Chemical Engineering Science, 1974, Vol. 29, pp. 327-334. Pergamon Press.

Printed in Great Britain

ON THE TWO-PHASE THEORY OF FLUIDIZATION

J. R. GRACE and R. CLIFT

Department of Chemical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

(Received 9 October 1972; accepted 12 April 1973)

Abstract-The distribution of gas flow between bubbles and the dense phase in a fluidized bed is
considered. By deriving general equations for gas and solids continuity in a freely-bubbling fluidized
bed, the possible contributions to the invisible gas flow are formulated. It is shown that the gross
assumptions inherent in “two-phase theories” of fluidization are not justified. Measurements of visible
bubble flow and bubble volume fraction can give nothing more than rough estimates for the gas flow
through the two phases.

INTRODUCTION Such measurements are difficult to make, but in

In modelling chemical reactions
beds, it is common practice[l-31 to consider the
bed to be composed of two distinct phases, a dense
or particulate phase consisting of solid particles and
interstitial gas, and a bubble phase consisting of
large rising voids essentially free from particles.
The division of gas tlow between these two phases
is important, especially for solid-catalyzed gas
reactions, since gas in the dense phase is in more
intimate contact with solid particles than gas in the
bubble phase. The purpose of the present work is to
review theories for the flow distribution of gas be-
tween the two phases, to examine the underlying
assumptions in detail, and to show what work is
needed to resolve the two-phase problem of fluid-
ization.
The original postulate which has become known
as the two-phase theory of fluidization [4] suggested
that the flow rate of bubble voids through a fluid-
ized bed, G,, is equal to the excess gas flow above
that required for minimum fluidization:
i.e.
GslA = U-U,,
where A is the cross-sectional area of the bed, and
U and U,,,, are the superficial gas velocities under
operating conditions and at minimum fluidization
respectively. In recent years a number of
workers[5-201 have carried out experiments which
have allowed them to measure directly or to esti-
mate visible bubble flow rates in freely fluidized
beds. Most of these studies are summarized in
Table 1, which gives the ranges of values measured
for the parameter K defined by
GBIA = U - KlX,+
in gas-fluidized almost every case K was found to be well in excess
of unity. Thus there is now ample evidence, albeit
based mainly on laboratory-scale experiments and
relatively low flow rates, that the original two-phase
theory seriously overestimates the visible bubble
flow rate in most cases.
Two contrasting explanations have been ad-
vanced for the “deficit” in visible bubble flow (i.e.
for the extent to which GelA is less than U - Urn,).
Some workers [6,21,22] have attributed this deficit
to an increase in interstitial gas velocity in the
dense phase above that required for incipient fluid-
ization. In this case, the division of gas flow be-
tween phases would be more favourable for
gas-solid reactions than predicted by the Toomey
and Johnstone postulate. At the other extreme, a
number of workers[lO, 12, 14, 161 following LOC-
kett, Davidson and Harrison[23,24] have ascribed
most of the difference between (U - U,,,,)and GsIA
to through-flow inside bubbles. This led to what
might be called the modified or n-type two-phase
theory [ lo]:
GeIA = U - U&l + n&) (1)
where the original two-phase postulate is a special
case, obtained by putting n = 0. The model implicit
in Eq. (1) assumes that the superficial gas velocity
remains U,,,, in the dense phase while the gas inside
rising voids has a mean velocity of (n + 1) U,,,,rela-
tive to the boundary of the bubbles. It was hoped
that n would turn out to be a universal (positive)
constant that would give a measure of the overall
throughflow velocity in freely-bubbling situations.
Table 1 shows values of n given in the literature or
inferred from simultaneous measurements of Gs
327
328 J. R. GRACE and R. CLIFT

Table 1. Summary of experimental data on the division of gas flow between phases in freely fluidized beds

Height above
Bed cross- Method of Particles Range of distributor, Range of Range of
section measure- d. K”, (U - U,“,) K_ U-G&
Reference (cm) ment Type (wL) (cm/s@ (cmlsec) (C”m,
Kl
(see I&. (1))
5 7.6 x 15.2 Gamma-rays Cracking cat 41 0.7 5-21 8,27 120,140
(Baumgarten Glass beads 74 0.7 l-21 2-18 24,56
and Pigford) Glass beads 116 1.1 5-20 20 5,11 33,40
Glass beads 119 1.6 l-23 20 1.5-7.5 9,22
Glass beads 234 5.2 4-25 20 16-4.5 7-13
6 1 x 24.2 Photography Glass beads 100 1.2 1.7-10.5 20-100 1.0-6.6
(Pyle and Glass beads 370 14.7 1.O-27.0 10-100 1.0-2.3
Harrison) Iron shot 180 14.7 3-26 20-% 1.2-2.2
7 122 x 122 Light probes Sand 190 2.5 36-17 85,206 2.1-5.8
(Whitehead
and Young)
30.8 dia Observation Sand 275 5.6 l-6 5-20 1.1-1.3
(Gelda:) from above
10 1.9x45.7 Photography Magnesite 274 8.1 5-24 15-60 1.1-3.0 4.3
(Grace and
Harrison)
30.8 dia Photos from Sand 128 1.2 2-8 10-60 1.5-4,8
(Geld;) above
1.3x68.5 Photos from Sand 128 1.5 2-8 10-80 1 .J-4.5
front

(Kelsez 1.3 x 68.5 Photography 128 1.5 0.5-18 20-80 1.1-9.4 22.47
1.3 x 68.5 Observation l-20 S-80 1.1-9.3
from above
20x30 x-ray Alumina 210 2.5 1.3-3.8 17-70 1.3-1.9
(Everet) or30x30 Photography Carbon 2% 8.0 2.4-56 12-60 1.2-1.5
QUFUtZ 135 2.8 3.3-15.7 17-70 1.2-2.1
Glass beads 323 8.0 4.8-11.2 15-45 1.2-1.5
Glass powder 268 5.5 4.1-9.6 15-60 1.5-2.1
15.2 x 30.5 Observation Sodium 1620 55 O-40 2.6-13.3 1.1-1.4 1.7-5.8
(McG:h and from above aluminate
Streattield)
2x61 Photography AlUmina 1520 58 60 5-20 1.8-2.0 3.5-5.0
(Gelda: and catalyst
Cranfield)
17 dias of 10, Sand 83 1.8 7.1 530 1.0-3.1
(Werther and 20,45,100 p&be
Molerus)
18 1.3x74 Photography Glass beads 490 23.0 4.618.4 20-80 1.0-1.4 0.3-3.2
(Motamedi and Glass beads 280 7.6 3.0-12.9 20-80 0.8-1.1 -1.2-1.2
Jameson) Glass beads 100 2.2 4.2-8.2 20-80 0.9-1.8 -1.2-7.3
Sand 270 10.2 6.1-11.2 20-80 1.2-1.6 2.2-8.1
Sand 500 20.9 8.4-16.7 20-80 1.2-1.6 1.8-5.2
19 61 dia Electrorest- Coke 220 2.1 2-13 11-102 0.7-3.1 - 8-74
(Nakamura) ivity probes
20 1x56 Photography Glass heads 213 5.3 13-23 20-130 1.0-3.4 O-12.6
(Chavarie)

and &. These values are almost always positive but
vary over a very broad range. It is now clear that
when a value of n is assigned by using Eq. (l), it
differs from system to system (and possibly from
observer to observer) and within a given system is
dependent on height and superficial gas velocity.
These observations indicate that the n-type theory,
which was intended as an improvement on the orig-
inal two-phase postulate, is itself oversimplified.
A somewhat surprising feature of gas fluidized
beds is that changes in total bubble volume occur as
bubbles coalesce [25-283 and split [28]. These
changes are consistent in their direction and order
of magnitude with the n-type theory. However, no
unambiguous indications of the division of gas flow
can be obtained from measurements of these vol-
ume changes.
In the light of these observations, a re-
assessment of the two-phase theory is due. We con-
sider the most general case, a freely-bubbling bed
with variable dense phase voidage (E), variable in-
terstitial gas velocity relative to particles (u,), and
variable gas velocity within any given bubble (&).
The assumptions necessary to proceed from the
general case to the n-type theory are also pre-
sented.
 On the two-phase theory of fluidization 329
SOLIDS CONTINUITY used to derive two useful identities:
It will be convenient to consider the dense phase
as two superimposed fluids, one consisting of solid
v,da = v,e da (2a)
particles and the other of interstitial gas. By taking I A-1ioi I A-PPi
ensemble averages over distances which are large
and
with respect to the dimensions of solid particles, it
is possible to treat the phases as continua [29]. Vel- 1
v,da =- v,S. da (2b)
ocities and voidage may then be treated as continu- I A-\‘,a< 1 - EnIfI A-Ziai
ous functions: this simplifies the notation, although
where
the conclusions are not dependent on this formula-
tion. The particle velocity will be denoted by v = 8. = E - c&f. (4)
0,; + v,; + v,E (where the x-axis is directed verti-
cally upwards) and the voidage will be denoted by Eqs. (2), (2a) and (2b) must be valid at any level in
E. the bed. Eq. (2a) simply shows that the time-
Consider a horizontal section XX through a fluid- average net flux of dense phase across any section
ized bed at any instant as shown in Fig. 1. The net is equivalent to the net flux of interstitial voids
moving with the particles. Eq. (2b) emphasizes the
fact that when 8. and u, are correlated (for exam-
ple, if the voidage of rising dense phase elements is
greater than that of downward moving elements)
then there can be a net transfer of gas in the dense
phase across a section due to an invisible transla-
tion of interparticulate voids. This flux is quite inde-
pendent of the interstitial gas flow relative to the
particles.
X X

TOTAL MATERIAL BALANCE

Applying a total material balance between the

distributor and another level in the bed (section
XX) and assuming that both the particles and the
gas are incompressible, we obtain

UA = 2
I
Uoiai +
I A-W
vx(l - l)da
(5)
+ (u, + u,)cda
I A-&o,
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a horizontal section through
a bubbling fluidized bed. where UGi is the mean gas velocity across XX
within bubble i and u, is the vertical component of
the gas velocity relative to the particles. Averaging
solids flux across XX at any instant is _fA-Z,ar
t?,(l- over time and using Eq. (2), we obtain
l)da where a, is the area of the i’” bubble cut by
the section. Over a long period of time the solid par-
UA = 2 Uciai + w da + u,eda. (6)
ticles remain in the bed so that I A-Pai I A~&Ii

(2) The terms in Eq. (6) have the following signifi-

cance:
where the overbar denotes a time average,
i.e. (i) UA = Total gas flow rate to the bed, assumed
to be constant throughout the time interval over
which averages are taken.
(3)
(ii) F Uoiai= Average gas flow rate across XX
It is shown in Appendix A that Eq. (2) may be within the bubble phase.
330 J. R. GRACE and R. CLIFT

(iii) _fA-2oiV,Eda = Average net flux of interstitial server. The value of ki is then arbitrary, so that it
voids moving with the particles (discussed above). should not be surprising that different observers ob-
(iv) _fAeZo, u,*~E
da = Average interstitial gas flow tain different values for the apparent throughflow
relative to particles in the dense phase. This term term 3 kJJ,,,,a when estimating it by measuring Gs.
includes the gas flow due to any “parvoids” (voids If some arbitrary measure of Gs is adopted, Eqs.
too small to be considered true bubbles) which (2a), (6), (7) and (7a) may be combined to give
move relative to the particles in the dense phase.
The above formulation is adopted in order to di-
vide the gas flow in the way appropriate to an
analysis of a solid-catalyzed reaction in a fluidized
bed. The essential division is between term (ii), rep-
resenting the gas flow which crosses XX without
contacting particles, and terms (iii) and (iv), denot- which applies at any level, with es defined by
ing gas which crosses XX in intimate contact with
the particles. The distinction between bubbles in T a, = Ae.
term (ii) and parvoids included in term (iv) there-
fore depends on whether the gas in the void is Applying Eq. (6a) at two levels, 1 and 2, and sub-
effectively out of contact with the particles. Thus tracting, we obtain
the criterion distinguishing parvoids from bubbles
is somewhat arbitrary even for a given system. On
the other hand, the division between terms (iii) and
(iv) is unimportant and is adopted purely for analyt-
ical convenience. In the n-type two-phase theory,
term (ii) is further subdivided:
+[I ~,,-<a,, ” dal
da-I,,,-..>: (8)

+ U,~E da- GE da
I *,I-.821 1
where Usi is the velocity of bubble i and k,lJ,,,, is
where AGs,* is the rate of formation of bubble vol-
the mean gas velocity across ai relative to the bub-
ume between levels 1 and 2. In practice, Gg has
ble (the “throughflow velocity”). The gas flow ac-
been found to increase with heightl6, 10,201
ross XX within bubbles (term (ii)) may then be
primarily due to bubble growth on coalescence so
written
that AGslz is positive when section 2 is above sec-
~ -
tion 1. Equation (8) shows that this generation of
T UGiai = c Usiai + 2 kiUm,ai. (7)
bubble volume between two levels must accom-
pany a net change in the sum of the throughflow,
The first term is then assumed to represent the
flux of interstitial voids, and relative interstitial gas
translation of bubble voids (sometimes called the
“visible bubble flow”) written flow. It gives no indication as to which of these
terms, if any, changes most radically.
Gs = c UBiai. (7a)
MODIFIED OR n-TYPE TWO-PHASE THEORY

Unfortunately this formulation relies upon the exis- Apart from the assumption that Gg is a
tence of an unambiguous measure of UBi or G,, as uniquely-defined quantity, the modified two-phase
would exist if all the bubbles in the bed rose with theory is based on the following assumptions:
constant size, shape and velocity. In fact, bubble in-
teractions cause changes in bubble shape and (i) lacl-.Bj v, da = 0. This assumption is valid if l
velocity[30], increases of bubble volume[25-281, is constant everywhere in the dense phase (see Eq.
and “leakage” whereby gas is exchanged between 2) or if e and v, are uncorrelated (see Eq. 2a). It
bubbles which retain separate identities may be noted that this assumption is rather more
stringent than has previously been recognized. The
[7, 13,26-28,31,32]. The effect of these phen-
omena is discussed in Appendix B and it is assumption of a constant mean dense-phase void-
age, i.e. JA,,_raj8. da = 0 is not sufficient; Eq. (2b)
shown that there is no absolute measure of G, or
shows that the correct form must be
UBi.Thus the value of these quantities depends on
ihe method of measurement adopted by the ob- J-A<,-.s,vx&
da = 0.
 On the two-phase theory of fluidization 331

(ii) JAcl_mU,E da = LLfA (1 - &). i.e. the average
dense-phase interstitial gas velocity is equal to that
,at incipient fluidization.
(iii) Z kiai = /&A = (1 + n&A. This implies that
ki and ai are uncorrelated. The validity of this as-
sumption clearly depends upon the method of
measuring G,, since the value of ki is determined by
the method adopted.
With these simplifications, Eq. (6a) reduces im-
mediately to Eq. (l), while Eq. (8) becomes
AGslZ = Um,A(nleBj - n&J.
It is usually implied that n = E - 1 is not a function
of either height x or of superficial gas velocity.
With this further assumption
AGs I?= lJ,,,,An (C,,, - .h).
Equation (la) does predict an increase in visible
bubble volume with increasing height above the dis-
tributor for n >O, but only to the extent that efl
decreases with height.
DISCUSSION
The flows assumed for each phase by different
workers or in different versions of the two phase
theory are listed in Table 2. The more general re-
sults from Eq. (6a) are also tabulated. In order to
illustrate the magnitude of the difference between
the various assumptions, the values of the flows are
also listed for a particular set of values of U, U,,,,,A,
&+and GB corresponding to one of the experimen-
tal studies[l9] summarized in Table 1. It is clear
that the fraction of the total flow in the dense phase
varies considerably according to the interpretation
adopted by different workers. The spread, from 14
to 59 per cent of the total flow, would be even grea-
ter if recent work[2] which assumes net downflow
in the dense phase were included.
As the bottom row of Table 2 shows, the actual
magnitude of the invisible flow terms is unknown
and there is no particular reason, based on existing
experimental evidence, to prefer any of the first
four approaches. The original two phase postulate
provides one estimate for the total flows in each
phase, (even though the visible bubble flow is over-
estimated), but workers who use it in reactor mod-
elling must recognize that the actual flows may
differ widely from those assumed. The n-type
theory, on the other hand, can be regarded as a
conservative estimate in reactor modelling since all
the invisible flow except for U,,,,A( 1 - Es) is as-
signed to the bubble phase. However, the values as-
signed to n so far do no more than illustrate the
magnitude of the deviation from the Toomey and
Johnstone postulate and show the need for further
work.
The gas distribution problem can only be settled
by studies in which simultaneous measurements are
made of ls, some clearly stated Gs and either E
(corresponding to the definition of Ge used) or u,
and v,. Only then will it be possible to evaluate the
integral terms in Eqs. (6) and (6a). Unfortunately,
satisfactory means of measuring the invisible flow
components (i.e. I? and u,) have not yet been found.
Instead workers continue to measure the only ac-

Table 2. Flows assumed in various versions of the two-phase theory. The figures in brackets (l./sec) are illustrative of
the difference between the models. These figures are based on measurements by Nakamura[ll where U,,,‘ =
2.1 cm/set, U = 14.7 cmlsec, A = 2920 cm’ and the measured values of E* and GB/A were 0.050 and 8.2 cmlsec respec-
tively. The measurements were taken 72 cm above the distributor in a bed of coke particles

Invisible flow Total flow

Visible flow in bubble phase in bubble Flow in dense Total
in bubble phase (through flow) phase phase flow

1. Original two phase (U - Urn,)-4 Urn,,,

theory
2. Total deficit between
(36.8) (O”-0) (U (36.8)
- Um,M
(6.1)
UA-GB
(4%)

actual G, and that pre-

dicted by 1. ascribed to
(2:;) co”-0, (2%) (19.2) (4%)

interstitial flow
3. Throughflow velocity U&IA G, + Um&A A(U - U,&)- G,
of u,, (0.3) (24.0) (18.9) (4%)
4. n-Type theory U&l + n)&A A(U-Um,(l-&)) U,,,,A(l -k)
(13.4) (37.1) (5.8) (4%)
5. Eq. (6a)
G, + U, I: k,a,
- Iv. + f*,,-..,U-~ da
(23.7) (2 0) (i-z)
332 J. R. GRACEand R. CLIFT

cessible flow component (GB/A). It must be em- ured bubble flow and Toomey predic-
phasized, however, that measurements of G, IA by tion, (U - Gs /A)/u,,,,
themselves, no matter how careful, cannot clarify flow rate of gas relative to a bubble ac-
the overall distribution of gas flow between the ross a horizontal section inside the
phases since the invisible flow is substantial and bubble/ Urn@
yet its distribution remains unknown. Future work time average of k over a given horizontal
must concentrate on experimental techniques of bed cross-section
measuring the invisible flow. The present authors total number of photographic frames
recently reported one experimental method of es- analyzed for a given sequence
timating bubble throughflow velocities by means of %- 1; see also Eq. (1)
tracer particles[33]. Work in this direction is con- total time span
tinuing although the difficulties in obtaining and in- time
terpreting data are formidable. Moreover, the wide superficial gas velocity
range of values of n reported for the modified two- bubble velocity
phase theory (see Table 1) suggests that the various absolute mean gas velocity across sec-
terms may have different magnitudes in different tion ai inside bubble i
systems. This raises the unenviable prospect of superficial gas velocity at minimum fluid-
having to characterize the dependence of these ization
parameters on particle properties, superficial gas relative interstitial gas velocity
flow rate, and height above the distributor. volume of bubble i below section XX
(see Fig. 2)
CONCLUSIONS bubble volume
Gas passes through aggregatively fluidized beds particle velocity
partly in the bubble phase and partly in the dense x, y, 2 components of v (x vertical)
phase. The division of gas between the phases is of height above distributor
considerable importance in reactor modelling and
has been the subject of considerable discussion and Greek symbols
conjecture. Recent measurements of “visible bub- l dense phase voidage
ble flow rates” are subject to arbitrary interpreta- 63 volume fraction of visible bubble phase
tion due to volume and shape changes which ac- lmf bed voidage at minimum fluidization
company bubble interactions. More serious, the 8, E - Clnf
fraction of the total flow not accounted for by such
visible flow is substantial while each of the phases Subscripts
contains a component of flow (“throughflow” for i i”’ bubble cut by a given horizontal sec-
the bubble phase; interstitial flow relative to parti- tion at a given instant
cles and flux of interstitial voids for the dense j j’” photographic frame
phase) which has not been subject to experimental 1,2 levels in the bed
measurement. The original and n-type “two-phase
theories of fluidization” amount to no more than REFERENCES
untested guesses for the division of gas flow. Thus [l] DAVIDSON J. F. and HARRISON D., Fluidised
the two-phase problem of fluidization remains open Particles. Cambridee Universitv Press 1%3.
and vexatious, but the directions required for [2] KUNII D. and LEiENSPIEL-O., Fluidization En-
gineering. Wiley, New York 1%9.
future work are now clear. [3] GRACE J. R., Chem. Engng Prog. Symp. Ser. 197167
No. 116 159.
NOTATION
[4] TOOMEY R. D. and JOHNSTONE H. F., Chem.
A cross-sectional area of bed Engng Prog. 1952 48 220.
[S] BAUMGARTEN P. K. and PIGFORD R. L.,
a area on section XX
A.I.Ch.E. Jl l%O 6 115.
ai area of ilh bubble cut by horizontal sec- [6] PYLE D. L. and HARRISON D., Chem. Engng Sci.
tion 1967 22 1199.
d, mean particle diameter [7] WHITEHEAD A. B. and YOUNG A. D., Znterna-
GB average visible volumetric bubble flow tional Symposium on Fluidization, p. 294. Nether-
lands University Press 1%7.
across a given section [8] National Coal Board, Stoke Orchard, private com-
; j-, E unit vectors munication 1968.
K measure of discrepancy between meas- [9] GELDART D., Powder Technol. 1%8 1 355.
 On the two-phase theory of fluidization 333

[lo] GRACE J. R. and HARRISON D., Chem. Engng Sci.

1%9 24 497. IA -xoi
v.da =I A -Y&z,
V,E da. (24
[ll] GELDART D., Powder Technol. 1970 4 41.
[12] KELSEY J. R., MSc. Thesis, University of Brad- Equation (2a) may also be written as
ford 1970.
[13] EVERETT D. J., Ph.D. Thesis, University of Lon-
don 1970.
[14] McGRATH L. and STREATFIELD R. E., Trans.
Instn. CHem. Engrs. 1971 49 70.
[15] ARGYRIOU D., LIST H. L. and SHINNAR R.,
A.Z.Ch.E. Jl 1971 17 122.
which may be rearranged to give
[16] GELDART D. and CRANFIELD R. R., Chem.
Engng Jl 1972 3 211.
[17] WERTHER J. and MOLERUS O., paper presented
at CHISA 1972 Conference, Prague 1972. I
A~lll, o,da =-
,
1
v.6.
1-LffA-Z+ da. (2b)

[18] MOTAMEDI M. and JAMESON G. J., Imperial Col-

lege, private communication.
[19] NAKAMURA K., National Research Council of
Canada, private communication 1973.
[20] CHAVARIE C., Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University
1973.
[21] GODARD K. E. and RICHARDSON J. F., Chem.
Engng Sci. 1%8 23 660.
[22] ROWE P. N. and EVERETT D. J., Trans. Znstn
Chem. Engrs 1972 50 55.
[23] DAVIDSON J. F. and HARRISON D., Chem. Engng
Sci. 1%6 21 731.
[24] LOCKET’I’ M. J., DAVIDSON J. F. and HARRI-
SON D., Chem. Engng Sci. 1967 22 1059.’
[25] BOlTERILL J. S. M., GEORGE J. S. and BES-
FORD H., Chem. Engrcg Prog. Symp. Ser. 1966 62
No. 62 7.
[26] GRACE J. R., Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge University
1968.
1271 CLIFF R., Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University 1970.
ml GRACE J. R. and VENTA J., Can. .I. Chem. Ennna - -
1973 51 110.
r291 ANDERSON T. B. and JACKSON R., Ind. Engng
Chem. Fundls 1969 8 137.
[301 CLIFT R. and GRACE J. R., Chem. Engng Prog.
Symp. Ser. 1970 66 No. 105 14.
[311 ROWE P. N., PARTRIDGE B. A. and LYALL E.,
Chem. Engng Sci. 1964 19 973.
[321 ROWE P. N. and PARTRIDGE B. A., Trans. Instn
Chem. Engrs 1%5 43 157.
r331 GARCIA A., GRACE J. R. and CLIFT R., A.Z.Ch.E.
Jl 1973 19 369.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
MEASUREMENT OF TRANSLATION OF
BUBBLE VOIDS, Gs
Three alternate methods of measuring G,, “the visible
bubble flow rate”, have been employed or proposed as
follows:
(1) This method is based on Eq. (7a). The area, ai, of
each bubble cut by the section is measured at successive
instants, while the instantaneous bubble velocity, U,, is
estimated by tracing the movement of the bubble nose or
centroid. For N experimental photographic frames, and n
bubbles cut by the section in any frame, it is then assumed
that
(Bl)
(2) The volume of each bubble crossing the section is
measured only once, when its nose or centroid is as close
as possible to the section. For a number of frames corres-
ponding to real time T, it is then assumed that
032)
This method is probably the simplest to use. Another var-
iant is to measure the diameters of bubble eruptions at the
bed surface and to attempt to relate these to the bubbles
causing the eruptions.
(3) Let V, be the volume of a bubble cut by section XX
which is below XX (see shaded region in Fig. 2). Then an

SOLIDS CONTINUITY EQUATIONS

For a freely-bubbling bed, the solids continuity equa-

tion reduces to
X X

~(1 - l)da = 0. (2)

f 1 -I.,,
We now use this result to derive some further identities.
First note that

1 v,da= u.(l-•)da+ vxe da.

A-Q I A--I‘a,i I A-L‘?

Hence, from Eq. (2), Fig. 2. Bubble cut by a horizontal section.

334 J. R. GRACEand R. CLIFT
alternate measure of visible bubble flow is given by
For bubbles of constant volume, shape and velocity, it
is simple to show that all three methods give the same re-
sult. However, tine films of freely bubbling beds reveal
that changes in bubble volume, shape and velocity are
common features for individual bubbles, these changes
usually being associated with bubble interactions. To de-
monstrate the difficulties inherent in the three methods,
consider the situations depicted in Fig. 3.
In Figs. 3(a) and (b), bubbles undergo shape changes
x13xx~x (a)
xQxxax (b)
one frame A few frames
later
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of bubble shape and volume changes which complicate measurements of
visible bubble flow rates in fluidized beds. (a) Bubble shape changes, centroid remaining fixed and
volume constant. (b) Bubble shape changes, nose remaining fixed and volume constant. (c) Bubbles
coalesce and total bubble volume increases. (d) Apparent leakage of gas occurs from one bubble to
another.
without affecting the position of the centroid or nose re-
spectively. If LJ,, is based on the centroid position, then
according to method 1, no visible bubble gas has passed
the level of interest in situation (a); similarly, if U,, is
based on the nose position, t.L is zero in situation (b) and
so we would measure no visible bubble volume crossing
the level between these two frames. In both cases, there
clearly has been a movement of visible voids across the
section, We therefore conclude that method 1 is unable to
cope with bubble shape changes when a simple estimate
for IJBi is adopted.
In Fig. 3(c), two bubbles coalesce to give a resultant
bubble whose volume is greater than the sum of the vol-
umes of the original bubbles. Having measured the vol-
ume of bubble 1 in the first frame according to method 2,
the observer is faced with the dilemma of what to do when
coalescence occurs. If he discards his earlier measure-
ment and takes the volume of bubble 3, he is overes-
timating the visible bubble flow by that fraction of the
growth associated with the part of the bubble which has
already passed the reference section. If he goes back and
adds the volume of bubble 2 before coalescence, he must
underestimate G,. Method 1 is again unreliable, since the
rapid changes of velocity and shape during coalescence
prevent simple definition of a meaningful value for U.,.
For the situation depicted in Fig. 3(d), methods I and 2
break down even more seriously. Assuming that &,a, or
the volume of bubble 1 was measured in the first frame
shown, and that bubble 2 maintains a constant volume
after the leakage is complete, we see that certain elements
of gas will be counted twice so that the method overesti-
mates G,. Thus method I is inadequate for any of the
events depicted in Fig. 3, while method 2 can handle shape
changes but fails to deal with volume changes of the types
in Figs. 3(c) and (d).
x-e-x X-x
cl fd
u
x---y=yx x----Q-x
Q
(d)
0
One fmme Afewfr~mas
later
For method 3, the shape changes in Figs. 3(a) and (b)
present no particular problem, while bubble volume
changes accompanying coalescence are dealt with in a
reasonable and consistent manner. However, this method
again fails to cope satisfactorily with the situation in Fig.
3(d); it assumes that a reduction in void volume for a
bubble cut by the section is due to the bubble crossing the
section, whereas the leakage phenomenon can cause bub-
ble volume reduction due to transfer of gas from one bub-
ble to another. On the other hand, leakage from a bubble
below the section to a bubble crossing the section will be
given adequate representation by method 3.
Since shape changes, bubble volume change on coales-
cence and splitting, and leakage phenomena can all be
occurring simultaneously in freely bubbling beds, we must
conclude that the value of G, measured will depend on
the method of measurement employed and that the value
of G, obtained is therefore arbitrary. Since leakage in the
downwards direction appears to be less frequent than up-
wards leakage, method 3, although tedious, seems to give
the most meaningful value for Ge.