Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 70 – 81

www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Generalized bubbling–slugging fluidized bed reactor model

J.P. Constantineau a , J.R. Grace a,∗ , C.J. Lim a , G.G. Richards b
a Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z3
b Teck Cominco Metals Ltd., Trail, British Columbia, Canada V1R 4L8

Available online 22 August 2006

Abstract
A generalized slugging–bubbling fluidized bed reactor model is developed which handles seamlessly the transition from bubbling to slugging
fluidization, using the concept of probabilistic averaging developed in earlier work. The ratio of the bubble diameter to the column diameter
is employed to correlate the probability of each of these fluidization flow regimes. The model gives a good representation of the conversions
within the slugging and bubbling regimes, as well as for the transition between these two regimes.
䉷 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fluidization; Chemical reactor; Modelling; Slugging fluidized beds

1. Introduction scale-up. A 1.5-m-deep bed was required to obtain a 90%

Over the years, great success has been achieved in the de-
sign and implementation of new fluidized bed processes. How-
ever, the reputation of fluidized bed reactors has suffered from
some failures which occurred even though pilot reactors oper-
ated successfully. The most notable example (Geldart, 1967)
was in the production of gasoline by Fischer–Tropsch synthe-
sis. Pilot-scale reactors (12, 25, 50 and 195 mm diameter) were
operated successfully with conversions exceeding 95%. With
such encouraging results, a complete industrial plant was built
with a fluidized bed reactor of approximately 5 m diameter. Re-
grettably, conversions of only 40–50% were obtained from the
industrial unit. After gaining experience on a 2.4-m-diameter
pilot plant, the industrial unit was modified and the conversions
increased to 65–70%. After operating for a few years, the pro-
cess was uneconomic, and production ceased, highlighting the
difficulty of fluidized bed reactor scale-up.
One of the main difficulties in scale-up has been associ-
ated with the use of results from pilot plants operating in the
slugging fluidization regime to design large industrial reactors
operated in the bubbling fluidzation regime. The Shell Chlori-
nation Process (de Vries et al., 1972), involving catalytic oxi-
dation of HCl to produce Cl2 , also illustrates the difficulties of
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 604 822 3121; fax: +1 604 822 6003.
E-mail address: jgrace@chml.ubc.ca (J.R. Grace).
0009-2509/$ - see front matter 䉷 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2006.08.011
yield in a 50-mm-diameter laboratory reactor. For a 300-mm-
diameter pilot-scale reactor, the same yield required a bed 2.8 m
high. For a 3-m-diameter industrial reactor, a bed 10 m high was
required to reach the same yield (Werther, 1980; Wen, 1984).
The strong scale-up effect is primarily due to the growth of bub-
bles and their effect on the gas residence time and interphase
mass transfer.
Scale-up of fluidized bed processes has received considerable
attention in the literature (e.g. Volk et al., 1962; Geldart, 1967;
Matsen and Tarmy, 1970; Matsen, 1985, 1996; Glicksman,
1998). Similarity techniques have been developed and used
to scale fluidized beds for hydrodynamic studies (Glicksman,
1998). However, reacting systems often cannot be scaled using
these techniques, especially when the reactions are the object
of study. Different reactor models have been formulated for the
bubbling and slugging fluidization regimes. No reactor models
have been formulated to include both bubbling and slugging
fluidization flow regimes with the specific focus of addressing
the questions associated with scale-up.
Recently, a generic fluidized bed reactor model has been
formulated to span the bubbling, turbulent and fast fluidization
regimes (Abba et al., 2002, 2003). Using probabilistic aver-
aging, this model successfully handles the transitions among
these three flow regimes when the superficial gas velocity is
increased. However, it does not cover cases where transitions
from bubbling to slugging occurs. This article extends the
 J.P. Constantineau et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 70 – 81
probabilistic approach to a new generalized slugging–bubbling
fluidized bed reactor model where a single set of differential
equations describes the phenomena occurring within the bub-
bles and dense-phase, and the parameters are averaged accord-
ing to the probability of being in one fluidization flow regime
or the other. This model is primarily intended for group B par-
ticles (Geldart, 1973) where slug flow is most commonly en-
countered.
1.1. Bubbling and slugging fluidization regimes
In a bubbling fluidized bed, bubbles coalesce as they rise
through the bed causing their average diameter to increase with
height. As the bubble diameter approaches the reactor diameter,
the bubbles can no longer grow, and slugging takes over. As the
bubble size increases, the effect of the walls becomes greater
and one expects a smooth transition from bubbling to slugging
fluidization. Slugging may therefore be considered as a special
case of bubbling where the bubble size is physically constrained
by the walls of the reactor.
Three conditions are necessary for slugging:
• The bed height (H ) must exceed a minimum height. Baeyens
and Geldart (1974) measured (HL ) where bubble coalescence
is complete and stable slug spacing is achieved and proposed
the correlation:
HL = 1.3D 0.175 . (1)
• The superficial gas velocity (U ) must exceed the minimum
slugging velocity (Ums ) given (Stewart and Davidson, 1967)
by
 tablished i.e. Eq. (1). The lower dark line was obtained by cal-
Ums = Umf + 0.07 gD (2)
Baeyens and Geldart (1974) utilized this criterion for deep
beds (Hmf > HL ). For shallower beds, they proposed
 diameter. While informative, this earlier approach adopts arbi-
Ums = Umf + 0.07 gD + 0.16(HL − Hmf )2 . (3)
• The maximum stable bubble size (De,max ) must be at least
of the order of the column diameter (D).
The conditions for stable slugging clearly depend on column
diameter and bed height. A shallow bed may not experience
slugging because coalescence may be insufficient for the bub-
bles to reach the bed diameter. For deeper beds, bubble growth
and coalescence may be sufficient to engender slugging. Addi-
tional criteria for the occurrence of slugging were summarized
by Agarwal (1987).
Baeyens and Geldart (1974) divided slugging fluidized beds
into three zones:
• Zone I: Freely bubbling.
• Zone II: Slugging with limited coalescence.
• Zone III: Stable slugging with no further coalescence.
Fig. 1 represents these three zones in a bed at minimum slugging
velocity as a function of height and column diameter. The two
71
2
1.75
Zone III
1.5
1.25 P=1
H (m)
1 Zone II
0.75
P=0.5
Zone I
0.5
P=0
0.25
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
D (m)
Fig. 1. Influence of column diameter on zones in a slugging fluidized bed,
for incipient slugging, calculated using the Geldart (1972) bubble size corre-
lation for porous plate distributors. Zone I: freely bubbling, Zone II: slugging
with limited coalescence, Zone III: stable slugging with no further coales-
cence, based on Baeyens and Geldart (1874). P-lines correspond to slugging
probabilities of 0, 0.5 and 1.
dark lines were derived from an equation proposed by Baeyens
and Geldart (1974). The upper line was obtained by fitting the
heights observed experimentally when stable slugging was es-
culating the height where the bubble diameter from the Geldart
(1972) bubble size correlation is equal to half the bed diame-
ter at the minimum slugging velocity, calculated from Eq. (3).
Note that the minimum slugging velocity varies with column
trary and sharp boundaries at which there are step changes in
behavior. In reality, the transitions are gradual. This paper mod-
els these gradual transitions using weighting factors which de-
scribe the relative probabilities of bubbling and slugging over
the height interval where the transition takes place. The thinner
dashed lines provide these weighting factors or probabilities of
slugging, as discussed below.
Other correlations can also be used to determine the height
where free bubbling ends and slugging takes over. For example,
Darton et al. (1977) used their bubble size correlation to obtain
a height condition for slugging which depends on distributor
design.
2. Modelling the transition from bubbling to slugging
Previous slugging fluidized bed reactor models have consid-
ered the reactor as a simple one-zone stable slugging bed, or
have split the reactor into freely bubbling and stable slugging
zones. Currently, no model adequately accounts for the tran-
sition in a slugging fluidized bed. Modelling the transition to
72 J.P. Constantineau et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 70 – 81
slug flow may be attempted in various ways:
• One can use two distinct models, one for bubbling and one
for slugging, applying a bubbling model up to a given height,
then switching to a slug flow model. This approach has been
used to model slug flow reactors (e.g. Hovmand et al., 1971;
Yates and Grégoire, 1980a, b; Yue and Zarifis, 1990; Sadaka
et al., 2002). A bubbling fluidized bed reactor model is used
for the first 1.5–2D where the bed is freely bubbling (Zone
I). Above this height, a stable slug-flow model is used (Zone
III). However, the transition zone (Zone II) is not accounted
for. The problem with this approach is that there is a dis-
continuity where the switch is made, whereas in practice the
transition occurs smoothly. Moreover, there is uncertainty in
predicting the regime transition.
• One could use the results from the two models and interpo-
late or average their results. A probabilistic average, based
on the weighted sum of the results where the weights are
based on the probability of being in a given regime, would
better characterize the uncertainty of the regime transition.
A problem with this approach is that the interpolated results
are not necessarily consistent with the physics of the system,
especially where there are nonlinearities.
• A better method is to combine the two models into a single
model which approaches the two limiting models outside
the transition range. In the transition region between the
two flow regimes, the model probabilistically averages the
parameters (not the final predictions) for each regime. This
approach has been used previously to model the transition
from bubbling to turbulent fluidization and from turbulent to
fast fluidization (Thompson et al., 1999; Grace et al., 1999;
Abba et al., 2002, 2003). In that case, simple Re vs Ar cor-
relations were employed to describe the regime transitions
(Thompson et al., 1999; Abba et al., 2003), with probabilities
related to rms deviations. These probabilities then provide
weighting factors for setting the values of key parameters.
A somewhat similar approach was employed by Eakman et
al. (1980) to model a coal gasifier subject to both bubbling
and slugging. However, instead of using the probability of
being in a given regime, they used an arbitrary function to
interpolate the parameters in the transition interval.
Currently, the transition from bubbling to slugging fluidiza-
tion is only described by the minimum slugging velocity (Ums )
and the necessary conditions for slugging. The criteria for the
transition do not quantify the probability of slugging, nor do
they allow for a smooth transition from freely bubbling near
the distributor via a smooth transition zone to stable slugging
above.
2.1. Previous models for the bubbling and slugging
fluidization regimes
Bubbling fluidized bed reactors have received considerable
attention (e.g. see Chavarie and Grace, 1975; Grace, 1986),
whereas slugging fluidized bed reactors have received relatively
little attention. Two basic models have been developed for slug-
ging fluidized beds. Neither considers the effect of the freely
bubbling zone near the gas distributor. Hovmand and David-
son (1968, 1971) created the first slugging fluidized bed re-
actor model by extending the Orcutt et al. (1962) piston-flow
fluidized bed model and deriving an interphase mass transfer
coefficient expression for slugs. Raghuraman and Potter (1978)
based their slug flow model on the Fryer and Potter (1972)
countercurrent backmixing model for bubbling fluidized beds,
and utilized the analysis of Hovmand et al. (1971) for the gas
interphase mass transfer coefficients.
The Orcutt et al. (1962), Hovmand et al. (1971) and
Raghuraman and Potter (1978) models neglect reaction of the
gas in contact with solids suspended in the bubbles or slugs.
Grace (1984, 1986) has shown that this assumption is not valid
for large effective reaction rate constants. Aoyagi and Kunii
(1974) have shown experimentally that solids within bubbles
may play a significant role, even if their concentration is small.
3. Extension of the generalized model concept to
bubbling/slugging
Our new steady-state fluidized bed reactor model extends
the generalized bubbling, turbulent and fast fluidization reactor
model of Abba (2002, 2003), which accounts for variable gas
density (due to the pressure gradient and changing composition
as one or more reactions proceed) and bulk flow in the inter-
phase mass transfer using a probabilistic approach. The model
developed here only considers the bubbling and slugging flow
regimes. Also, the approach used to model changes in total gas
molar flow differs from that of Abba (2002).
Fig. 2 represents the two phases of the model, named the
L- and H-phases for low-density and high-density phases. The
L-phase represents the bubbles or slugs, while the H-phase
represents the dense phase or emulsion. Gas enters at the bottom
of the fluidized bed where it is distributed between the L- and
H-phases. The gas then rises in each phase and reacts with the
solids present. Mass transfer occurs between the two phases.
Axial and radial dispersion could be included within each phase.
3.1. Phase balances
As in our previous work (Thompson et al., 1999; Abba et
al., 2002, 2003), the bed volume fractions of phases add up to
unity, i.e.,
L + H = 1. (4)
Each phase volume is composed of particles and void space.
The particle volume fraction () and gas volume fraction ()
within each phase also add up to 1, i.e. L + L = 1 and
H + H = 1. The total gas molar flowrate (FT ) through the
reactor equals the sum of the phase molar flowrates, i.e.
FT = FLT + FH T . (5)
 J.P. Constantineau et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 70 – 81 73

 
Freeboard dFH i FLi  FH i FH R
− + kLH aI − L + k r H v i
dz UL H U H UH
FH R FLi
− kr H v = 0. (11)
UH FLT
The interphase mass transfer coefficient (kLH ) is defined as
the volumetric rate of transfer per unit bubble (or slug) surface
area. The interphase mass transfer exchange area (aI ) is the
interfacial bubble area per unit bubble volume. Multiplying the
two gives the volumetric transfer rate per unit bubble volume.
Δz Δz
Bulk interphase mass transfer is required when a change in gas
volume occurs within the H-phase. According to the two-phase
fluidization theory, a flow of gas of Umf A is required for the
H-phase L-phase high-density phase. Any excess gas enters the low-density phase
to create bubbles. In a reacting system, the requirement for the
high-density phase is still present. However, if there is a volume
change, it must be balanced by bulk interphase transfer. The
direction of the bulk flow and the required gas molar fraction
depends on the sign of v. In this case, it is assumed to be
negative. If v were positive, any excess gas produced in the
UH FL UL dense phase would go to the L-phase.
FH
These equations are solved using an initial value solver with
boundary conditions
FT U
FLi = FLi,in = L AUL Ci,in (at z = 0), (12)
Fig. 2. Schematic of two-phase fluidized bed model. FH i = FH i,in = H AUH Ci,in (at z = 0). (13)
The superficial gas velocities (UL and UH ) and the phase vol-
ume fractions (L and H ) are calculated at a series of heights
For ideal gases, the total concentration (CT = PT /RT). The
in the bed beginning at the entrance. The superficial gas ve-
gaseous molar flowrates are related to the superficial gas ve-
locity (U ) is first calculated from the gaseous molar flowrates
locities (U , UL and UH ) by
(FH T and FLT ). The L-phase superficial gas velocity (UL ) is
equal to the void velocity (Uv ), calculated below. This requires
FT = AUCT , (6)
an appropriate bubble size correlation.
The low-density phase volume fraction (L ) is estimated
FHT = H AUH CT and FLT = L AUL CT . (7)
(Clift and Grace, 1985) using
The molar flowrates of gaseous species i in the H- and L-phases U − Umf
L = . (14)
are UL
Since the set of differential equations is solved from the distrib-
FH i = H AUH CH i and FLi = L AUL CLi . (8)
utor (z = 0) to the surface of the expanded bed, the expanded
bed height (H ) must be known, or estimated and then calcu-
Simplifying with the aid of Eq. (5), we obtain lated iteratively. Since only the volume occupied by the bubbles
and slugs (L-phase) contributes to the bed expansion,
U = L UL + H UH . (9)
 H
H − Hmf = L dz. (15)
3.2. Gas mole balances for H- and L-phases 0
With the appropriate choice of parameters, the model can de-
The differential gas mole balance over the control volume scribe a bubbling fluidized bed, a purely slugging bed or a
for the low-density (L) and high-density (H) phases of Fig. 2, bubbling–slugging bed.
for a first-order irreversible reaction assuming steady-state con-
ditions and neglecting axial and radial dispersion, are 3.3. Interphase mass transfer
 
dFLi L F H i FLi FLR
− + kLH aI − + k r  L vi Among the parameters in Eqs. (10) and (11), only kLH and
dz H U H UL UL aI require probabilistic averaging between their bubbling and
FH R FLi slugging values. For bubbling and slugging fluidized beds, L
+ kr H v = 0, (10)
UH FLT and H are usually constant. For a freely bubbling fluidized
74 J.P. Constantineau et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 70 – 81

Table 1 For freely bubbling beds, the bubble rise velocity (Ub ) is given
Surface integral (I ) for various slug length-to-diameter ratios by
L/D 0.3 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Ub = Ub∞ + (U − Umf ). (25)
I 0.13 0.21 0.39 0.71 0.98 1.24 1.48
At minimum fluidization, Eq. (25) predicts a non-zero bubble
rise velocity. As in previous work (Thompson et al., 1999) the
expression for bubble rise velocity is therefore modified so that
bed, the interphase mass transfer coefficient (kLH ,bubbling ) and
Ub → 0 as U → Umf :
area (aI H ,bubbling ) are obtained (Sit and Grace, 1981) from
 
  0.71 
Umf Dg mf Ub∞ 1/2 Ub = (U − Umf ) 1 + gDe . (26)
kLH ,bubbling = +2 , (16) U
3 De
This change makes negligible difference in the overall predic-
6 tions, but facilitates the use of the probabilities as weighting
aI,bubbling = . (17)
De factors below.
Since the velocity of bubbles depends on their size, the effec-
The interphase mass transfer coefficient (kLH ) and area (aI ) tive bubble size (De ) must be calculated as a function of height.
for slugging fluidization can be expressed in similar form Numerous correlations are available (e.g. Mori and Wen, 1975;
(Hovmand and Davidson, 1971), giving Darton et al., 1977; Horio and Nonaka, 1987). Since particles
 1/2  of Geldart Group A behave differently from Group B particles,
16mf I Dg g 1/4
kLH ,slugging = Umf + , (18) especially with respect to the maximum bubble size, the bubble
1 + mf  D size correlation must be chosen carefully.
The velocity of a single slug (Us∞ ) is given by
1
aI,slugging = . (19) 
Dfs Us∞ = 0.35 gD. (27)
The surface integral (I ) (see Table 1) and slug shape fac- For a continuously slugging bed, the slug velocity (Us ) is
tor (fs ) are functions of the slug length-to-diameter ratio
(Hovmand and Davidson, 1971) with Us = Us∞ + (U − Umf ). (28)
   1/2 In order to bridge the bubbling and slugging fluidization
4V L L
fs = = − 0.495 + 0.061. (20) regimes, the void (bubble or slug) rise velocities (Uv∞ ) are
D 3 D D
described in dimensionless form
The slug length-to-diameter ratio can be obtained (Hovmand et Uv∞
al., 1971) by solving the quadratic equation Fr = √ (subscript  = b or s) (29)
gD
 1/2  
L L U − Umf Eqs. (24) and (27) may then be written as
− 0.495 1+ √
D D 0.35 gD
Bubbling Fr = 0.71, (30)
(T /D − 0.061)(U − Umf )
+ 0.061 − √ = 0, (21)
0.35 gD Slugging Fr = 0.35, (31)
√
where T is the slug-to-slug (tail-to-nose) separation distance. where  is the ratio of square root of diameter, De /D.
The generalized interphase mass transfer coefficient and area Allahwala and Potter (1979) measured isolated bubble and
are calculated by weighting factors analogous to those obtained slug rise velocities in a gas–solid fluidized bed and correlated
in previous work by probabilistic averaging, i.e. the results by
ktransition = (1 − Pslugging )kLH ,bubbling + (Pslugging )kLH ,slugging , Fr = 0.35 tanh1/1.8 [3.6()1.8 ]. (32)
(22)
Instead of using this relatively complex equation to calculate
atransition = (1 − Pslugging )aI,bubbling + (Pslugging )aI,slugging . the velocities and evaluate the probabilities, a simpler fitting
(23) approach is employed here. Fig. 3 presents the velocities in an
air–water system. The transition between the limits of single
3.4. Void velocities and weighting factors for isolated bubbles and single isolated slugs given by Eqs. (30)
bubbling/slugging and (31) is smooth and occurs for  between about 0.38 and
0.7 (Hovmand and Davidson, 1971). The behavior at each end
For the bubbling fluidization regime, the isolated bubble rise of the transition interval clearly approaches the two limiting
velocity is cases, with the slopes equal to each of the limiting values.
 We require an interpolation between the two limits which
Ub∞ = 0.71 gDe . (24) fits the experimental data and gives the proper limiting slopes.
 J.P. Constantineau et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 70 – 81 75

1
Fr = 0.35
0.35
0.9

0.3

ζ
0.8

.71
=0
0.7
Fr
0.25

0.6
0.2

Pslugging
Fr

0.5

0.15
0.4

0.1 0.3

0.2
0.05
No wall effect Transition Slug
0.1
0.319 0.493 0.714
0 0.493
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ζ
ζ
Fig. 3. Bubble rising velocity in water in the presence of wall effects. √
Fig. 4. Probability of slugging as a function of  = De /D.
Experimental points from Hovmand and Davidson (1971).

for details) as
A fit in the intermediate region (between pure bubbling and
pure slugging) was obtained by a transformation of variables. Pslugging = 0 ( 0.319), (37)
The resulting piecewise fit is
Pslugging = 2.794X 2 − 0.491X 3 (0.319 <  0.493), (38)
Fr = 0.71 (0.319), (33)
Pslugging = −0.813 + 4.116X − 2.794X 2 + 0.491X 3
Fr = 0.2265 + 0.2805X − 0.1904X + 0.0334X 2 3
(0.493 <  < 0.714), (39)
(0.319 <  < 0.714), (34)
Pslugging = 1 ( 0.714), (40)
Fr = 0.35 (0.714), (35)
The gas velocity is assumed to be low enough that we are only
where considering bubbling and slugging. Hence

 − 0.319 Pbubbling = 1 − Pslugging . (41)

X= . (36)
0.395
This piecewise fit is shown in Fig. 3.
Outside the transition interval, the weighting assigned to
slugging is taken as 0 for 0.319 and 1 for  0.714.
In the transition interval, the slugging weighting factor in-
creases smoothly from 0 to 1. A reasonable estimate of
in the intermediate region, 0.319 <  < 0.714, was obtained
by considering the growing deviation of the corresponding
void velocity (Eq. (34)) from the corresponding wall-effect-
independent bubble rise velocity (Eq. (33)) in the lower part
of the transition interval, and then the shrinking difference
between the void velocity and the slug flow (Eq. (35)) limit
in the upper section of the transition interval. The condition
( = 0.35/0.71 = 0.493) when the two limiting velocities are
equal defines the point where the weighting factors for slug-
ging and bubbling are equal, i.e., Pbubbling =Pslugging =0.5. The
weighting factors are then assigned (see Constantineau, 2004
Fig. 4 presents the resulting weighting factor for slugging
as a function of . This procedure allows a smooth transi-
tion between pure bubbling (Pbubbling = 1) and pure slugging
(Pslugging = 1) as  increases from 0.319 to 0.714. While this
approach is conceptually similar to the probabilistic transitions
in the generalized fluidized bed reactor model (Abba et al.,
2002, 2003), in the current case, the transition takes place over
height as  grows due to coalescence, whereas in the bub-
bling/turbulent/fast fluidization transitions of the generalized
fluidized bed reactor model, the transitions are taken to be only
functions of the superficial gas velocity.
3.5. Transition to slugging
According to the equations presented in the preceding sec-
tion, slug flow is dominant for  0.714, i.e for De 0.51D,
while wall effects are negligible for  0.319, i.e., for
76 J.P. Constantineau et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 70 – 81
De 0.1D. Combining a correlation√ for bubble diameter with
the definition of , i.e.,  = De /D, and Eqs. (37)–(41) al-
lows one to predict lines of constant probability of slugging for
fluidized beds operated in the bubbling and slug flow regimes
as plotted in Fig. 1. Since Baeyens and Geldart (1974) used
the Geldart (1972) bubble size correlation, the same correlation
has been employed in this figure to calculate the probability of
slugging. Note that the superficial gas velocity in Fig. 1 varies
with column diameter. The location of the line with a proba-
bility of slugging of 1 is virtually equal to that calculated by
Baeyens and Geldart (1974) for the transition from freely bub-
bling to slugging with limited coalescence. An important fea-
ture of this figure is that the transition range of the probabilities
(i.e. 0 < Pslugging < 1) falls within Zone I, closer to bubbling for
Pslugging 0.5 and approaching slug flow for Pslugging > 0.5.
4. Reactor model predictions
With the weighting factors for the two flow regimes now de-
fined, the generalized bubbling–slugging fluidized bed reactor
model proceeds in an analogous manner to the generalized bub-
bling turbulent model (Thompson et al., 1999). The probabili-
ties are used as weighting factors to adjust and interpolate such
factors as the interphase mass transfer coefficients in the range
(0.319 <  < 0.714) between pure bubbling and pure slugging.
4.1. Comparison with previous models
Previous models in the literature have assumed either pure
bubbling or pure slugging in any given zone. Fig. 5 presents
conversions calculated from the Hovmand et al. (1971) slug-
ging bed model, the Orcutt et al. (1962) mixed-flow and plug-
flow models, the Grace (1984) two-phase bubbling bed reactor
model and our generalized slugging–bubbling model (GSBM)
for pure slugging and pure bubbling with constant average bub-
ble size and variable bubble size for a first order chemical re-
action, with the operating conditions as given in Table 2. The
constant average bubble size case is considered because both
the Orcutt and Grace models use an average bubble size. Since
previous models do not consider changes in gas volumetric flow
due to variations in hydrostatic pressure and total molar flow,
the comparisons here are for constant total volumetric and mo-
lar flow.
Table 2
Model parameters used to compare the generalized bubbling slugging model
to earlier slugging and bubbling models
Figs. 5, 6 and 7 Fig. 8
U 0.5 m/s 0.5 m/s
Umf 0.02 m/s 0.02 m/s
H 1.0 m Calculated
Hmf Calculated 1.0 m
mf 0.45 0.45
Gas diffusivity: Dg 1.0 × 10−4 m2 /s 1.0 × 10−4 m2 /s
Bubble correlation Mori and Wen (1975) Mori and Wen (1975)
Initial bubble size: Deo 0.01 m 0.01 m
In general, the predictions for the bubbling fluidized bed
models are higher than for the slugging models. Note that the
fluidized bed models are applied without any allowance for
slugging, even when the bubble size exceeds the reactor diame-
ter. For this reason, the predictions for small column diameters
must be considered with caution.
When the weighting factor for slugging is 1, the results of
the Hovmand et al. (1971) slugging model and the GSBM
model are indistinguishable in Fig. 5. The GSBM therefore
essentially reduces to the Hovmand et al. slugging model
in the  0.714, Pslugging = 1 limit. When considering pure
bubbling behavior (Pbubbling = 1), the GSBM is seen to cal-
culate similar conversions to the bubbling bed models con-
sidered, though with small differences due to variations in
assumptions.
4.2. Influence of effective reaction rate constant
The influence of the effective reaction rate constant, kr , on
the gas conversion is presented in Fig. 6 for different reactor
diameters with some solids in the low-density phase, L =
0.005 and neglecting any solids within the bubbles or low-
density phase (i.e., L =0). The figure presents the results of the
complete generalized slugging–bubbling model, as well as the
predictions when the probabilities of bubbling and slugging are
equal to one (entirely slugging or bubbling). When Pslugging =
1, no bubbling region is considered prior to slugging. When
Pbubbling = 1, the model either calculates a given bubble size for
each height or uses a constant average bubble size calculated
at 40% of the expanded bed height (z = 0.4H ). The model
parameters and conditions are again as given in Table 2.
For slugging beds (Figs. 6a and b), bubbling bed models tend
to overpredict the conversions. For small kr , the generalized
slugging–bubbling fluidized bed model predicts conversions
similar to those for pure slugging (where Pslugging =1) since the
conversion is primarily reaction-controlled. For higher kr , the
generalized slugging–bubbling fluidized bed model predictions
diverge from the pure slugging predictions due to the increas-
ing importance of interphase mass transfer from the bubbles
and slugs to the dense phase. For such conditions, the bubbling
region at the base of the bed before the onset of slugging is of
critical importance to the conversion. The presence of particles
within the bubbles (L ) significantly augments the predicted
conversions for large kr by compensating for limited interphase
mass transfer.
For large vessels where slugging does not occur (Figs. 6e
and f), the GSBM model predicts the same conversions as for
pure bubbling (Pbubbling =1). The use of an average bubble size
results in reduced gas conversions for large reaction rate con-
stants. For large kr , mass transfer from the bubbles to the dense
phase is rate-controlling. There is then a significant beneficial
effect on interphase mass transfer from the small bubbles near
the distributor, which disappears when a single average bub-
ble size is adopted. As for slugging beds, accounting for the
presence of particles within the bubbles (L ) is significant for
large kr . For fluidized beds of intermediate sizes (Figs. 6c
and d), the GSBM model predictions diverge slightly from the
 J.P. Constantineau et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 70 – 81 77

0.5 0.5
Slug flow models, kr = 1 s-1 Bubbling bed models, kr = 1 s-1
0.4 0.4

Conversion (-)

Conversion (-)
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2
Orcutt, Plug Flow
Orcutt, Mixed
0.1 0.1 GSBM, PBubbling=1, Constant De
Hovmand
Grace 2-phase
GSBM, PSlugging=1 GSBM, PBubbling=1, Variable De
0 0
10-1 100 10-1 100
Bed Diameter (m) Bed Diameter (m)

1 1
Slug flow models, kr = 10 s-1 Bubbling bed models, kr = 10 s-1

0.8 0.8
Conversion (-)

0.6 Conversion (-) 0.6

0.4 0.4
Orcutt, Plug Flow
Orcutt, Mixed
0.2 0.2 GSBM, PBubbling=1, Constant De
Hovmand Grace 2-phase
GSBM, PSlugging=1 GSBM, PBubbling=1, Variable De
0 0
10-1 100 10-1 100
Bed Diameter (m) Bed Diameter (m)

Fig. 5. Comparison of the GSBM model to the Hovmand et al. (1971) slugging model and to the Orcutt et al. (1962) and Grace (1984) bubbling bed models.
For conditions, see Table 2.

predictions for pure bubbling due to the effect of the walls as
bubbles grow with height, causing Pslugging to increase, and
hence the interphase mass transfer to decrease.
If one chooses a regime-specific model (either pure bubbling
of pure slugging) for cases where there are zones of Pslugging
between 0 and 1, there can be substantial errors. For reactions
with large values of the effective reaction rate constant (kr ), the
model should not use an average bubble size to characterize
the entire reactor and should include the effect of solids within
the bubbles. The generalized slugging–bubbling fluidized bed
model allows the modelling of fluidized systems where a transi-
tion from bubbling to slugging occurs within the bed, or where
there are appreciable wall effects.
4.3. Effect of reactor diameter
The predicted effect of scale-up of a reactor for different re-
actor diameters and different rate constants is shown graphi-
cally in Fig. 7. The GSBM model is seen to approach the slug-
ging limit for small columns and then to approach the bubbling
bed limit with increasing column diameter, giving a smooth
transition between these limits in the intervening region. For
the conditions considered, the GSBM model predictions de-
part from pure slugging for reactor diameters larger than about
0.1 m. The departure from pure slugging at the higher reaction
rate constant results from the bubbling region near the distrib-
utor. In the calculations leading to Fig. 7, as shown in Table 2,
the expanded bed depth, H, was fixed, consistent with the in-
dustrial equipment related to the modelling, for which there
was a weir, limiting the bed expansion. In Fig. 8, on the other
hand, as in most comparisons in the literature, the bed inven-
tory, and hence Hmf is fixed. In the latter case, we observe the
usual overall trend of decreasing conversion with increasing
column diameter. In both cases the model smoothly interpolates
between the two limiting cases of pure slugging and pure bub-
bling as D increases. The minimum in the conversion predicted
in Fig. 8 for D ≈ 0.3 m is not expected, and it is not known
whether there are any experimental results which would confirm
such a trend.
In the predictions of Figs. 5–8, the bubble diameters have
been based on the correlation of Mori and Wen (1975). Other
bubble diameter correlations would result in somewhat different
predictions. For the conditions studied, the predictions of the
GSBM model converge to pure bubbling at column diameters
close to 1 m. This is the minimum reactor diameter for the
system to be modelled as pure bubbling. Note that results from
78 J.P. Constantineau et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 70 – 81

1 1
PBubbling=1, Variable De PBubbling=1, Variable De
GSBM GSBM
0.8 PBubbling=1, Constant De 0.8 PBubbling=1, Constant De
PSlugging=1
PSlugging=1

Conversion (-)
Conversion (-) D = 0.1 m
0.6 D = 0.1 m 0.6
φL = 0 φL = 0.005

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
10-2 100 102 10-2 100 102
(a) kr, s-1 (b) kr, s-1

1 1
PBubbling=1, Variable De PBubbling=1, Variable De
GSBM GSBM
0.8 PBubbling=1, Constant De 0.8 PBubbling=1, Constant De
PSlugging=1 PSlugging=1

Conversion (-)
Conversion (-)

0.6 D = 0.5 m
0.6 D = 0.5 m
φL = 0 φL = 0.005

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
10-2 100 102 10-2 100 102
(c) kr, s-1 (d) kr, s-1

1 1
PBubbling=1, Variable De PBubbling=1, Variable De
GSBM GSBM
0.8 PBubbling=1, Constant De 0.8 PBubbling=1, Constant De
PSlugging=1
PSlugging=1
Conversion (-)
Conversion (-)

0.6 D=1m 0.6 D=1m

φL = 0 φL = 0.005

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
10-2 100 102 10-2 100 102
(e) kr, s-1 (f) kr, s-1

Fig. 6. Comparison of conversions predicted by GSBM model and its limiting models as a function of reaction rate constant and column diameter. For
operating conditions see Table 2.

small and large industrial fluidized beds must be compared with
care. In the transition region, the generalized model predicts
conversions intermediate between those for pure bubbling and
for pure slugging.
5. Discussion
For reactions where interphase mass transfer is rate-limiting,
the size of bubbles has a critical effect on the conversion. The
model developed here has the same structure as the generic
fluidized bed reactor model formulated to span the bubbling,
turbulent and fast fluidization regimes (Abba et al., 2002,
2003). To construct a model useful for both diameter and
velocity scale-up, one must account for the transition from
slugging to turbulent fluidization. Since the superficial gas
velocity where the transition to the turbulent regime occurs
(Uc ) varies with bed diameter (Bi et al., 2000), a generalized
slugging–bubbling–turbulent regime probability model which
 J.P. Constantineau et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 70 – 81 79

0.6 kr = 1 s-1, φL = 0 0.6 kr = 1 s-1, φL = 0.005

0.5 0.5

Conversion (-)

Conversion (-)
0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2
GSBM GSBM
0.1 PSlugging=1 0.1 PSlugging=1
PBubbling=1, Variable De PBubbling=1, Variable De
0 0
10-1 100 10-1 100
Bed Diameter (m) Bed Diameter (m)

1 1
kr = 10 s-1,φL =0 kr = 10 s-1,φL = 0.005
0.8 0.8
Conversion (-)

Conversion (-)
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 GSBM 0.2 GSBM

PSlugging=1 PSlugging=1
PBubbling=1, Variable De PBubbling=1, Variable De
0 0
10-1 100 10-1 100
Bed Diameter (m) Bed Diameter (m)

Fig. 7. Comparison of the conversions calculated using GSBM model and its limiting cases as a function of bed diameter for different gas reaction rate
constants with constant expanded bed depth. For conditions, see Table 2.

kr = 1 s-1, φL = 0 kr = 1 s-1, φL = 0.005

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5
Conversion (-)
Conversion (-)

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2
GSBM GSBM
0.1 PSlugging=1 0.1 PSlugging=1
PBubbling=1, Variable De PBubbling=1, Variable De
0 0
10-1 100 10-1 100
Bed Diameter (m) Bed Diameter (m)

1 1
kr = 10 s-1, φL = 0 kr = 10 s-1, φL = 0.005

0.8 0.8
Conversion (-)

Conversion (-)

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 GSBM 0.2 GSBM

PSlugging=1 PSlugging=1
PBubbling=1, Variable De PBubbling=1, Variable De
0 0
10-1 100 10-1 100
Bed Diameter (m) Bed Diameter (m)

Fig. 8. Comparison of the conversions calculated using GSBM model and its limiting cases as a function of bed diameter for different gas reaction rate
constants with constant bed depth at minimum fluidization. For conditions, see Table 2.
80 J.P. Constantineau et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 70 – 81

accounts for superficial gas velocity, bed diameter and height, HL limiting bed height where coalescence is com-
as well as gas and particle properties, must first be developed plete and stable slug spacing achieved, m
before adding the slugging fluidization flow regime into the Hmf bed height at minimum fluidization, m
generic fluidized bed reactor model. Once a consistent descrip- I slug surface integral function,dimensionless
tion of the probabilities is available, adding the slugging regime kLH interphase mass transfer coefficient, m/s
to the generic fluidized bed reactor model should be straight- kr reaction rate constant, s−1
forward. L slug length, m
Pbubbling weighting factor analogous to probability of
bubbling,dimensionless
Pslugging weighting factor analogous to probability of
6. Conclusion slugging,dimensionless
PT total reactor pressure, Pa
A new model is proposed to predict the performance of flu- R universal gas constant, 8.314 J/(mol K)
idized bed reactors operated wholly or partially in the slug flow T slug-to-slug (tail-to-nose) distance, m
regime. This model simulates the transition from bubbling to U reactor superficial gas velocity, m/s
slugging within a given reactor as operating variables such as Ub bubble rise velocity, m/s
superficial gas velocity, bed inventory and height change. It Ub∞ isolated bubble rise velocity, m/s
interpolates smoothly between the limits where the bed oper- UH H-phase superficial gas velocity, m/s
ates entirely in the bubbling bed flow regime and the slug flow UL L-phase superficial gas velocity, m/s
regime as height increases within a given reactor, or as the col- Umf superficial gas velocity at minimum fluidization,
umn diameter is varied. m/s
Ums superficial gas velocity at minimum slugging,
m/s
Us slug velocity, m/s
Notation
Us,∞ slug velocity of a single slug in a bed at
minimum fluidization, m/s
A bed cross-sectional area, m2 Ut• terminal velocity of spherical particles of
Ad distributor area per orifice, m2 diameter 2.7dp , m/s
aI interphase mass transfer exchange area, m−1 Uv void (bubble or slug) rise velocity, m/s
CH i molar concentration of species i in H-phase, Uv∞ free void (bubble or slug) velocity, m/s
mol/m3 z height coordinate, m
Ci,in inlet molar concentration of species i, mol/m3
CLi molar concentration of species i in L-phase, Greek letters
mol/m3
CT total gaseous molar concentration v difference in gas total stoichiometric coefficient
(CT = PT /RT), mol/m3 due to reaction, dimensionless
D reactor diameter, m z finite height in bed (control volume), m
De effective bubble diameter, m H H-phase gas volume fraction, m3 /m3
De,0 initial effective bubble diameter, m L L-phase gas volume fraction, m3 /m3
De,∞ maximum bubble diameter due to coalescence mf bed voidage at incipient fluidization, m3 /m3
and growth, m  square root
√ of bubble-to-column diameter
Dg gas diffusivity, m2 /s ratio = De /D, dimensionless
FH i molar gas flowrate of species i in H-phase, I Stoichiometric coefficient of reactant i, dimen-
mol/s sionless
FH i,in inlet gas molar flowrate of species i in H-phase, H H-phase solids volume fraction, m3 /m3
mol/s L L-phase solids volume fraction, m3 /m3
FH T total gas molar flowrate in H-phase, mol/s H H-phase volume fraction, m3 /m3
FLi molar gas flowrate of species i in L L-phase volume fraction, m3 /m3
L-phase, mol/s
FLi,in inlet gas molar flowrate of species i in L-phase,
mol/s Acknowledgments
FLT total gas molar flowrate in √L-phase, mol/s
Fr Froude number = U∞ / gD, dimensionless The authors thank Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. and the Nat-
FT total gas molar flowrate in reactor, mol/s ural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada
fs slug shape factor, m3 /m3 (NSERC) for financial contribution and the Science Council
g acceleration due to gravity, m/s2 of British Columbia for supporting J. Pierre Constantineau
H expanded bed height, m through a GREAT Scholarship.
 J.P. Constantineau et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 62 (2007) 70 – 81
References
Abba, I.A., Grace, J.R., Bi, H.T., 2002. Variable-gas-density fluidized bed
reactor model for catalytic processes. Chemical Engineering Science 57,
4797–4807.
Abba, I.A., Grace, J.R., Bi, H.T., Thompson, M.L., 2003. Spanning the
flow regimes: generic fluidized-bed reactor model. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 49,
1838–1848.
Agarwal, P.K., 1987. Effect of bed diameter on bubble growth and incipient
slugging in gas fluidised beds. Chemical Engineering Research and Design
65, 345–354.
Allahwala, S.A., Potter, O.E., 1979. Rise velocity equation for isolated
bubbles and for isolated slugs in fluidized beds. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Fundamentals 18, 112–116.
Aoyagi, M., Kunii, D., 1974. Importance of dispersed solids in bubbles
for exothermic reactions in fluidized beds. Chemical Engineering
Communications 1, 191–197.
Baeyens, J., Geldart, D., 1974. An investigation into slugging fluidized beds.
Chemical Engineering Science 29, 255–265.
Bi, H.T., Ellis, N., Abba, I.A., Grace, J.R., 2000. A state-of-the-art review of
gas–solid turbulent fluidization. Chemical Engineering Science 55, 1–37.
Chavarie, C., Grace, J.R., 1975. Performance analysis of a fluidized bed
reactor. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals 14, 75–91.
Clift, R., Grace, J.R., 1985. Continuous bubbling and slugging. In: Davidson,
J.F., Clift, R., Harrison, D. (Eds.), Fluidization, second ed. Academic Press,
London, pp. 73–132.
Constantineau, J.P., 2004. Fluidized bed roasting of zinc sulfide concentrate:
factors affecting the particle size distribution, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
British, Columbia.
Darton, R.C., LaNauze, R.D., Davidson, J.F., Harrison, D., 1977. Bubble
growth due to coalescence in fluidized beds. Transactions of the Institution
of Chemical Engineers 55, 274–280.
de Vries, R.F., van Swaaij, W.P.M., Mantovani, C., Heijkoop, A., 1972.
Design criteria and performance of the commercial reactor for the shell
chlorine process. Proceedings of the Fifth European Second International
Symposium on Chemical Reaction Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp. B9:59–69.
Eakman, J.M., Wesselhoft, R.D., Dunkleman, J.J., Vadovic, C.J., 1980. Gasifier
operation and modeling in the Exxon catalytic coal gasification process.
Coal Processing Technology 6, 146–158.
Fryer, C., Potter, O.E., 1972. Countercurrent backmixing model for fluidized
bed catalytic reactors. Applicability of simplified solutions. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals 11, 338–344.
Geldart, D., 1967. The fluidized bed as a chemical reactor: a critical review
of the first 25 years. Chemistry and Industry 1474–1481.
Geldart, D., 1972. The effect of particle size and size distribution on the
behavior of gas-fluidised beds. Powder Technology 6, 201–215.
Geldart, D., 1973. Types of gas fluidization. Powder Technology 7, 285–292.
Glicksman, L.R., 1998. Fluidized bed scale-up. In: Yang, W.-C. (Ed.),
Fluidization, Solids Handling, and Processing: Industrial Applications.
Noyes, Westwood, NJ, pp. 1–110.
Grace, J.R., 1984. Generalized models for isothermal fluidized bed reactors.
In: Doraiswamy, L.K. (Ed.), Recent Advances in the Engineering Analysis
of Chemically Reacting Systems. Wiley Eastern, New Delhi, pp. 237–255.
81
Grace, J.R., 1986. Fluid beds as chemical reactors. In: Geldart, D. (Ed.), Gas
Fluidization Technology. Wiley, New York, pp. 285–339.
Grace, J.R., Abba, I.A., Bi, H.T., Thompson, M.L., 1999. Fluidized bed
catalytic reactor modeling across the flow regimes. Canadian Journal of
Chemical Engineering 77, 305–311.
Horio, M., Nonaka, A., 1987. A generalized bubble diameter correlation for
gas–solid fluidized beds. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 33, 1865–1872.
Hovmand, S., Davidson, J.F., 1968. Chemical conversion in a slugging
fluidised bed. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 46,
190–203.
Hovmand, S., Davidson, J.F., 1971. Pilot plant and laboratory scale fluidized
reactors at high gas velocities: the relevance of slug flow. In: Davidson,
J.F., Harrison, D. (Eds.), Fluidization, first ed. Academic Press, London
and New York, pp. 193–259.
Hovmand, S., Freedman, W., Davidson, J.F., 1971. Chemical reaction in
a pilot-scale fluidized bed. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical
Engineers 49, 149–162.
Matsen, J.M., 1985. Fluidized beds. In: Bisio, A., Kabel, R.L. (Eds.), Scale-
up of Chemical Processes. Wiley, New York, pp. 347–405.
Matsen, J.M., 1996. Scale-up of fluidized bed processes: principle and
practice. Powder Technology 88, 237–244.
Matsen, J.M., Tarmy, B.L., 1970. Scale-up of laboratory fluid-bed data: the
significance of slug flow. A.I.Ch.E. Symposium Series 66 (101), 1–7.
Mori, S., Wen, C.Y., 1975. Estimation of bubble diameter in gaseous fluidized
beds. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 21, 109–115.
Orcutt, J.C., Davidson, J.F., Pigford, R.L., 1962. Reaction time distributions
in fluidized catalytic reactors. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series 58 (38), 1–15.
Raghuraman, J., Potter, O.E., 1978. Countercurrent backmixing model for
slugging fluidized-bed reactors. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 24, 698–704.
Sadaka, S.S., Ghaly, A.E., Sabbah, M.A., 2002. Two phase biomass air–steam
gasification model for fluidized bed reactors. Biomass and Bioenergy 22,
439–487.
Sit, S.P., Grace, J.R., 1981. Effect of bubble interaction on interphase mass
transfer in gas fluidized beds. Chemical Engineering Science 36, 327–335.
Stewart, P.S.B., Davidson, J.F., 1967. Slug flow in fluidised beds. Powder
Technology 1, 61–80.
Thompson, M.L., Bi, H.T., Grace, J.R., 1999. A generalized bubbling/
turbulent fluidized-bed reactor model. Chemical Engineering Science 54,
2175–2185.
Volk, W., Johnson, C.A., Stotler, H.H., 1962. Effect of reactor internals on
quality of fluidization. Chemical Engineering Progress 58 (3), 44–47.
Wen, C.Y., 1984. Flow regimes and flow models for fluidized bed reactors.
In: Doraiswamy, L.K. (Ed.), Recent Advances in the Engineering Analysis
of Chemically Reacting Systems. Wiley Eastern, New Delhi, pp. 256–290.
Werther, J., 1980. Mathematical modeling of fluidized bed reactors.
International Chemical Engineering 20, 529–541.
Yates, J.G., Grégoire, J.-Y., 1980a. An experimental test of slugging-bed
reactor models. In: Grace, J.R., Matsen, J.M. (Eds.), Fluidization. Plenum
Press, New York, pp. 581–588.
Yates, J.G., Grégroire, J.-Y., 1980b. Catalytic oxidation of o-xylene in a
slugging fluidized bed. Chemical Engineering Science 35, 380–385.
Yue, P.L., Zarifis, N., 1990. Catalytic dehydration of ethanol in a fluidized
bed reactor. A.I.Ch.E. Symposium Series 86 (276), 119–125.