Numerical Studies of a Fluidized Bed

for IFE Target Layering

Presented by Kurt J. Boehm1,2
N.B. Alexander2, D.T. Goodin2 , D.T. Frey2, R. Raffray1, et alt.

HAPL Project Review

Santa Fe, NM
April 8-9, 2008
1- University of California, San Diego
2- General Atomics, San Diego

Overview
Cryogenic fluidized bed is under investigation for
IFE target mass production
Experimental setup is being built at General Atomics
in San Diego
Numerical model of fluidized bed is being developed
under guidance of R. Raffray at UCSD

Improvements to the granular part

The gas solid flow model
Stepwise validation and verification of the proposed model
Computing the heat and mass transfer

Future Plans Research Path

A Fluidized Bed is being Investigated for

Mass Production of IFE Fuel Pellets
Filled particles (targets) are
levitated by a gas stream
Target motion in the
cryogenic fluidized bed
provides a time-averaged
isothermal environment

LAYERING

Fluidized Bed

SPIN

Volumetric heating causes

fuel redistribution to form
uniform layer

Fri
t
CIRCULATION

Gas Flow

Unknowns in Bed Behavior call for Numerical

Analysis

RT - Experimental observations (presented at last meeting by N.

Alexander) are restricted to the particles close to the wall

The behavior of unlayered shells is unknown (unbalanced

spheres)

Tests on the cryogenic apparatus are time consuming

Results might be hard to interpret

Optimize operating conditions:

Define narrow window of operation for successful deuterium
layering prior to completion of entire setup
gas pressure, flow speed, bed dimensions, additional heating, frit
design,

Numerical Model consists of three Parts

Fluidized Bed Model
Granular model
Fluid-Solid interaction

Layering Model
Quantification of mass transfer

Fluidized Bed Model

Part I: Granular Model

Discrete Particle Method

(DPM)
Motion of individual particles is
tracked by computing the
forces acting on the particles
at each time step
Apply Newtons second law of
motion
Traditionally a spring
dashpot and/or friction slider
model is applied for particle
collisions
Limitations: Not developed for
unbalanced spheres

Forces are computed based on relative

velocity at contact point

Cundall and Struck,

Geotechnique, Vol.29, No.1, 1979

When Modeling Unbalanced Spheres the Forces depend on

Particles Orientation
Orientation defined by Euler angles
Center of mass

Geometrical Center

wall
Equations for the
force computation
need to be adjusted
to account for the
Torque around
different contact
center of mass
geometry

Contact forces are a

function of relative
velocity at contact
point
depends on the
orientation of the
particle

wall
displacement

Normal
Force

Tangential Force

Overview Fluidized Bed Model

Initialize position, velocity and quaternion vectors

Particles need to be
spaced apart

Start time stepping

Predictor step
Compute forces based on predicted positions
Particle wall collisions
Loop over
all
particles

Compute force due to particle particle collisions

Add gravitational Force

Correct positions, velocities and

accelerations based on the updated forces
Create time averaged statistics

Write Output every

1000 time steps

Fluidized Bed Model

Part II: Fluid- Particle Interaction
Example:
2-D numerical simulation using MFIX

Common Approach for Numerical

Fluidized Bed Model:
Control Volume Method
Void Fraction is determined from
number of grains in each fluid cell

Granular Continuity
Equation:

xi

Time:
0.00 s

Pg
xi

ij
x j

Time:
0.08 s

Time:
0.12 s

gU g , i 0

Granular Navier Stokes Equation:

g gU g , i
g gU g ,iU g , j
t
x j

Time:
0.04 s

I
m 1

gmi

g g gi

Particle void fraction = 0.42

Particle void fraction = 0.00
*MFIX Multiphase Flow with Interphase eXchanges
Developed by National Energy Technology Laboratory
-- http://mfix.org

The Traditional Approach for the Fluid

Model Fails in this Case

Problem with fluid cell sizes:

Minimum of seven pellets per fluid cell

for cell average to work in control
volume method

Not useful to solve fluid equation for

3x3x4 grid

The Traditional Approach for the Fluid

Model Fails in this Case
DNS model to resolve flow around
each
sphere computationally VERY
expensive

Problem with fluid cell sizes:

Minimum of seven pellets per fluid cell

for cell average to work in Control
Volume Method

Not useful to solve fluid equation for

3x4 grid

The Traditional Approach for the Fluid

Model Fails in this Case
DNS model to resolve flow around each
sphere computationally VERY expensive
Choosing a grid size of the same order than the
shells leads to complication determining the
average void fraction around a sphere

Problem with fluid cell sizes:

Minimum of seven pellets per fluid cell

for cell average to work in Control
Volume Method

Not useful to solve fluid equation for

3x4 grid

The most important information we are trying to get is

the particle spin and circulation rate

The most important information we are trying to get is

the particle spin and circulation rate
Experimental observations indicate, that the spin
of the particles is dominantly induced by
collisions, not by fluid interaction

Application of 1-D Lagrangian Model to

Determine Void Fraction
The most important information we are trying to get is
the particle spin and circulation rate
Experimental observations indicate, that the spin
of the particles is dominantly induced by
collisions, not by fluid interaction
Compute the void fraction for each slice
of the fluidized bed, bounded by one
radius in each direction of the center of
each sphere.

Application of 1-D Lagrangian Model to

Determine Void Fraction
The most important information we are trying to get is
the particle spin and circulation rate
Experimental observations indicate, that the spin
of the particles is dominantly induced by
collisions, not by fluid interaction
Compute the void fraction for each slice
of the fluidized bed, bounded by one
radius in each direction of the center of
each sphere.
This region of interest moves
with each particle from time step
to time step

Application of 1-D Lagrangian Model to

Determine Void Fraction
The most important information we are trying to get is
the particle spin and circulation rate
Experimental observations indicate, that the spin
of the particles is dominantly induced by
collisions, not by fluid interaction
Compute the void fraction for each slice
of the fluidized bed, bounded by one
radius in each direction of the center of
each sphere.
This region of interest moves
with each particle from time step
to time step
Once the void fraction is known, the
drag force can be computed

Knowing Void Fraction, Richardson-Zaki

Drag model is applied
Richardson-Zaki Drag Force for homogeneous fluidized beds:

dp
U
p f g
fd
6
ut

4.8
n

3.8

Dellavalle Drag Model:

Re t 3.809 3.809 1.832 Ar

Archimedes Number:

Ar

Void Fraction is known

based on 1-D Lagrangian
Model

2
0.5 0.5

gd 3p f p f

Terminal Free Fall Velocity is a constant system parameter:

Re t

d p f

ut

Drag force is added to the total force on the particle at each time step

Overview Fluidized Bed Model

Initialize position, velocity and quaternion vectors

Particles need to be
spaced apart

Start time stepping

Predictor step
Compute forces based on predicted positions
Particle wall collisions
Loop over
all
particles

Compute force due to particle particle collisions

Compute void fraction
Compute drag force
Compute effective weight

Correct positions, velocities and

accelerations based on the updated forces
Create time averaged statistics

Compute the resulting

pressure drop
Determine bed expansion
Write Output every 1000 time
steps

Preliminary Results from Fluidized Bed Model

indicate Models Validity quantitatively

Bubbling behavior can be

predicted theoretically,
seen in the experiment,
and are modeled
numerically

Visualization of the output:

Merrit and Bacon, Meth.
Enzymol. 277, pp 505-524,
1997

Exact System parameters need to be determined

Stability and convergence can be shown

modeling granular collapse (Kinetic Eng)
Total Kinetic Energy in System during Granular Collapse for
decreasing time step size
(J)
6e-05
5e-05
4e-05
3e-05
2e-05
1e-05

n
2N

n 2

m
k
0.1

Time (s)

200 particles
M = 2E-6 Kg
Diameter = 4 mm
K_eff = 1000 N/m
C_eff = 0.004 N s/m
= 0.0125 N s/m
= 0.4
I = 5E-12 Kg s^2

0.2

Stability and convergence can be shown

modeling granular collapse (Rotational Eng)
(J)

Total Rotational Energy in System during Granular

Collapse for decreasing time step size

4e-06

3e-06
200 particles
M = 2E-6 Kg
Diameter = 4 mm
K_eff = 1000 N/m
C_eff = 0.004 N s/m
= 0.0125 N s/m
= 0.4
I = 5E-12 Kg s^2

2e-06

1e-06

Time (s)

0.1

n 2

m 0.2
k

n
2N

Validation of the Flow Model in Packed Beds

Compare the numerical output against

experiment and theory for non-fluidizing
conditions
Experiment: room temperature loop with two
different set of delrin spheres
Established empirical relation: Erguns
Equation
18
L f U 2 1
P
0.33
Re

dp
4.8
p

Model: Use Richardson-Zaki drag relation, add

drag forces for overall pressure drop
Model, theory and experiment have good
agreement

Homogeneous Fluidization for Validation

Purposes

The Model Prediction Compare with

Theory and Experiments

Experiment: room temperature

setup using two different sets
of shells
Theory: Apply Richardson Zaki
Relation
Model: Use the parameters
describing the system

System Parameters for PAMS shells are

found by analyzing simple Cases
Angled contact
of shell with
table at
1,000 frames
per second

Normal contact
of shell with
table at
10,000 frames
per second
Measurement

Variable to be Determined

Value

Unit

Scale

Mass

1.89 0.677

Volume of X spheres

Radius

1.183 and 1.97

Contact Time

k-value
(Stiffness of collision contact)

672-1865

N/m

Energy out vs. Energy in

c-value
(Damping coefficient)

0.01-0.001

(N*s) / m

Transfer from Kinetic to

Rotational Energy

- value
(Coefficient of tangential friction)

tbd

From Model

- value
(Coefficient of dynamic friction)

0.0125 - 0.025

(N*s) / m

Kg
mm

10 6

The Model Prediction Compare with

Theory and Experiments

Large error bars due

to the uncertainty in
pellet radius
Richardson Zaki is not
applicable in bubbling
beds as a whole

Experiment: room temperature

setup using two different sets
of shells
Theory: Apply Richardson Zaki
Relation
Model: Use the parameters
determined earlier as input

Validation of the Unbalanced Contact is

considered crucial!!!
Validation of the model for off centered particle
collisions is considered very important
However, has not been done yet.

Layering Model

Compute the redistribution of fuel based on the fluidized bed behavior

Solve 1-D equations simultaneously:

C diff
R l ICE

P2 P1

T2 T1

1 t ICE
h

T1 T2 2

ICE
f

h
k
ICE

Mass Transfer Equation

Heat Transfer Equation

Marin et alt., J.Vac.Sci.Technol.A. Vol.6, Issue 3, 1988

hf
te
q

Latent heat

This leads to a layering time constant of

Time step: ~1E-5 s Fluidized Bed vs. ~30-60s Layering

Based on the time averaged motion and preferential position, we can
compute the average temperature/ temperature difference between
the thick and the thin side of the shell

Volumetic heating

Summary
STARTING POINT:
A fluidized bed is under investigation for mass production layering of IFE
targets

Room temperature fluidized bed experiments

(Presented at the past meeting)

Promising, but unable to deliver enough

information

Numerical model is proposed

Existing fluidized bed models
Development of new model
Validation through theory and experiments

Experimental surrogate layering

Validate layering model
Show proof of principle

Find optimized parameters for

D2 Layering prior to experiment

Guidelines for Successful Target Layering

Equations to Compute Contact Forces

Distance between two sphere centers
s s
s

i sj
sis, j ri
si s j

Normal and Tangential Force Component

s

s
Fn si s j ri r j k eff vcp , n ceff

s
s
v

s
cp ,t
Ft min Fns , vcp ,t s
vcp ,t

s
i s is, j Ft s

Apply Forces to:

Compute contact point velocity

vcp i , j i , j sis, j vis, j

s s s
vcp vcp i vcp j

F ma

s s
I
Orientation of the Particle cannot be determined

Equations to Compute Contact Forces

Distance between two sphere centers
s s
s
s

i sj
s cs i ri
si s j
Distance between two mass centers

T b
scg i , j sis, j Ai , j oi , j

Normal and Tangential Force Component

s

s
Fn si s j ri r j k eff vcp , n ceff

s
s
v

s
cp ,t
Ft min Fns , vcp ,t s
vcp ,t

i s scgs , i Ftots

b A s

Convert spin into space fixed coordinates

Ai , j
s
i, j

b
i , j

Compute contact point velocity

s
s

vcp i , j i , j scg i , j vis, j

s s s
vcp vcp i vcp j

F ma

Apply Forces to:

xb I yy I zz b b
y z

I xx
I xx
yb I zz I xx b b
b
z x
y

I yy
I yy
zb I xx I yy b b
b
x y
z

I zz
I zz
b
x

Quaternion Description allows Following

Orientation of Particles

Rotational equations require body fixed and

the space fixed coordinate systems

Matrix of rotation is applied to switch between

the two

Unlike the translational motion (keeping track

of x-y-z coordinates) the rotational motion
cannot be tracked simply recording pitchyaw-roll angles

This rotation matrix depends on the order by

which the rotations are applied

Solution: Quaternions
Quaternion representation describes the
orientation of a body by a vector and a scalar

Simple description of
rotational motion

Equations to Compute Contact Forces

Distance between two sphere centers
s s
s
s

i sj
s cs i ri
si s j
Distance between two mass centers

T b
scg i , j sis, j Ai , j oi , j

Convert spin into space fixed coordinates

Ai , j
s
i, j

b
i , j

Compute contact point velocity

s
s

vcp i , j i , j scg i , j vis, j

s s s
vcp vcp i vcp j

Normal and Tangential Force Component

s

s
Fn si s j ri r j k eff vcp , n ceff

s
s
v

s
cp ,t
Ft min Fns , vcp ,t s

vcp ,t
F ma

i s scgs , i Ftots b A s

Apply Forces to:

F ma
q 0

q
1

q0

1 q1

q
2 q2
2

q
q
3
3

xb I yy I zz b b
y z

I xx
I xx
yb I zz I xx b b
b
z x

I yy
I yy
zb I xx I yy b b
b
x y
z

I zz
I zz
xb

q1

q2

q0
q3

q3
q0

q2

q1

q3

q2
q1

q 0

xb

yb

b
z