Hydrodynamic Scaling of Bubbling Beds

Reference [Rjt/Oold VteD Rte LTi mi. Scaling lp Ifm) Other Purameteni 

Taknda. Qild 152D D.DD23 22CR 0.32 JCOO 150 Re -0.8 n/n -4.0 

Most early experiments devoted to verifying the scaling relationships have dealt with the full set of scaling relationships. Several more recent experiments have dealt with a reduced set of dimensionless parameters. In some experiments, additional scaling parameters were unintentionally matched. 

Fitzgerald et al. (1984) measured pressure fluctuations in an atmospheric fluidized bed combustor and a quarter-scale cold model. The full set of scaling parameters was matched between the beds. The autocorrelation function of the pressure fluctuations was similar for the two beds but not within the 95% confidence levels they had anticipated. The amplitude of the autocorrelation function for the hot combustor was significantly lower than that for the cold model. Also, the experimentally determined time-scaling factor differed from the theoretical value by 24%. They suggested that the differences could be due to electrostatic effects. Particle sphericity and size distribution were not discussed failure to match these could also have influenced the hydrodynamic similarity of the two beds. Bed pressure fluctuations were measured using a single pressure point which, as discussed previously, may not accurately represent the local hydrodynamics within the bed. Similar results were 

O ]/2-Scale unit with steel balls Full-scale unit ballotini glass balls 4 Full-scale unit flexoiite glass balls 

---