Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2008, 31, No.

2, 215223

215

Wenhao Pu1
Changsui Zhao1

Research Article

Yuanquan Xiong1
Cai Liang1
Xiaoping Chen1
Peng Lu1

Three-Dimensional Numerical Simulation


of Dense Pneumatic Conveying of Pulverized
Coal in a Vertical Pipe at High Pressure

Chunlei Fan1
1

Key Lab of Clean Coal Power


Generation & Combustion
Technology of the Ministry
of Education, Thermoenergy
Engineering Research
Institute, Southeast University,
Nanjing, P. R. China.

A two-fluid model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow was used to study
three-dimensional steady state flow behavior of dense phase pneumatic conveying
of pulverized coal in a vertical pipe, where the average solid concentration ranges
from 11 % to 30 %, and the transport pressure ranges from 2.6 Mpa to 3.3 Mpa.
Since the solid concentration is rather high, a kekpep model which considers
the turbulence interaction between the gas and particle phase, was incorporated
into the two-fluid model. The simulation results including profiles of gas and
particle phase axial velocity, profiles of solid concentration, profiles of the turbulence intensity of the particle phase, as well as the value of the pressure gradient
were reported. Then, the influences of solid concentration and transport pressure
on the flow behaviors were discussed. The experiment was also carried out to validate the accuracy of the simulation results which showed that the predictions of
pressure gradient were in good agreement with the experimental data. Simulation
results indicate that the location of maximal solid concentration deviates from
the pipe center and the deviation becomes more obvious with the solid concentration increasing, which is analogous to the phenomenon in the liquid/solid
flow. Besides, pressure gradient declines as the transport pressure decreases,
which is validated by experiment described in the paper. Moreover, the analysis
indicates that it is necessary to consider the turbulence of particles for the simulation of dense phase pneumatic conveying at high pressure.
Keywords: Granular flow, Kinetics, Pneumatic conveying, Two-fluid model
Received: September 23, 2007; revised: November 05, 2007; accepted: November 07, 2007
DOI: 10.1002/ceat.200700350

Introduction

Coal gasification technology provides a clean and high-efficient way to utilize coal. The entrained pulverized coal gasification technology is a sort of large-scale coal gasification technology. Dense phase pneumatic conveying of pulverized coal
at high pressure is one of the most important techniques for
entrained pulverized coal gasification technology.
Simulation could provide some information, which cannot
be obtained from experiment, for designing and optimizing
the dense phase pneumatic conveying systems. The kinetic theory of granular flow is widely used to simulate the flow behav-

Correspondence: C.-S. Zhao (cszhao@seu.edu.cn), Key Lab of Clean


Coal Power Generation & Combustion Technology of the Ministry of
Education, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, Jiangsu, P.R. China.

2008 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

ior of a riser, bubbling fluidized bed, circulating fluidized bed,


spouted bed, and pneumatic transport [13]. Sinclair and
Jackson first applied the theory to set up a laminar gas phase
and laminar particle phase model to simulate the fully developed flow in vertical pipes, which indicates the applicability of
the theory to describe the gas/solid flow, especially in the dense
flow regime [4]. Considering the effects of gas turbulence,
Louge et al. [5] and Bolio et al. [6] added the interactions between the turbulence of the gas and the fluctuations of a single
particle into the gas turbulence.
However, it should be mentioned that the traditional kinetic
theory only describes the motion of a single particle and does
not take into account the particle turbulence behavior, so it
cannot model the flow in large space scale, for example, the
motions of clusters that generally exist in dense phase pneumatic conveying of pulverized coal at high pressure. In order
to describe the particle phase turbulence, Zhou and Huang [7]
developed a kekp model for simulating gas-particle flows

http://www.cet-journal.com

216

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2008, 31, No. 2, 215223

W. Pu et al.

without considering the collisions of particles, which is generally restricted to dilute gas-particle flows. Chan et al. [8] combined the kinetic theory with the kp-equation and simulated
the two-dimensional hydrodynamics in the riser. Zheng et al.
[9] proposed a kekpep model to simulate the two-dimensional flow in the riser considering the effect of particle collisions on particle turbulence. This proved that the particle
phase turbulence has indispensable influence on the whole
flow system, but the average solid concentration was below
5 %. However, no attempt was made for much higher solid
concentration for pneumatic conveying.
Only a few research studies on dense phase pneumatic conveying at high pressure have been reported in the literature so
far. Most of those investigations [1013] were focused on information about the pressure gradient by experiment; little
work has been found in the literature that includes other aspects of dense phase pneumatic conveying. Geldart and Ling
[10] conducted experimental research on the total pressure
drops of high-pressure dense phase conveying of fine coal in
which the solid concentration is not reported. Xiong et al.
[11, 12] studied pressure gradient for vertical and horizontal
pipes in dense phase pneumatic conveying at high pressure
and gave the empirical formula. However, the influence of
transport pressure on pressure gradient had not been considered in their research.
In dense phase pneumatic conveying at high pressure, both
the solid concentration and the gas phase Reynolds are high
and the flow is turbulent. The solid concentration of the present work is much higher than those reported in the literature
on the dense phase pneumatic conveying and the average solid
concentration is up to 30 %. Thus it is necessary to consider
both small-scale fluctuations due to particle-particle collision
and large-scale particle fluctuations due to particle turbulence.
Previous studies on particle phase turbulence are within the
relatively dilute regime and the average solid concentration is
below 5 % in the riser. Here an attempt is made to extend the
particle phase turbulent model to much higher solid concentration for dense phase pneumatic conveying at high pressure.
The particle phase turbulent kpep equations were obtained by
analogy to the ke equations. The various types of interactions
between the gas and solids are considered: (1) drag force from
interactions between the mean velocity of the gas phase and
that of the particle phase, (2) gas phase Reynolds stress from
the interactions between gas-phase velocity fluctuations, (3)
particle phase Reynolds stress due to interactions between particles phase velocity fluctuations, (4) change in the turbulent
kinetic energy of both the gas phase and particle phase due to
interactions between the gas phase and particle phase velocity
fluctuations.
A kekpep model considering the turbulence interaction
between the gas and particle phase was incorporated into the
two-fluid model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow
to simulate flow behaviors of three-dimensional steady state
dense phase pneumatic conveying of pulverized coal in a vertical pipe. The axial velocity profiles of the gas and particle
phase, profiles of solid concentration, profiles of the turbulence intensity of the particle phase, and the pressure gradient
were obtained. Influences of the solid concentration and transport pressure on the flow behavior are discussed. The experi-

2008 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

ment was carried out to validate the results predicted while the
predictions of pressure gradient were compared with the experimental data.

Mathematical Models

The model adopted is based on the fundamental concept of interpenetrating continua for multiphase mixtures. It is assumed
that different phases can be present at the same time in the
same computational volume. The macroscopic balance equations of mass, momentum, and energy conservation are then
solved for each phase considered. Appropriate constitutive
equations have to be specified in order to describe the physical
and rheological properties of each phase and to satisfy the conservation equations.

2.1

Gas Phase

The continuity and momentum equations for the gas phase


and constitutive relations are as follows.
Gas phase continuity equation:
ag qg vg 0

(1)

Gas phase momentum equation:


ag qg vg vg
bvs

ag pg sg

(2)

vg ag qg g

where, ag is the gas phase volume fraction, vg is the gas phase


velocity, qg is the gas phase density, and b is the drag coefficient of gas/solid flow, defined as [14]1):

8
>
<

>
: 150
(

CD

a s a g q g j vg v s j

ag 2:65

qa
1:75 g s vg vs
2

C
4 D
a2s lg

ds

ag ds

ds

ag > 0:8
ag 0:8


1 0:15Res 0:687 Res < 1000
0:44Res 1000
24

Res

and the relative Reynolds number, Res, is defined by:


Res


ag qg ds vs
lg


vg

In Eq. (2), sg is the gas-phase shear stress and is related to


the gradients of velocity components by:
sg ag lg vg vg T ag kg

l
3 g

vg I

where lg is the gas-phase laminar viscosity.

1)

List of symbols at the end of the paper.

http://www.cet-journal.com

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2008, 31, No. 2, 215223

2.2

Two-fluid model

Particle Phase Kinetic Theory

The constitutive equations of the solid phases are based on the


kinetic theory for granular flow. The viscous forces and the
solid pressure of the particle phase are described as a function
of the so-called granular temperature. In principle, the kinetic
theory of granular flows has been derived from the kinetic theory of gases. While the thermodynamic temperature is a quantum of the fluctuating energy of the molecules on the microscopic scale, the granular temperature expresses the
macroscopic kinetic energy of the random particle motion
[14,15].
The kinetic theory of granular flow, the continuity, momentum equations for particle phase and the constitutive relations
are expressed as follows.
Particle phase continuity equation:
as qs vs 0

(7)

Particle phase momentum equation:


as qs vs vs

as pg

ss bvg

vs as qs g

where ss is the particle phase shear stress, defined as:


2

l
3 s

vs I

(9)

The solid pressure, ps, shear solid viscosity, ls, and bulk solid viscosity, ks, can be determined as a function of granular
temperature according to the following relations:
ps = asqsHs + 2 qs(1 + ess) as2g0,ssHs

(10)

H
4
ls as qs ds g0;ss 1 ess s 1=2
5
p
p
10qs ds Hs p
4

1 1 ess as g0;ss 2
5
961 ess g0;ss

11

ks as qs ds g0;ss 1 ess Hs =p1=2


3

12

where ess is the restitution coefficient of particle-particle collision and g0,ss is the radial distribution function expressing the
statistics of the spatial arrangement of the particles. In this
study, the following expression is adopted:
g0,ss = [1(as/as,max)1/3]1

(13)

The particle phase pseudo-temperature equation of the conservation of particles fluctuating energy is given by [1619]:
3
2

qs as vs Hs ps I ss : vs

kHs Hs

The first term on the right-hand side of this equation represents the rates of production of pseudo-thermal energy by
shear. The second represents the diffusive transport of pseudothermal energy. The third term, cHs, in the equation represents
dissipation of pseudo-thermal energy through inelastic collisions, whereas the fourth term, Us, denotes the exchange of
fluctuating energy between gas and particles. They are defined
as [14]:
cHs 31

e2ss g0;ss qs a2s Hs

4 p
Hs =p
ds

vs

fs = 3bHs

15
(16)

p
150qs ds Hs p
6
1 as g0;ss 1 ess 2
5
3841 ess g0;ss
r
Hs
2a2s qs ds g0;ss 1 ess
p

kHs

17

Gas-particle turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent kinetic


energy dissipation rate equation (i = gas, solid, l i):

ps

ss as ls vs vs T as ks

217

cHs fs

14

where Hs is the particle pseudo-temperature, and kHs is the


transport coefficient of pseudo-thermal energy.

2008 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

lt;i

a q k ai qi Ui ki ai
ki
t i i i
rk
ai Gk;i ai qi ei bCli kl Cil ki
lt;l
lt;i
bUl Ui
al bUl Ui
a
al rl
ai ri i

18

lt;i

e
a q e ai qi Ui ei ai
re i
t i i i
ei
ei
C1e ai Gk;i C2e ai qi ei C3e bCli kl Cil ki
ki
ki
lt;l
lt;i
bUl Ui
a bUl Ui
a
al rl l
ai ri i

19

where Ui is the phase-weighted velocity and Gk,i is the generation of turbulent kinetic energy. The gas or particle phase turbulent viscosity is defined as:
lt;i qi Cl

k2i
ei

(20)

The constants in these equations are Cl = 0.09, C1e = 1.42,


C2e = 1.68, and C3e = 1.2.

2.3

Boundary Conditions and Calculation Method

The boundary conditions for gas and particle phase applied in


the simulations are given as follows. Gas phase boundary conditions:
At the inlet, a non-uniform axial velocity distribution was
specified:
vgz;in r
Ug

60 Ug
1
49 1 as;in

Gg
pD2 =4

2r=D1=7

(21)

(22)

http://www.cet-journal.com

218

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2008, 31, No. 2, 215223

W. Pu et al.

where Ug is the superficial velocity, Gg is the gas flow rate, and


as,in is the solid volume fraction at the inlet.
Turbulent energy:
2
kg;in 0:004 vg;in

(23)

Dissipation rate of turbulent energy:


3=4

eg;in 2 kg;in =jD

(24)

where j = 0.4187 and D is the inner diameter of the pipe.


At the outlet, all other variables were subjected to the Newmann boundary conditions, u/z = 0 (u = vg, kg, eg).
At the wall, a no-slip boundary condition was used and the
standard wall functions were specified for the gas phase.
Particle phase boundary conditions:
At the inlet, uniform distributions in axial velocity, solid
granular temperature, and solid volume fraction were provided.
Ms
vsz;in
(25)
as;in qs pD2 =4
as;in

Ms Mg Ms

qs qg
qs

equations using the finite volume method. The power law interpolation scheme of discretization was used for momentum
solutions, which provides solutions with accuracy between that
obtained from first- and second-order schemes. Compared
with other higher-order schemes, this method was more robust and less computationally intensive. Taking advantage of
the strong coupling between pressure and velocity, the phasecoupled SIMPLE iterative algorithm was used for the pressurevelocity coupling. The solution is assumed to converge when
the sum of normalized residuals has fallen below a specified
level d:
P
jR j
PCV U < d
(32)
CV jUj
where RU is the local residual of the U equation, U is the corresponding local quantity, and subscript CV denotes the control volume. In the present study, d was assigned as 0.001. The
simulations were carried out on the supercomputer, Sunway2000A, in the Wuxi Supercomputing Center. In the present
study, the length of the vertical pipe is 4 m with an inner diameter of 10 mm. The material parameters used in the calculations was the same as the experimental data which was given
below.

(26)

2
ks;in 0:004 vs;in

Experimental Setup

(27)

3=4

es;in 2ks;in =jD

(28)

2
Hs;in 0:004 vs;in

(29)

where Ms is the particle mass flow rate and


Mg is the gas mass flow rate.
At the outlet, all other variables were
subjected to the Newmann boundary conditions, u/z = 0 (u = vs, ks, es, Hs).
At the wall, partial slip boundary conditions for particle/wall interaction proposed
by Johnson and Jackson [20] were applied
in the present study:
p
a p
3
Hs vsw
(30)
ssw pqs g0;ss f s
6
as;max

The experiment apparatus used in this study is illustrated in


Fig. 1. The pulverized coal, with average particle diameter of
37 lm and real density of 1350 kg/m3, was conveyed between
two pressure hoppers (3) via a 53 m-long pipe of an inner di-

13

2
1

3
P

11
10

11

p
3

a p
Hs jvsw j2
qw pqs g0;ss f s
6
as;max
p
a
3
pqs g0;ss 1 e2w s H3=2
4
as;max s

11
10

7
5

6
F

10

31

where U is the specularity coefficient representing the fraction of total momentum


transferred to the wall when a particle
collides with it, qw is the flux of granular
temperature toward the wall, and ew is the
restitution coefficient of particle/wall collisions.
The set of coupled conservation equations were discretized into systems of linear

10
11

12

11
11
11
11
10

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the dense phase pneumatic conveying system of pulverized coal. (1) Electro valve; (2) Weigh cells; (3) Hoppers; (4) Pressurerizing gas; (5) Fluidizing gas; (6) Supplemental gas; (7) Header; (8) Nitrogen cylinder; (9) Visual section;
(10) Pressure transducer; (11) Differential pressure transducer; (12) A/D converter;
(13) Computer.

2008 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

http://www.cet-journal.com

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2008, 31, No. 2, 215223

Two-fluid model

ameter of 10 mm. The nitrogen, as conveying gas, was introduced into the system via a header (7) connected with sixteen
Nitrogen cylinders (8) and then divided into three parts: fluidizing gas (5), pressurizing gas (4), and supplemental gas (6).
The fluidizing gas (5) fluidized the pulverized coal at the bottom of the sending pressure hopper, and then drove the pulverized coal into the conveying pipe. The pressurizing gas (4)
was to maintain the stabilization of pressure in the sending
hopper. The supplemental gas (6) was used to adjust the nitrogen flow rate in a wide range and prevent the pipe from blockage to guarantee continuous transport of pulverized coal. The
pressure in the receiving hopper was controlled by an electro
valve (1). Each of the three nitrogen flow rates were measured
and controlled by a metal rotor flow meter. The dosing hopper
(3) was suspended on three load cells (2) by which the pulverized coal mass flow rate was measured. The PD-23 differential
pressure transducer (11) was used to measure the pressure
drop of the vertical pipe. The measurement section located at
the middle of the pipe was about 2 meters away from the bend
to ensure negligible end effects. A computer data acquisition
system was employed to record the data of flow rates and pressure drops.

Results and Discussion

4.1

Effect of Solid Concentration

219

1.6
1.4
1.2
Ms=0.17kg/s Ug=4.3m/s

0.8

transport pressure 3.3Mpa


gas axial velocity
particle axial velocity

vgz,vsz/Ug

1.0

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-1.0

-0.5

r/R

0.0

0.5

1.0

(a)

Solid Volume Fraction

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-1.0

Ms=0.17kg/s transport pressure 3.3Mpa


Ug=4.3m/s

-0.5

r/R

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

(b)

2008 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

0.5

(2/3ks) /Ug

Fig. 2 illustrates the radial profiles of gas and particle axial velocities, the solid volume fraction, and the turbulence intensity
of particle phase computed under the following conditions.
Here the particle mass flow rate is 0.17 kg/s, the superficial gas
velocity (Ug) is 4.3 m/s, and the solid volume concentration is
30 %. Fig. 2a) shows the computed radical profiles of gas and
particle axial velocities normalized with the superficial gas velocity. It is observed that the predicted particle axial velocity is
slightly smaller than the predicted gas axial velocity, except for
the region near the wall where the predicted particle axial velocity is larger than the predicted gas axial velocity. Because
the particle terminal velocity is only 0.06 m/s, the slip velocity
between the gas phase and the particle phase is very small.
Also, because the gas flow is subject to the no-slip condition at
the wall, while the particle phase slips, the predicted particle
axial velocity is larger than the predicted gas axial velocity near
the wall. The profiles of particle axial velocity show a similar
tendency to that of the gas axial velocity. It implies that the
drag force plays an important role in the particles movement.
Fig. 2b) shows the radical profiles of the solid volume fraction. It can be seen that the solid volume fraction with higher
value in the central region and lower value near the wall. The
distribution of solid volume fraction is non-uniform and the
maximum value of solid volume fraction is about 0.42 at about
0.7 R. To make the energy consumption the least, the particles
intend to move towards the centre region to decrease the solid
friction loss. So the solid volume fraction near the wall is low.
In dilute phase pneumatic conveying, the particle phase intends to move towards the central region and the maximum
solid volume fraction locates at the central region. In dense
phase pneumatic conveying, however, it is (a) axial velocity of

0.30
0.25

Ms=0.17kg/s Ug=4.3m/s

0.20

transport pressure 3.3Mpa


particle phase

0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-1.0

-0.5

r/R

0.0

(c)
Figure 2. Profiles of axial velocities of gas and particle phase,
particle volume fraction, and particle turbulence intensity. (a) Axial velocity of gas and particle phase, (b) particle volume fraction, (c) turbulence intensity.

gas and particle phase, (b) particle volume fraction, and (c)
turbulence intensity.
Alajbegovic et al. [21] and Sakaguchi et al. [22] in the experiments on liquid/solid up flow in a pipe observed that the
maximum solid volume fraction deviated from the centre and
the peak shifted towards the wall as the solid volume fraction
increased, respectively. The solid volume fraction was below
5 % in these experiments. The predictions on solid volume
fraction profiles show similar trends. It indicates that dense
phase pneumatic convey at high pressure shares similar characteristics with liquid/solid flow; because Seville et al. [23] stated
that at a mechanistic level, the distinction between hydraulic
and pneumatic conveying lies in the ratio of the density of the
conveyed solids to that of the conveying fluid. When the pressure of nitrogen reaches 3 MPa, nitrogen density is 30 times

http://www.cet-journal.com

220

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2008, 31, No. 2, 215223

W. Pu et al.

greater than that at normal pressure and the solid density is


one order of magnitude greater than that of nitrogen. The solid/gas density ratio is 39, which lies between that of hydraulic
conveying and pneumatic conveying at normal pressure. The
distinct characteristic of the dense phase pneumatic conveying
at high pressure should be verified by the experiment.
Fig. 2c) presents the radical profile of the turbulence intensity of the particle phase. It is observed that the particle phase
turbulence intensity near the wall is larger than that at the center because the particle phase slips at the wall and collides with
the wall.
Fig. 3 illustrates the radial profiles of gas and particle axial
velocities, the solid volume fraction, and the turbulence intensity of the particle phase computed at a higher superficial gas

velocity of 6.2 m/s, keeping the other parameters constant.


Fig. 3a) shows the radical profiles of gas and particle axial velocities normalized with the superficial gas velocity. It is observed that the predicted particle axial velocity is larger than
the predicted gas axial velocity near the wall. Fig. 3b) shows
the radical profile of solid volume fraction. It still can be seen
that the particle volume fraction has a higher value in the central region and lower value near the wall. Compared with
Fig. 2b), it can be seen that the solid volume fraction decreases
as the superficial velocity increases. Fig. 3c) presents the radical profile of the turbulence intensity of the particle phase. The
profile has the same tendency of Fig. 2c).
Fig. 4 illustrates the radial profiles of parameters mentioned
above, computed at an even higher superficial gas velocity of
1.6

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.2

0.8
0.6

vgz,vsz/Ug

vgz,vsz/Ug

1.0

Ms=0.17kg/s Ug=6.2m/s
transport pressure 3.3Mpa
gas axial velocity
particle axial velocity

0.8

Ms=0.098kg/s Ug=7.7m/s

0.6

transport pressure 3.6Mpa


gas axial velocity
particle axial velocity

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2
0.0
-1.0

1.0

-0.5

0.0

r/R

0.5

0.0
-1.0

1.0

-0.5

Solid Volume Fraction

Solid Volume Fraction

Ms=0.17kg/s transport pressure 3.3Mpa

0.4

Ug=6.2m/s

0.3

0.3

Ms=0.098kg/s transport pressure 3.6Mpa


Ug=7.7m/s

0.1

0.1

-0.5

r/R

0.0

0.5

0.0
-1.0

1.0

-0.5

Ms=0.17kg/s Ug=6.2m/s

0.25

Ms=0.098kg/s Ug=7.7m/s

0.20

transport pressure 3.6Mpa


particle phase

(2/3ks) /Ug

transport pressure 3.3Mpa


particle phase
0.5

(2/3ks) /Ug

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

0.30

0.30

0.15

0.15
0.10

0.10

0.05

0.05
0.00
-1.0

r/R

(b)

(b)

0.20

1.0

0.2

0.2

0.25

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0
-1.0

0.0

(a)

(a)

0.4

r/R

-0.5

r/R

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.00
-1.0

-0.5

r/R

0.0

(c)

(c)

Figure 3. Profiles of axial velocities of gas and particle phase,


particle volume fraction, and particle turbulence intensity. (a) Axial velocity of gas and particle phase, (b) particle volume fraction, (c) turbulence intensity.

Figure 4. Profiles of axial velocities of gas and particle phase,


particle volume fraction, and particle turbulence intensity. (a) Axial velocity of gas and particle phase, (b) particle volume fraction, (c) turbulence intensity.

2008 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

http://www.cet-journal.com

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2008, 31, No. 2, 215223

Two-fluid model

7.7 m/s, lower particle mass flow rate of 0.098 kg/s, and the
solid concentration of 11 %. Compared with Fig. 2 and Fig. 3,
it can be seen from Fig. 4 that as the solid volume fraction increases, the location of the maximum particle volume fraction
moves towards the wall and the turbulence intensity decreases
slightly.

4.2

Effect of Transport Pressure

Fig. 5 presents the predicted radical profiles of gas and particle


axial velocities and particle volume fraction at two different
pressures. Here the particle mass flow rate is 0.17 kg/s and the
superficial gas velocity is 5.9 m/s. It is noted that the data at a
transport pressure of 3.3 MPa is obtained from experiment.
1.6
1.4

vgz/Ug

1.2
1.0

Ms=0.17kg/s Ug=5.9m/s
P=3.3Mpa
P=2.6Mpa

0.8
0.6
-1.0

-0.5

r/R 0.0

0.5

1.0

(a)

221

For comparison, only transport pressure was changed from


3.3 MPa to 2.6 MPa, keeping the other parameters constant.
Figs. 5ab) show the gas and particle axial velocity profiles, respectively. It is observed that the gas and particle axial velocities at the central region of the pipe decrease as the transport
pressure decreases. A decrease in the gas density is caused by
lower transport pressure leads the interaction between the gas
phase and particle phase to become weak, which causes the velocity of the particle phase to decrease. Two curves shown in
Fig. 5c) indicate that the particle volume fraction at the central
region of the pipe increases as the transport pressure decreases,
which causes the velocity of the gas phase to decrease.
For the constant solid mass flow rate, a decrease in the particle axial velocity leads to an increase in the solid volume fraction. The pressure gradient predicted is in good agreement
with the experimental data at the transport pressure of
3.3 MPa. As the transport pressure decreases from 3.3 MPa to
2.6 MPa, the pressure gradient predicted decreases from
5.05 kPa/m to 4.33 kPa/m. It indicates that when the solid
mass flow rate and the superficial velocity are kept constant,
the pressure gradient decreases as the transport pressure decreases. A decrease in the interaction between the gas phase
and particle phase leads to a decrease in the energy consumption. On the other hand, an increase in the solid volume fraction leads to an increase in the pressure gradient caused by
gravity. Generally, the pressure gradient decreases as the transport pressure decreases.
Fig. 6 shows the comparison of the predicted pressure gradient with the experimental data at two transport pressures. It is

1.6
14
Ms=0.17kg/s transport pressure 3.3Mpa

1.4
1.2
1.0

-0.5

r/R

0.0

experimental data
experiment fitting curve
prediction
prediction fitting curve

10

Ms=0.17kg/s Ug=5.9m/s
P=3.3Mpa
P=2.6Mpa

0.8
0.6
-1.0

Pressure Gradient (kpa/m)

vsz/Ug

12

0.5

1.0

[22]

The model

without particle turbulence

6
4
2
2

(b)

p=3.3Mpa

p=2.6Mpa

0.2
0.1

-0.5

r/R

0.0

0.5

1.0

(c)
Figure 5. Profiles of axial velocities of gas and particle phase and
particle volume fraction. (a) Axial velocity of gas phase, (b) axial
velocity of particle phase, (c) particle volume fraction.

2008 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Pressure Gradient (kpa/m)

Solid Volulme Fraction

12

10

Ms=0.17kg/s Ug=5.9m/s

0.3

0.0
-1.0

10

(a)

0.5
0.4

Superficial Velocity (m/s)

Ms=0.177kg/s transport pressure 2.6Mpa


experimental data
experiment fitting curve
prediction
prediction fitting curve

10

Superficial Velocity (m/s)

12

(b)
Figure 6. Pressure gradient vs. superficial velocity. (a) Transport
pressure 3.3 MPa, (b) transport pressure 2.6 MPa.

http://www.cet-journal.com

222

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2008, 31, No. 2, 215223

W. Pu et al.

obvious that a good agreement between them is reached. The


prediction shows that when the solids mass flow rate is kept
constant and the superficial velocity is increased, the pressure
gradient first decreases, then goes through a minimum, and
subsequently starts to increase. The predicted tendency is similar to that of experiment. During dense phase pneumatic conveying, an increase in the gas superficial velocity leads to a decrease in solid concentration and an increase in the mixture
velocity. The pressure gradient caused by solid gravity decreases, while the pressure gradient caused by gas and particle
friction increases. So there exists a point where the pressure
gradient is the minimum.

4.3

Particle Turbulence

In kinetic theory of granular flow, the granular temperature


describes the particle-particle collisions and is introduced as a
measure of single particle velocity fluctuations. Actually, particle cluster is one of the most significant features in dense phase
pneumatic conveying. The turbulence of particles is introduced to describe the random motion of clusters. In fact, there
exist appreciable differences between the particle collisions and
particle turbulence. The characterized length and time scale of

-1

10

Ms=0.17kg/s Ug=5.9m/s
-2

Length Scale

10

-3

transport pressure 3.3Mpa


particle turbulence
particle collision

-4

10

-5

10

-6

-0.5

r/R

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

(a)
0

10

Ms=0.17kg/s Ug=5.9m/s
-1

Time Scale

10

transport pressure 3.3Mpa


particle turbulence
particle collision

-2

10

-3

10

-4

10
-1.0

-0.5

r/R

0.0

 1=4
lk m3s es

(33)

sk ms =es 1=2

(34)

and the characterized length and time scale of particle collision


on the micro scale are defined, respectively, as follows[9]:
h
 1=3 i
1
(35)
k ds as; max as
p
sc k 3Hs

(b)
Figure 7. The comparison of length scales and time scales between particles turbulence and particle collision. (a) Length
scales, (b) time scales.

2008 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

(36)

Fig. 7a) shows the comparison between characterized


lengths of particle turbulence and particle collision. Fig. 7b)
shows the comparison between characterized times of particles
turbulence and particle collision. The conditions for simulation are the same as those in Fig. 5. It is shown that the magnitudes of both the characterized length and the time of particle
turbulence are one to two orders of magnitude larger than
those of particle collision. It indicates that it is not sufficient to
describe the motions of particles merely by the granular temperature equation. And in Fig. 6, the predicted pressure gradients used the model proposed by Yuan and Michaelides [24]
without considering the particle turbulence are far less than
the experimental data. So it is reasonable and necessary to introduce the equations of the particle turbulent energy and the
particle turbulent energy dissipation rate.

10

10
-1.0

particle turbulence on the macro scale are defined, respectively,


as follows:

Conclusions

A kekpep model considering the turbulence interaction between the gas and particle phase was incorporated into the
two-fluid model based on the kinetic theory of granular flow
to simulate three-dimensional steady state flow behavior of
dense phase pneumatic conveying of pulverized coal in a vertical pipe. The influences of solid concentration and transport
pressure on flow behavior are discussed and the predictions of
the pressure gradient are in good agreement with the experimental data. Based on the results presented here, the following
conclusions may be drawn:
In dense phase pneumatic conveying at high pressure, the
profile of the solid concentration is non-uniform. The location
of maximal solid concentration deviates from the pipe centre
and the deviation becomes more obvious with the solid concentration increasing, which is analogous to the phenomenon
in the liquid/solid flow.
As the superficial velocity increases, pressure gradient decreases first and then increases. The model predictions of
the pressure gradient are in good agreement with the experimental data.
As the transport pressure decreases, the pressure gradient
declines. The predictions are validated by the experiment.
The particle turbulence has an important influence on dense
phase pneumatic conveying at high pressure.

http://www.cet-journal.com

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2008, 31, No. 2, 215223

Two-fluid model

223

Acknowledgements

References

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support


by the National Key Program of Basic Research in China
2004CB217702.

[1] D. Gidaspow, J. Jonghwun, K. Singh Raj, Powder Technol.


2004, 148, 123.
[2] J. Sinclair, B. van Wachem, AIChE J. 2004, 50, 2638.
[3] B. G. M. van Wachem, S. J. C. Schouten, C. M. van den
Bleek, R. Krishna, J. L. Sinclair, AIChE J. 2001, 47, 1035.
[4] J. L. Sinclair, R. Jackson, AIChE J. 1989, 35, 1473.
[5] M. Y. Louge, I. Mastorakos, J. T. Jenkins, J. Fluid Mech. 1991,
231, 345.
[6] E. J. Bolio, J. A.Yasuna, J. L. Sinclair, AIChE J. 1995, 41, 1375.
[7] L. X. Zhou, X. Q. Huang, Sci. China Ser. A 1990, 33, 52.
[8] C. K. Chan, Y. C. Guo, K. S. Lau, Powder Technol. 2005, 150,
42.
[9] Y. Zheng, X. Wan, A. Qian, F. Wei, Y. Jin, Chem. Eng. Sci.
2001, 56, 6822.
[10] D. Geldart, S. J. Ling, Powder Technol. 1990, 62, 243.
[11] Y. Q. Xiong, B. Zhao, X. L. Shen, Proc. CSEE 2004, 24, 248.
[12] Y. Q. Xiong, B. Zhao, X. L. Shen, J. Combustion Sci. Technol.
2004, 10, 428.
[13] L. Cai, C. S. Zhao, X. P. Chen, W. H. Pu, P. Lu, C. L. Fan,
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2007, 30 (7), 926. DOI: 10.1002/
ceat.200700049
[14] D. Gidaspow, Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum
and Kinetic Theory Descriptions, Academic Press, New York
1994.
[15] J. Ding, D. Gidaspow, AIChE J. 1990, 36, 523.
[16] H. Liu, W. Liu, J. Zheng, J. Ding, X. Zhao, H. Lu, J. Chem.
Eng. 2004, 102, 151.
[17] H. Lu, D. Gidaspow, E. Manger, Phys. Rev. E 2001, 64, 61301.
[18] H. Lu, D. Gidaspow, J. Bouillard, L. Wentie, J. Chem. Eng.
2003, 95, 1.
[19] H. Lu, D. Gidaspow, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003, 42, 2390.
[20] P. C. Johnson, R. Jackson, J. Fluid Mech. 1987, 176, 67.
[21] A. Alajbegovic, A. Assad, F. Bonetto, R. T. Lahey Jr, Int. J.
Multiphase Flow 1994, 20, 453.
[22] T. Sakaguchi, H. Shakutsi, A. Tomiyama, H. Minigawa, S. Kitani, Proceedings of The International Conference on Multiphase Flows91, Japan 1994.
[23] J. P. K. Seville, U. Tuzun, R. Clift, Processing of Particulate Solids, Chapman & Hall, London 1997.
[24] Z. Yuan, E. Michaelides, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1992, 18,
779.

Symbols used
ds
D
ps
vg
vs
Ug
kg

[m]
[m]
[N/m2]
[m/s]
[m/s]
[m/s]
[m2/s2]

ks

[m2/s2]

g0,ss
ess

[]
[]

ew

[]

diameter of solid particle


diameter of pipe
solid phase pressure
gas velocity
solid velocity
superficial velocity
gas phase turbulent kinetic
energy
solid phase turbulent kinetic
energy
radial distribution function
particle-particle collision
restitution coefficient
particle-wall collision restitution
coefficient

Greek letters
ag
as
b

[]
[]
[]

U
qg
qs
lg
ls
ts
Hs
sg
ss

[]
[kg/m3]
[kg/m3]
[kg/(ms)]
[kg/(ms)]
[m2/s]
[m2/s2]
[kg/(ms2)]
[kg/(ms2)]

gas phase volume fraction


solid phase volume fraction
gas-solid inter-phase drag
coefficient
specularity coefficient
gas phase density
solid phase density
gas phase viscosity
solid phase viscosity
solid phase kinetic viscosity
granular temperature
stress tensor of gas phase
stress tensor of solid phase

Subscripts
g
s
max

gas phase
solid phase
maximum

2008 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

http://www.cet-journal.com

Anda mungkin juga menyukai