Thesis 15

MASS TRANSFER OF NAPHTHALENE FROM
AN IMMERSED SURFACE TO A SAND-AIR

FLUIDIZED BED
A Thesis
Submitted to the College of Engineering
of Nahrain University in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
in
Chemical Engineering
by
Zahra,a Hamid Mohammed
(B. Sc. In Chemical Engineering 2004)
Dhu Al-hijja 1428
December 2007
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this thesis entitled “Mass Transfer of Naphthalene from
an Immersed Surface to a Sand-Air Fluidized Bed” was prepared by
“Zahra,a Hamid Mohammed” under my supervision at Nahrain

University/College of Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science in Chemical Engineering.
Signature:
Name:
Dr. Kamal Shakir
Abdulmasih
( Supervisor )
Date:
9/ 1 /2008
Signature:
Name:
Date: 9 / 1 / 2008
Summary
Fluidization process is widely used by a great assortment of industries

worldwide and represents a trillion dollar industry [6]. They are currently
used in separation, classification, drying and mixing of particles, chemical
reactions and regeneration processes; one of these processes is the mass
transfer from an immersed surface to a gas fluidized bed.
Mass transfer coefficient is a diffusion rate constant that relates the
mass transfer rate, mass transfer area, and concentration gradient as driving
force. It can be estimated from many different theoretical equations,
correlations, and analogies that are functions of material properties.
A Q.V.F. glass column was used in this investigation, with 8 cm inside
diameter and 70 cm in long. An empirical correlation was developed for mass
transfer of naphthalene vapor into air-sand fluidized bed by experimental
studying of many variables. These variables are: temperature (39-66ْC), air
velocity (1.2-1.4 Umf), and sand particle size (215,165,112.5 µ m ).

( ρ p − ρ ) ρ g (ψ d p ) C 2 (ψ d p )(G − G mf ) C 3
Sh = She + C1[ ] [ ]
(G − G mf )2 µ
In which C1 = 16.8574, C2 = 0.07497, and C3 = 0.1284.

With an average absolute error = ± 1.54 %.
Where Sherwood number is: * Inversely proportional with particle size.
*Directly proportional with fluid flow.
* Inversely proportional with temperature.
A mathematical model for mass transfer from an immersed surface to a
mass capacity fluidized bed was presented and compared with the
experimental results of this work and previous works.
I
List of Contents
Contents Page
Abstract I
List of Contents 5
Notations V
List of Tables X
List of Figures XI
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: Literature Survey

2.1 Fluidization 3
2.1.1 Merits and Demerits of Fluidization Technique 4
2.1.2 Types of Fluidization 5
2.1.3 Types of Gas Distributor 5
2.1.4 Minimum Fluidizing Velocity 6
2.2 Factors Affecting the Rate of Mass Transfer 9
2.3 Mass Transfer from Particle to Gas Stream 11
2.4 Mass Transfer in Fixed Bed 12
2.5 Mass Transfer in Fluidized Bed 14
2.6 Mass Transfer from an Immersed Object to Fluidizing 17
Bed
II
Chapter Three: Model of Mass Transfer from an
Immersed Surface to a Mass Capacity Fluidized Bed
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Theories of Mass Transfer from an Immersed Surface 23
to a High Mass Capacity Fluidized Bed 25
3.2.1 Modified Packet Theory 25
3.2.2 Simplified Packet Theory 29
Chapter Four: Experimental Work

4.1 General Description of Flow System 34
4.1.1 Air Compressor 34
4.1.2 Air Flow Meter 34
4.1.3 Fluidization Column 35
4.1.4 Pressure Manometer 35
4.1.5 Bed Material 35
4.1.6 Immersed Work piece 35
4.1.7 Heating Equipment 36
4.1.8 Temperature Measurement Device 36
4.2 Experimental Procedure 39
4.2.1 Determination of Minimum Fluidizing Velocity 39
4.2.2 Mass Transfer in Empty Bed 39
4.2.3 Mss Transfer in Fluidized Bed 40
4.3 Correlation of Experimental Results 41
III
Chapter Five: Results and Discussion
5.1 Correlation of Results 45
5.2 Comparison of |Experimental Results with Previous 47
Works and model
Chapter Six: Conclusions and Recommendations

for Future work
6.1 Conclusions. 63
6.2 Recommendations for Future Work. 64
References 65
Appendixes
Appendix A Minimum Fluidization.
IV
Notations
Symbols Notations Units
as = Proportionally factor m2/ s
bs = Packing factor
Cb = Bulk concentration. mole / m3
Cf = Specific heat of gas J / kg. K
Cm , C m = Relative and mean relative mass capacity
respectively
Cmf ,Cms = Specific mass capacity of gas and particles kg / kg
respectively
Cs = Concentration at the surface. mole /m3
Cp = Carbon potential of carburizing gaseous -

d = Diameter of the bed. m
dp = Fluidizing particle diameter. m
D , Db = Effective diffusivity iv a packet and in a m2 / s

bubble respectively
Df = Molecular diffusivity in a gas m2 / s
Ds , Ds = Effective and mean effective diffusivity in a m2 / s
particle respectively
Dt = Transverse dispersion coefficient. -
Dv = Diffusivity of transferable component. m2 /s
Dv0 = Diffusivity of transferable component at 0 0C. m2/s
e = Void fraction. -
emf = Minimum void fraction. -
V
Symbols Notations Units
fο = Hydrodynamic parameter -
Fr = Froude number. u 2 / dp g -
g = Gravitational force. m/s2
G = Gas mass velocity. kg /m2. s
Gmf = Gas mass minimum velocity. kg/m2. s
h = Heat transfer coefficient. J /s.m2.K
hf = Surface-to-gas heat transfer coefficient W /m2. K

jd = Mass transfer factor. -
kxp = Surface-to-packet mass transfer coefficient kg / m2. s

related to 1-X0/Xw
ky = Mass transfer coefficients related to Yw-Y0 kg / m2.s
ky' = Surface-to-inert bed mass transfer coefficient kg / m2.s
kyb' = Surface-to-bubble mass transfer coefficient kg / m2.s
kyf = Surface-to-gas mass transfer coefficient kg / m2.s
kyp = Surface-to-packet mass transfer coefficient kg / m2.s
kyp' = Surface-to-packet mass transfer coefficient kg / m2.s
kys = Gas-to-particle mass transfer coefficient kg / m2.s
kθ p = Surface-to-packet mass transfer coefficient kg / m2.s
related to θw − θο
Kg = Mass transfer coefficient. m/s
Kge = Mass transfer coefficient between the surface m/s

and fluid.
ms = Particle mass m s = π d s3 ρs / 6 kg
VI
M = Molecular weight. g/mole
Ms = Mass capacity of particles m3 / kg

N = Total surface-to-bed mass flux kg/m2.s
N' = Connective component of N kg / m2.s

Np, N pτ = Time-averaged and instantaneous mass flux kg / m2.s
respectively
Nu = Nuselt number. h ds / k -
Pi = Partial pressure at the surface. mm Hg
Ps = Saturation partial pressure. mm Hg
Rmp, Rmw = Mass transfer packet and contact resistance m2. s /kg
respectively
Rep = Reynolds number based on the diameter of the -
inert particles. ρud p / µ
Sc = Schmidt number. µ / ρ Dv -
Sh = Sherwood number. kg ds / Dv -
She = Sherwood number in empty bed. -
t = Temperature. ْC
t0,tw = Bed and immersed surface temperature ْC

respectively
tref = Reference temperature. ْC
Ts = Surface temperature. K
u = Superficial gas velocity m/ s

VII
U = Gas velocity. m/s
Umf = Minimum fluidizing velocity. m/s
X = Concentration of solid(mass of transferred kg/kg

substance per unit mass of inert solid)
X0 = Particle concentration in bulk medium of a bed kg/kg
Xr = Local concentration in a particle kg/kg
Xr=ds/2 = Concentration at a particle surface kg/kg
Xw = Particle concentration in equilibrium with an kg/kg
immersed surface
Y = Concentration of gas (mass of transferred kg/kg
substance per unit mass of inert gas
Y0 = Gas concentration in bulk medium of a bed kg/kg
Yr=ds/2 = Gas concentration in equilibrium with Xr=ds/2 kg/kg
Yw = Gas concentration in equilibrium with an kg/kg
immersed surface
Greek Letters
∆Pb = Bed pressure drop. mm Hg
∆pd = Distributor pressure drop. mm Hg
∆pt = Total pressure drop. mm Hg
µ = Viscosity. kg/ s.m
µο = Viscosity at 0 0C. kg/s.m
ρ = Gas density. kg/m3
ψ = Sphericity. π d p2 / aext -
VIII
ρf , ρs = Gas and particle density respectively kg/m3
δ = Carbon transfer coefficient m/s
α = Parameter of the simplified packet model -
λmp = Effective mass conductivity for a packet kg / m.s
θ = Mass transfer potential (X/Xw) Potential
unit
θο = Potential in bulk medium of a bed Potential
unit
θw = Potential at an immersed contact time and its mean
value respectively Potential
unit
τ = Time s
τ b ,τ b = Bubble residence contact time and its mean value s
respectively
τ p ,τ p = Packet residence contact time and its mean value s
respectively
εp = Packet porosity -
Subscripts
b Bubble
e Equilibrium
f Gas
m Mass (minimum)
0 Bulk medium of a fluidized bed
s Solid(particle)
w Immersed surface
IX
List of Tables
Table Title Page
(4.1) Properties of Sand Particles. 33
(4.2) Conditions of Mass Transfer 36
(5.1) Comparison of the Orders of Magnitude of The experimental 50

Parameters.
(5.2) Selected of Data Sheet for Experiment of Mass Transfer in 52
Empty Bed, (for experiment no. 1).
Empty Bed, (for Experiment no. 7).
Empty Bed, (for experiment no. 15).
Fluidized Bed, (for experiment no. 1).
X
List of Figures
Figure Title Page
(2.1) Types of Fluidization 5
(2.2) Types of Gas Distributor 6
(2.3) Minimum Fluidizing Velocity 7
(2.4) Air-Velocity Bed Pressure Drop for Silica Sand (375 9

micron)
(2.5) Pressure Drop Across Fixed and Fluidized Bed as a 13
Function of Fluid Velocity
(2.6) (jd) Factor for the Transfer of Naphthalene Vapor to Air in 16
Fixed and Fluidized Beds
(2.7) Relationship Between jd and Reynolds Number of the 21
Particles in Packed and Fluidized Beds
(4.1) Diagram of the Experimental Equipment 37
(4.2) Photographic Picture of the Experiment 38
(5.1) Comparison of Experimental Data with The Packet Theory 48

Systems.
(5.2) Correlation for Mass Transfer in Empty Bed. 55
(5.3) Experimental Sh. vs. Temperature at Air Flow Rate = 1.2 55

Umf.
(5.4) Experimental Sh. vs. Temperature at Air Flow Rate = 1.4 56
Umf.
(5.5) Experimental Sh. vs. Air Flow rate at Temperature = 51 0C. 56
XI
(5.6) A Comparison of Equation 4.9 With the Experimental Data. 57
Figure Title Page
(5.7) A Comparison of Equation 4.10 With the Experimental 57
Data.
(5.8) Effect of Temperature on Calculated Sh. No. At Particle Size 58
215 microns.
(5.9) Effect of Temperature on Calculated Sh. No. At Particle 58
Size 165 microns.
(5.10) Effect of Temperature on Calculated Sh. No. At Particle 59
Size 112.5 microns.
(5.11) Effect of Air Flow Rate on Calculated Sh. No. At Particle Size 59
215 microns.
165 microns.
112.5 microns.
(5.14) Effect of Sand Particle Size on Calculated Sh. No. at 61
Temperature = 39 ْC.
(5.15) 61
Effect of Sand Particle Size on Calculated Sh. No. at
(5.16) 62
(5.17) Temperature = 55 ْC. 62

