This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]

On: 13 July 2014, At: 01:15

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

Chemical Engineering Communications

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

PREDICTION OF THE MINIMUM

FLUIDIZATION VELOCITY FOR FINE
PARTICLES OF VARIOUS DEGREES OF
COHESIVENESS
a

Chunbao Charles Xu & Jesse Zhu

Department of Chemical Engineering , Lakehead University ,

Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
b

Powder Technology Research Centre, Department of Chemical

and Biochemical Engineering , The University of Western Ontario ,
London, Ontario, Canada
Published online: 15 Nov 2008.

To cite this article: Chunbao Charles Xu & Jesse Zhu (2008) PREDICTION OF THE MINIMUM
FLUIDIZATION VELOCITY FOR FINE PARTICLES OF VARIOUS DEGREES OF COHESIVENESS, Chemical
Engineering Communications, 196:4, 499-517, DOI: 10.1080/00986440802483855
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986440802483855

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Chem. Eng. Comm., 196:499517, 2009

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0098-6445 print/1563-5201 online
DOI: 10.1080/00986440802483855

Prediction of the Minimum Fluidization Velocity for

Fine Particles of Various Degrees of Cohesiveness
CHUNBAO CHARLES XU
Department of Chemical Engineering, Lakehead University,
Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

JESSE ZHU
Powder Technology Research Centre, Department of Chemical
and Biochemical Engineering, The University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario, Canada
Based on the well-known Ergun equation and the force balance of a particle bed
under fluidization bringing into account the interparticle forces, a new correlation
for prediction of the minimum fluidization velocity (umf) for fine particles of various
degrees of cohesiveness has been derived. For the first time, a general correlation of
the minimum fluidization voidage (emf) versus particle size is obtained from various
sets of experimental data. The newly derived umf correlation combined with the one
for emf proves to be superior to the traditional ones proposed by Leva (1959) and
Wen and Yu (1966), especially for the cases where very fine or very large particles
are employed in fluidization. The correlations of Leva (1959) and Wen and Yu
(1966), both disregarding the cohesive-force effect and the effect of particle size
on emf, result in noticeable errors in umf prediction for very fine (Geldart groups
C and C=A) and very large (Geldart group D) particles, although they work
satisfactorily for small-to-medium size particles (Geldart groups B and A). In
contrast, the prediction with the new correlation shows good agreement with the
experimental data for various types of particles ranging from Geldart group C to
group D.
Keywords Fine particles; Interparticle forces; Minimum fluidization velocity;
Minimum fluidization voidage; Modeling; New correlations

Introduction
Minimum fluidization velocity (umf) is a key parameter to describe fluidization of
particles. Minimum fluidization is defined as the state at which the weight of the
whole bed of particles begins to be completely supported by the fluidizing gas,
and the pressure drop of the gas across the bed becomes constant with increasing
gas velocity. The value of umf is usually determined experimentally by measuring
the pressure drop as a function of gas velocity. It can also be predicted with various
correlations such as the semi-empirical correlations proposed by Narsimhan (1965)
and Wen and Yu (1966) based on the well-known Ergun equation (Ergun, 1952), and
Address correspondence to Jesse Zhu, Powder Technology Research Centre, Department
of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario, Canada, N6A 5B9. E-mail: jzhu@uwo.ca

499

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

500

C. C. Xu and J. Zhu

the empirical correlation of Leva (1959). All these correlations were developed based
on the data of non-cohesive particles, and the interparticle forces have not been
taken into account. Obviously, they may be not suitable for fine particles wherein
the interparticle forces are relatively strong compared with gravity.
According to Geldart (1973), very fine particles, 1030 mm or smaller in size, are
generally classified as cohesive particles (group C) and behave quite differently from
the aeratable particles (group A) and other larger size particles (groups B and D) in
fluidization. Geldart group C particles are very attractive in chemical, advanced
material, food, and pharmaceutical industries due to the high surface area to volume
ratio and other special characteristics. However, due to the presence of relatively
strong interparticle forces, group C particles tend to channel and agglomerate significantly when subject to increasing gas velocity, resulting in a very poor fluidization or
complete de-fluidization. Although it is still a challenging task, fluidization of group
C particles can be achieved by employing mechanical=acoustic vibration or other
fluidization aids (Mori et al., 1990; Jaraiz et al., 1992; Morse, 1955; Chirone et al.,
1993; Chirone and Massimilla, 1994; Russo et al., 1995; Xu and Zhu, 2006). Wank
and coworkers (2001) proposed a complicated model for predicting umf of a group C
powder (
10 mm boron nitride particles) fluidized under mechanical vibration and
reduced pressures, where the interparticle forces are taken into account. Several limitations of the model of Wank et al. (2001) may be addressed here: the calculation
procedures are very complicated, the model was proposed specifically for fluidization at reduced pressures, and no verification has been done with other sets of
data from the literature. The main objective of the current work is thus to develop
a new simple correlation to predict umf for fine particles by taking into account
the interparticle forces.
Another important parameter to be discussed in this work is minimum fluidization voidage (emf), an essential parameter in applying the Ergun equation to dragforce evaluation and umf prediction. This problem was circumvented in both Levas
(1959) and Wen and Yus (1966) models as well as in many previous fluidization
work in various ways, for example, (1) by simply disregarding it (Leva, 1959), (2)
by assuming emf a fixed value such as 0.5 (Yates, 1996) or 0.35 (Narsimhan, 1965)
for all types of particles regardless of their properties and fluidization conditions,
or (3) by correlating emf with particle properties such as particle shape (Wen and
Yu, 1966). However, it has been found in numerous studies, such as those of
Narsimhan (1965), Wen and Yu (1966), Wilhelm and Kwauk (1948), and Van
Heerden et al. (1951), that the values of emf are strongly dependent on a variety of
properties of particles including particle size, shape, and material, as well as the
gas properties. Since the size of particles is normally the primary concern for a powder with respect to its cohesiveness and fluidizability, to establish a correlation of emf
as a function of particle size is of more significance, which is, therefore, the other
objective of this work.

Experimental Section
The experimental data employed in this study for verification of various umf correlations are adopted from literature and from a previous work of the authors (Xu and
Zhu, 2006). Details of the experimental approaches can be found in the relevant
literature, and in Xu and Zhu (2006), whose experimental setup and procedures
are given briefly as follows. The fluidized bed column, made of Plexiglas, 100 mm i.d.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

Minimum Fluidization Velocity for Fine Particles

501

and 500 mm tall, with a porous polymer plate serving as the gas distributor, was
installed on a vibrating stand. Mechanical vibration was generated by a pair of
vibrators mounted opposite one another on the two sides of a steel stand and driven
by an ABB inverter with a frequency adjustable from 0 to 50 Hz. By changing the
unbalanced weights of the vibrator, vibration amplitude of 03 mm can be obtained.
The amplitude of the vibration base was precisely measured using a quartz shear
1
ICP accelerometer (Dalimar Instruments Inc.) with a sensitivity of 10.09 mV=m=s2
at 100 Hz. Compressed air stripped of trace humidity through a fixed bed of silica gel
was used as fluidizing gas, and the flow rate was controlled by a series of rotameters
(Omega Engineering Inc.) and a digital mass flow controller (Fathom Technologies,
GR series). In each experimental run, the settled bed height (L0) of particles was
fixed at 0.1 m. Pressure drop signals across the whole bed, DP, were measured with
a differential pressure transducer (Omega PX163 series) and collected by a computer.
The umf was then determined by plotting DP versus ug in loglog coordinates. A typical example is shown in Figure 1 where normalized pressure drops (DP=
(msg=S)) for fluidization of glass beads (65 mm) under no vibration are illustrated.

Figure 1. umf and emf determinations from the experimental data (without mechanical
vibration) for glass beads (65 mm).

502

C. C. Xu and J. Zhu

Table I. Fine particles used in experiments of Xu=Zhu (2005)

Density (kg=m3)
Powders

dpa (mm)

qp

qba

qbt

RH ()

AOR (deg.)

Geldart group

FCC
GB-6
GB-10
GB-39b
GB-65b
GB-216b

65
6
10
39
65
216

1540
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500

810
600
1000
1360
1370
1590

900
1160
1550
1510
1510
1620

1.11
1.93
1.55
1.11
1.11
1.02

29.9
53.6
49.1
33.5
30.4
20.4

A
C
C
C=A
A
B

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

Volume-weighted mean diameter by laser diffraction (Malvern Mastersizer 2000).

Soda lime silica glass bead samples of spherical shape and narrow size distribution.

Here, ms denotes the weight of solids used in the experiment and S the cross-sectional
area of the fluidized bed column. Average bed voidage (eb) in fluidization was
determined by measuring the bed height during the experiments. In a same manner
as illustrated in Figure 1, umf and emf for a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) catalyst
(65 mm) and a series of glass beads ranging from 6 to 216 mm mean in diameter
(pertaining to Geldart groups C, C=A, A, and B) in fluidization with and without
vibration were determined. Physical properties of these particles are given in
Table I. The angle of repose and bulk densities (aerated bulk density qba and tapped
bulk density qbt) of the powders were determined with a Hosokawa Powder Tester
(PT-N) by a standard method.

Theoretical Analysis
Theories and Existing Correlations for Prediction of umf
The pressure drop (DP) of a gas flow through a packed bed of a height L0 can be
estimated from the well-known Ergun equation (Ergun 1952), which is expressed as


DP
1501  eb 2 lg ug
1:751  eb qg u2g

1
L0 drag
/s dp
e3b
e3b
/s dp 2
where ug is the superficial gas velocity of the fluidizing gas, dp is the mean particle
diameter, /s is the particle sphericity, lg is the gas viscosity, qg is the gas density,
and eb is the bed voidage. The first term on the right-hand side in Equation (1) represents the pressure drop caused by viscous effects and is dominant at low Reynolds
numbers, while the second term is due to inertial forces and will be dominant at high
Reynolds numbers.
Assuming no or negligibly small cohesive force present in the particle bed,
the pressure drop at umf would equate with the weight of particles per unit bed
area, i.e.,

DP
L0


1  emf qp  qg  g
drag

Minimum Fluidization Velocity for Fine Particles

503

where emf is the minimum fluidization bed voidage and qp is the particle density. In
the gas-solid fluidization process, the bed maintains a state of fixed bed until the
superficial gas velocity exceeds umf. Therefore, the pressure drop across the particle
bed at the minimum fluidization velocity can still be estimated with the Ergun
equation. Combining Equations (1) and (2) and then multiplying both sides by
qg dp3
1emf l2g

gives
qg qp  qg gdp3 1501  emf qg umf dp

l2g
lg
/2s e3mf

1:75

/s e3mf

qg umf dp
lg

!2
3

A dimensionless form of Equation (3) can be written as

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

Ar
where Ar

qg qp qg gdp3
l2g

1501  emf
/2s e3mf

Remf

1:75
Re2mf
/s e3mf

is the Archimedes number and Remf

4
qg umf dp
lg

is the Reynolds

number at the minimum fluidization.

Wen and Yu (1966) found that the following two approximations hold true at
34% standard deviation with the experimental data for many kinds of particles over
a wide range of conditions (Re 0.001
4000):
1  emf
1
 14 and
 11
3
/s emf
/2s e3mf

With such simplification, Equation (4) is written as

24:5 Re2mf 1650 Remf Ar

which can be further rearranged to

Remf

q
C12 C2 Ar  C1

where C1 33.7 and C2 0.0408. When the Reynolds number is very low, the viscous term in Equation (6) will be dominant and the inertial term becomes negligible.
In such cases as with small particles, Equation (6) can be simplified to give
umf

qp  qg gdp2
1650 lg

Remf < 20

Another useful but completely empirical correlation was proposed by Leva (1959)
for umf prediction in the case of low Reynolds number (Remf < 30), which takes
the form of
umf

7:169  104 qp  qg 0:94 dp1:82 g

0:88
q0:06
g lg

It must be noted here that the correlations of both Leva (1959) and Wen and Yu
(1966) were derived based on the experimental data for particles larger than
20 mm, and thus they may not be applicable to particles of smaller sizes.

504

C. C. Xu and J. Zhu

Derivation of a New Correlation to Predict umf for Fine Particles

of Various Degrees of Cohesiveness

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

For fine particles in the category of Geldart group C, the relative interparticle forces
in relation to the gravitational force usually become too significant to be negligible.
Thus, for a settled bed of fine or cohesive particles subject to fluidization, as depicted
in Figure 2, the force balance of the bed at the minimum fluidization velocity should
be presented as






DP
Ws
r

10
L0 drag
L0
SL0
The term on the left-hand side of Equation (10) represents the contribution of
the drag force due to the up-flowing gas, given by the Ergun equation in
Equation (1). The first term on the right-hand side is the normal pressure caused
by the weight of particles in the bed (Ws ms  g), which is



Ws
11
1  eb  qp  qg  g
SL0
The second term on the right-hand side of Equation (10) is due to the tensile stress
(r) of the particle bed resulting from the interparticle forces that must be overcome
when the bed is fluidized. Considering a randomly packed bed of particles, the tensile
strength r can be correlated with the interparticle forces by the following equation
(Molerus, 1982):
r

1  eb Fc
eb dp2

12

where Fc is the overall interparticle cohesive forces. According to Krupp (1967), the
interparticle forces could include van der Waals force and electrostatic force, as well
as interfacial forces caused by solid bridges (sintering or diffusive mixing) or liquid
bridges (surface tensional and capillary) and mechanical force due to static frictional

Figure 2. Force balance for a bed of fine particles subject to fluidization.

Minimum Fluidization Velocity for Fine Particles

505

contact or interlocking of rough=re-entrant particle surfaces (Staniforth, 1985).

Although any of these forces may dominate in particular circumstances, the force
of primary concern is the van der Waals force (Seville et al., 2000) for many powders
of practical interest. According to Krupp (1967) and by taking into account the number of contact points per particle (nc 1.61eb1.48) (Jaraiz et al., 1992), the overall
cohesive force per particle is
Fc 1:61e1:48
b

hR
8pZ02

13

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

where 
h- is the Lifshitz-van der Waals constant, and Z0 is the distance between the
two particles at the point of contact. R in Equation (13) is defined by
rp1 rp2
R
14
rp1 rp2
where rp1 and rp2 are the asperity radii for the two particles. Assuming rp1 rp2 ra,
substituting this into Equations (12)(14) gives
r 1:61e1:48
b

