Accepted Manuscript

Title: Development and test of CFDDEM model for complex

geometry: A coupling algorithm for Fluent and DEM

Author: Daoyin Liu Changsheng Bu Xiaoping Chen

PII: S0098-1354(13)00226-3
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2013.07.006
Reference: CACE 4766

To appear in: Computers and Chemical Engineering

Received date: 3-4-2013

Revised date: 17-7-2013
Accepted date: 18-7-2013

Please cite this article as: Liu, D., Bu, C., & Chen, X., Development and
test of CFDDEM model for complex geometry: a coupling algorithm
for Fluent and DEM, Computers and Chemical Engineering (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2013.07.006

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 Page 1

1 Development and test of CFDDEM model for complex geometry: a coupling algorithm

2 for Fluent and DEM

3 Daoyin Liu*, Changsheng Bu, Xiaoping Chen

4 Key Laboratory of Energy Thermal Conversion and Control of Ministry of Education, School

t
5 of Energy and Environment, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, Jiangsu, China

ip
6 Corresponding authors: dyliu@seu.edu.cn; Tel/Fax: (+86)25 83790147

cr
7

8 Abstract

us
9 CFDDiscrete Element Method (DEM) model is an effective approach for studying dense

10 gassolid flow in fluidized beds. In this study, a CFDDEM model for complex geometries is

11

12 an
developed, where DEM code is coupled with ANSYS/Fluent software through its User

Defined Function. The Fluent Eulerian multiphase model is employed to couple with DEM,
M
13 whose secondary phase acts as a ghost phase but only an image copy of DEM field. The

14 proposed procedure preserves phase conservation and ensures the Fluent phasecoupled
d

15 SIMPLE solver work stable. The model is used to simulate four typical fluidization cases,
te

16 respectively, a single pulsed jet fluidized bed, fluidized bed with an immersed tube,
p

17 fluidization regime transition from bubbling to fast, and a simplified two-dimensional

ce

18 circulating fluidized bed loop. The simulation results are satisfactory. The present approach

19 provides an easily implemented and reliable method for CFDDEM model on complex
Ac

20 geometries.

21 Keywords

22 CFDDEM model; gassolid fluidized bed; complex geometry

23 1 Introduction

24 Fluidized bed technology is widely used in physical and chemical processes, e.g., fluid

25 catalytic cracking, solid fuel combustion/gasification, granulation, and coating. Considerable

26 efforts have been made to develop advanced techniques for measuring dynamics of dense

Page 1 of 32
 Page 2

1 gassolid flow in fluidized beds (van Ommen et al., 2009), such as Electrical Capacitance

2 Tomography, X-ray Tomography, Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV), high speed PIV, Digital

3 Image Analysis (DIA), Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Positron Emission Particle Tracking.

4 However, it is still challenging to measure the dense gassolid flow characteristics accurately

t
5 at a reasonable cost.

ip
6 In the meanwhile, multiphase Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation provides

cr
7 insight on behaviors of fluidized beds. The most widely used models are EulerianGranular

8 model (Ding & Gidaspow, 1990) and CFDDEM (Discrete Element Model) model (Tsuji et

us
9 al., 1993); (Deen et al., 2007); (Zhu et al., 2008), also known as CFDDPM (Discrete Particle

10 Model) model. Please note that Direct Numerical Simulation models (Deen et al., 2012)

11

12 an
where the fluid mesh is much smaller than particle are out of scope here. The

EulerianGranular model employs a continuum description for both gas and solid phases and
M
13 computes the solid phase pressure and viscosity correlations based on granular kinetic theory.

14 The CFDDEM model is more fundamental, which employs a continuum description for fluid
d

15 phase while accounts for the motion of each particle individually. It is more computational
te

16 expensive and requires fewer postulations than the EulerianGranular model.

p

17 The CFDDEM model was first introduced by Tsuji et al. (1993). It has been developed
ce

18 extensively in the last two decades. Generally, the progress can be summed up in the

19 following aspects. (1) The number of simulation particles is increased by an order of

Ac

20 magnitude generally. In the early stages the particle number is several thousands, but now it is

21 ordinary to simulate a system consisted of 50,000~100,000 particles with a single CPU core.

22 Additionally, efforts have been made to parallelization to simulate fluidized beds with several

23 million particles by several research groups independently (Kafui et al., 2011); (Shigeto &

24 Sakai, 2011); (Natsui et al., 2012); (Pepiot & Desjardins, 2012); (Xu et al., 2012). (2) More

25 elaborated DEM models are proposed (Jasion et al., 2011); (Kruggel-Emden et al., 2008);

26 (Kruggel-Emden et al., 2011). (3) Turbulence in gas phase such as k- model and LES model

Page 2 of 32
 Page 3

1 has been considered tentatively (Zhong et al., 2006); (Gui et al., 2010). (4) Heat transfer and

2 chemical reactions are coupled with DEM to study multiphysics coupling problems (Zhao et

3 al., 2009); (Hou et al., 2012). (5) Algorithms which track particle cloud instead of single

4 particle are proposed to reduce computational expense(Sakai & Koshizuka, 2009); (Benyahia

t
5 & Galvin, 2010); (Mokhtar et al., 2012). (6) Particle collision models are adapted for

ip
6 non-spherical particles (Geng et al., 2011); (Hhner et al., 2011). (7) Simulation is extended

cr
7 to complex geometry. The last point is the focus of the present paper and the related work in

8 the literature is explained in the following.

us
9 The development of robust methods that can deal with complex geometry would make

10 CFDDEM for more realistic problems. To achieve this objective, it is crucial to employ a

11

12 an
reliable and flexible CFD solver on complex geometry. A series of papers from Yu group

reported interesting simulations on gassolid flow in cyclone and pneumatic conveying (Chu
M
13 et al., 2011); (Kuang & Yu, 2011). However, to our best knowledge, a detailed or explicit

14 introduction of its CFD solver and coupling strategy has not been given. Wu et al. (2006)
d

15 coupled DPM of hardsphere collision model with their inhouse 2D SIMPLE algorithm code
te

16 on unstructured meshes. The model is limited to 2D simulations. In their following work (Wu
p

17 et al., 2009), the DPM was coupled with Fluent software (FluentAnsys Inc.) and the
ce

18 coupling strategy was described in detail. The model was proved to be robust in modeling

19 fluidized beds with 3D unstructured grids. Su et al. (2011) coupled DEM with OpenFOAM
Ac

20 which is an open source CFD framework.

21 In addition to the above mentioned works making CFDDEM accessible to complex

22 geometry, a particularly interesting development has been reported very recently (Guo et al.,

23 2013) where an Immersed Boundary Method (IBM) is incorporated into CFDDEM model

24 for particulate systems with complex and moving boundaries. Dietiker et al. (2013) report a

25 successful implementation of cut cell technique in MFIX multiphase flow solver for complex

26 geometries.

Page 3 of 32
 Page 4

1 Therefore, more and more interests are shown on implementing CFDDEM for complex

2 geometries. In this paper, we follow the idea of Wu et al. (2009) via coupling DEM with

3 Fluent software, but our coupling stratege is different from Wu et al. (2009). They modify

4 Fluent single phase model to couple with DEM, but in this paper we use Fluent Eulerian

t
5 multiphase model. In their work there is a risk of mass non-conservation and thus needs some

ip
6 other treats (Wu et al., 2009). Our method is free of such issue, but it requires a bit of extra

cr
7 computational cost due to the secondary phase in the Eulerian multiphase model.

8 This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces mathematic description of

us
9 CFDDEM. Section 3 gives a detailed description of the coupling trajectory. Section 4

10 validates the approach from simple to complex cases. Finally, conclusions are drawn in

11

12
Section 5.

2 Mathematical Model an
M
13 In CFDDEM model, gas phase is governed by NavierStokes equation while each

14 particle is tracked by Newtons second law. The mathematic model is well documented in the
d

15 literature. A brief CFDDEM model is presented here. The following papers are
te

16 recommended for a detailed description, (Tsuji et al., 1993), (Deen et al., 2007), and (Garg et
p

17 al., 2012). These models are almost the same, except that there is a minor difference on the
ce

18 calculation of tangential overlap between particles. We use Garg et al. (2012) method to

19 calculate the tangential overlap. The governing equations are summarized as follows.
Ac

20 Mass and momentum conservation equations of fluid phase:

21
t
g g g g ug 0 (1)

22
t
g gug g gugug gpg g g Sp g gg (2)

23 where g is gas phase stress tensor, g is gas volume fraction and Sp is the force

24 exerted by particulate phase. They are calculated by the following equations,

Page 4 of 32
 Page 5

1

g g u g u g
T
(3)

Np
2 g 1 Vpn Vcell (4)
n 1

1
Np
Vpn
3 SP 1 u g vp (5)

t
Vcell n 1 g

ip
4 Translational and rotational motion equations of each single particle:

cr
dv a N
5 ma Va pg Fd ma g Fab,n + Fab ,t (6)
dt b 1

us
dw a N
6 Ia Rb n ab Fab ,t (7)
dt b 1

an
7 where pg is local pressure drop, Fd drag force, Fab ,n and Fab ,t normal and

8 tangential components of the contact force. The drag force is calculated by

M
9 Fd u g v p V p 1 ,
g where is interphase momentum exchange coefficient. The

10 Ergun/Wen&Yu drag model is applied in this paper, as listed in Table 1. The contact force is
d

11 calculated according to a linear springdashpot model. The force is a function of particle

te

12 overlap and relative velocity, in which the spring simulates the deformation effect and the
p

13 dashpot simulates the damping effect, as listed in Table 1. There are only 5 empirical
ce

14 parameters to be specified, spring stiffness coefficient ( kn and kt ), restitution coefficient ( en

15 and et ), and friction coefficient ( ).

Ac

16

17 Table 1

18

19 3 Coupling DEM with Fluent

20 3.1 Coupling algorithm for Fluent and DEM

21 In the work (Wu et al., 2009), (Wu et al., 2011), Fluent single phase model was coupled

Page 5 of 32
 Page 6

1 with DEM. The conservation equations of mass and momentum of the fluid phase (Eqs. 1 and

2 2) were transformed to convert the terms including porosity as source terms, which were

3 added to Fluent single phase. In this paper, Fluent Eulerian multiphase model is used to

4 couple with DEM. In the Eulerian multiphase model, the primary (fluid) phase conservation

t
5 equations are exactly the same as that in the CFDDEM model. Thus, it is not need to

ip
6 transform the format of the primary phase conservation equations. However, in the Eulerian

cr
7 multiphase model the secondary (solid) phase is also calculated which cannot be canceled. We

8 have to leave the secondary phase but the phase interaction is set as none. It is only an image

us
9 copy of DEM field for ensuring phase volume conservation. We can call the Fluent secondary

10 phase here as ghost phase.

11

12 an
To ease understanding of the coupling between DEM and Fluent, a brief introduction of

our DEM code is given in following. The DEM code is written in C programming language. It
M
13 includes several main functions. DEMInit() initializes particle radius, position, linear and

14 angular velocities. DEMSave() saves particle radius, position, and velocities to files.
d

15 BuildDEMCFDCellMap() locates particles to Fluent cells. In the present method, a

te

16 background orthogonal cell system is used as bridge between DEM particles and Fluent cells.
p

17 First, the DEM particle is projected to one of the background orthogonal cells which is called
ce

18 target cell, by division particle position with background grid spacing. Then, the conjoint

19 Fluent CFD cells of the target cell are searched, and the right located Fluent cell is
Ac

20 determined whose center is nearest from the particle. This method can work for both

21 orthogonal and nonorthogonal CFD cells. CalCFDCellSource() calculates volume fraction

22 and momentum source of the primary phase over each Fluent cell. DEMLoop() calculates

23 particle collision force, drag force and other forces, and update particle velocity and position.

24 CopyDEMInfo() convert DEM Lagrangian values to Euler values and then makes a copy to

25 Fluent secondary phase.

26 For initializing a simulation case, the gas phase flow field is initialized by Fluent as usual,

Page 6 of 32
 Page 7

1 followed by execution of the Fluent UDF Macro DEFINE_INIT function. In the

2 DEFINE_INIT function, DEMInit(), BuildDEMCFDCellMap() and CalCFDCellSource() are

3 called in sequence to initialize DEM field and its effect on the fluid phase.

4 In each loop of time iteration the following processes are included:

t
5 1. The UDF macro DEFINE_ADJUST function is executed which is called at the

ip
6 beginning of each iteration before conservation equations are solved. In the

cr
7 DEFINE_ADJUST function, CopyDEMInfo() is called for making a copy of DEM field to

8 Fluent secondary phase.

us
9 2. Fluent Eulerian multiphase model computes conservation equations. If the solutions are

10 converged, then go to step 3; if the solutions are not converged, then go back to step 1.

11

12 an
3. The UDF macro DEFINE_EXECUTE_AT_END function is executed, in which

DEMLoop(), DEMSave(), BuildDEMCFDCellMap() and CalCFDCellSource() are called in

M
13 sequence to calculate DEM field and its effect on the fluid phase.

14 By the above settings, although the Fluent secondary phase as well as primary phase are
d

15 calculated, there is no interaction between them. The Fluent secondary phase is ghost phase.
te

16 The real phase interaction takes place between Fluent primary phase and DEM which is
p

17 calculated by DEM function CalCFDCellSource(). A copy of DEM field to Fluent secondary

ce

18 phase executed at the beginning of every iteration makes Fluent secondary phase exists truly

19 and thus ensures conservation of the two phase volumes. The phase conservation thus ensures
Ac

20 Fluent phase coupled SIMPLE solver. The coupling method is tested extensively by the

21 authors. It shows that the phase coupled SIMPLE solver is very stable. The number of

22 iterations required for the solution to converge at 0.0001 is an average of 15~20. Although the

23 total computational cost is increased since two (or three in 3D simulation) more transport

24 equations are to be solved, the extra computational cost due to the secondary phase is not

25 significant.

Page 7 of 32
 Page 8

1 3.2 Mesh size and time step criterion

2 Since the gas phase equations and the interphase momentum exchange coefficient are
3 determined on a volume averaged scale, the dimension of a fluid cell should be between the
4 scales of a particle and the bed, that, dp < Lcell < Lbed. Based on our experience, it is suggested

t
ip
5 that a fluid cell should be of length 510 dp. If the fluid cell is too small, it gets difficult for

cr
us
6 simulation to converge. On the contrary, if the fluid cell is too large, the simulation resolution
7

8
on fluid field would decrease.

an
The DEM requires a much smaller time step than CFD. Overall, for calculation stability,
M
9 the CFD time step is no larger than 10 times of DEM time step. The DEM time step is limited
10 by natural oscillation period of the springmass system used to model contacting particles. As
d

11 a criterion for calculation stability, it is recommended at least 10 calculations are performed

te

12 within each collisionrebound event. Thus, the DEM time step should satisfy the following
p

13 equation:
ce

14 1 m
t DEM 2 (8)
10 k
Ac

15 where m is particle mass and k spring stiffness coefficient.

16 4 Numerical examples of gas-solid fluidized beds

17 In order to validate the current method, four test cases covering bubbling and fast
18 fluidization applications are conducted. First, a pulsed jet fluidized bed studied and well
19 documented (Bokkers et al., 2004) is simulated to evaluate the model accuracy. It is a case of
20 bubbling fluidized bed with Cartesian grids. In the next three cases, bubbling fluidized bed
21 with nonorthogonal grids, fast fluidized bed with Cartesian grids, and fast fluidized bed with

Page 8 of 32
 Page 9

1 nonorthogonal grids, are simulated to evaluate the model reliability, respectively. Table 2
2 lists simulation conditions and parameters of the four test cases. For all the cases, at the gas
3 inlet the uniform gas velocity is specified, and at the outlet the gas pressureoutlet boundary
4 condition is adopted. At the walls, the noslip wall condition for the gas phase is assumed.
5

t
There is quantitative difference between twodimensional (2D) and threedimensional

ip
6 (3D) simulations using CFDDEM model. It has been pointed that the bed starts to present

cr
7 3D behavior with a bed thickness at least of 40 particle diameters (Li et al., 2012). However,
8 since the computational expense of CFDDEM model is very high, at the current most of the

us
9 CFDDEM simulations in the literature are 2D instead of 3D. Thus, we simply set the bed
10 thickness to one or a few particle diameters for qualitative investigation, although the present
11

12 an
method is capable both on 2D and 3D simulations. Case 1 is a threedimensional (3D)

simulation on a thin fluidized bed with bed thickness of 7 particle diameter. Cases 2, 3 and 4
M
13 are pseudo twodimensional (2D) simulations with bed thickness of one particle diameter.
14 The results are limited to qualitative interpretation.
d

15
te

16 Table 2
p

17
ce

18 4.1 Case1: A pulsed jet fluidized bed studied by (Bokkers et al., 2004)
19 By using a fluidized bed previously positioned with colored particles, Rowe et al (1965)
Ac

20 demonstrated that the vertical particle mixing is generally caused by bubble drag up and
21 particle return flow. Later, this method is regarded as an important method for investigating
22 mechanisms of particle mixing in different types of fluidized beds. In the present case, the bed
23 with colored particles injected by a single bubble studied by Bokkers et al. (2004), is revisited.
24 Simulation conditions and parameters are listed in Table 2. The simulation results on bubble
25 dynamic, particle motion and mixing are compared to Bokkers et al. (2004) work.
26 Figure 1 shows snapshots of fluidized pattern at different times after injection of a pulse

Page 9 of 32
 Page 10

1 jet in the bed center. The bubble grows up and rises with time, while some particles are drawn
2 up and some particles form a compensated flow. A detailed image can be seen in Figure 2
3 with particle velocity vector plotted. From particle velocity, it can be seen that the particles
4 located ahead the bubble are pushed upward and sideward. The particles located within the
5

t
bubble wake are also drawn up. Simultaneously, there is a return flow of particles to

ip
6 compensate for the rising bubble. After the single bubble has passed through the bed, the

cr
7 colored layers of particles are distorted, as shown in Figure 3. There is a peak of the layer in
8 the center of the bed induced by bubble wake drag up.

us
9 In Figures 2 and 3, comparisons of simulations with Bokkers et al. (2004) are also
10 presented. The comparisons are quite good on bubble shape, particle velocity distribution
11

12 an
around the bubble, and shape of layer distortion induced by bubble. However, it seems that

the simulation gives a slight overestimation on the bubble size and layer distortion height.
M
13 This finding is consistent with Bokkers et al. (2004) DEM simulations using the Ergun/Wen
14 and Yu drag model. They showed that the accuracy was better using the Koch and Hill drag
d

15 model, and argued that compared to the Ergun equation the Koch and Hill equation predicts
te

16 significantly lower momentum exchange coefficients for high Reynolds regimes (typically in
p

17 the order of 1000) encountered in the fluidized bed during the bubble injection experiment.
ce

