Numerical Modeling of Flow Dynamics in The Aluminum Smelting Process: Comparison Between Air–Water and CO2–Cryolite Systems

Abstract

Air–water models have been widely applied as substitutes for CO2–cryolite systems in the study of the complex bubble dynamics and bubble-driven flow that occurs in the molten electrolyte phase in the aluminum electrolytic process, but the detailed difference between the two systems has not been studied. This paper makes a numerical comparison between the bubble dynamics for the two systems. Simulations of both single bubble and continuous bubbling were conducted using a three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (3D CFD) modeling approach with a volume of fluid (VOF) method to capture the phase interfaces. In the single bubble simulations, it was found that bubbles sliding under an anode in a CO2–cryolite system have a smaller bubble thickness and a higher sliding velocity than those in the air–water system for bubbles of the same volume. Dimensionless analysis and numerical simulation show that contact angle is the dominant factor producing these differences; the effects of kinematic viscosity, surface tension, and density are very small. In the continuous bubbling simulations, the continuous stream of air bubbles detaches from the anode sidewall after a period of climbing, just as it does in the single bubble simulation, but bubbles have less tendency to migrate away from the wall. Quasi-stable state flow characteristics, i.e., time-averaged bath flow pattern, turbulence kinetic energy, turbulence dissipation rate, and gas volume fraction, show a remarkable agreement between the two systems in terms of distribution and magnitude. From the current numerical comparisons, it is believed that the air–water model is a close substitutive model for studying bubble-driven bath flow in aluminum smelting processes. However, because of the difference in bubble morphologies between the two systems, and also the reactive generation and growth of bubbles in the real system, there will likely be some differences in bubble coverage of the anode in the anode–cathode gap.