Powder

Technology,

59 (1989) 129 - 140

129

Pressure Drop in Solid-Liquid

A. M. LALI and J. B. JOSHI* Department of Chemical Technology,

Fluidised Beds

University

of Bombay,

Matunga, Bombay

400 019 (India)

(Received November 14, 1988; in revised for May 9,1989)

SUMMARY

Models have been developed for the prediction of wall pressure drop in solid-liquid fluidised beds (SLFB). Both laminar and turbulent regimes have been considered. These models explain the pressure drop characteristics of the limiting cases of SLFB: the fixed bed and the single-phase pipe flow. Pressure drop was measured in a 78 mm i.d. solid-liquid fluidised bed. Particle size was varied in the range of 0.55 - 3.1 mm. The bed voidage was varied in the range of 0.4 to 0.9. Good agreement has been shown between model predictions and experimental observations of pressure drop.
INTRODUCTION

Solid-liquid fluidised beds (SLFB) are used in industry for hydrometallurgical operations, catalytic cracking, ion exchange, adsorption, crystallization, sedimentation, classification, etc. More recently, SLFB are finding increasing applications as bio-reactors because of the flexibility with respect to solid and liquid phase residence times, simple construction and easy operation. Further, these units dissipate energy more uniformly compared with mechanically agitated vessels and thus provide a favourable atmosphere for living micro-organisms. The knowledge of pressure drop is important because pressure drop governs the energy dissipation rate and forms the basis for the relative performance of different equipment. The knowledge of pressure drop is indirectly very useful because it permits the estimation of heat and mass transfer rates. During the past four decades, a substantial amount of information has been reported on the performance of solid-liquid fluidised
*To whom correspondence 0032-5910/89/$3.50 should be addressed.

beds. Theoretical and empirical models have been used and several correlations are now available for the estimation of design parameters. Richardson [l] presented an excellent state-of-the-art review on this subject. Joshi [ 21 and Couderc [ 31 have presented a critical review of the published work. Though the total pressure drop characteristics of SLFB have been thoroughly investigated, there is practically no information on wall pressure drop (observed total pressure drop minus the hydrostatic head of solid-liquid suspension). Wall pressure drop indicates the nature of flow structure in the vicinity of the wall and this information can be advantageously used for the prediction of bed-wall heat and mass transfer coefficients. It was therefore thought desirable to undertake a systematic investigation of wall pressure drop over a wide range of particle Reynolds number and bed voidage. There was yet another reason for the investigation of pressure drop in SLFB. The solid-liquid fluidised beds usually operate in a particulate mode or in the homogeneous regime. Other multiphase reactors such as gas-liquid bubble columns, gasliquid-solid fluidized beds, liquid-liquid spray columns, liquid-gas spray columns and solid-gas transport reactors also operate in the homogeneous regime under a certain range of conditions. It is known that the performance characteristics are similar in the homogeneous regime even though the multiphase equipments are seemingly different. In this chapter, the pressure drop characteristics of an SLFB have been investigated, considering it to be a representative equipment of the homogeneous regime.
THEORY

Turbulent regime When the particle Reynolds number is greater than about 1000, the solid-liquid @ Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands

130

fluidised bed operates in the turbulent regime. The hydrodynamic behaviour in this regime can be conveniently analysed using the energy balance [ 4, 51. In fluid&d beds, the frictional force between particles and liquid counterbalances the net force of gravity and buoyancy. The frictional force between particles and liquid depends on the relative velocity of the particle with respect to the surrounding liquid. This relative velocity is termed slip velocity, Vs. Estimate of slip velocity can be made from the knowledge of fractional phase hold-ups and true velocity of the phases with respect to the stationary column walls. Thus, by definition,
v,= _-+
EL VL

in the bed of particles is attributed to increased drag and we may write cn = Co, + cn (3)

where Cn is the increased drag coefficient due to increased turbulence and Co, is the drag as experienced by a single particle in infinite liquid. The force balance on a particle in a fluid&d bed can be given by the following equation:
CDrdP2+ pLVs2 = 5 dp3(ps - phi

63

&I

Vs and VD are positive in the direction of terminal settling. VL is positive when the liquid flows in a direction opposite to terminal settling. In particulate fluidisation, however, there is no net solids movement and hence V, = 0. It is known that the drag coefficient of a particle in a fluidised bed increases due to the presence of other neighbouring particles. In the bed, some energy is dissipated in the form of turbulent energy dissipation. This turbulence is responsible for increasing the drag coefficient in the turbulent regime. The force balance for a single particle settling in an infinite stationary liquid is given by the following equation: CD,ndP2-

It should be noted that the drag coefficient Cn has been defined on the basis of total particle surface area and not on the projected area. Thus, for Newtons range (Re, > 500) and for spherical particles, the value of Cn, is 0.11 instead of 0.44 based on the projected area.
Energy balance

The liquid required for fluidisation is introduced against a static bed height. The rate of energy input is given by the following equation:
Ei = : D2V&H(~sps +,fi!~p~) (5)

The kinetic energy associated with the incoming liquid is normally negligible. The liquid leaving the bed of height H possesses potential energy given by the following equation:
El = ; D2VLgHpL (6)

1 2

pLVsm - s dp3(ps - prhz

2-

(2)

Net power dissipation in SLFB is EE =Ei-El By substitutions, En = ; D2fWps

pdgK (8)

The same equation would hold for a single particle suspended in infinite liquid moving past it. The velocity Vs_ is the terminal settling velocity of the particle in the liquid medium in question. In the presence of other particles, the settling velocity is known to be hindered. In other words, the interstitial liquid velocity is lower than the terminal settling velocity. (In the case of solid-liquid fluidisation, the net settling velocity is zero. Under these conditions, the interstitial liquid velocity is equal to the particle settling velocity relative to the liquid. In the subsequent discussion, these two velocities will be used with identical meaning.) The hindrance

(7)

Using eqn. (4) for the fluid&d (8), we obtain

3n D2HC,,Vs2VLpLes EB=T dP

bed in eqn.

(9)

where EB is the total rate of energy dissipation in the bed. It has been pointed out earlier that the overall drag coefficient Co consists of two parts: Cn, and Co. The coefficient Cn, is due to the flow structure in the

131

vicinity of a particle whereas Cn is due to the turbulence generated in the bulk of liquid. Therefore, eqn. (9) can be split into two parts:
Es= T

is approximately equal to twice the particle diameter and the radial fluctuating velocity component U, is equal to half the overall fluctuating velocity component. Or, I=2d, and ur)=; (18) (17)

37~ D2HCD,eLesVs3p~
dP

(10) (11)

3n D2HC,,eLesVs3pL
E=4 dP

where Es is the energy dissipation rate in the vicinity of the solid phase, E is the rate of energy dissipation in the bulk liquid, and
E,=Es+E (12)

Thus, from eqns. (14) to (18), one may write

3X2
u3 = 4 (19)

Substitution of eqn. (3) in eqn. (12) gives

E= 37r D2HeseLVs3CDpL 4 dP (13)

which simplifies to, u = 3EsVs and U, = 1.5EsVs The following equations also hold: (U,)2 = (U/)2 + ( UY)2 (14) (U)2 = (U/)2 + ( Vu)2 + ( Uz)2 and for a solid-liquid fluidised bed [9],
u, = u,

(20)

The power dissipation per unit mass of liquid in the bed is given by
E*=

3cnesvs3
dP Pm

(21)

(22) (23)

In turbulent flow, the power dissipation per unit mass of liquid has been related to turbulence intensity and scale of turbulence

161: u'= (Pm1)1'3

(24)

(15)

Handley et al. [9] have shown over a wide range of voidage that
u, = -

Also, in the vicinity of the wall, the friction factor has been related to friction velocity U*. The value of U* is very nearly the normal component of the fluctuating velocity component, U,. From the definition of U*,
CD= 2 $

UZ
2.5

(25)

Substitution of eqns. (24) and (25) in eqn. (23) gives KC ) = 0.35

U ) U (26)

(1

(16)

The scale and intensity of turbulence in fluidised beds have received attention in the past. Considerable work needs to be done in this area to establish the nature of turbulence in fluid&d beds. Hanratty et al. [ 71, Cairns and Prausnitz [8], and Handley et al. [9] performed unique.experiments to throw some light on this subject. In general, it appears that scale and intensity of turbulence are dependent on a host of parameters which include physical properties and voidage fraction in the bed. From these studies, it may be assumed that the scale of turbulence

UZ= 0.87

(27)

Using eqn. (20), we get UX = l.O5e, K vs and = 1.49es - 1.5es vs (28)

= 2.611~~

(29)

u,

(30)

132 TABLE 1 Values of fluctuating velocity components in solid-liquid fluidised bed experimental results by Handley et al. [ 91 No. ES eL G' ws 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.118 0.159 0.207 0.258 0.299 0.124 0.156 0.209 0.269 0.302 0.882 0.841 0.793 0.742 0.701 0.876 0.844 0.791 0.731 0.698 3.30 3.40 2.95 2.82 2.54 2.58 2.56 2.65 2.45 2.38 Average = 2.76 Predicted = 2.61 G' WS 1.36 1.32 1.21 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.03 1.05 0.97 0.96 Average = 1.10 Predicted = 1.05

Table 1 gives the comparison between the predicted and experimental values of U,/V, and Uz/Vs. The experimental data have been taken from the measurements made by Handley et al. [9]. It can be seen that the agreement is favourable. However, it must be pointed out that additional measurements on turbulence parameters in SLFB over a wide range of parameters are still needed for generating additional evidence before eqns. (28) to (30) are finally accepted. In a single-phase pipe flow, wall shear stress is given by (31) where D is the pipe diameter, L is the pipe length and, AP is the pressure drop given by
Ww)SP = 2fSPVL2PL

u, -=
VL v

-fSP
2

(35)

(32)

Further,

v6%

(33)

From the foregoing discussion, the following points emerge: (i) In the case of single-phase pipe flow, the pressure drop is given by eqn. (32), where the friction factor is defined by eqn. (35). U* is the friction velocity and has the significance of normal component of fluctuating velocity. (ii) In the presence of solid particles, the pressure drop increases for two reasons: (i) the interstitial velocity is higher than the superficial velocity, and therefore the pressure drop in the presence of particles is high even if the friction factor remains the same; (ii) the level of turbulence is much higher than the single-phase pipe flow. The additional turbulence is given by eqns. (20), (28), (29) and (30). The additional turbulence increases the friction factor. The overall pressure drop is the combined effect of increased friction factor and the velocity and is given by the following equation: (36)

where U* is the friction velocity. As stated earlier, Davies [6] has shown that the friction velocity practically equals the fluctuating velocity component in the normal direction. Or, u* = u, (34) Substitution of eqns. (31), (33) and (34) in eqn. (32) gives

@Kv)sp'=

2fSPVS2PLL D

where (AP,,,)sp 1s the single-phase pressure drop calculated at the true velocity VS. (AP,+.) is the pressure drop arising out of additional turbulence and is given by

133

AP,=

2f tLvs2PL
D

Wb)

$)2=

t, CL2

$ i

1.5%
EL 1

Wa)

f can be evaluated using eqns. (30) and (34):

Or, the overall friction factor is

fSP fTP = 2
fL

+f'

= (1.5#

(36)

=7+2EL2

fSP

2 (1.56s I1 \ EL

(41b), .

From eqns. (16) and (38), it can be seen that the values of Cn and f' are equal. Some explanation is in order. The significance of Cn is the additional drag coefficient (for a particle) because of the increased liquid-phase turbulence. Similarly, f is the additional friction factor (at the wall) due to the increased liquid phase turbulence. It should be noted that the intensity of liquid-phase turbulence is common for both cases. Further, the relative velocity between the wall and liquid and the solid particle and liquid is also the same. Therefore, according to the definition given by eqns. (16) and (38), the values of f and Cn are equal. The two-phase friction multiplier is given by the following equation: d2 =
(~w)SP Ww)SP + bs, (3%

Substitution of eqns. (32) and (37) in eqn. (39) gives

where fsp is the single-phase friction factor. The values of the two-phase friction multiplier at various solid-phase hold-ups are given in Table 2. While estimating the additional pressure drop using eqn. (37), liquid density has been used in place of suspension density. This is based on the assumption that the momentum transfer occurs because of the liquid phase. From eqn. (41a), it can be seen that the two-phase friction multiplier 4 depends upon the fractional phase hold-ups of the solid and liquid phases and the single-phase friction factor. The values of rj2at various solid phase hold-ups are given in Table 2. It should be noted that the derivation of eqn. (41a) assumes that when the flow is turbulent with respect to particle Reynolds number (Re, > lOOO), the flow is also turbulent with respect to pipe Reynolds number (Re > 4000). This condition is satisfied when the D/d, ratio is greater than 10 ( Vs/VL has a maximum value of 2 - 5). Laminar regime Pressure drop in fixed beds In fixed beds, the flow is considered laminar when the Reynolds number (dpV~pdpe~) is

B=l+L_$
EL2

(1
L

(40)

Substitution of eqn. (38) in eqn. (40) gives

TABLE 2 Values of two-phase friction multiplierin solid-liquid fluidised beds compared with single-phase pipe flow No.
ES EL

l&s
i-1 eL

Pipe Reynolds number 4,000 fsp = 0.00876a 6.5 32.2 94.3 228.3 513.7 1156.0 10,000 0.0073 7.8 38.6 113.2 274.0 616.4 1387.2 100,000 0.0046 12.4 61.3 179.6 521.8 1173.8 2641.7

1 2 3 4 5 6

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4

0.0278 0.141 0.413 1.000 2.250 5.063

afsp = O.O46Re***

134

less than 10 and turbulent when the Reynolds number is greater than 1000 (Bird et al. [lo]). In the laminar regime, the pressure drop is estimated using two theoretical approaches. In one method, the packed bed is regarded as a bundle of tangled tubes. The results for single circular straight tubes are then applied to the fixed bed. In the second method, the fixed bed is visualized as a collection of submerged objects, and the pressure drop is calculated by summing the resistances of the submerged particles. Let us begin with the first method. For a laminar flow in a straight tube, the pressure drop is given by the following HagenPoiseuille equation: AF= 321,tVLL De2

the submerged object and strongly depends upon the shape. In packed and fluid&d beds, the flow occurs around the submerged objects. Therefore, we need to consider the form resistance in addition to the skin resistance. However, this is usually not taken into account (for instance, Bird et al. [lo]). In the following discussion, the form resistance will be calculated using two different procedures. In the first procedure, the frictional resistance will be evaluated using the well-known procedure. Using the definition of hydraulic radius given by eqn. (46), we get

r-u = __
; D2cs
4

where D, is the equivalent diameter given by the following equation: D, = 4 X cross-sectional area for the flow wetted perimeter (43) = 4 void volume wetted surface D,=
=-

rdp2 ;dp3
EL

6~s
4EL

(47)

= 4rH

-d, (48) 6~s Substituting eqn. (48) in eqn. (42) and noting that the actual velocity is VL/eL, we get AP= 72pVLL es2

The definition of hydraulic radius emerges from the following force balance: APA = ~$3 or rs= =APV -L s AP L where V rHk= S (46) rH (45) (44)

2 dp2 The experimentally observed pressure drop is more than twice that predicted by eqn. (49). It may be noted that eqn. (49) was derived considering shear forces only. In the following section, an attempt will be made to explain the high pressure drops on the basis of form drag. Two approaches will be developed for accounting the form drag: (i) Average area method, (ii) Modification in the hydraulic radius. (i) Average area method Whenever a flow occurs around a blunt object, normal forces (form drag) contribute to the pressure drop in addition to the shear forces. If the pressure drop due to form drag is assumed to be proportional to the projected area of the solid phase,

(4%

In a straight pipeline of any cross-section, the pressure drop is due only to the effect of friction. When there is a flow around a submerged object, the resulting pressure drop is due to the sum of the frictional resistance and the form resistance. The form resistance arises due to the pressure distribution around

APT=APS+APF

(50)

135

and APr = esAPr (51)

AP=

162pVL L es2 _.. 7

dpL

EL=

(58)

where APs is the pressure drop due to shear forces and is given by eqn. (49). Substitution of eqns. (50) and (51) in eqn. (49) gives (52) For the case of fixed bed of spherical particles (eL = 0.4), eqn. (52) can be written as APr= 18Oj_lV-L es.2 dP2 eL3 (53)

(ii) Modification in hydraulic radius The definition of hydraulic radius rn emerges out of the force balance given by eqn. (44), where rn is given by eqn. (46). In eqn. (44), only shear stresses were considered. Since the form drag is also acting on the solid surface, eqn. (44) takes the following form: APV rs + rF = t
OK

Equations (53) and (58) are similar with constants 180 and 162, respectively. The value of 180 is in line with the data of Carman [ll], while Ergun [ 121 has reported a value of 150. Hicks [13] has presented a comparison of correlations proposed by different workers. He has shown that the value of the constant depends upon the limit of Reynolds number up to which the laminar flow is assumed to prevail. In any case, the values of 150,162 and 180 are fairly close to each other, so let us select the intermediate value of 162. Pressure drop in fluidised beds Equation (53) predicts the pressure drop in fixed beds. The constant of 180 was derived for a fixed bed voidage of 0.4. For other values of voidages, eqn. (52) is most general and is applicable for fixed and fluidised beds. However, we will make a small modification in eqn. (52). On the basis of the proportionality constant of 162 in eqn. (58) in place of 180 in eqn. (53), eqn. (52) takes the following form: ~ = 64.8pV=L dP2 es2 e=4

(54)

(55)

(59)

The definition of hydraulic radius can be extracted from eqn. (55) : (56)

Bird et al. [lo] have shown that, for a single particle, the form drag is half the shear drag or rv/rs iS 0.5. USiIIg eqn. (47), the modified equations for hydraulic radius and equivalent diameter are

While deriving eqns. (44) to (59), it was assumed that the friction at the column wall is very small. This is usually true because the surface area of the column wall is negligible compared with the total surface area of the particles. However, if we wish to estimate the pressure drop due to the wall stresses, the procedure in the previous section can be used with a small modification. In the case of fixed and fluid&d beds, the streamlines in the region of the column wall are not parallel to the wall because of the presence of solid particles. Therefore, the wall is likely to experience the form drag. Assuming that the pressure drop due to the column wall and the particles is proportional to their respective areas, AP,=
4

D,=

$dp
S

(57)

.AP?rDL ; D2Les ndp2 ;dP3

(60)

Substituting eqn. (57) in eqn. (42) and noting that the actual velocity is VdeL, we get

136

Substitution of eqn. (59) in eqn. (60) gives

(69) (61)
Equations (60) or (61) give the wall pressure drop due to the presence of solid particles. This pressure drop is in addition to that which occurs in the absence of solid particles. In the case of single-phase flow in the empty column, (62a) As explained above for eqn. (37a),
@p&p) =

Equation (65) assumes that when the flow is laminar with respect to particle Reynolds number (Re, < O.l), it is also laminar with respect to pipe Reynolds number (Re < 2100). This condition will be satisfied when D/d, is less than 5250 (the minimum value of VL/Vs is 0.4). The genera&d procedure for the estimation of @2 if this condition is not satisfied is discussed in the next section.

32;vsL
Wds~ + mw

Wb)

The total wall pressure drop is

WwhP=

(63)

It may be noted from eqn. (63) that the additional pressure drop (APw) is zero when es is zero. The two-phase friction multiplier is given by eqn. (39). Substitution of eqns. (61) and (62) in (39) gives (64) Equation (61) can be written in the following alternative form: 1.35~s D pLV-LzL 6 ~,=2-----__cL4 d, D Re We define the additional friction factor as 1.356s D
f=fspe4 4,

(65)

Pressure drop in transition regime The reasons for the enhancement in the pressure drop in fixed and fluidised beds (as compared with single-phase pipe flow) were discussed in the previous sections. In the case of turbulent regime, the enhancement occurs because of the increase in the level of turbulence and the overall friction factor is given by eqn. (41b). In the case of laminar regime, the enhancement occurs because of the increase in the shear rate due to the solid particles and the overall friction factor is given by eqn. (69). In the case of transition regime, the pressure drop can be obtained using the procedure of Ergun [ 121. For a given Reynolds number, the pressure drop is separately evaluated assuming the flow to be once laminar and once turbulent and these are algebraically added. 43.2pVLLcs dPDeL4 + 2fLVs2pL D

(66)

APw=

where 16
fsp= -

(70)

Re

(67)

Re=

DVLPL

(68), .

El
f in eqn. (66) is the friction factor due to the presence of particles and its value becomes zero in the absence of solid particles (es = 0). fsp is the single-phase friction factor in the absence of any particles. The total friction factor is given by

It may be emphasised that the first term gives the increased pressure drop for the viscous flow on the basis of particle Reynolds number Re,. Similarly, the second term gives the pressure drop when the flow is turbulent on the basis of Re,. It is likely that (at least in some cases) the Reynolds number with respect to column diameter may fall in laminar or turbulent regime irrespective of the particle Reynolds number. Therefore, the pressure drop in the absence of particles (single-phase pipe flow) should be calculated using the well-known procedures. The value of the two-phase friction multiplier can be calculated using eqn. (39).

EXPERIMENTAL

Experiments were performed in a 78 mm i.d. and 1700 mm high solid-liquid fluidised bed. The schematic diagram is shown in Fig. 1. Spherical glass beads of 0.55, 0.78, 1.24,1.55,2.1 and 3 mm average size were used. The details pertaining to the particles are given in Table 3. Superficial liquid velocity was varied in the range of 0.4 - 176 mm/s. The bed expansion was measured in all cases. The pressure drop was observed by measuring piezometric heads at two points within the bed at a distance

L apart. Pressure drop associated with the wall (APW)=r was calculated using the following equation:
(~w)TP = (m)Obs (ES& + eLPL&!

(71)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1
0
Average particle diameter, dp (-4 0.55 0.78 1.24 1.55 2.10 3.00

Pressure drop was measured in the particle Reynolds number range of 53 - 1348 and voidage range of 0.4 - 0.9. Typical results are shown in Fig. 2. It can be seen that the two-phase pressure drop increases with an increase in solid-phase hold-up and with a decrease in particle size. An increase in solid hold-up increases the level of turbulence in the turbulent regime and increases the viscous drag in the laminar regime. The resulting equations for pressure drop were given by eqns. (41b) and (69). Figure 3 shows the comparison between the predicted and experimental [eqn. (71)] values of pressure drop. The average deviation was found to be 5%, whereas the standard deviation was 30%. These values indicate that the predictive procedures developed in this paper are favourably supported by the experimental observations.

CONCLUSIONS

Fig. 1. Experimental set-up: 1, Tank; 2, pump; 3, rotameter; 4, calming section; 5, sieve plate; 6, fluidised bed. TABLE 3 Details of spherical galss bead@ No.

(1) The increased pressure drop in the turbulent regime has been modelled on the basis of increase in the level of turbulence. The overall wall friction factor is given by the following equation:

Terminal settling velocity in water at 30 C, VS, (mm/s) 77 115 196 252 307 360

Particle Reynolds number, Re,

1 2 3 4 5 6

53 112 303 489 806 1348

Wensity of glass = 2450 kg/m3.

0.1

0.2

0.3 SOLID PHASE

0.1 HOLD-UP,

0.5 f,

0.6

FRACTIONAL

Fig. 2. Wall pressure drop in solid-liquid fluidised beds.

10

11

lo2
PREDICTED, #a

10'

?O*

Fig. 3. Comparison between predicted and experimental values of wall pressure drop.

surface area and the form drag. The overall wall friction factor is given by the following equation: (2) The increased pressure drop in the laminar regime has been modelled on the basis of increased velocity gradients, increased

139

(3) Good agreement was found between the model predictions and experimental observations of wall pressure drop. Experiments were performed in a 78 mm i.d. solidliquid fluidised bed. The particle Reynolds number was varied in the range of 53 - 1348 and the bed voidage was varied in the range of 0.4 to 0.9. (4) The model for pressure drop can be extended for mass and heat transfer characteristics at the wall of fixed and fluidised beds. Some results have been reported by Joshi [ 21. Further systematic investigation is in progress.

LIST OF SYMBOLS

A
CD CDCD' D

De
E

El3 4 ES El &I

cross-sectional area of column, m2 drag coefficient for a single particle drag coefficient for a single particle in an infinite medium additional drag coefficient due to liquid-phase turbulence column diameter, m equivalent diameter, m particle diameter, m power dissipation in liquid phase, W power dissipation in solid-liquid fluidised bed, W power input, W power dissipation at solid-liquid interface, W rate of energy leaving fluidised bed, W power dissipation per unit mass of liquid, W frictional energy dissipation rate at surface of a single particle, W friction factor additional friction factor as defined by eqns. (38) and (66) gravitational acceleration, m s-2 bed height, m length, m scale of turbulence, m index number of particles power consumption per unit mass of liquid, W pressure drop, N mV2 pressure drop due to form friction, N me2 pressure drop due to wall shear, N rnp2

total pressure drop due to wall shear and form drag, N me2 pressure drop because of friction at walls, N mm2 Reynolds number, DVLpL/p particle Reynolds number, d,Vspl/p particle Reynolds number under terminal conditions, d, Vsoop~/p hydraulic radius, m total surface area of solid phase, m2 bulk turbulence intensity, m s-l radial component of U, m s- x-component of U, m s-l y-component of U, m s- z-component of U, m s-l friction velocity, m s-l void volume, m3 superficial dispersed phase velocity, m s-l superficial liquid velocity, m s- slip velocity or interstitial fluidisation velocity, m s-l terminal settling velocity of a particle, m s-l Greek symbols fractional liquid phase hold-up fL fractional solid phase hold-up ES viscosity (Pa s) p density, kg rnw3 P density of liquid, kg me3 PL density of solid, kg me3 Ps two-phase friction multiplier @2 stress due to form drag, N me2 TF shear stress, N rn- TS turbulent shear stress at the wall, 7, N m-2 Subscripts SP single phase TP two phase or total

REFERENCES 1 J. F. Richardson, in J. F. Davidson and D. Harrison (eds.), Fluidization, Academic Press, London, 1971, p. 25. 2 J. B. Joshi, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 61 (1983) 143. 3 J. P. Couderc, in J. F. Davidson, D. Harrison and R. Clift (eds.), Fluidization, Academic Press, London, 1985, p. 1.

140 4 J. B. Joshi, Trans. Znstn. Chem. Engrs., 58 (1980) 155. 5 J. B. Joshi, Trans. Znstn. Chem. Engrs., 59 (1981) 139. 6 J. T. Davies, Turbulence Phenomena, Academic Press, London, 1972. 7 T. J. Hanratty, G. Latinen and R. H. Wilhelm, AZChE J., 2 (1956) 372. 8 E. J. Cairns and J. M. Prausnitz, AZChE. J., 6 (1960) 554. 9 D. Handley, A. Doraiswamy, K. L. Butcher and N. L. Franklin, Trans. Znstn. Chem. Engrs., 44 (1966) T260. 10 R. B. Bid, W. E. Stewart and E. N. Lightfoot, Transport Phenomena, Wiley, New York, 1960. 11 P. C. Carman, tins. Znstn. Chem. Engrs., 15 (1937) 150. 12 S. Ergun, Chem. Eng. Progr., 48 (1952) 89. 13 R. E. Hicks, Znd. Eng. Chem. Fundamentals, 9 (1970) 500.