chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

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

Mixing and gas dispersion in mineral flotation cells

G.M. Evans a,∗ , E. Doroodchi a , G.L. Lane b , P.T.L. Koh b , M.P. Schwarz b
a School of Engineering, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
b CSIRO Minerals, Box 312, Clayton South, Vic 3169, Australia

a b s t r a c t

Mineral flotation in mechanically agitated vessels (cells) involves complex interaction between bubbles, particles
and the liquid phase. Ideally, just enough power input from the impeller is needed to so that the frequency of
particle–bubble collision and attachment is maximised, while at the same time detachment events are minimised.
This paper firstly investigated how the slip velocity of 2–10 mm diameter bubbles, a size commonly encountered
in flotation devices, was influenced by turbulence intensity. The measurements confirmed the earlier correlation
by [Lane, G.L., 2005, Numerical modelling of gas–liquid flow in stirred tanks, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Newcastle,
Australia], which was then inputted into a computational fluid dynamic model to describe the gas dispersion in a
mechanically agitated tank. The model provided turbulence intensity values that were then coupled with both slip
velocity and critical Weber number models to generate both bubble size and gas holdup profiles for the entire vessel.
Moreover, a simple equation was introduced to allow prediction of cavity formation behind the rotating impeller
blades, which is a common occurrence in most flotation cells they normally operate at high gas loadings. This
inclusion allowed the model to predict power reduction resulting from the presence of the cavities. Finally, extension
of the computational model to include flotation hydrodynamics, such as probabilities of collision, adhesion and
stabilisation of the particles at the bubble surface, is also described. The model is able to compute net attachment
rates, and hence the particle flux entering the froth recovery phase, as a function of bubble and particle diameter,
gas flowrate and power input.
© 2008 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flotation; Computational fluid dynamics; Turbulence; Slip velocity; Gas dispersion

1. Introduction
The extraction of valuable minerals from ores involves the pro-
cessing of vast tonnages of material. For example, world pro-
duction of coal in 2006 was over 6000 Mtonne (Hetherington et
al., 2008); with Australia alone producing over 400 Mtonnes of
treated product (Abare, 2007). Consequently, relatively minor
improvements in efficacy and energy efficiency of any mineral
processing operation can yield substantial cost savings. One
such mineral processing operation is flotation, which plays a
key role in beneficiation of most copper, lead, zinc and nickel
ores and coal, as well as being used in some circumstances for
others such as iron ore. Mineral flotation involves the use of
bubbles to separate valuable minerals from unwanted gangue
material. Separation is achieved by rendering the surface of
the valuable mineral particle hydrophobic, usually with a col-
lector, so that it preferentially attaches to a bubble which then
rises and forms a froth on the top of the cell. Eventually, the
water within the froth is allowed to drain back into the pulp,
leaving behind a concentrated solid product.
The objective of the flotation process is to concentrate the
valuable minerals by discarding unwanted gangue, so that
the volume of material entering the later stages of process-
ing (e.g. smelting) is as small as possible. The challenge then
is to maximise recovery of valuable minerals while at the
same time discard as much gangue as possible so as to max-
imise the grade. While optimal preparation of the ore (e.g.
grinding) is important, it is critical to control the complex
physical–chemical phenomena involving the interaction (e.g.
Dai et al., 2000; Nguyen and Schulze, 2004) between the mul-
tiphase fluid mechanics and the surface chemistry of both
the bubbles and particles. Additionally, there are engineering
constraints on design of flotation cells, such as the desirabil-
ity of minimising energy consumption and capital cost, and

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 49215897; fax: +61 2 49216920.
E-mail address: Geoffrey.Evans@newcastle.edu.au (G.M. Evans).
Received 13 July 2008; Accepted 21 July 2008
0263-8762/$ – see front matter © 2008 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2008.07.006
 chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362 1351

Nomenclature
ε rate of dissipation of energy per unit mass
b defined as b = (1 + CA )/(2 /1 + CA ) (m2 s−3 )
Bp buoyancy reduction force (N m−3 ) r ratio of turbulent time scale to particle relax-
C constant in Eq. (3) ation time
CA added mass coefficient  ratio of length scales for bubble or particle tur-
CD drag coefficient bulence interaction
CD mean drag coefficient L laminar viscosity (Pa s)
CD,0 mean drag coefficient in quiescent liquid T turbulent viscosity (Pa s)
Ctd coefficient in Eq. (9)  ratio of bubble terminal velocity to fluctuating
C␤ constant in Eq. (17) velocity of liquid
d particle or bubble diameter (m)  density (kg m−3 )
deq average equivalent spherical diameter (m) 0 reference density (kg m−3 )
D12 isotropic turbulent diffusivity coefficient p bubble or particle relaxation time (s)
(m2 s−1 ) t
12 time scale of turbulence as seen by bubble or
f oscillation frequency (s−1 ) particle (s)
fc fractional surface coverage of particles on the ϕ source or sink term in number density equation
bubble (m−3 s−1 )
F force vector (N m−3 )
FD drag force (N m−3 ) Subscripts
g gravity vector (m s−2 ) 1 liquid or continuous phase
H initial distance between grids (m) 2 gas or dispersed phase
I unit tensor a attachment
k turbulent kinetic energy per unit mass (m2 s−2 ) b bubble
KD1 fitted constant in Eq. (2) br break-up
KD2 fitted constant in Eq. (2) co coalescence
K1 constant in Eq. (21) (m) d detachment
L11 integral length scale of turbulence (m) g gas
m1 exponent in Eq. (23) i phase number
m2 exponent in Eq. (23) l liquid
M grid opening size (m) p particle
M interphase force (N m−3 ) ph phase change
n bubble or particle number density (m−3 ) UG ungassed
nD exponent in Eq. (2)
p modified pressure (N m−2 )
q overall turbulence intensity (m s−1 )
optimising incorporation into overall beneficiation circuits.
S mass source term (kg m−3 s−1 )
As a result of all these considerations flotation cells have
SL stroke length (m)
increased in size over the last decade, with single cells now
St Stokes number, defined as St =  p /TL
reaching 300 m3 (Weber et al., 2005).
t time (s)
According to a recent review by Yianatos (2007), despite
T turbulent dispersion force vector (N m−3 )
great advances in terms of process knowledge over several
TL characteristic time of the large turbulent eddies
decades, industrial flotation cells are still not sufficiently well
(s)
understood to allow optimal design and scale-up. This conclu-
u average RMS turbulent velocity in X direction
sion is not surprising given the complex interactions occurring
(m s−1 )
within a flotation cell (O’Connor, 2005). For instance, in a
u fluctuating velocity vector (m s−1 )
mechanically agitated cell the impeller provides the energy
U Reynolds-averaged velocity vector (m s−1 )
input for bubble breakup, solids suspension (where the solids
US slip velocity (m s−1 )
loading is typically around 30 wt%), and mixing so that bub-
UT terminal velocity in stagnant fluid (m s−1 )
bles and particles can contact each other. The amount of
U0 turbulence fluctuation velocity (m s−1 )
energy input is very important because too little input will
v average RMS turbulent velocity in Y direction
cause some solids to settle as well as not producing sufficient
(m s−1 )
particle–bubble collisions to achieve the desired recovery. Con-
Vp particle volume (m3 )
versely, too much energy input will cause collected particles to
x position vector (m)
detach from the bubbles resulting in a loss in recovery. There
X horizontal coordinate
have been a number of studies examining the role of energy
Y vertical coordinate
input, or more specifically turbulence intensity, on the over-
all performance of the flotation process (e.g. Schubert, 1999;
Greek symbols
Bloom and Heindel, 2002; Sherrell, 2004). In spite of these
˛ volume fraction
efforts it is still a real challenge to design a flotation cell with
ˇ ratio of turbulent fluctuating velocity and par-
the right amount of energy input to achieve the desired level
ticle terminal velocity
of gas–solid dispersion, optimum bubble size, and maximum
number of particle–bubble collisions with minimal detach-
ment of any collected particles.
1352 chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362
Design of mechanically stirred tanks, and flotation cells
in particular, have traditionally been based on empirical cor-
relations, but these provide only global information such as
power consumption or gas holdup, and are usually limited in
applicability to ‘standard’ tank configurations. Scale-up has
been based upon simple rules such as constant impeller tip
speed or constant specific power, so that just one aspect of the
process remains constant. This leads to uncertainty regard-
ing other characteristics of the process at the larger scale
which are not kept constant. More recently, there have been
a number of studies utilising computational fluid dynamics
(FCD) to model the behaviour inside flotation cells, not only
for mineral processing operations (e.g. Tiitinen et al., 2003;
Koh and Schwarz, 2003, 2006, 2007, in press; Koh et al., 2000,
2003; Lichter et al., 2007) but also for water treatment (e.g.
Kostoglou et al., 2007) and pyrometallurgical operations (e.g.
Maniruzzaman and Makhlouf, 2002a,b; Kwon et al., 2006) as
well. The advantage with CFD is the potential to model any
tank design at any scale of operation, providing a wealth
of detail such as internal velocities, shear rates, turbulence
parameters, distributions of phases, bubble sizes, and resi-
dence time distribution, as well as overall quantities such as
power consumption and mixing time (e.g. Lane, 2005; Deglon
and Meyer, 2006).
The work by Lane (2005) in particular has highlighted that
turbulence can significantly change the slip velocity of both
the bubbles and particles, where under certain conditions
the slip velocity can be as low as half that for a quiescent
(non-turbulent) system. Ultimately, it is the velocities of the
bubbles and particles that have a major influence on the
particle–bubble collision process and eventual flotation col-
lection rates and for this reason it is important to be able
to relate the slip velocity to spatial and temporal variations
of turbulence intensity throughout the cell. The aim of this
paper, therefore, if firstly to provide some insight into the influ-
ence of turbulence on the motion of bubbles and particles,
particularly for bubbles in the 2–10 mm diameter range com-
monly encountered in mechanically agitated flotation cells.
Secondly, a computational modelling approach is presented
which includes both turbulence effects on bubble and par-
ticle motion as well as the formation of gas cavities formed
behind the rotating impeller blades. Finally, the computational
modelling analysis is extended to the actual flotation process
where net attachment rates (leading to flotation) are presented
for a Denver flotation cell.
2. Influence of turbulence on bubble and
particle motion
There is a growing body of evidence which suggests that the
free stream turbulence can significantly reduce the terminal
velocity, UT , of bubbles and particles in a liquid by increas-
ing the average drag force. Various studies have indicated that
the reduction of terminal velocity primarily depends on turbu-
lence structure and its intensity. In studies according to Spelt
and Biesheuvel (1997) and Poorte and Biesheuvel (2002), bub-
ble motion in weak turbulence was characterised using two
dimensionless groups, namely (i) ˇ = U0 /UT , where U0 is tur-
bulence fluctuation velocity, and (ii)  = L11 / p ·UT , where L11
is the integral length scale of the turbulence and  p is the
bubble or particle relaxation time. The latter dimensionless
group is often used to indicate how quickly the bubbles or
particles respond to the turbulent velocity fluctuations. Poorte
and Biesheuvel (2002) proposed a semi-analytical relationship
expressing the effect of weak turbulence with intermediate
length scales on the motion of bubbles in terms of dimension-
less groups ˇ and :
US ˇ2
≈ 1 − 0.75 (1)
UT 
where US is the slip velocity. The relationship in Eq. (1)
indicates that a spherical bubble moving at high Reynolds
numbers is on average slowed down by the turbulence.
According to the authors the reduction in velocity is due to
(i) viscous forces which make the bubbles adapt their speed
to the fluid velocity fluctuations, and (ii) lift forces induced by
the lateral motion which redirect them laterally to regions of
downflow.
Lane et al. (2005) found that various numerical and exper-
imental data (Spelt and Biesheuvel, 1997; Brucato et al., 1998;
Poorte and Biesheuvel, 2002), collapsed onto a single curve if
the ratio US /UT is plotted against the ratio ˇ/. This latter ratio
is equivalent to a ratio of time scales, or a Stokes number,
given as  p /TL , where TL is a characteristic time of the large
turbulent eddies. It was further argued that the curve would
have a minimum at a Stokes number of 1 (the point of maxi-
mum interaction between bubbles and turbulence). Therefore,
the effect of turbulence on slip velocity was assumed to follow
the function:
US

p
nD  p

= 1 − KD1 exp −KD2 (2)
UT TL TL
where nD , KD1 and KD2 are experimentally determined con-
stants. Eq. (2) was tested in the CFD model for gas dispersion,
as described below, giving values of the parameters of KD1 = 1.4,
nD = 0.7 and KD2 = 0.6.
The studies described above have focussed on how turbu-
lence influences the drag on bubbles with equivalent diameter
of equal or less than 1 mm. However, many multiphase sys-
tems deal with intermediate size bubbles of typical diameters
ranging between 1 and 10 mm. These bubbles are significantly
non-spherical and lie within the so-called ellipsoidal regime
and undergo shape oscillation and follow a zigzag or helical
path when rising in a stagnant fluid (Clift et al., 1978). These
shape deformations affect the drag on the bubble, and it is not
clear how the slip velocity will be affected when turbulence
is present. For this reason, experiments were conducted on
bubbles, in the industrially significant size range of 2–10 mm
diameter, under carefully controlled turbulence conditions.
2.1. Slip velocity experiments
An experimental investigation was carried out in an oscillating
turbulence generator in which a pair of grids was employed
to produce stationary near-isotropic turbulent flow fields. In
such devices, the oscillating grids generate a system of wakes
and jets that merge with each other to produce a sustained
turbulence with zero mean flow (De Silva and Fernando, 1994).
The main advantage of this generator over its flow-through
counterparts (e.g. a water tunnel) is that the bubble velocities
can be measured more accurately in the absence of a net mean
flow (Yang and Shy, 2003).
The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. The turbulence
generator consisted of a rectangular perspex tank with a width
of 300 mm containing a pair of vertically oriented grids of size
150 mm × 150 mm. The grids were made of 6-mm thick alu-
minium sheets with a mesh size of 30 mm (i.e. the distance
 chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362 1353

Fig. 1 – Experimental apparatus: (a) grids, (b) motor, (c) control system, (d) data acquisition system, and (e) camera.

between centres of two successive openings was 30 mm) and

an overall opening of 64%. The grids were connected to step-
per motors, through eccentric cams, which led the in-and-out
movement of the grids. The design details of the generator are
given in Doroodchi et al. (2008). Generally, the turbulent flow
field was altered by changing the system frequency, strokes
and/or the initial distance between the grids over a range of
5–8 Hz, 18–32 mm and 70–110 mm, respectively.
The experiments were carried out using bubbles with aver-
age equivalent spherical diameter, deq , of 2–10 mm. A novel
bubble generator, as shown in Fig. 2, was designed and fabri-
cated in-house. The bubble generator consisted of an injection
port, a collecting surface and a release arm. A micro-syringe
pump was used to inject air at a rate of 19.5 mL min−1 through
the injection port located at the lower section of the vessel
side-wall (i.e. 20 mm above the bottom of the vessel). The size
of the bubbles was controlled by adjusting the total volume
of injected air. The air was guided through a capillary tube of
Fig. 3 – Overall turbulence intensity as a function of the
1.5 mm in diameter to the centre of the vessel. The released
operational parameters (18 < SL < 32 mm, 70 < H < 110 mm,
air bubbles were then collected under a concave surface where
M = 30 mm and 5 < f < 6 Hz).
small bubbles of about 2.5 mm in size formed at the tip of the
capillary rapidly coalesced forming a larger bubble. The bub-
ble was then released through a ±90◦ rotation of the surface established for a few minutes by out-of-phase oscillation of
by pushing/pulling the release arm. the grids. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) was used to obtain
A systematic approach similar to that described in our the average RMS turbulent velocities u and v in the hori-
earlier work (Doroodchi et al., 2008) was adopted in the exper- zontal (X) and vertical (Y) directions, respectively. From these
imental work. First, the operational parameters including the measurements the experimental turbulence intensity, q, was
vibration frequency, the size of the stroke and the distance calculated in accordance with Shy et al. (1997), who also sug-
between the grids were set. A turbulent flow field was then gested that turbulence intensity is related to the grid geometry
and operating conditions by the expression:

