scholarly journals Experimental and computational study of pressure drop and void fraction in a bubbling fluidized bed

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. K. Jayarathna ◽  
B. M. Halvorsen
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Drop ◽  
Fluidized Bed ◽  
Void Fraction ◽  
Computational Study ◽  
Bubbling Fluidized Bed

Bed pressure drop of a bubbling fluidized-bed with overflow solid discharge

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1165-1173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoo Sube Won ◽  
Pil Sang Youn ◽  
Daewook Kim ◽  
Ji Bong Joo ◽  
Jeong-Hoo Choi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Drop ◽  
Fluidized Bed ◽  
Bubbling Fluidized Bed ◽  
Solid Discharge

Effect of level of overflow solid outlet on pressure drop of a bubbling fluidized-bed

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 2564-2573
Author(s):  
Daewook Kim ◽  
Gyoung Woo Lee ◽  
Yoo Sube Won ◽  
Jeong-Hoo Choi ◽  
Ji Bong Joo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Drop ◽  
Fluidized Bed ◽  
Bubbling Fluidized Bed

On the Computational Modeling of Unfluidized and Fluidized Bed Dynamics

2014 ◽  
Vol 136 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey C. Teaters ◽  
Francine Battaglia
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Data ◽  
Pressure Drop ◽  
Multiphase Flow ◽  
Fluidized Bed ◽  
Void Fraction ◽  
Volume Fraction ◽  
Flow Modeling ◽  
Ansys Fluent ◽  
Minimum Fluidization Velocity ◽  
Two Factors

Two factors of great importance when considering gas–solid fluidized bed dynamics are pressure drop and void fraction, which is the volume fraction of the gas phase. It is, of course, possible to obtain pressure drop and void fraction data through experiments, but this tends to be costly and time consuming. It is much preferable to be able to efficiently computationally model fluidized bed dynamics. In the present work, ANSYS Fluent® is used to simulate fluidized bed dynamics using an Eulerian–Eulerian multiphase flow model. By comparing the simulations using Fluent to experimental data as well as to data from other fluidized bed codes such as Multiphase Flow with Interphase eXchanges (MFIX), it is possible to show the strengths and limitations with respect to multiphase flow modeling. The simulations described herein will present modeling beds in the unfluidized regime, where the inlet gas velocity is less than the minimum fluidization velocity, and will deem to shed some light on the discrepancies between experimental data and simulations. In addition, this paper will also include comparisons between experiments and simulations in the fluidized regime using void fraction.

Effects of pressure drop and superficial velocity on the bubbling fluidized bed incinerator

2007 ◽  
Vol 42 (14) ◽  
pp. 2147-2158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng-Jehng Wang ◽  
Suming Chen ◽  
Perng-Kwei Lei ◽  
Chung-Hsing Wu
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Drop ◽  
Fluidized Bed ◽  
Superficial Velocity ◽  
Bubbling Fluidized Bed

Effects of Different Granular Viscosity Models on the Bubbling Fluidized Bed - A Numerical Approach

2013 ◽  
Vol 393 ◽  
pp. 857-862
Author(s):  
M.I. Hilmee ◽  
Mohan Sinnathambi Chandra ◽  
Saravanan Karuppanan ◽  
M. Fadhil ◽  
Mohd Rizal Lias
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Drop ◽  
Fluidized Bed ◽  
Granular Flow ◽  
Simulation Models ◽  
Numerical Approach ◽  
Ansys Fluent ◽  
Viscosity Models ◽  
Simulation Based ◽  
Bubbling Fluidized Bed ◽  
Bed Expansion

Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow (KTGF) has been successfully incorporated and widely implemented in the Eulerian simulation models in many multiphase cases. The KTGF theory involves many parameters and is applied in the multiphase simulation for the purpose of hydrodynamic properties modeling of the granular phase. This paper is focused on granular viscosity which is a parameter in the KTGF that incorporates three different viscosities arising from the inter-phase and intra phases interaction in a bubbling fluidized bed (BFB). The 2D BFB model of 0.2 m width and 0.8 m length having a 13-hole orifice plate has been modeled for this purpose. The model was constructed using Gambit software version 2.4.6 and then simulated using ANSYS Fluent version 14. Two models of granular viscosity, namely Syamlal-Obrien model and Gidaspow model, were compared based on its effect to the pressure drop and bed expansion of the BFB. The results depicted that the simulation based on Syamlal-Obrien model tends to produce larger bubbles and contributing to a higher pressure drop across the distributor plate as compared to the Gidaspow model.

On the Computational Modeling of Unfluidized and Fluidized Bed Dynamics

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey C. Teaters ◽  
Francine Battaglia
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Data ◽  
Pressure Drop ◽  
Multiphase Flow ◽  
Fluidized Bed ◽  
Void Fraction ◽  
Volume Fraction ◽  
Flow Modeling ◽  
Ansys Fluent ◽  
Minimum Fluidization Velocity ◽  
Two Factors

Two factors of great importance when considering gas-solid fluidized bed dynamics are pressure drop and void fraction, which is the volume fraction of the gas phase. It is, of course, possible to obtain pressure drop and void fraction data through experimentation, but this tends to be costly and time consuming. It is much preferable to be able to efficiently computationally model fluidized bed dynamics. In the present work, ANSYS FLUENT is used to simulate fluidized bed dynamics using an Eulerian-Eulerian multiphase flow model. By comparing the simulations using FLUENT to experimental data as well as to data from other fluidized bed codes such as Multiphase Flow with Interphase eXchanges (MFIX), it is possible to show the strengths and limitations of FLUENT with respect to multiphase flow modeling. The simulations described herein will focus on modeling of beds in the unfluidized regime, where the inlet gas velocity is less than the minimum fluidization velocity, and will deem to shed some light on the discrepancies between experimental data and FLUENT results. In addition, this paper will also include comparisons between experimental data and simulation data in the fluidized regime based on void fraction contours and profiles.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document