chemical engineering research and design 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 471480

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cherd

A new model for bubbling uidized bed reactors

M.P. Jain a, , D. Sathiyamoorthy a , V. Govardhana Rao b
a
b

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400085, India

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India

a b s t r a c t
Various mathematical models have been proposed in the past for estimating the conversions of reactant gases in
uidized bed reactors. A new mathematical model is being proposed in this paper that gives relatively better results
compared to the prevailing models for bubbling uidized bed reactors utilizing Geldart B particles. The new model
is named as JSR (Jain, Sathiyamoorthy, Rao) model and it is a modied version of bubble assemblage model of Kato
and Wen (1969). This paper discusses the development of JSR model and its verication by using data from chemical
engineering literature on uidization and also experimental data from hydrochlorination of silicon in a uidized bed
reactor. The new model is tested for ve processes having operating temperatures from 130 C to 450 C, operating
velocities from 0.019 m s1 to 0.19 m s1 and solid particle sizes from 65 to 325 mesh.
2013 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fluidization; Modelling; Reactors; Powder; Particles; Compartments

1.

Introduction

Initially two phase models consisting of bubble and emulsion phases and then three phase models having one more
additional phase called cloud phase were proposed. Examples of two phase models are Davidson and Harrison (1963)
and Patridge and Rowe (1966) models, and examples of three
phase models are Kunii and Levenspiel model (1968) and Kato
and Wen model (1969). Davidson and Harrison model had limitations with respect to high interphase mass transfer, and
Patridge and Rowe model due to excess bubble-cloud area
than actual. Therefore, both the two phase models could not
provide satisfactory results. Models by Fryer and Potter (1972)
and Werther (1980) were proposed. Fryer and Potter model
is known as countercurrent back-mixing model (CCBM). The
CCBM model did not become popular because of the difculties associated with numerical solutions of the governing
equations. The model used constant size bubble while it is a
fact that bubble diameter changes as it rises in the uidized
bed. Werther (1980) model took an analogy from gasliquid
behaviour. In the this model the reactant gas from the gas
phase to solid phase is assumed to be transported in a manner similar to the diffusion of a gas through a thin lm into
the bulk of a liquid in a gasliquid interacting system. Kunii
and Levenspiel (1968) and Kato and Wen (1969) models have

been popularly used for design of bubbling uidized bed reactors. There is still some scope for improvement for both these
models as reported by Chavarie and Grace (1975). A new model
(JSR, i.e., Jain, Sathiyamoorthy and Rao) has been proposed
to improve and scale up the gassolid bubbling uidized bed
reactors. The JSR model has been further tested using four
reaction systems, viz. ammoxidation of propylene, hydrogenation of ethylene, oxidation of ammonia, decomposition of
nitrous oxide by using data from chemical engineering literature. All the four reactions are conrmed to have rst order as
that of hydrochlorination of silicon metal. Experiments were
carried out by us on hydrochlorination of silicon in a uidized
bed reactor in order to verify the predictions of the new JSR
model. Silicon powder used in our experimental work belongs
to classication Geldart B. The conversions of reactant gases
in uidized bed conditions are predicted utilizing JSR, Kunii
and Levenspiel, and Kato and Wen models and compared.

1.1.

Minimum uidization velocity

Minimum uidization velocity for classication Geldart B

particles can be evaluated with a good accuracy from the correlation of (Delebarre, 2004)
24.5Re2mf + 29, 4003mf (1 mf )Remf = Ar

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 22 25592537.

E-mail address: mpjain2000@yahoo.com (M.P. Jain).
Received 3 December 2012; Received in revised form 3 September 2013; Accepted 15 September 2013
0263-8762/$ see front matter 2013 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2013.09.006

(1)

472

chemical engineering research and design 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 471480

Nomenclature
A
Ar
CA
Ce
Cb
CE
Co
Cbh
Cbhi
CEn
CEn1
D
dbi
db
dp
dt
dbm
F
g
hi
ID
Kbc
Kbe

Kbei

Kce

Kr
Kf
Lmf
M
t
Remf
Uo ,
Umf
Ub
Ubr
x
XA
XAJSR
XAKL

reactant gas
Archimedes number, (d3p f (s f )g/g 2 ),
concentration of reactant gas in cloud phase,
kg mol m3
concentration of reactant gas in emulsion
phase, kg mol m3
concentration of reactant gas in bubble phase,
kg mol m3
concentration of reactant gas at reactor exit,
kg mol m3
concentration of reactant gas at entry of reactor, kg mol m3
concentration of reactant gas in bubble phase
at height h, kg mol m3
concentration of reactant gas in bubble phase
at height h in ith compartment, kg mol m3
concentration of reactant gas at exit of nth compartment, kg mol m3
concentration of reactant gas at exit of (n 1)th
compartment, kg mol m3
molecular diffusion coefcient of gas, m2 s1
initial bubble diameter, m
bubble diameter, m
particle diameter, m
reactor ID, m
maximum bubble diameter, m
a parameter used in Eq. (5),
gravitational acceleration, m s2
height of ith compartment, m
internal diameter of reactor, m
volume rate of gas exchange between bubble
and cloud phases per unit bubble volume, s1
volume rate of gas exchange between bubble
and emulsion phases per unit bubble volume,
s1
volume rate of gas exchange between bubble
and emulsion phases in ith compartment per
unit bubble volume, s1
volume rate of gas exchange between cloudwake and emulsion phase per unit bubble
volume, s1
apparent xed bed reaction rate constant,
m3 /m3 catalyst s1
apparent uidized bed reaction rate constant,
m3 /m3 catalyst s1
initial height of the solid bed, m
a parameter dened by Eq. (20)
time, s
Reynolds number at minimum uidization
velocity (Remf = (dp Umff /g)),
supercial velocity of uidizing gas, m s1
supercial gas velocity at incipient uidization,
m s1
bubble velocity, m s1
bubble rise velocity, m s1
a parameter dened by Eq. (35) in appendix
conversion of reactant gas,
conversion of reactant gas by JSR model,
conversion of reactant gas A by Kunii and Levenspiel model,

XAKW

c
e
b
I

s
f
A
mf
g

conversion of reactant gas A by bubble assemblage model,

a parameter dened by Eq. (9),
a parameter dened by Eq. (12),
ratio of volume of solids in cloud-wake region
to volume of bubbles in bed
ratio of volume of solids in emulsion phase to
volume of bubbles in bed
ratio of volume of solids in bubble phase to volume of bubbles in bed
bubble fraction of the HCl gas in the ith compartment
a parameter dened by Eq. (14),
a parameter dened in Eq. (22),
density of solid particle, kg m3
density of the reactant gas, kg m3
fractional change in volume between nil and
complete conversion of reactant A
fraction of bed at incipient uidization
viscosity of the reactant gas, kg m1 s1

or,
2

Remf = [{6003mf (1 mf )} + 0.0408Ar]

0.5

6003mf (1 mf )

(2)

The above equation includes bed voids at minimum uidization and helps better prediction of minimum uidization
velocity.

2.
Development of an improved new
mathematical model
Various phases in a bubbling bed model are shown in Fig. 1,
and it is similar to Kunii and Levenspiel model. Three phases
have been considered in the bubbling bed model. The model
considers all bubbles of equal size throughout the bed and no
counter-diffusion in the estimation of predicted conversion
of the reactant. Kato and Wen (1969) have proposed a model
in which a bubbling bed is divided into several hypothetical
compartments of different sizes based on factors like particle
density, gas velocity and particle diameter. New model brings
important concepts of both Kunii and Levenspiel, and Kato
and Wen models together.
Assumptions for new model
1. The model assumes bubbles of perfectly spherical shape.
2. It is assumed that in the cloud zone, wake is not a separate
entity.
3. The reactant is assumed to diffuse from bubble phase to
emulsion phase.
4. In any compartment the mass transfer is assumed to occur
from a bubble of diameter equivalent to the compartment
height. The emulsion phase is considered to be at incipient
state of uidization and considered to be well mixed up
with constant voids.
5. The solid particles present in the bubble are neglected and
hence the reaction with the gas in the bubble phase is
assumed to be nil.
The model is discussed here in ve steps as follows,
(i) Derivation of equation for compartment height

chemical engineering research and design 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 471480

473

Fig. 1 Transport of reactant from a bubble to emulsion with a hypothetical compartment of partitioned gas uidized.
The uidized bed is assumed to be made up of several
hypothetical compartments of size hi which is same as the
diameter of a single bubble in that compartment. Kato and
Wen (1969) have mentioned in their paper that they are applying Kobayashi et al. (1965) correlation with possibility of some
error in the calculation of compartment height and this correlation can be used till a better correlation is found out.
Vishwanathan et al. (1982) also analysed and expressed the
similar views.
Empirical equation by Mori and Wen (1975) correlated bubble diameter and reactor tube diameter for Geldart B and D
powders as given below,

dbi = dbm (dbm do ) exp

 0.3h 

(3)

dt

The
range
of
conditions
are
dt 1.3 m,
0.005 Umf 0.20 m s1 ,
60 dp 450 m,
(Uo Umf ) 0.48 m s1 .
Bubble diameter is calculated for ith compartment from Eq.
(3). Maximum limit for reactor diameter is 1.3 m but according
to GOLFERS (1982) Eq. (3) can be used for higher diameters also
for designing and scaling up purposes. This equation will be
used to nd out compartment height as the bubble diameter
has been considered to be equal to the height of ith compartment at a particular level in the uidized bed. Therefore,

(a) Mass balance of reactant gas A over the cloud

phase in a particular compartment: Transfer of A to cloud
wake = reaction in cloud wake + transfer of A to emulsion
Kbc (Cb Cc ) = c Kr Cc + Kce (Cc Ce )

(6)

Symbols have their usual meaning and have been

described in nomenclature.
No counter diffusion and no bulk ow are considered here
in the above equation.
(b) Mass balance of A over the emulsion phase in a particular compartment: Transfer of A to emulsion = reaction of A in
emulsion
Kce (Cc Ce ) = e Kr Ce

(7)

or
Ce =

Kce Cc
(eKr + Kce )

(8)

or,
Ce = Cc

(9)

From Eq. (6),

Kbc Cb = Cc {c Kr + Kce (1 ) + Kbc }

(10)

dbi = hi for i = 1 to N compartments

Therefore,
Putting the value of dbi in Eq. (3), rearranging and integrating

hi

1=
hi1

1
dbm (dbm do ) exp

 0.3h  dh

(4)

dt

1
p

ln [F + (1 F) exp(pdbm )]

Cb Kbc
{c Kr + Kce (1 ) + Kbc }

(11)

or
Cc = Cb

Taking, (0.3/dt ) = p and (1 (do /dbm ))exp(phi1 ) = F.

On simplifying (details are given in the appendix),
hi =

Cc =

(12)

Therefore,

(5)

Ce = Cb

(13)

Taking, =
(ii) Developing an expression for mass transfer of reactant gas
A from bubble to cloud and cloud to emulsion

Ce = Cb

(14)

474

chemical engineering research and design 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 471480

The terms and are calculated from the values of Kbc , Kce ,
 c ,  e and Kr .
Kbc and Kce are calculated similar to the model of Kunii and
Levenspiel and correlations are given below,

Kbc = 4.5

Umf
db


D0.5

+ 5.85

g0.25

d1.25
b

(15)

and


Kce = 6.77

Umf DUbr


(16)

d3b

(iii) Estimation of bubble phase exit concentration of A

Mass balance in bubble phase in hi size compartment
Rate of change of reactant concentration in the bubbles
= Loss of reactant by exchange to emulsion

Solid particles inside the bubbles are neglected and it is

it is assumed that no reaction takes place in bubbles. Only
bubble to emulsion reaction takes place for reactant gas A in
the compartment i
dCb
= Kbe (Cb Ce )
dt

(17)

(Here, for a particular compartment i, (1/Kbe ) = (1/Kbc ) + (1/Kce ))

dCb = Kbe (Cb Ce )dt

(18)

Putting the value of Ce from Eq. (14) and value of dt by its

denition in Eq. (18)
dCb =

Kbe (Cb Cb )dh

Ubr

(19)

Integrating, and taking, ((Kbe (1 ))/Ubr ) = M

Cb
= exp(M hi )
Co

(iv) Exit concentration for reactant A from the ith compartment

Referring to Fig. 2 mass balance for reactant gas A is given
below. Only bubble and emulsion phases are considered here
and gas volume in cloud phase is negligible

(21)

C 
b

(22)

Co

For each compartment

CEi
= {(1 ) + }
Co

C 
bi

Co

CEi
= {(1 ) + } exp(M hi )
Co

(24)

(v) Evaluation of overall conversion

Concentration of reactant A exiting after all the n number
of compartments, i.e., whole reactor is estimated as
CE
=
Co

C C C 
E1
E2
E3
Co

CE1

CE2

 C 
En
CEn1

(25)

Then conversion of reactant gas A is found out as given below,

CE
Co


(26)

Eq. (26) is to be used along with other equations given above

for nding out overall conversion of a gaseous reactant in a
uidized bed reactor.
The model can be used for gassolid bubbling uidized
bed reactors involving Geldart B particles. Data from literature for four processes utilizing uidized bed reactors have
been tested particularly oxidation of ammonia, ammoxidation of propylene, hydrogenation of ethylene and nitrous
oxide decomposition and also our experimental data for
hydrochlorination of silicon. It was found that JSR model gives
satisfactory results compared to other prevailing models.

3.
Verication of new model by taking
experimental data from literature

Taking, ((Uo Umf )/Uo ) =

CE
{(1 ) + }
Co

or,

XA =
(20)

Umf Ce
(Uo Umf )Cb
Uo CE
=
+
Co
Co
Co

Fig. 2 Reactant gas ow through a compartment in a

uidized bed.

(23)

Data for four chemical reactions published in literature has

been picked up to study the universality of JSR model. The
properties of the materials used and ow rates of reactants are
converted from standard conditions to operating conditions.
Data from experimental work for hydrochlorination of silicon
is used as a fth case for testing JSR model.

475

chemical engineering research and design 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 471480

Table 1 Comparison of experimental and predicted

conversions of propylene to acrylonitrile.

Table 2 Comparison of experimental and predicted

conversions on hydrogenation of ethylene.

S. no.

U/Umf

Bed height,
m

XAexp

XAJSR

XAKL

XAKW

S. no.

Uo , m s1

k, s1

XAexp

XAmodelJSR

XAKL

XAKW

1
2
3
4
5

2.94
4.9
2.97
4.88
6.86

0.175
0.175
0.276
0.276
0.276

0.83
0.62
0.88
0.72
0.53

0.847
0.586
0.927
0.741
0.525

0.35
0.21
0.134
0.185
0.301

0.14
0.12
0.094
0.17
0.2

1
2
3
4
5

0.025
0.05
0.075
0.10
0.04

0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.16

0.94
0.74
0.61
0.51
0.85

0.997
0.83
0.667
0.56
0.97

0.705
0.401
0.284
0.222
0.38

0.145
0.123
0.105
0.0103
0.01

3.3.
3.1.

Oxidation of ammonia

Ammoxidation of propylene

This is a well known process for manufacturing acrylonitrile which is used for production of acrylic bre, styrene
co-polymers and nitrile rubber. JSR model is tested for ammoxidation of propylene in a uidized bed reactor. The exothermic
reaction takes place as follows,
CH2 CH CH3 + NH3 +

3
O2
2

CH2 CHCN + 3H2 O + 136.2 kcal

Massimila and Johnson (1961) have worked on the oxidation

of ammonia reaction for uidization studies. The solid catalyst used was manganusbismuth oxide on alumina spheres.
The solids particles size was 100325 mesh. The temperature
and pressure of the reaction were 250 C and 1.1 atm, respectively. Inlet composition of the gas was 10% ammonia and 90%
oxygen. The reaction takes place as follows,
2NH3 + 2O2 N2 O + 3H2 O

(29)

(27)

A stream from renery is introduced along with ammonia

and air into a catalytic uidized bed reactor. The catalyst used
is molybdenum-bismuth. The temperature of the reaction is
400500 C and pressure 1.53 atm. A few seconds contact time
is available. The reactor afuent is scrubbed with water to
remove the desired products in an aqueous solution which
is further fractionated to give wet acrylonitrile and acetonitrile. Both are further puried by azeotropic and conventional
distillation.
Experimental work of Stergiou et al. (1984) is taken for testing of JSR model. Reaction rate constant for xed bed condition
is reported to be 0.38 s1 at 450 C by Sawyer and Martel (1992).
The data for ow rates and conversion of propylene and other
parameters are given below,

The equipment consists essentially of a heated reactor,

cylinders of air, oxygen and ammonia, ow metres for gases,
thermocouples, sample valves etc. The reactor had 0.1143 m

Bulk density of catalyst = 1000 kg m3 .

Minimum uidization velocity = 0.025 m s1 .
Number of holes per unit area = 1.4.
Reaction temperature = 450 C.
Reaction pressure = 1.53 atm.
The JSR model is applied and the results are given in Table 1
and Fig. 3.

3.2.

Fig. 3 Model versus experimental conversion of

propylene.

Hydrogenation of ethylene

Heidel et al. (1965) carried out hydrogenation of ethylene in

a uidized bed reactor. Nickel coated solid catalyst is used in
the reactor. The reaction takes place as given below,
C2 H4 + H2 C2 H6

(28)

This experiment was carried out when hydrogen is in

excess to maintain the supercial gas velocities in the uidized bed reactor. Copper on silicaalumina is used as a
catalyst in three sizes from 042, 4260 and 6090 m. Inlet
composition of the feed is 70% hydrogen and 30% ethylene.
The reaction takes place between 130 C and 150 C. The experimental data taken from a paper by Werther (1980) is shown
along with results in Table 2. The analysis of the data has been
carried out and results are shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 Model versus experimental conversion of ethylene.

476

chemical engineering research and design 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 471480

Fig. 5 Model versus experimental conversion of ammonia

bed.
ID and 1.09 m height and was made up of stainless steel. The
lower ange was connected to an inlet plenum section and a
stainless steel perforated plate (distributor) placed between
the reactor and the inlet section, was used to support the
bed and disperse the gas uniformly. The ange supported
the cyclone separator used to remove the catalyst particles
from the gas stream. The catalyst collected in the cyclone was
returned to the reactor at the end of each series of runs.
The reactor was heated electrically by four chromel resistance ribbons wound on alundum insulation around the
reactor. The temperature of the bottom and upper sections
were controlled manually with variacs and the temperature
of sections immediately above the porous plate was regulated
by an automatic controller. The experimental data and predicted results are given in Table 3 and results are depicted in
Fig. 5.

3.4.

Decomposition of nitrous oxide

Catalytic decomposition of nitrous oxide gas has been chosen

as a reaction to test the new model in uidized bed reactors. This experimental work was carried out by Shen and
Johnstone (1955). The catalyst activity remains substantially
constant over a long period of time. The rate of decomposition
is measured in xed and uidized beds in the temperature
range from 343 C to 426 C. Nitrogen, air or oxygen streams
containing 12.5% nitrous oxide are used. The reaction is rst
order. This reaction in uidized bed reactor is used to verify
the JSR model and it is given as,
2N2 O 2N2 + O2

(30)

The individual gases are own through lters, pressure

regulators and ow metres. The reactor had 0.1143 m ID and
1.09 height. The reactor is made up of SS310. One thermocouple is embedded in the perforated stainless steel support
plate (distributor) and two others are mounted through the
column wall in the uidized bed itself. The reactor is heated
electrically by chromel resistance ribbon which is wound in
all the three sections around the reactor. The temperatures
of the top and bottom sections are controlled manually with
variable transformers and the temperature of the middle section which covers the entire catalyst bed is regulated with an
automatic controller. The data obtained from literature and
also predicted conversions are presented in Table 4. A plot

Fig. 6 Model versus experimental conversion of nitrous

oxide.
showing experimental conversion of nitrous oxide versus predicted conversion is drawn and depicted in Fig. 6.

3.5.

Hydrochlorination of silicon

Hydrochlorination of silicon is carried out in a uidized bed

reactor as per the following reaction,
321 C

Si + 3HCl SiHCl3 + H2
1.0 atm

H = 115 kcal/mol

(31)

The experimental set-up is made up of SS316L. It consisted

of a reactor having 0.026 m ID and 0.47 m height. The reactor
had a perforated plate distributor with 9 holes at the bottom
through which HCl gas was supplied and it had a pressure
gauge at the top for knowing the internal pressure of the reactor. Approximately 0.056 kg dried silicon powder of required
size was introduced from the top of the reactor up-to an initial height of bed equal to 0.1 m. The gaseous products on
exiting the reactor were condensed by a dry ice cooled condenser (working at 78 C). The reactor was heated by electric
resistance coil and controlled by an ONOFF controller. Temperature of the reactor was measured by a thermocouple.
Glass wool was used to insulate the reactor. The temperature
of the reaction was 321 C at atmospheric pressure. Heat generated due to reaction was removed by air owing through
a copper coil brazed externally around the reactor. Silicon
powder was added to the reactor from a silicon bin so as
to keep the bed height constant while the bed gets depleted
due to reaction. Condensed reaction product (trichlorosilane
mainly) was weighed after the reaction was over. Some quantity of trichlorosilane still escaped the condenser which was at
78 C. Vapours of uncondensed trichlorosilane were reacted
with NaOH solution in a trapping vessel and the contents were
analysed and the amount of SiO2 was estimated to ascertain
the extent of trichlorosilane escaping condenser using the
stoichiometry of the reaction. Silica was estimated as per the
following reaction.
SiHCl3 + 3NaOH SiO2 + 3NaCl + H2 + H2 O

(32)

Silica thus obtained was washed with hot distilled water

several times and dried in an electric oven. The amount of silica obtained and quantity of condensed trichlorosilane were

477

chemical engineering research and design 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 471480

Table 3 Comparison of experimental and predicted conversion on catalytic oxidation of ammonia.

Uo , m s1

S. no.
1
2
3
4
5
6

0.023
0.046
0.069
0.023
0.046
0.069

Bed height, m

XAexp

0.19
0.19
0.19
0.38
0.38
0.38

XAmodelJSR

0.27
0.14
0.081
0.4
0.24
0.15

0.27
0.136
0.09
0.43
0.27
0.16

XAKL

XAKW

0.287
0.146
0.0985
0.414
0.228
0.16

0.052
0.045
0.045
0.078
0.078
0.072

Table 4 Conversion of experimental and predicted conversions of catalytic decomposition of nitrous oxide.
S. no.

Temp., C

Umf , m s1

k, s1

Uo , m

1
2
3
4
5
6

427
427
427
427
427
427

0.00317
0.00317
0.00317
0.00317
0.00317
0.00317

0.0152
0.0152
0.0152
0.0152
0.0152
0.0152

0.112
0.056
0.037
0.036
0.022
0.019

used to back calculate HCl utilized during reaction for estimating conversion of HCl. The total quantity of HCl fed was
known by using a rotameter.
Packed bed reaction rate constant was estimated by
keeping the supercial gas velocity lower than minimum uidization velocity and then for calculation of reaction rate
constant in uidized bed condition supercial gas velocity was
kept above the minimum uidization velocity.
The dry hydrogen chloride gas used was 99.5% pure. The
value of silicon powder minimum bed voids (mf ) was found
to be 0.5 for all particle sizes used in the experiment except
208 m for which it was 0.47. Density of the silicon particles
used was 2065 kg m3 . A sample of tricholorosilane produced
was checked in a gas chromatograph and showed 94.4%, purity
of trichlorosilane. Other than trichlorosilane it was assumed
to be tetrachlorosilane present in the liquid mixture produced.
Experimental data obtained for the hydrochlorination of
silicon in uidized bed conditions at optimum temperature of
321 C is presented in Table 5 for bed of silicon metal powder
of size 88208 m. The initial bed height in all the cases is kept
at 0.1 m.
Jain et al. (2011) carried out experiments for the reaction of silicon powder with HCl in the temperature range
of 250340 C at atmospheric pressure to nd out optimum
temperature for operation of the reactor to yield near theoretically maximum rate of production of trichlorosilane. This
temperature was found to be 321 C for maximum rate of
production of trichlorosilane. Hence, subsequently the experiments were carried out at 321 C and atmospheric pressure.
The value of packed bed condition reaction rate constant, Kr
was obtained utilizing separate experimental data and it was
found to be approximately 0.7 s1 . In homogeneous reactions
rate constant is temperature dependent but in heterogeneous
reactions interphase mass transfer coefcients are also taken
into consideration to nd out uidized bed condition reaction
rate constant.

3.5.1.

Bed height, m
0.524
0.524
0.524
0.35
0.524
0.524

XAexp
0.16
0.277
0.36
0.28
0.54
0.64

XAmodelJSR
0.155
0.264
0.355
0.282
0.54
0.64

XAKL

XAKW

0.023
0.046
0.07
0.046
0.078
0.144

0.054
0.063
0.076
0.029
0.0778
0.105

conventional popular models, i.e., Kunii and Levenspiel, and

Kato and Wen models, and also the newly proposed JSR model
and compared with the experimental values. Values of wake
fraction, fw (0.23), and ratio of volume of solids in bubble
phase to volume of bubbles in the uidized bed  b (0.005) were
taken from Levenspiel (1991) for Kunii and Levenspiel model.
The calculated value of diffusivity of pair of trichlorosilane
and HCl was 0.243 104 m2 s1 . The reduction in volume of
the dry HCl feed gas due to reaction (A = 1/3 for complete
conversion) was considered as well as temperature effect for
volume increment of the gas in supercial gas velocity was
also considered in all the models presented here for calculation of conversion of HCl to trichlorosilane.
The predicted results by models and experimental results
are shown in Table 6 and Fig. 7 and it shows that maximum
number of new model conversions points are falling on or near
y = x line to show that the new JSR model is a comparatively
better model for hydrochlorination of silicon.

4.

Discussion

It is found from calculations that the choice of bubble growth

equation critically affects the value of compartment sizes.
Mori and Wen (1975) have analysed well and also proposed
their correlation for maximum bubble and initial bubble

Conversions of HCl gas in uidized bed reactor

Minimum uidization velocity was calculated for different

size of particles used in the experiment. Flow rates were
measured at room temperature and corrected to 321 C by
assuming the gases to be ideal and considering reduction
in overall volumetric ow due to reaction. Conversions of
HCl were estimated for various particle sizes using the

Fig. 7 Model versus experimental conversion of HCl gas.

478

chemical engineering research and design 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 471480

Table 5 Fluidized bed experimental data and off gas analysis for hydrochlorination of silicon metal using HCl gas for
different size particles at 321 C.
S. no.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Particle
diameter, m
88
124
141
141
160
160
208
208
208
208

HCl gas ow
rate, lpm

Conc. of NaOH,
in trap, %

1.6
0.6
1.3
0.6
1.9
0.85
3.2
1.7
2.8
4.0

TCS
condensed, kg
103

10
10
6.25
10
10
10
15
10
10
10

4.364
0
0
0
23.01
0
18.449
17.962
15.805
11.51

Av. wt. of silica

precipitated in
trap, kg 103

HCl reaction
time, s

0
2.587
3.788
2.736
4.9
10.896
2.263
4.112
3.513
7.049

120
300
300
300
900
900
390
720
450
480

Table 6 Comparison of HCl conversion at 321 C by model prediction and experimental results for different particle size.
S. no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

dp , m
88
124
141
141
160
160
208
208
208
208

Uo , m s1
0.073
0.0238
0.0243
0.0596
0.0892
0.0339
0.0776
0.1334
0.1524
0.1935

Umf , m s1
0.0034
0.0067
0.0087
0.0087
0.0112
0.0112
0.0214
0.0214
0.0214
0.0214

diameter. Their correlation gives more realistic bubble size

and hence the compartment size also as compared to the
value obtained by Kobayashis correlation (1965).
Bubble diameter calculation takes care of gas ow rates,
minimum uidization velocity, particle density, particle size,
gas density, gas viscosity, temperature of the gas, etc. In JSR
model both mass transfer coefcients for bubble to cloud and
cloud to emulsion have been considered rather than exchange
coefcient value as 11/db in Bubble Assemblage (KW) model.
Kato and Wen (1969) have used exchange coefcient based on
work of (Kobayashi et al., 1965). Toei et al. (1965) have reported
exchange coefcient to be in the range of (2/db ) to (6/db ) in
their studies. Therefore, it would be better to go for Kunii and
Levenspiel method of nding exchange coefcient which is a
well established concept. It is important that the new mathematical model utilizes Mori and Wen correlation for bubble
diameter and also combined exchange coefcient for reactants in bubble and emulsion phases. Volumetric gas ow
rate change due to temperature and reaction are taken into
consideration. Minimum uidization velocity of reactant gas
is calculated by Delebarre correlation or experimental value
used. These are important criteria for nding supercial gas
velocities. Therefore, all the above improvements provide a
good solution to the problem of modelling for all the reaction
systems chosen for the present study.
The data for ammoxidation of propylene, hydrogenation
of ethylene, oxidation of ammonia, decomposition of nitrous
oxide and hydrochlorination of silicon were tested for JSR
model and it is found that the model works well for all these
reaction systems as shown from Figs. 38. Also it can be
seen from Fig. 8 that the conversions of gaseous reactants in
uidized bed by JSR model very closely agree with experimental results. Kunii and Levenspiel and Kato and Wen models
predict conversions lower than the experimental values in
most of the cases. Reasons for predicting low conversions by

Uo /Umf

XAexp

XAJSR

XAKL

XAKW

21.35
3.55
2.8
6.85
7.96
3.03
3.62
6.23
7.12
9.04

0.68
0.97
0.93
0.65
0.60
0.96
0.66
0.56
0.56
0.52

0.74
0.98
0.96
0.75
0.63
0.96
0.67
0.38
0.41
0.30

0.29
0.68
0.72
0.37
0.28
0.60
0.36
0.22
0.19
0.16

0.5
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.26
0.29
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.14

Fig. 8 Conversion of reactant by model versus

experiments (all cases together).
the two models may be attributed to consideration of correct mass transfer resistance from bubble to emulsion only
in case of Kunii and Levenspiel model and accounting for
change in bubble size only in the case of Kato and Wen model.
JSR model utilizes both these concepts together along with
volume change due to temperature and reaction and also Delebarre correlation for minimum uidization velocity. Majority
of the points obtained by utilizing JSR model are either on or
near the y = x line in all the gures. In Fig. 8 goodness of t
shows the value of R2 to be 0.876 for JSR model. It indicates
that new model is working well.

5.

Conclusion

A new model named as JSR model has been mathematically

developed and proved by matching theoretical (model) and
experimental conversions of reactant gases for uidization

479

chemical engineering research and design 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 471480

of Geldart B particle of sizes 65325 mesh. The reactant gas

bubbles grow as they rise in the uidized bed. The calculation of size of the bubbles in hypothetical compartments is
an important factor which was achieved by employing Mori
and Wen correlation as compared to Kobayashi et al. correlation earlier used in Kato and Wen model. Interphase exchange
coefcient Kbe is obtained by Kunii and Levenspiel method
in JSR model. In Kato and Wen model exchange coefcient is
assumed to be 11/db which is not a perfect assumption as Toei
et al. have reported mass interchange exchange coefcient differently in their studies. Rening of the calculations with these
two parameters, i.e., bubble diameter and interphase mass
transfer coefcients and other parameters such as temperature correction for gas ow, volume change due to reactions,
calculation of minimum uidization velocity by Delebarre correlation improve the results. It is found that the JSR model
predicts the conversion of reactant gases better than the two
prevailing models for solid particles of classication Geldart B
and size 65325 mesh.

where

xi1 = 1 1
Put

do
dbm

1F{exp(ph)}

pdbm =
1F

 ln x 1F{exp(phi )}
1x

pdbm = ln

pdbm = ln

hi

1
dh
{dbm (dbm do ) exp(ph)}

hi1

(33)

1F{exp(ph)}

1F

1F{exp(phi )}

dx
x

(40)

1F{exp(phi )}
+ [ln x]1F

(41)

1F

1 F{exp(phi )}

[1 {1 F exp(phi )}]

ln

(1 F)
[1 (1 F)]

{(1 F(exp(phi)))}F
[F(1 F) exp(phi )]

exp(pdbm ) =

1=

dx
+
(1 x)

pdbm = [ ln(1 x)]1F

Appendix A. Appendix

exp(phi1 )

exp(phi1 ) = F

The equation for nding compartment height is further simplied from Eq. (4) as follows,

xi1 = 1 F

Acknowledgment
Authors are grateful to Dr. A.K. Sharma, Head, Food Technology Division, BARC for his help and permission for carrying
out work on hydrochlorination of silicon.

do
dbm

{(1 F(exp(phi )))}

[F(1 F) exp(phi )]

(42)

(43)

(44)

exp(pdbm ){(1 F) exp(phi ) = {1 F{exp(phi )}

(45)

exp(phi )[F + (1 F) exp(pdbm )] = 1

(46)

exp(phi ) = [F + (1 F) exp(pdbm )] = 1

(47)

phi = ln[F + (1 F) exp(pdbm )]

(48)

Therefore,

hi

dbm =

1 1

hi1

1
do
dbm



 dh

(34)

exp(ph)

1 1

do
dbm



exp(ph) = x

(35)

Therefore,

do
dbm

exp(ph)(p)dh = dx

(36)

or
dh =

dx

do
dbm

(37)

exp(ph)

or
dh =

1
p

ln(F + (1 F) exp(pdbm ))

(49)

References

Taking,

hi =

dx
p(1 x)

xi

dbm =
xi1

dx
p(1 x)

(38)

(39)

Chavarie, C., Grace, J.R., 1975. Performance analysis of a uidized

bed reactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 14 (2), 7586.
Davidson, J.F., Harrison, D., 1963. Fluidized Bed Particles.
Cambridge Press, London.
Delebarre, A., 2004. Revisiting the Wen and Yu equations for
minimum uidization velocity prediction. TransIChE, PartA
ChERD 82 (A5), 587590.
Fryer, C., Potter, O.E., 1972. Countercurrent backmixing model for
uidized bed catalytic reactors. Applicability of simplied
solutions. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 11 (3), 338.
GOLFERS, 1982. Kagaka Kogaku Ronbunshu 8, 464.
Heidel, K., Shugerl, K., Fetting, F., Shiemann, G., 1965. Chem. Eng.
Sci. 20, 557585.
Jain, M.P., Sathiyamoorthy, D., Rao, V.G., 2011. Studies on
hydrochlorination of silicon in a xed bed reactor. I.C.E. 53 (2),
6167.
Kato, K., Wen, C.Y., 1969. Bubble assemblage model for uidized
bed catalytic reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 24, 1351.
Kobayashi, H., Arai, F., Shiba, T., 1965. Chem. Eng. Tokyo 29, 858.
Kunii, D., Levenspiel, O., 1968. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 7, 466.
Kunii, D., Levenspiel, O., 1991. Fluidization Engineering. John
Wiley, New York, pp. 124, 158, 277.
Levenspiel, O., 1999. Chemical Reaction Engineering, third ed.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 395.

480

chemical engineering research and design 9 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 471480

Massimila, Johnson, 1961. Oxidation of ammonia. Chem. Eng. Sci.

16, 105115.
Mori, S., Wen, C.Y., 1975. AIChE J. 21, 109.
Patridge, B.A., Rowe, P.N., 1966. Chemical reactions in bubbling
gas-uidized beds. Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 44, T1351.
Sawyer, D.T., Martel, A.E., 1992. Industrial Environment
Chemistry: Waste Minimization in Industrial Processes and
Remediation of Hazardous Waste. Texas A&M University, V
Series, pp. 29.
Shen, C.Y., Johnstone, H.F., 1955. Gassolid contacts in uidized
beds. AIChE J. 3, 349354.

Stergiou, L., et al., 1984. A discrimination between some uidized

bed reactor models for ammoxidation of propylene. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 39 (4), 713730.
Toei, R., Matsuno, R., Kojima, H., Nagai, Y., Nakagawa, K., 1965.
Chem. Eng. Tokyo 29, 851.
Vishwanathan, K., Ramakrishna, T.S., Subba Rao, D., 1982.
Compartment sizing for uidized bed reactor. I.C.E. XXIV (4),
2832.
Werther, J., 1980. Modeling and scale up of Industrial uidized
bed reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 35, 372.