Packed Beds and the Ergun Equation: The Relationship between Fluid Flow and Pressure Drop

Team # 5
Mary Chopard Aaron Welsh Jonathan Ng Martha Ottenberg Rachel Holbrook February 19, 2003

Table of Contents
Abstract..........................................................i Introduction....................................................1 Background and Theory.................................2 Equipment and Procedure..............................4 Results...........................................................6 Discussion....................................................10 Conclusion....................................................13 Future Consideration....................................14 Nomenclature...............................................15 References....................................................16 Appendix...............................See Separate Flies

Abstract The goal of our experiment was to study pressure drop as a function of flow rate, and observe the relationship between our data and the model of the Ergun equation. We calibrated and took our measurements on a packed bed column, with various packing materials, column diameters and flow rates. In general our data and the Ergun equation were closely correlated until fluidization. We noted that changing properties of the packing material had a drastic affect on the Ergun Equations prediction of pressure drop. We found that the closest correlation of our data and the Ergun equation occurred when the height of the bed remained constant, simulating the type of packed bed which the equation was based on.

Introduction Fluid flow through packed beds is important to study because it is commonly used in industry to contact two fluid phases, or a fluid and solid phase. This process is used for catalytic reactions, combustion, gas absorption, distillation, drying, and separation (Geankoplis 118). It is important to study the pressure drop in a packed bed with regards to fluid flow rate to optimize operating conditions. In industry these results can be applied to pump design and product yield which ultimately lead to cost effectiveness. Packed beds are often used in pollution control. For example, columns can be used to scrub H2S gases from waste streams keeping the harmful gas from entering the air. The scrubber itself is made of a column or tank with an inlet and outlet flow pipe. The column is filled with packing material that can include materials such as ceramics, gravel, marbles, and activated carbon. The surface area of the packing material is the advantage to a packed bed as opposed to a normal reactor tank. The increased surface area provided by these particulate materials provides a bigger reaction area for the desired operation. Our teams objective for this experiment was to measure the pressure drop across the column associated with a given set of variables. We varied packing materials, using pea gravel and marbles; column diameter, 3.25 in and 5.25 in; and flow rate, using 2 rotameters, W2 and W3. Later in the report these variables will be explained and compared to each other, and correlations to and deviations from the Ergun equation will be shown. The Ergun equation, which will be discussed in detail later, shows how fluid flow rate and pressure drop are related. It also tells how pressure drop is related to the packing material, and column size. In addition to measuring the pressure drop, we calibrated rotameters in order to obtain accurate flow rate readings. We also measured the void fraction associated with both packing materials.

Background and Theory: In order to test pressure drop versus fluid velocity one can use the Ergun equation to model the expected behavior until the point of fluidization. This equation was derived through experimental results using packed beds. In our experiment our beds were not completely packed, and were able to fluidize. We expect our data to follow the Ergun Model up to the point to fluidization. Fluidization is the range during fluid flow where the packed materials weight is equal to the upward drag force from the fluid. (University)

Ergun Equation: P = 150(1) U + L

(Dp)

1.75(1)U 3 (Dp)

(1)

The following equations and concepts were combined by Ergun and Orning to create the Ergun equation that we used to model fluid flow through packed beds in this experiment. One of the main reasons that the Ergun equation is so accurate is because Ergun realized that not only the flow rate effects the pressure drop but it is also dependant on particle properties, such as particle packing density, shape and uniformity of the particles shape, and it is also dependant on the properties of the fluid such as the viscosity. To account for this Ergun included the void fraction and the sphericity. The maximum particle diameter is 0.5 inches (Matt Cline). The Ergun equation was derived from a number of sources. Originally it determined that pressure drop was proportional at low flow rates to the velocity and at high flow rates proportional to the square of the velocity. Osborne Reynolds determined that the friction from the fluid flow through the packing was due to properties of the packing and fluid. This combined with the proportional pressure drops for high and low flow rates provided this equation, where a and b are the properties of the packing and the fluid (Ergun 89):

P = aU + bU
L

(2)

The combination of the following equations led to the development of Erguns equation; the Carman/Kozeny equation for viscous flow and the Burke/Plummer equation for turbulent flow.

Carman/Kozeny eqn:

P = 150(1) U 3 2 2 L (Dp)
Burke/Plummer eqn:

(3) (4)

P = 1.75(1)U 3 L (Dp)

Where P, , , Dp, , U, and are the pressure drop, void fraction of the bed, density of the fluid, particle diameter, sphericity of the particles, superficial fluid velocity (the flow rate as if there was no packing in the column), and the fluid viscosity respectively. The void fraction relates the amount of space left unfilled by the packing compared to the total amount of calculated volume in the column and is defined by:

= space unfilled by packing

Total volume in column

(5)

Equipment and Procedure: The apparatus that we used in our lab consisted of a Plexiglas column with an inlet for water at the bottom and an outlet at the top. Each column, one being 3.25 inches and the other 5.25 inches in diameter, was graduated to 36 inches for easy height readings. The flow rate of the city water through the column was set at a value maintained by a rotameter. A digital manometer was connected to the column in two places allowing for the pressure drop to be read.

Figure 1:

Packed bed diagram Before we could

begin the actual experiment, our team needed to determine the void fraction for both the marbles and the pea gravel, various other particle properties and calibrate the rotameters. Filling a graduated cylinder with our medium, and then measuring the amount of water that needed to be added to the cylinder until the water was level with the packing, determined the void fraction We checked the rotameters against previous teams calibrations by setting the flow meter and filling a 4 Liter graduated cylinder while timing how long it took to fill. By dividing the volume in the cylinder by the time, the actual volumetric flow rates associated with the rotameters readings were determined. Our calibrations were slightly different than the teams that we checked against, so we decided to use our own calibration curves. We also obtained some properties of the pea gravel and the marbles to be used in the Ergun equation. For the sphericity of the pea gravel we referred to the lab manual for 06-100, which says that 0.9 is a good estimate. To determine the diameter of pea gravel we referred to the work of previous groups, who did whole reports on calculating the equivalent diameter of pea gravel, and its effect on the Ergun Equation. 4

Chan, Guo, Ip and Shell (1999) used a sieve analysis and found that the diameter of the particles formed a bell shaped curve, and more than half of the particles had a diameter of about 0.11 inches, so this was the value we decided to use. With the preliminary tasks completed, we could begin to collect data. We filled the 5.25-inch column with approx 18 inches of pea gravel, filled the column with water, and allowed it to settle. We bled out the manometer lines to release any air bubbles. The flow was increased by adjusting the rotameters and the pressure drop associated with the given flow rate was recorded at different increments. After a maximum flow rate, the flow was decreased and more incremental readings were taken. At each increase or decrease of flow, the height was also measured. This procedure was repeated for the W2 and W3 rotameters in both sized columns and with both packing materials. Special attention was paid to the data taken up to the point when the column became fluidized.

Results: Our experimental data yields curves similar to those predicted by the Ergun equation at lower flow rates.
Pea Gravel: 3.25" Colum n
300 250 200 1 50 1 00 50 0 0 200 400 V e lo c it y ( f t / hr) 600 800 -50
Ergun Average Test Reult s Average

Pea Gravel: 5.25" Colum n

300 Ergun Average 250 Test Results Average 200

150

100

50

0 0 -50 V el o ci t y ( f t / hr ) 200 400 600 800

Observed fluidization

Figure 1. Pressure drop vs. velocity for pea gravel in 3.25 column with ascending flow. The data is similar to the predicted values until the fluidization point.

Figure 2. Pressure drop vs. velocity for pea gravel in 5.25 column with ascending flow. There is significant deviation from the predicted values.

Observed fluidization

The graphs of the pea gravel in the thinner column lie close to the prediction line, while the gravel in the wider column displays greater deviation. Both sets of data drop off after they pass the fluidization point, while the predicted Ergun values continue upward. Data sets for marbles in both columns are shown below in figures 3 and 4. Note the relationship of our data to the Ergun equation at the flow rates below.
Marbles: 3.25" Colum n
120 Ergun Average 100 Test Result s Average 80

60 40

Figure 3. Pressure drop vs. velocity for marbles in 3.25 column with ascending flow. There is significant deviation from the Ergun equation.

20

0 0 -20 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Observed Column fluidization

V e lo c it y ( f t / hr)

Marbles: 5.25" Colum n

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 -5 200 400 600 800 1000 Ergun Average Test Results Average

Figure 4. Pressure drop vs. velocity for marbles in 5.25 column with ascending flow. The data lies close to the Ergun equation. The fluidization point for this column is near v = 1500 ft/hr.

Com pacted vs Uncom pacted Pea Gravel in 3.25" Colum n

800 700

-10

Compacted Bed Ergun Equation Uncompacte d Bed

V e lo c it y ( f t / hr)

Pressure Drop (lbf/ft^3)

600 500 400 300 200 1 00 0 0

Since the Ergun equation was developed using compressed beds, we tried compressing pea gravel in the 3.25 column. Although pressure difference continues to increase even above where the fluidization point had been, the data still falls significantly short of the predicted values and is depicted in the Figure 5.

500

1 000

1 500

Velocity (ft/hr)
Figure 5. Pressure drop vs. velocity for pea gravel in 3.25column with compressed bed. We expected data to fit Ergun equation much more closely than previous trials.

We varied the void fraction and the diameter (Figures 6 and 7) and compared our test results to these varied Ergun values. As Figure 7 shows, if we increase the assumed diameter of the pea gravel, then the Ergun values lower towards our test results. Figure 8 shows that increasing the assumed void fraction also lowers the Ergun values towards the test results.

W2-Pea Gravel-3.25" Alternating Diameter

140.00

120.00

100.00

Ergun Average Test Results Average Ergun with min diameter Ergun middle diameter Ergun max diameter

DeltaP/L (lbf/ft^3)

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

Observed fluidization

0.00 0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00 Velocity (ft/hr)

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

Figure 6. Pressure drop/ length vs. velocity for pea gravel in 3.25column with alternating effective diameter. We expected data to fit Ergun equation much more closely than as we increased the effective diameter

W3-Pea Gravel-3.25" Alternating Void Fraction

700.00

600.00

500.00

Ergun Average Test Reults Average min void fraction middle void fraction max void fraction

delta P/L (lbf/ft^3)

400.00

300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00 0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00 Velocity (ft/hr)

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

Observed fluidization

Figure 7. Pressure drop/ length vs. velocity for pea gravel in 3.25column with alternating effective diameter. We expected data to fit Ergun equation much more closely than as we increased the effective diameter

When taking our data, we measured pressure drop versus flow rate for both increasing and decreasing flow rates. Figure 8 shows the results of one of these runs, comparing the ascending flow rates to the descending flow rates, and they also show the relationship of both of these curves to the Ergun Equation.
Pea Gravel: 3.25"
1 00.00 90.00 80.00

Delta P/L (lbm/ft^3)

70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ergun Equat ion A scending Flow Descending Flow

Observed fluidization during ascending flow

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

Ve locity (ft/hr)
Figure 8: Shows the relationship between the pressure drops of ascending and descending flow rates.

The figure Below (Figure 8) show both Ergun equations (the marble and the pea gravel) and the data for both columns. This data is also inclusive off all of the flow rates.
Delta P/L vs Velocity Marbles and Pea Gravel
300.00

250.00

200.00 Delta P/L (lbm/ft^3)

150.00

Ergun for Marbles Ergun Pea Gravel Marbles 3.25" Marbles 5.25" Pea Gravel 5.25" Pea Gravel 3.25"

100.00

50.00

Observed Marble Fluidization

Observed pea gravel fluidization

0.00 0.00

500.00

1000.00 Velocity (ft/hr)

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

Figure 9. All averaged data, for both columns, both packing materials, and includes both Ergun Equations

Discussion: We expect the data to follow the Ergun averaged values for a packed bed, which as mentioned before, a column where the packing materials are compressed down and are not allowed to fluidize. Most of our experiments did not constrain the volume the packing was allowed to take, therefore fluidization usually occurred.
W2: Pea Gravel in 3.25" Column
35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00

Figure 10. Pressure drop vs. velocity for pea gravel in 3.25 column with ascending flow use as a sample. Notice the different parts of the sample graph. The data first follows the Ergun relationship trend, peaks at the point of fluidization, then levels off

Data levels off Point of fluidization

Test Results Average

Data follows Ergun trend

Velocity (ft/hr)

However, up to the point of fluidization the data followed the trend of the Ergun equation as expected. After the pressure drop peaks at the point of fluidization, the pressure drop falls off and then levels off (see Figure 10). Note in Figure 10 that after the point of fluidization, the pressure suddenly drops. This is because once the particles expand, the pressure built up between particles is released. Also, the data was varied compared to the position of the Ergun values. In general, our data did not perfectly follow the Ergun equation, but that is to be expected since the equation is a model that was derived from experimental data. Some other reasons for the differences may lie in the basis of the Ergun equation itself. This equation is based upon experimental data for a packed bed where the height of the packing material was not allowed to change, and this was not true for our experiments. As noted earlier, our packed beds were free to expand within the column to different heights. The Ergun equation is also based on experiments with small particles (having an upper limit of 0.5 inches) and the marbles used in our experiments had a diameter of 0.5 inches.

10

When we measured the pressure drop of marbles in the smaller column, we noticed that our data, as expected, significantly deviated from the Ergun equation. However, to our surprise we found that when we measured the pressure drop in the larger column packed with marbles, the data fell almost exactly on to the predicted Ergun model. After looking over our initial measurements and the observations we made, we came up with a few reasons why this set of data (which we expected to deviate the farthest from the Ergun equation) matched the Ergun equation so well. The first interesting thing we noticed was the fact that the marbles did not seem to shift at all while the flow rate was increased, the marbles seemed to remain in their initial configuration. If the marbles did in fact stay in place then the void fraction would be constant, which would help keep our data around the Ergun equation. We also noticed that the height of bed stayed the same, unlike the other beds which all expanded as they approached fluidization. The velocity in this column also never got to the point where it should have been fluidized, judging from our other marble data. There are many other factors that may affect the relationship of our data to the expected Ergun values. The error may be integrated in our assumptions of constants such as sphericity, void fraction, particle diameter, fluid density, or fluid viscosity. Some of these constants, such as fluid density and viscosity, have a small dependence on temperature. Since the temperature of our experiment was essentially constant, we can consider these values to be constant. Void fraction and particle diameter are two factors which have a large effect on the Ergun equation. These are two factors which were reasonably well known for the marbles, but were not known as well for the pea gravel. The diameter we used in our results was taken from a previous semesters report, where the studied multiple ways of calculating the average particle diameter for pea gravel. In figure 6 we plotted our experimental data versus the Ergun equation as the diameter changes. The diameter values we used ranged from .007 feet (min) and .01 feet (max). There was quite a bit of difference in the end result of the Ergun equation with each of these different diameters. We made similar plots of our data versus the Ergun equation for various void fractions. We tested void fractions of 0.3, 0.35 and 0.4, and these curves were compared to the Ergun equation curve with our calculated void fraction of 0.38.

11

When taking our data, we used both increasing and decreasing flow rates. We noticed some interesting trends in the pressure drops when comparing the increasing flow rate data to the decreasing flow rate data. We noticed that the characteristic fluidization peak was not present in the decreasing flow rate data, it was fairly constant at high flow rates, and then dropped off as the flow rate decreased. We speculated that this was a result of the way the material settled in the column. When the column was first packed, and then the flow rate was increased as measurements were taken, the pressure built up behind the tightly packed particles, and when this pressure was over come at fluidization, a peak was witnessed in the Delta P/L graphs. This peak was not witnessed in the decreasing data because when decreasing the flow rate, we first had to pass through the area of fluidization, hence visually fluidizing the whole column. Then as the flow dropped the packing just settled, and did not have to overcome and pressure which had been built up.

12

Conclusions: The objective of this experiment was to measure the pressure drop with the variation of packing materials, using pea gravel and marbles; column diameter, 3.25 in and 5.25 in; and flow rate, using 2 rotameters, W2 and W3. In addition we wanted to compare our data to the Ergun equation. We found that for all four of the tests where the pea gravel was used as the packing material, the Ergun equation modeled the data fairly well; it accurately provided an expectation for where the data would lie. For the marbles, however, the Ergun equation predicted the data from the 5.25 inch column but failed to predict the data trend for the 3.25 inch column. We also observed how changing parameters of the experiment can affect data and models such as the Ergun equation. These parameters included void fraction, packing diameter, and restricting bed height.

13

Future Consideration: Designing a rigid device to fix the height of the packing during the trials could be advantageous to future experimentation. We could run experiments at higher flow rates while keeping the packing from expanding and preventing fluidization. It would be useful to find if Erguns equation applied, or was even more accurate to this situation. It would also be interesting to vary more equation parameters, and compare them to more data. For example, we did not know exactly how accurate the sphericity value for pea gravel we chose was. It would be interesting to vary sphericity, void fraction and particle diameter to see how Erguns model would behave. We would also have liked to try an array of packing materials; Rashig rings, activated carbon, and marbles of different diameter to name a few. By looking at a variety of materials, we could better understand which media correlates best or deviates most from Erguns model.

14

Nomenclature: D Dp Nre U g P Inner Diameter (in) particle diameter (ft) Reynoldss Number (unit less) superficial fluid velocity (ft/hr) gravity (ft /lbfs ) pressure drop (lbf/ft ) void fraction (unit less) fluid viscosity (lbm/fts) sphericity of the particle (unit less constant) density (lbm/ft )
3 2 2 2

15