Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 4193 4203

www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

DEM-LES of coal combustion in a bubbling &uidized bed. Part I:

gas-particle turbulent &ow structure
Haosheng Zhou, Gilles Flamant , Daniel Gauthier
Institut de Science et de Genie des Materiaux et Procedes, CNRS-IMP, BP.5 66125 Odeillo, Font-Romeu Cedex, France
Received 5 February 2003; received in revised form 1 December 2003; accepted 9 January 2004
Available online 18 August 2004

Abstract
The gas and particle motions in a bubbling &uidized bed both with and without chemical reactions are numerically simulated. The solid
phase is modelled as Discrete Element Method (DEM) and the gas phase is modelled as 2-D NavierStokes equations for 2-phase &ow
with &uid turbulence calculated by large Eddy simulation (LES), in which the e<ect of particles on subgrid scale gas &ow is taken into
account. The gas/particle &ow structure, the mean velocities and turbulent intensities can be predicted as a function of several operating
parameters (particle size, bed temperature, and inlet gas velocity). The lower the inlet gas velocity, the higher the ratio of particle collision.
The distributions of the particle anisotropic velocity show that the particles have no local equilibrium, and the distribution of gas kinetic
energy corresponds to the distribution of gas-particle coupling moment in the &uidized bed. An intensive particle turbulent region exists
near the wall, and the gas Reynolds stress is always much higher than the particle stress. The presence of the large reactive particles in
the &uidized bed may a<ect signi>cantly the gas and particle velocities and turbulent intensities. The e<ects of the bed temperature and
inlet gas velocity on the gas particle &ow structure, velocity, and turbulent intensity are also studied.
? 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Mathematical modeling; Fluidized bed; Discrete element method; Large eddy simulation; Chemical reaction

1. Introduction
Fluidized bed combustion has been modeled from di<erent approaches, namely semi- empirical models and computational &uid dynamic (CFD) models. Semi-empirical
models are based on experimental >ndings and empirical
correlations obtained from measurements; they can account for complex &ow pattern in &uidized bed combustors
(Desroches-Ducame et al., 1998; Kulasekaran et al., 1999;
Knoebig et al., 1999; Adanez et al., 2001; Chen et al., 2001).
This type of approach is based to a large extent on measured
data, thus it is limited to the database it was developed from.
CFD models involve a full set of partial di<erential equations that describe the conservation of mass, momentum,
energy and chemical species (Peirano and Leckner, 1988;
Lathouwers and Bellan, 2001). CFD models are much more
complex than semi-empirical ones, and their computational
times are very long due to the unsteady character of the
numerous equations. However, detailed CFD models and

Corresponding author. Tel.: +33-4-68-7758; fax: +33-4-68-30-2940.

E-mail address: &amant@imp.cnrs.fr (G. Flamant).

0009-2509/$ - see front matter ? 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2004.01.069

simulation results of the &uidized bed combustor system

would allow the optimization of processes and their scaling,
without needing expensive and time-consuming testing.
The distinctive characteristic in a &uidized bed is the heterogeneous gas-particle &ow structure, and momentum and
energy are mainly exchanged through collisions between
particles rather than through the gas phase (Savage and
Sayed, 1984). Two theoretical approaches were proposed
to handle the complicated phenomena, namely the Eulerian
and the discrete particle (Lagrangian) approaches. The Eulerian model considers the particulate phase as a continuous
&uid interpenetrating and interacting with the &uid phase.
The kinetic theory of granular &ow is used in the Eulerian
model to draw a theoretical framework for simulating gas
solid &ow with particles of di<erent size and/or density
(Ding and Gidaspow, 1990; Arastoopour, 2001). However,
severe di<culties are encountered: >rst, many closure laws
related to the mutual interaction between particles belonging to di<erent classes have to be formulated; moreover,
the universality of the used constants is questionable. Due
to the development of computer capacities, discrete particle
models, or so-called Lagrangian models, have become very

4194

H. Zhou et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 4193 4203

useful and versatile tools to study the hydrodynamic behaviour of particulate &ows. They o<er a more natural way
to simulate a gassolid &ow with particles of di<erent size
and/or di<erent density, since each individual particle is
tracked in the simulation. Discrete particle models have
been combined with a Eulerian &uid model to simulate phenomena such as bubbling, slugging, and solid transport in
bubbling and circulating &uidized beds (Tsuji et al., 1993;
Hoomans et al., 1996; Helland et al., 2000; Yuu et al., 2001,
Zhou et al., 2002a,b). These models were properly validated
by comparison with experiments (Van Wachem et al., 2001).
The number of particles used in the numerical computation
is limited by the computer capacity. However, discrete particle models give an accurate description not only of the
particle motion (particle rotation, collision with other particles) but also of the chemical reactions, and heat and mass
transfer at the individual particle scale (Kaneko et al., 1999;
Rong and Horio, 1999; Zhou et al., 2002b). Kaneko et al.
(1999) used the discrete element method (DEM), in which
direct particle-to-particle heat transfer was rather illogically
neglected, to investigate the temperature e<ect on particles
and gas in a &uidized bed reactor producing polyole>n. Rong
and Horio (1999) simulated the thermal characteristics and
NOx emission of burning chars in &uidized bed. Their results
showed that the maximum char particle temperature is about
50 5 C higher than the average bed temperature, which is
much less than experimental measurements (Linjewile et al.,
1994; Joutsenoja et al., 1999). The heavy metal vaporization
dynamics was predicted in a &uidized bed reactor (Zhou
et al., 2002b) and a fair quantitative agreement was obtained
between the predicted vaporization rate and the measured
one. All models neglected the e<ect of turbulence on the
gas/particle motion, chemical species dissipation, and chemical reaction, although both experimental and theoretical
results veri>ed the strong intensity of turbulence in &uidized
bed (Peirano and Leckner, 1988; Zhou et al., 2000).
The general objective of this study is to develop a turbulent 2-phase gas/particle &ow model accounting for chemical reactions, which can predict the gasparticle turbulent
&ow structure, the thermal characteristics of burning coal
particles and the gaseous emissions in a coal combustion
&uidized bed. In Part I, the turbulent gas/particle &ow model
of Yuu et al. (2001) is extended in order to overcome their
assumptions: the magnitude of particle e<ects on subgrid
scale (SGS) &ow is obtained by solving simultaneously the
SGS kinetic energy equation and the >ltered mass and momentum conservation equations. In addition, the chemical
reactions in the turbulent &ow are taken into account. In this
model, the gas &ow is calculated by LES with two-way coupling, and the particle motion is treated by a Lagrangian approach in which the particleparticle interaction is modelled
as DEM. The e<ect of gasparticle interaction on subgrid
scale &ow is particularly clari>ed. Furthermore, the e<ects
of parameters associated with reactive particles: coal diameter, bed temperature, and inlet gas velocity on the turbulent
dense 2-phase &ow are examined.

Part I focuses on the gas-particle turbulent &ow structure.

Part II presents the detailed characteristics of coal combustion in bubbling &uidized bed. The global model includes 6
submodels : (1) gas hydrodynamics which is modelled as
LES, (2) particle hydrodynamics, in which particleparticle
collision is simulated as DEM, (3) gasparticle coupling,
(4) coal pyrolysis and combustion model, (5) homogeneous
or heterogeneous reactions, including NO and N2 O formation and destruction, and (6) gasparticle and particleparticle heat transfer.
2. Mathematical model
The gasparticle hydrodynamic model is based on the
following simplifying assumptions:
(1) The &uidized bed is 2-dimensional. Both front and back
walls are supposed to be frictionless.
(2) Particles have a soft sphere interaction with a Hookian
linear spring, and a dash pot allowing multiple particle contacts under a Coulomb-type friction condition.
Spring constant is adjusted from the viewpoint of numerical saving only.
(3) Gas motion due to the convective mass and momentum
interfacial transfer &uxes between particle and gas is
negligible in front of the total &uidizing gas &ow rate
(Rong and Horio, 1999).
2.1. Gas phase hydrodynamics
LES can be considered as a spatially >ltered solution
to the NavierStokes equation. In LES, the &ow variables
are decomposed into the sum of a resolved (spatially >ltered) component and an unresolved subgrid-scale component. This >ltering operation is performed using convolution integrals. The >ltered equations represent the evolution
of time-dependent resolved scale motions. Due to the scale
truncation by >ltering, subgrid models are required to incorporate the unresolved scale e<ect on the resolved scale
motion (Sagaut, 2001).
LES equations for the incompressible gas &ows are derived by >ltering the 2-phase NS continuity and momentum equations in a 2-D geometry, it comes:
@(f ) @(f u f; i )
+
=
;
(1)
@t
@xi
@(f u f; i ) @(f u f; i u f; j )
+
@t
@xj
=

@p
@
@
+
( ij ) +
(ij )
@xi
@xj
@xj

+fg +  + ;

(2)

where an overbar denotes application of the >ltering operation,  is the porosity, f is the gas density, uf is the gas

H. Zhou et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 4193 4203

velocity, i; j = 1; 2, which represent x and y directions, p is

the gas pressure, g is the gravitational acceleration vector,
t is the time,  is the volumetric particlegas interaction,

is the rate of particle-to-gas phase mass transfer,  is the

e<ect of mass transfer on gas moment.
and  are set to
zero (assumption 3). ij = f f (Sf; ij 2=3Sf; kk ij ) and ij
@u
@u
are the SGS stresses, and Sf; ij = @xf;j i + @xf;i j is the resolvable
strain tensor, ij is modelled as
ij = f uf; i uf; j



= f t Sf; ij 23 Sf; kk ij 23 f ks ij ;

n
R2

c
kst

c
kst

(3)

where uf; i is the gas &uctuating velocity, f = f =f is the

gas kinematic viscosity, f is the gas viscosity, t is the subgrid scale (SGS) gas kinetic viscosity, ij is the Kronecker
delta, ks is the SGS kinetic energy.
The SGS kinetic energy ks is obtained from Eq. (2). Terms
higher than the third order of the subgrid-scale and pressure
correlation terms are neglected. Therefore, the SGS kinetic
energy equation can be obtained in the following form:
@(f ks ) @(f u f; j ks )
+
@t
@xj



1
@
t  @ks
f f +
+ f t (Sij Sij )
=
@xj
Pr @xj
2
ks3=2
0:687
3dM p f (1 + 0:15Rep )



2ks
t @nM
nM

(u f; i vMp; i ) :
aTL + 1
@xi

4195

f C

(4)

