Research article

© All Rights Reserved

20 (de) vizualizări

Research article

© All Rights Reserved

- Final Question 906-1
- Talking With Martha 3
- Thermo Exam1 W11 Keys
- Colzn Theory
- Design_ Performance_ Fire Modelling_ Two-Zone Models-use
- Impact of a jet experiment
- 7540_02_que_20070129
- Condervation Form
- educ9406 - mark jennings - assignment 2
- MIT16_07F09_Lec23
- 11. Conservation Laws
- Project 1
- EN010 107 MODULE-1
- forces.ppt
- Panhandle Equation
- Momentum
- exp02_AM (1)
- Grade7RS
- Unit 3 Motion Practice
- AF-1333003-DD-I04

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Powder Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

CFD-DEM method for modeling impinging gas–solid ﬂows

Xizhong Chen a,b, Junwu Wang a,⁎

a

State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Complex Systems, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China

b

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100490, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Gas–solid ﬂows have been numerically investigated by various multiphase models, none of which is suitable for

Received 10 October 2013 all the problems encountered in industries. Different multiphase models have been chosen by different

Received in revised form 1 December 2013 researchers to meet their speciﬁc requirements; therefore, it is highly desirable to have a comprehensive under-

Accepted 16 December 2013

standing of the merits and drawbacks of these models. In this study, three existing multiphase models, including

Available online 9 January 2014

a two-ﬂuid model (TFM), a dense discrete particle model (DDPM) and a combined computational ﬂuid dynamics

Keywords:

and discrete element model (CFD-DEM) method, are compared by simulating the ﬂow patterns of impinging par-

Multiphase ﬂow ticle jet in a channel. Depending on the solid concentration used, the particle jets can either merge into a single jet

Gas–solid ﬂow or cross through each other (particle trajectory crossing effect) when they are impinging. The TFM and the DDPM

Granular materials methods have the advantage of less computational demanding compared to the CFD-DEM method, with the cost

Fluidization of more uncertainties. Using the simulation results obtained from the CFD-DEM method as the benchmark data, it

Computational ﬂuid dynamics was shown that (i) the TFM fails to predict the well-known particle trajectory crossing effect in any cases as in

Impinging ﬂow previous studies (Desjardins et al., Journal of Computational Physics 2008, 227, 2514–2539) but can reproduce

the merging cases reasonably well; (ii) the DDPM fails to predict the cases where the two particle jets are emerg-

ing due to the over-simpliﬁed treatment of particle–particle interactions, highlighting the requirement of a prop-

er way to represent the realistic particle–particle interactions and the importance of volume exclusion effect (the

particles cannot overlap) in dense gas–solid ﬂows; and (iii) quantitative comparisons show there are major dif-

ferences between the results predicted by the three models, highlighting the requirement of further improve-

ment of DDPM and TFM.

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

gas and solid phase as interpenetrating continua, the conservation

The dynamical behavior of gas–solid ﬂows continues to receive great equations of mass, momentum and energy are obtained through an ap-

attentions because of its relevance to a wide range of applications in in- propriate averaging process and the constitutive relations for solid

dustries, such as ﬂuid catalytic cracking, airslide ﬂows [1] and circulat- phase are usually closed using kinetic theory of granular ﬂow (KTGF)

ing ﬂuidized bed combustion [2]. The design and scale-up of these [4]. The TFM method normally requires much less computational re-

industrial devices motivate a better understanding of the dynamical be- sources compared to Eulerian–Lagrangian approaches. Therefore, it

havior of gas–solid ﬂows inside the reactors. Thanks to the rapid ad- can be used to model and study pilot scale and industrial scale reactors

vancement in computer hardware, numerical algorithms and physical [5–7]. Despite the advantages, the discrete character of the solid phase is

understanding, computational ﬂuid dynamics (CFD) has become a pow- lost in the TFM method owing to the continuum description of the dis-

erful tool to provide both qualitative and quantitative insight into the persed phase. This limitation can be overcome by discrete approaches

complex gas–solid ﬂows [3]. Gas–solid ﬂows have been numerically in- such as discrete element method (DEM) [8,9], in which solid particles

vestigated by various multiphase models, none of which is suitable for are tracked individually according to Newton's laws of motion with

all the problems we faced, due to the existence of multiple spatiotempo- detailed particle–particle and particle–wall collisions. One of the main

ral scales in gas–solid ﬂow and the fact that our understanding of the drawbacks of DEM method is the high computational demands [10],

underlying physics of gas–solid ﬂow is far from complete. which restricts its applications to small scale, fundamental investiga-

Two approaches that are frequently used to model the gas–solid tions. To avoid this restriction, the dense discrete phase model

ﬂows problems are the Eulerian–Eulerian and Eulerian–Lagrangian (DDPM) [11] and other similar methods such as multiphase particle-

in-cell (MP-PIC) method [12–14] have been developed in which the de-

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 82544842; fax: +86 10 62558065. tails of particle–particle and particle–wall collisions are not explicitly

E-mail address: jwwang@home.ipe.ac.cn (J. Wang). tracked anymore; instead, a force is used to represent the details of

0032-5910/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2013.12.056

X. Chen, J. Wang / Powder Technology 254 (2014) 94–102 95

particle–particle and particle–wall collisions. Furthermore, the concept multiscale structures such as bubbles and clusters. In response to the ex-

of parcel is used to reduce the numbers of particles involved in compu- istence of multiple length and time scales, CFD methods suitable for

tations, resulting in a signiﬁcant acceleration of the speed of simula- simulating gas–solid ﬂows at different spatiotemporal scales have

tions. Although the DDPM and other similar methods look promising, been developed. As already mentioned in preceding section, three dif-

since it has the beneﬁts of Lagrangian methods and is applicable to ferent multiphase models are selected to simulate impinging gas–solid

large systems, it demands further tests and validations. ﬂow, where the CFD-DEM method is used to generate the benchmark

In addition to comparing the simulation results with experimental data because the method has been extensively proven to be effective

data for validating multiphase models, it is possible to shed light on [22,23], although its computational demands are high. TFM is selected

the merits and disadvantages of multiphase models by comparing the because it is the most-widely used method targeting on industrial appli-

results obtained using different multiphase models. For example, cations [6,24]; however, it is not easy to incorporate the effect of realistic

