Hoef2008 Hoef Fluidized Bed Annurev - Fluid.40.111406.102130

ANRV332-FL40-03 ARI 10 November 2007 16:3
Numerical Simulation of
Dense Gas-Solid Fluidized
Beds: A Multiscale
Modeling Strategy
M.A. van der Hoef, M. van Sint Annaland,
N.G. Deen, and J.A.M. Kuipers
Department of Science and Technology, University of Twente, 7500 AE Enschede,
The Netherlands; email: M.A.vanderHoef@tnw.utwente.nl
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2008. 40:4770
The Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics is online at
uid.annualreviews.org
This articles doi:
10.1146/annurev.uid.40.111406.102130
Copyright c 2008 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved
0066-4189/08/0115-0047$20.00
Key Words
uidization, direct numerical simulation, discrete element model,
two-uid model
Abstract
Gas-solid uidized beds are widely applied in many chemical pro-
cesses involving physical and/or chemical transformations, and for
this reason they are the subject of intense research in chemical engi-
neering science. Over the years, researchers have developed a large
number of numerical models of gas-uidized beds that describe gas-
solid ow at different levels of detail. In this review, we discriminate
these models on the basis of whether a Lagrangian or a Eulerian ap-
proach is used for the gas and/or particulate ow and subsequently
classify them into ve main categories, three of which we discuss in
more detail. Specically, these are resolved discrete particle mod-
els (also called direct numerical simulations), unresolved discrete
particle models (also called discrete element models), and two-uid
models. For each of the levels of description, we give the general
equations of motion and indicate how they can be solved numeri-
cally by nite-difference techniques, followed by some illustrative
examples of a uidized bed simulation. Finally, we address some
of the challenges ahead in the multiscale modeling of gas-uidized
beds.
47
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
1. INTRODUCTION
Gas-uidized beds consist of granular particles (usually with a diameter less than
5 mm) that are subject to a gas ow from below, large enough so that the gas drag on
the particles can outbalance gravity, and the particles uidize. When in the uidized
state, the moving particles work effectively as a mixer, which results in a uniform
temperature distribution and a high mass transfer rate, both of which are benecial for
the efciency of many physical and chemical processes, such as coating, granulation,
drying, and the synthesis of fuels and base chemicals (Kunii & Levenspiel 1991). For
this reason, gas-solid uidized beds are encountered in many industrial plants in the
chemical, petrochemical, metallurgical, environmental, and energy industries. Many
of these operations are on large scales. For instance, the FCC(uid catalytic cracking)
unitwhich is the heart of almost any oil reneryconsists of uidized beds that
are typically 14 m high and 6 m in diameter, with a circulation rate of up to 1 ton per
second. At present, the design and scale-up of such uidized bed reactors are mostly
fully empirical processes, owing to limited insight into the fundamentals of dense
gas-particle ows at such scales, in which the phenomena related to effective gas-
particle interactions (drag forces) and particle-particle interactions (collision forces)
in particular are not well understood (Kuipers & van Swaaij 1998). For this reason,
many preliminary tests on pilot-scale model reactors have to be performed, which is
a time-consuming and thus expensive activity.
To aid this design process of uidized bed reactors, computer simulations can
clearly be a useful tool. However, the prime difculty in modeling life-size uidized
beds is the large separation of scales: The largest ow structures can be of the order
of meters, yet these structures can be directly inuenced by details of particle-particle
collisions and particle-gas interactions, which take place below the millimeter scale.
Clearly, it will not be possible to have one single simulation method that can cover
all length and time scales; instead, one needs a hierarchy of methods, modeling the
gas-solid ow phenomena on different length and time scales, and thus also with
different levels of detail. We can classify these different models most conveniently by
considering the possible models for the solid phase and the gas phase separately. The
dynamics of each of these phases can be described by (a) considering the phase as a
collection of discrete particles that obey Newtons law, which requires a Lagrangian
type of model, or (b) adopting a continuum description of the phase, which is then
typically governed by a Navier-Stokes-type equation, which requires a Eulerian type
of model. Based on these two options for each phase, we categorize the different
models available for gas-solid ow in Table 1. A graphical representation of the
models is shown in Figure 1. Loth (2000) has made a similar classication in a more
general context for engineering science (including bubbles and droplets).
A useful starting point for the discussion of Table 1 is to examine the Lagrangian-
Lagrangian (LL) model and the Eulerian-Eulerian model. The LL model is the most
fundamental model, in which both the solid phase and the gas phase are represented
by particles, so the solid-gas interaction comprises simply the collisions of the gas par-
ticles with the bigger solid particles. The positions and velocities of both phases are
updated by molecular dynamics (MD) type methods; that is, Newtons law is solved
48 van der Hoef et al.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Table 1 Classication of the various models used for simulating dense gas-solid ow in the context of
gas-uidization
Name Gas phase Solid phase Gas-solid coupling Scale
1. Discrete bubble
model
Lagrangian Eulerian Drag closures for bubbles Industrial (10 m)
2. Two-uid model Eulerian Eulerian Gas-solid drag closures Engineering (1 m)
3. Unresolved discrete
particle model
Eulerian (unresolved) Lagrangian Gas-particle drag closures Laboratory (0.1 m)
4. Resolved discrete
particle model
Eulerian (resolved) Lagrangian Boundary condition at
particle surface
Laboratory (0.01 m)
5. Molecular dynamics Lagrangian Lagrangian Elastic collisions at particle
surface
Mesoscopic (<0.001 m)
numerically for a short time step by using standard schemes for integrating ordinary
differential equations. This model is only useful for gas-solid ow at extremely small
scales, in which the thermal uctuations of the gas phase have an inuence on the
motion of the large particles (Brownian motion), which is clearly not the case for
uidized beds. Nevertheless, we include it here for completeness. Note that the gas
particles do not need to represent the actual gas molecules, as long as the thermal
uctuations of the gas phase at that temperature are adequately modeled. In fact,
one can use an extremely simplied description of the gas phase, lattice-gas cellular
automata (LGCA) models, which still gives rise to the proper Brownian behavior of
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 5
Model 4
Figure 1
Graphical representation of
the models summarized in
Table 1. Only models 13
(the discrete bubble model,
the two-uid model, and the
unresolved discrete particle
model, respectively) are
used for the simulation of
actual gas-uidized beds.
Model 4 (the resolved
discrete particle model) is
used for small,
representative parts of
uidized beds, whereas
model 5 (the molecular
dynamics model) is only
suitable for very small
(colloidal) systems. The grid
indicates the scale on which
the continuum phase is
solved.
www.annualreviews.org Numerical Simulation of Gas-Fluidized Beds 49
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Figure 2
Example of a simulation
using a
Lagrangian-Lagrangian
model, in which the uid
phase is modeled via an
extremely simplied
molecular dynamics model,
a lattice-gas cellular
automata model (see van der
Hoef et al. 1991). Note the
characteristic double-vortex
in the uid ow eld, set up
by the large particle, which
is moving to the right.
the large solid particles (Ladd et al. 1988). Figure 2 shows an example of a large
particle moving in an LGCA uid. On the other end of the scale is the Eulerian-
Eulerian model, also referred to as the two-uid model (TFM). This model employs
a continuum description for both the solid phase and the gas phase and uses a nite-
difference code to describe the time evolution of both phases (see Gidaspow 1994
and Kuipers & van Swaaij 1998, among others). The interaction between the two
phases is incorporated by drag force correlations, which depend on the local relative
velocity of the phases and the local solids volume fraction. Also correlations for the
solids phase pressure and viscosity have to be specied. The drawback of this method
is that it does not adequately model the details of particle-particle and particle-gas
interactions. The latter is taken care of by intermediate Euler-Lagrange models, also
called discrete particle models (DPMs), in which the solid phase is represented by the
actual particles, as in the LL models. The update of the solid particles is the same as
in the LL models; however, the interaction with the continuous gas phase is differ-
ent. Basically one can decide between two choices for the Euler-Lagrange coupling:
(a) unresolved and (b) resolved. In the unresolved discrete particle model (UDPM),
often referred to in the literature as the discrete element model, the Eulerian grid is
at least an order of magnitude larger than the size of the particles, so the particles are
reduced to point sources and sinks of momentum, at least with respect to the gas-
particle interactions. Thus for this interaction, one still requires correlations similar
to those for the gas-solid interaction in the TFM. In the resolved discrete particle
model (RDPM), often referred to in the literature as the direct numerical simulation
model, the Eulerian grid is an order of magnitude smaller than the size of the particles,
so the ow in between the particles is also computed. The gas-particle interaction
is now handled by (stick) boundary conditions at the surface of the solid spheres.
In this case, no correlations are required: Both the particle-particle and particle-gas
interactions are modeled in a realistic way.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Recently, a fth level of modeling has been suggested, which could be termed
a Lagrangian-Eulerian model. This model treats the gas bubbles (which typically
appear in gas-uidized beds) as discrete entities, which can collide, coalesce, break
up, shrink, and grow. The Eulerian description is not of the actual solid phase, but
rather of the emulsion phase of gas and particles. This model is still in its early
stages, and we only briey discuss it in Section 6. Note that not all methods from the
literature can be categorized according to Table 1. For example, the force-coupling
method (Climent & Maxey 2003) falls between the RDPM and UDPM, whereas the
multiphase particle-in-cell method (Snider 2001)in which the solid phase is treated
as both Eulerian and Lagrangianfalls between the UDPM and TFM. Although
these methods may provide an interesting alternative for modeling gas-uidized beds,
we do not consider them further here.
The basic philosophy behind the multiscale modeling approach is that the smaller-
scale models, which take into account the various interactions (uid-particle, particle-
particle) in detail, are used to develop closure laws that can represent the effective
coarse-grained interactions in larger-scale models. Note that it is not guaranteed that
all relevant correlations between small- and large-scale processes can be captured by
effective interactions. However, experience has shown that in many cases the main
characteristics of gas-solid ows can be well described by the use of closure relations.
At present, the modeling of the gas uidization of granules is limited to the three
intermediate models (TFM, UDPM, RDPM); hence in this review we focus on these
models. It is convenient, however, to rst briey discuss the various models for single-
phase ow because these are the building blocks of the models for two-phase ow.
2. MODELS FOR SINGLE-PHASE FLOW
2.1. Eulerian Models
In the Eulerian models the phase (gas or solid) is considered as a continuum, which is
characterized by a local mass density (r, t) and a local momentumdensity j(r, t). The
local ow velocity u(r, t) is then dened by j = u. The basic equations of motion
are the conservation equations for mass and momentum:
t
+ (u) = 0,
t
(u) + (uu) = p g, (1)
where g is the gravity constant (=9.81 ms
2
), p is the hydrostatic pressure, and is
the stress tensor, for which the general form for a Newtonian uid can be used:
=
_

2
3
_
( u)
I +(u +(u)
T
), (2)
with and the coefcients of bulk and shear viscosity, respectively, and

I the unit
tensor. There are currently twomainclasses of methods for solvingEquation1numer-
ically, namely computational uid dynamics (CFD) methods and lattice Boltzmann
(LB) methods.
In CFD methods, Equation 1 is solved via nite-difference, nite-element, or
nite-volume methods on a Eulerian grid. A large number of different discretization
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
schemes have been developed in the past, and for an in-depth discussion of CFD
methods in general, we refer the reader to Fletcher (1988a,b). For the TFMs and
DPMs, a computational scheme based on the implicit continuous Eulerian method
is mostly used. The implementation is based on a nite-difference technique, which
uses a staggered grid for stability and denes the scalar variables (pressure and den-
sity) at the cell centers, whereas the velocities are dened at the cell faces. One can
use higher-order schemes [Barton, (W)ENO] to construct the mass and momentum
uxes at the cell faces from the information dened at the centers. In its most simple
form, the discretization of Equation 1 comprises a rst-order time differencing with a
fully implicit treatment of the pressure gradient and convective mass ux, and explicit
treatment of momentum convection, viscous interaction, and gravity. The resulting
set of equations is solved iteratively, for instance, by a two-step correction projec-
tion method such as the SIMPLE algorithm, in which the pressure is adapted via a
Newton-Rhapson procedure until mass conservation is achieved (for more details,
see Kuipers & van Swaaij 1998 and van der Hoef et al. 2006).
In the LB methods (Chen & Doolen 1998, Succi 2001), Equation 1 is not solved
directly, but rather the Boltzmann equation is solvedwhich one can view as the
fundamental equation underlying Equation 1; in its most simple form, it reads
t
f (r, v, t) +v f (r, v, t) =
1
a
[ f (r, v, t) f
eq
(, u, T )], (3)
with f the single-particle distribution function and f
eq
(, u, T ) the local equilibrium
distribution function at temperature T. Because f represents the particle density in
velocity and coordinate space, the zeroth moment
_
f dv is equal to , and the rst
moment
_
f vdv is equal to j; taking the zeroth and rst moment of Equation 3 yields
Equation 1. If the temporal and spatial variations of and u are sufciently small,
the stress tensor takes the form of Equation 2, with vanishing bulk viscosity and a
shear viscosity a T, with the average density. In the LB method, Equation
3 is solved by a nite-difference scheme, in which a single time step consists of a
propagation of f on a grid, followed by a relaxation to equilibrium (Chen & Doolen
1998, Succi 2001); in the popular D3Q19 model, the grid is simple cubic, in which
distributions can move to nearest and next-nearest neighbor sites.
Both the CFD and LB methods have proven to be powerful techniques for mod-
eling uid ow at low to moderate Reynolds numbers; both have their relative merits
and weaknesses, which mainly have to do with stability and efciency (Bernsdorf et al.
1999, Succi 2001), and we do not elaborate on this here. We discuss the use of both
models in the numerical simulation of dense gas-solid ow in Sections 35.
2.2. Lagrangian Models for the Solid Phase
In Lagrangian models, the phase (gas or solid) is represented by discrete particles. In
mainstream simulation models of gas-uidized beds, Langrangian models are only
used for the solid phase, in which the particles are almost exclusively represented
by perfect spheres, for obvious computational reasons; Lagrangian models of dry
granular ow with nonspherical particles have been developed, however (Langston
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
et al. 2004, Vu-Quoc et al. 2000). There are two main classes of simulation models
for (in)elastic spheres: hard-sphere models and soft-sphere models. Both methods
originate from MD simulation models, initiated by Alder and Wainwright in the
1950s and 1960s, and a number of excellent books discussing the details of MD
methods have appearedsince (e.g., Allen&Tildesley 1990, Frenkel &Smit 2002). The
techniques canwith only minor modicationsbe transferred directly to granular
systems. One of the most important modications is that in granular systems the
particles dissipate energy in collisions and also experience surface friction. Energy
dissipation is usually described via the coefcient of normal restitution e, which is
dened as the factor by which the postcollisional relative velocity of two particles
in the normal direction is reduced as a result of dissipation, compared with a fully
elastic collision. The surface friction is governed by the friction coefcient f and
affects the relative tangential velocity at the contact point, at which both sticking and
sliding can occur. Then one can also include the dissipation of energy in the tangential
direction, governed by a coefcient of tangential restitution e
t
. For more details on
the dynamics of inelastic collisions, we refer the reader to Walton (1992). We now
briey discuss the essentials of hard-sphere and soft-sphere methods. A much more
detailed description can be found in van der Hoef et al. (2006) and Deen et al. (2007).
In hard-sphere methods, particles interact via instantaneous collisions; in between
these collisions, the particles undergo free ight, during which their velocity is not
changed. The evolution of the systems is thus from collision event to collision event,
and therefore the method is often classied as event-driven. The advantage of the
hard-sphere method is that it is efcient for dilute systems. Moreover, the instanta-
neous collision is physically more realistic compared to soft-sphere models, in which
for computational reasons the duration of a collision is much longer than it should
be on the basis of the material properties (i.e., the elasticity) of the particles. The
drawback is that the event-driven scheme is inefcient for very dense systems, owing
to the extremely high number of collisions; if the particles get jammed, the method
breaks down completely.
In the soft-sphere model, Newtons law for each particle i (position r
i
, mass m
i
),
m
i
r
i
= F
tot
i
, F
tot
i
=
j
F
ij
m
i
g, (4)
is solved numerically. The inelastic collision process is represented by the force F
ij
,
whichis the force that particle i experiences fromparticle j whenincontact (otherwise
F
ij
= 0). One of the most widely used models for the contact force is the linear
springdashpot model by Cundall & Strack (1979), which is a good compromise
between efciency and accuracy. Newtons equation can be solved approximately by
a (time-driven) integration scheme; in MD for molecular systems, one normally uses
second-order schemes, such as the popular Verlet scheme (Allen & Tildesley 1990).
However, for granular systems often a rst-order scheme sufces because, owing
to the presence of nonconservative forces (drag, inelastic collisions) in gas-uidized
beds, the conservation of energy in the integration is not such a crucial issue as
in molecular systems. In gas-uidized systems, the equilibrium state follows from
a balance between the energy fed to the system to maintain the uidized state and
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
the energy lost in dissipation. A nonconserving integration algorithm may shift this
balance slightly, but the energy would not drift away as it would in molecular systems.
One of the main advantages of the soft-sphere model is that it works well both for
dilute systems (although it is less efcient than the hard-sphere model) and dense
systems. Also one can include other forces such as gas-solid drag and the van der
Waals force more naturally in a time-driven scheme (they can simply be added to
F
tot
i
) than in an event-driven scheme, in which the update is not based on forces.
2.3. Lagrangian Models for the Gas Phase
The Lagrangian models for the solid phase described in the previous section above
can also be used to model the gas phase; for many applications, however, this is
computationally extremely expensive, and also such a detailed description of the uid
phase is not required to model the essential features. For this reason, researchers have
developed a number of simplied MD models of a uid phase. One such method that
has become popular in recent years is stochastic rotation dynamics (Malevanets &
Kapral 1999), also called multiparticle collision dynamics (for an extensive review,
see Padding & Louis 2006). Stochastic rotation dynamics is basically a time-driven
MD method in which the collisions between the particles are replaced by stochas-
tic rotations of the velocity vectors relative to the local ow eld. Other simplied
particle-based methods of uid ow are dissipative particle dynamics, direct simula-
tion Monte Carlo, and LGCA. Figure 2 shows an example of an LGCA simulation.
An upcoming technique that merits attention is smoothed particle hydrodynamics
(SPH) (Liu & Liu 2003, Monaghan 2005), which is also a particle-based model, yet
it is different from the ones discussed above. SPH is a mesh-free method used to
solve the hydrodynamics equations, by replacing the uid with a set of particles.
Basically the particles, which move with the ow, represent the interpolation points to
evaluate the spatial derivatives of the physical quantities. Akernel is usedtosmooththe
particle-based information (which is thus represented at points in space) to obtain the
continuous hydrodynamics elds. There are close similarities betweenMDmodels for
uid owand the SPHmodel, yet the latter does not contain the thermal uctuations
inherent to the other particle-based models.
3. RESOLVED DISCRETE PARTICLE MODEL
In this section, we discuss two possible implementations of the RDPM: one in which
the gas phase is modeled by the CFD method and one in which the gas phase is
modeled by the LB method. The key element is how to implement the stick bound-
ary condition, in which the uid velocity vanishes at the surface of the solid spheres.
In both cases, the solid phase is modeled by the Lagrangian method discussed in
Section 2.2. We stress that apart from the two methods discussed below, a num-
ber of other nite-difference/nite-element techniques have appeared to model fully
resolved gas-particle ow at nite Reynolds numbers. These include the arbitrary-
Lagrangian-Eulerian technique (see Hu et al. 2001, and references therein), the
distributed Lagrange-multiplier/ctitious domain (DLM) method (see Sharma &
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Patankar 2005 and references therein), and PHYSALIS (Zhang & Prosperetti 2005).
PHYSALIS couples the exact solution of the Stokes equation in the vicinity of the
particles surface (with a no-slip boundary condition) to the nite-difference solution
of the full Navier-Stokes equation further away from the surface.
Stick boundary conditions in a CFD description of the gas phase can be imple-
mented efciently by the immersed boundary (IB) method (Mittal & Iaccarino 2005,
Peskin 2002), in combination with a direct forcing method (Uhlmann 2005). In this
method, Lagrangian force points are dened, which are uniformly distributed on
the surface of the sphere; the velocity W
m
of each force point m is evaluated from
the linear and angular velocity of the sphere. The interaction between the gas phase
and the solid phase is then controlled by a force density f
s g
, which is added to the
right-hand side of the momentum conservation in Equation 1:
t
(
g
u
g
) + (
g
u
g
u
g
) = p
g

g

g
g +f
s g
, (5)
where the subscript g refers to gas-phase variables. In the discretization of the mo-
mentum equation, f
s g
is treated explicitly. To discuss the method further, we nd it
convenient to only consider the interaction with a single sphere i (i.e., f
s g
= f
i g
), in
which extension to systems with more than one sphere is straightforward. The local
force density in the Eulerian framework f
i g
is calculated from the force densities
f
m
(r
m
) at the location of Lagrangian force points m by using a distribution function
D: f
i g
(r) =

m
D(r r
m
)f
m
(r
m
), where the sum is over all force points r
m
within
the range of inuence of r. For most cases a distribution based on simple volume
weighing is used. The force densities f
m
(r
m
) are calculated from the constraint that at
each force point, the local gas velocity should match the local particle velocity, which
yields
f
m
=

m
(U
m
W
m
)
t
_

3N
_
12
R
2
l
2
+1
__
, (6)
with
m
and U
m
the initial gas density and velocity, respectively, at the Lagrangian
point m, mapped from the Eulerian grid using the same distribution function D; l
3
is the volume of an elementary CFD grid cell. The force on particle i as a result of
the boundary rules is then F
g i
=
N
m
f
m
l
3
, which can simply be added to F
tot
i
in
Equation 4.
We next discuss fully resolved ow around particles using the LB method. Ladd
(1994a,b) introduced a particularly efcient and simple way to enforce stick boundary
rules on a sphere i in the LB method. First the boundary nodes are identied, which
are dened as the points halfway between any pair of neighboring lattice sites, one of
which is located inside the sphere, whereas the other one is outside the sphere. For
a static particle, the boundary rule is simply that a distribution f moving such that
it would cross the boundary bounces back at the boundary node, which results in a
vanishing boundary velocity U
b
of the uid at the location of the node b. For moving
and rotating particles, the bounce-back rule is modied such that part of f can leak
through, so U
b
=W
b
when summed over all link directions, where W
b
is the local
boundary velocity that is calculated fromthe linear and angular velocity of the sphere.
The force on particle i is then F
g i
=
N
b
p
b
/t, with p
b
the change in uid
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
momentum as a result of the boundary rule at node b. The advantage of the bounce-
back method is that it is simple to implement. The disadvantage is that the uid
velocity is matched at the Eulerian points b, which give a stepwise description of the
surface. By contrast, in the IB method the uid velocity is matched at the Lagrangian
points m, which are located exactly on the sphere. Verberg & Ladd (2001) and Rohde
et al. (2003) have suggested methods that have a smoother description of the particle
boundary in the LBmethod, and more recently Fen &Michaelides (2005) introduced
the IB method into the LB scheme.
Fully resolvedmethods suchas CFD-IB, LB-bounce-back, PHYSALIS, andDLM
can be used for two different purposes in the multiscale framework of gas-uidized
beds: (a) to perform a fully resolved simulation of gas-uidized beds and (b) to obtain
estimates for the gas-solid interactionforce F
g i
. To our knowledge, no fully resolved
simulations of gas-uidized beds have appeared in the literature to date. Researchers
have carried out LB simulations of many particle systems to study suspension ow
in Couette systems (Kromkamp et al. 2006) and sedimentation (Nguyen & Ladd
2005), both at low Reynolds numbers. Sedimentation has also been simulated by
Zhang et al. (2007) for 1024 spheres in liquid using the PHYSALIS method and by
Glowinski et al. (2001) for 6400 discs in liquid using the DLM method. The only
fully resolved simulation of a uidized bed has been reported by Pan et al. (2002),
who studied 1204 particles uidized in water using the DLM approach to resolve the
uid ow around the particles. In Figure 3 we show the results from fully resolved
simulation using the CFD-IB method for 3600 particles in two-dimensions, uidized
in air at 100 bar. For computational convenience, the particle/gas density ratio was
Figure 3
Snapshots from a fully resolved simulation of a two-dimensional uidized bed using the
immersed boundary method. The system (width 75 cm) contains 3600 particles with a
density of 1100 kg m
3
and a diameter of 1 cm, uidized at 0.20 m s
1
; the density of the
uid phase is 100 kg m
3
. The computational uid dynamics cells are 0.625 0.625 mm
2
,
so the total number of cells is nearly 3 million. The particles are colored to visualize the
mixing.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
limited to 11 in this case. Higher-density ratios can be used in principle, but they
lead to (excessively) small permissible time steps owing to the explicit treatment of
the uid-solid interaction.
Adifferent use of fully resolvedsimulations is toobtaininformationonthe effective
gas-solid interactionforce, whichis anessential input inthe higher-scale models. Such
simulations have been carried out almost exclusively using the LB method, for static
random arrays of spheres that are monodisperse (Hill et al. 2001a,b, Kandhai et al.
2003, Maier et al. 1999) and bidisperse (Beetstra et al. 2007a, van der Hoef et al. 2005)
and for nonstatic arrays (Wylie et al. 2003). For monodisperse static arrays, the LB
results for the gas-solidinteractionforce reportedby the various authors are consistent
and show relatively large deviations (up to 100%) with the well-accepted empirical
correlations by Ergun (1952) and Wen &Yu (1966). The following correlation for the
gas-solid interaction force on a particle of diameter d
i
represents a good t (within
8%) to the LB data of monodisperse and polydisperse systems (Beetstra et al. 2007a):
F
g i
3d
i
g
(u
g
v
i
)
=
_
g
d
i
d
+
s
d
2
i
d
2
+ 0.064
g
d
3
i
d
3
_
_
10
s
3
g
+
g
+1.5
g
1/2
s
+
0.413 Re
24
3
g
_
1
g
+3
s
g
+ 8.4 Re
0.343
1 +10
3
s
Re
(1+4
s
)/2
__
, (7)
with
g
and
s
the volume fraction of the gas phase and solid phase, respectively
(
g
+
s
= 1), and the Reynolds number Re =
g
d
g
|u
g
v
i
|/. The last term in
square brackets of Equation 7 represents the gas-solid interaction force for monodis-
perse systems, whereas the rst termrepresents the correction for polydispersity, with
d =

i
d
3
i
/(
i
d
2
i
). The bar indicates that

F
g i
represents the average gas-solid
interaction force, which only depends on other average quantities (d,
s
,
g
) of a
certain domain. Note that

F
g i
represents the total gas-solid interaction force
including the contribution from the pressure gradientwhich is different from the
drag force

F
d,i
as it is commonly dened; for monodisperse systems one can derive
that

F
g i
=

F
d,i
/
g
. We discuss this point further in Section 4. It should be stressed
that Relation 7 is for homogeneous arrays; ten Cate &Sundaresan (2006) showed that
for heterogeneous congurations (which are typically encountered in gas-uidized
beds), there can be large deviations between the domain-averaged interaction force
F
g i
and the true individual interactionforce F
g i
. This is a typical example inwhich
the lack of resolution in the higher-scale models can be the source of discrepancies
compared with the results from detailed-scale simulations. Note that the problem of
unresolved structures is central to the whole multiscale modeling approach.
In this section on resolved DPM we focus on models with a Eulerian description
of the gas phase. In the past years, researchers have developed a number of other
numerical models for fully resolved gas-particle ow, in which the gas phase is repre-
sented by the particle-based models described in Section 2.3. However, such models
have been applied almost exclusively to simulate colloidal systems, that is, systems at
low Reynolds numbers and small scales, at least compared to gas-uidized beds. Yet
some of these models could present an interesting alternative to LB or CFD in the
fully resolved modeling of gas-uidized beds. One particular example is the work of
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Ma et al. (2006), who studied the effect of heterogeneity on the drag force in gas-solid
suspensions using the SPH method for the gas phase.
4. UNRESOLVED DISCRETE PARTICLE MODEL
In UDPMs (also termed discrete element models), the size of the Eulerian grid is
typically an order of magnitude larger than the size of the particles, so the gas phase
sees the particles only as point sources and sinks of momentum. In the Lagrangian
description of the solid phase, however, the particles do have a nite volume and
interact via collision rules, as discussed in Section 2.2. Although LB models have
been used (Derksen 2003), at present almost all UDPMs of gas-uidized beds have
adopted a CFD-type discretization of the gas phasepioneered by Tsuji et al. (1993),
Hoomans et al. (1996), and Xu & Yu (1997)and we focus on such a description
here. Below we briey discuss the essentials of the UDPM as it is implemented at the
University of Twente; there are some minor differences with UDPMs developed by
other research groups, which are discussed by Kafui et al. (2002). A slightly different
version of the model has been developed by Ouyang & Li (1999).
The UDPMclosely resembles the CFD-IBmethod outlined inSection3, withone
important difference: The Lagrangian force points used to construct the force density
f
s g
in Equation 5 are now the solid particles in the domain. Also, the force density
f
i
at the Lagrangian point i (note that we switch notation from m to i ) is not given by
Equation 6, but is calculated from a correlation such as Equation 7: f
i
=
F
g i
/l
3
,
where l
3
is the volume of an elementary CFD grid cell. Importantly, in such a
description the solid particles do not exclude volume for the gas phase in a natural
way. This has to be incorporated articially in the conservation in Equation 1, by
replacing
g
by
g
g
and
g
by
g
:
1
t
(
g
g
) + (
g
g
u
g
) = 0, (8)
t
(
g
g
u
g
) + (
g
g
u
g
u
g
) = p
g
(
g
g
)
g
g
g +f
s g
. (9)
In practice, however, the equation is rewritten is a slightly different form
2
because
the total gas-to-particle interaction force

F
g i
can be split into a drag force

F
d,i
and
a force from the pressure gradient:

F
g i
=

F
d,i
V
i
p
g
, with V
i
the volume of
particle i . The Eulerian force density arising from V
i
p
g
is equal to
s
p
g
, so the
nal expression for the momentum conservation equation in the UDPM becomes
t
(
g
g
u
g
) + (
g
g
u
g
u
g
) = p
g
(
g

g
)
g
g
g f
d
+
s
p
g
, (10)
with f
d
the Eulerian force density constructed from the force density

F
d,i
/l
3
at the
Lagrangian points i , for which a similar type of distribution is used as in the IB
method; i.e., f
d
(r) =
i
D(r r
i
)
F
d,i
(r
i
)/l
3
, where the sum is over all force points r
i
within the range of inuence of r. For monodisperse systems

F
d,i
=
g

F
g i
, which
can be calculated at each Lagrangian point i from a correlation such as Equation 7, in
1
This is not just an ad hoc modication but has a sound theoretical basis ( Jackson 1997).
2
See also Gidaspow 1994: Equation 9 corresponds to his model B and Equation 10 to his model A.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
which an inverse Euler-Lagrange mapping is used to extrapolate the porosity
g
and
uid velocity u
g
from the nearby Eulerian grid points to the location of particle i . In
chemical engineering, a combination of the empirical correlations by Ergun (1952)
and Wen & Yu (1966) for

F
g i
is currently the most widely used (Gidaspow 1994).
Note that the UDPM as described above does not take the effect of gas turbulence
into account specically; one of the reasons is that even for moderately high Reynolds
numbers (<2000), turbulence is suppressed in uidized beds owing to the presence
of particles. Lun (2000) and Zhou et al. (2004) have suggested UDPMs that do take
turbulence into account.
For the solid phase, the Lagrangian method as outlined in Section 2.2 is used.
When using a soft-sphere model, the drag force

F
d,i
and the pressure gradient force
V
i
p
g
cansimply be addedtothe total force F
tot
inEquation4. Incase of a hard-sphere
model, the momentum of the particles is modied as a result of the drag and pressure
gradient at regular intervals in time. For more details we refer the reader to Hoomans
et al. (1996). Helland et al. (1999) developed a DPM in which hard-sphere colli-
sions are assumed but a time-driven scheme is used to locate the collisional particle
pair.
The UDPM is ideally suited for investigating how particle-particle, particle-gas,
and particle-wall interactions contribute to the mixing and formation of heteroge-
neous ow structures that are typical of gas-uidized beds. Some examples include
studies of the effect of (a) dissipation in collisions (Hoomans et al. 1996), (b) particle
friction(M. vanSint Annaland, G.A. Bokkers, M.A. vander Hoef, M.J.V. Goldschmidt
& J.A.M. Kuipers, submitted), (c) gas pressure (Li & Kuipers 2002), (d ) gas viscosity
(Ye et al. 2005), (e) drag correlations (Beetstra et al. 2007b, Bokkers et al. 2004, Li &
Kuipers 2003), ( f ) particle cohesion (Iwadate & Horio 1998; Kobayashi et al. 2002;
Rhodes et al. 2001; Xu et al. 2002; Ye et al. 2004, 2005), and ( g) vertical vibration
(Moon et al. 2006, Tatemoto et al. 2004). As an illustration of the effect of particle-
particle interactions on structure formation in uidized beds, Figure 4 shows some
snapshots of UDPM simulations with the hard-sphere model, using different val-
ues for the coefcient of normal restitution e and the friction coefcient f (see also
Hoomans et al. 1996).
Nowadays, the UDPM has become almost a standard tool in the study of gas-
uidized beds, and it is used by a wide number of research groups on a variety of
applications. Space limitations in this review prevent us from giving a full overview
of all current activities in this eld; therefore, we refer the interested reader to the
proceedings of the fth Word Congress on Particle Technology, Orlando, Florida,
April 2327, 2006, and a special 2007 issue on uidization in Chemical Engineering
Science (volume 62, issue 12).
5. TWO-FLUID MODEL
The TFM abandons the concept of a solid phase consisting of individual, dis-
tinguishable particles. Both the gas phase and the solid phase are described as
fully interpenetrating continua, using a set of generalized Navier-Stokes equations
(Gidaspow 1994, Kuipers & van Swaaij 1998): The time evolution of the gas phase
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
f = 0.0
f = 0.1
e = 1.00 e = 0.99 e = 0.97 e = 0.94 e = 0.90
Figure 4
Snapshots from eight
different unresolved discrete
particle model simulations,
demonstrating the effect of
the coefcient of normal
restitution e and friction
coefcient f on the
uidization in air of 4-mm
glass particles (density
2700 kg m
3
) in a
quasi-two-dimensional
system (0.15 0.60 m,
7200 particles). The
supercial uidization
velocity was set at 2.5 m s
1
;
for all cases we selected the
frames with the highest
level of heterogeneity. It can
be observed that dissipation
induces heterogeneity,
whereas the simulations
with friction show slug
owtype uidization.
is governed by Equations 8 and 10. For the solid phase, a similar set of equations is
used, which is arrived at by replacing the subscript g by s and changing the sign of the
gas-particle interaction terms f
d
and
s
p
g
(whose subscript should not be changed
to s ).
3
Therefore, the equation for the momentum density of the solid phase is
t
(
s
s
u
s
) + (
s
u
s
u
s
) = p
s
+ (
s

s
)
s
s
g +f
d

s
p
g
. (11)
Note that
s
is the density of the material of which the solid particles are made. The
force density f
d
in Equation 11 can be directly calculated from

F
g i
:
f
d
=

s
V
p
F
d
=

s
V
p
g

F
g i
,
3
Again this is not an ad hoc procedure, but it has a sound theoretical basis ( Jackson 1997).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
where V
p
is the volume of a particle (we assume monodisperse systems for simplicity),
and

F
g i
can be evaluated from a correlation such as Equation 7, with v
i
replaced
by u
s
. Note that in the literature the gas-solid interaction is usually described by a
drag coefcient , which is dened as f
d
= (u
g
u
s
). For the solid stress tensor in
Equation 11, again one can use the general form (Equation 2) of a Newtonian uid.
Because the concept of particles has disappeared in the TFM, one can only include
indirectly the effect of particle-particle interactions, via an effective solids pressure
p
s
and an effective solids shear and bulk viscosity
s
and
s
, for which appropriate
closures should be used. In the early hydrodynamic modelsdeveloped by Anderson
&Jackson (1967), Anderson et al. (1995), Tsuo &Gidaspow(1990), and Kuipers et al.
(1992)the viscosity is dened as an empirical constant, and also the dependence of
the solids phase pressure on the solids volume fraction is determined from experi-
ments. The advantage of this model is its simplicity; the drawback is that it does not
take into account the underlying characteristics of the solids phase rheology. Another
class of models, pioneered by Elghobashi & Abou-Arab (1983), uses a particle turbu-
lent viscosity, derived by extending the concept of turbulence from the gas phase to
the solid phase. The state-of-the-art closures are obtained from the kinetic theory of
granular ow (KTGF), initiated by Jenkins & Savage (1983), Lun et al. (1984), and
Ding & Gidaspow (1990). The KTGF expresses the solids shear and bulk viscosity,
and the pressure in terms of the solids volume fraction
s
, the coefcient of normal
restitution e, and the granular temperature =C
p
C
p
/3, where C
p
represents the
particle uctuation velocity. As an example, we give the expression for the pressure
and shear viscosity (Gidaspow 1994):
p
s
=
_
1 +
1 +e
2
y(
s
)
_

s
s
,
s
=
5
12
_
1
(1 +e)y(
s
)
+
2
5
+0.193(1 +e)y(
s
)
_

s
d
,
where y(
s
) is the excess compressibility of an elastic hard-sphere system, for which
one can use the expressions by Carnahan & Starling (1969) or Ma & Ahmadi (1986).
The time evolution of the granular temperature itself is given by
3
2
_

t
(
s
s
) + (
s
s
u
s
)
_
=p
s
u
s

s
s
: u
s
(
s
q
s
) 3 , (12)
where q
s
is the kinetic energy ux, and is the dissipation of kinetic energy owing
to inelastic particle collisions.
One of the strengths of the TFMcombined with the KTGFalthough still under
developmentis that it can describe two-phase ow at relatively large scales, yet it
is directly controlled by the physics at the level of particle-particle interactions, such
as the amount of energy dissipated in a collision. To illustrate this, Figure 5 shows
some snapshots of a TFM simulation of a gas-uidized bed for various values of the
coefcient of restitution e. The uidization behavior as function of e, predicted by
TFM, agrees well with results from the DPM model (see Figure 4).
In the past 20 years, researchers have used the TFM to study a wide number of
different systems relevant to chemical engineering science, and a full survey of all
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
e = 1.00 e = 0.99 e = 0.97 e = 0.94 e = 0.90
Figure 5
Snapshots from ve different two-uid model simulations, demonstrating the effect of the
coefcient of normal restitution e. The shade of gray indicates the local level of
s
. The
closures for viscosity and pressure are obtained from the kinetic theory of granular ow. The
system conditions (bed and particle size, uidization velocity, etc.) are exactly equal to those of
Figure 4. The linear size of a computational uid dynamic grid cell is equal to 0.5 mm (see
also Goldschmidt et al. 2001).
past and present developments is beyond the scope of this review. Below we present
a limited list of some selected applications and developments. For example, Sinclair
& Jackson (1989) predicted the core-annular regime for steady developed ow in a
riser, whereas Ding &Gidaspow(1990) simulated a bubbling uidized bed. Transient
simulations and comparisons to data were done by Samuelsberg & Hjertager (1996),
and Nieuwland et al. (1996) investigated a circulating uidized bed using the KTGF.
Detamore et al. (2001) have performed an analysis of the scale-up of circulating
uidizedbeds usingkinetic theory. The validity of some of the assumptions underlying
the KTGF has been studied by Goldschmidt et al. (2004) by comparing it directly
with unresolved discrete particle simulations. McKeen & Pugsley (2003) simulated
the uidization of ne FCCparticles in a freely bubbling bed, and Hansen et al. (2005)
studied the ozone decomposition in the riser of a circulating uidized bed. Some
recent general developments of the TFM include the extension to binary systems by
Huilin et al. (2003) and the inclusion of heat and mass transfer by Patil et al. (2003,
2006).
6. OUTLOOK
In this review, we discuss the essentials of three general classes of models to the study
of gas-uidized beds: RDPM, UDPM, and TFM. Within each class, one can use
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
different types of techniques for single-phase ow (CFD, LB, or MD) to model the
gas and solid phase. Each of these classes will continue to play an important role in
the modeling of gas-solid systems in the foreseeable future, although the system sizes
that can be handled will clearly shift with the advancement of computer resources.
Whereas the rst discrete particle simulations of gas-uidized beds in the mid-1990s
used an unresolved gas-particle model to study two-dimensional laboratory-scale sys-
tems (which typically contained less than 10,000 particles), soon such systems will be
within reach of the fully resolved DPM, whereas the unresolved models can now
handle full three-dimensional laboratory-scale systems containing millions of parti-
cles. This does not mean that no further developments are required for those models.
With respect to the RDPM, the accuracy, stability, and efciency of the method leave
roomfor improvement. The reliability of the UDPMcan be improved by using more
advanced gas-solid drag relations, which take into account the heterogeneity and mo-
bility of the particles; such expressions can be derived from extensive fully resolved
DPM simulations.
A large number of challenges lie ahead for the two-uid class of models, which
include the simulation of (a) ne powders, (b) polydisperse systems, (c) particles with
friction, and (d ) industrial-scale systems. With respect to ne powders, at present
TFMs cannot predict the uidization properties of Geldart A class powders, at least
not without using some ad hoc scaling of the drag force (McKeen & Pugsley 2003).
The problems may well have to do with a lack of resolution (see below). With respect
to polydisperse systems, the current class of TFMs still lacks the capability of de-
scribing quantitatively particle mixing and segregation rates in polydisperse uidized
beds. Recently, the KTGF has been formulated for bidisperse systems (Huilin et al.
2003; M. van Sint Annaland, G.A. Bokkers, M.A. van der Hoef, M.J.V. Goldschmidt
& J.A.M. Kuipers, submitted), and the next challenge is to extend it to general poly-
disperse systems. Also, the effect of particle-particle friction is not incorporated in
the current KTGF. A recent simulation study using the DPM showed that particle
friction has a large inuence on the mixing behavior when a single bubble is injected
into the system (M. van Sint Annaland, G.A. Bokkers, M.A. van der Hoef, M.J.V.
Goldschmidt & J.A.M. Kuipers, submitted). It was also found that the effects of lack
of friction could not be remedied by using a smaller coefcient of normal restitution
(see also Figure 4), which implies that friction should be taken into account explicitly
in the KTGF at the level of the encounter model. There are also limitations to the
TFM with respect to the system sizes that can be studied. The current class of TFMs
can simulate uidized beds only at engineering scales (height of 12 m), at least for
millimeter-sized particles; large-scale industrial uidized bed reactors (diameter of
15 m, height of 320 m) are still far beyond its capabilities. The problemis that owing
to computational limits, the total number of CFDcells is restricted, which means that
larger systems can only be studied by using a larger grid size, which cannot capture
the structures formed on the smaller scales (Agrawal et al. 2001, Sundaresan 2000).
Researchers have approached the problem of unresolved structures through various
approximate schemes (McKeen & Pugsley 2003, Yang et al. 2004). Some very re-
cent initiatives in this direction have been undertaken by Andrews et al. (2005), who
construct the ltered two-uid equations, which take the same form as the normal
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
t = 10.0 s t = 12.5 s t = 15.0 s t = 17.5 s
Figure 6
Snapshots from a discrete bubble simulation of a polymerization reactor of 4 m 4 m 8 m,
uidized at 0.25 m s
1
. The bubbles represent the gas phase; note that the surrounding
emulsion phase (density 400 kg m
3
) is not visible. The initial bubble size (injected uniformly
at the bottom plate) is 8 cm; the maximum bubble size is 80 cm. The system typically contains
5000 bubbles.
TFM equations, only with a different set of closure relations, suitable for coarse-grid
simulations (see also van der Hoef et al. 2006). The idea of ltered equations is anal-
ogous to large eddy simulation equations for turbulent ows, except that now there
is the added complication of having to constitute a model for the ltered drag force.
Note that the effective drag coefcient depends on lter size, as does the particle
phase stress.
Finally, in this review we do not discuss the two classes of model at both ends of
the scale in Table 1, the LL and the Lagrangian-Eulerian models, because they have
only just begun to be explored in the context of gas-uidized beds. With respect to
the LL models, we expect that stochastic rotation dynamics and SPH will receive
much attention in the near future. With respect to the Lagrangian-Eulerian mod-
els, some initiatives have been started at the University of Twente, where a discrete
bubble model for gas-solid ow has been developed, adapted from the equivalent
model for gas-liquid systems, including a simple coalescence and break-up model
(Bokkers et al. 2006) for the gas bubbles. Figure 6 shows some snapshots from a
discrete bubble model simulation of an industrial-scale gas-phase polymerization
reactor (4 m 4 m 8 m). This model is still in its early stages, and, in par-
ticular, the rules for breakup and coalescence can be much further rened on the
basis of UDPM simulations. The ultimate goal of both the ltered TFM and the
discrete bubble model is to make contact with the phenomenological models of life-
size gas-uidized beds, that is, to provide closures for the bubble size, phase holdups,
velocities, and mass dispersion coefcients in the lateral and axial direction (Kunii &
Levenspiel 1991). This will be the nal step in the multiscale modeling strategy and
will complete the link that one wants to make between (simple) elementary physics
at the detailed scale and (complex) multiphase ow phenomena at the industrial
scale.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the
objectivity of this review.
LITERATURE CITED
Agrawal K, Loezos PN, Syamlal M, Sundaresan S. 2001. The role of meso-scale
structures in rapid gas-solid ows. J. Fluid Mech. 445:15185
Allen MP, Tildesley DJ. 1990. Computer Simulations of Liquids. Oxford: Oxford Sci.
AndersonK, SundaresanS, JacksonR. 1995. Instabilities and the formationof bubbles
in uidized beds. J. Fluid Mech. 303:32766
Anderson TB, Jackson R. 1967. Fluid mechanical description of uidized beds: equa-
tions of motion. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 6:52739
Andrews AT IV, Loezos PN, Sundaresan S. 2005. Coarse-grid simulation of gas-
particle ows in vertical risers. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 44:602237
Beetstra R, van der Hoef MA, Kuipers JAM. 2007a. Drag force of intermediate
Reynolds number ow past mono- and bidisperse arrays of spheres. AIChE J.
53:489501
Beetstra R, van der Hoef MA, Kuipers JAM. 2007b. Numerical study of segregation
using a new drag force correlation for polydisperse systems derived from lattice
Boltzman simulations. Chem. Eng. Sci. 62:24655
Bernsdorf J, Durst F, Sch afer A. 1999. Comparison of cellular automata and nite
volume techniques for simulationof incompressible ows incomplex geometries.
Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 29:25164
Bokkers GA, Laverman JA, van Sint Annaland M, Kuipers JAM. 2006. Modelling of
large-scale dense gas-solid bubbling uidised beds using a novel discrete bubble
model. Chem. Eng. Sci. 61:5590602
Bokkers GA, van Sint Annaland M, Kuipers JAM. 2004. Mixing and segregation in
a bidisperse gas-solid uidised bed: a numerical and experimental study. Powder
Technol. 140:17686
Carnahan NF, Starling KE. 1969. Equation of state for non-attracting rigid spheres.
J. Chem. Phys. 51:63536
Chen S, Doolen GD. 1998. Lattice Boltzmann method for uid ows. Annu. Rev.
Fluid Mech. 30:32964
Climent E, Maxey MR. 2003. Numerical simulation of random suspensions at nite
Reynolds numbers. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 29:579601
Cundall PA, Strack ODL. 1979. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies.
G eotechnique 29:4765
Deen NG, van Sint Annaland M, van der Hoef MA, Kuipers JAM. 2007. Review of
discrete particle modeling of uidized beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 62:2844
Derksen JJ. 2003. Numerical simulation of solids suspension in a stirred tank. AIChE
J. 49:270014
Ding J, Gidaspow D. 1990. A bubbling uidization model using kinetic theory of
granular ow. AIChE J. 36:52338
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Detamore MS, Swanson MA, Frender KR, Hrenya CM. 2001. A kinetic-theory anal-
ysis of the scale-up of circulating uidized beds. Powder Technol. 116:190203
Elghobashi SE, Abou-Arab TW. 1983. A two-equation turbulence model for two-
phase ows. Phys. Fluids 26:93138
Ergun S. 1952. Fluid ow through packed columns. Chem. Eng. Proc. 48:8994
Feng Z-G, Michaelides EE. 2005. Proteus: a direct forcing method in the simulations
of particulate ows. J. Comp. Phys. 202:2051
Fletcher CA. 1988a. Computational Techniques for Fluid Dynamics. Vol I: Fundamental
and General Techniques. Berlin: Springer Verlag
Fletcher CA. 1988b. Computational Techniques for Fluid Dynamics. Vol II: Specic Tech-
niques for Different Flow Catagories. Berlin: Springer Verlag
Frenkel D, Smit B. 2002. Understanding Molecular Simulation: From Algorithms to
Applications. Boston: Academic. 2nd ed.
Gidaspow D. 1994. Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum and Kinetic Theory
Descriptions. Boston: Academic
Glowinski R, Pan TW, Helsa TI, Joseph DD, Periaux J. 2001. A ctitious domain
approach to the direct numerical simulation of incompressible viscous ow past
moving rigid bodies: application of particulate ow. J. Comp. Phys. 19:363426
Goldschmidt MJV, Beetstra R, Kuipers JAM. 2004. Hydrodynamic modelling of
dense gas-uidised beds: comparison and validation of 3-D discrete particle and
continuum models. Powder Technol. 142:2347
Goldschmidt MJV, Kuipers JAM, van Swaaij WPM. 2001. Hydrodynamic modeling
of dense gas-uidised beds using the kinetic theory of granular ow: effect of
coefcient of restitution on bed dynamics. Chem. Eng. Sci. 56:57178
Hansen KG, Solberg T, Hjertager BH. 2005. A three-dimensional simulation of
gas/particle ow and ozone decomposition in the riser of a circulating uidized
bed. Chem. Eng. Sci. 59:521724
Helland E, Occelli R, Tadrist L. 1999. Numerical study of cohesive powders in a
dense uidized bed. C.R. Acad. Sci. II B 327:1397403
Hill RJ, Koch DL, Ladd AJC. 2001a. The rst effects of uid inertia on ow in
ordered and random arrays of spheres. J. Fluid Mech. 448:21341
Hill RJ, Koch DL, Ladd AJC. 2001b. Moderate-Reynolds-number ows in ordered
and random arrays of spheres. J. Fluid Mech. 448:24378
Hoomans BPB, Kuipers JAM, Briels WJ, van Swaaij WPM. 1996. Discrete particle
simulation of bubble and slug formation in a two-dimensional gas-uidized bed:
a hard sphere approach. Chem. Eng. Sci. 47:99108
Hu HH, Patankar NA, Zhu Y. 2001. Direct numerical simulation of uid-solid sys-
tems using the arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian technique. J. Comp. Phys. 169:427
62
Huilin L, Yurong H, GidaspowD. 2003. Hydrodynamic modeling of a binary mixture
in a gas bubbling uidized bed using the kinetic theory of granular ow. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 58:1197205
Iwadate M, Horio M. 1998. Agglomerating uidization of wet powders and group
C powders: a numerical analysis. In Fluidization IX, ed. LS Fan, T Knowlton,
p. 293. Durango, CO: Eng. Found.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Jackson R. 1997. Locally averaged equations of motion for a mixture of identical
spherical particles and a Newtonian uid. Chem. Eng. Sci. 52:245769
Jenkins JT, Savage SB. 1983. A theory for the rapid ow of identical, smooth, nearly
elastic, spherical particles. J. Fluid Mech. 130:187202
Kafui KD, Thornton C, Adams MJ. 2002. Discrete particle: continuum uid mod-
elling of gas-solid uidised beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 57:2395410
Kandhai D, Derksen JJ, van den Akker HEA. 2003. Interphase drag coefcients in
gas-solid ows. AIChE J. 49:106065
Kobayashi T, Kawaguchi T, Tanaka T, Tsuji Y. 2002. DEM analysis on the ow
patterns of Geldarts group A particles in uidized bed. Proc. World Congr. Part.
Technol., paper no. 178. CD-ROM. Sydney, Aust.
Kromkamp J, van de Ende D, Kandhai D, van der Sman R, Boom R. 2006. Lattice
Boltzmann simulation of 2Dand 3Dnon-Brownian suspensions in Couette ow.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 61:85873
Kuipers JAM, van Duin KJ, van Beckum FHP, van Swaaij WPM. 1992. A numerical
model of gas-uidized beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 47:191324
Kuipers JAM, van Swaaij WPM. 1998. Computational uid dynamics applied to
chemical reaction engineering. Adv. Chem. Eng. 24:227328
Kunii D, Levenspiel O. 1991. Fluid Engineering. Butterworth Heinemann Series in
Chemical Engineering. London: Butterworth Heinemann
Ladd AJC. 1994a. Numerical simulations of particulate suspensions via a discretized
Boltzmann equation. Part 1: theoretical foundation. J. Fluid Mech. 271:285309
Ladd AJC. 1994b. Numerical simulations of particulate suspensions via a discretized
Boltzmann equation. Part 2: numerical results. J. Fluid Mech. 271:31139
Ladd AJC, Colvin ME, Frenkel D. 1988. Application of lattice-gas cellular automata
to the Brownian motion of solids in suspension. Phys. Rev. Lett. 60:97578
Langston PA, Al-Awamleh MA, Fraige FY, Asmar BN. 2004. Distinct element mod-
elling of non-spherical frictionless particle ow. Chem. Eng. Sci. 59:42535
Li J, Kuipers JAM. 2002. Effect of pressure on gas-solid ow behavior in dense gas-
uidized beds: a discrete particle simulation study. Powder Technol. 127:17384
Li J, Kuipers JAM. 2003. Gas-particle interactions in dense gas-uidized beds. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 58:71118
Liu GR, Liu MB. 2003. Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. Singapore: World Sci.
Loth E. 2000. Numerical approaches for motion of dispersed particles, droplets and
bubbles. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 26:161223
Lun CCK. 2000. Numerical simulation of dilute turbulent gas-solid ows. Int. J.
Multiphase Flow 26:170736
Lun CKK, Savage SB, Jeffrey DJ, Chepurniy N. 1984. Kinetic theories for granular
ow: inelastic particles in Couette owand slightly inelastic particles in a general
oweld. J. Fluid Mech. 140:22356
Ma D, Ahmadi G. 1986. An equation of state for dense rigid sphere gases. J. Chem.
Phys. 84:344950
Ma J, Ge W, Wang X, Wang J, Li J. 2006. High-resolution simulation of gas-solid
suspension using macro-scale particle methods. Chem. Eng. Sci. 61:7096106
Maier RS, Kroll DM, Davis HT, Bernard RS. 1999. Simulation of ow in bidisperse
spheres packings. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 217:34147
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Malevanets A, Kapral R. 1999. Mesoscopic model for solvent dynamics. J. Chem.
Phys. 110:860513
McKeen TR, Pugsley TS. 2003. Simulation and experimental validation of a freely
bubbling bed FCC catalyst. Powder Technol. 129:13952
Mittal R, Iaccarino G. 2005. Immersed boundary methods. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.
37:23961
Monaghan JJ. 2005. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Rep. Progr. Phys. 68:170359
Moon SJ, Kevrekidis IG, Sundaresan S. 2006. Particle simulation of vibrated gas-
uidized beds of cohesive ne powders. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 45:696677
Nguyen N-Q, Ladd AJC. 2005. Sedimentation of hard-sphere suspensions at low
Reynolds number. J. Fluid. Mech. 525:73104
Nieuwland JJ, van Sint Annaland M, Kuipers JAM, van Swaaij WPM. 1996. Hydro-
