Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering

Faculty of Engineering
University of Nottingham

Year 2 Labs 2022-23

Investigating the Effect of

Pressure Drop on Packed and
Fluidized Beds
Student Name: Olusegun Owoeye
Student ID: 20245830

Lab date: 14/11/2022

Report submission date: 21/11/2022
Rig: 1
Marker: Dr Shara Mohammed

0
Investigating the Effect of Pressure Drop on for Packed and Fluidized Beds
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation is to determine the behaviour of a fluids’ pressure drop as a
function of flowrate through a packed and fluidised beds. Determining the negative logarithmic
relationship between pressure drop and fluid superficial velocity after the incipient point, the
relationship between superficial velocity and Voidage, the accuracy of using the Ergun or Carman-
Kozeny Equation for predicting minimum fluidisation velocity, discrepancies in terminal velocity and
n values due to energy and how the coefficient of friction determined by the Ergun or Carman-
Kozeny Equation differ at increasing Reynolds number for porous media (10<RePM).Measurements
included finding the pressure drop at different flow rates for the upwards and downwards fluid flow.
Additionally for upwards flow, the settling time and bed height were also recorded. From the graphs
produced, the effect of pressure drop as a function of flowrate were observed for upwards and
downwards fluid flow. The results also showed the discrepancies between the theoretical and
experimental values of terminal velocity and n values and the region where the Carman-Kozeny
equation is valid. The data demonstrate Darcy (laminar) and non-Darcy (turbulent) flow of a fluid
through porous media, showing how pressure drop affects the two regions.

1. Introduction
A fluidised bed is a phenomenon where utilising the upward fluid flow of a stream, at static bed of
solid components behaves like a fluid given the proper conditions (Coulson et al., 2002). Fluidised
beds are used in industry as they promote mixing, heat and mass transfer and thermodynamic
properties .In a Chemical Engineering context, such beds are used in the oil and gas industries for
cracking long, complex hydrocarbons into a shorter and more useful hydrocarbon form (Chen, n.d.).
In this industry where millions of barrels of crude oil are produced in a day in certain countries, it is
important to have a refinery system that is robust. One of the first steps in oil refinery is catalytic
cracking, this can be done by supplying vapourised crude oil to a Zeolite fluidised bed
(Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.). The fluidised bed promotes better mixing, thermodynamic and heat
transfer properties. A packed bed is a vessel filled with packing material utilises the downward flow
of a fluid stream through a porous media (Coulson et al., 2002). This can involve packed columns
used in different separation processes and packed bed reactor where the fluid flowing through the
reactor comes in contact with a catalyst.

The aim of this investigation is to determine the behaviour of a fluids’ pressure drop as a function of
flowrate through a packed and fluidised beds. This will be accomplished by analysing the following
objectives: (1) the effect of velocity on pressure drop, (2) a comparison between the theoretical and
experimental values of the minimum fluidisation velocity, UMF, (3) a comparison between the

1
theoretical and experimental values of settling velocity, UTM and (4) comparing the usefulness and
validity of the Ergun equation and the Carman-Kozeny equation for turbulent and laminar flow.
The predictions for the experiment is such that for the upwards and downwards flow of fluid in the
fluidising column, the behaviour of the pressure drop is influenced by flow rate of the bed particles
because of the effect flowrate has on U, bed Voidage and the friction coefficient which are related to
∆P as seen in Eq.2.

2. Theory
Using the data collected from the experiment a the pressure drop, -∆P, for the fluidised and packed
beds is calculated, and a comparison between theoretical and experiment values for the UMF, and
settling velocities, UTM, are drawn. Note, all additional equations can be found in Appendix A.

From applying Newtons Second Law (F=ma) along a streamline in direction, s, for an
incompressible fluid in a inviscid, steady flow, the law of conservation of energy dictates the total
energy along the streamline remains constant as the fluid is frictionless (Munson, 2010). Real fluids,
however, suffer a frictional head loss when flowing through a pipe. Therefore, through modifying Eq.
A.1, the frictional head loss through porous media, hf porous, is described using Eq.1:
2
C f (1−ε)U L
h f porous = 3
ε g d particle
(Eq.1)
Where:
C f =¿ Friction Factor d particle =¿ Diameter of the Particle
ε =¿ Bed Voidage (See Eq. A.2) ρ f =¿ Fluid Density
U =¿ Fluid Superficial Velocity (See Eq A.3) ρ P=¿ Density of Solid Particle
L=¿ Bed Length μ=¿ Viscocity
g=¿ Acceleration due to Gravity (9.81 ms ) -1

To determine the pressure drop due to friction, ∆Pfriction, Eq.1 is rearrange in terms of pressure (in
pascals) as shown in Eq.2 :
2
C f ( 1−ε ) U L ρf
−∆ P friction= 3 (Eq.2)
ε d particle
At minimum fluidisation velocity, Umf, where incipient fluidisation occurs, ∆Pfriction is equated to the
effective weight of the solid particles per unit area of the bed in Eq.3:
∆ P friction=L ( 1−ε ) ( ρP −ρF ) g (Eq.3)
By substituting either the Ergun Equation (Eq. A.4) or the Carman-Kozeny Equation (Eq. A.5) for Cf.
Eq. 3 for ∆Pfriction into Eq.2 and rearranging for U, UMF can be calculated using Eq.4 for the Ergun

2
Equation where the derivation is available in Appendix A and Eq.5 for the Carman-Kozeny
Equation:
2 2 3
U mf ( 1.75 ρ F d ) +U mf (150 μ ) ( 1−ε ) +d ε g ( ρP− ρF )=0 (Eq.4 from Ergun Eq)
2 3
d particle ε ( ρP −ρF ) g
U mf = (Eq.5 from Carman-Kozeny Eq)
150 (1−ε) μ
A comparison between equation Eq.4 and Eq.5 shows that the Ergun Equation is better for
predicting UMF as at higher Reynolds number (Repm > 10). Darcy’s law for the linear relationship
between pressure drop and velocity is no longer valid; using the Ergun Equation changes the linear
relationship between pressure drop and velocity through the use of the quadratic term, U (Coulson
et al., 2002). Additionally, as Eq.4 and Eq.5 are comparable at low RePM due no major energy losses
at this state, any deviation in results of UMF suggests an error in calculations or experimentations.

3. Safety Summary
Hazards Persons’ at Risk Evaluation Risk Rating
Risk Severity Likelihood Overall Risk Low,
(1-3) (1-3) (S x L) medium, high
Electricity All 3 1 3 Medium
Falling, Tripping All 2 2 4 Medium
Burns caused by water in All 3 2 6 High
the presence of electricity
Table 3.1: Risk evaluation of work environment related risks. (This table was made using Figure B.1
in Appendix B and Table C.1 and C.2 in Appendix C)
4. Methodology
4.1 Pre-Experimentation Setup
The required PPE used for the experiment included properly-fitted disposable gloves, steel-toed
boots, safety goggles and a laboratory coat. The work station was cleaned and cleared from all
obstruction. Valves V2 and V9 remained closed for the duration of the experiment to prevent water
flooding and serious burns/ electrocution from water in the presence of electricity. Become
familiarised with the equipment, including the rotameter valve (V3) for colling the water flowrate
(See Figure B.2 and B.3 in Appendix B). The main water supply valve should be completely opened
before starting the experiment. Also, reading on the rotameter never exceeded the maximum
flowrate of 11 L min-1 to prevent the beds leaving the fluidisation column and entering the main water
system. A table containing the following tables should be noted to tabulate the results of the
experiment for the upwards flow of water: Flow Rate, Input Pressure, Output Pressure, Pressure
Drop, settling Time and Bed Height. The rig number, Static Bed Height and the Diameter of the
beads were also noted. A table containing the following tables should be noted to tabulate the
results of the experiment for the downwards flow of water: Flow Rate, Input Pressure, Output
Pressure and Pressure Drop.
4.2 Measuring Pressure Drop for water flowing Downwards

3
Valves V6 and V5 were opened while valves V7 and V4 were closed to allow water flow downwards
through the column (See Figure B.2 and B.3 in Appendix B). Valve V3 was used to set the flowrate
to 10 L min-1, this was done to minimise air bubble problems. Afterwards, the input pressure was
measured with the top pressure transducer and the output pressure was measured with the bottom
pressure transducer, since water flowed from the top to the bottom of the column. The readings
were recorded and used to calculate the pressure drop within the fluidisation column. The process
was repeated for the following flowrates (in L min-1): 8, 6, 4, 2. After pressure drop was recorded at
the specified flowrates, Cf and Repm were calculated and the values of log 10 C f versus log 10 R e pm
graphed. Additionally, on the same graph the Carman-Kozeny equation and the Ergun equation
were plotted against Repm.
4.3 Measuring Pressure Drop for water flowing Upwards while Investigating Sedimentation
Valves V6 and V5 were closed while valves V7 and V4 were opened to allow water flow upwards
through the column (See Figure B.2 and B.3 in Appendix B). As the diameter of the beads was
0.81mm and the minimum flowrate for the system was 1.5 L min -1, it was not possible to determine
the following points: At least 4 points leading up to the fluidising point and the fluidising point.
Therefore, the C and D region in Figure B.4 in Appendix B was determined at this stage. V3 was
used to set the flowrate to 1.5 L min -1. Afterwards, the input pressure was measured with the bottom
pressure transducer and the output pressure was measured with the top pressure transducer, as
water flowed from the bottom to the top of the column. The readings were recorded and used to
calculate the pressure drop within the fluidisation column. Next, the new height of the uniformly
suspended bed was, L’, was recorded which that the bed depth could be calculated.
Simultaneously, V3 was while a timer was started for the settling time, when the fluidised bed
settled at its’ static bed height the timer was stopped. These steps were repeated at the following
flowrates (in L min-1): 2.0, 2.4, 2.8, 3.0, 3.2, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 and 11.0. The data gathered from this
section was used to calculate the settling velocity and Voidage at different heights of the suspended
bed. Later a graph of log 10(UTM) was plotted against log10(ε) to estimate the UT of the particles in the
fluidisation column and the value of n, from Eq A.7 and draw comparisons between their
experimental and theoretical values.

