28PresFluidiBedComb PDF

2 Fluidization fundamentals
N. FUEYO and C . DOPAZO
2.1 Introduction
2.1 .1 Fluidizatio n
Fluidization is an operation by which a bed of solid particles acquire s

fluid-like properties by passing a gas or liquid through it .
Fluidization can be best pictured by considering a vessel partly filled wit h
a column of solids (Figure 2 .1). Through a perforated bottom, a gas is injecte d
into the vessel . The sequence of events, as the gas flow rate increases, i s
typically as follows :
For low flow rates, the gas simply flows through the particle interstitia l
space . The particles remain stationary, the bed behaves like a porou s
medium and is called a fixed bed (Figure 2 .1a).
As the gas velocity increases, there is a point at which the gas-particl e
drag compensates for the bed weight . Then, interparticle distance s
increase, the bed expands, and the particles appear to be just suspende d
in the gas . This is called incipient or uniform fluidization (Figure 2.1b).
The gas volume flow rate at that point at which fluidization start s
divided by the bed area is called the minimum fluidization velocity :
.0
4. 4
*4 * l a 44
+ w*i i
; : i1 *'11
, ` 4 *
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f )
Figure 2.1 Fluidization states : (a) fixed bed, (b) incipient, (c) bubbling, (d) slugging, (e) transport ,
(f) liquidsolid .
FLUIDIZATION FUNDAMENTALS
umf
39
Gmf
Av
The bed voidage (i .e. the gas volume per unit of the bed volume) at thi s
stage is called the voidage at minimum fluidization conditions, Em f .
For higher mass flow rates, large instabilities will generally develop ,
causing the appearance of up-moving bubbles . The fluidization is then
said to be aggregative, heterogeneous or bubbling (Figure 2.1c). A
minimum bubbling velocity (U mb) and the corresponding bed voidag e
(smb) are defined similarly to the minimum fluidization conditions .
A further increase in the gas mass flow rate may result, especially i n
long, narrow columns, in the formation of slugs . Slugging occurs whe n
several bubbles coalesce, and the resulting cavity occupies the whole crosssection (Figure 2.1d).
At larger Reynolds numbers or, equally, mass flow rates a turbulen t
regime appears characterized by short-lived irregular and intermitten t
slug-like voids and particle clusters moving through the bed . Simultaneously, pressure fluctuations decrease in amplitude and increase in
frequency.
Finally, for sufficiently high velocities, a significant fraction of solid s
will be carried out of the vessel. This regime is termed fast fluidization ,
or lean-phase fluidization (Figure 2 .1e). Should the whole bulk solid s
be continuously renewed, the pneumatic transport domain is reached .
The general fluidizing behaviour as set out in preceding paragraphs ha s

some exceptions .
The fluidization of liquidparticle systems is generally homogeneous, i .e.
there is no formation of bubbles as the liquid velocity increases (Figure 2 .1f).
Fine, cohesive powders are difficult to fluidize and exhibit channelling ,
i.e. the appearance of low-resistance passages through which th e
fluidizing gas flows .
Also, certain types of fine particles admit homogeneous fluidization fo r
a range of gas velocities before the onset of bubbling .
2.1 .2 Chapter layou t
This chapter is set out as follows :

After this introductory section, the Huid dynamics of particles ar e
discussed (section 2 .2). Relevant topics include the geometrica l
characterization of particles ; particle drag and terminal velocity ; and
Geldart's classification of particles according to their fluidization behaviour .
Attention is then turned in section 2 .3 to bubble dynamics, encompassing
the issues of jet penetration,bubble shape and rising velocity, flow fiel d
in and around the bubble, and bubble size and stability .
40
PRESSURIZED FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTIO N
Once the dynamics of particles and bubbles have been discussed, th e

dynamics of the bed are considered (section 2 .4) : bed pressure drop, be d
voidage, minimum fluidizing velocity, minimum bubbling velocity ,
two-phase theory and freeboard phenomena (entrainment, transpor t
disengaging height and elutriation) .
The issues of dimensional analysis, similarity and scaling are dealt wit h
in section 2 .5.
Then, the effects of high operating pressures are summarized in th e
section 2.6. The influence on minimum fluidizing velocity, bed voidage ,
bubbling characteristics and freeboard phenomena is considered .
An elementary introduction to heat transfer in fluidized beds is presente d
in section 2 .7. Thermal similarity and scaling rules are discussed .
Finally, some speculative remarks are briefly outlined in the closin g
section 2 .8 .
2.2
Particle dynamic s
Particle characteristics can be expected to play an important role in the Hui d

dynamics of fluidized beds . In practical applications, such as pressurize d
fluidized bed combustion (PFBC), particles are present in a range of size s
and have irregular shapes . Shapes and size distributions are the characterizin g
properties of the ensemble of particles, and are dealt with next in this chapter .
Once the geometrical characterization of particles has been achieved ,
attention will be turned to the key (and related) concepts of particle dra g
and terminal velocity . Finally, the fluidizing behaviour of different particle
types is discussed .
2.2.1
Particle geometric characterizatio n
2.2.1 .1 Particle shape . The characterization of the particle shape by

reference to the spherical shape is achieved through the definition of a
sphericity factor O s :
*s
Asphere
(2 .2 )
particl e
where Aparticle is the particle surface area, and Asphere is the surface area of a
sphere having the same volume as the particle . Values of Os are therefore in
the interval 0 < * s 1 . The sphericity of pulverized coal is around 0 .696
(Shirai, 1954) .
Heywood (1962) has defined a volumetric shape factor k as follows :
V
k = D3A
(2.3)
i:
41
where D A is the diameter of the sphere with the same projected area as th e
particle.
Particle size distribution (PSD). In PFBC, the solid phase is a
mixture of particles of different sizes . The classification of particles into group s
of similar sizes is often effected through a system of sieves with decreasin g
sieve aperture (Figure 2 .2).
If y i is the mass fraction of solids retained by the ith sieve, and Di and
D i_ 1 are, respectively, the diameters of the ith and the previous sieve, the n
a mean diameter can be calculated a s
2.2.1 .2
Dp =
Yi
d.t
with
Di _ 1 +Di
di =
2
It can be readily shown that the mean diameter defined through eqn (2 .4)
is such that the surface-area-to-volume ratio of a particle with size Dp is
equal to that for the whole ensemble .
This mean diameter is called the Sauter mean diameter (SMD) and is
particularly relevant in interphase processes (such as drag forces or hea t
exchange) in which the interface area plays a major role .
For non-spherical particles, it can be shown that, using the sieve metho d
D1
Y1
D2
_ _ *IIA+i w%r*! _
----------- -
-- ----- -
Y2
Y3
Y4
Figure 2.2 Sieve system .
42
leading to eqn (2 .4), the mean diameter would be * S D P (provided that al l

particles have the same sphericity O s ) .
Modern apparatus such as those based on laser diffraction and phaseDoppler principies can save time and significantly reduce errors in PS D
determinations .
In PFBC one has to deal with a mixture of particles of different sizes ,
densities, shapes, composition, etc . The use of joint particle sizedensity
distributions may have some advantages from a dynamical standpoint .
2.2.2
Particle drag
The particle drag is the mechanism by which momentum is exchange d

between the particle and the surrounding fluid . Particle drag determines th e
particle terminal velocity, a paramount parameter in fluidized bed desig n
that is discussed in the next section .
The drag exerted by stagnant gas on a moving, spherical, isolated particl e
is given by
D1
2 p9 A P CDIAu 2
(2.6)
where p 9 is the gas density, A P is the projected area of the sphere, Au is the
particle/fluid relative or slip velocity and CD1 is a drag coefficient .
CD1 is a function of the particle relative Reynolds number:
p g 4uD P
Re p -
Figure 2 .3 depicts the variation of CD1 as a function of Rep . Many
100
I
10
103
105
C D1
1
STOKES
1
1
10
10 2
Re
Figure 2 .3 Variation of CD1 with Re .
10 6
107
43
correlations have been proposed to approximate, in a piecewise fashion, th e

CD Re relationship. A typical one is (Kunii and Levenspiel, 1969)
Cm
Re
for Re P < 0.4
CD1 =
Re
0/2
P
CD1 = 0.43
for 0.4 < ReP < 500
(2.8)
for 500 < ReP < 2 x 105
The classical book by Clift et al. (1978) provides a lavish compilation o f

published correlations, and their range of deviation from experimental data .
A significant departure from the spherical particle behaviour can b e
expected if the particles have irregular shapes, as it is the case in man y
fluidized bed applications . The matter is further discussed in the next subsection .
2.2.3
Particle terminal velocity
The terminal (or settling) velocity ut is the (constant) velocity reached by a

free-falling particle in a stagnant medium.
Its importance as a fluidization parameter stems from the fact that, fo r
gas velocities larger than the terminal one, particles will be transported ou t
of the bed. It therefore provides an upper bound to the range of operatin g
gas velocities, the lower bound being, of course, the minimum fluidizing
velocity . The particle terminal velocity is also thought to play a major role
in bubble stability (discussed in section 2 .3 .6 below) .
The particle terminal velocity is obtained by balancing the gravitational,
buoyancy and drag forces. For an isolated, spherical particle, the balance i s
-6
Pg(p p 9)
= z
A P C DlP Y Au2
(2.9)
Introducing the C D1 values given by eqn (2.8) and noting that Au =

ug = 0 (stagnant medium), the following values are obtained for ut:
g ( p P 9 )D p
u`S =
1811
u_D
ts
u is =
2g2
4 g(PP P9 )
P
[ 225
11P 9
if
for Re P < 0.4
1" 3
D [ 3.1g (P P Pg)1 11 2
P
uts
P q9
A characteristic relaxation time, tR =
for 0.4 < Re P < 500
(2.10)
for 500 < ReP < 2 x 10 5
(18/2
P), is customarily defined as
44
the time required for a spherical particle to reach u ts starting from rest under
an acceleration g(p p p 9 )/p p , for Rep < 0.4.
For arbitrarily shaped particles, the corresponding correlations can b e
obtained by using, in eqn (2 .9), the appropriate values for CD .
A simpler alternative is the multiplication of the terminal velocity for th e
spherical particle by a sphericity-dependent correction factor :
=rl u ts
ut
(2.11)
Pettyjohn and Christiansen (1948) suggest tha t

= 0.8431n ((/),/0 .065) for Re < 0. 2
rl
= 5.31 4.880,
(2.12)
for Re > 1000
Clift et al. (1978) indicate that terminal velocity is known to correlat e

poorly with sphericity, and suggest the use of Heywood's volumetric shap e
factor k (defined in section 2.2.1) for the intermediate range of Reynolds
numbers Re < 750 . The correction factors are
0.104 + 1 .538k
0.127 + 1 .526k O .lk2
for ND = 1
for ND = 10 0.5
0 .1975 + 1 .575k 0.45k2
for ND = 10
0.166 + 1 .496k 0.3k2
for ND = 10 1 . 5
0.0665 + 1.907k 1 .05k 2
for ND = 10 2
(2.13)
For the Newton regime (the nearly horizontal part of the curve in Figure
2.3, i.e. 750 Re - 3.5 x 105), the terminal velocity for irregularly shape d
particles does not depend strongly on Re, but it does on Mv . Clift et al.
(1978) recommend the correlation by Barker (1951):
ut
= 0.49(Mv +
1)1/36 [
gMvDs
11 2
(1 .08 os)*
0.1<Mv< 7 .6
(2 .14)
Finally, Kunii and Levenspiel (1969) have plotted values o f

N (=C RE 2 =
D
4gDp9(ppp)
3u2
= 4 MvG a)
3
versus values of Ret (= D p u t /v) as a function of s . The plot thus provides th e

value of Ret (i.e. ut ) given the physical properties of the gas and the particle (i .e.
ND and 4's) .
45
2.2.4
Particle fluidization characteristics
It has already been indicated in section 2 .1 .1 that the fluidization behaviou r

depends on the characteristics of the particles . Geldart (1973) identified
particle size and gas particle density difference as the key characteristic s
influencing gas fluidization behaviour . His classification (depicted in Figur e
2 .4a) includes four types of particles, which are described below .
Group C includes small and/or light particles. Beds of group C particle s
are prone to channelling (i .e. the appearance of low-resistance channels
through which the gas flows), and are therefore very difficult to fluidize .
Group A particles are larger than group C ones . They do allow stable
fluidization and, unlike particles in other groups, they exhibit homogeneou s
(i.e. bubble-free) fluidization for a range of gas velocities . Typically, th e
minimum bubbling velocity is two or three times the minimu m
fluidization velocity . Once bubbles appear, they generally rise faste r
than the interstitial gas .
Group B particles are normally larger and heavier than group A ones .
Bubbling starts at the minimum fluidizing velocity, and most bubbles
rise faster than the gas .
Group D particles are larger and/or heavier than those in other groups .
Group D particles fluidize heterogeneously, and require, by reason o f
their weight, much higher fluidization velocities than particles in group s
A and B; and all but the largest bubbles flow slower than the gas .
It is important to note that Geldart's work was conducted at atmospheri c
conditions (temperature/pressure) . The effect of pressure on fluidizatio n
400 0
300 0
2000
Pp Pg
1000
kg/m 3 s
100
1000
Dp m
Figure 2.4 (a) Geldart's (1973) particle classification according to fluidization behaviour .
46
PRESSURIZED FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION
D*
p =
ArI/s
_ D P [P g (Pp
P5 ) g
1/ 3
1- 2
2.
Figure 2.4 (b) Grace's (1986) flow-regimes map .
characteristics is dealt with later in this chapter . It should also be born i n

mind that, in practical applications, particles are not mono-sized but hav e
a range of sizes . More recent work has in fact shown the importance of fine s
in the fluidization characteristics (Abrahamsen and Geldart, 1980) .
A number of alternative classifications have been published in the literature ,
among which Grace's (1986) deserves to be singled out . Grace uses tw o
dimensionless parameters (a dimensionless diameter Dp = Ar 113 and a
T
pi
al
at
Pf
di
di
m
te
47
dimensionless velocity u* = u [ p2/(p i, p9)g] il3) to represent the map o f

flow regimes encountered in gas particle fluidization . Grace's map (represente d
in Figure 2 .4b) draws on a wider database than Geldart's (including gase s
other than air and temperatures and pressures other than atmospheric), an d
proposes new boundaries between groups AB and BD on the basis of th e
additional data.
2.3
Bubble dynamic s
The fluidizing behaviour of gas particle systems has been set out in th e
preceding section . It was noted here that, for most particles of practica l
interest (and in particular for FBC), bubbles form in the bed for sufficientl y
high gas flow rates .
Bubbles play, in fact, a key role in several important aspects of the fluidize d
bed performance, notably :
(1) Mixing The upward motion of bubbles in a fluidized system greatly
enhances mixing, and hence promotes the uniformity of bed propertie s

(e.g . heat and mass transfer).
(2) Bed expansion The bed height is a function of the bubble-phas e
volume within the bed .
(3) Through flow It will be shown below that fast-moving bubbles carr y
with them a cloud of gas and particles that circulate through the bubbl e
but are not exchanged with its surroundings . This through-flo w
hampers mixing, and may cause the elutriation of unburned particles .
(4) Elutriation The phenomenon of elutriation is compounded by th e
bursting of bubbles at the bed surface, which throws particles into th e
freeboard zone.
2.3.1
Jet penetration and bubble formatio n
The physics underlying bubble formation is not well understood . Som e

plausible speculations are advanced in section 2 .8 . However, literature
abounds in phenomenological descriptions of the process .
The fluidizing gas is introduced into the bed through the distributor, locate d
at the bottom of the bed . In a comprehensive study on the subject of je t
penetration and bubble formation, Massimilla (1985) has identified fiv e
different flow patterns leading to the formation of gas bubbles from the ga s
discharge at the distributor . However, he suggests that qualitative difference s
may in part be attributed to diffiiculties associated to the photographi c
techniques employed.
Rowe et al. (1979) have suggested the use of only two modes of gas discharge :
48
a stable jet and a succession of bubbles . Massimilla (1985) indicates that the
flow pattern evolves from the chain-of-bubbles type to the permanent-je t
type as the particle size increases .
Hirsan et al. (1980) have defined three different jet penetration length s
(depicted in Figure 2 .5):
the penetration of bubbles formed at the jet tip finto the bed befor e
losing their momentum, such loss being evinced by the significan t
deviation of the bubble from the vertical direction .
LMAX, the maximum length of the succession of cavities attached to the jet .
LMIN , the jet penetration length .
LB ,
Several correlations have been published for the jet penetration length s
(see Massimilla (1985) for a comprehensive listing) . Inspection of these
correlations reveals that jet penetration :
(1) decreases as particle density and size increases ;
(2) increases with bed pressure .
The effect of orifice diameter D o on L/Do is, however, controversial; while
some correlations show no influence, others show dependence ; and, furthermore ,
this dependence does not always display the same trends . For PFBC, the
correlation by Hirsan et al . (1980) has the merit of using the complete fluidizin g
velocity uef (i.e. the velocity at which the whole bed is fluidized), rather tha n
the minimum fluidizing velocity u,,, f , as independent variable . For widel y
distributed particle sizes (as is the case in FBC) uc f is more significant tha n
and it is also more sensitive to the effect of pressure (u, f is further
discussed below in section 2 .6.1) . This correlation reads
0 .67
Do
= 26.60
9
P PV 9
-0 .2 4
[u
0
P
*f*
LB
LMAX
Figure 2.5 Jet penetration lengths .
(2.15)
49
DO%
=19 .3
Pu
9
Pp .\/gDn
10 .83[
-0 .5 4
!le
2.3.2 Bubble shape

The shape of a bubble in a fluidized bed is either nearly spherical or a
`spherical cap' . The term spherical cap refers to a spherical shape with a rea r
indentation (Figure 2.6). The indentation is usually filled with particles tha t
move upwards with the bubble, forming the so-called wake . The work of
Rowe and Partridge (1965) indicates that the angle 0 (Figure 2.6) increase s
as the particle diameter does; and an increase in operating pressure has th e
opposite effect (Chiba et al., 1985) . Cranfield and Geldart (1974) show that
bubbles with group D particles are nearly spherical .
2.3.3 Bubble rising velocit y
The analogy between gasliquid and gassolid systems is often employe d
to illustrate the behaviour of bubbles in a fluidized bed (Davidson et al .,
1977). Kunii and Levenspiel (1969) point out that the shape of the bubbles
is the same in both cases ; that smaller bubbles rise more slowly than larger
ones in both cases, and that the rise velocity in gassolid fluidized beds i s
in close agreement with that in gasliquid systems .
The theoretical work of Davies and Taylor (1950) showed that the velocity
of an isolated bubble rising in a liquid in the absence of wall effects is given b y
(2 .17 )
Measured values of rise velocity of bubbles in fluidized beds show that th e

equation by Davies and Taylor (1950) for liquidgas systems is applicabl e
to emulsion-bubbles systems, with the coefficient ranging from 0.57 to 0.8 5
(Kunii and Levenspiel, 1969) . Thus, for a (widely used) value of 0.711, the
Figure 2 .6 Bubble spherical-cap shape .
50
rise velocity is
ubo,
= 0.711(gDb ) 1/2
(2.18)
In the presence of walls, the isolated-bubble velocity u b , needs to be

corrected . Wallis (1969) suggests:
U
b = 1 .13u bw e -Db/Dv
(2.19)
Equation (2 .19) is applicable to 0 .125 Db/Dv 0.6; outside this range,

the bubble is small enough for wall effects to be negligible, or large enough
to be considered a slug .
Bubble interactions also change the bubble size . The following equation,
originally devised by Davidson and Harrison (1963) from continuit y
considerations, has proven to give an approximate bubble rise velocity whe n
bubble interactions are considered :
ub=ubw+u u mf
2.3 .4
(2.20)
Flow-field in and around the bubbl e
A number of models have been proponed for the velocity and pressure field s
f
within and in the vicinity of a bubble in a fluidized bed; see Cheremisinof
(1986) for a summary . One of the earliest, and perhaps more widely used ,
models is that by Davidson and Harrison (1963) . Davidson's model rests o n
the following assumptions :
(a) The dense phase is treated as a continuum that flows around the bubble .
(b) The gas and solid velocity are linked through Darcy's law for porous media :
(u9 up) = kVp
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(2.21)
Voidage is constant in the particulate phase .

The fluidizing gas is incompressible.
The bubble is circular (2D) or spherical (3D) in shape .
The bubble boundary is an isobaric surface .
The (unperturbed) pressure gradient away from the bubble is the sam e
as the pressure gradient under minimum fluidizing conditions (se e
section 2 .4.1 below) .
With (b), (e) and (d), pressure is the solution of a Laplace equation, wit h
boundary conditions given by assumptions (e), (f) and (g) . For the coordinate
system shown in Figure 2 .7 (which moves with the particle), the solution i s
U mf
k8 mf
(r R
2*cos
(2.22)
FLUIDIZATION FUNDAMENTAL S
Figure 2.7 Bubble and co-ordinate systems .
Assumption (a) yields, for the particle velocity components ,

R3
3)
ur ,P - - ub (1
COS
6
(2.23)
ua .p = u b (1 + R3) sin B
The gas stream function can be obtained by combining eqns (2 .21), (2.22)
and (2 .23):
((
R 33 2
sin 20
(2.24)
= :f (a 1) { 1
2
mf
11
a=
Ub
Emf
(2.25)
u mf
R
a+22- 1/ 3
R
*a1
(2.26)
The flow pattern is different for a > 1 and a < 1, as evinced by eqn (2 .24)
(see Figure 2.8):
For a < 1, eqn (2 .25) yields Ub < u m f /E m f (i .e . the bubble moves slowe r
than the interstitial gas) . A plot of eqn (2 .24) shows that the fluidizing
gas enters the bubble through the bottom, and leaves through the top .
There is a toroidal region of gas that circulates around bubble equator ,
moving up with it . The size of this torus increases as Ub approaches u m f /E m f .
52
PRESSURIZED FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION
F
P
s
t1
a
a
Figure 2 .8 Gas circulation patterns within the bubble . Left : slow bubble ; right : fast bubble.
For a > 1, the bubble rises faster than the interstitial gas. A bubbl e
cloud appears (of radius R, in eqn (2 .24)), which fully surrounds th e
bubble and is impervious to the gas outside it . R, is infinity fo r
Ub = u,,, f /Emf, and decreases as the bubble velocity increases . The gas in
the bubble circulates (as in the slow bubble case), from bottom to top ,
and returns through the cloud .
Murray (1965) relaxes Davidson's hypothesis on the flow of the particulate
phase by including a momentum equation of the solids . Compared wit h
Davisdon's, Murray's model predicts smaller, non-concentric clouds, whic h
is believed to be closer to reality ; but Davidson's provides a better predictio n
of the pressure field around the particle (Jackson, 1971).
The main qualitative difference between Davidson's or Murray's model s
and reality concerns probably the shape of the lower part of the bubble ,
where the pressure difference between the bubble and the emulsion draw s
gas into the bubble . The ensuing instability results in the kidney-shaped
indentation described in section 2.3 .2. Solids are carried with the gas into
this indentation, forming a wake that travels upwards with the bubble. The
entrainment and shedding of solids by the wake is thought to play a majo r
role in solids mixing in a bubbling fluidized bed (see Rowe and Partridg e
(1962)) .
The particle wake is usually taken as roughly completing the boundin g

sphere . Clift et al. (1978) have provided a correlation for the ratio o f
wake-to-bubble volume in gasliquid systems as a function of the bubbl e
Reynolds number, resulting in
W
b
= 0.037Rebt
.4,
3 Re b
110
(2.27)
w
(c
al
w1
va
an
D
2.;
BL
m
sal
ins
res
2.3.5
53
Bubble siz e
Bubbles are supposedly the driving force of mixing in fluidized beds ; and
hence bubble size (and the closely related bubble velocity) are cardinal
parameters in the characterization of the state of the bed .
Bubble size changes in the bed as a consequence of the coalescence an d
splitting processes . There are a number of correlations in the literature fo r
the axial evolution of bubble size, mainly for group B and D solids (Hori o
and Nonaka, 1987) .
Mori and Wen (1975) suggest tha t
dDb = 0. 3
dZ
(2.28)
D (Dbm D b )
v
and hence
D bm D b = e-0 .3Z/Dv
(2.29)
Dbm Db 0
where D bm is the maximum bubble size, given by Mori and Wen (1975) a s
(cgs units) :
D bm
and
D bo
= 0.652[A v (u u mf )] o . 4
is the initial diameter (cgs units) :

D b o = 0.34 7
(u
[
um f )A v
(2.30)
0 .4
(2.31)
noT
Darton et al. (1977) have suggested :

Db
= 0.54(u um f)2/5(Z + Z 0 ) 4/5 g -1/5
(2.32)
where Zo is found by making Z = 0 and replacing D b with D h o .

More recently, Horio and Nonaka have proposed a correlation that i s
valid for group A particles as well as group B and D . It allows for coalescenc e
and splitting, and converges to the correlations by Mori and Wen (1975) an d
Darton et al. (1977). See Horio and Nonaka (1987) for details .
2 .3.6
Bubble stability (maximum bubble size )
Bubbles in a fluidized bed grow primarily by coalescence ; and, beyond a

maximum size Dbm ,they become unstable and split into smaller ones .
There are two leading theories for the splitting mechanism, which, for th e
sake of the present description, can be termed `top to bottom' and `bottom to top'.
The `top to bottom' theory suggests that, as the bubble grows larger ,
i nstabilities of the Taylor kind develop at the leading boundary of the bubble ,
resulting in a curtain of particles `raining down' through the bubble (Figure 2 .9a).
The `bottom to top' theory originates from the gas velocity field predicte d
54
os
m b * ,*
o 1,
llb
ar
(a)
(b )
Figure 2 .9 Bubble split-up; (a) top to bottom, and (b) bottom to top .
by Davidson's model . The gas velocity in the bubble wake tends to dra w
wake particles into the bubble . This circulation velocity u, is roughly th e
same as Ub, the bubble velocity . Hence, if the particle terminal velocity u t is
smaller than Ub, particles will be drawn into the bubble (Figure 2 .9b).
Therefore, the bubble stability criterium according to the `bottom to top '
theory is as follows:
ub <u,
ub = 0.711(gDb)o .5 = ut
ub > ut
> stable bubble

maximum size D b of stable bubble
* unstable bubble
(2.33)
Unfortunately, the calculation of the maximum stable size using eqn (2 .33)
is affected by the uncertainties in the knowledge of u t (wide-ranging particl e
sizes, shape factors, clustering, particleparticle interactions) .
2.4 Bed dynamic s

Once the Huid dynamic behaviour of particles and bubbles has bee n
established in preceding sections, we now turn our attention to the overal l
bed behaviour. Topics to be discussed include : pressure drop, bed voidage ,
minimum fluidizing velocity, minimum bubbling velocity, two-phase theor y
and freeboard phenomena (entrainment, transport disengaging height an d
elutriation) .
2.4 .1 Pressure dro p
Figure 2.10 represents the variation of pressure drop with fluidizing velocit y
in an ideal fluidized bed . While the bed remains fixed, the pressure drop
55
Ap
A Pmf
Umb
Um f
(a)
(b )
Figure 2 .10 Pressure drop versus fluidizing velocity ; (a) ideal and (b) real .
increases linearly with velocity, as is the case for a Darcy-type flow. For a
given velocity (u, f in Figure 2 .10a), the drag on the particles is large enoug h
to hold up the bed, and fluidization begins . As velocity increases, interparticl e
distances increase and hence so does the bed height; but pressure drop remain s
constant .
In real beds, the departure from this ideal behaviour takes place in tw o
regions (Figure 2.10b):
The pressurevelocity graph shows a `hump' where the sioping and

horizontal sections meet. This corresponds to the èxtra' force needed
to ùnpack' or ùnlock' the particles from their packed state . Sometimes ,
and particularly for widely distributed sizes, the transition is a smoot h
curve (dashed line in Figure 2.10b).
As velocity increases in the fluidized state, the appearance of bubble s
causes fluctuations in pressure (shown in Figure 2 .10b). Looking a t
pressure as energy per unit volume, the kinetic energy equation applie d
to the fluid in the bed indicates that the pressure drop, Ap, compensate s
the viscous dissipation and transfers energy from the fluid to the movin g
particles through the work of viscous and pressure surface forces . Should
the solid distribution along the bed not be uniform, the fluid migh t
accelerate on its upward motion and the pressure drop would als o
contribute to the fluid kinetic energy increment . The viscous and pressur e
force work will increase particle agitation and interparticle distances,
being responsible for bed expansion .
The pressure drop is traditionally given by Ergun's equation (Ergun ,
1952) :
AP
= 150 (1
E)
E
(`Ns
p )2
+ 1 .751
e
3
P9
*s
D
(2.34)
where L and e are the bed height and voidage for a superficial velocity
56
and P = p p ggZ. The first term contains the viscous effects whil e
the second is ascribed to fluid inertia . The ratio of the second term to
the first is proportional to the Reynolds number based on u and D p , as
should be expected . The characteristic dynamic pressure p gu 2 can be
used to make Ergun's equation dimensionless :
u,
AP _150(1a)2
1
L
pgu 2
e3
Re osD, *SDp
+1 .751E
E3
(2.35)
Dp
where Re,IsDp = (pgu&Dp/u).

Near minimum fluidization conditions a more suitable dimensionles s
form may be
AP
= 150 (1 a
(1 E)(p p pg)gL
E
E) Reo,D, +
ArosDp
1 .75
i
ReosD,
E Ar 4sDp
(2.36)
where Ar, sD, = [W)SDp)3(pp pg)gpg]/2 is the Archimedes numbe r

based on (p s D p .
At the onset of fluidization the left-hand side of eqn (2 .36) is unity,
u = umf and e = Emf . Then
1=
150 (1 E) Reasnp
Re 2
+ 1 .75 E AeOsDP
E3
31
O sDP
SDP
(2 .37)
Allowance has been made in the aboye equations for the presence o f
non-spherical particles, through the form factor Os; and D p can be taken as
the mean diameter for particles with a size distribution .
2.4 .2
Bed voidage
The bed voidage E m f is the volume fraction of space occupied by the ga s

under minimum fluidization conditions. Em f can be determined experimentall y
by a number of methods, for instance by measuring the bulk density and
relating it to the gas and particle densities :
Pb
= E
m f pg + (1 Emf )p p
or
Emf
Pp Pi,
Pb
Pp P g
(2.38)
Pp
The bulk density can be calculated from the bed height (Lmf ), its cross-
57
sectional arca (A V ) and the mass of solids in the bed (M). Then:
E
mf = 1
AV
(2.39)
MfPn
Values of
2.4.3
E mf
for different materials have been tabulated by Leva (1959) .
The minimum fluidizing velocity u mf
umf is probably the single most important parameter in determining th e

performance of a fluidized bed . The experimental calculation of Umf, when
possible, is indeed very simple: it suffices to reproduce, experimentally, th e

u ~ Ap curve of Figure 2.10. The precise value of umf is difficult to determin e
from the raw graph due to the rounded transition of the curve between th e
fixed and the fluidized states ; but a simple prolongation of the straigh t
sections, with the crossing point representing the minimum fluidizatio n
condition, is frequently the device used to overcome this difficulty . When
direct measurement of umf is not feasible, a number of correlations have bee n
developed from other physical and geometric quantities . They are dealt with
below.
and Emf . When q5 s an d
Emf are known, eqn (2 .37) yields a quadratic equation for umf (or, alternatively,
Remf):
2.4.3 .1
Umf
from the Ergun equation, with known
1 .73
Remf + 150 (1 2 3mf) Re m f Ar = 0
Os Emf
Os Emf
(2.40)
It is important to note that the coefficients in the aboye equation are ver y
sensitive to (even small) changes in s mf . Such changes may be brought abou t
by bed expansion near the minimum-fluidization velocity ; or indeed b y
changes in bed temperature, on which s mf depends (Botterill, 1989) .
u mf from the Ergun equation, with correlations for Emf and * S . The
presence of *s and E mf in eqn (2 .40) for u mf is cumbersome as the uncertaintie s
in their determination are carried over to U m f .
Wen and Yu (1966) have proposed constant values for the coefficients o f
eqn (2 .40). Thus:
2.4 .3.2
14;
O s E mf
2 3mf
'
11
Os Em f
The approximation was made in the following ranges :

0.38
*Emf
*0.94; 0.14
`Ys
1 .0; 8 .1 x 10 -4 *D p /DV ,0 .25
58
The resulting umf equation i s

24.5Re,2n f + 1650Re mf - Ar = 0
(2.42)
which yields an average deviation of 34% in Re mf with respect t o

experimental values .
2 .4 .3.3 umf from correlations. There is a wealth of published correlations fo r
Re mf, both for spherical and for irregular particles . These correlations should ,
of course, be used with due care to respect the range of conditions for which
they were obtained.
Thus, Baeyens and Geldart (1973) propose the following correlation fo r
D p > 100 m :
21.7Re2 + 1833Re 1 - 07 - Ar = 0
(2.43)
For Dp < 100m, Abrahamsen and Geldart (1980) suggest the followin g
correlation by Baeyens (1973) (SI units) :
u mf
9.4 x 10-4 [(Pp - Pg)g] .934D P . 8

=
0 .87P0 .06 6
(2.44)
An extensive listing of published correlations can be found in Couder c

(1985); he recommends, for non-spherical particles, the one by Thonglimp (1981):
Re mf
[31 .62
0.425Ar] 5 - 31 .6
(2.45)
1
2.4.4
Minimum bubbling velocit y
The fluidization characteristics of several types of particles have bee n

established in section 2.2.4. It may be recalled that group A particles (smal l
particles and/or small gas-solid density differences) exhibit homogeneou s
fluidization for a range of fluidization velocities before bubbling appears .
Also, high pressures (such as those found in PFBC systems) may cause th e
appearance of homogeneous fluidization conditions in systems that fluidiz e
heterogeneously at atmospheric pressure, due to the increase in the gas density
with pressure .
With bubbles playing such a key role in bed performance, it is understandabl y
interesting to be able to predict the gas velocity at which the transition fro m
particulate to bubbling fluidization takes place .
Romero and Johanson (1962) have suggested that the transition is marke d
by the value of the product of four non-dimensional groups which characteriz e
the quality of fluidization . Thus
Frmf Re, f Mu
59
f > 100 yields bubbling fluidizatio n

v
(2.46)
Fr m Re mf Mu mf < 100 yields particulate fluidizatio n

v
Geldart (1973) suggested a correlation linking the minimum bubbling

velocity umb and D p :
u mb = KD p
(2.47)
with K being a constant which takes a value of 100 when the fluidizing ga s
is air at ambient conditions and cgs units are used .
Broadhurst and Becker (1975) have, in turn, suggeste d
Remb
o. s
A
9.8 x 10 4 Ar -o .sz (pr p /p 9 ) o .2a + 35.4
(2.48)
Finally, Abrahamsen and Geldart (1980) have found that fines exert a n
important influence in the fluidization conditions, and propose a correlatio n
for Umb that includes F, the fraction of fines (Dp < 45 pm):
0 .0 6
umb = 2.07 D0 .347 e0 .716F.

p
2.4.5
(2.49 )
Two-phase theory
The attention is now turned to the split of the gas flow between the emulsio n
(i.e. the mixture of particles and interstitial gas) and the bubble phase .
Grace and Clift (1974) have classified the net volume flow rate of ga s
traversing any reactor cross-section into four categories, two of them arising
from bubble flow and the other two from emulsion flow . These are usted below.
Bubble flow:
(1) the upward convection of bubbles, also termed the visible bubbl e
flow (GB);
(2) the flow of gas relative to the bubble (see Davidson's theory i n
section 2 .3.4), also called through flow (G T );
Emulsion:
(1) the flow of gas, relative to the particles, through the interstices o f
the emulsion phase (G1 );
(2) the net flux of interstices moving with the particles (Ge).
n
:d
Therefore the total flux i s

(2.50)
G total = A v u = G B + G T + GI + GE
Ge is zero of the voidage of the upward- and downward-moving emulsio n
is the same, and is usually neglected .
60
GB is usually evaluated by considering that all the gas flow in excess o f
that required for minimum fluidization passes through the bed as bubbles :
GB = Av(u
umf)
(2 .51 )
This hypothesis, first formulated by Toomey and Johnstone (1952), i s

known as the two-phase theory .
Inserting eqn (2 .51) in eqn (2 .50), neglecting G E and substituting G T an d
G 1 by functions of the mean through-flow velocity BT and mean superficia l
gas velocity in the emulsion phase 17 , the following equation results :
u = (u - Um f)
+ uBTB +
?E (1 - B)
(2.52)
Experimental results indicate that eqn (2 .51), although widely used, tend s
to overestimate the bubble flow . Almstedt and Ljunsgrom (1987) and Almsted t
(1987) have found large deviations from the visible bubble flow rate predicte d
by the two-phase theory . Design factors like the internals, tube bank
configuration and bed geometry play a major role in visible bubble flow rate .
At the same time, the quantitative impact of operating variables like pressur e
and temperature has not been fully established . Clift and Grace (1985) sugges t
that this difference results in increased through-flow and interstitial flow .
To correct GB, an alternative equation to eqn (2 .51) is used, as follows :
GB = Y(u umf) x Av
(2.53)
with Y generally taking values between 0 .6 and 0 .8.

2.4.6 Entrainment, transport disengaging height and elutriatio n
Entrainment and elutriation are phenomena taking place in the vessel spac e
located aboye the dense phase and known as the freeboard (Figure 2 .11).
Particles from the dense phase cross the (not always sharply defined) interfac e
and enter the freeboard . This is known as entrainment, and is caused b y
bubbles bursting at the interface and projecting particles into the freeboard .
As particles move upwards in the freeboard against the gravitational force ,
they lose momentum, and eventually fali back onto the bed if their termina l
velocity is greater than the gas velocity in the freeboard . Thus, the fractio n
of solids in the freeboard decreases with height as increasingly smaller particle s
reverse their velocity, until it finally becomes constant (this has been depicte d
in Figure 2 .11) . The height at which this happens is called the transpor t
disengaging height, (TDH); and this process of segregation of finer and coarse r
particles is called elutriation .
Although there is widespread agreemen t
in the role that bubble eruption plays on entrainment, there is som e
controversy on the detailed mechanism ; and it has been variously suggeste d
that particles are splashed from the bubble wake or from the bubble roof .
2.4.6.1 The splash zone mechanism .
61
%
b
FRACTION OF SOLIDS
Figure 2.11 Dense phase, freeboard and solids fraction .
In a theoretical and experimental study of the subject, Pemberton an d

Davidson (1986a) conclude that both mechanisms are relevant .
Thus, for group B particles and u/umf < 10-15, roof particles are ejected .
As a bubble crosses the surface, particles from the roof rain back to the be d
until the roof thickness is of the same order as the mean diameter of th e
particles in the bed, and then the bubble bursts ejecting the roof into the freeboard .
For group A particles, and for group B particles with u/u mf > 10-15,
bubbles are much closer to each other ; and, as they reach the bed surface ,
they usually coalesce . This results in wake particles being ejected into th e
freeboard.
The rate of entrainment yielded by the second mechanism is much greate r
than that resulting from the first one ; and the transition between both explains ,
according to Pemberton and Davison (1986a), the fast increase in entrainmen t
with fluidization velocity which has been reported by many authors .
2.4.6.2 The elutriation constant K. It is generaily accepted that the rate a t
which particles of a given size D . are removed from the bed is proportional
to the mass fraction of particles with that size in the bed . Thu s
dyi M
dt
it
e
d
Ki Av yt
(2.54)
with K . having dimensions of kg/m 2 s.

Kunii and Levenspiel (1969) have proposed a model for the freeboar d
based on the co-existence of three distinct phases : a homogeneous mixtur e
of gas and completely dispersed solids, which moves upwards ; projected
agglomerates (or particle `parcels'), also moving upwards ; and particle parcels
62
moving downwards . With further hypotheses for the dispersion of upwar d

moving agglomerate into upward moving homogeneous phase and th e
transformation of upward moving parcels into downward moving ones, Kuni i
and Levenspiel are able to deduce an expression for the elutriation constant ,
and for other freeboard phenomena . However, the lack of numerical value s
for some of the model constants (notably the interphase exchange rates )
renders the model of little practical use . A more practical three-phase mode l
has been proposed more recently by Pemberton and Davidson (1986b) .
More commonly, correlations are used to determine the value of th e
elutriation constant Ki . There is a wide variety of them in the literature (see ,
for instance, Ling Wan Lin et al. (1980) or Geldart (1985)) .
By way of example, the correlation by Geldart et al. (1979) (probably one
of the simplest ones) will be cited here . It reads
Ki = 23 .7 e - s .4u*iu
pgu
(2 .55)
However, Geldart (1985) points out the scatter of experimental point s

around the correlation is sometimes greater than + 100%, and that up to
five-fold under- or overpredictions are not uncommon when the correlation s
are applied to data other than those from which they are generated .
It is widely agreed that the entrainmen t
rate decreases exponentially with height in the freeboard . There is ample
experimental evidence of this exponential decay ; and it is theoretically evince d
by the three-phase models of Kunii and Levenspiel (1969) and Pemberto n
and Davidson (1986b) .
Large et al. (1976) propose the following expression for the entrainmen t
flux at a distance z aboye the free surface :
2.4 .6.3
Transport disengaging height .
Ei(z) = Ei(oo) + E i (0)e -Z
(2.56)
where Ei (0) is the flux of solids of size Di ejected at z = 0 (the bed surface),
and Ei(oo) is the elutriation flux, given b y
(2.57)
E i( oo ) = Kiyi
The net flux can be obtained by summing up eqn (2 .56) for each size
component i . Since, it is argued, a is a weak function of Di , the followin g
expression is obtained :
E(z) = E(oo) + E(0)e - Z
(2 .58)
The values of a and E(0) must be obtained experimentally, by measurin g

E(z) at several heights .
Wen and Chen (1982) propose a slightly modified expression :
E(z) = E(oo) + [E(0) E(co)]e - Z
(2.59)
1
c
63
By taking z TDH such that E(z) E(co) < 0.O1E(oo) one readily obtain s
1
z TDH aln
E(0) E(oo )
0.01E(co )
(2.60)
Wen and Chen point out that the value of a is in the range 3 .54 .6/m,
with a recommended value of 4/m . They also suggest the following correlation
for estimating E(0):
EO)
E"
3 .5 n 0 . 5
= 3 .07 x 10-9 P9R29 (u u,,,f ) 2 .5 in kg/m 5 s
(2.61)
Av -D e
with De, being the equivalent diameter of the bubble at the bed surface .
2 .5 Dynamic similarit y
In order to study the fluidized bed hydrodynamics the following approache s
can be followed .
The partial differential conservation equations for a two-phase flo w
system with appropriate boundary and initial conditions can be solved .
Global relationships among variables can be obtained through the us e
of integral equations applied to the bed control volume.
Full size experiments can be conducted and measurements can be carrie d
out for a limited range of operating conditions .
A judicious combination of dimensional analysis establishing welldefined scaling rules and small-scale experiments can be used t o
extrapolate laboratory results to large commercial units at high temperatur e
and, in some cases, high pressure .
The two-phase-flow governing equations are still open to some mino r
controversies . If the disperse phase is treated as a continuum, forms of th e
conservation equations have been presented, for example, by Anderson and
Jackson (1967) and Whitaker (1966) . Should the flow be turbulent, timeaveraged versions of these equations have been established by Aliod and
Dopazo (1990) and Balzer and Simonin (1993) . Fueyo (1990) has develope d
a two-fluid metodology in which the two-phase, turbulent flow is represente d
in terms of alternating particle-rich and particle-lean parcels . Such a strategy
can be easily adapted to model the exchange processes between bubbles an d
dense phase in a fluidized bed .
It is pertinent to remark that average moment equations using, for example ,
k-a or Reynolds-stress turbulence-models may well prove to be insufficien t
for a detailed simulation of fluidized bed dynamics . The correct predictio n
of bubble formation and evolution will most probably require the solutio n
64
of time-dependent two-phase laminar/transitional/turbulent flows . Large

eddy simulation (LES) will be probably the best option in a near future .
Integral equations provide global answers, and have been exploited to th e
limit.
Measurements in commercial units are hampered by their cost, the limite d
access to different points in the bed, by the parameters that can be monitored ,
by the reduced range of operating conditions and by difficulties in repeatability .
On the other hand, dynamic-similarity theory and small-scale mode l
experiments help at a reduced cost to identify the parameters controlling th e
bed dynamics and the basic flow mechanisms, to determine strategies fo r
part-load operation, to compare dynamic characteristics of different be d
designs, to explore a wide range of geometric and operating variables an d
to assess the influence of design modifications . Even tube and wall erosio n
in commercial units could, in principie, be projected from laborator y
tests.
It is essential for a rational use of the dynamic similarity principies t o
define a complete set of dimensional variables or its dimensionless counterpart .
This is presented next in this chapter .
2.5 .1
Basic dimensionless parameter s
A few dimensionless groups have been introduced in the previous section s

of this chapter . Several authors have presented complete sets of the dimensionles s
parameters that control the bed hydrodynamics . Writing the dimensionles s
equations corresponding either to two continua (fluid and solids) or to singl e
particles, Glicksman et al . (1994) obtain the following governing
parameters :
u2
p 9 uD p
gDv
p9 uDv Pp
QS
os , PSD, bed geometric ratios, turbulenc e
P 9 Pp u
dimensionless parameters, etc .
(2 .62)
The Froude number, Fr = u 2/gDv, is based on the bed characteristi c

dimension, Dv . The Reynolds number, Re = p 9 uD p/u based on D p , or rathe r
Re o = p 9 (Du)D p /u, determines the fluid drag regime for the particle motion .
Re DV = p 9 uD v /u indicates the type of overall flow regime in the bed ; bubbl e
formation and evolution should probably be determined by ReDV or, eve n
better, by Re Do = p g uoDo/u, where uo is the gas exit velocity at the orifice s
of the distributor of characteristic diameter D 0 . The ratio pp/ p9 has been
shown by Geldart to be an essential parameter in the solids fluidizatio n
behaviour . Q S is the average solids feed rate per unit area from outside th e
bed through the bottom . PSD stands for particle size distribution .
65
Glicksman et al . (1994) also conclude that the motion of particles near a

wall is controlled by the same parameters . They also develop a simplifie d
set of dimensionless parameters, namel y
u2
Pp D v
QS
gDv umf pg L pp u-
PSD
(2.63)
In what Glicksman et al. (1994) cala the viscous limit, the ratio pp/pp is
excluded from the previous list .
2.5 .2 Scaling law s

In order to maintain a dynamic similarity between a small-scale model (m)
and a commercial unit (c), the dimensionless parameters listed aboye mus t
be identical for the two beds . Using the full set yields
C 9D v/
uDp
m
(Pg UDv)
( pg ) m
gD v/
)e'
(2.64)
(PUDv)(P)
((Qs )
P Pg cu m
After some algebra, eqn (2.64) leads t o
( u) 2
D pm
D ym
_ ( V ) ZJ3 =
(2.65)
Ppm _ Pg m
Ppc
Pg c
If it is further assumed that the Huid behaves as a perfect gas and it s

dynamic viscosity vares with temperature according to the law (y/o) (T/To ) "
where Po and To are reference values of kT, and n 0.67, then
ay' d.
Vm
Pc M c
Vc
P. Mm
Tm\' +n
(2.66)
M m and M e are the mean molecular masses of the fluidization gases use d
in the model and the commercial unit, respectively .
The previous relations explicitly yield the influence of pressure, temperatur e
and type of gas upon the scaling rules .
66
2.6 Pressure effect s

With the leading theme of this work being PFBC, it seems pertinent t o
allocate a section in this fundamentals chapter to the effect of operating pressure .
Because of the (relatively) late appearance of PFBC, and because of th e
difficulties and cost involved in conducting experiments at high pressure, th e
body of literature in pressurized systems is scanty by comparison with th e
published results for atmospheric systems . Botterill (1989) points out that ,
because of experimental constraints, the size of the research rig is ofte n
restricted; wall effects may therefore play a significant role ; and extrapolatio n
to larger, pilot- or industrial-scale systems (where wall effects are likely t o
be less important) is not straightforward .
A more detailed discussion of pressure effects follows in this section ; but,
by way of summary, it may be asserted that :
the main effect of pressure on fluidization behaviour is exerted throug h
the increase of the gas density; high temperature changes the fluidization
characteristics through changes in density and, most importantly ,
viscosity; and that
Elevated pressures cause, at least for group A particles, a smoothe r
fluidization, which is brought about by smaller bubbles .
2.6.1 Effect on minimum fluidization velocity
U mf
The minimum fluidizing velocity was obtained in section 2.4.3 by equatin g

the pressure drop given by Ergun's equation and the pressure drop require d
to support the bed weight . u,,, f was then given by eqn (2.40). Reworking this
equation slightly, one gets:
1 .7 5
(Dp
f
ose.f
Pyl2
+ 15012E3,mf (
s
f p9
9Dp9(
p9) 2
.6 7
The (theoretical) effect of pressure and temperature on u, f can be

ascertained by examining eqn (2 .67).
Thus, if
f (the group in parentheses in eqn (2 .67)) is moderate (Le. the
particles are small), then only term B is important on the left-hand side o f
the equation ; and hence f is proportional to ,u' . u,f is therefore expecte d
to decrease with temperature, since increases with T; and, because there
is no dependence (or only a weak one) on density, pressure should have n o
significant effect .
For higher Re,,,f (larger particles) then term A is dominant, and u,,, f is
proportional to p9 1/2 . Therefore increasing pressure should decrease u,,, f ;
and temperature would be expected to have the inverse effect .
67
The experimental evidence, in general, confirms this theoretically predicte d

behaviour .
Chitester et al . (1984) studied the fluidization characteristics of severa l
solids (coal, char and Ballotini) at pressures up to 6.485 MPa and at ambien t
temperature, and have suggested the following modified form of the Ergun
equation :
Re,,,f = 28 .7 2 + 0.0494Ar 28 .7
(2 .68)
Knowlton (1977) points out that u mf has little meaning in beds with wid e
size distribution, since the fluidization of smaller particles occurs at lowe r
velocities, resulting in partial fluidization and segregation of finer materia l
to the bed surface. Knowlton suggests, for such systems, the use of a complete
fluidizing velocity (u cf ), or the velocity at which the whole bed is fluidized .
He indicates that u, f can be calculated by computing the minimum fluidizin g
velocity u m fi for each size-interval i, and then taking U, f as the weighted
average of all the u m fi using the mass fraction of particles in the size interva l
as weights :
Ucf
Yi umfi
(2.69 )
For the calculation of u m fj, he uses the Wen and Yu (1966) correlatio n
(eqn 2.42). He found good agreement between the calculated u c f and
experimental results for siderite and lignite particles with pressures rangin g
from 103 kPa to 8.27 MPa at ambient temperature .
2.6.2
Effect on bed voidag e
Knowlton (1977) has studied the effect of pressure on bed expansion at ucf
for widely sized solids with average sizes of approximately 250m. He
concludes that there is no clear correlation between pressure increases an d
bed expansion .
Sobreiro and Monteiro (1982) have investigated the behaviour of (mainly)
group B powders at pressures up to 3 .5 MPa. Their work suggests that emf
is independent of pressure, while mb increases with pressure for particles clos e
to the AB boundary . King and Harrison (1982), who worked with grou p
A and group B particles, report similar trends ; and so do Jacob and Weime r
(1987, 1988) for group A powders . Weimer and Quarderer (1984) studied th e
effect of temperature as well as pressure on the fluidization of a group A
powder . Their results corroborate the aboye trends in respect of pressure;
and additionally conclude that an increase in gas temperature (or for that
matter) also increases e .
In a recent work with larger particles (1 .51 mm SMD), Bouratona et al .
(1993) suggest that e is determined by a single non-dimensional parameter
68
Y, given by
y=
^gu 3
(2 .70)
9p
The use of Y as a scaling parameter successfully regroups the expansio n

data from high pressure experiments, but fails to regroup the atmospheric ones .
2.6 .3
Effect on bubbling characteristic s
As indicated in the introduction to this section, the main effect of high pressur e
fluidization is on the size of bubbles . It has been generally established that
increased pressure results in smaller, more frequent bubbles ; and that thes e
effects are more pronounced for smaller group A particles than for large r
group B ones .
Chan et al. (1987) have studied the effect of pressures up to 3 .2 MPa in
bubble size, frequency and velocity for group A and group B powders . Their
findings confirm the general trends outlined in the preceding paragraph .
From their data, they suggest the following correlation (imperial units) fo r
the bubble diameter :
Db
1.O96L0 .64D* .064(u umf )0 .65
pg < 0.61b/ft 3
(2 .71)
^ 0 .088 ^0..045
1 .43
P
Db
1 .43
O.319Lo .81D .37 p 0.51 (u umf )0.59

.48
^0
pg
> 0 .61b/ft 3
(2.72)
A two-part correlation is needed because D b decreases with pp at low

pressures (low p g ), but increases with pp at high pressure .
With respect to minimum bubbling velocity, there is general agreemen t
that, for group A powders, an increase in pressure widens the range o f
velocities umf > U m b in which the bed admits homogeneous fluidization .
Jacob and Weimer (1987) indicate that, for their group A particles and fo r
pressures up to 12.4 MPa, the ratio umb/u m f is well correlated by the expressio n
suggested by Abrahamsen and Geldart (1980) :
umb
2300p9.126 p 0 .52 3e 0 .716F
(2 .73)
D00 ..88 g 0.934 (p ^ )0 .934
u
mf
2.
h(
in
th
oI
ve
ch
ar
co
mD
2.6 .4
Effect on entrainment and elutriatio n
An increase in pressure results in smaller fluidizing velocities um f , and hence

in an increase in bubble flow u-um f . Since entrainment is mainly caused b y
bubbles erupting at the bed surface, it is therefore expected that it shoul d
increase with pressure . Additionally, the particle terminal velocity decrease s
with increasing gas density, thus bolstering the entrainment/elutriation processes .
be
se c
co'
bo
im
69
Chan and Knowlton (1984) have studied the effect of pressure (up t o
3.1 MPa) on TDH for a group B solid, and found a linear increase in TD H
with pressure . They also report that all the (until then) published correlation s
fail to predict TDH accurately enough .
2.6 .5
Some dynamic scaling consideration s
Equation (2 .65) has shown that the bed dimensions, particle size, operatin g
superficial velocity and the volumetric flux of solids scale with powers of th e
kinetic viscosity ratios . It is a common practice to conduct exhaustive testin g
in laboratory models, aiming at rational projections of these data to full siz e
units under real operating conditions . Glicksman et al. (1994) show that i t
is feasible to scale down the hydrodynamics of atmospheric FBC to laborator y
models with dimensions one fourth or one fifth of those of the commercia l
unit, operating with air at ambient temperature . On the other hand, a similar
attempt for pressurized fluidized bed combustors is not an easy task . With
the scaling rules previously discussed, a laboratory model of a typical PFB C
at 1 .2 MPa and 860C, operating with air at ambient temperature an d
atmospheric pressure, turns out to be approximately the same size as the
commercial combustor . Using fluids with smaller kinematic viscosities doe s
allow a significant reduction in the model dimensions. One-half to one-thir d
size reductions can be readily obtained by changing the model fluid .
2.7
Heat-transfer concepts
Fluidized beds display rather uniform temperature profiles and very efficien t
heat transfer characteristics with quite high thermal conductivity . This is due
in bubbling beds to the intense mixing induced by the bubbles, or rather b y
the underlying flow"pattern, which leads to heat transfer coefficients of th e
order of 200500 W/m2 (Grace, 1986) . These peculiarities make fluidized bed s
very attractive for combusting conditions .
Combusting beds transfer heat to walls . In order to estimate heat exchang e
characteristics, quantitative information on bed/surface heat transfer coefficients
are required, apart from the radiative properties .
Heat transfer is strongly linked to the bed hydrodynamics . Energyconservation partial differential equations could be added to the mass an d
momentum equations ; and this system, supplemented with appropriat e
boundary conditions, could, in principle, be solved numerically .
It is important to remark that hydrodynamic similarity, as explained i n
section 2 .5, does not imply thermal similarity . Thermal dimensionless group s
could be readily obtained from the dimensionless energy equation . Maintainin g
both dynamic and thermal similarity is in general difficult to achieve, if no t
impossible .
It is apparent that even a superficial review of the heat transfer literature
70
in fluidized beds is well beyond the scope of this chapter . Only a few
phenomenological ideas and the basic thermal dimensionless groups ar e
presented in this section ; and some thermal scaling rules are discussed .
2.7 .1
Phenomenology
The transfer of heat by convection-enhanced conduction (radiation can als o

be included) from a bed to a wall can be expressed as
q = hAT
(2.74)
where q is the heat flux in W/m2, h is the overall average heat transfe r
coefficient in W/m 2K and AT is a characteristic temperature differenc e
between the bed and the wall.
A dimensionless Nusselt number is defined a s
Nu = hDp
kg
(2.75)
where kg is the gas thermal conductivity. Nu can be interpreted as the rati o

between the actual heat flux and the conductive heat transfer .
The bed/wall heat transfer phenomenology can be described as a sequenc e
of intermittent events of either a dense phase or an almost particle-free ga s
coming close to the wall and exchanging energy with it . The dense phas e
may be a highly loaded emulsion, cluster or packet of particles, while th e
gas may be a bubble with varying small amounts of particles . The overal l
heat transfer coefficient can be written as
h = yh p + (1 y)h g
(2 .76)
where hp and hg stand for the average heat transfer coefficient when eithe r
the particulate or the gas phase, respectively, is in contact with the wall . y
is the intermittency factor or the average fraction of the wall area occupie d
by the particulate phase . For dense beds the first term in eqn (2 .76) may
dominate, while for small solids concentrations or in the freeboard regio n
the second term may become important .
2.7 .2
Thermal dimensionless group s
The use of the II-theorem leads to a new set of thermal dimensionles s

parameters in addition to those specifying the bed hydrodynamics . The
following list is commonly obtained :
ha Dp
C,
vg Cpp kp
,
ag C pg k g
T aT 3 Dp TW
DI L H
,
,
, eW , eB,
heat transfer dimensionles s
kg
ZR
kg
TC
D v 'Dv,
surface geometry, turbulent heat transfer dimensionless parameters (2.77)
, y, ,
B
ti .
h,
71
h Q stands for either hp or h9 , ag = kg/ g Cpg is the gas thermal diffusivity, v g/ag
is the gas-phase Prandtl number,

C pp and C pg are the specific heats at
constant pressure for the solids and the gas, respectively, kp and kg are the
thermal conductivities of solids and gas, respectively . i T and zH are th e
characteristic thermal and hydrodynamic times, whose ratio can be expressed a s
iT _
'LH
)
r
2
2
ppCppuDp _ D p /ap
kPLH
LH /u
where L H is the characteristic heat exchange length along the flow, and ap
is the particle thermal diffusivity . D p2 /ap is the time required by a particle to
modify its temperature by a prescribed amount over a distance of the orde r
of Dp due solely to thermal diffusive effects . LH /u is the residence time ove r
the heat transfer surface . 6 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and the grou p
6T 3 Dp
;)
o
e
1s
le
11
6)
Y
ry
)n
kg
77)
AT
kg AT/Dp T
(2.79)
Dense-phase heat transfer
Baskakov (1964), using an emulsion renewal model for asymptotically smal l

times, provides the following expression for the Nusselt number :
( hpDp ) -
:ss
6T4
can be interpreted as a ratio between radiation and conduction heat fluxes

times the relative temperature increment . Here T stands for a be d
characteristic-temperature, and ATis of the order of the bed temperatur e
(TB ) minus the wall temperature (Tw) . T* will in general be equal to TB or
between Tw and TB . ew and EB are the emissivities of the wall and the bed,
respectivey . DI is a characteristic length of the internals .
For bed temperatures well below 1000C the radiation heat-transfer
component is estimated to contribute between 5 and 10% to the overall hea t
flux . In that case UT3Dp/kg, ew and eB would drop from the aboye list .
Should 'zT be much greater than 'r R , then the partirles will not modify their
temperature along the heat transfer length and will therefore remai n
approximately at TB . It is pertinent to remark that Glicksman et al . (1994)
use an ill-defined hybrid which inappropriately combines gas and particle
thermodynamic properties .
It is also to be recalled that a basic hydrodynamic parameter, the Reynold s
number, is a key group to estimate the Nusselt number .
2.7 .3
;ss
he
(2.78)
kg
-1
(
kg )
hwDp
kg (heDp)
(2.80)
hw and he are the wall and dense-phase average heat transfer coefficients,
72
respectively . The emulsion Nusselt number can be estimated (Glicksman et

al., 1994) as
he Dp J1 ee (T,y' 2 (kkkgy /2
(2.81)
kg
t
*R
where t' is the dimensionless time using 'r R as reference, and ke and E Q are
the emulsion conductivity and voidage, respectively. Should the radiativ e
heat transfer be important and the particle diameter be large compared t o
the infrared radiation wavelength (Glicksman and Decker, 1982), k e in eqn
(2.81) is to be replaced with ke + kr, where
kr : 9Dp aT3
(2.82)
is an effective radiative conductivity .

Several correlations for the wall Nusselt number exist . In general, the y
reduce to the general functional form :
(2.83)
2.7.4
Gas-phase heat transfe r
From the analysis of extensive data sets, Linst and Glicksman (1993 )
approximate the gas-phase Nusselt number by the expressio n
h9Dp
(Ph41)v
= f
, Prg , void geometry
k9
(2.84)
The heat-transfer surface-length, LH, can be used instead of Dv in eqn (2.84) .

2.7.5
Heat transfer scaling rule s
It is convenient to perform heat transfer measurements in small-scal e

laboratory models . Projection of those measurements to large-scale commercia l
units requires, generally speaking, that all the dimensionless groups defined
aboye, namely the various Nusselt numbers and, consequently, the ratios o n
which they depend, be identical for model and industrial unit . Dynami c
similarity is indeed a previous step in order to possibly guarantee therma l
similarity . Commonly, it is impossible to match both thermal and hydrodynamic
dimensionless groups. Rational partial similarity criteria should then b e
applied, discerning the essential controlling parameters .
One of the most attractive heat transfer scaling applications consists i n
using cold bed measurements to project a hot bed behaviour . Ensurin g
dynamic similarity between the two beds and assuming that radiation i s
unimportant, the following dimensionless parameters should still be matched :
73
Pr,
g
(2.85)
kp , keTTT , Ee
kg g
k
For bubbling dense beds or for PFBC, the first term in eqn (2 .76) will dominate
over the second one . Moreover, assuming that the emulsion Nusselt numbe r
in eqn (2 .80) is the dominant contribution and considering the model heattransfer implied by eqn (2 .81) with the radiative correction, k e + k already
discussed, thermal similarity would require (Glicksman et al., 1994):
5 1
C e (t\
V`t-
R/
1'2 r(ke
1I 2
+ kr )kp
5 HOT BE D
kg
1/2
Ee
(T
r R/
1/2
r(kkkp)J
L
9
(2 .86)
*COLD BED
After simplification and given the dynamic similarity between the two beds ,
eqn (2.86) reduces to
D QT 3
+ p
[Pr9
C pg
kg
kg
= Pr
]HOT BED
(2.87)
g Cpg k g
COLD BED
At the other end, if the wall Nusselt number in eqn (2 .80) is the dominant
contribution, thermal similarity can be guaranteed when the group h w D p /kg ,
given by eqn (2 .82), is identical for the cold model and for the hot unit .
1)
2.8 Some closing remarks
).
In closing this introductory chapter on the fundamentals of the hydrodynamic s

of fluidized beds, a few comments seem pertinent .
le
al
)n
ic
al
ic
3e
in
ng
is
The process of bubble formation seems to be rather poorly understood .

As a speculation, it is likely that bubbles and concentrated vorticit y
regions in the flow are closely related . In the transition regime of a
single-phase mixing layer or an axisymmetric jet from laminar t o
turbulent, spanwise or azimuthal coherent vortices appear that ma y
merge and grow through vortex pairing; these may interact with
streamwise or axial vorticity leading to complicated flow patterns . For
two-phase flows, these concentrated vorticity regions would tend t o
centrifugate the heavy/large particles leaving an almost particle-fre e
empty core (Lazaro and Lasheras, 1989) . Even for the gravitational
settling of particles in homogeneous turbulence, Maxey (1987) finds tha t
particles move towards regions of high strain rate and/or low vorticity .
Along this speculative fine of reasoning, one might be tempted t o
establish a complete analogy between bubbles and coherent vortica l
structures and bubble coacence/growth and vortex pairing . A wor d
74
of caution is in order not to reach premature conclusions . However,

this topic deserves some close scrutiny .
Bubble formation has also been approached as a stability problem b y
some authors (Hernandez, 1990 ; Batchelor, 1993).
Dimensionless diagrams establishing clear-cut distinctions in the dynami c
behaviour of different particles as a function of their density, size, shape ,
velocity, flow nature, etc. are very much needed . Existing diagrams suc h
as those of Geldart (1973) and Grace (1986), although useful, are not
completely satisfactory . One strong recommendation would be to us e
dimensionless groups with physical meanings wherever possible .
The numerical simulation of the fluidized bed hydrodynamics is anothe r
field in which much work is required . It has already been pointed ou t
that capturing significant flow features may require a time-dependen t
LES methodology . This might be at present very time-consuming and
hence inadequate for industrial applications . However, research int o
this field may significantly benefit from the LES treatment o f
well-established Lagrangean or Eulerian conservation equations, integrate d
for simple geometries .
The rigorous inclusion in the mathematical formulation of interparticle
collisions, Van der Waals and electrostatic forces, combustion/flo w
interactions, etc., are goals that should be achieved in the near future.
2.9 Nomenclature
The main symbols used in this chapter are usted below . For each symbol ,
the information usted includes the symbol meaning, its SI units and, i f
appropriate, the equation in which the symbol is defined or first used .
2.9.1
Lati n
Ap
Constant
Area
Particle area
Ar
Archimedes number, =
CD
Drag coefficient for non-spherica l

or non-isolated particle s
Drag coefficient for a spherical, isolate d
particle
Specific heat
Particle drag for an isolated particle
CD1
Cp
D1
1/m
m2
m2
(eqn 2.56)
9 = Ga Mv
pP9( P9)Dp
P
(eqn 2.8)
J/kgK (eqn 2.77)
kgm/s2 (eqn 2.6)
DA
Db
D
D
bm
bo
Di
Do
Dp
DS
E i (z
Ei ( 0
E i (c
F
Fr
g
Gas
h
k
k
k
Ki
L
LB
L
L
L
mf
MA :
MIN
M
M
Mv
ND
NN
P
DA
75
FLUIDIZATION FUNDAMENTAL S
DA
Diameter of a sphere with the sam e

projected area as the particle
Bubble diameter
Db
Maximum bubble diamete r
Dbm
D bo
Initial bubble diamete r
Diameter of the ith size group of particle s
D.
Distributor orifice diamete r
Do
Dp
Mean diamete r
Ds
Diameter of a sphere having the sam e
surface as the particle
Entrainment
flux for particles of size D .
E;(z)
E i (0)
Entrainment flux of particles at the be d
surface
E(co) Entrainment flux of particles aboye the TD H
(i.e. elutriation rate )
Fraction
of fines (Dp < 45m)
F
Gravitational acceleratio n
Galileo number based on Ds, = Ds p g/ 2
Heat transfer coefficien t
Darcy constant
Volumetric shape factor
Conductivity
Elutriation constan t
Bed height
Bubble penetration lengt h
Bed height at minimum fluidizatio n
conditions
Length of the succession of cavities at th e
distributor orific e
Jet penetration length
Mass of solids in the be d
Molecular weight
Density ratio, Mv = ( p p p 9 )/p 9
Dimensionless diameter group ,
1,
if
k
K.
L
LB
L,,,f
L MAX
L M,N
M
M
Mv
ND
N D = C D Re, =
NDA
ND based on DA
Nu
Nusselt number
Pressure
P=pp9Lg
P
P
(eqn 2.4)
(eqn 2.56)
Froude number, = -
k
k
m
kg/m 2
(eqn 2.30)
(eqn 2.31 )
(eqn 2 .5)
u
Dpg
Fr
Ga s
h
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m/s 2
W/m2 s (eqn 2.74)
(eqn 2.3)
W/mK
kg/m 2s (eqn 2.54)
m
m
(eqn 2.15)
m
m
(eqn 2.16)
m
kg
kg/kmo l
3 Mv gDZp9 = 3 A r
(eqn 2.75)
Pa
Pa
(eqn 2.34)
76
Pierced length of bubble
PL
Pr
Rb
R,
Rep
Re s
Re t
TDH
Au
u
Ub
ubc
u,,,f
ut
v
Prandtl number, _
ag
Bubble radiu s
Bubble-cloud radius
Particle Reynolds number
Reynolds number based on D s and th e
superficial gas velocity
Reynolds number based on u t
Transport disengaging height
Slip velocity, = (up ug
Velocity
Bubble rising velocity
Rising velocity of an isolated bubble
Minimum bubbling velocity
Particle terminal velocity
Terminal velocity of a spherical, isolated
particle
Gas velocity at the distributor orifice
Particle volume
Bubble wake volume
Mass fraction of particles of size D . in the
uts
uo
Vp
Vw
Yi
(eqns 2 .71
and 2.72)
(eqn 2.77)
m
m
(eqn 2.24)
(eqn 2.7)
r,
m
m/s
m/s
m/s
m/s
m/s
m/s
m/s
(eqn 2.19)
(eqn 2.17)
(eqn 2.1)
(eqns 2 .1 1
and 2.14)
(eqn 2.10)
m/s
m3
m3
kg/kg
Height aboye the bed surface

Height aboye distributor
m
m
R
Al
Al
Al .
bed
z
Z
P
s
t
o.
(eqn 2.28)
Al:
An
Ba(
Bae
Bai
2.9.2
a
e
1
P
v
P
a
i
Os
2.9.3
i
Greek
Thermal diffusivity
Bed voidage
Emissivity
Sphericity correction for ut
Gas dynamic viscosity
Gas kinematic viscosity
Density
Stefan-Boltzmann constant, = 5 .669 x 10 -8
Characteristic time
Sphericity
Subscripts/superscripts
Isolated particle
Ba r
Ba<
Bat
Bot
m2/s
I7
(eqn 2 .11 )
kg/m es
m2/s
kg/m 3
W/m 2 K4
s
(eqn 2.78)
(eqn 2.2)
P
Bo L
A
Br o
Cha
Ch a
Che
M
Chi t
In
N.
Chit1
Clift .
Cl
Clift.
77
Bubble
Bed
Commercial uni t
Complete fluidizatio n
Emulsio n
Ga s
Relative to particles of diameter D .
Model
Minimum bubblin g
Minimum fluidizatio n
Particle
Sphere
Termina l
Orifice
Vesse l
Wall
References
Abrahamsen, A.R . and Geldart, D . (1980) Powder Technol. 26, 35.

Aliod, R. and Dopazo, C. (1990) Part Part Syst . Charact ., 7, 191 .
Almstedt, A .E . and Ljungstrom, E.B . (1987) Proc . of the 1987 Int. Conf on Fluidized Be d
Combustion, 575 .
Almstedt, A.E. (1987) Chem . Engng Sci., 42, 581 .
Anderson, T.B . and Jackson, R . (1967) 1 & EC Fundamentals, 6, 527.
Baeyens, J . (1973) PhD thesis, University of Bradford, UK .
Baeyens, J . and Geldart, D . (1973) Fluidisation et ses Applications . Societe Chimie Industrielle,
Toulouse, France .
Balzer, G . and Simonin, D . (1993) Proc . of the 5th Int . Symp . on Refined Flow Modelling an d
Turbulence Measurement, 417 .
Barker, D .H . (1951) PhD thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA .
Baskakov, A .P . (1964) Int . Chem . Engng, 4, 320.
Batchelor, G .A . (1993) J. Fluid . Mech ., 257, 259 .
Botterill, J .S .M . (1989) Fluidized bed behaviour at high temperatures and pressures . In Transpor t
in Fluidized Particle Systems (Eds Doraiswamy, L .K and Mujamar, A .S .) Elsevier Science
Publishers BV.
Bouratoua, R ., Molodtsof, Y . and Koniuta, A . (1993) 12th International Conference on FBC ,
ASME, Ed . L. Rubow, 63 .
Broadhurst, T .E . and Becker, H .A. (1975) AIChE J ., 21, 238 .
Chan, I .H . and Knowlton, T .M . (1984) AIChE Symp . Series, 80, 24.
Chan, I .H ., Sishtla, C . and Knowlton, T.M . (1987) Powder Technol ., 53, 217 .
Chereminisoff, N.P. (1986) Bubble dynamics and mean bubble size . In Encyclopedia of Flui d
Mechanics (Vol . 4 : Solids and GasSolids Flows) (Ed . Chereminisoff, N .P .). Gulf Publishing Co .
Chiba, S ., Kawabata, J. and Chiba, T . (1985) Characteristics of pressurized gas-fluidized beds .
In Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechanisms (Vol . 4: Solids and GasSolids Flows) (Ed . Chereminisoff,
N.P .) . Gulf Publishing Co .
Chitester, D .C ., Kornosky, R .M ., Fan, L .-S . and Danko, J .P. (1984) Chem . Engng Sci ., 39, 253 .
Clift, R. and Grace, J .R . (1985) Continuous bubbling and slugging . In Fluidization, (Eds Davison ,
Clift and Harrison) . Academic Press .
Clift, R ., Grace, J .R . and Weber, M .E . (1978) Bubbles, Drops and Particles . Academic Press .
78
Couderc, J .P . (1985) Incipient fluidization and particulate systems . In Fluidization (2nd edn)
(Eds Davidson, J .F ., Clift, R . and Harrison, D. Academic Press .
Cranfield, R .R. and Geldart, D . (1974) Chem . Engng Sci ., 29, 935 .
Darton, R .C ., LaNauze, R .D . and Davidson, J .F. (1977) Trans . Inst . Chem . Engng, 55, 274.
Davidson, J .F. and Harrison, D . (1963) Fluidized Particles . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge .
Davidson, J.F ., Harrison, D . and Guedes de Carvalho, J .R .F . (1977) Ann . Rev . Fluid Mech ., 9, 55 .
Davies, R .M . and Taylor, G.I . (1950) Proc . Roya/ Soc ., A200, 375 .
Ergun, S . (1952) Chem . Engng Prog ., 48, 89 .
Fueyo, N . (1990) PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London, London .
Geldart, D . (1973) Powder Technol., 7, 285 .
Geldart, D . (1985) Elutriation . In Fluidization . (Eds Davidson, Clift and Harrison) . Academic Press .
Geldart, D ., Cullinan, J ., Georghiades, S., Gilvray, D . and Pope, D .J . (1979) Trans. Inst . Checo .
Engng, 57, 269 .
Glicksman, L.R. and Decker, N .A. (1982) Heat transfer from an immersed surface to adjacen t
particles in fluidized beds . Proc . 7th Int . Conf on Fluidized Beds, Philadelphia, p45 .
Glicksman, L.R ., Hyre, M .R . and Farrel, P .A . (1994) In' . J . Multiphase Flow, 20, Suppl, 331 .
Grace, J.R . (1986) Can . J. Chem . Engng, 64, 353-363 .
Grace, J.F. and Clift, R . (1974) Chem . Engng Sci ., 29, 327 .
Hernandez, J.A . (1990) PhD thesis, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain (in Spanish) .
Heywood, H . (1962) Symp Interaction Fluids and Particles . Institute of Chemical Engineering ,
London, p .l .
Hirsan, 1 ., Sishtla, C . and Knowlton, T .M . (1980) The Effect of Bed and Jet Parameters o n
Vertical Jet Penetration Length in Gas Fluidized Beds . 73 Annual AIChE Meeting, Chicago ,
1620 November, 1980.
Horio, M . and Nonaka, A. (1987) AIChHE J., 33, 1865 .
Howard, J.R. (1989) Fluidized Bed Technology : Principies and Applications. Adam Hilger .
Jackson, R . (1971) Fluidization (Eds Davidson, J .F . and Harrison, D .), Academic Press.
Jacob, K .V . and Weimer, A .W. (1987) AIChE J ., 33, 1698 .
Jacob, K .V . and Weimer, A .W. (1988) AIChE J ., 34, 1395 .
King, D .F. and Harrison, D . (1982) Trans. IChemE, 60, 26.
Knowlton, T .M . (1977) AIChE Symp . Series, 73, 22.
Kunii, D. and Levenspiel, D . (1969) Fluidization Engineering. Robert E . Krieger Publishing Co .
Large, J.F ., Martinie, Y. and Bergougnou, M .A . (1976) In Fluidization Technology (Vol . 1) (Ed .
Keairns, D.L.), Hemisphere Publishing Co .
Lazaro, B.J. and Lasheras, J.C . (1989) Phys . Fluids A, 1, 1035 .
Leva, M . (1959) Fluidization . McGraw Hill .
Lewis, W.K ., Gilliland, E .R . and Bawer, W .C. (1949) Ind. Engng Chem ., 41, 1104 .
Limas-Ballesteros, R., Riba, J.P. and Couderc, J.P. (1982) Entropie, 106, 37 .
Ling Wang Lin, Sears, J .I . and Wen, C .Y . (1980) Powder Technol., 27, 105 .
Linst, M . and Glicksman, L.R . (1993) Parameters governing particle to wall heat transfer i n
circulating fluidized beds . Proc 4th Int Conf on Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustors . Somerset .
Massimilla, L . (1985) Gas jets in fluidized beds . In Fluidization (Eds Davidson, J .F ., Clift, R.
and Harrison, D.) . Academic Press .
Maxey, M .R . (1987) J. Fluid Mech ., 174, 441 .
Mori, S . and Wen, C.Y . (1975) AIChE J., 21, 109 .
Murray, J.D . (1965) J. Fluid Mech ., 22, 57 .
Pemberton, S.T. and Davidson, J .F. (1986a) Chem . Engng Sci ., 41, 243 .
Pemberton, S .T. and Davidson, J .F. (1986b) Chem . Engng Sci ., 41, 253 .
Pettyjohn, E .S . and Christiansen, E.B. (1948) Chem . Engng Prog ., 44, 157 .
Romero, J.B . and Johanson, L .N . (1962) Chem . Engng Prog . Symp . Series, 58, 28 .
Rowe, P .N. and Partridge, B .A . (1962) Proc of the Symp on Interaction between Fluids an d
Particles. Inst of Chem Engng, London, p . 135 .
Rowe, P.N . and Partridge, B .A . (1965) Trans. Inst . Chem . Engng, 43, 157.
Rowe, P.N ., MacGillivray, H .J. and Cheesman, D .J . (1979) Trans . Inst . Chem . Engng, 57, 194.
Shirai, T . (1954) PhD thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo .
Sobreiro, L .E .L. and Monteiro, J .L .F . (1982) Powder Technol ., 33, 95 .
Thonglimp, V . (1981) PhD thesis, Institut National Polytechnique, Toulouse, France .
Toomey, R .D . and Johnstone, H .F. (1952) Chem . Engng Prog ., 48, 220 .
Wallis, G .B . (1969) One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow . McGraw Hill.

Weimer, A .W . and Quarderer, G .J . (1984) AIChE Symp . Series, 80, 79 .
Wen, C .Y . and Chen, L.H . (1982) AIChE J ., 28, 117 .
Wen, C .Y . and Yu, Y .H . (1966) Chem . Engng Prog. Symp . Series, 30, 190.
Whitaker, S . (1966) Chem . Engng Sci., 21, 291 .
nt
ig,
on
;o ,
*o .
Ed .
in
set.
R.
194.
79

28PresFluidiBedComb PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

28PresFluidiBedComb PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Fluidization fundamentals

N. FUEYO and C . DOPAZO

Fluidization is an operation by which a bed of solid particles acquire s

The general fluidizing behaviour as set out in preceding paragraphs ha s

This chapter is set out as follows :

PRESSURIZED FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTIO N

Once the dynamics of particles and bubbles have been discussed, th e

Particle characteristics can be expected to play an important role in the Hui d

Particle geometric characterizatio n

2.2.1 .1 Particle shape . The characterization of the particle shape by

Figure 2.2 Sieve system .

PRESSURIZED FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTIO N

leading to eqn (2 .4), the mean diameter would be * S D P (provided that al l

The particle drag is the mechanism by which momentum is exchange d

Figure 2 .3 depicts the variation of CD1 as a function of Rep . Many

correlations have been proposed to approximate, in a piecewise fashion, th e

for Re P < 0.4

for 0.4 < ReP < 500

for 500 < ReP < 2 x 105

The classical book by Clift et al. (1978) provides a lavish compilation o f

Particle terminal velocity

The terminal (or settling) velocity ut is the (constant) velocity reached by a

Introducing the C D1 values given by eqn (2.8) and noting that Au =

for Re P < 0.4

A characteristic relaxation time, tR =

for 0.4 < Re P < 500

for 500 < ReP < 2 x 10 5

P), is customarily defined as

PRESSURIZED FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTIO N

Pettyjohn and Christiansen (1948) suggest tha t

for Re > 1000

Clift et al. (1978) indicate that terminal velocity is known to correlat e

0 .1975 + 1 .575k 0.45k2

0.166 + 1 .496k 0.3k2

0.0665 + 1.907k 1 .05k 2

Finally, Kunii and Levenspiel (1969) have plotted values o f

versus values of Ret (= D p u t /v) as a function of s . The plot thus provides th e

Particle fluidization characteristics

It has already been indicated in section 2 .1 .1 that the fluidization behaviou r

PRESSURIZED FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION

characteristics is dealt with later in this chapter . It should also be born i n

dimensionless velocity u* = u [ p2/(p i, p9)g] il3) to represent the map o f

enhances mixing, and hence promotes the uniformity of bed propertie s

Jet penetration and bubble formatio n

The physics underlying bubble formation is not well understood . Som e

PRESSURIZED FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTIO N

Figure 2.5 Jet penetration lengths .

2.3.2 Bubble shape

Measured values of rise velocity of bubbles in fluidized beds show that th e

Figure 2 .6 Bubble spherical-cap shape .

PRESSURIZED FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTIO N

In the presence of walls, the isolated-bubble velocity u b , needs to be

Equation (2 .19) is applicable to 0 .125 Db/Dv 0.6; outside this range,

Flow-field in and around the bubbl e

Voidage is constant in the particulate phase .

Figure 2.7 Bubble and co-ordinate systems .

Assumption (a) yields, for the particle velocity components ,

PRESSURIZED FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION

The particle wake is usually taken as roughly completing the boundin g

is the initial diameter (cgs units) :

Darton et al. (1977) have suggested :

= 0.54(u um f)2/5(Z + Z 0 ) 4/5 g -1/5

where Zo is found by making Z = 0 and replacing D b with D h o .