4.3 Article

Shear stress computation in a millimeter thin flat panel photobioreactor: Numerical design validated by experiments

Journal

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND APPLIED BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 68, Issue 1, Pages 60-70

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bab.1894

Keywords

VOF; OpenFOAM; shear stress

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Flat panel photobioreactors are commonly used to study light effects on microalgae cultures, but are limited by low cell density. Thinner reactors may be designed to address this issue, although they can induce high shear stress.
Flat panels are the most spread type of photobioreactors for studying light effects on a microalgae culture. Their low thickness, usually between 1 and 3 cm, aims at ensuring light homogeneity across the culture. Yet because optical density has to remain very low, studies are still limited to low cell density cultures. To alleviate this problem, even thinner photobioreactors can be designed. Nevertheless, thin flat panel reactors are very prone to induce high shear stress. This work aimed at designing a new millimeter thin panel photobioreactor to study light effects on Chlorella and Scenedesmus genera. We proposed a numerical workflow that is capable of assessing the shear stress intensity in such a reactor. The numerical predictions were validated at three different levels: 2D preliminary simulations were able to reproduce bubble commonly known behaviors; close to the nozzle, the predictions were successfully confronted to shadowgraphy experimental reference; at the mini bioreactor scale, experimental and numerical mixing were found to be close. After these throughout validations, shear stress intensity in the photobioreactor was calculated over 1000 Lagrangian tracers. The experienced shear stress was agglomerated at the population level. From the computed shear stress, it was possible to choose the minimal reactor thickness that would not hinder cell growth.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available