THE HOLISTIC FLUIDIZOLOGY.

A Story about liquid- contra gas-fluidized beds, supersonic spouted-beds

and aggregative contra particulate fluidization

JØRN TOUBORG, and K. C. ENGVILD

touborg@pc.dk

Abstract
Applying common Fluid Mechanics on idealized monodispersal fluid-beds with
perfect spheres has succeeded in describing hitherto not explained
phenomena i.e. the difference between liquid- and gas-fluidized beds,
aggregative and particulate fluidization, a reason for bubble formation and
spouted-beds and a reason why some beds fluidize over a wide span of
velocities and others in a narrow.
The results are compared with some of the many observations reported in
literature. Some with good and other with less agreement. The new theory is
sometimes based on a high degree of simplification and thus invites to
discussion.

Keywords: Fluidization, fluid mechanics, liquid/gas-fluidization, supersonic

spouted beds, particulate/aggregative fluidization

Introduction
Fluidization means that a particulate matter expected to act as a bulk material
is transformed into a fluid-like medium or fluid bed by suspending the weight
of the single particles by forces from the up flowing liquid. The internal rigid
friction forces between the bulk particles are replaced by the compliant sheer
stress in and dynamic head of the fluid and the mixture is given the properties
of a liquid. It levels out like a liquid, pours out as a liquid, feels like a liquid
and bodies may float on it or sink into it or even swim in it.

In nature fluid beds occur as quick sands where an up flowing spring

continuously prevents the present sand from settling. An up-flowing velocity of
water necessary to carry a fine sand is of few millimeters per second only and
the distance between the single grains may be much less than the grain size.
The surface of quick sand may thus look solid but wet since up-flowing water
must run off in a thin layer but it may not be possible to walk on it.

It has to be mentioned here, that if a larger body enters a fluid bed, its
presence prevents the up-flow of liquid immediately underneath the body and
thereby the fluidization and thus the buoyancy. The now non-fluidized
particles under the body therefore sink into the bed and drag the body with
them. If the body is a creature it may drown.

If the up-flowing velocity in a laboratory fluid bed increases, the bed expands
and the surface of it sometimes becomes disturbed like in a boiling liquid. At
even higher velocities the surface of the bed becomes squirting, undefined
and finally disappears like a liquid at supercritical stage.

1
Owing to the intimate contact between the suspended solid particles in a fluid
bed and the suspending liquid, fluid beds are widely used in chemical industry
to facilitate chemical processes. The engineering of fluidization equipment
therefore by tradition was done by chemists and to day education and
research in fluidization and literature hereon still belongs to “chemical
engineering”.

As can be seen from the foregoing the basic mechanisms in fluidization are
Fluid Mechanics, which may not have had enough attention. By paying more
attention to the fluid dynamic aspect in fluidization several well known
observations may be put into new relations and become if not “explained” then
easier to understand and remember.

The different behaviors of various fluid beds (like Geldarts A,B,C and D
powders [3]) may be better understood i.e. channeling, elutriation, bubbling or
slugging beds and spouting beds and even the never explained difference
between liquid- and gas-fluidized beds is seen in a new light.
The purpose of this work thus is to put up a general theoretical framework
about fluidization that explains well known phenomena by basic knowledge
from fluid-mechanics and enables a prediction of future experiments. In order
to do so, a massive simplification of the wide spectrum of possibilities for
arranging of fluid-beds has to be done. Therefore a very general and idealized
view has to be taken whereby some details may become lost and some
uncertainty introduced. Hopefully the major findings and coincidence with
known observations will be convincing.

This work is therefore not a scientific report of carefully monitored

experiments, but rather ideas about connections between single observations
reported by serious researchers from many fields who didn’t put them in a
wider perspective since it was not their purpose.

Since a lot of research is reported in the literature concerning observations

aiming at industrial applications and thus deviates from ideality, this paper is
restricted to deal with ideal fluidization only i.e. fluidization of ideal spheres of
same size and density. This may be a provocative simplification far from
reality but useful nevertheless.

A consequence also is that expressions from Fluid Mechanics may be used in

another meaning than used by chemists in fluidization language.

Also in this work decisions about how to progress sometimes are made based
on intuitive presumptions more than facts. The text should explain when this
happens. The consequence of that of course is to question the results. The
purpose of this work therefore might also be to inspire somebody to verify or
refute these presumptions.

Finally the result of this work is used to predict a wide range of experiments
already thoroughly analyzed and reported in literature in order to investigate
the validity of the theories here suggested. Before this can be done it is
necessary to take a look at the basic physics of fluidization.

2
STATIONARY FLUIDIZATION OF IDENTICAL SPHERES.

As the upwards velocity of a liquid increases through a fixed bed of particles

the flow resistance on the particles also increases and reaches a value where
the friction forces equalizes the bed weight and fluidization initiates. This is the
maximum resistance the bed can offer. Further increase in fluid flow therefore
results in expansion of the bed i.e. the space or the channels between the
particles expand until the new flow can pass at remaining resistance but still
carries the bed.

At the ultimate expansion the distance between the particles is so large that
the presence of the particles does not influence on the general flow and each
particle acts as a single particle settling at its terminal velocity. It is evident
that the two ends of this expansion represent very different flows and must be
treated separately.

Looking at the flow as a channel flow between the particles we can write the
fundamental condition:

(Frictional Resistance per unit Channel Length) x

(Channel Length per unit Bed Height) = (0)
(Bed Buoyancy per unit Bed Height)

According to the above mentioned it lies nearby to divide the flow situation
around the particles into three different phases to be treated separately:

The Dense Phase

Which is very close to the fixed bed where the particles touch each other.

The Expanded Phase

Where the particles are separated from each other by distances less than
their size.

The Dilute Phase

Where the particles are separated from each other by distances larger than
their size.

Pressure drop in fixed beds

Channel flow is carefully studied in traditional Fluid Mechanics but rarely – if

ever – mentioned in studies on fluidization. In order to apply the findings in
Fluid Mechanics on channel flows it is necessary to know the specifications of
the channel i.e. its length and cross sectional shape. In fluidization the
distance dealt with is the difference in horizontal level in a bed, but the path
traveled in a channel of the bed is not straight and is somewhat longer,
depending of the particles size, shape and their arrangement.

3
In order to simplify the problem we first limit our considerations to a densely
packed bed of identical spheres. It is well known from metallurgy that this
packing can be made in two different ways: Face-centered cubic lattice or the
hexagonal lattice. Both have the voidage of ca. 26%

The face-centered lattice has three axes parallel to the edges of the cube and
moreover four axes through the corners and six through the faces. In total 13
axes of symmetry. The hexagonal lattice is even more complicated.

The spheres are positioned in various distances along the axes and the
channels along the various kinds of axes are correspondingly different and
may lead to different pressure drops over a certain geometrical distance.

In order to simplify the considerations, it would be much easier if the packing

of the spheres instead of cubes could be described as a packing of identical
regular tetrahedrons (fig. 1). Mathematically this is impossible. A.o. because
the two-plane angle between the sides in the tetrahedron is 70°.23 only and
should be 72° if 5 tetrahedrons should become packed around the clock.

Even if the mathematicians thus conclude that this packing can not be done,
an engineer might conclude, that it lies pretty close, and let us see how far off
it is.

A regular tetrahedron representing part of a sphere in corners fig. 1

4
In figure 2 five tetrahedrons are tried packed together to reach around the
clock. It is evident that they cannot but it is evident too that it is not so far off.
In figure 2 the packing is tried out in space and it is also seen that it won’t
work. But it is also plausible that only minor deformations of the spheres are
required to succeed.

In figure 3 the experiment is carried out on spheres and in the bottom of the
cluster it looks like a success but in the top the distances between the spheres
illustrate the impossibility of the attempt.

If we use this experiment to conclude that although impossible, the dense

packing of even tetrahedrons is so close to being realizable that it can be
used as a mental model to imagine the geometry of the channels between
particles in a fluid bed, considerations become simplified:

In a lattice consisting of even tetrahedrons there are only six axes of

symmetry along the edges of the figure and they are all equal. This is also the
channel-flows in 6 directions (12 if we include both ups and downs) and there
are only minor deviations from here for flows in other directions.

Five tetrahedrons trying to reach around the clock. Mirrored fig. 2

Even if the bed expands we have for the number N of particles in a large cube
of side L:

5
 1- e
N= L3 (1)
p 3
d
6

And for the surface of them:

6(1 - e ) 3
S = Np d 2 = L (2)
d

This is also the surface of the void.

The hydraulic diameter dh of a cylindrical channel of cross-sectional area A

and wetted perimeter P is:

4A
dh = (3)
P

If area and perimeter vary only a little over channel length l an average
hydraulic diameter may be written:

ò 4 Adl 4!void
dh = 0
L
= This is valid for slightly varying cross sections only.
surface
ò Pdl
0

This is not the case in a fluid bed, but the formula is nevertheless accepted
and chosen for the sake of simplicity. By applying (2) we obtain:

4e L3 d 2 e
dh = = dp (4)
6(1 - e ) L 3 1 - e
3

We already concluded that in a lattice consisting of even tetrahedrons there

are only six axes of symmetry and they are all equal; 12 if we include both ups
and downs, and there are only minor deviations from here in the remaining
other directions.

It is important here to notify that this simplification is very serious and may
lead to wrong results. If we from fig.4 conclude that one sphere includes 20
corners and the tetrahedron has 4 corners, the tetrahedron contains 1/5 of a
sphere. Since the regular tetrahedron has the volume 0.1176 d3 and the
sphere π/6 d3 the voidage should be 11% only.

6
12 identical spheres surrounding the 13th fig. 3

Path-length versus distance.

In fig 3 there are 13 balls on the pin. The corresponding figure with
tetrahedrons is seen in fig. 4. If we remove the five tetrahedrons in the top (or
the bottom) we get the configuration in fig.5. If we put several of this in a row
they include a central line of spheres. Each sphere is supplied with two
neighbors as we can see in fig. 6. There is also shown a streamline along the
central line.

To advance the distance of one sphere-diameter on this line the streamline

must pass the configuration in fig. 5. This is done by passing three
tetrahedrons. I.e. entering tetrahedron no. 10 in the bottom, Turning to the left,
leaving 10 and entering no. 9. Turning upward and leaving no. 9 through the
above lying (unnumbered) tetrahedron.

The streamline has now advanced the distance of one sphere-diameter in the
desired direction (vertical) and we shall now calculate the path length.

In fig.2 it is seen that the central streamline must enter in the middle of a
triangle forming the tetrahedron and again leaving similarly from one of the
remaining three triangles in the tetrahedron. Due to symmetry it must enter
and leave perpendicularly to the sides of the tetrahedron and thus have
turned 70°.23 (but since we talk about a deformed lattice of tetrahedrons we
instead say 72°)

7
20 tetrahedrons nearly packed together fig. 4

Building-unit of 15 tetrahedrons fig. 5

8
It also lies nearby to expect the streamline inside the tetrahedron to be circular
with the diameter of curvature:

d 2
d curv. = = d (5)
cos(30°) 3

Since the streamline has to pass three tetrahedrons in order to advance one
sphere diameter in distance, the length-to-distance ratio becomes

l 3p d curv. 3p 2
= = = 2.18 (6)
L 5 d 5 3

Expanded bed.
In a monodispersal bed of spheres of diameter d the initial expansion may be
described as if the small spherical particles with diameter d surround
themselves with a fictive and empty sphere of a larger diameter D.

1/3
é1 - e 0 ù
D=dê ú (7)
ë 1- e û

woolen stream line along the row of spheres on the pin. Mirrored. fig 6

9
The central streamlines of the new channels are now assumed to spiral their
way around the larger diameters D. The diameter of curvature is then from
equation (5)

2
Dcurv. = D (8)
3

This indicates that length-to-distance merely remains as calculated for the

fixed bed. When voidage increases further and approaches 1 it makes no
longer sense to assume any difference between interparticulate and
superficial velocity and (6) has to be modified. Since theoretical
considerations may be too speculative it is decided to carry on with an intuitive
correction arriving at right results at both ends of the voidage-interval:

l 1− ε 1− ε 1 forε = 1
? (9)
= 1+ (2.18 −1) = 1+1.18 →
L 1− ε0 1− ε0 2.18 forε = ε0

In deducting (3) we assumed that average cross sectional area times channel
length give the void. Thus an average cross section area may be defined:

lA = Voidage × volume = e L3 and by applying (9) we get:

A e (1 - e 0 )
= (10)
L (1 - e 0 ) + 1.18(1 - e )
2

CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS versus VOIDAGE

in fluid-bed of identical spheres

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95
VOIDAGE

dh/dp D/dp D'/D D'/dh l/L

Graph of equations (4) (7) (8) (9) fig. 7

10
This enables us to calculate over the entire range of voidage the average
interparticulate velocity u from the superficial velocity us:

us æ 1- e ö
u= ç1 + 1.18 ÷ (11)
e è 1- e0 ø

We are now able to calculate the Reynolds number of the interparticulate

channel flow Redh from the superficial Reynolds number Reps:

us d p use d p 3(1 - e ) 3(1 - e )

Re ps = Re dh = Re dh = Re dh (12)
u dh 1- e 1- e
us (1 + 1.18 )2e 2(1 + 1.18 )
1- e0 1- e0

In fluidization flow direction is always opposite to gravity and friction force pr.
unit distance always means pressure drop minus liquid hydrostatic pressure
drop pr. unit bed height.

PRESSURE DROP IN FLUIDIZED BEDS.

Flows in fluidized beds

When the upward flow in a bed initiates, the bed is still a fixed or solid bed,
where the particles support each other. As the velocity increases it reaches a
point where the particles gradually loose their mutual contact and the bed
expands slightly to a new level where the bed is said to be initially fluidized.
This process is often compared to the melting of a solid with rising
temperature.

At little higher velocities the bed expands only slightly and remains dense.
This process might be compared with the thermal expansion of a liquid.

If velocity increases further the bed becomes expanded and may begin
moving unquietly like a boiling liquid. Bubbling and splashing is observed.

At even higher fluidization velocities the bed becomes diluted and part of it
may disappear like an evaporating liquid.

At further increased velocity the bed blows away.

11
Pressure drop in channel-flow.

In [1] p.504 fig. 20.1 are shown observations of pressure drop coefficients λ
versus Reynolds number for straight, circular smooth pipes. It is here seen
that the chart shows several flow-regimes: A laminar regime (Hagen-
Poiseuille) where the pressure drop coefficient λ decreases proportionally with
the Reynolds number Re for Re < 2300, a turbulent regime (Blasius) where λ
decreases with the fourth root of Re for Re < 100000 and a third regime for
Re>106 (Nikuradse) where λ is maintained constant in commercially rough
channels which is claimed to be when “Roughness” has the size of
Radius/1300. Prandtl reports a deviation from Blasius at the high values of
Re, but if we let Nikuradse take over already at Re = 105.2 by adding 0.003 to
the Blasius- and Hagen-Poiseuille-contributions we obtain merely the same
result.

According to [1] the roughness-contribution to pressure-drop in channels is to

be considered a contribution to turbulent resistance due to roughnesses large
enough to penetrate through the laminar sub-layer on the channel-walls and
thus independent of Reynolds number at large Reynolds numbers as reported
in [1] and shown in p.521 fig. 20.18.

The effect of roughness is seen to appear at lower Reynolds numbers for

larger roughness, which may be explained by that the laminar sub-layer
increases at decreasing Reynolds number. In other words, at low Reynolds
numbers it requires a larger roughness to reach through the thick sub-layer.

At large Reynolds numbers where the sub-layer is thin and negligible the
contribution can be seen as increasing with sand-roughness and even
quantified by the asymptotic values at high Reynolds numbers.

A linear regression analysis of “Asymptotic Values” AV and sand-roughness

R/ks taken and tabulated from fig. 20.18 gives the result:

R
log( AV ) = (-0.304 ± 0.009) log() - (0.886 ± 0.015) (12a)
ks
(Correlation-coefficient R=0.995)

-even including “Commercial Roughness”.

Also here a curve-fitting can be performed

On the other hand the channels formed between perfect spheres in a fluid-bed
are not necessarily “commercially” rough. The spheres can be presumed

12
perfect i.e. smooth but a “roughness” could nevertheless be claimed due to
the spheres that form the walls of the channels. In this case the roughness is
rather of the order of magnitude ½·dp/dh and thus very large.

Since “Roughness” in fluidizing is related to the size i.e. diameter of the

spheres but in [1] is related to the channel-radius, the addition to the Blasius-
and Hagen-Poiseuille-contributions for commercially rough spheres should
rather be 0.003·½·dp/dh

Besides the Reynolds number the pressure drop coefficient may vary with the
shape of the cross sectional area. In [1] p. 517 is shown observations from
smooth cylindrical channels of various cross-sectional shapes.

From here it can be seen the pressure drop coefficient for even a flat
triangular cross section is almost identical to that for a circular in turbulent
regime if the Reynolds number is based on the hydraulic diameter of the cross
section. And – when doing so - it can be concluded that the shape of the cross
section in turbulent flow has almost no influence.

DRAG-COEFFICIENT FOR SPHERE (MOLERUS) AND RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT FOR PIPES

GENERALISED AFTER H. SCHLICHTING [1]

2.000E+00

1.500E+00

1.000E+00

5.000E-01

0.000E+00
-1.000E+00 0.000E+00 1.000E+00 2.000E+00 3.000E+00 4.000E+00 5.000E+00 6.000E+00
log(Cd)

-5.000E-01

-1.000E+00

-1.500E+00

-2.000E+00

-2.500E+00

-3.000E+00
log(Re)

log(Cd') ´log(53) log(0.316) Molerus log(0.003)

Graphs of generalized data from [1] Fig.8

Thus we have:

0.316
l= Blasius (13)
Re1/4
dh

for the turbulent regime

13
In the laminar regime the coefficient in the Hagen-Poiseuille equation depends
on the shape of the cross-sectional area. The variations are not great and for
the purpose of this paper the value for the equilateral triangle cross section is
selected: 53. (A more accurate value of the coefficient can become evaluated
from the “circularity” and “symmetry” of the cross-sections but is not found
necessary here).

Thus we have:

53
l= Hagen-Poiseuille (14)
Re dh

for the laminar regime

It is also well known that bends have an influence on pressure drop in channel
flows due to secondary flows caused by centrifugal forces in the bends. The
secondary flows tend to increase the mixing of momentum and are thus
expected to increase entropy and thus pressure drop.

Since centrifugal forces are inertia-forces and since the Reynolds number is
the ratio between inertia-forces divided by friction-forces it is to be expected
that increase in inertia-induced pressure drop from bends is of minor
importance on total pressure drop when inertia-induced contribution is
relatively small, i.e. at very small Reynolds numbers.

This is in good agreement with reported observations reported in [6] which

show no influence from bends on total pressure drop at Reynolds numbers
less than one.

Their findings for turbulent flows can be expressed by the equation:

æl ö
log ç ÷ = 0.026 ( log(2 Dean) )
0.29
where Dean=Re×sqrt(dh/dcurv.) (15)
è l0 ø

And in order to extend also the formula for laminar flows with Reynolds
numbers less than one:

æl ö
log ç ÷ = 0.026 (½(log(2 Dean) + abs(log(2 Dean)) )
0.29
(16)
è l0 ø

dP ½ rl u 2 é 53 æ l ö 0.316 æ l ö 0.003d p ù
= ê ç ÷ + 1/4 ç ÷ + ú (17)
dl dh ëê Re dh è l0 ølam Re dh è l0 øturb d h ûú

We now introduce a “switch-function” in order to ensure that the right regime

is tied to the right Reynolds number:

14
dP 0.5ρl u 2 ( 53 ! λ $ − Re dh 4 0.316 ! λ $! − Re dh 4 $ dp+
= * # & exp( ) + ## &&# 1− exp( ) & + 0.003 -
dl d h *) Re dh #" λ0 &% 2800 Re1/4
dh " λ0 % " 2800 % d h -
,
(18)

which expresses the pressure-drop pr. unit channel-length inside a fluid-bed

when the local variables inside the bed are used, where the switch between
laminar and turbulent regime automatically takes place for values of Redh
closely around 2800.

By the formulas already evolved (se below) we can now change the variables
in (18) to superficial values and particle diameter.

From (9) we get:

æ æ 1- e ö ö
l = çç1 + 1.18 ç ÷ ÷÷ L and thus
è è 1 - e 0 øø

æ æ 1- e ö ö
dl = çç1 + 1.18 ç ÷ ÷÷ dL which in (18) gives:
è è 1 - e 0 ø øe

dP 0.5ρl ui2 ( 53 ! λ $ − Re dh 4 0.316 ! λ $! − Re dh 4 $ d +! 1− ε $

= * ## && exp( ) + 1/4 ## &&#1− exp( ) & + 0.003 p -##1+1.8 &
dH d h *) Re dh " λ0 % 2800 Re dh " λ0 %" 2800 % d h -," 1− ε0 &%

(19)

When H is the level-coordinate in a fluid-bed we know that pressure-drop

balances the suspended bed-weight which in (19) gives:

dP
dH
( )
= ρ p − ρl (1− ε ) g =

0.5ρl ui2 ( 53 " λ % − Re dh 4 0.316 " λ %" − Re dh 4 % d +" 1− ε %

* $$ '' exp( ) + 1/4 $$ ''$1− exp( ) ' + 0.003 p -$$1+1.8 '
d h *) Re dh # λ0 & 2800 Re dh # λ0 &# 2800 & d h -,# 1− ε0 '&

(20)

This is the general equation for pressure-drop in a dense bed with already
evolved expressions:

15
 us
u= (1 + 1.18(1 - e ) )
e

4e L3 d p 2 e
dh = = dp
6(1 - e ) L 3
3 1- e

us d p use d p 3(1 - e ) 3(1 - e )

Re ps = Re dh = Re dh = Re dh (19)
u dh us (1 + 1.18(1 - e )2d pe 2(1 + 1.18(1 - e ))

Dcurv.
Dean = Re dh (20)
dh

æl ö
log ç ÷ = 0.026 (½(log(2 Dean) + abs(log(2 Dean)) )
0.29
(21)
è l0 ø

The dilute bed

It has already been mentioned that it has no meaning to talk about channel-
flow when there are only a few particles hovering in the bed i.e. when the bed
has expanded to a voidage approaching 100%. It is intuitively evident that
other physical laws than those used on the fixed or expanded bed must
become applied but it is difficult to define a border where the two regimes part
– or a third regime is to be defined.

For the drag-coefficient on a single sphere the data reported in [1] p.16 fig. 1.5
can be described for all values of Reynolds number including laminar as well
as turbulent flows by:

24 4
Cd = + + 0.4 (22)
Re p Re p

In a cylindrical volume with horizontal top and bottom and height H there will
be N suspended spheres to be carried by friction from the fluidizing liquid.
This can be expressed as below:

p p
N d p2 ½ rl us2Cd = N d p3 ( r p - rl ) g or
4 6

3 rl 2
u s Cd = ( r p - r l ) g
4 dp

As the vertical pressure gradient is:

16
dP
= ( r p - rl ) (1 - e ) g
dH

we can now calculate the condition for fluidizing in dilute phase. In a dilute bed
it is also evident that we don’t talk about channel length but about distance i.e.
bed height and it is natural to use superficial velocity as well as to base the
Reynolds number on this and particle diameter. On the other side, if we - as
here - sometimes use the formula for dilute fluidization for epsilons less than 1
we must consider that the dilute particles nevertheless occupy some space
and thus increase the average upward velocity.

If we look at a bed of height H and area A and suppose all particles collected
in a massive cylinder of same height it is evident that the volume of the void is
ε·A·H. The cross section of the void relative to the entire cross section is thus
ε and the up-going velocity therefore in average increased by the factor of ε-1.

For epsilons close to 1 this makes no difference, but for smaller it does and is
therefore included as seen below when calculating dilute fluid-beds.

As the drag must carry the weight of the number of particles suspended in the
bed we may write for the dilute bed as we did for the dense bed (18):

dP
= ( r p - rl ) (1 - e ) g =
dH
2
æu ö (23)
0.75 rl ç s ÷
è e ø 1 - e g é 24e + 4 e + 0.4 ù
( ) ê ú
dp êë Re p Re p úû

This is the general equation for pressure-drop in a dilute bed with already
evolved expressions.

In most real fluid-beds the superficial velocity is maintained constant over time
by external means. If incidental changes in voidage happens locally i.e an
increase, both required lift to maintain fluidization and frictional lift are
reduced. If the latter is reduced more than the former, the bed collapses and
returns to former equilibrium but explodes if otherwise and is thus not
maintainable.

A tedious mathematical differentiation of the two expressions with respect to

epsilon and fixed superficial velocity can prove if the bed is maintainable but
simple calculation of differences show that it is in any tested situation. This
experience is valid for both dilute- and dense-phase fluidization.

17
The frictional pressure drop pr. unit bed-height in the dense bed and in the
diluted bed may now become plotted versus voidage together with the
necessary lift to carry the bed.

The border-line between the two bed-types was initially chosen to be when
the particles had distances from each other of same magnitude as their
diameter corresponding to voidage of ca. 90% (formula (7)) but may be better
defined as that the bed is dense if the boundary-layers from the particles
interfere with each other and it is dilute when the boundary-layers around the
spheres do not interfere with each other. The latter choice implicates the
complication that the border-voidage between the two bed-types becomes
different for laminar and turbulent fluidization.

At moderate values of voidage both dilute phase and dense phase pressure
drop may sometimes carry the bed at same voidage, and provided that the
dense-phase voidage can be considered dense and the dilute-phase voidage
considered dilute, it is to be expected that the pressure drop with the lowest
voidage is the preferred one since it has the lowest potential energy and thus
greatest entropy.

If the two voidages are close, the bed may be unquiet and act vigorously.
Especially if the bed is not damped as will be the case in many liquid fluidized
beds with not too big differences between particle- and liquid density.

Most data reported in literature claim that beds normally jumps to the highest
voidage. A phenomenon that could be named “surface tension” above and
under a bed is elucidated later and may play a role in changing between
dense-phase- and dilute-phase-fluidization

BUBBLING IN FLUID-BEDS

If we look at a single particle on the top of a bed it then might either fall back
or even get sucked back (see below) into the bed or it might be carried away.
In the first case the bed is maintained and a kind of crust may even be formed
on the top of the bed. It lies close to talk about a kind of surface tension in
liquids. In the second case the bed-surface dissolves. A further study of the
formulas may give us a hint about if this is at all possible.

If a cavity has accidentally occurred in a bed there are single particles under
its roof i.e. in the top of a bubble. In certain cases these particles will tend to
drop from the ceiling or in others they may be sucked back up into the above
bed. If they drop down, the cavity collapses but if they are sucked back into
the bed they may cause a crust-formation in the top of the cavity and reduce
the fluid-flow into the ceiling and even reduce fluidization over the cavity. This
again may make the bed to collapse above the ceiling

18
The way a single particle acts under and above a fluidized bed must influence
on the beds ability to form bubbles. If the particle is sucked strongly into the
bed above and forms a crust that reduces the fluidization above the crust,
fluidization over the ceiling may collapse and the roof break together and the
cavity disappear. If the particle on the other hand drops from the ceiling, the
cavity or bubble propagates upward and penetrates the bed.

If the single particle under a roof is pretty near to balance, the roof is stable
and may move up or down as a piston or slug.

To be able to identify the fluidization-conditions for just carrying the particle

may be mandatory for predicting bubble-formation in a fluid-bed and may be
performed by the formulas evolved above.

It is worthwhile here to notify that these “floor-and-ceiling”-phenomena’s may

occur under both dense-phase fluidization and lean-phase fluidization.

Suspended single sphere over and under a fluidized bed.

A single particle over a fluidized bed of same particles is met by the superficial
velocity from the bed below and is supposed to settle (The turbulence in the
liquid from the bed may influence the magnitude of the settling velocity, but
this is neglected here).

Normally the superficial velocity is less than the terminal velocity and the
particle is therefore approaching the surface of the bed. Having reached so
far, the situation changes. In order to discuss this change we must first look at
the composition of the drag of a settling sphere. This is done in much classic
literature on Fluid Mechanics, i.e. [7] and as in many other books at very high
Reynolds numbers - just over and below critical Reynolds number. At these
values of Reynolds number form-drag dominates and skin-drag is negligible.

If pressure around the sphere for 1<Re<105 is converted to force on the

sphere in the flow-direction and plotted as in figure 8 along the sphere-
centerline and then integrated over the centerline, it is seen how the drag
grows from 0 at the front of the sphere to the rear and reaches the value of
the well known drag coefficient 42%.

From the figure it can also be seen that the accumulated drag (negative)
builds up from the front of the sphere, grows in the first 25% of the centerline,
then decreases to almost zero at the middle of the sphere and finally again
increases to its end value of 42% at the end of the centerline.

19
 ORIGIN OF DRAG ON SPHERE
sub critical, Re=1.625x105
after Flachsbart

100.00

80.00

60.00
DRAG [% of dyn.head]

40.00

20.00

0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-20.00

-40.00

-60.00
RADIUS OF SPHERE

dK DRAG P

Figure 8.
Drag-coefficient calculated from pressure-distribution on sphere.

It may become expressed in the way that for turbulent flow the first
hemisphere does not contribute to the total drag, but that the drag originates
from the last hemisphere only.

At Reynolds numbers less than 1 skin-drag dominates and from [8] is told that
it is symmetrically distributed over the surface of the sphere so that the skin-
drag contribution from the front sphere-half is equal to that from the rear end.

At low Reynolds numbers over 1 there will still be some boundary layer
separation where skin-drag is not expected or even counter directed, but
under all circumstances small compared to form-drag-forces.

It may therefore (wrongly?) be concluded that the total drag (skin- plus form-)
for 1<Re mainly originates from the downstream half of the sphere.

As the settling sphere reaches the surface of the bed, the flow-situation
changes. If 1<Re the form-drag remains since it originates from its rear end
but as the front end dives into the surface of the fluidized bed it becomes
partly exposed to the buoyancy from the channel-drag which below and
entirely inside the bed is able to carry the whole sphere for any Re of the
channel-flow. The channel-friction on the settled sphere therefore is able to
carry ca. half the suspended weight of the sphere.

20
Furthermore the pressure above the bed is higher than inside the bed, since
the interparticulate gas flow escaping the bed-surface is decelerated from
interparticulate velocity to superficial velocity.

In even a step-diffuser this is expected to regenerate about 50% of the

dynamic pressure, so the pressure behind the settled sphere is considerably
higher behind the sphere than ahead of it.

If we summarize these contributions we get for 1<Res:

1. 1<Res Resulting up-going force on just settled sphere = Half its suspended
weight from channel-pressure drop, plus total settling drag, minus 50% of
Dynamic pressure-difference from interparticulate to superficial velocity on
sphere cross section minus its suspended Weight.

For laminar settling we have Res<1:

2. Res<1 Resulting up-going force on just settled sphere = Half its suspended
weight from channel-pressure drop, plus half settling drag, minus 50% of
Dynamic pressure-difference from interparticulate to superficial velocity on
sphere cross section minus its suspended Weight.

If we in the same manner look at a single sphere hanging under the ceiling in
a cavity we can put the resulting force on it together and get for 1<Res:

3. 1<Res Resulting up-going force on sphere under ceiling = Half its

suspended weight from channel-pressure drop plus no settling drag plus
100% of Dynamic pressure-difference from superficial velocity to
interparticulate velocity on sphere cross section minus its suspended weight.

For laminar settling we have Res<1:

4. Res<1 Resulting up-going force on sphere under ceiling = Half its weight
from channel-pressure drop plus half settling drag plus 100% of Dynamic
pressure-difference from superficial velocity to interparticulate velocity on
sphere cross section minus its suspended weight.

We can now formalize the Resulting up-going Force RF and if we introduce a

switch-function SW=1 for Re>1 and SW=0 for Re<0 we get for case 1and 2
i.e.for spheres on the floor:

abs (Re) + Re
SW =
2abs (Re) + D

where Δ is a virtual but very small positive number.

p p
RFf = ½ rl éëus2Cd ½( SW - 1) + (us2 - ui2 ) ùû d2 - d 3 ( r p - rl ) g (1 - ½) (24)
4 6

21
and normalize with the suspended particle-weight

3us2 é ui2 ù
rf f = ½
ê dC ( SW - 1) + (1 - )ú - ½ (25)
4dg ( r p - rl ) ë us2 û

If rf is positive the particle will dissolve from the bed-surface but not float away
since superficial velocity is still less than terminal velocity. If negative it will be
attracted to the bed-surface and create a “surface-tension”, and if neutral it
remains in its position like the rest of the particles in the bed. In the same
manner we get for the remaining two cases under a ceiling

3us2 é ui2 ù
rf c = ½
ê dC ( SW - 1) + (1 - )ú - ½ (26)
4dg ( r p - rl ) ë us2 û

If rf under the ceiling is positive the particle will cling to the ceiling and if rf is
big enough it may tend to close the channels and thus reduce the flow into the
above bed and disturb fluidization. In this situation we may also talk about a
kind of “surface-tension” under the ceiling of a bed.

If rf under the ceiling is negative, the particle will drop away from the ceiling
and continue dropping when superficial velocity is less then terminal velocity.
The cavity thus propagates up through the bed as a bubble. When dilute-
phase fluidization can exist at same fluidization velocity, the bed may flip into
this mode.

The lack of “surface-tension” on the top of a bed may also support the
transition from dense fluidization to dilute fluidization when both modes exist
at the given superficial velocity and may further be supported if bubbles are
splashing through the surface from below.

LIQUID- contra GAS-FLUIDIZATION

Increase of inertia. In [4] it is mentioned that the difference between gas-

fluidization and liquid-fluidization in fluidized beds having same Reynolds
number, so far (year 2000) has been studied for generations but not yet
explained. I.e. it is well known that liquid fluidization is much more quiet and
stable than a gas fluidized bed at same Reynolds number. There are at least
two explanations.

Firstly, in [2] p.93 it is mentioned that the inertia and kinetic energy of a
moving sphere in a liquid at high Reynolds number is extended as if the
weight of the sphere were extended additionally to its boundary layer by the
weight of liquid having half the volume of the sphere, i.e. provided with a liquid
layer having the thickness of abt. 14% of its diameter. From this it is evident

22
that a sphere fluidized in a heavy liquid shall act more heavy or slow than a
sphere fluidized in a light gas.

Secondly, from the heat transmission theory i.e. [3] p.366 we know the
Nusselt number Nu=αd/λ that indicate that heat transfer to a sphere in a liquid
is as if the sphere were isolated by a layer of this liquid fixed to the sphere,
having (when thin) the thickness δ=2d/Nu. From observations of flow-patterns
around spheres we know that this is not the case and may not be taken
literally, but there is hardly any doubt that this apparent isolation is due to
some hesitation of the liquid tending to cling to the sphere. We may look at
this liquid as a kind of cushion surrounding the sphere.

The particle with its liquid cushion now has the apparent diameter:

æ 2 ö
d ' = d + d = d ç1 + ÷ (27)
è Nu ø

The weight of the cushion relative to the sphere we may name as “Increase of
Inertia” or IOI and is thus given by:

rl éæ 2 ö
3
ù
IOI = êç 1 + ÷ - 1ú (28)
rp êëè Nu ø úû

For small Reynolds numbers and thus Nu=2 and sand-air beds we obtain

IOI=1.2/2600((1+2/2)3-1)=0.03

And for sand-water beds

IOI=1000/2600·7=2.7

For larger Reynolds numbers of 100 the Nusselt number Nu may be 10 and
we get for a
Sand-air bed:

IOI=1.2/2600((1+0.2)3-1)=0.0003

And for the sand-water bed:

IOI=1000/2600=0.3

For flow around a cylinder the “von Karman vortex street” is well known to
create harmonic oscillations in wires with a frequency described by the
Strouhal number Str=n·dp/us. A similar phenomenon is known for spheres and
a Strouhal number is reported of same order of magnitude (Str ≈ 0.2). The
amplitude of the oscillations of a wire or (the spiraling of) the spheres must be
expected to be heavily influenced by a large IOI, showing a considerable
difference between water- and air-fluidized beds. One can feel the difference
between a stick swung in the air and same stick drawn through water.

23
Since formulas for calculating the Nusselt number for convection in any kind
of flow are well known, they may express also the fixed amount of liquid
following the sphere and thus adding to its inertia and weight. When the
cushion of adhered liquid approaches the weight of the sphere, it is evident
that the behavior of the sphere is more quiet and dampened than a sphere
with less. For a settling sphere we may write:

Nu = 0.944 Re(0.03log(Re) + 0.354) + 0.5 (29)

Above formula is approximated by the author from data in [5] and allows for
the calculation by (28) of the weight of liquid cushion adhered to the
suspended single sphere. It may not make sense to apply this formula for
flows changing into channel-flows, but it may nevertheless give a hint about
the behavior of liquid fluid-beds in comparison with gas-fluidized beds. If the
Reynolds number in (29) is replaced by the Reynolds number for the channel-
flow in a fluid bed the figures for dampening may change but the over-all view
remains.

Inside a bed [14] p.218 indicate Nu=0.3Rep1.3 (30)

Arriving at much lower Nu at low Re than does (29) and consequently larger
IOI than (28) in liquid beds but still negligible in gas beds.

SIMILARITY-PRINCIPLE OF HEAT-TRANSFER AND FRICTION.

In principle transfer of heat and transfer of momentum in a flowing liquid are

similar processes and are controlled by similar differential equations. Basically
the processes are identical and act in the way that small elements of the fluid
by diffusion or turbulent mixing are oscillating perpendicularly over a surface
from a position with one temperature/velocity to another position with another
temperature/velocity where temperature/velocity-differences are evened out.

The transportation of heat is proportional to density, heat capacity,

temperature-difference and mixing mass-flow and the transportation of
momentum to density, velocity-difference and mixing mass-flow.

Since mixing mass-flow is the same in the two processes and caused by the
velocity-difference plus diffusion, a certain change in velocity-difference
results in a proportional change in both frictional force and heat-transfer.

If a solid body is thus submerged into a flowing liquid at a different

temperature, the Nusselt-number can be calculated from the frictional force
and the properties of the liquid.

In a monodispersal fluidized bed the frictional forces are always equivalent to

the particles suspended weight since they carry the particles.

24
If the fluidized bed is not monodispersal, segregation takes place and the
larger particles are partially carried by collision with smaller particles from
below and the arguments above are not necessarily valid.

If the interchanged mass-flow is named MixFlow we may write for the frictional
force F which balances the weight of the sphere:

p
F = Du × MixFlow = d 3 ( r s - rl ) g (31)
6
and for the heat-flow
:
Q = DT × Cp × MixFlow = p d 2a × DT (32)

Where MixFlow is identical in the two processes. The latter gives:

p d 2a
MixFlow = (33)
Cp

which in (31) gives:

Du × p d 2a p 3 d ( r s - rl ) gCp
= d ( r s - rl ) g or a= (34)
Cp 6 6 × Du

ad
By introducing the Nusselt number Nu = we get:
l
d 2 ( r s - r p ) gCp
Nu = (35)
6lDu

If a settling sphere is considered part of a very lean fluid-bed with fluidizing

velocity equal to settling velocity and fluidizing velocity is being reduced, then
voidage is reduced to a value less than 100% but the sphere is still carried by
the new velocity. Since F is maintained and Δc is changed, MixFlow must be
changed opposite as their product is maintained i.e.:

DuTerm.
MixFlowFluidBed = MixFlowTerm.
DuFluidBed

According to (35) this also changes heat transfer by changing heat transfer
coefficient and thus Nu.

Applying values for a Ø1mm stone in air at ambient conditions and terminal
velocity ΔuTerm = 12 m/s give:

25
 0.0012 × (2800 - 1.2) × 9.82 ×1006 m 2 kg / m3 × m / s 2 J / (kg °C )
Nu = × = 15
6 × 0.026 ×12 J / (m × s°C ) × m / s

which is in reasonable agreement to reported experience for the particle

chosen but not for other. The reason for this is not yet understood by
this author.

Instead [13] p. 359 reports the expression for a single sphere

Nud = 2 + 0.6 Re½d Pr1/3 (36)

to be valid for Red < 103 and from [5] p. 288 it appears reasonably to be so
even up to Red < 105

It is thus decided here to rely on (36) for Nus for superficial spheres but use

cs
Nue = Nus (37)
ci
inside the bed.

Mach-number.

The second big difference between a gas-fluidized bed and a liquid-fluidized

bed is the compressibility of the fluidizing medium. Any fluidized bed acts very
much as a liquid itself. It has a horizontal surface. It pours out of a hole, and
you can stir in it and feel it like a liquid. You can make it look like it boils and
even evaporate by increasing the fluidization velocity.

Like the gas the gas-fluidized bed is compressible and elastic as well. When
you compress a gas-fluidized bed you increase its density. From the theory of
gas-mechanics it is known that any gas has a sonic velocity. It is calculated

æ dP ö
cs = RT ç ÷ (38)
è d r øs

The gas-fluid bed has its density mostly from the suspended solids and its
compressibility from the suspending gas. Therefore a moderate pressure-
increase results in a big density-increase and the sonic velocity of an air-
fluidized bed of fine sand therefore has a very small sonic velocity, typically
less then 20 m/s. (It is not clear whether the differentiation here should be
isentropic or just isotherm, but the difference is not so big).

26
For a suspension of solids in gas the sonic velocity may be calculated as
below:

cs , gas
cs = (39)
é rs ù
e ê(1 - e ) +eú
ëê rg úû

According to gas-dynamics, disturbances cannot propagate in the medium

faster than sonic velocity without creating shock waves, and if fluidization
velocity approaches the sonic velocity the quiet existence of a fluid-bed is
questioned. This will be the case with many air-fluidized sand-beds.

This author constructed a “supersonic” nozzle for atomizing of lime slurry for
SOx-removal in power-plants. A foam of air and slurry was formed inside the
nozzle and forced through the nozzle at less than 10 m/s. A nice atomization
was obtained as the foam expanded through the shock wave in the nozzle-
mouth.

How fluid-beds at less but close to sonic fluidization velocities are influenced
is difficult to predict, but bubbling and slugging may appear different in this
case.

Pumping of an air-fluidized medium such as raw-meal for cement production

is known to be problematic since pulsations appear in the pipes and pumps
due to shock-waves, whereas pumping of concrete- and lime-water-slurry is
known to be smooth.

Finally it can be mentioned that even in a sand-air bed of the depth of 1 m in

fixed conditions (i.e. ε = 40%) and ambient pressure above the bed the
pressure will be 16% higher at the bottom than at the top and thus gas-density
but velocity and kinematic viscosity 16% less. According to theory evolved
above the superficial mass-flow that maintains a voidage of 40% at the bottom
for Ø 0.5 stone spheres also maintains that voidage at the top.

This may be an incidence of course for this specific bed but indicates that
bed-depth may not be very important for the behavior of even gas-fluidized
beds.

SPOUTING

In the 90-ties this author has committed several experiments with spouted-
beds in order to invent a stationary cement kiln. For the purpose the guide-
lines in [10] were very useful. Operating spouted-beds with beds from a few
hundred grams to several tons of steel-shots were constructed and tested with
good agreement to the guide-lines. To the authors opinion spouted beds
according to [10] are always arranged with a supersonic spout i.e. throat-inlet
velocity well above supersonic velocity in the bed according to (28).

27
Thus considering the heavy bed-volume being a heavy mass suspended
between the elastic cushions of gas contained in the free-boards above and
below the bed, the bed could be dimensioned to pulsate with an amplitude
that could maintain the throughput requested and allowed to finally construct a
stationary cement kiln from which real cement-clinker nodules were tapped
[11]

VISCOSITY
We have now considered a fluid-bed being a gas-like compressible fluid with a
sonic velocity, and it now lies nearby to estimate its viscosity.

This author has in 1972 elucidated the “Fluidity” of fluidized raw-meal for
cement production by letting well fluidized raw-meal pour out through an
orifice in the bottom of a fluidized pale-like vessel and measuring the flow. The
results showed that with fluidization-velocities from “well fluidized” and up i.e.
67% < ε < 80%, the outlet-coefficient was constantly 65% of frictionless flow
like for water but less for less fluidization. This indicates according to [3] p.268
that Reynolds number would be close to 60000 for well fluidized meal and
accordingly the kinematical viscosity ν =3.7·10-7 m2/s corresponding to hot
water or liquid ammonia.

Another point of view may also be considered. Since a gas-fluidized medium

is a compressible fluid the viscosity might also be estimated, like it is done in
the kinetic gas-theory, as an ability to transport momentum.

In [8] the dynamic viscosity is expressed by the collision of molecules:

η = (average free path-length)·(average velocity)·(molecule mass)·(density)/4

or

η = λ·c·ρ/4

and for the kinematic viscosity

ν = η/ρ = λ·c/4 (40)

In a fluid-bed c would be the average velocity of one of the suspended

spheres. If we - as a rough estimate - assume that the spheres oscillate
harmonically between plus and minus the interparticulate fluid velocity (in gas-
fluidized beds only since the oscillations would be damped in a liquid-fluidized
beds) the average velocity would be

c=0.7·ui (41)

The average free path-length λ is more difficult to estimate. In the kinetic gas-
theory it is the length of a long tube with the diameter 2 molecule-diameters
divided by the number of occurred collisions between molecules in vacuum.

28
The number of collisions N is the volume of the tube times the number of
molecules pr. unit volume. For a gas we have:

p (1 - e )
( 2d )
2
N= L (42)
4 p 3
d
6
and

L
l= (43)
N

These formulas are good enough for gasses with large distances and small
molecules. For suspensions with small distances compared to particle
diameters they give wrong results. If we imagine the long tube traveled by the
particle, it should be bent at every collision. When we straighten the tube in
order to measure its length, there will be an error at every bend and its volume
will be wrong. If we assume an average error to be proportional with number
of bends and d3 we may subtract a correction kNd3 and write instead:

æp ö (1 - e )
N = ç ( 2d ) L - kNd 3 ÷
2
(44)
è4 ø p d3
6

As (43) is still valid we get for λ

l 1
= +k (45)
d 6(1 - e )

As λ/d=0 for ε=εo we get k and finally arrive at:

l 1æ 1 1 ö
= ç - ÷ (46)
d 6 è 1- e 1- e0 ø

Finally we get

ui d é 1 1 ù
n = 0.7 ê - ú (47)
24 ë1 - e 1 - e 0 û

Or with us instead as ui by means of (11) we get:

0.7(1 + 1.18(1 - e )) é 1 1 ù
n= ê - ú us d (48)
24e ë1 - e 1 - e 0 û

29
For raw meal with the diameter-size of 50 10-6m and ε=0.7 and us= 0.049 m/s
we then find ν=2.5·10-7m2/s
-or little less than the value measured with the orifice or corresponding to that
the average particle diameter of the raw-meal was 57 microns monodispersal
spheres instead of the estimated 50 microns, or having the voidage ε=0.73
instead

Since real raw-meal particles are far from spherical and not at all
monodisperse as its granularity normally spans 3 decades it may be
accidental only that the calculated viscosity is reasonably close to the
observed. Only further experiments could conclude this.

In 1995 this author witnessed another test with pumping cement raw-meal
vertically ca. 20 m in an Ø16, Ø27 and Ø127mm standpipe respectively by
means of a hose-pump at the rate of 200 – 30.000kg/h. Suspension velocities
in the tube were thus approaching Mach 0.5 regarding sonic velocity
according to (28).

Besides problems with standing pulsations in the tube also a pressure-drop in

excess of the hydrostatic pressure and changing dynamic pressure was
observed and identified as flow-friction. Based on the tube-diameter, velocity
and density of the suspension a very low flow-friction coefficient from a few to
less than 0.5% was identified which indicate a very large Reynolds number.
For the purpose the H. Martin formula for the friction coefficient λ was used:

1/4
éæ 0.32 ö4 ù
l = êç 1/4 ÷ + 3!10-10 ú
ëêè Re ø ûú

which flattens out for Re>107. Reynolds numbers and thus viscosity is
therefore very insecurely determined by small friction-coefficients.

From the Reynolds number the kinematical viscosity was easily determined –
although not very precisely - to be very low, i.e. from 2·10-7 to 2·10-9 m2/s

The agreement between these two methods is not good and further testing is
recommended, but apparently fluidized cement raw-meal acts as a fluid
having a very low viscosity.

CALCULATING ANY FLUID-BED

The above evaluated formulas can now be calculated in a spread-sheet. All

the parameters characterizing the bed are placed in the headlines and the
voidage as the independent variable in the left-most column. The superficial,
the internal velocities, the Reynolds numbers based on both velocities, the
hydraulic diameter of the channels. The lift in dilute and in dense phase and

30
the necessary lift to carry the bed. The Nusselt number, heat transfer-
coefficient and dampening factor due to fluidizing liquid adhering to the
sphere. The sonic velocity of the suspension and corresponding Mach-
number. The curvature of the channel and corresponding Dean-number for
estimating its influence on pressure-drop. The lift on a single particle just
below or above a bed relative to the particle weight to elucidate the stability of
of cavity, and the apparent viscosity of the bed. a.s.o.

All columns are calculated by means of the formulas evolved in the text
above.

By changing the input parameters any fluid-bed can be immediately simulated

and the consequence of a change can be studied and compared with
experience.

DISCUSSING OF REPORTED OBSERVATIONS.

According to dr. D.Geldart [12] observations by Harrison et al. (1961) report

the bubbling-behavior of highly different liquid-fluidized beds at two certain
voidages: 60% and 75%. They distinguish between: “Quiescent” (Q), “Slightly
Bubbling” (SB) and “Bubbling” (B) behavior.

After JTo
Liq.Density Liq.Visc. Part.Dens. Part.Diam. Behavior %Damp.ng Min.Fluid Predict.Bubbl.

60%
kg/m3 Ns/m2 kg/m3 μ 75% 60% 75% εmin.fluid. from ε>
1190 36.3·10-3 11320 770 Q Q 55 50 0.70 0.76
1170 16.6·10-3 11320 770 Q Q 41 34 0.68 0.72
1110 3.58·10-3 11320 770 SB B 15 11 0.55 0.72
1000 1.0·10-3 11320 770 SB B 5 4 0.55 0.56

780 2·10-3 1500 600 Q Q 188 140 0.55 0.90

780 2·10-3 2900 775 Q Q 56 42 0.57 0.76
780 2·10-3 7400 770 SB SB 14 12 0.60 0.69
780 2·10-3 11320 770 B B 8 5 0.40 0.66

By using eq. (25) and (26) the increase of inertia IOI can be calculated and
compared with the observations by Harrison et al. in the table below. It is
there seen that the bed quality “Q” is obtained at 24% < IOI < 188% and the
quality “SB” at 5% < IOI < 15% and “B” at 5% < IOI < 11%

The agreement between the reported observed bubbling conditions and the
predicted IOI is excellent and it must be remembered that the beds here

31
referred to are liquid-fluidized and that the IOI for most gas-fluidized beds will
be near zero.

In [12] was also listed the ratio between calculated minimum bubbling velocity
and minimum fluidization velocity: Umin.bubbl./Umin.fluid. From the predicted
voidage at minimum bubbling conditions, also the predicted voidage at
minimum fluidization can be figured out based on this ratio and is shown in the
right column. The agreement between the reported, observed bubbling
conditions and the predicted voidages at incipient bubbling is excellent, but
the predicted voidage at minimum fluidizing velocity may seem too high,
especially for the first two lines.

In [4] is reported the superficial Reynolds number for various spherical

particles in both air and water-fluidization versus the corresponding
Archimedes number. In the figure below the same is done by means of the
above evolved theory.

Archimedes number v. Reynolds number

at ambient conditions to be compared
with Kwauk et al

7.50

7.00

6.50

Ø5.2 Glassb.in Water

log(Archimeds number)

6.00
Ø5.2 Glassb.in Air
Ø1.28 Leadsh.in Air
5.50
Ø1.28 Leadsh.in Water
Ø1 seasand in Water
5.00
Ø1 seasand in Air
Ø.51 Cat.bds.in Air
4.50 Ø.51 Cat.bds.in Water

4.00

3.50

3.00
-1.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.0E+00 2.0E+00 3.0E+00 4.0E+00
log(Superficial Reynolds number) from Epsilon = 34% to 100%

Values calculated by theory Fig. 9

The right limitation of the data calculated in figure 9 for each case are seen to
lie on a weakly upward concave curve just as are they in [4] figure 3 but
somewhat to the left. The difference from the data in [4] must originate from
experimental uncertainties since the data in figure 9 are calculated solely from
well known physical data i.e the reported data on the fluid used and the
particles used plus well consolidated date on terminal velocities of spheres
(i.e. [1]). One reason may be that terminal fluidization in [4] probably is the
velocity where particles blow out of the bed and superficial velocity may not be
constant over the bed-cross section.

32
The left limitation of the data calculated in figure 9 for each case are seen also
to lie on a weakly upward concave curve as they are in [4] figure 3 but not in
completely same position. One reason for this may be that the data in [4] are
measured at minimum fluidization velocity while the data in figure (4) are all
calculated to the voidage of 34%. In [4] it is found in figure (3) that minimum
fluidization velocity occurs at various voidages around 38-41%.

The calculations according to above evolved theory confirm the findings in [4]
that the ratio between minimum and maximum fluidization velocity varies with
Archimedes number from almost two to close to ¾ decades over the test-
span.

What is especially interesting is that M. Kwauk in [4] claims that it was hardly
possible to maintain the air-fluidized bed much above minimum fluidization
velocity. His data illustrate how much.

According to above evolved theory the bed may change from dense-phase to
dilute-phase mode when dilute-phase mode is able to carry the bed. This may
gradually and quietly take place when the bed is highly dampened and fits
very well with the calculated increasing IOI at large Archimedes numbers.

In fig. 9 the calculations also show where dilute-phase fluidization may take
over from dense-phase fluidization as the curve-markers lie closer in the
dilute-phase area than in the dense-phase area. It is to be remarked that
dilute-phase fluidization covers a larger part of the fluidization at higher
Archimedes number in good agreement with [4] where it is reported that it was
difficult to maintain dense-phase fluidization much above initial fluidization at
high Archimedes numbers.

Further some the graphs in fig. 9 are artificially equipped with a peak
(generally in dense-phase mode) indicating that from this voidage and up the
“surface-tension” (see above) in the roof of a cavity is not longer able to carry
a particle which must then drop down from the roof, allowing the cavity to
proceed upward into the fluid-bed as a bubble. In un-dampened beds with low
IOI this may be the trigger for switching from dense- to dilute-phase
fluidization and even disappearance and thus promote the observations
reported in [4]

It must be mentioned here that this phenomenon also occurs in the

calculations of the water-fluidized beds, but probably due to the liquid
dampening (as already discussed above), quiet fluidization is still possible at
higher voidages.

Cluster formation. In the early 70’ties this author participated in elucidating the
formation of clusters in lean suspensions in air. The reason was a.o. to verify
that the FLS-Calciner for cement raw-meal [9] could really transport the
through-put requested.

33
A set-up was made of transparent plexi-glass tubes of diameters D= Ø 25, 94
and 144 mm respectively, arranged vertically with porous bottoms and
adequate blower and flow-meters. In this equipment we tried to identify the
conditions where clusters seemed to visually appear in various suspensions of
mono-disperse glass, polystyrol and expanded polystyrol balls from 0.1 to 5-6
mm. Especially the fine expanded polystyrol was difficult to handle and tended
to agglomerate due to electrostatic forces – even when using antistatic spray
and must become classified as Geldart type A-powder.

The observations were tried generalized into a formula for the critical voidage
εcrit. where cluster-formation occurred:

log(1 - e crit ) =
2
æ D rp ö
2 ç log( ) - 0.2 log( ) - 1 ÷
0.925 æ r ö dp rl
- ç log(Re p ) - 0.14 log( p ) - 2.25 ÷ + ç ÷
r è r l ø ç 0.64 ÷
log( p ) ç ÷
rl è ø

It expresses that cluster formation could be avoided at high voidages above

90% for the light particles and even higher for the heavier. Also shaft-diameter
played a role.

If we apply the spread-sheet based on the formulas evolved in this paper on a

fluid-bed of expanded polystyrol-spheres of Ø5 mm in air we see that down to
voidages 90% a single particle is expected to elutriate from the bed-surface
and a similar particle under a roof in a cavity is expected to settle from the
roof. I.e. the bed (cluster) dissolves and turns into a dilute phase.

If on the other hand a single particle is expected to settle on the top and cling
to the roof under a bed a cluster is expected to prevail, but if the particle
settles on the top and drops from the ceiling under a bed an upward moving
slug could be expected. These expectations have to the knowledge of this
author not been investigated but might deserve to be.

If we apply the spread-sheet on coarser expanded polystyrol-particles in air

we find that even higher voidage is necessary to avoid cluster formation.

For non-expanded polystyrol cluster-formation may be avoided at even less

voidage and for glass the voidage can according to the spreadsheet be as low
as 64% for Ø0.5 mm particles without cluster-formation. Here it must be
remembered that for glass-spheres of Ø1 mm the bed is fluidized at sonic
velocity and for Ø2 mm about Mach 1.2. What that means for cluster-
formation is not yet evident.

This quantitative agreement between above evolved formulas and

observations serve to support the formulas.

34
EVIDENCE FOR THE THEORY

The theory lined up above about fluidization is not stringent and cannot
become supported by precise measurements. Its validity is based solely on
the many coincidences with already known but not yet really explained
phenomena’s as mentioned above and summarized below:

The difference between liquid- and gas-fluidized beds.

The various ratios between initial and terminal fluidization velocity

The variation can reach from near ¾ to almost 2 decades.

The reason for jumping from dense-phase to lean-phase fluidization can be

studied.

The difficulties in pumping a suspension by ordinary pumps.

Comparison with experimental data.

A lot of experimental data is available in literature about pressure drop over

fluid beds but even formulas for pressure drop over monodispersal spherical
packings at various Reynolds number and voidage are reported. Among the
most well-known are probably the famous “Ergun Equation” and the data
reported by the russian writer Idelchik. Both report a pressure drop made
dimensionless by division by the dynamic head of the through-flowing liquid
and particle size expressed as a function of Reynolds number and voidage.
Generally in this form.

DP 2d p
= f ( Re p , e )
DL rl us2

Since both authors are expected to have based their formulas on a huge
amount of experiments – especially about minimum fluidizing velocity and
somewhat above – it is interesting to compare these formulas with the findings
evolved above.

In Kunii and Levenspiel [13] p. 66 formula (5) the formula goes:

The Ergun Equation

DP 2d p 1 - e é 300 ù
= 3 ê(1 - e ) + 3.5ú
DL rl us
2
e ë Re s û

And in [14] we have for the formula by Idelchik:

35
The Idelchik Equation

DP 2d p 1.33 é 30 3 ù
= ê + + 0.3 ú where
DL rl us2 e 4.2 ëê Re'p (Re'p )0.7 ûú
0.45
Re'p = Re p
(1 - e ) e

Similarly can be done for the expressions evolved above.

The JTo Equation for dilute bed

DP 2d p 1- e é 24e e ù
= 0.75 2 ê +4 + 0.4 ú (23)
DL rl us
2
e êë Re p Re p úû

The JTo Equation for dense bed

DP 2d h é 53 l 0.316 l dp ùæ 1- e ö
=ê SF + 1/4 (1 - SF ) + 0.03 ú ç1 + 1.18 ÷ (19)
DL rl ui êë Re dh
2
l0 Re dh l0 d h úû è 1- e0 ø

where
u
ui = s (1 + 1.18(1 - e ))
e
2 e
dh = dp
3 1- e
us d p
Re ps = Re dhui =
ui d h
In order to compare (19) with (21), (22) and (23)

DP 2d p DP 2d h d p ui2
= =
DL rl us2 DL rl ui2 d h us2
(19a)
é 53 l 0.316 l dp ùæ 1 - e ö d p ui2
ê SF + 1/4 (1 - SF ) + 0.03 ú ç1 + 1.18 ÷
ëê Re dh l0 Re dh l0 d h ûú è 1 - e 0 ø d h us2

The right-hand sides of these four equations can now be pictured as functions
of epsilon with Re as parameter and thus compared.

36
 Pressuredrop coefficient v. voidage

5.0E+00
Log(Pr.Dr.Coeff. [Dyn.Head pr.sph.Diam.] )

JTodil
JToden
Ergun
Idel'Chik
0.0E+00
0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.100 1.200

-5.0E+00
Voidage

Fig. 10

For all Re and large values of epsilon eq. (23 yellow curves) is believed to be
most confident since it approaches terminal velocity of a single sphere,
thoroughly investigated in literature.

For all Re and small values of epsilon the Ergun- (dark-blue, all Re) and the
Idelchik-(red, 10-3<Re’<103) equations are believed to be most confident,
because they are probably based on heavy experience but they are also
pretty close.

The light-blue curve, JTo dense (19a) is the curve evolved in this paper for
dense beds and is seen to be pretty close to especially the Ergun-curve for
values of Re up to 10 and voidages up to 0.60

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Applying theory from fluid mechanics on fluidizing seems to reproduce very

well a lot of experimental findings reported in literature and represent a
shortcut to predicting the behavior of a projected fluid bed prior to testing and
may thus be useful when working with fluid beds.

37
LITERATURE

[1] H.Schlichting, ”Boundary Layer Theory”, McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1962

[2] E.S.Johansen “Deformerbare stoffers mekanik”, Gjellerups Forlag 1955

[3] E.Schmidt, ”Technische Thermodynamik”, Springer Verlag 1962

[4] M. Kwauk, J. Li, D. Liu ”Particulate and aggregative fluidization – 50

years in retrospect” Powder Technology 111 (2000) 3-18

[5] E.R.G. Eckert and R.M. Drake ”Analysis of Heat and Mass Transfer”
(1972) p. 288.

[6] S. A. Berger and L. Talbot “Flow in curved pipes”, University of Cal.

1983 [2] fig. 7

[7] Bruno Eck, “Technische Strömungslehre”, Springer Verlag (1957) 5.

ed. p.243

[8] E.S.Johansen ”Mekanisk Fysik”.

Stokes’ law ”Flow around a sphere”. Wikipedia.

[9] Jørn Touborg.”Gas Suspension Reactor”, US Patent 4,822,574 to F. L.

Smidth (1989).

[10] Olazar et al. “Stable operation conditions…in conical spouted-beds”

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1992, 31 pp.1784-1792
Olazar et al. “Expansion of spouted-beds in conical contactors” Chem.
Eng. Journ. 51 (1993) pp. 45-52
Olazar et al. “Pressure drop in conical spouted-beds”, Chem. Eng.
Journ. 51 (1993) pp. 53-60

[11] Jørn Touborg.” Method and apparatus for continuous treatment of

particulate material”. US Patent 6,000,145 to F. L. Smidth (1999).

[12] Dr. Derek Geldart. Course material supplied to the attendants at the
course “Gas fluidized bed technology” at Center for Professional
Advancement in Amsterdam November 1986

[13] Gröber, Erk und Grigull “Wärmeüberträgung” 3. Ed. Springer Verlag

1961

[14] Kunii and Levenspiel “Fluidization Engineering”, Robert E. Krieger

Publishing Co. N.Y. 1969

38
[15] I.E. Idelchik “Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance Coefficients of Local
Resistance and of Friction”, The US. Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington DC. 1966

NOMENCLATURE

d diameter
l length
u velocity

A area
C coefficient
D diameter
L length, distance
P pressure, perimeter
N number
Nu Nusselt number
Re Reynolds number
Str Strouhal number
S surface

α heat transfer coefficient

δ thickness
ε voidage
λ pressure drop coefficient

Indices

d diameter, drag
p particle
h hydraulic
0 initial
i interparticulate
s superficial, sonic

39