Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Airlift - Three Phase
Airlift - Three Phase
www.elsevier.com/locate/ces
Received 17 November 2004; received in revised form 20 April 2005; accepted 20 April 2005
Available online 6 July 2005
Abstract
This paper presents a global model of three phase flow (gas–liquid–solid) in an internal airlift reactor. The airlift is composed of four
zones: a riser (on the aerated side on the internal wall), a downcomer (on the opposite side) and two turning zones above and below the
internal wall. Tap water is the liquid continuous phase and the dispersed phases are air bubbles and polyethylene particles. The global
modelling of the airlift involves mass and momentum equations for the three phases. The model enables phase velocities and phase volume
fractions to be estimated, which can be compared to experimental data. Closure relations for the gas and solid drift velocities are based
on the model proposed by Zuber and Findlay. The drift flux coefficients are derived from CFD numerical simulations of the airlift. Gas
bubble and solid particle averaged slip velocities are deduced from momentum balances, including drag coefficient correlations. The link
between Zuber and Findlay model and the two-fluid model is established. In the experiment as well as in the model, the gas flow rate is
fixed. However, the liquid and solid flow rates are unknown. Two closure relations are needed to predict these flow rates: the first closure
relation expresses that the volume of solid injected into the airlift remains constant; the second closure relation expresses a global balance
between the difference of column height in the riser and the downcomer and the total pressure drop in the airlift. The main parameters
of a three phase airlift reactor, like gas and solid volume fractions, are well predicted by the global model. With increasing solid filling
rate (40%), the model starts to depart from the experimental values as soon as coalescence of bubbles appears.
䉷 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
This study continues on from the previous works ac- two-phase flow as (Mudde and Simonin, 1999)
complished by Cockx et al. (1997), Cockx (1998) and
Couvert (2000) but with three phases. The objective is MG = − ML = a 21 L CD ur vr
to perform a simple global model to describe the hy- j ur
+ G L CA + uG .∇ur
drodynamics for a gas–liquid–solid IL-ALR. Therefore, jt
to reach this objective, the global model equations are + ∇[G L CA uG ur ] − L uG uL .∇ G ,
first presented and simplified. Afterwards, closure rela-
tions are also detailed, the experimental setup is described where ur is the relative velocity
and results are presented for two different solid loadings.
ur = uG − uL ,
The interesting aspect of this work is to implement data
from three phase CFD simulations which provide differ- vr will be defined later, CA is the added mass coefficient,
ent unknown terms necessary to close the global model CD is the drag coefficient and a is the interfacial projected
equations. area.
The first term on the right hand side of the previous equa-
tion accounts for drag. It will only be discussed below, since
the circulation in the airlift is controlled by the gas flow, and
2. Global model of gas–liquid–solid flow primarily by buoyancy effects. In the momentum equation
of the two-fluid model, the interfacial transfer of momentum
The mass and momentum equations are written in the related to drag is expressed as
continuous liquid phase and in the two dispersed phases (gas
bubbles and solid particles). The local equations are firstly MG = −ML = a 21 L CD ur vr .
recalled. Space averaging of both variables and equations
The relative velocity vr is not equal to the difference of
enable the model to be simplified.
velocity of the two phases. It is defined as
vr = uG − uL − vdr .
2.1. Local Navier–Stokes equations in multiphase flow
The relative velocity vr is the statistical average of the lo-
The following equations express mass (Eq. (1)) and cal instantaneous relative velocity between each bubble and
momentum (Eq. (2)) balances in multiphase flow and in the surrounding liquid. In other words, it represents the sta-
Eulerian–Eulerian framework. The subscript k stands for tistical average of relative velocity of the liquid seen by the
each phase. gas. The statistical average of the turbulent fluctuating liq-
uid velocity in the liquid is equal to zero but the statistical
j(k k ) average of the turbulent fluctuating liquid velocity seen by
+ ∇(k k uk ) = ṁk . (1)
jt the gas is not equal to zero. It is written vdr , in terms of lo-
cal drift velocity (Simonin and Viollet, 1990). Formally, the
Where k and k represent, respectively, the density and vol- drift velocity vdr is modelled as
ume fraction of phase k. On the right hand side, ṁk repre- 1
sents mass transfer at the interface between the phase k and vdr = −Dlocal ∇ g , (3)
g
the two other phases. For the sake of simplicity, interfacial
mass transfer is not considered in the present work. ṁk is where Dlocal is a local diffusivity accounting for turbulent
thus equal to zero. dispersion of gas bubble and ∇ g is the spatial gradient of
the gas fraction. This term vdr plays a key role in the local
j(k k uk ) modelling of dispersion of gas in bubble columns (Mudde
+ ∇(k k uk uk ) and Simonin, 1999) and airlift reactors (Talvy, 2003).
jt
In the present work, these local equations will not be
= −k ∇Pk + k ∇(k − k uk uk ) + k k g + Mk , (2) solved. In a first approach, a more global model is devel-
oped after space averaging of these equations. In the clo-
where uk represents the velocity of phase k. On the right sure problem of the global model, CFD results developed by
hand side, P is the pressure, k is the viscous stress tensor Talvy (2003) and based on the numerical solution of these
and k uk uk is the turbulent Reynolds stress tensor. g is the local equations will be used.
gravitational acceleration. Mk represents the transfer of mo-
mentum at the interface between phase k and the two other 2.2. Global model of gas–liquid–solid reactor in steady
phases. This term is essential in multiphase flow dynamics state and fully developed flow
since it accounts for drag between dispersed and continu-
ous phases, for example. This term accounts for drag, added The objective of the global model is to provide averaged
mass and turbulent pressure. It can be expressed in bubbly values of gas, liquid and solid velocities and volume frac-
S. Talvy et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 5991 – 6003 5993
tions in order to globally characterize the hydrodynamics of In multiphase flow, the sum of the different phase volume
the gas–liquid–solid airlift reactor. fractions is equal to unity.
The spatial average of volume fraction of the phase k
denoted by Rk is defined by
3
Rk = 1. (7)
k=1
1
Rk =
k = .k ds, (4a)
A A These mass (Eq. (5)) and momentum (Eq. (6)) equations
(detailed for the gas, liquid and solid phases) and the
where
stands for the spatial averaging operator. A is the
geometrical relation (Eq. (7)) involve a system of seven
cross sectional area of the flow. Given a variable fk , one can
equations with seven variables: the three volume fractions
derive
(Rg , Rl , Rs ), the three velocities (Ug , Ul , Us ) and the pres-
1 sure gradient (dP /dz). In the system, additional variables
Rk
Fk =
k fk = .k fk ds. (4b) appear: the gas, liquid and solid superficial velocities (re-
A A
spectively, jg , jl and js ), the wall perimeters wetted by the
For the sake of simplicity, once the spatial averaging operator phases (Lw w
k ), the associated wall shear stresses (k ), the
is applied to the equations, the averaged value
Fk will i i
interfacial areas (ak,l ) and the associated stress (k,l ). As
be simply written as Fk . will be detailed in the next section, most of these additional
Mass balance equation: variables need closure relations.
Space averaging of Eq. (1) can be derived and simplified
in the case of a steady state and fully developed flow. In 2.3. Decoupling of the pressure gradient derivation
addition, the section A is assumed to be constant, interfacial
mass transfer is neglected and the walls of the reactor are Generally, the three momentum equations, corresponding
assumed to be impermeable. It becomes to each phase, are combined so as to obtain an equivalent
set of equations in which the pressure gradient calculation
Rk Uk = cons tan t.
is separated from the calculation of the other variables.
The three momentum equations are written below:
One can define the superficial velocity of phase k, repre-
sented by jk , as the volumetric flow rate of phase k, noted jP 1
as Qk , divided by the section A. Rg = Lw w + ag,l
i
ig,l + ag,s
i
ig,s − Rg g g, (8a)
jz A g g
Qk jP 1
R k Uk = = jk . (5) Rl = Lw w + al,g
i
il,g + al,s
i i
l,s − Rl l g, (8b)
A jz A l l
In other words, the flow rate of phase k is equal to the jP 1
Rs = Lw w + as,l
i i i
s,l + as,g is,g − Rs s g. (8c)
product of the velocity and the cross sectional area occupied jz A s s
by phase k, denoted by Ak
To simplify these equations, assumptions have to be made.
Qk = Ak Uk = Aj k . Since both gas and solid phases are dispersed, we can assume
that there is no interfacial transfer between gas bubbles and
Indeed, the mass balance expresses that the velocity of phase solid particles. Thus
k will adapt to the section occupied by phase k in order to i
conserve the flow rate. The momentum equation is needed ag,s ig,s = −as,g
i
is,g = 0.
to determine the volume fraction and the phase velocity. The transfers between each dispersed phase and the contin-
Momentum balance equation: uous liquid phase verify the following equality:
Following the same derivation, Eq. (2) becomes
i
ag,l ig,l = −al,g
i
il,g and i i
as,l i i
s,l = −al,s l,s .
jP 1
3
Rk = Lw w + i i
ak,l k,l − Rk k g, (6) The transfer of momentum between each dispersed phase
jz A k k k,l=1
k=l
and the wall can be neglected. Thus:
Lw w w w
g g = Ls s = 0.
Lw k represents the perimeter of the wall wetted by phase k
and w k stands for the wall shear stress exerted by phase k. It becomes
i represents the projected interfacial area between phase k
ak,l jP i
and phase l per unit volume. ik,l stands for the stress exerted Rg = ag,l ig,l − Rg g g, (9a)
jz
by phase k on phase l, resulting from pressure and viscous
stress distribution along the interface. In steady state and jP 1
Rl = Lw w − ag,l
i
ig,l − as,l
i i
s,l − Rl l g, (9b)
fully developed flow, it reduces to drag. jz A l l
5994 S. Talvy et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 5991 – 6003
jP i i
the stress ig,l resulting from pressure and viscous stress
Rs = as,l s,l − Rs s g. (9c) distributions on the bubbles induces a drag term and can
jz
thus be closed in terms of liquid–solid mixture density, drag
The sum of these three equations gives mixture momentum, coefficient CD,g and slip velocity G as
as follows:
jP 1 s Rs + l Rl
1
= −(Rg g + Rl l + Rs s )g + Lw w . (10) ig,l = − CD,g G2 .
jz A l l 2 1 − Rg
Adding Eqs. (9b) and (9c) leads to the expression of the One can easily derive the following expression:
momentum of a pseudo-liquid–solid mixture: s Rs + l Rl M − g R g
i i
= .
jP ag,l g,l Rl l + Rs s 1 1 − Rg 1 − Rg
=− − g+ Lw w ,
jz 1 − Rg 1 − Rg A(1 − Rg ) l l Thus, the slip velocities of the gas bubbles and solid particles
Eq. (9a) is equivalent to can be calculated as
jP
i i
ag,l 4 dg (M − g )(1 − Rg )
=
g,l
− g g. G= g (12a)
jz Rg 3 CD,g M − g R g
Equating the left hand side of the two previous gives for the bubble slip velocity, where CD,g is the drag coeffi-
cient for gas bubbles
i 1
ag,l ig,l = Rg (g − M )g + Lw w
. (11a)
A l l 4 ds |M − s |(1 − Rs ) M − s
S= g (12b)
The same derivation can be applied to Eqs. (9a) and (9b). It 3 CD,s M − s Rs |M − s |
becomes
for the solid slip velocity, where CD,s is the drag coefficient
i i 1
as,l s,l = Rs (s − M )g + Lw w
. (11b) for solid particles. In other words, Eqs. (11a) and (11b)
A l l enables to express the global slip velocities G and S.
