This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 12111219

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i c h m t

Turbulence models application on CFD simulation of hydrodynamics, heat and mass

transfer in a structured packing
M.R. Khosravi Nikou, M.R. Ehsani
Department of Chemical Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 84156-83111, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Available online 21 July 2008 In this study, turbulence model applications on two-phase ow simulation in a structured packing are
investigated using CFD application. Dry pressure drop, irrigated pressure drop, mass transfer and heat
Keywords: transfer are studied by k, RNG k, k and BSL turbulence models. The best results obtained by k and
Turbulence model BSL models, but k is recommended because it is more robust than BSL. The mean absolute relative error
Structured packing
(MARE) between CFD prediction of k model and experimental data for dry pressure drop, irrigated
CFD
Hydrodynamics
pressure drop, mass transfer and heat transfer are 16.9%, 10.7%, 8.1%, 0.9%, respectively.
Heat transfer 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Mass transfer

1. Introduction 2. Governing equations

Corrugated structured packing is widely used in gasliquid A CFD modeling approach is basically solving conservation
contacting columns, such as in distillations and absorptions. The equations for mass, momentum, energy and species for a computa-
permanent market demand in the pursuit of cost-effective units is tional domain with computers. In this study, incompressible iso-
continually imposing the need to provide well-designed and highly thermal ow is considered for dry and irrigated pressure drop
efcient packing. This trend is created by the need to respond to calculation of air and airwater respectively, but for heat and mass
industrial economic requirements (e.g., high-mass transfer capacities, transfer, a binary mixture of methanolisopropanol in general form is
low-pressure drops) and, at the same time, to comply with increas- used.
ingly stringent discharge limits.
It is approved that CFD simulation can be used as a quick and cheap 2.1. Conservation of mass
means for design and optimization of structured packing [5,6,1416].
One of the main important parts of CFD simulation is choosing The mass conservation equation for species i can be written (in
appropriate turbulent quantities and models. Most of the studying vector symbolism):
and investigations used two-equation models such as k and
@
renormalization group k (RNG k) for this purpose [57]. By mi Umi J i Si 1
@t
looking carefully in k type models, one can distinguish this types of
turbulence model could not predict ow characteristics inside and
complex geometries such as structured packing [1]. This paper aims
to use four types of turbulence models k, RNG k, k and BSL in T
Ji Dim DiT 2
simulation of hydrodynamics, heat and mass transfer of Flexipac 1Y T
structured packing using CFD commercial code CFX version 11 and Where Dim is diffusion coefcient for species i in mixture and DiT is
compare the results with experimental data from KochGlitsch [4] thermal mass diffusion coefcient for species i, which is small in this
and Haghshenas Fard et al. [5] to nd the best appropriate turbulence study and does not consider in modeling. Si is the source of species i
model in CFD simulation of structured packing. (net rate of production per unit volume) [1].

2.2. Conservation of momentum

Communicated by W.J. Minkowycz.

@
Corresponding author. U UU  g F 3
E-mail address: ehsanimr@cc.iut.ac.ir (M.R. Ehsani). @t

0735-1933/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2008.05.017
 Author's personal copy

1212 M.R. Khosravi Nikou, M.R. Ehsani / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 12111219
 

 2
ij U UT k ij U 5
Nomenclature 3

ae Effective interfacial area of the packing per unit 2.3. Conservation of energy
volume (m2/m3)
ap Specic surface area of the packing per unit volume @ DP
h Uh q : U i hi ji Si 6
(m2/m3) @t Dt
Cp Specic heat capacity at constant pressure (m2/s2 K)
C Empirical coefcient () and
Cs1 Empirical coefcient () Z T
Cs2 Empirical coefcient () h i mi hi ; hi Cpi dT 7
Cs1RNG Empirical coefcient () Tref
D Diffusivity (m2/s)
e Porosity () where Tref is a reference temperature and Cpi is the specic heat of
F External body forces (kg/m s3) species i, at constant pressure. Si is volumetric source of enthalpy due
F1 Blending function () to chemical reaction and q should be calculated by Fourier law [1].
Fs Gas F-factor (m/s(kg/m3)0.5)
h Specic enthalpy (m/s2) 2.4. Turbulence modeling
h Channel height (m)
HETP Height of equivalent to a theoretical plate (m) 2.4.1. k model
HTUG Height mass transfer unit for the gas phase (m) k model assumes that turbulence viscosity is linked to the
HTUL Height mass transfer unit for the liquid phase (m) turbulence kinetic energy and dissipation via the following relation:
Ji Diffusivity ux of species i (kg/m2 s)
k
k Turbulence kinetic energy per unit mass (m2/s2) t C 8
e2
Empirical coefcient ()
ij Kronecker delta ()
The value of k and come directly from differential transport
Turbulence eddy dissipation (m2/s3)
equations for the turbulence kinetic energy and turbulence dissipa-
Bulk viscosity (kg/m s)
tion rate [13].
Ratio of equilibrium line to operating line ()
Viscosity (kg/m s) 2.4.2. RNG k model
t Turbulence viscosity (kg/m s) This model is based on renormalization group analysis of the
Molecular ux of momentum (kg/m s2) NavierStockes equations. The transport equations for turbulence
kL Liquid phase mass transfer coefcient (m/s) generation and dissipation are the same as those for the standard k
kG Gas phase mass transfer coefcient (m/s) model, but model constant is replaced by a function [13].
mi Mass fraction of species i ()
P Pressure (kg/m.s2) 2.4.3. k model
P Pressure drop (kg/m s2) One of the advantages of the k formulation is the near wall
Pk Shear production of turbulence (kg/m s3) treatment for low-Reynolds number computations. The model does not
q Flux of enthalpy (kg/s3) involve the complex non-linear damping functions required for the k
s Channel side (m) model and is therefore more accurate and more robust. A low-Reynolds
Si Source of species i (kg/m3 s) k model would typically require a near wall resolution of y+ b 0.2,
t Time (s) while a low-Reynolds k model would require at least y+ b 2. In
T Temperature (K) industrial ows, even y+ b 2 cannot be guaranteed in most applications
U Velocity (m/s) and for this reason; a near wall treatment needs to be used. It allows for
uGs Supercial gas velocity (m/s) smooth shift from a low-Reynolds number form to a wall function
uLs Supercial liquid velocity (m/s) formulation. The k model assumes that the turbulence viscosity is
y+ Dimensionless distance from the wall () linked to the turbulence kinetic energy and turbulent frequency via the
Z Packed bed height (m) relation:

k
Greek symbols t 9

Empirical coefcient ()
Empirical coefcient () 2.4.4. The baseline k model (BSL)
Density (kg/m3) The main problem with the k model is its well known strong
Viscous stress tensor (kg/s2) sensitivity to free stream conditions. This is undesirable and in order
to solve problem, a blending between the k model near the surface
and the k model in the outer region is developed. Therefore k
Subscripts model is multiplied by a blending function F1 and the transformed k
G Gas phase model by a function (1 F1).
L Liquid phase
T Turbulence 3. Simulation

3.1. CFD simulation

In this equation, is the molecular ux of momentum and g and F are
gravitational acceleration and external body forces, respectively [1].
The computational spaces to be used are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
 P  4 The geometrical and surface characteristics for the simulated
 Author's personal copy

M.R. Khosravi Nikou, M.R. Ehsani / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 12111219 1213

Table 2
Boundary condition types

Simulation Dry Irrigated Heat transfer Mass transfer

case pressure pressure
drop drop
Location
In Specied air
Specied air Specied methanol Specied methanol
and water
velocity and isopropanol binary isopropanol binary
turbulentvelocity, mixture velocity, mixture velocity,
specied
quantities volume fraction, volume fraction,
turbulent turbulent quantity, turbulent quantity
and volume composition and and composition at
fraction for temperature at the the top of element
both air and top of element
water
Out Specied air Specied air Specied velocity Specied velocity
static and water
pressure static
pressure
Symmetry Symmetry boundary Symmetry boundary
Fig. 1. Computational space for dry and irrigated pressure drop simulation. plane condition condition
Wall No-slip No-slip No-slip boundary No-slip boundary
boundary boundary condition condition
condition condition

coupling algorithm. Each iterative numerical integrations of the model

differential equations was continued until all residuals attended a mean
constant value less than 10 4, with an average value of the nal update to
the solution of 10 5.

Fig. 2. Computational space for the heat and mass transfer simulation.

structured packing Flexipac 1Y are listed in Table 1. To conduct ow

eld simulations, use is made of the commercial CFD software package
CFX version 11.
One of the most important tasks in developing the 3D CFD simulation
is to generate a sufciently ne grid to cover the computational space as Fig. 3. Simulated and experimental dry pressure drop versus gas ow factor Fs.
trustfully as possible for ensuring precise ow computations. Total grid
cells for hydrodynamic simulation consisted of up to 7,000,000 cells and
for heat and mass transfer consisted of up to 1,000,000 cells. These
numbers of grid cells were set after complete preliminary simulations
until grid-independent solutions were yielded. The nite volume
discritized equations were solved in steady-state, using a segregated
numerical scheme with high resolution discritization and implicit
linearization. The pressure values were interpolated on the faces using
momentum equation coefcients and SIMPLEC pressurevelocity

Table 1
Geometrical characteristics for the simulated structured packing Flexipac 1Y

Packing type ap (m 1) e (%) (deg) h (m) Channel dimensions (m)

Base b Height h Side s

Flexipac 1Y (KochGlitsch) 453 91 45 0.267 0.0127 0.0064 0.009
Fig. 4. Dry pressure drop versus gas factor Fs in logarithmic scale.
 Author's personal copy

1214 M.R. Khosravi Nikou, M.R. Ehsani / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 12111219

Fig. 5. Contours of gas pressure on a plane at the center of the packed bed (Fs = 0.73 m/s(kg/m3)0.5) using k model.

3.2. Boundary conditions The results from k and BSL models show better prediction of
pressure drop than k type models. Fig. 4 shows dry pressure drop in
The boundary conditions used are of four types which are shown in logarithmic scale. It can be seen the slop of curve of dry pressure drop
Table 2. calculated by k and BSL turbulent models is 1.92 which is consistent
with the range values of 1.82 reported in the literature, indicating
4 . Results and discussion turbulent ow [3]. Fig. 5 shows a sample of the contours of the air

Steady-state simulations of uid ow have been carried out to

obtain dry pressure drop, irrigated pressure drop, mass transfer and
heat transfer phenomena of the Flexipac 1Y structured packing. The
results are shown in the following items.

4.1. Dry pressure drop

Fig. 3 shows simulation results of k, RNG k, k and BSL

turbulent models in terms of dry pressure drop against the gas F-
factor. It is clear from this graph, k and RNG k turbulence models
underestimate pressure drop across the structured packing. One of the
main assumptions in k type model is to be existed high Reynolds
number ow. Experimental investigations are shown maximum
Reynolds number for gas phase is less than 10,000 on structured
packing for conventional distillation and absorption [8].
For this Re number, k type model could not predict turbulent Fig. 6. Simulated and experimental irrigated pressure drop versus gas ow factor Fs
phenomena very well [1]. Also, these models employ an isotropic (Ul = 0.0033 m/s).
description of turbulence and therefore may not be well suited to
ows in which anisotropy of turbulence signicantly affects them
mean ow [1].

Table 3
Relative error between CFD and experimental data of dry pressure drop, irrigated
pressure drop, HETPs, temperature prole

Turbulent models MAREk 100 N1 j1 YYexp:

CFD
j
Dry pressure Irrigated pressure Mass transfer Heat transfer
drop drop
k 31.5 27.5 13.5 2.4
RNG k 31.6 25.6 12.9 2.8
k 16.9 10.7 8.1 0.9
Fig. 7. Simulated and experimental irrigated pressure drop versus gas ow factor Fs
BSL 16.9 10.1 7.9 1.1
(Ul = 0.0203 m/s).
 Author's personal copy

M.R. Khosravi Nikou, M.R. Ehsani / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 12111219 1215

Fig. 8. Contours of airwater pressure drop on a plane at the center of the packed bed (Fs = 0.73 m/s(kg/m3)0.5, Ul = 0.0033 m/s).

pressure at Fs = 0.73 m/s(kg/m3)0.5 on a plane at the center of the
domain which is achieved by k model.
The average relative error between the CFD predictions and experi-
mental data [4] for different models are listed in the following Table 3.
4.2. Irrigated pressure drop
Figs. 6 and 7 show simulation results of k, RNG k, k and BSL
turbulent models in terms of irrigated pressure drop against the gas F-
factor for liquid velocity 0.0033 m/s and 0.0203 m/s, respectively. It is
obvious from Figs. 6 and 7 that k type models are not applicable for
wet pressure drop estimation. When the liquid ow rate is low, k
type models over predict pressure drop and by increasing the liquid
ow rate they under estimate pressure drop. The main reason for this
result come from the main assumption used for k type models, such
as isotopic turbulence and using a wall function for better resolve
turbulence near the walls. The best result obtains when using k and
BSL models but it can be seen still deviation between the experiment
and numerical results. It is believed this deviation could not be
generated from turbulence models but also it can be demonstrated
from drag force between water droplet and air on the near interface of
airwater. It is approved by increasing the liquid and gas ow rate,
water separates from the interface as a droplet and will increase the
pressure drop and interfacial area [3,8].
In order to better evaluate turbulence models, the average relative
error between numerical results and experimental data [4], are

Fig. 9. Contours of water velocity on a plane at the center of the packed bed (Fs = 0.73 m/s(kg/m3)0.5, Ul = 0.0033 m/s).
 Author's personal copy
1216 M.R. Khosravi Nikou, M.R. Ehsani / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 12111219
Fig. 10. Comparison between experimental data and predicted HETP for methanol
isopropanol system.
calculated and listed in the Table 3. It can be seen that the most
appropriates turbulence models for irrigated pressure drop calcula-
tions are k and BSL. Figs. 8 and 9 show a sample of the contours of
airwater pressure drop and water velocity at Fs = 1.1 m/s(kg/m3)0.5 on
a plane at the center of the domain which are calculated using k
model.
4.3. Mass transfer
The mass transfer performance of packed column in distillation or
absorption is often expressed by packed bed height equivalent to a
theoretical plate (HETP). Factors affecting HETP have usually been
identied as type and size of packing, physical properties of test
systems, operating condition, and dimension of columns. According to
double-lm theory [9], the relationship between HETP and height
Fig. 11. Methanol concentration in liquid phase on a plane at the center of structured packing (Ul = 0.0203 m/s, Fs = 0.313 m/s(kg/m3)0.5, xmeth. = ymeth. = 0.6669 wt/wt, k model).
mass transfer unit for the gas phase (HTUG) and for the liquid phase
(HTUL) is given by:
ln
HETP HTUG HTUL 10
1
Where is the stripping factor, and dened as the slop ratio of the
slop of the equilibrium line to that of the operating line. Eq. (10) in
combination with denitions of HTUG and HTUL, which are based on
the concentration driving force across the gas and liquid lms,
respectively, yields:
 
ln uGs uLs
HETP 11
1 kG ae kL ae
Where uGs and uLs are the gas and liquid phase supercial velocity,
kG and kL are the gas and liquid phase mass transfer coefcients,
respectively, and ae is the effective interfacial area provided by
packing to mass transfer. kG, kL and ae can be obtained from model of
Rocha and co-workers [10,11] and Onda correlation [12], respectively.
By knowledge of the gas and liquid phase supercial velocities,
mass transfer coefcients, mole fraction of methanol in liquid phase
and relative volatility, HETP can be calculated. Fig. 10 shows the
comparison between the predicted HETP values from CFD simulations
of different turbulence models and experimental data obtained by
Haghshenas Fard et al. [5]. It can clearly be seen that k and BSL
model could predict the separation efciency quite well over the
range of gas F-factors.
Generally in all models, the estimated HETPs from CFD simulations
are slightly lower than the values of experimental data, especially in
k type models. One of the main reason is the uniform distributions
were assumed for both the vapor and liquid phases, which cause an
increase in the mass transfer area resulting in a lower HETP value and
higher mass transfer rates. The average relative errors for each model
and experimental data are listed in Table 3. Figs. 11 and 12 show
methanol concentration in liquid phase across the packing calculated
using k model. From Fig. 13, liquid distribution characteristics of
structured packing could be seen clearly. The liquid ow develops
 Author's personal copy

M.R. Khosravi Nikou, M.R. Ehsani / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 12111219 1217

Fig. 12. Methanol concentration changes in liquid phase through sections of structured packing (Ul = 0.0203 m/s, Fs = 0.313 m/s(kg/m3)0.5, xmeth. = ymeth. = 0.6669 wt/wt, k model).

from the top of packing through complex geometry of the bed. Fig. 14
shows gas phase eddy viscosity inside the packing.
4.4. Heat transfer
By solving energy equation with continuity, momentum and mass
transfer simultaneously, temperature prole and distribution through
structured packed bed can be estimated from CFD simulation. Heat
transfer coefcient needs to be calculated for giving the temperature
distribution therefore it is calculated using RanzMarshall equation
which is implemented in CFX code [13]. The temperature prole
which is derived from CFD simulation and experimental data [5] are
shown in Fig. 15. It is completely clear that k is the most superior
turbulence model could predict heat transfer phenomena in struc-
tured packing. The k model performs very well close to walls in
boundary layer ows, particularly under strong adverse pressure
gradients and by using an appropriate wall function it could resolve
boundary layer very well.
In order to show superiority of each turbulence models, MARE is
shown in Table 3. It is obvious the minimum deviation between
experimental data and numerical calculation obtained by k model.
Fig. 16 shows methanol temperature distribution in liquid phase of
binary mixture of methanolisopropanol. It can be found that
temperature distribution is a complex function of structured packing

Fig. 13. Liquid velocity development through structured packing (Ul = 0.0203 m/s, Fs = 0.313 m/s(kg/m3)0.5, xmeth. = ymeth. = 0.6669 wt/wt, k model).
 Author's personal copy

1218 M.R. Khosravi Nikou, M.R. Ehsani / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 12111219

Fig. 14. Gas phase eddy viscosity inside structured packing (Ul = 0.0203 m/s, Fs = 0.313 m/s(kg/m3)0.5, xmeth. = ymeth. = 0.6669 wt/wt, k model).

height and in order to better explain heat transfer phenomena on

structured packing needs more sophisticated experimental investiga-
tion and numerical efforts.

5. Conclusion

The present work examines the ability of four turbulence models

Fig. 15. Comparison between experimental data and predicted temperature prole
across the structured packing.
(k, RNG k, k and BSL) to predict the hydrodynamics, heat and
mass transfer characteristics of two-phase ow in Flexipac1Y
structured packing.
The simulation results reveal that, k and BSL turbulence models
can predict ow distribution and heat and mass transfer very well.
Signicant improvement in simulation achieved in hydrodynamics
calculations, such as dry and irrigated pressure drop. But for the heat
transfer there is not much difference between models. It is predictable
that turbulence model effects on heat and mass transfer characteristics

Fig. 16. Liquid temperature distribution across the structured packing (Ul = 0.0203 m/s, Fs = 0.313 m/s(kg/m3)0.5, xmeth. = ymeth. = 0.6669 wt/wt, k model).
 Author's personal copy
M.R. Khosravi Nikou, M.R. Ehsani / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 12111219
of structured packing are not as much as dry and irrigated pressure
drop. Because based on the two-lm theory [9], it is assumed that
resistance to heat and mass transfer only exist on liquid phase for
distillation processes [2] and because of laminar ow in liquid phase,
using different turbulence models could not improve the results for
heat and mass transfer phenomena.
The mean absolute relative error (MARE) between CFD prediction
of k model and experimental data for dry pressure drop, irrigated
pressure drop, mass transfer and heat transfer are 16.9%, 10.7%, 8.1%,
0.9%, respectively.
References
[1] V.V. Ranade, Computational Flow Modeling for Chemical Reactor Engineering, rst
ed., Academic Press, California, 2002, pp. 3582.
[2] A. Shilkin, E.Y. Kenig, Z. Olujic, Hydrodynamic-analogy-based model for efciency
of structured packing columns, AIChE Journal 52 (9) (2006) 30553066.
[3] B. Szulczewska, I. Zbicinski, A. Gorak, Liquid ow on structured packing: CFD
simulation and experimental study, Chemical Engineering and Technology 26 (5)
(2003) 580584.
[4] KochGlitsch Bulletin KRP-6, Printed in U.S.A, 2000.
[5] M. Haghshenas Fard, M. Zivdar, R. Rahimi, M. Naser Esfahany, A. Afacan, K.
Nandakumar, K.T. Chuang, CFD simulation of mass transfer efciency and pressure
drop in a structured packed distillation column, Chemical Engineering and
Technology 30 (7) (2007) 854861.
[6] X. Wen, S. Akhtar, A. Afacan, K. Nandakumar, K.T. Chuang, CFD modeling of
columns equipped with structured packings: I. Approach based on detailed
packing geometry, Asia-Pacic Chemical Engineering Journal 2 (2007) 336344.
The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.
1219
[7] C.F. Petre, F. Larachi, I. Iliuta, B.P.A. Grandjean, Pressure drop through structured
packings: Breakdown into the contributing mechanisms by CFD modeling,
Chemical Engineering Science, 58 (2003) 163177.
[8] P. Valluri, O.K. Matar, M.A. Mendes, G.F. Hewitt, Modeling hydrodynamics and
mass transfer in structured packings a review, Multiphase Science and
Technology 4 (14) (2002) 303348.
[9] W.G. Whitman, A preliminary experimental conrmation of the two lm theory of
gas adsorption, Chemical Metallurgical Engineering, 29 (1923) 146.
[10] J.A. Rocha, J.L. Bravo, G.R. Fair, Distillation columns containing structured packings:
a comprehensive model for their performance. 2. Mass-transfer model, Industrial
Chemical Engineering Research, 35 (1996) 16601667.
[11] J.J. Gualito, F.J. Cerini, J.C. Cardenas, J.A. Rocha, Design method for distillation
columns lled with metallic, ceramic, or plastic structured packings, Industrial
Chemical Engineering Research 36 (1997) 17471757.
[12] K. Onda, H. Takeuchi, Y. Okumoto, Mass transfer coefcients between gas and
liquid phases in packed columns, Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan 1
(1968) 56.
[13] CFX-11 Solver, Ansys Inc., Canonsburg, PA, 2006.
[14] B. Mahr, D. Mewes, CFD modeling and calculation of dynamic two-phase ow in
columns equipped with structured packing, Chemical Engineering Research and
Design, Trans IChemE, Part A 85 (A8) (2007) 11121122.
[15] R. Raynal, A. Royon-Lebeaud, A multi-scale approach for CFD calculations of gas
liquid ow within large size column equipped with structured packing, Chemical
Engineering Science 62 (24) (2007) 71967204.
[16] X. Wen, A. Akhter, A. Afacan, K. Nandakumar, K.T. Chuang, CFD modeling of
columns equipped with structured packings: I. Approach based on detailed
packing geometry, Asia-Pacic Journal of Chemical Engineering 2 (2007) 336344.