MEng Research Project – CME8128

Literature Survey – Scale-out of micro-fluidized beds

Supervisors – Dr Vladimir Zivkovic, Dr Jonathan McDonough

Nabil AbouElSaoud
180316227
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................3
1.1 History of Fluidization ...................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Fluidization Phenomena .................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Fluidization Regimes ......................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Liquid-solid and Gas-solid systems.......................................................................................................4
1.3.2 Solid particles classification ..................................................................................................................5
1.3.3 Regime Transition .................................................................................................................................6
1.3.4 Regime Application ...............................................................................................................................7
1.4 Fluidized and Fixed Beds .................................................................................................. 7
2. Micro-Fluidized Bed classification and history ..........................................................8
3. Micro-Fluidized bed characteristics ...........................................................................8
3.1 Wall Effects ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Fluidization Regimes in MFBs ........................................................................................ 10
3.2.1 Bubbling regime in MFB.....................................................................................................................10
3.2.2 Slugging regime in MFB .....................................................................................................................11
3.2.3 Turbulent regime in MFB ....................................................................................................................11

4. Micro-Fluidized bed scale-up strategy .....................................................................12

5. Aims and objectives .................................................................................................12
6. References ..............................................................................................................13
7. Appendix ................................................................................................................15
 1. Introduction
The process intensification concept and definition has evolved over that last few decades [1].
The purpose of PI initially was to miniaturise process equipment size, to reduce the associated
capital cost[2,3]. PI is currently defined, as “the development of innovative apparatus and
techniques that offer drastic improvements in chemical manufacturing and processing,
substantially decreasing equipment volume, energy consumption, or waste formation, and
ultimately leading to cheaper, safer, sustainable technologies”[1,3]. PI technologies have
gained more attention over the last decade due to the increased environmental awareness, and
potential environmental benefits PI technologies may offer [1]. Consisting of, minimized
waste, through having fewer and possibly environmentally damaging by-products (minimized
gas backmixing), less solvent use (efficient heat removal provided by large surface area to
volume ratio) and less energy consumption (enhanced heat and mass transfer) [4]. The
miniaturization of fluidized beds applies the PI concepts, through enhancing gas-solid contact,
mixing and having negligible gas backmixing [5,6] .Consequently, leading to faster
(intensified contact and mixing), safer (reduction in size) and more sustainable
processing(reduced waste). However, in order to successfully design and operate MFB’s, an
understanding of the reactors hydrodynamics is necessary. Additionally, an appropriate scale
up strategy, whilst retaining the reactors inherent advantages. The structure of the survey is as
follows. Section one aims to explain the fundamentals of fluidization. Section two defines
Micro-fluidized beds using the current definitions found in literature. Section three discusses
the unique characteristics of MFB’s, using different experimental and simulation studies in
literature. Section four introduces potential strategies to for increasing the throughput of MFBs,
whilst retaining its inherent advantages. Final section highlights the gap in knowledge, leading
to the aims and objectives of the respective research project.
1.1 History of Fluidization
In 1926, Fritz Winkler’s coal gasifier marked the first large scale commercial use of the
fluidization technique [7]. In 1942 however the technique became significantly more popular,
due to the successful development and operation of the world’s first fluidized catalytic cracking
unit (FCC); to meet the markets need for gasoline of higher quality [8]. Since then, Fluidization
has been implemented in a wide range of industrial applications, which can be split into 5
categories. Physical operations (drying of solids, coating metal objects and adsorption),
synthesis reactions (Fischer-Tropsch and Pthalic Anhydride), combustion (coal combustion
and solid waste incineration), petroleum processing (FCC and coal gasification) and
biochemical (cultivation of microorganisms) [7].
1.2 Fluidization Phenomena
Fluidization is a complex phenomenon, as described by Geldart, ‘the arrival time of a space
probe travelling to Saturn can be predicted more accurately than the behaviour of a fluidized
bed’ [9]. Fluidization is the operation by which solid particles start behaving like a fluid,
transformed into a fluidlike state through suspension in a gas or liquid [7,10]. Occurs as a
consequence of a fluid being passed upward through a bed of solid particles, at a velocity
sufficient for the frictional force (drag) between the particle and fluid to counterbalance the
wight of the particle.

[ 𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑏𝑦 𝑢𝑝𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑] = [ 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠] (1)

The velocity upon which the onset of fluidization occurs can be referred to as the minimum
fluidization velocity [10]. The bed however remains relatively fixed at any velocity below the
minimum fluidizing velocity (fixed bed). Another definition of the minimum fluidization
velocity in the literature, the smallest fluid velocity to make the packed (fixed) bed into a loosen
bed [5]. Furthermore, another indication of minimum fluidization is the pressure drop across
any section of the bed, being equivalent to the weight of the fluid and particles in that respective
section [7]. Therefore, once the bed transitions from the fixed bed to the fluidized bed regime
“unlocks”, the pressure drop is no longer proportional to the fluid velocity and remains
constant. Hence, the minimum fluidization velocity can be determined effectively using a
pressure transducer to compare the pressure drop across the bed at different fluid velocities
[11,12].
1.3 Fluidization Regimes
As the fluid velocity increases beyond the minimum fluidization velocity, the beds behaviour
is dependent upon two factors. Firstly, if the fluid is a gas or liquid. Secondly, on the solid
particles in the fluidized bed.
1.3.1 Liquid-solid and Gas-solid systems
Figure 1 demonstrates the various fluidization regimes in gas-solid and liquid-solid systems,
as fluid flowrate increases. As shown in figure 1, gas fluidized systems are more complex than
liquid systems, consisting of additional transition regions, before particle transport
(entrainment). Fluidization regimes therefore can be classified into two categories,”
particulate” (smooth) and aggregative fluidization [7,13]. Particulate and aggregative
fluidization can be distinguished based on whether there are observable voids containing no
solids. In particulate fluidization, the solid particles are uniformly dispersed, as opposed to
aggregative fluidization, where the voids are present [13]. Different criteria’s can be found in
the literature to differentiate between particulate and aggregative fluidization, such as the
Froude number [10]. The smooth uniform fluidization regime can be maintained over a larger
range of velocities in liquid-solid systems, but the focus of this survey, however, is on gas-
solid systems. In gas solid systems there is five noticeable regimes, as illustrated in figure 1,
fixed bed, particulate fluidization (not present in figure 1 but still attainable with certain
particles [7]), bubbling fluidization, slugging fluidization, and turbulent fluidization. The
transition from each regime is dependent upon the type of solid particle in the system, which
is discussed in section 1.3.2.

Figure 1-the various fluidization regimes for gas and liquid flow [1]
1.3.2 Solid particles classification
Geldart [9], observed that not all solid particles can fluidize, in addition to some particles
fluidizing more readily than others. Geldart[9], therefore based on his observations identified
4 kinds of particle behaviour. Characterized each group of particles based on the density
difference between the gas and particle, and the mean particle size [9]. A summary of the 4
groups of particles can be found in table 1 below.

Table 1- summary of different classifications of particles and their fluidization behavior [7, 9, 10, 13]

Group Average Behaviour Example

Particle
Size
(𝝁𝒎)
A 40-100 • Demonstrate significant bed Fluid Catalytic
expansion after fluidization and Cracking Zeolite-
before formation of bubbles. based catalyst
• The bubbles formed reach a
maximum size.

B 100-500 • Gas bubbles are formed at Sand, Coal powders.

C 20-30
D 1000
minimum fluidization, without
bed expansion. Ratio between
minimum fluidization velocity and
minimum bubbling velocity is
equal to 1.
• Bubble size increases linearly with
distance from distributor, no
maximum size is reached.
• Cohesive particles, difficult to Fine Silica
fluidize due to the large
intraparticle forces.
• No fluidization occurs in large
diameter beds but rise as a plug of
solids in relatively small diameter
beds.
• Fluidization can be achieved with
baffles or mechanical vibration.
• Spout easily. Roasting Coffee
• Very large and dense particles. Beans
• Large gas flow requirements.

As summarized in table 1 the major differences between the particle’s behaviour are with
regards to bubbling. With group A being the only particles, which exhibit particulate
fluidization, by expanding considerably before the appearance of bubbles. Groups B and D
form bubbles at minimum fluidization, whilst group C particles are difficult to fluidize.
Consequently, industrial applications primarily use group A and B particles [14]. Geldart
research, however, highlights the significance of particle properties on the fluidization quality.
In addition to adding to the complexity of predicting fluidization behaviour.
1.3.3 Regime Transition
The transition from the particulate fluidization regime to the bubbling regime can be identified
as the point where gas bubbles start erupting [7]. The formation of bubbles will bring the
unform bed expansion to an abrupt end, and bed height will fluctuate. As mentioned above,
bubbles appear at minimum fluidization in group B and D particles, without uniform expansion.
Bubbles play a significant role in fluidized beds, as they are primarily responsible for the solids
mixing, which directly impacts the control of product quality [10]. They are responsible for the
solids mixing by driving the motion of the particles. Hence, the solids motion is of critical
importance to understand the fluidized bed behaviour

The size of the bubbles increases proportionally with the gas velocity. When the bubbles start
to extend across the beds cross section, these bubbles are referred to as slugs [13,15]. As shown
in figure 1(e) and 1(f), there’s slugging with axial slugs or flat slugs. Axial slugs form with fine
particles such as group A, flat slugs, however, form with coarse particles, such as group B and
D [7]. Even though the regime primarily consists of bubbles, the bubbling regime and slugging
regime must be treated separately. This is due to the detrimental impact the slugging regime
has on the beds mixing, and gas-solid contacting [13]. Demonstrated in several studies in
literature, such as fluidization regime effects on CO 2 capture [16]. Where the slugging regime
showed a poor CO2 capture capacity of 200 mg CO2/gK2CO3 sorbent, compared to the bubbling
and turbulent regime, with 230 mg CO2/gK2CO3 and 290 mg CO2/gK2CO3 respectively [16].
Hence, highlighting the negative impact of the slugging regime on gas -solid contacting.

The passage of the slugs along the bed also results in large pressure drop fluctuations, which
can result in more wear and tear and damage the bed [15]. Links to the next point, as transition
to the turbulent regime (figure 1g) from slugging, occurs when those pressure fluctuations
reach a steady state value[7]. Pressure fluctuations reach a steady state value, as a consequence
of the bubbles growing to an unstable size, as the gas velocity is increasing and then breaking
down. Hence, the fluidized bed no longer has distinct bubbling features. Therefore, the
turbulent regime can be identified by a loss of distinction between continuous, and dispersed
phases [17]. The distinction becomes difficult, due to clusters and strands of particles moving
around the bed violently [7]. The velocity at which this phenomenon occurs is defined as the
critical velocity [17]. It must be noted that pressure fluctuations aren’t the only method in
literature to determine the critical velocity. Visual observations, capacitance signals, optical
fibre probes and bed expansion, methods have all been used to determine the critical velocity
[17]. Pressure fluctuation is however oldest and most applied method [15,16]. More
information on the 3 different types of transitions to turbulent fluidization can be found in the
review by Bi et al. [17].

Further increases in the velocity results in significant entrainment of particles, where the bed
transitions from turbulent to fast fluidization regime [13,18]. A large proportion of the solid
particles are no longer fluidized and are removed from the bed. This can be detrimental in
industrial applications, as it can lead to loss of catalysts. Therefore, knowledge of transport
velocity (at onset of fast fluidization) is critical. If gas velocity is increased further, a point
where no solid accumulation at the bottom is observed (figure 1h), and recirculation of solid
particles is required (cyclones), defined as dilute pneumatic conveying [18]. In general
transport of solids out of the fluidized beds is avoided, however, applications such as
incineration of sewage sludge, can take advantage of the loss of particles [13].
1.3.4 Regime Application
As a consequence of the different fluidization regime characteristics discussed above, the
majority of gas-solid fluidization applications operate in turbulent or bubbling regime.
Particularly the turbulent regime, due to the vigorous gas-solid contacting, enhanced bed to
surface heat transfer, more uniform flow structure, and higher solids hold up [17,19]. Industrial
processes such as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, Ore roasting, Phthalic anhydride, and
Acrylonitrile, operate in the turbulent regime [20]. The bubbling regime, however, has been
mainly applied in non-catalytic or physical processes, such as gasification [21]. Due to such
applications requiring good circulation of solids and solids mixing, which are both promoted
by bubbles. Particulate/homogenous fluidization also provides good gas-solid contact but can
only be achieved over a limited range of velocities in gas-solid systems, which explains the
lack of industrial applications. The slugging regime is avoided in industrial applications, due
to its poor gas-solid contact and potential equipment damage, as demonstrated above.
1.4 Fluidized and Fixed Beds
As exhibited above fluidized provides a number of unusual characteristics compared to fixed
beds, such characteristics be exploited depending on the application. Table 2 summarises the
advantages and disadvantages of fluidized and fixed beds. Hence, aid determine when should
fluidized beds be chosen over fixed beds, for gas-solid systems.

Table 2- advantages and disadvantages of fixed and fluidized beds for gas-solid systems [7, 13, 22, 23]

Bed Advantages Disadvantages

Type
Fixed • Flow of gas is easier to predict, with less • Usually operate in batch
Bed deviations, plug flow of gas can be mode, less efficient than
achieved. Therefore, higher conversion continuous operation due to
of gaseous reactant compared to batch cycle [emptying and
fluidized bed. cleaning etc).
• Catalyst attrition is negligible. • Increased chance of unwanted
• Simplicity, in operation, construction by-products (lower
and maintenance, compared to fluidized selectivity), in fast highly
beds. exothermic and endothermic
• Lower pressure drops, because of the reactions, due to poor mixing,
large sized particles. Therefore, lower leading to hot or cold spots in
power consumption. the bed (large temperature
gradients).
• Poor heat exchange, heat
removal, which increases risk
of thermal runaway.
Therefore, unsuitable for
highly exothermic reactions
Fluidized • The liquid like behaviour of solid • Large deviations from plug
Bed particles allows for continuous operation flow, render it difficult to
(cam withdraw and reintroduce solids) , describe the gas flow,
therefore more efficiency. particularly for bubbling
• Uniform conditions throughout the bed, beds. This can lead to low
even for fast highly exothermic and conversion of gaseous
endothermic reactions, due to the reactant.
rigorous solids mixing. Operation can • High gas back mixing due to
therefore be more reliably controlled, the motion of solids.
 there’s a decreased chance of by- Resulting in wide residence
products. time distribution, closer to
• Good heat transport due to the solids CSTR than PFR. Leads to
motion. Making it possible to remove or reduction in yield, and an
add large amounts of heat. increase in bed volume to
compensate.
• In catalytic operations
catalyst attrition (break up),
can be a significant problem.
• Damage in reactor walls and
pipes due to particle collision.

Fixed beds offer more simplicity in terms of hydrodynamics, modelling and therefore scaling
up, compared to fluidized beds. Based on table 2, however, it can be concluded that fluidized
beds are more suitable for fast and highly exothermic applications. On the other hand, fixed
beds are more convenient in applications where there aren’t significant temperature changes,
such adsorption of a small concentration of species within a mixture. As such applications don’t
require a high degree of temperature uniformity and high heat transfer coefficients. Gas
backmixing is a major problem for fluidized beds, which can be resolved through
miniaturization, hence, Miro-Fluidized beds (MFB) [5]. MFB is novel process intensification
technology, which enhances the inherent fluidized bed benefits, in addition to having negligible
gas backmixing, and others (Safety and efficiency) [5, 6].

2. Micro-Fluidized Bed classification and history

Even though a channel cross-sectional size of 1mm is the widely asserted boundary, that
separates micro and macro-scale flow [24]. The definition of MFB’s, however, has been
debated extensively in the literature. Literature thus far, contains no specific dimensions which
distinguish between Micro and Marco-fluidized beds. As several MFB’s, exceed the widely
asserted boundary [5]. For example, a fluidized bed with an internal diameter of 7.5cm, used
for pyrolysis, was defined as a Micro-Fluidized bed [25]. MFB’s were first introduced in 2005,
classified via an internal diameter of 1mm [26]. Introduced to test the gasification of biomass
at severe conditions; as MFB’s offered more efficiency, safety and cheaper experimentation of
fluidized systems [26]. Since the introduction, there has been different means other than the
internal diameter to classify MFB’s. Geng et al. [27], argued that MFB’s should be defined in
terms of the extent of gas backmixing, as gas plug flow is the most desired feature for MFB’s.

Another definition, however, is based on the importance of surface effects, compared to

volumetric effects, surface effects are more significant in the micro scale regime [12, 28]. Such
surface effects result in a pressure drop overshoot, as well as a delay in the onset of fluidization
[6,12]. Micro-fluidized beds therefore can be differentiated from Macro-fluidized beds via their
distinctive characteristics, and not only their miniaturized internal diameters, which as
mentioned can vary significantly. To gain a better understanding of MFBs, their unique
characteristics are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

3. Micro-Fluidized bed characteristics

3.1 Wall Effects
As mentioned, the wall effects can help distinguish between Macro and Micro-fluidized beds.
The wall effects are illustrated through figure 2. A significantly higher pressure drop overshoot
from the weight of the fluid and particles is observed in the Micro-fluidized bed system, at the
 transition from fixed to fluidized bed. Such effects result in a delay in the onset of fluidization,
and therefore the minimum fluidization velocity increases [5].

a b
)

Figure 2- change in pressure drop measured by ascending and descending gas velocity in a) Macro [7] and b) Micro-
Fluidized bed [6].

The pressure drop overshoot, is due to a larger proportion of particles being subjected to the
downward facing wall frictional force, a consequence of the contact between the column wall
and particles [6]. The wall frictional force acts as an additional barrier to the onset of
fluidization, alongside the weight of particles. Hence, the overshoot represents the extra energy
required to suspend the particles in the fluid. In larger fluidized beds (figure 2a), the proportion
of particles subject to the wall frictional force is insignificant, relative to the total number of
particles in the bed [6]. No extra energy is therefore required for fluidization to occur, and
therefore, no pressure drop overshoot. It must be noted that, a pressure drop overshoot may be
observed in very tightly packed Macro-Fluidized beds. The magnitude of the overshoot,
however, is significantly low, relative to Micro-Fluidized beds [6]. The effects of wall friction
on fluidization were studied extensively by Loezos et at.[29]. In sufficiently wide tubes the
overshoot was negligible, compared to tubes of smaller diameter. He concluded that the main
reason for the pressure drop overshoot is wall friction, not cohesive forces [29]. Cohesive
forces are inter-particle forces between molecules of the same type or different (Van der Waal
forces), are also believed to significantly impact the fluidization characteristics [30]. The
impact, however, has been evaluated using experimental methods for liquid solid systems [31]
, but not for gas-solid systems [6]. Additionally, depending on the wall and particle, wall effects
can be further enhanced due to electrostatic charges [32]. Evidenced by Sanchez-Delgado et
al. [33], as electrostatic charges effected the minimum fluidization velocity, due to the plastic
bed walls.

Furthermore, wall effects can be further validated via numerical means. Computational Fluid
Dynamics coupled with Discrete Element Method (CFD-DEM), was implemented by Xu et al.
[34], to model the effect of bed diameter and bed height on minimum fluidization. The
simulation results demonstrated an increase in the extent of the pressure drop overshoot, as the
column diameter decreases [34]. Additionally, an increase in the minimum fluidization velocity
as the column diameter decreased, displaying the delay in the onset of fluidization, due to the
wall effects [34]. An increase in bed height also increases the wall effects, due to the larger
contact area [5]. The simulation results, however, indicate less sensitivity to the bed height,
relative to the impact of decreasing the column diameter [34]. The confirmation between
experimental and simulation studies [29, 34], therefore highlight the importance of considering
wall effects, when designing Micro fluidized beds. It must also be noted the particles properties
for both studies, importance of particles group was highlighted in section 1.3.2. Experimental
studies were performed on group A and B particles [29], whilst the simulation studies were
performed on group B particles [34]. A summary of the simulation and experimental studies,
found in literature on the impact of reducing the bed diameter on the hydrodynamics can be
found in table 3 in the appendix. Studies in table 3 are on gas-solid systems.

Even though different particles and MFB dimensions were implemented in the literature. It can
be concluded that both experimental and simulation studies agree on the importance of wall
effects in gas-solid Micro fluidization. Demonstrating, how such wall effects can be used to
distinguish between Macro and Micro-Fluidized beds. Based the review by Han et al. [6], a
bed diameter to particle ratio of 150 was used to differentiate between Micro and Macro-
Fluidized beds, as at higher ratios wall effects were negligible.
3.2 Fluidization Regimes in MFBs
As illustrated, wall effects cause a delay in the onset of fluidization, therefore impact the
fluidization characteristics. Regimes such as particulate and turbulent are more desirable due
to more intense contact as mentioned earlier. Therefore, to successfully design and optimise
MFB’s for specific applications; its critical to study the hydrodynamic regimes, and regime
transitions in MFB’s. Due to wall effects, It’s been established in the literature, correlations
to determine the minimum fluidization velocity for Macro Fluidized beds [7], aren’t
applicable to MFB’s [6]. Accurate calculation of the minimum fluidization velocity is vital
for good bed operation [5]. A number of correlations have been developed in the literature for
MFB’s varying degrees of accuracy. A correlation which agreed well with experimental was
introduced in a review by Qie et al. [30], expressed as:

22.272
−6.312+ 𝐷𝑡
𝐻𝑠 𝑑𝑝
7.169 × 10−4 𝑑1.82
𝑝 (𝜌𝑠 − 𝜌𝑔 )
0.94
𝑔
𝑢𝑚𝑓 = [ 𝑒 + 1] 0.06 0.88 (1)
𝑑𝑝 𝜌𝑔 𝜇

Where 𝑢𝑚𝑓 is the minimum fluidization velocity, 𝐻𝑠 is the static bed height, 𝑑𝑝 is the particle
diameter, 𝐷𝑡 is the bed diameter, 𝜌𝑠 is the solid particles density, 𝜌𝑔 is the density of gas, 𝜇 is
the gas viscosity and 𝑔 is the gravitational acceleration. Studies in literature on particulate
fluidization in MFB’s are limited. However, recently Quan et al. [39], found group B particles
exhibiting particulate (homogeneous) fluidization in MFBs. Which differs from conventional
bed fluidization behaviour, as group B particles form bubbles upon fluidization as mentioned
above. This proves to be advantageous for MFB’s, due to the inherent benefits of the particulate
fluidization regime. To differentiate the particulate regime exhibited by group B particles, from
the conventional homogeneous fluidization with group A. The regime was described as
“pseudo-homogeneous fluidization” by Quan et al. [39]. More studies however are required to
further understand particulate fluidization characteristics in MFB’s.
3.2.1 Bubbling regime in MFB
The wall effects also result in an increase in the minimum bubbling velocity as seen in table 3.
To determine the onset of bubbling in MFB, an empirical correlation was developed by Han et
al. [6], which when compared against 69 data points, had an absolute error of 10.9% [6]. The
correlation can be expressed as:
0.7
𝐷𝑡
𝑢𝑚𝑏 𝐻𝑠
= 1.099 − 5.21( )0.44 [𝑒 𝑑𝑝 − 1] (2)
𝑢𝑚𝑓 𝐷𝑡

Where 𝑢𝑚𝑏 represents the bubbling velocity. The correlation, however, is dependent on an
accurate estimation of the minimum fluidization velocity.
3.2.2 Slugging regime in MFB
It’s important to determine the onset and characteristics of the slugging regime in MFB, due to
the undesirable traits it possess as demonstrated earlier. It was found by McDonough et al. [12]
and Quan et al. [39], that the minimum slugging velocity increases, as bed diameter decreases.
Further differentiating Macro and Micro fluidized beds, as the opposite occurs in Macro
𝐷
fluidization [6]. McDonough et al. [12], also found that when 𝑑 𝑡 < 50, no bubbling regime
𝑝
prior to slugging [6, 12]. Attributed to the ease in bubbles filling the beds cross section, due to
the small diameter. The onset of slugging in MFB’s can be evaluated using the correlation
developed by Han et al. [6], based on the experimental data by McDonugh et al[12] and Quan
et al[39]:
𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑠 −0.481
= 1.3381𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑓 + 0.2 (3)
𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑓

Where 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑠 is the minimum slugging Reynolds number, and 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑓 corresponds to the
minimum fluidization Reynolds number. Must be noted, that the correlation had an absolute
error of 22.8%, was however successful at following the experimental trend of minimum
slugging velocity [6]. Moreover, this highlights that more regime analysis needs to be
conducted on MFBs.
3.2.3 Turbulent regime in MFB
Wang et al. [37] and Quan et al. [39], noted that as the diameter of the bed decreased the critical
velocity decreased. Highlighting the advanced onset of turbulent regime in MFB’s [37,39].
Quan et al [39], demonstrated that turbulent fluidization occurs at a significantly lower velocity
in MFB’s, relative to conventional Fluidized beds [39]. Showing again the impact of wall
effects on fluidization quality in MFB. Explained by, even though in narrower tubes, slugs can
form more readily, the upward movement of slugs however is restricted, resulting in the slugs
breaking at smaller gas velocity [39]. The repetitive capturing (restricted movement of slugs
due to narrow tubes), and breaking of slugs into small sized bubbles, increases the turbulence
in the system, resulting in advanced onset of turbulent fluidization [6]. The experimental results
[37,39], can be validated via discrete particle simulations on Micro Membrane Fluidized beds
[40]. The simulation studies also demonstrating that turbulent fluidization can be achieved at a
lower velocity [40]. A correlation was also established by Han et al [6], to determine the onset
of turbulent fluidization. Can be expressed as [6]:

𝐻𝑠 −0.068 −1.3017
𝑅𝑒𝑐 = {0.1477 + 0.8677( ) [exp ( ) − 1]}𝐴𝑟 0.5977 (4)
𝐷𝑡 𝐷𝑡
𝑑𝑝

Where 𝑅𝑒𝑐 is the Reynolds number at the critical velocity and 𝐴𝑟 is the Archimedes number.
The Archimedes number can be expressed as [6]:

(𝜌𝑠 − 𝜌𝑔 )𝜌𝑔 𝑔𝑑𝑝3

𝐴𝑟 = (5)
𝜇2

Furthermore, the advanced onset of turbulent fluidization, and larger gas velocity range [40] is
advantageous for MFBs, demonstrating PI benefits. Due to the inherent advantages of the
turbulent regime, such as uniform flow structure and vigorous gas-solid contacting [17].
Moreover, achieving turbulence at a lower velocity, increases the shelf life of the final control
elements such as pumps or valves, as the wear and tear is reduced. In the example of Micro-
Membrane fluidized beds, lower membrane mechanical strength was required for the advanced
turbulence [40]. Such characteristics, and PI benefits (reduced inventory etc), make MFBs
appealing for current industrial applications which use turbulent beds such as Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis [39]. This however is dependent on an appropriate scaling up strategy for MFBs,
which doesn’t result in a loss of PI advantages.

4. Micro-Fluidized bed scale-up strategy

MFBs provide advantages such as efficient gas-solid contact, low mass transfer resistance and
negligible gas backmixing[27]. The applications of MFBs, however, are currently limited to
low throughput applications, such as investigation of reaction kinetics [5]. As the micro
fluidized bed reaction analyzer (MFBRA), is currently implemented to study gas-solid
reactions, such as catalysis, pyrolysis and gasification [41]. It has also proven to be superior to
thermogravimetric analyzer, which is also used to study gas-solid reaction kinetic [41]. There
is however no application of MFB on industrial scale yet. To take advantage of the inherent
MFB features, an appropriate scaling up strategy is crucial. Particularly because industrial
Fluidized Bed reactors can be 1000-10000 times as large as the MFB’s.[30].Two strategies
which can also maintain the inherent MFB’s features are geometric similarity and numbering
up [30,42]. The geometric similarity approach, however, is based on dimensionless numbers
which don’t consider wall effects [30]. Therefore, can result in a large margin of error, due to
the importance of wall effects in MFB’s as illustrated [30]. The alternative strategy is
numbering up. Which is the parallel arrangement of a number of identical MFB’s [30,42]. This
method has been successfully applied to Microreactors [42]. An example is the continuous (6
days) radical polymerization of methyl methacrylate (MMA), in 8 Microreactors in parallel
[43]. Numbering up enables the MFB’s to retain the hydrodynamics and transfer
characteristics, but at a large scale. To operate at industrial scale however, hundreds of beds in
parallel would be required [43]. Which can result in problems achieving a unform gas
distribution across the beds [42]. Additionally, a problem with the duplication of pumps and
controllers, for each beds supply system (external numbering up) [42]. The numbering up of
MFB’s is promising, however, it has not been studied in the literature for any number of MFBs
in parallel.

5. Aims and objectives

Moreover, it is evident that MFBs behave differently due to the wall effects impact on the
hydrodynamics. The gap in knowledge with regards to the upscaling of MFBs, whilst retaining
the technology’s advantages is also evident. The aim of the research project is therefore, to gain
a fundamental understanding of the hydrodynamic characteristics of gas-solid MFBs with an
increased throughput. As well as take advantage of fast 3D print manufacturing, to determine
the optimal numbering up configuration for MFB’s. In order to provide practical design
guidelines for scaling out MFBs for industrial applications. The objectives to achieve the aim
are as follows:

o Use 3D printing to design and manufacture different combinations of in parallel Micro

Fluidized Beds (numbering up), and a single bed with an equivalent area (scale up).
o Use pressure drop analysis on numbered and single-bed MFB systems, to determine the
transition velocities (minimum fluidization, minimum bubbling, minimum slugging
and critical).
o Map both systems fluidization regimes, to compare the hydrodynamics of each system.
o Determine optimal numbering up combinations. Via testing different number of beds
in parallel (1,3 and 9 or 2,4 and 6).
 6. References
[1] H. Wang et al., “A review of process intensification applied to solids handling,”
Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process Intensification, vol. 118. Elsevier B.V.,
pp. 78–107, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.cep.2017.04.007.
[2] D. Reay, C. Ramshaw, and A. Harvey, Process Intensification - Engineering for
Efficiency, Sustainability and Flexibility.
[3] T. van Gerven and A. Stankiewicz, “Structure, energy, synergy, time-the fundamentals
of process intensification,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 48, no.
5, pp. 2465–2474, Mar. 2009, doi: 10.1021/ie801501y.
[4] K. Boodhoo and A. Harvey, Process Intensification for Green Chemistry Engineering
Solutions for Sustainable Chemical Processing.
[5] Y. Zhang, K. L. Goh, Y. L. Ng, Y. Chow, S. Wang, and V. Zivkovic, “Process
intensification in micro-fluidized bed systems: A review,” Chemical Engineering and
Processing - Process Intensification, vol. 164. Elsevier B.V., Jul. 01, 2021. doi:
10.1016/j.cep.2021.108397.
[6] Z. Han et al., “State-of-the-art hydrodynamics of gas-solid micro fluidized beds,”
Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 232. Elsevier Ltd, Mar. 15, 2021. doi:
10.1016/j.ces.2020.116345.
[7] O. Levenspiel and D. Kunii, Fluidization Engineering , Second.
[8] J. G.Yates and P. Lettieri, Fluidized-Bed Reactors: Processes and Operating Conditions.
[9] D. Geldart, “Elsevier Sequoia SA, Lausanne-Printed in the Netheriands Types of Gas
Fhidization,” 1973.
[10] J. F. H. Richardson and J.H. Backhurst, Coulson and Richardson’s Chemical Engineering
Volume 2 - Particle Technology and Separation Processes (5th Edition). (pp. 291-292).
[11] A. Rao, J. S. Curtis, B. C. Hancock, and C. Wassgren, “The effect of column diameter
and bed height on minimum fluidization velocity,” AIChE Journal, vol. 56, no. 9, pp.
2304–2311, Sep. 2010, doi: 10.1002/aic.12161.
[12] J. R. McDonough, R. Law, D. A. Reay, and V. Zivkovic, “Fluidization in small-scale gas-
solid 3D-printed fluidized beds,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 200, pp. 294–309,
Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2019.01.048.
[13] W. Yang, Handbook of fluidization and fluid-particle systems. Marcel Dekker, 2003.
[14] R. Cocco, S. B. Reddy, and K. T. Knowlton, “Back to Basics Introduction to
Fluidization,” 2014. [Online]. Available: www.aiche.org/cep
[15] I. Miller, H. Gregor, J. Berkowitz, T. E. Broadhurst, and H. A. Becker, “The Partial Molal
Volume of Electrolytes in Aqueous Solutions, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmos-
pheric Sciences,” 1962.
[16] O. A. Jaiboon, B. Chalermsinsuwan, L. Mekasut, and P. Piumsomboon, “Effect of flow
patterns/regimes on CO2 capture using K2CO3 solid sorbent in fluidized
bed/circulating fluidized bed,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 219, pp. 262–272,
Mar. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.12.081.
[17] H. T. Bi, N. Ellis, I. A. Abba, and J. R. Grace, “A state-of-the-art review of gas}solid
turbulent #uidization”.
[18] K. S. Lim, J. X. Zhu, and J. R. Grace, “HYDRODYNAMICS OF GAS-SOLID FLUIDIZATION,”
1995.
[19] M. Zhang, Z. Sun, J. Zhu, H. Zhang, and Y. Dong, “Studies on the local flow
characteristics and flow regime transitions in a square fluidized bed,” Powder
Technology, vol. 385, pp. 306–316, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2021.02.045.
[20] J. R. Grace, “Reflections on turbulent fluidization and dense suspension upflow,”
2000. [Online]. Available: www.elsevier.comrlocaterpowtec
[21] J. Liu and J. Zhu, “Experimental study on reactor performance of gas–solids low-
velocity fluidized beds,” Particuology, vol. 66, pp. 21–28, Jul. 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.partic.2021.08.006.
[22] Joachim Werther, “Fluidized-Bed Reactors,” Apr. 2007.
[23] J.-P. Euzen and P. Trambouze, Chemical Reactors-From Design to Operation.
[24] A. Günther and K. F. Jensen, “Multiphase microfluidics: From flow characteristics to
chemical and materials synthesis,” Lab on a Chip, vol. 6, no. 12. Royal Society of
Chemistry, pp. 1487–1503, 2006. doi: 10.1039/b609851g.
[25] W. Gao et al., “Kinetic modeling of pyrolysis of three Iranian waste oils in a micro-
fluidized bed,” Petroleum Science and Technology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 183–189, Jan.
2017, doi: 10.1080/10916466.2016.1238937.
[26] B. Potic, S. R. A. Kersten, M. Ye, M. A. van der Hoef, J. A. M. Kuipers, and W. P. M. van
Swaaij, “Fluidization with hot compressed water in micro-reactors,” in Chemical
Engineering Science, Nov. 2005, vol. 60, no. 22, pp. 5982–5990. doi:
10.1016/j.ces.2005.04.047.
[27] S. Geng et al., “Conditioning micro fluidized bed for maximal approach of gas plug
flow,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 351, pp. 110–118, Nov. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.cej.2018.06.076.
[28] V. Zivkovic and M. J. Biggs, “On importance of surface forces in a microfluidic fluidized
bed,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 126, pp. 143–149, Apr. 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.ces.2014.12.023.
[29] P. N. Loezos, P. Costamagna, and S. Sundaresan, “The role of contact stresses and
wall friction on nuidization,” 2002. [Online]. Available: www.elsevier.com/locate/ces
[30] Z. Qie, H. Alhassawi, F. Sun, J. Gao, G. Zhao, and X. Fan, “Characteristics and
applications of micro fluidized beds (MFBs),” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 428.
Elsevier B.V., Jan. 15, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.131330.
[31] O. L. do Nascimento, D. A. Reay, and V. Zivkovic, “Influence of surface forces and wall
effects on the minimum fluidization velocity of liquid-solid micro-fluidized beds,”
Powder Technology, vol. 304, pp. 55–62, Dec. 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.powtec.2016.05.013.
[32] F. Vanni, B. Caussat, C. Ablitzer, and M. Brothier, “Effects of reducing the reactor
diameter on the fluidization of a very dense powder,” Powder Technology, vol. 277,
pp. 268–274, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2015.03.010.
[33] S. Sánchez-Delgado, J. A. Almendros-Ibáñez, N. García-Hernando, and D. Santana, “On
the minimum fluidization velocity in 2D fluidized beds,” Powder Technology, vol. 207,
no. 1–3, pp. 145–153, Feb. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2010.10.020.
[34] T. Li, P. Gopalakrishnan, R. Garg, and M. Shahnam, “CFD-DEM study of effect of bed
thickness for bubbling fluidized beds,” Particuology, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 532–541, Oct.
2012, doi: 10.1016/j.partic.2012.02.006.
[35] X. Liu, G. Xu, and S. Gao, “Micro fluidized beds: Wall effect and operability,” Chemical
Engineering Journal, vol. 137, no. 2, pp. 302–307, Apr. 2008, doi:
10.1016/j.cej.2007.04.035.
[36] Q. J. Guo, Y. Xu, and X. Yue, “Fluidization characteristics in micro-fluidized beds of
various inner diameters,” Chemical Engineering and Technology, vol. 32, no. 12, pp.
1992–1999, 2009, doi: 10.1002/ceat.200900092.
[37] F. Wang and L. S. Fan, “Gas-solid fluidization in mini- and micro-channels,” Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 4741–4751, Apr. 2011, doi:
10.1021/ie102245m.
[38] R. Ansart, F. Vanni, B. Caussat, C. Ablitzer, and M. Brothier, “Effects of reducing the
reactor diameter on the dense gas–solid fluidization of very heavy particles: 3D
numerical simulations,” Chemical Engineering Research and Design, vol. 117, pp. 575–
583, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.cherd.2016.11.008.
[39] H. Quan, N. Fatah, and C. Hu, “Diagnosis of hydrodynamic regimes from large to
micro-fluidized beds,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 391, Jul. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.cej.2019.123615.
[40] J. Wang, L. Tan, M. A. van der Hoef, M. van Sint Annaland, and J. A. M. Kuipers, “From
bubbling to turbulent fluidization: Advanced onset of regime transition in micro-
fluidized beds,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 2001–2007, May
2011, doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2011.02.003.
[41] F. Wang et al., “Distinctive Hydrodynamics of a Micro Fluidized Bed and Its
Application to Gas-Solid Reaction Analysis,” Energy and Fuels, vol. 32, no. 4. American
Chemical Society, pp. 4096–4106, Apr. 19, 2018. doi:
10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03003.
[42] Z. Dong, Z. Wen, F. Zhao, S. Kuhn, and T. Noël, “Scale-up of micro- and milli-reactors:
An overview of strategies, design principles and applications,” Chemical Engineering
Science: X, vol. 10. Elsevier Ltd, May 01, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.cesx.2021.100097.
[43] T. Iwasaki, N. Kawano, and J. I. Yoshida, “Radical polymerization using microflow
system: Numbering-up of microreactors and continuous operation,” Organic Process
Research and Development, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1126–1131, Nov. 2006, doi:
10.1021/op060127u.

7. Appendix
Table 3- summary of gas-solid studies highlighting the wall effects in Micro-Fluidized Beds

Investigation Year MFB inner Results Reference

diameter
Micro fluidized 2007 12, 20 and • Minimum fluidization and [35]
beds: Wall effect 32 𝑚𝑚 minimum bubbling
and operability velocities significantly
(Liu et al.) decrease, as bed diameter
increases from 12-20mm.
• Bed wall effect quantified
as excess of the pressure
drop calculated using
Ergun’s equation. Effect
found to decrease as bed
diameter increases.
Fluidization 2009 4.3, 5.5, • Minimum fluidization [36]
Characteristics in 10.5, 15.5, velocity decreases
Micro-Fluidized 20.5 and significantly in the bed
beds of Various 25.5 𝑚𝑚 diameter range 4.3 – 10.5
Inner Diameters 𝑚𝑚. Between 10.5 and
(Guo et al.) 25.5 𝑚𝑚, decrease in
velocity, but not as
significant as 4.3-10.5
𝑚𝑚 range.
The Effect of 2010 1.6 and 2.4 • Minimum fluidization [11]
Column Diameter 𝑐𝑚 velocity increases as
and Bed Height on internal diameter
Minimum decreases. Whilst height
Fluidization of the bed is increased.
Velocity (Rao et
al.)
Gas-Solid 2011 700 𝜇𝑚-5 • Pressure overshoot is 30- [37]
Fluidization in 𝑚𝑚 70% larger than the
Mini and Micro- centimetre scale bed used
channels (Wang et by Loezos et al. [35].
al.) • Significant increase in
minimum fluidization and
minimum bubbling
velocity in mini and micro
channels, compared to
industry scale.
Effects of reducing 2015 5, 3.2 and 2 • Significant wall effects [32]
the reactor 𝑐𝑚 only in the 2 𝑐𝑚 bed.
diameter on the Demonstrated through
fluidization of a pressure drop overshoot
very dense powder and increase in minimum
(F.Vanni et al.) fluidization velocity.
Effects of reducing 2016 5, 3.2 and 2 • Increase Minimum [38]
the reactor 𝑐𝑚 fluidization velocity as
diameter on the diameter decreases.
dense gas-solid Validating the
fluidization of very experimental work done
heavy particles: prior, on the same
3D numerical particles and bed
simulation (Ansart dimensions [42].
et al.) • Reduction of solid mixing
as column diameter
decreases.
CFD-DEM 2017 8 12, and • Pressure drops overshoot [34]
modelling the 16 𝑚𝑚. decreases, as bed diameter
effect of column increases.
size and bed • Minimum fluidization
height on velocity increases, as
minimum column diameter
fluidization decreases, and bed height
velocity in micro increases.
fluidized beds with • More significant Impact
Geldart B of column diameter on
particles (Xu et overshoot magnitude.
al.)
Fluidization in 2019 3-15 𝑚𝑚 • Pressure overshoot effect [12]
small-scale gas- decreases as bed diameter
solid 3D-printed increases.
fluidized beds
(McDonough et
al.)