Pergamon Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 52, No. 16, pp.

2785 2809, 1997

,~c~1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
P I I : S0009-2509(97)00081-X 0009 2509/97 $15.00 +0.00

Numerical simulation of the gas-solid flow

in a fluidized bed by combining discrete
particle method with computational
fluid dynamics
B. H. Xu and A. B. Yu
School of Materials Science and Engineering, The University of New South Wales,
Sydney 2052, Australia

(Received 1 November 1996; in revised form 23 January 1997; accepted 21 February 1997)

Abstract--The gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed is modelled by a combined approach of discrete

particle method and computational fluid dynamics (DPM-CFD), in which the motion of
individual particles is obtained by solving Newton's second law of motion and gas flow by the
Navier-Stokes equation based on the concept of local average. The coupling between DPM
and CFD is achieved directly by applying the principle of Newton's third law of motion to the
discrete particle and continuum gas which are modelled at different length and time scales. The
equations of motion for a system of particles are solved by a collision dynamic model developed
in this work which, in conjunction with the predictor-corrector method, allows stiff particles
(~ = 50,000 N m - i) to be used with a reasonable computational time step (1.5 x 10- 5 s) while
conserving the energy and momentum. The gas-phase equations are solved by the conventional
SIMPLE method facilitated with the Crank-Nicolson scheme to give the second order
accuracy in the time discretization.
The proposed model shows its capacity of simulating the gas fluidization process realistically
from a fixed to fully fluidized bed via an incipient fluidization stage. This is done by a series of
numerical tests to reproduce the experimental procedures in determining the minimum fluidiza-
tion velocity of 2400 particles (pp = 2700 kg m-3, D = 4 x 10-3 m) in a pseudo-three-dimen-
sional central jet fluidized bed of dimensions 0.9 x 0.15 x 0.004 m. The hysteretic feature of bed
pressure drop vs superficial gas velocity curve is obtained for the first time realistically from first
principles, with the predicted minimum fluidization velocity in good agreement with ex-
periment. It is demonstrated that the proposed model is able to capture the gas-solid flow
features in a fluidized bed from the largest length and time scales relevant to the
processing equipment down to the smallest ones relevant to the individual particles. © 1997
Elsevier Science Ltd

Keywords: Fluidization; gas-solid flow; numerical simulation; discrete particle method.

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N There have been intensive research activities in the

Gas fluidization is observed when gas continuously
upward flows through a bed of particles at an appro-
priate flow rate. The particles which are initially at
rest, driven by the fluid drag force and the inter-
particle forces from their neighbour particles, start to
move and exhibit complex and intriguing flow pat-
terns, which in turn greatly affects the gas flow. It
is this mutual interaction between the discrete par-
ticles and continuum gas that provides an ideal
environment for rapid heat and mass transfer, good
mixing of solids and fast chemical reaction inside
a fluidized bed. These features are very desirable for
many industrial applications.
2785
area of gas fluidization over the past few decades
(Davidson et al., 1985). The early efforts are mainly
focused on the overall performance of fluidized beds,
which is important to their reliable design and opera-
tion. The macroscopic flow behaviour of both gas and
solid phases has been well characterized in terms of
flow regimes or types of fluidized powders (Geldart,
1973; Grace, 1986; Bi and Grace, 1995). Although
a large amount of data have been accumulated from
both laboratory experiment and plant practice,
a comprehensive interpretation of these data is diffi-
cult, if not impossible, as the information obtained
from an experiment is usually incomplete due to the
limitation of measurement technique. In fact, by now
2786 B. H. Xu and A. B. Yu
the information about the dynamic behaviour of di-
screte particles is very limited. To overcome this,
various advanced techniques have been attempted
recently, such as the use of positron emission particle
tracking method to measure the three-dimensional
velocity and trajectory of a single sample particle
within a gas fluidized bed (Seville et al., 1995), and
digital high-speed photography and image processing
technique to determine the translational and rota-
tional motion of two-dimensional discs within the
interested area of a vibrating bed (Warr et al., 1994).
However, to date, information on the transient forces
acting on individual particles during fluidization is
still unavailable. These forces are believed to be key
factors responsible for the complex flow phenomena
in a fluidized bed.
The gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed can be
modelled at three different length and time scales: of
the processing equipment, of the computational cell,
and of the individual particles. Many correlations
have been proposed to describe various performance
of a fluidized bed at the processing equipment level,
with the Ergun equation (1952) for the evaluation of
the minimum fluidization velocity as a typical
example. On the other hand, the modelling of the
gas-solid flow at the computational cell level has been
developed mainly on the basis of the local average
technique of Anderson and Jackson (1967), where
both gas and solid phases are treated as interpenet-
rating continuum media while local mean variables
instead of the point variables are used in the
Navier-Stokes equation which is then solved by the
computational fluid dynamics (CFD). This con-
tinuum approach can provide useful information
about the gas-solid flow and has actually dominated
the modelling of fluidization processes for years, as
recently summarized by Gidaspow (1994). However,
in addition to the difficulty of providing constitutive
correlations for the inter-phase transfer of mass, mo-
mentum and energy within its continuum framework,
this approach is unable to model the discrete flow
characteristics of individual particles.
On the other hand, the so-called distinct element
method (DEM) established by Cundall and Strack
(1979), referred to as discrete particle method (DPM)
when applied to granular systems, in which the
motion of individual particles is obtained directly by
solving Newton's second law of motion, has emerged
to be an important tool in powder/particle technology
research (Thornton, 1993). Previous work in this di-
rection is mainly focused on the situations where
fluid-particle interactions are not dominant. In the
past few years, however, attempts have been made by
a number of researchers to apply the DPM model to
particle systems involving fluid-particle interactions.
In particular, Tsuji et al. (1992) treated the fluid flow
one-dimensionally to simulate the plug flow in a hori-
zontal pipe, where the Ergun equation was used to
give the fluid drag force acting on particles in a mov-
ing or stationary sector of pipe. A similar concept was
adopted by Langston et al. (1996) in their simulation
of air assisted or retarded hopper flow. On the other
hand, Jiang and Haft(1993) used a simple slab model
to incorporate the momentum conservation for fluid
phase to simulate the bed load transport by rivers,
where the fluid drag force on individual grains was
computed as if they were isolated in an undisturbed
flow; Drake and Walton (1995) incorporated fluid
drag force into the simulation of grain flow in an
inclined chute by assuming that the fluid drag force
was simply proportional to the square of the magni-
tude of the mean particle velocity. Obviously, as the
reverse effect of particle motion on the fluid flow is not
considered, these models are not suitable for the situ-
ations where the gas and solid flows are strongly
coupled.
The direct incorporation of CFD into DPM to
study the gas fluidization process so far has been
attempted by Tsuji et al. (1993), and most recently by
Hoomans et al. (1996). In their modelling, the gas flow
is determined by the conventional continuum ap-
proach, giving information for calculating the fluid
drag force acting on individual particles; the motion
of individual particles is then obtained by solving
Newton's second law of motion, giving information
for determining the porosity from the coordinates
of individual particles for the further evaluation of
gas flow field. These authors have shown that this
approach is very promising in simulating the gas
fluidization process at the individual particle level.
However, in addition to their oversimplified assump-
tion of inviscid fluid for the gas-phase flow, a major
drawback of the model proposed by Tsuji et al. (1993)
is that only very soft particle (x = 800 N m - 1) can be
used due to the difficulty of keeping the numerical
solution stable, which introduces an unrealistically
large displacement or overlap between the contacting
particles and hence results in erroneous fluid drag and
inter-particle forces. To avoid large overlaps, Hoo-
mans et al. (1996) proposed a hard sphere model, in
which the particle motion is computed based on the
kinematics of hard sphere collision and the stiffness of
a particle is therefore effectively chosen to be infinite.
However, one major drawback of the hard sphere
approach is that detailed information about inter-par-
ticle forces is greatly suppressed (Haft and Anderson,
1993), which, like the model of Tsuji et al., makes
comprehensive understanding of the complex force-
related fluidization phenomena impossible. Further-
more, the coupling of DPM and CFD equations,
which are actually developed on the basis of different
length and time scales, has not been fully recognized
as an important issue and correctly achieved in the
above two models; this may prohibit the general
application of this combined DPM-CFD approach.
The purpose of this paper is to rationalize this
approach by presenting a detailed discussion of the
theoretical and technical treatments to overcome the
above noted problems. In particular, a collision dy-
namic model is developed to overcome the unrealistic
softening treatment of particles in the work of
Tsuji et al. (1993), which, in conjunction with the
 Gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed
predictor-corrector method, allows stiff particles to
be used with a reasonable computational time step
while conserving the energy and momentum. The
coupling between D P M and C F D is achieved directly
by applying the principle of Newton's third law of
motion to individual particles and continuum gas
phase. The detailed information on the transient in-
ter-particle forces can be readily obtained. The pro-
posed model is validated by its realistic simulation
results at various length and time scales from the
processing equipment to individual particles.
2. T H E O R E T I C A L T R E A T M E N T
2.1. Discrete particle method
A particle in a fluidized bed can have two types of
motion: translational and rotational, which are com-
pletely determined by Newton's second law of motion.
During its movement, the particle may collide with its
neighbour particles or wall at the contact points and
interact with the surrounding fluid, through which the
momentum and energy are exchanged. Strictly speak-
ing, this movement is affected not only by the forces
and torques originated from its immediate neighbour
particles and vicinal fluid but also the particles and
fluids far away through the propagation of distur-
bance waves. The complexity of such a process has
defied any attempts to model this problem analy-
tically. Even for the numerical approach, proper
assumptions have to be made in order that this pro-
blem can be solved effectively without an excess
requirement for computer memory or expensive iter-
ative procedure. Similar to the concept proposed by
Cundall and Strack (1979), it is assumed here that this
problem can be solved by choosing a numerical time
step less than a critical value so that during a single
time step the disturbance cannot propagate from the
particle and fluid farther than its immediate neigh-
bour particles and vicinal fluid. Then at all times the
resultant forces on any particle can be determined
exclusively from its interaction with the contacting
particles and vicinal fluid,
Based on the above assumption, Newton's second
law of motion is used to describe the motion of indi-
vidual particles. Thus, at any time z, the equation
governing the translational motion of particle i is
k,
dvi=fy.i+
m i -~T ~(f,.ij+fd.ij)+mig
j=l
where m~and vi are, respectively, the mass and velocity
of particle i, and k~ is the number of particles in
contact with this particle. The forces involved are: the
fluid drag force, fy.~, gravitational force, mig, and
inter-particle forces between particles i and j which
include the contact force, fc.~j, and viscous contact
damping force, fd.Zj- Because the true density of par-
ticle is usually much larger than that of gas, the
buoyancy force acting on particle i has been ignored
in eq. (1).
The gravitational and fluid drag forces act on the
mass centre of particle i, whilst the inter-particle forces
2787
act at the contact point between particles i and j, The
inter-particle forces will generate a torque, T~i, causing
particle i to rotate. For a spherical particle of radius
Ri, T o is given by T~j = R~ × fc.~j, where R~ is a vector
running from the mass centre of the particle to the
contact point (its magnitude equals to R~). Thus, the
equation governing the rotational motion of particle
i is
l.dO~i k.
j=l
where o~ is the angular velocity, and I~ is the moment
of inertia of particle i, given as I~ = Zsm~R~2.
To solve eqs (1) and (2), the forces involved need to
be determined a priori. To demonstrate the principles
of evaluating these forces, a collision between two
particles i and j, as shown in Fig. 1, will be discussed.
Here we define that two particles are in contact if the
distance between their mass centres is less than the
sum of their radii. The inter-particle forces involved in
eq. (1) are determined from their normal and tangen-
tial components, represented, respectively, by f,,,aj and
fa.,ij, and f,,ij and fat,ij for particle i.
2.1.1. Inter-particle forces. There are a number of
models have been proposed for the evaluation of the
inter-particle forces, which can probably be grouped
into three categories: the linear model, the non-linear
model, and the non-linear hysteretic model. Their
main features and applications in the DPM simula-
tion have been studied by Johnson (1985), Thornton
and Yin (1991) and Walton (1993), among others.
Generally speaking, a more sophisticated model can
produce better results (e.g. see Saddet al., 1993; Lang-
s t o n e t al., 1995). However, the linear contact force
"1-fdn'ji fct,ji "[-fdt
(1)
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the forces acting on col-
liding particles i and j.
2788 B. H. Xu and A. B. Yu
model is still widely used mainly due to its simplicity
as well as reasonable accuracy (e.g. see Cundall and
Strack, 1979; S a d d e t al., 1993; Haft and Anderson,
1993). Accordingly, the linear normal and tangential
contact force models are used in the present study, so
that
fc,.ij = - (tc,,i6,,ij)ni (3)
and
fct,ij = -- (Kt,iOt,ij)ti (4)
where x,,i, 6,.ij and xt,~, 6~,ij are, respectively, the
spring constant and displacement between particles
i and j in normal and tangential directions, nl and
t~ are, respectively, the unit vectors along the normal
and tangential directions for particle i (Fig.2). If
]fct,ij[ > Ylj[ fcmij[, then sliding occurs, and the magni-
tude of the tangential force is given by the Coulomb
friction law, preserving the sign obtained from eq. (4).
[f.,ij[ = - Tij[ f~.,ij[ (5)
where 7ij represents the coefficient of friction between
particles i and j. The normal and tangential displace-
ments in eqs (3) and (4) are determined from the
(b)
Fig, 2. Relative positions between particles i and j before
collision: (a) separated; (b) contacted.
motion history of particles i and j. That is, their
calculation is related to the collision dynamics of two
particles as will be discussed in Section 2.1.3•
A system will eventually tend to be stationary as
a result of the inelastic collisions between particles if
no external energy is added to it. This mechanism can
be simulated by introducing a viscous contact damp-
ing force to consume the system energy during the
particle collisions (Cundall and Strack, 1979). The
viscous contact damping forces for particle i along the
normal and tangential directions are, respectively,
given by
fdn.ij = -- rln,i(V," nl)ni (6)
and
fd,,ij = -- ~h.i[-(V;ti)ti + (~i × Ri -- ~j x Rj)] (7)
where r/.,i and rh,i are, respectively, the normal and
tangential viscous contact damping coefficients of
particle i, and v, is the velocity vector of particle
i relative to j, defined as v, = vi - vj. If sliding occurs,
then only friction damping is considered and viscous
contact damping is vanished (Cundall and Strack,
1979).
2.1.2. Fluid dra9 force• As implied in eq. (1), the
fluid-particle interaction force, i.e., the fluid drag
force, should be determined on the individual particle
basis. This force is dependent on not only the relative
velocity of fluid and particle but also the presence of
other surrounding particles (e.g. see Liang et al., 1996)•
It is extremely difficult to determine this force theoret-
ically. On the other hand, correlations have been well
established for the evaluation of this force at either
processing equipment or computational cell level
(Ergun, 1952; Richardson and Zaki, 1954; Rowe,
1987). This force should be linked to the force at the
individual particle level in some way. With this realiz-
ation, Di Felice (1994) recently proposed an equation
to calculate the fluid drag force acting on a single
particle, which is applicable to both fixed and
fluidized beds over the full practical range of particle
Reynolds number. His equation is used in the present
study, so that
fs,i = ffo,igi t (8)
where ~i is the porosity around particle i, taken as the
porosity in a computational cell in which particle i is
located. Here we define that a particle is located in
a cell as long as its mass centre is in this cell. The fluid
drag force on particle i in the absence of other par-
ticles, flo,i and the empirical coefficient, X, are, respec-
tively, given by
flo,i = 0.5Cao.ips~R'Z,I ul - viI(ui - - Vi) (9)
and
I (1.5--1oglo Ree,i) 2]
Z = 3.7 -- 0.65 exp (10)
 Gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed
where ui is the fluid velocity in the computational cell,
and Cao,i, the fluid drag coefficient, can be expressed as
4.8 V (11)
Cao,i = (0.63
and Rep, i is the particle Reynolds number defined as
2pfRilui - vll
Rep.i (12)
/~f
where Ps and #s are the fluid density and viscosity,
respectively.
2.1.3. Collision dynamics. The potential danger of
false solutions from the time integration procedures
with non-linear dynamics has been emphasized by
Stewart (1992). In the past years, considerable efforts
have been made to develop a numerical scheme by
which the energy is identically conserved in the non-
linear dynamics (Hughes, 1976; Hughes et al., 1978;
Xie and Steven, 1994; Crisfield and Shi, 1994). How-
ever, it appears that little attention has been given to
the collision dynamics. Unlike the situations encoun-
tered in other transient non-linear dynamic systems,
the fast moving particles in a gas fluidized bed exhibit
extremely complicated collision patterns: not only the
collision points but also the collision partners change
during the time evolution. In this case, the possibility
for a particle to collide with its partner via a free fly
path is high, which, if not considered properly, will
introduce a fictitious elastic energy stored in the col-
liding particles. This problem can be effectively solved
by means of a collision dynamic model described
below.
For convenience, only a two-dimensional case is
discussed here. But the method can be readily ex-
tended to a three-dimensional case. We considered the
movement of particle j relative to i within a time step
AT. At the current time, the two particles are in con-
tact. Two possibilities exist for the position of particle
j relative to i at the previous time: the two particles are
either separated [Fig. 2(a)] or contacted [Fig. 2(b)].
For the case where the two particles are separated
prior to their collision, we first find out the position at
which particle j just touches particle i. This can be
done by backward moving particle j away from par-
ticle i along their relative velocity direction to a point
at which the distance between their mass centres is
just equal to the sum of their radii. Then the actual
collision starts from that point so the time spent in the
actual collision process, AT', will be less than AT. This
actual collision time can be obtained by solving
a quadratic equation, and its physically meaningful
root is given by
(av x + bvr) + x/(av~ + bvy) 2 + v2(R 2 - L 2)
AT'
(13)
where a = x j - x i , b=yj-yi, R=R~+R~, L=
J+b 2 and v,=lv~-vjl. Here (xi, Yl) and
(x j, y j) are, respectively, the Cartesian coordinates of
2789
particles i and j at the current time, vx and vr are,
respectively, the components of the relative velocity
vector, v,, along x and y directions. The incremental
displacements in the normal and tangential directions
due to the collision are, respectively,
A6,,i j = (V," ni)Az' (t4)
and
Af~t,ij = Iv r' ti -'}- ((9 i x Ri - toj x R j ) . t i ] A z ' . (15)
These incremental displacements are then used to
determine the displacements and the inter-particle
contact forces. Similarly, for the case when the two
particles keep in contact within one time step Az, the
initial colliding point of particle j at the previous time
is also found by backward moving particle j away
from particle i along their relative velocity direction to
a distance of Iv,lAz. Then the collision starts from that
point, the incremental displacements in the normal
and tangential directions during this time step are,
respectively, given by
Ag,,ij = (v r" ni)Az (16)
and
A6t.ij = [v,'ti + (toi x Ri - toj × R~)'ti] Az. (17)
2.2. Computational fluid dynamics
In a gas fluidized bed, the presence of particles
provides impermeable boundaries which force gas to
detour its path and flow through the interstitial gaps
or voids among particles. Meanwhile the gas flow
produces a fluid drag force which, together with the
inter-particle forces, results in the motion of indi-
vidual particles. This motion will in turn affect the gas
flow. It is through this mutual interaction that the
continuum gas and discrete particles exchange their
momentum and energy. This interaction greatly com-
plicates the gas flow patterns in a fluidized bed so that
the point variables of gas phase vary rapidly in both
space and time. It is difficult even for a modern super-
computer to directly calculate these instantaneous
point variables of gas phase with moving discrete
boundaries when the number of particles considered
is large (e.g. see Hu, 1996). An alternative way to solve
this problem is the local average technique established
by Anderson and Jackson (1967), in which these
rapidly varying point variables are replaced by the
local mean variables over a region which contains
many particles but still small compared with the mac-
roscopic variations from point to point in the system.
This technique has been widely used in the continuum
approach of modelling fluidization process (Gidas-
pow, 1994).
According to this local average technique, the mass
conservation and Navier-Stokes equations are ex-
pressed in terms of the local mean variables over the
computational cell. Thus,
0~
,9~ + v . (~u) = 0 (18)
2790 B. H. Xu and A. B. Yu
and
~(p:u)
0----~ + V'(pfeuu) = - e V p - F + V'(eF) + p:eg
(19)

