This article was downloaded by: [CERIST]

On: 19 May 2015, At: 07:33

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Chemical Engineering Communications

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcec20

HYDRODYNAMICS AND HEAT TRANSFER OF LIQUID

FLUIDIZED BED SYSTEMS
a a
M. JAMIALAHMADI & H. MÜLLER-STEINHAGEN
a
University of Petroleum Industry , Ahwaz, Iran
b
School of Engineering in the Environment, The University of Surrey , Guildford, England
Published online: 30 Mar 2007.

To cite this article: M. JAMIALAHMADI & H. MÜLLER-STEINHAGEN (2000) HYDRODYNAMICS AND HEAT TRANSFER OF LIQUID
FLUIDIZED BED SYSTEMS, Chemical Engineering Communications, 179:1, 35-79, DOI: 10.1080/00986440008912188

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986440008912188

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Chem. Ens. Comm., 2000, Vol. 179, pp. 35-79 Q 2000 OPA (Overseas hblkhcrr Arsocialion) N.V.
Reprints avatlable directly from the publisher Published by l i a n w under
Pholwopying pcrmiltcd by l i a n w only the Gordon and Breach Scicnm
h b l i s h ~ r imprint.
s
Printed in Malaysia.

HYDRODYNAMICS AND HEAT TRANSFER

OF LIQUID FLUIDIZED BED SYSTEMS
M: JAMIALAHMADIa and H. M ~ ~ L L E R - S T E I N H A G E N ~ V *
" University of Petroleum Industry, Ahwaz, Iran; bSchool of Engineering
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

in the Environment, The University of Surrey, Guildford, England

(Received 28 April 1998: In finalform 31 August 1999)

After some general remarks about liquid/solid fluidization, various aspects of liquid fluidization
hydrodynamics and heat transfer have been analyzed on a coherent basis. For each of these
cases, the state-of-the-art has been reported, together with some indication of areas that deserve
further attention. Maior emnhasis is laced on the hvdrodvnamic
, , behavior of fluidized beds.
heat transfer mechanisms from surface-to-bed and on the eRect of various parameters on the
type of fluidization and heat transfer coefficient. This review covers the various correlations
developed over the years for the prediction of bed voidage, heat transfer coefficient and opti-
mum conditions of liquid/solid fluidized beds.

Keywords: Solid/liquid fluidized bed; hydrodynamic; heat transfer

INTRODUCTION

Liquid fluidization is the operation by which small solid particles are

transformed into a fluid-like state through contact with a liquid. This method
of contacting was developed for processes where a high degree of uniformity
of temperature within the bed is required. Intimate mixing takes place and
heat transfer within the bed is very rapid. Hence, a uniform temperature is
quickly attained throughout the system. The easy control of temperature is
the key parameter that has led to the use of liquid fluidized beds for situations
where close control of temperature is important. Although the possibility of
forming fluidized beds has been known for many years, the subject remained
of academic interest until the adoption of fluidized catalysts by the petroleum

*Corresponding author
 industry for the cracking of heavy hydrocarbons, and has since moved into
many other areas. In the last decade the application of liquid/solid fluidiza-
tion in biotechnology, chemical and mineral process industries as fluidized
bed reactors and bioreactors (Atkinson, 1981 and Schiigerl, 1989), fluidized
bed heat exchangers (Meijer, 1984 and Rautenbach et al., 1991), fluidized bed
crystallizers (Rosen and Hulburt, 1971), etc., became one of the most impor-
tant areas in chemical engineering.
Fluidized bed bioreactors are amongst the most efficient apparatus for
aerobic and anaerobic waste water treatment (Jeris el al., 1981 and Jewell
et NI., 1981), penicillin production (Oh et a/., 1988 and Endo,, 1988) and
phenol degradation (Livingston and Chase, 1989). The fluidized bed heat
exchanger is one of the most promising concepts to reduce fouling, as de-
scribed in detail by Kollbach (1987). Cylindrical o r spherical stainless steel
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

particles with typical dimensions of 2.5 x 2.5 mm are fluidized by the fouling
liquid. The slightly abrasive action of the particles should immediately
remove any deposits that may form on the heat transfer surfaces. In addi-
tion, the increased turbulence caused by the fluidized particles also increases
the heat transfer coefficient from the heated surface to the fluid. For ex-
ample, laboratory experiments with a fluidized bed in Bayer Liquor were
successful, showing absolutely no deposition on the heat transfer surface,
whereas considerable fouling occurred on the parallel test section with the
same surface temperature, but without the stainless steel particles (see
Fig. 1; Jamialahmadi and Miiller-Steinhagen, 1992). Subsequent plant ex-
periments with the fluidized bed test heater confirmed that the fluidized
bed heat exchanger can operate much longer than traditional plain tube heat
exchangers (Miiller-Steinhagen and Jamialahmadi, 1994).
The initial success and the far-reaching potential of fluidized bed systems
have been acknowledged by the extensive amount of development that has
taken place in this field. Numerous experimental and theoretical studies on
this subject have been published. Unfortunately, there is significant con-
fusion and contradiction in the reported literature, countless recommend-
ed correlations, but little in the way of unifying theory. Thus, empirical
practice dominates, design from first principles is rarely attempted, and the
numerous research finding d o not seem to be very pertinent in their effort.
The reason for this deficiency lies in the complex nature of fluidization and
the dependence of heat transfer coefficients on a number of inter-dependent
parameters. i x . , fluidized bed quality, bed voidage, particle size, physical
and thermal properties of solid and liquid, column geometry, heat transfer
surface configuration and so on. Each parameter affects the heat transfer
coefficient in a different way and in varying degrees, making a common
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

T i m e (min.)

FIGURE I Heat transfer fouling in the fluidized bed section and in the empty test section.

correlation based on all possible parameters to satisfy design requirements

most difficult. Hence by default, most of the published correlations in the
field are limited to specific operating conditions.
Although previous investigations have not been successful in producing a
definite answer to the hydrodynamics and mechanism of heat transfer, they
did identify the variables, which have significant effect on heat transfer. The
conclusions of these investigations can be summarized as follows:
It is generally believed that liquid fluidized beds behave very different to
gas fluidized beds. In the former, the beds expand in homogeneous o r
particulate manner with increasing liquid flow rate whereas in the latter beds
expand in heterogeneous or aggregate mode as the gas velocity increases
above that required for incipient fluidization.
Transfer of heat is due to the motion of particles in and out of the thermal
boundary a t the wall. The particles stir the laminar sublayer, which is the
major resistance to heat transfer. Heat transfer via the particles is unim-
portant which is in marked contrast to gas fluidized beds where particle
convection is the dominant mode of heat transfer.
For a typical particle size and type and a given liquid, the heat transfer
coefficient increases as the bed voidage increases. The maximum value of the
heat transfer coefficient appears at a bed voidage between 0.6 to 0.8. The
heat transfer coefficient then decreases steadily as the bed voidage is further
increased towards empty tube conditions.
 38 M. JAMlALAHMADl A N D H. MLJLLER-STEINHAGEN

Considering the complexity of the basic mechanisms of heat transfer in

liquid/solid fluidization, these findings are a significant achievement.
The ultimate objective of any fundamental approach to the problem of
heat transfer in liquid fluidization is to be able to predict the hydrodynamics
and the heat transfer coefficient for a given condition through the knowledge
and understanding of the processes involved. The hydrodynamics and heat
transfer mechanisms of surface-to-bed will be reviewed in this paper and
needs for additional information will be identified.

HYDRODYNAMICS OF FLUIDIZED BED SYSTEMS

The hydrodynamics of liquid/solid fluidized bed systems are generally

Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

classified into two categories, namely particulate (or segregate) and aggre-
gate (or bubbling) beds. In the particulate mode, the bed expands homo-
geneously as the fluid velocity increases above that required for incipient
fluidization, whereas in aggregate fluidization systems small groups of par-
ticles are imagined to move as individual units through the system (Mickley
and Fairbanks, 1955). These two states represent the two extremes of a
continuous spectrum of possible behavior patterns for fluidized beds, there
being no intrinsic difference in the mechanisms of gas/particle and liquid/
particle interaction (Joshi, 1983). It is believed that liquid/solid fluidization
results in particulate (or homogeneous) mode where the bed is very smooth
with a spatially uniformly distributed concentration of solid particles.
Statements like this are very common in the literature on liquid fluidiza-
tion. However, for larger particle sizes and a t higher density differences,
aggregate fluidized beds have also been reported by several investigators
(Patel and Simpson, 1977 and Joshi, 1983). In aggregate fluidization the
extent of liquid circulation and mixing are extremely high, with clusters of
particles rising through the bed, bursting through the surface and generat-
ing a high degree of solid and liquid mixing. Due to the intense mixing of
the liquid and solid phases in aggregate fluidization, it is expected that the
rate of heat transfer is also high. As a consequence, it is essential to know
the mode of fluidization for the selection of the solid phase and the ap-
propriate design equation.

Hydrodynamic Model of Gibilaro et al. (1986)

Several attempts have been made to establish hydrodynamic criteria for
the prediction of the transition from particulate to aggregate fluidization.
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION 39

Recently, Di-Felice (1995) critically reviewed various theoretical and

empirical approaches to the fluid dynamic description of liquid fluidized
beds developed over the years. The majority of these correlations is not
general and far from satisfactory. The hydrodynamics of liquid/solid fluid-
ized bed systems are governed by the forces acting on the particles in the bed.
Particulate and aggregate fluidization indicate in the first case an equilib-
rium of forces acting on individual particles and in the second case an equilib-
rium of forces acting on aggregates of particles. Considering buoyancy
and drag as primary interaction forces, Gibilaro et a/. (1986) developed a
simple hydrodynamic criterion for predicting whether the bed will undergo
particulate or aggregate fluidization. Aggregation in fluidized beds occurs if:
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

The dynamic wave velocity, u,, can be obtained from the equation of
Foscolo and Gibilaro (1984):

It represents the maximum velocity at which small voidage disturbances can

propagate through the bed without the development of shock fronts.
The continuity wave velocity is calculated according to the well-
established expression of Slis (1959):

where n is the Richardson and Zaki (1954) exponent which is a function of

the terminal particle Reynolds number and the column diameter. It can be
determined from the correlations given in Table I.
Positive and negative values of F,, in Eq. (1) indicate particulate and
aggregate behavior of the bed respectively, and the zero value represents the
voidage at which a transition from particulate to aggregate fluidization is
predicted to occur. F,, displays a quadratic relationship with a minimum
within the operating voidage range. This criterion has been verified against
experimental data for both gas and liquid fluidized beds operating under
atmospheric and elevated pressure (Gibilaro et al., 1986).
Particle size and density are the two major parameters affecting the
fluidized bed quality. The influence of particle size and particle density on
the type of fluidization is shown in Figures 2 and 3. For each particle size or
 TABLE I Published correlations for the bed expansion characteristics of solid-liquid fluidized beds
Author Equation Range of opplicobility Type of equarion
Steinour (1944) (u,/u,) = 2 exp[-4.19(1 - E ) ] Re, < 0.2, E < 0.85 Semitheoretical
Brinkman (1947) (u,/u,) = 1 + 0.75(1 -€)[I - @/(I - E) - 3)0.5] Re, < 2 Theoretical
Lewis et a/. (1949) (u,/u,) = E~~~ 1.1 < Re, < 26 Empirical
Hawksley (1951) (u,/u,) = Gexp[(-2.5(1 -€))/(I - 39(1 - ~ ) ) / 6 4 ) 0.001 < Re, < 58 Semitheoretical
Jottrand (1952) (u,/u,) = E " ~ 0.001 < Re, < 0.4 Empirical
Lewis and Bowennan (1952) (u,/u,) = 0.9€2-97 2 < Re, < 500 Empirical
(u,/u,) = 0 . 7 ~ ~ " ~ Re, > 500, E i:0.9
Richardson and Zaki (1954) ( U S / U=~ En Semitheoretical
where n = 4.65 + 20dJD Re, < 0.2
n = (4.4 + 1 8 d , / ~ ) ~ e ; ~ . ~ ' 0.2 < Re, < l
n = (4.4 + 18d,/~)~e;O.' I < Re, < 200
n = 4.4Re;O.I 200 < Re, < 500
n = 2.4 Re, > 500
(u,/u,) = (3 - 4.5(1 - €)'I3 + 4.5(1 - E ) ~ ' ~ Re, < 0.2 Theoretical
-3(l - €)l)/(3 +2(1 - E)'")
Coroshko et a/. (1958) €4.76 = (18Re + 0.036Re;)lAr unknown Empirical
Loeffler and Ruth (1959) tu,/uO = (E)l(I - d ) l ( 5 . 7 + E2/(1 - E ) ) Re, < 0.5 Semitheoretical
Oliver (1961) (u,/u,) = (1 - 2.15(1 -€))[I - 0.75(1 - €)'I3] Re, < 0.4 Semitheoretical
Wen and Yu (1966) A ~ +2.7ReY
E ~ . =~ 18Rep 0.01 < Re, < lo4 Empirical
Barnea and Miuahi (1973) 1 O r 3 < Re, < 3 x lo4 Empirical
I .5 < Re, < 2200 Semitheoretical
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015
 Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

Wen and Fan (1974) 8 < A r c 10' Empirical

Ar > 10'

Garside and Al-Dibouni (1977) ( B(uJu,E)) = 0.06Re:+2

( ( ~ / u , E-) E ~ . I ~ ) / - < Re, < 3 x lo4 Empirical
' ~ ~< 0.85
B = 0 . 8 ~ for
= €2.65
for E > 0.85
Riba and Couderc (1 977) E =1 . 5 8 ~ e ~ / ~ r O ~ ' ~ for E < 0.85 Empiriwl
E =I . Z R ~ ~ ~ ~ / A P ~ ~ ' for E > 0.85
Ganguly (1980) & = 1.27w/(lp~@(I- l.762u+0.95u2)1) 0.12 < Re, < 43.66 Empirical
where u = (u, - u,r)/(u, - u,r) L, = height of expanded bed, m
W = mass of feed, kg
Kemic (1982) 12 < Re, < 877 Empirical
6 x 10' < Ar < 3.79 x lo6
Foscolo er a/. (1983) ( 1E ) E ~ ) )
(u3/a) = ( ~ ~ / ( 4 - + Re, < 0.2 Theoretical
(u,/u,) = (0.0777Re,(l + 0 . 0 1 9 4 1 R e , ) ~ ~-- ~1)/0.0388Re, 0.2 < Re, < 500
(u,/u,) = [~*/(3.55(1- E) E~)]"'
+ Re, > 500
Patwardhan and Tien (1985) (uS/ut) = E/M for low Re, Empirical
M = 1 + 2.5(1 - E) + 10.05(1 - E ) +~ 0.00273e16.6(1-E)
( d u J = k/(E + (1 - E)(PP/PI))~ for high Re,
Rowe (1987) (u,/u,) = En as Richardson and Zaki (1954) Semitheoretical
where n = (2.35(2 + 0.1 75Re:75)/(l + 0.1 7SRe:75))
Jean and Fan (1989) (u,/u,) = (3 - 4.5(1 -<)'I3 + 4.5(1 - €)'I3 - 3(1 - ~ ) ~ ) +/ 32(1 - €)'I3 for Re, < 0.2 Theoretical
Hirata and Bulos (1990) E=EPK + (1 - E P K ) E $ ~ ~ P -(E~m( )~) as Richardson and Zaki (1954) Empirical
where A = 2.2n +(8d,/D)
b = 2.111
/ (0.175~e:"))
n = (2.35(2 + 0 . 1 7 5 ~ e ~ ~ ' )+ l
Hartman el a/. (1992) ~ 20.359Rep
1 . 4 4 0 2 ~ e+ ~' -E ~ =0 ~ ~ ~ for
~ lo-' A< Re, ~< lo4 and Empirical
1 < Ar < 10'
 42 M. JAMIALAHMADI A N D H. MULLER-STEINHAGEN
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Bed voidoge
FIGURE 2 Effect of particle diameter on the state of aggregation

Bed voidage

FIGURE 3 Effect of particle density on the state of aggregation

density F, is obtained from Eqs. (1) to (3) for the dynamic and continu-
ity wave velocities. The bed voidage required for the evaluation of these
two velocities is calculated with the Hirata and Bulos (1990) model in
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION 43

conunction with the Richardson and Zaki (1954) and Hartman et at. (1989)
correlations. The change from static bed to fluidized bed is accompanied by
an increase in the state of aggregation of the bed. F, reaches its minimum
value at a bed voidage between 0.6 to 0.9. After this point, the bed becomes
dilute and the aggregate behavior declines. Experimental results show that
the quality of particulate fluidization is a strong function of particle size
and density while these dependencies in aggregate fluidization are weak.
Furthermore, two critical particle diameters can be observed: the first cor-
responds to the point where the minimum of F, just touches the abscissa,
and represents the largest particle diameter for which the bed will remain
particulate throughout the range of expansion. The second critical diameter
corresponds to the curve that first intersects the abscissa at the fixed bed
voidage of about 0.4. Particles larger than this critical value will display
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

aggregate behavior from the onset of fluidization on.

CLASSIFICATION OF PARTICLES FOR LIQUID

FLUIDIZATION

The criterion for transition from particulate to aggregate behavior of

fluidized beds can be presented in dimensionless form according to Gibilaro
el at. (1990):

+ve, particulate
- 0.4n(l - E)~-'E"-' x a = 0, particulate and aggregate
-ve, aggregate
(4)

where

Comparison of predicted behavior with experimental findings reveals the

adequacy of this model when applied to dense particle systems. However,
for light solids such as plastic particles, for which the solid density
approaches that of the liquid, the results are less satisfactory.
Equation (4) can be used to construct a flow map in dimensionless form
for particles fluidized by any fluid as depicted in Figure 4 (Di-Felice, 1995).
 M. JAMIALAHMADI A N D H. MULLER-STEINHAGEN

Archimedes number. Ar
10 I lo3 lo5 10'

- 0.06

- 0.08

C
4000-
7J
-
a, C
.-
U
- w
0.4 0
C
Particulate

- 0.6
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

0.1 1
Particle diometer, d p ( m m )

FIGURE 4 Classification of the behavior of liquid-fluidized solid parlicles.

This diagram can also be used to predict the effect of physical properties of
solid and liquid phases on the state of aggregation of the fluidized bed. Glass
particles up to 2.2mm display particulate behavior when they are fluid-
ized by water. Steel particles larger than 1.1 mm, copper and nickel par-
ticles larger than 0.9mm exhibit aggregate behavior from the onset of
fluidization.

BED VOIDAGE

All theoretical and empirical correlations available for the prediction of the
state of aggregation, dispersion, heat and mass transfer coefficients are a
strong function of the bed voidage. Therefore, accurate prediction of this
parameter is crucial for reliable estimation of design parameters. Consider-
able progress has been made in establishing the velocity-voidage relationship
in fluidized bed systems and numerous correlations have been proposed for
its prediction. Table 1 summarizes the published equations and conditions
for which their application has been recommended. Figure 5 shows a typical
comparison between measured and calculated bed voidages for 2 mm glass
particles. While all correlations predict an increase in bed voidage with
increasing liquid velocity, the variation between the predictions of the
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION 45
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

Liquid velocity (rn/s)

FIGURE 5 Comparison of measured and predicted bed voidage for 2 mm glass particles.

different correlations is quite considerable. The Richardson and Zaki (1954)

model is still one of the most widely used correlations and recommended
in several textbooks for liquid/solid fluidized bed systems. Recent models
include that of Ganguly (1980), which directly gives the expanded bed height
for heterogeneous systems; the Jean and Fan (1989) model is based on fluid
mechanics and limited to low Reynolds numbers; the correlation suggested
by Foscolo et al. (1983) consists of different equations for the laminar,
intermediate and turbulent regimes.
The Richardson and Zaki model has been criticized because of the
discontinuity which exists at the transition points between the different Re,
ranges. Furthermore, it does not include the static bed voidage as limiting
condition, but predicts zero voidage a t zero liquid velocity. Rowe (1987) pro-
posed the following continuous equation for the exponent n:

Equation (6) is generally preferred because of its simplicity as compared to

the original Richardson and Zaki correlation (see Tab. I). Hirata and Bulos
(1990) corrected the second disadvantage of the Richardson and Zaki
model, suggesting the following correlation for the estimation of bed
 voidage of liquid/solid systems:

where

The Reynolds number a t the terminal velocity can be obtained from the
explicit empirical expression of Hartman el al. (1992):
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

where

and

C = log,, [""'" d - "'1

Improved values of the constants used in the Hirata and Bulos correlation
are determined for particulate and aggregate fluidizations by non-linear
regression using all available data in the literature (Jamialahmadi and
Miiller-Steinhagen, 1995; Jamialahmadi er al., 1997). For particulate flui-
dization of spherical particles, the following equation is obtained:

and for aggregate fluidization Eq. (13)

The Richardson and Zaki exponent, n in the above equations should

be calculated from Eq. (6). The prediction of Eqs. (12) and (13) are verified
against reported experimental data of various investigators in Figure 6. The
average absolute relative error of the predicted values is 6%. The predictions
of the modified model and previously published correlations are compared
with all previously published data in Table 11. The best agreement between
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015
 48 M. JAMIALAHMADI A N D H. M~JLLER-STEINHAGEN

Wen and Yu (1966) and Richardson and Zaki (1954) and the experimental
data.

Bed Voidage of Cylindrical Particles

Cylindrical steel particles are the most commonly used particles in industrial
liquid/solid fluidized bed heat exchangers. Despite many successful commer-
cial applications of these heat exchangers, little specific information could
be found about bed voidage and heat transfer of liquid/solid fluidized beds
inside tubes containing such cylindrical particles, and the mechanism of heat
transfer in these systems has remained obscure. Published prediction meth-
ods recommend to use an equivalent particle diameter together with a cor-
relation for the bed voidage of spherical particles, rather than providing
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

specific correlations for non-spherical particles. As shown in the following,

this procedure usually works quite well, even though some improvement is
possible by using a separate correlation for cylindrical particles.
Most recently, extensive experimental results have been reported on bed
voidage of various cylindrical particles with different expansion char-
acteristics (Akhoonddezfouly, 1997). Typical velocity-voidage results meas-
ured for liquid velocity ranging from 0 to 0.6m/s are shown in Figure 7.
The general shape of bed voidage versus liquid velocity is identical to that

-
)

r.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Superficial Liquid Velocity (rn/s)

FIGURE 7 Varialion of bed voidage with liquid velocity for cylindrical particles
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION 49

for spherical fluidized beds. It is characterized by a gradual increase in

voidage, followed by a sharp increase and subsequent gradual increase
toward an asymptotic value of one. For steel particles, the results show that
for a given liquid velocity the bed voidage is significantly decreased when
the behavior of the fluidized bed is changed from particulate-aggregate
transition mode for 1 x 1 mm to aggregate fluidization of 1.6 x 1.6mm steel
particles. In aggregate fluidization, bed voidage is only slightly affected by
changing the particle size from 1.6 x 1.6mm to 2.5 x 2.5mm. A similar ef-
fect can also be realized when the density of the particles is increased
from 2350 kg/m3 for aluminum particles with particulate behavior to steel,
copper, and or brass particles with aggregate behavior.
The predictions of the commonly available correlations for bed voidage
have been compared with the experimental data and the results are sum-
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

marized in Table 11. The best predictions are obtained from the correlations
of Lewis and Bowerman (1962) and of Hirata and Bulos (1990). Analysis of
the experimental results showed that the correlation of Hirata and Bulos can
be modified to Eq. (14) to provide better prediction for cylindrical particles.

Equation (14) predicts the bed voidage of cylindrical particles with an

average absolute relative error of 5%.

AXIAL DISPERSION OF LIQUID- AND SOLID PHASE

The reason for the high heat transfer rate in a liquid/solid fluidized bed, as
compared to an empty tube through which a liquid is flowing, is that the
liquid film near the wall is frequently mixed and removed by the solid par-
ticles. Thus it should be expected that the maximum heat transfer occurs at
the point of maximum mixing within the bed. Knowledge of the extent of
solid- and liquid-phase mixing are among those parameters often required
for optimum design of the system.
In liquid/solid fluidized beds mixing of particles and liquid in the axial
direction is important (Dorgelo et al., 1985). Axial mixing refers to the
mechanism by which a phase can move or disperse against the direction of
its main flow, and is generally described by an axial dispersion coefficient.
Liquid phase axial mixing is induced mainly by the fluidized particles
dragging the liquid against its net upward flow. A bulk circulation pattern
is thus set up which enhances mixing in the axial direction. Most previous
 50 M. JAMIALAHMADI A N D H . MULLER-STEINHAGEN

investigations on mixing in liquid/solid fluidized bed systems are reviewed

by Chung and Wen (1968) and Van der Meer et al. (1984). Practically most
of the experiments on axial dispersion have been performed at superficial
.. liquid velocities larger than 20cm/s. Few authors attempted to find the point
of maximum mixing and its corresponding bed voidage. Gunn (1968) found
a maximum in dispersion coefficient at a voidage of 0.7. Some authors
(Al-Dibouni and Garside, 1979; Yutani er al., 1982; Handley et al., 1966)
also reported maximum dispersion coefficients at intermediate voidages
(0.65 < E < 0.8). Akhoonddezfouly (1997) showed that conclusive inter-
pretation of most previous work on mixing in liquid/solid fluidized beds
is possible by using the hydrodynamic model of Gibilaro er al. (1986).
Interesting results emerged when the measured dispersion coefficients for
both liquid- and solid-phase, and the predicted quality of the bed according
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

to Eq. (I) were plotted as a.function of bed voidage. Examples of such a plot
are shown in Figures 8 and 9 for liquid and solid phase dispersion co-
efficients respectively. For particulate fluidization, the dispersion coefficient
is dependent on particle size, solid and fluid densities and column diameter
while these dependencies are weak in aggregate fluidization. The maximum
dispersion coefficient is observed at bed voidages between 0.6 and 0.8,
corresponding to the point of maximum aggregation of the bed in the liquid

14
p.=2.53
p,=2.53
g
g/cm3
/cm
3
1 Metho. ond Schemidt (197
dp0.5 mm
A
",12
-g 10
0

.<
D
8

6
.-
0

58 4
6
.-
0

2 2

0
" ~ ~ " " ' ~ " " ~ ~ ~ ~ '
-
~" ' ~
~" '~
"" ~ ~ " ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " ~
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Bed voidage

FIGURE 8 Variation o f axial dispersion of liquid phase and state o f aggregation w i t h bed
voidage.
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION 51
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

FIGURE 9 Variation of solid phase dispersion coefficient and state of aggregation with bed
voidage.

phase. A satisfactory agreement between measured and predicted values of

the dispersion coefficient up to the maximum value is obtained from the
correlation proposed by Krishnaswamy and Ganapathey (1978)

None of the available correlations can predict the dispersion coefficient

beyond the maximum satisfactory. There is also no general correlation to
predict the maximum attainable dispersion coefficient and its corresponding
bed voidage with a good degree of accuracy. Well-designed measurements
are required for particulate and aggregate fluidization over a wide range of
particle size and density under various operating conditions to develop a
general mixing model for liquid/solid fluidized bed systems.

HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT

One of the impediments to optimum design and operation of liquid/solid

fluidized bed heat exchangers is the dependence of the heat transfer
 coefficient on a number of operational and geometrical parameters. A
review of the existing literature reveals that there is a wealth of experimental
data on the effect of various parameters on heat transfer coefficient, but few
attempts have been made to analyze these data in a coherent way.
Recently, Jamialahmadi et a/. (1995) used the hydrodynamic model of
Gibilaro er al. (1986) to bring together the numerous and seemingly con-
tradictory research findings. These analyses are crucial for further work on
the development of a theoretical heat transfer model and design procedure.

Effect of Particle Size

Particle size and density are the most important parameters affecting the
heat transfer coefficient. All previous investigators reported that the heat
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

transfer coefficient increases significantly with increasing particle size.

Figure 10 shows that the heat transfer coefficients at any voidage in-
crease significantly when the particle diameter increases from 1 x I mm to
1.6 x 1.6 mm. However, almost no improvement in heat transfer coefficient
was observed when the particle size was increased from 1.6 x 1.6mm to
2.5 x 2.5 mm. The latter two particle sizes display aggregate behavior from
the onset of fluidization, and as a consequence, the bed voidage and hence

Bed voidage

FIGURE 10 Heat transfer coefficient as a function of heat flux for cylindrical steel particles.
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION 53

the heat transfer coefficient remain almost constant. This interesting result
implies that there is a limit to improve the heat transfer coefficient by in-
creasing the particle size. Once the particle behavior is extended into the
fully aggregate regime no further significant improvement in heat transfer
coefficient may be obtained.
This finding is confirmed by analyzing two of the most systematic
investigations on heat transfer in liquid fluidized bed in plain tubes to-date,
namely those of Richardson and Mitson (1958) and Wasmund and Smith
(1967). Richardson and Mitson used several sizes of copper particles with
water as the fluidizing medium. Their measured heat transfer coefficients are
plotted in Figure 1 1 together with the predicted state of aggregation. The
small particles (d, = 0.78 mm) are in the transition region whereas the other
two particle sizes display aggregate behavior from the onset of fluidization.
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

The heat transfer coefficient improved significantly when the behavior of the
bed changed from transitional for the small particles to fully aggregate for
the large particles. In the aggregate mode, the heat transfer coefficients
remained almost constant when the particle size was increased from I. I mm
to 1.44 mm. The experimental data of Wehrmann and Mersmann (198 1) for
the aggregate zone show a similar behavior. The experimental data reported
by Wasmund and Smith (1967) for glass and aluminum particles are in

- 1.5
0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Bed Voidage

FIGURE I I Effect of particle size on heat transfer coefficient in transition and aggregate
fluidization.
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Bed Voidage
FIGURE 12 Efi'ect of particle size on heat transfer coefficient in particulate fluidization.

particulate and transition fluidization zones. Their data together with the
predicted state of aggregation are plotted in Figure 12. The results show a
significant improvement of heat transfer coefficient as the diameter of the
glass particles is increased from 1.09 mm to 2.85 mm.

Effect of Particle Density

Jamialahmadi el al. (1995) measured heat transfer coefficients for 4.5mm
spherical particles of various materials with different densities. These results
are summarized in Figure 13. At any voidage, the heat transfer coefficients
for glass particles are considerably lower than those of other particles with
higher density.'The maximum value of the heat transfer coefficient observed
for glass particles is about half of that of the heavier particles. Glass
particles with a diameter of 4.5 mm are fluidized in the transition zone, while
the other particles display aggregate behavior from the onset of fluidization.
In the aggregate zone n o significant improvement in heat transfer was
observed when the particle density was increased. A similar trend can also
be observed from the experimental data reported by Richardson and Mitson
(1958) with respect to the effect of particle density on the heat transfer co-
efficient in aggregate fluidization.
Interesting results are found when the measured heat transfer coefficients
of Patel and Simson (1977) for lead particles are plotted as a function of F,
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

Bed voidage

FIGURE 13 Effect of particle density on heat transfer coefficient

F
, (State of aggregation)

FIGURE 14 Variation of heat transfer coefficient with F. in transition and aggregate

fluidization.

in Figure 14. Two distinct zones can be observed: for particles which could
experience both, particulate and aggregate fluidization, the heat transfer
coefficient is strongly dependent on F,, while for purely aggregate
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015
 Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

TABLE 111 Published correlations for solid-liquid fluidized bed heat transfer
Rmge of applicnbility
10 < Re, < 3850
Pr = 7
1.5 x lo4 < Ar < 3.1 x lo6
0.015 < d,/Dh < 0.0091
a,= single-phase flow, abed = fixed bed conditions
k = 15.5 for d, = 113.3 and k = 13.75 for d, = 5.9mm
Lemlich and Caldas (1958) Low u : Nu, = 0.0555Rep 2 < Re, < 95
High u : Nu, = 1 . 4 ~ r ~ l ' ( d , / ~ h ) ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - ' PI = 3.6
The correlation predicting the lower value of o should be 5.4 x lo2 < Ar < 1.7 x lo4
used 0.0096 < dp/Dh < 0.0135
Richardson and Mitson (1958) N~ - 119~~-0.07750 4
P - /D<
PI R ~ ~ ( c ~ , / c ~ , ) ~ ~ * ( A , / x I ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (35~ <~ Re, ~ )1610
~~~~
6.8 < Pr < 29.6
1.83 x 10' Ar < 146 x lo6
0.63 < E < 1.0
0.0091 < d,/Dh < 0.01 84
Ruckenstein et a/. (1959) Nu, = 0 . 0 6 7 ~ e ; ~ ~ ~ ' P r ~ l ' RepArroS8
~ P ~ ' ~ > 0.09 Unknown
Nu, = RepAr-o-58< 0.09
Richardson and Smith (1962) o = a/ + 24367(1 7.427 x 10-7Cj;'2)(1 - E)~(U/E)"'
+ 35 < Re, < 1610
100 < Re,
6.8 < PI < 29.6
2.82 x lo2 < Ar < 3.13 x 10'
0.60 < E < 0.98
0.0049 < dp/Dh < 0.0439
Wasmund and Smith (1967) Nu, = (~e,~r)/(l/(lO("-'.'~~)~e~)) + 4844.23uDh/(cRe, + 1689.7d,(~ - 0.5)) 1.73 < Re, < 2500
P r = 6.1
4.9 103 < AI < 2.1 105
glass: a = O . 1 1 , b = - 0 . 3 3 , ~ = 1 . 0 6 ~ lo-' 0.45 < E < 0.90
aluminum: o = 0.29, b = -0.37, c = 1.37 x lo-' 0.0054 < d,,/Dh < 0.1088
Wasan and Ahluwalia (1969) l
Nu, = 1 . 2 5 7 R e ~ P ~ . 5-( €)'I6 +NU; Unknown
Nu; = CRe;Pr(l - ~ ) ~ ~ ( e-' erf(Ji)][l - I)
 Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

laminar: A = (I + b2)'I2 - b3, 1 = 0 . 0 9 8 9 ~ r - I ~ - ~

b = 0.0239(1 - E ) ' ~ ~ R ~C?= , 3.175, p = 0.5, q = 116
turbulent: (I + b514)915- b9I4, 1 = (26.873(1 - E ) - ' / ' / R ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ A ~ )
b = 0.3447(1 - a ) 4 ' 1 5 ~ e ~ /c' ,= 0.2148, p = 4/5, q = 4/15
Hamilton (1970) Nu, = 3 . 3 3 R e F ~ r ' (I d~ , / ~ ~ ) ~ -' ~E~) ~( l~ ' ' 1.7 < Re, < 2500
Pr = 6.1
4.9 x 10' < Ar < 2.1 x 10'
0.45 < E < 0.99
0.0054 < dJD.
r, .. < 0.1088
Tripathi and Pandey (1970) ~ pl)/p1)-0.19
Nu, = 0 . 0 1 7 3 ~ e y P p . "( d , / ~ ~ ) - ~ " ~ ~ - ' - - ((p, 40 < Re, < 1000
1.4 < Pr < 10
8.0 x 10' < Ar < 3.1 x lo6
0.5 < E < 1.0
.0098 < dJDh < 0.1295
Brea and Hamilton (1971) ~)~~'~(1
Nu, = 0 . 9 4 3 ~ e ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ( d , /-~E)"~' 10.4 < Re, < 357
5.24 < Pr < 368
2.8 x 10" Ar < 1.5 x 10'
0.55 < E < 0.99
0.0086 < dJDh < 0.0332
Varma el al. (1972) )) -(I~ -
Nu, = c ~ e ~ ~ ' ~ r ~ l ~ ( d , / ~ ~ ) - ~ ' ~ ~ (( hh /l hh pp~~= ,
. 'EPK)/(I-d 185 < Re, < 3360
3.54 < Pr < 5.0
c = 0.00285 for glass, c = 0.0032 for aluminium 1.1 x 106 < Ar < 8 x lo6
0.48 < E < l
0.0063 < d,/Dh c 0.123
Schimanski er at. (1972) Nu, = 0 . 2 3 R e y A P . ~ ~ 3 < Re, < 300
2 x 10' < Ar < 1.2 x 10'
Syromayatnikov er al. (1973)

,,,,
Nu = cpr113A P 5 , uOp,= ~ . l ( v ~ / d ~ ) ~ r ~ ~ ~
short tube: c = 0.0345(100mm)
long tube: r = 0.023(705 mm)'
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015
 Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

Kang et a/. (1991) E)'"

Nu, = 0 . 1 9 l ~ e ~ ~ r " ' ~ -- ~ (l 68 < Re, < 480
Pr = 5.6
1.13 x 10' < Ar < 1.47 x lo6
0.50 < E < 0.85
0.013 < dp/Dh < 0.030
Macias-Machin el al. (1991) N ~ =
, 1 , 7 2 ~ ~ ~ 6 p ~ - 0 . ~ 1 ~-- O E)029
Ss(l Unknown
Nu, and Re, with the diameter d, of the horizontal tube
Jamialahmadi et al. (1992) a,
a = a, + 1.5(1 ~ ) ( d , , / ~ h ) - l ( n / ~ ) ( -a,)
- 384 < Re. < 13376

UP = \/&(I - (pl/P,))((E - E P K ) / ~ -(E~P K ) ( ~

-E)), ( W ) = 7 . 1 9 ( d , l ~ h ) ' ~ ~ 0.41 < E < 1.0
d, = diameter of a sphere w t h volume equal to cylinder 0.048 < d,/Dh < 0.120
K = 0.0705 for spheres, K = 0.141 for cylindrical particles
g = 9.81 m/s2
Haid el a/. (1994) Nu, = c Re; P@(P, - ~ I / P I ~ ( ~ , / D , + )-~~E )~ (f I 0.020 < Re, < 9400
c = 0.1493, a = 0.72, b = 0.52, c = 0.03 1.65 < Pr < 7700
d = 0.17, e = - 1.41, f = 0.19 3.85 < A r < 6.7 x lo7
0.0013 < dJDh < 0.210
Jamialahmadi et al. (1995) for particulate fluidization: 384 < Re, < 13376
a = a, I S ( ~ , / D ~ ) ' . ~ ' ~7
+ ( IE ) ~ ' ~ - ~ a~c )~ ( c I ~ 1.95 < Pr < 2.36
for aaarenated fluidization:
-- - 9.95 x lo5 < Ar < 1.55 x 10'
(~
a = a, 8 . 6 4 ( d , / ~ ~ ) " ~-~E,~)'.~"(I
+ - ~ ) ~ ' - ~a r )~ ~ ( 0 ~ 0.41 < E < 1.0
a, = a for single-phase flow 0.048 < d,/dh < 0.120
up = ( ( 2 / J i i ) - + K e ) 8 . f = 3up/44
UP = J&(l - (PI/P,))((E,-EPK)/~(~ - EPK)(I-€I)
d, = diameter of a sphere w ~ t hvolume equal to cyllnder
K = 0.0705 for spheres, K = 0.141 for cylindrical particles
g = 9.81 m/s2
Jamialahmadi er a/. (1996) a = ac + (6(1 - ~ ) / d ~ ) ( V ~ / A ) ( n p / N ) (-a ap = ) 384 < Re, < 13376
a, = a for smgle-phase flow 1.95 < Pr < 2.36
a, = ((2/Jii)v'%G+ K,&Z)8 9.95 x 10' < Ar < 1.55 x lo7
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015
 LlQUIDjSOLlD FLUIDIZATION
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

(a) Bed voidage

(b) Bed voidage

FIGURE 17a, b Comparison of measured and predicted heat transfer coefficients for 2mm
glass particles.

bed system. Even though individual investigators have been reasonably

successful in correlating their own results, the variation between the pre-
dictions of the various correlations is quite considerable. The reason for this
discrepancy lies not only in the complex nature of fluidization itself, but also
 in the use of dissimilar geometries that give rise to different hydrodynamic
characteristics of the fluidized bed.

UNIFIED HEAT TRANSFER MODEL

Jamialahmadi et nl. (1996) suggested a unified prediction model based on

the analogy between the mechanisms of nucleate boiling and fluidization
heat transfer. The model is generally applicable and includes the effect of
various operational and geometrical parameters on the heat transfer co-
efficient. The heat transfer surface is divided into two zones where heat
transfer is governed by different mechanisms:
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

I. The surface area affected by particles, A,. In this area heat is transferred
into the fluid by transient heat conduction from the heat transfer surface
to the adjacent liquid layer. In the wake of particles departing from the
heat transfer surface, the hot liquid layer is transported into the liquid
bulk and replaced by cooler liquid. Some heat is also transferred by
conduction to the particles while they are in contact with the heat transfer
surface.
2. In the remaining heat transfer area, A,, heat is transferred to the liquid by
forced convection. Both mechanisms occur in parallel in separate zones
of the heat transfer surface.
Based on the above mechanisms, a theoretical model was developed
which eventually led to the following equation for the heat transfer
coefficient:

The value of V T / A depends on the heat transfer surface configuration as

tabulated in Table 111.
np/N is the fraction of fluidized particles which are in contact with the heat
transfer surface. Meijer (1984) has shown that the number of collisions of
particles with the heat transfer surface is a function of bed voidage, particle
size and physical properties of the system. Jamialahmadi et al. (1996) ex-
pressed this functionality in the following form:
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION 67

The parameters a, b, c and d a r e estimated from the experimental data for

various heat transfer configurations and state of aggregation of the solid
phase. The curve-fitted values are summarized in Table 111.

Prediction of a, and a,
The local forced convective heat transfer coefficient a, can be calculated
from the Gnielinski (1986) correlation for wall-to-bed and vertical immersed
surfaces, from the Khan et al. (1978) correlation for immersed plates and
from the Knudsen and Katz (1958) correlation for horizontal immersed
surfaces.
The particle heat transfer coefficient a, can be obtained from the fol-
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

lowing equation (Jamialahmadi et al., 1995):

K is a constant taking into account the area of contact between particles and
heat transfer surface. It is equal to 0.0705 for spherical and 0.141 for
cylindrical particles. The collision frequency in Eq. (18) can be predicted
from a correlation provided by Martin (1981, 1990):

The prediction of Eq. (16) for 2mm glass particles with particulate behavior
and I x 1 mm cylindrical steel particles with particulate-aggregate behavior
are summarized in Figure 18. The calculated trends are in excellent agree-
ment with the experimental results of all previous investigators. The effect
of heat transfer surface configuration on heat transfer coefficient is display-
ed in Figure 19. Again, the predicted results are in very good agreement
with the reported experimental data.
The prediction of 28 of the more common correlations and of Eq. (16)
have been compared with data from a data bank containing a large number
of measured heat transfer coefficients over a wide range of operational
parameters and solid phase physical properties from various investigators.
The average absolute relative errors between the predictions and the experi-
mental data are summarized in Table 1V.
 68 M. JAMIALAHMADI A N D H. MULLER-STEINHAGEN
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

Bed voidoge

FIGURE 18 Comparison of measured and predicted heat transfer coefficients.

12.000

-
3 10,000
->
7
E

8.000 Wall to bed heater

.-a,
"
.-
"-
% 6,000
8
b 4.000
C

B
;
; 2,000
a!
I
0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Bed voidoge

FIGURE 19 Comparison of measured and predicted heat transfer coefficients for various heat
transfer surface conligurations.

The results demonstrate that Eq. (16) predicts the published data for
various heat transfer surface configurations and states of aggregation with
good accuracy.
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION 69

TABLE IV Comparison of the prediction of various correlations with experimental data

Correlations Particulate ffuidizarion Aeereeare ffuidizalion

Allen er a / . (1977) 35% 40%

Baker er 01. (1978) 80% 82%
Brea and Hamilton (1971) 58% 46%
Coulson and Richardson (1985) 49% 58%
Chiu and Ziegler (1985) 33% 40%
Grewal and Zimmerman (1988) 48% 38%
Hamilton (1970) 79% 70%
Holman e t a / . (1963) 72% 65%
Kang er a / . (1991) 47% 40%
Kato er al. (1981) 41% 50%
Khan er a/. (1978) 45% 65%
Kim er 01. (1986) 35% 27%
Kollbach (1987) 45% 36%
Midoux el a/. (1986) 58% 49%
Muroyama er a / . (1986) 50% 39%
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

Mersman er a / . (1980) 51% 39%

Richardson and Mitson (1958) 52% 48%
Richardson and Smith (1962) 48% 57%
Ruckenstein and Shorr (1959) 60% 57%
Richardson el a / . (1976) 43% 52%
Schimanski er al. (1973) 72% 68%
Sunkoori and Kaparthi (1960) 81% 115%
Schutt (1982) 48% 37%
Tripathi and Pandey (1970) 56% 44%
Wasmund and Smith (1967) 95% 56%
Wehrmann and Mersmann (1981) 51% 49%
Haid (1997) 25% 26%
Jamialahmadi er a / . (1996) 18% 16%

OPTIMUM CONDITIONS OF LIQUID/SOLID

FLUIDIZED BED SYSTEMS

Accurate prediction of maximum attainable heat transfer coefficients and

their corresponding bed voidages is essential for optimum design and
operation of fluidized bed systems. All previous investigators have observed
that as the bed voidage is decreased from unity the heat transfer coefficient
increases gradually to a maximum. Further reduction of the bed voidage
causes the heat transfer coefficients to decrease continuously to the values
for fixed bed conditions. The value of the maximum heat transfer coefficient
increases with increasing particle size and density. Several correlations have
been developed specifically for the prediction of the maximum heat trans-
fer coefficient of liquid/solid Auidized bed systems. These correlations are
summarized in Table V. A typical comparison between the measured
and predicted maximum heat transfer coefficients is shown in Figure 20.
The deviation between the predictions of the various correlations is quite
considerable.
 70 M. JAMIALAHMADI A N D H. MULLER-STEINHAGEN

TABLE V Correlations suggested for the prediction a,,.

Reference Correlarion
Khan er a / . (1978) Nu,,,, .
= 0.085 (Ar PrJ",'
Wehrman and Mersmann (1981) Nu,,,,, .
= 0.06 (Ar Pr)
Mersmann er a/.(1980) Nu,.,,, .
= 0.04 (Ar ~ r ) ' . ~ '
Lemlich and Caldas (1958) a,,. = 4.678U;""
Wasmund and Smith (1967) a,. = 13550.5 +3628.25 log(d,)
Richardson er a / . (1976) a
,
. +
= 836.6 266 log d,
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

FIGURE 20 Comparison of measured and predicted maximum heat transfer coefficients for
glass particles.

The Optimum Bed Voidage

To determine the bed voidage at which the heat transfer coefficient reaches
its maximum, Kang et al. (1991) assumed that the optimum condition of the
bed is the point at which the rate of energy dissipation per unit mass of
liquid phase is at its maximum. Using Joshi's (1983) energy dissipation mod-
el, Kang e~ al. (1991) derived the following equation for the prediction of
the bed voidage at which the heat transfer coefficient is maximum:
n-l
Emax = -
n
This model predicts the published experimental data with an average absolute
relative error of 20%. Jamialahmadi et al. (1997) developed an alternative
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION 71

equation using the hydrodynamic model of Gibilaro et al. (1986). Equation

(1) displays a quadratic relationship with a well-defined minimum corre-
sponding to the point of maximum heat transfer coefficient of the system.
This point can be derived from the first derivative of the F, function with
respect to E :

n is the Richardson and Zaki exponent and can be obtained from Eq. (6).
This exponent varies from a maximum value of about 4.7 for Re, < 0.2 to
a minimum value of 2.39 for Re, > 500. For these values of n, Eq. (21)
predicts that the maximum heat transfer rate should occur at a bed voidage
between 0.7 and 0.9 which is in good agreement with previous findings.
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

Substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (21) yields:

The average error between the prediction of Eq. (22) and experimental bed
voidages observed by various investigators for maximum heat transfer co-
efficients is about 6% (Jamialahmadi er al., 1997) which confirms the appli-
cability of this model.

The Optimum Heat Transfer Coefficient

The maximum heat transfer coefficient of liquid/solid fluidized bed systems
is predicted from Eq. (16) as follows:

The value of V T / A depends on the heat transfer surface configuration, and

appropriate values are summarized in Table IV. (n,/N,,,) is the maximum
fraction of fluidized particles which are in contact with the heat transfer
surface. Analysis of the experimental results shows that for the point of
maximum heat transfer Eq. (17) can be reduced to Eq. (24):

The parameters x, y and z for various heat transfer surface configurations

and states of aggregation of the solid phase are summarized in Table VI.
 72 M. JAMIALAHMADI ANDH. MULLER-STEINHAGEN

TABLE VI The parameters of Eq. (24) for particulate and aggregative fluidization. (See Color
Plate)
Configuration of Aggregate Particulate
Source of data heater fluidization fluidization

Khan et al. (1978) x = 0.0960 x = 0.00800

Romani and Richardson (1974) y = 1.4410 y = -0.0780
z = 0.0800 z = - 0.4162

Grewal and Zimerman (1988)

ffinm
....'.
x
y
z
=
=
=
0.3850
1.2180
0.0800
x
y
z
=
=
=
0.3850
1.2180
0.0800

~
Baker et al. (1978) x = 0.2920 x = 0.04000
Kang et al. (1991) .......' y = 1.2760 y = 1.03700
z = 0.0273 z = 0.12450
mnn
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

References are summarised

in Figure 23
ill .....
'"
x = 0.03313
y = 0.90880
x = 0.2647
y = 1.1150

(r
z = 0.24000 z = 0.1400
mnm

18,000 I'i"'!""""""""""""""""~~~~"""""~"""""""~--------~
... Weh,mann and Mersmonn
EEl Brea and Hamilton (1971)
@)Jamialahmadi et al.( 1995
Q 15,000 []lib Wasmund
Grewal and Zimmerman P1988)
and Smith (1967)
j,
0 ...
N ~7 Patel and Simpson (1977)
E ..... Wesser and Mardus (1957) . . "
<, ~~ Stellingwerf ( 1 r r - 9 1 ) b. t8I
~ 12,000 7 Kolber (1992)
x ASchutt (1982) @
a
E
8 9,000
-0 o
Q) CD
-+-'
u
-0 6,000 III Chiu and Ziegler (1985)
Q)
L
* Muroyama et al.( 1986)
W Baker et al.( 1978)
0.-
8 Kato et al.(1981)
3,000 o Kollbach (1987)
LI Kang et al.( 1991)
b. Kim et 01.( 1986)
!" ! ! ,I ,','
• Khan et al.( 1 78
3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 18,000
Experiment, CX- max (W/m 2K)

FIGURE 21 Comparison of measured and predicted maximum heat transfer coefficients.

The predictions of Eq. (23) are compared with the experimental data of
various investigators in Figure 21 for wall-to-bed and immersed heater with
different hydrodynamics characteristics. Table VII shows that the average
error between the prediction of Eq. (2:3) and the experimental heat transfer
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION 73

TABLE VII Correlations investigated

Correlarions Parriculare fluidization Aaareaare fluidization

Khan er a / . (1978) 42% 50%

Wehrmann and Mersmann (1981) 25% 19%
Mersmann er a/. (1980) 32% 54%
Wasmund and Smith (1967) 400% 214%
Richardson et a / . (1978) 86% 81%
Jarnialahmadi er a / . (1997) 9% 15%

data is less than 13% which illustrates that this correlation outperforms the
other models. However, it should be noted that the parameters for hori-
zontal and vertical immersed heaters are only based on a small number of
experimental data points, and should therefore be used with care. Inves-
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

tigations to provide further evidence for these two heater geometries are
presently underway.

CONCLUSIONS

The hydrodynamic criterion of Gibilaro et al. (1986) divides the fluidized

bed quality into particulate, transition and aggregate fluidization. In parti-
culate and transition fluidization, bed voidage and heat transfer coefficient
are strongly dependent on particle physical properties and shape, while these
dependencies in aggregate fluidization are weak. The maximum mixing of
liquid and solid phase and, consequently, the highest heat transfer rate occur
at the point of maximum aggregation in the bed.
The predictions of many published correlations for bed voidage and heat
transfer coefficient are compared to a data bank containing a large number
of measured bed voidages and heat transfer coefficients covering a wide
range of operational parameters and physical properties. Major deviations
between predicted and actual data can occur if correlations are used outside
the range of parameters for which they have originally been developed.
Unfortunately, many authors do not specify the applicability of their cor-
relations. While the scatter of experimental data may certainly be a source
of error in this analysis, the fact that the data bank has been compiled
from various sources excludes systematic deviations. From the investigated
correlations, the most accurate prediction of bed voidage is obtained with
a modification of the correlation of Hirata and Bulos. The heat transfer
coefficient is predicted best with the correlation suggested by the present
authors.
 74 M. JAMIALAHMADI AND H. M~JLLER-STEINHAGEN

NOMENCLATURE

heat transfer surface, m2

drag coefficient
axial dispersion coefficient, m2/s
specific heat capacity, J/kg. K
particle diameter, m
fluidized bed column diameter, m
hydrodynamic diameter of column, m
vertical heater diameter, m
collision frequency, s-'
defined by Eq. (I)
acceleration due to gravity, m/s2
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

parameter in Eq. (17)

heater length in horizontal direction, m
length of the fluidized system, m
heater height, m
Richardson and Zaki exponent
number of particles in closed contact with the heat transfer surface
total number of particles present in the system
pressure, Pa
temperature, K
dynamic wave velocity, m/s
particle terminal velocity corrected for wall effect, m/s
continuity wave velocity, m/s
superficial velocity, m/s
superficial liquid velocity, m/s
particle terminal velocity in a n infinite fluid, m/s
volume, m3

Greek Lerlers
cu heat transfer coefficient, w / ~ * K
E bed voidage
X thermal conductivity, W/m . K
p dynamic viscosity, kg/m . s
v kinematic viscosity, m2/s
p density, kg/m3
shape factor
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION

Dimensionless Groups
(gdj(p, - pI)/p,J), Archimedes number
pl/p,, density number
(gdjp:/p2), Galileo number
crD/Xl, fluid Nusselt number
ad,/X~,Particle Nusselt number
PC,, JXlr Prandtl number
UDlv, Reynolds number
Udp/v, Particle Reynolds number
(Udp/&v). (27&*/(1 - E ) ~ ) " ~modified
, Reynolds number
(uldpP~/p),terminal particle Reynolds number
[ I - 1.21(1.-&)~'~]-l
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

Subscripts-Superscripts
b bulk
C forced convection
h hydrodynamically
i immersed
1 liquid
max point at which the aggregation state reaches its maximum
mf minimum fluidization
P particle
PK packed bed
RZ Richardson and Zaki
S solid
T total
W wall

References
Allen, C. A,, Fukuda, O., Grimmett, E. S. and McAtee, R. E. (1977) "Liquid fluidized bed heat
exchangers- horizontal configuration experiments and data correlations", 12th Intersociety
Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Preprints, pp. 831 -838.
Akhoonddezfouly, A. (1997) "Bed voidage and heat transfer in liquid/solid fluidized bed heat
exchangers", M.Sc. Thesis, University of Petroleum, Ahwaz, Iran.
Al-Dibouni, M. R. and Garside, J. (1966) "Particle mixing and classification in liquid fluidized
beds", Trans. Inst. Chem. Engrs., 57, 94- 103.
Atkinson, B. (1981) "Biological fluidized bed treatment and water and waste-water", Cooper,
P. F. and Atkinson, Eds., E. Horwood, Chichester, UK.
Baker, C. G. J.. Armstrong, E. R. and Bergougnou, M. A. (1978) "Heat transfer in three phase
fluidized beds", Powder Techno/., 21, 195- 204.
 Bernea. E. and Mizrahi, J. (1973) "A generalized approach to the fluid dynamics of particulate
systems. Part 1: General correlation for fluidization and sedimentation in solid multi-
particle systems", Chem. Eng. J., 5, 171 - 189.
Brea, F. M. and Hamilton, W. (1971) "Heat transfer in liquid fluidized beds", Trans. Insr.
Chem. Engrs., 49, 196-203.
Brinkman, H. C. (1947) "A calculation of the viscous force exerted by a flowing fluid on a dense
swarm of particles", Appl. Sci. Res.. A l , 27-34.
Brca. F. M. and Hamilton.. W. 0971). . . "Heat transfer in liauid fluidized beds". Trans. Insr.
Chem. Engrs., 49, 196-203.
Chiu, T. M. and Ziegler, E. N. (1985) "Liquid holdup and heat transfer coefficient in liquid/
solid and three-ohase fluidized bed". AIChE J . . 31. 1504- 1509.
Chung, S. F. and wen. C. Y. (1968) ~on&dinal dis'persion of liquid flowing through fixed and
fluidized beds, AIChE J . . 14, 857-866.
Coulson, J. M. and Richardson, J. F. (1985) "Chemical Engineering", Pergamon Press, 2,
250-255.
Coroshko, V. D., Rozenbaum, R . B. and Todes, 0. M. (1958) "Approximate hydraulic
relationship for suspended beds and hindered fall", I n . Vusoi,, Nefi & Gas, pp. 125- 132.
Di Felice, R. (1995) "Hydrodynamics of liquid fluidization", Chern. Eng. Sci., 50, 1213- 1245.
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

Dorgelo, E. A. H., Van der Meer, A. P. and Wesselingh, J. A. (1985) "Measurement of the axial
.. . - a random walk method", Cl~em.
dispersion of particles in a liquid fluidized bed applying
En~.Sci.,40,2105-2111.
Endo, I. T., Nagamune, K. and Kobayashi, T. (1988) "Fluidized bed bioreactor: Antibiotic
oroduction". Ahsrr. Inr. Biurechnol. Svmo.. Paris. France. D. 37.
, U. and Gibilaro, L. G . (1984) "A h i y predictive criterion for the transition between
~ o s c b l oP.
particulate and aggregate fluidization", Chem. Eng. Sci., 19, 1667- 1675.
Foscolo. P. U., Gibilaro, L. G . and Waldram, S. B. (1983) "A unified model for particulate
expansion of fluidized beds and flow in fixed porous media", Chem. Eng. Sci., 38,
1251-1260.
Ganguly, U . P. (1980) "Direct method for the prediction ofexpanded bed height in liquid/solid
fluidization", Can. J . C h e n ~Eng.,
. 58, 559-563.
Garside, J. and Al-Dibouni, M. R. (1977) "Velocity-voidage relationships for fluidization and
sedimentation in liquid/solid systems", lnd. Eng. Chem. Process Des, Dev., 16, 206-213.
Gibilaro, L. G., Hossain, I. and Foscolo, P. U. (1986) "Aggregative behavior of liquid fluidized
beds", Can. J. Chem. Eng., 64, 931 -938.
Gibilaro, L. G., Di Felice, R. and Foscolo, P. U. (1990) "Added mass effect in fluidized beds:
application of the Guerst-Wallis analysis of inertial coupling in two-phase flow", Chem.
Eng. Sci., 45, 1561- 1565.
Gnielinski, V. (1986) "Warmeubertragung in Rohren", VDI-Warmeatlas, 5th edn., VDI-
Verlag, Dusseldorf.
Grewal, N. S. and Zimmerman, A. T. (1988) Heat transfer from tube immersed in a liquid-
solid fluidized bed", Po~urlerTech., 54, 137-145.
Hamilton. W. (1970) "A correlation for heat transfer in liquid fluidized beds". The Can. J.
of Chcn~.Eng., 48, 52-56.
Handley, D., Doraiswamy, A,, Butcher, K. and Franklin, N. (1966) "A study of the fluid and
particle mechanics in liquid-fluidized beds", Trans. Insr. Chem. Engrs., 44, 260-273.
Happel, J. (1958) "Viscous flow in multi-particle systems: Slow motion of fluids relative to beds
of spherical particles and particulate fluidization and sedimentation of spheres", AIChE J . ,
4, 197-201.
Hartman, M., Havlin, V., Trnka, 0. and Carsky, M. (1989) "Predicting the free fall velocities of
spheres", Chem. Eng. Sci., 44(8), 1743- 1745.
Hartman, M.. Havlin, V., Trnka, 0. and Carsky, M. (1992) "A relationship to estimate the
porosity in liquid/solid fluidized beds", Chem. Eng. Sci., 47, 3162-3166.
Hawksley, P. G . W. (1951) "Some aspects of fluid flow", Paper 7, Institute of Physics and
E. Arnold, London.
Haid, M . (1997) "Correlations for the prediction of heat transfer to liquid/solid fluidized beds",
Chem. Eng. and Process., 36, 143- 147.
Hirata. A. and Bulos, F. B. (1990) "Predicting bed voidage in solid-liquid fluidiza;ion",
J . uJChcn~.Eng. of Japan, 23, 599-604.
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION 77

Hoffman, R. F., Lapidus, L. and Elgin, J. C. (1960) "The mechanics of vertical moving fluidized
systems: IV. Application to batch fluidized systems with mixed particle sizes", AIChE J., 3,
321 -324.
Holman, G. P., Moori, T. W. and Wong, V. M. (1963) "Experimental study of particle-fluid
heat transfer in water-fluidized system", Final Report, AEC Contract No. AT (C-1)-2751,
Rept. NYO-10, 702.
Ipfelkofer, R. (1977) "Zum Warmeubergang am quer angestromten waagerechten Rohr im
Flussigkeitsflie0bettv, Diplomarbeit Universitat Karlsruhe.
Jamii~lahmadi,M. and Miiller-Steinhagen, H. (1992) "Heat transfer to liquid fluidized beds in
annuli", Chem. Eng. and Processing, 31, 363-375.
Jamialahmadi, M. and Muller-Steinhagen, H. (1995) "Hydrodynamics and heat transfer of
liquid/solid fluidized bed heat exchangers", Congress on Fluid Mechanics Research,
Dhakar, Bangladesh.
Jamialahmadi, M., Malayeri, M. R. and Miiller-Steinhagen, H. (1995) "Heat transfer to solid/
liquid fluidized beds", The Can. J . of Chem. Eng., 73, 444-455.
Jamialahmadi, M., Malayeri, M. R., Miller-Steinhagen, H. and Lamb, J. (1995) "A
mechanistic model for the prediction of heat transfer to liquidjsolid fluidized beds",
Proceedings 4th U K Hear Transfer Conference, IMechE, pp. 381 -386.
Jamialahmadi, M., Malayeri, M. R. and Muller-Steinhagen. H. (1996) "A unified correlation
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

for the prediction of heat transfer coefficient in liquidjsolid fluidized bed systems", Trans.
of A S M E Hear Transfer J . , 118, 952-959.
Jamialahmadi, M., Malayeri, M. R. and Muller-Steinhagen, H. (1997) "Prediction of optimum
heat transfer to liquid fluidized bed systems". The Can J . of Chem. Eng., 75, 1-6.
Jamialahmadi, M., Malayeri, M. R. and Muller-Steinhagen, H. (1997) "Prediction of bed
v o i d a ~ ein particulate and angreaative liquidlsolid fluidization", Accept. for publication in
The 1;anian J . qfSci. and T;&-
Jean, R. H. and Fan. L. S. (1989) "A fluid mechanic-based model for sedimentation and
fluidization at low Revnolds numbers". Chem. Enn. Sci.. 44. 353-262.
Jeris, J. S., Owens, R. W: and Flood, F. (1981) " ~ e c o n d a itreatment
~ of municipal waste-
water with fluidized bed technology", Biological Fluidized bed treatment of water
and waste-water", Cooper, P. F. and Atkinson, B., Eds., 112, E. Homood, Chichester,
-...
IIK
Jewell, W. J., Switzenbaum, M. S. and Morris, J. W. (1981) "Municipal wastewater treatment
