Bubble Characteristics in a

Junping Zhang
Research Associate
Norman Epstein
Professor Emeritus
John R. Grace
Professor
Department of Chemical Engineering,
The University of British Columbia,
2216 Main Mall,
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
Kokseng Lim
Research Scientist,
Fluidization Research Lab,
CSIRO Minerals,
Box 312, Clayton South,
Victoria, 3169 Australia
Developing Vertical GasLiquid
Upflow Using a Conductivity
Probe
Experiments were carried out in an 82.6-mm-dia column with a perforated distributor
plate. Conductivity probes on the axis of the column were used to measure local bubble
properties in the developing flow region for superficial air velocities from 0.0018 to 6.8
m/s and superficial water velocities from 0 to 0.4 m/s, corresponding to the discrete
bubble, dispersed bubble, coalesced bubble, slug, churn, bridging, and annular flow re-
gimes. Bubble frequency increased linearly with gas velocity in the discrete and dispersed
bubble regimes. Bubble frequency also increased with gas velocity in the slug flow re-
gime, but decreased in the churn and bridging regimes. Bubble chord length and its
distribution were smaller and narrower in the dispersed than in the discrete bubble
regime. Both the average and standard deviation of the bubble chord length increased
with gas velocity in the discrete, dispersed, and churn flow regimes. However, the average
bubble chord length did not change significantly in the slug flow regime due to the high
population of small bubbles in the liquid plugs separating Taylor bubbles. The bubble
travel length, defined as the product of local gas holdup and local bubble velocity divided
by local bubble/void frequency, is used to correlate bubble characteristics and to char-
acterize the flow regimes. S0098-22020000101-2

Introduction Conductivity probes, with only the tips of two 0.31-mm-dia

Bubble characteristics are of considerable importance in deter-
mining performance in various two-phase flows, for example in
gas absorption, chemical reactors, and boiling heat transfer. The
bubble properties depend not only on the properties and flow rates
of both the liquid and the gas, but also on the size and geometry of
the column in which the flow occurs. For developing flows, com-
monly encountered in bubble columns and in the entrance region
of other two-phase systems, bubble properties also vary with
height. The variation of bubble characteristics with these indepen-
dent variables differs according to which of several flow regimes
is present in the column. This paper shows how bubble properties
vary in the various flow regimes using a column whose size and
configuration differ from those reported in the literature. The re-
sults are useful in extending the knowledge of bubble behavior in
two-phase systems and in providing data to test flow models and
correlations. Few results have been reported in the literature for
such a wide range of operating conditions and in a column as
large as the one employed in this study.
Experimental Apparatus and Electrical Conductivity
Probe
The experiments were carried out in a vertical Plexiglas column
of 0.0826 m i.d. and height 2.2 m shown in Fig. 1. Air and water
were introduced from the bottom through a perforated distributor
plate with 62 small holes of 2 mm diameter.
A number of investigators 18 have utilized two-element output corresponds to the liquid phase, and the low peaks to the
probes to detect bubble velocity and chord length. Although some
of these studies used optical fiber probes instead of a conductivity
probe or an impedance probe, the principle was the same.
Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division for publication in the JOURNAL
OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received by the Fluids Engineering Division
July 30, 1997; revised manuscript received October 12, 1999. Associate Technical
Editor: J. Katz.
wires electrically exposed to the multiphase mixture, were used to
detect the gas phase. A stainless steel tube of 5.0 mm o.d. served
as the common ground electrode for both wires see Fig. 1. Two
probes of different wire spacings were used. The one with the
smaller wire interval (spacing1.1 mm) was used in the discrete
and dispersed bubble flow regimes, i.e., at relatively low gas ve-
locities, while the other spacing4.0 mm was used for the larger
bubbles/voids that occurred at higher gas velocities. Each of these
probes was inserted into the column horizontally so that the ends
of the two wires were aligned vertically along the axis of the
column, 0.65 m above the distributor.
Electroresistivity or conductivity probes have been used to de-
termine bubble characteristics by many investigators 1,3,9,10
12. This kind of probe has a common problem, which is that,
when bubbles strike the probe, slow drainage of a liquid film
surrounding the probe can cause a delay in the signal response
13,10. A preliminary test 14 was carried out to estimate the
measurement error in this work. It was found that the probe re-
sponse time is on the order of milliseconds. For the smallest
bubbles, not taking into account the probe response time, the
bubble velocity is overestimated by 026 percent and the chord
length is underestimated by 1429 percent. The errors become
considerably smaller as the bubbles become larger and as dis-
crimination logic described below is applied to the signal analy-
sis to screen out obliquely rising gas bubbles.
A typical raw signal is presented in Fig. 2. The high voltage
gas phase. When a bubble encounters the probe, a pulse can be
read from the signal output. A threshold was needed to distinguish
whether a probe was surrounded by gas or liquid. The threshold
value has been set differently by different investigators.
Matsuura and Fan 11 and Rigby et al. 1 set the threshold at 80
percent of the high level of the amplified signal intensity; Werther
15 set it at 50 percent. Gunn and Al-Doori 16 found that set-

138 Vol. 122, MARCH 2000 Copyright 2000 by ASME Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus and con-
ductivity probe
ting the threshold voltage in the range of 1225 mV could yield
an accurate result when the voltage amplitude was 2 V for their
measurement system.
Since the output voltage of the conductivity probe fluctuated for
the probe within the liquid phase, the threshold in this study was
based on the probability density function PDF rather than on the
midpoint between the minimum and maximum values of the raw
signal. For a bimodal distribution of the PDF, e.g., in the churn,
bridging, and annular flow regimes, it was set at the average of the
two peak locations. For unimodal distributions, as in the discrete
bubble and slug flow regimes, it was set midway between the peak
Fig. 2 Response of conductivity probe to a gas bubble in air-
water system at Z 1.95 m, L 1.1 mm, U l 0.018 ms, and
U g 0.086 ms slug flow regime; estimate of uncertainty in
voltage reading28 mV
Journal of Fluids Engineering
location and the minimum or maximum of the signal voltage,
depending on the skewness of the signal. Several different thresh-
olds were set to check the effect of the threshold on the experi-
mental results. When the threshold was set in the range 2575
percent of the PDF peak locations, the results did not produce any
significant variations in the flow regime transitions. For ease of
presentation, we use the words bubble and void inter-
changeably in this paper, while recognizing that the voids in the
high-velocity regimes are transitory in nature, not discrete as may
be implied by the term bubble.
For n bubbles passing the lower element of a two-element
probe in time t tot , the bubble frequency is
f n/t tot (1)
With t i called the gas burst transit time defined as the time
taken by a bubble to pass the probe i.e., t 3 t 1 or t 4 t 2 in Fig.
2, the local gas holdup is then
n
1
g t .
t tot i1 i
(2)
But the average gas burst transit time is simply
n
1
t i
n t.
i1
i (3)
Combining these three equations, we obtain
g f t i . (4)
In other words, the gas holdup can be obtained as the product of
the bubble frequency and the average gas burst transit time.
With a two-element probe, the bubble velocity U b and bubble
chord length b can be computed if the vertical distance L be-
tween the two elements is known, providing all bubbles rise
vertically.
In practice, after an original signal has been simplified to a
square wave, a logic circuit is needed to select signals created by
bubbles traveling upwards. This is because: 1 a bubble detected
by the lower element may never contact the upper element; 2
one bubble may be detected by the lower element, while another
bubble reaches the upper element at almost the same time; 3 if a
bubble rises obliquely, the effect of bubble shape may cause sig-
nificant error in U b and b when U b is determined as L/t 1 or L/t 2
and b as U b (t 3 t 1 ) or U b (t 4 t 2 ) see Fig. 2.
Without the logic circuit to select the signal, there is a signifi-
cant error when U b and b are calculated. For example, the ap-
parent bubble chord length could have been greater than the col-
umn diameter when the column was operated in the discrete or the
coalesced bubble flow regimes. A recent study 17 revealed that
the principal error results from bubbles rising nonvertically.
The logic circuit in this study required the following criteria for
acceptance:
1 t 1 t 2 t 3 t 4
2 0.9t i1 /0.5(t i1 t i2 )1.1.
The first criterion eliminates signals created by different bubbles.
Only bubbles which contacted the lower element first and then the
upper element were considered for computing the bubble velocity
and chord length. The second criterion screens out signals created
by bubbles with a significant nonvertical component of velocity.
Although this logic circuit cannot guarantee that all bubbles se-
lected are rising vertically, it helps reduce the error from the two-
element probe. In total, between 30 and 70 percent of voids de-
tected at the lower element were screened out, the lower
proportion for the churn-turbulent flow regime and the higher for
discrete bubbling. While this discrimination could cause bias if
bubbles traveling nonvertically differ systematically from those
MARCH 2000, Vol. 122 139
rising vertically, any such bias is expected to be small given that
all measurements repeated are for the probe on the axis of the
column.
Experimental Results and Discussion
A number of distinct flow regimes or patterns have been iden-
tified in two-phase flows 1827. The principal objective of the
present paper is to present bubble properties, not flow regimes.
However, as already noted, bubble properties vary differently with
operating variables according to the flow regime, so it is important
to delineate which flow regime is applicable when bubble proper-
ties are presented. A series of objective criteria based on conduc-
tivity probe measurements has been shown 14,28 to demarcate
flow regime boundaries, not only for two-phase systems as treated
in this paper, but also for three-phase gas/liquid/solid systems.
The resulting flow map for the air/water system appears in Fig. 3,
together with partial maps from three prior studies. The latter
regime transitions were measured at anywhere from 24 to 165
column diameters above the distributor, in contrast to the 7.9 di-
ameters of the present study, so that the flows were much more
fully developed. There is therefore a significant discrepancy be-
tween the present results and those from the literature, but the
latter are no less discrepant from each other. Since the distinguish-
ing characteristics for the various flow regimes often depend on
the differences in the ways bubble properties vary with key vari-
ables, some of the figures and discussion below relate back to this
flow regime map.
Fig. 3 Airwater bubble column flow regime map for D
0.0826 m and Z 0.65 m points and solid lines, this study
compared to regime transitions from literature broken lines;
uncertainty estimate of U g at transition points7percent, un-
certainty estimate of U l at transition points4percent *
transition from discrete bubble flow or slug flow to dispersed
bubble flow; transition from discrete or dispersed bubble
flow to coalesced bubble flow; transition from coalesced
bubble flow to slug flow; transition flow slug flow to churn
flow; transition from churn flow to bridging flow; tran-
sition from bridging flow to annular flow; 1A bubble slug flow
transition, Annunziato and Girardi 30; 2A slugchurn flow
transition, Annunziato and Girardi 30; 3A churnannular flow
transition, Annunziato and Girardi 30; 1G bubbleslug flow
transition, Govier et al. 31; 2G slugfroth flow transition, Fig. 4 Linear relationship between bubble frequency and su-
Govier et al. 31; 3G frothripple flow transition, Govier et al. perficial gas velocity for the discrete closed symbols and dis-
31; 4G ripplefilm flow transition, Govier et al. 31; 1T persed open symbols bubble flow regimes: airwater system.
bubbleslug flow transition, Taitel et al. 22; 2T slugchurn Uncertainty estimate in measurement of U g 2 percent; un-
flow transition, Taitel et al. 22; 3T churnannular flow transi- certainty estimate in measurement of U l 1 percent; uncer-
tion, Taitel et al. 22
140 Vol. 122, MARCH 2000
Local Bubble Frequency. The discrete and dispersed bubble
flow regimes are both characterized by small bubbles and narrow
size distributions. The difference between these two flow patterns
is that the uniform small size bubbles in the dispersed bubble flow
regime result from turbulence of the liquid phase, while in the
discrete bubble flow regime, small bubbles are generated mainly
by the gas distributor at low gas and liquid velocities. These two
regimes can be distinguished from each other by whether the ratio
of the standard deviation of gas burst transit time to the average
gas burst transit time lies to the left discrete or right dispersed
of the maximum, which occurs when this ratio is plotted against
superficial liquid velocity at a fixed gas superficial velocity 14.
The local bubble frequency in these two regimes is plotted
against the superficial gas velocity in Fig. 4. A linear relationship
between the bubble frequency and the superficial gas velocity is
found in both the discrete and the dispersed bubble flow regimes
with a constant of proportionality of 54580 m1. The superficial
liquid velocity does not significantly affect this linear relationship.
Assuming all small bubbles are spherical and of uniform size,
distributed uniformly across the column, one can write
bubble detection area
column cross-sectional area
No. of bubbles passsing detection area
.
No. of bubbles passing cross-sectional area
The detection area is dependent on the bubble size. A bubble of
diameter d vs can be detected only when the distance between the
probe and the center of the bubble is less than d vs/2. Therefore,
the equation above can be written:
2
d
4 vs ft
Ac A cU gt
3
d
6 vs
where f is the measured local bubble frequency and A c is the
cross-sectional area of the column. Rearranging this equation, we
can express the local or point bubble frequency by
tainty estimate in measurement of f 5 percent.
Transactions of the ASME
Fig. 5 Plot of local bubble frequency at axis of column versus
superficial gas velocity showing variation of bubble frequency
in slug flow and churn flow. Uncertainty estimate in measure-
ment of U g 2 percent; uncertainty estimate in measurement
of U l 1 percent; uncertainty estimate in measurement of f
5 percent.
Fig. 6 Comparison of arith. avg. bubble chord length in dis-
crete and dispersed bubble flow regimes for airwater system
at Z 0.65 m. Uncertainty estimate in measurement of U g
2 percent; uncertainty estimate in measurement of U l 1
percent; uncertainty estimate in measurement of bubble chord
length10 percent.

1.5
f U (5)
d vs g
where d vs is the Sauter mean bubble diameter. The linear relation-
ship between f and U g in Fig. 4 then implies that d vs was inde-
pendent of both U g and U l with d vs3 mm. As shown in Fig. 7
below, this is quite consistent with the chord length distributions
for the dispersed bubble flow regime, the regime corresponding to
most points in Fig. 4, and the dispersed bubbles are of the same
order of size and again are greatly dependent on U g at least.
Evidently the bubble size in these flow regimes, at least for the
conditions and position of measurement, is controlled by the dis-
tribution and/or turbulence.
In the slug flow regime, one can observe bullet-shaped Taylor
bubbles and small bubbles in the liquid plugs separating them. In
the churn flow regime, the bullet-shaped bubbles become narrow
and their shapes are distorted. Small bubbles in the liquid plugs
coalesce and generate new bullet-shaped bubbles. The overall
bubble frequency then increases with the gas velocity in the slug
flow regime and decreases with the gas velocity in churn flow.
This difference in trends was used to determine the transition from
slug to churn flow and is shown in Fig. 5.
Bubble Chord Length and its Distribution. Figure 6 pre-
sents experimental results for the average bubble chord length as a
function of the superficial gas and liquid velocities. The average
bubble chord length increases with increasing gas velocity and
decreases with increasing liquid velocity. As the liquid velocity is
increased, a gradual transition takes place between discrete and
dispersed bubble flow.
Some typical distributions of bubble chord length in the dis-
crete and the dispersed bubble flow regimes are presented in Fig.
7. The four left-hand plots are for the discrete bubble flow regime
at U 1 0.0184 m/s, while the four right-hand plots correspond to
the dispersed bubble flow regime at U 1 0.155 m/s. The standard
deviation of the bubble chord length for each operating condition
is also given in the figure. The peak values of the PDF curves
Fig. 7 Probability density distribution of bubble chord length
appear at an average bubble chord length of approximately 5 mm in discrete and dispersed bubble flow regimes for airwater
for the discrete bubble flow and 2.5 mm for the dispersed bubble system. Uncertainty estimate in measurement of U g 2 per-
flow. The standard deviation of the bubble chord length distribu- cent; uncertainty estimate in measurement of U l 1 percent;
tion increases with the gas velocity in both flow regimes. How- uncertainty estimate in measurement of bubble chord length
ever, the standard deviation of the bubble chord length distribu- 10 percent.

Journal of Fluids Engineering MARCH 2000, Vol. 122 141

Table 1 Measurements of Sanaullah et al. 29 compared with
this work

Sanaullah et al. This work Sanaullah et al. This work

U g m/s 0.18 0.18 0.096 0.093
U 1 m/s 0.64 0.22 0.64 0.22
g 0.19 0.33 0.09 0.18
f Hz 80 100 Not reported 51
U b m/s 1.32 1.73 1.0 1.2
b mm Not reported 8.6 2.6 4.8

tion in the dispersed bubble flow regime is smaller than in the

discrete bubble flow regime, indicating a narrower distribution in
the former case.
While there have been many studies reported in the literature
for air/water systems, there are few data which are directly com-
parable to those presented here, most previous work having been
for one or more of the following: stationary liquid systems, col-
umns of smaller diameter, lower gas velocities, and higher Z/D
ratios. Recently, Sanaullah et al. 29 reported selected values of
g , f, U b , and b for the airwater system in bubbly flow, ob-
tained from a 150 mm i.d. column using an inclined double-sensor
resistivity probe located about 4 m above the gas entry. The few
measurements when the probe was located at the axis of the col-
umn, as in the present experiments, for the two runs with U 1 0
are recorded in Table 1 g and f based on the upstream sensor,
together with the two runs from the present study which had fluid
velocities that most closely matched the respective fluid velocities
of Sanaullah et al. The larger bubbles and the correspondingly
higher bubble velocities of the present study can be explained by
the fact that, unlike the study by Sanaullah et al. which is for fully
developed flow, the present results are in the developing flow
region. The larger gas holdups of the present study are attributable Fig. 9 Probability density distribution of bubble chord length
to the fact that the gas bubbles tend to concentrate at the axis of in the slug and churn flow regimes at Z 0.65 m and D
the column initially before they spread out radially. The bubble 82.6 mm. Uncertainty estimate in measurement of U g 2
frequencies are quite similar for the one available comparison. percent; uncertainty estimate in measurement of U l 1 per-
The onset of the slug flow regime was based on the Sauter cent; uncertainty estimate in measurement of bubble chord
mean bubble chord length length10 percent.

n n

bvs
i1
bi
3
i1
bi
2
(6)

Fig. 8 Bubble chord length in coalesced bubble, slug and
churn flow regimes for airwater system with Z 0.65 m and
D 82.6 mm. Uncertainty estimate in measurement of U g 2
percent; uncertainty estimate in measurement of U l 1 per-
cent; uncertainty estimate in measurement of bubble chord
length10 percent.
since this average gives added weight to large bubbles 28. Fig-
ure 8 plots the Sauter mean bubble chord length and the average
bubble chord length against the superficial gas velocity. The Sau-
ter mean bubble chord length is always greater than the arithmetic
average bubble chord length at the same gas velocity. The average
bubble chord length is always less than the column diameter in the
slug and the churn flow regimes due to the large number of small
bubbles in the system. Both the Sauter mean bubble chord length
and the average bubble chord length increase only slightly with
U g in the slug flow regime which is defined as starting when the
Sauter mean b first exceeds D. The increase is enhanced in
churn flow. Typical bubble chord length distributions in the slug
and churn flow regimes are presented in Fig. 9. Note that this
figure provides an indication of the entire bubble population. For
example in the slug flow regime, both the Taylor bubbles, prima-
rily responsible for the overall hydrodynamics, and the small
bubbles, primarily responsible for mass transfer between the
phases, are portrayed.
It is seen that the average bubble chord length and the standard
deviation for slug flow left-hand side of Fig. 9 under different
operating conditions vary from 21 to 31 mm and from 35 to 52
mm, respectively, while the peaks of the PDF of the bubble chord
length appear at a bubble chord length of 67 mm. This indicates

142 Vol. 122, MARCH 2000 Transactions of the ASME

that there are many small bubbles in the slug flow regime. In the
churn flow regime right-hand side of Fig. 9, both the average
and the standard deviation of the bubble/void chord length are
higher than in the slug flow regime. However, the peak values of
the PDF curves at low bubble chord length are smaller and the
PDF curves are wider than for the slug flow regime, indicating
that many small bubbles found in slug wakes coalesce when the
churn flow regime is reached.
Average Bubble Velocity. The experimental results for the
average bubble velocities in the discrete and dispersed bubble
flow regimes are plotted against average bubble chord length in
Fig. 10. It is seen that the average bubble velocity increases with
increasing chord length. The bubble velocities at high liquid su-
perficial velocities are greater than at low liquid velocities.
The bubble velocity and chord length can be correlated in an
alternative way. Consider a system with uniform spherical
bubbles of diameter d vs , during a period of time t; the local gas
holdup measured by a conductivity probe can then be expressed
by
3 2
g f d Ub d . (7)
6 vs 4 vs
Rearrangement of Eq. 7 yields
g 2
U b d vs .
f 3
The left-hand side of this equation, g U b / f , which we call the
bubble travel length, is plotted against the average bubble chord
length in Fig. 11 for the discrete and the dispersed bubble flow
regimes. A nonlinear relationship between the bubble travel
length and the average bubble chord length is observed. This
could be due to changing bubble shape with increasing bubble
diameter and to other deviations from the assumption of uniform
spherical bubbles. The relationship between the bubble travel
length and the average bubble chord length for the discrete and
the dispersed bubble flow regimes can be correlated by
g
U 0.007 30 log b 0.0211 SI units . (9)
f b
Figure 11 presents all the experimental results for the bubble
travel length with respect to the average bubble chord length.
Fig. 10 Average bubble velocity in discrete and dispersed
flow at different superficial liquid velocities for airwater sys-
tem at Z 0.65 m. Uncertainty estimate in measurement of U g
2 percent; uncertainty estimate in measurement of U l
1 percent; uncertainty estimate in measurement of bubble
velocity and bubble chord length10 percent.
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Fig. 11 Relationship between bubble travel length and aver-
age bubble chord length in the slug and churn flow regimes for
airwater system at Z 0.65 m, D 82.6 mm, and U g 0.002 6
ms. Uncertainty estimate in measurement of U g 2 percent;
uncertainty estimate in measurement of U l 1 percent; un-
certainty estimate in measurement of bubble velocity and
bubble chord length10 percent.
(8)
Three distinctive regions corresponding to different flow regimes
determined by the methods proposed by Zhang et al. 28 can be
found in this figure. At lower average bubble chord length, corre-
sponding to the discrete and dispersed bubble flow regimes, the
relationship between the bubble travel length, and the average
bubble chord length can be correlated by Eq. 9. At intermediate
average bubble chord length, corresponding to the slug and churn
flow regimes, the relationship between the bubble travel length
and the average bubble chord length can be expressed by another
empirical correlation
g
U 0.1312 log b 0.2276 SI units . (10)
f b
It is also seen in Fig. 11 that at high average bubble chord
length, corresponding to the bridging and the annular flow re-
gimes, the experimental data for the bubble travel length are sig-
nificantly greater than predicted by Eq. 10. The relationship be-
tween the bubble travel length and the average bubble chord
length can also be used as an alternative method to determine the
flow regimes in gasliquid cocurrent upward systems. By measur-
ing the bubble/void characteristics with a two-element conductiv-
ity probe, if the measured bubble velocity, gas holdup, bubble
frequency, and average bubble chord length satisfy Eq. 9, then
the flow pattern corresponds to discrete or dispersed bubble flow.
If, on the other hand, the measured bubble characteristics satisfy
Eq. 10, then we have slug or churn flow. If the bubble travel
length is significantly greater than predicted by either Eq. 9 or
Eq. 10, then the flow pattern is either bridging or annular flow.
The difference between the slug and the churn flow regimes can
be seen from a plot of the average bubble velocity versus the
average bubble chord length, as shown in Fig. 12. The dashed line
in the figure corresponds to the flow regime boundary between
these two regimes in Fig. 3. The average bubble velocity increases
sharply as the average bubble chord length varies from approxi-
mately 0.02 to 0.03 m in the slug flow regime. In the slug flow
regime, the average bubble velocity is not only dependent on the
average bubble chord length, but also on the superficial gas ve-
locity. As discussed above, the average bubble chord length does
not change significantly as the superficial gas velocity varies from
approximately 0.05 to 1 m/s, due to the large number of small
bubbles entrained in slug wakes in the slug flow regime. Hence, a
MARCH 2000, Vol. 122 143

Fig. 12 Relationship between average bubble velocity and av-
erage bubble chord length in slug and churn flow regimes for
airwater system at Z 0.65 m and D 82.6 mm. Uncertainty es-
timate in measurement of U g 2 percent; uncertainty esti-
mate in measurement of U l 1 percent; uncertainty estimate
in measurement of bubble velocity and bubble chord length
10 percent.
small increase in the average bubble chord length requires a large
increase in superficial gas velocity, which increases the average
bubble velocity significantly. In the churn flow regime, the aver-
age bubble chord length increases with gas velocity by reducing
the population of small bubbles and increasing the number of
large voids. The average bubble velocity, however, increases only
slightly in the churn flow regime, probably due to the relatively
small change in the gas velocity as the average bubble chord
length increases from approximately 0.03 to 0.045 m.
Conclusions
Bubble characteristics in developing flow in the different hy-
drodynamic regimes exhibit different variation with respect to gas
and liquid flow rates. Bubble frequency increases linearly with
superficial gas velocity in the discrete and dispersed bubble flow
regimes. Bubble frequency also increases with gas velocity in the
slug flow regime but decreases in the churn flow and bridging
flow regimes. Bubble chord length and its distribution in the dis-
persed bubble flow regime are smaller and narrower than in the
discrete bubble flow regime. Both the average and the standard
deviation of the bubble chord length increase with increasing su-
perficial gas velocity in the discrete, dispersed, and churn flow
regimes. However, the average bubble chord length does not
change significantly in the slug flow regime due to the high popu-
lation of small bubbles in the liquid plugs which separate succes-
sive Taylor bubbles.
The bubble travel length, defined as ( g U b )/ f , can be used to
correlate the bubble/void characteristics. The relationship between
the bubble travel length and the average bubble chord length can
be expressed by Eq. 9 for the discrete and dispersed bubble flow
regimes and by Eq. 10 for the slug and the churn flow regimes.
These two equations provide an alternative method of determining
the flow regimes. Further study is needed to validate and extend
this new method.
Nomenclature
A c cross-sectional area of column, m2
D column diameter, m or mm
d i bubble diameter, m or mm
144 Vol. 122, MARCH 2000
d vs Sauter mean diameter or volume-surface diam-
eter of bubbles, n i d i3 /n i d i2 , m or mm
f local bubble or liquid bridging frequency, s1
L distance between two elements of conductivity
probe, m or mm
n number of bubbles observed during observation
period
t 1 ,t 2 ,t 3 ,t 4 times defined in Fig. 2
t i duration of conductivity probe in gas
bubblegas burst transit time, s
t i average gas burst transit time, s
t tot total test time, s
U b local number average bubble velocity, m/s
U g superficial gas velocitygas volumetric flow
rate/cross-sectional area of column, m/s
U 1 superficial liquid velocityliquid volumetric
flow rate/cross-sectional area of column, m/s
Z height above distributor, m
g gas holdup, m3/m3
b local individual bubble chord length, m or mm
b local number average bubble chord length, m or
mm
standard deviation of bubble chord length, m
1 , 2 time shift between two elements of conductivity
probe defined in Fig. 2, s
References
1 Rigby, G. R., Van Blockland, G. P., Park, W. H., and Capes, C. E., 1970,
Properties of Bubbles in Three Phase Fluidized Beds as Measured by an
Electroresistivity Probe, Chem. Eng. Sci., 25, pp. 17291741.
2 Tutsui, T., and Miyauchi, T., 1980, Fluidity of a Fluidized Catalyst Bed and
its Effect on the Behavior of the Bubbles, Int. Chem. Eng., 20, pp. 386393.
3 Ueyama, K., Morooka, S., Koide, K., Kaji, H., and Miyauchi, T., 1980, Be-
havior of Gas Bubbles in Bubble Columns, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des.
Dev., 19, pp. 592599.
4 Wittmann, K., Helmrich, H., and Schugerl, K., 1981, Measurements of
Bubble Properties in Continuously Operated Fluidized Bed Reactors at El-
evated Temperatures, Chem. Eng. Sci., 36, pp. 16731677.
5 Lee, S. L. P., and de Lasa, H. I., 1988, Radial Dispersion Model for Bubble
Phenomena in Three-Phase Fluidized Beds, Chem. Eng. Sci., 43, pp. 2445
2449.
6 Yu, Y. H., and Kim, S. D., 1988, Bubble Characteristics in the Radial Di-
