4.5 Article

Validation of CFD-DEM simulation of a liquid-solid fluidized bed by dynamic analysis of time series

Journal

PARTICUOLOGY
Volume 68, Issue -, Pages 75-87

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.partic.2021.11.003

Keywords

Liquid-solid fluidization; CFD-DEM; Dynamic comparison; Radioactive particle tracking

Funding

  1. Hogskolestiftelsen i oster-botten [2804720/28600122]
  2. Harry Schaumans Foundation [2804720/28002257]
  3. Suomen Kulttuurirahasto [00210970]
  4. CON-ICET [PIP1122015-0100902CO]
  5. Universidad de Buenos Aires [UBACyT 20020130100544BA]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study focused on implementing time series analysis tools to validate LSFB modeling, showing that the simulation can capture LSFB behavior. Trends of solid dispersion coefficients and mixing times predicted by the simulation are in good agreement with the experiments.
Liquid-solid fluidized beds (LSFB) modeling validation is crucial for establishing design rules and monitor -ing tools. However, it generally relies on comparing global variables, which overlook dynamic features that influence reaction outputs. This work aims to implement time series analysis tools to compare Radioactive Particle Tracking data with a simulation consisting of Computational Fluid Dynamics cou-pled with Discrete-Element Method. Experiments have been performed in a pilot-scale LSFB of calcium alginate spheres fluidized with a calcium chloride solution. The Diks' test indicates that the simulation can capture the LSFB behavior. It also allows diagnosing flow regime transitions from the simulation. Trends of solid dispersion coefficients and mixing times predicted by the simulation are in good agreement with the experiments. (c) 2021 Chinese Society of Particuology and Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available