Effect of orifice size and bond number on bubble formation characteristics: A CFD study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The volume of fluid with the continuum surface force (VOF‐CSF) model has been used in the present numerical study to investigate bubble formation and shapes in a bubble column. The effects of orifice sizes ranging from 0.5–1.5 mm on the bubble formation stages (i.e., expansion, elongation, and pinch‐off), bubble contact angle, departure diameter, time, and shape of bubble are investigated under a constant inlet velocity (0.2 m/s) boundary condition (BC). It is found that the initial formation of a bubble is dependent on the orifice diameter. Consequently, the formation of the bubble's hemispherical shape at the orifice is faster for a smaller orifice diameter than for a larger orifice diameter which forms a bigger bubble. A leading bubble requires a longer time to detach itself from an orifice in comparison to the next bubble (the second bubble), but interestingly the third bubble detaches much faster than the second. This model was also used to investigate the effect of the Bond number (Bo σ ). An increase of the Bond number (Bo σ ) from 0.047 to 0.16 speeds up the bubble pinch‐off, but a further increase in the Bo σ (e.g. 0.17–0.47) slows it down. Based on the simulated cases used in this study, the findings demonstrate the capacity and accuracy of the CFD method in predicting bubble formation characteristics. The findings may be useful in the design of spargers for bubble column reactors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".