Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 17371747

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advanced Powder Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apt

Original Research Paper

Numerical simulation of turbulent uidized bed with Geldart B particles

Salma Benzarti a,, Hatem Mhiri a, Herv Bournot b, Ren Occelli b
a
b

National Engineering School of Monastir, Unit of Thermic and Thermodynamics of the Industrial Processes, Avenue Ibn El Jazzar, 5019 Monastir, Tunisia
Aix Marseille Universit, CNRS, IUSTI UMR 7343, 13453 Marseille, France

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 2 May 2013
Received in revised form 18 June 2014
Accepted 26 June 2014
Available online 9 July 2014
Keywords:
Turbulent uidization
CFD
Drag model
Turbulence
Wall boundary conditions

a b s t r a c t
A numerical study was carried out to explore the hydrodynamic behavior of gassolid ow in a 2D turbulent uidized bed. The gassolid ow was simulated by mean of an EulerianEulerian two uid model
incorporating the Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow (KTGF). The main purpose of this work was to examine
the ability of various models to predict the hydrodynamic of a turbulent uidized bed lled with Geldart
B particles on the Fluent V.6.2 platform. The effect of different drag models including those of Gidaspow,
Syamlal & OBrien and Mckeen, were tested and the corresponding results were compared. A good level of
agreement was achieved with the Gidaspow model with reference to experimental data. Two viscous
models were tested and the standard ke model performed the better prediction of the core annular
structure of the bed with reference to the experimental data. Different wall boundary conditions were
also tested and their impact evaluated on the hydrodynamics of the bed.
2014 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder
Technology Japan. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The turbulent uidized bed was widely used in industrial applications during the last decades. It is characterized by its ability to
handle the continuous powder, its vigorous gassolids contacting,
its ability of favorable heat and mass transfer and by its relatively
low axial gas dispersion.
The turbulent uidization regime has been commonly acknowledged as a distinct ow regime occurring between two adjacent
ow regimes: the bubbling and the fast uidization regimes. It is
characterized by two different coexisting regions: a dense bottom,
bubbling region and a dilute, dispersed ow region. The turbulent
uidization is further characterized by its high value of dispersion
coefcient for the solids. According to the literature review, less
attention was dedicated to the turbulent uidization due to current deciencies in experimental and theoretical works [14].
Therefore, fundamental understanding of its hydrodynamic behavior is required.
Having achieved success in simulation of single phase ow, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is considered greatly promising for
modeling multiphase ows [5]. Nevertheless, CFD is still at the verication and validation stages for modeling multiphase ows, for
uidized bed applications particularly, and more improvements

Corresponding author. Tel.: +216 29344333.

E-mail address: salma_benzarti@yahoo.fr (S. Benzarti).

regarding ow dynamics and computational models are required

to make it a standard tool in designing large scale industrial reactors.
There are two different classications of CFD models in the literature for modeling gassolid ows: The Lagrangian and the Eulerian approach. In the Lagrangian approach, the Newtonian
equations of motion are solved for each individual particle. This
approach also takes into account a collision model for commending
the energy dissipation caused by non ideal particleparticle interactions [6,7]. The second approach, namely the Eulerian approach,
treats the two different phases mathematically as continuous and
fully interpenetrating [810]. Several comparisons between
numerical models based on the multiuid model and the discrete
particle model are available in the literature. Ibsen et al. [11], for
example, made a comparison based on 2D simulations of a circulating uidized bed. They found that the discrete particle model
was in better agreement with experimental ndings, while the
Eulerian approach was by far the most efcient. Conservations
equations (momentum, mass, energy balance) were derived to
obtain a set of equations that have similar structure in all phases.
To close the equations system and to describe the rheology of
the solid phase, constitutive equations are necessary. The Kinetic
Theory of Granular Flow (KTGF) has become a very promising
model for the gasparticle uidized beds. It is an extension of
the classical kinetic theory of gases described by Chapman and
Cowling [12] to dense particulate ows. Numerous studies incorporating the KTGF model have shown its ability to simulate the
two-phase ow in circulating uidized beds (CFBs) [9,1316].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2014.06.024
0921-8831/ 2014 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder Technology Japan. All rights reserved.

1738

S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 17371747

Nomenclature
C 2e , C 1e
CD
D
ds
es
g
g0
Gk;g
Gs
H
I
I2D
J
kg
kH
P
Ps
q
Re
t
u
udr
Ug

turbulence model coefcients

drag coefcient
riser width, m
particle diameter, m
particleparticle restitution coefcient
gravitational acceleration, 9.81 m s2
radial distribution function
production of turbulence kinetic energy, W m3
solids external mass ux, kg m2 s1
riser height, m
unit tensor
the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor
granular energy transfer, kg m1 s3
turbulence quantities of gas phase, m2 s2
the diffusion coefcient for granular energy
pressure, N m2
solid pressure, N m2
diffusion of uctuating energy, kg s3
Reynols number
time, s
velocity, m s1
drift velocity, m s1
supercial gas velocity, m s1

In the Eulerian model, the momentum equations for both

phases are connected by the drag coefcient, which represents
the momentum exchange between the gas and solid phases. The
drag coefcient plays an important role in characterizing the overall behavior of uidization; justifying its frequent investigation in
the literature. Several drag models were mentioned in the literature, including the Gidaspow [14], SyamlalOBrien [17] and
Wen-Yu [18] models.
Many researchers have successfully simulated the hydrodynamics of Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) particles, and of the coarsest Geldart B [19] particles, respectively in circulating uidized
beds and in bubbling uidized beds by conventional drag models.
Nevertheless, less successful simulations have been performed on
gas uidization of Geldart A particles or turbulent uidization of
Geldart B particles.
Qi et al. [20] reported that classical drag models perform satisfying results for only low gas velocities and coarse particles, in
which case the terminal velocity was equal or close to the supercial gas velocity.
Zimmermann and Taghipour [21] reported also that the drag
models of Gidaspow and SyamlalOBrien are not suitable, in their
original form, for simulations of Geldart A particles. In fact, these
models overestimate the momentum exchange between the two
phases and overpredict the bed expansion with reference to experimental data.
Zhang and Vanderheyden [22] reported that the inter-particle
cohesive forces leading to the formation of mesoscale bubbling
or clustering structures, cause a signicant change in drag forces.
They proposed then to correct the standard drag correlation by a
scaling factor of 1  cr 2 , to account for the mesoscale bubbling
or clustering structures. This method has been since then used
by several authors (Ye et al. [23]; Mckeen and Pugsley [24]) to simulate bubbling uidized beds of Geldart A particles.
Recently, Mckeen and Pugsley [24] found that the poor simulations results for Geldart A particles could be attributed to the existence of signicant cohesive forces between particles. To cope with
this weakness they brought modication on the Gibilaro [25] drag

Greek letters
eg
turbulence dissipation of gas phase, m2 s3
a
volume fraction
q
density, kg m3
ns
solid bulk viscosity, Pa s
u
specularity coefcient
rk ; re
turbulent Prandtl numbers
b
gasparticle interaction coefcient, kg m3 s1
H
granular temperature, m2 s2
s
stress tensor, N m2
/
angle of internal friction,
Pkg ; Pg inuence of the dispersed phases on the continuous
phase
c
collisional dissipation of energy, kg m3 s1
Subscripts
KTGF
Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow
Col
collisional
Kin
kinetic
max
maximum
fr
frictional
X
lateral coordinate, m
s
solid phase
g
gas phase

model with a scaling factor C varying between 0.2 and 0.3. The correction factor of 0.25 proved to predict the experimental results
observed in a freely bubbling bed for FCC with a mean diameter
of (75 lm).
Yang et al. [26] adopted the energy minimization multiscale
(EMMS) approach, proposed by Li and Kwauk [27] to calculate the
drag coefcient from structure parameters, and to incorporate it
into the two uid models. They claimed that this approach reasonably resolves the heterogeneous structures and suggested the feasibility of using it as a sub-grid closure law for the drag coefcient.
More recently, the EMMS drag model was applied by Jiradilok
et al. [2] to predict the hydrodynamic of the turbulent uidization
of FCC particles. They found that the turbulent regime was correctly computed using the modied drag of Yang et al. [26].
Although several correlations exist in the literature for the drag
force, considerable uncertainties still remain for its prediction.
In addition to the drag coefcient, the restitution coefcient
which accounts for the inelasticity of the particleparticle collision
may affect the hydrodynamic of a uidized bed. Indeed, being an
input in the kinetic theory based CFD models, it has a direct impact
on the quantities they contain, such as particle pressure, particle
viscosity and dissipation of particle temperature. Goldschmidt
et al. [10], studied the effect of the restitution coefcient on the
hydrodynamic of a dense gas uidized bed. They reported that, to
obtain realistic simulations using fundamental hydrodynamic models, it is important to correctly take the effect of non-ideal particle
particle encounters into account. Taghipour et al. [28] found higher
sensitivity to the restitution coefcient at U < U mf . Gao et al. [29]
indicated that there is sensitivity to this coefcient in the behavior
of a turbulent bed lled with Geladart B particles when its values
range from 0.6 to 0.99. Although, the effect of the restitution coefcient has been extensively explored, the role of this parameter is not
yet fully understood and more explorations are still required.
In the riser of a turbulent uidized bed, the multiphase ow is
very turbulent and displays high Reynolds numbers. In order to
make the simulation predictions more realistic, the time average
turbulent behavior and the turbulent interaction between phases

1739

S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 17371747

should be taken into account. Different models, laminar and turbulent models with kinetic theory, have been used by various authors
to simulate the hydrodynamic of gasparticle multiphase ow.
Almuttahar and Taghipour [30] compared two different viscous
models, the ke turbulence and the laminar model with Kinetic
Theory of Granular Flow. They claimed that the laminar model predictions give more consistent results than the turbulent models.
Nevertheless, this comparison was carried out in 2D modeling
and since turbulence uctuations always have three-dimensional
spatial character then, to draw a rm conclusion, 3D comparative
studies are required. However, this requires excessive computational time, hence the 2D modeling still takes preference over 3D.
Further parameters may affect the simulation results of a turbulent uidized bed, such as the wall boundary conditions. Li et al.
[31] investigated the impact of this parameter in a 2D simulation
of a bubbling uidized bed, for gas and solid phases, over the generated ow hydrodynamics. According to their investigation, the
wall boundary conditions need to be specied with great care
due to their high relevance over the hydrodynamic. Johnson and
Jackson [32] have developed a set of boundary conditions to dene
the interactions between the particles and the wall. These boundary conditions have been widely applied in numerical simulations
of gassolid ows due to their relatively simple form [29,33]. In
Johnson and Jackson boundary conditions, the specularity coefcient, which characterizes the tangential momentum transfer due
to collision between the particles and the wall, must be specied
with great care as well (Li et al. [31]). The effect of this coefcient
on the numerical results for different solid particle distributions
has been studied by several researchers [31,34]. The core-annulus
structure of the solid phase was reported to be very sensitive to the
choice of the specularity coefcient [31,35,36]. However, choosing
the right number is critical for most validation studies due to the
difculty in measurements. Further theoretical investigations are
then required in order to contribute to a better understanding of
the gassolid ows.

In the current work, a multiuid Eulerian model incorporating

the Kinetic Theory of Granular Flows has been carried out to simulate the hydrodynamic of a 2D circulating uidized bed lled with
Geldart B particles. These simulations were conducted using the
commercial software package Fluent V.6.2. In order to get the best
simulation of the hydrodynamic of the uidized bed, the effect of
various drag models including those of Gidaspow, SyamlalOBrien
and Mckeen have been investigated. The numerical results
obtained are compared to experimental data available in the literature. This work is further extended to explore the effect of different wall boundary conditions (slip, no slip and partially slip) on the
hydrodynamic of the gassolid ow. Finally, the performance of
two different viscous models (the ke turbulence and the laminar
model) has been evaluated by comparing their predictions with
reference to experimental data.
2. Experimental setup
Our simulation is based on the experimental work conducted by
the CFB team of the I.U.S.T.I., a Laboratory in Marseille (France).
These experiments were carried out by Van den Moortel et al.
[37] and were recently extended by Zaabout et al. [38,39]. They
all used a rectangular Plexiglas riser with 2 m in height and
0:2 m in width. The solid particles used were glass spheres with
a density of 2400 kg=m3 and a mean diameter of 120 lm. Air at
room temperature was used as the uidizing gas. The static bed
height was 0:1 m and the supercial gas velocity was 1 m=s. The
geometry of the uidization loop is depicted in Fig. 1.
3. Computational uid dynamics simulation set up
Through the development of high performance computer and
the advancement of computational methodologies, computational
uid dynamics analysis of multiphase systems has been largely
enhanced and appears as an efcient and promising tool in the

Cyclone
Flow meter

Riser

PDA

Valve

Buffer vessel

Pump
Air outlet

D
Lifting screw
Y
Air distributor

Air inlet
Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental apparatus of the turbulent uidized bed.

