Comparing ANSYS Fluent® and OpenFOAM® simulations of Geldart A, B, and D bubbling fluidized bed hydrodynamics

CÉSAR M. VENIER; ANDRÉS REYES URRUTIA; JUAN P. CAPOSSIO; JAN BAEYENS; GERMÁN D. MAZZA

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NUMERICAL METHODS FOR HEAT & FLUID FLOW

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LIMITED

Lugar: Londres; Año: 2020 vol. 30 p. 93 - 118

0961-5539

Purpose - The researchassesses the performance of ANSYS Fluent® and OpenFOAM®, at their current stateof development, to study the relevant bubbling fluidized bed (BFB)characteristics with Geldart A, B and D particles.Design/methodology/approach - For typical Geldart B and D particles, both a 3Dcylindrical and a pseudo-2D arrangement were used to measure the bed pressuredrop and solids volume fraction, the latter by digital image analysistechniques. For a typical Geldart A particle, and specifically to examinebubbling and slugging phenomena, a 2 m high 3D cylindrical arrangement of smallinternal diameter was used. The hydrodynamics of the experimentallyinvestigated BFB cases were also simulated for identical geometries andoperating conditions using OpenFOAM® v6.0 and ANSYS Fluent® v19.2 at identicalmesh and numerical setups.Findings - The comparison between experimental and simulated results showedthat both ANSYS Fluent® and OpenFOAM® provide a fair qualitative prediction ofthe bubble sizes and solids fraction for freely-bubbling Geldart B and Dparticles. For Geldart A particles, operated in a slugging mode, thequalitative predictions are again quite fair, but numerical values of relevantslug characteristics (length, velocity, frequency) slightly favor the use ofOpenFOAM®, despite some deviations of predicted slug velocities.Originality/value - A useful comparison of CFD software performance fordifferent fluidized regimes is presented. The results are discussed andrecommendations are formulated for the selection of the CFD software and modelsinvolved.