PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 11, 2026International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering0 citationsOpen Access

Numerical investigation of fluidization behaviors of nanoparticle agglomerates with improved drag models using the DDPM approach

XZXian ZhangSWShaowei WangJYJinglu Yan

Key Points

  • This research aims to examine the effects of different drag models on the fluidization characteristics of nanoparticle agglomerates.
  • Employs the DDPM approach to analyze fluidization behaviors.
  • Examines bed expansion, solid distributions, solid circulation, and pressure fluctuations.
  • Compares original and revised drag models in bubbling and turbulent fluidizations.
  • Revised Gidaspow and EMMS drag models show more accurate bed expansion height in bubbling fluidization.
  • Turbulent fluidization displays negligible differences in bed height between revised and original drag models.
  • Enhanced drag models simulate stronger heterogeneous flow structures compared to the original Gidaspow model.

Abstract

Abstract The nanoparticle agglomerates fluidization exhibits multiscale heterogeneous flow structures, while there is yet no suitable drag models developed to account for the effects of heterogeneous flow structures for nanoparticle agglomerate fluidization. In this study, the effects of drag correction and drag models on the fluidization characteristics of nanoparticle agglomerates in the bubbling and turbulent fluidization are studied using the DDPM approach. The bed expansion behaviors, solid distributions, solid circulation, and the pressure fluctuation are analyzed. Results show that the original Gidaspow drag model over-predicts the bed expansion height in the bubbling fluidization, and the revised Gidaspow drag model or the EMMS drag model resolves reasonable bed expansion height and the stratification of solids concentration. The drag correction yields negligible differences in bed height and flow field between the revised and original Gidaspow drag models in the turbulent fluidization. The revised Gidaspow drag model or the EMMS drag model simulates stronger heterogeneous structures than those of the original Gidaspow drag model. The power spectral density increases then decreases with increasing fluidization velocity and increases with decreasing drag correction coefficient. The sub-signal energy distribution varies similarly. Macro-scale signals exhibit no evident trends, while meso and micro-scale structures are most sensitive to the variation of the fluidization velocity and the drag correction.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d9e50778050d08c1b754fdhttps://doi.org/10.1515/ijcre-2026-0008
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper