-------
EPA-60Q/7-77-114
October 1977
CHEMICALLY ACTIVE FLUID BED
(CAFB) PROCESS
SOLIDS-TRANSPORT STUDIES
by
John A. Bazan
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation
John Blizard Research Center
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
Contract No. 68-02-2106
Program Element No. EHE623A
EPA Project Officer: Samuel L. Rakes
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office o? Energy, Minerals, and industry
Research Triangle Park, N.C, 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
FOREWORD
The Chemically Active Fluid Bed (CAFB) gasification/desulfurization
process is a very promising new technique for the environmentally satisfactory
use of high-sulfur residual oil and high-sulfur coal in combustion systems.
To that end the design of the first commercial demonstration unit raised some
uncertainties concerning process equipment configuration. One such uncertainty
was the transfer of bed material to and from the gasifiar and regenerator. A
completely reliable solids-transfer system is absolutely essential to the
basic operation of the gasifier and regenerator.
To support the design of the commercial demonstration unit, a full-
scale cold-model study was initiated to determine the correct configuration of
the transfer ducts. After several unsuccessful arrangements were tried, a
satisfactory working model was developed. The final configuration has been
included in the design of the demonstration plant.
F. D. Zoldak
CAFB Program Manager
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Cold-modeling efforts directed toward the development of a solids-
transport system capable of transferring 40,000 lb/h of bed material between
two operating fluidized beds are described in this report. Three completely
different configurations were tested, including at least one modification of
each design. The optimum system, against which all the candidate systems were
compared, would:
• Transfer the required amount of bed material per unit time between
the two fluidized beds
• Use the minimum quantity of activating gas
• Maintain the minimum activating gas pressure
• Allow only minimal gas leakage back into the "supply" bed
• Provide an accurate and reliable control of transfer rate.
Based on these specifications, a modified version of the third configu-
ration tested (consisting of vertical and horizontal tubes with rectangular
cross section and a multi-tube transport-gas sparger) was selected as most
closely approaching the optimum conditions when compared with the other
systems tested.
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section. Page
Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Abstract v
List of Illustrations xi
List of Tables xv
List of Symbols and Abbreviations xvii
Nomenclature xxiii
Acknowledgments xxv
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2 TEST MODEL AND TEST LOOP 2-1
2.1 Test Model 2-1
2.2 Test Loop 2-1
3 GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT 3-1
3.1 Preliminary Design Considerations 3-1
3.1.1 Information From ERCA 3-1
3.1.2 Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
Measurement System 3-1
3.1.3 Air-Pulse System Generation—Measurement
and Control 3-1
3.1.4 Cold-Model Bed-Material Selection 3-2
3.2 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System 3-3
3.2.1 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Original Configuration 3-3
3.2.2 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—First Change 3-10
3.2.3 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Second Change 3-12
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
Section
3.2.4 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Third Change 3-14
3.2.5 Primary Gasfier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Fourth Change 3-15
3.3 Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System 3-19
3.3.1 Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Original Configuration 3-19
3.3.2 Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—First Change 3-22
3.4 Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System 3-22
3.4.1 Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Original Configuration 3-22
3.4.2 Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—First Change 3-24
TEST RESULTS 4-1
4.1 Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System
Performance Criteria 4-1
4.2 Calibrations 4-1
4.2.1 Weighbridges 4-1
4.2.2 Timers 4-9
4.3 Preliminary Tests 4-9
4.4 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System Tests 4-16
4.4.1 Frequency Tests Without Bleed Air 4-16
4.4.2 Frequency Tests With Bleed Air 4-16
4.5 Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System Tests 4-24
4.6 Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System Tests 4-24
,4.6.1 Perforated-Plate Sparger Tests 4-24
4.6.2 Three-Tube Sparger Tests 4-37
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
Section
Page
4.7 Combined Results 4-37
4.8 Visual Results 4-37
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 5-1
5.1 Quantitative Results 5-1
5.1.1 Basis of Comparison 5-1
5.1.2 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Preliminary Tests 5-2
5.1.3 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Frequency and Duration Tests 5-9
5.1.4 Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System Tests 5-10
5.1.5 Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System Tests 5-11
5.1.6 Combined Results 5-13
5.2 Qualitative Results 5-14
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1
6.1 Conclusions 6-1
6.2 Recommendations 6-2
REFERENCES 7-1
Appendix
A
B
D
Flow Measurement System Used in 36-ft2 Fluidized-Bed
Cold Model—Fluidized-Bed Steam Generator A-l
Comparison of Measurement Systems for Bed-Material
Transfer System B-l
Procedure Used for Data Reduction for the CAFB Cold-
Model Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Tests C-l
Calculation Sheets for the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator
Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Third and Fourth Generations—
Preliminary Tests D-l
Calculation Sheets for the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator
Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Fourth Generation—Frequency
Tests Without Sparger Bleed Air E-l
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
Appendix Fage
F Calculation Sheets for the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator
Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Fourth Generation—Frequency
and Duration Tests With Sparger Bleed Air F-l
G Calculation Sheets for the Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator
Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Original Configuration G-l
H Calculation Sheets for the Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-
Material Transfer Slot—Perforated-Plate Sparger H-l
I Calculation Sheets for the Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-
Material Transfer Slot—Three-Tube Sparger 1-1
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
x
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
2.1 Photograph of 36-ft2 Cold Model 2-2
2.2 Test Loop Schematic for 36-ft2 Cold-Model System 2-3
3.1 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System—Original Configuration 3-7
3.2 Sparger for Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System 3_8
. 3.3 Angle-of-Repose Comparison for Primary Gasifier-Regenerator
Bed-Material Transfer System—Original Configuration 3-9
3.4 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System—First Change 3-11
3.5 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System—Third Change 3-13
3.6 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System—Fourth Change 3-16
3.7 Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
Slot—Original Configuration 3-21
3.8 Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
Slot—First Change 3-23
3.9 Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Original Configuration 3-25
3.10 Redesigned Sparger for Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-
Material Transfer System 3-26
3.11 Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
First Change 3-27
xi
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont)
Figure
3.12
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4. 6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
Page
Pictorial Representation of La Palma Gasifier-Regenerator
Bed-Material Transfer System 3-29
Fluidized Calibration 1 4-6
Fluidized Calibration 2 4-7
Combined Fluidized Calibrations 1 and 2 4-8
Calibration for Transport-Air Pulse-Control Timer 1 4-12
Calibration for Transport-Air Pulse-Control Timer 2 4-13
Calibration for Transport-Air Pulse-Control Timer 3 4-14
Calibration for Transport-Air Pulse-Control Timer 4 4-15
Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
Slot—Third and Fourth Generations—Preliminary Tests—
Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Transport-Air Flow Rate 4-18
Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
Slot—Third and Fourth Generations—Preliminary Tests—
Transport Ratio vs. Bed-Material Transfer Rate 4-19
Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Fourth Generation—Frequency Tests Without Sparger Bleed
Air—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Time Between Pulses 4-21
Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Fourth Generation—Frequency Tests Without Sparger Bleed
Air—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Transport-Air Flow
Rate 4-22
Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Fourth Generation—Frequency Tests Without Sparger Bleed
Air—Transport Ratio vs. Bed-Material Transfer Rate 4-23
Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Fourth Generation—Frequency and Duration Tests With
Sparger Bleed Air—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Time
Between Pulses 4-26
xii
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont)
Figure
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
. 4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
Page
Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Fourth Generation—Frequency and Duration Tests With
Sparger Bleed Air—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Transport-
Air Flow Rate 4-27
Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Fourth Generation—Frequency and Duration Tests With
Sparger Bleed Air—Transport Ratio vs. Bed-Material
Transfer Rate 4-28
Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Original Configuration—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs.
Time Between Pulses 4-30
Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Original Configuration—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs.
Transport-Air Flow Rate 4-31
Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Original Configuration—Transport Ratio vs. Bed-Material
Transfer Rate 4-32
Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Perforated-Plate Sparger—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs.
Time Between Pulses 4-34
Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Perforated-Plate Sparger—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs.
Transport-Air Flow Rate 4-35
Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Perforated-Plate Sparger—Transport Ratio vs. Bed-
Material Transfer Rate 4-36
Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Three-Tube Sparger—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Time
Between Pulses 4-39
Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Three-Tube Sparger—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs.
Transport-Air Flow Rate 4-40
Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Three-Tube Sparger—Transport Ratio vs. Bed-Material
Transfer Rate 4-41
xiii
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont)
Figure Page
4.25 Combined Results of Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Time
Between Pulses 4-42
4.26 Combined Results of Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs.
Transport-Air Flow Rate 4-43
4.27 Combined Results of Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Transport Ratio vs. Bed-Material
Transfer Rate 4-44
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 FWEC Limestone Bed-Material Size Analysis 3-4
3.2 Comparison of Various Bed-Material Size Analyses 3_5
3.3 Scheduled Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer Slot Variable Testing Matrix 3-18
4.1 Gasifier Weighbridge Calibration Using Static Weights 4-2
4.2 Regenerator Weighbridge Calibration Using Static
Weights 4-3
4.3 Fluidized Calibrations 1 and 2 4-5
4.4 Calibrations for Transport-Air Pulse-Control Timers 4-10
4.5 Summary of Results of the Primary Gasifiar-Regenerator
Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Third and Fourth Generations—
Preliminary Tests 4-17
4.6 Summary of Results of the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator
Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Fourth Generation—Frequency
Tests Without Sparger Bleed Air 4-20
4.7 Summary of Results of the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator
Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Fourth Generation—Frequency
and Duration Tests With Sparger Bleed Air 4-25
4.8 Summary of Results of the Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator
Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Original Configuration 4-29
4.9 Summary of Results of the Final Gasifier-Regenerator
Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Perforated-Plate Sparger 4-33
4.10 Summary of Results of the Final Gasifier-Regenerator
Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Three-Tube Sparger 4-38
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont)
Table Page
4.11 Visual Results of Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer Systems Tested in CAFB Cold Model 4-45
5.1 Data Scatter Correlation—Bed-Material Transfer Rate
vs. Time Between Pulses 5-3
5.2 Data Scatter Correlation—Bed-Material Transfer Rate
vs. Transport-Air Flow Rate 5-4
5.3 Data Scatter Correlation—Transport Ratio vs. Bed-
Material Transfer Rate 5-5
5.4 Data Linearity Correlations 5-6
xvi
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Symbol Description
A Distance at inlet with respect to reference level
a Least-squares regression coefficient
Ac.s. Fluidized-bed cross-sectional area
Aj, Free area of perforated plate
Amps Fan input amps
Area„ , Fluidized-bed cross-sectional area
Bed
Areap^ate Perforated-plate cross-sectional area
B Distance at outlet with respect to reference level
b Least-squares regression coefficient
Bed Ht. Bed height
Bed Wt. Bed weight
C Orifice coefficent
cpg Mean specific heat of gas
c Mean specific heat of solids
ps
Dj Pipe diameter
d. Hole diameter
n
d Orifice diameter
o
dp Surface average particle size
d
dsv Sieve size
xvil
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont)
Symbol Description
e Error
Individual cell composite percentage error
e^g Total system percentage error
G Gasifier
g Acceleration of gravity
g Newton's law conversion factor
c
h Bed height
J Mechanical equivalent of heat
K Orifice flow coefficient
Perforated-plate flow coefficient
^Fluidizing Mass flow rate of fluidizing air
MW^ir Molecular weight of air
*
M Mass flow rate
^Bleed Air Bleed air mass flow rate
Mfiypass Bypass system mass flow rate
Mpuige Air Pulse air mass flow rate
•
^Total Total air flow rate
N Number of samples
n Number of data points
P Absolute pressure
Pi Orifice upstream pressure
PAnnubar Annubar downstream pressure
xviii
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont)
Symbol Description
P„ „ , Control valve signal pressure
Control Valve
P„ _ ._ Fan exit pressure
Fan Exit
^Plenum Plenum pressure
PSparger Sparser
PSurge Tank Sur*e tank
PTank Pulse-air supply pressure
P,£0p Pressure above bed
QL Heat loss
R Mass flow of solids
R Regenerator
r2 Linear correlation coefficient
Re^ Reynolds number based on pipe diameter
Re^ Reynolds number based on perforated-plate hole diameter
Rg Universal gas constant
Sample. Gasifier-to-regenerator weight samples collected in
30 seconds
S , S Standard deviation
x y
T Absolute temperature
T Total
t Time
T Reference temperature
o
t , Ti Orifice downstream temperature
T Ambient temperature
A
xix
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont)
Symbol
Description
^Anriubar
Annubar
"Fail Exit"!
Fan Exitj
^Plenum 1
Plenum f
tTank' TTank
U
UA
V
Plenum
Tank
V , V
x' y
W
Wt./30 s
Bypass
W.
X
x
Xi
X.
1
*T
Y
a
xy
Annubar downstream temperature
Fan exit temperature
Plenum temperature
Pulse-air supply temperature
Gas superficial velocity
Heat-transfer constant for external walls
Plenum chamber approach velocity
Internal volume of pulse-air supply tank
Coefficients of variation
Bed weight
Gasifier-to-regenerator weight samples collected in
30 seconds
Bypass system mass flow rate
Individual load-cell capacity
Average value
Percent by weight
Data point, independent variable
Total system load-cell capacity
Expansion factor
Data point, dependent variable
Distance above reference level
Correlation coefficient
xx
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont)
Symbol Description
g Orifice-to-pipe diameter ratio
Individual cell composite absolute error
3ts Total system absolute error
AH Change in enthalpy
AKE Change in kinetic energy
AMiotai Air Pulse-air supply total air usage
AP. , Annubar differential pressure
Annubar
AP_ , Bed differential pressure (12 in.)
Bea-i-i
AP_ , 0. Bed differential pressure (24 in.)
Bed-/4
APfied ^00 differential Pressure (100 in.)
APE Change in potential energy
AP(Plate) Perforated-plate pressure differential
APq Orifice differential pressure
A?Tank Pulse-air supply pressure difference
AW Change in weight
U Viscosity
p_ , Bed-material bulk density
Bea
p_. ... Bleed air gas density
Bleed Air
Gas density
p„. Plenum chamber gas density
^Plenum
p_ Gas density above fluidized bed
Top
a2 Variance
a Composite load-cell error
xxi
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont)
Symbol Description
6^ Operating time
0„ , , Pulse to regenerator - On time
Pulse 1
0_ , _ Pulse to regenerator - Off time
Pulse 2
8puige 3 Pulse to gasifier - On time
0„ . , Pulse to gasifier - Off time
Pulse 4 b
xxii
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS—ENGLISH TO SI UNITS
Quantity
Length
Area
Volume
Velocity
Mass
Pressure
Temperature
Energy
Flow Rate
English System
Unit Symbol
In.
ft
in2
ft2
ft3
gal
ft/s
lb
t
lb/in2
in. H20
°F
°R
Btu
Btu/h
lb/h
.3
ft /min
Prefix Definitions
Unit Name
inch
foot
square inch
square foot
cubic foot
U.S. gallon
foot per second
pound (avoir)
ton (short)
pound per square inch
inch of water
(can also be differential)
degree Fahrenheit
degree Rankine
British thermal unit
British thermal unit per hour
pound per hour
cubic foot per minute
SI Equivalent
Unit Symbol Unit Name
meter
meter
square meter
square meter
cubic meter
cubic meter
meter per second
kilogram
kilogram
pascal
pascal
2.540
X
10 2 m
10"1 m
3.048
X
6.452
9.290
X
X
10"H m2
10 2 m2
2.832
3.785
X
X
10~2 m3
10 3 m3
3.048
X
10 1 m/s
4.536
X
10""'1 kg
9.072
X
102 kg
6.895
X
103 Pa
2.488
X
102 Pa
(°F-32)/1.8° C
°R/1.8 K
1.055 x 103 J
2.931 x 10"1 W
1.260 x lO"* kg/s
4.720 x lO-* m3/s
Suffix Definitions
degree Celsius
kelvin
joule
watt
kilogram per second
cubic meter per second
a
s
k
actual*
standard
kilo
a
g
absolutet
gage
*When dealing with volumetric flow rate.
tWhen dealing with pressure.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the guidance and support provided
by the Project Officer, Mr. Samuel Rakes. The author also wishes to express
gratitude to Dr. Graham Johnes, Mr. Z. Kowszun, Dr. Gerry Moss, and their
staff at the Esso Research Centre, Abingdon (ERCA) and to Mr. Arthur Saxton of
Exxon Research and Engineering, Florham Park for the helpful discussions and
experimental background information they provided.
xxv
-------
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (FWEC) is under contract with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Central Power and Light Company
(CPL) of Corpus Christi, Texas, for the design, construction, and testing of a
17.5-MW Chemically Active Fluid Bed (CAFB) Process Demonstration Plant retro-
fitted to a 20-MW natural-gas-fired steam generator at the La Palma Station in
San Benito, Texas. The objective of the CAFB process is to produce a low-
sulfur fuel gas suitable for power-plant utilization in a conventional steam
generator.
In the CAFB gasifier, high-sulfur fuel (liquid or solid) is injected
into a 1600°F* bed of lime (in situ calcined limestone) that is fluidized by a
mixture of flue gas and sub-stoichiometric air (-22 percent of stoichiometric).
The sulfur in the fuel is oxidized to a variety of sulfur compounds that are
predominantly reduced to hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The H2S formed reacts with
the lime to form calcium sulfide (CaS).
The CAFB gasification process is limited, however, by a decreasing
ability of the lime to absorb sulfur as the concentration of sulfur on the bed
material increases. To maintain the sulfur removal efficency (SRE) of the CAFB
gasifier, the sulfur-laden bed material must be removed from the gasification
zone and replaced with sulfur-free lime. Two methods of sulfur-free lime
replacement are available: (1) removal of spent stone and replacement with
fresh limestone or (2) regeneration of the spent stone in a regeneration vessel
with recirculation to the gasifier vessel for further sulfur absorption. Based
on the desirability of limiting the amount of sorbent required, and consequently
the amount of spent sorbent that must be removed, the regeneration mode of
operation was chosen for the demonstration plant.
Continuous pilot-plant tests conducted by Esso Research Centre, Abingdon
(ERCA), United Kingdom, have demonstrated that optimum regeneration of CaS to
calcium oxide (CaO) occurs at a temperature of -1900°F. Since the predominant
reactions occurring within the regenerator are all highly exothermic, a method
of cooling the regenerator to maintain this optimum operating temperature was
required. The method utilized in the ERCA pilot plant involved the circulation
^Metric conversions appear in the conversion factor table on p. xxiii.
1-1
-------
of large quantities of bed material between the 1900°F regenerator and the
1600°F gasifier. By circulating bed material between gasifier and regenerator
vessels not only is the required amount of sulfur-laden stone regenerated and
recirculated to the gasification zone, but the optimum regenerator temperature
is maintained by the transfer of heat from the regenerator to the gasifier.
The heat transferred to the gasifier is removed through absorption in the
gasifier recycle flue gas stream.
Operation of the CAFB process is highly dependent on the efficient and
reliable operation of the bed-material transfer system. A pulsed-jet transfer
system was used in the ERCA pilot plant, and a similar system was envisioned
for use in the La Palma demonstration plant. The maximum material transfer
rate obtainable in the ERCA pilot plant was -1000 lb/h, while the rates re-
quired at the demonstration plant are between 20,000 and 30,000 lb/h. Since a
very large scale-up factor was involved, and ERCA had stated that full-scale
cold modeling of the pilot plant system had proved useful, it was decided that
the proposed demonstration-plant bed-material transfer system would be modeled
at full-scale using an existing 36-ft2 (cross-sectional plan area) cold model
located at FWEC.
1-2
-------
Section 2
TEST MODEL AND TEST LOOP
2.1 TEST MODEL
The 36-ft2 cold model, which was used to study fluidized-bed character-
istics as related to the development of the multicell fluidized-bed steam gen-
erator under ERDA Contract E(49-18)-1237, appears in Figure 2.1. The model
consists of a steel chamber, 6 ft on a side and 11 ft high, with Plexiglas
windows so positioned as to allow visual observation of the fluidized bed. As
originally designed, a single 2-ft-deep bed of material rested on a removable
multi-sectioned perforated-plate air distributor. The lower 2-ft-high section
of the model below the air-distributor plate was used as a plenum chamber. The
model is supported 4 ft above floor level to allow access to the plenum chamber.
2.2 TEST LOOP
A schematic of the test loop required to complete the fluidized-bed
steam generator testing program appears in Figure 2.2. For the CAFB bed-
material transfer system testing, neither the coal nor fly-ash injection
systems were used and the tube bundle was removed. Air is supplied to the
model by two high-pressure centrifugal blowers. Flow rate for each blower can
be controlled by individual control dampers in each blower outlet duct. The
air next passes into the plenum chamber, where its temperature and pressure are
measured; through the air-distributor plate and bed; and into a cyclone separa-
tor and is exhausted through an exit duct from the laboratory. Elutriated bed
material is collected in a bin beneath the cyclone dust-collector exit.
The external bed-material removal and recycle systems are also illus-
trated in Figure 2.2. Bed material issues from a pipe located in a side wall
of the model onto a vibrating table feeder that discharges into the hopper feed
section of a bucket elevator. The bucket elevator discharges into a 4-in. pipe
that angles down across the space above the bed. This pipe discharges in the
far corner of the model, diagonally opposite the bed removal point.
Since the fluidizing-air flow rate required by the CAFB cold-model
testing was significantly lower than that required by the previous testing, a
bypass-air system was installed in the blower outlet ducts. Orifice plates
2-1
-------
Figure 2.1 Photograph of 36-ft2 Cold Model
2-2
-------
Figure 2.2 Test Loop Schematic for 36-ft2 Cold-Model System
2-3
-------
were used to measure the bypass-air flow rate. In addition to an improvement
in flow-rate control, the bypass-air system allows for system operation at a
lower plenum temperature than could be obtained by operating the blowers at a
lower point on the blower operating curve. Operation at a lower plenum tem-
perature is important in the CAFB testing because certain temperature-sensitive
instrumentation used in this testing (e.g., the load cells) was located within
the plenum chamber. Another significant reason for using the bypass system was
the fact that operation of the blowers at a higher overall mass flow rate
allows an amperage-versus-mass-flow-rate correlation* developed during previous
testing on the system (fluidized-bed steam generator testing) to be utilized.
Actual flow rates to the model are then obtained by the difference between
total flow rate and bypass flow rate.
*The rationale and particulars of this correlation are elaborated on in Ap-
pendix A.
2-4
-------
Section 3
GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
3.1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
3.1.1 Information From ERCA
Design work on the bed-material transfer system began with a review of
ERCA*s cold-model work1* on the pilot-plant bed-material transfer system. This
review provided sufficient background so that questions concerning ERCA's pre-
vious modeling experience (and how this experience could be applied to the new
modeling work) could be discussed during meetings between ERCA and FWEC per-
sonnel in Abingdon in August 1975.2 At this meeting, ERCA elaborated on the
cold-modeling information presented in their published reports, supplied FWEC
with several typical values for operating variables, and reviewed with FWEC a
preliminary design that had been developed by FWEC based on ERCA's published
data.
3.1.2 Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Measurement System
During the Abingdon visit, consideration was also given to the method
that would be used to measure material flow between gasifier and regenerator.
ERCA proposed that the method used in the continuous pilot-plant cold-model
tests be used. This method utilized an analogy between heat transfer and mass
transfer to obtain mass flow rates from temperature measurements. FWEC was in
favor of a system that replaced the gasifier and regenerator air-distributor
plates with perforated-plate weighbridges using strain-gage load beams to mea-
sure the change in weight when bed material was transferred between gasifier
and regenerator. A comparison performed by FWEC of the accuracy and cost of
each system showed the load-beam system to be superior in both respects. Con-
sequently, the load-beam system was used In the FWEC cold-model work. The
comparison used to make this decision is presented in Appendix B.
3.1.3 Air-Pulse System Generation—Measurement and Control
While the preliminary design that had been reviewed by ERCA and FWEC at
Abingdon was being incorporated within the 36-ft2 cold model, attention was
^Numbers designate references listed in Section 7.
3-1
-------
directed to the design of the system required to generate, control, and measure
the air pulses transferring bed material to and from the gasifier and regenera-
tor. The original air supply considered was an available pressure blower
operating at a pressure of 4 lb/in2g. Air pulses would be generated by the
use of solenoid valves controlled by timers. A more detailed examination of
this system, however, revealed two serious deficiencies. First, to maintain a
2- to 3-lb/in2g pressure at the transfer duct, the piping system from the
blower to the transfer duct would have to be approximately 4 in. in diameter.
The solenoid valves that produce the pulsating flow would become expensive and
slow-acting. Second, measurement of the quantity of air used to transfer
material is inherently inaccurate, because the usual flow-measurement devices
(e.g., orifices) are slow to respond to the rapid changes in back pressure as
the solenoids cycle on and off.
An alternate air supply that would give an accurate indication of the
air used to transfer bed material and would allow the use of 2-in.-diameter
pipelines (with correspondingly smaller, faster-acting solenoid valves) in-
volved the use of a large pressure vessel available at the Foster Wheeler John
Blizard Research Center in Livingston. The vessel would be pressurized to
100 lb/in2g using plant air, which is subsequently introduced into the gasifier
or regenerator through the solenoid valves previously mentioned. The amount of
air used during a test would be calculated from the change in tank pressure, in
a manner analogous to that used for small gas cylinders. Since this latter
design avoided the two major deficiencies in the original system, it was incor-
porated as part of the overall test system.
3.1.4 Cold-Model Bed-Material Selection
In preparation for preliminary system testing, a survey was performed
by FWEC to obtain a suitable bed material for use in the cold model. Based on
ERCA's cold-modeling experience, the bed material used was required to have a
size distribution between 630 and 3200 ym and a bulk density of 81 lb/ft3.
This last specification proved to be the most troublesome. The sand used in
previous cold-modeling work at FWEC was not suitable, because its bulk density
was closer to 100 lb/ft3. A literature search indicated that few materials
have a bulk density around 80 lb/ft3, but among the few listed were high-clay-
content brick, certain slags, and certain limestones.
Crushed brick had been used by ERCA, so inquiries were made to brick
suppliers in the New Jersey area. Two obstacles were encountered: (1) the
bricks in the area are not high in clay and do not have the proper bulk den-
sity, and (2) obtaining brick in crushed form was not possible, and FWEC would
have to crush and size the material.
The next material considered was a basic oxygen furnace slag that had
been used at FWEC as a fluidized-bed material in an 18-in.-diameter atmospheric
fluidized-bed combustor. Several laboratory tests indicated that this material
had the correct bulk density and that after it was sieved and blended could
serve as an acceptable bed material in the cold-modeling work. Problems
arose, however, with respect to materials handling. The slag is an outdoor
3-2
-------
material containing considerable surface moisture, is delivered in bulk only,
and is always partially frozen in the winter. To be usable, this material
would have to be shoveled into drums, sent out to be dried (FWEC does not have
sufficient drying facilities), redelivered in a dry condition in drums, and
sieved and blended. The cost of all these operations was estimated at approxi-
mately $2,000. The cost of drying alone was quoted at $75/h excluding shipping,
drums, etc. In addition, twice as much material as required for the bed weights
would have to be processed, since approximately 50 percent of the material is
lost during the sieving operation. The time involved in performing these
operations would also have caused an unacceptable delay in the cold-modeling
program.
The last material explored was limestone. Most limestones are unac-
ceptable since their bulk densities are close to 100 lb/ft3. One limestone was
found, however, with a loose bulk density of 89 lb/ft3. A size analysis for
this limestone appears in Table 3.1. A table of size distributions is presented
in Table 3.2. These size analyses include:
• Fresh and aged crushed brick used in the ERCA cold-model work3
• Several gasifier bed samples from ERCA's continuous pilot plant in
Abingdon, Runs 6 and 7
• Candidate materials for the FWEC cold-model work.1*
Although there are variances, the limestone size distribution compares favor-
ably with the ERCA data. The limestone was delivered in bags (which eliminated
a major solids-handling problem), was readily available, could be used in the
as-received form (no sieving required), and cost only $300 delivered. Although
the bulk density was higher than desired, based on the foregoing reviews, the
limestone material was ordered for use as bed material within the cold model.
3.2 PRIMARY GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER SYSTEM
3.2.1 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—
Original Configuration
The original bed-material transfer slot geometry and sparger design
appear in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. The transfer slots installed in the cold model
reproduced, full-scale, the transfer-slot design envisioned for installation at
La Palma. The transfer-slot dimensions were developed as a result of consulta-
tions with ERCA in August 1975. Two dimensions, especially, were developed
directly from these discussions. First, the horizontal slot discharges were set
6 in. above the air-distributor plate; second, the length of the horizontal
section of the bed-material transfer slot was set at -24 in. (see Figure 3.1).
ERCA indicated that the "hot" angle of repose (angle made by pile of material
with the horizontal) of the material was approximately 15 degrees, and the long
length of the horizontal section is, therefore, necessary to prevent "freewheel-
ing" of the material from the slot. (Freewheeling refers to the movement of
material from the slot without any pulsed air used as a driving force.) A
close-up of the transfer slot illustrating the 15-degree angle of repose appears
in Figure 3.3.
3-3
-------
Table 3.1 FWEC Limestone Bed-Material Size Analysis
Material: Limestone (Franklin 8-26 mesh) Bulk Density: 89 lb/ft3
Average Particle Size*: 750 ym Particle Density: 262 lb/ft3
Sieve
Sieve
Number
Size
On
Through
(square)
(Vim)
(%)
(%)
12
1700
0.1
99.9
14
1400
0.3
99.6
16
1190
8.3
91.3
18
1000
22.6
68.7
20
850
15.7
53.0
25
710
33.0
20.0
30
595
10.7
9.3
50
297
6.5
2.8
100
149
0.9
1.9
140
105
0.4
1.5
200
74
0.2
1.3
325
44
0.3
1.0
*Average Particle Size ¦ dp
where
a n
114,
i=l i
dp_^ » [dsv(i) + dsv(i + l)]/2
¦ Percent by weight in size range
-------
Table 3.2 Comparison of Varidus Bed-Material Size Analyses
I
-------
Table 3.2 Comparison of Various Bed-Material Size Analyses (Cont)
Material
Saaple
Nuaber
Through 3200
on 1400
(X by wt.)
Through 1400
on 850
(Z by wt.)
Through 850
on 600
(* by wt.)
Through 600
on 150
(Z by wt.)
Through 150
(Z by wt.)
Average
Particle Site*
(P«)
Sunset ion
(Z by wt.)
Extreaes
(fUgii/Lov)
Variation in
less than 150 else
51184
51156
12.5
16.1
39.4
42.4
24.4
23.4
23.6
18.0
0.2
0.0
729.0
799.4
99.9
99.9
High
l,ow
Variation In
average size
51001
51170
37.5
13.2
34.4
36.1
16.1
26.1
12.0
24.7
0.0
0.0
989.2
716.6
100.0
100.1
High
Low
FWEC Candidate
Bed Materials
Limestone
Franklin (8-Z6 aesh)
M22368
0.4
46.6
43.7
7.4
1.9
806.7
98.1
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Slag (6 x 50 aesh)
M22299
60.2
16.4
10.1
13.3
0
1109.3
100.0
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Slag (6 x 30 aesh)
M22299
62.8
22.0
14.4
0.7
0
1456.5
99.9
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Slag (Blend)
(16 x 50 aesh and
6 x 16 aesh)
M22299
30.3
18.6
20.2
30.9
0
714.4
100.0
-------
Figure 3.1 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—Original Configuration
-------
u>
I
00
2 j "copper pipe
PULSE TRANSFER
(HIGH VELOCITY AIR JET)
PULSE TRANSFER
AIR IN
Figure 3.2 Sparger for Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System
-------
15-DEGREE ANGLE OF REPOSE 35-DEGREE ANGLE OF REPOSE
Figure 3.3 Angle-of-Repose Comparison for Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System—Original Configuration
-------
Since no sparger design was selected by the Engineering Department, the
sparger that operated best in the cold model would be incorporated into the La
Palma design. Initially, a simple pipe sparger (Figure 3.2) was designed.
Logic suggested that the sparger holes be of moderate diameter (=1/8 in.) to
minimize the amount of material that would drain back into the sparger when the
system was inoperative and also to give a high-velocity jet (-600 ft/s) that
would apply a large force to the bed material within the slot. This sparger
would act very much like an ejector. When the system was operated, bed material
quickly filled the vertical leg of the transfer slot, but the spargers were
quite ineffective with respect to the transfer of bed material from the hori-
zontal leg of the slot.
3.2.2 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—
First Change
Review of the transfer-slot operation suggested that the horizontal leg
of the slot was much too long. Concern about the possibility of freewheeling
if the slot length was shortened prompted FWEC to measure the hot angle of re-
pose of bed material from the FWEC 18-in. Atmospheric Fluidized-Bed Combustor
located at the John Blizard Research Center. Repeated measurements of the bed-
material angle of repose gave values of 33 and 32 degrees at temperatures of
1300 and 1600°F respectively. A measurement made using the cold-model lime-
stone at room temperature produced a value of 35 degrees for the angle of
repose. Based on FWEC's information, the horizontal leg of the bed-material
transfer slot could be shortened without fear of producing a freewheeling
condition within the slot. A close-up of the transfer slot illustrating the
35-degree angle of repose appears in Figure 3.3.
The first method considered for reducing the length of the horizontal
leg of the transfer slot was the elimination of sections designated (A') in
Figure 3.1 and the repositioning of the vertical leg of the slot until it
touched the division wall. These changes would have reduced the length of the
horizontal leg of the slot to ^lO in. and prevented freewheeling when using a
material with an angle of repose of 35 degrees. The air-distributor plates in
both beds would have had to be extended to fluidize the bed material in each
new area (A') that was added. Additional air nozzles (used in the actual CAFB
for fluidizing the beds) could not be added to the La Palma design without
requiring a great deal of redesign and possible penalties on long-lead items
already ordered.
An alternate approach considered was to change the position of the
catchpocket (see Figure 3,1) of the vertical leg of the slot until it touched
the division wall as before and to replace the vertical leg of the slot with
one which sloped at an angle of 50 degrees with the horizontal. The length of
the horizontal leg of the slot was shortened to approximately 12 in. using this
method. Refractory experts were consulted, and they indicated that such an
arrangement would be satisfactory. Time and money limitations dictated that
all changes would be made to the regenerator-to-gasifier slot only. The slot-
work within the cold model was appropriately altered. The adjusted slotwork
configuration appears in Figure 3.4.
3-10
-------
Figure 3.4 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—First Change
-------
Figure 3.4 contains an additional variation from the original design,
namely, a triangular sparger instead of the original circular pipe sparger. As
the modified bed-material transfer slot design evolved, it became apparent that
there would be sealing and positioning problems when the circular-pipe sparger
was positioned against the sloped plate to produce a horizontal jet discharge.
Therefore, the circular-pipe sparger was replaced by a triangular sparger with
the jet discharge holes drilled at an angle in the lower sloped plate of the
two plates that formed part of the transfer slot. A limited degree of flexi-
bility in the quantity of air discharged and the position of air discharge
outlets was desired, and, accordingly, two rows of 1/8-in.-diameter holes (each
row containing 50 holes) were drilled and tapped in the plate. One row of
holes was drilled at a 50-degree angle to the horizontal, the other at a
40-degree angle to the horizontal. When the plate was in position within the
transfer slot, one row of holes would discharge horizontally and the other at
a downward angle of 10 degrees. For the initial testing, only the row of holes
discharging horizontally was activated; the other row of holes was closed by
small socket screws.
When the system was operated, bed material once again quickly filled
the vertical leg of the transfer slot. Unfortunately, the sparger again failed
to move bed material from the horizontal section of the transfer slot.
3-2.3 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—
Second Change
Based on the disappointing results of the first-generation change to
the system, the second row of holes in the triangular sparger was activated.
FWEC also decided that some type of activation should be applied to the hori-
zontal leg of the slot to reduce the resistance to flow, since its length could
not be physically reduced any further while using this transfer slot design.
Therefore, while the model was empty and the second set of sparger holes was
activated, a fluidization grid was installed within the horizontal section of
the bed-material transfer slot so that air could enter the entire horizontal
section from below. The position of the 1/2-in.-thick fluidization grid is
indicated in Figure 3.5. Activation airflow to the fluidization grid was
regulated by means of a valve and measured using an annubar flow-measurement
device.
The model was sealed, bed material was added, and the bed-material
transfer system was operated. The transfer system was operated initially using
only the triangular sparger with both rows of holes activated. No bed-material
transfer occurred. The sparger was deactivated and the fluidizatlon-grid
airflow was begun. Successful bed-material transfer was achieved, as evidenced
by the pulsed downward movement of bed material in the sloped section of the
transfer slot.
Although the bed-material transfer system using the fluidization grid
transferred bed material, the triangular sparger (with 1/8-in.-diameter holes)
appeared to add little or nothing to the transfer of bed material. It seemed
reasonable to assume that a more effective sparger would improve bed-material
3-12
-------
Figure 3.5 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—Third Change
-------
transfer by more easily evacuating the horizontal leg of the bed-material trans-
fer slot. In an attempt to increase the mass flow (and thus the horizontal
force component) from the triangular sparger, the 50 holes in the horizontal
discharge row of sparger holes were increased from 1/8- to 9/32-in. diameter.
The system was operated without the fluidization grid activated. Bed-material
transfer was achieved, as shown by an increase in bed height in the gasifier,
a corresponding decrease in the regenerator, and the visual evidence of bed
material descending in the sloped section of the transfer slot. The system was
also operated with only the fluidization grid activated and with both the
sparger and fluidization grid activated. Both bed-material activation methods
effectively transferred bed material, but the sparger accomplished this trans-
fer at a lower air-consumption rate. Nevertheless, a considerable portion of
the sparger and/or fluidization-grid air appeared to be diverted upward along
the sloped leg of the transfer slot and into the regenerator. In addition, it
was postulated that a portion of the jet-discharge momentum was destroyed
against the bottom surface of the horizontal slot because of the low position
of the sparger holes on the sloped plate.
3.2.4 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—
Third Change
Based on the desirability of reducing the volume of air diverted upward
along the sloped leg of the transfer slot and the difficulties involved in ad-
justing the height of the air discharge holes above the bottom surface of the
horizontal slot within a sloped plate, two changes were made to the transfer
system. First, in an attempt to reduce the air leakage upward along the sloped
section of the slot, the slot width was maintained at 6 in. at the catchpocket
level but reduced to 5 in. at the lowest section, which intersects the horizon-
tal slot. This arrangement is presented in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5 also illustrates the dimensions and position of the "new"
rectangular sparger designed to replace the triangular sparger. This sparger
is easily removable, and the position and number of the air discharge holes can
be easily altered. It was also felt that the larger length-to-height ratio pos-
sible in the rectangular sparger might minimize any problems with the bed
material's sifting into the relatively large (9/32-in.-diameter) sparger holes.
Operation of the revised system was successful, and the material ap-
peared to move evenly downward in the sloped slot with each activating air
pulse. The system was operated for several minutes, and a bed-material trans-
fer rate was calculated from the change in bed heights in both the gasifier and
regenerator. Disappointingly, the rate appeared to be only 3000 to 4000 lb/h.
As an additional confirmation of this transfer rate, another test was conducted,
in which the pulsed transfer system transferred material from the regenerator
to the gasifier while the external bed loading system simultaneously transferred
material back to the regenerator. (The external bed loading system consists of
a vibrating feeder, a bucket elevator, and a material return chute. The bed-
material removal rate from the vibrating feeder was set at the maximum.) The
bed-material removal rate from the gasifier (from the vibrating feeder), mea-
sured as weight per time, was maintained at 4104 lb/h. Bed levels in both the
3-14
-------
gasifier and regenerator were recorded before and after the test. The bed
levels were essentially unchanged, indicating that the pulsed transfer system
was transferring material at a rate of approximately 4100 lb/h. This bed-
material transfer rate was only one-eighth the required rate; thus further
modifications to the bed-material transfer slot and the sparger were deemed
necessary.
3.2.5 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—
Fourth Change
It was observed that during testing of the bed-material transfer system
described above (Figure 3.5), bed material slid downward along the sloped down-
comer section of the slot over only the upper half of the width of the slot and
that less than one-half the width of the horizontal section was active. To
increase the percentage of active sloped downcomer and horizontal sections, the
first changes made to the bed-material transfer slots were a reduction in the
width of the sloped section of the transfer slot from 6 to 4-1/4 in. and a re-
duction in the width of the horizontal section from 5-1/4 to 4-1/2 in. In ad-
dition, the angle formed between the sloped section of the slot and a horizontal
plane was reset at 50 degrees.
During preliminary testing, it was noticed that a significant percent-
age of gas (air) escaped upward along the upper face of the sloped downcomer.
