Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Journal of Powder Technology

Volume 2014, Article ID 163469, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/163469

Research Article
Wall-to-Bed Heat Transfer at Minimum Gas-Solid Fluidization

Huili Zhang,1 Jan Degrève,1 Jan Baeyens,2 and Raf Dewil3

1
Department of Chemical Engineering, KU Leuven, Chemical and Biochemical Process Technology and Control Section,
de Croylaan 46, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
2
School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
3
Department of Chemical Engineering, KU Leuven, Process and Environmental Technology Lab, J.P. De Nayerlaan 5,
2860 Sint-Katelijne-Waver, Belgium

Correspondence should be addressed to Jan Baeyens; baeyens.j@gmail.com

Received 7 May 2014; Accepted 3 September 2014; Published 17 September 2014

Academic Editor: Clive E. Davies

Copyright © 2014 Huili Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The heat transfer from a fluidized bed to the cooling jacket of the vessel has been studied for various powders at minimum
fluidization conditions, by both convection and conduction approaches. These heat transfer characteristics are important as the
point of transition between packed and fluidized bed operations and are needed in designing heat transfer operations where bubble-
flow is not permitted. The effective thermal conductivity of the emulsion moreover determines the contact resistance at the heating
or cooling surface, as used in packet renewal models to predict the wall-to-bed heat transfer. In expressing the overall heat transfer
phenomenon as a convective heat transfer coefficient, it was found that the results could be fitted by Numf,𝑗 = 0.01Ar0.42 .

1. Introduction “convective heat transfer coefficient,” ℎ (W/m2 K), as defined

in the standard equation for heat transfer by convection:
A powder is a heterogeneous system in which solid particles
𝑄 = ℎ𝐴 ex Δ𝑇. (1)
are surrounded by gas. There are an unlimited number of
solid-gas systems possible ranging from the single solid in Experiments allow the determination of the temperature
single gas system to the more complex fluidized bed. difference (Δ𝑇, in 𝐾) for a known heat flow rate, 𝑄, (𝑊)
The specific reasons for investigating the heat transfer and a known surface area of the heat exchanger 𝐴 ex (m2 ).
at minimum fluidization are fourfold: (i) it is an important The heat exchange surfaces are either an “outside-wall,” that
design value for operations where bubble-flow is not permit- is, a heat transfer jacket, or an “internal” surface with an
ted, for example, cooling of safety glass or slow and controlled immersed tubular heat exchanger. Both experimental and
cooling/hardening of metal-alloy wire; (ii) it is the point of industrial equipment commonly use cylindrical configura-
transition between packed and fluidized bed operations; (iii) tions to contain the bed, often with immersed tubular heat
it defines the extent of the thermal gradient within the bed exchanger and/or heat transfer jacket.
close to the heat exchanging wall; and (iv) it provides data The heat transfer coefficient in bubbling fluidized beds
of the effective thermal conductivity of the bed at minimum has been extensively investigated (e.g., [1–4]): the wall-to-
fluidization: data on the effective thermal conductivity are bed heat transfer rate increases with increasing gas flow
essential to the estimation of the contact resistance at the rate because of the more vigorous bubble-induced particle
heating or cooling surface, as used in packet renewal models mixing and hence a faster renewal of the emulsion phase
to predict the wall-to-bed heat transfer and further discussed in contact with the heat exchange surface (Figure 1). The
in Section 3.4. increase is however limited, since higher gas flow rates cause
Attempts to understand how heat is transferred through a longer time fraction of contact between the gas bubbles and
the system usually devolve into attempts to determine its the surface. This phenomenon will even dominate at very
2 Journal of Powder Technology

high gas flow rates, where the heat transfer coefficient will
gradually decrease [5, 6]. In deep fluidized beds of smaller Heat transfer
surface
internal diameter, the freely bubbling mode can transform Next packet of
into slugging [7, 8], where again poorer mixing and long slug emulsion to contact
the surface
contact with the heat transfer surface will reduce the heat
transfer coefficient [6]. Direct contact
of particle with
This bubble-induced heat transfer mechanism is illus- surface
trated in Figure 1, where packets of particles are brought
into contacting the transfer surface, absorbing heat during
their contact by unsteady state conduction and dissipating the Equivalent thickness
captured heat into the bulk of the bed by the bubble-induced Thickness of gas of emulsion layer, P0
mixing. This packet renewal mechanism will be discussed in film, 𝛿
Section 3.4 of the paper.
A different approach to describing the heat transfer Figure 1: General mechanism of bed-to-wall heat transfer.
by convection considers conduction through the emulsion
phase in contact with the heat transfer surface. This approach
results in the determination of the thermal conductivity,
r2
𝑘 (W/mK). This property of the system determines the
temperature gradient under a fixed heat flow. The definition
of 𝑘 is obtained from Fourier’s law
Δ𝑇
𝑄 = −𝑘𝐴 ex , (2) L
Δ𝑥 r1

where the heat flow rate, 𝑄, (W) and the temperature T2 T1

gradient, Δ𝑇/Δ𝑥, (K/m) are perpendicular to the exchange
area, 𝐴 ex (m2 ).
Integration of (2) for a cylindrical space with height 𝐿 (m)
and for radii 𝑟1 and 𝑟2 (m) leads to expressions for the radial
thermal conductivity as illustrated in Figure 2.
The radial thermal conductivity, 𝑘𝑟 (W/mK), is deter- Figure 2: Geometry for the radial heat flow in a cylindrical unit.
mined by the geometry, the radial heat flow, 𝑄𝑟 , (W), and the
temperature difference Δ𝑇 (K), according to
𝑄𝑟 𝑟 Ideally, only a heat flow perpendicular to the surface
𝑘𝑟 = ln ( 2 ) . (3) should occur. For the study of radial heat transfer, the flat
2𝜋𝐿Δ𝑇 𝑟1
end surfaces of the cylinder ought to be covered with a
Thermal conductivities may be measured by either static nonconductor of heat. As there is no such perfect insulator,
or dynamic methods. The former involves temperature mea- two techniques are frequently used: heat guards are used in
surements under steady state operation whereas in the latter order to keep the temperature constant over the whole length
case the temperature change with time is measured at one or of the test section, or results are only taken in the centre
more positions. Since confidence in unsteady state methods section of a test specimen which is long in comparison to
is usually based on agreement with steady state methods, the its diameter and where the isothermal surfaces are essentially
use of the former seems desirable until a fairly comprehensive cylindrical over the centre section. In the present study the
collection of reliable data has been acquired. The specific guard-heater approach will be used, as described further in
study of thermal conductivities in fluidized bed is uncommon the text.
since it is often impossible to measure a thermal gradient in
the bulk of the bed, due to the high thermal conductivity, due 2. Experimental Layout and Procedure
to the relatively small heat fluxes used in the experiments, and
due to the temperature fluctuations in the bed [6]. It is also The experiments involved the use of a mild steel fluidization
known from experiments that the axial conductivity is about column of 21.6 cm I.D., whereby the fluidized bed was heated
10 times greater than in the radial direction, due to the better with an immersed electrical heater and cooled by water
axial mixing in the wake of a bubble, as mentioned by Rowe circulating in the jacket of the column. The equipment is
et al. [9]. schematically represented in Figure 3.
The experimental heat transfer surface could be a plane The water jacket is the annular space between the 21.6 cm
slab, a hollow sphere, or a cylinder but since the construction bed and the outer 25 cm I.D. pipe. Cold water from the service
of uniform hollow spheres or slabs is very difficult, cylindrical pipe (T ≈ 20∘ C) was fed to a constant head tank, and a needle
arrangements are very common and have been used in valve in the underflow controlled the flow rate. The water
most of the previous experiments, as reviewed by Grace and flow meter was calibrated by measuring the volume of water
Baeyens [10]. collected over a measured time. The central heater consisted
Journal of Powder Technology 3

23

22
T 10

9 9

21

T
20 16

21 15

T
19 18
T
18
13 7 ΔP 11

T
18
17
T
T 5
18
T 14

6 20
4

1 2

P 3

(1) Compressor (11) H2 O manometer

(2) Shut off valve and water trap (12) Constant head tank
(3) Pressure gauge (13) Rotameter for water flow
(4) Rotameters for air flow (14), (16) Thermometers ±0.2 ∘ C
(5), (10) Thermometers ±0.5 ∘ C (17) Thermocouples welled onto the wall, connected to
(6) Distributor data logger
(7) Fluidized bed (18) Moveable thermocouples, connected to data logger
(8) Expansion chamber (19) Heater, consisting of 3 elements (1.5 cm O.D.)
(9) Wire mesh filters (aperture 150 𝜇m) (20) Supports for the heater
when fluidizing fine powder, these filters were removed (21) Variac voltage regulators
and the outlets were connected to cyclone 22, followed
by filter 23.

Figure 3: Layout of the experimental rig.

4 Journal of Powder Technology

of three heater elements, manufactured by Masser [11]: the

Steel plate, 1.6 mm thick
middle heater was 300 mm long and the guard heaters were + +
+ + + Holes of 8 mm
each 100 mm. These elements were incorporated in a copper + ++ + pitch = 25.4 mm
tube (≈10 mm I.D. −15 mm O.D.) and the complete heater + +R + +
+ + + + +
was positioned centrally in the column by means of a brass + + + +
+ + + +
tube fixed onto the distributor at the bottom of the heater + + +
and by means of 2 radial rods supporting a central brass tube + +
fixed to the top of the heater. By using the guard heaters
a nearly constant temperature along the full length of the
330.2 mm
middle heating element was obtained.
Thermocouples were imbedded in the heater wall and
Figure 4: Perforated plate distributor used for testing.
brazed into position. The bed temperature was measured
with moveable sheathed thermocouples at different radial
positions and four different heights. These thermocouples
70
with stainless steel sheaths were fixed with Araldite into a
2 mm O.D. copper tube to prevent them bending at the tip.
The thermocouples protruded 10 mm beyond the supporting
tubes. The thermocouples were moved in steps of ∼1 mm in 60
the vicinity of the heater and 5 mm in the bulk of the bed. The
position of the thermocouples was defined with an accuracy
of 0.5 mm by means of a mark on the copper sheath. 50
The thermocouple outputs, with 0.5∘ C accuracy, were
T (∘C)
connected to a data logger. The experimental work involved Jacket surface
the use of 21 powders and the static bed height was about 40
50 cm for all powders tested. The minimum fluidization
velocity was determined from the commonly used mea-
surement of the pressure drop across the bed, Δ𝑃 (Pa), at Pj
increasing superficial gas velocity, 𝑈 (m/s) [12]. The air flow 30
rate was adjusted to the superficial gas velocity at minimum Ph
fluidization, 𝑈mf (m/s), where the first small bubbles occurred
at the bed surface. Almost all of the powders tested are of 20 Heater surface
the Geldart B-type [12], where the onset of bubbling and
0.75 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 8 10
the condition of minimum fluidization coincide. The onset
r(cm)
of bubbling occurs at a higher gas velocity than 𝑈mf only
for A-type powders. The heater was switched on and the Figure 5: Semilogarithmic plot of the average temperature 𝑇 versus
bed was allowed to reach steady state conditions, resulting radial distance 𝑟.
in a constant temperature at the heater and in the bed. The
temperatures were recorded over 30 minutes and the voltage
Table 1: Properties of the components of the powder gas system
across the heater was measured with an AVO-meter. The used in calculations.
experimental results will be described hereafter.
The gas distributor was a sandwich of filter paper between Powder Sphericity, 𝜓 (—) 𝑘𝑠 (W/mK)
two perforated metal plates, with 8 mm I.D. holes at a 0.85 = rounded
Silica sand 0.180
25.4 mm pitch, as illustrated in Figure 4. 0.67 = angular
Three Variac voltage regulators were used. While centrally Glass beads 1.0 0.092
heating and simultaneously cooling (wall), local temperatures Cracking catalyst 0.60 0.138
in the bed and at the inner and outer walls were measured. Diakon spheres 0.243
1.0
The details of thermocouple locations on both surfaces and
in the bed are given in Figure 3. The powder sphericity
and solids’ thermal conductivity, 𝑘𝑠 (W/mK), are given in
Table 1.
of height in the bed (within 1.5∘ C). ΔT could be readily
calculated from arithmetic means.
3. Experimental Results and Discussion The heater output was typically 25.2–33.6 W. The cooling
output from the bed to the jacket was calculated from
3.1. Temperature Profiles and Heat Transfer Properties. From the known water flow rate and the measured temperature
the experiments, graphs similar to Figure 5 were obtained difference of the water between input and output to the jacket.
whilst the use of guard heaters maintained the temperature The surface area of the jacket was calculated as 𝜋 ∗ 21.6 ∗
at the heater wall to within 2∘ C over the entire height. 𝐻mf cm2 , where 𝐻mf is the bed height at incipient fluidization
The temperature of the jacket was also nearly independent (close to 50 cm in all runs).
Journal of Powder Technology 5

Table 2: Experimental results in the 21.6 cm I.D bed using a 1.0 cm O.D. heater.

Powder 𝑑sv (𝜇m) 𝜌𝑠 (kg/m3 ) 𝑈mf ∗ (cm/s) 𝜀mf ∗ (—) ℎmf,𝑗 ∗ (W/m2 K) 𝑃𝑗 ∗ (cm) 𝑘mf,𝑗 = ℎmf,𝑗 ⋅ 𝑃𝑗
(W/mK)
55 2800 0.32 0.466 16.6 3.5 0.58
96 2800 0.95 0.457 18.6 2.9 0.54
Glass beads
173 2800 3.6 0.442 20.2 2.5 0.51
208 2800 3.8 0.440 22.8 2.4 0.55
407 2800 8.2 0.425 21.3 1.9 0.40
90 2540 1.23 0.590 18.3 3.3 0.60
106 2540 1.37 0.563 19.0 3.2 0.61
Angular sand 252 2540 5.3 0.498 32.1 2.6 0.83
470 2540 19.1 0.429 29.9 2.2 0.66
550 2540 29.5 0.414 34.0 2.1 0.71
778 2540 50.1 0.405 38.3 2.0 0.77
152 2650 1.8 0.487 23.2 2.6 0.60
195 2650 3.2 0.432 23.8 2.4 0.57
Rounded sand
197 2650 3.1 0.469 23.0 2.4 0.55
252 2650 4.9 0.453 25.9 2.2 0.57
435 2650 16.8 0.416 25.3 1.8 0.46
Diakon spheres 270 1180 3.3 0.426 23.3 2.2 0.51
38 1500 0.17 0.545 16.1 3.8 0.61
Catalyst 46 1500 0.23 0.543 12.5 3.7 0.46
58 1630 0.26 0.504 12.8 3.6 0.46
64 1630 0.28 0.502 14.5 3.6 0.52
Note: properties marked ∗ were experimentally determined. Average particle sizes were measured by Malvern laser diffractometry. The absolute particle density
was taken from suppliers’ data.

Experiments were repeated 3 times for each powder, and 3.2. The Convective Bed-to-Wall Heat Transfer Coefficients
the respective calculated heat transfer coefficients were all at Minimum Fluidization. All wall-to-bed convection
within 7% of the calculated (and further reported) average heat transfer coefficients at minimum fluidization, ℎmf,𝑗 ,
values. The experimental temperature profiles, as illustrated were transformed into their respective Nusselt-numbers
in Figure 5, demonstrate the existence of a distinct zone near (ℎmf,𝑗 𝑑sv /𝑘𝑔 ), with 𝑘𝑔 as thermal conductivity of the
the central heater or near the outside-wall where a major fluidization gas (W/mK).
temperature gradient is observed. These thicknesses of these The particle size, 𝑑sv (m), absolute particle density, 𝜌𝑝
zones are given in Figure 5 as 𝑃ℎ and 𝑃𝑗 for the heater (kg/m3 ), gas density, 𝜌𝑔 (kg/m3 ), gas viscosity, 𝜇 (kg/ms), and
and wall zones, respectively. The temperature gradients in
the gravitational constant, 𝑔 (m/s2 ), were grouped into the
these contact layers are significant. The temperature remains
Archimedes number, defined as
however nearly constant outside these layers, that is, in
3
the central part of the bed. These zones correspond to the 𝑑sv (𝜌𝑝 − 𝜌𝑔 ) 𝜌𝑔 g
contact transfer layers in the mechanistic surface renewal Ar = . (4)
𝜇2
models (e.g., [13–16]). This differs from a packed bed, where
the thermal gradient extends from centre to wall [17]. The The increase of the minimum fluidization heat transfer
overall properties of such layers can be derived if their coefficient with increasing 𝑑sv is due both to a higher value
cylindrical symmetry is taken into account. This has been of the gas flow, hence increasing the effect of forced convec-
performed graphically on the semilogarithmic plots of the tion, and to a decreased voidage. A log-log plot of Nusselt
gradient thicknesses of the layer near the outer wall. With number versus Archimedes number for all powders tested
determined heat transfer coefficients and layer thicknesses, yields a straight line, as illustrated in Figure 6, suggesting a
the effective thermal conductivity of the layers near the jacket correlation of the form Numf,𝑗 = 𝐾Ar𝑐 , where 𝐾 and 𝑐 have
can be calculated and values of the thermal conductivity values as given in (6), for 10 ≤ Ar ≤ 2∗103 :
at minimum fluidization near the jacket, 𝑘mf,𝑗 (W/mK), are
included in Table 2. Numf,𝑗 = 0.01Ar0.42 . (5)
6 Journal of Powder Technology

1 4.5

4.0

3.5
Nu mf,j (—)

Layer thickness Pj (cm)

0.1
3.0

2.5

2.0
0.01
10 100 1000
Ar (—) 1.5

Figure 6: Nusselt number versus Archimedes numbers for all 21

powders tested. 1.0
100 1000
dsv (𝜇m)
Spherical glass Angular sand
A comparison of our results with former investigations Rounded sand Angular catalyst
is very difficult because these researchers either only repre-
sented their data graphically, or included no precise data in Figure 7: Average values of the layer thickness, 𝑃𝑗 , versus particle
the vicinity of 𝑈mf . size, 𝑑sv .

3.3. The Effective Thermal Conductivity. As already men-

tioned, Figure 5 suggests that heat is being conducted away where 𝑅 is the radius of the column. Smaller column diam-
from the heater or jacket through a distance of 𝑃0 cm, eters will hence see an increased value of the heat transfer
characterizing the contact thermal layer, and thereafter near- coefficient.
isothermal conditions prevail in the bed. Values are presented
in Figure 7.
It can be seen that the thickness 𝑃0 has a higher value for 3.4. The Contact Resistance in Heat Transfer Modelling. The
fine particles than for coarser ones and the same trend exists heat transfer in gas-solid fluidized beds has been modelled
for spherical/rounded materials versus angular powders. If by different approaches.
the heat transfer were purely conductive, one would expect In single or multiple particle heat transfer models (e.g.,
the opposite trend. It should be remembered however that [18–21]), the contact heat transfer is considered as a thin gas
the mechanism of heat transfer includes a transfer to the film adjacent to the heat transfer surface and of thickness 𝛿
gas. Due to the deflection of the gas stream by the particles, (m). The thermal conductivity of the gas, 𝑘𝑔 (W/mK), and the
a complex gas flow pattern (counter current, concurrent, (unknown) thickness of the gas film (expressed as a fraction
and perpendicular to the heat flow) is responsible for the of the particle size, 𝑑sv ) define the contact resistance as
radial dispersion of the heat. Since the interstitial gas velocity
𝑘𝑔
in any direction increases as the bed voidage at minimum ℎ𝑐 = , (7)
fluidization (𝜀mf ) decreases and the minimum fluidization 𝛿
velocity (𝑢mf , m/s) increases, it is clear that with increasing 𝑑sv
with 𝛿 equal to 0.1 to 0.2𝑑sv .
the convective radial heat interchange will increase and that
In the packet renewal models (e.g., [6, 22, 23]), the
the thermal gradient will be limited to a smaller zone near
thermal conductivity at minimum fluidization is recognized
the wall only. The proposed thermal conductivity defines the
as basis of the heat transfer resistance.
radial temperature gradient and was introduced only because
Baeyens and Geldart [6] adapted the packet renewal
it was found impossible to describe the separate contribution
model by adding a time-independent contact resistance, ℎ𝑐
of forced convection to the overall heat transfer.
(W/m2 K), between the packet and the surface, and deter-
Using the values of 𝑘mf,𝑗 , ℎmf,𝑗 can be calculated for a
mined this contact resistance as
particular solid-gas system from the use of the value of 𝑃𝑗 as
given in Figure 7: 𝑚 ⋅ 𝑘𝑔 𝑘mf
ℎ𝑐 = ∼ . (8)
𝑑sv 𝑑sv
𝑘mf,𝑗
ℎmf,𝑗 = , (6) Different values of 𝑚 have been given in literature, being
(𝑅 − 𝑃𝑗 ) ln (𝑅/ (𝑅 − 𝑃𝑗 )) 3.2 for nonmetallic powders [6], about 7.2 [24], to 8 [13], and
Journal of Powder Technology 7

even 10 [25]. The wide range of 𝑚-values cited in literature [2] S. Sae-Heng, T. Swasdisevi, and M. Amornkitbamrung, “Inves-
does not provide an unambiguous relationship between 𝑘mf tigation of temperature distribution and heat transfer in flu-
and 𝑘𝑔 . idized bed using a combined CFD-DEM model,” Drying Tech-
Having determined the thermal conductivity at mini- nology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 697–708, 2011.
mum fluidization, 𝑘mf , the use of packet renewal models is [3] Q. F. Hou, Z. Y. Zhou, and A. B. Yu, “Investigation of heat
however facilitated, since its value can be directly used in the transfer in bubbling fluidization with an immersed tube,” AIP
Conference Proceedings, vol. 1207, pp. 355–360, 2010.
expressions of the heat transfer coefficient, ℎ (W/m2 K). This
is illustrated for the expressions of two model approaches, as [4] V. A. Borodulya, V. L. Ganzha, Y. S. Teplitskii, and Y. G. Epanov,
“Heat transfer in fluidized beds,” Journal of Engineering Physics,
follows.
vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 1197–1202, 1985.
Mickley and Fairbanks [22] [5] H. J. Bock and O. Molerus, “Influence of hydrodynamics on
heat transfer in fluidized beds,” Journal of Technical Writing and
𝑘mf 𝜌mf 𝑐𝑝,mf Communication, pp. 217–224, 1980.
ℎ=√ , (9)
𝜋𝜃 [6] J. Baeyens and D. Geldart, “Modelling approach to the effect of
equipment scale on fluidised bed heat transfer data,” Journal of
Baeyens and Geldart [6] Powder & Bulk Solids Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 1, 1980.
𝜋ℎ𝑐 𝑘mf [7] J. Baeyens and D. Geldart, “An investigation into slugging
ℎ= with ℎ𝑐 ∼ . (10) fluidized beds,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 29, no. 1, pp.
1 + (6ℎ𝑐 /𝜌𝑝 𝑐𝑝 𝑑sv ) 𝜃 𝑑sv
255–265, 1974.
[8] R. K. Singh and G. K. Roy, “Prediction of minimum slugging
The bubble-induced particle mixing determines the time
velocity, bubbling bed index and range of bubbling fluidization
of contact, 𝜃(s), between the particles and the heat transfer in cylindrical and non-cylindrical gas-solid fluidized beds,”
surface [6]. Introducing the relevant particle properties and Indian Journal of Chemical Technology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 85–89,
𝑘mf allows us to predict the heat transfer coefficient, ℎ, at a 2008.
given gas velocity and the packet contact time at the heat [9] P. N. Rowe, B. A. Partridge, and E. Lyall, “Cloud formation
exchange surface, 𝜃(s). around bubbles in gas fluidized beds,” Chemical Engineering
Science, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 973–985, 1964.
4. Conclusions [10] J. R. Grace and J. Baeyens, “Instrumentation and experimental
techniques,” in Gas Fluidization Technology, D. Geldart, Ed.,
The heat transfer from a fluidized bed to the outside wall, chapter 13, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 1986.
at the onset of fluidization, has been studied for various [11] Masser, http://www.masser.be/.
powders. [12] D. Geldart, “Characterisation of fluidized powders,” in Gas
In expressing the overall heat transfer phenomenon as Fluidization Technology, D. Geldart, Ed., chapter 3, John Wiley
a convective heat transfer coefficient, it was found that & Sons, Chichester, UK, 1986.
the results can be calculated from the equation Numf = [13] A. P. Baskakov and O. K. Vitt, “Pulsations in coefficient of
0.01Ar0.42 . heat transfer from a surface submerged in a fluidized bed,”
Effective thermal conductivities were also predicted. A Theoretical Foundations of Chemical Engineering, vol. 7, p. 812,
combination of the data of both the thicknesses of the thermal 1973.
layer and the effective thermal conductivity allows prediction [14] X. S. Wang and M. J. Rhodes, “Determination of particle
of the heat transfer coefficient for any geometry of the heat residence time at the walls of gas fluidized beds by discrete
transfer surfaces, expressed by their respective radius, 𝑅. The element method simulation,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol.
measured thermal conductivity can moreover be applied in 58, no. 2, pp. 387–395, 2003.
fluidized bed heat transfer modelling. [15] X. S. Wang and M. J. Rhodes, “A DEM study of particle motion
near the walls of gas fluidized beds,” Powder Technology, vol. 160,
no. 1, pp. 15–19, 2005.
Conflict of Interests [16] M. M. Stojiljkovic, B. V. Stojanovic, J. N. Janevski, and G. S.
Ilić, “Mathematical model of unsteady gas to solid particles heat
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests transfer in Fluidized bed,” Thermal Science, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 55–
regarding the publication of this paper. 68, 2009.
[17] Z. Y. Zhou, A. B. Yu, and P. Zulli, “Particle scale study of heat
Acknowledgment transfer in packed and bubbling fluidized beds,” AIChE Journal,
vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 868–884, 2009.
The authors acknowledge the European Commission for [18] J. D. Gabor, “Wall-to-bed heat transfer in fluidized and packed
cofunding the “CSP2” Project—Concentrated Solar Power in beds,” Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, vol. 66,
Particles (FP7, Project no. 282 932). no. 105, pp. 76–86, 1970.
[19] J. D. Gabor, “Heat transfer to particle beds with gas flows
References less than or equal to that required for incipient fluidization,”
Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 979–984, 1970.
[1] A. Stefanova, H. T. Bi, J. C. Lim, and J. R. Grace, “Local [20] J. S. M. Botterill and J. R. Williams, “The mechanism of heat
hydrodynamics and heat transfer in fluidized beds of different transfer to gas-fluidized beds,” Transactions of the Institution of
diameter,” Powder Technology, vol. 212, no. 1, pp. 57–63, 2011. Chemical Engineers, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 217–230, 1963.
8 Journal of Powder Technology

[21] F. Di Natale, A. Lancia, and R. Nigro, “A single particle model

for surface-to-bed heat transfer in fluidized beds,” Powder
Technology, vol. 187, no. 1, pp. 68–78, 2008.
[22] H. S. Mickley and D. F. Fairbanks, “Mechanism of heat transfer
to fluidized beds,” AIChE Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 374–384, 1955.
[23] R. C. Brown and S. P. Overmann, “The influence of particle
thermal time constants on convection coefficients in bubbling
fluidized beds,” Powder Technology, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 13–20,
1998.
[24] S. S. Zabrodsky, Y. G. Epanov, D. M. Galershtein, S. C. Saxena,
and A. K. Kolar, “Heat transfer in a large-particle fluidized
bed with immersed in-line and staggered bundles of horizontal
smooth tubes,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 571–579, 1981.
[25] J. S. M. Botterill, H. M. Butt, G. L. Cain, K. A. Redish, and
K. A. Redish, “The effect of gas and solids thermal properties
on the rate of heat transfer to gas-fluidised beds,” in Proceed-
ings of the International symposium on Fluidization, A. A. H.
Drinkenburg, Ed., Netherlands University Press, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 1967.