Powder Technology 149 (2005) 78 – 83

www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Collisional solid’s pressure impact on numerical results from

a traditional two-fluid model
Luben Cabezas Gómez*, Fernando Eduardo Milioli
Núcleo de Engenharia Térmica e Fluidos - NETeF, EESC/USP. Av. Trabalhador São-carlense, 400, Centro, São Carlos - SP, CEP 13566-590, Brazil

Received 27 November 2003; received in revised form 27 September 2004; accepted 1 November 2004
Available online 19 December 2004

Abstract

This communication describes a numerical study on collisional solid’s pressure influence upon the hydrodynamics of the gas–solid
flow in a 2D riser using a traditional two-fluid formulation. It is seen that the solid’s pressure exerts considerable influence on the
transient flow behavior, and should not be disregarded in project or study of circulating fluidized beds (CFB) systems. It was made clear
the necessity for a criterious use of the available correlations for the collisional solid’s pressure as inserted into the traditional two-fluid
model.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Collisional solid’s pressure; Two-fluid model; Circulating fluidized beds; Numerical analysis

1. Introduction interactions, considering that, for a general formulation of

In the context of the two-fluid model for gas–solid flows
in circulating fluidized beds (CFB), the Newtonian rheo-
logical model is extensively used for both phases (Refs.
[1,2], among others). For the solid phase, relations must be
proposed for the thermodynamic and transport properties
involved in the stress tensor formulation, namely the solid’s
pressure and the dynamic and bulk viscosity coefficients.
The solid’s pressure is a physical concept difficult to be
defined. Boemer et al. [3] defined the solid’s pressure as a
normal force per unity surface exerted over the solid phase
due to interactions between particles. Campbell and Wang
[4] defined this term as the force per unity area exerted over
a surface by the solid phase, reflecting the total transport of
momentum that can be attributed to the movement and
interactions of the solid particles. Gamwo et al. [5] affirmed
that the solid’s pressure results from particle–particle
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lubencg@sc.usp.br (L. Cabezas Gómez)8
milioli@sc.usp.br (F.E. Milioli).
0032-5910/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2004.11.010
this term, it is necessary to take into account the effects
produced by bed porosity, gas pressure, and deformation
tensors caused by gas, solid, and relative velocities.
According to the authors, no formulation is available in
literature which considers the appropriate constants for each
material.
Two different basic procedures have been used for
solid’s pressure formulation. The traditional procedure
makes use of empirical relations while the alternative is
based on the kinetic theory of granular flows (KTGF). The
traditional procedure basically considers two effects in its
formulation, one caused by particle–particle collisions and
other caused by the action of gas pressure gradient. Of these
two effects, the second is incorporated into the momentum
conservation equation through the term of gas pressure
gradient times the void fraction [2]. The first effect,
commonly known as the particle collisional pressure
gradient, is associated with the solid’s pressure as posed
in the traditional model. For the particle pressure gradient
formulation, it is introduced the solid phase elasticity
modulus, G, which is formulated as an empirical function
of the gas volumetric fraction, i.e., jP s=
G(a g)ja g. In
 L. Cabezas Gómez, F.E. Milioli / Powder Technology 149 (2005) 78–83
the literature, many correlations can be found to compute
G(a g). Two different types can represent most of these
empirical correlations, namely


G ag ¼ 10B1 ag þB2
and
Gðag Þ ¼ Go e
cðag
ag 4Þ
A physical meaning for the constants B 1, B 2, and c
appearing in the Eqs. (1) and (2) can be found in Bouillard
et al. [6] and Gamwo et al. [5]. Gidaspow [1], Massoudi et
al. [7] and Enwald et al. [2] presents good reviews about this
topic. According to Enwald et al. [2] and to Huilin and
Gidaspow [8], the particle collisional pressure gradient
maintain the particles at adequate distances avoiding the
particle concentration to exceed its maximum possible
concentration.
The aim of the present note is to establish a comparative
analysis of the solid’s pressure influence over the gas–solid
flow considering numerical results obtained with the tradi-
tional two-fluid model. Studies are performed on the role of
the correlations in determining the instantaneous structure of
the bed and comparing this with time averaged results. Four
correlations in the form of Eq. (1) are considered, which are
presented in Table 1. The behavior of these correlations as a
function of time averaged gas volumetric fraction, a g, is
shown in Fig. 1. It is seen that the solid’s elasticity modulus
G is significant only for small gas volumetric fractions. In
regions of small solid concentration (a gN0.55), it plays no
significant role. Ettehadieh et al. [9] studied the bed
sensitivity to the solid’s pressure term due to particle
collisions, through simulations of a circular bubbling
fluidized bed. The authors compared the bed behavior for
two correlations of G (Eqs. (1) and (2) from Table 1),
assuming the solid’s volumetric fraction for minimum
fluidization equal to 0.407. It was showed that the numerical
results were insensitive to the solid’s elasticity modulus
above minimum fluidization condition. Recently, Polashen-
ski and Chen [10], using an experimental probe for solid’s
pressure measurement, showed that solid’s pressure is some
orders of magnitude smaller than the gas pressure in a
circulating fluidized bed. A correlation was developed for
the time-averaged solid’s pressure as a function of time-
Table 1
Literature correlations for the solid’s phase elasticity modulus G(a g)
Authors G(a g) [Pa]


Jayaswal [13]a G ag ¼ 10
8;76ag þ7;577


Gidaspow and Ettehadieh [14] G ag ¼ 10
8;76ag þ5;43


Ettehadieh et al. [9] G ag ¼ 10
10;46ag þ6;577


Gidaspow et al. [15] G ag ¼ 10
10;5ag þ9;0
a
It seems that Jayaswal [13] derived that correlation from data
published by Mutsers and Rietema in 1977 [17].
79
ð1Þ
ð2Þ
Fig. 1. Solid’s elasticity modulus, G for different correlations (Table 1).
averaged solid’s volumetric fraction. The experimental
results of Polashenski and Chen showed, according to the
authors, that solid’s pressure should not significantly affect
results of numerical simulation from a two-fluid model.
2. Results and discussion
A parametric analysis is performed on the influence of
the collisional solid’s pressure over the gas-solid flow in a
2D riser using the four correlations for G showed in Table 1.
Results of numerical simulation have been used for that.
Details of the mathematical model, numerical solution
technique, geometry, boundary, and initial conditions are
presented in Cabezas-Gómez and Milioli [11]. The hydro-
dynamic model B developed at IIT (Illinois Institute of
Technology) was used [1]. The simulations were performed
for the same transport system of IIT studied by Luo [12].
The time variation of the solid’s mass flux 5.3 m above
the entrance is shown in Fig. 2. It is seen that the numerical
results for all G correlations oscillate approximately with the
same low frequency. The curves corresponding to Jayaswal
[13] and Gidaspow and Ettehadieh [14] correlations
oscillate around the experimental average with the same
amplitude in the considered time interval (from 20 to 100
seconds). However, the results obtained with the Ettehadieh
et al. [9] and Gidaspow et al. [15] correlations oscillate
around the experimental average with time varying ampli-
tude, mainly in the time interval from 55 to 100 s. In this
ð3Þ case, negative values of G s are seen, indicating cluster
ð4Þ occurrence.
ð5Þ The clusters are clearly seen through the temporal solid’s
ð6Þ volumetric fraction profiles presented in Figs. 3 and 4, for
the time interval from 61.6 to 63 s. Fig. 3 stands for the
correlations of Jayaswal [13] and Gidaspow and Ettehadieh
80 L. Cabezas Gómez, F.E. Milioli / Powder Technology 149 (2005) 78–83

Fig. 2. Time variation of solid’s mass flux, G s, 5.3 m above riser’s entrance. [ G s=24.9 kg/(m2 s) is the experimental average [12]].

Fig. 3. Temporal variation of solid’s volumetric fraction in the riser in the time interval from 61.6 to 63.0 s, for the G correlations of Ettehadieh et al. [9] and
Gidaspow et al. [15], respectively.
 L. Cabezas Gómez, F.E. Milioli / Powder Technology 149 (2005) 78–83 81

[14], while Fig. 4 stands for the correlations of Ettehadieh et

al. [9] and Gidaspow et al. [15]. As seen in Fig. 3, a greater
number of clusters are formed in the region from the outlet
region to the middle of the column. It is also seen a higher
quantity of clusters in comparison to that observed in Fig. 4.
In this last figure, the clusters are showed to arise mainly
from the middle of the column down to the inlet region. The
differences in flow behavior between Figs. 3 and 4 show
that the solid’s collisional pressure as modeled by the
traditional procedure exerts a considerable influence on the
gas–solid flow in CFB columns.
The above observations are in disagreement with both
the experimental results of Polachenski and Chen [10] and
the numerical results of Ettehadieh et al. [9]. The discrep-
ancy is caused by the fact that these authors considered time
averaged data, while the present work considered instanta-
neous data.
Fig. 5 shows a comparison among time averaged solid’s
volumetric fraction radial profiles 3.4 m above entrance.
Fig. 5. Radial time averaged profiles of the solid’s volumetric fraction 3.4 m
These profiles resulted very similar, with the higher
above the riser entrance for various G correlations. [. experimental data of
quantitative differences occurring near the walls. In all the Luo [12]].
cases, the model caught the expected physical profile.

Fig. 4. Temporal variation of solid’s volumetric fraction in the riser in the time interval from 61.6 to 63.0 s, for the G correlations of Jayaswal [13] and
Gidaspow and Ettehadieh [14], respectively.
82 L. Cabezas Gómez, F.E. Milioli / Powder Technology 149 (2005) 78–83
Fig. 6. Radial time averaged profiles of the axial local velocity of both phases 3.4 m above entrance for various G correlations. [. experimental data of Luo
[12]].
However, considerable differences are noted in relation to
the experimental results of Luo [12], mainly in the central
region of the column. The same behavior is seen for the time
averaged axial velocity radial profiles for both phases, as
showed in Fig. 6. It is seen that all the considered G
correlations produce a similar behavior. The numerical
results presented in Figs. 5 and 6 are in accordance with the
conclusions of Polachenski and Chen [10] and Ettehadieh et
al. [9] that the collisional solid’s pressure does not greatly
influence the time-averaged behavior of the gas–solid flow
in a CFB riser.
3. Conclusions
The present results of simulation indicate that the
collisional solid’s pressure exert some considerable influ-
ence over the hydrodynamic transient behavior of the flow
in a riser of a CFB. Consequently, it is expected to
considerably affect the transport processes occurring in the
riser that are of transient nature. It is quite clear that effects
influencing the instantaneous structure of the flow should be
taken into account in the project and study of CFB’s,
including solid’s pressure effect.
It was showed that from the time averaged point of view
the numerical results are very similar and independent of the
employed correlation for p s computation. This is in
complete agreement with literature results [9,10] and com-
ments [2,8]. Nevertheless, it was evidenced the necessity for
a criterious use of the available correlations for the solid’s
collisional pressure concerning the traditional two-fluid
model. The application of the KTGF is an alternative.
However, formulations from the KTGF require improve-
ment, as evidenced for instance by Wang and Li [16]. They
stressed the need to consider additional terms in p s
formulation.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by FAPESP (Fundação de
Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) through
doctoral and postdoctoral scholarships for the first author
(processes 98/13812-1 and 02/12038-8).
References
[1] D. Gidaspow, Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum and
Kinetic Theory Descriptions, Academic Press, Bostom, 1994.
[2] H. Enwald, E. Peirano, A.-E. Almstedt, Eulerian two-phase flow
theory applied to fluidization, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 22 (1996) 21 – 66
(Supplement).
[3] A. Boemer, H. Qi, U. Renz, S. Vasquez, F. Boysan, Eulerian
computation of fluidized hydrodynamics-a comparison of physical
models, Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Fluidized Bed Combustion, vol. 2,
1995, p. 775.
[4] C.S. Campbell, D.G. Wang, Particle pressures in gas-fluidized beds,
J. Fluid Mech. 227 (1991) 495 – 508.
[5] I.K. Gamwo, Y. Soong, R.W. Lyczkowski, Numerical simulation and
experimental validation of solids flows in a bubbling fluidized bed,
Powder Technol. 103 (1999) 117 – 129.
[6] J.X. Bouillard, R.W. Lyczkowski, D. Gidaspow, Porosity distributions
in a fluidized bed with an immersed obstacle, AIChE J. 35 (6) (1989)
908 – 922.
[7] M. Massoudi, K.R. Rajagopal, J.M. Ekmann, M.P. Mathur,
Remarks on the modeling of fluidized systems, AIChE J. 38 (3)
(1992) 471 – 472.
[8] L. Huilin, D. Gidaspow, Hydrodynamics simulations of gas–solid
flow in a riser, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42 (2003) 2390 – 2398.
[9] B. Ettehadieh, D. Gidaspow, R.W. Lyczkowski, Hydrodynamics of
fluidization in a semicircular bed with a jet, AIChE J. 30 (4) (1984)
529 – 536.
[10] W. Polashenski, J.C. Chen, Measurement of particle phase stresses in
fast fluidized beds, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 38 (1999) 705 – 713.
[11] L. Cabezas-Gómez, F.E. Milioli, Numerical study on the influence of
various physical parameters over the gas–solid two-phase flow in the
2D riser of a circulating fluidized bed, Powder Technol. 132 (2–3)
(2003) 216 – 225.
 L. Cabezas Gómez, F.E. Milioli / Powder Technology 149 (2005) 78–83 83

[12] K.M. Luo, Dilute, Dense-Phase and Maximum Solids-Gas Transport,
PhD Thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, 1987.
[13] U. Jayaswal, Hydrodynamics of multiphase flows: separation,
dissemination and fluidization, PhD Thesis. Illinois Institute of
Technology, Chicago, 1991.
[14] D. Gidaspow, B. Ettehadieh, Fluidization in two-dimensional beds
with a jet: 2. Hydrodynamic modeling, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 22
(2) (1983) 193 – 201.
[15] D. Gidaspow, Y.-T. Shih, J. Bouillard, D. Wasan, Hydrodynamics of a
lamella electrosettler, AIChE J. 35 (5) (1989) 714 – 724.
[16] W. Wang, Y. Li, Hydrodynamic simulation of fluidization by
using a modified kinetic theory, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40 (2001)
5066 – 5073.
[17] S.M.P. Mutsers, K. Rietema, The effect of interparticle forces on the
expansion of a homogeneous gas-fluidized bed, Powder Technol. 18
(2) (1977) 239 – 248.