Premium
Influence of tube and particle diameter on heat transport in packed beds
Author(s) -
Borkink J. G. H.,
Westerterp K. R.
Publication year - 1992
Publication title -
aiche journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.958
H-Index - 167
eISSN - 1547-5905
pISSN - 0001-1541
DOI - 10.1002/aic.690380507
Subject(s) - raschig ring , heat transfer coefficient , heat transfer , thermal conductivity , thermodynamics , materials science , particle (ecology) , packed bed , tube (container) , spheres , fin , mechanics , chemistry , composite material , chromatography , physics , oceanography , astronomy , geology
Influence of the tube and particle diameter and shape, as well as their ratio, on the radial heat transport in packed beds has been studied. Heat transport experiments were performed with four different packings in three wall‐cooled tubes, which differed in inner diameter only. Experimental values for the effective radial heat conductivity and wall heat‐transfer coefficient for the pseudo‐homogeneous two‐dimensional model and the overall heat‐transfer coefficient for the one‐dimensional model are presented. Values were obtained for glass spheres, alumina cylinders, and alumina Raschig rings. The effective radial heat conductivity and wall heat‐transfer coefficient can both be correlated as a linear function of the gas flow rate. The Bodenstein number for heat at fully developed turbulent flow is influenced strongly by the shape of the packing: 10.9 for glass spheres, 7.6 for alumina cylinders, and 4.2 for alumina Raschig rings. For the same packing, no significant influence is found of the tube diameter on the effective radial heat conductivity or on the wall heat‐transfer coefficient. The overall heat‐transfer coefficient can be described very well by the so‐called “lump equation,” which gives the relations among the overall heat‐transfer coefficient, effective radial heat conductivity, and wall heat‐transfer coefficient. The “lump factor,” as used in the lump equation, has a best‐fit experimental value of 7.4.