Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gas–Solid Systems
B. G. M. van Wachem, J. C. Schouten, and C. M. van den Bleek
DelftChemTech, Chemical Reactor Engineering Section, Delft University of Technology,
2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands
R. Krishna
Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
J. L. Sinclair
School of Chemical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Many gas ] solid CFD models ha®e been put forth by academic researchers, go®ern-
ment laboratories, and commercial ®endors. These models often differ in terms of both
the form of the go®erning equations and the closure relations, resulting in much confu-
sion in the literature. These ®arious forms in the literature and in commercial codes are
re®iewed and the resulting hydrodynamics through CFD simulations of fluidized beds
compared. Experimental data on fluidized beds of Hilligardt and Werther (1986), Ke-
hoe and Da®idson (1971), Darton et al.(1977), and Kuipers (1990) are used to quanti-
tati®ely assess the ®arious treatments. Predictions based on the commonly used go®ern-
ing equations of Ishii (1975) do not differ from those of Anderson and Jackson (1967)
in terms of macroscopic flow beha®ior, but differ on a local scale. Flow predictions are
not sensiti®e to the use of different solid stress models or radial distribution functions, as
different approaches are ®ery similar in dense flow regimes. The application of a differ-
ent drag model, howe®er, significantly impacts the flow of the solids phase. A simplified
algebraic granular energy-balance equation is proposed for determining the granular
temperature, instead of sol®ing 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%.
Introduction
Gas]solid systems are found in many operations in the of CFD calculations. Sinclair Ž1997. gives an extensive intro-
chemical, petroleum, pharmaceutical, agricultural, biochemi- duction on applying CFD models for gasrsolid risers. Al-
cal, food, electronic, and power-generation industries. Com- though single-phase flow CFD tools are now widely and suc-
putational fluid dynamics ŽCFD. is an emerging technique cessfully applied, multiphase CFD is still not because of the
for predicting the flow behavior of these systems, as it is nec- difficulty in describing the variety of interactions in these sys-
essary for scale-up, design, or optimization. For example, tems. For example, to date there is no agreement on the ap-
Barthod et al. Ž1999. have successfully improved the perform- propriate closure models. Furthermore, there is still no
ance of a fluidized bed in the petroleum industries by means agreement on even the governing equations. In addition, pro-
posed constitutive models for the solid-phase stresses and the
interphase momentum transfer are partially empirical.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to B. G. M. van
Wachem. CFD models of gas]solid systems can be divided into two
Current address for B. G. M. van Wachem and J. C. Schouten: Laboratory of groups, Lagrangian models and Eulerian models. Lagrangian
Chemical Reactor Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, P. O. Box 513,
5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands. models, or discrete particle models, calculate the path and
b
Ý HS sg ? n Ž y . g N x y yN ds y s Ý g N x y x p NHS sg ? n Ž y . ds y Ý g N x y x p NHS sg ? n Ž y . ds y s e Ž ©g y ©s . q r g e s g
p p p p p p g
Df © g
q rg es Ž 12.
½
y=? a Ý g N x y x p N
p
HS
p
5
sg ? n Ž y . n Ž y . ds y q O Ž = 2 . , Dt
Ž 11. =? a Ý g N x y x p N HS sg ? n Ž y . n Ž y . ds y sy= Ž e s Pg . ,
p p
Mk sdragq - Pk )=e k q Ž - Pki )y - Pk ) . =e k Since the solid-phase stress depends on the magnitude of
these particle-velocity fluctuations, a balance of the granular
y Ž =e k . ? -t ki ). Ž 17. energy Ž 32 Q . associated with these particle-velocity fluctua-
tions is required to supplement the continuity and momen-
According to Ishii and Mishima Ž1984., the last term on tum balance for both phases. This balance is given as
the righthand side is an interfacial shear term and is impor-
tant in a separated flow. According to Ishii Ž1975., the term 3
Ž - Pki )y - Pk ) . only plays a role when the pressure at Ž e s r sQ . q=? Ž e s r sQ©s . s y=Ps I qts :=©s
ž /
2 t
the bulk is significantly different from that at the interface, as
in stratified flows. For many applications both terms are neg- y=? Ž k s=Q . ygs y Js , Ž 20.
ls s
4
e s2r s d s g 0 Ž 1q e . ( Q
. Ž 23.
ms s
96
rs d s
ž
1q
lm f p h g 0
R
q
5 /ž 2yh /
3 p 768 2
q he g
25p s 0
4 Q 1 r s d s g 0 Ž 1q e . Ž 3r2 ey1r2 . e s2
However, the kinetic theory description for the solids shear
viscosity often differs between the various two-fluid models.
s e s2 r s g 0 Ž1q e .
5
(p
q 'Qp
15
lm f p
Ž 3r2y er2 .
Gidaspow Ž1994. does not account for the inelastic nature of
r s d s e s 1r2 1q
particles in the kinetic contribution of the total stress, as Lun
et al. Ž1984. do, claiming this correction is negligible. The
1
q 'Qp
ž ž R
q3r4 ey1r4
lm f p
/ /
6
solids shear viscosity of Syamlal et al. Ž1993. neglects the ki-
netic or streaming contribution, which dominates in dilute- 10
Ž 3r2y1r2 e . 1q
R ž rs d s
/
phase flow. Hrenya and Sinclair Ž1997. follow Lun et al. q 'Qp
96 lm f p
Ž1984., but constrain the mean free path of the particle by a
dimension characteristic of the actual physical system. This is
Ž 1q e .Ž 3r2y1r2 e . g 0 1q
R ž /
opposed to the Lun et al. Ž1984. theory, which allows the Note: The symbols can be found in the Notation.
models yield the same solids shear viscosity at high solids vol- q
15
'Qp
ž R /
16 lm f p
ume fractions. Syamlal et al. Ž1993. deviate from the others
for solid volume fractions less than 0.3. Hrenya and Sinclair
25
Ž 49r16y33r16 e . 1q
ž R
rs d s
/
Ž1997. show a rapid decrease in solids shear viscosity at ex- 'Up
q
tremely small particle concentrations. 64 lm f p
Ž 1q e .Ž 49r16y33r16 e . 1q
ž R / g0
Conducti©ity of granular energy Note: The symbols can be found in the Notation.
Similar to the solids shear viscosity, the solids thermal con-
ductivity, k , consists of a kinetic contribution and a colli-
sional contribution. Gidaspow Ž1994. differs from Lun et al.
Ž1984. only in the dependency of the solids thermal conduc-
tivity on the coefficient of restitution. Syamlal et al. Ž1993.
neglect the kinetic contribution to the thermal conductivity.
Hrenya and Sinclair Ž1997. follow Lun et al. Ž1984., but con-
strain the mean free path of the particle by a dimension char-
acteristic of the actual system. Hence, the limit of their con-
ductivity expression, as with the shear viscosity, correctly tends
to zero when approaching zero solid volume fraction. Syamlal
et al. Ž1993. also correctly predict zero for the conductivity at
zero solid volume fraction by neglecting the kinetic contribu-
tion.
Table 3 presents the forms for the solids thermal conduc-
tivity as presented in the original articles, as well as in an
equivalent form so that all of the closure models can be eas-
ily compared. Figure 2 shows a quantitative comparison of
the constitutive models for the solids thermal conductivity as
a function of the solid volume fraction. All models yield the
same thermal conductivity at high solid volume fraction. Figure 2. Comparison of solids thermal conductivity
Syamlal et al. Ž1993. deviate from the others for solids vol- from different kinetic theory models: es 0.9,
ume fraction less than 0.3. Hrenya and Sinclair Ž1997. show a e max s 0.65.
4 Q
ž
g 0 s 1y
e s, max /
gs s 3 Ž 1y e 2 . e s2r s g 0 Q
ž (
ds p
y=? ©s .
/ Ž 24. Sinclair and Jackson (1989)
es 1r3
y1
e s2r s g 0
g0 s
5
1y
ž e s, max /
gs s12 Ž 1y e 2 . Q 3r2 . Ž 25.
d s'p
The rate of energy dissipation per unit volume resulting from Radial distribution function
the action of the fluctuating force exerted by the gas through The solid-phase stress is dependent on the radial distribu-
the fluctuating velocity of the particles is given by Js s tion function at contact. Lun et al. Ž1984. employed the Car-
b Ž©Xs ? ©Xsy©Xg ? ©Xs.. According to Gidaspow Ž1994., the term ©Xs ? ©Xs nahan and Starling Ž1969. expression for the radial distribu-
is equal to 3U. The second term, ©Xg ? ©Xs, is neglected by Gi- tion function. The Carnahan and Starling Ž1969. expression,
daspow Ž1994.. However, Louge et al. Ž1991. have proposed a however, does not tend toward the correct limit at closest
closure for this second term based on the work of Koch Ž1990. solids packing. Because particles are in constant contact at
for the dilute flow regime, which we apply here: the maximum solid volume fraction, the radial distribution
function at contact tends to infinity. Therefore, alternative
b d s Ž © g y ©s .
2 expressions to the Carnahan and Starling Ž1969. expression
Js s b 3Qy . Ž 26 . have been proposed by Gidaspow Ž1994., Lun and Savage
4e s r s'p Q Ž1986., and Sinclair and Jackson Ž1989., which tend to the
correct limit at closest packing. These various forms of the
Using the closure of Louge et al. Ž1991. for ©Xg ? ©Xs, we have radial distribution function are given in Table 4 and are plot-
found that this term is of the same order of magnitude as ted in Figure 3 as a function of the solid volume fraction,
©Xs ? ©Xs. It should be noted, however, that the term as proposed along with the data from molecular simulations of Alder and
by Louge et al. Ž1991. is originally meant for the dilute flow Wainright Ž1960. and the data from experiments of Gidaspow
regime and does not tend to zero at closest solids packing. and Huilin Ž1998.. The expression of Gidaspow Ž1994. most
Therefore, Sundaresan Žprivate communication, 1999. has closely coincides with the data over the widest range of solid
proposed dividing this term by the radial distribution func- volume fractions. The expression of Gidaspow Ž1994., how-
tion to correct the closure in this limit of closest solids pack-
ing.
Recently, Sangani et al. Ž1996. have derived an equation
for ©Xs ? ©Xs, and Koch and Sangani Ž1999. have derived an equa-
tion for ©Xg ? ©Xs, especially for dense solid flows. With these
correlations, the expression for the rate of energy dissipation
resulting from fluctuations is
2
m s e sQ b 2 d s Ž © g y ©s .
Js s 3 R diss y SU , Ž 27 .
d s2 4e s r s'p Q
1
SU s Rs b 2 , Ž 28.
2'p
n
Ž e s y e s, min .
Pf s Fr p , Ž 32 .
Ž e s, max y e s .
sx y s Pf sin f , Ž 33.
Frictional stress
es) 1
6 ž x
y
y / ž / ž / ž
q
y
q
x
2
q
1
4 y
q
x /
At high solid volume fraction, sustained contacts between Ž 35.
particles occur. The resulting frictional stresses must be ac-
counted for in the description of the solid-phase stress. Zhang
Values of As10 25, ns10, e s,min s 0.59, and f s 258 are typ-
and Rauenzahn Ž1997. conclude that particle collisions are
ically employed.
no longer instantaneous at very high solid volume fractions,
The approaches of Johnson and Jackson Ž1987. and Syam-
as is assumed in kinetic theory. Several approaches most of
lal et al. Ž1993. are compared in Figure 5. It can be seen that
which originated from geological research groups, have been
resulting normal frictional stress can differ by orders of mag-
presented in the literature to model the frictional stress. The
nitude.
models for frictional stress are very empirical and should be
used with caution. Typically, the frictional stress, sf , is writ-
ten in a Newtonian form: Interphase transfer coefficient
Generally, the form drag and skin drag are combined in
sf s Pf I q m f =©q Ž =© .
T
. Ž 29. one empirical parameter, the interphase drag constant b , in
the modeling of the momentum transfer between the two
phases. The drag coefficient b is typically obtained experi-
The frictional stress is added to the stress predicted by ki- mentally from pressure drop measurements in fixed, flu-
netic theory for e s ) e s, min : idized, or settling beds. Ergun Ž1952. performed measure-
ments in fixed liquid]solid beds at packed conditions to de-
Ps s P kinetic q Pf Ž 30. termine the pressure drop. Wen and Yu Ž1966. have per-
formed settling experiments of solid particles in a liquid over
m s s m kinetic q m f . Ž 31 . a wide range of solid volume fractions, and have correlated
Simulations
The impact on the predicted flow patterns of the differ-
ences in the governing equations and constitutive models are
compared for the test cases of a freely bubbling fluidized-bed,
Figure 5. Different expressions for the frictional normal
a slugging fluidized bed, and a single bubble injection into a
stress.
fluidized bed. The particles in a fluidized bed move accord-
ing to the action of the fluid through the drag force, and
their data and those of others for solids concentrations, 0.01 bubbles and complex solid mixing patterns result. Typically,
F e s F 0.63. Syamlal et al. Ž1993. use the empirical correla- the average solid volume fraction in the bed is fairly large,
tions of Richardson and Zaki Ž1954. and Garside and Al-Bi- averaging about 40%, whereas in the the freeboard of the
bouni Ž1977. to determine the terminal velocity in fluidized fluidized bed Žthe top. there are almost no particles Ž e s f
and settling beds expressed as a function of the solid volume 10y6 ..
fraction and the particle Reynolds number. From the termi- The simulations in this work were carried out with the
nal velocity, the drag force can be readily computed. commercial CFD code CFX 4.2 from AEA Technology, Har-
The drag model of Gidaspow Ž1994. follows Wen and Yu well, UK, employing the Rhie-Chow ŽRhie and Chow, 1983.
Ž1966. for solid volume fractions lower than 0.2 and Ergun algorithm for discretization. For solving the difference equa-
Gidaspow (1994) applies the Ergun (1952) equation for higher ®olume fractions:
e s2m g 7 e s r g N © g y ©s N
150 q if e g ) 0.2
Ž 1y e s . d s2 4
bs
¼
3
C
4 D
Ž .
ds
ds
1y e s e s r g N ©g y ©s N
Ž 1y e s . y2 .65 if e s F 0.2
0.4 0.8
D b s 0.54 Ž UyUm f . Ž hq4'A .
0 gy0 .2 , Ž 38 .
models in the freely bubbling fluidized-bed case, compared spread in the simulations is fairly large, all of the investigated
to measurements of Hilligardt and Werther Ž1986.. The drag drag models are in agreement with the equation put forth by
model of Syamlal et al. Ž1993. underpredicts the bed expan- Darton et al. Ž1977.. Figure 13 shows the predicted bubble
sion compared to the findings of Hilligardt and Werther rise velocity employing different drag models in a freely bub-
Ž1986., and therefore also underpredicts the gas holdup in bling fluidized bed, compared to the empirical correlation of
the fluidized bed. Hilligardt and Werther Ž1986.. All of the investigated drag
Figure 12 shows the simulated bubble size as a function of models are in fairly good agreement with the empirical corre-
the bed height when employing different drag models, com- lation.
pared with the Darton et al., Ž1977. equation. Although the Because the bubble sizes predicted by the different drag
models are all close, while the predicted bed expansion dif-
fers between the models, variations in the predicted solid-
volume fraction of the dense phase exist between the models,
with the Syamlal et al. Ž1993. drag model predicting the high-
est solid volume fraction in the dense phase.
Figure 14 shows the quantitative bubble-size prediction for
a single jet entering a minimum fluidized bed based on the
drag models of Wen and Yu Ž1966. and Syamlal et al. Ž1993.,
which are compared to the experimental data of Kuipers
Ž1990.. Moreover, in Figure 15 we show the resulting qualita-
tive predictions of the bubble growth and shape, and also
compare these with photographs by Kuipers Ž1990.. The Wen
and Yu Ž1966. drag model yields better agreement with
Kuipers’ Ž1990. findings for both the bubble shape and size
than the Syamlal et al. Ž1993. drag model. The Syamlal et al.
Ž1993. drag model underpredicts the bubble size and pro-
duces a bubble that is more circular in shape than in the
experiments of Kuipers Ž1990. and in the simulations with
the Wen and Yu Ž1966. drag model.
Figure 12. Predicted bubble size as a function of bed
height at U s 0.54 mr rs based on different Frictional stress
drag models and compared to the correla-
tion of Darton et al. (1977). Frictional stresses can increase the total solid-phase stress
The vertical lines indicate the spread of the simulated by orders of magnitude, and is an important contributing force
bubble size. in dense gas]solid modeling. The simulation of the single jet
Conclusions
In this article we have compared different formulations that
are employed in CFD models for gas]solid flow in the Eule-
rianrEulerian framework. We discussed the basis for the for-
mulation of the two different sets of governing equations
common to the two-fluid literature with respect to the nature
Figure 15. Experimental and simulated bubble shape of the dispersed phase. It is shown in detail that the model-
associated with a single jet at U s10 mr
rs ing of gas]solid flows requires different governing equations
and at t s 0.10 s and t s 0.20 s. than the modeling of gas]liquid flows. We also have com-
Comparison is made between the Ža . experiment of Kuipers pared various closure models both quantitatively and qualita-
Ž1990 .; Žb . model simulation using the interphase drag
constant of Wen and Yu Ž1966 .; Žc . model simulation using tively. For example, we have shown how the hybrid drag model
the interphase drag constant of Syamlal et al. Ž1993 .. proposed by Gidaspow Ž1994. produces a discontinuity in the
Acknowledgments Subscripts
The investigations were supported Žin part. by the Netherlands bsbubble
Foundation for Chemical Research ŽSON., with financial aid from bubssingle bubble
the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research ŽNWO.. This dil sdilute
support is largely acknowledged. B.G.M. van Wachem gratefully ac- f sfrictional
knowledges the financial support of the Netherlands Organization g sgas phase
for Scientific Research ŽNWO., the Stimulation fund for Internation- isinterface
alization ŽSIR., DelftChemTech, the Delft University Fund, and the k seither phase
Reactor Research Foundation ŽRR., for the expenses for visiting mf sminimum fluidization
Purdue University. min sminimum; kick-in value
max smaximum
Notation psparticle
sssolids phase
Asempirical constant slip sslip
A 0 scatchment area of distributor, m2 slug sslug
CD sdrag coefficient w swall
d s sparticle diameter, m
Ds sstrain rate tensor, sy1
Dsdiameter, m
D T sinner column diameter, m Literature Cited
escoefficient of restitution Alder, B. J., and T. E. Wainwright, ‘‘Studies in Molecular Dynamics:
f sfluid-phase point property II. Behaviour of a Small Number of Elastic Spheres,’’ J. Chem.
Fr sempirical material constant, N ? my2 Phys., 33, 1439 Ž1960..
g r . sweighting function
Ž Anderson, T. B., and R. Jackson, ‘‘A Fluid Mechanical Description
g sgravitational constant, m ? sy2 of Fluidized Beds,’’ Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 6, 527 Ž1967..
g 0 sradial distribution function Barthod, D., M. Del Pozo, and C. Mirgain, ‘‘CFD-Aided Design Im-
hsheight of bubble in fluidized bed, m proves FCC Performance,’’ Oil Gas J., 66 Ž1999..
Hm f sminimum fluidization bed height, m Boemer, A., H. Qi, U. Renz, S. Vasquez, and F. Boysan, ‘‘Eulerian
Ht scolumn height, m Computation of Fluidized Bed Hydrodynamics}A Comparison of
J sfluctuating velocityrforce correlation, kg ? my3 ? sy1 Physical Models,’’ Proc. of the Int. Conf. on FBC, Orlando, FL, p.
Lsinterfacial area per unit volume, my1 775 Ž1995..
M sinterphase momentum exchange, N ? sy1 Carnahan, N. F., and K. E. Starling, ‘‘Equations of State for Non-At-
nsempirical constant in frictional stress tracting Rigid Spheres,’’ J. Chem. Phys., 51, 635 Ž1969..
nsnumber density Chapman, S., and T. G. Cowling, The Mathematical Theory of Non-
nsnormal vector, m Uniform Gases, Cambridge Univ. Press, 3rd Ed., Cambridge Ž1970..