66 Int. J. Simulation and Process Modelling, Vol. 11, No.

1, 2016

Numerical evaluation of the low Reynolds turbulent

flow behaviour in a bioreactor

Daniela M. Koerich and Leonardo M. Rosa*

University of Caxias do Sul,
Caxias do Sul, RS, Brazil
Email: dmkoerich@ucs.br
Email: lmrosa1@ucs.br
*Corresponding author

Abstract: Bioreactors are commonly used in industry, owing to their low energy requirement.
These reactors are often operated at reduced flow rates in order to maintain a high retention
time, and reduce shear stress on the biomass. An important factor is the mixing between biomass
and substrate, and thus the maintenance of turbulence is important. Hence, the aim of this
work is the application of the CFD technique to obtain a better understanding of the turbulent
behaviour in an anaerobic sequencing batch reactor, with a nominal Reynolds number of about
1,700. This study considered a single-phase approach to evaluate several turbulence models.
The obtained results indicate that the flow has little influence on the regions in the transition
regime for the conditions evaluated, in spite of the low Reynolds number. Moreover, comparing
the use of different models, it was found that the Reynolds stress model does not require longer
time for its calculations.

Keywords: turbulence models; RANS approach; turbulent kinetic energy; eddy viscosity;
bioreactors; low Reynolds flow; computational fluid dynamics; CFD.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Koerich, D.M. and Rosa, L.M. (2016)
Numerical evaluation of the low Reynolds turbulent flow behaviour in a bioreactor, Int. J.
Simulation and Process Modelling, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.6675.

Biographical notes: Daniela M. Koerich received her Environmental Engineering degree from
the University of Caxias do Sul, where she started to study computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
techniques applied to environmental problems. She currently performs research and development
activities for the modelling and simulation of bioreactors. These activities are part of her
Masters work plan, as well as the reach of a better understanding of equipments used in the
treatment of wastewater through the use of numerical techniques. She also provide consultancy
in CFD.

Leonardo M. Rosa is a Professor of the University of Caxias do Sul. He received his Master
and PhD in Chemical Engineering from the State University of Campinas, where he has studied
models to simulate catalytic cracking reactors, used in the oil and gas industry for the oil
refining. Currently, he studies the dynamics of bioreactors, applied to wastewater treatment
and biofuels production. He has experience in numerical simulations, with emphasis to the use
of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to simulate multiphase flows, reactive mixtures and
turbulent phenomena. He also provide consultancy in CFD.

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled Numerical assessment of the
turbulent flow behavior in a pilot scale bioreactor presented at XI Simposio Latinoamericano
de Digestin Anaerobia, Havana/Cuba, 2427 November, 2014.

1 Introduction sustainable, since by-products such as glycerol and vinasse

are produced. These compounds are rich in organic matter,
which in turn can be used for the production of biogas and
Problems associated with pollution and global warming
biohydrogen.
act as a major boost for research in renewable energy
Biofuels may have a major contribution to the economy
alternative technologies (Davis and Higson, 2007). Aiming
in the long term, if their production technology is enhanced,
to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, two liquid
reducing the costs involved in the process (Neves, 2009).
biofuels have been used in global mobility to replace
One way to make biofuels economically favourable, when
gasoline and diesel: bio-ethanol and biodiesel, respectively
compared to other available fuels, is to improve their
(Demirbas, 2011). However, their production is not fully

