Experiment and multiphase CFD simulation of gas-solid flow in a CFB reactor at various operating conditions: Assessing t
- PDF / 496,928 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 595 x 842 pts (A4) Page_size
- 86 Downloads / 184 Views
pISSN: 0256-1115 eISSN: 1975-7220
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
INVITED REVIEW PAPER
Experiment and multiphase CFD simulation of gas-solid flow in a CFB reactor at various operating conditions: Assessing the performance of 2D and 3D simulations Mukesh Upadhyay*,**,******, Myung Won Seo*,**,†, Parlikkad Rajan Naren***, Jong-Ho Park*,**,†, Thanh Dang Binh Nguyen****, Kashif Rashid*****, and Hankwon Lim****** *Advanced Energy and Technology, Korea University of Science and Technology (UST), 217, Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34113, Korea **Clean Fuel Laboratory, Korea Institute of Energy Research (KIER), 152 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34129, Korea ***School of Chemical & Biotechnology, SASTRA Deemed to be University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu 613401, India ****School of Chemical Engineering, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Dai Co Viet, Hanoi, Vietnam *****Energy System Engineering, Korea University of Science and Technology (UST), 217, Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34113, Korea ******School of Energy and Chemical Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), 50 UNIST-gil, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Korea (Received 23 January 2020 • Revised 6 July 2020 • Accepted 27 July 2020) AbstractAccurate prediction of gas-solid flow hydrodynamics is key for the design, optimization, and scale-up of a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) reactor. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation with two-dimensional (2D) domain has been routinely used, considering the computational costs involved in three-dimensional (3D) simulations. This work evaluated the prediction capability of 2D and 3D gas-solid flow simulation in the lab-scale CFB riser section. The difference between 2D and 3D CFD simulation predictions was assessed and discussed in detail, considering several flow variables (superficial gas velocity, solid circulation rate, and secondary air injection). The transient Eulerian-Eulerian multiphase model was used. CFD simulation results were validated through an in-house experiment. The comparison between the experimental data and both computational domains shows that the 3D simulation can accurately predict the axial solid holdup profile. The CFD simulation comparison considering several flow conditions clearly indicated the limitation of the 2D simulation to accurately predict key hydrodynamic features, such as high solid holdup near the riser exit and riser bottom dense region. The accuracy of 2D and 3D simulations was further assessed using root-mean-square error calculation. Results indicated that the 3D simulation predicts flow behavior with higher accuracy than the 2D simulation. Keywords: Circulating Fluidized Bed, Gas-solid Flow, Computational Fluid Dynamics, Two-fluid Model, 2D and 3D Simulation
Eulerian and Eulerian-Lagrangian methods. The fundamental difference between these methods is the treatment of solid particles. In the last two decades, Eulerian-Eulerian-based two-fluid model (TFM) simulation has proven to successfully predict the gas-solid flow hydrodynamics. Althou
Data Loading...
