Received: 12 December 2021 Revised: 3 March 2022 Accepted: 8 March 2022

DOI: 10.1002/cjce.24489

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Numerical simulation of homogeneous fluidization

behaviour of Geldart Group A particles in gas tapered
fluidized beds

Mansureh Kia Lashaki1 | Javad Sayyad Amin1 | Sohrab Zendehboudi2

1
Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
2
Faculty of Engineering and Applied
Science, Memorial University, St. John’s,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
Correspondence
Sohrab Zendehboudi, Faculty of
Engineering and Applied Science,
Memorial University, St. John’s, NL
Canada.
Email: szendehboudi@mun.ca
Javad Sayyad Amin, Department of
Chemical Engineering, University of
Guilan, Rasht, Iran.
Email: sayyadamin@guilan.ac.ir
Abstract
A two-dimensional gas–solid tapered fluidized bed at laboratory-scale in a
homogenous fluidization regime is simulated using the computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) software COMSOL 5.4. The Eulerian–Eulerian
(EE) hydrodynamic model is used to predict the minimum fluidization veloc-
ity, minimum bubbling velocity, bed height, and solid volume fraction of alu-
mina particles (in Geldart Group A) in the bed with different tapered angles.
The effects of static bed heights on the minimum fluidization velocity of
tapered beds are investigated. The highest minimum fluidization velocity is
6 mm/s with a static height of 11 mm and a tapered angle of 12
. The bed
height is increased with increasing superficial air velocity. At a given air veloc-
ity, the minimum bed height is obtained at a 12
tapered angle. A decrease in
solid volume fraction is also observed upon an increase in the superficial air
velocity. The CFD results show an almost uniform solid concentration over the
bed height. The homogenous or non-bubbling regime appears in a wider range
of critical velocity at a 12
tapered angle. In the case of a 0
tapered angle, the
results of this study and the discrete element method computational fluid
dynamics (DEM-CFD) simulation exhibit a good match. In the case of 6
and
12
tapered angles, the proposed model leads to good predictions based on the
theory of homogenous fluidization of Geldart Group A. This research intro-
duces a rapid and cost-effective approach for the better design and operation
of a tapered fluidized bed in large scales.

KEYWORDS
computational fluid dynamics, Geldart Group A, homogeneous fluidization, tapered angle

1 | INTRODUCTION phase.[3–5] The technological potential of fluidized beds

Fluidized beds have been employed in several industrial
processes, such as reaction and separation, since the
1940s.[1,2] Indeed, they have various applications in the
chemical, pharmaceutical, and mineral industries due to
their desired heat and mass transfer rates and increased
surface area contact between solid particles and the fluid
for environmental protection of heat-sensitive products
such as enzymes, proteins, or microorganisms is also well
known.[6]
Most previous studies have focused on cylindrical flu-
idized bed configurations with a constant cross-section.[7]
Above the minimum fluidization velocity, the bubbling,
channelling, and slugging phenomena lower the

2632 © 2022 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cjce Can J Chem Eng. 2022;100:2632–2647.

KIA LASHAKI ET AL.
efficiency of gas–solid fluidized beds. Use of baffles and
multistage units, shaking, and changing the bed geome-
try are the most common proposed strategies in fluidized
beds to reduce operational costs and problems.[8,9]
Entrainment rates of particles and fluid velocity limita-
tions in cylindrical fluidized beds lead to an increase in
the application of tapered beds in industrial processes.[6]
Tapered fluidized beds have been utilized in biological
wastewater treatment processes, waste incineration, coat-
ing products, production of metabolic gas, and crystalli-
zation.[10,11] The variation of fluid velocity in the axial
direction provides non-slugging flow regimes and also
causes special hydrodynamic features which are desired
when particles with broad size distributions, well particle
mixing, high heat and mass fluxes, and stable tempera-
ture distributions are required.[4,11–15]
In gas–solid flow systems, interfacial forces, electro-
static or electrophoretic forces, particle properties (size,
density, and shape), interparticle forces, interparticle col-
lisions, and particle–wall interaction need to be incorpo-
rated into the governing equations of corresponding
transport phenomena to describe the process behaviours.
The terms related to the interfacial momentum exchange
between the two phases, including drag force, lift force,
and virtual mass force, influence the bed hydrodynamic
behaviours. Due to a relatively large difference in density
between the two phases, only the drag force is significant,
and the effect of other interfacial forces is generally
minor. Different drag models have been presented to sim-
ulate gas–solid flow systems.[16–19] For instance, Du et al.
evaluated the effects of different drag models on compu-
tational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation results of
spouted beds; it was confirmed that the Gidaspow drag
model has a good agreement with empirical models.[17]
CFD models for simulation of multiphase flow
are widely used to provide accurate, fast, relatively
inexpensive, and detailed outputs/predictions in com-
parison with experimental methods.[20,21] CFD simula-
tion consists of geometry definition, mesh generation,
pre-processing, solving model equations, and post-
processing steps.[22,23] CFD studies are normally used to
further understand gas and solid complex behaviours in
multiphase systems.[24–28] Both the Eulerian–Eulerian
(EE) and Eulerian–Lagrangian (EL) approaches are
mostly employed for the simulation of multiphase flow
in fluidized beds.[2] The EL approach is a discrete element
method (DEM) based on the molecular dynamics
approach. Every particle tracking is measured individually
by solving Newton’s equations, and the particle collisions
are directly calculated. The EL method is accurate, but
high computations are needed to obtain proper results.
Thus, it is not a quick technique to evaluate the perfor-
mance/behaviour of fluidized beds in a short time period.
1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2633
It appears to be difficult to use the EL method in industrial
scale fluidized bed simulations.[2,29–33] The EE or two-fluid
model (TFM) considers both gas and solid phases as inter-
penetrating continues and solves the governing equations
of mass and momentum conservation for both gas and
solid phases. There is no particle number limitation, and
the discrete particles are not tracked separately. Therefore,
this method is suitable for large-scale simulation cases.
The EE method can be coupled with a population balance
model (PBM) to describe (predict) particle size distribution
(PSD) and its effect on the system behaviour. Simulation
of fluidized beds using the EE approach can be performed
in CFD software packages such as Fluent (Ansys) and
COMSOL.[2,29–31,34]
Homogenous fluidization is the unique feature of
Geldart Group A particles in gas-fluidized beds. Gas by-
passing phenomenon and solid dead zone do not occur in
the homogenous expansion of Geldart Group A particles,
causing particles to be used more efficiently. The homog-
enous bed expansion process is applied when uniform
conditions are required. Variation of bed geometry
(tapered angle) under different process conditions influ-
ences the minimum fluidization point, bed expansion
ratio, and solid concentration.[13,32] Thus, an investiga-
tion of these effective parameters helps to better under-
stand the hydrodynamic behaviours of gas–solid fluidized
beds. Numerical parameter approximation in moving-
phase boundary problems is the most frequent challenge
in the simulation of fluidized beds.
A small number of studies have focused on homoge-
nous fluidization and the transition to bubbling in compari-
son to bubbling beds.[35–39] To the best of our knowledge,
the homogeneous fluidization of Geldart particles of Group
A in tapered fluidized beds has not yet been investigated by
using the COMSOL-CFD software package. The CFD
model is applied in a two-dimensional tapered fluidized
bed, and the mass and momentum conservation equations
are solved by a numerical approach using the EE model.
The main objective of this study is the numerical simula-
tion of tapered bed hydrodynamics to predict quantitative
and qualitative characteristics of homogeneous fluidization
beds composed of Geldart Group A particles. First, the criti-
cal velocities are predicted in each tapered bed, and then,
the effect of static bed height on the minimum fluidization
velocity is investigated. Next, the bed height upon the
increase in the superficial air velocity and tapered angles is
determined. Then, the two-dimension solid volume fraction
snapshots and line graphs are presented. Also, the homoge-
nous expansion of alumina particles is described by the
Richardson and Zaki equation. The simulation results are
compared and validated with the findings of a previous
study where the configurations of gas–solid cylindrical flu-
idized beds are the same in both studies.
 1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2634 KIA LASHAKI ET AL.

