- Volumes 84-95 (2024)
-
Volumes 72-83 (2023)
-
Volume 83
Pages 1-258 (December 2023)
-
Volume 82
Pages 1-204 (November 2023)
-
Volume 81
Pages 1-188 (October 2023)
-
Volume 80
Pages 1-202 (September 2023)
-
Volume 79
Pages 1-172 (August 2023)
-
Volume 78
Pages 1-146 (July 2023)
-
Volume 77
Pages 1-152 (June 2023)
-
Volume 76
Pages 1-176 (May 2023)
-
Volume 75
Pages 1-228 (April 2023)
-
Volume 74
Pages 1-200 (March 2023)
-
Volume 73
Pages 1-138 (February 2023)
-
Volume 72
Pages 1-144 (January 2023)
-
Volume 83
-
Volumes 60-71 (2022)
-
Volume 71
Pages 1-108 (December 2022)
-
Volume 70
Pages 1-106 (November 2022)
-
Volume 69
Pages 1-122 (October 2022)
-
Volume 68
Pages 1-124 (September 2022)
-
Volume 67
Pages 1-102 (August 2022)
-
Volume 66
Pages 1-112 (July 2022)
-
Volume 65
Pages 1-138 (June 2022)
-
Volume 64
Pages 1-186 (May 2022)
-
Volume 63
Pages 1-124 (April 2022)
-
Volume 62
Pages 1-104 (March 2022)
-
Volume 61
Pages 1-120 (February 2022)
-
Volume 60
Pages 1-124 (January 2022)
-
Volume 71
- Volumes 54-59 (2021)
- Volumes 48-53 (2020)
- Volumes 42-47 (2019)
- Volumes 36-41 (2018)
- Volumes 30-35 (2017)
- Volumes 24-29 (2016)
- Volumes 18-23 (2015)
- Volumes 12-17 (2014)
- Volume 11 (2013)
- Volume 10 (2012)
- Volume 9 (2011)
- Volume 8 (2010)
- Volume 7 (2009)
- Volume 6 (2008)
- Volume 5 (2007)
- Volume 4 (2006)
- Volume 3 (2005)
- Volume 2 (2004)
- Volume 1 (2003)
• The performances of three drag models were evaluated in the CFD simulation of a riser.
• DBS-local drag model gave more reasonable distributions of gas holdup.
• The ratio of drag coefficient to bubble diameter is smaller in center and larger near wall.
• Liquid velocity distributions were not affected by the drag models.
Local hydrodynamics in the riser of an external loop airlift reactor (EL-ALR) are identified and the performances of three drag models are evaluated in computational fluid dynamics simulation. The simulation results show that the Schiller–Naumann drag model underestimated the local gas holdup at lower superficial gas velocity whereas the Tomiyama drag model overestimated that at higher superficial gas velocity. By contrast, the dual-bubble-size (DBS)-local drag model gave more reasonable radial and axial distributions of gas holdup in all cases. The reason is that the DBS-local drag model gave correct values of the lumped parameter, i.e., the ratio of the drag coefficient to bubble diameter, for varying operating conditions and radial positions. This ratio is reasonably expected to decrease with increasing superficial gas velocity and be smaller in the center and larger near the wall. Only the DBS-local drag model correctly reproduced these trends. The radial profiles of the axial velocity of the liquid and gas predicted by the DBS-local model also agreed well with experimental data.