Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 162 (2022) 105459

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis

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

CFD simulation of mesoscale structures in mono and bidispersed fluidized

bed pyrolysis reactors
Saqib Shahzad a, Muhammad Nadeem a, Adnan Hamid a, Li Fei b, Atta Ullah a, *
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences (PIEAS), P.O. Nilore, 45650 Islamabad, Pakistan
b
State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Complex Systems, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Pyrolysis of biomass and organic matter in fluidized bed reactors have become popular in recent years due to the
Pyrolysis reactor efficient conversion of biomass to bio-fuels. Among others, the presence of mesoscale structures produced by the
CFD transient nature of gas solid flow governs the performance of fluidized bed reactors. In the present study,
Gas-solid
monodispersed system with the particle size of 155 µm and bidispersed system with particle sizes of 128 and
Heterogeneity
1500 µm are simulated by the multi-fluid model with the kinetic theory of granular flow closure laws. The
objective is to investigate the effect of size distribution and solid volume fraction on the hydrodynamics of gas-
solid flows. The ANSYS Fluent® software is used for the simulations and the slip velocity, heterogeneity index as
well as mixing index are investigated. A two dimensional fully periodic domain is used to investigate the slip
velocity at five different solid concentrations in dilute range. The slip velocity, which represents the interaction
between solid particles and gas, calculated by simulation is higher than that calculated through Richardson-
Zaki’s correlation. The mixing index is found to be minimum for a solid volume concentration of 5%. The
heterogeneity index is significantly less than 1 for both cases with bidisperesed system having lower value as
compared to monodispersed system. The image analysis of solid fraction contours exhibits that mesoscale
structures are dense and non-uniform for solid fractions of 0.05 and are small and uniform of solid fractions of
0.025 and 0.075.

promising technologies to produce environmentally sustainable fuel.

1. Introduction
Pyrolysis of coal, biomass and other carbonaceous solids is carried
out at moderately high temperatures (~500◦ ) in the oxygen deficient
conditions to produce liquid fuels, solids (char), and gases [1]. The
perpetually increasing energy demands of the world while maintaining
the requirements set for the reduction in the emission of greenhouse
gases, the pyrolysis of biomass and other organic matter has been
considered as one of the most promising methods to produce liquid fuels
[2–4]. Pyrolysis is a complex process in which a wide range of shapes
and particles sizes of feedstock are encountered [5]. The size of feed
particles is an important parameter in the efficient pyrolysis process, as
large particles of biomass produce large quantity of char, which are
difficult to handle in the reactor. In contrast, small particles swept away
from the reactor without pyrolysis [6]. Feedstock particles of variable
characteristics can also be frequently observed in co-pyrolysis systems
[7–9]. Along with the other approaches of pyrolysis such as microwave
assisted pyrolysis [7,10,11], fluidized-bed reactors are the most
Circulating fluidized beds (CFBs) are preferred for fast pyrolysis because
of the inherent benefits of fast and uniform heat transfer, relatively short
residence time and rapid separation of fuel vapors and char [12].
In recent times, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has emerged as
a productive tool for a better understanding of the hydrodynamics of the
complex flow, heat transfer rates and reaction processes of biomass
pyrolysis in fluidized bed reactors. The popularity of CFD is due to the
emergence of high-performance computers, advanced algorithms, and
improved models to describe the multiphase flows [13]. The
Euler-Lagrangian modeling approach is employed to model the pyrolysis
of single particle size in a bubbling fluidized bed [14]. The thermo­
chemical decomposition of biomass in a fluidized bed reactor was
analyzed by CFD-DEM model developed by Chen et al. [15]. The feed
particle size influences the yield of the pyrolysis process. The production
of light gases in fluidized bed reactors decreases as the particle size of
feed is increased but it also increases the formation of char [16,17].
Gas-solid flows exhibit the random gas-particle and particle-particle
interactions, which results in the transient flow in the riser of a typical

