Particuology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/partic
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 7 July 2013
Received in revised form 1 November 2013
Accepted 6 November 2013
Keywords:
Computational uid dynamics
Discrete element method
Stiffness coefcient
Fluid time step
Parallelization
a b s t r a c t
The EulerLagrange approach combined with a discrete element method has frequently been applied
to elucidate the hydrodynamic behavior of dense uidsolid ows in uidized beds. In this work, the
efciency and accuracy of this model are investigated. Parameter studies are performed; in these studies,
the stiffness coefcient, the uid time step and the processor number are varied under conditions with
different numbers of particles and different particle diameters. The obtained results are compared with
measurements to derive the optimum parameters for CFD/DEM simulations. The results suggest that
the application of higher stiffness coefcients slightly improves the simulation accuracy. However, the
average computing time increases exponentially. At larger uid time steps, the results show that the
average computation time is independent of the applied uid time step whereas the simulation accuracy
decreases greatly with increasing the uid time step. The use of smaller time steps leads to negligible
improvements in the simulation accuracy but results in an exponential rise in the average computing time.
The parallelization accelerates the DEM simulations if the critical number for the domain decomposition
is not reached. Above this number, the performance is no longer proportional to the number of processors.
The critical number for the domain decomposition depends on the number of particles. An increase in
solid contents results in a shift of the critical decomposition number to higher numbers of CPUs.
2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Chinese Society of Particuology and Institute of Process
Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
1. Introduction
In several industrial applications, such as uidized beds,
gassolid ow plays an important role. A comprehensive understanding of this ow has been the subject of theoretical and
experimental research for many decades and is crucial for enhancements of current systems. Generally, the design of equipment,
including dense gassolid ow is based on experimental studies.
An alternative complement to complex and costly experiments is
enabled by numerical simulations. Basically, there are two different
approaches to representation of the gassolid ow: the continuum
and the discrete particle models. In the rst model, also known
as the EulerEuler method, each phase is treated as a continuum
and is mathematically calculated by solving the NavierStokes
equations. In contrast, the EulerLagrange method combines
continuum descriptions of the uid phase with the Lagrange
16742001/$ see front matter 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Chinese Society of Particuology and Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2013.11.004
42
Nomenclature
D
d
F
f
g
h
I
k
m
N
n
p
r
r
S
T
T
T
t
t
u
V
w
(2008)). Some of these studies have concentrated on comparisons of the CFD/DEM simulations with experiments and with the
EulerEuler approach (among others: Chiesa, Mathiesen, Melheim,
& Halvorsen, 2005; Link, 2006; Alobaid & Epple, 2013). The simulation results for the CFD/DEM model show signicantly better
agreement with the measurements than do the results for the continuum model. However, numerical simulations performed with
the DEM model are computationally expensive. Goetz (2006) and
Tsuji, Yabumoto, and Tanaka (2008) presented the possibility of
parallelizing the CFD/DEM simulation, where the computational
domain is divided into several subblocks (less than 20 subblocks).
Despite the importance of increasing the processor number to the
CFD/DEM efciency, only a few studies, including the cited works,
have discussed this matter for different solid loadings in the uidized bed simulation.
Di Renzo and Di Maio (2004) reported in their DEM study that
the stiffness coefcient is a crucial parameter for obtaining correct physical results. The proposed values vary between 105 and
109 N/m and depend greatly on the material pairing. Stiffness coefcients with a high order of magnitude require very small time
steps, which are difcult to achieve with the performance of existing computers. Therefore, the stiffness coefcients are set to be
two to three orders of magnitude smaller than the values proposed
by Di Renzo. A stiffness coefcient of 800 N/m is recommended
by Tsuji et al. (1993); this value was also used by several other
authors and gave acceptable nal results. However, the proposed
value of 800 N/m causes a normal penetration depth of up to 74
times the particle diameter (Di Renzo & Di Maio, 2004). The reason
that a stiffness coefcient below 103 N/m can partly show realistic
macroscopic results is already explained in detail by Di Maio and
Di Renzo (2004). MorenoAtanasio, Xu, and Ghadiri (2007) investigated two values of the stiffness coefcients (50 and 50 103 N/m)
and concluded that the value of the stiffness coefcient inuenced
the uidization behavior. In their study, a constant number of particles and a constant particle diameter are analyzed. In this work, the
inuence of variation in the stiffness coefcient on the CFD/DEM
efciency and accuracy is investigated for different numbers of
particles and particle diameters.
To calculate the timedependent motion of the solid and uid
phases, different time steps are applied in the CFD/DEM simulations (Goetz, 2006; Epple, Leithner, Linzer, & Walter, 2012). The
uid time step, which is used to solve the uid balance equations,
can be selected arbitrarily and remains constant during the calculation. In contrast, the size of the particle time step is determined
by the maximum allowed penetration depth and is also assumed to
be constant. For identical simulation periods, it is assumed that an
increase in the uid time step leads to acceleration of the simulation. Contrary to expectations, it is demonstrated in this study that
this relationship is not necessarily correct for the CFD/DEM model.
In the present work, parameter studies are performed to understand the inuence of variations in the stiffness coefcient, the
uid time step and the processor number (up to 36) on the efciency and accuracy of the CFD/DEM simulation for the uidized
bed. The obtained results are compared with the measurements
(for different mass ow rates) to derive the optimum CFD/DEM simulation parameters. To generalize the results, sets of simulations
with varying numbers of particles and diameters are performed.
2. Mathematical modeling
The employed program, DEMEST, is based on the DEM
code developed by Goetz (2006) and by Alobaid, Strhle, and
Epple (2013). The program combines classical computational uid
dynamics to calculate the uid phase with a discrete particle
method to describe the solid phase. Validation of the DEMEST program was performed with the aid of a test rig model of a uidized
bed (Alobaid & Epple, 2013). The good agreement between the simulation results and the experimental data attests to the ability of the
DEMEST code to describe with high accuracy the complex behavior
of dense uidsolid ow in a uidized bed.
+ (f
u f ) = 0,
tf
d
uP
=
mP
Fi = FGra + FBuo + FDra + FPre + FSaf + FMag
dt
aerodynamic surface forcesFfP
P
dw
n
t
t
= TP = rP FCon
+ FCon
+ FCon
, IP
,
dt
where
u P and
w P are the translational and rotational velocity
of the particle, mP and IP represent the mass and the moment of
inertia of the particle, and T P and Fi denote the moment and the
forces acting on the particle. These forces are classied as volume,
aerodynamic, and contact forces. The volume forces are the gravitational force FGra and the buoyancy force FBuo , which counteracts
the weight. The aerodynamic forces result from the interactions
between the uid and the particles, whereas the contact forces
result from the interactions between the particles themselves and
the walls. The aerodynamic forces primarily depend on the relative velocities of the uid and solid phases and can lead to abrupt
changes in the particle trajectories. In this study, the aerodynamic
surface forces considered are the drag F Dra , pressure F Pre , Saffman
n
t
(FCon,ik
+ FCon,ik
).
n
= mij
FCon,ij
n
du
ij
ij n u
nij ,
= kn n n
(2.4)
k=1
k=
/ i
The index N represents the number of collision partners, i.e.,
particles and walls, that are in contact with particle i. Based on the
(2.5)
dt
F n
F n
Ela
Dam
where kn is the normal stiffness coefcient, n is the normal coefcient of damping, mij is the reduced mass (effective mass), and n
n represent the displacement and the relative velocity in the
and u
ij
normal direction. The normal stiffness coefcient depends on the
properties of collision partners and is calculated from:
kn =
1
ij
1.5
with ij =
9 ri + rj
64 ri rj
1 vj
1 vi
+
Gi
Gj
2
.
(2.6)
The shear modulus G, which describes the linear elastic deformation of a body under a shear stress, and Poissons ratio , which
enables calculation of the transverse contraction of the body, are
material properties and can be measured experimentally.
The damping parameter in the normal direction, which represents the dissipation of energy during an inelastic collision, is
determined from the following expression:
=
Dam
n
mij kn (n ),
mij kn (n ),
for
n =
/ 0
for
n = 0
(2.7)
(2.3)
Contact forces
res
FCon,i
=
VoigtKelvin model, the normal contact force results from the sum
n and the damping force F
n and is described
of the elastic force FEla
Dam
by the differential equation of a springdamper system:
(2.1)
(f f
u f)
u f
u f ) = (f Tf ) f p + f f
g f Pf ,
+ (f f
tf
(2.2)
Volume forces
43
2 ln
n
Dam (
n ) =
2 + ln2
n
for
n =
/ 0,
(2.8)
where
n denotes the coefcient of restitution in the normal direction; this coefcient is dened to be the ratio of the normal relative
velocities at the contact point before (index (0)) and after contact:

u ij 
=
=
n(0)
u

n
h
h(0)
ij
(2.9)
t
= mij
FCon,ij
t
du
ij
dt
t t
t
t
t
k t u
F t
t
Ela FDam
t
F
Static
n
t
t
FCon,ij
tij , for FStatic
 > FSlide

dyn
(2.10)
F
Slide
t)
m kt t , for t =
(
/ 0
Dam
7 ij
t =
.
b
t
2
mij k (t ) , for t = 0
7
(2.11)
44
2 ln t
2 + ln2 t
for t =
/ 0.
(2.12)
The dynamic friction coefcient Dyn and the restitution coefcient in the tangential direction t are obtained from experiments
that were carried out by Kharaz, Gorham, and Salman (2001), for
example, whereas the tangential stiffness coefcient kt is determined with Eq. (2.21).
2.3. Fluidparticle interaction
Modeling of the uid phase in the gassolid ow requires extension of the conservation equations for singlephase ow, because
the control volume of the computational domain consists of different uid and solid volume fractions. In this context, the porosity
1
V CV
CV
fP,i
VP,i ,
fPf
N CV
(2.15)
i=1
f
dP2
(1 f )2
+ B(1 f )ReP
f
ReP =
,
f u
P dP
f f u
,
f
(2.17)
and coefcients:
3
135
(1 f ) ln(1 f ) + 16.14(1 f )
3 1 + (1 f ) 2 +
18
64
2
f
, for f 0.6
2
3
(1 f )
where VCV is the volume of the uid cell and VP,i denotes the volCV indicates the proportion of the
ume of the particle i. The value fP,i
particle volume that exists in the control volume. The momentum
transfer corresponds to the impact of the solid on the uid phase
A=
F
f u
i ) ,
= Pf
=
(u
V CV
(2.13)
i CV
,
(2.18)
fPf
V
1
i
f u
i ) .
(u
= CV
V
(1 CV )
N CV
i=1
(2.14)
Dn
1
2
(n ) + (Dn )2
exp
n
arctan
n
Dn
(2.19)
kn (Eq. (2.6))
kt (Eq. (2.21))
=
kn
n
(Dn )2 with Dn =
.
mij
2mij
kn
7
2
(4 2Dam (
n ))
.
(4 2Dam (t ))
(2.21)
4 rP3
nij,max 2
P u
3 (n )2
max
exp
2Dam
4 2Dam
arctan
2.5
3.5
7.8 108
3.1 109
1.2 109
4.9 109
1.47 109
5.8 109
(2.20)
Table 1
The calculated realistic normal and tangential stiffness coefcients.
Stiffness coefcients (N/m)
45
4 2Dam
Dam
,
(2.22)
n
where the maximum relative velocity u
and the maximum
ij,max
penetration depth nmax rP,min must be dened before the simulation is begun.
