File Download

  • Find it @ UNIST can give you direct access to the published full text of this article. (UNISTARs only)
Related Researcher

임한권

Lim, Hankwon
Read More

Views & Downloads

Detailed Information

Cited time in webofscience Cited time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Full metadata record

DC Field Value Language
dc.citation.endPage 19 -
dc.citation.number 2 -
dc.citation.startPage 1 -
dc.citation.title ChemEngineering -
dc.citation.volume 4 -
dc.contributor.author Upadhyay, Mukesh -
dc.contributor.author Kim, Ayeon -
dc.contributor.author Kim, Heehyang -
dc.contributor.author Lim, Dongjun -
dc.contributor.author Lim, Hankwon -
dc.date.accessioned 2023-12-21T17:18:04Z -
dc.date.available 2023-12-21T17:18:04Z -
dc.date.created 2021-05-12 -
dc.date.issued 2020-06 -
dc.description.abstract Accurate prediction of the hydrodynamic profile is important for circulating fluidized bed (CFB) reactor design and scale-up. Multiphase computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation with interphase momentum exchange is key to accurately predict the gas-solid profile along the height of the riser. The present work deals with the assessment of six different drag model capability to accurately predict the riser section axial solid holdup distribution in bench scale circulating fluidized bed. The difference between six drag model predictions were validated against the experiment data. Two-dimensional geometry, transient solver and Eulerian–Eulerian multiphase models were used. Six drag model simulation predictions were discussed with respect to axial and radial profile. The comparison between CFD simulation and experimental data shows that the Syamlal-O’Brien, Gidaspow, Wen-Yu and Huilin-Gidaspow drag models were successfully able to predict the riser upper section solid holdup distribution with better accuracy, however unable to predict the solid holdup transition region. On the other hand, the Gibilaro model and Helland drag model were successfully able to predict the bottom dense region, but the upper section solid holdup distribution was overpredicted. The CFD simulation comparison of different drag model has clearly shown the limitation of the drag model to accurately predict overall axial heterogeneity with accuracy. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. -
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation ChemEngineering, v.4, no.2, pp.1 - 19 -
dc.identifier.doi 10.3390/chemengineering4020037 -
dc.identifier.issn 2305-7084 -
dc.identifier.scopusid 2-s2.0-85089839347 -
dc.identifier.uri https://scholarworks.unist.ac.kr/handle/201301/52867 -
dc.identifier.url https://www.mdpi.com/2305-7084/4/2/37 -
dc.language 영어 -
dc.publisher MDPI AG -
dc.title An assessment of drag models in eulerian–eulerian cfd simulation of gas–solid flow hydrodynamics in circulating fluidized bed riser -
dc.type Article -
dc.description.isOpenAccess TRUE -
dc.type.docType Article -
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass scopus -
dc.subject.keywordAuthor Drag models -
dc.subject.keywordAuthor Eulerian–eulerian -
dc.subject.keywordAuthor 2D simulation -
dc.subject.keywordAuthor Circulating fluidized bed riser -
dc.subject.keywordAuthor Computational fluid dynamics -

qrcode

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.