HEAT TRANSFER IN PACKED BEDS-A REEVALUATION

CHI-HSIUNG LI and B A FINLAYSON

Department of Chemical Engmeermg, Umverslty of Washmgton, Seattle, WA 98195, U S A

(Recewed 11 July 1975, accepted27 August 1976)

Abstract--Data for heat transfer from packed beds are reexammed m the hght of new rnslghts Much of the data
mcludes a length effect, resultmg from a lugher heat transfer coetficlent near the mlet, makmg It unsmtable for use
m chemical reactor design, where the length IS so long that an asymptotic heat transfer coeliiclent IS desired The
data IS reexammed m order to exclude studies Influenced by the length effect and retammg data gtvmg an
asymptotic heat transfer coot&rent The asymptotic coefficient 1s correlated well over a large range of Reynolds
numbers (20-7000) The data also mdlcate that the Blot number decreases as the Reynolds number Increases, but IS
approximately constant for Reynolds numbers above 500, taking the value

Bld,e=027
R(l- l )

INTR4XUJCTlON In nondlmenslonal form tlus 1s

The tubular fixed bed chemical reactor LSwidely used for
exothermlc chemical reactions The energy released by cYT a a a
the chenucal reaction must be removed by coohng at the z=-- r & (3YG
walls and thus leads to the deslrabtity of havmg acLurate
correlations for the heat transfer coefficient from packed T=l at z=O
(2)
beds Experunental data for the Nusselt number as a
function of Reynolds number often show considerable $F=O at r=O
disagreement from one study to the next, with dlscre-
pancles are large as 100% bemg common[ 1,2] The pur-
-$T=BIT at r=l
pose of this report IS to reexamine the experunental data
to see the cause of the dmcrepancy and to ehmmate It
Most data IS obtamed m a Graetz-type expenment The If the effective thermal conductlvlty and heat transfer
fled passes through a packed bed and IS cooled at the coefficient are taken as constants, this problem has a
walls In an empty pipe, with either lammar or turbulent well-known solution
flow, there 1s an entry length effect, and the heat transfer
coefficient at the bed mlet IS mfimte, but for positions
(3)
farther down the pipe the coefficient decreases and
eventually approaches an asymptotic value In a packed
bed the same phenomena IS much less hkely because the where &(A.r) IS the zeroth order Bessel function of the
heat transfer coefficient depends more on the Rmd flow fust kmd, and the A,, are the roots to
near the wall rather than on the temperature dlstnbutlon
However, evidence LS aven below to suggest that the A,,.Il(An) = BJo(A.) (4)
heat transfer coefficient does depend on length, and this
idea 1s the key to unraveltng the dlscrepancles m the data As the length of the packed bed mcreases only the first
reported m the literature term m the semes 1s needed, but the posltlon at which
this approxlmatlon IS vahd depends on the Blot number
Table 1 hsts the values of a&,. as a function of Blot
TFIEDRY
number, where a&, IS determined such that the second
The two-dlmenslonal pseudo-homogeneous model for
term m the expansion for the centerline temperature 1s
heat transfer m a packed bed 1s[3]
less than 1% of the first term For lengths beyond a&, a
plot of log T vs z 1s a straight hne For slmphclty we use
the value a;, = 0 2 for all Blot numbers
The Blot number can be expressed as a ratlo of the
TS T{ at t = 0 resistance to heat transfer through the packed bed, R/k,
to that at the wall, l/h, Thus small Blot numbers refer to
a large wall resistance, whrle for large Blot numbers the
resistance to heat transfer LS largely mterlor to the bed
The elgenvalue A, depends on Bt, but for BI greater than
-ke$= h,(T- T:) at r= R
10, AI approaches 2 4048 and (A,/BI) < 1

1055
1056 CHI-HSIUNG LI and B A F~NLAYSON

Table 1 Mlmmum length for a one-term expansion to be vabd m eqn (3)

BL 01 03 10 30 10 100 -

a' 0 08 0 15 0 21 0 23 0 20 0 18 0 14
ml

The asymptotic solution can then be approximated as squares sense Valstar[8] mmumzed the errors m tem-
perature values throughout the bed, whereas De Wasch
T = {Z&(A,r) exp C-~A,*zl}/CAIJ1~A~~l and Froment[9] used only exit profiles
(5) All of these methods have been extensively dlscussed
A 1x24048
m the literature, but usually without mentlomng the fact
that If k. and h, depend on length then each method may
and IS independent of BI, although It st~U depends on a,
yield a different value k. and h, even m the absence of
and thus k. Thus suggests that If the Blot number IS htgh.
expenmental errors The maJor emphasis of this paper IS
It would be dficult to measure the heat transfer co-
that each of these methods of data analysis yields a
efficient, smce the temperature solution IS Independent of
different heat transfer coefficient, which IS not always the
Bt Of course the Blot number under those conddlons IS
asymptotic coefficleni, and the data should be compared
less cntlcal We find below that the BJ decreases as
mth caution
Reynolds number mcreases, so that the scatter of data for
h, and Bt at low Reynolds numbers (high BI) IS not LENGTFIEFFIET
surprismg, nor is it of great consequence Experimental evidence confirms the fact that the heat
Nearly all the heat transfer data IS obtamed m the transfer coefficient (h,) and the effective thermal con-
same way, namely the radml temperature profile 1s ductivity (kJ depend on length , Figure 1 shows data
measured at several bed depths with the thermocouples from three mvestlgatlons dlustratmg how the effective
placed Just above the packmg The difference m studies thermal conductlvlty decreases as the length IS mcreased
results from the analysis of the data to determine k. and Most methods of data analysis (Methods 1, 2 and 4)
h, Four widely used methods are outlmed cause an error m h, d k. IS wrong, thus makmg h,
Method 1 The effective thermal conductlvlty IS depend on length, too DeWasch and Froment[9] (ther
determmed by solving eqn (1) for k,, and the temperature Figs 6 and 7 and our Table 2) and Paterson[l l] found
denvatlves are obtamed by dlfferentiatmg the tem- that k. and h, decreased with mcreasmg bed depth
perature profiles Thus local value of k. IS averaged to Finally we anticipate the conclusions below Methods 3
obtam a constant k. used for the entire bed The h, IS and 4 do not grve asymptotic heat transfer coefficrents
found from eqn (4) with A, obtained from the slope of and should gve a coefficient above the asymptotic co-
the stra& hne of log T vs z, which IS -&Al2 This efficients of Method 2 Data analyzed by Methods 3 and
method was used by Coberly and Marshall[4] 4 do he generally above that analyzed by Method 2
Method 2 Fust A1 IS found from the radial tem- Method 1 does not mve an asymptotic coefficient, but
perature profile at the exit of the bed can be either above or below the asymptotic value Data
analyzed by Method 1 follow tlus companson, also
T&z = 1) _ 2JL4) 22 I * 1 I
T(r = 0, z = 1) A,

The slope of log T vs z gwes -aA,* as before, and Since

A, IS now known, k, may be found from Q BI IS found *
as a function of A, from eqn (4) With k, known, the h, .
1s found from BI This method was used by Maeda[S]
and Yag and Wakao[6] and others hsted below
Method 3 The k. IS found as m Method 1 The h, IS
found from an overall energy balance for the test sectton .
.
.
h = GRC,[T:W - T.Xz:)l .
2(z: - z:)( T: - T&,,
v

.
The fluid temperature at the wall, T& wluch IS merent
from the coolant temperature, Tk, 1s estimated by ex-
trapolatmg the measured bed temperature to the wall IO I I L I . -.
0 02 04 06 08 IO
z
(T-T&,,=-&;[T:-T(J=R,r)]dr (8) Fig 1 The effective thermal conductlvlty vs bed depth (The k.
shown m this figure IS the average value of the local &.s across
the radrus of the bed )
This method was used by Fehx[7]
Symbol Ref (I Re,
Method 4 The k. and h, are found by comparing
I Cl21 0 28 48
calculated results usmg eqn (3) with the experunental 0 [41 0 56 506
data and adjusting k, and h, to give the best fit m a least A [13,141 0 16 238
 Heat transfer m packed beds-a reevaluation 1057

Table 2 The k, and h,s reported by De Wasch and Froment[9] for dtierent bed depths Rep = 400, d, = 0 099 m,
d, =00057m
L Cm) k (kcal/m hr OC) h (kcal/m' hr % a' B1

0 284 1 38 167 0 1267 5 99

0 582 1 28 158 0 2399 6 13

0 875 1 14 152 0 3266 6 60

1 016 1 12 146 0 3695 6 42

To flus&ate the errors m k, and h, mtroduced by the I O[ I I I 1

length effect, let us calculate a temperature profile usmg

the measured k, and h, for beds of different lengths
These calculations are then used as simulated expen-
mental data, and k, and h, are deduced using the dlff-
erent methods INferences m k, and h, so deduced are
due entuely then to the method of data analysis, since
the data 1s identical The parameters used for the
simulated data are reported m Table 2, as read from the
graphs of actual experunental data obtamed by DeWasch Tm
and Froment [9] for four different bed depths

Methods 2 and 4
Fust analyze the simulated data using Method 4 for a
bed depth of 1016 m The k. and h, are determmed to
ave an exact fit of the temperature profile at the bed
exit, but they account for the k, and h, throughout the
bed, mcludmg the entrance remon where k. and h,
depend on length In Method 2, however, only the shape
of the temperature profile at the outlet 1s used (not the
absolute value) to determme A, and then a (or k=) IS
.,L-_----
0 02 04
Z
06 08 0

found from the slope of the log T vs z curve, which

FIB 2 Comparison of Method 2 and Method 4 1, the assumed
thereby matches the local rate of heat transfer regardless experlmental result, 2, predicted by Method 2, 3, predlcted by
of what happened upstream Method 2 thus gives Method 4
asymptotic values of k. and h,, at least If the bed 1s long
enough for those asymptotic values to hold Next the
transfer coefficient depends on the location of the test
values of k, and h, so determined are used m a cal-
sectlon, z, m eqn (7) If this includes the whole bed, the
culation of eqn (2), with k. and h, (hence a and 91)
h, IS not an asymptotic one, and would tend to be above
constant with length Figure 2 illustrates the predictions
the asymptotic h, This effect 1s illustrated m Table 3,
of the two methods Method 4 matches exactly the outlet
where the h, clearly depends on the locatron of the test
average temperature, as It should, whereas Method 2
section, and decreases as the test sectlon IS moved
matches exactly the local rate of heat transfer as deter-
downstream
mmed by the slope of the curve The temperature at the
bed outlet 1s not predicted correctly by Method 2
Method 1
because the calculation assumes h, and k, are constant
This method has an entrance effect because k. IS the
throughout the bed, whale they are not However, once
average over the whole bed, and the h, depends on the
the asymptotic region 1s reached, Method 2 correctly
k, For Method 1, a sensltivlty analysis based on com-
predicts the rate of heat transfer, whereas Method 4 does
putmg d In hJdln k, shows that errors m k. gwe much
not If the bed depth were very much longer, so that the
larger errors in h,, and m the opposite due&ion For
regton over which h, and k. were at their constant
B~=2(Bt=4)thevalueofdlnhJdInk.l~-13(-65)
asymptotic value constituted, say, 95% of the bed, then
A k. that 1s 5% high due to the length effect gves a h, in
Method 2 and 4 would gve equivalent predlctlons The
length of bed needed to make negligible the entrance
Table 3 The h,.. deterrnmed by method 3 vs bed depth
effect 1s very much larger d the data 1s analyzed using
Method 4 than 1s the case for Method 2, and seldom are 2: (4 h.. (kcal/m2 hr OC)
expenmental studies done m such long beds Con-
0 1 016 146
sequently Method 2 yields an asymptotic heat transfer
coefficient, but Method 4 does not 0 284 1 016 137

0 582 1 016 121

Method 3
1 016 122
Whether or not this method gives an asymptotic heat 0 875
1058 CHI-HSIUN~ LI and B A FINLAYSON

Method 1 that IS about 30% low when Bt = 4 Thus I mm, I I] I

I
c
Method 1 1s particularly susceptlbIe to the length effect
The k. and h, found by the different methods of data
analysis are grven m Table 4 We emphasize these dlff- Id
ww
erences are entirely due to the method of data analysis,
w
... #
+

w,
so
@.
smce the simulated data were identical As predicted, w&v +
c+s
ww
Method 2 gives the asymptotic h,, Methods 3 and 4 gve
. l * ww. b
higher h, and Method 1 gives a lower h, The h, aven o;sIlB+ -40
B
o

by Method 2 IS the least affected or 1s unaffected by Nu .

length It thus gves the best value of asymptotic heat .
LO
transfer coefficient
To further support the Idea of length dependence, we i

plot in Fig 3 data from various sources for spherical

packing The data analyzed with Method 2 (denoted by A t
and V m Rg 3) @ve a Nusselt number generally lower * *
*
than the other data which, because of the conditions of t
the expenments and method of data analysis are predlc- IO1 I I II, 1 I I

ted to include a length dependence The same thing holds IO IO" IO3
R=P
true for cylmdncal packing (Fig 4) except now the data
Fig 4 Expenmental data for wall heat transfer coefficient with
analyzed by Method 1 by Pogorslu hes below the cyhndncal packmg
asymptotic coefficient, as predicted
It IS still unclear how long the bed should be for the
local k, and h, to reach the asymptotic values So far no
such experimental results have been recorded However,
several experlmental temperature profiles reported m the
literature (see Fig 5) indicate that whenever LYZ IS
greater than 0 2 the plot of log T vs z IS a straight hne
This IS consistent with the result derived above under the
assumption of constant k, and h, the temperature

Fig 5 Axial temperature profiles ,I,, the center of the bed (@

marks az = 0 2)

Symbol Ref a BK Rep

n r121 0 22 94
0 r41 0 56 4 54 506
r71 171 0 92 680
[61 OS2 428 234

profile can be expressed by a one-term asymptotic solu-

tlon when (LIS greater than 0 2, and a strsht hne results
Fag 3 Expenmental data for wall heat transfer coefficient with on a plotted log T vs z If the local k, and h, still change
spherical packmg (A and V determmed by Method 2 ) with bed depth for a greater than 0 2, the expenmental

Table 4 Companson of the k, and h, determmed by the different calculation methods

Method ke (kcal/m hrC) h, <kcal/mL hr OC Bi

1 1 23* 77 0 3 10
2 0 97 123 6 30
3+ 1 23* 137 5 53
4++ I 12 146 6 42
*
Using k e = the average of those in Table 2
+ 1 - 0 284m, z; = 1 016m
=1
++L = I 016111
 Heat transfer m packed bed- reevaluation 1059

Table 5 Key to the experunental data presented m Fogs 3, 4, 6, A+&= -- 1 4 3Bz d

9, 10 (14)
k, hw Pe, 0 R B1+3+$

Symbol Author Ref

We see that axial dispersion causes errors m h,
Coberly and Marshall [41 measured by all methods, but only m the case of Method
Felix 171
DeWasch and Froment
4 are the errors dependent on length Gunn and
f%
Hashlmoto et al r151 Khahd[lO] found axial conduction important m their
Hawthorn et al 1161 measurements, which were analyzed by Method 4
Kunu et al D71 Equation (14) shows that the length of bed could
Maeda El influence the results However, m the exammatlon of the
Ph&ps et al 1233
Plautz and Johnston data described below, we use eqn (13) to estimate the
11% 191
unportance of axial conduction, and seldom 1s data
Pogorskl 113,141
dtscarded because of axial conduction
Qumton and Storrow PO1 We next examme the effect of a non-flat temperature
Valstar Bl profile at the inlet to the bed Fehx[7] derived the solu-
Yam and Wakan 161 tion for the followmg mlet profile
Zlolkowslu WI
T=l O=Zr?Zt,

