Evaluation of Liquid Flow Consants Through Application of Equations for Bed Fuidization

D.S. Corpuz, J.L. de Guzman and J.M. Golbin

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of the Philippines-Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

D.S. Corpuz, J.L. de Guzman and J.M. Golbin, 2008. The purpose of this experiment is to validate graphically the Carman-
Kozeny, Burke-Plummer, and Ergun Equations. This was done by passing water upward at varying flow rates into a bed of particles. The
experiment gave values of 5x106 for the Kozeny-Carman constant and 36.07 for the Burke-Plummer constant, which is far from theoretical
value. The experiment, however, was able to verify the direct relationship of bed height and bed porosity with the Reynolds number and
relationship of pressure drop with the Reynolds number.

Keywords: bed height, bed porosity, Burke-Plummer Equation, Carman-Kozeny Equation, Ergun Equation, friction factor, mean velocity,
minimum fluidization velocity, porosity, pressure drop, Reynolds number

OBJECTIVES Kozeny-Carman Equation

The main objective of this experiment is to graphically

determine the experimental constants of the three equations
namely: Carman-Kozeny, Burke-Plummer, and Ergun
Equations. In the process, the experimental data could be
compared to the theoretical data. Other important objectives
were to run the experiment at various flow rates using the bucket
method and calculate the corresponding pressure drops. The
minimum fluidization values were also determined.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
* equation 7.17 (McCabe, 2001)
Eq. 2 is applicable for flow through beds at Reynolds numbers
(NRe) up to about 2100. No sharp transition to turbulent flow can
be observed at this NRe, but at higher NRe, considerable kinetic
energy losses results due to the frequent energy changes in the
shape and direction of the channels in the bed. The theoretical
constant is 150.

Packed beds and fluidized beds play a major role in many Burke-Plummer equation
chemical engineering processes. Packed-bed situations include
processes such as filtration, wastewater treatment, and the flow
of crude oil in a petroleum reservoir. Fluidized beds are used
extensively in the chemical process industries, particularly for
the cracking of high-molecular-weight petroleum fractions * equation 7.20 (McCabe, 2001)
(http://www.eng.buffalo.edu). When a fluid is pumped upward
through a bed of fine solid particles at a very low flow rate, the Eq. 3 is used to determine the pressure drop in turbulent flow
fluid penetrates through the void spaces without disturbing the region where the kinetic energy losses significantly affect the
bed. This process is known as the packed bed process. If the system. NRe is greater than 4000. The theoretical constant is
upward flow rate is steadily increased, the pressure drop 1.75.
increases. The pressure drop across the bed counterbalances the
force of gravity on the particles. Increasing the velocity further Ergun Equation
makes the particles separated enough to move about the bed and
become suspended in the fluid. This is the onset of fluidization
and is termed as fluidized bed.

A minimum velocity is needed to fluidize a bed. Consider a

* equation 7.50 (McCabe, 2001)
column packed with solid particles through which a fluid flows,
if the velocity is too small the bed stays fixed and operates as a
Eq. 4 covers the entire range of flow rates assuming that the
packed bed. The particles in the bed will remain in a packed bed
kinetic and drag/viscous losses are additive. The theoretical
as long as the gravitational forces holding the solid particles
constants are 150 and 1.75.
down are greater than the force exerted by the fluid passing up
through the bed of particles. At the point where the two forces
The variables used in Eq. 2 to 4 are:
become equal the solid particles begin to move. The force
∆P = pressure drop in the fluidized bed
balance given in Eq. 1 describes this condition known as
L = height of fluidized bed
incipient fluidization. Incipient or minimum fluidization velocity
= superficial or empty tower fluid velocity
is the superficial fluid velocity at which the fluidization of the
µ = absolute viscosity
bed commences.
Φs = sphericity
Dp = particle diameter
ε = bed porosity

* equation 7.49 (McCabe, 2001) PROCEDURE

After achieving incipient fluidization, increasing the fluid flow
velocity does not result in any significant increase in the
pressure drop as the bed expands to reduce the resistance to
flow. Finally, at conditions of entrainment, the pressure drop
decreases as the entrained particles offer little resistance to flow.
Flow meter Calibration
The carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) and mercury (Hg) manometer
were connected to the valve regulating water flow. Several
sample points were gathered to measure the actual flow rate
from no flow to maximum flow. Using the bucket method, flow
rates (F) were calculated by measuring the time required to fill
the bucket with water and the corresponding weight of the water Kozeny-Carman Equation
at different sample points. Concurrently, the manometer level or
∆K O2/ P 1 - .N
g  MN N 11
the height difference (∆h) of both fluid (Hg and CCl4) was read.
These calculated F, together with the ∆h, determined the meter L c QR .S
constant Cv by regression analysis. * from equation 22.76 (Foust, 1980)
k2 is the Kozeny-Carman experimental constant obtained using:
0µ 1‐ε2
V lbm
x‐axis  ( +
Pressure drop Measurement
,
D2p ε3 ft 2 s 2
lbm
(ft 2s 2+
The flow rate was varied, and the ∆h between the CCl4 and Hg ΔP
y‐axis  gY,
manometers was recorded. L

RESULT AND ANALYSIS Burke-Plummer equation

The data recorded in this experiment included the time to fill the [O2/N 1 - .
g c  MZ 12
∆K
L QR . S
bucket with a certain mass of water in seconds (t), the mass of
water in pounds (mw), bed height in cm (L), and manometer
level (∆h). These variables will be used to calculate for the * from equation 22.82 (Foust, 1980)
following terms:
lb mass water
volumetric low rate  F    5 k4 is the experimental constant obtained using:
s time 02 1‐ε
ρV lb
x‐axis  Dp ε3
, (ft2ms 2+
ft F
 
average velocity  V 6 ΔP lbm
s ρH2O Ap y‐axis  g , ( +
L Y ft 2 s 2

ft
0    ε · average velocity
supericial velocity  V 7
Ergun Equation
s
∆K QRN .S ]^_
gc 2  MN \ MZ 13
L PO/ 1 - .N 1 - .
*from equation 7.14 (McCabe, 2001)

)
bed porosity = ε = ( + 1 - ./ 
)*
* from equation 22.85 (Foust, 1980)

222
V0 ·ρ·Dp The corresponding equations for the axes of the Ergun equation
NRe  8
µ
are
NRe
x‐axis 
*from equation 7.2 (McCabe, 2001) 1‐ε
∆K QRN .S
y‐axis  `
L a PO/ 1 - .N
pressure drop  ∆hρA ‐ρB  9
During fluidization, several regions are expected to be observed
The flow meter was first calibrated, and the value of the flow which include the laminar, transition, and turbulent regimes. For
meter constant was determined. The calibration equation was the laminar flow, the Kozeny-Carman equation is used.
given as Turbulent flow obeys the Burke-Plummer equation. Meanwhile,
<  => ?∆@AABC (10) the Ergun equation can be applied for the entire range of flow
where F is the flow rate in lb/s, and ∆h is in inches. rates, and it is assumed that the kinetic energy and viscous
Determination of Cv
losses are additive.
1.4
From the calculated flow rates, the Reynolds number for each
1.2
data point as then calculated using Eq. 10 and Eq. 5 to 8. Table 1
Flow rate, lb/s

1
shows the calculated values for a single trial.
0.8 y = 1.137x - 0.091
0.6 R² = 0.966
Table. 1 Sample NRe calculation
?∆@bc , √de
0.4
F, lb/s mean v, ft/s superficial v, ft/s Nre
0.2
0 0.70710 0.80398 0.620968704 0.602774321 887.6871286
0 0.5 1 1.5
0.836660 0.95128 0.734740079 0.717517771 1056.666265
sqrt(H CCl4), sqrt(in)
Fig.1 Determination of Cv 0.894427 1.016963 0.785470184 0.770741047 1135.046539

It was determined from the slope of Fig.1 that the flow meter 0.948683 1.07865 0.83311694 0.818095201 1204.78354
DE⁄F
constant is 1.137 , with an experimental error of -0.091. This In the experiment, all data points fell under the laminar flow
√IJ
error is probably due to the inaccurate bucket method, and that regime, with NRe < 2100. None had an NRe > 4000.
the meter just got repaired. The Cv was used for subsequent
determinations of flow rates. The Kozeny-Carman equation is applicable to laminar flow. Fig.
2 shows the determination of the experimental Kozeny-Carman
From the flow rates and manometer readings, and using some constant.
necessary laboratory constants, such as bed porosity ε and pipe
diameter, the experimental data were plotted (using the
following equations) and compared to the theoretical constants
given by Kozeny-Carman, Burke-Plummer, and Ergun
equations.
 Determination of the Kozeny-Carman constant Table 2. Comparison of Experimental and Book Values
14000 KC BP
12000 Trial 1 6.00E+06 22.24
10000 Trial 2 4.00E+06 51.25
8000 Trial 3 5.00E+06 34.65
y = 6E+06x + 2643.
6000 R² = 0.971 average 5.00E+06 36.04667
4000
2000 theoretical 1.50E+02 1.75
0
% error 3.33E+06 1959.81
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 The experimental constants were determined for three trials, and
Fig. 2 Experimental Kozeny-Carman constant were averaged to complete the table. The very high percentage
error may be attributed to the inaccuracy of the manometer and
The slope of Fig. 2 gives the experimental Kozeny-Carman flow rate readings, and to the fact that the equipments were old.
constant, and shown to be is 6x106 with an error of 2643. This In fact, the CCl4 manometers just got broken and repaired prior
error accounts for the inaccuracy of the manometer. Some of the to this experiment. Another source of error was that the initial
error may have also been due to the calculated Cv. ∆h of the manometers were never zero, despite fully closing the
flow regulating valve. This could have affected the flow meter
Based on the calculated NRe, the flow of the liquid was never constant. Ideally, the ∆h should have been set to zero at no flow
turbulent since NRe < 4000. Thus, the Burke-Plummer constant rate.
cannot be proven because the values obtained experimentally
would not permit it. Fig. 3 shows the experimental results using In the experiment, the behavior of the bed from being fixed to an
the Burke-Plummer equation. expanded one was observed. Given that the bed operates at zero
velocity (or even at a very low velocity), the bed was considered
Determination of the Burke-Plummer constant
14000
to be operating as a packed bed. From the given value in the
laboratory, the porosity of bed at no flow, ε0, is 0.414.
12000
10000 Minimum fluidization velocity is required in order to observe
8000 the start of expansion of bed.
y = -189.0x + 19839
6000 R² = 0.667
4000
2000
0
0 20 40 60 80

Fig. 3 Experimental Burke-Plummer constant

Fig. 3 shows a negative slope, which is not possible according to

Eq. 12. This is due to the fact the flow was not turbulent, yet the
data points were forced into the Burke-Plummer equation. Fig. 5 Fixed Bed vs. Fluidized Bed
Source:
However, the Ergun equation provides a method for determining http://www.colorado.edu/che/TeamWeimer/images/bed_expansion
the experimental Burke-Plummer constant. Since the Ergun
equation is applicable to all types of flow, Fig. 4 shows the plot From Geankoplis (1993), the pressure drop across the bed is
of Eq. 13. equivalent to the weight of the bed per unit area of cross section.
Ergun Equation This can be expressed by
1.20E+07 ∆f  `1 - .g[R - [hL
1.00E+07
At this point, minimum porosity, εM, is observed to be present.
8.00E+06 Applying these concepts, Ergun equation can be expressed as
y = 22.24x + 7E+06
N
1.75 QRNgjkl h [ N 150g1 - .kl hQR jkl [ QRS [g[R - [h`
6.00E+06 R² = 0.621
\ \ 0
4.00E+06 mn .kl
S
PN mn N .kl
S
P PN

2.00E+06
If the values for Φs and εmf are not provided, the equation below
can be used.
1 - .kl
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 5.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.50E+05 o 11
mnN .kl
S
Fig. 4 Experimental Illustration of the Ergun Equation
Substituting this to the Ergun equation provides a new equation
for computing NRe.
According to Eq. 15, the slope of Fig. 3 gives the experimental
Burke-Plummer constant, which is shown to be 22.24. The s
intercept, meanwhile, verifies the experimental Kozeny-Carman QRS g[R - [h` N
]^_  p33.7N \ 0.0408 r - 33.7
constant earlier determined by Fig. 2. The Kozeny-Carman PN
constant from Fig. 4 is 7x106, which is consistent with the value
obtained from Fig. 2.
Once NRe is calculated, the values for Vmf may be obtained by
using
The experimental constants were compared to book values, as QR jkl [
]^_,kl 
P
shown in Table 2.

Assuming the sphericity is unity (for spheres), and if the NRe

falls between the range of 0.001 to 4000, the equation can be
used. Since the value of pressure drop at minimum velocity is
also to be computed, the bed height at that instance, Lmf, must be
calculated. Bed Height vs. Nre
L/ 1 - .kl 20

Lkl 1 - ./
18
16 y = 0.012x - 2.915
R² = 0.959
14
ε0 is the porosity at no flow while L0 is the initial height. 12

L, cm
Obtaining Lmf, the pressure drop can be calculated. 10
8

∆fkl  Lkl g1 - .kl hg[R - [h`

6
4
2
The data below is a summary of the values for the variables at 0
minimum fluidization for trial 1. 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Nre
Fig. 7 Bed Height vs. Reynolds number

As expected, the bed height is directly proportional to the

Reynolds number. From the equations above, the bed height
affects the calculation of the velocity and thus the Reynolds
Table 3. Calculated Results of Minimum Fluidization Properties number. The non-linearity of the plot is due to the inaccuracy of
trial 1
the recorded manometer readings.
NRe 51.03558906
Vmf 0.034655163 Fig. 8 shows the plot of the bed expansion as a function of
εmf 1.61764E-08 Reynolds number. McCabe (2001) provided a method of
Lmf 0.007690288
determining the bed height as a function of velocity. In Fig. 8,
the abscissa was manipulated to make the bed height a function
dP 4.492281741
of Reynolds number:
Note, however, that the porosity at incipient fluidization is less u  ]vw
than the porosity at no flow, which is impossible. This error can .S
x
1 - .
be traced to the use of inappropriate constants.

An alternative method of determining the values at minimum Bed Expansion vs Nre

80
fluidization may be read from the plot of log(∆P) vs. log(NRe)
70
Bed Expansion

(Foust, 1980). y = 0.053x - 15.30

60 R² = 0.959
Determination of the
Minimum Fluidization Point 50
2.025 40
2.02 30

2.015 20
0 500 1000 1500 2000
log dP

2.01
2.005 Nre
2
Fig. 8 Bed Expansion as a function of Reynolds number
1.995
Notice that the plot is almost linear. This means that the bed
1.99 becomes more fluidized as the flow rate (thus Reynolds number)
2.9 2.95 3 3.05 3.1 3.15 3.2 3.25 is increased. Ideally, the intercept should be zero; however, the
log Nre
experimental results give a value of -15.30. This discrepancy
Fig. 6 Determining the Minimum Fluidization Point can be due to the inaccuracy of the bed height and manometer
readings, and in the inaccuracy of the experimental flow meter
The linear part of the graph in Fig. 6 illustrates the behavior of a constant.
fixed bed. The peak of the graph is where the fluidization starts,
and is known as the point of fluidization. Beyond the peak, the Foust (1980) provided a method of determining the modified
bed is completely fluidized. Increasing further the flow rate friction factor based on the Reynolds number. Fig. 9 shows the
would only result to the same pressure drop, shown by the plot that calculated using
horizontal part. Only the Reynolds number will be affected. ]vw
u
1 - .
-∆K`a QR .S
The minimum NRe and the minimum pressure drop can be read
directly from the graph, and the minimum fluidization velocity x
may be computed from NRe. The porosity at the fluidization L [Onk 1 - .
N

point may be obtained from the modified Ergun equation. The Modified Friction Factor
values at incipient fluidization are shown in Table 4. 250

Table 4. Graphical Results of Minimum Fluidization Properties 200

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average 150

∆P 105.1961874 109.6478196 105.9253725 106.9231265
100
NRe 1096.478196 1202.264435 1083.926914 1127.556515 y = 2E-08x2 - 0.004x + 347.2
R² = 0.992
Vmf 0.744551614 0.816384611 0.736028802 0.765655009 50
The values obtained from Fig. 6 are much more realistic than the 0
values in Table 3. The difference in the values of Table 3 and 4
0 50000 100000 150000
may be because of the wrong values of constants used in Table
Nre/(1-e)
3.
Fig. 9 Friction Factor vs. NRe
The relationship of the Reynolds number with the other relevant
fluidization variables is shown in the following graphs. Fig. 7 The experimental plot displays a pattern similar to literature.
shows the relationship of bed height L with NRe. The initial part of the graph represents the period of laminar
flow and the Kozeny-Carman is applicable. The later part A.1 Determination of Porosity, ε
represents the period of turbulent flow and the Burke-Plummer
is applicable. All throughout, the Ergun equation is applicable. Trial 1
∆hHg,0 = 0.4 in ∆hCCl4,0 = 0.3 in
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ∆hHg, in ∆hCCl4, in L, cm L, in ε

1.5 0.5 8 3.149606299 0.9707

Evidently, the data gathered from the experiment did not fully
satisfy the primary objective of the activity as stated in the 1.6 0.7 10 3.937007874 0.97656
manual. This may be due to the repeated bursting of the pipes in 1.6 0.8 12.5 4.921259843 0.981248
the set-up. The valve which regulated the flow of water may also
1.6 0.9 13 5.118110236 0.981969231
add to the inaccuracy of the readings in the gages. It was
difficult to control the fluid flow. 1.6 1.1 13.5 5.31496063 0.982637037

1.6 1.3 15 5.905511811 0.984373333

Experimental errors can be traced all the way back to the
1.6 1.35 15 5.905511811 0.984373333
determination of the flow meter constant. It is recommended that
a 1000 ml graduated cylinder be used instead of a normal 1.6 1.4 16 6.299212598 0.98535
bucket. That way, the volume readings, and thus the flow rate, 1.6 1.5 17.5 6.88976378 0.986605714
could be more accurate. Also, it would be better if the
1.6 1.55 17.5 6.88976378 0.986605714
graduations of the manometers were clearer. It was hard to read
accurately the height difference in the manometers. The use of
more sensitive manometers would also help. A more accurate Trial 2
flow regulating valve would also result in better experimental ∆hHg,0 = 0.3 in ∆hCCl4,0 = 1 in
results. ∆hHg, in ∆hCCl4, in L, cm L, in ε

0.9 0.8 8 3.149606299 0.9707

REFERENCES
1.6 0.9 8.3 3.267716535 0.971759036

Foust, A.S. (1980). Principles of Unit Operations. Singapore: 1.6 1 9 3.543307087 0.973955556
John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd. 1.6 1.05 11.5 4.527559055 0.979617391

1.6 1.1 13 5.118110236 0.981969231

Geankoplis, C.J. (1993). Transport Processes and Unit
Operations. Singapore: Prentice Hall. 1.6 1.3 13 5.118110236 0.981969231

1.6 1.35 13 5.118110236 0.981969231

McCabe, W.L. (2001). Unit Operations of Chemical
1.6 1.55 15 5.905511811 0.984373333
Engineering. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
1.6 1.6 15 5.905511811 0.984373333
(n.d.).Retrieved March 8, 2008 from 1.6 1.7 17 6.692913386 0.986211765
http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/Courses/ce427/Beds.PDF
Trial 3
(n.d.). Retieved March 10, 2008 from ∆hHg,0 = 0.2 in ∆hCCl4,0 = 1 in
http://chemical.uakron.edu
∆hHg, in ∆hCCl4, in L, cm L, in ε

1.3 0.6 8 3.149606299 0.9707

(n.d.). Retieved March 10, 2008 from
http://www.colorado.edu/che/TeamWeimer/images/bed_expansion 1.6 0.7 8.5 3.346456693 0.972423529

1.6 0.8 11 4.330708661 0.978690909

APPENDICES
1.6 0.9 12 4.724409449 0.980466667

Constants used: 1.6 1.1 13 5.118110236 0.981969231

1.6 1.3 14 5.511811024 0.983257143

Bed height at no flow, Lo = 0.4 cm
1.6 1.4 15 5.905511811 0.984373333
Bed porosity at no flow, ε0 = 0.414
1.6 1.5 15.5 6.102362205 0.984877419
Water density, ρH2O = 62.42796058 lbm/ft3
Water viscosity, µH2O = 0.00060054 lbm/ft-s
A.2 Determination of Reynolds Number
Mercury density, ρHg = 849 lbm/ft3
Trial 1
Total particle mass = 0.986 kg
?Δh,yyDZ
superficial
F, lb/s mean v, ft/s Nre
Particle diameter, Dp = 0.014166667 ft velocity, ft/s

0.70710678 0.803980 0.6209687 0.602774321 887.6871286

Pipe cross-sectional area = 0.02073942 ft
0.83666002 0.951282 0.7347400 0.717517771 1056.666265

0.89442719 1.0169637 0.7854701 0.770741047 1135.046539

0.94868329 1.0786529 0.833116 0.818095201 1204.78354

1.04880884 1.192495 0.9210454 0.905053355 1332.844127

1.14017542 1.2963794 1.0012819 0.985635249 1451.514596

1.16189500 1.3210746 1.0203557 1.004410941 1479.164977

1.18321595 1.3453165 1.0390793 1.023856871 1507.802398

1.22474487 1.3925349 1.0755493 1.06114313 1562.712719

1.24498996 1.4155535 1.0933282 1.078683874 1588.544431

Trial 2 Trial 3
?Δh,yyDZ
superficial y, KC x, BP x,
F, lb/s mean v, ft/s Nre L, ft ∆hHg, ft dP
velocity, ft/s lb m/ft2-s2 lb m/ft2-s2 lbm/ft2-s2

0.89442719 1.01696371 0.785470184 0.762455907 1122.84527 0.26246 0.10833 85.2119 10445.5 0.0018545 61.54811

0.94868329 1.07865291 0.83311694 0.809588915 1192.25659 0.27887 0.133333 104.876 12099.8 0.0017680 67.46245
1 1.137 0.878182363 0.855310591 1259.58949
0.36089 0.133333 104.876 9349.84 0.001114 59.19571
1.02469507 1.16507830 0.899869143 0.881527463 1298.19827
0.39370 0.133333 104.876 8570.69 0.0009894 60.93501
1.04880884 1.19249566 0.921045432 0.904438275 1331.93831

1.14017542 1.29637945 1.001281949 0.983228065 1447.96960 0.42650 0.133333 104.876 7911.41 0.0009292 68.64200
1.16189500 1.32107461 1.0203557 1.001957902 1475.55246
0.45931 0.133333 104.876 7346.30 0.0008687 75.22924
1.24498996 1.41555358 1.093328224 1.076243149 1584.95005
0.49212 0.133333 104.876 6856.55 0.0007835 75.52929
1.26491106 1.43820388 1.110822587 1.093464133 1610.31086

1.30384048 1.48246662 1.145009714 1.129222051 1662.97044 0.50853 0.133333 104.876 6635.37 0.0007587 78.27370

A.4 Determination of Experimental Ergun Constants

Trial 3
Trial 1
?Δh,yyDZ
superficial
F, lb/s mean v, ft/s Nre
velocity, ft/s
L, ft ∆hHg, ft dP y Er x
0.77459666 0.880716413 0.680237133 0.660306185 972.412528
0.2624671 0.125 98.321504 7119301.156 30296.48903
0.83666002 0.95128245 0.734740079 0.714478541 1052.19048

0.89442719 1.016963716 0.785470184 0.768732528 1132.08865 0.328083 0.133333333 104.87627 8119698.198 45079.61882

0.94868329 1.07865291 0.83311694 0.816843389 1202.94003 0.4101049 0.133333333 104.87627 9585474.866 60529.35897
1.04880884 1.19249566 0.921045432 0.904438275 1331.93831
0.4265091 0.133333333 104.87627 9412584.784 66818.19972
1.14017542 1.296379458 1.001281949 0.984517628 1449.86870

1.18321595 1.345316543 1.039079384 1.022842037 1506.30788 0.4429133 0.133333333 104.87627 8853494.639 76763.63362

1.22474487 1.392534919 1.075549345 1.059284263 1559.97522 0.4921259 0.133333333 104.87627 9080929.569 92887.02617

0.4921259 0.133333333 104.87627 8911177.599 94656.46185

A.3 Determination of Kozeny-Carman and Burke-Plummer
Constants 0.5249343 0.133333333 104.87627 9352507.19 102921.6654

Trial 1 0.5741469 0.133333333 104.87627 9907651.371 116670.1049

y, KC x, BP x,
L, ft ∆hHg, ft dP 0.5741469 0.133333333 104.87627 9746540.611 118598.667
lbm/ft2-s2 lb m/ft2-s2 lb m/ft2-s2
0.2624671 0.125 98.32150 12052.5391 0.001692 51.29009
Trial 2
0.328083 0.13333 104.8762 10284.8334 0.001266 57.10019
L, ft ∆hHg, ft dP y Er x
0.4101049 0.13333 104.8762 8227.86671 0.000858 51.95647
0.2624671 0.075 58.99290296 3376981.05 38322.36418
0.4265091 0.13333 104.8762 7911.41030 0.000840 56.16163
0.2723097 0.1333333 104.8762719 5885251.913 42217.27703
0.4429133 0.13333 104.8762 7618.39511 0.000860 66.05478
0.2952755 0.1333333 104.8762719 6081515.696 48363.0779
0.4921259 0.13333 104.8762 6856.55559 0.000755 70.13434
0.3772965 0.1333333 104.8762719 7671975.516 63691.46817
0.4921259 0.13333 104.8762 6856.55559 0.000769 72.83182
0.4265091 0.1333333 104.8762719 8514003.282 73870.29922
0.5249343 0.13333 104.8762 6428.02087 0.000687 70.73853
0.4265091 0.1333333 104.8762719 7831743.94 80305.48175
0.5741469 0.13333 104.8762 5877.04765 0.000593 69.20669
0.4265091 0.1333333 104.8762719 7685343.294 81835.24743
0.5741469 0.1333 104.8762 5877.04765 0.000602 71.51358
0.4921259 0.1333333 104.8762719 8316414.642 101425.9845

Trial 2 0.4921259 0.1333333 104.8762719 8185439.297 103048.9033

y, KC x, BP x,
L, ft ∆hHg, ft dP 0.5577427 0.1333333 104.8762719 9033496.129 120607.9247
lb m/ft2-s2 lb m/ft2-s2 lb m/ft2-s2

0.262467 0.075 58.99290 7231.523 0.00214141 82.06414

Trial 3
0.272309 0.133333 104.8762 12391.36 0.00210549 88.88824
L, ft ∆hHg, ft dP y Er x
0.295275 0.133333 104.8762 11427.59 0.00187907 90.87760
0.2624671 0.1083333 85.21197094 5632469.32 33188.14091
0.377296 0.133333 104.8762 8943.333 0.00116571 74.24607
0.2788713 0.1333333 104.8762719 6843399.085 38155.37164
0.426509 0.133333 104.8762 7911.410 0.00092922 68.64200
0.3608923 0.1333333 104.8762719 8391311.521 53127.02738
0.426509 0.133333 104.8762 7911.410 0.00101017 81.12236
0.3937007 0.1333333 104.8762719 8661970.537 61583.96085
0.426509 0.133333 104.8762 7911.410 0.00102941 84.24245
0.4265091 0.1333333 104.8762719 8514003.282 73870.29922
0.492125 0.133333 104.8762 6856.555 0.00082446 83.62172
0.4593175 0.1333333 104.8762719 8456324.18 86596.25396
0.492125 0.133333 104.8762 6856.555 0.00083765 86.31919
0.4921259 0.1333333 104.8762719 8750602.689 96393.42254
0.557742 0.133333 104.8762 6049.901 0.00066971 80.77339
0.5085301 0.1333333 104.8762719 8744630.704 103155.3582
A.5 Determination of Point of Fluidization

Trial 1
log Nre log dP

2.948259923 1.992648517

3.023937842 2.020677241

3.055013669 2.020677241

3.080909025 2.020677241

3.124779363 2.020677241

3.161821407 2.020677241

3.170016615 2.020677241

3.17834443 2.020677241

3.193879147 2.020677241

3.200999366 2.020677241

Trial 2
log Nre log dP

3.050319914 1.770799768

3.076369733 2.020677241

3.10022903 2.020677241

3.113341027 2.020677241

3.124484113 2.020677241

3.160759447 2.020677241

3.168954655 2.020677241

3.20001558 2.020677241

3.206909722 2.020677241

3.220884531 2.020677241

Trial 3
log Nre log dP

2.987850546 1.930500611

3.02209437 2.020677241

3.053880439 2.020677241

3.080243979 2.020677241

3.124484113 2.020677241

3.161328677 2.020677241

3.177913749 2.020677241

3.193117701 2.020677241