International Journal of Chemical Engineering

Review Article

Large Eddy Simulation for Dispersed Bubbly Flows: A Review

Table 1

Comparison of LES simulations.
No. Author Column D (× W) × H  (m) Sparger design Bubble diameter
 Range of , m/s Number of grid cells Filter SGS Model BIT closure models+Interfacial force coefficient closures++
Drag
Lift
Virtual
mass
(1)Deen et al.* [19] Perforated plate4 mm  
 5–10 mmSmagorinsky,
= 0.1		 0.50.5
(2)Bove et al.
[29]		 Perforated plate4 mm  
 10–17 mmSmagorinsky,
= 0.05–0.2		— 0.50.5
(3)Zhang et al.
[26]		 Perforated plate4 mm  
—Smagorinsky,
= 0.08–0.20		 # # #
(4)Tabib et al.
[17]		 Perforated
plate		5 mm 150000 3 mmSmagorinsky,
= 0.1		 # #
(5)Dhotre et al.
[20]		 Perforated plate4 mm  
 Smagorinsky,
= 0.12
Germano		 0.50.5
(6)Ničeno et al.
[9]		 Perforated plate4 mm  
 is equal to the grid spacing
= 1.5		Smagorinsky,
= 0.12
OEM		 0.50.5
(7)Dhotre et al.
[18]		 Perforated plate2.6 mm —2.8 mm < < 4.0 mmSmagorinsky,
= 0.12		 0.50.5
(8)Niceno et al.
[10]		 Perforated plate4 mm 5 mmOEM
Germano		 0.50.5
(9)Tabib and Schwarz
[30]		 Perforated plate3–5 mm ——OEM Max [ , ]−0.05—
(10)van den Hengel
et al. [31]		 Perforated plate3 mm  mmSmagorinsky 0.50.5
(11)Hu and Celik
[32]		 Pipe sparger1.6 mm  
PSI-ball method
2 mm		Smagorinsky,
= 0.032		 0.50.5
(12)Lain
[27]		 Porous membrane2.6 mm  
 = 1.8Smagorinsky,
= 0.1		 # # 0.5
(13)Darmana et al.
[33]		 Multipoint gas injection4 mm  mmVreman,
= 0.1		— #0.5
(14)Sungkorn et al.
[34]		 Perforated plate4 mm is equal to the grid spacing
= 1.25		Smagorinsky,
= 0.10–0.12		 #0.5
(15)Bai et al. [35], Bai et al. [36] Perforated plate
5 mm  
 
 
  
 
—Vreman Smagorinsky,
= 0.1		— 0.50.5
The authors have studied the effect of this force over a range.
+Numbers indicated are refered to Table 2.
++Numbers indicated are refered to Table 3.