temperature profile would not yreld a straight hne Based T= z+bbr2 r,sril
on this reasonmg we use a greater than 0 2 as a cnterlon
to determme when the entrance regon does not affect If we take r, = 0 and use this solution, we find that data
the k. and h, determined by Method 1 and Method 3 analyzed by Methods 1, 2 and 3 are unaffected by this
We next examme the effect of axial dlsperslon on /c. problem, provided az ~0 2 Method 4 IS affected,
and h, If an axial dlsperslon term, -y a2Tlaz2, IS added however, and the error 1s
to the left hand side of eqn (2), the equation can be
solved assuming a, y and BI are constant If we use the
$-$(S)(l--$+&)
solutron for a> 0 2, when these assumptions are valid,
we can determine the error m k, and h, assumed by
analyzmg the data lgnonng axial dmperslon The detaded Forb=O2,az=O2andBr=1,theAa=O3a,gvmg
analyses are derived elsewhere[22] and show that for slgmficant error For BI = 5 the error ISreduced to ha =
methods 1, 2 and 3 the data analysis aves the same 0 la
result, We see that the data for h, 1s affected by the length of
the bed, and different methods of analysis ave different
Ak,
-=-_=- Ah, l-u, h, We do not have a well-lusttied explanation of the
k. h, 1+a, (9) cause of the length effect, but several posslbdltles exist
Possibly the developing velocity and temperature pro-
a,2 = 1+ 4ayA,2 (10) files influence the results In a packed bed the velocity
profile would be developed wlthm a few particle dl-
where Ak, IS the error m k, due to the neglected axial ameters of the mlet, due to the presence of the packmg
dlsperslon effect Phillips et al [23], have proved eqn (9) In a non-isothermal bed, however, the axial velocity
for k, when using Method 1 For a, close to 1 (as profile can change because of a changmg temperature
assumed) eqn (9) can be further sunphfied to profile (see Schertz and Blschoff [26]), and, because of
contmnulty, anytime the axial velocity protile changes a
Ak. Ah
_=v= _ ayAgZ radial velocity 1s introduced This might affect the wall
(11) heat transfer coefficient, especially smce the radial flow
k, h,
would be more pronounced near the wail None of these
Using the approxlmatlon from orthogonal collocatlon[24] effects can at present be conclusively shown to be the
that cause of the length effect, but are possibdlfies which
are consistent vvlth the data The importance of dfieren-
6B1 tlatmg between overall coefficients, applicable to the
A12=BI+3 (12) whole bed, and asymptotic coefficients, is, however,
clearly estabhshed Method 2 aves an asymptotic h,, or
and Pe,, = 2 gives at least the best estnnate of it, compared to Methods 1, 3
and 4
Ak,
-=-= Ah, -- 1 $ 2 3B1 Anally we examme the crucial question which k. and
Pe,, 0 R B1+3
(13) h, should be used for chemical reactor deslgnv Should
k, hw
the h, be one which fits the heat transfer data of the
This expression can be used to estrmate the per cent whole bed or only the one representing the asymptotic
error caused by axial dispersion For Method 4 the result local heat transfer rate? Table 6 lists typical values of
was derived by Young1251 bed lengths, particle diameters and tube diameters for
1060 CM-HSIUNG LI and B A FINLAYSON

Table 6 Design parameters for the packed bed reactors operated m the chemical Industry
T
-
Reaction L/R d&/R a Reference
I

Ethylene oxidation 190

Methanol oxidation 70
0 04 - 0 25* ,0 3-6 lZ1

Vinylacetate oxidation 110

Benzene hydrogenation 60

Naphthalene oxxdation 240 0 20 6 12, PI

Butane dehyrogenation 106 0 10 1 32 [28l

O-xylem oxzdatlon 200 0 24 6 W 1

Methane refonmnR ' 126 0 30 47 1331

i
*estimated values

mdustnal reactors The beds are so long that a%-0 2 for made measurements for f by f m cyhndncal packmg, but
most cases This means that If a heat transfer expenment plots of log T vs z &d not reach a straight hne, so this
were done m such a bed the asymptotic heat transfer data mdudes a length effect and 1s not used Data for
coefficient would be measured If the data were analyzed 2 by 4m cyhndrlcai packmg was orlgmally analyzed
usmg any of the methods (wlthm expenmental error) To by Method 1 Here It IS re-analyzed by Method 2 to
reproduce data m these long beds, the asymptotic heat elunmate the length effect, and this recalculated data IS
transfer coefficients would have to be used When heat used below Hawthorn et al 1163, did experiments m
effects due to chemical reaction are present, the shape of very long beds (a> 7) for constant wall heat flux A
the temperature profile could be changed so that even the mathematical model was used to calculate the radial
asymptotic value was mappropnate However, m the temperature profile and the calculated temperature drop
absence of mformatlon on the effect of chenucal reaction from the center of the bed to the wall was subtracted
on heat transfer coefficient, the best we can do IS use the from the measured temperature drop from the center of
asymptotic heat transfer coefficient the bed to the coohng medium These numbers were
The asymptotic heat transfer coefficient 1s lower than compared, and the difference was ascribed to the tem-
any average h, for the entue bed Thus a reactor design perature drop very near the wall, which IS modeled by
based on the asymptotic h, IS conservative the actual the heat transfer coefficient Due to the length of bed the
reactor would be less likely to exhlblt a runaway length effect 1s neghglble This 1s one of the few sources
situation than the design would mdlcate of heat transfer data derived from a chemically reactmg
system at high temperature We re-analyzed Hawthorns
EXAMINATION OF HEAT TRANSRER DATA data usmg Pe,, = 8 rather than 10, and the revised cal-
Expenmental data was exammed m detail to decide culatlons are presented below (the effect of Pe,, ISsmall)
which data was Influenced by length effects or axial Data for annular beds 1s reported by Yagl and
conductlon In many cases the ongmal thesis was ex- Kunu[31], Baddour and Yoon[32], and Kunu and
ammed, and m some cases the data was re-analyzed Suzuh[33] A constant temperature dtierence was
usmg Method 2 A complete tabulation 1s avdable[22] mamtamed between the Inner and outer surfaces along
We are Interested m only the asymptotic heat transfer the entire bed depth Thus the temperature vaned only
coefficient radially and there 1s no length effect The data, however,
Data obtamed by MaedaC51, Phllhps et al (231, Yagl apphes to an annular bed, and for large d,lR the packmg
and WakaoE61, Hashlmoto ef al [lS], and Kunu et al [17], at the Inner surface may be different from that of a
1s accepted smce the h, and k, were determined by cyhndncal bed Thus the data must be put m a separate
Method 2 Data obtamed by Fehx[7] was analyzed by classticahon
Method 3, and It IS accepted If the testing sectlon &d not Unfortunately a large number of data must be rejected
fall m the entrance region (I e If the region over which because they mclude a length effect and thus do not ave
h, 1s deduced IS for az 2 0 2) t Coberly and Marshall [4] an asymptotic h, Valstar[8], De Wasch and Froment [9J,
and Zldkowskl[Zl] all used Method 4 to analyze their
data and it thus IS affected by the length Campbell and
tFehxs testmg sectron usually began at I. = Sm We have
appbed the strmgent crltenon that az, 2 0 2, but a less stnngent Huntmgton134,3.5) used Method 1 to analyze a constant
cnterlon could be argued Unfortunately we have no basis on which wall heat flux expenment, even though the Method as-
to decide, and so have used the number 02 sumes a constant wall temperature In some experiments
 Heat transfer m packed beds-a
gas was cooled by the natural convectlon of a~ m the
room, but no correction was made for the heat transfer
resistance external to the pipe In some cases the cal-
culated h, 1s less than the measured overall heat transfer
coefficient, which 1s nnposslble physically For these
reasons the data by Campbell and Huntington IS not
included below We note that theu data for k. ts ac-
ceptable smce It IS determmed by dlfferentlatmg the
temperature profile Plautz and Johnston[lS, 191 found
h, using Method 3 and k. by makmg calculated tem-
perature profiles agree with experimental ones over the
whole bed Both h, and k, thus include a length effect
and are not used below Calderbank and Pogorskl[ 13,141
used Method 1 but most of the beds are so short (a <
0 2) that the expenment mcludes a length effect re-
gardless of the method of data analysis Thts data IS not
used below
Aerov and Urn&[361 report data which 1s
frequently [ 1,2] reported as following the correlation
h-4 _
k,
o 155
((?d,>
P
pr~/3
The orlgmal Russian report, however, gves the correct
correlation as
eqn (16) 1s about 45% higher than Yaa and Wakaos
data, whereas eqn (15) is 35% lower Aerov and Ummk
did not measure h,, they determined it from thetr
measured k, and correlations for the overall heat transfer
coeffictent (see below) Unfortunately these correlations
include a length effect so that the data 1s not usable
Qumton and Storrow[20] performed a careful ex-
periment keeping the wall flux constant The boundary
condition m eqn (2) IS replaced by
c-z
Q (17)
where now T = TIT:
The solution valid for CLZ> 0 15
T=1+2aQz+Q(++)
The Q, and hence k., can be found from
(I! =!AL!lf!L
4 aTId
Qumton and Storrow used exit temperature profiles so
that no entrance effect was incurred m findmg k. Local
overall and wall heat transfer coefficients can be defined
as
FO
u= T;-TA
Usmg eqn (18) gves
reevaluation 1061
1 1 R
-_=-+-
U hw 4k,
cw
This relation, which 1s exact for az > 0 15, was used to
calculate h, from the k. and a U which was the artth-
metlc mean of the local overall heat transfer coefficients
over the whole bed Thus U included a length effect, and
so did h, For one case the h, so reported IS about 25%
higher than that calculated from the asymptotic U Thus
the data for h, cannot be used
CORRXCLATION OF DATA
The data which 1s accepted as being free from length
effects 1s put to two additional tests We require that the
error due to axial dispersion effects be less than 5%, as
calculated by eqn (13) We also discard data for Bl> 12,
smce then the temperature profile IS msensltlve to h,,
bemg determined pnmarlly by k. For Bi > 12, less than
20% of the total thermal resistance exists at the wall, and
an expenmental error of &lo% m the total rate of coolmg
leads to an error m h, of 250%
(15) The data for h, IS correlated m terms of the Nusselt
number Spherical and cyhntical packmg @ve dtierent
results and are correlated separately The best cor-
relation for spherical packmgs IS
0 05 5 d,ldt s 0 3
20sRe, 57600
Constant wall temperature, spherical packmg
This correlation 1s compared to the expenmental data m
Fig 6 and predtcts the data with an average devlatlon of
140/o,and a modtied correlation coefficient of @ = 0 98
from the linear regression analysis The @ represents
the fraction of the vanation of data which can be ex-
platned by the correlation Other forms of correlations
tied are listed m Table 7 The form of the correlation
(18)
(1%
Fig 6 Accepted data of the asymptotic wall heat transfer co-
et&rent for spherical packmg
1062 CHI-HSIUNG LI and F3 A FINLAYSON

Table 7 Correlations tested for heat transfer coefficrent

average
,+ b+ devFation __2
Correlation
h,, Spherical Packing

1 Nu = a Re; 0 17 0 79 14 0 98

2 Nu- a+b RepPr 10 7 0 033 73 0 94

3 Nu = a Rez 0 029 0 94 21 0 97
m
4 Nu- a(Re Pr)' 33+b Re" ' Pro 4 1 33 0 14 38 0 98

h,, Cylindrical Packing

5 Nu = a Re; 0 16 0 93 33 0 85

6 Nu = a+b Re Pr 5 21 0 126 62 0 76
P
7 Nu m = a Remb 0 03 1 06 39 0 05

8 Nu- a(Re Pr) ' 33+b Re" ' Pro 4 0 36 0 38 49 0 79

U". Spherical Packin&

9 U*dp/kf - a+b RepPr 3 88 0 03 104 0 96

10 lJ*d,/k, - aReb 7 13 0 47 17 0 92

11 (U*dt/kf)exp(: 6 dp/dt) = a Re; 2 72 072 18 0 96

12 (U*dt/kf)exp(6 d /dt) = a Re b 2 03 080 21 0 96

"*, Cylindrxcal Packing

13 U*dp/kf = a+b RePPr 0 76 0 07 63 0 87

14 U*dt/kf = a Re b 1 a4 0 76 35 0 79
P
15 OJ*d,lk,hc~~4 6 dp/dt) = a Re b 1 39 0 90 27 0 88
P
16 (U*dt/kf)exp(6 dp/dt) = a Re b 1 26 095 27 0 89
P

+ a and b are found from a linear regression analysts

preferred by Beek[l], form 4 m Table 7, IS less suc- This correlation gves an average deviation of 33% and
cessful m predlctmg the data, with an average deviation B2 = 0 85 and IS compared to the data m Fig 7 There 1s
of 38% clearly more scatter m the data for cylmdrlcal packmgs,
We note that all the expemnents were done with au-, and the heat transfer coefficients are larger
so there IS no Prandtl number dependence A reasonable For annular beds there IS very little data avadable for
extension would be to regard the constant 0 17 = 0 17 the heat transfer coefficient on the inner wall Yam and
(PrlO 7)3, but ths IS not proved by these data The
correlation (17) IS very close to that proposed by Yagl
and Wakal[6], but here It correlates their data as well as r
that by Kunu et al [ 171 The data of Fehx [7] and Plautz
and Johnson[lS, 191, which has a slight length depen-
dence at high Reynolds numbers, IS slightly above this
correlation At lower Reynolds numbers the Fehx and
Plautz data have more length dependence and the data 1s
stgmficantly above the correlation Thus we see again
that the reason for the large scatter m heat transfer data
IS partially due to a mixing of overall and asymptotic
h,
The best correlation for cylmdrlcal packmgs 1s

2O=Re, 1800 (23)

003=d,ld,sO2, d,=6V,/S,
Fig 7 Accepted data of the asymptotic wall heat transfer co-
Constant wall temperature, cylintical packmg efficient for cylmdrlcal packmg
 Heat transfer m packed beds-a reevaluatton 1063

Kunu [3 l] correlate thev data with the form

h,d,=a+O041RePr P (24)
kf

and a depends on the type of packmg matenal

The data of Hawthorn et al 11611s the only accepted
data for the boundary condition of constant wall flux
Furthermore the expenment has a high average tem-
perature of 800F and chemical reaction 1s taking place
This data 1s compared m Fig 8 with the correlation for
spherical packmg, eqn (22) The constant flux Nu 1s
about 20% lugher than the value for constant wall tem-
perature We note that the h, IS not actually used m the
boundary condltlon for constant wall flux, eqn (17)
As shown m eqn (2), the vmables affectmg the rate of 103 61~10~

heat transfer are not k. and h, separately, but m the Rem

combmatlons a and BI The Blot number, m particular, Fig 10 Blot number vs Reynolds number
1s the ratio of h, to &JR The data m Fig 9 indicate that
the Blot number decreases as the Reynolds number which predicts the data with *25% The Blot number 1s
increases Figure 10 shows data for the Blot number as a the ratio of two experimentally measured quantities, k.
function of Reynolds number We see that we can use and h, If the overall heat transfer rate 1s measured
accurately, but k, IS, say lower than it should be due to
expenmental error, then h, IS larger than rt should be
(25) Errors m Bt (= h&/k.) are thus magmfied Thus a scatter
of the data of *25% 1s not surprlsmg Some data m Fe 8
1s not included m Fig 5 or 7, it 1s included m Fe 8
because it IS Just at the hmit of acceptability as to the
length effect, and it provides the void fraction depen-
I ! I I I, I dence, whch 1simportant This is also the reason there 1s
600 -
no void fraction dependence m the correlation (22) the
accepted data &d not cover a wide range of e values
Equation (25) IS thus a new result which can be used
along with Pe,, = 8-10 for high Reynolds numbers We
note that a Br constructed from k. and h, has a slight
Reynolds number dependence, but at these high Rey-
NU
too-
nolds numbers, the variation of X31with Re IS w&m the
scatter of the data

ONE DIMENSIONAL, MODEL

The posslbrllty of replacing a two-dimensional model,

eqn (2), with a one-&menslonal model, eqn (26), 1s well-
202 known [3]
I03 I04

Fe 8 The wall beat transfer coefficient by Hawthorn et al [16] dT,_ -- 2UL T

dz GC$ m
T,,,=l at z=O

The solution 1s

T, = exp (-2 ULz/(GC,R)) (27)

There 1s a great scatter m the data for U, and some of

this scatter we attibute to the often-ignored length
effect
The solution to the two-dimensional model, eqn (2), for
cuzr02 1s

Fig 9 Blot number vs Reynolds number (a) Hydrogen, (b), 4B12

TiAz) = AIZ(AIZ+ B12jexp I-A2~zl (2f3)
mtrogen

CES Vol 32 No 9-F

1064 C-HSIUNG Li and B A FINLAYSON

Let us define an overall heat transfer coefficient 0 such The difference of At2kJdr m eqn (30, 33) LSdue to the
that the average temperature out of the packed bed 1s the fact that A12k, depends on length The additional term m
same m the one- and two-dlmenslonal models Then eqn (30), however, 1s the effect of the temperature profile
being different at different positrons, and this effect IS
less important m long beds, but IS usually important m
0 = - GzIn T,(l) (29)
experlmental studies
To illustrate the difference m u and U*, consider the
Puttmg eqn (28) mto eqn (29) aves example m Table 2 There we have

k; = 1 12 kcallm hrC kt=O97

& = 146 kcal/m* hrC h*, = 123
ii,==428 AT= = 4 24
We have used an overbar on 5, A, and k; to denote the
Bi=642 BI* = 6 30
fact that they are determmed by Method 4 to exactly
u = 53 2 k&m2 hrC u*=415
reproduce the exit temperature profile The second term
IS less than 5% of the first term when
The dtierence between 0 and U* IS more than 25%
and 1s due to the length effect Data summarized m Ftg 11
(31) show that i!? decreases with increasing bed depth and 1s
always greater than U* Furthermore experunental data
and a A. 1s listed m Table 8 as a function of Bl Many for 0 from Maeda[5], Leva[38], and Versehoor and
packed beds used m experiments have a less than this Schult [39] included a length effect and are above data for
value, so that the 8 depends on the length of the bed U* given by Yag and Wakao[6], as expected
duectly, m the second term, as well as through the Froment [29] noted the U measured by Yag and Wakao
dependence on length of A,* and k; 1s lower but gave no reason
Let us next define another overall heat transfer co- A new set of data for U* IS obtained by using the data
efficient such that the asymptotic heat flux 1s the same in
the one- and two-dlmenslonal models
*Om
U*(T;- T:) = h*,(T;(- T:) (32)

Then we obtain

ue _ Ay: (33)
I

as denved by Cruder and Foss[37] Using the ap-

proxlmatlon eqn (12) enables this relation to be ex-
pressed as 0

(34)

as derived by Fmlayson[24] Here k$, h*, and U* are . .

asymptotic values at large z, such as those derived using

Method 2 Equation (34) IS the best approximate equation
for one-dimensional model only when the wall tem-
perature 1s kept constant If the wall heat flux 1s fixed
instead of the temperature, the exact relationship, eqn
(21), should be used
0000 02 04
Z
06 OS

Table 8 cr,& vs 81 for one-dunenslonal model

Fig 11 The overall heat transfer coefficient vs bed depth
Bi
al;li"
Symbol Ref L&/R2 a Rep u._,,t U*?
01 0 0385 n HI 100 0 28 48 5 63 5 4.5
0 r41 2 62 056 506 12 83 1156
05 0 1053
A [71 5 46 171 680 16 37 1571
10 0 2011 0 191 2 32 198$ 8 78 6 93

30 0 5053 tUmts of U are Btu/fthfF

$Thls data IS obtamed through pnvate commumcatlon The
50 0 6910
Reynolds number, 198, IS the average value of the Reynolds
10 0 0 9191 numbers for four dtierent bed depths, whrch are 198, 201, 199
and 195
 Heat transfer m packed beds-a reevaluation 1065

for Ia*,and kfm eqn (34) The best correlations are then dlmenslonless radial coordinate, f/R
radius of bed
modtied Reynolds number, GdJ[p( 1 - E)]
y exp (6dJd,) = 2 03 Re,0* (35)
Reynolds number, Gd,/p
surface area of packmg particle
20 I Re, 5 7600
temperature
005sd,ld,zsO3 dlmenslonless temperature, (T - Tk)/(T: - Tk)
dimensionless center temperature
Spherical packing inlet temperature
mean temperature
dunenslonless mean temperature
fluid temperature at the wall
3 exp (6d,/d,) = 1 26 Rep095 coolant temperature
(36)
k, overall heat transfer coefficient
volume of packmg particle
20sRe, ~800
axml coordmate m bed
dlmenslonless axial coordinate

Cylmdncal packmg Greek symbols

a Ldp(R2Peh)
Other correlations tied and the per cent deviation are 7 k,l(LGC,) = (dJL)/Pe,,
listed m Table 7 f.L vrscoslty
E void fraction
CONCLUSIONS

For both one- and two-dimensional models, the heat Superscripts

transfer coefficients vary along the length of a packed - axial average
bed The values need for reactor design are the asymp- * local value
tottc values, whch are not affected by the length effect
Analysis by Method 2 gives an asymptotic heat transfer
coefficient provided (zz 2 0 2 The best correlattons of
data for asymptotic values are aven by eqns (22), (23),
HI Beek I, Ado Chem Engng 1962 3 223
(35) and (36) 121 Hlavacek V . Znd Enana Chem 1970 62(7) 8
The Blot number IS approximately a constant as the 131 Froment G k, Chem-Z&chon Engng Ado Chem Ser 109
Reynolds number 1s increased, takmg the value given by 1972 l-34
eqn (25) [41 Coberly C A and Marshall W R ,Chem Engng Prog 1951
47 141
r51 Maeda S , Tech Rep Tokohu Vmv 1952 16 1
Acknowledgements-The donors of the Petroleum Research Kl YagtS andWakaoN,AIChEJ 1959579
Fund, admnustered by the American Chenucal Society, for sup- r71 Feluc T R, Ph D Thesis, Umverslty of Wlsconsm (1951)
port of this research under Grants PRF No 5%5-AC7 and [81 Valstar J M , Ph D Thesis, Delft, Netherlands (1969)
7698-AC7 The referees comments have been most helpful 191DeWasch A P and Froment G F , Chem Engng Scr 1972
27 567
WI Gunn D J and Khahd M , Chem Engng Scr 1975 30 261
NOTATION 1111Paterson W R , Ph D Thesis, Umverslty of Edmbnrgh
A. elgenvalue of the equation, A,JI(A,) = BIJo(A,) ;ii; (1975)
Bl Blot number hJZ/k, Bunnel D G , Irvin H B , Olson R W and Smith J J , Znd
Engng Chem 1949 41 1977
C, l%nd heat capacity
.--> /Calderbank P H and Pogorskl L A, Trans Znstn Chem
1131
d, particle hameter Engrs 1957 35 195
dt tube diameter [14] Pogorsh L A , Ph D Thesis, Umverslty of Toronto (1957)
Fo wall heat flux [15] Hashlmoto K , Suzulu N , Teramoto M and Nagata S ,
G mass flow rate based on the area of empty tube Kagaku Kogaku 1%6 4 68
1161 Hawthorn R D, Ackerman G H and NIxon A C ,
hw wall heat transfer coefficient AZCh EJ 1968 14 69
J nth order Bessel function of the lirst kmd 1171 Kunu D , Suzuki M and Ono N , J Chem Engng Japan
k, radial effective thermal conductivity 1968 121
fluid thermal conductlvlty [183 Plautz D A and Johnston H F , A ZCh EJ 1955 1 193
kf
[19] Plautz D A , Ph D Thesis, Umverslty of Ilhnms (1953)
kz axtal effective thermal conductivtty
1203 Qmnton J H and Storrow J A, Chem Engng SCI 1956 6
L length of packed bed 245
NU Nusselt number, hwd,,/k, [211 Zlolkowsh D , Bull Acad Pof Scr , Ser SCI Chrm 1970
N&I modified Nusselt number, (h,dJk,)(e/l - E) M(4) 221
[223 Ll C H , M S Them, Unwerslty of Washmgton (1974)
P&l radial Pedet number, C,GdJk.
[23] Phdhps B D, Leavltt F W and Yoon C Y , Chem Engng
Pe, L axial Peclet number, C,Gd,,/k, Prog Symp Ser l%O 56(30) 219
Pr Prandtl number, Cpp/kr [241 Ftnlayson B A, Chem Engng Scr 1971 26 1081
f radial coordinate tn bed [25] Young L C , Pnvate commumcation 1975
1066 CHI-HSIUNCA LI and B A FINLAYSON

[26] Schertz W W and Ehschoff, A I Ch E J 1969 15 597 [33] Kunu D and Suzuki M , Intern Heat Trans Conf 1966 V
1271Carberry J J and White D , Id Ertg~g Chem 1969 61(7)
35 1341 izpbell J M and Huntmgton R L , Petrol Ref 1952 31
[ZS] Hougen 0 A and Watson K M , Chemrcal Process Pnn- 123
crples, Vol 3, 1st Edn, p 1007 John Whey, New York 1949 1351 Campbell J M , Ph D Thesis, Umverslty of Oklahoma
[29] Froment G F, Ind Engng Chem 1%7 59(2) 18 (1951)
[30] Goleblowskl A and Wasala T, Intern Chem Engng 1973 1361 Aero; M E and Ummk N N , J Tech Phys 1951 21 1351
13(l) 133 1371 Cruder J
E and Foss A S . A ICh E J 1965 11 102
[31] YaB S and Kunu D , A I Ch E J 1960 6 97 i38j Leva M ,
Wemtraub M , Grimmer M and Clark E L , Znd
1321 Baddour R F and Yoon C Y , Chem Engng Prog Symp Engng Chem 1948 40 747
Ser 1961 57(32) 35 [39] Verschoor H and Schult G , Appl Scr Res 1952 A2 97