Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 146

Muthanna H.

AL-Dahhan
Chairman & Professor of Chemical & Biochemical
Engineering
Professor of Nuclear Engineering

Departments of Chemical & Biochemical Engineering
and Mining & Nuclear Engineering

Missouri S&T
Benchmarking Multiphase CFD Results
via
Sophisticated Experimental Measurement
Techniques & Methodologies
MISSOURI
S&T
University of
Science & Technology
Trends in Physical and
Numerical Modeling for
Industrial Multiphase
Flows
Cargese, Corsica,
France
September 24-28, 2012
Petroleum Refining
And Petrochemical
Processing
Polymerization,
Polymer
Processing
Wastes Treatment,
Environmental
Remediation, Benign
Processes
Syn gas, Natural &
Biogas Conversion
Bulk
Chemicals
Fine Chemicals,
Pharmaceuticals,
Materials
Biomass
Conversion
Energy, Biomass,
Coal, Gas, Oil, Solar,
Nuclear, Fuel Cells
Green & Sustainable Processes Multiphase Reactors & Flow systems
Bio-processes,
Biotechnology
BUBBLE COLUMN (GAS-LIQUID INTERACTION)
SLURRY BUBBLE COLUMN (GAS-LIQUID-FINE
SOLIDS INTERACTION)
GAS-SOLID FLUIDIZATION & CIRCULATING
FLUIDIZATION (GAS-SOLIDS INTERACTION)
LIQUID-SOLID RISER AND FLUIDIZATION
(LIQUID-SOLIDS INTERACTION)
EBULLATED BED (GAS-LIQUID-CATALYST
SOLIDS INTERACTION)
PACKED BEDS AND STRUCTURED
PACKING/MONOLITH BEDS (GAS-SOLIDS,
LIQUID-SOLIDS AND GAS-LIQUID-SOLIDS
INTERACTIONS)
STIRRED TANKS (GAS-LIQUID, LIQUID-SOLIDS
AND GAS-LIQUID-SOLIDS INTERACTIONS)
AIRLIFT COLUMNS (GAS-LIQUID AND GAS-
LIUQID-SOLIDS INTERACTIONS)
BIOREACTORS, DIGESTERS
ETC.

Bio-refinery and its
integration
Development & Implementation of Advanced Techniques and
Facilities
MRPT, RPT, DSCT, CT, NGD, ECT, Optical Probes, Mass Transfer, Heat
Transfer, Gas Dynamics & RTD, Particle/liquid RTD, Conductivity probes,
multiphase flow facilities, High pressure and temperature multiphase flow
facilities, Kinetics measurement facilities, Mini-Micro reactors, On line
measurements, Analytical equipment, etc.
CFD & Multi-Scale Modeling & Quantification of
Kinetic-transport Interactions
Mechanistic Reactor Scale Models, Apparent and
Intrinsic Kinetic Models, ANN, CFD and Closures
Evaluation and Development, Integration of
Mechanistic models and CFD, optimization, etc.

Multiphase Flows and Catalytic Processes R&D for Sustainable and Clean
Energy, fuels, products and Environment
Multiphase
Flows and
Catalytic
Processes
Advancing Industrial Multiphase and Multiscale Processes (AIMMP)- Consortium!
Benchmarking CFD & Models
Novelty, Knowledge Advancement & Multidisciplinary Team work
Nuclear Energy Thermal-Hydraulic
Development & Implementation of Advanced Techniques and
Facilities
MRPT, RPT, DSCT, CT, NGD, ECT, Optical Probes, Mass Transfer, Heat
Transfer, Gas Dynamics & RTD, Particle/liquid RTD, Conductivity probes,
multiphase flow facilities, High pressure and temperature multiphase flow
facilities, Kinetics measurement facilities, Mini-Micro reactors, On line
measurements, Analytical equipment, etc.
Multi-Scale Modeling & Quantification of
transports and Kinetic Interactions
Mechanistic Reactor Scale Models, Apparent and
Intrinsic Kinetic Models, ANN, CFD and Closures
Evaluation and Development, Integration of
Mechanistic models and CFD, optimization, etc.

Multiphase Flows and Catalytic Processes R&D for Sustainable and Clean
Energy, fuels, products and Environment
Advancing Industrial Multiphase and Multiscale Processes (AIMMP) Consortium!
Novelty, Knowledge Advancement & Multidisciplinary Team Work
Benchmarking CFD & Models
4
th
Generation Nuclear Energy
Pebble beds
Prismatic Beds
TRISO Nuclear Fuels
Other Nuclear Reactor Cores
3
th
Generation Nuclear Energy - LWR
PWR
LWR
SMR
4
th
Generation Nuclear Energy
Solids Dynamics
Gas dispersion
Bed Structure
Heat Transfer
Earthquake and upset conditions
3
th
Generation Nuclear Energy - LWR
3D/2D Liquid Flow Field and Turbulence
Bubble Dynamics
Bed (Bubble/Gas I Liquid) Structure
3D/2D Phase Distribution
Heat Transfer
Interaction of bubbles and Heat Transfer
Earthquake and upset conditions
Fuel rods vibration induced flow
Petroleum, petrochemical and chemical processes
Catalytic Fischer-Tropsch (FT) slurry bubble columns via advanced
measurement techniques for renewable energy and chemicals
production
Cleaner coal utilization for energy and chemical production
Microalgae growth in multiphase photo-bioreactors and harvesting for
bioenergy production and power plant flue gas treatment
Anaerobic digestion of animal and farm wastes for bio-energy
production and wastes treatment
New biocatalytic process technology for energy efficient bio-ethanol
production and driers emissions reduction via enzymatic water
removal
Biomass and non-conventional feedstock gasification
Water and waste water treatment
4
th
generation nuclear energy, Light Water Reactor Sustainability and
Small Modular Reactors

Studies of Various Processes for
Energy and Environment Sustainability
Through
Development of Advanced Non-Invasive and Sophisticated
Experimental and Computing Techniques & Facilities
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes have been increasingly used to
simulate, design and scale up various processes. Such increased use has been
witnessed in conventional and non-conventional industry including nuclear industry
to predict their steady state and transient flows and transports for design
calculation, performance evaluation and safety assessment and analyses

Most (if not all) of the used models and closures needed for the CFD to simulate
these systems have not been based on physics or first principles.

NRCs CFD Best Practice Guidelines in Nuclear Reactor Safety applications:

Verification- To test if the code solves the equations accurately

Validation- To test if the models used in the code accurately represents reality
(CFD grade validation data)

Calibration -To test the ability of code to predict global quantities of interest
Challenges of CFD Implementation
Global quantities such as pressure drop, temperature difference, Bulk temperature
can be measured easily using simple experimental techniques But they are not
sufficient for validation of models used in CFD
Therefore, validation and calibration of CFD models and closures against
trustworthy benchmark detailed 3D data as a function of time are essential. This is
a challenging task
Accordingly advanced measurement techniques are needed to provide these
detailed 3D hydrodynamics and thermal data (i.e., CFD grade validation data)
Furthermore, design and development of scaled down experimental multi-phase
flows facilities mimicking actual phenomena and implementation of advanced flow
visualization techniques around it are required
These essential needs force close collaboration between multidisciplinary
computing groups and experimentalists
In our laboratory such needed measurement techniques and facilities have been
developed, verified and implement to provide benchmark data for modeling,
simulating and optimizing various complex multiphase flow systems. They consist
of integral and separate effects test facilities & sophisticated techniques
radioisotopes and non-radioisotopes based techniques
Challenges of CFD Implementation
CFD Conservation Equations
Continuity:
Momentum:
Where:
Constraint:

=
=
2
1
1
o
o
r
r
o
: phase holdup distribution

o, eff
: effective viscosity

o
: molecular viscosity

t,o
: turbulence eddy viscosity
M
o
: Interface momentum transport
( ) ( ) 0 = V +
c
c
o
o o o o
U r r
t
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) o o o
o o o o o o
o o
o o
o
o o
M U U r g r p r U U r U r
t
T
eff
+ V + V V + + V = V +
c
c
) (
,
Time variance
term
Convection
term
Pressure
Gradient
term
Body force
term
Reynolds Stress force
term
Interfacial
momentum
transfer term

= =
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ +
+ +
= =
o |
o|
o| o| o|
o |
o| o
... ) Force n Dispersio Turbulence (
) Force Mass Virtual ( ) Lift Force ( ) Force Drag (
TD
VM L D
M
M M M
M M
Energy:
What Are the Issues of CFD?
Turbulence Models
k equation:
Turbulence model: standard k-c model
modified for two phase flow (Reynolds
shear stress model was also tested)
c equation:
( ) ( ) ) ( ) ) ( (
,
o o o o o
o
o o o
o
o o o o o
c
o

V + V = V +
c
c
P r k r k U r k r
t
k
T s
( ) ( ) ) ( ) ) ( (
2 1
,
o o c o c
o
o
o o
c
o
o o o
o
o o o o o
c
c
c
o

c c C P C
k
r r U r r
t
T s
+ V + V = V +
c
c

o
o o
V - V + V - V = g U U U P
t
T s
T
T s
Pr
) (
,
,
Where:
| | 6 . 0
,
o |
| o o
U U d r
b
T b
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
o
o
o o
c

2
,
k
C
T s
o

o
o
|
|
T
T
=
T
eff o o o
+ =
, +
Gas Phase:
Liquid Phase:
Shear induced turbulence
Bubble induced turbulence
(Sato and Sekaguchi, 1975)
Geometry and Grid (Example)
3D simulations
Draft Tube (having
been cut out from
the domain)
Rectangular instead
of real ring sparger
(4cm4cm)
Top: Degassing BC (for steady state simulations)
Constant Pressure (for transient simulations)
Fine griding: 271,360 elements with a
mesh size of 2.5 mm in the reactor
center
Coarse griding: 48,132 elements with a
mesh size of 5mm in the reactor center
Mesh in the radial and axial directions
Vitruvius says that small models are of no avail for
ascertaining the effects of large ones; and I here
propose that this conclusion is a false one
Leonardo da Vinci
Vitruvian Man of Leonardo da Vinci (1513) representing the standard of human
physical beauty.
Ahmed Youssif, 2009
Is it the case for multiphase flow
systems?
High Bay Laboratories Missouri S&T
Radioisotopes Labs
Non Radioisotopes Labs
Selected Non-Invasive and Sophisticated
Techniques
Dual Energy-Dual Source Computed Tomography
(DE-DSCT)
Determination of cross-sectional phase distribution
Radioactive Particle Tracking (RPT)
3-D Flow field visualization
Gamma Ray Densitometry (GRD)
Determination of line averaged phase distribution &
flow regime identification
Advanced Liquid/Gas Tracer Technique
Quantification of Liquid/Gas phase dispersion and
extent of mixing
Optical Probe
Determination of solids hold-up and
velocity
Fast response Heat-Transfer Probe
Measurement of local heat transfer
coefficient
Four point fiber optical probe
Characterization of Bubble dynamics
Pressure Transducer
Pressure measurements
Mass Transfer Probe
Measurement of local mass transfer
coefficient
Radioisotopes Lab 1
Radioisotopes Lab 2
Radioisotopes Based
Techniques
Radioactive Particles
Preparation
Selected Separate Effects Experimental
Facilities & Computing Capabilities
Continuous Pebbles Recirculation
experimental set-up
Packed Bed experimental set-up
Spouted beds
Fluidized bed reactor
Bubble Column with internals
Monolith (micro-reactors)
High Capacity Industrial Scale
Compressor
CFD & DEM codes
Pilot scale industrial bubble
column
High temperature and pressure
pilot plant
Separate effects 2D bubble
column
Industrial pilot plant internals in
bubble/slurry bubble column
Experimental and Computational Capabilities at Missouri S&T
Radioactive Particle Tracking (RPT) techniques and related calibration devices
Computed Tomography (CT)
Nuclear Gauge Densitometry (NGD)
Advanced gas/liquid tracer techniques and overall mass transfer coefficient
measurement
Gas-solid optical probes for solids dynamics
4-Point optical probes for bubble dynamics
Heat transfer coefficient probes (gas-liquid, gas-solid, gas-liquid-solids)
Mass transfer coefficient optical probes integrated with 4-point optical probe for
bubble dynamics
Array of single point and two points optical probes for bubble and liquid dynamics in
structured bed and flow regime identification
Array of two points optical probes for liquid velocity measurement and flow regime
identification in two phase flow packed beds
16 points conductivity mesh for liquid velocity distribution measurements in two
phase flow packed beds
Pressure transducers
Computing and modeling: CFD and EDEM codes; Chaotic and statistical signals
processing; artificial neural network; Reactor scale modeling by integrating kinetics
and transport
Missouri S&T Nuclear Test Reactor
In Addition to: X-Ray tomography, radiography and velocity measurements; High
speed video Camera; PIV

CT Technique
Measurement of time-
averaged cross-sectional
phase holdup (volume fraction)
distribution
Estimation-Maximization (EM)
and Alternating Minimization
algorithm used for image
reconstruction
Computed Tomography (CT)
Seeing through the reactor
for phase distributions
Radiation
Source
Draft tube
column
0
29.0
cm
59.7 cm
3.5
8.4
cm
19.0
cm
30.5 cm
Lead Shielded
Cs-137 Source
Source
Collimator
Detector
Collimator
Lead Plugs with
Aperture
NaI(Tl) Detector
Detector
Collimator
3-D schematic of CT
1
st
Gamma Ray source
2
nd
Gamma Ray source
Three phase system
(GLS)
Detectors
] [ ln l
I
I
A
o
=
(

=
ij l l ij l
ij g g ij g
L A
L A
] [
] [
,
,


=
=
) 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) (
, , ,
o
s ij g
o
s ij s ij s g
c c + =

ij g ij k ij K
A A R
, , ,
=
) (
,
) (
,
,
,
) (
,
) (
,
,
) 1 (
I
ij L
I
ij s l g
ij s
o
s
ij s
I
ij L
I
ij s g
ij g
R
R
R
R

+ = c
c
c
c
) (
,
) (
,
,
,
) (
,
) (
,
,
) 1 (
II
ij L
II
ij s l g
ij s
o
s
ij s
II
ij L
II
ij s g
ij g
R
R
R
R

+ = c
c
c
c
|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|


o
s
II
ij l
I
ij l II
ij S G
o
s
I
ij S G
II
ij l
I
ij l II
ij S L G
I
ij S L G
ij s
R
R
R
R
R
R
R R
c c
c
) (
,
) (
, ) (
,
) (
,
) (
,
) (
, ) (
,
) (
,
,
ij ij s s s ij s ij g ij l ij g ij g s l g
L A A A ] [ ) 1 (
, , , , , ,
c c c c + + =

Equation for a three
phase system
Dual Source CT [Combining two single source -ray Tomography]
Varma and Al-Dahhan,
(2005)
Development of DSCT technique

Locations for the
Source Collimator
devices of
137
Cs and
60
Co sealed source

Detector Array
Plate
The Detector
Array Lead
Shield with
Detector Lead
Collimators
inserted

Base
Plate

Circular Source
Plate
Photograph of the DSCT Setup

Locations for the Source
Collimator devices of
137
Cs and
60
Co sealed
source

Detector Array
Plate
The Detector Array
Lead Shield with
Detector Lead
Collimators inserted

Base Plate

Circular Source
Plate
The Detector Array
Lead Shield with
Detector Lead
Collimators inserted
The Detector Array
Lead Shield with
Detector Lead
Collimators inserted
The Detector Array
Lead Shield with
Detector Lead
Collimators inserted
The Detector Array
Lead Shield with
Detector Lead
Collimators inserted
Detector Plate
motors
GLS Phantom
Data Processing of Radiation
Intensity Received by N
Detectors from a Single
Radioactive Sc-46 Particle

Intensity I for N detectors
(Photon counts)
Calibration curves I
vs. D (distance)

Distance D from Particle to N
detectors
Weighted least
square regression
Particle Position Px,y,z (t)
Filtering noise due to
statistical fluctuation
of rays using
Wavelet Analysis
Filtered Particle position
Px,y,z(t), cells movement


Instantaneous Lagrangian
Velocities


Time Averaged velocities &
Turbulence Parameters
RPT Technique
Radioactive Scandium
(Sc 46, 250 Ci, emitting rays)
- embedded in 0.8~2.3 mm plolypropylene particle
(neutrally buoyant with liquid)
- 100~150 m for solids in a slurry bubble column




NaI detectors held by Al
supporter (not shown)

Power supply
Connect to data
acquisition
Active surface of detector
Distributor

Gas inlet
Example of Bubble column

Radioactive Particle Tracking (RPT) Simulating
the cells/liquid elements movement by a
radioactive particle
RPT on Pebble bed
3-D schematic of RPT
R1
R
2

Sc
Parylene N
Sc
46
particle coated with
parylene-N, tracking
solids
Sc
46
particle in
polypropylene ball,
tracking liquid
Particle (Cell) Tracking
RPT vs. CFD
Developed at
Washington
University by H. Lou
Multiple RPT (MRPT) Vesvikar (2006)
Modified reconstruction algorithm for dual-particle tracking
Gamma peaks of Sc-46 and
Co-60 individually, together
and summation of individual
counts
Low L/D Bubble-Slurry Bubble Column
Setup &Detectors arrangement
Liquid/Solids phase mixing
Novel virtual tracer response method (RTD) using RPT
Liquid response curves, fitted with ADM
-Virtual response curves
-Injected tracer is almost
ideally distributed in time and
space
-Small axial variation of fitted
D
l
values in fully developed
zone
-Injection and sampling can
be designed anyway within
the CARPT experiment zone.
Particle counting process
z=2D
z=4D
z=6D
z=8D
t
count
0
z=8D
t
count
0
z=6D
t
count
0
z=4D
Virtual tracer method application
Mechanistic, compartmental model for liquid phase
Recirculation and Cross Flow with Dispersion (RCFD) model
(Degaleesan et al., 1996 and 1997; Gupta et al., 2001 and 2002)
0 R
rg
rl
Gas
Velocity
Profile Liquid
Velocity
Profile
Liquid and Gas axial
velocity radial profile
R
L downwards
G downwards
L upwards
G upwards
L downwards
G upwards
Parameter to be fitted: D
x,u
, D
x,d
, D
r
u d
b
a
ul,u
Dx,u
ul,d
Dx,d
l,u Cl,u
l,d
Cl,d
Liquid
Recirculation
Dr
l,b Cl,b
l,a Cl,a
b=hb/dc
a=ha/dc
r'
2
l,u l,u l,u
r l r r '
x,u l,u l,u l,d
2
l,u
C C C
4(D )
D u (C C )
t z r ' R z
=
c c c
c
=
c c c c
2
l,d l,d l,d
r l r r '
x,d l,d l,u l,d
2 2 2
l,d
C C C
(D ) 4r '/ R
D u (C C )
t z z R r '
=
c c c
c
= + +
c c c c
Example equations:

CT has been successfully
implemented to identify regime
transition in bubble columns
(Shaikh and Al-Dahhan, 2005)
NGD is available commercially
for liquid/slurry level measurement
and control in industry
Based on this, it has been
proposed to develop Nuclear
Gauge Densitometry (NGD)
to identify flow regime
transition
Successful implementation of regime
transition methodology can benefit online
flow regime monitoring on industrial scale
Multiorifice
Sparger Plate
35 cm
35 cm
0.625
35 cm
3.61
" Nozzle
Detector
Experimental Set-up
Air-water system, D = 10 cm, P = 0.1 MPa
A Novel On-line Technique Using NGD
for Pinpointing Flow pattern (regime) in
Industrial Multiphase Flow Systems
Gamma Ray Densitometry
Radial profile of phases, reduced tomography, flow
pattern identification and flow regime, on-line
diagnostic
4
th
Generation Nuclear Energy
Pebble bed modular reactor
Pebbles continuous
recirculation
LEU TRISO (Pressure
containment) fuel (8-10% U-
235 by wt.)
Inert helium coolant
High burn-up possible
Inherently safe large
thermal inertia due to
graphite
Modular design
Elimination of conventional
upper temperature limits- high
thermal efficiency (~45%)

29
Pebble Bed / Moving Bed / Online Catalyst Replacement
Pebble Bed Reactor Prototype -Cold
Flow Operation Video
The Role of Bed Structure - Porosity
Distribution and Its Radial Profile
Local flow and transport properties of gas flowing through
voids - closely coupled with structural characteristics of a
packed bed

Radial distribution of particle centers - Input of bed structure to
CFD analysis of packed beds to simulate realistic packed beds

Radial and axial porosity profiles and associated solid phase
distributions are needed as input to hydrodynamic and thermal
models of packed beds


Validation of EDEMs Packing Algorithm
This is essential as first step in DEM based analysis is to
pack properly the particles inside confined geometry
Packing algorithms available with commercial codes such
as EDEM are used as a Black-Box and are without any
detailed validation exercise
In most cases, average porosity values are used to
validate numerical packing results with available
experimental results - not sufficient
Radial porosity variation profile, along with average porosity
values, will be used as a means for this validation study
Validation of EDEMs Packing Algorithm
34
Case 1 : Experimentally determined
interaction parameters is used
Case 13: Static friction between
particles and between particles and
the wall is considered
Case 16: Static friction between the
particle and the wall is considered in
the near wall region and the static
friction between particles is
considered in the region away from
wall
Case 15: Muellers benchmark data
Case 16 simulates benchmark data results to a greater extent and suggests a possibility
of the differential role played by static friction characteristics
CT scanner machine with the pebble bed in the center
Bed Structure of Pebble
Beds
d=0.5 inch
d=2 inch
d=1 inch
Figure: Visualization of the packing structure inside
the cylindrical pebble bed showing the axial
and radial void distribution to all the 20 CT
cross-sectional slices for 1 inch pebble size
and 1 foot height and 1 foot diameter column
(a) 3D view of the analyzed bed (b) Vertical
cut section in the center of the bed.
(a)
(b)
Comparison Between CT results and
Muellers Model (2011) Prediction
(Based on Geometrical Constraints)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
V
o
i
d


f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

Radial distance (r/R)
Exp. CT
Mueller 2011
Radial void fraction profiles at level 3 (9 inch height) with D/d = 12
39
Flow patterns in bunkers
Mass Flow
Funnel Flow

Ref. EN 19914.: Actions on structures. Silos and tanks (2006)
Dead
zones
EDEM Simulation-Results
40
Stream velocity profile
Mid-plane slice as viewed from Y direction)
Stream velocity profile
Mid-plane slice as viewed from X direction)
Plug flow zone in the top portion of cylinder whereas converging
zone exists towards exit opening, No stagnant zones observed
Particles close to wall are moving slowly as compared to rest of
the particles
EDEM Simulation Set-up
Initial filling of test reactor geometry was carried out by blocking
the bottom opening with a plate
Particles are generated randomly and allowed to settle down
under gravity until static equilibrium is reached
After proper filling, the bottom plate is removed and draining of
marbles is initiated
Time step of 1.53E-05 sec, which is 59% of the critical time step ,
is used
Hertz-Mindlin contact model (with no-slip) is used
45 and 60 cone angles are simulated
41
DEM simulation for 45 cone
angle
42
t= 0 sec t= 1 sec t= 2 sec
DEM simulation for 60 cone
angle
43
t= 0 sec t= 1 sec t= 2 sec
DEM simulation for 45 cone
angle
44
t= 0 sec
t= 1 sec t= 2 sec t= 3 sec
DEM simulation for 60 cone
angle
45
t= 0 sec
t= 1 sec t= 2 sec t= 3 sec
45 cone angle Velocity profile
46
CV1
CV2
Simulation geometry
Velocity profile
Streamlines
60 cone angle Velocity profile
47
CV1
CV2
Simulation geometry
Velocity profile
Streamlines
RPT position reconstruction algorithm -
Validation
Using the semi-empirical model in eqn.
(1), finer mesh points are established
for next cross-correlation based search
(r=10mm,=15, z=5mm )
Repeating cross-correlation based
search until convergence criterion of
1
,

(0)0.005
Validation carried out by treating some
calibration points as unknown position
data
This approach has provided
reconstruction resolution of 5 mm. This
can be further reduced by iterative
search approach using finer mesh grid.
48
3-D trajectory preliminary selected
results
Plug type flow in the top portion of
cylinder whereas converging flow
exists towards exit opening
Overall RTD of tracer seeded at
the center (8hr. 44 min) less than
the one seeded at radius 2 inch
from the center (10hr 40 min)
Mass flow type behavior
(Simultaneous motion of all
particles)

49
RPT trajectory results
50
RPT results tracer positions
vs. time
51

RPT results velocity profile
52
CV1
CV2
Simulation geometry
Advanced Gaseous Tracer Technique & Experimental
Setup


FID
PC
Amp
TCD
A/D
Pump
Pebble bed unit
Measurements Tracer
injection
Sampling
location
Dispersion zones measured
(i)
C(i)
I1 S1 Top sampling/analytical zone from S1
(ii)
C(ii) I1 S2 Plenum zone + top sampling/analytical from S2
(iii) C(iii) I2 S3 Bottom sampling/analytical zone from S3
(iv)
C(iv)
I1 S3 Plenum zone + bed zone + sampling/analytical
zone from S3
Difficulties:
I. The system is non-ideal in a gas tracer
experiment.
II. Tracer input at the gas distributor is not a Dirac
delta function as injected at the inlet.
III. Measured response does not represent the actual
profile at the bed outlet.
IV. Multiple measurements are needed to
characterize each part.
Schematic diagram of the convolution method and CSTR and ADM
models fit in this work (Han, 2007)
0
/ t
T
in
inj
C
C e
C
t
= =
The plenum and distributor zone is
assumed to be a continuous stirred tank
reactor (CSTR) model:
*
( )
0
( ) ( ') ( ') '
t
in i in
C t C t t C t dt =
}
Convolution of C
in
for the regression of t
0

2
2
g
T T T
a
V
C C C
D
t z z c
c c c
=
c c c
Axial dispersion model (ADM) for gas phase
in the pebble bed:
0 0
0, V
T
g in g T z a z
C
z C V C D
z
= =
c
= =
c
, 0
T
z L
C
z L
z
=
c
= =
c
0, 0
T
t C = =
Modeling and Convolution Method


2
1
*
)) ( ) ( (
1
j ii j
n
j
in
t C t C
n
Error =

=
Average squared error

function
input
Convoluted ADM
model prediction

C
out
*
(d) ADM model prediction convoluted with the results of measurements (iii)
C
out
Plenum
CSTR
model
Sampling and
analytical zone
measured in (iii)
Bed zone
(ADM
prediction)
C
in

Regression of D
g
in ADM model
function
input
Convoluted CSTR
model prediction

C
in
*
(b) CSTR model prediction convoluted with the results of measurements (i)

C
in

Plenum
CSTR model
Sampling and analytical
zone measured in (i)
C
(iv)

Plenum
zone
Sampling and
analytical zone
Overall
measurements
Injection
(c) Response of the whole system by measurements (iv)
Bed
zone
Plenum and
distributor zone
Sampling and
analytical zone
Results of
measurements (ii)
C
(ii)

Injection
Regression of
o

in CSTR model
(a) Response by measurements (ii)
P P
;
Vt
;
d d

g P
a
V d
z
P
D
Z e
c
= = =
2
2
1
T T T
C C C
Pe Z Z u
c c c
=
c c c
Two extreme cases:
For perfectly plug flow ,dispersion number (1/Pe)=0, small amount of dispersion
For perfectly mixed flow, dispersion number (1/Pe)=,large amount of dispersion
Sample of Results
Validation of CSTR Model
Mathematical representation by
ADM
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 10 20 30 40
C
/
C
m
a
x

(
-
-
-
)

Time, t (s)
(a) Laminar flow
V
g
=0.08 m/s

o
=0.62 s
Error= 7.6E-04
C(i)
Cin
Cin*
C(ii)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 10 20 30 40
C
/
C
m
a
x

(
-
-
-
)

Time (s)
(b) Turbulent flow
V
g
=0.6 m/s

o
=0.40 s
Error= 5.7E-04
C(i)
Cin
Cin*
C(ii)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 10 20 30 40
C
/
C
m
a
x

(
-
-
-
)

Time (s)
(a) Laminar flow
V
g
=0.08 m/s
D
a
=1.91 cm
2
/s
Error=3.91E-04
C(iii)
Cout
Cout*
C(iv)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 10 20 30 40
C
/
C
m
a
x

(
-
-
-
)

Time, t (s)
(b) Turbulent flow
V
g
=0.6 m/s
D
a
=4.89 cm
2
/s
Error=1.7E-04
C(iii)
Cout
Cout*
C(iv)
Comparison with Empirical Correlations
Delgado (2006) rewrote Gunns correlation (1968)
Bischoff & Levenspiel (1962) , as given in most of the classic chemical
reaction engineering textbooks (Levenspiel, 1999; Fogler, 2005)

Wen and Fan (1975) proposed
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 440 880 1320 1760 2200
D
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n

n
u
m
b
e
r
,


(
1
/
P
e
)

Particle Reynolds number, Re
(b) This work
Bischoff & Levenspiel, 1962b
Wen and Fan, 1975
Delgado, 2006
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
0 110 220 330 440 550
D
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
v
e

P
e
c
l
e
t

n
u
m
b
e
r
,

P
e

Molecular Peclet number, ReSc
(a) This work
Bischoff & Levenspiel, 1962b
Wen and Fan, 1975
Delgado, 2006
More and slow
dispersion, poor
extent of mixing
Less and rapid dispersion, better extent of mixing
Large deviation
from idealized
plug flow model
Small deviation from idealized plug flow model
= average porosity, recommended = average tortuosity
Fast-Response Gas-Solid Heat Transfer (HT) Probe
Heat transfer probe
DC Power
PC
DAQ
Amplifier
1 3 2 5
1
2
3 4
5
1- Teflon tube 4- Heater
2- Brass shell 5- Teflon
cap
3- Fast response (0.02s) heat flux sensor
bi si
i
i
T T
A q
h

=
1
1
n
i
ave
i
si bi
q A
h
n T T
=
=

Based on the direct measurements of:


Heat flux from the probe
Surface temperature of the probe
The heat transfer coefficients calculations:
simultaneously
i
h
A q
i
/
si
T
bi
T
n
Where:
Instantaneous local heat transfer coefficient (kW/m
2
.K)
Instantaneous heat flux across the sensor (kW/m
2
)
Instantaneous surface temperature of the probe (K)
Instantaneous bulk temperature of the media (K)
Total number of data points, in this work 2,050 samples
2
3
4

1
1- Solid copper sphere 3- Heat flux sensor
2- Teflon tube 4- Cartridge heater

3
1
2
Heat Transfer Experimental Setup
Heat transfer probe
DC Power
PC
DAQ
Amplifier
Pebble bed unit
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
H
e
a
t

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

c
o
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

h

(
k
W
/
m
2
.
k
)

Superfical gas velocty, Vg(m/sec)
a
Z/D=2.5
Z/D=1.5
Z/D=0.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
H
e
a
t

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

c
o
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

h

(
k
W
/
m
2
.
k
)

Superfical gas velocty, Vg(m/sec)
b
Z/D=2.5
Z/D=1.5
Z/D=0.5
Effect of Superficial gas velocity on Heat transfer Coefficient
KTA Organization (1978)
Wakao & Kaguei (1982)
Achenbach (1995)
Effective Reynolds number (Re
h
)
Gnielinski (1978)
1
10
100
1000
10000
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
N
u
s
s
e
l
t

n
u
m
b
e
r
,

N
u
(
-
-
-
)

Reynolds number, Re (---)
Gnielinski, 1978
KTA, 1978
Wakao and Kaguei, 1982
Achenbach, 1995
Experimental work
sp
Nu f Nu
c
=
Sample of Results
1 1.5(1 ) f
c
c = +
2 2
2
sp lam turb
Nu Nu Nu = + +
( )
1 1
3 2
0.664 Re Pr
lam
Nu c =
( )
( )
( )
0.8
2
0.1
3
0.037 Re Pr
1 2.443 Re Pr 1
turb
Nu
c
c

=
+
( )
1
Re Re
1
Re
h
h
g p
Vd
V d

= =

=
There are two approaches to simulate the system:
First approach: Porous medium model using commercial CFD code
(FLUENT package)
1) Packing structure is usually described by some statistical and lumped
parameters such as porosity and tortuosity.
2) Semi-empirical correlations (Ergun equation) to predict the pressure loss
3) The characterization of flow is assumed as ideal plug-flow model
4) Cannot capture many physics and local phenomena such as local hot spots
This homogenous porous medium approach will cause larger errors for packed
pebble-bed and just simulates the system roughly
Second approach: Coupling DEM-CFD simulation using commercial EDEM-
FLUENT code.
1) High performance computing, it can considers all the particles in the packed
bed, and construct the grids of particles, therefore it becomes possible to
resolve flow in detail.
2) Discrete Element Method (DEM) is used to generate a realistic random
packing structure for the packed bed with spherical particles.
3) Importing the packing structure into the CFD preprocessor (Gambit) to
generate the mesh for the CFD simulation.
This approach is costly and time consuming
Third approach: Lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) using home code
This approach restricted to low Reynolds number of flow and isothermal conditions
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Simulations
Manufacturing TRISO Nuclear Fuel Particles for 4
th
Generation Nuclear
Energy By CV Deposition in Gas-Solid Spouted Bed Coater
CT for Spouted Bed
Gas-Solid Spouted Beds
Implementing for the first time a new advanced optical probe that can measure
simultaneously solids concentration, solids velocity and their fluctuations.








Developing a new reliable and simple methodology to calibrate the probe by correlating
the measured solids concentration with solids holdup.

Assess the dimensionless analysis based scale-up methodology and develop a new
mechanistic one that can be monitored online for hydrodynamics similarity

Implementing CFD as a tool to simulate the hydrodynamics of spouted bed
coater/reactor and validating using the new optical probe, CT, GRD and RPT
New Optical Probes 0.5*0.5mm and 0.8*0.8mm
respectively which can measure solids
concentration/holdup, solids velocity and their
fluctuations
New Optical probe techniques Manufactured by Chinese Academy of Sciences
New Optical probe techniques Manufactured by Chinese Academy of Sciences
Distance
The addition of quartz
window eliminates the
blind region, giving a
good linear response
High precision
Can be used for high
concentration systems

Traditional Optical
Probes 1
st
Generation
Optical probe with
quartz window
Blind region without window
Effect of Blind region
I t was found that (Bi et al. 2003), the blind region in
the traditional probes affected the measurements
due to creation of dead zone. But the addition of
quartz window eliminates this dead zone and
increasing the response and measuring volume
Simultaneous measure of solids velocity and concentration/holdup and their fluctuations
Solids velocity measurement:
The average passing time is obtained from the peak of the
cross-correlation function:
The effective distance, Le (distance between any two light emitting or receiving fibers from one tip to another) is
known (given by vendor Chinese Academy of Sciences)
The data is taken if the cross correlation coefficient is more than 0.7, rest is neglected (Liu et al., 2003)
Solids concentration/hold-up measurement:
The probe tips measure the number of particles
in a measuring volume in front of them. Hence the measured voltage signal is related to solids
concentration. This needs to be translated to solids holdup via calibration.
Particle to probe diameter ratio is
important
Size of probe selected should be
>=2 the particle size under study
Particle selected must have good
reflective properties (not black)
Particles should be non corrosive,
non reactive, non viscous etc.
Validation of the Optical Probe measurements for Solids Velocity
Measurements from optical probe were validated against high speed
camera for velocity measurements
Programmable pump was used to feed solids at different flow rates
Solids passed through a funnel (tube length of 2.5mm diameter) as a
string of particles
Equipment was covered with black cloth to stop any external
interference of light, when using optical probe
FASTCAM high speed camera was used to record particle velocities


Pump
Optical Probe
Velocity validation (Optical Probe V/s High
Speed Camera)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 5 10 15
Flowrate (ml/min)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
Optical Probe
High Speed Camera
Verification of the Gas-Solid Optical Probe
GRD experiments were
performed on 0.152 m
spouted bed for radial
profiles of solids holdup.
The solid phase was glass
beads of 2 mm with density
of 2500 Kg/m
3.
The gas phase was
compressed air at a
velocity of 1.06 m/s.
The measurement was
done at H/D = 1.5.
Results of both the
techniques compare well.
The deviation in the results
can be attributed to the
intrusive nature of optical
probes.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
S
o
l
i
d
s

H
o
l
d
u
p

Radial Position, r/R
GRD Technique
Optical Probe
Dual Source Computed Tomography (CT)
6 inch Spouted Bed
Column diameter: 6
inch
Height of particles in
spouted bed: 0.323m
Temperature: 298K
Pressure: 101kPa
Solids: Glass
Diameter of solids:
2mm
Density of solids:
2450Kg/m3
Velocity of gas: 1.08
m/s
H/Dc = 2.1
Dc/Di = 8
Dc/dp = 69.9
Reynolds number =
157
Match conditions specified by He et
al. (1997)
Gas holdup at Level 2
Solids holdup at Level 2
Gas holdup at Level 3
Solids holdup at Level 3
Comparing Results at level 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
S
o
l
i
d

h
o
l
d
u
p

Dimensionless radius (r/R)
Comparing solid holdup profile obtaining by optical probe and CT at L2
solid holdup L2 by CT
solid holdup L2 by optical probe
Comparing Results at level 3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
S
o
l
i
d

h
o
l
d
u
p

Dimensionless radius (r/R)
Comparing solid holdup profile obtaining by optical prob and CT at L3
solid holdup L3 by CT
solid holdup L3 by optical prob
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
75
The two fluid model (TFM) approach has
been applied to the modeling of spouted
beds to simulate the hydrodynamics in
FLUENT
In TFM, the different phases are
mathematically treated as interpenetrating
continua
CFD package Fluent V6.3.26 was used in
the simulations
Meshes were created by the CAD program
of GAMBIT 2.2.30
Two-dimensional axisymmetric model has
been assumed for the simulation studies
The Phase Coupled SIMPLE algorithm was
used for the pressure-velocity coupling
A first-order upwind differencing scheme
for momentum and volume fraction
variables was used
Very small time step (0.0001 s) with about
20 iterations per time step was used
A convergence criterion of 10
-3
for each
scaled residual component was specified for
the relative error between two successive
iterations

Spouted bed Geometry
2D Spouted Bed Mesh
Two-fluid model (TFM) approach is adopted to model the complex gassolids
flow in a spouted bed. By the TFM approach, the two-phase in spouted beds is
treated as interpenetrating continua by incorporating the concept of phase
volume fractions. The volume fractions represent the space occupied by each
phase, and the laws of mass and momentum conservation are satisfied by each
phase individually.
1. Conservation equations of mass and momentum
The volume fraction balance equation (q=g, s):
The mass conservative equation for phase q:

The momentum conservative equation
for phase q :
2. Kinetic theory of granular flow equations
The granular temperature:
The solid phase stress:
The solid pressure:
The solid bulk viscosity:
The solid shear viscosity:
Closure of the solid phase momentum equation requires a description of the
solid phase stress. The granular kinetic theory derived is applied in this study.
3. Turbulence model
Turbulence predictions for the continuous phase are obtained using the standard
k model supplemented with extra terms dealing with the interphase turbulent
momentum transfer.
Turbulence predictions of the continuous phase are obtained from the modified
k model:
4. Drag model
The drag force acting on a particle in fluidsolids systems can be represented by
the product of a momentum transfer coefficient and the slip velocity between the
two phases:

Gidaspow et al. employed the Ergun equation for dense phase calculation and the
WenYu (1966) equation for dilute phase calculation:

Models and Boundary conditions for CFD simulation
80
Granular Viscosity: Syamlal-Obrien Granular bulk viscosity: Lun et al
Frictional viscosity: Schaeffer Radial distribution: Lun et al
Solids pressure: Lun et al Drag Model: Gidaspow
The initial and boundary conditions are as follows:

The simulations start from a static bed
At the inlet, the uniform distribution is assumed for velocity
components
Gas is injected only in the axial direction, and solids velocity
is zero
At the outlet, an outflow boundary condition is given, the
velocity gradient is zero, i.e., u
x
/x = 0 and the pressure is
set at ambient atmosphere
At the wall, a no slip boundary condition is assumed




Volume fraction contours
for 2D spouted bed
81
Grid Convergence Studies
3 grid sizes were studied coarse, medium and finely meshed grids
All 3 grids gave identical spout diameters, but coarse grid giving lesser
fountain height
Voidage profiles and particles velocity profiles were very close for all 3 grids
Considering the accuracy and computational time, the medium sized grid has
been used in the current study
Spout
Annulus
Bed
surface
Fountain
The simulated particle velocity vector and solid volume fraction
Validation on CFD model
The simulated and experimental radial profiles of particle velocity and voidage
at different bed heights
Validation on CFD model
Vertical component of solid velocity in Spout
84
Experimental v/s simulated solids
velocity at different heights of spouted
bed at 60 deg conical base angle and at
1.1Ums for glass beads of 1mm
solids velocity at different conical angles
of spouted bed for 1.1 U
ms
at H = 0.02m for
glass beads of 1mm

solids velocity at different conical angles
of spouted bed for 1.2 U
ms
at H = 0.02m
for glass beads of 1mm

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
S
o
l
i
d
s

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

v

(
m
/
s
)

radial distance, r(m)
Solids velocity in spout at different sections of spouted bed
experimental v/s simulated
0.02 m
0.06 m
0.08 m
0.1 m
0.14 m
0.2 m
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
s
o
l
i
d
s

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

v

(
m
/
s
)

radial position, r(m)
vertical component of solid velocity at different conical base angles at
1.2Ums
45 degrees
30 degrees
60 degrees
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
s
o
l
i
d
s

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

v

(
m
/
s
)

radial position, r(m)
vertical component of solid velocity at different conical base angles
at 1.1 Ums
45 degrees
30 degrees
60 degrees
85
Solids Cross Flow
Since we have the vertical and horizontal components of solids velocity, the velocity vectors
were calculated and also determined from CFD.
Spout
Annulus
Fountain
The Spout is not straight (as listed in the literature) but forms a
neck at top part of the bed
Maximum solids cross flow occurs in two zones. One is near
the neck and the other is near the inlet
The same trend was noticed in all 3 conical base angles studied
Gas velocity does not affect the trend of the velocity vector, but
only the magnitude of these are greater at all positions of the
bed at higher velocities
Solids cross flow apart from the above mentioned two zones is
low and is confirmed by CFD as well

The simulated solid volume fractions and particle velocity vectors
Cases A, S1, S2, S3 and S4.
Similarity and non-similarity in local hydrodynamics
S1 S2 A S3 S4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
H=0.084 m
H=0.117 m
H=0.150 m
V
o
l
u
m
e

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
o
l
i
d
r/R
H=0.084m
H=0.117m
H=0.150m
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
H=0.084 m
H=0.117 m
H=0.150 m
S
o
l
i
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,
m
/
s
r/R
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
F
(
t
)
t
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
E
(
t
)
t t
m
=0.87 s
RTD of Gas
Gamma Ray Densitometry (GRD)
Gamma Ray Densitometry (GRD) technique has
been designed and developed to measure the line-
averaged hold-up radial/diameter profiles of phases
along the column diameter and along the height of
the bed.
Sealed source of Cs-137 (250 mCi energy) and a
NaI scintillation detector are mounted and aligned
with the source on the opposite side.
A focused beam of -radiation, coming from the
source, is transmitted through the column inventory
to the detector.
The amount of radiation reaching the detector is a
function of the line averaged density of the column
inventory.
The structure of GRD has been designed to provide
the flexibility to rotate the source/detector to have
different views of measurements and they can be
moved along the height of the column.
The designed structure allows utilizing GRD as
reduced tomography for industrial applications.


Gamma Ray Densitometry (with protective lead shielding)
applied on a 3 inch Spouted Bed column
Gamma Ray Densitometry along with the computed and data
acquisition system
The attenuation () profile of any object is
quantified by the Beer Lamberts Law as follows
I = I
o
. exp(-..l)



Measuring radial averaged density distribution by
measuring the attenuation distribution:






By processing the time series of counts received
by the detector, it is possible to identify the flow
pattern and regime of the multiphase flow
systems, channeling, bypassing, depositions,
cracks, etc.


ij ij eff
i
I
I
I
A
,
0
) ( ) ln(

= =
ij K ij K
K
ij eff , , ,
) ( ) ( c

=
ln
I
I
o
= r l = A
Principle of Gamma Ray Densitometry (GRD)
Stepper motor to help GRDs
horizontal and vertical movement
Detector lead shielding
with new NaI
scintillation detector
system
Protective box to prevent
operating personnel from
accidental gamma ray exposure
Wheels to help GRD
rotate 3600 around the
multiphase systems to
obtain different
measurement views
Cs 137 source used in GRD
technique
Photon counts from GRD
Photon counts received by NaI
scintillation detector at minimum spouting
velocity (Ums) in 0.152 m ID spouted bed
at a axial height of 0.183 m
Photon counts received by NaI
scintillation detector in stable spouting
regime in 0.152 m ID spouted bed at a
axial height of 0.183 m at 0.76 m/s
Flow Regime Identification Cont.
CFD simulations for flow regime
identification in 0.152 m ID spouted bed
for different superficial gas velocities
(a). 1.0 U
ms
; (b). 1.1 U
ms
and (c). 1.2 U
ms

(a) (b)
(c)
The transitions velocities
obtained by CFD simulation were
in agreement with experimental
results from pressure transducer
measurements and from GRD
technique.
The minimum spouting velocity
in the simulation for 0.152 m ID
spouted bed was found to be 0.72
m/s, which was the same for the
experimental results.
The transition velocity for
unstable spouting regime was
found to be 0.79 m/s.
Solids Holdup Profiles
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
S
o
l
i
d
s

h
o
l
d
-
u
p
,

s

Radial Position, r/R
Line averaged radial profile of solids hold-up using densitometry
S
o
l
i
d
s

h
o
l
d
u
p

Radial Profiles of solids holdup using CFD
Gamma ray densitometry (GRD) was
developed as a non-invasive radioactive
technique to monitor on-line the
performance of multiphase systems
(spouted bed in the present study).
GRD, custom built to provide a focused
point beam of radiation to obtain live
averaged radial profiles of solids holdup.
This was successfully demonstrated using
GRD for the conditions studied in spouted
bed.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
S
o
l
i
d
s

H
o
l
d
u
p

Radial Position, r/R
1.1
Ums
Radial Profiles of solids holdup using optical probe
Flow Regime Identification
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
M
e
a
n

Superficial gas velocity, m/s
I
II
III
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e

Superficial gas velocity, m/s
I
II
III
Mean versus superficial gas velocity
using GRD technique showing different
flow regimes for 0.152 m ID spouted bed
using 1mm glass beads with density of
2450 kg/m
3
(I = Packed bed; II = Stable
spouting regime and III = unstable
spouting regime)
Variance versus superficial gas velocity
using GRD technique showing
different flow regimes for 0.152 m ID
spouted bed using 1mm glass beads
with density of 2450 kg/m
3
(I = Packed
bed; II = Stable spouting regime and III
= unstable spouting regime)
Flow Regime Identification Cont.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
R
a
t
i
o

(
I
)

=

V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
/
M
e
a
n

Superficial gas velocity, m/s
I
II
III
Ratio (I) = Variance/Mean versus superficial gas velocity using GRD
technique showing different flow regimes for 0.152 m ID spouted bed using
1mm glass beads with density of 2450 kg/m
3
(I = Packed bed; II = Stable
spouting regime and III = unstable spouting regime)
Benchmarking CFD
Results Using The New
Optical Probes in Gas-
Solid Fluidized Bed
Reactors

97

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
Generally a CFD simulation can be subdivided
into three parts: preprocessing, simulation, post
processing
Eulerian multiphase model using FLUENT has
been used to simulate the solids and the gas
dynamics in the two sets of fluidized beds (6
inch and 18 inch) using the operating
conditions that provide match and mismatch
in hydrodynamics.
Meshes were created by the program of
GAMBIT 2.4.6
Fluent V13.0.0 was used in simulations.
Use small time steps (0.001) to capture
important flow features.
Convergence criterion of (10^-3) for each
scaled residual component was specified for
the relative error between successive
iterations



Fluidized Bed Geometry
2D Fluidized Bed Mesh
The three steps of a CFD simulation
3D Fluidized Bed Mesh
98
6 inch 18 inch
Models and Boundary conditions for
CFD simulation
Models

Granular Viscosity: Syamlal-Obrien, Gidaspow
Granular bulk viscosity: Lun et al
Frictional viscosity: Schaeffer
Granular temperature: Algebraic
Solids pressure: Lun et al
Radial distribution: Lun et al
Drag Model: Gidaspow

Boundary conditions

Assumed uniform gas distribution in the axial direction.
The pressure and temperature out let set at ambient
conditions.
Started the simulations in the begining as fixed bed( see next
slide).


Figure shows a contour plot of solids fraction of a typical result using the Syamlal-O'Brien drag model for 6 inch FB
5 Sec
0.025Sec 4sec
1.5 Sec
1Sec 0.75 Sec
0.55 Sec
0.36 Sec
100
0.02 Sec 0.62 Sec 1.02Sec 1.42Sec 2.02Sec 2.82Sec 4.42Sec
Figure shows a contour plot of solids fraction of a typical result using the Syamlal-O'Brien drag model for 18 inch FB
101
102
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Solid Holdup V/S Radial Position (Ug=0.25) 6 inch at Z/D=0.644
S
o
l
i
d

h
o
l
d
u
p

Radial Position, r/R
Optical Probe
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
S
o
l
i
s

h
o
l
d
u
p

Radial position, r/R
CFD
Solid Holdup V/S Radial Position (Ug=0.25) 6 inch at Z/D=0.644
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
S
o
l
i
d

h
o
l
d
u
p
(
-
)

Dimensionless radius (r/R)
CFD
Optical probe
Solid Holdup V/S Radial Position (Ug=0.25) 6 inch at Z/D=0.8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
S
o
l
i
d

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)

Dimensionless Radius (r/R)
CFD
Optical probe
Solid Holdup V/S Radial Position (Ug=0.25) 6 inch at Z/D=0.286
Clean Alternative Fuels, FT Synthesis, Methanol Synthesis
GTL: Gas to liquid fuels and
chemicals
Slurry
Bubble
Column
Reactor
Packed
Bed
Tubular
Reactors
2 2 2
2 2 2
2
H CO O H CO
O H CH H CO
+ +
+ +
0
298
0
298
165, 000 /
41, 000 /
H J mol
H J mol
A =
A =
Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis (FTS)
Chemistry
Co, H
2
/CO ~ 2.15 Fe, H
2
/CO ~ 1.7
Group VIII transition metal oxides
Catalyst
Low T
High T
GTL Reactors
Bubble Columns with / without Internals for Clean
Alternative Energy And Chemicals
Experimental Setup - Internals


Plexiglas column of 5.5 inch (14 cm) internal
diameter with a height of 6 ft (1.83m) is used .



air water system
Gas velocities: 5 cm/s - 45 cm/s ( homogenous and
heterogonous regimes )




Compressed and filtered air
R
o
t
a
m
e
t
e
r

Plexiglas column
Vertical internals (0.5
diameter)
1
.
8
3

m


15.24 cm
Configuration of internals
25% occluded area
Triangular pitch = 2.2 cm
(30 rods)
Perforated plate distributor
Number of holes: 121
Size of holes: 1.32 mm
Layout: triangular pitch
Total free area: 1.09%
Computed Tomography (CT)
Single source gamma ray Computed Tomography (CT) technique is part of
the dual source gamma ray computed tomography (DSCT). The CT is used
to quantitatively determine the time-averaged phase holdup distribution of
the phases in a dynamic system.

CT is equipped with Cs-137 of initial strength of 300 mCi housed in a
Source Collimator Device which is made of lead.

The electronics and data acquisition for CT consist of the detectors,
preamplifier, pulse processors and stepper motors which automate
motions involved in the CT system (Kumar, 1994)
Radioactive Particle Tracking (RPT).
28 detectors are needed and 2 detectors
on each level situated 180 degree away
from other.
The 49 locations at each calibration level are grouped at four radial
locations
Ring 0: r = 0.00 cm , single central location
Ring 1: r = 2.0 cm , 8 azimuthal locations 45.0
o
apart
Ring 2: r = 4.0 cm , 16 azimuthal locations 22.5
o
apart
Ring 3: r = 6.0 cm , 24 azimuthal locations 15.0
o
apart
z
0
= 23 cm
N
z
= 45
Dz = 2.54 cm
z
max
= 140 cm

Radioactive Particle Tracking (RPT)
A fully automatic calibration device will be used to provide highly accurate RPT
measurements. A noninvasive RPT facility will provide essential information for
determining the liquid velocity field and turbulence parameters (Reynolds
stresses, turbulent kinetic energy, and Eddy diffusivities )






RPT experiment comprises two steps:
a) RPT calibration ( a static experiment)
b) RPT experiment (a dynamic experiment.
Computed Tomography (CT) Results: without internals
CT was used to measure the time averaged cross-sectional two phases
holdup distribution .









The radial gas holdup in bubble columns
without internals was measured to benchmark
the gas holdup with internals.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
R
a
d
i
a
l

g
a
s

h
o
l
d
u
p


Dimensionless radius (r/R)
45 cm/s
30 cm/s
20 cm/s
15 cm/s
8 cm/s
5 cm/s
45 cm/s 30 cm/s
15 cm/s
20 cm/s
5 cm/s
8 cm/s
Effect of internals and superficial gas velocities based on empty column
on the radial profiles of gas holdup
-0.05
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
R
a
d
i
a
l

g
a
s

h
o
l
d
u
p


Dimensionless radius (r/R)
internals at 8 cm/s based on
empty column
no internals at 8 cm/s based
on empty column
internals at 45 cm/s based
on empty column
no internals at 45 cm/s
based on empty column
With/ without internals
25% occluded area
Triangular pitch = 2.2 cm (30 rods)
(F-T synthesis)
Effect of Internals on the Radial Profiles of Gas Holdup
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
G
a
s

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)

Dimensionless radius (r/R)
5 cm/s based on free CAS with
internals
5 cm/s based on total CSA with
internals
5 cm/s without internals
5 cm/s without internals
5 cm/s based on free CSA
At 5 cm/s, the internals have significant effect on the redial gas holdup profile
5 cm/s based on total CSA
Effect of Internals on the Radial Profiles of Gas Holdup
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
G
a
s

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)

Dimensionless radius (r/R)
8 cm/s based on total CSA with
internals
8 cm/s based on free CSA with
internals
8 cm/s without internals
Scatterplot of Gas holdup against D at 8 cm/s without internals
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
D (cm)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
G
a
s
h
o
ld
u
p
(-)
Scatterplot of Gas holdup against D at 8 cm/s based on free CSA with Plixglas internals
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
D (cm)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
G
a
s
h
o
ld
u
p
(-)
Scatterplot of gas holdup against D at 8 cm/s baed on total CSA with Plixglas internals
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
D(cm)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
G
a
s
h
o
ld
u
p
(-)
At 8 cm/s, the internals still have significant effect .
Effect of Internals on the Radial Profiles of Gas Holdup
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.5 1
G
a
s

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)

Dimensionless radius (r/R)
15 cm/s based
on total CSA
with internals
15 cm/s based
on free CSA with
internals
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.5 1
G
a
s

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)

Dimensionless radius (r/R)
20 cm/s based on
total CSA with
internals
20 cm/s based on
free CSA with
internals
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.5 1
G
a
s

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)

Dimensionless radius (r/R)
30 cm/s based
on total CSA
withinternals
30 cm/s based
on free CSA
with internals
30 cm/s without
internals
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.5 1
G
a
s

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)

Dimensionless radius (r/R)
45 cm/s based on
free CSA with
internals
45 cm/s based on
total CSA with
internals
45 cm/s without
internals
At high gas velocity ,the internals effect are diminished due to strong turbulence.

O
p
s

!
!
,


t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
s


h
a
v
e

i
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

e
f
f
e
c
t

a
t

h
i
g
h
e
r

V
g

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
r
e
e

C
S
A

Effect of Type of Internals Material on Gas Holdup Radial Profile
-0.1
6E-16
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
G
a
s

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)

Dimensionless radius (r/R)
45 cm/s based on free CSA
with steel internals
45 cm/s based on total CSA
with plexiglas internals
45 cm/s without internals
45 cm/s based on total CSA
with steel internals
45 cm/s based on free CSA
with internals
-0.1
6E-16
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
G
a
s

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)

Dimensionless radius (r/R)
8 cm/s based on free area with Plixglas internals
8 cm/s based on free area with steel internals
8 cm/s without internals

The Plexiglas internals enhance
the gas holdup due to flexibility of
the internals which give the
opportunity for bubbles to break
and change their size during the
bubbles rise

CFD Simulation of Bubble Column
Equipped with Internals
Eulerian Model
Eulerian Model is selected in my work because of limitations of the VOF and
Mixture Models.
Eulerian Eulerian (Two-Fluid) Model:
In this model, the continuous and dispersed phases are considered to be
interpenetrating continua.

The mass balance :





Where are the volume fraction, the phase density and velocity of
each phase.
}

O
= > < +V > <
c
c
ki
dS
k ki k k k k k k k k k
S d n u u
d
u
t
'
) (
1
o o
= 0 in absence of interphone
exchange
Eulerian Model
Momentum equation:







Interphase Forces:
Drag is caused by relative motion between phases





k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k
F P u u u
t
> < + > < +V > < V = > < +V > <
c
c
o t o o o o

{ } S d n P u u u
d
ki
dS
k k k ki k k
ki
'
) (
1
+
O
+
}
t
Interaction term
, 0 ) (
1
=

=
n
i
k i ik
u u K

ik
drag
k k ik
f
K
t
o =
i
k
k
ik
d

t
18
2
=
Eulerian Model



In this work, the drag force is considered and other
forces are neglected because of following:

1) Virtual mass effect is significant when the second phase density is much smaller than
the primary phase density (i.e., bubble column)
2) Lift force usually insignificant compared to drag force except when the phases
separate quickly and near boundaries


Drag models in Fluent (fluid-fluid multiphase)
Schiller and Naumann (1935)



Morsi and Alexander (1972)



Symmetric law

Eulerian Model
Fluid-fluid drag functions
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Re
Cd
Schiller and
Naumann
Schuh et al.
Morsi et Alexander
( )

>
s +
=
1000 Re 44 . 0
1000 Re Re 15 . 0 1 24
687 . 0
D
C
(Re) are , , where
Re Re
3 2 1
2
3 2
1
f a a a
a a
a C
D
+ + =
Solution and the results
The results and comparison between CT and CFD ?
Help is needed !
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
G
a
s

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)

