NAME: OJO MARTINS

MAT NUMBER: ENG1804660

DEPARTMENT: CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
LEVEL: 300
COURSE CODE: CHE302
EXPERIMENT TITLE: FIXED AND FLUIDIZED BED
AIM OF EXPERIMENT: TO INVESTIGATE THE
CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH AIR FLOWING
VERTICALLY UPWARDS THROUGH A BED OF GRANULAR
MATERIAL
OBJECTIVES: (A) TO DETERMINE THE HEAD LOSS
(B) TO VERIFY THE EQUATION
(C) TO OBSERVE THE ONSET OF
FLUIDIZATION AND DIFFERENTIATE
BETWEEN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A FIXED
AND FLUIDIZED BED.
(D) TO COMPARE THE PREDICTED ONSET OF
FLUIDIZATION WITH THE MEASURED HEAD
LOSS.
GROUP NUMBER: A3
EXPERIMENT NO: 03
SERIAL NUMBER: 29
DATE OF EXPERIMENT: 8/02/2022
NAME OF SUPERVISOR: MR MOSES OGHENOVO
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................3
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................3
ABSTRACT.................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION........................................................................5
THEORY......................................................................................7
DESCRIPTION OF APPARATUS............................................10
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE.............................................15
RESULTS...................................................................................16
DISCUSSION.............................................................................24
CONCLUSION...........................................................................26
RECOMMENDATION..............................................................27
REFERENCES...........................................................................28
APPENDIX................................................................................ 29
 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures Names Page no.
1 Representation of the various regime of 11
fluidized bed.
2 Variation of fluidized bed pressure drop 12
with gas velocity.
3 Equipment set up 20
4 graph 27

Tables Names Page no

1 Table for illustration 17
2 Raw Experiment data 23
Calculated Experiment data 24
4 Calculated tables for VSM, Predicted pressure
drop, Experimental pressure drop and 25
Flowrate

5 Table for graph data 26

 ABSTRACT

The experiment is carried out to investigate the pressure drop at

minimum fluidized velocity and to verify the theoretical pressure drop using
Ergun Equation. In this experiment, air was allowed to pass through a column
filled with bed of alumina particles. When the upward drag force exerted by
the air on particle is equal to the apparent weight of particles in the bed,
fluidization starts to occur. The effect of air flow rate on pressure drop is
observed. The air flow rate is varied and different column height is obtained.
This data was used to calculate a series of theoretical pressure drop across the
bed column with the aid of Ergun Equation. Besides, at different air flow rate,
different pressure drop which were shown by the fluidized packed column were
also observed. A graph of theoretical pressure drop versus airflow rate was
plotted. The theoretical pressure drop is compared with experimental pressure
drop at minimum fluidized velocity by computing the percentage
difference between theoretical and experimental pressure drop values, the
experimental values and the theoretical values were not the same as the experiment
pressure drop and the theoretical pressure were 332 mmH2O and 507.23 mmH2O
respectively at maximum flow rate.
 INTRODUCTION

Fluidized beds are used widely in chemical processing industries for

separations, rapid mass and heat transfer operations, and catalyic reactions.
A typical fluidized bed is a cylindrical column that contains particles and
through which fluid, either gaseous or liquid, flows. In the case of fluidized
bed reactors, the particles would contain a catalyst, and for separations, the
particles might be an absorbent or adsorbent. The velocity of the fluid is
sufficiently high to suspend, or fluidize, the particles within the column,
providing a large surface area for the fluid to contact, which is the chief
advantage of fluidized beds. As shown in Figure 1, fluidized beds range in
size from small laboratory-scale devices to very large industrial systems.
Regardless of whether the fluidized bed is used for a separation or
reaction, a key goal is to operate the bed at a flow rate that optimizes the
application. Accurate models would aid significantly, but modeling, even at
a qualitative level, of the complex dynamics in fluidized beds continues to
challenge engineers and scientists. The challenge arises from the necessity
of considering both the solid and fluid phases and the interplay between
them to form a complete picture for understanding the properties of
fluidization.
Figure 2 assists in understanding the inherent challenge: multiple flow
patterns within fluidized beds can be observed depending upon the volocity
of the fluid. For sufficiently low rates of flow, fluid passes through the void
space between particles without disturbing them. This case where the bed
of particles remains in place is referred to as a “fixed bed”. At higher rates
of flow, the drag forces acting on the particles can exceed the gravitational
forces and lift particles. However when the bed of particles expands, the
drag force drops as fluid velocity in the void spaces declines. The result is a
highly dynamic state to which we refer as fluidization. Regimes of
fluidization which can be easily identified from qualitative observations
include bubbling and slugging patterns at relatively low flow rates and
turbulent flow patterns at higher flow rates. At very high rates of fluid
flow, the drag force can exceed the net gravitational forces on individual
particles, even when the particles are widely separated. In this regime of
pneumatic conveying, particles are carried through the container and must
be reintroduced externally.
A fluidized bed is a packed bed through which fluid flows at such a high
velocity that the bed is loosened and the particle-fluid mixture behaves as though it
is a fluid. Thus, when a bed of particles is fluidized, the entire bed can be
transported like a fluid, if desired. Both gas and liquid flows can be used to fluidize
a bed of particles. The most common reason for fluidizing a bed is to obtain
vigorous agitation of the solids in contact with the fluid, leading to excellent
contact of the solid and the fluid and the solid and the wall. This means that nearly
uniform temperatures can be maintained even in highly exothermic reaction
situations where the particles are used to catalyze a reaction in the species
contained in the fluid. In fact, fluidized beds were used in catalytic cracking in the
petroleum industry in the past. The catalyst is suspended in the fluid by fluidizing a
bed of catalytic particles so that intimate contact can be achieved between the
particles and the fluid. Nowadays, you will find fluidized beds used in catalyst
regeneration, solid-gas reactors, combustion of coal, roasting of ores, drying, and
gas adsorption operations.

THEORY

Fluidized Bed Fundamentals

 Fluidized beds are characterized by their high rates of mixing between the
fluid and solid phases. It is for this reason that these systems exhibit high rates of
heat and mass transfer between the phases, and are thus desirable for use in
various physical and chemical processes. Upon fluidization, the weight of the bed
material is balanced by the pressure drop across the bed. This results in a fluid-
like behavior of the solid phase, hence the name “fluidized bed.”

There is a large amount of published theory on fluidized beds and their

behavior. Particle and flow regime classifications form the basis of any fluidized
bed experiment. The theory (Kunii, 1991) regarding pressure drop across the
fluidized bed, mean bed height, and minimum fluidization velocity proves to be
invaluable to the successful design and validation of an associated experiment.

2.1 Flow Regimes

A simple setup of a fluidized bed is shown in Figure 1.1. The particulate phase,
consisting of the bed material, is confined by the sides of the cylindrical tube and
rests on top of a porous plate. With the introduction of a pressurized gas through
the porous plate, various flow regimes are possible, depending on the average
velocity of the gas. Figure 1.1 illustrates the range of flow regimes possible in a
vertical fluidized bed. The superficial gas velocity, Us, is defined as the
volumetric flow rate of the gas through the tube divided by the cross-sectional
area of the fluidized bed, Af. At low values of superficial gas velocity (pre-
fluidization), the gas flows through the interstitial spaces between the particles.
The pressure drop across the bed, pb, increases linearly with Us but is not large
enough to balance the bed weight mbedg, where mbed is the mass of the bed and g is
the gravitational acceleration constant. This fixed bed is illustrated in Figure
1.1(a).

Figure 2.1: Basic vertical fluidized bed schematic depicting possible flow regimes.

Kunii (1991)

Figure 2.2: Basic vertical fluidized bed schematic depicting possible flow
regimes. Kunii (1991)
 Raising the superficial gas velocity until the pressure drop equals the bed
weight, pb = mg, yields minimum fluidization, exhibited in Figure 1.1(b). Here,
the superficial gas velocity is defined as the minimum fluidization velocity, Umf.
As mentioned, the particle phase begins to behave like a fluid.

Further increasing Us yields various flow regimes of increasing intensity.

Initially, the bed will continue to expand as shown in Figure 1.1(c). Bubbling
occurs either at the onset of fluidization or shortly thereafter (Figure 1.1(d)),
depending on particle and gas properties. The velocity at which bubbles are first
present is Umb, the minimum bubbling velocity. For sufficiently narrow beds at
higher gas velocities, slugs may begin to form. This occurs when the diameters of
the bubbles approach that of the confining tube, as illustrated in Figure 1.1(e). As
seen in Figure 1.1(f), large enough slugs may lift portions of the bed.

The next regime is described by turbulent motion of the bed (Figure

1.1(g)). Here, the clearly-defined upper surface of the bed visible in the previous
regimes disappears. With a high enough superficial gas velocity, the drag force
from the fluid will match the weight of each particle. This is known as pneumatic
transport, illustrated by Figure 1.1(h).

The flow regimes tested in this experiment range from the low-velocity
fixed bed to the flat slug regime seen in Figure 1.1(f). Turbulent fluidization and
pneumatic transport occur at superficial gas velocities beyond those which are
tested in this experiment.

1.2 Particle Characterization

Particles exhibit varying fluidization behaviors based on their solid density

ρs and mean diameter dp. Geldart (1973) constructed a helpful and widely-
used classification of bed materials based on the mean particle diameter and the
difference between the fluid and solid phase densities, ρs - ρg.

Figure 2.3: Geldart particle classification diagram. Geldart (1973)

There are four main classes of particles, as shown in Figure 1.2, which is
valid for fluidization using atmospheric air. Geldart B particles include the type of
materials most commonly found in industrial fluidized beds. This type of particle
exhibits bubbling right at the onset of fluidization (Umb= Umf). Most types of beach
sand can be found in this category. Geldart A particles are smaller and lighter
than those from group B, and generally fluidize at lower superficial gas velocities.
Upon minimum fluidization, beds of this material type undergo smooth,
homogenous expansion. A further increase in gas velocity is required to obtain
bubbling.
 Particles in the Geldart C domain are extremely light and small. An
example is a fine powder, such as flour. Fluidization of this particle type is
difficult due to the fact that cohesive forces between particles tend to be higher
than the drag forces imparted onto the particles by the fluid. Geldart D materials,
on the other hand, are large and dense. Particles in this domain tend to exhibit
spouting when a pressurized gas is introduced, making fluidization very difficult.
The particles used in the current experiment all lie within the Geldart B domain.
These were chosen due to the ease with which fluidization using these particles is
possible, along with the fact that their sizes and densities are commonly used in
industrial applications.

1.3 Pressure Drop Across a Fluidized Bed

As previously mentioned, the pressure drop across the bed is linearly

proportional to the superficial gas velocity up until the point of minimum
fluidization. After this point, the weight of the solid phase is balanced by the
pressure drop over the bed. This is expressed by the following relation:

Here, ε is the void fraction, and is the average bed height which will be defined
shortly. The void fraction can be expressed in terms of the solid density and the
bulk density of the solid-fluid mixture, ρB
After the point of minimum fluidization, the pressure drop across the bed remains
constant, while the average height of the bed increases with Us. This is illustrated
in Figure 1.3.

Figure 2.4: Ideal pressure drop of a fluidized bed as a function of

superficial gas velocity (Left); Ideal pressure drop over average bed
height as a function of superficial gas velocity (Right)

Indeed, the quantity is seen to drop after minimum fluidization. This

follows from the fact that the mean bed height continues to rise after this point.
The minimum fluidization velocity can be easily determined by recording
pressure drop values at various gas velocities. Connecting the two linear sections,
as shown in Figure 1.3, yields the desired value of Umf.

Similarly, plotting values of void fraction versus superficial gas velocity

yields another estimate of the minimum fluidization velocity. The average bed
height and, thus, void fraction, remain constant until the onset of fluidization, as
seen in Figure 1.4.
 DESCRIPTION OF APPARATUS

Figure 6: The experimental apparatus in the unit operations laboratory. The

diagram shows the major elements of the experimental equipment and Table 1
contains the key for the various parts. The following components are not visible in this
plot since they are behind the panel: supply tank for water, compressed air reservoir,
pump for water, compressor for air.

1 Panel 11 Column for water

2 Vent valve for air 12 Bleed/vent valve for water
3 Rotameter for air manometer
4 Manometer for differential air 13 Manometer for water pressure
pressure 14 Power switch for pump
5 Power switch for compressor 15 Rotameter for water
6 Column for air 16 Vent valve for water
7 Air filter 17 Water supply
8 Scale 19 Distribution chamber for water
9 Water overflow 21 Distribution chamber for air
10 Fixing for the upper sintered 22 Air supply
plate
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEEDURE

1. The air test-column as filled to a height of 312mm with ballotini

2. The air flow control valve as closed
3. The after manometer as checked for air bubbles.
4. The entire apparatus as bench as plugged with wire to a power supply.
5. The air compressor as switched on as well as the rotameter
6. The air flow rate as adjusted to an increment of 2 L/min.
7. At each setting the conditions were allowed to stabilize and the height of the
bed, the differential reading of the manometer and the state of bed were
recorded.
8. This process as continued until the flow rate got to 16L/min and the readings
were subsequently recorded.
 RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS:

Table 2: RAW EXPERIMENT DATA

BED HEIGHT FLOWRATE BED PRESSURE BED STATE

(mm) (L/min) DROP
(mm H2O)
312 0 0 FIXED
312 2 65 FIXED
312 3 91 FIXED
312 4 129 FIXED
312 5 171 FIXED
312 6 208 FIXED
314 7 241 FLUIDIZED
310 8 280 FLUIDIZED
321 9 288 FLUIDIZED
327 10 306 FLUIDIZED
333 11 306 FLUIDIZED
336 12 309 FLUIDIZED
342 13 317 FLUIDIZED
347 14 320 FLUIDIZED
349 15 324 FLUIDIZED
353 16 332 FLUIDIZED
Table 3: CALCULATED EXPERIMENT DATA

BED HEIGHT FLOWRATE BED PRESSURE BED STATE

(m) (m3/s) x 10-5 DROP
(mm H2O)
0.312 0.00 0 FIXED
0.312 3.333 65 FIXED
0.312 5.00 91 FIXED
0.312 6.667 129 FIXED
0.312 8.333 171 FIXED
0.312 10.00 208 FIXED
0.314 11.667 241 FLUIDIZED
0.310 13.333 280 FLUIDIZED
0.321 15.00 288 FLUIDIZED
0.327 16.667 306 FLUIDIZED
0.333 18.333 306 FLUIDIZED
0.336 20.00 309 FLUIDIZED
0.342 21.667 317 FLUIDIZED
0.347 23.33 320 FLUIDIZED
0.349 25.00 324 FLUIDIZED
0.353 26.667 332 FLUIDIZED

TABLE 4: CALCULATED TABLE FOR VSM, PREDICTED PRESSURE DROP,

EXPERIMENTAL PRESSURE DROP AND FLOWRATE
 PREDICTED EXPERIMENTAL
VSM FLOWRATE PRESSURE DROP BED PRESSURE
(m/s) (m3/s) x 10-5 (mm H2O) x 103 DROP
(mm H2O)
0.0000 0.00 0 0
0.0170 3.333 0.00026 65
0.0255 5.00 0.00057 91
0.0340 6.667 0.00103 129
0.0425 8.333 0.00158 171
0.0509 10.00 0.00226 208
0.0594 11.667 451.19 241
0.0680 13.333 445.45 280
0.0764 15.00 461.25 288
0.0849 16.667 469.87 306
0.0934 18.333 478.50 306
0.1019 20.00 482.81 309
0.1104 21.667 491.43 317
0.1189 23.333 498.61 320
0.1274 25.00 501.49 324
0.1358 26.667 507.23 332