XII
Chapter One
Introduction
Fluidization is an important chemical process, and it use opened a wide

range of possibilities for improving various industrial technologies especially
operations that deal with mass transfer [1].
There were so many studies carried out by various workers on the gas-
solid fluidized bed operations field, to study the mass transfer and to find the
best conditions of carrying them out, and to find out the effects of the large
number of variables on the rate of mass transfer. This led researchers to
suggest various modes that control the rate of mass transfer and its behavior.
Accordingly, it can be seen that there is a large disagreement between them
and that can be seen clearly from the combination of these results that there is
a high percentage of disagreement in the results [2].
In early applications, the fluid flowed through a static bed of granules
supported on a grid. Provided the material is suitable, great improvement in
mixing and contact is achieved if the granule size is properly matched to the
upward velocity of the fluid. If they are matched well, the particles of material
will be supported by the drag forces. When this occurs, the bed is said to be
"fluidized'' [3].
Gas solid fluidization has a wide range of industrial applications like
catalytic reactions, combustion, gasification, fluid bed coating of wall or
dipped surface, dehumidification of large surfaces, granulation, and drying of
wood etc.. In a number of these applications, the feed is not of uniform size
and also there could be reduction in size due to attrition and during operation.
These lead to entrainment and also limitation of operating velocity [4].
1
The transfer rate, mass and heat transfer, from an object to a gas stream
affected by the thickness of the boundary layer around the objects, so the
transfer rate can be increased by immersing the object in a fluidized bed in
which the solid particles will disrupt the boundary layer.
A number of correlations for mass transfer in fluidized beds have been
proposed. Most of these involve a single-line relationship between the
Reynolds number and the product of Sherwood number multiplied by some
power of the Schmidt number. Earlier correlations define the Sherwood and
Schmidt numbers arbitrarily; therefore the variables in bed geometry are not
properly account for. Recent correlations are in good agreement with most of
the reliable liquid-solid data reported thus far. For gas-solid systems,
however, they leave much y to be desired [5].
A study of the gas-solid system presupposes knowledge of all factors
involved, such as fluid properties, fluidized properties, and nature of the flow,
as well as the effect of each on the others.
The objective of this work is: determine the dependence of mass
transfer coefficient on fluidized bed variables. The mass transfer coefficient
can be predicted from the knowledge of mass transfer coefficient in the
absence of fluidizing particles, plus a term that describes the effect of
fluidizing solid particles on transfer rate coefficients.
2
Chapter Two
Literature Survey
2.1 Fluidization
Fluidization can be defined as the process by which solid particles are

transformed into a fluid like-state via suspension in a fluid (gas or liquid) [6].
If a fluid passes upwards through the bed, pressure drop across the bed
will be directly proportional to the rate of gas at low flow rates. But when the
fractional drag on particles becomes equal to their apparent weight particles
rearrange so that they offer less resistance to the flow fluid and the bed starts
to expand [7].
If the velocity is increased still further, the individual particles separate
from one another and become free supported in fluid and the bed is said to be
fluidized. Further increase in the velocity causes the particles to separate still
further from one another and that results in different bed behavior depending
on whether the fluidizing agent is a liquid or gas [8].
Fluidized bed processes can be broadly characterized in to two types:
physical or chemical. Physical processes are concerned with heat or mass
transfer such as the drying of solids. Chemical processes deal with catalytic or
transformation reactions such as combustion processes or catalytic cracking.
The immersed bodies can be classed as a physical fluidized bed.
Kaneko et al., 1999[9], and Rhodes et al, 2001[10], Kafui et al., 2002
[11], studied the general characteristics of a fluidized bed, such as the gradual
change in particle characteristics and size distribution in the bed, and also
studied the impact of inter particle forces on fluidization.
3
The size of solid particles which can be fluidized varies greatly from
less than 1 micron to 2.5 inch. It's generally concluded that particles
distributed in size between 65 mesh and 10 microns are the best for smooth
fluidization (least formation of large bubbles) [12].
2.1.1 Merits and Demerits of Fluidization Technique
In this work the advantages and disadvantages of the technique of

fluidization was summarized [1]:
The advantages are:
1- Ease of handling.
2- Nearly isothermal behavior due to excellent solids mixing.
3- High heat and mass transfer rates.
4- Excellent suitability to large-scale operations.
The disadvantages are:

1- Fluid throughput rates are limited to the range over which the bed is
fluidized. If the velocity is much higher than Umf, there can be excessive
loss of material carried out from the bed and there may also be acceptable
particle damage due to excessive operating velocity.
2- The pumping power supplied to fluidize the bed can be excessive for very
large, deep beds.
3- Size and type of particles which can be handled by this technique are
limited.
4- Due to the complexity of fluidized bed behavior, there are often difficulties
in attempting to scale-up smaller scale to industrial units.
4
2.1.2 Types of Fluidization
Depending of the type of material being fluidized, six distinct

fluidization types can occur. These are, homogeneous, bubbling, slugging,
turbulent, jetting and spouting as described by Kunii and Levenspiel
1991[13]. Show Fig. (2.1).
Figure (2.1): Types of Fluidization [13]

2.1.3 Types of Gas Distributor
The distributor is the devise designed to insure that the fluidizing gas is
always evenly distributed across the cross-sectional of the bed. It’s a critical
part of the designed of fluidized bed system. Good design is based on
achieving a pressure drop
5
which is a sufficient fraction of the bed pressure drop. Many operating
problems can be traced back to poor distributor design. Some distributor
designs in common use are shown in Fig. (2.2)[14].
(a) drilled plate (b) cap design (c) continuous horizontal slots
(d) standpipe design (e) spurge tube with holes

pointing downwards
Figure (2.2): Types of Gas Distributor [14]
2.1.4 Minimum Fluidizing Velocity
When the gas is passed upwards through a fluidized bed unrestrained at

its upper surface, the pressure drop increases with gas velocity as shown in
Fig.(2.3), the drag on an individual particle excess the force exerted by
gravity, the pressure drop across the bed equals the weight of the bed per unit
area. Then an excess pressure is required to free the particles that are
interlocked at the fluidized state and theoretical pressure drop.
6
The velocity at the point that the pressure drop falls back is called the
minimum fluidizing velocity (Umf) [15].
From Carman and Kozeny for spherical particles:
3
e mf ρs − ρ 2
U mf = 0.0055 d g --- (2.1)
(1 − e ) µ
Figure (2.3): Minimum Fluidizing Velocity [15]
Leva, 1959[16], worked with round and sharp sands of 0.05-0.40 mm

using 0.1 m diameter with various depths fluidized by air. He noted that the
smaller particles require an extra of energy for fluidization.
7
Davidson et al., 1966[17], has shown that the Umf is a function of the
square of particle diameter; as a result, the quantity of air required for the Umf
changes as the products particle size change.
Wen and Yu, 1966[18], produced an empirical correlation for Umf for
gas fluidization the Wen and Yu correlation is often taken as being most
suitable for particles larger than 100 µm, where as the correlation of Baeyens
in 1974 [19], shown below in equation (2.2), is best for particles less than
100µm.
p (ρ p − ρ )
d 1.8 0.934 0.934
g
U mf = --- (2.2)
110µ 0.87 ρ 0.066
Arai et al., 1974[20], studied experimentally the effect of bed height on

the behavior of gas-solid fluidized bed of gas beads and silica sand, a gas
column was charged with different particles weight range from (120-300)g.
They concluded that the effect of bed height on the Umf may be neglected
except when it is very low.
Grace, 1982[21], found a correlation to predict the minimum
fluidization velocity for gas-solid systems:
ρu mf d p
= (C 2 + 0.0408Ar ) − C
1/2
--- (2.3)
µ
Where Ar is the Archimedes (or Galileo) number that equal to

Ar = ρ gd p3 ( ρ p − ρ ) / µ 2 and C is the constant which equal to 27.2 and others
using the value 33.4 and 33.7. It would seem reasonable to use a mean value
of 30.
8
Gupta and Sathiyamoorthy, 1999[22] and Kunii and Levenspiel,
1991[13], studied the pressure drop vs. velocity relationships during
fluidization and defluidization. They plotted curves for different sand sizes for
increasing flow rates (fluidization) and decreasing flow rates (defluidization).
In a typical curve showing the variation of bed pressure drop with superficial
air velocity for the sand size of 375 microns is shown in Fig. (2.4), they
showed that the pressure drop was higher on fluidization than on
defluidization. It was evident because initially the bed was fewer perms.
Figure (2.4): Air Velocity-Bed Pressure Drop

for Silica Sand (375 microns)
2.2 Factors Affecting the Rate of Mass Transfer
Markova et al., 1965[23], studied the effect of fluidized particle size on

mass transfer coefficient with particle diameter of 0.565, 0.488 and 0.347 mm
and they concluded that the dependence of mass transfer coefficient on the
9
size of particle is worthy of note, decreasing the particle size will increase the
coefficient. They also studied the effect of gas velocity on the mass transfer
coefficient using a glass apparatus with a diameter of 0.15m and 0.05m
height. The bed temperature was 50 ْC. They concluded that increasing the air
velocity will increase the mass transfer coefficient.

Vanecek et al., 1966[24], found that the effect of particle size is small
but a diffusion process is largely affected by the particle size.
Kim, 1995 [25], studied possibilities of improving substantially the
hydrodynamic behavior and the mass transfer characteristics in a fluidized
bed, thus increasing the gas loading capacity of the fluidized bed column ,
reducing the specific pressure drops and increasing the mass transfer rate. The
object of the investigation is achieved in that the fluidized bed bodies forming
the fluidized bed obtain a different geometric shape than is hitherto
customary. Unlike the hitherto customary cone shapes or ellipsoidal shapes,
fluidized bed bodies are used whose shape has a characteristic asymmetry. He
found that the change of fluidized beds bodies such as (ellipsoidal, cone, hens
egg-shaped) have the following advantages:
1-Reduction in the column volume in height and diameter.
2-Lower specific pressure drops, particularly at high gas rates.
3-Use of the fluidized bed bodies for mass transfer processes (absorption,
dsorption, dust separation, and catalytic reactions in the fluidized bed).
Wenyuan Wu. et al., 2002[26], studied the effect of gas temperature on

the mass transfer coefficient .They found that:
1- Changing the solubility of substances. It may increase or decrease the
solubility and thus increase or decrease mass transfer rates.
10
2- Increasing the rate of molecular diffusion thus increasing the rate of
movement of molecules through boundary layers.
3- Decrease of mass transfer coefficient with decreases the bed temperature,
and increase with increasing particle size.
Nevenka et al., 2004[27], studied experimentally the influence of fluid
velocity and particle size, on the mass transfer in packed beds and fluidized
beds. They found:
• The mass transfer in the presence of particles is more intensive, hence
the values of mass transfer coefficient are greater in both the two -
phase systems (packed and fluidized bed) than the fluid flow around
the single sphere. When the fluid flows around a single sphere only one
part of the area is exposed to transfer. In the presence of particles the
whole area become active and the boundary layer become thinner, thus
increase the mass transfer.
• With increasing interstitial velocity in the fluidized bed, the mass
transfer coefficient decreases slightly reaching the value of the mass
transfer coefficient for flow around a single sphere.
2.3 Mass Transfer from Particle to Gas Stream
Methods of predicting the evaporation rate of single drop (particles)

and the phenomena associated with the evaporation process are of importance
in the analysis of chemical engineering operations involving dispersions in
gas [28].
Any body immersed in a fluid is surrounded by a boundary layer. A
boundary layer is simply a region where the movement of molecules is slow
11
and determined solely by the diffusion force [29]. Boundary layer theory
predicts that the rate of transfer is a maximum on the front side of the drop
(particles) facing the on coming gas stream, decreasing to a minimum value
near the separation point, and increase to another but lower maximum rate on
the trailing face which experiences velocities in the reverse direction. Such
distribution of mass transfer rate is shown by Frossling for the sublimation of
naphthalene bead [30].
The evident that the rate of mass transfer will be largest on the side
facing the gas stream where the concentration gradient is steepest. Since the
physical situation in finely dispersed systems is such the relative velocity and
Reynolds number become vanishingly small.
The value of Sh and Nu number in this limiting condition at zero
Reynolds number (theoretical minimum value) is [28]:
Sh=Nu=2.0
For finite velocities, experimental data on mass-transfer rate for spheres
may be correlated by an empirical equation of the form used by Frossling.
( Re p )
C3
Sh = 2.0 + C1 ( Sc )
C2
--- (2.4)
Where C1=0.6, C2=1/3, C3=1/2.

At high values of Re No., the constant term becomes less significant so
that equation (2.4) may be converted to the familiar J-factor equation of
Chilton and Colburn.
12
2.4 Mass Transfer in Fixed Bed.
If the gas is pumped upwards through a granular bed at low flow rate
the fluid percolates through the pores with no perturbation of the bed height,
it's called a fixed bed.
For fluid-solid reactions, the pressure drop for flowing through the
fixed bed is higher than for a fluidized bed with a same flow rate. A schematic
of the pressure drop versus flow rate is shown is shown in Fig. (2.5). At low
fluid velocities the pressure drop is approximately liner with flow rate, this is
expected behavior for packed beds. After achieving incipient fluidization
increasing the fluid flow velocity doesn't result in any significant increase in
the pressure drop as the bed expands to reduce resistance to flow [1].
Figure (2.5): Pressure Drop across Fixed Bed

as a Function of Fluid Velocity
Mass transfer studies with beds of coarse solids show reasonable

agreement for both flowing liquids and gases. Based on studies by Ranz
1952[28], the finding may be summarized by:
13
Sh = 2 + 1.8Sc 1/3 Re p1/2 --- (2.5)
For
d pu ρ
Re p = > 80
µ
Wakao and Funazkri, 1978[31], correlated the published mass transfer
data, of particle to fluid mass transfer coefficient in packed bed, for the axial
fluid effective dispersion coefficient.
The corrected Sherwood numbers in the range of Reynolds number
from about 3 to 10000 are correlated by:
Sh = 2 + 1.1Sc 1/3 Re p 0.6 --- (2.6)

They found that the reevaluated gas-phase data are considerably higher than
those obtained under the assumption that the axial fluid effective dispersion
equal to zero.
Gunn, 1987[32], studied the mass transfer in gas-solid fixed and
fluidized beds operating in a wide range of velocities and porosities. He
developed a theoretical correlation that expresses the mass transfer between
the particles and fluids processes.
2.5 Mass Transfer in Fluidized Bed

Quite a number of papers deal with transfer problem. A chaos of
correlations, statements and conclusions are found in the literature, due to the
fact that an increase fluidizing velocity increase the bed expansion, which in
many cases is not measured. The consequence,
14
that in the proposed correlations not only the influence of gas velocity, u, on
the fluid to particle mass transfer coefficient, kg, is hidden but also that of the
void fraction, e, on kg [33].
Several correlations for the calculation of the Nusselt and Sherwood
dimensionless numbers are reported. Since these correlations are mainly
based on experimental investigations performed under laboratory conditions,
they may be different to the situation in large scale reactors.
Hurt, 1934[34], measured the height of transfer unit for gas film
controlled system in fluidized beds with different sizes and shapes of packing.
No spherical particles were used, but the cylindrical particle data showed
close agreement between heat and mass transfer factors as Chilton and
Colburn 1934 had suggested. No such agreement between heat and mass
transfer data was obtained for other packing shapes. Hurt did not report
fraction voids or surface area of the beds he used.
McCune and Wilhelm, 1949[35], attempted to relate the mass transfer
group ejd with the modified Reynolds [dpG/eu], but found that the group
obtained from their data for fluidized beds did not correlate with the
corresponding groups for packed beds.
Resnick and White, 1949 [36], calculated the mass transfer coefficient
of naphthalene crystals of five different size ranges (250-1000microns) in air,
hydrogen, and carbon dioxide at a temperature of 298K and rates between (
0.01 and 1.5 kg/m2.s ). They expressed (J-factor) and plotted against Reynolds
number as shown in Fig. (2.6).
Gamson, 1951[37], utilizing the available mass transfer data for packed
and fluidized beds related the mass transfer modulus [ j d /(1 − e )0.2 ] to the
modified Reynolds group.
15
Figure (2.6): (jd) Factor for The Transfer of Naphthalene
Vapor to Air in Fixed and Fluidized Beds
Gupta and Thodas, 1962[38], attempted to correlate mass transfer

factor with the conventional Reynolds number dpG/u, utilizing all the
available data. They found that the relationship representing the data best can
be expressed by the equation:
0.863
ej d = 0.01 + 0.58
--- (2.7)
Re p − 0.483
Re p > 1 For
16
In fluidized bed, the solid particles are sufficiently separated so that in effect
there is mass transfer between a gas and single particles. The most widely
used correlation for this purpose is the equation of Froessling for mass
transfer to single sphere:
Sh = 2 + 0.6Re1/ 2 Sc 1/3 --- (2.4)
Mass transfer coefficient obtained from this relationship may then be

combined with mass transfer among the various phases in the fluidized bed to
yield the overall behavior with regard to the transport of mass. Owing to the
small particle sizes and high surface area per volume of solids used in
fluidized beds, the mass transfer from the gas to the solid surface is usually
quite rapid, and consequently, it seldom limits the reaction.
2.6 Mass Transfer from an Immersed Object to Fluidizing Bed
Mass transfer can involve the movement of mass through a fluid,

movement of mass through catalyst pores or cellular or movement of mass
between phases. Mass transfer is an important consideration in downstream
processing where mass must be moved between phases.
Shirai, Yoshitome and Shoji, 1966 [39], studied heat and mass transfer
between fluidized bed and surface of single sphere fixed in the bed. For mass
transfer study, sand was employed as fluidizing particles, the solid sphere is
made of brick and the system used is air-water system. They found that the
value of Sherwood number is only 1.5 times that for mass transfer
17
between particles and fluid. They concluded that the mechanism of heat is not
analogous to that for mass transfer, because heat may be transported by both
gas and the fluidizing particles but mass can be transferred only by the gas
phase, when the particles are non-adsorptive.
Ziegler and Holmes, 1966 [40], studied mass transfer from fixed
surface to gas fluidized beds, mass transfer coefficients were measured for the
diffusion of water vapor from a saturated porous sphere into various air-
fluidized beds of solid particles. Naphthalene diffusion from coated flat plate
into fluidized beds was also studied. They found that for the case in which
particle adsorption is negligible, the Sherwood number could be correlated
by:
Sh = She + f ( y ) --- (2.8)
In which She is the predicted Sh forced convection in the absence of particles

but at the increase Reynolds number of the fluidized bed, and f(y) describes
the effect of particle motion on transfer rate. They chose f(y) as a power
function of y, that is
--- (2.9) f ( y ) = C1 y C 2
From experimental data, the value of C1 and C2 found are 33.7 and 0.4
respectively with an average standard deviation of 16.5%.
For Naphthalene diffusion, unfortunately adsorption on the particles
increased the transfer rate, for which reason data are inconsistent [33].
Ciborowski and Kopec, 1985[41], reported previous works, for mass
transfer from an immersed object to a gas fluidized bed, which can be
18
summarized as follows:
1- The ratio of surface-to-inert bed mass transfer coefficient to that between
the surface and a gas; (kg / kge), varies from 1.1 to 10.
2- ( kg ) is a slightly increasing function of the superficial gas velocity and for
large velocities is independent of u.
3- ( kg )rises with an increase in fluidizing particle size, while h diminishes as
dp grows.
R. Joulie, et al., 1986[42], showed that the rate of sublimation in

fluidized beds is far higher than in air alone. It increase with increasing bed
temperature, decreasing particle size, increasing powder mass capacity, and
roughly various as a parabolic function of time. They found that the
temperature difference between the bed and the object surface, depends on the
fines characteristics as well as on bed temperature, but is independent of gas
velocity when good solid mixing conditions are achieved.
Choudhary et al., 1976 [43], Lerou and froment, 1977 [44], Vortmeyer
and Winter, 1982 [7], and delmas and Froment, 1988 [45], studied the effect
of radial variations of porosity and velocity on axial and radial transport of
mass in packed beds.
R. Joulie, et al., 1993[46], studied the heat and mass transport
phenomena between a large sublimely object and a gas-solid fluidized bed of
either inert or adsorbent fine panicles. Heat (h) and mass transfer (k)
coefficients are related to the size and adsorption capacity of the fine
particles, as well as to the diameter of the spherical immersed object and the
bed temperature. Convective and conductive components are also identified,
and correlations are proposed to predict all of them. They stated that the
19
significant differences which appear for the various working conditions may
be accounted for considering the particular mechanisms that prevail in every
case.
Guedes de Carvalho et al., 1999[47], found an equation for gas flow
predict the coefficient of mass transfer from large active particles in beds of
small inert. The equation is:
1 1
Sh ′ ⎡ 4 2 4 ⎤ 2⎡ 1 ⎛ d ⎞ ′⎤ 2
ε
= ⎢4 +
5
( Pe ′) 3 +
π
Pe ′⎥ ⎢ 1 +
9
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Pe ⎥ --- (2.10)
⎣ ⎦ ⎣⎢ ⎝ d1 ⎠ ⎦⎥
Philipp Schlichthaerle et al., 2000[48], studied the sublimation of large

solid carbon dioxide particles inside fluidized beds of fine particles. A model
which takes the surface area of the sublimely particles into account is used to
describe the sublimation kinetics. Based on this model, the results of different
experiments, namely single particle experiments using a precision scale, batch
experiments in a laboratory-scale fluidized bed and continuous experiments in
a larger circulating fluidized bed are compared. The main focus of the study is
to evaluate the influences of the particle size, of the inert bed material, of the
bed temperature and of the superficial gas velocity, respectively.
Delgado and Guedes de Carvalho, 2001[49], showed that there is a
significant dependence between Dt and Sc in the range Sc<550. Since the rate
of mass transfer around an immersed sphere exposed to a flowing fluid is
strongly determined by Dt , it may be expected that this mass transfer will
show a significant independence on Sc.
Nevenka et al., 2004[27], studied the mass transfer coefficient between
fluid and an immersed sphere in packed and fluidized beds of inert spherical
particles experimentally using a column 40 mm in diameter and inert glass
20
particles 0.5-2.98 mm in diameter.
They obtained a new relationship between jd and Re number of the particles
in packed and fluidized beds, that shown in Fig.(2.6). The data for the mass
transfer factor ( jd ) in fluidized bed can be separated into two groups,
depending on the particle diameter. The data for each group fall in straight
lines, the slopes of which are approximately the same but different from that
for the packed beds. The mass transfer coefficient for packed and fluidized
bed can be correlated with a single equation:
−0.4
⎛ Re ⎞
jd ε = 0.64 ⎜⎜ p ⎟⎟
⎝ 1− ε ⎠ --- (2.11)
With a mean absolute deviation of (16.88 %) and a mean relative deviation of
(- 3.71 %).
1
jd
0.1
Packed peds (dp=1.2 mm, 2.98 mm)
Fluidized bed (dp= 1.2 mm)
Fluidized bed (dp= 2.98 mm)

0.01
1 10 100 1000
Rep
Figure (2.7): Relationship between jd and Reynolds Number

of The Particles in Packed and Fluidized Beds
Weimin GAO et al., 2004 [50], studied the mass transfer in fluidized
bed. A steel work piece covered with carbon was used in their investigation.
The carbon transfer coefficient was determined from the carbon distribution
21
within the diffusion layer of the sample. An empirical relationship of the
carbon potential as a function of carburizing atmosphere, bed temperature (-
90ْ,-55ْ,-30ْ, 0ْ, 30ْ, 60ْ) and fluidizing velocity (1.32Umf, 2.12Umf) was
determined, based on the understanding of the mass transfer mechanism and

analysis of the experimental results.
1
δ = 1.5022δο (1 − f B ) Re0.8452 (1 − γ ) --- (2.12)
dp
( )
δο = 2.54 ×10−5 + 3.3 ×10−7C p6.22 exp ⎜ −
⎝ RT
⎛ 40.365 ⎞
⎟
⎠
--- (2.13)
⎛ ⎞
⎜ 8.805 ⎟
γ = exp ⎜ − 2⎟
--- (2.14)
⎝ (
⎜ ρ p U −U
mf
⎟
⎠ )
22
Chapter Three
Model of Mass Transfer from an Immersed

Surface to a Mass Capacity Fluidized Bed
3.1 Introduction
The process of mass transfer from an immersed surface to a gas

fluidized bed has not yet been intensively investigated. Only a few papers on
this process are available and the majority of them deal with non-adsorbing
(inert) fluidized particles.
To describe the process mathematically Baskakov and Supurn, 1970
[51], Markova, 1972[52], and Prozorov, 1976 [53], assumption that mass is
transmitted from the surface by packets of particles and by gas bubbles as
follows:
k y ′ = (1 − f ο )k yp ′ + f ο k yb ′ --- (3.1)
Where
τb
fο = --- (3.2)
τb +τ p
In contrast to heat transfer theory [54], where the heat within a packet
is transferred through gas and particles and the accumulation of heat within
particles plays a dominant role, these workers assumed that mass within a
packet is transferred only by gas between particles occurs. Thus the mass
transfer coefficient to a packet was found [51, 52] to be
23
1/2
⎛D ⎞
k yp ′ = 2 ρf ⎜ p ⎟ --- (3.3)
⎜ πτ p ⎟
⎝ ⎠
1/2
⎛D ⎞
k yb ′ = 2 ρf ⎜⎜ b ⎟ --- (3.4)
⎝ πτ b
⎟
⎠
It must be remembered that all the above considerations apply to an

inert fluidized bed.
If adsorption of a transported substance onto the particles takes place
the mass transfer coefficient rises [40,51,55] and the ratio ( ky/kyf ) may then
reach values from 3 to 15 [40,55]. For such cases, on the basis of the packet
theory and allowing for mass accumulation on particles, Yokota, 1975[55],
derived the following expression:
1/2
⎛ ε D M ρ (1 − ε p ) ⎞
k yp = ρf ⎜ p f s s ⎟ --- (3.5)
⎜
⎝ τ p
⎟
⎠
k yp L
Where Sh p = transformed into the dimensionless form:
D f ρf
1/2
⎛ ε p (1 − ε )M s ρs L 2 ⎞
Sh p = ⎜ ⎟ --- (3.6)
⎜
⎝
D f τ p ⎟
⎠
For particles with large mass capacities, the mass transfer coefficients
become higher and greater similarity between surface-to-bed mass and heat
transfer mechanism.
In this chapter, the mass capacity process was investigated and
24
described on the basis of the modified packet model including the mass
contact resistance. For the contact resistance control region the alternative
simplified packet model is developed.
3.2 Theories of Mass Transfer from an Immersed Surface to a

Mass Capacity Fluidized Bed
For strongly adsorbing particles mass "conduction" into a packet may

take place through both gas and particles. Thus some mass transfer potential
( θ ) common for the gaseous and solid phases should be used.
Under isothermal conditions the specific mass capacities will then be
defined as follows:
⎛ ∂X ⎞ ⎛ ∂Y ⎞
C ms = ⎜ ⎟ , C mf = ⎜ ⎟ --- (3.7)
⎝ ∂θ ⎠e ⎝ ∂θ ⎠e
For further manipulation it is convenient to define the relative mass capacity

as:
C ms ⎛ ∂X ⎞ --- (3.8)
Cm = =
C mf ⎜⎝ ∂Y ⎟⎠e
This is the slope of an adsorption isotherm.
3.2.1 Modified Packet Theory
An assumption consider a packet of emulation which suddenly comes

into contact with a mass exchange surface with potential ( θw ) and after a time
(τ p ) is replaced by fresh packet from the core of the bed with potential ( θο ).
25
The different equation which describes non-steady-state mass transfer into the
packet is:
∂Y ∂X ∂ ⎛ ∂θ ⎞
ε p ρf + (1 − ε p ) ρs = ⎜ λmp --- (3.9)
∂τ ∂τ ∂z ⎝ ∂z ⎟⎠
or, after the substitution of equation (3.7) into equation (3.9)
{ε p ρf C mf + (1 − ε p ) ρsC ms } ∂∂θτ = ∂∂z ⎛⎜⎝ λmp ∂∂θz ⎞⎟⎠ --- (3.10)
The initial and boundary conditions for this situation are:
θ (τ = 0, z ) = θο , θ (τ , z → ∞ ) = θο , θ (τ , z = 0 ) = θw ---(3.11)
For simplest case of non-adsorbing (Cms=0) and non-diffusion (Ds=0)

particles and taking ( θ =Y ), the effective mass conductivity for a pocket
results of equation (3.10):
λmp = ε p D f ρf C mf --- (3.12)
For adsorbing particles the first term in curly brackets in equation (3.10) can
be neglected, since ( ρsC ms >> ρf C mf ).
When Cms , Cmf and λmp are independent of θ an analytical solution of
equation (3.10) is possible by assuming a complete analogy between heat and

mass transfer within packet [56]. An expression for effective mass
conductivity of a packet will then be identical to that given for effective
26
thermal conductivity
λmp (1 − ε p )(1 − 1/ B )
= +1 --- (3.13)
λmf 1
+ 0.28ε p 0.63B 0.18
B
λms
Where B =
λmf
Knowing that λms = D s ρsC ms , λmf = D f ρf C mf and C m = C ms / C mf , so
equation (3.13) can be written in a form more appropriate for further
discussion as
λmp = βε p D f ρf C mf --- (3.14)
Where
(1/ ε p − 1)(1 − 1/ B ) 1
β= + --- (3.15)
1
+ 0.28ε p0.63B
0.18 εp
B
D s ρs C m
and B =
D f ρf
The solution of equation (3.10) for constant λmp , Cms and Cm and for boundary
conditions given in equation (3.11) has the form:
⎡ ⎛ (1 − ε ) ρ C 1/ 2 ⎤
θ − θw ⎢z ⎜
⎞
⎥
= erf p s ms
⎟ --- (3.16)
θο − θw ⎢2⎜ λmpτ ⎟ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦⎥
From which the instantaneous mass flux calculated as:

27
⎛ ∂θ ⎞
N pτ = −λmp ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ∂z ⎠z =0
1/ 2
(
⎛ 1− ε p
=⎜
) ρsC ms λmp ⎞⎟ (θ − θ ) --- (3.17)
ο
⎜ πτ ⎟
w
⎝ ⎠
In order to get the time-averaged mass flux Np information about the packet
residence time distribution is necessary. In this work an exponential
distribution is assumed, so that
1 ∞
Np = N (τ )exp(−τ / τ p )d τ --- (3.18)
τ p 0∫ pτ
After substitution of equation (3.17) into equation (3.18) and integration, the
packet mass transfer resistance is calculated as:
1/ 2
Np ⎛ τp ⎞
R mp = = 2⎜ ⎟ --- (3.19)
θw − θο ⎜ (1 − ε p ) ρs λmpC ms ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Where, according to equations (3.7), (3.8) and (3.14)
Cms = Cm Cmf = 1
λmpC ms = βε p D f ρf C m for θ =Y ---(3.20)
Cms = Xw Cmf = Xw / Cm
λmpC ms = βε p D f ρf C ms
2
/C m for θ = X / X w
28
In assumption that there is an additional contact mass resistance Rmw in
the packet zone adjacent to the surface which is proportional to the particle
diameter ds. The formula for mass transfer coefficient will then be:
k θ p = (R mw + 0.5R mp )−1 , R mw α d s --- (3.21)
From equations (3.19) and (3.22) it follows that the mass transfer coefficient
for packets ( k θ p ) is a function of the driving force (θw − θο ) if
θ =Y orθ = X / X w . Hence the driving force should be selected
experimentally to assure the smallest variation of k θ p .
From equations (3.19) and (3.22) found that for a negligible contact
resistance, i.e. for sufficiently small values of ( d s2C ms / τ p ), the mass transfer
coefficient is independent of particle size.
3.2.2 Simplified Packet Theory
In order to derive the simplified packet model equations the following

additional assumptions are made.
1- For sufficiently short packet contact times which correspond to
vigorous fluidization and for relatively large particles only the
first layer of particles, i.e. those in contact with the surface,
participate in surface-packet mass transfer.
2- During the time that a packet remains at the surface a particle in
the first layer adsorbed to the surface.
3- A diffusion model of mass "conduction" within a particle may be
29
plausible.
Treating the particles as spheres of uniform diameter and constant
diffusivity, the equation describing the concentration profile ( Xr ) can be
written as:
∂X r ⎛ ∂ 2 X r 2 ∂X r ⎞
= D s ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎟ --- (3.22)
∂τ ⎝ ∂r
2 r ∂r ⎠
With boundary and initial conditions

X r (τ = 0, r ) = X ο
⎛ ∂X r ⎞
D s ρs ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ∂r ⎠r =d s / 2
(
= k ys Y w −Y r =ds / 2 )
--- (3.23)
Bearing in mind that

k ys = Shs D f ρf / d s
X w − X r =d s /2 = C m (Y w −Y r =d s /2 )
By transforming equation (3.23) will give Biot number:

Bi ms = Shs /(2B ) --- (3.24)
The well known solution of equation (3.22) leads to the following expression
describing the time dependence of the mean concentration X.
Xw −X ∞
2
= 1.5Bi ms ∑ ηi exp(− µi2 Fo ms ) --- (3.25)
Xw −X ο i =1
Where
sin 2 µi
ηi = and µi is the root of (1-Bims)
µi3 ( µi − 0.5sin 2µi′ )
30
After deriving the result of different of equation (3.25) by equation (3.25):
∞
ηi µi2 exp(− µi2 Fo ms )
∂X 4D s i∑
= 2 =1∞ (X w − X ) --- (3.26)
∂τ ds ∑ η exp(− µ Fo ms )
2
i i
i =1
When (Bims < 10, and Foms < 10-3) this expression can be approximated with
an accuracy of + 10 % by the form resulting from Foms = 0.
∂X hD s --- (3.27)
= 2 (X w − X )
∂τ ds
∞ ∞
Where h = 4 ∑ ηi µi2 / ∑ ηi is a constant while a packet is in contact with the
i =1 i =1
surface. Note that this approximation should be confused with that well
known for large Fourier numbers.
Equation (3.27) may be extended to the more general case of non-
spherical particles with an unknown or undetermined diffusivity as follows:
∂X as ∂as
= (X − X ) with =0 ---(3.28)
∂τ d s2 w ∂τ
or ,after integration
∂X as aτ
= 2 exp(− s 2 )(X w − X ο ) --- (3.29)
∂τ d s ds
The instantaneous mass flux from the surface to a packet is expressed as:
bs ∂X
N pτ = m
2 s ∂τ
--- (3.30)
ds
Where ms is the particle mass and ( bs / ds2 ) is the number of particles per unit
area of the surface.
For non-spherical particles only an approximate value of the packing factor (
bs ≈ 1 ) can be found. While for spherical particles ( bs = 1 → 4 / 3 ).
The time-averaged mass flux results from equations (3.18), (3.29) and
31
(3.30) as follows:
π as bs ρs / d s
Np = (X w − X ο ) --- (3.31)
6(1 + asτ p / d s2 )
For very small values of ( asτ p / d s2 ) , this equation simplified to a form
independent of the mean packet residence time.The packet mass transfer

coefficient kxp will then be described by the simple formula :
Np αρ X
k xp = = s w --- (3.32)
1− X ο / X w ds
Where α = π as bs / 6 --- (3.33)
It follows that both coefficients (as and bs) cannot be determine directly.
Hence, the parameter of the simplified packet model ( α ) cannot be calculated
from equation (3.33) and must be found on the basis of experimental data.
The total mass flux from an immersed surface to a mass capacity
fluidized bed should be calculated from the expression analogous to heat
transfer:
N = (1 − f ο )k θ p (θw − θο ) + N ′ --- (3.34)
Where N ′ = k y′ (Y w −Y ο )
N ′ is the so-called convective component of the mass flux including all

effects not connected with particle mass capacity (note that Cms=0 implies
that k θ p =0 ). Hence, k y′ in equation (3.34) is interpreted as the total mass
transfer coefficient for an inert fluidized bed and can be predicted from
equation (3.1).
32
Chapter Four
Experimental Work
Sand-air-naphthalene system is used in this investigation. After careful

review of substances which exist in the solid state at room temperature and
which are also considerably volatile, naphthalene was selected for this study.
Spheres (made of wood) were coated with hard smooth surface of
naphthalene by dipping the spheres into a bath of molten naphthalene (at
about 90ْC).
Sand was employed as fluidizing particles, which can be regarded as a

non absorptive material. Three different particle sizes of sand were used, with
sizes distributed between 75-250 microns in order to get a smooth
fluidization. Table (4.1) gives the properties of sand particles used in this
work.
A cylinder made of Q.V.F glass was used as a fluidization column that
contained the particles supported by the distributor. The distributor used In
this work is the drilled plate.
Table (4.1)
Properties of Sand Particles
Range of Particle Size Average Particle Size Particle Density

(micron) (micron) (Kg/ m3)
75-150 112.5 2600
150-180 165 2600
180-250 215 2600
33
4.1 General Description of Flow System
A schematic diagram of the equipment is shown in Fig.(4.1), and a

photograph picture of it in Fig.(4.2).The flow system consisted of the
following:
1- Air compressor.
2- Air flow meter.
3- Fluidization column.
4- Manometer (U-tube).
5- Bed material (sand).
6- Immersed work piece.
7- Heating equipment (heating element, variac).
8- Temperature measurement device.
4.1.1 Air Compressor
A piston type compressor supplied by (Tecquipment, Ltd. Notingham,

England), was used, with two pistons to supply the air with a surge tank to
store the air to minimize the fluctuation through flow meter.
An automatic regulator in the compressor was used to regulate the
pressure of the air inside the tank. The amount of air that left the compressor
was controlled by the use of the tank valve.
4.1.2 Air Flow Meter

A calibrated air flow meter was used to measure the air flow rate that
entered the column. The range of the air flow meter was 0-16 (m3/hr).
34
4.1.3 Fluidization Column
A Q.V.F glass column of (8 cm) internal diameter, and (70 cm) in high
was used as fluidization column. A porous material was placed at the bottom
of the column to support the packing material.
4.1.4 Pressure Manometer
The pressure drop across the bed was measured by the use of (U-tube)
manometer made of glass with total length of (0.75 m). The manometer was
placed on a wide sheet of wood with a measuring tape for the measurement of
the level difference of the liquid (water) inside the tube.
4.1.5 Bed Material
A sand bed material was employed in this investigation with a different

particle sizes. (75-250 microns) were used in this investigation in order to get
a smooth fluidization.
4.1.6 Immersed Work piece

The immersed object used in this investigation has a spherical shape
(2.9 cm in diameter) made of wood, which is coated with naphthalene, is
fixed in the center of the column by suspending it with a steel rod. The
spherical shape was used in order to minimize the dead zone around the
immersed object, and because spherical shapes have many applications in the
industrial.
35
4.1.7 Heating Equipment
The heater has been used was an electrical heater placed inside 2"
Q.V.F. glass tube. The variation in the heat supplied from the heater was
controlled by the use of a variac connected directly to the heater.
4.1.8 Temperature Measurement Device
Two thermocouples (K type) were used for temperature measurement;

each thermocouple is with a range of (0-250 ْC). The thermocouples were
located in two different locations in order to measure the temperature (about 3

cm) under and above the sphere. These thermocouples were connected to the
digital readers that show the value of any temperature selected.
Table 4.2
Conditions of Mass Transfer
Range of Particle Range of Temperature Range of Air Flow

Size( µ m ) ( ْC ) Rate(m3/hr)
215 39-66 4.0-5.2

165 39-66 3.0-4.0
112.5 39-66 2.4-3.2
36
37
4
1
5
6
3
Figure (4.2)
Photo of the Experimental Equipment
1. Rotameter
2. Variac
3. Heating Equipment
4. Temperature Reader
5. Fluidization Column
6. Manometer
38
4.2 Experimental Procedure
4.2.1 Determination of Minimum Fluidizing Velocity
The pressure drop of the bed ( ∆pb ) can be determined with the range of
gas velocities by subtracting the pressure drop of distributor ( ∆pd ) that find
out for a range of superficial gas velocities, from total pressure drop ( ∆pt )
that find out for a range of superficial gas velocities after loading known
weight of sand particles having known diameter into the bed to a static level
of 30 cm.
A curve of pressure drop across the bed ( ∆pb ) versus superficial gas
velocity is determined from this plot (see appendix A).
4.2.2 Mass Transfer in Empty Bed
To determine the experimental value for mass transfer coefficient in

empty bed, the following procedure was carried out:
1- Two thermocouples and other devices were placed in their place and
connected to the column.
2- The compressor started blowing air into the tank until it reached the
desired pressure to turn the compressor off by the automatic regulator.
The tanks valve was turned on. The air flowed through the rotameter to
the bed until rotameter read a constant desired value of the air flow
rate.
3- At the same time the heater was turned on for the desired power that
was controlled by the use of the variac.
39
4- The measurements of the pressure drop across the bed were made by
the use of the U-manometer.
5- When a conditions reach to steady state (constant flow rate and
constant temperature), the coated sphere was lowered inside the
column 15 cm above the distributor surface.
6- Every 5 minutes, the sphere was taken out of the bed and the change of
weight was measured by digital balance.
7-The previous steps 1-6, were repeated for arrange of air superficial
velocities and a range temperatures.
4.2.3 Mass Transfer in Fluidized Bed
To determine the value of mass transfer coefficient from the sphere to

the fluidized bed, the following steps were carried out:
1-A quantity of sand was weighted and poured into the column from the top
for a known and constant height (30 cm) for all runs carried in the work.
2-Two thermocouples and other devices were placed in their place and
connected to the column.
3-The compressor started blowing air into the tank until it reached the desired
pressure to turn the compressor off by the automatic regulator.
4-The tanks valve was turned on. The air flowed through the rotameter to the
bed until rotameter read a constant desired value of the air flow rate.
5-At the same time the heater was turned on for the desired power that was
controlled by the use of the variac.
6-The measurements of the pressure drop across the bed were made by the
use of the U-manometer.
40
7-When conditions reach to steady state (constant flow rate and constant
temperature); the coated sphere was lowered inside the column 15 cm
above the distributor surface.
8-Every 5 minutes, the sphere was taken out of the bed and the change of
weight was measured by digital balance.
9-The previous steps 1-8, were repeated for arrange of air superficial
velocities and a range bed temperatures.
4.3 Correlation of Experimental Results
A relationship of many variables that influence on mass transfer

coefficient must be known to determine. These variables are the diffusivity of
the active component through the fluid, the superficial flow rate of the fluid,
the density and the viscosity of the fluid, and the shape and the size of the
spaces between the particles in the fluidized bed.
To get accurate results, numbers of assumptions were made:
1- Neglect the abrasion effects and assume the weight loss of naphthalene
is mainly due to evaporation.
2- Void fraction of fluidizing sand particles was equal to the void fraction
at minimum fluidizing velocity.
3- Partial pressure of naphthalene at the surface (Pi) was everywhere
equal to the saturation partial pressure of vapor at (Ts) The partial
pressure of the naphthalene at the bulk of air stream was equal to zero.
Change in surface area of the sphere along the experiment is negligible.
Surface temperature of the solid sphere (Ts) was everywhere equal to
the average value of the temperature reading of the thermocouples
below and above the sphere.
41
The experimental results must be correlated by:
1-The viscosity of air can be calculated from the equation [57, 36]:
n
µ ⎡T ⎤
= --- (4.1)
µο ⎢⎣ 273 ⎥⎦
Where µο is the viscosity of the air at 0ْC which is equal to 0.017 in
centipoises and n is equal to 0.677.

2- Experimental value of mass transfer coefficients were calculated from the
equation:
N = k g (C s − C b ) --- (4.2)
In which Cb is equal to zero.

3- The correlation for diffusivity of naphthalene vapor in air with temperature
is made by the equation [36]:
m
Dv ⎡ T ⎤
= --- (4.3)
Dv ο ⎢⎣ 273 ⎥⎦
Where the diffusivity of naphthalene vapor in air at 0ْC is taken equal to
0.0513 cm2/s [57], and m= 1.823.

4- Vapor pressure of solid naphthalene is given by following equation for the
range of (0-80 ْC).
3729.3 ---
log Ps = − + 11.450
Ts (4.4)
Where Ps in mHg and Ts in K.
5- Values of Sherwood number for mass transfer from the sphere to a bed of
fluidized particles were calculated by the equation:
Sh = She + f ( y ) --- (4.5)

42
In which f(y) describes the effect of particles motion on transfer rate,
and y is a dimensionless group determined by dimensionless analysis.
6- The value of Sherwood number for mass transfer in empty bed was
calculated from the equation [28]:
c c3
She = 2 + C1 Re p2 Sc --- (4.6)
Where C1 ,C2 and C3 are constants and to be determined from the

experimental results in empty bed.
43
Chapter Five
Results and Discussion
Twenty four experiments at different air velocities and different

temperatures were performed at first for mass transfer in empty bed (air
stream only), to check the results with previous works. Samples of data sheets
for experiment listed in Tables (5.2, 5.3 and 5.4) respectively. List of
experimental conditions are illustrated in Table (A-1).
To correlate the experimental results for mass transfer in gas stream
only, it was assumed that the limiting value of Sherwood number, at zero
Reynolds number, is equal to 2 because it agrees with the theoretical
approach. The experimental results were correlated by the following equation
(see Appendix B):
She = 2 + 0.657 Re1/2

p Sc
1/3
--- (5.1)
The above equation shows good agreement with the previous work by
Ranz and Marshal [28]. Fig.(5.2) illustrates the experimental results and
correlation.
For mass transfer in fluidized bed, a set of experiments were performed
to determine the value of mass transfer coefficient from the sphere to the
fluidized bed. The variables in this investigation which effect mass transfer
were: air velocity, sphere surface temperature, size of fluidizing particles and
sphere size. The range of sphere surface temperature varied from ambient
temperature to a temperature below the melting point of naphthalene. The air
44
velocity is chosen to be within the range (1-1.4) Umf, because this range of
flow is usually used in industrial practice. The particle size of sand was
selected to be as fine particles in order to get a smooth fluidization. The
experimental conditions and results are listed in Tables (A-3 and A-4)
respectively.
• Samples of data sheet for experiments are listed in Tables (5.5, 5.6 and
5.7) respectively.
• Samples of the experimental result showing effect of air temperature
on Sherwood number are illustrated in Figs. (5.3 and 5.4).
• Samples of the experimental result showing effect of air flow rate on
Sherwood number are illustrated in Figs. (5.5).
• The effects of both air temperature and particle size on Sherwood
number are showed in Figs. (5.8, 5.9 and 5.10).
• The effects of both air flow rate and particle size on Sherwood number
are showed in Figs. (5.11, 5.12, 5.13).
• The effects of both particle size and different temperature on
Sherwood number are showed in Figs. (5.14, 5.15, 5.16, and 5.17).
5.1 Correlation of Results
Results of experiments are illustrated in Table (A-4). For experiments

that carried out at minimum fluidizing velocity, the value of the dimensionless
group, Y, is inconsistent with other experiments due to the term (G-Gmf) which
is equal to zero at minimum fluidizing velocity, so results obtained at
minimum fluidization are neglected. The term f(y) in the equation:
45
Sh = She + f ( y ) --- (5.2)
is chosen as a power function of Y ,that is
C2
f ( y ) = C1 y --- (5.3)
Two attempts have been made to correlate the experimental results:
1- The first attempt was made by choosing the dimensionless function ,Y,
to be equal to [(G − G mf ) µ /[(ψ d p )2 ( ρ p − ρ ) ρ g ]] as given by Ziegler and
Holmes[40],i.e.:
(G − G mf ) µ C2
Sh = She + C1[ 2
] --- (5.4)
(ψ d p ) ( ρ p − ρ ) ρ g
The results of this attempt are illustrated in (Appendix C), in which C1

and C2 are equal to 9.571 and 0.01389 respectively. Fig.(5.6) shows a
comparison of equation (5.4) with the experimental data. It can be seen
from this figure, that the correlation suggested by Ziegler and Holmes
don’t fit the experimental results of this work.
2- The second attempt was made by taking the dimensionless group, Y , as
obtained from the dimensionless analysis, i.e.:
( ρ p − ρ ) ρ g (ψ d p ) C (ψ d p )(G − G mf ) C3
Sh = She + C1[ ] 2[ ] --- (5.5)
(G − G mf )2 µ
The result of this attempt is illustrated in (Appendix C), in which C1,

C2 and C3 are equal to 16.8574, 0.07497 and 0.1284 respectively.
Fig.(5.7) shows comparison of equation (5.5) with the experimental
data. From this figure we notice that this correlation shows a better
46
agreement with experiments, in which 97% of the points have an error less
than 25%, consequently this correlation obtained from the present work.
5.2 Comparison of Experimental Results With previous Works
and Model
Solid mass capacity has an essential effect on surface-to-fluidized bed

mass transfer. For (Cms=0) low mass transfer coefficients are attained and
there is no similarity with surface-to-bed heat exchange. In the case of non-
zero solid mass capacity, mass transfer coefficients are greater and for small
values of (Cms) they may be predicted from the theory proposed by Yokota
[55].
For relatively large values of (C ms d s2 / τ p ) (greater than 10-5 m2 /s) the
contact resistance is dominant and (kxp) is inversely proportional to (ds). For

small values of (C ms d s2 / τ p ) (less than 10-10 m2 /s) the packet resistance
predominates and the surface-to-packet mass transfer coefficient (kxp) is

independent of particle size (see Table (5.1)).
Some values of the mass transfer data (kyp) obtained from previous
works and this work are presented in Fig. (5.1) in Yokota,s coordinate.
47
Table (5.1) Comparison of the Orders of Magnitude of
The Experimental Parameters
Silica Sand-air-water Sand-air-
gel-air- Rmp/Rmw~ ∞ naphthalene
water Rmp/Rmw~ ∞
Rmp/Rmw
D f ρs 10-3 10-2 10-2

(m2/s)
βρ f
C m / C ms 102 102 103
2
d s C ms 10-5,10-6 10-11,10-12 10-9,10-10
2
(m /s)
τp
Figure (5.1): Comparison of Experimental Data with The Packet Theory

Systems is follows: Silica gel-air-water [(o) ds=0.548mm,
( ∆ ) ds=0.875 mm, ( ) ds=1.342mm]. Sand-air-water [(◊)
ds=0.496mm].Sand-air-naphthalene [( )ds=0.351mm]. [55].
Sand-air-naphthalene (present work) [(▪) ds=215 micron, (▪)
ds=165 micron, (▪) ds= 112.5 micron]
48
]Table (5.2) Selected Data Sheet for Experiment
of Mass Transfer in Empty Bed
Experiment No: (1)
Air flow rate (m3/hr) = 2.8

Ambient temperature(ْC) = 39.0
Pressure drop (Cm H2O) = 0.9

(Without Naphthalene)
Weight of sphere (gm) = 8.0088
Diameter of sphere (Cm) = 2.9
Time(min.) Wt.(gm) T1(ْC) T2 (ْC) Wt. Loss

(gm)
0 10.2073 39.0 39.0 -
5 10.1194 39.1 39.1 0.0879

10 10.0402 39.0 39.1 0.0792
15 9.9680 39.0 39.0 0.0722
20 9.8847 39.1 39.0 0.0833
25 9.8051 39.0 39.0 0.0796
Note:
T1 = Temperature below the sphere.
T2 = Temperature above the sphere.
49
Table (5.3) Selected Data Sheet for Experiment
Experiment No: (7)

Ambient temperature (ْC) = 39.1


(gm)
0 10.2210 51.3 51.3 -
5 9.9328 51.2 51.1 0.2882

10 9.6812 51.4 51.3 0.2516
15 9.3710 51.4 51.3 0.3102
20 9.1797 51.2 51.2 0.1913
25 9.0558 51.3 51.1 0.1239
Note:
50
Experiment No: (15)
Air flow rate (m3/hr) =3.7

Ambient temperature (ْC) =39.1


(gm)
0 12.4485 66.0 66.0 -
5 11.3768 66.2 66.1 1.0717

10 10.3553 66.2 66.1 1.0215
15 9.6381 66.0 66.1 0.7172
20 9.0130 66.1 66.0 0.6251
25 8.3365 66.0 66.1 0.6765
Note:
51
of Mass Transfer in Fluidized Bed
Experiment No: (1)

Air flow rate (m3/hr) =4.0
Ambient temperature (ْC) =39.0


(gm)
0 12.7425 39.1 39.1 -
5 12.6278 39.1 39.0 0.1147
10 12.4324 39.0 39.0 0.1954
15 12.2603 39.2 39.1 0.1721
20 12.1274 39.0 39.1 0.1329
25 11.9746 39.2 39.2 0.1528
Note:
52
Experiment No: (7)



(gm)
0 12.3452 51.2 51.2 -
5 11.8920 51.0 51.0 0.4532

10 11.4041 51.2 51.1 0.4879
15 11.0048 51.1 51.1 0.3993
20 10.5330 51.1 51.0 0.4718
25 9.9769 51.0 51.1 0.5561
Note:
53
Experiment No: (16)



(gm)
0 15.5628 66.2 66.1 -
5 14.0431 66.1 66.1 1.5197

10 12.6253 66.1 66.0 1.4178
15 11.075 66.0 66.1 1.5503
20 9.7951 66.3 66.1 1.2799
25 8.0953 66.0 66.0 1.6998
Note:
54
25.00
20.00
15.00
Sh (exp. )
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

Re ^ 0.5 * Sc ^ 0.333
Figure (5.2): Correlation for Mass Transfer

in Empty Bed
400.00
Part. Size=112.5 micron
Part. Size=165 micron

300.00
Part. Size= 215 micron

Sh (exp. )
200.00
100.00
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

Temperature ( C )
Figure (5.3): Experimental Sh. vs. Temperature

at Air Flow Rate = 1.2 Umf.
55
400.00 Part.Size = 112.5 micron
Part. Size = 165 micron
300.00
Sh (exp.)
Part.Size = 215 micron
200.00
100.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

Temperature( C )
Figure (5.4): Experimental Sh. vs. Temperature

at Air Flow Rate = 1.4 Umf
Temperature = (51.0 _ 51.2) C

400.00
300.00
Sh (exp. )
Part. Size =112.5 micron

200.00
100.00
0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00

Flow (U / Umf)
Figure (5.5): Experimental Sh. vs. Air Flow Rate

56
400.00
All point within solid lines are of error less than 25 %
All points within dashed lines are of error less than 15 %
Sh (calc.) 300.00
200.00
100.00
100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00

Sh (exp. )
Figure (5.6): A Comparison of Equation 4.9
With the Experimental Data
400.00
All point within solid lines are of error less than 25 %
All points within dashed lines are of error less than 15 %
300.00
Sh (calc.)
200.00
100.00
100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00

Sh (exp. )
Figure (5.7): A Comparison of Equation 4.10
With the Experimental Data
57
300.00
Particle Size = 215 micron

1.4 Umf
1.3 Umf
1.2 Umf
250.00
Sh (calc.)
200.00
150.00
100.00
20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Temperature ( C )
Figure (5.8): Effect of Temperature on

Calculated Sh. No.
400.00
Particle Size = 165 micron
1.4 Umf
1.3 Umf
1.2 Umf
300.00
Sh (calc.)
200.00
100.00
20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Temperature ( C )

Calculated Sh No.
58
400.00
Particle Size = 112.5 micron

1.4 Umf
1.3 Umf
1.2 Umf
360.00
Sh (calc.)
320.00
280.00
20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Temperature ( C )

Calculated Sh. No.
300.00
39 C
250.00
51 C
Sh (calc.)
55 C
200.00
66 C
150.00
100.00
1.00 1.20 1.40

Flow (U/Umf)
Figure (5.11): Effect of Air Flow Rate on

Calculated Sh. No.
59
350.00

39 C
51 C
300.00
55 C
250.00 66 C
Sh (calc.)
200.00
150.00
100.00
1.20 1.60 2.00

Flow (U/Umf)

Calculated Sh. No.
400.00
Part. Size =112.5 micron 39 C
51 C
55 C
66 C
300.00
Sh (calc.)
200.00
100.00
0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00

Flow (U/Umf)

Calculated Sh. No.
60
400.00
Temperature = 39 C
1.4 Umf
300.00
1.3 Umf
1.2 Umf
Sh (calc.)
200.00
100.00
120.00 160.00 200.00 240.00

Particle Size (micron)
Figure (5.14): Effect of Sand Particle Size on

Calculated Sh. No.
400.00
Temperature = 51 C
300.00
Sh (calc.)
1.4 Umf
1.3 Umf
1.2 Umf
200.00
100.00
100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00

Particle Size (micron)

Calculated Sh. No.
.
61
400.00
Temperature = 55 C
300.00
Sh (calc.)
1.4 Umf
1.3 Umf
1.2 Umf
200.00
100.00
120.00 160.00 200.00 240.00

Particale Size (micron)

Calculated Sh. No.
400.00
Temperature = 66 C
300.00
Sh (calc.)
1.4 Umf
1.3 Umf
200.00 1.2 Umf
100.00
120.00 160.00 200.00 240.00

Particale Size (micron)
Calculated Sh. No.
62
Chapter Six
Conclusion and
Recommendations for Future work
6.1 Conclusions
From the investigation of mass transfer from an immersed surface to a

gas fluidized bed, these conclusions are obtained:
1- Sherwood number has slow increasing with increasing gas velocity
(at constant surface temperature and particle size).
2- Sherwood number increase with decreasing particle size (at constant
U/Umf and temperature).
3- Sherwood number increase with decreasing surface temperature of
the sphere (at constant U/Umf and particle size).
4- The ratio of Sherwood number for mass transfer in the presence of
solid particles (fluidized bed) to that in absence of solid particles
(empty bed) various up to (30).
5- Sherwood number depends on Reynolds number and Froude number
(dimensionless groups), as noticed in equation (5.10).
6- There is a good improvement and accuracy in equation (5.10) (within
a very good agreement of (1.54%) average error) than the equation
presented by earlier work due to Ziegler and Holmes [40] which
depends on one dimensionless group that result from the merge of the
two dimensionless groups.
63
6.2 Recommendations for Future work
From the present study it was noticed that further studies in the
following areas would be desired:
1- Studying the effect of geometry on transfer phenomenon by using
different shapes of immersed objects which have important applications
in industry.
2- Using different systems to study the common uses for mass transfer in
fluidized bed.
3- Study of the mass transfer of the solid materials applied in Iraqi
industries, by fluidized mass transfer to improve products quality.
64
References
1- "Hydrodynamics of fluidized Bed", Chemical Engineering, Princeton

University. (1999).
2- Hayder obdul_muttalib, MSc thesis, University of Technology, (1998).
J.Ruud Van Ommen, "Introduction to Fluidized Bed Technology", Reactor
and Catalysis Engineering, Delft University.(2003).
4- Kim, Christopher," Process for mass transfer using fluidized bed bodies",
(1995).
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5718846.html
5- Sugino, T., and Yuu, S., "Numerical Analysis of Fine Powder Using
Smoothed Particle Method and Experimental Verification", (2002).
6- Jefferson Luis Melo de Almedia Gomes, "Modeling Heat and Mass
Transfer in Gas Solid Fluidized Beds Using the Two-Fluid Granular
Temperature Approach", (1994).
http://amcg.ese.ic.ac.uk/images/c/c9/jeffer1.pdf
7- Vortmeyer D, Winter RP," Impact of Porosity and Velocity Distribution of
the Theoretical Prediction of Fixed Bed Chemical Reactor Performance",
(1982).
8- Coulson, and Richardson's, "Chemical Engineering", Vol.6 Butterworth
Heinemann, Third Edition, (1999).
9- Kaneko,Y., Shiojima, T., and Horio, M.,"DEM Simulation of Fluidized
Beds for Gas-Phase Olefin Polymerization", Chemical Engineering
Science, Vol.54, (1999).
10- Rhodes, M.J., Wang, X.S., Nguyen, M., Stewart, P., and Liffman, K.,"Use
of Discrete Element Method Simulation in Studying Fluidization
Characteristic: Influence of Antiparticle Force", Chemical Engineering
65
Science, Vol. 56,( 2001).
11- Kafui, K.D., Thornton, C., and Adams, M.J., "Discrete-Continuum Fluid
Modeling of Gas-Solid Fluidized Beds", Chemical Engineering Science,
Vol. 57, (2002).
12- Guedes de Carvalho, J.R.F. and J.M. Delegado, "The Effect of Fluid
Properties on Dispersion in Flow through Packed",(2003).
13- Kunii,D., and Levenspiel, O., Fluidization Engineering, 2nd ed, Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann, (1991).
14- Martin Rhodes, "Fluidization and Particles by Fluids ",(2001).
http://www.erpt.org/012Q/rhods-00.htm
15- Gupta, C.K. and D. Sathiyamoorthy, "Fluid Bed Technology in Material
Processing",(1999).
16- Leva, M. "Fluidization", McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., (1959).
17- Davidson, J. F. and Harrison, D., "Fluidized Particles", Cambridge Press,
(1966).
18- Wen , Y. C. and Ya , Y. H., "Mechanics of Fluidization" ,Chemical Eng.
,(1966).
19- Raeyens , J. and Geldart , D. "An investigation into slugging fluidized
beds ", (1974).
20- Aria, N., and Sugiyama, S., "Studies of Fluidization of Moist Particles ",
of Chem. Eng. of Japan, Vol.7, (1974).
21- Grace, J. R., In Hetsroni , G. (ed.) "Handbook of Multiphase Systems " ,
Washingtin, (1982).
22- Gupta, C.K. and D. Sathiyamoorthy, "Fluid Bed Technology in Material
Processing",(1999).
23- Markova, M. N. and Martyushin, I. G., "An Investigation of Mass
Transfer during the Vaporization of Water from the Surface of Objects
66
Immersed in a Fluidized Bed of Finely Divided Particles ", Chem. Eng.
Vol.5,(1965).
24- Vaneccek, Markvaet, M. and Drbohlav, R., English translation by Josef,
L., "Fluidized Bed Drying", Leonard Hill, London,(1966).
25- Kim, Christopher, "Process for mass transfer using fluidized bed bodies ",
(1995).
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5718846.html
26- Wenyuan Wu, Agarwal Pradeep K., "The Effect of Bed Temperature on
Mass Transfer between the Bubble and Emulation Phases in a Fluidized
Bed ", University of Wyoming, Laramie (2002).
27- Nevenka Boskovic-Vragolovic, Danica Brzic and Zeljko Grbavcic, "Mass
Transfer between a Fluid and an Immersed Object in Fluidized Bed",
(2004).
28- Ranz, W.E. and Marshal, W.R., Chem. Eng. Prog., (1952).
29-"Mass Transfer in Biotechnology".
http://www.np.edu.sg/lsct/bce_faq/bce_faq_index2.htm
30- Roberto Frias, "Mass Transfer between Flowing Fluid and Sphere Buried
in Packed Bed of Inert ",(2004).
http://paginas.fe.up.pt/ceft/pdfs/Sphere04.pdf
31- Wakao, N. and Funazkri, T., Chem. Eng. Sci., (1978).
32- Gunn, D. J., "Axial and Radial Dispersion in Fixed Bed ", (1987).
33- Davidson, J.F. and Harrison, D.," Fluidization", Academic Press., (1971).
34- Hurt, D.M., Ind. Eng. Chem., (1943).
35- McCune, L.K., and Wilhelm, R.H., Ind. Eng. Chem., (1949).
36- Resnick, W., and White, R.R., Chem. Eng. Prog., (1949).
37- Gamson, B.W., Chem. Eng. Prog. ,(1951).
38- Gupta, A.S. and Thodas, G., A.I.Ch.Eng., Journal, (1962).
67
39- Shirai, T., Yoshitome, H. And Shoji, Y., Kagaku Kogaku, Vol.4, (1966).
40- Ziegler, E.N. and Holmes, J.T., Chem. Eng. Sci.,(1966).
41- Ciborowski, J. and Kopc, J., the Chem. Eng. J., (1985).
42- R. Joulie, G. M. Rios, H. Gibert, "Sublimation of Pure
Substance in Gas Fluidized Beds Atmospheric Pressure",(1986).
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a776391565~db=
all/
43- Choudhary M, Szekely J,Weller SW., "The Effect of The Flow
Misdistribution on Conversion in a Catalytic Packed Bed Reactor
",(1976).
44- Lerou JJ, Froment GF, "Velocity, Temperature and Conversion Profiles in
Fixed Bed Catalytic Reactors ". Chem. Eng.(1977).
45- Delmas H, Froment GF," Simulation Model Accounting for Structural
Radial Nonuniformities in Fixed Bed Reactors ",(1988).
46- R. Joulie, G. M. Rios," Theoretical analysis of Heat and Mass Transfer

Phenomena during Fluidized Bed Sublimation", (1993).
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a777773479~db=all
47- Guedes de Carvalho, J. R. F. and J. M. Delegado, "Mass Transfer from a
Large Sphere Buried in Packed Bed along Which Liquid Flows", (1999).
48- Philipp Schlichthaerle, Joachim Werther," Influnce of the Particle Size
and Superficial Gas Velocity on the Sublimation of Pure Substances in
Fluidized Beds of Different Sizes ", (2000).
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a7777911662~db=all
49- Delgado JMPQ, Guedes de Carvalho JRF," Measurement of the
Coefficient of Transverse Dispersion in Packed Beds Over a Range of
68
Values of Schmidt Number (50-1000)",(2001).
50- Weimin Gao, John M. Long, Lingxue Kong and Peter D. Hodgson,
"Influence of the Geometry of an Immersed Steel Work piece on Mass
Transfer Coefficient in Fluidized Bed", School of Eng. and Tech.,
Deakin University, Australia,(2004).
51- A.P.Baskakov and W.M. Suprun, Khim. Promst., (1970).
52- M. N. Markova , Autoreferat Dissert.,(1972).
53- E. N. Prozorov , Izuest. VUZ-ov Khim. Technol.,(1976).
54- L. A. Kirk and F. L. Hudson, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng.,(1966).
55-Teiji Yokota, Y. Hidaka and T. Yasutomi, Kagaku Kogaku
Ronbunshu,(1975).
56- J. Kopec, Ph. D. Thesis, Warsaw Technical University,(1981).
57- Perry, R.H. and Chiton, C.H., Chemical Engineers Handbook,(1973).
58- Howard W. Newton "Fluidized Bed Reactor ".
http://www.engin.umich.edu./~cre/12chap/html/fluidizedbed.pdf.
59- H.Scott Fogler, "Element of Chemical Reaction Engineering",(2006).
http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/Courses/ce561/Day31.pdf
60- J.M.P.Q. Delgado "A Critical Review of Dispersion in Packed Beds ",
Heat and Mass Transfer,(2006).
http://paginas.fe.up.pt/ceft/pdfs/2006_HTM1_JMPQD.pdf
61- Tatemoto, Y., Mawatari, Y., Yasukawa, T., and Noda, K., "Numerical
Simulation of Particle Motion in Vibrated Fluidized Bed ", (2004).
62- Krell, L., Kunne, H. J. and Morl, L., "Flow Regimes and Heat and Mass
Transport in Gas-Fluidized Beds of Solids ", Inter. Chem. Eng. Vol.30,
(1990).
69
Appendix - A
10.00
1.00
Pbed (CmH2O)
0.10
0.01
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00

Velocity (Cm/s)
Figure (A.1): Distributor Pressure Drop
10.00
^ P bed (CmH2O)
1.00
Air velocity (Cm/s)
Figure (A.2): Bed Pressure Drop vs. Air Velocity

(Sand Particle Size = 215 Micron)
A-1
10.00
^P bed (Cm H2O)
1.00
1.00
Air Velocity (Cm/s)

(Sand Particle Size = 165 Micron)
10.00
^P Bed (CmH2O)
1.00
Air Velocity (Cm/s)

(Sand Particle Size= 112.5 Micron)
A-2
***Calibration of Air Flow meter:
The variable area rotameter has been calibrated for air at 101.3 KN /m2
and 39 0C ( ρ = 0.6013 kg / m3 and ν = 1.326 * 10-5 m3. s-1).
The flow rate at other conditions may be calculated from:
1.204
Actual flow rate = indicated flow rate ×
ρm
Where ρm is the density of the air in the meter in kg/m3 .
P
Note: from the ideal gas equation, ρ =
RT
The following expression is the rotameter reading correction.
0.6013
ρm
A-3
Dimensional Analysis:
The dimensionless group, Y, is a function of all the variables and

dimensionless constant which influence particle motions. These factors may
be arranged in a suitable form for dimensional analysis, such as
Y = f (ψ , d p ,( ρ p − ρ ), ρ , µ ,(G − G mf ), g ) ---- (A-1)
Y = [ψ d p ]a [( ρ p − ρ ) ρ ]b [G − G mf ]c g d µe ---- (A-2)
The common groups for mass transfer are the Sherwood number, the
Schmidt number, and the Reynolds number. The Sherwood number contains
the mass transfer coefficient and the diffusivity. The Schmidt number
contains only the physical properties of the fluid and its active component.
The Reynolds number is, of course, a measure of flow rate.
The number of dimensionless group obtained from the dimensional
analysis is equal to the number of variables, n=5, minus the number of
fundamental dimensions, r=3, and hence two dimensionless groups will be
obtained.
In term of fundamental dimensions:
m2 b m c L d m e
1 = [L ]a [ ] [ ][ ] [ ]
L6 L2θ θ 2 Lθ --- (A-3)
The exponents on each variable must be such that the group is

dimensionless, so this requires that the following equations be satisfied:
A-4
For m 0 = 2b + c + e ---(1)
For L 0 = a – 6b – 2c + d – e ---(2)
For θ 0 = - c – 2d – e --- (3)
These three equations can be solved to give all the exponents in terms of
two:
From (1) c = - 2b - e
From (3) d = - 0.5c - 0.5e
= -0.5 (-2b-e) - 0.5 e
=b
From (2) 0 = a - 6b - 2 (-2b-e) + b- e
=a+e-b
a =- e + b
From these results we obtain
Y = [ψ d p ]−e −b [( ρ p − ρ ) ρ ]b [G − G mf ]−2b −e [ g ]b [µ ]e --- (A-4)
( ρ p − ρ ) ρ g (ψ d p ) (ψ d p )(G − G mf )
Y =[ ]b [ ]−e --- (A-5)
(G − G mf ) 2 µ
From equation above, one can notice that the first term is the invert of Froude
number (Fr) and the second is the modified Reynolds number (Re).
A-5
Table (A-1) Experimental Conditions for mass Transfer in
Empty Bed
Exp. No. Air Flow Rate Temp.( ْC )

( m3/hr)
1 2.8 39.0
2 3.4 39.1
3 3.7 39.2
4 4.0 39.0
5 4.5 39.1
6 5.2 39.0
7 2.8 51.3
8 2.8 55.3
9 2.8 66.1
10 3.4 51.2
11 3.4 55.2
12 3.4 66.1
13 3.7 51.2
14 3.7 55.3
15 3.7 66.0
16 4.0 51.1
17 4.0 55.3
18 4.0 66.2
19 4.5 51.3
20 4.5 55.3
21 4.5 66.2
22 5.2 51.2
23 5.2 55.3
24 5.2 66.2
*Air flow rate measured at ambient temperature.
A-6
Table (A-2) Experimental Results for Mass Transfer in
Empty Bed
Exp. No. Weight Loss Rep She

( gm/hr.m2)
1 16.0007 285.1003 17.3135
2 17.4398 345.8269 18.7098
3 18.3160 377.7627 19.3947
4 18.4545 406.7856 19.9931
5 19.6208 458.6925 21.0113
6 20.6403 529.8438 22.3181
7 46.3716 277.7204 17.1085
8 65.2329 272.8329 16.9799
9 148.507 266.4974 16.8026
10 49.6271 336.7652 18.4820
11 68.0483 330.7357 18.3388
12 160.042 323.0021 18.1415
13 51.7253 368.4121 19.1685
14 71.6804 362.3935 19.0308
15 163.612 350.6095 18.7530
16 52.5007 396.0089 19.7436
17 73.0415 388.2574 19.5742
18 171.623 378.8475 19.3535
19 56.4473 447.5064 20.7647
20 77.5178 440.0929 20.6113
21 179.185 424.9063 20.2874
22 59.3788 516.9524 22.0536
23 82.1496 507.9866 21.8811
24 189.438 489.2557 21.5112
A-7
Table (A-3) Experimental Conditions for mass Transfer
in Fluidized Bed
Exp. No. Air Flow Temp. ( ْC ) U/Umf Sand Mean

Rate (m3/hr) Particle Size
(micron)
1 4.0 39.1 1.081
2 4.4 39.1 1.189
3 4.8 39.2 1.297
4 5.2 39.2 1.405
5 4.0 51.0 1.081
6 4.4 51.0 1.189
7 4.8 51.2 1.297 215
8 5.2 51.3 1.405
9 4.0 55.2 1.081
10 4.4 55.1 1.189
11 4.8 55.2 1.297
12 5.2 55.0 1.405
13 4.0 66.3 1.081
14 4.4 66.1 1.189
15 4.8 66.0 1.297
16 5.2 66.3 1.405
Exp. No. Air Flow Temp.( ْC ) U/Umf Sand Mean

Rate(m3/hr) Particle Size
(micron)
1 3.0 39.0 1.071
2 3.4 39.0 1.214
3 3.8 39.2 1.714
4 4.0 39.1 1.428
5 3.0 51.1 1.071
6 3.4 51.3 1.214 165
A-8
7 3.8 51.0 1.714
8 4.0 51.1 1.428
9 3.0 55.0 1.071
10 3.4 55.1 1.214
11 3.8 55.3 1.714
12 4.0 55.2 1.428
13 3.0 66.0 1.071
14 3.4 66.1 1.214
15 3.8 66.2 1.714
16 4.0 66.3 1.428
Exp. No. Air Flow Temp. (ْ C ) U/Umf Sand Mean

Rate (m3/hr) Particle Size
(micron)
1 2.4 39.0 1.091
2 2.8 39.1 1.272
3 3.0 39.2 1.363
4 3.2 39.0 1.454
5 2.4 51.1 1.091
6 2.8 51.2 1.272
7 3.0 51.3 1.363
8 3.2 51.0 1.454
9 2.4 55.3 1.091 112.5
10 2.8 55.2 1.272
11 3.0 55.1 1.363
12 3.2 55.0 1.454
13 2.4 66.0 1.091
14 2.8 66.1 1.272
15 3.0 66.3 1.363
16 3.2 66.2 1.454
* Air flow measured at ambient temperature.
A-9
Table (A-4) Experimental Results for mass Transfer
in Fluidized Bed
Exp. No. Weight Loss Rep she Sand Mean

(gm /hr .m2) Particle
Size
(micron)
1 30.550 943.711 254.612
2 31.754 964.753 258.791
3 33.483 972.286 262.413
4 34.911 982.705 269.751
5 84.836 951.646 214.622
6 89.614 967.903 225.704
7 94.233 971.532 243.950
8 98.408 979.463 257.568 215
9 121.607 916.604 203.815
10 124.457 945.031 217.780
11 130.413 969.868 247.502
12 132.781 972.372 227.235
13 285.096 884.269 172.751
14 295.131 989.403 194.224
15 297.444 944.853 203.705
16 313.011 961.185 214.443
Exp. No. Weight Loss Rep She Sand Mean

(gm/ hr .m2) Particle
Size
(micron)
1 25.509 661.725 281.599
2 27.221 753.687 305.431
3 29.075 839.761 334.890
6 29.756 889.359 344.508
5 73.244 648.804 264.114 165
6 78.891 734.674 283.170
7 81.180 822.972 295.800
A-10
8 84.641 871.428 307.709
9 100.240 640.279 247.105
10 107.812 728.698 265.401
11 115.400 814.634 281.715
12 117.142 857.086 299.552
13 240.074 629.500 227.746
14 256.227 713.256 239.534
15 270.089 782.938 252.753
16 280.120 827.042 274.766
Exp. No. Weight Loss Rep She Sand Mean

(gm /hr.m2) Particle Size
(micron)
1 23.162 524.397 349.553
2 25.077 611.679 364.710
3 25.833 650.192 377.455
4 26.042 692.233 389.107
5 64.938 505.762 327.114
6 70.487 591.292 339.415
7 74.378 639.272 359.770
8 75.018 683.956 378.105 112.5
9 91.653 500.889 314.211
10 99.647 593.283 332.154
11 100.780 630.218 351.005
12 103.917 676.432 368.417
13 212.427 489.986 305.215
14 230.876 573.556 319.419
15 682.796 930.620 335.498
16 698.345 992.660 357.794
A-11
‫ﺍﳋﻼﺻﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺜﺎﻟﲔ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻃﺲ ﺍﱃ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ )ﺭﻣﻞ_ﻫﻮﺍﺀ( ﳑﻴﻌﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪Mass Transfer of Naphthalene from an Immersed Surface to a Sand_air‬‬

‫‪Fluidized Bed‬‬
‫ﺍﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻊ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌـﺪﺩﺓ ﻭﺑﺘﻜﻠﻔـﺔ ﺗﻘـﺪﺭ ﺏ)ﺗﺮﻳﻠﻴـﻮﻥ ﺩﻭﻻﺭ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ‪:‬ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ‪ ,‬ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻒ ‪,‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻔﻴﻒ ﻭﺧﻠﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﺎﺋﻖ ‪,‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻴـﺎﺕ ﺍﻋـﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻏﺎﻃﺲ ﺍﱃ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﻏﺎﺯﻳﺔ ﳑﻴﻌﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻫﻮ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ‪ ,‬ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﻘـﺎﻝ ﺍﳌـﺎﺩﺓ ‪,‬ﻭﳏﺼـﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺜﻞ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﳑﻜﻦ ﺍﻥ ﲢﺴﺐ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﻭﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺩﺍﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﰎ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻋﻤﻮﺩ ﺯﺟﺎﺟﻲ ﺑﻘﻄﺮ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻲ )‪ 8‬ﺳﻢ( ﻭﺑﻄﻮﻝ )‪ 70‬ﺳﻢ(‪,‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳚﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺭﻳﺎﺿﻴﺔ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﱃ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﻏﺎﺯﻳﺔ ﳑﻴﻌﺔ ﺑﻌﺪﺓ ﻣـﺘﻐﲑﺍﺕ ﰎ ﺩﺭﺍﺳـﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﻫـﻲ ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﺟـﺔ ﺣـﺮﺍﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ)‪ (39-66C‬ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﺟﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﺀ)‪ , (1.2-1.4Umf‬ﻭﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﺎﺋﻖ)‪.(215,165,112.5 micron‬‬
‫‪( ρ p − ρ ) ρ g (ψ d‬‬ ‫‪p‬‬ ‫)‬ ‫‪C2‬‬ ‫‪(ψ d‬‬ ‫‪p‬‬ ‫) ‪)(G − G m f‬‬ ‫‪C3‬‬
‫[‪S h = S he + C 1‬‬ ‫]‬ ‫[‬ ‫]‬
‫‪(G − G m f ) 2‬‬ ‫‪µ‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻮﺍﺑﺖ ﻫﻲ ‪ C3, C2, C1:‬ﺗﺴﺎﻭﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﱄ ‪ 0.1284, 0.07497 , 16.8574‬ﻭﺑﻨﺴـﺒﺔ ﺧﻄـﺄ ﺗﺴـﺎﻭﻱ‬
‫‪.1.54%‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻭﺟﺪ ﺍﻥ ‪ *: Sherwood‬ﻟﻪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻜﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﺎﺋﻖ‬
‫* ﻟﻪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻃﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺳﺮﻋﺔ ﺟﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺋﻊ‬
‫* ﻟﻪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻜﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺣﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ‬
‫ﰎ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺮﺍﺽ ﻣﻮﺩﻳﻞ ﺭﻳﺎﺿﻲ ﻻﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻏﺎﻃﺲ ﺍﱃ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﳑﻴﻌﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻣﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﰎ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺩﻳﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻨﺘﻘﺎل ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻤﻥ ﺴﻁﺢ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺜﺎﻟﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻁﺱ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ )ﺭﻤل‪-‬ﻫﻭﺍﺀ(ﻤﻤﻴﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺭﺴﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻤﻘﺩﻤﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺩﺴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺠﺎﻤﻌﺔ ﻨﻬﺭﻴﻥ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺠﺯﺀ ﻤﻥ ﻤﺘﻁﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﻨﻴل ﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﻤﺎﺠﺴﺘﻴﺭ ﻋﻠﻭﻡ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺩﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﻭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﻗﺒل‬
‫ﺯﻫﺭﺍﺀ ﺤﻤﻴﺩ ﻤﺤﻤﺩ‬

‫)ﺒﻜﺎﻟﻭﺭﻴﻭﺱ ﻋﻠﻭﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺩﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﻭﻴﺔ ‪(2004‬‬
‫‪1428‬‬ ‫ﺫﻭ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺔ‬

‫‪2007‬‬ ‫ﻜﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻲ‬

Thesis 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis 15

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MASS TRANSFER OF NAPHTHALENE FROM

AN IMMERSED SURFACE TO A SAND-AIR

Dhu Al-hijja 1428

I certify that this thesis entitled “Mass Transfer of Naphthalene from

an Immersed Surface to a Sand-Air Fluidized Bed” was prepared by

“Zahra,a Hamid Mohammed” under my supervision at Nahrain

Fluidization process is widely used by a great assortment of industries

velocity (1.2-1.4 Umf), and sand particle size (215,165,112.5 µ m ).

In which C1 = 16.8574, C2 = 0.07497, and C3 = 0.1284.

Chapter One: Introduction 1

Chapter Two: Literature Survey

3.2.2 Simplified Packet Theory 29

Chapter Four: Experimental Work

Chapter Six: Conclusions and Recommendations

Cp = Carbon potential of carburizing gaseous -

dp = Fluidizing particle diameter. m

D , Db = Effective diffusivity iv a packet and in a m2 / s

Dv = Diffusivity of transferable component. m2 /s

Dv0 = Diffusivity of transferable component at 0 0C. m2/s

emf = Minimum void fraction. -

g = Gravitational force. m/s2

G = Gas mass velocity. kg /m2. s

Gmf = Gas mass minimum velocity. kg/m2. s

h = Heat transfer coefficient. J /s.m2.K

hf = Surface-to-gas heat transfer coefficient W /m2. K

kxp = Surface-to-packet mass transfer coefficient kg / m2. s

Kge = Mass transfer coefficient between the surface m/s

Ms = Mass capacity of particles m3 / kg

N' = Connective component of N kg / m2.s

Pi = Partial pressure at the surface. mm Hg

Ps = Saturation partial pressure. mm Hg

She = Sherwood number in empty bed. -

t0,tw = Bed and immersed surface temperature ْC

u = Superficial gas velocity m/ s

Umf = Minimum fluidizing velocity. m/s

X = Concentration of solid(mass of transferred kg/kg

∆pd = Distributor pressure drop. mm Hg

∆pt = Total pressure drop. mm Hg

µ = Viscosity. kg/ s.m

µο = Viscosity at 0 0C. kg/s.m

ρ = Gas density. kg/m3

Table Title Page

(4.1) Properties of Sand Particles. 33

(4.2) Conditions of Mass Transfer 36

(5.1) Comparison of the Orders of Magnitude of The experimental 50

Figure Title Page

(2.1) Types of Fluidization 5

(2.2) Types of Gas Distributor 6

(2.3) Minimum Fluidizing Velocity 7

(2.4) Air-Velocity Bed Pressure Drop for Silica Sand (375 9

(4.2) Photographic Picture of the Experiment 38

(5.1) Comparison of Experimental Data with The Packet Theory 48

(5.3) Experimental Sh. vs. Temperature at Air Flow Rate = 1.2 55

(5.17) Temperature = 55 ْC. 62

Fluidization is an important chemical process, and it use opened a wide

Fluidization can be defined as the process by which solid particles are

2.1.1 Merits and Demerits of Fluidization Technique

In this work the advantages and disadvantages of the technique of

The disadvantages are: