PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 28, 2026Powder Technology0 citationsOpen Access

Heterogeneous fluidization in non-Newtonian liquid fluidized beds

View Full Paper
ZYZachary Shi Jun YongELEldin Wee Chuan Lim

Key Points

  • This study investigates fluidization behaviors in non-Newtonian liquid fluidized beds using computational fluid dynamics (CFD).
  • Simulated fluidization in non-Newtonian liquid using CFD with spherical particles and slurry.
  • Utilized three drag force models: Gidaspow, Wen and Yu, and Gibilaro.
  • Compared simulation results with previous CFD-DEM simulations and experimental data.
  • The first bed exhibited heterogeneous fluidization at high inlet velocities.
  • The second bed showed channeling behavior at high inlet velocities.
  • The Gidaspow drag force model was found to be more accurate compared to the Gibilaro model.

Abstract

A non-Newtonian liquid fluidized bed containing spherical steel particles and titanium dioxide slurry simulated using CFD was observed to exhibit heterogeneous fluidization reminiscent of bubbling fluidization in gas fluidized beds at high inlet superficial velocities. This fluidization behavior was reproducible using three different drag force models, the Gidaspow, Wen and Yu and Gibilaro drag force models, in the CFD simulations. Good agreement was observed between the space- and time-averaged voidage values obtained from the simulations using the Gibilaro drag force model and those obtained from CFD-DEM simulations and experiments by previous researchers. A second non-Newtonian liquid fluidized bed investigated in this study containing spherical glass particles and aqueous tylose exhibited channeling behavior at high inlet superficial velocity that was reminiscent of channeling behavior in gas-solid fluidized beds containing Geldart group C particles and spouting behavior in gas-solid fluidized beds containing Geldart group D particles. This fluidization behavior was also reproducible using the three different drag force models. By comparisons of space- and time-averaged voidage values obtained from the simulations using the three drag force models with those obtained from CFD-DEM simulations and experiments by previous researchers, it could be concluded that the Gidaspow model was more accurate than the Gibilaro model in computing drag forces in this non-Newtonian liquid fluidized bed. • Fluidization behaviors of non-Newtonian liquid fluidized beds were studied with CFD. • At high inlet velocities, the first fluidized bed showed heterogeneous fluidization. • At high inlet velocities, the second fluidized bed showed channeling behavior. • The fluidization behaviors were reproducible with three different drag force models.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Yong et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a286240a974eb0d3c00e2fhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2026.122334
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Numerical investigation of fluidization behaviors of nanoparticle agglomerates with improved drag models using the DDPM approach2026
  2. 2A Comparative Study of Different CFD-codes for Fluidized Beds2024
  3. 3A Comparative Study of Different CFD Codes for Fluidized Beds2024 · 5 citations
  4. 4Flow Behavior of Nanoparticle Agglomerates in a Fluidized Bed Simulated with Porous-Structure-Based Drag Laws2024 · 4 citations
  5. 5Spatially-resolved characterization of the flow structure in a bubbling fluidized bed with solids crossflow2026