Copyright 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Numerical evaluation of the low Reynolds turbulent flow behaviour in a bioreactor
production efficiency as well as the reactor configuration.
The anaerobic sequencing batch reactors (ASBR) stand out
among the settings used in the production of biofuels. These
bioreactors have been extensively studied since the early
nineties (Brito et al., 1997). Batch reactors, such as the
ASBR, allow greater control of the process when compared
to the continuous systems, demonstrating great potential for
use in industrial scale (Novaes et al., 2010).
In order to optimise the reactor configuration and
thus improve its performance, it is essential to know the
dynamics of the phases inside the bioreactor. The fluid
flow is established according to the flow rate applied to the
bioreactor. Often these reactors are operated at reduced flow
rates in order to maintain a high retention time, as well as to
prevent excessive shear on the flocs. This reduced flow rate
may result in different operation regimes in the bioreactor,
which can have regions not fully turbulent (Coughtrie et al.,
2013). Considering that the mixing between biomass and
substrate is promoted by the fluid recirculation inside the
reactor, turbulence becomes an important factor (Maurina
et al., 2014), and should be accurately evaluated. Often,
simulations can demonstrate the influence of a phenomena
on the process performance (Pian et al., 2015), reducing
the costs of repeated trials (Bo et al., 2015). In this sense,
the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) provides
several advantages. This technique enables the study of
the fluid flow in any regions of the domain, with greater
detail and accuracy. Therefore, processes can be visualised
and optimised through simulation, before carrying out
experiments on real scale, saving time and reducing costs
(Wang et al., 2010).
Many models and approaches are available to
numerically predict the turbulent behaviour of the flow.
However, due to the low Reynolds numbers commonly
found in bioreactors, it is difficult to establish valid
criterions to choose the most adequate model to simulate
the flow present in these equipments. Moreover, turbulence
models are credited to an over prediction of the buoyancy
forces in simulations of bioreactors (Ratkovich et al., 2009).
Thus, it is important to choose carefully the turbulence
model. One of the most popular methods is the use of
the Reynolds-averaged Navier-stokes (RANS) approach,
although there exist alternatives such as the large eddy
simulation (LES) to solve turbulent flows more accurately.
In the LES approach, the large scales of motion in a
turbulent flow are solved while modelling the small scales
(subgrid) with an eddy viscosity model. Applications
employing LES are emerging as one of the most important
aspects for the next generation of fluid dynamic design and
development (Kobayashi, 2006). However, this approach
requires considerably more refined meshes. Thus, for
several decades, practical methods will necessarily be
RANS, possibly unsteady, or RANS/LES hybrids, pure
LES being unaffordable (Spalart, 2000).
In the RANS approach, the Navier-Stokes equations
are averaged considering the Reynolds decomposition
procedure. The Boussinesq approximation can also be
applied, and thus a reduced number of equations are
solved. Disregarding this hypothesis, all components of the
67
turbulent stress need to be solved. This is performed in
the Reynolds stress model (RSM). Owing to its anisotropic
behaviour, it does not have some of the limitations found
in simpler models (Karthik, 2011), being able to predict
the flow characteristics in regions where sudden changes in
flow directions are expected (Lopes et al., 2012). However,
owing to its higher computational costs, the use of RSM
may not always be justified (Ansys Inc., 2011).
Turbulence models with two transport equations are
widely used, as they provide a favourable ratio between
computational cost and accuracy. The k-epsilon model,
numerically implemented by Launder and Spalding (1972),
solves one equation for the turbulent kinetic energy (k), and
another for its dissipation (epsilon). Despite its inefficiency
in predicting correctly the behaviour of some flows, it is
a good starting point for problems that require a basic
knowledge of the turbulence. It is, by far, the most
used model in simulations of complex turbulent flows,
including bioreactors dynamics, owing to its simplicity, low
computational requirement and good convergence (Ding
et al., 2010), despite this model proving unsuitable for
low Reynolds flows (Coughtrie et al., 2013). The shear
stress transport (SST) k-omega model, developed by Menter
(1994), has also two transport equations: one for a modified
version of k, and another for a combination of the
dissipation and the vorticity (omega). It adopts features of
the k-epsilon or k-omega models, depending on the flow
region.
Another important aspect refers to the presence of
transition regions. The transition regime, however, is still
difficult to determine. One of the most advanced models
available is the Re transition model, which is coupled
with the SST k-omega model as proposed by Langtry
and Menter (2005). This model has one transport equation
to estimate the intermittency coefficient (), and another
equation to the transition criterion expressed by the local
transition onset momentum thickness Reynolds number
). It was developed to be strictly based on local
(Re
variables (Furst et al., 2013). However, it also depends on
empirical transition correlations (Menter et al., 2002).
It can be noticed that, even restricted to the
RANS approach, there are several models with different
characteristics to predict turbulence. Thus, the aim of this
work is to provide a better understanding of the turbulent
behaviour of an anaerobic sequencing batch reactor, in
order to establish an adequate procedure for the simulation
of bioreactors. Little information about turbulence in these
equipments is found in literature, which can be justified
due to the low flow rates (and thus low Reynolds
numbers) in which these reactors usually operate. Most
of the works found in literature use simple models to
predict the turbulence in these equipments, disregarding
the use of other models. However, the establishment of
adequate models is an important preliminar step in order
to achieve correct results. CFD was used to achieve this
purpose, due to the ability of this technique to enable a
complete analysis of flows. Thus, we conducted a numerical
evaluation of several turbulence models, all considering
the RANS approach. The evaluated models include the
68 D.M. Koerich and L.M. Rosa

Spalart-Allmaras, transition SST k-omega, SST k-omega, 2.1 Large eddy simulation
k-epsilon, realisable k-epsilon, and RSM. Comparisons
were made evaluating the differences resulting from the One approach used to simulate turbulent flows is the
use of each model, when compared to those obtained using LES. It requires a refined mesh, in order to calculate the
the RSM, which is the only anisotropic model used, and behaviour of the larger turbulent eddies from the energy
thus able to predict the three-dimensional characteristics spectrum. In flows with low Reynolds number, the resulting
of turbulence (Launder and Spalding, 1972). Conclusions vortices are predominantly larger than those produced in
presented in this study would help to establish which flows with high Reynolds numbers. Thus, it would be
models are suitable for future works assessing equipments tempting to use this approach for simulating bioreactors.
with similar conditions. However, a calculation considering a Reynolds number of
1,689 and the geometric characteristics of the bioreactor
indicates that a uniform mesh needs 2.792 1011 control
2 Methods volumes to predict adequately the turbulence in the most
turbulent zones, near the inlet, with cells of y+ = 0.674.
Fluent 15 solver was used to evaluate the fluid dynamics This favours better research concerning the RANS models
in a pilot scale reactor, with a nominal volume of 125 L. available, which are detailed below.
A single-phase, three-dimensional, transient approach was
considered. It should be noted that the movement of the
bubbles promotes turbulence in bioreactors. However, for 2.2 Spalart-Allmaras model
this pilot scale reactor, it is estimated a production of
The Spalart-Allmaras model works well both for attached
1 m3 /d of biogas, which would correspond roughly in
flows, which is the case in bioreactors, and for many
a volume fraction of 1.85 103 bubbles present in the
detached flows (Rumsey, 2007). It is written in terms of the
reactor. When simulating the conditions of a 2-D bubble
turbulent quantity (Rumsey and Spalart, 2009), which is
column found in literature, with 5% of bubbles (Spicka
equal to the turbulent kinetic energy, except in the near-wall
et al., 2001), it was verified that the single-phase model
(viscosity affected) region:
proposed in this work is able to predict the liquid velocity,
providing results within 10% of accuracy. Similar profiles
were obtained using different turbulence models. In the ) + (U )
(
t
present study, there are a lower concentration of gas ( )2

bubbles, thus their presence was disregarded. This approach = Cb1 S Cw1 fw (4)
is already found in literature, as the presence of gas in the d
annular section can be negligible in biodigesters (Coughtrie 1 [ ]
+ (( +
) )2
) + Cb2 (
et al., 2013). The continuity and momentum equations are:
where S is a scalar measure of the deformation
+ (U ) = 0 (1)
t tensor, Cb1 = 0.1355, Cb2 = 0.622, Cw1 = Ckb1 2 +
1+Cb2
,
= 2/3 and k = 0.4187. The quantity is related to the
(U ) + (U U ) = ((U + U T )) eddy diffusivity (t ) as:
t
+ + g p (2) /)3
(
t =
3
where represents the phase density, t is the time, U is /)3 + C1
(
the mean velocity, is the molecular viscosity, g is the where is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid, and
gravity vector, and p is the pressure. is the turbulent C1 = 7.1. It must be highlighted that the Spalart-Allmaras
stress, resulting from the Reynolds averaging procedure model estimates the eddy diffusivity without the need to
applied to the instantaneous equations. Its components are calculate the turbulent kinetic energy.
calculated in the RSM. Other models considered in this
work use the Boussinesq hypothesis, thus the turbulent
2.3 k-epsilon model
stress is modelled as:
= t (U + U T ) The k-epsilon turbulence model is widely used. It uses two
where t is the eddies diffusivity. The momentum transport transport equations: one for the turbulent kinetic energy (k),
equation can then be expressed as: and another for its dissipation ():
[( ) ]
t
(U ) + (U U ) = (ef f (U + U T )) (k) + (U k) = + k)
t t k
+ g p (3) + P k (5)
where ef f represents the effective viscosity of the phase,
where k is a constant, and P k refers to the turbulent
defined as ef f = + t .
kinetic energy production:
A description of each turbulence model used in this
work is given in the following sections. P k = t U (U + U T )
 Numerical evaluation of the low Reynolds turbulent flow behaviour in a bioreactor 69

The equation which defines the dissipation of turbulent The coefficients of this new model are linear combinations
kinetic energy is written in the form: of the corresponding coefficients from the underlying
[( ) ] models:
t
() + (U ) = + ) 3 = F1 1 + (1 F1 )2
t

+ (C1 P C2 )
k
(6) The eddy diffusivity is calculated by:
k
0.31
k2 t = k
t = C max(0.31; F2 )

where is the vorticity magnitude:
The constants used in the k-epsilon model are given
by Ansys Inc. (2011), and are C = 0.09, C1 = 1.44, = (2ij ij )1/2
C2 = 1.92, k = 1.0 and = 1.3.
The weight functions F1 and F2 are critical to the success
of the method. Their formulation is based on the distance
2.4 Realisable k-epsilon model from the closest surface and on the flow variables:
( ( ) )4
In the realisable k-epsilon model, the original transport k 500 4k
F1 = tanh min max ; ;
equation for the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation is y y 2 Dk y 2
modified to:
( )2
[( ) ] 2 k 500

() + (U ) = +
t
) F2 = tanh max ;
t y y 2
2
+ C1 S C2 (7) where y is the wall distance, and Dk is given by:
k + ( )
( ) 2 10
Dk = max k; 10
2
C1 = max 0.43;
+5
The coefficients of this model are: k1 = 1.176, 1 = 2,
k k2 = 1, 2 = 1.168 and = 0.09. 3 is a combination
=S of 1 = 0.075 and 2 = 0.0828.

S = (2Sij Sij )1/2 2.6 Transition SST k-omega model

where S is the mean rate-of-strain tensor. One of its
characteristics is that the production term in the dissipation This model is one of the best to predict the transition
equation does not uses the turbulent kinetic energy regime. It determines the intermittency coefficient by the
production. Another desirable characteristic is that the equation:
destruction term does not reaches any singularity, even

when k becomes null (Ansys Inc., 2011). () + (U ) = P E
t [( ) ]
t
2.5 SST k-omega model + + (10)

The SST k-omega model is based on the k-epsilon and where P is the production term, containing the empirical
k-omega models to the transport of the turbulent shear variables Fonset to the beginning of the transition, and
stress. It gives accurate predictions of the beginning and the Flength to its length. The destruction term E enables the
flow separation quantity under adverse pressure gradients. relaminarisation of the boundary layer. They are given by:
The original equations of the k-omega and k-epsilon models
are multiplied by weight functions: P = Flength C1 S(Fonset )1/2 (1 Ce1 )
[( ) ]
t E = Ca2 Fturb (Ce2 1)
(k) + (U k) = + k)
t k3
The empirical relation for the transition beginning Fonset
+ P k k (8) depends on the critical Reynolds number Ret , which
gives the location where the turbulence begins to intensify.
This number (Ret ) is expressed by the parameter Re t ,
() + (U ) obtained using:
t [( ) ]
t
= + ) (9)
1 (Ret ) + (U Re
t ) (11)
t [ ]
2
+ (1 F1 ) k + 3 P k 3 2 = Pt + ( + t ) Re t
2 k
70 D.M. Koerich and L.M. Rosa

The constants are: Ca1 = 2.0, Ce1 = 1.0, Ca2 = 0.06, 2.8 Average values calculation
Ce2 = 50 and = 1.0 (Ansys Inc., 2011). The coupling
between the transition properties and the SST k-omega The mixing in the bioreactor was evaluated according
model are done modifying the production and destruction to its turbulent kinetic energy. Higher values indicate
terms of the turbulent kinetic energy in the original the presence of vortices which promote mixing. Thus,
transport equation: the weighted average turbulent kinetic energy (k) was
calculated through the equation (Rosa et al., 2015):

(kV )
(k) + (U k) k= (15)
t [( ) ] V
t
= + k) P k Y k (12) where V is the volume of the fluid in each control
k3
volume. As the simulations considered an incompressible,
single-phase flow, the volume average expressed in
Y = min(max(; 0.1); 1.0) equation (15) produces the same values also obtained
using a mass average procedure. Average values for the
turbulence in the bioreactor were used to compare the
prediction given by different models.
2.7 Reynolds stress model

The RSM is one of the most complete models of the 2.9 Solution
RANS approach. It neglects the isotropic eddies viscosity
hypothesis, and closes the average Navier-Stokes equations The solution of the equations set is done using the finite
calculating a transport equation for each component of volume method, as available in Fluent. A second order
the Reynolds stress tensor, as well as the dissipation upwind interpolating scheme was used to the flow and
transport. This means that seven additional transport turbulence variables, and a first order implicit scheme was
equations are calculated in three-dimensional problems, used in the transient formulation. The SIMPLE algorithm
with the advantage of being able to predict anisotropic was used to couple the pressure and velocity fields solution.
characteristics of turbulence in these cases. A maximum residual of 104 was used as convergence
The exact form of the transport equations for the criterion. An automatic timestep was chosen, small enough
Reynolds stress components can be expressed as: to maintain the CFL criterion below 1. In all simulations,
this criterion corresponded to a timestep below 0.01 s. Each
simulation was carried out using four cores in a HP Z600

(u u ) + (U u u ) workstation.
t [ ]
t Figure 1 Schematic representation of the studied bioreactor
= u u + u u (13)
k
2
(u u (U )T + (U )u u ) + I
3

where I is the identity tensor, and is the correlation

pressure-stress for an incompressible flow, which arises
from the linear pressure-strain model:

= 1 + 2 + w

where 1 is the slow pressure-strain term, 2 is called the

rapid pressure-strain term, and w is the wall-reflection
term.
The turbulent kinetic energy dissipation is given by:

[( ) ]
C k 2
() + (U ) = +
t

+ (C1 P k C2 ) (14)
k 2.10 Geometry

where k is obtained directly from its definition, k = u2 /2. The schematic diagram and the dimensions of the studied
The constants used in this model are k = 0.82, reactor are presented in Figure 1. The feeding is upward
C = 0.09, C1s = 1.80, C2s = 0.60, = 1, C1 = 1.44 with the inlet at the base and two outlets at the top of
and C2 = 1.92 (Ansys Inc., 2011). the reactor, where one was designed to recirculate the mix
 Numerical evaluation of the low Reynolds turbulent flow behaviour in a bioreactor
liquor and the other to withdraw the gases. Inlet and outlet
ducts have 0.02 m of diameter. In this work a turbulent
intensity of 5% was considered at the inlet, as well as
a recirculation flow rate of 22.5 L/min of water, which
gives a Reynolds number of 1,689. This value indicates the
presence of low values of turbulent kinetic energy in the
reactor, which emphasises the importance to evaluate the
transition regime.
3 Results and discussion
The optimum mesh refinement to simulate this
three-dimensional reactor was determined with 14
hexahedral meshes. These meshes were elaborated using
the software Icem 15, with sizes ranging from 24,000 to
700,000 control volumes. Using this software, most of the
hexahedra generated had an aspect ratio close to 1, with
the worst being equal to 0.045. All volumes were also kept
with smooth changes in size, the smallest being located in
regions where located at the inlet and outlets, as well as
more refined near the axis of the reactor (Figure 3). The
quality of the mesh generated in Icem was in the range of
values necessary for processing by Fluent. Values obtained
were between 0.41 and 0.55 in the quality criteria,
which relates the determinant, maximum orthogonality and
minimum angles.
Figure 2 GCI values calculated for the velocity profile located
at the bottom of the reactor
These meshes were evaluated after performing a simulation
(using the SST k-omega model) with each of them. The
method considered to estimate the discretisation errors in
each mesh was the Richardson extrapolation. Calculating
the grid convergence index (GCI) as described by Roache
(1997), for both pressure and the velocity at different
positions, it was found that a mesh containing 421,000
volumes is able to accurately predict the turbulent flow
(Figure 2). Considering this mesh, 3,000 seconds of flow
were simulated, and all time-averaged values, collected
from 500 seconds, have negligible variations after 1,600
seconds of flow. In both analysis (GCI and time), it was
verified that the top region of the reactor provided higher
oscillations, as the flow in this region required greater time
to be established when compared to the lower region: below
the height of 1 metre, the fluid flow was established in less
71
than 900 seconds. Moreover, the GCI value calculated for
the pressure in this mesh was approximately 0.01%. GCI
values for velocity were higher, with an average value of
4.59%.
The mesh with 421,000 control volumes was used
to conduct all the simulations. When operating with the
considered conditions, this reactor presents elevated local
Reynolds numbers only near the inlet. This behaviour was
predicted with all turbulence models (Figure 4).
3.1 Transition regime
The main difference between transition SST k-omega and
SST k-omega models is the consideration of the transition
regime, which affects the turbulence production in the SST
k-omega model. Disregarding the transition regime, both
models have similar equations to solve the turbulent kinetic
energy. To compare the results predicted with these two
models, weighted average turbulent kinetic energy values
(k) were calculated using equation (15). The difference
between the predicted turbulence using these models was
below 3%, which represents a little influence of the regions
in transition regime on the flow. It must be emphasised that
the studied bioreactor operates with low Reynolds numbers
(Figure 4), and thus the results found indicates that regions
in the transition regime in this reactor can be disregarded.
The time-averaged turbulent kinetic energy (k) fields
resulting from the use of SST k-omega and the transition
SST k-omega models are presented in Figures 5(a) and 5(b),
respectively. It can be noticed the similarity between both
results. Higher values for the turbulent kinetic energy were
found near the inlet, which were expected due to the shear
between the feeding stream and the fluid already present
inside the reactor. To further investigate the distinction
found using these two turbulence models, the difference
between the fields presented in Figures 5(a) and 5(b) was
calculated, by subtracting one result from another. It is
presented in Figure 5(c). The low values presented supports
the comparison made with average turbulent kinetic energy
values, and in Figure 5(c) it is illustrated that the little
influence (3%) of regions in the transition regime is present
only on the flow near the feeding stream.
3.2 Turbulence models
The flow predicted using each turbulence model is shown
using two-dimensional streamlines in Figure 6. They were
traced in a plane along the height of the reactor. The flow
predicted using the Spalart-Allmaras model [Figure 6(a)],
which uses one transport equation to estimate the eddy
diffusivity, is almost symmetrical, exhibiting vortices only
near the inlet and the outlet. As already highlighted in
the previous section, regions in the transition regime had
little influence on the flow, which is corroborated by
the results considering the transition regime [Figure 6(b)]
and disregarding it [Figure 6(c)]. Figure 6(d) represents
the turbulent flow obtained using the k-epsilon model,
and it shows similarity with the results obtained using
72 D.M. Koerich and L.M. Rosa

the RSM [Figure 6(f)]. Both present a turbulent central
stream near the inlet region, which transport the turbulent
eddies almost undisturbed along the reactor. For the flow
conditions evaluated in this work, this turbulent stream
may provide better mixture in the reactor. Considering that
the RSM is the most complete model among the models
considered, other models may underpredict the turbulence
in the bioreactor studied here. It must be also noted
the dissemblance between the flows predicted using the
k-epsilon and the realisable k-epsilon models [Figures 6(d)
and 6(e), respectively], which requires further investigation.
As already noted in Figure 6, each turbulence model
resulted in a different flow pattern, in spite of the low
Reynolds number of the simulated reactor. This emphasises
the importance of using an appropriate turbulence model,
and its influence even on systems with low turbulence.
To quantify the differences among the results obtained,
the average of the difference of k field, as expressed
in equation (15), was calculated. Although the predicted
values of the turbulent kinetic energy appear to be small, in
fact they are relatively high, since most of the reactor has an
average velocity below 0.05 m/s. In this case, as u has the
same order of magnitude of U , it is an indication that the
turbulence can affect not only the mixture in bioreactors,
but also the fluid dynamics in its interior. This can be an
explanation for the quite different flow patterns presented
in Figure 6. Table 1 summarises the results found, which
are discussed in the following sections.

Figure 3 Mesh with 421,000 control volumes: vertical cuts at the (a) bottom, (b) top and (c) cross section

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4 Contour plots for the local Reynolds number, obtained using (a) Spalart-Allmaras model, (b) transition SST k-omega model,
(c) SST k-omega model, (d) k-epsilon model, (e) realisable k-epsilon model, and (f) RSM

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

 Numerical evaluation of the low Reynolds turbulent flow behaviour in a bioreactor 73

Figure 5 Time-averaged turbulent kinetic energy fields predicted by (a) transition SST k-omega model, (b) SST k-omega model, and
(c) the difference between these results (see online version for colours)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6 Time-averaged streamlines obtained using (a) Spalart-Allmaras model, (b) transition SST k-omega model, (c) SST k-omega
model, (d) k-epsilon model, (e) realisable k-epsilon model, and (f) RSM

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Table 1 Turbulence statistics obtained using each model In all models, the flow is affected by an eddy diffusivity
(t ), whose values are presented in Table 1. Two values
t,max t kmax k are compared: the mean value throughout the reactor, and
Turbulence model
[kg/(m2 s)] [kg/(m2 s)] [m2 /s2 ] [m2 /s2 ] the maximum value, found in critical regions of the reactor
Spalart-Allmaras 1.2205 0.1419 - - [near the bottom of the reactor, depicted in Figure 3(a)],
Transition 0.6869 0.1542 0.0526 0.000904 where a higher difference is expected. It can be noticed that
SST k-omega the Spalart-Allmaras model overpredicts the maximum eddy
SST k-omega 0.6025 0.1419 0.0538 0.000882 diffusivity value. This is a widely used model for predicting
k-epsilon 0.5753 0.1813 0.0658 0.000954 external flows, e.g., around airfoils, and results presented
Realisable k-epsilon 0.0435 0.0008 0.0440 0.000794 here indicates that it may not be suitable for internal flows.
Reynolds 0.7018 0.1924 0.0501 0.001021 Moreover, the flow studied in this work have a Reynolds
stress model number noticeable lower that those of external flows.
In contrast to the Spalart-Allmaras model, the realisable
3.3 Eddy diffusivity k-epsilon model underpredicts the eddy diffusivity value,
presumably due to an overstatement in its correction in the
The turbulent properties predicted by each model can have dissipation equation for the flow conditions evaluated here.
different effects over the fluid flow, as seen in Figure 6. This is believed to be another cause of the dissemblance
74 D.M. Koerich and L.M. Rosa
between the streamlines produced using the k-epsilon and
the realisable k-epsilon models: the low eddy diffusivity
interferes in the turbulence distribution, resulting in an
excessive sinuosity of the flow. The other models evaluated
(SST k-omega, k-epsilon and RSM) produced comparable
results. SST k-omega resulted in a closer t,max , and
k-epsilon resulted in a closer t , when both were compared
to RSM.
3.4 Turbulent kinetic energy
Another important parameter is the mixing inside the
reactor, which is quantified using the turbulent kinetic
energy. Two values were compared (maximum and mean
values) for most of the models, with the exception of the
Spalart-Allmaras model, which do not give a prediction
for the turbulent kinetic energy. For the other models,
results were compared against the RSM results, as it is
the most complete model among the models considered
in this work. It predicted the highest value for the
mean turbulent kinetic energy (k). This result corroborates
the assumption previously made, that other models may
underpredict the turbulence in the bioreactor. However, the
highest maximum value (kmax ) was obtained using the
k-epsilon model, 31.37% higher. The realisable k-epsilon
model corrects this value, mostly due to its abnormal low
values predicted for the eddy diffusivity, but also results in
the lowest values of turbulence overall (k). It can be noticed
that both the k-epsilon and the realisable k-epsilon models
presents values which do not agree between themselves,
and both have noticeable differences when compared to
the RSM model. The results obtained using the SST
k-omega model were close to those found using RSM,
7.35% and 13.59% for kmax and k respectively. It must
be emphasised that, among the models considered here,
only the RSM is anisotropic, thus it can predict values of
u u [equation (13)] for each direction, which can provide
more accurate results when compared to isotropic models.
Higher values of k further emphasises the low influence of
the transition regime in the conditions normally found for
bioreactors.
3.5 Time
Depending on the required parameter, a model simpler than
RSM can give good predictions. However, in addition to the
qualitative and quantitative comparisons among the models,
the time spent to perform each simulation should also be
considered. Comparing the time needed to simulate 1,600
seconds of flow in a mesh with 421,000 control volumes,
presented in Figure 7, it is can be seen that all models
solving two equations were faster, being the k-epsilon
model the fastest. It was expected that the RSM, which
solves seven transport equations, would be the slowest.
However, the transition SST k-omega, which solves 4
equations, and also requires an iterative method to estimate
t , requiring considerable more time to determine the
Re
transition regime. The SST k-omega also needed more time
than the RSM, as well as the Spalart-Allmaras model, both
requiring the solution of expressions involving hyperbolic
functions. Therefore, it was determined that the RSM was
the most adequate model to simulate the case in study, as it
is efficient regarding the simulation time when compared to
models using fewer equations. Among the other models, the
SST k-omega model stands as another interesting choice,
in spite of its higher computational time, as it predicts
reasonably well the turbulent parameters (average and
instantaneous turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation). It
should be noted that the use of LES approach would require
a considerably larger mesh, with 2.792 1011 control
volumes, than the one used. Thus, using this approach
would require a longer time for simulation, when compared
to the RANS simulations.
Figure 7 Time required using (a) Spalart-Allmaras model,
(b) transition SST k-omega model, (c) SST k-omega
model, (d) k-epsilon model, (e) realisable k-epsilon
model, and (f) RSM
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
4 Conclusions
A numerical comparison of different models to predict
the turbulent behaviour in a bioreactor was performed.
It was established that, under the considered operating
conditions, the effects of regions in the transition regime
can be neglected. In spite of the low Reynolds number
of the bioreactor, a turbulence model can be used without
incurring any appreciable differences when disregarding the
transition regime. Owing to the low velocities present in
the reactor, turbulence can affect significantly the fluid
dynamics in its interior. Different models produced results
significantly different, and popular models such as the
k-epsilon are not necessarily as good as more complete
models. Another finding was that, among the models
considered in this work, the isotropic ones tended to
underestimate the turbulence inside the reactor. It was also
found that the RSM (which was the only anisotropic model
used) is not much slower than simpler models, despite the
larger number of equations to solve. Thus, it is concluded
that the RSM was the most adequate model to predict the
behaviour of this bioreactor. A wide range of RANS models
are available for the simulation of turbulent flows, and
using a more complete model as the RSM in preliminary
studies may be more feasible than the application of LES
approach. A better understanding of the turbulent flow
was achieved, allowing to obtain more accurate values of
velocity and turbulent kinetic energy. This is necessary to
 Numerical evaluation of the low Reynolds turbulent flow behaviour in a bioreactor
predict with confidence the mixing in bioreactors, and thus
its efficiency.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Petrobras and FAPERGS for the
financial support.
References
Ansys Inc. (2011) Ansys Fluent Documentation Theory Guide,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Bo, S., Wang, J., Sun, L., Bai, F. and He, K. (2015)
Structural optimisation and analysis of internally heat
integrated reactive distillation column, International Journal
of Simulation and Process Modelling, Vol. 10, No. 4,
pp.307314.
Brito, A.G., Rodrigues, A.C. and Melo, L.F. (1997) Feasibility of
a pulsed sequencing batch reactor with anaerobic aggregated
biomass for the treatment of low strength wastewaters,
Water Science and Technology, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.193198.
Coughtrie, A.R., Borman, D.J. and Sleigh, P.A. (2013) Effects
of turbulence modelling on prediction of flow characteristics
on a bench-scale anaerobic gas-lift digester, Bioresource
Technology, Vol. 138, pp.297306.
Davis, F. and Higson, S.P.J. (2007) Biofuelcells recent
advances and applications, Biosensors and Bioelectronics,
Vol. 22, No. 7, pp.12241235.
Demirbas, A. (2011) Competitive liquid biofuels from biomass,
Applied Energy, Vol. 88, pp.1728.
Ding, J., Wang, X., Zhou, X.F., Ren, N.Q. and Guo, W.Q.
(2010) CFD optimization of continuous stirred-tank (CSTR)
reactor for biohydrogen production, Bioresource Technology,
Vol. 101, pp.70057013.
urst, J., Straka, P., Prihoda J. and Simurda,
F D. (2013)
Comparison of several models of the laminar/turbulent
transition, EPJ Web of Conferences, Vol. 45, p.01032.
Karthik, T.S.D. (2011) Turbulence models and their applications,
in 10th Indo German Winter Academy.
Kobayashi, T. (2006) Large eddy simulation for engineering
applications, Fluid Dynamics Research, Vol. 38, pp.84107.
Langtry, R.B. and Menter, F.R. (2005) Transition modeling for
general CFD applications in aeronautics, AIAA Journal,
Vol. 522, pp.114.
Launder, B.E. and Spalding, D.B. (1972) Mathematical Models of
Turbulence, Academic Press, London, England.
Lopes, G.C., Rosa, L.M., Mori, M., Nunhez, J.R. and
Martignoni, W.P. (2012) CFD study of industrial FCC
risers: the effect of outlet configurations on hydrodynamics
and reactions, International Journal of Chemical
Engineering, Paper ID No. 193639, Vol. 2012, pp.116.
Maurina, G.Z., Rosa, L.M., Beal, L.L., Baldasso, C.,
Gimenez, J.R., Torres, A.P. and Sousa, M.P. (2014) Effect
of internal recirculation velocity in an anaerobic sequencing
batch reactor (ASBR), Brazilian Journal of Chemical
Engineering, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.895903.
75
Menter, F.R., Esch, T. and Kubacki, S. (2002) Transition
modelling based on local variables, in 5th International
Symposium on Turbulence Modeling and Measurements,
Spain.
Menter, F.R. (1994) Two equation eddy-viscosity turbulence
models for engineering applications, AIAA Journal, Vol. 32,
No. 8, pp.15981605.
Neves, L.M.V. (2009) Producao de biohidrogenio por bacterias
a partir de residuos
fermentesciveis, Master dissertation,
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Novaes, L.F., Saratt, B.L., Rodrigues, J.A.D., Ratusznei, S.M.,
Moraes, D., Ribeiro, R., Zaiat, M. and Foresti, E. (2010)
Effect of impeller type and agitation on the performance of
pilot scale ASBR and AnSBR applied to sanitary wastewater
treatment, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 91,
pp.16471656.
Pian, J., Wang, Z., Zhu, Y., Chai, T. and Li, J. (2015)
Engineering-oriented simulation platform for laminar
cooling process of hot rolled strips, International Journal
of Simulation and Process Modelling, Vol. 10, No. 4,
pp.327333.
Ratkovich, N., Chan, C.C.V., Berube, P.R. and Nopens, I. (2009)
Experimental study and CFD modelling of a two-phase slug
flow for an airlift tubular membrane, Chemical Engineering
Science, Vol. 64, pp.35763584.
Roache, P.J. (1997) Quantification of uncertainty in
computational fluid dynamics, Annual Reviews in Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 29, pp.123160.
Rosa, L.M., Maurina, G.Z., Beal, L.L., Baldasso, C., Torres, A.P.
and Sousa, M.P. (2015) Influence of interfacial forces on
the mixture prediction of an anaerobic sequencing batch
reactor (ASBR), Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering,
Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.531542.
Rumsey, C.L. and Spalart, P.R. (2009) Turbulence model
behavior in low Reynolds number regions of aerodynamic
flowfields, AIAA Journal, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp.982993.
Rumsey, C.L. (2007) Apparent transition behavior of widely-used
turbulence models, International Journal of Heat and Fluid
Flow, Vol. 28, pp.14601471.
Spalart, P.R. (2000) Strategies for turbulence modelling and
simulations, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow,
Vol. 21, pp.252263.
Spicka, P., Dias, M.M. and Lopes, J.C.B. (2001) Gas-liquid flow
in a 2D column: comparison between experimental data and
CFD modelling, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 56,
pp.63676383.
Wang, X., Ding, J., Guo, W.Q. and Ren, N.Q. (2010)
Scale-up and optimization of biohydrogen production
reactor from laboratory-scale to industrial-scale on the basis
of computational fluid dynamics simulation, International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 35, pp.1096010966.