37 views

Uploaded by Aditya Kashyap

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Shock Waves
- P Malan AIAA2009 Gamma Re Theta
- Clanak Zakucac Dobre Slike
- Pandya_uta_2502D_12458
- Narrative Momentum
- 3) Momentum Test
- IRJET-Design and Fluid Flow Analysis of F1 Race Car
- 2. CFD Study Spreadsheets Use
- AUSM+ALLSPEEDS
- UT Dallas Syllabus for phys3341.001.08s taught by Paul Macalevey (paulmac)
- DNV RP-F105_2006-02
- Mesh-Intro 17.0 M05 Mesh Quality and Advanced Topics
- Users guide
- A Boundary Element Method Applied to Strongly Nonlinear Wave-Body Interaction Problems 2007
- tray 19
- OptiStruct and RADIOSS Difference hypermesh
- SCORG_Pumplinx_Setup_V5.1
- NuFoam_SAFIR2010 (1)
- Lesson 4-A2 Physics
- CFD Analysis of Symmetrical Tangential Inlet Cyclone Separator

You are on page 1of 17

Gas–Solid Systems

B. G. M. van Wachem, J. C. Schouten, and C. M. van den Bleek

DelftChemTech, Chemical Reactor Engineering Section, Delft University of Technology,

2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands

R. Krishna

Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

J. L. Sinclair

School of Chemical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907

Many gas ] solid CFD models ha®e been put forth by academic researchers, go®ern-

ment laboratories, and commercial ®endors. These models often differ in terms of both

the form of the go®erning equations and the closure relations, resulting in much confu-

sion in the literature. These ®arious forms in the literature and in commercial codes are

re®iewed and the resulting hydrodynamics through CFD simulations of fluidized beds

compared. Experimental data on fluidized beds of Hilligardt and Werther (1986), Ke-

hoe and Da®idson (1971), Darton et al.(1977), and Kuipers (1990) are used to quanti-

tati®ely assess the ®arious treatments. Predictions based on the commonly used go®ern-

ing equations of Ishii (1975) do not differ from those of Anderson and Jackson (1967)

in terms of macroscopic flow beha®ior, but differ on a local scale. Flow predictions are

not sensiti®e to the use of different solid stress models or radial distribution functions, as

different approaches are ®ery similar in dense flow regimes. The application of a differ-

ent drag model, howe®er, significantly impacts the flow of the solids phase. A simplified

algebraic granular energy-balance equation is proposed for determining the granular

temperature, instead of sol®ing the full granular energy balance. This simplification does

not lead to significantly different results, but it does reduce the computational effort of

the simulations by about 20%.

Introduction

Gas]solid systems are found in many operations in the of CFD calculations. Sinclair Ž1997. gives an extensive intro-

chemical, petroleum, pharmaceutical, agricultural, biochemi- duction on applying CFD models for gasrsolid risers. Al-

cal, food, electronic, and power-generation industries. Com- though single-phase flow CFD tools are now widely and suc-

putational fluid dynamics ŽCFD. is an emerging technique cessfully applied, multiphase CFD is still not because of the

for predicting the flow behavior of these systems, as it is nec- difficulty in describing the variety of interactions in these sys-

essary for scale-up, design, or optimization. For example, tems. For example, to date there is no agreement on the ap-

Barthod et al. Ž1999. have successfully improved the perform- propriate closure models. Furthermore, there is still no

ance of a fluidized bed in the petroleum industries by means agreement on even the governing equations. In addition, pro-

posed constitutive models for the solid-phase stresses and the

interphase momentum transfer are partially empirical.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to B. G. M. van

Wachem. CFD models of gas]solid systems can be divided into two

Current address for B. G. M. van Wachem and J. C. Schouten: Laboratory of groups, Lagrangian models and Eulerian models. Lagrangian

Chemical Reactor Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, P. O. Box 513,

5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands. models, or discrete particle models, calculate the path and

motion of each particle. The interactions between the parti- over the total space is normalized to unity:

cles are described by either a potential force Žsoft-particle

dynamics, Tsuji et al., 1993. or by collision dynamics Žhard- `

particle dynamics, Hoomans et al., 1995.. The drawbacks of 4p H0 g Ž r . r 2 dr s1. Ž1.

the Lagrangian approach are the large memory requirements

and the long calculation time and, unless the continuous

The ‘‘radius’’ l of function g is defined by

phase is described using direct numerical simulations ŽDNS.,

empirical data and correlations are required to describe the

l `

gas]solid interactions. Eulerian models treat the particle H0 g Ž r . r 2

dr s Hl g Ž r . r 2 dr , Ž2.

phase as a continuum and average out motion on the scale of

individual particles, thus enabling computations by this

method to treat dense-phase flows and systems of realistic If l is chosen to satisfy a< l < L, where a is the particle

size. As a result, CFD modeling based on this Eulerian radius and L is the shortest macroscopic length scale, aver-

framework is still the only feasible approach for performing ages defined should not depend significantly on the particu-

parametric investigation and scale-up and design studies. lar functional form of g or its radius.

This article focuses on the Eulerian approach and com- The gas-phase volume-fraction e Ž x . g and the particle

pares the two sets of governing equations, the different clo- number density nŽ x . at point x are directly related to the

sure models, and their associated parameters that are em- weighting function g:

ployed in the literature to predict the flow behavior of

gas]solid systems. Unfortunately, many researchers propose

governing equations without citing, or with incorrectly citing, e Ž x. gs HV g Ž N x y yN . dV y Ž3.

g

a reference for the basis for their equations. Both Anderson

and Jackson Ž1967. and Ishii Ž1975. have derived multiphase nŽ x . s Ý g Ž N x y x p N . , Ž4.

flow equations from first principles, but the inherent assump- p

tions in these two sets of governing equations constrain the

types of multiphase flows to which they can be applied. One where Vg is the fluid-phase volume, and x p is the position of

of the objectives of our current contribution is to show how the center of particle p. The local mean value of the fluid-

these two treatments differ; it is shown that Ishii’s Ž1975. phase point properties, - f )g , is defined by

treatment is appropriate for a dispersed phase consisting of

fluid droplets, and that Anderson and Jackson’s Ž1967. treat-

ment is appropriate for a dispersed phase consisting of solid e Ž x . g - f )g Ž x . s HV f Ž y . g Ž N x y yN . dV . y Ž5.

particles. In the case of a solid dispersed phase, many re- g

concepts to describe the solid-phase stresses resulting from The solid-phase averages are not defined like the fluid-

particle]particle interactions. Various forms of the constitu- phase averages, since the motion of the solid phase is deter-

tive models based on these concepts have been applied in the mined with respect to the center of the particle, and average

literature. The qualitative and quantitative differences be- properties need only depend on the properties of the particle

tween these are shown in this article. The predictions of CFD as a whole. Hence, the local mean value of the solid-phase

simulations of bubbling fluidized beds, slugging fluidized point properties is defined by

beds, and bubble injection into fluidized beds incorporating

these various treatments are compared to the ‘‘benchmark’’ n Ž x . - f )s Ž x . s Ý f s Ž N x y x p N . . Ž6.

experimental data of Hilligardt and Werther Ž1986., Kehoe p

and Davidson Ž1971., Darton et al. Ž1977., and Kuipers Ž1990..

The average space and time derivatives for the fluid and

solid phases follow from the preceding definitions. The aver-

Governing Equations

aging rules are then applied to the point continuity and mo-

Most authors who refer to the origin of their governing mentum balances for the fluid. For the solid phase, the aver-

equations refer to the work of Anderson and Jackson Ž1967. aging rules are applied to the equation of motion of a single

or Ishii Ž1975.. Anderson and Jackson Ž1967. and Jackson particle p:

Ž1997. wwith correction in Jackson Ž1998.x use a formal math-

ematical definition of local mean variables to translate the ©s

point Navier-Stokes equations for the fluid and the Newton’s r sVp HS s Ž y . n Ž y . ds q Ý

s f q p q r sVp g , Ž7.

equation of motion for a single particle directly into contin- t p

g y

q/ p

uum equations representing momentum balances for the fluid

and solid phases, as earlier suggested by Jackson Ž1963.. The where ©s is the particle velocity, r s is the particle density, Vp

point variables are averaged over regions that are large with is the volume of particle p, sg is the gas-phase stress tensor,

respect to the particle diameter, but small with respect to the S p denotes the surface of particle p, and f q p represents the

characteristic dimension of the complete system. A weighting resultant force exerted on the particle p from contacts with

function, g Ž N x y yN ., is introduced in forming the local aver- other particles.

ages of system point variables, where N x y yN denotes the The resulting momentum balances for the fluid and solid

separation of two arbitrary points in space. The integral of g phases, dropping the averaging brackets - ) on the vari-

ables, are as follows: Table 1. Governing Equations Applied to Gas–Solid Flow

Continuity equations

e g

rg e g ©g q ©g ?=©g s= Ž e g sg . q=? Ž e g ©g . s 0

t t

e s

q=? Ž e s ©s . s 0

t

yÝ HS sg ? n Ž y . g N x y yN ds y q r g e g g Ž8.

p p Momentum equations of Jackson (1997)

©g b

rg q ©g ?=©g s=? t g y=P y Ž ©g y ©s .q r g g

t eg

rg es ©s q ©s ?=©s s Ý g N x y x p N HS s n Ž y . ds

t p

g y

©s ©g b

p

rs e s q ©s ?=©s y r g e s q ©g ?=©g s Ž ©g y ©s .

t t eg

q=? ss q r s e s g . Ž9. q e s Ž r s y r g . g q=? ts y=Ps

in alternative form:

©g

The first term on the righthand side of the gas-phase equa- rg e g q ©g ?=©g s e g=? t g y e g=P y b Ž ©g y ©s .q e g r g g

tion of motion represents the effect of stresses in the gas t

phase, the second term on the righthand side represents the ©s

rs e s q ©s ?=©s s e s=? t g y e s=P q=? ts y=Ps q b Ž ©g y ©s .

traction exerted on the gas phase by the particle surfaces, t

and the third term represents the gravity force on the fluid. q e s rs g

The first term on the righthand side of the solid-phase equa- Momentum equations of Ishii (1975)

tion of motion represents the forces exerted on the particles ©g

rg e g q ©g ?=©g sy e g=P q=? e g t g q e g r g g y b Ž ©g y ©s .

by the fluid, the second term on the righthand side repre- t

sents the force due to solid]solid contacts, which can be de- ©s

rs e s q ©s ?=©s sy e s=P q=? e sts q e s r s g q b Ž ©g y ©s .

scribed using concepts from kinetic theory, and the third term t

represents the gravity force on the particles. The averaged applied to gas-solid flow ŽEnwald et al., 1996.:

shear tensor of the gas phase can be rewritten with the New- ©g

rg e g q ©g ?=©g sy e g=P q=? e g t g q e g r g g y b Ž ©g y ©s .

tonian definition as t

©s

rs e s q ©s ?=©s sy e s=P q=? ts y=Ps q e s r s g q b Ž ©g y ©s .

mg T t

sg sy Pg I q =©g q Ž =©g . , Ž 10.

eg Definitions

2

t i s 2 m i Di q l i y m i tr Ž Di . I

ž /

3

where the gas-phase volume-fraction is introduced in the vol- 1 T

ume process. Di s w =©i q Ž =©i . x

2

Note that the forces due to fluid traction are treated dif-

ferently in the fluid-phase and solid-phase momentum bal- Note: The explanation of the symbols can be found in the Notation.

ances. In the particle phase, only the resultant force acting

on the center of the particle is relevant; the distribution of

stress within each particle is not needed to determine its mo- difference in the manner in which the resultant forces due to

tion. Hence, in the solid-phase momentum balance, the re- fluid tractions act on the surfaces of the particles is a key

sultant forces due to fluid traction acting everywhere on the distinction between the Jackson Ž1997. and Ishii Ž1975. for-

surface of the particles are calculated first, after which these mulations. In the Ishii Ž1975. formulation, applicable to fluid

are averaged to the particle centers. In the fluid-phase mo- droplets, the fluid-droplet traction term is the same in the

mentum balance, the traction forces at all elements of gas phase and the dispersed-phase governing equations.

fluid]solid interaction are calculated, and then are averaged The integrals involving the traction on a particle surface

to the location of the surface elements. Hence, the fluid-phase have been derived by Nadim and Stone Ž1991. and are given

traction term is given as in Jackson Ž1997. as

b

Ý HS sg ? n Ž y . g N x y yN ds y s Ý g N x y x p NHS sg ? n Ž y . ds y Ý g N x y x p NHS sg ? n Ž y . ds y s e Ž ©g y ©s . q r g e s g

p p p p p p g

Df © g

q rg es Ž 12.

½

y=? a Ý g N x y x p N

p

HS

p

5

sg ? n Ž y . n Ž y . ds y q O Ž = 2 . , Dt

Ž 11. =? a Ý g N x y x p N HS sg ? n Ž y . n Ž y . ds y sy= Ž e s Pg . ,

p p

about the center of the particle with radius a. Here terms of

O Ž = 2 . and higher have been neglected. Note that the first where b is the interphase momentum transfer coefficient.

term on the righthand side of Eq. 11 is the same as the fluid The final equations of motion for both phases according to

traction term in the particle-phase momentum balance. The Jackson Ž1997. are shown in Table 1, both in the form as

originally presented in his article, and in an equivalent alter- ligible, and

native form, which is merely a linear combination of the orig-

inal equations. Mk sdragq - Pk )=e k . Ž 18.

In Ishii’s Ž1975. formulation, the fluid and dispersed phases

are averaged over a fixed volume. This volume is relatively The momentum equations for the gas phase and the dis-

large compared to the size of individual molecules or parti- persed phase following the original work of Ishii Ž1975. are

cles. A phase indicator function is introduced, X Ž r ., which is shown in Table 1. Many researchers and commercial codes

unity when the point r is occupied by the dispersed phase, modify Ishii’s Ž1975. equations to describe gas]solid flows

and zero if it is not. Averaging over this function leads to the Žsuch as Enwald et al., 1996.. These modified equations are

volume fraction of both phases: also shown in Table 1. When Ishii’s Ž1975. equations are ap-

plied to gas]solid flows, the solid-phase stress tensor is not

1 multiplied by the solid volume fraction, since the volume-

es s HV X Ž r . dV ,

r Ž 14.

V fraction functionality is already accounted for in the kinetic

theory description.

where V is the averaging volume. Since both the continuous Comparing the Ishii Ž1975. and Jackson Ž1997. momentum

and dispersed phases are liquids, they are treated the same balances, the differences are twofold. First, Jackson Ž1997.

in the averaging process. Hence, the momentum balances for includes the solid volume fraction multiplied by the gradient

both phases are the same, of the total gas-phase stress tensor in the solid-phase mo-

mentum balance, whereas Ishii Ž1975. only includes the solid

e k r k - ©k ) volume-fraction multiplied by the gradient of the pressure.

q=? Ž e k r k - ©k ) - ©k ) . Second, in the Ishii Ž1975. approach in the gas-phase mo-

t mentum balance, the pressure carries the gas volume fraction

sy= Ž e k - Pk ) . q=? Ž e k -t k ) . q e k r k g q Mk , Ž 15. outside the gradient operator; the shear stress carries the gas

volume fraction inside the gradient operator. In Jackson

Ž1997. both stresses are treated equally with respect to the

where k is the phase number and Mk is the interphase mo-

gas volume fraction and the gradient operators. When the

mentum exchange between the phases, with M g q M s s 0. In

gas-phase shear stress plays an important role, these differ-

the Ishii Ž1975. formulation, the distribution of stress within

ences may be significant near large gradients of volume frac-

both phases is important since the dispersed phase is consid-

tion, that is, near bubbles or surfaces.

ered as fluid droplets. Hence, ‘‘jump’’ conditions are used to

determine Mk . The interphase momentum transfer is defined

as Closure Relations

Kinetic theory

1 Closure of the solid-phase momentum equation requires a

Mk sy Ý

Lj

Ž Pk n k y n k ? t k . description for the solid-phase stress. When the particle mo-

j

tion is dominated by collisional interactions, concepts from

1 gas kinetic theory ŽChapman and Cowling, 1970. can be used

sÝ Ž Ž - Pki )y Pk . n k y - Pki ) n k y n k to describe the effective stresses in the solid phase resulting

j Lj

from particle streaming Žkinetic contribution. and direct col-

? Ž -t ki )yt k . q n k ? -t ki ) . , Ž 16. lisions Žcollisional contribution.. Constitutive relations for the

solid-phase stress based on kinetic theory concepts have been

derived by Lun et al. Ž1984., allowing for the inelastic nature

where L j is the interfacial area per unit volume, Pk is the

of particle collisions.

pressure in the bulk of phase k, - Pki ) is the average pres-

Analogous to the thermodynamic temperature for gases,

sure of phase k at the interface, t k denotes the shear stress

the granular temperature can be introduced as a measure of

in the bulk, and -t ki ) represents the average shear stress

the particle velocity fluctuations.

at the interface. The terms Ž - Pki )y Pk . n k and n k ? Ž -t ki

)yt k . are identified by Ishii Ž1975. as the form drag and

1

the skin drag, respectively, making up the total drag force. Us - ©Xs2 ). Ž 19 .

The other terms can be written out as 3

Mk sdragq - Pk )=e k q Ž - Pki )y - Pk ) . =e k Since the solid-phase stress depends on the magnitude of

these particle-velocity fluctuations, a balance of the granular

y Ž =e k . ? -t ki ). Ž 17. energy Ž 32 Q . associated with these particle-velocity fluctua-

tions is required to supplement the continuity and momen-

According to Ishii and Mishima Ž1984., the last term on tum balance for both phases. This balance is given as

the righthand side is an interfacial shear term and is impor-

tant in a separated flow. According to Ishii Ž1975., the term 3

Ž - Pki )y - Pk ) . only plays a role when the pressure at Ž e s r sQ . q=? Ž e s r sQ©s . s y=Ps I qts :=©s

ž /

2 t

the bulk is significantly different from that at the interface, as

in stratified flows. For many applications both terms are neg- y=? Ž k s=Q . ygs y Js , Ž 20.

where the first term on the righthand side represents the cre- mean free path to tend toward infinity, and the solids viscosi-

ation of fluctuating energy due to shear in the particle phase, ties tends toward a finite value as the solid volume fraction

the second term represents the diffusion of fluctuating en- tends to zero. Hence, by constraining the mean free path, the

ergy along gradients in Q, gs represents the dissipation due limit of the Hrenya and Sinclair Ž1997. shear viscosity expres-

to inelastic particle ]particle collisions, and Js represents the sion correctly tends to zero as the solid volume fraction ap-

dissipation or creation of granular energy resulting from the proaches zero. In dense solid systems Ž e s ) 0.05., there is no

working of the fluctuating force exerted by the gas through difference in the predicted solids viscosity of Lun et al. Ž1984.

the fluctuating velocity of the particles. Rather than solving and Hrenya and Sinclair Ž1997.. The Syamlal et al. Ž1993.

the complete granular energy balance given in Eq. 20, some solids shear viscosity also tends to zero as the solid volume

researchers ŽSyamlal et al., 1993; Boemer et al., 1995; Van fraction tends to zero. In this case, however, this solids shear

Wachem et al., 1998, 1999. assume the granular energy is in a

steady state and dissipated locally, and neglect convection and

Table 2. Solids Shear Viscosity

diffusion. Retaining only the generation and the dissipation

terms, Eq. 20 simplifies to an algebraic expression for the Lun et al. (1984)

granular temperature: 8

5't Q 1 8 es 1q h Ž 3h y2. e s g 0

5

ž / Ž 21.

ms s

96

rs d s

ž h g0

q

5 /ž 2yh /

768 2

he g x

q

Because the generation and dissipation terms dominate in 25p s 0

4 Q 1 r s d s g 0 Ž 1q e .Ž 3r2 ey1r2. e s2

dense-phase flows, it is anticipated that this simplification is

a reasonable one in dense regions of flow.

s e s2 r s d s g 0 Ž1q e .

5

(p

q 'Qp

15 Ž 3r2y1r2 e .

1 r s d s e s Ž 3r4 eq1r4 . 10 rs d s

q 'Qp q 'Qp

6 Ž 3r2y er2 . 96 Ž 1q e .Ž 3r2y1r2 e . g 0

Solid-phase stress tensor

Syamlal et al. (1993)

The solids pressure represents the normal solid-phase

4 e s d s r s'p Q

Q

forces due to particle]particle interactions. In the literature

there is general agreement on the form of the solids pres-

m s s e s2 r s d s g 0 Ž1q e .

5

2

p

q (6 Ž 3y e .

sure, given by Lun et al. Ž1984. as 1q Ž 1q e .Ž 3ey1. e s g 0

5

4 2 Q 1 Ž 1q e .Ž 3r2 ey1r2 .

Ps s r s e sQ w 1q2 Ž 1q e . g 0 e s x s e s r s d s g 0 Ž1q e .

5 p

(

q 'Qp r s d s g 0

15 Ž 3r2y er2 .

e s2

q

12 Ž 3r2y er2 .

The first part of the solids pressure represents the kinetic Gidaspow (1994)

contribution, and the second part represents the collisional 5'p

contribution. The kinetic part of the stress tensor physically 4 Q 2 r d 'Q 4

2

96 s s

represents the momentum transferred through the system by

particles moving across imaginary shear layers in the flow;

ms s

5

(

e s2 r s d s g 0 Ž1q e .

p

q

Ž 1q e . g 0

? 1q g 0 e s Ž 1q e .

5

4 Q 1

the collisional part of the stress tensor denotes the momen-

tum transferred by direct collisions.

s e s2 r s d s g 0 Ž1q e .

5

( p

q

15

1

'Qp rs d s g 0 Ž1q e. e s2

10 rs d s

The solids bulk viscosity describes the resistance of the q 'Qp rs d s e s q 'Qp

6 96 Ž 1q e . g 0

particle suspension against compression. In the literature,

there also is general agreement on the form of the solids bulk Hrenya and Sinclair (1997)

viscosity, given by Lun et al. Ž1984. as

5'p Q 1 1 8 es 1q8r5h Ž 3h y2. e s g 0

ls s

4

e s2r s d s g 0 Ž 1q e . ( Q

. Ž 23.

ms s

96

rs d s

ž

1q

lm f p h g 0

R

q

5 /ž 2yh /

3 p 768 2

q he g

25p s 0

4 Q 1 r s d s g 0 Ž 1q e . Ž 3r2 ey1r2 . e s2

However, the kinetic theory description for the solids shear

viscosity often differs between the various two-fluid models.

s e s2 r s g 0 Ž1q e .

5

(p

q 'Qp

15

lm f p

Ž 3r2y er2 .

Gidaspow Ž1994. does not account for the inelastic nature of

r s d s e s 1r2 1q

particles in the kinetic contribution of the total stress, as Lun

et al. Ž1984. do, claiming this correction is negligible. The

1

q 'Qp

ž ž R

q3r4 ey1r4

lm f p

/ /

6

solids shear viscosity of Syamlal et al. Ž1993. neglects the ki-

netic or streaming contribution, which dominates in dilute- 10

Ž 3r2y1r2 e . 1q

R ž rs d s

/

phase flow. Hrenya and Sinclair Ž1997. follow Lun et al. q 'Qp

96 lm f p

Ž1984., but constrain the mean free path of the particle by a

dimension characteristic of the actual physical system. This is

Ž 1q e .Ž 3r2y1r2 e . g 0 1q

R ž /

opposed to the Lun et al. Ž1984. theory, which allows the Note: The symbols can be found in the Notation.

Table 3. Solids Thermal Conductivities

Lun et al. (1984)

25'p Q 8 96 e s 1q12r5h 2 Ž 4h y3. e s g 0

ks rs d s

128 ž h g0

q

5

512

/ž 41y33h /

q he s2 g 0

25p

2

Q r s d s g 0 Ž 1r2q er2 . Ž 2 ey1. e s2

9

s 2 e s2 r s d s g 0 Ž1q e .

p

( 8

q 'Qp

Ž 49r16y33r16 e .

15 e s r s d s Ž e 2r2q1r4 eq1r4 .

q 'Qp

16 Ž 49r16y33r16 e .

25 rs d s

q 'Qp

64 Ž 1q e .Ž 49r16y33r16 e . g 0

Syamlal et al. (1993)

15d s r s e s'Qp 12 16

ks 1q h 2 Ž 4h y3. e s g 0 q Ž 41y33h . he s g 0

4 Ž 41y33h . 5 15p

2

Q r s d s g 0 Ž 1r2q er2 . Ž 2 ey1. e s2

9

Figure 1. Comparison of solids shear viscosities from

different kinetic theory models: es 0.9, e max

s 2 e s2 r s d s g 0 Ž1q e . ( p

15

8

q 'Qp

Ž 49r16y33r16 e .

e s rs d s

s 0.65. q 'Qp

32 Ž 49r16y33r16 e .

Gidaspow (1994)

75

viscosity limit is reached because the kinetic contribution to k dil s r d 'p Q

384 2 s s

the solids viscosity is neglected. 2 6 Q

Table 2 presents the forms for the solids shear viscosity as

presented in the original articles as well as in an equivalent

ks

Ž 1q e . g 0

1q

5

Ž 1q e . g 0 e s k dil q2 e s2 r s d s g 0 Ž1q e .

2

p

(

Q 9 r s d s g 0 1r2q er2 2 ey1. e s2

form so that all of the models can be easily compared. Figure

1 shows a comparison of the constitutive models for the solids

s 2 e s2 r s d s g 0 Ž1q e . ( p

q

8

'Qp

lm f p

Ž . Ž

Ž 49r16y33r16 e .

shear viscosity as a function of the solid volume fraction. All e s r s d s e r2q1r4 eq1r4q

2

models yield the same solids shear viscosity at high solids vol- q

15

'Qp

ž R /

16 lm f p

ume fractions. Syamlal et al. Ž1993. deviate from the others

for solid volume fractions less than 0.3. Hrenya and Sinclair

25

Ž 49r16y33r16 e . 1q

ž R

rs d s

/

Ž1997. show a rapid decrease in solids shear viscosity at ex- 'Up

q

tremely small particle concentrations. 64 lm f p

Ž 1q e .Ž 49r16y33r16 e . 1q

ž R / g0

Conducti©ity of granular energy Note: The symbols can be found in the Notation.

Similar to the solids shear viscosity, the solids thermal con-

ductivity, k , consists of a kinetic contribution and a colli-

sional contribution. Gidaspow Ž1994. differs from Lun et al.

Ž1984. only in the dependency of the solids thermal conduc-

tivity on the coefficient of restitution. Syamlal et al. Ž1993.

neglect the kinetic contribution to the thermal conductivity.

Hrenya and Sinclair Ž1997. follow Lun et al. Ž1984., but con-

strain the mean free path of the particle by a dimension char-

acteristic of the actual system. Hence, the limit of their con-

ductivity expression, as with the shear viscosity, correctly tends

to zero when approaching zero solid volume fraction. Syamlal

et al. Ž1993. also correctly predict zero for the conductivity at

zero solid volume fraction by neglecting the kinetic contribu-

tion.

Table 3 presents the forms for the solids thermal conduc-

tivity as presented in the original articles, as well as in an

equivalent form so that all of the closure models can be eas-

ily compared. Figure 2 shows a quantitative comparison of

the constitutive models for the solids thermal conductivity as

a function of the solid volume fraction. All models yield the

same thermal conductivity at high solid volume fraction. Figure 2. Comparison of solids thermal conductivity

Syamlal et al. Ž1993. deviate from the others for solids vol- from different kinetic theory models: es 0.9,

ume fraction less than 0.3. Hrenya and Sinclair Ž1997. show a e max s 0.65.

rapid decrease in thermal conductivity at extremely small Table 4. Radial Distribution Function

particle concentration. Carnahan and Starling (1969)

1 3e s e s2

Dissipation and generation of granular energy g0 s q q

1y e s 2 Ž 1y e s . 2 2 Ž 1y e s . 3

Jenkins and Savage Ž1983. represent the dissipation of Lun and Sa®age (1986) y2 .5 e s,max

granular energy due to inelastic particle]particle collisions as es

4 Q

ž

g 0 s 1y

e s, max /

gs s 3 Ž 1y e 2 . e s2r s g 0 Q

ž (

ds p

y=? ©s .

/ Ž 24. Sinclair and Jackson (1989)

es 1r3

y1

g 0 s 1y

ž e s, max /

cle inelasticity, the term =? ©s is typically omitted, as in Lun Gidaspow (1994) y1

et al. Ž1984.: 3 es 1r3

e s2r s g 0

g0 s

5

1y

ž e s, max /

gs s12 Ž 1y e 2 . Q 3r2 . Ž 25.

d s'p

The rate of energy dissipation per unit volume resulting from Radial distribution function

the action of the fluctuating force exerted by the gas through The solid-phase stress is dependent on the radial distribu-

the fluctuating velocity of the particles is given by Js s tion function at contact. Lun et al. Ž1984. employed the Car-

b Ž©Xs ? ©Xsy©Xg ? ©Xs.. According to Gidaspow Ž1994., the term ©Xs ? ©Xs nahan and Starling Ž1969. expression for the radial distribu-

is equal to 3U. The second term, ©Xg ? ©Xs, is neglected by Gi- tion function. The Carnahan and Starling Ž1969. expression,

daspow Ž1994.. However, Louge et al. Ž1991. have proposed a however, does not tend toward the correct limit at closest

closure for this second term based on the work of Koch Ž1990. solids packing. Because particles are in constant contact at

for the dilute flow regime, which we apply here: the maximum solid volume fraction, the radial distribution

function at contact tends to infinity. Therefore, alternative

b d s Ž © g y ©s .

