Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Simplifications to the full set of scaling parameters for dynamic similarity of fluidized beds, Glicksman, Chemical
Engineering Science, 39 (1984) 373, were explored. A new set of simplified scaling laws includes the Froude
number based on column height, the solid to gas density ratio, the ratio of superficial to minimum fluidization
velocity, bed geometric ratios, and particle sphericity and size distribution. When the gas to particle drag is
represented by either the Ergun equation or a single particle drag equation, the new simplified laws hold exactly
in both the viscous dominated and gas inertia dominated limits. For intermediate conditions, the gas to particle
drag is well approximated in models based on the simplified scaling laws. The simplified scaling laws allow very
small models to be constructed which properly simulate the hydrodynamics of a full size reactor or combustor.
Experimental confirmation of the new simplified scaling laws and the viscous limit scaling parameters, where
equality of the density ratio is omitted, were carried out in circulating fluidized beds. Within the viscous limit,
the solid to gas density ratio is an important modeling parameter when the slugging regime is approached. In
general, the solid to gas density must be matched to achieve good similarity. Using the new simplified scaling
laws, good agreement was observed even when the length scale of the air fluidized model was as small as l/16
that of an atmospheric combustor.
the special treatment, are used in the full scale and TABLE 1. Runs conducted by Roy and Davidson [ll]
model beds. Glicksman et al. [7] carried out comparisons
between a small circulating bed combustor and a cold Runs at low and high temperatures
model constructed using the full set of scaling laws.
Condition/run A B C D E
For circulating beds, a dimensionless solids flow rate
must also be matched between the two beds. The two Agreement with run A Yes Yes No Yes
beds showed close agreement. The wall roughness was pS (kg mW3) 2650 7100 7100 7100 2650
found to exert an important influence on the bed dP (Xl@ m) 600 180 500 900 240
behavior; a dimensionless wall roughness must be in- kr (m s-) 0.15 0.09 0.64 1.25 0.07
P (bara) 1 1 1
cluded in the geometric similarity relationships for the
T (K) 1023 288 288 288 288
model. D (m) 0.135 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045
When constructing a model fluidized with ambient U, (m s-t) 0.78 0.45 1.0 1.6 0.43
air, matching the full set of scaling parameters results Qnfl(gD)05 0.13 0.14 0.9 1.9 0.11
in a unique set of values for the particle density and Fr = (Vi, - U,r)/(gD).5 0.55 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.55
d,/D (x 103) 4.4 4 11 20 4.2
diameter and for the linear dimensions of the bed. To
Pfh (x 104) 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 4.9
model an atmospheric combustor operating at about Re = pf Uod,lp 4.1 5.5 33 105 7.4
800 C, the model has linear dimensions one quarter
Runs at low and high pressures
those of the combustor. By simplifying the set of scaling
relationships, it is possible to relax the constraint on Condition/run FGHI JK
the dimensions of the model relative to the full scale
bed. Glicksman [l] identified a viscous region, for small Agreement with run F - Yes Yes Yes No Yes
ps (kg me31 384 2650 2650 2650 2650 2650
particles and low velocities, where the gas inertial effects
d, (X106 m) 240 120 120 240 550 550
are negligible. Similarly, an inertial dominated region U, (m s-) 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.14
exists in beds of large particles at high velocities where P (bara) 1 6 1 6 1
the gas viscous effects should be minimal. Modified T (K) 288 288 288 288 288 288
criteria for the applicability of these scaling relationships D (m) 0.28 0.1 0.1 0.28 0.1 0.1
U. (m s-t) 0.27 0.16 0.17 0.32 0.24 0.29
were later suggested by Horio [8]. In both of these
vnflw)~s 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.14
regions, the simplified scaling laws permit some flexibility Fr = (U. - Umf)/gD)o~5 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
in model design. Horio et al. [9] proposed a set of d,/D (xl@) 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.9 5.5 5.5
scaling relationships which differed from those men- PflPs (X 1w 3.3 2.9 4.9 4.9 2.9 4.9
tioned above. Glicksman [lo] demonstrated that Horios Re = pf U,d,IcL 5 8 1.5 4 64 12
set was identical to the viscous limit for the full set
of scaling laws. Roy and Davidson [ll] examined the
limits of the viscous region as proposed by Glicksman
in bubbling beds at different temperatures and pressures the terminal velocity criteria. They built two scale models
(see Table 1). They compared measurements of the of a circulating bed combustor with linear dimensions
major frequency, maximum amplitude and standard which varied by a factor of four. The two models
deviation of the amplitude to determine similarity. Most exhibited reasonably good agreement with each other
of their tests were carried out at a particle Reynolds for vertical voidage distributions. The two models used
numbers of 8 or below. For tests at low Reynolds the same particle density and fluidizing gas conditions.
number they found that it was not necessary to match Although equality of gas to solid density ratio was
the gas to solid density ratio and the particle to bed mentioned as one possible scaling parameter, no attempt
diameter ratio. Two tests carried out at Reynolds num- was made to match this parameter between the model
bers of 64 and 105, respectively, did not agree with and the combustor. The solid to gas density ratio for
companion tests using the reduced set of parameters the models differ from that for the combustor by a
valid for the viscous limit. A single test carried out at factor of 5.5. Data was not presented for the combustor;
a Reynolds number of 33 did agree with companion thus, proper scaling between the cold models and the
tests; in this test the solid to gas density ratio was also combustor could not be verified. Ishii and Murakami
identical to the ratio for the companion tests. [13] compared two geometrically similar beds using the
Horio et al. [12] derived a scaling law for circulating same particle material and fluidizing gas properties,
beds from consideration of the core and annulus regions the scaling was based on the parameters given by Horio
in a circulating bed. The resulting scaling law matched et al. [12]. They found close agreement in measured
superficial gas velocity, particle velocity, and particle peak frequency, flow transition, and measurements made
terminal velocity to the square root of the linear di- with a light reflecting probe. Their peak particle Rey-
mensions. The particle size was determined to satisfy nolds number was about 4.5.
Tsukada et al. [14] compare the behavior of a cir-
culating bed fluidized at pressure between 0.1 MPa
and 0.35 MPa. They maintained the particle diameter,
the solids flow rate and the gas velocity constant. They
found similar results between 0.1 MPa and 0.18 MPa We will explore the various forms of the drag re-
but found considerable differences at the highest pres- lationships to investigate simplifications to the full set
sure which they attribute to exceeding an upper limit of scaling parameters.
in Reynolds number or to a change in gas bypassing, When the particles are closely spaced in a bubbling
their highest value of Reynolds number was approxi- bed or possibly in the lower, dense portion, of a
mately 5. circulating bed, the Ergun equation is appropriate for
The purpose of this paper is to establish simplifications the drag forces,
to the full set of scaling laws. We will experimentally
explore the limits of the viscous approximation for $ =&-v]=15op~ +--E)2 cllu-VI +I 75
.
scaling circulating fluidized beds. A simplified form of P
x w--E) I=--211
EL
-F--- T&G Ps
Derivation of simplified scaling laws
for the most general case if 4, d,/L, pJp,, the dimen-
The full set scaling relationships are obtained by sionless particle size distribution, and pfuodp/p are
non-dimensionalizing the equations of motion for the matched between the full sized fluidized bed and the
particles and the fluid in a fluidized bed along with model, the dimensionless drag coefficient given by eqn.
their boundary conditions. Using the bed dimension, (3) will remain the same over all conditions. Substituting
L as a typical length dimension, non-dimensionalization
these dimensionless parameters for /3L/psuo in the group
of the equations yields the following dimensionless given in eqn. (1) leads to the full set of scaling re-
parameters (Glicksman [lo]). lationships. For a circulating bed, the dimensionless
solid circulation rate must also be added to the list of
(1) governing parameters in eqn. (1) and resulting simplified
forms of the scaling parameters. Note that with the
Factors omitted include surface forces on particles bed geometry, particle properties, gas superficial ve-
due to static charge or Van der Waals forces. Also, locity, and solids recycle rate fixed, steady state con-
the influence of the particle coefficient of restitution ditions in the fast bed or riser are fixed. This should
or friction coefficient on inter-particle forces is omitted. be independent of the specific geometry and inventory
Litka and Glicksman [15] showed that the friction of the recycle system provided that the recycle system
coefficient and coefficient of restitution have a negligible can deliver the desired solids recycle rate. Studies by
influence on bubbling beds. Rhodes and Laussmann [16] and Chang and Louge [6]
In eqn. (l), j3 is the coefficient of the fluid-to-particle have shown that the solids holdup is, in fact, independent
drag force per unit volume expressed as @(u-v) where of changes in the inventory of the solids in the recycle
u and v are the fluid and particle velocities, respectively. system.
In the general case, flL/psuo is related to the viscous To obtain more flexibility in the modeling process,
and inertial forces of the fluid through the Ergun simplifications to the full set of scaling laws must be
equation or through the expression for drag on a single identified. We will investigate this by first exploring the
sphere. These relationships indicate that pL/p,u, simplifications which hold for several limiting cases.
is dependent on the Reynolds number based on These limiting cases will span the range of operation
the particle diameter, d,/L and the dimensionless from incipiently fluidized beds to dilute circulating beds
particle size distribution. Substituting these para- or pneumatic transport. With such a broad range, the
meters into eqn. (1) yields the full set of scaling limits of the simplification can be explored over a wide
parameters, range of fluidization conditions. In the present paper
180
experimental results will be limited to circulating or (Glicksman [lo]), the independent governing param-
fast fluidization. eters are
4 L Lx Gs
- - - 4, particle size distribution
Low Reynolds number gL (d,Re) L2 psuo
(11)
At low particle Reynolds numbers the Ergun expres-
sion can be simplified using only the first term in eqn. It was demonstrated that this can be rewritten as
(3). 4 uo L G
Thus, z , G, c , z, , #I, particle size distribution (12)
maintaining uoIu,f, Emf, and Fr identical between two rearranging and using ps in place of ps-pf,
fluidized bed guarantees that /3L/p,u, is also identical.
Although 4 and d, are eliminated between eqns. (5) EC - QS _ 1 75 (1-cnS Pf
and (7), in general particle spheric@ and dimensionless 2 (15)
krlf *TsiG
size distribution should be held constant in the scaling.
The use of 4 and a mean diameter in the Ergun Substituting this into eqn. (13) and multiplying by Fr,
expression only approximates the effects of these pa-
Fr PL _ 4 %f3Lb -vk(l-4
rameters. Note that if the two models display identical 2
dynamic characteristics then E is a dependent variable P&o SL %lf
-1
dimensionless parameters, 1+ - - tpsRe EIU- 2)I
Fr( 1 - E,~)EZ 150 (1 - e)
iL\ L
=
\PsUo) 1 I 1.75 -- Me umf
3~~05
&P*Um*Lz
-G
P&o
, C#J,
dimensionless
size
particle
distribution
(20)
(1
Zf (1 - c)emt
150 (1 - Ed) uo -I
(23)
provided that the forces between the particles and gas
where Re = pfuod,,lp.
can be represented by the Ergun equation or an equiv-
alent expression. It is easy to verify by use of eqn. (23) the three
limits defined previously.
The advantage of the simplified set of scaling pa-
For the more general case, Fig. 1 shows the value
rameters over the full set, eqn. (2), is the increased
of p given by eqn. (23) relative to /I at low Re over
flexibility in the design of a model to simulate a com-
a range of conditions when u,/u, is 10 and 3, re-
bustor or chemical reactor. With the full set, after the
spectively, and Fr and A remain constant. When u,/
gas properties inthe model have been chosen, e.g. by
U and the slip velocity are high there is a larger
use of air at ambient conditions, there is only one
vl:ation of dimensionless drag coefficient with Reynolds
unique set of particle size and density, bed size, gas
velocity and solids circulation rate which can be used
in the model.
Using the simplified set of scaling parameters, the
choice of the fluidizing gas in the model fixes the solid
density. However, the model size can be altered, as
long as the Froude number is maintained constant by
j] . Uo/Umf = 3, Uslip/Uo = 1
General case Al
114 kale
0.1 MPs 20 Lo uo
simplified scaling laws, eqn. (20), to design hypothetical Fig. 3. Exact and simplified models of a pressurized fluidized
models whose linear dimensions are l/4 and l/16, bed combustor.
respectively, of the linear dimensions of a model de-
signed using the full set of scaling laws, eqn. (2). To the simplified parameters. For example, when the length
determine the validity of the smaller, simplified models, scale is reduced to l/4 that of the exact model, the
the dimensionless drag coefficient /3L/psuo will be com- velocity is reduced by l/2 to keep the Froude number
pared between the simplified models and the model constant. The particle diameter is then reduced ap-
using the full set of scaling laws. Figure 3 shows a propriately to keep the ratio of uo/ud constant. These
comparison of the exact model and the simplified models calculations were carried out over a range of particle
for a pressurized fluidized combustor. Using the full Reynolds numbers, RepE, based on the full scaling law,
set of scaling laws the exact model, fluidized by ambient or exact, model. It was found that the particle Reynolds
air, is approximately the same size as the combustor. number for the l/4 scale simplified model remained
The simplified models are reduced in size by their roughly equal to 0.34Re, over a wide range of values
respective assumed length scale. The other parameters for Re, whereas the particle Reynolds number for the
of the simplified model are then calculated to match 1/16.scale model was roughly OXXe,. Tables 2 and
3 give the values for the exact and simplified scale
models of pressurized and atmospheric combustors,
respectively.
Using these Reynolds number scale factors, the errors
in the dimensionless drag coefficient /3L/p,u,, using the
simplified scaling models can be found from Figs. 1
and 2. These errors are shown on Figs. 4 and 5 for
u&,,,~ of 10 and 1000, respectively, plotted as a function
of Rep, based on parameters for the exact scaled bed.
For a particle Reynolds number of 1000 or less, which
corresponds to pressurized beds with particles of 1 mm
or less, the error in the drag coefficient with the
simplified scaling laws is 20% or less for a one quarter
1 10 100 1000 10000
length scale model. The error is 40% or less for a
Re = pUodp/p l/16 length scale model. At uo/u,r of 1000 and u~~/u,,,~
Fig. 2. Ratio of drag coefficient to low Reynolds number drag of l/50 the errors for the l/16 scale model are 20%
coefficient, u&,~= 1000. or less for RepE less than 103. For particles of 0.2 mm
183
The two rows following the exact case present the particle diameter, velocity, etc. for ti linear dimension decrease of l/4 and l/16,
respectively, maintaining constant Froude number, u:lgL and constant u&,,~ pr = 2 500kgIm3, 4 = 0.8, e,,,f= 0.5, Re = pru,-,d,lcL.
Knf
(m s-l)
d4nf -4 /Jr= !5E!&!?f L/L, UOIUO
sxact Re(d,)
f4nf P2 kuct
- f4
( umf 1 exact
The two rows following the exact case present the particle diameter, velocity, etc. for a linear dimension decrease of l/4 and l/16,
respectively, maintaining constant Froude number, u&L. and constant u o/u ,+ pa= 2 500kgfm3, 4=0.8, l=0.5, Re =pfuodp/p.
or less, corresponding to a Reynolds number of 100 l/50, the l/16 scale model should be valid for pressurized
or less, the errors in drag coefficient are minimal. When beds with particles up to 1 mm in diameter. These
the Ergun equation applies for the drag coefficient, a conclusions apply when the particle to fluid drag term
one quarter scale model based on the simplified scaling is given by the Ergun equation or similar relationships
laws should be valid for any conditions. A l/16 scale and the scaled particles are not so small that inter-
model should be valid for diameters of about 0.2 mm particle surface forces come into play.
or less for a pressurized bubbling bed with u,Ju,r of The particle to gas density ratio does not appear
10 and u,,fuO of 0.3. At u&,,,~ of 1000 and u,r/u, of explicitly in the expression for /3, eqn. (23). However,
184
PL
-=-- 3 Pt
~u~---zIqcD 4 (l--E,) (25)
P&o 4 0 Ps c
1 10 100 1000 10000
Re- Uodp If the diameter of individual particles does not in-
Fig. 4. Error in drag coefficient, u,/~~=lO. fluence the drag of a cluster of particles, then when
the solid to gas density ratio is held constant between
the combustor and the model, the dimensionless drag,
/3L/psuo, in eqn. (25) is a function of CD. We will use
the drag coefficient of solid spheres as a first approx-
imation for the relative change of CD with Reynolds
number based on cluster diameter. The drag coefficient
of a solid sphere can be closely represented by the
II . ..
ULexact = l/4
ULexacl = 1/I 6
I c,= $ + 1+&G6
dc
+ 0.4
*In the lower limit of Reynolds number, for clusters and particles,
C, is equal to 24/Re,, and u,~ is proportional to p.d,?p, eqn.
In the freeboard of a bubbling bed or in the upper (7). It can be shown that @L/p,u, in eqn. (24) is proportional
portion of a circulating bed where particles are generally to l/Z+ L+,/u,,,~d,*/df. Complete similitude is not obtained unless
considered to act in clusters or groups, a similar ex- d, is also proportional to the bed length, resulting in the full
amination of scaling of the gas to solid drag can be set of scaling laws.
185
fr.
PL
-=-
PSUO 4
3
0
!?i Iu_-2)Ic
Ps D4
(1-e)
(27)
Psd3& _ 1 Pf+i c u2
6 24 Dt (W
Substituting eqn. (28) into eqn. (27) to eliminate CD,
one obtains,
I
10000
Re = pUodc/p (29)
Fig. 6.. Error in cluster drag coefficient for fixed u&,,,~ using C,
for a solid sphere.
Since uO/umfand Fr is held constant in the simplified
scaling process, we will examine the ratio uJumf to
determine if the drag coefficient, /3L/psuo, remains
a velocity one half that of the exact case will have a
constant.
cluster Reynolds number one eighth that of the exact
The Ergun equation, eqn. (4), can be solved to find
bed. From the relationship of CD with Re we can
U mb
determine the change of CD with model scale at a
given Reynolds number of the exact bed. Figure 6 &+&e=
shows the shift in ,C,, for length scale of l/4, l/8, and
1+
P
l/16, respectively, of the exact bed length as a function
of the cluster Reynolds number of the exact bed. Also - (150)(1- Q2 - (150)(1 - Q2 7(1 - %fY 43Ar
3
+
shown on the figure is the typical Reynolds number Gnf \ir %f3 Gnf
of an atmospheric combustor with a 0.3 m cluster
diameter, approximately 1.5X 104. In a bubbling bed, 3-w - %fM
3
the cluster diameter in the freeboard should be at least Glf
(30)
equal in size to the diameter of bubbles erupting at
the bed surface. For beds with horizontal tubes, the where Ar=pspfd3&p is the Archimedes number.
bubble diameter will be equal to or larger than the In the limit of low Ar, eqn. (30) becomes
3
horizontal tube spacing. In a bubbling bed without PfU-fde Gnf
Ar At-0 (31)
tubes, the bubbles and clusters can be much larger. In
CL = 150( 1 - lm*)
an open circulating bed the cluster diameter is more
difficult to determine. It is reasonable to assume that while for large Ar,
its diameter is proportional to the bed diameter, equal
in magnitude to the bed diameter or one order of (32)
magnitude smaller. From these considerations, the Rey-
nolds number based on the cluster diameter should be The terminal velocity for a particle can be obtained
104 or larger in an atmospheric combustor with a cluster as,
diameter of 0.2 m. The cluster Reynolds number should
be 105 or larger in a pressurized combustor. From Fig. D
6 it can be seen that a one quarter scale or an eight
scale model should have drag coefficients similar to Rearranging, and using eqn. (26) for CD,
the exact bed. For pressurized beds, the drag coefficients 4
should be very close in magnitude.
- WUmf
T=ECOC
dp = 0.2mm
0 0 A
Ar = SP,P~~~C~
0.1 1
r
materials were readily available and allowed for the
-
evaluation of a wide range of density ratios. The powders
were prepared so that scaled size distributions and
fluidization properties matched those required for the
tests in which they would be used. Powder testing
included size analysis by sieving, measurement of umf,
_
4.
density measurement with a displacement pycnometer
4
or water displacement, and bulk density measurements.
Particle properties are given in Table 5.
Figures 12 through 15 show cumulative particle size
- Pressure Relief Line
(cm above prima distributions for particles used in a given scaling test
i
I series.
The required mean particle diameter needed in the
- Solid Flux Measurement Valve l/16 scale model of the Studsvik hot bed for using the
simplified scaling laws was calculated to be approxi-
mately 35 microns. Since the smallest sieve mean di-
47.15
ameter was 38 microns, it was not possible accurately
/- Retrn
Leg to predict the size distribution of the particles required.
In order to circumvent this problem, no attempt was
made accurately to measure the mean diameter of the
particles for use in the l/16 model, rather the particle
/- Air
L-Vave distribution was selected based on the minimum flui-
i
dization velocity. This is possible since the particle
diameter enters only indirectly through the minimum
Fig. 10. l/4 scale model of the UBC combustor. fluidization velocity.
In addition to the separation and recombination
cyclone Return process to achieve satisfactory size distributions, the
glass and plastic particles were also treated with anti-
static compounds in an attempt to reduce the level of
static electricity generated in the bed. The first com-
pound was Larostat 519, a fine powder which was mixed
in with the glass and plastic powders. Since the mass
fraction of Larostat in the mixtures was very small, it
was not anticipated that this would have any significant
effect on the hydrodynamics of the beds other than
through the reduction of static electricity. Copper ribbon
and rods were also used to aid in the discharge of
static in return lines and other equipment.
While the Larostat worked quite well in the reduction
of static, as more was added during operation, it began
severely to inhibit the flow characteristics of the glass
and plastic mixtures in the LValves and other con-
stricted areas. In order to further reduce bed static
levels, the glass and plastic particles and the insides
of the beds were spray coated with Anstac 2-M,an
Prim. Air I , alcohol based anti-static solution. After drying, this
a Scale(m) OS
virtually eliminated any remaining static effects.
Fig. 11. l/4 scale model of the Studsvik combustor. The solids circulation rate in the Studsvik combustor
was determined by measuring the velocity of an isotope
A summary of bed dimensions and the tests for which pill in the L-valve standpipe. This method indicated
they were used is provided in Table 4. considerable variations in measured solids flux for con-
In order to evaluate the applicability of the viscous secutive velocity measurements at the same condition.
limit scaling laws, and to simulate hot circulating beds In the l/16 scale Studsvik bed was measured by timing
operating at different pressures, three bed solid ma- pile-up of solids above a valve in the return leg. The
188
l/4 scale UBC bed 1.62 l.l29E-3 Glass/steel viscous limit scaling
(no seconday air)
l/16 scale Stud&k bed 0.46 1.05E-3 glass/plastic viscous limit
(no boot or secondary air) scaling and simplified
scaling with constant pJpf
l/4 scale Studsvik bed 1.83 1.68E-2 scaling with constant pJpf
(no boot or secondary air)
l/16 scale Stud&k bed 0.46 1.58E-3 hot bed scaling with the
simplified scaling parameters
l/4 scale Studsvik bed 1.83 1.68E-2 hot bed scaling with the
full set of scaling parameters
Studsvik hot bed 8.0 0.43 hot bed scaling
Fig. 13. Particle size distributions for viscous limit scaling laws.
80 80
l/16 Scale Studsvik Bed
l/4 Scale Studsvik Steel 70 _ Glass (Actual dp = 78.7)
160
Fig. 12. Particle size distributions for verification of the exact Fig. 14. Glass particle size distributions for simplified scaling.
scaling laws.
solid circulation rate in the l/4 scale UBC bed and by the visual contrast in solids. Both the valve pile-up
the l/4 scale Studsvik bed was measured by timing the and visual descent methods have been shown to give
rate of solid descent in the downcomer made possible acceptable results with agreement within 15% (West-
189
for measurement of the cold bed fluctuations of interest Fig. 16. Solid fraction profiles, glass/steel viscous limit scaling,
(Westphalen, [l&3]). low velocity case.
0 lo 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Bed Height, TO
Fig. 20. PDFs, glass/steel viscous limit scaling, low velocity case.
100 I I
M = 0.0043 2
Fr = 1.39 I -O- Glass 1
= 16.5 M = 0.0029
RepI
Reel = 13.0
I
I 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Bed Height, %
Solid Fraction
Fig. 19. Solid fraction profiles, glass/plastic viscous limit scaling,
high velocity case. Fig. 21. PDFs, glass/steel viscous limit scaling, high velocity case
191
50
M = 0.0029
Fr = 0.57 M = 0.0043
10
Fr = 1.39
&
1 1
b
5
9
0.1
0.01 0
Solid Fraction
Fig. 22. FFIs, glass/steel viscous limit scaling, low velocity case. Fig. 25. PDFs, glass/plastic viscous limit scaling, high velocity
case.
50
M = 0.0029 I
10
g l
0.1
I
0.01 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~.
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.01
Frequency 0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency
Fig. 23. FFTs, glass/steel viscous limit scaling, high velocity case.
Fig. 26. FFTs, glass/plastic viscous limit scaling, low velocity case.
10
Rep, = 9.88
u, = 1.5 m/s
for the onset of choking based on a study of dense they may have a wider range of validity in the bubbling
pneumatic systems (Yang [20]): regime.
2.2
2gD(g4.7-1)
=681x105 pf (37)
(%-~d2 * 0 Ps Simplified scaling with constant ZQ,/U,,,~
and ps/pf
along with an equation for the carrying capacity of the The second set of simplified parameters which were
gas investigated were the simplified parameters based on
constant Froude number, uO/umf and pJpf, which have
G=p, (l-6,) been described above. In order to evaluate the validity
of these scaling parameters in the fast fluidization
regime, two series of tests were conducted. Table 8
Equations (37) and (38) allow for the calculation of provides a summary of the tests to evaluate the simplified
the flux and voidage at incipient choking given a su- scaling parameters. Average solid fraction profiles for
perficial velocity. Chang and Louge [6] compared Yangs several of the simplified scaling tests are provided in
correlation with data they obtained in a cold circulating Figs. 28 through 31.
fluidized bed for plastic and steel powders and found When utilizing the simplified scaling laws to scale
it to be in excellent agreement. between properly sized plastic or glass samples in two
Table 7 presents the non-dimensional loadings at geometrically similar beds the average solid fraction
incipient choking predicted by the Yang correlation, profiles are in good agreement. For all superficial
for the superficial velocities used in the tests of the velocities tested, there is close agreement even though
viscous limit scaling laws. In the runs at lower velocities, particle diameter based Reynolds numbers as well as
Yangs correlation predicts that the beds were in or Reynolds numbers based on the bed diameters varied
near the choking regime. Because the Yang correlation significantly between corresponding runs made in the
indicates that choking is a strong function of the solid two beds. Nearly all parts of the average solid fraction
to gas density ratio, it may be that the viscous limit profile curves were within confidence interval limits.
scaling laws are unable to model bed hydrodynamics The probability density functions and power spectral
near the boundary between different flow regimes. This densities for these runs, several of which are depicted
would explain the better agreement at the higher velocity in Figs. 32 through 39, also demonstrated good agree-
runs where the beds were not choked. These results ment - especially in light of the poor agreement
suggest that there are competing criteria which specify obtained when the density ratio is not held constant.
the range of superficial velocity in which viscous limit Table 9 presents the non-dimensional loadings at
scaling laws apply for circulating fluidized beds. On incipient choking predicted by the Yang correlation for
the one hand, superficial velocity must be kept low the superficialvelocities used in the tests of the simplified
enough to remain in the viscous limit. On the other scaling laws. Because Yangs correlation predicts that
hand, the superficial velocity must be high enough to these tests were conducted under conditions in which
prevent significant choking in the bed. While the viscous the bed was choked, the above analysis indicates that
limit scaling laws are limited in their applications to while the viscous limit scaling laws will not allow for
fluidized beds operating in the fast fluidization regime, modeling bed hydrodynamics in regions approaching
TABLE 7. Choking predictions for the viscous limit tests - Yang correlation
M = 0.0030
1/4 vs. 1/16 Glass 1/4 vs. 1/16 Plastic Fr = 0.50
Re1/4 = 26.7
1/4 Glass 1/16 Glass 1/4 Plastic 1/16 Plastic l \ ~%N. ' K Ret/t6 = 9.88
10
uo ( m s -I) 3.0-5.0 1.5-2.5 3.0-5.0 1.5-2.5 ~" ~ = 15m/s.
umt(era s -t) 2.88 1.42 1.50 0.85
dp (/zm) 112.3 78.7 144.5 99.5
Bed height 1.83 0.46 1.83 0.46
(m)
Bed A~ 1.68E-2 1.05E-3 1.68E-2 1.05E-3
(m~) O 114 Scale Studsvik Plastic
Fr 0.5-1.4 0.5-1.4 0.50-1.4 0.50-1.4 ~ 1/16 Scale 8tudsvik Plastic
Reap 22.2-39.0 7.8-13.0 26.7--47.8 9.9-16.5 0.1 , f I I I i , I , I , I
M (10 -3) 4.3-7.2 4.3-7.2 2.3-3.0 2.3-3.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
p,/~ 2117 2117 1167 1167 Bed Height, %
Fig. 30. Solid fraction profiles, plastic simplified scaling, low
velocity case.
100
M = 0.0072
Fr = 0.50 100
~ :1: Ret/4=22"2 M = 0.0023
Rel/t6 = 7.81 Fr = 1.39
10 .]. ~ I'%~,~ U01'4 =3"Om/s Ret/4 = 47.8
~ 10 Ret/16 = 16.5
Uot/4 = 5.0 m/s
.-~ Uol/t 6 = 2.5 m/s
r~ 1 O 1/4 Scale Studsvik Glass .
--41-- 1/16 Scale Studsvik Glass
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
which correlations are best suited for each class of
Bed Height, % gas-solid system using Geldart's [26] classification. The
Fig. 29. Solid f r a c t i o n profiles, g l a s s s i m p l i f i e d scaling, h i g h v e l o c i t y data used for comparison consisted of particles with
case. various sizes and densities. The root mean square
relative error of the Yang correlation is the lowest
when all particle groups are included. A brief dimen-
or fully within the choking regime, the simplified set sional analysis of the Yang correlation is presented
of scaling parameters will. below.
194
1.5
2
= Re,,d = 22.2
8 1
Re ,,,6 = 7.81
d
x Uo,,4 = 3.0 m/s
.=
Uo*,,6 = 1.5 m/s
B
a
55 Fr= 1.39
a 0.5
= 37.2
R%
P Re ,,t6 = 13.0
Uo,,4 = 5.0 m/s
Uo,,,6 = 2.5 m/s
0
-2 4
Solid Fraction
Fig. 32. PDFs, glass simplified scaling, low velocity case. Fig. 35. FFTs, glass simplified scaling, high velocity case.
M = 0.0030
Fr = 0.50
Re,,d = 26.7
u Re ,,,6 = 9.88
Uot,4 = 3.0 m/s
Uot,,6 = 1.5 m/s
0
0 I 2 3 -10 0 10 20 30 40 SO
Solid Fraction Solid Fraction
Fig. 33. PDFs, glass simplified scaling, high velocity case. Fig. 36. PDFs, plastic simplified scaling, low velocity case.
SO 0.25
d
a3
8 .E 0.1
Fr = 0.50 f
9
Re,/, = 22.2
0.1
Re ,,,6 = 7.81 f
0.05
Uo,,4 = 3.0 m/s
Uot,,6 = 1.5 m/s
0.01 , 3 * - 1* 3 1. I 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30
Frequency Solid Fraction
Fig. 34. FFTs, glass simplified scaling, low velocity case. Fig. 37. PDFs, plastic simplified scaling, high velocity case.
Non-dimensionalizing eqn. (37) as Rewriting the denominator of the left hand side,
2 (1u:
go (c4.7-1) 2 =6.81X105 0 f
2.2
( l-2 mf c1
195
Re ,,,6 = 16.5
u o,,4 = 5.0 m/s
Uo,,*6 = 2.5 m/s
0.01 0.01 * c n B
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency Frequency
Fig. 38. FFTs, plastic simplified scaling, low velocity case. Fig. 39. FFTs, plastic simplified scaling, high velocity case.
TABLE 9. Choking predictions for the tests of the simplified scaling laws - Yang correlation
Equation (38) results in the following dimensionless and probability density functions when scaling with
equation: glass/steel and glass/plastic at low velocities. However,
when the density ratio is included, as it is with the
25. =(i _ lL5)(1_Ee) (41) simplified scaling laws, all the dimensionless parameters
P&c which govern the Yang correlation are included in the
Using eqns. (31), (32), (35), and (36) it was shown scaling laws.
that u,/u~ approaches a constant value for both small
and large Archimedes numbers. At intermediate values
of Ar, Figs. 8 and 9 show that the error in u,/u, Applying simplified scaling laws for scaling hot beds
between beds scaled with the simplified scaling pa-
rameters is modest. Thus, throughout the entire range In order to evaluate the validity of applying the
of Archimedes numbers, Yangs choking expression is simplified scaling parameters to large scale hot beds
dependent on the following parameters: using length ratios on the order of l/16, solid fraction
profiles between the Studsvik 2.5 MW combustor and
go
_.- wllf
and B which are identical to the simplified a l/16 scale cold model were compared for six different
2 7
UC UC Pf operating conditions. Table 10 provides a summary of
scaling parameters. the tests to evaluate the simplified scaling parameters
when applied to a commercial sized hot bed. Figures
The non-dimensional parameters which govern the 40 through 43 depict solid fraction profiles for several
Yang correlation include a density ratio. This indicates of these runs. Included in these plots are results from
that the viscous limit scaling will not accurately predict scaling the hot combustor. using the complete set of
the choking behavior of circulating fluidized beds. This scaling parameters obtained as part of an earlier study
may explain the poor agreement in solid fraction profiles (Westphalen, [27]).
196
bed scaling
10
Studsvik l/4 scale l/16 scale
hot bed cold bed cold bed e Primary Air = 69.0
i
.g
u. (m s-l) 6-8 3-4 1.5-2.0 Eu 1
Fig. 42. Solid fraction profiles, hot bed scaling with simplified
100
scaling laws, high velocity, 69% primary air.
10
Hot Bed Data:
ER I Pnmq Air = 49.0
Uo=6.16m/s
i
B
2e 1
% Primary Air = 69.0
B
0.1
0.01
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 - 90
Bed Height. %
Fig. 40. Solid fraction profiles, hot bed scaling with simplified I - I
Fig. 43. Solid fraction profiles, hot bed scaling with simplified
scaling laws, low velocity, 69% primary air.
e
factors.
Much of the disagreement between the hot and cold
beds may be due to the uncertainty in the measurement
of hot bed solids circulation rate where standard de-
_I viations in measured circulation rates were up to 50%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 the average value. Agreement between the hot bed and
Bed Height %
cold models is generally better near the top of the bed.
Fig. 41. Solid fraction profiles, hot bed scaling with S,implified This may be explained in light of the choking phe-
scaling laws, high velocity, 52% primary air. nomenon described above. Since there was some error
in the solid to fluid density ratio when scaling between
When utilizing the simplified scaling laws to scale the hot and cold beds, one would expect that there
between a utility sized hot CFB and l/16 scale cold would also be some error in the predicted choking
model the average solid fraction profiles are in good voidages. When choking ensues, the density in the
agreement for most of the conditions tested. Agreement bottom is more significantly changed than in the top
is excellent between the l/4 scale cold model which of the bed. Comparison between the probability density
utilized the full set of scaling parameters, and the l/ functions for the l/4 and l/16 scale cold models also
16 scale model which utilized the simplified set of demonstrated excellent agreement as demonstrated in
parameters. Thus, the disagreement between the hot Figs. 44 through 47. In most cases, the agreement in
bed and the simplified model is not due to the sim- histograms is better in the top of the bed. This is
197
50
f 1
.g
2
0.1
- l/4 Scale Cold Bed
0.01
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 50
Solid Fraction Frequency
Fig. 44. PDFs, comparison between l/16 and l/4 scale Studsvik Fig. 47. FFTs, comparison between l/16 and l/4 scale Studsvik
models, low velocity case. models, high velocity case.
Conclusions
!o.75
2
2 0.5 Uo = 1.8 m/s
gas to particle drag is represented by drag on an isolated
particle, the simplified scaling laws also give the correct
limiting conditions for both the viscous and inertial
% limits.
0.25 For intermediate conditions, the gas to particle drag
is also well approximated in models using the simplified
0 scaling laws.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Solid Fraction Based on the experimental results of the viscous limit
Fig, 45. PDFs, comparison between l/16 and l/4 scale Studsvik scaling using different particle densities, the ratio of
models, high velocity case. particle to gas density cannot be ignored in order
properly to simulate a combustor or chemical reactor
outside the viscous limit. Within the viscous limit, the
I. I
density ratio must also be matched correctly to model
h
M,,4 = 6.07E-04 Re1,4 = 11.1
IN,,,6 = 6.23E.04 Re.,,16 = 2.53
a circulating bed near the slugging limit.
10
= 0.47 Uo,,4 = 2.9 m/s The simplified set of parameters which includes the
%4
Fr,,,6 =0.46 Uo,,,6 = 1.4 m/s solid to gas density ratio has been shown to give
acceptable results over a wide range of particle densities
and bed sixes, even when the length ratio is as small
as l/16. This has significant implications for the ability
to model large scale hot combustors with relatively
small cold laboratory models. Results of these hydro-
dynamic scaling experiments show good similarity when
using the simplified set of scaling laws and strongly
suggest that this new set of parameters is acceptable
0.011 3 * 3 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 over the range of conditions tested.
Frequency
Fig. 46. FFTs, comparison between l/16 and l/4 scale Studsvik
models, low velocity case. Acknowledgements
related information for the Studsvik fluidized bed com- voidage at incipient choking
bustor. This study was sponsored by the United States cluster voidage
Department of Energy, Morgantown Energy Technology voidage at minimum fluidization
Center. The data for the full scale model of the Studsvik sphericity
combustor was obtained by Detlef Westphalen of MIT gas viscosity
in a study sponsored by the Electric Power Research gas density
Institute. solid density
standard deviation
shear stress
List of symbols de1 operator