4.7 Article

CFD-DEM investigation of the fluidization of binary mixtures containing rod-like particles and spherical particles in a fluidized bed

期刊

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 336, 期 -, 页码 533-545

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2018.06.034

关键词

CFD-DEM; Fluidization; Binary granular system; Rod-like particle; Non-spherical particle

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [51741608]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the energy conversion process, the inert bed material such as sand with spherical shape is usually added to the fluidized bed for the proper fluidization of the non-spherical biomass particles. Understanding fluidization of the binary mixtures containing the biomass and the bed material is therefore significant for better utilization of the biomass. To this end, CFD-DEM model is used to simulate the fluidization of the binary mixtures containing the rod-like particles that represent the light and large biomass particles and the spherical particles that represent the dense and small bed material, in which all particles are described by super-ellipsoid model. Five granular systems with different volume fractions of the rod-like particles but the same particle volume are simulated in this paper. The simulation results demonstrate that the minimum fluidization velocity would increase with the volume fraction of the rod-like particles. The addition of the spherical particles is beneficial to the fluidization of the rod-like particles. The mixing rate in binary granular system and the distribution of the coordinate number would be affected by the gas superficial velocity and the volume fraction of the rod-like particles. For the orientation of the rod-like partides, its distribution in binary granular system is different from that in monodisperse rod-like particle system. But whether in binary granular system or monodisperse rod-like particle system, there is apparent wall effect on the particle orientation. (C) 2018 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