Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 68056812

www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Application of the energy-minimization multi-scale method

to gasliquidsolid 'uidized beds
Mingyan Liu, Jinghai Li , Mooson Kwauk
Institute of Chemical Metallurgy, Academia Sinica, P.O. Box 353, Beijing 100080, Peoples Republic of China

Abstract
A model for gasliquidsolid three-phase 'uidized beds with concurrent gasliquid up-'ow is proposed, which is formulated on
the basis of the energy-minimization multi-scale (EMMS) method for gassolid two-phase 'ow.
The three-phase 'uidization system is resolved into the suspending and transporting subsystem and the energy dissipation
subsystem, and the former is further divided into three sub-subsystems: liquidsolid phase, gas phase and inter-phase. Force
balance is analyzed at three di2erent scales: micro-scale of particles, meso-scale of bubbles and macro-scale of the whole system.
In addition to the analysis of multi-scale interactions, the energy consumption in the system is analyzed to establish the stability
condition for the system, which is considered indispensable due to the multiplicity of three-phase 'uidized beds. The total energy
of the system consumed with respect to unit mass of particles is resolved into two portions: suspending and transporting energy
and dissipated energy. The stability condition is reached when the suspending and transporting energy of the system, Nst , is at its
minimum. The model 4rst formulated as a nonlinear programming problem consisting of six variables and seven constraints, is
solved by using the general reduced gradient (GRG) algorithm. The calculated results show that the stability condition, Nst = min,
can be stated alternately as db = db max . Thus, the model is 4nally simpli4ed to a set of nonlinear algebraic equations.
The model has been used to calculate the hydrodynamic parameters in gasliquidsolid 'uidized beds with a wide range of
physical properties of the liquid and the solid phases. The model predictions show good agreement with experimental data available
in the literature. ? 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Gasliquidsolid 'uidized bed; Energy-minimization; Multi-scale; Fluidization; Multiphase 'ow; Mathematical modeling

1. Introduction
Gasliquidsolid 'uidized beds have been widely applied to chemical, petrochemical and biochemical industries (Fan, 1989; Kim & Kang, 1997). It is essential for
the proper design and scale-up of such reactors to understand quantitatively the complex hydrodynamics of
gasliquidsolid 'uidized beds as the 'ow behavior in
such systems has a signi4cant in'uence on the characteristics of mixing and transfer processes. There have
been intensive investigations on the hydrodynamics of
gasliquidsolid 'uidization systems over the last four
decades. However, successful models for such 'ow systems remain scarce, and the calculation of hydrodynamic
parameters in these reactors mainly relies on empirical
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-10-6255-8318; fax: +86-106255-8065.
E-mail address: jhli@home.icm.ac.cn (J. Li).

correlations or semi-theoretical models such as the generalized wake model and its extensions (Darton, 1985;
Fan, 1989; Nacef, Wild, Laurent, & Kim, 1992; Liang,
Wu, Jin, Wang, & Yu, 1995c; Fan, 1996; Kim & Kang,
1997; Safoniuk, Grace, & Hackman, 1999). Recently, the
modeling of three-phase 'ow based on the fundamental governing equations has been reported (Gidaspow,
Bahary, & Jayaswal, 1994; Mitra-Majumdar, Farouk, &
Shah, 1997; Li, Zhang, & Fan, 1999), which is, however, expensive in terms of computer resources, and is
not readily applicable for routine design and scale-up of
industrial units, at least at present. Hence, there is a practical need to develop a general and simple model for the
three-phase 'uidized beds.
Flow in three-phase 'uidized beds is characterized by
structure heterogeneity and regime multiplicity due to
the complex interactions between phases. For such
multiplicity systems, additional constraints for system
stability may be indispensable in addition to those for

0009-2509/01/$ - see front matter ? 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 9 - 2 5 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 3 1 8 - 9

6806

M. Liu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 68056812

mass and momentum conservation. On the other hand,

gasliquidsolid 'ow manifests its complex behavior
largely at three di2erent scales for particles, bubbles
and the whole beds, and interactions occur also at these
scales. Therefore, e2ective analysis of the interactions
according to these scales is considered to be especially
important for the appropriate description of the hydrodynamics in three-phase 'ow.
In this study, the energy-minimization multi-scale
(EMMS) method (Li, 1987; Li & Kwauk, 1994;
Li, Zhang, Ge, Sun, & Yuan, 1999) is extended to gas
liquidsolid 'uidized beds with a typical 'uidization
mode to calculate the relevant hydrodynamic parameters.