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: atta@pieas.edu.pk (A. Ullah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2022.105459
Received 15 October 2021; Received in revised form 30 January 2022; Accepted 31 January 2022
Available online 2 February 2022
0165-2370/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Shahzad et al.
Nomenclature
CD0 Standard drag coefficient of a particle
d Diameter
e Restitution coefficient
g Gravitational acceleration
go Radial distribution function
Hd Heterogeneity index
I Unit tensor
P, p Pressure
q Diffusive flux of granular energy
Re Reynolds number
S Static Structure Factor, strain rate tensor
t Time
u Velocity
Greek symbols
β Drag coefficient
ε Voidage
CFB [18]. These interactions lead to the formation of various hetero­
geneous structures over a wide range of scales both in space and time
[19]. Among these, mesoscale structures are of critical importance
owing to its impact on the static and dynamic properties of the sus­
pended system. Despite their importance, these structures are difficult to
characterize, as they constantly and randomly evolve both in space and
time [20]. These parcels of particles clusters perform a vital role in the
distribution of particles both in axial and radial directions and affect the
overall hydrodynamic of the complex gas-solid system [21,22]. The
mesoscale clusters may range up to 75% of the particles in the system
depending upon the solid concentration, gas velocities and particle size
distribution [23]. A theoretical model is proposed by Subbarao [24] for
predicting the equivalent diameter of the particle clusters.
The CFD approaches to study mesoscale structure consisting of both
Eulerian Two-Fluid Model (TFM) [18,25] and Lagrangian Discrete
Element Method (DEM) [25] have been reported in the literature. The
ability to handle the small number of particles limits the application of
DEM approach, whereas TFM approach is the main technique to simu­
late large industrial processes [26]. EMMS mixture model approach with
particle size distribution has been applied to analyze the hydrodynamics
of an industrial-scale riser [27]. Recently, Eulerian CFD analysis was
carried out to study the size of clusters in circulating fluidized bed re­
actors and distribution in time [4].
Multiple CFD models are available in the literature.Among these
models, Eulerian multiphase model based on the kinetic theory of
granular flow is found to be less intensive computationally with the
reasonable accuracy [13]. In order to capture the mesoscale structures
mesh resolution should be fine, typically of the order of 10–100 particle
diameter [28]. The continuum equations combined by the constitutive
equations for particle phase stress as derived from the Kinetic theory of
Granular Flows (KTGF) can be applied to capture the mesoscale struc­
tures. A coarse grid can not capture the mesoscale structure, as these
structures are small in size.
In practice, gas-solid fluidized beds normally consist of solid parti­
cles, having a broad size range as well as different densities [29],
however, we have restricted our study to gas-solid fluidized suspension
consisting of particles that only differ in size.
This study is focused to analyze the effect of mesoscale structures on
relative slip velocity of equivalent size particles in monodisperse and
bidispersed system and how much these structures cause the system to
deviate from homogeneity. For this purpose, a two dimensional simu­
lation of the monodisperse system (particle of same size) with particle
diameter of 155 µm [19],using mesh size Δx = 0.39 cm is presented.
2
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 162 (2022) 105459
Θs Granular temperature
κ Diffusion coefficient for granular energy
λ Bulk viscosity
μ Dynamic viscosity
ρ Density
ϕ Solid volume fraction
φ Internal friction angle
τ Stress tensor
Subscripts
col Collisional
kin Kinetic
fr Frictional
g Gas
m Phase under consideration
p Particles
s Solid
t Time
Secondly, simulation of the bidisperse system (particle of two different
sizes) with a particle diameter of 128 and 1500 µm [28] with the mesh
size of Δx = 0.33 cm is carried out. The relative slip velocity of this
system at five different solid concentrations from 1% to 10% are then
compared with the monodisperse system. Another important parameter
known as degree of mixedness is studied and results are presented based
on Lacey mixing index formulation [30]. Lastly, an attempt is made to
characterize the time-averaged mesoscale clusters distributions based
upon the statistical analysis of snapshots of solid fraction contours.
2. CFD modeling
There are mainly three most widely used modeling techniques which
are numerically investigate the complex hydrodynamics of gas-solid
flows, which are categoried as: (1) Eulerian-Eulerian modeling, (2)
Eulerian-Langrangian modeling, (3) Hybrid Eulerian-Langrangian
modeling [25]. The last two listed models are based on lagrangian
technique, which is computationally intensive and hence can not be
used for industrial applications, where one has to deal with a large
number of particles. In Eulerian-Eulerian two-fluid models, both the
solid phase and fluid phase are taken as interpenetrating continua and
equations for mass, momentum and energy conservation are solved for
individual phases separately [31]. Closure-related problems arise for
both solid and gas phases when averaged Navier Stokes equations are
employed. Here solid phase is taken as granular flow and the kinetic
theory of granular flow (KTGF) is used to provide closure laws for
solid-phase momentum equation. This two-fluid model is capable to
resolve heterogeneous structures such as streamers and clusters of par­
ticles [32]. But the efficacy of this model depends upon the mesh reso­
lution. the Eulerian-Eulerian approach becomes computationally costly
due to the requirement of small time scale and fine mesh resolution. The
reason behind these flow structures is the inertial instability, which is
induced by the random motion of solid particles and their interparticle
and hydrodynamic interactions [21]. These interactions induce the
mesoscale structures, in which particles move as a lump (cluster), sup­
pressing the individual motion of particles. The velocities of these
clusters decrease and hence for the same drag force the relative velocity
between gas and solid increases [33].
2.1. Kinetic theory for granular flow
According to KTGF approach, the irregular motion of solid particles
in a gaseous medium is considered analogous to the thermal motion of
S. Shahzad et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 162 (2022) 105459

gas molecules,where classical kinetic theory applies. Fluidized suspen­ ρg εg dp |ug − us |

sion exhibit fluctuations in the velocities of solid particles. The granular Rep = (19)
μg
temperature (Θs) describes the kinetic energy of particles due to particle
fluctuations. The solution of an energy balance equation (Equation 10)
gives rise to the granular temperature, which is then supplemented in 3. Simulation methodology
the mass and momentum balance equation of the dispersed phase.
Along with the granular temperature, KTFG utilizes two other pa­ 3.1. Simulation domain
rameters: the coefficient of restitution and the radial distribution func­
tion. The former accounts for the inelastic collisions of particles and the A two-dimensional rectangular box with fully periodic boundary
latter is a statistical measure of particle distribution around the given
particle. The energy dissipation caused by the interparticle collisions is
obtained from Lun et al. [34]. The solid-state pressure in the equation of
momentum for gas-solid flow is modeled by using the Gidaspow model
[32].
The mass conservation, momentum conservation and the relevant
closure equations for the simulated system are presented in Table 1.
Here ‘m’ is used for the phase under consideration. ‘m’ is replaced with
‘g’ for the gas phase and for solid particles it is replaced with ‘s’ or ‘p’.

