Journal of Fluid Flow, Heat and Mass Transfer (JFFHMT)

ISSN: 2368-6111

Nomenclature

• : semi-major axis of the OEB
• b: semi-minor axis of the OEB
• c: semi-depth axis of the OEB
• B: buoyancy force
• : drag coefficient
• : equivalent diameter of the OEB
• D: drag force
• Eo: Eötvös number ()
• : Froude number ( for OEB) and ( for SCB)
• : acceleration due to gravity
• M: Morton number ()
• OEB: oblate ellipsoidal bubble
• Rc: basal radius of SCB
• Re: Reynolds number (Re= U/)
• : equivalent radius
• Rsc: radius of curvature of the SCB
• SCB: spherical-cap bubble
• U: velocity of the OEB
• We: Weber number (We=2U²/)
• x: aspect ratio of the OEB
• V: volume of the OEB
• : absolute viscosity
• : kinematic viscosity
• : density of liquid
• : surface tension

1. Introduction

There are three main stages of bubble shape development during rise in an extended liquid: spherical, ellipsoidal, and spherical-cap (SCB). The main industrial applications of bubble dynamics are found in nuclear power generation, chemical industry, oil transportation, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, and mineral processing.

Moore [1] analysed the motion of the OEB and obtained an equation for the variation of the drag coefficient with respect to the aspect ratio of the OEB and Reynolds number (Re=Ud_eq/) where U is the bubble velocity, d_eq is the equivalent diameter, and is the kinematic viscosity of the liquid.

Meiron [2] solved for the distortion of the OEB from its spherical shape as the bubble velocity increased using potential flow theory. He predicted a functional relationship between Weber number(We=2U²/) where σ is the surface tension and aspect ratio (Fig. 1).

On the experimental front, Wu and Gharib [3] concluded from their experiments that the OEB acquired a spiral path and became unstable when the bubble equivalent diameter exceeded 0.15cm or the aspect ratio exceeded 1.6. Talaia [4] performed a similar experiment to ours but used air-water system and air- glycerol system as an additional testing liquid. He acknowledged the viscosity-independence rise of a large bubble but did not make a clear distinction between the OEB and the SCB.

Wenyuan et al. [5] performed similar experiments to ours, but they used non-Newtonian aqueous solutions of polyacrylamide (PAM) and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC). Only in CMC aqueous solutions, bubbles shapes look oblate ellipsoidal similar to the ones we observed and recorded. PAM aqueous solutions produced some peculiar shaped bubbles. Aoyama et al. [6] studied the shapes of OEB's rising in infinite stagnant liquids and produced an empirical correlation for the bubble aspect ratio as a function of Eötvös and Reynolds numbers. Their definition of the aspect ratio is the reciprocal of ours. The work of Veldhuis et al.[7] revealed the existence of wakes behind the rising OEB's by using Schliern optics. They found a correspondence between these wakes and the spiraling motion of the OEB.

It appears from the literature survey that no information was provided for the experimental measurements of the drag coefficient of OEB. The main objective of this experiment was to demonstrate the possibility of measuring the dimensions of the OEB to determine its velocity and drag coefficient. In addition, some validation of previous theoretical work, by the first author, was attempted.

2. Theory

2.1. The Drag on the OEB

The drag coefficient of the OEB is defined as follows

The drag force D in this equation was obtained by calculating the buoyancy force B acting on the OEB as these two forces oppose each other during the rise of the OEB under steady state conditions. Omitting the weight of the bubble, the buoyancy force B becomes

where is the density of the liquid and is the acceleration due to gravity. Substituting this equation in Eq. (1) and B=D, yields the following

Here is the Froude number that compares the inertial forces to the gravitational forces acting on the bubble. This equation shows the viscous effects and the presence of surfactants do not play a significant role on the drag particularly at high Re numbers. Ellingsen and Risso [14] arrived at similar equation but with different parameters. This specific Fr number was chosen to be based on the minor axis "b" because it is considered as the main axis responsible for the symmetry of the bubble. This specific Fr number is a more sensitive indicator of the oblateness of the bubble, than that based on the equivalent diameter normally employed by other authors.

To make the drag coefficient based on the equivalent radius, we used .

2.2. The Drag on the SCB

The following proof is to check the validity of the drag dependence on the Fr number. We analyzed the case of the steady rise of the SCB. For Re > 100, the drag coefficient data approaches , a value obtained by many authors (e.g., [9, 10]).

The volume of the SCB (Fig. 2) is as follows [11]

where is the wake angle, and =.

The wake angle of the SCB lies within the range of (45 - 56) degrees [12, 13]). Assuming that an average wake angle of 52 degrees was considered, Eq. (4) becomes the following

It should be noted that the factor 0.129 in this equation has a range of 0.077- 0.166 based on the choice of with the average value of . The volume of an equivalent sphere corresponding to the above volume is as follows

Equating Eq. (4) and (5) yields,

From the idealized geometry of the SCB (Fig. 3), we have

This radius is useful in calculating the drag coefficient as it provides for the projected area as shown below

where is the drag coefficient of the SCB based on equivalent radius, and is the equivalent radius of the equivalent spherical volume of the SCB. Setting the drag force equal to buoyancy, the following is derived

Through further simplification of this equation,

where

and

Davis and Taylor [18] found in their work that

Substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (10) yields

As far as the authors are aware, this new equation for the drag coefficient of the SCB was not reported before. Further, the equation needs consideration for future validation work. This is a powerful equation that determines the drag from a single measurement of the wake angle. For 52 degrees, this equation becomes

Substituting this equation into Eq. (8), yields

This is the same equation of Wegener and Parlange [9] mentioned earlier. Thus, we proved that the new Fr number-dependent drag coefficients of Eq. (3) have some kind of validity.

3. Apparatus and Procedure

The experiments were carried out in a Plexiglas column with a 1.219m height and a cross-section of 15.2x15.2 cm (Fig. 3). The column was filled with tap water at 20 ^oC at atmospheric pressure.

Air was introduced into the column via an air compressor, a pressure regulated air receiver, clear vinyl tubing, and a manually operated valve. The clear tube was fitted with a glass cane-shaped appendage. The cane-shaped glass ensured the bubble would rise in the middle of the tank. A 1cc syringe with an inside needle diameter of 0.1397mm was used to introduce air bubbles into the column through a hand controlled valve. Illumination for the experiment was achieved using flood lights. A Canon camera 60D, with a Tamron SP 24-70MM F/2.8 Di VC USD lens was used with an image resolution of 0.084 x 0.081 mm/pixel (5184 x 3456 effective pixel size). The camera with a 7 fps (frames/second) rate was manually moved to ensure the bubble remained in the center of the frame of reference throughout its rise. Calibration of bubble size was accomplished via three solid spherical beads with diameters of 4.978 ±0.001mm, 3.3937±0.0001mm, and 2.972±0.001mm respectively. The beads were lowered into the rectangular column with clear fishing string. The typical distance on which the bubble was filmed was (20-30cm). No attempt was made to measure the rising speed of the camera. The camera was moved manually following the rise of the OEB bubble. The following equivalent sphere diameter was used in the processing of the data

where is the volume of the OEB that is given by

and is the semi-major axis, b is the semi-minor axis, and c is the semi depth axis ( Fig. 1). The photographs produced a two-dimensional image with measurable and b axes. The length c was assumed to be equal to the semi-major axis; therefore, Eq. (18) becomes

The OEB bubble velocity was not measured directly, but calculated using the following [12]

in this equation was measured and used to calculate bubble velocity. The water properties were listed in Table 1. When the bubble detaches from the needle, its shape is spherical ( =1). As the bubble rises in the column, its shape flattens, gradually becomes OEB and its motion becomes oscillatory.

Figure 4 shows the flow regime map of the three main bubble shapes (i.e. spherical, ellipsoidal, and spherical cap) as given by Clift et al. [12]. Based on calculating Re number, Morton number (), and Eötvös number (), our experimental results fall within the OEB region (filled dots). This region was characterized by Clift et al. [9] as a wobbling OEB. Our results were concerned with the mean rising motion and deformation of the bubble.

Our range of Re number was 506 - 979, M = 2.569 x , and the range of was 0.415 - 2.41.

Figure 5 shows a typical photograph of the rising OEB in water with the hanging calibration beads.

Table 1. Water properties at 20 ̊C.

Density kg/m3	Surface Tension N/m	Kinematic viscosity m2/s
998.2	72.74*10-3	1.0034*10-6

4. Results and Discussion

We followed the experimental evidence of Ellingsen and Risso [14] who proved the influence of surfactant of the tap water was negligible on the bubble motion. This, in addition to the derived Eq. (3), motivated us to use Eq. (20) in the present calculations of the bubble velocity, despite the fact that the equation was supposed to be applied to a clean system. The bubble emerges from the tip of the needle via a hand-regulated valve. It starts rising in spherical form, and then it changes to ellipsoidal.

Figure 6 A, B, and C show favourable comparisons between the present experimental data (particularly Fig. 6B and C) and the theoretical results of Kendoush [8], Moore [1], and Blanco and Magnuadet [15]. There is a discrepancy at =1.5 of Fig. 6A between theory and experimental data. This can be attributed to the closeness of =1.5 to bubble sphericity. Bubble motion in this region is rectilinear and Ellingsen and Risso [14] indicated that the rectilinear trajectory is unstable. However, Kendoush's [8] theory seems to be closer to the experimental data than both Moore [1] and Blanco and Magnuadet [15]. It should be noted that the values of the aspect ratio was obtained directly from the photographs of the OEB, hence the photographs determined the values of .

The newly-derived Equation (3) indicates that the drag forces are independent of viscous effects. For sufficiently high Reynolds number, the drag coefficient no longer evolves with the Re number. Figure 7 shows a close agreement between the derived Eq. (3) and the experimental data. The experimental data are based on the velocity of bubble rise obtained from Eq. (20) and the measured bubble dimension b. These velocities and b were used into to get .

5. Uncertainty Analysis

To find the uncertainty in the measured values of , we substitute Eq. (19) into (17) to get the following after simplification

Call the uncertainty in Uncertainty can be obtained by applying the following equation (Holman [16])

where the uncertainty in measuring the parameter "" is = ± 0.01mm and the uncertainty in measuring b is = ± 0.05 mm. Adding these errors to those reported in §3, we get mm and = ± 0.0952 mm. Partial differentiating Eq. (21) and substituting in Eq. (22) yielded = ± 1.665 mm or (21.16%).Suneetha and Raghuram [17] measured the bubble diameter by using a high speed camera. They reported 18% percentage error in their measurements. The same procedure was done on Eq. (20) and yielded = ± 3.596 cm/s or 9.65 %. In addition, using Eq. (3) yielded = ± 0.0783 or 19.79 %.

6. Conclusion

The present work dealt with experiments on isolated air bubbles of the oblate ellipsoidal shape. Oblate ellipsoidal bubble was rising in still water. Photographs of OEB's were captured and analysed, and the data were recorded. From the photographic data, we obtained information on bubble velocity and drag. The present experimental results validated the newly-derived drag Eq. (3). This study showed that the present results also validated earlier publication of Kendoush's [8] drag equations of the OEB at high oblateness values.

Future studies will include alternate fluids, thus varied Re numbers, and aspect ratio values.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Southern Nuclear Company, Mr. Stephen Schroeder, Mr. J. Michael Weiksner, Sr., Dr. David M. Maryniak, and Ms. Sherrie Rowe for their efforts and support.

References