18 Figure 1
Ac

19

20 Figure 2

21

22 Figure 3

23

24 4.2 Case 2: Bubbling fluidized with an immersed tube

25 The gassolid flows simulated by Wu et al. (2006) in a fluidized bed with a horizontal

Page 10 of 32
 Page 11

1 tube were employed to test the computational accuracy of present model for unstructured
2 meshes. Wu et al. (2006) described the particle interactions using hardsphere model and
3 computation domain was subdivided into triangular meshes. Different from that, the present
4 study subdivided the computation domain into quadrangle meshes. Figure 4 provides an
5

t
instantaneous snapshot of flow pattern, the development of gas bubble is significantly affected

ip
6 by the immersed tube. Four monitor points are located at fluidizing gas inlet, above, below

cr
7 and right to the immersed tube. Figure 5 shows fluctuations and Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)
8 analysis of gas volume fraction at the local positions. As seen in Figure 5, the bubble

us
9 occurrence frequency is much different at local positions. The largest frequency (about 4Hz)
10 appears at fluidizing gas inlet. Due to the merge of rising bubbles, the frequency below the
11

12 an
immersed tube is about 3Hz, larger than that of immersed tube right. The lowest frequency

(about 1Hz) appears above the immersed tube. These results agree well with the oscillating
M
13 frequency of porosity around a quadrate tube in fluidized bed achieved by Ding & Gidaspow
14 (1990) using two fluid flow model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow.
d
te

15 Figure 4

16
p

17 Figure 5
ce

18
Ac

19 4.3 Case 3: Fluidization regime transition from bubbling to fast

20 For conventional gassolid fluidization, flow regimes including the fixed, bubbling,
21 slugging, turbulent and fast fluidization are observed successively by increasing gas velocity
22 gradually. In the present case, fluidized beds with different gas velocities are simulated.
23 Simulation conditions and parameters are also included in Table 2. The simulation parameters
24 are the same for the different fluidizing gas velocities, except that for the higher gas velocities
25 (i) the gas inlet and outlet set as periodic boundaries for the particles; (ii) and the time step for

Page 11 of 32
 Page 12

1 fluid phase reduced by half.

2 Figure 6 shows sequential snapshots of fluidization pattern by the simulation for different
3 regimes. It is confident to note that the dominate features for different fluidization regimes are
4 successfully revealed by the present model. With gas velocity at 1.2 m/s, the bed can be
5

t
distinguished clearly to bubble phase and emulsion phase. As gas velocity increased to 2.1

ip
6 m/s, the bubble becomes larger and the bed height increases. The bed behaviors like slugs. As

cr
7 gas velocity increased to 3 m/s, the slugging behavior becomes more evident and the slugs
8 pass through the bed periodically. Finally, as gas velocity increased to 10 m/s, the particle

us
9 slugs are broken. The solid phase now is distinguished to two phases, clusters and dilute
10 phase.
11

12 an
In order to show the regime transition further, Figure 7 plots the fluctuations of local gas

volume fraction in the bed. With gas velocity at 1.2 m/s the local gas volume fraction is
M
13 continuously at the value of 0.6 while disturbed occasionally by the value of 0.9, which is due
14 to pass through of a bubble. Thus, at lower gas velocities the discontinuous phase is the
d

15 bubble phase. However, the local gas volume fraction with gas velocity at 3 m/s is
te

16 continuously close to the value of 1 while disturbed occasionally by the value of 0.6. It
p

17 indicates that the discontinuous phase is the particle cluster phase. The transition of
ce

18 discontinuous phase from bubbles to clusters with increase in gas velocity is clearly
19 reproduced..
Ac

20 Figure 6

21

22 Figure 7

23

24 4.4 Case 4: A simplified two-dimensional CFB loop

25 In the final case, we conduct a simplified twodimensional CFB (Circulating Fluidized

Page 12 of 32
 Page 13

1 Bed). Simulation conditions and parameters are also included in Table 2. Its geometry can be
2 seen in Figure 8. Although simplified, it is a closed loop. The CFB loop is consisted of a riser,
3 cyclone, and return leg. Since it is a twodimensional simulation, a real cyclone simulation
4 cannot be achieved. Here the cyclone is ideal which acts as the gas exit while captures all
5

t
the particles.

ip
6 The information on particle motion and its Residence Time Distribution (RTD) in a CFB

cr
7 riser is very useful for reactor design. Figure 8 shows sequential snapshots of flow pattern
8 with particle tracers at gas velocity of 10 m/s. The CFB riser height is 2 m, thus the average

us
9 gas residence time in the riser is 0.2 s. By tracing colored particles activated in the riser
10 bottom, the first tracers are detected after 0.4 s at the riser exit. This time duration is longer
11

12 an
than the average gas residence time. It is reasonable since only in the riser core the particles

are conveyed at a velocity nearly equal to the gas velocity, while in the riser bottom where the
M
13 particles are accelerated the particle velocity is lower than the gas velocity. By tracing the
14 colored particles further in the following frames, the tracers are detected continuously at the
d

15 riser exit. This is due to that some particles are transferred to the near wall zone where there is
te

16 an annulus flow moving slower or possibly moving downward sometimes.

p

17 By activating tracers at the riser inlet and detecting them at the riser exit, the particle RTD
ce

18 is calculated. Such tracing test is performed by ten separate times, and the averaged data gives
19 the final curve of particle RTD over the entire riser, as plotted in Figure 9. It is a peak with
Ac

20 tailing signal. It is the coreannulus flow that leads to the particle RTD curve being a peak
21 with tailing signal (Harris et al. , 2003; Van de Velden et al, 2007). The peak is a result of the
22 core flow, while the tailing signal is a result of the annulus flow near the wall.
23

24 Figure 8

25

Page 13 of 32
 Page 14

1 Figure 9

3 5 Conclusions
4 A CFDDEM model for complex geometries is developed, where the DEM code is

t
5 coupled with ANSYS/Fluent software. The Fluent Eulerian multiphase model is employed to

ip
6 couple with DEM whose secondary phase acts as a ghost phase but just an image copy of

cr
7 DEM field. The procedure ensures the Fluent phasecoupled SIMPLE solver work stable.
8 To validate the current model, it is used to simulate four typical fluidization problems,

us
9 respectively, a single pulsed jet fluidized bed, fluidized bed with an immersed tube,
10

an
fluidization regime transition from bubbling to fast, a simplified twodimensional CFB loop.
11 The comparison of current simulation results with existed experimental or simulation results
12
M
are quite satisfactory.
13 The aim of the present work is to improve CFDDEM model from its computing capacity,
d
14 instead of its theoretical formulation. By coupling DEM with Fluent, it can take advantages of
te

15 existing models and powerful solvers of Fluent. The present approach provides an easily
16 implemented and reliable method for CFDDEM model to be applied in more realistic
p

17 problems with complex geometries.

ce

18 In the current work, the fluidized bed thickness is set to one or a few particle diameters for
19 qualitative investigation. In the future, we would apply the present approach to
Ac

20 threedimensional fluidized bed simulation for quantitative investigation.

21 Acknowledgments
22 Financial supports of this work by National Nature Science Foundation of China
23 (51276036) are gratefully acknowledged.

24 Literature Cited

25 Benyahia, S., & Galvin, J. E. (2010). Estimation of Numerical Errors Related to Some Basic Assumptions in
26 Discrete Particle Methods. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 49, 10588-10605.

Page 14 of 32
 Page 15

1 Bokkers, G. A., van Sint Annaland, M., & Kuipers, J. A. M. (2004). Mixing and segregation in a bidisperse
2 gas-solid fluidised bed: a numerical and experimental study. Powder Technology, 140, 176-186.
3 Chu, K. W., Wang, B., Xu, D. L., Chen, Y. X., & Yu, A. B. (2011). CFD-DEM simulation of the gas-solid flow in
4 a cyclone separator. Chemical Engineering Science, 66, 834-847.
5 Deen, N. G., Annaland, M. V., Van der Hoef, M. A., & Kuipers, J. A. M. (2007). Review of discrete particle
6 modeling of fluidized beds. Chemical Engineering Science, 62, 28-44.
7 Deen, N. G., Kriebitzsch, S. H. L., van der Hoef, M. A., & Kuipers, J. A. M. (2012). Direct numerical simulation

t
8 of flow and heat transfer in dense fluidparticle systems. Chemical Engineering Science, 81, 329-344.

ip
9 Ding, J., & Gidaspow, D. (1990). A bubbling fluidization model using kinetic theory of granular flow. AIChE
10 Journal, 36, 523-538.
11 Garg, R., Galvin, J., Li, T., & Pannala, S. (2012). Open-source MFIX-DEM software for gassolids flows: Part

cr
12 IVerification studies. Powder Technology, 220, 122-137.
13 Geng, F., Li, Y., Wang, X., Yuan, Z., Yan, Y., & Luo, D. (2011). Simulation of dynamic processes on flexible

us
14 filamentous particles in the transverse section of a rotary dryer and its comparison with ideo-imaging
15 experiments. Powder Technology, 207, 175-182.
16 Gui, N., Fan, J. R., & Chen, S. (2010). Numerical study of particle-particle collision in swirling jets: A
17 DEM-DNS coupling simulation. Chemical Engineering Science, 65, 3268-3278.

