone. For the MRF approach, used in all simulations
of the stirred tanks, the domain needs to be split into a stationary and a rotating zone. The rotating
zone needs to be rotationally symmetric, with its defining axis being coaxially aligned with the axis of
rotation.
From the perspective of mesh generation, the same requirements are in place for using the sliding
mesh technique. In this case, the stationary and the rotating parts of the domains are actually split,
i.e. there is a pair of boundary patches between these two parts. With the sliding mesh technique, the
rotating zone actually moves relative to the stationary domain. In contrast, with the MRF approach,
the two zones remain connected and stationary. However, the governing equations are solved in different
frames of reference, see Section B.1 for a more detailled discussion of the MRF approach.
5 Python is an interpreted, high-level programming language widely available on all commonly used platforms. See
https://www.python.org/
– 120 –
a3h2
a2h2
a1h2
b0h2
b0h2 a0h2
(a) Below the rotor plane (b) Above the rotor plane
Figure 4.20: Angular and (simplified) radial block decomposition of the stirred tank geometry.
s f e d c b a
h6
h5
h4
h3
h2
h1
h0
n f e d c b a
m
Figure 4.21: Radial and axial block decomposition of the stirred tank geometry.
– 121 –
Figure 4.22: The surface mesh of the rotating zone (in white) surrounding the rotor (blue) and a section
of the stator wall (grey).
4.3.4 Single-phase validation

4.3.4.1 Power draw
The power drawn by an impeller is an important quantity for mixing equipment. Thus, the power drawn
by impellers in a stirred tank has been extensively studied. In order to describe the power draw of a
stirred tank we define two dimensionless groups: the rotor Reynolds number ReR and the power number
NP .
The power of a mixing impeller is proportial to the rotational speed and the torque exerted by form
drag and viscous friction of the fluid [56]. In Kraume [147] the power number is referred to as Newton
number.
nR D 2
ReR = (4.11)
ν
PR = 2π nR MR (4.12)
PR
NP = (4.13)
ρ n3R D5
An impeller can be characterised by its power number over the impeller Reynolds number [16]. In the
laminar regime the power number of a Rushton impeller is inversely proportial to the Reynolds number,
whereas in the turbulent regime the power number becomes fairly constant.
In literature analytic relations between the power number and the impeller Reynolds number for
the laminar and turbulent regime can be found [56, 147]. In Figure 4.23 these relations are plotted as
asymptotes.
k1
NP,laminar = (4.14)
ReR
NP,turbulent = NP0 (4.15)
Some vendors of mixing impellers list the power number in the turbulent regime in the product
specifications of an impeller [81].
The power number over Reynolds number relation has been investigated by numerical simulations.
Simulations have been set up for the laminar regime and the turbulent regime. Mesh dependence was
studied by using four different computational grids with increasing fineness. Table 4.7 lists the approxi-
mate number of cells of the meshes.
– 122 –
The power numbers in the laminar regime yielded from the coarsest grid (Mesh 1) and the second
finest grid (Mesh 3) lie within 5 % for all five laminar cases. Thus, grid independence is nearly achieved.
The value for the turbulent power number reported by [16, 46, 147] is 5 respectively 6.07. On the
homepage of an impeller producer a value of 5.75 is reported for a Rushton turbine [81]. The values of
the turbulent power number gained from the simulation results are in the range between 5.24 and 5.35
for all meshes and all cases. The turbulent power numbers lie within 2 % for all cases and meshes.
In Deglon and Meyer [46] the author reports that the simulation underpredicts the limit reported by
Rushton by 10 %. The author associates the difference between the computed power number and the
reported power number with simplifications made during the modelling of the geometry. In both this
work as well as in [46] the impeller blades and the baffles are infinitely thin walls. Also the impeller disc
is infinitely thin. Rutherford et al. [241] reported an influence of the impeller blade and disc thickness
on the power number (as cited in [46]). The power number increases as the blade thickness is reduced
[241] (as cited in Siwale [261]).
Mesh No. 1 2 3 4
No. of cells 126 k 265 k 720 k 1.89 M
Table 4.7: The approximate cell numbers of the investigated grids.
103
Mesh 1
Mesh 2
Mesh 3
Mesh 4
Asymptotes
Rushton data
102
NP
101
100 −1
10 100 101 102 103 104 105
Re
Figure 4.23: The power number over the impeller Reynolds number for laminar and turbulent cases.
In the laminar region the power number is proportial to 70/Re [147]. In the turbulent region the power
number is fairly constant. The two dashed lines are at 5 and 6.07. These limits were reported in [46]
respectively in [16, 147]. The bold black line is an interpolation of measurement data from Rushton et al.
[240] (as reported by Deglon and Meyer [46]).
– 123 –
4.3.4.2 Velocity profiles

The velocity profiles along a vertical line next to the tip of an impeller blade were extracted from the
simulation results. Figure 4.24 shows the normalized profiles of radial and tangential velocity. These
velocity profiles are normalised with the impeller tip velocity utip (4.16). In the turbulent regime the
velocity profiles are independent of the impeller Reynolds number which covers the range between 12800
and 52000.
The independence of the normalized velocity profiles in the turbulent regime was reported, among
others, by Wu and Patterson [298].
utip = Rtip ω (4.16)
0.6 0.6
Re = 12785 Re = 12785
Re = 25983 Re = 25983
0.5 Re = 38768 0.5 Re = 38768
Re = 51966 Re = 51966
z/H
z/H
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Ux /utip Uy /utip
(a) Radial velocity (b) Tangential velocity
Figure 4.24: Normalized velocity profiles at r/T = 0.185 in the x − z plane.
0.6 0.6
Re = 12785 Re = 12785
Re = 25983 Re = 25983
0.5 0.5 Re = 38768
Re = 38768
Re = 51966 Re = 51966
z/H
z/H
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 −5 · 10−2 0 5 · 10−2 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Ux /utip Uy /utip
Figure 4.25: Normalized velocity profiles at r/T = 0.285 in the x − z plane.
Many CFD textbooks recommend to aim for grid independent results. Grid independence is achieved
when refining the grid does not change the accuracy of the solution [7]. Figure 4.27 shows the profiles of
radial and tangential velocity of the simulation case at Re = 25983 at two lines in the 45◦ plane. Only
the values of the solution with the coarsest grid deviates noticeably from the two profiles of the finer
simulations.
Wu and Patterson [298] published velocity profiles along vertical lines at a plane that is rotated 45◦
from the baffle planes. Figure 4.28 shows the simulation domain with its symmetry plane in green and
– 124 –
0.6 0.6
Re = 12785 Re = 12785
Re = 25983 Re = 25983
0.5 Re = 38768 0.5 Re = 38768
Re = 51966 Re = 51966
z/H
z/H
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

k/u2tip k/u2tip
(a) Line 1: r/T = 0.185 (b) Line 2: r/T = 0.285
Figure 4.26: Normalized profiles of turbulent kinetic energy at two sampling lines in the x − z plane.
2 Mesh 1 2 Line 1
Mesh 3 Line 2
Mesh 4
1 1
2 z/w
2 z/w
0 0
−1 −1
−2 −2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

urad /utip utan /utip
Figure 4.27: Normalized velocity profiles at r/T = 0.185 (Line 1) and r/T = 0.285 (Line 2) in the 45◦
plane. The different symbols represent different grids and the different colours represent the different
sample lines. The z coordinate is measured from the plane of the impeller disc. Thus, the edges of the
rotor blades are located at 2 z/w = ±1.
– 125 –
the 45◦ planes in blue and red. On the right of Figure 4.28 the actual domain, when the rotor is moving is
depicted. If one thinks of a long-time exposed image of the top view of the stirred tank, the fast moving
impeller blades would appear blurry.
Thus, the 45◦ planes of the actual stirred tank are also symmetry planes in a time-averaged sense.
This demonstrates the a major shortcoming of the MRF approach. As the rotor is fixed in space and
time, the 45◦ plane and the 135◦ plane will show different picture. The 45◦ plane is slightly behind the
impeller blade and the 135◦ plane is slightly ahead of the impeller blade.
Thus, Figure 4.29 contains the profiles of the tangential velocity of the 45◦ plane and the 135◦ plane
to demonstrate the different results. The radial velocity shows less deviation.
Figure 4.28: The 45◦ planes (red and blue) and the symmetry planes (green) of the domain. Left: the
MRF simulation domain. Right: the actual domain. The grey area is the area occupied by the impeller
blades when the impeller is revolving.
Figure 4.29 shows the velocity profiles at two sample lines. Besides the profiles of the 45◦ plane, the
tangential velocity at the 135◦ plane is depicted. The radial velocity profiles in the 45◦ and the 135◦
planes exhibit less variation than the tangential velocity profiles.
Figure 4.29 compares the simulation results with laser Doppler anemometry (LDA) measurement
data of Wu and Patterson [298]. Additionally, also simulation results of Engelbrecht [67] are included.
The profiles of the radial velocity coincide well in all cases. The tangential velocity in the 45◦ plane is
overpredicted, whereas it is underpredicted in the 135◦ plane. The axial velocity profiles agree reasonably.
It can be concluded that the MRF approach provides a simulation method that is reasonably accurate
and has several advantages. This method is considered computationally cheaper than simulations that
use a sliding mesh to actually account for the impeller rotation.
4.3.5 Two-phase validation

4.3.5.1 Aeration
The extension of the simulation from single-phase to two-phases poses the question of how to model the
aerator. In this work two approaches were followed.
Create a new boundary

One option to model aeration is to create an additional boundary. If the aerator is located at the very
bottom of the tank, little modifications to the mesh are necessary. A set of faces on the bottom boundary
can be removed from the bottom patch to form a new inlet boundary.
However, if the aerator is located somewhere between the bottom of the vessel and the rotor, then
a certain number of cells need to be removed from the mesh to form a new boundary. Such an interior
aerator may be a porous disk located in the center of the tank, or it may also be a circular, porous or
perforated duct.
Due to the way the mesh is created, all cells sufficiently far from the tank’s axis of symmetry are
circularly aligned. Thus, removing a set of cells approximating a disk or an annulus is easily achieved.
– 126 –
Simulation, line 1 Wu Patterson, line 1 Engelbrecht, line 1
Simulation, line 2 Wu Patterson, line 2

(a) Legend
2 2
1 1
2 z/w
2 z/w
0 0
−1 −1
−2 −2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

urad /utip utan /utip
(b) Radial velocity in the 45◦ plane (c) Tangential velocity in the 45◦ plane
2 2
1 1
2 z/w
2 z/w
0 0
−1 −1
−2 −2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2

utan /utip uaxial /utip
(d) Tangential velocity in the 135◦ plane (e) Axial velocity in the 45◦ plane
Figure 4.29: Normalized velocity profiles at r/T = 0.185 and r/T = 0.285. The ordinate shows the vertical
coordinate z, which is counted from the impeller disc and divided by half the impeller blade height h/2.
– 127 –
The top surface of the newly created boundary serves as a gas inlet, the other surfaces are added to
the stationary wall patch. This approach might lead to a crude approximation of, e.g. a circular tube,
however, the approximated aerator nevertheless poses an obstacle to the flow.
Figure 4.30 shows the mesh of the stirred tank. The cells within the red and green boundaries were
removed from the mesh; thus, creating new boundaries. The green boundary serves as gas inlet and the
red boundary is modelled as a wall. In a similar fashion a disk aerator can also be created.
Source terms in the governing equations
Another way to model an aerator is to introduce source terms in the governing equations. These source
terms have a non-zero value only in cells occupied by the aerator. For this approach no mesh modification
is necessary, i.e. no cells are removed and no new boundaries are created. The only preprocessing step
with regards to the mesh is to identify the appropriate cells for the aerator.
In Figure 4.30 the cells within the red and green boundaries are not removed from the mesh, but
added to a set of cells, referred to as cellSet in OpenFOAM’s nomenclature. For this cellSet source terms
for the continuity and momentum equations can be defined in terms of mass flow rate and momentum
flow rate.
Apart from the introduction of air, this approach completely neglects the physical presence of the
aerator. However, if the structures of the aerator are reasonably small, compared to other geometric
features of the simulation domain, this approach is justified.
Figure 4.30: The stirred tank with an annular aerator.
4.3.5.2 Flow regimes
The flow regime within an aerated stirred tank depends on gas flow rate as well as on stirring speed.
Figure 4.32 shows the three main flow regimes.
The flow in an aerated stirred tank can be characterized with two dimensionless numbers. The Froude
number F r as the ratio of the impeller driven acceleration and gravity, and the aeration or flow number
F l as the ratio of gas flow rate and impeller driven flow rate.
– 128 –
n2 D
Fr = (4.17)
g
QG
Fl = (4.18)
n D3
Figure 4.31 shows the regime map for the aerated stirred tank. In Lee and Dudukovic [161] the
following relations are stated for the transition between the regimes:
−3.5
Transition from flooding to loading : F lF →L = 30 F r (T /D) (4.19)
5
Transition from loading to recirculating : F lL→R = 13 F r2 (T /D) (4.20)
In Figure 4.31 three simulated cases are marked. Case II and Case III clearly fall into the loading
regime and the flooding regime, respectively. Case I is on the borderline between recirculating and loading
regime, according to the prediction based on the Froude and the Flow numbers. The prediction of the
flow regime according to Figure 4.31 can be confirmed by comparing the flow regime of the simulations
(Figures 4.33 and 4.34) with the regime representation depicted in Figure 4.32.
101
Flooding to loading
Loading to recirculating recirculating
Case I
Case II
100 Case III
Fr
10−1 loading
flooding
10−2 −3
10 10−2 10−1 100
Fl
Figure 4.31: Regime map for a fully baffled, aerated stirred tank. Transition limits according to equa-
tions (4.19) and (4.20), and parameters of conducted simulations, see Figs. 4.33 and 4.34.
For post-processing the interior of the stirred tank was divided into three zones. Figure 4.35 shows
these zones. All computational cells above the level of the rotor disk form the first zone. The lower part
is divided at half the tank’s radius. Thus, we get a cylindrical lower inner zone and an annular lower
outer zone.
During the simulation the average value of the gas phase fraction was recorded for the entire domain
as well as three regions. Figure 4.36 shows these values for two simulations (Cases I and II). In the
recirculating regime (Figure 4.36.(c)) the overall gas content is higher than in the loading regime (Figure
4.36.(b)).
As gas bubbles accumulate in the vortex rings near the wall, the gas content in the lower outer region
is higher than the global gas content in the recirculating regime. In the loading regime little gas gets
drawn below the rotor level, thus the gas content in the lower outer region is lower than the overall value.
In the lower inner region the gas content is equal in both cases. Since Case I is on the borderline
between the loading and the recirculating regime, it can be expected that increasing the stirring speed
– 129 –
(a) Flooding (b) Loading (c) Fully recirculating
Figure 4.32: The three main flow regimes in an aerated stirred tank. Reproduced after Mueller and
Dudukovic [187]. From left to right the stirring speed is increasing. The red arrows schematically mark
the trajectories of the air bubbles.
(a) Case II: loading regime. (b) Case I: recirculating regime.
Figure 4.33: Gas phase volume fraction field values α in the 45◦ plane between two stator baffles and
iso-volume α ≤ 0.3 (grey shaded volume).
– 130 –
Figure 4.34: Case III: flooding regime. Field values of the gas phase volume fraction in the 45◦ plane.
Figure 4.35: Regions within the stirred tank used to generate Figure 4.36. The tank is divided at the
height of the rotor disk. The lower zone is divided at half the radius. The colours of the regions match
the colours of the curves in Figure 4.36.
– 131 –
even further in Case I would lead to more bubbles getting swept into the lower inner zone. In this case,
however, gas bubbles accumulate in the vortex rings near the wall. Thus, the gas content in the lower
inner region is nearly unaffected.
Above Rotor Lower outer region

Lower inner region Whole domain
(a) Legend
0.10 0.15
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time in s Time in s
(b) Case II : loading regime. (c) Case I : recirculating regime.
Figure 4.36: Overall gas content and gas content in three zones of the stirred tank.
– 132 –
Chapter 5
Application
Design is choice.
Most often, the struggle is not that there is no way to solve a design
problem, but that there are too many ways that apparently solve the
problem.
You must know which collection of solutions solves the problem in a
satisfactory manner. The need to choose propagates from the largest
architectural levels down to the smallest unit of code.
Furthermore, choices can be combined, which confers on design an evil
multiplicity.
Andrei Alexandrescu [5]
This chapter presents the application of the flotation model. The first case is an
aerated stirred tank, which acts as an abstraction of a mechanical flotation cell. The
second application case is a continuously operated flotation device, which is designed
by our industrial partner.
5.1 Stirred tank flotation

The flotation solver is now applied to simulate the batch flotation process in a stirred tank with a
Rushton impeller. This simple geometry serves as an abstraction of a mechanical flotation cell. Although
the geometry is much simpler than the geometry of real mechanical flotation cells, it has all the features
of a mechanical cell. Another reason for choosing the rather simple Rushton-tank is that the flow regime
within this stirred tank is well known.
5.1.1 Geometry
The geometry of the stirred tank is shown in Figure 4.16. Table 5.1 shows the geometric parameters
applied in this case. The mesh was created using the parametric script briefly discussed in Section 4.3.
5.1.2 Operating conditions

Table 5.2 lists relevant simulation parameters used in the flotation simulation. These parameters were de-
termined following Pyke et al. [224] as closely as possible. However, the uniform mass fraction distribution
is made up and not related to published data.
– 133 –
CHAPTER 5. APPLICATION 5.1. STIRRED TANK FLOTATION
T H/T C/T w/T D/T d/D a/D h/D b/D
0.144 m 1 1/3 1/10 1/3 3/4 1/4 1/5 1/5
Table 5.1: The configuration of the investigated stirred tank, largely following Pyke et al. [224]. Geometric
parameters according to Figure 4.16.
For simplicity the gas phase in the stirred tank simulations are assumed to be mono-disperse with a
bubble diameter dB = 0.97 mm.
The flow regime predicted from the operating parameters in Table 5.1 is marked in Figure 5.1.(a). In
Figure 5.1.(b) the volume fraction field of the disperse phase is shown. The simulation result supports
the prediction, which is near the transition region between the loading and the recirculating regime. The
regime exhibited by the simulation is somewhere between loading and fully recirculating.
101
recirculating
100
Fr
10−1 loading
flooding
10−2 −3
10 10−2 10−1 100 101
Fl
(a) Predicted regime marked (circle) in the regime map. (b) Volume fraction field of the dispersed phase.
Figure 5.1: Regime of the stirred tank flotation case as discussed in Section 4.3.5.
Bubble-particle collision was modelled using the Generalized Sutherland Equation, as in Pyke et al.
[224]. Further, the Dobby and Finch [55] attachment model and the stability model of Schulze [255] were
used. Furthermore, as Pyke et al. [224] make no mention of the model constant of the stability model
AS , as proposed by Bloom and Heindel [21], this was set to AS = 0.5. For the induction time the model
of Koh and Schwarz [143] was used.
The simplified model of Schubert and Bischofberger proposed by Duan et al. [59] was used to compute
the collision frequency Z.
Since, the paper of Pyke et al. [224] makes no mention of accounting for detachment in the sense of
Bloom and Heindel, the model constant C1 of the model for the detachment frequency Z 0 was set to
C1 = 0. Thus, no detachment is occuring, as the detachment rate constant k2 = Z 0 (1 − ES ) evaluates to
zero.
5.1.3 Simulation setup

This simulation was set-up to resemble the case reported in Pyke et al. [224] as closely as the published
data allows. This applies to geometric dimensions, operating conditions and material properties. The
method used to create the mesh of the stirred tank has already been discussed in Section 4.3.3.
For the flotation simulation we use the final state of a two-phase flow simulation as initial condition for
the flotation simulation. Thus, we admittedly deviate from real operations in which flotation is occuring
– 134 –
Particle diameter dP,i 8 µm 16 µm 32 µm 64 µm 96 µm

Mass fraction Yi,0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Stirring speed n 650 min−1
Gas flow rate Q 3.5 L/min
Particle density ρP 2600 kg/m3
Contact angle θC 80 ◦
Surface tension σ 0.0728 N/m
Table 5.2: Simulation parameters of the stirred tank flotation simulation, largely following Pyke et al.
[224].
as soon as any air in introduced. However, we expect the influence of the start-up phase on overall
flotation performance to be negligible. Furthermore, we assume to encounter less numerical issues, when
using an already established two-phase flow as initial state for our flotation simulations.
Bubble-particle collision was modelled using the Generalised Sutherland Equation (GSE), as in Pyke
et al. [224]. Further, the Dobby and Finch [55] attachment model and the stability model of Schulze
[255] were used. The induction time model of Dai was used following Pyke et al. [224] with the model
constants A = 0.051 and B = 0.6.
Since, the paper of Pyke et al. [224] makes no mention of accounting for detachment in the sense of
Bloom and Heindel, the model constant C1 of the model for the detachment frequency Z 0 was set to
C1 = 0. Thus, no detachment is occuring, as the detachment rate constant k2 = Z 0 (1 − ES ) evaluates to
zero.
5.1.4 Results
In order to determine the recovery of the stirred tank flotation case the volume-averaged mass fraction of
particles was logged over time. This spatial averaging is prefectly justified, as this is a batch process and
the treatment of the whole batch is of interest. The separation efficiency or recovery R can be computed
using the relations for the ideal batch reactor discussen in Section 2.3.1.
As the simulation disregards partcile detachments, all particles should be removed after an infinite
period of time. Thus, for identifing the rate constant, the first-order kinetic flotation model (2.218) is
used.
dC
= −k C (2.218)
dt
C0 − CA
R= (2.204)
C0
Solving the first order kinetic equation and inserting the result C(t) = CA = C0 e−kt into equation (2.204)
yields the following relation for the recovery R:
R = 1 − e−kt (5.1)
Figure 5.2 shows the flotation rate constant k of (2.218), which was identified for the simulation data
of each size-class using equation (5.1).
– 135 –
0.10
Flotation rate constant k in 1/s
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
101 102
Particle diameter dP in µm
Figure 5.2: Identified flotation rate constant k over particle size.
– 136 –
CHAPTER 5. APPLICATION 5.2. HYBRID FLOATION COLUMN
5.2 Hybrid floation column

The second application example of the flotation model is an industrial scale, continuously operating
flotation apparatus.
5.2.1 Operating principle

The hybrid flotation column combines the principles of a pneumatic flotation cell and a flotation column.
These two principles are briefly discussed in Section 1.2.3.2, see also Figure 1.2. The term hybrid flotation
refers to the combination of the pneumatic and columnar operating principle. In literature, this term is
also used to describe other flotation cells combining two or more operating principles, e.g. the combination
of flotation and microfiltration in wastewater treatment [212].
Figure 5.3 shows a schematic representation of the hybrid flotation column. The central cylindrical
section represents the columnar flotation part of the flotation device, referred to as the columnar column
(CC). The outer, upper section of the apparatus represents the pneumatic flotation part of the device,
referred to as the pneumatic column (PC). Here, a slurry and air are mixed in the ejectors which are
connected to the PC by the diffusers. The PC joins the CC roughly midway in vertical direction. Thus,
the CC can be divided into a lower CC and an upper CC. The diffusors join the main body tangentially
to induce a rotating flow in the PC.
This type of flotation device was designed by our industrial partner, and its application of a laboratory-
size device [150–152, 214] and a larger pilot-plant [149, 184] has been reported.
The ejectors outside the main vessel – implementing the pneumatic flotation principle – introduces
an air stream into a turbulent slurry flow. Thus, relatively small bubbles are generated. The aerator in
the bottom of the central column generates in a quiescent environment larger bubbles. Thus, the hybrid
flotation column can be regarded as a pneumatic flotation cell (the PC) with an integrated flotation
column (the CC) in series.
Flow conditions differ between the PC and the CC. In the diffusors feeding the PC the flow is highly
turbulent and air bubbles are rather small (in the sub-millimeter range). In contrast, the conditions in
the CC are regarded rather quiescent. The main source of agitation wihtin the CC is the bubble plume
emanating from the aerator. Due to the lack of strong cross-flow over the aerator, the resulting bubbles
will be in the millimeter range.
5.2.2 Geometry and mesh

The mesh of the hybrid flotation column was created in a similar fashion as the mesh of the stirred tank,
see Section 4.3.3. Although, no geometric variations of the hybrid column are presented in this work,
a large number of different sizes and variations has been investigated for the industrial partner. Thus,
creating a parametric mesh for the hybrid flotation column paid off even more, as it was the case for the
stirred tank. Whether to create a parametric mesh or not, depends on the number of expected geometric
variations which are to be investigated. It basically boils down to a near fixed amount of meshing effort
per variation versus a large up-front investment for creating the parametric mesh and little effort for each
additional variation.
Similar to the stirred tank, the hybrid column was decomposed into blocks. In angular direction the
geometry was split into 12 segments. Thus, the number of ejectors and supporting plates can be indepen-
dently chosen to any number, which is an integer divisor of 12. The ejectors are meshed independently
from the main body of the flotation device, the resulting meshes are subsequently merged.
Figure 5.4.(a) shows the block structure of the main body of the hybrid flotation column. The image
shows the resulting mesh, when each block is meshed with one cell. Thus, geometric features, such as
curved walls, are poorly resolved. The entire block decomposition of the hybrid column consists of 612
blocks.
This large number of blocks is necessary to resolve the supporting plates. In previous studies with
smaller geometries, the block decomposition was much simpler, as the draft tube was supported by rods,
– 137 –
Concentrate
Feed
Tailings
Figure 5.3: The configuration of a hybrid flotation column. The blue lines schematically indicate the
mean trajectory of the air bubbles introduced; the grey lines indicate the slurry flow. On the right hand
side is the top view of the hybrid column. The bold arrows indicate the full sectional cut shown on the
left hand side.
which were hardly a flow obstacle and were thus neglected in the mesh creation process. The supporting
plates of the larger variants, however, create a major obstactle in angular direction. Hence, they need to
be resolved.
In Figure 5.4.(b) a section of the wall boundary patch is shown. This shows not only the cylindrical
walls of the column, but also the ejectors, discharging into the PC and the supporting plates for the draft
tube, separating the upper CC from the PC.
5.2.3 Operating conditions

Similar to the stirred tank flotation simulations, a two-phase simulation was carried out to gain an initial
flow solution. The operating conditions of the two-phase flow were chosen following the advice of the
industrial partner. The flotation simulation was set up largely following Koh and Schwarz [143]. Table
5.3 lists relevant simulation parameters used in the hybrid flotation simulation.
The collision and attachment models of Yoon and Luttrell, and the stability model of Schulze [255]
were used. A value of AS = 0.5 for the model constant of the stability model, as proposed by Bloom and
Heindel [21], was used.
The simplified model of Schubert and Bischofberger proposed by Duan et al. [59] was used to compute
the collision frequency Z. The model constant C1 of the model for the detachment frequency Z 0 was set
to C1 = 2 as in Koh and Schwarz [143].
5.2.4 Simulation setup

In the simulations two classes of bubbles need to be considered, the small bubbles from the contactor
and the larger bubbles from the aerator. In Section 2.2.4 a selection of modelling approaches for poly-
dispersity are discussed. The two bubble classes in hybrid flotation column are clearly separated within
the device. Thus, we employed the interfacial area transport equation (IATE) model discussed in Section
2.2.4.4.
– 138 –
(a) Block structure of the main body (b) A section of the wall patch
Figure 5.4: The geometry of the FTC32 hybrid flotation column.
Particle diameter dP,i 7.5 µm 15 µm 30 µm 60 µm 120 µm

Mass fraction Yi,0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Number of ejectors Nejectors 6
Slurry feed flow rate, ejectors Qslurry 480 m3 /h
Air flow rate, ejector Qair, ejector 1153 L/min
Air flow rate, hose aerator Qair, aerator 640 L/min
Particle density ρP 2600 kg/m3
Contact angle θC 38 ◦
Surface tension σ 0.07275 N/m
Table 5.3: Simulation parameters of the hybrid flotation simulation.
Inlet boundary conditions with fixed velocities for air and slurry were used for the four ejectors.
The aerator was modelled as a mass source for the disperse phase (air). The aerator was not resolved
geometrically to save on computational cost. Thus, a set of cells, in the region surrounding the aerators,
was used to prescribe mass and momentum source terms for the CFD simulation. The top surface was
modelled as a frictionless wall for the continuous phase, following the closed domain approach as discussed
in Section 4.1.3. For the disperse phase, the top surface acts as an outlet.
Similar to the stirred tank, the flotation simulation was initialized with the solution of a two-phase
flow simulation. Thus, the flotation process ‘magically kicks in’ at the start of the simulation with an
already established flow within the flotation device. As the goal of the simulation is to determine the
steady-state separation efficiency, the initial transient is of no interest. Thus, the error associated with
the treatment of the initial state is deemed negligible.
The two-phase simulation preceeding the flotation simulation was run for 100 s of simulated time. The
two-phase simulation started from an initial solution based on the results of a single-phase simulation,
i.e. the velocity field and the solution variables of the turbulence model were mapped from the final state
of the incompressible single-phase simulation. In contrast, the flotation simulation was run for well over
700 s of simulated time, starting from the final solution of the two-phase simulation.
– 139 –
5.2.5 Results
The simulation was initialised with a uniform particle distribution. Due to the large size of the apparatus,
the simulation indicates a time in the range of minutes to reach a steady state.
Figure 5.5 shows a half-section of the hybrid column. The bubble plumes emanating from the diffusors
in the upper part and the aerator in the lower part are depicted by showing an iso-volume with α ≥ 0.01
of the dispersed phase. The interaction of the flow entering the CC from the PC is clearly visible as it
contracts the central bubble plume.
Figure 5.5: Full section view of the interior of the FTC 32 flotation column. The α ≥ 0.01 iso-volume is
coloured according to the value of the mean volume fraction field αmean .
To determine the separation efficiency a set of cells at the outlet spanning the whole cross-section of
the outlet was defined and the average mass fraction of particles within this zone was written as output
of the simulation.
Figure 5.6 shows the normalized particle mass of various particle size classes over time. The mass
fraction of the particles at the outlet was normalized with the corresponding value at the inlet. The
size-dependent flotation behaviour and the convergence to a steady state is clearly visible in the curves.
With the particle mass fraction at the inlet and the outlet the recovery R can be calculated (2.204).
The particle mass fraction at the outlet was computed from the mean value of the last 10 seconds of
the average mass fraction of the outlet zone. Since the main interest lies in stationary operation, the
averaging of space and time inherent to this post-processing method poses no error.
Figure 5.7 shows the recovery of the hybrid flotation column at the end of the simulation. This plot,
too, illustrates the size-dependency of mineral flotation.
C0 − CA
R= (2.204)
C0
The simulations of the FTC 32 hybrid flotation cell were run using 8 parallel processes on a 3 GHz
Intel® Xeon® CPU with 8 physical processor cores. The specific, averaged simulation time increased
from 2 h per 1 s of simulated time for the flow-only two-phase simulation to 3 h/s for the flotation simu-
lation with 5 particle-size classes under consideration. This increase in simulation time is caused by the
additional evaluation of the flotation model and solution of 10 transport equations.
In this chapter we demonstrated the application of the flotation model. Due to the long time-scales
of the flotation process, simulation times are too long to make use of the flotation model in the design
– 140 –
1.0
0.9
Normalized particle mass
0.8
0.7
dP = 7.5 µm
dP = 15 µm
0.6 dP = 30 µm
dP = 60 µm
dP = 120 µm
0.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time in s
Figure 5.6: Normalized particle mass in a control volume at the outlet of the simulation domain. The
normalization is done using the initial value of the respective size class.
0.5
0.4
Recovery R
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
101 102
Particle size dP in µm
Figure 5.7: Recovery R determined from the particle mass curves shown in Figure 5.6.
– 141 –
process for every incremental design change. However, a flow-only study, as in Chapter 4, of a flotation
device can be beneficial in the design process of a new flotation apparatus.
As the sub-processes of flotation depend on the local flow properties, a flow-only simulation can help
to identify possible problematic regions within the device. Here, the flotation model can be used to
demonstrate a possible negative influence of certain flow conditions on flotation behaviour or to check
the final design of a flotation device for its flotation performance.
– 142 –
Chapter 6
Conclusion and Outlook
I’d like to be a spaceman . . . ♩