The turbulent viscosity is then evaluated from the SGS

kinetic energy as (Koutmos, 2000):

(5)
t = Ck Lt ks :
In these relations, an overbar M denotes the mean value in a
computational cell, t is the time, n,
M vMp , dM p , Mp and Rep are
the mean particle concentration, particle velocity, particle
diameter, particle density and particle Reynold number in
the computational cell, respectively.  is the characteristic
length,  = (Nx Ny)1=2 , Nx and Ny are mesh spacing in
x and y directions, Lt is the turbulent length scale, Lt = .
Ck and C are empirically assigned constants. Ck = 0:1 and
C = 0:5 are typical values for single and dilute 2-phase
&ows (Koutmos, 2000). Pr is the turbulent Prandtl number,
Pr = 1:0, is the turbulent Schmidt number, = 0:7, a is
the inverse of the particle relaxation time, a=36f =(2Mp +
0:687
f )dM 2p (1+0:15Re ), TL is the time scale of mean subgrid

scale vortices, TL = = 2ks1=2 .

The mean particle concentration, density, diameter and
velocity in a computational cell are:

n
p; k
n
k=1 p; k
M
nM =
; dp = k=1
;
; Mp =
Vgrid
n
n

R1

Fig. 1. Spring-dashpot model of a contact point.

and

 p; k
;
(6)
n
where n is the particle number in the computational cell,
vp is the particle velocity, dp is the particle diameter, p is
the particle density. Vgrid is the computational cell volume,
is equal to Nx Ny dM p , thus depending on the particles it
contains.
Therefore, Rep is de>ned as follows:
vMp =

k=1

f | u f v p |dM p
Rep =
:
f

(7)

2.2. Particle phase hydrodynamics

2.2.1. Particleparticle interaction
Cundall and Stracks (1979) DEM model opened new
possibilities for using discrete particle simulation to calculate the dense phase &ows in &uidized beds (Tsuji et al.,
1993). Contact forces are described in terms of a mechanical
model involving a spring, dashpot and friction. The contact
force Fc is divided into the normal force fcn and the tangential force fc . Fig. 1 shows Cundall and Stracks model for
the forces, which they modelled by
*

fcn = kst d n - vpn ;

*

vMpn = ( v pr n ) n ;
*

fcr = kst d  - v p ;
*
v p

= v pr vpn ;

(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)

where dn and d are the particle displacements in the normal

and tangential directions, respectively, vpr is the relative velocity, and vpn and vp are the normal and tangential relative

4196

H. Zhou et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 4193 4203

velocities, respectively. kst is the spring sti<ness and - is the

coePcient of viscous dissipation.
If the following relation is satis>ed
|fc | |fcn |;

(12)

where  is the friction coePcient, then sliding occurs, and

the tangential force is given by
*

fc = |fcn | t  ;

(13)
*


where t  is the unit vector de>ned by t = v  =| v  |. In dense

phase &ows, a particle usually touches several other ones
whatever the time. In such circumstances, the total contact
force is obtained by summing all contacts. - is determined
by the restitution coePcient e

(14)
- = 2/ mp kst ;

where / = 1c = 1 + 1c2 and 1c = (1=)ln e, and mp is the
particle mass. In the particle-to- wall collisions, one particle
mass is in>nitely large and the velocity vectors are all set
equal to zero.
2.2.2. Drag force
The drag force on a suspended particle is given by
*

F = 18 d2p Cd f 2 |u f v p |(u f v p );

(15)

Cd

where
is the e<ective drag coePcient.
The e<ective drag coePcient Cd depends strongly on the
local void fraction in the vicinity of the particle. According
to Wen and Yu (1966), it can be written as
Cd = Cd np ;

(16)

where np is the porosity factor, and Cd is the drag coePcient.

The drag coePcient Cd for an isolated particle depends
on the particle Reynolds number, as given by Rowe and
Henwood (1961):

24 (1 + 0:15Rep0:687 ) Rep 1000

Cd = Rep
(17)

0:44
Rep 1000;
where Rep is the particle Reynolds number
Rep =

*
f | u f

f

*
v p |dp

(18)

2.2.3. Particle motion

Equations of translational and rotational particle motion
are given by

*
vp

= F =mp + g

v vp dmp
Vp
;
p +
mp
mp
dt

! = T =I;

(19)
(20)

where () denotes a time derivative, F is the sum of forces

acting on the particle, F = F c + F f , where F c is the particle

particle interaction force, ! is the angular velocity, T is

the net torque caused by the contact force, I is the particle
moment of inertia. The last term in Eq. (19) accounts for
the momentum transported by the mass &ux exchanged with
the continuous phase, v is the averaged velocity of the
mass &ux crossing the particle surface. If the mass transfer
mechanism is symmetric with respect to the center of the
particle, then v = u f (Simonin, 2000).
The new velocities and position after the time step Nt are
calculated explicitly:
*
vp

= vp0 + vp0 Nt;

*
rp

= rp0 + vp0 Nt;

!p = !0 + !0 Nt;

(21)

where subscript 0 denotes the initial value.

2.2.4. Gasparticle interaction force
The source term  is composed of two parts: the mean
*
velocity generation term F m and the turbulence generation
*
term F t . It can be expressed as
*

 = (F m + F l ):
*

(22)

F m and F t are given by

*
Fm

n

Fd
=
;
Vgrid

(23)

i=1

*
Ft

Fd

*
v rel

**
n v 

rel

Fd

*
v rel

n (uf vp );

(24)

where n is the particle number &uctuating concentration, vp

is the particle &uctuating velocity, vrel is the relative velocity

is the relative &uctuating velocity. nM vMrel is modeled
and vrel
as (Yuu et al., 2001):
nM vMrel =

t @nM 1 b2
;
@xi aTL + 1

(25)

where b is the ratio of gas-to-particle densities, b =

3Mf =(2Mp + f ).
2.3. Combustion and heat transfer models
Hydrodynamics is in&uenced by the combustion of coal
particles and by heat transfer, therefore the combustion
and heat transfer models are introduced hereafter, but only
brie&y since they are described in detail in Part II. The
evolution of volatiles, their combustion and char combustion are overlapping. The coal pyrolysis model is based
on a multiple-reaction model with distributed activation

H. Zhou et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 4193 4203

The calculation &ow chart is displayed in Fig. 2. The

well-known semi-implicit method for pressure-linked equations (SIMPLE) scheme (Patankar, 1980) was used to solve
Eqs. (1), (2), (4), and conservation of mass and energy for
a &uid cell as described in Part II. The detailed computation scheme and voidage calculation were described before
(Zhou et al., 2002a,b). The time step for particle motion is
determined by the following equations (Tsuji et al., 1993):

1
0 = 10
2 mp =kst :
(26)
Computation conditions, and physical and additional parameters are listed in Table 1. The 2-D simulated &uidized
bed is 4.84 wide (x direction) and 7:26 cm high (y direction). And for the gas calculation, it is divided in 9 13
cells (width height). Six cases (Table 2) are simulated in
order to study the e<ects of inlet gas velocity, bed temperature, particle size, and chemical reactions on the gas-particle
turbulent &ow structure.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Turbulent behavior of inert gas-particle 9ow (case 1)
The inert case was considered >rst, with 1480 sand particles, at 1123:15 K and uf 0 = 0:6 m s1 (=1:5 umf ).
Snapshots of the particle &ow structures are presented
in Fig. 3. There exists an impulsive start-up process
(t 0:25 s), then a stable succession of bubble formation
and disappearance is established in the bed. The instantaneous break-up of the inter-particle links leads to a significant bed height increase. Simulation shows that the gas
&ows towards high porosity regions. Highly preferential
&ow results in a very strong non-uniform drag force in the
bed, which in turn a<ects greatly the particle &ow structure.
The ratio of colliding particles varies with time as shown
in Fig. 4. The strong peak corresponds to the start-up stage,

initialization

void fraction

gas phase motion

the particle
collide other particle
or the wall?
yes

no

inter particle or particle-wall

force and heat transfer

gas force on the particle

particle acceleration, velocity

and new position

t = t+t

3. Numerical algorithm and computation conditions

start

repeat N times
(N = particle number)

energies (Donskoi and McElwain, 1999). Buring char particle evolves according to the shrinking core model. The
chemistry of the formation and destruction of NO and N2 O
is complex. So, the heterogeneous reactions of char with
CO, CO2 , NO and N2 O and the homogeneous reactions involving CO, O2 , NO and N2 O in the boundary layer are
simpli>ed according to the theory of Amand and Andersson
(1989), Johnsson (1994), and De Soete et al. (1999). The
colliding particle-particle heat transfers are modeled on the
basis of the analysis of the elastic deformation of colliding
spheres (Sun and Chen, 1988). The equations of conservation of species mass fraction and of energy for a &uid cell
describe the transportation of species (NO, CO, CO2 , H2 O,
NO, N2 O, and N2 ) and of energy in the gas, accounting for
the e<ect of chemical reactions on the gas particle &ow.

4197

coal pyrolysis (combustion), gas

species reactions and gas
particle heat transfer
particle gas interaction force,
heat and mass sources, and coal
diameter after reaction
data save

end

Fig. 2. Calculation &ow chart.

then the ratio &uctuates with time because of the successive

bubble formations and disappearances. The initial particle
particle collision ratio is up to 40% and then it decreases
&uctuating. The mean particleparticle and the particlewall
collision ratios are 5.4% and 0.38%. Simulation shows that
the instantaneous contact force is much higher than the interaction force (more than 100 times), that-is-to-say, the
particle motion is dominated by the contact force during
the collision.
Fig. 5 illustrates the instantaneous particle velocity distributions at 1:45 s. The horizontal distribution is almost Gaussian and centered at 0, whereas the vertical distribution has
two branches, each of them obeying a di<erent half Gaussian distribution. The distributions are anisotropic, as also
predicted by Ichiki and Hayakawa (1995), which indicates
that the particles in bubbling &uidized bed do not have any
local equilibrium.
Fig. 6 shows the instantaneous gasparticle moments
and subgrid kinetic energy contours at 1:45 s. Simulation

4198

H. Zhou et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 4193 4203

Table 1
Physical and numerical simulation parameters

t = 0.20 s

t = 0.50 s

t = 0.75 s

t = 0.90 s

t = 1.0 s

t = 1.30 s

t = 1.45 s

t = 1.70 s

t = 2.0 s

Value

Bed height, H
4:84 cm
Bed width, W
7:26 cm
Inlet gas (wall) temperature, 1123.15, 1173:15 K
Tf 0
Minimum &uidization velocity, umf = 7:01 104 d2p g(p f )=f
umf (Lin et al., 2002)
(for sand at 850:0 C, umf = 0:4 m s1 )
Inlet gas velocity, uf 0
0.4 and 0:6 m s1
Density, 
Coal, pc
1100 kg m3
Sand, ps
2600 kg m3
Particle diameter, dp
Sand, ds
1:0 mm
Coal, dc
0.8, 1.5 and 2:0 mm
4.7
np value
Sti<ness, kSt
800 N m1
Friction coePcient, 
0.3
Restitution coePcient, e
0.9
Poisson ration, /
Sand (walls)
0.30
Coal
0.37
Yound moduli, G
Sand (walls)
15:0 GPa
Coal
3:0 GPa
Number of grid cells
I J = 9 14
Total particle number
1480
Sand particles
1460
Coal particles
20
Time step, Nt
2:0 105 , s

Fig. 3. Time series of the particle &ow structure (case 1).

Ratio of collided particles / %

50
40

6
30
Averaged value = 5.4 %

20

4
Averaged value = 0.38 %

10

0
0

indicates that the presence of particles (see Fig. 1 at 1:45 s)

increases the gas kinetic energy in the lower part of the
bed, and the kinetic energy distribution corresponds to that
of the gasparticle coupling moment. Fig. 5 points out that
the gas turbulent intensity is enhanced by the gasparticle
interaction in the bubbling &uidized bed.
Fig. 7 shows the time-averaged pro>les of both particle
and gas velocities in the bed (height = 0:016 m) and at its
surface (height = 0:031 m). For both phases, the pro>les
are unsymmetrical along the bed width inside the bed, the
mean particle velocity is positive in the center and it is
negative near the walls. This means that a circulation pattern
exists, with particles rising in the bed center and falling
down near the walls. Then, when particles reach the bed

0.0

0.5

1.0
Time / s

1.5

Ratio of particle- wall collision particle /%

Properties

t = 0.00 s

2.0

Fig. 4. Variation of percent of colliding particles with time (case 1).

surface, their mean velocity is always negative, which is

characteristic of the bed free area. The mean gas velocity is
higher in the bed (where the particle concentration is relatively higher) than at the bed surface. Fig. 7 also shows that
the particle mean velocity distribution is not correlated to the
gas velocity distribution inside the bed, whereas they seem
correlated at the bed surface. This indicates that the particle motion in the dense zone is dominated by the particle
particle interactions.

Table 2
Parameters of the simulated cases

Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case

1
2
3
4
5
6

Inlet gas velocity

(m s1 )

Inlet gas temperature

( C)

Coal number

0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4

850
900
850
850
850
850

0
20
20
20
20
20

Coal particle diameter

(mm)

Number of sand
particles

0.8
1.5
2.0
0.8
0.8

1480
1460
1460
1460
1460
1460

H. Zhou et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 4193 4203

4199

2104
1104
0
0.00

0.075
0.050
0.01

Bed

0.02
width 0.03
/m

/m

50

3104

0.025

ht

100

4104

he
ig

Mean = 0.0
SD = 0.036

5104

0.04

(a)

0.000
0.05

Be
d

Particle number

150

2 0.5
(F 2+F ) )/N.m
Gas-particle moment (F= x y

-3

200

0
-0.3

-0.2 -0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Mean = -0.07
SD = 0.04

Mean = -0.003
SD = 0.05

80

2 -2
Turbulent energy / m .s

100

0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005

0.075

60

ht

0.025

ig

0.02
width 0.03
/m

he

Bed

40

/m

0.050
0.01

0.04

0.000
0.00

(b)

0.000
0.05

Fig. 6. Distributions of instantaneous gasparticle moment and gas turbulent energy in the &uidized bed at 1:45 s (case 1): (a) gasparticle
moment, (b) gas kinetic energy.

20

0
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
(b)

0.025

Be

Particle number

0.030

Particle velocity/ m. s-1

(a)

Particle velocity/ m. s-1

Fig. 5. Calculated particle velocity distribution at 1:45 s (case 1): (a)

horizontal component, (b) vertical component.

The gas and the particle turbulent intensities pro>les (de
2

>ned as (vf(p)i
)1=2 =uf0 , where i represents x and y directions,
respectively) inside the bed and at its surface are presented
in Fig. 8. Clearly, the intensity distributions along the bed
width are di<erent horizontally and vertically. Whatever the
direction, the gas turbulent intensity is always much larger
(two to three fold) than the particle intensity. The particle
turbulent intensity is always larger vertically than horizontally, contrary to the gas turbulent intensity. For both phases,
the horizontal intensity is generally higher in the center than
near the walls, and it is somewhat higher in the bed than at

the surface. The particle vertical turbulent intensity is maximum or medium near the walls whereas the gas intensity is
higher in the center inside the bed. The particle intensity is
almost uniformly distributed at the bed surface (0:031 m),
whereas the gas intensity is higher near the walls. The intensive particle surface &uctuation results in higher particle
intensity at the bed surface than in the bed. Fig. 9 plots the
distributions of gas and particle Reynolds stresses (de>ned
2

as ui; f(p) uj:f(p)
=uf0
). The particle stress is always much
smaller than the gas stress, the di<erence is up to 100 times.
4.2. E:ect of reactive particles on the 9ow structure
A binary mixture of sand and coal particles was considered, and the e<ects of bed temperature (case 2), coal
particle size (cases 35) and inlet velocity (case 6) with
chemical reactions on the turbulent gas/particle &ow were
studied. The higher the inlet gas velocity, the lower the ratio

4200

H. Zhou et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 4193 4203

0.010

1.1

-0.005
-0.010

1.0

-0.015

0.9

-0.020

0.016 m

0.002

0.031 m

0.08

0.001

0.04

0.000

0.00

-0.001

-0.04

Gas Reynolds stress

1.2

0.000

Particle Reynolds stress

Bed height

Gas velocity / m. s-1

Particle velocity / m. s-1

0.005

0.12

0.003

1.3

Bed heights :
: 0.016 m
: 0.031 m

0.8

-0.025
0.00

0.01

0.02
0.03
Bed width / m

0.04

0.05

-0.08
0.05

-0.002
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Bed width / m

Fig. 7. Gas and particle velocity distributions along the width in the bed
and at its surface (vertical component, case 1).
0.9

0.6

0.05

0.5
0.04
Bed height
0.016 m

0.03

0.3

0.031 m

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.30

0.80

0.27

0.75

0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08

0.65
Bed height

0.18

0.016 m

0.60

0.031 m

0.15

0.55
0.12
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.50
0.05

Bed width / m

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.04

0.05

Bed width / m
0.8

Fig. 8. Distributions of the gas and particle turbulent intensities along the
width in the bed and at its surface (case 1): (a) horizontal component,
(b) vertical component.

0.7

0.6
case 1
case 3
case 5

0.5

case 2
case 4

0.4
0.00

of colliding particles. The mean ratio is 7.4% (case 6) and

it ranges from 5.4% to 5.9% (cases 25). The presence of
large reactive particles (coal, dp = 1:5 or 2:0 mm, 1:35% of
the total particles) in the &uidized bed a<ects signi>cantly
the &ow structure. These large reactive particles inhibit the
bubble formation even at very early stage (t 0:2 s). The
coal particles tend to &oat at the bed surface (most coal particles are at the bed surface after 1:5 s) at low gas velocity,
because of density and diameter di<erence, as reported previously by Nienow et al. (1987) and Ho<mann et al. (1993).

0.01

(a)

Gas turbulent intensity

0.70

0.21

case 3

0.13

0.00

0.24

case 2
case 5

0.14

Bed width / m

(a)

Particle turbulent intensity

0.4

case 1
case 4

0.15
Particle turbulent intensity

0.7

Gas turbulent intensity

0.8
0.06

Gas turbulent intensity

Particle turbulent intensity

0.07

(b)

Fig. 9. Distributions of the gas and particle Reynolds stress along the
width in the bed and at its surface (case 1).

(b)

0.01

0.02

0.03

Bed width / m

Fig. 10. Comparisons of the gas and particle turbulent intensity distributions along the width in the bed (bed height = 0:016 m, vertical component): (a) particle turbulent intensity, (b) gas turbulent intensity.

A stable succession of bubble formation and disappearance

in the &uidized bed can be observed in cases 2 and 5.
Fig. 10 illustrates the comparison between the vertical gas
and particle turbulent intensities inside the bed, and along

H. Zhou et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 4193 4203

the bed width (cases 15). For the particle phase, there exists an intensive turbulent intensity region near the walls.
At the bed center, the intensity is maximum or medium in
cases 1, 2, and 5 whereas it is minimum in cases 4 and
5. The particle turbulent intensity is always low, in particular at the bed center, in the presence of large particles.
The simulation shows that the presence of large reactive
particles in the &uidized bed may a<ect signi>cantly the
particle turbulent intensity. The distributions of the vertical gas turbulent intensity are similar. The intensities are
higher in the center. The bed temperature (case 2) has no
signi>cant e<ect on both the gas and particle intensities.
The gas Reynolds stress is always much higher than the
particle Reynolds stress in all cases. The gas and the particle velocities are not correlated, and the turbulent intensity
due to the particle collision plays a signi>cant role inside
the bed.
The particle turbulent intensity increases with the inlet
gas velocity, whereas the gas turbulent intensity and the
Reynolds stress decrease. However, the simulation shows
that the higher the inlet velocity, the higher the absolute

2
values of the gas and particle &uctuations (vf(p);
i ) and the


higher the Reynolds stress (ui; f(p) uj; f(p) ).

5. Conclusions
The turbulent gas and particle &ow both with and without
chemical reactions in a bubbling &uidized bed was studied.
The solid phase was modeled as discrete element method
(DEM) and the gas phase was modeled as 2-D Navier
Stokes equations for 2-phase &ow with &uid turbulence calculated by large Eddy simulation (LES), in which the e<ect
of particles on subgrid scale gas &ow is taken into account.
The following conclusions can be drawn based on the simulation of large, soft spheres and near minimum &uidization
velocities:
(1) The lower the inlet gas velocity, the higher the ratio
of particle collision. The initial ratio of colliding particles is up to 40%, and the mean ratios of particle
particle collisions and particlewall collisions are 5.4%
and 0.38%, respectively, when the inlet gas velocity is
1:5 umf .
(2) The vertical distribution of the particle velocity displays
two branches, each of them obeying a di<erent Gaussian
distribution. The anisotropic distributions indicate that
the particles in bubbling &uidized bed have no local
equilibrium.
(3) The presence of the particles increases the gas kinetic
energy and the kinetic energy distribution corresponds
to the gasparticle coupling moment distribution.
(4) An intensive particle turbulent region exists near the
wall, and the gas stress is always much higher than the
particle stress.

4201

(5) The presence of the large reactive particles in the &uidized bed may a<ect signi>cantly the particle &ow
structure, the gas and particle velocities and the turbulent intensities.

Notation
a
b
Cd
Cd
Ck ; C
dp
dn
d
e
F
Fc
fcn
fc
*

inverse of particle relaxation time, a =

0:687
36f =(2Mp + f )dM 2p (1 + 0:15Rep )
gas-to-particle density ratio, b = 3f =(2Mp + f )
drag coePcient
e<ective drag coePcient
empirically assigned constants, Ck = 0:1, C = 0:5
particle diameter, m
normal displacement, m
tangential displacement, m
restitution coePcient
gasparticle moment, N m3
contact force, N
normal force, N
tangential force, N

particleparticle interaction force, N

Fc
Ff
drag force, N
Fm
mean velocity generation term
Ft
turbulence generation term
g
gravitational acceleration vector, m s2
Gi
Young moduli, GPa
i; j = 1; 2 x and y directions
I
particle moment of inertia, I = 25 mp R2 ; kg m2
kst
spring sti<ness, N m1
ks
SGS energy, m2 s2
Lt
turbulent length scale, m
mp
particle mass, mp = 1=6d3p p , kg
n
particle number in a computational cell
n
normal unit vector
nM
particle number concentration in a computational
cell, m3
n
particle number concentration &uctuating, m3
np
porosity factor in Eq. (16)
p
gas pressure, Pa
Pr
Prandtl number, Pr = 1:0
s
particle area in the computational cell, m2
@u
Sij
resolvable strain tensor, S; ij = @@xuji + @xij
t
time, s
T
torque caused by the contact force, N m
Tf0
inlet gas temperature, K
TL
time
of average subgrid scale vortices, TL =
scale
1=2

= 2k s , s
uf0
inlet gas velocity, m s1
uf
gas phase velocity, m s1
u f
>ltered gas phase velocity, m s1
uf
gas &uctuating velocity, m s1
vp
solid phase velocity, m s1

4202

vpr
vpn
vp
vp
vrel

vrel
v
Vp
Vgrid
x, y

H. Zhou et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 4193 4203

relative velocity, m s1
normal relative velocity, m s1
tangential relative velocity, m s1
particle &uctuating velocity, m s1
relative velocity, m s1
relative &uctuating velocity, m s1
mean velocity of the mass &ow covering the particle
surface, m s1
particle volume, m3
volume of a computational cell, m3
x and y directions

Greek letters
/i
ij


NS
Nt
Nx
Ny

f
f
t
f
p

ij

ij

!


Poisson ratio
Kronecker delta
porosity in &uid cell
characteristic length,  = (Nx Ny)1=2 , m
area of computational cell, NS = Nx Ny, m2
time step, s
x direction mesh spacing, m
x direction mesh spacing, m
coePcient of viscous dissipation
friction coePcient
gas viscosity, Pa s
kinematic gas viscosity, f = f =f , m2 s1
SGS kinetic gas viscosity, m2 s1
gas density, kg m3
particle density, kg m3
turbulent Schmidt number, = 1:0
SGS stress, ij = f vf (Sf; ij 2=3Sf; kk ij )
tangential unit vector
SGS stresses, ij = f uf; i uf; j
volumetric particlegas interaction, N m3
particle rotational velocity, s1
e<ect of mass transfer on gas moment, N m3

References
Adanez, J., Gayan, P., Grasa, G., de Diego, L.F., Armesto, L., Cabanillas,
A., 2001. Circulating &uidized bed combustion in the turbulent regime:
modelling of carbon combustion ePciency and sulphur retention. Fuel
80, 14051414.
Amand, L.E., Andersson, S., 1989. Emissions of nitrous oxide (N2 O)
from &uidized bed boilers. In: Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion. ASME, pp. 4955.
Arastoopour, H., 2001. Numerical simulation and experimental analysis
of gas/particle systems: 1999 Fluor-Daniel Plenary lecture. Powder
Technology 119, 5967.
Chen, Z., Lin, M., Ignowski, J., Kelly, B., Linjewile, T.M., Agarwal, P.K.,
2001. Mathematical modelling of &uidized bed combustion. 4: N2 O
and NOx emissions from the combustion char. Fuel 80, 12591272.
Cundall, P.D., Strack, O.D.L., 1979. A discrete numerical model for
granular assemblies. Geotechnique 29, 4765.
De Soete, G.G., Croiset, E., Richard, J.R., 1999. Heterogeneous formation
of nitrous oxide from char bound nitrogen. Combustion and Flame
117, 140154.

Desroches-Ducame, Dolignier, J.C., Marty, E., Martin, G., Delfosse, L.,

1998. Modelling of gaseous pollutants emissions in circulating &uidized
bed combustion of municipal refuse. Fuel 77(13), 13991410.
Ding, J., Gidaspow, D., 1990. Bubbling &uidization model using kinetic
theory of granular &ow. AIChE Journal 36 (4), 523537.
Donskoi, E., McElwain, D.L.S., 1999. Approximate modelling of coal
pyrolysis. Fuel 78, 825835.
Helland, E., Occelli, R., Tadrist, L., 2000. Numerical study of
cluster formation in a gasparticle circulating &uidized bed. Powder
Technology 110, 210221.
Ho<mann, A.C., Janssen, L.P.B.M, Prins, J., 1993. Particle segregation
in &uidized bed binary mixture. Chemical Engineering Science 48 (9),
15831592.
Hoomans, B.P.B., Kuipers, J.A.M., Briels, W.J.W., Van Swaaij, P.M.,
1996. Discrete particle simulation of bubble and slug formation in a
two-dimensional gas-&uidized bed: a hard-sphere approach. Chemical
Engineering Science 51, 99118.
Ichiki, K., Hayakawa, H., 1995. Dynamical simulation of &uidized beds:
hydrodynamically interacting granular particles. Physics Review 52,
658662.
Johnsson, J.E., 1994. Formation and reduction of nitrogen oxides in
&uidized-bed combustion. Fuel 73, 13891415.
Joutsenoja, T., Heino, P., Hernberg, R., 1999. Pyrometric temperature
and size measurements of burning coal particles in a &uidized bed
combustion reactor. Combustion and Flame 118, 707717.
Kaneko, Y., Shiojima, T., Horio, M., 1999. DEM simulation of &uidized
beds for gas-phase ole>n polymerization. Chemical Engineering
Science 54, 58095821.
Knoebig, T., Luecke, K., Werther, J., 1999. Mixing and reaction in
the circulating &uidized beda three-dimensional combustor model.
Chemical Engineering Science 54, 21512160.
Koutmos, P., 2000. Simulations of localized extinction in turbulent CH4
jet &ames using a Lagrangian model for reactedness. Acta Astronautica
46, 4753.
Kulasekaran, S., Linjewile, T.M., Agarwal, P.K., 1999. Mathematical
modeling of &uidized bed combustion. 3. Simultaneous combustion of
char and combustible gases. Fuel 78, 403417.
Lathouwers, D., Bellan, J., 2001. Modeling of dense gassolid reactive
mixtures applied to biomass pyrolysis in a &uidized bed. International
Journal of Multiphase Flow 27, 21552187.
Lin, C., Wey, M., You, S., 2002. The e<ect of particle size distribution on
minimum &uidization velocity at high temperature. Powder Technology
126, 297310.
Linjewile, T.M., Hull, A.S., Agarwal, P.K., 1994. Optical probe
measurements of the temperature of burning particles in &uidized beds.
Fuel 73, 18801888.
Nienow, A.W., Naimer, N.S., Chiba, T., 1987. Studies of
segregation/mixing in &uidized beds of di<erent size particles.
Chemical Engineering Communication 62, 5366.
Patankar, S.V., 1980. Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow.
Hemisphere, New York, USA.
Peirano, E., Leckner, B., 1988. Fundamentals of turbulent gassolid
&ows applied to circulating &uidized bed combustion. Programming
in Energy and Combustion Science 24 (4), 259296.
Rong, D., Horio, M., 1999. DEM simulation of char combustion in a
&uidized bed. Second International Conference on CFD in the Minerals
and Process Industries. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 6570.
Rowe, P.N., Henwood, G.A., 1961. Drag force in a hydraulic model of a
&uidized bed-part 1. Transaction of Institute of Chemical Engineering
3943.
Sagaut, P., 2001. Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows: An
Introduction. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Savage, S.B., Sayed, M., 1984. Stress developed by dry cohensionless
granular materials sheared in an annular shear cell. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics 142, 391430.
Simonin, O., 2000. Theoretical and experimental modelling of particulate
&ow. Lecture Series at Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics.

H. Zhou et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 4193 4203

Sun, J., Chen, M.M., 1988. A theoretical analysis of heat transfer to
particle impact. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 31
(3), 969975.
Tsuji, Y., Kawaguchi, T., Tanaka, T., 1993. Discrete particle
simulation of two-dimensional &uidized bed. Powder Technology 77,
7987.
Van Wachem, B.G.M., Van der Scha<, J., Schouten, J.C., Krishna, R.,
Van den Bleek, C.M., 2001. Experimental validation of LagrangianEulerian simulations of &uidized beds. Powder Technology 116,
155165.
Wen, C.Y., Yu, Y.H., 1966. Mechanics of &uidization. Chemical
Engineering Programming Symposium Series 62, 100108.

4203

Yuu, S., Nishikawa, H., Umekage, T., 2001. Numerical simulation of

air and particle motions in group-B particle turbulent &uidized bed.
Powder Technology 118, 3244.
Zhou, H., Lu, J., Lin, L., 2000. Turbulence structure of the solid phase
in transition region of a circulating &uidized. Chemical Engineering
Science 55, 839847.
Zhou, H., Abanades, S., Flamant, G., Gauthier, D., Lu, J., 2002a.
Numerical Simulation of heavy metal vaporization dynamics in a
&uidized bed. Chemical Engineering Science 57, 26032614.
Zhou, H., Flamant, G., Gauthier, D., Lu, J., 2002b. Lagrangian approach
for simulating the gasparticle &ow structure in a circulating &uidized
bed riser. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 28, 18011821.