Powder Technology 150 (2005) 123 132

www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Heat transfer in fluidized beds: design methods

John C. Chena,*, John R. Graceb, Mohammad R. Golrizc
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015-4791, USA
b
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4
c
Department of Applied Physics and Electronics, Umea University, Umea, SE-90187, Sweden
Available online 26 January 2005

Abstract

Large-scale fluidized beds for commercial processes commonly require heat transfer surfaces. Design then demands that heat transfer
coefficients be specified. Empirical correlations are unable to cover the wide range of variables and conditions encountered. Mechanistic
models are more reliable, but must be chosen carefully. For bubbling beds, the packet model approach gives reasonable predictions for the
convective component of transfer, but further work is required to provide reliable estimates of two required time constants, dependent on the
hydrodynamics. For industrial-scale circulating beds, a mechanistic model that incorporates the key factors influencing heat transfer, assumes
fully developed transfer, and utilizes results from large-scale units is recommended.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Heat transfer; Fluidized bed; Design method

1. Introduction 2. Bubbling fluidized beds (BFBs)

To control temperature in many applications of fluidized
beds, it is necessary to add or extract thermal energy. Often,
this requirement is associated with endothermic or exother-
mic chemical reactions. For example, fluidized bed combus-
tors require the removal heat of combustion in order to
maintain operating temperature. Fluidized beds that require
such heat transfer are designed to contact the fluidized
medium with heat transfer surfaceseither immersed tube
bundles or membrane waterwalls. Design and scale-up of
these surfaces require knowledge of the heat transfer
coefficient at the tube or wall surfaces in contact with the
fluidized medium. This paper discusses methods for estimat-
ing the heat transfer coefficients for two important types of
fluidized beds, namely bubbling dense beds and circulating
beds operated in the fast fluidization flow regime. In both
cases, the need is for models that can predict the effective heat
transfer coefficient for submerged surfaces and are applicable
over broad ranges of operating conditions and system sizes.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 610 758 4260; fax: +1 610 758 5057.
E-mail address: jcc0@lehigh.edu (J.C. Chen).
0032-5910/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2004.11.035
Most applications of bubbling fluidized beds that require
heat transfer utilize bundles of heat transfer tubes, which may
be horizontal or vertical. Other orientations are not recom-
mended. Hence the requirement here is to develop engineer-
ing methods for predicting the heat transfer coefficient on
tubes submerged in bubbling fluidized media. It is generally
recognized that heat transfer occurs by gaseous convection
during brief periods of contact with a lean gas phase, by
particle convection/conduction during times of contact with a
dense particle phase, and by radiation in the case of high
temperature operations [1]. Thus:
htot fd hd 1  fd hl hr 1
where h tot, h d, h l, and h r are the total effective heat transfer
coefficient, heat transfer coefficient during bdenseQ (particle)
phase contact, heat transfer coefficient during bleanQ gas
phase contact, and heat transfer coefficient for radiation,
respectively, while f d is the time fraction of contact by dense
phase.
It is usually assumed that the three heat transfer
coefficients on the right-hand side above are independent.
This approach is also followed here.
124 J.C. Chen et al. / Powder Technology 150 (2005) 123132

2.1. Convection Recently Chen [4] compared several different correlations

against a set of experimental data for heat transfer in a
Often the two convective terms are lumped into a single fluidized bed of 240 Am glass spheres. Fig. 1 (from [4]) shows
convection coefficient, i.e., that in fact there is very little agreement among the various
correlations, or between the correlations and experimental
hc fd hd 1  fd hl : 2 datawith deviations on the order of 100%. While empirical,
Many attempts have been made to correlate the convective correlations are easy to use and may be
convective heat transfer coefficient with gas flow rate and appropriate for specific scale-up applications, their generality
properties of the fluid and solid particles. Most often, such is questionable. The number of variables is so large and the
correlations seek empirical relationships between a Nusselt range of data used to generate the correlations is so limited
number (Nu) with the fluid Prandtl number (Pr) and a that empirical correlations are unable to provide reliable
Reynolds number (Re). A typical example is a correlation predictions. In the opinion of the authors, such empirical
presented by Vreedenberg [2] for submerged horizontal correlations for the convective heat transfer coefficient in
tubes: bubbling fluidized beds for scale-up purposes can only be
!0:3 !0:3 used with considerable caution.
hc Dt qp l2g  0:3 Most design correlations (as discussed above) represent
N ut u 420 Ret 2 3
Prg convective heat transfer as a steady state process driven by
kg qg gqp dp
! gas flow. In contrast, visual observations in actively bubbling
qp beds indicate that the particle emulsion actually remains
for Ret N2250 3 relatively static, only being periodically disturbed by the
qg
passage of discreet gas bubbles. Mechanistically, the most
where Re t is the Reynolds number based on tube diameter, representative model for fluidized bed heat transfer may well
D t. while k g, q p, q g, l g, and d p are the gas thermal be the packet model originally suggested by Mickley and
conductivity, particle density, gas density, gas viscosity, and Fairbanks in 1955 [5]. These authors considered the heat
mean particle diameter, respectively. transfer surface to be alternately contacted by gas bubbles and
Another example is the correlation of Borodulya et al. [3] closely packed particle emulsion (packets). Thus the trans-
for vertical tubes: port process becomes a surface renewal phenomenon where
!0:14   heat transfer occurs primarily by transient conduction
hc dp 0:1 qp cpp 0:24 between the particle packets and the surface during periods
Nup u 0:74 Ar 1  e0:67
kg qg cpg when the packets reside at the heat transfer surface. In recent
years, this basic concept has been experimentally confirmed
  1  e0:67
0:46 Rep Prg 4 by researchers who were able to measure transient variations
e of particle concentration at the heat transfer surfaces. For
where Nu p, Ar, and Re p are the Nusselt number, Archimedes example, Ozkaynak and Chen [6] and Chandran and Chen [7]
number, and Reynolds number, all based on the particle used flush-mounted capacitance electrodes to obtain real time
diameter, while c pp, c pg, and e are the specific heat of measurements of fluctuating particle concentration at surfa-
particles, specific heat of gas, and overall void fraction, ces submerged in bubbling beds. Results indicated that the
respectively. particle concentration is highly transient, with instantaneous

Fig. 1. Comparison of correlations for convective heat transfer with experimental data of Ozkaynak and Chen [6] for vertical tube in bubbling beds.
 J.C. Chen et al. / Powder Technology 150 (2005) 123132
concentrations alternating between almost pure gas (bubble
phase) and that of loosely packed beds. Such evidence of
highly transient contacting lends support to the surface
renewal model. The convective heat transfer coefficient can
then include bubble phase convection and packet phase
convection, as expressed in Eq. (2). Following the approach
of Mickley and Fairbanks, the dense phase is equated to
particle bpackets,Q where f d is the fraction of time during
which surfaces are in contact with the dense (packet) phase.
If one approximates the particle packet as a pseudo-
homogeneous medium of solid volume fraction (1e Pa),
transient conduction analysis results in the average dense-
phase coefficient as:
 
kPa qp cpp 1  ePa 1=2
hd 2 : 5
psPa
Here k Pa is packet thermal conductivity and e Pa is void
fraction in the packets, while s Pa is the root mean residence
time of packets at the heat transfer surface, given by:
2 in 32
X
6 sPa i 7
6 i1 7
sPa u66X
7 :
in q 7
6 particles at a solid surface, one should account for the
4 5
sPa i
i1
In most bubbling fluidized beds, the bubble phase
contribution is small compared to the packet phase
contribution so that the total convective heat transfer
coefficient can be approximated as:
 
kPa qp cpp 1  ePa 1=2
hc gf d hd 2fd : 7
psPa
All parameters in Eq. (7) can be evaluated from properties
of the solid particles and gas, with the exception of the two
time parameters f d and s Pa. Where direct measurements of
transient solid concentrations have been obtained at the heat
transfer surface, these two parameters can be evaluated
directly. Chen [4] used this concept for the case of a
submerged vertical tube in bubbling fluidized beds of glass
Fig. 2. Example of residence times for particle packets on vertical heat transfer surface in bubbling beds, from [4].
125
beads. Based on the measurements of Ozkaynak and Chen
[6], empirical curves for the mean residence time (s Pa) and
time fraction ( f d) were obtained as functions of the excess
gas velocity (UU mf). Figs. 2 and 3, taken from Chen [4],
illustrate the experimental data for these two time param-
eters and their corresponding empirical curves. It is seen that
both the mean residence time and the time fraction decrease
with increasing excess gas velocity for particles of a given
size, and increase with increasing particle size. For
vigorously bubbling beds the residence time of particle
packets on a heat transfer surface tends to be on the order of
less than 1 s. The Fourier modulus for transient conduction
in the particle packets is then of order:
kPa sPa
Fou VO10: 8
qp cpp 1  ePa dp2
This magnitude of the Fourier modulus implies that
conduction waves in the emulsion packets are able to
penetrate distances of only a few particle diameters during
the packet residence period. It should be noted that since the
particle packing density is reduced in the first layer of
corresponding reduction of effective thermal conductivity in
this near-surface region. From the solution of the transient
conduction equation, the penetration depth, (n), defined as
the distance into the emulsion packet where 90% of the
temperature change is obtained in residence time, s Pa, is
given [4] by:
 
n p
erf aPa sPa 0:9
2
p
ni2:32 aPa sPa 9
where
kPa
aPa u : 10
qp cpp 1  ePa
For distances (x) within one particle diameter of the heat
transfer surface, an approximation of the local void fraction
126 J.C. Chen et al. / Powder Technology 150 (2005) 123132

Fig. 3. Example of time fraction for packets on vertical heat transfer in surface in bubbling beds, from [4].

can be obtained by fitting results of Kubie and Broughton transfer coefficients. The model not only predicts the
[8]: magnitude of the heat transfer coefficient, but also correctly
    duplicates the trends for parametric variations with particle
x x
ex 1  2:041  ePa 1  0:51 : 11 size and gas velocity. The conclusion is that for scale-up of
dp dp heat transfer surfaces submerged in bubbling fluidized beds,
At positions beyond one particle diameter, the local void the mechanistic surface renewal model can give reliable
fraction and packet properties are approximately equal to the predictions.
values at bulk emulsion voidage, e Pa. Chen [4] suggested A problem in using this mechanistic approach is the lack
that the packet model of Mickley and Fairbanks be modified of reliable information on the two time parameters s Pa and
for cases where n is less than one particle diameter by taking f d. Chandran and Chen [7] noted that in the case of
the effective thermal conductivity of the emulsion packet at horizontal tubes, large variations in both the residence time
x=n/2. Results of Kunii and Smith [9] for packed media in (s Pa) and time fraction ( f d) occur around the circumference,
stationary fluid can be represented by the following resulting in wide variations in the corresponding local heat
expressions for the effective packet thermal conductivity: transfer coefficients. These authors presented correlations
 b for s Pa and f d, but recognized that many more data are
kp required for any general correlation. Given this situation
kPa akg ; a 3:5  2:5e; b 0:46  0:46e
kg where the mechanistic surface renewal model appears to be
12 realistic, but information on the time parameters of
residence time and fractional coverage are lacking, what is
where, for n/2zd p: the promise for scale-up and new designs? Clearly, the
technical community needs to collect experimental measure-
eePa ; the bulk void fraction in the emulsion packets;cemf ments of these time parameters for broad ranges of particles,
13 operating conditions, and bed sizes. Empirical correlations
or mechanistic predictive methods can then be developed
while, for n/2bd p: for these two time parameters, allowing the modified packet
    model to calculate convective heat transfer coefficients.
  n=2 n=2
e 1  2:04 1  ep 1  0:51 : 14 Alternatively, simple mechanistic approaches used to
dp dp
describe and predict the hydrodynamics of bubbling beds
To test this mechanistic approach, Chen [4] used the could be adapted to estimate these two parameters. One
above equations with empirical correlations for f d and s Pa to hopes that such developments will be attained in the near
predict convective heat transfer coefficients for a submerged future.
vertical tube and compared the predictions to independently Another promising approach is to develop deterministic
measured heat transfer coefficients at the same operating models for the dynamics of particle movement in fluidized
conditions. Fig. 4 compares the model predictions to beds by numerical simulation. In recent years, progress has
experimental measurements for bubbling fluidized beds been made with both Eulerian models using local averaging
for two different particle sizes. It is seen that the modified at the scale of the computational cell and discreet particle
packet model based on a surface renewal mechanism gives models using Lagrangian formulations to track particle
good agreement with the experimentally measured heat motion. Especially promising results have been reported by
 J.C. Chen et al. / Powder Technology 150 (2005) 123132 127

Fig. 4. Agreement between modified packet model and data for heat transfer to vertical tube in bubbling beds, from [4].

