TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative CFD modeling of a bubbling bed using a Eulerian–Eulerian two-fluid model (TFM) and a Eulerian-Lagrangian dense discrete phase model (DDPM)
AU - Adnan, Muhammad
AU - Sun, Jie
AU - Ahmad, Nouman
AU - Wei, Jin Jia
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2021/5
Y1 - 2021/5
N2 - Eulerian–Eulerian and Eulerian-Lagrangian numerical approaches are both widely used to investigate hydrodynamic behavior in dense gas-solid fluidized bed reactors, yet there has been a lack of comparative investigations involving the two. Therefore, the present work compares the numerical performance of a two-fluid model (TFM) and a dense discrete phase model (DDPM) in describing the hydrodynamic behavior of a pilot-scale bubbling bed reactor. The effects of several different parameters – 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 (the latter two parameters only for the DDPM) – are investigated and compared for the two approaches using two-dimensional (2D) simulations. The numerical results for both models indicate that sub-grid drag correction based on the energy minimization and multiscale (EMMS) theory is the most essential modeling parameter to account for the multiscale structures (i.e., bubbles and void spaces) and to resolve the axial and radial solid distributions. Both the TFM and DDPM, coupled with the EMMS/bubbling drag, predict similar hydrodynamics behavior; however, the better accuracy in terms of axial and radial solids concentration profiles is achieved from the TFM approach. Further, our grid size analysis results indicate that the DDPM generates a better grid-independent solution than the TFM. This important advantage of the DDPM over TFM makes it a suitable candidate for large-scale industrial applications by employing it on much coarser grids. Meanwhile, the results from the time-step, time-averaging interval, specularity coefficient, restitution coefficient, reflection coefficient, and numbers of parcels represent a minor effect on the overall hydrodynamics behavior of the pilot-scale bubbling bed reactor.
AB - Eulerian–Eulerian and Eulerian-Lagrangian numerical approaches are both widely used to investigate hydrodynamic behavior in dense gas-solid fluidized bed reactors, yet there has been a lack of comparative investigations involving the two. Therefore, the present work compares the numerical performance of a two-fluid model (TFM) and a dense discrete phase model (DDPM) in describing the hydrodynamic behavior of a pilot-scale bubbling bed reactor. The effects of several different parameters – 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 (the latter two parameters only for the DDPM) – are investigated and compared for the two approaches using two-dimensional (2D) simulations. The numerical results for both models indicate that sub-grid drag correction based on the energy minimization and multiscale (EMMS) theory is the most essential modeling parameter to account for the multiscale structures (i.e., bubbles and void spaces) and to resolve the axial and radial solid distributions. Both the TFM and DDPM, coupled with the EMMS/bubbling drag, predict similar hydrodynamics behavior; however, the better accuracy in terms of axial and radial solids concentration profiles is achieved from the TFM approach. Further, our grid size analysis results indicate that the DDPM generates a better grid-independent solution than the TFM. This important advantage of the DDPM over TFM makes it a suitable candidate for large-scale industrial applications by employing it on much coarser grids. Meanwhile, the results from the time-step, time-averaging interval, specularity coefficient, restitution coefficient, reflection coefficient, and numbers of parcels represent a minor effect on the overall hydrodynamics behavior of the pilot-scale bubbling bed reactor.
KW - Dense discrete phase model (DDPM)
KW - EMMS drag
KW - Grid size
KW - Numbers of parcels
KW - Two-fluid model (TFM)
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85100636654
U2 - 10.1016/j.powtec.2021.01.063
DO - 10.1016/j.powtec.2021.01.063
M3 - 文章
AN - SCOPUS:85100636654
SN - 0032-5910
VL - 383
SP - 418
EP - 442
JO - Powder Technology
JF - Powder Technology
ER -