2.2. Gas-particle momentum transfer term

The inter-phase drag term is used to account for the exchange of

momentum between the gas phase and solid phase. This drag is
dependent on single particle drag coefficient, Reynolds number of par­
ticle and solid concentration. Homogeneous drag models alter the trend
of slip velocity curve from convex to concave, which is desired outcome
to represent the effects of mesoscale structures [26]. In this study
Wen-Yu drag model [35] is used, which is given as;
3 ε(1 − ε) ⃒ ⃒
β= ρg CD0 ⃒ug − us ⃒ε− 2.7
(17)
4 dp
⎧ [ ] ⎫
⎨ 24 1 + 0.15
⎪
(Rep )0.687 for
⎪
Rep < 1000 ⎬
.CD0 = Rep (18)
⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭
0.44 for Rep > 1000 Fig. 1. 2D rectangular domain for gas-solid flow simulation.

Table 1
Governing equations and models for closure used in simulation.
Mass conservation equation: (m = g, s) ∂(ρm εm ) (1)
+ ∇⋅(ρm εm um ) = 0
∂t
Momentum conservation equation (gas phase):
( )
∂ ρg εg ug ( ) ( ) (2)
+ ∇⋅ ρg εg ug ug = − εg ∇p + ρg εg g + ∇⋅τg + β ug − us
∂t
Momentum conservation equation (solid phase):
∂(ρs εs us ) (3)
+ ∇⋅(ρs εs us us ) = − εs ∇p + ρs εs g − ∇Ps + ∇τs + β(ug − us )
∂t
Gas phase stress tensor: τg = 2μg Sg + εg λg ∇ug (4)
Solid phase tensor: τs = [− Ps + εs λs ∇us ]I + 2μs Ss (5)
Strain rate tensor: 1 [ ] 1 (6)
Sm = εm ∇um +(∇um )T − εm ∇um I
2 3
Particle phase pressure: Ps = εs ρp Θs + 2(1 +e)ε2s go ρp Θs (7)
Shear viscosity for solids:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅[ ]2
4 (Θ )1/2 10ρp dp Θs π 4 Ps sinϕ
μs = μs,col +μs,kin +μs,fr = ε2s ρp dp go (1 +e) s
+ 1 + εs go (1 + e) + √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (8)
5 π 96(1 + e)go 5 2 I2D( )
Granular bulk viscosity: 4 Θs 1/2 (9)
λs = εs dp ρp go (1 +e)
3 π
Granular energy equation:
[ ( ) ]
3 ∂ ρ p εs Θ s ( )
+ ∇. εs ρp us Θs = τs : (∇.us ) +∇.q − γ − 3βΘs (10)
2 ∂t
Granular energy diffusive flux: q = − κs ∇Θs (11)
6 (12)
2κk [1 + go (1 + e)εs ]2
κs = 5 + κc
(1 + e)go
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
75dp ρp πΘs (13)
κk =
384
(Θ )1/2
s (14)
κc = 2ε2s go dp ρp (1 +e)
π
Collisional energy dissipation: 12 (15)
γ = (1 − e2 )ε2s ρp go √̅̅̅ Θ3/2
s
[ d]p π
Radial distribution function: ( )1/3 − 1 (16)
εs
go = 1 −
εs,max

3
S. Shahzad et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 162 (2022) 105459

conditions is selected as the simulation domain (Fig. 1). Domain size
with the dimension of 20 cm × 40 cm is chosen to avoid fluctuations in
the settling velocity and the swirls to avoid the finite-range correlations
that depend on volume fraction ϕ and particle radius. This finite-range
correlation is known as correlation length which is found to 20 times
the interparticle distance (ζ = 20a ϕ − 1/3) [36]. Cell size is chosen such
that Δx/dp is less than 26. The number of cells for monodisperse system
and bidisperse system is calculated as 50 and 60 in x-direction and 100
and 120 for y-direction respectively.
particle Reynolds number (Re). It is stated earlier that mesoscale
structures are intrinsically unstable and they manifest fluctuations.
Fig. 2 is the time response of slip velocity showing that initially slip
velocity signal is a straight line, fluctuating n as time passes. The uni­
form signal of slip velocity means that particles are homogeneously
distributed and are separated as fluidization starts. During fluidization
these solid particles start interacting with each other due to random
motion, inducing particle aggregation and breakage, which is shown by
the fluctuating velocity signal.

Uslip = Vt (1 − ϕ)n , (20)

3.2. Solver settings
Commercial software ANSYS Fluent® is used for simulation of gas-
solid fluidized system., First order implicit approach is used for tem­
poral discretization, whereas QUICK and second order upwind scheme is
used for the spatial discretization. The time step used in the present
simulation is 1 × 10− 5 s with convergence criteria for all variables is set
to 1 × 10− 3. The pressure gradient was specified across longitudinal
direction, similar to Lu et al. [37]. An algebraic option was ratified in
fluent for granular temperature [38]. The details of solver settings and
other parameters employed to carry out simulations are given in Table 2.
3.3. Fluidization conditions
The particles used in these fluidization simulations are of a sand-like
Geldart [41] Group B material, having particle diameter dp = 155 µm for
the monodisperse system [19]. For the bidisperse system, the two par­
ticle sizes utilized are dp = 128 µm with the mass fraction of 36.28%
(solid 1) and dp = 1500 µm with the mass fraction of 63.72% (solid 2)
[28]. The density of particles in both cases is ρs = 2500 kg/m3, and
particles are fluidized by air at ambient conditions, i.e. ρg = 1.2 kg/m3
and μ = 1.75 × 10− 5 Pa s. For mono and bidisperse system, simulations
are carried out at five different solid concentrations i.e, 1%, 2.5%, 5.0%,
7.5% and 10%.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Relative/Slip velocity
Richardson and Zaki (R&Z) correlation [42] presents relative ve­
locities between gas and solid as a power-law function of particle vol­
ume fraction. R&Z correlation is given as e where n depends upon the
The time response of slip velocity is taken as a parameter to confirm
whether the gas-solid system has achieved a statistically steady-state or
not. The hydrodynamics is studied once the pseudo-steady state is
attained. The dynamic behavior of mesoscale structures is confirmed by
the considerable fluctuation in the instantaneous value of area average
slip velocity.
The slip velocity indicates the degree of particle clustering and, in
addition, is also a critical design parameter [43,44]. Fig. 3 shows the
time-averaged slip velocity for the monodisperse and bidisperse systems
at different solid concentrations. In the present study for monodispersed
system, the maximum value of slip velocity occurs at a solid volume
fraction of 0.05. The value of slip velocity for the rest of the solid volume
fraction is lower than that at 0.05. It is evident that the slip velocity for
the monodisperse system as well for bidisperse system is found to be
higher than that of homogeneous Richardson and Zaki’s correlation [45]
and this is the result of the formation of heterogeneous structures of
particles [13]. The formation of particle clusters is due to inelastic
collision between the particle and dampening of fluctuating motion of
solid particles by the gas [21]. So increase in slip velocity is mainly due
to large and frequent particle aggregation [44]. In other words, the
relative slip velocity which is required to maintain the fixed drag force is
higher when the heterogeneous structures are present in the system
[21]. It can also be observed that the slip velocity curve for both mono
and bidispersed systems reveal an almost comparable slip velocity
concavity trend over the specified volume fraction range, in good
agreement with the study of Ullah et al. [46]. However, the curve for the
bidisperse case is appeared to be slightly higher than the monodisperse
case, indicating a slightly larger tendency of the bidisperse gas-particle
flow to exhibit heterogeneous behavior. Comparing the bidisperse sys­
tems directly to monodisperse systems having the equivalent volume
mean diameters as of the bidisperse system exhibit that the nature of
mesoscale structures is qualitatively similar for both cases. The

Table 2
Solver settings for mono and bidispersed system.
Description Case Setting

Dimension of System 20 cm × 40 cm
Mesh resolution (monodisperse) < 26
Mesh resolution (bidisperse) < 2.2
Boundary conditions Periodic
Operating pressure 1.01 × 105 Pa
Gravitational Acceleration 9.81 ms− 2
Solid particle density 2500 kg/m3
Fluid density 1.3 kg/m3
Fluid viscosity 1.78 × 10− 5
Momentum discretization Second order upwind
Volume fraction discretization QUICK
Temporal discretization First order implicit
Time step 1 × 10− 5 s
Drag law Wen and Yu [35]
Granular viscosity Gidaspow [39]
Granular bulk viscosity Lun et al. [34]
Frictional viscosity Schaeffer [40]
Granular temperature Algebraic
Internal friction angle 30◦
Maximum solid packing limit 0.63
Maximum iteration per time step 100
Convergence criteria 1 × 10− 3
Fig. 2. Time response of slip velocity for monodisperse system for ф = 0.025.

4
S. Shahzad et al.
Fig. 3. Normalize slip velocity profile at various of void fractions.
distinction is in the location of the peak of the curve for slip velocity, for
the monodisperse system it is at 5% of solid volume fraction and for the
bidisperse system, the peak point occurs at 7.5% of solid volume frac­
tion. The work of Gidaspow’s group has demonstrated that the classic
MFM has the capability of capturing heterogeneous structures like
clusters in a fluidized bed [32].
4.2. Heterogeneity index
A heterogeneity index [26] corresponds to the hydrodynamic
discrepancy between homogeneous and heterogeneous fluidization. It is
the ratio of heterogeneous drag coefficient to homogeneous Wen-Yu
drag coefficient [35], defined as
β
HD = , (21)
βWY
where
/ enhancement in the dispersion of suspended particles in the fluid [49]. It
β = ε (1 − ε) (ρp − ρg ) g us,
3 ε (1 − ε) ⃒ ⃒
βWY = ρ CDO ⃒ug − us ⃒ ε− 2.7
. (23)
4 dp
A homogeneous drag coefficient is compared with a heterogeneous
drag coefficient and successive iterations are performed to get a slip
velocity. The procedure to determine the homogeneous drag coefficient
is by writing the Re, CD0 in term of slip velocity. The slip velocity is
iterated by initiating with a guess slip velocity. The homogenous drag
coefficient is determined and incorporated to calculate the mass of
solids. If the calculated mass of solids is equal to the mass present, then
that value of homogenous drag coefficient is used to calculate the het­
erogeneity index. If this condition is not satisfied the iterations for slip
velocity are continued till a converged solution is obtained.
HD takes the value close to unity at extreme ends of void fraction
range, and solid and gas phases compromise to form either particle
dominant or gas dominant flow. This trend in the HD curve represents
the homogeneity towards both the dilute and dense extremes [26]. The
multifluid model with homogenous drag model with fully periodic
boundary conditions is used to achieve structure-dependent drag and
the effect of heterogeneous structure on drag coefficient is observed
[47]. Fig. 4 is the plot of HD as a function of voidage, showing that the
drag coefficient decrease owing to flow heterogeneity. It can be
observed that for both mono and bidispersed systems, the value of HD is
less than unity which means that the drag coefficient characterizing
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 162 (2022) 105459
Fig. 4. Heterogeneity index profile for monodisperse and bidispersed system as
a function of void fraction.
heterogeneous structures is less as compared to that of the homogeneous
Wen-Yu drag model [26]. It is significant to point out that the curve for
bidispersed system is even lower than that of the monodispersed system
which shows that size distribution brings larger clusters in the system.
The continuous creation and breakage of clusters in the system is the
signature of inducing heterogeneity in the flow. Therefore, the hetero­
geneous drag coefficient is decreased [21]. As the solid concentration
remains unchanged in the simulation domain, higher slip velocity im­
plies a lower drag coefficient. It indicates that the presence of mesoscale
clusters will reduce the drag significantly [21,48]. The plot of hetero­
geneity index is in good agreement with that obtained by using fine grid
periodic simulation for voidage range (0.4–1), as presented in the study
of Ullah et al. [26].
4.3. Mixing index
Mixing index of gas-solid flows is a measure of the degree of
(22) is an indicator of the quality of the mixing process and is also known as
the degree of mixedness. In order to illustrate the mixing process of
particles in suspension, generally DEM simulations are employed, which
provide the details of particle position and their number density at a
given point [50]. As the Multi-Fluid Model is used in the present study,
which treats the dispersed phase as continuum, hence discrete data of
solid phase is not available. In order to calculate the mixing index, a
user-defined function (UDF) is employed using MFM in the Ansys Fluent.
In literature, a variety of definitions of mixing index and corre­
sponding calculation methods have been reported [8]. Lacey mixing
index is the best efficient [49] and is used extensively in many reports. It
was developed using statistical analysis which divides the computa­
tional domain into N cells, defined as;
S2 − S0
2
M= , (24)
S2R − S20
Where S2 , S20 and S2R represents the variance of number fraction of a class
of particle, the maximum value of mixture variance and possible mini­
mum value of variance, respectively. These parameters are defined as;
1 ∑ N
S2 = (xi − xm )2 , (25)
N − 1 i=1
S20 = xm (1 − xm ), (26)
5
S. Shahzad et al.
xm (1 − xm )
S2R = . (27)
n
Lacey mixing index is plotted against the solid volume fraction in
Fig. 5. It is worthy to notice here that mixing index values first decrease
as the solid concentration is increased and then increase. In an ideal
case, particles in the system should be completely mixed in a homoge­
nous manner or unsegregated fashion in the final particle mixture [51].
There are some factors upon which the mixing process depends
which include time, temperature, particles’ shape and size, shear rate
and particle loading [52]. The flow rate of gas is the main parameter to
have an optimal value of mixing index for mixing by fluidized bed,
however with an increase in the flow rate, power consumption increases
[49]. In the present study, the gas flow rate is fixed and only the particle
loading effect is studied. At minimal particle concentration, the value of
the mixing index is high, indicating good mixing in the fluid. With the
increase in particle loading, heterogeneous structures start developing,
inducing particle aggregation, decreasing the mixing in the system. With
further increase in solid concentration, the clusters of particle start
interacting with one another, leading to homogeneity [21], thus
increasing the mixing index.
4.4. Mesoscale structures characterization
Mesoscale structures are particle-rich dense phase, having size range
of 10 – 100 particle diameters. As fluidization starts, the distribution of
solid particles becomes random and irregular, and the development of
mesoscale structures begins in the particle dense areas. Fig. 6 shows the
evolution of mesoscale structures over time for monodispersed system
(Fig. 6a) and bidispersed system (Fig. 6b). It can be observed that the
development of mesoscale structures is intrinsically unstable and
entirely fluctuating in nature, that is, clusters keep on building, growing
and collapsing however an average value of heterogeneity can be
calculated. The development of these structures is the result of inertial
and local instabilities which come into the system from inelastic colli­
sion and dissipation of fluctuating movement of solid particles by pri­
mary phase [13,21,27]. For bidispersed systems, mesoscale structures
can also be observed, however, the intensity of such structures is rela­
tively less as compared to the monodispersed system of the same average
volume fraction. It is also observed that particles with large diameter
and higher mass fraction contribute more towards the formation of
mesoscale structures.
Fig. 7 displays the solid volume fraction distribution in the simula­
tion domain for the five solid volume fractions of 1.0%, 2.5%, 5.0%,
Fig. 5. Plot of mixing index at different volume fraction.
6
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 162 (2022) 105459
7.5% and 10%. It is apparent that at low solid volume fractions in the
monodisperse case, the mesoscale structures are few and virtually
nonexistent in the bidisperse case. At higher volume fractions of solids,
the trend shows that bidispersed particles produce fewer mesoscale
structures than the monodisperse.
The contour plots of solid volume fractions are processed to quantify
the distribution of mesoscale structures in the domain. Gray scale con­
tours are plotted for solid volume fractions of 2.5%, 5% and 7.5%. The
dimensions of images, and minimum and maximum contour scale limits
are kept constant for all images. It is observed that the maximum
average concentration of particles in the domain has the value of
ϕ = 0.62. This value of solid volume fraction is now fixed as the
maximum limit for all contours plots in post-processing of ANSYS®. The
heterogeneous structure in gas-solid flow is now defined to be mesoscale
structure for which pixel intensity is greater than the mean pixel in­
tensity value. The mean gray values (pixel intensity) for various solid
volume fractions are given in Table 3. In order to obtain the gray value,
image processing is used with the help of imageJ® tool.
The pixel intensity represents the value of solid fraction at that
location in the image. The pixel intensities at various heights of the
domain is obtained along the radial distances. The profile is drawn in
which y-axis represents the vertically averaged intensities of pixels and
the x-axis represents the distance of domain in pixels. Fig. 8 represents
the intensity of pixels as a function of the distance measured in pixels. It
can be observed that the high intensity is found for ϕ = 0.05. It can also
be observed that there are a few small heterogeneous structures that
occur on the left side of the domain and one large structure appear on
the right side of the domain. For ϕ = 0.025, small structures are
observed with low gray values as at this volume fraction, indicating that
the formation of mesoscale structures is in progress. The formation of
mesoscale structures is maximum at ϕ = 0.05 and with further increase
in volume fraction these structures start interacting with each other,
which induces the breakage process. It is evident that at ϕ = 0.075 small
but a number of gray value peaks still exist. It is evident from the figure
that the mesoscales structures are present in the system and intensities of
pixels show how the structures form and break with the increase in solid
concentrations.
4.5. Computational time
In an ideal case, three-dimensional simulations should be carried out;
however, three-dimensional simulation for each case is computationally
expensive than an equivalent two-dimensional simulation [21]. As
several simulations have been performed to illustrate the main ideas
discussed in this study, three-dimensional simulations are simply
beyond our existing computing resources. For the current simulation, it
takes approximately 360 and 500 h of 5 s real time simulations of
monodisperse and bidisperse systems, respectively.
Monodispersed system deals with two phases, so conservation of
mass and momentum equations are solved separately for each phase
with the closure equations for the solid phase. In bidispersed system,
three sets of momentum and continuity equations along with the closure
equations for two solid phases are solved. As in the bidispersed system,
the large number of equations needs to be solved so computational time
is large. It is also observed that there is a quantitative difference between
the slip velocities for the mono and bidispersed system. Bidispersed
system is an acceptable representation of the polydisperse flow and it
should be favored against the mono-dispersed system in order to get
more realistic results. It is recommended to use a bidisperse system given
that enough computational resources are available.
5. Conclusions
In the present work, a fully periodic two-dimensional CFD simulation
of gas-solid suspensions, using Eulerian-Eulerian model coupled with
the kinetic theory of granular flow is performed for mono and
S. Shahzad et al. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 162 (2022) 105459

