4.6 Article

Effect of superficial gas velocity on the particle temperature distribution in a fluidized bed with heat production

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 140, 期 -, 页码 279-290

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2015.10.020

关键词

Gas-solid fluidized beds; Discrete element model; Heat production; Numerical simulation; Olefin polymerization

资金

  1. Dutch Polymer Institute (DPI) [751]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The heat transfer behavior of particles and gas in an olefin polymerization fluidized bed was numerically analyzed using an in-house developed 3-D computational fluid dynamics discrete element model (CFDDEM). First the implementation of the model was verified by comparing simulation results with analytical results. A constant volumetric heat production rate was implemented in the particle energy equation to mimic the heat production due to the polymerization reaction. It was found that the probability density function (PDF) of the particle temperature becomes more homogeneous with increasing superficial gas velocity. Furthermore, instantaneous snapshots of the thermal driving force (the difference between the single particle temperature and bed-average gas temperature, T-p - < T-g >) for different heat production rates provide detailed insight in the particle temperature distribution inside the fluidized bed. The time- and bed-averaged particle convective heat transfer coefficient, which was calculated by Gunn's correlation, was found to be independent of the superficial gas velocity. This is explained by the fact that the relative velocity of gas and particles in the emulsion phase, where most of the particles and gas interact, is hardly influenced when increasing the gas superficial velocity. From the spatial distribution of Nusselt number, it becomes apparent that the high heat transfer regions are found in the wake of rising bubbles, whereas low heat transfer rates are found in the clouds of the bubbles. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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