Eulerian simulations of bubbling behaviour in gas-solid fluidised beds

Wachem, van Bgm Berend; Schouten, JC Jaap; Krishna, Rajamani; Bleek, van den Cm

doi:10.1016/s0098-1354(98)00068-4

Cited by 147 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(9), except at distances greater than the static height of the bed surface, y 0.30 m, where the theoretical model is not applicable. This level of similarity between model and simulation for mean bubble diameter profile along the bed height is also observed in other previous publications (see, for instance, Van Wachem et al, 1998;Patil et al, 2005) The experimental data of bubble diameter are inside the simulation data dispersion shown in Fig. 9b.…”

Section: Bubble Diameter and Velocitysupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The literature on this topic is abundant; from the earlier works of Boemer et al (1998), and Van Wachem et al (1998), to the more recent studies comprising image analysis (Busciglio et al, 2009), particle drag optimisation procedures (Mahinpey et al, 2007;Vejahati et al, 2009), and time averaged volume fraction (Deza et al, 2009;Min et al, 2010;. Particularly, the works of Deza et al (2009) and Min et al (2010) show a reasonable agreement between two dimensional (2D) and three dimensional (3D) simulations and X ray imaging experiments of cylindrical fluidized beds of internal diameter of 0.095 and 0.152 m, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison between two-fluid model simulations and particle image analysis & velocimetry (PIV) results for a two-dimensional gas–solid fluidized bed

Hernández-Jiménez

Sánchez-Delgado

Gómez-García

et al. 2011

Chemical Engineering Science

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThis work compares simulation and experimental results of the hydrodynamics of a two dimensional, bubbling air fluidized bed. The simulation in this study has been conducted using an Eulerian Eulerian two fluid approach based on two different and well known closure models for the gas particle interaction: the drag models due to Gidaspow and Syamlal & O'Brien. The experimental results have been obtained by means of Digital Image Analysis (DIA) and Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) techniques applied on a real bubbling fluidized bed of 0.005 m thickness to ensure its two dimensional behaviour. Several results have been obtained in this work from both simulation and experiments and mutually compared. Previous studies in literature devoted to the comparison between two fluid models and experiments are usually focused on bubble behaviour (i.e. bubble velocity and diameter) and dense phase distribution. However, the present work examines and compares not only the bubble hydrodynamics and dense phase probability within the bed, but also the time averaged vertical and horizontal component of the dense phase velocity, the air throughflow and the instantaneous interaction between bubbles and dense phase. Besides, quantitative comparison of the time averaged dense phase probability as well as the velocity profiles at various distances from the distributor has been undertaken in this study by means of the definition of a discrepancy factor, which accounts for the quadratic difference between simulation and experiments The resulting comparison shows and acceptable resemblance between simulation and experiments for dense phase probability, and good agreement for bubble diameter and velocity in two dimensional beds, which is in harmony with other previous studies. However, regarding the time averaged velocity of the dense phase, the present study clearly reveals that simulation and experiments only agree qualitatively in the two dimensional bed tested, the vertical component of the simulated dense phase velocity being nearly an order of magnitude larger than the one obtained from the PIV experiments. This discrepancy increases with the height above the distributor of the two dimensional bed, and it is even larger for the horizontal component of the time averaged dense phase velocity. In other words, the results presented in this work indicate that the fine agreement commonly encountered between simulated and real beds on bubble hydrodynamics is not a sufficient condition to ensure that the dense phase velocity obtained with two fluid models is similar to that from experimental measurements on two dimensional beds.

show abstract

Section: Bubble Diameter and Velocitysupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between two-fluid model simulations and particle image analysis & velocimetry (PIV) results for a two-dimensional gas–solid fluidized bed

Hernández-Jiménez

Sánchez-Delgado

Gómez-García

et al. 2011

Chemical Engineering Science

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Zhonget. al [12] investigated the maximum spoutable bed heights of a spout-fluid bed, filled with six forms of Geldart group D particles.…”

Section: Wwwtjprcorg Editor@tjprcorgmentioning

confidence: 99%

CFD Analysis of Hydrodynamic Studies of a Bubbling Fluidized Bed

al.¹

2017

IJMPERD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The traditional procedure was applied, for instance, by Tsuo and Gidaspow (1990), Sun and Gidaspow (1999), Huilin and Gidaspow (2003), and Cabezas- Gómez and Milioli (2003, 2005a, among others. The procedure based on the algebraic version of the KTGF was applied, for instance, by Syamlal et al (1993), Boemer et al (1995), van Wachem et al (1998), and Guenther and Syamlal (2001), among others.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the computed granular temperature, and applying theoretical correlations developed by Lun et al (1984), solids phase pressure and viscosities are determined. According to van Wachem et al (1998), this procedure is valid only for higher values of the solids volumetric fraction and relatively low values of solids velocity. In such a regime the granular energy is mostly dissipated locally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some modeling and numerical aspects of the two-fluid simulation of the gas-solids flow in a CFB riser

Cabezas‐Gómez¹,

Silva

Milioli³

2006

Braz. J. Chem. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The gas-solids flow in a CFB riser is simulated applying two-fluid modeling. Two different procedures are used for the calculation of the solids phase pressure and stress tensor: the traditional procedure and an algebraic version of the kinetic theory of granular flows. Three different numerical meshes and two different discretization schemes for the advective terms are used. Results are compared to available experimental data from the literature. The effects of the solids phase modeling procedure, advection discretization scheme, and mesh size are discussed.

show abstract

Eulerian simulations of bubbling behaviour in gas-solid fluidised beds

Cited by 147 publications

References 12 publications

Comparison between two-fluid model simulations and particle image analysis & velocimetry (PIV) results for a two-dimensional gas–solid fluidized bed

Comparison between two-fluid model simulations and particle image analysis & velocimetry (PIV) results for a two-dimensional gas–solid fluidized bed

CFD Analysis of Hydrodynamic Studies of a Bubbling Fluidized Bed

Some modeling and numerical aspects of the two-fluid simulation of the gas-solids flow in a CFB riser

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About