# The Effect of Column Diameter and Bed Height

**on Minimum Fluidization Velocity
**

Akhil Rao and Jennifer S. Curtis

Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611

Bruno C. Hancock

Pﬁzer Global Research and Development, Groton, CT 06340

Carl Wassgren

School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907

DOI 10.1002/aic.12161

Published online January 20, 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

Experiments show that the minimum ﬂuidization velocity of particles increases as

the diameter of the ﬂuidization column is reduced, or if the height of the bed is

increased. These trends are shown to be due to the inﬂuence of the wall. A new, semi-

correlated model is proposed, which incorporates Janssen’s wall effects in the calcula-

tion of the minimum ﬂuidization velocity. The wall friction opposes not only the bed

weight but also the drag force acting on the particles during ﬂuidization. The

enhanced wall friction leads to an increase in the minimum ﬂuidization velocity. The

model predictions compare favorably to existing correlations and experimental data.

V VC

2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 56: 2304–2311, 2010

Keywords: minimum ﬂuidization velocity, ﬂuidized bed, column diameter, bed height,

ﬂuidization

Introduction

As ﬂuidized bed operations have become more popular in

industry, there has been a drive to study these beds in

greater detail at laboratory scales. Reducing the size of ﬂuid-

ized beds is gaining interest because of the better gas distri-

bution and operability at smaller scales. Micro ﬂuidized beds

(MFBs), which were ﬁrst proposed by Potic et al.,

1

have

good mixing and heat transfer capabilities, making them a

useful tool for studying various processes like drying, mix-

ing, or segregation,

2–6

as well as reaction kinetics.

7

For

example, MFBs are used to investigate ﬂuidization segrega-

tion in the pharmaceutical industry where active ingredients

are expensive and difﬁcult to obtain during the early stages

of development.

One parameter of particular interest when working with

ﬂuidized beds is the minimum ﬂuidization velocity. Many

correlations exist for calculating the minimum ﬂuidization

velocity.

8–21

The Wen and Yu

22

correlation is the most com-

monly used correlation for calculating the minimum ﬂuidiza-

tion velocity and is given as,

24:5

Re

#

_ _

2

þ1650

Re

#

_ _

À

Ar

#

3

_ _

¼ 0 (1)

where

Re ¼

q

g

ð#dÞU

mf

l

and (2)

Ar ¼

ð#dÞ

3

ðq

s

Àq

g

Þq

g

g

l

2

(3)

where Re is Reynolds number, Ar is the Archimedes number, W

is the sphericity, q

g

is gas density, d is particle diameter, U

mf

is

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to A. Rao at

akhil-rao@hotmail.com.

V VC

2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers

2304 AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9

the minimum fluidization velocity, l is gas dynamic viscosity,

q

s

is solid density, and g is the gravitational acceleration. None

of the correlations include the effect of the bed height or

diameter of the column, factors which are likely to be of

interest when MFBs are considered.

Two recent investigations, however, have examined the

inﬂuence of column diameter and bed height. Di Felice and

Gibilaro

23

described a method for predicting the pressure

drop across a particle bed, taking into account the effect of

column diameter. They considered the column to be com-

prised of two sections: an inner core, where the voidage

remains nearly constant, and an outer annular section, where

the voidage varies because of the presence of the wall. As

there is a difference in the voidage over the cross section of

the column, the velocity also varies across the column’s

cross section. This fact was used to develop a modiﬁed

Ergun’s equation, but this effect is only observed at very

small column diameter (D) to particle diameter (d) ratios,

i.e. D/d \15.

Delebarre

24

assumed that the ﬂuidizing gas density is a

function of the instantanious bed height, which in turn inﬂu-

ences the minimum ﬂuidizing velocity. This effect only

occurs if the column is very tall. For MFBs, where the col-

umns are short, this effect does not play much of a role.

As will be shown in the following section, experiments in

which the bed height and column diameter are varied show

that both parameters inﬂuence the bed’s minimum ﬂuidiza-

tion velocity. Neither Di Felice and Gibilaro’s

23

or Dele-

barre’s

24

models are able to capture the experimental results.

The remainder of this article describes the theory and experi-

ments in which a new mechanism is proposed for accounting

for bed height and column wall effects.

Experimental Setup

Two ﬂuidization segregation units (Jenike and Johanson,

Fluidization Material Sparing—Segregation Tester and Fluid-

ization Segregation Tester), were used in the experiments.

The ﬁrst tester has a column diameter of 1.6 cm and a height

of 9.5 cm, and the latter tester has a 2.4 cm diameter column

and an 18.5 cm height. Details concerning the operation of

the testers are given in Hedden et al.

25

and ASTM D-6941.

26

A schematic of the experimental set up is shown in Figure

1. The experiments were carried out in both columns. A sin-

tered metal plate with an average pore diameter of 40 lm

was used as a gas distributor for both the columns. The air

enters the column from the bottom, and its ﬂow rate is con-

trolled by a mass ﬂow controller. The pressure drop across

the entire setup was measured with a pressure transducer.

The instantaneous pressure drop and velocity data were

recorded on a computer.

Experiments were performed with glass and polystyrene

particles of different sizes, ranging from 100 to 550 lm.

These particles are in the Geldart B class. The particles were

carefully sieved, then dried in an oven for 12 h, and ﬁnally

subject to an antistatic bar (Takk industries) to eliminate

accumulated electrostatic charge. The particles were stored

in a desiccator so that cohesive forces due to moisture were

minimized. To further reduce electrostatic charges that de-

velop during ﬂuidization, a very small amount ($5 mg) of

antistatic powder (LarostatVR

HTS 905 S, manufactured by

BASF Corporation) was mixed with the particles, preceding

the experiments. Table 1 summarizes the experimental mate-

rials and their properties. The notation used to represent the

particle type is: G for glass and P for polystyrene, followed

by the average particle size in microns. The values for the

dynamic friction coefﬁcients of glass and polystyrene on

acrylic (the column wall material) are not readily available

and so values of friction coefﬁcients, for glass on glass and

polystyrene on polystyrene, obtained from Persson and

Tosatti

27

were used in the model calculations.

Before running an experiment, air was passed through the

empty column to get a background pressure drop due to the

column, diffuser, and the ﬁlter sections. Next, the particulate

material was weighed and loaded into the column from the

top. The height, H, to which the column was ﬁlled was

Figure 1. Schematic of the experimental set up.

Table 1. Experimental Materials and Properties

Material Diameter (lm) Density (kg/m

3

) Sphericity Coefﬁcient of Friction Notation

Glass 105–125 2500 0.9 0.4 G116

Glass 210–250 2500 0.9 0.4 G231

Glass 250–300 2500 0.9 0.4 G275

Glass 350–420 2500 0.9 0.4 G385

Glass 420–500 2500 0.9 0.4 G462

Glass 500–600 2500 0.9 0.4 G550

Polystyrene 250–300 1250 0.9 0.5 P275

Polystyrene 300–354 1250 0.9 0.5 P328

AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/aic 2305

recorded. The antistatic powder was mixed with the par-

ticles. The air velocity was slowly increased beyond the

point of ﬂuidization and then decreased to zero to get the

entire pressure drop proﬁle. The point of intersection of the

pressure drop line for the ﬁxed bed and the horizontal line

for the fully ﬂuidized bed is typically deﬁned as the mini-

mum ﬂuidization velocity. However, just before ﬂuidization,

the pressure drop across the bed overshoots the expected

value and then decreases to a constant value. Such behavior

is expected in columns with a small diameter. This over-

shoot was not observed during deﬂuidization (Figure 2).

Thus, the deﬂuidization pressure drop curve was used to

determine the point of ﬂuidization.

7,28

A minimal of three

cycles of ﬂuidization and deﬂuidization were carried out to

determine an average minimum ﬂuidization velocity. Each

experiment was repeated twice and the procedure was

repeated for all particle types. The maximum ﬂuctuation

observed in the value of U

mf

was $7% (for G550 in D ¼

1.6 cm and H ¼ 4.5 cm; U

mf

¼ 24.5 Æ 0.9 cm/s). The fairly

consistent value of U

mf

observed over the three cycles and

two repetitions show that the trends in U

mf

are not due to

poor gas distribution but rather due to the wall effects. Addi-

tionally, gas channeling and maldistribution were not

observed through the transparent columns during any of the

experiments.

Figures 3–6 present the experimental data for the mini-

mum ﬂuidization velocity (U

mf

) for the glass and polystyrene

particles, obtained from both the columns. In these ﬁgures,

the Reynolds number at U

mf

is plotted against the aspect ra-

tio of the bed (H/D). In addition to the experimental data,

the plots also include theoretical curves that will be

described in the following section. The error bars represent

the difference in the reading between two repetitions and not

amongst different cycles.

The experimental data (Figures 3–6) show that minimum

ﬂuidization velocity monotonically increases as the height of

the bed is increased. Further, wall effects on the minimum

ﬂuidization velocity are prominent when column diameter, D

¼ 1.6 cm (Figures 3 and 5). While, wall effects on minimum

ﬂuidization velocity are much less pronounced for column

diameter, D ¼ 2.4 cm (Figures 4 and 6). Although the model

proposed by Di Felice and Gibilaro

23

predicts this trend,

their model is limited to column to particle diameter ratios

of less than 15. In the experiments performed here, this ratio

Figure 2. Example of a pressure drop proﬁle (ﬂuidiza-

tion and deﬂuidization) using G231 particles

in the 1.6 cm diameter column.

The minimum ﬂuidization velocity is also shown in the

ﬁgure.

Figure 3. Reynolds number, Re, based on the minimum

ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect

ratio, H/D, for different glass particles in the

1.6 cm diameter column.

Figure 4. Reynolds number, Re, based on the minimum

ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect

ratio, H/D, for different glass particles in the

2.4 cm diameter column.

2306 DOI 10.1002/aic Published on behalf of the AIChE September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 AIChE Journal

can be as large as 150, well outside the range of validity in

Di Felice and Gibilaro’s model.

As the height of the bed increases, the minimum ﬂuidization

velocity also increases. Delebarre’s

24

model accounting for

changes in the ﬂuidizing gas density over the bed height predicts

at most a minimum ﬂuidization velocity increase of $0.5%,

whereas the observed minimum ﬂuidization velocity increase is

greater than 20% in certain cases for the experiments examined

here. Thus, this model does not predict the measured data.

Theory

As existing correlations do not include the inﬂuence of

column diameter or bed height, and because the recent mod-

els by Di Felice and Gibilaro

23

and Delebarre

24

do not pre-

dict the measured data, a new model is developed in this

section to account for the observed trends. As will be pre-

sented, a key component of the model is the stress between

the column wall and the bed.

The pressure drop, DP, for a ﬁxed bed of height, H, is

given by the semiempirical correlation of Ergun

16

as:

À

DP

H

¼ bU þaU

2

(4)

where

a ¼ 1:75

ð1À 2Þ

2

3

q

g

#d

_ _

and (5)

b ¼ 150

ð1À 2Þ

2

2

3

l

#

2

d

2

_ _

: (6)

The parameter U is the superﬁcial ﬂuid velocity and [ is

the bed voidage. The bed void fraction and ﬂuid density are

assumed to remain constant throughout the bed.

The pressure drop expression (Eq. 4) can be used to pre-

dict the minimum ﬂuidization velocity of a mono-sized ma-

terial by balancing the pressure force acting on the bed by

the effective bed weight.

1:75

ð1À 2Þ

2

3

_ _

Re

2

þ 150

ð1À 2Þ

2

2

3

_ _

Re ¼ ð1À 2ÞAr ½ (7)

Note that in the previous analysis, the stress between the

wall and the bed has not been included.

In the case of a ﬁxed bed with no interstitial ﬂuid, a frac-

tion of the bed weight is supported by the walls of the col-

umn. This phenomenon is known as Janssen’s wall effect.

To determine the wall force acting on the bed, consider a

thin horizontal slice of the particle bed of thickness dz (Fig-

ure 7). The vertical stress, r

v

, acting on the top face and the

weight of the element are balanced by the vertical stress act-

ing on the bottom face and the frictional forces applied by

the wall. The resulting differential equation is,

dr

v

dz

þc

1

r

v

¼ c

2

(8)

where

c

1

¼

4tanuk

D

and (9)

c

2

¼ ð1À 2Þq

s

g: (10)

The parameter u is the friction angle between the wall

and particles, and D is the column diameter. A horizontal

frictional stress, r

H

, arises from the vertical stress, r

v

, pro-

ducing a wall friction force of r

H

tanu.

29

It is assumed here

Figure 5. Reynolds number, Re, based on the minimum

ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect

ratio, H/D, for different polystyrene particles

in the 1.6 cm diameter column.

Figure 6. Reynolds number, Re, based on the minimum

ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect

ratio, H/D, for different polystyrene particles

in the 2.4 cm column.

AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/aic 2307

that this horizontal stress is directly proportional to the verti-

cal stress with k as the proportionality constant

29

:

r

H

¼ kr

v

: (11)

Solving Eq. 8 subject to the boundary condition that the

stress at the top of the bed is zero gives,

r

v

¼

c

2

c

1

ð1 Àe

Àc

1

z

Þ: (12)

The stress increases nearly linearly near the free surface,

but asymptotes to a constant value deeper into the bed.

These wall induced stresses will affect the minimum ﬂuid-

ization velocity in narrow columns.

Now consider the situation when ﬂuid is ﬂowing through

a ﬁxed bed of solids with the same coordinate system as

shown in Figure 7. At equilibrium, the force due to stress on

the top face of the element, F

T

, and the weight of the ele-

ment, F

W

, will be balanced by the force due to the stress on

the bottom face, F

B

, the wall friction, F

F

(Janssen’s effect),

the drag force on the solids, F

D

, and the buoyancy force,

F

Bu

. Thus, a force balance on the solids yields:

F

B

þF

F

þF

D

þF

Bu

¼ F

T

þF

W

(13)

which, when expanded is

p

4

D

2

ðr

v

þdr

v

Þ þðtanur

H

ÞpDdz þ

p

4

D

2

dp ¼

p

4

D

2

r

v

þðð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

ÞgÞ

p

4

D

2

dz: (14)

In the above expression, F

w

and F

Bu

have been com-

bined to give the last term on the right hand side of Eq.

14. Simplifying and rearranging the previous equation

gives,

dr

v

dz

þ

4tanur

H

D

¼ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg À

dp

dz

_ _

: (15)

If r

H

¼ kr

v

is assumed, as in Eq. 11,

dr

v

dz

þ

4tanukr

v

D

¼ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg À

dp

dz

_ _

(16)

which may be written as

dr

v

dz

þc

1

r

v

¼ c

2

(17)

where

c

1

¼

4tanuk

D

and (18)

c

2

¼ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg À

dp

dz

_ _

: (19)

In Eq. 19 there are two additional terms as compared with

Eq. 10: the drag term, represented by dp/dz, and the buoy-

ancy term.

The solution to Eq. 17 is equivalent to that of Eq. 8

r

v

¼

c

2

c

1

ð1 Àe

Àc

1

z

Þ (20)

but with different c

1

and c

2

.

Figure 8 presents Eq. 20 in graphical form. When the ve-

locity is zero (i.e., there is no gas ﬂowing through the col-

umn), then Eq. 20 simpliﬁes to Janssen’s equation. As the

velocity increases, the vertical contact stresses in the bed are

smaller because the drag on the particles supports a fraction

of the bed’s weight. At and above the point of ﬂuidization,

the stresses in the column are zero (as contact does not exist

Figure 7. Sketch showing the ﬂuidized bed coordinate

system.

Figure 8. A schematic showing how the vertical stress

in the bed varies with bed depth at different

ﬂuid velocity U

1

, U

2

, and U

3

.

2308 DOI 10.1002/aic Published on behalf of the AIChE September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 AIChE Journal

amongst the particles), and thus dr

v

/dz is also zero. This sit-

uation is only possible if c

2

¼ 0,

c

2

¼ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg À

dp

dz

_ _

¼ 0 (21)

In Eq. 21, if Ergun’s pressure drop expression is substi-

tuted (Eq. 4), the resultant expression will be the same as

Eq. 7, and the wall effects will not be included in the analy-

sis.

It is now assumed that the horizontal stress is not only a

function of the downward vertical stress but also a function

the upward drag forces caused by the gas ﬂowing through

the column. As Ergun’s pressure drop equation is used to

calculate the pressure drop, it is assumed that the structure

of these new terms on which the horizontal stress depends is

similar in form to those given by Ergun’s equation, but the

velocity terms are being scaled differently. These scales are

chosen as they give a favorable ﬁt to the experimental data.

r

H

¼ kr

v

Àk

1

H

l

D#d

_ _

U Àk

2

H

q

g

D

_ _

U

2

(22)

where k

1

and k

2

are constants.

Substituting Eq. 22 back into Eq. 15, yields:

dr

v

dz

þ

4tanukr

v

D

¼

4tanuk

2

ðq

g

Þð

H

D

Þ

D

_ _

U

2

þ

4tanuk

1

l

#d

_ _

ð

H

D

Þ

D

_ _

U þ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg

_ ¸

À

dp

dz

: (23)

Comparing Eq. 23 to Eq. 16, there are two additional

terms, proportional to U

2

and U, appearing on the right hand

side of Eq. 23. These terms have come about due to the hor-

izontal stress from the wall and the ﬂow of the ﬂuid through

the bed.

Substituting Ergun’s equation for pressure drop (Eq. 4)

into Eq. 23:

dr

v

dz

þ

4tanukr

v

D

¼

4tanuk

2

ðq

g

Þð

H

D

Þ

D

Àa

_ _

U

2

þ

4tanuk

2

l

#d

_ _

ð

H

D

Þ

D

Àb

_ _

U þ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg

_ ¸

: (24)

This equation is again of the form:

dr

v

dz

þc

1

r

v

¼ c

2

(25)

where:

c

1

¼

4tanuk

D

and (26)

Àc

2

¼ a À

4tanuk

2

ðq

g

Þð

H

D

Þ

D

_ _

U

2

þ b À

4tanuk

2

l

#d

_ _

ð

H

D

Þ

D

_ _

U

À ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg

_ ¸

: (27)

Setting c

2

¼ 0, the condition which is necessary for ﬂuid-

ization, and integrating over the length of the column:

a À

4tanuk

0

2

ðq

g

Þð

H

D

Þ

D

_ _

U

2

þ b À

4tanuk

0

1

l

#d

_ _

ð

H

D

Þ

D

_ _

U

À ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg

_ ¸

¼ 0 (28)

where k

0

1

and k

0

2

are lumped parameters which also include

integration coefficients. Substituting for a and b, which are

Ergun’s constants, yields;

1:75

ð1À 2Þ

2

3

À4tanuk

0

2

#d

D

_ _

H

D

_ _ _ _

q

g

U

2

#d

þ

_

150

ð1À 2Þ

2

2

3

À4tanuk

0

1

#d

D

_ _

H

D

_ _

_

lU

ð#dÞ

2

¼ ð1À 2Þðq

s

Àq

g

Þg

_ ¸

(29)

Multiplying throughout by the factor

q

g

ð#dÞ

3

l

2

to make the

equation dimensionless gives:

1:75

ð1À 2Þ

2

3

À4tanuk

0

2

#d

D

_ _

ð

H

D

Þ

_ _

Re

2

þ

_

150

ð1À 2Þ

2

2

3

À4tanuk

0

1

#d

D

_ _

H

D

_ _

_

Re ¼ ð1À 2ÞAr ½ (30)

Equation 30 is a quadratic equation that can be easily

solved for Re, with k

0

1

and k

0

2

remaining constant. Rewriting

Eq. 30 results in

a

00

2; u;

#d

D

_ _

;

H

D

_ _ _ _

Re

2

þb

00

2; u;

#d

D

_ _

;

H

D

_ _ _ _

Re

Àð1À 2ÞAr ¼ 0 (31)

where a

00

and b

00

are functions not only of [ and u but also of

(Wd/D) and (H/D). Hence, both the ratio of particle size to

column diameter (Wd/D) and the bed aspect ratio (H/D) play a

role in determining U

mf

.

Results and Discussion

The values of the universal constants k

0

1

and k

0

2

which give

the minimum error for the experimental data set presented in

this study were found out to be 610 and 30.1, respectively. In

Figures 3–6 and Figures 9 and 10, the values of the universal

constants k

0

1

and k

0

2

are kept at these values for all of the par-

ticle types, bed heights, and column diameters.

Figures 3–6 show that including the wall effects in the

prediction of U

mf

is successful in describing the effects of

height vs. column diameter (H/D) and the effect of particle

size to column diameter (d/D). The model only slightly

under-predicts the increase in U

mf

for very small sized par-

ticles (d \120 lm) in the column with D ¼ 1.6 cm, which

is likely due electrostatic cohesive and adhesive forces.

For a ﬁxed column diameter, as the H/D ratio increases,

U

mf

increases (Figures 3–6). Hence, as the column becomes

taller in comparison to its diameter, the wall effects are

more prominent, making it more difﬁcult to ﬂuidize the

AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/aic 2309

particles. Also, for a constant particle size, as d/D ratio

increases (due to changes in column diameter), U

mf

increases

(compare Figures 3 and 4 or Figures 5 and 6). As the col-

umn diameter decreases in comparison to the particle diame-

ter, the ratio of wall contact surface area to the bulk volume

increases, leading to a more signiﬁcant wall effect. This wall

effect reduces as the column increases in diameter relative to

the particles, and eventually becomes negligible as d/D

becomes very small. The effect of H/D and d/D on U

mf

are

very similar; in fact, the increase in U

mf

can be characterized

by the product of H/D and d/D (Eq. 30). Additionally, as

particle size increases and approaches the same order of

magnitude as the column diameter (d/D $ O(1)), then ﬂuid-

ization becomes difﬁcult. Above a certain d/D ratio, the par-

ticle mixture is impossible to ﬂuidize. This situation is pre-

dicted by the model, as the quadratic equation yields com-

plex roots. Similarly, Eq. 30 breaks down for large H/D

ratio predicting that at large H/D the gas may not ﬂuidize

the bed. For example, the model predicts that if glass par-

ticles of size 250 lm are ﬂuidized in a 760 lm diameter col-

umn (D/d $ 3) with H/D ¼ 1, then the particles will not ﬂu-

idize. Similarly, the model also predicts that if these par-

ticles are loaded into a 100 cm diameter column to a bed

height of about 13 m (H/D $ 13), the gas may not ﬂuidize

the bed.

Figure 9 compares the experimental data from Liu et al.

7

to the values predicted by the model. The data are plotted in

the same dimensional form as given in the orignal work of

Liu et al.

7

The model does not predict the increase in U

mf

for the smaller particles (d ¼ 96.4 lm), but it does give

good predictions for the larger particle sizes. In this case

also, the values of k

0

1

and k

0

2

are maintained at 610 and

30.1, respectively. For the largest particles (d ¼ 460 lm),

the prediction for the smallest diameter column is not that

good, but this may be due to experimental error, which is

not reported in Liu et al.

7

Also, the values of voidage were

not clearly stated; only values of bulk density were given. In

the model, the values of bulk density were kept constant

with respect to the column diameter, but it has been

observed that this value changes depending on the column

diameter,

28

particularly for small column diameters.

Figure 10 compares the model results to the average pre-

dictions of the Reynolds number at U

mf

based on a large

number of existing correlations.

8–22

The scatter bars on the

correlation line represent the deviation in minimum ﬂuidiza-

tion velocity predictions using the different correlations. The

experimental data obtained when the wall effects are mini-

mum (at H ¼ 2 cm and D ¼ 2.4 cm) are consistent with the

model prediction and with the averaged correlation curve.

On the other hand, only the new model is able to predict ex-

perimental data obtained when the wall effects are signiﬁ-

cant (at H ¼ 10 cm, D ¼ 1.6 cm), as the existing correla-

tions for U

mf

do not take wall effects into account.

Conclusions

Experiments show that wall effects inﬂuence the minimum

ﬂuidization velocity. Existing correlations fail to incorporate

these wall effects and, hence, there is a need for a new

model that can take these effects into consideration. The

model presented in this study attempts to include the wall

inﬂuence by introducing Janssen’s wall effect in the force

balance during ﬂuidization. It is assumed that the horizontal

stresses acting at the wall are not only a function of the local

vertical stress but also are a quadratic function of velocity.

These new terms have the same structure as that of the drag

term, i.e., the pressure drop, as given by the widely accepted

Ergun equation. This assumption leads to a modiﬁed Ergun’s

equation incorporating two universal constants. The new

model ﬁts experimental data reasonably well for the mini-

mum ﬂuidization velocity over a range of particles sizes, bed

heights, and column diameters. Some deﬁciencies in the

model predictions are noted for smaller particles (around

100 lm and smaller), but these deﬁciencies may be due to

Figure 10. Comparison of the curves from Eq. 30 to the

experimental data and existing correlations.

Figure 9. The minimum ﬂuidization velocity as a func-

tion of the column diameter using the experi-

mental data from Liu et al.

7

The curves are from Eq. 30.

2310 DOI 10.1002/aic Published on behalf of the AIChE September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 AIChE Journal

the signiﬁcance of cohesive and adhesive forces at this scale.

This new model should greatly facilitate scaling results from

MFBs to more traditional ﬂuid bed sizes.

Acknowledgments

Jim Prescott and colleagues at Jenike and Johanson are thanked for

their support of this research and for providing the segregation testing

equipment.

Notation

[ ¼ voidage

W ¼ sphericity

l ¼ viscosity

q

g

¼ density of gas

q

s

¼ density of solid

r

H

¼ stress in horizontal direction

r

v

¼ stress in vertical direction

u ¼ friction angle

Dp ¼ pressure drop

a, b ¼ Ergun constants

A ¼ cross-sectional area

a

0

,b

0

,c

0

¼ various constants of the quadratic

Ar ¼ Archimedes number

D ¼ column diameter

d ¼ particle diameter

F ¼ force

g ¼ Gravity

H ¼ height of ﬁxed bed

k, k

1

, k

2

, k

1

0

, k

2

0

,c

1

,c

2

¼ various constants

Re ¼ Reynolds number

U ¼ ﬂuid velocity

U

mf

¼ Minimum Fluidization velocity

z ¼ instantaneous height measured from the top of

the bed

Literature Cited

1. Potic B, Kerstn S, Ye M, Van der Hoef M, van Swaaij W. Fluidiza-

tion of hot compressed water in micro reactors. Chem Eng Sci.

2005;60:5982–5990.

2. Chiba S, Nienow A, Chiba T, Kobayashi H. Fluidized binary mix-

tures in which denser component may be ﬂotsam. Powder Technol.

1980;26:1–10.

3. Garcia F, Romero A, Villar J, Bello A. A study of segregation in a

gas solid ﬂuidized bed: particles of different density. Powder Tech-

nol. 1989;58:169–174.

4. Huilin L, Yurong D, Gidaspow D, Lidan Y, Yukun Q. Size segrega-

tion of binary mixture of solid in bubbling ﬂuidized bed. Powder

Technol. 2003;134:86–97.

5. Joseph G, Leboreiro J, Hrenya C, Stevens A. Experimental segrega-

tion proﬁles in bubbling gas ﬂuidized bed. AIChE J. 2007;53:2804–

2813.

6. Geldart D, Baeyens J, Pope D, Van De Wijer P. Segregation in beds of

large particles at high velocity. Powder Technol. 1981;30:195–205.

7. Liu X, Xu G, Gao S. Micro ﬂuidized beds: wall effects and oper-

ability. Chem Eng J. 2008;137:302–307.

8. Babu S, Shah B, Talwalker A. Fluidization correlation for coal gasi-

ﬁcation materials—minimum ﬂuidization velocity and ﬂuidized bed

expansion. AIChE Symp Ser. 1978;74:176–186.

9. Baerg A, Klassen J, Gishler P. Heat transfer in a ﬂuidized solid bed.

Can J Res Sect F. 1950;28:287.

10. Broadhurst T, Becker H. Onset of ﬂuidization and slugging in beds

of uniform particles. AIChE J. 1975;21:238–247.

11. Davies L, Richardson J. Gas interchange between bubbles and the

continuous phase in a ﬂuidized bed. Trans Inst Chem Eng.

1966;44:293–305.

12. Goroshko V, Rozenbaum R, Todes O. Hydrodynamics and Heat

Transfer in ﬂuidized beds. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1966.

13. Grewal N, Saxena S. Comparision of commonly used correlations

for minimum ﬂuidization velocityof small solid particles. Powder

Technol. 1980;26:229–234.

14. Johnson E. Institute of gas engineers report, Publication No. 318.

London, 1949.

15. Kumar P, Sen Gupta P. Prediction of minimum ﬂuidization velocity

for multicomponent mixtures (short communication). Indian J Tech-

nol. 1974;12:225.

16. Kunii D, Levenspiel O. Fluidization Engineering, 2nd ed. Newton:

Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991.

17. Leva M. Fluidization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

18. Miller C, Longwinuk A. Fluidization studies of solid particles. Ind

Eng Chem. 1951;43:1220–1226.

19. Pillai B, Raja Rao M. Pressure drop and minimum ﬂuidization

velocities of air-ﬂuidized bed. Indian J Technol. 1971;9:77.

20. Saxena S, Vogel G. The measurement of incipient ﬂuidization veloc-

ities in a bed of coarse dolomite at temperature and pressure. Trans

Inst Chem Eng. 1977;55:184–189.

21. van Heerdeen C, Nobel A, Krevelen v. Studies on ﬂuidization ll—

heat transfer. Chem Eng Sci. 1951;1:51–66.

22. Wen C, Yu Y. Mechanics of ﬂuidization. Chem Eng Prog Symp.

1966;62:100–111.

23. Di Felice R, Gibilaro L. Wall effects for the pressure drop in ﬁxed

beds. Chem Eng Sci. 2004;59:3037–3040.

24. Delebarre A. Does the minimum ﬂuidization exist? J Fluid Eng.

2002;124:595–600.

25. Hedden D, Brone D, Clement S, McCall M, Olsofsy A, Patel P, Pre-

scott J, Hancock B. Development of an improved ﬂuidization segre-

gation tester for use with pharmaceutical powders. Pharm Technol.

2006;30:54–64.

26. ASTM International. Standard practice for measuring ﬂuidization

segregation tendencies of powders, ASTM International, D6941–03,

2003.

27. Persson B, Tosatti E. Physics of Sliding Friction (NATO Science Se-

ries E). New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1966.

28. Loezos P, Costamagna P, Sundaresan S. The role of contact stresses

and wall friction on ﬂuidization. Chem Eng Sci. 2002;57:5123–5141.

29. Janssen HA. Versuche uber getreidedruck in silozellen. Z Ver

Deutsch Ing. 1895;39:1045–1049.

Manuscript received Aug. 14, 2009, and revision received Dec. 1, 2009.

AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. 56, No. 9 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/aic 2311

and ﬁnally subject to an antistatic bar (Takk industries) to eliminate accumulated electrostatic charge. however.4 cm diameter column and an 18. Neither Di Felice and Gibilaro’s23 or Delebarre’s24 models are able to capture the experimental results. to which the column was ﬁlled was
Figure 1.9 0. The experiments were carried out in both columns. diffuser. the particulate material was weighed and loaded into the column from the top. and g is the gravitational acceleration. have examined the inﬂuence of column diameter and bed height. The instantaneous pressure drop and velocity data were recorded on a computer.4 0. 9
Published on behalf of the AIChE
DOI 10. The remainder of this article describes the theory and experiments in which a new mechanism is proposed for accounting for bed height and column wall effects. 56.5 Notation G116 G231 G275 G385 G462 G550 P275 P328
AIChE Journal
September 2010 Vol. Experiments were performed with glass and polystyrene particles of different sizes.e. Schematic of the experimental set up. Table 1 summarizes the experimental materials and their properties. The notation used to represent the particle type is: G for glass and P for polystyrene. and an outer annular section. As will be shown in the following section. The height. taking into account the effect of column diameter. experiments in which the bed height and column diameter are varied show that both parameters inﬂuence the bed’s minimum ﬂuidiza-
Table 1.9 0. None of the correlations include the effect of the bed height or diameter of the column. qs is solid density. l is gas dynamic viscosity.4 0. Delebarre24 assumed that the ﬂuidizing gas density is a function of the instantanious bed height. a very small amount ($5 mg) of R antistatic powder (LarostatV HTS 905 S. No.9 0.5 cm height.5 cm.
the minimum fluidization velocity. but this effect is only observed at very small column diameter (D) to particle diameter (d) ratios.4 0. The air enters the column from the bottom. For MFBs. factors which are likely to be of interest when MFBs are considered. Two recent investigations. The ﬁrst tester has a column diameter of 1. followed by the average particle size in microns. H.25 and ASTM D-6941. Before running an experiment. obtained from Persson and Tosatti27 were used in the model calculations. Details concerning the operation of the testers are given in Hedden et al. The pressure drop across the entire setup was measured with a pressure transducer. The particles were carefully sieved. were used in the experiments. where the voidage varies because of the presence of the wall.5 0. air was passed through the empty column to get a background pressure drop due to the column. and its ﬂow rate is controlled by a mass ﬂow controller.4 0.9 Coefﬁcient of Friction 0.tion velocity. A sintered metal plate with an average pore diameter of 40 lm was used as a gas distributor for both the columns.9 0. The particles were stored in a desiccator so that cohesive forces due to moisture were minimized.
Experimental Setup
Two ﬂuidization segregation units (Jenike and Johanson.4 0. Next.6 cm and a height of 9. To further reduce electrostatic charges that develop during ﬂuidization. These particles are in the Geldart B class.9 0. where the voidage remains nearly constant. preceding the experiments. which in turn inﬂuences the minimum ﬂuidizing velocity.26 A schematic of the experimental set up is shown in Figure 1. ranging from 100 to 550 lm.9 0. The values for the dynamic friction coefﬁcients of glass and polystyrene on acrylic (the column wall material) are not readily available and so values of friction coefﬁcients. As there is a difference in the voidage over the cross section of the column.9 0. This fact was used to develop a modiﬁed Ergun’s equation. Di Felice and Gibilaro23 described a method for predicting the pressure drop across a particle bed. the velocity also varies across the column’s cross section. i. and the ﬁlter sections. This effect only occurs if the column is very tall. and the latter tester has a 2. Experimental Materials and Properties
Material Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Polystyrene Polystyrene Diameter (lm) 105–125 210–250 250–300 350–420 420–500 500–600 250–300 300–354 Density (kg/m3) 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 1250 1250 Sphericity 0. this effect does not play much of a role.4 0. then dried in an oven for 12 h. for glass on glass and polystyrene on polystyrene.1002/aic
2305
. manufactured by BASF Corporation) was mixed with the particles. where the columns are short. They considered the column to be comprised of two sections: an inner core. Fluidization Material Sparing—Segregation Tester and Fluidization Segregation Tester). D/d \ 15.

The minimum ﬂuidization velocity is also shown in the ﬁgure.
The experimental data (Figures 3–6) show that minimum ﬂuidization velocity monotonically increases as the height of the bed is increased.4 cm (Figures 4 and 6). based on the minimum ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect ratio. In the experiments performed here. September 2010 Vol. Re. Re. Umf ¼ 24. the Reynolds number at Umf is plotted against the aspect ratio of the bed (H/D). While. the deﬂuidization pressure drop curve was used to determine the point of ﬂuidization. No. The error bars represent the difference in the reading between two repetitions and not amongst different cycles.6 cm diameter column. Further. H/D. Example of a pressure drop proﬁle (ﬂuidization and deﬂuidization) using G231 particles in the 1. This overshoot was not observed during deﬂuidization (Figure 2). Reynolds number.9 cm/s). Figures 3–6 present the experimental data for the minimum ﬂuidization velocity (Umf) for the glass and polystyrene particles. The point of intersection of the pressure drop line for the ﬁxed bed and the horizontal line for the fully ﬂuidized bed is typically deﬁned as the minimum ﬂuidization velocity.5 Æ 0. based on the minimum ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect ratio. The air velocity was slowly increased beyond the point of ﬂuidization and then decreased to zero to get the entire pressure drop proﬁle. wall effects on minimum ﬂuidization velocity are much less pronounced for column diameter. this ratio
Figure 2.7.28 A minimal of three cycles of ﬂuidization and deﬂuidization were carried out to determine an average minimum ﬂuidization velocity. the pressure drop across the bed overshoots the expected value and then decreases to a constant value.5 cm. In these ﬁgures. wall effects on the minimum ﬂuidization velocity are prominent when column diameter. D ¼ 1. Such behavior is expected in columns with a small diameter. for different glass particles in the 2.recorded.6 cm diameter column. Thus. In addition to the experimental data. However. D ¼ 2. The maximum ﬂuctuation observed in the value of Umf was $7% (for G550 in D ¼ 1. their model is limited to column to particle diameter ratios of less than 15. Although the model proposed by Di Felice and Gibilaro23 predicts this trend. The antistatic powder was mixed with the particles. 9 AIChE Journal
2306
DOI 10. the plots also include theoretical curves that will be described in the following section.4 cm diameter column. H/D.1002/aic
Published on behalf of the AIChE
.6 cm (Figures 3 and 5). The fairly consistent value of Umf observed over the three cycles and two repetitions show that the trends in Umf are not due to poor gas distribution but rather due to the wall effects. Reynolds number. Additionally. for different glass particles in the 1. gas channeling and maldistribution were not observed through the transparent columns during any of the experiments.
Figure 4. 56.
Figure 3. obtained from both the columns. Each experiment was repeated twice and the procedure was repeated for all particle types. just before ﬂuidization.6 cm and H ¼ 4.

is given by the semiempirical correlation of Ergun16 as: À where a ¼ 1:75 ð1À 2Þ qg #d 23 and (5) (6)
Figure 6. for a ﬁxed bed of height. Re. rv. The bed void fraction and ﬂuid density are assumed to remain constant throughout the bed.
Note that in the previous analysis. acting on the top face and the weight of the element are balanced by the vertical stress acting on the bottom face and the frictional forces applied by the wall. In the case of a ﬁxed bed with no interstitial ﬂuid.
c2 ¼ ð1À 2Þqs g:
The parameter u is the friction angle between the wall and particles. and D is the column diameter. 9
Published on behalf of the AIChE
. To determine the wall force acting on the bed. The vertical stress. this model does not predict the measured data. rH. Delebarre’s24 model accounting for changes in the ﬂuidizing gas density over the bed height predicts at most a minimum ﬂuidization velocity increase of $0.The pressure drop expression (Eq. Reynolds number.5%. based on the minimum ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect ratio. whereas the observed minimum ﬂuidization velocity increase is greater than 20% in certain cases for the experiments examined here. Thus. the minimum ﬂuidization velocity also increases. a fraction of the bed weight is supported by the walls of the column. " # ! ð1À 2Þ ð1À 2Þ2 2 Re þ 150 Re ¼ ½ð1À 2ÞAr 1:75 23 23 (7)
Figure 5.6 cm diameter column. the stress between the wall and the bed has not been included. As will be presented. The resulting differential equation is. H/D. for different polystyrene particles in the 1.
AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. The pressure drop.1002/aic 2307
DP ¼ bU þ aU2 H
(4)
b ¼ 150
ð1À 2Þ2 l : 23 #2 d 2
The parameter U is the superﬁcial ﬂuid velocity and [ is the bed voidage. a key component of the model is the stress between the column wall and the bed. Re. arises from the vertical stress. No. A horizontal frictional stress. H/D. drv þ c 1 r v ¼ c2 dz where c1 ¼ 4tanuk and D (9) (10) (8)
can be as large as 150. well outside the range of validity in Di Felice and Gibilaro’s model. for different polystyrene particles in the 2.4 cm column.29 It is assumed here
Theory
As existing correlations do not include the inﬂuence of column diameter or bed height. a new model is developed in this section to account for the observed trends. and because the recent models by Di Felice and Gibilaro23 and Delebarre24 do not predict the measured data. DP. producing a wall friction force of rHtanu. DOI 10. Reynolds number. H. This phenomenon is known as Janssen’s wall effect. As the height of the bed increases. consider a thin horizontal slice of the particle bed of thickness dz (Figure 7). rv. based on the minimum ﬂuidization velocity as a function of aspect ratio. 56. 4) can be used to predict the minimum ﬂuidization velocity of a mono-sized material by balancing the pressure force acting on the bed by the effective bed weight.

When the velocity is zero (i. the drag force on the solids. Sketch showing the ﬂuidized bed coordinate system. FF (Janssen’s effect). and the buoyancy term. 17 is equivalent to that of Eq. 10: the drag term. FW. Now consider the situation when ﬂuid is ﬂowing through a ﬁxed bed of solids with the same coordinate system as shown in Figure 7. 11. will be balanced by the force due to the stress on the bottom face. A schematic showing how the vertical stress in the bed varies with bed depth at different ﬂuid velocity U1. 14.
(18) (19)
c2 ¼ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg À
that this horizontal stress is directly proportional to the vertical stress with k as the proportionality constant29: rH ¼ krv : (11)
In Eq. and U3. the stresses in the column are zero (as contact does not exist
(14)
In the above expression.. FD. a force balance on the solids yields: FB þ FF þ FD þ FBu ¼ FT þ FW which. 8 subject to the boundary condition that the stress at the top of the bed is zero gives. as in Eq. 20 in graphical form. Thus. the force due to stress on the top face of the element. rv ¼ c2 ð1 À eÀc1 z Þ: c1 (12)
The stress increases nearly linearly near the free surface. when expanded is p 2 p p D ðrv þ drv Þ þ ðtanurH ÞpDdz þ D2 dp ¼ D2 rv 4 4 4 p þ ðð1À 2Þðqs À qg ÞgÞ D2 dz: 4 (13)
but with different c1 and c2. 9 AIChE Journal
Published on behalf of the AIChE
. there is no gas ﬂowing through the column). At and above the point of ﬂuidization. These wall induced stresses will affect the minimum ﬂuidization velocity in narrow columns. Simplifying and rearranging the previous equation gives. Figure 8 presents Eq. FB. The solution to Eq. U2. the vertical contact stresses in the bed are smaller because the drag on the particles supports a fraction of the bed’s weight. 8 rv ¼ c2 ð1 À eÀc1 z Þ c1 (20)
Solving Eq. represented by dp/dz.1002/aic
Figure 8. FT. 56. September 2010 Vol.e. drv 4tanukrv dp þ ¼ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg À dz dz D which may be written as drv þ c 1 r v ¼ c2 dz where c1 ¼ 4tanuk D and ! dp : dz !
(15)
(16)
(17)
Figure 7. and the buoyancy force. No. 20 simpliﬁes to Janssen’s equation.! drv 4tanurH dp þ ¼ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg À : dz D dz If rH ¼ krv is assumed. the wall friction. and the weight of the element. but asymptotes to a constant value deeper into the bed. FBu. As the velocity increases. Fw and FBu have been combined to give the last term on the right hand side of Eq. then Eq.
2308 DOI 10. At equilibrium. 19 there are two additional terms as compared with Eq.

it is assumed that the structure of these new terms on which the horizontal stress depends is similar in form to those given by Ergun’s equation. there are two additional terms. 9
Published on behalf of the AIChE
. yields. respectively. if Ergun’s pressure drop expression is substituted (Eq. the resultant expression will be the same as Eq. ! dp ¼0 (21) c2 ¼ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg À dz In Eq. the wall effects are more prominent. appearing on the right hand side of Eq. Re D D D D
00
Comparing Eq. Hence. u. 56. as the H/D ratio increases. which are Ergun’s constants. 16. making it more difﬁcult to ﬂuidize the
DOI 10.6 cm. Hence. as the column becomes taller in comparison to its diameter. proportional to U2 and U. These scales are chosen as they give a favorable ﬁt to the experimental data. 23. 15. and the wall effects will not be included in the analysis. Substituting Eq. Rewriting Eq. q l g rH ¼ krv À k1 H U2 U À k2 H D D#d where k1 and k2 are constants. the condition which is necessary for ﬂuidization. 21. Re þ b 2. In Figures 3–6 and Figures 9 and 10. yields: ! 4tanuk2 ðqg ÞðHÞ 2 drv 4tanukrv D U þ ¼ D dz D ÀlÁ H ! Â Ã dp 4tanuk1 #d ðDÞ þ U þ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg À : dz D (22)
Setting c2 ¼ 0. with k0 1 and k0 2 remaining constant. and column diameters. and thus drv/dz is also zero. For a ﬁxed column diameter. but the velocity terms are being scaled differently. The model only slightly under-predicts the increase in Umf for very small sized particles (d \ 120 lm) in the column with D ¼ 1. bed heights.amongst the particles).1. Umf increases (Figures 3–6). As Ergun’s pressure drop equation is used to calculate the pressure drop. 23 to Eq.
(24)
Results and Discussion
The values of the universal constants k0 1 and k0 2 which give the minimum error for the experimental data set presented in this study were found out to be 610 and 30. Substituting Ergun’s equation for pressure drop (Eq. 22 back into Eq. 7. This situation is only possible if c2 ¼ 0. 23: ! 4tanuk2 ðqg ÞðHÞ drv 4tanukrv D À a U2 þ ¼ D dz D ÀlÁ ! Â Ã 4tanuk2 #d ðHÞ D þ À b U þ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg : D This equation is again of the form: drv þ c1 r v ¼ c2 dz where: c1 ¼ 4tanuk D and (26)
À ð1À 2ÞAr ¼ 0
(31)
where a00 and b00 are functions not only of [ and u but also of (Wd/D) and (H/D). . the values of the universal constants k0 1 and k0 2 are kept at these values for all of the particle types. both the ratio of particle size to column diameter (Wd/D) and the bed aspect ratio (H/D) play a role in determining Umf. Substituting for a and b. 4). column diameter (H/D) and the effect of particle size to column diameter (d/D). No.1002/aic 2309
(25)
ÀlÁ ! ! 4tanuk2 ðqg ÞðHÞ 2 4tanuk2 #d ðHÞ D D Àc2 ¼ a À U þ bÀ U D D Â Ã À ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg : (27)
AIChE Journal September 2010 Vol. 30 results in #d H #d H 2 00 a 2. and integrating over the length of the column: À Á ! ! 0 0 l 4tanuk2 ðqg ÞðHÞ 2 4tanuk1 #d ðHÞ D D U þ bÀ U aÀ D D Â Ã À ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg ¼ 0
(28)
where k0 1 and k0 2 are lumped parameters which also include integration coefficients. It is now assumed that the horizontal stress is not only a function of the downward vertical stress but also a function the upward drag forces caused by the gas ﬂowing through the column. u. These terms have come about due to the horizontal stress from the wall and the ﬂow of the ﬂuid through the bed. 4) into Eq. which is likely due electrostatic cohesive and adhesive forces. . Figures 3–6 show that including the wall effects in the prediction of Umf is successful in describing the effects of height vs. " ! ð1À 2Þ H qg U 2 ð1À 2Þ2 0 #d 1:75 þ 150 À 4tanuk2 23 D D #d 23 # Â Ã H lU 0 #d À 4tanuk1 ¼ ð1À 2Þðqs À qg Þg (29) D D ð#dÞ2 Multiplying throughout by the factor equation dimensionless gives:
qg ð#dÞ3 l2
to make the
" ! ð1À 2Þ H ð1À 2Þ2 0 #d 2 1:75 ð Þ Re þ 150 À 4tanuk2 23 D D 23 # H 0 #d Re ¼ ½ð1À 2ÞAr (30) À 4tanuk1 D D (23) Equation 30 is a quadratic equation that can be easily solved for Re.

Similarly. For the largest particles (d ¼ 460 lm). The experimental data obtained when the wall effects are minimum (at H ¼ 2 cm and D ¼ 2. only values of bulk density were given.4 cm) are consistent with the model prediction and with the averaged correlation curve. for a constant particle size.6 cm). In the model. On the other hand. the values of bulk density were kept constant with respect to the column diameter. This situation is predicted by the model. It is assumed that the horizontal stresses acting at the wall are not only a function of the local vertical stress but also are a quadratic function of velocity. as the existing correlations for Umf do not take wall effects into account. the gas may not ﬂuidize the bed. The new model ﬁts experimental data reasonably well for the minimum ﬂuidization velocity over a range of particles sizes. As the column diameter decreases in comparison to the particle diameter. 30. Comparison of the curves from Eq.28 particularly for small column diameters. In this case also. Some deﬁciencies in the model predictions are noted for smaller particles (around 100 lm and smaller). 30 to the experimental data and existing correlations.7 to the values predicted by the model. Figure 9 compares the experimental data from Liu et al. and eventually becomes negligible as d/D becomes very small. which is not reported in Liu et al.
2310
DOI 10. only the new model is able to predict experimental data obtained when the wall effects are signiﬁcant (at H ¼ 10 cm. the particle mixture is impossible to ﬂuidize. Similarly. The data are plotted in the same dimensional form as given in the orignal work of Liu et al.e.particles. the values of k0 1 and k0 2 are maintained at 610 and 30. 9 AIChE Journal
Figure 9. This wall effect reduces as the column increases in diameter relative to the particles. there is a need for a new model that can take these effects into consideration. but it does give good predictions for the larger particle sizes. The effect of H/D and d/D on Umf are very similar.8–22 The scatter bars on the correlation line represent the deviation in minimum ﬂuidization velocity predictions using the different correlations. Also.1. Eq. the increase in Umf can be characterized by the product of H/D and d/D (Eq. but these deﬁciencies may be due to
September 2010 Vol. the prediction for the smallest diameter column is not that good. then the particles will not ﬂuidize. but this may be due to experimental error.7
The curves are from Eq. No. This assumption leads to a modiﬁed Ergun’s equation incorporating two universal constants. 30). respectively. Additionally. leading to a more signiﬁcant wall effect. the model also predicts that if these particles are loaded into a 100 cm diameter column to a bed height of about 13 m (H/D $ 13).
Conclusions
Experiments show that wall effects inﬂuence the minimum ﬂuidization velocity. Umf increases (compare Figures 3 and 4 or Figures 5 and 6). as the quadratic equation yields complex roots.1002/aic
Published on behalf of the AIChE
. hence. Existing correlations fail to incorporate these wall effects and. the values of voidage were
Figure 10. the ratio of wall contact surface area to the bulk volume increases. 56. Figure 10 compares the model results to the average predictions of the Reynolds number at Umf based on a large number of existing correlations. bed heights. 30 breaks down for large H/D ratio predicting that at large H/D the gas may not ﬂuidize the bed. For example. i. as d/D ratio increases (due to changes in column diameter).7 The model does not predict the increase in Umf for the smaller particles (d ¼ 96. as given by the widely accepted Ergun equation. as particle size increases and approaches the same order of magnitude as the column diameter (d/D $ O(1)).7 Also. the model predicts that if glass particles of size 250 lm are ﬂuidized in a 760 lm diameter column (D/d $ 3) with H/D ¼ 1. These new terms have the same structure as that of the drag term. Above a certain d/D ratio. but it has been observed that this value changes depending on the column diameter. the pressure drop. D ¼ 1.
not clearly stated. The minimum ﬂuidization velocity as a function of the column diameter using the experimental data from Liu et al.. in fact. then ﬂuidization becomes difﬁcult. The model presented in this study attempts to include the wall inﬂuence by introducing Janssen’s wall effect in the force balance during ﬂuidization.4 lm). and column diameters.

Baerg A. 23.124:595–600. 15.60:5982–5990. Fluidization Engineering. Babu S.b0 . Chiba T. 11. 20. b A a0 . AIChE J. Kunii D. Saxena S. Z Ver Deutsch Ing. London. 27. Todes O. Fluidization studies of solid particles. Studies on ﬂuidization ll— heat transfer. This new model should greatly facilitate scaling results from MFBs to more traditional ﬂuid bed sizes. 2002. Gibilaro L. Powder Technol.12:225. Fluidization correlation for coal gasiﬁcation materials—minimum ﬂuidization velocity and ﬂuidized bed expansion. Delebarre A. 26. Yu Y. Janssen HA. Can J Res Sect F. Ye M. 29. Miller C.1002/aic
2311
. Kumar P. 1895. Press. Huilin L. Loezos P.c0 Ar D d F g H k. Clement S. Persson B. ASTM International. 1951. Levenspiel O. Baeyens J.43:1220–1226. Van der Hoef M. Leboreiro J. Stevens A.the signiﬁcance of cohesive and adhesive forces at this scale. Prescott J. 21. The measurement of incipient ﬂuidization velocities in a bed of coarse dolomite at temperature and pressure. 4. 2. and revision received Dec. Raja Rao M. Hedden D. Nienow A. 2006. 2009. 5. Newton: Butterworth-Heinemann. 1980. Van De Wijer P. 1949. Chem Eng Prog Symp. 2002. Villar J. 1974. 1. Fluidization of hot compressed water in micro reactors. 1951. Hancock B. 2005. A study of segregation in a gas solid ﬂuidized bed: particles of different density. Liu X. Fluidization. Prediction of minimum ﬂuidization velocity for multicomponent mixtures (short communication). 8. Davies L. Shah B. Publication No.137:302–307. Indian J Technol.134:86–97. Size segregation of binary mixture of solid in bubbling ﬂuidized bed. Gidaspow D. Olsofsy A. 1966.21:238–247. 1950. Talwalker A. Vogel G. 1971.30:195–205. 16. Chem Eng Sci. Johnson E. Wall effects for the pressure drop in ﬁxed beds.9:77. Kerstn S. Rozenbaum R. Costamagna P. Chem Eng Sci. Fluidized binary mixtures in which denser component may be ﬂotsam. Standard practice for measuring ﬂuidization segregation tendencies of powders. k1. 1977. 7. 2003. Chem Eng Sci. 2003. 1978. Goroshko V.26:229–234. 56. Wen C. Patel P. 9
Published on behalf of the AIChE
DOI 10. 17.
AIChE Journal
September 2010 Vol. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gishler P. Richardson J.53:2804– 2813.57:5123–5141.
Acknowledgments
Jim Prescott and colleagues at Jenike and Johanson are thanked for their support of this research and for providing the segregation testing equipment. 22. Ind Eng Chem.59:3037–3040. Krevelen v. 1966. Potic B. Saxena S. Comparision of commonly used correlations for minimum ﬂuidization velocityof small solid particles. van Heerdeen C.
Manuscript received Aug.1:51–66. 1966. Garcia F. 1966.c1. ASTM International. Tosatti E. Bello A. 2008. Heat transfer in a ﬂuidized solid bed.62:100–111. 28. Trans Inst Chem Eng. No. AIChE Symp Ser. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
6. 24. Powder Technol. 2nd ed. Pillai B. Kobayashi H.28:287. Hrenya C. Becker H. 25. Xu G. Klassen J. McCall M.39:1045–1049. Powder Technol. Physics of Sliding Friction (NATO Science Series E). Romero A. 1980. 14. Chiba S. Does the minimum ﬂuidization exist? J Fluid Eng.55:184–189. Pressure drop and minimum ﬂuidization velocities of air-ﬂuidized bed.74:176–186. Institute of gas engineers report. D6941–03. Pope D.58:169–174. Sundaresan S. Hydrodynamics and Heat Transfer in ﬂuidized beds. 1989.30:54–64. Onset of ﬂuidization and slugging in beds of uniform particles. Longwinuk A. 2004.I. 1981. Sen Gupta P. Yurong D. Trans Inst Chem Eng. k10 . Cambridge: M. Experimental segregation proﬁles in bubbling gas ﬂuidized bed. 318. 14. Mechanics of ﬂuidization. k2. Versuche uber getreidedruck in silozellen. Geldart D. 2007. 2009. Grewal N. Chem Eng Sci. 1959. Development of an improved ﬂuidization segregation tester for use with pharmaceutical powders. Broadhurst T. Gao S. Joseph G. 12. Indian J Technol. Yukun Q. 1975.c2 Re U Umf z ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ voidage sphericity viscosity density of gas density of solid stress in horizontal direction stress in vertical direction friction angle pressure drop Ergun constants cross-sectional area various constants of the quadratic Archimedes number column diameter particle diameter force Gravity height of ﬁxed bed various constants Reynolds number ﬂuid velocity Minimum Fluidization velocity instantaneous height measured from the top of the bed
Literature Cited
1. Pharm Technol. Chem Eng J. Di Felice R. Nobel A. Brone D. 18. 3.T. Lidan Y. 13. 1991. Segregation in beds of large particles at high velocity. 10. AIChE J. 9. Micro ﬂuidized beds: wall effects and operability. 19.26:1–10.
Notation
[ W l qg qs rH rv u Dp a. van Swaaij W. Powder Technol. Gas interchange between bubbles and the continuous phase in a ﬂuidized bed. The role of contact stresses and wall friction on ﬂuidization. k20 . Powder Technol.44:293–305. Leva M.