dynamic modeling of gas/particle ows in riser reactors. AIChE J. 42:156982
Ouyang J, Li J. 1999. Particle-motion-resolved discrete model for simulating gas-
solid uidization. Chem. Eng. Sci. 54:207783
Padding JT, Louis AA. 2006. Hydrodynamic interactions and Brownian forces in
colloidal suspensions: coarse-graining over time and length scales. Phys. Rev. E
74:031402
Pan T-W, Joseph DD, Bai R, Glowinski R, Sarin V. 2002. Fluidization of 1204
spheres: simulation and experiment. J. Fluid. Mech. 451:16991
Patil DJ, Smit J, van Sint Annaland M, Kuipers JAM. 2006. Wall-to-bed heat transfer
in gas-solid uidized beds: a computational and experimental study. AIChE J.
52:5874
Patil DJ, van Sint Annaland M, Kuipers JAM. 2003. Gas dispersion and bubble-to-
emulsion phase mass exchange in a gas-solid bubbling uidised bed: a computa-
tional and experimental study. Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 1:A44
Peskin CS. 2002. The immersed boundary method. Acta Numer. 2002:479517
Rhodes MJ, Wang XS, Nguyen M, Stewart P, Liffman K. 2001. Use of discrete
element method simulation in studying uidization characteristics: inuence of
interparticle force. Chem. Eng. Sci. 56:6976
Rohde M, Kandhai D, Derksen JJ, Van den Akker HEA. 2003. Improved bounce-
back methods for no-slip walls in the lattice-Boltzmann schemes: theory and
simulations. Phys. Rev. E 67:066703
Samuelsberg A, Hjertager BH. 1996. Computational modeling of gas/particle ow
in a riser. AIChE J. 42:153646
Sharma N, Patankar NA. 2005. Afast computation technique for the direct numerical
simulation of rigid particle ows. J. Comp. Phys. 205:43957
Sinclair JL, Jackson R. 1989. Gas-particle owin a vertical pipe with particle-particle
interactions. AIChE J. 35:147386
Snider DM. 2001. An incompressible three-dimensional multiphase particle-in-cell
model for dense particle ows. J. Comp. Phys. 170:52349
Succi S. 2001. The Lattice Boltzmann Equation for Fluid Dynamics and Beyond. Oxford:
Clarendon
Sundaresan S. 2000. Perspective: modeling the hydrodynamics of multiphase ow
reactors: current status and challenges. AIChE J. 46:11025
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Tatemoto Y, Mawatari Y, Yasukawa T, Noda K. 2004. Numerical simulation of par-
ticle motion in vibrated uidized bed. Chem. Eng. Sci. 59:43747
ten Cate A, Sundaresan S. 2006. Analysis of the ow in inhomogeneous particle beds
using the spatially averaged two-uid equations. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 32:106
31
Tsuji Y, Kawaguchi T, Tanaka T. 1993. Discrete particle simulation of two-
dimensional uidized bed. Powder Technol. 77:7987
Tsuo YP, Gidaspow D. 1990. Computations of ow patterns in circulating uidized
beds. AIChE J. 36:88596
Uhlmann M. 2005. The immersed boundary method with direct forcing for the
simulation of particulate ows. J. Comp. Phys. 209:44876
van der Hoef MA, Beetstra R, Kuipers JAM. 2005. Lattice Boltzmann simulations of
low Reynolds number ow past mono- and bidisperse arrays of spheres: results
for the permeability and drag force. J. Fluid Mech. 528:23354
van der Hoef MA, Frenkel D, Ladd AJC. 1991. Self-diffusion of colloidal particles
in a two-dimensional suspension: Are deviations from Ficks law experimentally
observable? Phys. Rev. Lett. 67:345962
van der Hoef MA, Ye M, van Sint Annaland M, Andrews AT IV, Sundaresan S,
Kuipers JAM. 2006. Multiscale modeling of gas-uidized beds. Adv. Chem. Eng.
31:65149
Verberg R, Ladd AJC. 2001. Accuracy and stability of a lattice-Boltzmann model with
sub-grid scale boundary conditions. Phys. Rev. E 65:016701
Vu-Quoc L, Zhang X, Walton OR. 2000. A 3-D discrete-element method for dry
granular ows of ellipsoidal particles. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 187:483
528
Walton OR. 1992. Numerical simulation of inelastic frictional particle-particle in-
teraction. In Particulate Two-Phase Flow, ed. MC Roco, pp. 884911. Boston:
Butterworth-Heineman
WenCY, Yu YH. 1966. Mechanics of uidization. Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 62:100
11
Wylie JJ, Koch D, Ladd AJC. 2003. Rheology of suspensions with high particle inertia
and moderate uid inertia. J. Fluid Mech. 480:95118
Xu BH, Yu AB. 1997. Numerical simulation of the gas-solid owin a uidized bed by
combining discrete particle method with computational uid dynamics. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 52:2785809
Xu BH, Zhou YC, Yu AB, Zulli P. 2002. Force structures in gas uidized beds of
ne powders: DEM analysis on the ow patterns of Geldarts group A particles
in uidized bed. Proc. World Congr. Part. Technol. 4, paper no. 331. CD-ROM.
Sydney, Aust.
Yang N, Wang W, Ge W, Wang L, Li J. 2004. Simulation of heterogeneous structure
ina circulating uidized bed riser by combining the two-uid model withEMMS
approach. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 43:554861
Ye M, van der Hoef MA, Kuipers JAM. 2004. A numerical study of uidization
behavior of Geldart A particles using a discrete particle model. Powder Technol.
139:12939
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Ye M, van der Hoef MA, Kuipers JAM. 2005. The effect of particle and gas properties
on the uidization of Geldart A particles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 60:456780
Zhang ZZ, Botto L, Prosperetti A. 2007. Microstructural effects in a fully-resolved
simulation of 1,024 sedimenting spheres. IUTAMSymp. Comput. Approaches Mul-
tiphase Flow, pp. 197206. Dordrecht: Springer
Zhang Z, Prosperetti A. 2005. Asecond-order method for three-dimensional particle
simulations. J. Comp. Phys. 210:292324
Zhou H, Flamant G, Gauthier D, Lu J. 2004. Numerical simulation of the turbulent
gas-particle ow in a uidized bed by an LES-DPM model. Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
82:91826
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
AR332-FM ARI 22 November 2007 21:57
Annual Review of
Fluid Mechanics
Volume 40, 2008
Contents
Flows of Dense Granular Media
Yol Forterre and Olivier Pouliquen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence at Low Magnetic Reynolds
Number
Bernard Knaepen and Ren Moreau p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 25
Numerical Simulation of Dense Gas-Solid Fluidized Beds:
A Multiscale Modeling Strategy
M.A. van der Hoef, M. van Sint Annaland, N.G. Deen, and J.A.M. Kuipers p p p p p p p 47
Tsunami Simulations
Galen R. Gisler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 71
Sea Ice Rheology
Daniel L. Feltham p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 91
Control of Flow Over a Bluff Body
Haecheon Choi, Woo-Pyung Jeon, and Jinsung Kim p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 113
Effects of Wind on Plants
Emmanuel de Langre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 141
Density Stratication, Turbulence, but How Much Mixing?
G.N. Ivey, K.B. Winters, and J.R. Koseff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 169
Horizontal Convection
Graham O. Hughes and Ross W. Grifths p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 185
Some Applications of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Fluid
Mechanics: Complex Flows and Complex Fluids
Daniel Bonn, Stephane Rodts, Maarten Groenink, Salima Rafa,
Noushine Shahidzadeh-Bonn, and Philippe Coussot p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 209
Mechanics and Prediction of Turbulent Drag Reduction with
Polymer Additives
Christopher M. White and M. Godfrey Mungal p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235
High-Speed Imaging of Drops and Bubbles
S.T. Thoroddsen, T.G. Etoh, and K. Takehara p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 257
v
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
AR332-FM ARI 22 November 2007 21:57
Oceanic Rogue Waves
Kristian Dysthe, Harald E. Krogstad, and Peter Mller p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 287
Transport and Deposition of Particles in Turbulent and Laminar Flow
Abhijit Guha p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 311
Modeling Primary Atomization
Mikhael Gorokhovski and Marcus Herrmann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 343
Blood Flow in End-to-Side Anastomoses
Francis Loth, Paul F. Fischer, and Hisham S. Bassiouny p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 367
Applications of Acoustics and Cavitation to Noninvasive Therapy and
Drug Delivery
Constantin C. Coussios and Ronald A. Roy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 395
Indexes
Subject Index p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 421
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 140 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 431
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 140 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 439
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics articles may be
found at http://uid.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
vi Contents
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

2
0
0
8
.
4
0
:
4
7
-
7
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
2
/
1
3
/
1
0
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

Hoef2008 Hoef Fluidized Bed Annurev - Fluid.40.111406.102130

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Hoef2008 Hoef Fluidized Bed Annurev - Fluid.40.111406.102130

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ANRV332-FL40-03 ARI 10 November 2007 16:3

S-ar putea să vă placă și