See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308802137

Pressure drop and voidage measurement in solid-liquid fluidized bed:

experimental, mathematical and computational study

Conference Paper · September 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 767

8 authors, including:

Md. Shakhaoath Khan Subhasish Mitra

RMIT University University of Newcastle
85 PUBLICATIONS   483 CITATIONS    86 PUBLICATIONS   149 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Swapnil Ghatage Zhengbiao Peng

Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai University of Newcastle
15 PUBLICATIONS   85 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   331 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

droplet-particle interactions View project

Flame Spread over Inert Porous Solids Wetted with Flammable Liquids under Conditions Pertinent to Industrial Fires View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Md. Shakhaoath Khan on 27 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Paper no. 3407046

Chemeca 2016
25 – 28 September 2016, Adelaide, Australia

Pressure drop and voidage measurement in solid-liquid fluidized bed:

experimental, mathematical and computational study

Md. Shakhaoath Khan1, Subhasish Mitra1, Swapnil Ghatage1, Zhengbiao Peng1, Elham
Doroodchi1, Behdad Moghtaderi1, Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi2 and Geoffrey M. Evans1,*
1
Discipline of Chemical Engineering, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
2
Homi Bhabha National Institute, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai 400 094, India
*
Corresponding author. Email: Geoffrey.Evans@newcastle.edu.au

Abstract: This study is concerned with pressure drop and bed expansion behaviour of a solid liquid
fluidized bed (SLFB) containing mono and binary particles of different sizes. An energy balance
pressure model (EBPM) has been developed based on balancing the energy input and output rate of
the mono and binary segregated SLFB. The bed voidage and pressure drop predictions of the EBPM
are compared with those of Richardson-Zaki [1] and Ergun equation [2] and verified against our
experimental data. EPBM well predicts (within 7% of positive deviation) in mono and binary SLFB
(partially and completely segregated). However up to 30% of deviation can be seen in the completely
mixed binary SLFB, because EBPM was developed considering the binary segregated SLFB. A 2D
CFD model which was developed using the commercial solver ANSYS Fluent have been carried out to
observe the absolute pressure distribution along the axial direction of binary SLFB. It can be seen that
axial pressure distribution predictions of EBPM has a good capability in completely and partially
segregated binary SLFB (compared with CFD). CFD predicted particulars information of absolute
pressure in different surface location (interior surface body, velocity inlet, wall and net) of SLFB
containing three different binary mixture are also reported in this study. In addition, different averaging
approaches namely serial model, packing model, property-averaging model and voidage-averaging
model on bed voidge predictions are compared with present experiments and the limitations are
discussed. CFD predicted bed voidage also validated against our experimental data which deviates
around 6%.

Keywords: Energy balance pressure model, Bed voidage, CFD, SLFB.

1 Introduction
Liquid and solid contacting in fluidised beds is fundamental for many industrial processes including
mineral flotation, catalytic cracking, crystallization, adsorption, particle classification, ion exchange,
sedimentation, and various hydrometallurgical operations. The suspension of dispersed phase (solid
particles) by a continuous moving fluid (liquid) is thus known as liquid fluidization and the reactor is
termed as solid liquid fluidized beds (SLFB). The physical property of solid particles (diameter, density,
shape, mass, settling velocity etc.), operating and geometric conditions are the key parameters which
can affect the performance of SLFB. In industrial processes the reactors utilize particles with wide
distributions both in terms of size and/or density. Such effects make the hydrodynamics of fluidization
very complex. During the earlier six decades, a considerable quantity of research has been reported
on the performance of SLFBs. Among those studies voidage and pressure drop measurement are
noteworthy. Distribution of voidage throughout the bed at different operating conditions is important for
design and scale up of the system. In multiphase flow and fluidization the pressure drop (∆P) is the
most vital subject which requisite for the liquid to flow through the bed of the vessel at a quantified flow
frequency. The investigations carried out so far as regards the pressure drop across a packed bed
indicates that the pressure drop depends on the physical properties of liquid such as velocity, viscosity
and density, average bed voidage, the way of solid particles loading, size, shape and surface of the
solids [2], the ratio between the solid diameter and column diameter side wall effect [3], and the ratio
between the height of the packed bed and the diameter of solids [4]. Additionally the pressure drop in
SLFBs is significant because this information governs the systems energy dissipation rate and
customs the foundation for the comparative concert of different paraphernalia [5].

1
Ergun [2] developed a pressure drop model for the laminar flow of fluid through the packed column
which revealed the friction factor as a function of the Reynolds number. Akgiray and Saatçı [6]
modified Ergun [2] equation as an extension from packed bed to fluidised bed. Yutani et al. [7]
experimentally investigated the diffusivity of the particles in a SLFB from the pressure drop using the
pressure sensor where the pressure drop recorded continuously as a function of liquid velocity. Juma
and Richardson [8, 9] have estimated the degree of segregation using pressure measurement
approach. A pressure transducer has been used in their experimental setup to obtain the
concentration profiles by measuring the pressure gradients in the bed. Di Felice et al. [10] investigated
solid mixing and segregation in SLFB and estimated the volumetric concentration of the solids using
the pressure drop correlation from the force balance developed by Gibilaro et al. [11]. Rasul et al. [12]
have measure the solids concentrations by different approach including pressure drop measurement.
The pressure drop was estimated by using a manometer. They have provide a comprehensive criteria
to observe mixing/segregation for any type of binary mixture as difference in diameter and density,
difference in diameter only and difference in density only as well. Asif [13, 14] investigates the
expansion and contraction bed behaviour of binary SLFB by using visual observation with the help of a
ruler along the length of the test section and pressure drop measurement technique using an inverted
air-water manometer. Recently Galvin et al. [15] have investigated segregation and dispersion
behaviour of a binary SLFB by using sampling and pressure measurement technique. They have
connected the pressure tapings together with to a pressure transducer and measure the systems
pressure drop. They provide a mathematical model to estimate the volume fraction of solid species in
the mixing and segregated zone by proposing a dispersion coefficient. Chavan and Joshi [16] also
used the pressure gradient method to analyse the particle mixing and segregation phenomena in a
SLFB. They have assumed that the wall friction and acceleration effects are negligible before
measuring the pressure gradient between two pressure taps. Many researchers involved in CFD
modelling to simulate the hydrodynamics of liquid fluidization containing binary solid particles (briefly
described by Khan et al. [17, 18]). Mostly two different modelling approaches Eulerian-Eulerian (E-E)
and Eulerian-Lagrangian (E-L) have been widely applied to analyse underlying physics of SLFBs. In
E-E approach both phases (solid and liquid) are considered as fully interpenetrating continua based
on kinetic theory of granular flow whereas an E-L defines the fluid flow using the continuum equations
and the particulate phase flow is defined by tracking the motion of individual particles. However, E-L
technique needs enormous computational time and configuration and due to increase in particles
number the requirement increases. The E-E approach therefore provides more flexibility and has been
widely used in simulation of chemical engineering processes and more specifically in scale-up and
design of chemical reactors. Though the pressure characteristics of SLFB have been thoroughly
experimentally investigated, there is a lack of knowledge in mathematical and numerical modelling.
The specific aims of the present work are:
a) Developing an energy balance pressure model (EBPM) for mono and binary segregated
SLFBs to predict overall pressure drop and axial pressure distribution.
b) Experimental measurement of overall pressure drop and bed voidage for mono and binary
SLFB as a function of liquid superficial velocity.
c) Validation of the EBPM against the experimental pressure data.
d) Developing a numerical methodology by comprising a 2D E-E CFD KTGF model. And make a
comparison between EBPM and CFD.
e) In addition, checking the prediction capability of various theoretical overall bed voidage
models against present experiment.
f) To overcome the limitation of theoretical voidage models, introducing CFD and validate
predicted results against experimental voidage.

2 Theory
2.1 Pressure drop (energy balance approach)
2.1.1 Mono solid liquid fluidized beds
Consider a fluidized bed (Fig.1a) of mono-sized solid particles, with a diameter of ds and density of ρs.
The mono sized solids are suspended by an upward flow of liquid with a density of ρL and viscosity of
μL at a superficial velocity of VL. In a mono SLFB, the rate of energy is therefore given by the following
equation: Total energy rate = kinetic energy + potential energy + pressure
1  2   
E i   m L VL,1  m L gz  P Q L  (1)
2 i

where mL    / 4  Dc2VLL is the mass flow rate of liquid, VL,1 is the fluidization velocity and z is the bed
height which varies from 0 to H. Therefore the energy input rate at the bottom of SLFB is given by:

2
  2 1 2 P   
E1  Dc VL L  VL,1  1  [ QL  mL / L , z1  0] (2)
4 2 L 

Figure 1: (a) Mono and (b) binary SLFB

The hydrostatic pressure can be written as, P1  P2  M gz 2 where  M  L  L  S  S  is the mixture
density. Now from equation (2), we have,
 1 2 P      
E1  Dc2 VL L  VL,1  n   L L S S  gH  (3)
4  2 L  L  
In similar way the energy output rate of the system can be estimated from eqn. (1) as follows:
 1 2 P 
E 2  D c2 VL  L  VL,n  gH  2  [z  z n  H, VL,n  VL,1 / L ] (4)
4 2 L 
Therefore at steady state the net power dissipation in mono solid liquid fluidized bed is given by the
following equation:
  V 2  1   S S  L L 1  
E  Dc2 VLL  L 1  2     gH  (5)
   L
4  2  L    

Now we know that, the net power dissipation can be expressed as, E  PFB  Q .
Therefore the pressure drop (∆P) in the mono solid liquid fluidized bed can be expressed as follows:
 V2  1 
PFB  L L 1  2   S S  L L 1  gH (6)
2  L 

2.1.2 Binary segregated solid liquid fluidized beds
To develop the pressure drop derivation for a segregated fluidized bed (Fig. 1b) containing binary solid
particles, consider the particles with diameter, ds1, ds2 and density ρs1, ρs2 respectively. The binary
solids suspended by an upward flow of liquid with a density of ρL and viscosity of μL at a superficial
velocity of VL. The energy input rate can be expressed for the binary solid mixtures fluidized by liquid
as follows:
 1 P        
E1  Dc2 VL L  VL2  n   L L S1 S1 S2 S2  gH  (7)
4  2 L  L  
where S1 , S 2 are the volume fraction of binary solids for each phase respectively. The energy output
rate of the system estimated by the following equations;
  1 VL2 P 
E 2  D c2 VL L   gH  2  (8)
4 2
 2 L L 
At steady state the net power dissipation in binary solid liquid fluidized bed is given by the following
equation:

3
  2   S1 S1  S2 S2  L 1 L   
 V 
2
1
E  Dc VLL  L 1  2
    gH  (9)
 L
4  2  L
   
Therefore the pressure drop (∆P) in the binary solid liquid fluidized bed can be expressed as follows:
 V2  1 
PFB  L L 1  2   S1 S1  S2 S2  L 1 L   gH (10)
2  L 

Also the pressure drop in packed beds (for spherical particles) can be estimated by Ergun equation [2]
as follows:
 L VL2 1 L  H 1 L 2 VL  L H
PPB  1.75  150 (11)
 
d S 3L d S2 3L

2.2 Overall bed voidage

Liquid fluidization of mono solid particles having the same diameter in size and density gives rise to
homogeneously expanded beds, whereas the bed height changes with the liquid superficial velocities.
The expansion characteristics of such SLFB have been well represented empirically by the following
Richardson-Zaki [1] correlation of mono solid systems:
L   VL / VS  ,
1/ n
(12)
where VL is the liquid superficial velocity, Vs∞ is the particle terminal settling velocity in a quiescent
liquid, and n is the empirical parameter and can be estimated using Richardson-Zaki Equation [1]. The
SLFB system becomes complex when another solid species is present which differs either in diameter
and/or density. In literature, a number of averaging approaches (such as serial model, packing
models, property-averaging model and voidage-averaging model) are available to predict the overall
bed voidage for binary solid liquid fluidized beds. These models are based on the Richardson-Zaki [1]
equation to take the averaging of two mono component bed voidage into account.

2.2.1. Serial approach

The fluidized bed expansion behaviour containing binary solid particles is widely represented by a
serial model proposed by Epstein et al. [19]:
1
L  1  , (13)
 XS1 / 1 L1    1  XS1  / 1 L2  
where, XS1  MS1S2 /  MS1S2  MS2S1  is the fluid free fraction of solid 1, ϵL1 and ϵL2 are the liquid voidage
for the two mono-component bed occupying solid 1 (smaller) and solid 2 (larger) respectively, MS1 and
MS2 are the initial mass of solid 1 (smaller) and solid 2 (larger) respectively and ρS1 and ρS2 are the
density of solid 1 (smaller) and solid 2 (larger) respectively. Equation (13) can be rewrite in terms of
the specific volume occupied by the binary solids is corresponding to the total individual specific
volume occupies by two mono-component zones of solids in series:
1
VS,total   X V  1  XS1  VS2 , (14)
1 L  S1 S1
where VS1  1 / 1 L1  and VS2  1 / 1 L 2  . Asif and Petersen [20] modified Epstein et al. [19] serial model
of by proposing another averaging approach in order to describe the bed voidage of a binary SLFB as
given below:
1
L  1  , (15)
 XS1 / mS1   1  XS1  / mS2
where, mS1  1   VL / VS1  and mS2  1   VL / VS 2 
1/ n1 1/ n 2
are the mono-component bed concentration of solid
1 (smaller) and solid 2 (larger) respectively.

2.2.2. Packing approach

Yu et al. [21] and Finkers and Hoffmann [22] proposed two packing models based on the Westman
[23] equation which depends upon the size ratio of two packing solids as given below:
2 2
 VS,total  VS1XS1   VS,total  VS1XS1   VS,total  XS1  VS2 X 2   VS,total  XS1  VS2 XS2 
   2G      1, (16)
 VS2   VS2  VS1  1   VS1  1 
where G is the parameter of Westman equation, it depends upon the size ratio of two packing solids
and independent of the mixture composition. When G = 1, this model becomes serial model.
Yu et al. [21] proposed a piecewise function to estimate the values of G as follows:

4
 G
 0.738r
1.556
 r  0.824  , (17)
1  r  0.824 
where r is the diameter ratio of smaller to larger solid particles. Based on the similarity analysis, a
modified form of linear packing model was developed by Yu et al. [24] for n number of spherical as
well as non-spherical particle species. This model is given by:
Si 1 n

Sj1
  
VSiT  VSi    VSj  VSj  1 g(r)  VSi XSj    VSj  VSjf (r)  VSi XSj ,
 Sj i 1
(18)

VS,total  max VS1T , VS2T ,..............., VnT  , (19)

where f  r   1  r   2.8r 1  r  and g  r   1  r   0.4r 1  r  . For binary solid species equation (18)
3.3 2.7 2.0 3.7

reduces to the form given below:

VS1T  VS1XS1  VS1 1  f (r) XS2 , (20)
V  VS1XS1   VS1   VS1  1 g(r)  XS2 ,
T
S2 (21)
Another mathematical expression of G in the Westman equation was suggested by Finkers and
Hoffmann [22] as follows:
0.63
 r 3 1 L1  
G  
 1 0.63 ,  (22)
 L1 1 L2  
L1

2.2.3. Property averaging approach

Asif [25] developed a property-averaging model basd on the generalized the Richardson-Zaki
correlation involving the surface-to-volume mean particle diameter and volume-average particle
density, given as:
 
1/ n
L  1  VL / VS ,avg , (23)
where dS,avg  1 /  XS1 / dS1   1  XS1  / dS2  and S,avg  XS1S1  1  XS1  S2 .

2.2.4. Voidage-averaging approach

Asif [13] also peoposed a voidage-averaging model for predicting the void fractions of the mono-
component bed.
1
L  , (24)
 XS1 / L1   1  XS1  / L2

3 Experimental
The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2. The SLFB was made of cylindrical acrylic Perspex column
with 50 mm in column diameter, a height of 700 mm. A calming section of 50 mm containing 12 mm
diameter steel balls was included in order to ensure uniform water flow. Three different size of
borosilicate glass beads were fluidized in mono and binary SLFB using water. The bed expansion was
captured by a high speed camera together with halogen backlight was able to capture the motion of
fluidized particles. For pumping the water, a magnet pump was used and a rotameter was used to
measure the flow rate. A manometer has been connected with the SLFB to measure the pressure
drop of the packed bed and fluidized bed along the axial location for different liquid flow rate. Three
different binary mixtures (Table 1) have been considered. The mixtures physical properties and intial
composition are given in Tables 1 and 2 , respectively. The liquid superficial velocity was varied from 0
to 0.184 ms-1 Pressure drop measurements was carried out for all three binary mixtures as well as
mono solids using a manometer. The overall bed voidage, ϵL, was obtained by calculating the volume
of the liquid over the volume of the bed:
L,exp  1   MS / AH e S  , (25)
where MS is the total mass of solid particles, A is the cross sectional area, He is the fluidized bed
expansion and ρS is the solid density. A measurement scale was adjusted with the test section for
taking the corresponding bed heights. Each experiment was repeated four times at every voidage and
the reproducibility was perceived to be around 97%. The bed voidage was also observed for varying
initial mass composition (Table 2).
The expansion characteristics of mono SLFB in the operating regime was confirmed to follow
the behaviour predicted by Richardson-Zaki [1] correlation (Fig. 3). The fractional liquid hold-up was
observed from 0.40 to 0.88. Figs. 4-6 display experimental images of three different binary mixture
(Table 1) covering both equal and unequal mass combination as a function of liquid superficial
velocity, VL. The photographs shown in Fig. 4 were taken for the binary mixture with a

5
composition of 0.12 kg of 3 mm and 0.12kg of 8 mm glass beads. As VL increases the bed height
and liquid voidage respectively increases. The bed was found completely segregated with 8 mm
glass beads at the bottom and 3 mm glass beads at the top. The height of these two segregated
zones also increases due to increase in VL. The binary combination was then altered by 0.08 kg
of 3 mm and 0.08 kg of 5 mm of glass beads, here a mixed zone was observed at the bottom
and a small 3 mm mono-component zone was witnessed at the top (Fig. 5).

Figure 2: (a) Schematic diagram of experimental setup, (b) Photograph of experimental setup

Table 1: Different cases of binary mixtures and their physical properties

Richardson- Terminal settling Size
Mixture Solid 1 Solid2 Liquid
Zaki index velocity ratio
No.
dS1 S1 dS2 S2 L µL n1 n2 VS1 VS2
mm kgm-3 mm kgm-3 kgm-3 kgm-1s-1 - - ms-1 ms-1 -
I 8.0 2230 3.0 2230 1000 0.001 2.39 2.39 0.372 0.301 2.67
II 5.0 2230 3.0 2230 1000 0.001 2.39 2.39 0.338 0.301 1.67
III 8.0 2230 5.0 2230 1000 0.001 2.39 2.39 0.372 0.338 1.60

Table 2: Unequal mass composition of three 1.00

binary mixtures (I, II and III) at VL=0.17 ms-1
Solid1 Solid2 Total 0.80
(smaller) (larger) mass XS1
Voidage, ϵL [-]

[kg] [kg] [kg] [-] 0.60

0.04 0.24 0.28 0.14
0.08 0.24 0.32 0.25
0.40 Experiment_3mm
0.12 0.24 0.36 0.33 Richardson-Zaki_3mm
0.16 0.24 0.40 0.40 Experiment_5mm
0.20 Richardson-Zaki_5mm
0.20 0.24 0.44 0.45 Experiment_8mm
0.24 0.20 0.44 0.55 Richardson-Zaki_8mm
0.24 0.16 0.40 0.60 0.00
0.24 0.12 0.36 0.67 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
0.24 0.08 0.32 0.75 Liquid superficial velocity, VL [ms-1]
0.24 0.04 0.28 0.86 Figure 3: Comparison of experimental voidage with
Richardson-Zaki [1]

6
 Figure 4: Experimental images of binary SLFB Figure 5: Experimental images of binary SLFB
containing 3mm (0.12kg) and 8mm containing 3mm (0.08kg) and 5mm (0.08kg) solid
(0.12kg)solid
The fluidized bed was found partially
segregated. Due to an increase in liquid
superficial velocities it can be seen that the
bottom mixed zone and top segregated
gradually increases. For the unequal binary
mixture of 0.24 kg of 5 mm and 0.08 kg of 8
mm glass beads, the bed formed a mixed
layer of 5 & 8 m m glass beads at the
bottom; and a pure layer of 5 m m glass
beads at the top (Fig. 6). For all the case of
liquid superficial velocities the fluidised bed
was observed partially segregated and the
bed expands due to increase in liquid
Figure 6: Experimental images of binary SLFB
velocities as the two layers (intermixed and
containing 5mm (0.24kg) and 8mm (0.08kg) solid
pure) expands correspondingly.

4 CFD modelling
A 2D CFD model was developed [17, 18] using the commercial solver ANSYS Fluent has been used
for the numerical investigation of bed voidage and axial pressure distribution of the binary SLFB.
Briefly the test section was fixed according to experimental configuration has and mesh has been
created providing 30000 cells, 30651nodes and 60650 faces including 1 cell zone and 4 face zones.
The bed initial bed voidage was costumed to be 0.4. The parameters and case setting have used for
the numerical simulation are shown in Table 3. The overall bed voidage, ϵL, can be obtained by
calculating the volume of the liquid over the volume of the bed as follows:
 n   n 
L,CFD   L,local dAcell  /   dAcell  , (26)
 i 1   i 1 
where, L,local is the local bed voidage at corresponding cell surface area dA cell .

Table 3: Geometry, initial, boundary and operating parameters used in CFD

Parameters/Model Numerical Value/Case setting Unit
Initial solids packing 0.6 [-]
Boundary condition Uniform velocity inlet, Pressure outlet
Turbulence multiphase model Mixture
Operating pressure 101325 [Pa]
Wall boundary condition No slip
Gravitational acceleration 9.81 [ms-2]
Granular viscosity Gidaspow [26]
Granular bulk viscosity, solid pressure, Lun et al. [27]
radial distribution
Granular temperature algebraic
Drag modification (liquid-solid) Gidaspow [26]
Drag modification (solid-solid) Syamlal and O’Brien symmetric [28]
Coefficient of restitution 0.90 [-]

7
5 Results and discussion
5.1 Validation of EBPM with experimental data
Fig. 7 displays comparison between experimental and modelling pressure drop profiles of mono
SLFB for (a) dS=3mm, MS= 0.24 kg, (b) dS=5mm, MS= 0.24 kg and (c) dS=8mm, MS= 0.24 kg. The
liquid superficial velocity was varied from 0 to 0.184 ms-1. For 3mm solids the pressure drop
observed from experiment was 597 Pa, which is 2.7% lower than the model value, i.e. 614 Pa.
Also a maximum 7% of positive deviation of the model data can be observed which is
satisfactory. For 5mm solids maximum pressure drop in experiment is 590 Pa. EBPM predicts this
value within 2% of deviation. Also a maximum 5% of negative deviation of the model data can be
observed. For 8mm solids the maximum total pressure drop in experiment was observed 556 Pa,
which is 3.5% lower than the predicted value, i.e. 537 Pa. Also a maximum 6% of positive
deviation of the model data can be observed.
700 1400

600 1200
Pressure drop, ∆P [Pa]

Pressure drop, ∆P [Pa]

500 1000

400 800

300 600 Experiment - 3 and 8 mm

Experiment - 3mm Model - 3 and 8mm
200 Model - 3mm
400 Experiment - 3 and 5mm
Experiment - 5mm
Model - 5 mm Model - 3 and 5 mm
100 Experiment - 8 mm 200 Experiment -5 and 8 mm
Model - 8mm Model - 5 and 8mm
0 0
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21
Liquid superficial velocity [ms-1] Liquid superficial velocity [ms-1]
Figure 7: Comparison of experimental with Figure 8: Comparison of experimental with
modelling pressure drop of mono SLFB modelling pressure drop of binary SLFB

Present model also validate against the binary SLFB experiments. Total pressure drop of three binary
mixtures (a) dS1=3mm, MS1= 0.24 kg and dS2=8mm, MS2= 0.24 kg, (b) dS1=3mm, MS1= 0.24 kg and
dS2=5mm, MS2= 0.24 kg, (c) dS1=5mm, MS1= 0.24 kg and dS2=8mm, MS2= 0.24 kg has been plotted in
Fig. 8. For 3 and 8mm binary mixture, the maximum pressure drop from experimentation and model
was observed respectively 1226 and 1250pa. For the binary mixture 3 and 5mm, pressure drop from
experimentation and present model was observed respectively 1229 Pa and 1258pa. And for the
binary mixture 5 and 8mm, maximum pressure drop from experimentation and present model was
observed respectively 1207 Pa and 1218pa. From Figs 7-8 it can be concluded that the present
model works greatly (EBPM data varied within the experimental error bar) with the mono and
binary segregated SLFB (3 & 8 mm) and partially segregated SLFB (5 & 8 mm). Deviation up to
30% can be seen for the completely mixed SLFB (3 & 5 mm) this is because the model was
developed considering the binary segregated SLFB.

5.2 Comparison between EBPM and CFD

CFD predicted absolute pressure distribution along the axial direction has been compared with
EBPM and shown in Fig. 9a. It can be seen that the present model has a good capability in
completely and partially segregated SLFB. The model was established for the segregated fluidized
bed; however it can provide reasonable predictions of absolute pressure in the mixed SLFB. The bed
expansion observed in experiment for (i) 3 & 8 mm, (ii) 3 & 5 mm and (iii) 5 & 8 mm was
respectively 0.55 m, 0.62 m and 0.40 m. CFD predicts this expansion within 10% of deviation.
The axial pressure distribution of three binary mixture travel towards to atmospheric pressure
above the fluidized bed, this is because of no fluidized particles were exist in that region
(confirmed from the experiments).The contour plots for three binary mixture having equal mass
(0.24kg) of each solid phase at liquid superficial velocity 0.17 ms-1 were shown in Fig. 9b. Left-
hand and right hand scale indicates the absolute pressure and the column height respectively. The
pressure was observed higher at the velocity inlet for all three binary mixtures. Details information of
CFD predicted absolute pressure in different location of the SLFB is given in Table 4.

8
 Table 4: CFD predicted area weighted average absolute pressure in different surface of SLFB
Surface Absolute pressure (Pa) of binary mixture
(area weighted average) 3 & 8 mm 3 & 5 mm 5 & 8 mm
Interior surface body 101772.73 101819.37 101699.22
Pressure outlet 101325 101325 101325
Velocity inlet 102719.46 102673.64 102654.25
Wall 101775.46 101822.33 101701.92
Net 101773.16 101819.7 101699.72

0.7
Atmospheric Pressure
CFD - 3 & 8 mm binary mixture
Model - 3 & 8 mm binary mixture
0.6 CFD - 3 & 5 mm binary mixture
Model - 3 & 5 mm binary mixture
CFD - 5 & 8 mm binary mixture
Model - 5 & 8 mm binary mixture
0.5
Column height (m)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
101000 101500 102000 102500 103000
Absolute Pressure (Pa)

(a) (b)
Figure 9: (a) Comparison between EBPM and CFD predicted axial pressure (absolute) distribution,
(b) contour profiles of axial pressure (absolute) distribution

5.3 Prediction capability of theoretical voidage models

Fig. 10 was produced to talk over experimental average liquid voidage of three different binary solids
mixture. An attempt has been taken to test various theoretical ϵL with experimental ϵL. Fig. 10a shows
validation for binary mixture dS1=3mm, MS1= 0.24 kg and dS2=8mm, MS2= 0.24 kg. The mathematical
model predicts well with experimental data however Asif [25] model under predicts and Asif [13] and
Asif and Petersen [20] model over predicts the bed voidage but the deviation is minor. This is because
the fluidized bed was completely segregated and mass combination was equal for both solids. Fig.
10b shows the comparison for binary mixture dS1=3mm, MS1= 0.24 kg and dS2=5mm, MS2= 0.24 kg.
Although the bed was completely mixed and the models able to predicts well compare to experiment
because the mass combination was equal. Fig. 10c illustrates various voidage correlation together
with experimental data of binary SLFB for dS1=5mm, MS1= 0.24 kg and dS2=8mm, MS2= 0.24 kg. The
fluidized bed was observed partially intermixed. Theoretical models over predicts the experimental
data except Asif [25] model as it shows very decent in the fluidized bed zone. It can be also observed
that the rest of models predict good comparable bed voidage at 0.028 ms-1. Different averaging
approach are qualitatively good against experimental data because of the mass combination was set
equal. But for the unequal combination of solid mass, those models sometimes not capable to predict
comparative voidage.
Consequently CFD can well predict overall bed voidage for unequal mass combination of
binary mixtures (Table 2). The voidage contour plots of three binary mixtures for different unequal
composition (XS1) ranges from 0.14 to 0.86 at a constant VL = 0.17 ms-1 are shown in Figs. 11 a-c. For
the binary mixture I and III, the fluidized bed expands maximum at XS1=0.45 (Figs. 11a and 11c),
whereas binary mixture II displays maximum bed expansion at XS1=0.45 (Fig. 11b). Average bed
voidage for unequal mass combination of binary mixture of 3 and 8 mm glass beads are shown in Fig.
12. For all composition SLFB was observed segregated in experiment. From the comparison it can be
seen that Asif and Petersen [20] and Asif [13] model predict well at composition XS1=0.14 whereas
Asif [25] over predicts the experimentation and the other models provides undervalues. And for the

9
rest of combinations the model predictions shows negative deviation up to 10%. Basically the
averaging approaches are based on the assumption of complete segregation of the two mono
components, therefore the higher values of the actual voidage predicted by theoretical models
indicates a bed expansion associated with the segregation of the two solids zones present in the bed.
Experiment Epstein et al. (1981)
Asif and Petersen (1993) Yu et al. (1993)
Yu et al. (1996) Finkers and Hoffmann (1998)
Asif (1998) Asif (2002)
0.9 0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8 0.8

Bed voidage, ϵL [-]

0.7 0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4 0.4 dS1=5mm, MS1= 0.24 kg

dS1=3mm, MS1= 0.24 kg dS1=3mm, MS1= 0.24 kg
dS2=8mm, MS2= 0.24 kg dS2=5mm, MS2= 0.24 kg dS2=8mm, MS2= 0.24 kg
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Liquid superficial velocity, VL [ms-1]

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 10: Comparison of experimental average voidage data with various correlation predictions of
binary SLFB for (a) mixture I, (b) mixture II and (c) mixture III

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 11: The overall bed voidage of different composition (XS1) at liquid superficial velocity 0.17 ms-1
(a) binary mixture I, (b) binary mixture II, (c) binary mixture III

Moreover undervalues indicate that a small mixing zone of 3 and 8 mm mixture exist in the fluidized
bed. And it further express that as the intermixing tendencies increase in the bed at higher XS1 values
which disagrees with the experiment because the fluidized bed was found completely segregated. The
mass combination of binary solids plays a dynamic role at this point. It is further evident from Fig. 12a
that CFD predicts closer agreement with actual experimental values where the deviation is within 5%.
It is seen in Fig. 12b that by averaging approaches underestimates the bed voidage at all the
composition of 3 and 5 mm binary mixtures. This is because the fluidized was completely mixed and
the models are fails to predict actual bed voidage. However CFD prediction give better description of
the bed voidage than the averaging approaches with the truthful trend although both negative and
positive deviation (0.5 to 2.5%) can be observed. However Fig. 12c shows that both theoretical and
numerical approaches can explain closely the bed expansion behaviour except at XS1=0.14. Although
it was experimentally observed that the bed consists of two zones one mixed zone at the bottom and a
segregated zone at the top. However the mathematical approaches show good estimation of voidage.
In general CFD prediction shows comparable trend with the experiment from the composition
XS1=0.45 to 0.86, also the overall estimation is satisfactory (within 6% of deviation).

10
 Experiment Epstein et al. (1981) Asif and Petersen (1993)
Yu et al. (1993) Yu et al. (1996) Finkers and Hoffmann (1998)
Asif (1998) Asif (2002) CFD
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8 0.8
Bed voidage, ϵL [-]

0.7 0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2 0.2
dS1=3mm, dS2=8mm dS1=3mm, dS2=5mm
0.1 0.1 0.1 dS1=5mm, dS2=8mm
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
Liquid-free fraction of solid 1, XS1 [-]
(a) (b) (c)
Figure: 12 Prediction comparison of bed voidage for different unequal composition at liquid superficial
velocity 0.17 ms-1of (a) binary mixture I, (b) binary mixture II and (c) binary mixture III
6 Conclusions
A theoretical pressure model based on the energy balance approach has been developed in this study
which can predict pressure drop and axial pressure distribution for mono and binary (segregated)
SLFB. This model was than verified with Ergun equation [2] and validated against present experiment
data. The velocity-voidage relationship of mono-particles was also verified with the Richardson-Zaki
[1] correlation. Furthermore the experimental overall bed voidage was measured in a binary SLFB. For
the binary SLFB, different solid mass composition (equal and unequal) has been considered. The
predictability of different overall voidage averaging theoretical approaches (serial model, packing
models, property-averaging model and voidage-averaging model) has been discussed. It was
observed that for the equal mass combination, different averaging approach are qualitatively good
however those models are often not capable to predict comparative overall bed voidage for unequal
mass ratio of binary solids. To overcome this limitation CFD simulation employed in this study. CFD
predicted overall bed voidage data for unequal mass combinations of binary mixture were found in
good agreement (within 6% deviation) with the present experiment.
Nomenclature
A area over the SLFB surface, [m2] VL liquid superficial velocity, [ms-1]
dS particle diameter, [m] VS specific volume, [-]
Dc column diameter, [m] VS,total total individual specific volume, [-]
E1 energy input rate, [kgm-2s-3] XS1 fluid-free fraction of solid 1, [-]
E2 energy output rate, [kgm-2s-3] Greek letters
FDi momentum exchange term, [N] ϵL bed voidage, [-]
G Westman [23] parameter, [-] ϵS solid volume fraction, [-]
g gravitational acceleration, [ms-2] µL viscosity of liquid, [kgm-1s-1]
h axial bed height, [m] µS solid viscosity, [kgm-1s-1]
MS Solid initial mass, [kg] ρL liquid density, [kgm-3]
n Richardson-Zaki index, [-] ρS solid density, [kgm-3]
P static pressure, [Pa] ρSM mixture density, [kgm-3]
PS solid pressure, [Pa] Abbreviations
∆P pressure drop, [Pa] CFD computational fluid dynamics
ReSi solid particle Reynolds number, [-] E-E Eulerian-Eulerian approach
VS∞ terminal settling velocity, [ms-1] EBPM Energy balance pressure model
Vmf minimum fluidization velocity, [ms-1] SLFB solid-liquid fluidized bed

Acknowledgments
First author (Md. Shakhaoath Khan) would like to acknowledge the scholarship (UNIPRS 2013 and
UNRSC50:50 2013) provided by the University of Newcastle, Australia for conducting this research as
a part of PhD study.

References
[1] J.F. Richardson, W.N. Zaki, Sedimentation and fluidization: part I., Transactions of the Institute of
Chemical Engineers, 75 (1954) S82-S100.
[2] S. Ergun, Fluid Flow through Packed Columns., Chemical Engineering Progress, 48 (1952) 89-94.
[3] B. Eisfeld, K. Schnitzlein, The influence of confining walls on the pressure drop in packed beds, Chemical
Engineering Science, 56 (2001) 4321-4329.

11
 [4] N. Rangel, A. Santos, C. Pinho, Pressure Drop in Packed Shallow Beds of Cylindrical Cork Stoppers,
Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 79 (2001) 547-552.
[5] A.M. Lali, J.B. Joshi, Pressure drop in solid—liquid fluidised beds, Powder Technology, 59 (1989) 129-140.
[6] Ö. Akgiray, A.M. Saatçı, A new look at filter backwash hydraulics, Water Science and Technology: Water
Supply, 1 (2001) 65-72.
[7] N. Yutani, N. Ototake, J.R. Too, L.T. Fan, Estimation of the particle diffusivity in a liquid-solids fluidized bed
based on a stochastic model, Chemical Engineering Science, 37 (1982) 1079-1085.
[8] A.K.A. Juma, J.F. Richardson, Particle segregation in liquid-solid fluidized beds., Chemical Engineering
Science, 34 (1979) 137-143.
[9] A.K.A. Juma, J.F. Richardson, Segregation and Mixing in Liquid Fluidized Beds., Chemical Engineering
Science, 38 (1983) 955-967.
[10] R. Di Felice, L.G. Gibilaro, Waldraw, P.V. Foscolo, Mixing and Segregation in Binary-Solid Liquid Fluidised
Beds., Chemical Engineering Science, 42 (1987) 639-652.
[11] L.G. Gibilaro, R. Di Felice, S.P. Waldram, P.U. Foscolo, A predictive model for the equilibrium Composition
and Inversion of binary solid Liquid Fluidized Beds, Chemical Engineering Science, 41 (1986) 379-387.
[12] M.G. Rasul, V. Rudolph, M. Carsky, Segregation in binary and ternary liquid fluidized beds, Powder
Technology, 126 (2002) 116-128.
[13] M. Asif, Predicting binary-solid fluidized bed behavior using averaging approaches, Powder Technology, 127
(2002) 226-238.
[14] M. Asif, Volume contraction behaviour of binary solid-liquid fluidized beds, Powder Technology, 145 (2004)
113-122.
[15] K.P. Galvin, R. Swann, W.F. Ramirez, Segregation and dispersion of a binary system of particles in a
fluidized bed, Aiche Journal, 52 (2006) 3401-3410.
[16] P.V. Chavan, J.B. Joshi, Analysis of Particle Segregation and Intermixing in Solid-Liquid Fluidized Beds,
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 47 (2008) 8458-8470.
[17] M.S. Khan, S. Mitra, S.V. Ghatage, Z. Peng, E. Doroodchi, B. Moghtaderi, J.B. Joshi, G.M. Evans, Expansion
behavior of binary solid-liquid fluidised bed with different solid mass ratio, APCChE Congress incorporating
ChemecaMelbourne, Australia, 2015.
[18] M.S. Khan, S. Mitra, I. Karim, S.V. Ghatage, Z. Peng, E. Doroodchi, B. Moghtaderi, J. J.B., G.M. Evans, Bed
Expansion Behaviour in a Binary Solid-Liquid Fluidised Bed with Different Initial Solid Loading- CFD Simulation
and Validation, Eleventh International Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics in the Minerals and Process
IndustriesMelbourne, Australia, 2015, pp. 041 KHA, 041-046.
[19] N. Epstein, B.P. LeClair, B.B. Pruden, Liquid fluidization of binary article mixtures—I. Over all bed expansion.,
Chemical Engineering Science, 36 (1981) 1803-1809.
[20] M. Asif, J.N. Petersen, Particle Dispersion in a Binary Solid-Liquid Fluidized-Bed, Aiche Journal, 39 (1993)
1465-1471.
[21] A.-B. Yu, N. Standish, A. McLean, Porosity Calculation of Binary Mixtures of Nonspherical Particles, Journal
of the American Ceramic Society, 76 (1993) 2813-2816.
[22] H.J. Finkers, A.C. Hoffmann, Structural ratio for predicting the voidage of binary particle mixtures, AIChE
Journal, 44 (1998) 495-498.
[23] A.E.R. Westman, The Packing Of Particles: Empirical Equations For Intermediate Diameter Ratios*, Journal
of the American Ceramic Society, 19 (1936) 127-129.
[24] A.B. Yu, R.P. Zou, N. Standish, Modifying the Linear Packing Model for Predicting the Porosity of
Nonspherical Particle Mixtures, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 35 (1996) 3730-3741.
[25] M. Asif, A simple predictive model of layer inversion in binary solid-liquid fluidized beds, J Chem Technol Biot,
71 (1998) 340-344.
[26] D. Gidaspow, Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum and Kinetic Theory Descriptions, Academic
Press, Boston, USA1994.
[27] C. Lun, S.B. Savage, D.J. Jeffsey, N. Chepurniy, Kinetic Theories for Granular Flow: Inelastic Particles in
Couette Flow and Slightly Inelastic Particles in a General Flow Field, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 140 (1984) 223-
222.256
[28] M. Syamlal, W. Rogers, O.B. T.J., MFIX Documentation: Volume1, Theory Guide>. National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA. DOE/METC-9411004, NTIS/DE9400087., 1993.

Presenting author biography

Professor Geoffrey Evans has been actively involved in fundamental and
applied research into multiphase systems. His work is concentrated on
increasing understanding of the phenomena that underpin phase interaction
and the behaviour of free surfaces, especially when dynamic forces are
present. Recent research areas include: bubble formation and growth, bubble
nucleation, bubble breakup and coalescence, particle-droplet and particle-
bubble interactions. Professor Evans work includes a combination of
experimental measurement, theoretical modelling and computational fluid
mechanics; and has been applied to a number of practical applications,
including: petrochemical, mineral and pyro-metallurgical processing, and water
treatment.

12

View publication stats