4.7 Article

CFD-DEM study on heat transfer characteristics and microstructure of the blast furnace raceway with ellipsoidal particles

期刊

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 346, 期 -, 页码 350-362

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2019.02.022

关键词

CFD-DEM; Blast furnace raceway; Heat transfer; Microstructure; Ellipsoidal particle

资金

  1. NSFC [51606040, 51605409]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFB0600101-4]
  3. Jiangsu Province Science Foundation for Youths [BK20160677]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coupled computational fluid dynamics and discrete element method (CFD-DEM) simulations are carried out to investigate the heat transfer characteristics and microstructure of the blast furnace (BF) raceway with different particle shapes. Three kinds of particles are considered including prolate and oblate ellipsoidal particles and spheres. The coupled CFD-DEM model is first validated based on experimental data and the capability of the combined sphere method (CSM) to investigate the heat transfer is also demonstrated. Then, the validated model is used to systematically explore formation and evolution of the BF raceway, particle behavior, force structure, heat transfer and temperature distribution with the effect of particle shapes on these issues discussed. Numerical results show that the raceway size formed by prolate ellipsoidal particles is the smallest among the three cases whereas the coordination number of which is the highest. Uniform contact force networks and typical orientation inclined angles of ellipsoidal particles influence the stable packing structure and homogeneous void distribution therein. The large surface area and homogeneous void structure of ellipsoidal particles can enhance the convective heat transfer. All the aforementioned factors collectively promote ellipsoidal particles to possess higher heat transfer efficiency than spheres. These findings could be helpful for the design and optimization of the BF. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据