with the anaerobic attached microbial film expanded bed process", J . Water PoN. Control
Fed, 53,482-491.
Joshi, J. B. (1983) "Solid/liquid fluidized beds: Some aspects", Trans. IchemE., 61, 143-161.
Jottrand, R. (1952) "An experimental study of the mechanism of fluidization". J . Appl. Chem.,
2, 17-22.
Kalber, S. (1992) "Untersuchungen zum Betriebsverhalten von Warmeubertragern im Bayer
ProzeO", Diplomarbeit, Universitit Karlsruhe.
Kang, Y., Fan, L. T. and Kim, S. D. (1991) "Immersed heater-type bed heat transfer in liquid-
solid fluidized beds", AlChE J., 37, 1101- 1106.
Kato, Y., Kago, T., Uchida, K. and Morroka, S. (1981) "Liquid holdup and heat transfer
coefficient between bed and wall in liquid/solid and gaslsolid fluidized beds", Powder Tech.,
28, 173-179.
Kermic. A. (1982) "Eauilibrium of forces in fluidized beds-exmrimental verification". Chem.
E&. J . , ' Z ~ 19331
, 1936.
Khan, A. R., Juma, A. K. A. and Richardson, J. F. (1983) "Heat transfer from a plane surface
to liauids and liauid-solid fluidized beds". Chem. Enp. Sci.. 38. 2053-2066.
Khan, A.'R., ~ i c h a r d s o nJ., F. and Shakiri, K. J. (1978) ";eat transfer between a fluidized bed
and a small immersed surface", Cambridge University Press, pp. 351-356.
Kim, S. D., Kang, Y. and Kwon, H. K. (1986) "Heat transfer characteristics in two- and three-
phase slurry fluidized beds", AIChE J., 32, 1397- 1400.
Knudsen, J. D. and Katz, D. L. (1958) "Fluid dynamics and heat transfer", McGraw-Hill book
Company New York.
Kollbach, J. S. (1987) "Enwicklung eines Verdampfungsverfahrens mit Wirbelschicht-
warmeaustauscher zum Eindampfen krustenbildender Abwasser", Ph.D. Thesis, RWTH
Aachen.
 M. JAMIALAHMADI A N D H. M ~ ~ L L E R - S T E I N H A G E N

Krishnaswamy, P. R. and Ganapathy, R., "Correlating parameters for axial dispersion in liquid
fluidized systems", The Can. J. oJChem. Eng., 56, 550-553.
Lemlich, R. and Caldas, 1. (1958) "Heat transfer to liquid fluidized bed", AIChEJ., 4,376-380.
Letan, R. (1974) "On vertical dispersion two-phase flow", Chem. Eng. Sci., 29, 621 -624.
Lewis, W. K., Gililand, E. R. and Bauer, W. (1949) "Characteristics of fluidized particles", Ind.
Eng. Chem., 41, 1104- 1 1 17.
Lewis, E. W. and Bowerman, E. W. (1952) "Fluidization of solid particles in liquids", Chem.
Eng. Prog., 48, 603-61 1.
-
Livingston, A. G . and Chase, H. A. (1989) "Modelling- .phenol degradation in a fluidized bed
bioreactor". AICIIE J., 35, 1980- 1985.
Loeffler, A. L. and Ruth, B. F. (1959) "Particulate fluidization and sedimentation of spheres",
AlChEJ.. 5. 310-315.
Macias-Machin, A , , Oufer, L. and Wannenmacher, N. (1991) Powder Technology, 66(3),
28 1 - 284.
Martin, H. (1981) "Fluid bed heat exchangers - A new model for particle convective energy
transfer", Cl~em.Eng. Comm., 13, 1- 16.
Metha, S. C. and Schemidt, L. W. (1976) "Frequency response of liquid fluidized systems", The
Con. J. of Chem. Eng., 54, 43- 50.
Martin, H. (1990) "Heat Exchanger Design Handbook", Hemisphere Publishing Corporation,
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

pp. 2.8.4-1 -2.8.4-14.

Meijer, J. A. M. (1984) "Inhibition of calcium sulfate scale by a fluidized bed", Ph.D. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology.
Mersman, A,, Noth, H., Ringer, 0. and Wunder, R. (1980) "Maximaler Warmeiibergang in
Apparaten mit dispersen Zweiphasensystemen", Chem. Ing. Tech., 52(3), 189- 198.
Mickley, S. and Fairbanks, D.F. (1955) "Mechanism of heat transfer to fluidized beds", AIChE
J., 1, 374-384.
Midoux, N., Wild, G., Purwasamita, M., Chapentier, J. C. and Martin, H. (1986) "Zum
Flussigkeitsinhalt und zum Warmeubergang in Rieselbettreaktoren bei hoher Wechselwir-
kung des Gases und der Fliissigkeit", Chem. Eng. Tech., No. 2, pp. 142- 143.
Muller-Steinhagen, H . and Jamialahmadi, M. (1994) "Understanding and mitigation heat
exchanger fouling in bauxite refineries", J. oJMeral, pp. 36-41.
Muroyama, K., Fukuma, M. and Yasunishi, A. (1984) "Wall to bed heat transfer coefficients in
gas/liquid/solid", Can. J. Chem. Eng., 62, 199-208.
Muroyama, K., Fukuma, M. and Yasunishi, A. (1986) "Wall to bed heat transfer in liquid/solid
and gas/liquid/solid fluidized beds", Can. J. Chcm. Eng., 64, 399-408.
Oh, D. K., Hyun, C. K., Kim, J. H. and Park, Y. H. (1988) "Production of penicillin in a
fluidized bed bioreactor", Biorechnol. Bioeng., 32, 569-575.
Oliver. D. R. (1961) "The sedimentation of suswnsions of closelv sized sphere
. particles", Chem.
.
Eng. Sci., 15, 230-242.
Patwardhan, V. S. and Chi Tien (1985) "Sedimentation and fluidization in liquid/solid systems:
A simole aooroach". AIChE J.. 31. 146-149.
Patel, R. D. a n d ~ i m ~ s o "J., M. (1977) "Heat transfer in aggregative and particulate liquid
fluidized beds", Chem. Eng. Sci., 32, 67-77.

Rautenbach, R., Erdman, C. and Kollbach, J. S. (1991) "The fluidized bed technique develop-
ments, applications limitations", Desalinarion, 81, 285-298.
Riba, J. P. and Couderc, J. P. (1977) "Expansion de couches fluidisees par des liquides", Can.
J . Chem. Eng., 55, 118- 121.
Richardson, J. F. and Mitsom, A. E. (1958) "Sedimentation and fluidization. Part 11 -heat
transfer from a tube wall to a liquid-fluidized system", Trans. Insr. Chem. Engrs., 36,
270-282.
Richardson, J. F., Romani, M. N. and Shakiri, K. J. (1976) "Heat transfer from immersed
surfaces in liquid fluidized beds", Chem. Eng. Sci., 31, 619-624.
Richardson, J. F. and Smith, J. W. (1962) "Heat transfer to liquid-fluidized systems and to
suspensions of coarse particles in vertical transport", Trans. Insr. Chem. Engrs., 40, 13-22.
Richardson, J. F. and Zaki, W. N. (1954) "Sedimentation and fluidization", Trans. Insr. Chem.
Engrs., 32, 35-53.
 LIQUID/SOLID FLUIDIZATION 79

Rosen, H. N. and Hulburt, H. M. (1971) "Growth rate of potassium sulfate in a fluidized bed
crystallizer", Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Series, 67(1 lo), 27-31.
Rowe, P. N. (1987) "A convenient empirical equation for estimation of the Richardson and
Zaki exponent", Chem. Eng. Sci., 42, 2795-2796.
Ruckenstein, E. and Shorr, V. (1959). "Despre transferul de caldura dintre un strat fluidizat
culichid si peretelevasului care-l contine", Studdi Cercetari Fiz Akad. Rep. Populare
Romine, 10.
Schimanski, G. N., Jancuk, E. N. and Nikitin, P. G. (1973) "Untersuchung der
Wirmeubertragung zwischen einem waagerechten Rohrbundel und einer Wirbelschicht",
Archiv Energiewirtschaft, 27(1), 25-29.
Schutt, U. (1982) "Warmeubertragung in der Flussigkeitswirbelschicht mil senkrechten
Rohren", Wiss Zeirung der Techn. Hochschule Magdeburg, 26, 71 -74.
Schutt, U. (1983) "Warmeubertragung in der Flussigkeitswirbelschicht mil senkrechten
Rohren", Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Magdeburg.
Schugerl, K. (1989) "Biofluidization: Application of the fluidization technique in biotechnol-
ogy", Can. J. Chem. Eng., 67, 178-185.
Slis, P. L., Willense, T. W. and Kramers, H. (1959) "The response of the level of a liquid
fluidized bed to a sudden change in the fluidizing velocity", Appl. Sci. Res., AS, 209-215.
Steinour, J. H. (1944) "Rate of sedimentation: non-flocculated suspensions of unifonn spheres",
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 07:33 19 May 2015

Ind. Eng. Chem., 36, 618-624.

Stellingwerf, B. (1991) "Warmeubergang an eine Flussigkeits-Feststoff Wirbelschicht im
Ringspall", Diplomarbeit, Universitat Karlsruhe.
Struve, D. L., Lapidus, L. and Elgin, J. C. (1958) "The mechanics of moving vertical fluidized
systems", Can. J. of Chem. Eng., 36, 141- 152.
Sunkoori, N. R. and Kaparthi, R. (1960) "Heat transfer studies between particles and liquid
medium in a fluidized bed", Chem. Eng. Sci., 12, 106- 174.
Syromyatnikov, N. I., Vasanora, L. K. and Karpenko, A. 1. (1974) "Heat transfer in liquid
fluidized bed", Hear Transfer Sov. Res., 6, 135- 139.
Tripathi, G. and Pandey, G . N. (1970) "Heat transfer in liquid fluidized beds", Indian J. of
Tech., 8, 285-289.
Tusin, A. M., Vasanova, L. K. and Syromyatnikov, N. J. (1979) "Heat transfer from a
transverse streamlined cylinder during surface boiling in a liquid fluidized bed", J. Ena. -
Physics, 32, 263 -266.
Van der Meer, A. P., Blanchard, C. M., Blanchard, J. P. and Wesselingh, J. A. (1984) "Mixing
of oarticles in liauid fluidized beds". 62. 214-222.
, N. and ~ r i ~ a t hGi ,. (1972) "Heat transfer i n semi-fluidized beds",
~ a r m a , ' ~L.,. ~ a n d e i C.
Indian J. of Tech., 10, l I - 15.
Yutani, N., Otake, N., Too, J. R. and Fan, I. T. (1982) "Estimation of the particle diffusivity in
a liquid/solid fluidized bed based on a stochastic model", Chem. Eng. Sci., 37, 1079- 1085.
Wasan, D. T. and Ahluwalia, M. S. (1969) "Convective film and surface renewal mechanism for
heat or mass transfer from a wall", Chem. Eng. Sci., 24, 1535- 1542.
Wasmund, B. W. and Smith, J. W. (1967) "Wall to fluid heat transfer in liquid fluidized beds",
The Can. J. of Chem. Eng., 45, 156-165.

Wehrmann, M. and Mersmann, A. (1981) "Warmeubertragung in flussigkeitsdurchstromten

Fest- und FlieBbetten", Chem. Ing. Techn., MS 940181.
Wen, C. Y. and Fan, L. S. (1974) "Some remarks on the correlation of bed expansion in liquid/
solid fluidized beds", Ind. Eng. Process Des. Dev., 13, 194- 198.
Wen, C. and Yu, Y. H. (1966) "Mechanics of fluidization", Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser., 62,
100- 105.
Wesser, U. and Mardus, G. (1957) "Zum Warmeubergang in Wirbelschichten", Chem. Ing.
Tech., 29, 332-335.
Wilhelm, R. H. and Kwauk, M. (1948) "Fluidization of solid particles", Chem. Eng. Prog., 44,
201-218.