0.5 −1.5
q = CfS1.5
L M H , (3)

where f is the frequency, SL is the stroke length, H is the ini-

Fig. 2 – Bubble generation device.
tial distance between the two grids and M is the distance
between the centres of two successive openings. The exper-
imental measurements have been plotted according to Eq. (3)
in Fig. 3, and produce a linear relationship.
The motion of bubbles released at the bottom of the ves-
sel was captured using a high-speed video camera. The rising
velocity for each bubble was determined from a plot of vertical
distance versus time (i.e. the particle trajectory in y direction
as a function of time) using Phantom5 software. As there was
no net motion in the vessel, the slip velocity was equivalent
1354 chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362
Fig. 4 – Typical trajectories of a 2.4-mm bubble
(u = 33 mm s−1 ).
to the bubble rising velocity. Each run was repeated a num-
ber of times with the velocity being reported as the average
value. The motion of single bubbles in stagnant distilled water
was first investigated. It was observed that the smaller bubbles
of about 2.5 mm maintained their oblate shape with convex
interface as it rose in the quiescent water. The shape of bub-
bles with sizes greater than 5 mm in diameter however was
difficult to characterise as they underwent periodic dilations
and random wobbling motions during their rise in the stag-
nant water under the force of gravity. The rising path of all
bubbles in quiescent fluid however followed a relatively sym-
metric zigzag path in the XY plane. As shown in Figs. 4 and 5,
introduction of turbulence typically increased the wobbling
behaviour of the bubbles and their lateral movements forcing
them to travel longer paths. These typical measurements were
carried out at u = 33 mm s−1 .
Fig. 6 shows the slip velocity ratio, US /UT , as a function
of Stokes number, St . The data from literature (Poorte and
Biesheuvel, 2002; Lane et al., 2005; Spelt and Biesheuvel, 1997)
for bubble diameters of less than 1 mm are presented in Fig. 6a
while the experimental results obtained in this study for
Fig. 5 – Typical trajectories of 8 mm bubble at
(u = 33 mm s−1 ).
Fig. 6 – (a) Slip velocity ratio vs. stokes number: data from
literature. (b) Slip velocity ratio vs. Stokes number:
validation of Lane et al. (2005) correlation using the
experimental data obtained in the present study.
2–10 mm diameter bubbles (i.e. ellipsoidal bubbles) are pre-
sented in Fig. 6b. First, it was found that US /UT of the ellipsoidal
bubbles on average was reduced by the turbulence as St num-
ber was increased over the range of 0.02–0.08. This trend is
similar to that observed for bubbles with d ≤ 1. Secondly, the
new experimental data for the larger bubbles is well matched
by the prediction of Lane et al. (2005), given by Eq. (2), while
that of Spelt and Biesheuvel (1997) tended to overestimate the
influence of turbulence on the slip velocity. More generally, it
can be seen that there is considerable spread in the data, pos-
sibly indicating that the influence of turbulence on the slip
velocity cannot be entirely captured in terms of Stokes num-
ber alone. Furthermore, the results presented here are limited
to low values of St and ˇ, and quite clearly more work is needed
for intermediate size bubbles at higher turbulence intensities.
Meanwhile, the correlation by Lane et al. (2005) provides a rea-
sonable measure of how turbulence influences the slip veloc-
ity of bubbles and particles in the 1–2-mm diameter size range.
3. Gas dispersion modelling in
mechanically stirred tanks
Simulations of mechanically stirred tanks have been reported
in the literature since the late 1970s (Daskopoulos and Harris,
 chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362
1996). The capabilities of CFD models have improved over the
years, due to continual improvements in computers and mod-
elling procedures. For single-phase flows especially, extensive
development and validation against experimental data has
been reported (e.g. Luo et al., 1994; Lee et al., 1996; Wechsler
et al., 1999; Aubin et al., 2004). For multiphase flows how-
ever, especially gas dispersion, the number of studies has
been fewer (e.g. Brady et al., 2006). Compared to single-phase
flow, there are many additional considerations in the mod-
elling method, but simulations have tended to be more limited
in their accuracy and predictive capabilities. For example, in
many cases (e.g. Gosman et al., 1992; Bakker, 1992; Morud
and Hjertager, 1996; Djebbar et al., 1996; Jenne and Reuss,
1997), the impeller was not simulated directly, but instead
a ‘black box’ approach was adopted, where the effect of the
impeller was modelled using a momentum source or empir-
ically determined boundary conditions. Such an approach
severely limits the predictive capabilities of the model. In
some later studies, such as Ranade and Deshpande (1999),
and Deen et al. (2002), the impeller was included as part
of the simulation domain, but other limitations remained
evident. For example, those authors assumed a single con-
stant bubble size throughout the vessel. Also, there has been
no general agreement on the specification of various terms
in the two-phase equations, such as the interphase forces,
and validation of modelling results has often been quite
limited.
Further development of modelling methods for gas dis-
persion in mechanically stirred tanks was undertaken by one
of the authors (Lane et al., 2002, 2005; Lane, 2005). Here, the
impeller was represented explicitly, and the CFD method was
developed further to take into account the interaction of the
gas with the impeller, since ventilated gas cavities may form,
with a subsequent large effect on power draw and pumping
capacity of the impeller. Further investigation was undertaken
relating to the appropriate specification of the forces acting
between gas and liquid, especially the drag force and the tur-
bulent dispersion force. Prediction of the bubble sizes in the
tank was also considered.
3.1. Equations for two-phase flow
The simulation method was based on an Eulerian–Eulerian
model, where equations for the conservation of mass
and momentum of each phase are derived by condi-
tional ensemble averaging (Lathouwers, 1999), and may be
given as
∂(˛i i )
+ ∇ · (˛i i Ui ) = Si ,
∂t
∂(˛i i Ui )
+ ∇ · (˛i i Ui Ui ) = −˛i ∇p + ˛i (i − 0 )g + ∇ · (˛i L,i (∇Ui
∂t
T
+(∇Ui ) ) − ˛i i ui ui ) + Mi + Si Ui ,
where i is the phase number (i = 1 for liquid, i = 2 for gas), ˛i is
the phase volume fraction, i is the phase density, 0 is a ref-
erence density, t is time, Ui is the Reynolds-averaged velocity
vector, Si is a mass source term (e.g. at inlets or spargers), p is
the modified pressure, g is the gravity vector, L is the lami-
nar viscosity, and Mi is the interphase force. The term in ui ui is
the turbulent Reynolds stress, which is defined using the eddy
1355
viscosity concept, according to
 
2
−˛i i ui ui = ˛i T (∇Ui + ∇UT
i )− kI , (6)
3 i i
where ki is the turbulent kinetic energy per unit mass, I is
the unit tensor, and T is the turbulent viscosity. The turbu-
lent viscosity in each phase is obtained through the k–ε model,
which incorporates additional equations for k and ε, the rate
of dissipation of turbulent energy per unit mass. The effect
of bubbles on the turbulence was modelled by an additional
contribution to the turbulent viscosity due to bubble slip (Sato
and Sekoguchi, 1975), although this contribution turns out to
be relatively small.
The interphase force term, Mi , is very important in order to
describe the gas distribution and holdup in the tank. The total
force on bubbles includes terms for drag, added mass, lift force
and the history force (Lathouwers, 1999). Of these, only the
drag force was included. The added mass and lift forces were
not included because they led to numerical instabilities. In
any case, it was estimated that the added mass and lift forces
were only significant in the impeller region, but the form of
the equations is uncertain here due to high turbulence and
high velocity gradients. The history force was also neglected,
as usual for turbulent flows (Lathouwers, 1999).
3.2. Modelling the drag force on bubbles
The drag force term in the averaged momentum conservation
equation may be given as
3 CD
F2 = −F1 = − ˛2 1 |U2 − U1 |(U2 − U1 ), (7)
4 d
where U1 and U2 are the Reynolds-averaged velocities of the
gas and liquid, d is the local Sauter diameter, and CD is the
mean drag coefficient which is related to the slip velocity by
CD
 U −2
S
= , (8)
CD,0 UT
where Eq. (2) has been used to account for the influence of
turbulence. The drag coefficient for bubbles rising in quiescent
water, CD,0 , was calculated from the correlation of Ishii and
Zuber (1979).
3.3. Turbulent dispersion
Averaging of the two-phase equations has been shown to
lead to additional correlation terms in the momentum con-
(4) servation equation, which are usually modelled as a turbulent
dispersion force. Typically, the turbulent dispersion force, T,
takes the form (Kurul and Podowski, 1990; Lahey et al., 1993;
Lo, 2000):
T2 = −Ctd 1 k1 ∇˛2 . (9)
(5)
Different values of the coefficient, Ctd , have been applied to fit
results to experimental data, e.g. Kurul and Podowski (1990)
recommend a value of 0.1, whereas Lo (2000) used this equa-
tion with Ctd equal to 1.0. However, it is more likely that Ctd
is not a constant but depends on the detailed characteristics
of the bubbles and the turbulent flow. Thus, a more detailed
model for the turbulent dispersion force was implemented,
following an approach similar to Simonin and coworkers
1356 chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362

(Simonin, 1990; Bel F’dhila and Simonin, 1992; Viollet and 3.4. Bubble size distribution
Simonin, 1994). The turbulent dispersion force is derived by
averaging of a Lagrangian equation for bubble motion, which Prediction of the bubble size distribution is important since, in
leads to additional force terms representing the correlation combination with the gas volume fraction, a prediction of the
between fluctuations in gas volume fraction and fluctuations interfacial surface area can be obtained, which is important for
in the instantaneous drag force, added mass force, and liquid gas–liquid mass transfer. There are various levels of complex-
pressure gradient. Thus, the turbulent dispersion force was ity at which the bubble size distribution can be approached.
modelled as the sum of three terms: In some studies (e.g. Ranade and Deshpande, 1999; Deen et
al., 2002) a fixed average bubble diameter was specified. The
D12 bubble diameter was then determined either from experimen-
T2,1 = −˛2 1 FD ∇˛2 , (10)
˛1 ˛2 tal measurements or from published empirical correlations
  such as that of Calderbank (1958). A much more detailed mod-
2 b2 − b elling approach is the population balance model. This involves
T2,2 = − 1 k1 CA ∇˛2 , (11)
3 1 + r the solution of an equation describing the probability density
function of the bubble diameter or bubble volume, account-
2
b +  
r ing for the formation or destruction of bubbles by break-up
T2,3 = 1 k1 ∇˛2 . (12)
3 1 + r and coalescence. This is a very detailed and computationally
demanding approach. As a compromise, a simplified model
In these equations, the diffusivity coefficient, D12 , is given by was adopted, where the local average bubble size is calculated
from the bubble number density equation (Bakker, 1992). This
2
b +  
D12 =
r t
k1 12 . (13) equation can be derived by integrating the population balance
3 1 + r over all bubble sizes (Kocamustafaogullari and Ishii, 1995). The
bubble number density, n, is defined as
FD is given by

˛
3 CD n= . (19)
FD = UT (14) ( /6)d3eq
4 d

where CD is the drag coefficient for rise in a stagnant liq- The equation for conservation of bubble number density is
uid, calculated from the correlation of Ishii and Zuber (1979), written as
and UT is the corresponding terminal velocity. Also, in these
expressions:
∂n(x, t)
+ ∇ · (nU2 ) = ϕbr − ϕco + ϕph , (20)
∂t
1 + CA
b= (15)
(2 /1 ) + CA
where the terms on the right hand size represent source or
where the added mass coefficient is taken as CA = 0.5, and sink terms due to break-up, coalescence, and phase change.
The rate of break-up was derived based on a consideration of
t the collision rate between bubbles and turbulent eddies, and
12
r = . (16)
p the efficiency as related to the energy available for break-up.
The rate of coalescence was derived based on the collision
The ratio r compares the characteristic time scales of the rate between bubbles and the collision efficiency, which was
turbulence and of the particle. The characteristic time scale of related to the drainage time of the film between two bubbles.
the turbulence is calculated from Further details may be found in Lane et al. (2005) and Lane
(2005).
TL
t
12 =  (17)
1 + C␤  2
3.5. Gas cavity formation

where TL is the large eddy time scale of the turbulence, and

UT
=  (18)
(2/3)k1
t
12 is the turbulent eddy time scale as seen by the parti-
cle, taking into account the so-called ‘cross-trajectory effect’
according to Csanady (1963) where, because of the slip velocity
of the bubbles, the bubbles cut through the turbulent eddies,
and the time scale of the eddies as seen by the particles is
reduced.
The inclusion of the turbulent dispersion force was found
to be important, since otherwise the gas accumulated at unre-
alistically high volume fractions in the centres of the ring
vortices of the bulk flow pattern. Further details may be found
in Lane et al. (2005) and Lane (2005).
In gas-sparged tanks, gas cavities form in the low-pressure
region on the trailing side of impeller blades. This can have
a strong effect on the power consumption and the discharge
flow rate of the impeller. According to various studies (e.g.
Warmoeskerken and Smith, 1985) there are several regimes
for the interaction of gas with the Rushton turbine. At low gas
flow rates, the vortex cavity regime is observed, while at higher
gas flow rates, ventilated gas cavities form which extend to
the blade surface, referred to as the ‘clinging’ and ‘large’ cavity
regimes. An attempt was made to account for cavity formation
through some modifications to the modelling equations. This
mainly involved a modification to the drag force expression,
Eq. (7), for high gas volume fractions.
It was considered that as the gas accumulates near an
impeller blade, rapid coalescence will occur. Thus, it was sup-
posed that the bubble size could be expressed as a function of
 chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362 1357

Table 1 – Operating conditions and some key CFD predictions

Case number Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

Impeller type Rushton Rushton Rushton Rushton Lightnin A315

Impeller speed (rpm) 180 250 180 285 600
Gas flow rate (m3 s−1 ) 0.00164 0.00164 0.00687 0.00687 5.57 × 10−4
Gas flow number 0.015 0.011 0.062 0.039 0.010
Froude number 0.31 0.59 0.31 0.77 1.81
Impeller cavity regime Vortex Vortex Large Large Vortex
Gas holdup (%) experimental 3.0 3.7 7.8 9.7 4.6
Gas holdup (%) simulation 2.1 3.0 7.5 9.4 4.7
PG /PUG experimental 0.82 0.84 0.52 0.50 –
PG /PUG simulation 0.70 0.79 0.65 0.54 1.25

gas fraction by a simple power law according to to several criteria, including sufficient reduction of the mass
residuals, an accurate balance between rates of gas entering
K1 and leaving the tank, and a steady gas holdup.
d= m . (21)
(1 − ˛2 ) 1 The modelling method was compared extensively against
experimental measurements of local bubble size and local gas
Also, the drag coefficient decreases with increasing gas vol-
fraction according to Barigou and Greaves (1992) and Bakker
ume fraction (the bubble “swarm” effect). According to Ishii
(1992). These comparisons are detailed in Lane et al. (2005)
and Zuber (1979), for bubbles at ˛2 > 0.3, the drag coefficient
and Lane (2005). Typical distributions of the gas fraction and
can be given by
bubble diameter are illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8. Overall, reason-
able agreement was obtained. Predictions of overall gas holdup
8 m
CD = (1 − ˛2 ) 2 , (22) were in good agreement with measurements, as summarised
3
in Table 1. For the tank with the Rushton turbine, the power
where Ishii and Zuber gave a value of m2 = 2, while Gidaspow draw under gassed conditions was found to be consistent with
(1994) recommended m2 = 4. Combining Eqs. (21) and (22), an empirical correlation of Bakker et al. (1994).
expression for the ratio CD /d in the drag force equation is With the tank stirred by a Rushton turbine, the accumu-
lation of the gas behind the impeller blades was found to
CD 8 m +m correspond fairly well with the observations of Barigou and
= (1 − ˛2 ) 1 2 , (23)
d 3K1 Greaves (1996). The gas accumulation was relatively low for
Cases 1 and 2, where the vortex cavity regime had been
where m1 , m2 and K1 are fitted parameters. Adjustment of the
reported. In Cases 3 and 4, where the ‘large’ cavity regime was
fitted parameters gave fair agreement with experimental data
reported, more substantial regions with high gas fraction were
over a range of conditions.
obtained. However, the resolution of the gas cavities was lim-
In addition to modifying the drag force equation, it was
ited by the number of finite volume cells near the impeller. To
found to be important to model turbulence in the gas phase
obtain better resolution of these gas cavities, the grid density
as well as the liquid, since in regions of segregated flow with
was increased. Results are shown in Figs. 9 and 10 for a sim-
100% gas, the gas phase may become turbulent.
ulation with ∼440,000 cells covering a 60◦ periodic section of

3.6. Implementation of the modelling equations

The CFD method was applied to model gas dispersion (in

air–water mixtures) in baffled tanks stirred either by a Rush-
ton turbine or a Lightnin A315 impeller. A series of different
cases were considered where the tank geometry and operat-
ing conditions were chosen to match with those for which
experimental measurements were available in the literature
(Barigou and Greaves, 1992, 1996; Bakker, 1992). Five different
cases have been considered, as summarised in Table 1. Simula-
tions were carried out using the commercial code CFX4 (CFX4
Solver Manual, 2002), with some additional user-supplied sub-
routines. The basis of the code is a finite-volume method with
all variables defined at the centres of cell volumes. Impeller
motion was accounted for using either the multiple frames
of reference (MFR) method or the sliding mesh method. The
MFR method is a pseudo-steady state method, where a solu-
tion to the equations is found based on one fixed position of
the impeller, coupling different frames of reference for the
impeller region and the outer part of the tank. The sliding
mesh method is a transient method, where the impeller region
is rotated in small angular steps and the fluid flow field is
recalculated until periodically steady results are obtained. Sat- Fig. 7 – Gas volume fraction (Case 2) in vertical plane half
isfactory completion of the simulations was judged according way between baffles.
1358 chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362
Fig. 8 – Local bubble diameter in vertical plane half way
between baffles (Case 2) (bubble diameter reported in mm).
the tank. A well-defined region with 100% gas was obtained,
and the cavity shape has a resemblance to that of a ‘clinging’
cavity (Smith, 1985).
The modelling method contains a number of different
fitted parameters, some of which may be sensitive to the
operating conditions, impeller type, or the fluids involved. In
particular, the fitted parameters for the coalescence model
will be very sensitive to the actual fluids used and the level
of surfactants. Therefore, there is still a need to test the CFD
method over a wider range of conditions. Further work is
also necessary to include a more accurate expression for the
effect of turbulence on the drag coefficient, based on the lat-
est available data. Simulations with the Rushton turbine led
to a significant under-prediction of the turbulence levels. This
difficulty has also been found by other authors (e.g. Ng et al.,
Fig. 9 – Gas volume fraction in horizontal plane at 1/4
impeller height (Case 4) (higher density grid superimposed
and logarithmic scale is used for the colour map).
Fig. 10 – Gas volume fraction isosurface (98%) for Case 4
using higher density grid (large cavity formation shown on
trailing side of impeller blade).
Fig. 11 – Surface mesh of CSIRO Denver cell including the
shroud and impeller.
1998). It is likely that this is due to insufficient grid resolu-
tion in the region of the impeller. Improvements in the CFD
method should be possible due to increasing computer capac-
ity. By employing much larger finite volume grids, it should be
possible to obtain better predictions of the turbulence. Also,
higher density grids in the region of the impeller will assist in
better prediction of gas cavities. It would be interesting to see if
the modelling method could predict features such as the ‘3–3’
cavity regime on a Rushton turbine, where large and clinging
cavities occur on alternating impeller blades.
4. Flotation modelling
The computational gas dispersion modelling described above
can be extended to predict the recovery performance of actual
flotation cells. Fig. 11 shows the surface mesh of a Denver
flotation cell which is widely used in the mineral processing
industry.
The flotation process is modelled as three sub-processes
involving (1) collision, (2) attachment and (3) detachment. A
turbulent collision model has been used by Koh et al. (2000)
to estimate the rate of bubble–particle encounters, employ-
ing the local turbulent velocity and the size and number
 chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362 1359

Table 2 – Equations for bubble–particle interactions (taken from Koh and Schwarz, 2006; refer to original paper for
nomenclature)
dnp1
Net attachment rate dt
= −k1 np1 nb (1 − ˇ) + k2 nb ˇ

Attachment rate constant k1 = Z1 Pc Pa Ps

Detachment rate constant k2 = Z2 (1 − Ps )
np2 db
2
Bubble loading ˇ= Smax nb where Smax = fc S and S=2 dp
dp +db
2 1/2
Collision frequency across eddies Z1 = 5.0 2 (Up2 + Ub2 )
15f U2
Critical diameter of particle or bubble d2i > d2crit = i ε
f

 dp +d
3
1/2
8 ε
Collision frequency within eddies Z1 = 15
b
2 

0.4 ε4/9 d7/9  −

2/3
Turbulent fluctuating velocity of particle or bubble Ui = i i
f
f
1/3
√
C1 ε1/3
Detachment frequency Z2 =
(dp +db )2/3
4

d2p
Probability of collision Pc = 1.5 + 0.72
15 Reb d2
b
db Ub
Bubble Reynolds number Reb = 
  −(45+8Re0.72 )U 
2 b tind
Probability of adhesion Pa = sin 2 arctan exp b
15 db (db /dp +1)
75 0.6
Induction time tind =  dp
 1


Probability of stabilisation Ps = 1 − exp As 1 − Bo∗

d2 2/3 ((d /2)+(d /2))−1/3 ]+1.5d ((4/d )−d  g)sin2 ( −(/2))

p [
p g+1.9p ε p b p b b f
Bond number
concentrations of bubbles and particles obtained from CFD
modelling. The probability of collision accounts for the
streamline effect of fine particles moving around a larger bub-
ble. The local attachment and detachment rates are calculated
from the collision frequency and the probabilities of colli-
sion, adhesion and stabilisation (Koh and Schwarz, 2006). The
effects of the turbulence intensity on the local rates of attach-
ment and detachment and the local bubble loading can be
quantified.
In modelling flotation kinetics, the local turbulent energy
dissipation rates are obtained by CFD modelling of the cell.
This is a significant improvement over other models where an
average dissipation rate or an assumed Gaussian distribution
for turbulent velocities was used for the whole cell (e.g., Bloom
and Heindel, 1997, 2003). CFD modelling provides a realistic
approach to flotation models without additional assumptions
on turbulent energy dissipation rates.
For simulating flotation kinetics, the transfer of particles
between the pulp and bubbles is achieved by applying source
terms for particle number concentration in the population bal-
ance equation as follows:
∂(˛i ni )
+ ∇ · (˛i ni Ui ) = −ϕa + ϕd ,
∂t
where ϕa and ϕd are sources or sinks specifying attachment
and detachment rates respectively. The transient simulation
uses variable time steps such that the mass error is less than
0.1% for each time step. The equations used in the model for
bubble–particle collision frequency, and the probabilities of
collision, adhesion and stabilisation (Koh and Schwarz, 2006)
are shown in Table 2.
In turbulent flows where inertial effects are the pri-
mary cause of collisions, the equation for the number of
particle–bubble collisions per unit time and volume is based
on work of Abrahamson (1975), and applied by Schubert and
Bischofberger (1979) to collisions in the flotation cell. The con-
dition for using the model is independent of bubble or particle
Bo∗ = |6 sin( −(/2)) sin( +(/2))|
velocities in highly turbulent flow. In regions where velocities
for the particle and bubbles are not independent, the collision
equation by Saffman and Turner (1956) is applicable for fine
particles and bubbles which are confined within eddies in low
turbulent regions.
The collision efficiency accounts for the tendency of par-
ticles to follow the fluid streamlines around the bubble and
avoid actual contact. This is especially true for particles that
are much smaller than the bubble, and the equation proposed
by Yoon and Luttrell (1989) is appropriate for intermediate
bubble Reynolds number. The probability of adhesion is deter-
mined by the sliding time of the particles on the bubble
surface and the induction time for rupture of the disjoining
film between the particle and bubble. If the sliding time is
longer than the induction time, adhesion is likely. Yoon and
Luttrell (1989) derived an expression for the adhesion prob-
ability dependent on the particle and bubble sizes, bubble
Reynolds number and induction time.
The bubble–particle detachment frequency is dependent
on the relative velocity between the particle–bubble aggregate
and the surrounding fluid. The probability of stabilisation or
destabilisation of the bubble–particle aggregate, as proposed
by Schulze (1993), is based on the Bond number which is the
(24)
ratio of detachment to attachment forces.
While attachment and detachment processes are occurring
continuously throughout the flotation cell, the particle–bubble
aggregates are being transported at the same time by con-
vection and buoyancy to the froth interface for recovery. The
gravitational force acting on particles attached to bubbles
affects the rise velocity of the aggregate. The effect is signif-
icant especially with larger particles at higher loadings. The
body force acting on the attached particles is incorporated in
the model by adding a source term, Bp , to the gas phase as
follows:
 2
db
Bp = −4fc (p − l )Vp gnb , (25)
dp
1360 chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362
where fc is the fractional surface coverage, nb the local num-
ber concentration of bubbles, p the density of particles, and
Vp the volume of individual particles, and db and dp are the
diameters of bubble and particles, respectively. Essentially, the
source term reduces the buoyancy effect of the gas phase and
is based on the number of particles attached on individual
bubbles at a given time and location in the cell. A similar effect
in turbulent flow is expected where the bubble rise velocity is
reduced by the attached particles. The bubble–particle aggre-
gates can sink if the particles are sufficiently large and the
bubble loadings are significantly high.
4.1. Flotation simulation
The CSIRO Denver cell has an eight-bladed impeller driven
from below and enclosed in a conical shroud. The meshing
for the cell is shown in Fig. 11. Air is injected at a rate of
8 L min−1 through a nozzle located within the shroud and
directed downwards at the rotating impeller. The flotation cell
has a volume of 3.78 L and an impeller diameter of 72 mm.
Results of two-phase simulations for the CSIRO Denver cell
have been obtained. A typical plot of the liquid velocity vec-
tors, as shown in Fig. 12, is similar to those obtained previously
(Koh and Schwarz, 2003). The predictions indicate a complex
flow field within the flotation cell and large fluid velocities
observed in the impeller region. Gas holdup distribution and
bubble–particle collision rates in the cell have been reported
previously (Koh et al., 2000).
The distribution of net attachment rates in the CSIRO Den-
ver cell operating at 1200 rpm is shown in Fig. 13. The plot
shows that detachment rates (with negative values) are also
large near the impeller tip, but the maximum attachment
rates are outside the impeller zone. The two zones are sepa-
rated by the stator shroud. The negative regions are inevitable
because of the need to use a high impeller speed to generate
fine bubbles for the necessary bubble surface area flux to oper-
ate. Flotation cell design should ideally minimise the negative
regions while maximizing the attachment rates in the cell.
The predicted concentration of particles remaining in the
cell indicates that the particle recovery rate to the pulp–froth
interface is much slower than the net attachment rates after
accounting for detachments. The bubbles are loaded with
particles quite quickly, and the bubble surface area flux is
Fig. 12 – Vector plot of liquid velocities at the mid-plane of
flotation cell (operating at 1200 rpm and typical velocity is
about 0.1 m s−1 ).
Fig. 13 – Predicted net attachment rates (m−3 s−1 ) for 60 ␮m
diameter particles (flotation time of 228 s).
the limiting factor in the recovery rate at the froth interface.
This explains why the relationship between flotation rate and
bubble surface area flux is generally used as a criterion for
designing flotation cells. In fact, transport rates to the froth
layer contribute quite significantly to the overall flotation per-
formance (Koh and Schwarz, 2006).
From the simulations with flotation, predicted flotation
rate constants can be obtained by analysing the total num-
ber of particles (both free and attached particles) remaining
in the cell with time, and this involves summing all the parti-
cles in all finite volumes in the cell at each time step (Koh and
Schwarz, 2006). By assuming first order kinetics, flotation rate
constants can be determined from the slopes of the logarithm
of the particles remaining in the cell as a function of time.
The effect of bubble loading (the amount of particles car-
ried by the bubble surface) on the flotation rate has been
investigated by CFD simulations (Koh and Schwarz, in press).
Simulations have been performed with assumed maximum
bubble loading of a half mono-layer coverage (fc = 0.5) and with
a maximum coverage of 0.2. Flotation rates of quartz parti-
cles in a Rushton-turbine stirred tank reported in the literature
(Ahmed and Jameson, 1985) have been used for comparison.
The CFD predicted flotation rates for the assumed maximum
of 0.2 fraction of a mono-layer match experimental data better
than the case for 0.5 fraction of a mono-layer. The predicted
bubble loadings for both cases are compared against mea-
sured bubble loadings in a micro-flotation cell (Bradshaw and
O’Connor, 1996). An alternative method is to assume an aver-
age loading based on total numbers of particles and bubbles in
the flotation cell, and this assumption was used in the latest
model by Bloom and Heindel (2003). However, from the latest
results by Koh and Schwarz (in press), the case for maximum
loading of 0.2 fraction of bubble coverage matched experi-
mental values better than the 0.5 cases. The bubble loading
actually obtained in the flotation cell is expected to be depen-
dent on the particle surface properties, collector and frother
chemistry, as well as cell geometry and hydrodynamics.
The predicted flotation rates also showed that fine and
large particles do not float as well as intermediate size par-
ticles (Koh and Schwarz, 2007). This is consistent with the
recovery generally observed in practice.
5. Conclusions
The motion of ellipsoidal bubbles, with equivalent diameters
of 2–10 mm, in stationary near isotropic turbulent flow fields
 chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362
was investigated experimentally. The turbulence was gener-
ated using a pair of oscillating grids. A thorough assessment of
the flow field using PIV techniques demonstrated that the flow
in the central region between the grids was near isotropic with
an integral length scale of 8 mm. Generally, the investigations
were performed for Stokes values less than 0.1. The bubble tra-
jectories as well as their mean rise velocity were obtained for
horizontal turbulence intensities ranging from 0 to 50 mm s−1 .
It was observed that the bubbles often tend to travel longer
paths due to their interaction with the turbulent eddies. The
results also indicated that, at low values of St and ˇ, US /UT of
the ellipsoidal bubbles on average reduces by the turbulence as
St number increases. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that
Lane et al. (2005) drag coefficient correlation can be used to
provide a reasonable measure of how turbulence influences
the slip velocity of intermediate size bubbles at low turbulence
intensities.
A CFD modelling method was developed for gas disper-
sion in agitated vessels. The details of the impeller geometry
were included in the model, and the interaction of the gas
with the impeller was considered, including cavity formation.
When specifying the drag force, the effect of turbulence was
included by a modification to the drag coefficient based on a
local Stokes number. A detailed model for turbulent disper-
sion was also introduced, which was found to give a more
realistic gas distribution. A bubble number density equation
was introduced which allowed prediction of local mean bub-
ble diameter, taking bubble break-up and coalescence into
account. The method was implemented in simulations of
tanks stirred by a Rushton turbine and by a Lightnin A315
impeller. Simulation results were compared in detail with
experimental data in the literature and fairly good agreement
was found in most respects.
The computational gas dispersion modelling has been
extended to predict the recovery performance of the Den-
ver flotation cell. A population balance approach has been
applied to account for fundamental processes involving
bubble–particle collision, attachment and detachment. The
predicted flotation kinetics has been found to agree with mea-
sured data reported in the literature. The combined model
with hydrodynamic and bubble–particle interaction has been
shown to be useful for practical application in the investiga-
tion of flotation cells. The design and operating conditions can
be identified for optimum cell operation.
References
Abare, 2007, Australian mineral statistics: September quarter
2007 (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, Canberra, Australia), ISSN 1447-1159
Abrahamson, J., 1975, Collision rates of small particles in a
vigorously turbulent fluid. Chem Eng Sci, 30: 1371–1379.
Ahmed, N. and Jameson, G.J., 1985, The effect of bubble size on
the rate of flotation of fine particles. Int J Miner Process, 14:
195–215.
Aubin, J., Fletcher, D.F. and Xuereb, C., 2004, Modeling turbulent
flow in stirred tanks with CFD: the influence of the modeling
approach, turbulence model and numerical scheme. Exp
Thermal Fluid Sci, 28: 431–445.
Bakker, A., 1992, Hydrodynamics of stirred gas–liquid dispersions,
Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Delft, The Netherlands.
Bakker, A., Smith, J.M. and Myers, K.J., December 1994, How to
disperse gases in liquids. Chem Eng, 98–104.
Barigou, M. and Greaves, M., 1992, Bubble-size distributions in a
mechanically agitated gas–liquid contactor. Chem Eng Sci,
47(8): 2009–2025.
1361
Barigou, M. and Greaves, M., 1996, Gas holdup and interfacial
area distributions in a mechanically agitated gas-liquid
contactor. Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 74(3): 397–405.
Bel F’dhila, R. and Simonin, O., 1992, Eulerian prediction of
turbulent bubbly flow downstream of a sudden pipe
expansion, In Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Two-Phase
Flow Prediction , pp. 264–273.
Bloom, F. and Heindel, T.J., 1997, Mathematical modeling of the
flotation deinking process. Math Comp Model, 25: 13–58.
Bloom, F. and Heindel, T.J., 2002, On the structure of collision and
detachment frequencies in flotation models. Chem Eng Sci,
57(13): 2467–2473.
Bloom, F. and Heindel, T.J., 2003, Modeling flotation separation in
a semi-batch process. Chem Eng Sci, 58: 353–365.
Bradshaw, D.J. and O’Connor, C.T., 1996, Measurement of the
sub-process of bubble loading in flotation. Miner Eng, 9:
443–448.
Brady, M.R., Telionis, D.P., Vlachos, P.P. and Yoon, R.-H., 2006,
Evaluation of multiphase flotation models in grid turbulence
via particle image velocimetry. Int J Miner Process, 80: 133–143.
Brucato, A., Grisafi, F. and Montante, G., 1998, Particle drag
coefficients in turbulent fluids. Chem Eng Sci, 53(18):
3295–3314.
Calderbank, P.H., 1958, The interfacial area in gas–liquid
contacting with mechanical agitation. Trans IChemE, 36:
443–463.
CFX4 Solver Manual, 2002 (AEA Technology, Oxford, UK).
Clift, R., Grace, J.R. and Weber, M.E., (1978). Bubbles, Drops and
Particles. (Academic Press).
Csanady, G.T., 1963, Turbulent diffusion of heavy particles in the
atmosphere. J Atmos Sci, 20: 201–208.
Dai, Z., Fornasiero, D. and Ralston, J., 2000, Particle–bubble
collision models: a review. Adv Colloid Interf Sci, 85(2–3):
231–256.
Daskopoulos, P. and Harris, C.K., 1996, Three-dimensional CFD
simulations of turbulent flow in baffled stirred tanks: an
assessment of the current position, IChemE Symp Ser No. 140,
1–8.
Deglon, D.A. and Meyer, C.J., 2006, CFD modelling of stirred tanks:
numerical considerations. Miner Eng, 19: 1059–1068.
Deen, N.G., Solberg, T. and Hjertager, B.H., 2002, Flow generated
by an aerated Rushton impeller: two-phase PIV experiments
and numerical simulations. Can J Chem Eng, 80: 638–652.
De Silva, I.P.D. and Fernando, H.J.S., 1994, Oscillating grids as a
source of nearly isotropic turbulence. Phys Fluids, 6(7):
2455–2464.
Djebbar, R., Roustan, M. and Line, A., 1996, Numerical
computation of turbulent gas–liquid dispersion in
mechanically agitated vessels, Trans IChemE, Part A, 74:
492–498.
Doroodchi, E., Evans, G.M., Schwarz, M.P., Lane, G.L., Shah, N. and
Nguyen, A., 2008, Influence of turbulence intensity of particle
drag coefficients. Chem Eng J, 135: 129–134.
Gidaspow, D., (1994). Multiphase flow and fluidization. (Academic
Press).
Gosman, A.D., Lekakou, C., Politis, S., Issa, R.I. and Looney, M.K.,
1992, Multidimensional modeling of turbulent two-phase
flows in stirred vessels. AIChE J, 38(12): 1946–1956.
Hetherington, L.E., Brown, T.J., Benham, A.J., Bide, T., Lusty, P.A.J.,
Hards, V.L., Hannis, S.D. and Idoine, N.E., (2008). World Mineral
Production 2002–2006. (British Geological Survey, London,
England). ISBN: 978-0-85272-615-0
Ishii, M. and Zuber, N., 1979, Drag coefficient and relative velocity
in bubbly, droplet or particulate flows. AIChE J, 25(5): 843–855.
Jenne, M. and Reuss, M., 1997, Fluid dynamic modelling and
simulation of gas–liquid flow in baffled stirred tank reactors.
Récents Progrès en Genie des Procédès, 11(52): 201–208.
Kocamustafaogullari, G. and Ishii, M., 1995, Foundation of the
interfacial area transport equation and its closure relations.
Int J Heat Mass Transfer, 38(3): 481–493.
Koh, P.T.L., Manickam, M. and Schwarz, M.P., 2000, CFD
simulation of bubble–particle collisions in mineral flotation
cells. Miner Eng, 13: 1455–1463.
1362 chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1350–1362
Koh, P.T.L. and Schwarz, M.P., 2003, CFD modelling of
bubble–particle collision rates and efficiencies in mineral
flotation cells. Miner Eng, 16: 1055–1059.
Koh, P.T.L., Schwarz, M.P., Zhu, Y., Bourke, P., Peaker, R. and
Franzidis, J.P., 2003, Development of models of mineral
flotation cells, In Proceedings of the Third Int. Conf. On CFD in Min
and Proc. Industries , pp. 171–176.
Koh, P.T.L. and Schwarz, M.P., 2006, CFD modelling of
bubble–particle attachments in flotation cells. Miner Eng, 19:
619–626.
Koh, P.T.L. and Schwarz, M.P., 2007, CFD model of a self-aerating
flotation cell. Int J Miner Process, 85: 16–24.
Koh, P.T.L. and Schwarz, M.P., in press, Modelling attachment
rates of multi-sized bubbles with particles in a flotation cell,
Miner. Eng.
Kostoglou, M., Karapantsios, T.D. and Matis, K.A., 2007, CFD
model for the design of large scale flotation tanks for water
and wastewater treatment. Ind Eng Chem Res, 46(20):
6590–6599.
Kurul, N. and Podowski, M.Z., 1990, Multidimensional effects in
sub-cooled boiling, In Proceedings of the Ninth Heat Transfer Conf
, pp. 21–26.
Kwon, Y., Zhang, J. and Lee, H.-G., 2006, Water model and CFD
studies of bubble dispersion and inclusions removal in
continuous casting mold of steel. ISIJ Int, 46(2): 257–266.
Lahey, R.T., Jr., Lopez de Bertodano, M. and Jones, O.C., Jr., 1993,
Phase distribution in complex geometry conduits. Nucl Eng
Des, 141: 177–201.
Lane, G.L., 2005, Numerical modelling of gas–liquid flow in stirred
tanks, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Newcastle, Australia.
Lane, G.L., Schwarz, M.P. and Evans, G.M., 2002, Predicting
gas–liquid flow in a mechanically-stirred tank. Appl Math
Model, 26: 223–235.
Lane, G.L., Schwarz, M.P. and Evans, G.M., 2005, Numerical
modelling of gas–liquid flow in stirred tanks. Chem Eng Sci,
60: 2203–2214.
Lathouwers, D., 1999, Modelling and simulation of turbulent
bubbly flow, Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Delft.
Lee, K.C., Ng, K. and Yianneskis, M., 1996, Sliding mesh
predictions of the flows around Rushton impellers. IChemE
Symp Ser, 140: 47–58.
Lichter, J., Potapov, A.V. and Peaker, R., 2007, The use of
computational fluid dynamics and discrete element modeling
to understand the effect of cell size and inflow rate on
flotation bank retention time distribution and mechanism
performance, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Canadian
Mineral Processors Operators Conference, Ottawa, Canada,
paper 09.
Lo, S., 2000, Recent advances in CFD for industrial multiphase
flows, in Industrial CFD and the Move Towards Multiphase
Flow Simulations, NAFEMS Awareness Seminar, November 8,
2000, University of Warwick, UK.
Luo, J.Y., Issa, R.I. and Gosman, A.D., 1994, Prediction of
impeller-induced flows in mixing vessels using multiple
frames of reference. IChemE Symp Ser, 136: 549–556.
Maniruzzaman, M. and Makhlouf, M., 2002, Mathematical
modelling and computer simulation of the rotating impeller
particle flotation process. Part 1. Fluid flow. Metall Mater
Trans, 33B: 297–303.
Maniruzzaman, M. and Makhlouf, M., 2002, Mathematical
modelling and computer simulation of the rotating impeller
particle flotation process. Part 2. Particle agglomeration and
flotation. Metall Mater Trans, 33B: 305–314.
Morud, K.E. and Hjertager, B.H., 1996, LDA measurements and
CFD modelling of gas–liquid flow in a stirred vessel. Chem Eng
Sci, 51(2): 233–249.
Ng, K., Fentiman, N.J., Lee, K.C. and Yianneskis, M., 1998,
Assessment of sliding mesh CFD predictions and LDA
measurements of the flow in a tank stirred by a Rushton
impeller. Trans IChemE, 76(A): 737–747.
Nguyen, A.V. and Schulze, H.J., (2004). Colloidal Science of Flotation.
(Marcel Dekker, NewYork).
O’Connor, C.T., 2005, Contributions to an improved
understanding of the flotation process, Doctor of Engineering
Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Poorte, R.E.G. and Biesheuvel, A., 2002, Experiments on the
motion of gas bubbles in turbulence generated by an active
grid. J Fluid Mech, 461: 127–154.
Ranade, V.V. and Deshpande, V.R., 1999, Gas–liquid flow in stirred
reactors: trailing vortices and gas accumulation behind
impeller blades. Chem Eng Sci, 54: 2305–2315.
Saffman, P.G. and Turner, T.S., 1956, On the collision of drops in
turbulent clouds. J Fluid Mech, 1: 16–30.
Sato, Y. and Sekoguchi, K., 1975, Liquid velocity distribution in
two-phase bubble flow. Int J Multiphase Flow, 2: 79–95.
Schubert, H. and Bischofberger, C., 1979, On the optimization of
hydrodynamics in flotation processes, In Proceedings of the 13th
International Mineral Processing Congress, vol. 2 , pp. 1261–1285.
Schubert, H., 1999, On the turbulence-controlled microprocesses
in flotation machines. Int J Miner Process, 56: 257–276.
Sherrell, I.M., 2004, Development of a flotation rate equation from
first principles under turbulent flow conditions, Ph.D. Thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA.
Schulze, H.J., 1993, Flotation as a heterocoagulation process:
possibilities of calculating the probability of flotation, in
Coagulation and Flocculation, Dobias, B. (ed) (Marcel Dekker,
New York), pp. 321–353.
Shy, S.S., Tang, C.Y. and Fann, S.Y., 1997, A nearly isotropic
turbulence generated by a pair of vibrating grids. Exp Thermal
Fluid Sci, 14: 251–262.
Simonin, O., 1990, Eulerian formulation for particle dispersion in
turbulent two-phase flows, In Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop
on Two-Phase Flow Predictions , pp. 156–166.
Smith, J.M., 1985, Dispersion of gases in liquids: the
hydrodynamics of gas dispersion in low viscosity liquids, in
Mixing of Liquids by Mechanical Agitation, Ulbrecht, J.J. and
Patterson, G.K., Patterson, G.K. (eds) (Gordon and Breach, New
York), pp. 139–201.
Spelt, P.D.M. and Biesheuvel, A., 1997, On the motion of gas
bubbles in homogeneous isotropic turbulence. J Fluid Mech,
336: 221–244.
Tiitinen, J., Vaarno, J. and Gronstrand, S., 2003, Numerical
modelling of an outokumpu flotation device, In Proceedings of
the Third Int. Conf. On CFD in Min and Proc. Industries , pp.
167–170.
Viollet, P.L. and Simonin, O., 1994, Modelling dispersed two-phase
flows: closure, validation and software development. Appl
Mech Rev, 47(6 (Part 2)): S80–S84.
Warmoeskerken, M.M.C.G. and Smith, J.M., 1985, Flooding of disc
turbines in gas–liquid dispersions: a new description of the
phenomenon. Chem Eng Sci, 40(11): 2063–2071.
Weber, A., Meadows, D., Villanueva, F., Palomo, R. and Prado, S.,
2005, Development of the world’s largest flotation machine, In
Centenary of Flotation Symposium , pp. 285–291.
Wechsler, K., Breuer, M. and Durst, F., 1999, Steady and unsteady
computations of turbulent flows induced by a 4/45◦ pitched
blade impeller. J Fluids Eng, 121: 318–329.
Yang, T.S. and Shy, S.S., 2003, The settling velocity of heavy
particles in an aqueous near-isotropic turbulence. Phys Fluids,
15(4): 868–880.
Yianatos, J., 2007, Fluid flow and kinetic modelling in flotation
related processes: columns and mechanically agitated
cells—a review. Chem Eng Res Des, 85(12): 1591–1603.
Yoon, R.H. and Luttrell, G.H., 1989, The effect of bubble size on
fine particle flotation. Miner Process Extract Metall Rev, 5:
101–122.