The aim of this work is to provide more insight into the general modeling criteria for simulating pseudo-2D bubbling fluidized beds. For this purpose, two experimental-based problems are studied. First, a fluidized bed with a high-speed central jet problem is analyzed. A qualitative study of the first bubble indicates that the bubble shape prediction is highly sensitive to the frictional model adopted. The most accurate results in terms of bubble shape and detachment time are given by a frictional model that relates the strain-rate fluctuations with the granular temperature. Second, a uniformly fluidized bed problem in bubbling regime is considered. For this case, the drag models and boundary conditions for the particulate phase are investigated. Time-averaged solid phase velocity profiles are compared with the results of the literature where it is found that no-slip conditions (or partial slip with a high specularity coefficient) are more appropriate than slip conditions at the walls for these regimes. Regarding the drag force, although none of the models presented could match the experimental velocity predictions for low gas velocities at the lower region of the bed, the Di Felice model produces the most accurate results for the whole range of regimes considered.

This work studies the performance of two open-source CFD codes, OpenFOAM and MFiX, to address bubbling fluidized bed system at different temperature and heat transfer conditions. Both codes are used to predict two parameters that are relevant for the design of fluidized units: the minimum fluidization velocity as a function of the temperature of the bed and wall-to-bed heat transfer coefficient from a lateral wall and from internal tubes. Although the CFD solvers are structuraly similar, there are some key differences (available models, meshing techniques, and balance formulations) that are often translated into differences in the fields prediction. The computational results are compared between both codes and against the experimental data. The minimum fluidization velocity can be correctly predicted with both codes at different temperatures while, in general, for the heat transfer and the fluidization patterns, MFiX shows slightly more accurate results compared to OpenFOAM but with low versatility for meshing curved geometries which might translate into higher computational costs for the same level of accuracy.