Bernhard Eder
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
Know thyself.
Ancient Greek aphorism
The flotation process can be studied in a number of ways employing the CFD technique. The possible
applications, ranging from the micro-scale to the macro-scale, have been reviewed. On the macro-scale
CFD can be integrated into the study of the flotation process on a number of levels, from purly providing
information on the global flow up to a full integration into a CFD framework.
In this work flotation modelling has been fully integrated into the CFD framework of OpenFOAM,
offering the most detail and also requiring the most computational effort.
In preparation to investigating the flotation devices a number of two-phase simulations has been
carried out to get into the field of Eulerian multi-phase simulation and, in the case of the stirred tank,
to lay some groundwork for subsequent studies.
In the case of the Becker bubble column an experimental set-up has been built for validation purposes.
The global flow pattern within the Becker bubble column, i.e. the establishment of a steady oscillation of
the bubble plume, has been reproduced in the simulations. The same identification routine for the bubble
plume oscillation frequency was used for the experimental data as well as the data from the simulations.
The simulations of the Deen bubble column and the stirred tank have been compared to validation
data from literature. In both cases good agreement was found between our own simulations and the data
from literature, which was based on simulations and measurements.
A flotation model has been implemented within the framework of OpenFOAM and has been coupled
to an Eulerian two-phase solver. The implementation of the flotation model follows the example of
OpenFOAM’s own practice of source code organisation and software design. This results in a modular
and easily extensible model.
– 143 –
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
The flotation model has been applied to two cases. The stirred tank, as the more academic application,
offers a vast amount of validation data. However, as mechanical flotation cells are widely used, the stirred
tank example, although very much simplified, is still a useful object of investigation. The second example
the flotation model was applied to, is an industrial flotation column. This flotation device is continuously
operated in contrast to the stirred tank, which represents a batch process. Furthermore, the industrial
flotation column is a full scale example in contrast to the stirred tank, which can be considered lab-scale.
In contrast to macro-kinetic models the CFD-based flotation model takes great computational effort.
The reason for this high computational cost is twofold. Coupling a micro-kinetic flotation model to an
Eulerian two-phase solver, adds to the computational effort of the Eulerian flow solver. In this case, for
N resolved size-classes, 2N additional transport equations need to be solved. This means evaluating all
terms of the transport equations, building the equation system and solving it numerically.
In addition to this per time-step cost, the time scale of to the flotation process is much larger than
the time scale associated the two-phase flow. In the example of the continuous process, it takes much
longer to reach a steady state in flotation than to establish two-phase flow.
Future research may try to find ways to alleviate this constraint on computational time, i.e. being
forced by the flow dynamics to use a small time step for the slow process of interest. One possible strategy
to overcome the time constraint set by the time scale of the flow dynamics is to separate the solution
of the two-phase flow from the solution of the flotation kinetics as proposed by Lichtenegger and Pirker
[165].
– 144 –
Appendix A
Implementation Details
Divide et impera.
Divide and conquer.
Latin proverb
Randall Munroe, http://xkcd.com/221/
This chapter highlights some details of the implementation of the flotation model in
OpenFOAM. As the implementation largely follows OpenFOAM’s design principles,
some insight into OpenFOAM’s internals is beneficial for the reader of this chapter.
Providing an overview on OpenFOAM’s internals in general, however, would be
beyond the scope of this work.
A.1 Flotation solvers

Two flotation solvers were implemented. A transient solver based on the two-phase Eulerian solver
twoPhaseEulerFoam and a steady-state solver based on scalarTransportFoam.
The steady-state solver solves the flotation equations on a constant (frozen) flow field. It reads the
initial flow fields and solves the flotation equations. This solver was created more for demonstration than
for practical use, since the flow within aerated bubble columns or stirred tanks are inherently transient.
A special of the steady-state solver is a zero-dimensional solver, which solves the transport equations
of the flotation model on a finite volume (FV) mesh consisting of only one single cell. A finite volume
discretisation of the transport equations on a single cell reduces the problem to the solution of a set of
ODEs. Using OpenFOAM, a full-blown CFD library, for this task seems like overkill.
However, for testing purposes during implementation, a zero-dimensional solver is very useful. From
the model’s point of view the application to a zero-dimensional domain is in no aspect different to its
– 145 –
APPENDIX A. IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS A.2. FLOTATION MODEL
application to a three-dimensional domain. OpenFOAM’s implementation of the finite volume method

and the finite volume mesh is rather generalized. Thus, the model and the solver are agnostic of the
actual dimension of the simulation domain.
Simulation domains with less than three dimensions are possible and usable in OpenFOAM without
any modification. A two-dimensional or an axi-symmetric domain has a discretisation in thickness di-
rection of one single cell. In addition with a special purpose boundary condition, these setups are not
different from full three dimensional cases. Also one-dimensional simulation domains, with a one cell
discretisation in two directions, are readily available. Zero-dimensional simulations, however, are limited
to steady-state solvers, as the solution of the flow equations (momentum and pressure equations) becomes
meaningless1 . Thus, zero-dimensional simulations are only meaningful for the evolution of a species due
to source and sink terms, as transport is eliminated from the problem as a whole.
The zero-dimensional solver is based on the zero-dimensional solver of the OpenQBMM project2 .
This research project is dedicated to develop a suite for solver population balance problems using the
quadrature based moment methods (QBMM) approach. Some of the methods used in the QBMM ap-
proach are discussed briefly in Section 2.2.4.5. The main difference between the zero-dimensional solver of
the OpenQBMM project and a stripped-down variant of scalarTransportFoam is that the zero-dimensional
solver creates the mesh internally instead of reading it.
The transient solver solves in addition to the flow equations the flotation equations at each time step.
This solver is a variant of the twoPhaseEulerFoam solver.
The transient solver was implemented over the course of this work using the two-phase Eulerian solver,
in both the phase-intensive and conservative formulation as discussed in Section 3.2.3.
A.1.1 Code organisation

As the flotation model is used with at least two solvers, it diving the flotation model from the solver is
imperative. Thus, the model was implemented as a shared library, which the individual solvers make use
of. This eliminates code duplication and allows for a separate development of the solver and the model.
The flotation model is a collection of classes, which implement certain bits and pieces of the flotation
model. In general, class design is not unambiguous and it is up to the developer to choose a good design.
There are, however, guidelines for class design. Stroustrup [268] advises to ‘Represent concepts as classes’.
Under this guideline it is natural to implement the model families discussed in Section 2.4, e.g. collision
frequency models, collision efficiency models, etc. as class hierarchies. The flotation model is responsible
for reading all data it needs, for solving the transport equations for the mass fractions of free and attached
particles, and writing the appriate data to disk.
The solver using the flotation model is a minor extension of an already existing solver, e.g. the steady-
state solver or the two-phase Eulerian solver. Thus, little extra code needs to be written other than the
creation of the flotation model and its respective use by the solver. In the most minimalistic incarnation
possible, the flotation solver consists of one source file which contains only small number of additional
lines of source code. These are devoted to the creation of a flotation model object and the invokation of
the main solution method of the flotation model once per time step.
A.2 Flotation model

OpenFOAM is highly organized into classes. The modularity introduced by the use of OOP has clear
advantages. However, it is up to the software designer to decide how to modularize. The class structure
of the flotation model is clearly based on OpenFOAM’s example. Specifically, the organisation of the
phase-interaction models of the twoPhaseEulerFoam solver was the base.
1 As a matter of fact, flow can be simulated on zero-dimensional domains. The discretized flow equations, however,
degenerate to trivial equations in one variable.

2 See https://github.com/OpenQBMM/OpenQBMM and http://www.openqbmm.org/.
– 146 –
As the initial intention was to create a steady-state flotation solver as well as a transient flota-
tion solver it followed to implement the flotation model as a shared library used by both solvers. The
flotationModel class provides access to the flotation model.
A.2.1 The flotation model class

The class flotationModel implements the underlying micro-kinetics of flotation. Figure A.1 shows the
hierarchy of the implemented classes. Each box in such a diagram represents a class, with its name, its
data members and its member functions. Italic method and class names indicate abstract methods and
classes. An abstract class subsumes all common properties of a certain family of classes. Individual traits
are introduced with the actual class implementing such a trait.
By introducing an abstract class, containing all features of a generic flotation model, extending the
model with additional models at a later stage becomes much easier and less error prone. The class
DefaultFlotationModel implements the extended micro-kinetics based flotation model as discussed in
Section 2.3.4.
flotationModel
# cm_ : autoPtr<collisionModel>
# am_ : autoPtr<attachmentModel>
# sm_ : autoPtr<stabilityModel>
# cfm_ : autoPtr<collisionFrequencyModel>
# dfm_ : autoPtr<detachmentFrequencyModel>
# YF_ : PtrList<volScalarField>
# YA_ : PtrList<volScalarField>
# k1() : volScalarField
+ evolve() : void
DefaultFlotationModel
+ evolve() : void
Figure A.1: The class diagram3 showing the hierarchy of the flotation model classes. Italic method names
indicate pure virtual functions. Classes containing at least one pure virtual functions are called abstract
classes, whose names are also set in italics. The (#) and (+) character indicate protected respectively
public visibility of data members and methods.
The names of a class’s data members feature a trailing underscore character (_), thus following
a widely used convention [271]. OpenFOAM’s source code obeys this convention, although it is not
explicitely stated in the OpenFOAM Code Style Guide4 .
The members and methods of the classes shown in the class diagrams in this section, present only a
selection of the members and methods of the implemented classes. The first group of members of the
flotationModel are pointers to the relevant sub-process models. These pointers are e.g. of the type:
3 Class diagrams in this document follow the conventions defined in the unified modeling language (UML), see http:
//www.uml.org/. A class diagram in UML is a very concise way to graphically represent the contents and the relationships
of classes.
4 See http://www.openfoam.org/contrib/code-style.php, retrieved on 14. November 2015.
– 147 –
pointer to an object of type collisionModel. The reason for pointing to the base class type is to enable
the run-time polymorphism of C++. As every class derived from collisionModel is a collisionModel,
using a pointer of the type base-class pointer works for every derived and yet-to-be-derived collision model
class.
The second group of data members shown in the class diagram are the lists of pointers to the mass
fraction fields for the free and attached particles. The size of the pointer list is equal to the number of
size-classes.
The flotationModel class features the protected methods k1() and k2(), which compute the rate
constants for collection and detachment. These methods have protected visibility, making them acces-
sible only from within the flotationModel class or classes derived from flotationModel. The method
evolve() is of public visibility, since the flotation solver needs to be able to tell the model to evaluate
once per time-step. This is done by calling evolve() from within the solver’s run-time loop. Thus, this
method needs to be part of the flotationModel class’s public interface.
The classes for the flotation model and the sub-process models follow a scheme used in OpenFOAM’s
sources termed run-time selection (RTS). In software engineering there are two relevant times associated
with a piece of software. Compile-time is the point in time, when the software is built from the source
code. Run-time is the point in time, when the software is actually run. OpenFOAM is controlled by
configuration files. The actual content of these files is known at run-time, when the solver has read
its configuration files. Designing software, whose state depends on information that is available only at
run-time and ensuring proper data-encapsulation at the same time, is a challenging task in itself [5].
OpenFOAM’s run-time selection mechanism implements this by the use of certain design patterns of
software engineering [170].
A.2.2 The sub-process model classes

The sub-process models are very similar to each other. All the models for collision, attachment and
stability return an efficiency field. A common base class for all sub-process models was chosen to hold
all the necessary data, such as references to flow fields. Thus, these references need to be assigned only
once, in the constructor of the base class subProcessModel. All classes derived from this class, inherit
this data.
From this common base class, three abstract classes (collisionModel, attachmentModel and
stabilityModel) are derived which in turn are the base classes for the actual implementations. This
way, other sub-process models can be easily added to the code base at any later stage. Figure A.2 shows
the class hierarchy of the aforementioned classes. These derived classes itself are base classes for the
implementation of concrete models, such as those discussed in Sections 2.4.3.4, 2.4.4.3 and 2.4.5.1.
Since the class flotationModel does not use the class subProcessModel, this class is, strictly speak-
ing, not necessary, since no use is made of the polymorphism which results from the common base class
subProcessModel. However, this class is used to hold references to data used by all sub-process models.
Thus, for reasons of avoiding code duplication the definition of a common base class is justified.
The data members of the class subProcessModel, have protected visibility. Generally, having
protected data members is not advised [268]. However, as these are mere references to other data
to be used by the derived classes, this approach is followed instead of making the data members private
and making them available to the derived classes via protected methods for reasons of source code
brevity. As the data members of subProcessModel are constant references, the objects made accessible
to subProcessModel and derived classes are read-only.
Figures A.3, A.4 and A.5 show the class hierarchies of the individual sub-process models. Not all
models discussed in Section 2.4 were also implemented. By the time of writing, the models shown in
Figures A.3, A.4 and A.5 have been implemented. However, due to the modular organisation of the code,
extending the flotation model with additional sub-process models at a later time is easily possible.
The method for computing the efficiency of the sub-process, e.g. Ec() for collision models, feature a
public visibility. This is necessary, since the flotation model needs to access the probability computed by
– 148 –
subProcessModel
# flotationDict_ : const dictionary&
# phase1_ : const phaseModel&
# phase2_ : const phaseModel&
# opData_ : const operationalData&
collisionModel attachmentModel stabilityModel

- A_ : dimensionedScalar
+ Ec() : volScalarField - B_ : dimensionedScalar + Es() : volScalarField
# inductionTime() : dimensionedScalar
+ Ea() : volScalarField
Figure A.2: The class hierarchy of the sub-process models. The ampersand character (&) indidactes a
reference to a certain data type, e.g. a dictionary& is a reference to an object of type dictionary.
collisionModel
+ Ec() : volScalarField
Sutherland GeneralizedSutherlandEquation YoonLuttrell
+ Ec() : volScalarField + Ec() : volScalarField + Ec() : volScalarField
Figure A.3: The class hierarchy of the implemented collision models.
– 149 –
attachmentModel
- A_ : dimensionedScalar
- B_ : dimensionedScalar
# inductionTime() : dimensionedScalar
+ Ea() : volScalarField
DobbyFinch YoonLuttrell
+ Ea() : volScalarField + Ea() : volScalarField
Figure A.4: The class hierarchy of the implemented attachment models.
stabilityModel
+ Es() : volScalarField
DefaultModel
+ Es() : volScalarField
Figure A.5: The class hierarchy of the implemented stability models.
– 150 –
the sub-process model. All other data, such as model constants, are of protected or private visibility
since, access to internals from the outside is considered bad practice should be avoided.
The model for induction time, as discussed in Section 2.4.4.1, is common to all attachment model.
Thus, the model for induction time is implemented within the attachment model’s base class. This makes
the induction time model automatically available to all derived attachment model classes.
The model constants A_ and B_ of the induction time model are private5 , since the induction time is
handled by a protected method of the base class attachmentModel. Thus, the method inductionTime()
is available to the base class and all derived classes. Since, the derived classes access the induction time
via the method, they do not need access to the model constants of the induction time model.
Choosing visibility of data members and methods are generally decided on a need to know basis. A
general guideline is to make data members private and to clearly define an interface of the class in terms
of methods [270].
For testing purposes, an additional model has been implemented for each group to provide an ideal
sub-process model. E.g. from the collision model base class, a class was derived, which returns a collision
probability of ES = 1. This has also been done for attachment and stability models. These models are
not shown in the Figures A.3, A.4 and A.5 for brevity and for the reason, that these ideal models are
intended solely for testing purposes.
A.2.3 The collision and detachment frequency model classes

The models for the collision frequency Z between bubbles and particles, discussed in Section 2.4.1, and
for the detachment frequency Z 0 , as discussed in Section 2.4.2, have been implemented in a similar fashion
as the sub-process models. There is an abstract base class for the collision frequency models and the
detachment frequency models respectively. From this base class, concrete classes are derived.
Figures A.6 and A.7 show the class hierarchies of the implemented models. A common feature of
these models is the method Z(), which returns the respective frequency. However, despite the their equal
name, the collision frequency has a different dimension than the detachment frequency.
[Z] = m3 /s (A.1)
[Z ] = 1/s
0
(A.2)
The SchubertBischofberger model has a private boolean member variable indicating whether to
evaluate the full model or to neglect the influence of the particle. The simplification of this model is
discussed in Section 2.4.1. An alternative to this boolean member variable and the conditional evaluation
of the model would be to create a third class specifically for the simplified model, e.g. a class named
SchubertBischofbergerSimple. There is no unique set of rules for class design, thus, the decision
whether to create a new class or to extend an existing class is ambiguous and up to the developer.
For the detachment frequency only the one model discussed in Section 2.4.2 has been implemented.
Thus, in absence of the need for distinctive names, this model was named DefaultDetachment, indicating
that there are no other models. For the sake of extensibility, the concrete model class was still derived
from an abstract base class. In the case of a single model, the derivation from the base class is overkill.
However, if additional models may be implemented at a later point in time, the derivation from the base
class is wise design.
The derived class DefaultDetachment in Figure A.7 features the private model constant C1_, which
is the model constant of the detachment frequency model discussed in Section 2.4.2.
5 The private visibility is indicated by the minus (-) character in the class diagram.
– 151 –
collisionFrequencyModel
+ Z() : volScalarField
SaffmanTurner SchubertBischofberger
- simpleModel_ : Switch
+ Z() : volScalarField + Z() : volScalarField
Figure A.6: The class hierarchy of the implemented collision frequency models.
detachmentFrequencyModel
DefaultDetachment
- C1_ : scalar
Figure A.7: The class hierarchy of the implemented detachment frequency models.
– 152 –
Appendix B
Derivations and Mathematical

Details
Randall Munroe, http://xkcd.com/217/
This chapter covers the background and some details of the multiple reference frame
(MRF) model and the interfacial area transport equation (IATE) model, which are
used in this work. The chapter ends with some mathematical proofs, which are far
from self evident, at least to the author.
B.1 Derivation of the governing equation for the MRF approach

B.1.1 Preliminary observations
In order to use the multiple reference frame (MRF) approach the mesh has to be divided into different
regions. As the MRF approach in OpenFOAM covers only rotating reference frames1 only rotation can
be imposed on a region. A region for which a non-zero rotation is specified has to be axi-symmetric with
respect to the rotational axis.
Furthermore, does OpenFOAM only supports steady rotation, i.e. the angular velocity ω is constant.
B.1.2 Mass conservation equation

The mass conservation equation for incompressible flows
1 E.g. in Fluent it is possible to prescribe frame motion with unsteady translational and rotational speeds [9]. This leads
essentially to more additional terms in the governing equations. OpenFOAM, at the time of writing however, limits the
frame motion to steady rotation.
– 153 –
APPENDIX B. DERIVATIONS B.1. DERIVATION OF THE MRF APPROACH
∇·u = 0 (B.1)
is valid in all inertial frames of reference. An inertial frame of reference is either fixed in space and
time or moving with a constant translational velocity.
Due to the constraints listed in the previous section we consider only rotating reference frames in
the MRF method. To translate a vector from its representation in the inertial frame of reference to the
rotating frame of reference a rotation matrix Q is used. A rotation matrix has the property that the
inverse is also the transposed.
Ru = Qu (B.2)
u = QT R u (B.3)
Q −1
=Q T
(B.4)
The index R before the symbol u denotes that the vector R u is given in the rotating frame of reference.
If there is no index before the symbol the vector is given in the inertial coordinate system. The index R
is put before the symbol to prevent the vector R u to be mistaken as a relative velocity.
Beginning with the mass conservation equation in the inertial coordinate system we derive the mass
conservation in the rotating coordinate system.
∇·u = 0 (B.5)
∇· QT Q u = 0 (B.6)

| {z }
=I
T
=0 (B.7)

∇· Q Ru
We use the relation ∇·(A·a) = (∇·A)·a + A : (∇a) and the note that the rotation matrix is constant
in space.
∇· QT R u = ∇·QT ·R u + QT : (∇R u) (B.8)

| {z }
=0
∇· QT R u = QT : (∇R u) (B.9)

Q : (∇R u) = 0
T
(B.10)
Next we multiply the equation from the left with the rotation matrix.
QQT : (∇R u) = 0 (B.11)

I : (∇R u) = 0 (B.12)
We remember that the contraction of the unit tensor and a velocity gradient is equal to the divergence
of the velocity.
I : (∇R u) = ∇·R u (B.13)

∇·R u = 0 (B.14)
Thus, we showed that the mass convervation equation with the velocity expressed in the rotating
coordinate system has the same formulation as the mass conservation equation in inertial coordinates.
– 154 –
B.1.3 Momentum conservation equation

When we use a rotating coordinate system, we can decompose the flow velocity in two components. The
first is due to the rotation of the frame of reference and the second is the relative motion between the
particle or fluid parcel under consideration and the rotating reference frame.
u = ω × r + uR (B.15)
Eq. (B.15) can also be written in this form using the spin tensor Ω
u = Ω r + uR (B.16)
The spin tensor is a skew-symmetric tensor that contains the components of ω, the angular velocity
vector.
0
 
−ωz ωy
Ω =  ωz 0 −ωx  (B.17)
−ωy ωx 0
We now derive the momentum equation for the velocity for the rotating zone starting from the
momentum conservation equation for incompressible Newtonian fluids.
∂u ∇p
+ (∇u) ·u = − + ∇· (ν∇u) (B.18)
∂t ρ
The terms on the LHS are the total time derivate of u. Thus, we can write
du ∇p
=− + ∇· (ν∇u) (B.19)
dt ρ
With Eq. (B.15) we yield
d ∇p
(Ω r + uR ) = − + ∇· (ν∇u) (B.20)
dt ρ
We consider only steady rotation; thus, the temporal derivative of the spin vanishes
duR dΩ dr ∇p
+ r+Ω =− + ∇· (ν∇u) (B.21)
dt dt
|{z} dt ρ
=0
duR ∇p
+ Ωu = − + ∇· (ν∇u) (B.22)
dt ρ
We now evaluate the total time derivative of uR
∂uR ∂uR dx ∇p
+ +Ωu = − + ∇· (ν∇u) (B.23)
∂t ∂x dt
| {z } |{z} ρ
=∇uR =u
∂uR ∇p
+ (∇uR ) ·u + Ωu = − + ∇· (ν∇u) (B.24)
∂t ρ
Now we insert uR from Eq. (B.15) into the local derivative
∂ ∇p
(u − Ω r) + (∇uR ) ·u + Ωu = − + ∇· (ν∇u) (B.25)
∂t ρ
– 155 –
As the velocity component due to the steady rotation of the reference frame is constant, the term ∂
∂t (Ω r)
will vanish
∂u ∇p
+ (∇uR ) ·u + Ωu = − + ∇· (ν∇u) (B.26)
∂t ρ
The second term on the LHS can be rewritten using the following identity
∇ (ab) = (∇·b) a + (∇a) ·b (B.27)

∂u ∇p
+ ∇· (uR u) + Ωu = − + ∇· (ν∇u) (B.28)
∂t ρ
Thus, we derived the governing equation for the absolute velocity using flux relative to the local frame
of reference.
The contribution from the rotation of the domain is limited to two terms in the governing equation.
The LHS of Eq. (B.29) contains the relative velocity in the second term. The RHS of Eq. (B.29) contains
the Coriolis force in the last term.
∂u ∇p
+ ∇· (uR u) = − + ∇· (ν∇u) − Ωu (B.29)
∂t ρ
Eq. (B.29) corresponds to the momentum equation in absolute velocity formulation that can be found
in the Fluent Theory Manual [9]. Another resource for the MRF approach in OpenFOAM is Nilsson [200].
– 156 –
APPENDIX B. DERIVATIONS B.2. DERIVATION OF THE IATE MODEL
B.2 Derivation of the IATE model

This section covers the detailed derivation of the interfacial area transport equation (IATE) model from
the Boltzmann transport equation of the particle-distribution function. Literature on this topic can be
found in literature, e.g. [117, 119, 120, 135, 139].
B.2.1 Derivation of the governing equation

First, the definition of the area concentration and the transport equation for the bubble number density
are repeated:
Z Vmax
ai (x, t) = f (V, x, t)Ai (V )dV (2.186)
Vmin
dV
X
∂f ∂
+ ∇· (f u) + f = Sj + Sph (2.182)
∂t ∂V dt j
For the sake of brevity we drop the functional arguments. Thus, equation (2.186) can be written in
shorthand notation:
Z Vmax
ai = f Ai dV
Vmin
We will use equation (2.186) to derive a transport equation for the area concentration from equa-
tion (2.182). Equation (2.182) is multiplied by the average interfacial area Ai (V ) of bubbles with the
volume V [139].
 
dV

∂f ∂ X
Ai + Ai ∇· (f u) + Ai f = Ai  Sj + Sph  (B.30)
∂t ∂V dt j
Then, equation (B.30) is integrated over all bubble sizes, i.e. we integrate over the internal coordinate
V.
 
Vmax
dV
Z Z Vmax
∂f ∂ X
Ai + Ai ∇· (f u) + Ai f dV = Ai  Sj + Sph  dV (B.31)
Vmin ∂t ∂V dt Vmin j
Now we will take a closer look on the single terms of Eqn. (B.31). For the first term, we simply apply
the Leibnitz rule. Here it is important to note, that Ai is constant in space and time. With Eqn. (2.186),
we gain the local derivative of the interfacial area concentration ai .
Z Vmax Z Vmax
∂f ∂
Ai dV = Ai f dV (B.32)
Vmin ∂t ∂t Vmin
Z Vmax
∂f ∂
Ai dV = ai (B.33)
Vmin ∂t ∂t
The convective term of Eqn. (B.31) can be treated in a similar fashion. If the velocity is independent
of the bubble size, we can put the u in front of the integral over all bubble sizes. Thus, we gain the
convective term for the interfacial area concentration.
– 157 –
Z Vmax Z Vmax
Ai ∇· (f u) dV = ∇· (Ai f u) dV (B.34)
Vmin Vmin
!
Z Vmax Z Vmax
Ai ∇· (f u) dV = ∇· u Ai f dV (B.35)
Vmin Vmin
Z Vmax
Ai ∇· (f u) dV = ∇· (u ai ) (B.36)
Vmin
If the velocity is not independent of the bubble size we can follow a similar strategy to derive a
convective term which is formulated in terms of the interfacial area concentration.
Z Vmax Z Vmax
ai
Ai ∇· (f u) dV = ∇· Ai f u dV (B.37)
Vmin Vmin ai
R Vmax !
Z Vmax Ai f udV
Vmin
Ai ∇· (f u) dV = ∇· ai (B.38)
Vmin ai
Z Vmax
Ai ∇· (f u) dV = ∇· (ai ui ) (B.39)
Vmin
With the average local bubble velocity weighted by the bubble number ui [49]
R Vmax
Ai f udV
ui = RVmin
Vmax
(B.40)
Vmin
Ai f dV
The third term of Eqn. (B.31) needs more special treatment. In Section B.2.3 we show the proof for
(B.41). This term relates to the gas expansion.
Vmax
dV 2 α̇
Z
∂
Ai f dV = − ai (B.41)
Vmin ∂V dt 3α
The RHS of Eqn. B.31 contains the terms due to bubble-bubble interaction and due to phase change.
 
Vmax
dV
Z Z Vmax
∂f ∂ X
Ai + Ai ∇· (f u) + Ai f dV = Ai  Sj + Sph  dV (B.31)
Vmin ∂t ∂V dt Vmin j
There are two approaches to model the source terms due to bubble interaction [168]. One can solve
the integral equation for these source terms (B.42) or solve algebraic equations using mean parameters
(B.43).
The latter approach assumes monosized bubble, i.e. a bubble breaks up into two equalsized daughter
bubbles [168]. In this approach each bubble interaction results in a change of interfacial area ∆Ai = 31 Ai .
Z Vmax X
Ai Sj dV = Φj (B.42)
Vmin j
Φj = Sj ∆Ai (B.43)
– 158 –
with the interfacial area Ai

ai
Ai = (B.44)
n
bubble number density n and the shape factor Ψ with Ψ = 1
36π for spherical bubbles
a3
n = Ψ i2 (B.45)
α
2
11 α
Φj = Sj (B.46)
3 Ψ ai
Thus, the interfacial area transport equation is derived.
2
2 α̇ X1 1
∂ai α
+ ∇· (u ai ) = ai + Sj (2.187)
∂t 3α j
3Ψ ai
B.2.2 Interaction models

The bubble interaction mechanisms accounted for by the source terms Sj are listed below:
1. breakage due to impact of turbulent eddies (TI - turbulent impact),
2. coalescence through random collision driven by turbulent eddies (RC - random collision),
3. coalescence due to acceleration of the following bubble in the wake of preceding bubble (WE - wake
entrainment).
B.2.2.1 Turbulent impact - TI

In Ishii et al. [119] and Ishii et al. [120] the source term due to turbulent impact is stated as:
a3
n = Ψ i2 (B.47)
√α
ut = 2k (B.48)
r
nut W ecr W ecr
RT I = CT I exp − 1− where W ecr > W e (B.49)
Db We We
The Weber number W e represents the ratio of inertia forces and surface tension forces and is defined
as:
ρu2 d
We = (B.50)
σ
The critical Weber number W ecr and the constant CT I are model parameters.
B.2.2.2 Random collision - RC

In Ishii et al. [119] and Ishii et al. [120] the source term due to random collision is stated as:
√
ut = 2k (B.51)
" #" 1/3
!#
1
n2 ut Db2 αmax α /3
RRC = CRC 1/3 1/3
1 − exp −C 1/3 (B.52)
αmax (αmax − α1/3 ) αmax − α1/3
The constants CRC , C and αmax are model paremeters.
– 159 –
B.2.2.3 Wake entrainment - WE

The source term due to wake entrainment is given as [119, 120]:
1/3
RW E = CW E CD n2 Db2 ur (B.53)
The model constant CW E needs to be provided by the user.
B.2.3 The proof for Eqn. (B.41)
Vmax
dV 2 α̇
Z
∂
Ai f dV = − ai (B.41)
Vmin ∂V dt 3α
We use the following symbols.
x=V (B.54)
f (x) = f (V, x, t) (B.55)
g(x) = Ai (V ) (B.56)
a = Vmin (B.57)
b = Vmax (B.58)
Thus, the LHS of Eqn. (B.41) becomes
Vmax
dV b
dx
Z Z
∂ ∂
Ai f dV = g(x) f (x) dx (B.59)
Vmin ∂V dt a ∂x dt
Now, we apply partial integration

b Z b
b
dx dx dx
Z
∂ ∂g(x)
g(x) f (x) dx = f (x) g(x) − f (x) dx (B.60)
a ∂x dt dt a a ∂x dt
As f (x) is a probability density distribution it has the following properties
f (a) = f (b) = 0 (B.61)
Thus, the first term of the RHS of Eqn. (B.60) vanishes
b
dx dx
Z Z b
∂ ∂g(x)
g(x) f (x) dx = − f (x) dx (B.62)
a ∂x dt a ∂x dt
We now take a closer look on the relation between the average interfacial area of a bubble Ai and the
volume of a bubble V .
Ai = d2 π (B.63)
d3 π
V = (B.64)
r6
3 6V
⇒d= (B.65)
π
2/3
6V

Ai = π (B.66)
π
– 160 –
Returning to our simplified notation for this proof

2/3
6x

g(x) = π (B.67)
π
For Eqn. (B.62) we also need the derivative of g(x)

2/3
∂g(x) 2 6 −1/3
= (x) π (B.68)
∂x 3 π
2/3 2/3
∂g(x) 2 6 x
= π (B.69)
∂x 3 π x
2/3
∂g(x) 2 1 6x
= π (B.70)
∂x 3x π
∂g(x) 2 g(x)
= (B.71)
∂x 3 x
We now insert Eqn. (B.62) into Eqn. (B.62).
dx 2 g(x) dx
Z b Z b
∂
g(x) f (x) dx = − f (x) dx (B.72)
a ∂x dt a 3 x dt
dx 2 b ẋ
Z b Z
∂
g(x) f (x) dx = − f (x)g(x)dx (B.73)
a ∂x dt 3 a x
Next, we take a closer look on the term xẋ . Since x is the volume of the bubbles V , we can relate V
to the void fraction or gas phase volume fraction α. For any control volume VCV we can state, that the
volume of the bubbles V is equal to the volume fraction times the control volume. Here we neglect mass
transfer by evaporation, see [119] for a derivation considering evaporation.
V = αVCV (B.74)
V̇ = α̇VCV (B.75)
V̇ α̇VCV α̇
= = (B.76)
V αVCV α
ẋ α̇
= (B.77)
x α
We further assume that the rate of change of volume is independent of the volume itself [119, 135].
V̇
6= f (V ) (B.78)
V
By using relation (B.73) and (B.77) on Eqn. (B.73), we gain
dx 2 α̇ b
Z b Z
∂
g(x) f (x) dx = − f (x)g(x)dx (B.79)
a ∂x dt 3α a
or by using the other notation, Eqns. (B.54)-(B.54)

b
dx 2 α̇ Vmax
Z Z
∂
g(x) f (x)
dx = − f Ai dV (B.80)
a ∂x dt 3 α Vmin
dx 2 α̇
Z b
∂
g(x) f (x) dx = − ai (B.81)
a ∂x dt 3α
And by using (2.186) on (B.80) we have proofed (B.41).
– 161 –
APPENDIX B. DERIVATIONS B.3. MATHEMATICAL PROOFS
B.3 Mathematical proofs

This section contains a loose collection of non-trivial mathematical derivations and proofs.
B.3.1 Proof of the equivalence of Equations (2.328) and (2.329)

In this section we demonstrate the proof the equivalence of two equations (2.328) and (2.329) from
Section 2.4.3.4. The equivalence was stated, but not shown, by Dai [37]. The author acknowledges [109]
for providing guideance for the proof.
We start by repeating the equations in question
r !
p
θt = arcsin 2β 1 + β2 − β (2.328)
p
θt = arccos 1 + β2 − β (2.329)
which can be reformulated to the form found in Dai [37]

r p
sin θt = 2β 1 + β2 − β (B.82)
p
cos θt = 1 + β 2 − β (B.83)
For the proof, we make use of the general trigonometric relation (B.84)
p
sin(arccos(x)) = 1 − x2 (B.84)
p
arccos(x) = arcsin 1 − x2 (B.85)
as a second intermediate step we calculate

hp i2 p
1 + β 2 − β = 1 + β 2 − 2β 1 + β 2 + β 2 (B.86)
hp i2 p
1− 1 + β 2 − β = 2β 1 + β 2 − 2β 2 (B.87)
hp i2 p
1− 1 + β 2 − β = 2β 1 + β2 − β (B.88)
Now, we insert x = 1 + β 2 − β into (B.85)

p
r !
p hp i2
arccos( 1 + β 2 − β) = arcsin 1− 1 + β2 − β (B.89)
Finally, we insert (B.88)

r !
p p
arccos( 1 + β 2 − β) = arcsin 2β 1 + β2 − β (B.90)
B.3.2 Proof of the equivalence of Equations (2.332) and (2.332)

