CN4118R: B.Eng.

Dissertation Semester 1 AY 2010-2011

Coal Gasification for Clean Energy: A Simulation Study of the Downer and the Solids Distributor.
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the degree in Bachelor of Engineering, National University of Singapore

By Jayadev S Marol U070448E

Supervisor: Professor Wang Chi-Hwa

Date of Submission: 3rd January 2011

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Wang Chi-Hwa for providing me with the golden opportunity to work on this project and uncovering my interest in multiphase flows. He has been a great source of motivation and I would like to thank him for providing me with valuable ideas and suggestions during the monthly meetings. Secondly, I am highly indebted to my assigned mentor, Dr Cheng Yongpan who has patiently helped me with my modeling and related queries. I would also like to extend my acknowledgement to Dr Eldin Lim for the healthy discussions and guidance on my project. Thanks to all others who were part of Professor Wang Chi-Hwas research group for helping me whenever I needed their assistance. It was a wonderful experience working with them. I would also like to thank my parents for providing me with the necessary moral support and encouragement without which the completion of this thesis may not have been possible.

Summary
Hydrodynamic simulation of the gas-solid flow in the downer was carried out using both the Eulerian-Eulerian and Eulerian-Lagrangian models. In using the Eulerian-Eulerian appraoch, solids were modeled as pseudo-fluid using the Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow and the main focus was to investigate the most suitable drag closure for various flow conditions. Three different drag closures by Wen &Yu, De Felice and Matsen were tested. Firstly, the axial distribution of the solids concentration in the downer was simulated and compared with available experimental data in literature. The commonly used Wen & Yus drag closure gave simulation results that were comparable with experimental data under high superficial gas velocity flow conditions but the solids holdup values were severely over-predicted at low gas velocity. Matsens drag closure was found to give a much better solid holdup prediction compared to the other two drag closures under low superficial gas velocity. Secondly, the radial distribution of the solids concentration was compared. The nature of the radial solid holdup profile predicted by Matsens drag closure was also different compared to the other two drag closures. Wen & Yus and De Felices drag closure predicted a maximum concentration at the wall, similar to the experimental results by Cao and Weinstein (2000). Matsens drag closure predicted that the peak of the solids holdup at the wall gradually moves towards the center with the magnitude of the peak decreasing in the fully developed region of the downer. These simulation results are consistent with experimental results by Zhang et al (1999). Simulation results using the Eulerian-Lagrangian method were consistent with the Eulerian-Eulerian model with the Wen & Yus drag closure.

As the flow in the downer is assisted by gravity, there is short contact time between the phases in the downer (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). This short contact time imposes a demand on the downer inlet design to enable good mixing of the phases. Thus two inlet designs have been proposed and consequently the sand and coal flow patterns are investigated in efforts to innovate new inlet designs which provide better mixing.

Contents Page Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 5

Objective ............................................................................................................................. 7 Chapter 2: Literature review of the downer .................................................................... 8

2.1 The flow structure in the downer .............................................................................. 9 2.2 The Axial solids concentration distribution profile................................................. 10 2.3 Correlations to predict the solids concentration in the fully developed region of the downer. .......................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 The radial solids concentration distribution profile ................................................ 12 Chapter 3: Modeling the hydrodynamics of the downer .............................................. 16

3.1.1 EulerianEulerian method .................................................................................... 17 3.1.2 Equations used in the Eulerian-Eulerian model ................................................... 18 3.2 Eulerian-Lagrangian method ................................................................................... 25 3.2.1 Equations used in Eulerian- Lagrangian Method ................................................. 25 Chapter 4: Procedures for Simulation........................................................................... 27

4.1 Geometry and Meshing ........................................................................................... 27 4.2 Operating conditions and boundary conditions ....................................................... 28 4.3 Solution Procedures................................................................................................. 30 Chapter 5: Simulation results & Validation of the Eulerian-Eulerian Model .............. 32

5.1 Wen & Yus Drag Closure ...................................................................................... 32 5.1.1 Axial distribution of the solids concentration................................................... 32 5.1.2 Axial distribution of the solids velocity ........................................................... 37 5.1.3 Effect of particle diameter, particle density and downer diameter on model simulation. ................................................................................................................. 38 5.2 Improvements to the model using various drag correlations .................................. 41 5.3 De Felices drag closure .......................................................................................... 42 5.4 Matsens drag closure.............................................................................................. 43 5.5 Radial distribution of solids concentration.............................................................. 46 Chapter 6: Validation of the Eulerian-Lagrangian model ............................................ 49

6.1 Residence time of particles . ................................................................................... 49

3

6.2 Axial velocity distribution of particles. ................................................................... 51 6.3 Radial velocity distribution of particles .................................................................. 53 Chapter 7: Solids distributor and Inlet design of the downer ....................................... 55

7.1 Proposed Inlet Designs ............................................................................................ 59 7.2 Modeling Approach and simulation conditions ...................................................... 60 7.3 Simulation results .................................................................................................... 63 7.3.1 Axial Solid distribution .................................................................................... 63 7.3.2 Radial Solid distribution ................................................................................... 66 Chapter 8: Chapter 9: Conclusion .................................................................................................. 69 Recommendations and Future Work .......................................................... 71

References ......................................................................................................................... 73 Nomenclature ....................................................................................................................... i List of Figures .................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v I. Appendix A : Axial solids velocity distribution profiles............................................ vi II. Appendix B: Experimental Data for the downer solid holdup for the Gs=253 kg/m2s by Guan et al (2010) ........................................................................................................ viii III. Appendix C: Comparison of the average solids hold up for the two inlet arrangements with Ug=20 m/s............................................................................................ ix IV. Appendix D: Radial distribution of the solids at various axial positions for the two inlet arrangements. .............................................................................................................. x Tangential arrangement ............................................................................................... x Normal arrangement .................................................................................................. xii

Chapter 1: Introduction
Coal is and in the foreseeable future will be a considerable source of fuel for power generation but there has been increasing need for clean coal power generation and a constant search for processes that have higher efficiency (Hanson.S, Patrick, & Walker.A, 2002). Thus instead of conventional coal fired power plants, combined-cycle fluidized-bed gasification systems are now emerging technologies that offer a promising clean way to convert coal into electricity, hydrogen and other valuable energy products (Guan, Chihiro, Ikeda, Yu, & Tsutsumi, 2009). In the current project, a Triple-bed Combined Circulating Fluidized (TCFB) bed system is being considered for the coal gasification process and the setup of the system is shown in the following figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Triple bed Circulating Fluidized Bed (Guan G. , Chihiro, Ikeda, Yu, & Tsutsumi, 2009).

As shown above, the triple-bed combined circulating fluidized bed is mainly composed of a downer, a bubbling fluidized bed and a riser. The coal is rapidly pyrolyzed in the downer first and the obtained gas and tar are separated from the char using a gas-solids
5

separator. The char then enters the bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) to be gasified with steam (Guan G. , Chihiro, Ikeda, Yu, & Tsutsumi, 2009). The unreacted char can then be channeled to the riser to be combusted with air. The produced heat from the combustion can then be carried by inert solid medium such as sand and circulated into the downer and BFB to provide the heat needed for pyrolysis and gasification process (Guan G. , Chihiro, Ikeda, Yu, & Tsutsumi, 2009) .The cyclone is placed after the riser to separate the solids from the air and the solids then enter the solids distributor to ensure that solids are well distributed before they enter the downer (Guan, Chihiro, Ikeda, Yu, & Tsutsumi, 2009). Essentially in a triple bed reactor, the pyrolysis reaction is carried out in the downer, the gasification reaction in the BFB and char combustion in the riser. This method of compartmentalizing the various reactions into various specific reactors helps to improve the overall coal gasification efficiency.

Objective
The purpose of the research group is to model the flow in the triple bed circulating bed which would help to study the flow patterns and to optimize the process. The research is still in the initial stages and thus the objective of this thesis is to study the flow in the downer and the solids distributor component of the TCFB system. Numerical simulations of the downer hydrodynamics were conducted to predict the solids concentration and the velocity profiles and the results have been validated with the experimental data available from literature and from the experimental work of Guan et al, our partner research group from University of Tokyo. Eulerian-Eulerian and Eulerian-Lagrangian models have been used to model the hydrodynamics of the downer system. In the Eulerian-Eulerian model, which has been used to a greater extent in this thesis, the effect of various drag closures has been studied. Once a model with decent predictive capabilities has been established, the model could then be used for optimization purposes. Furthermore when conducting a primary study on various designs of the inlet structures, it is neither efficient nor economical to study the flow fields experimentally. Therefore this thesis also aims to illustrate that numerical simulation can be used as powerful tool to study flow behaviors in the various geometries before making huge experimental investments. Essentially, the effect of tangential inlet design and the normal inlet design on the sand and coal holdup in the downer has been studied in this thesis using the Eulerian- Eulerian Model.

Chapter 2: Literature review of the downer

Fluidization technique has been developed for more than several decades and previously in conventional gas-solids flows, the particles are suspended by up flowing gas streams, against the flow of gravity, such as in bubbling fluidized beds, turbulent fluidized bed and risers (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). Though the up flowing gas streams do provide some benefits such as better inter-phase contact, it also leads to some setbacks such as heterogeneous flow structure and significant back mixing of the phases (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). The overall performance of fluidized beds approaches that to a continuous stirred tank reactor and limits improvement in some specific processes. Thus the concept of a downer reactor was proposed and has attracted much attention in the industry which can be seen by the numerous patents owned by major oil companies. In a downer reactor, the gas and solids move downwards co-currently, in the direction of gravity. This allows for a much more uniform gas-solid flow with less gas-solid back mixing in the downer system (Ropelato, Meier, & Cremasco, 2005). Thus the flow regime in the downer rector approaches that of a plug flow reactor (Lehner & Wirth, 1999), (Qi, Zhang, & Zhu, 2008). Furthermore as the flow is now assisted by gravity, the solids would be flowing at high velocity and this leads to lower residence time of the components in the reactor (Jian & Ocone, 2003). These properties of the downer are essentially beneficial for short contact time processes such as solids waste pyrolysis, high-selectivity fluidized catalytic cracking, flash pyrolysis of coal and biomass where intermediate products are favored (Qi, Zhang, & Zhu, 2008).

2.1 The flow structure in the downer

The flow structure can be divided into three sections according to the pressure profile in the downer. At the entrance, the solid particles are accelerated by gravity and gas drag, causing the pressure in the flow direction to drop (Liu, Luo, Zhu, & Beeckmans, 2001). As the particle velocity increases and becomes equal to the gas velocity, the gas drag acting on the particles become zero (Wang, Bai, & Jin, 1992). The pressure gradient at this point becomes minimum and the pressure gradient is zero (Wang, Bai, & Jin, 1992). The section from the inlet to this point marks the first acceleration section of the downer (Wang, Bai, & Jin, 1992). After this section, the particles will still be accelerating due to gravity and the particle velocity will exceed that of the gas velocity. The direction of the gas drag becomes upward and the pressure increases gradually in the flow direction (Johnston, Lasa, & Zhu, 1999 ). This stage is called the second acceleration stage and the pressure gradient is greater than zero. In the third section, the velocity difference

between the particles and the gas velocity continues to increase until the drag force becomes equal to the gravitational force. The particles will stop accelerating and particle velocity will level off (Wang, Bai, & Jin, 1992). This constant velocity section is also termed as the fully developed region (Liu, Luo, Zhu, & Beeckmans, 2001). The pressure gradient is positive and constant as pressure continuously increases in the direction of the flow (Wang, Bai, & Jin, 1992). The typical pressure profile of the downer is shown in figure 2.1 below.

Figure 2.1: Pressure profile in a downer for Gs=202 kg/m2s and Ug=5 m/s.

2.2 The Axial solids concentration distribution profile.

Studies carried out have shown that the gas and solids flow is more uniform in the downer then in the riser. The particle acceleration in the first two sections of the downer results considerable dilution of the solids concentration and the solid holdup eventually reaches the constant value in the fully developed region (Bolkan, Berruti, Zhu, & Milne, 2003). A typical solid concentration distribution profile in the downer is shown below in figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 : Solids concentration distribution profile in the downer for Gs =202 kg/m2s and Ug=5 m/s.

10

2.3 Correlations to predict the solids concentration in the fully developed region of the downer.
Previously, most of the correlations to predict the solid hold up in the fully developed region of the downer were based on the terminal solids concentration, s , where
= +

The equation above is based on the assumption that there is no particle agglomeration and that of a uniform dispersion of particles in the downward gas flow (Qi, Zhang, & Zhu, 2008) However many experimental results have showed that particle-clustering phenomenon exists in the fully developed region of the downer and it cannot be neglected. Qi et al (2008) considered the effects of the particle properties and various operating conditions with different downer diameters to propose the following correlation,
= 0.125

(1)

The predictions of the correlation above fitted well with experimental data obtained from literature for low density downers (Qi, Zhang, & Zhu, 2008). For high-density downers (s > 0.07) the following correlation proposed by Guan et al (2010) could be used to predict the solid concentrations in the fully developed region.
= 0.104 (

0.25

0.15 (2)

)0.56 (

)0.14 0.155

(3)

11

2.4 The radial solids concentration distribution profile

There is yet to be a universal agreement on the nature of the radial profile of the solids phase in the downer (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008). Different research groups have presented different nature of radial solid hold up profiles. The experimental results by the FLOTU group (Bai et al 1992; Wang et al 1992) reveal that the solids concentration exhibits a peak near the wall region. In contrast, Cao and Weinstein (2000) claimed that downer exhibits a maximum concentration at the wall itself. Experimental results by Zhang et al (1999) seem to suggest that the initially the solids concentration is the maximum at the wall and as the L/D ratio increases, the peak of the solid concentration moves gradually towards the center with the magnitude of the peak decreasing. The figure 2.3 below shows the radial solids concentration distribution as presented by Wang et al (1992).

Figure 2.3 : Radial solids concentration profile (Wang, Bai, & Jin, 1992).

The figure above reveals that the radial concentration in the downers is generally uniform but an annular region of high solids concentration exists near the wall of the downer. The solids concentration increases with the increasing solids flux at all radial positions but the increment is larger in the annular dense region (Wang, Bai, & Jin, 1992). When the gas
12

velocity increases at fixed solids flux, the radial solids concentration is said to become more uniform (Wang, Bai, & Jin, 1992). Wang et al (1992) have attributed the nature of the radial solids concentration above to the minimization of the energy loss in a gas-solid suspension flow. In the center region, the gas velocity is relatively high and thus the drag force acting on the solid particles is larger (Kimm, Berruti, & Pugsley, 1996). This motivates the particles to move away from center towards the wall region in order to lose less energy (Wang, Bai, & Jin, 1992), (Kimm, Berruti, & Pugsley, 1996). Likewise the friction between the gas-solid suspension and the wall causes the particles to move away from the wall region in order to avoid losing more energy (Kimm, Berruti, & Pugsley, 1996). As a result of these two opposing trends, an annular region of high solids concentration near the wall with a uniform concentration at the center is formed. (Wang, Bai, & Jin, 1992). In contrast to the experimental results from Wang et al (1992), Cao and Weinstein (2000) claimed that downer exhibits a maximum concentration at the wall. The figure 2.4 below shows the radial solid concentration profile obtained in their experiments.

Figure 2.4: Radial solids concentration profile (Cao & Weinstein, 2000).

13

A possible reason for the difference in the radial solid holdup profiles obtained could be attributed to the different measuring equipment used by Cao and Weinstein as compared to Wang et al (1992). An optical fiber solid concentration probe was used by Wang et al (1992) whereas an X-ray imaging system was used by Cao and Weinstein (2000) to measure the radial solids concentration profile. Nevertheless the solids fraction measured away from the wall show similar profiles in most of the works and it is only the concentration at the wall that is not in agreement. Zhang et al (1999) did a study of the radial profiles of the solid holdup under 11 different operating conditions and they measured the radial solids distribution using optic fiber solid concentration probe at 8 different axial positions. The results obtained are presented in figure 2.5 below (Zhang, Zhu, & Bergougnou, 1999).

Figure 2.5 : Radial solids concentration profile, (Zhang, Zhu, & Bergougnou, 1999).

14

From the experimental results above, it can be seen that the radial solid hold up is initially fluctuating due the solids distributors effect at about 0.020 m ( (Zhang, Zhu, & Bergougnou, 1999). Slightly below the entrance at about 0.5 m, the solid concentration tends to peaks at the wall. However as the L/D ratio increases, the radial profiles start to become more uniform. The peak of the solids holdup seems to gradually move towards the center with the magnitude of the peak decreasing (Zhang, Zhu, & Bergougnou, 1999). Thus the experimental results of the Zhang et al (1999) might seem to suggest that the solids concentration peaks at the wall when the flow is still in the developing zone and further down the downer, the peak tends to shift towards the center of the wall. The results also indicate that the nature of the solids holdup is not fixed throughout the downer.

15

Chapter 3: Modeling the hydrodynamics of the downer

Numerical methods have been broadly used to study particlefluid flow in the recent years. Modeling the gas-solids flow in the downer system is essentially a multiphase flow problem. The main constraint that lies in the modeling of the downer reactor is the large separation of scales (Hoef, Annaland, Deen, & Kuipers, 2008). The flow structure which is in the order of meters is influenced by the interactions of the gas and solid particles that are well below the millimeter scale (Hoef, Annaland, Deen, & Kuipers, 2008) . In modeling the multiphase flow, the dynamics of each of the phase can be can modeled via either considering the phase as a collection of discrete particles that obey Newtons law that requires a Lagrangian approach or via treating the solid phase as a continuum that is governed by Navier-Stokes type equation which requires Eulerian approach (Hoef, Annaland, Deen, & Kuipers, 2008). The hydrodynamics in the downer can thus be simulated using the Eulerian- Eulerian model or the Eulerian-Lagrangian model. The main difference between these two models depends on the treatment of the solid phase which is treated either as a continuum phase or as a discrete particle. Numerical simulations can be carried out using computational fluid dynamics software. ANSYS FLUENT is one such commercial software that contains the broad physical modeling capabilities needed to model multiphase flow, turbulence, heat transfer, and reactions for various industrial applications. FLUENT will be used to model and analyze the flow and performance of the downer systems for both the Eulerian-Eulerian approach and the Eulerian-Lagrangian approach.

16

3.1.1 EulerianEulerian method

In the Eulerian-Eulerian approach, both the gas phases and the solid phase are allowed to exist at the same point and at the same time forming an interpenetrating continuum (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008).

Figure 3.1: Modeling the interaction between solid and gas phase (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008).

As shown in Figure 3.1, modeling the downer system needs to take into account the interactions within and between the flow fields as well as the fluctuations flow fields of each phase (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008). The interaction between particle mean motion and the gas mean motion is incorporated by the drag force correlations. The relation between the gas fluctuating motion and the gas mean motion is modeled using the appropriate - turbulence models. Kinetic Theory of Granular Flow is used to relate the interaction between the random particle fluctuating motion and the mean particle motion. In this theory, solid-phase stresses are described in a manner similar to the stresses in dense-gas kinetic theory whereby the fluctuating kinetic energy of solid is represented by the term granular temperature(s) (Cheng, Wei, Guo, & Yong, 2001), (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008). Other solid phase transport properties such as the solid phase pressure and solid stresses are also described in terms of granular temperature. (Vaishali, Roy, &

17

Mills, 2008). One possible drawback of this approach is that the predictive ability of the model depends very much on the correctness and tuning of the closures proposed for indeterminate terms.(Cheng, Wei, Guo, & Yong, 2001). In the present work, the interaction between the fluctuating fields of the gas phase and solid phase is not considered as it is expected to be a correlation of a much lower order as compared to the other three interactions (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008).

3.1.2 Equations used in the Eulerian-Eulerian model

Continuity Equation
( )

Conservation of momentum For fluid phase

+ . ( = 0 )

(4)

= =

Note that in the equation above p is pressure shared by all the phases and Ksf is the gassolid momentum exchange co-efficient. is the fluid phase stress-strain tensor which takes the following form 2 = + + . 3

( ) + . = p + . + + .

(5)

Where f and f is the fluid shear and bulk viscosity. For solid phase

(6) (7)

is the solid phase stress-strain tensor which takes the following form
18

( ) + . ( = p ps + . + + . )

Where s and s is the solids shear and bulk viscosity.

2 = + + . (8) 3

follow.

solid pressure term, ps , in the equation above. Details can be found in the paragraphs that Constitutive equations The gas-solid momentum exchange co-efficient, Ksf

Compared to the fluid phase momentum equation, it can be seen that there is an extra

The interaction of prime importance in the downer reactions is that of the mean flow field of the gas phase and the mean flow fields of the solids phase which is stated as the drag interaction in figure 3.1. The drag force in the downer system depends on the slip velocity (absolute difference between the mean gas phase velocity and solid phase velocity) and the local solids concentration (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008). There has been several momentum exchange coefficient that have been proposed based on experiments and fine scale simulations (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008). Three of such momentum exchange coefficients are shown below.

19

Table 1: Various gas-solid momentum transfer coefficients Reference Wen & Yus closure (1966) Gas-solid momentum exchange coefficient, Ksf 3 2.65 = 4 (9)

Where

Matsens closure (1982)

Where

= 0.006475 =

24 1 + 0.15( )0.687 (10) = (11) 0.586

Di Felices closure (1994) Where

3 = 2 4 = = 3.7 1 1 2 (0.63 + 4.8 )

2

24 1 + 0.15( )0.687

1.5log ) 2 0.65 (

(16)

(15)

(14)

(13)

(12)

The solid pressure term, ps. For granular flows in the compressible regime (where the solids volume fraction is less than its maximum allowed value), a solids pressure is calculated independently and used for the pressure gradient term,ps , in the solids/ granular phase momentum equation

20

(equation 7). ( ANSYS FLUENT, 2006) (Lun, B., J., & Chepurniy, 1984), (Cheng, Wei, Guo, & Yong, 2001).
= + 2 (1 + ) 2 , (17)

The solids pressure equation above consists of the kinetic term and a second term due to particle collisions. The term ess refers to the coefficient of restitution for particle-particle collisions which is assigned to be 0.9 and the term go,ss refers to the radial distribution function which is a correction factor that modifies the probability of collisions between particles when the solid granular phase becomes dense ( ANSYS FLUENT, 2006). This function may also be interpreted as the non-dimensional distance between spheres and it takes the following form for one solids phase ( ANSYS FLUENT, 2006), (Cheng, Wei, Guo, & Yong, 2001).
1 , = 1 ( )3 ,
1

(18)

Where s,max is the maximum packing limit of the particles which is assigned to be 0.63. The solids shear viscosity and bulk viscosity term The solids stress tensor contains shear and bulk viscosities arising from particle momentum exchange due to translation and collision. The solids shear viscosity term is comprised of the collisional, kinetic and frictional parts as shown in the equation below (Gidaspow, 1994)
= , + , + , (19)

The frictional component, , , neglected in this work.

21

The expression for kinetic viscosity term,, , is derived by (Syamlal, Rogers, & OBrien, 1993) to be
, = 2 1 + (1 + )(3 1) , 5 6(3 ) (20)

OBrien, 1993)

The collisional part of the viscosity, , , is modeled as follows (Syamlal, Rogers, & , = 4 1 , (1 + )( )2 5
1

The bulk viscosity, , term appearing in equation 8 has the following form as described by (Lun, B., J., & Chepurniy, 1984) 4 2 = , (1 + )( ) 3
(22)

(21)

The granular temperature term

The granular temperature for the solids phase is proportional to the kinetic energy of the random motion of the particles. The transport equation derived from kinetic theory of granular flow and takes the following form (Ding & Gidspow, 1990).
3 ( ) + . ( ) = + : + . + 2

(23)

Where

+ : refers to the generation of energy by the solids tensor.

refers to the diffusion of energy ( being the diffusion coefficient) which under the Syamlal model has the following form (Syamlal, Rogers, & OBrien, 1993). = 15 12 16 (41 33) , (24) (1 + 2 (4 3) , + 15 5 4(41 33)
22

Where

refers to the collisional dissipation of energy and takes the following form derived by

1 = (1 + ) (25) 2

Lun et al (1984).

12(1 2 ),

2 2 (26)

and

refers to the energy exchange between the fluid phase and the solid phase represented

by

can be done by either assuming a constant granular temperature when the system is dense or by algebraic formulation of the transport equations by neglecting the diffusion and convection term ( ANSYS FLUENT, 2006). Algebraic formulation method to determine the granular temperature term was used in this thesis. - turbulence model In order to account for the turbulent fluctuations in the gasmean motion, dispersed - turbulence model is adopted. , ( ) + . = . + , + (28)

Thus in applying the equations, a value for granular temperature term, , is needed. It

= 3 (27)

23

( ) + .

Where is turbulent kinetic energy and is the dissipation rate.

= .

( 2 + (29) 1 ,

The source terms and represent the influence of the dispersed sand and coal

phase on the continuous air phase. The term , represents production of the turbulent

kinetic energy and the term , refers to turbulent viscosity. and are the turbulent model taking the values 1.44 and 1.92 respectively ( ANSYS FLUENT, 2006).

Prandtl numbers for and respectively. 1 and 2 are constants in the - turbulence Thus in summary, the Eulerian Eulerian model set up is based on the following 1) A single pressure is shared by all the phases 2) Momentum and continuity equations are solved for each phase. 3) Granular temperature (solids fluctuating energy) can be calculated for each solid phase. 4) Solid-phase shear and bulk viscosity are evaluated by applying kinetic theory of granular flow. 5) Various types of Inter phase drag coefficients are available to account for the interaction between the mean flow field of the gas phase and the solids phase 6) - turbulence model is applied to account for the turbulent fluctuations of the gas mean velocity.

24

3.2 Eulerian-Lagrangian method

In the Eulerian-Lagrangian approach, the solid phase is treated as discrete particles and is modeled by calculating the path of each individual particle with the Newtons second law (Cheng, Wei, Guo, & Yong, 2001). The advantage of using this approach is that each particles trajectory can be displayed exactly. However since large number of trajectories are need in order to determine the average behavior of the system, this approach can be computationally expensive.

3.2.1 Equations used in Eulerian- Lagrangian Method

The fluid phase is treated as a continuum by solving the time-averaged Navier-Stokes equations as presented in the Eulerian- Eulerian model (equations 4 and 5 ), while the dispersed phase is solved by tracking a large number of particles in the flow-field. Only equations used for the motion of particles are listed below.
= + (30)

The equation above is written for the x-coordinate and can be extended to other co is the drag force per unit particle mass and Fd takes the following form
= 18 2 24 (31)

ordinates likewise.

25

Two way turbulence coupling Similar to the Eulerian-Eulerian method, the standard - turbulence model is used to account for the turbulent fluctuations in the gasmean motion. While the continuous phase always impacts the discrete phase, it is also possible to incorporate the effect of the discrete phase trajectories on the continuum in the FLUENT software. This two-way coupling is accomplished by alternately solving the discrete and continuous phase equations until the solutions in both phases have stopped changing ( ANSYS FLUENT, 2006).

26

Chapter 4: Procedures for Simulation

FLUENT 6.3 and/or FLUENT 12 was used for all the simulations in this thesis. For small or medium sized jobs that require less than 30 minutes to compute, the simulations were run on a laptop with Windows Vista 32-bit dual core processor and 4 gigabyte RAM. For large jobs (especially for unsteady state Eulerian- Lagrangian and Eulerian-Eulerian models), parallel computing was done in a high performance computing portal to speed up computation time.

4.1 Geometry and Meshing

In the first part of the thesis, a two-dimensional model of a downer with an internal diameter of 0.1 m and a length of 9.3 m was used to simulate a two phase flow (a solid phase and a fluid phase). The two-dimensional geometry was created in GAMBIT which is a preprocessor to FLUENT. The model was formed via bottom-up approach whereby vertices were first created and the relevant vertices were joined to form edges. The edges were finally linked to form a face before the geometry is meshed. Meshing involves the discretization of the model into smaller volumes and is a crucial for the finite volume method to be accurate. The smaller the volume the more accurate the results would be but at the cost of more computational time. Thus there is a trade-off between accuracy and computational time. A simple meshing analysis was done to minimize computational time and maximize accuracy. With that analysis, a grid size of 15 (radial) x 750 (axial) was deemed sufficient. The figure 4.1 below shows part of the layout of the meshed geometry. It is oriented horizontally for better viewing of the meshes.

27

Figure 4.1 : Layout of the meshed geometry of the downer.

4.2 Operating conditions and boundary conditions

The meshed geometry was then exported to FLUENT. The boundary and operating conditions were then introduced. Since the predicted solids concentration and particle velocity were to be compared with the experimental data conducted by Bolkan et al (2003), the particle properties were applied as presented in the journal. The table below shows the particle properties and the operating conditions used in the simulation.

Table 2: Operating conditions for the 2D model Operating Conditions Pressure (Pa) Gravity (m2/s) Gas properties Density (kg/m3) Viscosity (Pa.s) Particle Properties Density (kg/m3) Shape Diameter (m) Downer Properties Length (m) Diameter (m) 9.3 0.1 1500 Sphere 67 1.225 1.7894 x 10-5 Value 101325 at the outlet 9.81 downwards

28

Boundary conditions The following figure below shows the boundary conditions stated at respective sections of the model.

Figure 4.2 : Boundary conditions for the 2D Model.

Wall boundary condition For the wall boundary condition when using the Eulerian-Eulerian approach, a no-slip condition was specified for the fluid phase and for the solids phase, a shear force is stated which takes the following form,
= 3 6 , ,

Where particle slip velocity parallel to the wall and represents the specularity coefficient between the particle and the wall. As used by Vaishali et al (2008), a specularity co-efficient of 0.5 was used.

(33)

29

For the wall boundary condition when using the Eulerian-Lagrangian approach, a no slip condition was specified for the fluid phase. For the solids phase, the particles were allowed to reflect of the wall. Velocity inlet condition For the velocity inlet condition when using the Eulerian-Eulerian approach, the magnitude and the direction of the velocity together with the volume fraction each of the phases is stated. For the velocity inlet condition when using the Eulerian-Lagrangian approach, the magnitude and the direction of the velocity for the fluid phase is stated. For the solid phase, the particles are allowed to be trapped in the region. To state the value of the mass flux for solids particles, Interaction with Continuous Phase function was enabled under the discrete phase model and the particles were allowed to be injected from the top surface. Pressure outlet condition For the pressure outlet condition when using the Eulerian-Eulerian approach, a uniform gauge pressure of zero was stated. For the velocity condition when using the Eulerian- Lagrangian approach, gauge pressure of zero was stated and the discrete particles were allowed to be released and this was indicated with the escape condition.

4.3 Solution Procedures

The pressurevelocity coupled SIMPLE solver method was used in the iteration for the convergence of the solution. The convergence criteria were usually set to 0.001 for all the
30

terms. To obtain more accurate results for two-dimensional steady-state models, smaller convergence criteria of 10-5 was used. The second order UPWIND implicit differencing scheme for the convective terms and the second-order implicit time integration method was used to solve the motion equation of the fluid. The default under-relaxation parameter values were used during the iteration process.

Steady-State or Transient model Generally steady sate solver was used in the Eulerian-Eulerian approach. However at times, it is not possible to achieve convergence using steady-state solver. Thus unsteadystate solver with a time-step of 0.0025 was used to iterate for a time period of 5 to10 seconds to compare the simulated results with the experimental data.

31

Chapter 5: Simulation results & Validation of the Eulerian-Eulerian Model

For the first part of the thesis, the simulation results were compared with the experimental data as presented by Bolkan et al (2003) to validate the Eulerian-Eulerian model. Axial distribution of the solids holdup and the solids velocity are compared for various flow conditions. Wen & Yus Drag closure is used in the initial simulations.

5.1 Wen & Yus Drag Closure

5.1.1 Axial distribution of the solids concentration

Figure 5.1: Simulation results for superficial gas velocity of 3.7 m/s.

Figure 5.1 above compares the simulation results obtained for fixed superficial gas velocity of 3.7m/s under three different solids flux conditions (Gs =49 kg/m2s, 101

32

kg/m2s and 194 kg/m2s). Area weighted average is used to compute the mean solid concentration at any axial position. The simulation results reveal a similar trend as the experimental results. For all the three solids flux conditions, once the solids phase enters the downer, acceleration of the particles causes dilution of the solid holdup. For a fixed gas velocity, a higher solids flux would also result in a higher average solid holdup at any axial position. However the simulated average solid holdup values are severely over predicted compared to the experimental data. For example, for solids flux of 49 kg/m2s, the simulated average solids concentration at the fully developed region is about 0.0083 while the experimental data gives a value of about 0.0055. Considerable over-prediction is also observed for the other two solids flux scenarios. In addition, the path length taken for the solid phase to achieve a fully developed flow is much smaller than that compared to the experimental data. The possible reasons for these observations are that at low superficial velocity, the drag between the solids and the air phase is significant and the effects of particle clustering are not effectively accounted for in the model.

33

Figure 5.2: Simulation results for superficial gas velocity of about 7 m/s.

Figure 5.2 above compares the simulation results obtained for a fixed superficial gas velocity of about 7 m/s under three different solids flux conditions (Gs =49 kg/m2s, 101 kg/m2s and 208 kg/m2s). The models predicted solids concentration in the fully developed region is in better agreement with the experimental data at a higher superficial gas velocity. For example, for the solids flux of 49 kg/m2s, the simulated average solids concentration in the fully developed region is about 0.0044 while the experimental result is about 0.0039. However, the experimental data shows a much gradual decreases in the solids concentration along the downer while simulation results reveal a rather steep drop. Thus the simulated length for the solids to attain fully developed flow is much shorter than the experimental data

34

Figure 5.3: Simulation results for superficial gas velocity of about 10 m/s.

Figure 5.3 above compares the simulation results obtained for a fixed superficial gas velocity of about 10 m/s under three different solids flux conditions (Gs =49 kg/m2s, 102 kg/m2s and 205 kg/m2s). It further validates that the model predicts the solid concentration well under high superficial gas velocity. This is possibly because at higher gas velocity, the particles attain a higher speed and are less likely to form clusters. From observing figures 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 it can be seen that for a fixed solids flux, increasing the superficial gas velocity lowers the solid concentration. At a higher superficial gas velocity, solid particles attain a higher speed and this causes further dilution of the solids concentration.

35

From comparing all the simulation results above with the experimental data, it can be seen that the model is able to predict the solids concentration distribution profile well when a high superficial gas velocity is used. The model tends to overestimate the solid concentration under low gas velocity and this is partially due to inability of the model to fully account for the significant particle clustering effect at low gas velocity. Thus improvements to the model should be made for more accurate predictions under low gas velocity flow conditions. Improvements were made to model by applying other drag closures. De Felices and Matsens drag closure were tested and the latter seems to be able to improve the models solid holdup prediction at low superficial gas velocity. The results obtained for the other two closures are presented in sections 5.3 and 5.4.

36

5.1.2 Axial distribution of the solids velocity

Figure 5.4: Simulation results for solids flux of about 50kg/m2s with varying Ug.

The figure 5.4 above compares the simulated solids velocity under the three various superficial gas velocities (3.7 m/s, 7.3 m/s and 10.1 m/s). The superficial gas velocity tends to affect the velocity of the particles significantly. The trend observed for the solids velocity distribution in the downer can be explained as follows. Upon entering the downer, the particles will accelerate under the influence of gravity and the gas drag force, causing them to pick up speed. As the speed of particles becomes larger than the gas velocity, the gas drag becomes upward and this force starts to oppose the gravitational force. Here the particles will be gaining speed but at a slower rate. Once the drag force equals to that of the gravitational force, the particles will stop
37

accelerating and particle velocity will start to level off. (Wang, Bai, & Jin, 1992), (Johnston, Lasa, & Zhu, 1999 ). Though the simulation predicts a similar trend of the solids velocity as that of the experimental measurements qualitatively, the values are severely under-predicted for low superficial gas velocity condition. This is related to the observation made earlier that the = , when the model over estimates the solids concentration, it has to under estimate the solid velocity in order to satisfy the mass conservation equation stated above. predicted solids holdup concentration are over -predicted at low gas velocity. Since

Thus it becomes imperative that the model results for the solids velocity are linked to the solid concentration results. If improvements are made to the model so that it is able to better predict the solids concentrations for low gas velocity, the results for solids velocity would tally with experimental data as well. Similar observations were made when comparing the simulation results with the experimental data for solids flux of about 100 kg/m2s and 200 kg/m2s with varying superficial gas velocity. The plots obtained are presented in Appendix A.
5.1.3 Effect of particle diameter, particle density and downer diameter on model simulation.

From studying the plots above, it can be seen that the superficial gas velocity affects the models accuracy more than the solids gas flux. In this section three other parameters that are suspected to be influential are investigated of their effects on the models accuracy. The three other parameters to be studied are particle diameter, particle density and downer diameter. The equation proposed by Qi et al (2008) to predict the solids composition in the fully developed region of the downer would be used to compare with the results obtained by the model for various scenarios.
38

= 0.125

Thus in the next two graphs, a plot of s*/ s is plotted where s* is the calculated solids concentration in the fully developed region of the downer using equation (2) proposed by Qi et al (2008). s refers to the simulated solids concentration in the fully developed region using the model. Thus when the value of s*/ s is closer to 1, it would indicate that the model is in good agreement with the calculated value.

0.25

0.15

(2)

Figure 5.5: Model Comparison for varying Particle Diameter.

Figure 5.6: Model Comparison for varying Particle Density.

39

Figure 5.5 and 5.6 compares the models predictive accuracy for varying particle diameter and particle density respectively. The two graphs reveal that the model is able to predict the solids concentration in the fully developed region more accurately under higher particle diameter and particle density. As particle size or density increases, clusters are more prone to become discrete particles under higher gas velocity (Qi, Zhang, & Zhu, 2008). Thus the model being able to predict solids concentration more accurately for increasing particle diameter and/or density with increasing gas velocity maybe related to the models inability to fully account for the particle clustering phenomena. By observing that the downer diameter term does not appear in equation (2), it can be realized that the downer diameter does not have an influence on the solids concentration in the fully developed region of the downer. The model reveals a similar relation as well. keeping all other parameters unchanged, the values obtained are relatively constant. Table 3: Model results for varying downer diameter. Downer Diameter, m 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.5 Gs, kg/m2s 49 49 49 49 Ug, m/s 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 p, kg/m3 1500 1500 1500 1500 dp, m 67 67 67 67 s 0.0082 0.0083 0.0084 0.0084 It can be seen from table 3 that for varying the downer diameter from 0.05 to 0.1m and

40

5.2 Improvements to the model using various drag correlations

From the simulation results thus far, it has been established that the model prediction of the solids concentration and solids velocity is good agreement to the experimental data under high superficial gas velocity flow condition. However the model tends to overestimate the solids concentration under low superficial gas velocity and this is partially due to the inability of the model to fully account for the significant particle clustering effect. Improvements to the model should be made so that more accurate predictions can be made under low gas velocity scenarios. Vaishalli et al (2008) have stated that gas-solid dispersed flow in the downer is complex involving multiple modes of momentum transfer (as shown in figure 3.1). However gassolids drag is the most dominating interaction (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008). It has also been found that considerable amount of drag reduction occurs at the cluster formation which results in higher slip velocity and thus cause a lower solids concentration (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008). However the current Wen & Yu drags closure used in the model is unable to account this phenomenon. In efforts to try and improve the model under low superficial gas velocity, De Felices drag closure and Matsens drag closure were tested and the results obtained are presented section 5.3 and 5.4. Details and equations of the drag closures have already been presented in Chapter 3. As these drag closures were not available in ANSYS FLUENT, they were coded under User Defined Functions (UDF). Since it has been shown earlier that the solids concentration and the solids velocity predictions are related by the continuity equation, it is sufficient to ensure that the improved model is able to predict

41

the solids concentration well under low superficial velocity in the following investigations.

5.3 De Felices drag closure

Figure 5.7: Simulation results using De Felice's drag closure for Ug=3.7 m/s.

From the figure above, it can be seen that the results obtained by using De Felices drag closure are very similar to the Wen & Yus drag closure (figure 5.1). The solids concentration profile under low superficial gas velocity is still a severe over- prediction for the three solids flux scenarios. Thus it can be concluded that De Felices momentum exchange co-efficient is in the same range as the Wen and Yus and it still not able to lower the gas-solids drag under particle clustering place. Vaishali et al (2008) have also showed in their simulation study that the De Felices gas-solid momentum exchange coefficient is similar to the Wen & Yus gas-solid momentum exchange co-efficient.

42

5.4 Matsens drag closure

Figure 5.8: Simulation results using Matsen's Drag closure for Ug=3.7 m/s.

Figure 5.8 above shows that the simulated results using Matsens drag closure above gives a much better fit to the experimental data under low gas velocity conditions. It is also worth noting that the path length taken for the solids phase to achieve fully developed flow is comparative to the experimental data. Thus figure 5.8 seems to suggest that the Matsens drag closure is able to give a much better fit to the experimental data under low superficial gas velocity. Vaishali et al (2008) have also showed in their simulation study that compared to Wen & Yus and De Felices drag closure, Matsens drag closures is better able to predict the solids concentration under low gas velocity. Matsens drag closure predicts the slip velocity around five times that of the single terminal velocity and this allows it to account for the drag reduction that occurs at

43

cluster formation, eventually enabling the model to predict a lower solids concentration (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008) . Table 4: Comparison of various Drag coefficients
Wen & Yus Closure

De Felices Closure

3 2.65 = (9) 4 3 = 2 (14) 4 = 3.7 0.65

( 1.5log ) 2
2

Where

Matsens Closure

= 0.006475

0.586 (12)

(16)

Comparing the momentum transfer expressions for the three drag closures above, it can be seen that the nature of the Matsens drag co-efficient is different compared to the other two drag closures. The solids concentration term in the Matsens drag closure is raised to the power of negative 0.586 and this allows for a much lower momentum transfer coefficient with an increase in solids concentration. Furthermore while the initial constant term is 0.75 for the De Felices and Wen & Yus drag closure, Matsens has the initial constant term of 0.006475. These two factors enable the Matsens drag closure to account for considerable amount of drag reduction at the cluster place and this finally results in the better solids concentration prediction under low solids velocity scenarios (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008). To further validate the model with Matsens drag closure, further simulations under low gas velocity in the range of 0.5 to 3 m/s were carried out. The simulations were

44

compared with the experimental results obtained by Guan et al (2010) recently. The detailed experimental results are presented in Appendix B.

Figure 5.9: Comparing simulation results under low Ug , Gs= 253 kg/m2s.

The plot above shows that the simulation results using Matsens drag closure is a better fit to the experimental results than using Wen & Yus drag closure under low superficial gas velocity. It can also be seen that since the solids concentration is very low, the difference between the experimental results and the simulation results using Wen & Yus drag closure is very significant. For example, at a superficial gas velocity of 1m/s, the experimental solids concentration is about 0.02 whereas the predicted solids concentration using Wen & Yu drag closure is about 0.075 which is 3.5 times more than the experimental result. Thus in conclusion, it has been shown that the commonly used Wen and Yus drag correlation is not able to predict the solids concentration well under low gas velocity scenarios. De Felices drag closure also overestimates the solids concentration under low superficial gas velocity. Due to the different nature of the Matsens drag expression, it seems to give a much better prediction of the solids concentration under low gas velocity
45

scenarios. Furthermore, Masens drag closure is also able to predict the path length taken for the flow to be fully developed much better than other two drag closures.

5.5 Radial distribution of solids concentration

The radial distribution for the solid concentration in the downer also varies with the different drag closures. The application of the Johnson-Jackson boundary condition at the wall with the Matsens drag closure seem to produce results similar to the experimental data obtained by Zhang et al (1999) where the nature of the radial solid concentration along the axial direction of the downer differs. Applying Wen &Yus and De Felices drag closure produces radial solid hold up profile similar to experimental data obtained by Cao and Weinstein where the peak of the solids concentration is seen at the wall.

Figure 5.10: Radial solids hold up profile, Matsens drag closure (Gs=49 kg/m2s and Ug= 3.7 m/s).

Figure 5.10 presents the radial solid holdup distribution using the Matsens drag closure. Initially the solids concentration is highest at the wall. As the length of the downer increases, the peak of the solids concentration in the annulus gradually moves towards the center. It can also be seen that the peak of the solids concentration is decreasing and a

46

more uniform solids concentration at the fully developed region of the downer. The results obtained are similar to that experimental results obtained by Zhang et al (1999).

Figure 5.11: Radial solids hold up profile, Wen & Yus drag closure (Gs=49kg/m2s and Ug= 3.7m/s).

Figure 5.11 presents the radial solid holdup distribution using the Wen & Yus drag closure. It can be seen that results obtained are similar to the experimental results obtained by Cao and Weinstein (2000) where the peak is observed at the wall itself. Furthermore in comparison with the radial profile of the Matsens drag closure, it can be seen that local radial peak observed in Wen & Yus drag closure is not distinctively larger than the average radial solids concentration. For example in figure 5.11, the maximum local radial solid concentration is about 0.0092 while the average solids concentration is about 0.0084 at 1m from the entrance of the downer. However in figure 5.10, it can be seen that the solids the maximum local radial solid concentration is about 0.018 while the average solids concentration is about 0.0055 at 1m from the entrance of the downer. Thus it can be been seen that the Wen & Yus drag closure predicts a more even radial solids concentration distribution than the Matsens drag closure where the solids concentration at the peak is about three times more than the average radial solids

47

concentration. There has already been work published where high density peak near the wall is 2-3 times the cross sectional average solids fraction (Zhang, Qian, Yu, & Wei, 2002) which is in accordance to the radial profile predicted by Matsens closure .

Figure 5.12: Radial solids hold up profile, De Felices drag closure (Gs=49kg/m2s and Ug= 3.7m/s).

Figure 5.12 presents the radial solid holdup distribution under two different operating conditions using the De Felices drag closure. Again, similar to the Wen & Yus drag closure, the local radial peak observed at the wall is not as distinctively larger than the average radial solids concentration. Comparing the radial profiles by the different drag coefficients, Matsens drag closure seems to give a radial solid holdup distribution that is different compared to the Wen & Yus and De Felices drag closure. As there is yet to be a universal agreement on the radial solid hold up profiles, more experimental work and study is needed to verify the radial soilds holdup profile in the downer. However it is important to note that it has already be established in the earlier section that the Matsens drag closure is able to better predict the average axial solids concentration under low gas velocity.

48

Chapter 6: Validation of the Eulerian-Lagrangian model

Eulerian-Lagrangian approach was also used to model the hydrodynamics of the downer. However Eulerian-Lagrangian approach is computationally more expensive as a large number of solids particles are needed to be tracked. The procedure, equations and boundary conditions used for simulation have been described in chapter 4. Compared to the Eulerian- Eulerian approach, the advantages is that each of the particles trajectory can be displayed exactly and thus the residence time of the individual particles can be computed. However as the Eulerian- Lagrangian model is computationally more expensive, more simulations were done using the Eulerian- Eulerian method in this thesis. Nevertheless simulation results for the Eulerian- Lagrangian model is presented for two operating conditions and is compared with the Eulerian- Eulerian results in this chapter.

6.1 Residence time of particles

Figure 6.1: Particle residence time for Gs=49 kg/m2s and Ug=3.7 m/s.

49

Figure 6.2: Particle residence time for Gs=205 kg/m2s and Ug=10.1 m/s.

Figures 6.1 and figure 6.2 illustrates the particle residence time for two different operating conditions. The plots also reveal that the particles in the downer exhibit a rather uniform residence time as stated in the literature review. In figure 6.1, the residence time of the particles under the operating condition of solids flux of 49 kg/m2s and superficial gas velocity of 3.7 m/s ranges from 2.5 to 2.75 seconds. The particles nearer to the wall possess lower velocity and thus they have a slightly longer residence time than the particles in the center. Likewise from figure 6.2, the residence time of the particles under the operating condition of solids flux of 205 kg/m2s and superficial gas velocity of 10.1m/s ranges from 0.95 to 1.1 second. The superficial gas velocity is an important parameter that affects the residence time of the particles in the downer. Under high superficial gas velocity, the solid particles will attain a higher velocity and flow through the downer faster, thus having a lower residence time.

50

6.2 Axial velocity distribution of particles

Figure 6.3: Particle velocity distribution for Gs=49 kg/m2s and Ug=3.7 m/s.

Figure 6.2 displays the particle velocity profiles under low gas velocity as the particles move along the downer. It can be seen that the particles attain an almost constant velocity in the fully developed region of the downer. The particles in the center attain a velocity of about 4.3 m/s while the particles near the wall attain a velocity of about 3.3 m/s. While experimental results from Bolkan et al shows that the average particle velocity is about 6m/s for similar operating conditions, it can thus be seen that the Eulerian- Lagarangian approach also under estimates the particle velocity under low gas velocity like the Eulerian- Eulerian approach using the default Wen & Yus drag closure .

51

Figure 6.4: Particle velocity time for Gs=205 kg/m2s and Ug=10.1 m/s.

Figure 6.4 displays the particle velocity profile under higher gas velocity as the particles move along the downer. Here the particles velocity profile tends to agree better with the experimental results present by Bolkan et al (2003) which states an average solids velocity of 11m/s in the fully developed region. Thus like the Eulerian- Eulerian model, the current Eulerianlagrangian model is also able to predict the solids properties well under high superficial gas velocity but unable to account for the more significant particle clustering effect under low superficial gas velocity. Thus in order to apply the EuerlianLagrangain approach under low gas velocity, improvement to the model is needed to enhance its predictive ability.

52

6.3 Radial velocity distribution of particles

Figure 6.5: Comparison of radial solids velocity profile using the two approaches.

The left contour plot in figure 6.5 displays the radial solids velocity profile in the fully developed region using the Eulerian-Lagrangian approach while the right plot represents the results obtained via the Eulerian-Eulerian approach for the solids flux of 49 kg/m2s and superficial gas velocity of 3.7 m/s. Both model display similar nature of radial solids velocity profile where the particles travel at a faster velocity in the center than near to the wall. The values of the solids velocity in the center is also in the same range. However the major difference is that under Eulerian-Eulerian approach, the solids velocity near the wall tends to zero while under the Euerlian-Lagrangian approach it tends to about 3.2 m/s. Since there is yet to be a universal agreement on the radial solids velocity profile, more experimental data and study is needed in this area. In conclusion, it can be seen that the results obtained by the Eulerian-Lagrangian approach are in good agreement to the Eulerian Eulerian approach using the Wen &
53

Yus drag closure. The simulation results tend to agree well with available experimental data by Bolkan et al (2003) under high superficial gas velocity but do not tally well under low gas velocity. Radial velocity profiles are also generally similar to results obtained by Euerlian- Eulerian approach with a slight exception near wall region.

54

Chapter 7: Solids distributor and Inlet design of the downer

As the downer aims to serve as a quick-contact reactor, the short-contact time between the phases poses stringent demand on the solids distributor design (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). Primarily, the inlet distributor of the downer should enable uniform distribution of phases, quick acceleration of the solids and excellent control of gas-solids mixing (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). Since the downer performance is very much dependent on the inlet design, much effort has been put in the design of solids distributors. A research was first done to find the various solids distributor inlet geometries available in literature.

Figure 7.1: Solids Inlet Geometry 1 (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008).

The figure above shows a simple and one of the earliest solids distributor design whereby the solids flow from the riser top is not separated and directly enters the downer through a 900 sharp bend. Though this design is easy to construct, it does not allow uniform distribution of the solids in the downer (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). As such this structure is not currently used in practice.

55

Figure 7.2: Solids Inlet Geometry 2. (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008).

The figure above shows a more recent distributor design. Solids are fluidized uniformly above the downer inlet and flow through several tubes into the downer. Gas is introduced through the ring slots around the tubes. This design is commonly used as it enables for an independent operation of gas flow rate for the downer and riser components and solids flow rate can also be varied by adjusting the bed height (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008).This type of distributor can also be easily scaled up (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). The solids distributor used in the pilot plant setup by Guan et al in the University of Tokyo employs this design.

Figure 7.3: Solids Inlet Geometry 3. (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008).

56

A unique type of inlet structure designed by Lehner and Wirth (1999) is shown above. The main feature of the structure consists of two concentric pipes, which are located in the center of the distributor (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). Gas flows through the inner tube. The solids are fed to a fluidized bed with a screw feeder. The overflowing solids from the fluidized bed will flow into the annular gap which is surrounded by the primary air tube. A diffuser connects the outer pipe and the downer, where the solids and the gas are further allowed to mix well (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008).

Figure 7.4: Solids Inlet Geometry 4. (Briens, Mirgain, & Bergougnou, 1997).

Briens et al (1997) designed a downer inlet equipped with eight jet nozzles to supply the superficial gas velocity as shown in the figure above. The eight jet nozzles can be oriented independently to improve the gassolids mixing and contact. The bottom of
57

Figure 7.4 shows how the nozzles can be angled to induce a swirl and how the nozzles could be inclined to hit the solids jet near its top or bottom of the mixing chamber (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). This form of inlet design provides flexibility in controlling the early contact between the phases

Figure 7.5: Solids Inlet Geometry 5. (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008).

Figure 7.5 above shows a slightly different inlet structure design adopted by Muldowney et al. The main motivation for this design was based on the idea that mixing is more effective upflow while the reactions are still preferred in downflow (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). Therefore the reactants can be introduced into the downer at an angle tilted upwards so that the reactants will initially be flowing upwards for a short period of time and this enables good mixing of the phases before they start flowing downwards and reactions occur in the downer.

58

Figure 7.6: Solids Inlet Geometry 6. (Zhao & Takei, 2010).

Figure 7.6 above shows the side and top view of the solids distributor designed by Tong Zhao and Masahiro Takei to provide for a uniform solid distribution in the downer. As shown in the diagram above, the distributor consists of one annular solid inlet and five air nozzles, which include a center nozzle and four well-distributed side nozzles. For the four side air nozzles, the angle between the centerline of the center nozzle and the side nozzle is 45 (Zhao & Takei, 2010). This ensures that the supplied air not only has a velocity component in the axial direction, but also a velocity component in the radial direction. This is believed to assist in the radial mixing of the solids.

7.1 Proposed Inlet Designs

Based on the literature review above, it can be seen that the distributor design does affect the flow pattern in the initial stages of the downer. In this thesis, a primary study is conducted to compare the flow patterns between a tangential inlet structure and a normal inlet structure. The goals of proposing these inlet designs is aimed towards innovating new flow patterns and contacting mechanisms that would be enable for a better mixing of the coal and sand phase. This numerical simulation would also assist in making some primary investigations before indulging in expensive experimental investments.
59

a) Tangential Arrangement

b) Normal Arrangement

Figure 7.7: The two different inlet structures to be studied.

The two different inlet structures to be studied are shown in figure 7.7 below. In the left arrangement, all the four nozzles are tangential to the downer while in the right arrangement, the four nozzles are normal to the downer. In the both downer structures, sand particles would be introduced from the top while the coal particles would be introduced from the nozzles. To assist the coal flow in the nozzles, compressed air is also introduced in the nozzles are high speed. Mixing between the sand the coal in the downer is crucial so that heat transfer can occur efficiently. Thus the purpose of this part of the thesis is to study the coal and sand distribution in the developing region of the downer in the two different structures.

7.2 Modeling Approach and simulation conditions

In this part of the thesis, a three-dimensional downer with the two different inlet structures was created to simulate the three phase flow. The geometries were created in
60

the GAMBIT using the top-bottom approach whereby the volumes were created first before meshing the edges. Eulerian-Eulerian approach was then used in FLUENT to simulate the three phase flow with air, sand and coal being the three distinct phases. The equations used in simulate the flow is similar to the equations present in chapter 3.1.2. However since a three phase flow is being modeled in this section, there would be two equations for the solid phase, one for coal and one for sand respectively. Modeling three phase flow also introduces the solid-solid momentum exchange co-efficient which can be described according to the following equation. Solid-solid momentum exchange co-efficient = 2 3(1 + ) 2 + , 8 ( + )2 , 2( 3 + 3 )

In the equation above the subscript s refers to the sand phase while the subscript c refers to the coal phase., refers to the coefficient of friction between the sand phase and and coal phase restitution coefficient with a assigned value of 0.9. coal phase which is assumed to be 0 in the numerical simulation. refers to the sand Table 5: Geometrical and simulation conditions for the 3D model Diameter of downer, D Diameter of nozzles, Length of downer, L Diameter of sand particle, Diameter of coal particle, Density of sand particle, 100 mm 25 mm 2000 mm 80 m 0.2 mm 2600 kg/m3

| |

61

Density of coal particle, c Density of air, g Dynamic viscosity of air, g Inlet sand fraction, s Inlet coal fraction, c Restitution coefficient, esc Gravitational acceleration, g Sand mass flux, Gs Coal mass flux, Gc

1500 kg/m3 1.225 kg/m3 1.79 kg/(m.s) 0.279 0.4 0.9 9.81 m/s2 350 kg/m2s 35 kg/m2s

Table 5 above shows the geometrical and simulations conditions used in this simulation. Wen & Yus solid-gas momentum exchange co-efficient has been used in this simulation as it has been proven earlier that it is able to predict the solids holdup well under high superficial gas velocity. As in the earlier Eulerian-Eulerian simulations, the dispersed - turbulence model is applied Boundary conditions Sand fraction at the top inlet of the downer is introduced uniformly in the radial direction, as well as the coal fraction at the nozzles inlet. The ratio of solid mass flux of coal particles over sand particles is fixed at 0.1 so as to allow for sufficient heat transfer from the sand to the coal particles. A uniform air velocity of 12 m/s is applied at inlet of nozzle to supply sufficient energy to push the coal particles through the horizontal sections of the inlet nozzles. A uniform air velocity of 5m/s is also supplied from the top inlet.
62

Constant pressure boundary condition is applied at the outlet of downer. No-slip boundary condition is applied at the wall for all the three phases. Solution Scheme The pressurevelocity coupled SIMPLE solver method was used in the iteration for the convergence of the solution. The convergence criteria were set to 0.001 for all the terms. The first order UPWIND implicit differencing scheme for the convective terms and the first-order implicit time integration method was used to solve the motion equation of the fluid. The default under-relaxation parameter values were used during the iteration process. Steadystate model was used.

7.3 Simulation results

7.3.1 Axial Solid distribution
0.035 Normal Arrangement 0.03 Tangential Arrangement

Average Sand holdup

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01 0

0.5

1 Axial distance of the downer

1.5

Figure 7.8 : Axial Distribution of the sand holdup in the downer.

63

Figure 7.8 above shows the axial distribution of the sand holdup for both arrangements of the downer. Both arrangements reveal a decrease in the sand holdup along axial distance of the downer. This is expected as the particles are accelerating under the influence of the gravity. Since the sand holdup is yet to be constant, it can be seen that the flow is still in the developing region for the both arrangements. The sand concentration is seen to be generally in the same range for both the inlet structures. On a closer inspection of figure 7.8, it can be seen that in the initial section of the downer, the sand holdup in the normal arrangement is slightly higher than the tangential arrangement. In the second section, at about 1.0 m to 1.75 m of the downer, the average sand holdup in the tangential arrangement is higher. To ensure that this phenomenon does not occur just for this flow scenario, the model was simulated with a superficial gas velocity of 20 m/s at the nozzles. The sand holdup profile for the flow conditions are presented in figure III.1 (Appendix C). The nature of the graph is also similar to the above figure. However, it seems to suggest that at higher velocity, the difference in flow structure between tangential and normal arrangement is reduced.

Figure 7.9 : Axial Distribution of the coal holdup in the downer.

64

Figure 7.9 above reveals the axial distribution of the coal holdup in the downer. It can be seen that the average coal holdup downer is rather low .This could be attributed to the fact that a high gas velocity of 12 m/s is applied in the nozzle which allows the coal particles to attain a high velocity and this leads to considerable dilution of the coal concentration in the downer. Similar to the sand hold up distribution, the normal arrangement has a higher concentration in the first section of the downer while the tangential arrangement has a higher concentration in the second section of the downer. A similar observation is made in figure III.2 (appendix C) for a higher superficial gas velocity of 20 m/s at the nozzle. As a higher solid holdup tends to improve the heat transfer from sand to coal, more efforts are needed to study the sand concentration under various flow scenarios for the both inlet arrangements in order to exploit the condition.

65

7.3.2 Radial Solid distribution

Figure 7.10: Radial distribution of the sand concentration in the downer.

From figure 7.10 above, it can be seen that the sand holdup near the entrance of the downer (z=0.1 m) is similar for both the inlet arrangements as sand particles are flowing from the similar conditions from the top inlet. Near the outlet (z=1.75 m), the sand particles are more uniformly distributed for the tangential arrangement than the normal arrangement. In the normal arrangement, it can be seen that the sand particles concentrate more in the center and at the nozzle section while the sand holdup near the wall is quite low. This thus seems to suggest that the high superficial gas velocity tends to influence the flow of the sand particles. Near the outlet the sand holdup near the center is still

66

higher than that near the wall for both arrangements but the sand distribution in tangential arrangement is more uniform.

Figure 7.11: Radial distribution of the coal holdup in the downer.

From figure 7.11, the coal holdup distribution is expected to be different in the inlet region of the downer due to the different ways that they are fed into the downer. In the normal arrangement, the coal particles are injected from the nozzles into the center of the downer. Hence the coal holdup is higher near the center of the downer. In the tangential arrangement, coal particles are injected tangentially along the wall. Thus the coal holdup
67

near the wall is higher than the center. Near the outlet (z= 1.75 m), similar observation is made where coal holdup is concentrated in the center region for the normal arrangement. The coal holdup in the tangential arrangement is rather uniform though it can be seen that the wall region still has a slightly higher coal concentration than the center. Figures 7.10 and 7.11 only show the radial solids holdup profile at two axial positions. The figures in Appendix D reveal the radial solids holdup at various axial positions. Thus from studying both figures 7.10 and 7.11 and figures in Appendix D, it can be seen that in the developing region the sand and coal particles tend to concentrate at the center for the normal inlet configuration while in the tangential arrangement, coal and sand are more uniformly distributed in the cross section. Since both the coal and sand particles seem to concentrate to the center in the center, it might increase the chances for the coal and sand particles to collide and mix more often. Better mixing of the coal and sand particles would allow for a better heat transfer. However, it is important to quantify the mixing between the coal and sand particles with the introduction of a mixing index. Mixing index would also enable for better comparison between the two inlet structures and this would be done in the future work. It is also important to note that the flow is only simulated for the developing region for both inlet arrangements. This is the cause for the inlet configurations to affect the flow pattern of the coal and sand particles. It is believed that the in the developed region, the inlet arrangement should have little influence in the radial coal and sand holdup distribution and this will be studied in the future research.

68

Chapter 8: Conclusion
In this thesis, hydrodynamic simulation of the gas-solid flow in the downer was carried out using both the Eulerian-Eulerian and Eulerian-Largarian computational fluid dynamics models. In using the Eulerian-Eulerian approach, the - turbulence model with the Kinetic Theory of Granular flow was applied to model the multiphase flow. Initially, the axial distribution of the solids concentration and velocity was simulated and validated for the Eulerian-Eulerian model with Wen & Yus drag closure. It was found that the model compared well with literature data under high superficial gas velocity but failed to account for the particle clustering effect under the low gas velocity. As clusters are more prone to become discrete particles for larger diameter and density, the model had better predictive ability when larger particle size and higher particle density was used. Simulation results showed that the diameter of the downer was found to have negligible effect on the solids concentration distribution. In efforts to improve the model under low gas velocity two other drag closures, Matsens and De Felices drag closures were tested. It was found that Matsens Drag closure was better able to predict the solids concentration under low gas velocity and the simulation results agreed well with experimental data. The difference in the nature of the Matsens drag closure also caused the radial solid concentration profile to be different compared to Wen & Yus and De Felices drag closure. Thus it can be concluded that in using the Eulerian-Eulerian model, the Matsens drag closure is better suited model the downer reactor under low gas velocity. The Eulerian- Lagrangian approach also produced simulation results comparable to the Eulerian-Eulerian model under Wen & Yus drag closure. The current Eulerian69

Lagrangian model is also not able to account for the particle clustering effect under low gas velocity as the particles axial velocity distribution were an underestimation compared to the experimental data. In the last section of the thesis two inlet structures proposed in efforts to improve the mixing between the sand and coal phase. The sand and coal holdup distribution in the downer were compared for the normal and tangential inlet arrangement. In the developing region of the downer, the sand and coal particles tend to concentrate at the center for the normal inlet structure while in the tangential arrangement coal and sand are more uniformly distributed the cross section. The high superficial gas velocity introduced at the nozzles also tends to influence the flow of sand particles in the downer.

70

Chapter 9: Recommendations and Future Work

While this work indicates promising results in modeling the flow structure in the downer reactor, clearly more experimental validation is necessary for the radial solids concentration distribution. Eulerian-Eulerian model with the Matsens drag closure has been found to be give results that are comparable to the experimental data. More numerical simulations under various flow conditions may be needed to further validate the model. Once the models solid holdup prediction is in good agreement to the experimental data, the energy equation and the pyrolysis reaction can be incorporated into the model for a more detailed study and optimization of the pyrolysis process. The current model only encompasses the k- turbulence model for the gas phase. It is recommended to incorporate the kp turbulence model for the particle phase in the future work in efforts to improve the model. More details about the kp can be found from Cheng et al (1999). In order to improve the Eulerian-Lagrangian model, it is recommended to incorporate the Discrete Random Walk model in FLUENT which would account for dispersion of the particles due to turbulence in the fluid phase. However, adding this feature would further increase the computational expense and convergence would be more difficult to achieve. A mathematical model based on the energy-minimization and multi-scale (EMMS) principle was developed to describe the hydrodynamics in the fully developed region of a downer reactor and has been used successfully to predict local solid concentration and gas-solid velocities by Li et al (2004). As this is a much simpler approach compared to

71

the Eulerian-Eulerian method (Li, Lin, & Yao, 2004). simulations could be could also be tried using EMMS model and compared with experimental results. To improve the tangential and normal inlet structure models, a specially designed solids distributor could be incorporated at the top of the downer, in which 13 tubes are arranged in the distributor as shown in the figure 9.1 below. This distributor would further enable uniform distribution of the sand particles in the downer. Eulerian- Eulerian simulation of the downer with the solids distributor is currently being carried out to compare with the current simulation results presented in the thesis. Mixing index would be introduced to Mixing index would be introduced for a better comparison of the coal and sand mixing in for the two inlet arrangements. Validation of the simulation results with experimental work is also necessary.

Figure 9.1 : Inlet structures with the specially designed solids distributor.

72

References
ANSYS FLUENT. (2006, November 30). FLUENT 6.3 user's guide. Bolkan, Y., Berruti, F., Zhu, J., & Milne, B. (2003). Modelling circulating fluidized bed downers. Powder Technology , 85-100. Briens, C., Mirgain, C., & Bergougnou, M. (1997). Evaluation of Gas-Solids Mixing Chamber through cross correlation and Hurst's Analysis. AIChE Journal , 1469-1479. Cao, C., & Weinstein, H. (2000). Characterization of Downflowing High Velocity Fuidized Beds. AIChE Journal , 515-522. Cheng, Y., Guo, Y., Wei, F., Jin, Y., & Lin, W. (1999). Modeling the hydrodynamics of downer reactors based on kinetic theory. Chemical Engineering Science , 2019-2027. Cheng, Y., Wei, F., Guo, Y., & Yong, J. (2001). CFD simulation of hydrodynamics in the entrance region of a downer. Chemical Engineering Science , 1687-1696. Cheng, Y., Wu, C., Zhu, J., Wei, F., & Jin, Y. ( 2008). Downer reactor: From fundamental study to industrial application. Powder Technology 183 , 364384. Deng, R., Wei, F., i Liu, T., & Jin, Y. (2001). Radial behavior in riser and downer during the FCC process. Chemical Engineering and Processing , 259-266. Ding, J., & Gidspow, D. (1990). A bubbling fluidization model using kinetic-theory of granular flow. AIChE Journal , 523-538. Felice, R. (1994). The the voidage function for fluid-particle interaction systems . International Journal of Mutliphase Flow , 153-159. Gidaspow, D. (1994). Multiphase flow and fluidization-continuum and kinetic theory descriptions. Boston: Academic Press. Guan, G., Chihiro, F., Ikeda, M., Yu, N., & Tsutsumi, A. (2009). Flow behaviors in a high solid flux circulating fluidized bed composed of a riser, a downer and a bubbling fluidized bed. Tokyo.
73

Guan, G., Chihiro, F., Yu, N., Tsutsumi, A., Ishizuka, M., & Suzuki, Y. (2009). Downwawrd gas-solids flow characterization in a high-density downer reactor. Tokyo. Hanson.S, Patrick, J., & Walker.A. (2002). The effect of coal particle size on pyrolysis and steam gasification. FUEL , 531-537. Hoef, M. v., Annaland, M. v., Deen, N., & Kuipers, J. (2008). Numerical Simulation of Dense Gas-Solid Fluidized Beds: A Multiscale Modeling Strategy. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , 47-70. Jian, H., & Ocone, R. (2003). Modelling the hydrodynamics of gas-solid suspensio in downers. Powder Technology , 73-81. Johnston, P., Lasa, H. d., & Zhu, J.-x. (1999 ). Axial flow structure in the entrance region of a downer fluidized bed : Effects of the distributor design. Chemical Engineering Science , 2161-2173. Kimm, N., Berruti, F., & Pugsley, T. (1996). Modeling the Hydrodynamics of downflow gas-solids reactors. Chemical Engineering Science , 2661-2666. Lehner, P., & Wirth, K.-E. (1999). Characterization of the flow pattern in a downer reactor. Chemical Engineering Science , 5471-5483. Li, S., Lin, W., & Yao, J. (2004). Modelling the hydrodynamics of the fully developed region in a downer reactor. Powder Technology , 73-81. Liu, W., Luo, K.-B., Zhu, J.-X., & Beeckmans, J. (2001). Characterization of highdensity gassolids downward fluidized flow. Powder Technology , 27-35. Lun, C. K., B., S. S., J., J. D., & Chepurniy, N. (1984). Kinetic theories for granular flowinelastic particles in Couette-flow and slightly inelastic particles in a general flow field. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 223-256. Qi, X.-b., Zhang, H., & Zhu, J. (2008). Solids concentration in the fully developed region of circulating Fluidized bed downers. Powder Technology , 417-425.

74

Ropelato, K., Meier, H. F., & Cremasco, M. A. (2005). CFD study of the gas-solid behaviour in downer reactors : An Eulerian- Eulerian Approach. Powder Technology , 179-184. Syamlal, M., Rogers, W., & OBrien, T. J. (1993). MFIX documentation: volume 1, theory guide. National Technical Information Service: Springfield. Vaishali, S., Roy, S., & Mills, P. L. (2008). Hydrodynamic simulation of gas-solids downflow reactors. Chemical Engineering Science , 5107-5119. Wang, Z., Bai, D., & Jin, Y. (1992). Hydrodynamics of cocurrent downflow circulating fluidized bed (CDCFB). Powder Technology , 271-275. Zhang, H., Zhu, J.-X., & Bergougnou, M. (1999). Hydrodynamics in downfow fuidized beds (1): solids concentration profiles and pressure gradient distributions. Chemical Engineering Science , 5461-5470. Zhang, M., Qian, Z., Yu, H., & Wei, F. (2002). The near wall dense ring in a large-scale down-flow criculating fluidized bed. Chemical Engineering Journal , 161-167. Zhao, T., & Takei, M. (2010). Discussion of the solids distribution behavior in a downer with new designed distributor based on concentration images obtained by electrical capacitance tomography. Powder Technology , 120-130.

75

Nomenclature
, Archimedes Number coefficient of friction between the sand phase and coal phase Constants in the Drag coefficient downer diameter particle diameter Particle-particle restitution co-efficient Sand- coal particle restitution co-efficient Acceleration due to gravity radial distribution coefficient Solids flux production of turbulent kinetic energy Identity matrix Gas-solid momentum exchange coefficient Solid solid momentum exchange coefficient Length of downer diffusion coefficient turbulent kinetic energy Pressure solids pressure Reynolds number fluid phase stress-strain tensor solids phase stress tensor Fluid velocity Solids velocity Superficial gas velocity Terminal particle velocity
i

1 , 2

go,ss
, Gs

L k ps

Re

Ug

Greek symbols
c s s,max f f s Coal holdup Solid holdup : Sand holdup Maximum packing limit (0.63) Dissipation rate Collisional dissipation of energy Fluid bulk viscosity Solids bulk viscosity Coal density Fluid density Gas density Mixture density Fluid shear viscosity Solids shear viscosity Solids collisonal viscosity Solids frictional viscosity Solids kinetic viscosity Turbulent viscosity Turbulent prandtl number, dissipation rate Turbulent prandtl number , turbulent kinetic energy Granular temperature Specularity coefficient Shear stress source term caused by influence of solid phase on turbulent kinetic energy source term caused by influence of solid phase on turbulent kinetic energy

, , s

, ,

ii

List of Figures
Chapter 1 Figure 1.1: Triple bed Circulating Fluidized Bed (Guan G. , Chihiro, Ikeda, Yu, & Tsutsumi, 2009). ................................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 2 Figure 2.1: Pressure profile in a downer for Gs=202kg/m2s and Ug=5m/s. ...................... 10 Figure 2.2 : Solids concentration distribution profile in the downer for Gs =202 kg/m2s and Ug=5m/s. .................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2.3 : Radial solids concentration profile (Wang, Bai, & Jin, 1992). .................... 12 Figure 2.4: Radial solids concentration profile (Cao & Weinstein, 2000). ...................... 13 Figure 2.5 : Radial solids concentration profile, (Zhang, Zhu, & Bergougnou, 1999)..... 14 Chapter 3 Figure 3.1: Modeling the interaction between solid and gas phase (Vaishali, Roy, & Mills, 2008). ...................................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 4 Figure 4.1 : Layout of the meshed geometry of the downer. ............................................ 28 Figure 4.2 : Boundary conditions for the 2D Model......................................................... 29 Chapter 5 Figure 5.1: Simulation results for superficial gas velocity of 3.7 m/s. ............................. 32 Figure 5.2: Simulation results for superficial gas velocity of about 7 m/s. ...................... 34 Figure 5.3: Simulation results for superficial gas velocity of about 10m/s. ..................... 35 Figure 5.4: Simulation results for solids flux of about 50kg/m2s with varying Ug. .......... 37 Figure 5.5: Model Comparison for varying Particle Diameter. ........................................ 39 Figure 5.6: Model Comparison for varying Particle Density. .......................................... 39 Figure 5.7: Simulation results using De Felice's drag closure for Ug=3.7 m/s. ................ 42 Figure 5.8: Simulation results using Matsen's Drag closure for Ug=3.7 m/s. ................... 43

iii

Figure 5.9: Comparing simulation results under low Ug , Gs= 253 kg/m2s ....................... 45 Figure 5.10: Radial solids hold up profile, Matsens drag closure (Gs=49 kg/m2s and Ug= 3.7 m/s). ............................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 5.11: Radial solids hold up profile, Wen & Yus drag closure (Gs=49 kg/m2s and Ug= 3.7 m/s). .................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 5.12: Radial solids hold up profile, De Felices drag closure (Gs=49 kg/m2s and Ug= 3.7 m/s). .................................................................................................................... 48 Chapter 6 Figure 6.1: Particle residence time for Gs=49 kg/m2s and Ug=3.7 m/s............................. 49 Figure 6.2: Particle residence time for Gs=205 kg/m2s and Ug=10.1 m/s. ...................... 50 Figure 6.3: Particle velocity distribution for Gs=49 kg/m2s and Ug=3.7 m/s. .................. 51 Figure 6.4: Particle velocity time for Gs=205 kg/m2s and Ug=10.1 m/s. .......................... 52 Figure 6.5: Comparison of radial solids velocity profile using the two approaches. ...... 53 Chapter 7 Figure 7.1: Solids Inlet Geometry 1 (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). ..................... 55 Figure 7.2: Solids Inlet Geometry 2. (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008) ..................... 56 Figure 7.3: Solids Inlet Geometry 3. (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). .................... 56 Figure 7.4: Solids Inlet Geometry 4. (Briens, Mirgain, & Bergougnou, 1997). ............... 57 Figure 7.5: Solids Inlet Geometry 5. (Cheng, Wu, Zhu, Wei, & Jin, 2008). .................... 58 Figure 7.6: Solids Inlet Geometry 6. (Zhao & Takei, 2010)............................................. 59 Figure 7.7: The two different inlet structures to be studied. ............................................. 60 Figure 7.8 : Axial Distribution of the sand holdup in the downer. ................................... 63 Figure 7.9 : Axial Distribution of the coal holdup in the downer. .................................... 64 Figure 7.10: Radial distribution of the sand concentration in the downer. ....................... 66 Figure 7.11: Radial distribution of the coal holdup in the downer. .................................. 67 Chapter 9 Figure 9.1 : Inlet structures with the specially designed solids distributor....................... 72

iv

Appendix Figure I.1: Simulation results for solids flux of about 100 kg/m2s with varying Ug. ........ vi Figure I.2 : Simulation results for solids flux of about 200 kg/m2s with varying Ug. ...... vii Figure II.1 : Experimental data for Gs=253 kg/m2s (Guan et al 2000)............................ viii Figure III.1 : Axial distribution of the sand holdup in the downer with Ug=20 m/s.......... ix Figure III.2 : Axial distribution of the coal holdup in the downer with Ug=20 m/s. ......... ix Figure IV.1 : Radial sand holdup at various axial positions (Tangential). ......................... x Figure IV.2: Radial coal holdup at various axial positions (Tangential). .......................... xi Figure IV.3 : Radial sand holdup at various axial positions (Normal). ............................ xii Figure IV.4 : Radial coal holdup at various axial positions (Normal). ............................ xiii

List of Tables
Table 1: Various gas-solid momentum transfer coefficients. ........................................... 20 Table 2: Operating conditions for the 2D model. ............................................................. 28 Table 3: Model results for varying downer diameter........................................................ 40 Table 4: Comparison of various Drag coefficients ........................................................... 44 Table 5: Geometrical and simulation conditions for the 3D model .................................. 61

I.

Appendix A: Axial solids velocity distribution profiles

a) Comparison of simulation results for solids flux of 100 kg/m2s

Figure I.1: Simulation results for solids flux of about 100 kg/m2s with varying Ug.

vi

b) Comparison of simulation results for solids flux of 200 kg/m2s

Figure I.2 : Simulation results for solids flux of about 200 kg/m2s with varying Ug.

vii

II.

Appendix B: Experimental Data for the downer solid holdup for the Gs=253 kg/m2s by Guan et al (2010)

Figure II.1 : Experimental data for Gs=253 kg/m2s (Guan et al 2000).

It is important to note that the simulation results were compared with the average solid holdup under the seal columns. The experiments were conducted on a circulating bed. The results under the seal columns were taken when the superficial air velocity from the riser was sealed off from the downer. Therefore the solid concentration values under the seal results were used for comparison so that effect of riser gas velocity is not affected. This would be a better comparison with the simulation results as just the downer was modeled in this thesis. It was found that Matsens drag closure agree well with the experimental results as compared to the Wen & Yus drag closure . De Felices drag closure was already proven to produce results similar to Wen & Yus correlation earlier and thus it was not tested in section 5.4.
viii

III.

Appendix C: Comparison of the average solids hold up for the two inlet arrangements with Ug=20 m/s.
0.035 0.03
Average sand holdup

Tangential Arrangement Normal Arrangement

0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 1 1.2 Axial Distance of the Downer

1.4

1.6

1.8

Figure III.1 : Axial distribution of the sand holdup in the downer with Ug= 20 m/s.

13 12
Average coal holdup

x 10

-4

Tangential arrangement Normal Arrangement

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.2 1 0.8 Axial Distance of the Downer 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Figure III.2 : Axial distribution of the coal holdup in the downer with Ug= 20 m/s.

ix

IV.

Appendix D: Radial distribution of the solids at various axial positions for the two inlet arrangements.
Tangential arrangement

Figure IV.1 : Radial sand holdup at various axial positions (Tangential).

Figure IV.2: Radial coal holdup at various axial positions (Tangential).

xi

Normal arrangement

Figure IV.3 : Radial sand holdup at various axial positions (Normal).

xii

Figure IV.4 : Radial coal holdup at various axial positions (Normal).

xiii