Comparative analysis of CFD models of dense gas–solid systems

Authors

  • B. G. M. van Wachem,

    Corresponding author
    1. DelftChemTech, Chemical Reactor Engineering Section, Delft University of Technology, 2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands
    Current affiliation:
    1. Laboratory of Chemical Reactor Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    • DelftChemTech, Chemical Reactor Engineering Section, Delft University of Technology, 2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • J. C. Schouten,

    1. DelftChemTech, Chemical Reactor Engineering Section, Delft University of Technology, 2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands
    Current affiliation:
    1. Laboratory of Chemical Reactor Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • C. M. van den Bleek,

    1. DelftChemTech, Chemical Reactor Engineering Section, Delft University of Technology, 2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • R. Krishna,

    1. Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • J. L. Sinclair

    1. School of Chemical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Many gas–solid CFD models have been put forth by academic researchers, government laboratories, and commercial vendors. These models often differ in terms of both the form of the governing equations and the closure relations, resulting in much confusion in the literature. These various forms in the literature and in commercial codes are reviewed and the resulting hydrodynamics through CFD simulations of fluidized beds compared. Experimental data on fluidized beds of Hilligardt and Werther (1986), Kehoe and Davidson (1971), Darton et al.(1977), and Kuipers (1990) are used to quantitatively assess the various treatments. Predictions based on the commonly used governing equations of Ishii (1975) do not differ from those of Anderson and Jackson (1967) in terms of macroscopic flow behavior, but differ on a local scale. Flow predictions are not sensitive to the use of different solid stress models or radial distribution functions, as different approaches are very similar in dense flow regimes. The application of a different drag model, however, significantly impacts the flow of the solids phase. A simplified algebraic granular energy-balance equation is proposed for determining the granular temperature, instead of solving the full granular energy balance. This simplification does not lead to significantly different results, but it does reduce the computational effort of the simulations by about 20%.

Ancillary