where p, F and F are, respectively, the fluid pressure,

volumetric fluid-particle interaction force and viscous
stress tensor.

2.2.1. Constitutive correlation. For the sake of

solving the fluid-phase momentum equation, the con-
stitutive correlations for the volumetric fluid-particle
interaction force and viscous stress tensor are re-
quired. Here the fluid viscous stress tensor in eq. (19)
is given by an expression analogous to that for a New-
tonian fluid (Anderson and Jackson, 1967). That is

r = [(/~r -zaP:)V'u]6x + #:[(Vu) +(Vu) -~3 (20)

where 6x is the Kronecker delta, and p} is the fluid

bulk viscosity. Under the present simulation condi-
tion, the fluid bulk viscosity/~r can be neglected (Bird
et al., 1960).
As the fluid drag force acting on each particle is
known (see Section 2.1.2), according to Newton's third
law of motion, the volumetric fluid-particle interac-
tion force can be determined by
k x and y directions, the volume of the cell in eq. (22) can
F --2i~=lfs'i (21)
AV
where A V is the volume of a computational cell, and
kc is the number of particles located in this cell.
2.2.2. Calculation of porosity. By definition, the
porosity in a computational cell is the ratio of the void
volume to the volume of the cell. As particles move
around inside a fluidized bed, it is quite normal that
a particle may have parts of its volume located in
adjacent cells as shown in Fig. 3. Taking this into
account, if Vi is the volume of particle i inside a com-
putational cell, then the porosity in this cell is
e = 1 ---2~lVi (22)
AV
In principle, eq. (22) is valid for both three- and
two-dimensional conditions. In a two-dimensional
simulation, discs are often used, giving porosity values
not comparable with those for a three-dimensional
simulation (Bideau and Hansen, 1993; Zhang et al.,
1996). This will result in a different fluid drag force
acting on individual particles because of its strong
dependency on porosity. This problem was also
noticed by Hoomans et al. (1996). These authors at-
tempted to obtain more comparable results by relat-
ing two-dimensional to three-dimensional porosity.
However, their treatment is rather arbitrary and may
distort the reality.
To solve this problem, we simply employ a pseudo-
three-dimensional concept. That is, our simulation is
actually performed in a three-dimensional bed with its
Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of the particles in a computa-
tional cell (shaded area).
thickness, Az, exactly equal to the diameter of
a spherical particle. In this case, if Ax and Ay are,
respectively, the lengths of a computational cell in
be given as
AV = Ax Ay Az. (23)
2.3. Couplin9 between CFD and D P M
Obviously, the modelling of the solid flow by DPM
is at the individual particle level, whilst the gas flow by
C F D is at the computational cell level. Through local
averaging, the equations based on the point fluid
variables are transferred into continuum equations in
terms of the local mean variables at the computa-
tional cell level. The most obvious difference between
the point and continuum equations is the introduc-
tion of the volumetric fluid-particle interaction force
as an explicit term in eq. (19); this inter-phase force
influences the point equations of motion only through
their boundary values at the discrete particle surface.
Theoretically, it is this term that reflects the coupling
between D P M and CFD. It is understood that the
correct coupling must be made on the basis of
Newton's third law of motion. That is, the fluid drag
force acting on the individual particles from the fluid
phase will react on the fluid phase from the individual
particles. This principle is clearly expressed in eq. (21).
However, this important issue is not fully recog-
nized in the previous work (Tsuji et aL, 1993; Hoo-
mans et al., 1996). These authors considered the fluid
drag force acting on a single-particle and fluid pa-
rticle interaction force exerted on the fluid in a
computational cell separately. As a result, the sum of
the fluid drag force acting on the discrete particles in
a computational cell will not necessarily equal the
fluid-particle interaction force on the same cell, i.e.
 Gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed
Newton's third law of motion is not satisfied. Theoret-
ically their model is not correct.
In this work, the combination of DPM and CFD is
numerically achieved as follows. At each time step,
DPM will give information, such as the positions and
velocities of individual particles, for the evaluation
of porosity and volumetric fluid-particle interaction
force in a computational cell by eq. (21). CFD will
then use these data to determine the gas flow field
which, by eq. (8), yields the fluid drag forces acting on
individual particles. Incorporation of the resulting
forces into DPM will produce information about the
motion of individual particles for the next time step.
This procedure clearly indicates that the description
of the continuum gas and discrete particle flows in
a fluidized bed should be obtained only when DPM
and CFD are properly combined - - a fact that ex-
plains why the present model is referred to as a
D P M - C F D model.
2.4. Solution technique
The selection of appropriate numerical schemes for
solving the DPM and CFD equations is very impor-
tant as it not only affects the solution accuracy but
also the efficient use of the computer resources. Since
the governing equations in the DPM and CFD are
different, different solution schemes have to be used.
The explicit time integration method is widely used
to solve the translational and rotational motions of
a system of discrete particles in the DPM simulations
(e.g. see Cundall and Strack, 1979; Tsuji et al., 1993;
Hoomans et al., 1996). The straightforward formula-
tion without an excess requirement for computer
memory is the main advantage of this method. How-
ever, due to the constraint for numerical stability, the
time step used for such a simulation should be very
small. This is because particles do not detect the
contact with others until they finish the movement in
one time step. The displacements may be overesti-
mated, which introduces fictitious elastic energy for
particle collisions and hence leads to unrealistic re-
suits. To avoid this problem, the so-called predictor-
corrector method [Hughes, 1982) has been incorpor-
ated into the present simulation.
The equations involved in the predictor-corrector
procedure are given below for solving eq. (1) and the
similar equations can be developed for solving eq. (2).
For the predictor stage,
v~ = vi + At(1 - ~)ai (24)
r~ ----r i + Arv i + 0.SAz2(1 - 2fl)ai (25)
and the force balance after predictor stage,
k,
mia~'=fs.i+ Z fPii+fP.iJ)+mig • (26)
j-1
For the corrector stage,
vc = v~' + Ar ~a~' (27)
r~ = r~' + Az2 fla~ (28)
2791
where ai and ri are the acceleration and position
vector of particle i, respectively, the superscripts,
p and c, represent the values estimated at the predictor
and corrector stages, ~t and fl are the Newmark
parameters which control the accuracy and stability
of the method (Newmark, 1959). For this work,
= 0.5 and fl = 0.25 are chosen to achieve consistency
with a constant variation of velocity in a given time
interval.
The conventional SIMPLE method (Patankar,
1980) is used to solve the equations for the fluid
phase. The governing equations are discretized in
finite volume form on a uniform, staggered grid. The
second-order central difference scheme is used for the
pressure gradient and divergence terms. The first-
order up-wind scheme is used for the convection term
and a second-order Crank-Nicolson scheme is used
for the time derivative.
3. SIMULATIONCONDITIONS
3.1. Boundary conditions
The simulation conditions are similar to those of
Tsuji et al. (1993) and Hoomans et al. (1996). The
simulated fluidized bed consists of a rectangular con-
tainer of dimension 0.9 × 0.15 × 0.004 m with a jet slot
of 0.01 m in width at the centre of the bottom wall.
The calculation domain along with the grid arrange-
ments are shown in Fig. 4. The left, bottom and right
walls as well as the top exit consist of the whole
calculation domain boundaries. To study effectively
the start-up stage of fluidization process, the height of
the bed used in the present simulation is 0.9 m, much
higher than those used in the previous simulations.
In the CFD simulation, as the finite-volume
method is used, no nodes lie on the boundaries. The
boundary values for fluid variables are set by inclu-
ding an extra point outside of the boundary with
a prescribed value. The value at the boundary is then
obtained by averaging that point and the nearest
point in the calculation domain. For the fluid velocity,
the no-slip boundary condition applies to left, bottom
and right walls and zero normal gradient condition to
the top exit. At the central jet, a plug profile for fluid
velocity is specified at a given value. For the porosity
and pressure correction, the zero normal gradient
condition applies along the boundaries. The pressure,
which is obtained from the pressure correction at all
interior points, is obtained on the boundaries by using
a second-order extrapolation from the interior points.
In the DPM simulation, the inter-particle force
models discussed in Section 2.1.1 are also applied to
the collision between a particle and wall, with the
corresponding wall properties used in the simulation.
However, the wall is assumed to be so rigid that no
displacement and movement result from this collision.
3.2. Selection o f parameters
To solve the DPM and CFD equations, parameters
involved must be specified a priori. Table 1 lists the
parameters used in this simulation. Of particular im-
portance is the determination of the computational
2792 B. H. Xu and A. B. Yu
time step and viscous contact damping coefficient,
bed width=O. 15 m which are often determined with a large degree of
P, . empiricism in the literature. As discussed below, the
present simulation uses a rather simple but effective
method to determine these parameters.

3.2.1. Time step. As the magnitude of the length

scale of D P M is much smaller than that of C F D , the
time step used in the numerical simulation should be
determined from the D P M constraints. Obviously,
under the condition of conserving the energy during
an elastic collision, the larger this time step, the more
efficient use of the computer resource. This time step
I I is here determined by simulating the dropping of
a particle from a fixed height to a flat wall of the same
i
properties. It is evident that the energy conservation
is met if a particle can bounce back to its initial
i dropping height. The maximum time step giving such
results can be found after a series of tests using differ-
ent time steps; here a value of 1.5 × 10 -5 s is chosen
under the present simulation conditions (see Table 1).
Although the above time step is determined from

I
the situation of the collision between a particle and
a fiat wall, it is also applicable to the collision between
particles because the underlying mechanisms are es-
sentially the same.

! 3.2.2. Viscous contact damping coefficient. The

viscous contact damping coefficient is determined
! based on the mechanisms involved in an inelastic
I I collision process. The magnitude of this damping
iI !
I should consume the energy at a realistic rate. As the
collisions involved are actually a multi-collision dy-
namic process, it is extremely difficult to determine
this coefficient theoretically. In this work, this para-
meter is determined from a number of numerical tests
r i involving the collision of a particle with a flat wall, as
described below.
Using the time step determined in Section 3.2.1,
gas jet different viscous contact damping coefficients are
tested. It is known that the right viscous contact
Fig. 4. Calculation domain and grid arrangement for the damping coefficient should correctly reflect the energy
present simulation. loss after a collision, which can be measured by the

Table 1. Parameters used for the present simulation*

Solid phase Gas phase

Particle shape Spherical Viscosity,/~f 1.8x 10--s kgm- 1s -l

Number of particles 2400 Density, p: 1.205 kg m - 3
Particle diameter, D 0.004 m Bed width 0.15m
Particle density, pp 2700 kg m- 3 Bed height 0.9 m
Spring constant, ~¢, or ~:t 50,000 N m- 1 Bed thickness 0.004 m
Friction coefficient, 7 0.3 Orifice width 10mm
Viscous contact damping Cell width, Ax 10 mm
coefficient, q, or qt 0.15 Cell height, Ay 20 mm

* The wall properties such as to, ), and r/are the same as those for particles.
 Gas solid flow in a fluidized bed
coefficient of restitution, e, defined as
Vl
e = -- (29a)
VO
or in terms of height
e= (29b)
where vo, ho, and vl, hi are, respectively, the velocities
and the maximum heights of the particle before and
after the collision. For the ideal case without energy
loss (e = 1), the viscous damping coefficient should be
equal to zero. In the present simulation, a realistic
value of 0.9 is chosen for the coefficient of restitution.
Corresponding to this value, the viscous damping
coefficient is determined to be 0.15.
3.3. Initial conditions
Initially, the fluid is at rest anywhere in the calcu-
lation domain with 2400 particles (D = 4 × 10 -3 m)
inside. The initial particle configuration in the calcu-
lation domain is generated as follows. The container is
divided into a set of small square cells with its length
equal to the diameter of particles. Along the height of
the container, each adjacent cell offsets a distance
equal to the particle radius. Then 2400 particles are
randomly positioned in these cells and allowed to fall
down under gravity. The motion of particles is deter-
mined by the above developed model which has also
taken into account the air flow as a result of particle
dropping. A stable packing configuration is finally
generated after sufficient time of simulation.
~ Time=0.00 (sec) 0.6 Tirne=0.20 (sec)
0,~
0.,~
0.(]
Fig. 5. Particle configurations at different times in a simulated packing process.
2793
A number of initial particle configurations have
been generated in this way, giving slightly different
packing structures. One of these packing processes is
shown in Fig. 5; its final stage (t = 0.8 s) is used as the
initial input data for the fluidization simulation.
Regular packing structure is observed in some re-
gions, which is mainly due to the wall effect (Jullien
et al., 1993; Zhang et al., 1996). However, the packing
structure as a whole is reasonably comparable with
those measured (Bideau and Hansen, 1993).
Note that the initial input data for fluidization
simulation should include not only the particle co-
ordinates but also forces and torques which come
with the positioning of particles in a packing process.
Use of the particle coordinates alone will give diff-
erent fluidization flow patterns, particularly at the
initial stage. This suggests that the packing structures,
constructed by other simulation techniques without
considering the forces and torques, may not be so
appropriate for realistic simulations.
4. RESULTSAND DISCUSSION
4.1. Relationship between bed pressure drop and
superficial gas velocity
To test the validity of the proposed model, an
attempt has been made to establish the relationship
between the bed pressure drop and superficial gas
velocity, Totally, 23 runs of simulation are carried out,
corresponding to the cases with an increasing or de-
creasing superficial gas velocity. The cases corres-
ponding to the increasing superficial gas velocity are
simulated under the same boundary and initial condi-
tions outlined in Section 3 with different gas jet
0.6 Time=0.80 (sec)
0.4
0.2
0.0
2794
velocities. The cases corresponding to the decreasing
superficial gas velocity are simulated by successively
decreasing the superficial gas velocity, with the final
results at a higher velocity as the initial input data for
the simulation at next (lower) velocity. All the simula-
tions are carried out at a HP-735 workstation and
about 9 h of CPU time are required to run for 1 s real
time.
The superficial gas velocity, here as an alternative
to the gas jet velocity, is defined as the total volumet-
ric gas flow rate divided by the entire bed cross-sec-
tional area. The bed pressure drop, Ap, is the gas
pressure difference between the bottom and top along
the symmetric line of the bed. Because bed pressure
drop fluctuates with time, a representative mean
value, A/~, over a period of time is required. A/~ is here
evaluated by the following equation:
A/5 - ~ A p d r
T 2 -- 171
where zl and z2 are, respectively, the initial and final
times for the calculation of mean pressure drop. Note
that zl should be large enough to eliminate the effect
of the start-up, and z2 can be the end time of a simula-
tion.
Figure 6 shows the results, where four stages can be
identified, i.e. a fixed bed stage (point A to B), fully
fluidized bed stage (point C to D), incipient fluidiz-
ation stage (point C to E) and defluidization stage
(point E to F). The results are qualitatively in good
agreement with those established in the literature
(Davidson et al., 1985; Ishikura et al., 1986).
The fixed-bed stage actually relates to the gas flow
in a packed bed. No obvious movement of particles is
3.0x10 4 . . . . I . . . .
- e Increasivel
ng°citIy
Decreasivel
--II ngocity~~ 1
7.0xl 0 3
Q.
"o
2.0x10 3
6.0x10 2
, J , = I ~ , ,
0.0 0.5
Fig. 6. Bed pressure drop vs superficial gas velocity.
B. H. Xu and A. B. Yu
observed at this stage. The bed pressure drop in-
creases with increasing the superficial gas velocity
until a critical point, G, is reached. After this point the
bed pressure drop starts to decrease with increasing
the superficial gas velocity. The small difference
between the bed pressure drops at points G and
B corresponds to the slight rearrangement of particles,
resulting in an improved bed porosity.
The sharp decrease of bed pressure drop from point
B to C reflects a significant change in particle config-
uration as a result of fluidization. As will be discussed
in the following section, at the fully fluidized-bed
stage, bubbles and slugs are generated continuously
during the gas flow and particles move vigorously
inside the bed. This stage is characterized by an al-
most constant bed pressure drop. Starting from point
C, it can extend up to the terminal velocity, although
this is not attempted in the present study (note that
(30) a higher bed is required to accommodate particles at
the start-up stage at a higher superficial gas velocity).
On the other hand, decreasing the superficial gas
velocity from point C to E will yield an incipient
fluidization stage. This will allow the minimum flui-
dization velocity (point E) to be determined, where
a value of 1.8 m s - ~ is found. Interestingly, this value
is very close to the value of 1.77 m s - ~ estimated from
the well-known Wen and Yu correlation (1966). From
point C to E, the bed pressure drop is essentially
maintained at the same level as that of the fully
fluidized-bed stage. The slugs and bubbles are still
observed at this stage; however, its intensity is at-
tenuated gradually from point C to E. The solid flow
patterns at point E are shown in Fig. 7, indicating that
at the minimum fluidization velocity, a gas bubble
forms only at the jet region and the gas can readily
I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' [ . . . . I . . . . I
~
, E ~ , , , I , , , ~ I , , , J I , h , , J . . . .
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Superficial gas velocity (m/s)
 Gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed 2795

O.E Time=0.12 (secI 0.6 Time=0.22 (secI Time=0.32 (sec) Time=0.42 Isec~
0.6

O.Z 0.4 0.4

v,v

Fig. 7. Particle configurations at point E (see Fig. 6) when superficial gas velocity is equal to minimum
fluidization velocity.

2 . 0 x 1 0 4 ' ' i ' ' '

I I ' ' ' E I ' '

1.5X104

0-

t-t
o
1"0x104

en

5.0x10 a

O.OxlO °
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)

Fig. 8. Bed pressure drop vs time when superficial gas velocity is equal to 2.8 m s- 1.

flow through the bed without resulting in a rigorous
solid flow.
Further decreasing the superficial gas velocity from
point E will give a defluidization stage, where no
bubbles are generated. The bed pressure drop con-
tinuously decreases with decreasing superficial gas
velocity. However, the curve does not coincide with
that at the fixed bed stage, because of different particle
configurations.
The distinct hysteretic feature of the bed pressure
drop vs superficial gas velocity is the most important
fluidization characteristic for a powder. To date, this
feature cannot be predicted by any models in the
literature. The successful prediction of this feature
2796
provides an important example to validate the pro-
posed model.
4.2. Simulated fluidization behaviour
The simulated fluidization behaviour will be dis-
cussed for a typical case at the fully fluidized bed stage
when the gas jet velocity equals 42 m s ] (superficial
gas velocity equals 2.8 m s- 1). Figure 8 shows a plot of
bed pressure drop against time for this case. Two
B. H. Xu and A. B. Yu
regions are identified here: the start-up (z < 1 s) and
stable fluidization stages. The maximum bed pressure
drop at the start-up stage is much higher than that at
the stable stage because of the need to overcome the
inter-particle locking. After the start-up stage, the bed
pressure drop fluctuates with time around a mean
value given by eq. (30).
Figure 9 shows the simulated solid flow patterns at
the early stage from the start-up to the stable fluidiz-

Time=0.10 ( s e c ) Time=0.20 (sec~ TimA=fl.40(~t~3

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
Tirne=0.50 (see~ 0.6f Time=0.60 (sec) TirnP.=0.7f) (sec~

o ° ° o o

0.4 ~

0.2 °

0.0

Fig. 9. Particle configurations from the start-up stage to stable fluidization when superficialgas velocity is
equal to 2.8 m s- 1.
 Gas solid flow in a fluidized bed 2797

Time=0.90 Isec~ 0.6 Time=1,00( s e c ) Timo.=1.1i3

(go.e~ Time=l ~O ~.~An]
0.6

0.4 o~

~o ~%°°o:~.~
0.2

O.C
Tirne=1.30 (sec~ Time= 1.50 (sec) 0.6 Time=1.60 (sec)
0.E 0.6

v . v

Fig. 9. (Continued).

ation. It shows that the bed begins with a strong
impulsive start-up process. The instantaneous break-
up of the inter-particle locking leads to a significant
upward flow of particles, a phenomenon that is often
observed for Geldart's D-type powder (Cranfield and
Geldart, 1974; Davidson et al., 1985). An elliptical
bubble is formed in the jet region, which forces par-
ticles in its front to move upward. This bubble grows
as gas flows upward and eventually converts to a slug
at the upper part of the bed. Once the lifted particles
fall back to the bed, stable fluidization is established
rapidly, with the solid flow patterns featured by a gas
cavity at the jet region above which a bubble is
formed and continuously grows and rises until con-
verting to a slug.
However, the stochastic nature of a fluidized bed
produces varying solid flow patterns. This can be
demonstrated by the results shown in Figs 10 and 11,
2798 B.H. Xu and A. B. Yu

0.6 Time=1.74 (sec) Tim~=l 7R/~An~ 0.6 Time=1.82 (sec

0.4 0,4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
Time=1.90 (sec) Time=1.94 (sec) Time=l ~8 (s~'~.~ Time=2.02 (sec
0.6 0.6 0.E

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

Fig. 10. A typical example showing the 's-shape' flow path of a gas bubble when superficial gas velocity is
equal to 2.8 m s - 1.
 Gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed 2799

0,6
Time=2.60 (sec) Timp.=2.AA (.qAc~
o.6[ Time=2.78 (sec)
I
I
I

Time=2.84 (see Tim~.=~ .qfl I.~'~.~ Tim~.='2 ~A/~p.n~ TimA=.q N 9 / ~

0.6

(a)

Fig, 11. Results showing different particle configurations in forming a slug when superficial gas velocity is
equal to 2.8 m s - ~ at different times: (a) z = 2.6 to 3.02 s; (b) z = 5.24 to 5.66 s.
2800 B.H. Xu and A. B. Yu

Time=5.24 (sec) Time.=R .q13/.~Anl TImA=R ~ I.q,s~.l TimA=R 49 I~Anl

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.E Time=5.48 (sec) Time.=.~.~0 (s~e3 0.6 Time=5.66 (sec

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

(b) 0.0 0.0

Fig. 11. (Continued).

 Gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed 2801
which correspond to different simulation times. In
0.4 particular, Fig. 10 suggests that a bubble may flow
following a 's-shape' path, and Fig. 11 indicates that
slugging patterns can differ significantly.
Perhaps the most striking fact to highlight the
stochastic nature of a fluidized bed is to examine the
trajectory of individual particles. In the present simu-
lation, the positions of all particles have been traced
0.3 during the time evolution. Figure 12 shows the tra-
jectory of a selected particle initially located in the
jet region. It can be seen that the particle wanders
everywhere in the bed. Although dominated by the
up-and-down movement, the particle can shift from
left to right or vice versa. Figure 13 shows the vari-
ation of its position with time. The results suggest that
0.2 the particle usually remains at the upper region of
the bed for a while before a downward movement.
These observations are fairly consistent with the
experimental findings by positron emission particle
tracking method (Kondukov et al., 1964; Seville et al.,
1995).
The typical results to demonstrate the strong inter-
0.1 actions between the individual particle motion and
continuum gas flow are shown in Figs 14(a) and (b). In
Fig. 14(a), two fast solid flow regions are identified
under this particular circumstance: one is indeed due

Fig. 12. The trajectory of a selected particle illustrating the

0.0 stochastic nature of particle motion in a fluidized bed when
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 superficial gas velocity is equal to 2.8 m s- ~.

0.15 [
,J
/ /

/ / j
i /, /
) 0.08 ""/ "/'' I '/
I v

Time (sec)
0.00 0.00 '3.00 '6.00' '9.00' ' ' 12.00

0.40

v /
@
£
0.20
O \A I \ ,' " ,"
/ I' '~, t
i \, i' "\. / ",\ J'
,\ iI
x, i \ ' \\ i~

Time (see)
0.00 0.~00 '3.00 ' '6.00 . . . . . 9.00 . . . . 12.00

Fig. 13. Variation of the position of the selected particle (Fig. 12) with time when superficial gas velocity is
equal to 2.Sins 1.
2802 B.H. Xu and A. B. Yu

0.6 Time=7.32 (sec, Time=7 40 (.~e~.l

0.,4

0,.~

(a) 0.C

Time=7.32 (sec I Time=7.40 (sec) Tim~---7.44/~ecl

O.~'p.,ttlttllfTt~
,,*tttt~tTlltt~
p,,t~?ltlll~ttq
~,,IIIITIT~?r?~
,,,tttlll?ll~r,
,,,,IIIIIT[III,
,,,tIt?tIT[?TT~ ..... ,~llllll
,,,~rll?tfTttl, ..... itl~lll
,,,~?II~fTTI], ..... tllllll
,,,~?Ir?tfl?tf, ........ tTIlll
0.~ [ ~ , , t t f / l ? t l t | ~ 0.4 ,,lilt I-
tt,ttIItlttl~lt ........ ~Itr

0.2

(b) O.Clim~~d

Fig. 14. Typical results when superficial gas velocity is equal to 2.8 m s - 1 demonstrating the distributions
of (a) velocity of solid particles; (b) velocity of gas phase; (c) total forces (N); and (d) torques acting on
individual particles (N m).
 Gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed 2803

Tim~==7 4.4 I¢~r%

0.6 Time=7.32 (s~ql
6E-1
5E-1
4E-1
2E-1
1E-1

(c)

0.6
Time=7.32 (sec Time=7.40 (sec~
0.E

3E-4 7E-1
2E-4 5E-1
2E-4 4E-1
1E4 3E-1
6E-5 1E-1

0.4

05

0.( v . v

(d)

Fig. 14. (Continued).

2804 B.H. Xu and A. B. Yu
2.0 ' I ' r ' '
CL
1.0
0
E
E
0.0 h i I I
0 2 4 6
Fig. 15. Maximum overlap ratio vs time when superficial gas velocity is equal to 2.8 m s-1.
to the gas dragging in the main stream [see Fig. 14(b)]
and the other is due to the falling of the particles to fill
in the vacant space. There is a big vortex developed
corresponding to these two fast flow regions, which
promotes solid mixing considerably. From Fig. 14(b),
it can also be seen that the gas flows toward the
regions of high porosity. This high preferential flow
will lead to a strong non-uniform fluid drag force
distribution inside the bed, which in turn will greatly
affect the solid flow patterns.
As indicated in eq. (1), the motion of a particle is
governed by the gravitational, fluid drag and inter-
particle forces. These forces, except for the gravity,
vary with time and position. Figures 14(c) and (d)
show the results to highlight this point. It appears that
the resultant force and torque acting on the individual
particles are quite localized. In particular, the large
forces usually occur in pairs, suggesting that the in-
ter-particle force is more important than the fluid
drag force in terms of their maxima. Examining the
results with reference to the flow patterns shown in
Figs 14(a) and (b), suggests that the fast flow of gas
and particles in the jet region does not necessarily
correspond to large forces acting on the individual
particles. Information about the transient forces at the
individual particle level is important to understanding
the complicated fluidization phenomena such as par-
ticle attrition or breakage. Therefore, the proposed
model provides an effective technique to enhance
these studies.
The deformation of the particles during a collision
can be measured by the ratio of the distance between
the mass centres of two colliding particles to the sum
of their radii. One minus this ratio is here defined as
the overlap ratio. The maximum overlap ratio among
' ' J ' ' ' ' I . . . . t
8 10 12
Time (sec)
all the particles considered varies with time as shown
in Fig. 15. There is also a strong peak corresponding
to the start-up stage as identified from the bed pres-
sure drop curve (Fig. 8). The maximum overlap ratio
fluctuates with time. Except for a maximum value of
1.7% at the start-up stage, its value in the present
simulation is well below 1%, indicating the effec-
tiveness of the present approach. Small overlaps
among particles are essential in order to obtain a real-
istic simulation of a fluidization process.
Figure 16 shows the solid flow patterns for the ideal
case (q = 0 and 1' = 0), which differ from those for the
corresponding non-ideal, realistic case (Fig. 9). It can
be observed that after the start-up stage, a bubble is
continuously generated at the jet region and then
grows to convert to a slug, and particles scatter over
the upper part of the bed. Interestingly, different from
the non-ideal case as shown in Fig. 9, a bubble experi-
ences its generation, growth and burst-out procedures
before a new bubble is formed, and this cycle is quite
stable as shown in Fig. 17. This difference indicates
that material properties, as reflected by simulation
parameters, affect fluidization behaviour. Therefore,
realistic parameters should be chosen in order to
obtain realistic simulated results.
5. CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive understanding of the complex
phenomena in a fluidized bed necessitates that this
gas-solid two-phase flow system should be studied
and modelled not only at the processing equipment
and/or computational cell level but also at the indi-
vidual particle level. For this purpose, a combined
D P M - C F D model has been developed to simulate the
 Gas solid flow in a fluidized bed 2805

Time=O. 10 (sec I Time=0.30 (sec~ Time=0.40 (sec~

0,(

Time=f}.fiO ( ~ e n ~ Tim~=O.RO I~t=~.'~ Time=0.70 ( ~ e c ~ Tim~=O.80 (~.n~

Fig. 16. Particle configurations from the start-up stage to stable fluidization when superficial gas velocity is
equal to 2.8 m s-1 under ideal conditions (~/= 0 and 7 = 0).
2806 B . H . X u a n d A. B. Yu

0.Izime
0.90,sec,
6 I TimP~=l 2N (AAP3

' o ° oo o
Ooo~°: ° ~O°o
0.4 -0 ooo , o

0.2

0.0
0.6 Time=l'30 (sec) Time=1.50 (aec~ TimA:I tqi3 [~Ac.~

Fig. 16. ( C o n t i n u e d ) .
 Gas solid flow in a fluidized bed 2807

2.0X10 4

1.0xl 0 4

m 5.0X10 3 I

O.OxlO°
0 1 2 3 4
Time (sec)

Fig. 17. Bed pressure drop vs time when superficial gas velocity is equal to 2.8 m s i under ideal conditions
(r/= 0 and 7 = 0).

gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed, in which the motion F volumetric fluid-particle interaction force,
of individual particles is obtained by solving Newton's Nm-:~
second law of motion and the gas flow by the g gravitational acceleration, m s-2
Navier-Stokes equation based on the concept of local ho maximum height of a particle before colli-
average. The coupling between the continuous gas sion, m
flow and the discrete particle motion at different hi maximum height of a particle after collision,
length and time scales is achieved directly by applying m
the principle of Newton's third law of motion to both I moment of inertia of particle, kg m 2
phases. The results presented in this work clearly kc number of particles in a computational cell,
indicate that this model can provide detailed realistic dimensionless
dynamic information in a fluidized bed at different ki n u m b e r of particles in contact with particle
levels from the processing equipment to the individual i, dimensionless
particle. This combined D P M - C F D approach will m particle mass, kg
be very useful in elucidating the mechanisms govern- n unit vector along the normal direction
ing the fluid-solid two-phase flow and studying the P pressure, Pa
complex phenomena in such a flow system in a cost- Ap bed pressure drop, Pa
effective way. mean bed pressure drop, Pa
r particle position vector, m
Acknowledgement R particle radius, m
The authors are grateful to the Department of Education, Re Reynolds number, dimensionless
Employment and Training (DEET) for financial support t unit vector along the tangential direction
through the Overseas Postgraduate Research Scholarship T torque, N m
(OPRS) scheme (to B. H. Xu), and Dr P. Zulli, Dr J. Truelove II fluid velocity, m s 1
and Dr A. Brent of BHP Research for their interest and ¥ particle velocity, m s-
helpful discussion. V volume, m 3
DO particle velocity before collision, m s- 1
NOTATION Vl particle velocity after collision, m s- 1
a particle acceleration, m s-2 AV volume of a computational cell, m 3
Cdo fluid drag coefficient on an isolated particle, X x coordinate of particle, m
dimensionless Ax computational cell length in x direction, m
D particle diameter, m Y y coordinate of particle, m
e coefficient of restitution, dimensionless Ay computational cell length in y direction, m
f force, N Az thickness of a pseudo-three-dimensional
~o fluid drag force on an isolated particle. N bed, m
2808 B. H. Xu and A. B. Yu
Greek letters Cranfield, R. R. and Geldart, D. (1974) Large particle
Newmark parameter, dimensionless fluidization. Chem. Engng Sci, 29, 935-947.
fl Newmark parameter, dimensionless Crisfield, M. A. and Shi, J. (1994) A co-rotational
6 displacement or overlap between two con- element/time-integration strategy for non-linear
tacting particles, m dynamics. Int. J. Numer. Methods Engn 9 37, 1897-
1913.
6k Kronecker delta, dimensionless
Cundall, P. A. and Strack, O. D. L. (1979) A discrete
A~ incremental displacement, defined by eqs numerical model for granular assemblies. Geotech-
(14)-(17), m nique, 29, 47 65.
porosity, dimensionless Davidson, J. F., Cliff, R. and Harrison, D. (eds), (1985)
coefficient of friction, dimensionless Fluidization, 2nd Edn. Academic Press, London,
F fluid viscous stress tensor, kg m - i s -2 UK.
particle spring constant, N m 1 Di Felice, R. (1994) The voidage function for fluid-
/~ shear viscosity, kg m - ~s - particle interaction systems. Int. J. Multiphase Flow
/t' bulk viscosity, kg m - 1 s- 20, 153 159.
~/ coefficient of viscous contact damping, Drake, T. G. and Walton, O. R. (1995) Comparison of
experimental and simulated grain flows. ASME J.
kgs -1
Appl. Mech. 62, 131 135.
p density, kg m - 3 Ergun, S. (1952) Fluid flow through packed columns.
time, s Chem. Engng Prog. 48, 89-94.
z~ initial time for calculation of mean pressure Geldart, D. (1973) Types of gas fluidization. Powder
drop, s Technol. 7, 285-292.
32 final time for calculation of mean pressure Gidaspow, D. (1994) Multiphase Flow and Fluidiza-
drop, s tion. Academic Press, San Diego.
A~ time step, s Grace, J. R. (1986) Contacting modes and behaviour
Az' actual collision time, s classification of gas-solid and other two-phase sus-
Z empirical coefficient defined by eq. (10), di- pensions. Can. J. Chem. Engng 64, 353-363.
Haft, P. K. and Anderson, R. S. (1993) Grain scale
mensionless
simulations of loose sedimentary beds: the example
co particle angular velocity, s of grain-bed impacts in aeolian saltation. Sedimen-
tology 40, 175 198.
Hoomans, B. P. B., Kuipers, J. A. M., Briels, W. J. and
Subscripts Van Swaaij, W. P. M. (1996) Discrete particle simu-
c contact lation of bubble and slug formation in a two-dimen-
d damping sional gas-fluidised bed: a hard-sphere approach.
f fluid phase Chem. Engng Sci. 51, 99-118.
i particle i Hu, H. H. (1996) Direct simulation of flows of solid-
ij between particle i and j liquid mixtures. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 22, 335-352.
j particle j Hughes, T. J. R. (1976) Stability, convergence and
growth and decay of energy of the average acceler-
ji between particle j and i
ation method in nonlinear structural dynamics.
n normal component Comput. Struct. 6, 313-324.
p particle phase Hughes, T. J. R. (1982) Implicit-explicit finite element
r relative techniques for symmetric and nonsymmetric sys-
t tangential component tems. In Recent Advances in Non-linear Computa-
x x component tional Mechanics, eds E. Hinton, D. R. J. Owen and
y y component C. Taylor, Chap. 9, pp. 255-267. Pineridge Press
Limited, Swansea, U.K.
Hughes, T. J. R., Caughey, T. K. and Liu, W. K. (1978)
Superscripts Finite-element methods for nonlinear elas-
todynamics which conserve energy. ASME J. Appl.
c corrector stage Mech. 45, 366-370.
p predictor stage Ishikura, T., Shinohara, H. and Funatsu, K. (1986)
Minimum spouting conditions for particle mix-
tures. In Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechanics, IV, ed.
REFERENCES N. P. Cheremisinoff, Chap. 34, pp. 1077-1087. Gulf
Anderson, T. B. and Jackson, R. (1967) A fluid mech- Publishing Company, Houston, TX, U.S.A.
anical description of fluidized beds. I&EC Fundam. Jiang, Z. and Haft, P. K. (1993) Multiparticle simula-
6, 527-539. tion methods applied to the micromechanics of bed
Bi, H. T. and Grace, J. R. (1995) Flow regime diagra- load transport. Water Resour. Res. 29, 399-412.
ms for gas-solid fluidization and upward transport. Johnson, K. L. (1985) Contact Mechanics. Cambridge
Int. J. Multiphase Flow 21, 1229-1236. University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Bideau, D. and Hansen, A. (eds) (1993) Disorder and Jullien, R., Meakin, P. and Pavlovitch, A, (1993)
Granular Media. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Growth of packings. In Disorder and Granular Me-
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. dia, eds Bideau and Hansen, Chap. 4, pp. 103-131,
Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E. and Lightfood, E. N. (1960) Elsevier, Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, The
Transport Phenomena. Wiley, New York. Netherlands.
 Gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed
Kondukov, N. B., Kornilaev, A. N., Skachko, I. M.,
Akhromenkov, A. A, and Kruglov, A. S. (1964) An
investigation of the parameters of moving particles
in a fluidized bed by a radioisotopic method. Int.
Chem. Engng 4, 43-47.
Langston, P. A., Tiizi.in, U. and Heyes, D. M. (1995)
Discrete element simulation of granular flow in 2D
and 3D hoppers: dependence of discharge rate and
wall stress on particle interactions. Chem. Engng
Sci. 50, 967-987.
Langston, P. A., Tiizfin, U. and Heyes, D. M. (1996)
Distinct element simulation of interstitial air effects
in axially symmetric granular flows in hoppers.
Chem. Engng Sci 51, 873-891.
Liang, S.-C., Hong, T. and Fan, L.-S. (1996) Effects of
particle arrangements on the drag force of a particle
in the intermediate flow regime. Int. J. Multiphase
Flow 22, 285-306.
Newmark, N. M. (1959) A method of computation for
structural dynamics. J. Engng Mech. Div. Proc.
ASCE (EM3) 85, 67-94.
Patankar, S. V. (1980) Numerical Heat Transfer and
Fluid Flow. Hemisphere, New York, U.S.A.
Richardson, J. F. and Zaki, W. N. (1954) Sedimenta-
tion and fluidization: Part I. Trans. lnstn Chem.
Engrs 32, 35-53.
Rowe, P. N. (1987) A convenient empirical equation
for estimation of the Richardson-Zaki exponent.
Chem. Engng Sci. 42, 2795-2796,
Sadd, M. H., Tai, Q. and Shukla, A. (1993) Contact
law effects on wave propagation in particulate
materials using distinct element modeling. Int. J.
Non-linear Mech. 28, 251-265.
Seville, J. P. K., Simons, S. J. R., Broadbent, C. J.,
Martin, T. W., Parker, D. J. and Beynon, T. D.
2809
(1995) Particle velocities in gas-fluidised beds. In
Fluidization VIII, pp. 319-326. Engineering Foun-
dation, New York.
Stewart, I. (1992) Warning-handle with care! Nature,
355, 16-17.
Thornton, C. (ed.) (1993) Powders & Grains 93. A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Thornton, C. and Yin, K. K. (1991) Impact of elastic
spheres with and without adhesion. Powder Tech-
nol. 65, 153-166.
Tsuji, Y., Kawaguchi, T. and Tanaka, T. (1993) Dis-
crete particle simulation of two-dimensional
fluidized bed. Powder Technol. 77, 79-87.
Tsuji, Y., Tanaka, T. and Ishida, T. (1992) Lagrangian
numerical simulation of plug flow of cohesionless
particles in a horizontal pipe. Powder Technol. 71,
239-250.
Walton, O. R. (1993) Numerical simulation of inclined
chute flows of monodisperse, inelastic, frictional
spheres. Mech. Mater. 16, 239-247.
Warr, S., Jacques, G. T. H. and Huntley, J. M. (1994)
Tracking the translational and rotational motion
of granular particles: use of high-speed photogra-
phy and image processing. Powder Technol. 81,
41 56.
Wen, C. Y. and Yu, Y. H. (1966) A generalized method
for predicting the minimum fluidization velocity.
A.I.Ch.E.J. 12, 610-612.
Xie, Y. M. and Steven, G. P. (1994) Instability, chaos,
and growth and decay of energy of time-stepping
schemes for non-linear dynamic equations. Com-
mun. Numer. Methods Engng 10, 393-401.
Zhang, Z. P., Yu, A. B. and Oakeshott, R. B. S. (1996)
Effect of packing method on the randomness of disc
packings. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 29, 2671-2685.