2. Model formulation
In a typical gasliquidsolid 'uidized bed, gasliquid
'ow is concurrently upwards in which the liquid is the
continuous phase and gas is the disperse phase in the form
of bubbles, and the particles are 'uidized primarily by
liquid at low super4cial gas velocities (Ug 6 0:2 m s1
for air and water) (Darton, 1985; Fan, 1989; Kim &
Kang, 1997; Zhang, Epstein, & Grace, 1998). Various interactions occurring at three di2erent scales are present in
gasliquidsolid 'uidized beds, including the direct
interactions between the bubbles and the liquid, the liquid and the particles and indirect interactions between
bubbles and particles, between bubbles and bubbles and
between particles and particles. The following analyses
are based on such nature of the gasliquidsolid 'uidized
beds and the EMMS principle. Nearly all the interactions
existing in such systems will be accounted for in the
model formulation.
2.1. Resolution for the gasliquidsolid 4uidization
system
The three-phase 'uidization system is resolved into the
suspending and transporting subsystem and energy dissipation subsystem. Correspondingly, the total energy of
the system consumed with respect to unit mass of particles is resolved into two portions: suspending and transporting energy and dissipated energy. In order to describe
the complex interactions occurring at di2erent scales, the
suspending and transporting subsystem is further divided
into three sub-subsystems: liquidsolid phase, gas phase
and inter-phase, as shown in Fig. 1. It can be seen from
Fig. 1 that six variables are needed for describing the
three-phase 'ow, such that (lc ; f; ulc ; udc ; ub ; db ).
2.2. Multi-scale interactions
Force balance is analyzed for the interactions between
phases at the micro-scale of particles, at the meso-scale of

Fig. 1. Resolution of suspending and transporting subsystem of

gasliquidsolid 'uidization system.

bubbles and at the macro-scale of the whole three-phase

beds:
Micro-scale interaction is concerned with the interaction between individual particles and the 'uid broth surrounding them. It is assumed that no particles are present
in the gas phase. Hence, this interaction only exists in
the liquidsolid phase. It is expressed as force acting on
single particles by the liquid. For the liquidsolid phase,
the dilute-dense two-phase structure and thus energy dissipation are neglected (Li, 1987; Li & Kwauk, 1994).
However, the inherent discrete 'ow characteristic of individual particle is accounted for.
Meso-scale interaction is concerned with the interaction between bubbles and the liquidsolid phase. This interaction is expressed as force acting on a bubble by the
liquidsolid broth through the interface. In this case, the
liquidsolid phase is treated as a pseudo-homogeneous
medium, the mixture parameters of which, such as the
physical property and average velocity, can be calculated
based on well-established correlations (Mendes & Qassim, 1984; Tsuchiya, Furumoto, Fan, & Zhang, 1997).
Macro-scale interaction occurs between the whole
system and its boundaries such as the walls of the bed.
This macro-scale interaction will not be dealt with in this
study.
2.3. Energy consumption
In addition to the analysis of multi-scale interactions,
the energy consumption in the system is analyzed to establish the stability condition for the system. According to the multi-scale interaction analysis and the resolution for the suspending and transporting subsystem,
the suspending and transporting energy Nst , expressed as
power per unit mass of particles, consists of two portions:
micro-scale interaction energy of the liquidsolid phase
Ndense and meso-scale interaction energy of the interface
Ninter , that is
Nst = Ndense + Ninter :

M. Liu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 68056812

The micro-scale interaction energy of the liquidsolid

phase, Ndense , is used in suspending and transporting the
particles. The meso-scale interaction energy of the interface, Ninter , is consumed in suspending and transporting
the liquidsolid phase, and it is composed of two portions: one consumed in suspending and transporting the
particles, and the other used in suspending and transporting the liquid. Apparently, Nst is dependent on the 'ow
structure of the system.
The stability condition is reached when the suspending and transporting energy of the system, Nst , is at its
minimum.

