Adjustment of drag coefcient correlations in three dimensional

CFD simulation of gassolid bubbling uidized bed

Ehsan Esmaili, Nader Mahinpey

Dept. of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 13 November 2009
Received in revised form 8 November 2010
Accepted 10 March 2011
Available online 9 April 2011
Keywords:
Multiphase ow
Fluidized bed
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Inter phase drag model
Coefcient of restitution
EulerianEulerian model
a b s t r a c t
Fluidized beds have been widely used in power generation and in chemical, biochemical, and petroleum
industries. 3D simulation of commercial scale uidized beds has been computationally impractical due to
the required memory and processor speeds. In this study, 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics simulation
of a gassolid bubbling uidized bed is performed to investigate the effect of using different inter-phase
drag models. The drag correlations of Richardon and Zaki, WenYu, Gibilaro, Gidaspow, SyamlalOBrien,
Arastoopour, RUC, Di Felice, Hill Koch Ladd, Zhang and Reese, and adjusted Syamlal are reviewed using a
multiphase EulerianEulerian model to simulate the momentum transfer between phases. Furthermore,
a method has been proposed to adjust the Di Felice drag model in a three dimensional domain based on
the experimental value of minimum uidization velocity as a calibration point. Comparisons are made
with both a 2D Cartesian simulation and experimental data. The experiments are performed on a Plexi-
glas rectangular uidized bed consisting of spherical glass beads and ambient air as the gas phase. Com-
parisons were made based on solid volume fractions, expansion height, and pressure drop inside the
uidized bed at different supercial gas velocities. The results of the proposed drag model were found
to agree well with experimental data. The effect of restitution coefcient on three dimensional prediction
of bed height is also investigated and an optimum value of restitution coefcient for modeling uidized
beds in a bubbling regime has been proposed. Finally sensitivity analysis is performed on the grid interval
size to obtain an optimum mesh size with the objective of accuracy and time efciency.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Gassolid uidized bed reactors are used in many industrial
operations, such as energy production and petrochemical pro-
cesses. Some of the distinct advantages of gassolid uidized bed
reactors over other methods of gassolid reactors are controlled
handling of solids, isothermal conditions due to good solids mixing
and the large thermal inertia of solids, and high heat ow and reac-
tion rates between gas and solids due to large gas-particle contact
area. Hence, the uidized bed reactors are widely used in gasica-
tion, combustion, catalytic cracking and various other chemical
and metallurgical processes. Two approaches are typically used
for CFD modeling of gassolid uidized beds. The rst one is
LagrangianEulerian modeling [16], which solves the equations
of motion individually for each particle and uses a continuous
interpenetrating model (Eulerian framework) for modeling the
gas phase. In large systems of particles, the LagrangianEulerian
model requires powerful computational resources because of the
numbers of equations that are being solved. Bokkers et al. [5] have
studied the effect of implementing different drag models on simu-
lation of gassolid uidized bed using Discrete Particle Model
(DPM) which assume a LagrangianEulerian model for the multi-
phase uid ow. van Sint Annaland et al. [6] have also studied
the particle mixing and segregation rates in a bi-disperse freely
bubbling uidized bed with a new multi-uid model (MFM) based
on the kinetic theory of granular ow for multi-component sys-
tems. The second approach is EulerianEulerian modeling [713],
which assumes that both phases can be considered as uid and
also take the interpenetrating effect of each phase into consider-
ation by using drag models. Therefore, applying a proper drag
model in EulerianEulerian modeling is of a great importance.
Many researchers have applied 2D Cartesian simulations to
model pseudo-2D beds [1,7,11,13]. Behjat et al. [11] applied a
two-dimensional CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) technique
to the uidized bed in order to investigate the hydrodynamic and
the heat transfer phenomena. They concluded that the Eulerian
Eulerian model is suitable for modeling industrial uidized bed
reactors. Their results indicate that considering two solid phases,
particles with smaller diameters have lower volume fraction at
the bottom of the bed and higher volume fraction at the top of
the bed. They also showed that the gas temperature increases as
it moves upward in the reactor due to the heat of polymerization
0965-9978/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2011.03.005

Corresponding author. Fax: +1 403 284 4852.

E-mail address: nader.mahinpey@ucalgary.ca (N. Mahinpey).
Advances in Engineering Software 42 (2011) 375386
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Advances in Engineering Software
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ advengsof t
reaction leading to the higher temperatures at the top of the bed
[11]. Peiranoa et al. [14] investigated the importance of three
dimensionality in the Eulerian approach simulations of stationary
bubbling uidized beds. The results of their simulations show that
two-dimensional simulations should be used with caution and only
for sensitivity analysis, whereas three-dimensional simulations are
able to reproduce both the statics (bed height and spatial distribu-
tion of particles) and the dynamics (power spectrum of pressure
uctuations) of the bed. In addition, they assumed that the accurate
prediction of the drag force (the force exerted by the gas on a single
particle in a suspension) is of little importance when dealing with
bubbling beds. However, in the present study, it is found that using
a proper drag model can signicantly increase the accuracy of
results in the 3D simulation of bubbling uidized beds.
Cammarata et al. [8] compared the bubbling behavior predicted
by 2D and 3D simulations of a rectangular uidized bed using the
commercial software ANSYS-CFX (a CFD software). The bed expan-
sion, bubble hold-up, and bubble size calculated from the 2D and
3D simulations were compared with the predictions obtained from
the Darton equation [15]. A more realistic model of physical behav-
ior for uidization was obtained using 3D simulations. They also
indicated that 2D simulations can be used for sensitivity analyses.
Xie et al. [10] compared the results of 2D and 3D simulations of
slugging, bubbling, and turbulent gassolid uidized beds. They
also investigated the effect of using different coordinate systems.
Their results show that there is a signicant difference between
2D and 3D simulations, and only 3D simulations can predict the
correct bed height and pressure spectra. Li et al. [12] conducted a
three-dimensional numerical simulation of a single horizontal
gas jet into a laboratory-scale cylindrical gassolid uidized bed.
They proposed a scaled drag model and implemented it into the
simulation of a uidized bed of FCC (Fluid Catalytic Cracking) par-
ticles. They also obtained the jet penetration lengths for different
jet velocities and compared them with published experimental
data, as well as with predictions of empirical correlations. Zhang
et al. [16] suggested a mathematical model based on the two-uid
theory to simulate both homogeneous uidization of Geldart A
particles and bubbling uidization of Geldart B particles in a
three-dimensional gassolid uidized bed. The usage of their mod-
el is easy since it does not include adjustable parameters. It is capa-
ble of predicting the uidization behavior leading to similar results
as the more complex EulerianEulerian models.
Li and Kuipers [17] studied the formation and evolution of ow
structures in dense gas-uidized beds with ideal collisional parti-
cles (elastic and frictionless) by employing the discrete particle
method, with special focus on the effect of gasparticle interaction.
They have concluded that gas drag, or gassolid interaction, plays a
very important role in the formation of heterogeneous ow struc-
tures in dense gas-uidized beds with ideal and non-ideal particle
particle collision systems. They discovered that the non-linearity of
gas drag has a phase separation function by accelerating particles
in the dense phase and decelerating particles in the dilute phase to
trigger the formation of non-homogeneous ow structures.
Goldschmidt et al. [13] investigated a two-dimensional multi-uid
Eulerian CFD model to study the inuence of the coefcient of
restitution on the hydrodynamics of a dense gassolid uidized
Nomenclature
A constant in RUC-drag model ()
A constant in SyamlalO
0
Brien drag model ()
B constant in RUC-drag model ()
B constant in SyamlalO
0
Brien drag model ()
C
n
drag factor on multi-particle system ()
d
s
diameter of solid particles (m)
e restitution coefcient of solid phase ()
F drag factor in HKL drag model ()
Fr friction factor from Johnson et al. frictional viscosity ()
F
0
, F
1
, F
2
, F
3
drag constants in the HKL drag function ()
g the gravitational acceleration (=9.81) (m s
2
)
g
0
the general radial distribution function ()
I the unit tensor ()
I
2D
the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor ()
K
sg
drag factor of phase s in phase g (kg m
3
s
1
)
k
Hs
conductivity of granular temperature (kg m
1
s
1
)
n coefcient in the Richardson and Zaki drag correlation
()
P pressure (Pa)
P
s
solids pressure (Pa)
P
s,fric
frictional pressure (Pa)
DP pressure drop (Pa)
r q
s
diffusive ux of uctuating energy (kg m
1
s
3
)
Re the Reynolds number ()
Re
m
the modied Reynolds number in the Richardson Zaki
correlation ()
Re
s
the particle Reynolds number ()
t time (S)
Dt time interval (S)
U
mf
minimum uidization velocity (m s
1
)
u
s,i, us,j
solid phase velocity in the i and j direction (m s
1
)
~
V velocity (m s
1
)
v
r
the relative velocity correlation ()
w factor in the HKL drag correlation ()
Greek letters
b angel of internal friction()
e
g
gas phase volume fraction ()
e
s
solid phase volume fraction ()
c
Hs
dissipation of granular temperature (kg m
1
s
3
)
D change in variable, nalinitial ()
r the Dell operator (m
(1)
)
H
s
granular temperature(m
2
s
2
)
k
s
bulk viscosity (kg m
1
s
1
)
l
g
gas viscosity (kg m
1
s
1
)
l
s
granular viscosity (kg m
1
s
1
)
l
s,col
collisional viscosity (kg m
1
s
1
)
l
s,kin
kinetic viscosity (kg m
1
s
1
)
l
s,fric
frictional viscosity (kg m
1
s
1
)
l
dil
dilute viscosity in Gidaspow kinetic viscosity model
(kg m
1
s
1
)
p the irrational number p ()
q
g
gas density (kg m
3
)
q
s
solid density (kg m
3
)
s the stressstrain tensor (Pa)
Subscripts
col collisional
dil dilute
fr frictional
g gas or uid phase
kin kinetic
max maximum
mf minimum uidization condition
min minimum
q general phase q
s solid phase
376 E. Esmaili, N. Mahinpey / Advances in Engineering Software 42 (2011) 375386
beds. They demonstrated that, in order to obtain reasonable bed
dynamics from fundamental hydrodynamic models, it is signi-
cantly important to take the effect of energy dissipation due to
non-ideal particleparticle encounters into account.
A few works in the literature have investigated the effect of
using different drag models in 3D simulation of uidized beds to
obtain an optimum drag model for simulation of bubbling gasso-
lid uidized beds. Therefore, the underlying objective of this study
is to present an optimum drag model to simulate the momentum
transfer between phases and to compare the results of 3D and
2D simulations of gassolid bubbling uidized beds. Furthermore,
a method has been proposed to adjust the Di Felice Drag Model
[18] based on the experimental value of minimum uidization
velocity as the calibration point. The effect of restitution coefcient
on the three dimensional prediction of bed height is also investi-
gated and an optimum value of restitution coefcient for modeling
uidized beds in bubbling regime has been proposed.
2. Experimental setup
Experiments were carried out in the Department of Chemical
and Biological Engineering at the University of British Columbia.
The uid bed is a Plexiglas rectangular shape column consisting
of spherical glass beads with ambient air as the gas phase. The
column dimensions are 0.280 (m) in width, 1.2 (m) in length,
and 0.0254 (m) in depth. Ambient air is uniformly injected into
the column via a gas distributor which is a perforated plate with
a hole to plate cross sectional area ratio of approximately 1.2%.
Pressure drops were measured using three differential pressure
transducers located at the elevations of 0.03, 0.3 and 0.6 (m) above
the gas distributor. Fig. 1 illustrates the shape of the column used
in this research, along with its dimensions and pressure transducer
locations. Spherical, non-porous glass beads, Geldart group B parti-
cles, with a particle size distribution of 250300 (lm) and density
of 2500 (kg/m
3
) were used as the granular parts. The static bed
height is 0.4 (m) with a solid volume fraction of approximately
60%. Several experiments were conducted at steady-state bed
operations in order to calculate the void fraction and minimum
uidization velocity. In order to estimate the minimumuidization
velocity, measurements were carried out at increasing velocity
increments from xed bed to high inlet velocity (0.6 (m/s)). From
the data obtained, minimum uidization velocity is estimated as
U
mf
= 0.065 (m/s).
3. Hydrodynamic model
In this study the general model of multiphase ow based on
EulerianEulerian approach has been derived. The model solves
sets of transport equation for momentum and continuity of each
phase and granular temperature for the solid phase. These sets of
equations are linked together through pressure and interphase
momentum transfer correlations (drag models). The solid phase
properties have been obtained using the kinetic theory of granular
ow.
3.1. Continuity equation
The continuity equation in absence of mass transfer between
phases is given for each phase by:
Fig. 1. Geometry of 3D Plexiglas uidized bed.
E. Esmaili, N. Mahinpey / Advances in Engineering Software 42 (2011) 375386 377
@
@t
e
g
q
g
r e
g
q
g
~
V
g
0; 1
@
@t
e
s
q
s
r e
s
q
s
~
V
s
0: 2
And the volume fraction constraint requires e
g
+ e
s
= 1.
where e, q, and
~
V are the volume fraction, the density and the
instantaneous velocity, respectively. By considering the mass
transfer between the phases, the term _ m
gs
_ m
sg
would then be
added to the right hand side of the above equations, where, _ m is
the rate of mass transfer between phases.
3.2. Gas phase momentum equation
Assuming no mass transfer between phases and no lift and vir-
tual mass forces, the conservation of momentum for the gas phase
can be expressed as:
@
@t
e
g
q
g
~
V
g
r e
g
q
g
~
V
g
~
V
g
r

s
g
e
g
rP e
g
q
g
g K
sg

~
V
s

~
V
g
;
3
where P is the pressure, g is the gravity and K
sg
is the drag coef-
cient between the gas and the solid phase which will be explained
in detail in Section 3.5. The gas stress tensor

s
g
is given by:

s
g
e
g
l
g
r
~
V
g
r
~
V
g

T
_ _
e
g
k
g

2
3
l
g
_ _
r
~
V
g

I: 4
3.3. Solid phase momentum equation
Assuming no mass transfer between phases and no lift and vir-
tual mass forces, the conservation of momentum for the solid
phase can be expressed as:
@
@t
e
s
q
s
~
V
s
r e
s
q
s
~
V
s
~
V
s
r

s
s
rP
s
e
s
rP e
s
q
s
g K
sg

~
V
s

~
V
g
;
5
@
@t
e
s
q
s
~
V
s
re
s
q
s
~
V
s
~
V
s
r

s
s
rP
s
e
s
rP e
s
q
s
g K
sg

~
V
s

~
V
g
;
6
where P
s
is the granular pressure, derived from the kinetic theory of
granular ow, and is composed of a kinetic term and a term due to
particle collisions. In the regions where the particle volume fraction
e
s
is lower than the maximum allowed fraction e
s,max
, the solid pres-
sure is calculated independently and is used in the pressure gradi-
ent term rP
s
It can be expressed as (Lun et al. [19]):
P
s
e
s
q
s
H
s
2q
s
1 ee
2
s
g
0
H
s
; 7
where H
s
is the granular temperature; e is the restitution coef-
cient of granular particles and g
0
is the radial distribution function.
Different values for the coefcient of restitution, from 0.73 to 1,
have been proposed in literature. In this study the effect of restitu-
tion coefcient on the simulation of bubbling uidized bed has been
investigated in order to obtain an optimum value for the entire
range of study. The results are presented in Section 5.3. For the ra-
dial distribution function, g
0
, the following correlation has been
proposed by Ibdir and Arastoopour [20] and it is well related to
the data from the molecular simulator by Alder and Wainwright
[21].
g
0

3
5
1
e
s
e
s;max
_ _1
3
_ _
1
: 8
In momentum equation,

s
s
is the solid stress tensor and can be
written as:

s
s
e
s
l
s
r
~
V
s
r
~
V
s

T
_ _
e
s
k
s

2
3
l
s
_ _
r
~
V
s

I; 9
where k
s
is the granular bulk viscosity that is the resistance of gran-
ular particles to compression or expansion. The following model is
developed from the kinetic theory of granular ow by Lun et al. [19]
for k
s
:
k
s

4
5
e
s
q
s
d
s
1 e

H
s
p
_
; 10
where d
s
is the particle diameter.
In the solid stress tensor equation l
s
is the granular shear vis-
cosity that consists of a collision term, a kinetic term, and a friction
term:
l
s
l
s;col
l
s;kin
l
s;fric
: 11
The collisional viscosity is a viscosity contribution due to collisions
between particles and has the highest contribution in the viscous
regime. The corresponding correlation is taken from the kinetic the-
ory of granular ow by Lun et al. [19].
l
s;col

4
5
e
s
q
s
d
s
1 e

H
s
p
_
: 12
The kinetic viscosity is expressed by Gidaspow model [22,23] as:
l
s;kin

2l
dil
g
0
1 e
1
4
5
1 ee
s
g
0
_ _
2
; 13
l
dil
constant bulk density mean free path
osccillation velocity
l
dil

5

p
p
96
e
s
q
s

d
s
e
s
_ _

H
s
_
: 14
The Schaeffer expression [24] for the frictional viscosity can be
written as
l
s;fric

P
s;fric
sinb
2

I
2D
p ; 15
where P
s,fric
is the frictional pressure, the constant b = 28.5 [25] is
the angel of internal friction and I
2D
is the second invariant of the
deviatoric stress tensor which can be written as
I
2D

1
6
D
s11
D
s22

2
D
s22
D
s33

2
D
s33
D
s11

D
2
s12
D
2
s23
D
2
s31
; 16
D
sij

1
2
@u
s;i
@x
j

@u
s;j
@x
i
_ _
: 17
Johnson et al. [26] made a simple algebraic expression for the solid
pressure in the frictional region:
P
s;fr
Fr
e
s
e
s;min

n
e
s;max
e
s

p
; 18
Fr 0:1e
s
: 19
In which e
s,min
= 0.5, n = 2, and p = 3 are all experimental based
parameters.
3.4. Kinetic theory of granular ow (KTGF)
The transport equation for granular temperature of solid phase
H
s
can be written as:
378 E. Esmaili, N. Mahinpey / Advances in Engineering Software 42 (2011) 375386
3
2
@
@t
e
s
q
s
H
s
r e
s
q
s
~
V
s
H
s
_ _
_ _

s
s
: r
~
V
s
r q
s
c
Hs
3K
sg
H
s
;
20
where

s
s
, q
s
and c
Hs
are the solid stress tensor, ux of uctuating
energy and collisional energy dissipation respectively.
q
s
can be written as:
q
s
k
Hs
rH
s
; 21
where k
Hs
is the granular conductivity of granular temperature and
the corresponding correlation based on Gidapow model [22] is
given by:
k
Hs

150d
s
q
s

H
s
p
p
3841 eg
0
1
6
5
1 ee
g
g
0
_ _
2
2d
s
q
s
e
2
s
1 eg
0

H
s
p
_
:
22
The algebraic equation for the collisional energy dissipation, c
Hs
, is
derived by Lun et al. [19] as follow:
c
Hs

121 e
2
g
0
d
s

p
p q
s
e
2
s

H
2
s
_
: 23
When the restitution coefcient, e goes to 1, the dissipation of the
granular temperature goes to zero. This means that the particles
are perfectly elastic [19].
3.5. Drag models
The drag force between the gas phase and the particles is one of
the dominant forces in a uidized bed. Generally, drag coefcients,
K
sg
, are obtained fromtwo types of experimental data. The rst type
is for the high value of the solid volume fractions or packed-bed
pressure drop data, such as the Ergun drag model [27]. These types
of correlations require a complementary drag model for low values
of the solid volume fractions, like the Gidaspowdrag model [22,23].
In the second class of data, the terminal velocity of particles in u-
idized or settling beds is employed to derive the drag model as a
function of void fraction and Reynolds number. An example for this
category is the Richardson and Zaki model [28].
In this paper, eleven widely used drag models that have been
reported in the literature are investigated for the modeling of a
3D uidized bed. The corresponding correlations for each drag
model are summarized in Table 1.
3.5.1. Adjustment of drag coefcient
In all drag correlations, the drag force depends on the local rel-
ative velocity between phases and the void fraction. However, in
deriving such general empirical drag correlations some other fac-
tors, such as particle size distribution and particle shape have
not been considered. Also, void fraction dependency is very dif-
cult to be determined for any condition other than a packed bed
or innite dilution (single particle). On the other hand, most
researchers have information on the minimum uidization veloc-
ity of their own material. In this respect, Syamlal and OBrien
[37] introduced a method to modify their original drag law using
minimum uidization velocity, commonly available experimental
information for the specic material.
The parameter C
2
in SyamlalOBrien drag equation is related to
the minimum uidization velocity through the velocity voidage
correlation and the terminal Reynolds number, Re
t
[37] and is
changed until the following criterion is met:
Objective function : U
experiment
mf
Re
ts

e
g
l
g
q
g
d
s
_ _
!
Minimize
0;
m
g
Re
ts

e
g
l
g
q
g
d
s
U
experiment
mf
; 24
where
Re
t
m
r;s
Re
ts
; 25
m
r;s

A 0:06B Re
ts
1 0:06Re
ts
; 26
Re
ts

23:04 2:52

4Ar
3
_
4:8
_
1:26
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
2
; 27
Ar
q
s
q
g
d
3
s
q
g
~g
l
g
; 28
Re
t
, is the Reynolds number under terminal settling conditions for
the multi particle system, v
r,s
is the terminal velocity, Re
ts
is the
Reynolds number under terminal settling conditions for the single
particle and Ar is the Archimedes number.
Also, the parameter C
1
in SyamlalOBrien equation needs to be
adopted in order to guarantee the continuity of velocity voidage
correlation as follows [37]:
C
1
1:28
logC
2

log0:85
: 29
Using the same concept, a method has been proposed to modify the
drag model presented by Di Felice [18]. At minimum uidization
condition, neglecting the gas-wall friction and the solid stress trans-
mitted by particles, the momentum balance can be written as:
Buoyancy Force = Drag Force
e
s
q
s
q
g
g
K
sg
e
g
j
~
V
s

~
V
g
j: 30
Considering the fact that at minimum uidization condition
~
V
s
0
and
~
V
g
U
experiment
mf
, the Eq. (29) can be reduced to:
e
s;mf
q
s
q
g
g
K
sg
e
g;mf
U
experiment
mf
: 31
Substituting the Di Felice drag correlation into Eq. (30) and utilizing
the least square method as a non-linear optimization algorithm, the
drag model parameters P and Q in Di Felice drag correlations will be
modied for the system under study using experimental data at
minimum uidization condition U
experiment
mf
0:065 m=s. When
adjusting the drag models it should be kept in mind that the adjust-
ment should not alter the behavior of the drag correlation when
voidage approaches one. Most drag correlations are formulated
such that in that limit, the single sphere drag coefcient, C
D
, can
be recovered.
4. Numerical simulation
Governing equations of mass and momentum conservation as
well as the granular temperature equation are solved using nite
volume method employing the Phase-Coupled Semi Implicit Meth-
od for Pressure Linked Equations (PC-SIMPLE) algorithm, which is
an extension of the SIMPLE algorithm to multiphase ow. A mul-
ti-uid EulerianEulerian model, which considers the conservation
of mass and momentum for each phase, has been applied. The ki-
netic theory of granular ow, which considers the conservation of
solid uctuation energy, was used for closure of the solid stress
terms. The three-dimensional (3D) geometry has been meshed
using 336,000 structured rectangular cells. Volume fraction, den-
sity, and pressure are stored at the main grid points that are placed
in the center of each control volume. A staggered grid arrangement
is used, and the velocity components are solved at the control vol-
ume surfaces. Fig. 2 shows a schematic view of the staggered grid
cells for velocity components and pressure.
E. Esmaili, N. Mahinpey / Advances in Engineering Software 42 (2011) 375386 379
A pressure correction equation is built based on total volume
continuity. Pressure and velocities are then corrected so as to sat-
isfy the continuity constraint. A grid sensitivity analysis is per-
formed using different mesh sizes and 5 mm mesh interval
spacing was chosen for all the simulation runs. The detailed results
for sensitivity analysis have been discussed in Section 5.4. Second-
order upwind discretization scheme was used for discretizing the
governing equations. An adaptive time-stepping algorithm with
100 iterations per each time step and a minimum value of order
10
5
for the lower domain of time step was used to ensure a stable
convergence. The adaptive determination of the time step size is
based on the estimation of the truncation error associated with
the time integration scheme (i.e., rst-order implicit or second-
order implicit). If the truncation error is smaller than a specied
tolerance, the size of the time step is increased; if the truncation
error is greater, the time step size is decreased. The convergence
criteria for other residual components associated with the relative
error between two successive iterations has been specied in the
order of 10
5
. A detailed study has been carried out on the effect
of restitution coefcient and the results have been presented in
Section 5.3. Including the adjusted drag model cases, 12 different
Table 1
Summary of drag coefcient correlations.
1. Richardon and Zaki [28] (1954)
Ksg
3q
g
eg es
4ds v
2
r
C
D
j
~
Vs
~
Vgj
vr e
n1
g
n
4:65; Rem < 0:2
4:4Re
0:03
m
; 0:2 > Rem < 1
4:4Re
0:1
m
; 1 > Rem < 500
2:4; Rem > 500
_

_
Rem
Res
vr
Res
q
g
ds j
~
Vs
~
Vg j
l
g
2. WenYu drag model [29] (1966)
Ksg
3q
g
eg 1eg
4ds
C
D
j
~
Vs
~
Vgje
2:65
g
C
D

24
eg Res
1 0:15egRes
0:687

Res
q
g
ds j
~
Vs
~
Vg j
l
g
3. Gibilaro drag model [30] (1983, 1985)
Ksg
17:3
Res
0:336
_ _
es q
g
ds
j
~
Vs
~
Vg je
1:8
g
Res
q
g
eg ds j
~
Vs
~
Vg j
2l
g
4. Gidaspow drag model [31] (1986)
Ksg 1 u
sg
K
Ergun
sg
u
sg
K
WenYu
sg
K
Ergun
sg
150
e
2
s
l
g
eg d
2
s
1:75
es q
g
ds
j
~
Vs
~
Vg j; eg 6 0:8
K
WenYu
sg

3
4
C
D
es q
g
ds
j
~
Vs
~
Vg je
2:65
g
; eg P0:8
C
D

24
eg Res
1 0:15egRes
0:687
; Res < 1000
0:44; Res P1000
_
Res
q
g
ds j
~
Vs
~
Vg j
l
g
u
sg

Arctan1501:750:2es
p
0:5
5. SyamlalO
0
Brien drag model [32] (1988)
Ksg
3es eg q
g
4ds v
2
r
C
D
j
~
Vs
~
Vgj
C
D
0:63
4:8

Re
vr
_
_
2
vr
1
2
A 0:06Re

0:06Re
2
0:12Re2B A A
2
_

A e
4:14
g
B
C
2
e
1:28
g
; eg < 0:85
e
C1
g
; eg P0:85
C
1
2:65; C
2
0:8
_
_
_
6. Arastoopour drag model [33] (1990)
Ksg
17:3
Res
0:336
_ _

es q
g
ds
j
~
Vs
~
Vgje
2:8
g
Res
q
g
ds j
~
Vs
~
Vg j
l
g
7. RUC-drag model [34] (1994)
Ksg A
l
g
1eg
2
eg d
2
s
B
q
g
1eg
ds
j
~
Vs
~
Vg j
A
26:8e
3
g
1eg
2
311eg
1
311eg
2
3
2
B
e
2
g
11eg
2
3
2
8. Di Felice drag model [18] (1994)
Ksg
3
4
C
D
es q
g
ds
j
~
Vs
~
Vgjf es
f(e
s
) = (1 e
s
)
x
x = P Q exp
1:5b
2
2
_ _
b = log(Re
s
)
P = 3.7 and Q = 0.65
9. Hill Koch Ladd drag correlation [35] (2001)
Ksg
3q
g
eg 1eg
4ds
C
D
j
~
Vs
~
Vgj
C
D

12e
2
g
Res
F
Res
q
g
ds eg j
~
Vs
~
Vg j
2l
g
F 1 3=8Res; es 6 0:01 and Res 6 F
2
1=3=8 F
3

F F
0
F
1
Re
2
s
; es P0:01 and Res 6 F
3

F
2
3
4F
1
F
0
F
2

_
=2F
1

F F
2
F
3
Res; Otherwise
_

_
F
0

1 w
13

es =2
p
135=64es lnes 17:14es
10:681es 8:4e
2
s
8:16e
3
s
_ _
w10es=1 es
3
; 0:01 < es < 0:4
10es
1es
3
; es > 0:4
_

_
F
1

2=es
_
_ _
=40; 0:01 < es < 0:1
0:11 0:00051e
11:6es
; es > 0:4
_
F
2

1 w
13

es =2
p
135=64es lnes 17:89es
10:681es 11:03e
2
s
15:41e
3
s
_ _
w10es=1 es
3
; es < 0:4
10es
1es
3
; es P0:4
_

_
F
3

0:9351es 0:03667; es < 0:0953
0:0673 0:212es 0:0232=1 es
5
; es P0:0953
_
w e
100:4es =es
10. Zhang and Reese drag model [36] (2003)
Ksg
150
e
2
s
l
g
eg d
2
s
1:75
es q
g
ds
~
Vr ; eg 6 0:8
3
4
C
D
es q
g
ds
~
Vr e
2:65
g
; eg P0:8
_
_
_
~
Vr
~
Vs
~
Vg
2
8Hs=p
_ _
0:5
C
D
0:28 6=

