Pandit 1998

PRESSURE DROP IN FIXED, EXPANDED
AND FLUIDIZED BEDS, PACKED COLUMNS

AND STATIC MIXERS - A UNIFIED
APPROACH
A.B. Pandit and J.B. Joshi
Department of Chemical Technology

University of Bombay
Matunga, Bombay - 400 019, India
ABSTRACT
On the basis of force and energy balance, a generalized approach has

been developed for the prediction of pressure drop in fixed, expanded and
fluidized beds, packed columns and static mixers. It has been shown that the
Ergun type equation can be derived from first principles.
i) Pressure drop in fixed, fluidized and expanded beds: Spherical particles
18
* **'? ~ +0.33
The above equation has been tested and proven over a wide range of
voidage and similarly between this equation and equation proposed by
Gibilaro et al. (198S) have been pointed out
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
321
Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/21/15 9:59 AM
Vol. 14, Nos. 4-5, 1998 Pressure Drop in Fixed, Expanded and Fluidized
Beds, Packed Columns and Static Mixers
ii) Pressure drop in fixed, fluidized and expanded beds: Non-spherical

particles and static mixers
Laminar regime —- =
j_«
Turbulentregime AP = ^ejpVg + 3C DN ,e sP V L *
L
α ε Φd
These equations have been tested and proven for packed beds with
packings, with or without internal voidages and Kenics and Sulzer type of
static mixing elements. The force and energy balance method has been
extended for the estimation of hindered settling velocity in particulate (solid-
liquid and gas-liquid) fluidized beds. The similarity between these equations
and those proposed by Richardson and Zaki (1954) have been pointed out It
has been proposed that, all the column internals, such as packings and static
mixing elements can be characterised on the basis of phase hold-ups (83 and
EL), size, shape factor of internals and the fluid velocity. These parameters
are shown to be sufficient to correlate/predict the pressure drop data for
different type of reactor systems. The understanding of individual roles of
these parameters in altering the pressure drop characteristics is expected to
improve the prediction of the mixing, heat and mass transfer performance of
these reactors.
1. INTRODUCTION
Spatial distribution of the components is achieved in the pipeline flow

through turbulent eddy diflusivity. When the flow is laminar, the radial
diffusion is very slow and substantially longer pipeline is needed as
compared with the turbulent flow, for the same extent of radial
homogenization. The radial dispersion in the laminar flow can be enhanced
by inserting suitable internals which will continuously separate, distribute
322 Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

Authenticated
A. B. Pandit and J.B. Joshi Reviews in Chemical Engineering
and reunite the flow streams, achieving the degree of mixing required. The
alternative of making the flow turbulent is by either increasing the diameter
of the pipe or the velocity. This may not always be possible due to the
economic and process (limited volumetric flow rate and specified residence
time) constraints. However, with the same volumetric flow rate, the flow can
be made turbulent by inserting internals. The flow past internals results into
boundary layer separation and turbulence.
If the flow is already turbulent, then possibly no extra benefit can be
achieved in terms of radial mixing by the insertion of internals.
Nevertheless, the presence of internals can alter the local turbulence
structure by changing the scale of turbulence. If the change in the turbulent
structure happens to be near a place responsible for heat and mass transfer,
then extra benefit in terms of these transfer processes can be achieved.
The internals could be static as in the case of fixed beds (catalytic
reactors, adsorption, ion exchange, etc.), packed columns (absorption,
distillation, etc.) and static mixers. The internals may be mobile as in the
case of expanded or fluidized beds. The hydrodynamics of all these
equipment can be analyzed on an unified basis. For example, Ergun (1949,
1952) has suggested the following correlation for pressure drop :
ΔΡ 150,iVL ej vg p es
L dj,* £3 dp £ 3
It can be seen from the above equation that the pressure drop per unit
length in the laminar region is directly proportional to ss2, VL & inversely
proportional to φ2^3 and in the turbulent region ΔΡ/L is directly
proportional to ES pVL2 and inversely proportional to ψαρ^.3. AU the
internals (such as particles, packings, static mixing elements, etc.) can be
characterised in terms of 83, eL, φ and dp. It may be possible to develop a
unified procedure for the estimation of pressure drop. The constants of
proportionality in equation (1.1) (150 for laminar flow and 1.75 in the
turbulent flow) can be derived from first principles. This is perhaps possible
on the basis of energy balance. In case of such a success, the internals could
be selected in such a way as to get different φ and dp at same eL and ES or
323
Authenticated
vice-versa to give a total control over the extent of energy dissipation

(ΔΡ/L). This information can then be used for analysis of radial
homogenization (mixing), axial dispersion, heat transfer and mass transfer.
Therefore, in the present work, an attempt has been made to develop an
unified approach on the basis of the state (ES, BL, VL ) and geometry (ψ, dp,
e
s, EL) of the internals. This exhaustive analysis is thus a first step in an
attempt to predict the performance of seemingly different types of reactors
through a unified approach. The subsequent analysis will include the other
performance criteria such as mixing, heat and mass transfer coefficients.
2. PRESSURE DROP IN FIXED AND FLUIDIZED BEDS:

SPHERICAL PARTICLES
2.1 Laminar Regime
2.7.7 Pressure drop in fixed beds
In fixed beds, the flow is considered laminar when the Reynolds number
(dpVLpL/HBs) is less than 10 and turbulent when the Reynolds number is
greater than 1000 (Bird et al [I960]). In the laminar regime, the pressure
drop is estimated using two theoretical approaches. In one method, the
packed bed is regarded as a bundle of tangled tubes. The results for single
circular straight tubes are then applied to the fixed bed. In the second
method, the fixed bed is visualized as a collection of submerged objects, and
the pressure drop is calculated by summing the resistances of the submerged
particles.
Let us begin with the first method. For a laminar flow in a straight tube,
the pressure drop is given by the following Haugen-Poiseuille equation:
ΔΡ = ^*· (2.1)
where D, is the equivalent diameter given by the following equation:
324
Authenticated
D _ 4 χ cross- sectional area for the flow »„

e
wetted perimeter
_ 4 void volume
wetted surface
= 4r H
The definition of hydraulic radius emerges from the following force

balance:
ΔΡΑτ = τ,8 (2.3)
or
ΔΡ V
TS
L S
where
Γ
Η = y (2-5)
In a straight pipeline of any cross-section, the pressure drop is due only
to the effect of skin friction. When there is a flow around a submerged
object, the resulting pressure drop is due to the sum of the frictional
resistances due to skin and form frictions. The form resistance arises due to
the pressure distribution around the submerged object and strongly depends
upon the shape.
In packed and fluidised beds, the flow occurs around the submerged
objects. Therefore, we need to consider the form resistance in addition to the
skin resistance. However, this is usually not taken into account (for instance,
Bird et al [I960]). Lali and Joshi [1989] have discussed this subject, a brief
summary is given below.
The frictional resistance will be evaluated using the well-known
procedure. Using the definition of hydraulic radius given by equation (2.5),
we get
325
Authenticated
ΓΗ
:d p <2·6>
De= —^dp (2.7)
6 6S
Substituting equation (2.7) in equation (2.1) and noting that the true
velocity is VI/BL, we get
Δρ = -
d 8L
i (2.8)
However, it is known that the experimentally observed pressure drop is

more than twice that predicted by equation (2.8). Bird et al. (1960)
attributed this increased pressure drop to the tortuosity of the packed bed, a
concept similar to the equivalent pipe lengths for bends and elbows. It may
be noted that equation (2.8) was derived considering skin friction only. In
the following section, an attempt will be made to explain the observed high
pressure drops on the basis of form friction. Two approaches will be
developed for the estimation the form drag : (i) Average area method, (ii)
Modification in the hydraulic radius.
ft) Average area method

Whenever a flow occurs around a blunt object, normal forces (form drag)
contribute to the pressure drop in addition to the shear forces. If the pressure
drop due to form drag is assumed to be proportional to the projected area of
the solid phase,
(2.9)
where APS is the pressure drop due to shear forces and is given by
326
Authenticated
equation (2.8). As the tortuosity of the bed is a function of the volume

occupied by the solid portion, the pressure drop due to form friction is a
fraction of the total pressure drop and this fraction is
APF = ε3ΔΡτ (2.10)
Substitution of equations (2.9) and (2.10) in equation (2.8) gives
For the case of fixed bed of spherical particles (SL = 0.4), equation (2.11) can
be written as
_
<fj «L
fti) Modification in hydraulic radius
The definition of hydraulic radius rH emerges out of the force balance
given by equation (2.3), where rH is given by equation (2.5). In equation
(2.3), only shear stresses were considered. Since the form drag is also acting
on the solid surface, equation (2.3) takes the following form:
I · »· V rf* Ί Ο\
Tg + Τρ = — (2.13)
or
(2.14)
The definition of hydraulic radius can be extracted from equation (2.14):
327
Authenticated
Bird et al. [1960] have shown that, for a single spherical particle, the
form drag is half the shear drag or TF/TS is 0.5 when particle Reynold's
number lie in the laminar regime. Using equation (2.6), the modified
equations for hydraulic radius and equivalent diameter are
DC - £ ^ dp (2-16)
Substituting equation (2.16) in equation (2.1) and noting that the true
velocity is VJe^ we get
ΛΡ - (2.17)
dj »L
Equations (2.12) and (2.17) are similar with constants 180 and 162,
respectively. The value of 180 is in line with the data of Carman [1937],
while Ergun [1952] has reported a value of 150. Hicks [1970] has presented
a comparison of correlations proposed by different workers. He has shown
that the value of the constant depends upon the limit of Reynolds number up
to which the laminar flow is assumed to prevail. In any case, the values of
150, 162 and 180 are fairly close to each other, so let us select the
intermediate value of 162.
2.1.2 Pressure drop in expanded beds

Equation (2.12) predicts the pressure drop in fixed beds. The constant of
180 was derived for a fixed bed voidage of 0.4. For other values of voidages,
equation (2.11) is most general and is applicable for fixed and expanded
328
Authenticated
beds. However, we will make a small modification in equation (2.11). On

the basis of the proportionality constant of 162 in equation (2.17) in place of
180 in equation (2.12), equation (2.11) takes the following form:
ΔΡ = ' (2.18)
Equation (2.18), however, does not hold for the extreme case of ES -» 0,
i.e., when a few or a single particle is present in the bed. This limiting case
can be included in the pressure drop equation by taking a force balance.
Consider a bed of diameter D, height L, voidage EL and consisting of Ν
particles. If Δρ is the pressure drop and FD is the force on a single particle,
the force balance gives :
JLo 2 AP = -^- FD (2.19)

4 V
where, vp is the volume of a single particle. Rearranging equation (2.19)

gives:
-^ — = FD (2.20)
L 80
Substitution of equation (2.18) in (2.20) gives :
^p _Vp_ 10.8 π d p V!>IBS

L es ^
For a single isolated particle
ρ (2.21)
Therefore, the total pressure drop which considers the limiting case of es
->0 is given by
329
Authenticated
Vol. 14, Nos. 4-5, 1998 Pressure Drop in Fixed. Expanded and Fluidized
Δρ Vp^ 10.8παρνίμε8
3πόρ-- |/ I .L»
(2.22)
Equation (2.22) can be presented in the form of Ergun friction factor:
L
e
Equation (2.22) can be also be presented in the form of drag coefficient:
(2.24a)
(2.24b)
-
(2.25)
Re,Ρ I
At this stage, three points may be noted (i) the area Ap in equation (2.24)
has been taken as the total surface area of the particle and not the projected
area. This is because, while estimating Δρ [equations (2.3) to (2.8) and
(2.13) to (2.17)], it was considered that the shear stresses (TS and TF) act on
the total surface area, (ii) from equation (2.25) it can be seen that, for a
single particle, CD is 6/Rep on the basis of total surface area as similar
analysis can be extended to non-spherical where the projected area could
vary depending on the orientation, (iii) the bracketed term on the RHS of
equations (2.23) and (2.25) may be presented in simple power law form:
(2-26)
330
Authenticated
A. B. Pandit and J.B. Joshi Reviews in Chemical Engineering.
Table 2.1
Numerical values for the approximation represented by equation (2.26)
EL 3-6es ει.·48
•4L
0.4 85.37 81.30

0.5 29.80 27.85
0.6 12.11 11.61
0.7 5.50 5.54
0.8 2.76 2.91
0.9 1.55 1.66
1.0 1.00 1.00
The values of LHS and RHS at different values of eL are given in Table
2.1. It can be seen that equation (2.26) holds with a deviation 4 to 8%.
Substitution of equation (2.26) in (2.23) and (2.25) gives:
f = AP 18
(2.27)
L
ΔΡ
(2.28)
A similar equation has been developed by Wen and Yu (1966) using the
empirical exponent over eL proposed by Richardson and Zaki (1964). Eqn.
(2.28) is only an approximate form of eqn. (2.25) presented in the power law
form.
It may be noted that equation (2.27) is different from equation (2.28) by
a factor of three.
Equations (2.23), (2.25), (2.27) and (2.28) predict pressure drop in fixed
and expanded beds. It may be pointed out that the only assumption made
while deriving these equations are i) form friction being proportional to the
projected area and ii) the ratio of form drag to shear drag is 0.5 over the
entire laminar range.
331
Authenticated
The predictive ability of these equations can be checked in two ways: (i)
comparison of experimental pressure drop from an expanded bed where
particles are held stationary by connecting rods or wires. Happel and Epstein
(1954), Rumpfand Gupte (1971) and Rowe et al (1961a, 1961b)) could vary
the voidage of expanded bed in the range of 0.4 to 0.94. A good agreement
was found between the predicted and experimental pressure drops. Further
details of comparison will be given in Section 2.3. (ii) The predictive ability
of equations (2.23) to (2.28) can also be checked from the velocity-voidage
relationship in a paniculate fluidization. It is known that the pressure drop
across a bed equals the buoyant weight of the bed per unit area. The drag
force for a particle in an infinite medium is given by equation (2.21) where
VL equals the terminal velocity of a particle Vs..
FD = 3πμΰρ Vs. (2.29)
The drag force for any particle in a fluidized bed is given by equation
(2.21)
FD = 3ndp μ^ |^S- + ll (2.30)

I «L j
If we take a force balance for a particle, the drag force equals the force
due to gravity (Fa) minus the force due to buoyancy (FB),
(2.31)
From equation (2.3 1) it can be seen that the value of FD is independent of

voidage: let the particle be either isolated or under the condition of
minimum fluidization. Equating equations (2.29) and (2.30), we get :
(2.32)
s.
Using the simplification of equation (2.26):
332
Authenticated
(2.33)
»Soo
Equation (2.33) is in agreement with the Richardson-Zaki equation for

laminar flow where Rep < 0.1.
2.1.3 Alternative procedure for the

estimation of pressure drop in
expanded and fixed beds [Joshi (1983)]
The force balance for a single isolated particle and a particle in a bed is
given by the following equations, respectively.
CD«, π d* IPL V£, = | dj (ps - PL) g (2.34)
Οοπ^τΡι,νί! = f d J ( P s - P L ) g (2.35)
At this stage, two points may be noted (i) On the LHS of equations (2.34)
and (2.35), total surface area has been used in place of the projected area as
a similar analysis has been extended for non-spherical particles. This is in
line with the derivation of equations (2.3) to (2.8), (2.13) to (2.17) and
(2.25). (ii) the RHS represents the force due to gravity minus buoyancy and
is independent of the particle concentration. Equating equations (2.34) and
(2.35):
(2 36)
-
Further, for a single particle (Rep < 0.1),
3π Mdp VSoo = i d* (ps - pL) g (2.37)
Under laminar conditions, it is assumed that the particles in a suspension

are more or less stationary. Further, it is imagined that the particle is
333
Authenticated
suspended in a fictitious tube where the free area between the tube wall and
particle corresponds to the equivalent diameter [equation (2.7)]. This means
that the liquid flows in the annulus formed by the fictitious tube and the
particle. The following equation is assumed to hold:
Dt2 = - S - d ^ D 2 (2.38)
It may be remembered that, in reality, both Dt and D, change along the

length of the column. Theforcebalance for a particle gives :
d p ) 2 = - d' (ps - p L )g (2.39)
where, KI accounts for the fraction of the drag (acting on the particle) out of
the total drag on the tube and particle surface. Kj also accounts for the
equivalent length over which a given particle influences the pressure drop.
Further, Kj accounts for the tortuous path between the tube and the particle
and hence the form drag.
When the tube diameter is very large as compared to particle diameter
(D, » dp), equation (2.39)reducesto
8Κιπ μι α ρ VSco = -=- dj (PS - PL) g (2.40)
Comparison of equation (2.39) with equation (2.37) gives K = 3/8. Dividing

(2.39) by (2.40)
04»
(Dt - d,)
Substitution of equation (2.7) and (2.38) in (2.41) gives:
^
v
s.o - -^f
(1-R 2 ) vw
334
Authenticated
and
VL = BL(! - R)2
v (2.42b)
s» (1 - R 2 )
and
Cr,
^D _ IfVo
Y
Soo (l-R2)2 (2.43a)
CD» I V, .
where
V2
R = ί ι } (2.43b)
ll +(48 L /6s s )J
Equation (2.42b) can be simplified as
e L (l -
«i* (2.44)
(1 -
The values of LHS and RHS of equation (2.44) at different 8L are given
in Table (2.2). It can be seen that equation (2.44) is fairly good
approximation. Further, the comparison between the predicted [equation
(2.42a)] and experimental values of Vs is shown by Joshi et al. (1983).
Excellent agreement was found.
Table 2.2
EL R 8L(1-R)2 BL48
(l-R 2 )
0.4 0.914 0.018 0.012
0.5 0.832 0.045 0.036
0.6 0.707 0.103 0.086
0.7 0.540 0.207 0.180
0.8 0.350 0.384 0.342
0.9 0.164 0.645 0.603
1.0 0 1.00 1.00
335
Authenticated
2.2 Turbulent Regime
When the particle Reynolds number is greater than about 1000, the solid-
liquid fluidised bed operates in the turbulent regime. The hydrodynamic
behavior in this regime can be conveniently analyzed using the energy
balance.
In fluidised beds, the fiictional force between particles and liquid
counterbalances the net force of gravity and buoyancy. The fiictional force
between particles and liquid depends on the relative velocity of the particle
with respect to the surrounding liquid. This relative velocity is termed as
'slip velocity', Vs. Estimation of Slip velocity can be made from the
knowledge of fractional phase hold-ups and the superficial velocities of the
phases with respect to the stationary column walls. Thus, by definition,
Vs = ¥±-
B
± ^-
E
(2.45)
L s
Vs and VL are positive in the direction of terminal settling. VL is positive

when the liquid flows in a direction opposite to terminal settling. In a
particular case of fluidization, however, there is no net solids movement and
hence VD = 0.
It is known that the drag coefficient of a particle in a fluidized bed
increases due to the presence of other neighboring particles. In the bed,
some energy is dissipated in the turbulent energy dissipation. This
turbulence is responsible for increasing the drag coefficient in the turbulent
regime.
The force balance for a single particle settling in an infinite stationary
liquid is given by equation (2.34). The same equation would hold for a
single particle suspended in an infinite liquid moving past it. The velocity
Vs«, is the terminal settling velocity of the particle in the liquid medium in
question. In presence of other particles, the settling velocity is known to be
'hindered'. In other words, the interstitial liquid velocity is lower than the
terminal settling velocity. The hindrance in the bed of particles is attributed
to increased drag and we may write
336
Authenticated
CD = CD» + CD' (2.46)
where CD' is the increased drag coefficient due to increased turbulence and
CD«, is the drag as experienced by a single particle in an infinite liquid. The
force balance on a particle in a fluidised bed can be given by equation (2.35).
It should be noted that the drag coefficient CD» has been defined on the
basis of total particle surface area and not on the projected area. Thus, for
Newton's range (Rep > 1000) and for spherical particles, the value of CD« is
0.11 instead of 0.44 based on the projected area.
Energy balance
Joshi (1983) has described the energy balance approach. A brief
summary is given below:
The liquid required for fluidization is introduced against a static bed
height The rate of energy input is given by the following equation:
= A D2 VL gH (esPL + e L p L ) (2.47)
The kinetic energy associated with the incoming liquid is normally

negligible. The liquid leaving the bed at height H possesses potential energy
given by the following equation
(2.48)
Net power dissipation in Solid-Liquid Fluidized Bed (SLFB) is
ΕΒ = Ε;-Ε, (2.49)
By substitutions,
EB = i D 2 Hes (ps - pL) gVL (2.50)

4
Using eqn (2.35) for the fluidised bed in equation (2.50), we obtain
337
Authenticated
dp
To estimate the turbulence generated in the bulk of liquid, eqn. (2.51)

can be split into two parts:
v
dp ' '
„
Ε
3π D2HCD'ssVgpL
δ = I 3 (2·3
where ES is the energy dissipation rate in the vicinity of the solid phase, ES
is the rate of energy dissipation in the bulk liquid, and
(2.54)
Substitution of eqn. (2.52) in eqn. (2.54) gives
F _ 3π D2HCD'ssVJ|pL
EB - — -j-- (2.55)
The power dissipation per unit mass of liquid in the bed is given by
a fa
Em = ^ e =P m (2.56)
In turbulent flow, the power dissipation per unit mass of liquid has been
related to turbulence intensity and scale of turbulence [Davies (1972)]:
U' = (Pml)1/3 (2.57)
Also, in the vicinity of the wall, the friction factor has been related to
friction velocity U*. The value of U* is very nearly the normal component,
U'r. From the definition of U*,
338
Authenticated
(2.58)
Eqn. (2.58) has been put forwarded on the basis of analogy between the
pipe-flow and current flow situation. Friction factor (f) for a pipe flow can be
expressed as f = 2(U*/V02 where U* is the normal component of friction
velocity. As a result, the drag coefficient in the current flow situation has
been expressed in an identical mann««·,
The scale and intensity of turbulence in fluidized beds have received
little attention in the past Considerable work needs to be done in this area to
establish the nature of turbulence in fluidised beds. Hanratty et al (1956),
Cairns and Prausnitz (I960), and Handley et al (1966) performed unique
experiments to throw some light on this subject In general, it appears that
scale and intensity of turbulence are dependent on a host of parameters
which include physical properties and voidage fraction in the bed. From
these studies, it may be assumed that the scale of turbulence is
approximately equal to twice the particle diameter and the radial fluctuating
velocity component UV is equal to half the overall fluctuating velocity
component Or,
l = 2dp (2.59)
and
ur = UY2 (2.60)
Thus, from eqns. (2.56), (2.57) and (2.60), one may write
which simplifies to,
(2.62)
339
Authenticated
and
Ur'=1.58SVs (2.63)
The following equations also hold:
(2.64)
(2.65)
Handley et al (1966) have shown over a wide range of voidage that for a
solid-liquid fluidised bed
U-X = UV (2.66)
ϋχ = υ,/2.5 (2.67)
Substitution of eqns. (2.66) and (2.67) in eqn. (2.65) gives
UVU' = 0.35 (2.68)
UVU' = 0.87 (2.69)
Using eqn.(2.62), we get
UyV, = 1.05ε, (2.70)
UW. = 2.61ε. (2.71)
. = 1.49ε. ~ 1.5ε. (2.72)
Table 2.3 gives the comparison between the predicted and experimental
values of UVV. and UVV.. The experimental data have been taken from the
340
Authenticated
Table 2.3
Values of fluctuating velocity components in solid-liquid fluidised bed
experimental results by Handley et al. (1966)
No. ES EL U'2 U'x

*sVs ssVs
1 0.118 0.882 3.30 1.36
2 0.159 0.841 3.40 1.32
3 0.207 0.793 2.95 1.21
4 0.258 0.742 2.82 1.09
5 0.299 0.701 2.54 1.00
6 0.124 0.876 2.58 1.05
7 0.156 0.844 2.56 1.03
8 0.209 0.791 2.65 1.05
9 0.269 0.731 2.45 0.97
10 0.302 0.698 2.38 0.96
Average = 2.76 Average = 1.10
Predicted = 2.61 Predicted =1.05
measurements made by Handley et α/.(1966). It can be seen that the

agreement is favorable. However, it must be pointed out that additional
measurements on turbulence parameters in SLFB over a wide range of
parameters are still needed for generating additional evidence before eqns.
(2.70) and (2.72) are finally accepted.
Substitution of eqn. (2.72) in (2.58) gives:
ι.49εβ γ (2.73)
8L J
Further, we know that
CD«, =0.11
341
Authenticated
Vol. 14, Nos. 4-5,1998 Pressure Drop in Fixed, Expanded and Fluidized
and
L 'Doo
Substitution of CD» and (2.73) in (2.36) gives:
_y,L . ... Ujfj- (2.74)

v,
Let us approximate the R.H.S. as:
2.4
(2.75)
The numerical values of L.H.S. and R.H.S. of eqn. (2.75) are given in
Table 2.4. It can be seen that eqn. (2.75) is a fairly good approximation.
Substitution of eqn. (2.75) in (2.74) gives:
(2.76)
s.
Table 2.4
l
cL f
EL " V40.9s| + ε£ eL" BL"
0.4 0.104 0.111 0.101
0.5 0.154 0.189 0.176
0.6 0.228 0.293 0.278
0.7 0.343 0.423 0.409
0.8 0.530 0.585 0.572
0.9 0.845 0.777 0.768
1.0 1.000 1.000 1.000
342
Authenticated
Equation (2.76) is in excellent agreement with the Richardson-Zaki

equation for the turbulent flow. Further, from eqn. (2.36),
CD = CD. EL-48 (2.77a)
or
CD = CD, (40.9es2 + Ofc.2 (2.77b)
where the value of CD« is 0.11 on the basis of the total area of the particle.
Substitution of eqn.(2.77) in eqn. (2.24b) gives:
ΔΡν
The above equation can be expressed in the form of Ergun friction factor
[please refer equations (2.22) and (2.23)].
For the case of fixed bed, EL = 0.4 and CD» = 0.11 and the RAS. works
out to be 1.72. This is in excellent agreement with the value of 1.75 in
Ergun equation. However, equation (2.79) is most general and can be used
for fixed as well as expanded beds. Further, it also explains velocity hold-up
relationship as pointed out by equation (2.76). The comparison between the
predicted and experimental pressure drops for case of expanded bed will be
presented in the next section.
2.3 Transition Regime
The drag coefficient for a particle in laminar (Re <0.1) and turbulent (Re
>1000) regimes are given by eqns. (2.25) and (2.77b) respectively. These
343
Authenticated
equations can be combined to give the drag coefficient for the transition
regime in the following form :
C D = (£ + B) (2.80)
Substitution of eqns. (2.25) and (2.77b) in (2.80) gives:
Or using the approximations given by eqns. (2.26) and (2.75)
CD = (-|- + O.ll) ε?'8 (2.82)
Alternatively, Dallavalle (1948) has combined the laminar and turbulent

drag coefficients in the following form:
CD = U ^ - + V B (2-83)
Plots on the basis of eqns. (2.80) and (2.83) are given in Figures 2.2 and
2.3 respectively.
For Fig. 2.1, A = 6 χ sL^8 and Β = 0.11 χ e^* whereas for Fig. 2.2, A =
4.8 χ et·*1 and B = 0.25 χ at4* as proposed by Dallavalle (1948).
The Ergon equation can be written on the basis of eqns. (2.23) and (2.79)
as
d
ΔΡ peL _ 18
344
Authenticated
C D = ( A / R e p ) -H B.
101-
CD10 2 -
10-
10*-
10Γ3 10" Iff1 10 ΙΟ2 103
Fig. 2.1: Prediction of Drag CoeflScient by Eqn. 2.80. Effect of voidage.
Equation (2.84) can be written in the following alternate form on the

basis of approximations introduced in equations (2.26) and (2.75):
A7
ΔΡ 18
+0.33 (2.85)
Re„
Equation (2.84) is almost identical to the correlation proposed by

Gibgilaro et al. (1986), derived on the basis of heuristic arguments. The
constants 17.13 and 0.336 proposed by Gibilaro et al. (1985) are very
similar to the constants 18 and 0.33 obtained in equation 2.85. Gibilaro et
345
Authenticated
106-
te?- (B)0'5}2.
10*-
103-
= 0-2
10-
1-
-2
10
.-3
10 10' 1 10 ίο2 ίο3
''ρ
Fig. 2.2: Prediction of Drag Coefficient by Eqa 2.83. Effect of voidage.
al. (1985) have shown that the predictive ability .of equation 2.85 for
correlating the reported data of Happel and Epstein (1954), Rumpf and
Gupte (1971) and Wentz and Thodos (1963A, 1963B) is excellent over a
wide range of voidage. The details pertaining to the experiments of these
authors have been given in Table 2.5. In addition, the data of Martin et al.
(1951) has also been included in the present analysis. Figure 2.3 shows the
plot of equation (2.85) with the data reported by the above mentioned
authors. It can be seen that equation (2.85) correlates its suitability for the
prediction of pressure drop in fixed, fluidized and expanded beds.
A similar attempt to correlate the drag coefficient data of Rowe et al
(1961 A, 196 IB) proved unsuccessful when based on the overall voidages.
346
Authenticated
'S 0 Ό
o
1-4
"O ο l
«s «n
es
in «o
oo c^ •r» <s SO
Tj- OO VO
VO O\ m oo cn
O 0 o o
ι
it
*ο
ο
t-" I S 2
§
es
l
ΚΛ
-H
^^
«O
S ?5
1-4
p • O
O ^^ o o 8 §§
l PC ^^ 0 O 0 0
>n
νο
"* g «n
-H «Λ
t~ «o
rn
g ό- O*
vo
5?
VO
o\
cn «n
347
Authenticated
10 -
T 10-
o
(j
1-
iff 1
ΙΟ'' 10" 10 10 10"
Rer
Fig. 2.3: Parity Plot for Drag Coefficient Prediction.

Eqn. 2.85, Gibilaro et al. (1985),
χ—x,.—. Happel and Epstein (1985),
Martin etal (1951)
Δ, Δ Rumpfand Gupta (1971)
D, · Wentz and Thodos (1963AJ3)
The use of linear voidage or cross-sectional flow area available for the flow,
does allow the correct prediction of the increased drag ratio with a decrease
in the separation distance of arranged spheres as proposed by Rowe et al.
(1961A). The limiting value of the drag ratio for 8L = 0.4 works out to be 84
(drag on sphere in an assembly/drag on the individual sphere) as compared
to value of 75 reported by Rowe et al. (1961A). Thus equation (2.82) and
348
Authenticated
(2.85) can be used to predict the drag on a particle in an ensemble and the
pressure drop, respectively.
3. PRESSURE DROP IN FIXED AND FLUIDIZED BEDS :

NONSPHERICAL PARTICLES
3.1 Laminar Regime
3.1.1 Pressure drop infixed beds(non spherical particles)
In fixed beds the flow is considered laminar when the Reynolds number
{dppi.Vi/uEi.} < 0.1. For this case also we will use the approach of Section
2.1. The equivalent diameter for non-spherical particles in the laminar
regime can be written as
voidvolume
— D 2 Le
D = ___ *_ L_ (3 la)
wetted surface —
— β τε
If we use the true velocity as VL/EL, and equation (3. Ib) with
ΛΡ - (3.2,
we get
We will now incorporate the form drag (for details refer Section 2.1.1)
349
Authenticated
+ _ AP V
s Tf
L S
- * - l - '-
For the sphere the ratio TS/TT is given as 0.5(Bird et at) and results in a
pressure drop equation (same as eqn. 2. 12) for spheres as
This equation has indeed been proved to be an accurate estimate of

pressure drop in fixed beds of non-spherical particles(Carman, 1937, Leva
1959). Carman has reported a value of 180 for the proportionally constant
This value of 180 for a bed of non spherical particles has been confirmed
by the other investigators [ Ergun (1951), Leva et al (1951), Leva (1959),
Scarlett (1977)]. Casal et al (1985) have shown that the value of 180 in
equation (3.5) seems to be the most satisfactory for a bed of non-spherical
particles.
Carman (1937) has also shown that the value of φ calculated from
pressure drop experiments, closely matches that value calculated on the basis
of particle geometry. In order to validate such a procedure, he considered φ
in the comprehensive range of 0.43 to 0.95.
This procedure can further be supported by the following calculations.
Consider a cylindrical particle (diameter = do) of aspect ratio ten. It can
easily be shown that the shape actor is 0.58 and the equivalent particle
diameter is 2.46.
350
Authenticated
Table 3.1
Comparison between geometric ratio (l/ψ) and force ratio (A,)
Aspect ratio dp Φ 1/φ Δ.

ER
20 3.10.d. 0.47 2.12 >2*
10 2.46.do 0.58 1.72 1.65
5 1.95.d. 0.69 1.43 1.45
1 L14.de 0.87 1.14 1.10
0.3 0.79.de 0.78 1.28 1.05
0.5 0.90.d„ 0.81 1.23 1.10
0.1 0.53.do 0.47 2.12 1.60*
0.05 0-42.de 0.32 3.09 1.80
* unreliable
Cliff et al (1975) have reported overall drag force ratio Ac (total drag on
non-spherical particle/drag or sphere of equal volume) at same fluid
velocity. It can be shown (Table 3.1) that the value of l/φ and Ae are
identical over a wide range of the aspect ratio (0.1 to 10). This indicates that
φ, as computed geometrically, also gives us the information about the overall
increase in the drag force due to the non-sphericity of the particle. Thus in
the absence of information about the individual variation in the skin and
form drag components as a function of the shape for the non-spherical
particles of different shapes the use of φ is considered adequate for the
development of the correlation. In section 2.0, it has been shown, that in the
case of the sphere the total drag force (skin and form drag combined) gives
the correct estimate of the constant in the Ergun equation for the pressure
drop and the use l/φ (equivalent to the increased total drag force as
compared to the spherical particle) should account for the total drag on the
non-spherical particle.
Thus in the subsequent analysis φ has been used for the energy balance
purposes.
351
Authenticated
Vol. 14, Nos. 4-5, 1998 Pressure Drop in Fixed, Expanded andFluidized
3.2 Turbulent Regime
3.2.1 Pressure drop infixed bed (nan spherical parades)
Non spherical particles provide more surface area as compared to

spherical particles of the same volume. The force balance equations for
spherical and non spherical particles in an infinite medium are given by
CD» As l/2pL Vs.2 = vp(ps-pL)g (3.6)
CDU, AN l/2pL Va,.2 = v^-pug (3.7)
In the case of fluidized beds, the slip velocity is less as compared to the
terminal settling velocity. This is because, in the presence of a swarm of
particles the bulk turbulence intensity is much higher compared to the
settling of a single particle. As a result, the drag on an individual particle in
the fluidized bed increases and relative velocity between particle and liquid
decreases. This subject has been discussed in Section 2.2.
Dividing equation (3.7) by equation (3.6), we get
(3.8)
'Deo
where ψ = AS/AN
Using equations (2.46), (2.58) and (2.63)
•ON ~ *"DN T
*-DN<o + CDNe, (3.9)
CDN = (4.5ε2 + CDltoe2)e-L2 (3.10)
Alternatively, the drag coefficient can be obtained from pressure drop

(refer equation (2.24b):
352
Authenticated
2APv
= N (3.11)
^ES A N e L VL
From equations (3.10) and (3.11),we get:
Rearranging equation (3.12) and substituting for VH = π/6 dp3 and AN

7tdp2/<|>weget,
= 3*L2 (4.5ε* +·&,*) (3.13)
In terms of friction factor
(3.14)
The corresponding velocity-voidage relationship in case of fluidized bed

of non-spherical particles is [Pandit and Joshi (1984)].
(3.15)
"SNoo
4. PRESSURE DROP IN PACKED COLUMNS
Packed columns are very widely used in Chemical Processes Industry for
absorption and distillation. The capacity of packed columns depends upon
the pressure drop characteristics of packings. During the past fifty years,
there has been a continuous attempt to develop new shapes of the packings
which give lower pressure drop and enhanced gas-liquid contacting
353
Authenticated
efficiency. In general, all the packed columns can be considered as fixed

beds which are packed with nonspherical particles (packings). Therefore, the
equations developed in the earlier sections will now be used to predict
pressure drops in packed columns.
The packings are considered in two separate categories, i.e. packings
with no internal voidage and packings with internal voidage. The packing
with no internal voidage are those like Intalox saddles and Berl saddles
which give the same bed voidage whether they are stacked or dumped.
Packings like Rashig rings and Pall rings are considered in the category of
packings with internal voidage. In case of these packings the effective bed
voidage changes depending on whether the packings have been stacked or
dumped in the bed.
If the equation developed in Section 3 for friction factor is considered
(3.14), it can be seen that the left hand side is a conventional definition of
friction actor. The experimentally reported values of pressure drop per unit
height of the packing versus gas velocity (at no liquid flow) can be used to
give the experimental values of friction factor. Some additional information
such as voidage and shape factor of the packing is needed which is readily
available. The right hand side of the same equation represents the
theoretically predicted value of friction factor based on geometrical details of
the packed tower data. The CDN» value can be estimated by the following
equation:
( V* V
= + C D . USS- (3.16)
VV SN<0 y
For spherical and non-spherical particles, Clift et al. (1978) have given
the following equations for the estimation of the terminal settling velocities:
1/2
1/2
354
Authenticated
4.1 Packings With No Internal Voidage:
The two major types of tower packings with no internal voidage are Berl
saddles and Intalox saddles. The major characteristic of these types of
packings which distinguishes them from packings with internal voidage (i.e.
Raschig and Pall rings) is that the effective voidage of the packed bed
remains same whether the packings are dumped or stacked in the bed. This
means that the preferred orientation of packings does not affect the tower
voidage and shift it from that for stacked packed bed voidage. Therefore, the
tower voidage data can be directly used to predict the pressure drop.
In the case of 25 mm Intalox saddles (Table 4.1) the dp comes out to be
18 mm on the volumetric basis. The value of area of non-spherical particles
(AN) is calculated as the specific area per unit volume divided by the number
of particles per unit volume (it comes out as 3.03xlO~3 m2/packing). Inverse
of this area multiplied with the area of a volume equivalent sphere gives ψ
(as 0.338). CDU» was calculated using equation (3.7) and its value works out
as 0.22. Using these calculations along with the pressure drop data shows
that the predicted and experimental values of friction factor are extremely
close, thus showing the success of this method of analysis. Tables 4.1 and
4.2 show the comparison between the predicted and the experimental values
Table 4.1
Comparison between predicted and experimental friction factors
for the case of Intalox saddles (Ceramic)
Packing size dp Φ Predicted Experimental

value value
3
0.50" 9.07xlQ· 0.308 1.00 1.87
0.75" 0.0133 0.380 1.02 1.56
1.00" 0.0180 0.338 0.97 1.05
1.50" 0.0270 0.293 0.92 1.11
2.00" 0.0360 0.318 0.84 1.26
3.00" 0.0547 0.254 0.74 1.23
355
Authenticated
Table 4.2
Comparison between predicted and experimental friction factors
for the case of Bert saddles (Ceramic)
Packing size dp Φ Predicted Experimental

value value
0.50" 0.010 0.443 1.35 0.852
0.75" 0.015 0.446 1.24 0.947
1.00" 0.019 0.378 1.12 0.867
1.50" 0.029 0.397 0.93 0.992
of friction factor for different sizes of Intalox and Bert saddles, respectively
(experimental data, Raschig Booklet). It can be seen that the agreement is
reasonable over a wide range of packing sizes.
It may be pointed out that the Intalox and Berl saddles are some non-
spherical shapes. The Section 3 encompasses a wide range of non-sphericity
and over a wide range of Reynolds number.
4.2 Packings With Internal Voidage:

In the case of tower packings with internal voidage (i.e. Raschig and Pall
rings), the voidage data reported in the literature are the same for stacked as
well as dumped case. This shows that the voidage data reported even for
dumped case really considers the packings as vertical in which case all of
the internal voidage is available for the flow. This may be confirmed by
performing simple geometrical calculations considering vertical rings in a
tower of appropriate diameter. However the case for a packed bed of dumped
tower packings is different with the tower packings aligned in random
orientations. It is clear that as soon as the tower packing deviates from
vertical a part of the internal voidage is blocked for flow, thus altering the
effective voidage of the bed. In fact this observation has been made by
several workers including Leva (1952) and Martin et al (1955).
356
Authenticated
If we consider a Raschig ring, then in a randomly packed bed, its

orientation and effective voidage can lie between two extremes,i.e. when the
Raschig ring is vertical the voidage of the bed is maximum and has a value
of around 92% (25 mm metal Raschig ring). Further, when the Raschig ring
is horizontal, all the internal voidage is blocked for flow and the voidage of
the bed is minimum and has a value of around 40.5% (25 mm metal Raschig
ring). Since, in a packed bed the Raschig rings are oriented randomly the
effective voidage of the bed will lie between these two extremes, we find it to
be 76.3%, corresponding to an angle of about 45.96° from the vertical. In
fact, the study of several workers {Casal (1985), Carman (1937), Leva
(1951, 1959)} has shown that the average orientation of a bed of non
spherical particles (without internal voidage) lies in the range of 45° to 53°
to the vertical axis. Our analysis seems to confirm this in the case of
packings with internal voidage. The angle comes out between 43° to 51°
(Tables 4.3 and 4.4). At this stage some additional work is needed for
establishing the angle of orientation of tower packings The technique of
residence time distribution can be used for this purpose, which will enable
one to estimate the dead volume and hence the effective voidage.
In the analysis of Raschig rings, the approach used is similar to that in
the previous section as far as the calculation of dp, ψ, CDN« and the friction
factor are concerned. The effective voidage is determined as the voidage
which makes the predicted value of friction factor equal to the experimental
Table 4.3
Effective voidage and mean angle of orientation in Raschig rings (Ceramic)
Packing size dp
Φ Voidage Mean angle of
orientation
degrees
Vertical Horizontal Eff.
0.5- 0.011 0.381 72 40.7 60.5 50.80
1" 0.022 0.383 69 38.5 59.5 46.50
2" 0.044 0.386 74 41 63.0 48.20
357
Authenticated
Vol. 14, Nos. 4-5, 1998 Pressure Drop in Fixed, Expanded andFluidized
Table 4.4
Effective voidage and mean angle of orientation in Raschig rings (Metal)
Packing size d- Φ Voidage Mean angle of

orientation
degrees
1" 0.018 0.254 92 40.5 76.3 46.0
2" 0.029 0.165 95 38.5 81.0 43.2
value. The results for Raschig rings (both metal as well as ceramic) of
different sizes are summarized in Tables 4.3 and 4.4.
A similar analysis in the case of Pall rings has also been carried out
accounting for the slots in the wall of the rings. The slots provide additional
utilization of the internal voidage even when the orientation changes.
Further, the effect of inner projections on reducing internal voidage was also
considered when the Pall rings are vertical. For example, in the case of
35mm Pall rings, the bed voidage for horizontal Pall rings works out as
60.5% as opposed to the value of 96% when the rings are vertical and all the
internal voidage is free and available for fluid flow. It may be pointed out
that, in the case of Pall rings, even when they are horizontal, only 60% of
the internal voidage is taken as blocked for the flow (based on geometrical
considerations) as opposed to the case of horizontal Raschig rings where the
total internal voidage is blocked for the flow. The results for metal Pall rings
of various sizes are summarized in Table 4.5. Again, in this case the
orientation of packings is in the range of 46-51°, similar to other
non-spherical particles.
Further justification for our theory of effective voidage comes from Leva
(1952). He suggests that the pressure drop in the case of stacked bed of 50
mm ceramic Raschig Rings is l/4th of that for dumped bed. It can indeed be
shown by following a similar analysis that the pressure drop in the case of
stacked bed varies between 0.29 to 0.286 times that for the dumped case
(Table 4.6). This difference in the pressure drop is due to the difference in
358
Authenticated
Table 4.5
Effective voidage and mean angle of orientation in Pall rings (Metal)
Packing size Φ Voidage Mean angle of

orientation
degrees
35mm 0.016 0.102 96 60.5 83.0 50.8
38 mm 0.017 0.102 96 60.6 833 50.3
50mm 0.023 0.099 96 60.0 85.0 46.0
Table 4.6
Comparison of pressure drop in stacked and dumped beds of ceramic
Raschig rings
Packing size Dumped bed Stacked bed voidage Ratio of pressure

effective voidage drops (predicted)
r 59.5 69 3.49
2" 63.0 74 3.55
the voidages for the stacked and the dumped case as discussed earlier. Also
the voidages reported in the literature consider that all the internal voidage
is also available for the flow. Obviously this is not true and hence for the
case of dumped packing the effective voidage need to be considered for the
prediction of the pressure drop.
5. PRESSURE DROP IN STATIC MIXERS
About 30 types of static mixers are known today (Pahl and

Muschelnautz, 1979) each having different geometric shape. The most
popular or well studied among those are Kenics type and Sulzer SMX,
359
Authenticated
SMXL, SMV series. In the published literature, pressure drop correlations

have been reported for various types, either in the form of ratio of empty
tube pressure drop to that fitted with static mixing element or in the form of
Ergun friction factor as shown below (Eqn. 2.80)
Re
where Ά' gives the friction factor in the turbulent regime and B/Re in the
laminar regime. The values of A and B have been reported in the literature
(Pahl and Muschelnautz 1982), Wilkinson and Clift (1977), Kabatek et al
(1982), Heywood et al. (1984)).
5.1 Laminar Range
We have shown in the earlier sections of packed bed with non-spherical

packings that eqn. (3.5) successfully correlates the pressure drop data for
different types of packings. Thus static mixing elements can also be treated
as packings with a specific geometry and shape.
For eqn. (3.5) to be of use for, the static mixers, the information related
to φ, ε& sL, dp for a particular static mixing element is required. This
information is very rarely reported in the literature. Thus for the
comparison, only those static mixing element are considered, where the
above parameters are reported or can be indirectly estimated. For the
purpose of analysis, the following static mixing elements have been
considered.
5.1.1 Kenics static mixing elements

Kenics static mixing elements are available in various L/D ratios (1, 1.5,
1.8, 2.0, etc.). Each type offers different pressure drop at otherwise identical
conditions. If we consider the definitions of the parameters ψ, dp, they indeed
show dependence on the diameter and length. Thus an attempt has been
made to develop a unified correlation, incorporating (L/D) as a parameter.
360
Authenticated
Based on the understanding of the geometry of the Kenics type of mixer, the
following relations are valid
(ft V'3
dp = l-L s Dt (5.1)
\7I f
where LS is the actual length of the element and can be shown to be

approximately 1.44 times the straight length. This is based on the actual
chord length, assuming 180° twist between the two ends, t is the thickness of
the plate used for the construction of the element and D is the diameter of
the tube. Also,
(5.2)
v
AN (TtDL + 2 LSD) '
Thus in the definition of ψ, tube internal surface area has also been
considered as it is treated as a packing.
Substituting L =1.44L and L/D =1.0, we get
φ = 1.0242 (t/D)20 (5.3)
Similarly, the voidage and solid hold-ups are estimated as follows
LsD
es = ! = 1.83 1 /D (5.4)
7i/4D 2 L
Substituting L =1.44 and L/D =1, the voidage is given by
8L = (l-1.83t/D> (5.5)
Substitution of φ, dp, CL and ssin equations (3.5) and after simplification,

we get
ΔΡ 326
L (L/D) D2
361
Authenticated
Wilkinson and Cliff (1977) and Kabatek et al (1989) have reported the
following correlations for Kenics type of static mixers
for L/D=1.5, *L = 230 μΥι2· (5.7)
L D
170=1.8, .1?5 L_ (5 g)
L D2
L/D =2.0, ^L - 162-^- (5.9)
L D2
Substituting L/D =1.5, 1.8 and 2.0 in equation (5.6), the following
correlations are obtained
for UD =1.5, . = 21733 - (5.10)

L D2
170=1.8, -wiiLj, (5.11)
and L/D =2.0, - 153 - (5.12)

L D2
Comparison of equations (5.7 to 5.9) with equations (5.10-5.12) indicate

an excellent agreement
5.7.2 Sulzer SMXL andSMV4

Following a similar procedure as described in the Section of 5.1.1,
relations were obtained for the Sulzer static mixing elements on the basis of
available geometric details. These relations arc reported in Table 5.1.
Substituting these relationships in equation (3.5) gives,
for SMXL, *L = 326 μΥ|2· (5.13)

L D
forSMV4, 4?- = 1913·^
2 (5.14)
L D
The values of the constants reported (Sulzer Bracher and Heywood et al

(1984) are 270-369 for SMXL and 1300-2000 for SMV4. Also Pahl and
Muschelknautz (1982) report that Sulzer SMXL and Kenics (L/D =1.0)
362
Authenticated
Table 5.1
Geometrical details for some static mixers
Parameters SMXL (L/D-3.5) SMV4 (L/D-0.892)
dp (· 3*2 1 1 ( 0.985t "i

ID + ntj 1.0.182D + t j
ES 0.09 0.13
EL 0.91 0.87
show identical pressure drop characteristics in the laminar regime.

From the above discussion, it can be seen that equation 3.5 successfully
predicts the pressure drop characteristics of static mixing elements in the
laminar range if the geometric parameters of the static mixing elements are
properly accounted for.
5.2 Turbulent Range
In the turbulent regime, the analysis presented in the Section 3.2.1 can
be extended to explain the pressure drop characteristics of the static mixers.
Simplification of equation 3.14 in the form of pressure drop per unit length
gives
ΔΡ = 3C D N g ) s
(5.15)
L 4>d
As seen from the above equation, that in addition to the parameters ψ, dp,
es and eL, the drag coefficient CDN« is also required. The values of the drag
coefficient (CDN«) have not been reported in the literature for the static
mixer elements. Hence, the procedure described in the Section 3.2.1 has
been adapted to estimate V** VSN« and hence CDN«. The major limitation of
the extension of this procedure to the static mixer is due to the fixed
orientations of the element It has been shown in Section 3.2.1 that the
363
Authenticated
procedure for the estimation of CM*» is quite successful for the random
packings. In the case of static mixer elements, since the orientation is fixed,
the estimated VSN« and CD»» are likely to be different than, those for a
random orientation. Nevertheless an attempt has been made to explain the
observed pressure drop for the same static mixers as considered in the
laminar range. The correlations obtained is of the following form:
(5.16)
Table 5.2 shows the predicted and the reported values of 'M1 for different
static mixer elements.
As seen from the Table 5.2, the agreement between the predicted and
reported values is reasonable (5 to 30% deviation). The possible reason for
this deviation has been explained earlier. In addition to the fixed orientation,
it might be unrealistic to use VSN«, to estimate Crab, as all the static mixing
elements have diameters almost equal to that of the tube and hence, it might
be appropriate to replace CBN» by CDw, which includes the wall effect as
Table 5.2
Comparison between the predicted and reported values of M
Element M M
Predicted eqn. 5.15 Repotted (Ref.)
Kenics L/D - 1.5 0.75 1.0
(Kabatekefoi, 1979)
Kenics L/D - 1.8 0.63 0.84

(Wilkinson and Cliff, 1977)
Kenics L/D -2.0 0.57 0.675
(Wilkinson and Cliff, 1977)
Sulzer SMX L 0.84 1.14 (Sulzer)
Sulzer SMV 4 2.49 2.60 (Sulzer)
364
Authenticated
considered by Joshi (1983). No attempt has been made at this stage to

validate these hypothesis, since too many assumptions are involved in the
estimation of the correct CDN«· Further, the majority of static mixing
applications are in the laminar regime, the agreement in the laminar regime
is considered to be a good validation of the proposed theory.
6. CONCLUSION
It has been shown by the energy balance approach that a unique

expression (equation 2.85) can correlate/predict the pressure drop data for a
variety types of reactors having spherical particles. The equation is
applicable to fixed, fluidised and expanded beds. During the analysis leading
to equation 2.85, it has also been shown that the constants of proportionality
of 150 in the laminar regime and 1.75 in the turbulent regime, as originally
proposed in an empirical equation due to Ergun (1952) can be derived from
first principles.
While analysing the reactors with non-spherical particles, it has been
shown that the geometrical shape factor ψ, not only correlates the surface
area ratio of spherical to non-spherical particles, but also quantitatively
explains the increased overall drag with the changing non-sphericity of the
particles. The analysis of the packed beds for pressure drop indicates, that
depending on the orientation of the packings with internal voidage (e.g.
Raschig rings) in the column, only a fraction of the geometric voidage is
available for the flow of fluid and the observed pressure drops could be 2-4
times higher than predicted on the basis of the geometric voidage. Equations
(3.5) and (3.14) have been shown to be valid for the prediction of the
pressure drops of packed, fluidized and expanded beds with non-spherical
particles in laminar and turbulent regimes, respectively.
With knowledge of the appropriate geometrical details of the static
mixing elements, it has been shown that equations 3.5 and 3.14 can predict
the observed pressure drop characteristics of the variety of static mixing
elements.
365
Authenticated
Thus, the present analysis and the method of energy balance has been
proved useful for the prediction of the pressure drop behaviour for a variety
of the reactors under unified scheme.
NOMENCLATURE
A constant in equation 2.80

AN surface area of non-spherical particle, m2
Ap surface area of the particle, m2
As surface area of the spherical particle, m2
AT flow area as defined in equation 2.3, m2
B constant in equation 2.80
CD total drag coefficient of the spherical particle
CD increased drag coefficient of the spherical particle due to bulk
turbulence
CDN total drag coefficient of the non-spherical particle
CDN increased drag coefficient of the non-spherical particle due to the
bulk turbulence
CD«, drag coefficient of a spherical particle settling in an infinite
medium
CDN« drag coefficient of a non-spherical particle settling in an infinite
medium
D diameter of the bed, m
D«, equivalent diameter of tube having free area equal to area between
the tube wall and particle, m, eqn. 2.7
Dt diameter of the fictitious tube having a total area of particle and
annular space, m, eqn. 2.38
d, diameter of cylindrical particle, m
dp diameter of the spherical particle or equivalent diameter of the
spherical particle, m
E energy dissipation rate in bulk liquid, W
EB energy dissipation rate in solid-liquid fluidized bed, W
366
Authenticated
Ei rate of energy input, W

EI rate of energy leaving the bed, W
£„, energy dissipation rate per unit mass of liquid, mV3
ER aspect ratio of the particle
E. energy dissipation rate in the vicinity of solid phase, W
Ae total drag on non-spherical particle to the drag on spherical
particle of equal volume
FB force due to buoyancy, kg m s~2 or N
FD drag force on the particle, kg m s'2 or N
Fa force due to gravity, kg m s'2 or N
f friction factor, eqn. 2.27
g acceleration due to gravity, m s'2
H height of the liquid from the bottom, m
KI correction factor as used in eqn. 2.39
L length or height, m
LS straightened length of the Kenics mixing element, m
1 scale of turbulence, m
M proportionality constant in eqn. 5.16, dimensionless
Pm power dissipation per unit mass, m2s"3
ΔΡ Τ =ΔΡ total pressure drop, Nm'2
APF pressure drop due to form drag, Nm"2
APS pressure drop due to skin drag, Nm"2
R defined in eqn. 2.43b
Rep particle Reynolds number, αρΥ^ρ/μ
rH hydraulic radius, m, eqn. 2.2
S wetted surface area, m2, eqn. 2.5
t thickness of the plate used for the construction of static mixing
element, m
IT turbulence intensity, m/s, (rms fluctuating velocity, m/s)
U* friction velocity, m/s
U*r normal component of turbulence intensity, m/s
U'joU'y.U'x root mean square fluctuating velocity in x, y and z direction
respectively
367
Authenticated
V equivalent volume as defined in eqn. 2.5

VD net dispersed phase velocity, m/s
VL net continuous phase velocity, m/s
VN net settling velocity of non-spherical particle, m/s
Vs hindered settling velocity, slip velocity as defined in eqn. 2.45, m/s
Vs» terminal settling velocity of spherical particle in infinite media,
m/s
VSN hindered settling velocity of non-spherical particle, m/s
9
VSN» terminal settling velocity of non-spherical particle, m/s

Vp volume of spherical particle, m3
VN volume of non-spherical particle, m3
Greek
EL fractional liquid hold-up
8S fractional solid hold-up
μι. liquid phase viscosity, mPa.s
ψ shape factor, As/AN
Pa gas phase density, kg/m3
PL liquid phase density, kg/m3
PS solid phase density, kg/m3
Δρ density difference between the dispersed phase and the continuous
phase, kg/m3
TF shear stress component due to the form, N/m2
TS shear stress component due to the skin, N/m2
REFERENCES
1. Ergun, S., 1952, "Pressure drop through granular beds", Chem. Engng.
Prog., 48(2), 84-88.
2. Ergun, S. and Orning, A.A., 1949, "Fluid flow through randomly
packed columns and fluidised beds", Ind. Eng. Chem., 41,1179-1184.
3. Hicks, R.E.,1970, "Pressure drop in packed beds of spheres", Ind.
Engng. Chem. Fund., 9, 500-502.
368
Authenticated
4. Bird, R.B., Stewart, W.E. and Lightfoot, E.N., 1960, "Transport

Phenomena", Wiley, New York.
5. Lali, A.M. and Joshi, J.B., 1989, "Pressure drop in soli-liquid fluidised
beds", Power Technology, 59,129-140.
6. Carman, P.C., 1937, "Fluid flow through granular beds", Trans. Instn.
Chem. Engns., 115,150-166.
7. Happel, J. and Epstein, N., 1954, "Cubical Assemblages of uniform
spheres", Ind. Engng. Chem., 46,187-1194.
8. Rumpf, H. and Gupte, A.R., 1971, Chemie, Ing. Techn., 43, 367-375.
9. Rowe, P.N. and Henwood, G.A., 1961A, "Drag forces in a hydraluic
model of a fluidised bed - Part I", Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., 39, 43-
54.
10. Rowe, P.N., 196 IB, "Drag forces in a hydraulic model of fluidised bed
- Part Π", Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., 39, 176-180.
11. Richardson, J.F. and Zaki, W.N., 1954, Sedimentation and
fluidization, Part I", Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., 32,35-53.
12. Joshi, J.B., 1983, "Solid-liquid fludised beds - some design aspects",
Chem. Engng. Res. and Des., 61,143-161.
13. Davies, J.T., 1972, "Turbulence phenomena", Academic Press,
London.
14. Hanratty, T.J., Latimeu, G. and Wilhelm, R.H., 1956, "Turbulent
diffusion in particulately fluidised beds of particles, A.I.Ch.E. J., 2,
372-380.
15. Cairns, E.J. and Prausnitz, J.M., 1960, "Macroscopic mixing in
fluidization", A.I.Ch.E. J., 6,554-560.
16. Handley, D., Doraiswamy, A., Butcher, K.L. and Franklin, N.L., 1966,
"A study of the fluid and particle mechanics in liquid fluidised beds,
Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., 44, T260-T273.
17. Dallavalle, J.M., 1948, "Micromerities", 2nd edn., Pitman, London.
18. Gibilaro, L.G., Di Felice, R., Waldram, S.P. and Foscolo, P.U., 1985,
"Generalised friction factor and drag coefficients for fluid-particle
interactions", Chem. Engng. Sei., 40(10), 1818-23.
369
Authenticated
19. Wentz, C.A. and Thodos, G., 1963A, "Total and form drag friction
actors for the turbulent flow of air through packed and distended beds
of spheres, A.I.CH.E. J.t 9,358-361.
20. Wentz, C.A. and Thodos, G., 1963B, "Pressure drop in the flow of
gases through packed and distended beds of spherical particles,
A.I.CH.E. J., 9, 81-84.
21. Martin, J.J., McCabe, WJ. and Mourad, G.C., 1951, "Pressure drop
through stacked spheres : Effect of orientation", Chem. Engng. Prog.,
47,91-94.
22. Leva, M, 1959, "Fluidisation", McGraw Hill, New York.
23. Leva, M., Weinfransb, M, Grummer, M., Pollchick, M. and Storch,
HA, 1951, U.S. Bur. Mines. Bull., 21,504-510.
24. Scarlett, B. in C. Oor. Edt, 1977, "Filtration principles and practices -
Part Γ, Dekker, New York.
25. Casal, J., Lucas, A. and Arualdos, J., 1985, "A new method for the
determination of shape factor and particle density", The Chem. Engng.
J., 30,155-158.
26. Clift, R., Grace, R. and Weber, M.E., 1975, "Bubble drops and
particles", Academic Press, London.
27. Pandit, A.B. and Joshi, J.B., 1986, "Some aspects of the measurements
of shape actors of solid particles", Ind. J. Techn., 28,587-590.
28. Raschig Brochure, 1986, AG, Abteilung VRR, Mundenheimer Strape
100, D-6700, Zudwingshater, Germany.
29. Leva, M., 1953, "Tower packings and packed tower design", Acron,
U.S. Stoneware Corpn., Ohio.
30. Pabl, M.H. and Muschelknautz, E., 1982, "Static mixers and their
applications",/n/7. Chem. Engng., 22(2), 197-205.
31. Wilkinson, W.L. and Clift, M.J., 1977, "An investigation into the
performance of a static", In Lin Mixer, 2nd Eurp. Conf. Mixing,
BHRA, 30th March, A2-15-29.
32. Kabatek, J., Dift, P. and Novak, V., 1989, "Helax - a new type of static
mixer - operation characteristics and comparison with other types,
Chem. Engng. Process, 25,59-64.
370
Authenticated
33. Heywood, N.I., Viney, LJ. and Stewart, I.W., 1984, "Mixing
efficiencies and energy requirements of a various motionless mixer
designs for laminar mixing applications", Jnstn. Chem. Engrs., Symp.
Ser., 88,147-176.
34. Sulzer Brocher, 1992, Mixing process equipments, Sulzer Brothers
Ltd., SMX and SMV series, Switzerland.
371
Authenticated

Pandit 1998

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pandit 1998

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PRESSURE DROP IN FIXED, EXPANDED

AND FLUIDIZED BEDS, PACKED COLUMNS

A.B. Pandit and J.B. Joshi

Department of Chemical Technology

On the basis of force and energy balance, a generalized approach has

i) Pressure drop in fixed, fluidized and expanded beds: Spherical particles

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

ii) Pressure drop in fixed, fluidized and expanded beds: Non-spherical

Spatial distribution of the components is achieved in the pipeline flow

322 Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

vice-versa to give a total control over the extent of energy dissipation

2. PRESSURE DROP IN FIXED AND FLUIDIZED BEDS:

2.1 Laminar Regime

2.7.7 Pressure drop in fixed beds

where D, is the equivalent diameter given by the following equation:

D _ 4 χ cross- sectional area for the flow »„

The definition of hydraulic radius emerges from the following force

However, it is known that the experimentally observed pressure drop is

ft) Average area method

equation (2.8). As the tortuosity of the bed is a function of the volume

APF = ε3ΔΡτ (2.10)

Substitution of equations (2.9) and (2.10) in equation (2.8) gives

The definition of hydraulic radius can be extracted from equation (2.14):

2.1.2 Pressure drop in expanded beds

beds. However, we will make a small modification in equation (2.11). On

JLo 2 AP = -^- FD (2.19)

where, vp is the volume of a single particle. Rearranging equation (2.19)

Substitution of equation (2.18) in (2.20) gives :

^p _Vp_ 10.8 π d p V!>IBS

Equation (2.22) can be presented in the form of Ergun friction factor:

0.4 85.37 81.30

FD = 3πμΰρ Vs. (2.29)

FD = 3ndp μ^ |^S- + ll (2.30)

From equation (2.3 1) it can be seen that the value of FD is independent of

Using the simplification of equation (2.26):

Equation (2.33) is in agreement with the Richardson-Zaki equation for

2.1.3 Alternative procedure for the

CD«, π d* IPL V£, = | dj (ps - PL) g (2.34)

3π Mdp VSoo = i d* (ps - pL) g (2.37)

Under laminar conditions, it is assumed that the particles in a suspension

It may be remembered that, in reality, both Dt and D, change along the

8Κιπ μι α ρ VSco = -=- dj (PS - PL) g (2.40)

Comparison of equation (2.39) with equation (2.37) gives K = 3/8. Dividing

Substitution of equation (2.7) and (2.38) in (2.41) gives:

2.2 Turbulent Regime

Vs and VL are positive in the direction of terminal settling. VL is positive

CD = CD» + CD' (2.46)

The kinetic energy associated with the incoming liquid is normally

Net power dissipation in Solid-Liquid Fluidized Bed (SLFB) is

EB = i D 2 Hes (ps - pL) gVL (2.50)

To estimate the turbulence generated in the bulk of liquid, eqn. (2.51)

Substitution of eqn. (2.52) in eqn. (2.54) gives

U' = (Pml)1/3 (2.57)

which simplifies to,

The following equations also hold:

Substitution of eqns. (2.66) and (2.67) in eqn. (2.65) gives

UVU' = 0.35 (2.68)

UVU' = 0.87 (2.69)

Using eqn.(2.62), we get

UyV, = 1.05ε, (2.70)

UW. = 2.61ε. (2.71)

. = 1.49ε. ~ 1.5ε. (2.72)

No. ES EL U'2 U'x

measurements made by Handley et α/.(1966). It can be seen that the

= 3L2 (4.5ε +·&,*) (3.13)