ABSTRACT

The compressor was switched on and the air flow rate was set
using the rotameter. The air flowed through the column and
exited at the top. The pressure drop across the column, the
plate alone in this case, was measured with the manometer.
The air flow rate was increased to a maximum value in 1cm
steps and then decreased again. The temperature of the air
was measured using a thermometer for each change in flow
rate. The compressor was switched off and the sand was
added via the top of the column. The compressor was then
turned back on and the same procedure followed except:
started with 0.5cm steps until 10cm was reached then 1cm
steps until the maximum value was reached and decreased
the same way. Additionally, the depth of the bed was
measured.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT............................................................................
AIM......................................................................................
APPARATUS / PROCEDURE......................................................
RESULTS...............................................................................
1.

RAW RESULTS.......................................................................................................................2

2.

OBSERVATIONS......................................................................................................................2

CALCULATIONS.....................................................................
1.

CARMAN-KOZENY EQUATION...............................................................................................3

2.

GENERALIZED ANALYSIS......................................................................................................3

3.

USING ERGUN EQUATION.....................................................................................................4

4.

MINIMUM THEORETICAL FLUIDIZING VELOCITY.................................................................4

5.

CALCULATION OF THEORETICAL PRESSURE DROP ACROSS BED:...........................................4

GRAPHS...............................................................................
DISCUSSION........................................................................
SOURCES OF ERRORS..................................................................................................................12
COMPARISONS.............................................................................................................................12
A.

BED HEIGHT........................................................................................................................12

B.

PRESSURE DROP ASCENDING AND DESCENDING.............................................................13

C.

PRESSURE DROP EXPERIMENTAL AND CALCULATED.......................................................13

D.

PRESSURE DROP FLUIDIZED BED.....................................................................................13

E.

MINIMUM FLUIDIZING VELOCITY.......................................................................................13

RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................
CONCLUSION.......................................................................
APPENDIX...........................................................................

List of Figures, Diagrams & Graphs

Figure 1 Schematic Diagram of Equipment Used.........................1

Table 1 Observations Of Particle Behavouir..................................2

Table 2 Raw Results For Pressure Drop Across Empty Column. . .16
Table 3 Raw Results For Pressure Drop Across Column With Sand
...................................................................................................17

Graph 1 Changes In Pressure Drop Across Distributor Plate With

Changing Velocity.........................................................................7

AIM
The purpose of this experiment was basically to compare the different theoretical
relationships available for packed/fluidized beds with actual experimental results
obtained. Specifically, the following were examined:
- Determining the pressure drop across packed beds.
- Comparing the measured value of the minimum fluidizing velocity with that predicted.
- Comparing the measured value of pressure drop across a fluidized bed with that
predicted.

APPARATUS / PROCEDURE
1. The fan was switched on and the air flow rate was set to a value of 1 on the
rotameter. The pressure drop across the plate was measured.
2. Using steps of 1 on the rotameter, the air flow rate was increased to 23 and the
pressure drops and air temperatures were recorded.
3. The air velocity was then decreased in increments of 1. The pressure drop and air
temperature were measured.
4. The fan was switched off and the sand was charged to the column.
5. The fan was then turned on and the air flow was set to 0.5 on the rotameter. The
pressure drop, depth of bed, temperature and observations were recorded.
6. The flow rate was increased in steps of 0.5 up to a value of 10 and readings were
taken.
7. Increments of 1 were used for flow rates between 10-23 (on the rotameter)
8. Next, the air flow rate was decreased using the same step changes, and taking the
same measurements as above.
9. The fan was switched off.

FIGURE 1 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF EQUIPMENT USED

RESULTS
1. Raw Results
See Appendix, Tables 1 and 2, for experimental results.
2. Observations
Rotameter
Reading

Observations

Ascending
1 14cm

Nothing noticeable happened

15cm

On one side of the column, bubbles, about fist sized,

were seen rising to the top of the bed.

16 17cm

Powder fine particles were seen escaping at top of bed.

Bubbles were now rising through entire cross section of
column not just on one side.

18cm

Bubble sizes start to increase. Finer particles still

released at top of column.

20-23cm

Same as before, bubble sizes continue to increase.

Descending
22-16cm

Similar to ascending expect bubble sizes decreasing.

Fine particles still released at top of column.

15cm

No more large bubbles seen, small air bubbles seen

moving through one side of column, same side as when
fluidization begun. Particles were seen jumping at top
of bed.

14cm

Smaller air bubbles seen forming throughout the cross

section of the bed about 2-3 from top of column and
breaking at the surface.

13 1cm

No more bubbles or any noticeable changes seen.

TABLE 1 OBSERVATIONS OF PARTICLE BEHAVOUIR

CALCULATIONS
1. Carman-Kozeny Equation

where:

shape factor - assumed to be 1

voidage
viscosity of air - 0.000018 kg/ms
u superficial velocity of air, m/s
L height of packing m
dm average diameter of particle - 0.00090142m

=
=

730.22 Pa

2. Generalized Analysis

Where

Re

-density of air

=
=

697.7 Pa

3. Using Ergun Equation

=
=

+
577.86 Pa

4. Minimum Theoretical Fluidizing Velocity

U0

Where U0 minimum fluidizing velocity

s density of particles 2640kg/m3
o voidage when fluidization begins (approximated to 0.418)

=
= 0.9923 m/s.
5. Calculation of theoretical pressure drop across bed:
P

(1-) L (s - ) g

(1-0.418) (0.27) (2817.43-1.17) (9.81)

4341.39 Pa

TABLE 2

TABLE 3

GRAPHS

GRAPH 1 CHANGES IN PRESSURE DROP ACROSS DISTRIBUTOR PLATE WITH CHANGING VELOCITY

GRAPHS

GRAPH 2

GRAPHS

GRAPH 3

10

GRAPHS

GRAPH 4

11

GRAPHS

GRAPH 5

12

DISCUSSION
Sources of Errors

When the rotameter was set to a required value and the necessary measurements
were being recorded, it was noticed that the rotameter value fluctuated. This
indicates that the air flow to the column was not constant. The air velocity through
the column is a major part of the calculations and since it was not possible to
measure and record correct, corresponding values, the calculations made using air
velocity for this experiment would not be accurate.
Initially, the top of the bed is supposed to be smooth and flat. This was difficult to
achieve as the sand had to be poured from a reasonable height using a beaker. This
means there was an error in measuring the bed height from the beginning.
As bed movement begun, from the
size and placement of bubbles seen in the column, it is certain that proper
fluidization did not occur: initially there was channeling and then slugging! This is an
indication that the distributor plate either does not have evenly placed orifices or
that the plate is clogged. In slugging, the size of the bubbles causes the bed height
to rise and fall significantly. This makes measuring the bed height extremely difficult
to measure.
Additionally, the column started
to vibrate at higher velocities, even though there the final bed height was higher
than the initial as it should be, the vibrations did caused the sand to settle (the top
of the bed was level at the end of the experiment), thereby affecting the bed height.
Therefore all calculations made using bed height would be inaccurate.
Slugging usually occurs just before a column is blown off. The column did not
actually blow off during the experiment but the finer particles from the bed were lost
when the bubbles popped at the surface of the bed. Also when the column was
beginning filled fine particles were lost. The mass of particles lost may not have
greatly affected the results unless a smaller mass of particles were used or if the
sand contained more particles that size the column could have been blown off.
Comparisons
a. Bed height
Graph 2 shows how the height of the bed changes as the air velocity through the
bed was increased and then decreased. For increasing air velocity, the bed height
was constant until fluidization occurred, the bed height then increased. Decreasing
velocity gave similar movement expect when fluidization stopped the bed height
was higher than before any movement occurred. This is expected as the particles
would not have returned to the same packing/positions as before.
13

14

b. Pressure drop Experimental Ascending and Descending

The experimental results for pressure drop for both ascending and descending
velocities are as expected from theory. For ascending velocity, the pressure
drop increases, peaks then drops of a bit and then it almost levels off to a
constant. The peak and drop off in pressure drop happens because of bridging
of the bed close to the surface, the interlocking forces must be initially
overcome so the pressure increases and then decreases once the forces have
been broken. The velocity at which the pressure drop becomes almost
constant is the minimum fluidising velocity. The almost constant pressure drop
occurs when the bed is fluidised, in this case slugging. For the decreasing
velocity, when the bed is fluidised the pressure drop is almost constant. After
passing the minimum fluidising velocity the pressure drop decreases in a
linear way. There is no peak as with increasing velocity as there in no
interlocking forces to break through.
c. Pressure drop Experimental and Calculated
d. Pressure drop Fluidized Bed
The pressure drop across a fluidized bed is suppose to be close to a constant
value, hence we can use the equation, P
= (1-) L (s - ) g. This gave a
value of 4103.6 Pa. Experimental results gave an average value of 3569.9 Pa.
The difference in values can be accounted for by the error in obtaining L and
as stated previously.
e. Minimum Fluidizing velocity
The calculated minimum fluidizing velocity was 0.831m/s.

The actual

minimum fluidizing velocity was 0.697m/s where as Graph 3 gave a value of

approximately 0.75m/s. Once again differences in values can be explain by
the errors in obtaining data to calculate a value for .

Pressure drops were calculated using the Carman-Kozeny Equation, Generalized

Analysis and Ergun Equation. These were plotted against increasing air velocities
15

and shown in graph 3. Off the three, the generalized analysis gave the the highest
pressure drop followed by the Ergun Equation and Carman-Kozeny. The generalized
analysis gave the closest representation of the actual results. In all, a peak occurred
at a velocity of 0.42 m/s and this represents the onset of fluidizing. The pressure
dips slightly and then increases again. Note that this was not observed on the actual
experimental results.

For decreasing air velocity, the calculated results were plotted and shown in graph
4. The decrease appears to be fairly linear and this expected. It must be noted that
all the experimental pressure drops were higher than the calculated values with the
generalized analysis being the closed approximation. The difference can be
accounted for by errors present.

A further error was the use of the manometers. The scale should have been more
sensitive, as for the empty column the differences in the height of water was
noticeable but the scale did not permit a change in value.

Other errors include the assumptions that the shape factor was 1, and the
assumption that the voidage was a constant 0.418. It is known that the voidage
varies.

RECOMMENDATIONS
16

1. An air blower with a more constant output should be supplied.

2. The experiment could be repeated and the average values used.
3. The experiment could be repeated with different particle sizes and different
gases.
4. Equipment for determining the sand voidage should be provided.

CONCLUSION

17

APPENDIX
Raw Results

TABLE 4 RAW RESULTS FOR PRESSURE DROP ACROSS EMPTY COLUMN

18

APPENDIX

TABLE 5 RAW RESULTS FOR PRESSURE DROP ACROSS COLUMN WITH SAND

19

APPENDIX
Sample Calculations
A. Rotameter Reading to Velocity
Rotameter Reading

1 cm

From correlation chart,

1cm = 125 l/min at 15 oC
125 l/min = 125l/(60*1000)
Cross Sectional Area Of Bed
A

d2/4

*(0.14)2/4

0.01539 m2

125/(60*1000)

0.002083 m3/s

Correcting To Actual Temperature (27 oC)

Where 1 and 2 represent different conditions of volumetric flow and temperature

Therefore,

Corrected Volumetric Flow rate

0.002170 m3/s
20

Corrected Velocity
V

Q/A

0.141 m/s

0.002170/0.01539

1. Calculating Pressure Drop Across Plate

For 1st reading of increasing air flow through empty column

P

gh

1000*9.81*(21.25-21.00)/100 =

24.525 Pa

graph of pressure drop across plate vs velocity was ploted and used to get further
values (graph 1)

2. Calculating Pressure Drop Across Bed And Plate

For 2nd reading of increasing air flow through packed bed

P

gh

1000*9.81*(24.75-17.5)/100 =

711.225 Pa

3. Calculating Pressure Drop Across Bed (experimental value)

21

Pbed&plate - Pplate

711.225 25

686.225 Pa

22

APPENDIX
Sample Calculations Results

TABLE 6

TABLE 7

TABLE 8

TABLE 9