## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**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 Â 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 (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 Â 160 (x Â y) for 2D cases and 30 Â 120 Â 9 (r Â y Â 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 Â Ã 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 eÞ 3 Solids shear viscosity (A17) nt ¼ nkin þ ncol 2 2 2 Solids kinetic viscosity À1 Â 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 Â Ã 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 Ã 24 Â 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 Â Ã 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.

- Permeability of textile reinforcements fast prediction and validation
- Bulb Gap Analysys
- My book on design
- ANSYS CFX usermanual
- Numerical Investigation of Heat Transfer from Two Different Cylinders in Tandem Varieties Arrangements
- Multiphase Flow (Chp. 3)
- CFM Partha New
- obj1
- Assessing Explosion Hazards in Gas Turbine Enclosures
- Improvement of Prandtl Mixing Length Theory and Application in Modeling Of
- Lecture 1 TGS2015A New Theory Turbulence CLiu June 2015N
- 179015737 Cfd Analysis of 2 Phase Fcfd Analysis of 2 Phase Flowlow PDF
- Kompendium Turb
- Experimental Evaluation of Electrolyte Flow Pattern in ECM Tool Using CFD Analysis
- Performance Improvement of S-Shaped Diffuser Using Suction and Blowing Methods
- Euler and Navier Stokes Inverse Problem Studies of Airfoil by Genetic Algorithm
- Sallybus
- IJEE_00_v7n5
- IC CFD Analysis
- Hole Cleaning 2 - SPE-143675-MS
- thermal lec5.doc
- MSc Thesis
- DDA Book 10 Numerical Models
- TSFP5_Munich_hauet
- Geometry for Fluid Dynamics
- Assessment of Sting Effect on X-31 Aircraft Model Using CFD
- Program Schedule - Updated on 1 Dec 2014
- ZHAO_2007_Lattice Boltzmann Simulation of Dense Gas Flows in Microchannels
- MARINE 2011, IV International Conference on Computational Methods in Marine Engineering
- Performance prediction and computation of slamming loads on a planing craft using RANSE method

- tmpCFAB
- tmpA422.tmp
- Understanding the Effects of Riverine Forces on Eels- DHI Case Story DE
- An Overview of Vortex Tube on CFD with Straight and Helical Nozzle
- NASA Facts ACLAIM Airborn Coherant LIDAR for Advanced in-Flight Measurement
- tmp7E6C.tmp
- CFD Analysis of Convergent-Divergent Nozzle using Standard K-ÃŽâ€¢ Model
- tmp6BEE
- tmpA063.tmp
- Comparative Assessment of Aerodynamic Forces Generated Due to Wind Deflector of Passenger Car by CFD and Experimental Method
- tmpFAEF.tmp
- Tmp 2924
- John J. Magan v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 339 F.3d 158, 2d Cir. (2003)
- Investigation On Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Simulation for Wind Effects On Tall Tapered Buildings
- 090610_mandelbrot
- tmp734D
- Computational Study of Turbulent Flow around a Generic Car Body (Ahmed BODY)

- WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL LTD 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-24
- As NZS 5601.1-2010 Gas Installations General Installations
- Engineering Energy
- Will Natural Gas Fuel America in the 21st Century?
- Art Berman's Last World Oil Column
- Design, Construction and Maintenance of a Biogas Generator
- Natural Gas Pricing and Its Future
- There's A Lot of Life in Oil and Natural Gas
- CONOCOPHILLIPS 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-25
- An Elementary Study of Chemistry by Henderson, William Edwards
- CSG Water Management Plan
- Joe Aulston and Lola Aulston v. United States of America, and Shell Western E & P, Intervenors-Appellees, 915 F.2d 584, 10th Cir. (1990)
- Strengthening Our Economy
- Consumers-Energy-Co-Standard---------Forms-3802-through-3830
- Effect of Atmospheric Air Pressure Plasma on Polyester Fabric meant for Transfer Printing
- Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 258 U.S. 234 (1922)
- Gainesville-Regional-Utilities-Residential-Rates
- As 4553-2008 Gas Space Heating Appliances
- Reliant-Energy-Retail-Services-LLC-Cap-and-Save-12-Plan---24/7-customer-service
- City of Farmington v. Amoco Gas Company, 777 F.2d 554, 10th Cir. (1985)
- Skelly Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission, 532 F.2d 177, 10th Cir. (1976)
- Phillips Petroleum Company v. Federal Power Commission, Phillips Petroleum Company v. Federal Power Commission, 227 F.2d 470, 10th Cir. (1955)
- Pacific-Gas-and-Electric-Co-Gas-Service-To-Small-Commercial-Customers-
- Porto Rico Gas & Coke Co. v. Frank Rullan & Associates, Inc. Frank Rullan & Associates, Inc. v. United States. United States v. Foard, 189 F.2d 397, 1st Cir. (1951)
- Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Charles A. Brecheisen, 323 F.2d 79, 10th Cir. (1963)
- White Paper Potential HVHF Revenue Streams[3]
- Untitled
- Why Russia’s Economic Leverage is Declining
- United Gas Co. v. Mobile Gas Corp., 350 U.S. 332 (1956)
- Black-Hills/Colorado-Elec.Utility-Co.-LP-Tariffs,-Rules-and-Regulations

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading