chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 497–507

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cherd

Fluidization characteristics of oil palm frond particles in

agitated bed

Ifa Puspasari ∗ , Meor Zainal Meor Talib, Wan Ramli Wan Daud, Siti Masrinda Tasirin
Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600
UKM Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

a b s t r a c t

Fluidization characteristics of crushed oil palm fronds were studied. The elongated shape of the particles and their
fibrous nature created entanglement between the particles and caused the bed to form crack and plug flow when
aerated in ordinary fluidized bed. Fluidization of the fibres became feasible with the aid of mechanical agitation.
Agitation helped to loosen the entanglement of the fibres which prevents air to pass through the bed of particles, as
a result, fluidization state could be attained. Experiments were carried out in a column with height of 72 cm and ID
of 14.4 cm. Superficial air velocities used ranged from 0.1 to 1.1 m/s, bed heights ranged from 4 to 8.5 cm, agitation
speeds ranged from 300 to 500 rpm and particle initial moisture contents from 0.5 to 2.4 g water/g dry solids. Analysis
of the fluidization characteristics showed that minimum fluidization velocity was independent with bed height and
agitation speed. However, investigation on the effect of particle initial moisture content showed that minimum
fluidization velocity increased with particle moisture content. A new empirical correlation to predict minimum
fluidization velocity has been derived which gives good agreement with experimental data in this study and the data
from other study in the literature.
© 2012 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Agitated fluidized bed; Fibres; Hydrodynamics; Incipient fluidization; Minimum fluidization velocity;
Stirred fluidized bed

1. Introduction fluidized bed, centrifugal and rotating fluidized bed (Daud,

Fluidized bed has been used extensively for various applica-
tions such as gasification, coating of particles, drying of solids,
adsorption, reactions, combustion, incineration, calcinations
and many others. It offers good mixing of solids which leads
to uniform temperature throughout the bed. Hence, the pro-
cess can be controlled simply and reliably. In addition, the high
heat and mass transfer rates between gas and particles sug-
gest a more interesting operation over other methods (Kunii
and Levenspiel, 1991).
Despite the wide range applications of fluidized bed to pro-
cess different material characteristics, certain materials are
difficult to fluidize with the ordinary fluidized bed system
and require specific modifications to improve the fluidization
ability of the material. Among such modifications are mechan-
ically assisted fluidized bed, vibrated fluidized bed, agitated
2008; Law and Mujumdar, 2006; Tasirin and Anwar, 2001).
Oil palm fibre is one of the materials which are unable to
fluidize in an ordinary fluidized bed system. It is because of
the fibrous nature creating entanglement between the par-
ticles which prevents the air to pass through the bed of
particles (Puspasari et al., 2012). Furthermore, the particle
shape is highly elongated thus cannot be fluidized properly.
Abdullah et al. (2003) have performed experiments to inves-
tigate the hydrodynamic properties of oil palm fibre (which
was extracted from the oil palm fruit) in an ordinary fluidized
bed using air as the fluidizing medium. They found that no
fluidization occurred for this particular fibre. The poor flu-
idization behaviour was due to the low bulk density and high
porosity of the material. Agitated fluidized bed appears to be
the solution to the fluidization problem of this fibrous mate-
rial as suggested by Moreno et al. (2006) for the fluidization

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3 8921 6424; fax: +60 3 8921 6148.
E-mail address: ifapus@gmail.com (I. Puspasari).
Received 29 March 2012; Received in revised form 21 August 2012; Accepted 22 August 2012
0263-8762/$ – see front matter © 2012 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2012.08.018
498 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 497–507

Nomenclature

A cross-sectional area (m2 )

Ar Archimedes number
d diameter (m)
FI fluidization index
g acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2 )
H bed height (m)
k, n model constants
m mass of bed (kg)
R2 correlation coefficient
Re Reynolds number
S agitation speed (rpm)
u superficial velocity (m/s)
X particle moisture content (g water/g dry solids)
P pressure drop across the bed (Pa)

Greek symbols
ε bed voidage
 shape factor
 viscosity (Pa s)
 density (kg/m3 )

Subscripts Fig. 1 – Schematic diagram of agitated fluidized bed dryer:

b bulk
g gas
mf minimum fluidization
p particle
s solid
of forest biomass particles. They analysed three methods of
fluidization using vibration, mechanical agitation and addi-
tion of inert solids. They concluded that the highest quality of
fluidization was achieved by using mechanical agitation.
Agitated fluidized bed has been used to promote the flu-
idization of difficult-to-fluidize particles. A number of works
has been carried out in this area. Most of these works were
involved with the fluidization of fine particles. Kim and Han
(2006) were able to fluidize phosphor particles having an aver-
age particle size of 22 ␮m. Without agitation, fluidization of
these particles resulted in increasingly severe agglomeration,
channelling and disruption with increasing gas velocity. They
found that fluidization of the fine particles was more stable
with agitation than without agitation. Smoother fluidization
was also observed with increasing agitation speed, because
the agglomeration and channelling were reduced by mechan-
ical agitation. It is believed that mechanical agitation reduced
the cohesive force of the particles. Bae et al. (2002) investi-
gated the fluidization of bentonite particles with mean particle
diameter of 3.7 ␮m. They found that fluidization of the very
fine cohesive powder was possible if mechanical agitation is
introduced into the bed.
Watano et al. (1998) employed agitation for the drying
of very fine powders like lactose and corn starch for phar-
maceutical products. Agitation has been found to eliminate
channelling in the bed and thus facilitate the fluidization of
such powders. Another application of mechanical agitation in
a fluidized bed is for the drying of slurry or paste material.
Adamiec (2002) reported the use of a mixer in a fluidized bed
dryer to dry waste sludge. Wet sludge was found poor to flu-
idize in a conventional fluidized bed due to the tendency to
agglomerate during the drying process. Agitation proved help
(1) air blower; (2) heater; (3) plenum chamber; (4) distributor
plate; (5) fluidized bed column; (6) impeller; (7) shaft; (8)
agitator motor; (9) bag filter; (10) water manometer.
to disintegrate and disperse the pasty feed. A work by Reyes
et al. (2004) involved mechanical agitation for the drying of
municipal sludge in a fluidized bed with lateral air flow. Dry-
ing kinetic studies were carried out to determine the mass
and heat transfer parameters to characterize the drying pro-
cess. Previous work by Reyes et al. (2001) also incorporated
agitation to fluidized bed dryer for the drying of suspension
such as carbohydrate mixture, apple pulp, eggs and copper
sulphate solution. The results showed that by aiding mechan-
ical agitation, the drying rate significantly increases as a result
of the improvement in the contact between the air flow and
the particles.
A number of works has been conducted in the application
of mechanical agitation in a fluidized bed to promote fluidiza-
tion and much of these works were done with the application
of fine powders and slurry or pastes. However, only limited
number of work was reported on the application of agitation to
fluidize fibrous materials. The current research was intended
to investigate the fluidization characteristics of oil palm frond
fibres in a fluidized bed assisted with mechanical agitation.
Effects of bed height, agitation speed and particle moisture
content were also studied. Several correlations for predicting
the minimum fluidization velocities were compared with the
values measured from the present study and the experimental
data from the literature.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Apparatus
Fig. 1 shows the schematic diagram of the laboratory scale agi-
tated fluidized bed dryer. The air is supplied by a blower driven
by a 1.5 hp, single phase, electric motor and passed through a
heater. The air flow rate then measured using a compact hot
 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 497–507 499

Fig. 2 – Shape and size of agitator.

wire anemometer (Model Testo 425). The air then enters the
stainless steel plenum chamber to evenly distribute the air
flow before passing through the distributor plate. The distribu-
tor plate is constructed from stainless steel of 1 mm thickness,
with holes of 2 mm diameter arranged in a triangular pattern,
resulting in 19% open area. It is covered with a cloth to prevent
the particles from falling down into the plenum. This gives
a pressure drop of about 26 Pa at a superficial air velocity of
0.5 m/s.
The cylindrical fluidizing column is made of acrylic to allow
good visual observation of the particles flow pattern. It has a
wall thickness of 3 mm, an internal diameter of 14.4 cm and
an overall length of 72 cm. The pressure drop across the dis-
tributor plate and the bed are measured using pressure taps
connected to a water manometer. At the top of the column, a
filter bag is used to separate fines from the discharge gas. Fig. 3 – Photograph of crushed oil palm fronds.
Mechanical agitation is generated by an electric motor
(70 W) with a rotating speed varying from 100 to 2000 rpm. Table 1 – Properties of fresh oil palm frond particles
The agitator itself is a single stage agitator with four impellers (X = 2.5 ± 0.3 g water/g dry solids).
mounted on a straight 1 cm diameter stainless steel shaft. The Properties Value
type of impeller used is pitched blade turbine having an angle
Mean particle sizea (d̄p ), mm 1.83
of 30◦ with the horizontal. The total blade length is 12 cm and
Shape factor (s ) 0.56
it is 1.5 mm thick. The detail of the agitator is shown in Fig. 2.
Particle densitya (p ), kg/m3 1270
Tapped bulk densitya (b ), kg/m3 465
Voidageb (εb ) 0.63

a
2.2. Materials Measured.
b
Calculated.

Fresh oil palm fronds used in this study were obtained

from Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. After remov-
ing the leaves, the frond was then cut into small pieces
(4 cm) and ran through a mechanical crusher (Portable Plastic
Crusher RLL). Fig. 3 shows photograph of the crushed oil palm
fronds. Mean equivalent surface–volume diameter was used
to characterize the particle’s dimension. The particle shape
factor was determined by measuring the particle dimensions
(length, breadth and thickness) of 63 randomly selected par-
ticles using a calliper and by allowing the particle shape as
parallelipiped. Particle density was determined by compara-
tive method (Abrahamsen and Geldart, 1980; Geldart, 1990)
and bulk density by pouring the particles into a cylindrical
container. The properties of the material are summarized
in Table 1.
2.3. Experimental procedure
The fluidization experiments were carried out at room tem-
perature and atmospheric pressure. The palm frond particles
were charged into the bed through the opening at the top of
the column. Air was introduced into the bed and the pressure
drop across the bed was measured as the inlet air veloc-
ity increased. The fluidization curve was constructed from
the dimensionless index for fluidization (FI) as a function of
500 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 497–507

1.4 1 if no agitation was used. It was also observed that without

Without agitation agitation, the bed pressure drop still increased as the superfi-
1.2
With agitation cial air velocity increased. This indicated that no fluidization
1.0 had occurred. The increase in the bed pressure drop was due
0.8 to the higher shear stress between the rising bed and the wall.
FI (-)

A large crack was observed in the bed when the superficial

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
u (m/s)
Fig. 4 – Fluidization curves for wet oil palm fronds with and
without agitation.
superficial air velocity. The fluidization index (FI) is defined as
the ratio of pressure drop over the bed to the weight of the bed
per unit cross-sectional area A (Marring et al., 1994):
PA
FI =
mg
where m is the mass of the bed, P is the pressure drop across
the bed and g is the gravitational acceleration.
For investigations on the effects of bed height and agita-
tion speed, the experiments were performed with particles
weighing 150, 200, 250 and 300 g which correspond roughly
to bed height of 4, 5.5, 7 and 8.5 cm, respectively. The agita-
tion speed used was in the range of 300–500 rpm. To study
the effects of moisture content, the same experiments were
carried out using particles with moisture content ranged from
0.5 to 2.4 g water/g dry solids. The agitation speed used for this
particular experiment was maintained at 300 rpm.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Fluidization characteristics of oil palm frond
particles
The fluidization curves of wet palm frond particles
(X = 2.5 ± 0.3 g water/g dry solids) in the fluidized bed with
and without agitation are shown in Fig. 4. As can be seen
from Fig. 4, the fluidization index (FI) was lower with agitation
than without agitation. Without agitation, the fluidization
index continuously increased with superficial air velocity.
Plug flow was observed when the fluidization index exceeded
air velocity reached 0.7 m/s when no agitation was applied
in the fluidized bed. The bed would be partially lifted with
subsequent increased in air velocity beyond this point.
The visual observation of fluidization behaviour of wet
palm frond particles in the fluidized bed is shown in Fig. 5.
1.2
Fig. 5(a) shows the bed with no inlet air. At certain super-
ficial air velocity, crack appeared in the bed as shown in
Fig. 5(b). As the air flow increased, this crack became larger
and formed a large gap. Further increased in superficial air
velocity caused the bed to be partially lifted as illustrated
in Fig. 5(c). The entanglement between the fibres produced
particle nets which prevented air to pass-through the bed of
particles. With the increasing air flow, the bed was lifted in a
plug flow when the air flow was not sufficient to break these
nets. This is because the hydrodynamic drag force was lower
than the mechanical strength of the bed caused by the entan-
(1)
glement of the fibres.
Reina et al. (2000) also observed a plug flow when fluidizing
scrap-wood particles. They pointed out that the plug flow was
due to the low particle density and the highly irregular shape
of the particles. Therefore, for low density and high fibre con-
tent material which is difficult to fluidize, it requires additional
external energy to help them to fluidize, i.e. by using mechan-
ical agitation. Fig. 5(d) shows the bed of palm frond particles
which fluidize well with the aid of mechanical agitation. An
additional force is needed to break the fibre entanglements.
The additional force comes in the form of energy due to the act
of mechanical agitation. This force should be equal or beyond
that required to break the interlocking particles. Thus, in order
to fluidize the fibrous material, the gas flow should not only
overcome the weight of the particles, but also should over-
come the entanglement between the particles.
Fig. 6 shows the photograph of the behaviour of dry oil
palm frond particles (X = 0.16 g water/g dry solids) aerated with
air at room temperature in the fluidized bed without applying
mechanical agitation. As depicted in Fig. 6, the dried particles
could not be fluidized without mechanical agitation, as also
observed in the fluidization of wet particles. Cracks appeared
in the bed (Fig. 6(a)) and with further increase in superficial air
velocity caused the bed to be partially lifted (Fig. 6(b)). A large
plug flow was observed in the middle of the bed when aerated
at high superficial air velocity. With the aid of agitation, it was

Fig. 5 – Hydrodynamic behaviour of wet oil palm frond particles.

 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 497–507 501

Fig. 6 – Hydrodynamic behaviour of dry oil palm frond particles without agitation.

200 1.2
H = 4 cm H = 4 cm
H = 5.5 cm 1.0 H = 5.5 cm
160
H = 7 cm H = 7 cm
H = 8.5 cm 0.8
120 H = 8.5 cm
P (Pa)

FI (-)

S = 300 rpm 0.6 S = 300 rpm

80
0.4

40 0.2
umf
0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
u (m/s) u (m/s)

Fig. 7 – Bed pressure drop as a function of superficial air Fig. 8 – Fluidization curves for different bed heights at
velocity for different bed heights at S = 300 rpm. S = 300 rpm.

1.2
possible to fluidize the dried oil palm fibres. It appears that S = 300 rpm
the act of agitation could break up the fibres entanglement 1.0 S = 400 rpm
and eliminate the crack which was formed when no agitation S = 500 rpm
0.8
was applied. H = 7 cm
FI (-)

Plot of bed pressure drop as a function of superficial air 0.6

velocity for wet palm frond particles at different bed heights
0.4
is shown in Fig. 7. The results show that the bed pressure
drop increased with increasing bed height. This is because of 0.2
umf
the larger pressure force required to fluidize more bed load
(Escudero and Heindel, 2011). Fig. 8 shows the effect of bed 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
height on the fluidization curves of wet palm frond particles.
It could be observed that the measured value of minimum flu-
u (m/s)
idization velocity (intersection of the increasing FI curve and Fig. 9 – Fluidization curves for different agitation speeds at
constant FI line) did not show significant dependence on bed H = 7 cm.
height. This is in agreement with the findings of other inves-
tigators (Cranfield and Geldart, 1974; Escudero and Heindel,
2011; Gunn and Hilal, 1997; Jena et al., 2008; Mandal et al., agitation speed. Fig. 9 also shows that there was no signif-
2011). Similar results were also observed for fluidization at icant effect of agitation speed on the minimum fluidization
agitation speeds of 400 and 500 rpm. velocity (umf ). The value of umf obtained for all agitation speed
The effect of agitation speed on the fluidization curves was around 0.95 m/s. However, studies by Kim and Han (2006)
was found not to be significant, as shown in Fig. 9. Godard and Park et al. (1999) revealed the dependency of umf on the
and Richardson (1969) as cited in Gupta and Mujumdar (1983) agitation speed. They found that umf decreased with increas-
also noted that the bed pressure drop is independent of the ing agitation speed. They studied the fluidization of very fine
502 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 497–507

1.2 1.0
X = 2.4 g/g
1.0 X = 1.4 g/g 0.9
X = 0.8 g/g
0.8 X = 0.6 g/g 0.8

umf (m/s)
X = 0.5 g/g
FI (-)

0.6 0.7

0.4 0.6

0.2 0.5

0.0 0.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
u (m/s) X (g water/g dry solids)

Fig. 10 – Fluidization curves for different moisture contents Fig. 11 – Minimum fluidization velocity of oil palm frond
at S = 300 rpm. particles at different moisture contents.

particles which formed agglomerates and channelling in the
bed. The decrease in the umf is because the amount of agglom-
eration was reduced, the effective particle size decreased and,
thus, the umf also decreased with increasing agitation speed.
The present study involved the fluidization of large particles
which did not show any agglomeration. The poor fluidization
behaviour of the oil palm frond particles was due to entan-
glement of the fibres. The hydrodynamic force and the force
exerted from the act of mechanical agitation at low agitation
speed (i.e. 300 rpm) is just equal to those required to interlock
these fibre entanglement, and hence promoting the fluidiza-
tion of the particles. The rest of the energy resulted from the
agitating process at speeds higher than 300 rpm is dissipated,
as a result, higher agitation speed does not have any obvious
effects on umf .
Fig. 10 presents the fluidization curves of oil palm frond
particles at different moisture contents. It was observed that
the value of fluidization index increased and approached unity
as the particles dried. This is also in agreement with the work
by Moreno et al. (2006) which found that the increase in mois-
ture produces a decrease of the fluidization index. Geldart
et al. (1984) pointed out that the actual/theoretical pressure
drop ratio increases as powders flowability reduces. When the
particles become wet or sticky, the flowability reduces, result-
ing in poor fluidization. Fig. 10 also reveals that as the particles
dried, the slope of the fluidization curve increased. Similar
results were also obtained by Marring et al. (1994) for the flu-
idization of potato starch with moisture contents varying from
6 to 25%.
Effect of particle moisture content on the minimum flu-
idization velocity is shown in Fig. 11. From Fig. 11, the
minimum fluidization velocity umf increased as the mois-
ture content increased which also agrees with the findings of
Caicedo et al. (2002), Clarke et al. (2005), Reyes et al. (2002),
Senadeera et al. (2000) and Senadeera et al. (2006). The higher
minimum fluidization velocity for wetter particles could be
explained by the increase in the interparticle forces (attributes
to liquid bridges).
3.2. Predictions on minimum fluidization velocity
Minimum fluidization velocity (umf ) is an important param-
eter for a fluidized bed design. The value of umf is usually
determined experimentally from the pressure drop against
gas velocity chart. Minimum fluidization condition is achieved
when the pressure drop across the bed becomes constant
with the increasing gas velocity. A number of correlations are
available in the literature to predict the minimum fluidization
velocity of solid particles (Gupta et al., 2009; Rabinovich and
Kalman, 2008). Table 2 summarizes a selection of some recent
correlations cited in the literature to predict the minimum flu-
idization velocity. Correlations due to Wen and Yu (1966) which
is based on the Ergun equation (Ergun, 1952), and the correla-
tion of Leva (1959) are still widely used to predict the value of
umf .
By carrying out dimensional analysis, a new correlation has
been derived from the present study by taking into account
both the particle (s dp , (1 − εmf )p ) and gas properties (g , g )

Table 2 – Reported correlations for predicting minimum fluidization velocity.

Reference Correlation
(1 − εmf ) 1
Ergun (1952) Ar = 150 Remf + 1.75 Re2mf (2)
ε3mf ε3mf
2
0.005(s dp ) (p − g )gε3mf
Leva (1959) umf = (3)
(1 − εmf )
2 1/2
Wen and Yu (1966) Remf = [(33.7) + (0.0408Ar)] − 33.7 (4)
Gauthier et al. (1999) Remf = 0.0052Ar0.777 (5)
2 1/2
Reina et al. (2000) Remf = [(48) + (0.045Ar)] − 48 (6)
Delebarre (2004) Ar = 29400ε3mf (1 − εmf )Remf + 24.5Re2mf (7)
2 1/2
Kozanoglu et al. (2005) Remf = [(24.6) + (0.0651Ar)] − 24.6 (8)
Ar
Subramani et al. (2007) Remf = (9)
1502
Remf = 0.0013Ar0.88 for Group B (10)
Rabinovich and Kalman (2008)
Remf = 0.015Ar2/3 for Group D (11)
 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 497–507 503

and the density difference due to buoyancy g(p − g ). The 8

Data of Simone & Hariot (1980)
dimensionless correlation for the prediction of umf has the Data of Grewal & Saxena (1980)
6
following form: Data of Ho et al (1987) Group D
Data of Verma & Saxena (1984)
   n 4 Data of Povrenovie et al (1992)
p Present study
s Remf = k s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar (12) 2
g

ln [ sRemf]
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
where k and n are the model parameters and Remf is the
-2
Reynolds number defined as: Group B
-4
umf dp g
Remf = (13) -6
g Group A
-8
and Ar is the Archimedes number calculated as follows: ln [ 3
s (1- mf)( p/ g)Ar]

g(p − g )d3p g Fig. 12 – Comparison between the predictions using

Ar = (14)
2g proposed correlation with the experimental data from the
present study and other works.
Eq. (12) could be written in the logarithmic form:
   
p
ln[s Remf ] = n ln s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar + ln k (15) have been compared with those obtained from several exist-
g
ing correlations in Table 2. Fig. 12 shows a comparison between
If Eq. (12) applies, plot of Eq. (15) should yield a straight line, the predictions with the proposed correlation and the exper-
where the values of k and n could be determined. imental data from the present study and the data from other
The predicted values of minimum fluidization velocities works. The properties of the particles used in Fig. 12 are listed
using the newly derived correlation of Eq. (12) have been com- in Table 3. The results indicated that the proposed correlation
pared with the corresponding experimental data in this work work satisfactorily for different values of [s3 (1 − εmf )(p /g )Ar]
and the data by other investigators available in the literature. according to the classification of particles (Group A, Group B
Also, the predictions made from the proposed new correlation or Group D-type).

Table 3 – Experimental data from the present study and other works.
No. Reference Particles Geldart p (kg/m3 ) dp (mm) εmf (−) s (−)
group

1. This work Oil palm frond particles D 1349 1.83 0.63 0.56
2. This work Oil palm frond particles D 967 1.83 0.63 0.56
3. This work Oil palm frond particles D 740 1.83 0.63 0.56
4. This work Oil palm frond particles D 680 1.83 0.63 0.56
5. This work Oil palm frond particles D 619 1.83 0.63 0.56
6. Povrenovié et al. (1992) Glass spheres D 2400 4 0.42 1.00
7. Povrenovié et al. (1992) Glass spheres D 2482 5 0.43 1.00
8. Povrenovié et al. (1992) Glass spheres D 2482 6 0.44 1.00
9. Povrenovié et al. (1992) CaCO3 D 2600 2.4 0.42 1.00
10. Ho et al. (1987) Sand B 2700 0.505 0.46 0.88
11. Ho et al. (1987) Sand B 2700 0.359 0.45 0.89
12. Ho et al. (1987) Coal B 1330 0.715 0.53 0.61
13. Ho et al. (1987) Coal B 1330 0.630 0.51 0.65
14. Ho et al. (1987) Coal B 1330 0.505 0.51 0.69
15. Simone and Harriott (1980) Silica–alumina A 907 0.033 0.49 1.00
16. Simone and Harriott (1980) Silica–alumina A 870 0.061 0.48 1.00
17. Simone and Harriott (1980) Silica–alumina A 850 0.081 0.48 1.00
18. Simone and Harriott (1980) Silica–alumina A 836 0.091 0.47 1.00
19. Simone and Harriott (1980) Silica–alumina A 806 0.113 0.47 1.00
20. Simone and Harriott (1980) Silica–alumina A 790 0.124 0.47 1.00
21. Verma and Saxena (1984) Yellow peas D 1340 6.911 0.36 1.00
22. Verma and Saxena (1984) Green lentils D 1361 4.699 0.36 1.00
23. Verma and Saxena (1984) Millet seeds D 1344 2.064 0.40 1.00
24. Verma and Saxena (1984) Red silica sand D 2616 0.745 0.38 0.92
25. Grewal and Saxena (1980) Silicon carbide B 3220 0.178 0.50 0.67
26. Grewal and Saxena (1980) Silica sand B 2670 0.167 0.44 0.81
27. Grewal and Saxena (1980) Silica sand B 2670 0.451 0.41 0.84
28. Grewal and Saxena (1980) Silica sand B 2670 0.504 0.42 0.88
29. Grewal and Saxena (1980) Glass beads B 2490 0.357 0.40 1.00
30. Grewal and Saxena (1980) Glass beads B 2490 0.427 0.41 1.00
31. Grewal and Saxena (1980) Dolomite B 2840 0.312 0.54 0.60
32. Grewal and Saxena (1980) Dolomite B 2840 0.293 0.53 0.64
504 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 497–507

3.2.1. Group A particles equations of the best fitting are:

Six set of experimental data have been tested for Group A
particles. The experimental data points for Group A particles    
p
can be approximated by the following expression resulting For 15 ≤ ln s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar ≤ 17 : ln[s Remf ]
g
from the best linear fit to Eq. (15). The relationship has been
   
correlated as: p
= 0.195 ln s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar + 0.884 (22)
    g
p
For 6 ≤ ln s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar ≤ 9 : ln[s Remf ]
g
    with correlation coefficient R2 of 0.808. Or in the complete
p form:
= 0.942 ln s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar − 12.45 (16)
g
   0.195
or in the complete form: p
s Remf = 2.42 s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar (23)
g
   0.942
p
s Remf = 3.92 × 10−6 s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar (17)
g
   
From Fig. 12, it can be seen that the equation fits the experi- p
For 17 < ln s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar ≤ 24 : ln[s Remf ]
mental data very well. The particle size tested for this group of g
particle ranged from 33 to 124 ␮m and particle density ranged    
p
from 790 to 907 kg/m3 . The fitting of the experimental data to = 0.590 ln s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar − 7.27 (24)
g
Eq. (15) has a correlation coefficient R2 of 0.996.

3.2.2. Group B particles with correlation coefficient R2 of 0.988. Or in the complete

Thirteen sets of experimental data have been tested for Group form:
B particles. From the curve fitting, it was found that the
experimental values of umf were much better fitted by two    0.590
−4 p
separate lines according to the following regimes: s Remf = 6.96 × 10 s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar (25)
g
   
p
For 12.5 ≤ ln s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar ≤ 15 : ln[s Remf ]
g These correlations applied for Group D particles ranging from
    a mean particle size of 745 to 6911 ␮m and particle density of
p 619 to 2616 kg/m3 .
= 1.578 ln s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar − 20.99 (18)
g Table 4 presents the calculated values of umf from the pro-
posed correlations as well as from the existing correlations
or in the complete form: listed in Table 2. In Table 4, using the existing correlations
   1.578 drawn from the literature, the experimental values of umf given
−10 p in column 2 are compared with the values calculated from
s Remf = 7.66 × 10 s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar (19)
g existing correlations and those obtained by applying Eq. (12).
The results shown in Table 4 indicates that the correlation of
Subramani et al. (2007) yielded the greatest error except for
   
p Group B particles (coal, silica sand, dolomite, silicon carbide,
For 15 < ln s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar ≤ 16.5 : ln[s Remf ] sand, silica sand and glass beads). This is because the corre-
g
    lation due to Subramani et al. (2007) was developed from data
p for Group B particles such as ilmenite, sand, limestone, and
= 0.986 ln s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar − 14.17 (20)
g quartz magnetite. Poor predictions were also given by using
the correlation of Leva (1959). Predictions by Leva (1959) were
or in the complete form: fairly good only for Group A and B particles, but failed for
Group D particles. Correlation due to Gauthier et al. (1999)
   0.986
p failed to predict the minimum fluidization velocities of the
s Remf = 7.02 × 10−7 s3 (1 − εmf ) Ar (21)
g cracking catalyst as it was developed for Geldart Group B and
D particles.
The fitting of the experimental data to Eqs. (18) and (20) The average percentage error calculated for all the 32 data
have a correlation coefficient R2 of 0.980 and R2 of 0.960, points for each correlations are 8%, 50%, 191%, 21%, 89%, 32%,
respectively. Fig. 12 shows that there is a good agreement 28%, 54%, 211% and 26% for the predictions using the proposed
between the calculated values and the experimental one. The new correlation, Ergun (1952), Leva (1959), Wen and Yu (1966),
particle size tested for this group of particle ranged from 167 to Gauthier et al. (1999), Reina et al. (2000), Delebarre (2004),
715 ␮m and particle density ranged from 1330 to 3220 kg/m3 . Kozanoglu et al. (2005), Subramani et al. (2007) and Rabinovich
and Kalman (2008), respectively. Based on the data selected
3.2.3. Group D particles from the literature, Eq. (12) has been shown to be the most
Thirteen sets of experimental data for Group D particles have suitable correlation for predicting the minimum fluidization
been tested. It was found that the fitting for Group D particles velocity. The error caused by using the proposed new correla-
also could be expressed by two lines with different slope. The tion of Eq. (12) is the smallest. This is shown clearly in Fig. 13.
Table 4 – Comparison of experimental and predicted values of umf using different correlations.
Particles Measured umf Calculated umf (m/s)
(m/s)

This Ergun Leva Wen and Yu Gauthier et al. Reina et al. Delebarre Kozanoglu Subramani Rabinovich
work (1952) (1959) (1966) (1999) (2000) (2004) et al. (2005) et al. (2007) and Kalman
(2008)

chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 497–507

OPF particles 0.96 0.99 1.58 2.52 0.67 0.76 0.63 0.55 0.96 1.58 0.69
OPF particles 0.92 0.87 1.32 1.81 0.54 0.58 0.50 0.43 0.79 1.14 0.51
OPF particles 0.84 0.78 1.14 1.38 0.45 0.47 0.41 0.35 0.67 0.87 0.41
OPF particles 0.78 0.76 1.08 1.27 0.42 0.44 0.38 0.33 0.63 0.80 0.38
OPF particles 0.68 0.73 1.03 1.16 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.30 0.60 0.73 0.35
Glass spheres 1.71 1.60 1.73 13.51 1.67 3.42 1.71 1.69 2.17 14.08 4.25
Glass spheres 1.87 1.96 2.07 23.84 1.93 4.73 2.00 1.95 2.49 22.76 6.31
Glass spheres 2.08 2.23 2.37 37.44 2.14 6.03 2.22 2.16 2.75 32.77 8.51
CaCO3 1.15 1.19 1.32 5.27 1.25 1.85 1.25 1.29 1.67 5.49 1.97
Yellow peas 1.38 1.31 1.37 12.28 1.69 4.41 1.75 1.73 2.18 22.43 6.04
Green lentils 1.03 0.99 1.10 5.77 1.36 2.67 1.39 1.41 1.78 10.53 3.25
Millet seeds 0.67 0.50 0.74 1.61 0.74 0.89 0.71 0.81 1.05 2.01 0.83
Red silica sand 0.40 0.48 0.35 0.29 0.37 0.38 0.31 0.49 0.63 0.51 0.28
Coal 0.24 0.24 0.48 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.36 0.24 0.15
Coal 0.16 0.19 0.38 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.12 0.13 0.30 0.19 0.12
Coal 0.14 0.11 0.27 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.21 0.12 0.08
Silica sand 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.02
Dolomite 0.12 0.10 0.29 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.18 0.10 0.07
Dolomite 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.16 0.09 0.07
Silicon carbide 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.03
Sand 0.19 0.20 0.34 0.24 0.20 0.23 0.16 0.22 0.38 0.24 0.15
Sand 0.12 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.08 0.12 0.22 0.12 0.09
Silica sand 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.13 0.21 0.32 0.19 0.13
Silica sand 0.22 0.20 0.26 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.16 0.25 0.38 0.24 0.15
Glass beads 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.08 0.14 0.20 0.11 0.08
Glass beads 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.14 0.18 0.11 0.19 0.27 0.16 0.11
Cracking catalyst 0.0006 0.0006 0.0008 0.0006 0.0003 0.0027 0.0002 0.0003 0.0007 0.0003 0.0007
Cracking catalyst 0.0014 0.0016 0.0024 0.0018 0.0010 0.0058 0.0008 0.0010 0.0023 0.0011 0.0018
Cracking catalyst 0.0026 0.0026 0.0040 0.0030 0.0018 0.0083 0.0014 0.0018 0.0039 0.0020 0.0028
Cracking catalyst 0.0032 0.0032 0.0049 0.0037 0.0022 0.0096 0.0017 0.0022 0.0048 0.0024 0.0033
Cracking catalyst 0.0043 0.0044 0.0071 0.0053 0.0033 0.0124 0.0025 0.0033 0.0072 0.0036 0.0045
Cracking catalyst 0.0055 0.0050 0.0083 0.0063 0.0039 0.0139 0.0030 0.0039 0.0084 0.0043 0.0052

505
 506
2.5
Proposed model
Wen & Yu (1966)
2.0 Reina et al (2000)
Calculated umf (m/s)
Delebarre (2004)
1.5 Rabinovich & Kalman (2008)
Ergun (1952)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
Measured umf (m/s)
Fig. 13 – Comparison of experimental values of umf with
values calculated using several correlations.
4. Conclusions
The hydrodynamic behaviour of oil palm frond particles in
a fluidized bed was studied. Due to the highly elongated
shape of the particles coupled with its fibrous nature, the
oil palm frond particles could not be fluidized in an ordinary
fluidized bed system. Mechanical agitation has been shown
to improve the fluidizability of this material. Effects of bed
height, agitation speed and particle moisture content on the
hydrodynamic characteristics of the particles have been dis-
cussed. The results show that bed pressure drop increased
with increasing bed height. Observation on the effect to the
minimum fluidization velocity (umf ) showed that umf was inde-
pendent of bed height. The experimental results at different
agitation speeds showed that the agitation speed has no effect
both on the bed pressure drop and umf . On the contrary,
increasing the particle moisture content also increased the
value of umf . A new correlation for the prediction of mini-
mum fluidization velocity (umf ) was proposed which takes into
account the shape factor (s ) and the bed voidage at minimum
fluidization condition (εmf ). Compared with the existing cor-
relations for umf , the newly developed correlation gives better
predictions (good agreement with the experimental data) for
the fluidization of oil palm frond particles in the present study.
The performance of the new correlation was also acceptable
for the fluidization of different types of materials with mean
particle sizes (d̄p ) ranged from 33 to 6019 ␮m, particle densi-
ties (p ) ranged from 619 to 3220 kg/m3 , voidage at minimum
fluidization condition (εmf ) ranged from 0.36 to 0.63, particle
shape factor (s ) of 0.56–1.00 and for Geldart powder groups of
Group A, Group B and Group D. The Reynolds number at mini-
mum fluidization condition (Remf ) ranged from 1.1 to 2.0 × 107
and the Archimedes number (Ar) from 0.0013 to 844.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful for the support provided by the
Malaysian Ministry of Science and Technology through the
Science Fund research grant number 03-01-02-SF0396.
References
Abdullah, M.Z., Husain, Z., Yin Pong, S.L., 2003. Analysis of cold
flow fluidization test results for various biomass fuels.
Biomass Bioenergy 24, 487–494.
chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 497–507
Abrahamsen, A.R., Geldart, D., 1980. Behaviour of gas-fluidized
+50% +10%
beds of fine powders. Part I: homogeneous expansion. Powder
Technol. 26, 35–46.
-10%
Adamiec, J., 2002. Drying of waste sludges in a fluidized bed dryer
with a mixer. Drying Technol. 20 (4–5), 839–853.
Bae, D.H., Ryu, H.J., Shun, D., Jin, G.T., Lee, D.K., Choi, J.H., 2002.
Effects of agitation speed and temperature on minimum
-50% fluidization velocity of cohesive particles in a mechanically
agitated fluidized bed. Hwahak Konghak 40 (2), 237–245.
Caicedo, G.R., Ruiz, M.G., Marques, J.J.P., Soler, J.G., 2002.
Minimum fluidization velocities for gas–solid 2D beds. Chem.
Eng. Process. 41 (9), 761–764.
Clarke, K.L., Pugsley, T., Hill, G.A., 2005. Fluidization of moist
1.5 2.0 2.5 sawdust in binary particle systems in a gas–solid fluidized
bed. Chem. Eng. Sci. 60, 6909–6918.
Cranfield, R.R., Geldart, D., 1974. Large particle fluidisation.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 29 (4), 935–947.
Daud, W.R.W., 2008. Fluidized bed dryers – recent advances. Adv.
Powder Technol. 19, 403–418.
Delebarre, A., 2004. Revisiting the Wen and Yu equations for
minimum fluidization velocity prediction. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 82 (A5), 587–590.
Ergun, S., 1952. Fluid flow through packed columns. Chem. Eng.
Prog. 48, 89–94.
Escudero, D., Heindel, T.J., 2011. Bed height and material density
effects on fluidized bed hydrodynamics. Chem. Eng. Sci. 66,
3648–3655.
Gauthier, D., Zerguerras, S., Flamant, G., 1999. Influence of the
particle size distribution of powders on the velocities of
minimum and complete fluidization. Chem. Eng. J. 74,
181–196.
Geldart, D., 1990. Estimation of basic particle properties for use in
fluid–particle process calculations. Powder Technol. 60,
1–13.
Geldart, D., Harnby, N., Wong, A.C., 1984. Fluidization of cohesive
powders. Powder Technol. 37, 25–37.
Godard, K., Richardson, J.F., 1969. The use of slow speed stirring
to initiate particulate fluidization. Chem. Eng. Sci. 24 (1),
194–195.
Grewal, N.S., Saxena, S.C., 1980. Comparison of commonly used
correlations for minimum fluidization velocity of small solid
particles. Powder Technol. 26 (2), 229–234.
Gunn, D.J., Hilal, N., 1997. The expansion of gas-fluidised beds in
bubbling fluidisation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 52 (16), 2811–2822.
Gupta, R., Mujumdar, A.S., 1983. Recent developments in fluidized
bed drying. In: Mujumdar, A.S. (Ed.), Advances in Drying.
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, pp. 155–192.
Gupta, S.K., Agarwak, V.K., Singh, S.N., Seshadri, V., Mills, D.,
Singh, J., Prakash, C., 2009. Prediction of minimum fluidization
velocity for fine tailings materials. Powder Technol. 196 (3),
263–271.
Ho, T.C., Yau, S.J., Hopper, J.R., 1987. Hydrodynamics of
semifluidization in gas–solid systems. Powder Technol. 50 (1),
25–34.
Jena, H.M., Roy, G.K., Biswal, K.C., 2008. Studies on pressure drop
and minimum fluidization velocity of gas–solid fluidization of
homogeneous well-mixed ternary mixtures in un-promoted
and promoted square bed. Chem. Eng. J. 145, 16–24.
Kim, J., Han, G.Y., 2006. Effect of agitation on fluidization
characteristics of fine particles in a fluidized bed. Powder
Technol. 166 (3), 113–122.
Kozanoglu, B., Patino, J.L., Chanes, J.W., 2005. Hydrodynamics of a
superheated steam vacuum fluidized bed. Powder Technol.
150, 168–175.
Kunii, D., Levenspiel, O., 1991. Fluidization Engineering.
Butterworth, Boston.
Law, C.L., Mujumdar, A.S., 2006. Fluidized bed dryers. In:
Mujumdar, A.S. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial Drying. Marcel
Dekker, New York, pp. 173–200.
Leva, M., 1959. Fluidization. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mandal, D., Sathiyamoorthy, D., Khakhar, D.V., 2011. Fluidization
characteristics of lithium-titanate in gas–solid fluidized bed.
Fusion Eng. Des. 86, 393–398.
 chemical engineering research and design 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 497–507
Marring, E., Hoffmann, A.C., Janssen, L.P.B.M., 1994. The effect of
vibration on the fluidization behaviour of some cohesive
powders. Powder Technol. 79, 1–10.
Moreno, R., Antolin, G., Reyes, A., 2006. Quality of fluidization for
the drying of forestry biomass particles in a fluidized bed.
Biosyst. Eng. 94 (1), 47–56.
Park, J., Kim, J., Cho, S.-H., Han, K.-H., Yi, C.-K., Jin, G.-T., 1999.
Development of sorbent manufacturing technology by
Agitation Fluidized Bed Granulator (AFBG). Korean J. Chem.
Eng. 16, 659–663.
Puspasari, I., Talib, M.Z.M., Daud, W.R.W., Tasirin, S.M., 2012.
Drying kinetics of oil palm frond particles in an agitated
fluidized bed dryer. Drying Technol. 30 (6), 619–630.
Povrenovié, D.S., Hadžismajlovié, D.E., Grbavčić, Ž.B., Vuković,
D.V., Littman, H., 1992. Minimum fluid flowrate, pressure drop
and stability of a conical spouted bed. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 70
(2), 216–222.
Rabinovich, E., Kalman, H., 2008. Generalized master curve for
threshold superficial velocities in particle–fluid systems.
Powder Technol. 183 (2), 304–313.
Reina, J., Velo, E., Puigjaner, L., 2000. Predicting the minimum
fluidization velocity of polydisperse mixtures of scrap-wood
particles. Powder Technol. 111, 245–251.
Reyes, A., Diaz, G., Marquardt, F.H., 2001. Analysis of
mechanically agitated fluid–particle contact dryers. Drying
Technol. 19 (9), 2235–2259.
Reyes, A., Alvarez, P., Marquardt, F.H., 2002. Drying of carrots in a
fluidized bed. I: effects of drying conditions and modeling.
Drying Technol. 20 (7), 1463–1483.
507
Reyes, A., Eckholt, M., Alvarez, P.I., 2004. Drying and heat transfer
characteristics for a novel fluidized bed dryer. Drying Technol.
22 (8), 1869–1895.
Senadeera, W., Bhandari, B., Young, G., Wijesinghe, B., 2000.
Physical properties and fluidization behaviour of fresh green
bean particulates during fluidized bed drying. Trans. Inst.
Chem. Eng. 78 (Part C), 43–47.
Senadeera, W., Wijesinghe, B., Young, G., Bhandari, B., 2006.
Fluidization characteristics of moist food particles. Int. J. Food
Eng. 2 (1) (article 7).
Simone, S., Harriott, P., 1980. Fluidization of fine powders with air
in the particulate and the bubbling regions. Powder Technol.
26 (2), 161–167.
Subramani, H.J., Balaiyya, M.B.M., Miranda, L.R., 2007. Minimum
fluidization velocity at elevated temperatures for Geldart’s
group-B powders. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 32, 166–
173.
Tasirin, S.M., Anwar, N., 2001. Fluidization behavior of vibrated
and aerated bed of starch powders. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 34 (10),
1251–1257.
Verma, R.S., Saxena, S.C., 1984. Hydrodynamic and heat transfer
characteristics of large agricultural seeds—air fluidized beds.
Powder Technol. 39 (2), 245–248.
Watano, S., Yeh, N., Miyanami, K., 1998. Drying of granules in
agitation fluidized bed. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 31 (6), 908–
913.
Wen, C.Y., Yu, Y.H., 1966. A generalized method for predicting
the minimum fluidization velocity. AIChE J. 12, 610–
612.