The flow and tracer transport in an ozone contactor is simulated by using computational fluid dynamics. The standard k- model, RNG k- model, realizable k- model and SST k- model are used to describe turbulence. A step change method is used to simulate the residence time distribution. The residence time and cumulative residence time are compared with laboratory experiments. All turbulence models can capture the feature of the residence time distribution and cumulative residence time distribution. The residence time distribution in the initial period is sensitive to the used turbulence model, which can affect the value of Morrill dispersion index. The standard k- model behaves better among four turbulence models.

  • RTD in the initial period is sensitive to turbulence models.

  • MDI is greatly affected by turbulence models.

  • The standard k-ɛ model behaves better among four turbulence models.

Ozone disinfection plays an important role in the advanced treatment of drinking water because of its strong disinfection effect, high disinfection efficiency, and wide range of sterilization (Helen et al. 2003; Lee et al. 2015; Verma et al. 2016; Kolosov et al. 2018). However, bromate, which is a potential carcinogen (group 2B), may be produced when water contains bromide ions (Kim et al. 2007). Therefore, it is very important to control the formation of bromate in the ozone disinfection process. The amount of bromate produced in ozone disinfection process can be affected by ozone dosage, reaction time, ozone distribution, reaction temperature, and concentration of bromide ion. To control the bromate production and improve the disinfection efficiency, the hydrodynamics, raw water quality and operating conditions should be carefully determined during ozone disinfection.

Residence time distribution has been widely used to evaluate the hydrodynamics in ozone contactors (Wilson & Venayagamoorthy 2010). Commonly used values are , , , representing the ratio of the time for 10, 50 and 90% of inlet tracer flowing out of the ozone contactor, respectively (Ender & Mustafa 2018). In addition, the Morrill dispersion index (MDI), which is defined as the ratio of the characteristic residence time to , is used to evaluate the relationship between the mixing level of the fluid and the relative distribution of the tracer between and in the ozone contactor. Recently, a new parameter, namely recirculation factor, was presented to characterize the contact tank, which is defined as the difference between unity and the ratio of the volume occupied by the recirculation zones and the overall volume of the reactor (Bruno et al. 2021). These parameters can be obtained by the tracer experiment (Martin et al. 1992; Wols et al. 2008; Kim et al. 2010a) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) (Choi et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2007, 2014a; Talvy et al. 2011; Zou et al. 2017; Aparicio-Mauricio et al. 2020). Contact tank geometry has a significant effect on the mixing efficiency. Slot-baffled and perforated baffled contact tank have been developed to improve the mixing efficiency and optimize disinfection treatment (Aral & Demirel 2017; Demirel & Aral 2018a; Bruno et al. 2020, 2021).

Flow in ozone contactors is usually turbulent. The simulation of turbulence plays an important role in the prediction of residence time distribution. Large-eddy simulation (LES) is viewed as a powerful tool in the simulation of ozone contactors (Wang & Falconer 1998; Kim et al. 2010b, 2013; Zhang et al. 2013a, 2013b, 2014b; Demirel & Aral 2016). Wang & Falconer (1998) investigated residence time distribution using and LES. The peak time was mainly influenced by the advection effect. Kim et al. (2010b, 2013) conducted by a three-dimensional numerical simulation of flow and tracer transport in a multichamber ozone contactor using LES. It was concluded that LES is a powerful tool in the simulation of ozone contactors. Zhang et al. (2013a, 2013b, 2014b) simulated the flow and tracer transport in the ozone contactor using the open-source numerical library OpenFoam and both the model and LES. Good agreement between the numerical data and the experimental data was obtained for cumulative residence time distributions. Demirel & Aral (2016) simulated mixing efficiency in multi chamber contact tanks based on vorticity field in combination with both and LES. Conversely, several researchers only used model to simulate residence time distribution in ozone contactors with different baffle configurations (Wols et al. 2008; Demirel & Aral 2018b; Goodarzi et al. 2020; Kizilaslan et al. 2020).

Although LES is able to better simulate the disinfectant mixing with the flow, LES requires substantially finer meshes than those used for two-equation turbulence models and a very long flow-time for performing statistics of the flow. Thus, an expensive computational effort is required in LES. Considering a compromise in the accuracy and computational effort, the present study simulates the flow in the ozone contactor using the Reynolds-averaged governing equations. The effect of two-equation turbulence models on the residence time distribution is investigated in detail.

Flow equations

Ozone contactors are usually equipped with multiple baffles to direct flow. The simple plug flow model is not capable of describing this kind of flow. CFD is a powerful tool to simulate flow in ozone contactors. Considering the steady flow, the movement of water can be described by the continuity equation and the momentum equations as follows:
(1)
(2)
where is the density, is the pressure, is the coordinate component, is the velocity component, is the dynamic viscosity, is the turbulent stress.

Eddy viscosity model

Following the Boussinesq assumption, the turbulent stress can be expressed as follows:
(3)
(4)
where is turbulent viscosity, k is the turbulent kinetic energy, is the dissipation rate of the turbulent kinetic energy. should be determined by a suitable turbulence model.

Standard model

The standard model has been widely used to simulate the turbulent flow. The governing equations of the turbulent kinetic energy k and its dissipation rate of turbulence are written as follows:
(5)
(6)
where is the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to the averaged velocity gradient, expressed as follows:
(7)

The model constants , , , and take the values of 0.09, 1.44, 1.92, 1.0, 1.3, respectively.

RNG model

The RNG model is derived based on the renormalization group theory. Similar to the standard model, the governing equations of the turbulent kinetic energy k and its dissipation rate of turbulence are solved, which is written as follows:
(8)
(9)
where and are the reciprocals of the effective turbulence Prandtl number of the kinetic energy k and its dissipation rate , is an additional term related to the rapidly strained flows. The model constants , , , and take the values of 0.0845, 1.42, 1.68, 1.393, 1.393, respectively.

Realizable model

The realizable model also solves the turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation rate. However, the turbulent viscosity and the governing equation of the dissipation rate are modified to satisfy mathematical constraints on the normal Reynolds stresses. The governing equations of the turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation rate of turbulence are written as follows:
(10)
(11)
with
(12)

The model constants , , and take the values of , 1.9, 1.0, 1.2, respectively, where .

SST model

The standard model can reproduce low Reynolds number effects and shear flow spreading, however, it has freestream sensitivity. The SST model is a combination of the standard model and the model. That is, the standard model is applied near the wall whereas the model is applied away from the wall. The transport equations of k and are expressed as follows:
(13)
(14)
with
(15)
(16)
where and are dissipation terms for k and , respectively, is the cross-diffusion term, is the blending function. The model constants , , and take the values of 1.176, 1.0, 2.0, 1.168, respectively.

Governing equations for tracer

In order to analyze hydraulic efficiency, a numerical tracer study is conducted by solving the Reynolds-averaged advection diffusion equation for passive tracer concentration as follows:
(17)
where C is the Reynolds-averaged tracer concentration.

A three-dimensional ozone contactor is shown in Figure 1. The ozone contactor has a cross-section of 230 mm240 mm and a length of 480 mm along the flow direction. Three baffles with the dimensions 180 mm230 mm evenly distribute along the vertical direction with an interval of 120 mm, dividing the ozone contactor into four chambers with the same dimension of 230 mm240 mm120 mm. The inlet has a dimension of 230 mm30 mm.

Figure 1

Schematic of the ozone contactor.

Figure 1

Schematic of the ozone contactor.

Close modal
Hexahedral mesh is used to discretize the computational domain, as shown in Figure 2. Three sets of grid are tested for grid sensitivity, namely grid 1 (1,953,640 cells), grid 2 (2,381,700 cells) and grid 3 (2,782,330 cells). Figure 3 shows the velocity and the turbulence viscosity computed using the standard model along the line (x = 0.3 m, y = 0.115 m) for three sets of grid. These two parameters have a significant effect on the tracer transport such that they are selected for grid sensitivity. The nearly identical velocity profiles are obtained for three sets of grid. Turbulent viscosity computed using grid 2 and grid 3 are also nearly the same. Thus, the present 2,381,700 cells can achieve satisfactory results. No-slip condition is imposed at all walls. Standard wall function is used for turbulence near walls, which writes for :
(18)
where is the dimensionless velocity at the wall-adjacent cell centroid P, is the dimensionless distance from the wall, is the von Kármán constant. When exists, is assumed (Ansys 2020). The inlet velocity is 0.029 m s1, the turbulence intensity is 0.08, and the turbulent viscosity coefficient ratio is 0.1. Water surface is set as a symmetry. The pressure is specified at the outlet. At the inlet the concentration of tracer is set as . Thus, the variation of tracer concentration with time at the outlet is just the cumulative residence time distribution . The residence time distribution at the outlet can be obtained by:
(19)
Figure 2

Mesh of the ozone contactor. (a) Front view; (b) top view.

Figure 2

Mesh of the ozone contactor. (a) Front view; (b) top view.

Close modal
Figure 3

Grid sensitivity. (a) Velocity along the line (x = 0.3 m, y = 0.115 m); (b) turbulent viscosity along the line (x = 0.3 m, y = 0.115 m).

Figure 3

Grid sensitivity. (a) Velocity along the line (x = 0.3 m, y = 0.115 m); (b) turbulent viscosity along the line (x = 0.3 m, y = 0.115 m).

Close modal

ANSYS Fluent is used to solve governing equations. The pressure–velocity coupling is treated using the SIMPLE algorithm. All convection terms are discretized with second-order upwind differencing scheme. When the residuals for all equations except tracer concentration are less than , the computations is assumed convergent. The residual criterion for tracer concentration is . Compared to the standard model, the computational efforts of RNG model, realizable model and SST model are 124, 140 and 160%, respectively. This is due to additional nonlinearities of these three models.

Residence time distribution

Residence time distributions computed from four turbulence models are shown in Figure 4. The experimental data from Kim et al. (2010a) are also included. All turbulence models capture three peaks with decreasing magnitudes on the curves of residence time distribution. The number of peaks was in accordance with that observed in the experiment. However, the magnitude of peaks for all turbulence models was greater than those experimental values, especially in the first peak. Accordingly, the computed residence time distribution is less than the experimental values after the normalized time is greater than 0.5. The initial peaks are 1.53, 2.01, 2.29, 2.54 for the standard model, the RNG model, the realizable model and the SST model, respectively, which is greater than the experimental value of 0.99. Among four turbulence models, the standard model obtains the lowest peak on the curve of residence time distribution. Correspondingly, the curve for the standard model is closer to the experimental curve than the other three turbulence models. Compared with the standard model, the first and second peaks of the other three turbulence models shifted to the left. The phenomenon demonstrates the existence of a short stream in the ozone contactor. However, the predicted values of the valley in the RTD curve by the RNG model, the realizable model and the SST model are very close to the experimental value.

Figure 4

Comparison of RTD and experimental values.

Figure 4

Comparison of RTD and experimental values.

Close modal

The cumulative residence time distributions for four turbulence models are shown in Figure 5. The cumulative residence time distribution curves are obtained by integrating the residence time distribution curves. All turbulence models predict a relatively bigger values of cumulative residence time than the experimental values. This discrepancy is obvious in the initial period of the experiment. As time proceeds, all predicted curves tend close to the experimental values. In general, all turbulence models reproduce the cumulative residence time. Among the four turbulence models, the cumulative time distribution of the standard model is in better agreement with the experimental values. Therefore, the standard model has the best simulation effect on the internal water flow in the ozone contactor.

Figure 5

Comparison of cumulative RTD and experimental values.

Figure 5

Comparison of cumulative RTD and experimental values.

Close modal
From the RTD curve, the averaged mean residence time at the outlet can be calculated as follows:
(20)

The experimental value is 111.25 s while the computed values are 109.87 s, 109.39 s, 108.52 s and 107.42 s for the standard model, the RNG model, the realizable model and the SST model, respectively. All computed values are in good agreement with the experimental value. It should be pointed out that the distributions of mean residence time at the outlet for different turbulence models are different.

The comparisons of dimensionless residence time for four turbulence models are shown in Table 1. All values of , , , and MDI for the standard model have the smallest error, showing the good capability in the simulation of the internal flow of the ozone contactor.

Table 1

Dimensionless residence time

ItemsRelative errorRelative errorRelative errorMDI
EXP 0.398 – 0.957 – 1.872 4.70 
Standard  0.385 −3.2% 0.838 −12.4% 1.881 0.48% 4.89 
RNG  0.307 −22.9% 0.806 −15.8% 2.015 7.64% 6.56 
Realizable  0.307 −22.9% 0.755 −21.1% 2.083 11.3% 6.79 
SST  0.266 −33.1% 0.719 −24.9% 2.184 16.7% 8.21 
ItemsRelative errorRelative errorRelative errorMDI
EXP 0.398 – 0.957 – 1.872 4.70 
Standard  0.385 −3.2% 0.838 −12.4% 1.881 0.48% 4.89 
RNG  0.307 −22.9% 0.806 −15.8% 2.015 7.64% 6.56 
Realizable  0.307 −22.9% 0.755 −21.1% 2.083 11.3% 6.79 
SST  0.266 −33.1% 0.719 −24.9% 2.184 16.7% 8.21 

Analysis of velocity field

The velocity field at the mid-plane (m) is shown in Figure 6. Multiple recirculation regions exist in the ozone contactor. In each compartment a big recirculation region and a small one are formed. Water moves mainly along a curved flow passage, as indicated by the green color in Figure 6. This curved passage determines the shape of residence time distribution at the outlet. All four turbulence models predicted the above feature. The difference lies in the maximum velocity in the curved flow passage. The standard model gives the maximum value of the maximum velocity, as shown in Figure 6(c). The patterns of the re circulation region in the first compartment are similar for four turbulence models. The standard and RNG models predicted the similar pattern of the recirculation region in other three compartments. However, the patters of the re circulation region in other three compartments are totally different for realizable and SST models. Especially, the flow velocity in the fourth compartment predicted by SST model is less than other three models. Thus, SST model gives the biggest magnitude of the first peak in residence time distribution. In general, velocity range predicted by the standard model was less than that by the other three turbulence models. That is, the tracer under the other three turbulence models can get to the outlet earlier, thus the first peaks in the RTD curve shifted to left.

Figure 6

Velocity distribution at the plane of m. (a) Standard model; (b) RNG model; (c) realizable model; (d) SST model. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/ws.2021.154.

Figure 6

Velocity distribution at the plane of m. (a) Standard model; (b) RNG model; (c) realizable model; (d) SST model. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/ws.2021.154.

Close modal

Analysis of turbulent viscosity

The turbulent viscosity at the mid-plane (y = 0.115 m) is shown in Figure 7. The turbulent viscosity predicted by the standard and RNG models are similar in shape. However, the magnitude predicted by the standard models is the largest, so its hydraulic residence time is also the smallest. The patterns of the turbulent viscosity computed by realizable and SST models are different from those computed by the Standard and RNG models. In general, the magnitudes computed by RNG and realizable k- models and SST model are close.

Figure 7

The turbulence viscosity distribution at the plane of m. (a) Standard model; (b) RNG model; (c) realizable model; (d) SST model.

Figure 7

The turbulence viscosity distribution at the plane of m. (a) Standard model; (b) RNG model; (c) realizable model; (d) SST model.

Close modal

Flow and tracer transport in the ozone contactor is conducted by using CFD. Residence time distribution is calculated based on the tracer concentration. All turbulence models capture the feature of residence time distribution and cumulative residence time distribution. The discrepancy between the experiment and all turbulence models is observed in the initial period. The standard k- model predicts the smallest peak and shifts the position of the peak to the right. The other three turbulence models obtained similar positions for the peaks, however a larger peak value was predicted value was predicted. All turbulence models reproduced the mean residence time at the outlet.

In terms of velocity and turbulent viscosity in the ozone contactor, multiple re-circulating region and dead zones exist in the reactor. Compared with the other three turbulence models, the standard k- model predicts the small velocity in the curved flow passage and a big value of turbulent viscosity. The difference in velocity field leads to the discrepancy in the residence time distribution.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

Ansys
.
2020
ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide
.
Aparicio-Mauricio
G.
,
Rodríguez
F. A.
,
Pijpers
J. J.
,
Cruz-Díaz
M. R.
&
Rivero
E. P.
2020
CFD modeling of residence time distribution and experimental validation in a redox flow battery using free and porous flow
.
Journal of Energy Storage
29
,
101337
.
Bruno
P.
,
Di Bella
G.
&
De Marchis
M.
2020
Perforated baffles for the optimization of disinfection treatment
.
Water
12
(
12
),
3462
.
Bruno
P.
,
Di Bella
G.
&
De Marchis
M.
2021
Effect of the contact tank geometry on disinfection efficiency
.
Journal of Water Process Engineering
41
,
102035
.
Choi
B. S.
,
Wan
B.
,
Philyaw
S.
,
Dhanasekharan
K.
&
Ring
T. A.
2004
Residence time distributions in a stirred tank: comparison of CFD predictions with experiment
.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
43
(
20
),
6548
6556
.
Demirel
E.
&
Aral
M. M.
2018a
An efficient contact tank design for potable water treatment
.
Teknik Dergi
29
,
8279
8294
.
Demirel
E.
&
Aral
M. M.
2018b
Performance of efficiency indexes for contact tanks
.
Journal of Environmental Engineering
144
(
9
),
04018076
.
Ender
D.
&
Mustafa
A.
2018
Performance of efficiency indexes for contact tanks
.
Journal of Environmental Engineering
144
(
9
),
1
13
.
Helen
E.
,
Mike
B.
,
Nigel
G.
,
Joe
H.
&
Tuan
T.
2003
The role of ozone in improving drinking water quality in London and Oxford
.
Ozone Science & Engineering
25
(
5
),
409
416
.
Kim
D.
,
Elovitz
M.
,
Roberts
P. J. W.
&
Kim
J.
2010a
Using 3D LIF to investigate and improve performance of a multichamber ozone contactor
.
Journal American Water Works Association
102
(
10
),
61
70
.
Kim
D.
,
Kim
D.
,
Kim
J.
&
Stoesser
T.
2010b
Large eddy simulation of flow and tracer transport in multichamber ozone contactors
.
Journal of Environmental Engineering
136
(
1
),
22
31
.
Kim
D.
,
Stoesser
T.
&
Kim
J.
2013
The effect of baffle spacing on hydrodynamics and solute transport in serpentine contact tanks
.
Journal of Hydraulic Research
52
(
1
),
152
154
.
Kizilaslan
M. A.
,
Nasyrlayev
N.
,
Kurumus
A. T.
,
Savas
H.
,
Demirel
E.
&
Aral
M. M.
2020
Experimental and numerical evaluation of a porous baffle design for contact tanks
.
Journal of Environmental Engineering
146
(
7
),
04020063
.
Kolosov
P.
,
Peyot
M.
&
Yargeau
V.
2018
Novel materials for catalytic ozonation of wastewater for disinfection and removal of micropollutants
.
Science of The Total Environment
644
,
1207
1218
.
Martin
N.
,
Benezet-Toulze
M.
,
Laplace
C.
,
Faivre
M.
&
Langlais
B.
1992
Design and efficiency of ozone contactors for disinfection
.
Ozone: Science & Engineering
14
(
5
),
391
405
.
Talvy
S.
,
Debaste
F.
,
Martinelli
L.
,
Chauveheid
E.
&
Haut
B.
2011
Development of a tool, using CFD, for the assessment of the disinfection process by ozonation in industrial scale drinking water treatment plants
.
Chemical Engineering Science
66
(
14
),
3185
3194
.
Verma
K.
,
Gupta
D.
&
Gupta
A.
2016
Optimization of ozone disinfection and its effect on trihalomethanes
.
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering
4
(
3
),
3021
3032
.
Wilson
J. M.
&
Venayagamoorthy
S. K.
2010
Evaluation of hydraulic efficiency of disinfection systems based on residence time distribution curves
.
Environmental Science & Technology
44
(
24
),
9377
9382
.
Wols
B.
,
Uijttewaal
W.
,
Rietveld
L.
,
Stelling
G.
,
van Dijk
J.
&
Hofman
J.
2008
Residence time distributions in ozone contactors
.
Ozone: Science & Engineering
30
(
1
),
49
57
.
Zhang
L.
,
Pan
Q.
&
Rempel
G. L.
2007
Residence time distribution in a multistage agitated contactor with newtonian fluids: cFD prediction and experimental validation
.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
46
(
11
),
3538
3546
.
Zhang
J.
,
Tejada-Martinez
A.
&
Zhang
Q.
2013a
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simulation of the flow and tracer transport in a multichambered ozone contactor
.
Journal of Environmental Engineering
139
(
3
),
450
454
.
Zhang
J.
,
Tejada-Martinez
A.
&
Zhang
Q.
2013b
Hydraulic efficiency in RANS of the flow in multichambered contactors
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
139
(
11
),
1150
1157
.
Zou
Z.
,
Zhao
Y.
,
Zhao
H.
,
Zhang
L.
,
Xie
Z.
,
Li
H.
&
Zhu
Q.
2017
CFD simulation of solids residence time distribution in a multi-compartment fluidized bed
.
Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering
25
(
12
),
1706
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).