Fluid Flow through Packed Beds: Experimental Data vs.

Erguns Equation

Team 6 Jennifer Sandidge David Shin Sebastian Vega-Fuentes LaToya Williams March 31, 2005

Abstract The goal of this experiment was to evaluate the validity of the Ergun Equation for packed beds. In order to obtain experimental data, two packing materials, three rotameters, and two columns of different diameters were used. From the experimental data, plots of pressure drop vs. flowrates were generated. This experimental data was compared to the theoretical data obtained from Erguns Equation under the same experimental conditions. The conclusion of this comparison showed that although Erguns Equation did not match the experimental data, the former can be used as an estimation tool.

Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Theory ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Experimental Equipment ................................................................................................................ 3 Experimental Procedure.................................................................................................................. 4 Results............................................................................................................................................. 5 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 100 Nomenclature and Abbreviations ............................................................................................... 111 References..................................................................................................................................... 12 Appendix....................................................................................................................................... 13 A1. Calibration Data ................................................................................................................. 13 A2. Rotameter Pressure Drop Graphs Pea Gravel .................................................................... 14 A3. Rotameter Pressure Drop Graphs Black Marbles .............................................................. 17 A4. Void Fraction Calculations ................................................................................................ 18 A5. Particle diameters............................................................................................................. 199 A6. Pressure Drop versus Volumetric Flow rate with initial void fraction .............................. 19 A7. Pressure Drop versus Volumetric Flow rate with modified void fraction ......................... 21 A8. Friction Factor versus Reynolds Number Graphs.............................................................. 23

Introduction Packed beds have many uses in the chemical industry. Examples of the various applications of packed beds include: adsorption, gas-liquid adsorption, and catalytic reactors. Packed beds are usually comprised of a column with various types of packing materials. Fluid flows into the column from the bottom, passes through the packed material and exits at the top of the column. There are two pressure nodes above and below the packing that measure the pressure drop across the column. The dominating factors that change the pressure drop are: column diameters, liquid properties of fluid and rate of flow, and material properties of the packing. The purpose of this experiment was to test the validity of the Ergun Equation for pressure drop across a packed bed. To do so, the pressure drops were obtained at various fluid flows for two different column diameters (3.5 and 6) and two different packing materials (black marbles and pea gravel). To obtain the pressure drop data, the rotameters were calibrated and a relationship between the rotameter readings and flow rate was determined. The manometer was also calibrated to obtain a relationship between the manometer reading and pressure in units of inH2O, and finally the void fraction for both the pea gravel and black marbles were calculated. The raw data was compared to the pressure drop predictions from the Ergun Equation to test its validity. Theory The Ergun equation is an estimation of the pressure drop through a packed bed due to the following factors: rate of fluid flow, fluid properties (viscosity and density), density of packing (void fraction), and physical properties of the packing material. This equation originated from the following relationship:

P = aV + bV 2 (1) L
In this equation, a and b pertain to column packing and fluid properties.

From this relationship, Blake and Kozeny found that for viscous laminar flow, the pressure drop was proportional to the porosity of the packing material in the following manner: (1 ) 2

3
Kozeny equation:

(2)

They also determined how other factors effected equation (1), which resulted in the BlakeP k1 (1 ) 2 V (3) = L 3 s 2 D p 2

where k1 is a dimensionless empirical constant that through many experiments was determined to equal to 150. Since flow in the column can become turbulent, Burke and Plummer found that for turbulent flow the pressure change due to kinematic energy loss was proportional to the porosity of the packing material in the following manner:

3
Burke-Plummer equation:

(4)

They also determined how other factors played an effect on equation (1), which resulted in the
P 1.75 (1 ) V 2 = (5) L 3 D p s

where k2 is a dimensionless empirical constant that through many experiments was determined to equal to 1.75. Ergun made the assumption that the total pressure drop across a fluidized bed is due to the sum of the viscous and kinematic forces. Through many experiments Ergun concluded that his equation is valid for a wide range of Reynold numbers:
P = 150 (1 ) 2 V L 1.75 (1 ) V 2 L + (6) 3 D p s 3 s 2 D p 2

In this equation the fluid properties are density () and viscosity () and the packing properties are the sphericity () and the equivalent diameter (Dp). The flow rate of the fluid is in terms of

velocity (V), and to account for the density of the packing material, the Ergun Equation has the void fraction (). The pressure drop used in both the Blake-Kozeny equation and the Burke-Plummer equation is directly proportional to the friction factor (fp). Equations 7, 8, and 9 express the Blake-Kozeny, Burke-Plummer, and Ergun Equation respectively in terms of the friction factor:
fp = 150 (1 ) (7) N Re, s

f p = 1.75 (8)
fp = 150 (1 ) + 1.75 (9) N Re, s

The experimental friction factors can be calculated using equation 10.

fp = P g c s D p 3

V 2 L (1 )

(10)

In this equation gc is the gravitational conversion factor. Using this equation and the Reynolds number equation a comparison can be established with the Ergun Equations friction factors. Although the Ergun Equation is valid for a wide range of Reynold numbers, it fails once the fluid flow surpasses the fluidization point. The fluidization point occurs when the pressure drop times the cross-sectional area of the column equals the gravitational force of the packing material (F = P*A). Past this point, the packing begins to move, and some of the parameters of the Ergun Equation change unpredictably. This experiment aims to test the accuracy of the Ergun Equation before reaching the fluidization point by comparing its predictions with the experimental data.
Experimental Equipment

For this experiment, the following equipment was used: two columns (3.5 and 6 diameters), three rotameters (W1, W2, and W3), one manometer (in units of inH2O), and two packing materials (pea gravel and 5/8 diameter black marbles).

An apparatus held the column in an upright position. Two pressure nodes were then fastened above and below the packing to measure the pressure drop across the column, which was read off the manometer display. The inlet and outlet flow rates were controlled by the three rotameters. The setup of this experiment is shown in Figure 1:

Water out Column Water In Rotameter Manometer

Packing Materials
Figure 1. Diagram of Packed Bed Setup: Water flows from the bottom to the top of the column. The fluid flow rate was controlled using a rotameter, while the manometer gave a pressure drop reading.

The top and bottom of the column had rubber o-rings in order to ensure a secure fit, which prevented any air from entering and water from leaking out of the system.
Experimental Procedure

The first step was to calibrate the manometer in order to have a relationship between the manometer reading and pressure units. This was done by employing the following steps: fill column to certain height with water, tare the manometer display, drain 10 of water and record the pressure drop. Then the pressure drop was divided by the change in height. Then the column was filled with packing material and settled. Next, the column was flooded with water and the inlet lines were bled to remove air bubbles. Then the rotameters were calibrated in order to have a relationship between the rotameter readings and flow rates. The final step of our experimental procedure was to record the pressure drop readings against the volumetric flow rate. While increasing and decreasing the volumetric flow rate using the rotameters, the respective pressure drops for each flow rate were recorded.
4

To use the Ergun equation, the void fractions for both packing materials were calculated. The void fraction was calculated by adding one of the packing materials to a graduated cylinder and recording its volume. Water was then added to the same graduated cylinder until the entire volume of packing material was saturated. This volume of water was also recorded. The void fraction () equals the volume of water divided by the volume of packing material.
Results

In order to use the Ergun Equation, void fractions were calculated using each of two graduated cylinder diameter sizes, 1.5 and 4. Using the linear regression equation, the void fraction for a 3.5 diameter column was found. The void fraction for the 6 diameter column was assumed to be the 4 diameter case. The linear regression for the calculation of the void fraction, was found using Excel to be y = -0.0636x + 0.5935, as shown in Figure 2.

0.6 0.5

Void Fraction

0.4 0.3
Void fraction

y = -0.0636x + 0.5935
0.2 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5

Linear (Void fraction)

Diameter of Graduated Cylinder (in)

Figure 2. Void Fraction Pea Gravel: This graph plots the two graduated cylinder sizes and the linear regression for the two known void fractions.

Data calibrations for the W-2 and W-3 rotameter were conducted. Using this information, graphical representations of the volumetric flow rate as a function of the rotameter reading were

created. Figure 3 shows an example of our W-2 rotameter calibration curve. The linear regression of the rotameter data was found to be y=0.004x-0.0174.
0.4 0.35

Flowrate (L/s)

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

y = 0.004x - 0.0174

Rotometer Reading (R)

Figure 3. W-2 Rotameter Calibration Curve: This graph shows W-2 rotameter readings and corresponding calculated flow rates. The relationship was obtained by calibrating the rotameters.

Then, the pressure drop at various flow rates were tabulated and graphed for each column diameter and each type of packing material. For the Ergun Equation, the velocity was calculated by dividing the volumetric flow rate (Q) by the area of the column. The experimental data and the predictions using Erguns Equation were plotted on the same graph. The graph of the pressure drop versus the volumetric flow rate using pea gravel as the packing material in the large column is shown in Figure 4:

18000 16000 14000 12000

dP (Pa)

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004

Q W-2 (m3/s)
Figure 4. Pressure Drop vs. Volumetric Flow Rate for Pea Gravel in 6 Diameter Column: the graph displays the pressure drop in the large column with a .338 void fraction. Fluidization can be seen where the experimental data levels off.

The friction factors and Reynold numbers for the packing material were calculated. The Ergun Equation friction factors and Reynold numbers were also calculated. Figure 5 shows the friction factor versus Reynolds plot for pea gravel with the Ergun equation plotted as well.

120 100

Friction Factor

80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Small Column Ergun's Equation Large Column

Re
Figure 5. Friction Factor vs. Re for Pea Gravel: This graph compares friction factors for pea gravel the small and large columns against the predicted values. For the error bars the small column had a standard deviation of 21.82, and for the large column the error bars had a standard deviation of 3.94.

Discussion

When comparing Erguns equation to the experimental data, it is seen that the Ergun equation deviates from the experimental data. The factors that can be attributed to this deviation could be due to the assumptions made about the apparatus. When deriving his equation, Ergun used packing material with a rough surface whereas in this experiment the packing materials were rather smooth. Another source of error is the accuracy of the calculated void fraction. When the void fraction was changed and all other variables were left unchanged, the predicted values showed a better fit with the data with a lower void fraction, see Appendix A6 and A7. It is most likely that this overestimation of the void fraction occurred due to the fact that the small column void fraction for pea gravel was tabulated and the large column void fraction was assumed for both the pea gravel and black marbles. Table 1 compares the drop in pressure using the calculated and adjusted void fractions versus the experimental pressure drops:

Table 1.: This table shows the pea gravel pressure drops using the calculated and the adjusted void fractions. These pressure drops are compared to the experimental data. The void fraction used in the original analysis was .3709, and the adjusted void fraction was .265. The experimental pressure drops show a better fit to the modified Ergun pressure drop.

Experimental P (Pa) 7472.40 8219.64 10461.36 11955.84 14197.56 15692.04 17186.52 18681.00

Experimental () P (Pa) Error 1322.60 82.30 1735.80 78.88 2176.95 79.19 2646.05 77.87 3143.10 77.86 3668.09 76.62 4221.04 75.44 4801.93 74.30

Adjusted () P (Pa) Error 4839.66 35.23 6320.91 23.10 7891.69 24.56 9552.00 20.11 11301.83 20.40 13141.19 16.26 15070.08 12.31 17088.49 8.52

As the system approaches fluidization, the Ergun Equation starts to fail. This is because the void fraction changes in fluidization since the pea gravel starts to unsettle so its density decreases, thus yielding a higher void fraction. The length of the packing increases as well, giving a higher pressure drop than the actual. Another source of error arose from the calibration of the rotameters. The rotameter levels were unsteady, so the flow rates were not constant. The error in the calibration can be seen in Appendix A.1. The flow rate approximation used for calculations contributed to the experimental and theoretical data deviation. This error would propagate to the calculation of the predicted Ergun pressure drops and cause them to change. Lastly, the assumption that sphericity (phi) is equal to 1 for both the black marbles and the pea gravel could provoke problems. Pea gravel is highly non-spherical, so the sphericity of the pea gravel should be less than one. Since sphericity is in the denominator, a lower phi value will yield a greater pressure drop than the experimental values presented. This explains the higher calculated Ergun values.

Conclusion

The experimental data for pea gravel and the black marbles does follow the trend of the Ergun Equation. The black marbles showed a closer fit with the Ergun equation. This can be explained by the uniform shape and size of the marbles. At higher flow rates, there were small pressure peaks once the bed had fluidized. This is due to the variation in the void fraction which was caused by the fluidization. During this time, both materials deviated from the Ergun equation. This showed that the Ergun equation no longer applies to the system after this pressure peak has been reached. The Ergun equation in this experiment is assumed to be valid while using approximated values in order to validate it to experimental data. Without better ways to measure error other than qualitatively there will be some uncertainty in the calculations and calibrations done during this experiments. In the future, groups may want to run their experiments at a higher starting level in the column, which would reduce the error. Also, it would be best to keep a constant height for each run, as it would standardize the results. Another idea for the future would be to use finer particles, opposed to pea gravel or marbles, as this would reduce the structured void space between each particle. This would thus decrease the void fraction and may be a better way to check the validity of Erguns equation. Lastly, groups should not only increase the flow rates, but decrease it as well, as this will show a higher pressure drop as the void fraction will decrease.

10

Nomenclature and Abbreviations Lower-case letters

a b fp gc

representation of packing and fluid characteristics at laminar flow representation of packing and fluid characteristics at turbulent flow friction factor gravitational conversion factor

k1, k2 dimensionless empirical constant

Upper-case letters

As Dp L P V

surface area of packed bed (m2) equivalent diameter (m) depth of column (m) pressure (Pa) velocity of fluid through entire column (ms-1)

NRe, Reynolds number

Greek Letters

w S

porosity (dimensionless) dynamic viscosity (kgms-1) density (kgm-3) shear force per unit area (Pa) sphericity (dimensionless)

11

References 1. McCabe, smith, and Harriott, Unit Operations of Chemical Enginerring, 6th edition,

McGraw-Hill, 2001. 2. Perry, R.H. and D.W. Green (eds.), Chemical Enigineers Handbook, 7th ed., McGrawHill, 1997. 3. Packed and Fluidized Beds, CE427-Chemical Engineering Laboratory III, Fall 2004 Available: http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/courses/ce427/fluidized%20bed.pdf 4. Ludwick, R., S. Marshall, T. ODowd, G. Pan, and H. Yun, Flow in Packed Beds, Team 5, Spring 2004 5. Back, S. A. Beaber, E. Boudreaux, K. Paavola, Pressure Drop for Flow in Packed Beds: An analysis using Erguns Equation, Team 3, Feb. 18, 2004.

12

Appendix A1. Calibration Data Calibration Data for W-2

rotatmeter reading (W-2) time (s) 28 60 90 102 47 29

flowrate (L/s) 0.098039216 0.212765957 0.344827586

Calibration Data for W-3 rotatmeter reading (W-3) time (s) flowrate (L/s) 5 35 0.28571429 12.1 20 0.5 15.2 13 0.76923077

W-3 Calibration
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10

y = 0.0444x + 0.04 R2 = 0.9192

12

14

16

Rotometer Reading. R

13

W-2 Calibration
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 20 40 60

y = 0.004x - 0.0174 R2 = 0.9965

80

100

Rotometer Reading, R

A2. Rotameter Pressure Drop Graphs Pea Gravel

1st Trial small column pea gravel Rotameter velocity vs. Pressure (in H20)
90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Rotameter Velocity W-2

14

2nd Trial small column pea gravel Rotameter velocity vs. Pressure (in H20)
90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 Rotameter W-2 Velocity 0.08 0.1 0.12

Small column pea gravel Rotameter velocity vs. Pressure (in H20)
76.5

76

75.5

75

74.5

74

73.5 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Rotameter W-3 Velocity 0.2 0.25 0.3

15

large column pea gravel Rotameter velocity vs. Pressure (in H20)
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Rotameter W-2 Velocity 0.2 0.25 0.3

Large column pea gravel Rotameter velocity vs. Pressure (in H20)
60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Rotameter W-3 Velocity

16

A3. Rotameter Pressure Drop Graphs Black Marbles

1st Trial small column black marbles Rotameter velocity vs. Pressure (in H20)
4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 Rotameter W-2 Velocity 0.08 0.1 0.12

2nd Trial small column black marbles Rotameter velocity vs. Pressure (in H20)
25

20

15

10

0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 Rotatmeter W-2 Velocity

17

2nd Trial small column black marbles Rotameter velocity vs. Pressure (in H20)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Rotatmeter W-3 Velocity

1st Trial small column small black marbles Rotatmeter velocity vs Pressure
90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Rotameter W-3 Velocity 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

A4. Void Fraction Calculations 1.5 in Diam. 4in diam. Cylinder 500ml pea gravel unsettled 1800 ml pea gravel 249 ml added 610 ml added void fraction 0.498 void fraction 0.338888889

4in diam. Cylinder 1000mL black glass marbles 385 mL added void fraction 0.385

18

A5. Particle diameters Packing Type Particle diameter (m) Pea gravel .002 Black Marbles 0.0178562

A6. Pressure Drop versus Volumetric Flow rate with initial void fraction
Pea Gravel Large Column void fraction, .338
18000

16000

14000

12000

10000 Experimental Ergun 8000

6000

4000

2000

0 0 5 10 15 Q W-3 (m3/s) 20 25 30

Pea Gravel, Large Column void fraction .338

18000

16000

14000

12000

10000 Experimental Ergun 8000

6000

4000

2000

0 0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 Q W-2 (m3/s) 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004

19

Black Marbles Small column void fraction, .385

6000

5000

4000

3000

Experimental Ergun

2000

1000

0 0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 Q W-2 (m3/s) 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004

Black Marbles Small column void fraction .385

25000

20000

15000 Experimental Ergun 10000

5000

0 0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 Q W-3 (m3/s) 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008

20

A7. Pressure Drop versus Volumetric Flow rate with modified void fraction
Pea Gravel Large Column void fraction, .25
25000

20000

15000 Experimental Ergun 10000

5000

0 0 5 10 15 Q W-2 (m3/s) 20 25 30

Pea Gravel Large Column void fraction .25

25000

20000

15000 Experimental Ergun 10000

5000

0 0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 Q W-2 (m3/s) 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004

21

Black Marbles Small column void fraction, .3

7000

6000

5000

4000

Experimental Ergun

3000

2000

1000

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Q W-2 (m3/s) 12 14 16 18 20

Black Marbles Small column void fraction, .3

30000

25000

20000

15000

Experimental Ergun

10000

5000

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Q W-3 (m3/s)

22

A8. Friction Factor versus Reynolds Number Graphs

Black Marble with Ergun Equation
120

100

80

60

Ergun Equation black marbles, small column w-2 black marbles, small column w-3

40

20

0 0 500 1000 1500 Re 2000 2500 3000 3500

Pea Gravel Data with Ergun Equation

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Re 120 140 160 180 200 pea gravel, small column w-2 Ergun pea gravel, large column w-2 pea gravel, large column w-3

23

Ergun equation with all packing and columns

100

Ergun equation pea gravel, small column W-2

75

pea gravel, large column w-2 pea gravel, large column w-3 blk marbles, small column w-2

50

25

blk marbles, small column w-3

0 0 500 1000 1500 Re 2000 2500 3000

24