Powder Technology 284 (2015) 443451

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Numerical simulation of loop seal for a circulating uidized bed based on

an improved EMMS bubbling model
Meng Zhao a, Nan Zhang a, Xinhua Liu a,, Wei Du b,
a
b

State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Complex Systems, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, P.R. China
State Key Laboratory of Heavy Oil Processing, China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, P.R. China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 14 April 2015
Received in revised form 13 July 2015
Accepted 15 July 2015
Available online 22 July 2015
Keywords:
Loop seal
Circulating uidized bed
Numerical simulation
Bubbling uidization
Gas ow
Multiscale

a b s t r a c t
A typical loop seal consists of a supply chamber and a recycle chamber as well as a bottom connection slit in
between. The supply chamber is generally operated in the minimum uidization state, while the recycle chamber
in the bubbling uidization regime. The energy-minimization multi-scale (EMMS) model, as generally used to
calculate interphase drag coefcient in previous simulations of the loop seal, is still open to discussion since it
is based on the concept of particle clusters. So an EMMS bubbling model was developed to model dense gas
solid ow by taking into account the interphase interaction between the emulsion and bubble phases. In this article, a heterogeneity index is calculated from an improved EMMS bubbling model to measure the interphase
drag coefcient and further integrated into the two-uid-model (TFM) approach to simulate the loop seal for a
circulating uidized bed (CFB) system. This index is dependent on supercial gas velocity in bubbling uidization, so a region-specic drag correction scheme is proposed to allow the application of various heterogeneity
index correlations to different zones of the loop seal, since supercial gas velocity may differ much from the
recycle to supply chamber. Several typical cases of drag correction are comparatively investigated by applying
various gas velocities and/or drag models in the recycle and supply chambers, and the optimal one is proven
to be able to reasonably simulate the parametric effects on gas inverse ow in the loop seal.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A loop seal, as one of the most widely used non-mechanical valves in
circulating uidized beds (CFB) or other related processes, serves as a
recycle device allowing the transfer of the solids from the high-pressure
standpipe to the low-pressure riser, but preventing the inverse ow of
the gas from the riser bottom to the standpipe. A typical loop seal
generally consists of a supply chamber and a recycle chamber as well
as a bottom connection opening or slit in between.
A series of experiments were carried out to explore the basic operational principle of the loop seal [110]. Based on these studies, many
empirical or semi-empirical hydrodynamic models were proposed to
predict the performance of the loop seal, but much effort is still needed
to improve the understanding of the design, scale-up, and operation of
the loop seal [11].
A variety of simulation techniques for gassolid ow have been developed to optimize designs and troubleshoot operational problems in
chemical engineering [12,13], but the two-uid-model (TFM) approach
is the most frequently used in practice [14,15]. Traditional TFM approach generally assumes homogeneous conditions inside a control

Corresponding authors. Tel.: +86 10 82544940, +86 10 89734981.

E-mail addresses: xhliu@ipe.ac.cn (X. Liu), duv@cup.edu.cn (W. Du).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2015.07.019
0032-5910/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

volume [16], hence giving rise to the calculation deviation of interphase

drag force and further to the numerical inaccuracy of multiphase simulation [17]. The so-called computational particle uid dynamics (CPFD)
numerical scheme based on the multiphase particle-in-cell (PIC) methodology was also utilized to simulate the gas and solid behavior in the
whole CFB loop in order to consider the dilute ow in the riser and
the dense ow in the loop seal simultaneously [18,19]. In comparison
with the TFM approach, the CPFD scheme, however, requires much
more computational cost for the calculation of discrete parcels and is
less convenient to combine with a user-dened function (UDF).
In the recent studies, the so-called energy-minimization multi-scale
(EMMS) scheme was used to simulate local heterogeneous characteristics in the CFB system with a loop seal or other non-mechanical valves
[9,15,20,21], in which a structure-dependent drag coefcient is calculated
from the initial EMMS model and then integrated into the TFM approach
by utilizing the UDF. However, gassolid ow in the loop seal differs
much from that in the CFB riser. The particle bed in the recycle chamber
is generally uidized at low gas velocities, while the supply chamber is
operated in the moving packed bed mode or minimum uidization state.
Under this situation, the particles represent the continuous dense emulsion
phase with the formation of discrete bubble-like voids in the loop seal.
Thereby, the EMMS scheme may not be applicable again to the simulation
of gassolid ow in the loop seal, since this method is originally based on
the concept of particle clusters [22].

444

M. Zhao et al. / Powder Technology 284 (2015) 443451

In low-velocity uidization, gas bubbles actually begin to form as a

discrete phase. A gassolid bubbling reactor can thus be resolved into
three sub-systems including the dense emulsion phase, the dilute bubble phase, and the interphase in between [23]. By considering both the
normal pressure stress and tangential drag force between the emulsion
and bubble phases, Liu et al. [24] proposed a new stability condition for
gassolid bubbling uidization and formulated an EMMS bubbling
model. This model has been proven to be able to reasonably simulate
dense gassolid ow without introducing bubble-specic empirical
correlations. In this article, the EMMS bubbling model is incorporated
with the TFM approach to modify the interphase drag force in a control
volume, so as to simulate the loop seal for a CFB system accurately.
Moreover, a region-specic drag correction scheme is proposed to
allow the application of various drag coefcient correlations to different
zones of the loop seal, since these correlations may differ much from the
recycle to supply chamber due to the variations of supercial gas
velocities in the two chambers.
2. Model expressions and solving procedures
2.1. The two-uid model
In the TFM approach, the gas and solid phases are treated as interpenetrating continua by incorporating the concept of phase volume
fraction. The volume fraction represents the space occupied by each
phase, and the laws of conservation of mass and momentum are individually satised by each phase. The kinetic theory of granular ow
(KTGF) [25] is adopted in this study to describe solid phase stress in
order to close the solid phase momentum equation. Similar to the
widely used CFD modeling scheme for gassolid uidization, only drag
force is considered in the gas and solid momentum conservation equations because both the lift and virtual mass forces are negligible in this
case. As a reference for comparison, the Gidaspow model is employed
to calculate the interphase drag force [2628]. The detailed information
for the two-uid model is briey summarized in Table 1.
2.2. EMMS bubbling drag model

on gas bubbles. Taking into account the effects of the above two interactions on the suspension and transporting energy dissipation rate (Nst) in
the system, Liu et al. [24] proposed a new stability condition for gas
solid bubbling uidization to formulate an improved EMMS bubbling
model as follows:
8
< Nst Nst;o Nex;i min
EMMS bubbling model F i X 0 i 1; 2; ; 5
:
U se 0;U si 0

where Nst,0 and Nex,i are the energy dissipation rates due to the interphase slip and the gas bubble expansion, respectively; the ve equations Fi(X) = 0 (i = 1, 2,, 5) describe the force balance and the
material continuity in the system; and supercial slip velocities (Use
and Usi) in the emulsion and interphases should not be smaller than
zero. If assuming no particles in gas bubbles, such a system can be
described by eight structural parameters including e, fb, Uge, Upe, Ub,
ae, ab, and db, among which e, Uge, Upe, and ae refer to the emulsion
phase, and fb, Ub, ab, and db to the bubble phase. So, the constitutive
and main closure equations for the EMMS bubbling model can be summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. By utilizing a two-dimensional
optimization method, this model can be numerically solved without
introducing bubble-specic empirical correlations such as for bubble diameter and bubble acceleration. More details on the EMMS bubbling
model can be found in the previous literatures [24,29].
With the eight structural parameters in the EMMS bubbling model
to be determined under the given operating conditions, a so-called
structure-dependent drag coefcient (bubble) in gassolid bubbling
uidization can be expressed as
bubble


2g 
p g 1 e 1f b g ae
U slip

and bubble is measured with a heterogeneity index (Hd),

H d bubble =WenYu

where Wen-Yu is Wen and Yu correlation with

In gassolid bubbling uidization, the interphase interaction between the continuous and discrete phases can be represented as the
normal pressure stress and the tangential drag force of dense emulsion

WenYu

1 g
3
C D0
g U slip 2:65
g
4
dp

Table 1
Governing equations and constitutive relations for the TFM model.
Mass and momentum conservation equations
n

The volume fraction balance equation (q = g, s): q 1

q1

!
The mass conservative equation for phase q (q = g, s): t q q  q q v q 0

!
!
!
! !
The momentum conservative equation for phase q (q = g, s): t q q v q  q q v q v q q P  q R pq q q F q
n

p1

KTGF theory
The granular temperature: s 13 v0 s 2
The granular temperature conservative equation: 32

s s s
t

i
!
!
 s s v s s ps I s : v s  ks s s ls

121e2ss g 0;ss
!
p
where ps I s : v s is the generation of energy by the solid stress tensor, ks s is the diffusion of energy, s is the collisional dissipation of energy, s
d
s

th
th
s 2s 3=2
s , and ls = 3lss is the energy exchange between the l uid or solid phase and the s solid phase.
The solid pressure: Ps = sss + 2s(1 + ess)2s g0,sss
h
i
1 1
where g0,ss is the radial distribution function expressed by g 0;ss 1 s = s; ;max 3 .
q
The solid bulk viscosity: s 43 s s ds g 0;ss 1 ess s
p h
q
i2
10s dp s
The solid shear viscosity: s 45 2s s ds g 0;ss 1 ess s 961e
1 45 g 0;ss s 1 ess s
ss g
0;ss

Gidaspow drag model

Ergun 150
where C D

2s g
2

g dp

1:75

s g
dp

jvuj; g b 0:8;

WenYu 34 C D

241 0:15 g Rep 0:687 = g Rep ;

C D 0:44;

s g
dp

jvuj 2:65
; g 0:8
g

Rep b 1000
jvujd
with Rep g p
g
Rep 1000

M. Zhao et al. / Powder Technology 284 (2015) 443451

445

Table 2
Constitutive equations for the EMMS bubbling model.
Equation

Mathematical expression

Force balance for the bubble phase

e
2
3
4 C Di db f b U si f b e g g ab 0
g
3
C
1
f b 1e U 2se 34 C Di de f b U 2si 1 f b 1e p g g
4 De dp
b

Force balance for the emulsion phase

ae 0

Ug Uge(1 fb) Ub fb = 0
Up Upe(1 fb) = 0
g = (1 fb)e + fb

Mass balance for the gas

Mass balance for the particles
Mean voidage denition
Stability condition

Nst

p g 1 f b gae f b gab 
U ge
p
1 f b
2

f
fb
p g 1bf g ab U b 34 Hs 1
Kgdb U g min
s
p
b

Table 3
Main closure equations for the EMMS bubbling model.
Parameter

Emulsion phase

Interphase

Supercial slip velocity

Reynolds number
CD for a single particle or bubble

Use = Uge eUpe/(1 e)

Ree = Usedpg/g
24
Re3:6
C De0 Re
0:313
e

CD for uidized particles or multiple bubbles

CDe = CDe04.7
e

Usi = [Ub(1 e) Upe](1 fb)

Rei = Usidbe/e
n
38Re1:5
0 b Rei 1:8
i
C Di0
24=Rei Rei N1:8
0.5
CDi = CDi0(1 fb)

As exemplied in Fig. 1, Hd can be expressed as a simple polynomial

function of g for a specied Ug, since supercial gassolid slip velocity
(Uslip) equals about Ug in bubbling uidization. It should be noted that
the EMMS bubbling model predicts a homogeneous structure in the
voidage regions for either a highly dense ( b min) or dilute ( N max)
condition. Consequently, in the simulation, Hd is approximated as
unity at N max, while is extended to unity until the minimum uidization voidage at b min.
The calculation of Hd for each computational cell in the CFD simulation, however, must inevitably involve enormous computational cost
beyond the current computer capacity. Similar to Yang et al. [30], the
heterogeneity index determined from the aforementioned method is
approximately extended to each control volume in this study for simplicity. That is, according to the preceding correlation with respect to
voidage, the calculated Hd from local voidage in a control volume at
given supercial gas velocities is used to modify local interphase drag
coefcient in the computational cell through UDF in the CFD simulation.

2.3. Simulation conditions and solving procedure

As shown in Fig. 2, a loop seal with a standpipe of about 1.3 m height
is chosen as the computational domain, so as to allow the acceptance of
enough particles but avoid the possible exhaust of particles from the top
opening of the tube. The physical properties of gas and solids used in the
simulation are shown in Table 4, which are the same as those used in the
experiments.
The commercial CFD simulation package FLUENT 6.3 is used in this
study. The set of governing equations are solved by a nite control volume technique. The pressurevelocity coupling is obtained by the
SIMPLE scheme. The Green-Gauss Cell-Based, second-order upwind
and QUICK differencing schemes are employed for the gradient,
momentum, and volume fraction equations, respectively. The detailed
settings in the simulation are summarized in Table 5.
A uniform velocity condition is adopted for the gas phase at the bottom horizontal and inclined entrances of the loop seal. Both the top
opening of the standpipe and the exit of the loop seal are set as pressure
outlets. The exit back pressure is set to equal the experimental value. As
shown in Fig. 2, an entrance as a solid velocity inlet at the bottom side of
the standpipe is employed to enable the introduction of particles in the
minimum uidization state, while the solid ow rate at this entrance is
controlled to equal the value at the exit of the loop seal by a UDF, in

order to maintain the mass balance of particles in the computational

domain. Non-slip wall conditions are adopted for all reactor walls.
Using the preceding simulation settings, the statistical data between
10 and 20 s in physical time are found to reach a steady state, and hence
used to compare with the experimental results in this research.

3. Comparison between various modeling schemes

3.1. Mesh independence analysis
Hexahedron meshes are generated by commercial program GAMBIT
at the scales of 6 mm, 10 mm, and 15 mm, respectively, to evaluate
probable geometric errors in the simulation of the loop seal with an
internal inclined bafe.
Under the typical operating conditions of Qrc = 5 m3/h, Qsc = 5 m3/h,
Pb = 12.5 kPa, and Im = 65 kg, corresponding supercial gas velocities at
the both gas entrances are about 5 Umf, and the loop seal can be thought to
be operated in the bubbling uidization regime. As revealed in Fig. 3, a
higher mesh resolution (e.g., 6 6 6 mm3) facilitates the reproduce of
more detailed heterogeneous structures in the loop seal, while the simulation with adoption of a large mesh size of 15 15 15 mm3 predicts
pseudo-homogeneous gassolid ow in the loop seal. The simulated
height of particle bed in the standpipe is found to vary little under the

Fig. 1. Typical variation of Hd with g at the specied gas velocity.

446

M. Zhao et al. / Powder Technology 284 (2015) 443451

Fig. 2. Computational domain: (1) space diagram of the loop seal and the standpipe; (2) front view and geometric sizes of the loop seal and the standpipe.

three mesh scales, which implies that the numerical accuracy for solids
concentration in the loop seal has not been improved signicantly
when increasing the mesh resolution. Therefore, all hexahedron meshes
in the following simulations will be generated at the scale of 10 mm in
order to achieve sufcient numerical accuracy but avoid large computational cost.

3.2. Inuence of viscous and drag models

Turbulence in the gas and solid phases was found to affect dilute
gassolid two-phase ow signicantly [31], but little attention has
been paid to this aspect in the simulation of dense gassolid ow in
the loop seal. Therefore, this section aims to clarify whether turbulence
needs to be incorporated in the simulation of the loop seal by comparing
four modeling schemes with adoption of various viscous and drag

Table 4
Physical properties of gas and particles.
Item
3

Density (kg/m )
Viscosity (Pa.s)
Diameter (m)
Restitution coefcient ()
Maximum packing limit ()
Minimum uidization velocity (m/s)

Gas

Particles

1.225
1.7894e-5
/
/
/
/

2460
/
80.0
0.90
0.63
0.006

models. As listed in Table 6, the Gidaspow model is rstly used to calculate interphase drag force with the adoption of the laminar and turbulent assumptions in schemes a and b, respectively, while the EMMS
bubbling model is utilized to modify interphase drag force with incorporating the laminar ow and k--kp-p turbulence models in schemes c
and d, respectively.
The related simulations are implemented under the preceding typical operating conditions. As shown in Fig. 4a and b, if only the Gidaspow
drag model is adopted in the simulation, solids concentration in the
standpipe almost approaches the maximum packing limit regardless

Table 5
Simulation settings in Fluent.
Space
Time
Pressurevelocity coupling
Momentum discretization
Volume fraction discretization
Granular temperature
Granular viscosity
Granular bulk viscosity
Frictional viscosity
Angle of internal friction
Solids pressure
Frictional pressure
Radial distribution
Time step
Max. iterations per time step

3D
Transient, second-order implicit
Phase-coupled SIMPLE
Second-order upwind
Quick
Second-order upwind
Gidaspow
Lun et al.
Schaeffer
30
Lun et al.
Based KTGF
Lun et al.
0.0005 s
60

M. Zhao et al. / Powder Technology 284 (2015) 443451

447

Fig. 4. Instantaneous s simulated by using various modeling models.

Fig. 3. Instantaneous s simulated by using various mesh scales.

of the incorporation of turbulence model. The use of the EMMS bubbling

drag model in the simulation, as indicated by Fig. 4c, produces detailed
heterogeneous structures in the loop seal, which is consistent with the
experiment observations. However, the incorporation of turbulence
model based on the drag correction, as shown in Fig. 4d, gives rise to
an obvious gas inverse ow through the top opening of the standpipe.
As plotted by dashed line in Fig. 5, the measurement value of total
particle bed height (Hb) in the supply chamber and the standpipe is determined from the experimental observation. It can be found from the
gure that the simulation using scheme c predicts almost the same
mean Hb as the measurement value. That is, the simulation with
adoption of homogeneous assumption cannot capture hydrodynamic
characteristics in the loop seal even if turbulence is taken into consideration. However, the drag correction based on the EMMS bubbling model
facilitates the reproduce of detailed heterogeneous structures in the
computational domain despite neglecting turbulence in the gas and
solid phases. This can be explained that in the loop seal the solid
phase moves slowly and thereby can be assumed to be in laminar
ow, while gas phase turbulence is signicantly suppressed by a high
solids concentration in the loop seal. Moreover, the over-predicted interphase drag force in the simulation using the Gidaspow drag model
is rationally improved by using the EMMS bubbling drag model instead,
because two-phase heterogeneous structures are inherently taken into
consideration in the EMMS approach. Therefore, scheme c will be used
to perform following simulation in this research.

effect of the variation of supercial gas velocity on the interphase drag

coefcient, since the correlation of Hd with voidage is dependent on
supercial gas velocity in bubbling uidization.
As shown in Fig. 2, the computational domain can be divided into
two zones by the internal bafe and its extension plane to the inclined
gas entrance: one is the left part named as the recycle chamber, and
the other is the residual part including the supply chamber and the
standpipe. The latter will be called as the supply chamber only in this
section for convenience. By using another UDF, various drag correction
schemes can be adopted respectively in these two chambers in the
CFD simulation. As listed in Table 7, four possible drag correction
schemes are proposed to be evaluated in detail according to the uncertainty of gas ow pattern in the loop seal: (A) the interphase drag force
in the uidized recycle chamber is calculated from the EMMS bubbling
drag model at the specied Qrc, while that in the supply chamber is determined from the Gidaspow drag model at the given Qsc because gas
solid ow approaches the minimum uidization state; (B) the interphase drag force in the supply chamber, similar to that in the recycle
chamber, is also corrected by using the EMMS bubbling drag model at
a high Qsc, because gas bubbles may become dominant under this
situation; (C) the interphase drag force in the recycle chamber is calculated from the EMMS bubbling drag model at the gas ow rate of
Qrc + Qsc instead of Qrc only, because a large part of Qsc may be carried
into the recycle chamber by the circulated particles in practice; (D) as
a reference scheme for comparison, the interphase drag forces in the
two domains are determined from the Gisdapow drag model at their respective gas ow rates.

4. Comparison between various drag correction schemes

Supercial gas velocity may differ much from the recycle to supply
chamber of the loop seal because of the variations of operating parameters as well as the resultant effects of the circulated solids in the computational domain. So, it is necessary to further clarify how the drag
correction scheme is implemented in detail in order to address the

Table 6
Summary of various modeling schemes.
Modeling scheme

Drag model

Viscous model

a
b
c
d

Gidaspow
Gidaspow
EMMS bubbling
EMMS bubbling

Laminar
Turbulent
Laminar
Turbulent

Fig. 5. Variation of Hb with time under various modeling schemes.

448

M. Zhao et al. / Powder Technology 284 (2015) 443451

Table 7
Summary of various correction schemes.
Correction scheme

Recycle chamber

Supply chamber

A
B
C
D

EMMS bubbling (Qrc)

EMMS bubbling (Qrc)
EMMS bubbling (Qrc + Qsc)
Gidaspow (Qrc)

Gidaspow (Qsc)
EMMS bubbling (Qsc)
EMMS bubbling (Qsc)
Gidaspow (Qsc)

All related simulations in this section are performed under the preceding typical operating conditions. Fig. 6 presents the snapshots of instantaneous solids concentrations (s) under four drag correction
schemes. It can be found that many bubble-like voids occur in the
whole computational domain if scheme A or B is adopted in the simulation. These voids, however, begin to coalesce with each other in the recycle chamber under either scheme C or D. In this case, the discrete
phase is hard to distinguish from the continuous one in the supply
chamber. This is because the interphase drag force in the recycle chamber is signicantly over-predicted with the specied mesh resolution in
schemes C and D. The former can be attributed to the adopted large gas
ow rate up to Qrc + Qsc in the recycle chamber, while the latter, as
aforementioned, results from the Gidaspow drag model itself.
Fig. 7 depicts the streamline of the gas owing from the bottom inclined entrance of the loop seal. Regardless of scheme B or C, it is only
through the adjacent region to the internal bafe that a large part of
Qsc is carried into the recycle chamber and nally into the riser bottom
by the circulated particles. This simulation result is consistent with the
fact that the gas tends to choose a path with minimal resistance in a
gas uidized bed. That is, this part of gas ow contributes little to the
uidization of most particles in the recycle chamber, implying that the
calculated supercial gas velocity in the recycle chamber from Qrc,
as in scheme B, is much closer to actual situation than that from
Qrc + Qsc in scheme C.
Axial proles of cross-sectional average solids concentrations (as) in
the recycle and supply chambers simulated by using various correction
schemes are shown in Fig. 8. In the recycle chamber, the simulation
using scheme A predicts a higher solids concentration than that using
reference scheme D because of the corrected drag force in this chamber,
which whereas leads to the reverse variation of solids concentration in
the supply chamber due to the constraints of the mass and pressure
balances in the computational domain. If scheme B is used in the simulation, a slightly increased solids concentration in the whole computational domain but a decreased expansion rate in the supply chamber
can be obtained in comparison with the simulation using scheme A.
This can be attributed to the decreased heterogeneity index calculated

Fig. 6. Instantaneous s simulated by using various correction schemes.

Fig. 7. Streamline of the gas owing from the bottom inclined entrance of the loop seal
under schemes B and C.

from the EMMS bubbling drag model in the supply chamber. The simulation using scheme C predicts a much lower solids concentration in the
recycle chamber but a rather higher one in the supply chamber than
that using scheme B, because a too large gas ow rate of Qrc + Qsc
leads to a signicantly increased interphase drag force in the recycle
chamber even if the EMMS bubbling drag model is adopted in the
simulation.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of Hb with time when various drag correction schemes are utilized in the simulation. It can be seen that the simulation using scheme B has a much higher accuracy than the other
schemes and successfully predicts the experimental Hb indicated by a
dashed line in the gure. As listed in Table 8, average solids concentrations (s,rc, s,sc, and s,sp) in the recycle chamber, the supply chamber,
and the standpipe are determined from the measured pressure drops
across these three domains, respectively [13]. It can be found from the
table that only using scheme B does the simulated average solids concentration show a high accuracy with relative error less than about
2.0% in the three different regions including the recycle chamber and

Fig. 8. Axial prole of as simulated by using various correction schemes.

M. Zhao et al. / Powder Technology 284 (2015) 443451

449

Fig. 9. Variation of Hb with time under various correction schemes.

supply chamber as well as the standpipe. All these phenomena consolidate that scheme B has a signicant advantage over the other schemes
for the simulation of the loop seal with high solids concentrations. So,
this scheme will be used to investigate the parametric effects on gas
inverse ow in the loop seal.
5. Parametric effects on gas inverse ow in the loop seal
A little gas inverse ow rate (Qsp) in the loop seal helps to maintain
the normal operation of the standpipe, which, however, should not be
too large to reach a high separation efciency of the cyclone. As a result,
it is generally preferred that a large part of loop seal gas ow (Qrc + Qsc)
is carried into the riser bottom by the circulated particles. In this section,
the effects of inuential parameters, such as Qrc, Qsc, Pb, and Im on gas inverse ow are numerically studied in detail by varying corresponding
parameter value under the typical operating conditions.
The ratio in Table 9, as an index to gas inverse ow in the loop seal,
denotes the percentage of Qsp to the sum of Qrc and Qsc. It is clear that gas
inverse ow in the loop seal is suppressed to a low level under the typical operating conditions of Qrc = 5 m3/h, Qsc = 5 m3/h, Pb = 12.5 kPa,
and Im = 65 kg. Increasing Qsc and/or Pb or decreasing Qrc and/or Im may
Table 8
Comparison between the simulated and experimental average solids concentrations in the
different domains under various correction schemes.
Drag
correction
scheme
A
B
C
D

s,rc

s,sc

Fig. 10. Instantaneous s simulated at various bafe angles.

lead to a signicant increment of Qsp. Specially, at Im = 55 kg, the pressure head provided by the standpipe and supply chamber is even not
sufcient to counteract the resistance from the bottom slit and recycle
chamber as well as back pressure, leading to a very large gas inverse
percentage up to 34.4% and even zero solid circulation in the loop seal.
These simulation results are consistent with our experimental observations, indicating the rationality of the adopted numerical scheme.
An internal bafe is generally employed to divide the loop seal into
the recycle and supply chambers with a connection passage at the bottom. The inclination angle of the bafe may signicantly affect particle
circulation and gas ow in the loop seal. As shown in Figs. 10, 11, and
12, the effects of the introduced particles at the bottom side of the
standpipe on the concentration and pressure elds in the computational
domain are insignicant and only conned to the adjacent region to the
entrance under the investigated operating conditions. The simulated
particle bed height in the standpipe gradually increases from case i to
iii with an obvious decrement of solids concentration in this domain.
This simulation result indicates that the percentage of gas inverse ow

s,sp

Exp.
()

Cal.
()

Err.
(%)

Exp.
()

Cal.
()

Err.
(%)

Exp.
()

Cal.
()

Err.
(%)

0.502

0.506
0.511
0.493
0.487

0.80
1.79
1.79
2.99

0.556

0.548
0.557
0.571
0.566

1.44
0.18
2.70
1.80

0.566

0.553
0.564
0.606
0.609

2.30
0.35
7.07
7.60

Table 9
Parametric effects on gas inverse ow in the loop seal.
Parameter
3

Qrc (m /h)

Qsc (m3/h)

Pb (kPa)

Im (kg)

Value

Qsp (m3/h)

Ratio (%)

5.0
7.5
10.0
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
55.0
65.0
70.0

1.321
0.993
0.742
1.321
1.984
2.712
1.321
1.558
1.932
3.436
1.321
0.924

13.2
7.95
4.94
13.2
15.9
18.1
13.2
15.6
19.3
34.4
13.2
9.24

Fig. 11. Pressure (P) eld simulated at various bafe angles.

450

M. Zhao et al. / Powder Technology 284 (2015) 443451

Uge, Upe supercial gas and particle velocities in the emulsion phase,
m/s
Umf
minimum uidization velocity, m/s
Up
supercial particle velocity, m/s
Use, Usi supercial slip velocities in the emulsion and interphases, m/s
Uslip
supercial gassolid slip velocity, m/s

Fig. 12. Axial prole of as simulated at various bafe angles.

gradually increases from case i to iii under the tested operating conditions.
This is also the reason why the internal bafe is set to incline toward the
supply chamber of the loop seal in this research.
6. Conclusions
A structure-dependent drag coefcient calculated from an improved
energy-minimization multi-scale (EMMS) bubbling drag model is integrated into the two-uid-model (TFM) approach, in order to simulate
dense gassolid ow in the loop seal for a circulating uidized bed
(CFB). The EMMS bubbling scheme enables detailed heterogeneous
structures to be captured in the loop seal without consideration of turbulence in the gas and solid phases. A region-specic drag correction
scheme is proposed to allow the application of various drag coefcient
correlations to different zones of the loop seal, so as to address the effect
of the variation of supercial gas velocity on the interphase drag coefcient. In the recycle and supply chambers of the loop seal, the drag coefcients should be calculated from the EMMS bubbling drag model at
their respective supercial gas velocities. By incorporating with the
TFM approach, the EMMS-based region-specic drag correction scheme
enables the reasonable prediction of the parametric effects on gas inverse ow in the loop seal with an inclined internal bafe.
Nomenclature
ae, ab
acceleration of the emulsion particles and the gas bubbles,
m/s2
CD0
drag coefcient for a single particle or bubble
CDe, CDi effective drag coefcients in the emulsion and interphases
db
bubble diameter, m
dp
particle diameter, m
fb
volume fraction of bubble phase
H
height, m
Hb
total particle bed height in the supply chamber and the
standpipe, m
Hd
heterogeneity index
Im
solid inventory, kg
Nex,i
energy dissipation rate due to the gas bubble expansion,
m2/s3
Nst
suspension and transporting energy dissipation rate, m2/s3
Nst,0
energy dissipation rate due to the interphase slip, m2/s3
Pb
back pressure, kPa
Qrc
gas ow rate at the horizontal entrance, m3/h
Qsc
gas ow rate at the inclined entrance, m3/h
Qsp
gas inverse ow rate, m3/h
Re
Reynolds number
Ub
gas bubble velocity, m/s
Ug
supercial gas velocity, m/s

Greek Letters
average density of the emulsion phase, kg/m3
e
g
gas density, kg/m3
p
particle density, kg/m3
bubble
drag coefcient calculated from the EMMS bubbling model
as
cross-sectional average solids concentration
e
voidage in the emulsion phase
g
voidage
s
solids concentration
s,rc
average solids concentration in the recycle chamber
s,sc
average solids concentration in the supply chamber
s,sp
average solids concentration in the standpipe
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank nancial supports from the Strategic
Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
(No. XDA07080400) and the Natural Science Foundation of China
(Nos. 21376244 and 91334107).

References
[1] L. Cheng, P. Basu, Effect of pressure on loop seal operation for a pressurized circulating uidized bed, Powder Technol. 103 (1999) 203211.
[2] S. Kim, W. Namkung, S. Kim, Solids ow characteristics in loop-seal of a circulating
uidized bed, Korean J. Chem. Eng. 16 (1999) 8288.
[3] P. Basu, L. Cheng, An analysis of loop seal operations in a circulating uidized bed,
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 78 (2000) 991998.
[4] S.W. Kim, S.D. Kim, Effects of particle properties on solids recycle in loop-seal of a
circulating uidized bed, Powder Technol. 124 (2002) 7684.
[5] E. Botsio, P. Basu, Experimental investigation into the hydrodynamics of ow of
solids through a loop seal recycle chamber, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 83 (2005) 554558.
[6] E.R. Monazam, L.J. Shadle, J.S. Mei, Impact of the circulating uidized bed riser on the
performance of a loop seal non-mechanical valve, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46 (2007)
18431850.
[7] P. Basu, J. Butler, Studies on the operation of loop-seal in circulating uidized bed
boilers, Appl. Energy 86 (2009) 17231731.
[8] M.M. Yazdanpanah, A. Forret, T. Gauthier, A. Delebarre, An experimental investigation of loop-seal operation in an interconnected circulating uidized bed system,
Powder Technol. 237 (2013) 266275.
[9] X. Wang, X. Wu, F. Lei, J. Lei, Y. Xiao, 3D full-loop simulation and experimental verication of gassolid ow hydrodynamics in a dense circulating uidized bed,
Particuology 16 (2014) 218226.
[10] P. Bareschino, R. Solimene, R. Chirone, P. Salatino, Gas and solid ow patterns in the
loop-seal of a circulating uidized bed, Powder Technol. 264 (2014) 197202.
[11] C. Li, H. Li, Q. Zhu, A hydrodynamic model of loop-seal for a circulating uidized bed,
Powder Technol. 252 (2014) 1419.
[12] M. Syamlal, C. Guenther, A. Cugini, W. Ge, W. Wang, N. Yang, J. Li, Computational science: enabling technology development, Chem. Eng. Prog. 107 (1) (2011) 2329.
[13] X. Liu, L. Guo, Z. Xia, B. Lu, M. Zhao, F. Meng, Z. Li, J. Li, Harnessing the power of
virtual reality, Chem. Eng. Prog. 108 (2012) 2833.
[14] S. Sundaresan, Reections on mathematical models and simulation of gas-particle
ows, in: T.M. Knowlton (Ed.), Tenth International Conference on Circulating Fluidized Beds and Fluidization Technology CFB-10, Sunriver 2011, pp. 2140.
[15] A. Nikolopoulos, N. Nikolopoulos, A. Charitos, P. Grammelis, E. Kakaras, A.R. Bidwe,
G. Varela, High-resolution 3-D full-loop simulation of a CFB carbonator cold
model, Chem. Eng. Sci. 90 (2013) 137150.
[16] D. Gidaspow, Multiphase ow and uidization: continuum and kinetic theory
descriptions, Academic Press, San Diego, 1994.
[17] W. Ge, W. Wang, W. Dong, J. Wang, B. Lu, Q. Xiong, J. Li, Meso-scale structurea
challenge of computational uid dynamics for circulating uidized bed risers, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Circulating Fluidized Beds, Hamburg 2008, pp. 1937.
[18] Q. Wang, H. Yang, P. Wang, J. Lu, Q. Liu, H. Zhang, L. Wei, M. Zhang, Application of
CPFD method in the simulation of a circulating uidized bed with a loop seal, part
IDetermination of modeling parameters, Powder Technol. 253 (2014) 814821.
[19] Q. Wang, H. Yang, P. Wang, J. Lu, Q. Liu, H. Zhang, L. Wei, M. Zhang, Application of
CPFD method in the simulation of a circulating uidized bed with a loop seal Part
IIInvestigation of solids circulation, Powder Technol. 253 (2014) 822828.

M. Zhao et al. / Powder Technology 284 (2015) 443451

[20] X. Wang, Z. Ma, J. Lei, X. Xu, Y. Xiao, Numerical simulation for the loop seal in the
circulating uidized bed and experimental validation, Appl. Therm. Eng. 52 (2013)
141149.
[21] N. Zhang, B. Lu, W. Wang, J. Li, Virtual experimentation through 3D full-loop simulation of a circulating uidized bed, Particuology 6 (2008) 529539.
[22] J. Li, M. Kwauk, Particle-Fluid Two-Phase Flow: The Energy-Minimization MultiScale Method, Metallurgical Industry Press, 1994.
[23] Z. Shi, W. Wang, J. Li, A bubble-based EMMS model for gassolid bubbling uidization, Chem. Eng. Sci. 66 (2011) 55415555.
[24] X. Liu, Y. Jiang, C. Liu, W. Wang, J. Li, Hydrodynamic modeling of gassolid bubbling
uidization based on energy-minimization multiscale (EMMS) theory, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 53 (2014) 28002810.
[25] S. Savage, D. Jeffrey, N. Chepurniy, Kinetic theories for granular ow: inelastic particles in Couette ow and slightly inelastic particles in a general ow eld, J. Fluid
Mech. 140 (1984) 223256.

451

[26] S. Ergun, Fluid ow through packed columns, Chem. Eng. Prog. 48 (1952) 8994.
[27] C.Y. Wen, Y.H. Yu, Mechanics of uidization, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 62 (1966)
100111.
[28] J. Ding, D. Gidaspow, A bubbling uidization model using kinetic theory of granular
ow, AIChE J 36 (1990) 523538.
[29] X. Liu, S. Hu, Y. Jiang, J. Li, Extension and application of energy-minimization multiscale (EMMS) theory for full-loop hydrodynamic modeling of complex gassolid reactors, Chem. Eng. J. 278 (2015) 492503.
[30] N. Yang, W. Wang, W. Ge, J. Li, CFD simulation of concurrent-up gassolid ow in
circulating uidized beds with structure-dependent drag coefcient, Chem. Eng. J.
96 (2003) 7180.
[31] A.R. Coughtrie, D.J. Borman, P.A. Sleigh, Effects of turbulence modelling on prediction of ow characteristics in a bench-scale anaerobic gas-lift digester, Bioresour.
Technol. 138 (2013) 297306.