Particulate Science and Technology

An International Journal

ISSN: 0272-6351 (Print) 1548-0046 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upst20

Fluidization of forest biomass-sand mixtures:

experimental evaluation of minimum fluidization
velocity and CFD modeling

Florencia Toschi, Mariana T. Zambon, Julio Sandoval, Andrés Reyes-Urrutia &

Germán D. Mazza

To cite this article: Florencia Toschi, Mariana T. Zambon, Julio Sandoval, Andrés Reyes-Urrutia
& Germán D. Mazza (2020): Fluidization of forest biomass-sand mixtures: experimental evaluation
of minimum fluidization velocity and CFD modeling, Particulate Science and Technology, DOI:
10.1080/02726351.2020.1786202

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02726351.2020.1786202

Published online: 03 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=upst20
PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/02726351.2020.1786202

Fluidization of forest biomass-sand mixtures: experimental evaluation of

minimum fluidization velocity and CFD modeling
Florencia Toschia, Mariana T. Zambona, Julio Sandovalb, Andr
es Reyes-Urrutiaa, and Germ
an D. Mazzaa
a
PROBIEN-Instituto de Investigaci
on y Desarrollo en Ingenier
ıa de Procesos, Biotecnolog
ıa y Energ
ıas Alternativas, CONICET-Universidad
Nacional del Comahue, Neuqu
en, Argentina; bFacultad de Ingenier
ıa, Departamento de Qu
ımica, Universidad Nacional del Comahue,
Neuqu
en, Argentina

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
An experimental fluid-dynamic study of sand-forest biomass mixture fluidization was conducted. Fluidized bed; minimum
Different proportions of biomass/sand were tested. Sawdust from the Abra Ancha sawmill, located fluidization velocity; binary
in the town of Alumin
e, Argentina, was adopted as the forest biomass material. In parallel, compu- mixture; biomass; sawdust
tational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of the fluidization process of these mixtures were per-
formed to obtain exhaustive knowledge of their fluid-dynamic behavior. As a result, sand
incorporation, even at low concentrations, reduces the cohesion and bonding forces between bio-
mass particles and decreases the segregation and preferential channel formation in sawdust, thus
improving fluidization. Satisfactory qualitative results were obtained in relation to the agitation
state, bed expansion, and formation of bubbles in the different fluidized mixtures analyzed. The
occurrence of two different fluidization regimes was confirmed in both the biomass and biomass-
sand mixtures. This phenomenon allows the definition of the incipient (Uif ) and complete (Ucf ) flu-
idization velocities. The potential of ANSYS-Fluent software as a simulation tool of sand-sawdust
mixture fluidization was verified, and a suitable simulation methodology for predicting the min-
imum fluidization velocity was developed. This study constitutes the first and most indispensable
stage to achieve complete simulation, including chemical reactions, of a sawdust fluidized bed
gasification reactor.

1. Introduction However, biomass is not readily fluidized due to its

In the Andean region of Argentina, that is, Patagonia, large
amounts of forest waste (sawdust, branches, etc.) are gener-
ated because of anthropic activities related to the wood
industry. They can provoke severe environmental drawbacks,
including the handling and disposal of this waste and a high
fire risk. Aiming to solve this threat and considering their
energetic potential, different thermochemical routes have
been widely promoted, allowing the transformation of this
biowaste into fuels and energy (Van de Velden, Baeyens,
and Boukis 2008; Dai et al. 2015; Fernandez, Mazza, and
Rodriguez 2018).
The gasification process performed in bubbling fluidized
beds is one of the most advanced and efficient systems for
the generation of different fuels from biomass. Fluidized
beds promote a well-mixed operation and favor gas-solid
contact. Proper solid and gas mixing allows high heat and
mass transfer rates (Baeyens and Geldart 1980; Venier et al.
2020). In this context, this technology guarantees a large
exposed surface area of fuel, which results in high perform-
ance and lower operating temperature, thus minimizing the
generation of dioxins, furanes, and NOx (Basu 2010).
irregular shape, size, and density. To improve its fluidiza-
tion, it is necessary to incorporate an inert material such as
sand, glass beads, or alumina (Clarke, Pugsley, and
Hill 2005).
When biomass is fluidized together with sand, in gasifica-
tion equipment, two improvements are observed. The first is
related to fluidization since greater agitation and bubble for-
mations are achieved at a lower gas velocity. The second
improvement is related to the increase in heat transfer and,
consequently, in gasification efficiency as a result of the
incorporation of a solid with a high heat capacity such as
sand (Proenza P
erez et al. 2017).
The minimum fluidization velocity (Umf ) is one of the
most important parameters of the fluidization process. Its
determination is vital to realize the suitable design and oper-
ation of fluidized bed equipment (Kunii and
Levenspiel 2013).
Recently, considerable efforts have been dedicated to
investigating the fluid dynamics of binary biomass-inert
material mixtures. Clarke, Pugsley, and Hill (2005) investi-
gated the fluidization of binary mixtures of sawdust with
different moisture contents using glass beads as the inert
material. They observed that with increasing moisture

CONTACT Germ
an D. Mazza german.mazza@probien.gob.ar PROBIEN-Instituto de Investigaci

on y Desarrollo en Ingenier
ıa de Procesos, Biotecnolog
ıa y
Energ
ıas Alternativas, CONICET-Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Buenos Aires 1400, Neuqu
en (C.P. 8300), Argentina.
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 F. TOSCHI ET AL.
content of the sawdust, the minimum fluidization rate of the
mixture also increases. The authors reported the occurrence
of an upper moisture limit at which fluidization could be
achieved. Mixtures with glass particles 0.322 and 0.516 mm
in diameter, at a humidity of 33% and 54%, respectively,
exhibit the segregation and channeling phenomena.
Rao and Bheemarasetti (2001) experimentally studied the
fluidization of mixtures of different types of biomass and
sand. They proposed a new correlation to calculate the Umf
velocity of biomass-sand mixtures based on the effective
density and diameter of the mixture. This equation
adequately predicted the experimental values for fractions of
up to 10% by the biomass weight.
A similar study was carried out by Paudel and Feng
(2013) using corn and nutshell as the biomass material and
sand, glass, and alumina as the inert material, at percentages
by the biomass weight ranging from 0 to 100%. They pro-
posed a correlation to evaluate the Umf velocity, which con-
siders the biomass mass percentage and the Archimedes
number. The predicted results agreed well with the experi-
mental data for the studied biomass materials.
Zhang, Wenqi, and Jin (2011) conducted a detailed
experimental study of the fluidization of mixtures of pelleted
biomass and sand of three different sizes. They found that
the addition of an inert material promotes biomass fluidiza-
tion, thereby achieving a marked decrease in the Umf vel-
ocity. In addition, they studied the transition from bubbling
to turbulent regimes and proposed an equation to predict
the transition velocity from one regime to another.
Girimonte, Formisani, and Vivacqua (2019) studied how
the inert material granulometry influences the process of
energy production from wastes of the olive oil industry.
They used olive pits as the biomass material and several
sizes of inert material consisting of sand grains and glass
beads to analyze the effect of the size ratio, in addition to
the particle shape, on the voidage curve and the characteris-
tic fluidization velocity.
Ma and Zhao (2018) examined the influence of spherical
inert material on the fluidization of rod-like biomass mater-
ial. They simulated five granular systems with different vol-
ume fractions of the biomass using the coupled
computational fluid dynamics and discrete element method
(CFD-DEM) and validated the results with experimental
data. A decrease in Umf velocity was observed with the add-
ition of spherical inert particles.
Wang and Zhong (2019) also reported experimental and
CFD-DEM simulation results for biomass-sand mixtures in
fluidized beds. The authors analyzed the influence of the
biomass particle size and density on the fluidization quality
at three different superficial gas velocities. It was observed
in their study that the biomass and sand particles were likely
well mixed provided that the size ratio was lower than 4. In
addition, they predicted Umf values with previous empirical
correlations.
Sant’Anna et al. (2017) performed CFD simulations of a
gasifier bubbling fluidized bed for the system composed of
gas - biomass - sand. With the use of CFD coupled to fac-
torial planning, they identified the assays in which the
system reached bubbling fluidization through analysis of the
longitudinal profiles of the volumetric fractions of sand, gas,
and biomass. They observed that segregation of the particu-
late medium occurred for the tests in which the biomass/
sand mass ratio was >1 and the ratio between the biomass
and sand volume fractions in the bed was
0.5. They also
reported that the variable with the highest significance in
the model equation was the biomass particle size.
Thapa and Halvorsen (2013) applied a multiphase Eulerian
model to predict the fluidization properties of 0.5-mm steam-
fluidized quartz sand and 0.35-mm air-fluidized glass beads
and compared their behavior characteristics. The minimum
fluidization velocity was predicted using the pressure standard
deviation and validated with experimental measurements. The
computational pressure drops across the bed height for the
0.35-mm air-fluidized glass particles and the 0.5-mm steam-
fluidized quartz sand were approximately the same, and the
results deviated from the experimental measurements by 18%
under minimum fluidization conditions.
Despite the above-mentioned contributions, to our know-
ledge, the minimum fluidization velocity of biomass-inert
material mixtures has not been determined by simulations
based on the multiphase Eulerian CFD approach. Hence, the
fluid-dynamic characterization of binary mixtures by CFD
studies is still incomplete in the open literature. The fluid-
dynamic behavior of a gas-solid fluidized bed is strongly
related to the particle properties. In the case of binary sand-
biomass mixtures, the components have markedly different
properties, in form, size, and density. For this reason, the fluid-
ization of a binary mixture of solids, as mentioned above, dif-
fers markedly from that of a single component, which has
been studied in considerable depth by the application of
numerical methods (Taghipour, Ellis, and Wong 2005;
Cornelissen et al. 2007; Reuge et al. 2008; Hosseini et al. 2010).
In this context, the aim of this work was to test the capa-
bilities of the ANSYS-Fluent CFD code to predict Umf of
sand-biomass mixtures and thereby obtain exhaustive know-
ledge of the fluid-dynamic behavior. To validate the simula-
tion results, measurements were conducted in an
experimental bed for different proportions of sawdust and
sand. This study constitutes the first and most indispensable
stage to achieve complete simulation, considering chemical
reactions, of a fluidized bed gasification reactor.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Sawdust from the Abra Ancha sawmill, located in Alumin
e
(Neuqu
en province, Argentina), was used as the biomass
material, while the adopted inert material was sand (col-
lected from the Paran
a River in the Entre R
ıos province,
Argentine Mesopotamia region).
2.1.1. Sawdust proximate and ultimate analysis: higher
(HHV) and lower heating values (LHV)
Proximate analysis (moisture, ash, and volatile matter) was
performed according to ASTM standards (ASTM 1998;
 PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3

Table 1. Granulometric analysis of the sawdust.

Openning Solid average Sieve Accumulated Sieve Accumulated
Sieve number size (mm) size (mm) retention (g) retention (g) Passant (g) retention (%) retention (%)
4 4.75 3.27 3.27 146.41 2.18 2.18
8 2.36 3.555 6.88 10.15 139.53 4.60 6.78
16 1.18 1.77 14.68 24.83 124.85 9.81 16.59
30 0.6 0.89 50.88 75.71 73.97 33.99 50.58
40 0.425 0.513 29.79 105.5 44.18 19.90 70.48
50 0.3 0.3625 16.07 121.57 28.11 10.74 81.22
70 0.212 0.256 18.73 140.3 9.38 12.51 93.73
100 0.15 0.181 4.24 144.54 5.14 2.83 96.57
200 0.075 0.1125 4.58 149.12 0.56 3.06 99.63
>200 0.56 149.68 0 0.37 100.00

Table 2. Granulometric analysis of the sand sample.

Opening Solid average Sieve Accumulated Sieve Accumulated
Sieve number size (mm) size (mm) retention (g) retention (g) Passant (g) retention (%) retention (%)
18 1.000 1.49 1.49 198.51 0.74 0.74
30 0.600 0.8 68.99 70.48 129.52 34.49 35.24
40 0.425 0.513 45.97 116.45 83.55 22.99 58.22
70 0.212 0.3175 64.76 181.21 18.78 32.382 90.61
120 0.125 0.1675 6.37 187.59 12.41 3.19 93.79
>120 12.41 200 0 6.21 100

ASTM 2001), and elemental analysis was conducted with an
elemental analyzer (AuroEA3000), as described by
Fernandez et al. (2019).
The HHV was 20.04 MJ/kg. It was experimentally meas-
ured with an automated adiabatic bomb calorimeter (IKA
C5000) according to the ASTM D240 procedure. The LHV
value was determined from the corresponding HHV and the
water content (wt.%) considering the elemental hydrogen
content, according to Soria et al. (2019).
2.1.2. Contents of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose of
the sawdust
The lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose contents of the saw-
dust were determined according to ASTM standards (ASTM
1979; ASTM 1983), as described by Sette et al. (2020).
2.1.3. Sawdust and sand particle sizes
Both materials were classified with standard sieves to deter-
mine the particle size for the tests. Granulometric analysis of
both materials was carried out with a screening tower, as
summarized in Table 1 for the sawdust and Table 2 for the
sand, and to attain a representative particle size in both
cases, the Sauter diameter was calculated (defined as the sur-
face-volume diameter). The fraction of sawdust in the
experiments corresponded to that retained on meshes #30
and #40, which accounted for 53.89% of the total biomass
sifted, with an average size of 0.7 mm.
The sand retained on the #40 mesh with an average size
of 0.513 mm was employed as the inert material. The mean
sizes of both materials were then used for the simula-
tion setup.
2.1.4. Particle morphology
The particle morphology was analyzed by means of the
sphericity and roundness. The sphericity compares the
particle shape with a sphere, while the roundness is related
to the sharpness of the edges and vertices regardless of the
shape. The methodology indicated in the API standard
(Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Hydraulic
Fracturing Operations, 56 – Sec. Ed., 1995) was applied in
both evaluations.
Sample pictures were recorded with a magnifying glass
and a built-in camera. To this end, 30 images containing 10
particles each were obtained (exceeding the 30 grains stipu-
lated by the API 56 standard). In each image, comparative
observations were carried out of the sphericity and round-
ness with the aid of a chart. Subsequently, the calculation of
the mean arithmetic value of each parameter was obtained
for the sand and sawdust.
The analyzed sand has a sphericity of u ¼ 0.8, corre-
sponding to a moderate value, and roundness of R ¼ 0.6 and
can, therefore, be classified as sub-rounded to rounded sand.
The values obtained for the sawdust were u ¼ 0.66
and R ¼ 0.25.
2.1.5. Density measurement
In fluidization operations, one of the most relevant material
properties is the particle density, defined as the mass of the
particles divided by the hydrodynamic volume. This is the
volume experienced by the fluid in its fluid dynamic interac-
tions with the particles and includes the volume of all the
open and closed pores. This property differs from the abso-
lute density, defined as the mass of the particles divided by
the volume of the solid material making up the particles
(Rhodes 1998).
For nonporous solids, such as sand, the hydrodynamic
volume can be easily measured with a water pycnometer,
and the particle and absolute densities are equal. However,
sawdust is a highly porous solid material, and thus, both
densities were determined to fully characterize it. In this
work, a mercury pycnometer was employed to calculate the
4 F. TOSCHI ET AL.

Table 3. Materials properties.

Material dp Sauter (mm) qparticle (kg m3) qabsolute (kg m3) Sphericity Roundness Geldart
Sawdust 0.7 402 1406 0.66 0.25 B
Sand 0.513 2650 2650 0.8 0.6 B

particle density, and a helium porosimeter was adopted to

calculate the absolute density. The calculated values for both
material densities are listed in Table 3.

2.1.6. Geldart classification

Based on fluidization experiments with different types and
sizes of solids, Geldart (1973) proposed a simple approach
to predict the fluidization behavior of particulate materials.
He plotted the density difference between the solid phase
and fluid phase versus the particle size on a log-log plot and
proposed four different particle classes (A, B, C, and D). For
this evaluation, it is appropriate to use the particle density,
and for non-uniform particles, the particle size should be
represented by the Sauter mean diameter.
Table 3 summarizes the properties of the materials in this
study, in addition to the corresponding Geldart
classification.

2.2. Experimental setup Figure 1. Schematic diagram of experimental set-up.

Experiments were carried out in a cylindrical column with

an internal diameter of 110 mm and a total height of
900 mm constructed from Perspex. The distributor, a perfo-
rated plate made of the same material, with 1-mm holes,
guarantees uniform gas flow. The bed is instrumented with
differential pressure, flow rate, and temperature sensors, all
of which are connected to a data acquisition system. Air at
room temperature, supplied by a centrifugal compressor,
was adopted as the fluidizing gas. Figure 1 shows a sche-
matic of the installation.
2.3. Experimental procedure
The experiments were conducted to study the influence of
different mixtures of biomass/sand (Sand40, Sand30, and
Sand15) on the resulting minimum fluidization velocity. In
addition, pure biomass (Sawdust) and pure sand (Sand100)
were loaded and individually studied. Detailed information
concerning the composition of the mixtures is provided in
Table 4. Both volumetric and weight fractions (%)
are included.
To determine the Umf velocity, fluidization, and defluid-
ization curves were obtained, starting from a fixed-bed
height of 0.15 m. Other authors adopted identical initial con-
ditions (Clarke, Pugsley, and Hill 2005; Zhang, Wenqi, and
Jin 2011).
In this sense, Yates (1983) reported that experimental
work should be conducted starting at high velocities at
which the bed is rapidly fluidized down to low velocities to
prevent spurious readings caused by the solid interactions in
the previous packed-bed state (Yates 1983). This method-
ology is consistent with the procedure described in ASTM
(2012), where the Umf value is determined from registering
the pressure drop with decreasing gas velocity. This proced-
ure has also been reported by Felizardo and Freire (2018),
among others. For all experimental determinations, three
replicates were carried out, and the experiments were per-
formed at room temperature and pressure. At each superfi-
cial gas velocity, pressure drop values were recorded until a
minimum fluctuation in the mean pressure drop was
achieved. The corresponding time for all experiments was
longer than 2 min. The Umf velocity was estimated using the
defluidization curve of the pressure drop versus the superfi-
cial gas velocity (Us ) by linearly extrapolating the fixed and
fluidized bed regions and locating the Umf velocity at the
intersection point (ASTM 2012; Kunii and Levenspiel 2013).
A comparison of the experimental and CFD results
was made.
3. CFD modeling
Simulations were performed with ANSYS-Fluent code
(Academic Research) version 18.1 based on the finite vol-
ume numerical method. Domain discretization was realized
in a 2D environment. A structured mesh with a total of
19250 cells was adopted. During the grid validation proced-
ure, it was verified that the grid was fine enough to provide
grid-independent results. To study the mixing between sol-
ids allowing a suitable fluidization quality, as well as precise
pressure drop predictions, the results obtained from the 2D
simulation approach, fit the experimental measurements
very well (Taghipour, Ellis, and Wong 2005). In addition,

Table 4. Composition of sand/sawdust fluidized mixtures.
Sand (100% sand)
WSand (g) 1757.44
WSawdust (g) 0.00
Wt (g) 1757.44
RW (%) ¼ WSand/Wt 100
a
Sand40, Sand30, and Sand15 are mixtures containing 40% of sand v/v, 30% of sand, and 15% of sand, respectively.
compared to the 3D simulation scheme, the difference in
the computational effort was considerable. Xie, Battaglia,
and Pannala (2008) reported, for the bubbling regime, a sat-
isfactory agreement between 2D and 3D simulations for
both cylindrical and rectangular fluidized beds in determin-
ing bed expansion, void fraction and gas, and solid veloc-
ities. These results indicate that the 2D approach can be
successfully applied to simulate the behavior of a bubbling
fluidized bed requiring moderate computational resources
when variables such as the pressure drop, and bed expan-
sion are considered.
Esmaili and Mahinpey (2009) studied the modeling and
CFD simulation (ANSYS-Fluent) of a bubbling fluidized bed
of glass beads. The authors tested different drag models and
reported pressure drop and bed expansion values as a func-
tion of the superficial gas velocity. From these results, it can
be inferred that relative errors remained lower than 15%,
when comparing both 2D and 3D approaches in simula-
tions. Asegehegn, Schreiber, and Krautz (2012) carried out
2D and 3D simulations of glass beads bubbling fluidized bed
with and without internals using Eulerian modeling with
ANSYS-Fluent. Bubble characteristics, bed expansion and
mean bed pressure were studied and compared with experi-
mental data from a pseudo-2D bed. They concluded that
even though 3D results are more realistic, 2D simulations
remain indispensable to perform extensive parametric stud-
ies due to computational capacity. 2D results for mean bed
pressure and bed expansion showed good agreement with
experimental data. Liu et al. (2012) investigated the gas-solid
mixing in Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) strippers using
CFD simulations (ANSYS-Fluent). The Eulerian–Eulerian
two-fluid model coupled with the modified Gidaspow drag
model was used to simulate the gas-solid flow behavior.
First, a comparison of 2D and 3D simulations was carried
out. They concluded that both 2D and 3D results were
almost equivalent. The author emphasizes the lower compu-
tational resources required for2D simulations. Cloete,
Johansen, and Amini (2013) studied 2D and 3D simulations
of a bubbling fluidized bed using ANSYS-Fluent in order to
quantify the error when using 2D simulations. Even if 3D
results were more accurate, they differed only in about 3%
for the normalized pressure drop. Li (2015) performed the
simulation of cylindrical bubbling fluidized beds following
the 2.5D model proposed by Li et al. (2015). The author
reported a better agreement with the experimental data
(mainly for the solid velocity profile close to the wall region)
when comparing to the classical 2D approach. This
researcher asserted that both approaches yielded good quali-
tative and reasonable agreement with experimental
measurements.
PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5
Sand40a Sand30a Sand15a Sawdust (100% sawdust)
965.13 770.70 324.99 0.00
116.25 122.56 131.65 179.41
1081.38 893.26 456.64 179.41
89 86 71 0
On the other hand, 3D simulations would be essential
when studying the bubble phase behavior or segregation
processes in fluidized beds with the CFD simulation tech-
nique (Acosta-Iborra et al. 2011; Sobrino et al. 2015).
The fixed-bed behavior (prior to achieving the fluidized
state) was simulated by adopting the Porous Media model
(PMM) under stationary conditions.
Herzog et al. (2012) performed simulations of the Geldart
B fluidized bed with ANSYS-Fluent, OpenFoam, and MFIX
codes and using the Eulerian approach in the whole domain
of the simulations (fixed- and fluidized-bed regimes). When
compared to experimental data, the authors reported signifi-
cant differences between the predicted and experimental val-
ues of the pressure drop in the fixed-bed region. Similar
results were reported by Taghipour, Ellis, and Wong (2005)
and Thapa and Halvorsen (2013).
On the other hand, several authors reported good agree-
ment between experimental and CFD results concerning the
fluidization curve for different systems, using the Eulerian
approach under MFiX and ANSYS-Fluent (Deza et al. 2009;
Solli and Agu 2017; Cardoso et al. 2019).
In this work, the simulations using the multifluid
Eulerian approach also lead to large discrepancies in the
pressure drop between the predicted and experimental
results across the fixed-bed superficial velocity range. The
previously described drawback was resolved by adopting the
PMM. This model adds a momentum source term to the
standard fluid flow equations. The code requires two param-
eters to perform the simulations: the permeability and the
inertial loss coefficient, evaluated from both the solid par-
ticles and bed properties.
The Eulerian model should apply to the fluidized regime
ðUs > Ucf Þ and a different approach should be adopted to
consider the fixed-bed regime. In this context, it was verified
that the PMM can suitably represent the behavior of the
fixed-bed regime. A new approach has now been established
that improves the simulation response in the referred inter-
mediate region, and the potential results will be presented in
a follow-up paper.
For fluidized-bed simulations, transient treatment is
required. The conservation equations were solved by apply-
ing the Eulerian–Eulerian multiphase model with closure
equations based on the kinetic theory of granular flow. This
model considers both phases as continuous and interpene-
trating phases.
With respect to the drag laws, which are essential to cal-
culate the momentum exchange coefficient between the fluid
and solid phases, different drag models have been reported
for both gas-solid and solid-solid interactions. In this con-
text, empirical correlations to account for the momentum
transfer coefficient are available in the literature. The gas-
6 F. TOSCHI ET AL.

solid drag model for bubbling fluidized bed CFD simula- Table 5. Main parameters applied in the simulations.
tions represents a considerable effort in the literature Description Value/model
(Askaripour and Dehkordi 2015). In this regard, these Sand bed initial voidage 0.52
Sawdust bed initial voidage 0.72
authors assessed the performance of different drag models Air density 1.225 kg m3
reported in the literature, including those of Gidaspow, Air viscosity 1.79  105 Pa s
Syamlal–O’Brien, Hill–Koch–Ladd, and Wen–Yu. A stand- Sand density 2650 kg m3
Sawdust density 402 kg m3
ard two-fluid model (TFM) closed by the kinetic theory of Sand particle size 0.513 mm
granular flow (KTGF) was adopted to simulate bubbling Sawdust particle size 0.7 mm
gas–solid fluidized beds. The authors reported a good agree- Superficial gas velocity [0.03–0.51] m s1
Initial bed height 0.15 m
ment between the simulations and experimental data when Granular viscosity Gidaspow, Bezburuah, and Ding (1992)
studying the bed expansion ratio, gas volume fraction, and Granular temperature Algebraic
time-averaged particle velocity over a wide range of particle Solids pressure Lun et al. (1984)
Radial distribution Ogawa, Umemura, and Oshima (1980)
sizes, static-bed heights, and fluidization velocities. The Packing limit 0.63
authors stated that, in the prediction of the bed expansion Restitution coefficient 0.9
ratio for small particle sizes, the Gidaspow and Wen–Yu Time step 0.001 s
Convergence criteria (residuals) 1  103
drag models provide good predictions, and for medium par-
ticle sizes, all four drag models used in this work provide
appropriate predictions. slip velocity between the solid phases. The authors expressed
With respect to the prediction of the bed expansion ratio the corresponding term by the equation of Syamlal (1987).
for large particle sizes at low fluidization velocities, the From the description presented above, the simulations
Gidaspow, Wen–Yu, and Hill–Koch–Ladd drag models pro- conducted in this work were based on the Gidaspow drag
vide good predictions, while for large particle sizes with model for solid-gas interactions and the Syamlal symmetric
large static-bed heights, only the Syamlal–O’Brien drag equation (Syamlal 1987) for solid-solid interactions.
model provides good predictions. Finally, the authors All transient simulations were carried out over 12 s.
reported that the best prediction of the experimental visual When analyzing the results, the data corresponding to the
gas volume fraction is obtained with the Gidaspow and first 3 s were discarded to avoid any initial effects
Wen–Yu drag models. (Asegehegn, Schreiber, and Krautz 2011). The boundary
Other authors also reported a good agreement between conditions adopted were as follows: velocity inlet (at the bot-
the simulation and experimental results in CFD studies of tom of the bed, where the superficial gas velocity was set),
bubbling fluidized-bed behavior, mainly for Geldart B beds pressure outlet (at the top of the bed, set to atmospheric
(Busciglio et al. 2009; Acosta-Iborra et al. 2011; Sobrino conditions) and wall (with the no-slip condition defined at
et al. 2015; Garc
ıa-Gutierrez et al. 2017). Recently, Venier every wall of the bed) conditions.
et al. (2020) studied the fluidization of different Geldart A, Table 5 lists the main model parameters and conditions
B, and D particles, including different gas-solid drag models. applied to perform the fluidized-bed simulations.
In particular, the authors reported a very good agreement
between their simulations carried out with both ANSYS- 4. Results and discussion
Fluent and OpenFoam CFD codes for Geldart B particles
and the Gidaspow drag model. 4.1. Physicochemical characterization of the sawdust
Owoyemi, Mazzei, and Lettieri (2007) compared the per- Table 6 summarizes the complete set of sawdust compositions
formance of three drag constitutive equations (Gidaspow, and heating values. It also includes the contents of lignin, cel-
Syamlal, and Seo 1986; Syamlal 1987; Bell 2000). The lulose, and hemicellulose. The immediate analysis results show
authors carried out four simulations: three of them included that the moisture content of the analyzed sawdust is lower
the above constitutive equations for the particle–particle than 7%. According to McKendry (2002), any thermal conver-
drag force, and the last one was built considering non-inter- sion requires a certain moisture content in the biomass mater-
action conditions between the solid particles (the drag force ial, generally lower than 50%. The ash content can be a
was entirely neglected in this case). Similar numerical problematic aspect of the energetic use of lignocellulosic bio-
experiment results were obtained under the first three con- mass. In this case, the sawdust has a markedly low percentage
ditions in terms of the jetsam particle distribution within of ash, positively affecting its HHV (Channiwala and Parikh
the bed, with almost perfect mixing and a good agreement 2002). The high content of volatile matter makes this biowaste
with the experimental data. very suitable for thermal degradation processes (Demirbas
With respect to the fourth condition (the non-interaction 2004). In this context, gasification could be considered a suit-
case), the authors reported overprediction of the jetsam mobil- able alternative to valorize the studied sawdust.
ity resulting in this phase segregating toward the bottom of
the bed. This result was in clear contrast to the experimental
4.2. Sand bed
evidence (Owoyemi, Mazzei, and Lettieri 2007).
Tagliaferri et al. (2013) studied a fluidized system consid- Figure 2 shows the pressure drop value across the bed as a
ering the particle-particle interaction force, including only a function of the Us velocity obtained experimentally and by
drag-like contribution, which was, then, proportional to the means of CFD simulation. The pressure drop increases
 PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7

Table 6. Sawdust composition and heating values.

