Chemical Engineering Science 54 (1999) 851—858

Prediction of effective drag coefficient in fluidized beds

N. Mostoufi, J. Chaouki*
Biopro Research Centre, Department of Chemical Engineering, E! cole Polytechnique de Montre& al, P.O. Box 6079,
Station Centre-Ville, Montre& al, Que& bec, Canada H3C 3A7
Received 23 September 1997; accepted 13 August 1998

Abstract

A radioactive particle tracking technique is used to measure classification velocity of a radioactive tracer falling in a liquid—solid
fluidized bed. The liquid passing through the fluidized bed is water and nine different types of particles are used as fluidized particles.
A radioactive particle is dropped into the fluidized bed in order to measure its falling velocity. Emitted c-rays from the radioactive
tracer are detected by eight NaI scintillation detectors placed around the bed. The number of counts of c-rays are then used to
calculate the coordinates of the tracer from which the velocity of the tracer is calculated. The classification velocity is used to calculate
the effective drag coefficient. The correction factor, f, which is defined as the ratio of effective drag coefficient over standard drag
coefficient at the same slip velocity, is then evaluated. This factor is a strong function of the porosity and may be expressed as f"e\K,
in which e is the porosity of the bed. The exponent m, is well known to be dependent on terminal Reynolds number of the falling
particle. It is found from the present study that it is also a function of Archimedes number of the fluidized particles. The data from this
work and some other data in the literature are used to develop a correlation for calculating the correction factor as a function of
terminal Reynolds number of the falling particle, Archimedes number of the fluidized particles and a geometric parameter which is the
ratio of diameters of the falling particle to that of the fluidized particles.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Drag coefficient; Drag force; Buoyancy force; Liquid—solid fluidization; Fluidized beds; Radioactive particle tracking

1. Introduction Wielen et al., 1996). Others reject this expression and

believe that the buoyancy force should be calculated
When a particle moves with a constant velocity in a based on the fluid density only (e.g., Clift et al., 1987; Fan
swarm of different particles, the forces acting on it have to et al., 1987; Jean and Fan, 1992). They argue that calcu-
be in dynamic equilibrium. These forces are gravi- lation of the buoyancy based on the bulk density should
tational, buoyancy, and fluid drag. To understand and be restricted to the case when fluidized particles are much
predict fluidization phenomena, one has to have proper smaller than the immersed object itself (Roche and
expressions for these governing forces. The gravitational Chavarie, 1978; Nguyen and Grace, 1978; Grbavcic and
force is well defined based on Newton’s second law. Vukovic, 1992). In this paper, we refer to the correlations
However, the two other forces, i.e., buoyancy and fluid founded on these two expressions as the bulk density and
drag, are not being evaluated as precise as the gravi- the fluid density correlations, respectively.
tational force. In fact, the drag force can be evaluated if There exist a number of definitions for the effective
one knows how to define the buoyancy force properly. fluid drag force exerted on a particle in a fluidized media.
Evaluation of the buoyancy force exerted on a particle However, reliable determination of effective drag force
in the fluidized beds has been a controversial subject in is still something to be investigated. Khan and Richard-
the recent years. Starting with Foscolo et al. (1983, 1984), son (1990) have discussed different forms of drag relation-
some authors state that the buoyancy, which is due to the ships depending on how one considers buoyancy and
hydrostatic pressure, should be calculated based on the relative velocity. Some correlations have been given for
bulk density of the bed (e.g., Di Felice et al., 1989; Van der the drag coefficient itself (e.g., Dallavalle, 1948; Barnea
and Mizrahi, 1973; Panigrahi and Murty, 1991). Other
*Corresponding author, Tel.: 001 514 340 4613; fax: 001 514 340 4159. correlations have been given in terms of classification
E-mail address: [email protected].(J.Chaouki) velocity of the particle as a function of the physical

0009-2509/99/$ — see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 9 - 2 5 0 9 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 2 9 0 - 5
852 N. Mostoufi, J. Chaouki/Chemical Engineering Science 54 (1999) 851—858

properties of both fluid and solid (e.g., Richardson and The effective drag coefficient may be calculated from
Zaki, 1954; Garside and Al-Dibouni, 1977; Foscolo et al., Eq. (1):
1983; Van der Wielen et al., 1996). Classification velocity
4d (o !o )g
of a particle moving in a swarm of particles is the velocity C " N N D , (3)
" 3o »
of the particle, measured respect to a fixed system of D N
coordinates, when it reaches a constant value. These two The value obtained for the effective drag coefficient from
types of correlations, however, are easily interchangeable, Eq. (3) is generally greater than that of the standard drag
i.e., effective drag coefficient can be calculated once the coefficient, C , which is the case if the same particle
classification velocity is measured, and vice versa (Joshi, "
moves in an infinite fluid in the absence of other solid
1983). particles. In the latter case, the slip velocity is called ter-
The aim of the present work is, therefore, to study the minal velocity and single particle drag coefficient is calcu-
effect of different parameters on the effective drag coeffi- lated from Eq. (3) as
cient of a particle moving in a fluidized bed. For this
purpose, a fluid density correlation is introduced in this 4d (o !o )g
C " N N D . (4)
work. The correlation presented recently by Van der " 3o »
D NR
Wielen et al. (1996) is adopted as a sample of the bulk
There are numerous correlations for the standard drag
density correlations and comparison is made between the
coefficient with small numerical differences. For example,
results of the fluid density and bulk density correlations
it may be calculated from the following correlation given
with our own experimental data and other data from the
by Turton and Levenspiel (1986):
literature. The new correlation is also compared with
that of Grbavcic and Vukovic (1991) which is based on 24 0.413
C " (1#0.173 Re )# . (5)
calculation of the buoyancy force using fluid density. "  Re 1#16300 Re\ 
It is common to relate these two drag coefficients by
2. Theory a correction factor:
C "f ) C (6)
There are three forces acting on a single particle falling " "
freely in a swarm of other particles (Fig. 1). They are Wen and Yu (1966) showed that the correction factor, f,
gravitational force, buoyancy force, and fluid drag force. which they called voidage function, is a strong function
When the velocity of the particle reaches a constant of porosity of the bed. Numerous functions have been
value, these forces must be in dynamic equilibrium, i.e., presented for relating this correction factor to the
its apparent weight must be equal to the fluid drag force: concentration of particles (e.g., Dallavalle, 1948; Richard-
son and Zaki, 1954; Barnea and Mizrahi, 1973; Garside
n 1 n and Al-Dibouni, 1977; Foscolo et al., 1983; Panigrahi
d (o !o )g" o » d C , (1)
6 N N D 2 D N  4 N " and Murty, 1991; Van der Wielen et al., 1996). In two
where » is the relative velocity between fluid and the different approaches, either drag coefficient of a single
 particle is modified to include the particle concentration,
particle and in this particular case it is obtained from the
following equation: or equations for interphase drag in packed beds have
been extended to describe fluidized beds. Cox and Clark
º (1991) have briefly reviewed the effective particle drag
» " D#» . (2)
N e N relationships.
D
In this study, the following simple form is considered
for the correction factor:
f"e\K . (7)
D
The exponent m in Eq. (7) is reported to be a constant or
a function of falling particle properties, namely, Re (e.g.
NR
Richardson and Zaki, 1954; Wen and Yu, 1966; Garside
and Al-Dibouni, 1977).
The effective drag coefficient, C , in general, is a func-
"
tion of particle Reynolds number, porosity of the bed and
physical properties of the falling particle and the fluidized
particles. Dependence of the effective drag coefficient to
Re is represented by C in Eq. (6). Moreover, Eq. (7)
"
Fig. 1. Velocities of different components in a system of a particle indicates the effect of porosity of the bed on the effective
falling in a fluidized bed. drag coefficient. Therefore, the exponent m in Eq. (7)
 N. Mostoufi, J. Chaouki/Chemical Engineering Science 54 (1999) 851—858 853

must be a function of physical properties of the falling study. The column is made of a Plexiglas pipe with
particle and the fluidized particles. In this work, variation 100 mm internal diameter and 1500 mm height. Water at
of number m with properties of the bed solids and the 25°C is introduced into the bed through a three stage
falling particle is investigated. distributor which ensures axisymmetrical flow of water
in the fluidized bed. In the distributor, water passes a
150 mm high cone packed with 4 mm glass beads, a per-
3. Experimental forated plate and finally a 210 mm high bed packed with
2 mm glass beads. A fine mesh screen located at the top of
To obtain the effective drag coefficient of a particle the latter packed bed prevents mixing of the glass beads
falling in a fluidized media of different particles, classi- with the bed materials. Water flow rate is measured by
fication velocity of a radioactive tracer in a liquid—solid a rotameter and overflows from the top of the column.
fluidized bed is measured using a radioactive particle Nine different particles, with Archimedes number ran-
tracking technique. This advanced velocimetry technique ging from 7.92;10 to 2.72;10, are used as fluidized
allows us to determine the velocity of a particle falling particles. Specifications of these particles are given in
through fluidized solids with a good precision. Since in Table 1.
this technique, it is not necessary to follow the particle
visually, a wide range of solid particles, having different 3.2. Radioactive particle tracking system
Archimedes numbers, may be used as the fluidized par-
ticles. Two tracers, almost identical, were used in the experi-
ments. Specifications of these two tracer are given in
3.1. Experimental set-up Table 2. The tracers are made of a mixture of soda lime
powder and scandium oxide (10—12% Sc) melted at high
The experiments are done in a liquid—solid fluidized temperature. The tracers are activated in the SLOW-
bed. Fig. 2 shows the experimental facilities used in this POKE nuclear reactor of Ëcole Polytechnique. The pro-
duced isotope Sc emits c-rays which are monitored by
eight cylindrical NaI(Tl) scintillation detectors on sliding
rails. A typical arrangement of the scintillation detectors
around the fluidized bed is shown in Fig. 2. A personal
computer simultaneously registers the number of c-rays
detected by each detector in every sampling period.
These number of counts are used later to calculate the
coordinates of the tracer. Details of the system calib-
ration and the inverse reconstruction strategy for tracer
position rendition are described by Larachi et al. (1994,
1995).

3.3. Experimental procedure

The classification velocities of the radioactive tracer

(» ) in liquid fluidized beds of different particles are meas-
Fig. 2. Schematic of the experimental set-up. (1) Fluidized bed, (2) N
Stainless steel screen, (3) 2 mm glass beads, (4) Perforated plate, (5) ured in the experimental set-up described above. Water
4 mm glass beads, (6) Water inlet, (7) Detector. flow rate and heights of the bed, both at rest and at

Table 1
Fluidized particles used throughout the experiments

Symbol Material Shape d ;10 o  Ar

Q Q D KD Q
G Glass Spherical 1.00 2500 0.42 1.85;10

G Glass Spherical 0.35 2500 0.42 7.92;10

S Sand Irregular 1.50 2650 0.45 6.86;10

S Sand Irregular 1.14 2650 0.41 3.01;10

S Sand Irregular 0.59 2650 0.44 4.17;10

PVC PVC Cylindrical 3.81 1400 0.53 2.72;10

PVC PVC Hexagonal 3.04 1400 0.49 1.39;10

PC Polycarbonate Cylindrical 2.67 1210 0.50 4.98;10
PS Polystyrene Cylindrical 2.85 1110 0.47 3.21;10
854 N. Mostoufi, J. Chaouki/Chemical Engineering Science 54 (1999) 851—858

Table 2 4. Results and discussion

Radioactive tracers used in the experiments
Results of the experiments are summarized in Table 3.
Number d ;10 o » Re
N N NR NR Only the average classification velocities are reported in
1 3.33 2170 0.349 1298 this table. The following analysis is done based on the
2 3.21 2370 0.331 1190 data reported in Table 3 and the data from literature.

4.1. Analysis of experimental data

Fig. 4 shows the exponent m obtained from these data

vs Ar . The line in this figure indicates an approximate
Q

Table 3
Original experimental data obtained in this work

Fluidized Tracer no. º e »

D D N
particle

G 1 0.0302 0.5697 0.0469


1 0.0440 0.6645 0.0757
1 0.0577 0.7448 0.1070
1 0.0714 0.8111 0.1304

Fig. 3. Axial coordinate of the tracer falling in a fluidized bed of glass G 2 0.0165 0.6966 0.1640

beads, calculated based on the count rate of the detectors at every 2 0.0302 0.8691 0.2318
20 ms. Only one out of five points is shown in this figure. 2 0.0405 0.9571 0.2714
S 1 0.0371 0.5048 0.0091

1 0.0440 0.5725 0.0096
1 0.0577 0.6496 0.0139
fluidized state, are measured prior to the start of the 1 0.0714 0.7340 0.0389
particle tracking experiment. The tracer is then dropped S 2 0.0302 0.5188 0.0339

into the bed from the top and almost at the centre of the 2 0.0371 0.5765 0.0285
column, while the detectors have already started count- 2 0.0488 0.6585 0.0704
ing the number of c-rays. 2 0.0618 0.7445 0.1026
2 0.0714 0.7918 0.1208
A sample of primary data obtained in the particle
tracking experiment is shown in Fig. 3. This figure pic- S 2 0.0199 0.6233 0.1436

2 0.0302 0.7814 0.1732
tures trajectories of the tracer no. 1 which is dropped 2 0.0440 0.8949 0.2421
three times into a fluidized bed of 1 mm glass beads. It 2 0.0577 0.9036 0.2702
can be seen that shortly after entering the fluidized bed, 2 0.0714 0.9463 0.2439
the tracer reaches a constant falling velocity. The only PVC 2 0.0440 0.6423 0.0643
falling section considered in the calculation of the classi- 
2 0.0508 0.6912 0.0660
fication velocity is the section between 500 and 100 mm 2 0.0577 0.7264 0.0979
above the top of the distributor. This precaution is ap- 2 0.0646 0.7633 0.1030
plied to ensure that either the tracer has reached the PVC 1 0.0336 0.5768 0.0209

constant velocity or probable end effect due to the dis- 1 0.0385 0.5980 0.0627
tributor is not taken into account. 1 0.0474 0.6481 0.0797
1 0.0522 0.6696 0.1041
After each time that the tracer is dropped into the bed, 1 0.0577 0.7052 0.0987
the bed particles are taken out and the tracer is recovered 1 0.0666 0.7419 0.1450
from the bottom of the column. The falling velocity of the 1 0.0714 0.7789 0.1776
tracer for each operating condition, namely fluidized PC 2 0.0233 0.6000 0.0934
particles and water flow rate, is measured three times as 2 0.0302 0.7023 0.1120
described above. Arithmetic average of these three velo- 2 0.0440 0.8223 0.1579
cities is considered to be the classification velocity of the 2 0.0577 0.8940 0.1778
tracer for that specified condition. Fig. 3 illustrates that 2 0.0714 0.9366 0.2271
the experiment has a good reproducibility in the above PS 2 0.0165 0.7022 0.1593
mentioned section of the bed. The classification velocity 2 0.0233 0.8252 0.2265
2 0.0302 0.9197 0.2604
of the tracer is measured for different fluidized particles 2 0.0371 0.9633 0.2744
and different water flow rates.
 N. Mostoufi, J. Chaouki/Chemical Engineering Science 54 (1999) 851—858 855

Fig. 5. Parity plot of calculated m against experimental m.

Fig. 4. Experimental m vs Ar based on the data presented in Table 3.

Q performance of the new correlation. Two other correla-
tions from the literature are also employed to compare
their predictions with the new one. They are the correla-
trend of variation of m with Ar . Since the value of Re tion of Grbavcic and Vukovic (1991) which is a fluid
Q NR
for the tracers used in this study are very close, it can be density correlation and Van der Wielen et al.’s correla-
concluded that the exponent m is also a function tion which is a bulk density one. The correlations are com-
of Ar . In fact, most of the available correlations in the pared based on their prediction of the slip velocity of the
Q
literature are given for the case of presence of just one falling particle.
type of particle in the bed. As a result, such data cannot In order to calculate the slip velocity from our correla-
be used to study the effect of both fluidized and falling tion and that of Grbavcic and Vukovic, where the drag
particles. Therefore, it can be proposed that m is a func- coefficient is being calculated first, Eq. (1) is rearranged as
tion of the following combination of both Re and Ar . following:
NR Q
A geometric factor, d /d is also added deliberately:
N Q

4d (o !o )g
N N D . (10)


d B » "
N 3o C
m"aAr@ ReA N . (8) D "
Q NR d
Q The effective drag coefficient, C , can be calculated from
"
Our experimental results (given in Table 3), as well as Eqs. (4) and (6). Eq. (4) can be used to evaluate the stan-
the data reported by Martin et al. (1981) and Van der dard drag coefficient of a particle only if its terminal velo-
Wielen et al. (1996) are used to estimate the four con- city is known. If the terminal velocity of the falling
stants in Eq. (8). A least-squares technique is employed to particle is not measured experimentally, it may be cal-
evaluate a, b, c, and d simultaneously. The result of this culated from the correlation of Turton and Levenspiel
evaluation relates m to physical and geometrical proper- (1986) [Eq. (5)]. This is an iterative procedure since the
ties of the fluidized solids and falling particle by the fol- terminal velocity, which is required to calculate Re , is
NR
lowing correlation: not known at the beginning.
Estimation of the correction factor in Eq. (6) by our


d  
m"3.02Ar  Re\  N . (9) correlation is possible through Eqs. (7) and (9). Grbavcic
Q NR d and Vukovic’s correlation for f is also given as
Q
Fig. 5 shows the parity plot of the values of m calculated f"e\ , (11)
from Eq. (9) against value of m calculated from the
experimental data reported in this work. The values of where
m calculated from the data reported by Martin et al. and e !e
Van der Wielen et al. are also shown in this figure. e" D D KD . (12)
1!e
D KD
4.2. Comparison of new correlation with the experimental The slip velocity can be calculated directly using Van
data der Wielen et al.’s correlation:


o !o LN  
The experimental data employed to predict the para- » "» N @ e LN\ . (13)
N N R o !o D
meters of the present model (i.e., the data obtained in this N D
study, the data from Martin et al., (1981) and the data All three correlations are compared to each other
from Van der Wielen et al. (1996)) are also used to test the based on the mean relative error of the calculated value
856 N. Mostoufi, J. Chaouki/Chemical Engineering Science 54 (1999) 851—858

Fig. 6. Comparison between experimental slip velocity and calculated Fig. 7. Comparison between experimental slip velocity and calculated
slip velocity (Data from Table 3). slip velocity (Data from Van der Wielen et al., 1996).

of slip velocity compared to its experimental value. This

error is defined as

1 I "» !» "
d" N  G  N G (14)
k »
G N  G 
The parity plot of the predicted and experimental slip
velocity data obtained in this work is shown in Fig. 6. As
it can be seen from the plot, the points which are ob-
tained based on the new correlation [Eq. (9)] are evenly
distributed around the unity line. The mean relative error
for these points is 9.5%. Fig. 6 also includes the predic-
tions of Grbavcic and Vukovic’s and Van der Wielen et Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental slip velocity and calculated
al.’s correlations for these data. Grbavcic and Vukovic’s slip velocity (Data from Martin et al., 1981).
correlation predicts our experimental data with relative
error of 14.2%. The Van der Wielen et al.’s correlation Vukovic’s correlation under predicts the data in almost
over predicts the experimental data in most of the cases. all points with a mean relative error of 22.9%.
The mean relative error for these points is 27.9%. It should be noted that in the experiments of Van der
All three correlations approach to the unity line at Wielen et al. (1996), the fluidized solids density and the
higher velocities and show almost the same behaviour. It liquid density are very close to each other (1024 and
should be noted that higher velocities correspond to 1000 kg/m, respectively). Therefore, in their experi-
voidages closer to unity where the bed density tends to ments, there is no significant difference between the liquid
the liquid density and the buoyancy force calculated density and the bulk density. In fact, deviation of the bulk
based on the bulk density becomes closer to that of calcu- density from the liquid density in all the cases is less than
lated based on the liquid density. Consequently, it may 1.5%.
be concluded that when the bulk density becomes signifi- In Fig. 8, the three correlations are compared in pre-
cantly higher than the fluid density, the bulk density diction of the data reported by Martin et al. (1981). The
correlation diverges from reality. mean relative error for our correlation is 24.7%, while it
Fig. 7 shows the parity plot of the experimental slip is 28.5% for Van der Wielen et al.’s model. Grbavcic and
velocity data from Van der Wielen et al. (1996). This Vukovic’s correlation over predicts the data in almost all
graph shows that both our correlation and Van der points with a mean relative error of 42.0%. Once again,
Wielen et al.’s correlation have almost the same behav- all correlations shorten their distance and tend to the
iour in predicting the experimental data. Although Van unity line at the higher slip velocities, where the voidage
der Wielen et al.’s correlation seems to predict these of the bed approaches one.
experimental data better, there is no significant difference
between the two types of models. The mean relative
errors for the correlation presented here and Van der 5. Conclusion
Wielen et al.’s model are 12.1% and 10.6%, respectively.
The deviation of the present correlation from the experi- A new correlation is developed for prediction of the
mental value is greater at lower velocities. Grbavcic and effective drag experienced by a single particle falling in
 N. Mostoufi, J. Chaouki/Chemical Engineering Science 54 (1999) 851—858 857

a fluidized bed of different particles. In order to take par- k viscosity, Pa s

ticle concentration into account, the correlation is in the o density, kg/m
form of the drag coefficient of a single particle, modified
by a correction factor. The correction factor strongly Subscripts
depends on the voidage and is also a function of the
falling particle properties as well as the fluidized particles b bulk
properties. cal calculated
In general, the correlation developed in this article is exp experimental
not valid for the beds with e (0.5 where error of calcu- f fluid
D
lation is extremely high and estimating the particle velo- mf minimum fluidization
city by this method is not reasonable. This is not surpris- p falling particle
ing since the correlation converges to single particle s fluidized solid
motion at its limit (e "1). In fact, this technique sees the sl slip
D
problem as a single particle motion with a correction to t terminal
it. As a result, better results are expected in more dilute
beds (less solids hold-up).
References
There is no significant difference between the bulk
density correlation and the fluid density correlation in
Barnea, E., & Mizrahi, J. (1973). Generalized approach to the fluid
dilute beds (e '0.8). In such a condition, bulk density is
D dynamics of particulate systems. Part I. General correlation for
very close to fluid density and both models give almost fluidization and sedimentation in solid multi particle systems. Chem.
the same results. Engng J. 5, 171—189.
Clift, R., Seville, J.P.K., Moore, S.C., & Chavarie, C. (1987). Com-
ments on the buoyancy in fluidized beds. Chem. Engng Sci., 42,
191—194.
Acknowledgements Cox, J.D., & Clark, N.N. (1991). The effect of particle drag relationship
on prediction of kinematic wave in fluidized beds. Powder ¹echnol.,
The authors are grateful to Dr. Faı̈ial Larachi for his 66, 177—189.
Dallavalle, J.M. (1948). Micrometrics: ¹he technology of fine particles,
valuable hints during the data processing period and Dr.
2nd ed. Pitman, London.
Gregory Kennedy for his assistance in activating the Di Felice, R., Foscolo, P.U., Gibliaro, L.G., & Rapagna, S. (1991). The
tracers. Special thank extends to the Ministry of Culture interaction of particles with a fluid-particle pseudo-fluid. Chem.
and Higher Education of the Islamic Republic of Iran for Engng Sci., 46, 1873—1877.
providing the possibility of post graduate studies for Mr. Fan, L.S., Han, L.S., & Brodkey, R.S. (1987). Comments on the buoy-
ancy force on a particle in fluidized suspension. Chem. Engng Sci.,
Navid Mostoufi.
42, 1269—1271.
Foscolo, P.U., Gibliaro, L.G., & Waldram, S.P. (1983). A unified model
for particulate expansion of fluidised beds and flow in fixed porous
Notation media. Chem. Engng Sci., 38, 1251—1260.
Foscolo, P.U., & Gibliaro, L.G. (1984). A fully predictive criterion for
the transition between particulate and aggregate fluidization. Chem.
Ar Archimedes number ["do (o-o )g/k ]
D D D Engng Sci., 39, 1667—1675.
C effective drag coefficient Garside, J., & Al-Dibouni, M.R. (1977). Velocity-voidage relationship
"
C standard drag coefficient for fluidization and sedimentation in solid—liquid systems. Ind.
" Engng Chem. Process Des. Dev., 16, 206—214.
d particle diameter, m
Grbavcic, Z.B., & Vukovic, D.V. (1991). Single-particle settling velocity
e dimensionless voidage, defined in Eq. (12) through liquid fluidized beds. Powder ¹echnol., 66, 293—295.
f correction factor for drag coefficient Grbavcic, Z.B., Vukovic, D.V., Jovanovic, S.D. & Littman, H. (1992).
g acceleration of gravity, m/s The effective buoyancy and drag on spheres in a water fluidized bed.
k number of data points Chem. Engng Sci., 47, 2120—2124.
m exponent in Eq. (7) Jean, R.H., & Fan, L.S. (1992). On the model equations of Gibliaro and
Foscolo with corrected buoyancy force. Powder ¹echnol., 72,
n Richardson and Zaki index 201—205.
Re Reynolds number ["do »/k ]
D D Joshi, J.B. (1983). Solid—liquid fluidized beds: some design aspects.
» linear velocity, m/s Chem. Engng Res. Des., 61, 143—161.
º superficial velocity, m/s Khan, A.R., & Richardson, J.F. (1990). Pressure gradient and friction
z axial coordinate, m factor for sedimentation and fluidisation of uniform spheres in
liquids. Chem. Engng Sci., 45, 255—265.
Larachi, F., Chaouki, J., & Kennedy, G. (1994). A c-ray detection
Greek letters system for 3-D particle tracking in multiphase reactors. Nucl. Instr.
and Meth. A, 338, 568—576.
Larachi, F., Chaouki, J., & Kennedy, G. (1995). 3-D mapping of solids
d mean relative error flow fields in multiphase reactor with RPT. A.I.Ch.E. J., 41,
e volume fraction 439—443.
858 N. Mostoufi, J. Chaouki/Chemical Engineering Science 54 (1999) 851—858

Martin, B.L.A., Kolar, Z., & Wesselingh, J.A. (1981). The falling velocity Roche, G., & Chavarie, C. (1978). Behaviour of shallow fluidized beds
of a sphere in a swarm of different spheres. ¹rans. Instn. Chem. around immersed objects. Can. J. Chem. Engng, 56, 281—285.
Engrs, 58, 100—104. Turton, R., & Levenspiel, O. (1986). A short note on the drag correla-
Nguyen, T.H., & Grace, J.R. (1978). Forces on objects immersed in tion for spheres. Powder ¹echnol., 47, 83—86.
fluidized beds. Powder ¹echnol., 19, 255—264. Van der Wielen, L.A.M., Van Dam, M.H.H., & Luyben, K. Ch. A.M.
Panigrahi, M.R., & Murty, J.S. (1991). A generalized spherical multi- (1996). On the relative motion of a particle in a swarm of different
particle model for particulate systems: fixed and fluidized. Chem. particles. Chem. Engng Sci., 51, 995—1008.
Engng Sci., 46, 1863—1868. Wen, C.Y., & Yu, Y.H. (1966). Mechanics of fluidization. Chem. Engng
Richardson, J.F., & Zaki, W.N. (1954). Sedimentation and fluidisation: Prog. Symp. Ser., 62, 100—111.
Part I. ¹rans. Instn. Chem. Engrs, 32, 35—53.