You are on page 1of 8

CL351: Chemical Engineering Lab II

Semester 1, 2014-2015

IIT Gandhinagar

Pradeep Diwakar (Group G)

Roll no. 12110063

HEAT TRANSFER IN FLUIDIZED BEDS


HEAT TRANSFER IN FLUIDIZED BEDS
Objective:
The objective of this experiment is to determine the overall heat transfer
coefficient in a fluidized bed and studying its variation with the void
fraction.

Theory:
Fluidized beds are used extensively in the chemical process industries,
particularly for the cracking of high-molecular-weight petroleum fractions.
Such beds inherently possess excellent heat transfer and mixing
characteristics. These are devices in which a large surface area of contact
between a liquid and a gas, or a solid and a gas or liquid is obtained for
achieving rapid mass and heat transfer and for chemical reactions.

The fluidized bed has inherent advantages over packed bed. The
temperature in fluidized bed is almost constant throughout the bed and
also the pressure drop in the fluidized bed is almost constant irrespective
of the flow rate. This is equal to the net force of particles on the bed
(gravitational force on the particles minus the buoyancy force on the
particles). In contrast to this the pressure drop in the packed bed
increases almost exponentially with flow rate of fluid. The heat transfer
coefficient in a fluidized bed is also much higher as compared to a packed
bed.

The fluidized bed shows peculiar behavior with respect to the heat
transfer coefficient. With increase in the velocity leading to expansion of
the bed, the heat transfer coefficient initially increases but after a certain
void fraction (0.6-0.65) stats decreasing. This behavior is due to the fact
that in a fluidized the particles are in random motion and when they hit
the wall of the bed they break the boundary layer near the wall thereby
enhancing the heat transfer coefficient. As the bed expands the mean free
path of the particles increases and they hit the wall with greater force and
damage the boundary layer to a greater extent. However as the bed
expands still further the particle density starts decreasing and hence the
boundary layer destruction starts becoming less prominent.

The following formula was used in the calculations:


For heat transfer coefficient (U):
U = Q/A*Tlm

Where Tlm is the log mean temperature difference (LMTD)


Tlm = ((T1-t1) - (T2-t2)) / ln(((T1-t1)/ (T2-t2))

Procedure:
We were provided with a jacketed stainless steel fluidized bed with the
facility to measure the inlet and outlet temperatures of hot and cold fluids
and a steel tank at the top to control hot fluid discharge and its
temperature.
The power supply was switched on after all the necessary connections
were made. The suction line of the cold fluid circulation was then
connected to the cold water supply line. The cold water flow rate was
fixed to maximum value in order to make the cooling water side
resistance to heat transfer negligible. Now valve on the outlet of the hot
fluid tank was open. Hot fluid circulation speed was slowly increased and
was kept at a low initially.
Now the heater of the hot fluid tank was switched on and its flow rate was
adjusted and the system was then left for 15 to 30 minutes for obtaining
the steady state. Once the Steady state was attained the inlet and outlet
temperatures for both hot and cold fluids were noted down. Also the flow
rate of hot fluid was measured by noting the time required for hot fluid to
attain the prescribed height in the glass section.
The flow rate of hot fluid was now changed and a different set of readings
were taken. Total 10 sets of readings were taken for different hot fluid flow
rates.

Observations:
1. Diameter of fluidized bed (d) = 3.2 cm
2. Height of jacketed portion (Hj) = 18.6
3. Weight of beads (W)= 250.11 g
4. Volume of liquid collected(V) = 1140 cm3
5. Density of beads (b) = 2.56 g/cm3
6. Density of fluid () = 1.07 g/cm3
7. Heat capacity of test fluid (Cp) = 0.692 Kcal/kg-0C
8. Viscosity of test fluid () = 2.94 Cp
Table1.Observed readings of inlet-outlet temperatures:

Time
Hot Fluid Cold Fluid
require
Ob
d for
s.
Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet collecti Bed
No.
Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. on (), height
(T1) 0C (T2) 0C (t1) 0C (t2) 0C s (h),cm
1 78.9 62.5 32.5 32.75 92.16 4.9
2 81 67.9 33.2 32.8 55.22 6.1
3 81.4 68.1 33.1 33.6 46.9 7.2
4 81.2 67.7 33.6 34.15 42.6 8.8
5 81.6 68.1 33.8 34.4 39.9 9.7
6 80.2 67.4 34.1 34.7 30.81 13.2
7 80.3 69.1 34.3 35.1 25.19 17.5
8 80.3 70.3 34.6 35.5 21.5 22.2
9 80.4 71.9 34.7 35.6 19 26.7
10 80.2 72.1 35 36 17 32
Table 1. Observations

1. Heat transfer area (A) = *d*Hj


= *0.032*0.185 = 0.0186 m
2. Cross sectional area of fluidized bed (S) = /4*d2
= 3.14/4*3.22
= 8.042 cm2
3. Volume of fluidized bed (Vf) = /4*d2*H
= 3.14/4*3.22*21.5
= 172.91 cm3
4. Volume of beads (Vb) = W/b
= 250.11/2.56
= 97.7 cm3

Table 2. Table for Porosity and overall heat transfer coefficient:

Mass Overall heat


Volumetri flow Amount of transfer
c flow rate heat coefficient Void
rate (m.) Transferred, LMTD (U), kCal/hr M2 fractio
(cm3/s) (kg/h) Q (kCal/h) , 0C 0
C n,
37.4
4.51 17.39 197.33 6 283.21 0.54
41.1
7.53 29.02 263.06 2 343.92 0.56
41.0
8.87 34.17 314.46 1 412.21 0.58
40.1
9.77 37.62 351.41 7 470.37 0.60
40.3
10.43 40.16 375.19 4 500.03 0.61
39.0
13.50 52.01 460.68 2 634.80 0.65
39.7
16.51 63.61 493.03 0 667.72 0.69
40.0
19.35 74.53 515.76 0 693.18 0.72
40.8
21.89 84.34 496.08 2 653.38 0.75
40.4
24.47 94.26 528.35 8 701.73 0.77
Table 2. Calculated Results

Results:
The Plot of U versus E:

(U)
800.00

700.00

600.00

500.00

400.00

300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00
0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
Fi
gure 1. Overall heat transfer coefficient vs porosity

Conclusions:
It was observed in the experiment that as we increased the flow rate of
the hot fluid the overall heat transfer coefficient was also increased. It can
be easily concluded that as we increased the flow rate the porosity was
increased as the bed started to expand and that increased the heat
transfer coefficient.
But it was also seen that while we were further increasing the porosity the
heat was not transferring effectively. The reason behind this was that
since the particles were then getting a much more area than required for
a considerable collision and the heat transfer was reducing and hence the
overall heat transfer coefficient.
This trend was seen in the graph between overall heat transfer coefficient
and porosity as well. The graph is increasing continuously but after a
certain value of porosity it started decreasing. The graph is fairly accurate
with very few errors in the experiment. With this experiment we can easily
understand why fluidized bed possess excellent heat transfer
characteristics and used extensively in various chemical Industries.

Discussion:
We can say that the graph between overall heat transfer coefficient and
porosity must be increasing and then decreasing after a particular porosity
and that too with a constant change from the definition but we came to
know from the experimental data that the graph was not effectively
changing. There were some errors that made this small difference like the
instrumental and human errors as we know the temperature of the fluids
is indicated by using temperature indicators and the flow was assumed to
be at steady state. So the apparatus is needed to be calibrated and we
should take each readings only after the steady state is achieved.

Appendix:

Sample Calculations for Set 1:

1. Volumetric flow rate:


V/ = 416/92.16 = 4.51 cm3/s
2. Mass flow rate (m) = v*3600*/1000
= 4.51*3.6*1.07
=17.39 kg/hr
3. Amount of heat transferred (Q) = mCp(T1-T2)
= 17.39*(78.9-62.5)*0.692
= 197.33 kCal/hr
4. LMTD, Tlm= ((T1-t1)- (T2-t2))/Ln(((T1-t1)/ (T2-t2))
= ((78.9-32.5)-(62.5-32.75))/Ln((78.9-32.5)/(62.5-32.75))
= 37.46 0C
5. Overall heat transfer coefficient (U) = Q/A* Tlm
= 197.33/0.0186*37.46
= 283.21 kCal/hr-m2-0C
6. Void fraction = ( Vf + ( S*h ) - Vb ) / ( Vf + ( S*h ) )
= ((172.82 + (8.038*4.9) - 97.7) / (172.82 +
(8.038*4.9)))
= 0.54