Goldschmidt et al. [15] compared a two-ﬂuid model and a hard- particle size distribution in Eulerian–Eulerian method, although it plays

sphere discrete particle model with experimental data obtained from an very important role in determining the hydrodynamic characteristics

a pseudo-two-dimensional gas-ﬂuidized bed. They showed that a sig- of gas–solid ﬂow [25,26]. DDPM method [11] is proposed to overcome

niﬁcant improvement can be achieved by incorporating an additional some of the main drawbacks of both Eulerian–Eulerian and CFD-DEM

source of dissipation in the KTGF considering the effects of roughness. methods, it takes the advantages of easy implementation of realistic

Tsuji et al. [16] used a direct simulation Monte Carlo method to predict particle size distribution and tracking the discrete nature of particles,

the cluster patterns in the riser of a circulating ﬂuidized bed and com- its computational cost is also less than that of Eulerian–Eulerian method

pared to the simulation results of two-ﬂuid model [17]. They concluded [27], due to the fact that coarse computational grid and larger time step

that the results of the two models were qualitatively similar but quanti- can be used to achieve grid-size-independent simulations and the use of

tatively different. Ibsen et al. [18]compared the multi-ﬂuid model and the concept of parcel.

discrete particle model to the experimental ﬁndings, where it was The commercial software Ansys Fluent and the open source code

shown that the discrete particle model gave a better agreement with ex- MFIX (www.mﬁx.org) are used to model the problem. The TFM model

perimental observation. Benyahia and Galvin [19] compared the results and CFD-DEM model are carried out on the platform of MFIX and

obtained from the MP-PIC method and the CFD-DEM method; it was DDPM in Ansys Fluent is used. The details of theory and numerical

shown that both methods gave qualitatively results, but a fairly quanti- methods can be obtained from the MFIX documentation [28,29] and

tative difference exists. A detailed comparison of the results of the axial the documentation of Fluent. A summary of the models used is given

and radial solid concentration proﬁles, solids circulation patterns, pres- as follows.

sure drop and granular temperature in a dense ﬂuidized beds was given

by Wang et al. [20] using both two-ﬂuid and discrete particle model. 2.1. Two-ﬂuid model (TFM)

Ryan et al. [21] compared with the TFM, DDPM and MP-PIC methods

in predicting the hydrodynamics in a solid sorbent carbon capture reac- Both gas phase and solid phase are treated as a continuous phase in

tor. They showed that the DDPM were unstable for the given reactor de- the two-ﬂuid model and the mass conservation equations for gas and

sign, while the TFM method and the MP-PIC method provided a stable solid phases are

solution. These works give us a good understanding of the relevant mul-

∂

tiphase models, but still much work needs to be done to fully under-

stand the merits and drawbacks of various multiphase models. ε ρ þ ∇ ε g ρg !

ug ¼ 0 ð1Þ

∂t g g

Present study attempts to extend the understanding of the advan-

tages and disadvantages of various multiphase models. There is no in-

tention to improve the models. Therefore, TFM, DDPM and CFD-DEM, ∂

ðε ρ Þ þ ∇ ðεs ρs !

u sÞ ¼ 0 ð2Þ

all of which have been available in existing software (FLUENT and ∂t s s

MFIX), are used to simulate impinging particle jets in a channel. The im-

pinging particle jets are chosen not only because of its simplicity and where εi, ρi and !

u i (i = g or s) represent the local volume fraction, den-

similarity to the crossing cluster ﬂow that happens frequently in circu- sity and velocity vector, respectively. The momentum conservation

lating ﬂuidized bed risers but also because the merits and drawbacks equations for gas and solid phases are

of the three models can be well highlighted in this type of ﬂow. Noting

that a comparison of the TFM, DDPM and CFD-DEM methods is in

some sense more suitable for identifying the uncertainty of the models ∂

!

ε g ρg ! ! !

u g þ ∇ ε g ρg u g u g ¼ −ε g ∇p þ ∇ τ g þ ε g ρg g

than with experiments, since in the ﬁrst case the boundary conditions ∂t

such as the inlet solid velocity and volume fraction and the wall bound- þβ ! !

u s− u g ð3Þ

ary condition for solid phase, are hard to be controlled precisely in the

real experiments. Moreover, it ensures that all systems have exactly

∂ !

the same drag model, gas and particle characteristics (perfectly non- ðε ρ ! ! !

u Þ þ ∇ ðε s ρs u s u s Þ ¼ −ε s ∇p þ ∇ τ s þ ε s ρs g

∂t s s s

frictional mono-disperse sphere in present study). Also in numerical

þβ ! !

u g− u s ð4Þ

simulations, the possible effects of humidity, inter-particle cohesive

forces, electrostatics, polydispersity, non-sphericity and so on can be ex-

cluded. When these models are applied to simulate the hydrodynamics !

where p, ps and g are the gas pressure shared by both phases, solid pres-

of real ﬂuidized beds, one will face more uncertainties and often get a

sure and gravitational acceleration, respectively. Furthermore, τ g, τ s and

satisfactory simulation result compared to the experimental data by

β are the shear tensor of gas phase and solid phase and the drag coefﬁ-

adjusting some of the model input, such as the drag force correlation

cient, respectively. The stress–strain tensor for gas and solid phases are

and/or wall boundary condition for solid phase.

2

! T

2. Mathematical models τg ¼ εg μ g ∇!

ug þ ∇ug − εg μ g ∇ !

ug I ð5Þ

3

It is well known that due to the nonlinear gas–solid interaction and 2

dissipative particle–particle and particle–wall interaction, the hydrody- ! T

τs ¼ −ps I þ μ s ∇!

us þ ∇us þ λs − μ s ð∇ !

u s ÞI ð6Þ

namic of gas–solid ﬂow is quite complex due to the formation of 3

96 X. Chen, J. Wang / Powder Technology 254 (2014) 94–102

The interphase drag coefﬁcient is calculated according to Wen and The terms in the right-hand side of Eq. (15) are the force contributions

Yu [30] due to buoyant gravity, inter-phase drag force and particle collisions,

respectively. The !

F KTGF is computed from particle pressure predicted by

! ! the kinetic theory of granular ﬂows as given in Section 2.1:

3 ρg εg εs u g − u s −2:65

β ¼ CD εg ð7Þ

4 dp

!

8 F KTGF ¼ −∇ τ s ð16Þ

!

< 0:687 εg ρg dp !u g − u s

ð24=ReÞ 1 þ 0:15Re ; Reb1000

CD ¼ ; Re ¼

: 0:44; Re≥1000 μg

The conservation equation for the granular temperature and rele-

ð8Þ vant parameters are all the same as the TFM.

One point that deserves to mark is that the drag coefﬁcient used in

Conservation equation of granular temperature is given as follows, Eq. (15) (β/εg) is based on the so-called type-B drag model. It is well

known that different types of momentum equations (type-A vs type-

3 ∂ðεs ρs Θs Þ ! B) have been used in numerical simulations of gas–solid ﬂow [35]. Pre-

þ ∇ ð ε s ρs ! !

u s Θs Þ ¼ −∇ q þ τ s : ∇ u s − J s −3βΘs ð9Þ

2 ∂t vious studies [36,37] have shown that the momentum equation and the

inter-phase drag correlation used must match each other to make sure

Where the ﬁrst term on the right-hand side represents the conduc- that the inter-phase interaction force (drag force plus pressure gradient

tion of the ﬂuctuating energy, the second term is the generation due force) is equal to the effective weight of gas–solid suspension. In present

to solids stresses, the third term is the sink due to inelastic particle col- study, type-A momentum equation is used as shown in Eq. (3), whereas

lisions and the last term is the sink due to the presence of gas phase. The type-B model is used to calculate the particle motion as shown in

algebraic formulation of the equation is solved by neglecting the con- Eq. (15); therefore, type-A drag correlation (β) is modiﬁed into type-B

vection and conduction terms. The solids pressure and the solid shear drag correlation (β/εg) according to the study of Gidaspow [35].

and bulk viscosities are calculated according to Lun et al. [31]

2

ps ¼ εs ρs Θs þ 2ρs ð1 þ eÞεs g 0 Θs ð10Þ 2.3. CFD-DEM method

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

4 2 Θs εs ρs dp πΘs 2 In the DEM method, the mass and momentum conservation equa-

μs ¼ ρs dp εs g0 ð1 þ eÞ þ 1 þ ð1 þ eÞð3e−1Þε s g0 ð11Þ

5 π 6ð3−eÞ 5 tions for gas phase are also given by Eqs. (1) and (3). However, the dif-

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ferent treatments of particulate phase in the TFM and CFD-DEM result in

4 Θs one of the major differences between them (i.e., the way how the inter-

λs ¼ εs ρs dp g 0 ð1 þ eÞ ð12Þ

3 π phase drag force term is calculated). In the TFM, the drag force is only a

function of averaged parameters (local solid volume fraction, gas and

The collisional dissipation of granular energy is given as follows: solid velocities) as well as gas and particle properties. In contrast, in

the CFD-DEM method, the drag force exerted on each particle in a

12 1−e2 g 0 2 3=2

ﬂuid cell is calculated and summed over all particles within that speciﬁc

Js ¼ pﬃﬃﬃ ρs εs Θs ð13Þ cell to obtain the drag force term in the momentum equation of gas

dp π

phase. Fortunately, those two different methods of calculation of inter-

phase drag force have a negligible effect on the simulation results [38].

where g0 is the radial distribution function. There is no unique formula-

tion in the literatures. For example, a new formulation based on the mo-

lecular dynamics simulations is recommended for dense solid fraction

[32]. The formulation of the radial distribution used in present study is

given as follows,

" !1=3 #−1

εs

g 0 ¼ 1− ð14Þ

εs; max

research [32,33] and the formulations are slightly different from the

default formulations in MFIX [34]; therefore, they are modiﬁed in

order to be consistent with the formulations in the commercial software

FLUENT.

The mass and momentum conservation equations for gas phase are

almost the same as the TFM, except that the interphase exchange term

in momentum equation is obtained from a summation of the drag forces

acting on all the discrete particles in a ﬂuid computational cell. Howev-

er, in DDPM, the particle phase is described by the Newtonian equations

of motion for each particle (or parcel) in the system. The trajectory of

the particles is calculated by a force balance

d! β

us ! ! ! !

ρs ¼ g ρs −ρg þ u g − u s þ F KTGF ð15Þ

dt εg Fig. 1. The channel geometry used for the calculations of two impinging particle jets.

X. Chen, J. Wang / Powder Technology 254 (2014) 94–102 97

Fig. 2. Particle ﬂow pattern with a jet superﬁcial gas velocity of 10 m/s and a solid volume fraction of 0.3: (a) TFM, (b) DDPM and (c) CFD-DEM.

The equation of motion solved for particle a in MFIX is Eq. (22) makes sure that the restitution coefﬁcient (e) is same in both

TFM and CFD-DEM method. Finally, we note that the normal spring

stiffness (kn) is selected arbitrarily, provided that the maximum overlap

d!ua ! βV a ! ! !

ma ¼ −V a ∇p þ ma g þ u g − u a þ F c;a ð17Þ between contacting particles is less than 1% of particle diameter at any

dt 1−ε g

time step.

The terms in the right-hand side of Eq. (17) are the force contribu-

3. Simulation set up and layout

tions due to pressure gradient, gravity, interphase drag and particle col-

lisions, respectively. In the TFM, the particle–particle and particle–wall

Impinging particle jets are chosen. The channel geometry used for

friction is not considered; therefore, in the CFD-DEM simulation, only

the calculations of two impinging particle jets is shown in Fig. 1. The

the normal particle–particle and the normal particle–wall collisions

gas ﬂows into the simulation domain from the bottom in plug ﬂow

were included to maintain consistency with KTGF. A linear spring-

with speciﬁed velocity and leaves from the top side of channel, where

dashpot model is used. In addition to its simplicity, the linear spring-

atmospheric pressure is prescribed. Two particle ﬂows are injected in

dashpot model leads to a constant restitution coefﬁcient as used in the

the two opposite sides of the channel with 45° angels, and the particle

TFM method, which makes it equitable. In the KTGF, quasi-

velocity is speciﬁed as the same as the gas ﬂow in the bottom side.

instantaneous particle collisions are assumed; however, in the so-

The gas density is 1.2 kg/m3, the gas viscosity is 1.8 × 10−5 kg/(m s −1),

called soft sphere model used here, particle collisions take a ﬁnite

the particle density is 1000 kg/m3 and the particle size is 6.5 × 10−4 m.

time. Fortunately, a previous study [39] has shown that an excellent

All the simulations are run without gravity and with Wen-Yu drag [30].

agreement can be found between the results obtained from soft-

The jets' solid volume fractions and velocity magnitudes are varied in

sphere model and hard-sphere model. The particle contact force is cal-

different cases. Unless speciﬁed otherwise, the restitution coefﬁcients

culated by

for particle–particle and particle–wall interactions are 0.8 and 1.0, respec-

tively. The particle stiffness coefﬁcient used in the CFD-DEM method is

!

F ab ¼ −kn δn ! !

n ab −ηn v ab;n ð18Þ 1000 N/m and the grid number used in all three methods is 30 × 60.

δn ¼ ðRa þ Rb Þ−j! !

r b− r aj ð19Þ

r a and r b

denote the position vector of the particles. The normal unit vector is de-

ﬁned as

! !

! r b− r a

n ab ¼ ð20Þ

j! !

r b− r aj

!

v ab;n ¼ ðð! ! ! !

v a − v b Þ n ab Þ n ab ð21Þ

[40]

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

−2 mab kn ln e Fig. 3. The voidage distribution along the nearby central axis of the channel

ηn ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

ﬃ ð22Þ

(x = 0.0145 m) with a jet superﬁcial gas velocity of 10 m/s and a solid volume fraction

π2 þ ð ln eÞ2

of 0.3.

98 X. Chen, J. Wang / Powder Technology 254 (2014) 94–102

models are not exactly the same, especially the DDPM method predicts

the jets are crossing in the impingement region, bouncing off the per-

fectly elastic wall and then further crossing and moving outward.

These phenomena were also reported by Cloete et al. [41]. However,

both TFM and DEM methods do not have such apparent crossing result.

The possible reason is that in DDPM method, the particle–particle inter-

action force calculated from kinetic theory of granular ﬂow is too small

to represent the real situation, which results in the negligible effect of

particle–particle collisions. Therefore, the particles can ﬂow in the sim-

ulation domain as if the gas–solid ﬂow is in the dilute limit (i.e., the par-

ticle–particle interaction can be neglected and particles can overlap

each other during numerical simulations), although the solid concentra-

tion is actually as high as 0.1. Furthermore, in the studied gas–solid sys-

tem, since the injected particles are inertia-dominant, they do not

strictly follow gas ﬂow as inertia-free particles will, and if the collisions

between particles have been neglected, the jets can obviously cross each

other as if they do not impinge. This result highlights that volume exclu-

Fig. 4. The velocity distribution along the nearby central axis of the channel sion effect is very important in numerical simulations of dense gas–solid

(x = 0.0145 m) with a jet superﬁcial gas velocity of 10 m/s and a solid volume fraction ﬂow and cannot be neglected as concluded in many previous studies

of 0.3.

[42]. Furthermore, the result of DDPM is very similar with the reported

simulation results obtained using MP-PIC method without the consider-

4. Result and discussion ation of collisions[43,44]. Recent studies by O'Rourke and Snider [44]

have shown that the model for inter-particle collision has a paramount

Fig. 2 shows the particle ﬂow pattern using different models, where impact on the simulation results, by using the most advanced collisional

the jet superﬁcial gas velocity is 10 m/s and solid volume fraction is 0.3. model, it is possible to correctly predict the merging of two impinging

All the three models predict a similar ﬂow pattern: the two jets merge jets at a very similar situation. However, even with the most advanced

into one in the impinging region and then ﬂow towards the outlet of collisional model, when two impinging jets[44] with a solid concentra-

channel. However, there are some differences predicted by the three tion of 0.01 (see Fig. 9 of their article) is carried out, the two jets are

models. Both TFM and CFD-DEM methods predict some particles have going to merge; however, the CFD-DEM method shows that under

opposite velocity to the main jet ﬂow in the impinging region as this situation, the two jets should cross each other as shown in Fig. 8.

highlighted in the ﬁgure, while this phenomenon was not captured by Based on limited results present here, we may conclude that (1) the

DDPM method. This difference is quantitatively shown in Fig. 3, advanced MP-PIC method[44] is better than the DDPM method avail-

where the voidage along the nearby central axis of the channel able in FLUENT and (2) the model for particle–particle collision needs

(x = 0.145 cm) is shown. It can be seen that although all the models further improvement. Finally, although the basic ﬂow pattern in Figs.

predict a similar trend, the voidage distributions are quantitatively dif- 5a and 5c is the same, there is also an obvious difference. In the result

ferent, especially in the region of bottom. Both TFM and DDPM predict a of DEM method, collisions cause the jets to spread and scatter, which

nearly constant voidage, which is close to the minimum voidage set in is not observed in the result of the TFM method. Similarly, O'Rourke

the simulation, while DPM predicts that the voidage increases towards and Snider[43] also reported that MP-PIC simulation do not observe

the end of simulation domain due to the expansion of merged jet. Fig. 4 the phenomenon that jets spread and scatter. Fig. 6 shows the voidage

shows the gas velocity distribution along the nearby central axis of the distribution along the nearby central axis of the channel (x = 0.145 m),

channel (x = 0.145 cm). Figs. 2–4 clearly indicate that much effort is and the DDPM predicts a peak of solid volume fraction at about

needed to improve the TFM and DDPM. height = 0.02 m and height = 0.05 m, respectively, in accordance

As we keep the inject velocity and decrease the solid volume fraction with Fig. 5. Although both TFM and CFD-DEM predict a merging jet,

of the jets ﬂow to 0.1, different ﬂow patterns are predicted by three the trend of the voidage distribution after merging is totally different.

Fig. 5. Particles ﬂow pattern with a jet superﬁcial gas velocity of 10 m/s and a solid volume fraction of 0.1: (a) TFM, (b) DDPM, (c) CFD-DEM (Kn = 1000 N/m) and (d) CFD-DEM

(Kn = 10 N/m).

X. Chen, J. Wang / Powder Technology 254 (2014) 94–102 99

Because of the main differences between the DDPM and the CFD-

DEM methods, (a) a concept of parcel has been used in DDPM and

(b) the detailed particle–particle interactions in the CFD-DEM method

have been replaced by a force gradient predicted by kinetic theory of

granular ﬂow. We try to identify where the source of the apparent dif-

ference is. Fig. 7 shows the effect of the number of particles in a parcel

in DDPM method. The results are almost the same with decreasing the

number of particles in a parcel from 50 to 1. Parcels are found to overlap

signiﬁcantly in the impinging region although there is only one particle

in a parcel, which is clearly an unphysical phenomenon due to the

unrealistic treatment of particle–particle interactions in the DDPM

method. Such unphysical overlap between particles is not possible in

the TFM and the CFD-DEM methods (there is a slightly overlap between

particles in CFD-DEM method, typically, less than one percent of particle

diameter), that is to say the volume exclusion effect has been consid-

ered in the TFM and CFD-DEM methods. Therefore, the use of parcel is

not the main source of the qualitative difference of DDPM, and the sim-

pliﬁed particle–particle interactions is the right answer. In general,

Fig. 6. The voidage distribution along the nearby central axis of the channel compared to DDPM, TFM gives a better agreement with the CFD-DEM

(x = 0.0145 m) with a jet superﬁcial gas velocity of 10 m/s and a solid volume fraction

of 0.1.

results for the speciﬁc case. With respect to this, methods like similar

particle assembly model [45], large-scale discrete element method

[46] and discrete cluster method[47] may appear to be a better way to

reduce the computational cost of the CFD-DEM method while keeping

TFM predicts that particles trend to accumulate and then shorten the a reasonable accuracy, where the concept of parcel is used, but the in-

width of the merging jet, while CFD-DEM predicts the particles spread teraction between particles is still modeled using a DEM-type tech-

after that the jets are merged. nique. Of course, the computational cost is relatively high compared

Compared to TFM and CFD-DEM methods, DDPM has another major to DDPM method or MP-PIC method.

drawback when it is applied to dilute gas–solid ﬂow or the situation The advantage of the DEM approach over the other two models lies

where part of the simulated domain is dilute (for example, gas–solid in its explicit treatment of the particle–particle collisions. The interac-

ﬂow in risers where the bottom part of the bed is dense, but the upper tions between two particles are represented as spring and dashpot in

part of the bed is usually dilute). Due to the fact that KTGF is used to pre- DEM method, where the spring causes the rebound off the particles

dict !

F KTGF in DDPM method, the values of the state variables (averaged and the dashpot mimics the dissipation of the kinetic energy due to in-

solid concentration, granular temperature and solid velocity) of each elastic effect. If the spring stiffness coefﬁcient is very small, it is possible

computational grid have to be evaluated from the corresponding dis- that a large overlap between particles can exist. Fig. 5d shows the case

crete values of particles at that grid; however, in dilute ﬂow, it is possi- where the stiffness coefﬁcient is decreased from 1000 N/m to a small

ble that there is no particle (or parcel) in a grid, which results in that the value (10 N/m). It can be seen that the jets indeed cross each other.

state variables are zero, leading to the impossibility to evaluation of the Such a parametric study further conﬁrms the conclusion made in pre-

values of particle velocity gradient and granular temperature gradient. ceding paragraph and highlights the importance of volume exclusion

Therefore, special treatment is needed in this case as in the study of effect.

Cloete et al. [41]. Note that in a similar method (MP-PIC method), this As we still keep the inject velocity and decrease substantially the

drawback does not exist, because empirical correlation is used to solid volume fraction of the jets ﬂow to 0.01, the ﬂow patterns predicted

calculate ! F KTGF . Clearly, simpliﬁed CFD-DEM methods, such as DDPM by three models are shown in Fig. 8. In this case, the particle loading is

and MP-PIC, should ﬁnd a realistic way to properly represent the true low and the particle inertia is high, one would expect that all three

particle–particle interactions. models predict the particle trajectory crossing effect [48]. However,

Fig. 7. Particles ﬂow pattern with different particles number in a parcel using DDPM method: (a) 50, (b) 10 and (c) 1.

100 X. Chen, J. Wang / Powder Technology 254 (2014) 94–102

Fig. 8. Particle ﬂow pattern with a jet superﬁcial gas velocity of 10 m/s and a solid volume fraction of 0.01: (a) TFM, (b) DDPM and (c) CFD-DEM.

TFM method does not predict such a phenomena (we have run a lot of 5. Conclusion

cases with different inject velocity and solid volume fraction using

TFM method although they are not reported in the article, none of Three multiphase models are used to investigate the ﬂow patterns of

them shows the particle trajectory crossing effect). Since it is well two impinging gas-particle jets in a channel. The TFM method and

known that the scale resolution has a signiﬁcant effect on the simulation DDPM method have more potential for industrial applications since

results [49,50], we further test the effect of the size of computational they are less computational demanding. However, the limitations of

cell. Fig. 9 shows that further reﬁnement of computational cell used in these methods should be understood. By studying the gas–solid ﬂow

TFM model does not help to capture the particle trajectory crossing ef- in the extreme situation, some of the main drawbacks of both TFM

fect; even the grid size has already smaller than the particle size in method and DDPM method have been highlighted, it was shown that

case of Fig. 9c. The conclusion that the TFM cannot predict the particle TFM method always predicted a converging ﬂow and failed to predict

trajectory crossing effect is not new since it has been concluded in the particle trajectory crossing effect in dilute system, while the DDPM

previous studies[41,51]. And the underlying reason for the failure method failed to predict the cases where the two particle jets are

has also been clariﬁed, that is, in TFM, only the mean particle velocity emerging. At the same time, both TFM and DDPM successfully

is tracked (i.e., only one value is used to represent the real particle reproduced the main features of impinging ﬂow at some cases. As the

velocity distribution), while it has been shown that using multiple conclusion that TFM failed to predict the particle trajectory crossing ef-

values (at least two values) to represent the real particle velocity fect in dilute system was not new, the main contribution of present

distribution is mandatory in order to capture the particle trajectory study appeared to be the fact that DDPM had the major drawback due

crossing effect [52,53]. to the over-simpliﬁed treatment of particle–particle interactions,

As a ﬁnal note, we have carried out extensive parametric studies on highlighting the requirement of a proper way to represent the realistic

the effects of jet superﬁcial gas velocity (from 0.1 m/s to 10 m/s) and particle–particle interactions and the importance of volume exclusion

solid volume fraction (from 0.01 to 0.3). The results are more or less effect in dense gas–solid ﬂows. Efforts should be focused on the estab-

the same as these reported in present section. We therefore prefer not lishment of a proper model for representing particle–particle interac-

to report them for the purpose of simplicity. tion as in the study of O'Rourke and Snider.

Fig. 9. Particle ﬂow pattern with different grid resolutions using TFM method: (a) 15 × 30, (b) 30 × 60 and (c) 60 × 120.

X. Chen, J. Wang / Powder Technology 254 (2014) 94–102 101

Notation [10] M. Xu, F. Chen, X. Liu, W. Ge, J. Li, Discrete particle simulation of gas–solid two-phase

ﬂows with multi-scale CPU-GPU hybrid computation, Chem. Eng. J. 207 (2012)

746–757.

[11] B. Popoff, M. Braun, A Lagrange Approach to Dense Particulate Flows, In International

Conference on Multiphase Flow, 2007, (Leipzig, Germany).

[12] M.J. Andrews, P.J. Orourke, The multiphase particle-in-cell (MP-PIC) method for

TFM two-ﬂuid model dense particulate ﬂows, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 22 (1996) 379–402.

DDPM dense discrete particle model [13] D. Snider, P. ORourke, M. Andrews, An incompressible two-dimensional multiphase

DEM discrete element model particle-in-cell model for dense particle ﬂows, Los Alamos National Lab, NM (United

States), 1997.

dp particle diameter, m [14] F. Li, F. Song, S. Benyahia, W. Wang, J. Li, MP-PIC simulation of CFB riser with

e coefﬁcient of restitution between particle–particle interaction EMMS-based drag model, Chem. Eng. Sci. 82 (2012) 104–113.

ew coefﬁcient of restitution between particle and wall interaction [15] M. Goldschmidt, R. Beetstra, J. Kuipers, Hydrodynamic modelling of dense

! gas-ﬂuidised beds: comparison and validation of 3D discrete particle and continu-

g gravitational acceleration, m/s2

um models, Powder Technol. 142 (2004) 23–47.

g0 radial distribution function [16] Y. Tsuji, T. Tanaka, S. Yonemura, Cluster patterns in circulating ﬂuidized beds pre-

p gas pressure, Pa dicted by numerical simulation (discrete particle model versus two-ﬂuid model),

ps particle pressure, Pa Powder Technol. 95 (1998) 254–264.

[17] Y.P. Tsuo, D. Gidaspow, Computation of ﬂow patterns in circulating ﬂuidized beds,

Ug superﬁcial gas velocity, m/s AICHE J. 36 (1990) 885–896.

Uslip slip velocity, m/s [18] C.H. Ibsen, E. Helland, B.H. Hjertager, T. Solberg, L. Tadrist, R. Occelli, Comparison of

! !

u g; u s gas and solid velocity vectors, m/s multiﬂuid and discrete particle modelling in numerical predictions of gas particle

ﬂow in circulating ﬂuidised beds, Powder Technol. 149 (2004) 29–41.

I unit tensor [19] S. Benyahia, J.E. Galvin, Estimation of numerical errors related to some basic

kn normal spring stiffness, N/m assumptions in discrete particle methods, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49 (2010)

! 10588–10605.

n ab normal unit vector

! [20] J. Wang, M.A. van der Hoef, J.A.M. Kuipers, Comparison of two-ﬂuid and discrete

v ab;n relative velocity of particle particle modeling of dense gas-particle ﬂows in gas-ﬂuidized beds, Chem. Ing.

Tech. 85 (2013) 290–298.

[21] E.M. Ryan, D. DeCroix, R. Breault, W. Xu, E.D. Huckaby, K. Saha, S. Dartevelle, X. Sun,

Multi-phase CFD modeling of solid sorbent carbon capture system, Powder Technol.

Greek symbols 242 (2013) 117–134.

Β drag coefﬁcient for a control volume, kg/m3 s [22] N.G. Deen, M.V.S. Annaland, M.A. Van der Hoef, J.A.M. Kuipers, Review of discrete

εg voidage particle modeling of ﬂuidized beds, Chem. Eng. Sci. 62 (2007) 28–44.

[23] H.P. Zhu, Z.Y. Zhou, R.Y. Yang, A.B. Yu, Discrete particle simulation of particulate sys-

εs solid volume fraction tems: a review of major applications and ﬁndings, Chem. Eng. Sci. 63 (2008)

εs,max solid volume fraction at packed condition 5728–5770.

μg, μs ﬂuid and solid viscosity, Pa · s [24] A. Nikolopoulos, D. Papafotiou, N. Nikolopoulos, P. Grammelis, E. Kakaras, An ad-

vanced EMMS scheme for the prediction of drag coefﬁcient under a 1.2 MWth

λs solid bulk viscosity CFBC isothermal ﬂow—part I: numerical formulation, Chem. Eng. Sci. 65 (2010)

Θs granular temperature, m2/s2 4080–4088.

ρg, ρs ﬂuid density and solid density, kg/m3 [25] J.W. Chew, C.M. Hrenya, Link between bubbling and segregation patterns in

gas-ﬂuidized beds with continuous size distributions, AIChE J. 57 (2011) 3003–3011.

δn overlap between particles [26] J.W. Chew, D.M. Parker, C.M. Hrenya, Elutriation and species segregation character-

ηn normal damping coefﬁcient istics of polydisperse mixtures of group B particles in a dilute CFB riser, AIChE J. 59

(2013) 84–95.

[27] S. Cloete, S.T. Johansen, M. Braun, B. Popoff, S. Amini, Evaluation of a Lagrangian Dis-

crete Phase Modeling Approach for Resolving Cluster Formation in CFB Risers Fluid-

ized and Circulating Fluidized Beds, 7th International Conference on Multiphase

Acknowledgement Flow - ICMF 2010 Proceedings, 2010.

[28] M. Syamlal, W. Rogers, T.J. O'Brien, MFIX documentation: theory guide, Technical

Note, DOE/METC-94/1004, NTIS/DE94000087, National Technical Information Ser-

This study is ﬁnancially supported by the National Nature Science vice, Springﬁeld, VA, 1993.

Foundation of China (grant nos. 21206170 and 91334106) and the [29] M. Syamlal, MFIX documentation: numerical technique, Rep. DOE/MC31346–5824,

“Strategic Priority Research Program” of the Chinese Academy of Sci- DE98002029, 1998.

[30] C.Y. Wen, Y.H. Yu, Mechanics of ﬂuidization, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 62 (1966)

ences (grant no. XDA07080200).

100–111.

[31] C.K.K. Lun, S.B. Savage, D.J. Jeffrey, N. Chepurniy, Kinetic theories for granular ﬂow:

inelastic particles in Couette ﬂow and slightly inelastic particles in a general ﬂow

References ﬁeld, J. Fluid Mech. 140 (1984) 223–256.

[32] L. Oger, S.B. Savage, Airslide ﬂows. Part 2—ﬂow modeling and comparison with ex-

[1] S.B. Savage, L. Oger, Airslide ﬂows, part 1: experiments, review and extension, Chem. periments, Chem. Eng. Sci. 91 (2013) 22–34.

Eng. Sci. 91 (2013) 35–43. [33] A. Nikolopoulos, N. Nikolopoulos, N. Varveris, S. Karellas, P. Grammelis, E. Kakaras,

[2] A. Nikolopoulos, K. Atsonios, N. Nikolopoulos, P. Grammelis, E. Kakaras, An advanced Investigation of proper modeling of very dense granular ﬂows in the recirculation

EMMS scheme for the prediction of drag coefﬁcient under a 1.2MWth CFBC isother- system of CFBs, Particuology 10 (2012) 699–709.

mal ﬂow—part II: numerical implementation, Chem. Eng. Sci. 65 (2010) 4089–4099. [34] S. Benyahia, M. Syamlal, T. O'Brien, Summary of MFIX Equations 2012–1, 2012.

[3] W. Ge, W. Wang, N. Yang, J. Li, M. Kwauk, F. Chen, J. Chen, X. Fang, L. Guo, X. He, X. [35] D. Gidaspow, Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum and Kinetic Theory De-

Liu, Y. Liu, B. Lu, J. Wang, J. Wang, L. Wang, X. Wang, Q. Xiong, M. Xu, L. Deng, Y. Han, scriptions with Applications, ACADEMIC PressINC, 1994.

C. Hou, L. Hua, W. Huang, B. Li, C. Li, F. Li, Y. Ren, J. Xu, N. Zhang, Y. Zhang, G. Zhou, G. [36] Y.Q. Feng, A.B. Yu, Assessment of model formulations in the discrete particle simu-

Zhou, Meso-scale oriented simulation towards virtual process engineering (VPE)—the lation of gas–solid ﬂow, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 43 (2004) 8378–8390.

EMMS paradigm, Chem. Eng. Sci. 66 (2011) 4426–4458. [37] Z.Y. Zhou, S.B. Kuang, K.W. Chu, A.B. Yu, Discrete particle simulation of particle–ﬂuid

[4] J. Ding, D. Gidaspow, A bubbling ﬂuidization model using kinetic theory of granular ﬂow: model formulations and their applicability, J. Fluid Mech. 661 (2010) 482–510.

ﬂow, AIChE J. 36 (1990) 523–538. [38] Y. Liu, EMMS-based Simulation of Gas–Solid Flow, (Doctoral thesis) Institute of Pro-

[5] X.-Z. Chen, D.-P. Shi, X. Gao, Z.-H. Luo, A fundamental CFD study of the gas–solid cess Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences2011.

ﬂow ﬁeld in ﬂuidized bed polymerization reactors, Powder Technol. 205 (2011) [39] M. Ye, M.A. van der Hoef, J.A.M. Kuipers, From discrete particle model to a continu-

276–288. ous model of Geldart A particles, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 83 (2005) 833–843.

[6] N. Zhang, B. Lu, W. Wang, J. Li, 3D CFD simulation of hydrodynamics of a 150MWe [40] N.G. Deen, Annaland M. Van Sint, M.A. Van der Hoef, J.A.M. Kuipers, Review of dis-

circulating ﬂuidized bed boiler, Chem. Eng. J. 162 (2010) 821–828. crete particle modeling of ﬂuidized beds, Chem. Eng. Sci. 62 (2007) 28–44.

[7] A. Nikolopoulos, N. Nikolopoulos, A. Charitos, P. Grammelis, E. Kakaras, A.R. Bidwe, [41] S. Cloete, S. Amini, S.T. Johansen, Performance evaluation of a complete Lagrangian

G. Varela, High-resolution 3-D full-loop simulation of a CFB carbonator cold KTGF approach for dilute granular ﬂow modelling, Powder Technol. 226 (2012)

model, Chem. Eng. Sci. 90 (2013) 137–150. 43–52.

[8] Y. Tsuji, T. Kawaguchi, T. Tanaka, Discrete particle simulation of two-dimensional [42] S. Elghobashi, On predicting particle-laden turbulent ﬂows, Appl. Sci. Res. 52 (1994)

ﬂuidized bed, Powder Technol. 77 (1993) 79–87. 309–329.

[9] B.H. Xu, A.B. Yu, Numerical simulation of the gas–solid ﬂow in a ﬂuidized bed by [43] P.J. O'Rourke, D.M. Snider, An improved collision damping time for MP-PIC calcula-

combining discrete particle method with computational ﬂuid dynamics, Chem. tions of dense particle ﬂows with applications to polydisperse sedimenting beds and

Eng. Sci. 52 (1997) 2785–2809. colliding particle jets, Chem. Eng. Sci. 65 (2010) 6014–6028.

102 X. Chen, J. Wang / Powder Technology 254 (2014) 94–102

[44] P.J. O'Rourke, D.M. Snider, Inclusion of collisional return-to-isotropy in the MP-PIC [49] K. Agrawal, P.N. Loezos, M. Syamlal, S. Sundaresan, The role of meso-scale structures

method, Chem. Eng. Sci. 80 (2012) 39–54. in rapid gas–solid ﬂows, J. Fluid Mech. 445 (2001) 151–185.

[45] M.A. Mokhtar, K. Kuwagi, T. Takami, H. Hirano, M. Horio, Validation of the similar [50] J. Wang, M.A. van der Hoef, J.A.M. Kuipers, Why the two-ﬂuid model fails to predict

particle assembly (SPA) model for the ﬂuidization of Geldart's group A and D parti- the bed expansion characteristics of Geldart A particles in gas-ﬂuidized beds: a ten-

cles, AIChE J. 58 (2012) 87–98. tative answer, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (2009) 622–625.

[46] M. Sakai, Y. Yamada, Y. Shigeto, K. Shibata, V.M. Kawasaki, S. Koshizuka, Large-scale [51] R.O. Fox, A quadrature-based third-order moment method for dilute gas-particle

discrete element modeling in a ﬂuidized bed, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 64 ﬂows, J. Comput. Phys. 227 (2008) 6313–6350.

(2010) 1319–1335. [52] O. Desjardins, R. Fox, P. Villedieu, A quadrature-based moment method for dilute

[47] X. Liu, X. Xu, Modelling of dense gas-particle ﬂow in a circulating ﬂuidized bed by ﬂuid-particle ﬂows, J. Comput. Phys. 227 (2008) 2514–2539.

distinct cluster method (DCM), Powder Technol. 195 (2009) 235–244. [53] A. Vié, E. Masi, O. Simonin, M. Massot, On the direct numerical simulation of

[48] S. Hari, Y.A. Hassan, Computational ﬂuid dynamics simulation of virtual impac- moderate-Stokes-number turbulent particulate ﬂows using algebraic-closure-based

tor performance: Comparison to experiment, Powder Technol. 188 (2008) and kinetic-based moment methods, Presented at Proceedings of the Summer Pro-

13–22. gram, 2012, p. 355.

- Final Question 906-1Încărcat demuhdsabri51
- Talking With Martha 3Încărcat deWrichey
- Thermo Exam1 W11 KeysÎncărcat deDeonte' Tae Thomas
- Colzn TheoryÎncărcat deRajesh Bishnoi
- Design_ Performance_ Fire Modelling_ Two-Zone Models-useÎncărcat deKenneth Okoye
- 7540_02_que_20070129Încărcat deshahidqavi
- Condervation FormÎncărcat deSai Phanindra
- 11. Conservation LawsÎncărcat debevinj
- Impact of a jet experimentÎncărcat dePhuong Le
- educ9406 - mark jennings - assignment 2Încărcat deapi-377706232
- Project 1Încărcat deEko Budi Satriyo
- MIT16_07F09_Lec23Încărcat dekapilkumar18
- EN010 107 MODULE-1Încărcat deajithvinu
- forces.pptÎncărcat debeny
- Panhandle EquationÎncărcat deCHANADAS
- MomentumÎncărcat deMusa Mohammed
- exp02_AM (1)Încărcat deHarshit Jain
- Grade7RSÎncărcat deTravis Lefevre
- Unit 3 Motion PracticeÎncărcat deSadman Hasan
- AF-1333003-DD-I04Încărcat deInam Ahmed
- PBLÎncărcat dedope
- JNU-MSc-2006.pdfÎncărcat deGurvir Singh
- Kinetics GasÎncărcat degama123
- ACTIVIDADES TERMOQUIMICA.pdfÎncărcat deFeña Ibarra Fuentes
- olivia physicsÎncărcat deapi-360959970
- 20 Tamaño burbuja EC.pdfÎncărcat deMartin Fernandez
- 11 Physics Ncert Ch06 Wrk Energy and Power Part 01 QuesÎncărcat dePriya Sharma
- Mechanical Q&A 1Încărcat demakeencv
- fluidized bedÎncărcat deMagdy Saleh
- Lecture08_P2Încărcat deTrân Terry

- C++ Weekend Crash CourseÎncărcat depurgedsoul
- asmaabroÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- loop sealÎncărcat dekaeng2k4
- The Anti-Drug MaterialsÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- Teaching Philosophy Statement.docxÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- troubleshootingÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- Application Form for BS 17 and AboveÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- C_Plus_Plus_and_Object_Oriented_Numeric_Computing_for_Scientists_and_Engineers_Daoqi_Yang(www.ebook-dl.com).pdfÎncărcat de_HG7_
- Dr. Naeem AkhtarÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- ojha2004Încărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- zhou et alÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- Challan FormÎncărcat deTahir Akbar Malik
- thesis 4444.pdfÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- Numerical Methods for Engineers, 6th Edition 2009 Chapra CanaleÎncărcat deFish Shuang
- Radial Voidage Profiles in Fast Fluidized Beds of Different DiametersÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- two phase fluid solid flow.pdfÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- types of choking in pneumatic conveying sytems.pdfÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- Pec Registration SlipÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- 1-s2.0-S0032591012002410-mainÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- 1-s2.0-S0032591012002410-main.pdfÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- CFD Multiphase Modeling of Fluidized Bed Using Fluent SoftwareÎncărcat deAnonymous P8Bt46mk5I
- Thesis-pdf_format.pdfÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- PAPQERÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- cfdpreÎncărcat deHüseyin Cihan Kurtuluş
- Pablo Aguayo - 66.pdfÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- Pablo Aguayo - 66.pdfÎncărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari
- Journal of Solid State Chemistry 233 (2016)Încărcat deMuhammad Adnan Laghari

- Fuel SubstitutionÎncărcat deSaanaAdhs
- APFC148Încărcat deAshby Kb
- lab5Încărcat dejobertacuna
- InTech-Advances in Thermoelectric Energy Conversion NanocompositesÎncărcat deFabricio A. Santos
- V005T15A027-98-GT-361Încărcat deIRMA
- Simulators - Nuclear Power - IAEAÎncărcat decostpop
- New varying speed of light theoriesÎncărcat deCarlos Coelho
- 01 Heating Pl 2017 Rs v03 Svu 5.4 FinalÎncărcat deKajak Klub Drina
- environment quizÎncărcat dededeyopi
- Pira International Ltd-Introduction to Flexible Packaging-iSmithers Rapra Publishing (2012-05-29).pdfÎncărcat denhonduc
- SolarMill Users GuideÎncărcat deSteeve Ferrand
- Notice: Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: Aedifico Biosciences, Inc.Încărcat deJustia.com
- Datesheet New Scheme (Nov-Dec) SBSSTCÎncărcat dehhmanish
- p8Încărcat deFirdhaus Zulkifle
- File No. 7_API 936Încărcat depraveentien
- Antenna Theory LectureÎncărcat deasadnadeem1
- term+paper+allotment.pdfÎncărcat deAditya Kaushik
- MXD7202Încărcat deadfumega
- Volvo TAD1250VE Spec SheetÎncărcat deEngine Tuning Up
- HKDSE 2016 Physics Paper 1B Suggest AnswerÎncărcat deChun Ho Cheng
- Report SebenarÎncărcat deمحمد هادي طهيرين
- p200 Adv Pls Eom 10Încărcat deronald_edinson
- vessel.docxÎncărcat deThiru Ananth
- Hydraulic.pptÎncărcat deJuan Guzmán
- Rishra BookletÎncărcat deSomnath Chakraborty
- Transformer BushingsÎncărcat deYigit Sarıkaya
- Insights From a Simple Hotelling Model of the World Oil MarketÎncărcat deFrancisco Alvarez
- bearing1-151117114834-lva1-app6892Încărcat deMaulik Shah
- VRV_Xpress_UsersManualÎncărcat deOPER123
- Format for DeclarationÎncărcat deLoveSahilSharma

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.