0
Research Papers: Fuel Combustion

Transient Computational Fluid Dynamics/Discrete Element Method Simulation of Gas–Solid Flow in a Spouted Bed and Its Validation by High-Speed Imaging Experiment

[+] Author and Article Information
Ling Zhou

Mem. ASME
Research Center of Fluid Machinery
Engineering and Technology,
Jiangsu University,
Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 212013, China
e-mail: lingzhoo@hotmail.com

Lingjie Zhang

Research Center of Fluid Machinery
Engineering and Technology,
Jiangsu University,
Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 212013, China
e-mail: zlj498@126.com

Weidong Shi

Research Center of Fluid Machinery
Engineering and Technology,
Jiangsu University,
Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 212013, China
e-mail: wdshi@ujs.edu.cn

Ramesh Agarwal

Fellow ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering and
Materials Science,
Washington University in St. Louis,
St. Louis, MO 63130
e-mail: rka@wustl.edu

Wei Li

Research Center of Fluid Machinery
Engineering and Technology,
Jiangsu University,
Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 212013, China
e-mail: lwjiangda@ujs.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 27, 2016; final manuscript received August 6, 2017; published online September 12, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Reza Sheikhi.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 140(1), 012206 (Sep 12, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: JERT-16-1526; doi: 10.1115/1.4037685 History: Received December 27, 2016; Revised August 06, 2017

A coupled computational fluid dynamics (CFD)/discrete element method (DEM) is used to simulate the gas–solid two-phase flow in a laboratory-scale spouted fluidized bed. Transient experimental results in the spouted fluidized bed are obtained in a special test rig using the high-speed imaging technique. The computational domain of the quasi-three-dimensional (3D) spouted fluidized bed is simulated using the commercial CFD flow solver ANSYS-fluent. Hydrodynamic flow field is computed by solving the incompressible continuity and Navier–Stokes equations, while the motion of the solid particles is modeled by the Newtonian equations of motion. Thus, an Eulerian–Lagrangian approach is used to couple the hydrodynamics with the particle dynamics. The bed height, bubble shape, and static pressure are compared between the simulation and the experiment. At the initial stage of fluidization, the simulation results are in a very good agreement with the experimental results; the bed height and the bubble shape are almost identical. However, the bubble diameter and the height of the bed are slightly smaller than in the experimental measurements near the stage of bubble breakup. The simulation results with their experimental validation demonstrate that the CFD/DEM coupled method can be successfully used to simulate the transient gas–solid flow behavior in a fluidized bed which is not possible to simulate accurately using the granular approach of purely Euler simulation. This work should help in gaining deeper insight into the spouted fluidized bed behavior to determine best practices for further modeling and design of the industrial scale fluidized beds.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Simplified linear elastic model of collisions between two particles (A = normal and B = tangential) and between particle and wall (C = normal and D = tangential)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Test rig for the fluidized bed experiment (1. Computer, 2. High Speed Camera, 3. Light, 4. Fluidized Bed, 5. Mass Flow Controller, 6. Refrigeration Dryer, 7. Air compressor)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Computational model of the fluidized bed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of experimental and numerical results from 0 to 225 ms with 250 L/min inlet flow rate (top: high-speed photographic experiment, bottom: ANSYS fluent CFD/DEM simulation)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of experimental and numerical results from 250 to 475 ms at 250 L/min inlet flow rate (top: High speed photographic experiment, bottom: ANSYS FLUENT CFD/DEM simulation)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of experimental and numerical results from 0 to 225 ms at 300 L/min inlet flow rate (top: High speed photographic experiment, bottom: ANSYS fluent CFD/DEM simulation)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of experimental and numerical results from 250 to 475 ms at 300 L/min inlet flow rate (top: high-speed photographic experiment, bottom: ANSYS fluent CFD/DEM simulation)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of velocity at z = 10 cm with two different inlet mass flow rates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of bed height between the experiment and simulation: (a) bed height at mass flow rate = 250 L/min and (b) bed height at mass flow rate = 300 L/min

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of bubble diameter between experiment and simulation at two different inlet mass flow rates: (a) bubble diameter at mass flow rate = 250 L/min and (b) bubble diameter at mass flow rate = 300 L/min

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of static pressure between the experiment and simulation: (a) static pressure at z = 2 cm for mass flow rate = 250 L/min and (b) static pressure at z = 2 cm for mass flow rate = 300 L/min

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Experimental static pressure at various time for two different inlet mass flow rates at z = 22 cm and z = 40 cm

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In