Challenge problem: 1. Model validation of circulating fluidized beds

• Published in: Powder technology 2014-05, Vol.258, p.370-391
• Main Authors: Panday, Rupen, Shadle, Lawrence J., Shahnam, Mehrdad, Cocco, Ray, Issangya, Allan, Spenik, James S., Ludlow, J. Christopher, Gopalan, Balaji, Shaffer, Franklin, Syamlal, Madhava, Guenther, Chris, Karri, S.B. Reddy, Knowlton, Ted
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Applied sciences; Chemical engineering; Computational fluid dynamic modeling; Exact sciences and technology; Fluidization; Gas–solids flow; Hydrodynamics; Hydrodynamics of contact apparatus; Miscellaneous; Model validation; Solid-solid systems; Transport Regime
• ISSN: 0032-5910; 1873-328X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2014.02.010

The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) worked with Particulate Solids Research Inc. (PSRI) to conduct the third CFD Challenge Problem in granular fluid flow to evaluate the progress and state of the art in simulating gas solids flow in a circulating fluidized bed. Both Group A and B particles were tested at several gas velocities and solids circulation rates. For both particle groups pressures and particle velocities were measured within the riser. For the Group B cases local radial solids fluxes and high speed pressure fluctuations were measured. Model predictions were compared against these experimental results and vetted in the workshop at the Circulating Fluid Bed X. The modelers were given detailed descriptions of the experimental facilities as well as physical property and small scale fluidization data on the different bed materials tested. Two general types of modeling simulations were submitted: Eulerian–Eulerian and Eulerian–Lagrangian. Both types of model had successes and failures indicating that good results are strongly influenced by resources such as available time, computational facilities, and experience level of the modeler. By comparing the predicted behavior the strengths and weaknesses associated with the different modeling approaches were identified and shortcomings could be targeted for future development and improvements. [Display omitted] •Large scale CFB tests with Group A and B particles were blindly simulated.•Test data included radial particle velocities and fluxes and axial pressures.•Two types of simulations were submitted: Eulerian-Eulerian and Eulerian-Lagrangian.•Test data and simulations were quantitatively compared.•The quality of the CFD results improved with resolution, duration, and experience.