rection of Three-Phase Fluidized Beds, AIChE. J., 34, pp. 20692072.
7 Lee, S. L. P., Soria, A., and de Lasa, H. I., 1990, Evolution of Bubble Length
Distributions in Three-Phase Fluidized Beds, AIChE. J., 36, pp. 17631767.
8 Han, J. H., and Kim, S. D., 1993, Bubble Chord Length Distribution in
Three-Phase Fluidized Beds, Chem. Eng. Sci., 48, pp. 10331039.
9 Park, W. H., Kang, W. K., Capes, C. E., and Osberg, G. L., 1969, The
Properties of Bubbles in Fluidized Beds of Conducting Particles as Measured
by an Electroresistivity Probe, Chem. Eng. Sci., 24, pp. 851865.
10 Burgess, J. M., Fane, A. G., and Fell, C. J. D., 1981, Application of an
Electroresistivity Probe Technique to a Two-Dimensional Fluidized Bed,
Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 59, pp. 249252.
11 Matsuura, A., and Fan, L.-S., 1984, Distribution of Bubble Properties in a
Gas-Liquid-Solid Fluidized Bed, AIChE. J., 30, pp. 894903.
12 Choi, J. M., Soh, J. E., and Kim, S. D., 1988, Bubble Size and Frequency in
Gas Fluidized Beds, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn., 21, pp.171178.
13 Hewitt, G. F., 1978, Measurement of Two-Phase Flow Parameters, Academic,
London.
14 Zhang, J.-P., 1996, Bubble Columns and Three-Phase Fluidized Beds: Flow
Regimes and Bubble Characteristics, Ph.D. thesis, University of British Co-
lumbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
15 Werther, J., 1974, Bubbles in Gas Fluidized BedPart I, Trans. Inst. Chem.
Eng., 52, pp. 149159.
16 Gunn, D. J., and Al-Doori, H. M., 1985, The Measurement of Bubble Flows
in Fluidized Beds by Electrical Probe, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 11, pp. 535
551.
17 Lim, K. S., and Agarwal, P. K., 1992, Bubble Velocity in Fluidized Beds: the
Effect of Non-Vertical Bubble Rise on its Measurement using Submersible
Probes and its Relationship with Bubble Size, Powder Technol., 69, pp.
239248.
18 Griffith, P., and Wallis, G. B., 1961, Two-Phase Slug Flow, ASME J. Heat
Transfer, 83, pp. 307320.
19 Wallis, G. B., 1969, One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
20 Hewitt, G. F., and Hall-Taylor, N. S., 1970, Annular Two-Phase Flow, Perga-
mon, New York.
21 Govier, G. W., and Aziz, K., 1972, The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
Transactions of the ASME
22 Taitel, Y., Barnea, D., and Dukler, A. E., 1980, Modeling Flow Pattern
Transitions for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in Vertical Tubes, AIChE.
J., 26, pp. 345354.
23 Vince, M. A., and Lahey, Jr., R. T., 1982, On the Development of an Ob-
jective Flow Regime Indicator, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 8, pp. 93124.
24 Fernandes, R. C., Semiat, R., and Dukler, A. E., 1983, Hydrodynamic Model
for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Vertical Tubes, AIChE. J., 29, pp. 981989.
25 Mao, Z.-S., and Dukler, A. E., 1989, An Experimental Study of Gas-Liquid
Slug Flow Experiments in Fluids, Exp. Fluids, 8, pp. 169182.
26 Franca, F., Ackigoz, M., Lahey, Jr., R. T., and Clausse, A., 1991, The Use of
Fractal Techniques for Flow Regime Identification, Int. J. Multiphase Flow,
17, pp. 545552.
27 Hasan, A. R., and Kabir, C. S., 1992, Two-Phase Flow in Vertical and
Inclined Annuli, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 18, pp. 279293.
28 Zhang, J.-P., Grace, J. R., and Epstein, N., 1997, Flow Regime Identificatio-
Journal of Fluids Engineering
nin Bubble Columns and Three-Phase Fluidized Beds, Chem. Eng. Sci., 52,
pp. 39793992.
29 Sanaullah, K., Zaidi, S. H., Altunbas, A., and Hills, J. H., 1998, Bubbly Flow
Measurements Using Resistivity Probes in Novel Configuration, Proceedings
3rd International Conference On Multiphase Flow, Lyon, France, Paper No.
505, pp. 17.
30 Annunziato, M., and Girardi, G., 1985, Statistical Methods to Identify Two-
Phase Regimes: Experimental Results for Vertical Large Diameter Tubes,
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Two-Phase Flow, Lon-
don, U.K., British Hydromechanics Research Association BHRA, Fluid En-
gineering Centre, Cranfield, Bedford, England, pp. 361380.
31 Govier, G. W., Radford, B. A., and Dunn, J. S. C., 1957, The Upwards
Vertical Flow of Air-Water Mixtures I. Effect of Air and Water Rates on Flow
Pattern, Holdup and Pressure Drop, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 35, pp. 5870.
MARCH 2000, Vol. 122 145