1740

S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 17371747

Table 1
Governing equations.
Equations

Mathematical expressions

Mass conservation equations of gas and solids phases

@ag qg
r  g g~
ug 0
@t
@as qs
~

r


u
s
s 0
s
@t

(T1-1)

aq
aq

(T1-2)

ag + as = 1
ug
@ag qg ~
!!
r  g g~
ug ~
ug r  g  g rP  b ug us g g g
@t
!
!
us
@as qs ~
r  s s~
us~
us r  g  s rP  b ug us s s g
@t
1 02
H 3u


3 @as qs H
r  s s~
us H P sI s : r~
us  r  q   J
@t
2

Momentum conservation equations of gas and solids phases

aq

aq

Granular Temperature
Equation of conservation of solids uctuating energy

aq

aq

s : r~
us  c
0 P sI s

Equation of conservation of solids uctuating energy in algebraic form

development and design of circulating uidized beds. We propose

in the current work to simulate the hydrodynamics of a gassolid
CFB riser by means of a multiuid Eulerian model incorporating
the Kinetic Theory of Granular Flows using the commercial CFD
software package, Fluent. With this approach, the two different
phases are mathematically treated as continuous and fully interpenetrating. However, to obtain a set of equations having similar
structures for both phases, the conservation equations are derived.
A brief summary of the governing equations and its constitutive
equations is provided respectively in Tables 1 and 2.
3.1. Gassolid exchange coefcient b (drag models)
The momentum exchange between the gas and solid phases is
accounted for by the drag coefcient, which has a signicant effect
on the prediction of the EulerianEulerian model. Based on the theory and application, several expressions for this coefcient are
available in the open literature. In the current work, the effect of
various drag models including those of Gidaspow [14], Syamlal
OBrien [17] and Mckeen [243] has been analyzed.
The Gidaspow drag model is a standard model which combines
the Wen-Yu [18] and the Ergun [42] equations to cover the whole
range of void fractions. The Ergun equation is used where the suspension is dense, whereas the formulation by Wen-Yu is used
where the suspension is dilute. The drag model developed by Syamlal and OBrien [17] is based on the measurement of the terminal
velocities of particles in xed or uidized beds. This correlation is
a function of the relative Reynolds number and of the volume fraction. When applying this correlation, the solid stresses should be
dened according to OBrien and Syamlal [43]. Finally, the Mckeen
drag model [24] is based on a single compact function overall value
of voidage. The detailed mathematical depiction for these models is
shown in Table 3. The Gidaspow and Syamlal drag models, are

aq

(T1-3)
(T1-4)
(T1-5)
(T1-6)
(T1-7)
(T1-8)

included in Fluent 6.2 by default. However, the Mckeen drag model

has been implemented into Fluent by using a user-dened function
(UDF).
3.2. Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow (KTGF)
The Two-Fluid-Model (TFM) needs closure equations to illustrate the rheology of the solid phase (the solid pressure and the
solid phase viscosity). There are two different approaches in the literature brought to describe these stresses: the Constant Viscosity
Model (CVM) and the Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow (KTGF).
The rst approach treats the viscosity of the solid phase as a constant and the solid pressure as a function of the local solid porosity
only. The second approach was founded on the application of the
kinetic theory of dense gases to the particulate assemblies. It gives
more perspicacity in terms of interactions between particles by
assuming that binary collisions between hard spheres take place
instantaneously. Analogous to the thermodynamic temperature
for gases, the model introduces a granular temperature as a mean
to measure particle velocity uctuations. Fluent uses the granular
temperature as in Eq. (T1-6). The kinetic uctuation energy of solid
particles that describes the distribution of granular temperature, is
expressed by: Eq. (T1-7). Where Ps I ss : r~
us is the generation
of uctuating energy due to the local acceleration of the particles, q
is the diffusion of the uctuating energy dened as q kH rH
(where kH is the diffusion coefcient for granular energy [42]), c
is the dissipation of uctuating energy due to inelastic particle
particle collisions and J is the exchange of the uctuating energy
between the gas and the solid phase.
Instead of solving the full granular temperature equation, van
Wachem et al. [44] proposed to simplify this equation by using
an algebraic form. They assumed that the granular energy is in a
steady state and dissipates locally, thus convection and diffusion

Table 2
Constitutive equations.
Equations
Gas phase stress tensor (Lun et al. [41])
Solid phase stress tensor (Lun et al. [41])
Solids pressure (Lun et al. [41])
Solids shear viscosity
Collisional viscosity (Gidaspow et al. [14])
Kinetic viscosity (Gidaspow et al. [14])
Kinetic viscosity (Syamlal et al. [18])
Frictional viscosity (Schaeffer et al. [40]

Mathematical expressions
h
i
T
sg ag ng  23 lg r  ~
ug I lg r~
ug r~
ug
h
i
T
ss as ns  23 ls r  ~
us I ls r~
us r~
us
P s as qs H
a qs H1 es
ls = ls,col + ls,kin + ls,fr
p

(T2-4)
(T2-5)

2

qs ds
4
ls;kin 10
96 Hp 1es as g 0 1 5 g 0 as 1 es
p 

as qs ds Hp

ls;kin 63es
/
ls;fr P2spsin
I

2
5 g0

(T2-2)
(T2-3)

2g 0 2s

ls;col 45 as qs ds g 0 1 es

(T2-1)


 as  1 es 3es  1

(T2-6)
(T2-7)
(T2-8)

2D

Solids bulk viscosity (Lun et al. [41])

Radial distribution function (Lun et al. [41])
Collisional energy dissipation (Lun et al. [41])

q
ns 43 as qs ds g 0 1 es H
p


1=3 1
a
s
g 0 1  as;max
 q
cs 31  e2s a2s qs g 0 H d4p Hp

(T2-9)
(T2-10)
(T2-11)

1741

S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 17371747

Table 3
Drag model equations.
Equations
Gidaspow drag model [14]

Mathematical expressions

ag > 0.8
b 34 C D0

(T3-1)
ag 1ag

qg j~
ug  ~
us ja2:65

ds

ag 6 0.8

(T3-2)
2

q
1a lg
 1:751  ag dgs j~
ug  ~
us j
b 150 ag g
ds 2

0:687
24
1

0:15Re

;
Re
<
1000
s
s
Re
s
C D0
0:44;
Res > 1000

Syamlal and OBrien drag model [17]

(T3-3)

Res

(T3-4)

!
b 4 #2 d C D jus  ug j
r;s s

2
4:8
C D 0:63 p

(T3-5)

ag qg j~
ug ~
us jds
lg
!
3 as ag qg

(T3-6)

Res =#r;s

q
#r;s 0:5A  0:06Res 0:06Res 2 0:12Res 2B  A A2
8 1:28
ag 6 0:85
< P ag
Q
;
B

A a4:14
ag > 0:85
g
: ag
Mckeen drag model [24]

(T3-7)
(T3-8)

P = 0.8 et Q = 2.65
!

 q j!
g u s  ug j
as ag1:8
b C 17:3
Res 0:336
ds

terms can be neglected. According to the work of van Wachem

et al. [44], this assumption is only valid for dense particulate ows.
However, several researchers have successfully simulated gas
solid ows in circulating uidized beds using the algebraic granular temperature approach such as Gomez et al. [45], Milinkumar
et al. [34] and Chen et al. [46]. They found that the simplication
of the granular temperature does not lead to signicantly different
results, however, it decreases greatly the computational effort, and
saves computational time (22% in total computational time). Gryczka et al. [47] investigated similarly the effect of the algebraic
granular temperature approach on spouted bed hydrodynamics.
It was observed that 2D calculations are less time-consuming
and give satisfying granular temperatures. They further reported
that differences between the two approaches, full granular temperature equation and simplied algebraic approach were even
expected to be efcient in three dimensional simulations. Therefore, the algebraic form of the granular temperature was then used
in this study and described as in Eq. (T1-8).

(T3-9)

The Reynolds stress tensor for the gas phase, given in Eq. (T1-7),
takes the following form:

2
3

s00g  ag kg qg lt;g r  U g I qg lt;g r U g r U Tg

!
where U g denotes the gas-weighted velocity and lt;g is the gas turbulent viscosity given by the following expression:

lt;g qg C l

kg

eg

Here kg is the turbulent kinetic energy, eg is the dissipation rate of

the turbulent energy and C l is 0:09 .
Turbulent predictions of the gas phase are obtained from the
following equations of the modied ke model:

lt;g
!
@
ag qg kg r  ag qg U g kg r  ag
rk ag Gk;g
@t
rk g
 ag qg eg ag qg Pkg

3.3. Turbulence modeling

As aforementioned, two different coexisting regions characterize turbulent uidized bed: the bottom dense region and the upper
dilute region. The bottom dense region displays low Reynolds
numbers and, the effect of turbulent behavior and the interaction
between phases are not very consistent due to the dense solid
phase concentration. On the other hand, the upper dilute region
displays high Reynolds numbers and very important gas-turbulent
stresses. Therefore, it is difcult to clearly determine the importance of gas or solid phase turbulent stresses in the whole riser.
In the literature, satisfactory agreement with experimental data
has been reported in both approaches; laminar [29,48] and turbulent models [49].
In the present work, comparison between these two approaches
has been established in a try to nd out which leads to the best
prediction of the hydrodynamic behavior of a uidized bed. The
dispersed turbulent model was used to describe the effects of turbulent uctuations of velocities and scalar quantities in the gaseous phase. It is based on the standard ke model with
supplementary terms for the momentum exchange between the
two phases. The calculation of the turbulence for the dispersed
phase is achieved by application of the Tchen theory correlation
[50] into Fluent.

lt;g
!
@
e
ag qg eg r  ag qg U g eg r  ag
re ag g
@t
re g
kg
 C 1e Gk;g  C 2e qg eg
ag qg Peg

where Pkg and Peg represent the inuence of the dispersed phases
on the continuous phase and Gk;g the production of turbulent kinetic
energy. These terms are given by the following equations:

Pkg

ag qg

Peg C 3e

ksg  2kg ~
ugs  ~
udr 

eg
kg

Pkg

ug r~
ug  : r~
ug
Gk;g lt;g r~

ud r represent respectively the covariance of the velocities of

ksg and ~
the gas and the dispersed phase, and the drift velocity. These terms
and all the other parameters involved in the dispersed ke model
can be found in the Fluent Users Guide [51].

1742

S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 17371747

4. Initial and boundary conditions

The governing equations mentioned in the previous section are
solved using the Finite Volume Method (FVM) employing the
phase coupled algorithm for pressurevelocity coupling (PCSIMPLE). The discretization scheme used in the current work is carried
out with the rst order upwind scheme. A convergence criterion of
1003 is specied as the relative error between successive iterations. The commercial CFD package Fluent V.6.2 is used to provide
a numerical solution for these equations. The calculations are conducted using a 2D Cartesian space. The 2D computational domain
(shown in Fig. 2) is discretized using 18848 cells with a uniform
quadratic mesh.
At the inlet, the velocity-inlet boundary condition for both
phases is used, while on the outlet the pressure outlet boundary
condition is applied. For the solid phase, the initial solids inventory

in the riser is set using the available experimental data. At the

walls, the no slip boundary condition is used for the gas phase,
while the partial slip boundary condition of Johnson and Jackson
[32] is specied for the solid phase. Physical properties and simulation parameters are listed in Table 4.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Study of modeling parameters
Since there is no certitude on the appropriate values of the
model parameters such as the restitution coefcient, the specularity coefcient and the drag coefcient, the main objective of the
present section is to signicantly analyze the effects of these
parameters on the gassolids ow.
5.1.1. Comparison of different drag models
In order to get an optimum drag model which lead to the best
simulation of the uidized bed hydrodynamic, the drag models of
Gidaspow, Syamlal-OBrien and Mckeen are explored and
compared.
The simulation results for the transient behavior of the axial
particle velocity under the same operating conditions and at different heights are illustrated on Figs. 3 and 4.
The existence of the traditional core-annulus ow structure is
clearly predicted by all models. A mean axial particle velocity that
is negative near the wall and positive away from it characterizes
this kind of ow structure. In comparison, the Syamlal drag model
overpredicts the particle velocity in the central region and underpredicts it near the wall over the two elevations. This should be
attributed to the lack of consideration of the effects of cohesive
forces and agglomeration, which results in higher drag forces,
and then higher solid velocities in the core region, and lower solid
velocities near the wall region.
The axial particle velocity prole shows reasonable qualitative
agreement with the Mckeen drag model when compared to experimental data at a height of 1 m. At a height of 1:2 m this model
under predict the axial particle velocity near the central region
and reveals the typical annulus structure of the experimental data.
The discrepancy especially at the higher elevation may be attributed to the incapability of this model to capture the characteristics
of the dilute region. Indeed, Gao et al. [48] and Li et al. [52] report

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the simulated riser.

