2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2018.05.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detailed analysis of recent drag models using multiple cases of mono-disperse fluidized beds with Geldart-B and Geldart-D particles

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 92 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As we compare the performance of drag models, we note that selected drag models all overestimated particle phase’s vertical velocity at the center at h = 10 mm and underestimated particle vertical velocity at the center at h = 20 mm. A similar conclusion was also obtained by Stanly and Shoev . The results of Gidaspow and Huilin–Gidaspow drag models are almost the same.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As we compare the performance of drag models, we note that selected drag models all overestimated particle phase’s vertical velocity at the center at h = 10 mm and underestimated particle vertical velocity at the center at h = 20 mm. A similar conclusion was also obtained by Stanly and Shoev . The results of Gidaspow and Huilin–Gidaspow drag models are almost the same.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…A similar conclusion was also obtained by Stanly and Shoev. 39 The results of Gidaspow 8 and Huilin−Gidaspow 14 drag models are almost the same. The result of the new INB drag model is very close to those of the other models.…”
Section: Bfb With Geldart Dmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…In the present cases, the particles in the fluidized bed belong to Geldart-D particles . Stanley and Shoev numerically simulated the flow behavior of the fluidized beds using the two-fluid model and mesh sizes approximately 1.5–2 times the particle diameters. They compared the simulation results with experiments conducted by Goldschmidt et al and Muller et al and found good agreement between the simulation and experimental values.…”
Section: Model Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Geldart-A particles, the EMMS model offers more precise simulation rather than the Gidaspow model . In addition, for Geldart-B particles, the Gidaspow model can accurately predict gas–solid flow. , Figure presents the prediction based on the Gidaspow and EMMS drag models. With superficial gas velocity increases between 7 and 11 m/s, axial distributions of the simulated solids holdup for both models are close to the experimental data.…”
Section: Simulation Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%