Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 1737–1747

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advanced Powder Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apt

Original Research Paper

Numerical simulation of turbulent fluidized bed with Geldart B particles

Salma Benzarti a,⇑, Hatem Mhiri a, Hervé Bournot b, René Occelli b
a
National Engineering School of Monastir, Unit of Thermic and Thermodynamics of the Industrial Processes, Avenue Ibn El Jazzar, 5019 Monastir, Tunisia
b
Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, IUSTI UMR 7343, 13453 Marseille, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A numerical study was carried out to explore the hydrodynamic behavior of gas–solid flow in a 2D tur-
Received 2 May 2013 bulent fluidized bed. The gas–solid flow was simulated by mean of an Eulerian–Eulerian two fluid model
Received in revised form 18 June 2014 incorporating the Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow (KTGF). The main purpose of this work was to examine
Accepted 26 June 2014
the ability of various models to predict the hydrodynamic of a turbulent fluidized bed filled with Geldart
Available online 9 July 2014
B particles on the Fluent V.6.2 platform. The effect of different drag models including those of Gidaspow,
Syamlal & O’Brien and Mckeen, were tested and the corresponding results were compared. A good level of
Keywords:
agreement was achieved with the Gidaspow model with reference to experimental data. Two viscous
Turbulent fluidization
CFD
models were tested and the standard k—e model performed the better prediction of the core annular
Drag model structure of the bed with reference to the experimental data. Different wall boundary conditions were
Turbulence also tested and their impact evaluated on the hydrodynamics of the bed.
Wall boundary conditions Ó 2014 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder
Technology Japan. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction regarding flow dynamics and computational models are required

The turbulent fluidized bed was widely used in industrial appli-
cations during the last decades. It is characterized by its ability to
handle the continuous powder, its vigorous gas–solids contacting,
its ability of favorable heat and mass transfer and by its relatively
low axial gas dispersion.
The turbulent fluidization regime has been commonly acknowl-
edged as a distinct flow regime occurring between two adjacent
flow regimes: the bubbling and the fast fluidization regimes. It is
characterized by two different coexisting regions: a dense bottom,
bubbling region and a dilute, dispersed flow region. The turbulent
fluidization is further characterized by its high value of dispersion
coefficient for the solids. According to the literature review, less
attention was dedicated to the turbulent fluidization due to cur-
rent deficiencies in experimental and theoretical works [1–4].
Therefore, fundamental understanding of its hydrodynamic behav-
ior is required.
Having achieved success in simulation of single phase flow, Com-
putational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is considered greatly promising for
modeling multiphase flows [5]. Nevertheless, CFD is still at the ver-
ification and validation stages for modeling multiphase flows, for
fluidized bed applications particularly, and more improvements
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +216 29344333.
E-mail address: salma_benzarti@yahoo.fr (S. Benzarti).
to make it a standard tool in designing large scale industrial reactors.
There are two different classifications of CFD models in the lit-
erature for modeling gas–solid flows: The Lagrangian and the Eule-
rian approach. In the Lagrangian approach, the Newtonian
equations of motion are solved for each individual particle. This
approach also takes into account a collision model for commending
the energy dissipation caused by non ideal particle–particle inter-
actions [6,7]. The second approach, namely the Eulerian approach,
treats the two different phases mathematically as continuous and
fully interpenetrating [8–10]. Several comparisons between
numerical models based on the multifluid model and the discrete
particle model are available in the literature. Ibsen et al. [11], for
example, made a comparison based on 2D simulations of a circu-
lating fluidized bed. They found that the discrete particle model
was in better agreement with experimental findings, while the
Eulerian approach was by far the most efficient. Conservations
equations (momentum, mass, energy balance) were derived to
obtain a set of equations that have similar structure in all phases.
To close the equations’ system and to describe the rheology of
the solid phase, constitutive equations are necessary. The Kinetic
Theory of Granular Flow (KTGF) has become a very promising
model for the gas–particle fluidized beds. It is an extension of
the classical kinetic theory of gases described by Chapman and
Cowling [12] to dense particulate flows. Numerous studies incor-
porating the KTGF model have shown its ability to simulate the
two-phase flow in circulating fluidized beds (CFBs) [9,13–16].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2014.06.024
0921-8831/Ó 2014 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder Technology Japan. All rights reserved.
1738 S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 1737–1747
Nomenclature
C 2e , C 1e turbulence model coefficients
CD drag coefficient
D riser width, m
ds particle diameter, m
es particle–particle restitution coefficient
g gravitational acceleration, 9.81 m s2
g0 radial distribution function
Gk;g production of turbulence kinetic energy, W m3
Gs solids external mass flux, kg m2 s1
H riser height, m
I unit tensor
I2D the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor
J granular energy transfer, kg m1 s3
kg turbulence quantities of gas phase, m2 s2
kH the diffusion coefficient for granular energy
P pressure, N m2
Ps solid pressure, N m2
q diffusion of fluctuating energy, kg s3
Re Reynols number
t time, s
u velocity, m s1
udr drift velocity, m s1
Ug superficial gas velocity, m s1
In the Eulerian model, the momentum equations for both
phases are connected by the drag coefficient, which represents
the momentum exchange between the gas and solid phases. The
drag coefficient plays an important role in characterizing the over-
all behavior of fluidization; justifying its frequent investigation in
the literature. Several drag models were mentioned in the litera-
ture, including the Gidaspow [14], Syamlal–O’Brien [17] and
Wen-Yu [18] models.
Many researchers have successfully simulated the hydrody-
namics of Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) particles, and of the coars-
est Geldart B [19] particles, respectively in circulating fluidized
beds and in bubbling fluidized beds by conventional drag models.
Nevertheless, less successful simulations have been performed on
gas fluidization of Geldart A particles or turbulent fluidization of
Geldart B particles.
Qi et al. [20] reported that classical drag models perform satis-
fying results for only low gas velocities and coarse particles, in
which case the terminal velocity was equal or close to the superfi-
cial gas velocity.
Zimmermann and Taghipour [21] reported also that the drag
models of Gidaspow and Syamlal–O’Brien are not suitable, in their
original form, for simulations of Geldart A particles. In fact, these
models overestimate the momentum exchange between the two
phases and overpredict the bed expansion with reference to exper-
imental data.
Zhang and Vanderheyden [22] reported that the inter-particle
cohesive forces leading to the formation of mesoscale bubbling
or clustering structures, cause a significant change in drag forces.
They proposed then to correct the standard drag correlation by a
scaling factor of ðð1  cr Þ2 Þ, to account for the mesoscale bubbling
or clustering structures. This method has been since then used
by several authors (Ye et al. [23]; Mckeen and Pugsley [24]) to sim-
ulate bubbling fluidized beds of Geldart A particles.
Recently, Mckeen and Pugsley [24] found that the poor simula-
tions results for Geldart A particles could be attributed to the exis-
tence of significant cohesive forces between particles. To cope with
this weakness they brought modification on the Gibilaro [25] drag
Greek letters
eg turbulence dissipation of gas phase, m2 s3
a volume fraction
q density, kg m3
ns solid bulk viscosity, Pa s
u specularity coefficient
rk ; re turbulent Prandtl numbers
b gas–particle interaction coefficient, kg m3 s1
H granular temperature, m2 s2
s stress tensor, N m2
/ angle of internal friction, °
Pkg ; Pg influence of the dispersed phases on the continuous
phase
c collisional dissipation of energy, kg m3 s1
Subscripts
KTGF Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow
Col collisional
Kin kinetic
max maximum
fr frictional
X lateral coordinate, m
s solid phase
g gas phase
model with a scaling factor C varying between 0.2 and 0.3. The cor-
rection factor of 0.25 proved to predict the experimental results
observed in a freely bubbling bed for FCC with a mean diameter
of (75 lm).
Yang et al. [26] adopted the energy minimization multiscale
(EMMS) approach, proposed by Li and Kwauk [27] to calculate the
drag coefficient from structure parameters, and to incorporate it
into the two fluid models. They claimed that this approach reason-
ably resolves the heterogeneous structures and suggested the feasi-
bility of using it as a sub-grid closure law for the drag coefficient.
More recently, the EMMS drag model was applied by Jiradilok
et al. [2] to predict the hydrodynamic of the turbulent fluidization
of FCC particles. They found that the turbulent regime was cor-
rectly computed using the modified drag of Yang et al. [26].
Although several correlations exist in the literature for the drag
force, considerable uncertainties still remain for its prediction.
In addition to the drag coefficient, the restitution coefficient
which accounts for the inelasticity of the particle–particle collision
may affect the hydrodynamic of a fluidized bed. Indeed, being an
input in the kinetic theory based CFD models, it has a direct impact
on the quantities they contain, such as particle pressure, particle
viscosity and dissipation of particle temperature. Goldschmidt
et al. [10], studied the effect of the restitution coefficient on the
hydrodynamic of a dense gas fluidized bed. They reported that, to
obtain realistic simulations using fundamental hydrodynamic mod-
els, it is important to correctly take the effect of non-ideal particle–
particle encounters into account. Taghipour et al. [28] found higher
sensitivity to the restitution coefficient at U < U mf . Gao et al. [29]
indicated that there is sensitivity to this coefficient in the behavior
of a turbulent bed filled with Geladart B particles when its values
range from 0.6 to 0.99. Although, the effect of the restitution coeffi-
cient has been extensively explored, the role of this parameter is not
yet fully understood and more explorations are still required.
In the riser of a turbulent fluidized bed, the multiphase flow is
very turbulent and displays high Reynolds numbers. In order to
make the simulation predictions more realistic, the time average
turbulent behavior and the turbulent interaction between phases
 S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 1737–1747
should be taken into account. Different models, laminar and turbu-
lent models with kinetic theory, have been used by various authors
to simulate the hydrodynamic of gas–particle multiphase flow.
Almuttahar and Taghipour [30] compared two different viscous
models, the k—e turbulence and the laminar model with Kinetic
Theory of Granular Flow. They claimed that the laminar model pre-
dictions give more consistent results than the turbulent models.
Nevertheless, this comparison was carried out in 2D modeling
and since turbulence fluctuations always have three-dimensional
spatial character then, to draw a firm conclusion, 3D comparative
studies are required. However, this requires excessive computa-
tional time, hence the 2D modeling still takes preference over 3D.
Further parameters may affect the simulation results of a turbu-
lent fluidized bed, such as the wall boundary conditions. Li et al.
[31] investigated the impact of this parameter in a 2D simulation
of a bubbling fluidized bed, for gas and solid phases, over the gen-
erated flow hydrodynamics. According to their investigation, the
wall boundary conditions need to be specified with great care
due to their high relevance over the hydrodynamic. Johnson and
Jackson [32] have developed a set of boundary conditions to define
the interactions between the particles and the wall. These bound-
ary conditions have been widely applied in numerical simulations
of gas–solid flows due to their relatively simple form [29,33]. In
Johnson and Jackson boundary conditions, the specularity coeffi-
cient, which characterizes the tangential momentum transfer due
to collision between the particles and the wall, must be specified
with great care as well (Li et al. [31]). The effect of this coefficient
on the numerical results for different solid particle distributions
has been studied by several researchers [31,34]. The core-annulus
structure of the solid phase was reported to be very sensitive to the
choice of the specularity coefficient [31,35,36]. However, choosing
the right number is critical for most validation studies due to the
difficulty in measurements. Further theoretical investigations are
then required in order to contribute to a better understanding of
the gas–solid flows.
Riser
PDA
H
D
Lifting screw
Y
Air distributor
Air inlet
Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental apparatus of the turbulent fluidized bed.
1739
In the current work, a multifluid Eulerian model incorporating
the Kinetic Theory of Granular Flows has been carried out to sim-
ulate the hydrodynamic of a 2D circulating fluidized bed filled with
Geldart B particles. These simulations were conducted using the
commercial software package Fluent V.6.2. In order to get the best
simulation of the hydrodynamic of the fluidized bed, the effect of
various drag models including those of Gidaspow, Syamlal–O’Brien
and Mckeen have been investigated. The numerical results
obtained are compared to experimental data available in the liter-
ature. This work is further extended to explore the effect of differ-
ent wall boundary conditions (slip, no slip and partially slip) on the
hydrodynamic of the gas–solid flow. Finally, the performance of
two different viscous models (the k–e turbulence and the laminar
model) has been evaluated by comparing their predictions with
reference to experimental data.
2. Experimental setup
Our simulation is based on the experimental work conducted by
the CFB team of the I.U.S.T.I., a Laboratory in Marseille (France).
These experiments were carried out by Van den Moortel et al.
[37] and were recently extended by Zaabout et al. [38,39]. They
all used a rectangular Plexiglas riser with 2 m in height and
0:2 m in width. The solid particles used were glass spheres with
a density of 2400 kg=m3 and a mean diameter of 120 lm. Air at
room temperature was used as the fluidizing gas. The static bed
height was 0:1 m and the superficial gas velocity was 1 m=s. The
geometry of the fluidization loop is depicted in Fig. 1.
3. Computational fluid dynamics simulation set up
Through the development of high performance computer and
the advancement of computational methodologies, computational
fluid dynamics analysis of multiphase systems has been largely
enhanced and appears as an efficient and promising tool in the
Cyclone
Flow meter
Valve
Buffer vessel Pump
Air outlet
1740 S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 1737–1747

Table 1
Governing equations.

Equations Mathematical expressions

Mass conservation equations of gas and solids phases @ðag qg Þ (T1-1)
@t aq
þ r  ð g g~ ug Þ ¼ 0
@ðas qs Þ (T1-2)
@t þ r  ð s saq
~
usÞ ¼ 0
ag + as = 1 (T1-3)
Momentum conservation equations of gas and solids phases @ðag qg ~
ug Þ !! (T1-4)
@t þ r  ð g g~aq ug Þ ¼ r  ðg Þ  g rP  bð ug us Þ þ g g g
ug ~ s a aq
@ðas qs ~
us Þ ! ! (T1-5)
@t þ r  ð s s~ us Þ ¼ r  ðg Þ  s rP  bð ug us Þ þ s s g
aq
us~ s a aq
Granular Temperature H ¼ 3u 1 02 (T1-6)
 
Equation of conservation of solids fluctuating energy 3 @ðas qs HÞ
us HÞ ¼ ðP sI þ s Þ : r~
þ r  ð s s~aq s c
us  r  q   J (T1-7)
2 @t
Equation of conservation of solids fluctuating energy in algebraic form 0 ¼ ðP sI þ s
s Þ : r~
us  c (T1-8)

development and design of circulating fluidized beds. We propose
in the current work to simulate the hydrodynamics of a gas–solid
CFB riser by means of a multifluid Eulerian model incorporating
the Kinetic Theory of Granular Flows using the commercial CFD
software package, Fluent. With this approach, the two different
phases are mathematically treated as continuous and fully inter-
penetrating. However, to obtain a set of equations having similar
structures for both phases, the conservation equations are derived.
A brief summary of the governing equations and its constitutive
equations is provided respectively in Tables 1 and 2.
3.1. Gas–solid exchange coefficient b (drag models)
The momentum exchange between the gas and solid phases is
accounted for by the drag coefficient, which has a significant effect
on the prediction of the Eulerian–Eulerian model. Based on the the-
ory and application, several expressions for this coefficient are
available in the open literature. In the current work, the effect of
various drag models including those of Gidaspow [14], Syamlal–
O’Brien [17] and Mckeen [243] has been analyzed.
The Gidaspow drag model is a standard model which combines
the Wen-Yu [18] and the Ergun [42] equations to cover the whole
range of void fractions. The Ergun equation is used where the sus-
pension is dense, whereas the formulation by Wen-Yu is used
where the suspension is dilute. The drag model developed by Syam-
lal and O’Brien [17] is based on the measurement of the terminal
velocities of particles in fixed or fluidized beds. This correlation is
a function of the relative Reynolds number and of the volume frac-
tion. When applying this correlation, the solid stresses should be
defined according to O’Brien and Syamlal [43]. Finally, the Mckeen
drag model [24] is based on a single compact function overall value
of voidage. The detailed mathematical depiction for these models is
shown in Table 3. The Gidaspow and Syamlal drag models, are
included in Fluent 6.2 by default. However, the Mckeen drag model
has been implemented into Fluent by using a user-defined function
(UDF).
3.2. Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow (KTGF)
The Two-Fluid-Model (TFM) needs closure equations to illus-
trate the rheology of the solid phase (the solid pressure and the
solid phase viscosity). There are two different approaches in the lit-
erature brought to describe these stresses: the Constant Viscosity
Model (CVM) and the Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow (KTGF).
The first approach treats the viscosity of the solid phase as a con-
stant and the solid pressure as a function of the local solid porosity
only. The second approach was founded on the application of the
kinetic theory of dense gases to the particulate assemblies. It gives
more perspicacity in terms of interactions between particles by
assuming that binary collisions between hard spheres take place
instantaneously. Analogous to the thermodynamic temperature
for gases, the model introduces a granular temperature as a mean
to measure particle velocity fluctuations. Fluent uses the granular
temperature as in Eq. (T1-6). The kinetic fluctuation energy of solid
particles that describes the distribution of granular temperature, is
expressed by: Eq. (T1-7). Where ðPs I þ ss Þ : r~
us is the generation
of fluctuating energy due to the local acceleration of the particles, q
is the diffusion of the fluctuating energy defined as q ¼ kH rH
(where kH is the diffusion coefficient for granular energy [42]), c
is the dissipation of fluctuating energy due to inelastic particle–
particle collisions and J is the exchange of the fluctuating energy
between the gas and the solid phase.
Instead of solving the full granular temperature equation, van
Wachem et al. [44] proposed to simplify this equation by using
an algebraic form. They assumed that the granular energy is in a
steady state and dissipates locally, thus convection and diffusion

Table 2
Constitutive equations.

Equations Mathematical expressions

h i
Gas phase stress tensor (Lun et al. [41]) sg ¼ ag ðng  23 lg Þðr  ~
ug ÞI þ lg ððr~ ug Þ þ ðr~
T
ug Þ Þ (T2-1)
h i
Solid phase stress tensor (Lun et al. [41]) us ÞI þ ls ððr~
ss ¼ as ðns  23 ls Þðr  ~ us Þ þ ðr~
T
us Þ Þ (T2-2)

Solids pressure (Lun et al. [41]) P s ¼ as qs H þ 2g 0 2s

a qs Hð1 þ es Þ (T2-3)
Solids shear viscosity ls = ls,col + ls,kin + ls,fr (T2-4)
qffiffiffi
Collisional viscosity (Gidaspow et al. [14]) ls;col ¼ 45 as qs ds g 0 ð1 þ es Þ H (T2-5)
p
Kinetic viscosity (Gidaspow et al. [14]) pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qs ds  2 (T2-6)
ls;kin ¼ 10 4
96 Hp ð1þes Þas g 0 1 þ 5 g 0 as ð1 þ es Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffi  
Kinetic viscosity (Syamlal et al. [18]) as qs ds Hp
ls;kin ¼ 6ð3es Þ 1þ 2
 as  ð1 þ es Þð3es  1Þ (T2-7)
5 g0
Frictional viscosity (Schaeffer et al. [40] ls;fr ¼ P2spsinffiffiffiffiffi
/ (T2-8)
I
2D
qffiffiffi
Solids bulk viscosity (Lun et al. [41]) ns ¼ 43 as qs ds g 0 ð1 þ es Þ H (T2-9)
p
Radial distribution function (Lun et al. [41])   1=3 1 (T2-10)
g 0 ¼ 1  as;max a s

 qffiffiffi
Collisional energy dissipation (Lun et al. [41]) cs ¼ 3ð1  e2s Þa2s qs g 0 H d4p Hp (T2-11)
 S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 1737–1747 1741

Table 3
Drag model equations.

Equations Mathematical expressions

Gidaspow drag model [14] ag > 0.8 (T3-1)
ag ð1ag Þ
b ¼ 34 C D0 ds
qg j~ us ja2:65
ug  ~
ag 6 0.8 (T3-2)
2
ð1a Þ lg q
b ¼ 150 ag g  1:75ð1  ag Þ dgs j~ug  ~
us j
ðds Þ2

24
½1 þ 0:15ðRe s Þ0:687
; Re s < 1000 (T3-3)
C D0 ¼ Re s
0:44; Res > 1000
Res ¼
ag qg j~
ug ~
us jds (T3-4)
lg
Syamlal and O’Brien drag model [17] 3 as ag qg !
! (T3-5)
b ¼ 4 #2 d C D jus  ug j
r;s s
 2 (T3-6)
4:8
C D ¼ 0:63 þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Res =#r;s
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(T3-7)
#r;s ¼ 0:5ðA  0:06Res þ ð0:06Res Þ2 þ 0:12Res ð2B  AÞ þ A2 Þ
8 1:28
< P ag ðag 6 0:85Þ (T3-8)
A ¼ a4:14 ; B ¼ Q
g
: ag ðag > 0:85Þ

P = 0.8 et Q = 2.65
Mckeen drag model [24]   q j! ! (T3-9)
g u s  ug j
b ¼ C 17:3
Res þ 0:336 ds
as ag1:8

terms can be neglected. According to the work of van Wachem The Reynolds stress tensor for the gas phase, given in Eq. (T1-7),
et al. [44], this assumption is only valid for dense particulate flows. takes the following form:
However, several researchers have successfully simulated gas–
solid flows in circulating fluidized beds using the algebraic granu- 2 ! ! !
s00g ¼  ðag kg þ qg lt;g r  U g ÞI þ qg lt;g ðr U g þ r U Tg Þ ð1Þ
lar temperature approach such as Gomez et al. [45], Milinkumar 3
et al. [34] and Chen et al. [46]. They found that the simplification !
where U g denotes the gas-weighted velocity and lt;g is the gas tur-
of the granular temperature does not lead to significantly different
bulent viscosity given by the following expression:
results, however, it decreases greatly the computational effort, and
saves computational time (22% in total computational time). Gry-
kg
czka et al. [47] investigated similarly the effect of the algebraic lt;g ¼ qg C l ð2Þ
eg
granular temperature approach on spouted bed hydrodynamics.
It was observed that 2D calculations are less time-consuming
Here kg is the turbulent kinetic energy, eg is the dissipation rate of
and give satisfying granular temperatures. They further reported
the turbulent energy and C l is 0:09 .
that differences between the two approaches, full granular temper-
Turbulent predictions of the gas phase are obtained from the
ature equation and simplified algebraic approach were even
following equations of the modified k—e model:
expected to be efficient in three dimensional simulations. There-
fore, the algebraic form of the granular temperature was then used @ ! lt;g
in this study and described as in Eq. (T1-8). ðag qg kg Þ þ r  ðag qg U g kg Þ ¼ r  ðag rk Þ þ ag Gk;g
@t rk g
 ag qg eg þ ag qg Pkg ð3Þ
3.3. Turbulence modeling
@ ! lt;g e
As aforementioned, two different coexisting regions character- ðag qg eg Þ þ r  ðag qg U g eg Þ ¼ r  ðag re Þ þ ag g
@t re g kg
ize turbulent fluidized bed: the bottom dense region and the upper
dilute region. The bottom dense region displays low Reynolds  ðC 1e Gk;g  C 2e qg eg Þ
numbers and, the effect of turbulent behavior and the interaction þ ag qg Peg ð4Þ
between phases are not very consistent due to the dense solid
phase concentration. On the other hand, the upper dilute region where Pkg and Peg represent the influence of the dispersed phases
displays high Reynolds numbers and very important gas-turbulent on the continuous phase and Gk;g the production of turbulent kinetic
stresses. Therefore, it is difficult to clearly determine the impor- energy. These terms are given by the following equations:
tance of gas or solid phase turbulent stresses in the whole riser.
In the literature, satisfactory agreement with experimental data b
Pkg ¼ ½ksg  2kg þ ~
ugs  ~
udr  ð5Þ
has been reported in both approaches; laminar [29,48] and turbu- ag qg
lent models [49].
In the present work, comparison between these two approaches eg
has been established in a try to find out which leads to the best Peg ¼ C 3e Pkg ð6Þ
kg
prediction of the hydrodynamic behavior of a fluidized bed. The
dispersed turbulent model was used to describe the effects of tur-
T
bulent fluctuations of velocities and scalar quantities in the gas- Gk;g ¼ lt;g ½r~
ug þ rð~
ug Þ  : r~
ug ð7Þ
eous phase. It is based on the standard k—e model with
supplementary terms for the momentum exchange between the ksg and ~
ud r represent respectively the covariance of the velocities of
two phases. The calculation of the turbulence for the dispersed the gas and the dispersed phase, and the drift velocity. These terms
phase is achieved by application of the Tchen theory correlation and all the other parameters involved in the dispersed k—e model
[50] into Fluent. can be found in the Fluent User’s Guide [51].
1742 S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 1737–1747

4. Initial and boundary conditions
The governing equations mentioned in the previous section are
solved using the Finite Volume Method (FVM) employing the
phase coupled algorithm for pressure–velocity coupling (PCSIM-
PLE). The discretization scheme used in the current work is carried
out with the first order upwind scheme. A convergence criterion of
1003 is specified as the relative error between successive itera-
tions. The commercial CFD package Fluent V.6.2 is used to provide
a numerical solution for these equations. The calculations are con-
ducted using a 2D Cartesian space. The 2D computational domain
(shown in Fig. 2) is discretized using 18848 cells with a uniform
quadratic mesh.
At the inlet, the velocity-inlet boundary condition for both
phases is used, while on the outlet the pressure outlet boundary
condition is applied. For the solid phase, the initial solids inventory
in the riser is set using the available experimental data. At the
walls, the no slip boundary condition is used for the gas phase,
while the partial slip boundary condition of Johnson and Jackson
[32] is specified for the solid phase. Physical properties and simu-
lation parameters are listed in Table 4.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Study of modeling parameters
Since there is no certitude on the appropriate values of the
model parameters such as the restitution coefficient, the specular-
ity coefficient and the drag coefficient, the main objective of the
present section is to significantly analyze the effects of these
parameters on the gas–solids flow.
5.1.1. Comparison of different drag models
In order to get an optimum drag model which lead to the best
simulation of the fluidized bed hydrodynamic, the drag models of
Gidaspow, Syamlal-O’Brien and Mckeen are explored and
compared.
The simulation results for the transient behavior of the axial
particle velocity under the same operating conditions and at differ-
ent heights are illustrated on Figs. 3 and 4.
The existence of the traditional core-annulus flow structure is
clearly predicted by all models. A mean axial particle velocity that
is negative near the wall and positive away from it characterizes
this kind of flow structure. In comparison, the Syamlal drag model
overpredicts the particle velocity in the central region and under-
predicts it near the wall over the two elevations. This should be
attributed to the lack of consideration of the effects of cohesive
forces and agglomeration, which results in higher drag forces,
and then higher solid velocities in the core region, and lower solid
velocities near the wall region.
The axial particle velocity profile shows reasonable qualitative
agreement with the Mckeen drag model when compared to exper-
imental data at a height of 1 m. At a height of 1:2 m this model
under predict the axial particle velocity near the central region
and reveals the typical annulus structure of the experimental data.
The discrepancy especially at the higher elevation may be attrib-
uted to the incapability of this model to capture the characteristics
of the dilute region. Indeed, Gao et al. [48] and Li et al. [52] report

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the simulated riser.

1
Axial particle velocity (m/s)

Table 4
Modeling parameters. 0
Description Value 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Riser height H 2m (X/D)

Riser width 0.2 m -1
Static bed height H0 0.1 m
Gas density qg 1.2 kg/m3 Gidaspow
Particle density qs 2400 kg/m3 Syamlal
Particle diameter ds 120 lm
-2 Mckeen
Initial solid volume fraction a0 0.6
Inlet gas velocity Ug 0.9 m/s, 1 m/s, 1.1 m/s Exp (Van Den Moortel, 1998)
Solid flux Gs 0.1 kg/m2s, 0.22 kg/m2s, 0.413 kg/m2s
Angle of internal friction 30°
Restitution coefficient es 0.8, 0.9, 0.95 and 0.99
-3
Specularity coefficient u 0, 0.001, 0.25 and 1
Maximum particle packing limit 0.64 Fig. 3. The time-averaged axial particle velocity predicted along the radial direction
Time step 103 s by various drag models at Y ¼ 1 m (superficial gas velocity U g ¼ 1 m=s, k—e
turbulent model, es ¼ 0:9, u ¼ 1).
 S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 1737–1747 1743

2 experimental results. Some differences still exist however, and

may be justified by the unrealistic 2D simulation of a real 3D sys-
tem. According to these findings, the standard k—e model will then
be adopted in the rest of this work.
Axial particle velocity (m/s)

5.1.3. Restitution coefficient

0 fully inelastic to fully elastic collisions respectively. With the aim
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(X/D)
-1 Gidaspow
Syamlal
Mckeen
Exp (Van Den Moortel, 1998)
-2
Fig. 4. The time-averaged axial particle velocity predicted along the radial direction
by various drag models at Y ¼ 1:2 m (superficial gas velocity U g ¼ 1 m=s, k—e
turbulent model, es ¼ 0:9, u ¼ 1).
that the Mckeen drag model cannot capture the dilute characteris-
tics of turbulent fluidized beds in spite of the better prediction for
the dense region.
Gidaspow drag model provided good description of the hydro-
dynamic of fluidized beds filled with Geldart B particles (Lu et al.
[53]). In the present work, the same model gave reasonable quali-
tative and quantitative agreement with reference to experimental
data in term of particle velocity profiles. We propose then to adopt
the Gidaspow drag model in the rest of this work.
5.1.2. Comparison of the laminar and the turbulence model
To study the effect of turbulence modeling on flow predictions,
simulations with laminar model and k—e turbulent model were
conducted and further compared to experimental measurements.
Fig. 5 compares the time averaged axial solid velocity obtained
with both models to experimental data evaluated at Y ¼ 1:2 m.
In both models, the core-annulus structure of the gas–solid flow
is well predicted. However, the solid velocity profile predicted by
the standard k—e model provides a better agreement with the
The restitution coefficient, which represents the degree of elas-
ticity of particle–particle collisions, ranges from zero to 1, from
0.9 1 to confirm the value of this parameter, four different restitution
coefficients (es ¼ 0:8, 0:9, 0:95 and 0:99) were selected and further
compared. The computed solid volume fraction contour and axial
solid velocity profile at a height of 1:2 m are shown in Figs. 6 and
7, respectively. On Fig. 6, it can be observed that decreasing the res-
titution coefficient lead to more and bigger bubbles in the bed,
causing more pronounced heterogeneities (thus instabilities).
Referring to Eq. (T2-11), the strong dependency of the dissipation
of the granular temperature on the restitution coefficient appears
in the term ð1  e2s Þ.
Then, decreasing the restitution coefficient would lead to a
greater dissipation of mechanical energy dissipation, resulting in
more particles attaching to each other and more bubbles created
in the bed. Therefore, as the collisions become more inelastic the
particles bed becomes more compact in the dense region and the
bubbles become more present. We can further observe that by
increasing the restitution coefficient more particles enter into the
dilute dispersed region. In fact, increasing es leads to a lower dissi-
pation of the kinetic energy fluctuation due to elastic particle–par-
ticle collisions and then particles are conveyed straightly forward
in the upward direction. Gao et al. [32] have also investigated
the effect of the restitution coefficient on the hydrodynamic behav-
ior of a turbulent fluidized beds filled with Geldart B particles and
they found that with the increase of es more particles enter into the
dilute region, similarly to our observations (Fig. 6).
According to Fig. 7, the restitution coefficient of 0:99, represent-
ing the case of nearly ideal particle–particle interactions, shows an

2
Axial particle velocity (m/s)

0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(X/D)

Turbulent
-1
Laminar
Exp (Van Den Moortel, 1998)

-2

Fig. 5. The time-averaged axial particle velocity predicted along the radial direction Fig. 6. The computed instantaneous solid volume fraction for three different
by laminar and turbulent model at Y ¼ 1:2 m (superficial gas velocity U g ¼ 1 m=s, restitution coefficient at t ¼ 30 s (superficial gas velocity U g ¼ 1 m=s, Gidaspow
Gidaspow drag model, es ¼ 0:9, u ¼ 1). drag model, k—e turbulent model, u ¼ 1).
1744 S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 1737–1747
2 2
Axial particle velocity (m/s)
1 1
0 0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(X/D)
Rest. 0.8
-1 Rest. 0.9
Rest. 0.95
Rest. 0.99
Exp (Van Den Moortel, 1998)
-2
Fig. 7. The time-averaged axial particle velocity predicted along the radial direction
by several restitution coefficients at Y ¼ 1:2 m (superficial gas velocity U g ¼ 1 m=s,
Gidaspow drag model, k—e turbulent model, u ¼ 1).
overproduction of particles velocity within the riser’s core and near
the wall region. In fact, increasing the restitution coefficient
reduces the presence of bubbles in the riser and then more parti-
cles enter into the dilute dispersed region with high velocity. How-
ever, the best agreement between the model predictions and
experimental data is obtained with es ¼ 0:9: this value is to be
adopted in the rest of our CFD simulations.
5.1.4. Specularity coefficient
The specularity coefficient, u, represents the measurement of
the fraction of collisions that transfer momentum to the wall.
The value of u varies from zero (for smooth walls) to one (for
rough walls). In the vicinity of zero, a free slip boundary condition
for the solids tangential velocity is achieved at the walls, while in
the vicinity of one, a substantial amount of momentum transfers
is obtained between the particles and the wall. Four different spec-
ularity coefficient values (u ¼ 0, 0:001, 0:25 and 1) are tested in
the present work in a try to find out which fits best the handled
case. The time-averaged axial solid velocity at Y ¼ 1:2 m, are given
in Fig. 8. In the case of the free slip boundary condition (u ¼ 0),
there is no friction between the particles and the wall. The free slip
of particles on the wall leads to more particles in the downward,
thus resulting in higher particle velocities and consequently higher
particles concentrations in the bottom of the riser. However, in the
case of the no slip boundary condition ðu ¼ 1Þ, friction is impor-
tant between the particles and the wall. This strong friction pre-
vents the downward of particles and then higher downward
particles velocity near the wall. As observed in Fig. 8, the downflow
of the particles at the wall increases when decreasing the specular-
ity coefficient as observed by Armstrong et al. [33] and Li et al. [26].
Both authors reported that a small specularity coefficient leads to a
considerably higher velocity of the particle downflow near the
wall. As to the axial particle velocity in the center (core region),
it is found to increase with the specularity coefficient u. The spec-
ularity coefficient affects consistently the particles’ movement
near the wall and in the core region. This study indicates then that
for a 2D simulation of a turbulent fluidized bed filled with Geldart
B particles, an arbitrary setting of the specularity coefficient may
lead to unreasonable predictions of the related hydrodynamic
proprieties.
The time-averaged axial solid velocity at Y ¼ 1:2 m is also com-
pared to the experimental data of Van den Moortel [37] in Fig. 8.
Axial particle velocity (m/s)
0.9 1 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(X/D)
Spec.coeff=0
-1
Spec.coeff=0.001
Spec.coeff =0.25
Spec.coeff=1
Exp (Van Den Moortel, 1998)
-2
Fig. 8. The time-averaged axial particle velocity predicted along the radial direction
by several specularity coefficients at Y ¼ 1:2 m (superficial gas velocity U g ¼ 1 m=s,
Gidaspow drag model, k—e turbulent model, es ¼ 0:9).
The axial particle velocities predicted by u ¼ 1 and u ¼ 0:001
are far away from the experimental data near the wall and within
the core of the riser. However, the specularity coefficient close to
one shows a reasonable agreement for all models carried out,
and hence is chosen to be the specularity coefficient for subsequent
simulations.
5.2. Comparison of modeling and experimental data
In order to produce an adequate description of the behavior of
the two phase flow in the riser section of a circulating fluidized
bed unit operating in a turbulent fluidization regime, several sim-
ulations have been performed with different modeling parameters
and criteria. The best agreement between model predictions and
experimental data was obtained using: the k—e turbulent viscous
model, the Gidaspow drag model and a no slip boundary condition
as discussed earlier in Section 5.1. So, to investigate the limitations
and capabilities of this model, the CFD model was evaluated under
different operating conditions. The same modeling parameters
were used for all cases with varying only the superficial gas veloc-
ity, U g and the solid mass flux Gs , to match the experimental oper-
ating conditions.
Fig. 9 compares the numerical results to experimental data at
different superficial gas velocities (U g ¼ 0:9 m=s and U g ¼ 1:1 m=s).
A satisfying agreement is obtained for all cases. This is likely to
provide further support for the effectiveness and accuracy of the
proposed model to simulate well the core-annulus flow in a turbu-
lent fluidized bed.
Fig. 10 shows the distribution of the computed time-averaged
solid volume fractions at different heights and for U g ¼ 1 m=s. As
we can see, solid volume fractions appear high near the wall region
and low in the center of the bed. These concentration profiles
clearly illustrate the inherent core-annular flow structure of the
solid phase. This kind of flow structure is characterized by the
accumulation of the solid phase moving downward at the wall
and by the upward movement of a dilute gas–particles stream in
the core of the riser. We can also observe that the solid volume
fraction decreases at higher locations.
At heights of 0:07 m, 0:1 m and 0:3 m, the solid volume fraction
profile attains a local minimum value near the wall region due to
solid entrance. This profile does no longer attains a minimum for
heights beyond 0:3 m (Y ¼ 0:5, 0:7, 1 and 1:2 m). A similar
 S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 1737–1747 1745

2
Axial particle velocity (m/s)

0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(X/D)
H=1.2 m
-1
Exp (Ug=1.1 m/s)
Num (Ug=1.1 m/s)
Exp (Ug=0.9 m/s)
Num (Ug=0.9 m/s)
-2

Fig. 9. Comparison of the predicted axial particle velocity with the experimental
data at Y ¼ 1:2 m and for different superficial gas velocities (a) U g ¼ 0:9 m=s and (b)
U g ¼ 1:1 m=s. (Gidaspow drag model, k—e turbulent model, es ¼ 0:9, u ¼ 1).

Ug =1 m/s
0.3
YH=0.07 m
YH=0.1 m
YH=0.3 m Fig. 11. The computed instantaneous solid volume fraction for different superficial
YH=0.5 m gas velocities and at t ¼ 30 s (Gidaspow drag model, k—e turbulent model, es ¼ 0:9,
Solid Volume Fraction

YH=0.7 m u ¼ 1).
YH=1 m
0.2 YH=1.2 m

0.7
Standard deviation of axial

0.1
0.6
particle velocity (m/s)

0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(X/D)
0.4 Exp (Van den Moortel,1998) Ug=1 m/s
Fig. 10. Radial distribution of the axial solid volume fraction at different axial bed Ug=0.9 m/s
Ug=1 m/s
distances for U g ¼ 1 m=s. (Gidaspow drag model, k—e turbulent model, es ¼ 0:9,
Ug=1.1 m/s
u ¼ 1).
0.3

observation in the concentration profiles has been made by

Ernst-Ulrich Hartge et al. [30] in a circulating fluidized bed filled
with Geldart B particles.
Fig. 11 displays the contours of the instantaneous solid concen-
tration in the turbulent fluidized bed at t ¼ 30 s for three different
gas velocities. We observe for all cases the formation of clusters in
the core region and near the wall. Clusters are denser at the wall
than in the core zone. Such flow patterns are attributed to the for-
mation, motion and split of clusters. When particles forming clus-
ters are grouped near the wall region, they fall downward along
the wall, collecting particles on their way. As a result the wall clus-
ters appear denser than the core zone clusters. In Fig. 11, we also
observe that more particles are entrained into the dilute zone
under increasing gas velocities.
Profiles of the standard deviation of the axial particle velocity at
a given height are plotted in Fig. 12 for three different gas velocities.
These fluctuations, which reflect the turbulence of the local suspen-
sion flow, are further analyzed in the following. As we can see from
the plots, the velocity fluctuations level increases in the center
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(X/D)
Fig. 12. The time-averaged standard deviation of axial particle velocity for different
superficial gas velocities along the radial direction at Y ¼ 1 m (Gidaspow drag
model, k—e turbulent model, es ¼ 0:9, u ¼ 1).
region with the superficial gas velocity. Indeed, in the case of high
velocity (U g ¼ 1:1 m=s) there are more particles entrained into
the upper dilute region, as previously seen in Fig. 11. An increase
of the superficial gas velocity leads then to further bubble coales-
cence and to an increase of the drag forces acting on the particles.
The flow structure in the upper zone becomes then more heteroge-
neous, leading to increasing particles velocity fluctuations.
We can also observe from Fig. 12 that the shape of the velocity
fluctuations plots changes close to the wall by accusing a sudden
decrease due to the existence of a bulk annulus dense solids down-
ward flow under all velocity cases.
1746 S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 1737–1747
Fig. 12 also contains the experimental data of Van den Moortel
[37] for the particular case of U g ¼ 1 m=s. A good agreement is
obtained qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Some discrepan-
cies are however observed near the wall; probably due to the
choice of the turbulence model. Elsewhere, the level of fluctuations
in the core is around 35% of the mean velocity in both experimen-
tal and computed cases, and the decreasing shape of the plots are
very similar when exiting from the core to the annulus region.
6. Conclusion
The behavior of the solid phase in the upper dilute zone of a tur-
bulent fluidized bed riser was investigated by means of a multi-
fluid Eulerian–Eulerian CFD model based on the Kinetic Theory of
Granular Flows and using the commercial CFD package Fluent
V.6.2. Various drag models including those of Gidaspow, Syam-
lal–O’Brien, and Mckeen were tested in order to get an optimum
drag model for a better simulation of the hydrodynamic of the flu-
idized bed. Compared to experimental data available in the litera-
ture, the Gidaspow drag model gave the most reasonable
qualitative and quantitative agreement. Two viscous models were
tested and best agreement with experimental data was obtained
with the k—e turbulent model. The computational results showed
certain sensitivity to the restitution coefficient in the turbulent flu-
idized bed filled with Geldart B particles, and the simulated axial
solid velocity fitted better the experimental data when using the
restitution coefficient of 0.9. While analyzing the model prediction
sensitivity to the specularity coefficient, it was found that a reason-
able reproduction of the experimental results was reached for a
specularity coefficient close to one. Finally, particle velocities,
radial solid volume fraction and standard deviation of axial parti-
cles velocity distributions were investigated for different gas veloc-
ities: the results provided further support for the effectiveness and
accuracy of the proposed models to simulate the core-annulus
two-phase flow in a turbulent fluidized bed.
References
[1] R. Andreux, T. Gauthier, J. Chaouki, O. Simonin, New description of fluidization
regimes, AIChE J. 51 (2005) 1125–1130.
[2] V. Jiradilok, D. Gidaspow, S. Damronglerd, W.J. Koves, R. Mostofi, S.
Nitivattananon, Kinetic theory based CFD simulation of turbulent fluidization
of FCC particles in a riser, Chem. Eng. Sci. 61 (2006) 5544–5559.
[3] N. Ellis, H.T. Bi, C.J. Lim, J.R. Grace, Hydrodynamics of turbulent fluidized beds
of different diameters, Powder Technol. 141 (2004) 124–136.
[4] J.W. Wang, Flow structures inside a large-scale turbulent fluidized bed of FCC
particles: Eulerian simulation with an EMMS-based sub-grid scale model,
Particuology 8 (2010) 176–185.
[5] G. Liu, P. Wang, S. Wang, L. Sun, Y. Yang, P. Xu, Numerical simulation of flow
behavior of liquid and particles in liquid–solid risers with multi scale
interfacial drag method, Adv. Powder Technol. 24 (2013) 537–548.
[6] M.A. van der Hoef, M. van Sint Annaland, N.G. Deen, J.A.M. Kuipers, Numerical
simulation of dense gas–solid fluidized beds: a multiscale modeling strategy,
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40 (2008) 47–70.
[7] J. Xie, W. Zhong, B. Jin, Y. Shao, Y. Huang, Eulerian–Lagrangian method for
three-dimensional simulation of fluidized bed coal gasification, Adv. Powder
Technol. 24 (2013) 382–392.
[8] A. Samuelsberg, B.H. Hjertager, An experimental and numerical study of flow
patterns in a circulating fluidized bed reactor, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 22 (1995)
575–591.
[9] S. Benyahia, H. Arastoopour, T.M. Knowlton, H. Massah, Simulation of particles
and gas flow behaviour in the riser section of a circulating fluidized bed using
the kinetic theory approach for the particulate phase, Powder Technol. 112
(2000) 24–33.
[10] M.J.V. Goldschmidt, J.A.M. Kuipers, W.P.M. van Swaaij, Hydrodynamic
modelling of dense gas-fluidized beds using the kinetic theory of granular
flow: effect of restitution coefficient on bed dynamics, Chem. Eng. Sci. 56
(2001) 571–578.
[11] C.H. Ibsen, E. Helland, B.H. Hjertager, T. Solberg, L. Tadrist, R. Occelli,
Comparison of multifluid and discrete particle modeling in numerical
predictions of gas particle flow in circulating fluidized beds, Powder Technol.
149 (2004) 29–41.
[12] S. Champan, T.J. Cowling, The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases,
Cambridge University Press, London, 1961.
[13] J.L. Sinclair, R. Jackson, Gas–particle flow in a vertical pipe with particle-
particle interactions, AIChE J. 35 (1989) 1473–1496.
[14] D. Gidaspow, Multiphase Flow Fluidization: Continuum Kinetic Theory
Description, Academic Press, Boston, 1994.
[15] C. Pain, S. Mansoorzadeh, C.R.E.D. Oliveira, A.J.H. Goddard, Numerical
modeling of gas–solid fluidized beds using the two-fluid approach, Int. J.
Numer. Meth. Fluids 36 (2001) 91–124.
[16] F. Taghipour, N. Ellis, C. Wong, Experimental and computational study of gas–
solid fluidized bed hydrodynamics, Chem. Eng. Sci. J. 60 (2005) 6857–6867.
[17] M. Syamlal, T.J. O’Brien, Computer simulation of bubbles in a fluidized bed,
AIChE Symp. Ser. 85 (1989) 22–31.
[18] C.Y. Wen, Y.H. Yu, Mechanics of fluidization, Chem. Eng. Progr. Symp. Ser. 62
(1966) 100–111.
[19] D. Geldart, The effect of particle size and size distribution on the behavior of
gas-fluidized bed, Powder Technol. 6 (1972) 201–215.
[20] H. Qi, C. You, A. Boemer, U. Renz, 2000. Eulerian simulation of gas–solid two-
phase flow in a CFB-riser under consideration of cluster effects. in: D. Xu, S.
Mori (Eds.), Fluidization 2000: Science and Technology, Xi’an Publishing
House, Xi’, pp. 231–237.
[21] S. Zimmermann, F. Taghipour, CFD modeling of the hydrodynamics and
reaction kinetics of FCC fluidized-bed reactors, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 44 (2005)
9818–9827.
[22] D.Z. Zhang, W.B. Vanderheyden, The effects of mesoscopic structures on the
macroscopic momentum equations for two-phase flows, Int. J. Multiph. Flow
28 (2002) 805–822.
[23] M. Ye, J. Wang, M.A. Van der Hoef, J.A.M. Kuipers, Two fluid modeling of
Geldart A particles in gas-fluidized beds, Particuology 6 (2008) 540–548.
[24] T. Mckeen, T. Pugsley, Simulation and experimental validation of a freely
bubbling bed of FCC catalyst, Powder Technol. 129 (2003) 139–152.
[25] L.G. Gibilaro, R. Di Felice, S.P. Waldram, P.U. Foscolo, Generalized friction factor
and drag coefficient correlations for fluid-particle interactions, Chem. Eng. Sci.
40 (1985) 1817–1823.
[26] N. Yang, W. Wang, W. Ge, J. Li, CFD simulation of concurrent-up gas–solid flow
in circulating fluidized beds with structure-dependent drag coefficient, Chem.
Eng. J. 96 (2003) 71–80.
[27] J. Li, M. Kwauk, Particle–fluid Two-phase Flow—The Energy minimization
Multi-scale Model, Metallurgy Industry Press, Beijing, 1994.
[28] F. Taghipour, N. Ellis, C. Wong, Experimental and computational study of gas–
solid fluidized bed hydrodynamics, Chem. Eng. Sci. 60 (2005) 6857–6867.
[29] X. Gao, C. Wu, Y.W. Cheng, L.J. Wang, X. Li, Experimental and numerical
investigation of solids behavior in a gas–solid turbulent fluidized bed, Powder
Technol. 228 (2012) 1–13.
[30] A. Almuttahar, F. Taghipour, Computational fluid dynamics of high density
circulating fluidized bed riser: study of modeling parameters, Powder Technol.
185 (2008) 11–23.
[31] T. Li, J. Grace, X. Bi, Study of wall boundary condition in numerical simulations
of bubbling fluidized beds, Powder Technol. J. 203 (2010) 447–457.
[32] P.C. Johnson, R. Jackson, Frictional–collisional constitutive relations for
granular materials with application to plane shearing, J. Fluid Mech. 176
(1987) 67–93.
[33] C. Loha, H. Chattopadhyay, P.K. Chatterjee, 2013. Effect of coefficient of
restitution in Euler–Euler CFD simulation of fluidized-bed hydrodynamics,
Particuology, in press.
[34] M.T. Shah, R.P. Utikar, M.O. Tade, V.K. Pareek, Hydrodynamics of an FCC riser
using energy minimization multiscale drag model, Chem. Eng. J. 168 (2011)
812–821.
[35] S. Benyahia, M. Syamlal, T.J. O’Brien, Evaluation of boundary conditions used to
model dilute, turbulent gas/solids flows in a pipe, Powder Technol. 156 (2005)
62–72.
[36] X. Lan, C. Xu, J. Gao, M. Al-Dahhan, Influence of solid phase wall boundary
condition on CFD simulation of spouted bed, Chem. Eng. Sci. 69 (2012) 419–
430.
[37] T. Van den Moortel, E. Azario, R. Santini, L. Tadrist, Experimental analysis of the
gas–particle flow in a circulating fluidized bed using a phase Doppler particle
analyzer, Chem. Eng. Sci. 53 (1998) 1883–1899.
[38] A. Zaabout, H. Bournot, R. Occelli, A. Draoui, Solids behavior in dilute zone of a
CFB riser under turbulent conditions, Particuology 9 (2011) 598–605.
[39] A. Zaabout, H. Bournot, R. Occelli, B. Kharbouch, Local solid particle behavior
inside the upper zone of a circulating fluidized bed riser, Adv. Powder Technol.
22 (2011) 375–382.
[40] D.G. Schaeffer, Instability in the evolution equations describing incompressible
granular flow, J. Different. Eq. 66 (1987) 19–50.
[41] C. Lun, S. Savage, D. Jeffrey, N. Chepumiy, Kinetic theories of granular flow:
inelastic particles in coquette flow and slightly inelastic particles in a general
flow field, J. Fluid Mech. 140 (1984) 223–256.
[42] S. Ergun, Fluid flow through packed columns, Chem. Eng. Prog. 48 (1952) 89–
94.
[43] T.J. O’Brien, M. Syamlal, 1993. Particle cluster effects in the numerical
simulation of a circulating fluidized bed. CFB-IV. Avidan AA, Ed. AIChE, New
York, pp. 430–435.
[44] B.G.M. van Wachem, J.C. Schouten, R. Krishna, C.M. van den Bleek, Eulerian
simulations of bubbling behavior in gas–solid fluidized beds, Comput. Chem.
Eng. 22 (1998) 299–366.
[45] C.L. Gomez, R.C. Silva, F.E. Milioli, Some modeling and numerical aspects of the
two-fluid simulation of the gas–solids flow in a CFB riser, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 23
(4) (2006) 487–496.
 S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 1737–1747
[46] X.-Z. Chen, D.-P. Shi, X. Gao, Z.-H. Luo, A fundamental CFD study of the gas–
solid flow field in fluidized bed polymerization reactors, Powder Technol. 205
(2011) 276–288.
[47] O. Gryczka, S. Heinrich, N.G. Deen, M. Van Sint Annaland, J.A.M. Kuipers, M.
Jacob, L. Mörl, Characterization and CFD-modeling of the hydrodynamics of a
prismatic spouted bed apparatus, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (2009) 3352–3375.
[48] J. Gao, X. Lan, Y. Fan, G. Wang, X. Lu, C. Xu, CFD modeling and validation of the
turbulent fluidized bed, AIChE J. 55 (2009) 1680–1694.
[49] J. Wang, Flow structures inside a large-scale turbulent fluidized bed of FCC
particles: Eulerian simulation with an EMMS-based sub-grid scale model,
Particology 8 (2010) 176–185.
1747
[50] J.O. Hinze, Turbulence, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.
[51] Fluent User’s Guide, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, USA, 2005.
[52] P. Li, X. Lan, C. Xu, G. Wang, C. Lu, J. Gao, Drag models for simulating gas–solid
flow in the turbulent fluidization of FCC particles, Particuology 7 (2009) 269–
277.
[53] B. Lu, W. Wang, J. Li, Eulerian simulation of gas–solid flows with particles of
Geldart groups A, B and D using EMMS-based meso-scale model, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 66 (2011) 4624–4635.