Converting L/min to m3/s

1L = 10-3m3
1min = 60seconds
2L/min = 2 x 10-3 = 3.33 x 10-5 m3/s
60
3L/min = 3 x 10-3 = 5 x 10-5 m3/s
60
Converting millimetre to meter
1mm = 10-3m
312mm = 312 = 0.312m
1000

312mm = 314 = 0.314m

1000

Calculating for Vsm(m/s)

−3
Q× 10
- VSM =
A × 60

At Q = 0 L/min

Q× 10−3 0 x 10−3
VSM = = = 0.0 m/s
A × 60 1.964 x 10−3× 60

At Q = 2 L/min

−3
Q× 10 2 x 10−3
VSM = = 1.964 x 10−3× 60 = 0.016972 m/s
A × 60

At Q = 3L/min

−3
Q× 10 3 x 10−3
VSM = = 1.964 x 10−3× 60 =0.02542 m/s
A × 60

PREDICTED PRESSURE DROP AT FIXED BED

( )
2
V SM μW ( 1−ε ) 1.75 V SM 2 ( 1−ε )
- λ= 150 L 2 2
+ 3
×103 mm H 2 O
D P ε ρW g gε DP

At Q = 2 L/min

−5 2 2
0.016792× 1.82× 10 (1−0.425) 1.75 x 0.13 x 0.016792 (1−0.425) 3
λ=(150 × 0.312 2 2
+ 3
)×10 mm H 2 O
0.485 ×0.425 x 1.2754 x 9.8 9.8 x 0.425 x 0.485
 λ = 0.000252 x103 mm H2O

At Q = 3 L/min

−5 2 2
0.0255 ×1.82 ×10 (1−0.425) 1.75 x 0.13 x 0.016792 (1−0.425)
λ=(150 × 0.31 2 2
+ 3
)×103 mm H 2 O
0.485 ×0.425 x 1.2754 x 9.8 9.8 x 0.425 x 0.485

λ = 0.000569 x103 mm H2O

At Q = 4 L/min

−5 2 2
0.0339 ×1.82 ×10 (1−0.425) 1.75 x 0.13 x 0.016792 (1−0.425) 3
λ=(150 × 0.31 2 2
+ 3
)×10 mm H 2 O
0.485 ×0.425 x 1.2754 x 9.8 9.8 x 0.425 x 0.485

λ = 0.00242 x 103 mm H2O

- PREDICTED PRESSURE DROP AT FLUIDIZIED BED

L(1−ϵ )
λ= ρair
( ρ p – ρ air) X 103 mm H2O

At Q = 7 L/min, L=0.314 m

0.314(1−0.425)
λ= (2960 – 1.2754) X 103 mm H2O
1.2754

λ = 417.50 x 103 mm H2O

At Q = 8 L/min, L=0.320 m

0.320(1−0.425)
λ= (2960 – 1.2754) X 103 mm H2O
1.2754

λ = 426.85 x 103 mm H2O

Table 5: Table for graph data
EXPERIMENT PREDICTED
FLOWRATE BED PRESSURE BED PRESSURE
(m3/s) x 10-5 Bed pressure
DROP drop vs Flowrate
DROP
600 (mm H2O) (mm H20)
0.00 0 0
500
Bed pressure drop (mmH2O)

3.333 65 0.00026
400
5.00 91 0.00057
300
6.667 129 0.00103
200
8.333 171 0.00158
100
10.00 208 0.00226
0
11.667 0 241 5 10 15 451.19
20 25 30
Flowrate (m3/s) × 10-5
13.333 280 445.45
15.00 288 461.25
16.667 306 469.87
18.333 306 478.50
20.00 309 482.81
21.667 317 491.43
23.333 320 498.61
25.00 324 501.49
26.667 332 507.23

A GRAPH REPRESENTATION OF BED PRESSURE DROP AGAINST FLOWRATE

FOR BOTH PREDICTED AND EXPERIMENTAL BED PRESSURE DROP
 DISCUSSION

In this fluidized bed experiment, there are two marked sections which are
known as Column 1 and Column 2. Section 1 is loaded with ballotini and the
height of the bed was adjusted to 312-mm in the beginning of the experiment. As
shown in the results obtained, when the volumetric flow rate was adjusted from
2L/min to 16L/min, the height of the bed kept increasing and obtained steady state
reaching the final adjusted flow rate. The experiment is started with constant height
of 312mm and reaching flowrate of 2L/min. The air flow rate inside the range of
2L/min to 6L/ min did not cause any major effect to the height. The progress in
height of the bed is noticed from the flow rate of 7L/min onwards. There is
sufficient wind current rate to push the ballotini vertically. There is persistent
increment from flowrate of 7L/min to 16L/min as shown in Table 2.0.
The chart of theoretical pressure drop against air flow rate is demonstrated in
Graph 2.. It demonstrates that the theoretical drop increases when air flow rate
increments. The theoretical pressure drop increases from 327.744Pa to 492.416Pa
at 2L/min to 3L/min. Beyond that point, it starts to fluctuate until it reach its peak
which is 764.265-Pa. Then it decreases from 14-L/m to 19-L/m and slightly
increases at the end of trial. This could be explained by the accompany of Ergun
Equation in which the theoretical pressure drop is directly proportional to the speed
or flow rate of the air in laminar region and also directly proportional to the square
of speed or flow rate of the air in turbulent region.

24
From graph 2.0, it shows that when the air flow rate increases the pressure drop
also increases. The pressure drop increases from initial start of flow rate which is
2L/min to 16L/min. After it reaches the maximum pressure drop which is 764.265-
Pa, it starts to fluctuate slightly until the end of experiment.
In the experiment, the fluidization happens during 7L/min which was
confirmed by the observation where the bubbles start to form on the surface of the
bed and the height of column increases from 314 mm to 321 mm showing the
highest height difference throughout the whole experiment. At 14-L/min which is
also known as minimum fluidized velocity, an experimental pressure drop of 1610-
pa was observed and a theoretical pressure drop of 616.25-Pa was also calculated
by using Ergun Equation. Comparison is being made between experimental
pressure drop and theoretical pressure drop at minimum fluidized velocity,
14-L/min where 33.7247% of percentage difference between theoretical pressure
drop and experimental pressure drop is calculated. Theoretically, after the
fluidization occurs, the pressure drop shall remain constant with increased air flow
rate. However, Graph 1.0 shows that theoretical pressure drop is constant after
fluidization occurred at minimum fluidized velocity, 14-L/min which makes the
results to be valid.
Referring to Table 1.0, it shows the results acquired for experimental
pressure drop which would be utilized to compare with the theoretical pressure
drop on Table 2.0. As demonstrated in the Table 1.0, the exploratory pressure
drops are characterized from air flow rate of 2L/min to 20L/min. It demonstrates a
consistent increment from 2-L/min to 12L/min with 248 to 1645 of pressure drop
respectively. Past that point, it begins to fluctuate until the end of the trial. The
percentage difference between hypothetical pressure drop and exploratory pressure
drop is 33.7247%. The percentage error is still acceptable because of the errors and
mistake happened during experiment.
In every experiment, there are dependably the events of blunders which make the

25
results to be non-alluring. Firstly, there were errors in data and calculation as the
air flow rate vacillated and the values were rounded up to the closest whole
number. Also, the flow meters were very sensitive which refused control of air
flow rates at a constant intervals as it required diverse time period to make changes
after 1 minutes. Besides that, the starting height of the bed was not set at 100-mm
and it was over the desired measurement. Furthermore, the presence of parallax
mistake caused the incorrectness of the readings to be recorded. To wrap things up,
the air compressor and air flow rate valve were

26
 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, at 14-L/min which is also known as minimum fluidized
velocity, an experimental pressure drop of 1610Pa was observed. The theoretical
pressure drop calculated is 616.25-Pa by using Ergun Equation. Besides, value of
33.72% is obtained when calculating the percentage error between experimental
pressure drop and theoretical pressure drop at air flow rate of 11 L/min.
Furthermore, the pressure drop increases as the air flow rate increases. The
pressure drops becomes almost steady after fluidization. This experimental
statement is compatible with the theoretical statement. However, the graph
obtained is not steady. Hence, parallax error can be avoided to obtain more
accurate results

27
 RECOMMENDATION

 In place of using the fixed and fluidized bed apparatus that was used in this
experiment a more recent one with a digital format of reading the flowrate
and bed height can be used.
 During the course of the experiment we experienced Electrical issues so if
we can adapt to the use of solar energy we would have backup in case of
power outage.
 Other granular materials could also be used such as zeolite pellets, granular
activated carbon that responds more quickly to change in flowrate to carry
out this experiment.
 Ensure all the apparatus are in good conditions before carry out the
experiments for better operations.

28
 REFERENCES

 P. Chattopadyay, Unit operations for Chemical Engineering Volume 1, Third

Edition, Khanna publishers, Dehil 2003
 J.F. Richardson and W.N. Zaki, Trans. Inst. Chem. Engrs., 32, 35 (1954).
 W.L. McCabe and J.C. Smith, "Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering,"
3rd Edition, p. 146150, 159-160, McGraw-Hill, New York (1976).
 Wikipedia
 R. H. Perry and C.H Chilton, Chemical Engineering Handbook, Seventh
Edition, McGraw Hill New York, 1998 Pp 17/2-17/19.
 J.M. Coulson and J.F. Richardson, "Chemical Engineering," Vol. II, p. 510-
527, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1960).

29
 APPENDIX

Diameter of Particle, DP= 0.485m

D=4.58 cm
Sphericity; ∅=0.67
Density of solid, ρs=3970 kg/m3
Density of fluid, ρf=1.27 kg/m3
Kinematic viscosity of air, μAir=1.82 x 10−5Pas

CALCULATION CONTINUE
Converting Litre per min (L/min) to cubic-meter per second (m3/s)
1L = 10-3 m3
1 min = 60 seconds
4 x 10−3
4 L/min = 60 = 6.667 x 10-5 m3/s
5 x 10−3
5 L/min = 60 = 8.333 x 10-5 m3/s
6 x 10−3
6 L/min = 60 = 10 x 10-5 m3/s
7 x 10−3
7 L/min = 60 = 11.667 x 10-5 m3/s
8 x 10−3
8 L/min = 60 = 13.333 x 10-5 m3/s
9 x 10−3
9 L/min = 60 = 15 x 10-5 m3/s
10 x 10−3
10 L/min = 60 =16.667 x 10-5 m3/s
11 x 10−3
11 L/min = 60 = 18.333 x 10-5 m3/s
12 x 10−3
12 L/min = 60 = 20 x 10-5 m3/s
13 x 10−3
13 L/min = 60 = 21.667 x 10-5 m3/s

30
 14 x 10−3
14 L/min = 60 = 23.333 x 10-5 m3/s
15 x 10−3
15 L/min = 60 = 25 x 10-5 m3/s
16 x 10−3
16 L/min = 60 = 26.667 x 10-5 m3/s

Millimeter to meter
1mm = 10-3 m
310
310 mm = 1000 = 0.310 m

321
321 mm = 1000 = 0.321 m
327
327 mm = 1000 = 0.327 m
333
333 mm = 1000 = 0.333 m
336
336 mm = 1000 = 0.336 m
342
342 mm = 1000 = 0.342 m
347
347 mm = 1000 = 0.347 m
349
349 mm = 1000 = 0.349 m
353
353 mm = 1000 = 0.353 m

Q× 10−3
Calculating for VSM (m/s) = A × 60

At Q = 4 L/min
−3 −3
Q× 10 4 x 10
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60
= 0.0340 m/s

At Q = 5 L/min
−3
Q× 10 5 x 10−3
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60 = 0.0425 m/s

31
At Q = 6 L/min
Q× 10−3 6 x 10−3
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60 =0.0509 m/s

At Q = 7 L/min
−3 −3
Q× 10 7 x 10
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60
= 0.0594 m/s

At Q = 8 L/min
Q× 10−3 8 x 10−3
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60 = 0.0680 m/s

At Q = 9 L/min
−3
Q× 10 9 x 10−3
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60 = 0.0764 m/s

At Q = 10 L/min
−3 −3
Q× 10 10 x 10
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60
= 0.0849 m/s

At Q = 11 L/min
Q× 10−3 11 x 10−3
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60 = 0.0934 m/s

At Q = 12 L/min
−3
Q× 10 12 x 10−3
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60 = 0.1019 m/s

At Q = 13 L/min
Q× 10−3 13 x 10−3
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60 = 0.1104m/s

At Q = 14 L/min
Q× 10−3 14 x 10−3
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60 = 0.1189 m/s

At Q = 15 L/min

32
 Q× 10−3 15 x 10−3
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60 = 0.127 m/s

At Q = 16 L/min
Q× 10−3 16 x 10−3
VSM = A × 60
= 1.963 x 10−3 ×60 = 0.1358 m/s

PREDICTED PRESSURE DROP AT FIXED BED

( )
2
V SM μW ( 1−ε ) 1.75 LV SM2 ( 1−ε )
λ= 150 L 2 2
+ 3
× 103 mm H 2 O
D P ε ρW g g ε DP

At Q = 5 L/min
−5 2 2
0.0425 ×1.844 ×10 (1−0.425) 1.75 x 0.312 x 0.0425 (1−0.425) 3
λ=(150 × 0.312 2 2
+ 3
)× 10 mm H 2 O
0.485 × 0.425 x 1.184 x 9.81 9.81 x 0.425 x 0.485

λ = 0.00158 x103 mm H2O

At Q = 6 L/min
−5 2 2
0.0509 ×1.844 ×10 (1−0.425) 1.75 x 0.312 x 0.0509 (1−0.425) 3
λ=(150 × 0.312 2 2
+ 3
)× 10 mm H 2 O
0.485 × 0.425 x 1.184 x 9.81 9.81 x 0.425 x 0.485

λ = 0.00226 x103 mm H2O

PREDICTED PRESSURE DROP AT FLUIDIZIED BED

L(1−ϵ )
λ= ρair ( p
ρ – ρ air) X 103 mm H2O

At Q = 9 L/min, L=0.321 m
0.321(1−0.425)
λ= 1.184
(2960 – 1.184) X 103 mm H2O

λ = 461.25 x 103 mm H2O

At Q = 10 L/min, L=0.327 m

33
 0.327(1−0.425)
λ= 1.184
(2960 – 1.184) X 103 mm H2O

λ = 469.87 x 103 mm H2O

At Q = 11 L/min, L=0.333 m
0.333(1−0.425)
λ= 1.184
(2960 – 1.184) X 103 mm H2O

λ = 478.50 x 103 mm H2O

At Q = 12 L/min, L=0.336 m
0.336(1−0.425)
λ= 1.184
(2960 – 1.184) X 103 mm H2O

λ = 482.81 x 103 mm H2O

At Q = 13 L/min, L=0.342 m
0.342(1−0.425)
λ= 1.184
(2960 – 1.184) X 103 mm H2O

λ = 491.43 x 103 mm H2O

At Q = 14 L/min, L=0.347 m
0.347(1−0.425)
λ= 1.184
(2960 – 1.184) X 103 mm H2O

λ = 498.61 x 103 mm H2O

At Q = 15 L/min, L=0.349 m
0.349(1−0.425)
λ= 1.184
(2960 – 1.184) X 103 mm H2O

λ = 501.49 x 103 mm H2O

At Q = 16 L/min, L=0.353 m
0.353(1−0.425)
λ= 1.184
(2960 – 1.184) X 103 mm H2O

λ = 507.23 x 103 mm H2O

34