Evaluation of Liquid Flow Consants Through Application of Equations for Bed Fuidization D.S. Corpuz, J.L. de Guzman and J.M. Golbin Department of Chemical Engineering, University of the Philippines-Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines
D.S. Corpuz, J.L. de Guzman and J.M. Golbin, 2008. The purpose of this experiment is to validate graphically the CarmanKozeny, Burke-Plummer, and Ergun Equations. This was done by passing water upward at varying flow rates into a bed of particles. The experiment gave values of 5x106 for the Kozeny-Carman constant and 36.07 for the Burke-Plummer constant, which is far from theoretical value. The experiment, however, was able to verify the direct relationship of bed height and bed porosity with the Reynolds number and relationship of pressure drop with the Reynolds number. Keywords: bed height, bed porosity, Burke-Plummer Equation, Carman-Kozeny Equation, Ergun Equation, friction factor, mean velocity, minimum fluidization velocity, porosity, pressure drop, Reynolds number Kozeny-Carman Equation
OBJECTIVES The main objective of this experiment is to graphically determine the experimental constants of the three equations namely: Carman-Kozeny, Burke-Plummer, and Ergun Equations. In the process, the experimental data could be compared to the theoretical data. Other important objectives were to run the experiment at various flow rates using the bucket method and calculate the corresponding pressure drops. The minimum fluidization values were also determined. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Packed beds and fluidized beds play a major role in many chemical engineering processes. Packed-bed situations include processes such as filtration, wastewater treatment, and the flow of crude oil in a petroleum reservoir. Fluidized beds are used extensively in the chemical process industries, particularly for the cracking of high-molecular-weight petroleum fractions (http://www.eng.buffalo.edu). When a fluid is pumped upward through a bed of fine solid particles at a very low flow rate, the fluid penetrates through the void spaces without disturbing the bed. This process is known as the packed bed process. If the upward flow rate is steadily increased, the pressure drop increases. The pressure drop across the bed counterbalances the force of gravity on the particles. Increasing the velocity further makes the particles separated enough to move about the bed and become suspended in the fluid. This is the onset of fluidization and is termed as fluidized bed. A minimum velocity is needed to fluidize a bed. Consider a column packed with solid particles through which a fluid flows, if the velocity is too small the bed stays fixed and operates as a packed bed. The particles in the bed will remain in a packed bed as long as the gravitational forces holding the solid particles down are greater than the force exerted by the fluid passing up through the bed of particles. At the point where the two forces become equal the solid particles begin to move. The force balance given in Eq. 1 describes this condition known as incipient fluidization. Incipient or minimum fluidization velocity is the superficial fluid velocity at which the fluidization of the bed commences.
* equation 7.49 (McCabe, 2001)
After achieving incipient fluidization, increasing the fluid flow velocity does not result in any significant increase in the pressure drop as the bed expands to reduce the resistance to flow. Finally, at conditions of entrainment, the pressure drop decreases as the entrained particles offer little resistance to flow.
* equation 7.17 (McCabe, 2001)
Eq. 2 is applicable for flow through beds at Reynolds numbers (NRe) up to about 2100. No sharp transition to turbulent flow can be observed at this NRe, but at higher NRe, considerable kinetic energy losses results due to the frequent energy changes in the shape and direction of the channels in the bed. The theoretical constant is 150. Burke-Plummer equation
* equation 7.20 (McCabe, 2001)
Eq. 3 is used to determine the pressure drop in turbulent flow region where the kinetic energy losses significantly affect the system. NRe is greater than 4000. The theoretical constant is 1.75. Ergun Equation
* equation 7.50 (McCabe, 2001)
Eq. 4 covers the entire range of flow rates assuming that the kinetic and drag/viscous losses are additive. The theoretical constants are 150 and 1.75. The variables used in Eq. 2 to 4 are: ∆P = pressure drop in the fluidized bed L = height of fluidized bed = superficial or empty tower fluid velocity µ = absolute viscosity Φs = sphericity Dp = particle diameter ε = bed porosity PROCEDURE Flow meter Calibration The carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) and mercury (Hg) manometer were connected to the valve regulating water flow. Several sample points were gathered to measure the actual flow rate from no flow to maximum flow. Using the bucket method, flow rates (F) were calculated by measuring the time required to fill
the bucket with water and the corresponding weight of the water at different sample points. Concurrently, the manometer level or the height difference (∆h) of both fluid (Hg and CCl4) was read. These calculated F, together with the ∆h, determined the meter constant Cv by regression analysis.
Kozeny-Carman Equation ∆K O2/ P 1 - .N g MN N L c QR .S
11
* from equation 22.76 (Foust, 1980)
k2 is the Kozeny-Carman experimental constant obtained using: Pressure drop Measurement The flow rate was varied, and the ∆h between the CCl4 and Hg manometers was recorded. RESULT AND ANALYSIS
x‐axis
ft F average velocity V s ρH2O Ap
y‐axis
ε3
ΔP L
(
, lbm
lbm
ft 2 s 2
(ft 2s 2+
gY,
∆K [O2/N 1 - . g c MZ L QR . S
+
k4 is the experimental constant obtained using:
x‐axis
y‐axis 7
*from equation 7.14 (McCabe, 2001) )
bed porosity = ε = ( + 1 - ./
,
lb
(ft2ms 2+ (
lbm
ft 2 s 2
+
∆K QRN .S ]^_ gc 2 MN \ MZ 1 - . L PO/ 1 - .N
13
The corresponding equations for the axes of the Ergun equation are NRe x‐axis 1‐ε ∆K QRN .S y‐axis ` L a PO/ 1 - .N
*from equation 7.2 (McCabe, 2001)
pressure drop ∆hρA ‐ρB
Dp ε3 ΔP g , L Y
* from equation 22.85 (Foust, 1980)
8
µ
02 1‐ε ρV
Ergun Equation
)*
222 V0 ·ρ·Dp
12
* from equation 22.82 (Foust, 1980)
6
ft 0 ε · average velocity super icial velocity V s
9
The flow meter was first calibrated, and the value of the flow meter constant was determined. The calibration equation was given as < => ?∆@AABC (10) where F is the flow rate in lb/s, and ∆h is in inches. Determination of Cv 1.4
During fluidization, several regions are expected to be observed which include the laminar, transition, and turbulent regimes. For the laminar flow, the Kozeny-Carman equation is used. Turbulent flow obeys the Burke-Plummer equation. Meanwhile, the Ergun equation can be applied for the entire range of flow rates, and it is assumed that the kinetic energy and viscous losses are additive. From the calculated flow rates, the Reynolds number for each data point as then calculated using Eq. 10 and Eq. 5 to 8. Table 1 shows the calculated values for a single trial.
1.2 Flow rate, lb/s
D2p
Burke-Plummer equation
The data recorded in this experiment included the time to fill the bucket with a certain mass of water in seconds (t), the mass of water in pounds (mw), bed height in cm (L), and manometer level (∆h). These variables will be used to calculate for the following terms: mass water lb 5 volumetric low rate F time s
NRe
0µ 1‐ε2 V
1 0.8
y = 1.137x - 0.091 R² = 0.966
0.6
Table. 1 Sample NRe calculation ?∆@bc , √de
0.4 0.2 0 0
0.5 1 sqrt(H CCl4), sqrt(in)
1.5
Fig.1 Determination of Cv It was determined from the slope of Fig.1 that the flow meter DE⁄F constant is 1.137 , with an experimental error of -0.091. This √IJ error is probably due to the inaccurate bucket method, and that the meter just got repaired. The Cv was used for subsequent determinations of flow rates. From the flow rates and manometer readings, and using some necessary laboratory constants, such as bed porosity ε and pipe diameter, the experimental data were plotted (using the following equations) and compared to the theoretical constants given by Kozeny-Carman, Burke-Plummer, and Ergun equations.
F, lb/s
mean v, ft/s superficial v, ft/s
Nre
0.70710
0.80398 0.620968704
0.602774321
887.6871286
0.836660
0.95128 0.734740079
0.717517771
1056.666265
0.894427
1.016963 0.785470184
0.770741047
1135.046539
0.948683
1.07865 0.83311694
0.818095201
1204.78354
In the experiment, all data points fell under the laminar flow regime, with NRe < 2100. None had an NRe > 4000. The Kozeny-Carman equation is applicable to laminar flow. Fig. 2 shows the determination of the experimental Kozeny-Carman constant.
Table 2. Comparison of Experimental and Book Values
Determination of the Kozeny-Carman constant 14000
KC
BP
12000
Trial 1
6.00E+06
22.24
10000
Trial 2
4.00E+06
51.25
8000
Trial 3
5.00E+06
34.65
average
5.00E+06
36.04667
theoretical
1.50E+02
1.75
% error
3.33E+06
1959.81
y = 6E+06x + 2643. R² = 0.971
6000 4000 2000 0 0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
Fig. 2 Experimental Kozeny-Carman constant The slope of Fig. 2 gives the experimental Kozeny-Carman constant, and shown to be is 6x106 with an error of 2643. This error accounts for the inaccuracy of the manometer. Some of the error may have also been due to the calculated Cv. Based on the calculated NRe, the flow of the liquid was never turbulent since NRe < 4000. Thus, the Burke-Plummer constant cannot be proven because the values obtained experimentally would not permit it. Fig. 3 shows the experimental results using the Burke-Plummer equation. Determination of the Burke-Plummer constant 14000 12000 10000
In the experiment, the behavior of the bed from being fixed to an expanded one was observed. Given that the bed operates at zero velocity (or even at a very low velocity), the bed was considered to be operating as a packed bed. From the given value in the laboratory, the porosity of bed at no flow, ε0, is 0.414. Minimum fluidization velocity is required in order to observe the start of expansion of bed.
8000 y = -189.0x + 19839 R² = 0.667
6000
The experimental constants were determined for three trials, and were averaged to complete the table. The very high percentage error may be attributed to the inaccuracy of the manometer and flow rate readings, and to the fact that the equipments were old. In fact, the CCl4 manometers just got broken and repaired prior to this experiment. Another source of error was that the initial ∆h of the manometers were never zero, despite fully closing the flow regulating valve. This could have affected the flow meter constant. Ideally, the ∆h should have been set to zero at no flow rate.
4000 2000 0 0
20
40
60
80
Fig. 3 Experimental Burke-Plummer constant Fig. 3 shows a negative slope, which is not possible according to Eq. 12. This is due to the fact the flow was not turbulent, yet the data points were forced into the Burke-Plummer equation. However, the Ergun equation provides a method for determining the experimental Burke-Plummer constant. Since the Ergun equation is applicable to all types of flow, Fig. 4 shows the plot of Eq. 13. Ergun Equation 1.20E+07 1.00E+07 8.00E+06 6.00E+06
Source: http://www.colorado.edu/che/TeamWeimer/images/bed_expansion
From Geankoplis (1993), the pressure drop across the bed is equivalent to the weight of the bed per unit area of cross section. This can be expressed by ∆f `1 - .g[R - [hL At this point, minimum porosity, εM, is observed to be present. Applying these concepts, Ergun equation can be expressed as
y = 22.24x + 7E+06 R² = 0.621
N
1.75 QRNgjkl h [ N 150g1 - .kl hQR jkl [ QRS [g[R - [h` \ \ 0 S S PN mn .kl PN mn N .kl P
4.00E+06 2.00E+06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Fig. 5 Fixed Bed vs. Fluidized Bed
5.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.50E+05
Fig. 4 Experimental Illustration of the Ergun Equation According to Eq. 15, the slope of Fig. 3 gives the experimental Burke-Plummer constant, which is shown to be 22.24. The intercept, meanwhile, verifies the experimental Kozeny-Carman constant earlier determined by Fig. 2. The Kozeny-Carman constant from Fig. 4 is 7x106, which is consistent with the value obtained from Fig. 2. The experimental constants were compared to book values, as shown in Table 2.
If the values for Φs and εmf are not provided, the equation below can be used. 1 - .kl o 11 S mnN .kl Substituting this to the Ergun equation provides a new equation for computing NRe. ]^_ p33.7N \ 0.0408
s
QRS g[R - [h` N r - 33.7 PN
Once NRe is calculated, the values for Vmf may be obtained by using QR jkl [ ]^_,kl P Assuming the sphericity is unity (for spheres), and if the NRe falls between the range of 0.001 to 4000, the equation can be used. Since the value of pressure drop at minimum velocity is
also to be computed, the bed height at that instance, Lmf, must be calculated. 1 - .kl L/ Lkl 1 - ./ L, cm
ε0 is the porosity at no flow while L0 is the initial height. Obtaining Lmf, the pressure drop can be calculated.
Bed Height vs. Nre
∆fkl Lkl g1 - .kl hg[R - [h` The data below is a summary of the values for the variables at minimum fluidization for trial 1.
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
y = 0.012x - 2.915 R² = 0.959
0
500
1000 Nre
1500
2000
Fig. 7 Bed Height vs. Reynolds number
trial 1 NRe
51.03558906
Vmf
0.034655163
εmf
1.61764E-08
Lmf
0.007690288
dP
4.492281741
Note, however, that the porosity at incipient fluidization is less than the porosity at no flow, which is impossible. This error can be traced to the use of inappropriate constants. An alternative method of determining the values at minimum fluidization may be read from the plot of log(∆P) vs. log(NRe) (Foust, 1980). Determination of the Minimum Fluidization Point 2.025 2.02
80 70
y = 0.053x - 15.30 R² = 0.959
60 50 40 30 20
2.015 log dP
Fig. 8 shows the plot of the bed expansion as a function of Reynolds number. McCabe (2001) provided a method of determining the bed height as a function of velocity. In Fig. 8, the abscissa was manipulated to make the bed height a function of Reynolds number: u ]vw .S x 1 - . Bed Expansion vs Nre Bed Expansion
Table 3. Calculated Results of Minimum Fluidization Properties
As expected, the bed height is directly proportional to the Reynolds number. From the equations above, the bed height affects the calculation of the velocity and thus the Reynolds number. The non-linearity of the plot is due to the inaccuracy of the recorded manometer readings.
0
2.01
500
1000
1500
2000
Nre
2.005
Fig. 8 Bed Expansion as a function of Reynolds number
2 1.995 1.99 2.9
2.95
3
3.05 3.1 log Nre
3.15
3.2
3.25
Fig. 6 Determining the Minimum Fluidization Point The linear part of the graph in Fig. 6 illustrates the behavior of a fixed bed. The peak of the graph is where the fluidization starts, and is known as the point of fluidization. Beyond the peak, the bed is completely fluidized. Increasing further the flow rate would only result to the same pressure drop, shown by the horizontal part. Only the Reynolds number will be affected. The minimum NRe and the minimum pressure drop can be read directly from the graph, and the minimum fluidization velocity may be computed from NRe. The porosity at the fluidization point may be obtained from the modified Ergun equation. The values at incipient fluidization are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Graphical Results of Minimum Fluidization Properties Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Average
∆P
105.1961874
109.6478196
105.9253725
106.9231265
NRe
1096.478196
1202.264435
1083.926914
1127.556515
Vmf
0.744551614
0.816384611
0.736028802
0.765655009
The values obtained from Fig. 6 are much more realistic than the values in Table 3. The difference in the values of Table 3 and 4 may be because of the wrong values of constants used in Table 3. The relationship of the Reynolds number with the other relevant fluidization variables is shown in the following graphs. Fig. 7 shows the relationship of bed height L with NRe.
Notice that the plot is almost linear. This means that the bed becomes more fluidized as the flow rate (thus Reynolds number) is increased. Ideally, the intercept should be zero; however, the experimental results give a value of -15.30. This discrepancy can be due to the inaccuracy of the bed height and manometer readings, and in the inaccuracy of the experimental flow meter constant. Foust (1980) provided a method of determining the modified friction factor based on the Reynolds number. Fig. 9 shows the plot that calculated using ]vw u 1 - . -∆K`a QR .S x N L [Onk 1 - . Modified Friction Factor 250 200 150 100
y = 2E-08x2 - 0.004x + 347.2 R² = 0.992
50 0 0
50000
100000
150000
Nre/(1-e)
Fig. 9 Friction Factor vs. NRe The experimental plot displays a pattern similar to literature. The initial part of the graph represents the period of laminar
flow and the Kozeny-Carman is applicable. The later part represents the period of turbulent flow and the Burke-Plummer is applicable. All throughout, the Ergun equation is applicable.
