Powder Technology 147 (2004) 34 48

www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Minimum fluidation velocity correlations in particulate systems

R. Coltters*, A.L. Rivas
Department of Materials Science, Universidad Simon Bolivar, Caracas,Venezuela
Received 26 February 2004; accepted 21 June 2004
Available online 12 November 2004

Abstract
A new relationship for the prediction of minimum fluidization velocity is proposed. It has been made a comprehensive critical review,
concluding that in order to apply, some of these correlations additional experimental data is required, such as bed voidage and shape
factors. It is found a strong dependency of the physical and chemical properties of the particle surface on the minimum fluidization
velocity. This influence of the nature of the particle surface allows that empirical equations are applicable in specific cases, but cannot be
generalized. The original equation presented in this paper allows the predicting minimum fluidization velocity in a very simple way
without the need of experimental determination of bed voidages and shape factors. The new correlation was tested using 189
measurements reported in the literature on about 90 different materials. The results shown that the new correlation is in very well
agreement with the experimental data.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Gassolid fluidization; Particle size; Minimum fluidization velocity

1. Introduction
Among the various factors affecting the dynamic conditions of fluidized beds, one of the most significant is the
fluid velocity at incipient fluidization. The velocity at which
this behavior develops is called the minimum fluidization
velocity. This is an important variable in the design of
fluidized beds [14]. Knowledge of the minimum fluidization velocity facilitates the study of reaction kinetics
because it allows a rational use of the gas in the gas phase as
an excess over that required for minimum fluidization. It
would therefore be useful to be able to predict this velocity
instead of having to measure it for each new situation. Until
now, many equations for calculating this variable have been
obtained for glass beads, metallic shots, sands, cracking
catalysts, etc., all of them of fairly well-known particle size
distribution and shape.
However, with the increasing interest in the use of
fluidized beds for ore treatment in extractive metallurgy, the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Coltters).
0032-5910/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2004.06.013

number of systems in which fluidized beds are finding

practical application is rapidly expanding. For such beds,
which are formed by a wide number of combinations of
particle size and shape, no information is available for the
predictions of the minimum fluidization velocities. Disagreements among these predictions, which are on different
correlations, reflect the problem of making allowances for
effects such as: particle shape, size distribution, and
interparticle forces, etc. Thus, it seems that most of the actual
correlations appears to be inadequate. Accordingly, a new
general correlation has been developed based on the available
published experimental data in this field, that fits the data
quite well.
This paper deals with gassolid systems and reviews the
previous publications and the empirical arguments supporting the new general correlation.

2. Literature survey
Several equations are available for predicting the
minimum fluidization velocity, based mainly on particle
and gas properties; densities of solid and gas (q s, q g),

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

sphericity (/), particle diameter (D p) and voidage at

minimum fluidization velocity (e mf). The correlations
proposed in the literature [528], containing similar fluidization parameters, differ in the values of their coefficients
and exponents, which usually were determined for a
particular fluidization system.
Some correlations appear to be equivalent. For example,
Wen and Yus correlation [29] is given by the following
expression:
gD2P qs  qg
e4:7
mf
CDS
l
18
CDS stokes

Umf

where
CDS
CD Remf

CDS stokes
24

CD

18:5

3=5

Remf

Substituting Eq. (b) in (a), we arrive at:

CDS
18:5Remf

0:0771Re0:4
mf
:3=5
CDS stokes
24Remf

e4:7
mf
18  0:771Re0:4
mf

dD2p qs  qg
l

3. Development of the new correlation

This equation can be simplified and rearranged into the

following form:
0:4
Umf 0:072e4:7
mf Remf

dD2p qs  qg
l

It seems that, the Wen and Yu correlation (1) coincides with

Schillers Eq. (2) [30].
Other [6,918] are of the Ergun equation type [31],
Lippens and Mulder [28] showed that they have a general
form, which can be written as:






Ar
f emf ; /s g emf ; /s Remf
Remf

and
Remf

C12

C2 Ar

1=2

 C1

from which U mf may be calculated according to Eq. (5).

Umf

lRemf
dP qg

These expressions require information of the / and e mf

parameters, which are difficult to measure experimentally.
This is particularly true of incipient bed voidage be mfQ at low
pressure using dense materials and big bed heights. In this
case, only a fraction of the bed appears to approach
fluidization at the minimum fluidization velocities, whereas
the rest of the volume remains undisturbed. In this situation,
usually the true value of be mfQ can be approximated by the
value of be PQ obtained by pouring the particles slowly from
one container into another [32].
The deduction of these equations has been carried out by
experimental data fitting. Fletcher et al. [33] concluded that to
apply these relations, experimental data have to be extracted
from the literature to calculate Re mf, but each experimental
point requires specific values of C 1 and C 2. Therefore,
calculations based on simple values of C 1 and C 2 introduce a
significant error into the prediction of U mf. Also it can be
emphasize, the knowledge of the voidage e mf at incipient
fluidization and the sphericity / s is needed to apply Eq. (5).
Additionally in the fitting procedure, in order to obtain a
linear dependence of Ar/Re mf on Re mf, e mf and / s must be
constant, which it may no be true.
The purpose of this paper is search for a simple
correlation to predict U mf without the necessity of experimental determination of bed voidages and shape factors.

and combining with Eq. (1) gives

Umf

35

It is well known that the minimum fluidization

velocity U mf is sensitive to parameters such as solid
and fluid densities, the nature of solids and fluids, etc. In
addition, gas viscosity is usually considered independent
of pressure [34,35], but density is not. It is widely known
that U mf is quite sensitive to the density difference
(q sq f) due to the buoyancy. Additionally, the particle
fluid density ratio can be related to the drag exerted from
the fluid on the particles and to the void fraction [36,37].
Therefore, dimensional analysis of the independent
variables suggests that there may be a functional relationship among the following parameters affecting the
minimum fluidization velocity:
qs
; Dp ;
qg




q s  qg ;

Or assuming simple power relationships:

 m
a
qs
Umf K
; Dnp ; qs  qg p ; g; lq
qg

where K and a are constants and are functions of the solid

fluid system, and m, n, p and q are exponents. This equation
has the form
Umf KX a

36

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

and

X u

qs
qg

m
;

Dnp ; qs  qg p ;

g; lq

a plot of log U mf vs. logX should yield to a straight line,

where K and a can be determined.

a
8

5.1. Metals

The exponents of Eq. (8) have been evaluated using

dimensional analysis and by experimental data fitting from
the literature. After substitution of these exponents, Eq. (8)
becomes
 
D2p qs  qg g qs 1:23
X
9
l
qg
combining Eqs. (7) and (9), the minimum fluidizing velocity
yields
 2
  
Dp qs  qg g qs 1:23 a
Ufm K
10
l
qg
Eq. (10) is a general expression that may be used to
estimate the minimum fluidization velocity in a system. The
precise knowledge of e mf and / s is avoided, which is very
important given the experimental difficulties in determining
those parameters, especially when beds of irregular shape
and coarse particles are handled.

4. Evaluation of the correlation

To test the relation (10), experimental results have been
extracted from the literature. The literature data have been
selected according to the following criteria:
(a)

The particle diameter used to test the correlation were

those defined by the relation: dp P1 x where x is the
da

weight fraction of particles in each size range and the

average particle diameter d p usually was obtained from
sieve analysis
(b) The minimum fluidizing velocity strongly depends on
the surface characteristics of the solid particles.
The first condition excludes rod- or disc-shaped particles
because the interpretation of their characteristic length
measurement is ambiguous. The last selection criteria
demands select data from solids of similar surface morphology or crystallographic structures at ambient temperature and
atmospheric pressure. Therefore, the correlation will be tested
against experimental values of U mf for the following groups
of materials: metals, alumina, glass, sand, coal, catalysts,
metallic ores, polymers and minerals. Table 1 shows the bed
material and fluidizing gas of the systems studied.

5. Results
The experimental data reported with all the groups
selected has been plotted in Figs. 110. If Eq. (10) applies,

Nineteen sets of experimental data have been tested. Fig.

1 shows the relation between the experimental data of U mf
and the calculated values of X as a logU mf vs. logX. The
experimental data points can be approximated by the
following expression resulting from the best linear fit to
Eq. (10). The relationship has been correlated as

Umf 4:7673  106 X 0:71635F0:02213
11
From this figure, it can be seen that the equation fits
the experimental data in an excellent manner. Closer
scatter of the data points around this line is seen.
Nevertheless, the correlation is applicable over a wide
range of particle size (3 AmVD pV900 Am) and particle
density (2.7Vq sV11.37 [g/cm3]). The fitting of the
experimental data to Eq. (11) has a correlation coefficient
of R=0.990.
Also shown in this figure are three points, marked
with arrows, from experiments of Turton et al. [38] and
Kusakabe et al. [43], in both studies the results yield
values for U mf higher than those obtained in the other
metalgas systems.
Turton et al. [38] measure the heat transfer coefficients between fluidized beds and immersed currentcarrying Alumel wires. The beds particles consisted of
uniformly-sized aluminum from 105 to 454 Am. The
fluidizing gas used was house air at a total pressure of 1
atm, the oxygen partial pressure in the fluidizing air was
0.21 atm.
Kusakabe et al. [43] used ultra-fine aluminum powder
(d P=134 Am). High-purity nitrogen as the fluidizing gas
was used and the bed was evacuated with a rotary pump.
Under these conditions and assuming a vacuum of 105
mm Hg, the oxygen partial pressure in the fluidizing
nitrogen probably was c2.64109 atm (this, of course,
ignores vacuum pump vapours, etc.). Because at room
temperature the standard free energy of formation for
Al2O3 is about 975 kJ and the equilibrium oxygen partial
pressure is c1095 atm [144], it is thermodynamically
possible that the bare aluminum surface of the particles
exposed to an oxygen containing atmosphere a very thin
layer of alumina (far too thin to be visible to the naked
eye) was formed very quickly. Thus, it is conceivable that
alumina was formed on the aluminum particle surface by
oxygen from the fluidizing gas and they actually were
measuring the U mf of Al2O3/air and Al2O3/N2 instead of
that for Al/air and Al/N2 systems.
Therefore, the surface geometry of the aluminum
particles probably was significantly modified after the
particle was coated with a film of alumina and this coating
containing pores with diameters in the range from 4 to 100

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

Table 1
Data from the literature for calculating the minimum fluidization velocity

Table 1 (continued)
Ref.

Solid-air

Ref.

Solid-air

[1,59]

Glass beads
Hollow silica ballons
Cooper powder
Cooper shot (spherical)
Glass spheres
Glass Balls 1/16?
Glass beads
FCC
Silica sand
Aluminum powder
Aluminum powder
Polyethylene beads
Glass spheres
Sand
Steel shot (spherical)
Alumina powder
Glass spherical
Steel shot (spherical)
Copper shot (spherical)
Polystyrene beads
Ballotini
Copper powder
Glass beads
FCC catalyst
Sand
Copper (/ s=0.56)
Copper shot (/ s=1)
Bronze shot (/ s=1)
Polystyrene spheres
Ballotini
Glass
Sand
Carbon
Bronze
Ballotini
Lead shot (spherical)
Bellotini
Diakon
Sand
Rock salt (NaCl)
Glass balls
Alumina powder
Corindon particles
Corindon
Alumina powder
Glass spheres
Iron ore particles
Glass powder
Petroleum coke particles
Ballotini
Alumina powders
Alumina powder
Magnetite (Fe3o4) particles
Silica sand
CaF2MgF2 particles
Fused alumina powder
CaCO3 particles
Ballotini
Glass beads
Silica sand
Dolomite particles
SiC particles
Alumina

[59]
[60]

Hollow char
Glass beads
Sand
Coal particles
Polyethylene (PE) particles
Glass beads
Sand
Glass beads
Sand
Catalytic FCC
Polypropylene
Glass beads
Sand
Glass beads
Cracking catalyst
Glass beads
Glass beads
Glass powder
Sand
Catalytic powder FCC
Glass spheres
Hollow plastic spheres
CaCO3 particles
Glass spherical
Glass spheres
Sand
Glass spheres
Glass balls
Glass balls
Glass beads
Glass spheres
Silica sand
Glass beads
Glass beads
Glass beads
Sand
Silica sand
Petroleum coke
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand B
Sand T
Sand
Glass beads
Sand
Sand
Silica sand
FCC particles
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Ballotini
Sand
Sand
Synclyst particles
Silica sand
FCC particles
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand

[2]
[34]

[38]

[40]

[41]

[44]

[50]
[42]

[45]
[46]

[47]

[48]
[49]
[51]

[52]

[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]

Symbol

Fig.
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
6
4
1
2
8
3
4
1
2
3
1
1
8
6
1
3
6
4
1
1
1
8
6
3
4
9
1
6
1
6
6
4
10
3
2
2
2
2
3
7
3
5
6
2
2
10
4
10
2
9
6
3
4
9
10
2

[61]
[62]

[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]

[68]

[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89,90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]
[95]
[96]
[97]
[98]
[99]
[100]
[101]
[102]

37

Symbol

Fig.
5
3
4
5
8
3
4
3
4
6
8
3
4
3
6
3
3
3
4
6
3
8
9
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
6
4
4
6
4
6
4
4
4
4

(continued on next page)

38

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

Table 1 (continued)
Ref.

Solid-air

[104]
[105]
[106]

Sand
Sand
Silica sand
FCC
Sand
PVC beads
Sand
Sand
Coal particles
Limestone
CaSO4 particles
Partially sulphated lime
Diakon
Fresh catalyst
Spent catalyst
Ballotini
Ballotin
Catalyst
Diakon
Reformer catalyst
FCC
Microspherical catalyst
FCC
Cracking catalyst 1
Cracking catalyst 2
Alumina catalyst
Catalyst sand
Engelhard FCC catalyst
Alumina cracking catalyst
FCC
Polyethylene Resin (PE)
Iron ore particles
1/8 Nylon spheres
Plastic particles
Acrylic particles
Polyethylene
Plypropylene
Polyvinyl acetate
PVC particles
Dolomite particles
SiC particles
CaCO3 particles
ZnO particles
Ballotini
Si3N4 particles
Alumina beads
Silica sand
Sand
Alumina
Sand
Glass beads
Silica sand
FCC

[107]
[108]
[109]
[110]

[111]

[112]
[113]

[114]
[115]
[116]
[117]
[118]
[120]
[121]
[122]
[123]
[124]
[127]

[128]
[129]
[130]
[131]
[132]
[133]
[134]
[135]
[136]
[137]
[138]
[139]
[141]
[140]
[143]

Ref.

Solid-gas

[39]

Nickel-1/Helium
(Nickel-1/Nickel-2)/H2
Sand/natural gas
Sand/Acetylene
Sand/H2
FCC/Argon
FCC/Neon

[104]

[115]

Table 1 (continued)
Symbol

Symbol

Fig.

Ref.

Solid-Nitrogen

4
4
4
6
4
8
4
4
5
9
10
9
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
6
9
2
4
4
2
4
3
4
6

[21]

Nickel powder
Alumina powder
Nickel-1 (spherical)
Iron powder
Aluminum powder
Aluminum powder
Alumina powder
Pyrrhotite particles
Sand
CaCO3 particles
Li/MgO catalyst
Iron ore particles
Copper concentrate
Si3N4 particles
Alumina powder
Silica sand
FCC particles

Fig.
1
1
4
4
4
6
6

[39]
[43]

[57]
[103]
[119]
[125]
[126]
[135]
[141]

Symbol

Fig.
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
10
4
9
6
7
7
9
2
4
6

nm [145] possibly increases the surface area and roughness

and promotes close contact among particles, and obviously,
originates in the increasing relative magnitude of the
cohesive forces between the particles leading to a higher
than expected U mf. This was also shown by the work done
by Luo et al. [39]; they measured the heat transfer
coefficient in fluidized bed of Ni and Ni alloy powders.
The fluidizing gas was Nitrogen. Two types of nickel
powder of the same spherical shape were employed, Ni1 consisted of spheres with flat surface and Ni-2
consisted of spheres with acicular surface. They found
that Ni-2 was easier to fluidize and they explained by
differences in surface roughness; the acicular surface of
Ni-2 powder limits close contact between the particles,
while the flat surface of Ni-1 powder promotes close
contact among the particles, so that the cohesive forces
of Ni-1 powder was stronger than that of Ni-2 powder,
this was reflected by the high value of U mf. Thus, this
conclusion drawn from the fitting of experimental results
of Turton and Kusakabe studies, appears to be justified
because the U mf could be related to the interparticle
adhesive force.
5.2. Alumina
Aluminium hydroxides are common sources of aluminium oxide (Al2O3), which itself exists in various
metastable polymorphs (transition Aluminas) in addition
to the thermodynamically stable a Al2O3 form (corundum). The transition aluminas v, g, d, j, h, c and q
(especially c form) have fine particle sizes and high
surface areas with enhanced surface/gas interactions.
These alumina phases are produced during the heat
treatment of aluminum hydroxide. This means that a
series of morphological forms develops the surface
properties which are determined by the structure and
impurity content of the starting material (aluminum
hydroxide) and the temperature of calcination. Therefore,

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

39

Fig. 1. Comparison of the predictions of Eq. (10) with the experimental U mf data for MetalGas fluidized beds.

alumina can be manufactured by many different routes,

and the different nature and morphology of alumina
particles result in differences in the behavior of fluidized
beds. The fact that the same material has different surface
properties, as particleparticle interactions is believed to
be quite important.
Commercially for industrial applications, for the catalyst
and abrasive industries, high-purity alumina powders can be
classified as high density and lowmedium density [146].
Sixteen sets of experimental data have been tested. The
correlation of U mf for alumina was better addressed taking
into account the differences in alumina densities than
particles size. Then, according to the alumina densities
ranges, it was found that the experimental values of U mf are
much better fitted by two separated lines than by a simple

correlation. These correlations are shown in Fig. 2. The

equations of the best fitting are:
Lowmedium density

Umf 2:7568  106 X 0:81455F0:02845

12

0.768Vq sV2.8 [g/cm3]

High-density

Umf 3:7774  105 X 0:63012F0:03064
3.3Vq sV4.015 [g/cm3].

Fig. 2. Comparison of the predictions of Eq. (10) with the experimental U mf data for AluminaGas fluidized beds.

13

40

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

Fig. 3. Comparison of the predictions of Eq. (10) with the experimental U mf data for GlassGas fluidized beds.

The fitting of the experimental data to Eqs. (12) and (13)

have a correlation coefficient of R=0.991 and R=0.991,
respectively.
Fig. 2 shows that there is a good agreement between the
calculated values and the experimental one. Also these
results indicate that beds of particles of low-medium density
and high density have similar fluidization behavior, respectively, over a wide range of particle size.
Also shown in this figure, are the values of U mf reported
by Turton et al. [38] and Kusakabe et al. [43] which fit

better on the linear relationship for low-medium density

than in Fig. 1. Therefore, it seems that the oxide-coated
aluminum particles showed a similar fluidization behavior
as pure alumina particles.
5.3. Glass
Thirty-three sets of experimental data have been tested.
It was found that two lines fit much better the
experimental values of U mf with different slope than by

Fig. 4. Comparison of the predictions of Eq. (10) with the experimental U mf data for SandGas fluidized beds.

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

41

Fig. 5. Comparison of the predictions of Eq. (10) with the experimental U mf data for CoalGas fluidized beds.

a simple correlation. These correlations are shown in Fig.

3. The equations of the best fitting are:

Umf 4:3384  107 X 0:89029F0:1888
14
23 AmVD pV569 Am

Umf 2:4624  103 X 0:46943F0:01190
569 AmVD pV3000 Am.

15

The fitting of the experimental data to Eqs. (15) and (16)

have a correlation coefficient of R=0.992 and R=0.991,
respectively.
These correlations suggest that in glass beads ranging
from a mean particle size of 23 to 569 Am, the effect of
particle interactions and viscous forces predominate. For
glass beads ranging from a mean particle size of 569 to 3000
Am where the slope of the straight line decreases, turbulence
becomes a factor and the support of the particle is no longer
due to a simple viscous drag.

Fig. 6. Comparison of the predictions of Eq. (10) with the experimental U mf data for CatalystGas fluidized beds.

42

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

Fig. 7. Comparison of the predictions of Eq. (10) with the experimental U mf data for OresGas fluidized beds.

5.4. Sand
Forty-eight sets of experimental data have been tested. It
was found that the experimental values of U mf are much
better fitted by two lines with different slope than by a
simple correlation. These correlations are shown in Fig. 4.
The equations of the best fitting are:

Umf 9:7119  107 X 0:84268F0:01601
16
95 mmVD pV800 mm.

Umf 6:4051  103 X 0:4252F0:01339
800 AmVD pV2800 Am.

17

The fitting of the experimental data to Eqs. (17) and (18)

have correlation coefficients of R=0.993 and R=0.992,
respectively. The plot of sand data (Fig. 4) was similar to
that of Fig. 3.
5.5. Coal
Six sets of experimental data have been tested. It was
found that the experimental values of U mf are much better
fitted by two lines with different slope than by a simple
correlation.
These correlations are shown in Fig. 5. The equations of
the best fitting are:

Umf 4:7731  106 X 0:87117F0:01513
18

Fig. 8. Comparison of the predictions of Eq. (10) with the experimental U mf data for PolymersGas fluidized beds.

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

43

Fig. 9. Comparison of the predictions of Eq. (10) with the experimental U mf data for Orthorhombic and Hexagonal mineralsGas fluidized beds.

710 AmVD pV1000 Am

Umf 8:5557  103 X 0:46093F0:28872

5.6. Catalyst
19

1000 AmVD pV3578 Am.

The fitting of the experimental data to Eqs. (18) and (19)
have a correlation coefficient of R=0.998 and R=0.996,
respectively. The Eqs. (18) and (19) were generally similar
to those of glass and sand correlations.
Arguments similar to those used in Fig. 3 to explain the
fluidization behavior apply to Figs. 4 and 5. The trends in
these data could be explained in terms of the balance of
viscous and turbulent forces for each particle size range with
reference to Eqs. (18) and (19).

Thirty-eight sets of experimental data have been tested. It

was found that the data could be correlated on a single
straight line by plotting logU mf versus the calculated values
of logX. This relationship is shown in Fig. 6. The equation
of the best fitting is:

Umf 1:145  105 X 0:71957F01422

20

25AmVD pV2250 Am.

The fitting of the experimental data to Eq. (21) has a
correlation coefficient of R=0.991.

Fig. 10. Comparison of the predictions of Eq. (10) with the experimental U mf data for Cubic mineralsGas fluidized beds.

44

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

Good agreement between the calculated and experimental

results was obtained, as revealed in Fig. 6. The results suggest
that particle density has been shown to be an unimportant
parameter, at least in the range 0.792.95 [g/cm3].

5.9. Minerals
Seventeen sets of experimental data were tested. It was
found that the experimental values of U mf are much

5.7. Metallic ores

Four sets of experimental data with different particle size
and shape have been tested. It was found also that the
experimental data could be correlated on a single straight
line. This relationship is shown in Fig. 7. The equation of
the best fitting is:

Umf 3:1108  10

8

0:93283F0:03451

21

101AmVD pV1250 Am.

The fitting of the experimental data to Eq. (21) has a
correlation coefficient of R=0.994, indicating a good
agreement between the calculated values and the experimental one, such as can be seen in Fig. 7.
It is important to notice that metallic ores and concentrates
are generally of irregular particle size and shape and comprise
a wide spectrum of size distribution. Therefore, the correlation is valid over a wide spectrum of size distribution. This is
so because the correlation has been derived from experimental data predominantly for particles of irregular shapes.
5.8. Polymer
Fourteen sets of experimental data were tested. Here also,
it was found that the experimental data could be correlated
on a single straight line. This relationship is shown in Fig. 8.
The equation of the best fitting is:

Umf 2:1308  104 X 0:59460F0:01730
22
116AmVD pV1000 Am.
The fitting of the experimental data to Eq. (22) has a
correlation coefficient of R=0.995. Fig. 7 also shows good
agreement between the calculated values and the experimental one. The plot of polymer data (Fig. 8) was similar
to those of metal (Fig. 1), catalyst (Fig. 6) and ores (Fig.
7). The results suggest similar fluidization behavior of the
beds. These correlations would indicate that U mf is directly
proportional to the diameter of the particle squared, to the
difference in solid and gas density, and inversely proportional
to the first power of the gas viscosity. Figs. 1, 6, 7 and 8 also
suggest that the effect of particle size interaction and viscous
forces predominate and that the particle size distribution does
not appear to have a significant effect on U mf. This is
particularly evident for the polymer beds because a characteristic property of polymeric particles is the superficial
dielectric properties. When two particles are in contact,
movement of electric charges occur through their surface
leading to a formation of a double electric layer and strong
particleparticle interaction.

Table 2
Values of K, a and R for the equation U mf=KX a applied to the published
fluidization data
Fluidizing system

Correlation
coefficient R

MetalGas
3 AmbD P
b900 Am

4.7673106

0.71635F0.02213

0.990

2.7568106

0.81455F0.02845

0.991

3.7774105

0.6301F0.03064

0.991

4.3384107

0.89029F0.01888

0.992

2.4624103

0.46943F0.01190

0.991

9.7119107

0.84268F0.01601

0.993

6.4051103

0.42520F0.01339

0.992

4.7731106

0.87117F0.01513

0.998

8.5557103

0.46093F0.28872

0.996

CatalystsGas
25 AmbD P
b2250 Am

1.145105

0.71957F0.01422

0.991

Metallic OresGas
101 AmbD P
b1250 Am

3.1108108

0.93283F0.03451

0.994

PolymerAir
116 AmbD P
b1000 Am

2.1308104

0.59460F0.01730

0.995

4.427103

0.47851F0.03930

0.992

0.50953F0.01379

0.991

0.61787F0.04099

0.994

AluminaGas
Lowmedium
density
0.768Vq sV2.8
[gr/cm3]
High density
3.3Vq sV4.015
[gr/cm3]
GlassGas
23 AmbD P
b569 Am
569 AmbD P
b3000 Am
SandGas
95 AmbD P
b800 Am
800 AmbD P
b2800 Am
CoalGas
710 AmbD P
b1000 Am
1000 AmbD P
b3578 Am

MineralGas
Orthorhombic
502 AmbD P
b2828 Am
Hexagonal
0.89 AmbD P
b2300 Am
Cubic
106 AmbD P
b2474 Am

7.926510

7.1187105

Table 3
Comparison of calculated values of U mf [cm/s] using Eq. (10) and some correlations reported in the literature with the experimental results of fluidizing systems given in column 1
Calculated values of minimum fluidization velocity using the correlations reported by the following authors
Fluidizing system Flecther Bin
experimental U mf et al. [33] [6]
Cracking catalyst [117]
0.32
0.29
0.27
0.19
0.21
0.12
0.20
0.09

Wen and Reina

Piepers Bourgeois and Richardson Babu
Thonglimp Chyang and Saxena and Grace Fatah
Chitester Lucas
This work Eq. (10)
Yu [29] et al. [7] et al. [8] Grenier [9]
et al. [10] et al. [11] et al. [40] Huang [13] Vogel [14] [15]
et al. [17] et al. [18] et al. [16] Particular General

0.25
0.16
0.10
0.08

0.42
0.27
0.15
0.11

0.42
0.27
0.15
0.11

0.31
0.20
0.13
0.10

0.29
0.19
0.12
0.09

0.53
0.35
0.22
0.17

0.28
0.18
0.11
0.09

0.20
0.13
0.08
0.06

0.47
0.30
0.19
0.14

0.31
0.20
0.13
0.10

5.84
4.86
4.01
3.55

0.36
0.23
0.15
0.11

0.25
0.16
0.10
0.08

0.32
0.27
0.22
0.20

0.32
0.28
0.20
0.20

18.51
22.42

2.38
16.28
19.86

3.96
20.10
26.17

4.00
22.40
30.60

2.94
19.45
23.47

2.75
18.28
22.11

5.03
31.45
37.41

2.64
17.89
21.75

1.95
13.47
16.49

4.41
28.02
33.46

2.94
19.55
23.64

17.92
41.74
45.88

3.37
22.27
26.88

2.38
16.14
19.64

2.7
16.5
20.3

3.1
16.8
20.3

Glass Beads [58]

5.90
10.60
16.30

5.80
9.83
13.33

5.53
9.85
13.79

6.45
11.38
16.45

6.59
11.95
17.90

6.79
11.97
16.57

6.35
11.21
15.56

11.50
19.89
27.05

6.13
10.88
15.18

4.54
8.10
1.38

10.12
17.59
24.05

6.80
12.00
16.65

25.43
32.77
38.16

7.79
13.72
18.99

5.52
9.80
13.68

5.8
10.9
16.0

6.4
11.2
15.7

Polystyrene [47]
2100
25.00
28.00
48.00
60.00

19.57
19.57
19.57
40.64
51.12

24.06
24.06
24.06
48.75
59.77

21.75
21.75
21.75
46.62
58.15

23.96
23.96
22.23
50.83
61.84

28.04
28.04
25.57
94.31
14.90

25.00
25.00
25.00
49.68
60.56

23.66
23.66
23.66
47.56
58.17

38.48
38.48
38.48
70.61
84.28

23.60
23.60
23.60
49.29
60.98

18.22
18.22
18.22
40.20
50.63

34.72
34.72
34.72
64.90
77.83

25.28
25.28
25.28
50.74
62.03

41.40
41.40
41.40
66.14
78.87

28.59
28.59
28.59
56.66
69.02

21.35
21.35
21.35
44.84
55.57

22.00
25.00
26.40
48.60
60.60

Salt [47]
104.00

22.97

28.21

26.92

29.50

893.01

28.77

27.53

41.00

28.49

23.19

37.66

29.37

38.46

32.82

34.78

106.00

Glass Beads [47]

83.00
62.46
99.00
97.79
138.00
135.50
193.00
135.50

74.08 71.45
109.16 108.47
144.29 145.61
144.29 145.61

68.97
106.92
135.01
135.01

131.05
350.95
713.49
713.49

75.27
108.84
144.49
144.49

72.18
105.95
139.77
139.77

105.86
149.13
192.75
192.75

75.23
112.59
150.00
150.00

61.89
95.59
129.47
129.47

97.53
138.47
179.67
179.67

76.98 98.86
112.90 144.84
148.88 203.69
148.88 203.69

85.82
125.09
164.44
164.44

68.50
102.82
137.21
137.21

83.00
100.40
141.20
187.20

80.9
99.80
145.70
199.10

Sand [47]
36.00
55.00
78.00
88.00
94.00
122.00
131.00

31.53 28.42
60.05 56.88
87.50 85.55
87.59 92.64
105.78 104.90
140.28 141.38
144.29 145.61

31.51
60.58
97.38
95.67
117.17
148.78
164.84

52.11
138.12
344.95
346.44
546.55
111.66
143.28

32.80
61.39
88.50
95.11
106.52
140.53
144.49

31.01
58.66
85.10
91.55
102.70
135.91
139.77

50.73
88.34
122.45
130.69
144.96
187.75
192.75

30.88
60.41
89.49
96.64
108.99
145.74
150.00

23.77
48.78
74.69
81.14
92.32
125.62
129.47

45.72
80.97
113.23
121.03
134.53
174.95
179.67

33.15
62.60
90.73
97.59
104.44
144.77
148.88

55.38
83.48
115.06
123.78
139.88
196.29
203.69

37.52
70.05
100.86
108.36
121.31
159.95
164.44

27.93
54.90
81.60
88.16
99.51
133.29
137.21

38.30
55.60
75.30
81.00
91.90
129.50
134.50

39.5
55.80
76.10
81.80
92.20
128.40
133.10

107.18
107.18

410.29
410.29

52.72
52.72

50.51
50.51

74.63
74.63

52.46
52.46

42.93
42.93

68.66
68.66

53.88
53.88

69.78
69.78

60.13
60.13

47.74
47.74

51.0
56.5

Alumina [49]
51.00
53.00

41.50
97.71
179.51
204.48
252.01
424.13
446.57

43.35
43.35

51.80
51.80

49.70
49.70

45

2.62
15.51
18.55

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

Silica Sand [58]

2.70
15.10
22.00

46

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

better fitted by three separate lines than by a simple

correlation.
These correlations are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. The
equations of the best fitting are:
Orthorhombic System

Umf 4:427  103 X 0:47851F0:03930

23

502 AmVD pV2828 Am.

Hexagonal System

Umf 7:9265  104 X 0:50953F0:01379

24

0.89 AmVD pV2300 Am.

Cubic System

Umf 7:1187  105 X 0:61787F0:04099

25

106 AmVD pV2474 Am.

The fitting of the experimental data to Eqs. Eqs. (23)
(25) have a correlation coefficient of R=0.992, R=0.991 and
R=0.994, respectively.
Figs. 9 and 10 show that there is good agreement between
the calculated values and the experimental one. These results
indicate that the properties of the particle surface are key
factors for predicting U mf. In addition, these results indicate
that beds of particles of the same crystal structure have similar
fluidization behavior. This is confirmed by the data where the
minimum fluidizing velocity is well predicted by three linear
relationships corresponding to three different crystal systems.
This is because minerals often occur in geometrical forms
bounded by plane surfaces. Those of the same crystal systems
should have similar physical surface properties, which are
constant within narrow limits.
The values of K, a and the correlation coefficient R of
the curve fitting for each of the nine different fluidizing
systems are listed in Table 2.
In Table 3, using the equations drawn from the literature,
the experimental values of U mf given in column 1 are
compared with values calculated from various existing
correlations and those obtained applying Eq. (10). Column
17 shows the calculated values of U mf applying Eq. (10) for
each particular system and column 18 shows the calculated
values of U mf applying the general Eq. (10) of the form
shown in Table 2. The results shown in Table 3 indicate that
the correlation of Babu et al. [11] yielded the greatest mean
error and standard deviation of errors probably because it
was developed from data for coals.
Based on the data selected from the literature the Eq. (10)
has been shown to be the most suitable for estimating the
minimum fluidization velocity. According to Table 3, the
deviation caused by using either Eq. (10) for a particular
system or the general Eq. (10) given in Table 2 are the smallest.

The most striking feature of Figs. 110 is the fact that, if

we consider the diverse materials and fluids used by several
investigators, there is excellent agreement between the
experimental data and the calculated values with a
correlation coefficient better than 0.99.

6. Conclusions
In this paper, a novel criterion for the selection of
fluidizing beds has been proposed to estimate the minimum
fluidization velocities.
It is found that the proposed correlation predicts values of
U mf, which are in excellent agreement with the experimental
data reported in the literature over a wide range of gassolid
fluidized systems.
From the comparative analysis of the results shown in
Table 3, Eq. (10) emerges best for estimating the minimum
fluidization velocities of tested systems.
Eq. (10) is useful for predicting U mf without the
necessity of experimentally determining bed voidages and
shape factors.
List of symbols
Dp
Particle size [cm]
G
Gravitation constant 980 [cm/s]
K
Constant in Eq. (10), dimensionless
U mf Minimum fluidization velocity [cm/s]
a
Exponent in the power law on Eq. (10), dimensionless
e mf bed voidage at minimum fluidization velocity,
dimensionless
l
Viscosity of fluidizing gas [g/cm s]
qs
Density of particle [g/cm3]
qg
Density of fluidizing gas [g/cm3]

References
[1] S. Chiba, T. Chiba, A.N. Nienow, H. Kobayashi, Powder Technol. 22
(1979) 255 269.
[2] R.G. Kunz, Powder Technol. 4 (1970/71) 156 162.
[3] A.B. Delebarre, A. Pavinato, J.C. Leroy, Powder Technol. 80 (1994)
227 233.
[4] M. Leva, Fluidization, MacGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.
[5] J.F. Franz, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 62 (1966) 21 31.
[6] A.K. Bin, Powder Technol. 81 (1994) 197 199.
[7] J. Reina, E. Velo, L. Puigjaner, Powder Technol. 111 (2000)
245 249.
[8] H. Piepers, E.J. Cotaar, A.H. Verkooijen, K. Rietema, Powder
Technol. 37 (1984) 55 60.
[9] P. Bourgeois, P. Grenier, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 46 (1968) 325.
[10] J.F. Richardson, J.F. Davidson, D. Harrison, Fluidization, Academic
Press, London, 1971.
[11] S.P. Babu, B. Shah, A. Talwalkar, AIChE Symp. Ser. 74 (1978)
176 186.
[12] D. Geldart, Powder Technol. 37 (1998) 25 37.
[13] C.S. Chyang, W.C. Huang, Chin. IchE 19 (1998) 81.
[14] S.C. Saxena, G.J. Vogel, Chem. Eng. 14 (1977) 59 63.

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

[15] J.R. Grace, Handbook of Multiphase Systems, 1982, Chap. 8,
McGraw-Hill Publisher Co., New York.
[16] A. Lucas, J. Arnaldos, J. Casal, L. Puigjaner, Chem. Eng. Commun.
41 (1986) 121.
[17] N. Fatah, G. Flamant, D. Fernandez, M. Lebrun, Entropie 159 (1990)
25.
[18] D.C. Chitester, R.M. Kornosky, L.S. Fan, J.P. Danko, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 39 (1984) 253.
[19] R.D. Toomey, H.F. Johnstone, Chem. Eng. Prog. 48 (1952)
220 226.
[20] M. Leva, M. Weintraub, M. Grummer, M. Pollchick, Ind. Eng.
Chem. 41 (1949) 1206 1212.
[21] M. Baerns, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 5 (1966) 508 516.
[22] C.O. Miller, A. Logwinuk, Ind. Eng. Chem. 43 (1951)
1220 1226.
[23] P.N. Rowe, Inst. Chem. Eng. Symp. Ser. 39 (1961) 175.
[24] L. Davies, J.F. Richardson, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 44 (1966)
T293 T305.
[25] D. Balakhrisman, M.R. Rao, Chem. Process Eng. 4 (1971) 14.
[26] E. Johnson, Institute of Gas Engineers Report, Pub. No 318/179,
London (19491950).
[27] V.D. Goroshko, R.B. Rozenbaum, G.M. Todes, Izv. Vuzov. Neft Gaz
1 (1958) 125 131.
[28] B.C. Lippens, J. Mulder, Powder Technol. 75 (1993) 67 78.
[29] C.Y. Wen, Y.H. Yu, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 62 (1966)
100 111.
[30] I. Schiller, A. Neuman, Ver. Dtsch. Ing. 77 (1935) 318.
[31] S. Ergun, Chem. Eng. Prog. 48 (1952) 89 94.
[32] M. Hartman, O. Trnka, K. Svoboda, Chem. Eng. Sci. 55 (2000)
6269 6274.
[33] J.V. Fletcher, M.D. Deo, F.V. Hanson, Powder Technol. 69 (1992)
147 150.
[34] K. Kato, S. Kanbara, T. Tajima, H. Shibasaki, K. Ozawa, T.
Takarada, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 20 (1987) 498 504.
[35] R.C. Reid, J.M. Prausnitz, B.E. Poling, The Properties of Gases and
Liquids, 4th ed., Mcgraw-Hill, NY, 1987, Chap. 9.
[36] O. Morelus, Chem. Eng. Sci. 35 (1980) 1331 1340.
[37] O. Morelus, Powder Technol. 33 (1982) 81 87.
[38] R. Turton, M. Colakyan, O. Levenspield, Powder Technol. 53 (1987)
195 203.
[39] Ch. Luo, H. Hamano, Sh. Uemiya, T. Kojima, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 31
(1998) 95 102.
[40] V. Thonglimp, N. Hiquily, C. Laguerie, Powder Technol. 39 (1984)
223 239.
[41] P.N. Rowe, A.W. Nienow, A.J. Agbim, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 50
(1972) 324 333.
[42] A.W. Nienow, P.N. Rowe, L.Y.L. Cheung, Powder Technol. 20
(1978) 89 97.
[43] K. Kusakabe, T. Kuriyama, S. Morroka, Powder Technol. 58 (1989)
125 130.
[44] G. Donsi, G. Ferrari, B. Forminasi, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 67 (1989)
185 190.
[45] A.C. Hoffmann, L.P. Jansen, J. Prins, Chem. Eng. Sci. 48 (1993)
1583 1592.
[46] D.J. Gunn, N. Hilal, Chem. Eng. Sci. 52 (1997) 2811 2822.
[47] K. Tannous, M. Hemati, C. Laguerie, Powder Technol. 80 (1994)
67 71.
[48] B. Murachman, These de Doctorat, INP Touluse, France (1991) 62.
[49] B. Formasani, R. Girimonte abd, G. Pataro, Powder Technol. 125
(2002) 28 38.
[50] I.W. Noordergraaf, A. Van Dijk, C.M. Van der Bleek, Powder
Technol. 52 (1987) 59.
[51] H. Angelino, J.P. Couderc, R. Motyczynski, N. Lacombe, Chim.
Ind., Genie Chim. 102 (1969) 1290.
[52] P.N. Rowe, D.J. Everett, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 50 (1972) 55 59.
[53] Chun-Hua Luo, S. Uemiya, T. Kojima, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 30 (1997)
491 499.

47

[54] J. Corella, R. Bilbao, A. Monzon, J. Lezaun, F. Fernandez, Ind. Eng.

Process Des. Dev. 25 (1986) 188 197.
[55] Derek Wilkinson, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 73 (1995) 562 565.
[56] M. Sugihara, J. Res. Assoc. Powder Technol., Jpn. 3 (1966)
21 26.
[57] L. Sobreiro, J. Monteiro, Powder Technol. 33 (1982) 95 100.
[58] N.S. Grewal, S.C. Saxena, Powder Technol. 26 (1980) 229 234.
[59] S. Chiba, A.W. Nienow, T. Chiba, H. Kobayashi, Powder Technol.
26 (1980) 1 10.
[60] T.C. Ho, S.J. Yau, J.R. Hopper, Powder Technol. 50 (1987) 25 34.
[61] G. Rovero, C.M.H. Brereton, N. Epstein, J.R. Grace, L. Casalegno,
N. Piccinini, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 61 (1983) 289 296.
[62] G. Donsi, B. Formisani, R. Valentino, G. Volpicelli, Powder Technol.
37 (1984) 39 47.
[63] T.C. Ho, N. Yutani, L.T. Fn, W.P. Walawender, Powder Technol. 35
(1963) 249 257.
[64] D. Argyriou, H.L. List, R. Shinnar, AIChE J. 17 (1971) 122 130.
[65] N. Nakagawa, R. Suzuki, K. Toda, K. Kato, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 35
(2002) 595 603.
[66] T. Hirama, M. Ishida, T. Shirai, Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu 1
(1975) 272.
[67] D.P. ODea, V. Rudolph, Y.O. Chong, L.S. Leung, Powder Technol.
63 (1990) 169 178.
[68] D.S. Povrenovic, Dz.E. Hadzismajlovic, Z.B. Grbavcic, D.V.
Vukovic, H. Littman, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 70 (1992) 216 222.
[69] K. Ijichi, M. Miyauchi, Y. Uenura, Y. Hatate, Chem. Eng. Sci. 31
(1998) 677 682.
[70] Z. Chen, L.G. Gibilaro, P.U. Foscolo, Chem. Eng. Sci. 52 (1997)
55 62.
[71] P.N. Rowe, A.W. Nienow, Chem. Eng. Sci. 30 (1973) 1365 1369.
[72] H. Toyohara, Y. Kawamura, Int. Chem. Eng. 32 (1992) 164.
[73] G.S. Canada, M.H. Mclaughlin, F.N. Staub, AIChE Symp. Ser. 74
(1978) 14.
[74] H.O. Kono, A. Soltani-Ahmed, M. Sizuki, Powder Technol. 52
(1987) 49 58.
[75] P.N. Rowe, B.A. Partridge, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 43 (1965)
S116 S134.
[76] L. De Luca, R. Di Felice, P.U. Foscolo, Powder Technol. 69 (1992)
171 177.
[77] W.K. Lewis, E.R. Gilliland, W.C. Bauer, Ind. Eng. Chem. 41 (1949)
1104 1117.
[78] N. Yutani, K. Kurekata, Sh. Fujita, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 9 (1976)
330 331.
[79] S. Biyikli, K. Tuzla, J.C. Chen, Powder Technol. 53 (1987) 187 194.
[80] J. Werther, Powder Technol. 15 (1976) 155 167.
[81] D. Gauthier, S. Zerguerras, G. Flamant, Powder Technol. 74 (1999)
181 196.
[82] S.C. Hong, B.R. Jo, D.S. Doh, C.S. Choi, Powder Technol. 60
(1990) 215 221.
[83] J.F. Richarson, M.A. Jeronimo, Chem. Eng. Sci. 34 (1979) 1419.
[84] S.Y. Wu, J. Baeyens, Powder Technol. 98 (1998) 139 150.
[85] D. Kuni, O. Levenspield, Fluidization Eng., Krieger, Huntington,
NY, 1969, p. 73, Chap. 3.
[86] T.E. Broadhurst, H.A. Becker, AIChE J. 21 (1975) 238.
[87] Ch. Chyang, Ch. Kuo, M. Chen, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 67 (1989)
344 347.
[88] Tho-Ching Ho, N. Yutani, L.T. Fan, W.P. Walawender, Powder
Technol. 35 (1983) 249 255.
[89] D. Bai, Y. Masuda, N. Nakagawa, K. Kato, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 29
(1996) 211 216.
[90] D. Bai, E. Shibuya, N. Nakagawa, K. Kato, Powder Technol. 87
(1996) 105 111.
[91] D. Geldart, Powder Technol. 1 (1967/68) 355 368.
[92] J.M. Botterill, D.J. Bessant, Powder Technol. 8 (1973) 213 222.
[93] M. Mourad, M. Hemati, C. Lagueri, Powder Technol. 80 (1994)
45 54.
[94] G.R. Ahn, G.-Y. Han, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 30 (1997) 421 426.

48

R. Coltters, A.L. Rivas / Powder Technology 147 (2004) 3448

[95] B.A. Partridge, E. Lyall, H.E. Croocks, Powder Technol. 2 (1968/69)

301 305.
[96] R.S. Verma, S.C. Sexena, Powder Technol. 39 (1984) 245 251.
[97] R.D. LaNauze, Powder Technol. 15 (1976) 117 127.
[98] M.L. Mastellone, U. Arena, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 77 (1999)
231 236.
[99] C.M.H. Brereton, J.R. Grace, Chem. Eng. Sci. 48 (1993)
2565 2572.
[100] E.A. Gbordzoe, H. Littman, M. Bergougnou, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 66
(1988) 158 162.
[101] M. Carsky, M. Hartman, B.K. Ilyenko, E. Makhorin, Powder
Technol. 61 (1990) 251 254.
[102] Yan-Fu Shi, L.T. Fan, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 23 (1984)
337 341.
[103] R. Font, A. Mancilla, E. Verdu, J. Devesa, Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod.
Res. Dev. 25 (1986) 491 496.
[104] B.H. Singh, G.R. Rigby, T.G. Callcott, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 51
(1973) 93 96.
[105] R. Bilbao, J. Lezaun, J.C. Abanades, Powder Technol. 52 (1987)
1 6.
[106] S.W. Kim, S.D. Kim, Powder Technol. 124 (2002) 76 84.
[107] C.G.J. Baker, D. Geldart, Powder Technol. 19 (1978) 177 187.
[108] N.S. Grewal, A. Gupta, Powder Technol. 57 (1989) 27 38.
[109] A. Mathur, S.C. Saxena, Z.F. Zhang, Powder Technol. 47 (1986)
247 256.
[110] J. Adanez, J.C. Abanades, Powder Technol. 67 (1991) 113 119.
[111] D. Geldart, Powder Technol. 7 (1973) 285 292.
[112] G.K. Stephens, R.J. Sinclair, O.E. Potter, Powder Technol. 1 (1967)
157 166.
[113] S.P. Watkins, D.E. Creasy, Powder Technol. 9 (1974) 241 245.
[114] J. Delgado, J. Corella, N.P. Aznar, J.L. Arangues, in: C. Lagueer, P.
Guigon (Eds.), 6emes Jounees Europeennes sur la Fluidisation,
Toulouse, 29 au 31 Janviar, Lavoisier-Technique et. Documentatic,
Paris, p. 62.
[115] H.Y. Xie, D. Geldart, Powder Technol. 82 (1995) 269 277.
[116] K. Yoshida, D. Kunii, O. Levenspield, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 8
(1969) 402 406.
[117] M.J. Lockett, G. Gunnarsson, Chem. Eng. Sci. 28 (1973) 666 668.
[118] S. Simone, P. Harriott, Powder Technol. 26 (1980) 161 167.
[119] E. Marco, A. Santos, M. Menemdez, J. Santamaria, Powder Technol.
92 (1997) 47 52.
[120] S.V. Walker, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 53 (1975) 255 266.

[121]
[122]
[123]
[124]
[125]
[126]
[127]
[128]
[129]
[130]
[131]
[132]
[133]
[134]
[135]
[136]
[137]
[138]
[139]
[140]
[141]
[142]
[143]
[144]
[145]
[146]

L. Chen, H. Weinstein, AIChE J. 39 (1993) 1901 1909.

M.A. Doheim, C.N. Collinge, Powder Technol. 21 (1978) 289 293.
P. Jiang, H. Bi, Sh. Liang, L. Fan, AIChE J. 40 (1994) 103 206.
H. Flores, J.C. Ibarra, H. Medina, N. Nanni, R. Pocovi, R. Poppi,
Rev. Metal. CENIM 12 (1976) 301 307.
R. Coltters, Minimun Fluidization Velocity of Iron Ore Beds,
Universidad Simon Bolvar, 1981, Report USB/81/49.
R. Coltters, 1969. Eng. Thesis, Ann. Univ. of Chile (1969).
J.S. Hallow, P. Nicoletti, Powder Technol. 69 (1992) 255 277.
R. Jean, R.J. Eubanks, P. Jiang, L.-Sh. Fan, Chem. Eng. Sci. 47
(1992) 325 335.
J. Furukawa, T. Ohmae, Ind. Eng. Chem. 50 (1958) 821 828.
Y. Mori, K. Nakamura, Kagaku Kogaku 29 (1965) 868.
J.L.P. Chen, D.L. Keairns, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 53 (1975) 395 402.
S. Morooka, K. Kusakabe, A. Kobata, Y. Kato, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn.
21 (1988) 410 446.
K. Svoboda, J. Cermak, H. Hartman, D. Drahos, K. Selucky, AIChE
J. 30 (1984) 513 520.
Yuki Iwadate, M. Horio, Powder Technol. 100 (1998) 223 236.
D.R. McGAW, Chem. Eng. Sci. 32 (1977) 11 18.
Yao-Dian Liu, Shoichi Kimura, Powder Technol. 75 (1993)
189 196.
N. Fatha, These de Doctorat, INP Toulouse, France, 1991.
R. Yamazaki, N. Ueda, G. Jimbo, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 19 (1986)
251 267.
I. Khattab, Ch. Kuroda, M. Ishida, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 21 (1988)
282 287.
Y. Hatate, K. Ohmagari, A. Ikari, K. Kondo, D.F. King, J. Chem.
Eng. Jpn. 21 (1988) 424 425.
T. Kai, A. Iwakiri, T. Takahashi, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 20 (1987)
283 286.
P.G. Alfredson, I.D. Doig, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 51 (1973)
232 241.
R. Solimene, A. Marzocchella, P. Salatino, Powder Technol. 133
(2003) 79 90.
D.R. Gaskell, Introduction to Metalurgical Thermodynamics, 2nd
Ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1981.
E.A. El-Katatny, S.A. Halawy, M.A. Mphamed, M.I. Zaki, Powder
Technol. 132 (2003) 137 144.
Alcoa Products Data, Alcoa Industrial Chemical, United States and
Latin America.