10
A-C Boundary A-B Boundary B-D Boundary

Particle-fluid density difference (g/cm3)

Group B Group D
Powder Powder

1
1.0E+1 1.0E+2 1.0E+3 1.0E+4

Group C Group A
Powder Powder

0.1
Particle diameter (micron)

FIGURE 1 Common classification of Geldart particles, modified after Yang[39]

2 | B ACKGROUND AND
L I T E R A T U R E RE V I E W

The size and density of the solid particles determine

the behaviour of gas–solid fluidization. Geldart parti-
cles are classified into four groups from A to
D. Particles such as cracking catalysts with small diam-
eters (between 30 and 100 μm) and low density (less
than 1.4 g/cm3) belong to Group A, and they are easily
fluidized above the minimum fluidization velocity with
no bubble formation until the minimum bubbling
velocity is reached. Group B (between 100 and 800 μm)
in the density range of 1.4 < ρ < 4 g/cm3 creates large-
size bubbles immediately above the minimum fluidiza-
tion velocity. Difficult fluidization occurs with cohesive
particles of very small sizes (less than 30 μm) in
Group C, and the interparticle forces should be consid-
ered in the flow dynamics of Geldart Group C. Particles
with large diameters (larger than 800 μm) and very
F I G U R E 2 Various gas–solid flow classifications based on the
high density in Group D can be used in spouted fluidization velocity and particle properties, modified after Enwald
beds.[35–38] The original classification of Geldart parti- et al.[48]
cles is depicted in Figure 1.[39]
Generally, homogeneous (smooth) and bubbling fluidi-
zation classes are considered in gas fluidized beds.[40] fluidization of Geldart Group A particles and the appear-
Homogeneous fluidization is employed for the efficient use ance of bubbles through a numerical method.[45]
of particles without the formation of bubbles and agglom- Bubbling fluidization immediately occurs when the
erates.[41] Homogeneous fluidization happens in almost all superficial velocity is higher than the minimum bubbling
liquid–solid beds, and the gas–solid beds filled with Geldart velocity in gas–solid fluidized beds.[40] At the minimum
particles in Group A operate at superficial gas velocities bubbling point, an unstable condition appears in the
between the minimum fluidization and minimum bub- homogenous state and the first bubble is formed in the flu-
bling velocity. Particles belonging to Group A are fluidized idized bed.[46] Brandani and Zhang proposed one-, two-,
easily and have industrial applications in fluid catalytic and three-dimensional models for the prediction of the
cracking (FCC) units and gasification processes.[1,40,42–44] transition between homogeneous and bubbling regimes in
Di Renzo and Di Maio used a DEM computational fluid air fluidized beds consisting of Geldart Group A and B
dynamics (DEM-CFD) model based on a FORTRAN90 powders.[47] The diagram of the gas–solid flow classifica-
code in the gas–solid system to predict the homogeneous tion of Geldart particles is displayed in Figure 2.[48]

KIA LASHAKI ET AL.
Different flow regimes appear with increasing the
superficial gas velocity through the bed. Both tapered
angle and static bed height affect the flow transition
regime.[49] Shan et al. experimentally observed fixed and
spouting flow regimes of Geldart Group A powder in a
gas–solid conical bed with three different cone angles.[50]
The pressure drop versus velocity in the tapered fluidized
bed was examined experimentally by Shi et al., and a
model was introduced for the determination of critical
fluidization velocities and maximum pressure drop based
on the force balance analysis.[51]
The modified Ergun equation and empirical models
predict the hydrodynamic parameters (behaviour) of
tapered fluidized beds. The tapered angle, bottom diam-
eter, static height, density and viscosity of the gas, and
particle properties impact the hydrodynamic character-
istics of tapered fluidized beds.[3] Gan et al. conducted
some experiments in a tapered fluidized bed and pre-
sented a theoretical model to predict the effect of the
width of an air inlet section, cone angle, static height,
and particle diameter on critical velocities of fluidiza-
tion.[12] Hydrodynamic behaviours of poly-dispersed
TiO2 particles belonging to Geldart Groups A and C in a
conical fluidized bed have been studied experimentally
and numerically at different gas velocity and static bed
height conditions.[52] Mehdizad and Kouhikamali pro-
posed a new model to determine the minimum fluidiza-
tion velocity in cylindrical gas–solid fluidized beds, and
the influence of particle properties on the minimum flu-
idization velocity was investigated using the discrete
phase model.[53]
Applications of CFD in the simulation of multiphase
flow systems in different processes have grown consider-
ably in recent years.[20–24] Most of the published studies
used two-dimensional simulation models due to memory
usage and processor speed issues.[54,55] Zhang et al.’s model
was employed to simulate three-dimensional homogeneous
fluidization of Geldart type A particles.[40] Xie et al. per-
formed a simulation of both cylindrical and rectangular flu-
idized beds with the EE model for three different inlet gas
velocities in the bubbling, slugging, and turbulent
regimes.[54] Huilin et al. conducted two-dimensional hydro-
dynamic simulation of a gas–solid fluidized bed reactor
using OpenFOAM, MFIX, and Fluent (Ansys) software
packages to compare the performance and results of differ-
ent CFD approaches.[34] The hexahedral mesh structure
exhibited a better agreement with the experimental data of
the pressure fluctuation, minimum fluidization velocity,
axial solid velocity, bed expansion ratio, and PSD while
conducting a numerical simulation of titania particles in a
conical fluidized bed.[25] Askaripour and Dehkordi simu-
lated the two-dimensional tapered-in and tapered-out fluid-
ized beds to investigate the influence of apex angle on
1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2635
conversion and pressure drop in the presence of chemical
reactions under various gas volume conditions.[7] Taghi-
pour et al. used a two-dimensional gas–solid cylindrical flu-
idized bed containing spherical glass beads with a diameter
of 250–300 μm to compare the experimental and simula-
tion hydrodynamic results where a CFD software package,
Fluent (Ansys), was employed.[2]
3 | GOVERNING EQUATIONS
The Eulerian multiphase laminar model is used to
numerically solve the continuity and Navier–Stokes
unsteady-state equations. The two sets of partial differen-
tial equations are integrated into a two-dimensional Car-
tesian coordinate to compute the target variables
(e.g., velocity and bed height). The momentum transfer
of phases is described by a drag model.[7] Several empiri-
cal and/or semi-empirical correlations are used in the
Eulerian approach. The following assumptions are made
in this simulation:
• The density of solid and gas phases is considered
constant.
• The lift force, external body force, and virtual-mass
effect (due to the higher density of solid particles com-
pared to the gas phase) are insignificant.
• Numerical simulation is conducted in the absence of
chemical reactions.
Considering the above assumptions, the governing
equations are simplified for both continuous and dis-
persed phases.
3.1 | Mass balance
The mass conservation equations for the gas and solid
phases are given below[7]:
∂
ðρ ;c Þ þ r  ðρc ;c uc Þ ¼ 0 ð1Þ
∂t c
∂
ðρ ;d Þ þ r  ðρd ;d ud Þ ¼ 0 ð2Þ
∂t d
In Equations (1) and (2), the subscripts c and d refer to
the continuous and dispersed phases, respectively; t is the
time; and Ø, u, and ρ stand for the volume fraction,
superficial velocity, and density of phases, respectively.
The phasic volume fractions are functions of space and
time, and the sum of solid and gas volume fractions (voi-
dage or void fraction) is equal to one; and at the same
 1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2636 KIA LASHAKI ET AL.

position, the volume is not occupied with two phases model and the Ergun equation. For the continuous phase
simultaneously. This can be written as: volume fraction (voidage) larger than 0.8 and less than
0.8, the Wen-Yu drag model (Equation (10)) and the
;c þ ;d ¼ 1 ð3Þ Ergun equation (Equation (11)) are used, respectively, to
evaluate the gas–solid momentum exchange coefficient
It is assumed that the mixture of both continuous and (β), as given below[51]:
dispersed phases is incompressible as follows[7]:
3;c ;d ρc Cdrag 2:65
β¼ jud  uc j;c If ;c > 0:8 ð10Þ
r  ð;c uc þ ;d ud Þ ¼ 0 ð4Þ 4dd

μc ;2d ;d ρc
3.2 | Momentum balance β ¼ 150 2 þ 1:75 jud  uc j If ;c < 0:8 ð11Þ
;c dd dd

The momentum conservation equations for the continu-

ous and dispersed phases can be expressed as: The drag coefficient (Cdrag) is a function of the dispersed
phase Reynolds number (Red), as expressed below[51]:
∂uc F m,c
ρc þ ρc ðuc  rÞuc ¼ r  ½pI þ τc  þ ρc g þ þ F c ð5Þ 8 h i
∂t ;c < 24 1 þ 0:15ð; Re Þ0:687 If Re < 1000
c d d
Cdrag ¼ ;c Red
:
∂ud rp F m,d 0:44 If Red ≥ 1000
ρd þ ρd ðud  rÞud ¼ r  ½pI þ τd   s þ ρd g þ
∂t ;d ;d ð12Þ
þ Fd
ð6Þ
The elasticity modulus is used to calculate the solid pres-
sure term in the solid-phase momentum equation. The
in which, p, I, τ, g, Fm, F, and ps represent the pressure, presence of the solid pressure term in the momentum
unit tensor, stress tensor, gravitational acceleration, inter- equation of the solid phase indicates the particles–walls
phase momentum transfer, volume forces, and solid pres- interaction, momentum transfer with the bulk flow of
sure, respectively.[7] The stress tensors of the continuous particles, and oscillations of the emulsion phase voidage
and dispersed phases are given below[7]: as solid particles are not packed in a regular order.[56]
The solid pressure model is directly related to the elastic-


T 2 ity modulus (G), as given below[57]:
τ c ¼ μc ruc þ ðruc Þ  ðr  uc ÞI ð7Þ
3
rps ¼ Gr;c ð13Þ


2
τd ¼ μd rud þ ðrud ÞT  ðr  ud ÞI ð8Þ In Equation (13), ps is the term that accounts for solid
3
pressure. The solid pressure illustrates the solid phase
forces due to particle–particle interactions. The particle-
3.3 | Drag model to-particle interaction coefficient (referred to as the mod-
ulus of elasticity) becomes more significant when the
The Gidaspow model is used to determine the drag force minimum fluidization void fraction exceeds the void frac-
(Fdrag), which is generated due to the difference in solid tions. It also helps to make the system numerically stable.
and gas velocities. The Wen-Yu drag model and Ergun Gidaspow suggested an empirical expression for G.[57]
equation are considered in the Gidaspow drag model, as
written below[30,43]:
4 | CFD S IMULATION O F
F drag,c ¼ F drag,d ¼ βðud  uc Þ ð9Þ TA P ERED BED

Different drag models for gas–solid momentum exchange
have been reported in the literature. In this study, the
tapered fluidized beds under a homogenous regime con-
dition are simulated using the Gidaspow drag model.
This proper model is a combination of the Wen-Yu drag
In this study, the operation of tapered fluidized beds in
the homogenous regime is simulated using COMSOL 5.4
CFD software. In order to simplify the model and avoid
time-consuming three-dimensional simulation, a two-
dimensional simulation mode is selected. Complex

