Practical scaling considerations for dense gas fluidized beds interacting with the air-supply system

Abstract The present study addresses the problem of the scale-up/down of dense gas fluidized beds that may interact with their air-supply system (restricted here to the plenum and the distributor). An abundant literature about scaling issues yielded various sets of dimensionless numbers to be matched in order to ensure the invariance of the bed dynamics at different scales. All these sets embed the first indispensable requirement that is the geometrical similarity between scaled beds. Despite its self-evident character, this letter highlights important and new considerations about the applicability of this requirement for the design of the distributor and the plenum. For the distributor, it is shown that the geometrical similarity introduced by some authors is not always relevant and should only be used under particular conditions. For the scaling of the plenum, to our knowledge, nothing is mentioned in the literature. The present work shows that the ‘by-default’ geometrical scaling of the plenum is completely irrelevant. A practical rule to determine the plenum size at different scales is given so that similarity of the dynamic interaction between the bed and its air-supply system is ensured.

[1]  Leon R. Glicksman,et al.  Shorter CommunicationScaling relationships for fluidized beds , 1988 .

[2]  John R. Grace,et al.  Verification and validation of CFD models and dynamic similarity for fluidized beds , 2004 .

[3]  Leon R. Glicksman,et al.  Scaling relationships for fluidized beds , 1984 .

[4]  Wenqi Zhong,et al.  Jet penetration depth in a two-dimensional spout–fluid bed , 2005 .

[5]  Lounes Tadrist,et al.  Similarity in dense gas-solid fluidized bed, influence of the distributor and the air-plenum , 2009 .

[6]  Akira Nonaka,et al.  A new similarity rule for fluidized bed scale‐up , 1986 .

[7]  Leon R. Glicksman,et al.  Particle injection and mixing experiments in a one-quarter scale model bubbling fluidized bed , 2008 .

[8]  V. Zakkay,et al.  An investigation of fluidized-bed scaling: heat transfer measurements in a pressurized fluidized-bed combustor and a cold model bed , 1990 .

[9]  Yulong Ding,et al.  Experimental verification of the scaling relationships for bubbling gas-fluidised beds using the PEPT technique , 2002 .

[10]  T. Fitzgerald,et al.  Testing of cold scaled bed modeling for fluidized bed combustors , 1984 .

[11]  L. R. Glicksman,et al.  Scaling relationship for fluidized beds , 1984 .

[12]  J. Chaouki,et al.  Scale Effects on Fluidized Bed Hydrodynamics , 2005 .

[13]  Leon R. Glicksman,et al.  Simplified scaling relationships for fluidized beds , 1993 .

[14]  M. Louge,et al.  A verification of Glicksman's reduced scaling under conditions analogous to pressurized circulating fluidization , 2004 .

[15]  Leon R. Glicksman,et al.  Experimental verification of scaling relationships for fluidized bed , 1984 .

[16]  Filip Johnsson,et al.  Fluidization regimes in non-slugging fluidized beds: the influence of pressure drop across the air distributor , 1996 .

[17]  Ethan Brue,et al.  Resolving dynamical features of fluidized beds from pressure fluctuations , 2001 .

[18]  Masayuki Horio,et al.  A Scaling Law for Circulating Fluidized Beds , 1989 .

[19]  Mingchuan Zhang,et al.  On the scaling laws for bubbling gas-fluidized bed dynamics , 1987 .

[20]  Pier Ugo Foscolo,et al.  Design and cold model testing of a biomass gasifier consisting of two interconnected fluidized beds , 2007 .