Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A-I~/
A.
I.
l.l
of synthesis gas from coal by the Winkler generator and to the catalytlc cracking of petroleum, fluidized beds have been used for a number
of other chemical processes, particulary in catalytic synthesis.
Some of the fluidized bed catalytic processes are the catalytic
reforming of naphthas, the phthalie anhydride production, the catalytic
oxidation of ethylene, the production of alkyl chlorides, the synthesis
of acetonitrile from acetylene and ammonia, etc. just to mention a few.
However, owing to the complex gas flow and solid particle movement
w~thin the fluidized bed, design procedure of catalytic fluidized bed
reactors has not been well established in spite of the fact that a number
of models for fluidized bed reactors have been suggested.
There have been a number of investigations on the gas flow behavior
in a fluidized bed.
the behavior of the Pacer gas by high speed photography, comparing the
reactant conversion in both the fluidized bed and the fixed bed under
the same operating conditions for well defined catalytic reactions, and
observing bubbles rising in the bed have been some of the techniques
employed to determine the gas flow behavior.
Based on the results of these observations, Kunii and Levenspiel (22'23)
recently proposed a gas flow model which they called the "Bubbling
Bed Model" for explanation and prediction of fluidized bed behaviors
asserting that only the effective size of bubble is needed to supply
adequate description of the flow of gas through the bed.
A-2
considerably
Model" based on multiple bubbles of varying sizes for design and scale-up
purposes.
catalytic reaction systems in fluidized beds are used to test the validity
of the proposed model. Unless specified,the
equations appearing
in this paper
Previous Investigations
An attempt
tracer technique was first made by Gilliland and Mason (9) who measured
the concentration variation of a tracer gas injected into a fluidized
bed.
is presupposed
is represented
deter-
accurately,
the results of
difficult.
in
the information
obtained
A-3
TABL~ A-I
E X P E R I M E N T A L I N V E S T I G A T I O N OF M O D E L P A R A M E T E R S
i. TRACER METHOD
Model
Au thor s
Muchi,
et al.
(33)
dispersion model
Experimental Results
Experimental Condtions
~u
(i-~)
is affected
z
by u f
at 15 < N_ /i - E < 50
Kp
0
F~z/V = 180~NRep/I - E} .8
at 50 < NRep/l - c
Winter
dispersion model
(44)
u e = Umf
De Grout
(6)
lwasaki,
et al.
Umf
contact time
distribution
(14)
Ez = C*
200
5p
where m = 3.5 x i0
C*
3.6 x 107
, P
F o = II/D B
HK=
<
0.25
0.67 D R
L0.5
(m)
conversion of reactant in
fluidized bed is expressed by
x=l-
I~ E(~)exp(-k~W/F)d~
(15)
= 5 - 3 i/sec, for
o U/Um f = 2 - 30
i/sec, for
U/Umf = 2 ~ 30
A-4
Another
fluidized
technique
bed is to compare
the conversion
operating
conditions.
obtained
in a fluidized
This technique i n i t i a t e d
in a
the same
by Shen and J o h n s t o n e
a l s o n e e d s a p r e s u p p o s e d model f o r e v a l u a t i o n
of model p a r a m e t e r s .
Experimental
the interchange
between
bubble phase.
either
bed
present
this technique
(37)
coefficient
in the
are summarized
in Table A-2.
Although
represent
the parameters
the individual
these parameters
conditions
experimental
for fluidized
results,
significance
beds of complex
it is doubtful
flow patterns.
data on kinetic
that
study in fluidized
A general expression
of the
~C e
f--~t
~2C b
- F D b -~h-2
f D
~2C e
--+
e ~h 2
(2).
~C b
+ F 0 (C b - Ce)
+ F u ~
8C
7 = 0
(I)
f u e -~h
-+
F 0 (C e - C b) + fs 7
used a simplified
or estimating
In Table A-3the
+ F
= 0
(2)
development
of
numerous
of gas in fluidized
beds,
the
seems to
(i)
A-5
TABLE A-2
EXPERIMENTAL
ii.
'
Shen
Johnstone
(37)
Parameter and
Experimental Results
parameter:
F
k = 0.06 - 0.85
a=O
e
REACTION }~THOD
Experimental Conditions
Parameter
Assumed
Authors
Umf
=0or
(I/see)
Massimila
Johnstone
(29)
Mathis
Watson (30)
oxidation of NH 3
D R = 11.4, Lmf ~ 26 - 54
dp = I00 " 325 mesh
a=O
ue
Umf
I De=O
D
Umf
k = 0.o71 (i/~ec)
parameter:
decomposition of cumene
D R = 5 " 10.2 cm.,Lmf=lO~31 cm.
=0
e
ue
parameter:
em.
Fo, a
k = 0.64 (i/see)
Lewis,et al.
(34)
=0
e
=0or~
hydrogenation of ethylene
I D_ = 5.2 cm., L . = ii - 53 cm.
Orcutt,
et ai.(34)
,,
, parameter:
F_, a
k = I.i - 15.2 (i/see)
a = 0.05 - 0.18,F=0.4~0.8
k = 0.I ~ 3.0 (I/see)
decomposition of ozone
D R = i0 " 15 c m . , L f = 30-60 cm.
a=O
u = 0
e
Gomezplata
Shuster
(i0)
a=O
ue
Umf
D =0
Kobayashi,
et al.(20)
De
parameter:
F , a
k = 0.75 (i/s~c)
decomposition of cumene
D R = 7.6
Lmf = 3.8 - 20 cm.
parameter:
a
k = 0.i - 0.8
i/see
a = 15 (L/Lmf - i)
decomposition of ozone
D R = 8.3 cm.,Lmf = i0 ~ i00 cm.
0mf
dp = 60 " 80 mesh
Kobayashi,
et al. (21)
ue
Umf
De = 0
parameter:
a
k = 0.2 - 3.5 (1/see)
a = 0.i - 0.3 (--)
: decomposition of ozone
! D R = 20 cm.~L ~ = i0 - i00 cm.
dp
60 " S0 ~esh
!
Ishii
Osberg
(13)
dispersion
model
Kato(I6)
e
e
umf
=0
'
?
packed
!parameter:
L genation
'k
3 cm.
= i.i - 3 . 3 (i/sec)
a = 0 . 3 5 - 0.45
A-6
TABLE A-3
Authors
Van
Deemter
(41)
Muchi
(32)
Parameter
Assumed
=D
~-
O<D
<~
Van
Deemter
(42)
Ue
Umf
a=
aorF
Remarks
O
FL
O
Hk=-- U
H k = 0.5 - 2.5
a = 0
a study of effect of
Fo,a,De,U e on conversion of a first
order reaction
Umf
Mamuro,
Muchi
(28)
Method
a=O
ue = 0
D
= 0
e
Kunii,
Ue = 0
Levenspie]
(22)
no relation between
bubble movement and
parameters
analysis of a first
order reaction
based on the twophase cell model
F
O
- - = 0.05
analysis of back
mixing,residence
time curve of
tracer gas and the
first order reactions
analysis of various
phenomena in fluidized beds by the
"bubbling bed model"
parameter, F^. i s
n o t r e l a t e d ~o t h e
bubble movement
in the bed
0.4
1.2 (i/sec)
parameter a, F o, u e
are not related to
the bubble growth
in the bed
1
F
i
F
parameter:
Fbc
ce
i
Um=
DI/2 1/4
Fbc=45(--~-)+5"85(
5~4 )
B
D
B
model is characteriz
by a single effectiv
size of the bubble
DB
E .Dut 1/2
Fce=6.78 (--~-~/)
Davidson, D = 0 o r
e
Harrison
(5)
~ = 0
5.85DI/2 gl/4
~.
F
O
5/4
DB
parameter:
DB
4.5Umf
DB
Kobayashi a
e
Arai ( 1 7 )
D
a study of the
effect of k , a , D e
and F
on conO
version
of a
first
order
reaction
parameters a, F
O
De a r e
the
not
bubble
related
movement
A-7
revolve about obtaining a satisfactory flow model which will fit the observed
conversion in fluidized beds under a wide range of conditions. Thus a new flow
model taking into account the presence of an assemblage of bubbles seems to
be needed.
1.3
3
)
u b + 2 Umf/emf
Ub -
(3)
Umf/emf
for U b > U m f / e m f
Under normal operating conditions, u b is much larger than Umf/~ f.
In this region cloud formation around the bubble can be observe~.
However, when large particles are used for fluidization, Umf is
correspondingly large and therefore, the bubble velocity can become
smaller than u ~/e ~. The calculation presented here based on the
ml
proposed model w o u ~ not be applicable to this range of operation.
The voidage within the cloud is assumed to be the same as that in
the emulsion phase.
(e) The total volume of the gas bubbles within the bed may be expressed
as (L - Lmf) S.
(f) Gas interchange takes place between the two phases. Overall interchange coefficient per unit volume of gas bubbles is given by
F d = F + K'M
(4)
A-8
(g)
(h)
(5)
Bubble Size
The studies on bubble growth are numerous, among them the works of
Yasui and Johanson (45), Toei, et al. (39), Hiraki, et al. (12), Kobayashi,et ai.(18)
and Baugarten and Pigford (2) are noteworthy.
plotted in Fig.A-i
following Kobayashi,
DB/Opdp(u/Umf)
Although some
scattering of the data is seen, the bubble diameter and the distance from the
distributor can be approximately related by the correlation equation of
Kobayashi
et al. (18) as
(6)
In fact
several sets of the data indicate the power on the bed height to be somewhat
smaller than unity.
there is at present no
et al.
(18)
Strictly speaking,
There is an
A-9
However, the relationship
between the bubble velocity and the bubble diameter is also affected by the
change in bed diameter.
of the bubble having the same diameter will become slightly larger due to
the reduced friction along the wall of the bed.
Hence, until
A-4.
Fan, et al. (8) indicate the voidage up to the bed height corresponding
(7)
A-10
f,
10 2
8
Oq
0
o
&
DB
0
0
0
0
,%
2
0
[c.clg.]
101
oO e
,%
,%
I
4
I
8
I
10
I
20
h
FIGURE A-I
I
40
I
60
I
I
80 100
(cm]
200
KEY TO FIGURE
A-I
Material
dp [cm]
F.C.C. catalyst
0.015
silica gel
0.0194
glass
0.0137
Yasui and
Johnson (45)
glass
0.0041 - 0.0267
olivine
0.0042 ~ 0.015
coal
0.0692
magetite
0.0072
Tanaka (38)
V.O.P. catalyst
0.0078
silica gel
0.0213
Winter (44)
glass
0.011
(D Baugarte~29nd
glass
0.0074
glass
0.0071
0.025
Pigford ~ "
Romero (35)
A-12
TABLE A-4
COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL BUBBLE
DIAMETER WITH CALCULATED VALUES USING EQ.(7)
condition
U/Umf
h(cm)
DB cal.
(era)
Umf = 5 cm/sec.
36
72
20
15
16.2
36
72
40
24
27.4
24
4.8
20
12.5
11.5
Op : 1.4 g/cc
24
4.8
40
21.0
19.3
perforated plate
18
3.6
20
9.8
9.1
18
3.6
40
16.0
14.8
18
3.6
60
22
20.4
18
3.6
80
27
26.0
= 0.1/cm 2
D R = 30 cm x 1.2 cm
A-13
to Lmf can be considered approximately uniform and that the voidage above
Lmf increases along the bed height
(8)
(9)
= l'4ppdp
(~f) ~
+ Do
ratio is known, the voidage from the distributor up to a height corresponding to Lmf and that from Lmf to the top of the bed can be computed,
respectively, as
A-14
Material
Leva,
d~, [cm]
0.0063-0.0381
round and
sharp sand
Lewis,et
0.00705
Tanaka (38)
6.35
0.00775
Fisher-Tropsch.Cat.
O
DR [cm]
0.0102
silica gel
6.35 - 10.15
- 0.0385
10.15
- 0.056
0.021
20.0
1.15
I.i
r,
oo
1.0
--
Lcal
O V
o%
Lobs
~oO~
B a
oo
O
0,9
0.85
0.4
0.6 0.8
1.0
i0
Umf
FIGURE
A-2
20
4O
A-15
1 - c = -~-Lmf(i - Emf)
(ii)
and
1 -
= Lm--~f( i - mf) L
(12)
2L (L - LinE)
This is a reasonable
assumption in view of the fact that the experimental findings of May (31)
and Kunii and Levenspiel (22) indicate the emulsion gas may reverse its
direction in vigorously bubbling beds.
the velocity of gas flowing in the emulsion phase in the axial direction
can be expressed as
U
%f
where ~
L iLmf)
Emf ~ (o
ub
L-Lmf
(13)
L-Lmf
The value of
(36)
Equation (13) yields Ue/Umf = 0.5 for U/Umf = 3, and Ue/Umf = 0 for
U/Umf = 5 ~ 6.
locate the velocity at which the emulsion gas will reverse its direction
(ue = 0) and found that Ue = 0 when U/Umf = 2.7 ~ 6.0.
A-16
Interchange Coefficient
The gas interchange Between the bubble phase and emulsion phase
involves direct interchange of gas in bubbles and in emulsion, and indirect
interchange due to adsorbed gas on the surface of interchanging particles.
Since no experimental data are available for the particle interchange rate, M,
and adsorption equilibrium constant, K', for the reacting gas on particle
surfaces, the analysis presented here will neglect gas interchange due to
adsorbed gas on interchanging particles.
to F d = F o,
Zenz (46)
Davidson and Harrison (5) and Kunii and Levenspiel (22) as well as
an analysis based on the stimulus-response curve from tracer data using the
two phase model by Kobayashi, et al. (19) are available.
Most of these
studies agree on one point that the interchange coefficient, F o, is approximately inversely proportional to the bubble diameter.
Therefore, the
(14)
measurements and found that Fo, which is somewhat affected by the particle
diameter, can be approximated by 3/D B - 6/D B.
to a single bubble, the effects of bubble collisions and coalesence are not
taken into consideration.
A:.I'7
D
or
Ah I _
o
(1
---~-), a proportionality
~)
Ah 2 = 2D (2+m)
-o (2_m) 2
and that of n-th compartment becomes,
(2+m) n-1
Ah n = 2D o
(15)
(2-m) n
L(Ah n)
(16)
3Umf/~mf
(ub - Umf/~mf )
(n)
where
u b = 0.711 (gAhn)1/2
The total volume of the bubble phase and that of the emulsion phase in
the n-th compartment are, respectively,
N~(Ahn )3
u b + 2Umf/emf
(18)
Vbn
(ub
Umf/emf
(19)
A-18
=
n
(20)
Z Ah
i=l
i
Hence,
(Ub - Umf/emf)..
on (ub +2Umf/emf)
(21)
the material balance for the gaseous reactant around the n-th com-
partment becomes,
for the bubble phase,
(Su~)
(22)
n-I
and for the emulsion phase,
{F'.on Vb (C b - C e ) } n
Where r b and r
(23)
= (reVe)n
are the reaction rates per unit volume for the bubble
e
For example,
if the rate of
as,
~, minimum fluidization
incipient bed height, Lmf, the reaction rate constant, k, and order of
reaction are known. Note that this model requires no adjustable parameter.
A-19
First, Equations (8) and (9) are used to calculate the expanded bed
height, L.
compartment.
that of the bubble phase, and the emulsion phase for the n-th compartment
are then calculated.
For bed
height above Lmf, the voidage is adjusted by Equation (12) and Ven, Vbn'
and V
en
are obtained using the same procedure as that shown for the
2(L - Lmf).
is shown in Table
1.5
A-~.
Results of Calculations
Since most of the experimental data were obtained using porous plates,
Therefore,
It becomes necessary
reactor, say column diameter of 5 cm. - 20 cm. and bed height of less than
i00 cm., we should expect the sizes of bubbles forming on the surface
of a porous plate to be quite small.
the height of the first compartment would be no more than a few centimeters.
It is quite
As can
A-20
TABLE A-5 LOGIC DIAGRAM FOR COMPUTER SIMULATION
[ sTART"t
k, C o,
U)
Lmf
3
Calc. Vcn, Vbn, Ven ]
I
I
I
Cb(n),
Ce(n)
STOP
C = Cb(n)
'
'
'
6.15
12.8
19.4
0.8
25.6
.0.8
4.4
47,0
.9
.0.6
0.6
D R = 5.2 cm
7.3
x
8.6
Lmf = 24 cm
[--]
k = 8.7 i/see
[--]
D
0.4
0.4"
Umf = 0.73 cm/see
parameter
= 8.3 cm
R
Lmf = 34 cm
= U/Umf
k =
0.7 i/see
0.2
0.2-
1,0
1.4
i~8
2.2
2.6
3,0
,
1.0
1,4
Ah I [cm]
1,8
2,2
2.6
3.0
Ah I [cm]
FIGURE A-3
,>
A-22
be seen from the figure, the initial height of the compartment,
Ahl, does
therefore,
In
For a large fluidized bed reactor which has a perforated plate distributor,
Equation
conversions
experimental
conversions.
In Figs.A-4,5,and
along the bed height are shown for three sets of data; those of Lewis,
et al. (26) for comparatively
those of Kobayashi
(29)
and Johnstone
As can be seen from these figures, when the rate of reaction is small,
the concentration of gas in the emulsion phase is not too much different
from that in the bubble phase.
large,
the difference
very significant.
in concentrations
These observations
the
gas interchange between the two phases is of primary importance whereas for
slow reactions
significantly
the gas interchange between the two phases does not affect
on the conversion.
conversion
A-23
bubble phase
0 . 8 ~
emulsion phase
C/c o
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
(--)
FIGURE
A-4
Lewis, et a l . (26)
1.4
A-24
bubble phase
0.8
emulsion phase
parameter = U/Umf (--)
0.6
8.6
c/c o (-0.4
5.9
4.4
% ,
k k~
0.2
8.6
4.
/ "
0.0
~ "
0.0
0.2
0.4
. I .. .. ... .. .
0.6
. . . -.- . - -
0.8
r. "-
1.0
" :.-..
r I-
1.2
1.4
h/Lmf ( - - )
FIGURE
Kobayashi,
A-25
.9
0.8
t~
%.
13.9
" ~
0.6
8.1
3.46
C/C o
%\
0.4
3.46
\
bubble phase
0.2
~ ~
emulsion phase
2.24
~ ~
2.24
parameter:U/Umf
0.0 L
0.0
0.2
0.4
I
0.6
I,,
0.8
....
J
1.2
I
1.4
h/Lmf (--)
FIGURE A-6 RELATION BETWEEN THE CONCENTRATION PROFILE
AND BED HEIGHT WHEN THE REACTION
RATE CONSTANT IS SMALL
Massimilla, et al.(29)
A-26
SSS S'-
'
~,
,,.
,"
/a/
l/
0,8
~/0
/io
g,
//'/'~~. / "
0.6
O
x(--)
0.4
/
//
_.~
-- bubble assemblage model
........
piston flow
r/
J
I
---
perfect mixing
Lewis, et
0.2
O.OI
0.2
~ M a s s i m i l l ~ 2 ~ ~d_
Johnstone ~ -
0.4
0 . 6 0 . 8 1.0
k Lmf/U
FIGURE
A-7
t
8
I0
20
40
[--]
__
60
A-27
1.0 ......._..
m
0.8"
m
0.6"
V
$
I
0.5-
0.4"
0
~-~
0,3"
0
U
4.1
0.2
0
r.4
U
0.1
_.._
0.1
FIGURE
A-8
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 0.6
0.8
E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n v e r s i o n , x(--)
1.0
A-28
KEY TO FIGURE
dp(cm)
0
A-8
Pp(g/cc)
DR(Cm )
0.0122
0.93
5.2
0.0194
1.25
8.3
19 ~ i 0 0
Massimilla and
Johnstone (29)
0.0105
2.06
11.4
Shen and
Johnstone (37)
0.00806
1.91
11.4
27""54
0.02240.0068
0.0194
1.25
20.0
34-~,67
0.2 r-~l.4
0.0038~0.0042
1.14
15.25--10.15
18.1 r-,54
0.8-~0.2
0.0707
Mathis and
Watson (30)
0.0103
1.2
8.07
10"-50
0.65
0.0122
1.15
5.3
5 "-'17
4.0,,-'8
Gomezpl?ta and
Shuster "I0)
O.0105
0.98
7.6
4 ----20
0.775
0.0088
1.65
15.2
(13)
61-29.4
4.5 - 26
0.2 ~-13.0
0.31 - 1.5
A-29
conversion based on nearly all the data presented in the studies listed
in Table 2.
1.6
Discussion
The computation using the "Bubble Assemblage Model" indicates that for
the gas passing through the bubble phase is close to plug flow.
probably a reasonable conclusion.
This is
since some investigators regard the flow in this phase to be close to complete
mixing.
However, as Lewis, et al. (26) and Muchi (32) pointed out that under
obtained by the probe is an average between the emulsion phase and the
bubble phase, it may be compared with the concentrations predicted by the
model using the following relation.
A-30
L
L - Lmf Cb + mf Ce ' for h < L
C = Lm f
~
- mf
Figure A-9
(24)
Notice that the reaction progresses very rapidly just above the distributor.
The profile calculated from a model characterized by a single effective
bubble size is unlikely to exhibit such a trend.
The foundation of the proposed "Bubble Assemblage Model" lies on the
knowledge of variation ~n bubble diameters along the bed axis.
Hence more
interchange between the two phases is also a very important factor particularly for fast reactions and therefore should be further investigated.
The characteristics of the proposed model is its versatility and adaptability
for varying situations.
The model
is also convenient for computer simulation and can handle rather easily
even cases involving complex reaction rate expressions.
One of the
The
model can be extended to include solid particle mixing pattern which may
be used to develop a fluidized bed reactor model for a non-catalytic
solid-gas reacting system.
A-31
bubble phase concentration
average concentration based on Eq. (24)
emulsion phase concentration
experimental data (38)
0.8 ~
'i
=" 34.5 cm
Lf
1.3 i/sec
u/u ,: == 11.9 (--)
I
\
0.8
0.6
i,
Lmf = 34.5 cm
k =~ 2.37 I/sec
U/Umf = Ii,9 (--)
0.6
C/Co
0.4
" ~
%
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
"o\
C/Co
0.4
ON,
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
O.C
0.0
0.2
0.4
h/Lmf [--]
\
0,8
~i'\ "~-/%f--9.56(--)
0.6
0.6
31Co
~ ~
%
~
I_
1.0
Lmf = 67.5 cm
k = 0.68 (sec-I)
ulumf = 4.8 (--)
0.8 ~
c/c o
0.4 -
0.8
h/Lmf [ - - ]
0.6
:,5,\
0.4
0
~ -
0
%
0.2
0.2
O.C
0.0
.... L !
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
;_
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
h/~f
h/Lmf
FIGURE
A-9
0.6
o.s
z.o
A-32
1.7 Conclusion
parameters and is useful for design and scale-up of the fluidized bed reactor.
The correct grasp of the bubbling phenomena
of bed expansion, voidage distribution,
and the emulsion pahse, are the key to the success of the development of
this model.
A-33
Notation
a
(---)
concentration of reactant
(g-mol/cc)
cb
(g-mol/cc)
(g-mol/cc)
(g-mol/cc)
(g-mol/cc)
(g-mol/cc)
(cm2/sec)
(em)
Db
(cm2/sec)
(cm2/sec)
DB
(cm)
Dp
(cm)
DS
(cm2/sec)
DT
(em)
(cm)
(cm2/sec)
(--)
Fd
(i/sec)
(i/sec)
(1/see)
Cbn
C
en
Ez
F
on
f
f
(i/sec)
(i/see)
gravitational acceleration
(em/sec 2)
A-34
distance from the distributor
(cm)
Ah
(cm)
(cm)
(--)
(I/see)
bed height
(cm)
Lmf
(cm)
Lcal
(cm)
Lob
(cm)
(i/see)
(--)
(--)
(llcm 2)
radius of cloud
(cm.)
radius of bubble
(cm)
(gmole/sec .cc)
rb
(gmole/sec. cc)
(gmole/sec .cc)
(cm 2)
tire
(sec)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
(cc)
(cc)
Ven
(cc)
K'
N
NRep
n
o
RC
ub
|
ub
umf
u
e
uT
Vbn
cn
~35
X
P
Emf
Pp
(--)
-(--)
void fraction
(--)
(--)
(--)
kinematic viscosity
(--)
particle density
Ccm2/sec)
Literature
i.
2.
3.
Cooke, M. J., Harris, W., Highley, J., and Williams, D. F., paper to be
presented at Tripartite, Montreal, Canada, September, 1968.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Echigoya, E., Iwasaki, M., Kanetomo, T. and Niyama, H., Chem. Eng. Japan,
32, 571 (1968).
8.
9.
Gilliland,
i0.
ii.
Harrison, D., Davidson, J. F. and Kock, J. W., Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs.,
Hiraki, I., Yoshida, K. and Kunii, D., Chem. Eng. Japan, 29, ii, 846 (1965).
13.
14.
15.
Kato, K., Imafuku, K. and Kubota, H., Chem. Eng. Japan, 31, i0, 967 (1967).
16.
17.
Kobayashi, El. and Arai, F., Chem. Eng. Japan, 29, 885 (1965).
18.
Kobayashi, H., Arai, F. and Shiba, T., Chem. Eng. Japan, 29. 858 (1965).
19.
Kobayashi, H., Arai, F. and Sunagawa, T., Chem. Eng. Japan, 31, 239 (1967).
20.
Kobayashi, H., Arai, F., Isawa, S., Sunaga~a, T. and Miya, K.,
Chem. Eng. Japan, 30, 656 (1966).
21.
Kobayashi, If., Arai, F., Tanaka, T., Sakaguchi, Y., Sagawa, N., Sunagawa, T.,
Shiba, T. and Takahashi, K., "The 6th Reaction Engineering Symposium
(Japan)", 13 (1966).
(1967).
A-37
22.
Kunil, D. and Levenspiel, 0., Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund., ~, 3, 446 (1968).
23.
24.
Latham, R., Hamilton, C. and Potter, O. E., Brit. Chem. Eng., 13, 666 (1968).
25.
Leva, M., Weintraub, M., Grummer, M., Pollchik, M. and Storch, H. H.,
Bulletin 504, Bureau of Mines (1949).
26.
27.
28.
MamurO, T. and Muchi, I., J.of Ind. Chem.(Japan), 68, 126 (1965).
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Muchi, I., Mamuro, T. and Sasaki, K., Chem.Eng.Japan, 25, 747 (1961).
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Toei, R., Matsuno, R., Kojima, H., Nagai, Y. and Nakagawa, K., Chem.
Eng. Japan, 29, 851 (1965).
40.
Toei, R., Matsuno, R., Miyakawa, H., Nishiya, K. and Komagawa, Y.,
Chem.Eng. J~pan, 32, 565 (1968).
41.
42.
43.
44.
A-38
445 (1958)
A-39
2.
2.1
Introduction
pirical equation for both fixed beds and fluidized beds for Reynold's hUmber above lO0:
(Nsh) ~ = 2.0+0.75 (NRepl/2 , (Nscl/3
(1)
McConnachie and Thodos(18) also presented a correlation based on mass transfer data in fixed bed of many investigators as follows:
Jd = I'!27
(tlRep)0-'-41 - 1.52
where
rlRep
(2)
dUp
u~I- c)
Neither equation (1) nor equation (2) represents satisfactcrily for solidgas mass transfer in fixed beds at low Reynold's number. As sho~.In in Fiq. A-11
4 1.......
'
'
'
'
'
'"'i"i
'
i0 ~
8
6
4
"
~I)
Z~IO
I
ISIS /
tSIS
8
6
4
2
/
/
I0
# i
-I
I
tO "1
o
I0
I0
I0
t~ >
I
0
NR ep
Figure A-IO Previous Investigations on Mass Transfer in Fixed Bed
A-41
d,(cm)
Autho=
I. Hob~on and Thodos
2. Bar llan and Resnick
2-A
2-B
2-C
0.8~-0.4
0.048
0.037
3-A
3-B
3-C
0.96,'-,0.4
0.28
0.203
4-A
4-B
4-C
0.099
0.07
0.0497
3. Hurt
'
'
'
'1
4
J
10 I
Eq. (, N S c = ~ ' )
Ronz .. Morshotl
..C
u~
f~
0
I0
6
4
~J
"1
I0
I 0 "1
, I
8 I0 o
r
-"
I
2
I
6
,I
8 i0 I
I
2
| J.
8 I0 z
!
4
i,
6
!
8 i0 s
I
Rep
A-43
d,(cm)
Author
(a)Chu et al
I-A
I-B
I-C
I-D
I-E
0,0762
0.0736
0.195
0.546
0.874
3-A
3-B
0.09"~0.195
O. 296
4-A
4-B
4-C
0.0986
0.070
0.0495
(e)Kettenring et al
(f)Richardson and Szekey
A-44
w~en Reynold's number is less than I0, the mass transfer coefficient in
solid-gas fixed beds becomes considerably smaller then the theoretical
coefficient for a single particle in a stagnant gas medium (.~Xsh = 2,0),
In addition i t is also evident that for low Reynold's number, Sherwood's
number for the solid-gas systems is considerably lower than that of the
s o l i d - l i q u i d systems,
mass transfer
sho,~ ho,v mass transfer coeficient for fluidized beds can be predicted
from the "Bubble Assemblage I1odel" previously proposed (14)
The calcul
ated coefficients are then compared with the experimental values reported
by various investigators,
2.2
for
metering the
flow rate and passes through a constant temperature bath (H) in which i t is
heated to29,5C before being introduced to the fixed bed, (1).
Naphtha-
lene is sublimed in the fixed bed and is carried into converter (J) where
i t is completely burned to CO2 and H20. The gas chromotgraph (K) is used for
ii
!I
A.
Compressor
E.
Pressure gauge
J.
Naphthalene convertor
B.
Pressure regulator
F.
Valve
K.
Gas chromatograph
C.
Dehydration tower
H.
D.
Decarbonate tower
I.
Packed Bed
GI, G 2 Rotamete=s
,>
Figure A-12"
4~
Ln
A-46
exit point of the constant temperature tath (H) and the entrance point of
the converter (J), the tube is heated to 50C. Since in this experiment
relatively small particles are used, the specific surface area of particles
is quite large indicating considerably large mass transfer rate.
This im-
plies that the amount of naphthalene particles in the fixed bed can not
be too great and that the length of time of experiment can not be too long
so that no substantial change in particle diameter may take place.
(Re-
(c)
ting a considerably lo,.ver peak than that of CO2 which occupies lO times the
volume of naphthalene.
The gas chromatograph column is packed ~vith 35-42 mesh activated
carbon and is kept at 55C,v~hile the carrier gas used is hydrooen.
The fixed bed used for experimentation is sho'.sn in Fig. ~-t3
It
is
cylinder ;vith 2.5 cm I,D. and 4 cm tall packed f i r s t ~vith inert particles
(acryl beads or glass beads) having the same narticle size ( 0 . 5 ~ - I . 0 cm)
as that of naphthalene particles.
Additional
A-47
Io
Gas inlet
2.
Thermocouple
3.
Pressure Jap
i
4.
Inert Particles
5.
6.
Sample particles
7.
Gas distributor
8.
Gas outlet
iiii
--
----t--. I
~--
J
5
Figure A-13
Packed Bed
A-48
The top
and the bottom of the bed are supported by I00~200 me;h wire gauze. The
inert particles placed above and below the naphthalene particles are to reduce the end effects as well as to smooth out the radial velocity profile of
the gas in the bed. The temperature of the bed is maintained at 29.6C by
means of a constant temperature bath.
to boiling.
water,
As these
droplets slowly sink to the bottom of the vessel because of the small density
d i f f e r e n c e , they become spherical naphthalene p a r t i c l e s ,
These small
particles are then dried and screened. Examination under mlcroscope shows that
particles thus obtained are almost perfedt spheres.
The molecular d i f f i s i v i t y of naphthalene in a i r at 29.6C and l arm
is O.OGl9 cm2/sec (24) amdthe corresponding Schmidt number is calculated to
be 2,57,
2.3
(3)
L
kf : - u
In Cs
aL
Cs- C As
In Cs
Cs- C
(4)
A-49
a :
Where
6(I -~ )_
d
and
6W
As = dp'-P
Thus the mass transfer data for solid-gas fixed bed obtained in
this experiment and those of the previous investigators are plotted in Fig. A-16
in terms of.Nsh/(ilsc)~ and NRep(id)_ 0.6.
for 0.I
(5)
A-50
10z
d ,(cm)
d IL,(_-);od ,(cm)
f 1.61
S 0.905
(D0.431 ~, 0 477
d /L,(-)
m 0.0641 ~0.834
0
~)
o.
181
e@
o
i0 ~
&
~1.63
'~ 0.04540.693
" 0 4~A
1.32
Nsh
.~.
0.107 /0.902
4
0.629
ko44
~Olp
~ ~ ~@
#o#
~ [IQ
_.
~"
, ~,
,oo
d /L, (-)
e
4
~ ~ e
0.0269
0.0161
410-!
l!
10. I
'
2
,
4
,
6
, l
8
10o
l.7
0.945
0.733
0.321
0.642
[ 1.24
~ 0.49
, I
!01
NRep
IC
A-51
....
'"
Z~
i0 ~
8
6
4
%h
2
I0 o
/.yy o o ~t
8
6
4
lO-'io:,
4.
..... I
I0
....
a/L
F i g u r e A-15
Relation
Between
,1
4.
I02
' I
"'I
Authors.
dp-0.431
6
4
0.181
0.636"-'1.59
0.107
0.94 ~-"3.14
0.0641
0.589~1.61
0.0454
0.416~3.18
O.0269
0.321~1.70
0.0161
0.49~
8 -6
I0 I
Barllan- Resnick
A
0.82
d -i,585(cm),
d/L =0.202~'I.0
P
Hobson -Thodos (i0)
0.94 ,
0.21~0.44
@
Satterfield ~Resnick (25)
0.508 ,0.22~,0.26
m
1.2~
x~x V
(3)
O. 33 ~-" 0.99
O'
4
u
p-~
Z
0.41
O. 63 --~ 0.94
0.048
O. 28 " ~ 0.45
0.037
Wllklns-Thodos (29)
m dp-O.26~0.308,
d/L-0.08,.-0.12
Wilke-Hougen(28 )
0.38,,,2.17,
0.35~0.46
Resuick -White
O. 25--I 0.37
(21)
~7
0.0986
0.0776
0.070
0.0551
0.0495
0.039
~ ~,~,-~
9
I0
Xurt(12)
0.965
0.55
0.38
0.22
0.406
0.162
0.279
0.III
0.202
0.i00
4.
@
)0
Mc~onnalchle-Thodos
I
4
,I
8 I0
NRe p
(18)
I
d/
.6
Oi
11"5~5 J
I0 2
I
2
O. 225~-I. 12
,!
I
4
6
2
Ln
ro
Figure A-16
10 3
A-53
r(shl ( lsj/3
(6)
In this section,
(a)
by the fixed bed solid-gas mass transfer coefficient at the gas velocity
equivalent to Ub, the bubble velocity,
(b)
Consequently,
A-54
velocity is nearly the same as velocity of gas in the emulsion phase, the two
phase~ concept no longer applies,
and Ub : 0,711 g ~ b
0,708 p d (U/U )g
P
mf
(d)
interchange between the bubble phase and the emulsion phase can be regarded to
be extremely fast
bubbles occupy roughly f i f t y per cent of the bed volume. (The loosely arranged
sphere~an occupy approximately 50% of the bed volume).
The concentration of gaseous component participating mass transfer
as the exit of the f i r s t compartment C(l ) can be represented by
C(1)lCs
I- exp(-
kf a Ah1
U
(8)
Where kf can be calculated based on equations (5) and (6) in which ;IRep is
evaluated at the superficial gas velocity U, and a = 6 ( I ~ ) . / d.
The
A-55
(9)
6S ( L - Lmf)
(I0)
(. . . . .
TI(4hn) 3
) -
Ub - Umf/C.mf
(Ii
(12)
6
( 13)
The material balance for the component participating mass transfer in the
bubble phase can be written as
S (U - Ue) Cbn = S (U - Umf) (Cb)n_l + Fon
~ Vbn (Cen " Cbn)
(14)
A-56
-Fon
)
Fon
(15)
the bubble phase and the emulsion phaseand can be estimated by the followinq
equation proposed by Kobayashi et al (16)
Ub " Umf/Cmf
and F =F
on on Ub + 2Umf/Cmf
Fon: ll/Dbn
Ue :
(L-
Umf [ l - . . n f ~
Lmf)
L
Db
~ iL,
Lm. ~
fl
equations (14) and (15) are the mass transfer coefficients in the bubble
phase and the emulsion phase respectively and can be obtained from equation
(6) by substitutinn Ubn and Umf for the Reynolds number term, respectively.
~m~iS the specific surface area of particles corresponding to the gas velocity
6(I - ~.mf)
at Umf or ~m~= ~ d . The boundary condition is
(16)
Consequently the overall mass transfer coefficient for the entire bed is
Eoveral I -
U
amf Lmf
In
I
I- ~i/Cs
(17)
A-57
(9) and the volumes of tile cloud, the bubble phase, and the emulsion phase
for the n-th compartment are calculated by equations ( I I ) , (12) and (13)
respectively,
reaches Lmf, For bed height above Lmf , as indicated in the previous pape~14)
Vcn, Vbn, and Ven are calculated for the corresponding bed voidages,
Equations (14) and (15) are then used to calculate the concentration at exit
of the each compartment based on the entrance concentration of that compartment.
Table
~-6.
(15) can not be considered to have been obtained from the bed where height
A-58
Table
A-6
". START
YES ~
I Ah~ : L~hl
ah] = t
Calc. C?~)
from eq. 8
from eq, 8
"!]
From (
:L
C_)n ,I
lI hn : LflJ
YES
NO
I~.tc.: cc~)
YLb
Calc, C(1)
NO
,,o
hi< L ~ f r o m e q .
~,/~h,< L ~ ~
ah
/~
I,eq,Ca'18. ov.r
-I
STOP
ErlD
,'j
''i
' i"
'"'
4-
'_ oc;Oooo
ii
0 0 ".~'_0C::;-~ '-,__
~"
Kf
Chu- Kallt-William ( 6 )
Bradshow-Myers
Riccetti-Thodos
(22)
9'~'
0
..~,~
~ o0 ~
z~ 0
~(~,~)
6-
~4=~
,~
2-
~, ~~D~s
DDD
Resnfck-Whlte
(21)
,o0_
~~"~
86 -
w, m l
&
g
-p
4-
2,,d'
~A
~,
4-xlO"j 6
,I
8 LO
,I
8 IOi
,,,,
(II)
Hsu-Molstad
Wilklns- Thodos ( 2 9 )
,,
4.
,I
6 8 !0=
,,,
I
4
I
6
I
8 [0s
U1
~O
First Compartment
-O
Bradshaw - Myers
-~
q)
Kettenring
"O
RiccettJ-
Both
Bubble and Emulsion Phase
- 1/3 =0.72
Nsh/NSc
(d/L)0'6) 0"95 i
NRep(d/L) 0"6 ~ 5
(NRe p
1/3
Nsh/Nsc
=1.25
(NRep(d/L)0"6) 0"63 ;
NRe p(d/L)0"6~ 5
Plug Flow
2
(NS~ca
'~o o ~ v
,0o
8
;~ ,~ ~
_.% ~ v v
o ~o ~J
m
"
6
4
A
m
2
101
8 10 z
I,
10 5
NRep
Figure
A-18
A-61
data report~, (15) an effective bed height of 3.8 cm is used for the calculation.)
Zn Fig. A-18 particle-gas mass transfer coefficients in fluidized beds calculated
based on the "Bubble Assemblage" model are co~pared :'lith the experimental
values indicating satisfactory agreement,
2.5
Discussion
i.
rate, the mass transfer coefficient, kf, becomes smaller as the bed height
becomes higher,
According
to the boundary layer theor,y (26), the thickness of fluid film is proportional
to so~e power of R~;/nolds number ana that the ratio of the mass boundary layer
thickness to the momentum boundary layer thickness, a ~I~ , is inversely
proportional to some po~ver of Schmidt number. Consequentlywith solid-gas
systems for very low Reynolds number region the Schmidt number is also rather
small (under normal operating conditions ,~Isc is less than 5), causing overlapping of the boundary layers and reducing, the effective mass transfer surface
area as shoran in Fig~-19. As the result, the surface area of the particles
used to define mass transfer coefficient
equations (5) and (6) more clearly as the effect of (d/L)" At low Reynolds number
the Sher:tood number is seen to be proportional to 0.57 po~Jervlhile at higher
Reynolds number, i t is proportional to 0.378 power,
A-62
['
.1~7'
:c
II
Gas-Solid System
Figure
I,;
).,~ ~,c
1II
If
I'l
Liquid-Solid System
A-19~
Figure
A-19b
I,
A-63
On tile other hand, for liquid-solid systems, because the Schmidt
numbers are usually very much larger than that of gas-solid systems, the
mass boundary layer thickness is very thin even ~vhen the momentum boundary
layermay be considerably thick.
without
(18)
[P fU
~z
NRe = -----f
where
6 :
(19)
Since the ratio of the mass boundary layer thickness and the momentumboundary layer thickness is given bv
- I/(,sc)
(2o1
A-64
Table
~-7
,U
m ~,n
Li uid (rl
rl/d sc=150)
6/d
'~Rep
O,l
15.8
I
/SC
rl/d
1.36
12.0
0,44
3,8
Lle
lO
w
] .5S
0.137
1.2
0.5
O.04q
0.38
ii
100
- - -
ig
A-65
the She~.~ood number can be related to I/3 power of Schmidt number, even for
the gas-solid system for which the Schmidt number range is rather low
3.o).
(Nsc :
Equations (5) and (6) can be applied to those mass transfer operation
such as drying, adsorption, sublimation, etc. for which the exit concentration can be calculated.
volving mass transfer, equations (5) and (6) must be applied with great
caution.
equation (5) and (G), the mass transfer coefficient calculated can often
become extremely small.
the Shenvood number is due to the effective surface area for mass transferas the bed approaches the saturation concentration, the bed height can
notbe directly used as L in equations (5) and (6).
ii
A-66
thebubbles are small and the gas flow patterns are s i m i l a r to those in
fixed beds,
Therefore,
the analysis based on the data obtained from a shallow f l u i d i z e d bed can
not be used to assess the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the "Bubble Assemblage" model,
I t is nevertheless interesting to observe that the "Bubble AsseF.iblage"
model has the f l e x i b i l i t y
Since
the experime~al data and correlations obtained by these previous investigators on mass transfer bet',:een gas and p a r t i c l e s are not only r e s t r i c t e d
to shallow beds but also contain i n h e r i t i n g problems such as the d i s t r i butordesign and contacting e f f i c i e n c y , and the small diameter cloumn e t c , ,
i t is dangerous to d i r e c t l y applyWfor~he design of a large commercial
unit for which large bubbles above the d i s t r i b u t o r are possible, and a
deep bed operation are often employed,
A-67
at lo:l Reynolds numbers from fixed bed has already been demonstrated), In
addition an average bubble diameter must be assumed which may introduce
subjectiveness in the use of the bubbling bed model,
1.0
Emulsion Phase
Plug Flow
.~.~_~;-"
Bubble Phase
i~'~-
..
l,,,p
- --
~ o
-uT~-
9':6
0.5
0.I K
0.5
IO
h/Lrn f
Figure A-20 Relation Between the Concentration
Profile and the Bed Height
,>
oo
A-69
2.6
Conclusion
mass transfer are obtained and are given by equations (5) and (6).
The
A-70
Notation
a
Cbn
Cen
CN
c[i )
..
Dbn
DR
[) v
[.q mole/cc]
particle diameter
[cm]
bubble diameter
[cm]
[cm]
[cm]
[cm2/sec ]
Fon
g
[g mle/cc]
..
gravitational acceleration
[ Cm/sec2]
ahn
Jd
k
f
kfm f
[c~]
[-]
[Cm/se,]
[ Cm/sec]
k-71
kfn
"k
,=
overal~
:
bed height
[cm]
Lf
Lmf
[ cm]
[cm]
NRep
= dPfU
[cm]
[.]
NRi
NRep
Nsh
IISc
= Shenvood tlumber
[ -- ]
Schmidt Number
[--
superficial
Ub
bubble r i s i n g velocity
Db
average
gas v e l o c i t y
d p=U
'..._I...__
[-I
[Cm/sec]
[ Cm/sec]
[ Cm/sec]
superficial
gas v e l o c i t y at minimum f l u i d i z a t i o n
superficial
Vbn
Vcn
Ven
Umf
[Cm/secI
[Cm/sec]
[ col
[cc ]
[9 ]
[cm]
[-]
A-72
Yb
[cm 1
6M
[cm ]
pp
p a r t i c l e density
[ g/cm 3 ]
of
f l u i d density
[ g/cm 3 ]
uf
f l u i d viscosity
void f r a c t i o n
void f r a c t i o n at Umf
[-]
Cmf =
[-]
A-73
Literature
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
I0.
ii.
Hsu, C. T. and Molstad, M. C., Ind. Eng. Chem. 47, No. 8, 1550 (1955).
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Kobayashi, H., Arai, F. and Sunagawa, T., Chem.Eng.Japan 31, 239 (1967).
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Richardson, J ~ , .
24.
Sara, K., BUSEITEISU SUISAN HO, Maruzen Book Company, Tokyo, Japan (1955).
25.
Satterfield, C. N. and Resnick, H., Chem. Eng.Progr. 50, No. i0, 505 (1954).
A-74
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Wen, C.Y.,l!iller, E. and Fan, L.T. 140 ACS Neeting, Chicago, Illinois,
Sept. 3-8, 1961.
A-75
3.
3.1
Introduction
Heat transfer between particles and gas in fixed beds and in fluidIzed beds is an important problem associated with many gas-solids operations such as coal ~asification processes, heating and cooling of solid
particles, catalytic reations etc. Many experimental investigations have
been conducted to evaluate heat transfer coefficient in fixed beds~ some
used heat generating particles as packings~ some employed evaporation
of material from porous particles and others used the technique of dynamic response of thermal conductivities to measure the heat transfer coefficieat. The data thus obtained are usually correlated in terms of
JH factor or Nusselt number and Reynolds number plot. Although a few
correlations have been proposed, agreement is far from satisfactorly
when the particle Reynolds number is very small.
bersj the heat transfer coefficient becomes considerably lower than the
value calculated from single particle heat transfer in stagnant fluid
(NNu = 2.0).
Nsh/(Nsc)~ = 0.72
~Rep.
(d/L)0"6I
0.95
(i)
A-76
~or O.I<_NRe
p (d/L)0"6=<5.O
~h/(N~)~ l'25ERep (~/L)O'~'6'
=
(e)
data.
3.2 Gas-Particle Heat Transfer in Fixed Beds
Experimental investigations of heat transfer between gas and particles
in fixed beds are summarized in Table C-8.
Based on an analo~j between heat and mass transfer in fixed bed
operations, the experimental data for heat transfer are correlated in
terms of NNu/(Npr)~ and NRep(d/L) O'6 as shown in Fig.A-21
Empirial equat-
l.I
NNu = 0"72 (Npr)~ERep (d/L)0"6~
for O.OI<_NRe p (d/L)0"6
(,)
<-5
(4)
,d
I0'
,
,o"
NNu
,llt,'
inpr)~
,6'
,,
Littmea- Barlle-Putsffer
Gleser- Thodos
gaumeister-Bennett
Eichhom-White
,~"
~ Sotterfield
/y
/
Resnlck
.,...+-
o ~oco..oo,,.-,~o,o.
g ~ ~
9 Acetis-Thodos
,e'
i6'
=_
I
-2
,o
,
-I
,o
,o
I
0
I
I
,o
,g
,o'
A-78
3.3 Application of the "Bubble Assemblage" Model for Heat Transfer Between
Gas and Particles &n Fluidized Beds
The "Bubble Assemblage" model has been proposed to represent flows
in fluidized beds for catalytic reactions (8) and for mass transfer operations (9). Here this model is applied to particle-gas heat transfer in
fluldized beds for prediction of heat transfer coefficients which are
then compared with the experimental data.
Since the detail of the "Bubble Assemblage" model has been presented,
(8)
ii.
velocity.
iii.
Since the rate of heat transfer between the gas and the particles
is usually much faster than the rate of catalytic chemical reactionsj
in order to maintain a substantial temperature difference between
the gas and the particle, a shallow bed of only a few cm.
employed in the experimentation.
is usually
paper (9), the first compartment for the "Bubble Assemblage" model
must be determined with caution.
- Umfl
: o. 1 Um_+'l mf
Based on the following relations for the bubble velocity and bubble
diameter,
Table
A-8
Authors
Particle
Particle
Material
Diameter ~"
Fluid
Material
d/L(-)
Range of Reynolds
Number
(d u)
Experimental
Method
~f
Satterfield (16)
-Resnik
air
0.708
Catalyst
o. 508
).216
-,-
2 2 ~ 150
Evaporation of H20 ~
from the particle
).267
Wilke (19)
-Hougen
air
0.705
Cellt
Pellets
o. 385
2.17
3.55 ~).46
4 5 ~ 200
McConnachie (14)
-Thodos
air
0.75
Silica
Sphere
i. 585
).225~
55~-io5o
Actlc (1)
-Thodes
air
0.708
Celit
Sphere
1.585
0.20~
1.00
16~-iooo
Littman (13)
Barile
Pulsifer
air
0.708
Copper3
Glas~,
Lead
0.0503
0.012~
2~100
o. 203
O. 102
Dynamic thermal
conductivitles of
the fixed bed
Table
A-8
Fluid
Material
Authors
Npr(')
Particle
Material
Particle
Diameter
~ d/L(-)
Range of Reynolds
Number
Experimental
Method
uf
air
H2
CO 2
Glaser (5)
-Thodos
Baumeister
-Bennett
Eichhorn (h)
-Whit e
2OO 45000
Heating the
particle by a
high-frequency
induction coll
0.0278 ~
0.008',-
2"~19
0.o658
0.02
Dielectric
heating of
particles
O.024~O.102
o. oo14[
o.o2,--o.9
O. 156
Steels
O. 395 ~0.95
Dowe
air
CO 2
0.71
air
0.71
0.665
o.o589o. 0927
0.794
O.71
air
Heating the
particles by
passing the
electric current through the
particles
O. 094
Brass,
(2)
44-1600
O. 476 -~,
0.71
o.716
0.665
Steel
X-50
K ii (11)
-Smith
Sand,
Glass
Beads
~O.O133'.
I
O
A-81
DB = 1.4 ~ p d
Ub = 0 . 7 1 <
(5)
0.707 g Pp d U/Umf
iv. Since in the first compartment 3 the sizes of bubbles are small
and the interchange of gas between the bubble phase and the
emulsion phase is believed to be great, the flow pattern can be
approximated by a plug flow.
v. The maximum bed expansion is assumed to be attained when bubble
volume reaches 50~i0of the bed volume.
vi. Due to the vigorous movement of the particle in the bed, the temperature of the particles in the bed is assumed to be uniform.
vii. The interchange of particles between the two phases is so rapid
that the temperature of particles in the bubble phase can be
assumed to be the same as that in the emulsion phase.
Under the above assumptions, let us compute the heat transfer coefficients based on this model. Although there are a number of ways by
which the heat transfer coefficients may be evaluated, here we consider
the steady state heating of the particles by the gas.
The temperature of the gas at the exit of the first compartment is
where
i- hf.u
Cpf
~A~-hl'-~0fJ
(6)
A = 6(i - c)/d
~-82
The temperature T(I ) is then taken as that of the gas in the bubble phase
and the emulsion phase entering the second compartment.
m-th compartment, of the cloud of the bubble and of the emulsion phase are
calculated as indicated in the previous paper (8). Also, the gas interchange coefficient between the two phases is estimated as shown in the previous paper (8) .
The heat balance of the gas in the bubble phase across the n-th comImmtment can be obtained from,
S (U - U e) Cpf
(s)
hbn and hen in equations (7) and (8) are obtained from equations (3) and
(4) by substituting Ubn and Umf into the velocity term in NRep, respecttively.
Also Amf is the specific surface area of the particle at the gas
velocity Umf or Amf = 6 (l-mf) . Consequently, Tbn and Ten can be calculd
ated from Tb(n_l) , Te(n_l) from equations (7) and (8) respectively.
following boundary conditions is used:
The
A-83
The overall heat transfer coefficient for the entire bed becomes,
ucpf pf
(hf)ver
in
Amf Lmf
Ts'T
(9)
Ts " Tn
diameter, d, particle density Op gas properties, Cpf, ~f, ~f kg, the minimum fluidizationve~ocity
gas temperature, To, and the particle temperature, the following quar~ties can
be calculated; the bed expansion, L, as sho~na in the previous paper(8),the
exit gas temperature from the first compartment from equation (6), Tb(n_l),
Te(n.l) , Tbn and Ten
and (8). The overall heat transfer coefficient can be calculated finally
from equation (9)A complete logic diagram describing the computational procedure, in
determining heat transfer coefficients in a fluidized bed is presented in
Table A-9.
In Fi& A-22
heat transfer in fluidized beds are plotted in terms Of NNuf(Npr)~ and NRep.
As is seen from the figure, the data of Wam~ley and Johanson (18) are about
an order of magnitude smaller than the most of other investigators.
Among
A-84
io'
,o'
o
OSo
,o"
NN.
&
00
o~
Np# ,6'
HeertJes- McKIbblns
Richardson -Ayers
Womsley -Johonson
&
A
,6'
~o0
0
@ Kettenring- Manderfield-Smith
O
9
,(;'
Brodshdw- Myers
,o'
,o'
,o'
,o'
Npep
Figure A-22
A-85
Wamsley and Johanson will be eliminated from consideration for the time
The
et.al!lO)
s"" and Herrtjes
estimated values and the experimental data is generally good except those
of Javeland et. al (7) .
A-86
io'
Jo'
I,
8 O
8.;1
,,
,o'
N.
o~
,6'
0
oo
0
e~
~
A
~
0
H e e r t j e s - McKibbins
O R i c h a r d s o n - Ayere
0
A
A
A
Walton - G l e a n - Levenspiel
K e t t e n r i n g - Monder/ield - Smith
9 Bradshaw -- Myers
115'
I
16 2
t
I0'
I
I0
NRep(d/~f) 0"6
Figure A-23
Gas-Particle
Heat T r a n s f e r In
Correlated with d / L f
F l u i d l z e d Bed
[
I0'
,o'
ii
HeertJes- McKibbins
Richardson - Ayers
iii
z~ Juveland - D e i n k e n - Dougherty
& Walton - Olson - Levensplel
I0
( h f)cal
Kettenring - Monderfield - S m i t h
B r a d s h o w - Myers
"#o~
o
o
o
0 O0 0
0.6
,,
0
~ ~ 9 ~
~ooo
Bo o -
=~_~
, o
v ~
_.
.~_~# ~,,
~o A
~-~
~oc ~
0.4
0.2
I I
II
, I
-I
I0
I0
10 2
I0'
jo=
~Rep
Figure
A-24
Table A-9
A-88
G .TRead
d~ U.
P f~ ~ f, kg
UmfsT13Ts,Lmf
L~hI = ~hI
Calc. T(I) from
,~. (6)
NO
&hI : Lf
I
Calc ~ from~
Eq. i6 (1)
I
Lf ~ hn
<Lmf
AhI = Lf
= T(1 )
YES
hn = Lf
I
NO ~
..... |
Ah =L
Ca}c. T..from
eq. (6) ~)-
~ : T(~)
:I
NO
11
A-89
3.4 Discussion
The Nusselt number for heat transfer between gas and particles in
fixed bed has been shown as in equations (3) and (4) to depend not only
on the particle Reynolds number and the Prandtl number but also on the
r&tio of the particle diameter to the bed height, d/L. Assuming an
analogy between heat and mass transfer in fixed bed operations to hold 3
as discussed in the previous paper on gas-solid mass transfer in fixed
beds (9) S the individual thermal boundary layer for heat transfer does
not exist particularly for low Reynolds number and small Prandtl number
regions.
6(1
the Nusselt number thus becomes considerably smaller than the theoretical
value of 2 for a single particle in a stagnant gas when Reynolds number
becomes very small.
The serious problem associated with the experiment in obtaining heat
transfer coefficients between gas and particles in a fluidized bed is the
accuracy of temperature measurement.
bed axis probably neither indicates the gas t~mperature nor the solid particle temperature.
The location of
thermocouples near the distributor and close to the flange causes the heat
loss which is difficult to accurately estimate.
reasons which make the disagreement of the experimental data among the investigators.
A-90
Thus, to avoid
(Lf = 0.57 ~0.83cm), those of Juveland (Lf = 0.35 - 1.3cm), and those of
Richardson and Ayers (Lf = 0.18 -0.22cm) are all smaller than Ah 1.
This
Ek-en for other cases in which the effective bed height, Lfj
is larger than Ahl, the first compartment occupied a large fraction of the
total bed height.
In other words~ most of the experimental data previously reported
are limitted to the special type of operations in which the bubbles are
rather small and distinct clouds associating with the bubbles either do
not exist or exist only near the top of the bed.
around the bubble will isolate the bubble phase from the emulsion phase, a
sharp temperature difference could exist between the two phases.
For an
exothermic reaction~ this could cause high solid particle temperature and
the high gas temperature in the emulsion phase, but relatively low temperature of the gas in the bubble rising through the bed.
A-91
In additionj
A-92
Notation
A
A~
Cpf
(c,,i/g.c)
DB
bubble diameter
(c,.)
bed diameter
(era)
particle diameter
(cm)
gravitational acceleration
bbn
on
partment
(i/see)
(em/sec 2
(cm)
(cal/cm2 seec)
hen
hf
(hf)over=
~/cm)
(eal/cm2 secc
( e'~l/cm2
sec c
(?al/cm2 secc
dh I
bed height
(cm]
( cal/cm secC
(era)
(cm)
A-93
Notation (Cont.)
bed
NNu
Nusselt Number
Np r
Prandtl Number
(hf
d/~)
(-)
(-)
NEe p =
Reynolds Number
(d U Pf)
NSc
Schmidt Number
(~f____)
(cm)
(-)
fDv
(-)
Corn~)
Tbh
(c)
Ten
(~}
Tn
(c)
TB
(c}
T(.,,) =
(~3
To
(o)
(Om/seo}
(m/~ec)
(m/seo}
Vbn
(cc)
Vcn
(co)
Ven
(cc)
Pf
IJf
fluid density
(g/cm3}
fluid viscosity
(g/cm sac)
void fraction
(-)
Cmf
(-)
A-94
Literature
i.
.
3.
No
63
(1952)
(1958)
7.
8.
9.
to be published
iO.
Ii.
12.
1 29 (1%1)
13.
14.
15.
(1963)
314
(1959)
(1954)
17.
18.
(195 )
No 4
481 (i 8)
A-95
Literature (Cont.)
Zg.
20.
4_!i ~45
(1945)
Vol. 62, p ii
(1966)
A-96
4.
4.1
Introduction
Since the fluidized bed has been commercially applied to the gasification
of coal~ this technique has been used for a number of other chemical processes.
However, owing to the complex gas and solid flow patterns within the fluidized
beds I design procedure has not been well established.
Researches
proposed the bubbling bed model in order to analyze the various phenomena
within the bed based on one parameter-the effective size of bubbles.
Although
this model is very useful for elucidating the performance of a fluidized bed
reactor, one difficult problem still remains, i.e. the problem of how to predlct the effective bubble diameter, since the bubble vary in its size during
the rise through the bed.
Kato and Wen (3) proposed the bubble assemblage model for the catalytic
reactions and showed the possibilities of removing this difficulties by
taking into account the bubble growth and coalescence.
With a continuous feed of solids into a fluidized reactor, the outgoing
stream of solids consist of particles of different ages and degrees of
conversion.
The
A-97
not be realistic particularly when the aspect ratios and solids throughput are
high.
Based on the relation derived from the above two models 3 an attempt is
made to simulate the fluidized-bed reactors in which a non-catalytic gas-solid
reaction is taking place.
4.2
react with fluidizing gas while maintaining its original size because of the
formation of inert solid product.
sulphide ores and the reduction of iron ores are a few of the examples.
The
aA(gas)
S(solid) ~
(1)
The proposed calculation method assumes that solids follow the shrinking
core model and the overall conversion rate is controlled by chemical reaction
step(9); in the unreacted-core shrinking model the reaction is confirmed at
the surface of the core which recedes from the outer surface towards the interior
of the particle.
when diffusion through the product layer becomes rate controlling~ or when
other single particle reaction models are used~ the conversion versus time
expressions must be changed accordingly.
The reaction of a gaseous component by a first order irreversible
reaction can be given as
1
rcq
dNA"--
dt
dNs
--
dt
k c CA
(2)
A-98
where r c is the radius of ~ureacted core and k c is the rate constant for the
reaction.
When the reaction is carried out in the bulk phase reactant gas concentration,
CA, the extent of conversion, XS, of a particle having radius R is given by
= 1 - rc
= i - (i - Xs)
i/3
(3)
w
where time for complete conversion,R,
is
P
P ~P
a k c CA o
(4)
When the resistance of chemical reaction step and that of diffusion through
the ash layer are comparable, the rate constant, kc, is replaced by ~ defined
by
i
kc
(5)
iy__
Next, let us consider a reactor with a constant feed rate of both solids
and gas, the solids being of uniform size and complete mixing.
Since the
in the reactor the mean conversion Xs, of the exit stream of solids is given
by
1 - ~s
(1 - Xs) E(t) dt
(6)
t=0
~un_t_on
for a reactor of complete mixing is
where the exit age distribution ~
~ ~
E(t)
-t/~
A-99
i-
4.3
Xs
i-
3 (~) + 6
(~)2 _ 6(~'3~~]
(8)
[i - exp (-r~/~')]
of compartment in series.
equal to the size of each bubble at the corresponding bed height (3). Each
compartment is considered to consist of bubble phase and emulsion phase.
Gas flow:
the flow of gas through a fluidized bed has been proposed (31.
Since this
model is employed in this paper to describe the gas flow~ we first summarize
the essentials of this model.
The bubble phase is asswned to consist of spherical clouds.
of bubble and that of cloud are given
(I)
~,,
The diameter
oy
Ub r
where Ubr
(9)
0.711 (g.db)I/2.
In the vicinity of the distributor~ bubbles are small and rise slower than the
4%
gas percolating through the emulsion phase; i.e. "~br<Umf/emf~ in this zone
the gas shortcuts only through the rising bubble.
can be found
(2)
%t
(io)
The change of the bubble diameter along the bed height can be approximated (~)
by
% = 1.4~p ~{"/o__~ h + do
~mf/
(o.g.s. ~.it)
(ll)
where
d
[6 (u-umf)]-~
No
0.2
is given by
= u o -Umf
* [0.7n (g o) l/2]
(12)
(13)
From an arithmetic average of the bubble sizes, the height of i-th compartment
can be expressed as
i-i
m)
(2 ~
1.40p
(14)
(%lump)
Lmf
Lf
(i - Emf )
for h ~ L m f
(15a)
and
1-
c =
Lmf
Lf
(i
Emf )
2 Lf (Lf - Lmf )
for Lmf ~ h ~ L m f
* 2 (Lf -'Lmf )
(l~)
a-lOl
%
W
.J
vv~
~b~
~h~
h,~
Figure
$~-25
'~
.~aln
"
features
as v i s u a l i z e d
of solid m o v e m e n t
and ~as
flow
A-102
6S t
~i -
(Z~hi)2
amf
(16)
mf
The volume of bubbles, clouds and emulsion in the i-th compartment can
be computed~ respectively as
vbi
= ~'~"
voi
'~
n ~w
(~i) 3
(17)
(~h i) 3/
3_ _umflcmf
\ Ubr i
Vei
(18)
- Um.f/Cmf j
(19)
The overall interchange coefficient of the gas between the bubble and the
emulsion phase based on a unit volume of gas bubbles, may be approximated by
the following experimental relation
(5)
(%e)b = n / %
(2o)
7c
(21)
7e
A-103
Vc
where m =
(1 -c mr)
=I
(22)
(8)
results; such as those of Rowe and Partridge
As solids are carried upward as a part of wake of the rising bubbles from
the i-th compartment to the (i+l)-th compartment, this sets up a circulation
in the bed with downward movement of solids in the emulsion phase from the
(i+l)-th compartment to the i-th compartment.
which the solids are fed to the bottom of the bed at a constant volumetric
flow rate, W~ (cocurrent feed), as shown in Fig.A-25 Hence the solids move
upward at a net average flow rate W.
(23)
where
f ( hi)2"
The total downward flow rate W e from the (i+l)-th compartment to the i-th compartment
is given by
a Ubi-
(24~
For the case in which the solids are fed at the top of the bed and withdrawn
from the bottom (countercurrent feed), W must be replaced by -W in the above
equations.
Even for
phase is given
(ii)
by
A-IOA
(Kbe)bs
Figure
(1 - Era.f) Umf ub
(25)
4.4
~A
a Vs
where Kr
4 rckc/(~/6)%.
Kr
CA
(26)
dt
U Cgb(i_l)
- U Cgbi
(K)bi
Vbi Cgbi
(27a)
(27c)
Therefore
(~)bi
(Kb e)bi
+ Y ci K.
rl -
2
(Kbe) bi
(28)
(29)
(Kbe)bi + Y ei Kr;
and
C
(Kbe)bi
Cgbi
gei
(3o)
(27b)
!
U~=Uo-U~+ U~.-
Ub~
vz
6. = Uo-U,~+O211(gdv,.)
W~,, u,
.ahi.
.
: .... (""'z+rn)'
Hz~Wb~
L'
C.,,
\
(K~b~= 11/dk
= m+do- 1.4gdl,
+ do
u~'+2 u"f/e "'~:'/'/~ i,~.
65t
no. of b u b b l e s =-(ahO{
||
qo
,>
Figure
A-26
0
Ln
A-106
In the fluidized bed, solids react in the bubble phase with the gas of
concentration, Cgbi , and react in the emulsion phaseswith that of C
..
ge~
mixing is complete in each compartment is made~ the time average concentration of gas in the i-th compartment becomes
-Cgi
gi
Yci
ci + 7ei
+
Cgbi
Yei
ci + ei
(31)
Cgei
from eq. (31) is used to calculate the time required for complete
conversion of solid r e a c t a n t , ~ i n
each compartment.
( vbi + Vci
+ v el) ( i -
mf)/W
(32)
By using eqs. (4), (31) and (32) the mean conversion, Xs; of the exit stream
of solids in the i-th compartment is calculated from eq. (8).
Finally~ in each compartment a material balance for both the solids
and gas streams must be satisfied.
4.5
Calculation Procedure
First let us consider the case for cocurrent feed of solids.
The
A-107
Calculate the values of bed characteristics, Lf, Ah, Vb# Vc, Ve'
(Ebe)b' Yc' ~e' Wb and We, as ~ndicated in the previous section.
(b)
Select values of K r.
(d)
For each value of Kr, calculate CgeN by eq. ~0 ') and then C-gN by eq. (31).
(e)
Calculate r~and ~ by eq. (4) and eq. (32), respectively and obtain
XsN by eq.
(f)
(8).
From the overall material balance over the (N-l)-th compartment to the
first compartment~ as shown in Fig. A-27
(h)
Find the correct value of Kr by repeating the calculation until eq. (33)
is satisfied.
Cgb(N_l) J CsN and Cs(N_l) can be found based on the initially assumed value
of CgbN.
Calculation of the (N-l)-th compartment:
(i)
Select values of K r.
(j)
For each value of Kr repeat the same procedures as in steps (c) to (e) by
using the values of Cgb(N_l), CsN and Cs(N_l) obtained in step (h).
(k)
By making the overall material balance over the compartments from (N-2)-th
U, Csb,,
N
W.. C=~.
Wb~l-l.
Y.,sN Wb.-.
C~,s~t.L
We,
N" 2
Cs~_~
U,, C~o
W, C=o
U. C8o W.C.,o
(a)
Figure A-27
C~i
12~,
rt Wo~
U,C~b,, W,C~o
.....
U, C~,b. W, C~o
+. . . .
__~
U, Cp. W, Cso
~.
X,,
U, C8~,
1
I-
,. ,
W~
Cs~_~
Wb~
W,,., I
WeN
!
I
W~ Wb~
U c~!~
1
W~
u,C~o w,c~
(b) countercurrent feed of solid
Figure A-27
O
kO
A-II0
1a
(i)
U _(Cg O - C g(N-2) )
W C so We(Nol) Cs(N_I)
wb(N-2)
Cs(N-2)
The material balance for bobh gas and solid streams ~n the (N-l)-th compartment is
1
--
Cgb(N-2)
(N-2)
(~)
(34)
(n)
go
(n).
(p)
(q)
(r)
U Cgo Xgl
--
U Cgo
Cga Cg
- Cgl
o
(o)
If eq. (35) is satisfied, the value of CgbN assumed in step (b) is the
correct exit gas concentration and the corresponding value of CsN is
also the correct exit solid concentration.
then the value of CgbN in step (b) is cnarLged and calculations in all
steps repeated until the m a t e r i a l ~alan~e
~ of eq. (35) is satisfied.
(35)
A-Ill
and a computor
The computational
By
this method the desired condition can be found with a relative ease.
4.6
Since most of the experimental data were obtained using porous plates,
the bubble diameter d o just above the distributor is very difficult to estimate.
In the analyses of the catalytic reactions~ the effect of the height of the
first compartment on overall conversion has been examined (3) and the assumption
of ~h I
comparatively small.
is also employed.
In order to demonstrate the valid-+y cf the proposed method~ the experimental results of the roasting of zinc sulphide obtained by Yagi et al. (lO)
are analyzed.
in Table A-10(a). The results of calculation are then compared with the actual
experimental conversions.
In the book by Kmuii and Levensplel (6) an example was given to show the calculation method based on the bubbling bed model.
the example are listed in Table A-10(b). This example has been recalculated by
A-II2
._1
-I
_1
1
oL.N_~_..~at
N
eriot bet( _ . ~
Yes
[ Read Kr
..J
~._
I Rzad C~,.C.~,C~,
Calc K~ by eq.(28)
Yes
Typeout C~bN,C~. //
Cll~"" )
Figure A-28Logic diagram for computor simulation
Table ~-i0
d
P
Bed
temp. ~C
~XD
cm3/s
cm/s
mm
kc
~m
C~/S
2ZnS ~ - .
~'~
=u 2
*C
go
x l0 "6
g-mol/~m3
SO
g~mcl/cn3
2ZnO
Co~'ersion
of solid
Calculated Corccersion
So:Lid X s
gas Xg
""'
o. :::?.4
O. 998
0.30d
C.. ?3
0.887
O. iDO
C. 188
2.~0
O.-.oji ~
C o #:LO
O. 930
O. 402
Ool: I
2.38
0.o5a8
0 o1/74
o.%4
o.z 2
4.1
20
2.18
o.o35~
0.972
o. 985
o. 451
19.4
3.0
0.3
2.50
o.o~:73
o. 86,~
o.~~9
0.552
19.4
3.0
0.6
2.38
0.0573
o. 93.5
o. 950
o. 423
O. !l
:~0
C~.00~.73
20.0
:~.8
2.0
C. ';'JW
7O0
i.'.0~33
19.~
3.::,
O.1
0.089
75o
C.OOb7~
19.4
3.0
03
0.089
8O0
0.00235
22.~3
3.0
O. ii
900
~.007~.
20.0
0.089
750
O.OO70Z
o.o89
8O0
0.00468
302
~.:t,~
Ol
Table A-10
b)
Calculation Results
0.02 cm, Pp
dt
=
=
6.7 m, u
DeA
0.08 cm2/s, k c
0.0424 g-mol/cm 3
2 cm/s, eg o
0.50, a =
0.i, Lmf
2.18 x 10 -6 g-mol/cm3,
ii0 cm,
SO
Solid feed
rate, cm3/s
Cocurrent feed
conver sion
gas
solid
Countercurrent feed
gas
conversion
solid
484.o
0.664
O. 995
O. 667
O. 999
605.5
O. 823
O. 987
o. 832
o. 997
726.o
O.978
O.978
o. 988
o. 988
A-II5
the cases of both cocurrent feed and countercurrent feed of solids, the
results are shown in Table A-10(b).The concentration profiles of gas and
solid for the case of feed rate 726 cm3/sec in this example, are shown
in Fig A-29. The mean concentration of gas ~g has been calculated by the
following equation.
-cg
L f - Lmf
Cgb
Lmf
LT
Cg e
(36)
In the numerical
calculation~ the interchange of solids between the bubble and the emulsion
phase is assumed to be infinite for simplicity.
This problem
will be discussed in more detail in another paper dealing with the effect
of solid mixing in fluidized bed reactor.
4.7
Conclusion
This section
A- 116
1.0
gas
....
solid
&
countercurrent
0.5
cocurrent
feed
I
0
0
Figure A-29
1.0
Concentration
profiles
1.94
A-II7
Notation
CgbN
Cgb
ge
Cgo
g-mol/cm 3
Cs
DeA
bubble diameter, cm
%t
dc
diameter of cloud, cm
do
d
P
particle diameter, cm
dt
bed diameter, cm
Ah i
SO
A-lIB
rate constant
Lf
height
Lmf
NA, N B
number
number
of bubbles
radius
of a particle,
cm
radius
of a shrinking
core, cm
cross
k
k
for reaction,
s "I
cm/s
(2), cm/s
of fluidized bed, cm
conditions,
cm
cm -2
Tc
S
in i-th compartment
%i
cm2
=
volumetric
Ub
velocity
of rising bubble,
%r
velocity
cm3/s
cm/s
it, cm/s
=
ut
terminal velocity
vbi
volume
cm 3
Vci
volume
cm 3
Vei
volume
Vs
volume
of solid particles
volumetric
Wbi
volumetric
Wei
volumetric
Uo
cm/s
cm/s
of fluidized particles,
cm/s
in fluidized bed,
cm 3
cm 3
cm3/~
cm3/s
cm3/s
A-II9
Xg
fractional
conversion
mean fractional
of reactant gas
conversion
of solid
Greek Letters
%f
~p
r c, r e
(21)
of a single particle,
A-12N
lm
2.
1351 (1969)
4.
6,
lO.
Ii.