281 views

Uploaded by kubacr

- Fluid Mechanics Viscosity Lab Report
- S0022112006004526a
- Mechanics of Fluids November Am Rr220301
- chapter2_2017.pptx
- newtons laws of motion review
- Drag Coeffecient Lab
- 104-660-2-PB pk
- lec16
- 978-1-4615-6373-0_1
- CFD Based Comparative Analysis of Different Ribs with Varying and Same Height in Rectangular Duct
- 50_SOLVED_PROBLEMS_TRANSPORT_PROCESSES_A.pdf
- electron_charge_and_mass.pdf
- Omland, Tor Henry PhD. Thesis
- Flow Shpere StreamFunc Slips
- The Mathematical Foundations of Mixing(Rob Sturman, Et Al)
- Chapter 1Open Channel Hydraulics
- Will Ert 2017
- The Limits of Fine Particle Flotation
- 1000094.9C
- Ahmed Body Flow

You are on page 1of 9

Jorge Gabitto

a,b

, Costas Tsouris

a,

a

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6181, USA

b

Chemical Engineering Department, Prairie View A & M University, P.O. Box 4229, Prairie View, TX 77446-4229, USA

Received 21 July 2006; received in revised form 13 June 2007; accepted 29 July 2007

Available online 6 August 2007

Abstract

Solid particles of cylindrical shape play a significant role in many separations processes. Explicit equations for the drag coefficient and the

terminal velocity of free-falling cylindrical particles have been developed in this work. The developed equations are based on available

experimental data for falling cylindrical particles in all flow regimes. The aspect ratio (i.e., length-over-diameter ratio) has been used to account for

the particle shape. Comparisons with correlations proposed by other researchers using different parameters to account for the geometry are

presented. Good agreement is found for small aspect ratios, and increasing differences appear when the aspect ratio increases. The aspect ratio of

cylindrical particles satisfactorily accounts for the geometrical influence on fluid flow of settling particles.

2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Drag coefficient; Drag force; Settling velocity; Terminal velocity; Cylindrical particles

1. Introduction

Many processes for the separation of particles of different

sizes and shapes depend upon variations in the behavior of the

particles when subjected to the action of a moving fluid. A

particle falling in an infinite fluid under the influence of gravity

will accelerate until the gravitational force is exactly balanced

by the resistance force that includes buoyancy and drag. The

constant velocity reached at that stage is called the terminal

velocity. The resistive drag force depends upon an experimen-

tally determined drag coefficient.

Drag coefficients and terminal velocities are important design

parameters in many separation processes. Many equations have

been developed and presented in the literature relating the drag

coefficient (C

D

) to the Reynolds number (Re) for particles of

spherical shape falling at their terminal velocities. These cor-

relations are of varying complexity and contain many arbitrary

constants. Many of these correlations are listed in Clift et al. [1],

Khan and Richardson [2], and Haider [3].

In the case of nonspherical particles, less information is

found in the literature. Heywood [4] developed an approximate

method for calculating the terminal velocity of a nonspherical

particle or for calculating its size from its terminal velocity. The

method was an adaptation of his method for spheres. Heywood

used an empirical factor (k) to account for deviations from the

spherical shape.

Haider and Levenspiel [5] presented a generalized C

D

-vs.-Re

correlation for nonspherical particles. They used the concept of

sphericity (), originally introduced by Wadell [6], to account

for the particle shape. The authors also reported a correlation to

calculate explicitly terminal velocities for particles of different

shapes. However, cylinders and needles are usually non-iso-

metric particles, therefore, other parameters maybe more ap-

propriate to account for particle shape. There are also several

ways to define the characteristic length to be used in the required

dimensionless numbers. Clift et al. [1] summarized the different

alternatives.

Predictions by Haider and Levenspiel [5] showed relatively

poor accuracy for particles with b0.67, therefore, some

authors [710] attempted to improve the accuracy of the Haider

and Levenspiel [5] correlations. Chien [7] and Hartman et al. [8]

used the sphericity as shape factor. A somewhat different ap-

proach was presented by Thompson and Clark [9]. These authors

defined a shape factor (), which is simply the ratio of the drag

coefficient for the non-spherical particles to that of a sphere, both

evaluated at Re=1000. The problem found in this approach rests

on the prediction of the shape factor. Thompson and Clark [9]

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Powder Technology 183 (2008) 314322

www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 865 241 3246; fax: +1 865 241 4829.

E-mail address: tsourisc@ornl.gov (C. Tsouris).

0032-5910/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2007.07.031

failed in their attempt to link the shape factor with the sphe-

ricity, the second harmonic, and the Corey shape factor. Ganser

[10] used the fact that every particle experiences a Stokes regime

where the drag is linearly related with the velocity and a Newton

regime where the drag is proportional to the square of the

velocity. Ganser [10] introduced two shape factors, K

1

and K

2

,

applicable in the Stokes and Newton regimes, respectively. The

two shape factors were found to be unique functions of the

sphericity [10]. The author also presented explicit correlations

for C

D

and Re number.

Chhabra et al. [11] collected experimental results of 19 inde-

pendent studies comprising several different particle shapes,

including cylinders. The resulting data base consisted of

1900 experimental points covering wide ranges of physical prop-

erties and kinematic conditions. The authors used the collected

data to compare different available correlations published in the

literature.

In the case of particles of cylindrical shape several authors

have presented correlations of experimental data [1218]. Clift

et al. [1] reviewed several of these correlations.

The main goal of this work is to develop a generalized

correlation for calculation of the terminal velocity of cylindrical

particles for a wide range of geometric and flow conditions. The

proposed correlation is compared with several general correla-

tions available in literature. The choice of an appropriate shape

factor for cylindrical particles is discussed.

2. Shape factors

Natural and man-made solid particles occur in almost any

imaginable shape from roughly spherical pollen and fly ash to

cylindrical asbestos fibers and irregular mineral particles.

Axisymmetric particles are among the most commonly found.

The group comprises bodies generated by rotating a closed curve

around an axis. Spheroidal and cylindrical particles of various

kinds are of particular interest because they correspond closely

to the shapes adopted by many drops and bubbles and to the

shapes of some solids. Axisymmetric particles are conveniently

described by the aspect ratio (E), defined as the ratio of the length

projected on the axis of symmetry to the maximum diameter

normal to the axis [1].

Most particles of practical interest are irregular in shape. A

variety of empirical factors have been proposed to describe

nonspherical particles and correlate their flow behavior. Em-

pirical description of the particle shape is provided by iden-

tifying two characteristic parameters fromthe following list [19]:

1. volume, V;

2. surface area, A;

3. projected area, A

p

; and

4. projected perimeter, P

p

.

The projected area and perimeter must be determined normal

to some specified axis. For axisymmetric bodies, the reference

direction is taken parallel or normal to the axis of symmetry. An

equivalent sphere is defined as the sphere with the same value

of one of the above parameters. The particle shape factor is

defined as the ratio of a characteristic parameter from the above

list to the corresponding value for the equivalent sphere [1].

Heywood [20] proposed a widely used empirical parameter

based on the projected profile of a particle. The volumetric

shape factor is defined as

k V=d

3

A

; 1

where d

A

=(4A

p

/ )

0.5

is the projected area diameter, which is

calculated as the diameter of a sphere with equal projected area

as that of the particle, and A

p

is the projected area of the particle.

The projected area of the particle is a difficult parameter to

determine because it depends upon the orientation of the particle.

A number of methods have been suggested to estimate d

A

without knowing A

p

[1].

Wadell [6] proposed that the degree of sphericity be defined

as

/ A

V

=A; 2

where A

V

is the surface of a sphere having the same volume as

the particle, and A is the actual surface area of the particle.

According to this definition, the sphericity of a true sphere is

equal to 1. The more the aspect ratio departs from unity, the

lower is the sphericity. In the case of irregular particles, it is

difficult to determine directly.

The sphericity () of the particles was used by Haider and

Levenspiel [5] to account for the particle shape of isometric

particles, which are particles with similar sizes for all significant

dimensions. The authors used experimental data from non-

spherical shapes such as cubes, octahedrons, tetrahedrons, other

nonspherical shapes, and free-falling thin disks. For isometri-

cally shaped particles, the sphericity is considered the best

single parameter for describing the shape of falling particles [5].

Wadell [21] also introduced the degree of circularity as

w P

A

=P

p

kd

A

=P

p

; 3

where P

A

is the perimeter of a sphere with equivalent projected

area, and P

p

is the projected perimeter of the particle. Unlike the

sphericity, can be determined from microscopic or photo-

graphic observation. The use of is only justified on empirical

grounds, but it has the potential advantage for allowing the

correlation of flow dependence on particle orientation.

In the case of axisymmetric particles with creeping flow

parallel to the axis of symmetry, Bowen and Masliyah [19]

found that the most useful shape parameter was

R A=A

p

: 4

Some authors [22,23] have used the so called Corey shape

factor, , defined as,

b c=ab

1=2

; 5

where aNbNc are the three principal axes of the particle. The

shortcomings of such shape factor have been discussed by Alger

315 J. Gabitto, C. Tsouris / Powder Technology 183 (2008) 314322

and Simons [23] who found it quite inadequate for their own

experimental measurements.

The use of different characteristic lengths in the definition of

dimensionless numbers is a common source of confusion. The

characteristic dimensions used by different authors are the

diameters of the same projected area sphere (d

A

), the same

volume sphere (d

V

), and, in the case of disks or cylinders, the

diameter of the disk/cylinder (d

c

). Drag coefficient values also

change depending upon the area used in the calculation of the

drag force. Typically, several different drag coefficients are

reported. A drag coefficient calculated using the projected area

of a sphere has been reported by Coulson and Richardson [24],

Clift et al. [1], and Isaacs and Thodos [18], among others. Tek

and Wilkes [25] used the area of the sphere of the same volume,

while Isaac and Thodos [18] reported the use of the total surface

area of the particle. All these drag coefficients are interchange-

able because the product of the drag coefficient times the area

used in the calculations (C

D

A) is a constant [18].

3. Drag coefficient for nonspherical particles

There are many equations in the literature relating the drag

coefficient to the Reynolds number for particles of spherical

shape falling at their terminal velocities. In the case of par-

ticles of non-spherical shapes, several authors have proposed

correlations that are supposed to apply to particles of several

different shapes ([5,7,8,10,22], among others). The generalized

C

D

-vs.-Re correlation presented by Haider and Levenspiel [5] is

an example of this universal approach. The drag coefficient is

calculated using the following equation:

C

D

24

Re

1 exp2:3288 6:4581/ 2:4486/

2

Re

0:09640:5565/

73:69Re exp5:0748/

Re 5:378 exp6:2122/

:

6

Eq. (6) fits experimental data for spheres, isometric solids,

and disks with a 5.8% root-mean-square (RMS) deviation.

Haider and Levenspiel [5] also presented a more complex

equation that fits the experimental data with a 3.1% RMS

error.

Ganser [10] used data from Haider and Levenspiel [5] and

Thompson and Clark [9] to present a new generalized cor-

relation. Ganser's analysis is based on the fact that every particle

experiences a Stokes regime where drag is linearly related to the

velocity and a Newton regime where drag is proportional to the

square of the velocity. He introduced two shape factors, K

1

and K

2

, applicable in the Stokes and Newton flow regimes,

respectively. Ganser [10] proposed the following drag correla-

tion:

C

D

24

ReK

1

K

2

1 0:1118ReK

1

K

2

0:65657

0:4305

1

3305:

ReK

1

K

2

; 7

where C

D

and Re are based on the equal volume sphere

diameter, and K

1

and K

2

are unique functions of the sphericity

for solids of spherical shape. In the case of solids of non-

spherical shape, K

1

and K

2

are functions of the sphericity and the

particle orientation.

Swamee and Ojha [22] also developed a correlation based on

the experimental data published by Schultz et al. [26]. The authors

employed the equal-volume sphere diameter and the Corey shape

factor (). The authors reported expressions for the drag co-

efficient and terminal velocity in the range 1bReb10,000 and

0.3bb1. The resulting errors are of the order of 20%.

Similarly Chien [7] re-analyzed the data available in the pe-

troleum engineering and processing literature and proposed the

following expression for drag:

C

D

30

Re

67:289exp5:03/; 8

where C

D

and Re are based on the equal-volume sphere diameter.

Eq. (8) was stated to be valid in the ranges 0.2bb1 and

Reb5000. The author did not provide much detail about the fluids

and particles used in the experiments making almost impossible to

work with the experimental data.

Hartman et al. [8] used the fact that the drag coefficient is a

function of particle shape alone in the Newton regime of settling.

The authors proposed that the effects of Re number and the

particle shape are simple additive, they wrote:

Log ReY; / log ReY; 1 PY; /; 9

where Y=C

D

/Re is independent of particle diameter. Note that

the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (9) relates to the

settling of a sphere while the effect of particle shape is contained

in the second term. Hartman et al. [8] reported an equation for

settling of spherical particles and another to calculate the second

termin Eq. (9). The authors stated the accuracy of their approach

to be better than 20%.

Chhabra et al. [11] collected a database of 1900 experimental

data embracing wide ranging particle shapes including needles,

cones, prisms, discs, rectangular parallelepipeds, and cubes. The

resulting data base encompassed wide ranges of physical and

kinematic conditions as: 0.09bb1 and the Re number ranging

from 0.01 to 510

5

. The authors used the data base to critically

evaluate the most widely used correlations available in the

literature. Specifically, Chhabra et al. [11] selected five methods

that predict drag coefficient and terminal velocity of settling

non-spherical particles for critical evaluation (5,7,8,10,22).

They concluded that the best method appeared to be that of

Ganser [10] which uses the equal volume sphere as characteristic

length and the sphericity as shape factor. The resulting mean

error of Ganser's method was found to be 16%, though the

maximum error against specific data sets was as large as 100%.

There are fewer studies of cylindrically shaped particles

falling with their main axis perpendicular to the flow direction.

Pettyjohn and Christiansen [12] studied settling of isometric

particles in the three flow regimes (Stokes, transition, and

Newton). The authors studied particles of cylindrical shape,

among others, with aspect ratios (E) ranging from 0.25 to 2.

However, cylinders of aspect ratio equal to 2 should not be

considered isometric.

316 J. Gabitto, C. Tsouris / Powder Technology 183 (2008) 314322

Heiss and Coull [13] studied the effect of orientation and

particle shape in the viscous (Stokes) region for particles of

cylindrical, rectangular parallelepiped, and spheroidal shapes.

They proposed a correlation of their experimental data. McKay

et al. [14] determined the coefficient of resistance for cylinders

of aspect ratios (L/d

c

) ranging from 0.25 to 5. They proposed a

relationship between the Reynolds and Galileo numbers in

the range 1000bReb16,000. Pruppacher et al. [15] presented a

chart showing a curve fitted to the many determinations of C

D

for steady cross flow past long cylinders in the Re range ap-

plicable to free motion. Clift et al. [1] approximated this curve

using the following expressions:

C

D

9:689 Re

0:78

1 0:147 Re

0:82

0:1 b Re V 5; 10

C

D

9:689 Re

0:78

1 0:227 Re

0:55

5 b Re V 40; 11

C

D

9:689 Re

0:78

1 0:0838 Re

0:82

40 b Re V 400: 12

The boundaries among these expressions correspond to

changes in flow pattern. Reynolds numbers were calculated

using the diameter of the cylinder (d

c

) as characteristic di-

mension, and C

D

is based on the area projected normal to the

axis.

Jayaweera and Cottis [16] presented similar curves to cal-

culate the drag coefficient using the Reynolds number for cyl-

inders of finite length based on experimental data reported by

Jayaweera and Mason [17]. The drag coefficient depends upon

the cylinder aspect ratio and the Reynolds number. There is some

discrepancy between the Pruppacher et al. [15] and Jayaweera

and Cottis [16] curves for a long cylinder. Clift et al. [1] rec-

ommended using the Pruppacher et al. [15] curve because it is

based on a more extensive data compilation.

Isaacs and Thodos [18] studied free settling of cylindrical

particles in the turbulent regime, ReN200. The authors used the

equal volume sphere as the characteristic dimension and found

that the drag coefficient is independent of the Re number. The

drag coefficient depends upon the particle/fluid density ratio

(

p

/

f

) and the aspect ratio (E), defined as L/ d

c

. In the case of

EN1, they reported the following correlation of their experi-

mental data:

C

D

0:99q

p

=q

f

0:12

E

0:08

200 b Re V 60000: 13

4. Terminal velocities for nonspherical particles

The terminal velocity of a particle in free settling can be

calculated from the force balance on the particle through the

determination of a drag coefficient as follows:

U

t

2m

p

gq

p

q

f

q

f

q

p

A

p

C

D

;

14

where U

t

is the terminal velocity, C

D

is the particle drag co-

efficient based on the projected area, m

p

is the particle mass,

p

is the particle density,

f

is the density of the surrounding fluid,

A

p

is the projected area of the particle in the direction of motion,

and g is the gravitational acceleration constant.

Determination of the terminal velocity of a given particle

from any of the available C

D

-vs.-Re expressions requires a

tedious trial and error procedure because the terminal velocity is

present in both variables. Multiplication of the drag coefficient

by Re

2

allows one to derive an explicit equation to calculate the

Reynolds number and, subsequently, the terminal velocity from

the Galileo (Ga) number [24].

Heywood [4] developed an approximate method for calculat-

ing the terminal velocity of nonspherical particles. The method is

an adaptation of the method for spherical particles, but the mean

projected diameter of the particle, d

A

, is defined as the diameter of

a circle having the same area as the particle when viewed from

above and lying in its most stable position. If d

A

is the mean

projected diameter, the mean projected volume is k d

A

3

, where k is

a constant whose value depends on the shape of the particle. For a

spherical particle, k is equal to / 6. The value of k for particles of

defined dimensions can be calculated from the definition of the

drag force for spherical and nonspherical particles given by

Coulson and Richardson [24]. In the case of cylindrical particles,

k can be calculated from the cylinder dimensions as

k k=4

2:5

d

c

=L

0:5

: 15

Heywood's [4] method calculates Reynolds numbers for

nonspherical particles using a Ga number given as

Ga 4 k d

3

A

q

f

g q

p

q

f

=kl

2

; 16

where is the fluid viscosity.

After the Ga number has been calculated, a Reynolds number

is calculated by using the chart provided by Coulson and

Richardson [24] or the equation proposed by Khan and Rich-

ardson [2] as

Re 2:347 Ga

0:018

1:52 Ga

0:016

13:3

: 17

Eq. (17) is valid for 10

1

b Ga b 10

7

and 10

2

b Re b10

4

.

The Reynolds number for a nonspherical particle is computed

by multiplying the value obtained from Eq. (17) by a correction

factor. This correction factor can be read fromtables provided by

Coulson and Richardson [24] or from the following equation:

log10 Factor A=1 explog10Ga B=C D:

18

The constants (A, B, C and D) that appear in Eq. (18) are

functions of Heywood's shape factor k and can be estimated

from the following correlations obtained from Heywood's data:

A 13:676 k

3

14:096 k

2

5:152 k 0:7884; 19:a

B 5:8564 k 1:9651; 19:b

C 0:806; 19:c

D 9:3884 k

3

9:1478 k

2

3:1295 k 0:3654: 19:d

317 J. Gabitto, C. Tsouris / Powder Technology 183 (2008) 314322

Eq. (18) was determined by correlating the experimental

values provided by Coulson and Richardson [24] and is valid

for 0.01bGab10

7

and 0.1bkb0.4. Fig. 1 shows the fitting of

Eq. (18) to Coulson and Richardson's data.

In conclusion, the procedure involves four steps. First,

the Galileo number is calculated from Eq. (16). Second, the

modified Reynolds number is obtained from Eq. (17). Third, a

correction factor is calculated from Eq. (18), and finally, the

Reynolds number for the nonspherical particle is calculated by

multiplying the modified Reynolds number times the correction

factor. The corresponding terminal velocity is calculated from

the Reynolds number definition. This method is only approx-

imate because it is assumed that the factor k completely defines

the shape of the particle, whereas there are many different

shapes of particles for which the k value is the same. This is not

a surprising result if one attempts to define the particle shape

using a single parameter.

Haider and Levenspiel [5] followed a similar approach

defining two dimensionless numbers that can be expressed as

functions of the drag coefficient and the Reynolds and Galileo

dimensionless numbers. They proposed an explicit correlation to

calculate terminal velocity from experimental data for isometric

particles. The authors used experimental data from cubes,

octahedrons, tetrahedrons, nonspherical shapes, and free-falling

thin disks. Haider and Levenspiel [5] used the sphericity factor

defined by Eq. (2) to account for the different shapes of the

particles. In this work, it is more convenient to express the

Haider and Levenspiel [5] correlation as a function of a modified

Galileo number (Ga) and the cylinder aspect ratio as

Re

t

21:5486

E

1=3

GaV

2:7322 f2:6733E

2=3

=0:5 Eg

E

1=6

GaV

1=2

_ _

1

;

20

where Re

t

is the Re number based on the terminal velocity, and

Ga is a modified Galileo number defined as

GaV C

D

Re

2

kd

3

c

q

f

gq

p

q

f

=2l

2

; 21

where C

D

is based on the projected area normal to the axial

direction. Eq. (20) can be used to calculate terminal velocities of

isometric particles with N0.67 and non-isometric disks with

b0.26. Haider and Levenspiel [5] presented data in the range

of 1=d

2000, where d

given by

d

d

V

gq

f

q

s

q

f

l

2

_ _

1=3

3EGaV

k

_ _

1=3

; 22

and d

V

is the diameter of the sphere that has the same volume as

the particle. The agreement between predictions from Eq. (20)

and experimental data is quite good for isometric particles, but it

is poorer for non-isometric disks.

Clift et al. [1] modified the procedure presented by Jayaweera

and Cottis [16] to allowexplicit calculation of terminal velocities

in the case of EN1 and Reb400. Reynolds numbers within this

range correspond to the Stokes and transitional flow regimes.

The Reynolds number in these flow regimes (Re

L

) can be

calculated using the following set of equations:

Log

10

Re

L

a

0

a

1

w a

2

w

2

a

3

w

3

; 23

where

w Log

10

GaV

1=3

; 24

a

0

0:81824 0:55689=E; 25

a

1

2:41227 1:54674=E 0:53872=E

2

; 26

a

2

0:2056 1:34714=E 0:65696=E

2

; 27

a

3

0:82343 0:40625a

0

0:5625a

1

0:75a

2

: 28

The procedure outlined in Eqs. (23)(28) allows for the

explicit calculation of the Reynolds numbers in the Stokes and

transitional flow regimes. The transitional flow regime extends

approximately up to Ga values equal to 200,000.

Isaacs and Thodos [18] calculated Reynolds number values

in the Newton flow regime (Re

T

) as a function of the ratio of

particle-to-water densities (

p

/

f

) and of the cylinder aspect

ratio. The authors reported that

Re

T

q

p

=q

w

0:06

E

0:04

GaV

0:5

GaVN 100; 000: 29

Eqs. (23) and (29) overlap in the range 110

5

bGab1.610

5

.

Eq. (23) provides terminal velocity values that are 20% higher

than those calculated from Eq. (25). Experimental data from

Adams [27] showed that the results from Eq. (29) are more

accurate than those from Eq. (23). However, Eq. (23) provides

good predictions for the Stokes and most of the transitional flow

regimes. Clift et al. [1] recommended using Eq. (23) for cal-

culating lowand intermediate Reynolds numbers and Eq. (29) for

calculating high Reynolds numbers.

5. Equation development

The use of Eqs. (23) and (29) to calculate Reynolds numbers

creates a discontinuity in the results calculated in the overlapping

Fig. 1. Comparison of correction factors calculated from Eq. (18) with the ones

reported by Coulson and Richardson [24].

318 J. Gabitto, C. Tsouris / Powder Technology 183 (2008) 314322

Ga number range. To avoid the use of a discontinuous function

in this region, we propose the following equation to calculate

Reynolds numbers for EN1 and all flow regimes:

Re Re

L

T

1

Re

T

T

2

; 30

where

T

1

1 for GaVb 2 10

3

; 31

T

1

Ga

3

; for 2 10

3

b GaVb 2 10

5

; 32

and

T

1

0 for GaVN 2 10

5

; 33

where

Ga

2 10

5

G a=2 10

5

2 10

3

; 34

and

T

2

1 T

1

: 35

Eq. (30) describes a smooth function in the range 0.01bGa b

10

8

. The procedure involves calculating the Reynolds numbers

using Eqs. (23) and (29) and the values of aspect ratio (E), the

density ratio (

p

/

f

), and the Ga number. Terminal velocity

values are calculated from the corresponding Reynolds values.

Fig. 2 shows a comparison of Eq. (30) with Eqs. (23) and

(29). In a loglog plot, Eq. (29) gives a straight line of slope 0.5.

Eq. (23) is represented by a curve of slopes higher than 0.5 for

Reb400 and slopes lower than 0.5 for higher Reynolds

numbers. Eq. (30) is depicted by a curve of higher slope than

0.5 for Reb400 and constant slope=0.5 for Re400. Fig. 3

depicts the variation of C

D

values according to Eqs. (23), (29),

and (30). A smooth transition is shown for C

D

curves in the

range of 40bReb400.

The exponent in Eq. (32) was determined using three cri-

teria. First, the calculated Reynolds number should be closer to

those predicted by Eq. (23) in the lower end of the interval.

Second, the calculated Reynolds number should be closer to

those predicted by Eq. (29) in the upper end of the interval.

Finally, there should be a smooth transition from one curve

to the other. The C

D

values were calculated from the corre-

sponding Reynolds number values using Eq. (21). Fig. 3 de-

picts the transition between the C

D

values calculated using

Eqs. (13), (21), (23), and (30).

The values of Ga dividing the flow regimes were selected to

approximately correspond to the Reynolds numbers used in Eq.

(8). Eq. (8) is the third equation used by Clift et al. [1] to derive

Eq. (23). This selection assumes that Eq. (23) works accurately

for Reb40 but increasingly deviates from the experimental

values up to Re=400. Eq. (30) is a function of Ga; therefore, it

is more convenient to use Ga values to divide the correlation

intervals than Reynolds numbers. After the Reynolds number

has been determined, the corresponding drag coefficient values

can be calculated from the values of the Reynolds and Ga

numbers (Eq. (21)).

6. Results and discussion

Results were computed using Eq. (30) for aspect ratios

varying from 1.5 to 100. Fig. 4 shows that Reynolds number

values increase as the aspect ratio increases in all the calculated

range. The increase is small in the Newton regime, Ga N210

5

,

and higher in the transitional and Stokes regimes, Ga b210

5

.

For E 10 there is only a small increase in the predicted Reyn-

olds values. This result occurs because the fluid flow differences

among cylinders of different aspect ratios are produced by the

degree of three-dimensional flow around the bases of the cy-

lindrical particles. The three-dimensional flow effects decrease

Fig. 2. Comparison of Reynolds numbers calculated using Eq. (30) with Clift

et al. [1] procedure and Isaac and Thodos [18] equation.

Fig. 3. Comparison of C

D

values calculated using Eq. (30) with Clift et al. [1]

procedure and Isaac and Thodos' correlation [18].

Fig. 4. Reynolds number vs. Galileo number calculated using Eq. (30) for

different aspect ratios (E).

319 J. Gabitto, C. Tsouris / Powder Technology 183 (2008) 314322

as the aspect ratio increases. The flow in an infinitely long

cylinder is practically two-dimensional. In a cylinder with aspect

ratio 10, the three-dimensional fluid-dynamic effects are already

small. The solid resembles an infinitely long cylinder. These

effects become even smaller as the aspect ratio increases further.

These fluid-dynamic effects are also more important at relatively

low than at high Reynolds numbers.

Eq. (30) is representative of the experimental data measured

by Jayaweera and Mason [17] and Isaac and Thodos [18],

therefore, the accuracy of this equation is approximately the one

reported by the original authors. Fig. 5 shows a comparison of

Eq. (30) with experimental data reported by Pettyjohn and

Christiansen [12], Heiss and Coull [13], and McKay et al. [14]

for aspect ratio equal to 2. The values predicted by Eq. (30) agree

well with the experimental results. It is significant that the

experimental data reported in literature [1214] cover all three

settling regimes.

Comparisons of Eq. (30) with several universal correlations

reported in the literature were also carried out. The procedure

followed was to work either with raw experimental data and

develop correlations similar to Eq. (30) or express an already

existing equation as a function of Ga and aspect ratio (E); for

example, Eq. (20) was derived from the original correlation

reported by Haider and Levenspiel [5].

The results calculated using the model presented in this work

(Eq. (30)) were compared with the Haider and Levenspiel [5]

correlation, Eq. (20); Heywood's procedure [4]; Chien's

equation [7]; and Ganser's equation [10]. The RMS deviation

between results for different aspect ratios calculated using the

model and the corresponding data of the aforementioned authors

are shown in Table 1. The RMS deviation was calculated using

the following formula:

RMS

n

i1

log10Re; model log10Re; eq: j

2

n

_

_

_

_

1=2

: 36

Table 1 shows the values of the different parameters used by

the different authors to account for the influence of geometrical

shape. Results presented in Table 1 indicating that RMS de-

viations remain relatively small for Eb10 but increase con-

tinuously for bigger E values. There is good agreement between

the predictions of Eq. (30) and those fromHaider and Levenspiel

[5], Heywood [4], and Ganser [10] for Eb10. Chien's equation

[7] does not predict accurately the experimental results for

cylinders even for lowaspect ratio. The discrepancy between the

predictions of Eq. (30) and those of all the authors increases as

the aspect ratio increases. The correlation by Haider and

Levenspiel [5] shows the best agreement with the predictions

of Eq. (30) (RMS3% for Eb10), while Chien's results show

the highest discrepancy. The results of Haider and Levenspiel

(Eq. (20)) agree remarkably well with the correlation developed

in this work for 0.67 (E 6), but show increased dis-

agreement for lower sphericities (higher aspect ratios).

Figs. 6 and 7 illustrate this behavior. Fig. 6 shows the

calculated results for the five correlations in the range

10

2

Ga 10

8

for E=2. In general, there is good agreement

Table 1

Root-mean-square percent deviations between this work and different models

E k RMS%

[This work Haider

and Levenspiel [5]]

RMS%

[This work

Heywood [4]]

RMS%

[This work

Chien [7]]

RMS%

[This work

Ganser [10]]

1.5 0.86 0.447 3.51 6.03 10.76 6.61

2 0.83 0.387 3.13 7.38 14.78 7.07

5 0.70 0.245 3.98 8.86 17.69 8.69

10 0.58 0.173 8.48 9.69 25.72 12.51

20 0.47 0.122 14.24 14.99 51.83 19.62

50 0.37 0.078 22.49 23.89 44.89

100 0.28 0.055 29.57 31.18 98.15

Fig. 6. Comparison of predicted Reynolds number values using different models

for E=2.

Fig. 5. Comparison of Eq. (30) with experimental data reported in literature for

aspect ratio=2.

320 J. Gabitto, C. Tsouris / Powder Technology 183 (2008) 314322

among the five sets of results. The best agreement is found

between Eqs. (30) and (20). Chien's [7] equation predicts

smaller values than the other correlations in all the Ga range.

The biggest discrepancy between Eq. (30) and the other cor-

relations is found at low Ga numbers. Eq. (30) predicts similar

results to Chien's equation, but smaller than all the others.

Similar results were found for all the E 6 results calculated in

this work.

Fig. 7 shows the calculated results for the five correlations in

the range 10

2

Ga 10

8

for E=10. Chien's equation [7]

predicts smaller Re values than the other correlations in all the

Ga range while the Haider and Levenspiel [5] correlation pre-

dicts the highest Reynolds values in all the Ga range, especially

at low Ga numbers. Ganser's equation predicts the highest Re

values for the transitional regime and the smallest ones for the

Newton regime.

The main difference between the model presented in this

work, the Haider and Levenspiel [5] correlation, Heywood's

procedure [4], Ganser's equation [10], and Chien's equation [7]

is how to account for the influence of the geometry on the

Reynolds number values. This work uses the aspect ratio as the

relevant geometric parameter, while Haider and Levenspiel [5],

Chien [7], and Ganser [10] use explicitly or implicitly the sphe-

ricity while Heywood [4] uses the empirical parameter k. Haider

and Levenspiel [5] and Chien [7] use directly the sphericity in

their correlations while Ganser [10] uses the sphericity to

calculate the K

1

and K

2

correction factors.

The differences among the different ways to compute Reyn-

olds numbers are related to the influence of these three pa-

rameters. The universal correlations agree relatively well with

the specific correlation presented in this work for cylinders with

small aspect ratio, but are not accurate for cylinders with large

aspect ratios.

Figs. 8, 9, and 10 depict the variation of computed Reynolds

numbers with the aspect ratio at three different Ga numbers.

Fig. 8 shows data in the Stokes regime, Ga =0.1. Eq. (30)

predicts increases in Re numbers for the whole aspect ratio

range. The values predicted by Eq. (30) are very similar to the

ones predicted by Ganser's equation [10]. Chien's equation [7]

predicts the smallest Reynolds numbers. Results from Haider

and Levenspiel [5] and Heywood's procedure [4] are the highest

for all E values.

Fig. 9 shows data calculated for Ga =100. The behavior in this

figure is similar to that in the Stokes flow regime. The values

predicted by Eq. (30) are similar to the ones predicted by Ganser's

equation [10]. Chien's equation [7] predicts the smallest Reynolds

numbers. Heywood's procedure [4] and Haider and Levenspiel [5]

results are the highest for all E values.

Fig. 10 shows a similar comparison for values in the turbulent

region, Ga =210

5

. Results from Heywood's procedure [4]

and Eq. (30) are the highest for all E values. All the other authors

predict lower Re values. Results from Haider and Levenspiel's

Fig. 8. Variation of Reynolds number with aspect ratio calculated using different

models in the Stokes flow regime (Ga =0.1).

Fig. 9. Variation of Reynolds number with aspect ratio calculated using different

models in the transitional flow regime (Ga =100).

Fig. 10. Variation of Reynolds number with aspect ratio calculated using

different models in the Newton flow regime (Ga =210

5

).

Fig. 7. Reynolds number values predicted using different models for E=10.

321 J. Gabitto, C. Tsouris / Powder Technology 183 (2008) 314322

work decrease for low Ga, show a minimum value at about

E=20, and for higher E values increase again. Re numbers

calculated using the other correlations increase monotonically in

the whole aspect ratio range.

7. Conclusions

A correlation has been presented to explicitly calculate

terminal velocities of cylindrical particles settling in a liquid.

The correlation predicts terminal velocities for free settling of

cylindrical particles in all flow-field regimes using a smooth,

continuous function. The aspect ratio of the cylinder accounts for

the shape of the particles. This curve fits well experimental data

for cylinders of different aspect ratios in all flow regimes.

Terminal velocities are more dependent on the aspect ratio in the

Stokes regime than in the Newton regime. The predicted solu-

tion approaches the infinitely long cylinder solution at aspect

ratios above 10.

The correlation presented here has been compared to the

general correlation presented by Haider and Levenspiel [5] for

isometric particles and to Heywood's procedure [4], Chien's

equation [7], and Ganser's equation [10] for non-spherical par-

ticles. To implement a comparison with Heywood's procedure, a

correlation was developed for the calculation of Reynolds cor-

rection factors. Good agreement was found with the Haider and

Levenspiel correlation [5], Ganser's equation [10] and Hey-

wood's procedure [4] for aspect ratios equal or lower than 5.

Increasing deviations were found for aspect ratios bigger than 5.

The geometrical parameter used in accounting for the par-

ticle shape is the main difference among the several ways of

calculating terminal velocities. The aspect ratio seems to be

the best way to estimate the geometrical effects for cylinders.

Sphericity and the empirical parameter k give acceptable re-

sults at small aspect ratios, but they increasingly deviate from

the experimental data as the aspect ratio increases. Drag co-

efficients can be calculated directly from the computed ter-

minal velocities.

Acknowledgments

Gratefully acknowledged is the support by the Ocean

Carbon Sequestration Program, Office of Biological and En-

vironmental Research, U.S. Department of Energy under Con-

tract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC. Also,

support from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for

Jorge Gabitto under the Historically Black Colleges and Uni-

versities Faculty Research Summer program is greatly ap-

preciated. The authors are thankful to Ms. P. P. Henson for

editing the manuscript.

References

[1] R. Clift, J.R. Grace, M.E. Weber, Bubbles, Drops and Particles, Chapter 6,

Academic Press, New York, 1978.

[2] A.R. Kahn, J.F. Richardson, The resistance to motion of a solid sphere in a

fluid, Chem. Eng. Commun. (1987) 62135.

[3] A.M. Haider, M.S. Project, Oregon State University, 1987.

[4] H. Heywood, Calculation of particle terminal velocities, J. Imp. Coll.

Chem. Eng. Soc. (1948) 140257.

[5] A. Haider, O. Levenspiel, Drag coefficients and terminal velocity of

spherical and nonspherical particles, Powder Technol. 58 (1989) 6370.

[6] H. Wadell, The coefficient of resistance as a function of Reynolds number

for solids of various shapes, J. Franklin Inst. 217 (1934) 459490.

[7] S.F. Chien, Settling velocity of irregularly shaped particles, SPE Drill.

Complet. 9 (1994) 281.

[8] M. Hartman, O. Trnka, K. Svoboda, Free settling of nonspherical particles,

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 33 (1994) 1979.

[9] T.L. Thompson, N.N. Clark, Aholistic approach to particle drag prediction,

Powder Technol. 6 (1991) 57.

[10] G.H. Ganser, A rational approach to drag prediction of spherical and

nonspherical particles, Powder Technol. 77 (1993) 143.

[11] R.P. Chhabra, L. Agarwal, N.K. Sinha, Drag on non-spherical particles: an

evaluation of available methods, Powder Technol. 101 (1999) 288.

[12] E.S. Pettyjohn, E.B. Christiansen, Effect of particle shape on free-settling

rates of isometric particles, Chem. Eng. Prog. 44 (1948) 157.

[13] J.F. Heiss, J. Coull, On the settling velocity of non-isometric particles in a

viscous medium, Chem. Eng. Prog. 48 (1952) 133.

[14] G. McKay, W.R. Murphy, W.R. Hillis, Settling characteristics of discs and

cylinders, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 66 (1988) 107.

[15] H.R. Pruppacher, B.P. Le Clair, A.E.J. Hamielec, Some relations between

drag and flow pattern of viscous flow past a sphere and a cylinder at low

and intermediate Reynolds numbers, J. Fluid Mech. 44 (1970) 781790.

[16] K.O.L. Jayaweera, R.E. Cottis, Fall velocities of plate-like and columnar

ice crystals, J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 95 (1969) 703709.

[17] K.O.L. Jayaweera, B.J. Mason, The behavior of freely falling cylinders and

cones in a viscous fluid, J. Fluid Mech. 22 (1965) 709720.

[18] J.L. Isaacs, G. Thodos, The free-settling of solid cylindrical particles in the

turbulent regime, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 45 (6) (1967) 150155.

[19] K.O.L. Bowen, J.H. Masliyah, Drag force on isolated axisymmetric

particles in stokes flow, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 45 (6) (1973) 150155.

[20] H. Heywood, Symp. interaction fluids and particles, Inst. Chem. Eng.,

London, 1962, pp. 18.

[21] H. Wadell, Sphericity and roundness of rock particles, J. Geol. 41 (1933)

310331.

[22] P.K. Swamee, C.P. Ojha, Drag coefficients and fall velocity of non-

spherical particles, J. Hydraul. Eng. 117 (1991) 660.

[23] G.R. Alger, D.B. Simmons, Fall velocity of irregular shaped particles,

J. Hydraul. Eng. Div., ASCE 94 (1968) 721.

[24] J.M. Coulson, J.F. Richardson, Chemical Engineering, vol. 2, Pergamon

Press, Oxford, 1977, Chapter 4.

[25] M.R. Tek, J.O. Wilkes, Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer, University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1974.

[26] E.F. Schultz, R.H. Wilde, M.L. Albertson, Influence of Shape on Fall

Velocity of Sedimentary Particles, Report for the Missouri River Div.,

Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, through Colorado Research Foundation,

Fort Collins CO, 1954.

[27] E.E., Adams, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, private communica-

tion to C. Tsouris, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, February 2006.

322 J. Gabitto, C. Tsouris / Powder Technology 183 (2008) 314322

- Fluid Mechanics Viscosity Lab ReportUploaded byJoanna Nicholson
- S0022112006004526aUploaded byNitin Khola
- Mechanics of Fluids November Am Rr220301Uploaded byNizam Institute of Engineering and Technology Library
- chapter2_2017.pptxUploaded byjck23216
- newtons laws of motion reviewUploaded byapi-236331206
- Drag Coeffecient LabUploaded byYassir Hindi
- 104-660-2-PB pkUploaded bymitev
- lec16Uploaded byTommyVercetti
- 978-1-4615-6373-0_1Uploaded byCARLOS
- CFD Based Comparative Analysis of Different Ribs with Varying and Same Height in Rectangular DuctUploaded byIJSTE
- 50_SOLVED_PROBLEMS_TRANSPORT_PROCESSES_A.pdfUploaded byHabib Maulana Yasminto
- electron_charge_and_mass.pdfUploaded byAbdul Basit Mughal
- Omland, Tor Henry PhD. ThesisUploaded byDannyMeza
- Flow Shpere StreamFunc SlipsUploaded byDong Fu
- The Mathematical Foundations of Mixing(Rob Sturman, Et Al)Uploaded byAna Mora
- Chapter 1Open Channel HydraulicsUploaded byTioktista Ajeng Rospratami
- Will Ert 2017Uploaded bylig
- The Limits of Fine Particle FlotationUploaded byrittils
- 1000094.9CUploaded bypavanakarra
- Ahmed Body FlowUploaded bySumit Dhall
- EXPT 2_DATAUploaded byangiejara
- Experiment No 1Uploaded byPiyush Chauhan
- Fluids of MechanicsUploaded byMirinhaeThiago Rosário
- 300AO - BucklingUploaded bybadmod
- Assignment-1_noc18_ch23_41.pdfUploaded bySamarjeet Kumar Singh
- gfgfUploaded byRohit
- Discussion Osborne LabUploaded byLiyanna Blanda
- Turbulent pipe flow of power-law fluidsUploaded byLeslie Quintana
- Using_CFDUploaded byEric Toro
- grid turbulenceUploaded byabhi71127112

- Tema_3._calculo_de_biomasa.pdfUploaded byMaria Del Carmen Paredes
- 1742-6596_75_1_012020Uploaded bykubacr
- Efectos Cromo hexavalenteUploaded bykubacr
- COOPEDOTA: “UN MODELO EMERGENTE SOSTENIBLE Y AMIGABLE CON EL AMBIENTE”Uploaded bykubacr
- Effect of Additives on Wood Pellet PhysicalUploaded bykubacr
- Cadenas a RodillosUploaded bykubacr
- Science 2012Uploaded byJulh Ballys
- SIMULAÇÃO DE ESCOAMENTOS TURBULENTOS EMUploaded bykubacr
- CFD Calculations of S809Uploaded bykubacr
- 10.1.1.14Uploaded bykubacr
- v12n1ghirardiUploaded bykubacr
- A Lattice-Boltzmann Simulation Study of the Drag Coefficient of Clusters of SpheresUploaded bykubacr
- sendi_2002bUploaded bykubacr

- 2004 Shining as IlluminatorsUploaded byjuancarloshg1969
- An Efficient Constant Multiplier ArchitectureBased on Vertical-Horizontal Binary CommonSub-expression Elimination Algorithm ForReconfigurable FIR Filter SynthesisUploaded bymtechprojects
- 8 Alcohols-2 and EthersUploaded byNova sounds - No copyright music
- Template Mixed MethodsUploaded byjinmenchie
- Star Wars is an Abomination to GodUploaded byServant of Christ
- 9256509Uploaded byjohanpenuela
- Usability ReportUploaded byLeah Catania
- 2722.0-EMRI_2492-V1.38.pdfUploaded bysssfsfs
- ECEsyllabus-jntuAUploaded bynivas_tpt
- Casarino TimeUploaded byLisa
- Mobile Money BrochureUploaded bywgetsubscribers
- rha pamphlet 2017-2018Uploaded byapi-326176215
- MyVMK Fantasmic!Uploaded byOrangeRyan Ryan Blagg
- Overview CO Master Data en DeUploaded byantares_38599
- sitaramaiahUploaded byArvind Kachroo
- 990092420_Heating and Plumbing and Ecoenergy Export Price List 2016 - GB01Uploaded byAdriano Teruel Sperate
- Distorted Visions of BuddhismUploaded bynapostata
- Sphinx High Performance Full Text Search for MySQL PresentationUploaded byyejr
- Nibco Fire Protection ValvesUploaded byJuan Martinez
- Project Manager or Facility Manager or Installation Manager or OUploaded byapi-78617014
- Mill Keyways on LatheUploaded byJim
- math chat smp 6- attend to precisionUploaded byapi-353255943
- Milosz escuela polaca.pdfUploaded byJoaquín Ribas
- 20-05 1 FN Quality Control & Assurance of Highway ProjectsUploaded byAravind B Patil
- Stress Causes&Effects&SolutionUploaded byVVNAGESWAR
- Guide-to-Transformer-Ratio-Testing.pdfUploaded byAshfaque Ahmed
- TechWatch_02-28-05Uploaded byCalvin Chan
- Merril DCNAUploaded bymegamarwa
- ACA Domain 1Uploaded bycrissieb
- annotated reference epse 590Uploaded byapi-323282000