Advertisement

Computational Particle Mechanics

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 157–162 | Cite as

CFD simulation of cross-flow mixing in a packed bed using porous media model and experimental validation

  • Kamyar MohammadpourEmail author
  • Ali Alkhalaf
  • Eckehard Specht
Article

Abstract

Understanding the flow pattern of the gas jet can have considerable significance in improving the reactor design and process optimization. The current study attempts to demonstrate the viability of using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) as a design tool for such packed beds by visualizing the flow structure in the reaction zone; the porous media model (PMM) is introduced as a method for simulation of counter-flow single-shaft kilns and parallel-flow regenerative-shaft kilns. The influence of different turbulence models and percent of the turbulence intensity are simulated. The validation of simulations with experimental results is done by the sample dimension of a packed bed in workshops by injecting two gases into the packed bed. The particles are packed by an arrangement named body-centered cubic. However, a few experiments carried out refer to cross-flow injections. The experimental packed bed is 0.62 m long, 0.36 m wide and 0.6 m high. The distribution of oxygen (volumetric ratio of 0.1) is measured at five points at 0.46 m height of the packed bed. The results reveal that the CFD simulation using the PMM is reasonably accurate with respect to the experimental results in all cases.

Keywords

Packed bed CFD porous media model Turbulence model Turbulence intensity (TI) 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by Ali Alkhalaf of University of Technology, Iraq (Grant No. 384/C.R. ON 26/02/2012). Prof. Dr.-Ing E. Specht, MSc Kamyar Mohamadpour has received research grants from Industrial Research Federation (IRF BR 10834/16) has been promoted by the research Association lime and by the federation ministry of environments and technology.

References

  1. 1.
    Salari D, Niaei A, Nabavi S (2007) CFD flow and heat transfer simulation for empty and packed fixed bed reactor in catalytic cracking of naphtha. Proc World Acad Sci Eng Technol 23:67–70Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dixon A, Nijemeisland M (2001) CFD as a design tool for fixed-bed reactors. Ind Eng Chem Res 40:5246–5254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mohammadpour K, Woche H, Specht E (2017) CFD simulation of parallel flow in a packed bed using porous media model and experiment validation. J Chem Technol Metall 52(3):475–484Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alkhalaf A, Woche H, Specht E (2016) Experimental investigation of cross flow mixing in an unstructured packed bed. J Chem Technol Metall 51(6):639–648Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dukhan N, Bağc O, Ozdemir M (2014) Experimental flow in various porous media and reconciliation of Forchheimer and Ergun Relations. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 57:425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xu Y, Wang LP, Zhong YQ, Zheng YH (2013) Experimental research of fluid flow and effective thermal parameters in micro-particle packed bed as a thermal biosensor reactor under constant wall temperature conditions. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 45:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Srinivasan R, Raghunandan BN (2013) Experiments on thermal response of low aspect ratio packed beds at high Reynolds numbers with varying inflow temperature. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 44:323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salewski M, Stankovic D, Fuchs L (2008) Mixing in circular and non-circular jets in cross flow. Turbul Combust 80(2):255–283CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith B, Ranade J (2003) Computational fluid dynamics for designing process equipment: expectations, status, and path forward. Ind Eng Chem Res 42:1115–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tao Y, Adler W, Specht E (2002) Numerical analysis of multiple jets discharging into a confined cylindrical cross flow. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part E J Process Mech Eng 216:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu Z (2009) Reduced model for flow simulation in the burner Region of lime shaft kilns. Ph.D. thesis, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nield D, Bejan A (2005) Convection in porous media. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dixon A, Nijemeisland M (2006) Packed tubular reactor modelling and catalyst design computational fluid dynamics. Adv Chem Eng 31:307–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nirmolo A, Woche H, Specht E (2008) Temperature homogenization of reactive and non-reactive flows after radial jet injections in confined cross-flow. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 12(1):85–95Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xu Z, Woche H, Specht E (2009) CFD flow simulation of structured packed bed reactors with jet injections. In: The 14th international conference on fluid flow technologies, Budapest, Hungary, pp 536–544Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Do H, Specht E, Kehse G (2011) Simulation of lime calculation in PFR kiln influence of energy input and lime throughput. Cem Lime Gypsum (ZKG) 12:52–64Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hallak B, Specht E, Herz F, Gröpler R, Warnecke G (2016) Simulation of lime calcination in normal shaft kilns-Influence of particle size distribution and type of lime-stone. Int J Cem Gypsum 3:64–68Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nirmolo A (2007) Optimization of radial jets mixing in cross-flow of combustion chambers using computational fluid dynamics. Ph.D. thesis, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hai Do D, Specht E, Kehse G, Ferri V (2012) Simulation of lime calcination in PFR kiln-Influence of source and size of limestone. Int J Cement Lime Gypsum 4:56–65Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alkhalaf A, Refaey HA, Al-durobi N, Specht E (2018) Influence of contact point treatment on the cross flow mixing in a simple cubic packed bed—CFD simulation and experimental validation. In: Granular matter, vol 20, 2, Art. 22, insgesamt 13 S. Springer, Berlin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10035-018-0793-2
  21. 21.
    Alkhalf A, Refaey HA, Al-durobi N, Specht E (2016) CFD simulation and experimental validation of cross flow mixing in body centered cubic packed bed and comparison with PMM. In: Accepted in the (12 international conference of fluid dynamics 19–20 December 2016, Le Meridin Pyramids Hotel, Cairo, Egypt)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hallak B, Specht E, Herz F, Gröpler R, Warnecke G (2015) Simulation of lime calcination in normal shaft kilns-mathematical model. Int J Cement Lime Gypsum 9: 66–71; 10:46–50Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Al-Khalaf A (2016) Experimental and numerical analysis for flow mixing in packed bed. Otto Von Guericke-University Magdeburg, Ph.D. thesisGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bastian P (2009) numerical computation of multiphase flows in porous media. Habilitationsschrift vorgelegt an der Technischen Fakult, Christian-Albrechts-Universit¨, KielGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Corey A (1994) Mechanics of immiscible fluids in porous media, 3rd edn. Water Resources Publications, LittletonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alkhalaf A, Specht E (2017) Prediction of cross flow mixing in the structured packed bed through CFD simulation using (FBM and PMM) and validation with experiments. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 11(1):1–14Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ansys. Fluent documentation. Fluent (CFD Online)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    ANSYS (2009) Ansys fluent 12.0, user’s guideGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patankar S (1980) Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    CFD-online, Turbulent intensity, http://www.cfd-online.com/wiki/Turbulence_intensity
  31. 31.
    Tsotsas E (2014) Lecture notes. Product quality in process and chemical industry. https://forschung-sachsen-anhalt.de/pl/tsotsas-4507

Copyright information

© OWZ 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Fluid Dynamics and ThermodynamicsOtto Von Guericke UniversityMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations