Table 1: Comparison of LES simulations.

No. Author Column DW) × 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.