Comparative CFD modeling of a bubbling bed using a Eulerian–Eulerian two-fluid model (TFM) and a Eulerian-Lagrangian dense discrete phase model (DDPM)

Multi-scale modelling of fluidized bed biomass gasification using a 1D particle model coupled to CFD

“…They conclude that the MP-PIC model (which is quite similar to the DDPM), despite showing some discrepancies on the particle scale when compared to the CFD-DEM results, is well suited to model reactor-scale applications. A comparison of the TFM and DDPM by Adnan et al [14] showed similar results for the fluid dynamics of a lab-scale fluidized bed, whereas better grid independency was found for the DDPM making it a suitable choice for large-scale applications where coarse grids are needed. Overall, the DDPM and similar models based on the MP-PIC approach are getting more popular as they show significant advantages compared to TFM and CFD-DEM especially when modelling industrial scale applications.…”

“…The cold-flow modelling study by Cloete et al [13] investigating fluid-dynamics in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor showed that the DDPM is well suited for such applications. Furthermore, the study of Adnan et al [14] presents an in depth investigation using the DDPM to describe the hydrodynamic behavior of a pilot-scale bubbling bed reactor. They investigated the effects of drag force, grid size, fluid time-step, time-averaging interval, particle-wall specularity coefficient, particle-particle restitution coefficient, particle-wall reflection coefficient and numbers of parcels [14].…”

“…Furthermore, the study of Adnan et al [14] presents an in depth investigation using the DDPM to describe the hydrodynamic behavior of a pilot-scale bubbling bed reactor. They investigated the effects of drag force, grid size, fluid time-step, time-averaging interval, particle-wall specularity coefficient, particle-particle restitution coefficient, particle-wall reflection coefficient and numbers of parcels [14]. They validated the model with experimental data and conclude that it is able to accurately reproduce the hydrodynamics of a bubbling fluidized bed.…”

3D Simulations of Voidage Distribution in SCW Fluidized Beds Using the EMMS Model

“…Traditional “homogeneous” models, such as the Wen & Yu model and Gidaspow model, hold the view that the two-phase distribution is uniform in the control volume. The Gidaspow drag model is widely used for combining the Wen & Yu and Ergun equations where Homogeneous models overestimate the drag force, which reduces the accuracy of simulation results. − The EMMS approach considers the effect of mesoscale structures so that the simulation accuracy is advanced without losing efficiency. ,,,, The particle distribution and bubble hydrodynamics in SCWFBs are inconsistent with those in gas–solid fluidized beds because of their special physical properties. The EMMS model of Wang and Lu considers the effect of particle distribution and bubble hydrodynamics, which makes the EMMS drag model suitable for fluidization in SCWFBs.…”

Multi-Scale Modelling of Fluidized Bed Biomass Gasification Using a 1d Particle Model Coupled to Cfd

“…The cold-flow modelling study by Cloete et al [13] investigating fluid-dynamics in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor showed that the DDPM is well suited for such applications. Furthermore, the study of Adnan et al [14] presents an in depth investigation using the DDPM to describe the hydrodynamic behavior of a pilot-scale bubbling bed reactor. They investigated the effects of drag force, grid size, fluid time-step, time-averaging interval, particle-wall specularity coefficient, particle-particle restitution coefficient, particle-wall reflection coefficient and numbers of parcels [14].…”