See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221927969

Fluid Dynamics of Gas - Solid Fluidized Beds

Chapter · March 2012

DOI: 10.5772/25791 · Source: InTech

CITATIONS READS

13 4,334

3 authors, including:

Natalia Prieto Jiménez Germán González Silva

Industrial University of Santander Industrial University of Santander
22 PUBLICATIONS 64 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 158 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Natalia Prieto Jiménez on 20 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 3

Fluid Dynamics of Gas – Solid Fluidized Beds

Germán González Silva1, Natalia Prieto Jiménez1, Oscar Fabio Salazar

1State University of Campinas
1Brazil

1 Introduction

Fluidization refers to the contact between a bed of solids and a flow of fluid. As a result, the
solid particles are transformed into a fluid-like behavior that can be used for different
purposes. The fluidized bed reactor is one of the most important technologies for gas-solid
heterogeneous operations chemical or petrochemical, considering catalytic or non catalytic
processes (Kunii and Levenspiel 1991). The most important industrial applications
include catalytic cracking, coal combustion and biomass combustion. One of the most
relevant type of fluidized bed reactor is the ascendant flow reactor, which is also known as
riser. The riser reactors consist of a tubular column in which both solid and gas flow
upwards. The first fluidized bed gas generator was developed in Germany by Fritz Winkler
in the 1920s. Later in the 1930s, the american petroleum industry started developing the
fluidized bed technology for oil feedstock catalytic cracking, becoming the primary
technology for such applications (Tavoulareas 1991).

Inside the riser reactor, solid particles have a wide range of residence time, which is a
disadvantage that reduces the overall conversion and the selectivity of the chemical
reactions. For that reason it has recently grown the interest in a new type of gas-solid
circulating reactor known as downer. In this reactor the gas and the solid flow cocurrently
downward, creating hydrodynamic features comparable to a plug flow reactor and allowing
a better control over the conversion, the selectivity and the catalyst deactivation. The
concept of downer reactor gas-solid appeared in the 1980s, with the first studies on the fluid
dynamics of gas-solid suspensions (Kim and Seader 1983) and with the first downer
reactors for patents developed by Texaco for the FCC process (Gross Benjamin and Ramage
Michael P 1981; Niccum Phillip K and Bunn Jr Dorrance P 1983). In these studies it is
observed that in the downer reactor has a uniform distribution of two-phase flow along the
reactor, also observed that the contact time is very low, achieving a 20% decrease in the
amounts of coke produced during the FCC process.

Applications, differences, advantages and disadvantages to these types of fluidized bed

reactors can be found in various publications (Ancheyta 2010; Silva 2008; Cheng et al. 2008;
Crowe 2005; Yang 2003; Grace 1997; Gidaspow 1994; Geldart 1986)

2 Fluidization regimes and particle classification

Fluidization occurs when a gas or liquid is forced to flow vertically through a bed of
particles at such a rate that the buoyed weight of the particles is completely supported by
the drag force imposed by the fluid.

2.1 Flow regimes in fluidized beds

As the superficial gas velocity, U, is increased stepwise beyond the minimum fluidization
velocity, it is observed different types of flow regimes. The principal ones are schematically
shown in Figure 1. The flow regimes are listed by increasing value of U as follows:

 Bubble-free bed expansion

 Bubbling fluidization

 Slug flow

 Turbulent fluidization

 Fast fluidization and dense suspension upflow

Figure 1. Flow regimes of gas–solid fluidization.

The bubbling regime is one of the most studied flow regimes in gas-solid fluidization.
Bubbles coalesce and break-up as fluid flow is increased. Finally, the bubbles become large
enough to occupy a substantial fraction of the cross-section of the small diameter columns
(Vejahati 2006). These large bubbles are called slug, as shown in the third column of Figure
1.

2.2 Particle classification

The behavior of solids fluidized by gases fall into four clearly recognizable groups,
characterized by density difference (ρs – ρf) and mean particle size. The features of the
groups are: powders in group A exhibit dense phase expansion after minimum fluidization
and prior to the commencement of bubbling; those in group B bubble at the minimum
fluidization velocity; those in group C are difficult to fluidize at all and those in group D can
form stable spouted beds (Geldart 1973; González Silva et al. 2010). Desirable properties
of particles and gas for fluidized bed are delineated in Table 1.

Property Desirable Range

Particle Properties
Mean diameter 50 μm to 1.6 mm
Size distribution Neither too narrow or too broad, e.g., 90 th to 10th decile ratio 5 to 25
Density Wide range of values possible, but uniform from particle to particle
Shape Rounded and with length to thickness ration no larger than ~3
Surface roughness Smooth
Surface stickiness Avoid sticky surfaces
Attrition resistance Usually strong as possible
Hardness Avoid resilience, but also excessive hardness
Gas Properties
Density No restriction, but higher value improves properties
Viscosity No restriction
Relative humidity Typically 10 to 90%
Table 1. Desirable properties of particles and gases for Gas-Solid fluidization (J. Zhu et al.
2005)

3 Experimental measurement techniques

For better understanding of these phenomena and to facilitate the solution of mathematical
models is necessary to make an analysis of experimental data. This experimental analysis
requires specialized measurement techniques are able to explain the flow field must also be
automated to minimize human involvement in the process of collecting data.
NMT Ref for more details

LDA is a technology used to measure (C.H. Ibsen, Solberg, and

velocities of small particles in flows. The Hjertager 2001; Claus H.
technique is based on the measurement of Ibsen et al. 2002; Kuan,
Laser
laser light scattered by particles that pass Yang, and Schwarz 2007;
Doppler
through a series of interference fringes (a Lu, Glass, and Easson
Anemometry
pattern of light and dark surfaces). The 2009; Vidar Mathiesen et
(LDA)
scattered laser light oscillates with a specific al. 1999; Werther, Hage,
frequency that is related to the velocity of the and Rudnick 1996)
particles.

