A Baseline Drag Force Correlation for CFD

Simulations of Gas-Solid Systems

James M. Parker
CPFD Software, LLC

2016 NETL Workshop on Multiphase Flow Science

August 9 – 10, 2016
Morgantown, WV

1 Barracuda Virtual Reactor, Barracuda VR, Barracuda and CPFD are registered trademarks of CPFD Software, LLC
Particle Drag Force in Gas-Solid Systems

Momentum exchange between fluid and collection of particles is

affected by hydrodynamics:
• Reynolds number
• Voidage

As well as particle-level phenomena

• Particle shape
• Morphology
• Static electricity
• Van der Waals forces
• Liquid films

Appears as a deviation from ideal fluidization (particulate)

2
Effect on CFD Modeling of Gas-Solid Systems

• Agglomerative phenomena may not be calculated or characterized

but is evident in operational data
• Available operational or experimental data used to improve CFD
model
• Particle drag force models are needed that can be calibrated to
account for the effect that agglomerative effects have on particle
drag as a deviation from an ideal baseline drag

Fp ( ,Re, )  Fideal ( ,Re, )  f ( ,Re, )

Ideal drag Deviation

3
Particle Drag Force Map

Known Less known Known

SINGLE PARTICLE
CLOSE PACK

FLUIDIZATION RANGE
Re
F(Re,ε)

0
   mf Voidage (ε)  1

4
Dimensionless Particle Drag Force
Fdrag  FStokes F   ,Re,  FStokes  3 d pU Re  f d pU  f

Dimensionless

Close pack or minimum fluidization (Ergun’s)

a 1   mf b Re
Fp ( mf ,Re, )  Fmf ( mf ,Re, )  
18  2 mf 2 18  mf 2

Single particle (Schiller-Naumann correlation)

1  0.15Re0.687 Re  1000

Fp (1,Re)  Fsp (Re)   0.44
 Re Re  1000
 24

5
Correlation for Baseline Particle Drag Model

• Requirements:
• Satisfy both close pack and single particle extremes
• Continuous function of voidage

• Popular models do not satisfy these requirements

• Wen and Yu does not satisfy close pack
• Ergun does not satisfy single particle drag
• Wen-Yu/Ergun Blend (Gidaspow) is discontinuous at ε = 0.8

• Two different forms (A & B) which meet these requirements are

proposed and tested against experimental data

6
Proposed models vs Existing models

7
New drag forms for particulate fluidization

Form A: A Wen-Yu form (power of voidage) is used with an exponent

that is adjusted to match Ergun’s drag for all Re at minimum
fluidization
ln  Fmf (Re) / Fsp Re  
Fp ( ,Re)  Fsp Re   

ln   mf 

The expression can be further simplified by rearrangement

ln 
Fp ( ,Re)  Fsp Re  Fmf 1 

Form A   1
ln  mf

8
New drag forms for particulate fluidization

Form B: It was observed by Leva (1959) that the Ergun’s model is

applicable up to voidages of 0.8 and this same cutoff is commonly
used in the Gidaspow Wen-Yu / Ergun blend. Logarithmic
interpolation between Ergun’s drag and the Schiller-Naumann drag
reproduces this observation well

   mf
Fp ( ,Re)  Fsp Re  Fmf ( , Re )1

Form B  
1   mf

9
Validation against experimental data

Particulate fluidization data used for validation (177 points)

• Wen and Yu (1966): Bed expansion data for 191 & 500 micron glass
balls in water
• Liu, Kwauk, and Li (1996): Bed expansion data for 54 micron FCC
catalyst in supercritical CO2 (8 and 9.4 MPa)
• Jottrand (1952): Bed expansion data for 20, 29, 43, 61, 86, and 113
micron sand in water
• Wilhelm and Kwauk (1948): Bed expansion data for 373, 556, and
1000 micron sea sand in water
• Lewis, Gilliland, and Bauer (1949): Settling of 100 and 150 micron
glass in water

10
Analysis Approach

• Bed expansion is generally comprised of data showing

• Superficial velocity
• Bed height or voidage
• Pressure drop
• Non-dimensional drag is related to the Archimedes number in a
fluidized bed (di Felice, 1994)
 d p 3 f  s  f  g
Fmeas ( ,Re)  Ar Ar 
18Re f 2

• Particle sphericity is estimated from close pack pressure drop data

where possible using Ergun coefficients recommended by
Macdonald et al (1979) of a = 180 and b = 1.8.

11
Error Analysis of different drag models
Drag Model Error Ergun Coeffs
Form A 11.9% a = 180, b = 1.8
Ergun* 20.5% a = 180, b = 1.8
Gidaspow* 23.1% a = 150, b = 1.75
Wen and Yu 26.0%
Ergun* 26.1% a = 150, b = 1.75
Form B 28.0% a = 180, b = 1.8
Ergun 64.2% a = 180, b = 1.8

1 N Fmeas  Fcorr * Sphericity is assumed = 1,

Average error   F
N i 1
as is common practice for
meas i these models

12
Correlations vs Measured Data

13
Correlations vs Measured Data

14
Particulate Drag Error dependence on Re and
Voidage

Close Single
Pack Particle

15
Comparison of Form A with expression of di Felice

• The analysis of di Felice (1994)

found a Reynolds number
dependence for the exponent and
proposed the following expression:

 1.5  log Re 2 
  3.7  0.65 exp   
 2 
 

• The di Felice expression does not

explicitly guarantee close-pack
drag but the shape is similar

16
Conclusions

• CFD modeling of gas-solid systems can benefit from calibration of

drag models to account for particle-level phenomena that affect
particle drag
• For this effort, it is convenient to look at deviations from an ideal
baseline drag model
• Two models for a baseline drag model were proposed and
validated against available experimental data for particulate
fluidization from literature
• Form “A” was found to match experimental data with an average
error that was nearly half (11.9%) of the next best model tested
• This form is recommended as a baseline model for future work
studying deviations in drag force due to agglomerative effects

17
References

• Di Felice, R (1994). The Voidage Function for Fluid-Particle Interaction

Systems. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 20(1):153.
• Leva, M (1959). Fluidization. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.
• Lewis, W., Gilliland, E., and Bauer, W. (1949). Characteristics of Fluidized
Particles. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 41(6): 1104.
• Liu, D., Kwauk, M., and Li, H. (1996). Aggregative and Particulate Fluidization
– The Two Extremes of a Continuous Spectrum. Chemical Engineering
Science, 51(17): 4045.
• Jottrand, R. (1952). An Experimental Study of the Mechanism of Fluidization.
Journal of Applied Chemistry, Supplementary Issue 1: S17.
• Macdonald, I., El-Sayed, M., Mow, K., and Dullien, F. (1979) Flow through
Porous Media-the Ergun Equation Revisited. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 18
(3): 199
• Wen, C. and Yu, Y. (1966). Mechanics of Fluidization. Chemical Engineering
Progress Symposium Series, 62(62): 100
• Wilhelm, R. and Kwauk, M. (1948). Fluidization of Solid Particles. Chemical
Engineering Progress, 44(3): 201.

18