16

Numerical simulation of roughness effects inside a

brick-lined cyclone separator

Damir Kahrimanovic1, Stefan Pirker1,2, Georg Aichinger3, Friedemann Plaul3

1
Christian-Doppler Laboratory on Particulate Flow Modelling, Linz, Austria (www.particulate-flow.at)
2
Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria
3
Siemens Metals Technologies, Linz, Austria

Summary:

An industrial cyclone, which is used for dust separation from a hot gas mixture, is studied by means of
numerical simulation. Because of high gas temperatures (about 1075 K), the inner surfaces of the
cyclone separator and the inlet pipe have to be lined with refractory bricks, which cause high wall
roughness. The virtual wall model is used to simulate this roughness, and a new model extension
accounting for joints between the bricks is proposed and validated by dedicated experiments.
As the cyclone inlet mass load is relatively low (0.01 kg/kg), the Eulerian-Lagrangian approach is used
for the simulations. The continuous phase conservation equations are solved in the Eulerian reference
frame on a fixed grid, whereas the discrete phase properties are resolved by computing particle
trajectories through the computational domain in a Lagrangian reference frame.
Besides an inlet particle diameter spectrum ranging from 1 µm to 100 µm, also different particle
materials with different particle densities have to be considered. The measurements and the analytical
Muschelknautz model are compared to the numerical simulations regarding pressure loss, particle
spectra at the outlet and the fractional separation efficiency.
The Muschelknautz model shows some difficulties with the kind of wall roughness considered here
(especially joints between the bricks). Additionally, this method was not designed for different particle
densities simultaneously.
Nevertheless, comparisons show a good agreement between numerical simulations, measurements
and theory.

Keywords:

Cyclone separator, gas-solid flow, Eulerian-Lagrangian approach.

NAFEMS Seminar: „Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD) March 16 - 17, 2009

- Applications and Trends“ 1 Wiesbaden, Germany
1 Introduction
Cyclone is an apparatus for particle filtering in the diameter range of 1÷1000 µm from a gas or a liquid
flow. The schematic diagram of a cyclone is shown in Fig. 1. Two-phase flow enters tangentially the
cylindrical cyclone body near the upper wall of the cyclone. Through the cyclone geometry the two
phase flow is forced to the strong swirling flow. Due to the centrifugal force, solid particles are dashed
against the cyclone’s outer wall. After falling down they are collected and separated in the deposition
chamber (at the lower outlet of the cyclone, see Fig. 5). The cleaned gas flow is pushed to the inner
swirl in the conical cyclone part. This inner swirl moves upwards and leaves the cyclone through the
upper outlet (vortex finder).
The main criteria for designing, measuring and simulating cyclone separators are:
- overall separation efficiency (percentage of particles which are collected at lower cyclone outlet),
- pressure loss,
- cut-point diameter d 50 (diameter that has a 50% probability of capture),
- particle mass distribution at the outlet (the outlet spectrum).
The analytical considerations about cyclone in this work are based on the works of Muschelknautz et
al. [6] and Hoffmann et al. [4]. While the work of Muschelknautz et al. only contains the dimensioning
guidelines and suggestions, Hoffmann et al. give a historical overview over the gas cyclone
development, theoretical considerations about particle in a centrifugal force field, pressure loss and
further special topics which are important for cyclones.
Numerical simulations are carried out following the Eulerian-Lagrangian method. Thereby, the
continuous phase conservation equations are solved in an Eulerian reference frame on a fixed grid,
whereas the discrete phase properties are resolved by computing particle trajectories through the
computational domain in a Lagrangian reference frame. The Discrete Phase Model of the Fluent
software package uses this method for simulating multiphase flows, and is therefore found to be
appropriate for simulations in this work.
In order to improve the simulations, additional sub-models are integrated in the software. With the help
of these sub-models attempts are made, on the one hand, for optimising particle collisions with solid
walls (and hence being able to simulate wall roughness) and, on the other hand, for considering the
influence of particle rotation on its trajectory.
The simulations of the discrete phase are carried out by the two-way coupling mechanism. This means
that the influence of the gas phase on the particle movement as well as the feedback of the particles
to the gas in form of the mass- and momentum source terms can be accounted for.

Fig. 1: Schematic diagram of a cyclone with the main dimensions

NAFEMS Seminar: „Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD) March 16 - 17, 2009

- Applications and Trends“ 2 Wiesbaden, Germany
2 Model description

2.1 Particle-wall collision

For a realistic modelling of the particle-wall collision process there are many effects and parameters
which have to be accounted for. The most important amongst them are:
- pre-collisional particle properties (velocity, rotation, direction, mass),
- wall roughness,
- restitution and friction coefficients of the particle-wall material combination.
In order to solve the problem of particle deposition in numerical simulations of horizontal channels,
Tsuji et al. [12] proposed the concept of the virtual wall. At the collision place a virtual wall inclination is
simulated. That means, that a stochastic part, a so-called virtual angle, is superposed to the particle
impact angle. In this way the particle’s velocity component normal to the wall can be even larger after
a collision than before. Thus the proposed model works against particle deposition due to the loss of
momentum.
Sommerfeld [10] uses this concept to simulate the wall roughness. He presents the improved and
physically founded wall collision model and defines the virtual angle as a normally distributed random
variable.
A detailed description of the virtual wall model goes beyond the scope of this work. Interested reader
is referred to [3], [5], [10], [11] and [12].
2.2 Particle rotation
The lift force on a rotating particle in a viscous fluid flow can be defined as
r
r 1 r r
FM = ρ L u − u p CLM rp π
⎛
r
( r r ⎞
) .
2 ⎜ Ω diff × u − u p ⎟
(2.1)
2 ⎜ Ω diff ⎟
⎝ ⎠
r
This force is called the Magnus or the Robins force, see Barkla et al. [1]. Thereby, Ω diff is the
rotational difference between gas and particle,
r 1 r r
Ω diff = ∇ × u − ω p . (2.2)
2
r r r
The gas and particle velocities are marked as u and u p , respectively, whereas ω p is the particle
rotation, ρL is the gas density, and rp is the particle radius.
The Magnus force is dependent on the rotational lift coefficient C LM , the particle Reynolds number
r r
ρLd p u − u p
Re p = , (2.3)
µL
and the non-dimensional parameter Ω , used for the spin rate. It is the ratio of the particle’s equatorial
velocity to the particle-fluid relative velocity:
r
ω p rp
Ω= r r . (2.4)
u − up
d p is the particle diameter, and µ L is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid.
The lift coefficient used in this work is taken from the experimental results of Oesterlé and Bui Dinh,
[7]:
CLM = 0.45 + (2Ω − 0.45)e
−0.075 Ω 0.4 Re 0p.7
. (2.5)
Through this expression, the validity of the analytical results of Rubinow and Keller [9] for small
particle Reynolds numbers is approved, see Fig. 2. However, the lift coefficient decreases for larger
Reynolds numbers and spin rates and finally achieves values around 0.5.
2.3 Brick joint model
Cyclones, which are used for instance in the steel making processes, must often separate extremely
hot gas-solid mixtures. Because of high temperatures, these cyclones are not made of steel, but have
to be lined with refractory bricks. Therefore the effect of joints between the bricks on the cyclone
separation efficiency should be investigated. For this purpose, the brick joint model as an extension of
the particle-wall collision model is provided for the numerical simulation.

NAFEMS Seminar: „Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD) March 16 - 17, 2009

- Applications and Trends“ 3 Wiesbaden, Germany
 5
Oesterlé, Bui Dinh
4.5
Rep = 10
4

3.5
Rep = 30
3

2.5
CL

Rubinow, Keller
2
Rep = 50
1.5

1
Rep = 100
0.5
Rep = 140
0
-1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
Ω
Fig. 2: Rotational lift coefficient C LM according to the measurements of Oesterlé and Bui Dinh, [7],
and analytical results of Rubinow and Keller, [9]
Thereby, two approaches are possible: in the top-down strategy, one can provide appropriate
distributions for particle’s translational and rotational velocities and the rebound angle after an
encounter with a brick joint. Many parameters play a large role for the creation of such distributions:
- particle’s velocity and rotation before the impact,
- angle of impact relative to the wall,
- joint dimensions (width, depth),
- material combination of particle and wall (restitution and friction coefficients),
- wall roughness etc.
Besides of the parameters listed above, a particle in a joint is usually not facing only single, but
multiple collisions. Very comprehensive measurement and simulation series would therefore be
needed in order to cover the parameter area accordingly and to collect sufficient data for a reasonable
statistical description of the joint occurrence. For this reason, the top-down strategy is refused.
The brick joint model developed in the frame of this work is rather based on the bottom-up strategy:
each encounter of a particle with a joint is simulated by several wall collisions. The probability of an
impact is defined by the joint and brick dimensions (Fig. 3),
a
Pjo int = . (2.6)
a+c

c
Fig. 3: Brick joints
Thus, the decision whether a particle is going to impact a joint or not is made upon a random number.
If this case arises, it can be assumed that every point of impact along the joint width has an equal
probability, compare big dots in Fig. 4 a.
In the first step of a particle-joint encounter (Fig. 4 a) it has to be determined which side of the joint the
particle is going to collide with first. For this purpose, the joint aspect ratio is needed (Fig. 3),

NAFEMS Seminar: „Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD) March 16 - 17, 2009

- Applications and Trends“ 4 Wiesbaden, Germany
 Fig. 4: Impact of a particle with a joint, a) first step, b) second step
a
AR = . (2.7)
b
With the particle impact angle α and an auxiliary variable x one defines
b
tan α = . (2.8)
x
In the case of
b
tan α > , (2.9)
x
the particle is going to collide with the joint bottom (side “a” in Fig. 4 a). Eq. 2.9 can be circumscribed:
1 x
< , (2.10)
tan α b
1 x b x
< ⋅ = , (2.11)
AR ⋅ tan α b a a
whereby x / a can be represented through a uniformly distributed random number between 0 and 1,
compare Fig. 4 a.
It is thus decided by a random number and as a function of joint aspect ratio and particle impact angle
which side of the joint is collided with at first (side “a”, or the right “b”-side in Fig. 4 a). After that, the
correspondent wall normal vector is passed to the numerical wall collision procedure and one single
collision with the rough wall is simulated. After the first collision one turns to the second step, Fig. 4 b.
It is assumed that the particle hit the “b”-side in the first collision. Now, the next possible collision place
is sought after. Joint bottom (“a”) or the opposite “b”-side come into question, see Fig. 4 b. In this
figure, α is the particle rebound angle from the previous collision, and with an auxiliary variable y it can
be written
a
tan α = . (2.12)
y
From the Fig. 4 b it can be clearly seen, that in the case of
a
tan α < , (2.13)
y
the particle will collide with joint bottom, “a”. If this condition is not fulfilled, the particle will collide with
the opposite “b”-side. Again, eq. 2.13 can be circumscribed:
1 y
> , (2.14)
tan α a
AR y a y
> ⋅ = . (2.15)
tan α a b b
Here again, y / b is a uniformly distributed random number between 0 and 1.
In this manner, as much as desired successive collisions in an ideal joint can be calculated. With the
help of simple geometrical considerations and fast generated random numbers the decision about the
next collision place is made. Thus, through a simple recursive algorithm an encounter of a particle with
a joint can be represented.
Needless to say, some simplifying assumptions must be met with this procedure. Thus, beside an
ideal spherical particle, also an ideal right-angled joint without any damages or irregularities is
simulated. Particle agglomerations inside the joint are not considered as well.

NAFEMS Seminar: „Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD) March 16 - 17, 2009

- Applications and Trends“ 5 Wiesbaden, Germany
3 Boundary conditions

Fig. 5: a) cyclone geometry, b) evaluation planes

The geometry of the hot gas cyclone is shown in Fig. 5 a. Cyclone dimensions (see Fig. 1) are listed
below:
- Total height htot = 11.8 m
- Height of the cylindrical part hcyl = 3.8 m
- Height of the conical part hc = htot − hcyl = 8 m
- Cyclone radius ra = 1.8 m
- Radius of the vortex finder ri = 0.72 m
- Height of the vortex finder hi = 2.9 m
- Radius at the lower outlet r3 = 0.77 m
- Cone angle ϕ = 0.128 rad = 7.3°
- Inlet height he = 2.15 m
- Inlet width b = 0 .6 m
A gas mixture flows through the inlet pipe and enters the cyclone with the mass flow rate of
m& g = 30.88 kg/s. The gas temperature at the inlet amounts Tg = 1075 K, and the gas density is
ρ g = 1.31 kg/m³.
The particulate phase is composed of two different materials which occur in equal parts. The particle
densities are ρ p1 = 1100 kg/m³ and ρ p 2 = 2800 kg/m³. For the analytical cyclone dimensioning
according to Muschelknautz an average particle density of ρ p = 1950 kg/m³ is assumed, whereas in
numerical simulations it is possible to account for different particle densities.
Simulations are carried out on a numerical grid with 230 000 hexahedral cells. For the turbulence
modelling, the Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) is used. In contrast to the one- and two-equation
models, RSM does not use the turbulent viscosity hypothesis. This turbulence model rather solves the
transport equations for the Reynolds stresses ui'u 'j (averaged velocity fluctuations) and for the
turbulent dissipation rate ε. This requires the solution of seven additional transport equations, which

NAFEMS Seminar: „Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD) March 16 - 17, 2009

- Applications and Trends“ 6 Wiesbaden, Germany
considerably increases the computational costs. Nevertheless, for the correct representation of
turbulent quantities in a cyclone separator, the models which allow for anisotropic turbulence are
crucial. For pressure interpolation the PRESTO scheme (staggered grid) is chosen. Since the
computational cells are aligned mostly in the flow direction, for the convective fluxes the QUICK
(upwind) scheme is used.
Evaluation planes are shown in Fig. 5 b. Beside the cyclone inlet and outlet and the vertical plane
there are five further planes: at the half height of cyclone inlet (01), directly under the vortex finder
(02), at the upper end, in the middle and at the lower end of the conical part (03, 04 and 05).
The simulation sequence is specified as follows: at first, a simulation of the gaseous phase (without
particles) is carried out. Afterwards, in the second simulation step the discrete phase is considered,
whereby the cyclone walls are assumed as very smooth (virtual angle ∆γ = 0° ). Subsequently, the
virtual wall roughness is increased to ∆γ = 5° . In the last simulation step the joint model is used,
whereby the probability to hit a joint is set to Pjo int = 0.05 . The aspect ratio of the joint is AR = 1 . The
restitution coefficient is assumed to be e = 0.7 , and static and dynamic friction coefficients are
µ s = 0.5 and µ d = 0.3 , respectively.
The overall mass flow rate of the particles is divided in two equal parts (for two particle densities, ρ p1
and ρ p 2 ). Both particle types are represented through eight particle classes (diameter). The simulated
particle diameters and their mass fractions are listed in Table 1.
The simulations are carried out by a two-way coupling mechanism. That means that the continuous
and the discrete phase are calculated in alternating steps. Thereby, the exchange terms for mass and
momentum are used for the other phase, respectively.

d p (µm) 1 2 4 7 10 20 50 100
Percent by weight (%) 1 2 3 4 10 31 35 14
m& p (kg/s) 0.0015 0.0031 0.0046 0.0062 0.015 0.0479 0.054 0.0216
Table 1: Simulated particle diameters and mass flow rates

4 Results
Tangential and axial velocity profiles on the intersection lines between vertical plane and planes 02÷05
(see Fig. 5 b) are shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. Tangential velocities show the typical characteristic for a
cyclone separator. The largest tangential velocity lies under the wall of the vortex finder. The velocity
decreases almost linearly toward the cyclone centre (solid body rotation). Beyond the region of strong
swirling flow and toward the cyclone’s outer wall, tangential velocity decreases in a manner of the
loss-free rotation (Rankine vortex). Due to increased wall roughness and the influence of joints the
movement of solid particles becomes more irregular thus decreasing the gas tangential velocity (Fig.
6).
Axial velocities rather show an asymmetrical behaviour, especially in the lower cyclone part. This
points out that the inner cyclone swirl is not completely concentric. It rather meanders and spins
relatively slowly around the cyclone axis. Bigger wall roughness increases the positive axial velocities
(under the vortex finder). This can be explained through the attenuation of the inner swirl.
One can generally say that larger wall roughness intensifies the axial flow inside the cyclone
(downwards at the outer wall, upwards in the cyclone core). The swirling flow is however weakened,
and this makes a negative influence on cyclone’s separation efficiency. By the weakening of the eddy
inside the cyclone the pressure loss also sinks.
Fig. 8 shows the particle concentration (kg/m³) at the cyclone inlet. The arrows mark the secondary
flow of the gaseous phase. In Fig. 8 a, there are no particles in the simulation, so only secondary flow
vectors are drawn. The solid particles distribution at the cyclone entrance is very important for the
general separation behaviour. For this reason the cyclone is simulated including its long inlet pipe (Fig.
5 a). As is shown in Fig. 8, the previous history can very well affect the particle behaviour.
Higher discrete phase concentration near the cyclone’s upper wall results from the inlet pipe
previously mentioned. Smooth walls from the simulation in Fig. 8 b do not change much in this
circumstance, the particles enter the cyclone at the conceivably most unfavourable position, i.e. at the
upper wall and on the inner side of the inlet, near the vortex finder. In the simulations with rough walls
and joints, respectively, the particle concentration is displaced towards the outer wall because of
increased particle dispersion. Also, the intense secondary flow is alleviated.

NAFEMS Seminar: „Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD) March 16 - 17, 2009

- Applications and Trends“ 7 Wiesbaden, Germany
 Plane 02 Plane 03
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
utan

utan
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
ra ra

Plane 04 continuous phase Plane 05

40 40 walls
particles, smooth
35 particles, rough
35walls
rough walls, joints
30 30

25 25
utan

20

utan
20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
ra ra

Fig. 6: Tangential velocities

Plane 02 Plane 03
15 15

10 10

5 5
uax

uax

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
ra ra

Plane 04 continuous phase

Plane 05
15 particles, smooth walls
15
particles, rough walls
rough walls, joints
10 10

5 5
uax

uax

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
ra ra

Fig. 7: Axial velocities

NAFEMS Seminar: „Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD) March 16 - 17, 2009

- Applications and Trends“ 8 Wiesbaden, Germany
 Fig. 8: Particle concentration and secondary flow at the cyclone inlet, a) continuous phase, b) smooth
walls, c) rough walls, d) rough walls and joints
Despite the more favourable particle distribution at the cyclone inlet the simulations with rough walls
and joints show worse separation behaviour. The reason for this lies in the cyclone body, where the
particles bounce from the outer wall to the cyclone core in a more irregular manner.
The measured particle spectra at the cyclone inlet and outlet, the outlet spectrum according to the
Muschelknautz method of modelling as well as the outlet spectra from the simulations (rough walls,
with and without joints) are shown in Fig. 9. The Muschelknautz method makes relatively exact
prediction concerning the outlet spectrum, yet it calculates rather low overall separation efficiency, see
Table 2.

Measurement Muschelknautz Simulation without joints Simulation with joints

∆p (Pa) 1850 1890 1800
η (%) 92 88 95 94
Table 2: Comparison of pressure losses and overall separation efficiencies

NAFEMS Seminar: „Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD) March 16 - 17, 2009

- Applications and Trends“ 9 Wiesbaden, Germany
 1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
*100%

0.5

0.4

0.3
Measurement, inlet
0.2 Measurement, outlet
Muschelknautz
0.1 Simulation without joints
Simulation with joints
0
-6 -5 -4 -3
10 10 10 10
dp
Fig. 9: Particle spectra: measurement, Muschelknautz method and simulations
The reason for this lies in the weakening of the inner cyclone swirl through very high mean wall
roughness (which is specified in order to account for the joints). With lower wall roughness (no joints),
the overall separation efficiency (and the pressure loss, too) would increase, the outlet particle
spectrum would be shifted towards smaller diameter (to the left in Fig. 9).
The results of numerical simulations (Fig. 9, Table 2) predict rather good cyclone performance. Apart
from the unsatisfactory description of the particle-turbulence interaction (Random Walk Model in
Fluent), the causes can also be sought after in other disadvantages of the Discrete Phase Model:
relatively small number of simulated particle trajectories per particle diameter, density and time step
(due to computing time), very limited possibilities of consideration of particle relaxation times (due to
the dimensions of the simulation domain and the number of trajectories) etc.
5 Conclusion
A brick-lined hot gas cyclone separator is investigated by means of numerical simulation. Thereby
different models accounting for wall collisions, brick joints and rotation of discrete particles are
implemented and tested. The comparison is made to the experimental measurements and the
modelling method by Muschelknautz. Both, the numerical simulations and the analytical method, have
their pros and contras.
The simulations, on the one hand, are well capable of calculating the wall collisions and the brick
joints. There is, however, the need for considering the particle-particle interactions, even for such
small mass loading ratios as is the case in this work. Thus the four-way coupling mechanism is
unavoidable for cyclone separators in order to resolve the particle strands properly.
The analytical modelling method, on the other hand, does not consider the influence of the particle
behaviour before the cyclone separator and the way in which the particles enter the cyclone. It is
further not capable of accounting for brick joints inside the cyclone body. Instead of joints, the mean
wall roughness can be increased, which has a negative influence on the overall separation efficiency.
However, the analytical method accounts for the formation of ropes and strands and is therefore an
essential tool for the comparison with the numerical methods.
Further improvements of numerical models, e.g. the four-way coupling mechanism and the particle-
turbulence interaction, are planned for the future. If this succeeds, the numerical simulations are
believed to be clearly superior to any analytical modelling methods.

NAFEMS Seminar: „Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD) March 16 - 17, 2009

- Applications and Trends“ 10 Wiesbaden, Germany
6 References
[1] Barkla H.M., Auchterlonie L.J.: "The Magnus or Robins effect on rotating spheres", Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, 47, 1971, 437-447
[2] Clift R., Grace J.R., Weber M.E.: "Bubbles, Drops, and Particles", Academic Press, Inc., 1978
[3] Crowe C.T., Sommerfeld M., Tsuji Y.: "Multiphase Flows with Droplets and Particles", CRC
Press LLC, 1998
[4] Hoffmann A.C., Stein L.E.: "Gas Cyclones and Swirl Tubes", Springer Verlag, 2002
[5] Kahrimanovic D., Pirker S., Kloss C.: "Numerical study and experimental validation of particle
strand formation", 6th International Conference on CFD in Oil & Gas, Metallurgical and Process
Industries, SINTEF/NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, 10-12 June 2008
[6] Muschelknautz E., Greif V., Trefz M.: "Zyklone zur Abscheidung von Feststoffen aus Gasen",
VDI-Wärmeatlas, 1994, Abschnitt Lja
[7] Oesterlé B., Bui Dinh T.: "Experiments on the lift of a spinning sphere in a range of intermediate
Reynolds numbers", Experiments in Fluids, 25, 1998, 16-22
[8] Pirker S., Kahrimanovic D.: "Numerical Simulation of Inlet Duct Geometry Influence in Highly
Laden Cyclones", Ansys Conference on Multiphase Flows, Dresden, Germany, April 2007
[9] Rubinow S.J., Keller J.B.: "The transverse force on a spinning sphere moving in a viscous fluid",
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 11, 1961, 447-459
[10] Sommerfeld M.: "Modelling of particle-wall collisions in confined gas-particle flows", International
Journal of Multiphase Flow, 18, 1992, 905-926
[11] Sommerfeld M.: "Modellierung und numerische Berechnung von partikelbeladenen turbulenten
Strömungen mit Hilfe des Euler/Lagrange-Verfahrens", Shaker Verlag Aachen, 1996
[12] Tsuji Y., Morikawa Y., Tanaka T., Nakatsukasa N., Nakatani M.: "Numerical simulation of gas-
solid two-phase flow in a two-dimensional horizontal channel", International Journal of
Multiphase Flow, 13, 1987, 671-684

NAFEMS Seminar: „Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD) March 16 - 17, 2009

- Applications and Trends“ 11 Wiesbaden, Germany
NAFEMS Seminar: „Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD) March 16 - 17, 2009
- Applications and Trends“ Wiesbaden, Germany