(Franka and Heindel 2009;

Newton, Fiorentino, and
Smith 2001; Petritsch,
X-ray Radiographic techniques based either based Reinecke, and Mewes 2000;
on electromagnetic radiation such as X and y Tapp et al. 2003; Wu et al.
rays. The transmission of X-rays or -rays 2008; Heindel, Gray, and
through a heterogeneous medium is Jensen 2008)
accompanied by attenuation of the incident
radiation, and the measurement of this (Du, Warsito, and Fan
attenuation provides a measure of the line 2005; Kumar, Moslemian,
integral of the local mass density distribution and Dudukovic 1995; Tan
-ray along the path traversed by the beam et al. 2007; Thatte et al.
2004; Veluswamy et al.
2011; H. G. Wang et al.
2008)

Technique to measure velocity field and (Al-Dahhan et al. 2005;

turbulent parameters of multiphase flow. Bhusarapu, Al-Dahhan,
Radioactive This is based on the principle of tracking the and Duduković 2006;
Particle motion of a single tracer particle as a marker Fraguío et al. 2009; Khanna
Tracking of the solids phase. The tracer particle et al. 2008; Larachi et al.,
(RPT) contains a radioactive element emitting γ- n.d.; Vaishali et al. 2007)
rays. This radiation is received by an
ensemble of specific detector.

PIV measures whole velocity fields by taking (van Buijtenen et al. 2011;
two images shortly after each other and Fu et al. 2011; He et al.
Particle
calculating the distance individual particles 2009; Hernández-Jiménez
Image
travelled within this time. The displacement et al. n.d.; Kashyap and
Velocimetry
of the particle images is measured in the Gidaspow 2011; Laverman
(PIV)
plane of the image and used to determine the et al. 2008; Sathe et al.
displacement of the particles 2010)
Table 2. Non-intrusive measurement techniques.
The measurement techniques, to capture the important fluids dynamic behavior of the two-
phase flow, can be classified as non-intrusive (NMT) and intrusive (IMT) techniques. The
intrusive techniques are generally probes used to study local basic flow phenomena. Some
of these are intended only as research instruments. The most common parameters that are
measured with such probes are solids mass flows, radial and axial solids concentration,
solids velocities, and distribution.

The particles can be deposited in the measuring device reducing its performance or causing
malfunction. Besides this, the flow area reduction makes of the intrusive devices not the best
solution. Non-intrusive techniques to characterize the flow within a fluidized bed are more
desirable because it does not disturb the flow behavior. In the Table 2 and Table 3
classification techniques are included and recent successes have been achieved.

IMT References

(Al-Hasan and Al-Qodah 2007;

Mechanical method based on Bader, R., Findlay, J. and
Pitot Tube determination of momentum by means Knowlton, TM 1988; R.-C.
of differential pressure measurements Wang and Han 1999)

(Fischer, Peglow, and Tsotsas

2011; Link et al. 2009; Meggitt
This technique is commonly used as 2010; Z. Wang et al. 2009; Ye,
Fiber Optic
effective tools to measure the local Qi, and Zhu 2009; Zhou et al.
Probe
porosity in fluidized beds. 2010; H. Zhu et al. 2008)

(A. Collin, Wirth, and Stroeder

This technique is used to measure the 2009; Anne Collin, Wirth, and
Ströder 2008; Demori et al. 2010;
Capacitance local dielectric constant of the gas-solid
Guo and Werther 2008; Vogt et al.
Probe suspension, which is linked to the local 2005; Wiesendorf 2000)
volume fraction of solids

Table 3. Intrusive measurement techniques.

4 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a technique which uses conservation principles

and rigorous equations of fluid flow (Navier-Stokes) along with specialized turbulence
models (k-, k-, SST among others). These models are more accurate and fundamentally
more acceptable than empirical ones. The empirical models are approximations that
assemble different phenomena to remove a number of unknown parameters. For this
reason, these models are not reliable and therefore should not be generalized.
The CFD models can be divided into two groups: the Eulerian-Eulerian model in which the
gas and solid phases are considered as two interpenetrating continuum flows; and the
Eulerian-Lagrangian model that consider the gas as a fluid phase and the solids as discrete
phase. The Eulerian-Lagrangian model calculates the trajectory of each individual particle
using Newton’s second law. The interaction between particles can be described by the
potential energy or the dynamic of collisions. This method has the advantage of knowing
exactly the particle trajectory and the system variables. However, this requires high
computational effort, higher yet when gas and solid velocity fields are coupled.

4.1 Governing equations

Governing equations for Eulerian-Eulerian model are here presented in tensor notation.

4.1.1 Continuity Equations

The gas and solid continuity equations are represented by:


t
 g g     g g vg   0 (1)


s s    s s vs   0 (2)
t
Where α, 𝜌 and v are volume fraction, density and the vector velocity, respectively. No
mass transfer is allowed between phases.

4.1.2 Momentum equations

The gas phase momentum equation may be expressed as:


t
g g vg     g g vg vg    gp    g    g g g   vs  vg  (3)

p and are fluid pressure and gravity acceleration. β is the drag coefficient between the
phases g and s. The stress tensor is given by:

 g   g g vg  vg     g g vg

T 2
(4)
  3
The solid phase momentum equation may be written as:


s s vs    s s vs vs   sGs    s   s s g    vg  vs  (5)
t
 2
 s   s s vs  vs    s svs
T
(6)
3
G is the modulus of elasticity given by:

G  exp CG  s   s ,max  (7)

Where αs,max is the maximum solid volume fraction and β is the interface momentum
transfer proposed by Gidaspow, (1994):

  s 1   g  g  s g vs  vg
  150  1.75 |  g  0.8
 g d p2
dp
(8)

 3  s g  g vs  vg 2.65
   CD g |  g  0.8
 4 dp

Where dp and CD are the particle diameter and the drag coefficient, based in the relative
Reynolds number (Res)

 24 1  0.15Re0.687  | Re  1000

s

CD   s (9)
Res

 0.44 | Res  1000

 g vs  vg
Res  (10)
g

4.1.3 Energy equation

The gas and solid energy equations can be written as:


  H    g g vg H g    g gTg    Ts  Tg   g g  Hr Ctr
t g g g
(11)
r


s s Hs    s s vs Hs    ssTs    Tg  Ts  (12)
t
Where

H = Specific enthalpy

T = Temperature
γ = Interface heat transfer coefficient:   Nu / d p

λ = Thermal conductivity

4.2 Turbulence models

Turbulence is that state of fluid motion which is characterized by random and chaotic three-
dimensional vorticity. When turbulence is present, it usually dominates all other flow
phenomena and results in increased energy dissipation, mixing, heat transfer, and drag. The
physical turbulence models provide the solution the closure problem in solving Navier –
Stokes equations. While there are ten unknown variables (mean pressure, three velocity
components, and six Reynolds stress components), there are only four equations (mass
balance equation and three velocity component momentum balance equations). This
disparity in number between unknowns and equations make a direct solution of any
turbulent flow problem impossible in this formulation. The fundamental problem of
turbulence modeling is to relate the six Reynolds stress components to the mean flow
quantities and their gradients in some physically plausible manner.

The turbulence models are summarized in Table 4

Family group Models Description and advantages

Zero equation models
Reynolds – One equation models
The most widely used models. Its main
Averaged Two equation models
advantages are short computation time, stable
Navier – - Standard κ – ε calculations and reasonable results for many
Stokes - RNG κ – ε flows.
(RANS) - Wilcox κ – ω
- SST κ – ω
Provides good predictions for all types of
flows, including swirl, separation, and round
Reynolds Stress Model (RSM)
and planar jets. Longer calculation times than
the RANS models.
Smagorinsky-Lilly model
Dynamic subgrid-scale Provides excellent results for all flow systems.
Large Eddy
model LES solves the Navier-Stokes equations for
Simulation
large scale motions of the flow models only
(LES) RNG – LES model the small scale motions.
WALLE model
The difficulties associated with the use of the
standard LES models, has lead to the
development of hybrid models (like that DES)
Detached Eddy Simulation (DES)
that attempt to combine the best aspects of
RANS and LES methodologies in a single
solution strategy.
 The most exact approach to turbulence
simulation without requiring any additional
modeling beyond accepting the Navier–Stokes
Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) equations to describe the turbulent flow
processes. The result is equivalent to a single
realization of a flow or a short duration
laboratory experiment.
Table 4. Summary of turbulence models.

4.3 System discretization

The most important numerical methods used to approximate the partial differential
equations by a system of algebraic equations in terms of the variables at some discrete
locations in space and time (called “discretization method”) are the Finite Volume (FV), the
Finite Difference (FD) and the Finite Element (FE) methods. In this book, the finite volume
method and the commercial software CFX® 12.0 were chosen; the solution domain is
discretized in a computational mesh that can be structured or unstructured (G. González et
al. 2012). (G. González et al. 2012)

 Finite volume (FV) method

The FV discretization method is obtained by integrating the transport equation around a

finite volume. The general form of transport equations is given by:

   
    v         S (13)
t
II III IV
I

I. Transient term

II. Convective term

III. Diffusive term

IV. Source term

The transport equations are integrated in each computational cell using the divergence
theorem over a given time interval ∆t:

t t
     
t

V t
dV   v  dA      dA   S dV  dt
v 
(14)
Figure 2. Gas flow over a flat solid surface (left to right) experimental picture, refined mesh near the wall and contrast
between experiment and discretization.
Linearization and interpolation techniques can be clarified considering the finite volume P
shown in Figure 3

Figure 3. Finite volume representation and notation.

In agreement with this notation, diffusive term can be represented as

 Aw
    dA  P  W   Dw P  W  (15)
hw

4.3.1 Source term linearization

A generic source term may be written as

S PVP  SC  SPP (16)

Where S P is the value of source term in the center of the cell P and VP is the volume of
computational cell centered on node P. The method to represent S P was suggested by
Patankar, 1980

*
 dS 
S P  S    P  P  P* 
*
P (17)
 d 
This type of linearization is recommended since the source term decreases with increasing
Φ. The source term coefficients are represented by:

 *  dS P * * 
 P  VP

SC   S P   (18)
  d  
*
 dS 
SP    P  VP

(19)
 d 
4.3.2 Spatial discretization

The most widely used in CFD is first and second order Upwind methods. In the first order
one, quantities at cell faces are determined by assuming that the cell-center values of any
field variable represent a cell-average value and hold throughout the entire cell. The face
value (Φw) are equal to the cell-center value of Φ in the upstream cell.

 v  dA  v A 
w w W  CwW (20)

Where Cw is the west face convective coefficient. Aw can be represented by:

Aw  MAX Cw ,0  Dw (21)

In the second order one, quantities at cell faces are computed using a multidimensional
linear reconstruction approach (Jespersen and Barth 1989). In this approach, higher-order
accuracy is achieved at cell faces through a Taylor series expansion of the cell-centered
solution about the cell centroid. Thus, the face value Φw is computed using the following
expression:

3 1 1
w  W  WW  W  W  WW  (22)
2 2 2
The east face coefficient and matrix coefficient are shown below

3 1
e  P  W (23)
2 2
1
Aw  MAX  Cw ,0  MAX  Ce ,0  Dw (24)
2
4.3.3 Temporal discretization

Temporal discretization involves the integration of every term in the differential equations
over a time step ∆t. A generic expression for the time evolution of a variable Φ is given by


 F   (25)
t
Where the function F incorporates any spatial discretization. The first-order accurate
temporal discretization is given by

 n1   n
 F   (26)
t
And the second-order discretization is given by

3 n1  4 n   n1
 F   (27)
2t

5 Case Studies

In order to give a better introduction with regards to the simulation of fluidized beds, in this
chapter there are presented three case studies that were carried out by using a CFD software
package. The case studies were carried out using simulations in dynamic state. These
simulations were set up taking into account the average value of the Courant number,
which is recommended to be near 1. Besides this, it was used a constant step time, in this
way was possible to have numerical stability during the execution of each of the
simulations.

5.1 Cases 1 and 2

Lab scale riser reactor (Samuelsberg and Hjertager 1996; V Mathiesen 2000). Riser height, 1
m; riser diameter, 0.032 m. Experimental data and LES - Smagorinsky simulations were
compared for three velocities with initial particle bed, 5cm.

5.1.1 Mesh parameters and boundary conditions

 Control volumes number: 100.000

 ∆x = 2 mm

 Matrix determinant > 0.5 and minimum angle > 50°

The boundary conditions for both cases are shown in Table 5 and Table 6.
 Gas velocity = 0.36; 1.42 m/s
In
Particle mass flow equal to the output
Out Opening = atmospheric pressure
Particles = free slip and No slip
Wall
Gas = no slip
Initial height Bed height = 0,05 m
Particles 60 μm; 1600 kg/m3
Table 5. Boundary conditions for the Case 1.

Gas velocity = 1 m/s

In
Particle mass flow equal to the output
Out Opening = atmospheric pressure
Particles = No slip
Wall
Gas = No slip
Initial height Bed height = 0.05 m
Particles 120 μm, 2400 kg.m-3
Table 6. Boundary conditions for the Case 2.

In addition, tests were made with a 500.000 control volume mesh with same block
distribution (the description of volume distribution in the meshes, are presented in Table 7).
Obtaining similar results with the 100.000 control volume mesh. Both meshes are shown in
Figure 4.

Volumes
Mesh dxdp dx
Number

I 15 99900 0.05

II 10 467313 0.08
Table 7. Volume discretization of the meshes.

Numeric calculations performed (Vreman, Geurts, and Kuerten 1997; Chow and Moin 2003)
showed that the required values to obtain an accurate numerical solution, it is necessary to
use a ratio dx  0.25 for the second order spatial scheme, and a ratio dx < 0.5 for the sixth
order scheme. The values of dx presented in Table 7 are within the range recommended in
the literature (Chow and Moin 2003; Agrawal et al. 2001; van Wachem 2000; Ahmed
and Elghobashi 2000; Vreman, Geurts, and Kuerten 1997).
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the Table 7 meshes. Up: Mesh I. Down: Mesh II

Figure 5 presents the solid volume fraction time evolution for the mesh II with superficial
velocity 1 m/s. At the beginning, the solids present in the riser are forced to flow in the
upward direction, similar to a plug flow. When the bed of solids starts to expand, it is
observed high solid particle concentration at the center of the tube and near the walls
(Figure 5). This reordering of solid particles is a counteraction in order to offer a lower
resistance to the gas flow. This type of flow regime is known as pre-fluidized bed.

It is important to mention that one of most relevant characteristics of the fluidization is the
high contact area between the solid particles and the fluid. In this way, a cubic meter of
particles of 100 micron contains a superficial area of around 30000 m2. The advantage of this
high surface area is reflected in a high mass and heat transfer rates between the solid and
the fluid.
Figure 5. Evolution of the volume fraction field in a fluidized bed at 0, 11, 35, 70, 90, 132, 165,
185, 198, 220, 242, 264, 275, 290, and 317 ms.

Figure 6 shows the similarity between results presented by Miller and Gidaspow (1992).
Here it is represented the regions of high and low solid concentration. Near the walls
velocity is negative and near the center velocity is positive.

The annular-core behavior is something that detrimental in the units of Fluid Catalytic
Cracking (FCC), since big fraction of the oil is converted in a region where the catalyst
works less efficient. In addition to this, the particles that flow at center core are expose to
bigger concentrations of oil compounds, which is something that produces faster
deactivation of the catalyst. One the strategies to solve this issue is to inject pressurized gas
in perpendicular direction to the flow in the reaction zone. Another solution is to include
rings connected to walls, with the purpose of redirecting the solids from the wall towards
the center.

2.5
H= 0.32 m

1.5
Solids Velocity , m/s

0.5

-0.5
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

r/R

Figure 6. Comparison of solid phase velocity profile presented by Miller and Gidaspow
(1992) with the CFD simulations (-▲-) and experimental data performed by Samuelsberg
and B. H. Hjertager (1996) (●).
To get an impression regarding the flow behavior inside the column, the time averaged
solid volume fraction is plotted at different column heights, 0.16 m, 0.32 m and 0.48 m
(Figure 7). Here it can be observed the strong tendency of the solid particles to be near the
wall.

Figure 7. Axial profile of the solid phase volume fraction fields in the center (left) and radial
profiles at 0.48 m, 0.32 m, 0.16 m (right up to down). Superficial velocity 0.36 m s-1
5.2 Case 3

Pilot plant scale riser reactor (Bader, R., Findlay, J. and Knowlton, TM 1988). Riser height:
13 m, riser diameter 0.3 m. Entrance with angle 60°, gas superficial velocity 3.7 m and solids
flux 98 kg/(s.m^2) as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Solids volumetric fraction in the center of the riser. Simulation time 15 sec. Left to
right: LES Smagorinsky, LES WALE, LES Dynamic model, Detached Eddy Simulation
(DES).
In the

Figure 8 can be observed that the solid particles enter to the reactor uniformly distributed,
after a short distance these particles start falling due to the gravity and they start flowing
over the wall of the inclined pipe. After this, the solids fall into a turbulent zone where they
get mixed. Some of the particles will continue falling over the vertical wall opposite to the
entrance. The core-annular zone is formed at some height in the middle of the column.
6 Conclusions

Computational fluids dynamics is a very powerful tool understanding the behavior of multi
phase in engineering applications.

Large eddy simulation (LES) turbulence method provides a very detailed description of two
phase flow, which makes it suitable for simulation models that are validated with
experimental data. By applying the LES method, it is possible to characterize different
regions of a fluidized bed (core-annulus). LES can be considered as a valuable method for
development and validation of closure models that include additional phenomena like heat
exchange, mass transfer and chemical reactions.

It is important to constantly monitor the simulation, using parameters such as the Courant
number, creating a function that calculates the maximum and average number of the control
volume courant. The average value is recommended that is near or less than unity.

Finally, it is important to comment that success in the validation of experimental data

depends on the appropriate choice of the experimental technique used to measure variables.

7 Acknowledgements

The author G. Gonzalez is grateful to PETROBRAS and the National Council for Scientific
and Technological Development (CNPq) for the financial support to this research.

8 References

Agrawal, Kapil, Peter N Loezos, Madhava Syamlal, and Sankaran

Sundaresan. 2001. “The Role of Meso-Scale Structures in Rapid Gas–solid
Flows.” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 445: 151–85.
Ahmed, A. M., and S. Elghobashi. 2000. “On the Mechanisms of Modifying
the Structure of Turbulent Homogeneous Shear Flows by Dispersed
Particles.” Physics of Fluids 12: 2906.
Al-Dahhan, Muthanna, Milorad P Dudukovic, Satish Bhusarapu, Timothy J
O’hern, Steven Trujillo, and Michael R Prairie. 2005. “Flow Mapping in a
Gas-Solid Riser via Computer Automated Radioactive Particle Tracking
(CARPT).” Washington University.
Al-Hasan, M., and Z. Al-Qodah. 2007. “Characteristics of Gas-Solid Flow
in Vertical Tube.” In 9th International Symposium on Fluid Control
Measurement and Visualization 2007, FLUCOME 2007, 1:264–71.
Ancheyta, Jorge. 2010. Modeling and Simulation of Catalytic Reactors for
Petroleum Refining. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bader, R., Findlay, J. and Knowlton, TM. 1988. “Gas/ Solid Flow Patterns
in a 30.5-Cm-Diameter Circulating Fluidized Bed.” In Circulating Fluidized
Bed Technology II: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Circulating Fluidized Beds, Compiègne, France, 14-18 March 1988, by
Prabir Basu and Jean François Large. Pergamon Press.
Bhusarapu, S., M.H. Al-Dahhan, and M.P. Duduković. 2006. “Solids Flow
Mapping in a Gas-Solid Riser: Mean Holdup and Velocity Fields.” Powder
Technology 163 (1–2): 98–123.
Buijtenen, Maureen S. van, Willem-Jan van Dijk, Niels G. Deen, J.A.M.
Kuipers, T. Leadbeater, and D.J. Parker. 2011. “Numerical and
Experimental Study on Multiple-Spout Fluidized Beds.” Chemical
Engineering Science 66 (11): 2368–76. https://doi.org/16/j.ces.2011.02.055.
Cheng, Yi, Changning Wu, Jingxu Zhu, Fei Wei, and Yong Jin. 2008.
“Downer Reactor: From Fundamental Study to Industrial Application.”
Powder Technology 183 (3): 364–84.
https://doi.org/16/j.powtec.2008.01.022.
Chow, Fotini Katopodes, and Parviz Moin. 2003. “A Further Study of
Numerical Errors in Large-Eddy Simulations.” Journal of Computational
Physics 184 (2): 366–80. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1016/S0021-
9991(02)00020-7.
Collin, A., K.-E. Wirth, and M. Stroeder. 2009. “Characterization of an
Annular Fluidized Bed.” Powder Technology 190 (1–2): 31–35.
Collin, Anne, Karl‐Ernst Wirth, and Michael Ströder. 2008. “Experimental
Characterization of the Flow Pattern in an Annular Fluidized Bed.” The
Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 86 (3): 536–42.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.20056.
Crowe, Clayton T. 2005. Multiphase Flow Handbook. 1st ed. CRC Press.
Demori, M., V. Ferrari, D. Strazza, and P. Poesio. 2010. “A Capacitive
Sensor System for the Analysis of Two-Phase Flows of Oil and Conductive
Water.” Sensors and Actuators, A: Physical 163 (1): 172–79.
Du, Bing, W. Warsito, and Liang-Shih Fan. 2005. “ECT Studies of
Gas−Solid Fluidized Beds of Different Diameters.” Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research 44 (14): 5020–30.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie049025n.
Fischer, C., M. Peglow, and E. Tsotsas. 2011. “Restoration of Particle Size
Distributions from Fiber-Optical in-Line Measurements in Fluidized Bed
Processes.” Chemical Engineering Science 66 (12): 2842–52.
https://doi.org/16/j.ces.2011.03.054.
Fraguío, M.S., M.C. Cassanello, S. Degaleesan, and M. Dudukovic. 2009.
“Flow Regime Diagnosis in Bubble Columns via Pressure Fluctuations and
Computer-Assisted Radioactive Particle Tracking Measurements.”
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 48 (3): 1072–80.
Franka, Nathan P., and Theodore J. Heindel. 2009. “Local Time-Averaged
Gas Holdup in a Fluidized Bed with Side Air Injection Using X-Ray
Computed Tomography.” Powder Technology 193 (1): 69–78.
https://doi.org/16/j.powtec.2009.02.008.
Fu, Y., T. Wang, J.-C. Chen, C.-G. Gu, and F. Xu. 2011. “Experimental
Investigation of Jet Influence on Gas-Solid the Two-Phase Crossflow in a
Confined Domain.” Shiyan Liuti Lixue/Journal of Experiments in Fluid
Mechanics 25 (1): 48–53+64.
G. González, E Matos, W Martignoni, and M Mori. 2012. “The Importance
of 3D Mesh Generation for Large Eddy Simulation of Gas–solid Turbulent
Flows in a Fluidized Beds.” World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology International Journal of Chemical and Molecular
Engineering 6 (8): 770–77.
Geldart, D. 1973. “Types of Gas Fluidization.” Powder Technology 7 (5):
285–92. https://doi.org/16/0032-5910(73)80037-3.
Geldart, D. 1986. Gas Fluidization Technology. Chichester, New York:
Wiley.
Gidaspow, Dimitri. 1994. Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum
and Kinetic Theory Descriptions. Boston: Academic Press.
González Silva, Germán, Antônio Carlos Luz Lisboa, Ciro Velasquéz, and
Héctor José. 2010. “The Fluid Dynamics of a Downer Fluidised Bed Using
a Cluster-Based Approach (CBA).” Ingeniería E Investigación 30 (1): 35–
40.
Grace, John. 1997. Circulating Fluidized Beds. 1st ed. London; Blackie
Academic & Professional.
Gross Benjamin, and Ramage Michael P. 1981. FCC Reactor With A
Downflow Reactor Riser. 4385985, filed April 14, 1981, and issued April
14, 1981.
Guo, Q., and J. Werther. 2008. “Influence of a Gas Maldistribution of
Distributor Design on the Hydrodynamics of a CFB Riser.” Chemical
Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 47 (2): 237–44.
He, Y., N. G. Deen, M. van Sint Annaland, and J. A. M. Kuipers. 2009.
“Gas−Solid Turbulent Flow in a Circulating Fluidized Bed Riser:
Experimental and Numerical Study of Monodisperse Particle Systems.”
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 48 (17): 8091–97.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie8015285.
Heindel, Theodore J., Joseph N. Gray, and Terrence C. Jensen. 2008. “An
X-Ray System for Visualizing Fluid Flows.” Flow Measurement and
Instrumentation 19 (2): 67–78.
https://doi.org/16/j.flowmeasinst.2007.09.003.
Hernández-Jiménez, F., S. Sánchez-Delgado, A. Gómez-García, and A.
Acosta-Iborra. n.d. “Comparison between Two-Fluid Model Simulations
and Particle Image Analysis & Velocimetry (PIV) Results for a Two-
Dimensional Gas-Solid Fluidized Bed.” Chemical Engineering Science In
Press, Corrected Proof. Accessed June 13, 2011.
https://doi.org/16/j.ces.2011.04.026.
Ibsen, C.H., T. Solberg, and B.H. Hjertager. 2001. “Evaluation of a Three-
Dimensional Numerical Model of a Scaled Circulating Fluidized Bed.”
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 40 (23): 5081–86.
Ibsen, Claus H., Tron Solberg, Bjørn H. Hjertager, and Filip Johnsson.
2002. “Laser Doppler Anemometry Measurements in a Circulating
Fluidized Bed of Metal Particles.” Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science
26 (6–7): 851–59. https://doi.org/16/S0894-1777(02)00196-6.
Jespersen, Dennis C, and Timothy J Barth. 1989. “The Design and
Application of Upwind Schemes on Unstructured Meshes.” AIAA Paper 89
(89-0366): 1–12.
Kashyap, Mayank, and Dimitri Gidaspow. 2011. “Measurements of
Dispersion Coefficients for FCC Particles in a Free Board.” Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research 50 (12): 7549–65.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie1012079.
Khanna, Pankaj, Todd Pugsley, Helen Tanfara, and Hubert Dumont. 2008.
“Radioactive Particle Tracking in a Lab‐scale Conical Fluidized Bed Dryer
Containing Pharmaceutical Granule.” The Canadian Journal of Chemical
Engineering 86 (3): 563–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.20073.
Kim, J. M, and J. D Seader. 1983. “Pressure Drop for Cocurrent Downflow
of Gas‐solids Suspensions.” AIChE Journal 29 (3): 353–60.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690290302.
Kuan, B., W. Yang, and M.P. Schwarz. 2007. “Dilute Gas-Solid Two-Phase
Flows in a Curved 90° Duct Bend: CFD Simulation with Experimental
Validation.” Chemical Engineering Science 62 (7): 2068–88.
Kumar, Sailesh B., Davood Moslemian, and Milorad P. Dudukovic. 1995.
“A [Gamma]-Ray Tomographic Scanner for Imaging Voidage Distribution
in Two-Phase Flow Systems.” Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 6
(1): 61–73. https://doi.org/16/0955-5986(95)93459-8.
Kunii, D, and O Levenspiel. 1991. Fluidization Engineering. 2. ed. Boston
Mass.: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Larachi, Faical, M H Al-Dahhan, M P Duduković, and Shantanu Roy. n.d.
“Optimal Design of Radioactive Particle Tracking Experiments for Flow
Mapping in Opaque Multiphase Reactors.” Applied Radiation and Isotopes
Including Data Instrumentation and Methods for Use in Agriculture
Industry and Medicine 56 (3): 485–503.
Laverman, Jan Albert, Ivo Roghair, Martin van Sint Annaland, and Hans
Kuipers. 2008. “Investigation into the Hydrodynamics of Gas–solid
Fluidized Beds Using Particle Image Velocimetry Coupled with Digital
Image Analysis.” The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 86 (3):
523–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.20054.
Link, J.M., W. Godlieb, P. Tripp, N.G. Deen, S. Heinrich, J.A.M. Kuipers,
M. Schönherr, and M. Peglow. 2009. “Comparison of Fibre Optical
Measurements and Discrete Element Simulations for the Study of
Granulation in a Spout Fluidized Bed.” Powder Technology 189 (2): 202–
17. https://doi.org/16/j.powtec.2008.04.017.
Lu, Y., D.H. Glass, and W.J. Easson. 2009. “An Investigation of Particle
Behavior in Gas-Solid Horizontal Pipe Flow by an Extended LDA
Technique.” Fuel 88 (12): 2520–31.
Mathiesen, V. 2000. “An Experimental and Computational Study of
Multiphase Flow Behavior in a Circulating Fluidized Bed.” International
Journal of Multiphase Flow 26 (3): 387–419.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-9322(99)00027-0.
Mathiesen, Vidar, Tron Solberg, Hamid Arastoopour, and Bjørn H
Hjertager. 1999. “Experimental and Computational Study of Multiphase
Gas/Particle Flow in a CFB Riser.” AIChE Journal 45 (12): 2503–18.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690451206.
Meggitt, B.T. 2010. “Fiber Optics in Sensor Instrumentation.” In
Instrumentation Reference Book (Fourth Edition), 191–216. Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Miller, Aubrey, and Dimitri Gidaspow. 1992. “Dense, Vertical Gas‐solid
Flow in a Pipe.” AIChE Journal 38 (11): 1801–15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690381111.
Newton, D., M. Fiorentino, and G.B. Smith. 2001. “The Application of X-
Ray Imaging to the Developments of Fluidized Bed Processes.” Powder
Technology 120 (1–2): 70–75.
Niccum Phillip K, and Bunn Jr Dorrance P. 1983. Catalytic Cracking
System. 4514285, issued March 23, 1983.
Patankar, Suhas. 1980. Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow.
Washington; New York: Hemisphere Pub. Corp; McGraw-Hill.
Petritsch, Georg, Nicolas Reinecke, and Dieter Mewes. 2000. “Visualization
Techniques in Process Engineering.” In Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of