researchers who have combined the Eulerian and Lagran-
gian models to simulate bubbling fluidization. Fig. 5, taken
from Xu et al. [10], shows the results of simulation for a
two-dimensional bed of air-fluidized 550-Am-diameter
particles. This figure presents snapshots of the simulation
results at three specific times indicating the transient void
fractions in the bubbling bed. The gradations of shade
indicate instantaneous voidages in the bed. One can expect
that if a heat transfer tube were submerged in this bed, the
simulation would predict the dynamics of alternating contact
by gas bubbles and particle packets. It is clear that a
simulation covering a sufficient time duration should give
statistical information on the time parameters of interest, s Pa
and f d. Thus the combination of experimental measure-
ments, empirical correlations, and numerical CFD simula-
tion should in the future provide the necessary time-domain
information to enable direct application of the surface
renewal model for predicting convective heat transfer to
submerged surfaces in bubbling fluidized beds.
2.2. Radiative heat transfer
For bubbling fluidized beds operating at temperatures
greater than 500 8C, thermal radiation contributes signifi-
cantly to the overall heat transfer. Models to estimate the
radiative heat transfer flux can be grouped into two classes.
The more physically based approach attempts to calculate
radiant emission, absorption, and scattering within the

Fig. 5. Transient void fractions for a bubbling bed from numerical simulation of Xu et al. [10]. Air-fluidized bed of particles with d p=550 Am, q p=2500 kg/m3.
128 J.C. Chen et al. / Powder Technology 150 (2005) 123132

fluidized media. Examples of this approach include the circulating fluidized bed combustors, where heat is usually
works of Bhattacharya and Harrison [11], and Chen and extracted from membrane wall surfaces around the periph-
Chen [12]. This first type of model is mechanistically sound ery of the reactor, sometimes supplemented by bubbling bed
but complicated to apply, often involving the solution of transfer in the return portion of the external circulation loop.
nonlinear integrodifferential equations for photon transport. Given the wear caused by particles moving rapidly upwards
The second, simpler approach is to treat the radiation and downwards, CFB reactors seldom employ internal
transfer as exchange between opaque gray bodies separated surfaces. Flow conditions in the reactor usually correspond
by a nonparticipating medium, so that: to the fast fluidization flow regime. Hence the design
  problem of greatest interest is how to predict the heat
r Tb4  Tw4
qr     15 transfer coefficient for membrane surfaces at the wall of a
A w 1  eb 1 1  ew fast-fluidized bed. In almost all cases of practical impor-

Ab eb F ew tance, the membrane surface is disposed in such a manner
where T b and Tw are the bulk bed temperature and wall/ that the tubes are oriented vertically.
surface temperature, respectively. Unless the heat transfer Heat transfer to the wall of a CFB riser can again be
surfaces are tightly packed within the fluidized bed or assumed to involve additive components due to conduction,
finned, the view factor ( F) approaches unity and Aw=A b. convection, and radiation. Many workers have begun with a
Emissivity of the heat transfer surface (e w) is a property of two-phase structure, somewhat similar to that described
the surface. For most metallic surfaces operating at high above for bubbling beds. However, the two phases are
temperatures, e w tends to be in the range of 0.71.0. The different than those in bubbling beds, with the flow at the
parameter of greatest uncertainty in Eq. (15) is the effective wall dominated by streamers or clusters traveling mostly
bed emissivity (e b). Ozkaynak and Chen [13] obtained downward, interspersed with periods where there is upwards
measurements of effective bed emissivity which showed flow of a dilute suspension. Complementing similar experi-
that e b also ranged from 0.7 to 1.0 in fluidized beds of sand. ments in the bubbling bed case referred to above, CFB
Thus, a simple engineering estimate of the radiative heat experiments by Wu et al. [14] with small flush-mounted
transfer coefficient can be obtained from: heat transfer surfaces have shown rapidly varying local
  instantaneous heat transfer coefficients, with the fluctuations
qr r Tb4  Tw4 corresponding to the arrival of streamers at the heat transfer
hr  : surface. Hence the processes governing heat transfer are
Tb  Tw 1  eb 1  ew
Tb  T w 1 somewhat similar, with packets of particles traveling
eb ew
primarily vertically interspersed with periods of relatively
16 dilute conditions. Complicating the situation, however, are
several factors:

3. Circulating fluidized beds (CFBs)
Circulating fluidized beds are used in a number of
processes, most notably combustion and catalytic reactions.
From a heat transfer point of view, the major interest is in
(a) Whereas the voidage distribution in bubbling beds is
essentially binary, varying between a discreet dense
phase voidage and nearly pure voids inside bubbles,
the voidage distribution in fast fluidization tends to be
continuous and widely dispersed.

Fig. 6. Heat transfer coefficients for large circulating fluidized bed combustors. Sources of data are fully specified in the original paper [15].
 J.C. Chen et al. / Powder Technology 150 (2005) 123132 129

(b) Streamers in circulating fluidized beds can reverse sections, transfer is by gas convection (denoted by subscript
directions, moving both upwards and downwards. bgcQ) and by radiation from the suspension to the wall
(subscript bsrQ). The rest of the wall is covered by clusters/
Boiler makers and other manufacturers of large CFB units streamers, providing a parallel transfer path. The transfer
typically base their estimates of heat transfer coefficient on rate is then assumed to be controlled by a particle horizontal
experience from previous units, with adjustments to account exchange flux, G sh, in parallel with radiation, these two
for such factors as changes in mean particle diameter, being in series with transfer from the streamer/cluster to the
suspension density, and membrane surface geometry. They wall by parallel conduction and radiation across a gas gap at
can be said to use binternal correlationsQ based on confidential the wall. The overall heat transfer is then:
data. Published correlations, which are purely empirical, are   f
not common for circulating fluidized beds. Instead, a number htot hgc hsr 1  f :
1 1
of semiempirical models have been proposed in the literature  
based on periodic renewal of particle clusters at the heat Gsh cpp hrad
be kg =dg hrad
ew
transfer surface. Analogous to Eq. (1), one treats the heat 17
transfer as being composed of superimposed conduction/
convection and radiation, assumed to be additive. The above quantities are then estimated as follows. A
The experimental data available for developing hydro- new correlation was given for the fractional coverage, f,
dynamic predictions and for testing heat transfer predictions accounting for the scale of the unit:
for CFBs are mostly from small-scale vessels. The few cases    
2
reported for larger CFBs, with cross-sectional areas varying f 1  exp  25; 000 1  0:5D 1  esus
e e0:5D
from 2.4 to 88 m2, have been summarized by Golriz and
Grace [15]. Fig. 6 (from [15]) plots the heat transfer 18
coefficients versus suspension density for these large-scale
where D is the riser equivalent diameter (4 cross-sectional
units. While the limited number of data from large units is a
area/perimeter) in metres. For large units, f approaches
definite disadvantage, there is one significant advantage of
unity, meaning that the entire wall becomes covered by
larger scale equipment. This is that large risers are tall enough
clusters. An alternative relationship giving somewhat lower
that both the flow and the heat transfer can be assumed to be
values of f as D increases has recently been suggested by
fully developed [15], whereas in small scale vessels, both the
Dutta and Basu [17]. The gas convective transfer coef-
flow and the heat transfer are always likely to be developing,
ficient, h gc, was obtained from the well-known Dittus
meaning that heat transfer changes significantly with the
Boelter correlation [18]. Radiation between the suspension
vertical length of the heat transfer surface [16].
and the bare wall was estimated from the parallel surface
Golriz and Grace [15] devised a model for large units
expression, similar to Eq. (16) above:
based on the assumptions of fully developed conditions and  
radially uniform clusters at the wall. Fig. 7 portrays this r Tb4  Tw4
hsr   19
model in electrical network analogy form, with six 1 1
resistances. At any instant, some portions of the surface Tb  Tw 1
esus ew
are bare, while other portions of the surface are covered by
clusters, each separated from the wall by a thin gap of where T b and Tw are the bulk and wall temperatures, while
thickness d g. Different heat transfer mechanisms are e w and e sus are the wall and suspension emissivities. The
assumed for the bare and covered portions. For the bare latter is estimated from the Brewster [19] correlation. The

Fig. 7. Golriz and Grace [15] model in network analogy form.

