Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Benchmarking of a preliminary MFiX-Exa code

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A refactored gas-solids simulation code reproduces its parent code statistically across four fluidized-bed benchmarks, with two discrepancies traced to known model simplifications rather than refactoring bugs.

desk verdict First benchmark of the MFiX-Exa refactor, transparent and useful, but the Link-bed outlier is attributed rather than demonstrated to be a model simplification. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02067 v1 pith:ED6VXDLN submitted 2019-09-04 physics.comp-ph physics.flu-dyn

William D. Fullmer , Ann S. Almgren , Michele Rosso , Johannes Blaschke , Jordan Musser This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn
keywords CFD-DEMfluidizedbedspout-fluidsoft-spherecollisionbenchmarkingcoderefactoringvalidationreproducibility
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that a preliminary, refactored version of a gas-solids simulation code—one that tracks each particle individually while solving the gas flow on a grid—has not lost the behavior of the code it was extracted from, even though it was rebuilt on a new parallel data framework as the seed of an exascale-capable simulator. It benchmarks the new code against four fluidized-bed experiments with a long validation history and against four configurations of the established parent code. The claim is that, across almost all time-averaged statistics (bed height, void fraction, particle-velocity profiles, pressure drop), the new code agrees with the parent within statistical uncertainty and with the experiments at the level normally achieved by this class of simulation. Two outliers are identified and attributed to known model changes rather than to refactoring bugs: an over-regular slugging pattern in the thinnest, lowest-velocity case, and a velocity-fluctuation mismatch in a spout-jet region linked to a simplified tangential collision force. If the paper is right, the refactored code is a valid starting point for further development, and the benchmark suite gives future developers a way to catch regressions as the code is overhauled.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a deliberately small set of model choices that differs between the new code and its parent, plus a comparison procedure built to expose refactoring bugs. The new code keeps the soft-sphere linear spring-dashpot collision model of the parent but replaces the full tangential spring-dashpot with a simpler tangential Coulomb-type force (Eq. 11), handles walls through an embedded-boundary facet description instead of planar walls, transfers particle information to the fluid grid with a linear-hat kernel (a compact, grid-based weighting that spreads a particle's volume and drag to nearby fluid cells) and explicit coupling, and solves the fluid with first-order upwinding and backward Euler time stepping. The parent is run in four variants—two transfer kernels times two advection schemes, one first-order and one bounded higher-order—so that model-form differences bracket the new code. The benchmarks are the four experimental datasets, and the comparison metric is time-averaged statistics with confidence intervals from twelve non-overlapping bins, using a dimensionless grid spacing near two particle diameters as the resolution guideline. That machinery lets the authors separate the fourth possible source of disagreement—coding bugs introduced by refactoring—from the other three: model differences, algorithmic differences, and implementation ordering.

What would settle it

Run the spout-fluid bed with the full tangential spring-dashpot collision model (or with the parent code using the simplified tangential model) and check whether the fluctuating particle-velocity outlier in the lower jet region disappears; if it persists, the attribution to the simplified tangential force is wrong and a refactoring bug remains possible. Similarly, rerun the thin glass-bead bed at 1.25 times minimum fluidization with a higher-order advection scheme; if the over-regular slugging and the inflated fluctuating bed height vanish, the low-order-numerics explanation is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the preliminary MFiX-Exa code—the cold-flow CFD-DEM capability of the parent code extracted and rebuilt on a block-structured adaptive mesh infrastructure—reproduces the classic MFiX-DEM predictions for the thin glass-bead bed, the poppy-seed bed, the spout-fluid bed, and the small-scale challenge-problem bed in the vast majority of the compared quantities, and matches the experimental data to the accuracy expected from previous validation exercises. The central evidence is statistical: twelve non-overlapping time-averaging bins yield 95% confidence intervals, and the new code's intervals overlap those of the parent code and the experiments for most mean bed heights, void-fraction profiles, and particle-velocity profiles. Two outliers are flagged. In the thin glass-bead bed at 1.25 times the minimum fluidization velocity, the fluctuating bed height is roughly twice the next largest prediction because the simulation locks into a nearly periodic slugging pattern, which the authors attribute to the thin geometry and the formally first-order numerical scheme. In the spout-fluid bed, the fluctuating particle velocity in the lower jet region deviates from all four parent runs and from experiment, which they attribute to replacing the full tangential spring-dashpot collision model with a simpler Coulomb-type tangential force. Because these discrepancies line up with known model differences, the paper argues that the refactoring itself did not introduce widespread errors and that the code provides a sound baseline for future exascale development.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the known model differences between the two codes—the simplified tangential collision force, the embedded-boundary wall treatment, the linear-hat versus GARG transfer kernel, and explicit versus implicit coupling—are too small to change the benchmark statistics, so that agreement can be read as evidence that the refactor is bug-free; the paper itself flags the spout bed as a case where that premise appears to fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The benchmark suite can serve as a regression test: any future overhaul of the code should reproduce these four cases within the same statistical tolerance, so developers can catch refactoring errors before adding new physics.
  • Because the two outliers are tied to known simplifications, the paper implies that restoring the full tangential collision model and improving the spatial discretization are the concrete next changes most likely to close the remaining gaps.
  • The reproducibility rerun on the tagged release means the reported numbers are attached to a fixed version of the code, so later versions can be compared against a stable numerical reference.
  • The results give an exascale-development target: the code already captures slugging, spouting, and pressure-drop behavior well enough for cold-flow engineering purposes, so further work can concentrate on scalability and new models rather than re-validating the basic numerics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the spout-bed outlier is a natural falsifier for the simplified tangential force model; a control run with the full tangential spring-dashpot model in the same code would either confirm the attribution or expose another refactoring issue.
  • Editorial inference: the over-regular slugging at low velocity suggests that low-order advection plus a thin geometry can artificially stabilize a slugging mode; injecting a small stochastic perturbation or increasing spatial order could test whether the fluctuation amplitude returns to the chaotic level.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's hint that limiting the fluid time step to one collision time may be overly conservative points to a systematic timestep-refinement study that could quantify accuracy loss and speed up future exascale runs.
  • Editorial inference: the same four cases could be turned into an automated continuous-integration benchmark for the project, since the statistical-overlap criterion already gives a clear yes/no regression check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript benchmarks the preliminary MFiX-Exa code, an AMReX-based refactoring of the cold-flow MFiX-DEM solver, against four experimental fluidization datasets: the Goldschmidt bed, the Müller bed, the Link spout-fluid bed, and the NETL SSCP-I bed. For each case the authors compare time-averaged statistics from MFiX-Exa with four MFiX-2016.1 model variants and with experimental measurements, using twelve-bin confidence intervals. They also rerun all MFiX-Exa simulations on a tagged release to assess reproducibility. The central conclusion is that the preliminary code compares favorably with the classic code and acceptably with experiments, with two named outliers: the fluctuating bed height in the Goldschmidt bed at 1.25 U_mf and the fluctuating particle velocity in the lower jet region of the Link spout-fluid bed.

Significance. If the benchmarking conclusion holds, the paper provides a reproducible starting point for the MFiX-Exa exascale development and a useful template for validating a code refactoring against the parent code and against experiments. The study does not fit free parameters; comparisons are made against external experimental data and against four MFiX-2016.1 model variants. The reproducibility provisions are a clear strength: all MFiX-Exa results were rerun on a tagged code (18.10), and source modifications, input decks, and post-processing scripts are archived. The confidence intervals from twelve non-overlapping temporal bins are a further strength. The main limitation is that the two named outliers are explained by hypotheses that are not directly tested, which leaves a gap between the stated goal of separating refactoring bugs from intentional model simplifications and the conclusions drawn.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.4, Figs. 2 and 3] The deviation of the MFiX-Exa fluctuating particle velocity from all four MFiX-2016.1 solutions in the lower jet region of Link cases B1 and B2 is attributed to the simplified tangential LSD force of Eq. (11), but no control simulation with the full tangential model is run, and the cited reference [42] addresses rolling friction rather than the Capecelatro-Desjardins cutoff model used in Eq. (11). Because the introductory paragraph of Sec. 4 states that the study is primarily focused on uncovering refactoring bugs, this unresolved attribution leaves open an alternative explanation in terms of the EB wall treatment or transfer kernel. Please add a control simulation that isolates the tangential-force model, or explicitly reclassify the Link bed result as an unexplained code-to-code difference rather than an established model-form effect.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Table 3] The fluctuating bed height outlier at U_in = 1.25 U_mf is explained by the system locking into a regular bubbling/slugging pattern, but no quantitative supporting analysis (for example, a spectral peak, an inter-event interval distribution, or a sensitivity test to initial conditions or advection order) is provided. Since the authors themselves count this as one of only two noticeable outliers, the explanation should be substantiated or the outlier should be presented as an unexplained discrepancy.
  3. [Sec. 5, Tables 2-3 and Figs. 1-6] The central conclusion that MFiX-Exa 'compares favorably' is not tied to a quantitative criterion, so the reader cannot objectively assess whether the two outliers (one of which is roughly twice the next largest prediction in Table 3, and one of which lies outside all four classic-code variants in Fig. 2) are consistent with the claim. A simple aggregate error metric, or an explicit criterion such as the fraction of profile points within the classic-code spread, would make the summary statement checkable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.4] The list of Link bed conditions labels all three cases as 'case B1'; the second and third entries should be B2 and B3.
  2. [Fig. 3] The top-right panel is labeled 'Link, B3, y = 15 (mm)' although the caption states that the figure shows the upper elevation, which should be y = 25 mm; the label appears to be a typo.
  3. [Sec. 4.3] The text refers to 'the flat center of the y = 0.15 mm velocity profile'; this should presumably be y = 15 mm to match the profiles in Fig. 1.
  4. [Sec. 5] The summary mentions 'MUSCL variable extrapolation' for the higher-order classic-code runs, whereas Sec. 4.1 and Refs. [35,36] describe the scheme as SMART; the terminology should be made consistent.
  5. [Sec. 4.6, Eq. (25)] Describing negative values of the reproducibility error metric as 'statistically similar results' is imprecise; overlapping 95% confidence intervals do not constitute a formal statistical equivalence test, and the observation that negative values occur more often than expected for 95% intervals is not discussed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: benchmark comparisons are made against external experimental data and the parent MFiX-2016.1 code, with no fitted target quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical benchmark comparison, not a derived prediction. No model constant or output quantity is fitted to the data it later evaluates; all collision, drag, and grid parameters are either measured material properties, standard literature closures (Gidaspow, Wen-Yu/Ergun, Capecelatro-Desjardins LSD), or convergence-heuristic settings. The support for the benchmark conclusion comes from external experimental datasets (Goldschmidt, Müller, Link, SSCP-I) and from four independently configured MFiX-2016.1 reference models. The same-authors citation [25] used to justify the Δ*≈2 grid resolution is a published fixed-bed verification study and is not the target of the paper's claim; even if that heuristic were weakened, the code-to-code and experiment-to-code comparisons would stand on their own. The Link-bed outlier is attributed to the simplified tangential collision model without running a control with the full tangential model, but that is an untested hypothesis about model discrepancy, not a circular reduction: the benchmark outputs are not constructed from that model, and no equation here has its definition presuppose another equation's result. There is also no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard CFD-DEM closures and modeling heuristics rather than on new fitted constants or new physical entities. The free parameters listed are conventional choices, not tuned to force agreement.

free parameters (4)
  • Spring stiffness k = 2519, 440, 43000, 1000 N/m (per case)
    Chosen by hand so that the collision timescale is much smaller than hydrodynamic timescales (Sec. 3.2). Affects all collision statistics but is not fitted to the benchmark data.
  • DEM timestep dt_DEM = tau_coll/20
    Set as 1/20 of the collision timescale (Sec. 3.2); a standard heuristic, not fitted.
  • Inlet velocity ramp time = 1 s (Goldschmidt and SSCP-I)
    Linearly ramped inlet velocity to avoid startup transients; chosen rather than measured.
  • Wall boundary conditions = free-slip front/back, no-slip side
    Modeling choice due to shallow bed depth (3-4 CFD cells); affects profiles and is not fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gidaspow drag law (Eqs. 17-20) is an adequate closure for Geldart D particles.
    Adopted from literature without testing alternatives in this work; the benchmark comparison inherits any drag-law error.
  • domain assumption Interfacial forces reduce to buoyancy and steady drag (Eq. 16), neglecting lift, virtual mass, Magnus, and Basset forces.
    Stated in Sec. 2.5 as a common assumption for high Stokes number flows; not validated here.
  • domain assumption A grid spacing of Delta* ~ 2 gives approximately grid-insensitive solutions.
    Cited from previous CFD-DEM heuristics [2,25], not demonstrated by a grid-convergence study in this paper.
  • domain assumption Twelve non-overlapping time bins yield reliable 95% confidence intervals for time-averaged statistics.
    Applied from Syamlal et al. [28]; the Goldschmidt 1.25Umf case shows periodic locking, which may violate the independence assumption.
  • domain assumption The simplified tangential force model (Eq. 11) is accurate enough for most benchmark cases.
    The paper concedes in Sec. 4.4 that it likely causes the Link bed discrepancy, so this axiom is weakened in that case.
  • domain assumption Particles are monodisperse spheres with measured collision properties.
    Used in all cases; the Mueller bed uses poppy seeds, which are irregular, and the paper notes this stresses the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmarking of a preliminary MFiX-Exa code." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ED6VXDLN

@misc{pith2026190902067,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmarking of a preliminary MFiX-Exa code},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ED6VXDLN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02067}
}
read the original abstract

MFiX-Exa is a new code being actively developed at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Energy Technology Laboratory as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's Exascale Computing Project. The starting point for the MFiX-Exa code development was the extraction of basic computational fluid dynamic (CFD) and discrete element method (DEM) capabilities from the existing MFiX-DEM code which was refactored into an AMReX code architecture, herein referred to as the preliminary MFiX-Exa code. Although drastic changes to the codebase will be required to produce an exascale capable application, benchmarking of the originating code helps to establish a valid start point for future development. In this work, four benchmark cases are considered, each corresponding to experimental data sets with history of CFD-DEM validation. We find that the preliminary MFiX-Exa code compares favorably with classic MFiX-DEM simulation predictions for three slugging/bubbling fluidized beds and one spout-fluid bed. Comparison to experimental data is also acceptable (within accuracy expected from previous CFD-DEM benchmarking and validation exercises) which is comprised of several measurement techniques including particle tracking velocimetry, positron emission particle tracking and magnetic resonance imaging. The work concludes with an overview of planned developmental work and potential benchmark cases to validate new MFiX-Exa capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02067 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online.) Time-averaged mean void fraction (top row) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online. See Fig. 1 for key.) Time-averaged mean (top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online. See Fig. 1 for key.) Time-averaged mean (top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online. See Fig. 1 for key.) Time-averaged mean and fl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Color online. See Fig. 1 for key.) Time-averaged mean (top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Color online. See Fig. 1 for key.) Time-averaged mean (top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reproducibility of the MFiX-Exa benchmark simulations show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    Goniva, C

    C. Goniva, C. Kloss, N. G. Deen, J. A. Kuipers, S. Pirker, Influe nce of rolling friction on single spout fluidized bed simulation, Particuology 10 (2012 ) 582–591

    work page 2012

  2. [1]

    H. Zhu, Z. Zhou, R. Yang, A. Yu, Discrete particle simulation of pa rticulate systems: a review of major applications and findings, Chemical Engineering Scie nce 63 (2008) 5728–5770

    work page 2008

  3. [2]

    Cocco, W

    R. Cocco, W. D. Fullmer, P. Liu, C. M. Hrenya, CFD-DEM: Modeling t he small to understand the large, Chemical Engineering Progress (2017) in pr ess

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    Tenneti, S

    S. Tenneti, S. Subramaniam, Particle-resolved direct numerical simulation for gas- solid flow model development, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 46 (20 14) 199–230

    work page

  5. [4]

    van der Hoef, M

    M. van der Hoef, M. van Sint Annaland, N. Deen, J. Kuipers, Nume rical simulation of dense gas-solid fluidized beds: A multiscale modeling strategy, Ann ual Review of Fluid Mechanics 40 (2008) 47–70

    work page 2008

  6. [5]

    N. Deen, M. V. S. Annaland, M. A. Van der Hoef, J. Kuipers, Revie w of discrete particle modeling of fluidized beds, Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2 007) 28–44

    work page

  7. [6]

    L. Lu, S. Benyahia, T. Li, An efficient and reliable predictive method for fluidized bed simulation, AIChE Journal 63 (2017) 5320–5334

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    R. Garg, J. Galvin, T. Li, S. Pannala, Open-source MFIX-DEM sof tware for gas- solids flows: Part I-Verification studies, Powder Technology 220 (2 012) 122–137

    work page

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    R. Garg, J. Galvin, T. Li, S. Pannala, Documentation of open- source MFIX-DEM software for gas-solids flows, Technical Repor t https://mfix.netl.doe.gov/documentation/dem_doc_2012-1.pdf, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, WV USA, 2012

    2012

  2. [9]

    Capecelatro, O

    J. Capecelatro, O. Desjardins, An euler-lagrange strategy fo r simulating particle- laden flows, Journal of Computational Physics 238 (2013) 1–31

    2013

  3. [10]

    Vreman, B

    B. Vreman, B. Geurts, N. Deen, J. Kuipers, J. Kuerten, Two- and four-way coupled euler-lagrangian large-eddy simulation of turbulent particle-laden c hannel flow, Flow Turbulence and Combustion 82 (2009) 47–71

    2009

  4. [11]

    Stevens, C

    A. Stevens, C. Hrenya, Comparison of soft-sphere models to measurements of col- lision properties during normal impacts, Powder Technology 154 (20 05) 99–109

  5. [12]

    H. Zhu, Z. Zhou, R. Yang, A. Yu, Discrete particle simulation of p articulate systems: theoretical developments, Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007 ) 3378–3396

    2007

  6. [13]

    P. A. Cundall, O. D. Strack, A discrete numerical model for gra nular assemblies, Geotechnique 29 (1979) 47–65

    1979

  7. [14]

    Ishii, T

    M. Ishii, T. Hibiki, Thermo-fluid Dynamics of Two-phase Flow, Sprin ger, New York, first edition, 2006. 26

    2006

  8. [15]

    D. A. Drew, S. L. Passman, Theory of Multicomponent Fluids, Sp ringer, New York, first edition, 1999

    1999

  9. [16]

    Beetstra, M

    R. Beetstra, M. A. van der Hoef, J. A. M. Kuipers, Drag force of intermediate Reynolds number flow past mono- and bidisperse arrays of spheres , AIChE Journal 53 (2007) 489–501

    2007

  10. [17]

    Geldart, Types of gas fluidization, Powder technology 7 (197 3) 285–292

    D. Geldart, Types of gas fluidization, Powder technology 7 (197 3) 285–292

  11. [18]

    J. Ding, D. Gidaspow, A bubbling fluidization model using kinetic the ory of granular flow, AIChE Journal 36 (1990) 523–538

    1990

  12. [19]

    C. Y. Wen, Y. H. Yu, Mechanics of fluidization, Chemical Engineer ing Progress Symposium 62 (1966) 100–111

    1966

  13. [20]

    Ergun, Fluid flow through packed columns, Chemical Engineer ing Progress 48 (1952) 89–94

    S. Ergun, Fluid flow through packed columns, Chemical Engineer ing Progress 48 (1952) 89–94

    1952

  14. [21]

    Lathouwers, J

    D. Lathouwers, J. Bellan, Modeling of dense gas–solid reactive m ixtures applied to biomass pyrolysis in a fluidized bed, International Journal of Multiph ase Flow 27 (2001) 2155–2187

    2001

  15. [22]

    Patankar, Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow, Hemisphe re Pub

    S. Patankar, Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow, Hemisphe re Pub. Corp., McGraw-Hill, Washington, New York, 1980

    1980

  16. [23]

    Syamlal, MFIX documentation: Numerical technique, Technic al Report DOE/MC31346-5824, U.S

    M. Syamlal, MFIX documentation: Numerical technique, Technic al Report DOE/MC31346-5824, U.S. Department of Energy, 1998

    1998

  17. [24]

    D. M. Snider, P. J. O’Rourke, M. J. Andrews, Sediment flow in inclin ed vessels calculated using a multiphase particle-in-cell model for dense partic le flows, Inter- national Journal of Multiphase Flow 24 (1998) 1359–1382

    1998

  18. [25]

    W. D. Fullmer, J. Musser, Cfd-dem solution verification: Fixed-b ed studies, Powder Technology 339 (2018) 760–764

    2018

  19. [26]

    P. Liu, C. Q. LaMarche, K. M. Kellogg, C. M. Hrenya, Fine-partic le defluidization: Interaction between cohesion, Young’s modulus and static bed heig ht, Chemical Engineering Science 145 (2016) 266–278

    2016

  20. [27]

    Morris, S

    A. Morris, S. Pannala, Z. Ma, C. Hrenya, Development of soft- sphere contact models for thermal heat conduction in granular flows, AIChE Journal 62 ( 2016) 4526–4535

    2016

  21. [28]

    Syamlal, I

    M. Syamlal, I. Celik, S. Benyahia, Quantifying the uncertainty int roduced by dis- cretization and time-averaging in two-fluid model predictions, AICh E Journal 63 (2017) 5343–5360

    2017

  22. [29]

    T. Li, R. Garg, J. Galvin, S. Pannala, Open-source mfix-dem sof tware for gas-solids flows: Part ii–validation studies, Powder Technology 220 (2012) 138 –150

    2012

  23. [30]

    C. Q. LaMarche, P. Y. Liu, K. M. Kellogg, A. W. Weimer, C. M. Hren ya, A system- size independent validation of CFD-DEM for noncohesive particles, A IChE Journal 61 (2015) 4051–4058

    2015

  24. [31]

    T. Li, Y. Zhang, F. Hern´ andez-Jim´ enez, Investigation of particle–wall interaction in a pseudo-2d fluidized bed using cfd-dem simulations, Particuology 25 (2016) 10–22

    2016

  25. [32]

    Y. Xu, J. Musser, T. Li, B. Gopalan, R. Panday, J. Tucker, G. B reault, M. A. Clarke, W. A. Rogers, Numerical simulation and experimental study of the g as–solid flow behavior inside a full-loop circulating fluidized bed: Evaluation of differe nt drag models, Industrial & Enginee...

    2018

  26. [33]

    Bakshi, M

    A. Bakshi, M. Shahnam, A. Gel, T. Li, C. Altantzis, W. Rogers, A. Ghoniem, Com- prehensive multivariate sensitivity analysis of cfd-dem simulations: C ritical model parameters and their impact on fluidization hydrodynamics, Powder Technology 27 338 (2018) 519–537

    2018

  27. [34]

    R. Garg, C. Narayanan, D. Lakehal, S. Subramaniam, Accurat e numerical es- timation of interphase momentum transfer in Lagrangian-Eulerian s imulations of dispersed two-phase flows, International Journal of Multiphase Flow 33 (2007) 1337–1364

    2007

  28. [35]

    Gaskell, A

    P. Gaskell, A. Lau, Curvature-compensated convective tran sport: SMART, a new boundedness-preserving transport algorithm, International J ournal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 8 (1988) 617–641

    1988

  29. [36]

    N. P. Waterson, H. Deconinck, Design principles for bounded hig her-order convec- tion schemes - a unified approach, Journal of Computational Phys ics 224 (2007) 182–207

    2007

  30. [37]

    Goldschmidt, R

    M. Goldschmidt, R. Beetstra, J. Kuipers, Hydrodynamic modellin g of dense gas- fluidised beds: comparison and validation of 3d discrete particle and c ontinuum models, Powder Technology 142 (2004) 23–47

    2004

  31. [38]

    C. R. M¨ uller, D. J. Holland, A. J. Sederman, S. A. Scott, J. S. D ennis, L. F. Gladden, Granular temperature: comparison of magnetic resonan ce measurements with discrete element model simulations, Powder Technology 184 (20 08) 241–253

  32. [39]

    C. R. M¨ uller, S. A. Scott, D. J. Holland, B. C. Clarke, A. J. Sede rman, J. S. Dennis, L. F. Gladden, Validation of a discrete element model using magnetic r esonance measurements, Particuology 7 (2009) 297–306

    2009

  33. [40]

    K. Luo, J. Tan, Z. Wang, J. Fan, Particle-resolved direct nume rical simulation of gas–solid dynamics in experimental fluidized beds, AIChE Journal 62 (2016) 1917–1932

    2016

  34. [41]

    J. Link, N. Deen, J. Kuipers, X. Fan, A. Ingram, D. Parker, J. Wood, J. Seville, PEPT and discrete particle simulation study of spout-fluid bed regime s, AIChE journal 54 (2008) 1189–1202

    2008

  35. [43]

    Gopalan, M

    B. Gopalan, M. Shahnam, R. Panday, J. Tucker, F. Shaffer, L. Shadle, J. Mei, W. Rogers, C. Guenther, M. Syamlal, Measurements of pressure d rop and particle velocity in a pseudo 2-D rectangular bed with Geldart Group D particle s, Powder Technology 291 (2016) 299–310

    2016

  36. [44]

    H. A. Elghannay, D. K. Tafti, Dem predictions of netl small scale challenge prob- lem, in: ASME 2014 4th Joint US-European Fluids Engineering Division Su mmer Meeting, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. V01CT23A0 01

    2014

  37. [45]

    N. V. Koralkar, M. Bose, Performance of drag models for simula tion of fluidized beds with geldart d particles, Advanced Powder Technology 27 (201 6) 2377–2398

  38. [46]

    D. Liu, B. van Wachem, Comprehensive assessment of the accu racy of cfd-dem simulations of bubbling fluidized beds, Powder Technology 343 (2019) 145–158

    2019

  39. [47]

    Goldschmidt, J

    M. Goldschmidt, J. Link, S. Mellema, J. Kuipers, Digital image analy sis mea- surements of bed expansion and segregation dynamics in dense gas -fluidised beds, Powder Technology 138 (2003) 135–159

    2003

  40. [48]

    Jiang, T

    Z. Jiang, T. Hagemeier, A. B¨ uck, E. Tsotsas, Color-ptv meas urement and cfd-dem simulation of the dynamics of poly-disperse particle systems in a pseu do-2d fluidized bed, Chemical Engineering Science 179 (2018) 115–132

    2018

  41. [49]

    Boyce, N

    C. Boyce, N. Rice, A. Ozel, J. Davidson, A. J. Sederman, L. F. G ladden, S. Sun- 28 daresan, J. S. Dennis, D. Holland, Magnetic resonance character ization of coupled gas and particle dynamics in a bubbling fluidized bed, Physical Review Flu ids 1 (2016) 074201

    2016

  42. [50]

    A. Penn, T. Tsuji, D. O. Brunner, C. M. Boyce, K. P. Pruessma nn, C. R. M¨ uller, Real-time probing of granular dynamics with magnetic resonance, Sc ience Advances 3 (2017) e1701879

    2017

  43. [51]

    W. D. Fullmer, C. Q. LaMarche, A. Issangya, P. Liu, R. Cocco, C . M. Hrenya, Experimental data for code validation: Horizontal air jets in a semic ircular fluidized bed of geldart group d particles, AIChE Journal 64 (2018) 235123 63

    2018

  44. [52]

    Jalali, M

    P. Jalali, M. Nikku, J. Ritvanen, T. Hypp¨ anen, Flow characteris tics of circulat- ing fluidized beds near terminal velocity: Eulerian model of a lab-scale apparatus, Powder Technology 339 (2018) 569–584

    2018

  45. [53]

    K. Wu, L. de Mart ´ ın, L. Mazzei, M.-O. Coppens, Pattern formation in fluidized beds as a tool for model validation: A two-fluid model based study, Powd er Technology 295 (2016) 35–42. 29

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.