Dimensionless radius (r/R)
CFD
CT
Similar steps are applied for bubble column without internals except number of
bubbles in population balance model
Comparison the radial gas holdup profile between CT and CFD at 20 cm/s (200s)
F-T Syngas Conversion Research conducted at
Washington University and continued at Missouri S&T
Objectives
Investigations
Models
Techniques
and methods
CARPT/CT
Phases back-
mixing
Gas-liquid mass
transfer
Mimicked FT system
Air-C9C11-FT catalyst
Velocity and
turbulent
parameters
Phase
holdup
distribution
Hydrodynamics
Gas phase
back-mixing
Liquid phase
back-mixing
Solids phase
back-mixing
kla of other
gases (CH4,
CO2, Ar)
O2 mass
transfer
coefficient
Sedimentation-
dispersion
model
Axial
dispersion
model
Mechanistic,
compartment
model
Virtual tracer
method
Optical oxygen
probe
Gaseous tracer
technique
Stirred tank
(CSTR)
System
Bubble Dynamics
Bubble sizes,
velocities, ...
4-point probe
technique
Heat transfer
h, heat
transfer
coefficient
Heat transfer
probe
Air-water-glass beads;
Air-Therminol-glass beads
Air-water/C9C11/
Therminol
Flow regime
transition
Scale-up of
BCRs
-ray densitometry
Regime
identification
Artificial neural
network (ANN)
CFD


Two-Fluid CFD of 3D Bubble Columns
Using FLUENT - P. Chen CFD work
(Under Dudukovic) Vs. A. Sheikh
experimental work (Under Al-Dahhan
(Wash. U.)
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Radius
A
x
i
a
l

L
i
q
u
i
d

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

c
m
/
s
CARPT Data
Two-Fluid
ASMM
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Radius
G
a
s

H
o
l
d
u
p
CT Data
Two-Fluid
ASMM
Multiphase k-c
Implementation of Breakup and
Coalescence Models
19 cm ID
12 cm/s
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Dimensionless Radius
T
i
m
e
-
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d

L
i
q
u
i
d

A
x
i
a
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

c
m
/
s
CARPT
Two-fluid
ASMM, DV
ASMM, SV
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Dimensionless Radius
T
i
m
e
-
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d

H
o
l
d
u
p
CT
Two-fluid
ASMM, DV
ASMM, SV
44 cm ID
Ug = 10 cm/s
Ug, cm/s 10 14 30 30 30
P, Bar 1 1 1 4 10
CREL
Heat Transfer and Bubble Dynamics
Four points fiber optical probe, (Xue 2004, Frijlink 1989)

1 3
2
5
1 2 3 4 5
1. Tube
2. Brass shell
3. Heat flux sensor
4. Heater
5. Teflon cap

Heat Transfer Probe
Heat Transfer Probe Mounted on the Internals
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
No Internals Ug = 20 cm/s
Internals Ug = 20 cm/s
No Internals Ug = 45 cm/s
Internals Ug = 45 cm/s
Dimensionless radius, r/R(-)
L
o
c
a
l

g
a
s

h
o
l
d
u
p
,

(
%
)

18 inch
Radial profiles of gas holdup
Radial Profile of specific
interfacial area
Effect of Internals
0.6
1
1.4
1.8
2.2
2.6
3
3.4
3.8
4.2
4.6
5
5.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
No Internals Ug = 20 cm/s Internals Ug = 20 cm/s
No Internals Ug = 45 cm/s Internals Ug = 45 cm/s
Dimensionless radius, r/R(-)
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

i
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
i
a
l

a
r
e
a
,

(
c
m
2
/
c
m
3
)

18 Inch
Axial Bubble Velocity
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
No Internals Ug = 8 cm/s Internals Ug = 8 cm/s
No Internals Ug = 20 cm/s Internals Ug = 20 cm/s
Dimensionless radius, r/R(-)
A
x
i
a
l

b
u
b
b
l
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

U
b
(
c
m
/
s
)

18 inch
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
No Internals
Internals
Superficial gas velocity, U
g
(cm/s)
H
e
a
t

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

h
w
(
k
W
/
m
2
.
K
)

18 inch
Heat Transfer
Other Selected Examples
Single particle CARPT
Effect of geometry and operating conditions o
Flow pattern
Velocity profiles
Turbulence quantities
Impact of scale on mixing intensity
MP - CARPT
Overcoming the shortcomings of
single particle CARPT in digester
Development
Validation
Implementation
Performance studies
(lab -
Impact of mixing intensity and scale
on performance
Biogas (methane) production
TS, VS and VFA
Single particle RPT
and Single Source CT
Laboratory and pilot plant scales,
Effect of design and operating variables on

Flow pattern

Velocity profiles
Turbulence quantities phase distribution and dead zones etc.

Impact of scale on mixing intensity
-
Overcoming the shortcomings of
single particle RPT and single source CT for
digesters
Development

Testing and Validation
Implementation
CFD
Modeling of anaerobic digester flow field
Closures evaluation
Validation
Effect of geometry and operating conditions
on the flow field
Impact of scale on mixing intensity
CFD
Modeling of anaerobic digester flow field
Closures evaluation
Validation
Effect of geometry and operating conditions
on the flow field
Impact of scale on mixing intensity
Performance and kinetics studies
Impact of mixing intensity and scale, on performance,
biogas(methane) production TS, VS and VFA
Biogas (methane) production
Kinetics
Commercial scale design and preparation
(lab - scale and pilot scale) (lab - scale and pilot scale)

Phase distribution
MRPT and DSCT
Lab, pilot plant and commercial scales



Overall Accomplishments on Bioenergy (Biogas) from Animal/Farm
Wastes Project ~ over 2.1 million dollars from DOE (~2002-2007)
To advance understanding and design of anaerobic digesters by integrating hydrodynamics and
performance via implementing and developing advanced measurement and computational
techniques; systematically investigate operating and design parameters using the developed
techniques
Anaerobic Digestion for Bioenergy Production and Animal Wastes Treatment
20.32 cm
Gas inlet pipe
(Diameter 0.64 cm)
Sealing
Gas Recirculation
2
9
.
5

c
m

2
2
.
2

c
m

Sludge level
4.4 cm
1
4

c
m

Draft tube
(Diameter 4.4
cm)
Hangers
RPT/CT IN ANAEROBIC
DIGESTER
(Results at a glance)
Simulated Digester
Particle Trajectories
(each color indicates trajectory
for 20 seconds)
Biogas Production by Anaerobic Digestion
Azimuthally averaged velocity
vector (Gas flow rate = 3 SCFH)
Draft tube
Gas hold up distributions at the centre
of the draft tube
8
8
Solids hold up distributions at the
centre of the draft tube
Details of 3D CFD Simulation
CFD software: CFX 5.7.1
Multiphase System
Dispersed phase: Air (Average bubble diameter=10mm)
Continuous phase: Water
Two fluid Euler-Euler model
Turbulence closure models
Air: Zero equation model Water: k-c model







Drag Force (dominant): Grace Model (Ranade, 2002)
Numerical Scheme: Finite Volume Technique
Surface Mesh: Delaunay mesh (Typically more than 100,000 volume elements were
created by volume meshing)
Time step and length scales: Automatic, generated by code
Simulations were performed for different bubble sizes ranging from 2 to 12 mm in diameter, no appreciable difference in the predictions was
observed.
The solution is mesh independent for the applied meshing.
( ) ( ) 0 = V +
c
c
o o o o o
U r r
t
Continuity:
Momentum:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
M U U r p r U U r U r
t
T
eff
+ V + V V + V = V +
c
c
) (
,
... ) Force Dispersion Turbulence (
) Force Mass Virtual ( ) Force Lift ( ) Force Drag (
+ +
+ + =
TD
VM L D
M
M M M M
o|
o| o| o| o|
=
=
o |
o| o
M M
3D CFD simulations were performed using CFX 5.7.1. k-c
turbulence model was used and only drag force was considered
CFD Predictions versus RPT Results
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
r/R
A
x
i
a
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
2 cm below draft tube (CFD)
2 cm below draft tube (CARPT)
center of draft tube (CFD)
center of draft tube (CARPT
2 cm above draft tube (CFD)
2 cm above draft tube (CARPT)
CFD Predictions
RPT results
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
r/R
A
x
i
a
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
Ug=0.024 cm/s (CFD)
Ug=0.048 cm/s (CFD)
Ug=0.072 cm/s (CFD)
Ug=0.024 cm/s (CARPT)
Ug=0.048 cm/s (CARPT)
Ug=0.072 cm/s (CARPT)
Location of draft tube
Axial liquid velocity profile (3 lpm)
Effect of gas flow rate (center of draft tube)
CFD predictions showed good qualitative agreement with RPT
data and the quantitative agreement was reasonable

A B
C D
Velocity field and streamlines for 25 degree conical
bottomed digester (A & B) without hanging baffle,
and (C & D) with hanging baffle.
Velocity field and streamlines for 45 degree conical
bottomed digester (A & B) without hanging
baffle, and (C & D) with hanging baffle
Modeling
Irradiance
Distribution,
I (x, y, z)
Fundamentally based modeling approach
for PBR performance evaluation, design,
scale-up, and process intensification
CFD Simulation?
Dynamic
Photosynthetic
Rate Model
Experimental Techniques: CARPT and CT
A New Approach for PBR Analysis, Modeling & Optimization
Local multiphase flow dynamics:
Microorganism cells movements (x(t), y(t), z(t))
Liquid flow dynamics (Velocity profile, Turbulent intensity,
Shear Stresses, Macro-mixing, etc.)
Local phase distributions
Calculation of the temporal irradiance patterns, I(t)
Characterization of the interactions between hydrodynamics and
Photosynthesis
Model Evaluation
by Real Culturing
Experiments
Verification
Experimental setup
Velocity field
Shear Stress Kinetic Energy
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
200
400
600
800
Temporal Irradiance Pattern
Cells Movement
R
I
S
E
R

1
9

c
m

14.5 cm
2
0
0

c
m

20 cm
1
6
5

c
m

Reynolds Stress
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Radial Position
T
i
m
e
,

a
z
i
m
u
t
h
a
l

a
n
d

d
e
p
t
h

a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d

a
x
i
a
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

c
m
/
s
DC 1cm/s
DC 5 cm/s
BC 2cm/s
BC 5 cm/s
BC 12 cm/s
-1
0
1 r/R
2
4
6
8
x
/
D
0.40
0.36
0.32
0.28
0.24
0.20
0.16
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.00
Gas Holdup
RPT
Dynamic Photosynthetic growth rate Model
for Photo-bioreactor performance evaluation
0

29.0 cm
59.7 cm
3.5
8.4
- 8.4
8.4 cm
19.
0
cm
30.5 cm
Lead Shielded
Cs-137 Source
Source
Collimator
Detector
Collimator
Lead Plugs
with Aperture
NaI(Tl) Detector
R I S E R
CT
Velocity Profile
Photo-bioreactor Experimentation
Results at a glance
Gas Holdup
S56
Dr. Al-Dahhan
RPT
Experiments
Cells Movement
Dynamic Photosynthetic growth rate Model
CFD
Simulation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time, hr
C
e
l l

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
*
1
0
6

c
e
l
l /
m
l
)
EXP
Simulation of Wu
Ug=5 cm/s (this work)
Ug=1 cm/s (this work)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 100 200 300
Time, hr
C
e
l
l

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

*
1
0
6

c
e
l
l
s
/
m
l
I
0
= 2500 E m
-2
S
-1

2000
4000
1500
1000
500
250
3000
Ug = 5cm/s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time, hr
C
e
l
l
'
s

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

*
1
0
6

c
e
l
l
/
m
l
BC_5cms SC_1cms
SC_5cms DC_5cms
DC_1cms

ri
R
u
c
Culture
Column wall
direct
radiation
light
path
Irradiance Model
Comparison with Exp. data Effects of external irradiance
Effects of reactor type
and superficial gas velocity
Dynamic modeling of Photo-bioreactor
Results at a glance
3 2 1
1
) ( x x x t I
dt
dx
+ + = o o
2 2 1
2
) ( ) ( x t I x x t I
dt
dx
= | o
3 2
3
) ( x x t I
dt
dx
= o |
1
3 2 1
= + + x x x
Me x k
dt
dx
x
= =
2
1

Assumption: photosynthetic factory (PSF)
has three states: resting state (x
1
), activated
state (x
2
) and inhibited state (x
3
)
Differential equations:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Growth rate:
Eilers and Peeters, 1988
The interchanges between the states stand for different enzyme reactions,
e.g. x
1
x
2
for the light reactions, x
2
x
1
for the dark reactions, x
2
x
3
for the
inhibition reactions, and x
3
x
1
for the recovery from inhibition.
Note: I = I(t, position)
Or Lambert-Beer law:
) exp(
0
d x k I I
x
=
S57
Photobioreactor Analysis:
Characterizing Light History
Dimensionless relaxation time
(fraction of over-charged time in a
cycle):
= t
over
/(t
over
+t
under
)
Fluctuation Frequency:
f = 1 / (t
over
+t
under
)
}
=
T
t
av
dt t I
T
I
0
) (
1
Time-averaged light intensity (Quantity
of light transferred to the cells)
Light Fluctuation Parameters:
t
over
t
under
t, s
I, Em
-2
s
-1
Time series of irradiance
experienced by the cells
Optimum
irradiance
Over-/Under charged cycles in chaotic
temporal irradiance pattern
Over-
charged
Under-
charged
Characteristic Parameters
I
t
av
=90 E m
-2
s
-1
, I
v
av
=164 irrespective of gas
velocity and configuration)
For Ug=1cm/s, high irradiance (2000 Em
-2
s
-1
)
and cell concentration (80*10
6
cells/ml)
CFD Conservation Equations
Continuity:
Momentum:
Where:
Constraint:

=
=
2
1
1
o
o
r
r
o
: phase holdup distribution

o, eff
: effective viscosity

o
: molecular viscosity

t,o
: turbulence eddy viscosity
M
o
: Interface momentum transport
( ) ( ) 0 = V +
c
c
o
o o o o
U r r
t
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) o o o
o o o o o o
o o
o o
o
o o
M U U r g r p r U U r U r
t
T
eff
+ V + V V + + V = V +
c
c
) (
,
Time variance
term
Convection
term
Pressure
Gradient
term
Body force
term
Reynolds Stress force
term
Interfacial
momentum
transfer term

= =
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ +
+ +
= =
o |
o|
o| o| o|
o |
o| o
... ) Force n Dispersio Turbulence (
) Force Mass Virtual ( ) Lift Force ( ) Force Drag (
TD
VM L D
M
M M M
M M
Turbulence Models
k equation:
Turbulence model: standard k-c model
modified for two phase flow (Reynolds
shear stress model was also tested)
c equation:
( ) ( ) ) ( ) ) ( (
,
o o o o o
o
o o o
o
o o o o o
c
o

V + V = V +
c
c
P r k r k U r k r
t
k
T s
( ) ( ) ) ( ) ) ( (
2 1
,
o o c o c
o
o
o o
c
o
o o o
o
o o o o o
c
c
c
o

c c C P C
k
r r U r r
t
T s
+ V + V = V +
c
c

o
o o
V - V + V - V = g U U U P
t
T s
T
T s
Pr
) (
,
,
Where:
| | 6 . 0
,
o |
| o o
U U d r
b
T b
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
o
o
o o
c

2
,
k
C
T s
o

o
o
|
|
T
T
=
T
eff o o o
+ =
, +
Gas Phase:
Liquid Phase:
Shear induced turbulence
Bubble induced turbulence
(Sato and Sekaguchi,
1975)
Photobioreactor Analysis Particle (Cell) Tracking
RPT vs. CFD
CFD is not yet ready to be used under dynamic growth
of microalgae
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time, h
C
e
l
l

N
u
m
b
e
r
,

1
0
^
6

c
e
l
l
s
/
m
l
Ug=0.29cm/s, air-water system
Ug=0.076cm/s, air-water system
Ug=0.29cm/s, real culturing system
Ug=0.076cm/s, real culturing system
exp. Ug=0.3cm/s
exp. Ug=0.076cm/s
I
av
t
(for Case II)
168.8 E/m
2
s
174.3 E/m
2
s
159.5 E/m
2
s
159.3 E/m
2
s
Air-water system Dilute cells concentration
CFD/CARPT results after validating the closure
The mismatch between the results of
air-water system and real culture is
due to the physical properties
Shear stress
Apparent
viscosity
RPT results only
Gas
in
Gas
out
Liquid
in
Liquid
out
Alternative Reactors - Monolith as Solid Catalyzed Gas-Liquid
Multiphase Reactor
Previous Applications
(Gas-Solid)
Catalytic converter
NO
x
, SO
x
treatment
Flue gas treatment
New Applications (Gas-Liquid-
Solid)
H
2
O
2
production
Hydrogenation, Oxidation
Bioreactor, Pharmaceuticals
Advantages
Very low pressure drop
Excellent mass transfer properties
High surface/volume ratio
Short diffusion distances (high selectivity)
However, monolith reactors suffer from drawbacks, such as high cost, short residence
time (this requires recycling), poor heat transfer, and lack of prior experience
S. Roy and Al-Dahhan 2005

Time averaged liquid saturation profile
Flow Distribution Profiles

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
r (cm)
|
L
Monolith Core
M
o
n
o
l
i
t
h

w
a
l
l
R
e
a
c
t
o
r

W
a
l
l
P
a
c
k
i
n
g

E
l
e
m
e
n
t
v
l
= 20 cm/s
v
g
= 10 cm/s
nozzle distributor
Similar liquid saturation distribution profiles were obtained at all proposed
flow conditions
0
r (cm)
2.5 -2.5
0
r
(
c
m
)
-
2
.
5
2
.
5
0
r (cm)
0 -
0
r
(
c
m
)
-
2
.
5
2
.
5
0
r
(
c
m
)
-
2
.
5
2
.
5
0.0
0.2
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.2
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.2
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 1 2
radius, cm
L
i
q
u
i
d

s
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n



0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2
radius, cm
L
i
q
u
i
d

s
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2
radius, cm
L
i
q
u
i
d

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 1 2
radius, cm
L
i
q
u
i
d

s
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
v
l
: 2.5 cm/s v
l
: 10 cm/s v
l
: 20 cm/s v
l
: 50 cm/s
Effect of liquid velocity on flow distribution (v
g
: 50 cm/s)
S. Roy and Al-Dahhan 2005
Calculate liquid
saturation, gas and
liquid velocities in each
channel from CT
Calculate conversion in
each channel using
single channel model*
Calculate mixing cup
concentration at the
reactor outlet
Monolith Reactor Model
Monolith scale model (integrating the flow distribution with
single channel model) has been developed
L
G
L
G
....
Single pass
conversion
V
l
: 2.5 cm/s
V
g
: 20 cm/s
Uniformity factor: 55%
Pressure: 200 psi
Nozzle distributor
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Reactor length, m
A
M
S

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
Uniform distribution
Maldistribution (55%)
Results
0
2
4
6
2.5 cm/s 20 cm/s trickle bed
R
e
a
c
t
o
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

x

1
0
3

(
m
o
l
/
g
m

P
d
/
s
)
experimental
monolith scale modeling
single channel modeling
Liquid velocity
S. Roy and Al-Dahhan 2005
Array of Optical Probes for Bubble and Liquid holdup, Length
and Velocity Inside the Monolith Channels
DOE, NERI/NEUP, NSF, USDA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding: Current at Missouri S&T and Previous funding at
Washington University
Current at Missouri S&T and Previous Students at Washington
University

Professor X. Lan, Dr. Rajneesh Varma, Dr. Huping Lou, Dr. Fadha
Ahmed, Oak Ridge National Lab Team

Professors Dudukovic and Ramachandran