4.6 Article

Development and validation of an enhanced filtered drag model for simulating gas-solid fluidization of Geldart A particles in all flow regimes

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 184, 期 -, 页码 33-51

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2018.03.038

关键词

Fluidization; Hydrodynamics; Drag model; Computational fluid dynamics; MFiX

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO)
  2. DOE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coarse-grid two-fluid simulation of gas-solid fluidized bed reactors based on the kinetic theory of granular flow exhibits a significant dependence on drag models, especially for Geldart A particles. Many drag models are available in the literature, which have been reported to work for different systems. This study focused on the evaluation of an enhanced filtered drag model along with other different drag models derived from different methods for three-dimensional two-fluid model simulations of gas-solid fluidized beds of Geldart A particles covering a broad range of fluidization regimes, including bubbling fluidization, turbulent fluidization, fast fluidization, and dilute phase transport regimes. Eight drag models were selected, which included five heterogeneous drag models and three homogeneous drag models. Comparison with the available experimental data demonstrates the need for modification of homogeneous drag models to account for the effect of mesoscale structures (i.e., bubbles and clusters). The enhanced filtered drag model and energy-minimization multi-scale (EMMS) drag models were found to achieve superior predictions in all fluidization regimes, while the other drag models were only capable of predicting certain fluidization regimes. The results of this work provide a guideline for choosing appropriate drag models for simulating Geldart A particles and suggestions on developing more reliable and general drag models applicable in all flow regimes. (C) 2018 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