222 vistas

Cargado por Matthew Anthony Koen

- Conversion Reactors Tutorial
- Fluidization
- Fette Compression Machine-pocketguide
- Hold Time Study Sample Protocol.pdf
- VVER Reactors
- Biodiesel Appleseed Reactor Plans
- Crude Treating & Desalting
- Explosionprotection_en
- Tablet Compression Ppt
- Future of Mechanical Engineering
- PLU HE
- Fluidization
- Wurster Coating - Scle Up and Scale Out
- Handbook of Fluidization and Fluid Particle Systems
- Trickle Bed Reactor
- Boundary Layer Theory Schlichting
- Pharmaceutical Steam Generators and Water Distillation Systems
- Crystallization Technology Handbook
- Chemical Kinetics Part - I
- Advances in Thermal Design of Heat Ex Changers

Está en la página 1de 8

**on Minimum Fluidization Velocity
**

Akhil Rao and Jennifer S. Curtis

Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611

Bruno C. Hancock

Pﬁzer Global Research and Development, Groton, CT 06340

Carl Wassgren

School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907

DOI 10.1002/aic.12161

Published online January 20, 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

Experiments show that the minimum ﬂuidization velocity of particles increases as

the diameter of the ﬂuidization column is reduced, or if the height of the bed is

increased. These trends are shown to be due to the inﬂuence of the wall. A new, semi-

correlated model is proposed, which incorporates Janssen’s wall effects in the calcula-

tion of the minimum ﬂuidization velocity. The wall friction opposes not only the bed

weight but also the drag force acting on the particles during ﬂuidization. The

enhanced wall friction leads to an increase in the minimum ﬂuidization velocity. The

model predictions compare favorably to existing correlations and experimental data.

V VC

2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 56: 2304–2311, 2010

Keywords: minimum ﬂuidization velocity, ﬂuidized bed, column diameter, bed height,

ﬂuidization

Introduction

As ﬂuidized bed operations have become more popular in

industry, there has been a drive to study these beds in

greater detail at laboratory scales. Reducing the size of ﬂuid-

ized beds is gaining interest because of the better gas distri-

bution and operability at smaller scales. Micro ﬂuidized beds

(MFBs), which were ﬁrst proposed by Potic et al.,

1

have

good mixing and heat transfer capabilities, making them a

useful tool for studying various processes like drying, mix-

ing, or segregation,

2–6

as well as reaction kinetics.

7

For

example, MFBs are used to investigate ﬂuidization segrega-

tion in the pharmaceutical industry where active ingredients

are expensive and difﬁcult to obtain during the early stages

of development.

One parameter of particular interest when working with

ﬂuidized beds is the minimum ﬂuidization velocity. Many

correlations exist for calculating the minimum ﬂuidization

velocity.

8–21

The Wen and Yu

22

correlation is the most com-

monly used correlation for calculating the minimum ﬂuidiza-

tion velocity and is given as,

24:5

Re

#

_ _

2

þ1650

Re

#

_ _

À

Ar

#

3

_ _

¼ 0 (1)

where

Re ¼

q

g

ð#dÞU

mf

l

and (2)

Ar ¼

ð#dÞ

3

ðq

s

Àq

g

Þq

g

g

l

2

(3)

where Re is Reynolds number, Ar is the Archimedes number, W

is the sphericity, q

g

is gas density, d is particle diameter, U

mf

is

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to A. Rao at

akhil-rao@hotmail.com.

V VC

2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers

2304 AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9

the minimum fluidization velocity, l is gas dynamic viscosity,

q

s

is solid density, and g is the gravitational acceleration. None

of the correlations include the effect of the bed height or

diameter of the column, factors which are likely to be of

interest when MFBs are considered.

Two recent investigations, however, have examined the

inﬂuence of column diameter and bed height. Di Felice and

Gibilaro

23

described a method for predicting the pressure

drop across a particle bed, taking into account the effect of

column diameter. They considered the column to be com-

prised of two sections: an inner core, where the voidage

remains nearly constant, and an outer annular section, where

the voidage varies because of the presence of the wall. As

there is a difference in the voidage over the cross section of

the column, the velocity also varies across the column’s

cross section. This fact was used to develop a modiﬁed

Ergun’s equation, but this effect is only observed at very

small column diameter (D) to particle diameter (d) ratios,

i.e. D/d \15.

Delebarre

24

assumed that the ﬂuidizing gas density is a

function of the instantanious bed height, which in turn inﬂu-

ences the minimum ﬂuidizing velocity. This effect only

occurs if the column is very tall. For MFBs, where the col-

umns are short, this effect does not play much of a role.

As will be shown in the following section, experiments in

which the bed height and column diameter are varied show

that both parameters inﬂuence the bed’s minimum ﬂuidiza-

tion velocity. Neither Di Felice and Gibilaro’s

23

or Dele-

barre’s

24

models are able to capture the experimental results.

The remainder of this article describes the theory and experi-

ments in which a new mechanism is proposed for accounting

for bed height and column wall effects.

Experimental Setup

Two ﬂuidization segregation units (Jenike and Johanson,

Fluidization Material Sparing—Segregation Tester and Fluid-

ization Segregation Tester), were used in the experiments.

The ﬁrst tester has a column diameter of 1.6 cm and a height

of 9.5 cm, and the latter tester has a 2.4 cm diameter column

and an 18.5 cm height. Details concerning the operation of

the testers are given in Hedden et al.

25

and ASTM D-6941.

26

A schematic of the experimental set up is shown in Figure

1. The experiments were carried out in both columns. A sin-

tered metal plate with an average pore diameter of 40 lm

was used as a gas distributor for both the columns. The air

enters the column from the bottom, and its ﬂow rate is con-

trolled by a mass ﬂow controller. The pressure drop across

the entire setup was measured with a pressure transducer.

The instantaneous pressure drop and velocity data were

recorded on a computer.

Experiments were performed with glass and polystyrene

particles of different sizes, ranging from 100 to 550 lm.

These particles are in the Geldart B class. The particles were

carefully sieved, then dried in an oven for 12 h, and ﬁnally

subject to an antistatic bar (Takk industries) to eliminate

accumulated electrostatic charge. The particles were stored

in a desiccator so that cohesive forces due to moisture were

minimized. To further reduce electrostatic charges that de-

velop during ﬂuidization, a very small amount ($5 mg) of

antistatic powder (LarostatVR

HTS 905 S, manufactured by

BASF Corporation) was mixed with the particles, preceding

the experiments. Table 1 summarizes the experimental mate-

rials and their properties. The notation used to represent the

particle type is: G for glass and P for polystyrene, followed

by the average particle size in microns. The values for the

dynamic friction coefﬁcients of glass and polystyrene on

acrylic (the column wall material) are not readily available

and so values of friction coefﬁcients, for glass on glass and

polystyrene on polystyrene, obtained from Persson and

Tosatti

27

were used in the model calculations.

Before running an experiment, air was passed through the

empty column to get a background pressure drop due to the

column, diffuser, and the ﬁlter sections. Next, the particulate

material was weighed and loaded into the column from the

top. The height, H, to which the column was ﬁlled was

Figure 1. Schematic of the experimental set up.

Table 1. Experimental Materials and Properties

Material Diameter (lm) Density (kg/m

3

) Sphericity Coefﬁcient of Friction Notation

Glass 105–125 2500 0.9 0.4 G116

Glass 210–250 2500 0.9 0.4 G231

Glass 250–300 2500 0.9 0.4 G275

Glass 350–420 2500 0.9 0.4 G385

Glass 420–500 2500 0.9 0.4 G462

Glass 500–600 2500 0.9 0.4 G550

Polystyrene 250–300 1250 0.9 0.5 P275

Polystyrene 300–354 1250 0.9 0.5 P328

AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/aic 2305

recorded. The antistatic powder was mixed with the par-

ticles. The air velocity was slowly increased beyond the

point of ﬂuidization and then decreased to zero to get the

entire pressure drop proﬁle. The point of intersection of the

pressure drop line for the ﬁxed bed and the horizontal line

for the fully ﬂuidized bed is typically deﬁned as the mini-

mum ﬂuidization velocity. However, just before ﬂuidization,

the pressure drop across the bed overshoots the expected

value and then decreases to a constant value. Such behavior

is expected in columns with a small diameter. This over-

shoot was not observed during deﬂuidization (Figure 2).

Thus, the deﬂuidization pressure drop curve was used to

determine the point of ﬂuidization.

7,28

A minimal of three

cycles of ﬂuidization and deﬂuidization were carried out to

determine an average minimum ﬂuidization velocity. Each

experiment was repeated twice and the procedure was

repeated for all particle types. The maximum ﬂuctuation

observed in the value of U

mf

was $7% (for G550 in D ¼

1.6 cm and H ¼ 4.5 cm; U

mf

¼ 24.5 Æ 0.9 cm/s). The fairly

consistent value of U

mf

observed over the three cycles and

two repetitions show that the trends in U

mf

are not due to

poor gas distribution but rather due to the wall effects. Addi-

tionally, gas channeling and maldistribution were not

observed through the transparent columns during any of the

experiments.

Figures 3–6 present the experimental data for the mini-

mum ﬂuidization velocity (U

mf

) for the glass and polystyrene

particles, obtained from both the columns. In these ﬁgures,

the Reynolds number at U

mf

is plotted against the aspect ra-

tio of the bed (H/D). In addition to the experimental data,

the plots also include theoretical curves that will be

described in the following section. The error bars represent

the difference in the reading between two repetitions and not

amongst different cycles.

The experimental data (Figures 3–6) show that minimum

ﬂuidization velocity monotonically increases as the height of

the bed is increased. Further, wall effects on the minimum

ﬂuidization velocity are prominent when column diameter, D

¼ 1.6 cm (Figures 3 and 5). While, wall effects on minimum

ﬂuidization velocity are much less pronounced for column

diameter, D ¼ 2.4 cm (Figures 4 and 6). Although the model

proposed by Di Felice and Gibilaro

23

predicts this trend,

their model is limited to column to particle diameter ratios

of less than 15. In the experiments performed here, this ratio

Figure 2. Example of a pressure drop proﬁle (ﬂuidiza-

tion and deﬂuidization) using G231 particles

in the 1.6 cm diameter column.

The minimum ﬂuidization velocity is also shown in the

ﬁgure.

Figure 3. Reynolds number, Re, based on the minimum

ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect

ratio, H/D, for different glass particles in the

1.6 cm diameter column.

Figure 4. Reynolds number, Re, based on the minimum

ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect

ratio, H/D, for different glass particles in the

2.4 cm diameter column.

2306 DOI 10.1002/aic Published on behalf of the AIChE September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 AIChE Journal

can be as large as 150, well outside the range of validity in

Di Felice and Gibilaro’s model.

As the height of the bed increases, the minimum ﬂuidization

velocity also increases. Delebarre’s

24

model accounting for

changes in the ﬂuidizing gas density over the bed height predicts

at most a minimum ﬂuidization velocity increase of $0.5%,

whereas the observed minimum ﬂuidization velocity increase is

greater than 20% in certain cases for the experiments examined

here. Thus, this model does not predict the measured data.

Theory

As existing correlations do not include the inﬂuence of

column diameter or bed height, and because the recent mod-

els by Di Felice and Gibilaro

23

and Delebarre

24

do not pre-

dict the measured data, a new model is developed in this

section to account for the observed trends. As will be pre-

sented, a key component of the model is the stress between

the column wall and the bed.

The pressure drop, DP, for a ﬁxed bed of height, H, is

given by the semiempirical correlation of Ergun

16

as:

À

DP

H

¼ bU þaU

2

(4)

where

a ¼ 1:75

ð1À 2Þ

2

3

q

g

#d

_ _

and (5)

b ¼ 150

ð1À 2Þ

2

2

3

l

#

2

d

2

_ _

: (6)

The parameter U is the superﬁcial ﬂuid velocity and [ is

the bed voidage. The bed void fraction and ﬂuid density are

assumed to remain constant throughout the bed.

The pressure drop expression (Eq. 4) can be used to pre-

dict the minimum ﬂuidization velocity of a mono-sized ma-

terial by balancing the pressure force acting on the bed by

the effective bed weight.

1:75

ð1À 2Þ

2

3

_ _

Re

2

þ 150

ð1À 2Þ

2

2

3

_ _

Re ¼ ð1À 2ÞAr ½ (7)

Note that in the previous analysis, the stress between the

wall and the bed has not been included.

In the case of a ﬁxed bed with no interstitial ﬂuid, a frac-

tion of the bed weight is supported by the walls of the col-

umn. This phenomenon is known as Janssen’s wall effect.

To determine the wall force acting on the bed, consider a

thin horizontal slice of the particle bed of thickness dz (Fig-

ure 7). The vertical stress, r

v

, acting on the top face and the

weight of the element are balanced by the vertical stress act-

ing on the bottom face and the frictional forces applied by

the wall. The resulting differential equation is,

dr

v

dz

þc

1

r

v

¼ c

2

(8)

where

c

1

¼

4tanuk

D

and (9)

c

2

¼ ð1À 2Þq

s

g: (10)

The parameter u is the friction angle between the wall

and particles, and D is the column diameter. A horizontal

frictional stress, r

H

, arises from the vertical stress, r

v

, pro-

ducing a wall friction force of r

H

tanu.

29

It is assumed here

Figure 5. Reynolds number, Re, based on the minimum

ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect

ratio, H/D, for different polystyrene particles

in the 1.6 cm diameter column.

Figure 6. Reynolds number, Re, based on the minimum

ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect

ratio, H/D, for different polystyrene particles

in the 2.4 cm column.

AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/aic 2307

that this horizontal stress is directly proportional to the verti-

cal stress with k as the proportionality constant

29

:

r

H

¼ kr

v

: (11)

Solving Eq. 8 subject to the boundary condition that the

stress at the top of the bed is zero gives,

r

v

¼

c

2

c

1

ð1 Àe

Àc

1

z

Þ: (12)

The stress increases nearly linearly near the free surface,

but asymptotes to a constant value deeper into the bed.

These wall induced stresses will affect the minimum ﬂuid-

ization velocity in narrow columns.

Now consider the situation when ﬂuid is ﬂowing through

a ﬁxed bed of solids with the same coordinate system as

shown in Figure 7. At equilibrium, the force due to stress on

the top face of the element, F

T

, and the weight of the ele-

ment, F

W

, will be balanced by the force due to the stress on

the bottom face, F

B

, the wall friction, F

F

(Janssen’s effect),

the drag force on the solids, F

D

, and the buoyancy force,

F

Bu

. Thus, a force balance on the solids yields:

F

B

þF

F

þF

D

þF

Bu

¼ F

T

þF

W

(13)

which, when expanded is

p

4

D

2

ðr

v

þdr

v

Þ þðtanur

H

ÞpDdz þ

p

4

D

2

dp ¼

p

4

D

2

r

v

þðð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

ÞgÞ

p

4

D

2

dz: (14)

In the above expression, F

w

and F

Bu

have been com-

bined to give the last term on the right hand side of Eq.

14. Simplifying and rearranging the previous equation

gives,

dr

v

dz

þ

4tanur

H

D

¼ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg À

dp

dz

_ _

: (15)

If r

H

¼ kr

v

is assumed, as in Eq. 11,

dr

v

dz

þ

4tanukr

v

D

¼ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg À

dp

dz

_ _

(16)

which may be written as

dr

v

dz

þc

1

r

v

¼ c

2

(17)

where

c

1

¼

4tanuk

D

and (18)

c

2

¼ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg À

dp

dz

_ _

: (19)

In Eq. 19 there are two additional terms as compared with

Eq. 10: the drag term, represented by dp/dz, and the buoy-

ancy term.

The solution to Eq. 17 is equivalent to that of Eq. 8

r

v

¼

c

2

c

1

ð1 Àe

Àc

1

z

Þ (20)

but with different c

1

and c

2

.

Figure 8 presents Eq. 20 in graphical form. When the ve-

locity is zero (i.e., there is no gas ﬂowing through the col-

umn), then Eq. 20 simpliﬁes to Janssen’s equation. As the

velocity increases, the vertical contact stresses in the bed are

smaller because the drag on the particles supports a fraction

of the bed’s weight. At and above the point of ﬂuidization,

the stresses in the column are zero (as contact does not exist

Figure 7. Sketch showing the ﬂuidized bed coordinate

system.

Figure 8. A schematic showing how the vertical stress

in the bed varies with bed depth at different

ﬂuid velocity U

1

, U

2

, and U

3

.

2308 DOI 10.1002/aic Published on behalf of the AIChE September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 AIChE Journal

amongst the particles), and thus dr

v

/dz is also zero. This sit-

uation is only possible if c

2

¼ 0,

c

2

¼ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg À

dp

dz

_ _

¼ 0 (21)

In Eq. 21, if Ergun’s pressure drop expression is substi-

tuted (Eq. 4), the resultant expression will be the same as

Eq. 7, and the wall effects will not be included in the analy-

sis.

It is now assumed that the horizontal stress is not only a

function of the downward vertical stress but also a function

the upward drag forces caused by the gas ﬂowing through

the column. As Ergun’s pressure drop equation is used to

calculate the pressure drop, it is assumed that the structure

of these new terms on which the horizontal stress depends is

similar in form to those given by Ergun’s equation, but the

velocity terms are being scaled differently. These scales are

chosen as they give a favorable ﬁt to the experimental data.

r

H

¼ kr

v

Àk

1

H

l

D#d

_ _

U Àk

2

H

q

g

D

_ _

U

2

(22)

where k

1

and k

2

are constants.

Substituting Eq. 22 back into Eq. 15, yields:

dr

v

dz

þ

4tanukr

v

D

¼

4tanuk

2

ðq

g

Þð

H

D

Þ

D

_ _

U

2

þ

4tanuk

1

l

#d

_ _

ð

H

D

Þ

D

_ _

U þ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg

_ ¸

À

dp

dz

: (23)

Comparing Eq. 23 to Eq. 16, there are two additional

terms, proportional to U

2

and U, appearing on the right hand

side of Eq. 23. These terms have come about due to the hor-

izontal stress from the wall and the ﬂow of the ﬂuid through

the bed.

Substituting Ergun’s equation for pressure drop (Eq. 4)

into Eq. 23:

dr

v

dz

þ

4tanukr

v

D

¼

4tanuk

2

ðq

g

Þð

H

D

Þ

D

Àa

_ _

U

2

þ

4tanuk

2

l

#d

_ _

ð

H

D

Þ

D

Àb

_ _

U þ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg

_ ¸

: (24)

This equation is again of the form:

dr

v

dz

þc

1

r

v

¼ c

2

(25)

where:

c

1

¼

4tanuk

D

and (26)

Àc

2

¼ a À

4tanuk

2

ðq

g

Þð

H

D

Þ

D

_ _

U

2

þ b À

4tanuk

2

l

#d

_ _

ð

H

D

Þ

D

_ _

U

À ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg

_ ¸

: (27)

Setting c

2

¼ 0, the condition which is necessary for ﬂuid-

ization, and integrating over the length of the column:

a À

4tanuk

0

2

ðq

g

Þð

H

D

Þ

D

_ _

U

2

þ b À

4tanuk

0

1

l

#d

_ _

ð

H

D

Þ

D

_ _

U

À ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg

_ ¸

¼ 0 (28)

where k

0

1

and k

0

2

are lumped parameters which also include

integration coefficients. Substituting for a and b, which are

Ergun’s constants, yields;

1:75

ð1À 2Þ

2

3

À4tanuk

0

2

#d

D

_ _

H

D

_ _ _ _

q

g

U

2

#d

þ

_

150

ð1À 2Þ

2

2

3

À4tanuk

0

1

#d

D

_ _

H

D

_ _

_

lU

ð#dÞ

2

¼ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg

_ ¸

(29)

Multiplying throughout by the factor

q

g

ð#dÞ

3

l

2

to make the

equation dimensionless gives:

1:75

ð1À 2Þ

2

3

À4tanuk

0

2

#d

D

_ _

ð

H

D

Þ

_ _

Re

2

þ

_

150

ð1À 2Þ

2

2

3

À4tanuk

0

1

#d

D

_ _

H

D

_ _

_

Re ¼ ð1À 2ÞAr ½ (30)

Equation 30 is a quadratic equation that can be easily

solved for Re, with k

0

1

and k

0

2

remaining constant. Rewriting

Eq. 30 results in

a

00

2; u;

#d

D

_ _

;

H

D

_ _ _ _

Re

2

þb

00

2; u;

#d

D

_ _

;

H

D

_ _ _ _

Re

Àð1À 2ÞAr ¼ 0 (31)

where a

00

and b

00

are functions not only of [ and u but also of

(Wd/D) and (H/D). Hence, both the ratio of particle size to

column diameter (Wd/D) and the bed aspect ratio (H/D) play a

role in determining U

mf

.

Results and Discussion

The values of the universal constants k

0

1

and k

0

2

which give

the minimum error for the experimental data set presented in

this study were found out to be 610 and 30.1, respectively. In

Figures 3–6 and Figures 9 and 10, the values of the universal

constants k

0

1

and k

0

2

are kept at these values for all of the par-

ticle types, bed heights, and column diameters.

Figures 3–6 show that including the wall effects in the

prediction of U

mf

is successful in describing the effects of

height vs. column diameter (H/D) and the effect of particle

size to column diameter (d/D). The model only slightly

under-predicts the increase in U

mf

for very small sized par-

ticles (d \120 lm) in the column with D ¼ 1.6 cm, which

is likely due electrostatic cohesive and adhesive forces.

For a ﬁxed column diameter, as the H/D ratio increases,

U

mf

increases (Figures 3–6). Hence, as the column becomes

taller in comparison to its diameter, the wall effects are

more prominent, making it more difﬁcult to ﬂuidize the

AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/aic 2309

particles. Also, for a constant particle size, as d/D ratio

increases (due to changes in column diameter), U

mf

increases

(compare Figures 3 and 4 or Figures 5 and 6). As the col-

umn diameter decreases in comparison to the particle diame-

ter, the ratio of wall contact surface area to the bulk volume

increases, leading to a more signiﬁcant wall effect. This wall

effect reduces as the column increases in diameter relative to

the particles, and eventually becomes negligible as d/D

becomes very small. The effect of H/D and d/D on U

mf

are

very similar; in fact, the increase in U

mf

can be characterized

by the product of H/D and d/D (Eq. 30). Additionally, as

particle size increases and approaches the same order of

magnitude as the column diameter (d/D $ O(1)), then ﬂuid-

ization becomes difﬁcult. Above a certain d/D ratio, the par-

ticle mixture is impossible to ﬂuidize. This situation is pre-

dicted by the model, as the quadratic equation yields com-

plex roots. Similarly, Eq. 30 breaks down for large H/D

ratio predicting that at large H/D the gas may not ﬂuidize

the bed. For example, the model predicts that if glass par-

ticles of size 250 lm are ﬂuidized in a 760 lm diameter col-

umn (D/d $ 3) with H/D ¼ 1, then the particles will not ﬂu-

idize. Similarly, the model also predicts that if these par-

ticles are loaded into a 100 cm diameter column to a bed

height of about 13 m (H/D $ 13), the gas may not ﬂuidize

the bed.

Figure 9 compares the experimental data from Liu et al.

7

to the values predicted by the model. The data are plotted in

the same dimensional form as given in the orignal work of

Liu et al.

7

The model does not predict the increase in U

mf

for the smaller particles (d ¼ 96.4 lm), but it does give

good predictions for the larger particle sizes. In this case

also, the values of k

0

1

and k

0

2

are maintained at 610 and

30.1, respectively. For the largest particles (d ¼ 460 lm),

the prediction for the smallest diameter column is not that

good, but this may be due to experimental error, which is

not reported in Liu et al.

7

Also, the values of voidage were

not clearly stated; only values of bulk density were given. In

the model, the values of bulk density were kept constant

with respect to the column diameter, but it has been

observed that this value changes depending on the column

diameter,

28

particularly for small column diameters.

Figure 10 compares the model results to the average pre-

dictions of the Reynolds number at U

mf

based on a large

number of existing correlations.

8–22

The scatter bars on the

correlation line represent the deviation in minimum ﬂuidiza-

tion velocity predictions using the different correlations. The

experimental data obtained when the wall effects are mini-

mum (at H ¼ 2 cm and D ¼ 2.4 cm) are consistent with the

model prediction and with the averaged correlation curve.

On the other hand, only the new model is able to predict ex-

perimental data obtained when the wall effects are signiﬁ-

cant (at H ¼ 10 cm, D ¼ 1.6 cm), as the existing correla-

tions for U

mf

do not take wall effects into account.

Conclusions

Experiments show that wall effects inﬂuence the minimum

ﬂuidization velocity. Existing correlations fail to incorporate

these wall effects and, hence, there is a need for a new

model that can take these effects into consideration. The

model presented in this study attempts to include the wall

inﬂuence by introducing Janssen’s wall effect in the force

balance during ﬂuidization. It is assumed that the horizontal

stresses acting at the wall are not only a function of the local

vertical stress but also are a quadratic function of velocity.

These new terms have the same structure as that of the drag

term, i.e., the pressure drop, as given by the widely accepted

Ergun equation. This assumption leads to a modiﬁed Ergun’s

equation incorporating two universal constants. The new

model ﬁts experimental data reasonably well for the mini-

mum ﬂuidization velocity over a range of particles sizes, bed

heights, and column diameters. Some deﬁciencies in the

model predictions are noted for smaller particles (around

100 lm and smaller), but these deﬁciencies may be due to

Figure 10. Comparison of the curves from Eq. 30 to the

experimental data and existing correlations.

Figure 9. The minimum ﬂuidization velocity as a func-

tion of the column diameter using the experi-

mental data from Liu et al.

7

The curves are from Eq. 30.

2310 DOI 10.1002/aic Published on behalf of the AIChE September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 AIChE Journal

the signiﬁcance of cohesive and adhesive forces at this scale.

This new model should greatly facilitate scaling results from

MFBs to more traditional ﬂuid bed sizes.

Acknowledgments

Jim Prescott and colleagues at Jenike and Johanson are thanked for

their support of this research and for providing the segregation testing

equipment.

Notation

[ ¼ voidage

W ¼ sphericity

l ¼ viscosity

q

g

¼ density of gas

q

s

¼ density of solid

r

H

¼ stress in horizontal direction

r

v

¼ stress in vertical direction

u ¼ friction angle

Dp ¼ pressure drop

a, b ¼ Ergun constants

A ¼ cross-sectional area

a

0

,b

0

,c

0

¼ various constants of the quadratic

Ar ¼ Archimedes number

D ¼ column diameter

d ¼ particle diameter

F ¼ force

g ¼ Gravity

H ¼ height of ﬁxed bed

k, k

1

, k

2

, k

1

0

, k

2

0

,c

1

,c

2

¼ various constants

Re ¼ Reynolds number

U ¼ ﬂuid velocity

U

mf

¼ Minimum Fluidization velocity

z ¼ instantaneous height measured from the top of

the bed

Literature Cited

1. Potic B, Kerstn S, Ye M, Van der Hoef M, van Swaaij W. Fluidiza-

tion of hot compressed water in micro reactors. Chem Eng Sci.

2005;60:5982–5990.

2. Chiba S, Nienow A, Chiba T, Kobayashi H. Fluidized binary mix-

tures in which denser component may be ﬂotsam. Powder Technol.

1980;26:1–10.

3. Garcia F, Romero A, Villar J, Bello A. A study of segregation in a

gas solid ﬂuidized bed: particles of different density. Powder Tech-

nol. 1989;58:169–174.

4. Huilin L, Yurong D, Gidaspow D, Lidan Y, Yukun Q. Size segrega-

tion of binary mixture of solid in bubbling ﬂuidized bed. Powder

Technol. 2003;134:86–97.

5. Joseph G, Leboreiro J, Hrenya C, Stevens A. Experimental segrega-

tion proﬁles in bubbling gas ﬂuidized bed. AIChE J. 2007;53:2804–

2813.

6. Geldart D, Baeyens J, Pope D, Van De Wijer P. Segregation in beds of

large particles at high velocity. Powder Technol. 1981;30:195–205.

7. Liu X, Xu G, Gao S. Micro ﬂuidized beds: wall effects and oper-

ability. Chem Eng J. 2008;137:302–307.

8. Babu S, Shah B, Talwalker A. Fluidization correlation for coal gasi-

ﬁcation materials—minimum ﬂuidization velocity and ﬂuidized bed

expansion. AIChE Symp Ser. 1978;74:176–186.

9. Baerg A, Klassen J, Gishler P. Heat transfer in a ﬂuidized solid bed.

Can J Res Sect F. 1950;28:287.

10. Broadhurst T, Becker H. Onset of ﬂuidization and slugging in beds

of uniform particles. AIChE J. 1975;21:238–247.

11. Davies L, Richardson J. Gas interchange between bubbles and the

continuous phase in a ﬂuidized bed. Trans Inst Chem Eng.

1966;44:293–305.

12. Goroshko V, Rozenbaum R, Todes O. Hydrodynamics and Heat

Transfer in ﬂuidized beds. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1966.

13. Grewal N, Saxena S. Comparision of commonly used correlations

for minimum ﬂuidization velocityof small solid particles. Powder

Technol. 1980;26:229–234.

14. Johnson E. Institute of gas engineers report, Publication No. 318.

London, 1949.

15. Kumar P, Sen Gupta P. Prediction of minimum ﬂuidization velocity

for multicomponent mixtures (short communication). Indian J Tech-

nol. 1974;12:225.

16. Kunii D, Levenspiel O. Fluidization Engineering, 2nd ed. Newton:

Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991.

17. Leva M. Fluidization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

18. Miller C, Longwinuk A. Fluidization studies of solid particles. Ind

Eng Chem. 1951;43:1220–1226.

19. Pillai B, Raja Rao M. Pressure drop and minimum ﬂuidization

velocities of air-ﬂuidized bed. Indian J Technol. 1971;9:77.

20. Saxena S, Vogel G. The measurement of incipient ﬂuidization veloc-

ities in a bed of coarse dolomite at temperature and pressure. Trans

Inst Chem Eng. 1977;55:184–189.

21. van Heerdeen C, Nobel A, Krevelen v. Studies on ﬂuidization ll—

heat transfer. Chem Eng Sci. 1951;1:51–66.

22. Wen C, Yu Y. Mechanics of ﬂuidization. Chem Eng Prog Symp.

1966;62:100–111.

23. Di Felice R, Gibilaro L. Wall effects for the pressure drop in ﬁxed

beds. Chem Eng Sci. 2004;59:3037–3040.

24. Delebarre A. Does the minimum ﬂuidization exist? J Fluid Eng.

2002;124:595–600.

25. Hedden D, Brone D, Clement S, McCall M, Olsofsy A, Patel P, Pre-

scott J, Hancock B. Development of an improved ﬂuidization segre-

gation tester for use with pharmaceutical powders. Pharm Technol.

2006;30:54–64.

26. ASTM International. Standard practice for measuring ﬂuidization

segregation tendencies of powders, ASTM International, D6941–03,

2003.

27. Persson B, Tosatti E. Physics of Sliding Friction (NATO Science Se-

ries E). New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1966.

28. Loezos P, Costamagna P, Sundaresan S. The role of contact stresses

and wall friction on ﬂuidization. Chem Eng Sci. 2002;57:5123–5141.

29. Janssen HA. Versuche uber getreidedruck in silozellen. Z Ver

Deutsch Ing. 1895;39:1045–1049.

Manuscript received Aug. 14, 2009, and revision received Dec. 1, 2009.

AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/aic 2311

4 0.9 0.4 0.9 0. the minimum fluidization velocity. and g is the gravitational acceleration. air was passed through the empty column to get a background pressure drop due to the column.9 0. Next. No. The particles were stored in a desiccator so that cohesive forces due to moisture were minimized.6 cm and a height of 9. A sintered metal plate with an average pore diameter of 40 lm was used as a gas distributor for both the columns. to which the column was ﬁlled was Figure 1. however. then dried in an oven for 12 h. Neither Di Felice and Gibilaro’s23 or Delebarre’s24 models are able to capture the experimental results. where the columns are short. where the voidage varies because of the presence of the wall. the particulate material was weighed and loaded into the column from the top. The experiments were carried out in both columns. l is gas dynamic viscosity. As there is a difference in the voidage over the cross section of the column. this effect does not play much of a role. The air enters the column from the bottom. qs is solid density.4 0. Details concerning the operation of the testers are given in Hedden et al. ranging from 100 to 550 lm. Experimental Materials and Properties Material Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Polystyrene Polystyrene Diameter (lm) 105–125 210–250 250–300 350–420 420–500 500–600 250–300 300–354 Density (kg/m3) 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 1250 1250 Sphericity 0. where the voidage remains nearly constant. and the ﬁlter sections. 9 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10. 56. This effect only occurs if the column is very tall. The notation used to represent the particle type is: G for glass and P for polystyrene. and the latter tester has a 2. which in turn inﬂuences the minimum ﬂuidizing velocity. The height.25 and ASTM D-6941.tion velocity.9 0. Before running an experiment. D/d \ 15. Table 1 summarizes the experimental materials and their properties. taking into account the effect of column diameter. The remainder of this article describes the theory and experiments in which a new mechanism is proposed for accounting for bed height and column wall effects. factors which are likely to be of interest when MFBs are considered. The values for the dynamic friction coefﬁcients of glass and polystyrene on acrylic (the column wall material) are not readily available and so values of friction coefﬁcients. diffuser.4 cm diameter column and an 18. Experimental Setup Two ﬂuidization segregation units (Jenike and Johanson. i. The particles were carefully sieved.9 Coefﬁcient of Friction 0. These particles are in the Geldart B class. for glass on glass and polystyrene on polystyrene. but this effect is only observed at very small column diameter (D) to particle diameter (d) ratios. and an outer annular section.9 0. The instantaneous pressure drop and velocity data were recorded on a computer. Two recent investigations. The pressure drop across the entire setup was measured with a pressure transducer.4 0.5 cm height. the velocity also varies across the column’s cross section.1002/aic 2305 . and its ﬂow rate is controlled by a mass ﬂow controller.e. and ﬁnally subject to an antistatic bar (Takk industries) to eliminate accumulated electrostatic charge.9 0. They considered the column to be comprised of two sections: an inner core. As will be shown in the following section.5 0.5 cm. None of the correlations include the effect of the bed height or diameter of the column.26 A schematic of the experimental set up is shown in Figure 1. preceding the experiments. obtained from Persson and Tosatti27 were used in the model calculations. have examined the inﬂuence of column diameter and bed height.4 0. This fact was used to develop a modiﬁed Ergun’s equation. were used in the experiments. experiments in which the bed height and column diameter are varied show that both parameters inﬂuence the bed’s minimum ﬂuidiza- Table 1. Di Felice and Gibilaro23 described a method for predicting the pressure drop across a particle bed.9 0. Schematic of the experimental set up. To further reduce electrostatic charges that develop during ﬂuidization. For MFBs.5 Notation G116 G231 G275 G385 G462 G550 P275 P328 AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. Fluidization Material Sparing—Segregation Tester and Fluidization Segregation Tester). followed by the average particle size in microns. Experiments were performed with glass and polystyrene particles of different sizes.4 0. Delebarre24 assumed that the ﬂuidizing gas density is a function of the instantanious bed height. The ﬁrst tester has a column diameter of 1. H. a very small amount ($5 mg) of R antistatic powder (LarostatV HTS 905 S. manufactured by BASF Corporation) was mixed with the particles.

The air velocity was slowly increased beyond the point of ﬂuidization and then decreased to zero to get the entire pressure drop proﬁle. The fairly consistent value of Umf observed over the three cycles and two repetitions show that the trends in Umf are not due to poor gas distribution but rather due to the wall effects. The maximum ﬂuctuation observed in the value of Umf was $7% (for G550 in D ¼ 1. Umf ¼ 24. 56. Additionally. While.6 cm diameter column. No. In these ﬁgures. September 2010 Vol. In addition to the experimental data. their model is limited to column to particle diameter ratios of less than 15. Figure 3. the deﬂuidization pressure drop curve was used to determine the point of ﬂuidization. D ¼ 2. Example of a pressure drop proﬁle (ﬂuidization and deﬂuidization) using G231 particles in the 1. just before ﬂuidization.7.recorded. Reynolds number. Each experiment was repeated twice and the procedure was repeated for all particle types. Further. the Reynolds number at Umf is plotted against the aspect ratio of the bed (H/D). The point of intersection of the pressure drop line for the ﬁxed bed and the horizontal line for the fully ﬂuidized bed is typically deﬁned as the minimum ﬂuidization velocity.28 A minimal of three cycles of ﬂuidization and deﬂuidization were carried out to determine an average minimum ﬂuidization velocity. gas channeling and maldistribution were not observed through the transparent columns during any of the experiments. Figure 4. Re. based on the minimum ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect ratio. Although the model proposed by Di Felice and Gibilaro23 predicts this trend.6 cm (Figures 3 and 5). Reynolds number. this ratio Figure 2. However. The experimental data (Figures 3–6) show that minimum ﬂuidization velocity monotonically increases as the height of the bed is increased. H/D. The error bars represent the difference in the reading between two repetitions and not amongst different cycles. Re. Figures 3–6 present the experimental data for the minimum ﬂuidization velocity (Umf) for the glass and polystyrene particles. the pressure drop across the bed overshoots the expected value and then decreases to a constant value. wall effects on minimum ﬂuidization velocity are much less pronounced for column diameter.5 Æ 0. for different glass particles in the 1.5 cm. wall effects on the minimum ﬂuidization velocity are prominent when column diameter. The antistatic powder was mixed with the particles.4 cm diameter column. based on the minimum ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect ratio.4 cm (Figures 4 and 6).9 cm/s). Such behavior is expected in columns with a small diameter. D ¼ 1. In the experiments performed here. the plots also include theoretical curves that will be described in the following section. H/D. 9 AIChE Journal 2306 DOI 10.1002/aic Published on behalf of the AIChE . for different glass particles in the 2. Thus.6 cm and H ¼ 4.6 cm diameter column. This overshoot was not observed during deﬂuidization (Figure 2). obtained from both the columns. The minimum ﬂuidization velocity is also shown in the ﬁgure.

rv.1002/aic 2307 DP ¼ bU þ aU2 H (4) b ¼ 150 ð1À 2Þ2 l : 23 #2 d 2 The parameter U is the superﬁcial ﬂuid velocity and [ is the bed voidage. The pressure drop. and because the recent models by Di Felice and Gibilaro23 and Delebarre24 do not predict the measured data. Re. the minimum ﬂuidization velocity also increases. producing a wall friction force of rHtanu. " # ! ð1À 2Þ ð1À 2Þ2 2 Re þ 150 Re ¼ ½ð1À 2ÞAr 1:75 23 23 (7) Figure 5. for a ﬁxed bed of height. for different polystyrene particles in the 1. Note that in the previous analysis. rH. DOI 10. In the case of a ﬁxed bed with no interstitial ﬂuid.The pressure drop expression (Eq. whereas the observed minimum ﬂuidization velocity increase is greater than 20% in certain cases for the experiments examined here. a key component of the model is the stress between the column wall and the bed. a new model is developed in this section to account for the observed trends. No. DP. Thus. based on the minimum ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect ratio. 9 Published on behalf of the AIChE . is given by the semiempirical correlation of Ergun16 as: À where a ¼ 1:75 ð1À 2Þ qg #d 23 and (5) (6) Figure 6. Reynolds number. the stress between the wall and the bed has not been included. The resulting differential equation is. A horizontal frictional stress. well outside the range of validity in Di Felice and Gibilaro’s model. The vertical stress. Delebarre’s24 model accounting for changes in the ﬂuidizing gas density over the bed height predicts at most a minimum ﬂuidization velocity increase of $0. based on the minimum ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect ratio. arises from the vertical stress.4 cm column. consider a thin horizontal slice of the particle bed of thickness dz (Figure 7). This phenomenon is known as Janssen’s wall effect. As will be presented. this model does not predict the measured data. and D is the column diameter. Reynolds number. 56. H/D.5%.29 It is assumed here Theory As existing correlations do not include the inﬂuence of column diameter or bed height. for different polystyrene particles in the 2. The bed void fraction and ﬂuid density are assumed to remain constant throughout the bed. H/D.6 cm diameter column. As the height of the bed increases. c2 ¼ ð1À 2Þqs g: The parameter u is the friction angle between the wall and particles. AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. a fraction of the bed weight is supported by the walls of the column. acting on the top face and the weight of the element are balanced by the vertical stress acting on the bottom face and the frictional forces applied by the wall. 4) can be used to predict the minimum ﬂuidization velocity of a mono-sized material by balancing the pressure force acting on the bed by the effective bed weight. H. To determine the wall force acting on the bed. rv. Re. drv þ c 1 r v ¼ c2 dz where c1 ¼ 4tanuk and D (9) (10) (8) can be as large as 150.

2308 DOI 10. September 2010 Vol. At equilibrium. will be balanced by the force due to the stress on the bottom face. Simplifying and rearranging the previous equation gives.1002/aic Figure 8. The solution to Eq. FT. 56. Now consider the situation when ﬂuid is ﬂowing through a ﬁxed bed of solids with the same coordinate system as shown in Figure 7. there is no gas ﬂowing through the column).. FW. FD.e. but asymptotes to a constant value deeper into the bed. the force due to stress on the top face of the element. FB. 8 subject to the boundary condition that the stress at the top of the bed is zero gives. Fw and FBu have been combined to give the last term on the right hand side of Eq. the vertical contact stresses in the bed are smaller because the drag on the particles supports a fraction of the bed’s weight. the stresses in the column are zero (as contact does not exist (14) In the above expression. When the velocity is zero (i. No.! drv 4tanurH dp þ ¼ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg À : dz D dz If rH ¼ krv is assumed. These wall induced stresses will affect the minimum ﬂuidization velocity in narrow columns. then Eq. as in Eq. the drag force on the solids. FBu. As the velocity increases. 9 AIChE Journal Published on behalf of the AIChE . and the buoyancy force. and the weight of the element. 20 simpliﬁes to Janssen’s equation. and the buoyancy term. At and above the point of ﬂuidization. 19 there are two additional terms as compared with Eq. rv ¼ c2 ð1 À eÀc1 z Þ: c1 (12) The stress increases nearly linearly near the free surface. represented by dp/dz. Sketch showing the ﬂuidized bed coordinate system. 11. (18) (19) c2 ¼ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg À that this horizontal stress is directly proportional to the vertical stress with k as the proportionality constant29: rH ¼ krv : (11) In Eq. 10: the drag term. A schematic showing how the vertical stress in the bed varies with bed depth at different ﬂuid velocity U1. 17 is equivalent to that of Eq. when expanded is p 2 p p D ðrv þ drv Þ þ ðtanurH ÞpDdz þ D2 dp ¼ D2 rv 4 4 4 p þ ðð1À 2Þðqs À qg ÞgÞ D2 dz: 4 (13) but with different c1 and c2. Figure 8 presents Eq. 20 in graphical form. drv 4tanukrv dp þ ¼ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg À dz dz D which may be written as drv þ c 1 r v ¼ c2 dz where c1 ¼ 4tanuk D and ! dp : dz ! (15) (16) (17) Figure 7. FF (Janssen’s effect). U2. Thus. the wall friction. 8 rv ¼ c2 ð1 À eÀc1 z Þ c1 (20) Solving Eq. a force balance on the solids yields: FB þ FF þ FD þ FBu ¼ FT þ FW which. and U3. 14.

if Ergun’s pressure drop expression is substituted (Eq. making it more difﬁcult to ﬂuidize the DOI 10. with k0 1 and k0 2 remaining constant. the wall effects are more prominent. For a ﬁxed column diameter. 4). respectively. and integrating over the length of the column: À Á ! ! 0 0 l 4tanuk2 ðqg ÞðHÞ 2 4tanuk1 #d ðHÞ D D U þ bÀ U aÀ D D Â Ã À ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg ¼ 0 (28) where k0 1 and k0 2 are lumped parameters which also include integration coefficients. Hence. both the ratio of particle size to column diameter (Wd/D) and the bed aspect ratio (H/D) play a role in determining Umf. It is now assumed that the horizontal stress is not only a function of the downward vertical stress but also a function the upward drag forces caused by the gas ﬂowing through the column.1002/aic 2309 (25) ÀlÁ ! ! 4tanuk2 ðqg ÞðHÞ 2 4tanuk2 #d ðHÞ D D Àc2 ¼ a À U þ bÀ U D D Â Ã À ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg : (27) AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. u. This situation is only possible if c2 ¼ 0.6 cm. as the column becomes taller in comparison to its diameter. which are Ergun’s constants. the resultant expression will be the same as Eq. " ! ð1À 2Þ H qg U 2 ð1À 2Þ2 0 #d 1:75 þ 150 À 4tanuk2 23 D D #d 23 # Â Ã H lU 0 #d À 4tanuk1 ¼ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg (29) D D ð#dÞ2 Multiplying throughout by the factor equation dimensionless gives: qg ð#dÞ3 l2 to make the " ! ð1À 2Þ H ð1À 2Þ2 0 #d 2 1:75 ð Þ Re þ 150 À 4tanuk2 23 D D 23 # H 0 #d Re ¼ ½ð1À 2ÞAr (30) À 4tanuk1 D D (23) Equation 30 is a quadratic equation that can be easily solved for Re. 23: ! 4tanuk2 ðqg ÞðHÞ drv 4tanukrv D À a U2 þ ¼ D dz D ÀlÁ ! Â Ã 4tanuk2 #d ðHÞ D þ À b U þ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg : D This equation is again of the form: drv þ c1 r v ¼ c2 dz where: c1 ¼ 4tanuk D and (26) À ð1À 2ÞAr ¼ 0 (31) where a00 and b00 are functions not only of [ and u but also of (Wd/D) and (H/D). These terms have come about due to the horizontal stress from the wall and the ﬂow of the ﬂuid through the bed. as the H/D ratio increases. 22 back into Eq. (24) Results and Discussion The values of the universal constants k0 1 and k0 2 which give the minimum error for the experimental data set presented in this study were found out to be 610 and 30. 30 results in #d H #d H 2 00 a 2. which is likely due electrostatic cohesive and adhesive forces. 21. 16. there are two additional terms. and thus drv/dz is also zero. Rewriting Eq. Substituting Ergun’s equation for pressure drop (Eq. 56. q l g rH ¼ krv À k1 H U2 U À k2 H D D#d where k1 and k2 are constants. 15. Re D D D D 00 Comparing Eq. 7. u. proportional to U2 and U. These scales are chosen as they give a favorable ﬁt to the experimental data. Figures 3–6 show that including the wall effects in the prediction of Umf is successful in describing the effects of height vs. . the values of the universal constants k0 1 and k0 2 are kept at these values for all of the particle types. Umf increases (Figures 3–6). Substituting for a and b. yields. No.1. yields: ! 4tanuk2 ðqg ÞðHÞ 2 drv 4tanukrv D U þ ¼ D dz D ÀlÁ H ! Â Ã dp 4tanuk1 #d ðDÞ þ U þ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg À : dz D (22) Setting c2 ¼ 0. but the velocity terms are being scaled differently. In Figures 3–6 and Figures 9 and 10. Substituting Eq. column diameter (H/D) and the effect of particle size to column diameter (d/D). ! dp ¼0 (21) c2 ¼ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg À dz In Eq. bed heights. 23. . 4) into Eq. Re þ b 2. 23 to Eq. it is assumed that the structure of these new terms on which the horizontal stress depends is similar in form to those given by Ergun’s equation. The model only slightly under-predicts the increase in Umf for very small sized particles (d \ 120 lm) in the column with D ¼ 1. the condition which is necessary for ﬂuidization.amongst the particles). and the wall effects will not be included in the analysis. 9 Published on behalf of the AIChE . Hence. As Ergun’s pressure drop equation is used to calculate the pressure drop. and column diameters. appearing on the right hand side of Eq.

there is a need for a new model that can take these effects into consideration. The model presented in this study attempts to include the wall inﬂuence by introducing Janssen’s wall effect in the force balance during ﬂuidization. the values of k0 1 and k0 2 are maintained at 610 and 30. Similarly. Eq. the values of bulk density were kept constant with respect to the column diameter. Similarly. Comparison of the curves from Eq. respectively.7 The model does not predict the increase in Umf for the smaller particles (d ¼ 96.4 lm). 2310 DOI 10. These new terms have the same structure as that of the drag term. For example. as d/D ratio increases (due to changes in column diameter). not clearly stated. and column diameters. as given by the widely accepted Ergun equation.7 Also. the prediction for the smallest diameter column is not that good. 30.6 cm). It is assumed that the horizontal stresses acting at the wall are not only a function of the local vertical stress but also are a quadratic function of velocity. 9 AIChE Journal Figure 9. 30 breaks down for large H/D ratio predicting that at large H/D the gas may not ﬂuidize the bed. The minimum ﬂuidization velocity as a function of the column diameter using the experimental data from Liu et al. 30). the increase in Umf can be characterized by the product of H/D and d/D (Eq. in fact. but this may be due to experimental error. the particle mixture is impossible to ﬂuidize. as the existing correlations for Umf do not take wall effects into account. No. hence. 56. Conclusions Experiments show that wall effects inﬂuence the minimum ﬂuidization velocity. Above a certain d/D ratio. but it has been observed that this value changes depending on the column diameter. as the quadratic equation yields complex roots. bed heights. the gas may not ﬂuidize the bed. but these deﬁciencies may be due to September 2010 Vol. The new model ﬁts experimental data reasonably well for the minimum ﬂuidization velocity over a range of particles sizes.7 The curves are from Eq.e. the model also predicts that if these particles are loaded into a 100 cm diameter column to a bed height of about 13 m (H/D $ 13). which is not reported in Liu et al. the model predicts that if glass particles of size 250 lm are ﬂuidized in a 760 lm diameter column (D/d $ 3) with H/D ¼ 1. Figure 10 compares the model results to the average predictions of the Reynolds number at Umf based on a large number of existing correlations. On the other hand. and eventually becomes negligible as d/D becomes very small. then the particles will not ﬂuidize. The experimental data obtained when the wall effects are minimum (at H ¼ 2 cm and D ¼ 2. This situation is predicted by the model.particles. This wall effect reduces as the column increases in diameter relative to the particles. the pressure drop. Additionally. In the model. In this case also. Also.7 to the values predicted by the model. The effect of H/D and d/D on Umf are very similar. D ¼ 1. only the new model is able to predict experimental data obtained when the wall effects are signiﬁcant (at H ¼ 10 cm. leading to a more signiﬁcant wall effect. then ﬂuidization becomes difﬁcult.1002/aic Published on behalf of the AIChE .. the ratio of wall contact surface area to the bulk volume increases. Figure 9 compares the experimental data from Liu et al. Existing correlations fail to incorporate these wall effects and.4 cm) are consistent with the model prediction and with the averaged correlation curve. as particle size increases and approaches the same order of magnitude as the column diameter (d/D $ O(1)). The data are plotted in the same dimensional form as given in the orignal work of Liu et al. 30 to the experimental data and existing correlations. As the column diameter decreases in comparison to the particle diameter. Umf increases (compare Figures 3 and 4 or Figures 5 and 6). i.28 particularly for small column diameters. Some deﬁciencies in the model predictions are noted for smaller particles (around 100 lm and smaller). only values of bulk density were given.8–22 The scatter bars on the correlation line represent the deviation in minimum ﬂuidization velocity predictions using the different correlations. but it does give good predictions for the larger particle sizes.1. the values of voidage were Figure 10. For the largest particles (d ¼ 460 lm). for a constant particle size. This assumption leads to a modiﬁed Ergun’s equation incorporating two universal constants.

Persson B. Potic B. Nienow A. 1989.137:302–307. Does the minimum ﬂuidization exist? J Fluid Eng. 9 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10. London. Pope D. 24. Experimental segregation proﬁles in bubbling gas ﬂuidized bed. 1959. Cambridge: M. 1977. 1978. 2.55:184–189. Versuche uber getreidedruck in silozellen. 1966. Size segregation of binary mixture of solid in bubbling ﬂuidized bed. 8. van Swaaij W. 28. Chem Eng Sci. Chem Eng J. Geldart D. 1971. 2006. 5. Kerstn S.28:287. 26. Fluidization studies of solid particles. Johnson E. Trans Inst Chem Eng. 14. Longwinuk A. Prescott J. Kobayashi H. Baerg A. Gishler P. Trans Inst Chem Eng. Richardson J. Gidaspow D. 2008. and revision received Dec. 1949.62:100–111.39:1045–1049. Raja Rao M. 2nd ed. Babu S. 6. Fluidization correlation for coal gasiﬁcation materials—minimum ﬂuidization velocity and ﬂuidized bed expansion. Wall effects for the pressure drop in ﬁxed beds. 1966. 2002. Van De Wijer P.44:293–305. 2009. Saxena S. Chem Eng Sci. k10 . 17. Fluidization. Garcia F. Bello A. Yukun Q. Clement S. A study of segregation in a gas solid ﬂuidized bed: particles of different density. Studies on ﬂuidization ll— heat transfer. Publication No.c1.26:1–10. 15.30:54–64. Indian J Technol. Standard practice for measuring ﬂuidization segregation tendencies of powders. Comparision of commonly used correlations for minimum ﬂuidization velocityof small solid particles. Rozenbaum R. k20 . Joseph G. Powder Technol. van Heerdeen C. Olsofsy A. The role of contact stresses and wall friction on ﬂuidization. Newton: Butterworth-Heinemann. Xu G.I. Yurong D. 13. 7. Micro ﬂuidized beds: wall effects and operability. Leva M. Chem Eng Sci. Becker H. 56.57:5123–5141.12:225. AIChE J. Hrenya C. Sen Gupta P. 1951. 27.134:86–97. 1981. 1980. Acknowledgments Jim Prescott and colleagues at Jenike and Johanson are thanked for their support of this research and for providing the segregation testing equipment. Delebarre A. Broadhurst T. Loezos P. Fluidized binary mixtures in which denser component may be ﬂotsam. D6941–03.T. The measurement of incipient ﬂuidization velocities in a bed of coarse dolomite at temperature and pressure. Fluidization Engineering. 2002. 11. 318. 23. Grewal N. Nobel A.43:1220–1226. b A a0 .c0 Ar D d F g H k. Powder Technol. Heat transfer in a ﬂuidized solid bed.1:51–66. Chem Eng Prog Symp. 1951. Janssen HA.21:238–247.9:77. Mechanics of ﬂuidization. 22. Di Felice R. 18. Yu Y.59:3037–3040. ASTM International. AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. Brone D. Powder Technol. Pillai B.53:2804– 2813. Pressure drop and minimum ﬂuidization velocities of air-ﬂuidized bed. 4. 10. Villar J. 9. Baeyens J.1002/aic 2311 .60:5982–5990. Wen C. Goroshko V. Ind Eng Chem. Stevens A. Development of an improved ﬂuidization segregation tester for use with pharmaceutical powders. 2007.124:595–600. Romero A. Notation [ W l qg qs rH rv u Dp a. Levenspiel O.26:229–234. McCall M. Chem Eng Sci. Davies L. Lidan Y. Costamagna P. Can J Res Sect F. 2009. 12. Pharm Technol. Ye M. 25. 29. Prediction of minimum ﬂuidization velocity for multicomponent mixtures (short communication). 20. 1950.30:195–205. Miller C. AIChE J. Patel P. 1980. Kumar P. AIChE Symp Ser. 3. 1991. Liu X. 1966. 19. k1. Sundaresan S. Hancock B. 1975.the signiﬁcance of cohesive and adhesive forces at this scale. Leboreiro J. 1966. Gas interchange between bubbles and the continuous phase in a ﬂuidized bed.74:176–186. 1. Z Ver Deutsch Ing. Indian J Technol. Saxena S. Tosatti E. Chiba S. Van der Hoef M. 16. 2004. Todes O. No. 21. Powder Technol. Manuscript received Aug. Gibilaro L. Press. Chiba T. 2003. Shah B. 1895. 14. Klassen J. Vogel G. Powder Technol. ASTM International. Talwalker A.58:169–174. Onset of ﬂuidization and slugging in beds of uniform particles. Segregation in beds of large particles at high velocity. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Hedden D. Institute of gas engineers report.c2 Re U Umf z ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ voidage sphericity viscosity density of gas density of solid stress in horizontal direction stress in vertical direction friction angle pressure drop Ergun constants cross-sectional area various constants of the quadratic Archimedes number column diameter particle diameter force Gravity height of ﬁxed bed various constants Reynolds number ﬂuid velocity Minimum Fluidization velocity instantaneous height measured from the top of the bed Literature Cited 1. Kunii D. 2003. k2. Gao S. Physics of Sliding Friction (NATO Science Series E). Hydrodynamics and Heat Transfer in ﬂuidized beds.b0 . New York: McGraw-Hill. This new model should greatly facilitate scaling results from MFBs to more traditional ﬂuid bed sizes. Krevelen v. 2005. 1974. Huilin L. Fluidization of hot compressed water in micro reactors.

- Conversion Reactors TutorialCargado porAkhi Sofi
- FluidizationCargado porFarhan M JafrI
- Fette Compression Machine-pocketguideCargado pormicrobiologist125
- Hold Time Study Sample Protocol.pdfCargado porQuang
- VVER ReactorsCargado pormonican
- Biodiesel Appleseed Reactor PlansCargado porLivreinatural Arkairis
- Crude Treating & DesaltingCargado porgegio60
- Explosionprotection_enCargado porfuvl01
- Tablet Compression PptCargado porSrinivas Dharam
- Future of Mechanical EngineeringCargado porjhbalaji
- PLU HECargado porPratik Undhad
- FluidizationCargado porparthi20065768
- Wurster Coating - Scle Up and Scale OutCargado porVijayan Rajendran
- Handbook of Fluidization and Fluid Particle SystemsCargado porIryaneh_647005
- Trickle Bed ReactorCargado porgautamahuja
- Boundary Layer Theory SchlichtingCargado porteenmart
- Pharmaceutical Steam Generators and Water Distillation SystemsCargado porsoajanii
- Crystallization Technology HandbookCargado porIka Utami
- Chemical Kinetics Part - ICargado porSanskar Bhattacharya
- Advances in Thermal Design of Heat Ex ChangersCargado porBabbare Voltaire
- Sugar Production ProcessCargado poryilmat
- Transport Phenomena 2nd Edition (0471999903)Cargado pordahucas
- Materials Thermodynamics Wiley Series on Processing of Engineering MaterialsCargado porد.احمد الكلابي
- pfrCargado pormattgrisewood
- Bernoulli's PrincipleCargado porSanket Balapurkar
- Chemical Engineering February 2012Cargado porCatalina Andreea Maican
- 1.Nuclear Energy and MaterialsCargado porTopan Setiadipura
- 20100211 Sams DesaltingCargado porJose Montenegro

- 30 Day Paleo Challenge PacketCargado porKrisztina Angéla Csipes
- The Influence of Specific Gravity on Total HeadCargado porchaitanya_kumar_13
- Cooling Tower Handbook_FINAL.pdfCargado porOscarJimenez1987
- Chapter Cooling TowersCargado poralvin
- Tutorial ChemsepCargado porJosé Luis Lustau Álvarez-Cienfuegos
- Vehicle-List-861465015Cargado porMatthew Anthony Koen
- Equation of StateCargado porManoj Tiwari

- Essentials_Scratch_v1.pdfCargado porAnonymous 1P2S4tbM
- samsung vertical integrationCargado porPriya Singh
- Equinox MyriadCargado porakash_81087
- UEI302 (1)Cargado porbobblytastic
- enanpad1998-ccg-11Cargado porAntônio Artur de Souza
- musanbkCargado porkaam24
- Fibrillated MicrofibersCargado porRadhaAnanthalekshmi
- 03-17-16 EditionCargado porSan Mateo Daily Journal
- Applications of XRPDCargado porpokiri02
- 2010 IFA_Fertilizers and Agriculture newsletter (Peak Phosphorus)_IFACargado porherrharo
- forging + quenching knowledge.pdfCargado porAnonymous MAJuDk
- GATX CORP 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-25Cargado porhttp://secwatch.com
- Martin Mac 600 ManualCargado porAdrian Gardner
- Guide to Banner Finance FormsCargado porvivienne wright
- Exit InterviewCargado porapi-3741487
- PHY_BK_ANS_2Cargado porwingboxz
- Lecture 16-17-18 Signal Flow GraphsCargado porMohammad Umar Rehman
- Anti-virus'14.pptCargado porDinnie Agustiani
- Radiography - OrthoCargado porHongMing
- PEMBUATAN MOLIBDENUMCargado porIzamHamMandeno
- paterson collected prose.txtCargado pormarcolin351
- User ManualCargado porJon Cline
- Understanding Human Behaviour and Error - 10 PagesCargado porAntonio Jose De Jesus
- joural article summary 2Cargado porapi-317378420
- Aspen Tutorial Unit 1Cargado porvsraochemical1979
- 04 Breakdown in SolidsCargado porYii Su Hieng
- Track Your Labs GoutCargado porShivam Arora
- COA_M2014-007Cargado poraliah
- The Finance in the Capital Market and Credit Rating in India3099Cargado porAshish Pipara
- AGMA_PubsCat_Oct16Cargado pornanlingjigong