Homogeneous and Nonhomogeneous Flow of the Particle Phase

  • Hamid Arastoopour
  • Dimitri Gidaspow
  • Emad Abbasi
Part of the Mechanical Engineering Series book series (MES)


Gas–particle flows are inherently oscillatory, and they manifest in nonhomogeneous structures. Thus, if one sets out to solve the microscopic two-fluid model equations for gas-particle flows, grid sizes of less than 10-particle diameter become essential. For most devices of practical (commercial) interest, such fine spatial grids and small time steps require significant computational time. Thus, the effect of the large-scale structures using coarse grids must be accounted for through appropriate modifications of the closures (i.e., drag model). Qualitatively, this is equivalent to an effectively larger apparent size for the particles.

In this chapter, two approaches are discussed that have gained significant attention in the literature: filtering (subgrid) and energy minimization multi-scale (EMMS).


Drag Force Particle Volume Fraction Solid Volume Fraction Fluid Catalytic Crack Solid Flow 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abbasi E, Arastoopour H (2011) CFD simulation of CO2 sorption in a circulating fluidized bed using deactivation kinetic model. In: Knowlton TM (ed) Proceeding of the tenth international conference on circulating fluidized beds and fluidization technology, CFB-10, ECI, New York, pp 736–743Google Scholar
  2. Arastoopour H (2001) Numerical simulation and experimental analysis of gas/solid flow systems: 1999 Fluor-Daniel Plenary lecture. Powder Technol 119(2):59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arastoopour H, Gidaspow D (1979a) Analysis of IGT pneumatic conveying data and fast fluidization using a thermohydrodynamic model. Powder Technol 22(1):77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arastoopour H, Gidaspow D (1979b) Vertical countercurrent solids gas flow. Chem Eng Sci 34(8):1063–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arastoopour H, Gidaspow D (1979c) Vertical pneumatic conveying using four hydrodynamic models. Ind Eng Chem Fundam 18(2):123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arastoopour H, Pakdel P, Adewumi M (1990) Hydrodynamic analysis of dilute gas-solids flow in a vertical pipe. Powder Technol 62:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benyahia S (2009) On the effect of subgrid drag closures. Ind Eng Chem Res 49(11):5122–5131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benyahia S (2012a) Analysis of model parameters affecting the pressure profile in a circulating fluidized bed. AIChE J 58(2):427–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benyahia S (2012b) Fine‐grid simulations of gas‐solids flow in a circulating fluidized bed. AIChE J 58(11):3589–3592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benyahia S, Sundaresan S (2012) Do we need sub-grid scale corrections for both continuum and discrete gas-particle flow models? Powder Technol 220:2–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghadirian E, Arastoopour H (2016) CFD simulation of a fluidized bed using the EMMS approach for the gas-solid drag force. Powder Technol 288:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gidaspow D (1994) Multiphase flow and fluidization: continuum and kinetic theory descriptions. Academic, NewYorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Igci Y, Andrews AT, Sundaresan S, Pannala S, O’Brien T (2008) Filtered two-fluid models for fluidized gas-particle suspensions. AlChE J 54(6):1431–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jang J, Rosa C, Arastoopour H (2010) CFD simulation of pharmaceutical particle drying in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. In: Kim SD et al (eds) Fluidization XIII. ECI, New York, pp 853–860Google Scholar
  15. Krishna BSVSR (2013) Predicting the bed height in expanded bed adsorption column using RZ correlation. Bonfring Int J Ind Eng Manage Sci 3(4):107Google Scholar
  16. Li J, Kwauk M (1994) Particle-fluid two-phase flow: the energy-minimization multi-scale method. Metallurgy Industry Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  17. Li F, Song F, Benyahia S, Wang W, Li J (2012) MP-PIC simulation of CFB riser with EMMS-based drag model. Chem Eng Sci 82:104–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lu B, Wang W, Li J (2009) Searching for a mesh-independent sub-grid model for CFD simulation of gas–solid riser flows. Chem Eng Sci 64(15):3437–3447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Milioli CC, Milioli FE, Holloway W, Agrawal K, Sundaresan S (2013) Filtered two‐fluid models of fluidized gas‐particle flows: new constitutive relations. AIChE J 59(9):3265–3275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nikolopoulos A, Atsonios K, Nikolopoulos N, Grammelis P, Kakaras E (2010) An advanced EMMS scheme for the prediction of drag coefficient under a 1.2 MW CFBC isothermal flow—Part II: numerical implementation. Chem Eng Sci 65(13):4089–4099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nikolopoulos A, Nikolopoulos N, Charitos A, Grammelis P, Kakaras E, Bidwe AR, Varela G (2013) High-resolution 3-D full-loop simulation of a CFB carbonator cold model. Chem Eng Sci 90:137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sarkar A, Xin S, Sundaresan S (2014) Verification of sub-grid filtered drag models for gas-particle fluidized beds with immersed cylinder arrays. Chem Eng Sci 114:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sinclair JL, Jackson R (1989) Gas–particle flow in a vertical pipe with particle–particle interactions. AIChE J 35(9):1473–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Syamlal M, O'Brien TJ (2003) Fluid dynamic simulation of O3 decomposition in a bubbling fluidized bed. AIChE J 49(11):2793–2801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang W, Li J (2007) Simulation of gas-solid two-phase flow by a multi-scale CFD approach—extension of the EMMS model to the sub-grid level. Chem Eng Sci 62(1):208–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang J, Ge W, Li J (2008) Eulerian simulation of heterogeneous gas-solid flows in CFB risers: EMMS-based sub-grid scale model with a revised cluster description. Chem Eng Sci 63(6):1553–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wen CY, Yu YH (1966) Mechanics of fluidization. Chem Eng Prog Symp Ser 62:100–111Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hamid Arastoopour
    • 1
  • Dimitri Gidaspow
    • 2
  • Emad Abbasi
    • 3
  1. 1.Wanger Institute for Sustainable Energy Research (WISER)Illinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chemical and Biological EngineeringIllinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Honeywell UOPDes PlainesUSA

Personalised recommendations