Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226

www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Hydrodynamics of a uniform liquid-&uidized bed containing

a binary mixture of particles
Maureen A. Howley, Benjamin J. Glasser∗
Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway NJ 08854, USA
Received 4 May 2001; received in revised form 17 May 2002; accepted 24 June 2002

Abstract

This paper examines the steady state hydrodynamics of a &uidized bed of two particle species, having di6erent diameters and densities.
Steady state mixing solutions of the volume-averaged equations of motion for the &uid and particles are sought. An expression for the &uid–
particle interactive force (in the mixture) is postulated to close the continuum equations of motion using an excluded volume assumption.
Solutions to the equations are found for a &uidized bed of glass beads and carbon char in water. It is shown that the solution sets not only
characterize the composition and expansion behavior of the mixing states, but also provide a description of the observed phenomenon
of “layer inversion”. The model identi:es three possible layer inversion scenarios, one of which has been observed experimentally.
Comparison with experimental data suggest that the hydrodynamic mechanism of &uid–particle interaction is not fully captured with an
excluded volume assumption. Thus, we show how experimental data can be used to derive functional forms for expressing the complex
hydrodynamic behavior within the framework of the model.
? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fluidization; Hydrodynamics; Modeling; Mixing; Multiphase &ow; Layer inversion

1. Introduction
Fluidized beds are used extensively in the chemical and
pharmaceutical industries in processes that include coating
of tablets, expanded bed adsorption of biomolecules, &uid
catalytic cracking, and incineration of solid waste (Kunii &
Levenspiel, 1991). In many industries, &uidization systems
use particles (e.g., catalysts or resins) which have a wide
distribution of particle sizes (Fan & Zhu, 1998). In separa-
tions and recovery operations, particles within the bed may
also have di6erent densities, as is the case in mineralogical
applications (e.g., see Hoover & Hoover, 1922) and the
processing of colloidal suspensions. As a result, size and/or
density-induced segregation can occur in an operating
vessel and this is not always desirable. There is extensive
modeling work on the steady state and time-dependent
hydrodynamics of gas- and liquid-&uidized beds with one
particle species (Jackson, 2000). Modeling work for a sin-
gle particle species in a &uidized bed has been used to
develop a better understanding of &ow regime transitions,
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-732-445-4243;
fax: +1-732-445-2581.
E-mail address: bglasser@sol.rutgers.edu (B. J. Glasser).
scale-up criteria and bed performance (see for example Fan
& Zhu, 1998; Tsinontides, 1999; Jackson, 2000). However,
models incorporating particle size distributions and density
distributions have been examined to a much lesser extent.
When a binary mixture of particles with di6erent densi-
ties and sizes is &uidized, the particles may segregate, form-
ing independent monocomponent layers. However, this is
only one possible outcome, and well-mixed states have been
observed experimentally (Moritomi, Iwase, & Chiba, 1982;
Moritomi, Yamagishi, & Chiba, 1986; Jean & Fan, 1986;
Matsuura & Akehata, 1985). The behavior of the segregated
layers can be well characterized using models for mono-
component beds (see Jackson, 2000), however the hydrody-
namic behavior of a &uidized mixture of particles is still not
entirely understood. In industrial applications, when a sec-
ond particle species is introduced to an otherwise monodis-
perse system, e.g., in the form of :ner fractions of catalyst,
particulate matter, or cell debris (in a fermentation broth),
it may be diHcult to predict if mixing or segregation will
occur, and how such behavior will ultimately a6ect overall
process performance.
In the experimental literature, it has been well documented
that adding a second solid species can have a profound ef-
fect on &uidization behavior. For example, in gas-&uidized

0009-2509/02/$ - see front matter ? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 9 - 2 5 0 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 3 6 1 - 5
4210 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226
beds, the addition of a small quantity of “:nes” (particle
fractions less than 45 m in diameter) has been shown to
improve bed stability, which resulted in improved heat and
mass transfer rates (Zenz & Othmer, 1960; deGroot, 1967;
Lockett & Harrison, 1967; Abrahamsen & Geldart, 1980).
Decreased minimum &uidization velocities were also ob-
served with “:nes” addition (Agarwal & Davis, 1966).
In liquid-&uidized beds, which are the focus of this work,
segregated layers of two component beds will sometimes
invert vertical position in the column via well-mixed &u-
idization states (Moritomi et al., 1982). This phenomenon,
referred to as “layer inversion”, could have a dramatic ef-
fect on process performance. Nevertheless, there have only
been a handful of papers considering the hydrodynamics of
these observed patterns. In this work we have investigated
how a second solid species a6ects overall hydrodynamic
behavior of a single component bed using volume-averaged
equations of motion.
In the literature, one can :nd several models for express-
ing the hydrodynamic behavior of binary and multi-particle
mixtures of &uidized particles under equilibrium conditions.
Gibilaro, DiFelice, and Waldram (1986) proposed a modi:-
cation of the Ergun equation to predict pressure drop across
a :xed bed of “mixed” spheres consisting of two particle
species di6ering in both density and size. For a given &u-
idization velocity, an in:nite number of possible mixture
compositions satis:ed the equilibrium force balance equa-
tion. In order to :nd a unique solution, an additional stability
criterion was imposed whereby the actual bed composition
is assumed to be that which compacts to a con:guration of
maximum density (in order to occupy the bottom zone of
the bed). Good agreement was observed between model pre-
dictions and experimental data for glass beads and carbon
char particles in water (Moritomi et al., 1982, 1986), copper
shot and zirconia in water (Gibilaro et al., 1986), as well as
other experimental systems (Epstein & LeClair, 1985). A
similar approach was taken by Asif (1998) who proposed
a generalized Richardson and Zaki (1954) correlation for
a binary-solid system using mean particle properties of the
mixture. The same stability criterion suggested by Gibilaro
et al. (1986) was used to predict mixture composition and
layer inversion; comparison with experimental results was
also good.
Jean and Fan (1986) predicted the critical &uid veloc-
ity point of a liquid-&uidized binary-solid, having layer
inversion properties, using the concept of particle segrega-
tion velocities. Using a &uid mechanical argument, which
assumes the segregation velocity of the denser particle
controls the mixing behavior, a layer inversion criterion
was established, which predicts an increase in critical &uid
velocity with increasing volume fraction of the lighter
particle. Predicted inversion velocities exhibited good
agreement with experimental results by Moritomi et al.
(1982), Matsuura and Akehata (1985) and the authors’ own
experimental studies. Epstein, LeClair and Pruden (1981)
used a simple serial model to predict the expansion charac-
teristics of multi-particle systems, which assumes that the
mixed bed behaves as though it were the sum total of any
number of independently expanding monocomponent beds.
Comparison with experimental data was also reasonably
good for both binary and ternary systems.
All of the models described above enable good quantita-
tive predictions of the mixture composition and expansion
characteristics of binary-solid mixing regimes under equi-
librium conditions. However the model equations do not
contain any time-dependence so they cannot be used (in
an obvious manner) to examine dynamic or time-dependent
&uidization &ow regimes. In this paper we make use of
volume-averaged equation of continuity and motion to de-
scribe the &ow of the &uid and particles in a multi-solid
&uidized bed. Volume-averaged equations of motion and
continuity have been used extensively to gain insight into
the development of bubbles, cluster and other wave forms
in single component &uidized beds (see Anderson & Jack-
son, 1967, 1968; Anderson, Sundaresan, & Jackson, 1995;
Glasser, Kevrekidis, & Sundaresan, 1996, 1997; and refer-
ences therein). While we have restricted our attention to the
steady state behavior of a binary mixture of particles, this
provides the groundwork for a stability analysis and inves-
tigation of the time-dependent behavior of a &uidized mix-
ture of particles. The stability of the steady mixing states,
described in this paper, will subsequently be examined in
future work. The occurrence of voidage waves in a &uidized
bed can have a dramatic impact on the economics, safety and
environmental impact of the bed (Jackson, 2000). It is there-
fore important to develop a framework capable of investi-
gating such time-dependent states in multicomponent beds.
Multi-solid equations of continuity and motion have
been used successfully for predicting the steady and
time-dependent behavior of sedimenting polydisperse sus-
pensions (Shih, Gidaspow, & Wasan 1987; Dixon, 1980;
Tiller, 1981), pneumatic conveying systems (Arastoopour,
Lin, & Gidaspow, 1980; Arastoopour, Lin, & Weil,
1982) and &uidized beds (Syamlal & O’Brien, 1988; Van
Wachem, Schouten, van den Bleek, Krishna, & Sinclair,
2001). In addition, in the study of granular &ow systems,
averaged equations of continuity and motion have been
used to model the &ow of a binary mixture of granular
materials using a kinetic theory approach for dense gases
(Farrell, Lun, & Savage, 1986; Jenkins & Mancini 1987,
1989; Willits & Arnarson, 1999).
Syamlal and O’Brien (1988) used a computational
&uid dynamics approach to simulate a liquid-&uidized
bed containing a binary mixture of particles where the
time-dependent equations of motion were solved in an ax-
isymmetric cylinder with impermeable side walls. Using
this approach, the authors were able to capture the layer in-
version phenomenon and the predicted inversion velocities
exhibited fairly good agreement with the experimental re-
sults of Moritomi et al. (1982, 1986). The model predicted
circulation cells with the &uid and particle phases descend-
ing at the center and ascending near the walls. A small
 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226
variation in the inversion velocity with respect to the overall
bed composition could be discerned but the authors con-
cluded that “in view of the limited number of computations,
this is not a conclusive demonstration”. In this work we
have focused on the spatially uniform steady state solutions
of multi-solid equations of motion. We will :rst compute
the steady state solutions as a function of &uid velocity in
order to examine the predicted mixture composition and bed
expansion. We will then investigate whether layer inversion
can be captured by the steady state solution structure.
Layer inversion has also been observed in gas-&uidized
beds with a bimodal mixture of particles (see Van Wachem
et al., 2001 and references therein). In gas-&uidized beds
the inversion takes place in the bubbling &ow regime where
the uniformly &uidized bed has presumably become unsta-
ble. Van Wachem et al. (2001) simulated a bimodal mixture
of particles in a two-dimensional gas-&uidized bed using a
computational dynamics framework. The kinetic theory of
granular &ow was used to calculate the particle stresses in
the mixture. In addition, a frictional contribution to the solid
phase stress was added at high solids fractions in order to ac-
count for sustained contacts between particles. The authors
observed time-dependent segregation of the particle species
and this was attributed to the motion of the bubbles. In par-
ticular, the authors reported that the “di6usion velocities”
of the large and small particles were di6erent in the voids
from those in the dense particulate phase. It was also dis-
cussed that the bubbles were both a source of mixing action
and segregation. Van Wachem et al. (2001) observed that at
low gas velocities the large light particles segregated to the
top of the column. At high gas velocities the large light par-
ticles segregated to the bottom of the column. The authors
describe the mechanism of inversion as follows: “The drag
and gravity force di6erence between small, heavy particles
and large light particles was dominant at low gas velocities.
With an increase in gas velocity, however, the gradients in
granular temperature and pressure became dominant terms
in the equations for the relative force and thus velocity be-
tween two di6erent particle species”. However it should be
noted, that the degree of segregation was much less than re-
ported in the liquid-&uidized work discussed above. In this
work we will focus on uniform liquid-&uidized beds where
we have not accounted for voidage non-uniformities and the
e6ect that these would have on mixing or segregation.
The model equations and suggested closures for
multi-solid &uidization are presented and discussed in Sec-
tion 2. In Section 3, the uniform &uidization state is exam-
ined for a binary-solid system. In Section 4, we show how
the model solutions can be used to describe layer inversion
and we identify three possible layer inversion scenarios. Fi-
nally in Section 5, we discuss the conclusions of this work.
2. Model development
We have considered a multiphase approach which makes
use of volume-averaged mass and momentum balances for
4211
the &uid and particle phases. In this work we generalize
the monocomponent equations proposed by Anderson and
Jackson (1967) to model a multi-solid mixture of &uidized
particles. The &uid particle suspension consists of N particle
species, which di6er in size and/or density, where  is the
local mean bed voidage in the mixture, and i is the local
mean volume fraction of particle species i in the mixture,
based on the total mixture volume, such that
N


+ i = 1:
i=1
The locally averaged interstitial &uid velocity and particle
velocities are represented by u and vi , respectively, where
i = 1; 2; : : : ; N represents the sequence of solid species in the
mixture. Assuming an incompressible &uid and isothermal
system, the equations of continuity for the &uid and solid
phases can be written as
@
+ ∇ · (u) = 0; (1)
@t
@i
+ ∇ · (i vi ) = 0: (2)
@t
The momentum balance equations for the &uid and solid
phases can respectively be written as
 
@u
f  + u · ∇u = −∇ ·
f − F +  f g; (3)
@t
 
@vi
si i + vi · ∇vi = −∇ ·
si + Fi + i si g; (4)
@t
where f and si are the densities of the &uid and solid
phase i, respectively,
f and
si are the &uid and solid phase
stress tensors (de:ned in a compressive sense), and g is the
gravity force vector. The solid phase stress,
si , represents
the resistance to deformation of particle species i arising due
to particle–particle interactions. The &uid equation of mo-
tion is analogous to that for a single component bed (see
Anderson & Jackson, 1967). For the solid, there are now
equations of motion for each solid species. These can be
summed together to obtain an overall solid momentum bal-
ance. The total force per unit volume exerted on the mixed
particle assembly by the &uid is given by
N


F= Fi ; (5)
i=1
where Fi is the &uid–particle interaction force between the
&uid and particle phase i. These equations for multi-phase
&ow have been written in such a way that if all particles of
type 2; 3; : : : ; N were replaced by particles of type 1, they
would collapse to the two-phase equations of Anderson and
Jackson (1967). It is also useful to think of the mass and
momentum conservation equations for the solids (Eqs. (2)
and (4)) in terms of a mixture of granular solids acted on by
a &uid–particle interactive force, Fi . In this framework, the
equations of continuity and motion for the solids (without the
4212 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226

&uid–particle interactive force) can be shown to be equiv-
alent to those derived by Farrell et al. (1986) and Jenkins
and Mancini (1987) for a granular mixture of particles.
Anderson and Jackson (1967) split the &uid–particle in-
teractive force into a force due to the relative motion of the
coeHcient is a function of the voidage and the local compo-
sition of the bed. A functional form for the drag coeHcient
in a binary mixture has been explicitly proposed by Shih et
al. (1987). In addition, we will discuss in the next section
how work on sedimentation of binary mixtures can be used
&uid and solid (F̃), and a generalized ‘buoyancy’ force. In
an analogous way we split the total &uid–particle interactive
force into these two contributions leading to
F = F̃ − ∇ ·
f ;
to provide functional forms for i . The drag coeHcient, i
is in general a function of the relative velocity of the &uid
and solids and the local mass and volume concentrations of
solids:
(6)
i = f(; 1 ; : : : ; N ; s1 ; : : : ; sN ; |u − vi |):
where
N

The term ai , on the right-hand side of Eq. (11), represents
F̃ = F̃i (7) the force of virtual mass, which is negligible for (typical)
i=1 gas-&uidized beds but can become signi:cant for (typical)
N liquid-&uidized beds. The closure from Anderson and Jack-
and the total solids fraction,  is given by  = i=1 i . For son (1967) can be generalized to obtain:
each particle species this relation can be expressed as
d(u − vi )
ai = i Ci f ; (12)
Fi = F̃i − i ∇ ·
f : (8) dt
With the above assumption, it can be shown that the &uid and where Ci is the virtual mass coeHcient of species i in the
particle momentum equations become equivalent to those of mixture, and is a function of the local composition and
Shih et al. (1987) for a sedimenting suspension (although overall volume fraction of solids: Ci = f(; i ; Ci◦ ), where
we have not included forces due to electrical :elds). (Shih et @Ci◦ ()=@ ¿ 0 and Ci◦ () is the pure phase virtual mass
al. (1987) also have a separate force which accounts for the coeHcient of species i evaluated at .
force due to collisions between unlike particles, which are In the momentum balances, the &uid phase stress tensor
moving at di6erent average velocities; this force is implicitly is represented by
f , and is, in general, a function of the
accounted for in this work in the solid stress tensor.) Making rate of deformation of the &uid phase. It can be written
use of the above relations the equations of motion for the as a function of the following:
f = f(P; ; ; ∇u; ∇ · u)
&uid and particles can be rewritten as where P is the &uid pressure, and  and  are the &uid shear
  and bulk viscosities, respectively. A form analogous to a
@u
f  + u · ∇u = −∇ ·
f − F̃ +  f g; (9) Newtonian &uid will be assumed for the &uid phase stress
@t tensor (Anderson & Jackson, 1967):
     
@vi 2 
si i + vi · ∇vi = −i ∇ ·
f − ∇ ·
si
f = PI −  ∇u + (∇u) − T
− (∇ · u)I : (13)
@t 3 
+ F̃i + i si g: (10) For a monocomponent system, continuum mechanics argu-
The overall force due to the relative motion of the &uid and ments (Anderson & Jackson, 1968) or the kinetic theory of
solids consists of a drag force and a force of virtual mass, dense gases (Jenkins & Savage, 1983; Lun, Savage, Je6rey,
which is a function of the acceleration reaction of &uidized & Chepurniy, 1984) provide constitutive relations for the
particles induced by a change in &uid phase momentum. solid phase stress, in terms of the rate of deformation of the
We have adopted the general closure from Anderson and particle phase. More recent work has made use of kinetic
Jackson (1967) to express this force term, theory to derive the solid stress for a binary mixture of in-
elastic spheres (see Farrell et al., 1986; Jenkins & Mancini,
F̃i = i (u − vi ) + ai : (11) 1987, 1989; Willits & Arnarson, 1999). At this stage the
exact form for
si is not needed for our analysis as we will
The :rst term on the right-hand side of Eq. (11) represents examine a uniformly &uidized bed where the divergence of
the drag on the particles due to the &ow of &uid. Here, i
is the drag force coeHcient of species i in the mixture (i.e.,
surrounded by like and unlike particle species). Various
drag relations have been proposed for monocomponent beds
(Gidaspow, 1994). A convenient form for a monocompo-
nent bed is the Richardson and Zaki (1954) relation where
the drag coeHcient is a function of the local voidage and
Reynolds number (based on the particle diameter and termi-
nal velocity of the particles). For particle mixtures, the drag
the solid phase stress is zero (see later). For a mixture of
particle species, continuum mechanics arguments or kinetic
theory (see above-mentioned papers) lead to closures for
si
which are a function of the local composition of the mixture,
the rates of deformation of the particle species and the rel-
ative velocities of the particle species. The solid stress can
then be written as a function of the following variables:

si = f(; 1 ; : : : ; N ; Psi ; si ; si ; ∇vm ; ∇ · vm ; vi − vj );
 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226 4213

where the mixture velocity, vm is a function of the velocity balances for the &uid and solid phases can be written as
of the individual particle species: vm = f(v1 ; v2 ; : : : ; vN ). Psi
is the solid phase pressure (the isotropic resistance to defor- (1o + 2o )iuzo = g[1o ( s1 − f ) + 2o ( s2 − f )]; (14)
mation of particle species i) , and si and si are the e6ective
shear and bulk viscosities, respectively. Such an approach
assumes that particle contacts take the form of collisions,
and that there are no sustained particle–particle contacts. We
will now consider the simplest multi-solid system consist-
ing of a binary mixture, and seek a solution to the resulting
equations.
3. The uniform uidization state
We will consider a binary mixture of particles with den-
sities s1 and s2 and diameters dp1 and dp2 . The simplest
solution to the equations of continuity and motion repre-
sents that of the uniform &uidization state, where the local
mean particle velocity vectors, v1 and v2 , are both zero; the
local mean &uid velocity vector, u, is constant in space and
time, and directed in the positive vertical direction; and the
local mean solid volume fractions, 1 and 2 are spatially
uniform, and constant in time. Under these conditions,
i = io ;  = o ; u = iuzo ; vi = 0;
where i is the unit vector in the z direction, pointing
vertically upward. Since the local mean volume fraction
and &uid and particle velocities are constant throughout
the bed, there are no inertial and viscous force contri-
butions in both the &uid and solid phase equations. For
the &uid phase stress, the only non-zero contribution is
the &uid phase pressure. In addition, we assume that the
divergence of the solid phase stress is zero for the uni-
formly &uidized bed. This assumption is valid for a solid
phase stress that is a function of the rate of deformation
of the particle assembly i.e., there are no sustained parti-
cle contacts that could lead to a frictional stress or yield
stress or equivalent type of resistance to deformation (see
Tsinontides & Jackson, 1993; Van Wachem et al., 2001).
In general, the assumption of no sustained particle–particle
contacts would be expected to be reasonable for a uni-
form liquid-&uidized bed (see Jackson, 2000). In addition
&uid phase turbulence is not accounted for (see Hrenya &
Sinclair, 1997; Detamore, Swanson, Frender, & Hrenya,
2001). Since there are no gradients in the solid veloci-
ties or gradients in the volume fractions in the uniform
state, the divergence of the solid phase stress becomes
zero in such a state. This conclusion would be true even
if a stress derived from the kinetic theory of dense gases
was exactly implemented in the model (see e.g. Jenkins
& Mancini, 1987, 1989). With the divergence of the solid
phase stress reducing to zero, the pressure gradient across
the bed is due to the dynamic &uid pressure in the direction
of the &uid velocity. At uniform &uidization, the conti-
nuity equations are identically zero, and the momentum
(1 − o )1o iuzo = ∇P1o − 1o s1 g; (15)
∇P = g[o f + 1o s1 + 2o s2 ]; (16)
where the subscript ‘o’ denotes the uniform state, and Eq.
(14) is obtained by summing the momentum balances for
the two solid species. Eqs. (14)–(16) represent the balance
of forces within the mixture under equilibrium conditions. If
a viable closure for the drag force terms can be expressed as
a function of the mixture composition (1o ; 2o ) and/or &uid
velocity (uzo ), the resulting three equations can be solved
(analytically) for 1o ; 2o , uzo and pressure drop, dP=d z,
with one degree of freedom. In the next section we discuss
possible closures for drag in the mixture and compare the
predictions of the closures with experimental results.
3.1. The mixture model
As mentioned above, there are a number of drag relations
for mixtures that have been proposed. However, we will hold
o6 on examining a particular drag relation at this point, and
rather :rst develop a simpli:ed model and general frame-
work for drag in a mixture of solid species. This will serve to
establish a reference point for examining and comparing the
di6erent drag relations that previous researchers have pro-
posed. For the simpli:ed model, we de:ne the drag force in
a way that considers the presence of both particle species in
the mixture, and in an analogous way to research on phase
equilibria in binary mixtures (Prausnitz, Lichtenthaler, & de
Azevedo 1986). We have chosen to use an excluded volume
assumption for describing the reference state, however, in
principle, a weighted volume approach (based on mass, or
particle Reynolds number) may also be used.
To aid conceptualization of the mixture model, let us
:rst consider two separate liquid-&uidized beds consisting of
spherically shaped small heavy glass beads (particle 1) and
large light (water impregnated) carbon char particles (parti-
cle 2) such that the two particle species form uniformly &u-
idized layers in each &uidization column. The properties of
the glass and carbon particle species are shown in Table 1.
The expansion behavior of each monocomponent layer can
be predicted by the relation of Richardson and Zaki (1954):
uzo = vti (1 − io )(ni −1) ; (17)
where vti is the terminal settling velocity of the particle
species i in an in:nite &uid medium, and ni is the empirical
correlation index proposed by Richardson and Zaki (1954).
The index, ni is a function of the particle Reynolds number
Reti =dpi vti f = for a particle of diameter, dpi at its terminal
velocity, vti .
4214 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226

Table 1
Particle properties
Nominal diameter
the drag coeHcient for the mixture of particles, mix , would
fall somewhere between the two pure phase curves. In this
vein, an “ideal mixture” is de:ned such that force sharing is
Glass beads Carbon-chara
based only on the volume fraction each species occupies in
dp1 = 163 m dp2 = 775 m the mixture. In this way, we can de:ne the drag coeHcient,
Particle density
Minimum &uidization
velocityc
Terminal velocityd
s1 = 2:45 g=cm3 s2 = 1:50 g=cm3b i for species i in the mixture (i.e., surrounded by like and
unlike particle species) as
umf1 = 0:70 mm=s umf2 = 7:70 mm=s
vt1 = 1:7 cm=s vt2 = 6:4 cm=s
i = i [i◦ − Vij ]; (19)
Particle Reynolds number Ret1 = 2:72 Ret2 = 49:40
Richardson–Zaki index n1 = 4:0 n2 = 3:0
ucritical = 7:75 mm=s
where i◦ represents the pure phase drag force coeHcient
of i particles, evaluated at the total solids volume fraction
a Water impregnated.
b Mean
of the mixture (i.e., all of the particles in the mixture are
density of water saturated hollow char.
c Based upon the Richardson–Zaki relation under close packed condi- assumed to be particle species i), and i is the local mean
tions, p = 0:65. volume fraction of particle phase i based uponthe total solid
N
d Calculated using empirical correlations from Kunii and Levenspiel volume of the mixture, i.e., i = i =, and i=1 i = 1.
(1991). This represents an ideal state and a useful reference state
from which to examine a mixture. In a binary mixture,
non-idealities would be captured by the deviation functions
V12 and V21 . In other words an ideal mixture is charac-
terized by V12 and V21 both equal to zero and

i = i i◦ : (20)

If we were to plot the coeHcient for a hypothetical ideal

mixture of glass and carbon particles (mix ) as a function of
total volume fraction, it would simply be a volume average
of the two pure phase curves, or
◦ ◦
mix = 1o 1o + 2o 2o :

In a real mixture the deviation functions (Vij ) can be es-

timated from experimental data, empirical correlations for
mixtures, or theoretically derived formulae for mixtures.
With this in mind, we write an expression for the non-ideal
Fig. 1. The Richardson–Zaki drag coeHcient (i; pure ) versus solids vol- mix coeHcient as
ume fraction io . (I) 163 m glass beads in water, (II) 775 m (water
impregnated) hollow char in water. ◦ ◦
mix = [1o (1o − V12o ) + 2o (2o − V21o )]; (21)

where V12o measures the extent to which 1 particles in a

The drag force coeHcient of each monocomponent layer, real mixture of 1 and 2 particles deviates from the behavior
derived from the Richardson and Zaki (1954) relation at of 1 particles in an ideal mixture; and similarly for V21o
uniform &uidization, can be written as and 2 particles. Vijo is expected to be a function of the
io ( si − f )gz local bed composition and the pure phase properties: Vijo =
i; pure = ; (18)
vti (1 − io )(ni −1) ◦
f(io ; jo ; io ◦
where io refers to the volume fraction in the monocompo-
nent layer of i particles and the ‘pure’ subscript refers to the
fact that the species is not in a mixture. These drag coeH-
cients are plotted in Fig. 1 for the glass and carbon layers,
respectively, as a function of solids volume fraction.
In this :gure, it is apparent that the drag coeHcient for
the glass beads is much greater than that for the carbon at
equivalent bed voidage. Let us now combine the particles in
one &uidization column and adjust &uid &ow in such a way
; jo ). We now look at various ways of closing
these equations in order to solve the steady state equations.
3.2. Drag laws
In this section, we illustrate how drag laws, in the form
of empirical and semi-empirical correlations, can be used
in the proposed model to solve the steady state equations.
We will also discuss how work on sedimentation of binary
and multi-solid mixtures can be used to provide functional
that the particles form a homogeneous mixture of particles. forms for i by making use of available correlations for the
Under these conditions, it seems reasonable to expect that hindered settling function. We will :rst consider examples of
the drag forces within the mixture would be shared between ideal and non-ideal mixing behavior in the glass and carbon
glass and carbon particles such that a curve, representing &uidized bed using the Richardson and Zaki (1954) relation.
 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226 4215

3.2.1. Ideal mixture: Richardson and Zaki relation the drag coeHcient for species i in a multiphase suspension
Making use of the Richardson and Zaki (1954) relation of particles is given by
for the pure phase drag law and assuming ideality we can 150io o  1:75 f uzo io
write the drag in the mixture as io = + : (28)
(1 − o )2 d2pi (1 − o )dpi
o ( si − f )gz
io = io ; (22)
vti (1 − o )(ni −1)
where o = 1o + 2o is the total volume fraction of
the mixture. If we substitute the above relation, evalu-
ated at uniform &uidization, into the momentum balance
equations, this yields three equations in four unknowns
(1o ; 2o ; uzo ; dPz =d z) with one degree of freedom. Elim-
inating uzo and dPz =d z, we obtain a general relationship
between the volume fractions and particle phase terminal
velocities,
If we substitute this expression back into the three-phase
momentum balance equations, and eliminate uzo , we obtain
an analytical expression for the mixture compositions and
associated &uid velocities.
The generalized drag law proposed by these authors for
multiphase mixtures can also be derived directly from the
Ergun equation within the framework of our model. In the
absence of gravity, the equilibrium force balance equation
for a single component &uidized bed is given by
 
VP
vt1 on1 [1o ( s1 − f )=( s2 − f ) + 2o − 1] uzo = − : (29)
= : (23) Vz
vt2 on2 [2o ( s2 − f )=( s1 − f ) + 1o − 1]
where, from Kunii and Levenspiel (1969), the Ergun equa-
Thus, given a value for the volume fraction of species one, tion for pressure drop across a &uidized bed of particles is
1o , we can now solve for 2o , if mixture solutions exist. given by
Moreover, we :nd an explicit expression for uzo in terms of   2
VP 1502o uso 1:75 f o uso
mixture composition and pure component properties, = 3 2
+ 3
; (30)
Vz (1 − o ) (!dp ) (1 − o ) !dp
vt1 vt2 o(n1 +n2 −1) [1o ( s1 − f ) + 2o ( s2 − f )]
uzo = : where the particle sphericity is !=1, and the super:cial &uid
vt2 on2 1o ( s1 − f ) + vt1 on1 2o ( s2 − f )
velocity is uso = (1 − o )uzo . If we assume an ideal mixture
(24)
(as de:ned in the previous section) then we can determine
o
Eqs. (23) and (24) are subsequently solved to obtain a full io = io io to be:
solution set consisting of a :nite range of &uidization veloci-  
o 1502o  1:75 f uzo o
ties and associated mixture compositions. This set fully char- io io = io + (31)
acterizes all possible mixing states. Fluid velocities, which (1 − o )2 d2pi (1 − o )dpi
fall outside the range of mixture solutions will only support which is exactly equivalent to the drag form from Shih et
segregated &uidization, i.e., states where the two species al. (1987) in Eq. (28) above. Thus the drag form adopted
form segregated layers in the bed. Moreover, if we de:ne by Shih et al. (1987) falls within our de:nition of an ideal
the bulk density of the mixture to be mixture.
b = (1 − o ) f + 1o s1 + 2o s2 (25)
3.2.3. Non-ideal mixture: modi;ed Ergun equation
we can use Eq. (23), to eliminate 1o and 2o from Eq. (25), Gibilaro et al. (1986) proposed a modi:cation of the Er-
and express b in terms of o only, gun equation to predict pressure drop across a :xed bed of
b = mixed spheres consisting of two particle species di6ering
in both density and size. The drag force coeHcient derived
s2 ( s1 − f )vt2 (1 − o )n2 − s1 ( s2 − f )vt1 (1 − o )n1 from this equation is as follows:
:
( s1 − f )vt2 (1 − o )n2 − ( s2 − f )vt1 (1 − o )n1  " 1="
17:3 (1 − o )−2:8 uzo o f
(26)
For low Reynolds numbers, ni equals a constant, and b can
be expressed as a function of pure phase properties,
s2 ( 1 − f )vt2 − s1 ( s2 − f )vt1
b = : (27)
( s1 − f )vt2 − ( s2 − f )vt1
Thus for an ideal system, all mixtures of a given particle
pair, which form at low Reynolds number will always have
the same bulk density.
3.2.2. Ideal mixture: Shih et al. (1987)
Shih et al. (1987) used a modi:cation of the Ergun equa-
tion, as given in Kunii and Levenspiel (1969), to model the
hydrodynamics of multiphase sedimentation systems where
mix = + 0:336" ;
Re dW
(32)
where dW has been de:ned as the mean particle diameter,
based on volumetric species concentration, and Re as the
mean particle Reynolds number based on the super:cial &uid
velocity. The parameter "() was suggested by Churchill
(1974) for improving predictions in the intermediate &ow
regime. It can be :tted to any appropriate &uidization cor-
relation for bed expansion. In our work, we use a :t for the
Richardson and Zaki (1954) relation for monosized spheres.
As discussed previously in the introduction, Gibilaro et al.
(1986) found an in:nite number of mixture solutions to the
equilibrium force balance equation because the mixture of
4216 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226
particles is treated as a single homogeneous phase having
mean particle properties. These authors had to impose one
additional constraint in order to :nd a unique solution for
any given &uidization velocity. This is not necessary in our
model since the equations are fully speci:ed by considering
the two solid phases independently in the mass and momen-
tum balance equations. We therefore cannot carry forward
the assumption of Gibilaro et al. (1986) regarding maxi-
mum density packing without overspecifying the system.
We can, however, use this drag law, within the framework
of our model, by allowing the deviation functions to express
the extent to which each particle property deviates from the
mean value. This is illustrated as follows.
The coeHcient for the mixture can be computed, in our
framework, by summing the momentum balance equation
for the individual solid phases. This is de:ned as
◦ ◦
Finally, a solution set of mixture compositions and &uid
velocities can be obtained.
3.2.4. Hindered settling function
The hindered settling function (fsi ) of a particle species
i in a polydisperse suspension of N species, is used to pre-
dict the reduction in settling velocity of the species due to
interactions with other settling particles, and due to the up-
&ow of &uid created by the downward motion of the particle
“cloud”, (Davis & Gecol, 1994). The particle slip velocity,
vsi relative to the &uid &ow, can be written as
vsi = vti fsi ; (38)
where, as before, vti is the terminal settling velocity of
species i. In uniform &uidization, a bed of particles is
equivalent to a uniform cloud of sedimenting particles, but
viewed from a di6erent frame of reference. Therefore, in
mix = 1o [1o − (V)12o ] + 2o [2o − (V)21o ]: (33) one-dimension, the interstitial &uid velocity, uzo is equal
We de:ne io◦
as the pure phase equivalent of Eq. (32), where in magnitude to vsi , but &ows in the opposite direction. A
Rei is the particle Reynolds number of species i based on hindered settling function can therefore be used to close
the super:cial &uid velocity, i.e., our model equations.
 " 1=" Masliyah (1979) proposed a hindered settling func-
◦ 17:3 (1 − o )−2:8 uzo o f tion which adds a correction factor to the monodisperse
io = + 0:336" : (34)
Rei dpi
We then split up Eq. (32) into two components using the
de:nition of the mean particle diameter. Caution must be
taken here, since the contributions of the individual species
to the mixture coeHcient can never be uncoupled. It is the
role of the deviation parameter, however, to provide some
measure of the degree to which the mixing behavior deviates
from the de:ned reference state, therefore, any error associ-
ated with splitting the mixture coeHcient will be accounted
for in the summation of the two deviation parameters. Indi-
Richardson and Zaki (1954) relation. The modi:cation
takes into account the di6erence between the &uid density
and the mixture density of the suspension:
( si − b )
fsi = (o )ni −2 ; (39)
( si − f )
where as before, b is de:ned as the bulk density of the sus-
pension and o = 1 − o . For (a ‘mixture’ of) identical par-
ticles the correction factor ( si − b )=( si − f ) is equal to
(1 − o ) and the monodisperse Richardson and Zaki (1954)
relation is recovered. Patwardhan and Tien (1985) proposed
vidual component contributions to mix are a modi:cation to the above drag relation, by introducing a
 " 1=" new quantity, the apparent bed porosity. This quantity con-
◦ io 17:3 " siders the di6erences encountered by a particle surrounded
io [io − (V)ijo ] = + 0:336
dpi Re by a poly-disperse suspension (of particles di6ering in both
size and density), and a monodisperse suspension at the
×(1 − o )−2:8 uzo f : (35)
same solids volume fraction:
Now, using Eqs. (34) and (35), we can express the individ- ( si − b )
ual deviation functions as fsi = (˜io )ni −2 : (40)
( si − f )
 " 1="
o 17:3 "
In this expression, ˜io represents the apparent porosity for
(V)ijo = + 0:336 the ith particle species in a polydisperse suspension. Using
dpi Rei
a cell model, these authors considered the suspension as
 " 1="  being a particle surrounded by a liquid envelope having a
17:3 "
− + 0:336 (1 − o )−2:8 uzo f : characteristic linear dimension of liquid space d , given by
Re
(36) d = dav [(1 − o )−1=3 − 1]; (41)
where dav represents the volume-averaged particle diame-
Substituting these expressions back into the momentum bal-
ter within the suspension, and o = (1 − o ) represents the
ance equations, and eliminating uzo , we obtain a simple re-
actual voidage of the suspension. These authors argued that
lationship for the ratio of particle diameters in terms of mix-
the extent to which particle velocity is hindered by the pres-
ture composition and pure phase properties,
ence of other particles should be a function of the apparent
dp1 [1o ( s1 − f ) − (1 − 2o )( s2 − f )] porosity of each individual particle species ˜io (and not ),
= : (37)
dp2 [2o ( s2 − f) − (1 − 1o )( s1 − f )] whose characteristic dimension is also d (from Eq. (41)):
 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226 4217

˜io = 1 − (1 + d =dpi )−3 : We have also considered a mod-

i:cation of the Patwardhan and Tien (1985) drag relation,
where we replace ˜io in Eq. (40) with the actual porosity
based on i particles, i.e. io = (1 − io ) and thus:
( si − b )
fsi = (io )ni −2 : (42)
( si − f )

The above expression will allow us to get a better under-

standing of the relationship between the di6erent drag forms
since the above form is equivalent to the Masliyah (1979)
form with o = io .
For a binary-particle mixture at uniform &uidization, slip
velocities vs1 and vs2 are equal, and we :nd mixture solu-
tions using the relationship vt1 fs1 = vt2 fs2 . In this particular
situation, the slip velocity is explicitly expressed in terms of
mixture composition and pure phase properties, so steady
state solutions can be directly obtained from fsi functions.
However, expressions for the drag force coeHcient will
eventually be needed for solving time-dependent solutions.
Furthermore, the functionality of the deviation parame-
ter provides the key for comparing quantitative solution
sets, which have been obtained with di6erent mixture
correlations.

3.3. Model predictions

In this work, we have modeled the behavior of various

binary-solids in liquid systems. In Figs. 2–4 we present
model predictions of the expansion behavior and composi-
tion of mixtures of 163 m glass beads and 775 m carbon
in water (whose properties are found in Table 1). These pre-
dictions have been made using the drag laws in the previ-
ous section (see :gure captions). In Figs. 2(a) and (b), the
total volume fraction of the computed mixtures are plotted
as a function of super:cial &uid velocity for the ideal and
non-ideal drag laws, respectively. The super:cial &uid ve-
locity, us , is normalized by the critical &uid velocity of the
two components (ucritical ), or point at which the bulk den-
sity curves of the individual monocomponent layer intersect
(discussed in the following section), and us∗ = us =ucritical .
The experimental data points of Moritomi et al. (1982) are
plotted as points in the :gure. Using Fig. 9, and Eqs. (6)
and (7) from the Moritomi et al. (1982) paper, we com-
pute the particle volume fractions of carbon and glass in the
observed mixing zone (as a function of &uid velocity and
bulk bed composition). From layer height versus &uid ve-
locity data, (Fig. 3 of Moritomi et al., 1982), we back out
the bed voidage of the mixing zone. The expansion curves
for monocomponent layers of glass and carbon are also plot-
ted for comparison (see Fig. 2(a)). In particular, curve I
(or II) represents the &uidization behavior of a pure layer
of glass (or carbon char) as predicted by the Richardson
and Zaki (1954) relation. These curves begin at a random
close-packed solids volume fraction (p ), which is assumed
to be 0.65 for spheres (Berryman, 1982).
Fig. 2. Mixture volume fraction (o ) versus normalized us . (a) Ideal mix-
tures: (I) 163 m glass beads in water, (II) 775 m (water impregnated)
hollow char in water, (III) ideal Richardson and Zaki (1954), (IV) Shih
et al. (1987), (•) experimental data points (Moritomi et al., 1982). (b)
Non-ideal mixtures: (V) modi:ed Ergun equation, (VI) Masliyah (1979),
(VII) Patwardhan and Tien (1985), (VIII) modi:ed Patwardhan and Tien
(1985), (•) experimental data points (Moritomi et al., 1982).
In Fig. 2(a), we see that both ideal drag laws (see curves
III and IV) do predict that a mixture will exist for a range of
&uid velocities. In particular, curve III represents the locus
of mixture points for the ideal Richardson and Zaki drag law
(Eq. (22)). At a us∗ value of about 0.47 the curve comes to
an end, as mixture solutions do not exist beyond this point.
The model thus predicts that for us∗ values larger than 0.47
only segregated layers of glass and carbon char exist. The
ideal drag law of Shih et al. (1987) (Eq. (28), see curve
IV) predicts mixture solutions of a similar composition to
the ideal Richardson–Zaki law. The small di6erences in the
predicted mixture solutions is due to di6erences between the
Richardson–Zaki and Ergun (pure phase) drag laws. The
range of predicted &uid velocities (for a mixture to exist)
for both ideal drag laws is less than that observed exper-
imentally. Moreover, the predicted expansion behavior of
the ideal drag laws is very similar to that of &uidized glass
beads alone. In comparison, the experimental data points
lie well within the area bounded by the two pure phase
4218 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226
Fig. 3. Glass volume fraction (1o ) versus normalized us .(a) Ideal mix-
tures, (b) non-ideal mixtures. See Fig. 2 for description.
curves at a higher velocity range. These data suggest that the
carbon particles in the mixture serve to resist overall bed
expansion; the physics of which is not being captured by
an excluded volume assumption. In Fig. 2(b) the modi:ed
Ergun form (Eqs. (34) and (36), see curve V), Patwardhan
and Tien (1985) form (Eq. (40), see curve VII), and mod-
i:ed Patwardhan and Tien form (Eq. (42), see curve VIII)
predict mixing velocities in the experimental range, how-
ever, the predicted expansion behaviors di6er from those
observed experimentally. The hindered settling function of
Masliyah (1979) (Eq. (39), see curve VI) predicts behav-
ior, which is nearly identical to the ideal Richardson–Zaki
model (see curve III).
It should be noted that initially, the volume fraction of
the experimental mixture decreases as the &uid velocity in-
creases (since the bed expands with increasing &ow to the
column, as one would intuitively expect); but the bed reaches
some maximum bed voidage, at which point, the bed be-
gins to contract (in volume), as &uid velocity is further in-
creased. This trend reversal is not predicted by most of the
models examined, although the solution set from the mod-
i:ed Patwardhan and Tien form (see curve VIII), and part
Fig. 4. Carbon volume fraction (2o ) versus normalized us . (a) Ideal
mixtures, (b) non-ideal mixtures. See Fig. 2 for description.
of the solution sets from the Patwardhan and Tien form (see
curve VII) and modi:ed Ergun form (see curve V) do de-
scribe a bed which contracts with increasing &uid velocity.
The experimental data suggest that the glass controls behav-
ior at mixture formation, and the carbon controls at mixture
dissolution. In Figs. 3 and 4 we will show that this is due
to the fact that one of the two species is always in excess at
these limiting points.
In Figs. 3 and 4 the volume fraction of the glass and carbon
components (1o ; 2o ) are plotted as a function of super:-
cial &uid velocity for the same ideal and non-ideal mixture
models. We see in Fig. 3 that the mixture observed experi-
mentally was initially enriched in glass beads, at low &uid
velocities, but gradually became carbon enriched with in-
creasing &uid velocities. During the glass enrichment phase
(at velocities less than ucritical ), the mixture continued to ex-
pand with increased &uid &ow until reaching some maxi-
mum level of tolerable carbon content. Beyond this limit
point, the bed began to contract in volume (as observed in
Fig. 2) with increased &ow to the column. Eventually, all of
the glass particles in the mixture were replaced with carbon
particles, and the system returned to its segregated state of
&uidization.
 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226
In these :gures, we see carbon enrichment (with &uid ve-
locity) predicted by the modi:ed Patwardhan and Tien form
(curve VIII). Carbon enrichment is also observed at high ve-
locities (only) for the Patwardhan and Tien form (curve VII)
and the modi:ed Ergun form (curve V). The reverse trend
(i.e., glass enrichment with increased &ow) is predicted by
all of the other mixture models, and is a direct consequence
of the excluded volume approach. It can be explained in the
following way: since the drag exerted on the glass is much
greater than on the carbon, glass beads adjacent to a &u-
idized pocket of carbon “share” drag, allowing for greater
expansion of carbon particles. More glass particles move
into the carbon enriched mixture (with increased velocity to
the column), and the mixture grows in volume, and expands
in voidage. Eventually, the glass rejects excess carbon from
the mixture, and the mixture ultimately becomes a layer of
pure glass.
The results show that the hindered settling function of
Masliyah (1979) (curve VI) leads to behavior that is es-
sentially the same as the ideal Richardson–Zaki drag model
(curve III). A closer look at the models shows that this is
perhaps not surprising considering the similarities in struc-
ture of the two models. Both models evaluate the drag of
a species in a mixture as the Richardson–Zaki drag eval-
uated at the total mixture volume fraction multiplied by a
correction factor. For our ideal Richardson–Zaki model the
correction factor is based on the volume fraction of i and j
particles (see Eq. (20)) while for the Masliyah (1979) model
the correction factor is based on the density and volume
fraction of i and j particles (see Eq. (39)). For the particular
set of parameters we have examined the correction factors
for the two models turn out to be very similar. However in
general, this need not necessarily be the case.
4219
volume fraction in the mixture decreases with super:cial
velocity and carbon volume fraction increases with super:-
cial &uid velocity. However, the modi:ed Patwardhan and
Tien (1985) model only qualitatively captures the decrease
in overall volume fraction (o ) with increasing super:cial
&uid velocity (see Fig. 2(b)). The experimental results ex-
hibit an initial decrease and then an increase in o with su-
per:cial &uid velocity. On the other hand the Masliyah form
(curve VI) and ideal Richardson–Zaki model (curve III)
predict exactly the opposite qualitative behavior to the mod-
i:ed Patwardhan and Tien model. In particular the Masliyah
(1979) model predicts a decrease in overall volume fraction
with increasing super:cial &uid velocity. The Masliyah and
modi:ed Patwardhan and Tien models are quite similar in
nature except that the former evaluates the drag of a species
in a mixture as the Richardson–Zaki drag evaluated at the
total volume fraction of solids (multiplied by a correction
factor), while the latter evaluates the drag of a species as
the Richardson–Zaki drag evaluated at the volume fraction
of that species (multiplied by a correction factor).
In summary, the ideal and non-ideal models, together with
suggested empiricism, fall short of capturing all aspects of
the hydrodynamic behavior of the mixture. This evidence
might suggest rede:ning the ideal mixture state such that
drag force sharing is weighted by some other property, which
considers both particle mass and terminal settling velocities
of the individual species. But :rst, it is worthwhile to in-
vestigate how, and to what extent the system deviates from
the ideal case. To this end, we use the experimental data to
derive functional forms for the two deviation parameters in
the mixture model.
If laboratory and/or pilot plant scale data of particle
species volume fraction versus &uid velocity are available,
We see in Figs. 2(b), 3(b) and 4(b) that model predic- these data can be used to derive functional forms for V12
tions of non-ideal mixing behavior made employing the
Patwardhan and Tien (1985) (curve VII) drag relation and
modi:ed Ergun equation (curve V) are qualitatively similar
in both mixture composition and expansion behavior. In par-
ticular, in Fig. 2(b), we see that, at o ≈ 0:3, the predicted
solids fraction of the mixture decreases with decreased &ow
to the column. The similarity in these predicted trends is
due to the fact that the mixture (or suspension) is character-
ized using an average particle diameter. Thus the drag on a
particle is based on a particle weighted volume fraction of
solids. In Fig. 2(b), we see that predictions from the mod-
i:ed Patwardhan and Tien drag relation (curve VIII) are
quite di6erent from those of the Patwardhan and Tien form
and V21 in the non-ideal mixture model. These forms also
provide clues to understanding the hydrodynamic mecha-
nisms involved in steady state mixing. We illustrate this
method using the same experimental data from Moritomi
et al. (1982).
As before, using Fig. 9, and Eqs. (6) and (7) from the
Moritomi et al. (1982) paper, we obtain particle volume
fractions of carbon and glass in the observed mixing zone as
a function of &uid velocity and bulk bed composition. From
layer height versus &uid velocity data (Fig. 3 of Moritomi
et al., 1982), we back out the bed voidage of the mixing zone.
Recall, that at uniform &uidization, the drag force is balanced
by the buoyant weight of the mixture (see Eq. (14)), where
(curve VII). Even though the structure of these two drag we de:ne the mixture coeHcient, mix , to be that shown in
laws is identical, the former is based upon an actual particle Eq. (21). Using the mixture composition versus &uid veloc-
phase solids fraction, and the latter is based upon a particle ity data obtained from the experimental study, along with
weighted solids fraction. these two Eqs. (14) and (21), we are able to calculate the
It should be noted that no single drag model qualita- overall drag force coeHcient of the mixture (mix ) at dis-
tively predicts all the experimental trends. The modi:ed crete points. The ideal and non-ideal contributions to mix
Patwardhan and Tien (1985) model (curve VIII) predicts can be computed numerically using the Richardson and Zaki
the correct behavior for volume fraction of glass (1o ) (1954) relation to express the ideal contributions to mix ,
◦
and carbon (2o ) versus super:cial &uid velocity, i.e. glass i.e., io io , and the experimental values of mix to express
4220 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226

Fig. 6. Contribution to mix from the glass and carbon species (i ), versus
◦ − V
1o : (∗) contribution from the glass particles 1 = [1o (1o 12o )],
◦ − V
(◦) contribution from the carbon particles 2 = [2o (2o 21o )], (•)
experimental mix (Moritomi et al., 1982), (- -) linear :t.

and io Vijo ), which gives us an indication of the relative

importance of each species with respect to force apportion-
ment. When we sum these two contributions for species 1
and 2, this results in a fairly linear relationship with respect
to particle volume fraction as shown in Fig. 6. In this :g-
ure, the total “drag” contributions (to mix ) from the glass
and carbon phases, along with mix are plotted as a function
of the volume fraction of glass in the mixture. It would ap-
pear from these data that the glass particles contribute far
Fig. 5. Deviation parameter (Vij ) versus glass volume fraction (1o ). more to mix than the carbon particles, even in the carbon
(a) For the glass phase (V12o ): (•) experimental data points (Moritomi enrichment phase. Yet, we know from Figs. 2 and 3 that the
et al., 1982), (- -) quadratic curve :t. (b) For the carbon phase (V21o ):
(•) experimental data points (Moritomi et al., 1982), (- -) quadratic curve
:t.
expansion behavior of the experimental mixture was not at
all like that of pure glass, insofar as the &uid velocity re-
quired to reach an equivalent bed expansion was greater for
the mixture than for the glass alone. What we can conclude
the non-ideal contributions, i.e., io Vijo . Since we are in- from model predictions and experimental data, is that the
terested in how and why each species’ behavior deviates carbon tends to make the mixture “contract” in volume, or
from ideal mixing behavior, the two deviation parameters resist expansion, but has little e6ect on the overall drag force
(V12o and V21o ) are plotted as a function of the volume
fraction of the glass species in Fig. 5.
In both graphs, this parameter appears to be a parabolic
function in 1o . In the :gure, we have plotted quadratic :ts
of the data along with the experimentally derived points.
Both curves have minima points occurring at some critical
&uid velocity point corresponding to (1o ∼ 0:17). We will
discuss the physical signi:cance of this point in the follow-
ing section regarding layer inversion; but, what is impor-
tant to note here, is that both particle species approach ideal
mixing behavior at a unique point, and deviate from ideal
behavior, as the system moves away from this point, in ei-
ther direction. Further speculation regarding the existence
or nature of these minima points would require more exper-
imental studies.
We now can evaluate the ideal and non-ideal contribu-
◦
coeHcient. This is in agreement with the modeling work of
Jean and Fan (1986) where they observed that the denser
particle controls the mixing behavior.
While we have only presented results for one particular
system of particles, we have examined solutions for a va-
riety of binary systems. In this paper we have focused on
the glass bead and carbon char mixture solutions because
of the abundance of detailed experimental data available for
this system. This has allowed us to compare model predic-
tions with experimental results, which is not possible for
the other cases we have studied. In particular, we have ex-
amined other binary systems comprised of large light and
small heavy particles &uidized in water, and observed the
same qualitative behavior as those described for the glass
bead and carbon char mixture. Further experimental work is
needed in order to further our understanding of the mixture
tions to mix from each of the particle species (i.e., io io , states. In addition we have also examined binary particle
 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226
systems in gas-&uidized beds. We have found steady state
mixture solutions for the gas-&uidized beds, but prior ex-
perimental and modeling work lead us to believe that such
steady states are likely to be unstable to the development of
voidage waves (Kunii & Levenspiel, 1991).
In principle, a limited amount of particle species concen-
tration versus &uid velocity data from laboratory, pilot plant
or full-scale operation, is all that is needed to develop a fully
predictive model of the system’s mixing regime in its en-
tirety. In the next section we will discuss the physical sig-
ni:cance of mixing and segregation, but within an entirely
di6erent context, i.e. regarding the experimentally observed
phenomenon of layer inversion in liquid-&uidized beds.
4. The layer inversion phenomenon
In segregated &uidization (where the individual species
adopt separate vertical layers), the three-phase equations we
have used throughout this work simply reduce to the conven-
tional two-phase equations representing the independently
expanding monocomponent layers, and the force balance
equations for each layer are analogous to those previously
written for the binary solid mixture. Since super;cial &uid
velocity, us , through the bed must be constant, the volume
fractions and interstitial &uid velocities through both layers
are related. For layers (a) and (b) this relationship takes the
following form:
uz(a) (1 − (a) )
= ; (43)
uz(b) (1 − (b) )
where uz(a) and (a) are, respectively, the interstitial velocity
and total volume fraction in layer (a) and us = uz (1 − ).
For the sake of illustration, let us consider a liquid-&uidized
binary-solid system, which always segregates into two
monocomponent layers, and satis:es the criterion that the
relative particle densities and diameters of the two species
fall on opposite sides of unity (i.e., small/heavy particles
and large/light particles). Under these conditions, curves
representing the layer bulk densities of the segregated layers
as a function of &uid velocity will sometimes intersect (this
point is referred to as the “critical &uid velocity”, ucritical ).
This point must therefore be a function of &uid and parti-
cle properties alone. The ucritical point for glass beads and
carbon particles in water (found in Table 1) is illustrated in
Fig. 7. In this :gure, bulk density has been normalized by
the density of the heavier species.
As shown in this graph, the bulk density of the glass layer
is greater than that of the carbon layer at &uid velocities less
than ucritical , and less than that of the carbon layer at veloci-
ties greater than ucritical . For this reason, the glass occupies
the bottom zone of the &uidization column initially, but then
moves to the top of the column as velocity is increased be-
yond this unique value. This sets up the potential for seg-
regated layers to invert vertical positions in a &uidized bed.
4221
Fig. 7. Normalized layer bulk density ( b ) versus normalized us : (I)
163 m glass beads in water, (II) 775 m (water impregnated) hollow
char in water.
This layer inversion phenomenon has been observed exper-
imentally in liquid-&uidized beds.
It was initially theorized that the layers must invert posi-
tion in the &uidization column at ucritical , in order to main-
tain hydrodynamic stability in the bed. This theory was put
forth by Pruden and Epstein (1964), and implies that for a
given binary-particle pair that mix, layer inversion occurs at
a unique &uid velocity, which is a function of particle and
&uid properties alone. Later, Van Duijn and Rietema (1982)
theorized that &uidized particles would segregate based upon
the magnitude and direction of their relative slip velocities,
and that complete mixing only occurs at ucritical . Under these
conditions, the authors proposed that all particles of both
species have zero particle slip velocity, and can freely move
anywhere in the bed. Moritomi et al. (1982, 1986) later
presented experimental evidence which disagreed with this
theory. In an extensive and systematic experimental study
using glass beads and carbon particles in water, Moritomi et
al. (1982) showed that complete mixing of the beds they ex-
amined always preceded inversion of the two layers. How-
ever the &uid velocity corresponding to layer inversion, was
not unique for a given pair, but depended upon overall bulk
bed composition. Furthermore, there was a unique mixture
composition for each “mixing” &uid velocity, which was in-
dependent of bulk bed composition.
There have been various theories put forth since this
study attempting to explain the :ndings of these authors.
Epstein and LeClair (1985) suggested that, instead of a layer
inversion point, there existed a layer inversion region, due,
at least in part, to particle size spread, and this accounted
for the deviation from the predicted and experimental criti-
cal &uid velocity points observed experimentally. Jean and
Fan (1986) predicted the critical &uid velocity point of a
liquid-&uidized binary-solid, having layer inversion proper-
ties, using the concept of “particle segregation velocities”.
Predicted inversion velocities agreed quite well with the
4222 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226

experimental results of Moritomi et al. (1982, 1986),

Matsuura et al. (1985) and the authors’ own experimental
studies. Gibilaro et al. (1986), interpreted the Moritomi
et al. (1982,1986) :ndings using a modi:cation of the
Ergun equation, and a hydrodynamic stability criterion to
predict pressure drop across a :xed bed of mixed spheres,
which, under equilibrium conditions, is balanced by the ef-
fective gravitational weight of the bed. A similar approach
was taken by Asif (1998) who proposed a generalized
Richardson–Zaki relation for a binary-solid system using
mean particle property values of the mixture.
Below, we present types of analytical solution sets to
the model equations for various binary-solid systems, which
form the basis for a description of this phenomenon. We
will show how model predictions suggest that inversion is Fig. 8. Mixture solution of type [1]. Main plot: bulk density ( b ) versus
sometimes accomplished via a point, and sometimes via a normalized us : (I) 163 m glass beads in water, (II) 775 m (water
distinct and :nite mixing region (as opposed to a mixing impregnated) hollow char in water, ([1]) type [1] mixture of glass and
carbon in water, (w) ucritical point. Inset: schematic of regions (A, B, C
point), consisting of a series of steady mixing states such and D) depicted in main plot.
that each velocity point in the region can sustain a mixture of
unique composition. In this case layer inversion can thus be
viewed as an incremental movement of the system through
a series of steady state mixtures. Eqs. (44)–(46) allow us to specify the state of the system.
In this work, formal solution sets to the three-phase steady As discussed above, there is the possibility that no mixture
state equations consist of a :nite number of &uid velocity solution can be found for the speci:ed super:cial velocity.
points, each associated with a unique mixture composition. In such a case we assume that the two species form inde-
In particular we can rewrite the steady state equations at the pendent monocomponent layers which in turn correspond to
uniform state (Eqs. (14)–(16)) in terms of the super:cial the two pure component solutions to the above equations.
&uid velocity at the uniform state, uso (by substituting uzo = If a mixture solution is found for the speci:ed super:cial
uso =(1 − o )): velocity then we assume that the mixture will form through
mixing of the monocomponent beds. In general, there will
(1o + 2o )iuso = g(1 − o )[1o ( s1 − f )
be an excess of one component and it is assumed that the
+ 2o ( s2 − f )]; (44) component in excess will form an independent monocom-
ponent layer. In this way we assume that the two layers exist
1o iuso = ∇P1o − 1o s1 g; (45)
∇P = g[o f + 1o s1 + 2o s2 ]: (46)
For a given &uid super:cial velocity (and suitable closures
for the drag forces) the above three equations can be solved
for 1o ; 2o , and the pressure drop, dP=d z. The monocom-
ponent beds will always be (trivial) solutions to the above
equations. In particular, there is a solution that corresponds
to a pure uniform &uidized bed of species 1 (where 2o = 0)
and another solution that corresponds to a pure uniform &u-
idized bed of species 2 (where 1o = 0). For both these
solutions the three-phase equations reduce to the two-phase
equations for each pure component. For the particular sys-
tems we have examined, we have either found no mixture
solutions for any super:cial velocity or a locus of mixture
solutions for a range of super:cial velocities. Outside of this
range of super:cial velocities only solutions corresponding
to monocomponent (or segregated) layers of species 1 and
2 can be found.
If we consider an experiment where a certain mass of
species 1 and species 2 are charged to the column and the
&uid super:cial velocity is set, then the solutions to the above
independently, and there is an immediate transition from a
monocomponent layer to a mixture layer or another mono-
component layer. In practice there would be a transition zone
over which some ‘mixing’ (or interpenetration) of the two
separate layers took place. Our assumption is consistent with
a transition zone that is small relative to the layer heights.
Each solution within the set can be considered a uniformly
&uidized mixing state, which can be sustained at a constant
&uid velocity (provided the state is hydrodynamically sta-
ble). In this work, we have identi:ed three solution “types”
([1], [2] and [3]) based on the computed results for various
binary-solid pairs in water. Layer bulk density curves for the
three mixture types are plotted as a function of &uid velocity
in Figs. 8–10, along with bulk density curves of the segre-
gated layers of the two components. A series of schematics,
corresponding to each solution type, is plotted as an inset
to each of these :gures. These illustrate various equilibrium
states of mixing and segregation at points before, during and
after the layer inversion event. These :gures illustrate the
position of the mixing velocity range relative to ucritical , as
well as the relative di6erence in layer bulk densities. We
de:ne type [1] solutions as those where the mixing velocity
range is less than ucritical . For type [2] solutions, the mixing
 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226
Fig. 9. Mixture solution of type [2]. Main plot: bulk density ( b ) versus
normalized us : (I) 163 m glass beads in water, (II) 775 m (water
impregnated) hollow char in water, ([2]) type [2] mixture of glass and
carbon in water, (w) ucritical point. Inset: schematic of regions (A, B, C
and D) depicted in main plot.
Fig. 10. Mixture solution of type [3]. Main plot: bulk density ( b )
versus normalized us : (I) 807 m polycarbonate (PC), (II) 2010 m
polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) in water, ([3]) type [3] mixture of PC
and PMMA in water, (w) ucritical point. Inset: schematic of regions (A,
B, C and D) depicted in main plot.
velocity range spans ucritical , and for type [3], solutions the
mixing velocity range is greater than ucritical .
In Fig. 8, we present results for a type [1] solution set
where a mixture of binary-particles forms and dissolves be-
fore the &uid velocity ever reaches the ucritical value. In Fig. 8,
the bulk density of a type [1] mixture is plotted as a function
of normalized &uid velocity (labeled curve [1]). These mix-
ture results correspond to 163 m glass beads and 775 m
carbon char in water (see Table 1), assuming ideality with a
Richardson and Zaki drag law (see Eq. (22)). This solution
type was also predicted for the same carbon/glass system us-
ing the Shih et al. (1987) and Masliyah (1979) drag forms.
The bulk densities of the pure (phase) glass and carbon lay-
4223
ers are plotted in Fig. 8, for comparison, and labeled I, and II,
respectively. Note that the intersection of these two curves,
at which point the layers are predicted to mix (labeled point
w), occurs at a normalized super:cial velocity of us∗ = 1. In
this :gure, the bulk density of the mixture always falls be-
tween the densities of the two pure phase layers. Therefore,
if the mixture co-exists with a layer of excess glass it will
occupy the top zone of the bed; the opposite is true for the
case of excess carbon.
The graph has been divided into four consecutive regions
(A, B, C and D), representing the segregation and mixing
regimes through which the system passes with increased
&ow to the column. These regimes are illustrated in the in-
set to Fig. 8. Initially, segregated &uidization occurs with
the glass layer occupying the bottom zone of the bed (re-
gion A). A mixture forms at the interface of regions A and
B, and exists throughout region B. The mixture :nally dis-
solves into a layer of pure glass at the interface of regions
B and C. At some unique point on curve [1], within region
B, mixture composition is exactly equivalent to bulk bed
composition, and the bed is completely mixed. For all other
points on curve [1], there will be a mixture layer with either
excess carbon (a pure carbon layer above the mixture) or
excess glass (a pure glass layer below the mixture); whether
the excess is carbon or glass depends on the initial amounts
of carbon and glass charged to the column. When the mix-
ture dissolves, the monocomponent layers re-occupy their
original positions in the bed (region C). Based on hydrody-
namic stability criterion, the layers must invert position at
ucritical (point w). Thus inversion occurs at a point for type
[1] solutions. We propose that the inversion mechanism for
type [1] mixing involves transient behavior, that could pos-
sibly be predicted using the dynamic equations, but this is
beyond the scope of this work. The layers eventually occupy
inverted positions in the bed in region D. To the best of our
knowledge there is no experimental evidence supporting this
type of mixing behavior.
In Fig. 9, type [2] solutions describe mixing behavior
observed experimentally by Moritomi et al. (1982, 1986).
The bulk density of a type [2] mixture is plotted as a function
of normalized &uid velocity in Fig. 9 (labeled curve [2]).
This non-ideal mixture of glass and carbon in water was
predicted using the modi:ed Ergun correlation discussed
above. Here, the mixture exists through ucritical (point w),
and layer inversion is accomplished via a :nite number of
steady mixing states. Gibilaro et al. (1986) always observed
this type of solution set in their study of layer inversion.
This graph has also been divided into four regions (A,B,C
and D). The mixing regime is subdivided into two regions
(regions B and C) based upon the relative bulk density of
the mixture and the layer of carbon or glass (i.e, whichever
is in excess), which coexists with the mixture (for all points
except the point of complete mixing). In region B, the bulk
density of the mixture is less than both the glass and carbon
layers, and, in region C, the bulk density of the mixture is
always greater. Schematics of these four regions are shown
4224 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226
in the inset to Fig. 9. The layers are initially segregated (in
region A) until a mixture forms at the interface of regions
A and B. The mixture exists throughout regions B and C. In
region B, the mixture is lighter than a layer of glass beads
(at equivalent &uid velocity), and therefore occupies the top
zone of the bed, while any excess glass forms a monocom-
ponent layer at the bottom zone of the bed. The same would
be true if carbon was in excess, however, we have depicted
an excess layer of glass in the schematic of region B. As
&uid velocity increases through ucritical (point w), the mixture
composition changes accordingly. At some unique point on
the mixture curve ([2]), the bulk composition of the bed is
exactly equivalent to the mixture composition, and the bed
is completely mixed. In region C (beyond ucritical ), the mix-
ture has moved to the bottom zone of the bed, since its bulk
density is greater than either the glass and carbon layers.
We have again depicted excess glass in the schematic of re-
gion C. When the mixture :nally dissolves at the interface
of regions C and D, the segregated layers occupy inverted
positions in the column (region D).
This model does not fully predict the layer inversion phe-
nomenon, as observed by Moritomi et al. (1982) however,
since the mixture initially forms at the top of the column,
and moves to the bottom once ucritical has been exceeded, yet
we know that the mixture always occupied the bottom zone
of the column in the experiments. Based on the :ndings of
Moritomi et al. (1982), we would expect the real mixture
curve to intersect the pure phase curves somewhere in the
vicinity of ucritical , as we see in type [2], but it would be
located above the pure phase curves at all velocity points.
In type [2] mixing behavior, the &uid velocity range (of
the set) includes ucritical , and layer inversion can be viewed as
the incremental movement of the system from mixing state
to mixing state (with incremental changes in &uid velocity)
such that, when the mixture dissolves, the super:cial &uid
velocity, us , is greater than ucritical , and the segregated lay-
ers now occupy inverted positions in the column. The point
of complete mixing or the &uid velocity, which a6ords a
completely mixed bed, is therefore the velocity point asso-
ciated with a mixture composition that is exactly equivalent
to the bulk bed composition. This leads to a dependence of
the point of complete mixing on bed composition, which is
what Moritomi et al. (1982, 1986) observed; i.e., the point
of complete mixing could be shifted upwards (or down-
wards) by adding fresh carbon to the column while main-
taining constant &uid velocity. This solution type also leads
to a mixing zone which remains unchanged (at constant &uid
velocity) when more carbon is added to the column, as was
experimentally observed by Moritomi et al. (1982, 1986).
This occurs as for a given super:cial velocity us , there is
a unique mixture composition (1o ; 2o ), and the addition
of carbon or glass to the column only has an e6ect on the
growth or decay of the mixing zone volume.
Based on type [2] model predictions, layer inversion can
only be precipitated with an increase in &uid velocity. It
is impossible to generate a re-inversion of the layers by
adjusting the ratio of particle species in the bed, while main-
taining constant &uid velocity, as Moritomi et al. (1986)
suggests. We interpret these authors :ndings as an appear-
ance of layer re-inversion; i.e., since the mixture composi-
tion does not change (at constant &uid velocity), the fresh
carbon that is added to the column is in excess of what the
mixture can tolerate. Thus, a pure layer of carbon forms on
top of the mixing zone. As more carbon is added to the col-
umn, the top zone grows in volume, and the bottom zone
takes on the appearance that it is diminishing in carbon.
Layer re-inversion is not possible, based on this model, and,
in fact, contradicts what these authors point out in their own
study, viz., the composition of the bottom mixing zone is
independent of bulk bed composition at constant &uid veloc-
ity. In order to con:rm or rule out these model predictions
further experimental work is needed.
In Fig. 10, we see a type [3] solution, describing
a non-ideal mixture of polycarbonate and polymethyl-
methacrylate in water, which forms and exists at &uid ve-
locities greater than ucritical . The bulk density of the type [3]
mixture is plotted as a function of normalized &uid velocity,
and is labeled curve [3] in this :gure. This mixture has been
predicted using the modi:ed Ergun equation. Like type [1]
behavior, type [3] behavior has not been reported experi-
mentally. The schematics of the four regions are shown in
the inset to Fig. 10. In this scenario, the system approaches
ucritical in the segregated state (region A), where the glass
occupies the bottom zone. At point w, the layers invert
position at ucritical , in the same transient manner described
in type [1] behavior; in region B the layers occupy inverted
layer positions in the column. A mixture :nally forms at
the interface of regions B and C, and grows in volume
throughout region C. The mixture eventually dissolves into
a segregated state at the interface of region D with inverted
layer positions as in region B. All of the solutions we have
discussed involve particle pairs within &uidization mediums
which have bulk layer density curves which intersect. There
are, however, numerous binary-solid systems, which do not
satisfy these criteria. In these cases it is still possible to
obtain mixing solutions but layer inversion would not occur.
5. Conclusions
This work examines a general continuum model for a
multi-particle &uidized bed, which is intended to be used as
a framework for investigating the steady state and dynamic
&ow behavior of the &uid and solid phases. We consider a
multiphase approach, which makes use of volume-averaged
mass and momentum balances for the &uid and particle
phases independently. In order to provide closure to the
equations, we adopt constitutive relationships (based upon
excluded volume assumptions) to consider the presence of
the various particle species in the mixture.
We examine the behavior of the simplest multi-particle
&uidization system: a binary mixture of spherical particles
 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226
at the state of uniform &uidization. We then postulate a clo-
sure for the &uid–particle interactive force (which dominates
the equilibrium force balance equation). The model :rst es-
tablishes a reference state describing the essential mecha-
nism of drag force apportionment between two unlike par-
ticle species in a homogeneous mixture; this reference state
is referred to as an ideal mixture. The behavior of a real
(or non-ideal) mixture is then predicted using a correction
term, which quanti:es the extent to which the real mixture
deviates from ideal mixing behavior. We :rst show how the
correction term can be derived from established drag corre-
lations from the literature, and compare model predictions of
mixing behavior (in a water-&uidized bed of glass beads and
carbon) with experimental data from the literature. These
data are then used to derive functional forms for the devia-
tion parameters within the framework of the model. These
functions are examined, and subsequently used to recover
experimental mixing behavior as model predictions. In this
way, we illustrate how a fully predictive model of the mix-
ing behavior of a speci:c binary-solid bed can be developed
using limited bed expansion and mixture composition data
from the laboratory or pilot plant.
It is shown that solution sets not only characterize the
composition and expansion behavior of all possible mix-
ing states, but also provide a qualitative description of the
observed phenomenon of layer inversion based upon solu-
tion structure alone. This phenomenon has been observed in
liquid-&uidized beds when there exists a potential for seg-
regated layers of heavy and small and light and large par-
ticles to invert vertical positions in a &uidized beds. This
model identi:es three possible mechanisms of layer inver-
sion, one of which has been reported extensively in the lit-
erature. Using predictions of non-ideal mixing behavior, we
illustrate how layer inversions observed by Moritomi et al.
(1982, 1986) can be viewed as an incremental movement of
the &uidized system through a :nite number of steady state
mixing regimes (with incremental changes in &uid velocity)
such that, when the mixture dissolves, the segregated layers
of particles occupy inverted positions in the column. More-
over, the point of complete mixing is the velocity point as-
sociated with a mixture composition that is exactly equiva-
lent to the bulk bed composition. The model equations also
include solution sets where layer inversion occurs at a point.
In order to con:rm (or rule out) these model predictions,
further experimental work is needed.
In our work we have assumed an immediate transition
from a monocomponent layer to a mixture layer. In practice
there would presumably be a transition zone over which
mixing of the two separate layers took place. In such a zone
there could be gradients in the granular temperature and
pressure which could have an e6ect on the composition of
the layers. For a bubbling gas-&uidized bed, Van Wachem
et al. (2001) have put forward that gradients in the granular
temperature and pressure can be a driving force for layer
inversion. This suggests that further work is needed in order
to examine these e6ects in liquid-&uidized beds. In addition
4225
we have not accounted for voidage non-uniformities and
the e6ect that these would have on mixing or segregation.
Further work should examine the stability of the computed
uniform states and study the resulting instabilities and their
e6ect on bed behavior. In such an analysis the solid phase
stress for the mixture plays a key role and must be accounted
for. Finally, further work is needed on modeling &uidized
beds with three or more constituents.
References
Abrahamsen, A. R., & Geldart, D. (1980). Behaviour of gas &uidized
beds of :ne powders. Powder Technology, 26, 35–55.
Agarwal, J. C., & Davis, W. L. (1966). The dynamics of &uidization of
iron and its ores. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series,
62(67), 101–110.
Anderson, T. B., & Jackson, R. (1967). A &uid mechanical description
of &uidized beds: Equations of motion. Industrial and Chemistry
Engineering Fundamentals, 6, 527–534.
Anderson, T. B., & Jackson, R. (1968). A &uid mechanical description of
&uidized beds: Stability of the state of uniform &uidization. Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 7, 12–21.
Anderson, K., Sundaresan, S., & Jackson, R. (1995). Instabilities and the
formation of bubbles in &uidized beds. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
303, 327–366.
Arastoopour, H., Lin, S.C., & Gidaspow, D. (1980). Hydrodynamic
analysis of pneumatic transport of a mixture of two particle sizes, In T.
N. Veziroglu, (Ed.), Multiphase transport, Vol. 4 (pp. 1853–1871).
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Arastoopour, H., Lin, S. C., & Weil, S. A. (1982). Analysis of
vertical pneumatic conveying of solids using multiphase &ow models.
A.I.Ch.E. Journal, 28, 467–473.
Asif, M. (1998). Generalized Richardson–Zaki correlation for liquid
&uidization of binary solids. Chemical Engineering Technology, 21,
77–82.
Berryman, J. G. (1982). Random close-packing of hard spheres and disks.
Physical Review A, 27, 1053–1062.
Churchill, S. W. (1974). The interpretation and use of rate data: The
rate concept. Washington DC: Scripta Publishing Co.
Davis, R. H., & Gecol, H. (1994). Hindered settling function with no
empirical parameters for polydisperse suspensions. A.I.Ch.E. Journal,
40, 570–575.
deGroot, J. H. (1967). Scaling-up of gas-&uidized bed reactors. In: A. A.
H. Drinkenburg (Ed.), Proceedings of the international symposium on
>uidization (pp. 348–361). Amsterdam: Netherlands University Press.
Detamore, M. S., Swanson, M. A., Frender, K. R., & Hrenya, C. M.
(2001). A kinetic-theory analysis of the scale-up of circulating &uidized
beds. Powder Technology, 116, 190–203.
Dixon, D. C. (1980). E6ect of sludge funneling in gravity thickeners.
A.I.Ch.E. Journal, 26, 471–477.
Epstein, N., & LeClair, B. P. (1985). Liquid-&uidization of binary particle
mixtures—II. Bed inversion. Chemical Engineering Science, 40,
1517–1526.
Epstein, N., LeClair, B. P., & Pruden, B. B. (1981). Liquid-&uidization
of binary particle mixtures—I. Overall bed expansion. Chemical
Engineering Science, 36, 1803–1809.
Fan, L. S., & Zhu, C. (1998). Principles of gas–solid >ows. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Farrell, M., Lun, C. K. K., & Savage, S. B. (1986). A simple kinetic theory
for granular &ow of binary mixtures of smooth, inelastic, spherical
particles. Acta Mechanica, 63, 45–60.
Gibilaro, L. G., DiFelice, R., & Waldram, S. P. (1986). A predictive
model for the equilibrium composition and inversion of binary-solid
liquid &uidized beds. Chemical Engineering Science, 41, 379–387.
4226 M. A. Howley, B. J. Glasser / Chemical Engineering Science 57 (2002) 4209 – 4226
Gidaspow, D. (1994). Multiphase >ow and >uidization. Continuum and
kinetic theory descriptions. London: Academic Press.
Glasser, B. J., Kevrekidis, I. G., & Sundaresan, S. (1996). One-
and two-dimensional travelling wave solutions in gas-&uidized beds.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 306, 183–221.
Glasser, B. J., Kevrekidis, I. G., & Sundaresan, S. (1997). Fully developed
travelling wave solutions and bubble formation in &uidized beds.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 334, 157–188.
Hoover, H. C., & Hoover, L. H. (1922). English translation of Agricola’s
De Re Metallica. London: Mining Magazine.
Hrenya, C. M., & Sinclair, J. L. (1997). The role of particle-phase
turbulence in gas–solid &ows. A.I.Ch.E. Journal, 43, 853–869.
Jackson, R. (2000). The dynamics of >uidized particles. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Jean, R., & Fan, L. S. (1986). On the criteria of solids layer inversion in
a liquid–solid &uidized bed containing a binary mixture of particles.
Chemical Engineering Science, 41, 2811–2821.
Jenkins, J. T., & Mancini, F. (1987). Balance laws and constitutive
relations for plane &ows of a dense, binary mixture of smooth, nearly
elastic, circular disks. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 54, 27–34.
Jenkins, J. T., & Mancini, F. (1989). Kinetic theory for binary mixtures
of smooth, nearly elastic spheres. Physics of Fluids A, 1, 2050–2057.
Jenkins, J. T., & Savage, S. B. (1983). A theory for the rapid &ow of
identical, smooth, nearly elastic spherical particles. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 130, 187–202.
Kunii, D., & Levenspiel, O. (1969). Fluidization engineering. New York:
Wiley.
Kunii, D., & Levenspiel, O. (1991). Fluidization engineering. London:
Butterworth-Heineman.
Lockett, J., & Harrison, D. (1967). The distribution of voidage fraction
near bubbles rising in gas-&uidized beds. In A. A. H. Drinkenburg
(Ed.), Proceedings of the international symposium on >uidization
(pp. 257–270). Amsterdam: Netherlands University Press.
Lun, C. K. K., Savage, S. B., Je6rey, D. J., & Chepurniy, N. (1984).
Kinetic theories for granular &ow: inelastic particles in couette &ow
and slightly inelastic particles in a general &ow :eld. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 140, 223–256.
Masliyah, J. H. (1979). Hindered settling in a multi-species particle
system. Chemical Engineering Science, 34, 1166–1168.
Matsuura, A., & Akehata, T. (1985). Distribution of solid particles and
bed expansion in a liquid &uidized bed containing a binary mixture
of particles. 50th annual meeting, Society of Chemical Engineers of
Japan, Yokohama, 28–30 March, Paper C-108.
Moritomi, H., Iwase, T., & Chiba, T. (1982). A comprehensive
interpretation of solid layer inversion in liquid &uidised beds. Chemical
Engineering Science, 37, 1751–1757.
Moritomi, H., Yamagishi, T., & Chiba, T. (1986). Prediction of complete
mixing of liquid-&uidized binary solid particles. Chemical Engineering
Science, 41, 297–305.
Patwardhan, V. S., & Tien, C. (1985). Sedimentation and liquid
&uidization of solid particles of di6erent sizes and densities. Chemical
Engineering Science, 40, 1051–1060.
Prausnitz, J. M., Lichtenthaler, R. N., & de Azevedo, E. G. (1986).
Molecular thermodynamics of >uid-phase equilibria. Englewood
Cli6s, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pruden, B. B., & Epstein, N. (1964). Strati:cation by size in particulate
&uidization and in hindered settling. Chemical Engineering Science,
14, 696–700.
Richardson, J. F., & Zaki, W. N. (1954). Sedimentation and &uidisation:
Part I. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, 32, 35
–53.
Shih, Y. T., Gidaspow, D., & Wasan, D. T. (1987). Hydrodynamics of
sedimentation of multisized particles. Powder Technology, 50, 201–
215.
Syamlal, M., & O’Brien, T. J. O. (1988). Simulation of granular layer
inversion in liquid &uidized beds. International Journal of Multiphase
Flow, 14, 473–481.
Tiller, F. M. (1981). Revision of Kynch sedimentation theory. A.I.Ch.E.
Journal, 27, 823–829.
Tsinontides, S. C. (1999). A theoretical investigation of gas–solid &ow
exiting a &uidized bed into a standpipe. Powder Technology, 101, 211
–228.
Tsinontides, S., & Jackson, R. (1993). The mechanics of gas &uidized beds
with an interval of stable &uidization. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
255, 237–274.
Van Duijn, G., & Rietema, K. (1982). Segregation of liquid-&uidized
solids. Chemical Engineering Science, 37, 727–733.
Van Wachem, B. G. M., Schouten, J. C., van den Bleek, C. M., Krishna,
R., & Sinclair, J. L. (2001). CFD modeling of gas-&uidized beds with
a bimodal particle mixture. A.I.Ch.E. Journal, 47, 1292–1302.
Willits, J. T., & Arnarson, B. O. (1999). Kinetic theory of a binary
mixture of nearly elastic disks. Physics of Fluids, 11, 3116–3122.
Zenz, F.A., & Othmer, D.F. (1960). Fluidization and >uid–particle
systems (pp. 116 –127). New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp.