Particuology 8 (2010) 37–43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Particuology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/partic

CFD modeling of pressure drop and drag coefficient in fixed beds: Wall effects
Rupesh K. Reddy, Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi ∗
Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technology, Matunga, Mumabi 400 019, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Simulations of fixed beds having column to particle diameter ratio (D/dp ) of 3, 5 and 10 were performed
Received 16 January 2009 in the creeping, transition and turbulent flow regimes, where Reynolds number (dp VL L /L ) was varied
Accepted 5 April 2009 from 0.1 to 10,000. The deviations from Ergun’s equation due to the wall effects, which are important in
D/dp < 15 beds were well explained by the CFD simulations. Thus, an increase in the pressure drop was
Keywords: observed due to the wall friction in the creeping flow, whereas, in turbulent regime a decrease in the
Computational fluid dynamics
pressure drop was observed due to the channeling near the wall. It was observed that, with an increase
Fixed bed
in the D/dp ratio, the effect of wall on drag coefficient decreases and drag coefficient nearly approaches to
Wall effects
Pressure drop
Ergun’s equation. The predicted drag coefficient values were in agreement with the experimental results
Drag coefficient reported in the literature, in creeping flow regime, whereas in turbulent flow the difference was within
10–15%.
© 2009 Chinese Society of Particuology and Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of
Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Fixed beds having low D/dp ratios (<10) are often used in the
applications of exothermic and endothermic reactions in chem-
ical industries. The flow complexities in these beds have so far
prevented the detailed understanding of the flow structure in
the interstices between the particles. This important subject has
become amenable due to an increase in the computational power
and the parallel developments in the numerical techniques. In the
present work the effect of the column wall on the pressure drop
and drag coefficient in fixed beds having different D/dp ratios have
been simulated using FLUENT 6.2 commercial CFD software.
1.1. Previous work
For the case of a fully developed flow in a fixed bed, Ergun (1952)
has proposed the following semi-empirical correlation by linking
the Kozeny–Carman equation for the creeping flow regime and the
Burke–Plummer equation for the turbulent regime:
P 150L VL ∈ 2S 1.75L VL2 ∈ S
= 2 3
+ .
L dp ϕ 2 ∈L dp ϕ ∈ 3L
The above equation holds for the case of large D/dp ratio (>15)
where the condition of near uniformity prevails in the void fraction
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 22 414 0865; fax: +91 22 414 5614.
E-mail address: jbj@udct.org (J.B. Joshi).
throughout the bed. For the case of D/dp < 15, the voidage tends to
be greater near the wall than in the bulk region. Under these con-
ditions a significant deviation in pressure drop occurs as compared
to Eq. (1) (Di Felice & Gibilaro, 2004; Eisfeld & Schnitzlein, 2001;
Foumeny, Benyahia, Castro, Moallemi, & Roshani, 1993; Mehta &
Hawley, 1969; Nield, 1983; Reichelt, 1972).
Various researchers have addressed the effect of wall on the
pressure drop in the low D/dp ratio beds. Earlier studies have been
performed by Carman (1937) and Coulson (1949) under creeping
flow conditions, and describe the wall effects by including the sur-
face area of the column in the definition of the drag coefficient.
Mehta and Hawley (1969) have studied the wall effects on pres-
sure drop in packed beds having 7 < D/dp < 91 and Reynolds number
less than 10. Similar type of experiments have been carried out by
Chu and Ng (1989) in fixed beds having D/dp ratio 2.9 to 24 and
Re < 5. These experiments have shown that the pressure drop (P)
behaves according to Eq. (1) only when D/dp > 15. Below this value,
at every Re, P was found to increase (compared with Eq. (1)) with
a decrease in the D/dp ratio. In the turbulent flow regime the pres-
sure drop in low D/dp ratio fixed beds having spheres, cylinders and
rings has been measured by Leva (1947). Foumeny et al. (1993) have
(1)
made measurements in the turbulent region with D/dp ratio in the
range of 3–24. In these cases also, the pressure drop was found
to follow Eq. (1) when D/dp > 15. Below this value, at any Re, the
pressure drop was found to decrease with a decrease in the D/dp
ratio.
These wall effects have been comprehensively reviewed by
Eisfeld and Schnitzlein (2001) by analyzing all the experimental
results in the published literature. The authors have confirmed

1674-2001/$ – see front matter © 2009 Chinese Society of Particuology and Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.partic.2009.04.010
38 R.K. Reddy, J.B. Joshi / Particuology 8 (2010) 37–43

the foregoing discussion it may be emphasized that the work of

Nomenclature Eisfeld and Schnitzlein (2001) is empirical in nature.
For predicting the wall effects on the pressure drop in low D/dp
AP surface area of the particle (m2 ) ratio fixed beds a two zone (wall and bulk zones) model have been
CD drag coefficient including both hydrodynamic drag proposed by Di Felice and Gibilaro (2004). Their model overpredicts
force on particles and the column wall the experimental results of Leva (1947) and Foumeny et al. (1993)
C␧1 model parameter in ␧ equation in the turbulent flow regime.
C␧2 model parameter in ␧ equation As regards to mathematical modeling, CFD simulations give very
C␮ model parameter for k–ε model detailed flow information in the complex geometry like fixed beds.
D column diameter (m) Dalman, Merkin, and McGreavy (1986) began the 2D CFD simu-
dp particle diameter (m) lations by considering only two particles and resolved the flow
FD drag force on single particle, (kg m/s2 ) pattern around the particles for Reynolds number up to 200. Lloyd
k turbulent kinetic energy (m2 /s2 ) and Boehm (1994) extended the CFD simulation for the case of eight
L length of the bed (m) spheres in a row. In this study the influence of the sphere spac-
Pi pressure (N/m2 ) ing on the drag coefficient was investigated. However, as expected,
Pi  time averaged pressure (N/m2 ) 2D simulations were not sufficient to resolve the flow complexi-
P pressure drop (N/m2 ) ties. Nijemeisland and Dixon (2004) have reported 3D simulation
Re Reynolds number (dp VL L /L ) (using FLUENT) of fixed bed of D/dp = 4 and 72 particles. Guardo,
Sp surface area of particles (m2 ) Coussirat, Larrayoz, Recasens, and Egusquiza (2005) have investi-
Sw surface area of wall (m2 ) gated the wall-to-fluid heat transfer and pressure drop for the case
ui instantaneous velocity of component i, where i = 1, of D/dp = 3.92 (44 particles) and over a Reynolds number (Re) range
2, 3 corresponds to radial, axial and tangential com- 100–1000.
ponent of velocity (m/s) Calis, Nijenhuis, Paikert, Dautzenberg, and van den Bleek (2001)
ui  time average of velocity (m/s) have simulated the pressure drop and drag coefficient in square
VL superficial velocity (m/s) channels with particles, having D/dp ratio in the range of 1–2 (8–40
Vp volume of the particle (m3 ) particles) by using CFX 5.3 commercial CFD software. The val-
ues obtained from CFD simulation were shown to agree with the
Greek symbols
experimental measurements on laser Doppler anemometer (LDA).
ε energy dissipation rate (m2 /s3 )
Though this study has not explained the wall effect in low D/dp
∈L voidage of bed
fixed beds, it serves as a good beginning. Recently Reddy and Joshi
∈S fractional solid hold-up
(2008) have predicted the wall effects in fixed and expanded beds
L molecular viscosity of fluid (kg/(m s))
having only one D/dp ratio of 5.
L density of fluid (kg/m3 )
From the foregoing discussion, there is a clear need to under-
 kinematic viscosity (m2 /s)
stand the wall effects in fixed bed having low D/dp ratios and over
t eddy viscosity (m2 /s)
a wide range of Reynolds number (0.1–10,000) covering creeping,
ϕ shape factor
transition and turbulent regimes by resolving the flow around each
k model parameter
individual particle. The present “shorter communication” is in the
ε model parameter
continuation of our earlier work (Reddy & Joshi, 2008) where, the
effect of wall at one D/dp ratio of 5 has been studied. In this commu-
Subscript and superscript
nication, the effect of wall on the pressure drop and drag coefficient
i, j, k co-ordinates in generalized form with value 1, 2 and
in fixed beds having different D/dp ratios of 3, 5 and 10 has been pre-
3 corresponding to radial, axial and tangential direc-
sented. However, the available computational resources restricted
tion
the simulations for D/dp ratios up to 10.
L liquid phase
S solid phase
2. CFD modeling

the observations of Mehta and Hawley (1969), Reichelt (1972) and 2.1. Computational geometry and grid generation
Foumeny et al. (1993) in the creeping and turbulent regimes respec-
tively. Further they conclude that the Reichelt (1972) correlation, All computational geometries were generated by using bottom-
which corrects the Ergun’s equation for wall effects, is the most up technique (volumes were generated from surfaces and edges)
promising one. The correlation is given below: by using commercial software GAMBIT 2.0.4 (Reddy & Joshi, 2008).
In all the fixed bed geometrical models having the particle size
P K1 A2W L VL ∈ 2S BW L VL2 ∈ S
= + , (2) of 25.4 mm, the total number of particles and the height of the
L ϕ2 dp2 ∈ 3L dp ϕ ∈ 3L bed were varied for covering three different D/dp ratios (3, 5 and
where 10). In order to study the effect of D/dp ratio on the pressure drop
and drag coefficient all the fixed beds (D/dp = 3, 5 and 10) were
2
AW = 1 + , (3) constructed in such a way that the void fraction remains constant
3(D/dp )( ∈ S )
(0.439). It is important that only one variable is considered at one
1 time. In all geometries, surface of the all particles are well refined
BW = . (4)
2 2 (up to 1200 surface nodes) for getting accurate predictions. In the
[k1 (dp /D) + k2 ]
present study the simulations were restricted to particle bed, as a
The coefficients K1 , k1 and k2 have been obtained by fitting the result, the distributor at the inlet and the bed limiter at the outlet
experimental data. For spheres, they proposed, K1 = 154, k1 = 1.5 have not been simulated. For simplicity, the inlet boundary con-
and k2 = 0.88 and for cylinders K1 = 190, k1 = 2 and k2 = 0.77. From dition was considered to be a flat velocity profile, whereas the
 R.K. Reddy, J.B. Joshi / Particuology 8 (2010) 37–43 39

Table 1
Details of geometrical models of fixed beds.

Parameters D/dp = 3 D/dp = 5 D/dp = 10

Average voidage 0.439 0.440 0.440

Column diameter (D), mm 76.3 127 254
Particle diameter (dp ) after 1% reduction, mm 25.15 25.15 25.15
Inlet and outlet diameter, mm 76.3 127 254
Number of particles 55 particles in 8 layers 151 particles in 8 layers 1120 particles in 15 layers
Fluid Water Water Water
Bed height, mm 179.2 177.3 329
Distance between inlet and particle bed starting point, mm 35 35 35
Distance between outlet and particle bed ending point, mm 35 35 35
Total height of the geometry, mm 249.2 247.3 399
Wall to particles surface area ratio (Sw /Sp ) 0.392 0.235 0.118
Mesh Unstructured tetrahedral Unstructured tetrahedral Unstructured tetrahedral
Mesh size, mm 1 1 1
Number of controlled volumes 0.75 × 106 2.17 × 106 4.33 × 106

outlet boundary condition was taken to be a constant pressure. following form:

Further, the inlet and the outlet planes were located 35 mm each
∂ui 
below and above the constructed beds, respectively. The geometric = 0,
∂xi
details of all the fixed beds are given in Table 1. Once the geome-   (6)
try is created the next important step is mesh generation. In the ∂ui  ∂ui  1 ∂Pi  ∂ ∂ui 
+ uj  =− + ( + t ) .
present study we have been restricted to use tetrahedral mesh due ∂t ∂xj  ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj
to complex geometry. Unstructured tetrahedral mesh generation
in complex geometries like fixed beds is a complex task because The modeling of t can be done by using standard k–ε model.
of triangulation, in which elements are generated, to follow or The equations of k and ε are given below:
resolve certain regions (particle-particle and particle-wall contact
points) of the complex geometry. Generally triangle faces of tetra- modeled k equation
hedra degenerate at these contact points, when the Voronoi points  2   ∂k 
∂k ∂k ∂ui  ∂ t
(which are the centers of the circumcircles of the triangle vertices) + uk  = t −ε+ + , (7)
lie outside of the triangles. For avoiding this problem in present ∂t ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk k ∂xk
study the 1% gap has been created. This is a well practiced method modeled ε equation
(Calis et al., 2001; Nijemeisland and Dixon, 2004; Reddy & Joshi,   ∂ε 
2008). It should be noted that this is not an interstitial gap. This ∂ε ∂ε ε ε2 ∂ t
+ uj  = C␧1 P − C␧2 + + , (8)
is a modification of the real contact point, for reliable simulations. ∂t ∂xj k k ∂xj ε ∂xj
By conducting two separate simulations with 1% and 2% reduc-
tion spheres, it has been confirmed that the fluid velocity is zero at where
these points (Reddy & Joshi, 2008). Therefore, all the spheres were k2
reduced by 1% of their original size after a complete fixed bed was t = C␮ , (9)
ε
built.
A grid independence study was carried out in the fixed bed of
C␮ = 0.09, C␧1 = 1.44, C␧2 = 1.92, k = 1.0, ε = 1.3.
D/dp = 3 with five different mesh sizes (0.2, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 mm). It
was observed that the pressure drop varies by 11% when the grid
size is changed from 3 to 2 mm. Further, when the grid resolution
These standard values of five empirical constants have been
was increased from 2 to 1 mm, only 3% increase in the pressure drop
shown to perform better in resolving the flow field in packed beds
was observed. No change in the pressure drop was observed when
by Calis et al. (2001) and Guardo et al. (2005) and therefore have
the grid resolution was increased from 1 to 0.5 mm and further to
also been used in the present work.
0.2 mm. Therefore, it was confirmed that, below the grid size of
For turbulent flow the thickness of the cell walls is expressed
1 mm the pressure drop is independent of mesh size. Hence, for
in terms of y+ . In the case of standard wall functions, which were
further studies grid size of 1 mm was selected.
employed in the present study, y+ should preferably be between 20
and 400. As pointed out by Calis et al. (2001), due to large deviations
2.2. Model formulation of the local velocity near the solid surfaces, y+ values varies over the
sphere surface, when a homogeneous surface mesh is used. These
The equation of continuity and motion for a three dimensional values can be improved by using a non-uniform surface mesh on
system can be represented in the following form: the spheres. However, this itself is a separate study. In our simu-
lations average y+ , value varies from 33 (at Re = 1000) to 330 (at
∂ui
= 0, Re = 10,000).
∂xi
  (5)
Flow was assumed to be steady and with a flat velocity pro-
∂ui ∂ui uj 1 ∂Pi ∂ ∂u file at the inlet, constant pressure at the outlet (101,325 Pa), and
+ =− +  i .
∂t ∂xj  ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj no-slip boundary condition was employed at the wall as well as
on the particle surfaces. All terms of the governing equations for
For the case of creeping flow these equations are discretized steady state were discretized using the second-order upwind dif-
by control volume formulation (Patankar, 1980). For the tur- ferencing scheme. The SIMPLE algorithm has been employed for
bulent regime, Eq. (5) on Reynolds averaging reduces to the the pressure-velocity coupling. The convergence criterion (sum of
40 R.K. Reddy, J.B. Joshi / Particuology 8 (2010) 37–43

normalized residuals) was set at 5 × 10−4 for all the equations. The
simulations have been performed using a 64-bit machine with 16
dual processors each having a clock speed of 2.4 GHz. We have used
commercial CFD software FLUENT 6.2.
The simulations have been performed for the fixed beds having
D/dp of 3, 5 and 10 in creeping, transition and turbulent regimes,
with the Reynolds number range of 0.1–10,000. The CFD simula-
tions predict three components of mean velocity, pressure and the
turbulence characteristics.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Pressure drop

The pressure difference between the bottom and top of the bed
is the “pressure drop (P)”. The profiles of pressure have been sim-
ulated over the Reynolds number range of 0.1–10,000 in D/dp of 3,
5 and 10. One such profile in a fixed bed, having D/dp of 10, at
Re = 5000 along the length of the column (399 mm height, which
includes the inlet section (35 mm), fixed bed (329 mm) and outlet
section (35 mm)), is shown in Fig. 1. The constancy of pressure at
the both ends and constant pressure gradient in the bed indicate the
nonexistence of entrance and exit effects. Therefore, it may be con-
cluded that the geometrical model of 15 layers with 1120 particles
can sufficiently represent a fully developed fixed bed having the
same D/dp ratio. Further, the observation of no entrance effect was
also confirmed in all fixed beds over the entire range of Reynolds
number covered in this work. The variation of pressure drop (P)
with respect to Reynolds number in fixed beds having D/dp ratios
3, 5 and 10 are shown in Fig. 2. It can be observed that, in compari-
son with Ergun’s equation, the simulated pressure drop values, for
all D/dp ratio beds, are overestimated in the creeping flow regime
(Fig. 2A) and underestimated in the turbulent flow regime (Fig. 2B).
Further, it can be observed that magnitude of variation of the pres-
sure drop depends on the D/dp ratio of the bed.
The predicted values of pressure drop for fixed beds of D/dp = 3
and 10 have also been compared with Reichelt (1972) correla-
tion in Fig. 3. It has been observed that, in creeping flow regime

Fig. 2. Comparison of simulated pressure drop with Ergun’s equation: (A) Re from
0.1 to 10; (B) Re from 100 to 10,000. 1, Ergun’s equation; 2, CFD (D/dp = 3); 3, CFD
(D/dp = 5); 4, CFD (D/dp = 10).

(Re = 0.1–1) the simulated pressure drop values are in agreement

with the Reichelt (1972) correlation (Fig. 3A). Whereas, in turbulent
flow regime (Re > 1000) a deviation of 10–27% has been observed.
The deviations in the turbulent flow regime can be attributed
to the unstructured tetrahedral mesh in narrow interstitial gaps
between the particles, where very high flow velocities (0.5–1.5 m/s)
occur.

3.2. Drag coefficient

Drag coefficient (CD ) is defined by the following equation (Joshi,

1983; Pandit & Joshi, 1998):

FD /AP
CD = , (10)
(1/2)L VL2

where
P VP
FD = . (11)
Fig. 1. Axial pressure profile at Re = 5000 in fixed bed of D/dp = 10. L ∈S
 R.K. Reddy, J.B. Joshi / Particuology 8 (2010) 37–43 41

Fig. 4. Comparison of predicted CD values with experimental results in the range

of Re from 0.1 to 100: 1, Ergun’s equation; 2, CFD (D/dp = 3); 3, CFD (D/dp = 5); 4,
CFD (D/dp = 10). () Chu and Ng (1989), D/dp = 2.9; (䊉) Coulson (1949), D/dp = 6.2;
() Mehta and Hawley (1969), D/dp = 7.7; () Coulson (1949), D/dp = 8; () Coulson
(1949), D/dp = 12.8.

imental results of Coulson (1949), Mehta and Hawley (1969) and

Chu and Ng (1989). For all D/dp ratios studied (3, 5 and 10) it can
be observed that the predicted CD values are in agreement with the
experimental values.
In the range of Re from 100 to 10,000 the graph of CD vs. Re
is shown in Fig. 5. In turbulent flow (Re > 1000), the predicted CD
values in fixed beds having D/dp ratios 3, 5, and 10 are compared
with the experimental results of Leva (1947) and Foumeny et al.
(1993). A deviation of 10–15% have been observed when the pre-
dicted drag coefficient values of D/dp = 3 were compared with the
experimental results (without reducing sphere sizes but they have
identical voidage (0.439) to that selected in the present work with

Fig. 3. Comparison of simulated pressure drop with Reichelt (1972) correlation: (A)
Re from 0.1 to 10; (B) Re from 100 to 10,000. 1, Reichelt (1972) correlation (D/dp = 3);
2, CFD (D/dp = 3); 3, Reichelt (1972) correlation (D/dp = 10); 4, CFD (D/dp = 10).

From Eqs. (10) and (11) CD can be written as:

(P/L)(dP /6)
CD = . (12)
(1/2)L VL2 ∈ S

Note that the drag coefficient (CD ) includes both hydrodynamic

drag forces on particles and the column wall. In all fixed beds the
drag coefficient was calculated from Eq. (12) by using the simulated
values of pressure drop at Re = 0.1–10,000. The drag coefficient from
Ergun’s equation can be obtained by substituting the value of P/L
from Eq. (1) in Eq. (12).

3.3. Comparison with experimental data

In order to test the accuracy of drag coefficient (CD ) predictions,

comparison was made with the experimental results reported in
the literature (without reducing sphere sizes but keeping an iden-
tical voidage (0.439) to that selected in the present work with D/dp
of 3, 5 and 10). In the creeping and transition regimes the variation
of drag coefficient (CD ) in fixed beds with respective to Reynolds
number (Re) is shown in Fig. 4. In creeping flow regime (Re = 0.1–1)
the predicted CD values in fixed bed were compared with the exper-
Fig. 5. Comparison of predicted CD values with experimental results in the range
of Re 100 to 10,000: 1, Ergun’s equation; 2, CFD (D/dp = 3); 3, CFD (D/dp = 5); 4, CFD
(D/dp = 10). () Leva (1947), D/dp = 2.67; () Foumeny et al. (1993), D/dp = 3.12; ()
Leva (1947), D/dp = 5.32; (䊉) Foumeny et al. (1993), D/dp = 4.62; () Leva (1947),
D/dp = 9.91; () Foumeny et al. (1993), D/dp = 12.6.
42 R.K. Reddy, J.B. Joshi / Particuology 8 (2010) 37–43
D/dp of 3, 5 and 10) of Leva (1947) at D/dp = 2.67 and Foumeny
et al. (1993) for D/dp = 3.12. These experimental results were in
the bed having D/dp almost equal to 3. Similarly predicted drag
coefficient values of D/dp = 5 and 10 were compared with Leva
(1947) for D/dp = 5.32; and Leva (1947) for D/dp = 9.91 respectively
and found 10–15% deviation (Fig. 5). The deviations in the turbu-
lent flow regime can be attributed to the unstructured tetrahedral
mesh in narrow interstitial gaps between the particles, where very
high flow velocities (0.5–1.5 m/s) occur. Further, the present study
employs k–ε model, which is an isotropic turbulence model. It is
well known that this model cannot capture curvature effects and
the boundary layer separation especially at high Reynolds num-
ber. Therefore, all these limitations led to differences between the
experimental values and the CFD predictions in the turbulent flow
regime. For resolving this problem, further work is in progress.
3.4. Comparison with Ergun’s equation
The predicted drag coefficient values have been compared with
the CD obtained from Ergun’s equation in Fig. 6. For all D/dp ratios
simulated in creeping flow regime, especially at Re = 0.1 and 1, it can
Fig. 6. Comparison of predicted CD values with Ergun’s equation: (A) Re from 0.1 to
30; (B) Re from 30 to 10,000. 1, Ergun’s equation; 2, CFD (D/dp = 3); 3, CFD (D/dp = 5);
4, CFD (D/dp = 10).
be observed that the predicted drag coefficient (CD ) was more com-
parable with Ergun’s equation (Fig. 6A). It was due to the wall effects
where the wall friction and the channeling in the high void regions
near the wall may affect the overall pressure drop. In our recent
study (Reddy & Joshi, 2008) it has been confirmed that increas-
ing drag coefficient in creeping flow is mainly due to wall friction
and the effect of channeling is negligible in creeping flow. It can be
observed that at Re = 0.1 and D/dp = 3, drag coefficient increase by
51% whereas at same Re and D/dp of 10, the percentage increase
in CD is only 13.2. Further, from Fig. 6A it can be observed that the
effect of wall friction (increase in CD ) can be decreases when D/dp
increases from 3 to 10. The reason for this is that the ratio of fric-
tional surface area of wall to the surface area of particles (Sw /Sp )
decreases from 0.392 to 0.118 (Table 1) when the D/dp ratio of
the bed increases from 3 to 10. Thus the contribution of wall area
decreased, when compared to that of particles, with an increase in
the D/dp ratio. Therefore, drag coefficient approaches the Ergun’s
equation at high D/dp ratios (at D/dp = 10 deviation is 13.2%).
In turbulent flow regime (Re > 1000), the predicted CD values
were observed to be lower than that predicted by the Ergun’s equa-
tion (Fig. 6B). This is due to flow channeling which can occurs in
the high voidage (least resistance) regions near the wall (it has
been confirmed that in turbulent flow the effect of wall friction can
be negligible when compared with the channeling (Reddy & Joshi,
2008)). It can be observed that the effects of channeling (reduction
in CD ) decrease as D/dp increases from 3 to 10. This can be attributed
to a corresponding decrease in the channeling flow area from 42%
(D/dp = 3) to 11% (D/dp = 10).
In transition regime (Re = 1–500) the values of predicted CD were
found to be within 10% of those estimated by the Ergun’s equation.
This is probably due to the countering effects of wall friction and
channeling near the wall which perhaps compensate the effects of
each other.
4. Conclusions
(1) The CFD simulations of pressure drop and drag coefficient were
performed in the fixed beds having D/dp ratios 3, 5 and 10 in the
entire range of Re (0.1 < Re < 10,000), that is in creeping, transi-
tion and turbulent flow regimes. The predicted drag coefficient
values were in agreement with the experimental results in
creeping flow regime, whereas in turbulent flow the difference
was within 10–15%.
(2) When the CFD simulation was compared with Ergun’s equa-
tion, the predicted CD values in the creeping flow region were
found to be higher due to wall friction. As D/dp ratio increase
from 3 to 10 the effect of the wall friction decreases and the
CFD prediction nearly approaches to the Ergun’s equation (at
D/dp = 10 deviation is 13.2%).
(3) In turbulent flow region the predicted CD values were found to
be lower due to channeling. The effect of channeling decreases
when the D/dp ratio increases from 3 to 10. In the transition
region (10 < Re < 500) the agreement was found to be within
10% of those estimated by the Ergun’s equation.
Acknowledgement
One of us (Rupesh Kumar Reddy Guntaka) acknowledges the fel-
lowship support given by the university Grant Commission (UGC),
Government of India.
References
Calis, H. P. A., Nijenhuis, J., Paikert, B. C., Dautzenberg, F. M., & van den Bleek, C.
M. (2001). CFD modeling and experimental validation of pressure drop and
 R.K. Reddy, J.B. Joshi / Particuology 8 (2010) 37–43
flow profile in a novel structured catalytic reactor packing. Chemical Engineering
Science, 56, 1713–1720.
Carman, P. C. (1937). Fluid flow through granular beds. Transactions of the Institution
of Chemical Engineers, 15, 150–166.
Chu, C. F., & Ng, K. M. (1989). Flow in packed bed tubes with small tube to particle
diameter ratio. AIChE Journal, 35, 148–158.
Coulson, J. M. (1949). The flow of fluids through granular beds: Effect of particle
shape and voids in streamline flow. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical
Engineers, 27, 237–257.
Dalman, M. T., Merkin, J. H., & McGreavy, C. (1986). Fluid flow and heat transfer past
two spheres in a cylindrical tube. Computers & Fluids, 14, 267–281.
Di Felice, R., & Gibilaro, L. G. (2004). Wall effects for the pressure drop in fixed beds.
Chemical Engineering Science, 59, 3037–3040.
Eisfeld, B., & Schnitzlein, K. (2001). The influence of confining walls on the pressure
drop in packed beds. Chemical Engineering Science, 56, 4321–4329.
Ergun, S. (1952). Fluid flow through packed columns. Chemical Engineering Progress,
48, 89–94.
Foumeny, E. A., Benyahia, F., Castro, J. A. A., Moallemi, H. A., & Roshani, S. (1993).
Correlations of pressure drop in packed beds taking into account the effect of
confining wall. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 36, 536–540.
Guardo, A., Coussirat, M., Larrayoz, M. A., Recasens, F., & Egusquiza, E. (2005). Influ-
ence of the turbulence model in CFD modeling of wall-to-fluid heat transfer in
packed beds. Chemical Engineering Science, 60, 1733–1742.
43
Joshi, J. B. (1983). Solid-liquid fluidised beds: Some design aspects. Chemical Engi-
neering Research and Design, 61, 143–161.
Leva, M. (1947). Pressure drop through packed tubes. Part I. A general correlation.
Chemical Engineering Progress, 43, 549–554.
Lloyd, B., & Boehm, R. (1994). Flow and heat transfer around a linear array of spheres.
Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A: Applications, 26, 237–252.
Mehta, D., & Hawley, M. C. (1969). Wall effect in packed columns. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry, Process Design and Development, 8, 280–282.
Nield, D. A. (1983). Alternative model for wall effect in laminar flow of a fluid through
a packed column. AIChE Journal, 29, 688–689.
Nijemeisland, M., & Dixon, A. G. (2004). CFD study of fluid flow and wall heat transfer
in a fixed bed of spheres. AIChE Journal, 50, 906–921.
Pandit, A. B., & Joshi, J. B. (1998). Pressure drop in fixed, expanded and fluidized
beds, packed columns and static mixers—a unified approach. Reviews in Chemical
Engineering, 14, 321–371.
Patankar, S. V. (1980). Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. New York: Mcgraw-Hill
Book Company.
Reichelt, W. (1972). Zur Berechnung des Druckverlustes einphasig durchstroK
mter Kugel- und ZylinderschuK ttungen. Chemie-Ingenieur-Technik, 44, 1068–
1071.
Reddy, R. K., & Joshi, J. B. (2008). CFD modeling of pressure drop and drag coeffi-
cient in fixed and expanded beds. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 86,
444–453.