Matthew Walker
Katie Peterson
ii
iii
Table of Contents
Summary. v
I.
Introduction...1
II.
Theory....... 2
III. Apparatus and Procedure.. 7
IV. Results and Discussion of Results ..
10
V.
Conclusions and Recommendations ...
15
Nomenclature ... 16
References 17
Appendices
A. Raw Data 18
B. Sample Calculations ...25
C. Major Items of Equipment . 27
D. Uncertainty Analysis...28
E. MSDS Information..30
iv
List of Figures
No. Title
An example of an experimental fluidization curve
1
Sideview schematic of a small crosssectional area of the column
2
Schematic of the fluidized beds with the air flow pattern for the first
3
4
5
6
column.
The logarithm of the walnut shell pressure drop of column 3 versus the
logarithm of the volumetric fluid flow with respective error bars at 25C.
The logarithm of the unknown materials pressure drop of column 1
versus the logarithm of the volumetric fluid flow with respective error
bars at 25C.
The pressure drops of columns 1 and 3 versus the flow rate when the
columns were empty.
Page
2
3
9
11
13
13
List of Tables
No.
1
2
3
Title
Densities and average particle diameters of unknown material and
walnut shell material.
Minimum fluidization flow rates for the walnut shell material at 25C,
30C, 50C, and 70C.
Minimum fluidization flow rates for the unknown material at 25C,
30C, 50C, and 70C.
Page
8
12
14
SUMMARY
Improving the Fluidized Beds in Senior Lab
Group E:
K. Peterson, B. Grimm, M. Walker
Report Date: March 31, 2006
In this project, the members of Group E made improvements to the fluidized beds located
in Room 3250 of the Senior Lab. These improvements were based on previous
experiments, which showed that the performance of the columns could be made more
efficient.
The improvements made to the columns were:
1) Install ball valves to prevent bleedback from one column to another and to
isolate the columns so that maintenance may be performed on one while another
is being used for experimentation.
2) Install thermocouples on the remaining two columns in order to make all three
columns usable for temperature experiments.
3) Install a controller and thermocouples on heater to provide temperature control.
4) Find and test the minimum fluidization properties of two new particles (walnut
shells and unknown ceramic material) that can be used in future experiments.
Two minor improvements were made in addition to those set forth in the original
proposal:
1) Insulate the lower section of piping to decrease temperature loss from the air.
2) Remove an extraneous piece of piping.
The improvements made on the fluidized beds made the apparatus more efficient and
precise. It is estimated that experimentation time was reduced by a factor of four. It was
found that the walnut shells behaved according to theory. The ceramic material, on the
other hand, showed no clear minimum fluidization velocity. It is suspected that this is a
result of a poor distributor cap on column. Therefore, it is recommended to perform
more experiments on column 1 using other materials to validate this suspicion. Overall,
it would be beneficial to replace the distributor caps as none of the three behave the same.
Also, in order to better investigate the establishment of thermal equilibrium, a
thermocouple rod would have to be installed that extends into the particle bed.
vi
I. INTRODUCTION
Fluidized beds were developed simultaneously yet independently in America and Europe
in the 1920s. However, they were not widespread until Standard Oil used them in a
novel approach to crack petroleum in the 1930s. After this technological discovery, the
use of fluidized beds continued to increase during and after the period of World War II
[1]. Ever since the 1940s, fluidized beds have become a vital part of chemical and
combustion processes and are still researched heavily today.
Fluidized beds have applications in a wide variety of chemical reactions, such as
combustion and catalytic cracking. They are also used in physical and mechanical
processes, such as coating and drying [2]. Each application requires that different
materials be fluidized. To do so, a fluid must be blown through the material in a column.
Each material requires a minimum velocity of the fluid to fluidize. The minimum
fluidization velocity is dependent on properties of the material and the fluid. For some
materials, it is easy to predict the minimum fluidization velocity. For others, however,
the minimum fluidization velocity does not compare well with theory and must be
determined experimentally. The minimum fluidization velocity of a material can be
determined by recording the pressure drop across the column at different velocities of the
fluid. If a loglog plot of the flow rate of the fluid versus the pressure drop across the
column is made, the point at which the bed fluidizes can be read from the plot by
observing a depression in the curve [3].
The purpose of this project was to make the following improvements to the fluidized beds
in Senior Lab: install thermocouples on the first two columns to be able to perform
temperature experiments in them; put ball valves on the outlets of first two columns to
prevent fluid bleedback from one column to another; install a PID controller and
thermocouples on the heater to get more robust and desirable temperature control; and
find more unique particles that can be used in the beds.
II. THEORY
To find the minimum fluidization velocity by experimental methods, the logarithm of the
pressure drop is plotted versus the logarithm of the gas velocity. Figure 1 is an example
of such a plot, where the lower end of the curve represents a fixed bed, the middle
represents the fluidized bed, and the end of the curve represents solid transport [4]. As
the gas velocity increases at the lower end of the curve, the pressure drop across the
column increases due to the increasing particle resistance to flow. The fixed bed is
present until Point 1 is reached. According to Boterrill [5], the pressure at Point 1 is
greater than that of Point 2 because additional pressure is required to break the packing
and interlocking of the particles before fluidization can occur. Once fluidization occurs
at Point 2, the logarithm of the pressure drop does not change as a function of gas
velocity. At Point 3, the particles become entrained in the fluid and are carried from the
bed.
There exist several other approaches in determining the minimum fluidization velocity of
a fluidized bed column. The following approach is similar to that given by Davidson [6]
and Kozeny [7] and is a theoretical approach from first principles to find the minimum
velocity.
4
3
3
2
2
1
0
0
10
cf =
2 o
um2
2
(1)
Re =
and
UD
.
(2)
All symbols are defined in the Nomenclature section at the end of this document. Based
on fluid flow through the column, the volume of the passage is equal to the void volume
L* within the packed volume and the void fraction is:
=
Am
.
cos()
(3)
4 Am
.
l
(4)
Passage Area Am
Length L/cos
Figure 2: Sideview schematic of a small crosssectional area of the column used to derive the
minimum fluidization velocity. All symbols are defined in the Nomenclature section at the end of this
document.
Assuming that the surface area of the passage wall is equal to the surface of the particles,
Equation (4) can be substituted into Equation (3) to obtain the hydraulic mean diameter
of the passage as follows:
3
HD =
4
.
a
(5)
The fluid flow interstitial velocity within the passage shown in Figure 2 is:
um Am = U .
(6)
The volume flow rate through a unit crosssection of packing, using Equations (3) and (6)
then becomes:
um =
U
.
cos()
(7)
To obtain the minimum fluidization velocity, it is necessary to define the area of the
passages walls as:
Am =
Ll
.
cos()
(8)
The actual flow of the fluid is caused by the pressure gradient acting in the direction
shown in Figure 2. The pressure gradient causes a mean shear stress to act on the passage
walls, which is described from Equation (8) and is as follows:
o =
p cos( )
.
La
(9)
Substituting from Equations (7) and (9) into Equation (1) then gives the friction
coefficient for the fluid traveling through the passage:
cf =
2p 3 cos3
.
U 2 L
a
(10)
Similarly, substituting from Equations (4) and (7) into Equation (2) gives the Reynolds
number for the packing
Re =
a cos()
.
(11)
At low Reynolds numbers, the Poiseuille equation for laminar flow is given as:
cf =
16
.
Re
(12)
Substituting Equations (12) and (11) into Equation (10) yields the following equation for
the pressure drop per unit length of the column which can be used to find the minimum
fluidization velocity:
p
2 Ua 2
= 3
.
L
cos 2
(13)
However, the actual value of can be very difficult to find experimentally and the actual
value of varies depending on the column and particles used. In order to simplify
Equation (13) into a more usable form, it is necessary to define that for a bed of spheres
containing N spheres of diameter d, per unit volume, the surface area is:
a = d p2 N ,
(14)
1
3
Nd p .
6
(15)
Substituting Equations (11), (12), (13), and (14) into Equation (13) gives an intermediate
equation for the pressure drop per unit length:
p 72 U (1 )
=
.
L cos 2 ( ) d p 2 2
2
(16)
If it is assumed that the particles are spherical and that at incipient fluidization they
arrange themselves in the loosest possible mode of packing while remaining in contact
with each other, a void fraction of 0.476 can be used. Also, it was determined
experimentally by Carman [8] that the mean angle at which fluid flows is approximately
50.7. If it is recognized that at incipient fluidization the pressure drop across the column
is enough to support the weight of the particles, the following equation can be written:
P
= ( s ) g (1 ) .
L
(17)
By combining Equations (14) and (15) and using a void fraction of 0.476 and an average
value of 50.7 for , the minimum fluidization velocity equation can be found. This is the
final theoretical equation in which all parameters and variables are easily obtained:
0.00114 gd p ( s )
2
U mf =
(18)
possible to find it experimentally through the use of sieve trays. Sieve trays are used to
separate the particles into size ranges by shaking the sample through a series of sieves.
The weight of the sample on each tray is then measured and the mass fraction of each
particle size in relation to the total sample weight is calculated. The average particle
diameter for the sample can be found using the weighted average diameter equation as
follows:
d p = xi Di .
(19)
In addition, if the bulk density of the particles in the column is unknown, it is relatively
simple to find their. A measured weight of sample can be placed in a graduated cylinder
with water in it. The amount of water displaced by the sample can be measured and the
density can then be found by the following:
=
weightofsample
waterdisplaced
(20)
As stated in the Introduction section, the turbulent nature of fluidized beds leads to
excellent heat transfer properties. According to theory, thermal equilibrium is quickly
established between the gas and the particles because of the very large surface area
exposed by the small particles.
The exit piping was disassembled in order to install ball valves that would
prevent bleedback. The pipes were then cut and threaded using a Ridgid 535
pipe threader to accommodate the new valves and fit into the existing system,
seen in Figure 3. The piping was reassembled using pipe sealant and enough
force to prevent pressure loss through leaks. Each column was isolated using
the new ball valves and leaks were found by spraying soapy water on the
column to find where the air was escaping. Leaks were then fixed by
resealing the piping and retesting the system.
2. A 1/8th inch hole was drilled into the inlet and outlet of each column for typeT thermocouples to be inserted. An epoxy, Thermalbond 4952, was used to
cement each thermocouple into place. However, before installation, each
thermocouple was checked to ensure working operation. The thermocouples
were not calibrated at this time as this was done by the manufacturer.
Thermocouples were also installed on the inlet and outlet of the heater to
monitor the air temperature coming into the system and leaving the heater. A
third thermocouple was inserted into the heater outlet for use by the PID
controller. Once the epoxy was dry, all thermocouples were wired into Opto22 to allow for data acquisition.
3. Insulation was applied to the piping to reduce the heat loss from the system.
Also, an unused stagnant section of piping was removed to reduce heat losses.
The experimental procedure to test the ceramic material and walnut shells was as follows:
1. The fluidized beds were set up as per Smiths [3] instructions and as outlined
above. The tests were performed on one column at a time, where each column
was isolated from the others by closing the exit stream ball valves of the two
unused columns.
2. The pressure drop across each empty column had to be subtracted from the
experimental pressure drops to account for the pressure drop caused by the
distributor cap. Therefore, the pressure drop of each empty column had to be
measured at various flow rates before any material could be added to the
column. Figure 6 shows the resulting plot of the pressure drop of the empty
columns versus flow rate for the first and third columns.
3. The densities and diameters of the bed particles had to be determined to make
theoretical calculations. The density was determined by weighing a certain
amount of material. Then, that amount of material was added to a known
volume of water and the amount of water displaced was noted. The density
was found by dividing the weight of the sample by the water displaced. The
particle diameter was determined by shaking a sample through a series of
sieve trays. The particle size distribution was determined by weighing the
amount of sample deposited on each sieve tray. The average particle diameter
was then determined from the resulting particle size distribution. The densities
and particle diameters of the two materials are summarized in Table 1.
4. The flow rate of air was varied from 150 to 400 SCFH in increments of 10
SCFH at room temperature. At each flow rate, the pressure drop across the
column was recorded. Each material was tested at least two times to obtain
statistics for the experiment. A loglog plot like Figure 1 was then prepared
from the data (see Figures 4 and 5).
5. The air was then heated. The Opto22 data acquisition system was used to
record the temperature continuously. Step 4 was repeated at 30, 50 and 70C
to find the dependence of the minimum fluidization flow rate on temperature
(see Appendix A for additional plots).
The density and viscosity of air were required to calculate the theoretical
minimum fluidization volumetric flow rate of each material at different temperatures.
Incropera [9] lists several thermophysical properties of air, including density and
viscosity, at a range of temperatures. These values were used in the theoretical
calculations.
Table 1: Densities and average particle diameters of glass beads and course gravel.
Material
Ceramic
Walnut Shells
9.00x104
753.2
Figure 3: Schematic of the fluidized beds with the air flow pattern for the first column.
10
Before the experiments could be run, the effect of the distributor cap on the pressure drop
of columns 1 and 3 was determined by finding the pressure drop across each column
when it was empty. This data is shown in Tables A1 and A2. The data was then used
to normalize the experimental data as proscribed above.
The walnut shells were placed in column 3 and the unknown material was placed in
column 1. Figure 4 shows the resulting data for the walnut shells at 25C. This plot
shows the logarithm of the pressure drop versus the logarithm of the fluid volumetric
flow rate with the associated error bars. From the graph, the minimum fluidization flow
rate was found to be 340 40 SCFH. This value was then compared with theory by
employing Equation (18). Using this equation with a density of 753.2kg/m 3 and a
particle diameter of 0.90 mm, it was found that the theoretical minimum fluidization
velocity of the walnut shells at 25C was 365 29 SCFH, which is surprisingly close to
the experimental minimum flow rate value.
ln(dP) vs ln(SCFH) @ 25C
0
5.6
5.65
5.7
5.75
5.8
5.85
5.9
5.95
6.05
6.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
ln(dP)
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
ln(SCFH)
Figure 4: The logarithm of the walnut shell pressure drop of column 3 versus the logarithm of the
volumetric fluid flow with respective error bars at 25C.
The minimum fluidization flow rate of the walnut shells was also found experimentally at
temperatures of 30C, 50C, and 70C. Figures A3 through A5 show the logarithm of
the pressure drops of column 3 versus the logarithm of the volumetric flow at elevated
temperatures with the associated error bars. From these figures, the minimum fluidization
velocities of the walnut shells at the elevated temperatures were found and are shown in
Table 2. As seen, these values correlate quite well with theory. Overall, the
experimental and theoretical velocities decrease with increasing fluid temperature. This
is due to the increase of viscosity of the air with increasing temperature, which effect is
supported by the viscosity in the denominator as shown in Equation (18).
Table 2: Minimum fluidization flow rates for the walnut shell material at 25C, 30C, 50C, and 70C.
11
Experimental
Values
340 40
320 40
310 40
300 40
Theoretical
Values
366 29
355 39
342 38
320 36
The next material analyzed was an unknown greywhite ceramic material. Figure 5
shows the resulting data for the unknown material at 25C using column 1. The data for
30C, 50C, and 70C are found in Figures A4, A5 and A6. It was difficult to obtain
the minimum fluidization flow rate From Figure 5. As seen, there is not a definite trend
on the graph where the pressure drop lowers to indicate the release of the material from
the packing. One of the possible reasons for this effect is that the material was rather
porous. While attempting to measure the density of this particle, it was found that the
material absorbed a large amount of water. It is possible that the many pores of the
particle affected the minimum flow rate by altering the flow through the particle and
causing a limited pressure drop.
Another possibility is that the distributor cap data for column 1 was much different than
the data for column 3. Figure 6 shows a graph of the distributor cap data for columns 1
and 3. As seen, the slope of column 1 is much flatter than column 3, which would affect
the result because changes in data would be smoothed more for column 1 than for column
3. This would make a determination of minimum fluidization flow rate more difficult
using column 1. Therefore, further experimentation should be done on column 1 using
other materials to see if the distributor cap does in fact smooth the data.
However, based on the subtle pressure drop changes, experimental minimum fluidization
velocities were assumed. These assumptions are subject to significant error and may not
be minimum fluidization flow rates at all. Table 3 shows the experimental minimum
fluidization flow rates as well as the theoretical minimum fluidization flow rates at 25C,
30C, 50C, and 70C. The density was assumed to be 400kg/m3 because it was
significantly lighter than the walnut shells. The density was not measured experimentally
because the unknown material would absorb much water, thus affecting the results.
Table 3: Minimum fluidization flow rates for the unknown material at 25C, 30C, 50C, and 70C.
12
Experimental
Values
320 200
340 200
320 200
NA
Theoretical
Values
366 29
358 28
345 28
323 26
0.4
0.2
0
ln(dP)
4.8
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
ln(SCFH)
Figure 5: The logarithm of the unknown materials pressure drop of column 1 versus the logarithm of the
volumetric fluid flow with respective error bars at 25C.
Distributor Cap Pressure Drop
3.50
3.00
y = 0.0049x + 0.0505
2
R = 0.9962
2.50
2.00
Column 3
Column 1
Linear (Column 3)
Linear (Column 1)
1.50
1.00
y = 0.0032x  0.0007
2
R = 0.9955
0.50
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.50
SCFH
Figure 6: The pressure drops of columns 1 and 3 versus the flow rate when the columns were empty.
13
If the subtle changes do indicate minimum flow rates, then the data matches surprisingly
well. However, due to the many uncertainties in this analysis, it is recommended to
perform more experiments using column 1 with other materials to see if the distributor
cap does affect the results significantly.
14
15
Nomenclature
Symbol
a
Am
cf
Di
dH
dp
g
HD
l
L
N
Re
U
Um
um
xi
Definition
Units
Greek
p
16
Pa
kg/m*s
kg/m3
kg/m3
References
[1] University of WA webpage: faculty.washington.edu/finlayso/Fluidized_Bed/FBRIntro/history_fbr.htm
[2] Azbel, D. S., and N. P. Cheremisinoff, 1983, Fluid Mechanics and Unit Operations, Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 914.
[3] Smith, G. D., Fluidization Experiment, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, February 1986.
[4] Zenz, F.A., and Othmer, D.F. Fluidization and FluidParticles Systems, Reinhold Publishing (1960)
[5] Botterill, J.S.M., FluidBed Heat Transfer, Academic Press (1975)
[6] Davidson, J.F., and Harrison, D., Fluidized Particles, Cambridge University Press (1963)
[7] Kozeny, J. Uber kapillare Leitung des Wassers im Boden, S.B. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Abt. IIa (1927)
[8] Carman, P.C. Flow of Gases Through Porous Media, Trans. Instn Chem. Engrs, Lond., 15, 150 (1956)
[9] Incropera, F. P., and D. P. DeWitt, 2002, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 917.
17
18
Table A3: The pressure drop of column 3 as a function of flow rate and temperature for
the walnut shell material.
Flow
Run #1 Run #2 Run #1 Run #2 Run #1 Run #2 Run #1 Run #2
Rate,
@25C @25C @30C @30C @50C @50C @75C @75C
SCFH
250
1.70
1.68
260
1.66
1.67
1.72
1.72
270
1.67
1.68
1.77
1.79
280
1.66
1.65
1.68
1.67
1.73
1.73
1.84
1.86
290
1.67
1.67
1.7
1.7
1.78
1.80
1.93
1.95
300
1.73
1.73
1.75
1.75
1.85
1.89
1.99
1.99
310
1.78
1.79
1.81
1.80
1.90
1.92
2.05
2.05
320
1.84
1.84
1.86
1.84
1.97
1.98
2.10
2.11
330
1.88
1.88
1.90
1.90
2.02
2.03
2.17
2.17
340
1.93
1.93
1.97
1.96
2.08
2.08
2.24
2.25
350
2.01
2.0
2.02
2.02
2.14
2.16
2.29
2.30
360
2.07
2.08
2.07
2.10
2.21
2.23
2.36
2.37
370
2.14
2.14
2.16
2.17
2.27
2.29
2.40
2.42
380
2.19
2.21
2.23
2.22
2.36
2.35
2.47
2.48
390
2.26
2.27
2.29
2.28
2.42
2.40
400
2.32
2.31
2.34
2.34
410
2.37
2.36
2.39
2.40
420
2.41
2.41
2.43
2.44
430
2.49
2.46
2.50
2.50

19
Table A4: The pressure drop of column 1 as a function of flow rate and temperature for
the unknown material.
Flow
Run #1 Run #2 Run #1 Run #2 Run #1 Run #2 Run #1 Run #2
Rate,
@25C @25C @30C @30C @50C @50C @75C @75C
SCFH
150
0.29
0.33
0.28
0.27
0.31
0.33
0.33
0.33
160
0.31
0.34
0.28
0.29
0.33
0.34
0.35
0.33
170
0.34
0.36
0.31
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.37
0.35
180
0.35
0.37
0.33
0.35
0.36
0.36
0.39
0.38
190
0.37
0.40
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.38
0.42
0.40
200
0.39
0.42
0.36
0.37
0.39
0.40
0.44
0.43
210
0.41
0.44
0.37
0.39
0.42
0.42
0.46
0.46
220
0.43
0.48
0.40
0.41
0.44
0.45
0.48
0.47
230
0.44
0.50
0.44
0.43
0.46
0.47
0.49
0.50
240
0.47
0.52
0.46
0.46
0.48
0.49
0.51
0.52
250
0.48
0.54
0.48
0.48
0.50
0.50
0.53
0.55
260
0.50
0.57
0.51
0.49
0.51
0.53
0.57
0.56
270
0.52
0.59
0.53
0.51
0.53
0.55
0.59
0.59
280
0.55
0.60
0.55
0.53
0.56
0.57
0.62
0.62
290
0.58
0.63
0.56
0.56
0.60
0.60
0.64
0.65
300
0.60
0.65
0.58
0.58
0.64
0.62
0.66
0.68
310
0.63
0.67
0.61
0.60
0.66
0.65
0.69
0.70
320
0.64
0.68
0.63
0.63
0.67
0.66
0.72
0.71
330
0.66
0.70
0.65
0.65
0.69
0.69
0.73
0.73
340
0.68
0.72
0.67
0.66
0.72
0.71
0.75
0.75
350
0.70
0.74
0.69
0.69
0.74
0.74
0.76
0.76
360
0.73
0.76
0.72
0.70
0.76
0.77
370
0.76
0.78
0.74
0.72
0.79
0.79
380
0.78
0.80
0.76
0.75
0.81
0.82
Table A5: Sievetray data for the walnut shells.
Particle
Sample
Mass
Size, m
Weight, kg
Fraction
1397
0.02
3.7
991
0.38
70.04
850
0.12
22.20
701
0.01
1.85
600
0
0
425
0
0
Bottom
0.01
1.85
Sum
0.54
1
20
1
5.6
5.65
5.7
5.75
5.8
5.85
5.9
5.95
6.05
6.1
1.1
ln(dP)
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
ln(SCFH)
Figure A1: The logarithm of the walnut shells pressure drop of column 3 versus the
logarithm of the volumetric fluid flow with respective error bars at 30C.
21
0.75
5.5
5.55
5.6
5.65
5.7
5.75
5.8
5.85
5.9
5.95
0.8
0.85
0.9
ln(dP)
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
ln(SCFH)
Figure A2: The logarithm of the walnut shells pressure drop of column 3 versus the
logarithm of the volumetric fluid flow with respective error bars at 50C.
0.5
5.45
5.5
5.55
5.6
5.65
5.7
5.75
5.8
5.85
5.9
5.95
0.55
0.6
0.65
ln(dP)
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
ln(SCFH)
Figure A3: The logarithm of the walnut shells pressure drop of column 3 versus the
logarithm of the volumetric fluid flow with respective error bars at 70C.
22
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
ln(dP)
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
ln(SCFH)
Figure A4: The logarithm of the unknown materials pressure drop of column 1 versus
the logarithm of the volumetric fluid flow with respective error bars at 30C.
0.6
0.4
ln(dP)
0.2
0
4.8
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
ln(SCFH)
Figure A5: The logarithm of the unknown materials pressure drop of column 1 versus
the logarithm of the volumetric fluid flow with respective error bars at 50C.
23
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
ln(dP)
0.1
0
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
ln(SCFH)
Figure A6: The logarithm of the unknown materials pressure drop of column 1 versus
the logarithm of the volumetric fluid flow with respective error bars at 70C.
24
Once the mass fractions are found, Equation (19) is used to find the average particle
diameter.
0.991 * 0.704 + 0.85 * 0.222 + 0.701 * 0.0185 + 0.6 * 0 + 0.425 * 0 = 0.899 m
kg
kg
m
kg
1.836 105
ms
(From Equation 18).
= 0.371
m
s
The minimum fluidization volumetric flow rate can then be found from the minimum
fluidization velocity.
25
0.371
s
0.3048 ft
26
27
1.836 10 5
= 0.0357 m/s
The error continues to propagate when finding the minimum fluidization flow rate:
m
s * 3600 s 0.1625 2 ft 2 = 35SCFH
ft
hr
0.3048
m
0.0357
Experimental Error:
Due to the graphical nature of the error bars, the experimental error was found
graphically using a spreadsheet.
Particle Size Error
Because there was an insufficient number of sieve trays close enough in diameter,
the error was analyzed using a spreadsheet. The error was found to be 100m for the
walnut shells and 100m for the unknown material.
28
Temperature Errors
It was assumed that the error incurred in these thermocouples was approximately
2.0C because the Omega website stated that for Ktype thermocouples the error was
0.7C. This was verified by looking on the control screen and noticing that the different
in temperatures from the top and the bottom of the columns.
29
Section I
IDENTITY: (As used on label and list) WALNUT SHELL
Manufacturers Name:
Emergency Telephone Number:
Address:
Telephone for Information:
EcoShell, Inc.
(530) 8248794 or (530) 5291585
5230 Grange Road, Corning, CA 96021
(530) 8248794
Section III
Boiling Point
Vapor Pressure (MM Hg)
Vapor Density (Air 1)
Solubility in water:
Odor and appearance:
Flash Point:
Flammable limits:
Media used in extinguishing:
Special fire fighting procedure:
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.2
N/A
N/A
Stability:
Incompatibility (Materials to avoid)
Stable
None
30
Hazardous Polymerization:
None
PROPERTIES:
Dual Screen Aggregates have the following characteristics
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
1.2 1.4
46
39%
380
HARDNESS VICKERS NO
2530
MOHS SCALE
34
2274
GSA Specification:
AA1722
Type 2
Military Specification:
MILG5634
Type 3
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
0.10
Nitrogen
40/60
Cellulose
20/30
Lignin
0.5/1.0
Toluene Solubility
6.5
Methoxyl
0.10
Chlorine
1.5
Ash
1.0
Cutin
31
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.