In this section we proof the equivalence of two equations (2.332) and (2.333) from Section 2.4.3.4.
– 162 –

cos3 θt
4 cos θt 2
3 + 3 − cos θt
I2 = − (2.332)
sin4 θt

cos3 θt
9K3 2
3 + 3 − cos θt
I2 = − (2.333)
2Ec,Sutherland sin2 θt
We start with
2f Ec,Sutherland
β= (2.327)
9K3
f 9K3
= (B.91)
β 2Ec,Sutherland
and insert (B.91) into (2.333)

cos3 θt
f 2
3 + 3 − cos θt
I2 = − (B.92)
β sin θt
2
Next, we insert (B.93), which follows from the equivalence of Equations (2.328) and (2.329) [37], see also
Section B.3.1
sin2 θt = 2β cos θt (B.93)
and gain

cos3 θt
2f cos θt 2
3 + 3 − cos θt
I2 = − (B.94)
sin θt
4
With a value of f = 2 of the so-called Stokes correction factor f [303] we have proven the equivalence
of (2.332) and (2.332).
We recapitulate that for the term I2 used in the Generalised Sutherland Equation two equivalent for-
mulations can be found in literature. Equation (2.332) is used in [37, 177, 199], whereas equation (2.333)
can be found in [34, 36]. Dai [37] reports a value of f = 2, according to [92, 303]. Whereas, Dai et al.
[34] report a value of f = 2.034 by citing Dukhin and Rulyov [61].
B.3.3 Proof of Equation (2.147)

To proof (2.147)
B : ∇u = −2νSGS S : S (2.147)
we repeat the definitions of S and B
1
S= ∇u + (∇u)T (2.127)

2
S = sym(∇·u) (B.95)
2
B = kSGS I − 2νSGS S (2.128)
3
– 163 –
inserting (2.127) and (2.128) into the RHS of (2.147) gives
2

B : ∇u = kSGS I − 2νSGS S : ∇u (B.96)
3
2
B : ∇u = kSGS I : ∇u − 2νSGS S : ∇u (B.97)
3
for incompressible flow the following relation holds
I : ∇u = tr(∇u) = ∇·u = 0 (B.98)
Thus, the first term of (B.97) vanishes
B : ∇u = −2νSGS S : ∇u (B.99)
Since S is the symmetric part of ∇·u, see equation (B.95), we decompose ∇·u into its symmetric and
skew parts. For a general tensor T this decomposition is as follows [123]:
T = sym(T) + skew(T) (B.100)

1
sym(T) = T + TT (B.101)

2
1
skew(T) = T − TT (B.102)

2
Thus, (B.99) becomes
B : ∇u = −2νSGS S : [S + skew(∇·u)] (B.103)

B : ∇u = −2νSGS [S : S + S : skew(∇·u)] (B.104)
The contraction of a symmetric and a skew tensor vanishes by definition
skew(T) : sym(T) (B.105)

| {z } | {z }
aij sij
aii = 0 (B.106)
aij = −aji (B.107)
skew(T) : sym(T) = aij sij = 0 (B.108)
Thus, the second term in (B.104) vanishes.
B : ∇u = −2νSGS S : S (B.109)
Thus, with (B.109) we proofed equation (2.147).
B.3.4 Proof of Equations (4.9) and (4.10)

The equations (4.9) and (4.10) are used to compute the mean velocity and mean squared velocity fluctu-
ation on-the-fly.
n − n0 − 1 1
uq,n = uq,n−1 + uq,n (4.9)
n − n0 n − n0
n − n0 − 1 0 2 1 2
02
uq,n = uq,n−1 + (uq,n − uq,n ) (4.10)
n − n0 n − n0
– 164 –
From an averaging point of view equations (4.9) and (4.10) are equivalent; thus, we derive an on-the-fly
averaging relation for a general quantity φ. We start with relation (B.110) for the mean value φn−1 ,
when the time series of φi is averaged from the time n0 to n − 1. The time up to which the mean value
was evaluated (the current end of the time series) is indicated by the index. The index n0 denotes the
start of the averaging procedure. When n0 is set to zero or the beginning of the time series we get the
common mean value. When n0 is set to n0 = n − N with N = const < n, then relation (B.110) is a
moving average.
n−1
1 X
φn−1 = φi (B.110)
n − n0 − 1 i=n
0
We now append another data point at the index n and restate the definition of the mean value
n
1 X
φn = φi (B.111)
n − n0 i=n
0
We now extract the current value φn by splitting the sum

" n−1 #
1 X
φn = φi + φn (B.112)
n − n0 i=n0
Now we introduce additional terms to gain an expression like (B.110)
n−1
1 n − n0 − 1 X 1
φn = φi + φn (B.113)
n − n0 n − n0 − 1 i=n n − n0
0
n − n0 − 1 1
φn = φn−1 + φn (B.114)
n − n0 n − n0
Equation (B.114) is a relation for the mean value φn that depends on the current value φn and the
previous mean value φn−1 . This is very practical, since it enables us to compute averaged quantities
on-the-fly while the simulation is running. This way, the additional storage requirements are minimal,
since only the field of the averaged values needs to be stored. Computing the average after the simulation
would mean to store all intermediate time steps.
2
By inserting the velocity uq,i or the squared velocity fluctuation uq,i
02
= (uq,i − uq,i ) for the arbitrary
quantity φi we gain equations (4.9) and (4.10).
– 165 –
Nomenclature
τ Time constant
Dimensionless Groups τ Viscous stress
Bo Bond number θ Contact angle
Eo Eotvos number
Fl Flow number Latin Symbols
Fr Froude number A Area
K Stokes number A Model constant
NP Power number a Acceleration
Re Reynolds number a Model constant
a Paddle width
Greek Symbols B Model constant
α Volume fraction b Rotor shaft diameter
δ Distance C Impeller clearance
Dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy C Mass concentration
γ Volume fraction C Model constant
µ Dynamic viscosity CD Drag coefficient
µ Realization D Depth
ν Kinematic viscosity D Rotor Diameter
Ω Angular velocity (spin) d Diameter
ω Angular velocity d Rotor disk diameter
ω Central angle E Efficiency (Probability)
φ Volume fraction F Cumulative size distribution function
Ψ Stream function F Force
ρ Density F Mass flow
σ Surface tension f Correction factor
– 166 –
f Relative size distribution function wS Solids content per weight
g Gravity X Indicator function
H Height X Model constant
H Tank height Y Mass fraction
h Paddle height Y Model constant
I Indicator function Z Bubble-particle encounter frequency
I Ionic strength Z0 Detachment frequency
i Summation index
K Force coefficient Oversymbols
Q̇ Time derivative of Q
k Flotation rate constant
Q Filtered Q
k Reaction rate constant
Q Mean or average value of Q
k Turbulent kinetic energy
Q
b Filtered Q
L Length
Q
e Favre-averaged Q
M Torque
m Mass
Superscripts
N Number
Q∗ Critical or limiting Q
n Number density
Q0 Fluctuating part of Q
n Stirring speed
Q0 Modified Q
P Power
Q00 Fluctuating part of Q
p Pressure
Q Flow rate
Subscripts
R Radius
Q0 Initial
R Reaction rate
QA Attachment
R Recovery Qa Attachment
r Radial coordinate QB Bubble
r Specific reaction rate QC Collision
T Tank diameter Qc Collision
t Time QD Detachment
u Velocity QF Fluid
V Volume QG Gas
W Width QL Liquid phase
w Baffle width QL Liquid
– 167 –
QM Mixture Qslow Slow fraction
QP Particle Qcr Critical property
QR Rotor
Qef f Effective
QS Solid
Qin Inlet
QS Stability
Qout Outlet
Q∞ Quantity Q after infinite time
Qcal Calibrated quantity QSGS Sub-grid scale
Qfast Fast fraction Qsup Superficial
– 168 –
Bibliography
[1] The International System of Units, 2006. URL www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure.
[2] International vocabulary of metrology — basic and general concepts and associated terms (vim),
2008. URL http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2008.pdf. re-
trieved on February 20th 2015.
[3] J. Abrahamson. Collision rates of small particles in a vigorously turbulent fluid. Chemical Engi-
neering Science, 30:1371–1379, 1975.
[4] B. Albijanic, O. Ozdemir, A. V. Nguyen, and D. Bradshaw. A review of induction and attachment
times of wetting thin films between air bubbles and particles and its relevance in the separation of
particles by flotation. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 159:1–21, 2010.
[5] A. Alexandrescu. Modern C++ Design: Generic Programming and Design Patterns Applied. Ad-
dison Wesley, 2001.
[6] Christopher James Anderson. Flotation in a Novel Oscillatory Baffled Column. PhD thesis, Uni-
versity of Cape Town, 2008.
[7] J. D. Anderson. Computational Fluid Dynamics. McGraw-Hill International Editions, 1995.
[8] ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS ICEM CFD User Guide, 12.0 edition, April 2009.
[9] ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS FLUENT Theory Guide, 14.5 edition, October 2012.
[10] ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS FLUENT User Guide, 14.5 edition, October 2012.
[11] ANSYS, Inc. CFX-Solver Theory Guide, November 2013. Release 15.0.
[12] J. Aoki, L. Zhang, and B. G. Thomas. Modeling of inclusion removal in ladle refining. In 3rd
International Congress on Science & Technology of Steelmaking, pages 319–332, Warrendale, PA,
2005. Association for Iron & Steel Technology.
[13] R. Barrett, M. Berry, T. F. Chan, J. Demmel, J. Donato, J. Dongarra, V. Eijkhout, R. Pozo,

C. Romine, and H. Van der Vorst. Templates for the Solution of Linear Systems: Building Blocks
for Iterative Methods. SIAM, 2nd edition edition, 1994.
[14] C. Bartels, M. Breuer, K. Wechsler, and F. Durst. Computational fluid dynamics applications on
parallel-vector computers: computations of stirred vessel flows. Computers & Fluids, 31:69–97,
2002.
[15] G. K. Batchelor. The effect of Brownian motion on the bulk stress in a suspension of spherical
particles. J. Fluid Mech., 83:97–117, 1977.
[16] R. L. Bates, P. L. Fondy, and R. R. Corpstein. An examination of some geometric parameters of

impeller power. I & EC Process Design and Development, 2:310–314, 1963.
– 169 –
[17] S. Becker, A. Sokolichin, and G. Eigenberger. Gas-liquid flow in bubble columns and loop reactors:
Part II. comparison of detailed experiments and flow simulations. Chemical Engineering Science,
49:5747–5762, 1994.
[18] G. F. Bennett and N. K. Shammas. Separation of oil from wastewater by air flotation. In L. K.
Wang, N. K. Shammas, W. A. Selke, and D. B. Aulenbach, editors, Flotation Technology, volume 12
of Handbook of Environmental Engineering, pages 85–120. Springer Science + Business Media, 2010.
[19] Frederik Bloom and Theodore J. Heindel. Mathematical modelling of the flotation deinking process.
Mathl. Comput. Modelling, 25:13–58, 1997.
[20] Frederik Bloom and Theodore J. Heindel. On the structure of collision and detachment frequencies
in flotation models. Chemical Engineering Science, 57:2467–2473, 2002.
[21] Frederik Bloom and Theodore J. Heindel. Modeling flotation separation in a semi-batch process.
Chemical Engineering Science, 58:353–365, 2003.
[22] W. N. Bond and D. A. Newton. Bubbles, drops and Stokes’ law. Philosophical Magazine, 5:794–800,
1928.
[23] R. Boom, O. Dankert, A. van Veen, and A. A. Kamperman. Argon solubility in liquid steel.
Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, 31B:913–919, 2000.
[24] P. Bourke. Selecting flotation cells: How many and what size? MEIonline. URL http://www.
min-eng.com/frothflotation/4.html.
[25] J. Boussinesq. Théorie de l’Écoulement tourbillant. Mem. Présentés par Drivers Savants Acad.
Sci. Inst. Fr., 23:46–50, 1877.
[26] D. Braun. Recycling of PVC. Progess in Polymer Science, 27:2171–2195, 2002.
[27] Srdjan M. Bulatovic. Handbook of Flotation Reagents, volume 1. Elsevier Science & Technology
Books, 2007.
[28] Dawn Bunyak. Frothers, Bubbles and Flotation – a Survey of Flotation Milling in the Twentieth-
Century Metals Industry. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado, 1998.
[29] J. N. E. Carneiro, V. Kaufmann, and W. Polifke. Implementation of a moments model in open-
foam for polydispersed multiphase flows. In Proceedings of the Open Source CFD International
Conference 2008, 2008.
[30] R. Clift, J. R. Grace, and M. E. Weber. Bubbles, drops, and particles. Academic Press, Inc., 1978.
[31] R. Courant, K. Friedrichs, and H. Lewy. Über die partiellen differenzengleichungen der mathema-
tischen physik. Mathematische Annalen, 100:32–74, 1928.
[32] Clayton T. Crowe, editor. Multiphase Flow Handbook. Taylor & Francis, 2006.
[33] M. Culpo. Current bottlenecks in the scalability of OpenFOAM on massively parallel clusters.
Technical report, PRACE, 2012.
[34] Z. Dai, S. Dukhin, D. Fornasiero, and J. Ralston. The inertial hydrodynamic interaction of particles
and rising bubbles with mobile surface. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 197:275–292, 1998.
[35] Z. Dai, D. Fornasiero, and J. Ralston. Particle-bubble attachment in mineral flotation. Journal of
Colloid and Interface Science, 217:70–76, 1999.
[36] Z. Dai, D. Fornasiero, and J. Ralston. Particle-bubble collision models - a review. Advances in
– 170 –
[37] Zongfu Dai. Particle-bubble heterocoagulation. PhD thesis, University of South Australia, Ian Wark
Research Institute, 1998.
[38] L. Davidson. A note on the derivation of the equations for the subgrid turbulent kinetic energies.
Technical report, Chalmers University of Technology, 1997. Technical Report No. 97/12.
[39] M. R. Davidson. Numerical calculations of two-phase flow in a liquid bath with bottom gas injection:
The central plume. Appl. Math. Modelling, 14:67–76, 1990.
[40] R. M. Davies and G. I. Taylor. The mechanics of large bubbles rising through extended liquids and
through liquids in tubes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical
and Engineering Sciences, 200(1062):375–390, 1950.
[41] M. Lopez de Bertodano. Turbulent bubbly two-phase flow in a triangular duct. PhD thesis, Renselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 1992.
[42] N. G. Deen, T. Solberg, and B. H. Hjertager. Large eddy simulation of the gas-liquid flow in a
square cross-sectioned bubble column. Chemical Engineering Science, 56:6341–6349, 2001.
[43] N. G. Deen, T. Solberg, and B. H. Hjertager. Flow generated by an aerated Rushton impeller: Two-
phase PIV experiments and numerical simulations. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering,
80:1–15, 2002.
[44] Niels G. Deen. An experimental and computational study of fluid dynamics in gas-liquid chemical
reactors. PhD thesis, Aalborg University Esbjerg, 2001.
[45] D. A. Deglon. The effect of agitation on the flotation of platinum ores. Minerals Engineering, 18:
839–844, 2005.
[46] D. A. Deglon and C. J. Meyer. CFD modelling of stirred tanks: numerical considerations. Minerals
Engineering, 19:1059–1068, 2006.
[47] D. A. Deglon and C. J. Meyer. Particle collision modeling - a review. Minerals Engineering, 24:
719–730, 2011.
[48] David A. Deglon. A Hydrodynamic Investigation of fine particle flotation in a batch flotation cell.
PhD thesis, University of Cape Town, July 1998.
[49] J.-M. Delhaye. Some issues related to the modeling of interfacial areas in gas-liquid flows I. the
conceptual issues. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences - Series IIB - Mechanics, 329(5):
397–410, 2001.
[50] B. V. Derjaguin and S. S. Dukhin. Theory of flotation af small and medium-size particles. Bulletin
- Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, 651:21–246, 1961.
[51] M. T. Dhotre and B. L. Smith. CFD simulation of large-scale bubble plumes: Comparison against
experiments. Chemical Engineering Science, 62:6615–6630, 2007.
[52] M. T. Dhotre, B. Ničeno, and B. L. Smith. Large eddy simulation of a bubble column using dynamic
sub-grid scale model. Chemical Engineering Journal, 136:337–348, 2008.
[53] M. T. Dhotre, N. G. Deen, B. Ničeno, Z. Khan, and J. B. Joshi. Large eddy simulation for dispersed
bubbly flows: a review. International Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2013:22 pages, 2013. Article
ID 343276.
[54] W. Dijkhuizen, I. Roghair, M. Van Sint Annaland, and J. A. M. Kuipers. DNS of gas bubbles be-
haviour using an improved 3D front tracking model - drag force on isolated bubbles and comparison
with experiments. Chemical Engineering Science, 65:1415–1426, 2010.
– 171 –
[55] G. S. Dobby and J. A. Finch. Particle size dependence in flotation derived from a fundamental
model of the capture process. Int. J. Mineral Processing, 21:241–260, 1987.
[56] Pauline Doran. Bioprocess Engineering Principles. Elsevier Ltd., 2013.
[57] D. A. Drew and S. L. Passman. Theory of Multicomponent Fluids. Springer, New York, 1998.
[58] J. Drzymala. Characterization of materials by Hallimond tube flotation, Part 3. maximum size of
floating and interaction particles. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 55:203–218, 1999.
[59] J. Duan, D. Fornasiero, and J. Ralston. Calculation of the flotation rate constant of chalcopyrite
particles in an ore. Int. J. Mineral Processing, 72:227–237, 2003.
[60] S. S. Dukhin. Role of inertial forces in flotation of small particles. Kolloidn. Zh., 44:431–441, 1982.
[61] S. S. Dukhin and N. N.) Rulyov, N. N. (Rulev. Hydrodynamic interaction between a solid spherical
particle and a bubble in the elementary act of flotation. Kolloidn. Zh., 39:270–275, 1977.
[62] Franz Durst. An Introduction to the Theory of Fluid Flows. Springer, 2008.
[63] J. K. Edzwald. Dissolved air flotation and me. Water research, 44:2077–2106, 2010.
[64] A. Einstein. Berichtigung zu meiner arbeit: "Eine neue Bestimmung der Moleküldimensionen".
Annalen der Pysik, 34:591–592, 1911.
[65] A. Einstein. Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. Annalen der Physik, 354:769–822,
1916.
[66] Albert Einstein. Eine neue Bestimmung der Moleküldimensionen. PhD thesis, Universität Zürich,
1905.
[67] Darnell Francois Engelbrecht. Development of a CFD model for stirred tank applications. Master’s
thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Cape Town, 2006.
[68] Eric S. Raymond. The Cathedral & the Bazaar. O Reilley, 1999.
[69] A. Favre. Equations des gaz turbulents compressibles. Journal de Mecanique, 4:361–390, 1965.
[70] Hassan Elhady H. Fayed. Particles and Bubbles Collisions Frequency in Homogeneous Isotropic
Turbulence in Applications to Minerals Flotation Mechines. PhD thesis, Virginia Polytchnic Insti-
tute and State University, 2013.
[71] J. H. Ferzinger and M. Perić. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics. Springer, 3rd edition,
2002.
[72] Fluent, Inc. Gambit Tutorial Guide, 2.2 edition, September 2004.
[73] R. O. Fox. Bivariate direct quadrature method of moments for coagulation and sintering of particle
populations. Journal of Aerosol Science, 37:1562–1580, 2006.
[74] Silvia Franca and Hudson Couto. The use of column flotation to recover nickel minerals from low
grade ores. In Proceedings of the 9th International Mineral Processing Conference, 2012.
[75] T. Frank, P. J. Zwart, J.-M. Shi, E. Krepper, D. Lucas, and U. Rohde. Inhomogeneous MUSIG
model - a population balance approach for polydispflows flows. In Proceedings of the International
Conference "Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005", 2005.
[76] J. Fröhlich. Large Eddy Simulationen turbulenter Strömungen. Teubner, 2006.
– 172 –
[77] D. W. Fuerstenau. The froth flotation century. In B. K. Parekh and J. D. Miller, editors, Advances
in Flotation Technology. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. (SME), 1999.
[78] D. W. Fuerstenau. A century of developments in the chemistry of flotation processing. In M. C.
Fuerstenau, G. Jameson, and R.-H. Yoon, editors, Froth flotation: a century of innovation, pages
3–64. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. (SME), 2007.
[79] M. C. Fuerstenau. Froth Flotation: a century of innovation. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration, 2007. Google books.
[80] C. Fureby, G. Tabor, H. G. Weller, and A. D. Gosman. A comparative study of subgrid scale
models in homogeneous isotropic turbulence. Physics of Fluids, 9:1416–1429, 1997.
[81] Fusion Fluid Equipment, LLC. URL http://www.fusionfluid.com/FusionFluidEquipmentLLC/
html/mixing_impellers.html. Accessed December 4, 2013.
[82] S. Gao, J. Yang, J. Tian, F. Ma, G. Tu, and M. Du. Electro-coagulation–flotation process for algae
removal. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 177:336–343, 2010.
[83] H. Garcia-Zuñiga. La eficiencia de la flotación es una functión exponencial del tiempo. Boletín
Minero Sociedad Nacional de Minería, 47:83–86, 1935.
[84] A. M. Gaudin. Principles of mineral dressing. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc, 1939.
[85] A. M. Gaudin. Flotation. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc, 2nd edition, 1957.
[86] A. M. Gaudin, R. Schuhmann Jr., and A. W. Schlechten. Flotation kinetics. ii. the effect of size on
the behaviour of galena particles. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 46(8):902–910, 1942.
[87] M. Germano, U. Piomelli, P. Moin, and W. H. Cabot. A dynamic subgrid-scale eddy viscosity
model. Physics of Fluids A, 3:1760–1765, 1991.
[88] Ahindra Ghosh. Secondary Steelmaking - Principles and Applications. CRC Press, 2001.
[89] J. W. Gibbs and E. B. Wilson. Vector Analysis. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1929. https:
//archive.org/details/117714283.
[90] Salvador Gomez and Pablo Gonzalez. Recovery of gold and silver from a pyrite concentrate. In
Proceedings of the 9th International Mineral Processing Conference, 2012.
[91] B. K. Gorain, T. J. Napier-Munn, J.-P. Franzidis, and E.V. Manlapig. Studies on impeller type,
impeller speed and air flow rate in an industrial scale flotation cell. part 5: Validation of k − Sb
relationship and effect of froth depth. Minerals Engineering, 11:615–626, 1998.
[92] S. L. Goren and M. E. O’Neill. On the hydrodynamic resistance to a particle of a dilute suspension
when in neighbourhood of a large obstacle. Chemical Engineering Science, 26:325–338, 1971.
[93] A. D. Gosman, R. I. Lekakou, S. Politis, R. I. Issa, and M. K. Looney. Multidimensional modeling
of turbulent two-phase flows in stirred vessels. AIChE Journal, 38:1946–1956, 1992.
[94] D. Govender, D. Lelinski, and F. Traczyk. Hybrid energy flotation™ - on the optimization of
fine and coarse particle kinetics in a single row. In Proceedings of the 5th International Platinum
Conference, volume 1, pages 383–410. The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
2012.
[95] I. Grattan-Guinness, editor. Landmark Writings in Western Mathematics. Elsevier, 2005.
[96] J. Grienberger. Untersuchung und Modellierung von Blasensäulen. PhD thesis, Universität
Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1992.
– 173 –
[97] W. L. Habermann and R. K. Morton. An experimental investigation of the drag and shape of air
bubbles rising in various liquids. Technical report, Navy Department - The David W. Taylor Model
Basin, 1953. NS 715-102.
[98] K. F. Hallimond. Laboratory apparatus for flotation tests. Min. Mag., 70:87–91, 1944.
[99] Howard L. Hartmann and Jan M. Mutmansky. Introductory Mining Engineering. John Wiley &
Sons Inc., 2nd edition, 2002.
[100] D. Hewitt, D. Fornasiero, and J. Ralston. Bubble-particle attachment efficiency. Minerals Engi-
neering, 7:657–665, 1994.
[101] T. Hibiki and M. Ishii. Lift force in bubbly flow systems. Chemical Engineering Science, 62:
6457–6474, 2007.
[102] David P. Hill. The computer simulation of dispersed two-phase flows. PhD thesis, Imperial College
of Science, Technology and Medicine, 1998.
[103] J. Hinch. A perspective of Batchelor’s research in micro-hydrodynamics. J. Fluid Mech., 663:8–17,

2010.
[104] Charles Hirsch. Numerical Computation of Internal & External Flows. Butterworth-Heinemann,
2nd edition edition, 2007.
[105] L. Holappa. Chapter 1.6 - secondary steelmaking. In Seshadri Seetharaman, editor, Treatise on
Process Metallurgy, pages 301–345. Elsevier, Boston, 2014.
[106] L. Holappa and O. Wijk. Chapter 1.7 - inclusion engineering. In Seshadri Seetharaman, editor,
Treatise on Process Metallurgy, pages 347–372. Elsevier, Boston, 2014.
[107] Richard G. Holdich. Fundamental of Particle Technology. Midland Information Technology and
Publishing, 2002.
[108] B. A. Horri, P. Ranganathan, C. Selomulya, and H. Wang. A new empirical viscosity model for
ceramic suspensions. Chemical Engineering Science, 66:2798–2806, 2011.
[109] Mark Fischler (http://math.stackexchange.com/users/150362/). Trigonometric proof. Mathemat-

ics, April 2015. URL: http://math.stackexchange.com/a/1216212/97055.
[110] A. Hu, K. Hadler, S. J. Neethling, and J. J. Cilliers. Determining flotation circuit layout using
genetic algorithms with pulp and froth models. Chemical Engineering Science, 102:32–41, 2013.
[111] Weimeng Hu. Flotation Circuit Optimisation and Design. PhD thesis, Imperial College London,
Department of Earth Science and Engineering, 2014.
[112] Peter Häussinger, Reinhard Glatthaar, Wilhelm Rhode, Helmut Kick, Christian Benkmann, Josef
Weber, Hans-Jörg Wunschel, Viktor Stenke, Edith Leicht, and Hermann Stenger. Ullmann’s En-
cyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, volume 24, chapter Noble Gases, pages 391–448. Wiley-VCH
Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2000.
[113] R. Imhof. Pneumatic flotation - a modern alternative. In International Colloquium – Developments

in Froth Flotaion, Gordon’s Bay, Cape Town, 1989. Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy.
[114] R. Imhof, M. Battersby, F. Parra, and S. Sanchez-Pino. The successful application of pneumatic
flotation technology for the removal of silica by reverse flotation at the iron ore pellet plant of
compañía minera huasco, chile. In Centenary of Flotation Symposium, Brisbane, June 2005.
– 174 –
[115] M. Ishii. Two-fluid model for two-phase flow. In 2nd International Workshop on Two-Phase Fun-
damentals, Troy, NY, 1979. RPI.
[116] M. Ishii and T. C. Chawla. Local drag laws in dispersed two-phase flow. Technical report, Argonne
National Laboratory, 1979. NUREG/CR-1230, ANL-79-105.
[117] M. Ishii and T. Hibiki. Thermo-Fluid Dynamics of Two-Phase Flow. Springer, New York, Dor-
drecht, Heidelberg, London, 2 edition, 2011.
[118] M. Ishii and N. Zuber. Drag coefficient and relative velocity in bubbly, droplet or particulate flow.
AIChE Journal, 25:843–855, 1979.
[119] M. Ishii, S. Kim, and J. Uhle. Interfacial area transport equation: model development and bench-
mark experiments. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 45:3111–3123, 2002.
[120] M. Ishii, S. Kim, and J. Kelly. Development of interfacial area transport equation. Nuclear Engi-
neering and Technology, 37(6):525–536, 2005.
[121] R. I. Issa. Solution of the implicitely discretized fluid flow equation by operator splitting. Journal
of Computational Physics, 62:40–65, 1986.
[122] R. I. Issa and P. J. Oliveira. Validation of two-fluid models in shear-free mixing layers. In Proceedings
of the Fluids Engineering Division Conference, volume 1, pages 113–120. ASME, 1996.
[123] M. Itskov. Tensor Algebra and Tensor Analysis for Engineers. Springer, 2007.
[124] H. A. Jakobsen. Chemical Reactor Modeling. Springer, 2008.
[125] H. A. Jakobsen, H. Lindborg, and C. A. Dorao. Modeling of bubble column reactors: Progress and
limitations. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 44:5107–5151, 2005.
[126] G. J. Jameson, S. Nam, and M. M. Young. Physical factors affecting recovery rates in flotation.
Minerals Science and Engineering, 9:103–118, 1977.
[127] H. Jasak and H. G. Weller. Application of the finite volume method and unstructured meshes to
linear elasticity. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 48:267–287, 2000.
[128] Hrvoje Jasak. Error Analysis and Estimation for the Finite Volume Method with Applications to
Fluid Flows. PhD thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine, 1996.
[129] D. D. Joseph. Rise velocity of a spherical cap bubble. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 488:213–223,
2003.
[130] A. Jowett. Formation and disruption of bubble-particle aggregates in flotation in fine particle
processing. In P. Somasundaran, editor, Proc. Int. Symp. Fine Particles Processing, volume 1.
AIME, AIMM, 1980.
[131] M. Karimi, G. Akdogan, and S. M. Bradshaw. A computational fluid dynamics model for the
flotation rate constant, Part I: Model development. Minerals Engineering, 69:214–222, 2014.
[132] M. Karimi, G. Akdogan, and S. M. Bradshaw. A CFD-kinetic model for the flotation rate constant,
Part II: Model validation. Minerals Engineering, 69:205–213, 2014.
[133] D. F. Kelsall. Application of probability assessment of flotation systems. Transactions, American
Society of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, 70:191–204, 1961.
[134] M.-S. Kim and D.-H. Kwak. Comparative evaluation of particle separation efficiency based on
carbon dioxide and air bubble sizes in flotation separation processes. Separation and Purification
Technology, 138:161–168, 2014.
– 175 –
[135] S. Kim, X. Sun, M. Ishii, S. G. Beus, and F. Lincoln. Interfacial area transport and evaluation of
source and sink terms for confined air-water bubbly flow. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 219:
61–75, 2002.
[136] W.-W. Kim and S. Menon. Application of the localized dynamic subgrid-scale model to turbulent
wall-bounded flows. Technical report, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1997.
Technical Report AIAA-97-0210.
[137] R. R. Klimpell. Selection of chemical reagents for flotation. In A. Mular and R. Bhappu, editors,
Mineral Processing Plant Design, pages 907–934. SME, Littleton, CO, 2nd edition, 1980.
[138] Eberhart Klingbeil. Tensorrechnung für Ingenieure. BI Hochschultaschenbücher, 1966.
[139] G. Kocamustafaogullari and M. Ishii. Foundation of the interfacial area transport equation and its
closure relations. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 38(3):481–493, 1995.
[140] P. T. L. Koh, M. Manickam, and M. P. Schwarz. CFD simulation of bubble-particle collisions in
mineral flotation cells. Minerals Engineering, 13(14-15):1455–1463, 2000.
[141] P. T. L. Koh, M. P. Schwarz, Y. Zhu, P. Bourke, R. Peaker, and J. P. Franzidis. Development
of CFD models of mineral flotation cells. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
CFD in the Minerals and Process Industries, pages 171–176. CSIRO, 2003.
[142] P.T.L. Koh and M.P. Schwarz. CFD modelling of bubble-particle collision rates and efficiencies in
a flotation cell. Minerals Engineering, 16:1055–1059, 2003.
[143] P.T.L. Koh and M.P. Schwarz. CFD modelling of bubble-particle attachments in flotation cells.
Minerals Engineering, 19:619–626, 2006.
[144] P.T.L. Koh and M.P. Schwarz. CFD model of a self-aerating flotation cell. International Journal
of Mineral Processing, 85:16–24, 2007.
[145] P. Korbel and M. Novák. The complete encyclopedia of minerals. Grange Books, 2001.
[146] S. Krajnović and L. Davidson. A mixed one-equation subgrid model for large-eddy simulation.
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 23:413–425, 2002.
[147] Matthias Kraume. Transportvorgänge in der Verfahrenstechnik. Springer, 2012.
[148] I. M. Krieger and T. J. Dougherty. A mechanism for non-Newtonian flow in suspensions of rigid
spheres. Transactions of the Society of Rheology, 3:137–152, 1959.
[149] W. Krieglstein and L. Grossmann. Hybrid flotation - newly developed flotation technology for
increased recovery - especially in the finest particle fractions. In Proceedings of Cu 2010, volume 7,
pages 2793–2806. GDMB, 2010.
[150] W. Krieglstein and L. Grossmann. The same in small. Metals & Mining, 1:26–27, 2011.
[151] W. Krieglstein, G. Franke, L. Grossmann, W. Hartmann, S. Blendinger, and R. Fleck. Development
and operation of a laboratory-size hybrid flotation cell. Poster presented to 7th International Mineral
Processing Seminar, Santiago de Chile, December, 8-10 2010.
[152] W. Krieglstein, L. Grossmann, R. Fleck, and W. Hartmann. Flotation tests with porphyry copper
ores using a laboratory-scale hybrid flotation cell. In Proceedings of the XXVI International Mineral
Processing Congress (IMPC 2012), 2012.
[153] R. Krishna, J. M. van Baten, and M. I. Urseanu. Three-phase Eulerian simulations of bubble
column reactors operating in churn-turbulent regime: a scale up strategy. Chemical Engineering
Science, 55:3275–3286, 2000.
– 176 –
[154] Fabian Peng Kärrholm. Numerical Modelling of Diesel Spray Injection, Turbulence Interaction and
Combustion. PhD thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2008.
[155] G. L. Lane and P. T. L. Koh. CFD simulation of a rushton turbine in a baffled tank. In Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on CFD in the Mineral & Metals Processing and Power Generation
Industries, pages 377–386. CSIRO, 1997.
[156] G. L. Lane, M. P. Schwarz, and G. M. Evans. Predicting gas-liquid flow in a mechanically stirred
tank. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 26:223–235, 2002.
[157] G. L. Lane, M. P. Schwarz, and G. M. Evans. Numerical modelling of gas-liquid flow in stirred
tanks. Chemical Engineering Science, 60:2203–2214, 2005.
[158] B. E. Launder and D. B. Spalding. Mathematical models of turbulence. Academic Press, 1972.
[159] B.-H. Lee, S.-H. Kim, and S.-H. Kim. Dof (dissolved ozone flotation) technology in wastewater
treatment. In Science and Technology, 2004. KORUS 2004. Proceedings. The 8th Russian-Korean
International Symposium on, pages 331–333, 2004.
[160] B. H. Lee, W. C. Song, B. Manna, and J. K. Ha. Dissolved ozone flotation (dof) - a promising
technology in municipal wastewater treatment. Desalination, 225:260–273, 2008.
[161] B. W. Lee and M. P. Dudukovic. Determination of flow regime and gas holdup in gas-liquid stirred
tanks. Chemical Engineering Science, 109:264–275, 2014.
[162] A. Leonard. Energy cascade in large-eddy simulations of turbulent fluid flows. In Turbulent Diffu-
sion in Environmental Pollution Proceedings of a Symposium held at Charlottesville, volume 18 of
Advances in Geophysics, pages 237–248. Elsevier, 1975.
[163] Octave Levenspiel. Chemical Reaction Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, 3rd edition edition, 1999.
[164] Y. Liao, R. Rzehak, D. Lucas, and E. Krepper. Baseline closure model for dispersed bubbly flow:
bubble coalesccoal and breakup. Chemical Engineering Science, 122:336–349, 2015.
[165] T. Lichtenegger and S. Pirker. Recurrence CFD – a novel approach to simulate multiphase flows
with strongly separated time scales. Chemical Engineering Science, 153:394–410, 2016.
[166] F. Liepe and O. H. Möckel. Untersuchungen zum stoffverreinigen in flüssiger phase. Chemical
Technology, 30:205–209, 1976.
[167] D. K. Lilly. A proposed modification of the germano subgrid-scale closure method. Physics of
Fluids A, 4:633, 1992.
[168] Y. Liu, T. Hibiki, and M. Ishii. Modeling of interfacial area transport in two-phase flows. In
Advances in Multiphase Flow and Heat Transfer, volume 4, chapter 1, pages 3–27. Bentham Science
Publishers, 2012.
[169] D. L. Marchisio and R. O. Fox. Solution of population balance equations using direct quadrature
method of moments. Journal of Aerosol Science, 36:43–73, 2005.
[170] T. Marić, J. Höpken, and K. Mooney. The OpenFOAM Technology Primer. sourceflux UG, 2014.
[171] Holger Marschall. Towards the Numerical Simulation of Multi-Scale Two-Phase Flows. PhD thesis,
Technische Universität München, 2011.
[172] R. W. J. Mc Kinney, editor. Technology of Paper Recycling. Blackie Academic & Professional,
1994.
– 177 –
[173] R. McGraw. Description of aerosol dynamics by the quadrature method of moments. Aerosol
Science and Technology, 27:255–265, 1997.
[174] D. A. Mendez, E. D. Gálvez, and L. A. Cisternas. State of the art in the conceptual design of
flotation circuits. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 90:1–15, 2009.
[175] Messer Cutting & Welding GmbH. Flowmeter FLM32 datasheet.
[176] Metso Corporation. Basics in mineral processing. www.metso.com, 2013. Edition 9.
[177] T. Miettinen, J. Ralston, and D. Fornasiero. The limits of fine particle flotation. Minerals Engi-
neering, 23:420–437, 2010.
[178] T. S. Mika and D. W. Fuerstenau. A microscopic model of the flotation process. In Proceedings of
the VIII international mineral processing congress, pages 246–269, Leningrad, 1968.
[179] M. Milelli. A numerical analysis of confined turbulent bubble plumes. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology Zurich, 2002.
[180] M. Milelli, B. L. Smith, and D. Lakehal. Large-eddy simulation of turbulent shear flows laden with
bubbles. In Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation IV, pages 461–470. Springer, 2001.
[181] J. D. Miller, R. Du Plessis, D. G. Kotylar, X. Zhu, and G. L. Simmons. The low-potential hy-
drophobic state of pyrite in amyl xanthate flotation with nitrogen. International Journal of Mineral
Processing, 67:1–15, 2002.
[182] J. D. Miller, R. Kappes, G. L. Simmons, and K. M. LeVier. Pyrite activation in amyl xanthate
flotation with nitrogen. Minerals Engineering, 19:659–665, 2006.
[183] R. Moosai and R. A. Dawe. Gas attachment of oil droplets for gas flotation for oily wastewater
cleanup. Separation and Purification Technology, 33:303–314, 2003.
[184] P. Morales, H. Elgueta, C. Torres, W. Krieglstein, G. Franke, and L. Grossmann. Characterisation
of the operating performance of the SIMINE Hybrid Flot flotation cell. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Mineral Processing Seminar, pages 205–214, Santiago de Chile, 2010. Gecamin.
[185] F. Moukalled, L. Mangani, and M. Darwish. The finite volume method in computational fluid
dynamics. Springer International Publishing, 2016.
[186] Gavin M. Mudd. The sustainability of mining in australia: Key production trends and their
environmental implications for the future. Research report no rr5, Department of Civil Engineering,
Monash University and Mineral Policy Institute, revised - April 2009 2009.
[187] S. G. Mueller and M. P. Dudukovic. Gas holdup in gas-liquid stirred tanks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
49:10744–10750, 2010.
[188] F. N. B. Nahui, M. R. Nascimento, E. B. Cavalcanti, and E. O. Vilar. Electroflotation of emul-
sified oil in industrial wastes evaluated with a full factorial design. Brazilian Journal of Chemical
Engineering, 25:435–442, 2008.
[189] A. Navarra, C. Acuña, and J. A. Finch. Impact of frother on the terminal velocity of small bubbles.
Int. J. Mineral Processing, 91:68–73, 2009.
[190] S. J. Neethling and J. J. Cilliers. The entrainment of gangue into a flotation froth. International
Journal of Mineral Processing, 64:123–134, 2002.
[191] S. J. Neethling and J. J. Cilliers. The entrainment factor in froth flotation: Model for particle size
and other operating parameter effects. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 93:141–148,
2009.
– 178 –
[192] R. Newell and S. Grano. Hydrodynamics and scale up in Rushton turbine flotation cells: Part 2.
flotation scale-up for laboratory and pilot cells. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 81:
65–81, 2006.
[193] A. V. Nguyen. The collision between fine particles and single air bubbles in flotation. Journal of
[194] A. V. Nguyen. Particle-bubble encounter probability with mobile bubble surfaces. Int. J. Mineral
Processing, 55:73–86, 1998.
[195] A. V. Nguyen. Hydrodynamic of liquid flows around air bubbles in flotation: a review. Int. J.
Mineral Processing, 56:165–205, 1999.
[196] A. V. Nguyen and S. Kmet. Probability of collision between particles and bubbles in flotation:
a theoretical inertialess model involving a swarm of bubbles in the pulp phase. Int. J. Mineral
Processing, 40:155–169, 1994.
[197] A. V. Nguyen, H. J. Schulze, and J. Ralston. Elementary steps in particle-bubble attachment. Int.
J. Mineral Processing, 51:183–195, 1997.
[198] A. V. Nguyen, H. J. Schulze, and J. Ralston. On modelling of bubble-particle attachment probability
in flotation. Int. J. Mineral Processing, 53:225–249, 1998.
[199] C. M. Nguyen, A. V. Nguyen, and J. D. Miller. Computational validation of the generalized
sutherland equation for bubble-particle encounter efficiency in flotation. Int. J. Mineral Processing,
81:141–148, 2006.
[200] Hakan Nilsson. Turbomachinery training at ofw8. Technical report, Chalmers University of Tech-
nology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2013.
[201] B. Ničeno, M. T. Dhotre, and N. G. Deen. One.equation sub-grid scale (SGS) modelling for euler-
euler large eddy simulation (EELES) of dispersed bubbly flow. Chemical Engineering Science, 63:
3923–3931, 2008.
[202] B. Ničeno, M. Boucker, and B. L. Smith. Euler-euler large eddy simulations of a square cross sec-
tional bubble column using the neptune CFD code. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations,
2009:8 pages, 2009. Article ID 410272.
[203] F. Oeters, M. Ottow, D. Senk, A. Beyzavi, J. Güntner, H. B. Lüngen, M. Koltermann, and A. Buhr.
Iron, 1. fundamentals and principles of reduction processes. In Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry, volume 19, pages 577–656. Wiley-VCH Verlag, 2000.
[204] International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. Iupac compendium of chemical terminology –
the gold book, 2014. URL http://goldbook.iupac.org/.
[205] T. Okawa, T. Tanaka, I. Kataoka, and M. Mori. Temperature effect on single bubble rise charac-
teristics in stagnant distilled water. Int. J. on Heat and Mass Transfer, 46:903–913, 2003.
[206] OpenFOAM Foundation. URL http://www.openfoam.org/.
[207] OpenFOAM - Programmer’s Guide. OpenFOAM Foundation, 2.1.0 edition, 2011.
[208] Outotec Oyj. Outotec - sustainable use of earths natural resources, 2015. URL http://www.
outotec.com. accessed, August, 27th, 2015.
[209] R. Palaparthi, D. Papageorgiou, and C. Maldarelli. Theory and experiments on the stagnant cap
regime in the motion of spherical surfactant-laden bubbles. J. Fluid Mech., 559:1–44, 2006.
[210] S. V. Patankar. Numerial Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. Taylor & Francis, 1980.
– 179 –
[211] S. V. Patankar and D. B. Spalding. A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momentum transfer
in three-dimensional parabolic flows. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 15:1787–
1806, 1972.
[212] E. N. Peleka, N. K. Lazaridis, P. Mavros, and K. A. Matis. A new hybrid flotation-microfiltration

cell. Separation Science and Technology, 41:3229–3243, 2006.
[213] R. H. Perry and D. W. Green, editors. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book
Co. Inc, New York, 7th edition, 1997.
[214] Lukas Petzold. Konzeptionierung und planung einer mikrohybridflotationszelle. Master’s thesis,
Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg, Germany, 2014. unpublished.
[215] D. Pfleger and S. Becker. Modelling and simulation of the dynamic flow behaviour in a bubble
column. Chemical Engineering Science, 56:1737–1747, 2001.
[216] D. Pfleger, S. Gomes, N. Gilbert, and H.-G. Wagner. Hydrodynamic simulations of laboratory
scale bubble columns fundamental studies of the eulerian-eulerian modelling approach. Chemical
Engineering Science, 54:5091–5099, 1999.
[217] U. Piomelli. Large-eddy simulation: achievements and challenges. Progress in Aerospace Sciences,
35:335–362, 1999.
[218] U. Piomelli and J. R. Chasnov. Large-eddy simulations: theory and applications. In M. Hallback,
D. S. Henningson, A. V. Johansson, and P. H. Alfredsson, editors, Transition and Turbulence
Modelling, pages 269–336. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.
[219] M. Polat and S. Chander. First-order flotation kinetics models and mmethod for estimation of
the true distribution of flotation rate constants. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 58:
145–166, 2000.
[220] D. E. Polyak. 2013 mineral yearbook - molybdenum. Technical report, U.S. Geological Survey,
2013.
[221] T. Ponweiser, P. Stadelmeyer, and T. Karásek. Fluid-structure simulations with OpenFOAM for
aircraft designs. Technical report, PRACE, 2014.
[222] S. P. Pope. Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[223] S. Puttinger, G. Holzinger, and S. Pirker. Investigation of highly laden particle jet dispersion by
the use of a high-speed camera and parameter-independent image analysis. Powder Technology,
234:46–57, 2013.
[224] B. Pyke, D. Fornasiero, and J. Ralston. Bubble particle heterocoagulation under turbulent condi-
tions. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 265:141–151, 2003.
[225] Brendan Pyke. Bubble-Particle Capture in Turbulent Flotation Systems. PhD thesis, University of
South Australia, Ian Wark Research Institute, 2004.
[226] J. Ralston, S. S. Dukhin, and N. A. Mishchuk. Inertial hydrodynamic particle-bubble interaction

in flotation. Int. J. Mineral Processing, 56:207–256, 1999.
[227] J. Ralston, D. Fornasiero, and R. Hayes. Bubble-particle attachment and detachment in flotation.
Int. J. Mineral Processing, 56:133–164, 1999.
[228] J. Ralston, S. S. Dukhin, and N. A. Mishchuk. Wetting film stability and flotation kinetics. Advances
in Colloid and Interface Science, 95:145–236, 2002.
– 180 –
[229] E. R. Ramirez. Comparative physicochemical study of industrial wastewater treatment by elec-
trolytic, dispersed air and dissolved air flotation. In Proceedings of Purdue industrial waste confer-
ence, volume 34, pages 699–709, 1979.
[230] D. Ramkrishna. Population Balances: Theory and AApplication to Particulate SSystem in Engi-
neering. Academic Press, Inc., 2000.
[231] V. V. Ranade. An efficient computational model for simulating flow in stirred vessels: a case of
rushton turbine. Chemical Engineering Science, 52:4473–4484, 1997.
[232] Vivek V. Ranade. Computational Flow Modeling for Chemical Reactor Engineering, volume 5 of
Process Systems Engineering. Academic Press, 2002.
[233] C. Hank Rawlins. Flotation of fine oil droplets in petroleum production circuits. In D. Malhotra,
P. R. Taylor, E. Spiller, and M. LeVier, editors, Recent Advances in Mineral Processing Plant
Design, pages 232–246. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. (SME), 2009.
[234] O. Reynolds. On the dynamical theory of incompressible viscous fluids and the determination of
the criterion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 186:123, 1895. Series A.
[235] J. P. Rogler, L. J. Heaslip, and M. Mehrvar. Inclusion removal in a tundish by gas bubbling.
Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly, 43(3):407–416, 2004.
[236] J. B. Rubinstein. Column flotation. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1995.
[237] J. Rubio, M. L. Souza, and R. W. Smith. Overview of flotation as a wastewater treatment technique.
Minerals Engineering, 15:139–155, 2002.
[238] Henrik Rusche. Computational Fluid Dynamics of dispersed two-phase flows at high phase fractions.
PhD thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine, 2002.
[239] J. H. Rushton. Comments on "power characteristics of mixing impellers". In Citation Classics, num-
ber 33, page 240. Eugene Garfield, August 1980. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics.html.
[240] J. H. Rushton, E. W. Costich, and H. J. Everett. Power characteristics of mixing impellers - Part
II. Chemical Engineering Progress, 46:467–476, 1950.
[241] K. Rutherford, S. M. Mahmoudi, K. S. Lee, and M. Yianneskis. The influence of rushton impeller
blade and disc thickness on the mixing characteristics of stirred vessels. Transactions of IChemE,
74:369–378, 1996.
[242] Y. Saad and H. A. Van der Vorst. Iterative solution of linear systems in the 20th century. Journal
of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 123:1–33, 2000.
[243] Yousef Saad. Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems. Society for Industiral and Applied
Mathematics, second edition edition, 2003.
[244] S. S. Sadhal and R. E. Johnson. Stokes flow past bubbles and drops partially coated with thin
films. part 1. stagnant cap of surfactant film - exact solution. J. Fluid Mech., 126:237–250, 1983.
[245] P. G. Saffman and J. S. Turner. On the collision of drops in turbulent clouds. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 1:16–30, 1956.
[246] Pierre Sagaut. Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows: An Introduction. Scientific Com-
putation. Springer, 3rd edition, 2006.
[247] F. J. Saint Amand. Hydrodynamics of deinking flotation. International Journal of Mineral Pro-
cessing, 56:277–316, 1999.
– 181 –
[248] A.-H. Salem-Said, H. Fayed, and S. Ragab. Numerical simulations of two-phase flow in a dorr-oliver
flotation cell model. Minerals, 3:284–303, 2013.
[249] Y. Sato and K. Sekoguchi. Liquid velocity distribution in two-phase flow. International Journal of
Multiphase Flow, 2:79–95, 1975.
[250] L. Schiller and Z. Naumann. Über die grundlegende berechnung bei des schwerkraftaufbereitung.
Zeitschrift Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, 44:318–320, 1933.
[251] H. Schubert. On the turbulence-controlled microprocesses in flotation machines. Int. J. Mineral

Processing, 56:257–276, 1999.
[252] H. Schubert. On the optimization of hydrodynamics in fine particle flotation. Minerals Engineering,
21:930–936, 2008.
[253] H. Schubert and C. Bischofberger. On the optimization of hydrodynamics in flotation processes.

In Proceedings of the 13th International Mineral Processing Congress, volume 2, pages 1261–1285,
1979.
[254] R. Schuhmann Jr. Flotation kinetics. i. methods for steady-state study of flotation problems. The
Journal of Physical Chemistry, 46(8):891–902, 1942.
[255] H. J. Schulze. Physico-chemical Elementary Processes in Flotation: An Analysis from the Point of
View of Colloid Science Including Process Engineering Considerations. Elsevier, Amsterdam, New
York, 1984.
[256] H. J. Schulze. Hydrodynamic of bubble-mineral particle collisions. Mineral Processing and Extrac-
tive Metallurgy Review, 5:43–76, 1989.
[257] H. J. Schulze. Flotation as heterocoagulation process: possibilities of calculating the probability

of flotation. In B. Dobias, editor, Coagulation and flocculation, pages 321–353. Dekker, New York,
1993.
[258] U. Schumann. Subgrid scale model for finite difference simulations of turbulent flows in plane
channels and annuli. Journal of Computational Physics, 18:376–406, 1975.
[259] S. Schwarz and D. Alexander. JKSIMFLOAT V6.1: Improving flotation circuit performance by
simulation. Technical report, JKTech Pty Ltd, 2006.
[260] S. Schwarz, D. Alexander, W. J. Withen, J. P. Franzidis, and M. C. Harris. JKSimFloat V6:

Improving flotation circuit performance and understanding. Technical report, JKTech Pty Ltd,
2006.
[261] Namwawa Alice Siwale. Modeling of flow in impeller stirred tanks using computational fluid dy-
namics. Master’s thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Cape Town, 2004.
[262] J. Smagorinsky. General circulation experiments with the primitive equations; i. the basic experi-
ment. Monthly Weather Review, 91:99, 1963.
[263] B. L. Smith. On the modelling of bubble plumes in a liquid pool. Applied Mathematical Modelling,
22:773–797, 1998.
[264] M. Smoluchowski. Versuch einer mathematischen theorie der koagulationskinetik kolloider lösungen.
Z. Phys. Chem., 92:129–168, 1917.
[265] A. Sokolichin and G. Eigenberger. Gas-liquid flow in bubble columns and loop reactors: Part I.
detailed modelling and numerical simulation. Chemical Engineering Science, 49:5735–5746, 1994.
– 182 –
[266] P. Spalart and S. Allmaras. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. Technical
report, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1992. AIAA-92-0439.
[267] Bjarne Stroustrup. Bjarne stroustrup’s C++ glossary. http://www.stroustrup.com/glossary.

html. accessed April, 23rd, 2015.
[268] Bjarne Stroustrup. The C++ Programming language. Addison-Wesley, 4th edition, 2013.
[269] K. L. Sutherland. Physical chemistry of flotation xi. kinetics of the flotation process. Journal of
Physical and Colloid Chemistry, 52:394–425, 1948.
[270] H. Sutter and A. Alexandrescu. C++ Coding Standards – 101 rules, guidelines, and best practices.
C++ In-Depth Series. Addison-Wesley, 2005.
[271] Herb Sutter. Exceptional C++. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2000.
[272] M. Söder, P. Jönsson, and Jonsson L. Inclusion growth and removal in gas stirred ladles. Steel
Research International, 75(2):128–138, 2004.
[273] D. A. Terry, R. McGraw, and R. H. Rangel. Method of moments ssolution for a laminar flow aerosol
reactor model. Aerosol Science and Technology, 34:353–362, 2001.
[274] Larry Thomas. Coal Geology. Wiley-Blackwell, 2nd edition, 2013.
[275] V. Thomée. From finite differences to finite elements – a short history of numerical analysis of
partial differential equations. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 128:1–54, 2001.
[276] A. Tomiyama, I. Kataoka, T. Fukuda, and T. Sakaguchi. Drag coefficients of bubbles. 2nd report.
drag coefficient for a swarm of bubbles and its applicability to transient flow. Nippon Kikai Gakkai
Ronbunshu, 61(588):2810–2817, 1995.
[277] A. Tomiyama, I. Kataoka, and T. Sakaguchi. Drag coefficients of bubbles. 1st report. drag coeffi-
cients for a single bubbles in a stagnant liquid. Nippon Kikai Gakkai Ronbunshu, 61(587):2357–2364,
1995.
[278] A. Tomiyama, G. P. Celata, S. Hosokawa, and S. Yoshida. Terminal velocity of single bubbles in
surface tension dominant regime. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 28:1497–1519, 2002.
[279] A. Tomiyama, H. Tamai, I. Zun, and S. Hosokawa. Transverse migration of single bubbles in simple
shear flows. Chemical Engineering Science, 57:1849–1858, 2002.
[280] A. A. Troshko and Y. A. Hassan. A two-equation turbulence model of turbulent bubbly flows.
International Journal of Multiphase Flows, 27:1965–2000, 2001.
[281] JunIchiro Tsubaki. Powder Technology - Particle Size, chapter 1, pages 3–11. CRC Press, 2007.
Editors: Masuda, H., Higashitani, K. and Yoshida, H.
[282] C. A. Tuck. 2012 mineral yearbook - iron ore. Technical report, U.S. Geological Survey, 2012.
[283] Alan Turing. Rounding-off errors in matrix processes. The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and
Applied Mathematics, 1:287–308, 1948.
[284] S. Vashisth, C. P. J. Bennington, J. R. Grace, and R. J. Kerekes. Column flotation deinking:

State-of-the-art and opportunities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55:1154–1177, 2011.
[285] H. K. Versteeg and W. Malalasekera. An introduction to computational fluid dynamics – the finite
volume method. Longman Scientific & Technical, 1995.
– 183 –
[286] C.-Q. Wang, H. Wang, J.-G. Fu, and Y.-N. Liu. Flotation separation of waste plastics for recycling
– a review. Waste Management, 41:28–38, 2015.
[287] L. Wang, Y. Peng, K. Runge, and D. Bradshaw. A review of entrainment: Mechanismy, contributing
factors and modelling in flotation. Minerals Engineering, 70:77–91, 2015.
[288] M. E. Weber and D. Paddock. Interceptional and gravitational collision efficiencies for single
collectors at intermediate Reynolds numbers. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2:328–335,
1983.
[289] R. M. Wellek, A. K. Agrawal, and A. H. P. Skelland. Shapes of liquid drops moving in liquid media.
AIChE Journal, 12:854–862, 1966.
[290] H. G. Weller. The development of a new flame aera combustion model using conditional averaging,
March 1993. Thermo-Fluids Section Report TF/9307.
[291] H. G. Weller. Alternative pressure-velocity algorithmn. Private Communications, 1999. see Rusche
[238].
[292] H. G. Weller. Derivation, modelling and solution of the conditionally averaged two-phase flow
equations. Technical report, OpenCFD, 2005.
[293] H. G. Weller, G. Tabor, H. Jasak, and C. Fureby. A tensorial approach to computational continuum
mechanics using object-oriented techniques. Computers in Physics, 12:620–631, 1998.
[294] Gijsbert A. Wierink. A computational framework for coupled modelling of three-phase systems with
soluble surfactants. PhD thesis, Aalto University, Department of Materials Science and Engineering,
2012.
[295] D. C. Wilcox. Turbulence Modeling for CFD. DCW Industries, Inc., 1994.
[296] B. A. Wills and T. J. Napier-Munn. Wills’ Mineral Processing Technology. Elsevier Science &
Technology Books, 2006.
[297] J. T. Woodcock, G. J. Sparrow, W. J. Bruckard, N. W. Johnson, and R. Dunne. Plant practice:

Sulfide minerals and precious metals. In M. C. Fuerstenau, G. Jameson, and R.-H. Yoon, edi-
tors, Froth flotation: a century of innovation, pages 781–844. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration, Inc. (SME), 2007.
[298] H. Wu and G. K. Patterson. Laser-doppler measurements of turbulent-flow parameters in a stirred

mixer. Chemical Engineering Science, 44:2207–2211, 1989.
[299] J. Yianatos, R. Bucarey, J. Larenas, F. Henríquez, and L. Torres. Collection zone kinetic model for
industrial flotation columns. Minerals Engineering, 18:1373–1377, 2005.
[300] J. Yianatos, L. Bergh, L. Vinnet, F. Diaz, and L. Torres. Metallurgical performance of the new
flotation plant at Teck CDA. In Proceedings of the 9th International Mineral Processing Conference,
2012.
[301] J. Yianatos, C. Carrasco, L. Bergh, L. Vinnett, and C. Torres. Modelling and simulation of rougher
flotation circuits. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 112–113:63–70, 2012.
[302] R. H. Yoon and G. H. Luttrell. The effect of bubble size on fine particle flotation. Mineral Processing
and Extractive Metallurgy Review, 5:101–122, 1989.
[303] R. H. Yoon and L. Mao. Application of extended DLVO theory, IV – derivation of flotation rate
equation from first principles. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 181:613–626, 1996.
– 184 –
[304] D. Zhang, N. G. Deen, and J. A. M. Kuipers. Numerical simulation of the dynamic flow behaviour
in a bubble column: A study of closures for turbulence and interface forces. Chemical Engineering
Science, 61:7593–7608, 2006.
[305] Dongsheng Zhang. Eulerian Modeling of reactive gas-liquid flow in a bubble column. PhD thesis,
University of Twente, 2007.
[306] L. Zhang, J. Aoki, and B. G. Thomas. Inclusion removal by bubble flotation in a continuous casting
mold. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B: Process Metallurgy and Materials Processing
Science, 37:361–379, 2006.
[307] O. C. Zienkiewicz and R. L. Taylor. The Finite Element Method, volume 1: The Basis. Butterworth
Heinemann, 2000.
[308] O. C. Zienkiewicz and R. L. Taylor. The Finite Element Method, volume 3: Fluid Dynamics.
Butterworth Heinemann, 2000.
[309] M. Zlokarnik. Separation of activated sludge from purified waste water by induced air flotation
(IAF). Water Research, 32:1095–1102, 1998.
Curriculum Vitae
Personal Details
Name Gerhard Holzinger
Adress Rudolfstraße 56
4040 Linz
Date and place of birth 23. Juni 1983, Grieskirchen
Nationality Österreich
Parents Franz Holzinger, Farmer, retired
Maria Holzinger, Farmer, retired
Education
Since Jul. 2012 PhD Programme in Mechatronics,
Johannes Kepler University Linz
Oct. 2005 - Mar. 2012 Diploma Programme in Mechatronics,
Jun. 2004 - May 2005 Civilian service, Assista GmbH Altenhof a. H.
Sep. 1999 - Feb. 2003 Apprenticeship as metal worker,
GEA Happel GmbH & Co KG Gaspoltshofen
Sep. 1997 - Jul. 1999 LFBS Lambach
Sep. 1989 - Jul. 1997 Primary and secondary school (Volks- und Hauptschule), Gaspoltshofen
Professional Career
Since Nov. 2015 Researcher, K1MET GmbH, Linz
Oct. 2013 - Jun. 2015 Teaching assistant, Johannes Kepler University Linz
Nov. 2011 - Oct. 2015 Research assistant, Johannes Kepler University Linz
Oct. 2006 - Jun. 2010 Student assistant, Johannes Kepler University Linz
Jun. 2005 - Sep. 2005 Assembler, GEA Happel GmbH & Co KG Gaspoltshofen
– 186 –
Mar. 2003 - May 2004 Assembler, GEA Happel GmbH & Co KG Gaspoltshofen
Internships
Jul. - Sep. 2010 Christian Doppler Laboratory for Particlate Flows,
Jul. - Sep. 2009 Institute of Technical Mechanics,
Jul. - Sep. 2008 Institute of Machine Design and Hydraulic Drives,
Jul. - Sep. 2007 Institute of Technical Mechanics,
Jul. - Sep. 2006 Gruber Maschinen GmbH, Gaspoltshofen
Honoraries
Participation in the local cultural club - kulturinitiative spielraum
as projectionist, stage technician, webmaster, etc.
Participation in the Austrian Students’ Union - ÖH
Studienvertretung, Studienkommission, Fakultätsversammlung, Berufungskommission
Hobbies
Reading, Sports (Jogging, Hiking, Bicycling, Archery)
Eidesstattliche Erklärung
Ich erkläre an Eides statt, dass ich die vorliegende Dissertation selbstständig und ohne fremde Hilfe
verfasst, andere als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel nicht benutzt bzw. die wörtlich oder sin-
ngemäß entnommenen Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht habe. Die vorliegende Dissertation ist mit
dem elektronisch übermittelten Textdokument identisch.
Linz, 26. September 2016
– 188 –

Eulerian Two-Phase Simulation of The Flotation Process With OpenFOAM

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Eulerian Two-Phase Simulation of The Flotation Process With OpenFOAM

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Eingereicht von

Eulerian Two-Phase Prof. Dr. Stefan Pirker

Floation Process September, 2016

List of Figures viii

4 Simulation of Bubbly Flow 101

6 Conclusion and Outlook 143

A Implementation Details 145

About the author 186

OpenFOAM User Manual

1 Department for Particulate Flow Modelling

1.1 Flowchart of mineral processing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.1 A polyhedral control volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

2.1 The classical LES filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

ADM axial dispersion model FEM finite element method

BC boundary condition FOAM field operation and manipulation

BIT bubble induced turbulence FSF Free Software Foundation

BSD bubble size distribution FV finite volume

CC columnar column FVM finite volume method

CCM computational continuum mechanics GAMG geometric-algebraic multigrid

CDF cumulative distribution function GNU GNU is not Unix

CDS central differencing scheme GPL GNU Public Licence

CFD computational fluid dynamics GSE Generalised Sutherland Equation

PDF probability density function RTS run-time selection

RANS Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes USC United States customary

RHS right hand side VOF volume of fluid

Quamvis enim melius sit benefacere quam nosse,

Right action is better than knowledge; but in order

1.1.2 Mineral processing

Crushing is accomplished by compression of the ore against rigid surfaces, or by impact

1.1.3 Other areas of application

1.1.3.1 Recycling and wastewater treatment

1.1.3.2 Petroleum industry

remaining 47 % stem from by-products [220].

itself or may be the result of water injection to boost recovery.

1.2.2 Flotation process

also be a mixture of several liquid constituents.

process, as Bulatovic [27] puts it:

The classification of the reagents is as follows:

1.2.2.2 Gases used in flotation

1.2.2.3 Flotation research

1.2.3 Flotation machines

1.2.3.1 Gas bubble generation

1.2.3.2 Operating principle

(a) Pneumatic flotation (b) Column flotation (c) Mechanical flotation

1.2.4 Modelling flotation

1.2.4.2 Flotation modelling using CFD

CFD-backed flotation kinetics

Flotation kinetics implemented in CFD

Flotation on the micro-scale

1.3 Organzation of this work

1.3.2 Flotation kinetics

Hier sehen Sie die Kraft des reinen Denkens.

Here you can see the power of pure reasoning.

Prof. Hans Irschik

2.1 Computational fluid dynamics

2.1.2 Frames of reference

Figure 2.2: Frames of reference

2.1.3 Simulation methods

generally referred to as an Eulerian method.

Figure 2.3: Resolution of two-phase simulations.

2.2 Eulerian two-phase modelling

Figure 2.4: Modelling approach on the example of a gas-liquid two-phase system.

2.2.1 Governing equations

C1 = 1.44 C2 = 1.92 Cµ = 0.09 σk = 1.0 σ = 1.3

C1 = 1.44 C2 = 1.92 Cµ = 0.09 σk = 1.0 σ = 1.3 (2.155)

Pk,BIT = Ck/ kFdrag k kuR k (2.168)

with the model constants of the k- turbulence model

Ck = 1.44 C = 1.92 (2.169)