A Comparative Study of Different CFD Codes for Fluidized Beds

Abstract

Fluidized beds are pivotal in the process industry and chemical engineering, with Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) playing a crucial role in their design and optimization. Challenges in CFD modeling stem from the scarcity or inconsistency of experimental data for validation, along with the uncertainties introduced by numerous parameters and assumptions across different CFD codes. This study navigates these complexities by comparing simulation results from the open-source MFIX and OpenFOAM, and the commercial ANSYS FLUENT, against experimental data. Utilizing a Eulerian–Eulerian framework and the kinetic theory of granular flow (KTGF), the investigation focuses on solid-phase properties through the classical drag laws of Gidaspow and Syamlal–O’Brien across varied parameters. Findings indicate that ANSYS Fluent, MFiX, and OpenFOAM can achieve reasonable agreement with experimental benchmarks, each showcasing distinct strengths and weaknesses. The study also emphasizes that both the Syamlal–O’Brien and Gidaspow drag models exhibit reasonable agreement with experimental benchmarks across the examined CFD codes, suggesting a moderated sensitivity to the choice of drag model. Moreover, analyses were also carried out for 2D and 3D simulations, revealing that the dimensional approach impacts the predictive accuracy to a certain extent, with both models adapting well to the complexities of each simulation environment. The study highlights the significant influence of restitution coefficients on bed expansion due to their effect on particle–particle collisions, with a value of 0.9 deemed optimal for balancing simulation accuracy and computational efficiency. Conversely, the specularity coefficient, impacting particle–wall interactions, exhibits a more subtle effect on bed dynamics. This finding emphasizes the critical role of carefully choosing these coefficients to effectively simulate the nuanced behaviors of fluidized beds.