RESULTS

4.1 Calculated and recorded results.

Table 1: Experimental data and calculated theoretical data
Flow Volume Packed
Flow Experimental Superficial Theoretical
Rate, Q Bed Height Bed, V Bed, ρb Voidage,
Rate, Q Pressure Drop, Velocity, U Pressure Drop,
(m3/s) (mm) (m3) (kg/m3) ε
(L/min) ∆P (Pa) (m/s) ∆P (Pa)
2.0 3.333×10-5 100.6 256 0.020 1.657×10-4 2094.146 0.473 232.331
3.0 5.000×10-5 100.6 389 0.030 1.657×10-4 2094.146 0.473 349.758
4.0 6.667×10-5 100.4 570 0.040 1.654×10-4 2097.944 0.472 471.845
5.0 8.333×10-5 100.4 733 0.050 1.654×10-4 2097.944 0.472 591.924
6.0 1.000×10-4 100.4 886 0.060 1.654×10-4 2097.944 0.472 712.850
7.0 1.167×10-4 100.4 1052 0.070 1.654×10-4 2097.944 0.472 834.622
8.0 1.333×10-4 100.4 1063 0.080 1.654×10-4 2097.944 0.472 957.242
9.0 1.500×10-4 100.5 1368 0.091 1.656×10-4 2095.411 0.472 1094.190
10.0 1.667×10-4 100.5 1400 0.101 1.656×10-4 2095.411 0.472 1218.712
11.0 1.833×10-4 100.5 1593 0.111 1.656×10-4 2095.411 0.472 1344.082
12.0 2.000×10-4 100.7 1640 0.121 1.659×10-4 2091.621 0.473 1458.478
13.0 2.167×10-4 100.8 1625 0.131 1.661×10-4 2089.103 0.474 1570.248
14.0 2.333×10-4 100.9 1589 0.141 1.662×10-4 2087.846 0.474 1697.694
15.0 2.500×10-4 101.1 1600 0.151 1.666×10-4 2082.833 0.475 1809.794
16.0 2.667×10-4 101.2 1630 0.161 1.667×10-4 2081.584 0.476 1918.944
17.0 2.833×10-4 101.4 1635 0.172 1.671×10-4 2076.601 0.477 2012.106
18.0 3.000×10-4 101.5 1638 0.182 1.672×10-4 2075.359 0.477 2169.706
19.0 3.167×10-4 101.7 1640 0.192 1.675×10-4 2071.642 0.478 2278.472
20.0 3.333×10-4 101.9 1641 0.202 1.679×10-4 2066.706 0.479 2386.207
/
 Table 2: Percentage of error for experimental and theoretical pressure drop

Flow Rate, Q (m3/s) Experimental Pressure Drop, ∆P Theoretical Pressure Drop, ∆P Percentage Error (%)
(Pa) (Pa)
3.333×10-5 256 232.331 10.188
5.000×10-5 389 349.758 11.220
6.667×10-5 570 471.845 20.802
8.333×10-5 733 591.924 23.833
1.000×10-4 886 712.850 24.290
1.167×10-4 1052 834.622 26.045
1.333×10-4 1063 957.242 11.048
1.500×10-4 1368 1094.190 25.024
1.667×10-4 1400 1218.712 14.875
1.833×10-4 1593 1344.082 18.512
2.000×10-4 1640 1458.478 12.446
2.167×10-4 1625 1570.248 3.487
2.333×10-4 1589 1697.694 6.402
2.500×10-4 1600 1809.794 11.592
2.667×10-4 1630 1918.944 15.057
2.833×10-4 1635 2012.106 18.742
3.000×10-4 1638 2169.706 24.506
3.167×10-4 1640 2278.472 28.022
3.333×10-4 1641 2386.207 31.230

Shading refers to reading obtained for sample calculation

4.2 Graph
Graph 1: Graph of pressure drop against flowrate

Pressure Drop Versus Flowrate

4500
2386.207
2278.472
4000 2169.706
2012.106
1918.944
1809.794
3500 1697.694
1570.248
1458.478
Pressure Drop -∆P

1344.082
3000
1218.712
1094.19
2500
957.242
834.622
2000
712.85 1593 1640 1625 1589 1600 1630 1635 1638 1640 1641
591.924 1368 1400
1500
471.845 1052 1063
886
1000 349.758 733
232.331 570
389
500 256

Flow rate, Q(m3/s)

Experimental Pressure Drop, ∆P (Pa) Theoretical Pressure Drop, ∆P (Pa)
4.3 Sample Calculation

Given data:
Particle size, Dp = 250µm
Shape factor, Ø = 0.67 (shape edge particle)
Solid density, ρs = 3970 kg/m3
Fluid density (Air), ρf = 1.2 kg/m3
Dynamic viscosity (Air), µ = 1.82 x 10-5 Pa.s
Bed height = 0.1 m
Bed mass, mb = 346.65 g
Column 1 diameter, D = 4.58 cm

 When flow rate, Q = 10 L/min

1. Flow rate (L/min) to (m3/s)

=10L/min × (1min/60s) × (1/1000(m3/1L)
= 1.667×10-4

2. Radius of the column= (4.58×10-2)÷2

= 0.0229m

3. Area = πr2

= π (0.0229)2

= 1.6475×10-3 m2

4. Superficial air velocity Q=AU

U=Q÷A

=1.667×10-4÷ 1.6475×10-3

=0.101 m/s

5. Volume of bed= πr2L

= π (0.0229)2 (100.5×10-3)
 = 1.656×10-4 m3

6. Density of packed bed= Mb÷V

= (0.347) ÷ 1.656×10-4

= 2095.411 kg/m3

7. Voidage = 1-(ρb / ρs)

= 1- (2095.411/3970)

= 0.472

8. Theoretical pressure drop ( Ergun equation) for Flow rate 3.333×10-5 m3/s

∆P = L× [((150×μ×U× (1-ε)2÷(∅2ε3Dp2)) +((1.75 ×ρf×U2×(1-ε)) ÷ (∅ ε3Dp))]

=1218.712 Pa

9. Percentage error in pressure drop, Error %

Error % = [ (1400 – 1218.712) / 1218.712] × 100%

= 14.875%
Discussion
At the point when a fluid or in this trial air, flows upwards through a packed bed of particles at
low velocity, the particles stay stationary. As the fluid velocity expands, the pressure drop builds
up as per the Ergun equation. From the outcomes acquired and determined, it demonstrates that
as flow rate Q increases the superficial velocity U increases and the theoretical pressure drop
also increases. This relates with the hypothesis. The purpose behind the pressure drop is because
as velocity increases, the frictional resistance likewise increases. At the point when there is no
flow through the packed bed, the net gravitational force acts downwards. At the point when flow
starts upward, friction forces act upward and balance the net gravitational force. For a
sufficiently high fluid velocity, the frictional force is enormous enough to lift the particles. This
is the explanation as velocity builds up, the frictional force increases and the pressure drop
likewise increases. This approves the Ergun law.

The stature of the bed was set to an underlying of 100mm. It can be seen from the outcomes
tabulated in Table 1, that there was no difference in the tallness of bed when the flow rate was
adjusted from 2L/min up to 14L/min. After this however, there was a consequent increment in
the stature of bed. This can be credited due to the air flow reaches a certain amount of speed, it
makes air pockets that will raise the height of the bed accordingly the name fluidization
happening at this stage. It can be said that prior to reaching minimum fluidization velocity, there
is no adjustment in the stature of bed.

For the experimental pressure drop value obtained, there was also an increment in pressure drop
but at 14L/min the values dropped and after that it subsequently increased once more. This
implicates the beginning of the fluidization of the alumina bed and the change of the air flow
from laminar to turbulent. There might have been a few blunders with respect to why that
happened. The results of the theoretical pressure drop were tabulated and compared with the
experimental pressure drop in Table 2 alongside with the percentage of error. The error ranged
from 3.487% to 31.23%.

The shape of the graph plot for the theoretical pressure drop versus flowrate was seen to be of a
linear increment with a slight plunge at the particular flow rate estimation of 1.167×10-4 m3/s.
The shape of the chart for experimental pressure drop was similar to the previous with much
lower decrease subsequently making it closer to the horizontal axis. Conventionally the depiction
of the graph comprised of three primary segments. First there was the packed bed region
whereby the line in the diagram was seen to be at steady increment. This was trailed by an
incipient point demonstrating the start of fluidization, lastly the fluidization region whereby the
line in the chart stays at consistent direct incline slope. By correlation, the pattern of the graphs
was alike to one another aside from the way that the theoretical pressure drop is higher than that
of experimental pressure drop.

As observed, the error range of this experiment is generally high when the experimental values
were compared with the theoretical values. This could be because of the presence of human error
during the experiment. During result taking, parallax error could have happened. Aside from
that, as air flow was brought into the system, the bed height fluctuates particularly after the
14L/min as the particles moves up and down because of bubbling fluidization. This made
observation fairly troublesome. It was likewise suggested that a period range of 30 seconds be
given for each reading to balance out should any increment occur as the pressure drop was
fluctuating enormously. A couple of readings could also likewise be taken and an average can be
obtained.

During the examination, it was seen that there was a bubbling phenomenon. Pockets of air
bubbles were flowing upwards and arrived at the surface of the bed of particles. This is called
bubbling fluidization. The theory expresses that overabundance air flow than that required by
incipient fluidization will flow upwards as air bubbles.
Reference
1. Hans Rumpf, 2013. Particle Technology (Particle Technology Series). 1975 Edition.
Springer.

2. Corrosionpedia. 2019. What is a Fluidized Bed? - Definition from Corrosionpedia.

[ONLINE] Available at: https://www.corrosionpedia.com/definition/1526/fluidized-bed.
[Accessed 10 October 2019]
3. Virtual Labs. 2019. Virtual Labs. [ONLINE] Available at: http://uorepc-
nitk.vlabs.ac.in/exp6/index.html. [Accessed 10 October 2019]