130 J.C. Chen et al. / Powder Technology 150 (2005) 123132

two remaining radiation heat transfer coefficients are given for design of large-scale CFB units. However, it is
by: simplified in not considering such factors as the interaction
  between radiation and convection, the coupling of heat
 4  1 1
hrad
ew 4r Te  T 4
w =
esus

ew
 1 Te  Tw 20 transfer resistance in the tube wall and on the steam side,
reversing motion of clusters at the wall, and the highly
  three-dimensional nature of the membrane wall surface. For
 
hrad
be 2r Tb4  Te4 = 2
esus
 1 Tb  Te 21
a more advanced model that accounts for these factors, see
recent papers by Xie et al. [21,22].
with Te being the emulsion temperature at the edge of the
gas gap given by: 4. Conclusion
Tb R56 Tw R34 R3 R4
Te with R34 Design or scale-up of heat transfer systems in fluidized
R34 R56 R3 R4
R5 R6 beds requires estimation of the effective heat transfer
and R56 22 coefficient on tube or wall surfaces in contact with the
R5 R6
fluidized medium. Manufacturers typically base their
where the resistances R 3, R 4, R 5, and R 6 are all defined in estimates on experience obtained in previous units, utilizing
Fig. 7. Eq. (21) allows for some radiation shielding by the empirical correlations to adjust for changes in particle size
intervening particles. and operating conditions. Such empirical correlations must
The gas gap thickness is estimated [20] from: be used with considerable caution. In this paper, it is
dg 0:0282dp 1  esus 0:59 23 suggested that mechanistic models based on the surface
renewal concept hold promise for design and scale-up of
where d p is the average particle diameter and e sus is the cross- heat transfer systems for both bubbling dense beds and fast
sectional average suspension void fraction. An expression for circulating fluidized beds.
the lateral solids flux was obtained by fitting all heat transfer
data for units of hydraulic diameter 1 m or larger where the
suspension densities, q sus=q p(1e sus)+q ge sus, were greater Nomenclature
than or equal to 5 kg/m3, leading to: Ab Projected area of bulk fluidized media as seen by
Aw, m2
Gsh 0:0225lnqsus 0:1093: 24 Aw Area of heat transfer surface, m2
a Constant in Eq. (12),
As shown in Fig. 8, predictions of this method are in Ar Archimedes number, (gd p3(q pq g)/q gm g2),
good agreement with available large-scale heat transfer data, b Constant in Eq. (12),
with few points lying outside the F25% bands. c pg Specific heat of gas, J/kg K
This approach is rational and appears to provide the best c pp Specific heat of particles, J/kg K
quantitative means of estimating heat transfer coefficients D Riser equivalent diameter, m

Fig. 8. Heat transfer coefficients predicted by Golriz and Grace [15] model compared with experimental data. Dashed lines indicate F25% deviations. CUT
indicates Chalmers University of Technology.
 J.C. Chen et al. / Powder Technology 150 (2005) 123132 131

Dt Diameter of heat transfer tube, m e Pa Void fraction in the emulsion packet,

dp Mean particle diameter, m e sus Cross-sectional average voidage,
eb Effective bed emissivity, ex Void fraction at distance x from heat transfer
ep Particle emissivity, surface,
e sus Suspension emissivity, lg Gas viscosity, kg/m s
ew Wall emissivity, mg Gas kinematic viscosity, m2/s
F Radiative view factor between Aw and A b, qg Gas density, kg/m3
f Fraction of total time during which wall surface is qp Particle density, kg/m3
covered by clusters, q sus Cross-sectional average suspension density, kg/m3
Fo Fourier modulus (Eq. (8)), r StefanBoltzmann constant, 5.67 108 W/m2 K4
fd Time fraction of contact by dense phase, s Pa Root mean residence time of packet at heat transfer
g Gravitational acceleration, m2/s surface, s
G sh Lateral particle flux, kg/m2 s n Penetration distance for conduction wave, m
h rad
be Heat transfer coefficient for bulk-to-emulsion
radiative transfer, W/m2 K Subscripts
hc Convective heat transfer coefficient, W/m2K b Bulk
hd Heat transfer coefficient for bdenseQ (particle) phase be Bulk-to-emulsion
contact, W/m2 K c Convective
rad
h ew Heat transfer coefficient for radiation transfer across cov Covered portion
gas gap, W/m2 K d Dense phase
h gc Gas convective heat transfer coefficient for uncovered ew Emulsion-to-wall
portions of wall, W/m2 K g Gas
hl Heat transfer coefficient for bleanQ gas phase contact, gc Gas convection
W/m2 K l Lean phase
hr Heat transfer coefficient for radiation, W/m2 K mf Minimum fluidization
h sr Radiative heat transfer coefficient from bulk p Particle
suspension to bare wall, W/m2 K Pa Packet
h tot Total heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K r Radiation
kg Gas thermal conductivity, W/m K sr Suspension radiation
kp Particle thermal conductivity, W/m K sus Suspension
k Pa Thermal conductivity of particle packet, W/m K t Tube
Nu p Nusselt number based on mean particle diameter, tot Total
(h cd p/k g), w Wall or heat transfer surface
Nu t Nusselt number based on tube diameter, (h cD t/k g), x Distance from heat transfer surface into packet
Nu Nusselt number based on riser equivalent diameter,
(h cD/k g),
Pr g Prandtl number of gas, (c pgl g/k g),
qr Radiative heat flux, W/m2 References
R 1R 6 Heat transfer resistances defined in Fig. 7, m2 K/W
Re D Reynolds number based on the riser equivalent [1] J.C. Chen, Fluidization solids handling and processing, in: W.C. Yang
diameter, (Dq gU/l g), (Ed.), Noyes Publ., 1999, pp. 153 208.
Re p Reynolds number based on the particle diameter, [2] H.A. Vreedenberg, Chem. Eng. Sci. 9 (1958) 52 60.
(d pq gU/l g), [3] V.A. Borodulya, A.P. Teplitsky, V.V. Sorokin, I.I. Markevich, A.F.
Hassan, T.P. Yeryomenko, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 34 (1991)
Re t Reynolds number based on tube diameter 47 53.
(D tq gU/l g), [4] J.C. Chen, Max Jakob award lecture, J. Heat Transfer 125 (2003)
Tb Bulk suspension temperature, K 549 566.
Te Emulsion temperature, K [5] H.S. Mickley, D.F. Fairbanks, AIChE J. 1 (3) (1955) 374 384.
[6] T.F. Ozkaynak, J.C. Chen, AIChE J. 26 (4) (1980) 544 550.
Tw Wall temperature, K
[7] R. Chandran, J.C. Chen, AIChE J. 29 (6) (1982) 907 913.
U Superficial gas velocity, m/s [8] J. Kubie, J. Broughton, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 18 (1975) 289.
U mf Superficial gas velocity at minimum fluidization, m/s [9] D. Kunii, J.M. Smith, AIChE J. 6 (1960) 71 78.
[10] B.H. Xu, A.B. Yu, S.J. Chew, P. Zulli, Powder Technol. 109 (2000)
Greek letters 13 26.
a Pa Thermal diffusivity of particle packets (Eq. (10)), m2/s [11] S.C. Bhattacharya, D. Harrison, Proc. Euro. Conf. Particle Tech. K7
(1976) 12 16.
dg Gas gap thickness, m [12] J.C. Chen, K.L. Chen, Chem. Eng. Commun. 9 (1981) 255 271.
e Volume fraction gas (void fraction), [13] T.F. Ozkaynak, J.C. Chen, Fluidization, in: D. Kunii, R. Toei (Eds.),
e mf Void fraction at minimum fluidization, Eng. Foundation Pub., 1983, pp. 371 378.
132 J.C. Chen et al. / Powder Technology 150 (2005) 123132
[14] R.L. Wu, C.J. Lim, J.R. Grace, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 67 (1989)
301 307.
[15] M.R. Golriz, J.R. Grace, in: J.R. Grace, J. Zhu, H. deLasa (Eds.),
Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology VII, CSChE, Ottawa, 2002,
pp. 121 128.
[16] R.L. Wu, J.R. Grace, C.J. Lim, Chem. Eng. Sci. 45 (1990) 3389 3398.
[17] A. Dutta, P. Basu, Int. fluid bed combustion conf., Jacksonville,
Florida FBC 2003-042, 2003.
[18] J.R. Welty, Engineering Heat Transfer, John Wiley and Sons Publ.,
1974, p. 262.
[19] M.Q. Brewster, Trans. ASME 108 (1986) 710 713.
[20] T. Lints, L.R. Glicksman, AIChE Symp. Ser. 89 (296) (1993) 35 52.
[21] D. Xie, B.D. Bowen, J.R. Grace, C.J. Lim, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer
46 (2003) 2179 2205.
[22] D. Xie, B.D. Bowen, J.R. Grace, C.J. Lim, Chem. Eng. Sci. (2003)
4247 4258.
Further reading
[1] H.A. Vreedenberg, Chem. Eng. Sci. 11 (1960) 274 285.
[2] A. Baerg, J. Klasson, P.E. Gishler, Can. J. Res. (1950) 287.
[3] L. Wender, G.T. Cooper, AIChE J. 4 (1958) 15 23.