5. Results
5.1 Processed Data Experimental
Note, all excess tables are located in Appendix C, all raw data for the experiment are located in
Appendix D and all sample calculations are located in Appendix E.
Table 5.1: Summary of negative pressure drop, negative pressure drop over static bed height, superficial
velocity, settling velocity, Voidage log10(UTM) and log10(ε) as a function of flowrate for the upwards flow of
water.
Flow Rate / m3 s-1 -∆P / Pa -∆PL-1 / Pa m-1 U / ms-1 UTM / ms-1 ε log10(UTM) log10(ε)
-5 4 4 -2 -2
2.50 x 10 1.52 x 10 7.84 x 10 1.23 x 10 1.09 x 10 0.31 -1.96 -0.504
3.33 x 10-5 1.54 x 104 7.94 x 104 1.64 x 10-2 1.31 x 10-2 0.36 -1.88 -0.438

4
 4.00 x 10-5 1.52 x 104 7.84 x 104 1.97 x 10-2 1.42 x 10-2 0.38 -1.85 -0.421
4.67 x 10-5 1.52 x 104 7.84 x 104
2.30 x 10-2
2.23 x 10-2
0.43 -1.65 -0.368
-5
5.00 x 10 1.53 x 104 7.89 x 104 2.47 x 10-2 2.26 x 10-2 0.44 -1.65 -0.356
5.33 x 10-5 1.53 x 104 7.89 x 104
2.63 x 10-2
2.24 x 10-2
0.45 -1.65 -0.345
-5
6.67 x 10 1.51 x 104 7.78 x 104 3.29 x 10-2 3.33 x 10-2 0.52 -1.48 -0.282
8.33 x 10-5 1.51 x 104 7.78 x 104
4.11 x 10-2
3.90 x 10-2
0.58 -1.41 -0.238
1.00 x 10-4 1.54 x 104 7.94 x 104
4.93 x 10-2
4.36 x 10-2
0.61 -1.36 -0.212
-4
1.83 x 10 1.52 x 104 7.84 x 104 9.05 x 10-2 9.03 x 10-2 0.83 -1.04 -0.082
Figure 5.1: The graph demonstrates how the negative pressure drop per unit length changes with increased
fluid superficial velocity.

-∆P/L Versus U
8.00E+04

7.95E+04

7.90E+04
-∆P/L /Pa m-1

7.85E+04 f(x) = − 127.863877686769 ln(x) + 78102.0512903949

R² = 0.0177573717928906
7.80E+04

7.75E+04

7.70E+04
0.00E+00 1.00E-02 2.00E-02 3.00E-02 4.00E-02 5.00E-02 6.00E-02 7.00E-02 8.00E-02 9.00E-02 1.00E-01
U / ms-1

Table 5.2: Summary of the minimum fluidisation velocity using the Ergun Equation and the Carman-Kozeny
for water flowing upward in the fluidisation column.
UMF from Ergun Equation / ms-1 UMF from Carman-Kozeny Equation / ms-1
7.32 x 10-4 2.99 x 10-3

Figure 5.2: The graph demonstrates how settling velocity increases with Voidage.

log10(UTM) Versus log10(ε)

0.00
-0.55 -0.50 -0.45 -0.40 -0.35 -0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05
-0.50
log10(UTM)

-1.00
f(x) = 2.23742690610179 x − 0.866759354336719
R² = 0.990807948749398 -1.50

-2.00

-2.50

log10(ε)

5
Table 5.3: Summary of the theoretical and experimental values for terminal velocity of a single particle, UT
and n for water flowing upward in the fluidisation column.
UT Theoretical / m s-1 UT Experimental / m s-1 n Theoretical n Experimental
0.138 0.136 2.925 2.237

Figure 5.3: The graph shows the correlation between the friction coefficient from the Ergun Equation and
Reynolds number for porous media for water flowing downwards in the fluidisation column.

log10RePM Versus log10CF

1.200
1.000
log10RePM

0.800 f(x) = − 0.665549738045523 x + 1.82273438053418

R² = 0.994044754779607
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10

log10CF

Figure 5.4: The graph shows the correlation between the friction coefficient from the Ergun Equation and
Reynolds number for porous media for water flowing downwards in the fluidisation column.
Ergun Equation

12.00 CF versus ReRM Polynomial (Ergun

Equation)
f(x)f(x)
= 0.00155504848712283
= − 0.158898031763736
x²x−+0.254052933455692
13.667 x + 13.66717169315
R²R² = 0.977259013425856
= 0.936110781153149
10.00

8.00
CF

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RePM

5.1.1 Data Analysis

Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1 shows that while the fluid superficial velocity increases as a consequence
of increases the volumetric flowrate, -∆P remains fairly constant. The relationship was modelled as
having a negative logarithmic relationship in line with the B-D region in Figure B.4 in Appendix B. To
display this relationship for a random point of 5.00 x 10-2 ms-1, the -∆P/L is 7.85 x 105 Pa m-1. The
value of -∆P/L is within the range of values of -∆P/L in Table 5.1.The logarithmic model produced
the highest coefficient of determination, R2, of 0.0178 making it the most reasonable assumption.
Additionally, the error bars of -∆P/L are all within range of the line of best fit.

6
Table 5.2 illustrates how the minimum fluidisation velocity, UMF, calculated using the Ergun Equation
and the Carman-Kozeny Equation are both reasonable assumptions as their values are lower than
the smallest fluid superficial velocity value given in Table 5.1; however the value of UMF for the
Ergun Equation is lower than the value of UMF for the Carman-Kozeny Equation.

Figure 5.2 and Table 5.1 both show as settling velocity, UTM, in the fluidising column increases, the
Voidage, ε, also increases. The variables have a positive, linear relationship as illustrated in Figure
5.2. To demonstrate the relationship, for a random point (log10(ε) =) -0.350, log10(UTM) is -1.65. This
proves that UTM and ε are directly proportional. Furthermore, the high R2 value of 0.991 makes the
positive, linear relationship a reasonable assumption in addition to the error bars of (log10(ε) and
log10(UTM) being in range of the line of best fit for all data points. Using excel the gradient was
calculated to be 2.2374 and the y intercept, -0.8668. Therefore, the UT is 0.136 ms-1 and n is 2.2374.
Table 5.3 shows the discrepancies between the theoretical and experimental values for UT and n for
water flowing upward in the fluidisation column.

Table C.3 and C.4 in Appendix C and Figure 5.3 highlight as the friction coefficient, C F, increases,
the Reynolds number for porous media, RePM, decreases. The variables have a negative, linear
relationship as shown in Figure 5.3. To prove the relationship, at random point (log 10(Cf) =) 1.50,
log10(RePM) is 0.824. This proves the direct proportionality between C F and RePM. In addition the error
bars of log10(Cf) and log10(RePM) being within range of the line of best fit, the high R2 value of 0.994
demonstrates the negative, linear relationship of the two variables to be a reasonable assumption.

Table C.3 and C.4 in Appendix C and Figure 5.4 demonstrates how the Ergun Equation is more
accurate for determining laminar and turbulent flow due to the quadratic nature of the equation
covering Darcy and Non-Darcy flow. To prove the higher accuracy of the Ergun Equation, the higher
R2 value from the Ergun Equation of 0.977 compared to the Carman-Kozeny Equation of 0.813 and
the majority of the error bars on the from the Ergun Equation are in range of the line of best fit
compared to the Carman-Kozeny Equation.
5.2 Errors and Error Analysis
Note, all tables uncertainties are located in Appendix C and all sample calculations are located in
Appendix E.

The error bars in Figure 5.1 shows -∆P/L to be the largest source of error on the graph with the
absolute uncertainty value ranging from 7.16 x 103 Pa m-1 to 7.20 x 103 Pa m-1. Meanwhile, the
absolute uncertainty value for U remains constant. In Figure 5.2, the main source of error stems
from the absolute uncertainty of log10(UTM). As seen in Table C.6 in Appendix C, the absolute
uncertainty for log10(UTM) and log10(ε) are seen to decrease with increasing volumetric flowrate. The
large absolute uncertainty in log10(UTM) is due to the small bed depth of 0.005 m at a flow rate of

7
2.50 x 10-5 m3 s-1. The main source of error in Figure 5.3 comes from the absolute error in log 10CF.
Table C.7 in Appendix C shows that log 10(RePM) and log10(CF) increases, with decreasing volumetric
flowrate.

The main source of error in Figure 5.4 comes from Re PM especially as the error bars for CF can’t
visually be seen on the graph and are therefore considered inconsequential. Table C.8 in Appendix
C illustrates that the absolute error uncertainty for CF of the Ergun Equation and the Carman-
Kozeny equation increases while the absolute uncertainty error for RePM decreases with decreasing
volumetric flowrate.

6. Discussion
The trend of the behaviour of pressure drop being influenced by the flow rate of the bed particles for
upwards and downwards fluid flow suggests the initial prediction is valid.

The Ergun equation is valid for packed bed flow as the pressure loss across the packed bed is
accounted for through combining laminar and turbulent components of the equation
(personalpages.manchester.ac.uk, n.d.). The negative, linear relationship between log10RePM Versus
log10CF with an R2 value of 0.994 and all error bars for the data being in range of the line of best fit
prove the validity of using the Ergun Equation for packed bed flow. The absolute uncertainty of
log10(RePM) and log10(CF) were seen to increase with decreasing flowrate, suggesting that the
experiment becomes more inaccurate at lower volumetric flowrates. The term on the RHS of the

Ergun that is important for laminar flow is U ( 150 ( 1−ε ) μ ρ F /d ρ F ε ). This term is important for
2 2 3

laminar flow as it accounts for the linear relation between -∆P and flow rate at low RePM values.
Although the data gathered in this experiment could not include creeping flow, due to the diameter
of the beads being 0.81mm and flowrate on the rotameter only being measured from 1.5 L min -1,
literature states within the laminar flow region (1<RePM<10) the Carman-Kozeny Equation is valid
(Valdes-Parada, Ochoa-Tapia and Alvarez-Ramirez, 2009).

The validity of the Carman-Kozeny Equation in the laminar flow region is seen in Figure 5.4, where
the approximation of CF from the Ergun Equation and the Carman Kozeny Equation are close
between 1<RePM<10; however once the 10<RePM, there are major deviations for CF. The Ergun
Equation is also seen to be more accurate at measuring values of C F, as the R2 value for the
quadratic line of best fit using the Ergun Equation is 0.977, thus suggesting there is an exceptionally
high correlation between the trendline and the plotted points on the graph. Compared to the R 2
value from the linear line of best fit model using the Carman-Kozeny Equation of 0.813. Additionally,
the absolute uncertainty of CF from the Ergun Equation and the Carman-Kozeny Equation increases
with a decrease in volumetric flowrate. The decreasing volumetric flowrate for water flowing

8
downwards in the fluidisation column having an increasing effect on absolute uncertainty could be
decreased by increasing the bulk density of the packed bed through increasing the bead diameter.
This would decrease the absolute uncertainty for all variables affected by Voidage.

The aforementioned experiment excluding creeping flow due to small bead diameter and flowrate
measurements from the rotameter starting at 1.5 L min-1 made is so the UMF and the A-C regions
from Figure B.4 could not be determined experimentally. The flow was observed as being
particulate between 0-1.5 L min-1 where it is also confirmed in literature that above UMF, flow is
particulate (Coulson et al., 2002). Although, not determined in this experiment research has shown
that UMF is about 90 times smaller than UT (UMF ≅ 1.53 x 10-3 ms-1) making the Carman-Kozeny
Equation better for predicting UMF than the Ergun Equation in Table 5.2. The Carman-Kozeny
equation becomes invalid past 10<RePM because energy losses from the inertia term in the Bernoulli
equation become significant (Valdes-Parada, Ochoa-Tapia and Alvarez-Ramirez, 2009). The Ergun
equation accounts for energy losses, meanwhile a significant amount of energy loss has not
occurred at UMF as flowrate below 1.5 L min -1 is within the laminar region, leading to an
overcorrection. The settling results in Table 5.3 are in agreement with Eq. A.9 in Appendix A as the
average log10(UT) used in formulating the absolute uncertainty error bars in Figure 5.2 includes the
value of the theoretical log10(UT). Additionally, the R2 value of Figure 5.2 being 0.991 also proves the
correlation of the settling results and Eq. A.9.

The fluidising column experiment explores the directly proportional relationship between the
pressure drop and flowrate for packed and fluidising beds, an engineering application being catalytic
cracking of crude oil in the oil and gas industry. Crude oil is made of large and complex
hydrocarbons, therefore the crude oil needs to be refined into smaller and lighter components for
everyday use (Chen, n.d.). At the injection site of Figure B.5 in Appendix B, the crude oil feed is
vapourised when in contact with the hot catalyst (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.). The oil vapour
flows through a fluidising column at high velocities, fluidising the hot catalyst (Encyclopedia
Britannica, n.d.). The combination of the greater surface area and efficient energy transfer from the
fluidised catalyst provides enough energy for the hydrocarbons to crack.

7. Conclusion
The experimental results supported the negative logarithmic relationship between -∆P/L and U in B-
D region in Figure B.4 in Appendix B. The outcomes also showed how the Ergun Equation is
reasonable to use for turbulent flow as the experimental value of UT, 0.136 ms-1, was close to the
theoretical value of UT, 0.138 ms-1. The experimental value of UT was also confirmed as being within
range of the theoretical UT value through error analysis. The data analysis showed the
discrepancies between using the Ergun equation to calculate UMF, 7.32 x 10-4 ms-1, and using the
Carman-Kozeny Equation to calculate UMF, 2.99 x 10-3 ms-1, ultimately concluding the Carman-

9
Kozeny equation to provide the best UMF estimation from literature as experimental analysis before
and at UMF could not be conducted. The findings of the experiment also express the regions where
the Carmen-Kozeny equation is valid for predicting CF, 1<RePM<10, and when the Ergun equation
should be applied due to energy losses. This is shown in the high R 2 of the negative linear
relationship between log10RePM and log10CF, where CF is calculated using the Ergun equation. The
data gathered suggests increasing the diameter of the beads would decrease the absolute
uncertainty for variables affected by Voidage.

8. References
CEE-2020-086 FM7PRAFile. (n.d.). Nottingham: University of Nottingham, pp.1–13.

Chen, J. (n.d.). Cracking. [online] Investopedia. Available at:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cracking.asp.

Coulson, J.M., Richardson, J.F., Harker, J.H. and Backhurst, J.R. (2002).
Coulson & Richardson’s chemical engineering. Vol.2, particle technology & separation
processes. Oxford ; Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Encyclopedia Britannica. (n.d.). Petroleum refining - Catalytic cracking. [online] Available at:
https://www.britannica.com/technology/petroleum-refining/Catalytic-cracking.

General Risk Assessment. (2013). [online] Available at:

https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_325349_smxx.pdf.

Munson, B.R. (2010). Fundamentals of fluid mechanics. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.

PACKED AND FLUIDISED BEDS – WATER FM7. (n.d.). moodle.nottingham.ac.uk, Nottingham:

University of Nottingham, pp.1–6.

personalpages.manchester.ac.uk. (n.d.). Reactors. [online] Available at:

https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/tom.rodgers/Interactive_graphs/reactors.html?
reactors/ergun/index.html [Accessed 19 Nov. 2022].

Valdes-Parada, F.J., Ochoa-Tapia, J.A. and Alvarez-Ramirez, J. (2009).

10
 Validity of the permeability Carman–Kozeny equation: A volume averaging approach.
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 388(6), pp.789–798.
doi:10.1016/j.physa.2008.11.024.

Appendices
Appendix A. Equations
Frictional Head Loss in a Pipe, hf pipe: Eq. A.1
2
2ff U L
h f pipe =
g d pipe
Where:
f f =¿ Fanning Friction Factor g=¿ Acceleration due to Gravity (9.81 ms-1)
U =¿ Fluid Velocity d pipe=¿ Diameter of the Pipe
L=¿ Length of Pipe

Bed Voidage, ε: Eq. A.2

mB
ρB VB
ε =1− =1−
ρP ρP
Where:

( )
mp mB =¿ Mass of Bed
ρ B=¿ Bulk Density of Bed ρ B=
VB V B=¿ Volume of Bed
ρ P=¿ Density of Solid Particle

Fluid Superficial Velocity, U: Eq. A.3

Q̇
U=
A
Where:

( )
Q̇=¿ Volumetric Flowrate 2
π d tube
A=¿ Bed Cross-Sectional Area A=
4

Ergun Equation for Cf: Eq. A.4

11
 150
Cf = +1.75
R e pm
Carman-Kozeny Equation for Cf: Eq. A.5
150
Cf =
R e pm
Reynolds Number for Porous Media: Eq. A.6
d particle U ρ F
R e pm=
(1−ε )μ
Where:
d particle =¿ Diameter of the Solid Particle ρ F=¿ Fluid Density
U =¿ Fluid Superficial Velocity ε =¿ Bed Voidage
μ=¿ Fluid Viscosity
Settling Velocity as a function of Voidage, UTM: Eq. A.7
n
U TM =U T ε
Where:
U T =¿ Terminal Velocity of a single particle ε =¿ Voidage

Settling Velocity of Particle in terms of bed depth: Eq. A.8

'
L −L
U TM =
t
Where:
'
L =¿ Height of Fluidised Bed L=¿ Height of Static Bed
t=¿ Settling Time

n : Eq. A.9

(
n= 4.4+18
d
dt )−0.1
R eT

Where:
d=¿ Diameter of the particle R e T =¿ Reynolds Number at Terminal
d t =¿ Diameter of the tube Velocity

ReT: Eq. A.10

ρF UT d
R e T=
μ
Where:

12
ρ F=¿ Fluid Density d=¿ Diameter of the particle
U T =¿ Terminal Velocity μ=¿ Fluid Viscosity

13
Derivation for, Umf, from Ergun Equation: Eq. 4
Step 1:
2
C f ( 1−ε ) U L ρf
−∆ P friction= 3
ε d particle
Step 2: Substitute the Ergun Equation (Eq. A.5) for Cf into the above equation.

( )( )
2 2
150 ( 1−ε ) U L ρf ( 1−ε ) U L ρ f
−∆ P friction= x +1.75
d particle U ρ F 3
ε d particle ε 3 d particle
( 1−ε ) μ

Step 3: Simplify the expression

2 2 2
150 ( 1−ε ) μ ρ F U L 1.75 ( 1−ε ) ρF U L
−∆ P friction= +
d2 ρ F U ε 3 ε3 d
2 2
1.75 ( 1−ε ) ρF U L 150 ( 1−ε ) μUL
0= 3
+ 2 3
+ ∆ P friction
ε d d ε

Step 4: Substitute Eq.3 into the above expression

2 1.75 ( 1−ε ) ρF L 150 ( 1−ε ) μL

2
0=U +U + L ( 1−ε ) ( ρ P−ρ F ) g
ε3 d d 2 ε3

Step 5: Multiply the equation by d 2 and ε 3 and divide the equation by L

2 2 2 3
0=U ( 1.75 ρF d ) ( 1−ε ) +U ( 150 μ ) (1−ε ) +d ε g ( 1−ε ) (ρP −ρ F )

Step 6: Divide the equation by ( 1−ε )

2 2 3
U ( 1.75 ρF d ) +U ( 150 μ )( 1−ε ) +d ε g ( ρP −ρ F )=0

14
Appendix 2. Figures

Figure B.1: Risk assessment criterion and matrix (General Risk Assessment, 2013)

15
Figure B.2: Process Flow Diagram for Packed and Fluidised Bed with Water (CEE-2020-086
FM7PRAFile, n.d.)

Figure B.3: FM7 Rig Set-Up of Packed and Fluidised Bed with Water (CEE-2020-086 FM7PRAFile,
n.d.)

16
Figure B.4: Pressure Drop across fixed and fluidising beds (Coulson et al., 2002).

Figure B.5: Catalytic Cracking (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.).

17
Appendix C. Tables
Table C.1: Work Environment Related Risks
Hazard Risk Risk Mitigation (General Risk Assessment, 2013)
Electricity Electrocution - Ensure equipment is PAT tested.
- Regularly inspect all cables and wires prior to use.
Falling, Tripping Physical Injury - Remain vigilant when working around rigs
- No playing others in the workspace
- Ensure valves V2 and V9 remain closed
throughout the durations of the experiment
Burns caused by Burns, injuries, - Use the spill kit provided to clean up any spills
water in the eyes and skin immediately
presence of irritation.
electricity

Table C.2: List of Chemical Related Hazards

Material Phase Classification according Notable Hazard Statements
(Gas, to Regulation [EC] No
Liquid, 1272/2008
Solid)
Water Liquid Not a hazardous Not a hazardous substance
substance

Table C.3: Summary of the negative pressure drop, fluid superficial velocity and Reynolds number
for porous media as a function of Flow Rate for water flowing downwards through the fluidisation
column.
Flow Rate / -∆ P / Pa Fluid Superficial RePM
3 -1
m s Velocity / m s-1
1.67 x 10-4 2.39 x 104 8.22 x 10-2 95
1.33 x 10-4 1.30 x 104 6.58 x 10-2 76
1.00 x 10-4 3.30 x 103 4.93 x 10-2 57
6.67 x 10-5 -3.60 x 103 3.29 x 10-2 38
3.33 x 10-5 -9.00 x 103 1.64 x 10-2 19

Table C.4: Summary of the friction coefficient from the Ergun Equation and the Carman-Kozeny
Equation and the log of Reynolds number for porous media and the friction coefficient from the
Ergun Equation as a function of Flow Rate for water flowing downwards through the fluidisation
column.
Flow Rate / Cf Ergun Cf log10 (RePM) log10 (Cf) Ergun
3 -1 Carman-
m s
Kozeny
1.67 x 10-4 3.34 1.59 1.98 0.523
1.33 x 10-4 3.73 1.98 1.88 0.572
1.00 x 10-4 4.39 2.64 1.75 0.643
6.67 x 10-5 5.71 3.96 1.58 0.757
3.33 x 10-5 9.68 7.93 1.28 0.986
18
Table C.5: Summary of the -∆P/L and fluid superficial velocity absolute uncertainty as a function of
volumetric flowrate.
Flow Rate / P/L / Pa m-1 Superficial
m3 s-1 Velocity / ms-1
2.50 x 10-5 7.17 x 103 8.22 x 10-4
3.33 x 10-5 7.20 x 103 8.22 x 10-4
4.00 x 10-5 7.17 x 103 8.22 x 10-4
4.67 x 10-5 7.17 x 103 8.22 x 10-4
5.00 x 10-5 7.19 x 103 8.22 x 10-4
5.33 x 10-5 7.19 x 103 8.22 x 10-4
6.67 x 10-5 7.16 x 103 8.22 x 10-4
8.33 x 10-5 7.16 x 103 8.22 x 10-4
1.00 x 10-4 7.20 x 103 8.22 x 10-4
1.83 x 10-4 7.17 x 103 8.22 x 10-4
Average 7.18 x 103 8.22 x 10-4

Table C.6: Summary of the log10(UTM) and log10(ε) absolute uncertainty as a function of volumetric
flowrate.
Flow Rate / m3 s-1 log10(UTM) log10(ε)
2.50 x 10-5 0.013 3.97
3.33 x 10-5 0.010 0.91
4.00 x 10-5 0.010 0.72
4.67 x 10-5 0.008 0.38
5.00 x 10-5 0.007 0.34
5.33 x 10-5 0.007 0.31
6.67 x 10-5 0.005 0.17
8.33 x 10-5 0.004 0.11
1.00 x 10-4 0.003 0.09
1.83 x 10-4 0.001 0.02
Average 0.007 0.70

Table C.7: Summary of the log10(RePM) and log10(CF) absolute uncertainty as a function of volumetric
flowrate.
Flow Rate / m3 s-1 log10(RePM) log10(CF) from
Ergun Eq

1.67 x 10-4 0.05 0.014

1.33 x 10-4 0.06 0.017
1.00 x 10-4 0.06 0.022
6.67 x 10-5 0.07 0.032
3.33 x 10-5 0.09 0.066
Average 0.06 0.030

19
 Table C.8: Summary of the RePM and CF from the Ergun Equation and the Carman-Kozeny
Equation absolute uncertainty as a function of volumetric flowrate.
Flow Rate / m3 s-1 RePM Cf Ergun Cf CK

1.67 x 10-5 3 0.09 0.04

1.33 x 10-4 2 0.11 0.06
1.00 x 10-4 2 0.15 0.09
6.67 x 10-5 2 0.24 0.17
3.33 x 10-5 1 0.65 0.53
Average 2 0.25 0.18

Table C.9: Summary of the Independent Variables throughout the experiment (PACKED AND
FLUIDISED BEDS – WATER FM7, n.d.).
Particle Acceleration Fluid Tube Bed Cross- Density Bulk Static Fluid Static Theoretical
Diameter / due to Gravity Density Diameter Sectional of Solid Density Bed Viscosity Bed Particle
m / / kg m-3 /m Area / m2 Particle of Voidage / Pa*s Height / Terminal
m s-2 / kg m-3 Bed / m Velocity /
kg m-3 m s-1
8.10 x 10-4 9.81 1000 0.0508 2.03 x 10-3 2890 2035 0.30 0.001 0.194 0.138

20
Appendix D. Raw Data Tables
Table D.1: Summary of the input and output pressures, settling time, and bed height as a function
of Flow Rate for water flowing upwards through the fluidisation column.
Flow Rate / Input Output Settling Time bed
L min-1 Pressure / Bar Pressure / Bar /s Height / cm
± 0.1 L min-1 ± 0.005 Bar ± 0.005 Bar ± 0.01 s ± 0.5 cm
1.5 -0.029 -0.181 0.46 19.9
2.0 -0.024 -0.178 1.60 21.5
2.4 -0.025 -0.177 1.83 22.0
2.8 -0.018 -0.170 2.02 23.9
3.0 -0.016 -0.169 2.21 24.4
3.2 -0.015 -0.168 2.46 24.9
4.0 -0.005 -0.156 2.76 28.6
5.0 0.019 -0.132 3.33 32.4
6.0 0.045 -0.109 3.65 35.3
11.0 0.233 0.081 6.60 79.0

Table D.2: Summary of the input and output pressures as a function of Flow Rate for water flowing
downwards through the fluidisation column.
Flow Rate / Input Output
L min-1 Pressure / Bar Pressure / Bar
± 0.1 L min-1 ± 0.005 Bar ± 0.005 Bar
10 0.428 0.189
8 0.230 0.100
6 0.065 0.032
4 -0.061 -0.025
2 -0.140 -0.050

21
Appendix E. Sample Calculations
Negative Pressure Drop:

−∆ P=−( Pout −P ¿ ) =−(−1.81 x 10 4−(−2.90 x 103 ) ) =1.52 x 104 Pa

Negative Pressure Drop over Static Bed Height:
4
−∆ P 1.52 x 10 4 −1
= =7.84 x 10 Pa m
L 0.194
Superficial Velocity:
−5
Q̇ 2.50 x 10 −2 −1
U= = 2
=1.23 x 10 m s
A π ( 0.81 x 10 )
−3

4
Settling Velocity:
'
L −L 0.199−0.194 −2 −1
U TM = = =1.09 x 10 m s
t 0.46
Voidage:
0.8
−3 2
mB π ( 0.81 x 10 )
x 0.194
ρB VB 4
ε =1− =1− =1− =0.30
ρP ρP 2890
log10(UTM):
log 10 (U TM )=log 10 ( 1.09 x 10−2 ) =−1.96

log10(ε):
log 10 (ε )=log 10 ( 0.31 )=−0.504

Minimum Fluidisation Velocity, UMF, from the Ergun Equation:

2 2 3
U mf ( 1.75 ρ F d ) +U mf (150 μ ) ( 1−ε ) +d ε g ( ρP− ρF )=0
This was solved use goal seek analysis in Microsoft excel
2
U mf ¿
The following result for UMF:
−4 −1
U MF =7.32 x 10 m s

Minimum Fluidisation Velocity, UMF, from the Carman-Kozeny Equation:

2 3 2
d particle ε ( ρP −ρF ) g ( 0.81 x 10−3 ) ( 0.3 )3 (2890−1000)(9.81) −3 −1
U mf = = =2.99 x 10 m s
150 (1−ε) μ 150(1−0.3)(0.001)

Experimental Terminal Velocity, UT:

After taking
n
U TM =U T ε

And writing it in terms of the equation of a straight line ( y=mx+c ), the following equation
was determined
log 10 U TM =n log 10 ε +log 10 U T

22
 As log 10 U t is c in the equation of a straight line UT was determined by doing the following,
(The equation for this line is given in in Figure 5.2)
−0.8668=log 10 U T
−0.8668 −1
U T =10 =0.136 m s

Experimental n:
After taking
n
U TM =U T ε
And writing it in terms of the equation of a straight line ( y=mx+c ), the following equation
was determined
log 10 U TM =n log 10 ε +log 10 U T

As n is x in the equation of a straight line, n is given as the following. (The equation for this
line is given in in Figure 5.2)
n=2.237

Theoretical n:

)( )
−0.1

( ) ( ( 1000 ) ( 0.138 ) ( 8.10 x 10−4 )

−4
d −0.1 8.10 x 10
n= 4.4+18 R e T = 4.4+18 =2.925
dt 0.0508 0.001

ReT:
ρ F U T d ( 1000 ) ( 0.138 ) ( 8.10 x 10−4 )
R e T= = =112
μ 0.001
-∆P/L Absolute Uncertainty:

( ( )
0.5
2 ( 0.005 x 10 )
5
∆ (
−∆ P
L
= )
1.52 x 10
4
+
100
0.199
4
x 7.84 x 10 =7.17 x 10 Pa
3

Superficial Velocity Absolute Uncertainty:

( )
0.1
60 x 1000 −2 −4 −1
∆U= −5
x 1.23 x 10 =8.22 x 10 m s
2.50 x 10

log10(UTM) Absolute Uncertainty:

(( 0.46 ))
)+( 0.01
−2
0.5 x 10
∆ log 10 U TM = 2 x |−1.96|=3.97
0.005

log10(ε) Absolute Uncertainty:

(( )) x|−0.504|=0.013
2
0.5 x 10
∆ log 10 ε=
0.199

log10(RePM) Absolute Uncertainty:

( )( ) ( ))
0.1 0.1 0.5
60 x 1000 60 x 1000 100
∆ log 10 R e PM = −4
+ −2
+ x 1.98=0.05
1.67 x 10 8.22 x 10 0.30

23
log10(CF) from Ergun Equation Absolute Uncertainty:

( )( ) ( ))
0.1 0.1 0.5
60 x 1000 60 x 1000 100
∆ log 10 C F = + + x 0.523=0.014
1.67 x 10−4 8.22 x 10−2 0.30

CF from Ergun Equation Absolute Uncertainty:

( )( ) ( ))
0.1 0.1 0.5
60 x 1000 60 x 1000 100
∆ CF= −4
+ −2
+ x 3.34=0.09
1.67 x 10 8.22 x 10 0.30

CF from Carman-Kozeny Equation Absolute Uncertainty:

( )( ) ( ))
0.1 0.1 0.5
60 x 1000 60 x 1000 100
∆ CF= −4
+ −2
+ x 1.59=0.04
1.67 x 10 8.22 x 10 0.30

REPM Absolute Uncertainty:

( )( ) ( ))
0.1 0.1 0.5
60 x 1000 60 x 1000 100
∆ ℜPM = −4
+ −2
+ x 95=3
1.67 x 10 8.22 x 10 0.30

24