Table 4
Modeling parameters.
Description
Riser height H
Riser width
Static bed height H0
Gas density qg
Particle density qs
Particle diameter ds
Initial solid volume fraction a0
Inlet gas velocity Ug
Solid ux Gs
Angle of internal friction
Restitution coefcient es
Specularity coefcient u
Maximum particle packing limit
Time step

Value
2m
0.2 m
0.1 m
1.2 kg/m3
2400 kg/m3
120 lm
0.6
0.9 m/s, 1 m/s, 1.1 m/s
0.1 kg/m2s, 0.22 kg/m2s, 0.413 kg/m2s
30
0.8, 0.9, 0.95 and 0.99
0, 0.001, 0.25 and 1
0.64
103 s

Axial particle velocity (m/s)

0
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(X/D)
-1
Gidaspow
Syamlal

-2

Mckeen
Exp (Van Den Moortel, 1998)

-3
Fig. 3. The time-averaged axial particle velocity predicted along the radial direction
by various drag models at Y 1 m (supercial gas velocity U g 1 m=s, ke
turbulent model, es 0:9, u 1).

S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 17371747

experimental results. Some differences still exist however, and

may be justied by the unrealistic 2D simulation of a real 3D system. According to these ndings, the standard ke model will then
be adopted in the rest of this work.

Axial particle velocity (m/s)

1743

0
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(X/D)
Gidaspow

-1

Syamlal
Mckeen
Exp (Van Den Moortel, 1998)

-2
Fig. 4. The time-averaged axial particle velocity predicted along the radial direction
by various drag models at Y 1:2 m (supercial gas velocity U g 1 m=s, ke
turbulent model, es 0:9, u 1).

that the Mckeen drag model cannot capture the dilute characteristics of turbulent uidized beds in spite of the better prediction for
the dense region.
Gidaspow drag model provided good description of the hydrodynamic of uidized beds lled with Geldart B particles (Lu et al.
[53]). In the present work, the same model gave reasonable qualitative and quantitative agreement with reference to experimental
data in term of particle velocity proles. We propose then to adopt
the Gidaspow drag model in the rest of this work.
5.1.2. Comparison of the laminar and the turbulence model
To study the effect of turbulence modeling on ow predictions,
simulations with laminar model and ke turbulent model were
conducted and further compared to experimental measurements.
Fig. 5 compares the time averaged axial solid velocity obtained
with both models to experimental data evaluated at Y 1:2 m.
In both models, the core-annulus structure of the gassolid ow
is well predicted. However, the solid velocity prole predicted by
the standard ke model provides a better agreement with the

5.1.3. Restitution coefcient

The restitution coefcient, which represents the degree of elasticity of particleparticle collisions, ranges from zero to 1, from
fully inelastic to fully elastic collisions respectively. With the aim
to conrm the value of this parameter, four different restitution
coefcients (es 0:8, 0:9, 0:95 and 0:99) were selected and further
compared. The computed solid volume fraction contour and axial
solid velocity prole at a height of 1:2 m are shown in Figs. 6 and
7, respectively. On Fig. 6, it can be observed that decreasing the restitution coefcient lead to more and bigger bubbles in the bed,
causing more pronounced heterogeneities (thus instabilities).
Referring to Eq. (T2-11), the strong dependency of the dissipation
of the granular temperature on the restitution coefcient appears
in the term 1  e2s .
Then, decreasing the restitution coefcient would lead to a
greater dissipation of mechanical energy dissipation, resulting in
more particles attaching to each other and more bubbles created
in the bed. Therefore, as the collisions become more inelastic the
particles bed becomes more compact in the dense region and the
bubbles become more present. We can further observe that by
increasing the restitution coefcient more particles enter into the
dilute dispersed region. In fact, increasing es leads to a lower dissipation of the kinetic energy uctuation due to elastic particleparticle collisions and then particles are conveyed straightly forward
in the upward direction. Gao et al. [32] have also investigated
the effect of the restitution coefcient on the hydrodynamic behavior of a turbulent uidized beds lled with Geldart B particles and
they found that with the increase of es more particles enter into the
dilute region, similarly to our observations (Fig. 6).
According to Fig. 7, the restitution coefcient of 0:99, representing the case of nearly ideal particleparticle interactions, shows an

Axial particle velocity (m/s)

0
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(X/D)
-1

Turbulent
Laminar
Exp (Van Den Moortel, 1998)

-2
Fig. 5. The time-averaged axial particle velocity predicted along the radial direction
by laminar and turbulent model at Y 1:2 m (supercial gas velocity U g 1 m=s,
Gidaspow drag model, es 0:9, u 1).

Fig. 6. The computed instantaneous solid volume fraction for three different
restitution coefcient at t 30 s (supercial gas velocity U g 1 m=s, Gidaspow
drag model, ke turbulent model, u 1).

1744

S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 17371747

0
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(X/D)
Rest. 0.8

-1

Rest. 0.9

Axial particle velocity (m/s)

Axial particle velocity (m/s)

0
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(X/D)
-1

Spec.coeff=0
Spec.coeff=0.001

Rest. 0.95

Spec.coeff =0.25

Rest. 0.99

Spec.coeff=1

Exp (Van Den Moortel, 1998)

Exp (Van Den Moortel, 1998)

-2

-2

Fig. 7. The time-averaged axial particle velocity predicted along the radial direction
by several restitution coefcients at Y 1:2 m (supercial gas velocity U g 1 m=s,
Gidaspow drag model, ke turbulent model, u 1).

Fig. 8. The time-averaged axial particle velocity predicted along the radial direction
by several specularity coefcients at Y 1:2 m (supercial gas velocity U g 1 m=s,
Gidaspow drag model, ke turbulent model, es 0:9).

overproduction of particles velocity within the risers core and near

the wall region. In fact, increasing the restitution coefcient
reduces the presence of bubbles in the riser and then more particles enter into the dilute dispersed region with high velocity. However, the best agreement between the model predictions and
experimental data is obtained with es 0:9: this value is to be
adopted in the rest of our CFD simulations.

The axial particle velocities predicted by u 1 and u 0:001

are far away from the experimental data near the wall and within
the core of the riser. However, the specularity coefcient close to
one shows a reasonable agreement for all models carried out,
and hence is chosen to be the specularity coefcient for subsequent
simulations.
5.2. Comparison of modeling and experimental data

5.1.4. Specularity coefcient

The specularity coefcient, u, represents the measurement of
the fraction of collisions that transfer momentum to the wall.
The value of u varies from zero (for smooth walls) to one (for
rough walls). In the vicinity of zero, a free slip boundary condition
for the solids tangential velocity is achieved at the walls, while in
the vicinity of one, a substantial amount of momentum transfers
is obtained between the particles and the wall. Four different specularity coefcient values (u 0, 0:001, 0:25 and 1) are tested in
the present work in a try to nd out which ts best the handled
case. The time-averaged axial solid velocity at Y 1:2 m, are given
in Fig. 8. In the case of the free slip boundary condition (u 0),
there is no friction between the particles and the wall. The free slip
of particles on the wall leads to more particles in the downward,
thus resulting in higher particle velocities and consequently higher
particles concentrations in the bottom of the riser. However, in the
case of the no slip boundary condition u 1, friction is important between the particles and the wall. This strong friction prevents the downward of particles and then higher downward
particles velocity near the wall. As observed in Fig. 8, the downow
of the particles at the wall increases when decreasing the specularity coefcient as observed by Armstrong et al. [33] and Li et al. [26].
Both authors reported that a small specularity coefcient leads to a
considerably higher velocity of the particle downow near the
wall. As to the axial particle velocity in the center (core region),
it is found to increase with the specularity coefcient u. The specularity coefcient affects consistently the particles movement
near the wall and in the core region. This study indicates then that
for a 2D simulation of a turbulent uidized bed lled with Geldart
B particles, an arbitrary setting of the specularity coefcient may
lead to unreasonable predictions of the related hydrodynamic
proprieties.
The time-averaged axial solid velocity at Y 1:2 m is also compared to the experimental data of Van den Moortel [37] in Fig. 8.

In order to produce an adequate description of the behavior of

the two phase ow in the riser section of a circulating uidized
bed unit operating in a turbulent uidization regime, several simulations have been performed with different modeling parameters
and criteria. The best agreement between model predictions and
experimental data was obtained using: the ke turbulent viscous
model, the Gidaspow drag model and a no slip boundary condition
as discussed earlier in Section 5.1. So, to investigate the limitations
and capabilities of this model, the CFD model was evaluated under
different operating conditions. The same modeling parameters
were used for all cases with varying only the supercial gas velocity, U g and the solid mass ux Gs , to match the experimental operating conditions.
Fig. 9 compares the numerical results to experimental data at
different supercial gas velocities (U g 0:9 m=s and U g 1:1 m=s).
A satisfying agreement is obtained for all cases. This is likely to
provide further support for the effectiveness and accuracy of the
proposed model to simulate well the core-annulus ow in a turbulent uidized bed.
Fig. 10 shows the distribution of the computed time-averaged
solid volume fractions at different heights and for U g 1 m=s. As
we can see, solid volume fractions appear high near the wall region
and low in the center of the bed. These concentration proles
clearly illustrate the inherent core-annular ow structure of the
solid phase. This kind of ow structure is characterized by the
accumulation of the solid phase moving downward at the wall
and by the upward movement of a dilute gasparticles stream in
the core of the riser. We can also observe that the solid volume
fraction decreases at higher locations.
At heights of 0:07 m, 0:1 m and 0:3 m, the solid volume fraction
prole attains a local minimum value near the wall region due to
solid entrance. This prole does no longer attains a minimum for
heights beyond 0:3 m (Y 0:5, 0:7, 1 and 1:2 m). A similar

1745

S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 17371747

Axial particle velocity (m/s)

0
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(X/D)
H=1.2 m

-1

Exp (Ug=1.1 m/s)

Num (Ug=1.1 m/s)
Exp (Ug=0.9 m/s)
Num (Ug=0.9 m/s)

-2
Fig. 9. Comparison of the predicted axial particle velocity with the experimental
data at Y 1:2 m and for different supercial gas velocities (a) U g 0:9 m=s and (b)
U g 1:1 m=s. (Gidaspow drag model, ke turbulent model, es 0:9, u 1).

Ug =1 m/s
YH=0.07 m
YH=0.1 m
YH=0.3 m
YH=0.5 m
YH=0.7 m
YH=1 m
YH=1.2 m

0.2

Fig. 11. The computed instantaneous solid volume fraction for different supercial
gas velocities and at t 30 s (Gidaspow drag model, ke turbulent model, es 0:9,
u 1).

0.7

0.1

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

(X/D)
Fig. 10. Radial distribution of the axial solid volume fraction at different axial bed
distances for U g 1 m=s. (Gidaspow drag model, ke turbulent model, es 0:9,
u 1).

Standard deviation of axial

particle velocity (m/s)

Solid Volume Fraction

0.3

0.6

0.5

0.4

Exp (Van den Moortel,1998) Ug=1 m/s

Ug=0.9 m/s
Ug=1 m/s
Ug=1.1 m/s

0.3

observation in the concentration proles has been made by

Ernst-Ulrich Hartge et al. [30] in a circulating uidized bed lled
with Geldart B particles.
Fig. 11 displays the contours of the instantaneous solid concentration in the turbulent uidized bed at t 30 s for three different
gas velocities. We observe for all cases the formation of clusters in
the core region and near the wall. Clusters are denser at the wall
than in the core zone. Such ow patterns are attributed to the formation, motion and split of clusters. When particles forming clusters are grouped near the wall region, they fall downward along
the wall, collecting particles on their way. As a result the wall clusters appear denser than the core zone clusters. In Fig. 11, we also
observe that more particles are entrained into the dilute zone
under increasing gas velocities.
Proles of the standard deviation of the axial particle velocity at
a given height are plotted in Fig. 12 for three different gas velocities.
These uctuations, which reect the turbulence of the local suspension ow, are further analyzed in the following. As we can see from
the plots, the velocity uctuations level increases in the center

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(X/D)
Fig. 12. The time-averaged standard deviation of axial particle velocity for different
supercial gas velocities along the radial direction at Y 1 m (Gidaspow drag
model, ke turbulent model, es 0:9, u 1).

region with the supercial gas velocity. Indeed, in the case of high
velocity (U g 1:1 m=s) there are more particles entrained into
the upper dilute region, as previously seen in Fig. 11. An increase
of the supercial gas velocity leads then to further bubble coalescence and to an increase of the drag forces acting on the particles.
The ow structure in the upper zone becomes then more heterogeneous, leading to increasing particles velocity uctuations.
We can also observe from Fig. 12 that the shape of the velocity
uctuations plots changes close to the wall by accusing a sudden
decrease due to the existence of a bulk annulus dense solids downward ow under all velocity cases.

1746

S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 17371747

Fig. 12 also contains the experimental data of Van den Moortel

[37] for the particular case of U g 1 m=s. A good agreement is
obtained qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Some discrepancies are however observed near the wall; probably due to the
choice of the turbulence model. Elsewhere, the level of uctuations
in the core is around 35% of the mean velocity in both experimental and computed cases, and the decreasing shape of the plots are
very similar when exiting from the core to the annulus region.
6. Conclusion
The behavior of the solid phase in the upper dilute zone of a turbulent uidized bed riser was investigated by means of a multiuid EulerianEulerian CFD model based on the Kinetic Theory of
Granular Flows and using the commercial CFD package Fluent
V.6.2. Various drag models including those of Gidaspow, SyamlalOBrien, and Mckeen were tested in order to get an optimum
drag model for a better simulation of the hydrodynamic of the uidized bed. Compared to experimental data available in the literature, the Gidaspow drag model gave the most reasonable
qualitative and quantitative agreement. Two viscous models were
tested and best agreement with experimental data was obtained
with the ke turbulent model. The computational results showed
certain sensitivity to the restitution coefcient in the turbulent uidized bed lled with Geldart B particles, and the simulated axial
solid velocity tted better the experimental data when using the
restitution coefcient of 0.9. While analyzing the model prediction
sensitivity to the specularity coefcient, it was found that a reasonable reproduction of the experimental results was reached for a
specularity coefcient close to one. Finally, particle velocities,
radial solid volume fraction and standard deviation of axial particles velocity distributions were investigated for different gas velocities: the results provided further support for the effectiveness and
accuracy of the proposed models to simulate the core-annulus
two-phase ow in a turbulent uidized bed.
References
[1] R. Andreux, T. Gauthier, J. Chaouki, O. Simonin, New description of uidization
regimes, AIChE J. 51 (2005) 11251130.
[2] V. Jiradilok, D. Gidaspow, S. Damronglerd, W.J. Koves, R. Mosto, S.
Nitivattananon, Kinetic theory based CFD simulation of turbulent uidization
of FCC particles in a riser, Chem. Eng. Sci. 61 (2006) 55445559.
[3] N. Ellis, H.T. Bi, C.J. Lim, J.R. Grace, Hydrodynamics of turbulent uidized beds
of different diameters, Powder Technol. 141 (2004) 124136.
[4] J.W. Wang, Flow structures inside a large-scale turbulent uidized bed of FCC
particles: Eulerian simulation with an EMMS-based sub-grid scale model,
Particuology 8 (2010) 176185.
[5] G. Liu, P. Wang, S. Wang, L. Sun, Y. Yang, P. Xu, Numerical simulation of ow
behavior of liquid and particles in liquidsolid risers with multi scale
interfacial drag method, Adv. Powder Technol. 24 (2013) 537548.
[6] M.A. van der Hoef, M. van Sint Annaland, N.G. Deen, J.A.M. Kuipers, Numerical
simulation of dense gassolid uidized beds: a multiscale modeling strategy,
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40 (2008) 4770.
[7] J. Xie, W. Zhong, B. Jin, Y. Shao, Y. Huang, EulerianLagrangian method for
three-dimensional simulation of uidized bed coal gasication, Adv. Powder
Technol. 24 (2013) 382392.
[8] A. Samuelsberg, B.H. Hjertager, An experimental and numerical study of ow
patterns in a circulating uidized bed reactor, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 22 (1995)
575591.
[9] S. Benyahia, H. Arastoopour, T.M. Knowlton, H. Massah, Simulation of particles
and gas ow behaviour in the riser section of a circulating uidized bed using
the kinetic theory approach for the particulate phase, Powder Technol. 112
(2000) 2433.
[10] M.J.V. Goldschmidt, J.A.M. Kuipers, W.P.M. van Swaaij, Hydrodynamic
modelling of dense gas-uidized beds using the kinetic theory of granular
ow: effect of restitution coefcient on bed dynamics, Chem. Eng. Sci. 56
(2001) 571578.
[11] C.H. Ibsen, E. Helland, B.H. Hjertager, T. Solberg, L. Tadrist, R. Occelli,
Comparison of multiuid and discrete particle modeling in numerical
predictions of gas particle ow in circulating uidized beds, Powder Technol.
149 (2004) 2941.
[12] S. Champan, T.J. Cowling, The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases,
Cambridge University Press, London, 1961.

[13] J.L. Sinclair, R. Jackson, Gasparticle ow in a vertical pipe with particleparticle interactions, AIChE J. 35 (1989) 14731496.
[14] D. Gidaspow, Multiphase Flow Fluidization: Continuum Kinetic Theory
Description, Academic Press, Boston, 1994.
[15] C. Pain, S. Mansoorzadeh, C.R.E.D. Oliveira, A.J.H. Goddard, Numerical
modeling of gassolid uidized beds using the two-uid approach, Int. J.
Numer. Meth. Fluids 36 (2001) 91124.
[16] F. Taghipour, N. Ellis, C. Wong, Experimental and computational study of gas
solid uidized bed hydrodynamics, Chem. Eng. Sci. J. 60 (2005) 68576867.
[17] M. Syamlal, T.J. OBrien, Computer simulation of bubbles in a uidized bed,
AIChE Symp. Ser. 85 (1989) 2231.
[18] C.Y. Wen, Y.H. Yu, Mechanics of uidization, Chem. Eng. Progr. Symp. Ser. 62
(1966) 100111.
[19] D. Geldart, The effect of particle size and size distribution on the behavior of
gas-uidized bed, Powder Technol. 6 (1972) 201215.
[20] H. Qi, C. You, A. Boemer, U. Renz, 2000. Eulerian simulation of gassolid twophase ow in a CFB-riser under consideration of cluster effects. in: D. Xu, S.
Mori (Eds.), Fluidization 2000: Science and Technology, Xian Publishing
House, Xi, pp. 231237.
[21] S. Zimmermann, F. Taghipour, CFD modeling of the hydrodynamics and
reaction kinetics of FCC uidized-bed reactors, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 44 (2005)
98189827.
[22] D.Z. Zhang, W.B. Vanderheyden, The effects of mesoscopic structures on the
macroscopic momentum equations for two-phase ows, Int. J. Multiph. Flow
28 (2002) 805822.
[23] M. Ye, J. Wang, M.A. Van der Hoef, J.A.M. Kuipers, Two uid modeling of
Geldart A particles in gas-uidized beds, Particuology 6 (2008) 540548.
[24] T. Mckeen, T. Pugsley, Simulation and experimental validation of a freely
bubbling bed of FCC catalyst, Powder Technol. 129 (2003) 139152.
[25] L.G. Gibilaro, R. Di Felice, S.P. Waldram, P.U. Foscolo, Generalized friction factor
and drag coefcient correlations for uid-particle interactions, Chem. Eng. Sci.
40 (1985) 18171823.
[26] N. Yang, W. Wang, W. Ge, J. Li, CFD simulation of concurrent-up gassolid ow
in circulating uidized beds with structure-dependent drag coefcient, Chem.
Eng. J. 96 (2003) 7180.
[27] J. Li, M. Kwauk, Particleuid Two-phase FlowThe Energy minimization
Multi-scale Model, Metallurgy Industry Press, Beijing, 1994.
[28] F. Taghipour, N. Ellis, C. Wong, Experimental and computational study of gas
solid uidized bed hydrodynamics, Chem. Eng. Sci. 60 (2005) 68576867.
[29] X. Gao, C. Wu, Y.W. Cheng, L.J. Wang, X. Li, Experimental and numerical
investigation of solids behavior in a gassolid turbulent uidized bed, Powder
Technol. 228 (2012) 113.
[30] A. Almuttahar, F. Taghipour, Computational uid dynamics of high density
circulating uidized bed riser: study of modeling parameters, Powder Technol.
185 (2008) 1123.
[31] T. Li, J. Grace, X. Bi, Study of wall boundary condition in numerical simulations
of bubbling uidized beds, Powder Technol. J. 203 (2010) 447457.
[32] P.C. Johnson, R. Jackson, Frictionalcollisional constitutive relations for
granular materials with application to plane shearing, J. Fluid Mech. 176
(1987) 6793.
[33] C. Loha, H. Chattopadhyay, P.K. Chatterjee, 2013. Effect of coefcient of
restitution in EulerEuler CFD simulation of uidized-bed hydrodynamics,
Particuology, in press.
[34] M.T. Shah, R.P. Utikar, M.O. Tade, V.K. Pareek, Hydrodynamics of an FCC riser
using energy minimization multiscale drag model, Chem. Eng. J. 168 (2011)
812821.
[35] S. Benyahia, M. Syamlal, T.J. OBrien, Evaluation of boundary conditions used to
model dilute, turbulent gas/solids ows in a pipe, Powder Technol. 156 (2005)
6272.
[36] X. Lan, C. Xu, J. Gao, M. Al-Dahhan, Inuence of solid phase wall boundary
condition on CFD simulation of spouted bed, Chem. Eng. Sci. 69 (2012) 419
430.
[37] T. Van den Moortel, E. Azario, R. Santini, L. Tadrist, Experimental analysis of the
gasparticle ow in a circulating uidized bed using a phase Doppler particle
analyzer, Chem. Eng. Sci. 53 (1998) 18831899.
[38] A. Zaabout, H. Bournot, R. Occelli, A. Draoui, Solids behavior in dilute zone of a
CFB riser under turbulent conditions, Particuology 9 (2011) 598605.
[39] A. Zaabout, H. Bournot, R. Occelli, B. Kharbouch, Local solid particle behavior
inside the upper zone of a circulating uidized bed riser, Adv. Powder Technol.
22 (2011) 375382.
[40] D.G. Schaeffer, Instability in the evolution equations describing incompressible
granular ow, J. Different. Eq. 66 (1987) 1950.
[41] C. Lun, S. Savage, D. Jeffrey, N. Chepumiy, Kinetic theories of granular ow:
inelastic particles in coquette ow and slightly inelastic particles in a general
ow eld, J. Fluid Mech. 140 (1984) 223256.
[42] S. Ergun, Fluid ow through packed columns, Chem. Eng. Prog. 48 (1952) 89
94.
[43] T.J. OBrien, M. Syamlal, 1993. Particle cluster effects in the numerical
simulation of a circulating uidized bed. CFB-IV. Avidan AA, Ed. AIChE, New
York, pp. 430435.
[44] B.G.M. van Wachem, J.C. Schouten, R. Krishna, C.M. van den Bleek, Eulerian
simulations of bubbling behavior in gassolid uidized beds, Comput. Chem.
Eng. 22 (1998) 299366.
[45] C.L. Gomez, R.C. Silva, F.E. Milioli, Some modeling and numerical aspects of the
two-uid simulation of the gassolids ow in a CFB riser, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 23
(4) (2006) 487496.

S. Benzarti et al. / Advanced Powder Technology 25 (2014) 17371747

[46] X.-Z. Chen, D.-P. Shi, X. Gao, Z.-H. Luo, A fundamental CFD study of the gas
solid ow eld in uidized bed polymerization reactors, Powder Technol. 205
(2011) 276288.
[47] O. Gryczka, S. Heinrich, N.G. Deen, M. Van Sint Annaland, J.A.M. Kuipers, M.
Jacob, L. Mrl, Characterization and CFD-modeling of the hydrodynamics of a
prismatic spouted bed apparatus, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (2009) 33523375.
[48] J. Gao, X. Lan, Y. Fan, G. Wang, X. Lu, C. Xu, CFD modeling and validation of the
turbulent uidized bed, AIChE J. 55 (2009) 16801694.
[49] J. Wang, Flow structures inside a large-scale turbulent uidized bed of FCC
particles: Eulerian simulation with an EMMS-based sub-grid scale model,
Particology 8 (2010) 176185.

1747

[50] J.O. Hinze, Turbulence, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.

[51] Fluent Users Guide, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, USA, 2005.
[52] P. Li, X. Lan, C. Xu, G. Wang, C. Lu, J. Gao, Drag models for simulating gassolid
ow in the turbulent uidization of FCC particles, Particuology 7 (2009) 269
277.
[53] B. Lu, W. Wang, J. Li, Eulerian simulation of gassolid ows with particles of
Geldart groups A, B and D using EMMS-based meso-scale model, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 66 (2011) 46244635.