Cluster structure-dependent drag model for liquid–solid circulating fluidized bed

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guodong Liu ◽  
Peng Wang ◽  
Fan Yu ◽  
Yanan Zhang ◽  
Wentao Guo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fluidized Bed ◽  
Circulating Fluidized Bed ◽  
Cluster Structure ◽  
Drag Model

Cluster structure in a circulating fluidized bed

1994 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Zou ◽  
Hongzhong Li ◽  
Yashen Xia ◽  
Xinhua Ma
Keyword(s):  
Fluidized Bed ◽  
Circulating Fluidized Bed ◽  
Cluster Structure

scholarly journals An Assessment of Drag Models in Eulerian–Eulerian CFD Simulation of Gas–Solid Flow Hydrodynamics in Circulating Fluidized Bed Riser

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mukesh Upadhyay ◽  
Ayeon Kim ◽  
Heehyang Kim ◽  
Dongjun Lim ◽  
Hankwon Lim
Keyword(s):  
Fluidized Bed ◽  
Cfd Simulation ◽  
Circulating Fluidized Bed ◽  
Model Simulation ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Radial Profile ◽  
Momentum Exchange ◽  
Drag Model ◽  
Solid Holdup ◽  
Drag Models

Accurate prediction of the hydrodynamic profile is important for circulating fluidized bed (CFB) reactor design and scale-up. Multiphase computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation with interphase momentum exchange is key to accurately predict the gas-solid profile along the height of the riser. The present work deals with the assessment of six different drag model capability to accurately predict the riser section axial solid holdup distribution in bench scale circulating fluidized bed. The difference between six drag model predictions were validated against the experiment data. Two-dimensional geometry, transient solver and Eulerian–Eulerian multiphase models were used. Six drag model simulation predictions were discussed with respect to axial and radial profile. The comparison between CFD simulation and experimental data shows that the Syamlal-O’Brien, Gidaspow, Wen-Yu and Huilin-Gidaspow drag models were successfully able to predict the riser upper section solid holdup distribution with better accuracy, however unable to predict the solid holdup transition region. On the other hand, the Gibilaro model and Helland drag model were successfully able to predict the bottom dense region, but the upper section solid holdup distribution was overpredicted. The CFD simulation comparison of different drag model has clearly shown the limitation of the drag model to accurately predict overall axial heterogeneity with accuracy.

Pulsation active method-based particle cluster regulation using dynamic cluster structure-dependent drag model in a fluidized bed riser

2021 ◽  
pp. 117370
Author(s):  
Jiang Xiaoxue ◽  
Wang Shuyan ◽  
Li Zhenguang ◽  
Ugwuodo U. Marcellus ◽  
Shao Baoli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fluidized Bed ◽  
Cluster Structure ◽  
Particle Cluster ◽  
Active Method ◽  
Drag Model ◽  
Dynamic Cluster

Eulerian simulation of a circulating fluidized bed with a new flow structure-based drag model

2016 ◽  
Vol 284 ◽  
pp. 1224-1232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baolin Hou ◽  
Xiaodong Wang ◽  
Tao Zhang ◽  
Hongzhong Li
Keyword(s):  
Fluidized Bed ◽  
Flow Structure ◽  
Circulating Fluidized Bed ◽  
Drag Model
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document