Flow through packed beds

Group 11
Yuan Jia, Yan Li, David Hlavka
April 29, 2009

Abstract

Our project studied the pressure drop across a packed bed and compared the data

to the analytical solution governed by Ergun’s equation (Ergun, 1952). Different types of

material and varying airflow rates were used to effect the range of our Reynolds number

and subsequent pressure drop. We found that there is a significant relationship between

pressure, frictional factor and Reynolds number with respect to flow rate and inlet

pressure. We used the change in pressure to determine two constants (k1 and k2) that

were then compared to Ergun’s equation. In the end we discovered that our experimental

data was close to Ergun’s within 20%.

1
Introduction

There are many engineering applications that utilize a packed bed. The forms

more commonly implemented today are incorporated with systems involving adsorption

of a solute, distillation, filtration and separation (e.g. water purification via waste

removal). In an ion exchange or catalytic reactor, a single fluid (liquid or gas) flows

through a bed of densely compacted granules (Geankoplis, 2003). Controlling the

desired pressure drop over the bed increases the diffusion efficiency of the reagents. In a

filtration system, pressure drop is crucial because fluid flows through the filter medium

by virtue of a pressure differential across the bed (Geankoplis, 2003). Studying the

pressure drop across the bed is therefore essential to determine filtration efficiency and

expected time span before excessive buildup of filtered material occurs. Packed beds can

be made in various forms that are designed in accordance with their application. For our

experiment, we used approximately 0.0085 m3 (0.3 ft3) of glass beads with a diameter 15

mm and copper-coated metal beads with a diameter of 4.5 mm. Other possible materials

like sand were considered, but due to time constraints not tested.

Our goal was to study the pressure drop of one fluid (air) flowing through a

variety of packed materials. This started with approximately 0.0085 m3 (0.3 ft3) of glass

beads at a diameter of 15 mm. After initial testing yielded no useable results, we

determined the diameter of the beads to be too great to induce a readable pressure drop

with our current gage. The only way to remedy this issue was to either install more

accurate gages that would incur greater cost and take more time to order or use smaller

sized beads. We decided to use 4.5 mm copper-coated metal beads, for these were

cheaper than new gages and faster to obtain.

2
 Once we knew how and what we were going to test, we needed to find a way to

predict our results. Since pressure drop depends significantly on the Reynolds number,

we needed an equation that described flow behavior in both the laminar and turbulent

regions. We found that the Ergun equation (Ergun, 1952), which will be explained next,

is the established theoretical and industry standard.

Formulation:

In order to understand the Ergun

equation (Ergun, 1952), one must first know a

little about the formulation. (For detailed

derivation see Appendix A) Ergun defined a

Reynolds number Rep that depends on the

superficial velocity νs (the volumetric flow rate

divided by the column cross-section area), Fig. 1 Theoretical illustration of

the equivalent diameter of the particle Reynolds number vs. friction factor

Dp, the dimensionless void fraction  , and  , the density of the fluid (Fig. 1).

𝜌𝑣𝑠 𝐷𝑝
𝑅𝑒𝑝 = (1)
𝜇 1−𝜀

Ergun also defined that the friction factor, fp depends on νs, the pressure drop, p ,

and the length of the packed bed L:

∆𝑝 𝐷𝑝 𝜀3
𝑓𝑝 = ( ) (2)
𝐿 𝜌𝑣𝑠 2 1−𝜀

3
 There are two independent equations that deal with flow behavior that have

different Reynolds numbers. When Rep < 10, the Blake –Kozeny equation suggests that

the friction factor depends mainly on the Reynolds number:

(1−𝜀)2 𝜇
𝑓𝑓 = 75 (3)
𝜀3 𝜌 𝑣𝑠 𝐷𝑝

When Rep > 1000, or in turbulent flows, the viscous force of the fluid is

insignificant. This means the Burke-Plummer equation describes the friction factor as

independent of the Reynolds number:

7 (1−𝜀)
𝑓𝑓 = 8 (4)
𝜀3
The Ergun equation (Ergun, 1952), which covers the entire range of flow rate, can

then be obtained by assuming that the viscous losses and the kinetic losses are additive,

therefore the result is:

(1−𝜀)2 𝜇 7 (1−𝜀)
𝑓𝑓 = 75 +8 (5)
𝜀3 𝜌𝑣𝑠 𝐷𝑝 𝜀3

After experiments with different packing material and different flow rate, Ergun

determined the general form of the equation:

150
𝑓𝑝 = + 1.75 (6)
𝑅𝑒 𝑠

Or in terms of pressure change - ∆p:

150𝜇 𝑣𝑠 𝐿 (1−𝜀)2 1.75𝐿𝜌 𝑣𝑠 2 1−𝜀

∆𝑝 = + (7)
𝐷𝑝 2 𝜀3 𝐷𝑝 𝜀3

Where k1 = 150 and k2 = 1.75 are constants established via experimentation.

4
Apparatus Design and Calibration

Before we could begin testing, we needed to create a device that would accurately

measure our pressure drop. Prior to construction,

we drew a sketch of what we wished to make,

which included; flow paths, pressure gage and

flow meter placement and bed location (Fig.1).

With all our design decisions complete,

construction began. We started by using an

apparatus that had been built by a previous group

who were studying fluidization principles of fine Fig. 1 Apparatus Sketch

aggregate, predominately sand (see Appendix

C). Their device consisted of a plenum for

flow consistency and a column where the bed

would be located. We needed to modify this

design to fit our testing parameters. We began

by attaching a PVC couple to the upper

column, which we screwed a lid onto that had

a 0.9525 cm (3/8 in) hole drilled into it and

Fig. 2 Finished Apparatus piping attached. We did this so we would be

able to control how much air left the apparatus. After the upper portion was completed

and sealed properly, we attached a flow meter and valve onto the base of the plenum to

accurately monitor the flow going into the column. The last modification we made to the

device was the addition of a pressure gage above our bed. Since there was already a port

5
made for a pressure gage below the bed, we merely mimicked this method and created a

second port approximately 30.48 cm (12 in) above the base of the column. The finished

apparatus can be seen in Fig. 2.

After modification was completed, we began our testing procedure. We initially

calibrated the system via mercury filled U-tube manometer, because we did not know the

pressure gage sensitivity we would require. From our calculations we found our pressure

difference to be approximately 689.5 Pa (0.1 psi), but we wanted to be sure our

theoretical values were accurate before

implementing gages. We connected the U-tube

manometer to the two ports above and below the

packed bed, and measured the pressure change.

Direct reading was about 689.5 Pa (0.1 psi) change

over a bed of 24.13 cm (9.5 in) in height and 10.16

cm (4 in) in diameter.

Once we had completed the U-tube

manometer testing, we knew our pressure range and Fig. 3 LabVIEW VI

acquired an appropriate gage from 0 to 41.4 kPa (0 to 6 psi). Next we calibrated the new

pressure gage via LabVIEW and a tank draining operation. We used a similar set up and

procedure as the tank draining experiment previously conducted in the semester. Our VI

can be seen in Fig. 3. Finally in order to ensure that our seals were generally working to

our desired specification, we did an initial calibration of the apparatus. To do this, we

attached our pressure gage and filled the apparatus with air. We then let it sit for

approximately ten minutes and observed any pressure changes. Since there were no large

6
observable deviations, we were safe to assume that the apparatus was properly sealed and

functioning.

Experimental Procedure/Data

Before we could begin testing our pressure gradients, we had to calibrate our new

pressure gage. To do this, we followed the same procedure as seen in the tank draining

experiment done earlier in the semester. We filled a column with 500 mL of water until

it reached a height of approximately 80 cm, taking a reading at every 500 mL addition.

Once we filled the tank to our desired height, we allowed the tank to drain out the base

and let the gage read the pressure change

over time. This became our calibration data,

which we then used to convert voltage to

pressure over time (Fig. 4).

After the gage was calibrated, we

then began testing our bed. We started with

glass beads at a diameter of 15 mm that we

poured to 24.13 cm (9.5 in). Our

LabVIEW VI was set for a time of 5 seconds Fig. 4 Calibration Graph

with an inlet pressure of 137895 Pa (20 psi). Once five seconds elapsed, we found no

results. After we tried multiple pressure ranges ([137895 Pa (20 psi) – 344738 Pa (50

psi)] at 68948 Pa (10 psi) increments), we determined that the current configuration was

7
inadequate to extrapolate any usable data. A smaller diameter bead was necessary to

achieve the pressure changes.

We decided to move from 15 mm

glass beads to 4.5 mm copper-coated

metal beads. Again we initially set our

VI to collect 5 seconds of data at 137895

Pa (20 psi) and moved up to 344738 Pa

(50 psi) at 68948 Pa (10 psi) increments.

Once we saw a pressure change,

Fig. 5 Friction Factor vs. 1/Re

Fig. 6 Friction Factor vs. Re Number Fig. 7 Pressure Drop vs. Velocity

we knew our configuration was appropriate for proper data collection. We moved the VI

collection time up to 10 seconds and, starting at 137895 Pa (20 psi), moved up to 344738

Pa (50 psi) at 34474 Pa (5 psi) increments. This gave us enough data to see a significant

8
relationship between inlet velocity and pressure change and frictional factor and

Reynolds number over the packed bed (Fig.5, 6 and 7).

When analyzing the first compiled data, we found a large error to be present (in

excess of 1000%). Upon further inspection of our apparatus, we discovered that a flow

meter intended for water was being used instead of a meter intended for air. We replaced

the flow meter, but due to time constraints, could not get one that was able to read the

ranges we were operating in. Because of this, we were forced to come up with a means

of predicting the values of our flow rate at higher-pressure ranges. Since there was a

linear relationship present

between the inlet pressure and

flow rate, we took the slope at

two known values. We chose

0 Pa (0 psi) and 0 scfm and

then 137895 Pa (20 psi) and

24 scfm, which gave us a

constant of 1.2 to multiply by.

With this, we were able to

predict where

Fig. 8 Corrected Calibration the flow rate would be at our

higher pressure (pressures exceeding 172369Pa (25 psi)). When we had the proper flow

meter installed, we recalibrated our gage and found our conversion equation again (Fig.

8). Our RMS value for the calibration was 164, so our deviation was not too large. Since

9
we were operating at room temperature with standard humidity, we converted our flow

rate from scfm to cfm via a one to one relationship using the standard conversion

equation (8).

CFM = SCFM x 14.5

𝑝
𝑇𝑎
x460+68 (8)
𝑎

Where 14.5 is standard atmospheric pressure, 460 + 68 is room temperature

converted to Rankin, Ta = is ambient temperature and pa = Barometric Pressure.

Once we started using the new flow

meter for testing, we discovered that we

only got usable results at pressure ranges

above 206843 Pa (30 psi). Anything below

that had too much noise interference to give

us accurate results. Again we took

readings starting at 206843 Pa (30 psi) and

moved to a maximum of 310264 Pa (45 psi).

Anything above that was too great for Fig. 9 Friction Factor vs. Re Number

Fig. 10 Friction Factor vs. 1/Re Fig. 11 Pressure Drop vs. Velocity

10
our system to handle, so we were unable to generate any higher pressures. After we

gathered the data, we analyzed it and came to conclusions from there (Fig. 9, 10 and 11).

Discussion

When looking at the graphs, one can see that there is deviation between our data

and the theoretical. Since we were working with such small changes in pressure (no

greater than 689.5 Pa (0.1 psi), what appears to be large on the graph is not very large at

all. Each error bar on the graph has a maximum value of 20%, so our error does not

exceed 20% when comparing Reynolds numbers. Looking at the inverse Reynolds graph

and taking the trend line gives us an equation from which we can get our k values (k1 =

650.61 and k2 = 1.1232). Comparing the experimental with the theoretical, we see that

our values, while not exactly the same, are within an acceptable range that is around 20%.

The only area where there is a greater than 20% variance is in our inlet vs.

velocity graph. Since we did not have the most accurate flow meter, this can explain the

large deviation of our graph. Even though the deviation exists, our graph mimics the

orientation of the theoretical curve, but is merely lower than expected. If we had enough

time to acquire the appropriate flow meter, there is a greater possibility that the deviance

would be much smaller.

Overall our test was a success, but there were many areas that contributed to error

in our results. Most importantly was maintaining a full seal throughout the device. Since

we had an apparatus that was previously used, the seals were not as strong and had the

potential to leak or rupture due to degradation over time. During our initial

11
testing/calibration, the seal around the plenum ruptured due to a large internal pressure

that rapidly accumulated from too much inlet pressure. Once the integrity of the seal was

compromised, we had to reseal the entire apparatus to ensure no other seals burst during

actual testing. As mentioned above, we attempted to check the seals to ensure accuracy

in our results.

A second error was pipe leakage from the inlet. This discovery was made when

we observed a large variance between our experimental and theoretical results. After

further inspection, we determined leakage to be the cause. Instead of submerging the

apparatus in water or using a soapy solution to observe bubble generation, we decided to

use data variance as our check. We reduced the overall leakage by using Teflon tape on

the connection threading and ensured that the fittings were tight. Even with these

precautions, there were still minor leaks that could not be avoided.

A third significant source of error was found in our flow meter. As mentioned

above, we were using the incorrect flow meter initially and this caused us to have a large

error (approximately 1000%). Once we had the appropriate flow meter, it was too small

for the flow ranges we were operating in. Since we did not have enough time to acquire a

better meter, we came up with a linear correlation factor of 1.2 and used this to find our

flow rates. We did not have enough time to obtain a better flow meter that could retrieve

more accurate results so we had to assume our method was accurate enough. This error

is most noticeable when correlating inlet velocity and pressure drop as seen in Fig. 11.

A final source of error was the derivation of Ergun’s equation. Ergun derived his

equation from experimental data that he acquired from repeated testing of various

12
materials in a packed bed fashion (Ergun, 1952). He did not account for all the variables,

but made a general equation from his macro level observations. For one thing, he did not

factor in surface roughness. Further experiments conducted by other groups determined

that surface roughness does in fact alter the pressure, but not by a significant amount at

the macro level (Kececioglu, 1994). Because of the derivation being from empirical data

only, there is a level of error between our data and what Ergun derived.

In the end we came to the conclusion that Ergun’s equation is generally true on

the macro level, for our data. We did, however, find that there are a few inconsistencies

present within the equation that in turn caused variances between our theoretical and

actual findings. Further analysis could attempt to find just how inaccurate the equation

can be.

Further Study

Due to time constraints, we were unable to complete all the testing proposed at

the beginning of the semester. Because of this, there are many areas of further research

that can be done to advance the understanding of flow over packed beds. Listed below

are a few ideas that we thought would be interesting for further research.

As mentioned above, the first area of study could be trying different aggregates of

varying size, shape and surface roughness to establish the inaccuracies present in Ergun’s

equation. It would be interesting to see how a bed comprised of non-spherical particulate

would behave compared to ours. Also studying finer aggregate (i.e. sand) would be

another area of research. We attempted to study sand, but ran into difficulty establishing

13
an ideal packed bed and actual void fractions present. We ran out of time before we

could come to any significant conclusions, but thought a vibratory rig would be

appropriate for packing the material.

A second area that one can study is how a more viscous fluid behaves over a

packed bed. These fluids can be as simple as water or as complex as heavy oils, but there

would be some interesting results found when taking our testing procedure and applying

it to various fluids. One could also try the varying fluids over different sizes of packed

beds and aggregate, which would also yield unique results.

A final area of study would be to test various bed heights and widths at a

consistent inlet velocity. Our findings seem to point to the fact that the taller the bed, the

larger the pressure change and vice versa. We didn’t, however, have the time to

empirically prove this true through testing, so any further testing in this area could have

interesting conclusions.

14
References

Carpinlioglu, M.O., Ozahi, E. “A simplified correlation for fixed bed pressure drop”
Powder Technology 187 94-101 (2008).

Ergun, S., Orning, A.A. "Fluid Flow Through Packed Columns", Chemical
Engineering Progress. 48 89-94 (1952).

“Flow Through packed beds” 20 February 2009

ftp://ftp.colorado.edu/cuboulder/courses/chen3200/Lectures/FlowAppl_3.pdf

Geankoplis, Christie J. 2003 Transport Process and Unit Operations. 4th ed chapter 3
Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Guimard,P., McNermy,D., Saw.E., &Yang,A. 20 February 2009

http://rothfus.cheme.cmu.edu/tlab/pbeds/projects/t4_s04/t4_s04.pdf

Kececioglu, I., Jiang, Y “Flow Through Porous Media of Packed Spheres Saturated With
Water ” Transactions of the ASME 116 164-170 (1994).

Tully,A., Karasek,M., & Doraiswamy,S. 20 February 2009

http://www.me.rochester.edu/courses/ME241/11-Sand.pdf

15
Appendix A

Excerpt from Transport Process and Unit Operations. 1

The void fraction 𝜀 is defined as:

𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑑

𝜀 = 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 (1)
𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑑 (𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑝𝑙𝑢𝑠 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠 )

The specific surface of a particle av in m-1 is defined as

𝑠𝑝
𝑎𝑣 = 𝑣 (2)
𝑝

where Sp is the surface area of a particle in m2 and vp the volume of a particle in m3. For a

spherical particle,

6
𝑎𝑣 = 𝐷 (3)
𝑝

where Dp is diameter in m. For a packed bed of nonspherical particles, the effective

particle diameter Dp is defined as

6
𝐷𝑝 = 𝑎 (4)
𝑣

Since (1- 𝜀) is the volume fraction of particles in the bed

6
𝑎 = 𝑎𝑣 1 − 𝜀 = 1−𝜀 (5)
𝐷𝑝

where 𝛼 is the ratio of total surface area in the bed to total volume of bed (void volume

plus particle volume) in m-1.

The average interstitial velocity in the bed is v m/s and it is related to the superficial

velocity vs based on the cross section of the empty container by

1
Geankoplis, Christie J. 2003 Transport Process and Unit Operations. 4th ed chapter 3 Prentice Hall: New
Jersey.

16
 𝑣𝑠 = 𝜀𝑣 (6)
The hydraulic radius rH for the flow is defined as

𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 −𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤

𝑟𝐻 = 𝑤𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑑 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤

= 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠

𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑑

= 𝑤𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑑
𝜀
= (7)
𝛼
Combining equations (5) and (7),

𝜀
𝑟𝐻 = 6(1−𝜀) 𝐷𝑝 (8)

Since the equivalent diameter F for a channel is 𝐷 = 4𝑟𝐻 , the Reynolds number for a

packed bed is as follows using equations (6) and (8).

4𝑟𝐻 𝑣𝑝 4𝜀 𝑣𝑠 𝜌 4 𝐷𝑝 𝑣𝑠 𝜌
𝑅𝑒𝑝 = = 6(1−𝜀) 𝐷𝑝 = 6(1−𝜀) (9)
𝜇 𝜀 𝜇 𝜇

For packed beds Ergun defined the Reynolds number as above but without the 4/6 term:

𝐷𝑝 𝑣𝑠 𝜌
𝑅𝑒𝑝 = 𝜇 (1−𝜀) (10)

The Hagen-Poiseuille equation describes pressure drop in laminar flow

32𝜇𝑣 (𝐿2 −𝐿1 )

∆𝑝𝑓 = (𝑝1 − 𝑝2 )𝑓 = (11)
𝐷2
where p1 is the upstream pressure at point 1, N/m2; P2, pressure at point; v is average

velocity in tube, m/s; D is inside diameter, m; and (L2-L1) is length of straight tube.

Combining equation (6), (8), and (11) to give:

17
 32𝜇𝑣 ∆𝐿 32𝜇 (𝑣𝑠 𝜀)∆𝐿 72𝜇 𝑣𝑠 ∆𝐿(1−𝜀)2
∆𝑝 = = = (12)
𝐷2 (4𝑟𝐻 )2 𝜀 3 𝐷𝑝 2

The true ∆𝐿 is large because of the tortuous path and use of the hydraulic radius predicts

too large a vs. which gives the Blake-Kozeny equation for laminar flow, void fractions

less that 0.5, effective particle diameter Dp, and Reynolds number < 10.

150𝜇 𝑣𝑠 ∆𝐿 (1−𝜀)2
∆𝑝 = (13)
𝐷𝑝 2 𝜀3

For turbulent flow in packed beds, the same procedure was used. First the pressure drop

is defined as

∆𝐿 𝑣 2
∆𝑝 = 4𝑓𝜌 (14)
𝐷 2
Then combining equation (6), (8) and (14)

3𝑓𝜌 𝑣𝑠 2 ∆𝐿 1−𝜀
∆𝑝 = (15)
𝐷𝑝 𝜀3

For highly turbulent flow the friction factor should approach a constant value. Also, it is

assumed that all packed beds should have the same relative roughness. Experimental data

indicated that 3f = 1.75. Hence, the final equation for turbulent flow for Reynolds

number >1000, which is called the Burke-Plummer equation, becomes

1.75𝜌 𝑣𝑠 2 ∆𝐿 1−𝜀
∆𝑝 = (16)
𝐷𝑝 𝜀3

Adding equation (13) for laminar flow and equation (16) for turbulent flow, Ergun

proposed the following general equation for low, intermediate, and high Reynolds

numbers which has been tested experimentally.

18
 150𝜇 𝑣𝑠 ∆𝐿 (1−𝜀)2 1.75𝜌 𝑣𝑠 2 ∆𝐿 1−𝜀
∆𝑝 = + (17)
𝐷𝑝 2 𝜀3 𝐷𝑝 𝜀3

Rewrite equation (17) in terms of dimensionless groups,

∆𝑝𝜌 𝐷𝑝 𝜀 3 150
= 𝑅𝑒 + 1.75 (18)
(𝑣𝑠 𝜌)2 ∆𝐿 1−𝜀 𝑝

19
Appendix B

Excerpt from A simplified correlation for fixed bed pressure drop.2

An open circuit blower type air flow test set up consisting of horizontal and vertical rigid
pipes of inner diameter D of 103 mm (Fig.B1) was designed and constructed Air flow
was generated by means of a fan in combination with an AC motor speed control unit
(Siemens Micromaster Type MM 110). The packed bed location on the vertical pipe line
was at Xv = 1050 mm from the 90° elbow. Packed beds were made up of uniformly sized
spherical and non-spherical particles of irregular shape covering a range of Φ (spherocity,
where 1 is a perfect sphere) where 0.55 ≤ Φ ≤ 1.00 with the form of random loose
packing. Crushed solid particles of natural zeolite, chick-pea and spherical particles of
glass beads were used as packing materials. Packed beds of four different L providing a
range of 0.24 ≤ L / D ≤ 1.46 were constructed. Bed limiters were made up of synthetic
cloth with an open area ratio, β = 0.92, wire diameter dw = 0.39 mm and mesh size
M = 1.8 mm. The utilized packed bed codes, measured bed porosities and the range of the
conducted test cases in terms of Rep are given in Table 2.

Fig. B1. A sketch of the experimental test set-up.

2
Carpinlioglu, M.O., Ozahi, E. 2008 “A simplified correlation for fixed bed pressure drop”
Powder Technology 187(1) 94-101.

20
Table 1: Packed bed parameters and range of test cases
Packed bed Packing material ρm L D / Dp Φ ε Rep of test
code (kg/m3) (mm) cases
Z0640 Zeolite Dp = 6 mm 640 40 17.16 0.82 0.37 1104, 1142,
1187
Z0660 60 0.36 687, 950,
1075, 1125
Z06150 150 0.36 675, 837,
912, 1009
C0925 Chickpea 970 25 11.44 0.55 0.44 1307, 2464,
Dp = 9 mm 2592, 2721
C0940 40 0.40 1200, 1850,
2180, 2300
C0960 60 0.40 1200, 1850,
2150, 2280
C09150 150 0.38 1596, 1761,
1838
G1625 Glass bead 2675 25 6.43 1.00 0.44 2380, 4647,
Dp = 16 mm 4761, 5047
G1640 40 0.40 2168, 4177,
4408, 4462
G1660 60 0.39 2115
Z1825 Zeolite Dp = 18 mm 640 25 5.72 0.76 0.56 3954, 6818,
6981, 7772
Z1840 40 0.48 3000, 5630,
5815, 6046
Z1860 60 0.45 2792, 4887,
5192, 5541
Z18150 150 0.40 2400

21
Table 2: The measured mean exit velocity and pressure drop data for all test cases

Packed bed Re U ΔPBed Packed bed Re U ΔPBed (Pa)

code (m/s) (Pa) code (m/s)
Z0640 25,000 1.74 430 C09150 30,000 1.82 982
Z0640 30,000 1.8 447.9 C09150 33,000 1.9 1005
Z0640 33,000 1.87 532.4 G1625 15,000 1.25 51.4
Z0660 15,000 1.1 289.6 G1625 25,000 2.44 165.2
Z0660 25,000 1.52 546.7 G1625 30,000 2.5 198.9
Z0660 30,000 1.72 706.8 G1625 33,000 2.65 223.3
Z0660 33,000 1.8 862.5 G1640 15,000 1.22 110.1
Z06150 15,000 1.08 689.2 G1640 25,000 2.35 330.9
Z06150 25,000 1.34 1085.8 G1640 30,000 2.48 407.8
Z06150 30,000 1.46 1005 G1640 33,000 2.51 407.4
Z06150 33,000 1.615 1126 G1660 15,000 1.21 177.4
C0925 15,000 1.22 71.4 Z1825 15,000 2.1 38.9
C0925 25,000 2.3 201.4 Z1825 25,000 2.5 51.8
C0925 30,000 2.42 236.1 Z1825 30,000 2.56 54.6
C0925 33,000 2.54 286.5 Z1825 33,000 2.85 65.4
C0940 15,000 1.2 153.7 Z1840 15,000 1.3 41.5
C0940 25,000 1.85 334.8 Z1840 25,000 2.44 137.8
C0940 30,000 2.18 419.8 Z1840 30,000 2.52 154.1
C0940 33,000 2.3 461.2 Z1840 33,000 2.62 178.6
C0960 15,000 1.2 195.6 Z1860 15,000 1.28 71.8
C0960 25,000 1.85 504.3 Z1860 25,000 2.24 210.5
C0960 30,000 2.15 600.1 Z1860 30,000 2.38 233.4
C0960 33,000 2.28 692.4 Z1860 33,000 2.54 297.6

22
Appendix C

Excerpt from Behavior during the Fluidization of Fine Sand. 3

Our first task was to build an apparatus that could hold our sand. The tank holding

our sand was built of acrylic glass, since it was necessary to build the tank out of a clear

substance in order to observe the height and behavior of the sand. Acrylic glass was

readily available in the lab. Our tank was chosen with dimensions similar to those about

which we had read. It is cylindrical with a 10 cm diameter and it is over a meter tall. This

seems large, but the height is necessary to contain splashes from bubbling sand.

Next, we needed to properly aerate the sand. Since our air comes from a

compressor via small lines, we have a plenum designed to uniformly (roughly) push air

into our tank, rather than shoot a jet of high velocity air directly through the center of the

sand. This plenum is also made of cylindrical acrylic glass, and had to be partially

machined, making it the second most expensive part of our experiment. We also had to

create an effective seal between the plenum and the tank to keep the sand from falling

into the plenum. The seal consists of a sheet of fiberglass supported by two perforated

metal sheets and air tightened by two gaskets. Fiberglass is an ideal filter as it allows easy

flow of air but still blocks our tiny sand particles. The tank is flanged, allowing it to be

bolted into the seal and into the plenum.

3
Tully.A, Karasek.M, & Doraiswamy.S 20 February 2009
http://www.me.rochester.edu/courses/ME241/11-Sand.pdf

23