Computational Methods

CFD-DEM:
Modeling the Small to
Understand the Large
Ray Cocco Coupling the traditional computational
Particulate Solid Research, Inc. (PSRI)
fluid dynamics (CFD) approach to model
William D. Fullmer the fluid phase with the discrete element
Peiyuan Liu
Christine M. Hrenya method (DEM) to model the particles creates
Univ. of Colorado, Boulder a powerful numerical method to study
multiphase particulate flows.

C
Cyclones omputational fluid dynamics (CFD) emerged in
recent decades and reduced the costs associated with
Circulating
Fluidized scale-up, optimization, safety analysis, and indus-
Bed trial operations that involve conventional fluids. It provides
Riser
numerical information that enhances and supplements
experimental data and eliminates the need to rely entirely on
expensive experiments to gather data that are hard or impos-
sible to measure directly. For example, CFD simulations
allow engineers to isolate the effects of a single variable,
Bubbling
Fluidized whereas in experiments, it may be impractical to change
Bed only one variable at a time.
For the numerical simulation of solids flows, a counter-
part to CFD is the discrete element method (DEM), which
tracks the motion of every particle by solving Newtons
Stand- equations of motion for particles in free flight and employs
pipe a collision model for the particles in contact (1). Numerous
collision models exist and incorporate the conservation
of momentum and kinetic energy loss due to inelasticity
Mixing Pot
and/or friction. It is relatively straightforward to incorporate
microscale physics such as cohesion into the DEM frame-
p Figure 1. DEM simulations are capable of modeling subsystems or high-
work because each contact is resolved (2).
consequence regions. Displayed here are snapshots from DEM simulations of
dense gas-solid flow in the bubbling bed of a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) Multiphase flows which are pervasive throughout the
and dilute gas-solid flow in the riser of a CFB. chemical, petrochemical, energy, pharmaceutical, mining, and

38 www.aiche.org/cep September 2017 CEP Copyright 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
other key industrial areas present an additional challenge
to numerical analysis. Specifically, gas-solid particulate flows
pose challenges related to interfacial interactions (heat and
mass transfer, chemical reactions, etc.), instabilities (clustering
and bubbling), multiscale phenomena (particle-scale phys-
ics affecting system-scale operation), and locally defluidized
regions (enduring and multiparticle contacts), among others.
Researchers have coupled CFD for the gas phase with
DEM for the particulate phase to tackle the challenges of
gas-solid flows. The use of this CFD-DEM method has
ballooned in recent years, especially within the academic
community (as evidenced by the rapid increase in publi-
cations on the topic). CFD-DEM strikes a better balance
between numerical accuracy and computational requirement
than direct numerical simulation (DNS) and coarse-grained
methods (discussed later). However, the biggest barrier to
widespread adoption by industry is the computational over-
head of CFD-DEM, which remains an issue for larger multi-
phase systems. While modeling every particle in a very large
industrial unit will remain impractical for the foreseeable
future, simulating subsystems and other high-consequence
regions is currently possible (Figure 1). Additionally, as the
parallel capability of computers continues to advance, the
number of particles CFD-DEM is capable of handling also
continues to rise, making it a promising tool to aid in the
design of many industrially relevant problems.
This article provides a general overview of several key
methods used for the numerical simulation of gas-solid
multiphase flows and explains where CFD-DEM fits into the
picture. It discusses the current state of the art of CFD-DEM,
with an emphasis on the main challenges and bottlenecks, (a)
and outlines areas for improvement aimed to address
industrial needs.
Computational methods for gas-solid flow
The prediction of multiphase fluid-particle flows is
an inherently multiscale problem. Industrial applica-
tions involve behavior on the order of meters to tens
of meters. Unfortunately for industrial practitioners,
bubbling and clustering instabilities at the mesoscale
(appreciably larger than the particle scale, yet still signif-
icantly smaller than the system scale) strongly influence
macroscale behavior. In addition, interfacial phenomena
mass, momentum, and heat transfer that occur at
the microscale (i.e., tens to hundreds of particles) influ-
ence mesoscale behavior. Furthermore, truly micro-
scopic properties, such as particle surface roughness
and humidity in a gas carrier phase, can also influence
behavior at the mesoscale and beyond. Reference 3
provides an interesting case study that illustrates how
microscopic properties affect macroscopic behavior.
As a consequence of this multiscale nature, no single
Copyright 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
numerical method can directly simulate the wide range of
scales needed to completely model the dynamics of particu-
late flows. Instead, researchers have developed a multitude
of different methods to handle different scales. The higher-
resolution methods are more reliable and desirable, because
fewer constitutive relations, which are inherent sources of
uncertainty, are needed to close the model. The trade-off is
that higher resolution comes at an increased computational
cost. Figure 2 compares some of the numerical methods com-
monly used to study fluid-particle flow.
Continuum methods
Since industrial processes often involve many particles,
continuum approaches that only attempt to solve for the bulk
behavior are the preferred approach for modeling large-scale
systems. A two-fluid model (TFM) or Eulerian-Eulerian (E-E)
model simulates both the actual (molecular) fluid phase and the
solids phase (a fluid composed of the particles) with inde-
pendent Navier-Stokes-like equations (e.g., continuity, momen-
tum, energy) weighted by the fluids volumetric concentration
and connected through interfacial transfer phenomena (e.g.,
phase change, drag, etc.). In addition to the interfacial transfer
terms, TFMs require the user to specify unknown quantities
such as solids-phase pressure and viscosity opening the
door for significant uncertainties.
A kinetic theory (KT) approach (4) is com- (d)
monly used to derive such constitutive expres-
sions, particularly when the fluid phase is a gas
(5). Recent efforts have shown that the results
obtained with KT-based TFMs compare favorably
(b) (c)
Microscale Mesoscale Macroscale
DNS CFD-DEM MP-PIC
TFM Filtered-TFM
EMMS
p Figure 2. Different numerical methods are available to simulate particle systems
depending on system size. (a) Direct numerical simulation (DNS) is appropriate for
studying the detailed (microscale) gas flow field around particles. Image of flow
around a fixed bed of particles courtesy of S. Subramaniam, et al. At the meso-
scale, the local gas flow is resolved down to a scale of several particle diameters
(flow around an individual particle is not resolved): CFD-DEM simulates a gas-solid
homogeneous cooling system in a clustered state (b) and a fully resolved two-fluid
model (TFM) simulates unbounded fluidization (c). Macroscale methods include
filtered TFM, energy minimization multiscale simulation (EMMS), and multiphase
particle in cell (MP-PIC), which is used here to model a fluidized catalytic cracking
(FCC) catalyst in a pilot-scale (3-ft-dia.) fluidized bed with an air sparger (d). Con-
tours show gas-velocity magnitude in (a) and (b) and solids concentration in (c) and
(d); hot colors (red) indicate high values and cool colors (blue) indicate low values,
and in (a) and (b), white indicates the interior of (monodispersed) particles.
CEP September 2017 www.aiche.org/cep 39
Computational Methods

to more-accurate discrete particle data (6, 7). However, a grid
resolution of approximately ten times the particle diameter
(x ~ 10dp) is still required to resolve all scales of motion
relevant to cluster dynamics (8). Even finer resolutions are
required in dense beds that exhibit bubbling (7), because sharp
gradients can exist at the cluster/dilute or the emulsion/bubble
interfaces.
Since instabilities in gas-particle flows are ubiquitous
in industrial devices (9), high-resolution TFM simulations
(sometimes referred to as KT-TFM or microscopic TFM) are
too computationally intensive for most industrial applica-
tions. An additional level of averaging is required to tackle
industrial-scale problems. One common strategy is filtered-
TFMs (1012). Filtered-TFMs rely on an averaging proce-
dure similar to the filtering of the Navier-Stokes equations
for single-phase large-eddy simulation (LES). However, in
multiphase flows, many more sub-grid-scale closures are
needed. Although filtered-TFM methods have been applied
successfully to many cases, robust model development
remains an active area of research.
Discrete methods
Unlike the continuum approach for solids described pre-
viously, discrete methods treat the particles as discrete enti-
ties. The coupled approach that combines a discrete method
for particles and a continuum model for the fluid is referred
to as a Eulerian-Lagrangian (E-L) method. Two treatments
of the fluid phase are common, DNS and CFD-DEM.
In DNS, all scales of fluid motion are resolved down
to the no-slip boundary condition on the surface of each
particle. No closure laws are required; drag is an output
rather than a required input. Consequently, the Eulerian grid
needs to be smaller than the particles, and resolutions on the
order of x ~ dp/10 are typically required to resolve such fine
details for flows with moderate particle-Reynolds numbers.
An approach with such fine resolution is extremely computa-
tionally expensive. Thus, DNS is unlikely to make a signifi-
cant industrial impact for some time. For moving particle
suspensions (as opposed to fixed-bed simulations, where the
particles are static), current DNS capabilities allow for simu-
lations of a few thousand particles. Reference 13 provides a
comprehensive review of particle-laden DNS.
A less computationally expensive approach is to use a
larger grid for the fluid phase while still using DEM to track
the motion of every particle. Additional constitutive models
are required, specifically to account for:
the unresolved boundary between the particles and the
fluid, i.e., interfacial momentum transfer (drag law, etc.)
the unresolved turbulent motion of the fluid (shear- and
particle-induced).

An Alphabet Soup of Numerical Analysis

CFD Computational Any type of numerical approach to solve fluid flow. This term is commonly used to describe the
Fluid Dynamics solution of Navier-Stokes-like continuum equations on a discretized computational grid.
DEM Discrete A method in which particles are modeled as discrete entities, typically with a soft-sphere approach.
Element Method
CFD-DEM A coupled approach using DEM for particles and CFD for the gas. It is typically used when the fluid
grid size is larger than the particle size (Figure 2).
DNS Direct Numerical An approach in which particles are modeled with DEM and all scales of turbulent motion of the fluid
Simulation are actively captured. It is typically used when the fluid grid size is significantly smaller than the
particle size (Figure 2).
E-E Eulerian-Eulerian A category of models in which both phases are modeled as a continuum. E-E encompasses mixture
models, two-fluid models (TFMs), and energy minimization multiscale simulation (EMMS) models,
among others.
E-L Eulerian-Lagrangian A category of modeling in which particles are modeled discretely and fluids are modeled as a
continuum. E-L encompasses DNS, CFD-DEM, and multiphase particle in cell (MP-PIC) methods.
EMMS Energy Minimization A modified drag law for coarse-grained methods to account for the effect of unresolved clusters.
Multiscale Simulation
LES Large-Eddy A turbulence modeling technique in which large eddies are dynamically captured and small eddies
Simulation are modeled with a sub-grid-scale viscosity.
MP-PIC Multiphase An E-L strategy in which the discrete elements of the solid phase represent parcels or clouds of
Particle in Cell many particles.
RANS Reynolds Averaged A common turbulence modeling technique in which flow variables are decomposed into mean and
Navier-Stokes fluctuating terms and the resulting Reynolds stress is modeled, e.g., via a Prandtl mixing length
model, k- model, etc.
TFM Two-Fluid Model An E-E strategy in which solid particles are modeled as a continuous fluid phase, interpenetrating
the actual (molecular) fluid phase.

40 www.aiche.org/cep September 2017 CEP Copyright 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
 This approach is commonly referred to as CFD-DEM.
This may be a bit confusing, as all the methods discussed in
this article fall under the CFD umbrella, but the terminology
used here is standard in the gas-solid simulation community.
To avoid errors when filtering the discrete particle data
into a concentration field, grid cells are typically larger than
the particle diameter, yet resolutions of x ~ 2dp are required
for accurate solutions (i.e., grid-insensitive results) (2, 14).
Although this grid size is 20 times larger than the typical grid
size in DNS, CFD-DEM is still quite computationally expen-
sive. Simulations of large systems containing on the order of
106 particles that are run serially (or on only a few, parallel
cores) are unlikely to deliver results in a practical time frame.
However, with the explosive growth of computational power
over the last few decades, it is now possible to use thousands
of processors for a single simulation allowing for larger
system sizes to be modeled. Currently, simulations on the
order of 107 particles have been achieved (14, 15), but even
those are still woefully short of full, industrial-scale systems.
Nonetheless, CFD-DEM offers several advantages over con-
tinuum approaches for the solid phase (i.e., TFM):
There is no need for complex closures for solids-phase
constitutive relations, which are only tractable for very ideal-
ized particles.
It is straightforward to incorporate particle properties
such as nonsphericity, size distributions, and variable densities.
Implementation of new physics describing interparticle
interactions, such as friction, van der Waals forces, electro-
statics, capillary bridging, etc., is straightforward (1618).
Therefore, while CFD-DEM may be computationally
The Survey and its Participants
M ost of the opinions and discussion in the sections
on current status and capabilities, examples, and
future outlook are based on results of a survey to gauge
industrial perspectives on current and future use of
CFD-DEM. The survey consisted of 15 questions and was
presented to 34 CFD/CFD-DEM champions working in
industries relevant to particle flows. The 18 respondents
(a return of over 50%) represented a wide range of the
industrial spectrum:
chemicals
energy
petrochemicals
research and development
pharmaceuticals
specialty chemicals
engineering and consulting.
The respondents work for companies ranging in size
from less than 100 to more than 10,000 employees. If
you work with CFD-DEM and would like to participate
in the ongoing survey, please visit: https://www.psri.org/
demsurvey?acm=1_56.
Copyright 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
The detailed, particle-level information
provided by CFD-DEM is too valuable
to relegate to academic studies of
idealized systems.
expensive, it is being widely pursued because it can provide
valuable information.
Another discrete method that has found widespread
support in industry is multiphase particle in cell (MP-PIC).
MP-PIC is similar to CFD-DEM except that a particle is
replaced with a parcel. Each parcel, or cloud, may repre-
sent hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of
particles. This allows much larger systems to be solved than
with CFD-DEM. However, the parcel-parcel collision models
remain relatively ambiguous and, unlike CFD-DEM, con-
tinuum closures such as the solids pressure are also required
because individual particle collisions are not resolved.
Current status and capabilities
The use of CFD-DEM as a computational tool has
grown rapidly in recent years, particularly in the academic
community. This recent growth has certainly crossed over
into the industrial community, but not yet to the same extent.
The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, which can utilize
the granular approximation (no fluid phase) for relatively
large pills in a spray coating tumbler, has taken a strong
interest in DEM (solids only). However, only about 40%
of the individuals surveyed (see sidebar) believe that DEM
(multiphase or granular) is already a valuable tool (Figure 3).
Coupled CFD-DEM (gas and solids) is primarily used in
academic research, likely due to its large computational
overhead and complexity.
Computational constraints. Although CFD-DEM solu-
tions provide a highly desirable level of detail, they are still
computationally expensive and generally cannot tackle
full-scale industrial devices. Some of the largest CFD-DEM
simulations performed to date employed a CFD grid of over
500 million cells and modeled on the order of 107 [denoted
O(107), where the notation O(X) means on the order of
X] (14). However, large industrial-scale circulating fluid-
ized beds (CFBs) may contain 500 trillion particles, O(1014).
Subsystems of the CFBs, such as the bed, the riser, and the
primary riser cyclone (including diplegs), at high mass load-
ings may contain O(1013) to O(1014) particles at any given
time. Even smaller components like regenerator cyclones and
secondary cyclones may contain O(1010) to O(1012) particles
several orders of magnitude beyond even the largest CFD-
DEM simulations performed on supercomputers. The large
gap between current computational capability and that needed
for industrial scale is not easily bridged and is likely a primary
reason that the majority of the survey respondents do not yet
CEP September 2017 www.aiche.org/cep 41
Computational Methods

see CFD-DEM as a valuable industrial tool (Figure 3).
Time constraints. CFD-DEM can also be taxing for
other reasons. It may take several weeks to several months
to perform a simulation, even if a sufficiently large number
of CPU cores are available. Several factors contribute to the
relatively long time needed for CFD-DEM simulations:
To accurately capture the mesoscale dynamics, transient
simulations in a statistically steady state need to be run for a
sufficiently long period of time so that measured properties do
not depend strongly on the duration of time averaging.
Simulations need to be run for an initial period to reach
a statistically steady state at which data are usable.
Regardless of the number of particles and number of
processors, DEM simulations are limited to a relatively
small time step to accurately resolve the collisions, particu-
larly for fine particles (19).
Interparticle forces, e.g., van der Waals forces (2), require
a realistic spring constant (related to the Youngs modulus of
the material) to accurately capture the correct contact time
during collisions, which makes time-step limitations even
more challenging. Other interparticle forces (electrostatics,
capillary bridging, etc.) may present similar computational
challenges but have yet to be fully investigated.
Fortunately, industry is becoming more accepting of simu-
lations that may take several days or longer to produce results.
A majority of the survey respondents were willing to wait a
week or a month (44% and 28% of the respondents, respec-
tively) for value-added results from CFD-DEM simulations.
Other constraints. The user cost associated with
CFD-DEM can be high as well. Applying the underlying
methods and interpreting simulation results can be quite
challenging; often simply using the software correctly can
be difficult. The challenges for using CFD-DEM affect
personnel decisions and computer code decisions.
A recent bachelor-level graduate is unlikely to be fully
equipped to implement a complex CFD-DEM code. Some
undergraduate research opportunities offer hands-on experi-
ence working with graduate students and professors that
position some recent graduates to be ideal CFD-DEM users.
In 20 yr
Half of the survey respondents are willing to hire fully
trained PhD holders to implement CFD-DEM tools within
their organization. The other respondents would be willing
to invest in some type of training on using CFD-DEM tools,
ranging from participation in a users group to a short course.
The clear emphasis on training reflects the difficulty of
selecting the appropriate code. To meet the ever-expanding
needs of practitioners, many codes are available to perform
CFD-DEM simulations. Not surprisingly, commercial codes
dominate the market.
Five codes, four of which are commercial, are each used
by more than 20% of the survey respondents. However,
some respondents also used various open-source and in-
house codes. In addition, 44% of the respondents reported
using four or more different codes within a single organiza-
tion. The survey suggests that support and documentation,
i.e., having help available for using the code, is more impor-
tant than cost as the reason for selecting a particular code
(Figure 4). However, in a separate question, no respondents
said that they would be willing to spend more than $50,000
for a single license. Therefore, while cost may not be the
dominant factor, it is still important.
Current capabilities. Despite the constraints, the
detailed, particle-level information provided by CFD-DEM
is too valuable to relegate to academic studies of idealized
systems. With a bit of cleverness and ingenuity, engineers
can use CFD-DEM to gain valuable insight into real-world,
industrially relevant situations that are not as computation-
ally taxing as a complete CFB, such as the sub-component
studies illustrated in Figure 1. The following sections present
interesting examples that illustrate the use of CFD-DEM.
Example 1: Fully developed flow
Recently, Morris, et al., (15) used CFD-DEM to study the
flow of particles through a solar receiver in a concentrating
solar power (CSP) plant. (Editors note: For more on CSP, see
the special section in the July 2017 issue of CEP.) The proto-
100
89%
83%
80
Respondents, %

In 10 yr 6% Now 60
11% 39% 50% 50%
40 39%
28%
20

In 5 yr 0
44%
rs

ce
ha or
d

ng f
at n a d

lti o

e
rte

lid tio te

se
n d

ur
rg
f-C st
su ility
io n
Va ica en
po

fU

So
-o Co
rif um

on b
up

ro

n-
C ila

ee -
Fr Low
l-S

pe
Ve Doc

be
Av

O
el

um
W

p Figure 3. Most respondents do not yet see CFD-DEM as a valuable

N

industrial tool, although the vast majority of them expect it to achieve such
value in less than five years, considering the current rate of software and p Figure 4. Respondents say that when choosing a code, they consider
hardware enhancements. support and documentation to be the most important factors in their decisions.

42 www.aiche.org/cep September 2017 CEP Copyright 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
type design consists of a bank of hollow hexagonal tubes and
a field of heliostats (mirrors) that direct the suns rays toward
the tubes to heat them. A heat-transfer fluid comprised of solid
particles collects and stores heat when it flows through gaps
between the tubes (Figure 5).
The researchers determined that the flow became
approximately fully developed after only three rows of
tubes. Based on this, they simplified the simulation to a
much smaller domain that could provide valuable insights
into the behavior of the complete system. In addition,
although three-dimensional (3D) simulations are necessary
to accurately capture the particle packing structure near the
walls (which strongly influences the heat-transfer effi-
ciency), the researchers found that a relatively thin domain
(in the direction into the page in Figure 5) was sufficient to
accurately capture this behavior.
CFD-DEM simulations were also used to probe the
effects of different design parameters. For instance, reducing
the horizontal spacing of the tubes from 5.04 cm down to
4.44 cm creates a significant stagnation zone on the top row,
because the particles choke at the point where the streams
converge (just above the vertical segments).
In addition, simulation results revealed that thermal gradi-
ents near hot spots (high-temperature regions with insufficient
particle-wall contacting) produce unacceptably large mechani-
cal stresses, which ultimately required a redesign of the proto-
type solar receiver. Information of this type can be invaluable
when designing novel systems with many variables.
Tp, K
316
314
312
310
308
306
304
302
300
p Figure 5. Researchers used CFD-DEM to model particle flow through
a solar receiver in a concentrating solar power plant (15). Here, 300-m
particles and air at 300 K enter through the top of the reduced domain and
contact heat exchanger tubes held constant at 600 K; flow becomes fully
developed after the third row of tubes, just before the domain exit.
Copyright 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Example 2: System-size-independent metrics
Many metrics of gas-solid flows are scale-dependent,
presenting a significant challenge to scale-up studies. For
example, in a bubbling fluidized bed (BFB), the bubble
parameters (size, frequency, and rise velocity) all depend
on the size of the system due to wall and bed height effects,
and running small-scale simulations provides little useful
information about a larger system.
However, careful investigations have shown that not all
metrics depend on system size. For instance, a successful
comparison between small-scale CFD-DEM and large-scale
experimental data demonstrated that the superficial gas
velocity at which defluidization of a BFB occurs is indepen-
dent of system size (20).
Identifying more system-size-independent measurements
of industrial interest may broaden the immediate application
of CFD-DEM under current computing capabilities.
Example 3: Modeling of coarse-grained closures
Coarse-grained methods suffer from the challenges asso-
ciated with not simulating the mesoscale. Although some of
the dynamics are actively captured, a significant portion of
clustering and/or bubbling dynamics are simply washed out
by coarse grids and/or large parcels.
CFD-DEM can be used in smaller, idealized domains
that represent only a single grid cell (or parcel) in a coarse-
grained simulation. Information can be extracted and used to
form closure relations for the coarse-grained methods, which
Enhanced Physical Models
Particle Shape Accuracy of
Particle Attrition (11%) Collison Model
(5%) (28%)
Interparticle Forces
Agglomeration and
Deagglomeration
(56%)
Computational
Visualization and Ease of Creating
Post-Processing Simulation Domain Meshing
(11%) (17%)
Speed
(72%)
p Figure 6. The majority of respondents view interparticle forces (agglom-
eration and deagglomeration) as the most important physical enhancement
and speed as the most important type of computational improvement needed
for value-added DEM simulations.
CEP September 2017 www.aiche.org/cep 43
Computational Methods
can then be applied at a much larger scale.
One of the most important closures is the impact of unre-
solved structures on the mean drag law. Radl and Sundaresan
(21) recently used highly resolved CFD-DEM simulations
to constitute a drag law for MP-PIC simulations as a func-
tion of the parcel resolution, rectifying one of the outstanding
concerns about the coarse-grained method (21, 22).
A similar approach was also recently used to propose a
TFM boundary condition for conductive heat transfer (23).
The successes of this approach bode well for the modeling
of other physical mechanisms, particularly chemical reac-
tions, which involve inherently microscale phenomena.
Future outlook
While some companies are already using DEM, a sig-
nificant margin for growth remains among industrial users,
especially in energy, chemical, and petrochemical engineer-
ing. Based on survey results, we believe improvements in
the following four key areas will help spur the adoption of
CFD-DEM by the industry at large.
Physical improvements. For years, most DEM simula-
tions considered only monodisperse, spherical particles.
Today, significant progress has been made to model realistic
particle shapes using glued spheres, ellipsoids, cylinders,
superquadrics, and other methods (24, 25). Some algorithm
improvements for polydispersity have been made, but wide
size distributions remain a challenge (26).
Figure 6 (top) shows that one of the major needs among
industry today is the development and implementation of
interparticle force models (e.g., van der Waals forces, liquid
bridging, electrostatics), which control the agglomeration or
deagglomeration of constituent particles into or out of gran-
ules. Consideration of interparticle forces is inherently linked
to a second significant need area modeling the actual
collision. It becomes especially important to resolve the col-
lisions correctly when considering interparticle forces. More
specifically, using artificially soft particles significantly over-
estimates the collision duration, increasing the dissipation and
making the particles appear more cohesive than they should
be (2). Reference 24 provides a comprehensive review of the
current state-of-the-art capabilities of DEM for nonspherical
particles, breakage, attrition, cohesion, and agglomeration.
Computational improvements. While highly valuable,
CFD-DEM remains computationally expensive. Figure 6
(bottom) shows that a majority of the survey respondents
desire faster existing codes. One promising path to increase
the speed of existing codes is for code developers, often
engineers with a physics background, to work side-by-side
with computational scientists who specialize in high-
performance computing (27). Codes written from scratch
are rarely developed with performance in mind and typically
flow in a logical path that fails to leverage vectorized opera-
44 www.aiche.org/cep September 2017 CEP
tions and other advanced programming strategies.
Another failure of the most current generation of codes is
a lack of massive scalability. CFD-DEM codes are unable to
properly utilize the computing facilities of supercomputers,
which evolve more rapidly than the codes do.
Porting computations from CPUs to graphical process-
ing units (GPUs) and reprogramming essential routines
is another option to improve the speed of existing codes.
Several commercial codes already offer GPU capabilities.
Hardware improvements. Although large academic
CFD-DEM simulations can model O(107) particles and will
soon reach O(108), such simulations are being performed on
hundreds to thousands of cores, a computational requirement
that is too costly for many companies. The current machines
need to become cheaper for industry to tackle simulations
on thousands of cores. Next-generation coprocessors offer
another possibility for speed improvements. Again, a close
RAY COCCO, PhD, is President and CEO of Particulate Solid Research, Inc.
(PSRI) (Email: ray.cocco@psrichicago.com), a consortium-based com-
pany with 34 member companies worldwide. He was chair of the AIChE
Particle Technology Forum (Group 3) before joining PSRI, and is on the
Editorial Advisory Board for Powder and Bulk Engineering and Powder
Technology. He is a member of AIChEs Chemical Engineering Technol-
ogy Operating Council (CTOC) and the advisory boards for several
universities. Cocco is also a member of the International Fluidization
Conference Advisory Committee and the meeting chair for the next
World Congress in Particle Technology (WCPT8). He has over 40 pub-
lications, three book chapters, three patents and patent applications,
and numerous invited presentations. He received a BS in chemical
engineering from the Univ. of Florida and a PhD from Auburn Univ.
WILLIAM D. FULLMER, PhD, is a postdoctoral researcher in chemical
engineering at the Univ. of Colorado, Boulder (Email: william.fullmer@
colorado.edu). His interests range from fundamental research of
multiphase flow instabilities using computational fluid dynamics to
nuclear reactor safety analysis. Fullmer earned his BS, MS, and PhD
from Purdue Univ. School of Nuclear Engineering.
PEIYUAN LIU, PhD, is a postdoctoral researcher in chemical engineering at
the Univ. of Colorado, Boulder (Email: peiyuan.liu@colorado.edu). His
experience covers discrete element modeling of particulate flows and
multiphase flows, including interparticle forces, agglomeration, and
breakage in gas-solid flows. Liu received his BS in materials science
from the Univ. of Science and Technology Beijing, China and PhD from
the Univ. of New South Wales, Australia.
CHRISTINE M. HRENYA, PhD, is a professor of chemical engineering at the
Univ. of Colorado, Boulder (Email: hrenya@colorado.edu). Her research
program in multiphase flows has resulted in over 100 journal publica-
tions and 120 invited lectures. Recent recognitions include the 2014
AIChE Lectureship Award in Fluidization and the 2013 Univ. of Colorado
Excellence in Teaching Award. Hrenya served as chair of the 2016
AIChE Annual Meeting, and has previously served as chair of the 2006
Gordon Conference on Granular Flow (Oxford Univ.). She also serves
as an associate editor of the AIChE Journal. She received her BS from
the Ohio State Univ. and her PhD from Carnegie Mellon Univ., both in
chemical engineering.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Aaron Morris, Shankar Subramaniam, Bo Sun, and
Sudheer Tenneti for contributing to the figures, and Jesse Capecelatro and
Casey LaMarche for stimulating discussions. Funding for this work was
graciously provided by the U.S. Dept. of Energy Grant No. DE-FE0026298.
Copyright 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
working relationship between code developers and com-
putational scientists is essential to fully leverage emerging
technologies.
Collaboration. Partnerships between industry and aca-
demia could minimize the need to buy machines capable of
1,000-core (or more) simulations. The industrial sector is most
likely to face large computational challenges and the academic
sector is most likely to have access to large machines.
For example, the eXtreme Science and Engineering
Discovery Environment (XSEDE) started an Industry
Challenge program funded by the U.S. Dept. of Energys
Crosscutting Research program with the specific intent to
bring academic and industrial researchers together. The
director of the XSEDE Industry Challenge, David Hudak,
stated (28): Large-scale problems in open science are often
Literature Cited
1. Pschel, T., and T. Schwager, Computational Granular Dynamics:
Models and Algorithms, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2005).
2. Liu, P., et al., Fine-Particle Defluidization: Interaction Between
Cohesion, Youngs Modulus, and Static Bed Height, Chemical
Engineering Science, 145, pp. 266278 (2016).
3. Royer, J. R., et al., High-Speed Tracking of Rupture and Cluster-
ing in Freely Falling Granular Streams, Nature, 459 (7250),
pp. 11101113 (June 2009).
4. Goldhirsch, I., Rapid Granular Flows, Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics, 35, pp. 267293 (2003).
5. Brilliantov, N., and T. Pschel, Kinetic Theory of Granular
Gases, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K. (2004).
6. Mitrano, P. P., et al., Kinetic-Theory Predictions of Clustering
Instabilities in Granular Flows: Beyond the Small-Knudsen-Number
Regime, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 738, pp. R212 (Jan. 2014).
7. Fullmer, W. D., and C. M. Hrenya, Quantitative Assessment
of Fine-Grid Kinetic-Theory-Based Predictions of Mean-Slip in
Unbounded Fluidization, AIChE Journal, 62 (1), pp. 1117
(Jan. 2016).
8. Agrawal, K., et al., The Role of Meso-Scale Structures in Rapid
Gas-Solid Flows, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 445, pp. 151185
(Oct. 2001).
9. McMillan, J., et al., Particle Cluster Dynamics During Fluidiza-
tion, Chemical Engineering Science, 100, pp. 3951 (Aug. 2013).
10. Igci, Y., et al., Filtered Two-Fluid Models for Fluidized Gas-Parti-
cle Suspensions, AIChE Journal, 54 (6), pp. 14311448 (June 2008).
11. Parmentier, J. F., et al., A Functional Subgrid Drift Velocity
Model for Filtered Drag Prediction in Dense Fluidized Bed, AIChE
Journal, 58 (4), pp. 10841098 (Apr. 2012).
12. Schneiderbauer, S., and S. Pirker, Filtered and Heterogeneity-
Based Subgrid Modifications for Gas-Solid Drag and Solid Stresses
in Bubbling Fluidized Beds, AIChE Journal, 60 (3), pp. 839854
(Mar. 2014).
13. Tenneti, S., and S. Subramaniam, Particle-Resolved Direct
Numerical Simulation for Gas-Solid Flow Model Development,
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 46, pp. 199230 (2014).
14. Capecelatro, J., et al., On Fluid-Particle Dynamics in Fully Devel-
oped Cluster-Induced Turbulence, Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
780, pp. 578635 (Oct. 2015).
Copyright 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
discovered by trying to solve industrial problems. Attempt-
ing to solve these problems requires multidisciplinary
research teams using the fastest computers available. . I
am confident these teams will produce results that have both
scientific and economic impact.
This current work pairs computational scientists with
engineers from academia and industry to bridge the gap
between basic and applied research by enhancing the speed
and scalability of an open-source CFD-DEM code. Its
ultimate goal is to simulate an industrially relevant system
containing O(108) particles.
Projects like this will hopefully help make CFD-DEM
more useful to industrial researchers. If you work in an area
of gas-solid particulate flow and CFD-DEM is not already in
your toolbox, perhaps it should be. CEP
15. Morris, A. B., et al., Simulations of Heat Transfer to Solid Par-
ticles Flowing Through an Array of Heated Tubes, Solar Energy,
130, pp. 101115 (2016).
16. Israelachvili, J. N., Intermolecular and Surface Forces. 3rd ed.,
Academic Press, Burlington, MA (2011).
17. Visser, J., Vanderwaals and Other Cohesive Forces Affecting Pow-
der Fluidization, Powder Technology, 58 (1), pp. 110 (May 1989).
18. Waitukaitis, S. R., et al., Size-Dependent Same-Material Tribo-
charging in Insulating Grains, Physical Review Letters, 112 (21),
pp. 218001 (May 2014).
19. Liu, P. Y., and C. M. Hrenya, Challenges of DEM: I. Compet-
ing Bottlenecks in Parallelization of Gas-Solid Flows, Powder
Technology, 264, pp. 620626 (Sept. 2014).
20. LaMarche, C. Q., et al., A System-Size Independent Validation
of CFD-DEM for Noncohesive Particles, AIChE Journal, 61 (12),
pp. 40514058 (Dec. 2015).
21. Radl, S., and S. Sundaresan, A Drag Model for Filtered Euler-
Lagrange Simulations of Clustered Gas-Particle Suspensions,
Chemical Engineering Science, 117, pp. 416425 (Sept. 2014).
22. Benyahia, S., and J. E. Galvin, Estimation of Numerical
Errors Related to Some Basic Assumptions in Discrete Particle
Methods, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 49 (21),
pp. 1058810605 (Nov. 2010).
23. Morris, A. B., et al., A Conductive Heat Transfer Model for Par-
ticle Flows Over Immersed Surfaces, International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer, 89, pp. 12771289 (Oct. 2015).
24. Guo, Y., and J. S. Curtis, Discrete Element Method Simulations
for Complex Granular Flows, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics,
47, pp. 2146 (2015).
25. Potapov, A., Approaches for Accurate Modeling of Particle
Attrition in DEM Simulations, presented at the 2016 Frontiers in
Particle Science and Technology, Houston, TX (Apr. 1113, 2016).
26. Berger, K. J., and C. M. Hrenya, Challenges of DEM: II. Wide
Particle Size Distributions, Powder Technology, 264, pp. 627633
(Sept. 2014).
27. Syamlal, M., et al., Computational Science: Enabling Technology
Development, Chemical Engineering Progress, 107 (1), pp. 2329
(Jan. 2011).
28. XSEDE, XSEDE Industry Challenge Program, www.xsede.org/
industry-challenge-program (accessed in May 2016).
CEP September 2017 www.aiche.org/cep 45