4.6 Article

On the role of energy dissipation in a dynamically structured fluidized bed

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 248, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2021.117189

关键词

Fluidization; Intensification; Friction; Bubbling; Oscillatory flow; CFD-DEM

资金

  1. EPSRC Frontier Engineering Award [EP/K038656/1, EP/S03305X/1]
  2. EPSRC Doctoral Training Award [1528604]
  3. EPSRC [EP/K038656/1, EP/S03305X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Friction plays a key role in the stability of structured bubble flow in gas-solid fluidized beds. As friction decreases, solid-like regions widen, bubbles grow and ultimately break up the structure. CFD-DEM simulations show qualitative differences in bubble shape and acceleration, highlighting the need for further research on the effects of other particle properties, polydispersity, and domain size.
This work explores the effect of interparticle friction on the stability of a structured bubble flow in gas- solid fluidized beds. We provide a detailed quantification of the evolution of bubble properties at varying frequency, comparing experiments with CFD-DEM (computational fluid dynamics - discrete element modeling) simulations. Friction plays a key role. It creates intermittent solid-like regions that restrict the mobility of solids and endow the flow with enough memory to correlate consecutive nucleation events. As friction decreases, solid-like regions widen, allowing the circulation of solids; simultaneously, bubbles grow, move apart and ultimately break up the structure. CFD-DEM reproduces this phenomenon well in a small bed, but shows qualitative differences in bubble shape and acceleration. These deviations propagate into substantial errors at higher frequency or larger domains displaying multiple bubble rows, which stresses the need for further research to understand the effects of other particle properties, polydispersity and the domain size. (c) 2021 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