En
期刊文章
文章精选
当期目录
过刊浏览
高被引
高下载
特邀文章
专刊合集
待刊文章
Volume 112
您当前的位置：首页 > 期刊文章 > 过刊浏览 > Volumes 108-119 (2025) > Volume 112
Comparison of 1D and 3D models for the thermochemical conversion of carbonaceous pulverized particles (Open Access)
Matthias Kiss a, Thomas Nanz a, Markus Bösenhofer b *
a K1-MET GmbH, Stahlstrasse 14, 4020, Linz, Austria
b Institute of Chemical, Environmental and Bioscience Engineering, TU Wien, Getreidemarkt 9/166, 1060, Vienna, Austria
10.1016/j.partic.2026.02.016
Volume 112, May 2026, Pages 87-98
Received 30 November 2025, Revised 24 February 2026, Accepted 25 February 2026, Available online 11 March 2026, Version of Record 17 March 2026.
E-mail: markus.boesenhofer@tuwien.ac.at
Highlights

• Introduction of a 3D detailed particle model.

• Comparison of 1D and 3D particle models under realistic conversion conditions.

• Multi-scale evaluation of thermally thick particle behavior in 1D and 3D frameworks.


Abstract

Accurate modeling of thermochemical conversion of carbonaceous particles is essential for predicting solid conversion behavior in high temperature industrial reactors. Numerically efficient 0D or 1D particle models are widely used in large-scale CFD simulations. They typically rely on simplifying assumptions regarding intra-particle heat and mass transfer and chemistry. In contrast, fully resolved 3D multi-region particle models capture detailed transport and reaction phenomena but are computationally expensive. In this study, we compare a 1D particle-resolved Lagrangian model with a detailed 3D multi-region model implemented in OpenFOAM to assess their predictive capabilities under realistic conditions. Three particle sizes and three conversion temperature profiles were analyzed. The comparison focuses on the temporal evolution of the conversion and the intra-particle states at 50% devolatilization and 50% burnout. The results indicate that the 1D and 3D model predict similar mean temperature profiles for most cases, while the mean conversion profiles differ. The results indicate that the 1D model results are biased by the employed sequential thermochemical conversion model for high temperature cases. Some of the differences might be also caused by the slightly inconsistent model settings between the 1D and 3D models. The more complex 3D model requires additional parameters and the devolatilization model from the 1D model is not supported by the 3D modeling framework.

Graphical abstract
Keywords
Particle-resolved modeling; Thermochemical conversion; Intra-particle gradients; OpenFOAM; ARA reactor
文章导读