1  eb 1 hra
eb dp2 16pZ02

15

Replacing h- with the Hamaker constant h- 4p

3 AH (Krupp, 1967), one has
r 1:61e1:48
b

1  eb 1 AH ra
eb dp2 12Z02

16

Z0 is normally assumed to be 4  1010 m (Krupp and Sperling, 1966). As established

in the well-accepted theory by Krupp (1967), Molerus (1982), and Seville et al.
(2000), ra is assumed to be 0.1 mm for all particles regardless of their primary particle
size. This leads to
r 1:61e1:48
b

1  eb 1 AH  0:1  106
eb dp2 12  4  1010 2

8:38  1010 e1:48

b

1  eb AH
eb dp2

17

or

r
L0

8:38  1010 e1:48

b

1  eb AH
eb L0  dp2

18

The Hamaker constant AH can be estimated as follows (Israelachvili, 1992):


3
e1  e0 2 3hve n21  n20 2
AH kT
p 
4
e1 e0
16 2 n2 n2 3=2
1

19

where k is Boltzmanns constant (k 1.381  1023 J=K), T is the absolute temperature, e1 and n1 are the dielectric constant and the refractive index of the particulate
materials, e0 and n0 are the dielectric constant and refractive index of the medium
where the particles are present (for vacuum or air, e0 n0 1.0), h is Plancks
constant ( 6.626  1034 J  s), and ve is the main electronic absorption frequency
in the UV region, which is typically around 3  1015 s1. Hence, for the particulate

506

C. C. Xu and J. Zhu

materials fluidized in air, Equation (19) may be rewritten as


e1  e0 2
AH 1:036  1023 T 
e1 e0

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

2:635  1019 

n21  n20 2
n21 n20 3=2

20

For glass beads at room temperature (T 293 K), e1 7.6, n1 1.5, and AH
estimated by Equation (20) is 0.721  1019 J. For FCC particles, the estimated value
of AH by Equation (20) is 1.4  1019 J (e1 10.1 and n1 1.8). According to
Bergstrom (1997), Hamaker constants for most inorganic materials in vacuum or
air are in the range of (0.51.5)  1019 J. For simplification, the average value is
taken in this model, i.e., AH 1.0  1019 J.
Substituting Equations (1), (11), and (18) into Equation (10), one has the
following force balance for the bed at the minimum fluidization (emf and umf):
"
#
2
1  emf 2 lg umf
1  emf qg umf
1:75 
150 
dp2
dp
/s e3mf
/2s e3mf
"
#
e1:48


mf
9 1  emf

1  emf qp  qg g 8:38  10 
21
emf
L0  dp2
Equation (21) can be further simplified to the following dimensionless form:
Re2mf

85:711  emf
 Remf EG EC
/s

22

where the two terms on the right-hand side of Equation (22), i.e., EG and EC,
represent the gravitational-force effect and the cohesive-force effect, respectively,
and their expressions are:
EG 0:57/s e3mf Ar
EC 4:79  109 

/s e0:52
mf qg dp
L0 l2g

23
24

As shown in Equations (21)(24), minimum fluidization voidage emf is an essential

parameter for the prediction of umf. Equation (5) proposed by Wen and Yu (1966)
suggests that emf is dependent only on particle shape and independent of particle size,
which is not realistic according to the observations in many studies such as Wilhelm
and Kwauk (1948), Van Heerden et al. (1951), and Narsimhan (1965). Even in the
work of Wen and Yu (1966), for example, the data of emf for spherical particles
(/s 1) are scattered in the range of 0.40.5, suggesting that other factors such as
particle size and surface roughness need to be considered in the evaluation of emf
for various types of particles. For instance, Narsimhan (1965) found that emf
depended strongly on both sphericity (/s) and size (dp) of the particles. It has been
commonly accepted that the voidage of a settled bed of fine particles is related to
the interparticle attraction in such a way that the stronger the relative interparticle
force (in relation to the gravitational force), the larger the value of the settled bed
voidage. As such, the influencing factors (particle shape, size and surface roughness,
etc.) for emf may be grouped into one factor, i.e., the relative interparticle force in

Minimum Fluidization Velocity for Fine Particles

507

relation to the gravitational force. Assuming van der Waals force as the dominant
interparticle force, the relative interparticle force in relation to the gravitational
force, i.e., Fvan=FG, can be presented as follows:
AH ra

AH ra

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

Fvan
AH ra 1
12Z02
12Z02

3
FG
1=6pdp qp g 1=6pdp3 qp g 2Z02 pqp g dp3

25

Equation (25) clearly indicates that Fvan=FG is proportional to (1=dp3). It thus

suggests that the particle size may significantly affect the settle bed voidage in such
a way that the smaller the particle size, the larger value of the settled bed voidage. In
this regard, it would be more meaningful to develop a general correlation of emf as a
function of dp. Figure 3 shows emf as a function of dp for particles in fluidization
based on the data from Narsimhan (1965), Van Heerden et al. (1951), and Mawatari
et al. (2002) as well as from Xu and Zhu (2006). From this figure, a linear correlation
of emf and dp in loglog coordinates may be obtained as
emf 0:77dp  106 0:124

26

It should, however, be noted that Figure 3 (as well as Figure 5, to be presented later)
contains data for very fine particles obtained with the aid of mechanical vibration.
While fluidization of Geldart C particles was difficult without the aid of mechanical
vibration, mechanical vibration could also enhance fluidization of large particles
(Geldart A and B group particles) through slightly decreasing both umf and emf, as

Figure 3. emf as a function of dp for fine particles.

