Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T21:39:37.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discrete particle simulation of particle–fluid flow: model formulations and their applicability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2010

Z. Y. ZHOU ,
S. B. KUANG ,
K. W. CHU  and
A. B. YU
Z. Y. ZHOU
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Simulation and Modelling of Particulate Systems, School of Materials Science and Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia
S. B. KUANG
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Simulation and Modelling of Particulate Systems, School of Materials Science and Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia
K. W. CHU
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Simulation and Modelling of Particulate Systems, School of Materials Science and Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia
A. B. YU*
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Simulation and Modelling of Particulate Systems, School of Materials Science and Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia
*
†Email address for correspondence: a.yu@unsw.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The approach of combining computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for continuum fluid and the discrete element method (DEM) for discrete particles has been increasingly used to study the fundamentals of coupled particle–fluid flows. Different CFD–DEM models have been used. However, the origin and the applicability of these models are not clearly understood. In this paper, the origin of different model formulations is discussed first. It shows that, in connection with the continuum approach, three sets of formulations exist in the CFD–DEM approach: an original format set I, and subsequent derivations of set II and set III, respectively, corresponding to the so-called model A and model B in the literature. A comparison and the applicability of the three models are assessed theoretically and then verified from the study of three representative particle–fluid flow systems: fluidization, pneumatic conveying and hydrocyclones. It is demonstrated that sets I and II are essentially the same, with small differences resulting from different mathematical or numerical treatments of a few terms in the original equation. Set III is however a simplified version of set I. The testing cases show that all the three models are applicable to gas fluidization and, to a large extent, pneumatic conveying. However, the application of set III is conditional, as demonstrated in the case of hydrocyclones. Strictly speaking, set III is only valid when fluid flow is steady and uniform. Set II and, in particular, set I, which is somehow forgotten in the literature, are recommended for the future CFD–DEM modelling of complex particle–fluid flow.

JFM classification

Multiphase and Particle-laden Flows: Fluidized beds Granular media: Granular media
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 661 , 25 October 2010 , pp. 482 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, T. B. & Jackson, R. 1967 A fluid mechanical description of fluidized beds. Ind. Engng Chem. Fundam. 6, 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arastoopour, H. 2001 Numerical simulation and experimental analysis of gas/solid flow systems: 1999 Fluor–Daniel Plenary Lecture. Powder Technol. 119, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arastoopour, H. & Gidaspow, D. 1979 Vertical pneumatic conveying using four hydrodynamic models. Ind. Engng Chem. Fundam. 18, 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beetstra, R., van der Hoef, M. A. & Kuipers, J. A. M. 2007 Numerical study of segregation using a new drag force correlation for polydisperse systems derived from lattice-Boltzmann simulations. Chem. Engng Sci. 62, 246–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouillard, J. X., Lyczkowski, R. W. & Gidaspow, D. 1989 Porosity distributions in a fluidized-bed with an immersed obstacle. AIChE J. 35, 908–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, C. S. 2006 Granular materials flows: an overview. Powder Technol. 162, 208–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, K. W. & Yu, A. B. 2008 Numerical simulation of complex particle–fluid flows. Powder Technol. 179, 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, K. W., Wang, B., Yu, A. B. & Vince, A. 2009 CFD–DEM modelling of multiphase flow in dense medium cyclones. Powder Technol. 193, 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowe, C. T., Sommerfeld, M. & Tsuji, Y. 1998 Multiphase Flow with Droplets and Particles. CRC.Google Scholar
Cundall, P. A. & Strack, O. D. L. 1979 A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Geotechnique 29, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Felice, R. 1994 The voidage function for fluid–particle interaction systems. Intl J. Multiph. Flow 20, 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Renzo, A. & Di Maio, F. P. 2007 Homogeneous and bubbling fluidization regimes in DEM–CFD simulations: hydrodynamic stability of gas and liquid fluidized beds. Chem. Engng Sci. 62, 116–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enwald, H., Peirano, E. & Almstedt, A. E. 1996 Eulerian two-phase flow theory applied to fluidization. Intl J. Multiph. Flow 22, 21–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ergun, S. 1952 Fluid flow through packed columns. Chem. Engng Process. 48, 89–94.Google Scholar
Feng, Y. Q., Xu, B. H., Zhang, S. J., Yu, A. B. & Zulli, P. 2004 Discrete particle simulation of gas fluidization of particle mixtures. AIChE J. 50, 1713–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, Y. Q. & Yu, A. B. 2004 a Assessment of model formulations in the discrete particle simulation of gas–solid flow. Ind. Engng Chem. Res. 43, 8378–8390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, Y. Q. & Yu, A. B. 2004 b Comments on ‘Discrete particle-continuum fluid modelling of gas-solid fluidised beds’ by Kafui et al. [Chem. Engng Sci. 57 (2002) 2395–2410]. Chem. Engng Sci. 59, 719–722.Google Scholar
Feng, Y. Q. & Yu, A. B. 2007 Microdynamic modelling and analysis of the mixing and segregation of binary mixtures of particles in gas fluidization. Chem. Engng Sci. 62, 256–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidaspow, D. 1994 Multiphase Flow and Fluidization. Academic.Google Scholar
Goldhirsch, I. 2008 Introduction to granular temperature. Powder Technol. 182, 130–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoomans, B. P. B., Kuipers, J. A. M., Briels, W. J. & van Swaaij, W. P. M. 1998 Comments on the paper ‘Numerical simulation of the gas–solid flow in a fluidized bed by combining discrete particle method with computational fluid dynamics’. Chem. Engng Sci. 53, 2645–2646.Google Scholar
Iddir, H., Arastoopour, H. & Hrenya, C. M. 2005 Analysis of binary and ternary granular mixtures behavior using the kinetic theory approach. Powder Technol. 151, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishii, M. 1975 Thermo-Fluid Dynamics Theory of Two-Phase Flow. Eyrolles.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. 1963 The mechanics of fluidized beds. Part I. The stability of the state of uniform fluidization. Trans. Inst. Chem. Engng 41, 13–21.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. 1997 Locally averaged equations of motion for a mixture of identical spherical particles and Newtonian fluid. Chem. Engng Sci. 52, 2457–2469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kafui, K. D., Thornton, C. & Adams, M. J. 2002 Discrete particle-continuum fluid modelling of gas–solid fluidised beds. Chem. Engng Sci. 57, 2395–2410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kafui, K. D., Thornton, C. & Adams, M. J. 2004 Reply to comments by Feng and Yu on ‘Discrete particle-continuum fluid modelling of gas–solid fluidised beds’ by Kafui et al. Chem. Engng Sci. 59, 723–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuang, S. B., Chu, K. W., Yu, A. B., Zou, Z. S. & Feng, Y. Q. 2008 Computational investigation of horizontal slug flow in pneumatic conveying. Ind. Engng Chem. Res. 47, 470–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuang, S. B., Yu, A. B. & Zou, Z. S. 2009 Computational study of flow regimes in vertical pneumatic conveying. Ind. Engng Chem. Res. 48, 6846–6858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, W. H. & Lyczkowski, R. W. 2000 The basic character of five two-phase flow model equation sets. Intl. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 33, 1075–1098.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J. H. 2000 Compromise and resolution: exploring the multi-scale nature of gas–solid fluidization. Powder Technol. 111, 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyczkowski, R. W. 1978 Transient propagation behavior of two-Phase flow equations. In Heat Transfer: Research and Application (ed. Chen, J. C.), AIChE Symposium Series, vol. 75, Issue 174, pp. 175–174. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York.Google Scholar
Nakamura, K. & Capes, C. E. 1973 Vertical pneumatic conveying: theoretical study of uniform and annular particle flow models. Can. J. Chem. Engng 51, 39–46.Google Scholar
Patankar, S. V. 1980 Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. Hemisphere.Google Scholar
Prosperetti, A. & Tryggvason, G. 2007 Computational Methods for Multiphase Flow. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudinger, G. & Chang, A. 1964 Analysis of nonsteady 2-phase flow. Phys. Fluids 7, 1747–1754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svarovsky, L. 1984 Hydrocyclones. Technomic Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
Tsuji, Y. 2007 Multi-scale modeling of dense phase gas-particle flow. Chem. Engng Sci. 62, 3410–3418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villermaux, J. 1996 New horizons in chemical engineering. In Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Chemical Engineering, San Diego, CA, pp. 16–23.Google Scholar
van Wachem, B. G. M., Schouten, J. C., van den Bleek, C. M., Krishna, R. & Sinclair, J. L. 2001 Comparative analysis of CFD models of dense gas–solid systems. AIChE J. 47, 1035–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, B., Chu, K. W. & Yu, A. B. 2007 Numerical study of particle–fluid flow in a hydrocyclone. Ind. Engng Chem. Res. 46, 4695–4705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, C. Y. & Yu, Y. H. 1966 Mechanics of fluidization. AIChE Ser. 62, 100.Google Scholar
Xu, B. H. & Yu, A. B. 1997 Numerical simulation of the gas–solid flow in a fluidized bed by combining discrete particle method with computational fluid dynamics. Chem. Engng Sci. 52, 2785–2809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, B. H. & Yu, A. B. 1998 Comments on the paper ‘Numerical simulation of the gas–solid flow in a fluidized bed by combining discrete particle method with computational fluid dynamics’: reply. Chem. Engng Sci. 53, 2646–2647.Google Scholar
Xu, B. H., Yu, A. B., Chew, S. J. & Zulli, P. 2000 Numerical simulation of the gas–solid flow in a bed with lateral gas blasting. Powder Technol. 109, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, A. B. 2005 Powder processing: models and simulations. In Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics (ed. Bassani, F., Liedl, G. L. & Wyder, P.), Chapter 5 56, vol. 4, pp. 401–414. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Y. C., Wright, B. D., Yang, R. Y., Xu, B. H. & Yu, A. B. 1999 Rolling friction in the dynamic simulation of sandpile formation. Physica A 269, 536–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Z. Y., Yu, A. B. & Zulli, P. 2009 Particle scale study of heat transfer in packed and bubbling fluidized beds. AIChE J. 55, 868–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, H. P., Zhou, Z. Y., Yang, R. Y. & Yu, A. B. 2007 Discrete particle simulation of particulate systems: theoretical developments. Chem. Engng Sci. 62, 3378–3396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, H. P., Zhou, Z. Y., Yang, R. Y. & Yu, A. B. 2008 Discrete particle simulation of particulate systems: a review of major applications and findings. Chem. Engng Sci. 63, 5728–5770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar