CFD simulation of hydrodynamics of gas–solid multiphase flow in

downer reactors: revisited
Yong Nam Kim, Changning Wu, Yi Cheng
n
Department of Chemical Engineering, Beijing Key Laboratory of Green Chemical Reaction Engineering and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 September 2010
Received in revised form
2 May 2011
Accepted 25 July 2011
Available online 29 July 2011
Keywords:
Hydrodynamics
Multiphase flow
CFD
Simulation
Turbulence
Downer
a b s t r a c t
In the present work, a k
1
–e
1
–k
2
–k
12
two-fluid model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow (KTGF)
was employed to predict the flow behavior of gas and solids in downers, where the particles of small
size as 70 mm in diameter apparently interact with the gas turbulence. The turbulence energy
interaction between gas and solids was described by different k
12
transport equations, while the
particle dissipation by the large-scale gas turbulent motion was taken into account through a drift
velocity. Johnson–Jackson boundary condition was adopted to describe the influence of the wall on the
hydrodynamics. The simulation results by current CFD model were compared with the experimental
data and simulation results reported by Cheng et al. (1999. Chem. Eng. Sci. 54, 2019) and Zhang and Zhu
(1999. Chem. Eng. Sci. 54, 5461). Good agreement was obtained based on the PDE-type k
12
transport
equation. The results demonstrated that the proposed model could provide good physical under-
standing on the hydrodynamics of gas–solid multiphase flow in downers. Using the current model, the
mechanism for formation and disappearance of the dense-ring flow structure and the scale-up
characteristics of downers were discussed.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Downer reactor, in which both gas and solids move down-
wards co-currently, has attracted great attention from both
academia and industry because of its unique features such as
relatively uniform flow structure in the radial direction and near
plug-flow reactor performance in comparison with the other gas–
solids fluidized bed reactors, e.g., bubbling bed, turbulent bed, and
riser (Zhu et al., 1995; Cheng et al., 2008). The flow characteristics
of downer reactor shows good potential applications in diverse
fast reaction processes with intermediates as desired products,
typically as fast catalytic conversions of feedstock (e.g., heavy oil
and other hydrocarbons) and pyrolysis process of solid materials
(e.g., biomass, coal, and solid waste).
In the last two decades, a number of studies have been
published on the experimental measurements and computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) predictions of downer hydrodynamics. For
example, Wang et al. (1992) gave an early report on the radial
distributions of solid volume fraction and the axial distributions
of pressure and particle velocity in a downer. A higher solid
volume fraction was illustrated in the wall region than the one in
the central region and the existence of three axial sections
reflecting on a variety of radial flow structures was suggested.
Their experiments showed that the radial distributions of solid
volume fraction and particle velocity in the fully developed region
in a downer are much more uniform than the ones in a riser with
comparable geometry and operating conditions for these two
reactors. Zhang and Zhu (1999) made a systematic study of radial
flow structure and flow development along the length of downer
from entrance to the exit under different operating conditions.
Besides the experimental investigations, several CFD models
have been proposed to predict the gas–solids flows in downers
based on the kinetic theory of granular flow (KTGF). Cheng et al.
(1999, 2001) developed a gas turbulence–solid turbulence model
(k–e–Y–k
p
), taking into account the fast and dense gas–solids
flow in downers. The model comprised a k–e turbulence model for
gas phase, a k
p
turbulence model and a kinetic theory description
of solid stresses characterized by the granular temperature (Y)
for solid phase. The proposed k–e–Y–k
p
model successfully
predicted axial and radial distributions of local solids fraction,
local particle velocity and pressure measured in a downer (0.14 m
i.d. and 7 m in height), quantitatively validated by the corre-
sponding experimental data. A dense-ring flow structure had
been found to appear and sustain for wide operating ranges in
the fully developed region of downers with 0.07–0.50 m i.d. by
the proposed k–e–Y–k
p
model, which had very good consistency
with the experimental findings in the literature (see review article
by Cheng et al., 2008). On the basis of understanding important
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ces
Chemical Engineering Science
0009-2509/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2011.07.036
n
Corresponding author. Fax: þ86 10 62772051.
E-mail address: yicheng@tsinghua.edu.cn (Y. Cheng).
Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365
influence of the wall effect on the gas–solids flows in vertical
pipes, Cheng et al. (1999, 2001) described the influence of the
reactor wall on the hydrodynamics through an empirical radial
function of the coefficient of restitution.
Jian and Ocone (2003) proposed a reduced steady-state two-
fluid model based on KTGF for predicting the fully developed flow
in downers, and attempted to validate their model predictions by
the experimental data published by Cheng et al. (1999). Within
their model, the inter-particle cohesive force for solid phase was
taken into account by modifying the solid stress tensor via the
introduction of a counter-diffusive term, and the gas phase
turbulence was considered using a mixing-length model. It is
noted that the assumption of perfect elastic collisions was used in
the simulations and the experimental data on the solids friction at
wall was adopted in the boundary conditions (BC). The simulation
results showed that the impact of gas phase turbulence is not
significant but the counter-diffusive solid concentration term
plays the dominant role in the prediction capability for the
features of dense-ring flow structure.
The dense-ring flow structure is a time-averaged result of the
transient cluster phenomena inherently existing in downers as
well as the core-annulus structure in risers. When the flow field is
simulated by steady-state models, unrealistic sensitivity to
the inelasticity of particle–particle collisions would be manifested
and required to introduce terms to account for the effects of
time-smoothing (Pita and Sundaresan, 1991; Benyahia et al.,
2007). So, it is preferable to use an unsteady model to investigate
hydrodynamics in downers. On the other hand, the formation
mechanisms of this unique flow structure are mainly due to
particle–particle and particle–wall collisions, gas–particle inter-
action and effect of gravity. Therefore, the hydrodynamic model
must take into account simultaneously the gas–particle and
particle–particle interactions in the mean and fluctuating motions
by entrainment and inter-particle collision mechanisms, while
the boundary conditions are required to describe the collisional
exchanges of momentum and kinetic energy between particles
and wall. Vaishalia et al. (2008) presented a Eulerian–Eulerian
CFD model and carried out two-dimensional (2D) axi-symmetric
unsteady simulations to investigate the radial flow structure in
gas–solids downer under a framework of standard k–e model for
the gas phase turbulence with a granular temperature conserva-
tion equation for the solid phase turbulence. The idea of matching
slip velocities and the trends thereof with solids fraction was
emphasized as the key to developing a robust CFD model, which
has predictive capability over a wide variety of flow conditions.
The dense-ring flow structure was observed in the time-averaged
simulation results. However, evident differences could be found
between the model predictions and the experimental data, which
might be caused by assuming 2D axi-symmetric flow, neglecting
the interaction between the fluctuating fields of gas phase and
solid phase, and some other key model assumptions.
The approach used in this study is a k
1
–e
1
–k
2
–k
12
transient
two-fluid model developed by Simonin’s group (Balzer et al.,
1996; Simonin, 1996), combined with the boundary condition
derived by Johnson and Jackson (1987). The fluid–particle velocity
covariance k
12
describes turbulent momentum transfer between
the fluid phase and solid phase fluctuating motions, which is
given by an additional transport equation. The transport proper-
ties of the solid phase are obtained by applying the kinetic theory
of gases while taking into account the influence of the interstitial
gas (Cao and Ahmadi, 1995; Balzer et al., 1996; Peirano and
Leckner, 1998). Additionally, a drift velocity is considered as the
relative velocity to reflect the particle dissipation by the large-
scale fluid turbulent motion (Balzer et al., 1996; Peirano and
Leckner, 1998; Balzer, 2000; Peirano et al., 2001; Ferschneider
and Mege, 2002; Zhang and Reese, 2003). In detail, the flow of
fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) catalyst (r
s
¼1400 kg/m
3
,
d
p
¼70 mm) and air in fully developed region of downers is
investigated by the k
1
–e
1
–k
2
–k
12
transient two-fluid model,
where a partial differential equation (PDE) formulation of the
k
12
transport equation is focused. The model predictions are
compared with the experimental and simulated results reported
by Cheng et al. (1999). The simulations are implemented in open-
source software MFIX, a platform developed by National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL) (Syamlal et al., 1993).
2. Mathematical model and simulation conditions
In two-fluid model framework, both gas and particle phases
are considered to be continuous and fully interpenetrating. The
equations describing gas–solid turbulent two-phase flow can be
derived by conditional phase averaging method for the gas and
the kinetic theory formalism for the discrete particles (Balzer
et al., 1996; Peirano and Leckner, 1998). The k
1
–e
1
–k
2
–k
12
transient two-fluid model was found to be able to reproduce
both the statics (bed height and probability density function of
the spatial distribution of particles) and the dynamics (power
spectrum of pressure fluctuations) of a cold circulating fluidized
bed operated at low fluidization velocities (Peirano et al., 2001).
Also, the model has been used to predict the core-annulus
structure and the existence of clusters in riser reasonably well
with appropriate boundary conditions (BC) (Ferschneider and
Mege, 2002; Benyahia et al., 2005).
The model equations used in this study are summarized in
Appendix A. In the governing equations, the fluid–particle velo-
city covariance k
12
is defined as k
12
¼/u
0
1i
u
0
2i
S
2
, where
u
0
mi
¼u
mi
ÀU
mi
is the fluctuational velocity component of the
phase m (m¼1 for gas phase, 2 for particle phase), and
U
mi
¼/u
mi
S
m
represents the mean velocity component of the
phase m defined by the conditional volumetric phase average
/S
m
.
The derivation of k
12
transport equation is a direct application
of kinetic theory of granular flow (KTGF) and of the models of
fluid–particle interaction based on the quasi-isotropy assumption
(Boussinesq approximation) (Peirano and Leckner, 1998). For the
flow is highly anisotropic, the second-order closure models
should be used to model the second-order velocity moment
S
12ij
as listed in Eq. (A13).
The closure models proposed by Simonin (1996) were used in
this study, as listed in Eqs. (A17)–(A26). In Benyahia et al. (2005)’s
simulations of risers using Johnson and Jackson wall boundary
conditions (as listed in Table A3), it could be found that experi-
mental data were close to the small or no friction limit, corre-
sponding to specularity coefficients at range of 0.008–0.02. For
downers in this study, the specularity coefficients were empiri-
cally determined to be at range of 0.0005–0.003 due to the fact
that the collisional angle between solid particles and the wall is
relative small in gas–particle co-current downflows.
Three mathematical models (see Table B1 in Appendix B) were
compared to simulate a two-dimensional (2D) channel and a
three-dimensional (3D) pipe. In the A-model, the algebraic for-
mulation listed in Table B1 was used to calculate k
12
. In the
B-model, the PDE formulation (i.e., Eq. (A7)) without drift velo-
city, was coupled into the governing equations to determine k
12
,
while in the C-model the PDE formulation was used with drift
velocity.
In the 2D channel and the 3D pipe, the gas and solid phases
travel along the direction of gravity co-currently. The 2D and 3D
simulations for the fully developed regime using periodic bound-
aries in the streamwise direction were performed. The 2D vertical
channel was 0.10 or 0.14 m in width and 0.42 m in height, while
Y.N. Kim et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 5358
the 3D vertical pipe (i.e., downer) was 0.10 or 0.14 m in diameter
and 0.28 m in height. The specularity coefficient was set 0.003 for
2D case but 0.0005 for 3D case, with a major consideration of the
different particle–wall collision probability.
For all the simulation cases in this work, the initial conditions
were uniform flow fields. The initial granular temperature was
0.1 m
2
/s
2
and the gas turbulent energy and dissipation were set at
0.01 m
2
/s
2
and 0.1 m
2
/s
2
, respectively.
The summary of the parameters used in simulations is listed in
Table 1. The grid sensitivity was tested and the grid systems of
80Â160 (x Ây) for 2D cases and 30Â120Â9 (r  y Ây) for 3D
cases were finally used, respectively.
All the time-averaged variables were evaluated from the
transient simulation results over a period of 20 s, which did not
include the initial 5 s for the sufficient development of the gas–
solids flows.
3. Results and discussion
Fig. 1 shows the time-averaged local solid volume fractions in
the 3D downer (0.14 m in diameter), predicted by the three
different models mentioned in Section 2, i.e., A-model, B-model,
and C-model. Corresponding to the case of d
p
¼70 mm as shown in
Fig. 1(a), it can be seen that the spatial distributions of solids
volume fraction are different among the three models. The high-
est peak is predicted by A-model, followed by the B-model
and then the C-model, which shows that the inter-phase
exchange of the kinetic turbulence energy and the particle energy
dissipation by the large-scale fluid turbulent motion could
not be neglected. All the model predictions show good agreement
with the experimental data reported by Cheng et al. (1999)
but the predictions by C-model look a little better. However, for
the case of d
p
¼300 mm (see Fig. 1(b)), almost no difference could
be found among the predictions by the three models. It is
noted that the A-model is obtained from the B-model with the
assumptions of homogeneous/stationary two-phase turbulence
and Z
r
b1 (i.e., the particle motion is slightly affected by
the gas turbulence). The differences between Fig. 1(a) and
(b) indicate that the gas turbulence will take apparent effect
on the particle phase when the particle size is small as 70 mm
but much smaller effect when the particle size is large as
300 mm.
Fig. 2 shows the time-averaged local solids volume fractions in
the 2D channel (0.14 m in width), predicted by the three different
models. The similar trends can be observed with the simulation
results of the 3D downer. For the case of d
p
¼70 mm (see Fig. 2(a)),
the predicted peak by the A-model is apparently higher than the
ones by the B-model and C-model. For the case of d
p
¼300 mm
(see Fig. 2(b)), small differences could be found among the
predicted profiles by the three models, which is similar to the
observations in the 3D downer simulations. The peaks in the 3D
downer appear at a radial location closer to the wall than the ones
in 2D channel with the same size, which is mainly caused by the
spatial difference between the flat channel and the cylindrical
pipe.
Fig. 3 plots the profiles of local solid volume fraction and
particle velocity from current 3D predictions by the C-model,
together with the simulation results by the k–e–Y–k
p
model and
the experimental data (Cheng et al., 1999, 2000), at two kinds of
operating conditions. The model predictions have good agree-
ments with the simulation results by the k–e–Y–k
p
model and the
experiment data. Also, the predicted profiles by the C-model show
better agreement with the experimental data than the ones by the
k–e–Y–k
p
model, e.g., uniform solid volume fraction and mono-
tonically increasing particle velocity along radial direction in the
central region (r/R at the range of 0–0.7).
For further validation, the predicted local solids volume frac-
tion and particle velocity in a downer (0.10 m in diameter) by the
C-model are compared with the experimental data reported by
Zhang and Zhu (1999) at two different operating conditions. In
the simulations, the particle diameter is 67 mm, the particle
density is 1400 kg/m
3
, and the solid circulation rate is 101 kg/
m
2
/s. For the case of U
g
¼3.7 m/s, the cross-sectional averaged
solid volume fractions are 0.0167 from the model prediction
and 0.0114 from the experiments, while the corresponding
Table 1
Parameters used in the simulations.
Parameters 2D channel 3D downer
Process temperature (K) 298 298
Process pressure (kPa) 101.325 101.325
Air density (kg/m
3
) 1.2 1.2
Particle diameter (mm) 70, 300 70, 300
Particle density (kg/m
3
) 1400 1400
Inter-particle coefficient of restitution 0.95 0.95
Particle–wall coefficient of restitution 0.90 0.90
Specularity coefficient 0.003 0.0005
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
α
2
r/R
3D downer (D=0.14m)
Ug = 4.33 m/s, Gs = 70 kg/m
2
s
dp = 70 μm
A-model
B-model
C-model
Expt. data (Cheng et al., 1999)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
α
2
r/R
3D downer (D=0.14m)
Ug = 4.33 m/s, Gs = 70 kg/m
2
s
dp = 300 μm
A-model
B-model
C-model
Fig. 1. Time-averaged local solid volume fraction in the 3D downer simulation.
(a) d
p
¼70 mm, (b) d
p
¼300 mm.
Y.N. Kim et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 5359
cross-sectional averaged particle velocities are 4.9 and 7.7 m/s,
respectively. For the case of U
g
¼7.2 m/s, the cross-sectional
averaged solid volume fraction is 0.0100 vs. 0.0071, while the
cross-sectional averaged particle velocity is 7.5 vs. 9.2 m/s. The
model predictions show about 40% larger solids volume fraction
but about 20–40% smaller particle velocity than the reported
experimental data based on the cross-sectional average, which is
probably due to the model assumptions (e.g., uniform particle
diameter distribution), the key model parameters (e.g., particle
restitution and specularity coefficients), the key sub-models (e.g.,
gas–solid drag force calculation), the experimental errors, and so
forth. Despite of the observed differences, the radial non-uni-
formity of particle phase could be clearly illustrated by the
profiles of normalized local solid volume fraction and particle
velocity, either from the model predictions or the experimental
data as shown in Fig. 4. When the gas velocity is raised from
3.7 m/s to 7.2 m/s, the dense-ring flow structure (i.e., the peak in
the profile) is predicted to disappear as the experimental findings
by Zhang and Zhu (1999).
Different from the force balance on particles in the fully
developed region in risers, the gas phase in downers acts resisting
force on particles, in balance with the driving force, i.e., the force
due to gravity. When the superficial gas velocity, U
g
, increases, the
resisting effect of gas phase on the particles decreases relatively,
which could be illustrated by the cross-sectional averaged
particle–gas slip velocity of 1.2 vs. 0.3 m/s for the cases of model
predictions and 4.0 vs. 2.0 m/s for the cases of experiments at U
g
of 3.7 vs. 7.2 m/s. In the case of U
g
¼3.7 m/s, the dense-ring flow
structure has been observed near the wall, which could be
explained by the mechanism of cluster formation as follows.
Due to the relatively strong gas-to-particles resisting effect and
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
α
2
2D channel (W=0.14m)
Ug = 4.33 m/s, Gs = 70 kg/m
2
s
dp = 70 μm
A-model
B-model
C-model
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
α
2
2D channel (W=0.14m)
Ug = 4.33 m/s, Gs = 70 kg/m
2
s
dp = 300 μm
A-model
B-model
C-model
x/( W)
x/( W)
Fig. 2. Time-averaged local solid volume fraction in the 2D channel simulation.
(a) d
p
¼70 mm, (b) d
p
¼300 mm.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
r/R
α
2
Downer (D=0.14m)
Ug = 4.33 m/s, Gs = 70 kg/m
2
s
Expt. data
Model Prediction (Cheng et al.,1999)
Model Prediction (C-model)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Downer (D=0.14m)
Ug = 6.10 m/s, Gs = 108 kg/m
2
s
Expt. data
Model Prediction (Cheng et al., 2000)
Model Prediction (C-model)
r/R
α
2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Downer (D=0.14m)
Ug = 4.33 m/s, Gs = 70 kg/m
2
s
Expt. data
Model Prediction (Cheng et al.,1999)
Model Prediction (C-model)
r/R
V
p

(
m
/
s
)
Fig. 3. Comparison of local solid volume fraction and particle velocity between the
3D model predictions and the experimental data reported by Cheng et al. (1999,
2000). (a) solid volume fraction at U
g
¼4.33 m/s and G
s
¼70 kg/m
2
s, (b) solid
volume fraction at U
g
¼6.10 m/s and G
s
¼108 kg/m
2
s, and (c) particle velocity at
U
g
¼4.33 m/s, and G
s
¼70 kg/m
2
s.
Y.N. Kim et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 5360
gas–solids interaction in the central region, corresponding to
higher k
12
as shown in Fig. 5(c), the particles in the central region
tend to migrate toward the wall region. On the other hand, the
particle turbulent kinetic energy will be produced through
particle–wall friction as considered in current C-model with a
given value of the specularity coefficient (f) in the Johnson–
Jackson boundary condition. The introduced particle–wall friction
results in an increasing particle turbulent kinetic energy near the
wall (see Fig. 5(b)) and pushing the particles away from the wall.
The above two factors coexist and lead to more frequent forma-
tion and residence of clusters in near wall region, therefore the
appearance of the dense-ring flow structure. Under free slip
boundary condition, the maximum of solid volume fraction
appears at the wall (Zhang and Zhu, 1999). However, in the case
of U
g
¼7.2 m/s, due to the greatly reduced gas-to-particles resist-
ing effect and gas–solids interaction in central region, correspond-
ing to much lower k
12
in central region but close value in wall
region compared with the case of U
g
¼3.7 m/s as shown in
Fig. 5(c), the particles in the wall region tend to migrate toward
the central region, undergoing a reverse tendency of radial
migration. Although the turbulence kinetic energies of the gas
phase and particle phase (k
1
and k
2
, respectively) in the central
region increase evidently when U
g
is raised from 3.7 m/s to 7.2 m/s
(see Figs. 5(a) and (b)), the time-averaged solid volume fraction in
this region is raised from below the cross-sectional average to
beyond the average value, corresponding to a transition of fluid–
particle velocity covariance (k
12
). The systematic and quantitative
investigations on the influence of parameters on the dense-ring
flow structure in downers are still an important and interesting
issue in the further work.
Fig. 6 shows the radial profiles of solid volume fraction,
particle velocity, particle turbulence kinetic energy, and fluid–
particle velocity covariance at different superficial gas velocity in
the downer (0.14 m i.d.), which is operated at G
s
¼70 kg/m
2
s.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
p
p
V
V
2
2
α
α
Downer (D=0.10m)
Expt. data (U
g
=3.7m/s)
Model Prediction
r/R
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Downer (D=0.10m)
Expt. data (U
g
=7.2m/s)
Model Prediction
r/R
2
2
α
α
p
p
V
V
Fig. 4. Comparison of normalized local solid volume fraction and particle velocity
between the 3D model predictions and the experimental data reported by Zhang
and Zhu (1999). (a) U
g
¼3.7 m/s and G
s
¼101 kg/m
2
s, and (b) U
g
¼7.2 m/s and
G
s
¼101 kg/m
2
s.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
k
1

(
m
2
/
s
2
)
r/R
Ug (m/s)
3.7
7.2
D=0.10m G
s
=101kg/(m
2
s)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
D=0.10m G
s
=101kg/(m
2
s)
Ug (m/s)
3.7
7.2
k
2

(
m
2
/
s
2
)
r/R
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
D=0.10m G
s
=101kg/(m
2
s)
Ug (m/s)
3.7
7.2
k
1
2
(
m
2
/
s
2
)

r/R
Fig. 5. Radial profiles of turbulence kinetic energy at different superficial gas
velocity in the 3D model predictions. (a) gas turbulence kinetic energy, (b) particle
turbulence kinetic energy, and (c) fluid–particle velocity covariance.
Y.N. Kim et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 5361
When the diameter of the downer is enlarged from 0.10 m to
0.14 m, the transitional gas velocity at which the dense-ring flow
structure disappears will be increased for a given solid flux. For
the case of G
s
¼70 kg/m
2
s, the dense-ring flow structure still
sustains when the superficial gas velocity is increased from 4.33
to 6.10 m/s except that the solid volume fraction is decreased, as
shown in Fig. 6(a). The peak of solid volume fraction is evident
and a bit far from the disappearance of dense-ring flow structure,
which could be supported by the similar radial distributions
of particle velocity, particle turbulence kinetic energy, and
fluid–particle velocity covariance, as shown in Fig. 6(b)–(d),
respectively.
The predicted radial profiles of solid volume fraction in the
downers with different diameter by C-model are plotted in
Fig. 7(a). The simulation results for scale-up characteristics are
close to the ones predicted by the k–e–Y–k
p
model (Cheng et al.,
1999), as shown in Fig. 7(b). When the downer diameter is small
as 70 mm, the radial distribution of time-averaged solid volume
fraction in the fully developed region in the downer is relatively
uniform.
4. Conclusions
The k
1
–e
1
–k
2
–k
12
transient two-fluid model developed by
Simonin’s group had been adopted in the present work to predict
the dense-ring characteristics in 2D and 3D gas–solids downers
by considering the influence of gas turbulence on the flow
behavior of small size particles. Within the proposed model, the
turbulence energy interaction between gas and particles was
taken into account by a PDE (partial differential equation)
formulation of the k
12
transport equation together with a drift
velocity. To evaluate the influence of gas turbulence on fluid
dynamics of gas–solid flows in dower, the 3D model predictions
using different approaches of the k
1
–e
1
–k
2
–k
12
two-fluid model,
i.e., algebraic type model (A-model), PDE-type model either
without or with drift velocity (B-model or C-model, respectively),
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
D=0.14m
Ug=4.33m/s
Ug=6.10m/s
α
2
r/R
0
2
4
6
8
10
D=0.14m
Ug=4.33m/s
Ug=6.10m/s
V
p

(
m
/
s
)
r/R
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
D=0.14m
Ug=4.33m/s
Ug=6.10m/s
k
2

(
m
2
/
s
2
)
r/R
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
k
1
2

(
m
2
/
s
2
)
Ug=4.33m/s
Ug=6.10m/s
D=0.14m
r/R
Fig. 6. Radial profiles of solid volume fraction, particle velocity, particle turbulence kinetic energy and fluid–particle velocity covariance at different superficial gas velocity
in the 3D model predictions. D¼0.14 m, G
s
¼70 kg/m
2
s.
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Ug = 4.33 m/s
Gs = 70 kg/m
2
s
D (m)
0.07
0.09
0.14
α
2
r/R
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Ug = 4.33 m/s
Gs = 70 kg/m
2
s
D (m)
0.07
0.09
0.14
0.50
α
2
r/R
Fig. 7. Radial profiles of solid volume fraction in the downers with different
diameter. (a) model predictions in this study, and (b) model predictions by Cheng
et al. (2000).
Y.N. Kim et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 5362
were compared with each other. The simulation results showed
that the particles of small size as 70 mm in diameter apparently
interact with the gas turbulence. Using the presented C-model,
the mechanism for formation and disappearance of the dense-
ring flow structure and the scale-up characteristics of downers
were discussed. Also, the model predictions were compared with
the reported experimental data (Cheng et al., 1999, 2000; Zhang
and Zhu, 1999) for the hydrodynamics and showed good agree-
ment with the experimental data and findings, especially for
formation and disappearance of the dense-ring flow structure at
different operating conditions.
Nomenclature
C
m
, C
1e
, C
2e
, C
3e
constants in the gas turbulence model with
values: 0.09, 1.44, 1.92, and 1.2, respectively
d
p
particle diameter, m
D
12
t
binary dispersion coefficient, m
2
/s
e coefficient of restitution for particle–particle collision
e
w
coefficient of restitution for particle–wall collision
g gravity constant (¼9.8 m/s
2
)
g
0
radial distribution function at contact
I
mi
momentum exchange, N/m
3
k
m
turbulent kinetic energy of phase m, m
2
/s
2
k
12
fluid–particle velocity covariance, m
2
/s
2
K
t
2
conductivity of solids turbulent energy, m
2
/s
P
m
pressure of phase m, Pa
S
mij
mean strain-rate tensor, 1/s
S
12ij
fluid–particle strain-rate tensor, 1/s
t time, s
u
mi
local instantaneous velocity, m/s
u
ri
local instantaneous relative velocity, m/s
u
0
ri
fluctuating relative phase velocity, m/s
U
di
drift velocity, m/s
U
g
superficial gas velocity, m/s
U
mi
mean velocity of phase m, m/s
U
ri
mean relative velocity, m/s
x location, m
Greek letters
a
m
volume fraction of phase m
C
d
drag coefficient
Dx width of computational cell next to the wall, m
e
1
turbulent energy dissipation in the gas phase, m
2
/s
3
e
12
dissipation term in the k
12
equation, m
2
/s
3
e
2
dissipation of solids fluctuating energy due to inter-
particle collisions, m
2
/s
3
Z
r
ratio between Lagrangian and particle relaxation time
scales
f specularity coefficient
k Von Karmen constant with value: 0.42
l
2
bulk viscosity in the solids phase, kg/m/s
m
t
1
turbulent eddy viscosity for phase m, kg/m/s
n
t
12
fluid–particle turbulent viscosity, m
2
/s
n
t
2
turbulent kinematic viscosity for phase m, m
2
/s
P turbulence exchange terms
r
m
density of phase m, kg/m
3
y angle between mean particle velocity and mean relative
velocity
Y
s
granular temperature equal to 2k
2
/3
s
1ij
viscous stress tensor of phase m, Pa
s
k
, s
e
constants in the gas turbulence model with values: 1.0,
1.3, respectively
S
mij
effective stress tensor, Pa
t
x
12
particle relaxation time scale, s
t
t
12
Eddy-particle interaction time scale, s
t
x
1
energetic turbulent eddies time scale, s
Subscripts
col collisional
d drift
i, j, k indices used to represent spatial direction and in Ein-
stein summation convention
m phase m, taking values 1 and 2 for gas and solids phases
max maximum packing
kin kinetic
r relative
s, p solids or particulate phase.
w wall
Acknowledgment
This work is financially supported by NSFC under the Grants of
no. 20976091 and no. 20806045. Dr. Yi Cheng would like to thank
the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in universities
(NCET).
Appendix A
The gas–solids flow models used in this study are summarized
in this appendix. Benyahia et al. (2005) model was used in most of
this study. The governing equations, constitutive relations and
wall boundary conditions are briefly summarized in Tables
A1–A3, respectively. The Johnson and Jackson (1987) wall bound-
ary condition was used for the particle phase.
Appendix B
See Table B1 for more details.
Table A1
Governing equations for gas–solids flows.
Continuity equation for phase m (m¼1 for gas phase, 2 for particle phase)
@
@t
ðamr
m
Þ þ
@
@xi
ðamr
m
U
mi
Þ ¼0 (A1)

m
am ¼1
(A2)
Momentum equation for phase m
amr
m
@Umi
@t
þU
mi
@Umi
@xj
_ _
¼ Àam
@P1
@xi
þ
@

mij
@xj
þI
mi
þamr
m
g
i (A3)
Modified k–e turbulence model for the gas phase
a
1
r
1
@k1
@t
þU
1j
@k1
@xj
_ _
¼
@
@xi
a
1
m
t
1
sk
@k1
@xi
_ _
þa
1
S
1ij
@Ui
@xj
þP
k1
Àa
1
r
1
e
1 (A4)
a
1
r
1
@e1
@t
þU
1j
@e1
@xj
_ _
¼
@
@xi
a
1
m
t
1
se
@e1
@xi
_ _
þa
1
e1
k1
C
1e
S
1ij
@U1i
@xj
Àr
1
C
2e
e
1
_ _
þP
e1 (A5)
k
2
–k
12
turbulence model for the particle phase
a
2
r
2
@k2
@t
þU
2j
@k2
@xj
_ _
¼
@
@xi
a
2
r
2
K
t
2
@k2
@xi
_ _
þa
2
r
2
S
2ij
@U2i
@xj
þP
k2
Àa
2
r
2
e
2 (A6)
a
2
r
2
@k
12
@t
þU
2j
@k
12
@x
j
_ _
¼
@
@x
i
a
2
r
2
n
t
12
s
k
@k
12
@x
i
_ _
þa
2
r
2
S
12ij
@U
2i
@x
j
þ
@U
1j
@x
i
_ _
þP
k12
Àa
2
r
2
e
12
(A7)
Y.N. Kim et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 5363
References
Balzer, G., Simonin, O., Boelle, A., Lavieville, J., 1996. A unifying modelling
approach for the numerical prediction of dilute and dense gas–solid flow. In:
Kwauk, J., Li, J. (Eds.), Circulating Fluidized Bed V. Science Press, Beijing, China,
pp. 432–439.
Balzer, G., 2000. Gas–solid flow modelling based on the kinetic theory of granular
media: validation, applications and limitations. Powder Technology 113, 299.
Benyahia, S., Syamlal, M., O’Brien, T.J., 2005. Evaluation of boundary conditions
used to model dilute, turbulent gas/solids flows in a pipe. Powder Technology
156, 62.
Benyahia, S., Syamlal, M., O’Brien, T.J., 2007. Study of the ability of multiphase
continuum models to predict core-annulus flow. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 53, 2549.
Cao, J., Ahmadi, G., 1995. Gas–particle two-phase turbulent flow in a vertical duct.
International Journal of Multiphase Flow 21, 1203.
Cheng, Y., Guo, Y.C., Wei, F., Jin, Y., Lin, W.Y., 1999. Modeling the hydrodynamics of
downer reactors based on kinetic theory. Chemical Engineer Science 54, 2019.
Cheng, Y., Wei, F., Zheng, Y., Jin, Y., Guo, Y.C., Lin, W.Y., 2000. Computational fluid
dynamic modeling of hydrodynamics in downer reactors. Journal of Chemical
Industry and Engineering (China) 51, 344 (in Chinese).
Cheng, Y., Wei, F., Guo, Y.C., Jin, Y., 2001. CFD simulation of hydrodynamics in the
entrance region of a downer. Chemical Engineering Science 56, 1687.
Cheng, Y., Wu, C.N., Zhu, J.X., Wei, F., Jin, Y., 2008. Downer reactor: from
fundamental study to industrial application. Powder Technology 183, 364.
Enwald, H., Almstedt, A.E., 1999. Fluid dynamics of a pressurized fluidized bed:
comparison between numerical solutions from two-fluid models and experi-
mental results. Chemical Engineering Science 54, 329.
Ferschneider, G., Mege, P., 2002. Dilute gas–solid flow in a riser. Chemical
Engineering Journal 87, 41.
Jian, H., Ocone, R., 2003. Modelling the hydrodynamics of gas–solid suspension in
downers. Powder Technology 138, 73.
Johnson, P.C., Jackson, R., 1987. Frictional–collisional constitutive relations for
granular materials with application to plane shearing. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics 176, 67.
Peirano, E., Leckner, B., 1998. Fundamentals of turbulent gas-solid flows applied to
circulating fluidized bed combustion. Progress in Energy Combustion Science
24, 259.
Peirano, E., Delloume, V., Leckner, B., 2001. Two- or three-dimensional simulations
of turbulent gas–solid flows applied to fluidization. Chemical Engineering
Science 56, 4787.
Pita, J.A., Sundaresan, S., 1991. Gas–solid flow in vertical tubes. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 37,
1009.
Simonin, O., Deutsch, E., Minier, J.P., 1993. Eulerian prediction of the fluid/particle
correlated motion in turbulent two-phase flows. Applied Scientific Research
51, 275.
Simonin, O., 1996. Continuum modeling of dispersed two-phase flows. In:
Combustion and Turbulence in Two-Phase Flows. Von Karman Institute of
Fluid Dynamics Lecture Series, pp. 1–47.
Table A2
Constitutive relations for gas–solids flows.
Inter-phase momentum exchange terms
I
2i
¼ ÀI
1i
¼ Àðða
2
r
2
U
ri
Þ=t
x
12
Þ (A8)
U
ri
¼U
2i
ÀU
1i
ÀU
di
Formulation of drift velocity, U
di
U
di
¼/u
0
1i
S
2
¼D
t
12
1
a1
@a1
@xi
À
1
a2
@a2
@xi
_ _
(A9)
(Simonin et al., 1993)
D
t
12
¼
1
3
k
12
t
t
12
, t
t
12
¼
t
t
1
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1þCbx
2
r
_ , C
b
¼1:8À1:35cos
2
ðyÞ, cos
2
ðyÞ ¼
Ur U2
9Ur 99U29
x
2
r
¼ ðð3UrUr Þ=2k
1
Þ (Enwald and Almstedt, 1999)
Formulation of particle relaxation time scale, t
x
12
1
t
x
12
¼
3
4
r
1
r
2
Cd
dp
a
À1:7
1
/9ur9Sa
2
if a
2
o0:2
r
1
r
2
a
2
150
Re
þ1:75
_ ¸
1
dp
/9ur9S if a
2
Z0:2
_
_
_
(A10)
C
d
¼
24
Re
1þ0:15Re
0:687
_ ¸
, Re ¼a
1
/9ur9Sdp=n
1
/9ur9S¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
U
ri
U
ri
þ/u
0
ri
u
0
ri
S
2
_
, /u
0
ri
u
0
ri
S
2
¼2ðk
1
þk
2
Àk
12
Þ
(Sinclair and Jackson, 1989)
Reynolds stress terms
S
1ij
¼2m
t
1
S
1ij
À
2
3
d
ij
r
1
k
1
þm
t
1
@U1k
@xk
_ _
(A11)
S
1ij
¼
1
2
@U1i
@xj
þ
@U1j
@xi
_ _
, m
t
1
¼r
1
Cm
k
2
1
e1
S
2ij
¼n
t
2
S
2ij
À
2
3
d
ij
@U
2k
@x
k
_ _
À P
2
Àl
2
@U
2k
@x
k
_ _
d
ij
(A12)
S
2ij
¼
1
2
@U2i
@xj
þ
@U2j
@xi
_ _
S
12ij
¼
1
3
k
12
d
ij
À
Z
r
1þZ
r
2
^
S
1ij
À
1
1þZ
r
n
t
12
^
S
12ij
(A13)
(Peirano et al., 2001)
^
S
12ij
¼S
12ij
ÀS
12mm
ðd
ij
=3Þ, S
12ij
¼
@U1i
@xj
þ
@U2j
@xi
_ _
, Z
r
¼
t
t
12
t
x
12
, n
t
12
¼ ðk
12
t
t
12
Þ=3
Turbulence interaction terms
P
k1
¼a
2
r
2
1
t
x
12
k
12
À2k
1
þðU
2i
ÀU
1i
ÞU
di
_ ¸
, P
e1
¼C
3e
e1
k1
P
k1 (A14)
P
k2
¼ Àa
2
r
2
1
t
x
12
ð2k
2
Àk
12
Þ
(A15)
P
k12
¼ Àa
2
r
2
1
t
x
12
ð1þX
21
Þk
12
Àk
1
À2X
21
k
2
_ ¸
, X
21
¼
a2r
2
a1r
1
¼
1
X12
(A16)
e
2
¼
1
3
ð1Àe
2
Þ
t
c
2
k
2
, e
12
¼
k12
t
t
12
Other closure models
Solids pressure
P
2
¼
2
3
a
2
r
2
k
2
1þ2a
2
g
0
ð1þeÞ ½ Š (A17)
Solids shear viscosity
n
t
2
¼n
kin
2
þn
col
2
(A18)
Solids kinetic viscosity
n
kin
2
¼
2
3
k
12
Z
r
þk
2
ð1þz
c
a
2
g
0
Þ
_ ¸
2
t
x
12
þ
B
t
c
2
_ _
À1
(A19)
z
c
¼
2
5
ð1þeÞð3eÀ1Þ, B ¼
1
5
ð1þeÞð3ÀeÞ
Solids collisional viscosity
n
col
2
¼
4
5
a
2
g
0
ð1þeÞ n
kin
2
þdp
ffiffiffiffiffiffi
2k2
3p
_
_ _
(A20)
Solids bulk viscosity
l
2
¼
5
3
a
2
r
2
n
col
2
(A21)
Solids granular conductivity
K
t
2
¼K
kin
2
þK
col
2
(A22)
Solids kinetic turbulent conductivity
K
kin
2
¼
2
3
9
10
k
12
Z
r
þk
2
ð1þ$c a
2
g
0
Þ
_ ¸
9
5t
x
12
þ
xc
t
c
2
_ _
À1
(A23)
$c ¼
1
100
ð1þeÞ
2
ð2eÀ1Þ
Solids collisional turbulent conductivity
K
col
2
¼
6
5
a
2
g
0
ð1þeÞ K
kin
2
þ
5
9
dp
ffiffiffiffiffiffi
2k2
3p
_
Þ
_
(A24)
The radial distribution function
g
0
¼ 1À
a2
g
max
2
_ _
1=3
_ _
À1
(A25)
Constants in k–e model
s
k
, se, Cm, C
1e
, C
2e
, C
3e
¼1:0, 1:3, 0:09, 1:44, 1:92 and 1:2, respectively (A26)
Table A3
Wall boundary conditions.
Gas phase wall boundary condition (Benyahia et al., 2005)
@U1
@x
¸
¸
w
¼
r
1
kU1C
1=4
1m
k
1=2
1
ðm
1
þm
t
1
ÞlnðEx
n
Þ
, x
n
¼
r
1
C
1=4
1m
k
1=2
1
Dx
2m
1
(A27)
Particle phase wall boundary conditions (Johnson and Jackson, 1987)
For particle velocity
n
t
2
@U2
@x
¸
¸
w
þfpU
2
g
0
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2=3k2
p
2
ffiffi
3
p
a
max
2
¼0
(A28)
For fluctuation energy
K
t
2
@k2
@x
¸
¸
¸
w
À
fpU
2
2
g0
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2=3k2
p
2
ffiffi
3
p
a
max
2
þ
ffiffi
3
p
pg0ð1Àe
2
w
Þð2=3k2Þ
3=2
4a
max
2
¼0
(A29)
A Dirichlet wall boundary condition for k
1
, e
1
and k
12
k
1
¸
¸
w
¼0, e
1
j
w
¼0, k
12
¸
¸
w
¼0 (A30)
Table B1
Description of differences for three models used in this study.
Model name Calculation method of k
12
Major assumptions
A-model Solving the ‘‘algebraic’’
formulation, k
12
¼
2Z
r
ðk1 þX12k2Þ
1þ ð1þX12ÞZ
r
instead of Eq. (A7)
Homogeneous and
stationary two-phase
turbulence in the case
of very massive particle
B-model Solving Eq. (A7) with U
di
¼0 Neglected effect of drift velocity
C-model Solving Eq. (A7) Full consideration of the
fluctuations of fluid velocity
Y.N. Kim et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 5364
Sinclair, J.L., Jackson, R., 1989. Gas–particle flow in a vertical pipe with particle–
particle interactions. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 35, 1473.
Syamlal, M., Rogers, W.A., O’Brien, T.J., 1993. MFIX Documentation and Theory
Guide. DOE/METC-94/1004. NTIS DE94000087. Electronically Available at:
/http://www.mfix.org/documentation/Theory.pdfS.
Vaishalia, S., Roy, S., Mills, P.L., 2008. Hydrodynamic simulation of gas–solids
downflow reactors. Chemical Engineering Science 63, 5107.
Wang, Z.W., Bai, D.R., Jin, Y., 1992. Hydrodynamics of cocurrent downflow
circulating fluidized bed (CDCFB). Powder Technology 70, 271.
Zhang, Y., Reese, J., 2003. Gas turbulence modulation in a two-fluid model for gas–
solid flows. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 49, 3048.
Zhang, H., Zhu, J.X., 1999. Hydrodynamics in downflow fluidized beds. (1) Solids
concentration profiles and pressure gradient distributions. Chemical Engineer-
ing Science 54, 5461.
Zhu, J.X., Yu, Z.Q., Jin, Y., Grace, J.R., Issangya, A., 1995. Cocurrent downflow
circulating fluidized bed (downer) reactors—a state of the art review.
Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 73, 662.
Y.N. Kim et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 5365

and attempted to validate their model predictions by the experimental data published by Cheng et al. the algebraic formulation listed in Table B1 was used to calculate k12. In detail. 1996). and the gas phase turbulence was considered using a mixing-length model. The closure models proposed by Simonin (1996) were used in this study. The simulation results showed that the impact of gas phase turbulence is not significant but the counter-diffusive solid concentration term plays the dominant role in the prediction capability for the features of dense-ring flow structure. where u0mi ¼ umi ÀUmi is the fluctuational velocity component of the phase m (m¼1 for gas phase. evident differences could be found between the model predictions and the experimental data. 2002.42 m in height. 1996.N. It is noted that the assumption of perfect elastic collisions was used in the simulations and the experimental data on the solids friction at wall was adopted in the boundary conditions (BC).0005–0. Jian and Ocone (2003) proposed a reduced steady-state twofluid model based on KTGF for predicting the fully developed flow in downers.. Therefore. 1998. 1991. Additionally. Three mathematical models (see Table B1 in Appendix B) were compared to simulate a two-dimensional (2D) channel and a three-dimensional (3D) pipe. The dense-ring flow structure was observed in the time-averaged simulation results.. 2000.5358 Y. the second-order closure models should be used to model the second-order velocity moment S12ij as listed in Eq. Benyahia et al. Cheng et al. 2001). The fluid–particle velocity covariance k12 describes turbulent momentum transfer between the fluid phase and solid phase fluctuating motions..008–0.14 m in width and 0. The simulations are implemented in opensource software MFIX. 1996. In Benyahia et al. Peirano and Leckner. the gas and solid phases travel along the direction of gravity co-currently. both gas and particle phases are considered to be continuous and fully interpenetrating. (1999). Peirano et al.10 or 0. the PDE formulation (i. Mathematical model and simulation conditions In two-fluid model framework. as listed in Eqs. (A17)–(A26). Simonin. The model equations used in this study are summarized in Appendix A. The k1–e1–k2–k12 transient two-fluid model was found to be able to reproduce both the statics (bed height and probability density function of the spatial distribution of particles) and the dynamics (power spectrum of pressure fluctuations) of a cold circulating fluidized bed operated at low fluidization velocities (Peirano et al. The derivation of k12 transport equation is a direct application of kinetic theory of granular flow (KTGF) and of the models of fluid–particle interaction based on the quasi-isotropy assumption (Boussinesq approximation) (Peirano and Leckner. which has predictive capability over a wide variety of flow conditions. gas–particle interaction and effect of gravity. Vaishalia et al. 2002. a drift velocity is considered as the relative velocity to reflect the particle dissipation by the largescale fluid turbulent motion (Balzer et al. dp ¼70 mm) and air in fully developed region of downers is investigated by the k1–e1–k2–k12 transient two-fluid model. The transport properties of the solid phase are obtained by applying the kinetic theory of gases while taking into account the influence of the interstitial gas (Cao and Ahmadi. Ferschneider and Mege. it could be found that experimental data were close to the small or no friction limit. The idea of matching slip velocities and the trends thereof with solids fraction was emphasized as the key to developing a robust CFD model. Balzer. a platform developed by National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) (Syamlal et al. The 2D and 3D simulations for the fully developed regime using periodic boundaries in the streamwise direction were performed. For the flow is highly anisotropic. (1999. Within their model. 2 for particle phase). Also. while . the formation mechanisms of this unique flow structure are mainly due to particle–particle and particle–wall collisions. 2003). In the 2D channel and the 3D pipe. 1998).. Peirano and Leckner. (A13).. while in the C-model the PDE formulation was used with drift velocity. was coupled into the governing equations to determine k12. the specularity coefficients were empirically determined to be at range of 0. where a partial differential equation (PDE) formulation of the k12 transport equation is focused. (A7)) without drift velocity. In the A-model. the model has been used to predict the core-annulus structure and the existence of clusters in riser reasonably well with appropriate boundary conditions (BC) (Ferschneider and Mege. corresponding to specularity coefficients at range of 0.. which is given by an additional transport equation. 2. Peirano and Leckner. unrealistic sensitivity to the inelasticity of particle–particle collisions would be manifested and required to introduce terms to account for the effects of time-smoothing (Pita and Sundaresan. the flow of fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) catalyst (rs ¼ 1400 kg/m3. In the B-model. 2001. 2005). The equations describing gas–solid turbulent two-phase flow can be derived by conditional phase averaging method for the gas and the kinetic theory formalism for the discrete particles (Balzer et al. (2008) presented a Eulerian–Eulerian CFD model and carried out two-dimensional (2D) axi-symmetric unsteady simulations to investigate the radial flow structure in gas–solids downer under a framework of standard k–e model for the gas phase turbulence with a granular temperature conservation equation for the solid phase turbulence. Balzer et al.02. 1998). (2005)’s simulations of risers using Johnson and Jackson wall boundary conditions (as listed in Table A3).. the fluid–particle velocity covariance k12 is defined as k12 ¼ /u01i u02i S2 . 1996.003 due to the fact that the collisional angle between solid particles and the wall is relative small in gas–particle co-current downflows... while the boundary conditions are required to describe the collisional exchanges of momentum and kinetic energy between particles and wall. So. Eq. When the flow field is simulated by steady-state models. 1995. The model predictions are compared with the experimental and simulated results reported by Cheng et al. In the governing equations. the hydrodynamic model must take into account simultaneously the gas–particle and particle–particle interactions in the mean and fluctuating motions by entrainment and inter-particle collision mechanisms. combined with the boundary condition derived by Johnson and Jackson (1987). and some other key model assumptions. 1996. For downers in this study. On the other hand. it is preferable to use an unsteady model to investigate hydrodynamics in downers. which might be caused by assuming 2D axi-symmetric flow. 1998). However.. neglecting the interaction between the fluctuating fields of gas phase and solid phase. Kim et al. Benyahia et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 influence of the wall effect on the gas–solids flows in vertical pipes. 2001) described the influence of the reactor wall on the hydrodynamics through an empirical radial function of the coefficient of restitution. and Umi ¼ /umi Sm represents the mean velocity component of the phase m defined by the conditional volumetric phase average /Sm . The approach used in this study is a k1–e1–k2–k12 transient two-fluid model developed by Simonin’s group (Balzer et al.e. Zhang and Reese. The 2D vertical channel was 0. The dense-ring flow structure is a time-averaged result of the transient cluster phenomena inherently existing in downers as well as the core-annulus structure in risers. the inter-particle cohesive force for solid phase was taken into account by modifying the solid stress tensor via the introduction of a counter-diffusive term. (1999). 1993). 2007).

which is similar to the observations in the 3D downer simulations.10 m in diameter) by the C-model are compared with the experimental data reported by Zhang and Zhu (1999) at two different operating conditions. 1(b)).0005 0. which is mainly caused by the spatial difference between the flat channel and the cylindrical pipe.95 0. followed by the B-model and then the C-model. Results and discussion Fig. the particle density is 1400 kg/m3. the predicted profiles by the C-model show better agreement with the experimental data than the ones by the k–e–Y–kp model. data (Cheng et al. 2000). (a) dp ¼70 mm. the cross-sectional averaged solid volume fractions are 0.90 0. For the case of dp ¼300 mm (see Fig. respectively. Parameters Process temperature (K) Process pressure (kPa) Air density (kg/m3) Particle diameter (mm) Particle density (kg/m3) Inter-particle coefficient of restitution Particle–wall coefficient of restitution Specularity coefficient 2D channel 298 101.14m) Ug = 4.2 0. Gs = 70 kg/m2s dp = 300 μm A-model B-model C-model 0.01 m2/s2 and 0.33 m/s. it can be seen that the spatial distributions of solids volume fraction are different among the three models.Y.02 α2 0.33 m/s. with a major consideration of the different particle–wall collision probability. Fig. B-model. 1999) 0. the predicted peak by the A-model is apparently higher than the ones by the B-model and C-model.90 0.14 m in diameter and 0. 2(a)).7). Kim et al.4 r/R 0. Gs = 70 kg/m2s dp = 70 μm A-model B-model C-model Expt. The similar trends can be observed with the simulation results of the 3D downer. The model predictions have good agreements with the simulation results by the k–e–Y–kp model and the experiment data. 1(a). 2 shows the time-averaged local solids volume fractions in the 2D channel (0. e. downer appear at a radial location closer to the wall than the ones in 2D channel with the same size.01 0.0114 from the experiments. 1(a) and (b) indicate that the gas turbulence will take apparent effect on the particle phase when the particle size is small as 70 mm but much smaller effect when the particle size is large as 300 mm.003 3D downer 298 101. the particle diameter is 67 mm. The specularity coefficient was set 0. It is noted that the A-model is obtained from the B-model with the assumptions of homogeneous/stationary two-phase turbulence and Zr b1 (i. However. predicted by the three different models mentioned in Section 2. and the solid circulation rate is 101 kg/ m2/s.8 1. Time-averaged local solid volume fraction in the 3D downer simulation. the predicted local solids volume fraction and particle velocity in a downer (0. Corresponding to the case of dp ¼70 mm as shown in Fig..6 0... The highest peak is predicted by A-model.4 r/R 0.00 0. almost no difference could be found among the predictions by the three models.00 0.10 or 0. the initial conditions were uniform flow fields. Fig. which shows that the inter-phase exchange of the kinetic turbulence energy and the particle energy dissipation by the large-scale fluid turbulent motion could not be neglected. for the case of dp ¼300 mm (see Fig.02 α2 0.7 m/s. 1 shows the time-averaged local solid volume fractions in the 3D downer (0. which did not include the initial 5 s for the sufficient development of the gas– solids flows. For further validation. The initial granular temperature was 0.. the particle motion is slightly affected by the gas turbulence). at two kinds of operating conditions. i.003 for 2D case but 0.325 1. predicted by the three different models. uniform solid volume fraction and monotonically increasing particle velocity along radial direction in the central region (r/R at the range of 0–0.2 70.14 m in diameter).2 0. while the corresponding . small differences could be found among the predicted profiles by the three models. 1.0 3D downer (D=0. 0. The differences between Fig. In the simulations.14 m in width).95 0.03 the 3D vertical pipe (i.2 70. Also. downer) was 0. 3 plots the profiles of local solid volume fraction and particle velocity from current 3D predictions by the C-model. 300 1400 0.e. 2(b)). The summary of the parameters used in simulations is listed in Table 1. (1999) but the predictions by C-model look a little better. (b) dp ¼300 mm.. together with the simulation results by the k–e–Y–kp model and the experimental data (Cheng et al.0 0. The peaks in the 3D 0.325 1. 1999. For the case of Ug ¼3.01 0.e.0167 from the model prediction and 0. A-model.0 Fig. All the model predictions show good agreement with the experimental data reported by Cheng et al. For the case of dp ¼70 mm (see Fig.6 0..e. and C-model.N.14m) Ug = 4.0005 for 3D case.0 3. All the time-averaged variables were evaluated from the transient simulation results over a period of 20 s.28 m in height. 300 1400 0. For all the simulation cases in this work.03 3D downer (D=0.1 m2/s2 and the gas turbulent energy and dissipation were set at 0.g. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 5359 Table 1 Parameters used in the simulations. respectively.1 m2/s2.8 1. The grid sensitivity was tested and the grid systems of 80  160 (x  y) for 2D cases and 30  120  9 (r  y  y) for 3D cases were finally used.

0 vs.00 0. data Model Prediction (Cheng et al. and so forth.e.8 1.4 r/R 0. 3.7 vs.04 Downer (D=0. 2. Gs = 108 kg/m2s Expt.0 6 0. gas–solid drag force calculation). uniform particle diameter distribution).6 0.33 m/s. either from the model predictions or the experimental data as shown in Fig.2 0.. and Gs ¼70 kg/m2s.10 m/s and Gs ¼ 108 kg/m2s.02 0.g. the dense-ring flow structure (i. Despite of the observed differences. the experimental errors..03 Ug = 6.14m) 0.7 m/s to 7.6 0. When the gas velocity is raised from 3. Gs = 70 kg/m2s dp = 70 μm A-model B-model C-model 0. respectively.g. When the superficial gas velocity. Comparison of local solid volume fraction and particle velocity between the 3D model predictions and the experimental data reported by Cheng et al. (a) solid volume fraction at Ug ¼ 4.33 m/s. the force due to gravity.03 2D channel (W=0. Gs = 70 kg/m2s dp = 300 μm A-model B-model C-model 0. 7. Gs = 70 kg/m2s Expt. in balance with the driving force.2 m/s.14m) Ug = 4. the gas phase in downers acts resisting force on particles. For the case of Ug ¼7. and (c) particle velocity at Ug ¼ 4..2 vs. In the case of Ug ¼3.0100 vs. 0.0 0. (a) dp ¼70 mm.01 0. the radial non-uniformity of particle phase could be clearly illustrated by the profiles of normalized local solid volume fraction and particle velocity.2 m/s.7 m/s.2 0.0 resisting effect of gas phase on the particles decreases relatively. Fig.03 Ug = 4. the peak in the profile) is predicted to disappear as the experimental findings by Zhang and Zhu (1999).. particle restitution and specularity coefficients).0 5 4 Vp (m/s) 3 Downer (D=0. the Ug = 4.6 0. The model predictions show about 40% larger solids volume fraction but about 20–40% smaller particle velocity than the reported experimental data based on the cross-sectional average.4 x/( W) 0.1999) Model Prediction (C-model) 0.8 1.8 1. 9.1999) Model Prediction (C-model) 0. 2000).0 m/s for the cases of experiments at Ug of 3.8 1.4 r/R 0.33 m/s.02 α2 α2 0.0 0.. Time-averaged local solid volume fraction in the 2D channel simulation.. 2. the key sub-models (e. data Model Prediction (Cheng et al. (b) solid volume fraction at Ug ¼6. increases. i.0 0.. Kim et al.03 2D channel (W=0. 4.00 0. Due to the relatively strong gas-to-particles resisting effect and .2 0.N.33 m/s.8 1.14m) 2 1 0 0.0 0.7 m/s.5360 Y..4 r/R Fig. 2000) Model Prediction (C-model) 0.33 m/s and Gs ¼ 70 kg/m2s.e.3 m/s for the cases of model predictions and 4.01 0.01 0.0 0.33 m/s.00 0.14m) Ug = 4.04 Downer (D=0. which is probably due to the model assumptions (e. Gs = 70 kg/m2s Expt. cross-sectional averaged particle velocities are 4. Different from the force balance on particles in the fully developed region in risers. data Model Prediction (Cheng et al. (b) dp ¼300 mm.0071.6 0. 0.2 0. the dense-ring flow structure has been observed near the wall.4 x/( W) 0.2 m/s. Ug.0 0.0 0.10 m/s.00 0. (1999.2 m/s.6 0.5 vs.9 and 7.01 0.14m) 0.2 0. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 0. the cross-sectional averaged solid volume fraction is 0. the key model parameters (e. which could be explained by the mechanism of cluster formation as follows.02 α2 α2 0.g. while the cross-sectional averaged particle velocity is 7. which could be illustrated by the cross-sectional averaged particle–gas slip velocity of 1.02 0.

4 r/R Fig. However.0 0.0 0. (a) gas turbulence kinetic energy. which is operated at Gs ¼70 kg/m2s.5 1. undergoing a reverse tendency of radial migration.Y.2 0.6 0.2 m/s.7 7.0 0. 5.0 0.2 Vp Vp 1. particle turbulence kinetic energy. the time-averaged solid volume fraction in this region is raised from below the cross-sectional average to beyond the average value. 5(c).5 Downer (D=0.6 0. The systematic and quantitative 0.2 m/s and Gs ¼101 kg/m2s.0 0. 0. the particles in the wall region tend to migrate toward the central region.0 0.8 1.0 0. 5(c). Comparison of normalized local solid volume fraction and particle velocity between the 3D model predictions and the experimental data reported by Zhang and Zhu (1999).0 0.7 m/s to 7.d.2 0.0 Fig.8 D=0. (b) particle turbulence kinetic energy. particle velocity.2 0.6 0.7 7. The above two factors coexist and lead to more frequent formation and residence of clusters in near wall region.0 1.10m) Expt.10m) Expt.0 0.2 0.0 0. corresponding to a transition of fluid– particle velocity covariance (k12). Radial profiles of turbulence kinetic energy at different superficial gas velocity in the 3D model predictions.14 m i.2m/s) Model Prediction 0.4 0.).8 1.0 0. and fluid– particle velocity covariance at different superficial gas velocity in the downer (0. data (Ug=3. corresponding to higher k12 as shown in Fig.4 r/R 0.6 0. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 5361 1. 5(b)) and pushing the particles away from the wall. 6 shows the radial profiles of solid volume fraction.0 α2 α 2 2.4 r/R 1. .2 m/s (see Figs.N.0 1.0 gas–solids interaction in the central region.0 0.5 k2 (m2/s2) Downer (D=0.5 0. corresponding to much lower k12 in central region but close value in wall region compared with the case of Ug ¼3. and (c) fluid–particle velocity covariance.0 Vp Vp 0.4 r/R 0.1 0.0 0. in the case of Ug ¼7. and (b) Ug ¼ 7. the particle turbulent kinetic energy will be produced through particle–wall friction as considered in current C-model with a given value of the specularity coefficient (f) in the Johnson– Jackson boundary condition. 1999).7 7.2 Ug (m/s) 3.4 0. On the other hand.2 0.0 0.1 0.7m/s) Model Prediction 0.2 0. due to the greatly reduced gas-to-particles resisting effect and gas–solids interaction in central region.6 0.8 1. investigations on the influence of parameters on the dense-ring flow structure in downers are still an important and interesting issue in the further work. therefore the appearance of the dense-ring flow structure.7 m/s and Gs ¼101 kg/m2s. 5(a) and (b)).2 Ug (m/s) 3.8 1. respectively) in the central region increase evidently when Ug is raised from 3. 4.7 m/s as shown in Fig.10m Gs=101kg/(m2s) k12(m2/s2) 0.5 k1 (m2/s2) 2. Although the turbulence kinetic energies of the gas phase and particle phase (k1 and k2. data (Ug=7. the particles in the central region tend to migrate toward the wall region.8 1. Under free slip boundary condition.10m Gs=101kg/(m2s) 0. The introduced particle–wall friction results in an increasing particle turbulent kinetic energy near the wall (see Fig. (a) Ug ¼ 3.0 0.3 D=0. Kim et al.0 0.6 0. Fig. the maximum of solid volume fraction appears at the wall (Zhang and Zhu.10m Gs=101kg/(m2s) Ug (m/s) 3.3 D=0.4 r/R 0.2 α2 α 2 1.5 1.2 0.4 1.

Radial profiles of solid volume fraction.4 r/R 0.0 0.33 to 6.06 0.6 0.14 0.33 m/s 0. The simulation results for scale-up characteristics are close to the ones predicted by the k–e–Y–kp model (Cheng et al.04 0.8 1.N.14m Ug=4.14 0. and fluid–particle velocity covariance.03 0. 0.4 r/R 0.10m/s D=0. 7(a).0 0.33m/s Ug=6.0 D=0. To evaluate the influence of gas turbulence on fluid dynamics of gas–solid flows in dower.0 Ug = 4. 1999). D ¼ 0.05 Ug = 4. PDE-type model either without or with drift velocity (B-model or C-model..0 Fig.8 1.4 r/R 0.2 0. 6(a).33 m/s Gs = 70 kg/m2s D (m) 0.00 0.10m/s α2 0. as shown in Fig. which could be supported by the similar radial distributions of particle velocity. 6(b)–(d).02 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.8 1.2 0.33m/s Ug=6.02 0. as shown in Fig.2 0.33m/s Ug=6.0 0. Conclusions The k1–e1–k2–k12 transient two-fluid model developed by Simonin’s group had been adopted in the present work to predict the dense-ring characteristics in 2D and 3D gas–solids downers by considering the influence of gas turbulence on the flow behavior of small size particles.01 0. For the case of Gs ¼70 kg/m2s. respectively. 7. respectively).02 0.0 0.04 0.08 k2 (m2/s2) 0.02 0. . The peak of solid volume fraction is evident and a bit far from the disappearance of dense-ring flow structure. i.08 0.04 0.05 0.0 Fig.14m Ug=4.2 0.12 0.16 k12 (m2/s2) 0.6 0. The predicted radial profiles of solid volume fraction in the downers with different diameter by C-model are plotted in Fig.10m/s 0. Gs ¼ 70 kg/m2s. (a) model predictions in this study.2 0.8 1.20 0.00 0.2 0.04 Gs = 70 kg/m2s D (m) 0.6 0. When the downer diameter is small as 70 mm.50 When the diameter of the downer is enlarged from 0.14 m.0 D=0. particle turbulence kinetic energy and fluid–particle velocity covariance at different superficial gas velocity in the 3D model predictions.0 10 8 Vp (m/s) 6 4 2 0 0.6 0.10 0.04 0.8 1. the turbulence energy interaction between gas and particles was taken into account by a PDE (partial differential equation) formulation of the k12 transport equation together with a drift velocity. Radial profiles of solid volume fraction in the downers with different diameter.07 0.14m Ug=4.00 0.14m Ug=4.8 1.14 m. the dense-ring flow structure still sustains when the superficial gas velocity is increased from 4.09 0. and (b) model predictions by Cheng et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 0.5362 Y. 6. Kim et al.6 0.4 r/R 0.10m/s D=0. the 3D model predictions using different approaches of the k1–e1–k2–k12 two-fluid model. particle turbulence kinetic energy..10 m to 0. 0.4 r/R 0. the transitional gas velocity at which the dense-ring flow structure disappears will be increased for a given solid flux.6 0. as shown in Fig.00 0.01 0.10 m/s except that the solid volume fraction is decreased.0 0. particle velocity. the radial distribution of time-averaged solid volume fraction in the fully developed region in the downer is relatively uniform.4 r/R 0.07 0. 0.33m/s Ug=6.09 0. 7(b). (2000). algebraic type model (A-model).03 α2 4.03 α2 0. Within the proposed model.e.

1/s S12ij fluid–particle strain-rate tensor. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 5363 were compared with each other. The governing equations. wall Nomenclature Cm . m2/s3 dissipation of solids fluctuating energy due to interparticle collisions. (2005) model was used in most of this study. m2/s2 t K2 conductivity of solids turbulent energy.8 m/s2) g0 radial distribution function at contact Imi momentum exchange. respectively dp particle diameter. the model predictions were compared with the reported experimental data (Cheng et al. The Johnson and Jackson (1987) wall boundary condition was used for the particle phase. 1.42 bulk viscosity in the solids phase. 1. m turbulent energy dissipation in the gas phase. m/s Uri mean relative velocity.92. m2/s3 dissipation term in the k12 equation. s Eddy-particle interaction time scale. m/s Ug superficial gas velocity. m/s Udi drift velocity. 2000. m/s uri local instantaneous relative velocity. 20976091 and no. Also. Appendix A The gas–solids flow models used in this study are summarized in this appendix. Kim et al. m2/s3 ratio between Lagrangian and particle relaxation time scales specularity coefficient Von Karmen constant with value: 0. m Acknowledgment This work is financially supported by NSFC under the Grants of no. m/s Umi mean velocity of phase m. 1. C2e . Pa Smij mean strain-rate tensor. especially for formation and disappearance of the dense-ring flow structure at different operating conditions. kg/m/s turbulent eddy viscosity for phase m. j. Benyahia et al. 1999. Continuity equation for phase m (m ¼1 for gas phase. m/s u0ri fluctuating relative phase velocity. m2/s turbulent kinematic viscosity for phase m. m2/s turbulence exchange terms density of phase m. 1999) for the hydrodynamics and showed good agreement with the experimental data and findings. Using the presented C-model. m Dt binary dispersion coefficient. k m max kin r s. 2 for particle phase) @ @ (A1) @t ðam rm Þ þ @xi ðam rm Umi Þ ¼ 0 P am ¼ 1 (A2) m Momentum equation for phase m P h i @ am rm @Umi þ Umi @Umi ¼ Àam @P1 þ @xjmij þ Imi þ am rm gi @t @xj @xi Modified k–e turbulence model for the gas phase h i   t @ a1 r1 @k1 þ U1j @k1 ¼ @xi a1 m1 @k1 þ a1 S1ij @Uji þ Pk1 Àa1 r1 e1 @t @xj sk @xi @x h i     mt @e1 @e1 @e1 e1 @ 1 a1 r1 @t þ U1j @xj ¼ @xi a1 se @xi þ a1 k1 C1e S1ij @U1i Àr1 C2e e1 þ Pe1 @xj k2–k12 turbulence model for the particle phase h i   @ t a2 r2 @k2 þ U2j @k2 ¼ @xi a2 r2 K2 @k2 þ a2 r2 S2ij @U2i þ Pk2 Àa2 r2 e2 @t @xj @xi @xj !   nt @k @k @k @ a2 r2 12 þ U2j 12 ¼ a2 r2 12 12 @xi @t @xj sk @xi   @U2i @U1j þ þ Pk12 Àa2 r2 e12 þ a2 r2 S12ij @xj @xi (A3) (A4) (A5) (A6) (A7) . 20806045. constitutive relations and wall boundary conditions are briefly summarized in Tables A1–A3. se volume fraction of phase m drag coefficient width of computational cell next to the wall.44. am Cd Dx e1 e12 e2 Zr f k l2 mt 1 nt 12 nt 2 P rm y Ys s1ij sk . p w collisional drift indices used to represent spatial direction and in Einstein summation convention phase m. N/m3 km turbulent kinetic energy of phase m. kg/m3 angle between mean particle velocity and mean relative velocity granular temperature equal to 2k2/3 viscous stress tensor of phase m.0. and 1. C1e . Greek letters Appendix B See Table B1 for more details. kg/m/s fluid–particle turbulent viscosity. m/s x location. s energetic turbulent eddies time scale.2.N. Pa constants in the gas turbulence model with values: 1.. s umi local instantaneous velocity.3. Smij tx 12 tt 12 tx 1 effective stress tensor. respectively Table A1 Governing equations for gas–solids flows. the mechanism for formation and disappearance of the densering flow structure and the scale-up characteristics of downers were discussed. s Subscripts col d i. The simulation results showed that the particles of small size as 70 mm in diameter apparently interact with the gas turbulence. m2/s2 k12 fluid–particle velocity covariance. Dr.Y. Zhang and Zhu. m2/s 12 e coefficient of restitution for particle–particle collision ew coefficient of restitution for particle–wall collision g gravity constant ( ¼9.09. taking values 1 and 2 for gas and solids phases maximum packing kinetic relative solids or particulate phase. Pa particle relaxation time scale. respectively. Yi Cheng would like to thank the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in universities (NCET). C3e constants in the gas turbulence model with values: 0. 1/s t time. m2/s Pm pressure of phase m.

Cheng.J.. Cb ¼ 1:8À1:35 cos2 ðyÞ. Y.. C.. Mege. 259. Udi   1 1 Udi ¼ /u01i S2 ¼ Dt a1 @a1 À a2 @a2 12 @xi @xi (Simonin et al.. Y... tx 12 8 r C < 3 r1 dd aÀ1:7 /9ur 9Sa2 if a2 o 0:2 4 2 p 1 1  à tx ¼ : r1 a 150 þ 1:75 1 /9u 9S if a Z 0:2 12 r 2 Re 2 r dp 2 A Dirichlet wall boundary condition for k1. Fundamentals of turbulent gas-solid flows applied to circulating fluidized bed combustion. A.. B¼ 1 5 ð1 þ eÞð3ÀeÞ Solids collisional viscosity  qffiffiffiffiffiffi ncol ¼ 4 a2 g0 ð1 þ eÞ nkin þ dp 2k2 2 2 3p 5 Solids bulk viscosity (A20) l2 ¼ 5 a2 r2 ncol 2 3 Solids granular conductivity t kin col K2 ¼ K2 þ K2 (A21) (A22) Solids kinetic turbulent conductivity À1 Â9 Ã 9 x kin K2 ¼ 2 10 k12 Zr þ k2 ð1 þ $c a2 g0 Þ 5tx þ tcc 3 12 2 (A23) $c ¼ 2 1 100 ð1 þ eÞ ð2eÀ1Þ Solids collisional turbulent conductivity  qffiffiffiffiffiffi col kin K2 ¼ 6 a2 g0 ð1 þ eÞ K2 þ 5 dp 2k2 Þ 5 9 3p The radial distribution function  1=3 !À1 g0 ¼ 1À ga2 max 2 (A24) (A25) Constants in k–e model sk . Y.I.Y. W.. S. Y. 1999... 0:09. Applied Scientific Research 51. Wei. R. J. Chemical Engineering Science 54. 432–439...C. 1996.. Guo.. Minier. Boelle. (A7) with Udi ¼ 0 Solving Eq. 1999. F... Journal 53. Cheng. C2e . 1993) Dt ¼ 1 k12 tt ... Almstedt.. 2003. O. O’Brien. Wei. 1987. B. Lin. Chemical Engineering Science 56. W. G. G. se . 1989) Reynolds stress terms   S1ij ¼ 2mt S1ij À 2 dij r1 k1 þ mt @U1k 1 1 @xk 3  2 @U1j @U1i 1 mt ¼ r1 Cm k1 1 @x þ @xi . China.. k12 w ¼ 0 (A10) Table B1 Description of differences for three models used in this study.P.or three-dimensional simulations of turbulent gas–solid flows applied to fluidization. CFD simulation of hydrodynamics in the entrance region of a downer. Benyahia.. Wei. In: Kwauk. turbulent gas/solids flows in a pipe. Sundaresan.. 275. Leckner.. Cheng. 1:44. E... Evaluation of boundary conditions used to model dilute. G.... 2002.I. Y. Y. 299. (Eds. 1999) r Formulation of particle relaxation time scale. cos2 ðyÞ ¼ 12 2 1 þ Cb xr t Table A3 Wall boundary conditions. applications and limitations. Circulating Fluidized Bed V. Science Press. A. nt ¼ ðk12 tt Þ=3 x 12 12 @xj i 12 References Balzer. Jin.. J. O’Brien. F. Powder Technology 156. Inter-phase momentum exchange terms I2i ¼ ÀI1i ¼ Àðða2 r2 Uri Þ=tx Þ 12 Uri ¼ U2i ÀU1i ÀUdi Formulation of drift velocity..). J.N. Cheng. Y. Pita. 329.. Simonin. respectively (A26) .C.X.C. Ferschneider. 1:3. J. Lavieville. Study of the ability of multiphase continuum models to predict core-annulus flow. 1687. 1991. Delloume.. P. 2005) 1=4 1=4  r1 kU1 C1m k1=2 r1 C1m k1=2 Dx @U1  1 1 xn ¼ @x w ¼ ðm þ mt ÞlnðExn Þ . pp. T. 1987) For particle velocity pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  ffiffi k2 nt @U2 w þ fpU2 g0 2p2=3max ¼ 0 2 @x 3a 2 (A28) Ur U2 9Ur 99U2 9 For fluctuation energy pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffi  2 fpU2 g  3pg0 ð1Àe2 Þð2=3k2 Þ3=2 t w ffiffi 2=3k ¼0 K2 @k2  À 2p0 amax 2 þ @x 4amax 3 w 2 2 (A29) (A30) x2 ¼ ðð3Ur Ur Þ=2k1 Þ (Enwald and Almstedt. Continuum modeling of dispersed two-phase flows. Enwald. F. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 21. Powder Technology 138. O. 2001) 12 3 1 þ Zr 1 þ Zr   tt @U ^ S12ij ¼ S12ij ÀS12mm ðdij =3Þ. 2019. A.. Frictional–collisional constitutive relations for granular materials with application to plane shearing. S12ij ¼ @U1i þ @x2j . H. Balzer. Two. 1–47.. Y. Von Karman Institute of Fluid Dynamics Lecture Series. Simonin. Kim et al.. 12 12 3 t1 tt ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi .. 2549. Ahmadi. E. Jackson. Ocone. pp. Re ¼ a1 /9ur 9Sdp =n1 Re qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Uri Uri þ /u0ri u0ri S2 . G. Modeling the hydrodynamics of downer reactors based on kinetic theory. 2 e12 ¼ k12 t t 12 Other closure models Solids pressure P2 ¼ 2 a2 r2 k2 ½1 þ 2a2 g0 ð1 þ eފ 3 Solids shear viscosity (A17) nt ¼ nkin þ ncol 2 2 2 Solids kinetic viscosity À1  Ã nkin ¼ 2 k12 Zr þ k2 ð1 þ zc a2 g0 Þ t2 þ tBc x 2 3 12 2 (A18) (A19) zc ¼ 2 5 ð1 þ eÞð3eÀ1Þ. R. 62. Cm . e1 jw ¼ 0. Gas phase wall boundary condition (Benyahia et al. M. 2005. Dilute gas–solid flow in a riser. Simonin. 2001.5364 Y. Chemical Engineer Science 54. 2001. (A7) B-model C-model Solving Eq. 1995.. 364. Eulerian prediction of the fluid/particle correlated motion in turbulent two-phase flows. Wei. 1993. Leckner. e1 and k12   k1 w ¼ 0. Computational fluid dynamic modeling of hydrodynamics in downer reactors... J.E. Gas–solid flow in vertical tubes. Turbulence interaction terms  à Pk1 ¼ a2 r2 t1 k12 À2k1 þ ðU2i ÀU1i ÞUdi . Li. Powder Technology 113. e j    2 @U2k @U t S2ij ¼ n2 S2ij À dij À P2 Àl2 2k dij 3 @xk @xk   @U S2ij ¼ 1 @U2i þ @x2j 2 @xj i S1ij ¼ 1 2 Major assumptions Homogeneous and stationary two-phase turbulence in the case of very massive particle Neglected effect of drift velocity Full consideration of the fluctuations of fluid velocity  S12ij ¼ (A13) 1 Zr 1 ^ ^ k12 dij À 2S1ij À nt S12ij (Peirano et al.. 1203..J.. 67.. 2m 1 1 1 (A8) (A27) (A9) Particle phase wall boundary conditions (Johnson and Jackson. Guo. Wu. Model name Calculation method of k12 A-model (A11) (A12) Solving the ‘‘algebraic’’ formulation.. 2000. 344 (in Chinese).. Powder Technology 183. (A7) 2Zr ðk1 þ X12 k2 Þ 1 þ ð1 þ X12 ÞZr Cd ¼ /9ur 9S ¼ à 24  1 þ 0:15Re0:687 .. 2000. A. Y. 2007.N. Downer reactor: from fundamental study to industrial application. A unifying modelling approach for the numerical prediction of dilute and dense gas–solid flow. 2008. 1:92 and 1:2. Jin. J. S. Peirano. 4787.. Deutsch. Chemical Engineering Science 56. 1009. Fluid dynamics of a pressurized fluidized bed: comparison between numerical solutions from two-fluid models and experimental results. In: Combustion and Turbulence in Two-Phase Flows. C1e . Progress in Energy Combustion Science 24. E. x 12 e Pe1 ¼ C3e k1 Pk1 1 (A14) (A15) Pk2 ¼ Àa2 r2 t1 ð2k2 Àk12 Þ x 12 Pk12 ¼ Àa2 r2 t1 ð1 þ X21 Þk12 Àk1 À2X21 k2 .. J. Modelling the hydrodynamics of gas–solid suspension in downers. Lin.. Peirano. Guo. k12 ¼ instead of Eq.Ch. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 Table A2 Constitutive relations for gas–solids flows. Zr ¼ t12 .. Gas–solid flow modelling based on the kinetic theory of granular media: validation.. Syamlal. Gas–particle two-phase turbulent flow in a vertical duct. Jin. Syamlal. Johnson. Beijing. T. M. Zheng. 41. Benyahia.A. Y.Y. Journal of Chemical Industry and Engineering (China) 51.E. /u0ri u0ri S2 ¼ 2ðk1 þ k2 Àk12 Þ (Sinclair and Jackson. S.E.. 73. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 176. X21 ¼ x 12  à a2 r2 a1 r1 ¼ 1 X12 (A16) e2 ¼ 1 ð1Àe2 Þ 3 t c k2 . C3e ¼ 1:0.Ch. Zhu.C. Y. O. V. Y... B.. H. Cao. F. 1998. Jian. Jin. P.. Chemical Engineering Journal 87. Journal 37. 1996.

O’Brien. J. Journal 35.R.L..L. 1473.E.I.E. Zhu.X. MFIX Documentation and Theory Guide. 1989. Syamlal. Chemical Engineering Science 63.. A. 1993. Hydrodynamics in downflow fluidized beds. 271. Y. 1995. Z. Zhang. Zhang. Powder Technology 70. Grace. Wang. 2003. M. 662. (1) Solids concentration profiles and pressure gradient distributions.N. Kim et al. Vaishalia. .W. Zhu. S. Z. 5107.. Bai.. DOE/METC-94/1004. Roy. Jin. Gas turbulence modulation in a two-fluid model for gas– solid flows.X. T. Rogers. Y.J. J.. Hydrodynamics of cocurrent downflow circulating fluidized bed (CDCFB).A. Electronically Available at: /http://www.. J. 2008. R.I. J. NTIS DE94000087. Reese. Jackson. 5461. A.Y.. Yu. 1999. Cocurrent downflow circulating fluidized bed (downer) reactors—a state of the art review..Ch. 1992.R..Ch. J. Y.. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 73.. H. Chemical Engineering Science 54. A. S....Q. P. 3048.. Mills.. Hydrodynamic simulation of gas–solids downflow reactors. Jin. Gas–particle flow in a vertical pipe with particle– particle interactions... Journal 49.. W.org/documentation/Theory. D. Issangya.. / Chemical Engineering Science 66 (2011) 5357–5365 5365 Sinclair.mfix.pdfS.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful