CHINA PARTICUOLOGY Vol. 1, No.
1, 38-41, 2003
Shorter Communication
CHOOSING STRUCTURE-DEPENDENT DRAG COEFFICIENT IN
MODELING GAS-SOLID TWO-PHASE FLOW
Ning Yang*, Wei Wang, Wei Ge and Jinghai Li
Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, P. R. China
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: 0086-10-62659525, E-mail: nyang@home.ipe.ac.cn
Introduction
Gas-solid two-phase flow is often encountered in
chemical reactors for the process industry. For industrial
users, design, scale-up, control and optimization for these
reactors require a good understanding of the
hydrodynamics of gas-solid two-phase flow. For
researchers, exploration and prediction of the complex
phenomena call for a good comprehension of the
heterogeneous structure and of the dominant mechanisms
of gas-solid and solid-solid interactions.
Thanks to the quick development of computer hardware
and the mature CFD technique in single-phase flow, much
attention has in recent years been paid to the computer
simulation of gas-solid two-phase flow by employing
different kinds of physical models such as the two-fluid
model (Gidaspow, 1994; Kuipers et al., 1992) and the
discrete particle model (Tsuji et al., 1993; Hoomans et al.,
1996; Xu & Yu, 1997). Although these models can predict
certain phenomena such as bubble and slug formation,
core-annulus structure, etc., more and more researchers
have recognized that, unlike the simulation of single-phase
flow, the complex nature of gas-solid systems featuring
heterogeneous flow structures on different scales has
posed great challenges to these physical models. For
example, it has been found that the choice of appropriate
correlations for the drag coefficient is of crucial importance
for the simulation of two-fluid model (Li et al., 1993; OBrien
& Syamlal, 1993; Qi et al., 2000).
In the two-fluid model, the drag coefficient for a control
volume is often calculated from the Wen & Yus correlation
and Ergun equation by many researchers. These
correlations were originally derived from the experimental
results of homogeneous systems such as liquid-solid
fluidized bed or fixed bed, therefore evidently losing sight
of the heterogeneous structure inside the control volume.
The clustering nature of the gas-solid system, as
evidenced by the tendency of particles to aggregate while
interacting with gas, has been well corroborated in
experiments even at a scale as small as a control volume.
Clustering has been utilized to explain the large gas-solid
slip velocity in circulating fluidized beds by many
researchers. As a result, the validity of Wen & Yus
correlation and Ergun equation for heterogeneous
gas-solid systems is questionable.
The energy minimization multi-scale (EMMS) model (Li
& Kwauk, 1994; Li et al., 1999) has been proved to be
capable of describing the heterogeneous structure by the
so-called multi-scale resolution and energy minimization
method. In our previous work (Yang et al., 2003), this model
was modified to investigate the variation of structure
parameters with solid volume fraction, showing the
tendency for particles to aggregate to form clusters and for
fluid to pass around clusters. In this study, the structure
parameters are first obtained from the modified EMMS
model, and then used to calculate the drag coefficient for a
control volume, which is further incorporated into the
two-fluid model. Finally, comparisons of the simulation
results between this new approach and the Wen &
Yu/Ergun Equations are carried out to demonstrate its
effectiveness.
Calculation of Drag Coefficient from the
EMMS Approach
According to the EMMS approach, gas and particles are
considered to be either in the dense phase or in the dilute
phase, and the mechanism of gas-solid interaction should
be analyzed for different scales, viz. the interaction
between a single particle and the nearby fluid inside both
the dense and dilute phases (micro-scale), and the
interaction between clusters and the surrounding dilute
broth (meso-scale). Eight phase-specific parameters are
proposed to describe the flow structure and the
mechanism of gas-solid interaction, i.e. f, Uf and Upf for the
dilute phase, and c, Uc, Upc, f, and dcl for the dense phase.
The mathematical model can be formulated in the
following.
Momentum equation for particles in the dense phase
3 f (1 c ) 3 f
CDc gU sc2 + CDi gU si2
4 dp 4 d cl
f (1 c )( p g )( g + a ) = 0 (1)
Momentum equation for particles in the dilute phase
3 1 f
C Df gU sf2 (1 f )( p g )( g + a ) = 0 (2)
4 dp
Momentum equation for all the particles
 Yang, Wang, Ge & Li: Choosing Structure-dependent Drag Coefficient 39

Us Comparison of the Simulation Results

= (1 g )( p g )( g + a ) (3)
g g
The simulation is carried out for the riser section of a
where stands for the drag coefficient for a control
volume (Type A, see Gidaspow, 1994), and Us stands for
7
the superficial slip velocity: 10

Gs g
Us = U g (4) 10
6

p (1 g ) Wen & Yu/Ergun

Pressure balance between the dense phase and the dilute 5

/ kgm-2s-1
10
phase
1 f f 1 1 c
C Df gU sf2 + CDi gU si2 CDc gU sc2 = 0 (5) 10
4
EMMS
dp 1 f d cl dp
Mass balance of gas and particles
3
10
U g = fU c + (1 f )U f (6)
U p = fU pc + (1 f )U pf (7) 2
10
Cluster diameter 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

d p (U p (1 max ) (U mf + U p mf (1 mf ))) g Voidage

d cl = (8)
N st p ( p g ) (U mf + U p mf (1 mf )) g Fig. 1 Comparison of drag coefficient for a control volume.
Overall voidage (FCC/Air:g=930 kgm-3, dp=54m, Ug=1.52 ms-1, Gs=14.3 kgm-2s-1)
g = c f + f (1 f ) (9) circulating fluidized bed. In the simulation, only the
Stability condition superficial gas velocity is specified for the inlet at the
Nst [Ug (1 g ) fUf ( f g )(1 f )] bottom of the bed. Just as the measurement for solid flow
= = min. (10)
NT Ug (1 g ) rate in experiments, the solid flow rate at the outlet is
where checked dynamically, and then fed back to the inlet by
f f forcing the solid flow rate at inlet to change into that of
N st = [U g f (1 f )U f ]( g + a ) p (11) outlet. The two-fluid model includes the mass and
1 p
momentum conservation equations for gas and solid
p f
NT = U g ( g + a) (12) phase coupled with an empirical correlation for solid stress,
p
and with the EMMS approach or the Wen & Yu/Ergun
The relevant parameters are summarized in correlations for the drag coefficient.
Nomenclature. Compared with the original model of Li and
Kwauk in which drag force is balanced with gravity, the
present modification takes the acceleration term (a) into
consideration. There are ten variables (Uf, Upf, Uc, Upc, c, f,
f, dcl,, a) and eight equations, i.e. Eqs. (1)-(3) and (5)-(9)
in the model, which calls for evoking the stability condition
(Eq. (10)) to close the equations, that is, the minimization
of the portion, Nst with respect to the total energy NT. With
the specified operating conditions (Ug, Gs), the overall
voidage, and material properties, the eight structure
parameters (Uf, Upf, Uc, Upc, c, f, f, dcl), the drag coefficient
for a control volume () and the acceleration term (a) can
be obtained by solving these equations. It can be observed
that the drag coefficient is related to the structure
parameters by the non-linear equations, although it cannot
Fig. 2 Comparison of outlet solid flux.
be represented explicitly from structure parameters. Fig. 1
illustrates the comparison of the drag coefficients, Fig. 2 illustrates a comparison of the dynamic change of
indicating that the drag coefficients calculated from the outlet solid flux. Fig. 3 demonstrates a comparison of the
EMMS approach are much lower than that from the Wen & voidage distribution at 20 s. Both figures show that, for the
Yu/Ergun equations. This prediction of such reduction for Wen & Yu/Ergun correlations, the outlet solid flux (78.2
drag coefficient is in agreement with the conclusions from -2 -1
kgm s ) greatly exceeds the measurement value of
experimental results such as those of Gunn and Malik -2 -1
experiments (14.3 kgm s ); the solid concentration of the
(1967), and Mueller and Reh (1993). whole bed is quite dilute, and the overall flow structure
40 CHINA PARTICUOLOGY Vol. 1, No. 1, 2003

seems rather homogeneous, apparently due to the Nomenclature

over-prediction of the drag coefficient. While for the EMMS -2
a acceleration of particles, ms
approach, the outlet solid flux approximates to the
CDc drag coefficient of a particle in dense phase
experimental value, and the gas-solid system exhibits a
CDf drag coefficient of a particle in dilute phase
more heterogeneous structure, with particle clusters CDi drag coefficient of a cluster in inter- phase
forming and dissolving dynamically. It is interesting to dcl cluster diameter, m
observe that, with its effect on drag coefficient considered, dp particle diameter, m
the cluster behavior at meso-scale can be predicted, which D bed diameter, m
demonstrates that the reduction of drag coefficient is f volume fraction of dense phase
-2 -1
definitely an important factor for the origin of clusters. The Gs solid flow rate, kgm s
-2
simulation results reveal the importance of drag coefficient g gravity acceleration, ms
and the adaptability of the EMMS approach in describing H bed height, m
Nst mass specific energy consumption for suspending and
heterogeneous structure and calculating the drag -1
transporting particles, Wkg
coefficient. Recently, an attempt has also been made to
NT mass specific total energy consumption for particles,
improve the drag correlation by using the EMMS approach Wkg
-1

by Xiao (2002). Uc superficial fluid velocity in dense phase, ms

-1

-1
Uf superficial fluid velocity in dilute phase, ms
-1
Ug superficial fluid velocity, ms
-1
Umf superficial fluid velocity at minimum fluidization, ms
-1
Up superficial particle velocity, ms
-1
Upc superficial particle velocity in dense phase, ms
-1
Upf superficial particle velocity in dilute phase, ms
-1
Us superficial slip velocity, ms
-1
Usc superficial slip velocity in dense phase, ms
-1
Usf superficial slip velocity in dilute phase, ms
-1
Usi superficial slip velocity in inter- phase, ms
-3 -1
drag coefficient for a control volume, kgm s
0 standard drag coefficient for a control volume,
-3 -1
kgm s
g voidage
c voidage of dense phase
f voidage of dilute phase
max maximum voidage for particle aggregating (0.9997)
mf voidage at minimum fluidization
-3
g fluid density, kgm
-3
p solid density, kgm
Wen & Yu/Ergun EMMS t time step for transient simulation, s
x size of a control volume in horizontal direction, m
Fig. 3 Comparison of voidage distribution at 20 s. y size of a control volume in vertical direction, m
(FCC/Air: g =930 kgm-3, dp=54 m, Ug=1.52 ms-1, H=10.5 m,
D=0.09 m, x=2.2510-3 m, y= 3.510-2 m, t=5.010-4s)
Subscripts
g gas phase
p solid phase
Conclusions
The drag coefficient is of crucial importance for the References
simulation of two-fluid model. Owing to the strong influence
Gidaspow, D. (1994). Multiphase Flow and Fluidization:
of heterogeneous structure on the drag coefficient, the
Continuum and Kinetic Theory Description. Boston: Academic
Wen & Yu/Ergun correlations originally derived from Press.
homogeneous system is inadequate for gas-solid system. Gunn, D. J. & Malik, A. A. (1967). The structure of fluidized beds in
A new approach based on the modified particulate fluidization. In Dringkenburg, A. A. (Ed.),
energy-minimization multi-scale (EMMS) model has been Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fluidization
developed to investigate the relationship between drag (p.52). Eindhoven: Netherlands University Press.
coefficient and structure parameters. After incorporated Hoomans, B. P. B., Kuipers, J. A. M., Briels, W. J. & van Swaaij, W.
into the two-fluid model and compared with the Wen & P. M. (1996). Discrete particle simulation of bubbles and slug
formation in a two-dimensional gas-fluidized bed: a hard-sphere
Yu/Ergun drag correlations, this approach shows its great
approach. Chem. Eng. Sci., 51(1), 99-108.
effects on improving the simulation results and the Kuipers, J. A. M., van Duin, K. J., van Beckum, F. P. H. & van
prospect as the closure law for drag coefficient. Swaaij, W. P. M. (1992). A numerical model of gas-fluidized
 Yang, Wang, Ge & Li: Choosing Structure-dependent Drag Coefficient
beds. Chem. Eng. Sci., 47(8), 1913-1924.
Li, J. H., Chen, A. H., Yan, Z. L., Xu, G. W., & Zhang, X. (1993).
Particlefluid contacting in circulating fluidized beds, In Avidan,
A. A. (Ed.), Preprint volume for CFB-IV (p. 53). New York
AIChE.
Li, J. H., Cheng, C. L., Zhang, Z. D., Yuan, J., Nemet, A. & Fett, F.
N. (1999). The EMMS modelits application, development and
updated concepts. Chem. Eng. Sci., 54(22), 5409-5425.
Li, J. H. & Kwauk, M. (1994). Particle-Fluid Two-Phase Flowthe
Energy-Minimization Multi-Scale Model. Beijing: Metallurgy
Industry Press.
Mueller, P. & Reh, L. (1993). Particle drag and pressure drop in
accelerated gas-solid flow. In Avidan, A. A. (Ed.), Preprint
volume for CFB-IV (p.193). New York: AIChE.
OBrien, T. J. & Syamlal M. (1993). Particle cluster effects in the
numerical simulation of a circulating fluidized bed. In Avidan, A.
A. (Ed.), Preprint volume for CFB-IV (p.430). New York: AIChE.
Qi, H. Y., You, C. F., Boemer, A. & Renz, U. (2000). Eulerian
simulation of gas-solid two-phase flow in a CFB-riser under
consideration of cluster effects. In Xu, D. & Mori, S. (Eds.),
41
Fluidization 2000Science and Technology (p.231). XianXian
Publishing House.
Tsuji, Y., Kawaguchi, T. & Tanaka, T. (1993). Discrete particle
simulation of two-dimensional fluidized bed. Powder Technol.,
77, 79-87.
Xiao, H. T. (2002). Theoretical and Numerical Investigation on
Gas-solid Drag Model within Eulerian Scope. Master thesis,
Tsinghua University. (in Chinese)
Xu, B. H. & Yu, A. B. (1997). Numerical simulation of the gas-solid
flow in a fluidized bed by combining discrete particle method
with computational fluid dynamics. Chem. Eng. Sci., 52(16),
2785-2809.
Yang, N., Wang, W., Ge, W. & Li, J. H. (2003). Analysis of flow
structure and calculation of drag coefficient for concurrent-up
gas-solid flow. Chinese. J. Chem. Eng., 11(1), 79-84.
Manuscript received March 19, 2003 and accepted March 28, 2003