Res
p
21=Res
Res
q
g
ds
~
Vr
l
g
Fig. 2. Schematic view of staggered grid, volume fractions are stored at the main
grid points (P) while the velocity components at control volume surfaces.
380 E. Esmaili, N. Mahinpey / Advances in Engineering Software 42 (2011) 375386
drag models are studied in this work to simulate the momentum
transfer between the phases (Richardon and Zaki [28], WenYu
drag model [29], Gibilaro drag model [30], Gidaspow drag model
[31], SyamlalOBrien drag model [32], Arastoopour drag model
[33], RUC-drag model [34], Di Felice drag model [18], Hill Koch
Ladd drag correlation [35], Zhang and Reese drag model [36], ad-
justed Syamlal [37], adjusted Di Felice drag model). The drag mod-
els available in Fluent 6.3 suited for a uidized bed simulation is
the Gidaspow model, the SyamlalO
0
Brien model and the Wen
Yu drag model. For the other nine drag models, specic User De-
ned Functions (UDF) in C++ have been implemented and up-
loaded into the software. FLUENT 6.3 on a 20 AMD/Opteron 64bit
processor Sun Grid Microsystems workstation W2100Z with 4 GB
RAM is employed to solve the governing equations. Computational
model parameters are listed in Table 2.
5. Result and discussion
CFD modeling has been performed using FLUENT 6.3. Simula-
tions have been carried out on a 3D uidized bed using a transient
EulerianEulerian model. Several supercial gas velocities, 0.11,
0.21, 0.38, and 0:46 m=s, that correspond to 1.6, 3.2, 5.8, and
7U
mf
, respectively, have been studied. In the following section,
the simulation results have been compared with the experimental
data in order to validate the model. As previously discussed, sev-
eral drag models have been proposed in the literature to model
the momentum transfer between the phases. In the present work,
a complete study has been performed on all those drag models and
nally a method has been developed to adjust the drag model pro-
posed by Di Felice [18]. The adjustment of the two drag models
with the methods discussed earlier was taken into account by opti-
mizing the parameters C
1
and C
2
to 11.772 and 0.182 for the Syam-
lalOBrien model and the parameters P and Q to 5.2 and 0.31 for
the Di Felice model. The associated parameters of the models were
estimated by adopting the model to experimental data using
non-linear parameter estimation analysis.
Fig. 3 shows a snapshot of solid volume fraction contours for the
twelve drag models studied in this work at a supercial gas veloc-
ity of 0:21 m=s and after 10 (s) real-time simulations. In this g-
ure, comparison between all drag models and experimental
snapshot has been made in terms of bed height and bubble size
and shape. It can be readily observed that the two adjusted models
(i.e., Di Felice adjusted model and SyamlalOBrien adjusted model
[37]) show the best results simulating the bed height. The adjusted
Di Felice model is more accurate in the prediction of the bubble
shapes and uctuating behavior of the free surface of the bed. It
can be seen that the original SyamlalOBrien model [32] repre-
sents the lowest bed expansion and gas void fraction. This fact
could have been foreseen from the minimum uidization velocity
prediction by this model, which is almost six times larger than
experimental data [38]. Expansion of the bed started with forma-
tion of bubbles for all the models and eventually reached a statis-
tically steady-state bed height. After this point, an unsteady
chaotic generation of bubbles was observed after almost 3 (s) of
real-time simulation. Disregarding the two adjusted drag model,
Fig. 3 shows that the original Di Felice [18] and Gibilaro [30] drag
models have produced better results in predicting the bed expan-
sion among other drag models. The drag model proposed by
RichardsonZaki [28] has given the worst results with respect to
bubble shapes since it shows symmetry in contours of solid vol-
ume fraction after 10 (s) real time which is not reasonable. The rest
of the models showed approximately the same range of bed expan-
sion. There also exists a more recent correlation which is based on
extensive lattice Boltzmann simulations by van der Hoef et al. [39],
and Beetstra et al. [40]. They have proposed expressions for nor-
malized drag force for both mono-dispersed and poly-dispersed
systems. Their results found to be in excellent agreement (devia-
tion smaller than 3%) with the simulation data of several models
proposed in literatures.
5.1. Pressure drop
Fig. 4 shows the time average pressure drop inside the bed be-
tween two specic elevations (i.e. 0.03 (m) and 0.3 (m) as demon-
strated in Fig. 1) for different studied cases and experimental
results. In order to calculate the average pressure at each pressure
sensor (i.e. y = 0.03 (m)), both spatial and time averaging have been
applied. At rst, the spatial averaging, which is the average value of
pressure for all nodes in the plane of rst pressure sensor (plane
y = 0.03 (m)) has been utilized. Subsequently, the time averaging
of spatial-averaged pressure values in the period of 310 (s) real
Table 2
Computational model parameters.
Parameter Value
Particle density 2500 (kg/m
3
)
Gas density 1.225 (kg/m
3
)
Mean particle diameter 275 lm
Initial solid packing 0.6
Supercial gas velocity 11.7, 21, 38, 46(cm/s)
Bed dimension 0.28 (m) 1.2 (m) 0.025 (m)
Static bed height 0.4 (m)
Grid interval spacing 0.002 (m)
Inlet boundary condition type Inlet velocity
Outlet boundary condition type Pressure outlet
Under-relaxation factors Pressure 0.6
Momentum 0.4
Volume fraction 0.3
Granular temperature 0.2
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m)
Fig. 3. Contours of solid volume fraction (U = 0.21 (m/s) t = 10 (s)): (a) experiment; (b) SyamlalOBrien adjusted; (c) SyamlalOBrien; (d) Arastoopour; (e) Gibilaro; (f) Hill
Koch Ladd; (g) ZhangReese; (h) RichardsonZaki; (i) RUC; (j) Di Felice adjusted; (k) Di Felice; (l) WenYu and (m) Gidaspow.
E. Esmaili, N. Mahinpey / Advances in Engineering Software 42 (2011) 375386 381
time has been incorporated. As indicated in Fig. 4, the pressure
drop for all the models showed a declining trend with increase of
the supercial gas velocity, providing good qualitative agreement
with the experimental data. It can be seen that the adjusted Di
Felice model gives closer result to experimental data and for all
four supercial gas velocity shows signicant improve in result
compared to original Di Felice model [18]. As shown in Fig. 4 the
adjusted model based on SyamlalObrien [37] study also gives
acceptable results especially in lower supercial gas velocities.
Fig. 5 shows a comparison between all drag models in predic-
tion of overall bed expansion ratio (i.e., DP
2
as indicated in
Fig. 1) with respect to supercial gas velocity. It can be seen that
the overall pressure drop for all drag models does not change too
much by increasing the supercial gas velocity. This is in good
agreement with both theoretical and experimental predictions, ex-
cept for the highest velocity, where the deviation may be due to
the fact that at high velocities of gas, the elevation 0.6 m above
the distributor is actually inside the bed for the case of the adjusted
SyamlalOBrien drag model [37]. Hence, it, in fact, it represents
the pressure drop between two elevations inside the bed [38].
Fig. 6 shows a comparison between 2D vs. 3D simulation of u-
idized bed using three different drag models (adjusted Di Felice
and SyamlalOBrien [37] drag model and original Di Felice [18]
drag model). It can be seen that the pressure drop for both 2D
and 3D simulation shows a declining trend by increasing the
supercial gas velocity which is in good qualitative agreement
with the experimental data. However, 3D simulations show their
superiority in predicting the pressure drop inside the bed com-
pared to 2D simulations. The reason can be the effect of participat-
ing governing equations of the z direction (depth of the bed) in
Navier Stokes equation of multiphase ow. It can be concluded that
although three-dimensional simulation takes more time and
Fig. 4. Pressure drop inside the bed DP1 Pz0:03m Pz0:6m.
Fig. 5. Overall Pressure drop DP2 Pz0:03m Pz0:6m.
382 E. Esmaili, N. Mahinpey / Advances in Engineering Software 42 (2011) 375386
computing processors than two-dimensional simulation, it gives
more accurate results when the models are compared with exper-
imental data.
5.2. Bed expansion ratio
The experimental data of the time-average bed expansion ratio
were compared with corresponding values predicted by different
drag models for various supercial gas velocities as depicted in
Fig. 7. For this series of simulations, a static bed height of
H
0
= 0.4 (m) over a range of supercial velocities 11.7, 21, 38,
and 46 cm=s was used. All drag models demonstrate a consistent
increase in bed expansion with gas velocity and predict the bed
expansion reasonably well. Fig. 7 shows the considerable relative
increase in bed expansion as the uidizing velocity increases; a
5% increase was obtained at 0.11 m/s, a 20% increase at 0.21 m/s,
42% at 0.38 m/s, and up to a 50% increase in bed height was
measured at 0.46 m/s, the highest uidized velocity investigated.
It can be seen that using adjusted Di Felice drag model, the bed
expansion ratio can be predicted fairly accurately over a whole
range of supercial gas velocities compared to experimental data.
All the available drag correlations with the exception of two ad-
justed drag models (i.e., Di Felice and SyamlalOBrien [37]) at high
supercial gas velocity (0.46 m/s), underestimate the bed expan-
sion. The adjusted SyamlalOBrien drag model showed good
agreement with experimental results only up to a moderate range
of gas velocity. Fig. 7 shows that for higher supercial gas veloci-
ties, the adjusted SyamlalOBrien drag model comparatively over-
estimated the bed expansion ratio. Fig. 7 also reveals that even the
original Di Felice [18] drag model gives the best result for the pre-
diction of bed expansion ratio among all the other conventional
drag laws. This fact vindicates the claim that this drag model
was opted for adjustment based on minimum uidization velocity
[38].
Fig. 6. 2D vs. 3D simulation of pressure drop inside the bed DP1 Pz0:03m Pz0:3m.
Fig. 7. Comparison of simulated bed expansion ratio with experimental data.
E. Esmaili, N. Mahinpey / Advances in Engineering Software 42 (2011) 375386 383
Fig. 8 shows the predicted contours of solid volume fraction at
t = 10 (s) using adjusted Di Felice drag model for four different
supercial gas velocities. It can be easily seen that by increasing
the gas velocity the bigger bubbles will be generated inside the
bed and as a result the bed height will increase signicantly. By
further increasing the supercial gas velocity, the hydrodynamic
regime of the uid ow inside the bed will transfer from bubbling
regime to slugging regime.
5.3. Effect of restitution coefcient
The restitution coefcient, e species the coefcient of restitu-
tion for collisions between solid particles. The restitution coef-
cient compensates for the collisions to be inelastic. In a
completely elastic collision the restitution coefcient will be equal
to one. Fig. 9 shows a snapshot of solid volume fraction contours at
the supercial gas velocity of U = 0.21(m/s) and t = 10 (s) using ad-
justed Di Felice drag model for seven different restitution coef-
cients proposed for simulation of uidized beds in literature. A
comparison between different values of restitution coefcient
and experiment in terms of bed height and bubble size and shape
is shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen that as collisions become less ideal
(and more energy is dissipated due to inelastic collisions) particles
become closely packed in the densest regions of the bed, resulting
in sharper porosity contours and larger bubbles [13]. In this study
the value of e = 0.92 for the coefcient of restitution has been used
for the whole simulation which seems to be in good agreement
with experiment in terms of bubble shape and bed height.
5.4. Mesh size sensitivity analysis
Wang et al. [41] concluded that in order to obtain correct bed
expansion characteristics, the grid size should be of the order of
three particle diameters which requires smaller grid size and high-
er computer resources.
A mesh size sensitivity analysis has been carried out to study
the effect of grid size resolution on the results predicted by numer-
ical simulation. In this respect, the geometry of the uidized bed
has been meshed using three distinctive grid intervals of 2, 4,
and 5 (mm) to simulate the hydrodynamic behavior of the bed.
The adjusted Di Felice drag model has been chosen for modeling
the momentum transfer between the phases in sensitivity analysis
simulations. All the simulations performed at supercial gas veloc-
ity of U 0:21 m=s. Table 3 shows the predication of pressure
drop inside and across the bed, DP
1
and DP
2
, respectively. Predic-
tion of time mean average solid volume fraction at bed elevation of
Z = 0.2 (m) also was checked. The time mean average was calcu-
lated on the real-time simulation interval of 210 s to ensure that
statistical steady state behavior inside the bed was attained [38]. It
can be easily observed that the results did not show any notewor-
thy dissimilarity in uid dynamics behavior of the beds. Table 2
also compares the time required for 10 s of real-time simulation.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig. 8. Contours of solid volume fraction (t = 10 (s), Di Felice adjusted drag model):
(a) U = 0.117 (m/s); (b) U = 0.21 (m/s); (c) U = 0.38 (m/s) and (d) U = 0.46 (m/s).
Experiment
Fig. 9. Comparison between experiment and simulated bed height for various values of the coefcient of restitution (U = 0.21 (m/s) t = 10 (s), adjusted Di Felice).
Table 3
Grid size sensitivity results.
Mesh
spacing
(mm)
DP
1
(kPa)
DP
2
(kPa)
Mean solid volume
fraction at z = 0.2 (m)
Simulation time for
10 (s) real time (h)
2 2.945 5.18 0.55 300
4 2.964 5.10 0.54 148
5 2.975 5.05 0.54 52
384 E. Esmaili, N. Mahinpey / Advances in Engineering Software 42 (2011) 375386
It can be seen that the required time for simulating 10 s of 3D u-
idized bed drastically increases from 52 h to almost 2 weeks for a
decrease in grid interval spacing from 5 to 2 mm, respectively.
Therefore, the mesh interval size of 5 mm has been chosen for
the rest of simulation to obtain reasonable time efciency without
losing the accuracy of results. Fig. 10 also shows the contours of so-
lid volume fraction for three different mesh size resolutions. Here-
in, similarities of bed expansion and bubble shapes among the
simulations can be easily appreciated. The above results indicate
that the grid size spacing selected for simulation in this work
(i.e., 5 mm) was adequate for satisfactory prediction of the hydro-
dynamics in computational geometry.
6. Conclusion
Numerical simulation of a bubbling gassolid uidized bed
were performed in a three dimensional solution domain using
the EulerianEulerian approach to investigate the effect of using
different drag correlations for modeling the momentum transfer
between phases. The drag models of Richardon and Zaki,
WenYu, Gibilaro, Gidaspow, SyamlalOBrien, Arastoopour, RUC,
Di Felice, Hill Koch Ladd, Zhang and Reese, and adjusted Syamlal
were reviewed and a method proposed for adjusting the original
Di Felice darg model in a three dimensional domain based on the
experimental minimum uidization conditions. In this respect,
FLUENT 6.3 was used to perform the calculations while the drag
correlations have been implemented in C++ and uploaded in
FLUENT as User Dened Functions (UDF).The results have been
compared to experimental data in terms of pressure drop and
bed expansion ratio. It is concluded that the adjusted Di Felice
model predicts the hydrodynamic behavior of uidized bed more
accurately that all other drag models. The effect of using three-
dimensional analysis vs. two-dimensional simulation of uidized
beds is also investigated. The results show that although
three-dimensional simulation takes more time and computing pro-
cessors than two-dimensional simulation, it gives more accurate
results when the models are compared with experimental data.
Finally, sensitivity analysis was carried out to investigate the effect
of using various restitution coefcients as well as the different grid
interval spacing on the results. Further modeling efforts are
required to study the inuence of other parameters such as gas
distributors, and also, the effect of particle size distribution which
has been underestimated using the mean particle diameter. More-
over, new experimental studies should be carried out using recent
advancements in instrumentation engineering in order to resolve
the available experimental discrepancies reported in the literature
such as void fraction measurements, and bed expansion ratio.
References
[1] Hoomans BPB, Kuipers JAM, Briels WJ, Swaaij VWPM. Discrete particle
simulation of bubble and slug formulation in a two-dimensional gas-
uidized bed: a hard-sphere approach. Chem Eng Sci 1996;51:99.
[2] Xu B, Yu A. Numerical simulation of the gassolid ow in a uidized bed by
combining discrete particle method with computational uid dynamics. Chem
Eng Sci 1997;52:2785.
[3] Kafui KD, Thornton C, Adams MJ. Discrete particle-continuum uid modeling
of gassolid uidized beds. Chem Eng Sci 2002;57:2395.
[4] Goldschmidt MJV, Beetstra R, Kuipers JAM. Hydrodynamic modeling of dense
gas-uidised beds: comparison and validation of 3d discrete particle and
continuum models. Powder Technol 2004;142:23.
[5] Bokkers GA, van Sint Annaland M, Kuipers JAM. Mixing and segregation in a
bidisperse gassolid uidised bed: a numerical and experimental study.
Powder Technol 2004;140:17686.
[6] van Sint Annaland M, Bokkers GA, Goldschmidt MJV, Olaofe OO, van der Hoef
MA, Kuipers JAM. Development of a multi-uid model for poly-disperse dense
gassolid uidised beds, part II: segregation in binary particle mixtures. Chem
Eng Sci 2009;64:423746.
[7] van Wachem BGM, Schouterf JC, Krishnab R, van den Bleek CM. Eulerian
simulations of bubbling behavior in gassolid uidized beds. Comput Chem
Eng 1988;22(Suppl.):S299306.
[8] Cammarata L, Lettieri P, Micale GDM, Colman D. 2d and 3d CFD simulations of
bubbling uidized beds using EulerianEulerian models. Int J Chem Reactor
Eng 2003;1. article A48.
[9] Sun J, Battaglia F. Hydrodynamic modeling of particle rotation for segregation
in bubbling gas-uidized beds. Chem Eng Sci 2006;61:1470.
[10] Xie N, Battaglia F, Pannala S. Effects of using two-versus three-dimensional
computational modeling of uidized beds: part I, hydrodynamics. Powder
Technol 2008;182.
[11] Behjat Y, Shahhosseini S, Hashemabadi SH. CFD modeling of hydrodynamic
and heat transfer in uidized bed reactors. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer
2008;35:35768.
[12] Li T, Pougatch K, Salcudean M, Grecov D. Numerical simulation of horizontal
jet penetration in a three-dimensional uidized bed. Powder Technol
2008;184:8999.
[13] Goldschmidt MJV, Kuipers JAM, van Swaaij WPM. Hydrodynamic modeling of
dense gas-uidized beds using the kinetic theory of granular ow: effect of
coefcient of restitution on bed dynamics. Chem Eng Sci 2001;56:5718.
[14] Peiranoa E, Delloumea V, Lecknera B. Two- or three-dimensional simulations
of turbulent gassolid ows applied to uidization. Chem Eng Sci
2001;56:478799.
[15] Darton RC, LaNauZe RD, Davidson JF, Harrison D. Bubble growth due to
coalescence in uidised beds. Trans Inst Chem Eng 1977;55:274.
[16] Zhang Kai, Brandani Stefano, Bi Jicheng, Jiang Jianchun. CFD simulation of
uidization quality in the three-dimensional uidized bed. Prog Nat Sci
2008;18:72933.
[17] Li Jie, Kuipers JAM. On the origin of heterogeneous structure in dense gassolid
ows. Chem Eng Sci 2005;60:125165.
[18] Di Felice R. The voidage functions for uidparticle interaction system. Int J
Multiphase Flow 1994;20(1):1539.
[19] Lun CKK, Savage SB, Je rey DJ, Chepurniy N. Kinetic theories for granular ow:
inelastic particles in Couette ow and slightly inelastic particles in a general
ow eld. J Fluid Mech 1984;140:22356.
[20] Ibdir H, Arastoopour H. Modeling of multi-type particle ow using kinetic
approach. AICHE J 2005.
[21] Alder BJ, Wainwright TE. Studies in molecular dynamics. II. Behavior of small
number of elastic spheres. J Chem Phys 1960;33:236382.
[22] Gidaspow D. Multiphase ow and uidization-continuum and kinetic theory
descriptions. Boston: Academic Press; 1994.
[23] Ding J, Gidaspow D. A bubbling uidization model using kinetic theory of
granular ow. AIChE J 1990;36(4):52338.
[24] Schaeffer Ergun. Fluid ow through packed columns. Chem Eng Prog
1952;48(2):8994.
(b) (a) (c)
Fig. 10. Contours of solid volume fraction (U = 0.21 (m/s), t = 6 (s), Di Felice
adjusted drag model): (a) mesh size 2 mm; (b) mesh size 4 mm and (c) mesh size
5 mm.
E. Esmaili, N. Mahinpey / Advances in Engineering Software 42 (2011) 375386 385
[25] Johnson PC, Jackson R. Frictionalcollisional constitutive relations for granular
materials, with application to plane shearing. J Fluid Mech 1987;176:6793.
[26] Johnson PC, Nott P, Jackson R. Frictionalcollisional equations of motion for
particulate ows and their application to chutes. J Fluid Mech 1990;210:
50135.
[27] Ergun S. Fluid ow through packed columns. Chem Eng Prog 1952;48(2):
8994.
[28] Richardson JF, Zaki WN. Sedimentation and uidization: part I. Trans Inst
Chem Eng 1954;32:3553.
[29] Wen CY, Yu YH. Mechanics of uidization. Chem Eng Prog Symp Ser 1966:
10011.
[30] Gibilaro LG, Di Felice R, Waldram SP, Foscolo PU. Generalized friction factor
and drag coefcient correlations for uidparticle interactions. Chem Eng Sci
1985;40:181723.
[31] Huilin Lu, Yurong He, Gidaspow Dimitri. Hydrodynamic modeling of binary
mixture in a gas bubbling uidized bed using the kinetic theory of granular
ow. Chemical Engineering Science 2003;58:1197205.
[32] Syamlal M, OBrien TJ. Simulation of granular layer inversion in liquid uidized
beds. Int J Multiphase Flow 1988;14(4):47381.
[33] Arastoopour H, Pakdel P, Adewumi M. Hydrodynamic analysis of dilute gas
solids ow in a vertical pipe. Powder Technol 1990;62(2):16370.
[34] Du Plessis JP. Analytical quantication of coefcients in the Ergun equation for
uid friction in a packed bed. Transport Porous Media 1994;16:189207.
[35] Hill RJ, Koch DL, Ladd JC. Moderate Reynolds number ows in ordered and
random arrays of spheres. J Fluid Mech 2001;448:24378.
[36] Zhang Y, Reese JM. The drag force in two uid models of gassolid ows. Chem
Eng Sci 2003;58(8):16414.
[37] Syamlal M, OBrien TJ. Derivation of a drag coefcient from velocityvoidage
correlation. US Department of Energy, Ofce of Fossil; Energy, National Energy
Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, WV; 1987.
[38] Vejahati Farshid, Mahinpey Nader, Ellis Naoko, Nikoo Mehrdokht B. CFD
simulation of gassolid bubbling uidized bed: a new method for adjusting
drag law. Can J Chem Eng 2009;87:1930.
[39] Van der Hoef MA, Beetstra R, Kuipers JAM. J Fluid Mech 2005;528:23354;
Beetstra R, Van der Hoef MA, Kuipers JAM. AIChE J 2007;53:489501.
[40] Beetstra R, van der Hoef MA, Kuipers JAM. Drag force of intermediate Reynolds
number ow past mono- and bidisperse arrays of spheres. AIChE J 2007;53:
489501.
[41] Wang Junwu, van der Hoef MA, Kuipers JAM. Why the two-uid model fails to
predict the bed expansion characteristics of Geldart A particles in gas-uidized
beds: a tentative answer. Chem Eng Sci 2009;64:6225.
386 E. Esmaili, N. Mahinpey / Advances in Engineering Software 42 (2011) 375386