Ultimate analysis (wt.%, d.b.) Proximate analysis (wt.%, d.b.)
C H O N S Volatile Matter Fixed C Ash
50.93 6.03 42.36 0.11 0.05 82.4 17.03 0.53

Biochemical analysis (wt.%, d.b.) Water Content (wt.%) Heating value (MJ/kg)
CELL HCE LIG LHV HHV
42.96 19.99 26.8 6.22 18.45 20.04

Figure 2. Pressure drop versus superficial gas velocity for air/sand system.

linearly with increasing gas velocity in the fixed-bed regime.
Further increases in the gas velocity result in a practically
constant pressure drop. At this point, the solids begin to
move, and fluidized-bed conditions are reached.
During the experiments, the Us velocity was increased
until a value of 0.87 m s1, where incipient elutriation is ini-
tiated, was detected. At this point, a gradual decrease in gas
flow was realized until it was eventually turned off. The
obtained fluidization and defluidization curves were coinci-
dent, without the presence of hysteresis typical of these sys-
tems (Zhang, Wenqi, and Jin 2011). This behavior is
attributed to the fluidization-defluidization achieved before
starting the experiments, which enabled the particles to set-
tle and form a loosely fixed bed.
When comparing the pressure drop results in the fluid-
ized-bed zone, Figure 2 shows that the obtained CFD values
are higher than the experimental values. The average CFD
value obtained represents an error of only 0.5% with respect
to the theoretical value of W/A ¼ 1837.5 Pa (weight of the
bed divided by the tube section), while the experimental
average pressure drop is 1645.3 Pa, with an error of 10%
with respect to the theoretical value. This discrepancy can
be explained by the influence of the tube walls that cause a
decrease in pressure drop in narrow beds (Yang 2003).
Table 7. Sand/air fluidization. Comparison of CFD simulations with experimen-
tal values.
CFD Experimental Error (%)
Umf (m s1) 0.206 0.19 8.42
DPaverage (Pa) 1827.6 1645.3 11.08
Table 7 summarizes the Umf and average DP values
obtained experimentally and by means of CFD simulation.
It also indicates the relative errors for both variables.
4.3. Sawdust bed
The results of the pressure drop versus Us velocity for the
sawdust are shown in Figure 3. The bed behavior differs
from that observed in sand-air systems. At low gas veloc-
ities, the bed remains at rest, and the pressure drop
increases linearly, but beyond 0.12 m s1, small channels
begin to occur at the center of the bed tube and along the
walls. With further increments in the gas velocity, the
observed channeling increases in number and size. At a gas
velocity of 0.174 m s1, the maximum pressure drop is
observed, and any velocity increments beyond this point
result in particle rearrangement, in addition to a slight
decrease in the pressure drop. The particles in the upper
8 F. TOSCHI ET AL.
Figure 3. Pressure drop versus superficial air velocity for sawdust/air system.
Figure 4. Experimental and CFD pressure drop versus superficial air velocity curves for sawdust/air system.
zone of the bed are fluidized, while those in the lower zone
remain static. This behavior, typical of segregated systems, is
attributed to the size distribution of the biomass sample.
Segregation occurs in systems where particles have different
densities and/or different sizes. The particles with a higher
density tend to sink in the bed, while the particles with a
lower density tend to float. In systems where there is no
density difference, the larger particles tend to remain at the
bottom (Di Maio, Di Renzo, and Vivacqua 2012). With
subsequent increments in the gas velocity, the number of
particles moving within the bed increased, and at a velocity
of 0.314 m s1, all the particles were fluidized.
The bed undergoes two different fluidization regimes,
similar to those observed by Zhang, Wenqi, and Jin (2011).
The first one starts at the incipient fluidization velocity (Uif )
and ends at the complete fluidization velocity (Ucf ). Beyond
the Uif velocity, fluidization takes place at the top of the
bed, covering an increasing layer as the Us velocity increases.
 PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9

Figure 5. Summary of results DP versus Us for the different sand-sawdust mixtures.

Table 8. Sawdust/air fluidized bed. Comparison of experimental and Table 9. Sawdust-sand mixtures. Comparison of CFD results with experimen-
CFD simulation. tal values.
CFD Experimental Error (%) CFD Experimental Error (%)
Umf (m s1) 0.22 0.21 5.24 Sand15 Umf (m s1) 0.200 0.192 4.17
DPaverage (Pa) 182.36 170.52 6.94 DPaverage (Pa) 444.78 430.11 3.41
Sand30 Umf (m s1) 0.200 0.196 2.04
DPaverage (Pa) 853.15 835.86 2.07
During this interval, the pressure drop is irregular, oscillat- Sand40 Umf (m s1) 0.192 0.193 0.52
DPaverage (Pa) 1060.9 1062.4 0.14
ing between 170 and 146 Pa. When the Ucf velocity is
reached, the second fluidization regime begins, the bed is
completely fluidized, and the pressure drop remains practic-
Table 10. Characteristic velocities of mixtures and pure fluidized materials.
ally constant with increasing Us velocity. When the bed is
Sand Sand40 Sand30 Sand15 Sawdust
defluidized, by gradually decreasing the air velocity, the hys-
Uif (m s1) 0.19 0.192 0.195 0.191 0.174
teresis phenomenon is observed. The experimentally deter- Umf (m s1) 0.19 0.193 0.196 0.192 0.21
mined Umf velocity is 0.21 m s1, located between Uif ¼ Ucf (m s1) 0.19 0.227 0.235 0.2686 0.314
0.174 and Ucf ¼ 0.314 m s1. Figure 4 shows the simulation Ucf  Uif (m s1) 0.00 0.035 0.040 0.078 0.140
results together with the experimental data.
Table 8 summarizes the values of the Umf velocity
obtained experimentally and by the CFD simulations. The In the three mixtures analyzed, as the Us velocity increases,
experimental Umf value was calculated from the defluidiza- partial and later complete bed fluidization can be observed, as
tion curve as recommended by Kunii and Levenspiel (2013). well as the distinction between velocities Uif , Umf and Ucf : At
velocities higher than Ucf , all cases exhibit a completely fluid-
ized regime. In this region, the pressure drop remains con-
4.4. Sand-sawdust binary mixtures
stant with increasing velocity. The Umf velocity always
Figure 5 shows the fluidization (F) and defluidization (DF) remains between the corresponding Uif and Ucf :
curves for the three binary sand-sawdust mixtures studied, Regarding the hysteresis phenomenon, it can be pointed
together with the corresponding results for the sand-air and out that it is attributed to the fluidization and slow defluidiza-
sawdust-air systems. tion realized prior to the test, enabling the denser sand par-
In the binary mixtures, it is clear that as the volumetric ticles to segregate or deposit at the bottom of the bed. As a
sand fraction increases, the slope of the line of DP versus Us result, a lower porosity is obtained, causing higher pressure
corresponding to the fixed-bed zone increases; the Umf vel- drops than those observed in the defluidization operation.
ocity (the intersection between the curves) decreases slightly, Table 9 compares the Umf and DP values obtained by
and the average pressure drop of the fluidized-bed CFD simulations with the experimental results, showing a
zone increases. very good agreement between both variables. These results
10 F. TOSCHI ET AL.

Table 11. Correlations to predict Umf velocities of sawdust-sand mixtures.

Reference Correlation Auxiliary equations for correlations
8" #0:5 9  0:21 0:15  0:045 0:025
Si and Guo (2008) < = C1 ¼ 25:61 ubm uin C2 ¼ 0:056ðubm uin Þ
l d 3
q ðq
pe g pe  q g Þg
Umf ¼ C 2
þ C  C 1 xbm 1  xbm
dpe qg : 1 ;
2 1
l ¼ þ
qpe" qbm qin #
xbm qin þ ð1  xbm Þqbm
dpe ¼ dp, bm dp, in
xbm ðq dp Þin þ ð1  xbm Þðq dp Þbm

Rowe and Nienow (1975)  xla2

Ula
Umf ¼ Usm
Usm

Chiba et al. (1979) Uf

Umf ¼  
1  UUpkf xf þ UUpkf

" #0:4916
Oliveira, Cardoso, and Ata
ıde (2013)
4
def2 ðqef  qg Þg qef 1:23 qef ¼ xbm qbm þ xin qbm
"  #xbm =xin
Umf ¼ 1:1710 qin dp, bm
lg qg def ¼ dp, in
qbm dp, in

Paudel and Feng (2013) n h i o1 = 1 xbm 1  xbm

1
= 2
¼ þ
Remf ¼ 30:282 þ 0:046ð1  xbm Þ þ 0:108xbm2 Ar qpe " qbm qin #
 30:28 xbm qin þ ð1  xbm Þqbm
dpe ¼ dp, bm dp, in
xbm ðq dp Þin þ ð1  xbm Þðq dp Þbm

Figure 6. Minimum fluidization velocity. (a) Experimental (this work), CFD predictions (this work) and predictions from correlations given in Table 11. (b)
Experimental and CFD values as a function of the % of sawdust used.

confirm that the proposed simulation methodology is an
appropriate method for Umf prediction for sawdust-
sand mixtures.
The differences among the values of the Umf velocity for
the mixtures and the sawdust are small because this value is
similar for both solids (sand and sawdust). However, it is
important to highlight the improvement observed in the
quality of sawdust fluidization, even with the incorporation
of small proportions of sand. The addition of sand reduces
the cohesion and bond forces between sawdust particles,
thus decreasing the segregation and formation of preferential
channels and, therefore, promoting fluidization.
Table 10 summarizes the experimental results of the five
tests carried out. For the mixtures studied, it can be
observed that by increasing the sand volumetric percentage,
the difference, Ucf  Uif , decreases, gradually approaching
the sand bed behavior.
Different correlations have been reported in the open lit-
erature for predicting the minimum fluidization velocity of
biomass-inert particle mixtures in bubbling fluidized beds

(Clarke, Pugsley, and Hill 2005; Proenza P
erez et al. 2017).
Table 11 lists the equations of a representative set of correla-
tions for the prediction of Umf. It is evident that the math-
ematical functions defining the correlations are mainly
based on the physical characteristics of the two particles and
on their relative concentrations.
Figure 6(a) shows the results of Umf obtained in this
work, both experimentally and predicted by the proposed
CFD scheme, for the three mixtures studied and for pure
sand and sawdust in addition to the values predicted by the
correlations provided in Table 11.
Figure 6(a) reveals that compared to the experimental
and CFD values of Umf , the data obtained from the correla-
tions exhibit a large spread. Additionally, it can be appreci-
ated that the CFD values of Umf are in very good agreement
with the experimental results for the three sawdust-sand
mixtures tested. With respect to the correlations, the correla-
tions proposed by Chiba et al. (1979) and Rowe and
Nienow (1975), both based on individual sand and sawdust
minimum fluidization velocities, exhibit the best fitting
effect to the experimental results.
Figure 6(b) presents the experimental and CFD-predicted
values of Umf as a function of the mixture composition (%
v/v of sawdust in each mixture studied). The influence of
the composition of the mixture is shown for the range of
the studied biomass to sand ratio. It is clear that small frac-
tions of inert material are enough to diminish the mixture
Umf values to values similar to those of pure sand. This phe-
nomenon can be attributed to the reduction in cohesion and
bonding forces between the sawdust particles as a conse-
quence of sand addition, as previously mentioned. A clear
decrease in segregation was observed when increasing the
sand fraction in the mixture, as well as attenuation of the
occurrence of preferential channels, which, therefore, pro-
moted fluidization.
5. Conclusions
An experimental fluid-dynamic study of sand-sawdust binary
mixtures was carried out, with air as the fluidizing agent. CFD
software ANSYS-Fluent 18.1 was used as the simulation tool.
Both in the laboratory experiments and in the simula-
tions, the runs began with a bed of sand as the simplest
case; then, biomass particles were analyzed and based on the
results obtained, complex cases of sand-sawdust binary mix-
tures were studied. The simulation results were validated by
contrasting the calculated values of DP (both in the fixed-
bed and fluidized-bed zones) and Umf the velocity with the
experimental results. Additionally, a comparison to Umf cal-
culation correlations from the literature were performed.
It was observed that sand incorporation into sawdust,
even at low concentrations, reduced the cohesion and bond-
ing forces between the biomass particles, thereby decreasing
segregation and the formation of preferential channels and,
therefore, improving fluidization.
Qualitatively satisfactory results were obtained in relation
to the agitation state, bed expansion, and formation of bub-
bles in the different fluidized bed mixtures analyzed. This
PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 11
was reflected in the solid fraction contour diagrams gener-
ated as a result of the simulations, which agreed well with
the experimental observations.
The occurrence of two different fluidization regimes was
confirmed both in the biomass and biomass-sand mixtures.
This phenomenon invokes the definition of two additional
fluidization velocities: Uif and Ucf :
For the three mixtures simulated by CFD, the Umf vel-
ocity errors, relative to the experimental values, were highly
satisfactory, lower than 5%. With respect to the literature
correlations analyzed, those proposed by Chiba et al. (1979)
and Rowe and Nienow (1975) exhibited the best fitting
effect on the experimental results.
The potential of the ANSYS-Fluent software as a working
tool for the simulation of fluidized bed fluid dynamics in
binary mixtures was demonstrated, and a verified simulation
methodology for predicting the Umf the velocity of binary
sand-sawdust mixtures fluidized by air was developed.
Nomenclature
Ar d3p qg ðqs  qg Þg=l2 , Archimedes number
dp particle diameter (mm)
g acceleration of gravity (m s2)
Ucf complete fluidization velocity (m s1)
Uf , Upk minimum fluidization velocity of fluid and packed com-
ponents in single component fluidized beds, in Chiba
et al.’s correlation (Table 11) (m.s1)
Uif incipient fluidization velocity (m s1)
Ula , Usm minimum fluidization velocity velocity of larger and
smaller component in single component fluidized bed,
in Rowe and Nienow’s correlation (Table 11) (m.s1)
Umf minimum fluidization velocity (m s1)
Us superficial gas velocity (m s1)
Re dp Uqg =l, Reynolds number
x mass fraction
xf mass fraction of fluid component, in Chiba et al.’s
correlation
xla mass fraction of larger component, in Rowe and
Nienow’s correlation
Greek letters
u sphericity
q density (kg m3)
m viscosity of the fluidizing gas (Pa s)
DP pressure drop (Pa)
Subscripts
bm biomass (sawdust)
g gas
in inert material (sand)
mf minimum fluidization
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the support of the following Argentine insti-
tutions: ANPCyT – MINCyT (PICT No. 2014-2078), University of
Comahue, Argentina, PIN 0222 and PIN 0223. Florencia Toschi had a
Doctoral Fellowship from CONICET. Lic. Lucas Cavaliere (PROBIEN,
CONICET-UNCo) is acknowledged for his technical assistance.
Germ
an Mazza is a research member of CONICET, Argentina.
12 F. TOSCHI ET AL.
Funding
This is supported by Universidad Nacional del Comahue [PIN
0222,PIN 0223] and ANPCyT – MINCyT, Argentina [PICT No.
2014-2078].
ORCID
Germ
an D. Mazza http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1362-8521
References
Acosta-Iborra, A., C. Sobrino, F. Hern
andez-Jim
enez, and M. de Vega.
2011. Experimental and computational study on the bubble behavior
in a 3-D fluidized bed. Chemical Engineering Science 66 (15):
3499–512. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2011.04.009.
Asegehegn, T. W., M. Schreiber, and H. J. Krautz. 2011. Numerical
study of bubbling gas-solid fluidized beds hydrodynamics: Influence
of immersed horizontal tubes and data analysis. International
Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering 9 (1):A16. doi:10.1515/
1542-6580.2391.
Asegehegn, T. W., M. Schreiber, and H. J. Krautz. 2012. Influence of
two- and three dimensional simulations on bubble behavior in gas–-
solid fluidized beds with and without immersed horizontal tubes.
Powder Technology 219:9–19. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2011.11.050.
Askaripour, H., and A. M. Dehkordi. 2015. Simulation of 3D freely
bubbling gas–solid fluidized beds using various drag models: TFM
approach. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 100:377–90.
doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2015.05.041.
ASTM. 1979. Standard test method for a-cellulose in wood.
Philadelphia, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM. 1983. Standard test method for lignin in wood. ASTM D 1106-
56, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. 1998. Standard test method for volatile matter in the analysis
of particulate wood fuels. ASTM-E872-82, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. 2001. Standard test method for ash in wood. ASTM-D1102–84,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. 2012. Standard test method for measuring the minimum fluid-
ization velocity of free flow powders. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM
International.
Baeyens, J., and D. Geldart. 1980. Modelling approach to the effect of
equipment scale on fluidised bed heat transfer data. Journal of
Powder & Bulk Solids Technology 4 (4):1.
Basu, P. 2010. Biomass gasification and pyrolisis, practical design and
theory. 1st ed. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.
Bell, R. A. 2000. Numerical modelling of multi-particle flows in bub-
bling gas–solid fluidized beds. Licentiate Thesis., Swinburne
University of Technology.
Busciglio, A., G. Vella, G. Micale, and L. Rizzuti. 2009. Analysis of the
bubbling behaviour of 2D gas-solid fluidized beds Part II.
Comparison between experiments and numerical simulations via
digital image analysis technique. Chemical Engineering Journal 148
(1):145–63. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2008.11.010.
Cardoso, J., V. Silva, D. Eus
ebio, P. Brito, R. Boloy, L. Tarelho, and J.
Silveira. 2019. Comparative 2D and 3D analysis on the hydrodynam-
ics behaviour during biomass gasification in a pilot-scale fluidized
bed reactor. Renewable Energy. 131:713–29. doi:10.1016/j.renene.
2018.07.080.
Channiwala, S. A., and P. P. Parikh. 2002. Unified correlation for esti-
mating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. Fuel 81 (8):1051–63.
doi:10.1016/S0016-2361(01)00131-4.
Chiba, S., T. Chiba, A. W. Nienow, and H. Kobayashi. 1979. The min-
imum fluidization velocity, bed expansion and pressure-drop profile
of binary particle mixtures. Powder Technology 22 (2):255–69. doi:
10.1016/0032-5910(79)80031-5.
Clarke, K., T. Pugsley, and G. Hill. 2005. Fluidization of moist sawdust
in binary particle systems in a gas-solid fluidized bed. Chemical
Engineering Science 60 (24):6909–18. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2005.06.004.
Cloete, S., S. T. Johansen, and S. Amini. 2013. Investigation into the
effect of simulating a 3D cylindrical fluidized bed reactor on a 2D
plane. Powder Technology 239:21–35. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2013.01.
036.
Cornelissen, J. T., F. Taghipour, R. Escudi
e, N. Ellis, and J. R. Grace.
2007. CFD modeling of a liquid-solid fluidized bed. Chemical
Engineering Science 62 (22):6334–48. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2007.07.014.
Dai, J., J. Saayman, J. R. Grace, and N. Ellis. 2015. Gasification of
Woody Biomass. Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular
Engineering 6:77–99.
Demirbas, A. 2004. Effects of temperature and particle size on bio-
charyield from pyrolysis of agricultural residues. Journal of
Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 72 (2):243–8. doi:10.1016/j.jaap.
2004.07.003.
Deza, M., N. Franka, T. Heindel, and F. Battaglia. 2009. CFD Modeling
and X-ray imaging of biomass in a fluidized bed. Journal of Fluids
Engineering 131 (11):111303. doi:10.1115/1.4000257.
Di Maio, F., A. Di Renzo, and V. Vivacqua. 2012. A particle segrega-
tion model for gas-fluidization of binary mixtures. Powder
Technology 226:180–8. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2012.04.040.
Esmaili, E., and N. Mahinpey. 2009. 3D Eulerian simulation of a gas-
solid bubbling fluidized bed: Assessment of drag coefficient correla-
tions. WIT Transactions on Engineering Sciences 63: 3–13. doi:10.
2495/MPF090011.
Felizardo, M. P., and J. T. Freire. 2018. Characterization of barley
grains in different levels of pearling process. Journal of Food
Engineering 232:29–35. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2018.03.017.
Fernandez, A., G. Mazza, and R. Rodriguez. 2018. Thermal decompos-
ition under oxidative atmosphere of lignocellulosic wastes: Different
kinetic methods application. Journal of Environmental Chemical
Engineering 6 (1):404–15. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2017.12.013.
Fernandez, A., J. Soria, R. Rodriguez, J. Baeyens, and G. D. Mazza.
2019. Macro-TGA steam-assisted gasification of lignocellulosic
wastes. Journal of Environmental Management 233:626–35.
Garc
ıa-Gutierrez, L. M., F. Hern
andez-Jim
enez, E. Cano-Pleite, and A.
Soria-Verdugo. 2017. Improvement of the simulation of fuel particles
motion in a fluidized bed by considering wall friction. Chemical
Engineering Journal 321:175–83. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2017.03.109.
Geldart, D. 1973. Types of gas fluidization. Powder Technology 7 (5):
285–92. doi:10.1016/0032-5910(73)80037-3.
Gidaspow, D., M. Syamlal, and Y. Seo. 1986. Hydrodynamics of fluid-
ization of single and binary size particles: Supercomputer modelling.
Paper presented at the Fifth Engineering Foundation Conference on
Fluidization, Elsinore, Denmark. May 18–23.
Gidaspow, D., and R. Bezburuah and J. Ding. 1992. Hydrodynamics of
circulating fluidized beds, Kinetic Theory approach. Paper presented
at the Seventh Engineering Foundation Conference on Fluidization,
Brisbane, Australia, May 3–8.
Girimonte, R., B. Formisani, and V. Vivacqua. 2019. Application of the
theory of binary fluidization to solids of irregular shape: Choosing
the granulometry of sand in processes for energy production from
wastes of the olive oil industry. Powder Technology 345:563–70. doi:
10.1016/j.powtec.2019.01.054.
Herzog, N., M. Schreiber, C. Egbers, and H. J. Krautz. 2012. A com-
parative study of different CFD-codes for numerical simulation of
gas–solid fluidized bed hydrodynamics. Computers & Chemical
Engineering 39:41–6. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2011.12.002.
Hosseini, S. H., G. Ahmadi, R. Rahimi, M. Zivdar, and M. N.
Esfahany. 2010. CFD studies of solids hold-up distribution and cir-
culation patterns in gas-solid fluidized beds. Powder Technology 200
(3):202–15. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2010.02.024.
Kunii, D., and O. Levenspiel. 2013. Fluidization Engineering. 2nd ed.
Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Li, T. 2015. Validation of a 2.5D CFD model for cylindrical gas–solids
fluidized beds. Powder Technology 286:817–27. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.
2015.09.033.

Li, T., S. Benyahia, J. F. Dietiker, J. Musser, and X. Sun. 2015. A 2.5D
computational method to simulate cylindrical fluidized beds. Chemical
Engineering Science 123:236–46. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2014.11.022.
Liu, Y., X. Lan, C. Xu, G. Wang, and J. Gao. 2012. CFD simulation of
gas and solids mixing in FCC strippers. AIChE Journal 58 (4):
1119–32. doi:10.1002/aic.12646.
Lun, C. K. K., S. B. Savage, D. J. Jeffrey, and N. Chepurniy. 1984.
Kinetic theories for granular flow: Ineslastic particles in couette flow
and slightly inlestaic particles in a general flowfield. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics 140 (1):223–56. doi:10.1017/S0022112084000586.
Ma, H., and Y. Zhao. 2018. CFD-DEM investigation of the fluidization
of binary mixtures containing rod-like particles and spherical par-
ticles in a fluidized bed. Powder Technology 336:533–45. doi:10.1016/
j.powtec.2018.06.034.
McKendry, P. 2002. Energy production from biomass (part 1):
Overview of biomass. Bioresource Technology 83 (1):37–46. doi:10.
1016/S0960-8524(01)00118-3.
Ogawa, S., A. Umemura, and N. Oshima. 1980. On the equation of
fully fluidized granular materials. Zeitschrift F€ ur Angewandte
Mathematik Und Physik ZAMP 31 (4):483–93. doi:10.1007/
BF01590859.
Oliveira, P., T. Cardoso, and C. Ata
ıde. 2013. Bubbling fluidization of
biomass and sand binary mixtures: Minimum fluidization velocity
and particle segregation. Chemical Engineering and Processing:
Process Intensification 72:113–21. doi:10.1016/j.cep.2013.06.010.
Owoyemi, O., L. Mazzei, and P. Lettieri. 2007. CFD modeling of bin-
ary-fluidized suspensions and investigation of role of particle–par-
ticle drag on mixing and segregation. AIChE Journal 53 (8):1924–40.
doi:10.1002/aic.11227.
Paudel, B., and Z. Feng. 2013. Prediction of minimum fluidization vel-
ocity for binary mixtures of biomass and inert particles. Powder
Technology 237:134–40. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2013.01.031.
Proenza P
erez, N., D. Travieso, E. Blanco, J. Santana, R. Verd
u, and J.
Silveira. 2017. Fluid dynamic study of mixtures of sugarcane bagasse
and sand particles: Minimun fluidization velocity. Biomass and
Bioenergy 107:135–49. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.08.015.
Rao, T., and J. V. Bheemarasetti. 2001. Minimum fluidization velocities
of mixtures of biomass and sands. Energy 26:633–44.
Reuge, N., L. Cadoret, C. Coufort-Saudejaud, S. Pannala, M. Syamlal,
and B. Caussat. 2008. Multifluid Eurelian Modeling of dense gas-sol-
ids fluidized bed hydrodynamics: Influence of the dissipation param-
eters. Chemical Engineering Science 63 (22):5540–51. doi:10.1016/j.
ces.2008.07.028.
Rhodes, M. 1998. Introduction to particle technology. 1st ed. Chichester,
UK: John Wiley&Sons.
Rowe, P. N., and A. W. Nienow. 1975. Minimum fluidization velocity
of multi-component particle mixtures. Chemical Engineering Science
30 (11):1365–9. doi:10.1016/0009-2509(75)85066-4.
Sant’Anna, M. C. S., W. R. dos Santos Cruz, G. F. da Silva, R. de
Andrade Medronho, and S. Lucena. 2017. Analyzing the fluidization
of a gas-sand-biomass mixture using CFD techniques. Powder
Technology 316:367–72. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2016.12.023.
Sette, P., A. Fernandez, J. Soria, R. Rodriguez, D. Salvatori, and G.
Mazza. 2020. Integral valorization of fruit waste from wine and cider
industries. Journal of Cleaner Production 242:118486. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.118486.
PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13
Si, C., and Q. Guo. 2008. Fluidization characteristics of binary mixtures
of biomass and quartz sand in an acoustic fluidized bed. Industrial
& Engineering Chemistry Research 47 (23):9773–82. doi:10.1021/
ie801070z.
Sobrino, C., A. Acosta-Iborra, M. A. Izquierdo-Barrientos, and M. de
Vega. 2015. Three-dimensional two-fluid modeling of a cylindrical
fluidized bed and validation of the maximum entropy method to
determine bubble properties. Chemical Engineering Journal 262:
628–39. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2014.10.014.
Solli, K., and C. Agu. 2017. Evaluation of drag models for CFD simula-
tion of fluidized bed biomass gasification. Paper presented at the
58th Conference on Simulation and Modelling (SIMS 58),
Reykjavik, Iceland, September 25–27.
Soria, J. M., R. Li, G. Flamant, and G. D. Mazza. 2019. Influence of
pellet size on product yields and syngas composition during solar-
driven high temperature fast pyrolysis of biomass. Journal of
Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 140:299–311. doi:10.1016/j.jaap.
2019.04.007.
Syamlal, M. 1987. The particle–particle drag term in a multiparticle
model of fludization. Topical Report, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Taghipour, F., N. Ellis, and C. Wong. 2005. Experimental and compu-
tational study of gas-solid fluidized bed hydrodynamics. Chemical
Engineering Science 60 (24):6857–67. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2005.05.044.
Tagliaferri, C., L. Mazzei, P. Lettieri, A. Marzocchella, G. Olivieri, and
P. Salatino. 2013. CFD simulation of bubbling fluidized bidisperse
mixtures: Effect of integration methods and restitution coefficient.
Chemical Engineering Science 102:324–34. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2013.08.
015.
Thapa, R. K., and B. M. Halvorsen. 2013. Study of flow behavior in
bubbling fluidized bed biomass gasification reactor using CFD simu-
lation. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on
Fluidization–From Fundamentals to Products, Noordwijkerhout,
The Netherlands, May 26–31.
Van de Velden, M., J. Baeyens, and I. Boukis. 2008. Modeling CFB bio-
mass pyrolysis reactors. Biomass and Bioenergy. 32 (2):128–39. doi:
10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.08.001.
Venier, C. M., A. R. Urrutia, J. P. Capossio, J. Baeyens, and G. D.
Mazza. 2020. Comparing ANSYS FluentV R and OpenFOAMV R simu-
lations of Geldart A, B and D bubbling fluidized bed hydrodynam-
ics. International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat and Fluid
Flow 30 (1):3–118.
Wang, H., and Z. Zhong. 2019. A mixing behavior study of biomass
particles and sands in fluidized bed based on CFD-DEM simulation.
Energies 12 (9):1801.
Xie, N., F. Battaglia, and S. Pannala. 2008. Effects of using two- versus
three-dimensional computational modeling of fluidized beds: Part I,
hydrodynamics. Powder Technology 182 (1):1–13. doi:10.1016/j.pow-
tec.2007.09.014.
Yang, W. C. 2003. Handbook of fluidization and fluid-particle systems.
1st ed. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Yates, J. G. 1983. Fundamentals of fluidized-bed chemical processes. 1 st
ed. London, UK: Butterworths.
Zhang, Y., Z. Wenqi, and B. Jin. 2011. Experimental and theoretical
study on fluidization of stalk shaped biomass particle in a fluidized
bed. International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering 9 (1):
A54. doi:10.1515/1542-6580.2691.