Search

Accurate prediction of the hydrodynamic profile is important for circulating fluidized bed (CFB) reactor design and scale-up. Multiphase computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation with interphase momentum exchange is key to accurately predict the gas-solid profile along the height of the riser. The present work deals with the assessment of six different drag model capability to accurately predict the riser section axial solid holdup distribution in bench scale circulating fluidized bed. The difference between six drag model predictions were validated against the experiment data. Two-dimensional geometry, transient solver and Eulerian–Eulerian multiphase models were used. Six drag model simulation predictions were discussed with respect to axial and radial profile. The comparison between CFD simulation and experimental data shows that the Syamlal-O’Brien, Gidaspow, Wen-Yu and Huilin-Gidaspow drag models were successfully able to predict the riser upper section solid holdup distribution with better accuracy, however unable to predict the solid holdup transition region. On the other hand, the Gibilaro model and Helland drag model were successfully able to predict the bottom dense region, but the upper section solid holdup distribution was overpredicted. The CFD simulation comparison of different drag model has clearly shown the limitation of the drag model to accurately predict overall axial heterogeneity with accuracy.

Accurate prediction of the hydrodynamic profile is important for circulating fluidized bed (CFB) reactor design and scale-up. Multiphase computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation with interphase momentum exchange is key to accurately predict the gas-solid profile along the height of the riser. The present work deals with the assessment of six different drag model capability to accurately predict the riser section axial solid holdup distribution in bench scale circulating fluidized bed. The difference between six drag model predictions were validated against the experiment data. Two-dimensional geometry, transient solver and Eulerian--Eulerian multiphase models were used. Six drag model simulation predictions were discussed with respect to axial and radial profile. The comparison between CFD simulation and experimental data shows that the Syamlal-O'Brien, Gidaspow, Wen-Yu and Huilin-Gidaspow drag models were successfully able to predict the riser upper section solid holdup distribution with better accuracy, however unable to predict the solid holdup transition region. On the other hand, the Gibilaro model and Helland drag model were successfully able to predict the bottom dense region, but the upper section solid holdup distribution was overpredicted. The CFD simulation comparison of different drag model has clearly shown the limitation of the drag model to accurately predict overall axial heterogeneity with accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]