See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/244116783

Physical insight into the Ergun and Wen and Yu Equations for Fluid Flow in
Packed and Fluidized Beds

Article  in  Chemical Engineering Science · February 2002

DOI: 10.1016/S0009-2509(01)00371-2

CITATIONS READS

166 9,026

1 author:

Robert K Niven
UNSW Canberra
129 PUBLICATIONS   1,863 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Maximum entropy analysis of flow networks View project

Remediation of PFAS contaminated waters by foam fractionation, and soils by in situ fluidization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert K Niven on 17 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 527 – 534
www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Shorter communication
Physical insight into the Ergun and Wen & Yu equations for 'uid 'ow
in packed and 'uidised beds
Robert K. Niven ∗
School of Civil Engineering, The University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra,
ACT 2600, Australia

Received 3 January 2001; received in revised form 19 September 2001; accepted 6 October 2001

1. Introduction ratio of the surface area of the equivalent-volume sphere

to that of the particle; thus ’p dp gives the diameter of
It is well known that the pressure loss during one-dimensi- the equivalent-volume sphere (Leva, 1959). The numerical
onal 'ow through a packed bed (6xed bed) of granular ma- coeEcients in Eq. (2) have been variously given as 150
terial is given by the sum of two terms: a viscous energy loss and 1.75 (Ergun, 1952), 200 and 1.75 (Leva, 1959), and 180
term, proportional to the 'uid velocity, and an inertial loss and the range 1.8– 4.0 (Macdonald et al., 1979). Here they
(kinetic energy) term, proportional to the velocity squared, are taken simply as 150 and 1.75. The question arises as to
i.e.: how Eq. (2) relates to the underlying principles of 'uid 'ow.
:P
= aU + bU 2 ; (1)
L
2. Dimensional analysis of the Ergun equation
where :P is the piezometric pressure loss, L the bed
height, U the super6cial 'uid velocity (i.e., averaged over Following previous, related analyses (e.g., Ganguly,
the 'ow cross-section), and a and b are two empirical 1987; Glicksman, 1984; Glicksman, Hyre, & Farrell, 1994,
parameters. One form of this equation, widely used by “traditional” dimensional analysis of the problem might
chemical engineers, was given by Ergun (1952) (cf. Leva, give the pressure loss as
1959; Bird, Stewart, & Lightfoot, 1960; Wen & Yu,
:P
1966; Richardson, 1971; Macdonald, El-Sayer, Mow, & = (; f ; U; dp ; f g; ; ’p ); (4)
Dullien, 1979): L
where g is the acceleration due to gravity and  denotes
:P 150 (1 − )2 1:75 f (1 − ) 2
= 2 2 U+ U ; (2) a functional relationship. Here, in deference to Glicksman
L ’p d p  3 ’ p dp 3 et al. (1994), the eKect of gravity is taken as f g rather than
where  is the dynamic 'uid viscosity, f the 'uid density,  as g, as the latter does not act as a variable in its own right.
the porosity (voidage), dp the particle diameter, and ’p the Dimensional analysis (Buckingham, 1915) yields


particle shape factor (sphericity). The diameter of a particle :P=L :h f dp U
of arbitrary shape is de6ned in terms of the sphericity by = = i =  Re = ;
f g L 
(Leva, 1959): 
2f g d3p
6Vp 6Vp Ga = ; ; ’p ; (5)
dp = = ; (3) 2
Ap ’ p Asp
where :h is the piezometric head loss, i the hydraulic
where Vp is the volume of a single (non-spherical) parti-
gradient, Re the particle Reynolds number and Ga the
cle, Ap is its surface area, and Asp is the surface area of
'uid-particle Galileo number. The dimensionless pressure
the equivalent-volume sphere. The sphericity indicates the
loss is seen to be a function of Re and Ga — both based
on the particle diameter — as well as of porosity and parti-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-6268-8330; fax: +61-2-6268- cle sphericity. The Reynolds number indicates the ratio of
8337. viscous and inertial forces, re'ecting the tendency towards
E-mail address: r.niven@adfa.edu.au (R. K. Niven). turbulence, whilst the Galileo number is the square of the

0009-2509/02/$ - see front matter ? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 9 - 2 5 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 3 7 1 - 2
528 R. K. Niven / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 527–534
ratio of the Reynolds number to a particle Froude number,
Fr:
Re2 U 1960; Street, Watters, & Vennard, 1996). In non-circular
Ga = ; where Fr =  : (6)
Fr 2 gdp
Ga therefore indicates the ratio of viscous to gravity forces.
Although Fr could be used in Eq. (5), Ga is more convenient
as it is a function of the bed and 'uid properties alone. For
this reason it is often used in chemical engineering studies,
although it is more prevalent in the Russian literature (e.g.,
Pavlov, Romankov, & Noskov, 1979). (Note: Ga and the
Archimedes number, Ar, are often de6ned interchangeably
in the literature; a distinction is made here). Expressed in
this form, the Ergun equation becomes
 
:P=L 1 150(1 − )2 1:75(1 − ) 2
=i= Re + Re : (7)
f g Ga ’2p 3 ’p  3
Whilst correct, this result is bulky and awkward, and the
underlying relationship to fundamental physical laws is not
apparent.
3. Alternative dimensional analysis
To examine the underlying physics of 'ow through
packed beds, consider a bed of pseudo-spherical particles in
a rhombohedral packing arrangement (which includes the
“hexagonal close packed” form). The “unit cell” and “unit
void” of this packing arrangement are shown in Figs. 1a and
b (after Graton & Fraser, 1935). As shown, 'ow proceeds
through a network of interconnected pore conduits, con-
sisting of both tetrahedral and octahedral pockets between
solid particles, joined by narrower pore necks. The pore
conduits themselves are of a complex cross-sectional form,
including three-pointed stars, four-pointed stars and a vari-
ety of shapes in between (Graton & Fraser, 1935). Whilst
complex, such pore conduits may be conceptualised as a
network of parallel pore conduits of variable cross-section,
which can (at least in principle) be examined by the theory
of 'uid 'ow.
The pressure loss due to 'uid 'ow in non-circular con-
duits is normally analysed using the “hydraulic radius”, RH ,
de6ned for straight pipes as
Ai
RH = ; (8)
Pi
Fig. 1. Representations of (a) unit cell and (b) unit void of spheres in a rhombohedral packing arrangement (after Graton & Fraser, 1935).
where Ai is the cross-sectional 'ow area and Pi the wet-
ted perimeter (see any 'uid mechanics text, e.g., Bird et al.,
conduits, the conduit diameter, Di , is replaced by 4RH . The
utility of the hydraulic radius concept stems from the fact
that in turbulent 'ow, the pressure loss depends primarily on
shear in the (wall) boundary layer, and thus varies with the
wall surface area. For conduits of a high aspect ratio, the hy-
draulic radius concept becomes invalid; however, as evident
from Fig. 1, this is not the case in typical packed beds. In
laminar 'ow, the use of RH can introduce signi6cant errors
(albeit generally within an order of magnitude), as the pres-
sure loss arises from internal friction within the 'uid rather
than against the side walls (Bird et al., 1960). This objec-
tion may be overcome by considering only porous media
of similar geometry, such as the beds of granular materials
shown in Fig. 1. The error introduced by the use of RH will
then be a systematic multiplier, and approximately constant.
The multiplier of RH necessary to obtain the correct pressure
loss is here termed the “laminar 'ow correction factor”, CL .
Whilst RH is appropriate for straight conduits, for vari-
able diameter conduits (Fig. 1) it will vary from point to
point along the length of 'ow. A more appropriate hy-
draulic radius, or characteristic dimension of the porous
medium, is the ratio of the volume of voids to their sur-
face area, l . For spherical particles, this is given by (Leva,
1959; Bird et al., 1960; Churchill, 1988; Cheng & Chiew,
1999):
Vv Vv =VT dsp
l = = = ; (9)
Av Av =VT 6(1 − )
where Vv is the volume of voids, Av the surface area of
voids, VT the total volume of the packing, and dsp the di-
ameter of a spherical particle. Clearly, l represents RH ob-
tained by integrating the area and wetted perimeter over the
length of the conduit. Derivation of Eq. (9) involves tak-
ing Vv =VT as the porosity, ; whilst Av =VT is the product
of the surface area of a single particle, Asp = !d2sp , mul-
tiplied by the number of particles per unit volume, N =
[(1 − Vv )=Vp ]=VT = 6(1 − )=!d3sp . This formulation as-
sumes in6nitesimal points of contact between solid parti-
cles, and the absence of dead pores which do not experi-
ence 'ow. If not the case, the surface area will be less than
!d2sp , reducing the factor of six in the denominator of Eq.
(9).
 R. K. Niven / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 527–534 529

For non-spherical particles, it is seen that Vv =VT =  is un- This is now in quite simpli6ed form. It is seen, 6rstly, that
changed, and the surface area of a single particle is Ap =!d2p , there is no reason for either the sphericity or porosity to
now de6ned in terms of the non-spherical particle diameter. be listed separately in Eq. (13). From a dimensional point
From the de6nition of the sphericity in Eq. (3), the number of view, this is intuitive, as the sphericity only acts to alter
of particles per unit volume becomes N = 6(1 − )=!’p d3p . the void length scale, and is not able to act independently
The non-spherical void length scale, l’ , is thus of it. The eKect of the porosity is completely accounted
’p dp ’p dp for by the other parameters used. As it is based on appro-
l’ = ≈ (10) priate parameters, Eq. (16) more adequately re'ects fun-
6(1 − ) (1 − )
damental physical processes than other forms of the Ergun
For quantitative analysis, the factor of six is important; but equation.
for dimensional analysis it may be omitted, following the To comment on previous literature: various void length
convention that constants are dropped from dimensionless scales similar to l’ , but without the particle sphericity,
groups. were used by many workers including Ergun (1952), Leva
For 'ow through the pore conduits represented in Fig. 1, (1959), Bird et al. (1960), Churchill (1988) and Cheng
instead of the super6cial velocity, U , it is more appropriate and Chiew (1999). The interstitial velocity is well known.
to consider the mean interstitial velocity, Ui . This is given Churchill and Usagi (1972) and Churchill (1974) presented
by (Leva, 1959; Bird et al., 1960; Bear, 1972; Churchill, an Ergun equation containing Rei∗ and a group similar to
1988): the product of i and Ga∗ , but did not justify their choice on
U U theoretical grounds. The summarised form of Eq. (16) has
Ui = # ≈ ; (11)
  not, to the author’s knowledge, been presented previously.
where # is a geometric constant. Often # is considered equal It is further noted that in packed beds of low column diam-
to unity; however this is not the case except in special in- eter, non-uniform 'ow is experienced, which may be repre-
stances (see Leva, 1959). It is further possible to consider the sented by including the column diameter D in Eq. (13). This
mean tortuous velocity, Ut (Bear, 1972; Churchill, 1988): produces an additional dimensionless group l’ =D. Glicks-

 man (1984) and Glicksman et al. (1994) also consider the
Le U U height of the bed, L, which would here give the group l’ =L.
Ut = # = #T ; (12)
L   It is also appropriate to include measures of the packing
where Le is the actual 'ow path length, L the bed length, arrangement or fabric of the porous medium, and of the parti-
and T the tortuosity. However, as the tortuosity is a func- cle size distribution, in Eq. (13). Recent work on groundwa-
tion of the fabric of the porous medium, it will very likely ter 'ow in natural soils also suggests the need for inclusion
be constant in media of a similar fabric, such as granular of a measure of the heterogeneity of the porous medium in
materials. The mean interstitial velocity, Ui , is used in the Eq. (13) (e.g., Schulze, Carlson, & Cherkauer, 1999). Such
dimensional analyses herein, in the knowledge that it may properties are however diEcult to quantify, and to date, have
re'ect the mean tortuous velocity with a constant tortuosity not been successfully included in correlations of 'uid 'ow
condition. in packed beds.
The dimensional relationship is now
:P
= (;
f ; Ui ; l’ ;
f g): (13)
L 4. Nature of the viscous and inertial energy loss terms
For laminar 'ow, the length scale is CL l’ , which reduces
to l’ provided CL is constant. Dimensional analysis gives The Ergun equation, and especially the nature of its vis-
  cous and inertial loss terms, bears further examination. It
2 3
:P=L
f l ’ U i
f gl ’ may be rearranged giving (Ergun, 1952)
= i =  Rei∗ = ; Ga∗ = ;

f g  2
(14) :P ’p dp 3 150
= + 1:75: (17)
L
f U 2 (1 − ) Rei∗
Here Rei∗ and Ga∗ are, respectively, a modi6ed Reynolds
number based on the interstitial velocity, and a modi6ed A plot of this equation, and supporting data, is given in
Galileo number, both based on the void length scale l’ . In Fig. 2 (after Ergun, 1952). For 'uid 'ow in straight con-
full duits, laminar 'ow behaviour is normally observed up to

f ’p d p U
2f g’3p d3p 3 about ReD ∼ 2100, where ReD is the Reynolds number
Rei∗ = ; Ga∗ = : (15) based on the pipe diameter, whilst fully turbulent 'ow only
(1 − ) 2 (1 − )3
occurs above ReD ∼ 4000. In packed beds, however, it is
The Ergun equation becomes evident from Fig. 2 that the deviation from strictly laminar
:P=L 1 (viscous) 'ow becomes signi6cant at much lower levels,
=i= [150Rei∗ + 1:75(Rei∗ )2 ] (16) around Rei∗ ∼ 5. Furthermore, in packed beds, the viscous

f g Ga∗
530 R. K. Niven / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 527–534
Fig. 2. Normalised plot of the Ergun equation (after Ergun, 1952; Bird et al., 1960).
and inertial loss terms are additive, an eKect completely at
odds with observed 'ow behaviour in straight pipes, and in-
deed, which confounded many early workers in this 6eld.
Evidently, something other than simple laminar and turbu-
lent 'ow takes place in packed beds.
The non-linearity in the Ergun equation in fact arises from
“local” losses — sometimes termed “shock” or “minor”
losses — produced during laminar 'ow through the expan-
sions, contractions and changes in 'ow direction within the
packed bed. Equivalently, these losses can be attributed to
the gradual onset of pressure drag, due to 'ow separation
behind each solid particle. This phenomenon is well known
to porous media workers (e.g., Scheidegger, 1960; Bear,
1972), but seems to have had a mixed reception amongst
chemical engineers. The distinction is not recognised by Er-
gun and Orning (1949), Ergun (1952), Wen and Yu (1966),
Macdonald et al. (1979) or Kunii and Levenspiel (1991),
whilst Leva (1959) and Bird et al. (1960) erroneously at-
tribute the non-linearity to the onset of turbulence. Dullien
(1975) and Churchill (1988) attribute it correctly. Recent
workers such as Glicksman (1984), Glicksman et al. (1994)
and Di Felice (1994) all carefully refer to pressure drag or
the “inertia term” rather than to turbulence; however, the
distinction may be lost on uninitiated readers.
As local (inertial) losses and 'uid turbulence produce
variations in the same dimensionless groups, the error is un-
derstandable, but may be demonstrated by a simple deriva-
Fig. 3. Simpli6ed model of pore conduits in a packed bed (symbols are
de6ned in text).
tion. Although a detailed model of a packed bed is shown in
Figs. 1(a) and (b), surprisingly useful results can be obtained
by the grossly oversimpli6ed pore conduit model shown in
Fig. 3. A related geometry was examined by Blick (1966)
in terms of drag coeEcients; a simpler analysis, based on
the work-energy equation, follows. Each pore is represented
as a sequence of straight conduits, of lengths L1 and L2 and
alternating diameters D1 and D2 . There are n overall sec-
tions over length L of the conduit. From standard 'uid 'ow
theory, there will be frictional (laminar or turbulent) energy
losses along the straight sections of each conduit, as well as
local losses due to the expansions and contractions (espe-
cially the expansions) between each interval.
From the Darcy–Weisbach equation for the head loss
through the straight sections, and the standard expression for
local losses (see any 'uid mechanics text), the piezometric
 R. K. Niven / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 527–534 531

pressure loss, :P, along length L of the conduit is where


 2
4
4
f1 nL1 U1 Di Di
:P = f g:h = f g + nKL1 + nKL2 *=) + (1 − ))
D1 2g D1 D2

 2
f2 nL2 U2 and
+ ; (18)
D2 2g
4
Di
+ = (KL1 + KL2 )
where fj are the Darcy–Weisbach friction factors and Uj D1
the velocities in each conduit length, KLj are the head loss
coeEcients for each local loss, and j = 1 or 2 (see Fig. 3). are geometric constants relating to the porous medium.
The friction factors will diKer for laminar or turbulent 'ow The resulting Eq. (23) is of similar form to the Ergun
— requiring separate substitutions — whilst the local loss equation. Similar derivations, but without local losses, have
correlations are valid in either case (although KLj are not been given previously (e.g., Ergun & Orning, 1949; Leva,
necessarily constant). The velocities and diameters may be 1959; Bird et al., 1960). It is inappropriate to take the anal-
put in terms of some “representative” tortuous pore velocity ysis further, as at this point the simpli6ed geometry of Fig.
Ut and diameter Di , which by continuity 3 breaks down; however, it is clear that the U 2 term arises
from local losses, rather than the onset of turbulence. Such
! ! !
Q= D1 U 1 = D 2 U 2 = D i U t ; (19) losses will not only be produced by 'ow through the expan-
4 4 4 sions and contractions, but also by changes in 'ow direc-
where Q is the volumetric 'ow rate. (For compressible 'u- tion in the packed bed, and the separation and rejoining of
ids, the mass 'ow rate is required, introducing densities into 'ow paths, eKects not analysed in the simpli6ed model. The
Eq. (19).) Hence from Eq. (18) local losses become signi6cant at relatively low Reynolds
 numbers, producing the familiar Ergun form.

5
5
:P f1 nL1 Di f2 nL2 Di For fully turbulent 0ow, f1 and f2 will become constant,
= + in accordance with some function similar to the Colebrook
L Di D1 Di D2
equation, due to the fully rough boundaries of the 'ow.

4  Substitution of the void length scale Di ∼ = 4l’ =6 (Eq. (10))
Di f Ut2
+ n (KL1 + KL2 ) : (20) and tortuous velocity (Eq. (12)) into Eq. (21) gives
D1 2L


:P 3 + f (1 − ) 2
Assuming the L1 sections take up a total fraction ) of L, = + , #2 T 2 U ; (24)
L 4 CP ’p d p  3
then nL1 = )L and nL2 = (1 − ))L, and recognising that for a
regular packing, n=L is of order Di , say n=L = CP Di , where where , = f1 )(Di =D1 )4 + f2 (1 − ))(Di =D2 )4 is a third
CP is a packing coeEcient: porous medium constant. Eq. (24) is of similar form to the

5 inertial term of the Ergun equation (the Burke & Plummer
:P f1 ) Di (1928) equation), but here the local and turbulent losses are
=
L Di D1 additive. Whilst the constants in Eq. (24) cannot readily be

5
4 evaluated, order of magnitude analysis suggests that the tur-
f2 (1 − )) Di KL1 + KL2 Di f Ut2 bulent term , should be small compared to the local loss
+ + :
Di D2 CP D i D1 2 term +=CP , unless the limiting friction factors are very large.
In other words, in fully turbulent 'ow through a packed bed,
(21)
local losses will very likely dominate the overall pressure
For laminar 0ow, the Hagen–Poiseuille equation yields loss.
It follows that there will be a second transition, from lam-
64 64 64 inar to turbulent 'ow, at higher interstitial Reynolds num-
fj = = = for j = 1; 2:
Rej f D j Uj f Di Ut (Di =Dj ) bers than the transition within the Ergun equation. (Other
(22) transitions, relating to bubbling beds and turbulent bubbling
beds, are also evident in gas–solid 'uidisation.) The pres-
Substitution of Eq. (22) into Eq. (21), along with the exact sure loss during the transition will follow a similar function
de6nition of the void length scale (corrected for laminar to Eq. (24), but , will not be constant; rather, by analogy
'ow) Di ∼ = 4CL l’ =6 (Eq. (10)) and the tortuous velocity with 'uid 'ow in straight conduits (as re'ected in the Cole-
(Eq. (12)), gives brook equation), , should commence at a high value, and
then diminish to its limiting value. This eKect — and the
:P 72*#T (1 − )2 3+#2 T 2 f (1 − ) 2 suddenness of the transition — will be masked by the local
= U + U ;
L CL2 ’2p d2p 3 4CP CL ’p dp 3 loss term, producing a variable factor +=CP + , in Eq. (24).
(23) A second transition has in fact been observed by several
532 R. K. Niven / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 527–534

workers (e.g., Tallmadge, 1970; Hicks, 1970). Some vari- it may be rewritten
ability in the coeEcient 1.75 in the Ergun equation was also
∗
noted by Macdonald et al. (1979), but attributed to other (1 − mf )Armf = 150Rei;∗mf + 1:75(Rei;∗mf )2 ; (30)
eKects. where Rei;∗mfand ∗
Armf are modi6ed Reynolds and
The analysis implies that even with a correct dimensional Archimedes numbers, respectively, based on the voidage
analysis, great caution must be exercised in the interpreta- length scale and interstitial velocity at minimum 'uidisation
tion of its results. In this case, one cannot — without direct
evidence — attribute a Reynolds number transition to the f l’ Ui; mf f ’p dp Umf
Rei;∗mf = = ; (31)
onset of turbulence, only to an increase in inertial forces  (1 − mf )
relative to viscous forces. Dimensionless groups only ex-
press ratios of forces, and dimensional analysis, the inter-
actions between these forces; interpretation of their physi- ∗
f ( s − f )gl3’ f ( s − f )g’3p d3p mf
3
Armf = = ;
cal meaning is a matter for careful observation and skilled 2 2 (1 − mf )3
judgment. (32)
where Ui; mf is the mean interstitial velocity at minimum 'u-
5. Physical insight into the Wen & Yu equation idisation and l’ is also taken at  = mf . It is seen in Eq.
(30) that there is an additional (1 − mf ) group, introduced
Incipient 'uidisation occurs when the particles become within the particle buoyancy term within Eq. (25). This can
suspended in the 'uid. The piezometric pressure loss is then be eliminated by taking a second modi6ed Archimedes num-
given by ber
:P f /b l3’ f ( s − f )g’3p d3p mf
3
= (1 − mf ) ( s − f )g = /b ; (25) ∗∗
Armf = = (33)
L 2 2 (1 − mf )2
where mf is the porosity at minimum 'uidisation, s is
giving:
the solid density and /b is the buoyant weight of the bed.
Equating this to the Ergun equation gives an expression for ∗∗
Armf = 150Rei;∗mf + 1:75(Rei;∗mf )2 : (34)
the minimum 'uidisation velocity, Umf , normally presented
in dimensionless form as The dimensional relationship for the minimum 'uidisation
velocity is therefore
1:75 2 150(1 − mf )
3
Remf + 3
Remf − Ar = 0 (26) Umf = (; f ; l’ ; /b ) (35)
’p mf ’2p mf
rather than the form given by Glicksman et al. (1994). The
(Wen & Yu, 1966), where Remf =dp Umf f = is the particle last group represents the buoyancy of the bed, rather than
Reynolds number based on the minimum 'uidisation veloc- that of the particles per se.
ity, and Ar = f ( s − f )gd3 =2 is the Archimedes number. The Wen and Yu voidage functions may now be seen
Note that as with Ga, Ar indicates the ratio of viscous and to be functions of the normal and modi6ed Reynolds and
gravity forces, but it also includes the eKect of buoyancy.
Solution for Umf ¿ 0 gives

2 {−150(1 − mf ) + [150(1 − mf )]2 + 7 f mf 3

’3p d3p ( s − f )g}
Umf = : (27)
7 f ’p dp

As mf is itself a function of velocity, in 'uidisation studies it

Archimedes numbers and the unit weights
is usual to simplify Eq. (26) or (27) using the experimentally
determined “voidage functions” (Wen & Yu, 1966): (1 − mf ) (Rei;∗mf =Remf ) (Ui; mf =Umf )
3
= ∗∗ =Ar) = ; (36)
’2p mf (Armf (l’ =dp ) 2 (/b =/)
(1 − mf ) 1
3
≈ 11 and 3
≈ 14: (28) and
’2p mf ’p mf
1 (Rei;∗mf =Remf )2 (Ui; mf =Umf )2
Chen and Pei (1984) pointed out that these are invalid for 3
= ∗∗ = ; (37)
very 6ne particles. Substitution gives the so-called “Wen & ’p mf (Armf =Ar) (l’ =dp ) (/b =/)
Yu equation”: where / = ( s − f )g. The fact that these groups may be

Remf = −33:7 + 33:72 + 0:0408Ar: (29) approximated as constants for all but 6ne particles — an ex-
perimental rather than theoretical result — allows the mini-
Whilst correct, Eq. (26) is not presented in simple di- mum 'uidisation equation to be expressed in the form given
mensionless form. By analogy with the previous analysis, by Wen and Yu (1966) (Eq. (29)).
 R. K. Niven / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 527–534 533

6. Conclusions Di circular conduit diameter, m

f1 ; f2 Darcy–Weisbach friction factors, Fig. 3, dimen-
The Ergun equation for the pressure loss during 'ow sionless
through a packed bed is shown to be simply represented as a g gravitational acceleration, m s−2
function of a modi6ed interstitial Reynolds number, Rei∗ and Ga Galileo number =
2f gd3p =2 , dimensionless
a modi6ed Galileo number, Ga∗ , both based on a charac- Ga∗ modi6ed Galileo number based on based on l’ ,
teristic dimension of voids in the porous medium. The 6nal Eq. (14), dimensionless
result is an equation in simple dimensionless form, which :h piezometric head loss, m
more adequately re'ects fundamental physical laws than i hydraulic gradient, dimensionless
previously presented forms. The Wen and Yu equation for KL1 ; KL2 local loss coeEcients, Fig. 3, dimensionless
the minimum 'uidisation velocity is also reduced to a sim- l void length scale, spherical particles, Eq. (9), m
pler form, based on a modi6ed interstitial Reynolds number l’ void length scale, non-spherical particles, Eq.
at minimum 'uidisation, Rei;∗mf , and a modi6ed Archimedes (10), m
∗∗
number Armf , based on the void length scale and buoyant L bed height, m
weight at minimum 'uidisation. The Wen and Yu “voidage L1 ; L2 alternating conduit lengths, Fig. 3, m
functions” are shown to be simple functions of the normal Le actual 'ow path length, m
and modi6ed Reynolds and Archimedes numbers and the n alternations per unit length, Fig. 3, dimension-
unit weights. less
A theoretical derivation of the Ergun equation is also pre- :P piezometric pressure loss, Pa
sented, using a simpli6ed pore-conduit model comprising Pi wetted perimeter of conduit, m2
alternating lengths of diKerent diameter. It is shown that the Re
f dp U= = Reynolds number, dimensionless
U 2 term arises from local (inertial) losses during laminar Remf
f dp Umf = = particle Reynolds number based
'ow through the porous medium, rather than from 'uid tur- on Umf , dimensionless
bulence. Even after the onset of turbulence, such losses will Rei∗ modi6ed interstitial Reynolds number based on
dominate the overall pressure loss. Ui and l’ , Eq. (14), dimensionless
The analyses emphasise the importance of conducting di- Rei;∗mf modi6ed interstitial Reynolds number based on
mensional analysis using physical parameters — such as Ui; mf and l’ , Eq. (31), dimensionless
length scales and velocities — which re'ect the fundamen- RH hydraulic radius, m
tal physical processes of the problem at hand. Even with T tortuosity of 'ow, dimensionless
a correct dimensional analysis, interpretation of the physi- U super6cial 'uid velocity, m s−1
cal meaning is a matter for skilled judgment. Reliance on U1 ; U2 alternating velocities, Fig. 3, m s−1
generic dimensionless groups — established by tradition or Ui mean interstitial or conduit velocity, m s−1
borrowed from previous literature — can lead to serious Ui; mf mean interstitial velocity at minimum 'uidisa-
misunderstandings of the underlying physical processes of tion, m s−1
a given problem. Umf minimum 'uidisation velocity, m s−1
Ut mean tortuous velocity, m s−1
Vp volume of a single (non-spherical) particle, m3
Notation VT total volume of the bed, m3
Vv volume of voids, m3
a; b empirical parameters
Ai cross-sectional area of conduit, m2
Ap , Asp surface area of a single (non-spherical) particle, Greek letters
and of the equivalent-volume sphere, m2
Av surface area of voids, m2 *; +; , geometric parameters
Ar Archimedes number =
f (
s −
f )gd3p =2 , di- / unit weight of solids, kg m−2 s−2
mensionless /b unit weight of bed, kg m−2 s−2
∗
Armf modi6ed Archimedes number based on l’ at  porosity (voidage), dimensionless
U = Umf , Eq. (32), dimensionless mf porosity at minimum 'uidisation, dimension-
∗∗
Armf second modi6ed Archimedes number based on less
l’ and /b at U = Umf , Eq. (33), dimensionless ) proportion of narrow lengths, Fig. 3, dimen-
CL laminar 'ow correction factor for RH , dimen- sionless
sionless  dynamic 'uid viscosity, kg m−1 s−1
CP packing coeEcient, dimensionless
f 'uid density, kg m−3
dp ; dsp particle diameter, and spherical particle diame-
s solid density, kg m−3
ter, m ’p particle shape factor (sphericity), dimensionless
D1 ; D2 alternating conduit diameters, Fig. 3, m # packed bed fabric constant, dimensionless
534 R. K. Niven / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 527–534
Acknowledgements
The comments of the anonymous reviewers are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
Bear, J. (1972). Dynamics of 0uids in porous media. New York: Dover
publications.
Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E., & Lightfoot, E. N. (1960). Transport
phenomena. New York: Wiley.
Blick, E. F. (1966). Capillary-ori6ce model for high-speed 'ow through
porous media. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Process Design
and Development, 5(1), 90–94.
Buckingham, E. (1915). Model experiments and the forms of empirical
equations. Transactions of the ASME, 37, 263–296.
Burke, S. P., & Plummer, W. B. (1928). Gas 'ow through
packed columns. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 20(11),
1196–1200.
Chen, P., & Pei, D. C. T. (1984). Fluidization characteristics of
6ne particles. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 62,
464–468.
Cheng, N.-S., & Chiew, Y.-M. (1999). Incipient sediment motion
with upward seepage. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 37(5),
665–681.
Churchill, S. W., & Usagi, R. (1972). A general expression for the
correlation of rates of transfer and other phenomena. AIChE. Journal,
18(6), 1121–1128.
Churchill, S. W. (1974). The interpretation and use of rate data: The
rate concept. Washington DC: Scripta Publishing Co.
Churchill, S. W. (1988). Viscous 0ows — the practical use of theory.
Boston, MA: Butterworths.
Di Felice, R. (1994). Hydrodynamics of liquid 'uidisation. Chemical
Engineering Science, 50(8), 1213–1245.
Dullien, F. A. L. (1975). Single phase 'ow through porous media and
pore structure. Chemical Engineering Journal, 10, 1–34.
Ergun, S. (1952). Fluid 'ow through packed columns. Chemical
Engineering Progress, 48, 9–94.
View publication stats
Ergun, S., & Orning, A. A. (1949). Fluid 'ow through randomly packed
columns and 'uidized beds. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry,
41(8), 1179–1184.
Ganguly, U. P. (1987). Elutriation of solids from liquid-'uidized beds.
In: N. P. CheremisinoK (Ed.), Encyclopedia of 0uid mechanics: Vol.
6. Complex 0ow phenomena and modeling (pp. 351– 476). Houston,
TX: Gulf Publishing Co.
Glicksman, L. R. (1984). Scaling relationships for 'uidized beds.
Chemical Engineering Science, 39, 1373–1379.
Glicksman, L. R., Hyre, M. R., & Farrell, P. A. (1994). Dynamic similarity
in 'uidization. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 20(Suppl.),
331–386.
Graton, L. C., & Fraser, H. J. (1935). Systematic packing of spheres
— with particular relation to porosity and permeability. Journal of
Geology, 43(8), 785–909.
Hicks, R. E. (1970). Pressure drop in packed beds of spheres. Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 9(3), 500–502.
Kunii, D., & Levenspiel, O. (1991). Fluidization engineering (2nd ed.).
New York: Wiley.
Leva, M. (1959). Fluidization. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Macdonald, T. F., El-Sayer, M. S., Mow, K., & Dullien, F. A. L. (1979).
Flow through porous media — the Ergun equation revisited. Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 18, 199–208.
Pavlov, K. F., Romankov, P. G., & Noskov, A. A. (1979). Examples and
problems to the course of unit operations of chemical engineering.
Moscow: Mir Publishers (English Trans.).
Richardson, J. F. (1971). Incipient 'uidization and particulate systems.
In: J. F. Davidson, & D. Harrison (Eds.), Fluidization. (pp. 26 – 61.)
New York: Academic Press.
Scheidegger, A. E. (1960). The physics of 0ow through porous media
(2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Schulze, M. D., Carlson, D. A, & Cherkauer, D. S. (1999). Scale
dependency of hydraulic conductivity in heterogeneous media. Ground
Water, 37(6), 904–919.
Street, R. L., Watters, G. Z., & Vennard, J. K. (1996). Elementary 0uid
mechanics (7th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Tallmadge, J. A. (1970). Packed bed pressure drop — an extension to
higher Reynolds numbers. AIChE. Journal, 16(6), 1092–1093.
Wen, C. Y., & Yu, Y. H. (1966). Mechanics of 'uidization. Chemical
Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 62(62), 100–111.