ARTICLE IN PRESS

WAT E R R E S E A R C H 42 (2008) 3249 – 3262

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/watres

Effects of plume spacing and flowrate on destratification

efficiency of air diffusers

Kyungtaek Yuma, Sung Hoon Kimb, Heekyung Parkc,

a
Korea Water Resources Corporation (KWATER), Republic of Korea
b
KAIST, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Korea

art i cle info ab st rac t

Article history: This study adopts techniques of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to analyze the
Received 17 June 2006 combined effect of adjacent plumes of an air-diffuser system on its destratification
Received in revised form efficiency. Lab experiments were carried out to calibrate and verify the CFD models in
31 May 2007 thermally stratified freshwater. The CFD simulation and lab experiment results were
Accepted 15 June 2007 analyzed to relate destratification efficiency with four non-dimensional variables. The
Available online 21 June 2007 results indicate that destratification number, DN, has the best relationship that includes air
flowrate, stratification frequency, water depth, and bubble slip velocity. Since plume
Keywords:
spacing and air flowrate are the major control variables of the system, especially in the
Bubble plume
field, two charts showing the relationships between destratification efficiency, plume
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
spacing, and destratification number are developed for guiding their control in its design
Plume spacing
and operation.
Combined plume effect
& 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Non-dimensional variable

1. Introduction than a single plume could create a strong downward flow,

Water quality of reservoirs deteriorates not only because of
upstream waste load but also due to nutrient increases in a
period of overturn following thermal stratification. Presently,
the installation of air diffusers to break thermal stratification
is a common practice. A survey conducted by the authors
with field engineers, however, revealed that the performance
of air diffusers was not consistently successful at most
installations in Korea. Many field engineers addressed the
need for more detailed design and operational guidelines to
better control the air-diffuser systems according to varying
field conditions.
In studying the behavior of air bubble plume, Mcdougall
(1978), Hussain and Narang (1979), and Asaeda and Imberger
(1993) developed one-dimensional integral plume models. All
of them considered cases of a single plume even though it is
typical in the field to have more than one plume. Further-
more, it is thought that a combined radial flow from more
resulting in more aggressive mixing than a normal intrusion.
This combined effect would therefore be an important factor
to be considered for designing and operating air-diffuser
destratification systems. It appears that the combined effect
has thus far been neglected, mainly because the conventional
one-dimensional models could not analyze it. Despite this
shortcoming, various recommendations for the spacing of
bubble plumes had been suggested by different researchers.
For example, Asaeda and Imberger (1993) suggested plume
spacing of at least 2–4 times of R(Q0g/N3)1/4and Schladow
(1993) proposed 0.1–0.2 times reservoir depth. We found,
however, that these recommendations were not helpful and
sometimes confused engineers since they were quite differ-
ent from each other.
As an attempt to solve such a problem by fusing more of the
field conditions into the design and operation practices, after
reviewing related mechanisms and devices, this study
selected plume spacing and air flowrate as controllable

Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 42 869 3620; fax: +82 42 869 3610.
E-mail address: hkpark@kaist.ac.kr (H. Park).
0043-1354/$ - see front matter & 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.watres.2007.06.035
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3250 WAT E R R E S E A R C H 42 (2008) 3249– 3262

Nomenclature deq equivalent diameter of bubble (m)

g acceleration of gravity (m s2)
a entrainment coefficient H water depth (m)
g volume fraction HA atmospheric pressure head (m)
r density of fluid (kg m3) N buoyancy frequency (s1)
t shear stress of fluid (N m )2
np number of particles
n kinematic viscosity coefficient (m2 s1) P pressure of fluid (kg s2 m1)
A projected area of bubble (m ) 2
Q0 airflow rate at atmospheric pressure (m3 s1)
ab length of major axis of non-spherical shape QB airflow rate at bottom of water tank (m3 s1)
bubble (m) R plunging radius of bubble plume (m)
bb length of minor axis of non-spherical shape Rem Reynolds number of gas–liquid mixture
bubble (m) SM additional momentum source (kg m s1)
CD drag coefficient Uwall velocity of water at wall boundary (m s1)
D drag force (kg m s2) us bubble slip velocity (m s1)
V velocity of fluid (m s1)

variables and developed guidelines regarding their control to
yield better results surrogated by destratification efficiency.
To do this, we needed to conduct a more detailed hydro-
dynamic analysis of bubble plumes in stratified layers and
techniques of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) were
adopted as well as wet laboratory experiments.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Laboratory experiment
The wet lab experiment was carried out in a transparent
acrylic tank of 2.0 m  0.5 m  1.0 m (L W  H) with 0.6 m
water depth, as shown in Fig. 1. Thermal stratification was
created using a heating pipe, in which hot water heated in
a separate heating tank circulated continuously. The heating
pipe could be moved up or down and was capable of
producing a temperature range from 18 to 45 1C similar to
the conditions of real reservoirs. A glass filter with a diameter
of 3.0 cm was used as an air diffuser as shown in Fig. 2. Also, a
microprocessor peristaltic air pump was used to produce air
bubbles. Two sets of 11 thermometers in a vertical axis
movable in x–y directions were used to measure temperature
and develop temperature profiles in the vertical direction.
(The flow field in the experimental vessel could have been
affected due to the existence of thermometer. However, the
effects were assumed small enough to be negligible in our
analysis of destratification, as done in previous researches
such as Baines and Leitch (1992), Asaeda and Imberger (1993),
Schladow (1993).)
2.2. Bubble size measurement
Bubble size was measured at the middle of all x, y, and z
directions by photographing rising bubbles with a scale as

Fig. 1 – Schematic diagram of experimental devices.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
WAT E R R E S E A R C H
Fig. 2 – Air diffuser and induced bubbles.
Fig. 3 – Photographs and schematic for measuring bubble
diameters.
shown in Fig. 3. This was done to calculate non-dimensional
variables discussed later. It is known that in dense bubbling
bubble size changes while rising. In our experiment, it had
been observed that bubble size did not change noticeably as
the bubbles rose to the surface. We thought this was because
the depth of our experiment was only 60 cm, i.e., shallow.
4 2 (200 8) 324 9 – 326 2 3251
Since the bubbles were identified as having a normal
distribution (as shown in Fig. 6), a mean diameter of bubbles
of each experiment was used in this study, which was
calculated as follows: photos taken by a digital camera were
analyzed to measure the lengths of the major axis (ab) and
minor axis (bb) of each bubble and its equivalent diameter deq
was calculated using Eq. (1). We then calculated the mean
bubble diameter by averaging over 100 calculated equivalent
diameters for each experiment.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
deq ¼ 3 a2b bb . (1)
2.3. Development of CFD model
Recently, the use of CFD for simulating air–liquid two-phase
problems has been widely adopted in various fields. The two-
phase simulation models are also known to reduce computa-
tional burden and are thus more suitable for industrial
applications (Yum et al., 2005). We therefore developed a
two-phase CFD model to simulate a semi-turbulent regime of
an air–liquid phase, using a commercial software CFX 4.4
from AEA Technology. We divided the model geometry of
2.0 m  0.5 m  0.6 m (W  B  H), i.e., the wet experiment tank,
into 65,340 cells. For multi-phase simulation with water and
bubble, we used the Euler–Euler approach with the standard
k–e model. However, for the gas phase, we assumed that the
flow was laminar. Also, we employed an average bubble
diameter of 1 mm for calculating the interphase momentum
transfer by drag. In this case, it is essential to adjust the drag
coefficient for proper simulation. Therefore, we used the drag
coefficient as one of the main parameters for model calibra-
tion and verification with the experimental results and
adopted Ishii’s drag model (Ishii and Zuber, 1979). However,
we did not consider the effects of lift force, virtual mass force,
and turbulent dispersion force.
Among the various velocity–pressure coupling algorithms,
we used the semi-implicit method for pressure-linked
equations algorithm to solve the model. For checking the
convergence of the simulations we selected the mass source
residual ( ¼ sum of the absolute residual mass sources),
which had a dimension of (m s1) and monitored it during
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3252 WAT E R R E S E A R C H 42 (2008) 3249– 3262

Table 1 – Descriptions for developing CFD model

Conditions

Gas phase (air) Liquid phase (water)

Phase description Dispersed phase Continuous phase (density varies with temperature)
Turbulent model Laminar flow Turbulent flow (standard k–e equation)
Governing equations r  rV ¼ 0 (continuity equation)
qV̄
qt þ ðV̄  rÞV ¼  1r rP þ nr2 V̄ þ SM (momentum equation)
Drag equation Dp ¼ 12 CD ra AjUb  Ua jðUb  Ua Þ

ab ¼ np Dp ¼ 34 CdD gb ra Ub  Ua jðUb  Ua Þ
 
D ¼ Re24m 1 þ 0:15Re0:687
m (from Ishii–Zuber drag correlation)
Buoyancy model Full buoyancy model (SM ¼ rgr0 g)
Initial density profile None r ¼ 0:001T3  0:009095T2 þ 0:0679T þ 999:84 (UNESCO,
1981)
Wall boundary conditions Free slip (t ¼ 0) Non-slip (Uwall ¼ 0)
Degassing conditions for water surface boundary
Mass transfer None None
Between phases

Table 2 – Cases of lab experiments and CFD simulations

Case Water depth, H (m) Temperature N (s1) Air flowrate (ml min1) QB (m3 s1)  106 Plume spacing
(1C)

Max. Min.

A-1 0.6 28 18 0.197 200 3.148 Single

A-2 0.6 39 19 0.308 200 3.148 Single
A-3 0.6 39 20 0.303 58 0.913 Single
A-4 0.6 39 20 0.303 39 0.614 Single
A-5 0.6 39 18 0.313 20 0.315 Single
B-1a 0.6 28 19 0.189 200 3.148 60 cm (1 H)
B-1b 0.6 28 19 0.189 200 3.148 90 cm (1.5 H)
B-1c 0.6 28 19 0.189 200 3.148 120 cm (2.0 H)
B-2a 0.6 30 18 0.220 20 0.315 60 cm (1 H)
B-2b 0.6 30 18 0.220 20 0.315 90 cm (1.5 H)
B-2c 0.6 30 18 0.220 20 0.315 120 cm (2.0 H)
B-3a 0.6 30 16 0.232 10 0.157 60 cm (1 H)
B-3b 0.6 30 16 0.232 10 0.157 90 cm (1.5 H)
B-3c 0.6 30 16 0.232 10 0.157 120 cm (2.0 H)
B-4a 0.6 30 7 0.264 10 0.157 60 cm (1 H)
B-4b 0.6 30 7 0.264 10 0.157 90 cm (1.5 H)
B-4c 0.6 30 7 0.264 10 0.157 120 cm (2.0 H)

the simulation. In the steady-state simulations, convergence
was achieved with a target mass source residual of 104 for
water and 105 for gas at over 300 or 400 outer iterations. For
transient solutions, 50 iterations for each time step of 30 s
with a tolerance of 104 were applied for checking conver-
gence. Other boundary and initial conditions for the CFD
simulations are provided in Table 1.
2.4. Cases of lab experiments and CFD simulations
Table 2 shows 17 cases of lab experiments and CFD simula-
tions with their accompanying conditions. Five cases of
A-1–A-5 and three cases of B-1 (altogether eight cases) were
both experimented and simulated. Lab experiment results
were used for calibration and verification of the CFD models.
The other nine cases of B-2, B-3, and B-4 were only simulated
with the verified CFD model. As shown, the five cases of A are
with a single plume and all the B cases are with two plumes.
Also, the B cases each have three variations with different
plume spacings. For example, B-1a, B-1b, and B1-c have plume
spacing equal to a given depth H, 1.5 times and twice the
depth, respectively.
2.5. Destratification efficiency and plume spacing
To calculate destratification efficiency, which is also called
energy conversion efficiency, we used an equation defined by
Asaeda and Imberger (1993).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
WAT E R R E S E A R C H
DEP
Z¼ , (2)
r Q 0 gHA lnð1 þ H=HA ÞDt
where DEP is the change of potential energy in time; Dt is the
time in which a tank is fully destratified; r*Q0gHA ln(1+H/HA) is
the work needed to compress air at a depth H at a rate of Q0 at
atmospheric pressure. As shown, this is a ratio of the change
of potential energy to the kinetic energy supplied.
For calculation of destratification efficiency, we selected
four locations of A, B, C, and D shown in Fig. 4 to develop
temperature profiles along the depth. As known in previous
researches (Baines and Leitch, 1992; Asaeda and Imberger,
1993; Schladow 1993), the bottom layer could not be fully
mixed even after aeration for a long time. Also, temperature
at the bottom of the tank was fixed as a boundary condition in
CFD simulations. For defining conditions of destratification,
this study used temperatures that were computed from the
surface up to 40 cm depth every 5 cm apart. Thus, a total of
nine points were selected for developing temperature profiles.
Just for reducing computational burden, this study defined a
new definition of full destratification in which the tempera-
tures in a profile were less than 1 1C different from each other.
That is, the temperatures measured at each of the four
locations were checked to see if their differences were less
than 1 1C. When they were so at all the four locations, we
assumed full destratification and stopped simulation.
For calculating destratification efficiency, we used the CFD
simulation results at the terminating time, which is Dt. We
also considered only a volume covered by the nine points, i.e.,
Fig. 4 – Locations A, B, C, and D for developing temperature profiles.
4 2 (200 8) 324 9 – 326 2 3253
the volume from the surface up to 40 cm depth and divided it
into eight layers, each with a depth of 5 cm. An average
temperature of each layer was computed from the simulation
results and used to calculate the potential energy. The change
of potential energy, DEP, was the potential energy at a
terminating time minus the one at t ¼ 0.
For estimating the effect of spacing between two plumes on
destratification, it was necessary to consider the effect of
walls, particularly because the experiment was conducted in
a lab-scale tank. It was thus necessary to consider how to
distinguish and how to minimize the effect of the walls in
estimating the effect of spacing. In this study, the latter
approach was taken. Plunging radius (Eq. (3)), introduced by
Lemckert and Imberger (1993) to define an effective range of
a single plume, was considered together with a hypothesis
that if the walls are located outside the effective range, the
interaction between the walls and the flows will be mini-
mized. As such, we tried to minimize the effect of the walls
on destratification.
Plunging radius RðQ 0 g=N3 Þ1=4 . (3)
Buoyancy frequency represents the degree of stratification
in the tank.
The experimental tank was thus designed such that all the
walls are at least plunging radius away from the diffuser. In
addition, temperature data were taken at the center of the
space between two plumes and between the walls so as to
minimize the effects of the walls. Three cases with different
spacings shown in Fig. 5 were experimented and simulated.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3254 WAT E R R E S E A R C H 42 (2008) 3249– 3262

60 cm 70 cm 60 cm 70 cm 60 cm 55 cm 90 cm 55 cm

200 cm 200 cm

: Locationof the thermal sensors

40 cm 120 cm 40 cm 25 cm
60 cm 50 cm
100 cm

200 cm 200 cm

Fig. 5 – Schematic of diffuser and thermal sensor positions. (a) Spacing equal to the water depth, (b) 1.5 times the water depth,
(c) twice the water depth, and (d) horizontal location of the thermal sensors (plane view).

Table 3 – Measurement results of bubble size

Air flowrate (ml min1) 600 200 120 60 30 20

Mean bubble diameter (mm) 1.16 1.01 0.97 0.82 0.75 0.73
Standard deviation 0.4568 0.4706 0.4881 0.4152 0.3158 0.4001
Shapiro–Wilk Value 0.9291 0.9031 0.8831 0.8937 0.8408 0.8208

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Bubble size and its distribution
Table 3 shows bubble sizes measured and averaged as
described above at various air flowrates. As the air flowrate
increases, the mean bubble diameter also increases. Fig. 6
shows the estimated diameters of bubbles at air flowrates of
20 and 200 ml min1 using histogram and normal qq-plot. The
histogram and normal qq-plot show that the estimated
bubble diameters follow quite well a normal distribution. In
addition, we show in Table 3 Shapiro–Wilk values for all the
cases to show their degree of normality. All the values were
above 0.82.
3.2. Model calibration and verification
To illustrate the destratification process in the lab experi-
ments and CFD simulations, temperature profiles were
developed using the temperatures measured for the cases
with single plumes. In the cases of single plumes, the
temperature sensors were located horizontally at the center
of the space between the plume and the wall on its right-hand
side, which is different from the two plume cases. The
diffuser was located at the center of the experimental tank. In
the cases with two plumes, temperatures were measured
horizontally at the point shown in Fig. 5(d). Vertically they
were measured in all the cases at the depths shown in Fig. 7.
The temperature profiles measured and simulated for four
cases of A-1, A-2, B-1a, and B-1c are shown in Fig. 7. The cases
of A-1 and A-2 are with a single plume while the two B-1 cases
are with two plumes. The cases of B-1a and B-1c, respectively,
were variations of the B-1 case with plume spacing equal to
the depth and twice the depth.
Overall, the temperatures simulated by the CFD models are
reasonably close to those measured during the lab experi-
ments, as shown in Fig. 7, even if some discrepancy appears
at the surface boundary of Fig. 6e. The rightward bend in the
upper part of the curves, especially in Fig. 6e, is due to the
cold bottom water, which rose to the surface with bubble
plume and remained there for a period of time. This was also
observed by Zic et al. (1992), who stated: ‘‘Thermal instability
indicates that the measurements were made in the nearfield
where the cold water entrained by the bubble plume from the
lower half of the tank was still present at the surface water.’’
In addition, the measured data versus the simulated data for
all five A cases with a single plume are shown in Fig. 9 for
quantitative comparison. The cases of B-1 with two plumes
(all three variations of B-1) are shown in Fig. 8. As shown,
their coefficients of determination (R2) are 0.8963 and 0.8395,
respectively, which are deemed reasonably close for the
purposes of the present study. These results and considerations
confirm that the CFD models are well calibrated and verified,
and it is thus concluded that the CFD model developed in this
study can portray the destratification process and related
hydrodynamics of our cases reasonably well.
3.3. Combining effects of adjacent plumes
The developed CFD model was used to compute destratifica-
tion efficiency in multiple plume cases, i.e., cases B-1, B-2, B-3,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
WAT E R R E S E A R C H 4 2 (200 8) 324 9 – 326 2 3255

2 1.2
Quantile of Bubble Diameter (mm)

Quantile of Bubble Diameter (mm)

1
1.5

0.8

1
0.6

0.5 0.4
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Quantile of Standard Normal Quantile of Standard Normal

30 30

25 25

20 20
Freqency

Freqency

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Bubble size group Bubble size group

Fig. 6 – Typical results of statistical analysis on bubble size distribution: (a),(b) for the cases of an air flowrate of 200 ml min1
and (c),(d) for the cases of an air flowrate of 20 ml min1.

and B-4. Fig. 9 showed temperature profiles developed at the In addition, the results shown in Figs. 7(e)–(h) illustrated
four locations for the case of B-1b whose simulation that the distance between adjacent plumes affects destrati-
terminated at 360 s. As shown, the temperature profiles were fication. This is more clearly illustrated by a comparison of
not identical and their differences were more than 1 1C at 7(f) and 7(h), i.e., spacing equal to a depth versus spacing
some points. But, the temperature difference computed along twice the depth. The destratification in 7(f) from the surface
the depth at each of the four locations was less than 1 1C. to the bottom proceeds more rapidly than in 7(h). This
Since it took a much longer time to reach a fully mixed attributed to the stronger downward flows, which were
condition, we introduced a new definition of ‘‘full destratifi- created by the combined downward flows of the closer
cation’’ as described previously. Fig. 9 accordingly illustrates plumes of 7(f). Accordingly, the case of 7(h) required more
that the tank is not fully mixed but fully destratified. This was time to fully destratify than the case of 7(f). A comparison of
the case with all the simulations in this study. Their 7(f) and 7(h) at a time of 360 s reveals that the stratification in
terminating times are shown in Table 5. 7(f) is almost broken near 24 1C, but in 7(h) it is still proceeding
To demonstrate the effect of different plume spacing of with a profile spreading out to over 25 1C. These delayed
destratification, the three contour plots of case B-1 at a time patterns are due to the longer distance between the two
of 360 s are shown in Fig. 10. As shown, we think that the plumes in 7(h). Thus, it appears that the combined effects of
yellow region, whose velocities are in a range of 0–0.01 m/s, adjacent plumes play an important role in destratification as
belongs to the dead zone and it becomes larger at the bottom mentioned above. As such, plume spacing should be con-
of the tank as the diffuser spacing becomes larger. This sidered as a major factor in designing and operating air-
suggests that the combined effect of multiple plume source diffuser destratification systems. As another illustration, the
enhances destratification efficiency by reducing the region in temperature profiles of the three cases of B-2 are together
which flow velocities are relatively smaller than an average shown in Fig. 11 at the times of 600 and 1000 s. The profiles at
velocity in the tank. the same time clearly show that the cases with shorter
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3256 WAT E R R E S E A R C H 42 (2008) 3249– 3262

Temperature(°C) Temperature(°C)
30.0 27.0 24.0 21.0 18.0 30.0 27.0 24.0 21.0 18.0
0.0 0.0

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

Depth(m)

Depth(m)
0s 0.3 0s 0.3
60s 60s
120s
0.4 120s
0.4
240s 240s
0.5 0.5
360s 360s
0.6 0.6

Temperature(°C) Temperature(°C)
40.0 37.0 34.0 31.0 28.0 25.0 22.0 19.0 40.0 37.0 34.0 31.0 28.0 25.0 22.0 19.0
0.0 0.0

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

Depth(m)
Depth(m)

0.3 0.3
0s 0s
60s 0.4 60s 0.4
120s 120s
360s 0.5 360s
0.5
420s 460s
0.6 0.6

Temperature(°C) Temperature(°C)
30.0 27.0 24.0 21.0 18.0 30.0 27.0 24.0 21.0 18.0
0.0 0.0

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

Depth(m)
Depth(m)

0s 0s
30s 0.3 0.3
38s
90s 86s
0.4 0.4
180s 124s
240s 0.5 257s 0.5
360s 360s
0.6 0.6

Temperature(°C) Temperature(°C)
30.0 27.0 24.0 21.0 18.0 30.0 27.0 24.0 21.0 18.0
0.0 0.0

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2
Depth(m)

Depth(m)

0s 0s
0.3 120s 0.3
120s
180s
180s 0.4 0.4
240s 240s
0.5 0.5
360s 360s
0.6
0.6

Fig. 7 – Temperature profiles measured in lab experiments and simulated with CFD models. (a) Simulated (case A-1),
(b) measured (case A-1), (c) simulated (case A-2), (d) measured (case A-2), (e) simulated (case B-1a), (f) measured (case B-1a),
(g) simulated (case B-1c), and (h) measured (case B-1c).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
WAT E R R E S E A R C H 4 2 (200 8) 324 9 – 326 2 3257

spacing proceed faster to full destratification, resulting in

40
higher destratification efficiencies.

R2 = 0.8395 3.4. Destratification efficiency with plume spacing and

35 destratification number
Simulated temperature (°C)

In studying about bubble plume behavior and destratification

30 efficiency, researchers including Mcdougall (1978), Hussain
and Narang (1979), Zic et al. (1992), Schladow(1993), Asaeda
and Imberger (1993), and Socolofsky and Adams (2005) have
25 used non-dimensional variables to describe the relationships
among various related phenomena. Based on the double-
plume models and two non-dimensional variables originally
20 developed by Mcdougall (1978) and elaborated by Schladow
(1993), Asaeda and Imberger (1993) introduced two non-
dimensional variables, stating that they governed the beha-
vior of bubble plumes and destratification efficiency, as
15
15 20 25 30 35 40 N 3 H4
Measured temperature (°C) PN ¼ , (4)
QBg

30 QBg
MH ¼ , (5)
4pa2 Hu3s
28
R2 = 0.8396 where uS is slip velocity; a is entrainment coefficient; N is
Simulated temperature (°C)

buoyancy frequency; and QBg is bottom volume flux. Using a

26
dimensional analysis with QBg, N, and us, Socolofsky and
Adams (2005) derived a non-dimensional variable as
24
us
UN ¼ . (6)
ðQ B gNÞ1=4
22
They then demonstrated how to use this variable only in
20 predicting the behavior of stratified multi-phase plumes in
laboratory.
18 Using these three non-dimensional variables of PN, MH, and
UN, we analyzed the lab experiment results of all five cases of
16 A-1–A-5 to identify a single non-dimensional variable to
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 better work with destratification efficiency and plume spa-
Measured temperature (°C) cing, and Table 4 shows the results. We then developed the
relationships between the destratification efficiencies and
Fig. 8 – Measured versus simulated temperatures (a) cases
each of the three variables, as shown in Fig. 12. The coefficient
A-1–A-5 and (b) case B-1.

Temperature(°C)
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18
0
0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2
Depth (m)

0.25

0.3

Location A 0.35
Location B 0.4
Location C
Location D 0.45

0.5

Fig. 9 – Temperature profiles in case B-1b (360 s after air diffusing).

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3258 WAT E R R E S E A R C H 42 (2008) 3249– 3262

Fig. 10 – Contour plot of simulated flow field in three cases of B-1. (a) Case B-1a (plume spacing is 1 H), (b) case B-1b (plume
spacing is 1.5 H), and (c) case B-1c (plume spacing is 2.0 H).

of determination (R2) with PN, MH, and UN was determined as
0.9506, 0.7761, and 0.3388, respectively. This indicates that
destratification is more closely related to PN than MH and UN.
Then, we tried to find some ways to include the effect of
bubble size in the correlation, since it has been known that
bubble size affects flow structure and degree of mixing in
multi-phase plumes and since PN does not include it. We thus
played with the three non-dimensional variables by trial and
error just to check if there was another non-dimensional
variable including it and showing better fitness. We found
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
WAT E R R E S E A R C H 4 2 (200 8) 324 9 – 326 2 3259

Temperature(°C)

32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18
0

0.1

0.2

Depth (m)
0.3

0.4

"0s"
0.5
"600s, 1.0H"
"600s, 1.5H"
0.6
"600s, 2.0H"

0.7

Temperature(°C)

32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18
0

0.1

0.2

Depth (m)
0.3

0.4

"0s" 0.5
"1000s, 1.0H"
"1000s, 1.5H" 0.6
"1000s, 2.0H"

0.7

Fig. 11 – Simulated temperature profiles in cases B-2 and at (a) 600 and (b) 1000 s.

Table 4 – Destratification efficiencies of five lab experiments with single plume and related parameter values

Case PN MHa Bubble Bubble slip UN Plunging radius Destratification Destratification

diameter velocityb (Q0g/N3)1/4 (m) number, DN efficiency (%)
(mm) (m s1)

A-1 30 0.175 1.01 0.15 2.99 0.22 183 6.3

A-2 115 0.175 1.01 0.15 2.67 0.15 2732 9.8
A-3 400 0.102 0.85 0.12 2.89 0.11 19,498 15.3
A-4 600 0.088 0.80 0.11 2.94 0.10 39,534 14.9
A-5 1300 0.066 0.73 0.10 3.04 0.09 116,965 39.4

a
a was chosen as 0.083 from Asaeda and Imberger (1993).
b
Velocities of the bubble slip were calculated using a correlation in Wüest et al. (1992).

that a non-dimensional variable of P2NMH (Eq. (7)) whose R2 much different from that of PN. Since it includes the effect of
was 0.9687, as shown in Fig. 12(d), which includes the effect of bubble size, even though indirectly, we decided to use it for
bubble size indirectly using slip velocity. Its R2 value was not developing a relationship between destratification efficiency
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3260 WAT E R R E S E A R C H 42 (2008) 3249– 3262

45 45

Destratification efficiency (%) .

40 40
Destratification efficiency (%)

35 35
R2 = 0.9506 30
30
25 R2 = 0.7761
25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Plume number, PN MH

45 45
Destratification efficiency (%) .

40

Destratification efficiency (%) .

40 R2 = 0.9687
35 35
30 30
R2 =0.3388
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
Non-dimensional slip velocity, UN Destratification number, DN

Fig. 12 – Correlations of destratification efficiencies of lab experiments with non-dimensional variables.

and plume spacing. The variable of P2NMH was labeled as the CFD model include lessening the burden of a wet lab
destratification number, DN, as shown in Eq. (7). experiment and increasing the understanding on the
N6 H7 destratification in reservoir and, especially, parameter
DN ¼ . (7)
4pa2 Q B gu3s estimation. The results show that the model was cali-
Finally, we analyzed destratification efficiencies of 12 cases brated and verified reasonably well with the lab experi-
with two plumes with various plume spacings and destratifica- mental results and successfully applied for the extended
tion number, and the results are shown in Table 5. Two charts analyses and related parameter estimations. Overall, the
showing the curves of destratification efficiency with plume use of the CFD model has significantly increased our
spacing and destratification number, respectively, were devel- understanding and insight on the subject and its related
oped using the results and are given in Figs. 13 and 14. The charts matters.
indicate that the shorter the spacing at the same destratification 2. The results of the two-phase CFD simulations and lab
number, the higher the destratification efficiency. experiments indicate that there is a combined effect
As shown in Tables 4 and 5, plunging radii were calculated between adjacent plumes, which is affected by their
for comparison with the distance from the diffuser and the spacing. This further indicates that plume spacing can be
temperature measuring point. The shortest distance from a a major controlling variable of air-diffuser systems in field
diffuser to the walls with a single plume or two plumes is together with air flowrate. Once scaled up, the charts shown
0.25 m and the shortest distance from the measuring points is in Figs. 13 and 14 may be used for developing field guidelines
0.25 m. This distance of 0.25 m is longer than the values of for designing and operating air-diffuser systems, allowing
plunging radii of all the cases shown in Tables 4 and 5. In this engineers to adjust plume spacing and air flowrate to
manner, we attempted to minimize the effect of the wall on dynamically changing reservoir conditions such as water
destratification, as discussed previously. depth and stratification intensity. The CFD model developed
in this study is now being used for the simulation of
destratification on a pilot scale. In this paper, only the lab-
4. Conclusions scale results have been discussed. Using the results of the
pilot-scale test, which would be available in the near future,
In summary, the following conclusions can be drawn: the CFD model introduced in this study will be scaled up,
especially in terms of parameter estimation and setting
1. We constructed a bubble plume model using CFD tools boundary and initial conditions. In the end, the charts will
with a full buoyancy model. The purposes of building a be scaled up for real-world application.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
WAT E R R E S E A R C H 4 2 (200 8) 324 9 – 326 2 3261

Table 5 – Destratification efficiencies of the cases with two plumes and related parameter values

Case Bubble Plume Bubble slip Plunging Destratification Dt Destratification

diameter spacing velocity radius (Qg/N3)1/4 number, DN (seconds) efficiency (%)
(mm) (m) (m s1) (m)

B-1(a) 1.01 0.6 0.15 0.22 140 360 2.2

B-1(b) 1.01 0.9 0.15 0.22 140 360 1.0
B-1(c) 1.01 1.2 0.15 0.22 140 390 0.8
B-2(a) 0.73 0.6 0.10 0.11 13,000 1100 5.2
B-2(b) 0.73 0.9 0.10 0.11 13,000 1700 3.2

B-2(c) 0.73 1.2 0.10 0.11 13,000 2600 2.1

B-3(a) 0.68 0.6 0.09 0.09 48,500 4000 10.5
B-3(b) 0.68 0.9 0.09 0.09 48,500 8800 4.9
B-3(c) 0.68 1.2 0.09 0.09 48,500 9600 4.5
B-4(a) 0.68 0.6 0.09 0.08 104,000 4500 14.2
B-4(b) 0.68 0.9 0.09 0.08 104,000 10000 6.3

B-4(c) 0.68 1.2 0.09 0.08 104,000 12500 4.9

16

14
Destratification efficency (%) .

W=1H
12

10

8
W=1.5H
6

4
W=2H
2

0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Non-dimensional destratification number,Dn

Fig. 13 – Curves of destratification efficiency with destratification number for various plume spacings.

16

14
Destratification efficency (%)

12 Dn=104000

10

8 Dn=48500

4 Dn=13000

0 Dn=140
0.8 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Plume spacing with respect to water depth

Fig. 14 – Curves of destratification efficiency with plume spacing for various destratification numbers.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3262 WAT E R R E S E A R C H
3. Using the experimental results of the air diffuser shown
in Fig. 2, we introduced a destratification number, DN, and
showed other results. Among its variables of DN, slip
velocity, us, is the only variable that will be affected by the
types of diffuser, since slip velocity is a function of bubble
size, as known in Wüest’s approximation. This suggests
that the trends of Figs. 13 and 14 can be applied to other
types of diffusers as long as they produce about the same
sizes of bubble, yielding about the same slip velocity used
in this study.
4. It should also be noted that the results of this study are
somewhat limited since the experiments were conducted
in a small tank under a controlled environment. In parti-
cular, heat loss and the effects of the walls were not fully
considered, although we attempted to minimize their
effects on the results. As a result, it is recommended that
the results be used with caution, especially for field
applications, and that further studies be conducted to
reduce the limitations in field application.
Acknowledgments
This work was carried out in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Ph.D. of the first author
and supported by a grant (1-6-2) from Sustainable Water
Resources Research Center of 21st Frontier Research Program.
The authors wish to thank Korea Water Resources Coopera-
tion and Hyorim Industries Inc. for their help.
42 (2008) 3249– 3262
R E F E R E N C E S
Asaeda, T., Imberger, J., 1993. Structure of bubble plumes in
linearly stratified environments. J. Fluid Mech. 249, 35–57.
Baines, W.D., Leitch, A.M., 1992. Destruction of stratification by
bubble plume. J. Hydraul. Eng. ASCE 118, 559–577.
Hussain, N.A., Narang, B.S., 1979. Simplified analysis of air-bubble
plumes in moderately stratified environments. J. Heat Transfer
106 (2), 543–551.
Ishii, M., Zuber, N., 1979. Drag coefficient and relative velocity in
bubbly, droplet or particulate flows. AIChE J. 25 (5), 843–855.
Lemckert, C.J., Imberger, J., 1993. Energetic bubble plumes in
arbitrary stratification. J. Hydraul. Eng. ASCE. 119 (6), 680–703.
McDougall, T.J., 1978. Bubble plumes in stratified environments.
J. Fluid Mech. 85 (4), 655–672.
Schladow, S.G., 1993. Lake destratification by bubble plume
systems: design methodology. J. Hydraul. Eng. 119 (3), 350–368.
Socolofsky, S.A., Adams, E.E., 2005. Role of slip velocity in the
behavior of stratified multiphase plumes. J. Hydraul. Eng. 131
(4), 273–282.
UNESCO, 1981. The practical salinity scale 1978, and the interna-
tional equation of state 1980, 10th Report of the Joint Panel on
Oceanographic Tables and Standards, UNESCO Practical Paper
in Marine Science, vol. 36, pp. 13–21.
Wüest, A., Brooks, N.H., Imboden, D.M., 1992. Bubble plume
modeling for lake restoration. Water Resourc. Res. 28,
3235–3250.
Yum, K., Ahn, J., Park, H., Ko, I.H., 2005. Two-phase computational
fluid dynamics assessment of bubble plume in air-diffuser
destratification. Environ. Technol. 26 (9), 1043–1054.
Zic, K., Stefan, H.G., Ellis, C., 1992. Laboratory study of water
destratification by a bubble plume. J. Hydraul. Res. 30 (1), 7–27.