an
18 Guo, Y., Wu, C. Y., & Thornton, C. (2013). Modelling gas-particle two-phase flows with complex and moving
19 boundaries using DEM-CFD with an immersed boundary method. AIChE Journal, 59, 1075-1087.
20 Hhner, D., Wirtz, S., Kruggel-Emden, H., & Scherer, V. (2011). Comparison of the multi-sphere and polyhedral
M
21 approach to simulate non-spherical particles within the discrete element method: Influence on temporal force
22 evolution for multiple contacts. Powder Technology, 208, 643-656.
23 Hou, Q. F., Zhou, Z. Y., & Yu, A. B. (2012). Computational study of heat transfer in a bubbling fluidized bed
24 with a horizontal tube. AIChE Journal, 58, 1422-1434.
d

25 Jasion, G., Shrimpton, J., Danby, M., & Takeda, K. (2011). Performance of numerical integrators on tangential
te

26 motion of DEM within implicit flow solvers. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 35, 2218-2226.
27 Kafui, D. K., Johnson, S., Thornton, C., & Seville, J. P. K. (2011). Parallelization of a Lagrangian-Eulerian
28 DEM/CFD code for application to fluidized beds. Powder Technology, 207, 270-278.
p

29 Kruggel-Emden, H., Stepanek, F., & Munjiza, A. (2011). Performance of integration schemes in discrete element
30 simulations of particle systems involving consecutive contacts. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 35,
ce

31 2152-2157.
32 Kruggel-Emden, H., Wirtz, S., & Scherer, V. (2008). A study on tangential force laws applicable to the discrete
33 element method (DEM) for materials with viscoelastic or plastic behavior. Chemical Engineering Science, 63,
Ac

34 1523-1541.
35 Kuang, S. B., & Yu, A. B. (2011). Micromechanic Modeling and Analysis of the Flow Regimes in Horizontal
36 Pneumatic Conveying. AIChE Journal, 57, 2708-2725.
37 Li, T., Gopalakrishnan, P., Garg, R., & Shahnam, M. (2012). CFDDEM study of effect of bed thickness for
38 bubbling fluidized beds. Particuology, 10, 532-541.
39 Mokhtar, M. A., Kuwagi, K., Takami, T., Hirano, H., & Horio, M. (2012). Validation of the similar particle
40 assembly (SPA) model for the fluidization of Geldart's group A and D particles. AIChE Journal, 58, 87-98.
41 Natsui, S., Ueda, S., Nogami, H., Kano, J., Inoue, R., & Ariyama, T. (2012). Gassolid flow simulation of fines
42 clogging a packed bed using DEMCFD. Chemical Engineering Science, 71, 274-282.
43 Pepiot, P., & Desjardins, O. (2012). Numerical analysis of the dynamics of two- and three-dimensional fluidized
44 bed reactors using an EulerLagrange approach. Powder Technology, 220, 104-121.
45 Sakai, M., & Koshizuka, S. (2009). Large-scale discrete element modeling in pneumatic conveying. Chemical

Page 15 of 32
 Page 16

1 Engineering Science, 64, 533-539.

2 Shigeto, Y., & Sakai, M. (2011). Parallel computing of discrete element method on multi-core processors.
3 Particuology, 9, 398-405.
4 Tsuji, Y., Kawaguchi, T., & Tanaka, T. (1993). Discrete particle simulation of two-dimensional fluidized bed.
5 Powder Technology, 77, 79-87.
6 van Ommen, J. R., Nijenhuis, J., & Coppens, M. O. (2009). Reshaping the Structure of Fluidized Beds. Chemical
7 Engineering Progress, 105, 49-57.

t
8 Wu, C. L., Berrouk, A. S., & Nandakumar, K. (2009). Three-dimensional discrete particle model for gas-solid

ip
9 fluidized beds on unstructured mesh. Chemical Engineering Journal, 152, 514-529.
10 Wu, C. L., Nandakumar, K., Berrouk, A. S., & Kruggel-Emden, H. (2011). Enforcing mass conservation in
11 DPM-CFD models of dense particulate flows. Chemical Engineering Journal, 174, 475-481.

cr
12 Xu, M., Chen, F., Liu, X., Ge, W., & Li, J. (2012). Discrete Particle Simulation of Gas-Solid Two-Phase Flows
13 with Multi-scale CPU-GPU Hybrid Computation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 207-208, 746-757.

us
14 Zhao, Y., Jiang, M., Liu, Y., & Zheng, J. (2009). Particle-scale simulation of the flow and heat transfer behaviors
15 in fluidized bed with immersed tube. AIChE Journal, 55, 3109-3124.
16 Zhong, W., Xiong, Y., Yuan, Z., & Zhang, M. (2006). DEM simulation of gas-solid flow behaviors in spout-fluid
17 bed. Chemical Engineering Science, 61, 1571-1584.

an
18 Zhu, H. P., Zhou, Z. Y., Yang, R. Y., & Yu, A. B. (2008). Discrete particle simulation of particulate systems: A
19 review of major applications and findings. Chemical Engineering Science, 63, 5728-5770.
20
M
21 Table Captions

22 Table 1 Constitutive equations of CFDDEM model: linear springdashpot model and

d

23 interphase drag coefficient

te

24 Table 2 Simulation conditions and parameters of four test cases

25 Figure Captions
p

26 Figure 1 A single bubble injection in a fluidized bed

ce

27 Figure 2 A single bubble at 150 ms after injection in a fluidized bed. Left: Bokkers et al.

28 (2004) experiment; Right: present simulation

Ac

29 Figure 3 Extent of particle mixing after a single bubble has passed through the bed. Left:

30 Bokkers et al. (2004) experiment; Right: present simulation

31 Figure 4 Fluidized bed with an immersed tube: initial particle configuration (left), mesh and

32 monitors (middle), and an instantaneous snapshot of flow pattern (right)

33 Figure 5 Fluctuations and FFT analysis of gas volume fraction at local positions: (a) fluidizing

34 gas inlet; (b) below immersed tube; (c) right of immersed tube; (d) above immersed tube

Page 16 of 32
 Page 17

1 Figure 6 Sequential snapshots of fluidization pattern with gas velocity at (a) 1.2 m/s, (b) 2.1

2 m/s, (c) 3.0 m/s and (d) 10.0 m/s. Each frame is for 50 ms.

3 Figure 7 Fluctuations of local gas volume fraction in the bed with fluidizing gas velocity at (a)

4 1.2 m/s, (b) 2.1 m/s, (c) 3.0 m/s and (d) 10.0 m/s.

t
5 Figure 8 Sequential snapshots of fluidization pattern in a simplified 2D CFB with gas velocity

ip
6 at 10 m/s. The tracers (black/dark particles) are amplified by five for a clear show.

cr
7 Figure 9 Particle residence time distributions in a simplified 2D CFB. The curve is averaged

8 by ten separate tracing tests.

us
9

an
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

Page 17 of 32
 Page 18

1 A CFD-DEM model is developed for simulations on complex geometries.

2 DEM is coupled with ANSYS/Fluent Eulerian multiphase model.

3 The current model is validated against a series of typical fluidization cases.

4

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

Page 18 of 32
 Page 1

Table 1

particle contact force

Fab,n knnnab n vab,n Fab ,t k t t t v ab ,t

If Fab , t f Fab , n then Fab,t f Fab,n t ab , and reset t Fab , t k t

relative velocity, direction unit vector, and overlap

t
vab va vb Rawa Rbwb nab vab,n vab nab nab vab,t vab vab,n

ip
nab rb ra rb ra tab vab,t vab,t

cr
n Ra Rb ra rb t t 0 v ab ,t t t t - t n ab n ab
damping coefficient

us
n 2 mab kn ln en 2 ln2 en t 2 mabk t ln et 2 ln 2 et

mab mamb ma mb mab 2 7 mab

an
Ergun/Wen&Yu drag coefficient
1 g 1 g g 1.75 u v
2 150 0.8
g d p g
g g p
dp

M
3 u g vp 1 g 2.7
CD g g 0.8
4 dp

24
1 0.15Re Re 1000
d
0.687
CD Re Re g g ug vp d p g
0.43 Re 1000
p te
ce
Ac

Page 19 of 32
 Page 1

Table 2

Parameters Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

bed size, cmcmcm 15601.5 20451.2 9950.1 302050.1

CFD cell size, cmcm 110.75 ~11 11 ~11
particle number 30000 26400 27000 60000

t
particle diameter, mm 2.5 1.2 1.0 1.0

ip
3
particle density, kg/m 2526 2500 2600 2600
Minimum fluidizing
1.26 0.66 0.55 0.55

cr
velocity, m/s
Background:1.2
gas velocity, m/s 1.6 from 1.2 to 10 10

us
Central jet: 20
fluid time step, s 510-5 510-5 510-5/2.510-5 2.510-5
DEM time step, s 110-5 2.510-6 2.510-6 2.510-6

an
Common parameters in Cases 1, 2, 3 and 4

Parameters Value Parameters Value

gas density, kg/m3 1.2 particle normal stiffness, N/m 20000

M
gas viscosity, kg/ms 1.810-5 particle tangential stiffness, N/m 5714
particle frinctional coeffeicient 0.3 particle normal restitution coeff. 0.97
d

particle tangential restitution coeff. 0.33

p te
ce
Ac

Page 20 of 32
 M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 21 of 32
 ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 22 of 32
 e
pt
ce
Ac

Page 23 of 32
 M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 24 of 32
 Ac
ce
pte
d
M
an
us
cr
ip
t

Page 25 of 32
 ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 26 of 32
 ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 27 of 32
 ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 28 of 32
 ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 29 of 32
 Ac
ce
pte
d
M
an
us
cr
ip
t

Page 30 of 32
 an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 31 of 32
 Ac
ce
pte
d
M
an
us
cr
ip
t

Page 32 of 32