4.5 Article

A Comparative Study of Models for Heat Transfer in Bidisperse Gas-Solid Systems via CFD-DEM Simulations

Journal

AXIOMS
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/axioms11040179

Keywords

heat transfer; bidisperse gas-solid systems; computational fluid dynamics-discrete element method; particle mean temperature

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [22078255, 21978228, 52006172]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study numerically investigated flow and heat transfers in bidisperse gas-solid systems using CFD-DEM. Three different heat transfer models for bidisperse systems were compared. The results show that there are differences in particle mean temperature and temperature distribution among the three models at higher particle number ratios. However, when the particle number ratio is 1 and the particle diameter ratio is up to 4, the differences between the effects of heat transfer models are marginal.
In this study, flow and heat transfers in bidisperse gas-solid systems were numerically investigated using the computational fluid dynamics-discrete element method (CFD-DEM). Three different models to close the gas-solid heat transfer coefficient for each species of bidisperse systems were compared in the simulations. The effect of the particle diameter ratio and particle number ratio between large and small particles on the particle mean temperature and temperature distribution of each species were systematically investigated. The simulation results show that differences in the particle mean temperature and temperature distribution profiles exist among the three heat transfer models at a higher particle number ratio. The differences between the effects of three heat transfer models on heat transfer properties in bidisperse systems with particle diameter ratios of up to 4 are marginal when the particle number ratio between small and large particles is 1.

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