Fig. 6. Evolution of mesoscale structures over time at ϕ = 0.05; a) monodispersed system, b) bidispersed system.

Fig. 7. Contours of solid volume fractions at five solid volume fractions; a) monodispersed system, b) bidispersed system.

10%. The observed increase in slip velocity with solids fraction is the
Table 3
due formation of mesoscale structures. At solid concentration around
Average gray value for different solid volume fractions.
0.075, the formation of mesoscale structures and the slip velocity attains
Solid Volume Fraction Mean Gray Value a maximum. However, values of slip velocity for the bidisperse case are
0.025 19.51 greater than for monodisperse case due to larger mesoscale structures
0.050 28.03 for bidispersed case. For the case of bidispersed system, more hetero­
0.075 37.72 geneity is induced in the system and the HD value is lower as compared
to that of monodispersed system. Mixing index value of less than one for
bidispersed systems by varying the solid volume fraction from 1% to the bidispersed case indicates that simulated systems are not fully mixed
systems. The meso-scale structures (particle clusters) are a major cause

7
S. Shahzad et al.
Fig. 8. Intensity of pixels as function of radial distance.
of poor mixing of solid particles. The image analysis of contour plots of
solid fractions provides the measure of scale of mesoscale structures and
their distribution in the computational domain.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The financial support from Pakistan Science Foundation (PSF) under
project number PSF-NSFC-IV/Eng/C-PIEAS(25) is gratefully acknowl­
edged. Li Fei acknowledges the funding received from National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 22161142006). First author gratefully
acknowledges the fellowship received from Pakistan Institute of Engi­
neering and Applied Sciences (PIEAS) for his MS in Process Engineering.
References
[1] J.P. Polin, C.A. Peterson, L.E. Whitmer, R.G. Smith, R.C. Brown, Process
intensification of biomass fast pyrolysis through autothermal operation of a
fluidized bed reactor, Appl. Energy 249 (2019) 276–285, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2019.04.154.
[2] T.M. Ismail, S.W. Banks, Y. Yang, H. Yang, Y. Chen, A.V. Bridgwater, K. Ramzy,
M. Abd El-Salam, Coal and biomass co-pyrolysis in a fluidized-bed reactor:
numerical assessment of fuel type and blending conditions, Fuel 275 (2020),
118004, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118004.
[3] G. Wang, Y. Dai, H. Yang, Q. Xiong, K. Wang, J. Zhou, Y. Li, S. Wang, A review of
recent advances in biomass pyrolysis, Energy Fuels 34 (2020) 15557–15578,
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c03107.
[4] A. Ullah, M.B. Shabbir, M. Umair, M. Nadeem, F. Xin, Eulerian CFD analysis of
clustering gas-solid flows in fluidized bed pyrolysis reactors, J. Anal. Appl.
Pyrolysis 158 (2021), 105261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105261.
[5] A.K. Sharma, K. Tuzla, J. Matsen, J.C. Chen, Parametric effects of particle size and
gas velocity on cluster characteristics in fast fluidized beds, Powder Technol. 111
(2000) 114–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-5910(00)00247-3.
[6] V. Dhyani, T. Bhaskar, Pyrolysis of biomass. Biomass, Biofuels, Biochemicals:
Biofuels: Alternative Feedstocks and Conversion Processes for the Production of
Liquid and Gaseous Biofuels, Elsevier, 2019, pp. 217–244, https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-816856-1.00009-9.
[7] Y. Zhang, L. Fan, S. Liu, N. Zhou, K. Ding, P. Peng, E. Anderson, M. Addy, Y. Cheng,
Y. Liu, B. Li, J. Snyder, P. Chen, R. Ruan, Microwave-assisted co-pyrolysis of brown
coal and corn stover for oil production, Bioresour. Technol. 259 (2018) 461–464,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.03.078.
[8] D. Phakedi, A.U. Ude, P.O. Oladijo, Co-pyrolysis of polymer waste and carbon-
based matter as an alternative for waste management in the developing world,
J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 155 (2021), 105077, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaap.2021.105077.
8
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 162 (2022) 105459
[9] F. Abnisa, W.M.A. Wan Daud, A review on co-pyrolysis of biomass: an optional
technique to obtain a high-grade pyrolysis oil, Energy Convers. Manag. 87 (2014)
71–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.07.007.
[10] S. Fan, Y. Zhang, T. Liu, W. Fu, B. Li, Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of polystyrene
for aviation oil production, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 162 (2022), 105425, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105425.
[11] Y. Liu, W. Fu, T. Liu, Y. Zhang, B. Li, Microwave pyrolysis of polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastic bottle sheets for energy recovery, J. Anal. Appl.
Pyrolysis 161 (2022), 105414, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105414.
[12] M. Van De Velden, X. Fan, A. Ingram, J. Baeyens, Fast pyrolysis of biomass in a
circulating fluidised bed, in: 12th Int. Conf. Fluid. – New Horizons Fluid. Eng.,
2007, pp. 897–904. http://dc.engconfintl.org/fluidizationxii/110FLUIDIZATI
ONXII.
[13] M. Zaheer, A. Hamid, A. Ullah, Fine-grid eulerian simulation of sedimenting
particles: liquid-solid and gas-solid systems, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 86 (2017), https://
doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.86.064402.
[14] K. Papadikis, S. Gu, A.V. Bridgwater, CFD modelling of the fast pyrolysis of biomass
in fluidised bed reactors. Part B. Heat, momentum and mass transport in bubbling
fluidised beds, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (2009) 1036–1045, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ces.2008.11.007.
[15] T. Chen, X. Ku, J. Lin, H. Ström, CFD-DEM simulation of biomass pyrolysis in
fluidized-bed reactor with a multistep kinetic scheme, Energies 13 (2020), https://
doi.org/10.3390/en13205358.
[16] K.R. Gaston, M.W. Jarvis, P. Pepiot, K.M. Smith, W.J. Frederick, M.R. Nimlos,
Biomass pyrolysis and gasification of varying particle sizes in a fluidized-bed
reactor, Energy Fuels 25 (2011) 3747–3757, https://doi.org/10.1021/ef200257k.
[17] S. Luo, B. Xiao, Z. Hu, S. Liu, Y. Guan, L. Cai, Influence of particle size on pyrolysis
and gasification performance of municipal solid waste in a fixed bed reactor,
Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 6517–6520, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2010.03.060.
[18] L. Huilin, S. Qiaoqun, H. Yurong, S. Yongli, J. Ding, L. Xiang, Numerical study of
particle cluster flow in risers with cluster-based approach, Chem. Eng. Sci. 60
(2005) 6757–6767, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2005.05.063.
[19] S. Shah, K. Myöhänen, S. Kallio, T. Hyppänen, CFD simulations of gas-solid flow in
an industrial-scale circulating fluidized bed furnace using subgrid-scale drag
models, Particuology 18 (2015) 66–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
partic.2014.05.008.
[20] W. Wang, W. Ge, N. Yang, J. Li, Meso-scale modeling-the key to multi-scale CFD
simulation, Adv. Chem. Eng. 40 (2011) 1–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
380985-8.00001-4.
[21] K. Agrawal, P.N. Loezos, M. Syamlal, S. Sundaresan, The role of meso-scale
structures in rapid gas-solid flows, J. Fluid Mech. 445 (2001) 151–181, https://doi.
org/10.1017/s0022112001005663.
[22] A.T. Andrews IV, P.N. Loezos, S. Sundaresan, Coarse-grid simulation of gas-particle
flows in vertical risers, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 44 (2005) 6022–6037, https://doi.
org/10.1021/ie0492193.
[23] R.A. Cocco, F. Shaffer, S.B. Reddy Karri, R. Hays, T. Knowlton, Particle clusters in
fluidized beds, in: 13th Int. Conf. Fluid. – New Paradig. Fluid. Eng., 2010.
[24] D. Subbarao, A model for cluster size in risers, Powder Technol. 199 (2010) 48–54,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2009.04.015.
[25] P. Ostermeier, S. DeYoung, A. Vandersickel, S. Gleis, H. Spliethoff, Comprehensive
investigation and comparison of TFM, DenseDPM and CFD-DEM for dense fluidized
beds, Chem. Eng. Sci. 196 (2019) 291–309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ces.2018.11.007.
[26] A. Ullah, W. Wang, J. Li, “Generalized Fluidization” revisited, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
52 (2013) 11319–11332, https://doi.org/10.1021/ie3034653.
[27] A. Ullah, I. Jamil, A. Hamid, K. Hong, EMMS mixture model with size distribution
for two-fluid simulation of riser flows, Particuology 38 (2018) 165–173, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2017.06.007.
[28] S. Shah, M. Klajny, K. Myöhänen, T. Hyppänen, Improvement of CFD methods for
modeling full scale circulating fluidized bed combustion systems, in: Proc. 20th Int.
Conf. Fluid. Bed Combust., 2009, pp. 792–798. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02682-9_
122.
[29] D. Gauthier, S. Zerguerras, G. Flamant, Influence of the particle size distribution of
powders on the velocities of minimum and complete fluidization, Chem. Eng. J. 74
(1999) 181–196, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1385-8947(99)00075-3.
[30] Y. Wen, M. Liu, B. Liu, Y. Shao, Comparative study on the characterization method
of particle mixing index using DEM method, Procedia Eng. 102 (2015) 1630–1642,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.01.299.
[31] S. Cloete, S. Amini, S.T. Johansen, On the effect of cluster resolution in riser flows
on momentum and reaction kinetic interaction, Powder Technol. 210 (2011) 6–17,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2011.02.003.
[32] J. Ding, D. Gidaspow, A bubbling fluidization model using kinetic theory of
granular flow, AIChE J. 36 (1990) 523–538.
[33] J. Yerushalmi, D.H. Turner, A.M. Squires, The fast fluidized bed, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Process Des. Dev. 15 (1976) 47–53, https://doi.org/10.1021/i260057a010.
[34] C.K.K. Lun, S.B. Savage, D.J. Jeffrey, N. Chepurniy, Kinetic theories for granular
flow: Inelastic particles in Couette flow and slightly inelastic particles in a general
flowfield, J. Fluid Mech. 140 (1984) 223–256, https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0022112084000586.
[35] C.Y. Wen, Y.H. Yu, Mechanics of fluidization, Chem. Eng. Prog., Symp. Ser. 62
(1966) 100–111. 〈http://chemport.cas.org/cgi-bin/sdcgi?APP=ftslink&action=re
flink&origin=wiley&version=1.0&coi=1:CAS:528:DyaF28Xks1emt7g=&m
d5=d8d2ec313d4de050e0d860576473472c〉.
S. Shahzad et al.
[36] P.N. Segrè, E. Herbolzheimer, P.M. Chaikin, Long-range correlations in
sedimentation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 2574–2577, https://doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.79.2574.
[37] B. Lu, W. Wang, J. Li, Searching for a mesh-independent sub-grid model for CFD
simulation of gas-solid riser flows, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (2009) 3437–3447, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2009.04.024.
[38] L. Cammarata, P. Lettieri, G.D.M. Micale, D. Colman, 2D and 3D CFD simulations
of bubbling fluidized beds using eulerian-eulerian models, Int. J. Chem. React. Eng.
1 (2002), https://doi.org/10.2202/1542-6580.1083.
[39] D. Gidaspow, Multiphase Flow and Fluidization, Elsevier, 1994, https://doi.org/
10.1016/C2009-0-21244-X.
[40] D.G. Schaeffer, Instability in the evolution equations describing incompressible
granular flow, J. Differ. Equ. 66 (1987) 19–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
0396(87)90038-6.
[41] D. Geldart, Types of gas fluidization, Powder Technol. 7 (1973) 285.
[42] A.R. Khan, J.R. Richardson, Fluid-particle interactions and flow characteristics of
fluidized beds and settling suspensions of spherical particles, Chem. Eng. Commun.
78 (1989) 111–130, https://doi.org/10.1080/00986448908940189.
[43] F. Berruti, T.S. Pugsley, L. Godfroy, J. Chaouki, G.S. Patience, Hydrodynamics of
circulating fluidized bed risers: a review, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 73 (1995) 579–602,
https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.5450730502.
[44] J.H. Pärssinen, J.X. Zhu, Axial and radial solids distribution in a long and high-flux
CFB riser, AIChE J. 47 (2001) 2197–2205, https://doi.org/10.1002/
aic.690471007.
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 162 (2022) 105459
[45] J.F. Richardson, W.N. Zaki, Sedimentation and fluidisation, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng.
32 (1954) 35–53.
[46] A. Ullah, W. Wang, J. Li, Evaluation of drag models for cocurrent and
countercurrent gas-solid flows, Chem. Eng. Sci. 92 (2013) 89–104, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ces.2013.01.019.
[47] Y. Igci, S. Pannala, S. Benyahia, S. Sundaresan, Validation studies on filtered model
equations for gas-particle flows in risers, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (2012)
2094–2103, https://doi.org/10.1021/ie2007278.
[48] W. Wang, J. Li, Simulation of gas-solid two-phase flow by a multi-scale CFD
approach-of the EMMS model to the sub-grid level, Chem. Eng. Sci. 62 (2007)
208–231, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2006.08.017.
[49] A.A. Alhwaige, S.M. Tasirin, A.M. Sowedan, W.R.W. Daud, Study The Homogeneity
of Mixing a Binary Polyethylene Granular Mixture in Fluidised Bed Mixer, in: Proc.
World Congr. Eng. Comput. Sci., International Association of Engineers, San
Francisco, 2008, pp. 118–122. http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCECS2008/
WCECS2008_pp118-122.pdf.
[50] S.H. Chou, Y. Lou Song, S.S. Hsiau, A study of the mixing index in solid particles,
KONA Powder Part. J. 2017 (2017) 275–281, https://doi.org/10.14356/
kona.2017018.
[51] D.K. Rollins, D.L. Faust, D.L. Jabas, A superior approach to indices in determining
mixture segregation, Powder Technol. 84 (1995) 277–282, https://doi.org/
10.1016/0032-5910(95)02992-B.
[52] R. Supati, N.H. Loh, K.A. Khor, S.B. Tor, Mixing and characterization of feedstock
for powder injection molding, Mater. Lett. 46 (2000) 109–114, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0167-577X(00)00151-8.