2 expressions to the Carnahan and Starling Ž1969. expression

Js s b 3Qy . Ž 26 . have been proposed by Gidaspow Ž1994., Lun and Savage

4e s r s'p Q Ž1986., and Sinclair and Jackson Ž1989., which tend to the

correct limit at closest packing. These various forms of the

Using the closure of Louge et al. Ž1991. for ©Xg ? ©Xs, we have radial distribution function are given in Table 4 and are plot-

found that this term is of the same order of magnitude as ted in Figure 3 as a function of the solid volume fraction,

©Xs ? ©Xs. It should be noted, however, that the term as proposed along with the data from molecular simulations of Alder and

by Louge et al. Ž1991. is originally meant for the dilute flow Wainright Ž1960. and the data from experiments of Gidaspow

regime and does not tend to zero at closest solids packing. and Huilin Ž1998.. The expression of Gidaspow Ž1994. most

Therefore, Sundaresan Žprivate communication, 1999. has closely coincides with the data over the widest range of solid

proposed dividing this term by the radial distribution func- volume fractions. The expression of Gidaspow Ž1994., how-

tion to correct the closure in this limit of closest solids pack-

ing.

Recently, Sangani et al. Ž1996. have derived an equation

for ©Xs ? ©Xs, and Koch and Sangani Ž1999. have derived an equa-

tion for ©Xg ? ©Xs, especially for dense solid flows. With these

correlations, the expression for the rate of energy dissipation

resulting from fluctuations is

2

m s e sQ b 2 d s Ž © g y ©s .

Js s 3 R diss y SU , Ž 27 .

d s2 4e s r s'p Q

cient, which is determined as a result of a fit of numerical

simulations ŽSangani et al., 1996., and SU is an energy source:

1

SU s Rs b 2 , Ž 28.

2'p

mean force acting on the particles and is obtained by a fit of Figure 3. Radial distribution functions: computational

numerical simulations. When the solids volume fraction ap- data of Alder and Wainright (1960) vs. experi-

proaches the maximum packing limit, R s tends to zero. mental data of Gidaspow and Huilin (1998).

Johnson and Jackson Ž1987. propose a semiempirical equa-

tion for the normal frictional stress, Pf :

n

Ž e s y e s, min .

Pf s Fr p , Ž 32 .

Ž e s, max y e s .

e s ) e s, min , e s, min are the solid-volume fraction when fric-

tional stresses become important; Fr, n, and p are material-

dependent constants. The frictional shear viscosity is then re-

lated to the frictional normal stress by the linear law pro-

posed by Coulomb Ž1776.

sx y s Pf sin f , Ž 33.

Figure 4. Solids shear viscosity from different radial resentative values for the empirical constants employed in

distribution functions. Eqs. 32 and 33 are given in Table 5.

Solids shear viscosity follows Hrenya and Sinclair Ž1997.; e

s 0.9, R s 0.01525 m, and e max s 0.65.

Another approach, originally from Schaeffer Ž1987., was

employed by Syamlal et al. Ž1993. to describe the frictional

stress in very dense gas]solid systems:

ever, does not approach the correct limit of one as the solid n

volume-fraction approaches zero. Figure 4 presents the effect Pf s A Ž e s y e s, min . Ž 34.

of these different expressions for the radial distribution func-

tions on the solids shear viscosity. A difference of up to a Pf ? sin f

m fs .

factor of 2 in viscosity can result. 2 2 2

us ®s ®s us us ®s

Frictional stress

es) 1

6 ž x

y

y / ž / ž / ž

q

y

q

x

2

q

1

4 y

q

x /

At high solid volume fraction, sustained contacts between Ž 35.

particles occur. The resulting frictional stresses must be ac-

counted for in the description of the solid-phase stress. Zhang

Values of As10 25, ns10, e s,min s 0.59, and f s 258 are typ-

and Rauenzahn Ž1997. conclude that particle collisions are

ically employed.

no longer instantaneous at very high solid volume fractions,

The approaches of Johnson and Jackson Ž1987. and Syam-

as is assumed in kinetic theory. Several approaches most of

lal et al. Ž1993. are compared in Figure 5. It can be seen that

which originated from geological research groups, have been

resulting normal frictional stress can differ by orders of mag-

presented in the literature to model the frictional stress. The

nitude.

models for frictional stress are very empirical and should be

used with caution. Typically, the frictional stress, sf , is writ-

ten in a Newtonian form: Interphase transfer coefficient

Generally, the form drag and skin drag are combined in

sf s Pf I q m f =©q Ž =© .

T

. Ž 29. one empirical parameter, the interphase drag constant b , in

the modeling of the momentum transfer between the two

phases. The drag coefficient b is typically obtained experi-

The frictional stress is added to the stress predicted by ki- mentally from pressure drop measurements in fixed, flu-

netic theory for e s ) e s, min : idized, or settling beds. Ergun Ž1952. performed measure-

ments in fixed liquid]solid beds at packed conditions to de-

Ps s P kinetic q Pf Ž 30. termine the pressure drop. Wen and Yu Ž1966. have per-

formed settling experiments of solid particles in a liquid over

m s s m kinetic q m f . Ž 31 . a wide range of solid volume fractions, and have correlated

Fr wNrm2 x n p esmi n f d s w m mx r s wkgrm3 x Material Reference

0.05 2 3 0.5 28 8 150 2500 Not specified Ocone et al. Ž1993.

3.65=10y3 2 0 40 } 25.08 1800 2980 Glass Johnson and Jackson Ž1987.

4.0=10y3 2 0 40 } 25.08 1000 1095 Polystyrene Johnson and Jackson Ž1987.

0.05 2 5 0.5 28.58 1000 2900 Glass Johnson et al. Ž1990.

Ž1952. for solid volume fractions larger than 0.2. The motiva-

tion for this hybrid drag description of Gidaspow Ž1994. is

unclear because the Wen and Yu Ž1966. expression includes

experimental drag data for solid volume fractions larger than

0.2. Moreover, a step change in the interphase drag constant

is obtained at the ‘‘crossover’’ solid volume fraction of 0.2,

which can possibly lead to difficulties in numerical conver-

gence. The magnitude of this discontinuity in b increases with

increasing particle Reynolds number. The drag coefficients

are summarized in Table 6 and are compared quantitatively

in Figure 6 for a range of solid volume fractions at a fixed

particle Reynolds number.

Simulations

The impact on the predicted flow patterns of the differ-

ences in the governing equations and constitutive models are

compared for the test cases of a freely bubbling fluidized-bed,

Figure 5. Different expressions for the frictional normal

a slugging fluidized bed, and a single bubble injection into a

stress.

fluidized bed. The particles in a fluidized bed move accord-

ing to the action of the fluid through the drag force, and

their data and those of others for solids concentrations, 0.01 bubbles and complex solid mixing patterns result. Typically,

F e s F 0.63. Syamlal et al. Ž1993. use the empirical correla- the average solid volume fraction in the bed is fairly large,

tions of Richardson and Zaki Ž1954. and Garside and Al-Bi- averaging about 40%, whereas in the the freeboard of the

bouni Ž1977. to determine the terminal velocity in fluidized fluidized bed Žthe top. there are almost no particles Ž e s f

and settling beds expressed as a function of the solid volume 10y6 ..

fraction and the particle Reynolds number. From the termi- The simulations in this work were carried out with the

nal velocity, the drag force can be readily computed. commercial CFD code CFX 4.2 from AEA Technology, Har-

The drag model of Gidaspow Ž1994. follows Wen and Yu well, UK, employing the Rhie-Chow ŽRhie and Chow, 1983.

Ž1966. for solid volume fractions lower than 0.2 and Ergun algorithm for discretization. For solving the difference equa-

Wen and Yu (1966)

3 Ž 1y e s . e s r g N ©g y ©s N

b s CD Ž1y e s .y2.65

4 ds

Rowe Ž1961.

24 0.687

1q0.15 ŽŽ 1y e s . Re p . if Ž 1y e s . Re p -1,000

Re p Ž 1y e s .

CD s

¼ 0.44 Re p s

d s r g N © g y ©s N

mg

if Ž 1y e s . Re p G1,000

Gidaspow (1994) applies the Ergun (1952) equation for higher ®olume fractions:

e s2m g 7 e s r g N © g y ©s N

150 q if e g ) 0.2

Ž 1y e s . d s2 4

bs

¼

3

C

4 D

Ž .

ds

ds

1y e s e s r g N ©g y ©s N

Ž 1y e s . y2 .65 if e s F 0.2

3 e s Ž 1y e s . r g

b s CD N © g y ©s N

4 Vr 2 d s

Dalla Valle Ž1948.

2

Vr

ž

CD s 0.63q4.8 ( / Re

Garside and Al-Dibouni Ž1977.

1

Vr s

2

' 2

ay0.06 Req Ž 0.06 Re . q0.12 Re Ž 2 by a. q a2

as Ž1y e s . 4.14

1.28

0.8 Ž 1y e s . if e s G 0.15

bs

½ Ž 1y e s . 2.65 if e s - 0.15

tions, the higher-order total variation diminishing ŽTVD.

scheme, Superbee is used. This TVD scheme incorporates a

modification to the higher-order upwind scheme Žsecond or-

der.. The time discretization is done with the second-order

backward-difference scheme. The solution of the pressure

from the momentum equations requires a pressure correction

equation, correcting the pressure and the velocities after each

iteration; for this, the SIMPLE ŽPatankar, 1980. algorithm is

employed. The calculated pressure is used to determine the

density of the fluid phase; the simulations are performed al-

lowing for compressibility of the gas phase. The grid spacing

was determined by refining the grid until average properties

changed by less than 4%. Due to the deterministic chaotic

nature of the system, the dynamic behavior always changes

with the grid. The simulations of the slugging fluidized bed

and the freely bubbling fluidized bed were carried out for 25

s of real time. After about 5 s of real time, the simulation has

reached a state in which averaged properties stay unchanged. Figure 6. Different expressions for the interphase drag

Averaged properties, such as bubble size and bed expansion, coefficient as a function of solid volume-frac-

were determined by averaging over the last 15 s of real time tion: Rep s 45.

in each simulation. A bubble is defined as a void in the solid

phase with a solid volume fraction less than 15%. The bubble

at this boundary is fixed to a reference value, 1.013=10 5 Pa.

diameter is defined as the diameter of a circle having the

Neumann boundary conditions are applied to the gas flow,

same surface as the void in the solid phase; this is called the

requiring a fully developed gas flow. For this, the freeboard

equivalent bubble diameter.

of the fluidized bed needs to be of sufficient height; this is

validated through the simulations. In the freeboard, the solid

Boundary conditions volume fraction is very close to zero, and this can lead to

All the simulations are carried out in a two-dimensional unrealistic values for the particle-velocity field and poor con-

rectangular space in which front and back wall effects are vergence. For this reason, a solid volume fraction of 10y6 is

neglected. The left and right walls of the fluidized bed are set at the top of the freeboard. This way the whole freeboard

treated as no-slip velocity boundary conditions for the fluid is filled with a very small number of particles, which gives

phase, and the free-slip velocity boundary conditions are em- more realistic results for the particle phase velocity in the

ployed for the particle phase. A possible boundary condition freeboard, but does not influence the behavior of the flu-

for the granular temperature follows Johnson and Jackson idized bed itself.

Ž1987.: The bottom of the fluidized bed is made impenetrable for

the solid phase by setting the solid phase axial velocity to

zero. For the freely bubbling fluidized bed and the slugging

n ? Ž k =Q . s

fluidized bed, Dirichlet boundary conditions are employed at

pr s e s'3Q 3Q the bottom with a uniform gas inlet velocity. To break the

w X N ©slip N 2 y Ž 1y ew2 . , Ž 36 . symmetry in the case of the bubbling and slugging beds, ini-

es 1r3

2 tially a small jet of gas is specified at the bottom lefthand

6 e s, max 1y

ž e s, max / side of the geometry. In the case of the bubble injection, a

Dirichlet boundary condition is employed at the bottom of

the fluidized bed. The gas inlet velocity is kept at the mini-

where the lefthand side represents the conduction of granu- mum fluidization velocity, except for a small orifice in the

lar energy to the wall, the first term on the righthand side center of the bed, at which a very large inlet velocity is speci-

represents the generation of granular energy due to particle fied. Finally, the solid-phase stress, as well as the granular

slip at the wall, and the second term on the righthand side temperature at the top of the fluidized bed, are set to zero.

represents dissipation of granular energy due to inelastic col-

lisions. Another possibility for the boundary condition for the Initial conditions

granular temperature is proposed by Jenkins Ž1992.:

Initially, the bottom part of the fluidized bed is filled with

particles at rest with a uniform solid volume fraction. The gas

n ? Ž k =Q . sy ©slip ? M y D, Ž 37 . flow in the bed is set to its minimum fluidization velocity. In

the freeboard a solid volume fraction of 10y6 is set, as ex-

where the exact formulations of M and D depend upon the plained earlier. The granular temperature is initially set to

amount of friction and sliding occurring at the wall region. 10y10 m2 ? sy2 .

Simulations we have done with an adiabatic boundary condi-

tion at the wall Ž =Qs 0. show very similar results. Test Case

The boundary condition at the top of the freeboard Žfluid- With increasing gas velocity above the minimum fluidiza-

phase outlet. is a so-called pressure boundary. The pressure tion velocity, Um f , bubbles are formed as a result of the in-

putational meshes are also shown in Figure 7. The test cases

are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

In the freely fluidized-bed case, the gas flow is distributed

uniformly across the inlet of the bed. Small bubbles form at

the bottom of the fluidized bed that rise, coalesce, and erupt

as large bubbles at the fluidized-bed surface. In order to

evaluate model predictions, we use the Darton et al. Ž1977.

bubble model for bubble growth in freely bubbling fluidized

beds. This model is based upon preferred paths of bubbles

where the distance traveled by two neighboring bubbles be-

fore coalescence is proportional to their lateral separation.

Darton et al. Ž1977. have validated their model with mea-

surements of many researchers. Their proposed bubble-

growth equation for Geldart type B particles is

0.4 0.8

D b s 0.54 Ž UyUm f . Ž hq4'A .

0 gy0 .2 , Ž 38 .

ble above the inlet of the fluidized bed, U is the actual super-

ficial gas inlet velocity, and A 0 is the ‘‘catchment area’’ that

characterizes the distributor. For a porous-plate gas distribu-

'

tor, Darton et al. Ž1977. propose 4 A 0 s 0.03 m.

Werther and Molerus Ž1973. have developed a small capac-

Figure 7. Computational grid of simulated fluidized itance probe and the statistical theory to measure the bubble

beds with the gas inlet boundary condition. diameter and the bubble rise velocity in fluidized beds using

Ž a . Freely bubbling fluidized bed; Žb. slugging fluidized bed, this probe. This capacitance probe can be placed in the flu-

Žc . bubble injection into a fluidized bed.

idized bed at different heights and radial positions in the bed.

The bubble rise velocity is determined by placing two verti-

cally spaced probes and correlating the obtained data. The

herent instability of the gas]solid system. The behavior of capacitance probe measures the bubbles passing it, that is,

the bubbles significantly affects the flow phenomena in the the bubble is pierced by the capacitance probe. The duration

fluidized bed, that is, solid mixing, entrainment, and heat and of this piercing is dependent upon the size of the bubble, the

mass transfer. The test cases in this comparative study are rise velocity of the bubble, and the vertical position of the

used to investigate the effect of different closure models and bubble relative to the probe.

governing equations on the bubble behavior and bed expan- Hilligardt and Werther Ž1986. have done many measure-

sion. Simulation results of each test case are compared to ments of bubble size and bubble velocity under various con-

generally accepted experimental data and Žsemi.empirical ditions using the probe developed by Werther and Molerus

models. The system properties and computational parame- Ž1973. and have correlated their data in the form of the

ters for each of the test cases are given in Table 7; the com- Davidson and Harrison Ž1963. bubble model. Hilligardt and

Freely Bubbling Slugging Bubble Injection into

Parameter Description Fluidized Bed Fluidized Bed Fluidized Bed ŽKuipers, 1990.

r s wkgrm3 x Solid density 2,640 2,640 2,660

r g wkgrm3 x Gas density 1.28 1.28 1.28

m g wPa ? sx Gas viscosity 1.7=10y5 1.7=10y5 1.7=10y5

d s w m mx Particle diameter 480 480 500

e Coefficient of restitution 0.9 0.9 0.9

e ma x Max. solid volume fraction 0.65 0.65 0.65

Um f wmrsx Minimum fluidization velocity 0.21 0.21 0.25

D T wmx Inner column diameter 0.5 0.1 0.57

Ht wmx Column height 1.3 1.3 0.75

Hm f wmx Height at minimum fluidization 0.97 0.97 0.5

e s, m f Solids volume fraction 0.42 0.42 0.402

at minimum fluidization

D x wmx x-mesh spacing 7.14=10y3 6.67=10y3 7.50=10y3

D y w mx y-mesh spacing 7.56=10y3 7.43=10y3 1.25=10y2

Werther propose a variant of the Davidson and Harrison their theoretical analysis, which led to the result that

Ž1963. model for predicting the bubble rise velocity as a func-

tion of the bubble diameter, Hmax y Hm f UyUm f

s , Ž 42.

Hm f u bub

u b s c Ž UyUm f . q wn gd b ,

' Ž 39 .

where u bub is the rise velocity of a slug without influence of

where w is the analytically determined square root of the the gas phase,

Froude number of a single rising bubble in an infinitely large

homogeneous area. Pyle and Harrison Ž1967. have deter- w

mined that w s 0.48 for a two-dimensional geometry, whereas

u bub s

2

'gD T Ž 43.

in three dimensions the Davies-Taylor relationship gives w s

0.71. The symbols c and n , added by Hilligardt and Werther or

Ž1986., are empirical coefficients based on their data, which

w

are dependent upon the type of particles and the width and u bub s '2 gD T , Ž 44.

height of the fluidized bed. For the particles and geometry 2

employed in this study, Hilligardt and Werther Ž1986. pro-

pose c f 0.3 and n f 0.8. Proposals of values for c and n corresponding to Eqs. 40 and 41. Hence, they also propose

under various fluidization conditions, determined by simula- upper and lower bounds on the maximum bed expansion.

tions, are given by Van Wachem et al. Ž1998..

Hilligardt and Werther Ž1986. also measured bed expan- Bubble injection in fluidized beds

sion under various conditions. Predictions of the bed expan-

Single jets entering a minimum fluidized bed through a

sion from the simulations are compared to these data.

narrow single orifice provide details of bubble formation and

growth. Such experiments were carried out by Kuipers Ž1990..

Slugging fluidized beds Kuipers Ž1990. reported the shape of the injected bubble as

In the case of the slugging fluidized beds, coalescing bub- well as the quantitative size and growth of the bubble with

bles eventually reach a diameter of 70% or more of the col- time using high-speed photography. The superficial gas-inlet

umn diameter, resulting from either a large inlet gas velocity velocity from the orifice was Us10 mrs, and the orifice was

or a narrow bed. The operating conditions employed in the ds1.5=10y2 m wide.

simulations correspond to the slugging conditions reported

by Kehoe and Davidson Ž1971., who present a detailed study Results and Discussion

of slug flow in fluidized beds. The experiments of Kehoe and

Predictions based on simulations of these three test cases

Davidson Ž1971. were performed in slugging fluidized beds of

are used to compare the different governing and closure

2.5-, 5-, and 10-cm diameter columns using Geldart B parti-

models. For this comparative study, only one particular clo-

cles from 50-m m to 300-m m diameter and with superficial gas

sure model is varied at a time, to determine the sensitivity of

inlet velocities of up to 0.5 mrs. X-Ray photography was used

the model predictions to that particular closure. No coupling

to determine the rise velocity of slugs and to determine the

effects were investigated. The default governing equations are

bed expansion. Kehoe and Davidson Ž1971. use their data to

those given by Jackson Ž1997., and the default closure models

validate two different equations for the slug rise velocity, both

are the solid-phase stress of Hrenya and Sinclair Ž1997., the

based on two-phase theory:

radial distribution function of Lun and Savage Ž1986., the

frictional model of Johnson and Jackson Ž1987. with empiri-

w

u slug sUyUm f q 'gD Ž 40. cal values given by Johnson et al. Ž1990., the complete

T

2 granular energy balance neglecting Js , and the drag coeffi-

w cient model of Wen and Yu Ž1966.. For animations of some

u slug sUyUm f q

2

'2 gD T , Ž 41. of the sim ulations, please refer to our W ebsite

http:rrwww.tcp.chem.tue.nlr;scrrwachemrcompare.html.

Froude number of a single rising bubble. Equation 40 is the Go©erning equations

exact two-phase theory solution, and Eq. 41 is a modification Simulations of the slugging bed case were performed with

of Eq. 40, based on the following observations: both the Ishii Ž1975. and the Jackson Ž1997. governing equa-

1. For fine particles Ž - 70 m m. the slugs travel symmetri- tions. Figure 8 shows the predicted maximum bed expansion

cally up in the fluidized bed, so the slug rise velocity is in- with increasing gas velocity during the slug flow and the two

creased by coalescence. correlations of Kehoe and Davidson Ž1971.. Figure 9 shows

2. For coarser particles Ž ) 70 m m. the slugs tend to move the increasing slug rise velocity with increasing gas velocity.

up the walls, which also increases their velocity. Clearly, the exact formulation of the governing equation does

According to Kehoe and Davidson Ž1971., Eqs. 40 and 41 not have any significant influence on the prediction of these

give upper and lower bounds on the slug rise velocity. Fur- macroscopic engineering quantities, and both CFD models

thermore, Kehoe and Davidson Ž1971. measured the maxi- do a good job at predicting these quantities. Microscopically,

mum bed expansion Ž Hmax . during slug flow. They validated however, there does seem to be a difference in the predic-

Figure 8. Predicted maximum expansion of a slugging

fluidized bed with increasing gas velocity with

the governing equations of Jackson (1997)

and Ishii (1975), and the additional term J s in

the granular energy equation.

The predictions are compared with the two-phase theory as

proposed and validated by Kehoe and Davidson Ž1971 ..

tions, as indicated in Figure 10. The flow of the gas phase in predicted by (a) employing the governing

areas of large solid volume-fraction gradient is slightly differ- equations of Jackson (1997), and by (b) em-

ent, leading to a different solids distribution. Specifically, ploying the governing equations of Ishii

Figure 10 shows that the Jackson Ž1997. governing equations (1975) at the same real time; the lines are

produce a more round-nosed bubble shape than the Ishii contours of equal solid volume fraction.

Ž1975. equations, because the path of the gas phase is differ-

ent.

Solids stress models

The exact solid-phase stress description does not influence

either the freely bubbling or the slugging fluidized-bed pre-

dictions, as is expected from Figure 1; this figure shows that

between 0.4 and 0.6 solids volume fraction, which is domi-

nant in the cases studied, all solids-phase stress predictions

are equal. Moreover, the influence of the radial distribution

upon the stress does not give rise to any variation in the pre-

dictions of the engineering quantities associated with these

simulations; the variation of the solids phase stress as a func-

tion of radial distribution function, shown in Figure 4, is small

between 0.4 and 0.6 solids volume fraction, as long as the

Carnahan and Starling Ž1969. equation is not employed. From

the magnitude of the terms on the solid-phase momentum

balance during simulations of fluidized beds, it can be con-

cluded that gravity and drag are the dominating terms and

that solids-phase stress predicted by kinetic theory plays a

minor role.

gas velocity with the governing equations of

Coordinating with results of the comparison of the drag

Jackson (1997) and Ishii (1975), and the addi-

models shown in Figure 6, the Syamlal et al. Ž1993. drag leads

tional term J s in the granular energy equation.

to a lower predicted pressure drop and lower predicted bed

The predictions are compared with the two-phase theory as

proposed and validated by Kehoe and Davidson Ž1971 .. The expansion than the other two drag models. Figure 11 shows

constant w s 0.48. the average simulated bed expansion employing different drag

Figure 11. Predicted bed expansion as a function of gas Figure 13. Predicted bubble rise velocity as a function

velocity based on different drag models and of the bubble diameter at U s 0.54 m r s

with and without frictional stress. based on different drag models and com-

The predictions are compared to the experimental data of

pared to the experimental correlation of Hilli-

Hilligardt and Werther Ž1986.. The spread in the simula- gardt and Werther (1986).

tion data with the drag model of Gidaspow Ž1994. is indi- The vertical lines indicate the spread of the simulated

cated by the line. bubble rise velocity.

models in the freely bubbling fluidized-bed case, compared spread in the simulations is fairly large, all of the investigated

to measurements of Hilligardt and Werther Ž1986.. The drag drag models are in agreement with the equation put forth by

model of Syamlal et al. Ž1993. underpredicts the bed expan- Darton et al. Ž1977.. Figure 13 shows the predicted bubble

sion compared to the findings of Hilligardt and Werther rise velocity employing different drag models in a freely bub-

Ž1986., and therefore also underpredicts the gas holdup in bling fluidized bed, compared to the empirical correlation of

the fluidized bed. Hilligardt and Werther Ž1986.. All of the investigated drag

Figure 12 shows the simulated bubble size as a function of models are in fairly good agreement with the empirical corre-

the bed height when employing different drag models, com- lation.

pared with the Darton et al., Ž1977. equation. Although the Because the bubble sizes predicted by the different drag

models are all close, while the predicted bed expansion dif-

fers between the models, variations in the predicted solid-

volume fraction of the dense phase exist between the models,

with the Syamlal et al. Ž1993. drag model predicting the high-

est solid volume fraction in the dense phase.

Figure 14 shows the quantitative bubble-size prediction for

a single jet entering a minimum fluidized bed based on the

drag models of Wen and Yu Ž1966. and Syamlal et al. Ž1993.,

which are compared to the experimental data of Kuipers

Ž1990.. Moreover, in Figure 15 we show the resulting qualita-

tive predictions of the bubble growth and shape, and also

compare these with photographs by Kuipers Ž1990.. The Wen

and Yu Ž1966. drag model yields better agreement with

Kuipers’ Ž1990. findings for both the bubble shape and size

than the Syamlal et al. Ž1993. drag model. The Syamlal et al.

Ž1993. drag model underpredicts the bubble size and pro-

duces a bubble that is more circular in shape than in the

experiments of Kuipers Ž1990. and in the simulations with

the Wen and Yu Ž1966. drag model.

Figure 12. Predicted bubble size as a function of bed

height at U s 0.54 mr rs based on different Frictional stress

drag models and compared to the correla-

tion of Darton et al. (1977). Frictional stresses can increase the total solid-phase stress

The vertical lines indicate the spread of the simulated by orders of magnitude, and is an important contributing force

bubble size. in dense gas]solid modeling. The simulation of the single jet

achieved solids packing is higher Žmaximum achieved solids

volume fraction increased from 0.630 to 0.649., and the bed

expansion is less. Moreover, the solid-phase stress in the

dense regions are significantly decreased because the pre-

dicted granular temperature in the dense region of flow is

very low Ž Qf10y5 m2 ? sy2 . due to the magnitude of the dis-

sipation term. When frictional stress is neglected in the simu-

lations, convergence difficulty arises because the maximum

solid volume fraction specified in the radial distribution func-

tion is approached and the derivative of the radial distribu-

tion function near maximum solid volume fraction is ex-

tremely steep. In order to still obtain convergence, we have

written the radial distribution function as a Taylor series ap-

proximation at very high solid volume fraction. Adding fric-

tional stress in the simulations prevents this problem, be-

cause then the solid volume fraction does not approach the

Figure 14. Bubble diameter as a function of time for a maximum packing value.

bubble formed at a single jet of U s10 mr

rs.

A comparison is made between the experiments of Kuipers Granular energy balance

Ž1990 ., model simulations using the drag coefficient of Wen

and Yu Ž1966 . with and without frictional stress, and model The influence of the additional generation and dissipation

simulations using the interphase drag constant of Syamlal

et al. Ž1993 .. term Js in the granular energy balance is determined in the

case of the slugging fluidized bed. Figure 8 shows the predic-

tions of the maximum bed expansion as a function of increas-

ing gas velocity for simulations with and without this addi-

entering a fluidized bed reveals that the size of the bubble is

tional term. Figure 9 also shows the predicted rise velocity of

not significantly influenced by the frictional stress, as shown

the slugs with and without this additional term Js . Although

in Figure 14. However, Figure 11 shows that the predicted

this additional term Js results in as much as 20% higher

bed expansion in the freely bubbling fluidized bed is signifi-

granular temperature values Žgranular temperature increased

cantly less without frictional stress. Moreover, the number of

from 0.138 m2 ? sy2 to 0.165 m2 ? sy2 ., this does not seem to

iterations for obtaining a converged solution is almost dou-

influence the predicted bed expansion or the slug rise veloc-

bled when frictional stress is omitted. Without frictional

ity. The exact formulation of Js ŽEq. 26 or 27. does not play a

stress, there is less air in the dense phase, the maximum

role in the predicted granular temperature.

Simulations of slugging fluidized beds were also performed

using the simplified algebraic granular energy equation, Eq.

21. There were no differences in predicted bed expansion,

bubble size, or bubble rise velocity due to this simplification

vs. using the full granular energy balance. This simplified

equation gives rise to deviations from full granular energy-

balance predictions of as much as 10% in the granular tem-

perature Žgranular temperature decreased from 0.138 m2 ? sy2

to 0.0127 m2 ? sy2 .. The computational effort for solving the

complete granular energy equation is about 20% higher than

calculating the granular temperature from the algebraic

equation. More simulation results of the freely bubbling flu-

idized bed case with the algebraic equation are given in van

Wachem et al. Ž1998..

Conclusions

In this article we have compared different formulations that

are employed in CFD models for gas]solid flow in the Eule-

rianrEulerian framework. We discussed the basis for the for-

mulation of the two different sets of governing equations

common to the two-fluid literature with respect to the nature

Figure 15. Experimental and simulated bubble shape of the dispersed phase. It is shown in detail that the model-

associated with a single jet at U s10 mr

rs ing of gas]solid flows requires different governing equations

and at t s 0.10 s and t s 0.20 s. than the modeling of gas]liquid flows. We also have com-

Comparison is made between the Ža . experiment of Kuipers pared various closure models both quantitatively and qualita-

Ž1990 .; Žb . model simulation using the interphase drag

constant of Wen and Yu Ž1966 .; Žc . model simulation using tively. For example, we have shown how the hybrid drag model

the interphase drag constant of Syamlal et al. Ž1993 .. proposed by Gidaspow Ž1994. produces a discontinuity in the

drag coefficient, how an order-of-magnitude difference in the psempirical constant in frictional stress

normal stress is predicted by the various frictional stress P spressure, N ? my2

r spoint in space, m

models, and how the Syamlal et al. Ž1993. model predicts a Rscharacteristic length scale, m

lower bed expansion than with the other drag models. ResReynolds number

Finally, we have studied the impact of the two governing Sssurface, m2

equations and the various closure models on simulation pre- t stime, s

Usinlet Žsuperficial . gas velocity, m ? sy1

dictions in three fluidized-bed test cases. It is shown that the

Um f sminimum fluidization velocity, m ? sy1

resulting predictions based on the two sets of governing ©svelocity vector, m ? sy1

equations are similar on an engineering scale, but are differ- V svolume, m3

ent in terms of microscopic features associated with individ- Vr sratio of terminal velocity of a group of particles to that of an

ual bubbles or localized solids distributions. It is also shown isolated particle

x sposition vector, m

that the model predictions are not sensitive to the use of dif- X sphase indicator

ferent solids stress models or radial distribution functions. In D x sx-mesh spacing, m

dense-phase gas]solid flow, the different approaches in the D y sy-mesh spacing, m

kinetic theory modeling predict similar values for the solid-

phase properties. From an analysis of the individual terms on Greek letters

the momentum balance of the solid-phase momentum bal-

b sinterphase drag constant, kg ? my3 ? sy1

ance during the simulations, it can be concluded that gravity e svolume fraction

and drag are the most dominating terms; this is why the two h s1r2 Ž1q e .

different sets of governing equations predict similar results, f sangle of internal friction

and why the exact solid-phase stress prediction is of minor w ssquare root of the Froude number

w X sspecularity coefficient

importance. At a very high volume fraction, frictional stress g sdissipation of granular energy, kg ? my3 ? sy1

can influence the hydrodynamic prediction due to its large k ssolids thermal conductivity, kg ? my1 ? sy1

magnitude. Simplifying the granular energy balance by re- l ssolids bulk viscosity, Pa ? s

taining only the generation and dissipation terms is a reason- l m f p smean free path, m

m ssolids shear viscosity, Pa ? s

able assumption in the case of fluidized-bed modeling and

n sempirical coefficient

reduces the computational effort by about 20%. Finally, the c sempirical coefficient

manner in which the drag force is modeled has a significant r sdensity, kg ? my3

impact on the simulation results, influencing the predicted s stotal stress tensor, N ? my2

bed expansion and the solids concentration in the dense- t sviscous stress tensor, N ? my2

Qsgranular temperature, m2 ? sy2

phase regions of the bed.

Acknowledgments Subscripts

The investigations were supported Žin part. by the Netherlands bsbubble

Foundation for Chemical Research ŽSON., with financial aid from bubssingle bubble

the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research ŽNWO.. This dil sdilute

support is largely acknowledged. B.G.M. van Wachem gratefully ac- f sfrictional

knowledges the financial support of the Netherlands Organization g sgas phase

for Scientific Research ŽNWO., the Stimulation fund for Internation- isinterface

alization ŽSIR., DelftChemTech, the Delft University Fund, and the k seither phase

Reactor Research Foundation ŽRR., for the expenses for visiting mf sminimum fluidization

Purdue University. min sminimum; kick-in value

max smaximum

Notation psparticle

sssolids phase

Asempirical constant slip sslip

A 0 scatchment area of distributor, m2 slug sslug

CD sdrag coefficient w swall

d s sparticle diameter, m

Ds sstrain rate tensor, sy1

Dsdiameter, m

D T sinner column diameter, m Literature Cited

escoefficient of restitution Alder, B. J., and T. E. Wainwright, ‘‘Studies in Molecular Dynamics:

f sfluid-phase point property II. Behaviour of a Small Number of Elastic Spheres,’’ J. Chem.

Fr sempirical material constant, N ? my2 Phys., 33, 1439 Ž1960..

g r . sweighting function

Ž Anderson, T. B., and R. Jackson, ‘‘A Fluid Mechanical Description

g sgravitational constant, m ? sy2 of Fluidized Beds,’’ Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 6, 527 Ž1967..

g 0 sradial distribution function Barthod, D., M. Del Pozo, and C. Mirgain, ‘‘CFD-Aided Design Im-

hsheight of bubble in fluidized bed, m proves FCC Performance,’’ Oil Gas J., 66 Ž1999..

Hm f sminimum fluidization bed height, m Boemer, A., H. Qi, U. Renz, S. Vasquez, and F. Boysan, ‘‘Eulerian

Ht scolumn height, m Computation of Fluidized Bed Hydrodynamics}A Comparison of

J sfluctuating velocityrforce correlation, kg ? my3 ? sy1 Physical Models,’’ Proc. of the Int. Conf. on FBC, Orlando, FL, p.

Lsinterfacial area per unit volume, my1 775 Ž1995..

M sinterphase momentum exchange, N ? sy1 Carnahan, N. F., and K. E. Starling, ‘‘Equations of State for Non-At-

nsempirical constant in frictional stress tracting Rigid Spheres,’’ J. Chem. Phys., 51, 635 Ž1969..

nsnumber density Chapman, S., and T. G. Cowling, The Mathematical Theory of Non-

nsnormal vector, m Uniform Gases, Cambridge Univ. Press, 3rd Ed., Cambridge Ž1970..

Coulomb, C. A., ‘‘Essai sur Une Application des Regles´ de Maximis Kuipers, J. A. M., A Two-Fluid Micro Balance Model of Fluidized Beds,

et Minimis ` `

a Quelques Problemes de Statique, Relatifs ´

a l’Archi- PhD Thesis, Univ. of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands Ž1990..

tecture,’’ Acad. R. Sci. Mem.` Math, Phys. Di®ers. Sa®ants, 7, 343 Louge, M. Y., E. Mastorakos, and J. T. Jenkins, ‘‘The Role of Parti-

Ž1776.. cle Collisions in Pneumatic Transport,’’ J. Fluid Mech., 231, 345

Dalla Valle, J. M., Micromeritics, Pitman, London Ž1948.. Ž1991..

Darton, R. C., R. D. LaNauze, J. F. Davidson, and D. Harrison, Lun, C. K. K., and S. B. Savage, ‘‘The Effects of an Impact Velocity

‘‘Bubble Growth Due to Coalescence in Fluidized Beds,’’ Trans. Dependent Coefficient of Restitution on Stresses Developed by

Inst. Chem. Eng., 55, 274 Ž1977.. Sheared Granular Materials,’’ Acta Mech., 63, 15 Ž1986..

Davidson, J. F., and D. Harrison, Fluidized Particles, Cambridge Univ. Lun, C. K. K., S. B. Savage, D. J. Jefferey, and N. Chepurniy, ‘‘Kinetic

Press, Cambridge Ž1963.. Theories for Granular Flow: Inelastic Particles in Couette Flow

Enwald, H., E. Peirano, and A. E. Almstedt, ‘‘Eulerian Two-Phase and Slightly Inelastic Particles in a General Flowfield,’’ J. Fluid

Flow Theory Applied to Fluidization,’’ Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 22, Mech., 140, 223 Ž1984..

21 Ž1996.. Nadim, A., and H. A. Stone, ‘‘The Motion of Small Particles and

Ergun, S., ‘‘Fluid Flow through Packed Columns,’’ Chem. Eng. Prog., Droplets in Quadratic Flows,’’ Stud. Appl. Mech., 85, 53 Ž1991..

48, 89 Ž1952.. Ocone, R., S. Sundaresan, and R. Jackson, ‘‘Gas-Particle Flow in a

Garside, J., and M. R. Al-Dibouni, ‘‘Velocity-Voidage Relationship Duct of Arbitrary Inclination with Particle-Particle Interactions,’’

for Fluidization and Sedimentation,’’ Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. AIChE J., 39, 1261 Ž1993..

De®., 16, 206 Ž1977.. Patankar, S. V., Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemi-

Gidaspow, D., Multiphase Flow and Fluidization, Academic Press, San sphere, New York Ž1980..

Diego Ž1994.. Pyle, D. L., and D. Harrison, Chem. Eng. Sci., 22, 531 Ž1967..

Gidaspow, D., and L. Huilin, ‘‘Equation of State and Radial Distri- Rhie, C. M., and W. L. Chow, ‘‘Numerical Study of the Turbulent

bution Functions of FCC Particles in a CFB,’’ AIChE J., 44, 279 Flow Past an Airfoil with Trailing Edge Separation,’’ AIAA J1, 21,

Ž1998.. 1527 Ž1983..

Hilligardt, K., and J. Werther, ‘‘Local Bubble Gas Hold-Up and Ex- Richardson, J. F., and W. N. Zaki, ‘‘Sedimentation and Fluidisation:

pansion of GasrSolid Fluidized Beds,’’ Ger. Chem. Eng., 9, 215 I,’’ Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 32, 35 Ž1954..

Ž1986.. Rowe, P. N. ‘‘Drag Forces in a Hydraulic Model of a Fluidized Bed:

Hoomans, B. P. B., J. A. M. Kuipers, W. J. Briels, and W. P. M. van II,’’ Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 39, 175 Ž1961..

Swaaij, ‘‘Discrete Particle Simulation of Bubble and Slug Forma- Sangani, A. S., G. Mo, H.-K. Tsao, and D. L. Koch, ‘‘Simple Shear

tion in a Two-Dimensional Gas-Fluidised Bed: A Hard-Sphere Flows of Dense Gas-Solid Suspensions at Finite Stokes Numbers,’’

Approach,’’ Chem. Eng. Sci., 51, 99 Ž1996.. J. Fluid Mech., 313, 309 Ž1996..

Hrenya, C. M., and J. L. Sinclair, ‘‘Effects of Particle-Phase Turbu- Schaeffer, D. G., ‘‘Instability in the Evolution Equations Describing

lence in Gas-Solid Flows,’’ AIChE J., 43, 853 Ž1997.. Incompressible Granular Flow,’’ J. Differ. Eqs., 66, 19 Ž1987..

Ishii, M., Thermo-Fluid Dynamic Theory of Two-Phase Flow, Direc- Sinclair, J. L., ‘‘Hydrodynamic Modelling,’’ Circulating Fluidized Beds,

tion des Etudes et Recherches d’Electricite ´ de France, Eyrolles, J. R. Grace, A. A. Evidan, and T. M. Knowlton, eds., Blackie,

Paris Ž1975.. London, p. 149 Ž1997..

Ishii, M., and K. Mishima, ‘‘Two-Fluid Model and Hydrodynamic Sinclair, J. L., and R. Jackson, ‘‘Gas-Particle Flow in a Vertical Pipe

Constitutive Relations,’’ Nucl. Eng. Des., 82, 107 Ž1984.. with Particle-Particle Interactions,’’ AIChE J., 35, 1473 Ž1989..

Jackson, R., ‘‘The Mechanics of Fluidized Beds: Part I: The Stability Syamlal, M., W. Rogers, and T. J. O’Brien, ‘‘Mfix Documentation

of the State of Uniform Fluidization,’’ Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 41, Theory Guide,’’ U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy,

13 Ž1963.. Tech. Note Ž1993..

Jackson, R., ‘‘Locally Averaged Equations of Motion for a Mixture Tsuji, Y., T. Kawaguchi, and T. Tanaka, ‘‘Discrete Particle Simula-

of Identical Spherical Particles and a Newtonian Fluid,’’ Chem. tion of Two-Dimensional Fluidized Bed,’’ Powder Technol., 77, 79

Eng. Sci., 52, 2457 Ž1997.. Ž1993..

Jackson, R., ‘‘Erratum,’’ Chem. Eng. Sci., 53, 1955 Ž1998.. Van Wachem, B. G. M., J. C. Schouten, R. Krishna, and C. M. van

Jenkins, J. T., ‘‘Boundary Conditions for Rapid Granular Flow: Flat, den Bleek, ‘‘Eulerian Simulations of Bubbling Behaviour in Gas-

Frictional Walls,’’ J. Appl. Mech., 59, 120 Ž1992.. Solid Fluidised Beds,’’ Comput. Chem. Eng., 22, s299 Ž1998..

Jenkins, J. T., and S. B. Savage, ‘‘A Theory for the Rapid Flow of Van Wachem, B. G. M., J. C. Schouten, R. Krishna, and C. M. van

Identical Smooth, Nearly Elastic, Spherical Particles,’’ J. Fluid den Bleek, ‘‘Validation of the Eulerian Simulated Dynamic Be-

Mech., 130, 187 Ž1983.. haviour of Gas-Solid Fluidised Beds,’’ Chem. Eng. Sci., 54, 2141

Johnson, P. C., and R. Jackson, ‘‘Frictional-Collisional Constitutive Ž1999..

Relations for Granular Materials, with Application to Plane Shear- Wen, C. Y., and Y. H. Yu, ‘‘Mechanics of Fluidization,’’ Chem. Eng.

ing,’’ J. Fluid Mech., 176, 67 Ž1987.. Prog. Symp. Ser., 62, 100 Ž1966..

Johnson, P. C., P. Nott, and R. Jackson, ‘‘Frictional-Collisional Werther, J., and O. Molerus, ‘‘The Local Structure of Gas Fluidized

Equations of Motion for Particulate Flows and Their Application Beds I. A Statistically Based Measured System,’’ Int. J. Multiphase

to Chutes,’’ J. Fluid Mech., 210, 501 Ž1990.. Flow, 1, 103 Ž1973..

Kehoe, P. W. K., and J. F. Davidson, ‘‘Continuously Slugging Flu- Zhang, D. Z., and R. M. Rauenzahn, ‘‘A Viscoelastic Model for

idised Beds,’’ Inst. Chem. Eng. Symp. Ser., 33, 97 Ž1971.. Dense Granular Flows,’’ J. Rheol., 41, 1275 Ž1997..

Koch, D. L., ‘‘Kinetic Theory for a Monodisperse Gas-Solid Suspen-

sion,’’ Phys. Fluids A, 2, 1711 Ž1990..

Koch, D. L., and A. S. Sangani, ‘‘Particle Pressure and Marginal

Stability Limits for a Homogeneous Monodisperse Gas-Fluidized

Bed: Kinetic Theory and Numerical Simulation,’’ J. Fluid Mech.,

400, 229 Ž1999.. Manuscript recei®ed Dec. 7, 1999, and re®ision recei®ed Oct. 9, 2000.

- Shock WavesUploaded bySai Dhruv
- P Malan AIAA2009 Gamma Re ThetaUploaded byMohammed Barahmeh
- Clanak Zakucac Dobre SlikeUploaded byMarija Šiško Kuliš
- Pandya_uta_2502D_12458Uploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Narrative MomentumUploaded byFiona Isle Galicio
- 3) Momentum TestUploaded byJorge Montero Vallejo
- IRJET-Design and Fluid Flow Analysis of F1 Race CarUploaded byIRJET Journal
- 2. CFD Study Spreadsheets UseUploaded bychemsac2
- AUSM+ALLSPEEDSUploaded byNandakrishnan S L
- UT Dallas Syllabus for phys3341.001.08s taught by Paul Macalevey (paulmac)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- DNV RP-F105_2006-02Uploaded bypipeliner_137
- Mesh-Intro 17.0 M05 Mesh Quality and Advanced TopicsUploaded byjust random
- Users guideUploaded byHeriberto Saldivar Massimi
- A Boundary Element Method Applied to Strongly Nonlinear Wave-Body Interaction Problems 2007Uploaded bykhabiran
- tray 19Uploaded byShyam Sundar
- OptiStruct and RADIOSS Difference hypermeshUploaded by03sri03
- SCORG_Pumplinx_Setup_V5.1Uploaded bykamlz
- NuFoam_SAFIR2010 (1)Uploaded byNajim Monssif
- Lesson 4-A2 PhysicsUploaded byShiu Ping Wong
- CFD Analysis of Symmetrical Tangential Inlet Cyclone SeparatorUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Topology Optimization Driven FedesignUploaded byMicheleDiSclafani
- Application of computational fluid dynamics to the design of pico propeller turbinesUploaded byAjith Krishnan
- cont ovenUploaded bySengupta Vivek
- 19Uploaded byWormInch
- 282-137-1-PBUploaded byraul yondo
- Articulo_Jaime_Gonzalez.pdfUploaded byFélix Gallo Cruz
- lspostUploaded byAfia.S.Hameed
- 1-s2.0-S0306261915009058-main_R37Uploaded byAnonymous 7BQxlt8c
- v49-51Uploaded bySoepoehh Setyawan
- wu3c7 by Adel KhamisUploaded byAdel Khamis

- avg pitot isapaperUploaded byrieza_f
- Darcy - Weisbach_equationUploaded byachmadh_2010
- 806-Article Text-6772-3-10-20160205Uploaded bySouhail Zraoura
- Pressure_Drop.xlsUploaded bySamir
- CAE PresentationUploaded bynewstyli
- On the Rheology of CatsUploaded byAnonymous yHmlNJY
- IsentropicUploaded byDeepak Jay
- CAVTUploaded byRaj Easwarmoorthi
- Validation of Vortex Generator Models in EdgeUploaded byAbdullah Ilyas
- CFD_0Uploaded bySachin Borse
- Metal Forming[a. L. Hoffmanner]Uploaded byAbir Roy
- 9780203740132_previewUploaded byfernando salim
- 06_Guidelines for SlugtrackingUploaded byHamid Rafiee
- A Course on Reciprocating PumpUploaded bySwami Vedatitananda
- hoffman diffuser project iiiUploaded byapi-245259852
- Liebherr - A4VG Basic TrainingUploaded bydic2311
- Vortex BreakingUploaded byzorro21072107
- Pumps & TurbinesUploaded byapi-3721100
- Centrifugal PumpUploaded byAnkita Sharma
- A Generalized Method for Predicting the Minimum Fluidization Velocity - C. Y. WEN and Y. H. YUUploaded byJoão Vitor Apolinário Ferreira
- Aerodynamics-II Questions BankUploaded byae00505
- Fluid mechanics table of contentUploaded byasadprl
- Qpedia Apr09 Basic Principles of Wind Tunnel Design9Uploaded byRyan Fadhli
- Project CFD GuideUploaded byshinban
- Sample PaperUploaded byRishabhshah007
- Module 4Uploaded byYousef Asmar
- BTech Civil SyllabusUploaded byjhkhkjlkj
- Lagrangian slug ﬂow modeling and sensitivity on hydrodynamic slug initiation methods in a severe slugging caseUploaded byfanziskus
- Numerical Solution of Laminar Flow GeneratedUploaded byRitunjay Jha
- On the Modeling of Spar-type Floating Offshore Wind TurbinesUploaded byBehairy Ahmed