The subscript M is assigned to the mixture: As mentioned in Section 2.1, in the local approach based
on the two-fluid model, the relative velocity involved in the
M = l Rl + g Rg + s Rs . drag accounts for two terms, the relative mean velocity and
Eqs. (10), (11a) and (11b) can been substituted to Eqs. an additional term called local drift velocity.
(9a)–(9c). Thus, the derivation of the pressure gradient can Therefore, the averaged slip velocities G and S can be
be decoupled from the calculation of the six other variables. written as
Finally, six equations are retained (Eq. (5)) for each phase, G = Ug − jM − Vdr,g ,
Eqs. (7), (11a) and (11b) to calculate the six unknown vari-
ables (Rg , Rl , Rs , Ug , Ul , Us ), providing the additional vari- S = Us − jM − Vdr,s ,
ables are known. Then, the pressure gradient is determined
where Vdr,g and Vdr,s are the averaged drift velocities of gas
from Eq. (10).
bubbles and solid particles. In fact, the following expressions
issued from Zuber and Findlay model enable to express the
2.4. GLS drift flux model drift velocities of each phase:
In Eqs. (11a) and (11b), the drag is mainly balanced by G = Ug − C0,g (jg + jl + js ) = Ug − jM − (C0,g − 1)jM ,
the gravity term, since the momentum transfer at the wall is
S = Us − C0,s (jg + jl + js ) = Us − jM − (C0,s − 1)jM ,
at least one order of magnitude smaller than gravity. These
equations can be used to estimate the averaged slip veloci- hence
ties of gas bubbles and solid particles. Neglecting wall mo-
mentum transfer, Eqs. (11a) and (11b) reduce to Vdr,g = (C0,g − 1)jM
i
ag,l ig,l = Rg (g − M )g and
Table 1
GLS model basic equations
Qg
Rg Ug = = jg
S
Ql
Rl Ul = = jl
S
Qs
RS Us = = js
S
R g + Rl + RS = 1
Ug = C0,g (jg + jl + js ) + G
Us = C0,s (jg + jl + js ) + S
g jM
= −Dglobal
∇ g .
Table 2
GLS model in the airlift reactor
Downcomer Riser
Rg,d Ug,d = jg,d Rg,r Ug,r = jg,r
Rl,d Ul,d = jl,d Rl,r Ul,r = jl,r
Rs,d Us,d = js,d Rg,r Ug,r = js,r
Rg,d + Rl,d + Rs,d = 1 Rg,r + Rl,r + Rs,r = 1
Ug,d = C0,g,d (jg,d + jl,d + js,d ) + Gd Ug,r = C0,g,r (jg,r + jl,r + js,r ) + Gr
Us,d = C0,s,d (jg,d + jl,d + js,d ) + Sd Us,r = C0,s,r (jg,r + jl,r + js,r ) + Sr
Global equations
Liquid momentum balance:
(M,d − M,r ) · H · g = 21 l (Kr + Kd )jl2
Solid mass conservation:
Rs,r +Rs,d
2 = FR ∗
a developing zone above the gas injection, and in the down- the riser and the downcomer and the sum of all pressure
comer, the upper part is aerated and there is no gas in the drops (linear pressure drops in the riser and in the down-
lower part. comer and singular pressure drops above and below the in-
ternal wall).
3.1. GLS model in the airlift The linear pressure drops can be calculated in the riser
and in the downcomer, using Eq. (10). The two zones 2 and
The equations reported in Table 1 are now developed in 4 are characterized by singular pressure drop coefficients,
the riser (Zone 1, subscript r) and the downcomer (Zone 3, denoted by Kr for the top and Kd for the bottom of the
subscript d). These 12 equations can be used to calculate the airlift; the singular pressure drops can then be derived. A
12 unknowns: six velocities and six phase fractions. Closure loop on the pressure drop leads to the following simplified
relations are needed for the bubble and particle slip velocities equation:
G and S, and for the empirical constants C0,k . Since the
airlift is closed to the liquid and to the solid, the superficial (M,d − M,r ) · H · g = 21 l (Kr + Kd )jl2 . (14b)
velocity of liquid and of solid in the riser are equal to the
superficial velocity of liquid and of solid in the downcomer.
This equation expresses that the difference in column weight
The main problem is that these two superficial velocities are
between the riser and the downcomer is balanced by the
unknown. The single superficial velocity which is known
pressure drops (the linear pressure drops being negligible
is related to the gas flow injected in the riser of the airlift.
compared to singular ones).
Thus, two additional closure relations are needed to derive
The set of 14 equations is summarized in Table 2. It en-
the liquid and solid superficial velocities.
ables the six phase fractions to be calculated (for each one
In terms of solid fraction, one must verify that the solid
of the three phases in the riser and in the downcomer), and
quantity is constant. In the experiments, the amount of solid
also the six velocities, the solid and liquid superficial veloc-
introduced into the airlift is known. FR stands for the volu-
ities, given the superficial velocity of the gas injected into
metric filling rate of the airlift reactor, and is the compacity
the airlift reactor.
rate ( = 60% for particles). FR ∗ thus corresponds to the
For the gas flow, different situations must be considered.
solid volume fraction. In practice, the riser and downcomer
Indeed, with increasing superficial gas velocity, two flow
have the same volume. The solid mass conservation must be
regimes can be identified whether the downcomer is aerated
verified as follows:
or not:
Rs,r + Rs,d
= FR. (14a)
2 • Firstly, if the downward liquid velocity in the downcomer
This first additional equation will enable the determination is smaller than the upward bubble slip velocity, the bub-
of the superficial velocity of the solid. bles are not dragged into the downcomer, Rg,d is thus
In order to express an additional relation to calculate the considered equal to 0.
superficial velocity of the liquid, it is necessary to come back • As soon as the downward liquid velocity in the down-
to the airlift operation. When gas is injected into the riser, comer becomes larger than the upward bubble slip veloc-
the riser column is aerated. Its weight is thus smaller than ity, the bubbles are dragged into the downcomer, Rg,d is
the weight of the downcomer. This difference in pressure in- therefore greater than 0. Moreover, according to experi-
duces a liquid circulation. The liquid flow rate is then deter- mental observations, the bubbles seem to be motionless in
mined by a balance between the weight difference between the downcomer, so that Ug,d is assumed to be equal to 0.
S. Talvy et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 5991 – 6003 5997
Table 3
Simplified GLS airlift model
Five equations for five unknown variables Six equations for six unknown variables
Rg,r , Rs,r , Rs,d , jl , js Rg,r , Rg,d , Rs,r , Rs,d , jl , js
Thus, as long as the downcomer is not aerated, • For the solid slip velocity:
jg,r = jg and jg,d = 0 since Rg,d = 0. 4 ds |M,r,d − s |(1 − Rs )
Sr,d = g
3 CD,s M,r,d − s Rs
As soon as the downcomer is aerated,
M,r,d − s
× . (15b)
jg,r = jg and jg,d = 0 since Ug,d = 0. |M,r,d − s |
Table 4
Pressure coefficient values from CFD
Superficial gas velocity 0.5 cm/s 1.7 cm/s 4.5 cm/s
K 15 15 11
Parameters Values Units Experimental and modelled values are compared in terms
of gas and solid volume fractions. Two volumetric FR are
g 1.2 kg/m3
chosen: FR = 20% and 40%. Gas volume fraction, particle
l 998 kg/m3
s 934 kg/m3
slip velocity and sensitivity to drift-flux coefficient are dis-
ds 3.76 mm cussed.
60 %
H 2.35 m
5.1. Results with FR = 20%
in two-phase flow, indicating that at high gas superficial the downcomer. It can also be supposed that particles can
velocity, the particles interfere with the bubble trajectory so be considered as an obstacle to the motion of the bubbles
that the rate of bubble coalescence increases. which would coalesce and then decrease the total gas volume
The solid volume fraction is plotted versus the superficial fraction. For that reason, the mixture density should remain
gas velocity, in the riser and in the downcomer in Fig. 6. higher than or equal to the solid density so that Rs,r would
The model results are in good agreement with experimental always be slightly higher than or equal to Rs,d . However, this
data. Three zones can be identified in Fig. 6. Firstly, for a hypothesis needs more experimental data to be confirmed.
superficial gas velocity less than 0.5 cm/s, the model pre- As far as the sensitivity to K value is concerned, it is found
dicts that a great amount of particles will be dragged into that the only variable really affected by a variation in the
the downcomer (more than 15%). As the downcomer is not singular pressure drop coefficient is the global gas volume
yet aerated and as particle density is less than that of water, fraction. Its value varies no more than 5%. Thus, the choice
many more particles have to be dragged into the downcomer of a single value of K and also the need of a single CFD
in order to satisfy the global momentum balance within the simulation to provide it, is confirmed.
reactor. Freitas et al. in their global modelling considered a A relation between Rg,d and Rg,r , coming from the dif-
homogeneous distribution of the solid particles in the air- ferent equations applied in the model, can be proposed. The
lift whatever the superficial gas velocity, by developing a relation found between these two variables is in agreement
“pseudo-homogeneous mixture phase”. This assumption is with the relation established by Heijnen et al. (1997).
thus not valid here for low superficial gas velocities.
l − s
For superficial gas velocities between 0.5 and 4.5 cm/s, (Rg,r − Rg,d ) − (Rs,d − Rs,r )
l
the solid hold-up tends to balance itself between the riser
and the downcomer, the mixture density of the mixture (M ) 1 jl2
= K . (18)
becoming smaller while the gas superficial velocity and the 2 gH
associated gas hold-up are increasing. Around the superficial
gas velocity of 3 cm/s, the particle slip velocity in the riser According to Eq. (18), equivalent to Eq. (14b), the second
(Sr ) (Fig. 7) becomes negative, corresponding to the fact term in the left hand side of the equation will always be pos-
that mixture density (M ) is lower than the particle density itive, whatever the value of the particle density compared
s in the riser according to Eq. (15b). At this point, neither to water density. If s is higher than l , then Rs,r would
gas nor solid volume fraction is affected by this sign switch- be higher than Rs,d , or if s is lower than l , then Rs,r
ing. Besides, around superficial gas velocities of 4.25 cm/s, would be lower than Rs,d . This implies that the presence of
the gas volume fraction in the downcomer implies that M the particles will always diminish the liquid velocity com-
is less than s , owing to the fact that particle slip velocity pared to a case without solid particles (Heijnen et al., 1997).
in the downcomer (Sd ) is becoming negative (Fig. 7). Ex- Fig. 8 represents the liquid velocity for different solid par-
perimentally, one can expect that, at high gas velocity, solid ticle loading values. Increasing solid hold-up involves a de-
volume fraction is equally distributed between the riser and crease in liquid velocity. Indeed, the higher the solid volume
S. Talvy et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 5991 – 6003 6001
Superscripts liquid circulation velocity in a full scale two- and three-phase internal
airlift reactor operating in the gas recirculation regime. Chemical
i interfacial Engineering Science 52, 2527–2540.
Karamanev, D.G., Nikolov, L.N., 1992. Free rising sphere do not obey
w wall
Newton’s law for free settling. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 38 (11), 1873–1846.
Merchuk, J.C., 2003. Airlift bioreactors: review of recent advances. The
Subscripts Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 81 (3–4), 324–337.
Mudde, R.F., Simonin, O., 1999. Two and three-dimensional simulations of
d downcomer a bubble plume using two-fluid model. Chemical Engineering Sciences
54 (21), 5061–5069.
dr drift
Nicollela, C., van Loodrecht, M.C.M., Heijnen, J.J., 1999. Identification
g gas of mass transfer parameters in three-phase biofilm reactors. Chemical
k, l referring to a phase Engineering Science 54, 3143–3152.
l liquid Oey, R.S., Mudde, R.F., Portela, L.M., van den Akker, H.E.A., 2001.
r riser Simulation of a slurry airlift using a two-fluid model. Chemical
Engineering Science 56, 673–681.
s solid
Saez, A.E., Marquez, M.A., Roberts, G.W., Carbonell, R.G., 1998.
Hydrodynamic model for gas-lift reactors. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 44,
1413–1423.
References Siegel, M.H., Robinson, C.W., 1992. Applications of airlift
gas–liquid–solid reactors in biotechnology. Chemical Engineering
Cockx, A., 1998. Modélisation de contacteurs gaz-liquide: application de Science 47 (13/14), 3215–3229.
la mécanique des fluides numérique aux airlifts. Thèse de Doctorat de Simonin, O., Viollet, P.L., 1990. Modelling of turbulent two-phase jets
l’Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Toulouse. loaded with discrete particles. In: Hewitt, G., Mayinger, F., Riznic, J.R.
Cockx, A., Liné, A., Roustan, M., Do-Quang, Z., Lazarova, V., 1997. (Eds.), Phase Interface Phenomena in Multiphase Flow. Hemisphere
Numerical simulation and physical modeling of hydrodynamics of an Publ. Corp., Washington, DC, pp. 259–270.
airlift internal loop reactor. Chemical Engineering Science 52, 3793– Talvy, S., 2003. Airlift et colonne à bulles en écoulements gaz-liquide et
3797. gaz-liquide-solide. Ph.D. Thesis, INSA, Toulouse.
Couvert, A., 2000. Etude d’un réacteur airlift rectangulaire à recirculation van Benthum, W.A.J., van der Lans, R.G.J.M., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M.,
interne. Ph.D. Thesis, INSA, Toulouse. Heijnen, J.J., 2000. The biofilm airlift suspension extension reactor—II:
Couvert, A., Roustan, M., Chatellier, P., 1999. Two-phase hydrodynamic three phase hydrodynamics. Chemical Engineering Science 55,
study of a rectangular airlift loop reactor with an internal baffle. 699–711.
Chemical Engineering Science 54 (21), 5245–5252. Vial, C., Poncin, S., Wild, G., Midoux, M., 2000. Experimental and
Couvert, A., Bastoul, D., Roustan, M., Chatellier, P., 2004. Hydrodynamic theoretical analysis of hydrodynamics in the riser of an external loop
and mass transfer study in a rectangular three phase airlift loop reactor. reactor. Chemical Engineering Science 57, 4745–4762.
Chemical Engineering and Processing 43 (11), 1381–1387. Vial, C., Lalaoui, N., Poncin, S., Midoux, M., Wild, G., 2002. Régimes
Freitas, C., Fialova, M., Zahradnik, J., Teixera, J.A., 1999. Hydrodynamic d’écoulement dans les écoulements à gazosiphon à recirculation
model for three-phase internal and external loop airlift reactor. externe, 4èmes journées francophone sur les réacteurs gaz-liquide et
Chemical Engineering Science 54, 5253–5258. gaz-liquide-solide.
Heijnen, J.J., van Loodsdrecht, M.C.M., Mulder, A., Tijhuis, L., 1992. Zuber, N., Findlay, J.A., 1965. Average volumetric concentration in two-
Formation of biofilms in a biofilm air-lift suspension reactor. Water phase flow systems. International Journal of Heat Mass Transfer 87,
Science and Technology 26 (3–4), 647–654. 453–468.
Heijnen, J.J., Hols, J., van der Lans, R.G.M.M., van Leeuwen, H.L.J.M.,
Mulder, A., Welteverde, R., 1997. A simple hydrodynamic model for