KIA LASHAKI ET AL.
unsteady-state equations and moving-phase boundaries
make numerical solutions very difficult. In this simula-
tion, the dispersed phase (alumina regular spherical par-
ticles belonging to Geldart Group A) is fluidized by air
flow, as the fluidizing gas, at the ambient temperature.
The finite element method is used to solve the governing
equations in the two-dimensional tapered fluidized bed,
and the simulation is run with a time step of 102 s.
Figure 3 shows the steps taken in the simulation. Three
different fluidized beds with tapered angles of 0
, 6
, and
12
are used.
Most previous studies have focused on the cylindrical
fluidized bed configuration. Experimental verification of
the homogeneous fluidization of Geldart particles of
Group A is only available for fluidized beds with a
tapered angle of 0
. Thus, the fluidized beds with tapered
angles of 0
are selected for the purpose of comparison.
The bed cross-sectional area in the axial direction
increases upon an increase in the tapered angle. To com-
pare how the tapered angle affects the homogeneous flu-
idization behaviour of Geldart group A particles, the
angles greater than 0
are considered. The most common
tapered angles used in the CFD simulation of the tapered
and columnar fluidized bed reactors are less than 8
.
Thus, to investigate the fluidization phenomenon and
possible problems, including bubbling, channelling, and
slugging phenomena, the CFD model is employed for
one angle larger than 8
and the other less than 8
. It
should be noted that the angle between the inclined walls
of the bed and the vertical axis describes the tapered
angle. Figure 4 depicts the schematic geometry of the
tapered fluidized bed used in this study. The tapered bed
geometric characteristics and the phase properties are
reported in Table 1.
FIGURE 3 Flowchart for simulation of two-dimensional gas–solid tapered fluidized bed using COMSOL Multiphysics
1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2637
4.1 | Initial and boundary conditions
The dispersed particles are placed initially in the packed
condition, and the boundary conditions are imposed on
the inlet, outlet, and the walls of the fluidized bed. Two-
dimensional triangular cells, including the maximum
and minimum element sizes of 104 m and 3  105 m,
respectively, with a maximum element growth rate of 1.5
are generated in all geometry domains. The use of trian-
gular meshes (including the maximum and minimum
element sizes of 104 m and 3  105 m, respectively)
results in a shorter computational time than the use of
finer meshes (106 m). Mesh sensitivity analysis (for a
finer mesh size 106 m) is conducted to examine if the
bubble is formed or not. At the incipient bubbling state,
the simulation run is not converged, and the model could
not simulate the bubbling fluidization state. By selecting
a fine mesh, no considerable change in the fluidization
quality is observed. In fact, the number of equations
increases by selecting a fine mesh. For a given mesh size,
the computation time for simulating 2 s of real time var-
ies from 24 to 48 h, depending on the magnitude of the
tapered angle. However, for the coarse mesh sizes
(103 m), homogeneous fluidization behaviours are
noticed, with sensitivity to mesh size in terms of the qual-
ity of fluidized bed shape (form) from packed bed regime
to homogenous and bubbling condition. The simulation
runs show that the given mesh size can produce a proper
simulation scenario to predict the bed expansion ratio
relative to the experimental measurements, and reduce
the computational time. Therefore, a fine mesh size with
the maximum and minimum element sizes of 104 m
and 3  105 m, respectively, is selected in order to gen-
erate less sensitive mesh size results.
 1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2638 KIA LASHAKI ET AL.

F I G U R E 4 Schematic
representation of the fluidized
bed with various tapered angles:
(A) α = 0
, (B) α = 6
,
and (C) α = 12

TABLE 1 Specifications of the tapered fluidized bed used in
this study
Parameter Value
Bed height (H) 3 cm
Static bed height (H0) 0.9, 1.2, and 1.5 cm
Bottom diameter (D) 0.5 cm
Apex angles (α) 0
, 6
, and 12

Initial solid volume fraction (;d0 ) 0.54
Mean particle diameter (Dd) 70 μm
Particle density (ρd) 1000 kg  m3
Gas density (ρc) 1.205 kg  m3
Gas viscosity (μc) 1.8  105 Pa  s
Inlet superficial gas velocity (uin) 3–18 mm  s1
In order to perform simulation, boundary conditions at
the inlet, outlet, and wall are needed for solving the gov-
erning equations. Figure 5 shows the geometry of a tapered
fluidized bed with a triangular grid and the boundary con-
ditions defined in the computational domain.
The bed is initially considered in the packed bed condi-
tion. A rectangle function is used to define the initial con-
dition in which the bed is considered in the packed bed
column state. As shown in Figure 4, solid particles fill the
bed with a static height of H0 and a volume fraction of
Ød0. No solid phase is observed in the free board region
and all solid particles are present in the packed column.
The gas phase is vertically fed to the inlet section of
the bed. The Dirichlet boundary condition is defined by
the velocity of the continuously entering gas. The velocity
of the gas phase will ramp up from zero to a specified
value in the y-direction using a step function. Air is dis-
charged into the atmosphere through the outlet section on
top of the bed. At the outlet of the bed, the pressure
boundary condition is applied. Pressure and normal flow
conditions are specified to model the system being open to
the atmosphere. No-slip and slip wall conditions for the
gas and solid phases are applied, respectively. It means
that the gas velocity near the wall is set to zero. Gravita-
tional acceleration is considered for all domains.
5 | RESULTS A ND DISCUSSION
The CFD software is used to simulate the homogenous
fluidization regime of Geldart Group A particles. All the
simulation trials are run until 2 s. In this study, the criti-
cal superficial velocities (minimum fluidization velocity
and minimum bubbling velocity) are first determined.
A parametric sensitivity analysis is performed to explore
the influence of vital parameters (velocity and bed width)
on the behaviour and performance of the fluidized beds.
For instance, the effect of static bed height on minimum
fluidization velocity is studied, and the impact of superfi-
cial velocity on the bed height is investigated by conduct-
ing two-dimensional computational simulation runs.
5.1 | Critical superficial velocities
The minimum fluidization velocity (umf) and minimum
bubbling velocity (umb) are obtained based on the CFD
simulations. Several simulation runs are carried out at
different superficial air velocities and tapered angles. The
variation in the fluidized bed shape (form) at different
inlet velocities determines the value of critical superficial
gas velocities (minimum fluidization and bubbling veloci-
ties) in the tapered bed. When the gas inlet velocity is
chosen lower than the minimum fluidization velocity,
the packed bed regime is maintained. In the fixed bed
regime, the shape (form) of the bed remains unchanged,
and the constant solid volume fraction (0.54) and bed

KIA LASHAKI ET AL.
F I G U R E 5 The boundary
conditions in the tapered fluidized bed
and triangle meshes in the
computational domain
height (9 mm) are observed. At the minimum fluidization
velocity, the form/shape of the bed starts to change.
A considerable change in solid volume fraction and bed
height is obtained at higher velocities. At the incipient
bubbling state, the solution is not converged, and the
model could not describe the bubbling fluidization state.
This shows the minimum bubbling fluidization velocity
and where the maximum expanded ratio of the homoge-
neous state is observed. The bubbles in the fluidized bed
are responsible for the turbulence that favours the trans-
port phenomena.[58]
The minimum fluidization velocity and minimum
bubbling velocity values at different tapered angles and a
static bed height of 9 mm are obtained from the simula-
tion. The magnitudes of the minimum fluidization veloc-
ity (umf) are obtained as 5, 4, and 2.5 (mm/s), and the
minimum bubbling velocities (umb) are predicted to be
13.8, 9.7, and 7.1 (mm/s) at the tapered angles of 12
, 6
,
and 0
, respectively. Thus, the critical velocities (umf and
umb) are increased when increasing the tapered angle.
The inclined wall causes the superficial gas velocity to
decrease across the bed height. Therefore, the drag force
decreases with an increase in the tapered angle, leading
to an increase in the minimum fluidization velocity.
Greater minimum fluidization velocity at higher tapered
angles (this finding) is also verified in the literature, and
the variation of hydrodynamic characteristics with
tapered angle is also reported.[11,12,59] The ratio of umb to
umf (umb/umf) is 2.84, 2.4, and 2.76 at the tapered angles
of 0
, 6
, and 12
, respectively. These values are in the
acceptable range of Geldart Group A particles, which
were reported to be between 1 and 3.[38]
The critical velocity at a 0
tapered angle is compared
with the existing analytical calculations, both of which
1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2639
were obtained using the same bed as the one in this
study. The values of the minimum fluidization and mini-
mum bubbling velocities obtained from the analytical
model are 3.9 and 8.4 mm/s, respectively. The minimum
bubbling velocity is also reported as 9 mm/s at a 0

