(140a) MRI Measurements and Simulation Predictions of Gas Dynamics in a Fluidized Bed

Gas dynamics in fluidized beds heavily influence chemical reactions,
heat and mass transfer and overall hydrodynamics. Despite this fact, there have
been few direct measurements of gas dynamics in fluidized beds (1, 2), due to the difficulties in obtaining reliable
experimental data on gas motion in 3D beds filled with opaque particles.
Subsequently, computational models of fluidized beds, which model the flow of
gas and particles as well as their interaction, have been largely validated
against experimental measurements of particle dynamics (3?5), leaving uncertainties in the accuracy of gas
dynamics predicted by computational models.

Recently, Boyce et al. (6) have presented results of an MRI study measuring gas dynamics in
fluidized beds. These spatially-resolved measurements of time-averaged gas
velocity and velocity distribution both in the bed of particles and in the
freeboard provided many insights into the nature of gas flow through bubbling
and particulate regions of fluidized beds. The measurements also showed
time-averaged particle velocity and void fraction in the same fluidized bed to
provide insights on how gas dynamics relate to particle dynamics. These
measurements were previously compared against classical analytical theories for
gas dynamics in fluidized beds (6), such as the two-phase theory of fluidization (7).

Here, we compare the MRI measurements with simulation
predictions using the computational fluid dynamics ? discrete element method
(CFD-DEM) (8). This simulation technique is commonly used for detailed simulations
of laboratory-sized fluidized beds because it resolves the motion of each
individual particle using a Lagrangian method, while resolving gas flow on Eulerian
grids coarser than the particle diameter and accounting for gas-particle
interaction using a drag law. The accuracy of this method in predicting gas and
particle dynamics in bubbling and homogeneously fluidized beds is assessed,
while varying important parameters such as drag law, fluid grid sizing and gas
distribution. Additionally, since only time-averaged results could be provided
experimentally, instantaneous predictions from computer simulations are
compared with classical analytical theory for gas flow in fluidized beds, such
as bubble rise velocity (9) and gas flow through bubbles (10).

 

References:

1.   T. Pavlin et al., Noninvasive
Measurements of Gas Exchange in a Three-Dimensional Fluidized Bed by
Hyperpolarized 129Xe NMR. Appl. Magn. Reson. 32, 93?112 (2007).

2.   P. N.
Rowe, P. F. Wace, Gas-Flow Patterns in Fluidized Beds. Nature. 188,
737?738 (1960).

3.   C. M.
Boyce, D. J. Holland, S. A. Scott, J. S. Dennis, Adapting Data Processing To
Compare Model and Experiment Accurately: A Discrete Element Model and Magnetic
Resonance Measurements of a 3D Cylindrical Fluidized Bed. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 52, 18085?18094 (2013).

4.   X. Lu,
C. M. Boyce, S. A. Scott, J. S. Dennis, D. J. Holland, Investigation of
Two-fluid Models of Fluidisation Using Magnetic Resonance and Discrete Element
Simulations. Procedia Eng. 102, 1436?1445 (2015).

5.   C. R.
Müller et al., Granular temperature: Comparison of Magnetic Resonance
measurements with Discrete Element Model simulations. Powder Technol. 184,
241?253 (2008).

6.   C. M.
Boyce, J. S. Dennis, D. J. Holland, (Atlanta, GA, 2014).

7.   R. D.
Toomey, H. F. Johnstone, Gaseous fluidization of solid particles. Chem. Eng.
Prog. 48, 220?226 (1952).

8.   Y.
Tsuji, T. Kawaguchi, T. Tanaka, Discrete particle simulation of two-dimensional
fluidized bed. Powder Technol. 77, 79?87 (1993).

9.   R. M.
Davies, G. Taylor, The Mechanics of Large Bubbles Rising through Extended
Liquids and through Liquids in Tubes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. Math. Phys.
Sci. 200, 375?390.

10. D.
Harrison, J. F. Davidson, de Kock, J.W., On the nature of aggregative and
particulate fluidisation. Trans Inst Chem Eng. 39, 202?212
(1961).