508

C. C. Xu and J. Zhu

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

demonstrated by our earlier work (Xu and Zhu, 2006). As such, strictly speaking, as
umf and emf are affected by vibration, the correlations for them (i.e., Equations (22)
and (26)) should include parameters of vibration (frequency and amplitude). For the
sake of simplification, however, the vibration parameters are not included in the correlations of both umf and emf. Future work is needed to improve these correlations by
taking into account the vibration parameters.
By combining Equation (22) with Equation (26), the value of Remf and hence umf
can be readily predicted, given the properties of both particles and fluidizing gas and
the initial bed height L0. For such a case when the initial bed height L0 is not
provided, its value may be estimated by the following equation given the total mass
of particles in the bed (ms), the cross-sectional area of the fluidization column (S),
and the particle density of the powder (qp):
ms
L0
27
S1  emf qp
whence emf can be estimated from dp by Equation (26).

Results and Discussion

The performance of the newly derived correlation (Equation (22)) and the correlations of Leva (1959) and Wen and Yu (1966) are compared in Figure 4 where the
predictions of umf from different correlations are plotted against the experimental
data for larger particles (Geldart groups C=A, A, B, and D) fluidized without
vibration. The properties of the particles and the raw data used in Figure 4 are also
listed in Table II. The predictions of the three correlations show different degrees of
agreement with the experimental data, depending on the particle sizes. The correlations of Leva (1959) and Wen and Yu (1966) are satisfactory for groups B and A
particles, with umf ranging roughly from 0.005 to 0.2 m=s, while both of them yield
lower prediction values (or so-called under-prediction) for the group C=A particles,
a category defined by Geldart (1973) for powders that behave both C-like and A-like
(normally in the range of 3050 mm of particle size), and higher prediction values (or
so-called over-prediction) for the group D particles. The prediction of the new correlation, in contrast, shows good agreement for all types of particles pertaining to
groups C=A, A, B, and D. The standard deviations of the predictions from the
experimental data are 3.19, 6.50, and 0.20 for Equation (9) of Leva (1959), Equation
(7) of Wen and Yu (1966), and Equation (22) in the present work, respectively.
Clearly, for all the particles tested, the performance of the new correlation is much
more satisfactory than that of the other two.
Predictions of umf by using different correlations for fluidization of glass beads
of 5 to 300 mm average particle size are comparatively illustrated in Figure 5 against
the experimental data of Mawatari et al. (2002) and Xu and Zhu (2006) with and
without vibration. Similarly, all three correlations work satisfactorily well for larger
particles (Geldart groups B and A). Nevertheless, both correlations of Leva (1959)
and Wen and Yu (1966) result in noticeable errors when applyied to the finer particles (groups C and C=A) with an average size less than about 30 mm, both yielding
much smaller prediction values (under-prediction) than the experimental data. In
contrast, much better predictions are obtained using either Equation (22) or the
Ergun equation for all sizes of the particles tested (Geldart C, A, and B groups),
as clearly shown in the figure. Equation (22) was derived directly from the Ergun

509

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

Minimum Fluidization Velocity for Fine Particles

Figure 4. Comparison of experimental and predicted values of umf using different correlations for
larger particles (Geldart groups C=A, A, B, and D). No vibration was applied in the experiments.

equation, and the two correlations differ only in whether the cohesive-force effect
(represented by the term of EC as given in Equation (25)) is taken into account.
As expected and clearly shown in Figure 5, for fluidization of larger particles, where
the interparticle forces are negligibly small in comparison with the gravitational force
of the particles, both correlations yield very similar predictions. For particles smaller
than 30 mm (essentially, Geldart group C particles), the predictions using Equation
(22) are apparently better than those with the Ergun equation. It can be reasonably
accounted for by the fact that the magnitude of the interparticle forces in relation to
the gravitational force of the particles increases as the particle size decreases. It
should be noted that in both predictions (using Equation (22) and the Ergun equation) for umf, emf was calculated from Equation (26). The results shown in Figure 5
suggest that by using the correlation of Equation (22) or the Ergun equation,

510

Xu and Zhu (2006)

FCC catalyst
Glass beads
Glass beads
Glass beads
Mawatari et al. (2002)
Glass beads
Glass beads
Wilhelm and Kwauk (1948)
Glass beads
Glass beads
Glass beads

Particles
1540
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2492
2492
2492

60
100

286
396
5182

qp (kg=m3)

65
39
65
216

dp (mm)

1.0
1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

/s ()

5.49
9.14
143.3

0.40
0.80

0.35
0.30
0.68
4.30

umfa experi. (cm=s)

5.69
10.27
1100

0.33
0.84

0.24
0.15
0.38
3.40

Leva

6.62
12.66
2160

0.29
0.81

0.21
0.12
0.34
3.76

Wen=Yu

6.37
10.31
98.50

0.59
1.29

0.41
0.31
0.67
4.20

This work

umf predicted (cm=s)

Table II. Comparison of experimental and predicted values of umf using different correlations for larger particles (Geldart groups C=A,
A, B, and D)

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

511

2639
2639
2639
1603
1603
10792
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
3180
5180

518
549
4572
1006
3353
1280
82
94
95
117
162
192
225
92

0.92
0.95
0.94
0.83
0.90
0.99
1.0
0.88

1.0

1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.13
1.48
1.50
2.19
4.56
5.82
7.09
2.43

10.06
17.98
36.58
57.91
76.20
103.63

Fluidization in ambient air (293 K) without vibration; settled bed height: L0 0.07 0.2 m.

Sea sand
Sea sand
Sea sand
Socony beads
Socony beads
Lead shot
Van Heerden et al. (1951)
Carborundum
Carborundum
Carborundum
Carborundum
Carborundum
Carborundum
Carborundum
Iron oxide

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

0.73
0.94
0.96
1.40
2.53
3.44
4.60
1.43

17.60
19.53
926.0
36.80
329.0
344.0
0.69
0.91
0.93
1.40
2.69
3.78
5.19
1.41

22.86
25.63
1780
52.22
581.3
570.7
1.03
1.35
1.34
1.44
2.78
4.36
5.65
1.82

15.80
17.16
96.29
23.57
62.28
113.07

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

512

C. C. Xu and J. Zhu

Figure 5. umf vs. dp for glass beads fluidized in ambient air at room temperature and
L0 0.070.1 m; experimental data obtained with and without mechanical vibration and
predictions with different correlations.

combined with Equation (26) for emf, more satisfactory predictions of umf are
obtained than those by the correlation of Wen and Yu (1966), which was also
derived from the Ergun equation. Although derived from the same Ergun equation,
the correlations of Equation (22) and Wen and Yu (1966) yield much different
predictions for umf, mainly due to different correlations of emf used: the emf used
by Wen and Yu (1966) was correlated with particle shape as given by Equation
(5), while a new correlation of emf versus particle size as given by Equation (26)
was developed and used in the present work. The above discussion may thus suggest
that the development of Equation (26) for emf is an important contribution of this
work, in addition to the new correlation of Equation (22) for the prediction of umf
taking into account the interparticle forces.
In order to further verify the correlations, a set of discrete particle model (DPM)
simulation data of Ye et al. (2005) for particles (qp 1495 kg=m3) of an average size
ranging from 40 to 180 mm (pertaining to Geldart groups A and B) is adopted. The
simulation results of umf of Ye et al. (2005) and the prediction results using various
correlations are presented against particle size in Figure 6. The parameters used in
the DEM simulation are: number of particles simulated 36000, L0 0.00368 m, q3
3
5
Pa.s, and /s 1.0. It should be noted
p 1495 kg=m , qg 1.2 kg=m , lg 1.8  10
that the initial bed height (L0) employed for the simulation, limited by the number of
particles used in the DEM model, is impractically small ( 0.00368 m). Since L0 is a
critical parameter for umf prediction with Equation (22) where the term of cohesiveforce effect EC (given by Equation (24)) is strongly dependent on the value of L0, the
authors have done calculations based on two different values of L0: one is the original
value (0.00368 m) used by Ye et al. (2005) in the simulation and the other is a more

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

Minimum Fluidization Velocity for Fine Particles

513

practical value (0.1 m). As apparent in Figure 6, the increase in the initial bed height
leads to a decrease in umf for all types of particles, which can be accounted for by
Equation (24) where a smaller EC (or a reduced cohesive-force effect) is predicted
at a larger L0. Figure 6 also shows that the predictions of both Levas and Wen=Yus
s correlations yield significant deviation from the simulation results for the two largesize powders (group B), 125 and 180 mm, although acceptable agreement is obtained
for group A particles. The same as shown in Figures 4 and 5, the new correlation of
Equation (22) with L0 0.1 m yields satisfactory prediction compared with the simulation results for all types of particles employed (groups A and B).
Figures 46 all reveal that correlations of both Leva (1959) and Wen and Yu
(1966) yield noticeable errors in prediction of umf for either very fine (groups C=A
and C) or very large (such as group D) particles. Possible reasons are discussed as
follows. For fine and cohesive particles subject to fluidization, as shown in
Figure 2, the drag force due to the up-flowing gas is partially balanced by the tensile
strength resulting from the interparticle forces, which would accordingly lead to an
increase in umf due to the addition of the term of cohesive-force effect, EC, to the
term of gravitational-force effect, EG, in Equation (22). As such, a lower value of
umf would be predicted if the cohesive-force effect were not taken into account.
The relative importance of EC compared with EG may be revealed by the ratio
EG=EC, given in Table III for various types of particles. As shown in Table III,

Figure 6. Comparison of umf predictions using different correlations with the 3-D discrete
particle model (DPM) simulation results by Ye et al. (2005). Conditions for the simulation
in Ye et al. (2005) are: no vibration, L0 0.00368 m, qp 1495 kg=m3, qg 1.20 kg=m3,
lg 1.8  105 Pa.s, T 293 K, and /s 1.0.

514

C. C. Xu and J. Zhu

Table III. Ratio of cohesive force-effect to gravitational-force effect, EG=EC, for

various types of particles

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

Particles
Xu and Zhu (2006)
Glass beads
Glass beads
FCC catalyst
Glass beads
Glass beads
Glass beads
Mawatari et al. (2002)
Glass beads
Glass beads
Glass beads
Glass beads
Glass beads
Glass beads
Wilhelm and Kwauk (1948)
Glass beads
Glass beads
Sea sand
Socony beads
Socony beads
Lead shot
Van Heerden et al. (1951)
Carborundum
Carborundum
Carborundum
Iron oxide
a

Geldart
qp
group dp (mm) (kg=m3) /s () L0 (m)

EG=ECa

C
C
A
C=A
A
B

6
10
65
39
65
216

2500
2500
1540
2500
2500
2500

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

3.2
7.6
110
75
179
1.37  103

C
C
C
C=A
A
A

6
10
20
30
60
100

2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0.065
0.065
0.065
0.065
0.065
0.065

2.1
4.9
16
31
101
241

B
D
B=D
D
D
D

286
5182
518
1006
3353
1280

2492
2492
2639
1603
1603
10792

1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

2.19  103
2.95  105
6.33  103
1.18  104
9.07  l04
1.20  105

B
B
B
B

82
117
225
92

3180
3180
3180
5180

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

337
615
1.86  103
667

0.92
0.83
1.0
0.88

Fluidization carried out in ambient air at room temperature without vibration.

the value of EG is more than two orders of magnitude larger than that of EC for
particles of Geldart groups A, B, and D, while the ratio is within less than two orders
of magnitude or even in the same order of magnitude for the Gedart groups C=A and
C fine powders. Therefore, for fine or cohesive particles (groups C and C=A powders) where the interparticle forces are relatively significant, the cohesive-force effect
should be taken into account in prediction of umf. Any correlations disregarding the
cohesive-force effect, such as ones by Leva (1959) and Wen and Yu (1966), might be
safe for large particles (Geldart groups A, B, and D), whereas they will yield noticeable errors (under-prediction) in prediction of umf for fine or cohesive particles
(groups C and C=A), as revealed in Figures 46. On the other hand, the reason
for the over-prediction of umf by using both Levas and Wen=Yus correlations for
very large particles (e.g., Geldart group D powder) may be due to the improper
evaluation of emf. In terms of the Ergun equation, Equation (1), a smaller emf may
result in a larger drag force under the same superficial gas velocity in fluidization,

Minimum Fluidization Velocity for Fine Particles

515

thus leading to a lower umf value. As discussed in the previous section and in Figure 3,
the minimum fluidization voidage emf decreases with increasing particle size. Should
this trend of emf not be taken into consideration, such as in correlations of Leva
(1959) and Wen and Yu (1966), larger values of umf would be predicted (i.e., overprediction) for group D particles.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

Conclusions
A new correlation to predict the minimum fluidization velocity (umf) of fine particles
has been developed from the well-known Ergun equation, based on the force balance
of a settled bed of fine solids subject to fluidization, taking into account the interparticle forces. A correlation between minimum fluidization voidage (emf) and particle
size is also obtained for the first time from the experimental data. Compared with
two commonly used correlations for umf of Leva (1959) and Wen and Yu (1966),
the newly developed correlation, combined with the emf correlation, gives better predictions (in better agreement with the experimental data) for various types of particles pertaining to Geldart groups C, C=A, A, B, and D. Both correlations of Leva
(1959) and Wen and Yu (1966) yield noticeable errors in the prediction of umf for
either very fine (groups C=A and C) or very large (such as group D) particles. This
study suggests that (1) for fine or cohesive particles (groups C and C=A powders)
where the interparticle forces are relatively significant, the cohesive-force effect
should be taken into account in the prediction of umf, and (2) for the effect of particle
size on emf, and hence umf, needs to be considered.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund
for supporting this study, through a Research Chair Program awarded to Jesse Zhu.

Nomenclature
A
AH
AOR
Ar
dp
EG
EC
Fc
FG
Fvan
g
h
k
L0
ms
n0
n1
nc

amplitude of vibration, m
Hamaker constant, J
angle of repose, deg.
Archimedes number
mean particle size, m
gravitational-force effect
cohesive-force effect
overall interparticle cohesive force, N
gravitational force of a particle, 1=6pdp3qpg, N
van der Waals force, N
gravity acceleration, 9.81 m=s2
Plancks constant, 6.626  1034 J  s
Boltzmann constant 1.381  1023 J=K
settled bed height, m
mass of solids in the bed, kg
refractive index of medium
refractive index of the solids
number of contacting points per particle

516

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

DP
rp1; rp2
ra
R
Re
Remf
RH
S
T
ug
umf
Ws
Z0

C. C. Xu and J. Zhu
pressure drop across the bed, Pa
asperity radii for two particles, m
asperity radius for particle, m
parameter used in Fvan calculation
Reynolds number
Reynolds number at umf
Hausner ratio (qbt=qba)
cross-sectional area of the fluidization column, m2
absolute temperature, K
superficial gas velocity, cm=s
minimum fluidization velocity, cm=s
weight of particle bed (ms  g), N
distance between two particles, m

Greek Letters
eb
emf
e0
e1
lg
ve
qba
qbt
qp
qg
r
/s
h-

average bed voidage

minimum fluidization voidage
dielectric constant of medium
dielectric constant of the solids
gas viscosity, kg=m=s
main electronic absorption frequency in the UV region, 3  1015 s1
aerated bulk density, kg=m3
tapped bulk density, kg=m3
particle density, kg=m3
gas density, kg=m3
tensile strength of the particulate bed, Pa
particle sphericity
Lifshitz-van der Waals constant, eV

References
Bergstrom, L. (1997). Hamaker constants of inorganic materials, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.,
70, 125169.
Chirone, R. and Massimilla, L. (1994). Sound-assisted aeration of beds of cohesive solids,
Chem. Eng. Sci., 49, 11851194.
Chirone, R., Massimilla, L., and Russo, S. (1993). Bubble-free fluidization of a cohesive
powder in an acoustic field, Chem. Eng. Sci., 48, 4152.
Ergun, S. (1952). Fluids flow through packed column, Chem. Eng. Prog., 48(2), 8894.
Geldart, D. (1973). Types of gas fluidization, Powder Technol., 7, 285297.
Israelachvili, J. N. (1992). Intermolecular and Surface Forces, 2nd ed., Academic Press,
London.
Jaraiz, E., Kiruma, S., and Levenspiel, O. (1992). Vibrating beds of fine particles: Estimation
of interparticle forces from expansion and pressure drop experiments, Powder Technol.,
72, 2330.
Krupp, H. (1967). Particle adhesion theory and experiment, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.,
1, 111239.
Krupp, H. and Sperling, G. (1966). Theory of adhesion of small particles, J. Appl. Phys., 37,
41764180.
Leva, M. (1959). Fluidization, 69, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 01:15 13 July 2014

Minimum Fluidization Velocity for Fine Particles

517

Mawatari, Y., Koide, T., Tatemoto, Y., Uchida, S., and Noda, K. (2002). Effect of particle
diameter on fluidization under vibration, Powder Technol., 123, 6974.
Molerus, O. (1982). Interpretation of Geldarts Type A, B, C and D powders by taking into
account interparticle cohesive forces, Powder Technol., 33, 8187.
Mori, S., Yamamoto, A., Iwata, S., Haruta, T., and Yamada, I. (1990). Vibro-fluidization
of Group-C particles and its industrial applications, AIChE Symp. Ser., 86(276), 8894.
Morse, R. D. (1955). Sonic energy in granular solid fluidization, Ind. Eng. Chem., 47,
11701175.
Narsimhan, G. (1965). On a generalized expression for prediction of minimum fluidization
velocity, AIChE J., 11, 550554.
Russo, P., Chirone, R., Massimilla, L., and Russo, S. (1995). The influence of the frequency
of acoustic waves on sound-assisted fluidization of fine particles, Powder Technol., 82,
219230.
Seville, J. P. K., Willett, C. D., and Knight, P. C. (2000). Interparticle forces in fluidization: A
review, Powder Technol., 113, 261268.
Staniforth, J. N. (1985). Ordered mixing or spontaneous granulation?, Powder Technol.,
45, 7377.
Van Heerden, C., Nobel, A. P., and Van Krevelen, D. W. (1951). Studies on fluidization.
IThe critical mass velocity, Chem. Eng. Sci., 1, 3749.
Wank, J. R., George, S. M., and Weimer, A. W. (2001). Vibro-fluidization of fine boron
nitride powder at low pressure, Powder Technol., 121, 195204.
Wen, C. Y. and Yu, Y. H. (1966). A generalized method for predicting the minimum fluidization velocity, AIChE J., 12, 610612.
Wilhelm, R. H. and Kwauk, M. (1948). Fluidization of solid particles, Chem. Eng. Prog., 44,
201217.
Xu, C. and Zhu, J. (2006). Parametric study of fine particle fluidization under mechanical
vibration, Powder Technol., 161, 135144.
Yates, J. G. (1996). Effect of temperature and pressure on gas-solid fluidization, Chem. Eng.
Sci., 51, 167205.
Ye, M., van der Hoef, M. A., and Kuipers, J. A. M. (2005). The effect of particle and gas
properties on the fluidization of Geldart A particles, Chem. Eng. Sci., 60, 45674580.