a baseline drag force correlation for cfd simulations of ... · •particle drag force models are...
TRANSCRIPT
Barracuda Virtual Reactor, Barracuda VR, Barracuda and CPFD are registered trademarks of CPFD Software, LLC
A Baseline Drag Force Correlation for CFD Simulations of Gas-Solid Systems
James M. Parker
CPFD Software, LLC
2016 NETL Workshop on Multiphase Flow Science August 9 – 10, 2016Morgantown, WV
1
Momentum exchange between fluid and collection of particles is affected by hydrodynamics:
• Reynolds number• Voidage
As well as particle-level phenomena
• Particle shape• Morphology• Static electricity• Van der Waals forces• Liquid films
Appears as a deviation from ideal fluidization (particulate)
Particle Drag Force in Gas-Solid Systems
2
Effect on CFD Modeling of Gas-Solid Systems
• Agglomerative phenomena may not be calculated or characterized but is evident in operational data
• Available operational or experimental data used to improve CFD model
• Particle drag force models are needed that can be calibrated to account for the effect that agglomerative effects have on particle drag as a deviation from an ideal baseline drag
3
ideal( (,Re, ) ,Re, ) ,Re, )(p FF f
Ideal drag Deviation
Particle Drag Force Map
4
FLUIDIZATION RANGEF(Re,ε)
SIN
GLE
PA
RTI
CLE
Voidage (ε)mf 1
0
CLO
SE P
AC
K
Re
Less known KnownKnown
Single particle (Schiller-Naumann correlation)
Close pack or minimum fluidization (Ergun’s)
Dimensionless Particle Drag Force
5
0.6871 0.15Re Re 1000
,Re) (Re) 0.44Re Re 1000
24
(1 spp FF
2 2 2
1,Re, ) ,Re, )
1
R
8
e(
18( mf
p mf mf mf
mf mf
a bF F
,Re, 3 Redrag Stokes Stokes p f p fF F dF F U d U
Dimensionless
Correlation for Baseline Particle Drag Model
• Requirements:
• Satisfy both close pack and single particle extremes
• Continuous function of voidage
• Popular models do not satisfy these requirements
• Wen and Yu does not satisfy close pack
• Ergun does not satisfy single particle drag
• Wen-Yu/Ergun Blend (Gidaspow) is discontinuous at ε = 0.8
• Two different forms (A & B) which meet these requirements are proposed and tested against experimental data
6
Proposed models vs Existing models
7
New drag forms for particulate fluidization
Form A: A Wen-Yu form (power of voidage) is used with an exponent that is adjusted to match Ergun’s drag for all Re at minimum fluidization
The expression can be further simplified by rearrangement
8
ln,Re)
l
(Re) / Re( Re
n
mf sp
p sp
mf
F FF F
Form A 1( Rel
ln,Re) 1
np sp mf
mf
F FF
New drag forms for particulate fluidization
Form B: It was observed by Leva (1959) that the Ergun’s model is applicable up to voidages of 0.8 and this same cutoff is commonly used in the Gidaspow Wen-Yu / Ergun blend. Logarithmic interpolation between Ergun’s drag and the Schiller-Naumann drag reproduces this observation well
9
1,Re) ( , )( Re1
mfp sp mf
mf
F FF Re
Form B
Validation against experimental data
Particulate fluidization data used for validation (177 points)
• Wen and Yu (1966): Bed expansion data for 191 & 500 micron glass balls in water
• Liu, Kwauk, and Li (1996): Bed expansion data for 54 micron FCC catalyst in supercritical CO2 (8 and 9.4 MPa)
• Jottrand (1952): Bed expansion data for 20, 29, 43, 61, 86, and 113 micron sand in water
• Wilhelm and Kwauk (1948): Bed expansion data for 373, 556, and 1000 micron sea sand in water
• Lewis, Gilliland, and Bauer (1949): Settling of 100 and 150 micron glass in water
10
Analysis Approach
• Bed expansion is generally comprised of data showing• Superficial velocity• Bed height or voidage• Pressure drop
• Non-dimensional drag is related to the Archimedes number in a fluidized bed (di Felice, 1994)
• Particle sphericity is estimated from close pack pressure drop data where possible using Ergun coefficients recommended by Macdonald et al (1979) of a = 180 and b = 1.8.
11
3
meas 2( ,Re) Ar Ar
18Re
p f s f
f
d gF
Drag Model Error Ergun Coeffs
Form A 11.9% a = 180, b = 1.8
Ergun* 20.5% a = 180, b = 1.8
Gidaspow* 23.1% a = 150, b = 1.75
Wen and Yu 26.0%
Ergun* 26.1% a = 150, b = 1.75
Form B 28.0% a = 180, b = 1.8
Ergun 64.2% a = 180, b = 1.8
Error Analysis of different drag models
12
1
1Average error
Nmeas corr
i meas i
F F
FN
* Sphericity is assumed = 1, as is common practice for these models
Correlations vs Measured Data
13
Correlations vs Measured Data
14
Particulate Drag Error dependence on Re and Voidage
15
ClosePack
SingleParticle
Comparison of Form A with expression of di Felice
• The analysis of di Felice (1994) found a Reynolds number dependence for the exponent and proposed the following expression:
• The di Felice expression does not explicitly guarantee close-pack drag but the shape is similar
16
21.5 log
e3.7 0.6 x5 p2
Re
Conclusions
• CFD modeling of gas-solid systems can benefit from calibration of drag models to account for particle-level phenomena that affect particle drag
• For this effort, it is convenient to look at deviations from an ideal baseline drag model
• Two models for a baseline drag model were proposed and validated against available experimental data for particulate fluidization from literature
• Form “A” was found to match experimental data with an average error that was nearly half (11.9%) of the next best model tested
• This form is recommended as a baseline model for future work studying deviations in drag force due to agglomerative effects
17
References
• Di Felice, R (1994). The Voidage Function for Fluid-Particle Interaction Systems. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 20(1):153.
• Leva, M (1959). Fluidization. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.
• Lewis, W., Gilliland, E., and Bauer, W. (1949). Characteristics of Fluidized Particles. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 41(6): 1104.
• Liu, D., Kwauk, M., and Li, H. (1996). Aggregative and Particulate Fluidization – The Two Extremes of a Continuous Spectrum. Chemical Engineering Science, 51(17): 4045.
• Jottrand, R. (1952). An Experimental Study of the Mechanism of Fluidization. Journal of Applied Chemistry, Supplementary Issue 1: S17.
• Macdonald, I., El-Sayed, M., Mow, K., and Dullien, F. (1979) Flow through Porous Media-the Ergun Equation Revisited. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 18 (3): 199
• Wen, C. and Yu, Y. (1966). Mechanics of Fluidization. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 62(62): 100
• Wilhelm, R. and Kwauk, M. (1948). Fluidization of Solid Particles. Chemical Engineering Progress, 44(3): 201.
18