3. Numerical grids
In this study, different types of grids are generated for accurate
and efcient simulations of dense gassolid ow with the CFD/DEM
model.
Fine uid grid: This grid is used to calculate the physical quantities
of the uid phase.
Particle grid: This grid is used to compute the particle phase. This
grid allows the uid grid resolution to be varied independently
of the particle size (Alobaid et al., 2013). A geometric allocation
between uid and particle grids is necessary to enable data transfer from the uid to the particle and vice versa.
Particle search grid: Application of the particle search grid accelerates the collision detection process. Here, the problem domain
is divided into nite cells containing indexed particles. A particle
may only come in contact with particles in its own cell or with
those in its directly neighboring cells. By neglecting any further
collisions with particles that are in far cells, the computation time
is reduced (Epple et al., 2012).
4. Results and discussion
In the following sections, the efciency and accuracy of the
CFD/DEM modeling are investigated using various parameters of
stiffness coefcient, uid time step, and processor number for
different numbers of particles and different particle diameters. Indepth analysis is performed with equations provided above and
through comparison with measurements for different mass ow
rates to understand the constraints in selecting the three parameters.
4.1. Test rig and numerical model
The test rig model of the uidized bed has a height of 50 cm,
a width of 15 cm, and a depth of 2 cm. While air is supplied at
the inlet through a centrally placed nozzle (1 cm (W) 2 cm (D)),
the outlet is completely open (15 cm (W) 2 cm (D)) (see Fig. 1).
The air ows upward through the nozzle in the bed, causing the
glass beads to be suspended. The minimum supercial uidization
velocity of the solid is equal to 1.12 m/s. The particle ow of the uidized bed is recorded with a highspeed camera. Using pressure
sensors (at heights of p1 = 2 cm, p2 = 12 cm, p3 = 22 cm, p4 = 40 cm),
the pressure change in the bed is also measured. Two different
operating conditions, namely high mass ow rate (0.006 kg/s) and
low mass ow rate (0.005 kg/s) are explored. The simulations are
performed with the DEMEST code. The forces considered on the
particles are gravitational, buoyancy, drag, pressure, Saffman, Magnus, and contact forces. In addition to the ne uid grid, three
increasingly coarse multigrids are generated. The computation of
the particle phase is performed on the particle grid. Deterministic
detection of particleparticle/wall collisions is achieved with the
particle search grid. In Appendices A and B, the numerical grids, the
simulation parameters and the applied boundary conditions for the
uid and solid phases are presented. The simulations are performed
by ve computers with eight core processors (Intel i7 processors)
connected through a gigabit network. Visualization of the calculated results is achieved by separate codes that are programmed in
Matlab .
4.2. Variation of the stiffness coefcient
According to Di Renzo and Di Maio (2004, 2005), different paths
for normal and tangential displacements can be applied to the
DEM simulations: (1) normal displacement varies, and tangential
displacement is zero; (2) normal displacement is constant, and
tangential displacement varies; (3) normal and tangential displacements vary. The third method requires knowledge of the stiffness
coefcients in the normal and tangential directions. The normal and
tangential stiffness coefcients can be dened from the properties
of the collision partners. In this work, the normal and tangential
displacements can be varied and are dened with Eqs. (2.6) and
(2.21) (Link, 2006). The normal and tangential stiffness coefcients
are calculated from the glass material properties (see Table 1) for
46
spherical particles with different diameters (1, 2.5, and 3.5 mm).
The obtained stiffness coefcients exhibit high orders of magnitude
and vary between 108 and 109 N/m depending on the diameters
of the collision partners. If the stiffness coefcients and the particle time step are dened according to Table 1 and Eq. (2.19),
respectively, the contact forces are thus determined by Eqs. (2.5)
and (2.10) with high accuracy. This high accuracy means that any
unphysical penetration between the particles and between the
particles and walls is avoided. However, application of realistic
stiffness coefcients produces a very small particle time step that is
almost not applicable because of the extreme computational effort
and the limited computer performance at present. Therefore, a
reduction in the selected stiffness coefcient should be introduced.
