skip to main content
DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Assessment of Different Discrete Particle Methods Ability To Predict Gas-Particle Flow in a Small-Scale Fluidized Bed

Abstract

Several discrete particle methods exist in the open literature to simulate fluidized bed systems, such as discrete element method (DEM), time driven hard sphere (TDHS), coarse-grained particle method (CGPM), coarse grained hard sphere (CGHS), and multi-phase particle-in-cell (MP-PIC). These different approaches usually solve the fluid phase in a Eulerian fixed frame of reference and the particle phase using the Lagrangian method. The first difference between these models lies in tracking either real particles or lumped parcels. The second difference is in the treatment of particle-particle interactions: by calculating collision forces (DEM and CGPM), using momentum conservation laws (TDHS and CGHS), or based on particle stress model (MP-PIC). These major model differences lead to a wide range of results accuracy and computation speed. However, these models have never been compared directly using the same experimental dataset. In this research, a small-scale fluidized bed is simulated with these methods using the same open-source code MFIX. The results indicate that modeling the particle-particle collision by TDHS increases the computation speed while maintaining good accuracy. Also, lumping few particles in a parcel increases the computation speed with little loss in accuracy. However, modeling particle-particle interactions with solids stress leads to a big loss inmore » accuracy with a little increase in computation speed. The MP-PIC method predicts an unphysical particle-particle overlap, which results in incorrect voidage distribution and incorrect overall bed hydrodynamics. Based on this study, we recommend using the CGHS method for fluidized bed simulations due to its computational speed that rivals that of MPPIC while maintaining a much better accuracy.« less

Authors:
ORCiD logo [1];  [2];  [1]
  1. National Energy Technology Lab. (NETL), Morgantown, WV (United States)
  2. National Energy Technology Lab. (NETL), Morgantown, WV (United States); West Virginia Univ. Research Corp., Morgantown, WV (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
National Energy Technology Lab. (NETL), Morgantown, WV (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Fossil Energy (FE)
OSTI Identifier:
1433640
Report Number(s):
NETL-PUB-21100
Journal ID: ISSN 0888-5885
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 56; Journal Issue: 27; Journal ID: ISSN 0888-5885
Publisher:
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY

Citation Formats

Lu, Liqiang, Gopalan, Balaji, and Benyahia, Sofiane. Assessment of Different Discrete Particle Methods Ability To Predict Gas-Particle Flow in a Small-Scale Fluidized Bed. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.7b01862.
Lu, Liqiang, Gopalan, Balaji, & Benyahia, Sofiane. Assessment of Different Discrete Particle Methods Ability To Predict Gas-Particle Flow in a Small-Scale Fluidized Bed. United States. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.7b01862
Lu, Liqiang, Gopalan, Balaji, and Benyahia, Sofiane. Wed . "Assessment of Different Discrete Particle Methods Ability To Predict Gas-Particle Flow in a Small-Scale Fluidized Bed". United States. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.7b01862. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1433640.
@article{osti_1433640,
title = {Assessment of Different Discrete Particle Methods Ability To Predict Gas-Particle Flow in a Small-Scale Fluidized Bed},
author = {Lu, Liqiang and Gopalan, Balaji and Benyahia, Sofiane},
abstractNote = {Several discrete particle methods exist in the open literature to simulate fluidized bed systems, such as discrete element method (DEM), time driven hard sphere (TDHS), coarse-grained particle method (CGPM), coarse grained hard sphere (CGHS), and multi-phase particle-in-cell (MP-PIC). These different approaches usually solve the fluid phase in a Eulerian fixed frame of reference and the particle phase using the Lagrangian method. The first difference between these models lies in tracking either real particles or lumped parcels. The second difference is in the treatment of particle-particle interactions: by calculating collision forces (DEM and CGPM), using momentum conservation laws (TDHS and CGHS), or based on particle stress model (MP-PIC). These major model differences lead to a wide range of results accuracy and computation speed. However, these models have never been compared directly using the same experimental dataset. In this research, a small-scale fluidized bed is simulated with these methods using the same open-source code MFIX. The results indicate that modeling the particle-particle collision by TDHS increases the computation speed while maintaining good accuracy. Also, lumping few particles in a parcel increases the computation speed with little loss in accuracy. However, modeling particle-particle interactions with solids stress leads to a big loss in accuracy with a little increase in computation speed. The MP-PIC method predicts an unphysical particle-particle overlap, which results in incorrect voidage distribution and incorrect overall bed hydrodynamics. Based on this study, we recommend using the CGHS method for fluidized bed simulations due to its computational speed that rivals that of MPPIC while maintaining a much better accuracy.},
doi = {10.1021/acs.iecr.7b01862},
journal = {Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research},
number = 27,
volume = 56,
place = {United States},
year = {2017},
month = {6}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 17 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Fluid Beds: At Last, Challenging Two Entrenched Practices
journal, December 1985


The effect of numerical diffusion on simulation of isolated bubbles in a gas–solid fluidized bed
journal, May 2001


Numerical Simulation of Dense Gas-Solid Fluidized Beds: A Multiscale Modeling Strategy
journal, January 2008


Drag force of intermediate Reynolds number flow past mono- and bidisperse arrays of spheres
journal, January 2007

  • Beetstra, R.; van der Hoef, M. A.; Kuipers, J. A. M.
  • AIChE Journal, Vol. 53, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/aic.11065

A drag model for filtered Euler–Lagrange simulations of clustered gas–particle suspensions
journal, September 2014


Two-Fluid Model Simulations of the National Energy Technology Laboratory Bubbling Fluidized Bed Challenge Problem
journal, April 2016

  • Lungu, Musango; Wang, Haotong; Wang, Jingdai
  • Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, Vol. 55, Issue 17
  • DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04511

    Works referencing / citing this record:

    Pyrolysis characteristics of Kazakhstan coals in non-isothermal and isothermal conditions
    journal, April 2019