tapered angle while using the DEM-CFD approach.[45]
The high discrepancy between the results is attributed to
the use of different solution methods for the models and
time steps. It should be noted that the time step selected
in this study is 102 s due to a high CPU usage problem.
Wang et al. concluded that the minimum bubbling veloc-
ity could be accurately predicted for the case with the fine
mesh size (2–4 particle diameters) and small time step
(106 s).[60] A high absolute error for the minimum fluidi-
zation velocity between the proposed model and empiri-
cal data for the case with a tapered angle of less than 4.5

was reported by Khani.[11] The minimum fluidization
velocity for the polymerization fluidized bed was
obtained by the CFD simulation, and about 8%–10% devi-
ation was observed with respect to the analytical
solution.[61]
The minimum fluidization velocity against static bed
height for all three tapered angles is plotted in Figure 6.
It can be seen from Figure 6 that with increasing the
static height from 9 to 15 mm, the minimum fluidization
velocity is increased from 2.5 to 3 (mm/s), 4 to
4.6 (mm/s), and 5 to 6 (mm/s) at 0
, 6
, and 12
tapered
angles, respectively.
According to the simulation results, the bed remains
more stable to the packing state, and a greater velocity is
required for initializing fluidization with increasing the
static height. The effect of static bed height on minimum
fluidization velocity could be attributed to the variation of
drag force exerted on particles and apparent weight. The
 1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2640 KIA LASHAKI ET AL.

7.0 11.5
α = 0° α = 0°
Minimum fluidization velocity (mm/s)

6.5
α = 6° α = 6°
11.0
6.0 α = 12° α = 12°

5.5
10.5
5.0

Bed height (mm)

4.5 10.0
4.0

3.5
9.5

3.0
9.0
2.5

2.0 8.5
9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Static bed height (mm)

8.0
4 6 8 10 12 14
F I G U R E 6 Effect of static bed height on minimum fluidization Superficial air velocity (mm/s)
velocity under different tapered angle conditions
F I G U R E 7 The effect of superficial air velocity on tapered bed
height at 2 s simulation time
drag force exerted on particles depends on the gas velocity,
which decreases in the axial direction. When increasing
the packing height (static bed height), the apparent weight 12.0

also increases. Thus, a relatively high velocity is required DEM-CFD model

at the initial fluidization condition. The critical superficial 11.5
Euler–Euler laminar model
gas velocities at 50
, 70
, and 90
tapered angles versus
static bed height were measured experimentally.[12] This 11.0
Bed height (mm)

trend is also verified in other studies.[62,63]

10.5

10.0
5.2 | Bed height
9.5
All the simulation runs are performed for 2 s, and the
bed height is determined under different superficial air
9.0
velocities and tapered angles. The bed height versus air 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

superficial velocity is demonstrated in Figure 7. The bed Superficial air velocity (mm/s)

height increases from 9.9 to 11 mm by increasing the

velocity from 4.5 to 7 mm/s in the bed with a 0
tapered
angle. This trend is also observed for the other angles,
and the bed height in the homogenous region finally
reaches 10.2 mm at 9.5 mm/s and 10.5 mm at 13.5 mm/s
when the tapered angles are 6
and 12
, respectively.
It is also observed that, at a given superficial air veloc-
ity, the lowest bed height is obtained for the column with
a 12
tapered angle; thus, the bed expansion (the ratio of
bed height to static bed height) is reduced by increasing
the tapered angle. As mentioned earlier, when increasing
the tapered angles, the bed remains more stable in the
packing state and a higher superficial velocity is required
to initialize fluidization. Thus, it is expected that, at a
given gas superficial velocity, the lowest height is
obtained at a 12
tapered angle. An increase in the bed
expansion ratio of regular particles in the tapered fluid-
ized bed is noticed upon a reduction in the apex angle
and an increase in the superficial gas velocity; this has
been reported (and confirmed) in the literature.[45,62–65]
F I G U R E 8 Comparison of bed height predicted by the current
study and the previous numerical discrete element method
computational fluid dynamics (DEM-CFD) approach (α = 0
,
particles = alumina)[45]
In the case of a 0
tapered angle, the simulation
results are compared with the outputs of a similar
study,[36] as illustrated in Figure 8. There is a good agree-
ment between the results of this study and the research
conducted by Di Renzo and Di Maio with the DEM-CFD
simulation approach so that the relative error percentage
is lower than 5%.[45] At all superficial velocities, the pre-
dicted bed height is a little higher than that obtained
from the DEM-CFD simulation approach.[45] It was
found that the bed expansion is overestimated when the
TFM is applied to simulate the homogenous fluidization
of Geldart Group A particles, and more accurate results
are obtained using finer grids.[60] For the homogenous
bed expansion, a relative error of less than 3% was
1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2641

F I G U R E 9 Snapshots of solid volume fraction of alumina particles at different tapered angles in terms of the superficial air velocity in
2 s simulation time at (A) 0
, (B) 6
, and (C) 12

KIA LASHAKI ET AL.

2642
noticed between the results of TFM and DEM when a
very small mesh size and a small time step (106 s) were
used by Wang et al.[43,60]
5.3 | Solid volume fraction
The variation of the solid volume fraction in tapered beds
with the superficial air velocity at 2 s is seen in Figure 9.
All the simulation runs are performed (from time zero)
until 2 s. After approximately 1 s, steady fluidization is
observed for all tapered angles, and no significant change
in the bed height and solid concentration is noticed with
time, implying the steady-state condition. Hence, all the
runs are continued till 2 s to ensure that a steady condi-
tion has been achieved.
The superficial air velocity increases from 5 to
8 mm/s in Figure 9C, while in Figure 9A,B, the velocity
is increased from 4.5 to 7 mm/s. According to Figure 9,
the colour of the contour plot changes from dark red to
light red with the increase in air velocity, and the solid
volume fraction is increased as the superficial air velocity
decreases due to the fact that the bed expansion ratio
becomes large at higher air velocities. Thus, a lower vol-
ume fraction of the bed is occupied by the dispersed
phase at a higher velocity. The snapshots of alumina vol-
ume fraction (dp = 60 μm and ρp = 1500 kg/m3), which
belong to the Geldart Group A, were investigated in the
homogenous expansion process using the commercial
package CFX 4.3.[47] The published simulation snapshots
of the solid volume fraction support the findings of this
study.[40,45,47] Oke et al. obtained the profile of solid vol-
ume fraction of homogenous expansion gas fluidized
beds, and a decreasing trend of solid concentration upon
an increase in the gas velocity was observed.[66] This
behaviour is also reported in the literature, and the simu-
lation snapshots of Geldart Group A particles using the
Fluent 6.3.26 (Ansys) solver in the non-bubbling expan-
sion regime verify our findings.[32,41,43]
Four different horizontal cut lines (y = 4, 5, 6, and
7 mm) are also created on the geometry to investigate the
radial distribution of particle volume fraction under a
6 mm/s superficial gas velocity condition. The solid vol-
ume fraction line graphs are depicted in Figure 10.
According to Figure 10, the highest solid volume fraction
value is achieved for the bed with a 12
tapered angle
due to the smallest bed height (expansion ratio) in com-
parison with the other tapered angles.
At all bed heights (y = 4, 5, 6, and 7 mm), an approxi-
mately constant (uniform) solid volume fraction distribu-
tion is observed across the cut lines; the values are also
close to each other at different heights. According to
Figure 10, the solid concentration near the walls is a little
1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KIA LASHAKI ET AL.
higher than that in the central region of the bed for the
bed with 6
and 12
tapered angles. The observed differ-
ences are about 1% and 2% under 6
and 12
tapered
angles, respectively. In the case of a 0
tapered angle, the
most constant solid concentration is experienced due to
the constant cross-section. The reduction in the gas veloc-
ity near the wall with increasing the tapered angle causes
particles to occupy a higher volume compared to the cen-
tral zone. The simulation results in the case of a 0

tapered angle exhibit a good match with the existing
DEM-CFD model’s results. In the case of 6
and 12

tapered angles, an acceptable agreement is seen accord-
ing to the theory of homogenous fluidization of Geldart
Group A particles. The volume fraction of Geldart Group
A particles in the homogenous fluidization regime for
beds with an inclined wall has not yet been investigated.
The constant solid volume fraction over the cylindrical
bed height in the homogenous fluidization of Geldart
Group A particles is confirmed in the literature.[66] Due
to the formation of the homogeneous region, a constant
solid volume fraction is also noticed over the column
height for the condition in case 1 (particle size of 0.5 mm
and particle density of 950 kg/m3) in a two-dimensional
downer reactor using the CFD-DEM approach coupled
with the CFD package of Fluent 6.2 (Ansys).[67]
5.4 | Homogenous regime
The colour range of the solid volume fraction in Figure 9
exhibits a uniform particle suspension (distribution) and
homogenous fluidization. Fluidization of alumina parti-
cles occurs without a solid dead zone and bubble forma-
tion, and an apparent uniform distribution of particles is
observed in all tapered beds. The homogenous expansion
of alumina particles appears in a wider air velocity range
as the tapered angle increases. All the velocities are
selected between the critical velocities (minimum fluidi-
zation velocity and minimum bubbling velocity, respec-
tively). The homogenous fluidization regime of Geldart
Group A particles was experimentally verified when the
velocity was between the minimum fluidization and min-
imum bubbling velocity.[38] Bubble-free expansion of Gel-
dart Group A powders was also examined by a DEM
simulation study.[32,68]
Significant bed expansion without the formation of
bubbles and dead zone for a wide range of velocities
demonstrates that alumina particles are homogenously
air-fluidized. The voidage against gas velocity for a 0

tapered angle is shown in Figure 11, and the CFD simula-
tion results are compared with the results available in the
literature. The linear relationship between the voidage
and gas velocity in the homogenous bed expansion of
1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2643

F I G U R E 1 0 Distribution of solid volume fraction at four different heights (y = 4, 5, 6, and 7 mm) at 6 mm/s inlet superficial air velocity
for a (A) 0
, (B) 6
, and (C) 12
tapered angle, respectively
KIA LASHAKI ET AL.

2644
0.40
DEM-CFD model
Euler–Euler laminar model
-Log (Steady-state voidage)
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.65 0.70 0.75
Log (Superficial air velocity)
F I G U R E 1 1 Steady-state voidage in different superficial air
velocities while employing discrete element method (DEM)[45] and
Euler–Euler (EE) laminar models
Geldart Group A particles is explained by the Richardson
and Zaki equation (u/ut = Øcn).[41,66] It is worth noting
that the Richardson and Zaki equation parameters for
Geldart Group A particles in different cylindrical beds
are generally obtained through both experimental and
theoretical studies.[66] The homogeneous fluidization of
alumina particles obtained in this study follows the Rich-
ardson and Zaki relationship. No deviation from the
straight line confirms the uniform fluidization regime,
and the predicted voidage values are close to the DEM-
CFD model’s results. In this study, a fine mesh size with
a time step of 102 s is used, and a relative error <10% is
attained. The difference between the voidage values at a
given velocity could be attributed to the use of different
mesh sizes, time steps, and solution methods. The effects
of mesh size and time step on CFD simulation of Geldart
Group A particles have also been investigated in the
literature.[41]
In this study, the potential of using COMSOL for the
modelling/simulation of tapered fluidized beds is
assessed, and a better understanding of the homogenous
fluidization behaviour of Geldart Group A particles in
tapered fluidized beds is attained. Prediction of the char-
acteristics of the homogenous fluidization regime of Gel-
dart Group A particles is important to design, scale up,
and operate fluidized beds. The simulation results can
help to overcome some difficulties related to the design,
operation, and optimization of tapered fluidized beds in a
short time period. The drawback of this study is mainly
related to the small geometrical structure (laboratory
scale) used in the simulation. Hence, the simulation
results can provide useful tips and guidelines; they pre-
sent general and specific pictures of the homogenous flu-
idization behaviours of Geldart Group A particles in
tapered beds.
1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KIA LASHAKI ET AL.
6 | CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the EE multiphase approach is applied in
the commercial CFD COMSOL 5.4 for simulating the
homogeneous fluidization of alumina particles belonging
to Geldart Group A in air-tapered fluidized systems. In
the case of a 0
tapered angle, the simulation predictions
are compared with the existing DEM-CFD model’s out-
puts; satisfactory qualitative and quantitative agreements
with the published results are found. The following con-
clusions are drawn from this research work:
0.80 0.85
1. The critical velocities (umf and umb) are increased with
an increase in the tapered angle. The drag force
decreases with an increase in the tapered angle, lead-
ing to an increase in the minimum fluidization veloc-
ity value. The obtained critical velocity ratios (umb/
umf) are in the acceptable range of Geldart Group A
particles.
2. It is found that the static bed height affects the mini-
mum fluidization velocity. The bed remains more sta-
ble in a packing state with an increase in the static
height; a higher velocity is required for initializing flu-
idization. The greatest value of minimum fluidization
velocity obtained is 6 mm/s at a 12
tapered angle and
15 mm static height conditions.
3. The bed expansion is reduced by increasing the tapered
angle. At a given superficial air velocity, the greatest
bed height is attained at a 0
tapered angle. Superficial
air velocity also has a direct influence on the bed height
in the homogenous fluidization regime.
4. According to the snapshot results, the solid volume
fraction decreases with increasing the superficial air
velocity in all tapered beds. At a given superficial air
velocity, the highest solid volume fraction value is
achieved at a 12
tapered angle due to the smallest bed
height in comparison with the other tapered angles.
5. An approximately constant solid volume fraction dis-
tribution is obtained over the entire cut lines. In the
cases of 6
and 12
tapered angles, the solid concentra-
tion near the walls is slightly more than in the central
region of the bed.
6. Fluidization of alumina particles without a solid dead
zone and bubble formation and an apparent uniform
distribution of particles in the tapered beds confirm
the homogenous expansion regime. The homogenous
regime occurs over a wider range of velocity at a 12

tapered angle. It is found that, in the case of a 0

tapered angle, the variation of voidage against gas
velocity follows the Richardson and Zaki relationship.
7. The error between the two models in predicting the
bed height (relative error less than 5%) and voidage
(relative error less than 10%) could be due to the use
 1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KIA LASHAKI ET AL. 2645

of different mesh sizes, time steps, as well as solution in inlet

methods. The homogenous fluidization of Geldart
Group A theory supports our findings at all tapered
angles.
8. It is recommended to simulate three-dimensional
tapered fluidized beds with a small time-step to pro-
vide a better understanding of the homogenous fluidi-
zation regime. The effect of other important factors,
including PSD of Geldart Group A on homogenous
tapered bed expansion, can also be investigated.
mb minimum bubbling
mf minimum fluidization
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Mansureh Kia Lashaki: Formal analysis; investigation;
methodology; writing – original draft. Javad Sayyad
Amin: Conceptualization; investigation; methodology;
supervision; writing – original draft. Sohrab Zendeh-
boudi: Formal analysis; investigation; resources; supervi-
sion; writing - review and editing.

NOMENCLATURE A C KN O WL ED G EME N T S
Acronyms The support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
CFD computational fluid dynamics Research Council of Canada (NSERC), MITACS, and the
DEM discrete element method Memorial University (NL, Canada) is highly appreciated.
EE Eulerian–Eulerian
EL Eulerian–Lagrangian PE ER RE VI EW
FCC fluid catalytic cracking The peer review history for this article is available at
PBM population balance model https://publons.com/publon/10.1002/cjce.24489.
PSD particle size distribution
TFM two-fluid model DA TA AVAI LA BI LI TY S T ATE ME NT
Data sharing not applicable - no new data generated.
Variables/letters
Cdrag drag coefficient (dimensionless)
ORCID
D bottom diameter (m)
Javad Sayyad Amin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4412-
Dd mean particle diameter (m)
4035
F volume force (N/m3)
Sohrab Zendehboudi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8527-
Fm interphase momentum transfer (N/m3)
9087
g gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
G modulus of elasticity (N/m2)
RE FER EN CES
H bed height (m)
[1] T. Kobayashi, T. Tanaka, N. Shimada, Powder Technol. 2013,
H0 static bed height (m)
248, 143.
I unit tensor [2] F. Taghipour, N. Ellis, C. Wong, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2005, 60,
n Richardson and Zaki parameter (dimensionless) 6857.
p pressure (Pa) [3] M. Rasteh, F. Farhadi, A. Bahramian, Powder Technol. 2015,
ps solid pressure (Pa) 283, 355.
Re Reynolds number (dimensionless) [4] M. Wormsbecker, R. van Ommen, J. Nijenhuis, H. Tanfara, T.
t time (s) Pugsley, Powder Technol. 2009, 194, 115.
u superficial velocity (m/s) [5] H. J. Das, P. Mahanta, R. Saikia, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transfer 2020, 119, 104953.
ut particle terminal fall velocity (m/s)
[6] S. H. Seyedin, E. Zhalehrajabi, M. Ardjmand, A. A.
Safekordi, S. Raygan, N. Rahmanian, Surf. Coat. Technol.
Greek symbols 2018, 334, 43.
α tapered angles (
) [7] H. Askaripour, A. M. Dehkordi, Adv. Powder Technol. 2019,
β gas–solid momentum exchange coefficient (kg/(m3s)) 30, 136.
μ viscosity (kg/(m  s)) [8] D. C. Sau, S. Mohanty, K. C. Biswal, Chemical Engineering and
ρ density (kg/m3) Processing: Process Intensification 2008, 47, 2386.
[9] C. E. Agu, L. A. Tokheim, M. Eikeland, B. M. Moldestad,
τ stress tensor (Pa)
Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 328, 997.
Ø volume fraction
[10] C. S. Wu, J. S. Huang, R. Ohara, Chem. Eng. J. 2009, 148, 279.
[11] M. H. Khani, Powder Technol. 2011, 205, 224.
Subscripts [12] L. Gan, X. Lu, Q. Wang, Adv. Powder Technol. 2014, 25, 824.
c continuous [13] T. M. Gernon, M. A. Gilbertson, Powder Technol. 2012,
d dispersed 231, 88.
 1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2646 KIA LASHAKI ET AL.

[14] D. C. Sau, S. Mohanty, K. C. Biswal, Chemical Engineering and [52] A. Bahramian, M. Olazar, AIChE J. 2012, 58, 730.
Processing: Process Intensification 2010, 49, 418. [53] M. Mehdizad, R. Kouhikamali, J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.
[15] W. Bai, D. Chu, F. Wang, Y. He, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 2018, 40, 272.
11893. [54] N. Xie, F. Battaglia, S. Pannala, Powder Technol. 2008, 182, 1.
[16] W. Duangkhamchan, F. Ronsse, F. Depypere, K. Dewettinck, [55] E. Esmaili, N. M. Ehsan, Advances in Engineering Software
J. G. Pieters, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2010, 65, 3100. 2011, 42, 375.
[17] W. Du, X. Bao, J. Xu, W. Wei, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61, 1401. [56] R. Khodabandehlou, H. Askaripour, A. M. Dehkordi, Parti-
[18] J. R. Grace, F. Taghipour, Powder Technol. 2004, 139, 99. cuology 2018, 38, 152.
[19] W. Du, X. Bao, J. Xu, W. Wei, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61, [57] M. Massoudi, K. R. Rajagopal, J. M. Ekmann, M. P. Mathur,
4558. AIChE J. 1992, 38, 471.
[20] M. Mahmoodi, N. Rezaei, S. Zendehboudi, D. Heagle, [58] C. G. Philippsen, A. C. F. Vilela, L. Dalla Zen, J. Mater. Res.
J. Hydrol. 2020, 583, 124510. Technol. 2015, 4, 208.
[21] M. M. Huque, M. A. Rahman, S. Zendehboudi, S. Butt, S. [59] D. C. Sau, S. Mohanty, K. C. Biswal, Chem. Eng. J. 2007, 132, 151.
Imtiaz, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2022, 208, 109394. [60] J. Wang, M. A. van der Hoef, J. A. M. Kuipers, Chem. Eng. Sci.
[22] M. M. Huque, S. Butt, S. Zendehboudi, S. Imtiaz, J. Nat. Gas 2009, 64, 622.
Sci. Eng. 2020, 81, 103386. [61] X. Z. Chen, D. P. Shi, X. Gao, Z. H. Luo, Powder Technol. 2011,
[23] C. Esene, S. Zendehboudi, H. Shiri, A. Aborig, Fuel 2020, 274, 205, 276.
117318. [62] D. T. K. Dora, S. R. Panda, Y. K. Mohanty, G. K. Roy, Parti-
[24] R. A. Sultan, M. A. Rahman, S. Rushd, S. Zendehboudi, V. C. cuology 2013, 11, 681.
Kelessidis, Part. Sci. Technol. 2018, 37(6), 681. [63] R. K. Padhi, D. T. K. Dora, Y. K. Mohanty, G. K. Roy, B.
[25] A. Bahramian, Particuology 2019, 43, 123. Sarangi, Indian Chem. Eng. 2019, 61, 269.
[26] N. Setarehshenas, S. H. Hosseini, M. N. Esfahany, G. Ahmadi, [64] D. C. Sau, K. C. Biswal, Applied Mathematical Modelling 2011,
Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2017, 34, 1541. 35, 2265.
[27] Z. Zou, W. Liu, D. Yan, Z. Xie, H. Li, Q. Zhu, S. He, Chem. [65] T. Maruyama, T. Koyanagi, Chem. Eng. J. 1993, 51, 121.
Eng. Sci. 2019, 202, 157. [66] O. Oke, P. Lettieri, L. Mazzei, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2015, 127, 95.
[28] J. Wang, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2020, 215, 115428. [67] Y. Zhao, Y. Ding, C. Wu, Y. Cheng, Powder Technol. 2010,
[29] L. Yan, C. J. Lim, G. Yue, B. He, J. R. Grace, Bioresour. Tech- 199, 2.
nol. 2016, 221, 625. [68] M. Ye, M. A. van der Hoef, J. A. M. Kuipers, Powder Technol.
[30] N. Herzog, M. Schreiber, C. Egbers, H. Krautz, Comput. Chem. 2004, 139, 129.
Eng. 2012, 39, 41.
[31] Y. He, S. Yan, T. Wang, B. Jiang, Y. Huang, Powder Technol.
2016, 287, 264. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
[32] J. K. Pandit, X. S. Wang, M. J. Rhodes, Powder Technol. 2006,
164, 130.
[33] G. A. Olatunde, O. O. Fasina, Renewable Energy 2019, 139, 651. Mansureh K. Lashaki is pursuing
[34] L. Huilin, Z. Yunhua, S. Zhiheng, J. Ding, J. Jiying, Powder her PhD at the University of Guilan,
Technol. 2006, 169, 89. Iran, with a focus on ‘Molecular
[35] D. Geldart, Powder Technol. 1973, 7, 285. Dynamics Simulation of Semi-clath-
[36] D. Geldart, A. C. Y. Wong, Chem. Eng. Sci. 1984, 39, 1481. rate Hydrates’. She completed her
[37] J. Shabanian, J. Chaouki, Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 259, 135. BSc and MSc degrees in chemical
[38] Q. Guo, S. Meng, Y. Zhao, L. Ma, D. Wang, M. Ye, W. Yang, Z.
engineering from Babol Noshirvani
Liu, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2018, 57, 2670.
[39] W. C. Yang, Powder Technol. 2007, 171, 69.
University of Technology and Ferdowsi University of
[40] K. Zhang, S. Brandani, J. Bi, J. Jiang, Prog. Nat. Sci. 2008, 18, 729. Mashhad, respectively. Her research expertise and
[41] P. C. Sande, S. Ray, Powder Technol. 2014, 264, 43. interests include biochemical engineering, process
[42] M. Ye, M. A. van der Hoef, J. A. M. Kuipers, Chem. Eng. Sci. simulation, and molecular dynamic simulation.
2005, 60, 4567.
[43] P. C. Sande, S. Ray, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2623. Dr. Javad S. Amin is an associate
[44] T. Mckeen, T. Pugsley, Powder Technol. 2003, 129, 139. professor of chemical engineering at
[45] A. Di Renzo, F. P. Di Maio, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2007, 62, 116. the University of Guilan, Iran. He
[46] P. Cherntongchai, S. Brandani, Adv. Powder Technol. 2013, 24, 1. received his BSc, MSc, and PhD
[47] S. Brandani, K. Zhang, Powder Technol. 2006, 163, 80. degrees in chemical engineering from
[48] H. Enwald, E. Peirano, A. E. Almstedt, Int. J. Multiphase Flow Shiraz University, Iran. The research
1996, 22, 21.
experience and interests of
[49] Z. Zhao, J. Zhang, G. Zhang, X. Zeng, X. Liu, G. Xu, Powder
Technol. 2014, 256, 300.
Dr. Sayyad Amin are in the fields of enhanced oil
[50] J. Shan, C. Guobin, M. Fan, B. Yu, W. Jinfu, J. Yong, Powder recovery, artificial intelligence tools, data mining,
Technol. 2001, 118, 271. chemical process design, and process modelling and
[51] Y. F. Shi, Y. S. Yu, L. T. Fan, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1984, simulation.
23, 484.
 1939019x, 2022, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.24489 by Office Of Academic Resources C, Wiley Online Library on [07/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KIA LASHAKI ET AL. 2647

Dr. Sohrab Zendehboudi is an How to cite this article: M. Kia Lashaki, J.

associate professor at Memorial Uni- Sayyad Amin, S. Zendehboudi, Can. J. Chem. Eng.
versity, NL, Canada. He obtained his 2022, 100(9), 2632. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.
PhD degree in chemical engineering 24489
from the University of Waterloo,
Canada. For more than 15 years,
Dr. Zendehboudi worked as a process
engineer, researcher, instructor, co-supervisor, and
professor at various companies/universities in Iran,
Kuwait, the United States, and Canada. His research
interests and experience are in the fields of energy
and the environment, multiscale modelling and opti-
mization, process systems engineering, and transport
phenomena.