By decreasing the stiffness coefcient and hence increasing the particle time step, larger penetration depths can occur between the
collision partners. At sufciently high relative velocities of the colliding particles, there is a risk of unrealistic penetrations. Complete
penetration in the particlewall collisions represents the worst
case because the particles leave the computational domain and are
therefore no longer available in the subsequent time steps. Thus,
a continuous decline in the number of particles is observed during the CFD/DEM simulation. In Table 2, the penetration depth
is calculated from the stiffness coefcients for different diameters of collision partners and maximum relative velocities of 2, 5,
and 10 m/s. The use of smaller stiffness coefcients (for example,
Table 2
The calculated penetration depths for glass collision partners with different particle diameters (1, 2.5 and 3.5 mm) and relative velocities (2, 5, and 10 m/s).
Penetration depth (mm)
2.5
3.5
Stiffness coefcient kn
(N/m)
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
10
10
10
8
2.5
0.8
0.25
0.08
0.025
0.008
0.0025
20
6
2
0.6
0.2
0.06
0.02
0.006
40
12
4
1.2
0.4
0.12
0.04
0.012
31
10
3
1
0.3
0.1
0.03
0.01
79.5
25
8
2.5
0.8
0.2
0.08
0.025
160
50
16
5
1.6
0.5
0.16
0.05
52
16.5
5.2
1.6
0.5
0.16
0.05
0.016
130
41
13
4.2
1.3
0.41
0.13
0.041
260
82
26
8.2
2.6
0.82
0.26
0.082
47
100000
(Number of particles 30000)
1.0 mm diameter
2.5 mm diameter
3.5 mm diameter
10000
1000
100
10
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Fig. 2. Comparison of the bed heights calculated for different stiffness coefcients
with the measurement.
and 3.5 mm) while the stiffness coefcient is varied from 101 to
108 N/m. As shown in Fig. 3, an increase in the stiffness coefcient
leads to an exponential rise in the average computing time. This
increase is evident at the order of magnitude of 103 N/m, where a
jump in the stiffness coefcient by two orders of magnitude results
in an increase of the simulation time by one order of magnitude.
The attening of the curves at stiffness coefcient values lower than
103 N/m is because a certain part of the computing time is required
for the calculation of the uid phase. This part is not a signicant
percentage for stiffness coefcients with high orders of magnitude.
However, this percentage becomes signicant at very low stiffness
coefcients. The particle diameter has a strong inuence on the
average computation time because the size of the particle time
step is a function of the particle diameter; thus, smaller particle
kn (kn )
T =A
Table 3
The calculated minimal normal stiffness coefcients (Eq. (2.22)) for different particle diameters (1, 2.5 and 3.5 mm), relative velocities (10, 5 and 2 m/s) and at the
maximum penetration depth nmax = rP .
Constant parameters
Grids
(3.1)
10
5
2
2.5
3.5
5.1 106
6.3 105
4.1 104
5.1 106
6.3 105
4.1 104
5.1 106
6.3 105
4.1 104
Particle number
Particle diameter (mm)
10
10
7
Fluid multigrid
Particle grid
Deactivated
Deactivated
100000
1
Table 4
Simulation parameters used to investigate effect of stiffness coefcient on computational time at different particle numbers and diameters.
Variable parameters
unmax (m/s)
1/2
10000
50000 particles
1000
100
10
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
48
55
36500 particles with diameter 2.5 mm
3
Exp.
45
10 N/m
10 N/m
10 N/m
10 N/m
6
10 N/m
35
25
15
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Time [ms]
Fig. 5. Inuence of the variation in the stiffness coefcient on the CFD/DEM simulation accuracy at air mass ow rate of 0.006 kg/s.
with the measured data. For the simulation, 36,500 identical glass
particles with a diameter of 2.5 mm are used. The uid time step is
selected to be 2 ms, and the remaining numerical parameters can
be extracted from Appendix A. The grid resolutions for the numerical models are presented in Appendix C. Note that the simulation
parameters, the applied boundary conditions and the grid resolutions are identical for all the simulations. In Figs. 5 and 6, the
simulated bed heights for different stiffness coefcients are compared with the experiments over time (500 ms) for different air
mass ow rates.
The application of smaller stiffness coefcients has the benet
of low computational effort. However, the accuracy of the CFD/DEM
simulation declines. This result can be clearly for stiffness coefcient values of 102 and 103 N/m. In contrast, stiffness coefcients
with high orders of magnitude have high computation times but
result in high CFD/DEM accuracy. Moderate stiffness coefcients
(in the range between 5 104 and 5 106 N/m) show a very good
compromise between acceptable computing time and accuracy.
Although the application of stiffness coefcients with moderate
values causes normal penetration depths of up to the particle radius
(see Table 2), the simulations still show good nal results. Thus, the
coefcients with moderate values are recommended to be applicable for simulations of the uidized bed, especially because the
maximum relative velocities of collision partners in this system
are smaller than 10 m/s.
Table 5
The calculated particle time steps for glass collision partners with different particle
diameters and different stiffness coefcients.
Stiffness coefcient kn (N/m)
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
Particle
diameter
(2.5 mm)
Particle
diameter
(3.5 mm)
3.9 103
1.2 103
3.9 104
1.2 104
3.9 105
1.2 105
3.9 105
1.2 107
1.5 102
4.9 103
1.5 104
4.9 104
1.5 104
4.9 105
1.5 105
4.9 106
2.6 102
8.2 103
2.6 104
8.2 104
2.6 104
8.2 105
2.6 105
8.2 106
35
36500 particles with diameter 2.5 mm
3
Exp.
30
10 N/m
10 N/m
10 N/m
10 N/m
6
10 N/m
25
20
15
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Time [ms]
Fig. 6. Inuence of the variation in the stiffness coefcient on the CFD/DEM simulation accuracy at air mass ow rate 0.005 kg/s.
Variable parameters
Constant parameters
Grids
Particle number
Particle diameter (mm)
10
5 104
7
Fluid multigrid
Particle grid
Deactivated
Deactivated
10000
Table 6
Simulation parameters used to investigate effect of the uid time step on computational time at different particle numbers and diameters.
49
1000
100
10
diameters. The calculated particle time step decreases as the stiffness coefcient increases and the particle diameter decreases.
In this section, the inuence of the uid time step on the computation time is investigated. Here, the stiffness coefcient was set
to be a constant equal to 5 104 N/m, which represents a compromise between a realistic simulation result and an acceptable
simulation time. Although the resulting particle time step was a
constant equal to 0.7 ms, the size of the uid time step varied
between 0.1 and 120 ms. The effects of the particle diameter and
the particle number on the average computing time are also examined. The detailed simulation parameters for the following series
of simulations are listed in Table 6. The ratio of the uid to particle time steps is varied depending on the applied uid time step
and the stiffness coefcient. If higher stiffness coefcients (greater
than 5 104 N/m) are used, the resulting particle time step will
be smaller than 0.7 ms. Accordingly, the accuracy of the CFD/DEM
model will be improved and the computation time will be greatly
increased. In contrast, smaller stiffness coefcients of less than
5 104 N/m, i.e., coarser particle time steps (>0.7 ms), lead to a gain
in the simulation efciency, but the accuracy of the CFD/DEM model
decreases consequently.
It is assumed that for identical simulation durations, an increase
in the size of the uid time step accelerates the simulation. Fig. 7
shows that this relationship is not necessarily correct. An increase
in the uid time step between 15 and 120 ms does not accelerate
the CFD/DEM calculation because the ratio of the uid time step
to the particle time step (0.7 ms) is larger than one; i.e., during
one uid time step, several particle time steps must be performed.
Therefore, the computation time for calculating the particle phase
is a signicantly larger proportion of the total simulation time than
the computational effort of the uid phase. Fluid time steps smaller
0.1
10
100
300
30000 particles
50000 particles
3000
2000
1000
10000 particles
4000
5000
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.1
10
100
0.1
10
100
50
10000
(Number of particles 30000)
1.0 mm diameter
2.5 mm diameter
3.5 mm diameter
1000
100
10
0.1
100
10
Variable parameters
Number of decompositions
Particle number
Constant parameters
2.5
10
10
5 104
Grids
Fluid multigrid
Particle grid
Deactivated
Deactivated
Parallel computation on multicore processors is of great importance and presents today the most promising way to accelerate
CFD/DEM calculations. In this section, the inuence of the parallelization on the average computing time is investigated. The entire
computational domain is divided into several partitions (336), and
each subblock is allocated to one processor. As a second variable,
the number of particles is modied. Here, the variation of particle diameter is not considered (already discussed in the previous
section). Detailed information regarding the simulation parameters and the grid resolutions are listed in Appendices A and B, and
Table 7.
In Fig. 13, the variation in the average computing time at
different solid loadings is plotted against the processor number.
The parallelization leads rst to an acceleration of the CFD/DEM
simulations. Each processor requires less computing time because
of the smaller computational subdomains. However, the interaction between the processors increases further for larger number
of CPUs. The asynchronism between the processor cores plays
an important role in addition to the computational effort for the
data exchange to explain why the parallelized calculations run
inefciently. In this context, asynchrony means that the processors utilizations are uneven. This asynchrony can occur through
an undesired distribution of particles in the computational subdomains. The processors that are subjected to fewer processing
operations nish their calculations earlier and nally have to wait
55
36500 particles with diameter 2.5 mm
Exp.
30 ms
2 ms
60 ms
15 ms
0.5 ms
45
35
25
15
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Time [ms]
Fig. 11. Inuence of the uid time step on the CFD/DEM simulation accuracy at air mass ow rate of 0.006 kg/s.
51
35
36500 particles with diameter 2.5 mm
Exp.
30 ms
2 ms
60 ms
15 ms
0.5 ms
30
25
20
15
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Time [ms]
Fig. 12. Inuence of the uid time step on the CFD/DEM simulation accuracy at air mass ow rate of 0.005 kg/s.
1000
(Particle diameter: 2.5mm)
10000 particles
800
30000 particles
50000 particles
600
400
200
0
3
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
Number of processors
Fig. 13. Inuence of the processor number on the average computing time at different particle loadings and for a constant particle diameter (2.5 mm).
1000
800
19 CPUs
23 CPUs
9 CPUs
27 CPUs
15 CPUs
36 CPUs
600
400
200
0
10000
30000
50000
Number of particles
Fig. 14. Inuence of the particle number on the average computing time at different
processor numbers and for a constant particle diameter (2.5 mm).
52
Particle
parameters
(glass)
Numerical
parameters
Performance
Viscosity (Pa s)
Density (kg/m3 )
Mass ow rate (kg/s)
Fluid time step (s)
18.27 106
1.2
0.005, 0.006
Variable
Variable
Variable
2500
31
0.17
0.97
Underrelaxation factor
(velocity)
Underrelaxation factor
(pressure)
Number of iteration
velocity
Number of iteration
pressure
Turbulence of the uid
phase
Pressurevelocity coupling
Solver
PC
Simulation duration (h)
0.97
0.33
Goetz (2006)
Goetz (2006)
Kharaz et al.
(2001)
Kharaz et al.
(2001)
Kharaz et al.
(2001)
0.33
Kharaz et al.
(2001)
Calculated
with
Dam = 1
Calculated
with
Dam = 1
Variable
Eq. (2.7)
Eq. (2.11)
Variable
0.1
Link (2006)
0.1
Link (2006)
Calculated
Eq. (2.19)
0.3
0.2
100
10
Deactivated
SIMPLEC
Multigrid/redblacksuccessiveoverrelaxation
Intel i7 * 5
ca. 3600
Resolution
128,640
16,080, 2010, 670
Particle grid
Particle search grid
Deactivated
25,600
Resolution
380,160
47,520, 11,880, 2970
Particle grid
Particle search grid
Number of decompositions
47,520
25,600
9
References
Alobaid, F., Strhle, J., & Epple, B. (2013). Extended CFD/DEM model for the
simulation of circulating uidized bed. Advanced Powder Technology, 24,
403415.
Alobaid, F., & Epple, B. (2013). Improvement, validation and application of
CFD/DEM model to dense gassolid ow in a uidized bed. Particuology, 11,
514526.
Chiesa, M., Mathiesen, V., Melheim, J. A., & Halvorsen, B. (2005). Numerical simulation of particulate ow by the EulerianLagrangian and the EulerianEulerian
approach with application to a uidized bed. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 29, 291304.
Cundall, P. A., & Strack, O. D. L. (1979). A discrete numerical model for granular
assemblies. Gotechnique, 29, 4765.
Deen, N. G., Van Sint Annaland, M., Van der Hoef, M. A., & Kuipers, J. A. M. (2007).
Review of discrete particle modeling of uidized beds. Chemical Engineering
Science, 62, 2844.
Di Maio, F. P., & Di Renzo, A. (2004). Analytical solution for the problem of
frictionalelastic collisions of spherical particles using the linear model. Chemical
Engineering Science, 59, 34613475.
Di Renzo, A., & Di Maio, F. P. (2004). Comparison of contactforce models for the
simulation of collisions in DEMbased granular ow codes. Chemical Engineering
Science, 59, 525541.
Di Renzo, A., & Di Maio, F. P. (2005). An improved integral nonlinear model for
the contact of particles in distinct element simulations. Chemical Engineering
Science, 60, 13031312.
Epple, B., Leithner, R., Linzer, W., & Walter, H. (Eds.). (2012). Simulation von
Kraftwerken und Feuerungen. New York: SpringerVerlag.
Fan, L. S., & Zhu, C. (1998). Principles of gassolid ows. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feng, Y. Q., & Yu, A. B. (2004). Assessment of model formulations in the discrete particle simulation of gassolid ow. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research,
43, 83788390.
Goetz, S. (2006). Gekoppelte CFDDEMSimulation blasenbildender Wirbelschichten.
Aachen: ShakerVerlag.
Hill, R. J., Koch, D. L., & Ladd, A. J. C. (2001). ModerateReynoldsnumber ows
in ordered and random arrays of spheres. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 448,
243278.
Hoomans, B. P. B., Kuipers, J. A. M., Briels, W. J., & van Swaaij, W. P. M. (1996). Discrete particle simulation of bubble and slug formation in a twodimensional
gasuidised bed: A hardsphere approach. Chemical Engineering Science, 51,
99118.
Kharaz, A. H., Gorham, D. A., & Salman, A. D. (2001). An experimental study of the elastic rebound of spheres. Powder Technology, 120,
281291.
Link, J. M. (2006). Development and validation of a discrete particle model of a
spoutuid bed granulator (Doctoral dissertation). The Netherlands: University
of Twente.
MorenoAtanasio, R., Xu, B. H., & Ghadiri, M. (2007). Computer simulation of the
effect of contact stiffness and adhesion on the uidization behaviour of powders.
Chemical Engineering Science, 62, 184194.
53
Zhou, Z. Y., Kuang, S. B., Chu, K. W., & Yu, A. B. (2010). Discrete particle simulation of
particleuid ow: Model formulations and their applicability. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 661, 482510.
Zhu, H. P., Zhou, Z. Y., Yang, R. Y., & Yu, A. B. (2008). Discrete particle simulation
of particulate systems: A review of major applications and ndings. Chemical
Engineering Science, 63, 57285770.
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.