JMBC/OSPT course Particle Technology 2010

J. Ruud van Ommen* & Naoko Ellis**
*Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands **University of British Columbia, Canada

Intro gas-solids fluidized bed

Packed bed: particles are stagnant

drag force smaller than gravitational force

gas ‘bubble’

dense phase or emulsion phase

Fluidized bed: particles suspended in an upward gas stream; they move

drag force equals gravitational force

interstitial particle gas gas

Significance of Fluidized beds
Advanced materials
•Silicon production for semiconductor and solar industry •Coated nanoparticles •Nano carbon tubes

Chemical and Petrochemical
•Cracking of hydrocarbons •Gas phase polymeric reactions

Physical operations Combustion/pyrolysis
•Combustion/gasification of coal •Pyrolysis of wood waste •Chemical looping comubstion •Coating of metal and glass objects •Drying of solids •Roasting of food •Classify particles

•Coating of pills •Granulation •Production of plant and animal cells fluidization.html

Gas-Solid Fluidized Bed

– Very large surface area available What is the surface area of 1 m3 of 100 μm particles? 1 m3 of 100 μm particles has a surface area of about 30. • Secondary Characteristics: – Good heat transfer from surface to bed.000 m2.Characteristics of Gas Fluidized Beds • Primary Characteristics: – Bed behaves like liquid of the same bulk density – can add or remove particles. – Pressure drop depends only on bed depth and particle density – does not increase with gas velocity – Particle motion usually streamlines Æ erosion and attrition (Dis)advantages of fluid beds Advantages • good G-S mass transfer in dense phase • good heat transfer • easy solids handling • low pressure drop Š Š Š Š Š Disadvantages bypass of gas in bubbles broad RTD gas and solids erosion of internals attrition of solids difficult scale-up . and gas to particles – Isothermal conditions radially and axially. – Rapid particle motion – good solids mixing.

56 m Diameter Column .). Inc. Yang W (Ed. Bubbling fluidized beds (Chapter 3).. Marcel Dekker. In: Handbook of Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems. USA. 1. 53–113 (2003). NY. NY.Basic Components Yang W.

Industrial Scale Solid offtake A Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit. i. Buckingham Pi Theorem to obtain dimensionally consistent correlations) • Semi-empirical. numerical solutions of governing equations of motion and transport .e. Approaches to the Study of Particulate Systems • Totally empirical (leading to dimensional correlations) • Empirical guided by scientific principles (e.g. some mechanistic basis. but with one or more empirical constants • Mechanistic physical model without any empiricism. Photo courtesy of Grace Davison.

Geldart’s powder classification combustion/ gasification drying/ PE production cat. reactions hardly used Geldart’s powder classification C Cohesive 0-30 μm flour Drag Attraction A Aeratable 30-100 μm milk powder Gravity B Bubbling 100-1000 μm sand D Spoutable >1000 μm coffee beans .

•dp ~ 0-30 μm •Example: flour. cement Group A •Aeratable •Characterized by a small dp and small ρp •Umb is significantly larger than Umf •Large bed expansion before bubbling starts •Gross circulation of powder even if only a few bubbles are present •Large gas backmixing in the emulsion phase •Rate at which gas is exchanged between the bubbles and the emulsion is high •Bubble size reduced by either using a wider particle size distribution or reducing the average particle diameter •There is a maximum bubble size •dp ~ 30-100 μm •Examples: FCC. prior to fluidization. even after the powder had been fully fluidized for a while •Saturating the fluidization air with humidity reduced the formation of agglomerates and greatly improved the fluidization quality. milk flour . greatly affected the fluidization behaviour of the powder.Group C •Cohesive •Difficult to fluidized. The water molecules adsorbed on the particle surface presumably reduced the van der Waals forces. and channeling occurs •Interparticle forces greatly affect the fluidization behaviour of these powders •Mechanical powder compaction.

lead shot .•Bubbling •Umb and Umf are almost identical •Solids recirculation rates are smaller •Less gas backmixing in the emulsion phase •Rate at which gas is exchanged between bubbles and emulsion is smaller •Bubbles size is almost independent of the mean particle diameter and the width of the particle size distribution •No observable maximum bubble size •dp ~ 100-1000 μm •Example: sand Group B Group D •Spoutable •Either very large or very dense particles •Bubbles coalesce rapidly and flow to large size •Bubbles rise more slowly than the rest of the gas percolating through the emulsion •Dense phase has a low voidage •dp ~ >1000 mm •Examples: Coffee beans. wheat.

5 wide size distribution narrow size distribution 0.0 0 4 8 Dimensionless kinetic rate constant [-] Implication of Umb/Umf • Umb/Umf could be used as an important index for the fluidization performance of fine particle fluidized beds on local hydrodynamics • Geldart particle classification: – Group A powders with Umb/Umf>1 – Group B powders with Umb/Umf=1 .0 0.Influence of particle size distribution 20 mass% 15 10 Conversion [-] 5 0 0 20 mass% 15 10 5 0 Adapted from Sun & Grace (1990) 50 100 150 particle diameter [micron] 1.

1986) (d ) * p AB ⎛ ρp − ρ ⎞ = 101 ⎜ ⎜ ρ ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ −0. dp (μm) UB ≤ Umf εmf .425 * * If : dp < dp If : d* > d* p p ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Umf εmf AB AB Æ powder belongs to Group A or C Æ powder belongs to Group B or D Demarcation between Group B and D powders For Group D powders UB ≤ Demarcation Demarcation between Group C and A powders (Molerus. (kg/m ) Umb ≥1 Umf Demarcation between Group B and D powders For Group D powders 10000 B (bubble readily) D (spoutable) 3 1000 A (aeratable) C (cohesive) 100 10 100 1000 Mean particle diameter..01 FH is the adhesion force determined experimentally. 2003) ≤1 Pressure and temperature effect: (Grace.-C. (FH=8.Demarcation between Group A and B powders Demarcation Umb ≥1 Umf Umb = K dp 8 × 10 − 4 g dp (ρp − ρ) Kμ For air at room T and P. 1982) 3 10( ρ p − ρ f )d p g / FH = 0. K = 100 (Yang.76x10-8 N for glass beads and FCC catalysts) Demarcation between Group A and B powders ρs-ρf . W.

000 Goosen’s classification: • C/A boundary: Ar=9.Characteristics of single bubble: Slow vs.900 Ar = gρ g (ρ p − ρ g )d 3 p μ2 .5 • B/D boundary: Ar=176.8 • A/B boundary: Ar=88. P effects Grace’s classification: • A/B boundary: Ar=125 • B/D boundary: Ar=145. fast bubbles (Davidson model) slow bubble fast bubble group D group A & B Simple demarcation criteria accounting for T.

126 0.8 0.716 F45 ) = 0.934 dp g Where F45 is the fraction of solids which are less than 45μm.Correlations for Umb • Abrahamsen and Geldart (1980) 0.523 U mb 2300 ρ g μ g exp(0. Flow Regimes fixed bed homogeneous bubbling slugging turbulent fast fluidization solids returns pneumatic transport solids returns solids returns gas gas only A powders at low gas velocity gas gas only narrow beds gas gas gas gas velocity .934 U mf (ρ p − ρ g )0.

coalesce and grow. Pressure fluctuations gradually decrease until turbulent fluidization flow regime is reached. 1995 Homogeneous Dilute-phase flow .max<0.66D Bubbling fluidization Ums Slugging fluidization Uc Turbulent fluidization Use Bubble-free Dense transport Fixed Bed Dense-phase transport Vmb DB. Top surface is difficult to distinguish. No upper surface to bed. No bed.66D Bubbly transport Vmf Gs = constant Vms Slug flow transport Vc Turbulent Flow transport VCA Core-annular Dilute-phase flow Vmp Increasing gas velocity Bi & Grace.max<0. gas flows through interstices Bed expands smoothly in a homogeneous manner. Top surface rises and collapses with regular frequency. 0 ≤ U < Umf Umf ≤ U < Umb regime Umb ≤ U < Ums regime Ums ≤ U < Uc Uc ≤ U < Uk Uk ≤ U < Utr U ≥ Utr U >> Utr Regime Transition Flow Chart Bubble free fluidization Fixed Bed Umf Umb DB. top surface well defined.Flow Regimes U range Regime Fixed Bed Particulate Bubbling Slug flow regime Turbulent fluidization flow regime (Turbulent Regime) Fast Fluidization Pneumatic conveying Appearance and Principal Features Particles are quiescent. Small gas voids and particle clusters dart to and fro. All particles fed in are transported out the top as a lean phase. small-scale particle motion Gas voids form near distributor. particles transported out the top in clusters and must be replaced. rise to surface and break through Bubble size approaches column cross-section.

Unifying Fluidization Regime Diagram Fluidized bed lay-out laterally staged bed circulating bed turbulent bed vertically staged bed bubbling bed spouted bed riser downer floating bed twin bed .

m/s Umf U. Int J Chem Reactor Eng 6 (2008) R3 Fluidization Curve Group A particles Fluidized Non-bubbling region Fluidized Bubbling Region Group B particles narrow psd Fluidized Bubbling Region ΔP/L ΔP/L Packed bed Packed bed Wide psd Umf Umb U. •Pressure measurement from plenum chamber must be from where it will not be affected by either the gas expansion or the contraction •For hot units. back flushed taps are often used. m/s Ucf . •There should be at least 2 or 3 taps within the fluidized bed. (gas flowrate must be regulated) For other measurement techniques in fluidized beds: van Ommen & Mudde.Static Head of Solids When acceleration. friction and gas head are negligible L DP ΔP = weight of particles − upthrust on particles bed cross − sectional area ΔP = (1 − ε ) (ρp − ρ) g L Time-averaged pressure measurements •Most industrial and pilot plant fluidized beds have pressure taps.

75 + = 150 2 3 D sv ε 3 D sv ε mf mf 2 The frictional pressure drop at the point of minimum fluidization (Umf .75 .Minimum Fluidization The frictional pressure drop at the point of minimum fluidization equalizes the bed mass per unit of cross-sectional area. can be considered equal to the frictional pressure drop in a fixed bed (Ergun) Minimum Fluidization Velocity (Umf) Dimensionless relationship following from equation on previous slide Re mf = C12 + C 2 Ar − C1 Remf = U mf ρDsv μ 3 Ar = gρ (ρ p − ρ )Dsv μ2 C1 = 300 (1 − ε mf ) 7 3 C2 = ε mf 1. εmf . − ΔPfriction = gΔx mf (ρ p − ρ)(1 − ε mf ) U2 1 − ε mf ) Δx mf U mf μ (1 − ε mf ) Δx mf mf ρ ( 1 . Δxmf).

0408 0.0494 Freely Bubbling Beds: Bubble Growth Why grow? 1) The hydrostatic pressure on the bubbles decreases as they rise up the bed.Minimum Fluidization Estimation of εmf • • 0.4 < εmf < 0.7 25.55 εmf ≈ εfixed bed εmf ≈ (14 φ)-1/3 where φ is the particle sphericity Authors Wen and Yu (1966) Richardson (1971) Saxena and Vogel (1977) Babu et al. excess gas velocity) Initial bubble size . distance above the distributor plate.28 25. (1978) Grace (1982) Chitester et al.0651 0. effect of wall Mean bubble size = f(type of distributor.7 25.2 28. 4) Bubbles may grow by depleting the continuous phase locally.0408 0.0365 0. 3) Bubbles which are side by side may coalesce.25 27.7 C2 0.0571 0. 2) Bubbles may coalesce by one bubble catching up with another. (1984) C1 33.

4 ⎛ A ⎞ ⎜z+4 ⎟ N or ⎠ ⎝ 0.48 m / s D T ≤ 1.64 ⎡ ⎣ A (U − U mf )⎦ 0.376 (U − U mf ) 2 for perforated plates for porous plates ⎤ Dbe = 1.2 (U − U mf ) 0.54 g −0.4 ⎛ Dbe − Db z ⎞ = exp ⎜ −0.38 ⎡ A Db 0 = 0.Freely Bubbling Beds: Bubble Size Darton et al. (1977) Db ( z ) = 0.8 where A/Nor is the area of distributor plate per orifice Mori & Wen (1975) Ranges of key variables: 5 ≤ Umf ≤ 200 mm / s 60 ≤ dp ≤ 450 μm U − Umf ≤ 0.3 m 0.3 ⎟ Dbe − Db 0 DT ⎠ ⎝ where: ⎤ 1.2 ⎢ U − U mf )⎥ ( g ⎣ N or ⎦ Db 0 = 0.4 Two-phase theory UB Qmf QB H Q=UA .

In practice.8 for Group B powders where 0.27 Ar −0. 2001) Bubbling fluidization Aggregative or heterogeneous fluidization .6 for Group D powders Homogeneous fluidization Non-bubbling fluidization Particulate or homogeneous fluidization Mechanism??? Delay caused in the adjustment of the mean particle velocity to a change in the local concentration resulting from the larger particle to fluid phase inertia (Didwania.8 < Y< 1.6 < Y< 0.21 where 0.0 for Group A powders Y = 2.Two-phase theory Total gas flow rate: Q = UA Flow rate in dense phase: Qmf = Umf A Gas passing through the bed as bubbles: Q − Qmf = (U − Umf )A H − H mf Q − Qmf U − U mf Fraction of the bed occupied by bubbles: = = δb = H AU B UB The distribution of the gas between the bubbles and dense phase is of interest because it influences the degree of chemical conversion. the two-phase theory overestimates the volume of gas passing through the bed as bubbles QB = Y (U − Umf ) A Baeyens and Geldart (1985) Visible bubble flow rate: where 0.25 < Y< 0.

4 1.4 1. large bubbles decrease the mass transfer Research Æ decrease bubble size Bubble: shortcut of gas Interstitial gas: effective .0 mass of paticles in the bed : MB = (1 − ε) ρp A H H2 = (1 − ε1 ) H1 (1 − ε 2 ) Log U/Ut Viscous regime: n=4.0 Log ε Heat and mass transfer Heat transfer: particle to wall or internal Mass transfer: gas to particle Fluidized beds show an excellent heat transfer Mixing of solids by (large) bubbles Æ almost constant temperature throughout the reactor However.8 0.Steady-state expansion of fluidized beds VB = L B (1 − ε) A ΔPB = (ρp − ρg ) VB g = constant U = εn Ut VB: total volume of particles Homogeneous bed expansion: Richardson-Zaki relation Inertial regime: n=2.

Chem.05 narrow size distribution 0 50 50 100 100 narrow size distribution 5 0.0 O3 decomposition wide size distribution Conversion [-] 0 % Fines 15 % Fines 30 % Fines Fraction Fraction [-] [-] 0 00.0 0 Particlediameter diameter [μ m] 4 8 Dimensionless kinetic rate constant [-] .. Res.Ways to structure a fluidized bed Dynamics Gas Qp live electrodes ground electrodes Geometry Qs Particles van Ommen et al. Eng. 46 (2007) 4236 Tailoring the particle size distribution 20 mass% 15 10 0.5 0.. Ind.00 0 150 150 200 200 Particle [μ m] 0.10 50 100 150 particle diameter [micron] 50 μm 20 mass% 15 10 0-30% 0.15 5 1.

30 Beetstra et al.05 0.20 0. AIChE J..15 0.8 0.00 0.0 Relative bubble size [-] 0.6 Based on pressure fluctuations 24 cm/s 0. 55 (2009) 2013 .10 0.High Throughput Experimentation pressure drop sensors pressure fluctuation sensors PC air Measurement techniques: • pressure drop • pressure fluctuations • optical probes Fines effect on bubble size Fines are added to a powder with a D50 of 70 μm 6 cm/s 1.4 0.25 Fines w eight fraction [-] 0.

2nd ed. Wen-Ching Yang ISBN: 978-0-8247-0259-5 Pub. Powder Technol. ISBN: 8131200353 Pub. At experimental field strength: ~50 % reduction of bubble area. 30Hz 0..AC electric field: CFD simulations Discrete particle model with 10000 particles. Uniform AC electric fields.7 kV/mm. D. 30Hz Kleijn van Willigen et al. Date: March 2003 Publisher: Routledge. & Levenspiel. 183 (2008) 196 Textbooks Fluidization Engineering Kunii. No Field Horizontal Vertical 0.7 kV/mm. Publisher: Elsevier Handbook of Fluidization and FluidParticle Systems Ed. Date: Jan 2005 . O. USA .

. Handbook of Fluidization and Fluid-particle Systems. Cambridge Press. W.. Eng. ButterworthHeinemann. M.M. Multiphase Flow. Kunii.. Monash University. Marcel Dekker.. D. Marcel Dekker. 353-363 (1986). pp. D. Introduction to Particle Technology.. "Circulating Fluidized Beds. ƒ Yang. 1991.. Bi. New York ISBN: 082470259.. Boston. 2nd edition. A.. J. 1999. Ph. "Fluidization Engineering". ISBN: 0471984833. “Bubbling Fluidized Beds”. “Contacting Modes and Behaviour Classification of Gas-Solid and Other Two-Phase Suspensions”.-C.. "Gas Fluidization Technology". “Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum and Kinetic Theory Descriptions”. Butterworth-Heinemann. M.erc. ƒ Grace. New York. W. 64. Ed. “Fluidization Engineering”. 1998. UBC (2003). N. 285-292 (1973). “Types of Gas Fluidization”.R. 7th Ed. D. “Flow Regime Diagrams for Gas-Solid Fluidization and Upward Transport”. Gidaspow.T.S and C. D. J.. ƒ Fan.-C. and Grace. . Chem. N. in Handbook of Fluidization and FluidParticle Systems. 1997. Yang.. Can. References • • • • • • • • Rhodes.erpt. McGraw-Hill. and D.Course Material • Additional Resource Material ƒ http://www.D. 1229-1236 (1995). A. D. ButterworthHeinemann.ufl. Boston. Dissertation. J. 1986. and O.. J. Powder Tech.Y.-C. Australia (1999).R. ƒ Fan. Knowlton.W.. Levenspiel. Boston. Perrry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook. and Levenspiel. ƒ Perry. Avidan and T. John Wiley & Sons. 1989.R. “Laboratory Demonstrations in Particle Technology”. Geldart.. L. Ellis. "Principles of gas-solid flows". W.H. Sussex England. Grace...." Blackie Academic ƒ http://www. CD. 21. Zhu. MA (1991).ubc.-S. Melbourne. ƒ http://www. 7. New York. 1997. Academic ƒ Rhodes. Cambridge. Gas-Liquid-Solid Fluidization Engineering.chml. 2003. 53-111 (2003). San Diego (1994). Yang. ƒ Kunii. Newton. “Hydrodynamics of Gas-Solid Turbulent Fluidized Beds”. Int. O. R. and Zakhari. J.. H. Green. L... ƒ Geldart.

. McGraw-Hill. M. New York (1993) Rhodes. G. Stewart.. Wen. Wiley. John Wiley & Sons..Y. and Lightfoot. Didwania. “Unit operations of Chemical Engineering”.K. A. (1948). and Ettehadieh. 8:5-64 (1982). Chapter 6: Interphase Transport in isothermal Systems (2002).111 (1966).. “Fluidization in Two-Dimensional Beds with a Jet. Eng. 22. McCabe W.. N. 193-201 (1983). J. Hetsroni. pp. Washington. Part II: Hydrodynamics Modeling”.Y.E. C. “Mechanics of Fluidization”. DallaValle. Chem... 478-482 (2001).R..N. . Prog. “A New Instability Mode in Fluidized Beds”. I&EC Fundamentals. Chichester (1998) Grace.Y. 100 .. Ed. W. N.... B. D. “Fluidized-Bed Hydrodynamics”..M. “Transport Phenomena”. Hemisphere. and Yu. 53.References • • • • • • • • Bird. Series.L. E. the technology of fine particles”. Symp. “Micromeritics. Pitman Pub.. “Introduction to Particle Technology”.. in Handbook of Multiphase Systems. and Harriot P.H. 62.C. Smith. Gidapsow..B. Y. J. J. Europhysics Letters. R...

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful