Literature Review

Experimental and computational study of gassolid fluidized

bed hydrodynamics
Fariborz Taghipour , Naoko Ellis, Clayton Wong

What was done?

Various drag functions namely Syamlal, Gidaspow, WenYu was used
Solid phase kinetic energy fluctuation was characterized
by varying coefficient of restitution 0.9 to 0.99
Comparison of experimental and computational results

Research challenges
Handling boundary conditions at interface

Which approach?
Eulerian Lagrangian

Solid phase is treated as discrete particles

Computationally intensive

Eulerian-Eulerian

Both phases treated as interpenetrating continua

Modeling solid phase as continuum

Drag force takes care of
gas-particle interaction
Drag force on a single
particle is also affected by
the presence of other
particles

Averaging technique are used to obtain transport coefficients

for solid phase

Particle translational velocity fluctuation(about the mean)

energy ie granular temperature assumed to result in particleparticle collisions

Coefficient of restitution
Lower it is more the generation of fluctuating energy
In dense 2 phase flows assumption of 2 particles
interaction completing before interacting with another
particle fails.

Experimental Setup

2D plexi glass column of 1.0m height,0.28m width and

0.025m thickness

Distributor is perforated plate of open area ratio 1.2 %

Spherical glass beads of 250300mm diameter and density

2500 kg/m3

Static bed height 0.4m with solids volume fraction 0.6

Computational Model

Closure of governing equations

Granular temperature is used to close
1. Pressure and stress terms of solid phase
2. Diffusion coefficient and collisional dissipation of
granular temperature transport equation
.Momentum exchange coefficient using drag functions

Solver settings
Time step 0.001s with 20 iterations per time step
First order discretization scheme for convective terms
Convergence criterion of 10^-3 for each scaled residual
component
Sensitivity analysis on above parameters
Phase coupled SIMPLE algorithm
Multigrid method

Experimental parameters
Experimental minimum fluidization velocity
Umf=0.065m/s
Steady state pressure drop and bed expansion ratio
H/H0 at different superficial gas velocities compared,
0.03, 0.1, 0.38, 0.46, and 0.51 m/s,

Solid volume fraction profile

Comparison of pressure drop

Pressure drop fluctuations as result of transient nature of

bubble coalesnce and breaking

Comparison of drag functions w.r.t

Expansion ratio

At U=1.5Umf default Syamlal model does not predict

fluidization

Drag models neglect interparticle cohesive force so they

overpredict expansion ratio for Geldart A

Geldart A particles inter cohesive force influences fluidization

Geldart B(used in this experiment) particle inter cohesive

force plays minor role in fluidization

Effect of coefficient of restitution

When e is increased from 0.9 to 0.99 bed expansion
ratio increased from 1.35 to 1.45, at U = 0.38m/s
due to increasingly elastic collisions
Higher e values (0.99) shows bubbling at U<Umf but
not observed experimentally
However at U>Umf e=0.99 shows satisfactory results

Comparison of e=0.9 and e=0.99

Pressure drop

For U<Umf interparticle frictional force dominates which is

not predicted by model

Predicted pressure drop almost same for all models

Solids volume fraction contour

All three drag relationships provided similar qualitative flow

patterns.

Size of bubble similar to that of experimental.

Any discrepancy is because distributor plate is not considered

in CFD modeling

Experimental (left) and simulated(right) instantaneous

local
voidage traces at z = 0.2m, U = 0.46m/s.

Sampled at 100Hz
Shows passage of bubble where
fluctuation of 0.45 voltage

Sampled at 10Hz
Cannot clearly distinguish passing bubble

Experimental and simulated time-average local voidage

profiles
at (A) z =0.2m, U =0.38m/s, (B) z =0.2m, U =0.46m/s.

Voidage profiles
At both velocities, the experimental ratio of distributor
plate to bed pressure drop remained between 12% and
41%, ensuring uniformity of gas injection at the
distributor plate.
Simulation results represent time-average voidages for
525 s real time simulation using the SyamlalOBrien
drag model.
Slight asymmetry for U=0.38 may result from
development of a flow pattern and too short an
averaging time
At U=0.46 profile is flatter indicating a developed flow

Velocity Profile

Developed dense gassolid flows, analytical solution of the

particle velocity based on the kinetic theory

The solids movement is greatly influenced by the wakes of

bubbles in the bubbling flow regime. Thus, regions of higher
time-mean voidage with larger bubbles have a higher rise
velocity carrying the solids up the bed.

Sensitivity analysis
Results compared with second order discretization
scheme,0.0005s and 10^-4 convergence criterion with
100 iterations per time step
Results show no significant difference in overall
hydrodynamic behaviour

Sensitivity analysis