A.1 Determination of Porosity, ε Trial 1 ∆hHg,0 = 0.4 in
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Evidently, the data gathered from the experiment did not fully satisfy the primary objective of the activity as stated in the manual. This may be due to the repeated bursting of the pipes in the set-up. The valve which regulated the flow of water may also add to the inaccuracy of the readings in the gages. It was difficult to control the fluid flow. Experimental errors can be traced all the way back to the determination of the flow meter constant. It is recommended that a 1000 ml graduated cylinder be used instead of a normal bucket. That way, the volume readings, and thus the flow rate, could be more accurate. Also, it would be better if the graduations of the manometers were clearer. It was hard to read accurately the height difference in the manometers. The use of more sensitive manometers would also help. A more accurate flow regulating valve would also result in better experimental results. REFERENCES Foust, A.S. (1980). Principles of Unit Operations. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd. Geankoplis, C.J. (1993). Transport Processes and Unit Operations. Singapore: Prentice Hall. McCabe, W.L. (2001). Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Book Co. (n.d.).Retrieved March 8, 2008 from http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/Courses/ce427/Beds.PDF (n.d.). Retieved March 10, 2008 from http://chemical.uakron.edu (n.d.). Retieved March 10, 2008 from http://www.colorado.edu/che/TeamWeimer/images/bed_expansion
APPENDICES Constants used: Bed height at no flow, Lo = 0.4 cm Bed porosity at no flow, ε0 = 0.414
∆hCCl4,0 = 0.3 in
∆hHg, in
∆hCCl4, in
L, cm
L, in
ε
1.5
0.5
8
3.149606299
0.9707
1.6
0.7
10
3.937007874
0.97656
1.6
0.8
12.5
4.921259843
0.981248
1.6
0.9
13
5.118110236
0.981969231
1.6
1.1
13.5
5.31496063
0.982637037
1.6
1.3
15
5.905511811
0.984373333
1.6
1.35
15
5.905511811
0.984373333
1.6
1.4
16
6.299212598
0.98535
1.6
1.5
17.5
6.88976378
0.986605714
1.6
1.55
17.5
6.88976378
0.986605714
Trial 2 ∆hHg,0 = 0.3 in
∆hCCl4,0 = 1 in
∆hHg, in
∆hCCl4, in
L, cm
L, in
ε
0.9
0.8
8
3.149606299
0.9707
1.6
0.9
8.3
3.267716535
0.971759036
1.6
1
9
3.543307087
0.973955556
1.6
1.05
11.5
4.527559055
0.979617391
1.6
1.1
13
5.118110236
0.981969231
1.6
1.3
13
5.118110236
0.981969231
1.6
1.35
13
5.118110236
0.981969231
1.6
1.55
15
5.905511811
0.984373333
1.6
1.6
15
5.905511811
0.984373333
1.6
1.7
17
6.692913386
0.986211765
Trial 3 ∆hHg,0 = 0.2 in
∆hCCl4,0 = 1 in
∆hHg, in
∆hCCl4, in
L, cm
L, in
ε
1.3
0.6
8
3.149606299
0.9707
1.6
0.7
8.5
3.346456693
0.972423529
1.6
0.8
11
4.330708661
0.978690909
1.6
0.9
12
4.724409449
0.980466667
1.6
1.1
13
5.118110236
0.981969231
1.6
1.3
14
5.511811024
0.983257143
1.6
1.4
15
5.905511811
0.984373333
1.6
1.5
15.5
6.102362205
0.984877419
Water density, ρH2O = 62.42796058 lbm/ft3 Water viscosity, µH2O = 0.00060054 lbm/ft-s Mercury density, ρHg = 849 lbm/ft3
A.2 Determination of Reynolds Number Trial 1
Total particle mass = 0.986 kg Particle diameter, Dp = 0.014166667 ft
?Δh,yyDZ
F, lb/s
mean v, ft/s
superficial velocity, ft/s
Nre
0.70710678
0.803980
0.6209687
0.602774321
887.6871286
0.83666002
0.951282
0.7347400
0.717517771
1056.666265
0.89442719
1.0169637
0.7854701
0.770741047
1135.046539
0.94868329
1.0786529
0.833116
0.818095201
1204.78354
1.04880884
1.192495
0.9210454
0.905053355
1332.844127
1.14017542
1.2963794
1.0012819
0.985635249
1451.514596
1.16189500
1.3210746
1.0203557
1.004410941
1479.164977
1.18321595
1.3453165
1.0390793
1.023856871
1507.802398
1.22474487
1.3925349
1.0755493
1.06114313
1562.712719
1.24498996
1.4155535
1.0933282
1.078683874
1588.544431
Pipe cross-sectional area = 0.02073942 ft
Trial 2
Trial 3
?Δh,yyDZ
F, lb/s
mean v, ft/s
0.89442719
1.01696371
0.785470184
0.94868329
1.07865291
0.83311694
superficial velocity, ft/s
BP x, lbm/ft2-s2
0.762455907
1122.84527
0.26246
0.10833
85.2119
10445.5
0.0018545
61.54811
0.809588915
1192.25659
0.27887
0.133333
104.876
12099.8
0.0017680
67.46245
0.36089
0.133333
104.876
9349.84
0.001114
59.19571
0.39370
0.133333
104.876
8570.69
0.0009894
60.93501
0.42650
0.133333
104.876
7911.41
0.0009292
68.64200
0.45931
0.133333
104.876
7346.30
0.0008687
75.22924
0.49212
0.133333
104.876
6856.55
0.0007835
75.52929
0.50853
0.133333
104.876
6635.37
0.0007587
78.27370
1
1.137
0.878182363
0.855310591
1259.58949
1.16507830
0.899869143
0.881527463
1298.19827
1.04880884
1.19249566
0.921045432
0.904438275
1331.93831
1.14017542
1.29637945
1.001281949
0.983228065
1447.96960
1.16189500
1.32107461
1.0203557
1.001957902
1475.55246
1.24498996
1.41555358
1.093328224
1.076243149
1584.95005
1.26491106
1.43820388
1.110822587
1.093464133
1610.31086
1.30384048
1.48246662
1.145009714
1.129222051
1662.97044
dP
KC x, lb m/ft2-s2
L, ft
1.02469507
∆hHg, ft
y, lb m/ft2-s2
Nre
A.4 Determination of Experimental Ergun Constants Trial 3 Trial 1
?Δh,yyDZ
F, lb/s
mean v, ft/s
superficial velocity, ft/s
Nre
0.77459666
0.880716413
0.680237133
0.660306185
972.412528
0.83666002
0.95128245
0.734740079
0.714478541
1052.19048
0.89442719
1.016963716
0.785470184
0.768732528
1132.08865
0.328083
0.133333333
104.87627
8119698.198
45079.61882
0.94868329
1.07865291
0.83311694
0.816843389
1202.94003
0.4101049
0.133333333
104.87627
9585474.866
60529.35897
0.4265091
0.133333333
104.87627
9412584.784
66818.19972
L, ft
∆hHg, ft
dP
y
Er x
0.2624671
0.125
98.321504
7119301.156
30296.48903
1.04880884
1.19249566
0.921045432
0.904438275
1331.93831
1.14017542
1.296379458
1.001281949
0.984517628
1449.86870
1.18321595
1.345316543
1.039079384
1.022842037
1506.30788
0.4429133
0.133333333
104.87627
8853494.639
76763.63362
1.22474487
1.392534919
1.075549345
1.059284263
1559.97522
0.4921259
0.133333333
104.87627
9080929.569
92887.02617
0.4921259
0.133333333
104.87627
8911177.599
94656.46185
0.5249343
0.133333333
104.87627
9352507.19
102921.6654
0.5741469
0.133333333
104.87627
9907651.371
116670.1049
0.5741469
0.133333333
104.87627
9746540.611
118598.667
A.3 Determination of Kozeny-Carman and Burke-Plummer Constants Trial 1 L, ft
∆hHg, ft
dP
y, lbm/ft2-s2
KC x, lb m/ft2-s2
BP x, lb m/ft2-s2
0.2624671
0.125
98.32150
12052.5391
0.001692
51.29009
0.328083
0.13333
104.8762
10284.8334
0.001266
57.10019
0.4101049
0.13333
104.8762
8227.86671
0.000858
51.95647
0.4265091
0.13333
104.8762
7911.41030
0.000840
56.16163
0.4429133
0.13333
104.8762
7618.39511
0.000860
66.05478
0.4921259
0.13333
104.8762
6856.55559
0.000755
70.13434
0.4921259
0.13333
104.8762
6856.55559
0.000769
72.83182
0.5249343
0.13333
104.8762
6428.02087
0.000687
70.73853
0.5741469
0.13333
104.8762
5877.04765
0.000593
69.20669
0.5741469
0.1333
104.8762
5877.04765
0.000602
71.51358
∆hHg, ft
dP
y, lb m/ft2-s2
KC x, lb m/ft2-s2
BP x, lb m/ft2-s2
0.262467
0.075
58.99290
7231.523
0.00214141
82.06414
0.272309
0.133333
104.8762
12391.36
0.00210549
88.88824
0.295275
0.133333
104.8762
11427.59
0.00187907
90.87760
0.377296
0.133333
104.8762
8943.333
0.00116571
74.24607
0.426509
0.133333
104.8762
7911.410
0.00092922
68.64200
0.426509
0.133333
104.8762
7911.410
0.00101017
81.12236
0.426509
0.133333
104.8762
7911.410
0.00102941
84.24245
0.492125
0.133333
104.8762
6856.555
0.00082446
83.62172
0.492125
0.133333
104.8762
6856.555
0.00083765
86.31919
0.557742
0.133333
104.8762
6049.901
0.00066971
80.77339
Trial 2
Trial 2 L, ft
L, ft
∆hHg, ft
dP
y
Er x
0.2624671
0.075
58.99290296
3376981.05
38322.36418
0.2723097
0.1333333
104.8762719
5885251.913
42217.27703
0.2952755
0.1333333
104.8762719
6081515.696
48363.0779
0.3772965
0.1333333
104.8762719
7671975.516
63691.46817
0.4265091
0.1333333
104.8762719
8514003.282
73870.29922
0.4265091
0.1333333
104.8762719
7831743.94
80305.48175
0.4265091
0.1333333
104.8762719
7685343.294
81835.24743
0.4921259
0.1333333
104.8762719
8316414.642
101425.9845
0.4921259
0.1333333
104.8762719
8185439.297
103048.9033
0.5577427
0.1333333
104.8762719
9033496.129
120607.9247
L, ft
∆hHg, ft
dP
y
Er x
0.2624671
0.1083333
85.21197094
5632469.32
33188.14091
0.2788713
0.1333333
104.8762719
6843399.085
38155.37164
0.3608923
0.1333333
104.8762719
8391311.521
53127.02738
0.3937007
0.1333333
104.8762719
8661970.537
61583.96085
0.4265091
0.1333333
104.8762719
8514003.282
73870.29922
0.4593175
0.1333333
104.8762719
8456324.18
86596.25396
0.4921259
0.1333333
104.8762719
8750602.689
96393.42254
0.5085301
0.1333333
104.8762719
8744630.704
103155.3582
Trial 3
A.5 Determination of Point of Fluidization Trial 1 log Nre
log dP
2.948259923
1.992648517
3.023937842
2.020677241
3.055013669
2.020677241
3.080909025
2.020677241
3.124779363
2.020677241
3.161821407
2.020677241
3.170016615
2.020677241
3.17834443
2.020677241
3.193879147
2.020677241
3.200999366
2.020677241
Trial 2 log Nre
log dP
3.050319914
1.770799768
3.076369733
2.020677241
3.10022903
2.020677241
3.113341027
2.020677241
3.124484113
2.020677241
3.160759447
2.020677241
3.168954655
2.020677241
3.20001558
2.020677241
3.206909722
2.020677241
3.220884531
2.020677241
Trial 3 log Nre
log dP
2.987850546
1.930500611
3.02209437
2.020677241
3.053880439
2.020677241
3.080243979
2.020677241
3.124484113
2.020677241
3.161328677
2.020677241
3.177913749
2.020677241
3.193117701
2.020677241