Industrial Chemistry. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
Samuelsberg, A., and B. H. Hjertager. 1996. “An Experimental and
Numerical Study of Flow Patterns in a Circulating Fluidized Bed Reactor.”
International Journal of Multiphase Flow 22 (3): 575–91.
https://doi.org/16/0301-9322(95)00080-1.
Sathe, M.J., I.H. Thaker, T.E. Strand, and J.B. Joshi. 2010. “Advanced
PIV/LIF and Shadowgraphy System to Visualize Flow Structure in Two-
Phase Bubbly Flows.” Chemical Engineering Science 65 (8): 2431–42.
Silva, G. G. 2008. “Modelagem E Simulação de Reatores Gas-Solido de
Escoamento Descendente (Downer).” Dissertação de Mestrado, Faculdade
de Engenharia Química/UNICAMP,.
Tan, H.-T., G.-G. Dong, Y.-D. Wei, and M.-X. Shi. 2007. “Application of γ-
Ray Attenuation Technology in Measurement of Solid Concentration of
Gas-Solid Two-Phase Flow in a FCC Riser.” Guocheng Gongcheng
Xuebao/The Chinese Journal of Process Engineering 7 (5): 895–99.
Tapp, H.S., A.J. Peyton, E.K. Kemsley, and R.H. Wilson. 2003. “Chemical
Engineering Applications of Electrical Process Tomography.” Sensors and
Actuators, B: Chemical 92 (1–2): 17–24.
Tavoulareas, E S. 1991. “Fluidized-Bed Combustion Technology.” Annual
Review of Energy and the Environment 16 (1): 25–57.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.eg.16.110191.000325.
Thatte, A. R., R. S. Ghadge, A. W. Patwardhan, J. B. Joshi, and G. Singh.
2004. “Local Gas Holdup Measurement in Sparged and Aerated Tanks by γ-
Ray Attenuation Technique.” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
43 (17): 5389–99. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie049816p.
Vaishali, S., S. Roy, S. Bhusarapu, M.H. Al-Dahhan, and M.P. Dudukovic.
2007. “Numerical Simulation of Gas-Solid Dynamics in a Circulating
Fluidized-Bed Riser with Geldart Group B Particles.” Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry Research 46 (25): 8620–28.
van Wachem. 2000. “Derivation, Implementation, and Validation of
Computer Simulation Models for Gas-Solid Fluidized Beds.” Ph.D. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology.
Vejahati, F. 2006. “CFD Simulation of Gas-Solid Bubbling Fluidized Bed.”
Master’s thesis, University of Regina.
Veluswamy, Ganesh K., Rajesh K. Upadhyay, Ranjeet P. Utikar, Geoffrey
M. Evans, Moses O. Tade, Michael E. Glenny, Shantanu Roy, and Vishnu
K. Pareek. 2011. “Hydrodynamics of a Fluid Catalytic Cracking Stripper
Using γ-Ray Densitometry.” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
50 (10): 5933–41. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie1021877.
Vogt, C., R. Schreiber, G. Brunner, and J. Werther. 2005. “Fluid Dynamics
of the Supercritical Fluidized Bed.” Powder Technology 158 (1–3): 102–14.
Vreman, Bert, Bernard Geurts, and Hans Kuerten. 1997. “Large-Eddy
Simulation of the Turbulent Mixing Layer.” Journal of Fluid Mechanics
339 (May): 357–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112097005429.
Wang, H. G, W. Q Yang, P. Senior, R. S Raghavan, and S. R Duncan. 2008.
“Investigation of Batch Fluidized‐bed Drying by Mathematical Modeling,
CFD Simulation and ECT Measurement.” AIChE Journal 54 (2): 427–44.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.11406.
Wang, R.-C., and Y.-C. Han. 1999. “Momentum Dissipation of Jet
Dispersion in a Gas-Solid Fluidized Bed.” Journal of the Chinese Institute
of Chemical Engineers 30 (3): 263–71.
Wang, Zhengyang, Shaozeng Sun, Hao Chen, Qigang Deng, Guangbo Zhao,
and Shaohua Wu. 2009. “Experimental Investigation on Flow Asymmetry in
Solid Entrance Region of a Square Circulating Fluidized Bed.” Particuology
7 (6): 483–90. https://doi.org/16/j.partic.2009.07.004.
Werther, J., B. Hage, and C. Rudnick. 1996. “A Comparison of Laser
Doppler and Single-Fibre Reflection Probes for the Measurement of the
Velocity of Solids in a Gas-Solid Circulating Fluidized Bed.” Chemical
 Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 35 (5): 381–91.
https://doi.org/16/0255-2701(96)80018-3.
Wiesendorf, Volker. 2000. The Capacitance Probe: A Tool for Flow
Investigations in Gas-Solids Fluidization Systems. Shaker Verlag GmbH,
Germany.
Wu, C., Y. Cheng, M. Liu, and Y. Jin. 2008. “Measurement of
Axisymmetric Two-Phase Flows by an Improved X-Ray-Computed
Tomography Technique.” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research
47 (6): 2063–74.
Yang, Wen-ching. 2003. Handbook of Fluidization and Fluid-Particle
Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Ye, S., X. Qi, and J. Zhu. 2009. “Direct Measurements of Instantaneous
Solid Flux in a CFB Riser Using a Novel Multifunctional Optical Fiber
Probe.” Chemical Engineering & Technology 32 (4): 580–89.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.200800361.
Zhou, Hao, Guiyuan Mo, Jiapei Zhao, Jianzhong Li, and Kefa Cen. 2010.
“Experimental Investigations on the Performance of a Coal Pipe Splitter for
a 1000 MW Utility Boiler: Influence of the Vertical Pipe Length.” Energy &
Fuels 24 (9): 4893–4903. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef1007209.
Zhu, Haiyan, Jesse Zhu, Guozheng Li, and Fengyun Li. 2008. “Detailed
Measurements of Flow Structure inside a Dense Gas-Solids Fluidized Bed.”
Powder Technology 180 (3): 339–49.
https://doi.org/16/j.powtec.2007.02.043.
Zhu, Jesse, Bo Leckner, Yi Cheng, and John Grace. 2005. “Fluidized Beds.”
In Multiphase Flow Handbook, edited by Clayton Crowe, 20052445:5-1-5–
93. CRC Press.

View publication stats