This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]

On: 25 October 2014, At: 08:47

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Chemical Engineering Communications

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcec20

A Method to Predict the Minimum

Fluidization Velocity of Binary Mixtures
Based on Particle Packing Properties
a b b
ZHANYONG LI , NORIYUKI KOBAYASHI , AKIRA NISHIMURA &
b
MASANOBU HASATANI
a
Department of Chemical Engineering , Nagoya University , Nagoya,
Japan
b
Department of Energy Engineering and Science , Nagoya
University , Japan
Published online: 25 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: ZHANYONG LI , NORIYUKI KOBAYASHI , AKIRA NISHIMURA & MASANOBU
HASATANI (2005) A Method to Predict the Minimum Fluidization Velocity of Binary Mixtures Based
on Particle Packing Properties, Chemical Engineering Communications, 192:7, 918-932, DOI:
10.1080/009864490510950

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/009864490510950

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014
 Chem. Eng. Comm., 192:918–932, 2005
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Inc.
ISSN: 0098-6445 print/1563-5201 online
DOI: 10.1080/009864490510950

A Method to Predict the Minimum Fluidization

Velocity of Binary Mixtures Based on Particle
Packing Properties

ZHANYONG LI
Department of Chemical Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

NORIYUKI KOBAYASHI, AKIRA NISHIMURA,

Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

AND MASANOBU HASATANI

Department of Energy Engineering and Science, Nagoya University, Japan

An approach was made to predict the minimum fluidization velocity for binary
mixtures of spherical particles differing in size and=or density. The spherical multi-
particle model proposed by Panigrahi and Murty was employed to describe the
relationship between the bed pressure drop and the gas velocity; the voidage at mini-
mum fluidization was estimated by the Westman equation, which was originally used
to calculate the packing voidage of mixtures. The predictions agree fairly well with
the reported experimental data in the range of Re ¼ 0:12
156, covering both the
regions of laminar flow and intermediate flow.

Keywords Binary mixtures; Fluidized bed; Minimum fluidization velocity; Multi-

particle model; Westman equation; Voidage

Introduction
In practical applications of fluidized beds, the materials to be handled often have a
wide size distribution rather than being mono-sized. In addition, it is of interest to
process dissimilar solids in fluidized beds, for example, drying of agricultural materi-
als (Mourad et al., 1994), catalytic polymerization reactions for (Khang and Lee,
1997), and combustion of solid fuels (Rasul and Rudolph, 2000). Obviously, differ-
ent hydrodynamics may occur in a bed composed of dissimilar solids compared to
the homogeneous bed of a single component. The minimum fluidization velocity is
one of the important fundamental parameters to know at the beginning for design
and operation of such fluidized beds. Therefore, substantial studies have been
carried out on the minimum fluidization velocity (also called apparent fluidization
velocity elsewhere) for binary solids or multicomponent solids.
Generally, the measurement of minimum fluidization velocity is based on the
diagram of pressure drop versus superficial gas velocity. The value is obtained at
the intersection of the two extrapolated linear portions of the plot corresponding

Received 21 October 2002; in final form 14 November 2003.

Address correspondence to Zhanyong Li, College of Mechanical Engineering, Tianjin
University of Science and Technology, 1038 South Dagu Road, Hexi District, Tianjin
300222, China. E-mail: lizhanyong68@yahoo.com.cn

918
 A Method to Predict the Minimum Fluidization Velocity 919

to the complete fluidized bed region and the packed bed region, respectively.
The available correlations on the minimum fluidization velocity are reviewed in
Table I. On the other hand, some authors, such as Uchida et al. (1983), defined
the complete fluidization velocity as the ‘‘true’’ minimum fluidization velocity for
the bed of mixtures, considering that the whole bed is capable of being fluidized
beyond that velocity. In principle, the difference between complete and minimum
fluidization velocity tends to diminish for a bed of well-mixed solids. For compari-
son, the corresponding correlations for complete fluidization velocity are given
in Table II. However, determination of complete fluidization velocity through the
graphic method is not always obvious.
As can be seen in Table I as well as in Table II, most of the equations were correlated
from the experimental data in the form of dimensionless groups with the mean density
and diameter of mixtures as parameters. A typical is given as follows, which equation
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

was originally developed by Wen and Yu (1966) for a mono-component system.

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ReM ¼ C12 þ C2 ArM
C1 ð1Þ

Table I. Correlations for calculating the minimum fluidization velocity of mixtures

Source Correlation and definition

Otero and Corella (1971) UM ¼ UF XF þ UP ð1
XF Þ

Goosens et al. (1971) ReM ¼ ð33:72 þ 0:0408ArM Þ0:5
33:7
Thonglimp et al. (1984b) ReM ¼ ð19:92 þ 0:03196ArM Þ0:5
19:9
Reina et al. (2000) ReM ¼ ð482 þ 0:045ArM Þ0:5
48
Kumar and Gupta (1974) ReM ¼ 0:0054ðArM Þ0:78
n  
1
P
where dM ¼ X i di
i¼1
P
n
and qM ¼ ðXi qi Þ
i¼1
Mourad et al. (1994) ReM ¼ 5:52  10
4 Ar1:044
M
2
Cheung et al. (1974) UM ¼ US ðUL =US ÞðXL Þ
 2
Chiba et al. (1979) UM ¼ UF qqM ddMF
F
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where dM ¼ 3 ðXVF =dF3 þ XVP =dP3 Þ
1
and qM ¼ XVF qF þ ð1
XVF Þqp
m 
P Xi
1
Chiba et al. (1979), UM ¼ Umft
Obata et al. (1982), and i¼1

Rincon et al. (1994)

( 3 
 )0:950
Rowe and Nienow (1975) 1
e1 0:947
eM
UM ¼ U1
1
eM
e1
 
1:85
d1
 X1 þ X2 þ   
d2
 920 Z. Li et al.

Table II. Correlations for calculating the complete fluidization velocity of mixtures
Source Correlation and definition
F m
Uchida et al. UC ¼ UF ðUP =UF Þð1
XV Þ
(1983)a where m ¼ 0:17a0:437 ;
d q
and a ¼ p qF
dF p
Vaid and Gupta ReC ¼ ð242 þ 0:0546ArM Þ0:5
24
(1978) n 
1
P
where dM ¼ Xi =di
Pn i¼1
and qM ¼ ðXi qi Þ
i¼1
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

Noda et al. ArM ¼ Re2C þ BReC

(1986)
A ¼ 36:2a
0:196
General case : B ¼ 1397a0:296
Specific case : B ¼ 6443a
1:86
ðdp =dF > 3 and qF =qP  1Þ
Mourad et al. (1994) ReC ¼ 1:06  10
3 Ar1:04
M

Gauthier et al. (1999) ReC ¼ 5:2  10
3 Ar0:777

M
ð1800 < ArM < 5  105 Þ
a
The correlation was misprinted as UC ¼ UF ðUP =UF Þð1
XVF Þm in the literature.

where
3
dM qG ðqM
qG Þg dM UM qG
ArM ¼ 2
; ReM ¼
lG lG
and
 
1  
1
XF Xp XF XP
qM ¼ þ ; dM ¼ q
1
M þ ð2Þ
qF qP dF qF dP qP

Instead, Cheung et al. (1974) proposed a fully empirical correlation, originally for
binary solids of same density, which had been considered a better equation and also
had been found applicable to pairs of particles differing in density (Chiba et al.,
1979), but there are no theoretical explanations as yet. Other authors, such as Rincon
et al. (1994), assumed that the bed was completely segregated and deducted the mini-
mum fluidization velocity as the harmonic mean of those for the pure components form-
ing the bed of binary or multicomponent mixtures. By comparing the theoretical
predictions with the experimental data, they found that the degree of agreement was
variable, ranging from very good when segregation intrinsically occurred during the
measuring process, to acceptable in cases where such segregation results from either
the mixture system or the defluidizing procedure.
It can be seen that the studies mentioned above did not consider bed voidage,
which is an essential parameter describing the bed characteristics and influencing
 A Method to Predict the Minimum Fluidization Velocity 921

the minimum fluidization velocity as well. In other words, the intrinsic property of
the bed under fluidization is ignored. It is known that bed voidage is reduced to some
extent when a quantity of fine particles is added to a bed of coarse particles, and thus
a lower velocity is essential to fluidize the bed of mixtures incipiently. It might be
from such a consideration that Rowe and Nienow (1975) derived an equation by
applying a modified Hatch’s equation for a porous body to predict the minimum
fluidization velocity of a mixture of different sizes, which requires knowledge of
the voidage of a mixture and one of its pure components. In their result, they pointed
out that the value of such an equation was limited. In another approach, Formisani
(Formisani, 1991; Formisani et al., 2001) predicted minimum fluidization velocities
by employing Carman-Kozeny’s equation and with the measured bed voidage of
binary mixtures. Their research showed that the theory of fluidization developed
for mono-sized beds can be applied to the beds of multicomponents. Nevertheless,
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

the bed voidage of mixtures was still based on experimental observation, and it is
extremely sensitive to some factors, e.g., bed composition and experimental techni-
ques. In addition, his experiments as well as those of Rowe and Nienow (1975) were
carried out under laminar flow conditions, and their application to other flow
regions has not been validated yet.
In this study, we wish to take a further step toward the prediction of minimum
fluidization velocity for binary mixtures. It is assumed that bed voidage under incipi-
ent fluidization is analogous to that of a randomly packed bed. Then the bed voidage
of binary solids at minimum fluidization can be related to the properties of pure com-
ponents by applying the results on the packing voidage of mixtures (Yu and Standish,
1993; Yu et al., 1996). Thus we can predict the minimum fluidization velocity for
binary mixtures according to the methods available for a bed of mono-sized particles.

Theory
Under the minimum fluidization condition, the drag force exerted upon particles by
the upward flowing fluid is equal to their gravitational force, which can be written
in the form:
DP
¼ ðq
qG Þð1
emf Þg ð3Þ
Hmf
So far, there are various expressions to calculate the pressure drop per unit depth
of the bed in the case of homogeneous beds of single species, which had been gener-
ally reviewed by Panigrahi and Murty (1991). They framed a generalized spherical
multiparticle model to express the viscous and kinetic energy dissipation and con-
formed their equation by a trial-and-error method to the undisputed equations of
Carman-Kozeny and Burke-Plummer in creeping and inertial flow regimes, respect-
ively. The deduced correlation having a single expression is quite satisfactory to
explain the pressure drop across a fluidized bed in the range of 10
2  Remf  2
103 , so it was adopted in this study.
The resultant equation for the pressure drop across the bed is given as
!
Dp 3 4:8 qffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi 2 qG U 2
mf
¼ n
0:63 þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi emf ð1
emf Þe
2n
mf ð4Þ
Hmf 4 Remf d
 922 Z. Li et al.

where n is expressed as a function of Remf :



pffiffiffi0:5
n ¼ 5:026 log a2 þ b
a ð5Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
with a ¼ 3:81= Remf and b ¼ 88 þ 5664=Remf .
By combining Equation (3) and Equation (4), we have
!
3 4:8 qffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi 2
Ar ¼ 0:63 þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi emf Re2mf e
2n
n
mf ð6Þ
4 Remf

The minimum fluidization velocity can be obtained by using Equation (6),

together with the bed voidage at minimum fluidization, which is estimated by the
packing voidage of mixtures described below. In addition, the solid properties
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

(d and q) in the corresponding equations are replaced by the mean properties of

solid mixtures given in Equation (2) unless specific definitions are provided.
In regard to the packing voidage of mixtures differing in size, Westman (1936)
developed a simple empirical equation. It is written as:

 2   
V
VL XVL V
VL XVL V
XVL
VS XVS
þ2G
VS VS VL
1
 L

S 2
V
XV
VS XV
þ ¼1 ð7Þ
VL
1

where V, the specific volume of mixture (the apparent volume occupied by unit true
volume of the particles), is given as:
V ¼ 1=ð1
eÞ ð8Þ

The coefficient, G, dependent on the size ratio (dS =dL ), was given by Yu et al.
(1993):
h i
1
G ¼ 1:355ðdS =dL Þ1:566 ð0 < dS =dL  0:824Þ ð9aÞ

G¼1 ð0:824 < dS =dL  1Þ ð9bÞ

The specific volumes of pure components (VS and VL ) are calculated from initial
bed voidages (eS and eL ) at minimum fluidization or random packing, which reflect
the experimental conditions to a great degree.

VS ¼ 1=ð1
eS Þ ð10aÞ

VL ¼ 1=ð1
eL Þ ð10bÞ

Results and Discussion

The experimental data used for validating our approach illustrated above were taken
from the studies by Formisani (Formisani, 1991; Formisani et al., 2001), Chiba et al.
(1979, 1980), and Thonglimp et al. (1984 a, b) because the literature provided all the
 A Method to Predict the Minimum Fluidization Velocity 923

Table III. Properties of particles used for validating the approach proposed in this
study
Source Materiala d [mm] q ½kg=m3  emf ½
 Remf ½


Chiba et al. (1979) CS163 0.163 8900 0.408 1.0

SB359 0.359 190 0.532 0.18
Chiba et al. (1979, 1980) GB115 0.115 2520 0.425 0.12
GB163 0.163 0.25
GB194 0.194 0.41
GB385 0.385 3.7
HC775 0.775 1080 0.454 12
Formisani (1991), GB153 0.153 2530 0.432 0.24
Formisani et al. (2001)
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

GB172 0.172 0.431 0.36

GB173 0.173 0.432 0.37
GB240 0.240 0.438 0.94
GB271 0.271 0.437 1.33
GB335 0.335 0.442 2.40
GB483 0.483 0.424 6.80
GB499 0.499 0.423 7.47
Thonglimp et al. (1989a, b) BAC225 0.225 7425 0.449 1.78
BAC282 0.282 0.429 2.96
BAC358 0.358 0.420 7.91
BAC450 0.450 0.406 12.8
BAC530 0.530 0.408 18.1
BAC670 0.670 0.406 33.8
BAC755 0.755 0.402 40.0
BV225 0.225 2635 0.363 0.639
BV282 0.282 0.363 1.51
BV450 0.450 0.418 4.60
BV670 0.670 0.392 15.7
BV950 0.950 0.412 33.6
BV1125 1.125 0.412 44.0
BV1800 1.800 0.437 114
BV2125 2.125 0.437 156
a
GB: glass beads; CS: copper shot; SB: silica balloons; HC: hollow char; BV: billes de verre
(glass beads); BAC: billes d’acier (steel beads).

necessary data concerning particle properties and bed voidage. But, some data from
Thonglimp et al. (1984b) were excluded, considering that the experiments were car-
ried out at lower bed height. As was reported by Noda et al. (1986) the aspect ratio
of bed height (H=D) influences the measured minimum fluidization velocity if it is
less than 0.5. The properties of materials are listed in Table III.
Figure 1 shows the typical variation of bed voidage at minimum fluidization
with mass fractions of the fluidized component ðXF Þ. As can be seen, the Westman
equation together with the empirical equations of Yu et al. (1993) is rational to
predict the changes in voidage of the bed composed of binary mixtures. A better
 924 Z. Li et al.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

Figure 1. Estimation of the bed voidage at minimum fluidization by using the packing voidage
of binary mixtures (GB385=GB163; data from Chiba et al.(1979)).

agreement is obtained provided the fast defluidizing procedure is adopted. In that

procedure, the bed of mixtures was vigorously fluidized for several minutes to obtain
a well-mixed bed, although the types of distributors may affect the complete mixing
degree to some extent for the mixtures tending to complete segregating (Nienow
et al., 1987); thereafter, the gas velocity was quickly reduced below the fluidization
threshold of the fluidized component (UF ) and then was successively brought down
to zero. Therefore, the fast defluidizing procedure maximizes the possibility of a well-
mixed bed of mixtures and may form a bed structure similar to the case of mechan-
ical packing. In both cases (fast defluidizing and mechanical packing), smaller
particles tend to fill the interstices of a bed of larger particles and make a dense
bed, thus decreasing the bed voidage. In contrast, by slowly defluidizing a bed of
mixtures, that is slowly defluidizing the bed from the complete fluidized state to
the static one over a long period, the particles will change their positions according
to particle properties, superficial gas velocity, and the defluidizing time. As a result,
the slowly defluidizing procedure promotes particle segregation, so the bed voidage
will vary along the bed height. Generally, the total bed voidage is larger by applying
the slowly defluidizing procedure.
Figure 2 compares the calculated bed voidage of binary mixtures with the experi-
mental data obtained by applying the fast defluidizing procedure. As can be seen, the
agreement is good for mixtures of the same density (pairs of glass beads) shown by
the open circle symbol, and the average absolute deviation (E1 ) and root-mean-
square deviation (E2 ) is 1.98% and 2.26%, respectively. The low prediction errors
 A Method to Predict the Minimum Fluidization Velocity 925
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

Figure 2. Comparison of the estimated packing voidage of binary mixtures (Equation (7))
with the observed bed voidage at minimum fluidization (data from Chiba et al. (1979,
1980), Formisani (1991), Formisani et al. (2001)).

indicate the probability of estimating the minimum bed voidage of binary mixtures
by the theory on packing of particles.
With the estimated bed voidage, the predictions of the minimum fluidization
velocity at various mass fractions of small particles are shown in Figure 3 as an
example. The predicted results are in good agreement with the experimental data
measured by Chiba et al. (1979) according to the fast defluidizing procedure Figure
4 shows a parity plot of the minimum fluidization velocities for the binary mixtures
of equal density. The average absolute deviation (E1 ) is 13.2%, and the root-mean-
square deviation (E2 ) is 16.7%. In other words, the differences between the predic-
tions and the experimental data are approximately within 33:4% for the 95%
confidence limits, provided the observed value UM is always a real value of the mini-
mum fluidization velocity.
For binary mixtures differing in density, the feasibility of Equation (9) seems in
doubt because the term regarding the density difference is not included in the equa-
tions. In fact, it is indicated in the literature (Yu et al., 1993) that Equation (9) is still
suitable for the binary particles of different density as well as non spherical particles.
In Figure 2, a comparison between the estimated and measured bed voidage for two
 926 Z. Li et al.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

Figure 3. Prediction of the minimum fluidization velocity in comparison with the experimental
data (GB385=GB163; data from Chiba et al. (1979)).

pairs of mixtures (HC775=GB385 and HC775=GB163) is given (open triangle

symbols) to test the applicability of Equation (9), however, the agreement seems not
very satisfactory. For all the predictions (GB=GB (glass bead=glass bead) and HC=GB
GB (hollow char=glass bead)) shown in Figure 2, E1 and E2 is 3.09% and 4.07%,
respectively.
As can be seen in Figure 5, the minimum fluidization velocity of the pure
component (HC775) was quite over-predicted with its minimum bed voidage
reported (eP ¼ 0:454), which was calculated with the available data for the particle
density and the bed density at minimum fluidization (e ¼ 1
qmf =qP ). Possibly,
the calculated voidage is larger than the measured packing=minimum voidage due
to the particle density (qP ) given in the literature (Chiba et al., 1979). An apparent
particle density rationale for fluidization will be difficult to obtain because the
volumes of some fine pores in HC should not be taken into account in the calcu-
lation of qP . Therefore, we used a lower voidage of HC (eP ¼ 0:428) to calculate
the minimum fluidization velocities of the binary pair (HC775=GB163) again; it
can be seen in Figure 5 that the agreement is quite satisfactory. In addition, with
the decrease of the bed voidage of HC the prediction to the bed voidage of HC=GB
is improved.
In Figure 6, a parity plot is given for binary mixtures of different density, with
E1 ¼ 18:4% and E2 ¼ 24:2%. The fit of predictions to experimental data is some-
what reasonable.
It should be noted that our approach failed to predict UM for the binary mix-
tures, CS163=SB359 and BV1125=BV282; the predicted minimum fluidization velo-
city is much lower than the experimental value. The two pairs are considered to be
 A Method to Predict the Minimum Fluidization Velocity 927
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

Figure 4. Comparison of the predicted UM by using Equation (6) with the reported experi-
mental data; (a) binary mixtures of same density, UM < 0:2 m=s, (b) binary mixtures of same
density, UM > 0:2 m=s.

the complete segregating cases, and thus the measured bed voidage may be greater
than the value predicted from Equation (7). The mechanical packing method will
result in a well-mixed bed of binary mixtures, but due to experimental limitations,
size segregating still occurs even by fast defluidizing, although perfect mixing is poss-
ible for mixtures of equal density (Nienow et al., 1987). Therefore, our approach
will provide the lower limit of the range of variation of the minimum fluidization
velocity in terms of the augments of Formisani et al. (2001); below that velocity a
high degree of mixing is maintained so as to provide some specific advantages for
the homogeneity of products.
In comparison with our approach, the predictions using the equations of
Cheung et al. (1974) and Rincon et al. (1994) are also given in Figure 3 and Figure
5 because of their popularity and simplicity. In addition, the prediction errors are
given in Table IV. The correlations in the form of Equation (1) listed in Table I were
not used for comparison because the coefficients C1 and C2 have different values cor-
responding to specific cases. It can be found that both equations (Cheung et al.,
1974; Rincon et al., 1994) follow the shape of UM versus XF curves due to the
inherent properties of the equations and also gave good predictions. However,
 928 Z. Li et al.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

Figure 4. Continued.

the two equations could not reflect well the decreasing degree of minimum fluidiza-
tion velocity due to the void contraction by adding a certain fraction of small parti-
cles into the bed of large particles (compare Figures 3 and 5). The minimum
fluidization velocity predicted by the equation of Cheung et al. (1974) may be con-
sidered as a weighted average value of UF and UP by a factor ðXL Þ2 , and it is not a
characteristic fluidization velocity defining the bed characteristics, segregated or well
mixed. On the other hand, the weighting factor might be good for the general system
of binary particles with acceptable prediction errors. But for specific systems, opti-
mal factors other than ðXL Þ2 may exist, or the optimal exponent of XL is possibly
different 2, just as shown in the equation of Uchida et al. (1983), even though it
was proposed for the complete fluidization velocity. The equation of Rincon et al.
(1994) may define a velocity for delimiting the condition of bed segregating despite
ignoring the voidage difference in the different layers of mono-sized particles. In
principle, however, good prediction results can be obtained only for intrinsically seg-
regating beds by applying the slow defluidizing procedure.
In this study, we evaluated our approach only for binary mixtures. In fact, it is
possible to extend its application to the cases of multicomponent mixtures because
the minimum bed voidage of multi component mixtures can also be estimated by
 A Method to Predict the Minimum Fluidization Velocity 929
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

Figure 5. Prediction of the minimum fluidization velocity for binary mixtures of different
density (HC775=GB163; data from Chiba et al. (1980)).

Figure 6. Comparison of the predictions for UM by using Equation (6) with the reported
experimental data (binary mixtures of different density).
 930 Z. Li et al.

Table IV. Deviations between the predicted and experimental UM by fast

defluidization
Cheung et al. Rincon et al.
Materials Deviations (1974) (1994) This study

Binary mixtures E1 10.7% 13.8% 13.2%

of equal density E2 22.9% 26.2% 16.7%
Binary mixtures of E1 11.0% 10.5% 18.4%
different density E2 16.2% 17.2% 24.2%

the corresponding packing voidage. There is much more research on the packing voi-
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

dage of multicomponent beds in the literature, such as Yu et al. (Yu and Standish,
1993; Yu et al., 1996). However, the empirical equation of Cheung et al. (1974) is
confined to its application within the binary mixtures.

Conclusions
For binary mixtures of same density particles, the packing voidage determined by
the Westman equation can be taken as an estimate for the bed voidage at minimum
fluidization. The agreement is satisfactory. With the voidage calculated at different
mass fractions of the fluidized component and the equation by Panigrahi and Murty
to express the function of pressure drop versus gas velocity, the predictions of the
minimum fluidization velocity are in good agreement with the experimental data
reported. For binary mixtures of different density particles, our approach seems
fairly acceptable in predicting the minimum fluidization velocity. The present
approach provides the lower limit of the minimum fluidization velocity characteriz-
ing a well-mixed bed.

Nomenclature
A; B parameters in the equation developed by Noda et al. (1986)
a; b parameters in Equation (5)
ArM Archimedes number
C1 ; C2 constant in Equation (1)
D bed diameter, m
d particle diameter, m
d F ; dP Particle diameter of fluidized and packed component, respectively, m
d L ; dS particle diameter of large and small component, respectively, m
dM mean diameter of binary mixture, mP 
 
E1 average absolute deviation, E1 ¼ N1e predicted
experimental
experimental 
sNffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
e

P predicted 2
E2 root-mean-square deviation, E2 ¼ N1e experimental
1
Ne
G coefficient in Equation (9)
g gravity acceleration, m=s2
H bed height, m
 A Method to Predict the Minimum Fluidization Velocity 931

Hmf bed height at minimum fluidization, m

n number of components
Ne number of experimental data
ReM Reynolds number of mixture at minimum fluidization
Remf Reynolds number of pure component at minimum fluidization
UF ; UP minimum fluidization velocity of fluidized and packed component,
respectively, m=s
UM minimum fluidization velocity of mixture, m=s
Umf minimum fluidization velocity of mono-component, m=s
Umfi minimum fluidization velocity of the ith component, m=s
V specific volume of a binary system
VL ; VS specific volume of large and small component, respectively
XF ; XP mass fraction of fluidized and packed component, respectively
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014

Xi mass fraction of the ith component

XVF ; XVP volume fraction of fluidized and packed component, respectively
XVL ; XVS volume fraction of large and small component, respectively
Greek Letters
DP pressure drop, N=m2
e bed voidage
e1 bed voidage of one component
eF ; eP minimum bed voidage of fluidized and packed component, respectively
eM bed voidage at minimum fluidization
emf minimum bed voidage of pure component
lG fluid viscosity, kg=ðm
sÞ
q particle density, kg=m3
qF ; qP particle density of fluidized and packed component, respectively, kg=m3
qG fluid density, kg=m3
qi particle density of the ith component, kg=m3
qM mean density of binary particle mixture, kg=m3

References
Cheung, L., Nienow, A. W., and Rowe, P. N. (1974). Chem. Eng. Sci., 29, 1301–1303.
Chiba, S., Chiba, T., Nienow, A. W., and Kobayashi, N. (1979). Powder Technol., 22,
255–269.
Chiba, S., Nienow, A. W., Chiba, T., and Kobayashi, H. (1980). Powder Technol., 26, 1–10.
Formisani, B. (1991). Powder Technol., 66, 259–264.
Formisani, B., Cristofaro, D., and Girimonte, R. (2001). Chem. Eng. Sci., 56, 109–119.
Gauthier, D., Zerguerras, S., and Flamant, G. (1999). Chem. Eng. J., 74 181–196.
Goossens, W. R. A., Dumont, G. L., and Spaepen, G. J. (1971). AIChE Symp. Ser., 67(116),
38–45.
Khang, D. Y. and Lee, H. H. (1997). Chem. Eng. Sci., 52(3), 421–431.
Kumar, A. and Gupta, S. P. (1974). Ind. J. Technol., 12, 225–226.
Mourad, M., Hemati, M., and Laguerie, C. (1994). Powder Technol., 80, 45–54.
Nienow, A. W., Naimer, N. S., and Chiba, T. (1987). Chem. Eng. Commun., 62, 53–66.
Noda, K., Uchida, S., Makino, T., and Kamo, H. (1986). Powder Technol., 46, 149–154.
Obata, E., Watanabe, H., and Endo, N. (1982). J. Chem. Eng. Jpn., 15(1), 23–28.
Otero, A. R. and Corella, Y. J. (1971). An. Quim., 67, 1207–1219.
Panigrahi, M. R. and Murty, J. S. (1991). Chem. Eng. Sci., 46(7), 1863–1868.
 932 Z. Li et al.

Rasul, M. G. and Rudolph, V. (2000). Fuel, 79, 123–130.

Reina, J., Velo, E., and Puigjaner, L. (2000). Powder Technol., 111, 245–251.
Rincon, J., Guardiola, J., Romero, A., and Ramos, G. (1994). J. Chem. Eng. Jpn., 27(2),
177–181.
Rowe, P. N. and Nienow, A. W. (1975). Chem. Eng. Sci., 30, 1365–1369.
Thonglimp, V., Hiquily, N., and Laguerie, C. (1984a). Powder Technol., 38, 233–253.
Thonglimp, V., Hiquily, N., and Laguerie, C. (1984b). Powder Technol., 39, 223–239.
Uchida, S., Yamada, H., and Tada, I. (1983). J. Chin. Inst. Chem. Eng., 14, 57–264.
Vaid, R. P. and Gupta, P. S. (1978). Can. J. Chem. Eng., 56, 292–296.
Wen, C. Y. and Yu, Y. H. (1966). AIChE J., 12, 610–612
Westman, A. E. R. (1936). J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 19, 127–129.
Yu, A. B. and Standish, N. (1993). Powder Technol., 76, 113–124.
Yu, A. B., Standish, N., and McLean, A. (1993). J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 76(11), 2813–2816.
Yu, A. B., Zou, R. P., and Standish, N. (1996). Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 35, 3730–3741.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 08:47 25 October 2014