Even though gas bubbles also carry particles, the main

role of the gas bubbles in three-phase 'uidization systems is to occupy space, thereby increasing the interstitial
velocity of the liquid. This results from the signi4cant
density di2erence between the bubbles and the particles.
Hence, the former indirect bubbleparticle interaction is
negligible in this analysis.
The indirect particleparticle interaction is also accounted for in Eq. (3). The drag coeOcient of an isolated
particle is modi4ed to include the particle concentration
as shown in Table 1.
Mass conservation of gas
Ug ub f = 0:

2.4. Model equations

6807

(4)

Mass conservation of liquid

Stability condition Minimal (Nst )

(1)

Hydrodynamic equations Hydrodynamic equations are

developed on the basis of steady state, equilibrium considerations, ignoring the motion details such as the rotational acceleration or deceleration of particles and bubbles. Thus, the primary axial forces acting on a particle or
a bubble are considered to consist of only the multi-scale
interaction force (expressed as drag force), gravity force
and buoyancy force.
Force balance for bubbles in unit bed volume
The number of bubbles in a unit bed volume is mb . The
meso-scale 'uid dynamic forces acting on these bubbles
can be equated to their e2ective weight:
mb FBulk = mb Fg ;
which can be reduced to
1
N r2
4 CDI u

13 db (N g )g = 0:

(2)

In three-phase 'uidization, bubble motion will be

hindered by the presence of the particles in the liquid. In Eq. (2), the liquidsolid phase is treated as a
pseudo-homogeneous media. Thus, this indirect bubble
particle interaction is considered and modeled indirectly
as an increase in the e2ective drag force acting on the
bubbles (as compared to that calculated from direct
gasliquid interactions only) due to the increases in the
apparent density and viscosity of liquidsolid phase.
This indirect bubblebubble interaction is also accounted for in Eq. (2). The drag coeOcient of an isolated
bubble is modi4ed to include the gas holdup as shown
in Table 1.
Force balance for solid particles in unit bed volume
The number of solid particles in a unit bed volume is
mp . The micro-scale 'uid dynamic forces acting on these
particles can be equated to their e2ective weight:
mp Fdense = mp Fp ;
which can be reduced to
2
1
4 CDC l usc

13 dp (p l )g = 0:

(3)

Ul ulc (1 f) = 0:

(5)

Mass conservation of solid particles

Ud udc (1 f) = 0:

(6)

Non-negativity of slip velocity

usc 0;

ur 0:

The above model is formulated as a nonlinear programming problem consisting of six variables and the seven
constraints represented by the above 4ve equation
constraints and two inequality constraints. The relevant
parameters and correlations for the model are summarized in Table 1.
The model was 4rst solved by using the general reduced gradient (GRG) algorithm. The calculation showed
that the diameter of bubbles, db , equals its upper boundary db max when Nst reaches a minimum, and when Nst
reaches a maximum, the diameter of bubbles equals its
lower boundary. These results seem to imply that the
larger the bubble diameter, the lower is the energy consumption of the system. Thus, the steady state of the system is reached even though the system structure is more
heterogeneous due to the larger bubbles. The stability
condition, Nst = min, for three-phase systems can thus be
stated alternately as
db = db max :

(7a)

Therefore, the model has been simpli4ed from a nonlinear programming problem to a set of nonlinear algebraic equations, and, furthermore, these results indicate
that the principle of the EMMS method applies as well
to three-phase 'uidization system.
The prediction of the maximum diameter of a bubble
in gasliquidsolid 'uidized beds is diOcult due to limited understanding of the bubble dynamics. In this study,
it is determined on the basis of the analysis of bubble dynamics in gasliquid two-phase 'ow system according to
the isotropic turbulence theory (Hesketh, Fraser Russell,

6808

M. Liu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 68056812

Table 1
Summary of relevant parameters and correlations for the three-phase EMMS model
Liquidsolid phase

Super4cial slip velocity

usc =

Characteristic Reynolds number

Rec =
mp =

Numbers of particles or bubbles

in unit volume
Drag coeOcient for single-particle
(Flemmer & Banks, 1986)

ub f
u(1
N f)

f
1f

dp usc l
l

ReI =

db ur N
N

(1 lc )(1 f)
d3p =6

mb =

f
d3b =6

CD0C =

ulc
udc

lc
1 lc

ur =

or single-bubble
(Darton and Harrison, 1974)

Inter-phase


lc

24 E
10
Rec

CD0I = 38ReI1:5

E = 0:26Rec0:369 0:105Rec0:451

Drag coeOcient for

multi-particle
(Wen & Yu, 1966) or
multi-bubble (Tomiyama, Kataoka,
Fukuda, & Sakaguchi, 1995)
Drag force acting on single

4:7
CDC = CD0C lc

particle or single bubble

Fdense = CDC

E2ective weight of a particle or

a bubble in suspension
Suspending and transporting
energy per mass of particles

Fp =

d2p l 2
u
4 2 sc

Ug ub f = 0;

Fg =

ReI (1:8; )

(2)
(3)
(4)

d2b N 2
u
4 2 r

1 3
d (N g )g
6 b

3
N
f2
ub 2
Ninter = CDI
u
4
p (1 lc )(1 f) db r

3
 u 2
Ndense = CDC l lc usc
4
p dp

Thus, the EMMS model for gasliquidsolid three-phase

'uidized beds, which consists of six nonlinear algebraic
equations, can be recapitulated as

13 dp (p l )g = 0;

FBulk = CDI

d3p (p l )g

in which the critical Weber number Wec = 0:61.7, and

% is replaced approximately by Ndense corrected for Nlmf
It is clear that good prediction of the model is related to
the accurate expression of db max or db . Conceivably the
direct application of the isotropic turbulence theory is not
suOcient to describe the bubble size, and an additional
term g0:37 is required, as shown by the semi-theoretical
correlation of Metkin and Sokolov (1985):


$0:6
%0:4 g0:37 :
(7c)
db = 1:25
N0:4 g0:2

2
1
4 CDC l usc

24
ReI

ReI (0; 1:8)

(7b)

13 db (N g )g = 0;

CD0I = 2:7 +

(1 f)

CDI = CD0I (1 f) 2

& Etchells, 1987):





0:6  0:6 
We c
$
$0:6
0:4
%

%0:4 ;
db max =
2
N0:4 g0:2
N0:4 g0:2

1
N r2
4 CDI u

0:124
1 + (log10 Rec )2

Ul ulc (1 f) = 0;

(5)

Ud udc (1 f) = 0;


$0:6
%0:4 g0:37 :
db = 1:25
N0:4 g0:2

(6)
(7c)

Solving the above model numerically can result in the

quanti4cation of the system hydrodynamics. The relevant
parameters and correlations for the model are given in
Table 1.
It should be noted that the model involves a reasonable
combination of force balance analysis at di2erent scales,
mass conversion analysis and energy consumption analysis under the direction of the EMMS method. Hence,
satisfactory predictions would be expected. However,
further studies are needed to replace the semi-theoretical
Eq. (7c).

3. Model verication
The model is solved by using the GRG algorithm.
The experimental data and empirical correlations quoted
in comparing the model computations are obtained from
the literature (Darton & Harrison, 1974; Matsuura &

M. Liu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 68056812

6809

Fan, 1984; Hatsifotiadou et al., 1988; Nacef et al., 1992;

Soria & Delasa, 1992; Liang, Wu, Yu, Jin, & Bi, 1995a;
Liang, Wu, Yu, Jin, & Wang, 1995b). The operation
states of gasliquidsolid 'uidized beds include the
expanded bed, as well as the circulating and transport
beds.
3.1. Expanded bed
Mean bubble diameter Bubble size in three-phase
'uidized beds is directly responsible for the complex
behavior of 'uid dynamic characteristics such as 'ow
patterns and phase holdups, and it also exercises a profound in'uence on mass transfer. However, most bubble size data were obtained in either single-bubble or
two-dimensional multi-bubble systems due to the diOculty in measurement. In this study, mean bubble diameter measured by Matsuura and Fan (1984) and empirical
correlations given by Darton and Harrison (1974) are
used for model validation.
Fig. 2(a) and (b) compare the limited experimental
data for mean bubble diameter obtained by Matsuura and
Fan (1984) with the present model predictions. It can be
seen from the 4gures that the model can basically describe the trend of the mean bubble diameter observed
experimentally, although, at low super4cial liquid velocity, the model slightly overpredicts the bubble diameter
as shown in Fig. 2(a).
Fig. 2(c) compares the model predictions with the
mean bubble diameter correlated by Darton and Harrison
(1974). The bubble size increases with increasing super4cial gas velocity. The predictions and the experimental
data are in close agreement.
Phase holdups Phase holdups are important hydrodynamic parameters for the design of gasliquidsolid
'uidized beds, which depend on the super4cial gas and
liquid velocities, the physical properties of the phases,
the diameter of the bed, and the quality of the
distributor.
Nitrogenwaterglass beads systems
Fig. 3(a) compares experimental data with calculated
values of the phase holdups for the nitrogenwaterglass
beads beds system (Nacef et al., 1992). It can be seen
that the model follows the trends of experimental data,
especially for the liquid holdup. Moderate quantitative
agreement can also be seen for gas holdup.
Solid particles of low density
When the density of the particles di2er little from that
of water, such for plastic particles, some semi-theoretical
models, such as the bubble-wake model, are invalid.
For the light particles in three-phase 'uidized beds,
it is no longer the liquid phase alone, which 'uidizes
the particles, but rather the liquid and gas phases. Fig.
3(b) compares our computed results with experimental
data for phase holdups for waterplastic particlesair

Fig. 2. Comparison between model predictions and experimental data

for mean bubble diameter. (a) Data by Matsuura and Fan (1984)
for airwaterglass beads system (dp = 3:0 mm; p = 2500 kg m3 ,
D = 0:076 m, Ul = 0:0516 m s1 ). (b) Data by Matsuura and
Fan (1984) for airwaterglass beads system (dp = 3:0 mm,
p = 2500 kg m3 , D = 0:076 m, Ul = 0:129 m s1 ) (c) Correlation by Darton and Harrison (1974) for airwatersand system
(dp = 0:5 mm, p = 1600 kg m3 , D = 0:229 m, Ul = 0:0241 m s1 ).

beds (Hatsifotiadou et al., 1988). Agreement appears

satisfactory.
Bubble coalescence
Bubble dynamics in three-phase 'uidized beds, such
as bubble coalescence and breakup, is a2ected by the
physical properties of the liquid phase. It is necessary
to distinguish between the behavior of coalescing liquid
(such as water) and that of liquids which inhibit coalescence (such as mixtures of water and ethanol) (Nacef et
al., 1992). The coalescence tendency of the liquid depends on its surface tensions. The bubble size in systems with liquids that inhibit coalescence is smaller than
that in coalescing liquids. The dynamics of such system cannot be described quantitatively because of the

6810

M. Liu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 68056812

Fig. 3. Comparison between experimental data and model predictions of phase holdups in gasliquidsolid 'uidized beds. (a) Phase holdup data by
Nacef et al. (1992) for nitrogenwaterglass beads system (dp = 1:2 mm, p = 2500 kg m3 , D = 0:152 m, Ul = 0:071 m s1 ). (b) Phase holdup
data by Hatsifotiadou et al. (1988) for airwaterplastic particles system (dp = 3:5 mm, p = 1245 kg m3 , D = 0:08 m, Ul = 0:0414 m s1 ). (c)
Gas holdup data by Nacef et al. (1992) for nitrogenglass beadswater and 2% ethanol system (dp = 3:1 mm, p = 2500 kg m3 , $ = 0:064 N m1 ,
D = 0:152 m, Ul = 0:085 m s1 ). (d) Liquid holdup data by Nacef et al. (1992) for nitrogenglass beadswater and 2% ethanol system.
(dp = 3:1 mm, p = 2500 kg m3 , $ = 0:064 N m1 , D = 0:152 m, Ul = 0:085 m s1 ). (e) Phase holdup data by Soria and Delasa (1992) for
airwaterglass beads system (dp = 0:25 mm, p = 2500 kg m3 , D = 0:2 m, Ul = 0:01 m s1 ).

lack of parameters for quantifying the coalescing tendency of a liquid. With the help of the developed model,
encouraging calculation results are obtained. The model
predictions of phase holdups with a mixtures of water
and 2% ethanol, nitrogen and glass beads are compared
with the experimental data in Fig. 3(c) and (d) (Nacef
et al., 1992). Compared to Nacefs models, the predictions by the present model are closer to the experimental
data.
Small particles
Fig. 3(e) compares experimental data and the calculation values of phase holdups obtained by Sorias group
(Soria & Delasa, 1992) with glass beads of mean diameter of 0:25 mm with the calculation values, showing reasonable agreement, except for high super4cial gas velocities.

3.2. Circulating and transport beds

Most experimental studies on the dynamics in gas
liquidsolid 'uidized beds were carried out with the expanded bed. Recently, Liang et al. (1995a,b) reported in
their experimental 4ndings on the dynamics with circulating and transport beds, which are used for the present
model validation.
Fig. 4 illustrates the comparison between the model
predictions of phase holdups in three-phase 'uidized
beds and the experimental data. When the super4cial
liquid velocity varies over the range of 0.04 0:11 m s1 ,
the 'uidized bed is in circulating operation. Both internal circulation and external circulation of particles
can be found in the 'uidized beds. When the super4cial liquid velocity exceeds 0:11 m s1 , the bed is in

M. Liu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 68056812

6811

Fig. 4. Comparison between experimental data and predictions of phase holdups for gasliquidsolid circulating and transport beds: (a) gas
holdup and solid holdup; (b) liquid holdup. Data by Liang et al. (1995a,b) for airwaterglass beads system (dp = 0:405 mm, p = 2500 kg m3 ,
D = 0:14 m, Ug = 0:018 m s1 , Ud = 0:0017 m s1 ).

transport operation. Under this condition, there is no internal circulation of particles, and external circulation of
particles can be observed only with a suOciently high
solid 'ow rate. The three-phase holdups are uniform in
the axial and radial directions in the beds. The phase
holdups calculated by the model can be regarded to be in
good agreement with the experimental data, indicating
that the model is also valid for circulating and transport
beds.

Ninter

4. Conclusions

udc

An energy-minimization multi-scale model for gas

liquidsolid 'uidized beds is proposed.

The model has been used to calculate the hydro-

dynamic parameters in gasliquidsolid 'uidized

beds. In comparison with experimental data available in the literature, the calculations show good
agreement.

Notation
CD0C
CD0I
CDC
CDI
D
db
dp
f
FBulk
Fdense
Fg
Fp
g
m
Ndense

drag coeOcient of single particle, dimensionless

drag coeOcient of single bubble, dimensionless
drag coeOcient of multi-particle, dimensionless
drag coeOcient of multi-bubble, dimensionless
'uidized bed diameter
mean bubble diameter, m
mean diameter of particles, m
gas holdup, dimensionless
force of meso-scale interaction, N
force of micro-scale interaction, N
the e2ective weight of a single bubble
the e2ective weight of a single particle
gravitational acceleration, m s2
number of the phase
suspending and transporting energy of liquid
solid phase per mass of particles, J s1 kg1

Nlmf
Nst
Re
U
ulc

ur
usc
Wec

inter-phase suspending and transporting energy

per mass of particles, J s1 kg1
suspending and transporting energy per mass
of particles at minimum 'uidization liquid velocity, J s1 kg1
suspending and transporting energy per mass
of particles, J s1 kg1
Reynolds number
overall super4cial velocity, m s1
super4cial liquid velocity in liquidsolid phase,
m s1
super4cial solid velocity in liquidsolid phase,
m s1
slip velocity between the bubbles and the
liquidsolid phase broth, m s1
slip velocity in liquidsolid phase, m s1
critical Weber number

Greek letters


%

holdup, dimensionless
viscosity, Pa s
energy dissipation rate per unit mass, J kg1
ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, dimensionless

Subscripts
b
c
d
g
I
l
lmf
MAX
p

$

bubble
liquidsolid phase
solid particles
gas phase
inter-phase
liquid phase
minimum liquid 'uidization
maximum
solid particles
density, kg m3
surface tension, N m1

6812

M. Liu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 68056812

Superscript
N

apparent physical properties

References
Darton, R. C. (1985). The physical behavior of three-phase 'uidized
beds. In: Fluidization, J.F., Davidson, R. Clift, & D. Harrison
(Eds.), (2nd ed.) (pp. 495 528). London: Academic Press.
Darton, R. C., & Harrison, D. (1974). The rise of single gas bubbles
in liquid 'uidized beds. Transactions of Institution Chemical
Engineers, 52, 301306.
Fan, L. S. (1989). Gasliquidsolid 4uidization engineering. Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Fan, L. S. (1996). Summary paper on 'uidization and transport
phenomena. Powder Technology, 88, 245253.
Flemmer, R. L. C., & Banks, C. L. (1986). On the drag coeOcient
of a sphere. Powder Technology, 48, 217221.
Gidaspow, D., Bahary, M., & Jayaswal, U. K. (1994). Hydrodynamic
model for gasliquidsolid 'uidization. Numerical methods in
multiphase 'ows. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Fluids Engineering Division, New York, 185, 117124.
Hatsifotiadou, O., Capdeville, B., Bataille, D., Roustan, M.,
Mauret, E., Bigot, V., Lertpocasambut, K., & Faup, G. (1988).
Hydrodynamics and mass transfer in a three-phase 'uidized-bed
reactor. Entropie, 143=144, 7182.
Hesketh, R. P., Fraser Russell, T. W., & Etchells, A. W. (1987).
Bubble size in horizontal pipelines. A.I.Ch.E. Journal, 33,
663667.
Kim, S. D., & Kang, Y. (1997). Heat and mass transfer in three-phase
'uidized-bed reactors an overview. Chemical Engineering Science,
52, 36393660.
Li, J. (1987). The energy minimization multi-scale model of gassolid
two-phase 4ow. Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Chemical Metallurgy,
Academia Sinica, Beijing.
Li, J., & Kwauk, M. (1994). Particle-4uid two-phase 4ow. Beijing:
Metallurgical Industry Press.
Li, J., Zhang, Z., Ge, W., Sun, Q., & Yuan, J. (1999). A
simple variational criterion for turbulent 'ow in pipe. Chemical
Engineering Science, 54, 11511154.
Li, Y., Zhang, J., & Fan, L. S. (1999). Numerical simulation
of gasliquidsolid 'uidization systems using a combined
CFD-VOF-DPM method: Bubble wake behavior. Chemical
Engineering Science, 54, 51015107.

Liang, W., Wu, Q., Yu, Z., Jin, Y., & Bi, H. (1995a). Flow regimes
of the three-phase circulating 'uidized bed. A.I.Ch.E. Journal,
41, 267271.
Liang, W., Wu, Q., Yu, Z., Jin, Y., & Wang, Z. (1995b).
Hydrodynamics of a gasliquidsolid three phase circulating
'uidized bed. The Candian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 73,
656661.
Liang, W., Wu, Z., Jin, Y., Wang, Z., & Yu, Q. (1995c). The phase
holdups in a gasliquidsolid three phase circulating 'uidized bed.
The Chemical Engineering Journal, 58, 259264.
Matsuura, A., & Fan, L. S. (1984). Distribution of bubble properties
in a gasliquidsolid 'uidized bed. A.I.Ch.E. Journal, 30,
894903.
Mendes, C. L. O., & Qassim, R. Y. (1984). Application of the
DaviesTaylor equation to a large bubble rise in liquid-'uidized
beds. Chemical Engineering Journal, 28, 2128.
Metkin, V. P., & Sokolov, V. N. (1985). E2ect of the gas content on
bubble sizes in gasliquid systems. Zhurnal Prikladnoi Khimii,
58, 11321134.
Mitra-Majumdar, D., Farouk, B., & Shah, Y. T. (1997).
Hydrodynamic modeling of three-phase 'ows through a vertical
column. Chemical Engineering Science, 52, 44854497.
Nacef, S., Wild, G., Laurent, A., & Kim, S. D. (1992). Scale e2ects in
gasliquidsolid 'uidization. International Chemical Engineering,
32, 5172.
Safoniuk, M., Grace, J. R., & Hackman, L. (1999). Use of dimensional
similitude for scale-up of hydrodynamics in three-phase 'uidized
beds. Chemical Engineering Science, 54, 49614966.
Soria, A., & Delasa, H. (1992). Kinematic waves and 'ow patterns
in bubble column and three-phase 'uidized beds. Chemical
Engineering Science, 47, 34033410.
Tomiyama, A., Kataoka, I., Fukuda, T., & Sakaguchi, T. (1995). Drag
coeOcients of bubbles 2nd report, drag coeOcients for a swarm
of bubbles and its applicability to transient 'ow. Transaction of
the JSME Section-B, 61, 28102817.
Tsuchiya, K., Furumoto, A., Fan, L. S., & Zhang, J. P. (1997).
Suspension viscosity and bubble rise velocity in liquidsolid
'uidized beds. Chemical Engineering Science, 52, 30533066.
Wen, C. Y., & Yu, Y. H. (1966). Mechanics of 'uidization. Chemical
Engineering Progress Symposium Series, 62, 100.
Zhang, J. P., Epstein, N., & Grace, J. R. (1998). Minimum
'uidization velocities for gasliquidsolid three-phase systems.
Powder Technology, 100, 113118.