A CFD Comparative Study of Bubbling Fluidized Bed Behavior with Thermal Effects Using the Open-Source Platforms MFiX and OpenFOAM

Fluids

Néstor Javier Mariani¹  Rosa Rodriguez²  Andrés Reyes-Urrutia³  Germán Mazza³  Norberto Nigro⁴  Cesar Venier⁴ 

[1] Center for Research and Development in Applied Sciences “Dr. Jorge J. Ronco”, CINDECA, CONICET—National University of La Plata, La Plata 1900, Argentina;Chemical Engineering Institute, Faculty of Engineering (National University of San Juan), Research Group associated with PROBIEN Institute (CONICET-National University of Comahue), San Juan 5400, Argentina;Institute for Research and Development in Process Engineering, Biotechnology and Alternative Energies, PROBIEN, CONICET—National University of Comahue, CCT CONICET Patagonia Confluencia, Neuquén 8300, Argentina;Research Center for Computational Methods, CIMEC-CONICET, National University of the Litoral, CCT CONICET, Santa Fe 3000, Argentina;

关键词: bubbling fluidized bed;    open-source software;    MFiX;    OpenFOAM;   

DOI  :  10.3390/fluids7010001

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

This work studies the performance of two open-source CFD codes, OpenFOAM and MFiX, to address bubbling fluidized bed system at different temperature and heat transfer conditions. Both codes are used to predict two parameters that are relevant for the design of fluidized units: the minimum fluidization velocity as a function of the temperature of the bed and wall-to-bed heat transfer coefficient from a lateral wall and from internal tubes. Although the CFD solvers are structuraly similar, there are some key differences (available models, meshing techniques, and balance formulations) that are often translated into differences in the fields prediction. The computational results are compared between both codes and against the experimental data. The minimum fluidization velocity can be correctly predicted with both codes at different temperatures while, in general, for the heat transfer and the fluidization patterns, MFiX shows slightly more accurate results compared to OpenFOAM but with low versatility for meshing curved geometries which might translate into higher computational costs for the same level of accuracy.

【 授权许可】

Unknown