In an effort to reduce the volume of gas escaping in this manner, the fluidiza-
tion grid was removed (leaving only the sparger as the bed-material transfer
motivating force), and a small wedge piece was introduced at the bottom of the
sloped downcomer section of the slot, reducing the width of the opening into
the horizontal section to 3-1/8 in. The new bed-material slot geometry appears
in Figure 3.6.
As stated previously, the bed-material transfer rate obtained using the
rectangular sparger containing fifty 9/32-in.-diameter holes was only 4000 lb/h.
Under the assumption that insufficient driving force was being employed, two
additional rows (each containing twenty-five 9/32-in.-diameter holes) were
added to the rectangular sparger. The vertical distances of the rows of holes
from the bottom of the horizontal slot became:
• 25 holes at 2 in.
• 50 holes at 2-3/4 in.
• 25 holes at 3-1/2 in.
The revised bed-material transfer system was operated, and some of the
changes that had been incorporated were effective, while others were not. For
instance, a greater percentage of both the sloped and horizontal sections of
the transfer slot appeared to be active; however, no decrease in gas loss along
the upper face of the sloped downcomer was observed. A possible explanation is
that the additional gas (air) input per pulse (caused by the additional number
of gas discharge holes in the sparger) negated to a large extent the expected
3-15
-------
catchpocketn
TRANSFER SLOT
7t
Figure 3.6 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—Fourth Change
-------
reduction in gas loss provided by the better packing of bed material at the
sloped downcomer exit. During these preliminary tests, the bed-material trans-
fer system performance deteriorated with increased time of operation. The
system was, therefore, deactivated, the beds drained, and the sparger removed.
Upon examination, it was discovered that a considerable quantity of bed material
had drained back through the 9/32-in.-diameter holes within the sparger. Since
sifting of bed material into the sparger was to be avoided and since preliminary
tests had indicated that too much air was being introduced into the sparger, it
was decided that the front face of the sparger (containing the three rows of
9/32-in.-diameter holes) would be replaced with a piece of perforated plate
containing 1/16-in.-diameter holes on a 0.375-in. equilateral triangular pitch
(2.56 percent free area). Tests using the new sparger (illustrated in Fig-
ure 3.6) showed it to have operating performance comparable to the sparger with
the 9/32-in.-diameter holes, while allowing only minimal 3ifting of bed material
into the sparger. The perforated-plate sparger was used for all subsequent
tests.
The bed-material transfer rate using the perforated-plate sparger ap-
peared to increase significantly over that obtained previously, as evidenced by
an increase in gasifier bed height during a test, although the external bed-
material recycle system was operating at maximum (=4100 Ib/h). This rise in
the gasifier bed height indicated that bed material was being transferred from
the regenerator to the gasifier by the pulsed transfer system faster than it
could be recycled externally to the regenerator.
Since previous tests had shown a marked bed-material transfer-rate de-
pendence on bed height, it was necessary to increase the transfer rate of the
external bed-material recycle system to maintain essentially constant bed
heights during transfer. Several changes to the recycle system were required
before an external bed-material recycle rate of 23,000 lb/h was obtained.
Under this recycle-rate condition, only small changes in bed height (approxi-
mately 2 to 4 in.) of the gasifier were obtained, indicating that the true
pulsed transfer rate was approximately 25,000 lb/h. A series of calibration
tests was performed to verify the rates obtained. Since the bucket elevator
used by the external recycle system is rated at a maximum throughput of approxi-
mately 23,000 lb/h, further modifications to increase the external bed-material
recycle rate were not deemed justifiable.
At this point, testing was begun on the tests outlined in the variable
testing matrix appearing in Table 3.3. The three variables considered in the
matrix are the pulse frequency (number of pulses per unit time), the pulse
duration (actual time of airflow), and the sparger pressure. Testing began
with the frequency tests, and after several tests a developing problem became
apparent. The bed-material transfer rate was suddenly and drastically reduced.
The bed-material transfer slot was disassembled to examine the perforated-plate
sparger. Bed material had obstructed a significant portion of the sparger open
area, even though the 1/16-in.-diameter holes are considerably smaller than the
9/32-in.-diameter holes used in previous spargers and even though sifting of
bed material through the 1/16-in.-diameter holes had not been observed before.
(The air-distributor plates within the cold model are made of the same perfo-
rated plate, and no sifting into the plenum chamber has ever been observed.)
3-17
-------
Table 3.3 Scheduled Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer Slot Variable Testing Matrix
Test
No.
Pulse
On-Time
(Setting)
Pulse
Off-Time
(Setting)
Sparger
AP
(lb/in2g)
FO,
FOR
0
0
6.5
Fl,
FIR
0
1
6.5
F2,
F2R
0
2
6.5
F3>
F3R
0
3
6.5
FA,
F4R
0
4
6.5
F5,
F5R
0
5
6.5
F6,
F6R
0
6
6.5
F7,
F7R
0
7
6.5
F8,
F8R
0
8
6.5
F9,
F9R
0
9
6.5
F10,
F10R,
0
10
6.5
DO,
DOR
0
2
6.5
Dl,
D1R
1
2
6.5
D2,
D2R
2
2
6.5
D3
D3R
3
2
6.5
D4,
D4R
4
2
6.5
D6
6
2
6.6
D8
8
2
6.5
BIO
10
2
6.5
Pfi .. 5 »
P6 . 5R
0
2
6.5
?5. 5>
P5. 5R
0
2
5.5
Ft*. 5»
Pit. 5S.
0
2
4.5
?3. 5 j
Ps. 5R
0
2
3.5
P2. 5 j
P2. 5R
0
2
2.5
*Note: Frequency tests were also performed with a bleed air system in use.
These tests are suffixed with an (A), e.g., FO(A).
3-18
-------
It was postulated that the back pressure of the bed following a pressure pulse
might have forced bed material into the sparger. To prevent such sparger
plugging, a small bleed air was applied to the sparger and set at a pressure of
approximately 2 lb/in2g. This pressure was sufficient to counteract the back
pressure of the bed from forcing the bed material into the sparger after each
pulse. All subsequent frequency tests were performed while the sparger bleed
air was activated, and no further sparger plugging was observed.
All frequency variation tests (FO to F10) and repeats (FOR to F10R)
were completed.* Although extensive data reduction was not available, prelimi-
nary examination of the data indicated that for most frequency values the bad-
material transfer rate increased as the pulse frequency decreased. A marked
decrease in system efficiency was observed near the minimum frequency setting
[FQ(A)] when the bleed-air system was in operation. At this frequency setting
a considerable portion of the transfer air rose upward along the sloped section
and was ineffective in promoting bed-material transfer. Although approximately
the same amount of bed material was transferred as in tests F1(A) and F3/4(A),
more transport air was required to accomplish the transport, resulting in a
lower efficiency.
3.3 ALTERNATE GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER SYSTEM
3-3.1 Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—
Original Configuration
On June 23, 1976, representatives of ERCA and Exxon met at the Foster
Wheeler John Blizard Research Center to observe a demonstration of the Primary
Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—Fourth Generation. After the
demonstration, ERCA commented that they felt that too much air was escaping
into the regenerator upward along the sloped downcomer section and that the
system's reliability could be improved. FWEC felt that the volume of air
escaping upward along the sloped downcomer section of the slot was directly
caused by the shallow 50-degree angle of the slope and could be greatly reduced
(if not eliminated) by the use of a steeper, sloped section. FWEC agreed with
ERCA, however, that the system reliability and reproducibility had not been
optimized. Previous testing indicated a strong bed-material transfer rate
dependence on both bed height and bed-material property characteristics (e.g.,
particle size distribution, particle shape, etc.). In fact, the bed-material
transfer rate dependence on bed height was the primary reason why the external
recycle system was used during testing. ERCA and Exxon had performed some bed-
material transfer calculations and stated that the results indicated that the
present, rectangular bed-material transfer slot should be replaced with several
5- to 6-in.-diameter circular slots.
Based on considerations of cost, time, and model availability, FWEC
decided that the best compromise would be to perform the remainder of the vari-
able testing matrix outlined in Table 3.3 on the Primary Bed-Material Transfer
System and to also perform tests on a single circular-slot configuration.
*Frequency tests were also performed with the bleed-air system in use. These
tests are suffixed with an (A), e.g., F0(A),
3-19
-------
The circular-slot configuration, which was developed by ERCA/Exxon with
input from FWEC, appears in Figure 3.7. This system operated in a similar man-
ner to the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System except
that it transferred material from the gasifier to the regenerator in the cold
model. Bed material from the gasifier entered the top of the 5-in.-diameter
tube and slid downward to the bottom. This defluidized bed material was
entrained in the airstream issuing from the 1/2-in.-diameter tube and was
propelled from the 3-in.-diameter tube into the regenerator. This system
operated with either a continuous airstream coming from the 1/2-in.-diameter
tube or with pulses of air (as used with the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-
Material Transfer System). When air pulses were used, bleed air was required.
The extent of insertion of the 1/2-in.-diameter tube within the 3-in. tube was
also variable.
The first test performed using this Alternate Bed-Material Transfer
System illustrated a defect within this design. A major reason for installing
the 3-in.-diameter tube at an upward angle of 20 degrees with the horizontal
was to enable the tube to be "rodded out" from the plenum chamber. Unfortu-
nately, unless a constant bleed air was maintained within the 1/2-in.-diameter
tube, bed material would drain into that tube and block it. When this happened,
even a pressure in excess of 20 lb/in2g would not evacuate the bed material
from the tube. Almost the entire regenerator bed had to be removed before the
tube could be removed. To prevent a recurrence of this problem, a small sec-
tion of 30-mesh screening was installed within the tube approximately 1 in.
from its exit. Although the model was operated in a batchwise mode after that
time, the bed-material drainage problem did not recur. As previously done, a
new external recycle system (from regenerator to gasifier) was installed to
better control the bed heights in both beds during a test and to obtain a
better measurement of the bed-material transfer rate.
Preliminary bed-material transfer rates obtained using the Alternate
Bed-Material Transfer System were disappointing. Several trial tests were
performed using both the continuous and pulsing modes of operation. Fairly
repeatable maximum bed-material transfer rates of only 2000 to 3000 lb/h were
obtained. A direct measurement of the descent rate within the 5-in.-diameter
tube indicated a rate of 0.4 to 0.5 in./s, which corresponded to a mass trans-
fer rate of approximately 1600 to 2000 lb/h (assuming a bulk density of 100 lb/
ft3). Considering the greater frictional drag at the tube wall, the directly
and indirectly measured bed-material transfer rates were in good agreement.
From these preliminary tests performed using the Alternate Gasifier-
Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System, it appeared that changes in process
variables alone would not increase the bed-material transfer rate to the mini-
mum acceptable value of 10,000 lb/h per slot and that changes in the transfer
slot geometry itself would be required. While the Alternate System was being
studied to ascertain where and what changes should be made, the remaining tests
(pulse duration and sparger pressure) were scheduled to be performed using the
Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System so that the maximum
performance data on both systems would be available for evaluation.
3-20
-------
Figure 3.7 Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
Slot—Original Configuration
3-21
-------
When testing resumed, duration tests DO(A) and D2(A) were performed.
Results obtained during these two duration tests indicated that an increase in
pulse duration did not improve system performance (bed-material flow rate).
The use of additional activating gas to attain this flow rate was required.
Thus the remaining duration tests outlined in Table 3.3 were not performed.
Similarly, since the sparger operating pressure was already at 6.5 lb/in2g and
the system was not achieving the desired bed-material flow rate, tests at lower
and higher pressures were deemed of little value in achieving the program objec-
tives.
Therefore, during the final weeks in which testing could be performed,
efforts were concentrated on developing a new system that would transfer the
required amount of material.
3.3.2 Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—
First Change
During the previous testing performed on the alternate gasifier-
regenerator bed-material transfer slot (Figure 3.7), active material transport
was confined to a small area at the transition bend between the downcomer and
the transport section. Observation showed that the section was obviously
limiting the bed-material transfer rate. Consequently, the area between the
downcomer and the transport section slot was increased by the addition of a
triangular transition piece, and the horizontal section of the transfer slot
was changed from a 20-degree upward slope to a 20-degree downward slope. Fig-
ure 3.8 presents a cross section of the modified transfer slot illustrating its
angular orientation within the model.
When this modified transfer slot was operated, a considerable volume of
transport gas escaped upward within the downcomer section- (5-in. tube) in the
form of bubbles. Bed-material transfer rates remained at the 2000 lb/h level,
and performance in general was inferior to the Alternate System prior to modifi-
cations. The position of the activating gas tube was varied extensively within
the transfer slot, but to no avail. Although air leakage within the downcomer
section was reduced by insertion of the activating gas tube within the transfer
slot, the bed-material transfer rate was not increased. Thus no further testing
of this slot configuration was performed.
3.4 FINAL GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER SYSTEM
3.4.1 Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—
Original Configuration
Experience with all of the slot configurations used did, however, in-
dicate a direction for a new design. For instance, tests on the original and
modified alternate gasifier-regenerator bed-material transfer systems indicated
that the downcomer section of the slot is very sensitive to angular orientation
and that as steep an angle as possible is required. In addition, the Alternate
Bed-Material Transfer System highlighted the virtues of modularization. Based
3-22
-------
ruL°
*23
cs> *
ed^t
-------
on this prior experience, the bed-material transfer slot illustrated in Fig-
ure 3.9 was developed. So that the downcomer could be vertical, a section was
cut from the gasifier-regenerator division wall. With this constraint the mini-
mum horizontal slot that could be maintained had an overall length of 18 in.
The 3-1/2 in. by 6 in. downcomer opening was now 8 in. from the fluidized bed,
and material feed from the bed was not able to keep the downcomer filled. The
sloping catchpocket section was added to the downcomer section to overcome this
deficiency. The activating gas was delivered through a perforated-plate sparger.
This latest bed-material transfer slot design was tested with great
success. A bed-material transfer rate of 20,000 lb/h of material was obtained
with a gas usage of only 50 sft3/m* and a sparger pressure of only 2-1/2 to
3 lb/in g. Subsequent testing confirmed these results. Testing also confirmed
that a variation in bed-material transfer rate could be achieved by varying the
pulse frequency. A problem did develop, however, as more testing was performed.
Performance of the system appeared to deteriorate with time. A check on ma-
terial flow rate versus air usage confirmed a decrease in both at constant
sparger pressure drop, indicating sparger plugging. The system was disassembled
and examined. Considerable plugging of the sparger face (perforated plate) was
evident. Use of a gas bleed to prevent the sparger's plugging was rejected on
the basis of previous tests that showed the gas bleed to have a deleterious
effect on material flow in the downcomer section. Consequently, a 60-mesh
screen was positioned over the perforated plate in an attempt to alleviate the
plugging problem. The system was then reassembled and retested.
When performance again deteriorated with time, the system was disas-
sembled and examined. This time, the 60-mesh screen was plugged with fines.
A new solution was required.
3.4.2 Final Gasifler-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—
First Change
A new sparger had to be designed. Based on ail previous testing ex-
perience, the sparger design presented in Figure 3.10 was developed. Small
30-mesh screens were positioned in the three flow tubes as an added precaution
against pluggage that might be caused by material backflow into the sparger.
The final, complete system is shown in Figure 3.11. This system was tested in
the cold model without any pluggage or loss in system performance and has been
selected for use at La Palma. The system geometry, basic design parameters,
and operating conditions were transmitted to the FWEC Contract Design Depart-
ment for inclusion in the gasifier/regenerator drawings. A pictorial represen-
tation of the Final System as it will appear in the gasifier and regenerator
appears in Figure 3.12. Since each transfer-slot system can transfer a maximum
of 20,000 lb/h, a total of four slots (two on each side of the flow-inducement
wall) will be used at La Palma to obtain a maximum transfer rate of 40,000 lb/h.
Extra air/flue gas nozzles have been located at the outlet of the slots to
increase fluidization of the bed material at this point and to help promote
bed-material transfer. Based on the nonplugging performance exhibited in the
cold-model tests, small screens in the sparger tubes at La Palma were deemed
unnecessary.
~Standard conditions are 14.7 lb/in2a and 70°F.
3-24
-------
Figure 3.9 Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot
Original Configuration
3-25
-------
I X.D. TUBES
SCREEN (Typl.)
I
PRESSURE TAP
I.D. AIR SUPPLY
Figure 3.10 Redesigned Sparger for Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed
Material Transfer System
3-26
-------
Figure 3.11 Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot-
First Change
3-27
-------
To permit each transfer slot to operate independently, individual
sparger manifolds have been provided. As a result, the two transfer slots on
each side of the flow-inducement wall are displaced 3 in. in height from each
other, as depicted in Figure 3.12. Although this feature added some complexity
to the system, the potential increase in system reliability and flexibility was
considered ample compensation.
3-28
-------
Bed Mcrteriol Tronyfw Slot
Catch Pocket
Downcomcr Section
Transport Section
Transport Gas Exit Tubes
Figure 3.12 Pictorial Representation of La Palma Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System
-------
Section 4
TEST RESULTS
4.1. GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The purpose of this investigation was to develop a system that would
transfer large amounts of bad material per unit time between two operating
fluidized beds while utilizing a minimum quantity of activating ga3 and main-
taining a minimum activating gas pressure. The system should also allow only
minimal gas leakage back into the "supply" bed and provide an accurate and
reliable control of the transfer rate.
4.2 CALIBRATIONS
4.2.1 Weighbridges
Before testing of the original configuration of the Primary Gasifier-
Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System could begin, several system components
had to be calibrated. The first components calibrated were the gasifier and
regenerator weighbridges. A static-weight calibration for each weighbridge
appears in Tables 4,1 and 4.2. The agreement between the display reading and
actual weight using static weights is excellent. When a known weight of bed
material was substituted for the static weights, however, an appreciable de-
viation between the true weight and the display reading was observed. It was
evident that a considerable portion of the downward bed- material weight force
was being counteracted by an upward frictional force of the bed material against
the side walls of the gasifier and regenerator. To use the weighbridge system
to measure a change in bed weight, fluidized calibrations of bed weight versus
display reading were made. The data from these calibrations are presented in
tabular form in Table 4.3 and graphically in Figures 4.1 through 4.3. These
calibrations were performed in the following manner. A known weight of bed
material was charged to the gasifier or regenerator and fluidized for several
minutes. The bed was then defluidized and the display reading recorded. The
bed was fluidized again and a known weight of bed material removed through the
bed removal system. The beds were once again defluidized and the display
reading again recorded. The true weight at this point was the previous true
weight minus the amount of material removed. In this way a graph of display
reading versus true weight was obtained.
4-1
-------
Table 4.1 Gasifier Weighbridge Calibration Using Static Weights
True Weight
Display
True Weight
Display
True
Difference
Reading
True
Difference
Reading
Weight
Display
(1+1) - (I)
Difference
Weight
Display
(1+1) - (I)
Difference
No.
(lb)
Reading
(lb)
(1+1) - (I)
No.
(lb)
Reading
(lb)
(1+1) - (I)
1
0
0
80
81
14
1000
1003
162
163
2
80
81
80
81
15
1162
1166
185
185
3
160
162
80
80
16
1347
1351
191
192
4
240
242
80
80
17
1538
1543
5
320
322
80
80
18*
1000
1006
46
46
6
400
402
80
80
19
1046
1052
39
40
7
480
482
80
81
20
1085
1092
79
80
8
560
563
80
80
21
1164
1172
73
73
9
640
643
80
80
22
1237
1245
185
186
10
720
723
80
80
23
1422
1431
165
162
11
800
803
80
80
24
1587
1593
191
192
12
880
883
80
80
25
1778
1785
259
260
13
960
963
40
40
26
2037
2045
*Some weight removed.
-------
Table 4.2 Regenerator Weighbridge Calibration
Using Static Weights
True Weight
Display
True
Difference
Reading
Weight
Display
(1+1) - (I)
Difference
No.
(lb)
Reading
(lb)
(1+1) - (I)
1
2
1
80
82
2
82
83
80
81
3
162
164
80
82
4
242
246
80
76
5
322
328(322)*
80
80
6
402
402
80
80
7
482
482
80
80
8
562
562
80
80
9
642
642
80
79
10
722
721
80
80
11
802
801
80
80
12
882
881
80
80
13
962
961
40
41
14
1002
1001(1002)*
80
81
15
1082
1083
80
80
16
1162
1163
40
40
17
1202
1203
163
163
18
1365
1366
185
184
19
1550
1550
191
192
20
1741
1742
229
228
21
1970
1970
*Span adjustment reset; use figure in parenthesis.
4-3
-------
Table 4.2 Regenerator Weighbridge Calibration
Using Static Weights (Cont)
True Weight
Display
True
Difference
Reading
Weight
Display
(1+1) - (I)
Difference
No.
(lb)
Reading
(lb)
(1+1) - (I)
Unloading Weights
22
1203
1203
80
80
23
1123
1123
80
80
24
1043
1043
78
80
25
965
963
80
80
26
885
883
80
80
27
805
803
80
80
28
725
723
79
80
29
646
643
80
80
30
566
563
80
80
31
486
483
80
80
32
406
403
80
80
33
326
323
80
80
34
246
243
80
80
35
166
163
80
80
36
86
83
81
80
37
5
3
4-4
-------
Table 4.3 Fluidized Calibrations 1 and 2
Calibration 1
Calibration 2
Bed
Height
(in.)
Display
Reading
True
Weight
(lb)
Bed
Height
(in.)
Display
Reading
True
Weight
(lb)
26
1185
2286
26
1174
2179
24
1181
2082
23
1151
1989
22
1139
1876
20
1117
1798
20
1074
1672
18
1061
1592
16
990
1468
16
960
1388
15
885
1265
14
873
1194
12
785
1061
10
673
858
9
590
656
4-5
-------
10 kg
10-|
9 -
8 -
7-
5 -
4-
3-
(
I02lb
21 n
20
19
18-
17-
16-
15-
14-
13-
12-
II-
10-
9-
8-
7
6-4
500
600
700
800 900
DISPLAY READING
1000
—i—
1100
1200
Figure 4.1 Fluidized Calibration 1
4-6
-------
I02 kg
10 1
9 -
8 -
7-
X
o
UJ
£
UJ
Z>
cc
H-
6 -
4-
{
I02tb
2H
20
19
18-
17-
16
15-
14'
13
te-
ll-
10-
9H
8
7H
€
500
600
T
—1—
900
700 800
DISPLAY READING
1000
—,—
U00
1200
Figure 4.2 Fluidized Calibration 2
4-7
-------
I02 kg
10 lb
2I -j
20-
19-
18-
17-
16-
15-
14-
I3H
12-
II-
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-1
Legend;
O Colibrotion 1
0 Calibration 2
Bed Wt.=3.99779 (Display)-2644.69362 ra=0.981
(Display >1060)
Bed Wt.= 1.95650 (Display)-481.93510 r2=0.997
(590 < Display £1060)
—I—
600
500
700
800
900
DISPLAY READING
1000
• "i
1100
1200
Figure 4.3 Combined Fluidized Calibrations 1 and 2
4-8
-------
4.2.2 Timers
The four timers used to control the on or off times of the solenoid
valves were calibrated in terms of timer setting versus actual time in seconds.
A tabular presentation of these calibrations appears in Table 4.4. A graphical
representation of these calibrations illustrating the variation in data appears
in Figures 4.4 through 4.7.
4.3 PRELIMINARY TESTS
As illustrated in Section 3, the primary gasifier-regenerator bed-
material transfer slot failed to transfer any bed material until the second-
generation changes described in Section 3.2.3 were made. Data points were not
recorded until the third generation of the primary gasifier-regenerator bed-
material transfer slot (as shown in Figure 3.5) had been developed. As de-
scribed in Section 3.2.4, for some tests bed material was transferred in only
one direction for a short period of time and the bed-material transfer rate
calculated from the change in bed weight (determined from display readings and
the fluidized calibration curve) over the operating time period. As an addi-
tional confirmation of the transfer rate, the external recycle system was used
to maintain constant bed levels. The agreement in bed-material transfer rate
was acceptable.
In an effort to improve the efficiency of both material transfer rate
and transport-air utilization, the system changes described in Section 3.2.5
were made. Data points were obtained for both the rectangular sparger which
contained one hundred 9/32-in.-diameter holes and the rectangular sparger when
the front face was replaced with a section of perforated plate. This slot
design incorporating the perforated-plate sparger was designated Primary
Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—Fourth Change and is illus-
trated in Figure 3.6.
The bed-material transfer rate using the perforated-plate sparger
appeared to increase significantly over that obtained previously, as evidenced
by a large increase in gasifier bed height even when the external recycle
system was transferring material from the gasifier to the regenerator at the
maximum rate of 4100 lb/h. Since previous tests had shown a marked bed-
material transfer rate dependence on bed height in either bed, the efficiency
of the external recycle system was improved to maintain essentially constant
bed heights during bed-material transfer. Because the bed-material transfer
rate was now determined by the external recycle system bed-material removal
rate, with the bed levels in both gasifier and regenerator held essentially
constant, the weighbridge system was no longer used to measure a change in
weight per unit time. The weighbridges did, nevertheless, perform a useful
function during data acquisition.
When the beds were slumped, the display indicated the weight of bed
material (after reference to the calibration discussed earlier). As fluidizing
air was admitted to the bed, the display value decreased and became negative.
4-9
-------
Table 4.4 Calibrations for Transport-Air Pulse-Control Timers
(time in seconds)
Setting
Low
Value
Calibration
High
Value
Average*
Error
(±>
% Error
(±>
1
2
3
4
Timer (1) - ON
0
1.0
1.9
2.3
1.65
0.65
39.4
1
4.0
4.9
4.6
4.6
4.8
5.1
4.55
0.55
12.1
2
5.5
6.1
6.2
6.0
6.2
6.7
6.10
0.60
9.8
3
7.7
8.4
8.2
8.1
8.1
9.0
8.35
0.65
7.8
4
9.9
10.0
10.2
10.3
10.5
11.2
10.55
0.65
6.2
5
12.4
12.8
12.6
12.7
13.0
13.6
13.00
0.60
4.6
6
14.9
15.0
14.8
15.0
15.4
16.0
15.45
0.55
3.6
7
17.3
17.4
17.3
17.2
17.7
18.4
17.85
0.55
3.1
8
19.5
20.0
20.0
19.9
20.1
21.3
20.40
0.90
4.4
9
21.7
21.8
21.9
21.7
22.0
23.0
22.35
0.65
2.9
10
24.9
24.9
24.0
24.7
26.0
27.2
26.05
1.15
4.4
Timer (2) - OFF
0
1.3
2.0
2.4
1.85
0.55
29.7
1
3.9
4.0
4.5
4.3
4.6
4.9
4.40
0.50
11.4
2
5.8
5.8
6.1
6.0
6.2
6.8
6.30
0.50
7.9
3
8.0
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.5
9.6
8.80
0.80
9.1
4
10.8
10.6
10.9
10.6
11.0
11.7
11.25
0.45
4.0
5
13.1
12.7
12.8
12.8
13.2
13.8
13.45
0.35
2.6
6
14.5
14.2
14.4
14.3
14.7
15.2
14.85
0.35
2.4
7
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.9
16.6
17.1
16.55
0.55
3.3
8
18.5
18.6
18.3
18.1
18.8
19.5
19.00
0.50
2.6
9
19.9
20.1
19.7
19.7
20.4
21.7
20.80
0.90
4.3
10
24.9
24.6
24.1
24.3
26.0
26.9
25.90
1.00
3.9
* low + high
Average = ^
-------
Table 4.4 Calibrations for Transport-Air Pulse-Control Timers
(time in seconds) (Cont)
Setting
Low
Value
Calibration
High
Value
Average*
Error
(±)
% Error
(±)
1
2
3
4
Timer (3) - ON
0
0.7
1.2
1.8
1.25
0.55
44.0
1
4.3
4.5
4.9
4.7
5.0
5.5
4.90
0.60
12.2
2
6.5
6.9
7.1
6.7
7.0
7.5
7.00
0.50
7.1
3
8.4
8.9
8.6
8.8
8.8
9.5
8.95
0.55
6.1
4
10.7
10.9
10.8
10.6
11.0
11.8
11.25
0.55
4.9
5
12.9
12.8
13.0
12.8
13.3
13.7
13.30
0.40
3.0
6
14.6
15.0
14.9
15.0
15.5
15.9
15.25
0.65
4.3
7
17.0
17.4
17.0
16.8
17.6
18.5
17.75
0.75
4.2
8
19.3
19.9
19.6
19.1
19.8
20.5
19.90
0.60
3.0
9
21.2
21.5
21.3
20.8
21.5
22.3
21.75
0.55
2.5
10
25.0
24.9
24.0
24.5
25.8
26.8
25.90
0.90
3.5
Timer (4) - OFF
0
0.5
1.0
1.8
1.15
0.65
56.5
1
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.0
3.8
4.4
3.95
0.45
11.4
2
5.1
5.0
5.5
5.3
5.6
5.8
5.45
0.35
6.4
3
7.0
7.3
7.6
7.2
7.6
8.1
7.55
0.55
7.3
4
9.4
9.7
9.8
9.4
9.8
10.5
9.95
0.55
5.5
5
11.5
11.6
11.4
11.5
11.9
12.5
12.00
0.50
4.2
6
13.5
13.7
13.3
13.9
13.9
14.6
14.05
0.55
3.9
7
15.5
15.8
15.7
15.6
16.1
16.8
16.15
0.65
4.0
8
17.7
18.5
18.1
17.9
18.2
18.7
18.20
0.50
2.7
9
19.4
20.0
19.7
19.8
19.9
20.7
20.05
0.65
3.2
10
23.3
23.5
23.5
23.7
24.5
25.5
24.40
1.10
4.5
-------
30—1
28-
26-
24-
22-
20-
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6-
4-
2-
Legend:
Average
Low and High Limiti
T 1 1 r
2 3 4 5
T
8
l
10
TIMER SETTING
Figure 4.4 Calibration for Transport-Air Pulse-Control Timer 1
4-12
-------
TIMER SETTING
Figure 4.5 Calibration for Transport-Air Pulse-Control Timer 2
4-13
-------
TIMER SETTING
Figure 4.6 Calibration for Transport-Air Pulse-Control Timer 3
4-14
-------
TIMER SETTING
Figure 4.7 Calibration for Transport-Air Pulse-Control Timer 4
4-15
-------
It was discovered that if approximately the same negative number was maintained
in the display for both fluidized beds* the bed levels remained essentially
constant. The negative displays provided a means of maintaining an approxi-
mately constant and equal bed height in both gasifier and regenerator during a
test, resulting in the virtual elimination of the bed-height effect from the
bed-material transfer rate determination.
A summary of the results of preliminary tests labeled A through Y is
presented in Table 4.5. A discussion of the data collected, the calculation
procedure used to reduce the data from all tests, and a sample calculation are
presented in Appendix C. The complete calculation sheets for the preliminary
tests appear in tabular form in Appendix D. With reference to the performance
criteria presented in Section 4.1, the calculated values of greatest interest
are those dealing with the amount, control, and efficiency of bed-material
transfer. Consequently, where data were available, the bed-material transfer
rate was presented graphically versus the time between pulses, the transport-
air flow rate, and the transport ratio.* Graphical presentations of bed-
material transfer rate versus transport-air flow rate and of transport ratio
for the preliminary tests are presented in Figures 4.8 and 4.9 respectively.
4.4 PRIMARY GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER
SYSTEM TESTS
4.4.1 Frequency Tests Without Bleed Air
Based on the high bed-material transfer rates obtained during the final
preliminary tests (utilizing the perforated-plate sparger and the improved ex-
ternal recycle system), formal testing of the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-
Material Transfer System—Fourth Generation was begun. Testing began with the
frequency tests outlined in the variable testing matrix shown in Table 3.3.
Considerable back-sifting of bed material into the perforated-plate sparger,
however, necessitated the introduction of a sparger bleed air. Tests on the
Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—Fourth Generation
without bleed air were, therefore, not completed. A summary of the tests
performed prior to the introduction of bleed air is presented in Table 4.6.
The complete calculation sheets for the frequency tests without bleed air
appear in Appendix E. Bed-material transfer rate data versus time between
pulses, transport-air flow rate, and transport ratio for the non-bleed air
frequency tests are presented graphically in Figures 4.10 through 4.12.
4.4.2 Frequency Tests With Bleed Air
In response to the sparger pluggage problem mentioned in Section 4.4.1
and described in Section 3.2.5, a complete set of variable-frequency test data
was generated for the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System—Fourth Generation after the sparger bleed air was introduced. As
*The transport ratio is defined as equal to the amount of bed material trans-
ferred by 1 sft3 of activating gas (standard conditions are 14.7 lb/in2a and
70°)F.
4-16
-------
Table 4.5 Summary of Results of the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Third
and Fourth Generations—Preliminary Tests
¦JJ-
fr—4
Air
Sparger
Air
Bed-Material
Transport
Operating
Flow Rate
Pressure
Pulse Tine
Flow Rate*
Transfer Rate
Ratio
Tine
Test
(lb/nln)
(lb/in2g)
(a)
(sf13/nln)
(lb/h)
(lb/aft1 air)
(min)
Comments
On
Off
50-Hole Sparger:
A
4.73
6
63.19
4.104
1.08
15
Recycle on
B
A.88
6
65.16
2,730
0.70
10
Recycle off
C
3.88
51.84
4,104
1.32
10
Recycle on
»+
4.33
57.76
3,534
1.02
10
Recycle off
E
4.44
59.24
2.928
0.82
5
Recycle off
F
13.59
181.42
7,575
0.70
4
Recycle off
C
5.43
72.57
5,040
1.16
10
Recycle on
H
10.35
138.23
9,594
1.16
6
100-Hoie Sparger:
I
8.87
118.48
16,044
2.26
5
Recycle on
J§
8.871
5
118.481
5,192
0.73
15
Recycle onl
K
8.43
112.56
10,560
1.56
5
Recycle on
L§
8.431
112.561
6.588
0.9S
15
Recycle onl
M
7.52
100.38
9,444
1.57
9
Recycle on
Perforated-Plate
Sparger:
N
7.61
101.55
8,789
1.44
7
Pipe recycle
0$
7.611
101.551
14,935
2.45
5.31
Questionable!
P
6.14
82.02
20,114
4.09
6.5
Improved recycle
Q
9.10
=6
121.54
17,212
2.36
8.65
Improved recyclel
R
9.10
6.5
121.50
16,242
2.23
9.14
Improved recyclel
S
11.65
6.5
155.51
14,863
1.59
7
Improved recyclel
T
13.10
6.5
174.92
20,027
1.91
6.35
Improved recyclel
U
8.88
7
1.25
1.15
118.56
26,629
3.74
9.87
Improved recycle
V
9.65
6.5
1.25
1.15
128.82
26,044
3.37
8.45
Improved recycle
M
7.19
7.3
96.03
22,475
3.90
11.57
Improved recycle
X
7.59
7.3
101.32
22,989
3.78
10.82
Improved recycle
YS
7.591
——
101.321
22,072
3.63
30
Improved recyclel
'Standard conditions are 14.7 lb/in2a and 70°F.
tPlugged.
SCoapressor running.
1 Assumed to be the saoe as a previous run.
-------
JO
28
26
24
22
20
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6-
4-
2-
O
»/h
Legend:
O Preliminary -50 O /v
0 Preliminary -100
A Preliminary-Perforated
^ Preliminary -Perforated (improved recycle)
NOTE:
Filled in points are questionable.
o
%
0
o
o ¦
°%°e
I 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 TO 80 90 100 HO 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
I 1 1 1 1— sm5/min
1 2 3 4 5
TRANSPORT AIR FLOW RATE
:y Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Third and Fourth Generations-
linary Tests—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Transport-Air Flow Rate
-------
kg/im3
300n
280
260-
240-
220
200
180
160-
140-
120
100-
80-
60-
40
20-
0-
lb/sft3
I81
17-
16-
15-
14-
13-
12-
II-
10-
9
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
I -
0
r
o
Legend:
© Preliminary - 50
0 Preliminary -100
A Preliminary - Perforated
O Preliminary -Perforated (improved recycle)
Filled in points are questionable.
O
4gc
0
~
1 I » 1 1 1 1 I I r l 'I » JO3ito/h
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
T
T*
2
-r
4
T"
5
1
6
7
-r
8
T
9
T"
10
1
12
lO'ktfh
BED MATERIAL TRANSFER RATE
Figure 4.9 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Third
and Fourth Generations—Preliminary Tests—Transport Ratio vs.
Bed-Material Transfer Rate
4-19
-------
Table 4.6 Summary of Results of the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Fourth Generation—Frequency Tests Without Sparger Bleed Air
i
N>
O
Test
No.
Plenum
Superficial
Velocity
(ft/s)
Above-Bed
Superficial
Velocity
(ft/s)
Air
Flow Rate
(lb/nln)
Sparger
Pressure
(lb/in*g)
Pulse
Time
(s)
Air
Flow Rate
(sft'/min)
Bcd-Haterial
Transfer Rate
(lb/1.)
Transport
Ratio
(lb/sft5 air)
Operating
Time
(mln)
Caa.
Regen.
Gas.
Regen.
On
Off
FO
5.36
6.05
6.05
6.84
6.91
7.5
1.25
1.15
92.27
21,120
3.81
11.50
FOR,
5.94
7.92
6.79
9.11
4.87
7.0
1.25
1.15
65.06
21,240
5.44
16.53
F0R2
4.56
5.80
5.15
6.55
5.08
7.0
1.25
1.15
67.87
18,920
4.65
15.47
F1
4.82
6.31
5.44
7.12
2.87
7.2
1.25
3.95
38.38
14,940
6.49
6.46
FIR i
4.40
6.26
4.97
7.07
3.10
7.0
1.25
3.95
41.43
18,720
7.53
20.00
F1R2
4.48
6.26
5.06
7.07
2.98
7.1
1.25
3.95
39.76
18,800
7.88
20.00
F2
4.58
5.67
5.20
6.44
3.71
7.0
1.25
5.45
49.61
20,040
6.73
20.00
F2R,
4.75
5.84
5.33
6.56
2.34
7.0
1.25
5.45
31.25
18,000
9.60
20.00
F3
4.64
5.71
5.21
6.40
2.48
7.0
1.25
7.55
33.07
18,160
9.15
20.00
F3R|
5.21
5.65
5.85
6.34
2.99
7.0
1.25
7.55
39.89
18,840
7.87
20.00
F4
5.12
5.95
5.79
6.72
2.39
7.1
1.25
9.95
31.91
18,000
9.40
20.00
F4Ri
5.39
5.94
6.08
6.70
1.70
8.0
1.25
9.95
22.74
11.340
8.31
20.00
F4R»t
5.20
6.30
5.85
7.10
2.05
7.5
1.25
9.95
27.39
11,850
7.21
15.00
F4Rjt
4.63
5.68
5.17
6.34
1.54
7.0
1.25
9.95
20.50
17,120
13.92
20.00
F4R*
4.56
5.67
5.08
6.32
2.02
1.25
9.95
26.91
17,160
10.63
10.88
F5
4.70
5.97
5.28
6.70
1.48
7.0
1.25
12.00
19.81
17,200
14.47
20.00
F5R,
5.39
6.16
6.09
6.96
0.82
7.0
1.25
12.00
10.90
11,760
17.98
20.00
F5Rj
4.64
5.81
5.24
6.56
1.70
9.0
1.25
12.00
22.74
7,240
5.31
20.00
F5Rj
4.52
5.65
5.14
6.42
1.72
8.5
1.25
12.00
22.99
8,360
6.06
15.00
FSR*
5.12
5.82
5.72
6.49
8.0
1.25
] 2.00
12,040
15.00
F5R»
5.06
5.60
5.72
6.32
1.61
8.0
1.25
12.00
21.52
10,530
8.16
15.00
F5RǤ
4.69
5.89
5.33
6.69
0.51
7.0
1.25
12.00
6.79
12,540
30.79
16.00
F5Rt
4.20
4.51
4.65
4.99
2.40
1.25
12.00
32.04
13,080
6.80
20.00
F5R,
4.79
5.86
5.37
6.57
7.0
1.25
12.00
12,240
20.00
F6
5.09
5.90
5.74
6.66
1.46
7.5
1.25
14.05
19.56
7,720
6.58
15.00
F6R,
5.14
5.86
5.80
6.62
1.13
8.0
1.25
14.05
15.08
5,940
6.57
15.00
F6R2
5.38
6.06
6.08
6.84
1.09
8.0
1.25
14.05
14.54
6,696
7.68
15.00
F7
5.27
5.81
5.91
6.52
0.94
8.0
1.25
16.15
12.60
4,120
5.45
15.00
F7Ri
6.00
6.26
6.73
7.03
8.0
1.25
16.15
5,550
15.00
•Standard conditions are 14.7 lb/ln2a and 70°P.
tAlr values are questionable.
SBad point.
-------
I03 kg/h
!2—|
II-
10-
9
LU
& 8
a:
CXL
LU
Ll.
CO
z
<
cr
H
7 «
6-
5-
E 4-
LU
5
Q
LU
CD
3-
2-
I'
0-J
I03 Ib/h
26-i
24-
22-
§
20-
<£>
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6-
4-
2-
0-
£
(2)
t2i
a
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
"1 1 1 1
20 22 24 26
TIME BETWEEN PULSES (s)
Figure 4.10 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Fourth
Generation—Frequency Tests Without Sparger Bleed Air—Bed-
Material Transfer Rate vs. Time Between Pulses
4-21
-------
to3
13 •
12 •
II -
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
'h
(2)
(h
& cfi
£
&
~ &
&
£> 6
A
—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 sf,3/min
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
1 1 1 1 1— sm3/min
1 2 3 4 5
TRANSPORT AIR FLOW RATE
sifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Fourth Generation—Frequency Tests
irger Bleed Air—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Transport-Air Flow Rate
-------
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0-
3
&
A
6
^ A ^
A
& & &
&
a
1 1 J 1 j 1 ; | | 1 1 1 1 !03 lb/h
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 I03kg/h
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12
BED MATERIAL TRANSFER RATE
rimary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Fourth
eneration—Frequency Tests Without Sparger Bleed Air—Transport
atio vs. Bed-Material Transfer Rate
4-23
-------
indicated in Section 3.3.1, two duration tests (in which the time between
pulses was held constant and the length of the pulse was increased) were also
performed.
Tests performed using the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Fourth Generation after the sparger bleed air was activated
are summarized in Table 4.7. The complete calculation sheets for these tests
appear in Appendix F. As before, graphs of bed-material transfer rate versus
time between pulses, transport-air flow rate, and transport ratio are presented
in Figures A.13 through 4.15.
A. 5 ALTERNATE GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER
SYSTEM TESTS
At the urging of ERCA/Exxon, and in an attempt to improve system re-
liability and reproducibility, an alternate (circular-slot) configuration (Fig-
ure 3.7) developed by ERCA/Exxon with input from FWEC was tested. This system
demonstrated two operating modes: pulsing and continuous. Test data similar
to those previously obtained were gathered and are summarized in Table A.8.
The calculation sheets for the alternate tests are presented in Appendix G.
Again graphical representations of bed-material transfer rate data versus time
between pulses, transport-air flow rate, and transport ratio were made and are
presented in Figures A.16 through 4,18.
4.6 FINAL GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER
SYSTEM TESTS
4.6.1 Perforated-Plate Sparger Tests
Because of the poor performance of the alternate gasifier-regenerator
bed-material transfer slot and the unpredictable performance of the primary
gasifier-regenerator bed-material transfer slot, during the final weeks in
which testing could be performed, efforts were concentrated on developing a new
system that would transfer the required amount of material with acceptable
transfer rate control. Drawing on all previous testing experience, the bed-
material transfer slot illustrated in Figure 3.9 was developed. As stated in
Section 3.4.1, however, subsequent testing pinpointed a sparger pluggage problem
similar to that which appeared in the primary gasifier-regenerator bed-material
transfer slot tests. Because the performance of the final gasifier-regenerator
bed-material transfer slot drastically deteriorated when a sparger bleed air
was used, this method of preventing sparger pluggage could not be used.
Nevertheless, the data obtained from the limited number of tests run on
the final gasifier-regenerator bed-material transfer slot incorporating the
perforated-plate sparger were very encouraging. Table 4.9 summarizes the test
data obtained. The calculation sheets for these tests are presented in Ap-
pendix H. To show the control, amount, and efficiency of bed-material transfer,
graphs of bed-material transfer rate versus time between pulses, transport-air
flow rate, and transport ratio were once again drawn. These graphs are pre-
sented as Figures 4.19 through 4.21.
4-24
-------
Table 4.7 Summary of Results of the Primary Gasifier—Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Fourth
Generation—Frequency and Duration Tests With Sparger Bleed Air
Test
No.
Plenum
Superficial
Velocity
(ft/a)
Above-Bed
Superficial
Velocity
(ft/s)
A1 r
Flow Rate
(lb/mln)
Sparger
Pressure
(lb/in2g)
Pulse
Time
(a)
Air
Flow Kate
(sf13/mln)
Bed-Material
Transfer Rate
(lb/li)
Transport
Ratio
(lb/uft3 air)
Operating
Time
(mill)
Gas.
Regen.
Ga s •
Regen.
On
Off
FO(A)
5.14
5.80
5.74
6.47
10.09
6.5
1.25
1.15
134.74
21,600
2.67
4.4
F3/4(A)
5.01
5.37
5.57
5.96
6.55
6.5
1.25
3.00
87.47
19,680
3.75
2.1
Fl(A)
FIR,(A)
5.54
5.60
6.49
6.99
6.22
6.29
7.28
7.85
6.00
9.98
6.5
6.5
1.25
1.25
3.95
3.95
80.10
133.27
21,840
22,320
4.54
2.79
1.6
1.1
F2(A)
F2R,(A)
F2K2(A)
4.98
5.35
5.90
5.31
6.47
6.59
5.55
6.00
6.66
5.92
7.26
7.44
4.48
7.0
7.2
1.25
1.25
1.25
5.45
5.45
5.45
59.86
22,230
22,290
23,190
6.46
12.5
15.0
15.0
F3(A)
F3R|(A)
5.26
4.70
6.17
5.81
5.90
5.28
6.93
6.52
3.20
3.81
7.0
7.0
1.25
1.25
7.55
7.55
42.70
50.89
19,240
19,320
7.51
6.33
16.0
15.0
F4(A)
FAR.(A)
?«MA)
5.27
5.82
5.74
5.96
6.26
5.99
5.92
6.54
6.45
6.69
7.02
6.72
3. 70
7.0
7.0
7.0
1.25
1.25
1.25
9.95
9.95
9.95
49.42
14,160
13,248
13,840
4.78
15.0
15.0
23.0
F5(A)
F5R,(A)
5.67
5.24
6.76
6.05
6.37
5.88
7.58
6.79
2.77
2.61
7.0
7.0
1.25
1.25
12.00
12.00
36.97
34.89
12,480
12,840
5.63
6.13
17.0
15.0
F6(A)
F6K, (A)
5.31
4.8]
6.39
6.35
5.96
5.39
7.17
7.13
2.41
2.44
6.5
6.5
1 .25
1.25
14.05
14.05
32.19
32.65
9,400
8,000
4.87
4.08
17.0
15.0
F7(A)
F7R,(A)
F7R2(A)
4.74
4.95
5.40
5.85
6.28
6.52
5.29
5.55
6.09
6.53
7.04
7.3/
1.86
2. 12
2.09
6.5
6.5
6.5
1.25
1.25
1.25
16.15
16.15
16.15
24.90
28.26
27.84
8,580
8,430
6,520
5.74
4.97
3.90
15.0
15.0
15.0
KB (A)
F8Rj(A)
6.39
6.46
5.85
5.91
7.21
7.30
6.61
6.67
1.94
1.79
7.0
7.0
1.25
1.25
1.8.20
18.20
25.88
23.96
6,885
7,560
4.43
5.26
15.0
15.0
F9(A)
F9tt| (A)
5.44
4.78
6.67
6.02
6.11
5.37
7.49
6.75
2.02
1.94
7.0
6.75
1.25
1.25
20.05
20.05
26.96
25.88
6,480
6,765
4.01
4.36
16.0
15.0
F10(A)
FlOKi(A)
F10R2(A)
5.64
5.17
5.33
6.54
6.51
6.43
6.06
5.80
5.98
7.03
7.31
7.21
1.91
2.02
2.04
6.75
6.75
6.50
1.25
1.25
1.25
24.40
24.40
24.40
25.46
26.93
27.25
6,240
6,675
5,200
4.08
4.13
3.18
17.0
15.0
16.0
00(A)
5.70
6.46
6.36
7.20
4.26
7.0
1.25
5.45
56.90
11,730
3.44
1.3
U2(A)
5.65
6.37
6. 30
7.11
3. 74
7.0
7.0
5.45
49.98
4,320
1.44
5.0
^Standard conditions are 14.7 lb/in2a and 70°t'.
-------
I03 kg/h
I2n
K)3 Ib/h
LU
5
tr
II-
10-
9-
8-
cr 7-
LlI
Ll.
CO
z
<
ce
h*
<
q:
llj
5
o
Lul
03
6-
5-
4
3-
2-
I -
261
24-
22-
20-
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
8H
6-
4-
2-
Cb
B *
T
2
Ik (1.25)
&(7)
&
T
4
T
8
T
T
14
i—r
16 18
6 8 10 12
TIME BETWEEN PULSES (s)
1 1 1 1
20 22 24 26
Legend:
& 0 (A) Series
F (A) Series
() On Time (s)
Figure 4.13 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Fourth Generation—Frequency and Duration Tests With Sparger
Bleed Air—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Time Between Pulses
4-26
-------
LU
o:
cr
LU
ti-
er)
z
<
en
h-
_l
<
cr
UJ
£
Q
UJ
CD
13 1
12 -
II -
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
I -
O-
I03lb/h
28-|
26-
24-
22-
20-
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6-
4-
2-
0-
Gi
GE>
Gi
IW
25)
^(7)
Legend:
Gi F (A) Series
h D (A) Series
() On Time (s)
%
_T 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
T
2
~r
3
T
4
T"
5
sft3/min
sm3/min
TRANSPORT AIR FLOW RATE
Figure 4.14 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Fourth Generation—Frequency and
Duration Tests With Sparger Bleed Air—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Transport-Air Flow Rate
-------
kg/wn3
300
280
260-
240-
220-
5 200
XJ
a>
® 180
(A
~ 160-
"o
S 140-
o
I 120
o 100-
5
C 80
60-
40-
20
0^
Ib/sft*
l81
17-
16-
15-
14
13
12'
II-
lo-
g-
s'
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
r
0
~r
2
£
B
&[>>
^ (i
25)
k (7)
Legend:
Oi F (A) Series
0 (A) Series
() On Time (s)
D &
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I03lb/h
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
T-
2
T
3
T
4
T"
5
nr
6
nr
8
T"
9
T-
10
-r
II
i
12
10s k^/h
BED MATERIAL TRANSFER RATE
Figure A.15 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Fourth
Generation—Frequency and Duration Tests With Sparger Bleed Air—
Transport Ratio vs. Bed-Material Transfer Rate
4-28
-------
Table 4.8 Summary of Results of the Alternate Gaslfier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Original Configuration
¦p-
i
to
v£>
Test
No.
Ai r
Flow/Rate
(lb/min)
Sparger
Pressure
(lb/in2g)
Pulse
Time
(6)
Air
Flow/Rate*
(sft3/min)
Bed-Material
Transfer Rate
(lb/li)
Transport
Ratio
(lb/sft3 air)
Transport
Measurement
Timet
(rain)
Comme tits
On
Off
1
4.11
2 to 7
54.85
2210
0.67
1.35
Air tube far left of 5-in. dia. tube
2
3.77
2 to 6
50.35
1992
0.66
5.00
Transfer gaslfler to regenerator only
3
4.62
2 to 8
1.65
1.85
61.71
1930
0.52
1.20
4
2.64
2 to 8
1.65
13.45
35.26
1200
0.57
2.10
5
2.74
0 to 4
1.65
1.85
36.57
1470
0.67
2.03
No bleed air
6
5.04
2 to 8
13.00
1.85
67.32
2100
0.52
1.10
7
4.44
5
59.24
2988
0.84
5.00
Continuous—transfer In one direction
8
4.21
2 to 8
1.65
4.40
56.24
1980
0.59
1.32
9
3.875
4.8
51.73
2250
0.72
Continuous—air tube full forward
10
5.81S
10.0
77.61
2130
0.46
Continuous—air tube full forward
11
2.15S
2.0
28.70
1980
1.15
Continuous—air tube full forward
12
3.86§
4.8
51.48
2418
0.78
Continuous—air tube half forward
13
2 to 8
1.65
4.40
1980
Pulsing—air tube half forward
14
1.975
5
26. 31
2333
1.48
Continuous
15
3.775
13 to 14
50.37
2490
0.82
Continuous
^Standard conditions are 14.7 lb/in'a and 70*F.
tTypical operating time for each teat was =15 miu.
^Calculated from annubar readings.
-------
I03 kg/h ,
K)3 Ib/h
12 26-i
II-
10- 22-
9-
8-
7 —1
WJ c
2 6-
5-
CE 4*
LU
<£ 3-
Q ?
IxJ *
00
H
o-'
24-
20-|
18
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6-
4-
2-
0
| *
t—i—i—r
T
i—i—r
T
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
TIME BETWEEN PULSES (s)
"1 I I I
20 22 24 26
Legend:
PULSING MODE
Figure 4.16 Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Original Configuration—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Time
Between Pulses
4-30
-------
10-
13
12
II
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
0
17
Legend:
k PULSIN6 MODE
k CONTINUOUS MODE
1—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i sf,3/min
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 MO 150 160 170 180
1 1 1 1 j— sm3/min
1 2 3 4 5
TRANSPORT AIR FLOW RATE
e Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Original Configuration—Bed-
Transfer Rate vs. Transport-Air Flow Rate
-------
II
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2-
I ¦
0-
Legend:
k PULSING MODE
k. CONTINUOUS MODE
1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 r—"1 K)5lb/h
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IO^kg/h
I 234 5678910 II 12
BED MATERIAL TRANSFER RATE
Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Original Configuration—Transport Ratio vs. Bed-Material
Transfer Rate
4-32
-------
Table 4.9 Summary of Results of the Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot
Perforated-Plate Sparger
4>
i
U)
Test No.
Plenum
Superficial
Velocity
(ft/s)
Above-Bed
Superficial
Velocity
(ft/s)
Air
Flow Rate
(lb/min)
Sparger
Pressure
(lb/in2g)
Pulse
Time
(s)
Air
Flow/Rate*
(sftJ/win)
Bed-Material
Transfer Rate
(lb/h)
Transport
Ratio
(lb/sft} air)
Transport Air
Measurement
Timet
(mln)
Gas
Regen.
Can
Regen.
On
Off
LO
6.17
5.64
6.97
6.37
2.74
0 to 3
0.5
1.85
36.54
20,080
9.16
2.00
LOR,
4.51
5.62
5.03
6.27
3.40
0 to 3
0.5
1.85
45.36
19,880
7.31
1.61
LOR2
6.42
6.69
7.34
7.65
2.39
0 to 3.5-4.1
0.5
1.85
31.97
18,400
9.59
2.28
LI
5.96
6.27
6.81
7.16
1.98
0 to 3-3.5
0.5
3.5
26.41
16,160
10.20
2.76
LIR,§
5.80
6.76
6.54
7.63
1.07
0 to 3.5-4.0
0.2
3.4
14.35
7,590
8.81
5.08
L1K25
6.35
6.66
7.17
7.54
0.96
0 to 3.0-3.5
0.4
3.5
12.80
6,120
7.97
5.70
L2
6.37
6.63
7.28
7.58
1.42
0 to 3.0
0.5
6.30
18.93
7,650
6.73
3.85
L3
6.01
6.55
6.87
7.49
0.94
0 to 3-4
0.5
8.80
12.53
2,960
3.94
5.82
*Standard conditions are 14.7 lb/ln2a and 70°F.
tTyplcal operating time for each test was -15 mln.
§<}ueatlonable.
-------
103 kg/h
'2—|
II-
10-
9-
8-
7-
LU
5
oc
cr
L±J
L.
w e_|
Z 6-
<
-------
I0;
13
12
I!
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
/h
O O
Q
0
QQ
O
Q
—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 sft3/min
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
1 1 1 1 1— sm3/min
1 2 3 4 5
TRANSPORT AIR FLOW RATE
asifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Perforated-Plate Sparger—Bed Material
r Rate vs. Transport-Air Flow Rate
-------
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0-
e 4.
3
Q
Q
O
Q
Q
Q
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t05lb/h
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
-I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10s kg/h
I 234 5678910 II 12
BED MATERIAL TRANSFER RATE
rial Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Perforated-
ate Sparger—Transport Ratio vs. Bed-Material Transfer Rate
4-36
-------
4.6.2 Three-Tube Sparger Tests
To alleviate the sparger pluggage problem mentioned in Section 4.6.1
(and more fully described in Section 3.4.1), a new sparger was designed. This
final sparger design is shown alone in Figure 3.10 and in conjunction with the
final gasifier-regenerator bed-material transfer slot in Figure 3.11. This
system was tested and fulfilled all the performance criteria specified in
Section 4.1. A summary of the tests performed is presented in Table 4.10, and
calculation sheets are presented in Appendix I. These data are graphically
presented as bed-material transfer rate versus time between pulses, transport-
air flow rate, and transport ratio in Figures 4.22 through 4.24.
4.7 COMBINED RESULTS
Although the data presented in Figures 4.8 through 4.24 accurately
demonstrate the response of the dependent variable to the independent variable,
the scattering of the data points (as well as the inclusion of some questionable
points) makes a direct comparison of the several candidate bed-material trans-
fer systems difficult. By eliminating some questionable points and coalescing
repeated points by means of averaging, data trends became more obvious and
could be depicted for all data sets on a single graph. Such graphical repre-
sentations of the data (including trend lines) are presented in Figures 4.25
through 4.27. Once again these data are presented as bed-material transfer
rate versus time between pulses, transport-air flow rate, and transport ratio.
4.8 VISUAL RESULTS
In addition to the quantitative results described above, qualitative
results were obtained in the form of a 16-mm movie. A copy of this film is
appended to the EPA Project Officer's copy of this report. The film offers
a visual comparison of the three slot geometries tested: the primary gasifier-
regenerator bed-material transfer slot—fourth generation, the alternate
gasifier-regenerator bed-material transfer slot, and the final gasifier-
regenerator bed-material transfer slot using the three-tube sparger. Table 4.11
presents test numbers and other pertinent information for the film.
4-37
-------
Table 4.10 Summary of Results of the Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Three-Tube Sparger
i
u>
00
Test
No.
Plenua
Superficial
Velocity
(ft/s)
Above-Bed
Superficial
Velocity
(ft/s)
Air
Flow Rate
(Ib/nln)
Sparger
Pressure
(lb/ln'g)
Pulse
Time
(s)
Air
Flow Rate*
(sft'/mln)
Bed-Material
Transfer Rate
(lb/h)
Transport
Ratio
(lb/sft' air)
Transport Air
Measurement
Tiiaet
(rain)
Gas.
Regen.
Gas.
Regen.
On
Off
L.S-1
5.60
6.33
6.28
7.10
1.58
0 to 2.5
0.5
7.5
21.13
10,605
8.36
3.47
LS-2
5.64
6.37
6.33
7.15
1.46
0 to 2.5
0.7
9.2
19.54
9,600
8.19
3.76
LS-3
5.64
6.37
6.33
7.15
1.14
0 to 2.5
0.5
12.0
15.27
6,840
7.47
4.81
LS-4
5.83
6.40
6.55
7.18
3.96
0 to 2.5
0.5
2.6
52.89
18,880
5.95
1.40
LS-4R
6.60
6.07
7.50
6.90
3.66
0 to 2.5
0.5
2.6
48.82
19,560
6.68
1.52
LS-5
6.63
6.27
7.53
7.12
2.92
0 to 2.5
0.5
4.0
38.97
16,060
6.87
1.90
LS-5R
6.60
6.07
7.50
6.90
2.73
0 to 2.5
0.5
4.0
36.42
15,760
7.21
2.03
LS-6S
6.67
6.34
7.53
7.16
1.97
0 to 2.5
0.5
7.0
26.29
13,040
8.27
2.82
LS-71
LS-8
(Continu-
ous)
6.72
6.37
7.59
7.19
7.74
1.5 to 2.5
103.33
12,360
1.99
0.72
'Standard conditions are 14.7 lb/in2a and 70"F.
tTyplcal operating tlae for each test was =15 «in.
SGood operating point.
fNo values. Atteapts to labalance beds failed.
-------
I03 kg/h
I03 Ib/h
26
24-
22 -
20-
18
16'
14-
12
10
8
6
4 •
2
o
0
o
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
TIME BETWEEN PULSES (s)
"I 1 1 1
20 22 24 26
Legend:
0 PULSING MODE
Figure 4.22 Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—
Three-Tube Sparger—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Time
Between Pulses
4-39
-------
O3
13 -
12 ¦
II -
10 -
9 ¦
8
7-
6
5
4
3
2
I
0
.23
Legend:
0 PULSING MODE
# CONTINUOUS MODE
O
O
O
O
°o
CP
~l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 sf»3/min
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
1 1 1 r
12 3 4
TRANSPORT AIR FLOW RATE
sm3/min
Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Slot—Three-Tube Sparger—Bed-Material
fer Rate vs. Trnasport-Air Flow Rate
-------
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0-
ire t
3
Legend:
0 PULSING MODE
# CONTINUOUS MODE
qO
o
%
o
o
1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 3 lb/h
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
"T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I03kg/h
I 234 5678 9 10 II 12
BED MATERIAL TRANSFER RATE
¦"inal Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material TRansfer Slot—Three-
'ube Sparger—Transport Ratio vs. Bed-Material Transfer Rate
4-41
-------
I03 kg/h
'Z—]
II-
10-
9-
LU
£ 8
tr
LU
li-
co
z
<
cr
H
Q
LU
CD
7-
6-
5-
_l
<
DC
LU
-------
•p-
I
u>
Ui
£
CC
cr
LU
u.
O)
z
<
Preliminary -Perforated
(Improved r*cyck)
(2} F Series
& F (A) Series
D(A) Series
ALT Series (pulsing mod*)
ALT Series (continuous mods)
L Series
LS Series
On Time (s)
Questionable values eliminated.
T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
-|— sm3/min
~r
2
~T~
3
~r
4
TRANSPORT AIR FLOW RATE
Figure 4.26 Combined Results of Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—Bed-Material Transfer
Rate vs. Transport-Air Flow Rate
-------
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0-
»•
A
&
Legend:
O Preliminary -50
PI Preliminary -100
A Preliminary -Perforated
<2> Preliminary -Perforated
(improved r*cyct()
^ F Series
Q} F (A) Series
^ D (A) Series
^ ALT Series (putting mod*)
Ik ALT Series (continuou* mod*)
O L Series
(3 LS Series (pulsing mod*)
£ LS Series (continuou* mod*)
() On Time (s)
NOTE:
Questionable values eliminated.
o
6.
£i k,
%
%
£
Ei
T
T j 1 IOslb/h
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
T
T
T
T
T
234 56789
BED MATERIAL TRANSFER RATE
T"
10
II
-I
12
lO^kg/h
Combined Results of Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System—Transport Ratio vs. Bed-Material Transfer Rate
4-44
-------
Table 4.11 Visual Results of Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer Systems Tested in CAF3 Cold Model
Film
Section
Gaaifier-Regenerator
Bed-Material
Transfer Slot
Test
No.
Sparger
Bleed
Air
(On/Off)
Sparger
Pressure
(lb/in*g)
Timer
Pulses (s)
(On/Off)
Bed-Material
Transfer Rate
(lb/h)
Transport
Ratio A
(lb/sft3 air)
1
Primary-
Fourth Generation
D-O(A)
On
7
1.25/5.45
11,730
3.60
2
Alternate
Alt-1
5
Continuous
2,100
1.33
3
Final
Three-Tube
L-S-6
Off
2.5
0.5/7.0
13,040
8.30
*Standard conditions are 14.7 lb/in2a and 70'F.
4-45
-------
Section 5
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
5.1 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
5.1.1 Basis of Comparison
The quantitative test results are contained in the information pre-
sented in Appendices D through I, which represent a reduction of the "raw" data
using the procedure outlined in Appendix C. As stated under performance crite-
ria (Section 4.1), the optimum bed-material transfer system should have the
following specifications:
• Transfer large amounts of bed material per unit time between
two operating fluidized beds
• Use the minimum quantity of activating gas
• Maintain the minimum activating gas pressure
• Allow only minimal gas leakage back into the "supply" bed
• Provide an accurate and reliable control of the transfer rate.
As a result of this optimum bed-material transfer system specification,
the variables of prime importance are:
• Bed-material transfer rate
• Transport-air flow rate
• Sparger pressure
• Time between pulses.
Data summaries, containing values of these primary variables, for each
gasifier-regenerator bed-material transfer slot configuration tested are pre-
sented in Tables 4.5 through 4.10. With respect to the optimum bed-material
transfer system specification, the system exhibiting the highest bed-material
transfer rate using the smallest amount of transport air and the lowest sparger
pressure (while maintaining a high level of controllability and reliability)
would be judged the best.
5-1
-------
In an effort to illustrate data trends and provide a visual comparison
of the several systems tested, the graphs presented in Figures 4.8 through 4.27
were constructed. The variable relationships presented in these graphs are:
• Bed-material transfer rate versus time between pulses
• Bed-material transfer rate versus transport-air flow rate
• Transport ratio versus bed-material transfer rate.
Transport ratio was defined in Section 4.3 as the amount of bed material trans-
ferred by 1 sft3 of activating gas (standard conditions are 14.7 lb/in2a and
70°F). This ratio can be used as a measure of the efficiency of a bed-material
transfer system, with the more efficient systems having higher values of the
transport ratio.
With respect to the controllability and reliability of the systems
tested, both the scatter and linearity of the frequency (time between pulses)
and transport-air flow rate versus bed-material transfer rate are important.
The higher the degree of linearity and the lower the degree of scatter, the
greater the controllability and reliability (reproducibility) of the system.
Both scatter and linearity of the data are illustrated in the graphs presented
in Figures 4.8 through 4.27.
In an attempt to quantify both measures of controllability and reliabil-
ity, the data correlations presented inTables 5.1 through 5.4 were constructed.
Tables 5.1 through 5.3 quantify the data scatter, which is illustrated in the
graphs, by calculating:
• Average values for both the independent and dependent variables
• Standard deviation for both independent and dependent variables
• Data correlation coefficient
• Coefficients of variation for both the independent and dependent
variables.
The linearity of both measures of controllability and reliability is
quantified in Table 5.4 through the calculation of the slope, intercept, and
linear correlation coefficient (for bed-material transfer rate versus both time
between pulses and transport-air flow rate) by the least-squares method.
5.1.2 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—
Preliminary Tests
5.1.2.1 Overall Preliminary Testing Results. The preliminary tests
performed using the Primary-Gasifier Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System
(third- and fourth-generation transfer slots) demonstrated a consistent im-
provement in operation (as determined by means of comparison with the ideal
system specification given in Section 5.1.1) as the third- and fourth-generation
changes (as described in Sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.5) were incorporated. In gen-
eral, as successive geometry and/or sparger changes were incorporated, the trend
5-2
-------
Table 5.1 Data Scatter Correlation—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Time Between Pulses
Ui
I
u>
Test
Series
Ho. of Point*
Used la
Correlation
n
Average Values
Standard Deviation
Corrulat ion
(,'oef f lcient
(a )
xy
Coefiiclentu of
VariatIon*
Ti»c
<*)
Material Kate
(lb/h)
Tiae
(*)
Material Rate
(H»/h)
V
(X)
V
y
(X)
Pre)iaiuary:
50-hole tipaigur
100-hole spargcrt
100-hole sparger
Perforated-plate
spargert
Perforated-plate
sparger
NO D
ATA AVAIL
ABLE
Frequencyt
Frequency
23
26
a. 76
8.98
14,258
14,209
4.64
4.41
5,474
5.201
-0.85
-0.84
52.97
49.11
38.39
36.60
Frequency (A)
22
13.31
12.428
7.25
6,459
-0.94
54.47
51.97
Alternate
5
4.68
1,736
5.03
383
-0.73
107.48
22.06
Final:
Perforated-plate
spargert
Perforated-plate
sparger
6
8
4.03
3.68
14,188
12,355
2.91
2.48
7,177
6,962
-0.99
-0.81
72.21
63.92
50.59
56.35
3-tube sparger§
3-tube sparger
8
9
6.11
13.793
3.39
4,548
-0.98
55.48
32.97
*Caeftic tent of variation = (100) (standard deviation)/(average value).
tQuesc lon/tbl.e points deleted.
IContlnuous run deleLed.
Hate;
1. The average values (measure of central tendency) are defined
by:
X - - Ex ; y ~ - £y
n i* 7 n Jl
2. The standard deviation* (aeasures of absolute variation) are
defined by:
Sx " f(1EV " °
3y " ^"i' " "y')/*"-1!1
3. The correlation coefficient (a measure of the linear correlation
between two variables) is defined by:
xy
~^r f*-*^ - ~ £*|Eyj)/s s
11-1 I i' i n 1 11 x y
When a is positive y Increases as x increases; when a is negative y
decreases as x increases.
4. The coefficients of variation (measure# of relative variation) are
defined by:
S S
V - —(100) and V - -*(100)
x y
* y
5. Suauatlons are from 1 = 1 to I • n.
-------
Table 5.2 Data Scatter Correlation—Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Transport-Air Flow Rate
Teat
Series
No. of Points
Used In
Correlation
(n)
Average Values
Standard Deviation
Correlation
Coefficient
(« )
xy
Coefficents of
Variation*
Air Ratet
(sft'/nin)
Material Rate
(ib/h)
Air Rate
(sf t '/"in)
Material Rate
(Ib/h)
Vx
(2)
vy
(X)
Preliminary:
50-hole sparger
8
86.18
4,951
47.28
2418
0.855
54.86
48.84
100-hole spargerl
3
110.47
12,016
9.23
3533
0.85**
8.36
29.40
100-hole sparger
5
112.49
9,566
7.39
4212
0.11
6.57
44.03
Perforated-plate
spargerl
5
105.35
23,650
18.53
2689
0.965
17.58
11.37
Perforated-plate
sparger
12
117.05
19,366
26.38
5175
-0.02
22.54
26.72
Frequencyl
23
33.56
14,258
19.80
5474
0.74
59.00
38.39
Frequency
26
31.79
14,209
19.46
5201
0.71
61.21
36.60
Frequency (A)
22
47.20
12,428
33.12
6459
0.81
70.17
51.97
Alternate
14
50.55
2,105
14.57
430
0.32
28.82
20.43
Final:
Perforated-plate
spargerl
6
28.62
14,188
11.93
7177
0.92
41.68
50.59
Perforated-plate
sparger
8
24.86
12,355
12.26
6962
0.94
49.32
56.35
3-tube spargertt
8
32.42
13,793
14.00
4548
0.98
43.18
32.97
3-tube sparger
9
40.30
13,634
27.02
4281
0.37
67.05
31.40
•Coefficient of variation 5 (100) (standard deviation)/(average value).
tStandard conditions are 14.7 Ib/in'a and 70*F.
SThis value is of questionable significance (see text).
iQuestlonable points deleted.
**Insufficlent number of data points.
ttContlnuous run deleted.
Note: For definitions of above variables (e.g.. a ) see Note on Table S.l.
B xy
-------
Table 5.3 Data Scatter Correlation—Transport Ratio vs. Bed-Material Transfer Rate
Test
Series
No. of Points
Used in
Correlation
(n)
Average Values
Standard Deviation
Correlation
Coefficient
(a )
*y
Coefficients
of Variation
Material
Rate (x)
(lb/li)
Transport
Ratio (y)*
(lb/sft3 air)
Material
Rate (Sx)
(Ib/h)
Transport
Ratio (S„)
(lb/sft1 air)
Vx
00
¦(S
Preliminary:
50-hole sparger
8
4,327
1.00
2972
0.23
-0.04
68.69
23.00
100-hole spargert
3
12,016
1.80
3533
0.40
+0.995
29.40
22.22
100-hole sparger
5
9,566
1.42
4212
0.60
+0.99
44.03
42.25
Perforated-plate
spargert
5
23,650
3.78
2689
0.26
-0.82
11.37
7.01
Perforated-plate
sparger
12
19,366
2.85
5175
0.96
+0.80
26.72
33.68
Frequencyt
23
14,258
7.94
5474
3.14
+0.06
38.39
39.55
Frequency
26
14,209
9.02
5201
5.46
+0.01
36.60
60.53
Frequency (A)
22
12,428
4.71
6459
1.22
+0.17
51.97
25.90
Alternate
14
2,105
0.75
430
0.27
+0.32
20.43
36.00
Final:
Perforated-plate
spargert
6
14,188
7.82
7177
2.33
+0.81
50.59
29.80
Perforated-plate
sparger
B
12,355
7.96
6972
2.00
+0.64
56.35
25.13
3-tube spargerf
8
13,793
7.38
4548
40.87
-0.75
32.97
11.79
3-Lube sparger
9
13,634
6.78
4281
+1.97
-0.20
31.40
29.06
*Standard conditions are 14.7 lb/ln2a and 70"F.
IQuestlonable points deleted.
Slnsuffit lent number of data points.
IContlnuous run deleted.
Note: For definitions of above variables (e.g., a ) see Note on Table 5.1.
-------
Table 5.4 Data Linearity Correlations
Test Series
No. of Data
Points Used
(n)
Intercept*
(a)
Slope*
(b)
Linear
Correlation
Coefficient*
(rl)
Comments
Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Time Between Pulses
(Equation: Bed Material Transfer Rate ¦ a + b (tine between pulses)t
Preliminary:
50-hole sparger
100-hole sparger
Perforated-plate sparger
Frequency
Frequency (A)
Alternate
Final:
lVrforated-plate sparger
3-tube sparger
23
22
5
6
G
23,031
23,546
1,995
24,039
21,844
-1001.7
-835.4
-55.0
-2447.5
-1317.2
0.72
0.88
0.53
0.99
0.97
No data
No data
No data
Questionable points deleted
Questionable points deleted
Questionable points deleted
Questionable points deleted
Continuous run deleted
Bed-Material Transfer Rate vs. Transport-Air Flow Rate
(Equation: Bed Material Transfer Rate - a + b (transport-air flow rate)t
Preliminary:
50-hole sparger
8
1,204
43.5
0.725
100-hole sparger
Insufficient number of data points
Perforated-plate sparger
5
8,942
139.6
0.935
Questionable points deleted
Frequency
23
7,272
205.2
0.55
Questionable points deleted
Frequency (A)
22
4,972
157.9
0.66
Questionable points deleted
Alternate
14
1,622
9.6
O.U
Questionable points deleted
Final:
Perforated-plate sparger
6
-1,723
555.9
0.85
Questionable points deleted
3-tube sparger
6
3,508
317.3
0.95
Continuous run deleted
*The least-squares linear regression coefficients and the linear correlation coefficient are defined as follows:
Summations are from 1 ¦ 1 to 1 • n.
A
PVi -
Ex1Iy1
n
n n
-
Ex/
Ly
\ lyl n
'Ex.
*y<
Fit improves as r approaches 1.0.
tUnits: Tine between pulse* - seconds
Transport-air flow rate - sft'/nin (14.7 lb/in a, 70*F).
SThis value Is of questionable significance (see text).
5-6
-------
in the important variables was toward higher bed-material transfer rates, lower
transport-air consumption rates, and higher transport ratios (efficiencies).
Few conclusions can be reached concerning the controllability and reliability
(reproducibility) of the bed-material transfer systems tested during the pre-
liminary testing period, however, because data on bed-material transfer rate
versus time between pulses were not taken. Data on bed-material transfer rate
versus transport-air flow rate were inconclusive but indicated that the bed-
material transfer rate usually tended to increase with increasing transport-air
flow rate.
Results of the preliminary tests (especially those incorporating the
perforated-plate sparger and improved external recycle system) were sufficiently
encouraging to justify formal testing of the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-
Material Transfer System—Fourth Generation. Before the results of this formal
testing are discussed, however, the results of each major category of prelimi-
nary tests will be more fully discussed.
5.1.2.2 Preliminary Tests A Through H. The preliminary tests A
through H (presented in Table 4.5) refer to those tests performed on the
primary gasifier-regenerator bed-material transfer slot—third generation which
incorporated the rectangular sparger with fifty 9/32-in.-diameter holes. The
maximum bed-material transfer rate realized during this test series was 9594 lb/h
and required a transport-air flow rate of 138.23 sft3/min and a sparger pres-
sure of 6 lb/in2g. This combination of bed-material transfer rate and transport-
air flow rate produces a transport ratio of 1.16. All these results indicate a
low-efficiency system requiring improvement to be usable. For example, the
maximum bed-material transfer rate achieved (9,594 lb/h) was less than one-
third of the nominal design requirement of 30,000 lb/h. If the system were
triplicated to achieve the desired bed-material transfer rate, it would be too
large for the La Palma unit and would use too much transport air (approximately
415 sft3/min per transfer unit). In addition, the 6-lb/in2g sparger pressure
was considered only marginally acceptable.
As stated in Section 5.1.1, the transport ratio can be considered a
quantitative measure of the efficiency of the bed-material transfer system. A
review of the values presented in Table 4.5 for the 50-hole rectangular sparger
shows a maximum value of 1.32, compared with a maximum value of 2.5 reported by
ERCA3 during their cold modeling of the Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System incorporated in their pilot plant. Obviously the new bed-
material transfer system should be at least as efficient (and hopefully con-
siderably more efficient) than a previously existing system.
With respect to controllability and reliability (reproducibility), data
is only available on how a change in the transport-air flow rate affects the
bed-material transfer rate. The data trend is shown in Figure 4.26. The fact
that the bed-material transfer rate reached a maximum value and then declined
with increasing transport-air flow rate suggests that this system would be
limited to a maximum bed-material transfer rate of approximately 10,000 lb/h.
Although the quantitative measures of data scatter and linearity (Tables 5.2
and 5.4) suggest a high level of correlation and a moderate degree of linearity
5-7
-------
for the bed-material transfer rate versus transport-air flow rate, the cluster-
ing of a large percentage of the data points (as evidenced in Figure 4.26)
could have unduly affected the accuracy of these measures, and therefore no
definitive conclusions can be drawn.
5.1.2.3 Preliminary Tests I Through M. The preliminary tests I
through M (also presented in Table 4.5) refer to those tests performed on the
primary gasifier-regenerator bed-material transfer slot—fourth generation
which incorporated the rectangular sparger with one hundred 9/32-in.-diameter
holes. Only a small number of data points were recorded for this system, since
this sparger was highly susceptible to pluggage because of back-sifting of bed
material (see Section 3.2.5). As a result, no meaningful conclusions can be
drawn from the small number of usable data points obtained.
5.1.2.4 Preliminary Tests N Through Y. The front face of the rectan-
gular sparger described in Section 5.1.2.3 was replaced with a piece of perfo-
rated plate and the same system was retested. After the first two tests (N
and 0), the bed-height effect (described in Section 3.2.5) was observed and the
improved external recycle system (also described in Section 3.2.5) was installed.
Since the testing results after the improved external recycle system was in-
stalled are the most significant, only they will be addressed in the following
paragraphs. Unfortunately, once again a significant portion of the data values
were questionable and should not be included in an analysis. As a result, only
five data points appear in the analysis.
Although only five totally valid data points are available from this
series of tests, the results were sufficiently encouraging to justify formal
testing of the same configuration. The maximum bed-material transfer rate
obtained during this test series was 26,629 lb/h and required a transport-air
flow rate of 128.82 sft3/min and a sparger pressure of 7.3 lb/in2g. The trans-
port ratio for this point is 3.37. These results indicate that this system
displayed almost triple the efficiency of the third-generation system and
transferred nearly three times the amount of bed material per hour. This
maximum bed-material transfer rate was considered to be sufficiently close to
the nominal design value of 30,000 lb/h to justify formal testing of this
system. In addition, the efficiency of the system (as quantified in the trans-
port ratio) was sufficiently higher than the ERCA cold-modeling value to
mandate further study.
As with the other systems tested during the preliminary test series,
few meaningful conclusions can be made concerning the controllability and re-
liability (reproducibility) of the system because of the lack of data on the
effect of time between pulses on bed-material transfer rate and the paucity of
usable data points for the effect of transport-air flow rate. The only conclu-
sion that can be drawn is that the bed-material transfer rate increases with
transport-air flow rate up to the maximum bed-material transfer rate of
26,629 lb/h.
5-8
-------
5.1.3 Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—
Frequency and Duration Tests
5.1.3.1 Frequency Tests Without Sparger Bleed Air. As stated in
Section 5.1.2.4, the preliminary tests N through Y were sufficiently encourag-
ing to justify formal testing. Since reliable control of the bed-material
transfer system is of paramount importance, the first test series studied how
changes in the pulse frequency (time between pulses) affected the bed-material
transfer rate. Results of this testing series are presented in tabular form
in Table 4.6 and graphically in Figures 4.10 through 4.12 and 4.25 through
4.27. A review of Table 4.6 indicates that the maximum bed-material transfer
rate achieved was 21,240 Ib/h. Although this value is somewhat lower than the
26,629 lb/h obtained during the preliminary testing series, it is acceptable.
The maximum transport-air flow rate of 92.27 sft3/min is also within an accept-
able range, as is the transport ratio. There appears to be a wide variation in
the transport ratio (as illustrated in Figure 4.12), but even the low value of
3.81 agrees with previous testing and exceeds ERCA's maximum value.
Although this system would appear to be a viable candidate, major flaws
exist in the areas of reliability (reproducibility) and control. The data
scatter in bed-material transfer rate versus time between pulses and transport-
air flow rate is illustrated in Figures 4.10 and 4.11. With respect to time
between pulses, the worst case appears at 12 seconds. At this frequency, the
bed-material transfer rate varied between 7,000 and 17,000 lb/h. Since the
transport-air flow rate is directly related to the time between pulses, the
same variation noted above recurs in Figure 4.11. The quantitative measures of
variability and linearity presented in Tables 5.1 through 5.4 indicate that
bed-material transfer rate decreases with increasing time between pulses and
increases with transport-air flow rate. The data correlation coefficients are
respectively -0.85 and +0.74 and will be used as a basis to compare subsequent
systems. With respect to linearity, this system's control would be relatively
nonlinear, with linear correlation coefficient values of 0.72 and 0.55 for time
between pulses and transport-air flow rate respectively.
5.1.3.2 Frequency Tests With Sparger Bleed Air. As stated in Sec-
tion 3.2.5, sparger pluggage forced a premature conclusion of the frequency
tests and necessitated the introduction of bleed air into the Primary Gasifier-
Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—Fourth Generation. As a result of
the bleed-air introduction, the entire series of frequency tests was performed
again. Results of this series of tests are presented in Table 4.7 and Fig-
ures 4.13 through 4.15 and 4.25 through 4.27. The maximum bed-material trans-
fer rate was again in the 22,000-lb/h range, required approximately 100 to
125 sft3/min of air, and had transport ratios mostly in the range between 3
and 5.
Reliability (reproducibility) and controllability, the major deficien-
cies of this system prior to introduction of the bleed system were considerably
improved in this latter series of tests. Figures 4.13 and 4.14 illustrate the
reduction in data scatter for bed-material transfer rate versus time between
pulses and transport-air flow rate. At 14.05 seconds, the worst point on the
5-9
-------
frequency curve, the variation in bed-material transfer rate is 1,400 lb/h,
which compares to a value of 10,000 lb/h for the system prior to the introduc-
tion of the bleed air. Once again, the bed-material-transfer-rate-versus-
transport-air-flow-rate curve (Figure 4.14) mimics the behavior of the frequency
curve, showing considerable reduction in data scatter. The improvement in re-
liability (reproducibility) and controllability is illustrated quantitatively
in Tables 5.1 through 5.4. The data correlation coefficients for time between
pulses and transport-air flow rate are -0.94 and +0.81 respectively, indicating
an increase of 11 and 10 percent respectively over the same system prior to the
introduction of bleed air. The linearity of the system was also improved,
exhibiting linear correlation coefficient values of 0.88 and 0.66 for time and
transport air respectively. These values represent increases of 22 and 20 per-
cent over the values for the system without bleed air.
5.1.3.3 Duration Tests. Although previous testing suggested that an
increase in the pulse on time (time during which transport air was flowing)
would be ineffectual in promoting bed-material transfer, two duration tests
were performed. Both tests confirmed the futility of increasing pulse on time.
The results of these tests are presented in Table 4.7 and Figures 4.13 through
4.15 and 4.25 through 4.27. The results of Test DO were disturbing, because
they did not duplicate the results of Test F2(A), which exhibited ostensibly
the same operating conditions. Although the reliability (reproducibility) and
controllability of the system had been improved by the introduction of the
bleed air, improvements were required before it could be used at La Palma.
Even if the values for Test DO are in error, however, the drastic deterioration
in performance caused by an increase in pulse on time is unmistakable. Using
the DO bed-material transfer rate (which is too low), the rate is reduced by
63 percent while using almost the same amount of transport air. In terms of
transport ratio, the efficiency of the system plummeted from a value of 3.44 to
an unacceptable value of 1.44.
5.1.4 Alternate Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System Tests
As described in Section 3.3.1, representatives of ERCA and Exxon met
at FWEC on June 23, 1976, to observe a demonstration of the Primary Gasifier-
Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System—Fourth Generation. After the demon-
stration, ERCA/Exxon suggested that the system reliability and controllability
should be improved. ERCA and Exxon suggested that this be accomplished by
constructing another bed-material transfer system consisting of several 5-in.-
diameter circular slots. FWEC agreed to test one circular-slot configuration
(Figure 3.7). A summary of the test results for this alternate system is
presented in Table 4.8. The results are also presented graphically in Fig-
ures 4.16 through 4.18 and 4.25 through 4.27. The test results were very
disappointing. Table 4.8 shows that the maximum bed-material transfer rate
attained was 2988 lb/h and required 59.24 sft3/min of air. These conditions
correspond to a transport ratio (efficiency) of 0.84, which was lower than the
unacceptable value of 1.44 obtained during the second duration test (D2). In
fact, the highest transport ratio obtained during the alternate tests (1.48)
was barely greater than the 1.44 value mentioned above. The only system im-
provement was a reduction in sparger pressure from =6.5 to =3.5 lb/in2g. To
5-10
-------
attain the nominal-design bed-material transfer rate of 30,000 lb/h using the
alternate design slot configuration, 10 units would have to be used, 592.4 sft3/
rain of transport air per transfer direction would be used, and more area than
is available in the La Palma unit would be required.
The Alternate Bed-Material Transfer System illustrated an acceptable
degree of reliability (reproducibility), as can be seen in Figures 4.16 through
4.18 and quantitatively in the standard-deviation values of the dependent
variable of Tables 5.1 through 5.4. When controllability of the systems is
considered, however, the Alternate Bed-Material Transfer System exhibits a
serious deficiency.
The Alternate Bed-Material Transfer System differed significantly from
the other systems tested by virtue of its ability to operate in either a
pulsing or continuous mode. The values in Table 4.8 and Figures 4.16 through
4.18 demonstrate that system operation was nominally identical for both modes
of operation. Controllability in both cases was poor. Figure 4.16 indicates
that a sevenfold change in frequency (time between pulses) elicits only, at
most, a 730-lb/h change in bed-material transfer rate. The same sevenfold
change in frequency for the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System—Fourth Generation (with sparger bleed air) produces a 12,900-lb/h change
in bed-material transfer rate. With respect to a change in transport-air flow
rate, a similar situation exists, as shown in Figure 4.17. The transfer of
nominally 2000 to 2500 lb/h of bed material using the Alternate Gasifier-
Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System requires from 25 to 80 sft3/min of
transport air. The quantitative measures of correlation and control presented
in Tables 5.1 through 5.4 reiterate the decline in performance of this system.
The data correlation coefficients are -0.73 and +0.32 for bed-material transfer
rate versus time between pulses and transport-air flow rate respectively.
These values represent respective reductions of 14 and 57 percent when compared
with the values for the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer
System—Fourth Generation (without a sparger bleed air). The linearity para-
meters of Table 5.4 indicate a poor linear fit for bed-material transfer rate
versus time between pulses and a very poor linear correlation coefficient for
bed-material transfer versus transport-air flow rate. The very low values of
the slope quantitatively demonstrate the poor control available with this
system. A wide variation in the independent variable elicits only a small
response in the dependent variable.
5.1.5 Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System Tests
5.1.5.1 Perforated-Plate-Sparger Tests. After an unsuccessful attempt
to develop a modified version of the alternate gasifier-regenerator bed-material
transfer slot that would operate as desired (see Section 3.3.2 for description),
it was decided that an attempt would be made in the final weeks available for
testing to develop a new Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System that
would meet all system requirements.
Drawing upon the previous testing experience on all slot configurations,
the design depicted in Figure 3.9 was developed and tested. A summary of the
5-11
-------
test results appears in Table 4.9 and in Figures 4.19 thorugh 4.21 and 4.25
through 4.27. The maximum bed-material transfer rate attained was approxi-
mately 20,000 lb/h, which is almost equal numerically to the 22,000 lb/h
obtained during the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System
(with sparger bleed air) tests. Since the latter tests were the most promising
to this point, these results were very encouraging. The 20,000-lb/h bed-
material transfer rate was even more impressive considering that the new bed-
material transfer slot occupies only 25 percent of the space required by the
other transfer slot. Two of the new bed-material transfer slots could transfer
40,000 lb/h of bed material in one direction (which exceeds the nominal design
value of 30,000 lb/h by 25 percent) while using only 50 percent of the space
required by the other slot. A comparison of transport-air-usage figures once
again demonstrates the clear advantage of the Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-
Material Transfer System design. The final design transferred 20,080 lb/h of
bed material using 36.54 sft3/min of air. The primary gasifier-regenerator
bed-material transfer slot design (with sparger bleed air) required between 100
and 125 sft3/min to transfer approximately the same amount of bed material.
Although data scatter in the latter system makes an exact comparison difficult,
the Final System uses at least two to three times less transport air. This
ratio appears again if the transport ratios are compared. Another advantage
of the Final Transfer System was a reduction in sparger pressure from a value
of 6 to 7 lb/in2g to a more reasonable value of 3 to 4 lb/in2g.
Reliability (reproducibility) and controllability were considerably
better than those observed during the testing of the other candidate bed-
material transfer systems. Figures 4.19 and 4.20 illustrate the reduction in
data scatter for bed-material transfer rate versus time between pulses and
transport-air flow rate. The improvement is indicated quantitatively in
Tables 5.1 through 5.4. For example, the data correlation coefficients for
time between pulses and transport-air flow rate are -0.99 and -0.92 respec-
tively. These values correspond to increases of 17 and 24 percent respectively
over the base comparison system (Primary Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material
Transfer System—Fourth Generation without sparger bleed air). The increases
over the Primary System with sparger bleed air were 5 and 14 percent respec-
tively. The linear correlation coefficients for the Final System were also
considerably higher than those for the Primary System with and without sparger
bleed air. The bed-material transfer rate versus time between pulses linear
correlation coefficient values for each system were 0.72 (Primary), 0.88 (Al-
ternate), and 0.99 (Final). The Final System value represents a very high
degree of linearity between the variables. For bed-material transfer rate
versus transport-air flow rate, the linear correlation coefficients are 0.55
(Primary), 0.66 (Alternate), and 0.88 (Final).
5.1.5.2 Three-Tube Sparger Tests. As described in Section 3.4.1, a
sparger pluggage problem developed with the Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-
Material Transfer System when the perforated-plate sparger was used. A three-
tube sparger replaced the perforated-plate sparger (see description in
Section 3.4.2). This modified system operated even more ideally than the
original configuration, and the test results appear in Table 4.10 and Fig-
ures 4.22 through 4.27. The system transferred approximately 20,000 lb/h (the
5-12
-------
same as with the other sparger) but used approximately 34 percent more air
(48.82 sft3/min). This value is, nevertheless, quite acceptable. Although the
average value of the transport ratio was slightly lower for the modified
system (7.38 versus 7.82), the ability of this system to operate at a 2.5-lb/
in2g sparger pressure more than compensated for the slightly higher transport-
air usage.
One particular point of interest occurred in Test LS-8, in which the
system was run in a continuous rather than pulsing mode. The deterioration in
system performance was immediately evident. Operating continuously, the system
required nearly four times the amount of transport air required under pulsing
conditions to transfer the same amount of bed material. This effect is quan-
titatively reflected in the fourfold decrease in transport ratio shown in
Table 4.10 and Figure 4.24.
With respect to reliability (reproducibility) and controllability, the
modified version of the Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System
(incorporating the three-tube sparger) was nominally the same as the system
using the perforated-plate sparger. The quantitative measures of data scatter
and linearity (Tables 5.1 through 5.4) demonstrate the close correspondence of
both systems. The data correlation coefficients for bed-material transfer rate
versus time between pulses are respectively -0.98 and -0.99 for the three-tube
and perforated-plate versions of the Final System. These values are essentially
identical. The data correlation coefficients for bed-material transfer rate
versus transport-air flow rate are 0.92 for the three-tube version and 0.98 for
the perforated-plate version, indicating a 7 percent improvement for the
three-tube sparger system.
The quantitative measures of linearity (the linear correlation coef-
ficients) demonstrate the same trends as the measures of data scatter (data
correlation coefficients) did. For bed-material transfer rate versus time be-
tween pulses, the linear correlation coefficients are essentially identical for
the three-tube and perforated-plate versions of the Final System (0.99 and 0.97
respectively). Again, the bed-material transfer rate versus transport-air flow
rate coefficients indicate a nominal improvement of approximately 12 percent
for the three-tube sparger system.
5.1.6 Combined Results
In an effort to present a clear picture of the relative performance of
each of the Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Systems tested, Fig-
ures 4.25 through 4.27 were constructed. By eliminating questionable points
and coalescing repeated points by means of averaging, data trends became ob-
vious and could be depicted for all data sets on a single graph.
Figure 4.25 shows the increase in controllability (linearity) as the
Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System was developed. An im-
provement not clearly demonstrated in the individual graphs is the increased
controllability range of the Final System using the three-tube sparger, com-
pared to the same system using the perforated-plate sparger. This improvement
5-13
-------
is quantitatively presented in Table 5.4 as a reduction in the slope of the
linear least-squares curve fit line.
The dramatic reduction in transport-air consumption is illustrated in
Figure 4.26. The rate of increase in bed-material transfer rate caused by an
increase in transport-air flow rate is also presented in Figure 4.26. The
final systems illustrate a much higher rate of increase than the other systems,
indirectly demonstrating the improved efficiencies of the later systems.
Figure 4.27 graphically compares the transport ratios (efficiencies) of
the various systems and shows the variation of efficiency with bed-material
transfer rate. Once again, the Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Trans-
fer System demonstrated the most consistently high values of transport ratio of
any of the systems tested.
5.2 QUALITATIVE RESULTS
As stated in Section 4.8, qualitative results (in the form of a 16-mm
movie) were obtained for the major slot geometries tested. The film offers a
comparison of the primary gasifier-regenerator bed-material transfer slot—
fourth generation, the alternate gasifier-regenerator bed-material transfer
slot, and the final gasifier-regenerator bed-material transfer slot using the
three-tube sparger.
The primary information obtained from the film relates to the gas
leakage into the "supply" bed. A review of the film indicates a high level of
air leakage back into the "supply" bed for the Primary Gasifier-Regenerator
Bed- Material Transfer System. In fact, for this system air leakage even
occurs between pulses. Little or no gas leakage is evident for both the Alter-
nate and Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Systems. For the
Final System, the gas leakage appeared to be related to the bed-material trans-
fer rate, with an increase in air leakage corresponding to a higher bed-material
transfer rate. This trend is reflected in the decline in transport ratio as
the bed-material transfer rate approaches 20,000 lb/h (see Figure 4.24).
Nevertheless, the air leakage for the Final System, even at the extreme bed-
material transfer rate point, is low.
5-14
-------
Section 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 CONCLUSIONS
The Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System selected for La
Palma should most closely approximate the optimum bed-material transfer system
specification presented in Section 5.1.1. Specifically, the selected system
should exhibit the highest bed-material transfer rate using the smallest amount
of transport gas and the lowest sparger pressure. In addition, the system
should allow only minimal air leakage back into the "supply" bed and maintain
a high level of controllability and reliability. Of all the systems tested,
the Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System using the three-
tube sparger most closely approximates the optimum system.
The actual system choices are not as extensive as previous results
might indicate, since the systems that exhibited sparger plugging should be
removed from consideration. Under these conditions, the system choices narrow
to three: the Primary (with sparger bleed air), Alternate, and Final (with
three-tube sparger) Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer Systems. For the
system comparison to be valid, all system results should be compared using an
equivalent basis. The basis chosen is an equal length requirement along the
division wall. With reference to Figures 3.6, 3.7, and 3.11, all units will be
adjusted to a 24-in.-equivalent slot length. With this basis, the maximum bed-
material transfer rates for the Primary, Alternate, and Final Systems become
respectively 22,000, 14,342, and 80,000 lb/h. It is obvious that the Final
System transfers the most material. The transport-air usage values for each of
these flow rates (using proportionate values from the actual data) would be
113 (Primary), 284 (Alternate), and 195 (Final) sft3/min. These total air
usage values are misleading, and a much truer picture appears when the air
usage figures are presented on a per-1000-lb-of-bed-material-transferred basis.
The appropriate values for each system are 5.14 (Primary), 19.80 (Alternate),
and 2.44 (Final). To transfer the nominal bed-raaterial-transfer design rate of
30,000 lb/h in each direction would require:
• 2 x 30,000 x (5.14/1000) « 308.4 sft3/min for the Primary System
• 2 x 30,000 x (19.80/1000) » 1188.0 sft3/min for the Alternate System
• 2 x 30,000 x (2.44/1000) = 146.4 sft3/min for the Final System.
Here again, the Final System is clearly superior.
6-1
-------
The third comparison point between the actual and ideal systems is
sparger pressure. From the data summaries, appropriate sparger-pressure values
for the Primary, Alternate, and Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Trans-
fer Systems are 6.5, 3.5, and 2.5 lb/in2g respectively. The Final System
operates at the lowest sparger pressure and is therefore superior. With re-
spect to air leakage back into the "supply" bed, a review of the film indicates
that the Alternate System was the best, the Primary System the worst, and the
Final System better than average.
The final criterion set forth in Section 5.1.1 for the optimum bed-
material transfer system was that it maintain a high level of controllability
and reliability (reproducibility). The relative measures of controllability
and reliability are the linear and data correlation coefficients presented in
Tables 5.1 through 5.A. With respect to the linearity of the bed-material
transfer rate versus time between pulses and transport-air flow rate, the
linear correlation coefficients for the Primary, Alternate, and Final Systems
are 0.88, 0.53, 0.97 (time) and 0.66, 0.11, and 0.95 (air) respectively. Since
a value of 1.0 denotes complete linearity, the Final System is definitely the
most linear. A consideration of the data scatter as represented in the data
correlation coefficients again demonstrates the superiority of the Final System.
For bed-material transfer rate versus time between pulses, the data correlation
coefficients are -0.94, -0.73, and -0.98 for the Primary, Alternate, and Final
Systems respectively. For bed-material transfer rate versus transport-air flow
rate, the corresponding values are +0.81, 0.32, and 0.98. Since a value of
±1.0 indicates complete correlation, the Final System is the most reproducible.
When all the aforesaid comparisons are considered together, the Final System
clearly emerges as the best. As stated previously, of all the systems tested,
the Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System using the three-
tube sparger most closely approximates the optimum system.
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the testing information (presented in previous sections), the
Final Gasifier-Regenerator Bed-Material Transfer System using the three-tube
sparger was recommended as the preferred design for use at La Palma. As stated
in Section 3.4.2, the system geometry basic design parameters and operating
conditions were transmitted to the FWEC Contract Design Department for inclu-
sion in the gasifier-regenerator drawings. A pictorial representation of the
Final System as it will appear in the gasifier and regenerator is presented in
Figure 3.12. As indicated in Section 3.4.2, a total of four transfer slots
(two in each direction) are required to transfer 40,000 lb/h of bed material.
In addition, to provide greater flexibility and reliability, individual sparger
manifolds were used, requiring that the transfer slots be vertically offset by
3-in. from each other. Extra air/flue gas nozzles were positioned at the slot
exits to increase fluidization and enhance bed-material transfer. Despite
these minor variations, the basic design is that of the bed-material transfer
slot which performed so well in the cold-model tests and which, of all the
systems tested, most closely approximates the optimum system.
6-2
-------
Section 7
REFERENCES
1. J. W. T. Craig, et al., "Study of Chemically Active Fluid-Bed Gasifier for
Reduction of Sulphur Oxide Emissions," Esso Research Centre, final report
prepared for U.S. Enivronmental Protection Agency, Report No. PB 211 438,
EPA-650/2-74-109, Contract No. 68-02-0300, June 1972.
2. J. A. Bazan, "Notes of Meeting," September 3, 1975.
3. J. W. T. Craig, et al., "Study of Chemically Active Fluid Bed Gasifier for
Reduction of Sulphur Oxide Emissions," Esso Research Centre, interim
report, Report No. PB 202 221, APCO Contract CPA 70-46, February 22, 1971.
4. J. W. T. Craig, et al., "Chemically Active Fluid-Bed Process for Sulphur
Removal During Gasification of Heavy Fuel Oil—Second Phase," Esso Re-
search Centre, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report
No. PB 240 632, EPA-650/2-74-109, Contract No. 68-02-0300, November 1974.
7-1
-------
APPENDIX A
FLOW MEASUREMENT SYSTEM USED IN 36-FT2 FLUIDIZED-BED
COLD MODEL—FLU ID IZED-BED STEAM GENERATOR TESTING
-------
Appendix A
FLOW MEASUREMENT SYSTEM USED IN 36-ft2 FLUIDIZED-BED COLD MODEL—
FLUIDIZED-BED STEAM GENERATOR TESTING
The pitot tube air flow-rate measuring system originally specified for
use with the 36-ft2 fluidized-bed cold model was found to be unusable. Because
of limitations of space availability and the size of the required ducts (to
minimize noise pollution), two close 180-degree bends were required prior to
the straight-measuring section of the inlet duct. As a result, an erratic
velocity profile developed within the duct with swirling eddies predominant.
The pitot tube pressure differential readings fluctuated in resonance with the
changing velocity profile, and the magnitude of the fluctuations was such that
the information obtained was rendered useless.
Since modification of the inlet duct would have been an expensive and
time-consuming operation, an alternate method of measuring air flow rate was
explored. The least expensive and most easily implemented modification was to
correlate flow rate through the fluidized-bed steam generator cold-model test-
ing perforated-plate air distributor (as obtained from pressure-drop readings
across the plate and a calibration using a small cold model) versus amperage
(horsepower). Amperage readings could then be used to determine flow rate
under other test conditions (e.g., with a bed present, etc.). This correlation
was obtained and was found to be sufficiently accurate for the tests performed.
The development of the correlation will be traced in the following paragraphs
so that its utility and limitations may be understood.
A section of the fluidized-bed steam generator cold-model testing per-
forated plate was tested using the small cold model. Plate-pressure-drop-
versus-flow-rate data were recorded and reduced and are presented in graphical
form in Figure A.l.
To use these data for predicting the plate-pressure-loss-versus-flow-
rate relationship in the 36-ft model, an equation of the following form was
assumed:
Kf(m)2(27.7)
AP(Plate) - (3600)^(2) jg \ (144) |pg| (AJ '
(1)
A-l
-------
10
EQUATION:
1n(APpL)= 1.75 1n (M)-11.8007
l 1 1—i—i—I—1—
1000
1 1—I—
MASS FLOWRATE Ibm/h
T T
100
Figure A.1 Perforated-Plate Pressure Drop vs.
Mass Flow Rate (small model test)
A-2
-------
The percentage of free area of the fluidized-bed steam generator cold-
model testing perforated plate as received was 7.55 percent, and the flow area
for the small model was 99.75 in2; therefore, the free area, A^, equaled
0.0523 ft2. By substituting into Equation (1), reducing, and solving for the
flow coefficient, K^, the following equation was obtained:
„ (1.1858 x 107) (A(Plate)) j'p ]
Kf = LsL_- (2)
«2
Following the work, of Smith and Van Winkle,* a Reynolds number based on
the hole diameter of the perforated plate can be defined as follows:
<;> |\)
h " (3600)[AJ (u)(6.72 x 10"*) (3)
Using Equations (2) and (3) and the plate pressure drop/flow rate data
from the small model test, a graph of as a function of Re^ was obtained.
This graph is presented as Figure A.2.
The perforated plate was installed within the 36-ft2 model and the free
area was measured. Taking into account flow blockages caused by the support
system in the 36-ft2 model, the percentage of free area was reduced to 6.78 per-
cent and the actual free area was 2.44 ft2.
Solving Equation (1) for m yields:
(160,658) Ip ) ^(AP(Plate))
m
_&
Kf
% (4)
Solving Equation (3) for m yields:
m - 1133(H)[Reh )
(5)
*P. L. Smith, Jr. and M. Van Winkle, "Discharge Coefficients Through Perforated
Plates at Reynolds Numbers of 400 to 3,000," AIChE Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3,
September 1958, pp. 266-268.
A-3
-------
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800
HOLE REYNOLDS NUMBER (Reh)
Figure A.2 Perforated—Plate Flow Coefficient as a Function of Reynolds Number (small model test)
-------
The value of viscosity (y) in centipoise is calculated as a function of
temperature by the Sutherland equation,* which reduces for air to the following
equation:
3/2
_ (6.08642 x 10"")(T)
M [0.555(T) + 120] (6)
Using temperature, density, and pressure data from the large model,
mass flow rate is calculated by the following procedure:
1. A value of the hole Reynolds number is assumed.
2. The mass flow rate is calculated from Equation (5).
3. From the small model data graph of vs. Re^> a value of
corresponding to the assumed Re^ is obtained.
4. The mass flow rate is calculated from Equation (4).
5. Mass flow-rate values from steps (2) and (3) above are compared and
steps (1) through (5) repeated until the values agree.
Amperage values corresponding to the calculated mass flow rates were
also recorded as data points. Four sets of data were generated for a total of
27 data points. Mass flow rate as a function of amperage was plotted and the
function appeared to be linear. A first-order least-squares regression was
made and the resultant equation plotted on the same sheet as the data points.
This plot appears in Figure A.3. Mass flow rates for all tests were obtained
from amperage readings by applying the least-squares regression equation ap-
pearing in Figure A.3.
*Crane Company, "Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe," Technical
Paper No. 410, 1957, p. A5.
A-5
-------
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
/&
Legend: ^
O DATA POINTS /
LEAST SQUARES FIT Q,'
o7
/
/O
/O
J*
/
®
&
/O
(ft)
/ LEAST SQUARES EQUATION: M= 471.5317 (A)-76091
LINEAR CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: r2 =0.99
/ o
n—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i
180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500
AMPERAGE
Figure A.3 Mass Flow Rate vs. Amperaage (large cold model)
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS FOR BED-MATERIAL
TRANSFER SYSTEM
-------
Appendix B
COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS FOR BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
As stated in Section 3.1.2 of the text, two bed-material transfer-
measurement systems were considered for use in the cold-model simulation of the
CAFB demonstration-plant bed-material transfer system. The first system, which
was used by ERCA in its cold-modeling work, utilized the analogy between heat
and mass transfer to calculate the bed-material transfer rate from temperature
measurements. The second system, which FWEC has used, utilized load beams to
transform the air-distribution plates in both the gasifier and regenerator into
weighbridges. This system directly measures the bed-material transfer rate as
a change of weight over a time period. A full comparison of both systems, in-
cluding descriptions, derivations of equations, error analysis, and cost com-
parison will be made in this appendix.
DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMS
Heat/Mass Transfer Analogy System
The first system to be considered is that which utilizes the analogy
between heat and mass transfer to determine the bed-material transfer rate. A
schematic of the overall gasifier and regenerator system appears in Figure B.l.
An overall energy balance around the system (dotted line in Figure B.l) yields:
where:
AKE + APE + AH = -QLg - QLR. (7)
AKE = Change in kinetic energy » KE3* + KEi+ - KEi - KE2
APE = Change in potential energy = PE3 + PEi» - PEi - PE2
AH * Change in enthalpy = AH3 + AHu - AH 1 - AH2
QL„ and QL - Heat losses.
G K
^Subscript numbers 1 through 4 refer to boundaries established in Figure B.l.
B-l
-------
M i M4 = MASS FLOWS OF FLUIDIZING AIR
T, -*¦ T4 » GAS TEMPERATURES
U i -*¦ U4 = GAS SUPERFICIAL VELOCITY
P i P4 = ABSOLUTE PRESSURES
QLs-^QLa = HEAT LOSSES
R = MASS FLOW OF SOLIDS
Figure B.l CAFB Cold Modeling—Overall System Schematic
-------
With the assumption that air is an ideal gas at operating conditions and
the definitions of kinetic and potential energy, the following substitutions can
be made in Equation (7):
KE =
MU
2 gcJ
; PE
MZg,
«cJ
; AH =
Mc T - T
PS o
where:
= Newton's law conversion factor = 32.174 ft*lb/lb*s2
g = Acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/s2
J = Mechanical equivalent of heat = 778.28 Btu/fflb
Z * Distance above reference level (ft)
Tq * Reference temperature (°R)
c =* Mean specific heat of gas (Btu/lb,0R).
Applying these substitutions to Equation (7) and simplifying, we obtain:
1
M> i + i^(zB - za] + -Ti);+
u^2 - U22
2 8CJ
+ I^J|ZB " ZA] + Cpg(Tk " TZ)
- -Qlg - QLE-
(8)
An energy balance around the gasifier yields:
AKE.,.2 + APE*-2 + AH4_2 + Rc (Ti» - T3) - -QL_
ps u
(9)
which, upon substitution as before, yields:
M2
2 2 i
u% " - Za| + =no(T^ - T3) + Rc (Tk - Ts) - -QLC. (10)
2 gc«J gcJl B A| pg ps 0
Solving for R yields:
QLr
c (T3 - TO
ps
M2
cps(Ta - TO
Uf2 ~ U22
2 ScJ
+ vlz»
- z,
+ c _(T2
pg
TO
(11)
B-3
-------
Similarly, an energy balance around the regenerator yields:
M
¦; + i^|ze - za) + wi! -™
+ Rc (T3 - Tit)
ps
~Qlr*
(12)
R =
Mi
Cps(T3 " T°
r
+ fj[h ' za) + cpg(Tl -Ts)
QU
c (T3 - T„)
ps
(13)
Equations 11 and 13 can be simplified if the kinetic energy, potential
energy, and enthalpy terms are compared by order of magnitude as follows:
Ui is assumed equal to 6 ft/s, and a temperature change of 20°F and a
pressure change of 70 in. H2O is assumed:
U3 = Uj
'h Z±
1 T1 P3,
580
; 5601
17.23
14.7
= 7.28 ft/s
u32 - Ui2
2 gcJ
7.282 - 6.002
(2)(32.174)(778)
= 0.00034 Btu/lb
(A)
If Z - Z = 30 ft,
B A
ifj(ZB " Za) ' (32?174H778) " °'03859 Btu/lb- (B)
The c of air over the range of 100 to 200°F = 0.24 Btu/lb,0F:
Pg
c (T3 - Ti) = 0.24(20) = 4.80 Btu/lb (C)
Pg
Term (C) is over 14,000 times larger than Term (A) and over 124 times larger
than Term (B). Both kinetic-energy and potential-energy contributions can
safely be ignored with a maximum error of less than 1 percent in the value of
the term in brackets in Equations (11) and (13).
B-4
-------
Applying the results described above, Equations (11) and (13) can be
rewritten as follows:
QL_ X2c(T2 ~ TO
r = 9. PS (14)
CPs(T3 " CPs(T3 - T*>
and
M2c (Ti - T3) QL
r = ——I k nsi
Cps(T3"TO cPs(T3-T0'
In a similar manner, Equation (8) now becomes:
MiCpg(T3 - Ti) + M2Cpg(T, - T2) - -QLg - QLR. (16)
If the gasifier and regenerator are operated under the following condi-
tions, the heat-loss term can be evaluated:
M = Mi = M2
T3 - Tit
Ti = T2
QL = QLg = QLr.
Equation (16) becomes:
Mcpg(T3 - Ti) = -QL. (17)
The heat loss can be expressed by the convection equation:
QL = UA[T3 - Ta
where:
QL = Heat loss
UA = Heat-transfer constant for external walls
Ta ¦ Ambient temperature.
B-5
(18)
-------
Equation (16) becomes:
Mc Ti = Mc T3 + UA(T3 _ T. L (19)
Pg Pg I AI
Measurement of M, Ti, T3, and TA will allow the value of UA to be
determined. This value will be constant for all other operating conditions.
The bed transfer rate, R, can be determined from Equations (14) and
(15) and the previously determined value of UA by inducing a temperature dif-
ference between Ti and T2. This temperature difference can be attained by
heating the air to the regenerator approximately 20°F higher than that to the
gasifier.
Weighbridge System
The second system considered utilizes load beams to transform the air-
distributor plates in both the gasifier and regenerator into weighbridges. The
arrangement, as shown in Figure B.2, is very similar to that used by BLH Elec-
tronics (Waltham, Massachusetts) in the construction of its electronic weigh-
bridge scales, but the application to fluid beds is quite unique. This system
would directly measure the bed-material transfer rate (in one direction) as a
change of weight over a time period.
ERROR ANALYSIS
Heat/Mass Transfer Analogy System
In the heat/mass transfer analogy system, Equation (14) or (15) can be
used to calculate the bed transfer rate, provided UA has been previously deter-
mined. To simplify error analysis, it will be assumed that the heat loss, QL,
is negligible. Under this restriction, Equation (14) becomes
-M2c (T2 - TO
R = —T~. (20)
c (T3 - to
ps
As can be seen from Equation (20), R will be sensitive to the air-mass
flow rate, M2, and the temperature differences (T2 - TO and (T3 - TO. It
will be necessary to determine temperatures and the air-mass flow rate very
accurately to ensure reasonable accuracy in determining R. A simple example
will be evaluated to indicate the accuracy required.
B-6
-------
Figure B.2 CAFB Cold Modeling—Weighbridge System Typical Assembly
B-7
-------
The assumed conditions are:
Ti = 120°F = 580°R
T2 = 100°F = 560°R
T3 = 111.954°F = 571.954°R [back-calculated from Equations (14)
and (15)]
Tit = 108.046°F = 568.046°R [back-calculated from Equations (14)
and (15)]
Cpg = 0.2 Btu/lb,0F (constant)
c =0.24 Btu/lb,0F (constant).
Pg
If the air-mass flow rate is measured by means of an orifice plate, the value
of M would be calculated from the orifice equation as follows:
M = 1891 Yd 2clAP p \** (21)
o \ oKg|
where:
H » Air-mass flow rate (lb/h)
Y = Expansion factor (dimensionless)
d = Orifice diameter (in.)
o
C = Orifice coefficient (dimensionless)
AP = Orifice differential (lb/in2)
p = Gas density (lb/ft3).
o
In addition,
P£ - (2>7tX P) (22)
O 1
where:
p = Gas density (lb/ft3)
8 .
Pi = Absolute upstream pressure (lb/in a)
Ti « Absolute temperature (°R).
The assumed conditions are:
P: - 17.23 lb/in2a
Ti = 560°R
B-8
-------
Y =1.0
d = 2.793 in.
o
C = 0.605
M = 13,353 lb/h.
The values of gas density and orifice differential are calculated from Equa-
tions (21) and (22) as:
p = 2'?s= °*08306 lb/ft3
g 3D(J
Apo = 26.95 in. H20.
If the following errors are assumed:
Temperature - ±1°F
Pressure - ±0.1 lb/in2
Orifice differential - ±0.2 in. H2O
the values of gas density in lb/ft3 are as in the following matrix:
Temperature (°R)
Pressure (lb/in2)
559
560
561
17.13
0.08274
0.08259
0.08244
17.23
0.08322
0.08307
0.08293
17.33
0.08370
0.08356
0.08341
Using the minimum, average, and maximum values of gas density and of
orifice differential pressure, the following values of air-mass flow in lb/h
are obtained:
Gas Density Orifice Differential
(lb/ft3) Pressure (in. H2O)
26.75
26.95
27.05
0.08244
13,253
13,302
13,327
0.08307
13,303
13,353
13,378
0.08370
13,354
13,403
13,428
B-9
-------
Assuming a 0.1°F error in the measurement of all temperatures, the
values of inlet and outlet temperatures become:
Ti « 580 ± 0.1°R
T2 = 560 ± 0.1°R
T3 = 571.954 ± 0.1°R
Ti| = 568.046 ± 0.1°R.
From these values, the values of the required temperature differences are:
(T3 - Tii) = 3.908 ± 0.2
(T2 - TO = 8.046 ± 0.2
and
(Tz - TO = _2 qcq+0.149
(T3 - TO -0.165
Using the values of gas flow rate previously obtained, the values of the
temperature ratio obtained above, and the constant value of Cpg/cpS = 0.24/0.2 =
1.2, values of R are calculated, using Equation (20), as presented in the
following matrix:
Gas Flow Rate Temperature Ratio [ (T2 - TQ/(T3 - TQ]
(lb/h)
-2.224 -2.059 -1.910
13,428 35,837 33,178 30,777
13,353 35,636 32,993 30,605
13,253 35,370 32,746 30,376
Since the true value of R is 33,000 lb/h, the percentage errors are as presented
in Table B.l.
The maximum error in transfer-rate determination would be almost 9 per-
cent, which is quite large considering the accuracy required in temperature
measurement. Two additional error tables will be presented to indicate the
magnitude of the error present under the following conditions:
• Case 1 - Maximum error in air-mass flow-rate determination and no
error in temperature determinations.
• Case 2 - One-half of maximum error in air-mass flow-rate determina-
tion and maximum error in one temperature determination.
Under the conditions of Case 1, Equation (20) becomes:
R = 2.471 M. (23)
B-10
-------
Table B.l Errors in Bed-Material Transfer Rate Using
Heat/Mass Transfer Analogy
(R)
Bed-Material
Transfer Rate
(lb/h)
(AR)
Absolute Error
R - 33,000
(lb/h)
(AR%)
Percentage Error
100 AR/33,000
(*)
35,837
35,636
35,370
33,178
32,993
32,746
30,777
30,605
30,376
+2837
+2636
+2370
+178
-7
-254
-2223
-2395
-2624
+8.6
+8.0
+7.2
+0.5
-0.02
-0.8
-6.7
-7.3
-8.0
Using the minimum and maximum values of M, the following table is
generated:
Gas Flow Rate
(lb/h)
13,253
13,428
Bed-Material
Transfer Rate
(lb/h)
32,746
33,178
Absolute Error
R - 33,000
(lb/h)
-254
+178
Percentage Error
100 AR/33,000
(percent)
-0.8
+0.5
Under the conditions of Case 2, the values of R in lb/h will be generated as
presented in the following matrices:
Assuming a ±0.1°F error in T2:
Gas Flow Rate
(lb/h)
13,403
13,303
Temperature Ratio [(T2 - Tt»)/(T3 - TQ]
-2.084
33,158
33,268
-2.033
32,698
32,454
B— 11
-------
Assuming a ±0.1°F error in T3:
Gas Flow Rate Temperature Ratio [(T2 ~ Ti,)/(T3 - TO]
(lb/h)
-2.007 -2.113
13,403 32,280 33,985
13,303 32,039 33,731
Assuming a ±0.1°F error in :
Gas Flow Rate Temperature Ratio [(T2 - TO/(T3 - TO]
(lb/h)
-2.139 -1.983
13,403 34,403 31,894
13,303 34,146 31,656
The error in the values of R, under the conditions of Case 2, is pre-
sented in Table B.2. From a practical standpoint, Case 2 would appear to be
the optimum condition realized in practice and, as shown in Table B.2, the
error in bed transfer rate can be as high as 4.3 percent.
Weighbridge System
The basic analysis of the errors to be expected using the weighbridge
system is statistical, because virtually all load-cell errors are random in
nature and the errors will obey the normal probability laws. The basic measure
of the dispersion of the random error distribution is the variance defined as:
n
°2 - <">
1=11 ^
It can be shown that the individual, statistically independent, load-
cell variances combine to form the composite load-cell error according to the
following equation:
aT = (aj2 + a22 + * * ' cn2)'5' (25)
B-12
-------
Table B.2 Errors in
Bed-Material Transfer Rate
Using
Heat/Mass
Transfer Analogy (Case 2)
(R)
(AR)
(AR%)
Bed-Material
Absolute Error
Percentage Error
Transfer Rate
R - 33,000
100 AR/33,000
(lb/h)
(lb/h)
(%)
Error
in
t2
33,158
158
+0.5
32,698
-302
-0.9
33,268
268
+0.8
32,454
-546
-1.7
Error
in
t3
32,280
-720
-2.2
33,985
985
3.0
32,039
-961
-2.9
33,731
731
+2.2
Error
in
t4
34,403
1403
+4.3
31,894
-1106
-3.4
34,146
1146
+3.5
31,656
-1344
-4.1
This equation also holds for statistical errors to any number of standard
deviations (e = na). Equation (25) can, therefore, be rewritten as:
ei2 + e22
2 I ^
(26)
For a system employing multiple, identical load cells, the system absolute
error obtained by application of Equation (25) is:
Bts - (nSj2)1* (27)
where:
= Total system absolute error
n = Number of load cells in system
B, = Individual cell composite absolute error.
B-13
-------
If both sides are divided by the total system load-cell capacity, XT + nX (X is
individual load-cell capacity), Equation (27) can be rewritten in terms of per-
centage errors:
TS
X„
= e
n6.
2I h.
TS
nX
(n)
(28)
where:
= Total system percentage error
= Individual cell composite percentage error
n = Number of load cells in system.
The load beams to be used in the weighbridge system are type LBPI, manu-
factured by BLH Electronics. Four cells, each having a rated capacity of 1000 lb,
will be used in each weighbridge. The error percentages to be used, taken from
BLH Bulletin 401-7 (1974), are as follows:
Error
Percent of Rated Capacity
Calibration accuracy
Nonlinearity
Hysteresis
Repeatability
Temperature effect on span
Temperature effect on zero balance
±0.25
±0.03
±0.02
±0.01
±0.0008 (load)/°F
(reference tempera-
ture » 77°F)
±0.0015/°F
(reference tempera-
ture ¦= 77 °F)
A ±25eF temperature variation (which allows operating temperatures
between 52 and 102°F) would give temperature-effect errors of 0.02 percent
(span) and 0.004 percent (zero balance).
Applying Equation (28) to these individual errors, for the load-beam
composite error the following is obtained:
e = f (0. 25) 2 + (0. 03) 2 + (0.02)2 + (0.01)2 + (0.02) 2(0. 004) 2 ] **
c '<¦ 1
0.2536 percent of rated output.
B-14
-------
Applying Equation (28) to the load-beam composite errors yields:
n o ^ ^ f\
e . = —:—j— = 0.1268 percent of rated output
IS (4)
This value of e^g represents the worst-possible error. The error in
the bed-material transfer rate, R, calculated using this error is presented
below. The following assumptions are made:
Expanded bed density (PBecj) = 62.4 lb/ft3
Expanded bed height (h) = 3 ft
Bed cross-sectional area (Ac.s.) = 9.5 ft2
True transfer rate (R) = 33,000 lb/h
Actual transfer time measured (t) = 30 s
Under these conditions, the initial weight in each bed (Wi) equals:
Wi = (pBed](h)(Ac.s.) = (62.4)(3)(9.5) = 1778 lb.
At a rate of transfer of 33,000 lb/h for 30 s, the true change in weight (AW)
equals:
Rt 33,000(30) _ „-,e
AW " M00 = 3,600 " 275 lb'
The true weight in the second bed after transfer is 1778 + 275 = 2053 lb. Ap-
plying the percentage-system error, e^g, to a rated capacity of 4000 lb gives
an error in the measurement of the bed weights (Wi and W2) of ±5 lb. Using
these values, an error table (Table B.3) is generated.
It is obvious from Table B.3 that the worst-possible error in the
weighbridge system (3.64 percent) is less than the worst-probable error under
Case 2 of the heat/mass transfer analogy system (4.3 percent). The actual
error in the weighbridge system will be less than the maximum value given,
since such errors as calibration accuracy can be eliminated. The worst error
expected, if this error is eliminated, can be calculated (as was done pre-
viously), and the worst error in transfer rate would equal 0.6 percent, which
rivals the very best error available with the heat/mass transfer analogy system.
B—15
-------
Table B.3 Errors in Bed-Material Transfer Rate Using Weighbridge System
(Wi)
(W2)
AW
A (AW)
A (AW) %
Weight in
Bed 1
(lb)
Weight in
Bed 2
(lb)
Weight
Transferred
(lb)
Absolute Error
(AW - 275)
(lb)
Percentage
Error
(100 A(AW)/275)
1773
2053
280
5
1.82
1783
2053
270
-5
-1.82
1778
2048
270
-5
-1.82
1778
2058
280
5
1.82
1773
2058
285
10
3.64
1783
2048
265
-10
-3.64
COST COMPARISON
Heat/Mass Transfer Analogy System
The major cost items in the heat/mass transfer analogy system are for
the resistance thermometers required to measure temperatures to 0.1°F, duct
heaters to heat the air to the regenerator bed approximately 20°F higher than
the air to the gasifier bed, and a display device for recording the measured
temperatures. Although one resistance thermometer would be adequate for a
small vessel, a vessel almost 10 ft2 in cross section will require many more.
In fact, if the temperatures Tj, T2, T3, and Ti+ (see Figure B.l) are to be
measured to 0.1°F and if 1°F temperature variation across the cross-sectional
area of the beds is assumed, 10 resistance thermometers at each measuring point
are required. Based on catalog information and engineering judgment, the
following price list for the major items of the heat/mass transfer system has
been compiled:
Unit Cost Total Cost
Quantity Description ($) ($)
40 Resistance thermometers accurate 150* 6,000
to 0.16F
1 Digital, display and related 1,000 1,000
circuitry
20 "Finstrips" - resistance heaters 32 6A0
1 Temperature controller 86 86
TOTAL 7,726
^Engineering estimate based on manufacturer's price for resistance thermometer
with 0.5°F accuracy.
B-16
-------
Weighbridge System
All that is required for the weighbridge system are eight load beams, a
digital display, and two new perforated plates. From manufacturers' catalogs,
the following price list has been compiled:
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Quantity
Description
($)
($)
8
LBPI - load beams
320
2,560
1
Digital display
984
984
2
Perforated plates
63
126
TOTAL
3,670
CONCLUSIONS
It is evident from what has been presented in the preceding sections
that the weighbridge system has many advantages over the heat/mass transfer
analogy system. Not only is the weighbridge system considerably more accurate
than the heat/mass transfer system, but it is also less expensive. The weigh-
bridge system was therefore selected as the system to be used in the cold-model
simulation of the CAFB demonstration plant bed-material transfer system.
B—17
-------
APPENDIX C
PROCEDURE USED FOR DATA REDUCTION FOR THE CAFB
COLD-HODEL GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER TESTS
-------
APPENDIX C
PROCEDURE USED FOR DATA REDUCTION FOR THE CAF3 COLD-MODEL
GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER TESTS
The purposes of this appendix are:
• To indicate what types of data were recorded during testing of the
solids-transport systems
• To present in detail the calculational procedure used to reduce
these data.
The types of data taken during testing of the solids-transport systems
are presented in Table C.l, which is a reproduction of an actual data sheet.
The data was subdivided into the following five categories or systems:
• Fluidizing-air bypass system
• Fluidized beds
¦ Transport-gas annubar measuring system
• Transport-gas spargers
• Bed-material transfer samples.
The calculational procedure used to reduce the data is presented in
Table C.2. This table indicates the input data (a measured value from Table C.l
or an intermediate result) and the dimensional units associated with them. A
conversion factor or calculational sequence that operates on the input datum is
also presented. Finally, the calculated result is given together with its
associated dimensional units.
C-l
-------
Table C.l CAFB Cold Model Data Sheet
0-59-6025 (R-114)
Bypass Orifice Diameter » 6.0"
Bypass Duct Diameter « 8.25"
System Measured Variable
Bypass Orifice Differential Pressure
Orifice Upstream Pressure
Orifice Downstream Temperature
Fan Exit Pressure
Fan Exit Temperature
Beds Fan Input Amps
Plenum Temperature
Plenum Pressure
Bed Differential Pressure (12 in.)
Bed Differential Pressure (24 in.)
Bed Differential Pressure (100 in.)
Pressure Above Bed
Display
Bed Height
Operating Time
Annubar Annubar Differential Pressure
Annubar Downstream Temperature
Annubar Downstream Pressure
Spargers Pulse-Air Supply Temperature
Pulse-Air Supply Pressure - Start
- End
Control Valve Signal Pressure
Surge Tank Pressure
Sparger Pressure
Pulse to Regenerator - On Time
Pulse to Regenerator - Off Time
Pulse to Gasifier - On Time
Pulse to Gasifier - Off Time
Samples Gasifier to Regenerator 1
Gasifier to Regenerator 2
Gasifier to Regenerator 3
Date:
Taken By:
Symbol
^o
Pi
t
0
p
Fan Exit
cFan Exit
Amps
tPlenum
p
Plenum
AP.
AP
AP
Bed-12
Bed-24
Bed-100
p
Top
Display
Bed Ht.
®0P
APi u
Annubar
CAnnubar
p
Annubar
£Tank
P
lank
p
Tank
p
Control Valve
p
Surge Tank
P
Sparger
®Pulse 1
Wise 2
'pulse 3
Vulse 4
(Wt./30 s)
(Wt./30 s)
(Wt./30 s)
e.
0.
Units
in. of 2.95 Fl.
in. of 2.95 Fl.
*F
in. of 2.95 Fl.
*F
Amps
*F
In. of 2.0 Fl.
in. H*0
in. H20
in. HjO
in. H20
in.
s
in. of 0.827 Fl.
*F
lb/in2g
•F
lb/ln*g
lb/in*g
lb/m'g
lb/in:g
lb/lnJg
Setting
Setting
Setting
Setting
lb/30 s
lb/30 s
lb/30 s
Gasi-
fier
Regen-
erator
C-2
-------
Table C.2 Calculational Sequence for CAFB Solids Transport System Data Reduction
0
1
Seep
Data*
(Input)
Dimensional
Units
Conversion Factor or Sequence
Result*
(Output)
Dimensional
Units
1
AP
o
in. of 2.95 Fl.
x 2.95
AP
o
in. H20
2
Pi
in. of 2.95 Fl.
x (2.95/27.7) + 14.7
Pi
lb/in2a
3
t
o
°r
+ 460
Ti
"R
4
**Fan Exit
in. of 2.95 Fl.
x (2.95/27.7) + 14.7
PFan Exit
lb/in2a
5
6
tFan Exit
Ti
°F
*8
+ 460
(6.08642 x lO-'mi)*'2
1 ~ (0.555 (T,) + 120)
TFan Exit
•r
cp
7
do. D,
in.
B = (d0/n,)
e
Dimensionless
a
B. AP , P,
o
See above
Y = 1 - (0.41 + 0.35 e")((].4)(27°7)(Pl))
Y
Dlmensionless
9t
du. Y. APq, T,, P,
See above
i.i 1 (2)(2.7)(g )AP Pj\^
Vass = IfH O00 00! 1
w
Bypass
lb/a
10
W
Bypass
lb/s
x 3600
Mn
Bypass
lb/h
n
Amps (G)
Anips (R)
Amps
Amps (T) = Amps (C) + Amps (R)
"Total (T) = 5317 (Amps (T)) - 76091
" •. Amps (G)
Total (G) ~ ToLal (T) X Amps (T)
tl M -r ^P8
Total (R) Total (T) Amps (T)
"Total (G)
"Total (R)
lb/h
lb/h
12
*®Total (T)
lb/h
Mflypass (T)
"Fluldizlng (T)
lb/h
"Total (G)
lb/h
MBypasa (G)
MFluidizing (G)
lb/h
MTotal (R)
lb/h
^Bypass (R)
MFluidizlng (R)
lb/h
13
'"Plenum
•F
+ 460
^"plenum
"R
14
p
Plenum
in. of 2.0 Fl.
x (2/27.7) + 14.7
p
Plenum
lb/in2a
15
P T
Plenum, Plenum
lb/iuJa, "R
^Plenum = (2"7)(PPlenura)/(TPlenum>
''plenum
lb/ft®
-------
Table C.2 Calculational Sequence for CAFB Solids Transport System Data Reduction (Cont)
Data*
Dlnenslonal
Result*
Dimensional
Step
(Input)
Units
Conversion Factor or Sequence
(Output)
Units
16
MFluidizlng
Area„,
Plate
PPlenuB
lb/h
ft2
lb/ft'
^ "t'luldizlnR
Plenum (3600 x Area... x p„, )
I'late Plenum
Area_, _ - 9.68229 ft2
Plate
VPlenu«i®
ft/s
17
PTop
in. 1I20
x (1/27.7) + 14.7
PTop
lb/in*a
18
P T
Top' Plenun
lb/1n!«, °R
pTop " (2.7)^¦jop^^Plenum^
PTop
lb/ft'
19
"piuldizlng
AreaBed
PTop
lb/h
ft2
lb/ft3
^Fluldizlng
Top (3600 x Area x p )
Bed Top
Area„ . - 9.68229 ft2
Bed
V
Top
f t /s
20
Display
Dimensionless
Use curve-fit correlations!
Bed Wt.
lb
21
Bed lit.
In.
X 1
Bed Ht.
in.
22
Bed Wt.
Bed lit.
lb
in.
Bed Wt.
PBed = (Area ,)(Bed Ht./12)
Bed
PBed
lb/ft3
23
90p
s
¦in
x 1
x 60
®0p
8
24
Sank
°F
+ 460
TTank
°R
25
PTank <«tart/end)
lb/ln'g
x 1
P„, , (start/end)
Tank
lb/ln'g
26
PTank <8tart>
lb/ln2g
lb/in2g
APTank = PTank (start) " PTank (end)
APTank
lb/lnJ
27
APTank
Tank
lb/In2
*R
-------
Table C.2 Calculational Sequence for CAFB Solids Transport System Data Reduction (Cont)
0
1
Ln
Data*
Dimensional
Result*
Dimensional
Step
(Input)
Units
Conversion Factor or Sequence
(Output)
Units
29
Annubar
in. of 0.827 Fl.
x 0.827
^PAnnubar
in. H20
30
11 Annubar
"F
+ *60
'"Annubar
•r
31
^Annubar
lb/in2g
+ 14.7
^Annubar
lb/in2a
32
^Annubar
Annubar
lb/in2a
°R
(2.7)(P . )
_t Annubar
B1eed Air T
Annubar
^Bleed Air
lb/ft3
33
^lleed Air
&p»
Annubar
lb/ft1
In. H20
"Bleed Air = 11 •125 x ^Bleed Air * ^Annubar)'*
'^Bleed Air
lb/lkiil
34
Air Kate
MBleed Air
lb/mln
lb/uln
"Pulse Air " Air RaCe " MBleed Air
^Pulse Air
lb/mitt
35
p
Sparger
lb/in2g
x 1
p
Sparger
lb/in2g
36
Timer (on/off)
Setting
Use calibration (Figures 4.4 - 4.7)
Timer (on/off)
s
37
Air Kate
lb/uln
(70 + 460)
x (2.7)(14.7)
Volume (Air)
sft 3/min
38
Sample^
lb/30 s
1 N
Sample Average «= — E (Sample)
N 1
i = i
Where N - No. of samples
Sample Average
lb/30 s
39
Sample Average
lb/30 s
x 120
Material Rate
lb/h
40
Material Rate
Volume (Air)
ib/h
sf t J/«ln
„ „ Material Rate
Transport Ratio = -tttt 17—: ,. . .
r (60) x Volume (Air)
Transport Ratio
(Air)(lh/sft3)
*Kor definitions, see Liat of Symbols, p.
1K Is a function of dQ and Re^ and Is determined from the equations presented in ASHR Fluid Meters, 6th ed. (Part II), p. 201. Since
Re Is a function of W„ , the calculation of W„ is iterative.
I) Bypass Bypass
§Tliis is an approach velocity using the area of the plate only.-
1 Range EquatIon Linear Correlation Coefficient
590 < Display i 1060 Bed Wt. = 1.95650 (Display) - 481.93510 r2 = 0.99660
Display > 1060 Bed Wt. = 3.79979 (Display) - 2644.69362 r2 = 0.98142
A linear correlation coefficient (r2) » 1 Indicates a perfect linear relationship between the variables.
-------
APPENDIX D
CALCULATION SHEETS FOR THE PRIMARY GAS IFIER-REGENERATOR
BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER SLOT-THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATIONS-
PRELIMINARY TESTS
-------
Data Set: Case A
Gaaifler
Bvpaas
iP (in. H,0)
o £
P1 (lb/ln'a)
Tx (*R)
?Fan W£(lb/io!a)
TFan Exi: <"*>
U (cp)
Y
*9yp„s
PPlsnum
*" Plenum <»/"'>
"planum
PTop
Display (scarc/end)
B«d we. (start/and) (lb)
Bad He. (scarc/end) (in.)
08e(J (start/end) (lb/fe')
% <•>
Spargers TTank CD
?Tank >
Air Rats (Ib/min)
iPAnnub.r
T.»nubar ('R)
'Antra bar
"pulse Air ("»/¦!«)
P3parger
Tiaer (on/off)(»)
Volume (Air) (aft'/Bin)
Ilatariai R«t»
-------
Data Set: Case B
Casifier
Bypass
AP (in. H,0)
0 I
Pj (lb/in2!)
Tj CR)
PF.n Exit
pPlenu» (lb/ft'>
VPlanuo <£t/s)
PTop
°Top (lb/ft3)
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Ut. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
PBed (lb/ftJ)
% <«>
Spargers T^ (•*,
PTank <*tart/«ndXlb/inJg)
4 PT.nk (lb/1"2)
^Total Air (lb>
Air Rata (lb/ain)
^Annubar (ln' H20)
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar (lb/ln'">
CBleed Air (lb/ft3)
\leed Air (lb/»in)
SPulse Air (lb/nin)
P.
-------
Data Set: Case C
Gasifier
Bvpaas APq (in. H^O)
Ragenarator
P: (lb/in2a)
t1 CR)
PFan E*it(lb/ln2a)
TFan Exic ("R)
u (cp)
Y
MByp... ab/s>
Vp.ss
PPlenu«
^Plenum (lb/fC,)
^Plenum
PTop (lb/in2a)
°Top (lb/ftJ)
VTop
Display (scart/«nd)
Bed Wc. (9tart/end) (lb)
Bed He. (start/end) (in.)
(scarc/end) (lb/ft1)
% <">
SEarger, (•*)
PTank (»tart/«nd>(lb/in2g)
1 PTank
^Tocal Air
P3parger
Tiner (on/off)(s)
Volune (Air) (sft'/min)
Macerial Race (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air) (lb/sr"t')
150
366
1094/1084
1729/1689
21/21
102/100
600
530*
96/61
35
38.82
3.88
51.34
41049
1.32
Notes
*Assumed
tSample average
3 Recycle on
150
567
1208/1110
2185/1793
25.5/27.25
106/82
4104
D-3
-------
Data Set: Case D
Gaalfier
Bypass APQ (Id. HjO)
Beds
P: (lb/in a)
Tx CR)
PFan 1,1* <"»"»*•>
TF«u Exit ( R)
v (cp)
Y
(lb/»>
Vpaas (lb/h>
Aaps
&
(lb/h)
Total
"Fluidizing flb/h)
TPlenu» (#R>
^Plenum
Plenum
(lb/ft')
Vem.
PIop (lb/in2a)
(lb/ft3)
Top
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Ut. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
°B<(j (start/end) (lb/ft5).
®0p (s)
Spargers CR)
PTank (lb/inJg)
& PTank
^Total Air (lb>
Air Race (Ib/nin)
iPA„nub.r (in" «20)
TAnnubar '
^Annubar
'Bleed Air (lb/f£'>
"Bleed Air (lb/nlin)
"pulse Air ab/min)
PSparger
Tiner (oil/off) (»)
Volume (Air) (aft'/min)
Material Race (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/»fts)
ISO
560
1052/1203
1576/2165
21/25
93/107
600
530*
96/57
39
43.25
4.33
57.76
3534 S
1.02
Regenerator
Notes
*Aaauamd
tSaople average
SCalculated fron Abed
weight (gaalfier)
165
560
984/1050
1443/1572
26.25/19.5
68/100
D-4
-------
Data Set: Case E
Gastfier
Bypass (In. HjO)
Pj (lb/in*a)
Tr ("R)
PFan Exit(lb/ln2a)
Tcan Exit ("R)
U (cp)
Y
Vp.M (lb/s>
*Byp«a. (lb/h)
Anpa
^Toeal
^Fluidiiing
(*R)
(lb/in*a)
B«ds
TPl.m» CM
Planum
°Planu» (lb/ft'>
VP1«iiub
PTop
°Top
VT0P (ft/"
Diaplay (acart/and)
Bad Ue. (acart/and) (lb)
Bad Ht. (acart/and) (in.)
°Bed (,t*rti'*n(i) (lb/ftJ)
% <«>
Spargara TTink {•R)
?Taak (lb/inJg)
4 PTank
^Tocal Air
Air R*e« (Ib/nln)
iPAnnubar (in" H20)
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar (lb/ll,1«>
°BlMd Air
"fllaad Air (lb/"in)
"pul.a Air (lb/ain)
PSPargar
Timar (on/off)(s)
Voluaa (Air) (aic'/nin)
Macarial Raca+ (lb/h)
Ttanaport Ratio (air)(lb/«fts)
150
361
1118/1183
1823/2085
21/24
108/108
300
530*
91/71
20
22.18
4.44
39.24
2928!
0.82
Ragenerator
Notaa
*Aaauaad
tSaapla avaraga
JCalculatad froa ubad
vaighc (regenerator)
170
360
1136/1093
1977/1733
24.5/21.23
100/101
D-5
-------
Data Set: Case F
Bypass APo (in. H^O)
Pj (lb/in2a)
Tj (°R)
Pr»n Exlcab/1I,J*)
TPan Exit C°R)
U (cp)
Y
Va« (lb/'>
Vp...
Bed« Amp®
fiTot.l
"riuidizing (lb/h)
TPl«u. <**>
^Plenum
0Plenu»
Venu, «"•>
PTop
CTop
VTop <"'•>
Display (start/end)
Bad Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bad Ht. (start/and) (in.)
°B«d («t*rt/«nd) (lb/fts)
% <•>
SBsmI rUn. (.R)
PTank <»t»"/and)(lb/in:g)
A PT,nk (lb/in2)
ifiT0tal Air
Air Rata (lb/ain)
ttAwub.t
^Annubar ^ R'
PAnnubar
CBl..d Air «*"«'>
*Ble.d Air (lb/Bln)
"pulse Air
PSparg.r ^"/in2,)
Tiuar (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (aft'/oin)
Material Rat* (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sftJ)
iMGasifier Regenerator
Notes
*Aaaua«d
tSaaple anri|t
(Calculated from A bad
weight (regenerator)
150
564
170
564
1190/1196
2113/2137
24/30
109/88
240
530*
73/24
49
54.34
13.59
1101/886
1757/1252
21.25/15
102/103
181.42
7575J
0.70
D-6
-------
Data Set: Case G
iPo (in. HjO)
Pj (lb/in2a)
T1 (*R)
PFan Exicab/lt,:a)
TF.„ Exit <**>
U (cp)
Y
VP... ab/,)
V„3
Amps
ftTotal
'^Fluldiiing
TPlanun ("R)
PPl«B« ab/taJa>
9Pt.«. (lb/ft'>
VPlenum (ft/,)
PTop (lb/lnJ»)
°Top
^Tocal Air (lb>
Mr Raca (lb/min)
*PAnnubar (ln" H2°>
TAnnubar '
PAnnubar <"/»¦*'>
°Bla.d Air (lb/,tI)
*Bl.ad Air ab/"ln)
Vis, Air
-------
Data Set: Case H
Gasifier
Bvpass (in. H^O)
Px (lb/in*a)
T: (°R)
FF.n Exit(lb/inJ,)
TFan Exit ("R)
U (cp)
Y
Regenerator
Wot«»
*Aaauaad
tSampla average
§Baaed on recycle rate +
<3600) (..g.jj/eop
Vp... (lb/s)
«ByP... (lb/h>
Bads Amps
\otal
"FluidiUng (lb/h)
TPlenus> (*R)
^Plenum ("/in2.)
°Pl.nuo
Vp lamia
PT0p ""/in2.)
0Top (lb/ft1)
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bad Wt. (start/and) (lb)
Bad Ht. (start/and) (in.)
DJ#d (atart/end) (lb/ft3)
®Op <">
iem-r, TT,nk cr)
PTank <«««/and) (lb/inJg)
4 PT.nk "b/In2>
*Wal Air
Air Rata (lb/ain)
iPAT,nub.r
CBlaad Air
"siaad Air (lb/Bln)
*Pul.a Air (lb/-ln>
PSpargar «¦»/*¦'«>
Timer (on/off)(•)
VoIum (Air) (ift'/nln)
-Material Rata* (ib/b)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aft')
150
571
1197/1229
2141/2269
24/27
111/104
360
530*
88/32
56
62.11
10.35
170
571
1147/958
1941/1392
22/17
109/102
138.23
95941
1.16
D-8
-------
Data Set: Case I
Gaslfiar
3vpa
Bads
APq (in. H20)
(lb/inza)
(*R)
PFan Exit
TPan Exit ("R)
U (cp)
Y
Vpa.s
Vpas. (lb/h>
Amps
^Total ,
Vpi«nua <£e/9)
PTop
(lb/in'a)
°Top (lb/ft'>
VTop
Display (start/and)
Bad Wt. (scarc/and) (lb)
Bad He. (start/and) (In.)
(start/and) (lb/ec5)
3Op <•>
S£SIS2I1 TTank <•«>
PTank (lb/in2g)
4 PT.nk (lb/i"J>
^Total Air
TAnnubar *¦ ^
PAnnubar
°Blaad Air
^Blead Air (lb'Bitl>
^Pulsa Air (lb/Bln)
?Spargar
Timer (on/ot'f)(s)
Voluaa (Air) (sft'/win)
Macarlal Raca (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sfc3)
132
MO
990/1179
1435/2069
18/27
100/95
300
330«
94/34
40
44.36
3.87
118.48
16,044i
2.26
Stagenerator
Notas
•Asaunad
tSanpla avaraga
IBaaad on racyela raca +
(3600) (AW^ ^.g.p/Qop
162
580
1243/926
2323/1330
26/15
111/110
D-9
-------
Data Set: Case J
Gasifier
Bypass &Po (in. H^O)
Pj (lb/lnJ»)
T: (*R)
PFan Exlt(lb/in2s)
TFan Exit (*R>
U
sPlenu»
Iearur. CR)
PTank (•t»rt/«nd>
Air Rate (lb/sin)
583
1078/1151
1665/1957
19/22
109/110
900
530*
583
1186/1118
2097/1825
25.25/21.25
103/106
8.87f
*PAnnubar
TAnnubar <*">
PArnubar
°Bl.ed Air >
"Bleed Air (lb/Bin>
Viae Air (lb/"in)
PSparger
Timer (on/off)(a)
Voluae (Air) (aft Vain)
Material Rate* (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aft')
118.48
51921
0.73
D-10
-------
Data Set: Case K
Gaalfier
Bypass
APq (in. H20)
P1 (lb/lnJa)
C*)
?Fan ExiC(lb/11,2a)
TFan Exit ('R)
U (cp)
Y
Vp«. (lb/l)
(lb/h>
Amps
^Total
^Fluidiiing
an.nu» (lb/ft'>
"planum
PTop (lb/in2a)
°Top (lb/ft])
VTop
Display (start/and)
Bad We. (start/end) (lb)
Sad He. (scarc/end) (In.)
°B#d (acarc/and) (lb/ft1)
30p (l>
ieiasrs tTank cr)
PTank (*c»rt/and) (lb/inJg)
A PTanfc (lb/in!)
^Total Air
Air Rata (lb/min)
^PAnnubar (ln" H20)
TAnnubar ^ *'
PAnnubar
°Blaed Air (lb/ft'>
ABlead Air (lb/»in>
*PuUe Air llb/»iB)
PSParger
Tiaer (on/off)(a)
Volume (Air) (sft'/oin)
Material Rate* (lb/h)
Tranaport Ratio (air)(lb/aft')
130
365
1174/1136
2049/1977
22/26
115/94
300
530*
85/47
38
42.14
8.43
112.56
10,360!
1.56
Regenerator
No tea
*Assumed
tSasple average
5Baaed on recycle rate +
o«oomub,d ^.g.jj/Qop
165
565
1120/908
1833/1295
21/13
108/107
D-ll
-------
Beds
Data Set: Case L
Gaslfler
Bypass AP (In. H,0)
P: Clb/inJ»)
Tj CR)
PFan Exit
^Bypass
Amps
^Total (lb/h>
^Fluidlzing (lb/h>
TPlenum'<,R)
PPlenu» (lb/ln2^
pPlenu» (lb/ft3)
VFl«nuB
PTop
°Top (lb/ft,)
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (In.)
°gtd (start/end) (lb/ft3)
SOp <•>
S?""" T,
Tank
CR)
PTank (lb/in2g)
A PT,nlt (lb/in2)
^Tot.l Mr (lb>
Air Race (lb/mln)
aPAn„ub.r (in" H20)
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar
CBleed Air
"Bleed Air (lb/"in)
*Pulse Air (lb/»iB>
PSparger (lb/ln2«>
Tiner (on/off)(•)
Volune (Air) (afr'/ain)
Material Race'*' (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aft')
150
578
1136/1251
1897/2357
21/28
112/104
900
530*
8.431
112.56
65681
0.98
Regenerator
Notes
¦Assumed
SAlr race aaauatd equal to
that of Case K
tSaaple average
l&aaad on recycle rate +
O'oomah^ (rH ))/6op
162
574
1149/925
1949/1328
22.5/16
107/103
D-12
-------
Data Set: Case M
Gaslfler
Bypaaa APq (in. H^O)
Pt (lb/in*a)
Tx (*R)
PFan Exlt(lb/ln2a>
TFan Exit (*S)
U (cp)
1
Raganarator
Notai
*Aaauaad
tSaapl* avaraga
SBaaad on racycla rata +
(3600) (AW,
bad (rag.)"®Op
Vpa.a
B»da Aaps
"Total (lb/h>
^riuldlztng (lb/h>
TPl«nun (*R>
PPlanu»
°Planua
^Planum
PTop
Sfiiasrs TT4nk CR)
PTank (•""/•"'D (lb/inJg)
4 PTanlc <»'*•'>
^Total Air
Air Rata (lb/gtin)
4PAnm,b.r
T.Vnnubar <*«
PAnnubar
°Blaad Air
"Blaad Air
-------
Data Set: Case N
Gaalflar
Bvpaaa iPQ (in. H^O)
Pr (lb/in2a)
Tx (°R)
PF«n Exltab/ln2*)
TFan Exit (#R)
U (cp)
Y
V...
Bed* Anps
fiToc»X
"riuidixing (lb/h)
TPl«nua (**>
PPlanua
VTop
Display (start/and)
Bed Wt. (atarc/tnd) (lb)
Bad Ht. (atart/and) (in.)
CBad (lb/ft3)
®Op ">
SDirgsr. TTank CR)
PTank (lb/itpg)
* PT.nk
^Total Air
Air Rata (Ib/aln)
^Aimubar (in- H:°>
TAnnubar (*R)
PAnnubar
BBlaad Air
"Blaad Air (lb/*in)
APUlaa Air (lb/»in)
PSpar,ar (lb/lni*>
Ti««r (on/off)(a)
Voiron (Air) (aft'/min)
Material Rata* (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aft')
152
545
1194/1253
2129/2365
25/28
106/105
420
530*
98/50
48
53.24
7.61
101.55
8789 i
1.44
Raganarator
Notaa
*Aaauo«d
tSaapla average
iBaaed on recycle rata +
(3600)(AW
'bad (rag. )^®Op
160
545
1086/988
1697/1451
22/18
96/100
D-14
-------
Data Set: Case 0
Gasifier
Bypass 4?o (in. HjO)
?l (lb/in**)
PFan Exit(lb/ln2a)
TFan Exit (*R)
U Ccp)
Y
Vass (lb/s)
Vpas. (lb/h>
Beds Amps
\otal
TPlanun (*R)
PPl.nua
^Planum
VPlanum
PTop
°Top (lb/ft!)
VToP
Display (start/end)
Bad we. (start/end) (lb)
Bad He. (start/and) (in.)
3^ (start/and) (lb/fc!)
% <•>
Rageneracor
l£i£SHi TTank CM
sea
A P. . (lb/in!)
PTank (st4rt/«n
Air EUct (lb/min)
iPAnnubar
T.Vnnubar <*R>
PAnnubar
pBleed Air
'^Blead Air ab/ain)
*Pulse Air
PSparg»r (lb/*"J«>
Timer (on/off)
-------
Data Set: Case P
Gaeifier
Bvpaas 4P0 (in. HjO)
Bed*
P: (lb/in2a)
Tx CR)
PFan Exlt(lb/in2,)
TF*n Exit ("R)
U (cp)
Y
Vp.« ab/,)
v...(lb/h)
Amps
A
Total
(lb/h)
"riuidlztng (lb/h)
^Plenum (*R>
PPl.nu» (lb/ln'*>
cPlenu» ab/ft'>
VPl.nu»
PTop (lb/in'a)
°Top
VTop
Diaplay (acart/end)
Bed «t. (atari/and) (lb)
Bad Ht. (etarc/cnd) (in.)
°Bed <•«•"/•»<) (lb/ft3)
% <»
&IUZZ TTlnk CR)
PTank <,t4r^*nd> (lb/in2g)
6 PT«hk
^Tot.1 Air
Air Race (lb/»in)
4PA»n„b.r (ln" H20)
CR)
(lb/inJa)
^Annubar ^
Annubar
°Bl.ed Air Clb/ft>)
*Bleed Air (lb/Bin)
*Pula. Air ab/Bin)
PSparger
Tiner (on/off)(»)
Volune (Air) (ett'/nin)
Material Rata1 (lb/h)
Tranaport Ratio (air)(lb/aft®)
1218/934
2225/1345
23/29
120/58
390
530*
96.5/60.5
36
39.93
6.14
82.02
20,114i
4.09
Regenerator
Notea
*Aaauaed
tSaaple avarag*
SBaaad on recycle rate +
(3600) (r,g.))/90p
1234/1063
22B9/1605
27/19
105/105
D-16
-------
Data Set: Case Q
Gasifler
Regenerator
Bypass APq (in. HjO)
P; (lb/tnJa)
Tx ("*)
PFan ExiC(lb/inia)
T?an Exit ("R)
u (cp)
Y
Notaa
*Aaauaad
tSaapla avaraga
53asad on tacyela raca +¦
OfiQO)^ (r„.))/e0p
Racycla rata was aaauaad
aqual co chat of Casa F
Bads
Vp...
Vpass
Amps
ft
Total
(lb/h)
"Fluldiiing (lb/h)
TPl.nu» ('R>
PPlenuo (lb/ln:»>
°Plenum
Plenum
PTop (lb/tn2.)
°Top (lb/ft5)
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bad Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bad He. (start/and) (In.)
(seart/and) (lb/ft5)
%
(start/and)(lb/tnzg)
Tank
* PTank
^Total Air <»)
Air Rate (Ib/oln)
150
577
1237/1331
2301/2676
26/30
110/U1
519.1
530*
100/29
71
78.74
9.10
160
1243/1120
2325/1933
23/20
115/114
4PAimubar (ln- H20)
TAnnub« ('S)
PArmubar
pBl«ad Air
*Bla.d Air W*™
*Pul,a Air (lb/ain)
PSp.rgar
Tinar (on/off)(s)
Voluna (Air) (sft'/nin)
Material Rata (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft')
»6
121.54
17,2125
2.36
D-17
-------
Data Set: Case R
CMlfier
Bvpas» iPQ (In. HjO)
Hagenarator
Bad*
Pj (lb/in1!)
T: CR)
PF.„ E*it
TP.n Exit (,R)
U (cp)
Y
6Byp...
V...
Amp •
"Total
"nuidizing
TPI«n«n» {*R)
PPl*m» ab/ln2»>
°P1«oub
(lb/in2*)
Top
°Top (lb/ft'>
v ««/•>
Dltplty (fcare/end)
B«d Wt. (start/end) (lb)
B«d Ht. (»tart/*nd) (in.)
PUd (lb/ft3)
®0p <•>
SBSUZi rUnk (•«)
»ta
i P_._. (lb/in2)
PT»nlc (*t",t/tnd)(lb/in2j)
Tank
^Total Air (lb>
Air Rat* (lb/»in)
^Annubar (ln- H20)
TAnnub«r <"*>
Ptom,b«r
KulM. Air ab/sin)
PSp.rg*r <">/!„',)
Ti»«r (on/off)(*)
Volun* (Air) (aft'/Bin)
Material (tat* (lb/h)
Tranaport Ratio (air)(lb/aft*)
150
381
1276/1278
2456/2464
24/26
117/117
548.5
530*
100/23
75
83.18
9.10
6.3
121.50
16,2421
2.23
Sotaa
*Aaaua*d
tSaapl* avarag*
iBaaad on racyel* rat* +
(3600) (r#g.))/0Op
Raeycl* rata aaauaad equal
to that of Ca** P
160
1245/1152
2333/1961
25/23
116/106
D-18
-------
Data Set: Case S
Gaslfler
(lb/h)
Bvpaaa (In. H^O)
Pj (lb/in:a)
Tx CR)
PFan Sxic(lb/ll,2a)
TFan E«lt
u (cp)
Y
Vpass (lb/,)
Vass (lb/h>
Btfds Amps
ft
Tocal
"fluldizlng (lb/h>
^Plenum ^
PPlenum (lb/ln^
PPXanua (lb/f<3>
VPIenun
PTop
PTop (lb/ft3)
VTop (fC/»»
Display (start/and)
Bed Wt. (start/and) (lb)
Bed He. (start/and) (In.)
(start/end) (lb/ft3)
%
Air Rata (lb/mln)
iPA«nubar
^Blaed Air clb/ain>
*Pulse Air /90p
Recycle rata aaauoed equal
to that of Case P
160
1161/1130
1997/1873
23/20.5
108/113
D-19
-------
Data Set; Case T
Bvpass &P (in. H.O)
r o i
Pj (lb/in2a>
Tj CR)
PFan Exit
Beda Amp6
Val
"Fluidiring (lb/h)
TPl«num (*R)
^Plenum Clb/in2*)
°Plenum
^Plenum
PTop (lb/in2a)
°Top
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bad Wt. (atart/end) (lb)
Bed He. (start/end) (in.)
°Bed ^*tlrt^4n
SEiaiii TT>nk cr)
PTank ^starc''end) CIb/ln2g)
* PTank
^Tot.l Air
Air Rata (lb/min)
iPAnnub.r (ln" H2°>
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar ^lb/'In
°Bleed Air
"pulst Air ab/Bin)
°Sparger Ub'*"28>
Timer (on/off)(g)
Voluac (Air) (aft'/min)
Material Rate* (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aft3)
Casifler Regenerator
Not at
*Aaau«ed
tSasple average
IBaaed on recycle race +
(3600)(aHW (r.,.^%
Recycle race aaauaed equal
to that of Caat P
150
160
584
1200/1275
2153/2452
21/29
127/105
381
530*
100/25
75
83.18
13.10
1282/1117
2460/1821
27/21
114/107
6.5
174.92
20,0271
1.91
D-20
-------
Data Set: Case U
Gaaifier
Bypass AP (in. H,0)
Px (lb/In a)
("X)
PFan txttM'*1*
TFan Exic (°R)
u (cp)
Y
Regenerator
Hotea
*Aaaumad
tSaopl* av«rag«
SBaaad on racycla rat* +
(3600) (AU^ (r.g.^/Oop
Beds
^Bypass
*Bypa» (lb/h>
Amp a
MTotal
PPlanum Ub/l«J.)
°Plenum (lb/ft3)
''planum
PTop
CTop (lb/ft3)
VTop
Display (atarc/end)
Bed Wt. (stare/and) (lb)
Bad Ht. (start/and) (In.)
°Bed <*"«/«r»d) (lb/ft1)
% (s»
SEarger, TTank (*R)
PTank (»tart/®nd)(lb/in!g)
4 PTanR
AM,
iJ)
(lb)
Tocal Air
Air Race (lb/min)
iPA»nubar
TAnnubar ('R)
PAnnubar (lb/ln2a)
^Blead Air
531«d Air
PSpargar
Tlaar (on/off)(s)
Voluma (Air) (sfe'/oin)
Matarial Rata (lb/h)
Tranaport Ratio (air)(lb/s£t3)
150
1184/1217
2089/2221
24/32
108/86
392.1
530*
99/20
79
87.62
8.84
1.25/1.15
118.56
26,6295
3.74
1199/932
2149/1381
24/16
111/107
D-21
-------
Data Set: Case V
Gas i fler
Regenerator
Bypass
Beds
;p (In. H,0)
o i
(lb/in2a)
Tx CR)
PF.n E«ie(lb,i"'«>
TFan Exit ("R)
y (cp)
Y
WBypaet ^ll,/s>
Vp».
^Fluidiring
TPlenun (*R>
(lb/h)
pPX.n« <"»>*»-»>
pPlenum (lb/ft'>
VPl«nu»
PTop (lb/in2.)
V (lb/ft'>
VTop
Display (atart/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
(start/end) (lb/fts)
90p <*>
Spargers TT>nk CR)
PTank (st»rt/end>(lb/in2g)
4 PTank
¦Suite Air ab/nin)
PSparger ab/i"2^
Timer (on/off)(a)
Voluae (Air) (sft'/ain)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Tranaport Ratio (air) (lb/aft5)
1191/1250
2117/2353
24/28
109/104
507
530*
98.5/25
73.5
81.52
9.65
6.5
1.25/1.15
128.82
26,044$
3.37
Mo tea
*Aaauaed
tSample average
iBaaed on recycle rate +
(3600»(fflb.d (r.g.))/6Op
1218/1070
2225/1633
24/20
115/101
D-22
-------
Data Set: Case W
Gasifler
Bypaas (in. HjO)
(lb/inJa)
^ (*»>
PFa„ Exlc
TFati Exit ("R)
(cp)
Bypass
(lb/s)
Bads
V—
Aapa
\ot.l (lb/h)
*Fluidizi„g (lb/h>
TPl#nua ("R)
?Planu»
"Top (lb/fc,)
VTop
Display (start/and)
Bad Wt. (start/acid) (lb)
Bad He. (start/end) (In.)
(»carc/and) (lb/ft1)
V <•>
SP"8«» TTank(*R)
71»nk (lb/ln1g)
* PTa»k ^in!>
"Veal Air (lb>
Air Rata (lb/min)
^Annubar
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar (lb/ln'a>
"Slead Air
(lb/f c1)
Vaad Air (lb/nin)
\ul.. Air (lb/fflin)
^Sparger
Tinar (on/off)(s)
Volua* (Air) (aft Vain)
.'iacarlal Rata (lb/h)
Tranaport Ratio (air)(lb/»it!)
155
576
1154/1236
1969/2297
24/26
102/109
694
530*
100/25
75
S3.18
7.19
7.3
96.03
22,475}
3.90
Re generator
Notaa
•Aaaumad
tSanpla average
iSaaed on recycle rata +
(3600>(iV,w (r,g.p/%
160
1247/U47
2341/1941
24/21
121/115
D-23
-------
Data Set: Case X
Gasifier
Bypass
AP (in. H,0)
o I
(lb/in2a)
T: CR)
Fan Exit
(lb/in a)
TF.n Exit {'R)
U (cp)
Y
u (lb/»)
Bypass
(lb/h)
Bypass
Beds
Anps
M
(lb/h)
Total
^Fluidiiing (lb/h>
"^Plenum
PPlenu» (lb/in2*)
^Plenum
VPlenum
PTop
PTop db/ft5)
VTop
Display (start/end)
Be4. Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (In.)
°Bed (lb/ftJ)
®0p <•>
SEirgjr. TTink CR)
PTank («E*rt/end)(lb/in2g)
* PTank
^Tocal Mr (lb>
Air Rate (lb/mln)
^Annub.r (ln" H2°>
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar ab/lnJ*>
^Bleed Air
*Bleed Air
Timer (on/off)(1)
Volume (Air) (»ft!/oin)
Material Race (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aft1)
155
561
1165/1212
2013/2201
23/27
108/101
649
530*
99/25
74
82.07
7.S9
7.3
101.32
22.9899
3.78
Regenerator
Notes
*Aaauaed
~Sample average
SBaaed on recycle rate +
(3600) (4^
162
1216/1148
2217/1945
25/21
110/115
D-24
-------
DaCa Set: Case Y
Gaslfier
3yodS3 iP (in. H^O)
P: (lb/in2a)
^ CR)
?Fan Exit^'1"^
TFan Exic <*R>
u (cp)
Y
WByP«. Ub/S)
?Planum
VPl«num (£c/!,)
PTop (ib/in'a)
°Top
VTop (ft/s)
Display (start/and)
Bad Mt. (start/and) (lb)
Bad He. (start/and) (In.)
PB<
TT«»k <*R)
Tank
A P,
(start/and)(lb/in2g)
Tank
(lb/in')
^Total Air
Air Ran (lb/min)
^nubar (In" «2°>
TAnnubar <**>
PAnnubar (lb/In^
°Bla«d Air (lb/(tI)
*Blaad Air (lb/ain)
*Pula. Air (lb/»iB>
PSpar,.r
Tiaaat (on/off)(s)
Voluna (Air) (ste'/oin)
Matarlal Rata (lb/h)
Tranaport Ratio (air)(lb/lie')
Raganeracor
Kotaa
*Aaaum»d
SAir raea asauaad iqual Co
thac of Caaa X
tSaopla avaraga
tBaaad on racyela raca +
(3600){Wb.<1 op
133
590
162
1219/1229
2229/2269
24/27
115/104
1800
530*
1256/1122
2377/1841
24/21
123/109
7.595
101.32
22,072f
3.63
D-25
-------
APPENDIX E
CALCULATION SHEETS FOR THE PRIMARY GAS IFIER-REGENERATOR
BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER SLOT-FOURTH GENERATION—FREQUENCY
TESTS WITHOUT SPARGER BLEED AIR
-------
Data Set: FO
Bypass (in. HjO)
Pt (lb/i.n2a)
T, (°R!
Beds
PF.n E,ie{lb/ln
TFan Exic ( R)
u (cp)
Y
(lb/s)
Bypass
M„ Clb/h)
Bypass
Anps
M
ToCal
(Ib/h)
"Flaidizing 'lb/h)
Tn.nu« <'a>
^Plenum (lb/lnZ*>
°Pl.nu- (lb/ft5)
Plenum
PTop
°Top (lb/ft5)
VTop <£
Display (acarc/«nd)
Bad Vc. (scare/end) (lb)
Bad He. (start/end) (in.)
CB«d ^SCarC^*nd^ (lb/fC3)
% <•>
SP"8«" TTank <**>
?Tatilt (starE^«ndHlb/in2g)
i PTank
TAnnub«r ('*>
PAnnubar (lb/ln2'>
SBle«d Air
"aiead Air (lb/ain)
*Pulsa Air (lb/oin)
PSparg.r
Ti-ner (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (s£ts/ain)
Material Rata"1 (lb/h)
Transport iUeio (air) (lb/sfc!)
Gasifler
78.18
16.3
384
17.3
389
0.01934
0.94132
5.914
21,290
155
35,646
14,356
583
16.6
0.0767
5.36
14.7
0.0631
6.05
1208/1256
2185/2377
27/25
100/118
690
Regenerator
72.57
16.2
580
17.3
578
0.01324
0.96386
5.715
20,573
160
36,796
16,221
583
16.6
0.0768
S. 05
14.7
0.0681
6.84
1110/1054
1793/1580
20/19
111/103
540
98/23
73
79.46
6.91
6.91
7.3
1.23/1.15
92.27
21,120
3.81
Hota
¦""Sample average
E-l
-------
Data Set: FORj
Bypass APq (In. H^O)
Beds
Px (lb/in2s)
T: CR)
"Van Exit(lb/i^>
TF.„ Exit ('R>
V (cp)
Y
Vp.es
Vp„,
Amps
^Total "b/h>
"Fluidizing "b/h)
^Plenum (*R>
^Plenum
°PlenuB
Plenum
PTop (lb/in'a)
"Top
(lb/ft3)
V
Display (atart/etid)
Bed Wt, (start/end) (lb)
Bad Ht. (starc/erid) (In.)
°Bed (lb/ft3)
(«)
Op
S£irse» TT
Air Rate (Ib/nin)
^Annubar
TAnnubar (*R)
PAnnubar (lb/ln2*>
°Bleed Air
ftBleed Mr
PSP.rger
Timer (on/off)(a)
Volume (Air) (sftVmin)
Material Rate" (lb/h)
Transport Racio (air)(lb/afc')
Gaslfier
77.88
16.3
586
17.3
390
0.01939
0.96147
5.693
21,216
IS 5
37,348
16,132
582
16.8
0.0781
5.94
14.7
0.0682
6.79
1132/1200
1893/2153
25
94
Regenerator
72.57
16.1
580
17.3
578
0.01924
0.96383
5.697
20,ill
175
42,167
21,656
582
16.9
0.0783
7.92
14.7
0.0682
9.11
1147/1111
1941/1797
22
109
992
540
99/25
74
BO. 55
4.87
4.87
7.0
1.25/1.15
<5.06
21,240
5.44
Bote
"Sample average
E-2
-------
Data Set: FOR2
Bypass iP (In. H,0)
Pj (lb/irra)
(*R)
"fan Exic(lb/1"2a)
TFan Exit ('R)
U (cp)
Y
"Bypass (lb/t>
Vaas
^Fluidiiing (lb/h>
^Planum <'*>
PPl.au» "b/ln2»>
9PUau-
^Planum
PTop (lb/in'a)
°Top (lb/fc3)
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bad Mt. (start/and) (lb)
Bad Ht. (start/and) (in.)
(start/end) (lb/ft1)
®0p ('>
SE«aS£l TT4nk C«>
PTank (lb/in2g)
a PT.nk (lb/1"2)
^Total Air
Air Rata (Ib/mln)
4PAnnubar (ln" H2°>
TAnmibar (*R)
PAnnubar
°»laad Air
*91.ad Air
*Pulsa Air
IImar (on/off)(»)
Voluaa (Air) (tlt'/aia)
Macartal Rataf (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/»fe')
Gaslfler
79.63
16.3
574
17.4
578
0.01908
0.96067
6.016
21,659
150
34,148
12,489
570
16.6
0.0786
4.56
14.7
0.0696
5.15
1163/1162
2005/2001
21/20
118/124
Ragenarator
74.05
16.2
568
17.3
567
0.01893
0.96315
5.829
20,984
162
36,379
15,895
570
16.6
0.0736
5.80
14.7
0.0696
6.55
1219/1210
2229/2193
24/24
115/113
928.:
542
98.5/26.0
72.5
78.63
5.08
5.08
7.0
1.23/1.15
67.87
18,920
4.65
Seta
tSaspla
E-3
-------
Data Set: F1
Bvpass
AP (in. H,0)
o l
Pj (lb/in:a)
Tx CR)
PF.n ExiC(lb/ln2'>
TFan Exit ("R>
(cp)
Bypass
(lb/s)
Beds
V— (lb/h>
Amps
\otal
"Fluidiilng (lb/h>
TPlenum (*R)
PPlenu» (lb/1"2a'
^Plenum
Vpl«nura
PTop
DTop (lb/ft3>
VTop
Display (start/end)
B«d Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
°Bed (start/end) (lb/ft1)
°0p (»
S£2Ifi«s TI
Air Rate (lb/sin)
aPAnnub.r
CR)
(lb/in2a)
TAnnubar ('R)
Annubar
°Ble«d Air
ft51..d Air ab/ain)
•\ulse Air (lb/Bin)
PSparger (lb/lnI«>
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volune (Air) (sft3/nin)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (airHlb/sft')
Gas Ifier
78.18
16.3
580
17.3
386
0.01924
0.96135
5.934
21,363
150
34,496
13,133
573
16.6
0.0780
4.82
14.7
0.0693
5.44
1165/1145
2013/1933
22/21
113/114
Regenerator
73.46
16.2
575
17.3
574
0.01911
0.96344
5.772
20,780
165
37,946
17,166
574
16.6
0.0779
6.31
14.7
0.0692
7.12
1181/1191
2077/2117
23/25
112/105
387.7
538
98/81
17
18.57
2.87
2.87
7.2
1.25/3.95
38.38
14,940
6.49
Mote
t Sample
E-4
-------
Data Set: FIR.
3ypass
Beds
APq (in. H,0)
(lb/ln2a)
CR)
PFan ExiC(lb/in*a)
TFan Exit (°R)
U (cp)
Y
Vpass
Vp... (lb/h)
AffipS
M
(lb/h)
Total
^luidizing
TPlenun ("S)
PPlenun (lb/tn2a)
Plenum (lb/ft!)
"plenum (fc/s>
PTop (lb/ln2a)
°Top (lb/ft,)
VTop (ft/s)
Display (start/end)
Bad Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed St. (start/end) (In.)
0Bed (stare/end) (lb/ft3)
0Op <•>
Sfiarsers (•«)
PTank cart/end)(lb/in2g)
^ PTank
^Tocal Air
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar
aBleed Air
'^Bleed Air (lb/min)
"pulse Air
P5parg.r
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sfe'/min)
4
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)Ub/sft!)
Gasifier
79.65
16.3
574
17.3
578
0.01908
0.96067
6.016
21,659
147
33,693
12,034
571
16.6
0.0784
4.40
14.7
0.0695
4.97
1184/1173
2089/2045
20/23
129/110
Regenerator
74.93
16.2
567
17.3
566
0.01890
0.96276
5.866
21,118
167
38,277
17,159
570
16.6
0.0785
6.26
14.7
0.0697
7.07
1216/1161
2217/1997
24/22.25
114/111
1200
540
98/41
57
62.05
3.10
3.10
7.0
1.25/3.95
41.43
18,720
7.53
Note
tSampla average
E-5
-------
Data Set: F1R2
Bvpass &Po (in. H,0)
Pj^ (lb/in2s)
Tx (*R) *
PFan Exit
%pa,s (lb/h>
Affips
ft
Beds
Total
(lb/h)
MnUidizing
^Plenum (*R)
PPlenUO
^Plenum (lb/ft3>
VPlanum (ft/s)
PTop (lb/in2a)
STop (lb/ft3>
VTop (£t/'>
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed He. (start/end) (in.)
°Bed (,tart/«nd) (lb/ft3)
eop
laarsers Ttank CR)
PTank (start/«n<1)(lb/inJg)
i PTank (lb/1"2>
^Total Air
Air Rate (Ib/nin)
"Annubar (in" H2°>
TAnnubar '
PAnn»bar (lb/lnJa)
CBleed Air (lb/ft'>
"Bleed Air
"Vise Air (lb/Bin)
PSparger
Timer (on/off)(»)
Volume (Air) (sft!/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft!)
Gaslfier
78.18
16.3
580
17.3
586
0.01924
0.96130
5.934
21,362
147
33,465
12,103
578
16.6
0.0773
4.46
14.7
0.0687
5.06
1158/1145
1985/1933
21/21
117/114
Regenerator
72.87
16.1
575
17.3
574
0.01911
0.96362
5.733
20,637
165
37,562
16,925
578
16.6
0.0773
6.26
14.7
0.0687
7.07
1200/1219
2153/2229
25/24
107/115
1200
538
97.5/43
54.5
59.55
2.98
2.98
7.1
1.25/3.95
39.76
18,800
7.88
Note
tSimp It average
E-6
-------
Data
Bvpaas
Beds
iPo (in. H20)
P^ (lb/in:a)
CR)
?Fan Exit(lb/inJa)
TFan Exit ('R)
U (cp)
Y
Vass (lb/3)
Vp». (lb/h)
Amps
^Total ^lb/tl)
^Fluidizing
TPlenu» <'R>
^Planum
Plenum
VPlenum (ft/s)
(lb/in2a)
Top
°Top
Vtop
Olsplay (start/end)
Bad We. (atart/end) (lb)
Bad Ht. (start/and) (in.)
°Bed (Jtart/*nd^ (lb/ft1)
30p (s)
SPar«e" ^Tank (*R)
PTank (^ttrz/and)(lb/inJg)
i PT.nlc
\«.l Air
Air Rate (lb/ain)
iPAnnubar
TAnnubar ' ^
^Annubar (lb/ln2a)
cBleed Air (lb/fcl)
*Bla.d Air (lb/Bln)
Visa Air ab/nln)
PSparg.r
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/min)
4
Material Raca (Ib/h)
Transport Ratio (air) (lb/sft')
Set: F2
Gasifier
78.47
16.3
578
17.3
584
0.01919
0.96120
5.954
21,436
150
33,912
12,476
577
16.7
0.0782
4.58
14.7
0.0688
5.20
1232/1195
2281/2133
26/22
109/120
Regenerator
73.46
16.1
574
17.3
574
0.01908
0.96335
5.759
20,732
160
36,172
15,440
577
16.7
0.0782
5.67
14.7
0.0688
6.44
1018/1156
1510/1977
18/22
104/111
1200
338
99/31
68
74.30
3.71
3.71
7.0
1.25/5.45
49.61
20,040
6.73
Note
tSampla avaraga
E-7
-------
Data Set: F2R
Bypass
Beds
d?o (in. H,0)
P; (lb/in*a)
Tx (°R)
PFan Exit(lb/in2a)
TFar Exit ( R)
U (cp)
Y
^Bypass (lb/s)
^Bypass
Amps
^Total (lb/h>
MFluidiiing (lb/h)
^Plenum (
PPlenu»
Vplenum
PTop (lb/in'a)
CToP (lb/£c3)
VTop
Display ((tart/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed He. (ccarc/end) (in.)
(st»rt/en<*> (lb/ft5)
'Op
(«)
SEHSHl TT4nk CR)
PTank (st»rt/en (lb/in'g)
* PT»nk
^Total Air
Air Race (lb/aln)
^Annubar (in" H20)
TAnnubar ("R)
PAnnubar (lb/in''>
Bleed Air
(lb/ft3)
MBleed Air (lb/Bin)
*Vulse Air
PSparger
Timer (on/off)(a)
Volume (Air) (sft'/nin)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/s£tJ)
Gasifler
78.18
16.3
585
17.3
592
0.01937
0.96132
5.909
21,272
150
33,912
12,640
563
16.5
0.0764
4.75
14.7
0.0681
5.33
1166
2025
19/19
132
Regenerator
73.16
16.1
580
17.3
578
0.01924
0.96354
5.719
20,588
160
36,172
15,584
582
16.5
0.0765
5.84
14.7
0.0682
6.56
1243
2325
24/24.5
120
1200
540
99/56
43
46.81
2.34
2.34
7.0
1.25/5.45
31.25
18,000
9.60
Note
tSaople average
E-8
-------
Data Set: F3
3vpass (in. H^O)
(lb/lnia)
(*R)
PFan Exit(lb/lcl2a)
TFan Exit (°R)
U (c?)
Y
*Syp». (lb'»>
S»yp«.
VTop (£c/a>
Display (scarc/and)
Bad We. (atare/end) (lb)
Bed He. (scarc/'end) (In.)
(acarc/end) (lb/ft3)
Bed
% (s)
S£araers <•»>
?Tank (3Cart/*nd) (lb/in2g)
4 'tank (lb/ln2)
^.ul Air (lb)
Air Sacs (lb/min)
iPAnnabar (in" H2°>
^Annubar ^
PAnnubar
°Blead Air
*Bl..d Air (lb/aIn)
"pulaa Air <"'¦*¦>
P5pargar db/ia»«»
Tinar (on/o£f)(s)
Volume (Air) (afe'/nin)
Macarial Rata (lb/h)
Transport Racio (air)(lb/aft')
Gaatfier
78.77
16.3
580
17.3
385
0.01924
0.96106
5.955
21,437
150
33,912
12,475
578
16.5
0.0771
4.64
14.7
0.0687
5.21
1128/1143
1865/1925
21/19
110/126
Rageneracor
73.75
16.2
575
17.3
574
0.01911
0.96330
5.783
20,8X8
160
36,172
15,354
577
16.5
0.0772
5.71
14.7
0.0688
6.40
1214/1229
2209/2269
23.5/24
117/117
1200
540
98/52.5
45.5
49.53
2.48
Nota
tSampla avaraga
2.48
7.0
1.25/7.55
33.07
18,160
9.15
E-9
-------
Data Set: F3R,
Bvpass
AP (in. H,0)
o *¦
Px (lb/in2a)
Tx CR)
PFan Exit
TPlenua ('R)
'plenum
^Plenum
VPl«num (ft/s)
PTop
°Top (lb/ft'>
VTop Cft/8>
Display (»tart/end)
Bed Ut. (start/end) (lb)
Bed He. (start/end) (in. )
(start/end) (lb/ft3)
®0p (4)
SEiigsr. TTank CR)
?Tank (¦c*rt/«I,d)(lb/lnJg)
A PT.„k (lb/ln2>
"total Air
Air Race (lb/nin)
iPAnnubar (in" H2°>
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar
"Bleed Air
(lb/ft3)
MSleed Air (lb/"in)
V,!.. Air (lb/»ln)
PSparger
Tlner (on/off)(»)
Volume (Air) (»fts/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/«ft:)
Gaslfier
78.77
16.3
583
17.3
587
0.01932
0.96103
5.939
21,381
155
35,286
13,905
582
16.5
0.0767
5.21
14.7
0.0682
5.85
1124/1153
1849/1965
19/20
121/122
Regenerator
72.87
16.2
578
17.3
577
0.01919
0.96371
5.736
20,649
157
35,741
15,092
581
16.5
0.0769
5.65
14.7
0.0683
6.34
1249/1196
2349/2137
24.5/22.5
119/118
1200
546
98/42.5
55.5
59.74
2.99
2.99
7.0
1.25/7.55
39.89
18,840
7.87
Note
tSasple average
E-10
-------
Data Set: F4
Bvpaas &P (in. H-,0)
Beds
Pj (lb/ln2a)
Tj CR)
PF,n EXtt(lb/lnJa)
TFan Exlc ("S)
U (cp)
Y
Va„ (lb/s>
V...
PPLnu» (lb/1"2a)
^Plenum
Display (scare/end)
B«d Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed He. (start/end) (In.)
(start/end) (lb/ftJ)
Sad
"Op
(s)
Spargers
^Tank (*R>
PTank («'"t/*nd) (lb/inJg)
1 pra„k
~\otal Air
°3leed Air (lb/ft5)
*31e«d Air (lb/Bin)
¦SulM Air (lb/aln)
P3p.rg.r »b/1":«>
Tln«r (on/off)(s)
Voluae (Air) (sit1/Bin)
:taeerial Race^- (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft!)
Gasifler
80.54
16.3
573
17.4
577
0.01906
0.96028
6.053
21,789
155
35,382
14,093
568
16.6
0.0787
5.12
14.7
0.0699
5.79
1153/1165
1965/2013
20/22
122/113
Regenerator
75.23
16.2
568
17.4
566
0.01893
0.96259
5.872
21,138
162
37,503
16,365
568
16.6
0.0787
5.95
14.7
0.0699
6.72
1196/1168
2137/2025
22.5/22.75
118/110
1200
535
96.5/53
43.5
47.79
2.39
2.39
7.1
1.25/9.95
31.91
18,000
9.40
Note
tSaople
E-ll
-------
Data Set: FAR,
Bypass iPo (in. H,0)
Pj (lb/in;a)
Tx CR)
PF.n Exit(lb/inJa)
TFan Exit ('R)
U (cp)
Y
Vp— (lb/s)
•Vp.«,
Beds
Amps
ft
Tocal
(lb/h)
MFluidizing (lb/h:)
TPlenun (*R>
^Plenum
°Plenum
Plenum (fc/s)
(lb/ln2a)
Top
STop )
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Ut. (start/end) (lb)
Bad Ht. (start/end) (in.)
°Bed (*tart/8nd> (lb/ft')
% <»>
iE£mr, TT#nk CR)
Tank
4 P.
(start/end)(lb/in2 g)
Tank
(lb/in')
-\ocal Air
Air Race (lb/ain)
iPAnnubar (in" «20)
TAnnubar ('R)
\nnubar
^Sleed Air
"sieed Air
*Puis. Air (lb/»ta)
PSparger
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/ain)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft!)
Gasifler
79.36
16.3
575
17.4
578
0.01911
0.96082
6.001
21,604
157
36,345
14,741
571
16.6
0.0784
5.39
14.7
0.0695
6.08
1126
1857
21
110
Regenerator
73.46
16.1
572
17.3
568
0.01903
0.96339
5.769
20,769
160
37,040
16,271
570
16.6
0.0785
5.94
14.7
0.0697
6.70
1214
2209
23
119
1200
535
90/59
31
34.06
1.70
1.70
8.0
I.25/9.95
22.74
II,340
8.31
Note
tSanple average
E-12
-------
Data Set:
F4R,
Bvpass
(in. H-0)
o i
(lb/in2a)
T, (9R)
PFan EXic(lb/1°-a)
TFan Exit (°R)
j (cp)
Y
^Bypass (lb/a>
^Bypass
Beds
Amps
Tocal
(lb/h)
Fluidizing
(lb/h)
Plenum
CR)
^Plenum
(lb/ft')
Plenum
^Plenum (fc/s>
* Top
(lb/inJa)
°Top Clb/fc3)
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed He. (scare/end) (lb)
Bed He. (searc/end) (in.)
2je(j (start/end) (lb/ft3)
G0p <•>
isaraers (*R)
PTank (scarc/anil> (lb/in;g)
d ^Tank (lb/ln'>
^Tocal Air (lb)
Air Race (lb/nln)
iPArmubar (ln" H2°>
"Annubar
(aR)
^Annubar
°Bleed Air (lb/£tl>
"Bleed Air (lb/"in)
¦Suls. Air (lb/min)
?Sparger
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/rain)
Material Race (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sfc!)
Gaalfier
80.83
16.3
568
17.4
573
0.01893
0.96011
6.089
21,920
155
36,231
14,311
566
16.6
0.0790
5.20
14.7
0.0701
5.83
1230/1187
2273/2101
22/21
128/124
900
535
94/66*
28
30.76
2.05
2.05
7.3
I.25/9.95
27.39
II,850
7.21
Regeneracor
74.93
16.2
563
17.3
562
0.01880
0.96276
5.387
21,193
165
38,568
17,373
565
16.6
0.0791
6.30
14.7
0.0702
7.10
1165/1200
2013/2153
21/22
119/121
Hote»
~Possibly in error
^Sample average
E-13
-------
Data
Evpass
iPo (in. H,0)
Pj (lb/inJa)
Tj ("R>
PF,n Exir(lb/in^
TFan Exit ( R>
Beds
V
VK«»
PTop (lb/in2a)
oTop (lb/fts)
VTop »t/,)
Display (»tar:/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
(start/end) (lb/ft3)
Bed
®0p
(»)
Spargers (•*>
PTank ("¦"¦/endHlb/in2g)
4 PTank
^Total Air
^Sleed Air (lb/min)
\ulse Air (lb/,Bin>
''sparger
Tiaer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/nin)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/»ft!)
Set: F4R.3
Gasifier
80.24
16.3
580
17.4
583
0.01924
0.96038
6.006
21,620
150
33,912
12,292
582
16.4
0.0761
4.63
14.7
0.0682
5.17
1045/1020
1563/1514
18/17
108/110
1200
536
94,166*
28
30.71
1.54
1.54
7
1.25/9.95
20.50
17,120
13.92
Regenerator
74.05
16.2
574
17.3
572
0.01908
0.96315
5.799
20,875
160
36,172
15,297
573
16.4
0.0773
5.68
14.7
0.0693
6.34
1212/1267
2201/2421
24.5/26
111/115
Motes
~Possibly in error
tSanpla average
E-14
-------
Data Set: F4RL
Bypass iPQ (in. H^O)
Beds
P^ (lb/ln*a)
tl (*R>
PFan Exit(lb/it,Ia)
TFan Exit (°R)
U (cp)
Y
^Bypass (lb/s'1
Vpass (lb/h>
Amps
k
Total
(Ib/h)
MFluldizing
TPlenum ("R5
PPlenu»
^Planum
"planum
PTop
°Top (lb/ft,)
VTop (ft/s>
Display (start/and)
Bad Wt. (scare/and) (lb)
Bad Ht. (start/end) (In.)
°8
TAnoub«r * R>
PAnnubar
eBleed Air (lb/EtJ)
^Bleed Air
*Pul.e Air <"'«*¦>
PSparger ab/1":*>
Timer (on/off) (s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/oln)
Material Race" (lb/h)
Transport Racio (air)(lb/sft')
Gaslfler
30.24
16.3
578
17.4
583
0.01919
0.96038
6.016
21,657
130
33,912
12,253
574
16.4
0.0772
4.56
14.7
0.0692
5.08
1165/1176
2013/2057
22
113
Regenerator
74.05
16.2
572
17.3
572
0.01903
0.96315
5.809
20,911
160
36,172
13,261
373
16.4
0.0773
5.67
14.7
0.0693
6.32
1167/1146
2021/1937
22.75
110
653
336
94/74
20
21.93
2.02
2.02
1.25/9.95
26.91
17,160
10.63
Noce
tSample average
E-15
-------
Data Set: F5
Bypass AP (in. H,0)
Px (lb/in-a)
Tx C°R)
PF,n
TF»n Exit ( R)
U (cp)
Y
*Byp..s
Vp.»
CR)
(lb/inJa)
TPlenu» (,R>
Plenum
®Plenum (lb/f<3)
VPl«num (ft/s)
PTop
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (starc/end) (in.)
CBed (st*rt^end) (lb/ft5)
eop <•>
Saars^s TTank (-R)
?Tink Clb/in2g)
* PTank (lb/i"2)
iATocal Air
Air Race (lb/ain)
iPAnnubar (ln" H:0)
TAnnubar <'R)
PAnnubar
•"Bleed Air
(lb/ft!)
MBleed Air (lb/nln)
"pulse Air (lb/Bin)
PSparger
-------
Data Set: F5Rj
Bvpaas
Beds
APq (in. H^O)
Pt (Lb/irra)
Tx (*R)
PFan tatc'"'1"^
TPan Exit <'R)
u (cp)
Y
Vpaas
Amps
H
Tocal
(lb/h)
^Fluidizing
^Plenum <**>
^Plenum
3PlenU»
Vpi«nun
PTop
3Top (lb/£t))
VTop (£C/S>
Display (scarc/end)
Bed Wc. (scarc/end) (lb)
Bad He. (scarc/end) (In.)
CB#d (scare/end) (lb/ft')
0Op <»>
Spargers TTank (•*)
IU
4 p,—.. (lb/In2)
PTank (st4rt^,nd'(lb/tn:g)
Tank
^Tocal Air
\leed Air (lb/Bin)
\l.. Air (lb/»ln>
"Sparger flb/ln^
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sfc3/min)
Mac*rial Race (lb/h)
Tranapore Ratio (air)(lb/»fcJ)
Gasiflar
73.47
15.2
580
17.3
585
0.01924
0.96092
5.924
21,327
155
35,882
14,555
579
16.6
0.0775
5.39
14.7
0.0636
6.09
1084/905
1689/1289
19/14
110/114
SUfteneraCar
73.46
16.3
575
17.3
574
0.01911
0.96368
5.792
20,849
162
37,503
16,654
578
16.6
0.0776
6.16
14.7
0.0687
6.96
1222/1251
2241/2357
23/27
121/108
1200
540
94/79
15
16.33
0.82
0.82
7.0
I.25/12.0
10.90
II,760
17.98
Noce
tSample average
E-17
-------
Data Set: F5R„
Bypass
Beds
Gasifier
Regenerator
AP (in. H,0)
O t
78.18
73.75
P^ (lb/in2a)
16.3
16.3
Tj ("R)
574
568
PFan Exit(lb/in2s)
17.3
17.3
TFan Exit ( R)
580
567
U (cp)
0.01908
0.01893
Y
0.96140
0.96349
Vp..8 (lb/«>
5.965
5.837
V.3S (lb/h>
21,475
21,014
Amps
150
162
"total
34,148
36,879
"Fluidizing (lb/h)
12,673
15,865
TPlenun <**>
572
572
PPlenun (lb/inJa)
16.6
16.6
^Plenum (lb/f''>
0.0784
0.0784
VPlenuB {{c/e)
4.64
5.81
PTop (lb/in:a)
14.7
14.7
CTop (lb/ft'>
0.0694
0.0694
VTop
5.24
6.56
Display (start/end)
1152/1208
1252/1213
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
1961/2185
2361/2205
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
21/23
24/24.5
C8ed (lb/ft3)
116/118
122/112
30p
1200
Tlank ('R)
535
?Tank
31
^Total Air
Timer
-------
Data Set: F5R,
Bvpass
Beds
l?g (in. H,0)
Pj (lb/inJa)
CB)
PFan Exic^lb/ln'a^
TFan Exit ( R)
u (cp)
Y
W= (lb/s)
Bypass
(Ib/h)
Bypass
Amps
\otal
^Fluldizing (lb/h>
TPle„u» <*R>
^Plenum
VpUnu»
?Top (Ib/in'a)
Top
(lb/ft1)
vTop (ft/.)
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (scarc/end) (lb)
Bed He. (scarc/end) (la.)
SBed (lb/fc1)
Op
(s)
Sjursers (•«,
PTank (ae!lrt/*ntl> (lb/inJg)
* PTank
^Tocal Air (lb)
Air Race (lb/aln)
4PA»«ub.t (U- H20)
TAnnub«r (°R)
PAnnubar
3Bl«ed Air
*Bl..d Air
PSparger 'lb/i«2»>
Tlaer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/mln)
Material Race (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sfc!)
Gaslfier
78.77
16.3
580
17.3
580
0.01924
0.96113
5.953
21,438
150
33,912
12,474
570
16.7
0.0789
4.52
14.7
0.0697
5.14
1240/1152
-313/1961
25/21
115/116
Regenerator
72.87
16.1
575
17.3
572
0.01911
0.96364
5.733
20,637
160
36,172
15,535
572
16.7
0.0786
J.65
14.7
0.0694
6.42
1166/1252
2017/2361
23/24
109/122
900
535
92.5/69
23.5
23.82
1.72
1.72
8.5
1.25/12.0
22.99
8360
6.06
Mote
"Sample average
E-19
-------
Data Set: F5R,,
Bypass AP (in. H-,0)
Beds
Pj (lb/in a)
Tx CR)
PFan Exit'"'1"'"
TPan Exit (*R)
u (cp)
Y
Vp„,
SByp."
Amps
"total
TPUn« (*R)
PPlenu» (lb/in^,,,
°Plenun
VPlenom (ft/s)
PTop (lb/IB1.)
2T0p (lb/fc3)
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (ctart/end) (lb)
Bed He. (start/end) (in.)
°Bed db/ft3)
S0p (S)
SP"g"' TT.„k <*R)
?Tank ("t,rt'•ndXlb/inJg)
i PT.nk
~\>tal Air
TAnnubar (*R)
PAnnubar
"Bleed Air
(lb/ft3)
MBl«d Air
^Pulse Air (lb/mln)
P5p«rg«r «b/lnJg)
Timer (on/off)(«)
Volume (Air) (»ft3/min)
Material Rate+ (lb/h)
Tranaport Ratio (airHlb/sft')
Gaslfler
79.95
16.3
570
17.4
575
0.01898
0.96050
6.048
21,771
155
35,646
13,875
570
16.4
0.0778
5.12
14.7
0.0697
5.72
1175
2053
24
10*
Regenerator
74.05
16.2
566
17.3
565
0.01888
0.96317
5.839
21,022
160
36,796
15,774
569
16.4
0.0760
5.82
14.7
0.0698
6.49
1176
2057
23
111
8.0
1.25/12.0
12,040
Note
tSample
age
E-20
-------
Data Set: F5RC
Bypass
iP (in. H,0)
~ z
(lb/lnza)
T; (*R)
PFan Exie(lb/ln''>
TFan Exit ("R)
(cp)
Bypass
(lb/s)
Beds
^Bypass (lb/h)
Amps
M
Total
(lb/h)
^Fluiditing (lb/h)
^Plenum (*R)
"planum
^Plenum )
VPlenum (fc/s)
PTop (lb/in2a)
°T0p (lb/ftl)
VtoP
Display (scare/end)
Bed wc. (starc/end) (lb)
Bed He. (scare/end) (In.)
CBed (scart^end) (lb/Ft')
30p (3>
SP"S"s TTanlc (>R)
?Tank (3C1"/*nd) db/in:g)
4 ?Tanlc
4o:al Air
Air Race (lb/oin)
iPAnnub«r (ln- H2°>
T
Annubar
PAnnubar (lb/tr,2a)
SBleed Air
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/min)
Material Race' (lb/h)
transport Raeio (air)(lb/sfc')
Gaslfler
80.54
16.3
568
17.4
572
0.01893
0.96026
6.079
21,884
155
35,882
13,998
565
16.6
0.0791
5.06
14.7
0.0703
5.72
1178/1173
2065/2045
24/22
107/115
Regenerator
74.93
16.2
563
17.3
562
0.01880
0.96276
5.887
21,993
162
37,503
15,510
564
16.6
0.0793
5.60
14.7
0.0704
6.32
1177/1195
2061/2133
23/22
111/120
900
535
86/64
22
24.17
1.61
1.61
8.0
1.25/12.0
21.52
10,530
8.16
Note
tSarrple average
E-21
-------
Data Set: F5RC
Bvpass (in. H-,0)
Pj (lb/inJa)
T: CR)
PFan ExitClb/in:a)
TFan Exit ( R)
u (cp)
WByP«s
Vpass
Beds Amps
"local (lb/h>
"pluidizing (lb/h>
^Plenum (*R)
PPlenum (lb/ln2a)
"plenum
VPlenum (£t/s)
PTop
STop (lb/ft3)
VToP
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
cBed (start/end) (lb/ftJ)
%
PTank (lb/inJg)
A PTank
Air Rat* (lb/oin)
aPAnnub.r ¦*»>
PSparger
Tiaer (on/off)(»)
Voluae (Air) (»ft!/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Racio (air)(lb/aft3)
Gasifier
79.06
16.3
585*
17.3
585
0.01937
0.96094
5.940
21,382
150
34,148
12,766
578
16.7
0.0779
4.69
14.7
0.0687
5.33
1236/879
2297/1238
24/14
119/110
Regenerator
74.05
16.2
574*
17.3
574
0.01908
0.96315
5.799
20,875
162
36,879
16.004
578
16.7
0.0779
5.89
14.7
0.0687
6.69
1236/13X9
2297/2628
25/32
114/102
960
542
98.5/91
7.5
8.13
0.51
0.51
7.0
1.25/12.0
6.79
12,540
30.79
Notea
*Aasuaed
tSanple average
E-22
-------
Data Set: F5R7
Bypass iPQ (in. H^O)
(lb/in2a)
Ix CR>
PFan &clc(lb/tn2a)
TFan Exit <'R>
u (cp)
Y
Vpa„ «>•/.)
•Vp„S
Amps
M
Bada
"Tod
*F1utdKln, (lb/h)
^Plenum (*R)
PPlanuo
°P1mu-
PTop (lb/in»«>
2top (lb/£ti)
VTop
Display (stare/and)
8ed Wt. (scare/and) (lb)
Bad bit. (start/end) (In.)
°Bed (start/*nd> (lb/fc1)
% <•>
SP"«e" TTank ('5)
PTank ('""/endMlb/i^g)
' PTank
^Toca! Air
Air Rati (lb/ain)
iPAnnub.r (ln" H20)
Annubar
CR)
PAnnubar
3Blaad Air
*Sl.ad Air db/min)
"puis. Air
?SParg.r
-------
Data Set: F5R
8
Bvpass
Beds
L? (in. H.0)
o I
Pj (lb/tn2a)
Tx (*R)
PFan Exit(lb/i"2a)
TFan Exit (*R)
b (cp)
Y
Vpas. (lb/»>
(lb/h)
Aaps
ft
Total
(lb/h)
Mnuldlzi„g (lb/h)
TPlenum ^
PPlenun
Plenum (lb/ft'>
VPlemim
PTop (lb/in2a)
°Top (lb/ftJ>
VTop
Display (»eart/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bad Ht. (start/end) (in.)
"Bad
lEarjsera (•*)
PTank (lb/inIg)
11 PT«nk (lb/in2)
^Total Air
°31eed Air >
*BIe.d Air (lb/Bin)
"pul.e Air
P5p*rger
Timer (on/off)(»)
Volume (Air) (»ft3/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/*ft5)
Gaalfier
77.88
16.3
582
17.3
590
0.01929
0.96144
5.913
21,288
150
33,912
12,624
588
16.5
0.0757
4.79
14.7
0.0675
5.37
1230/1093
2273/1725
27/19
104/113
1200
535
961
7.0
1.23/12.0
12,240
Regenerator
72.28
16.1
578
17.3
578
0.01919
0.96396
5.697
20,508
160
36,172
15,664
580
16.5
0.0767
5.86
14.7
0.0684
6.57
1026/1233
1525/2285
18.5/24
102/118
Note
tSample average
E-24
-------
Data Set: F6
Gasifier
AP (in. H,0)
O L
80.24
PL (lb/in2a)
16.3
T; CR)
568
PFan
17.4
TFan Exit (°S)
572
u (cp)
0.01893
1
0.96040
^Bypass
6.068
^Bypass
21,846
Amps
155
STotal (lb/h)
35,882
aFluldiiln, (lb/h)
14,036
^Plenum (#R)
566
16.6
aPl.nu-
0.0790
Vpienun (fC/9'
5.09
PTop (lb/in!a>
14.7
°Top (lb/ft!)
0.0702
VTop
5.74
Display (starc/tnd)
1179/1150
Bed We. (start/and) (lb)
2069/1953
Bed He. (scare/end) (in.)
21/22
c , (scart/end) (lb/ftJ)
Bed
122/110
% <•>
TT.«k ('R>
PTank (SEa"/an(1> (lb/ln;g)
4 PTank
Air Rate (lb/oln)
iPAnnub«r
^Annubar (*R)
PAnnubar
JBleed Air (lb/et!)
*31..d Air
^Pulae Air
PSparger
Timer (on/off)(a)
volume (Air) (jft'/oln)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (airHlb/sct1)
E-25
Regenerator
74.93
16.2
563 Note
17.3 tSample average
562
0.01880
0.96276
5.887
21,193
162
37,503
16,309
565
16.6
0.0791
5.90
14.7
0.0703
6.66
1198/1216
2145/2217
22/22
121/123
900
535
95/75
20
21.97
1.46
1.46
7.5
1.25/14.05
19.56
7720
6.53
-------
Data Set: F6R
Bvpaas APq (in. H,0)
Pj (lb/in2a)
Tj CR)
PF.n
TFan Exit C*R)
U (cp)
Y
V.,s
Vp»s
"Fluldiiing
TPl.nu»
PPlenu»
pH«u»
VPl.nuB
PTop ("/la1.)
°Top
VTop
Display (»cart/end)
Bed Wc. (start/end) (lb)
Bad He. (»tart/«nd) (in.)
°Bed (*""/«><*) (lb/ft1)
30p <•>
5E2£S«Ei TIink CR)
PTank (Jt,rt/«*>d) (lb/inJg)
* PTank (lb/i^
^Tot.l Air
Air Race (lb/min)
iPAnnub.r (ln" H20)
^Annubar ^
PAnnubar (lb/in2«>
"Bleed Air
"Bleed Air <">'¦*»>
*Pul.e Air (lb/Bin)
"Sparger
Tiaer (on/off)(*)
Voluae (Air) (»fts/nin)
Material Rate* (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aft')
Gaslfler
79.65
16.3
575
17.3
S80
0.01911
0.96064
6.011
21,639
155
35,646
14,007
573
16.6
0.0781
5.14
14.7
0.0693
5.60
1132
1881
21/21
111
Regenerator
73.46
16.2
573
17.3
570
0.01906
0.96342
5.782
20,816
160
36,796
15,980
573
16.6
0.0781
5.86
14.7
0.0693
6.62
1213
2205
23/21
119
900
538
96/80.5
15.5
16.94
1.13
Mote
tSanple average
1.13
8.0
1.23/14.05
15.08
5940
6.57
E-26
-------
Data Set: F6R.
Bvpaaa
APo (in. H,0)
Pj (lb/lnza)
Cso
PFan ExiC(lb/ir,2a)
TFan Exit (*R)
u (cp)
Y
WBypa,s
Vpaas (lb/h>
Beds
Amps
M
(lb/h)
Total
^Fluldlzlng
^Plenum ("R>
PPlenu» (lb/1°2a)
^Plenum (lb/fc'>
VPl«num (£c/,)
PTop Ub/ln2a)
CTop (lb/fc5)
VTop
Display (itart/end)
B«d He. (stare/and) (lb)
Bed He. (start/and) (In.)
3 Bed (st*rc/«nd) (lb/ft1)
%
l2«2SIi TXank <**>
PT»nk (st*re/«n^)(lb/inJg)
4 PTank (lb/i*-'>
^Total Air (lb>
Air Rata (lb/nio)
iPAnnub.r (ln- »20)
TAnnub«r ^
PAnnubar
sBl.ed Air (lb/{c'>
*Bleed Air (lb/»in)
*Pul«. Air
PSparg.r
Timer (on/off)(>)
Volume (Air) (»(t!/nln)
Macerlal Rata7 (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aftJ)
Gaalfler
80.24
16.3
570
17.4
574
0.01898
0.96040
6.058
21,808
157
36,581
14,773
569
16.6
0.0786
5.38
14.7
0.0698
6.08
1189/1202
2109/2161
22/21
119/128
Regenerator
74.34
16.2
565
17.3
564
0.01885
0.96305
5.855
21,079
162
37,746
16,668
568
16.6
0.0787
6.06
14.7
0.0699
6.84
1151/1200
1957/2153
22/22
110/121
900
540
95/80
15
16.33
1.09
1.09
8.0
1.25/14.05
14.54
6696
7.68
Note
^Sample average
E-27
-------
Data Set: F7
Bvpass &PQ (in. HjO)
Pr (lb/in2a)
T: CR)
PFan Exit(lb/inJa)
TFan Exit ( R)
M (cp)
Y
W»v„„. ab/«>
*Byp..«
"^Plenum (*R>
PPlenum
^Plenum (lb/ft'>
VPlenun (ft/s)
PTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (In.)
cB#(i (start/end) (lb/ft3)
SOp (»>
SEirger. TT>n|t (*R)
PTank (Jt*rt/«nd)(lb/inJg)
4 P (lb/in2)
Tank
^Ul Air
Air Race (lb/ain)
iPAnnubar (in- H2°>
Tjtanubar ^
PAnnubar
"Bleed Air
"Bleed Air (Ib/"in>
*ful.e Air
Sparger
Timer (on/off)(»)
Volune (Air) (sft'/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/$ft5)
Gaslfier
79.06
16.3
574
17.4
578
0.01908
0.96094
5.996
21,585
155
35,882
14,297
(572)
16.5
0.0781
5.27
14.7
0.0694
5.91
1203
2165
21/22
128
Regenerator
73.75
17.4
570
17.3
568
0.01898
0.96582
6.034
21,724
162
37,503
15,779
(572)
16.5
0.0781
5.81
14.7
0.0694
6.52
1168
2025
21/22
120
900
540
94/81
13
14.15
0.94
0.94
8.0
1.23/16.15
12.60
4120
S.45
Note
"(¦Sample average
E-28
-------
Data Set: F7Rj
Bypass
Beds
£P (in. H,0)
o i
PL (lb/in!a)
T: CR)
PFan Exitab/ln2a)
TF,n Exit <'«
U (cp)
Y
^Bypass (lb/s>
Vpasa
Vpl«nura
PTop (lb/in!a)
BTop (lb/fe,)
VTop
Diaplay (aeart/and)
Bad Wt. (atart/and) (lb)
Bad He. (start/end) (in.)
(atari/end) (lb/ft3)
(a)
3,
Op
ifiiraers TJmk CR)
PTank (at*rt/«nd> (lb/inJg)
4 PT.„k
Air Raca (lb/atn)
iPAnnubar
T.Annubar ^
PAnnubar (lb/t"2a)
°Bl««d Air
»Blaad Air
*Pulsa Air (lb/"ln)
P3pargar
Tiaar (on/off)(s)
Volusia (Air) (aft'/min)
Ilatarial Rat#t (lb/h)
Tranaporc Ratio (air) (lb/sfcJ
Caalfiar
81.72
16.3
567
17.4
572
0.01890
0.95973
6.125
22,050
155
36,231
16,318
564
16.5
0.0791
6.00
14.7
0.0704
6.73
1197
2141
21
126
Rageneracor
75.82
16.2
562
17.4
561
0.01877
0.96237
5.924
21,328
165
38,568
17,240
564
16.5
0.0791
6.26
14.7
0.0704
7.03
1197
2141
22
121
900
98.5
8.0
1.25/16.15
5550
Nota
tSampla avaraga
E-29
-------
APPENDIX F
CALCULATION SHEETS FOR THE PRIMARY GAS IFIER-REGENERATOR
BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER SLOT-FOURTH GENERATION-FREQUENCY
AND DURATION TESTS WITH SPARGER BLEED AIR
-------
Data
Bvpaas aPQ (in. H^O)
3«ds
Pj (lb/in2a)
Tt ("R)
PFan
TFan Exit ( R)
u (cp)
V
& , (lb/s)
Bypass
M (lb/h)
Bypass
Amps
ft
Tocal
(lb/h)
*Fluidt*lng (lb/h)
TPlan« ('R)
'PI.BU.
SPlanun
Vpi«nun Cfc/s)
*Top Clb/^2a>
V «"•>
Display (acarc/and)
Bed Wt. (aearc/end) (lb)
Bad He. (start/and) (In.)
0^^ (atarc/and) (lb/ft1)
®0p
P_ . (start/and)(lb/in:g)
Tank
SPa.F«»" TUnk rR)
ica
4 PTank (lb/in2)
^Tocal Air
?Sparg.r
Timer (on/off)(a)
Voluaa (Air) (sfe'/ain)
Matarial Race7 (lb/h)
Tramport Ratio (air)(lb/aft')
Set: FO(A)
Gasifjar
81.13
16.3
578
17.4
578
0.01919
0.95999
6.047
21,768
155
35,646
13,878
572
16.4
0.0773
5.14
14.7
0.0694
5.74
970/1132
1416/1961
18/23
97/106
Regenerator
75.82
16.2
570
17.4
570
0.01898
0.96232
5.883
21,178
160
36,796
15,618
573
16.4
0.0772
5.80
14.7
0.0693
6.47
1253/1012
2365/1498
24/19
122/98
264.9
541
95/54
41
44.55
10.09
0.0992
541
34,7
0.173:
1.46
8.63
6.5
1.23/1.15
134.74
21,600
2.67
Note
tSaopla average
F-l
-------
Data
Bypass
Beds
iPo (in. H,0)
Pj (lb/inJa)
C'R)
PF.n Exu(lb/in!»>
TF»n Exit ("R>
U (cp)
Y
(lb/'>
V..S (lb/h>
Amps
M
Total
(lb/h)
MFluidi2ing (lb/h)
^Plenum (>R>
Plenum
^Plenum
PTop (lb/in2,)
(lb/ftJ)
Top
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed He. (start/and) (in.)
PBed (starC/end) (lb/ft3)
®0p
S£i£8£rs T^ <-R)
PTank (start/end)(lb/in:g)
i PTank (lb/in2)
Total Air
(lb)
Air Rate (lb/iain)
APAnnubar
T.\nnubar ' R'
PAnnubar ab/lnJ«>
Bleed Air
(lb/ft')
MBleed Air (lb/»in)
"pul.e Air (lb/Bin)
PSparger ab/ln^>
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/mln)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sftJ)
Set: F3/4(A)
Gasifier
83.49
16.4
565
17.4
570
0.01885
0.95896
6.216
22,377
157
35,985
13,608
566
16.3
0.0779
5.01
14.7
0.0701
5.57
1029
1531
18.5/21.5
103
124.4
541
80/67.5
12.5
13.58
6.55
6.55
6.5
1.25/3.0
87.47
19,680
3.75
Regenerator
76.70
16.2
565
17.4
562
0.01885
0.96195
5.940
21,385
157
35,985
14,600
565
16.3
0.0780
5.37
14.7
0.0702
5.96
1161
1997
22.5/19.5
110
Note
tSample average
F-2
-------
Data Set: F1(A)
AP (in. H,0)
O 2
(lb/in2a)
Tj CR)
?Fan Exic(lb/i[,2a)
TFan Exit (°R)
u (cp)
Y
Vp«3 (lb/S)
Vpass (lb/h>
Amps
ATotal
^Fluidlzing (lb/h)
TPl.nu» <"*>
PK.n« (lb/ln24)
ePlenu»
VPl.nu.
PToP
3Top (lb/ft')
VTop
Display (start/and)
Bad Uc. (itart/*nd)
(lb)
Bad Ht. (start/end)
(in.)
CBed (lb/ft1)
?op <«>
lE«a!£l ^Tanlc <*¦>
PTank Cacar«/«nd)(lb/inlg)
4 PTank
^Total Air
Air Rae« (lb/tnin)
iPAn„ubar (in' H2°>
^Annubar <*«>
PAnnub.r
°Bla.d Air >
*81a.d Air
PSpargar
Tl!S«r (on/off)(a)
Voluaa (Air) (ift'/nin)
Material Rata* (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(Ib/sfcJ)
Gaalfler Regeneracor
81.13 75.52
16.3 16.2
575 570 Kota
17.4 17.4 tSanpla avaraga
578 570
0.01911 0.01398
0.96005 0.96251
6.063 5.872
21,826 21,140
157 165
36,930 38,812
15.104 17,672
570 570
16.5 16.5
0.0782 0.0782
5.54 6.49
14.7 14.7
0.0697 0.0697
S. 22 7.28
1067/1142 1190/1077
1621/1921 2113/1661
20/22.5 22.25/19
100/106 118/108
98
540
95/86
9
9.80
6.00
0.992
540
34.7
0.1735
1.46
4.34
6.5
1.23/3.95
80.10
21,840
4.54
F-3
-------
Data Set: FlRj(A)
Bypass
Beds
APc (in. H,0)
Px (lb/in:a)
~x CR)
PFan Exit(lb/ln2a'
TPan Exit ( R)
U (cp)
Y
*Byp„s (lb/«>
V..8
Asps
"Total (lb/h)
"pluidiiing
CR)
(lb/inJa)
^Plenum <*R>
Plenum
^Plenum >
^Plenum
PTop (lb/in2a)
oTop (lb/ft1)
VTop
Display (atart/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed He. (stare/end) (In.)
CBed (*"rt/*n
Air Rate {lb/oin)
^Annubar (ln" «2°>
TAnnubar '
^Annubar
CBlaed Air (lb/f<3)
"Bleed Air (lb/"in)
^Pul»e Air (lb/Bin)
PSParger
Timer (on/off)(a)
Volume (Air) (ift'/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air) (lb/»ft5)
Gaaifier
62.31
16.4
570
17.4
571
0.01898
0.95952
6.148
22,134
157
37,497
15,363
566
16.5
0.0788
5.60
14.7
0.0702
6.29
1076/1173
1657/2045
19/22.5
108/113
Regenerator
76.70
16.2
565
17.4
560
0.01685
0.96196
5.941
21,386
170
40,602
19,216
565
16.5
0.0789
6.99
14.7
0.0703
7.85
1210/1073
2193/1645
22.75/18.5
119/110
65.2
542
73/63
10
10.85
9.98
0.0992
542
34.7
0.1729
1.46
8.52
6.5
1.25/3.95
133.27
22,320
2.79
Note
tSample average
F-A
-------
Data
Bypass iPQ (In. H^O)
(lb/in!a)
Tx CR)
PFan Exic(lb/in2a)
TFan Exit (°R)
U (CP)
Y
Vpass (lb/s>
Vpass (lb/h)
Beds Amps
*Toe.l
^Plenum (*R)
PPl.nu* ^b/ln'a>
;Plenum
^Plenum (£t/s>
?Top
°Top
VTop (-'c/s)
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (scare/and) (lb)
B«d He. (start/end) (in.)
C« . (start/end) (lb/ft5)
98(1
%
3P„f r8*rs TTank CR)
PTank cart/end)(lb/ln2g)
A "tank (lb/ln2)
\ul Air
TAnnubar ("R)
PAn„ubar (lb/ln2*>
tfBl««d Air
*Bl..d Air (lb/nin)
*Puls. Air
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/nin)
Material Race (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air) (lb/sft!)
Set: F2(A)
Gaaifler
79.65
16.3
574
17.4
580
0.01908
0.96064
6.017
21,663
155
35,042
13,379
574
16.4
0.0771
4.98
14.7
0.0692
5.55
1137/1140
1901/1913
21/21
112/113
Regenerator
73.46
16.2
574
17.3
572
0.01908
0.96344
5.777
20,798
155
35,042
14,244
575
16.4
0.0770
5.31
14.7
0.0691
5.92
1136/1120
1897/1833
20/21
118/108
750
540
0.0992
540
34.7
0.1735
1.46
1.25/5.45
Note
tSaaple average
22,230
F-5
-------
Data Set: F2R1(A)
Bypass
APo (in. H,0)
Pj (lb/in2a)
Tx (°R)
PFan Exit(lb/in2a)
'Fan Exit
u (cp)
(*R)
Bypass
(lb/s)
Beds
V.., (lb/h>
Amps
M
Total
(lb/h)
MFluidizing
^Plenum ('R>
^Plenum
CPle„u» (lb/ft'>
VPlenun
PTop (lb/in'a)
CTop (lb'ft'>
V
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (Xb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
CBed (lb/ft5)
% <«>
l£ilay* TTink (-R)
PTank (st»«/end)(lb/inJg)
* PTank (1Win'>
A"total Air
Air Rat* (lb/nin)
^Annubar (ln" H2°>
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar
CBleed Air
*Ble.d Air
*Puls. Air (lb/»in>
PSparg«r <»/*«'•>
Timer (on/off)(«)
Volume (Air) (afe'/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Racio (air)(lb/sft')
Gasifler
80.83
16.3
576
17.4
580
0.01914
0.96014
6.047
21,769
135
36,231
14,462
574
16.5
0.0775
5.35 .
14.7
0.0692
6.00
1141/1173
1917/2045
21.5/23
111/110
Regenerator
74.93
16.2
570
17.4
570
0.01898
0.96276
5.851
21,063
165
38,568
17,505
574
16.5
0.0775
6.47
14.7
0.0692
7.26
1173/1148
2045/1945
22/20
115/121
900
545
0.1075
545
34.7
0.1719
1.51
7.0
1.25/5.45
22,290
Note
+Sample average
F-6
-------
Data Set: F2RZ(A)
Bypass (in. H^O)
Beds
Pj (lb/tn2a)
<°R)
Pran Exit(lb/ln:a)
TFan Exit ('R>
U (cp)
Y
* (lb/s)
Bypass
(lb/h)
Bypass
Amps
M
Total
(lb/h)
MFlutdizlng (lb/h>
^Plenum <'*>
^Plenum
Plenum
PTop db/inJjl)
JTop (lb/ft')
VTop
Display (scarc/«ti4)
3ed Uc. (starc/end) (lb)
Bed He. (stare/end) (In.)
°B«d ^jCarC^*nd^ (lb/fcJ)
(s)
vQp
Sfiaraers («*>
?Tank (5tarc'en(1) in" 8^
A PTank
^Tota! Air (lb)
Air Race (lb/nln)
^Annubar (in' H20)
TAnnubar (*R)
PA«nub.r (lb/ln'«>
"Bleed Air
(tb/f:J)
MBleed Air
*Pulse Air (lb/oln)
"Sparger
Timer (on/off)(a)
Volume (Air) (sfcVmin)
Macerial Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft')
GasIfler
81.13
16.3
572
17.4
578
0.01903
0.96002
6.078
21,382
160
37,985
16,103
572
16.6
0.0784
5.90
14.7
0.0694
6.66
1173/1177
2045/2061
23/22
110/116
Regenerator
75,52
16.2
568
17.4
568
0.01893
0.96251
5.883
21,177
165
39,172
17,995
572
16.6
0.0784
6.59
14.7
0.0694
7.44
1148/1143
1945/1925
20/20
121/119
900
542
89/27
62
67.24
4.48
Q.1138
543
34.7
0.1725
1.57
2.91
7.2
1.25/5.45
59.86
23,190
6.46
Note
tSample average
F-7
-------
Data
Set: F3<
Gaslfier
iP (in. H-0)
O £
79.95
P1 (lb/in*a)
16.3
T1 CR)
575
PFan E*lc(lb/ln,'>
17.4
TFan Exit ( R)
582
u (cp)
0.01911
Y
0.96052
°ByP-« Clb/S)
6.021
\vpa.s «b/h)
21,677
Amps
155
"Total (lb/h)
35,882
^Fluidizing
14,205
^Plenum (°R)
575
PPlemn. (lb/inJ^
16.5
^Plenum (lb/f<3>
0.0777
Plenum (fc/s)
5.26
Plop
14.7
STop (lb/fC,)
0.0691
VToP
5.90
Display (start/end)
1140/1114
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
1913/1809
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
21/21
CBed (scart/end) (lb/fc3)
113/107
%
Tlank
PTank
"\>tal Air
°Bleed Air (lb''£t5)
^Bleed Air (lb/min)
*Pulse Air (lb^n>
PSparger
Tiaer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (*£ts/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sftJ)
Regenerator
73.46
16.2
572 Note
17.3 tSample average
572
0.01903
0.96344
5.787
20,834
162
37,503
16,669
575
16.5
0.0777
6.17
14.7
0.0691
6.93
1120/1150
1833/1953
21/21
108/115
960
540
85/38
47
51.16
3.20
0.0992
542
34.7
0.1729
1.46
1.74
7.0
1.25/7.55
42.70
19,240
7.51
F-8
-------
Data
Set: F3R:(A)
Gasifleg
Svpasa AP (in. H-,0)
Amp 3
"total
^Plenum <'R)
PPler.mn
£Plenu„
VPlenun (ft/s)
PTop (lb/in2a>
°Top
VToP (fc/s>
Display (start/end)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (In.)
(scart/end) (lb/ft1)
Bed
"Op
(s)
SPar3er3 TTank ('R)
?tank <3carc/end> Clb/tn:s)
" PTank (lb/i"2>
^Total Air (lb)
Air Race (lb/tnin)
4PAnnub.r (in- H20)
TAnnubar *¦ ^
PAnnubar (lb/1"2a>
"31eed Air
^31eed Air <"/¦!"»>
MPulse Air
^Sparger
-------
Data Set: F4(A)
Bvpass AP (in. H.,0)
Beds
(lb/in*a)
^ CR)
PFan Exlt(lb'lnS»>
TFan Exit ('R)
¦J (cp)
Y
w. (lb/s)
Bypass
M (lb/h)
Bypass
Anps
^Total
^Plenum
^'plenum <£t/s>
PTop (lb/in2a)
°Top
VTop «t/s>
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
'Bed (start,,en (Ib/ft!)
SOp
TT.nk <*R1
PTank (*-"t/end) (lb/in2g)
A °Tank
iSTot.l Air (lb)
Air Race (Ib/min)
iPAnnubar (ln" H20)
^Annubar ' R^
PAnnubar (lb/in2*>
"Bleed Air
(lb/ft3)
MBleed Air (lb/»in>
*Puls« Air (lb/Bin)
P Sparger
-------
Data Set: FAR:(A)
Gastfler
Bypass APq (in. H^O)
Pt (lb/lnJa)
CR)
PFan Exlt
Vp«. (lb/h>
B«ds
Amps
^ToCal
"Planum
Plenum (ft/s)
PTop (lb/ln2a)
(lb/ft3)
Top
VTop (ft/s>
Oiaplay (itart/end)
Bed Wt. (scare/end) (lb)
Bad He. (»carc/end) (in.)
(»cart/end) (lb/ft1)
Bad
'Op
(s)
5eseas™ *Tani[ (•«)
?Tanlc (,tart''*nd)(lb/inJg)
i PTink (lb/IB8)
iMTotal Air
Air Race (lb/min)
iPAnnubar (la- «20)
T,Vnnubar ("R>
PAnnubar
"31e«d Air
A31eed Air
*Pul,e Air
-------
Data Set: F4R2(A)
Bvpass
Beds
iP (in. Hn0)
?l (lb/in*"a)
T: <*R)
PF.„ Exit(lb/in!a)
TFan Exit ( R)
U (cp)
Y
(lb/#)
Bypass
M (lb/h)
Bypass
Amps
M
Total
(lb/h)
MFluidizing
^Plenum ('R)
PPlenun ("/!»'«)
3Ple„u» (lb/£t!»
Vplenum
PTop (lb/in2g)
A PTank «lb/in:'
^Totel Air (lb)
Air Rate (lb/min)
iPAnnubar
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar (lb/ln2*>
eBleed Air (lb/£t')
"Bleed Air ab/nl0)
"Vise Air (lb/"in>
^Sparger
Timer (on/off)(a)
Volume (Air) (aft'/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft')
Gasifier
79.95
16.3
574
17.4
575
0.01908
0.96052
6.027
21,696
160
37,400
15,704
568
16.5
0.0784
5.74
14.7
0.0699
6.45
1122/1164
1841/2009
21/21
109/119
Regenerator
74.64
16.2
570
17.3
566
0.01898
0.96288
5.840
21,025
160
37,400
16,375
568
16.5
0.0784
5.99
14.7
0.0699
6.72
11S6/1130
1977/1873
21/22
117/106
1380
540
0.0992
540
34.7
0.1735
1.46
7.0
1.25/9.95
13,840
Hote
+Sample
age
F-12
-------
Data
Bypass ,LPo (in. H^O)
PL (lb/in:a)
T, (*R)
?Fan ExU(lb/ln2*>
TFan Exit (M°
u (cp)
Y
(lb/3)
^Bypass
Beds Amps
"total ab/h)
"riuUlzitig (lb/h)
TPlenu
^Plenum
"plenum (lb/f='>
Planum
PTop (lb/in2a)
PTop db/ft')
VTop (ft/s)
Display (stare/end)
Bad Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bad He. (start/end) (in.)
(atarc/end) (lb/ft1)
eop <'>
SEargar, CR)
PTank (»eart/en<1Mlb/in2g)
" PT«k (lb/ln2)
^Tocal Air
Air Race (lb/mln)
^Annubar (ln" H2°>
TAnnubar '
PAnnubar (lb/lc,ia)
°31..d Air
'"'Bleed Air
*Pulse Air (lb/BiB)
PSparger
Timer (on/off)(s)
Voluaw (Air) (sft'/tain)
:iacarlal Race (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sSt!)
Set: F5 (A)
Gaslfler
79.93
16.3
572
17.4
577
0.01903
0.96052
6.037
21,734
137
37,159
15,423
571
16.5
0.0782
5.67
14.71
0.0695
6.37
1178/1126
2065/1857
22/22
116/105
1020
Regenerator
74.93
16.2
567
17.3
567
0.01890
0.96276
5.866
21,118
167
39,526
18,408
370
16.5
0.0783
6.76
14.71
0.0697
7.58
1115/1146
1813/1937
20/21
112/114
537
85/42
43
47.07
2.77
0.0827
537
35.2
0.1770
1.35
1.42
7.0
1.25/12.0
36.97
12,480
5.63
Mote
tSample average
F-13
-------
Data
Bvpass
Beds
AP (in. H,0)
O L
P1 (lb/in2a)
Tx CR)
PFan Exitab/1"J,)
TFan Exit ( R)
u (cp)
Y
(lb/s)
Bypass
M (lb/h)
Bypass
Anps
M
Total
(lb/h)
"Fluidi.ing
TPlenu» (*R>
^Plenum Ub/in=a)
^Plenum
Vpienum
PTop (lb/in2.)
°Top (lb/ft>>
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
0Be
lEStiers TTink CR)
PTank
Air Rate (lb/nin)
iPAnnub.r
CR)
(lb/in:a)
TAnnubar <**>
Annubar
°Bleed Air (lb/ft3>
"Bleed Air (lb/Bin)
"pulse Air (lb/Bin)
PSparger
Tinier (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/oin)
Material Race1 (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sftJ)
Set: FSRj(A)
Gasifier
79.65
16.3
574
17.4
577
0.01908
0.96070
6.017
21,659
155
35,882
14,223
572
16.5
0.0780
5.24
14.7
0.0694
5.88
1164/1135
2009/1893
21/22
119/107
Regenerator
74.64
16.2
568
17.3
567
0.01893
0.96290
5.851
21,062
162
37,503
16,441
571
16.5
0.0781
6.05
14.7
0.0696
6.79
1130/1113
1873/1805
22/21
106/107
900
540
89/53
36
39.19
2.61
0.0992
542
34.7
0.1729
1.46
1.15
7.0
1.25/12.0
34.89
12,840
6.13
Note
tSample average
F-14
-------
Data Set: F6(A)
Bvpms &PQ (in. HjQ)
teds
Pj (lb/in2a)
CR)
PFan Exit(lb/11,2 a>
TF»n Exit ^
U (cp)
Y
* (Xb/s)
Bypass
M. (lb/h)
Bypass
Anps
S
local
(Ib/h)
'^Fluidiiing (lb/,h)
TPl.»u. <'R>
^Plenum
^Planum
VJl«u.
PTop
°Top (lb/tt5)
VTop
Display (stare/end)
Bad Wt. (start/and) (lb)
Bad He. (scarc/end) (In.)
(9tart/end) (lb/ft3)
% <*>
lH£U£Ei TTank CR)
PTank (st«t/and)(lb/lrJg)
4 PTank
^Total Air
Air Rata (lb/ain)
iPA«nub.r
^Annubar *
PAnnubar
aBle«d Ur
-------
Data
Bvpa*s
Bed*
(in. H.O)
o I
Px (lb/ln2a)
T: CR)
PF.n Exit(lb'ln'a)
TF*n Exit ( R)
U (cp)
Y
Vp.»
Amp <
\otal (lb/h)
"Flutdizing
Vpl«num
PTop (lb/in2*)
°Top <"»/"')
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/en#) (lb)
Bed He. (start/end) (in.)
Dg4(1 (»tart/end) (lb/ft5)
"Op
(s)
SP'rgert TT«nk ('R)
PTank (lb/in2g)
A PTank (lb/in2)
4*Total Air (lb)
Air Rat* (lb/»in)
^Annubar
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar (lb/ln!"
°Ble.d Air >
Wd Air
*Pula. Air (lb/-in>
PSp.rger
Timer (on/off)(»)
Velum* (Air) (ȣt'/ain)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft')
Set: F6Rj(A)
Gaaifier
79.65
16.3
584
17.4
582
0.01934
0.96064
5.965
21,473
150
34,496
13,023
573
16.5
0.0775
4.81
14.7
0.0693
5.39
1192/1123
2121/1845
22/22
119/104
Regenerator
74.05
16.2
580
17.3
573
0.01924
0.96315
5.769
20,768
165
37,946
17,178
574
16.5
0.0775
6.35
14.7
0.0692
7.13
1117/1149
1821/1949
21/20
107/121
900
545
89/55
34
36.67
2.44
0.1158
545
34.7
0.1719
1.57
0.87
6.5
1.25/14.05
32.65
8000
4.08
Not*
tSample average
F-16
-------
Data Set: F7(A)
Bypass
4P (in. K~0)
~ I
(lb/in2a)
^ (*R)
' Fan Exit
(lb/ln2a)
Beds
TFan Exit ('R)
u (cp)
Y
w- (lb/s)
Bypass
(lb/h)
Bypass
Amps
\otal
Planum (lb/i"ia>
sPlenum (lb/£t'>
"planum (ft/s)
?Top (lb/inJa)
°Top (lb/ftl)
V
Display (scarc/end)
Bed We. (start/end) (lb)
Bad He. (stare/end) (In.)
0Sed (scarc/end) (lb/fc3)
30p (S)
r-Taak C">
PTanlc (3Cart/,eni) (lb/ln:g)
* PTank
"\ocal Air
Air Race (lb/raln)
iPAnnub.r
TAnnubar (*R)
FAnnubar ""'l"'*)
°Bleed Air
ABl«d Air
^Pulse Air
PSparger
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/oin)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Rac io (air)(lb/afc®)
Gaslfler
30.54
16.3
570
17.4
371
0.01898
0.96026
6.068
21,846
152
34,839
12,993
563
16.4
0.0786
4.74
14.7
0.070J
5.29
1156
1977
22
123
Regenerator
74.93
16.2
567
17.3
563
0.91890
0.96276
5.866
21,118
162
37,131
16,013
564
16.4
0.0796
5.85
14.7
0.0703
6.53
1(398
1745
20
108
900
536
92/66.5
25.5
27.96
1.86
0.0827
537
35.2
0.1770
1.35
0.51
6.5
1.25/16.15
24.90
8580
5.74
Not«
tSample average
F-17
-------
Data Set: F7Rj(A)
Bvpass APq (in. HjO)
Reds
Pj (lb/in a)
Tx (*RJ
PPan Exitab/in2a)
TFan Exit ( R)
u (cp)
Y
Vpas,
*Bypas, (lb/h>
Amps
\otal (lb/h)
^TluidUing (lb'h)
^Plenum <*»>
PPlenu» /«'>
VToP
Display (start/end)
Bed Ut. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (In.)
°Bed (sta"/«nd) (lb/ft1)
% <'>
SP'r*ers TT.nk (*R>
PTank (start/*n
Air Rate (lb/oin)
iPAn„ub,r
^Annubar <'R)
PAn»ubar «b'ta,->
°Bleed Air
"Bleed Air (ib/,sin)
"pulse Air (lb/Bin)
PSparger »b/i»'•>
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sftJ/nin)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/*ft!)
Gaslfier
79.95
16.3
573
17.4
578
0.01906
0.96052
6.032
21,715
152
35,188
13,473
570
16.5
0.0779
4.95
14.7
0.0697
5.55
1126/1093
1857/1725
22/23
105/93
Regenerator
74.93
16.2
568
17.4
567
0.01893
0.96276
5.861
21,100
165
38,197
17,097
570
16.5
0.0779
6.28
14.7
0.0697
7.04
1146/1164
1937/2009
21/20
114/124
900
537
66/37
29
31.74
2.12
0.09010
538
34.7
0.1741
1.40
0.72
6.5
1.25/16.15
28.26
8430
4.97
Note
tSample average
F-18
-------
Data Set: F7R2(A)
Svpass
Beds
& (in. H.0)
O 4
Pj (lb/tn2a)
Tx CR)
PF»n Exit(lb/11,2a)
TFati ExtC ("X)
u (cp)
Y
(lb/s)
Bypass
(lb/h)
Bypass
Amps
ftTot1 (lb/h)
^Fluidl^ing (lb/h)
TP!.nu« «*»>
^Plenum d"/!-1-)
VPlenum (fc/s>
PTop (lb/in2a)
3Top (lb/ftI)
V
Display (start/end)
Bad Wt. (starc/end) (lb)
Bed He. (start/and) (la.)
aged (start/and) (lb/ft')
% <•>
Saargers (*R)
PTank (*t4rt/an db/ln2j)
- PTank
Air Race (lb/oln)
iPAnnubar
Timer (on/off)(i)
Volume (Air) (sft'/min)
Material Rata (lb/h)
Transport Raelo (air)(lb/sfc!)
Gaalflar
79.95
16.3
578
17.4
583
0.01919
0.96052
6.006
21,621
155
36,231
14,610
577
16.6
0.0777
5.40
14.7
0.0688
6.09
1123/1121
1845/1837
22/22
104/103
Regenerator
74.05
16.2
574
17.3
573
0.01908
0.96315
5.799
20,875
165
38,568
17,693
576
16.6
0.0777
6.52
14.7
0.0690
7.37
1149/1111
1949/1797
20/20
121/111
900
545
94/65
29
31.28
2.09
0.1158
543
34.7
0.1723
1.57
0.52
6.5
1.25/16.15
27,34
6520
3.90
Note
tSaopla average
F-19
-------
Data Set: F8(A)
Bypass
Bed*
4P (in. H-0)
o *¦
P1 (lb/in2a)
Tj CR)
PF.n Exit(lb/in2*>
TFan Exit ( R)
u (ep)
Y
H»yp... (lb/s)
^Bypass (lb/h>
Anpi
\otal (lb/h>
^l.ldi.in,
TPl«nun (*R)
PPlenu» (lb/in2*>
"Plenum
(lb/ft!)
Vpienum (fc/s)
PTop
°Top
lEHgtr, TTtnk CR)
PXank (ftart/®n<1Mlb/in:l)
& PTa„k
iATot,l Air
Air Rate (lb/nln)
iPAnnub,r
PAnnubar (lb/l"2*>
sBleed Air
*Bleed Air Ub/ain)
"pulse Air <«>/»*»>
PSparger
Tiner (on/off)(t)
Volume (Air) (aftVain)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft')
Gaaifier
79.63
16.3
585
17.3
5«0
0.01937
0.96062
5.960
21,455
165
38,568
17,113
583
16.6
0.0770
6.39
14.7
0.0681
7.21
1188
2105
23
113
Regenerator
72.87
16.1
580
17.3
580
0.01924
0.96369
5.708
20,550
135
36,231
15,681
583
16.6
0.0770
5.85
14.7
0.0681
6.61
1089
1709
20
106
900
546
75/48
27
29.07
1.94
0.0992
545
34.7
0.1719
1.45
0.49
7
1.25/18.20
25.88
6885
4.43
Mote
tSaople
age
F-20
-------
Data
Set: F8R-! (A)
Gasifier
3vpass dPQ (in. H2O)
P, (lb/tn:a)
tx (aR)
PFan Exic(Li,/in2a)
TFan Exit (°R)
a (cp)
X
" (lb/s)
Bypass
*L (lb/h)
Bypass
Beds Amps
\otal (lb/h>
*Fluldlzing
Van.* cw
^Plenum
Vpi«nmn (fc/s>
P_ (lb/ln'a)
top
°Top (lb/fC,)
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed tft. (scart/end) (lb)
Bad He. (start/and) (in.)
8^ (start/end) (lb/ftJ)
0Op
SP"*e" Tlank ('R)
fTanlc (start/|,nd^ll)''in"8^
* ""Tank
^Total Air
Air Raca (Ib/oln)
¦iP, . (In. H,0)
Annubac 2
^Annubar ('R>
?Annubar
"Bleed Air
(lb/ft1)
MBle.d Air
-------
Data
Set: F9(A)
Bvpass
Bed*
t? (in. H,0)
Pj (lb/in"a)
T: CR)
PF.n Exit(lb/in2a>
TFan Exit rR>
U (cp)
Y
^Bypass (lb/s>
V.s. (lb/h)
Amps
"'Total
luidizing
^Plenum <*«
PPlenum
^Plenum
VPlenum (ft/s)
PTop (lb/in2a)
Top
(lb/ft3)
VToP (£t/s)
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/erd) (lb)
Bad Ht. (start/and) (in.)
^Bed (,tarc/end) (lb/ft1)
S0p <*>
TTank (*R)
PTank (start/end)(lb/in2g)
i PTank ab/i"2>
"*Total Air
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar
JBleed Air
*Bleed Air
*Pul.e Air '"/ain)
PSparger
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/»fc!)
Gaslfler
81.72
16.3
585
17.3
590
0.01937
0.95960
6.030
21,708
155
36,231
14,523
582
16.5
0.0767
5.44
14.7
0.0682
6.11
1194/1192
2129/2121
22/24
120/110
Regenerator
74.05
16.2
580
17.3
580
0.01924
0.96312
5.769
20,767
165
38,568
17,801
582
16.5
0.0767
6.67
14.7
0.0682
7.49
1170/1093
2033/1725
21/20
120/107
960
546
94/64
30
32.30
2.02
0.0992
546
34.7
0.1716
1.45
0.57
7.0
1.25/20.05
26.96
6480
4.01
Mote
tSample average
F-22
-------
Data
Set: F9R:(A)
Caaifjar
3vpa
Beds
AP (in. H,0)
o «.
Pj (lb/in2a)
Tx CR)
PFan 6xit
u (cp)
Y
Vpa,.
Vasa
Amps
5l
Total
(lb/h)
^Tluidizing (lb/h>
(lb/lnJa>
Tpienum (*R)
Plenua
0Pl«mia
Vpitnum ((c/*>
PTop as/mU)
®7op
VTop
Display (itart/»nd)
Bad tfe. (acart/and) (lb)
Bad He. (start/and) (in.)
°g>(j (»e»rt/«nd) (lb/fe3)
0Op <»>
lE££iiri Ttaak (•«>
Ptadk Ub/in2g)
A PTank
^Tocal Air
Air Baca (Xb/min)
iPAnnub.r (ln" H2°>
TAnnubar ("R>
PAnnubar
°Bl«ad Air (lb'f£l>
Ub/ain)
(Ib/ain)
MBla.d Air <"»'*«>
M
Pulaa Air
PSparg.r
Timar (on/off)(»)
Volunt (Air) (aft'/nin)
MaearUl Rata (lb/h)
Tranaport ftatio (air) (Ib/ife1)
78.77
16.3
585
17.3
585
0.01937
0.96108
5.929
21,346
150
34,148
12,302
580
16.5
0.0766
4.78
14.7
0.0684
5.37
1192/1176
2121/2057
24/22
110/116
Raggnerator
74.05
16.2
580
17.3
580
0.01924
0.96315
5.769
20,768
162
36,879
16,111
580
16.5
0.0766
6.02
14.7
0.0684
6.75
1093/1143
1725/1925
20/21
107/114
900
546
90/63
27
29.07
1.94
0.0901
544
34.7
0.1722
1.39
0.33
6.75
1.25/20.05
23.88
6765
4.36
Note
rSanpla average
F-23
-------
Data Set: F10(A)
Sypas*
& (in. tuo)
o •
Px (lb/ln;a)
tl CR)
PF.n Exit(lb/in'a)
TFan Exit ('R)
VJ (cp)
V
Vp««
Beds
Amps
M
(lb/h)
Total
*Tl»tdl.in, !lb'h>
TPlenun (>R>
pne„u» <«/*'.)
SPlenum
VPlenu» /*»'•>
oTop (lb/ft3)
VTop <£"«>
Display ((tart/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
°Bed (*t,rc/en<') (lb/ft3)
G0p (*>
Ieansa TTank cr)
Tank
i P,
Tank
i>l.
(start/end)(lb/in2g)
(lb/in2)
(lb)
Tocal Air
Air Race (lb/oliO
APA«.ub.r
cBl«ed Mr
Viae Air (lb/Bin)
PSp.rger (lb/^«>
Timer (on/off)(«)
Volume (Air) (»ft'/min)
!laterial Rate (lb/h)
Tranaport Ratio (air)(lb/»ft3)
Gaslfler
79.36
16.3
585
17.3
585
0.01937
0.96079
5-950
21,419
155
35.882
14,463
580
15.8
0.0736
5.64
14.7
0.0685
6.06
1190/1192
2113/2121
22/23
119/114
Regenerator
73.75
16.2
580
17.3
580
0.01924
0.96327
3.758
20,728
162
37,503
16,775
580
15.8
0.0736
6.54
14.7
0.0685
7.03
1145/1093
1933/1725
21/20
114/107
1020
544
93/63
30
32.42
1.91
0.1034
545
34.7
0.1719
1.48
0.43
6.75
1.25/24.4
25.46
6240
4.08
Note
+Sample average
F-24
-------
Data Set: FlORj(A)
3vpass
iP (In. H,0)
~ i
Pt (ib/tn'a)
CR)
PFan Exit
U (cp)
Y
Vpas. (lb/,)
Vp«s
Beds
Amps
\acal (lb/h)
"midUing (lb/h>
^Plenum <*"
PPlenum (lb/l"2a>
CP1.B«
Display (seart/end)
Bed We. (scarc/end) (lb)
Bed He. (scart/end) (In.)
°Bed (¦aZiTt/eai'> (lb/ft3)
3Op <»>
?p.araar» TTank (°R>
PTank (start/®n (lb/in2g)
4 PIanK 'lb/inI)
^Total Air
Air Race (lb/mln)
iPAn„ubar (ln" H20)
^Annubar CR>
PAnnubar
"3Ued Air (lb/fc')
3»l..d Air «b/"ln>
'Vulae Air (lb/nitl>
P3parS.r
Timer (on/off)(s)
Voiume (Air) (efc'/iain)
-L
Macerial Race (lb/h)
Transport Racio (atr)(Ib/sf;')
Gasifler
73.77
16.3
585
17.3
590
0.01937
0.96111
5.930
21,347
152
35,188
13,841
580
16.5
0.0770
5.17
14.7
0.0685
5.80
1230/1155
2273/1973
23/22
122/111
Regenerator
74.05
16.2
580
17.3
580
0.01924
0.96315
5.769
20,768
165
38,197
17,429
580
16.5
0.0770
6.51
14.7
0.0685
7.31
1118/1150
1825/1953
20/21
113/113
900
544
95/67
28
30.25
2.02
0.1323
344
34.7
0.1722
1.68
0.34
6.75
1.25/24.4
26.93
6675
4.13
Note
tSampla average
F-25
-------
Data
Bvpass ii? (in. H.O)
— — —- o &
P1 (lb/ln'a)
Tx CR)
PFan Exit""'1^
TFan Exit ( R)
(cp)
Bypass
(lb/s)
Beds
M. . (lb/h)
Bypass
Amps
Total
(lb/h)
•^Fluidizing (lb/h)
^Plenum (°R)
^Plenum
^Plenum
^Plenum (ft/s)
PTop
Top
(lb/fts)
VToP
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
SBed '8tart''en<1) (lb/ft1)
S0p (S)
Sfcargers (-R)
PTank (start/en (lb/in:g)
" PTank (lb/in2'
"'Total Air
Air Rate (Ib/nin)
iPAanub.r (in" »Z0)
TAnnubar (,R)
PAnnubar
^Bleed Air
^Bleed Air (lb/"in)
*Pulse Air (lb/nln)
^Sparger
Tiner (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft3/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aft!)
Set: F10R2(A)
Gasif ier
79.95
16.3
573
17.4
577
0.01906
0.96055
6.032
21,716
155
36,231
14,515
570
16.5
0.0781
5.33
14.7
0.0697
5.98
1147/1137
1941/1901
21
115
Regenerator
74.64
16.2
568
17.3
568
0.01893
0.96288
5.850
21,062
165
38,568
17,506
570
16.5
0.0781
6.43
14.7
0.0697
7.21
1175/1136
2053/1897
20
127
960
540
95/65
30
32.66
2.04
0.0827
544.5
34.7
0-1721
1.33
0.67
6.5
1.25/24.4
27.25
5200
3.18
Hof
tSaaple average
F-26
-------
Data
Bvpa»» iPQ (in. H^O)
Px (lb/inJa)
T1 CR)
PFan Exlt(lb/ln'a)
TFan Exit ( R)
u (cp)
T
Vas,
Vpa.» (lb/h)
Amps
Beds
Val (lb/h>
Wdi.iag (lb/h)
TPl.nu» C*>
" Plenum
(lb/in a)
CPl.nu«
Plenum
PTop (lb/in2a)
°Top (lb/ft'>
VTop
Display (seart/end)
Bed Wt. (icart/and) (lb)
Bad Ht. (stare/end) (in.)
3^ (stars/end) (lb/ft3)
0Op (s)
SEargsrs CR)
?Tank (lb/in:g)
* PTank
if. . (lb)
Tocal Air vt '
Air Race (lb/ain)
iPAnnab.r (ln" H20)
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar (lb/ln"1>
Bleed Air (lb/tc'>
(lb/Bin)
Bleed Air
(lb/ain)
.2,
Pulse Air
P5parger
Timer (on/off)(a)
Volume (Air) (sfe'/min)
Macerial Race (lb/h)
Transport Raeio (air)(lb/sic')
Set: DO (A)
Casifier
82.90
16.4
564
17.4
568
0.01893
0.95920
6.201
22,323
160
37,983
15,662
562
16.4
0.0788
5.70
14.7
0.0706
6.36
1181/1184
2077/2089
19/20
135/129
534
5
5.50
4.26
Regeneracor
76.70
16.2
562
17.4
560
0.01877
0.96195
5.956
21,442
165
39,172
17,730
562
16.4
0.0788
6.46
14.7
0.0706
7.20
1158/1147
1985/1941
19.75/20.0
125/120
77.5
0.1737
534
34.7
0.1754
1.94
2.32
7.0
I.25/5.45
56.90
II,730
3.44
Mote
fSampla average
F-27
-------
Data Set: D2(A)
Bvpass
AP (in. H-0)
o -
Pj (lb/inJa)
Tj CR)
PFan Exit(lb/in2a)
TFan Exit ( R)
u (cp)
V
WByp... (lb/s)
Vpa„ (lb/h)
Beds
Amps
?1
Total
(lb/h)
^Fluidiiing
TPl.nu» (*R)
^Plenum <"/lnJa)
^Plenum
VPlenum (ft/s)
PTop "h/i"2')
PTop (lb/ft')
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. .(start/end) (lb)
Bed He. (start/end) (In.)
°Bed ^st*rt/en(" (lb/ft3)
0Op <«>
S£*um rUak CR)
?Tanlc (,tart/end) (lb/ln2g)
A PTank Ub/t»')
iAIecal Air (lb)
Air Rate (lb/oln)
APA»««b.r
TAnnubar ^
PAnnubar
^Bleed Air
^Bleed Air (lb/Bin)
"pul.e Air ab/Bin)
PSparger
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (ift'/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Tranaport Ratio (air)(lb/»ft!)
Gaalfier
83.19
16.4
562
17.4
566
0.01877
0.95908
6.222
22,398
160
37,985
15,587
559
16.4
0.0792
5.65
14.7
0.0710
6.30
1184/1138
2089/1905
20/18
120/131
Regenerator
77.00
16.2
557
17.4
556
0.01864
0.96183
5.993
21,577
165
39,172
17,595
559
16.4
0.0792
6.37
14.7
0.0710
7.11
1147/1153
1941/1965
20/20
120/122
300
534
80/63
17
18.71
3.74
0.1654
536
34.7
0.1748
1.89
1.85
7.0
7.0/5.45
49.98
4320
1.44
Note
tSample average
F-28
-------
APPENDIX G
CALCULATION SHEETS FOR THE ALTERNATE GAS IFIER-REGENERATOR
BED-MATERIAL TRANSFER SLOT-ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION
-------
Data Set: ALT-1
Gaaifier
Bypass
Beds
IP (In. H-O)
o c
Px (lb/in2a)
Tj CR)
PFan Exit^"^
TFan Exit (*R)
U (cp)
Y
Vp.». (lb/,)
V. ab/h)
Amps
flTotal
*Fluidizing
^Plenum (*R>
PPlenum (lb/i"2a>
3Plenum
^Plenum
ptoP db/m2.)
°Top (lb/ft5)
"top
Display (#carc/and)
B«d Wt. (scart/end) (lb)
Bed He. (scarc/end) (in.)
°B«d
Seargers TTan|t {•*>
PTank («art/«nd) (lb/ln:g)
i PT.nk (lb/lnJ)
Air
Air Race (lb/aln)
iPAnnub.r (ln" »2°>
TAnnub«r (*S)
(1
(lb/ft1)
PAnaubar (lb/lnZ*>
Bleed Air
*Bl.ed Air
Tlawr (on/off) (i)
Volua* (Air) (sft'/ain)
Material Rata* (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/»ft')
81
530*
65/60
5
5.55
4.11
0.2274
543
32.7
0.1620
2.14
1.97
2 to 7
54.35
2210
0.67
Regenerator
Hotea
*Assumed
tSampl* avarag*
G-l
-------
Data Set: ALT-2
Gaflfier
Regenerator
Bypass
Beds
AP (in. H,0)
o *
Pj (lb/ir2a)
Tj (°R)
PFan Exit(Ib/in2a)
TFan Exit (*R)
U (cp)
Y
Vas. (lb/8)
^Bypass (lb/h>
Aaps
'Vocal
TPlen«» (*B)
PPlenum
CPl.nu» (lb/£tJ>
VPlenu» (fc/s)
PT0p
°Top (Ib/ftl>
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Vlt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
(start/end) (lb/ft')
30p <•>
SEargjr. (•*>
PT«nk (lb/in'g)
i 'tank
^Total Air
Air Race (lb/aln)
iPAn„ubar H2°>
TAnnubar (*R)
PAnnub,r
&Bleed Air
*Bl~d Air (lb/-te)
*P„lse Air (lb/"in)
P3parger
Tiller (on/off) (s)
Volume (Air) (sft'/sin)
Material Race (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sfts)
Notes
'Assumed
tSample average
1081/973
18/16
300
530*
92/75
17
18.85
3.77
0.1654
550
32.7
0.1605
1.81
1.96
2 to 6
50.35
1992
0.66
1140/1185
18/20
G-2
-------
9vpa»»
Beds
Data
Set: AL'
Gasifier
-iP (In. H,0)
O L
Pj (lb/lira)
T; CR)
Pfan Exit(lb/in2a>
TFan Exit ('R)
u (cp)
Y
Vp.« (lb/s)
Vp.,S (lb/h>
Amps
S!.tU (lb/h)
•\luidizlng (lb/h)
^Plenum <'*>
^Plenum ab/ln'a>
pPunuB (lb/ft'>
VPl.nu» <£t/s>
PTop (lb/in2a)
°Top (lb/ft))
VTop (£t/s>
Display (stari/«nd)
Bed We. (start/«ndf (lb)
Bed He. (start/and) (in.)
°Bed (lb/ft3)
% <•>
72
Tt«k <'R)
530*
?Tank <*e"re/*nd)(lb/ln:g)
as/so
4 PTa«k (lb/ln'>
5
^Total Air (lb>
5.35
Air Race (lb/ntin)
4.62
iPAnnub.r
3.33
PSparg.r
2 to 8
Timer (on/off)(»>
1.65/1.85
Voluae (Air) (aft'/ain)
61.71
Material Race (lb/h)
1930
Transport Ratio (air) Ub/sf e')
0.52
Regenerator
G-3
Kott<
tSaaple average
-------
Data Set: ALT-4
Gasifier
Regenerator
Bypass iPo (In. HjO)
P: (lb/in'a)
Beds
T: (*R)
PF.n Exit(lb/ln2a)
TFan Exit (°R>
V (cp)
Y
^Bypass (lb/"
^Bypass (lb/h>
Amps
"local
"riuldlzing (lb/h>
^Plenum ('R)
PPlenutn >
Plenum
PTop (lb/in2.)
°Top
5.55
Air Race (lb/aln)
2.64
iPAnnub.r
0.206B
TAnnubar ^
540
PAnnubar
32.7
'"'Bleed Air
0.1635
"Bleed Air
2.05
*Pul.. Air (lb/»iB>
0.59
PSparger
2 to 8
Timer (on/off)(a)
1.65/13.45
Volume (Air) (»ft!/ain)
35.26
Material Race (lb/h)
1200
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aft')
0.57
Notea
•Aaaumed
tSample average
G-4
-------
Data Set: ALT-5
Gasifler
Bypass dPQ (in. K.,0)
Pj (lb/in:a)
^ Ca)
PFaa Exit(lb/ln*a)
TFan Exit
U (cp)
Y
^Bypass
^Bypass
Sects Amps
*Total (lb/h>
^luUUio,
Tpl«num CW
PPlenua
0nenu»
Vplenua
PTop (lb/la2a)
°Top <"»/"'>
VTop <£t's>
Display (start/and)
Bed Ut. (start/and) (lb)
Bed Ht. (scare/and) (in.)
°Sed (start/«nd) (lb/ft1)
% (s)
Regenerator
W <*R)
Pran(t (starc''en'l)(lb;m!j)
i ?Tank (lb/In1)
^Tocai Air
SBl«.d Air ab/ail,)
"pulse Air (lb/Bin)
PSparger
Timer (on/off) (»)
Volu»« (Air) (st't Viain)
.'laceriai Rac«" (Ib/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft3)
121.3
530*
80/75
5
S.S5
2.74
2.74
0 to 4
1.65/1.35
36.57
K70
0.67
Notaa
*Assumed
tSaapZe average
G-5
-------
Data Set: ALT-6
Regenerator
Bypass
(in. Hn0)
o
P2 (lb/ In*1 a)
<"R)
PFan E*it{lb'in'"
TFan Exit (*R)
U (cp>
X
Motet
*A*s\nn*d
tvtrtge
Beds
WBypass (lb">
Bypass
Amps
(lb/h)
"total
KFluidiring (lb/h>
^Plenum C ^
PPIenum flb/in1.}
CP2enU« (lb/ft3>
lpienM«
PTop (lb/in2*}
STop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Sed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
°Seti ^stsTt^en<1^ (lb/ft3)
"Op
(s)
TTank <'R)
Ptank
i PTank
iATot.l Mr
Air Rate (lb/mio)
iPAnnubar (ln" H2°>
TiVnnubar '
PAnnub«
"Bleed Air
'\leed Air (lh^aln)
'Suit. Air !lb/sin)
•'sparger
Tiwer (on/off) (*)
Volume (Air) (aft'/oin)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Ir3nsport Ratio
-------
Data Set: ALT-7
Gasifier
Bvoasa
Beds
±?o (In. HjO)
P, (lb/in2a)
T1 (°R>
PFan Exit(li/ln!')
TFan Exit ("R)
u (cp)
Y
Vp.., tlb/s)
Vp.„ (lb/h)
Amp*
A
Regenerator
Total
(lb/h)
MFluidi2ing (lb/h)
TPlenua <*R>
?Plenun (lb/in2*>
CPlenum (lb/ft'>
VPlenuo
PTop
"Top
(lb / f t5)
VTop
Display (seart/tnd)
Bed Wt. (start/and) (lb)
B«d Ht. (start/end) (in.)
3B«d (,t>re/end) (lb/ft1)
3Op <•>
SP"»«" TTank (°R)
i P (lb/inJ)
PTank (,tart/*n^Hlb/inJg)
Tank
^Total Air
TAnnubar <'R)
PAnnubar
C31eed Air
*31e«d Air <"'¦*«>
*PU1« Air
^Sparger
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (ȣt */oin)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aft')
1077/967
18/15
300
530*
75/3S
20
22.18
4.44
0.8063
550
32.7
0.1605
4.00
59.24
2988
0.84
Notes
*Assumed
tSampin average
1048/1159
17/20
G-7
-------
Data Set: ALT-8
Bvpass
•IP (in. H,0)
Gaslfler
R«gener«cor
Beds
?!
PFan
T?an Exit (°R)
U (cp)
Vp«. (lb/t)
ilM>
Amps
ft
Total
(lb/h)
MFluidizlng tlb/h>
TPXenu» <'*>
VP1«U»
PTop (lb/tn:.)
CTop (lb/ft^
VToP
Dtsplty (tctre/tnii)
Sod Wt. (»tart/«nd) (lb)
B«d fit. (»tart/tnd) (In.)
sSe
S3i«*rf Air ^b'£c')
*51««
-------
Data Set: ALT-9
Casifler
Bypass (in. H-,0)
(lb/tnfca)
Tx CR)
PFan E*lt(lb/ln"'a)
TFan Exit ( R)
U (cp)
Y
Regenerator
Notes
~Calculated from annubar
reading
tSample average
Beds
^Bypass (lb/«>
Vpass (lb/h>
Amp s
M
Total
(lb/h)
MFluldlzing (lb/h)
Plenum (>R)
^Plenum
cPlenun (lb/fc!)
VPlenua (fe/s)
PTop (lb/ll,!a>
°Top ("/ft1)
VTop
Display (stare/end)
Bed We. (start/end) (lb)
Bed He. (starc/end) (In.)
¦3^ (start/end) (lb/ft3)
"Op
(s)
SgjTgers TTank (*R)
PTank f3cart^,nd)(lb/lnig)
4 PTank (lb/1"!)
^Total Air
Air Rate (Ib/oin)
~PAnnubar
^Annubar ^
PAnnubar
°31eed Air
*Bleed Air (lb/o,in)
•Vise Air (lb/aln)
P3parger (lb/in'8)
Timer (on/of<)(¦)
Volume (Air) (sfc'/mln)
llaterlal Race (lb/li)
Transport Ratio (air) (lb/st't!)
3.87*
0.7236
535
33.2
0.1676
3.87
4.8
51.73
2250
0.72
G-9
-------
Data Set: ALT-10
Gasifler
Bypass (in. H^O)
Pj (lb/in:a)
Tj CR)
PFan EXit(lb/ln2a>
TFan Exit ('R)
M (cp)
Y
Vp.» (lb/,)
V...
Beds Aaps
"lot,!
"riuidiiing (lb/h)
TPlenure ("R)
^Plenum db/in2a)
^Plenum
°Bl«d Air ab/,t>)
(lb/'min)
(lb/min)
Regenerator
MBleed Air
"Pulse Air
PSparger <">^8)
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (aft'/nin)
Material Rate7 (lb/h)
Tranaport Ratio (air)(lb/«ft')
Note*
'Calculated from annubar
reading
tSaaple average
5.81*
1.6540
535
32.7
0.1650
5.81
10
77.61
2130
0.46
G-10
-------
Data Set: ALT-11
Gasifier
Bvpasa
Beds
iPQ (in. HjO)
Px (lb/in^a)
T, CR)
PFan Exlt(lb/ll,2a)
TF»n Exit <'*>
U (op)
Y
Vpas,
Vp.ss
Amps
^Total Clb/h>
^Tluidlzing (lb/h)
TPl.nu« <*R>
PPl«num (lb/1"2a)
Regenerator
^Plenum
"plenum (fc/s)
PTop (lb/in'a)
3Top
VTop (fc/s>
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (scart/end) (lb)
Bad Ht. (start/end) (in.)
0^4 (scare/end) (lb/ft!)
0Op <«>
SP"S«r' TTanlc (,R)
PTank ("«"/*nd> (lb/ln:g)
^ PT.nk
^Tocal Air (lb)
Air Rao (lb/mln)
aPAnnub.r
^Annubar <*"
PAnnubar
"31««d Air
^Bleed Air (lb/min)
M
Puis* Air
(lb/min)
P3parger
Timer (on/off)(»)
Voluae (Air) (sft'/nin)
Material Rate''" (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air) Ub/sfc')
Notes
~Calculated from annubar
readings
tSfuaple average
2.15*
0.2274
338
32.7
0.1641
2.IS
28.70
1980
1.15
G-ll
-------
Data Set: ALT-12
Ggsifier
Bypass iP (in. H,0)
" 1 0
Pj (lb/in2a)
T: CR)
PFan Exitab/ln:a)
TF«n Exit (*R)
U (Cp)
Y
Va.s
VP„S ab/h)
Beds Amps
^Total (lb/h)
"Fluidiring <"»/»»
^Plenum
PFlenun
PTop (lb/ln2a)
%, (Ib/frM
VTop (ft/.)
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (atart/end) (lb)
Bed He. (start/end) (in.)
°Bed (Ib/ft3)
% <•>
Regenerator
^iSSSIl (•*)
PTank ("¦rt/«'"')(lb/in*g)
i PTa„k
^Total Air (lb>
Air Rate (lb/Bin)
iPAnnubar (ln- H2°>
TAnnubar ^
PAnnub«r d"/inJ.)
°31eed Air
"Bleed Air Ub/mln)
^Pulse Air
PSparger
Timer (on/off)(»)
Volume (Air) (iff'/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft')
Sotea
Calculated from aonubar
readings
tSaaple average
3.86*
0.7278
535
32.7
0.1650
3.86
4.8
51.48
2418
0.78
G-12
-------
Data Set: ALT-13
Gastfler
Bvpass
Beds
(In. H,0)
(lb/in2a)
T; (*R)
PFan ExU(lb/Inia)
TFa„ Exit <°5)
y (cp)
Y
Vpas, (lb/s>
%a,s ab/h)
Amps
s
Total
(lb/h)
^luidizing (lb/h>
"^Plenum <**>
PPlenum ab/ia'^
pPlenum (lb/ftl)
V.num
% (s>
Spargers TTanlt (•«)
PTank (SCa" (lb/in2g)
- PTank
-I\otal Air (lb)
Air Rate (Ib/ntln)
Regenerator
iPto»ub.r (ln" HZ0)
TAnnubar <*«>
PAnnubar Ja>
°Bleed Air (ib''fc>)
^Blaed Air (lb/nin)
"Vie. Air Wnin)
PSparger
Timer (on/off)(a)
Volume (Air) UftVmln)
Material Rata (lb/h)
Transport Raeio (air)(Ib/sfc')
2 Co 8
1.65/4.40
1930
Sotee
tSanple average
Particle timing (5-ln.-
diaaeter tube)
Length Time Material Rate
(in.) («) (lb/h)
12
5
12
30
12
27
1456
1517
1618
(Bulk density Is assumed
equal to 39 lb/Cc1)
G-13
-------
Data Set: ALT-14
Gasifler
Regenerator
Bvpass (in* HjO)
(Lb/itTa)
Tx CR)
PFan Exit(lb/inJa)
TFan Exit ( R)
u (cp)
Y
W„ (ib/s)
Bypass
M. (lb/h)
Bypass
Beds
Amps
(lb/h)
Total
Willing (lb/h>
^Plenum ('R)
^Plenum
^Plenum (£t/«>
PTop (lb/in1.)
PTop
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed He. (stare/end) (in.)
PBed (start/*nd) (lb/ft3)
®Op <«>
PTank (start/*nd)(lb/in2g)
Seaaers T^anlc CR)
tea
4 PTank
iAIocal Air
Veed Air
Vjl.e Air
*Sparger
Timer (on/offXs)
Volume (Air) (sftJ/min)
Material Rate' (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/»fe3)
1.97*
0.1861
540
33.7
0.1665
1.97
26.31
2333
1.48
Notes
~Calculated from annubar
readings
tSaople average
Particle timing (5-in.-
dlameter tube)
Length Tine
(in.) (s)
12 27
12 31
6 13.5
10 24.5
Material Kate
(lb/h)
1618
1409
1618
1486
(Bulk density la aasuned
equal to 89 lb/ft1)
G-14
-------
Data Set: ALT-15
Gasifter
Bvpass
1? (in. H,0)
o i
Pr (lb/tn2a)
CR)
PFan E*it(lb/1I,I")
TFan Exit (°R)
u (cp)
Y
w- (lb/s)
Bypass
M- (lb/h)
Bypass
Beds
Aapj
M
Tocal
(lb/h)
^Fluidizing
^Plenum <*«
PPLnu. (lb/in2a)
°Pl.num (lb/etJ)
'"Plenum (fc/s)
PTop (lb/in2a)
aTop (lb/fc,)
VTop
Display (scarc/end)
Bed Mt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (In.)
CBed (st3rt/en
"MTocal Air (lb)
Air Race (lb/min)
iPAnnub.r (in" H20)
TAtinubar ("R>
PAnnubar
°31eed Air
MSle«d Air (lb/min>
*Pulse Air (lb/nin)
P3parger (lb/l^>
Tiner (on/off)(s)
Voluam (Air) (sft!/nin)
Material Rate' (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(Ib/sfe')
Regenerator
3.77*
0.6823
540
33.7
0.1685
3.77
13/14
50.37
249C
0.82
Notes
~Calculated from annubar
readings
tSample average
Particle timing (5-in.-
dlaaeter tube)
Length Time Material Sate
(in.)
ilL
(lb/h)
12
19
2299
12
18
2427
12
17
2570
(Bulk
density is assumed
equal
to 89 lb/ft3)
G-15
-------
APPENDIX H
CALCULATION SHEETS FOR THE FINAL GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-
MATERIAL TRANSFER SLOT—PERFORATED-PLATE SPARGER
-------
Data Set: LO
Sypajta (in. H-,0)
fj (lb/in2 a)
Tx CS)
P?an ExU(lb/in'a)
TFan Exi: <,R>
u (cp)
y
Va»
Aap»
ftTocal (lb/h)
^Fluidising (lb/h>
CM
Ub/itila)
Beds
Tn««« (*R5
Planum
°Pl.num
VPi«u. (U/,)
Ptop (Ib/iB1.)
DTop flb/ft'»
V «"•>
Display (scarc/«id)
Bad wc. (scare/end) (lb)
Bed He. (iCarc/and) (In.)
°Ud (lb/ft1)
*Op ('>
Sfiatisrs TTjnlt CM
Nank ("arc/and) Ub/in;s)
i PT«k
^Total Air
CM
an/to'*)
TAnnubar ( R'
Ancuibar
°Bl..d Air <«'«*'>
^0X««d Air (lb/mln)
Via. Air
PSp«g«r Ob/lo-gJ
Timer (on/oft)(s)
Voluaa (Air) Uft'/nin)
Haearial Rata* (U>/to
Transport Raclo (air) Ub/«t"t3)
Caaltler
30.24
1.6.3
572
17.4
578
0.01903
0.96040
6.047
21.770
165
38,568
16,798
374
15.6
0.0781
6.17
14.7
0.0691
6.97
Sagenaracor
73.75
16.3
572
572
0.01903
0.96354
5.817
20,942
155
36,231
15,289
576
16.6
0.0778
J,64
14.7
0.06S9
6.37
120
S37
68/63
5
5.47
2.74
2.74
0 ea 3
0.5/1.85
36.J4
20,080
9.16
8ot«
tSanpla ivaraja
H-l
-------
Data Set: LORj
Bypass AP (in. H?0)
Pj (lb/in a)
(*R)
PF»n exit(lb/ln!«>
TFan Exit (°R)
y (cp)
Y
V.s. (lb/s>
Vpass (lb/h)
Amps
M
Beds
Total
(lb/h)
"Fluidizing (lb/h)
^Plenum (°R)
^Plenum Ub/inJa)
^Plenum (lb/£tl>
VPlenum (ft/s)
PTop (lb/in1.)
STop (lb/ft3>
VToP
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
*Bed
SP"B«* TT«nk C*R)
PTank (st®rt/,,nd> db/inJg)
A "Tank
^Total Air (lb)
Air Rate (lb/nin)
*PAnnubar
°Bleed Air (lb/ft'>
^Bleed Air
*Pul.e Air (lb/oin>
?Sparger (lb/ln:8»
Timer (on/off)(»)
Volume (Air) (ift'/nin)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aft3)
Gasifler
79.65
16.3
577
17.3
576
0.01916
0.96064
6.001
21,602
150
33,912
12,310
565
16.4
0.0784
4.51
14.7
0.0702
5.03
1232
2281
Regenerator
73.75
16.2
572
566
0.01903
0.96327
5.798
20,872
160
36,172
15,300
567
16.4
0.0781
5.62
14.7
0.0700
6.27
1132
1881
96.5
538
5
5.46
3.40
3.40
3
0.5/1.85
45.36
19,880
7.31
Mote
tSample average
H-2
-------
Data
Set: LOR,
2
Bvpasa (in. H.,0)
Pj llb/in2a)
Tj CR)
PFan Exit(lb/ln'a)
TFan Exit ("S)
U (cp)
Y
Vass
Beds
v«.(lb/h)
Aaps
M
local
(lb/h)
^Fluidizing
^Plenum <*R>
PPlenu»
3U«u.
Vplenuo <£c/3>
PTop (Ib/in'a)
°Top
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed He. (start/end) (in.)
®Bed (scarc/end) (lb/fc3)
3Op (•>
Sear^ers TTank CR)
PTank (start/«n<*)(lb/in-g)
A PTanK
TAnnubar ^ R'
PAnnubar ab/lf,ia>
"Bleed Air
*Bleed Air
\l« Air
PSparger
Timer (on/off)(j)
Volume (Air) (»feJ/ain)
Material Rate' (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air) (Ib/sfc1)
Gaaifier
81.42
16.3
571
17.4
574
0.01901
0.95987
6.093
21,936
165
39,757
17,821
570
16.8
0.0796
6.42
14.7
0.0696
7.34
Regenerator
75.82
16.2
569
567
0.01896
0.96234
5.888
21,197
165
39,757
13,560
570
16.8
0.0796
6.69
14.7
0.0696
7.65
136.9
533
5
5.46
2.39
2.39
3.5/4.1
0.5/1.85
31.97
18,400
9.59
Hote
tSample average
H-3
-------
Data Set: LI
Bvpass £P (in. H.O)
1 O z
Beds
Pj (lb/inJa)
Tj (°R)
Pr«n Exic(lb/inJa)
TFan Exit ('R)
'j (cp)
Y
^Bypass
S«yp... (lb/h)
Anps
M
Total
(lb/h)
MFlUidizing (lb/h>
^Plenum (*R)
^Plenum
pPlenun
^Plenum
PTop (lb/inJa)
PTop (lb/ft3)
VToP
Display (*tart/end)
Bed «t. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (In.)
CBed 'st,rt/en
(*R)
(lb/in2a)
^Annubar
*P»1.. Air (lb/aln>
PSparger (lb/in2«>
Timer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) (sft3/ain)
Material Rate (Ib/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/*ft3)
Gaslf ier
80.24
16.3
570
17.4
575
0.01898
0.96040
6.058
21,808
162
38,343
16,535
570
16.6
0.0796
5.96
14.7
0.0696
6.81
1149
1949
Regenerator
74.05
16.2
568
567
0.01893
0.96317
5.829
20,985
162
38,343
17,538
571
16.8
0.0794
6.27
14.7
0.0695
7.16
1193
2125
165.7
538
5
5.46
1.98
3/3.5
0.5/3.5
26.41
16,160
10.20
Note
tSaopla average
H-4
-------
Data
Bypass
Beds
AP (in. H„0)
o *,
Pj (lb/in:a)
CR>
PFan
TTan hit <*R)
u (cp)
Y
A (Ib/s)
Bypass
M„ (lb/h)
Bypass
Anps
MTotal
Wdi.l., (lVh>
^Plenum <*«>
PPlanum
5Pl.nua <»"«'>
WP1«u- {fe">
PTop (Ib/la'a)
0Top (lb/Jt])
VTop
Display (start/and)
Bed Uc. (start/and) (lb)
Bad He. (aeare/«o4) (la.)
(»tart/«nd) (lb/ftJ)
°0P <"
lEiiai™ Ttink <**>
ica
i P,—(lb/ in1)
PTank <»c"c/*n,i>
^Annubar (*R)
PAnnubar
°3Uad Air
*31«d Air
\ul.a Air tlw,u#)
PSpjirg«r
Tltnar (on/o£f)(»)
Voluma (Air) (sft'/mln)
Macariai Rita''" (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/aft1)
Set: L1R
Gaslfler
32.90
16.4
565
17.4
570
0.01885
0.95920
6.195
22,303
160
38,328
16,023
565
16.6
0.0793
3.80
14.7
0.0702
S.54
1142
1921
19.0
125
1
Rtgeneracor
77.00
15.2
560
560
0.01872
0.96131
5.977
21,519
163
40,244
18,725
564
16.6
0.0793
6.76
14.7
0.0704
7.63
1059
1590
17.25
114
305
538
5
5.46
1.07
3.5/4.0
0.2/3.4
14.35
7590
8.81
Seta
tSampla avaraga
H-5
-------
Data Set: L1R2
Bvpass
Beds
^ (in. H,0)
o i
(lb/in2a)
Tz CR)
PFan Exlt(lb/in2,)
TFan Exit (*R)
U (=P)
V
UBypass
CR)
PFle«u» (lb/in:!,)
CPl«nu»
Vpi«num (ft/s)
PTop
PTop Ub/ft3)
VTop (ft/s>
Display (start/and)
Sed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
°Bed ("¦"/end) (lb/ftJ)
90p («>
suaTTank cr)
PTank ("'"/end) (lb/ln2g)
A PT,nk (lb/in2)
•^Total Air (lb)
Air Race (Ib/oin)
iPAnnub.r (in" H:0)
TAnnubar *
PAnnubar
*Pul.. Air
PSparger (lb/lnJ«>
Timer (on/eff)(»)
Volume (Air) («ft3/min)
ilaterial Rate' (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/»ft3)
Gaslfier
82.60
16.3
566
17.A
570
0.01886
0.95932
6.161
22,178
165
39,757
17,579
564
16.6
0.0795
6.35
14.7
0.0704
7.17
1226
2257
19/18
147
Regenerator
75.82
16.2
564
562
0.01883
0.96234
5.914
21,290
165
39,757
18,467
565
16.6
0.0793
6.68
14.7
0.0702
7.54
1077
1661
17.25/18
119
342
538
60/55
5
5.46
0.96
3/3.5
0.4/3.5
12.80
6120
7.97
Note
tSample average
H-6
-------
Data Set: L2
Bypass
iP (in. H-0)
O L
B«ds
?L (lb/in2a)
CR)
PFan Exit(lb/ln2a)
TFa„ Exit <*R>
U (cp)
V
Vpass (lb/s>
Vpa«. (lb/h)
Aopa
\otal
^luldlxin, (lb/h)
CR)
(lb/in1a)
TPLenum <**>
P lanun
3n.»« (lb/ft,)
VP1.»« nk CR)
?Tank (*cart'*nd) (lb/inJg)
4 PT.n*
^Total Air (lb>
Air Raca (lb/min)
iPAnnubar (ln" «20)
TAnnubar ^
PAnnub.r
JBlaad Air (lb/fe'>
*Blaad Air (lb/»in>
*Pulaa Air <"/¦*»>
PSpargar (">/iB2g)
Tiner (on/off)(a)
Voluna (Air) (»it3/nin)
4.
Macarial Rata' (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/afe!)
Gaaifier
81.13
16.3
366
17.4
571
0.01888
0.93994
6.110
21,995
163
39,737
17,762
567
16.8
0.0800
6.37
14.7
0.0700
7.28
1234
2369
Regenerator
74.93
16.2
564
364
0.01883
0.96276
5.882
21,174
165
39,737
18,383
564
16.8
0.0804
6.63
14.7
0.0704
7.58
1059
1590
231.2
538
5
3.46
1.42
3.0
0.3/6.30
18.93
7630
6.73
Mota
tSampla avaraga
H-7
-------
Data
Set: L3
Bvpass
Beds
i?o (in. H20)
Pj (lb/in*a)
T: CX)
PFan Exit(lb/in2a)
TFan Exit <°R>
u (cp)
Y
Vpa» (lb/s)
Vpas. (lb/h>
Amps
^Total (lb/h)
^Fluidizing
TPlenum (*R)
PPlenum !a)
^Plenum
Vplenum
hep
"Top
(lb/ft')
VTop
Diaplay (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bad He. (start/end) (in.)
PB«d (#t4rt/en
TTank (°R)
I CM
i P- , (lb/in2)
PTank <»cart/end)
^Annubar ^ R'
PAnnub.r
°Bl.ed Air
SllHd Air
^Pulse Air ab/Bln)
P Sparger «b/1"!«>
Timer (on/off)(*)
Voluoe (Air) (tft'/nin)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air) (lb/»r't')
Gas ifier
80.54
16.3
566
17.4
571
0.01S88
0.96026
6.089
21,921
162
38,692
16,771
567
16.8
0.0800
6.01
14.7
0.0700
6.87
1180
2073
349.2
538
5
5.46
0.94
Regenerator
74.64
16.2
564
563
0.01883
0.96290
5.871
21,135
165
39,408
18,273
567
16.8
0.0800
6.55
14.7
0.0700
7.49
1152
1961
3 to 4
0.5/8.80
12.53
2960
3.94
Mote
tSample average
H-8
-------
APPENDIX I
CALCULATION SHEETS FOR THE FINAL GASIFIER-REGENERATOR BED-
MATERIAL TRANSFER SLOT--THREE-TUBE SPARGER
-------
Data Set: LS-1
Svpfsa (In.
(ItWlira)
tj <*K)
PE« '«)
T7it> Exit ('S)
u (c?)
X
Vp«« aWj)
•VP,« (lb'h>
Beds Aopj
*Toe.l (ib/h>
"fluidliing
rpi«n-am (*R-)
?Pienu» CIb/tn^>
S?ienu»
^Plenum ffc/s>
?Top Ui>/tn2»)
Brop ab/fc'>
Vtcp <"'•>
Di»pl*y (atart/»rtd)
B»d lit. (ttan/*ti&) (lb)
8ed He. (9t4re/«id) (In.)
CS»tf J (lb/ft')
30P
?Tank (lb/In2 j.)
" PT»„lc <»'»«*>
^Toetl Air
Air Rac# (lh/min)
(1°- Hi0>
^-\r.nub»r ' ^
P«mib«r (lb/ln'*>
Air
Air
*?U1« Air
P3parg«r Ub/in^>
Timer (on/o{!)(»)
v'olua* (Air) UftVain)
A
M»t«rial iUce (Ij/h)
Transport lUclo (iir)(lb/»{s3)
S«if i ef
52.60
W.4
559
17.4
S6J
0.01870
0.9J937
6.2X8
22,265
ISO
37,985
J.3,4«J
5J7
16.3
9.0800
J.60
14.7
0.0713
4.28 '
1124
1849
_ Sttgeneracot
76.41
IS.2
555
553
0.01839
0.96207
3.983
21,538
163
39,172
17,634
557
16.5
0.0800
6.33
14.7
0.0713
7,10
LOW
1511
tiotg
*A*sim«d
tSanpla *v«rag«
208.3
535*
80/75
J
5.49
1.58
1.38
2.J
O.J/T.S
21.13
10,603
8.36
1-1
-------
Data Set: LS-2
Bvpass
ted*
AP (in. H,0)
o -
P; (lb/in2a)
T1 CR)
PFan Exit
TFan Exit ("R)
u (cp)
Y
Vass (lb/'>
V.s.
Anp<
ftTot.l (lb/h)
"Fluidiiing
^Plenum (*R)
PPIenua (lb/1"2»>
^Plenum (lb/f£S>
^Plenum (ft/s)
PTop (lb/in2a)
CTop
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (in.)
(atart/end) (lb/ft3)
£0p <•>
*r"K*R W <"R)
PT«nk (»t«rt/«nd)(lb/in2g)
A ?Tank
-Vcal Air
Air Rate (lb/min)
Gasif ler
B2.60
16.4
561
17.4
565
0.01875
0.95935
6.207
22,345
160
37,985
15,640
560
16.5
0.0796
5.64
14.7
0.0709
6.33
225.3
535*
5
5.49
1.46
iPAi,nubar (in' V>
TAnnubar <*R>
PAnnubar (lb/in2'>
°Bleed Air
ABleed Air ab/rain)
APul«e Air i'46
PSp«rger *•»
Timer (on/off)(s) 0.7/9.2
Volume (Air) (eftVnin) 19.54
Material Rate+ (.lb/h) 9600
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft1) 8.19
Regenerator
76.70
16.2
558
557
0.01867
0.96195
5.977
21,518
165
39,172
17,654
560
16.5
0.0796
6.37
14.7
0.0709
7.15
Note*
*Asaumed
tSample
1-2
-------
Data Set: Ls-3
Bvpaaa iPQ (In. HjO)
(lb/ln:a>
\ CW
PF.n toitab'taI*)
TFan Exit ("S)
U (cp)
Y
V«s
V,...
Bada Aopa
\ocal (lb/h)
^Fluidillng
TH«» «**>
'pienun <""***>
cPl.nu»
Vpi€tHMl
PTop (lb/in2a)
JT0p
VTcp
Display (start/and)
Bad He. (icare/end) (lb)
Bad Ht. (itarc/end) (In.)
°Bed (,tlrt/,n<15 (Ib/fc1)
30P
5B«m« Trank <•*>
?Tank (*c«e/end) (lb/ln2g)
4 Pr,nk
Air Raca (lb/aln)
^Annubar
**•«*« <*R>
^Anoubar M/l-1.)
°81..d Air
^BWed Air
\uU« Air
Tlaar (on/off)(a)
Voluaa (Air) ($ft3/i»in>
Jtaterial Rata4" (lb/h>
Tranaport Raeio (*ir!(lb/sft!)
Caalftar
8Z.6
16.4
561
n.i
565
0.01875
0.95935
6.207
22,345
ISO
37,985
15,640
560
15.5
0.0794
5.64
14.7
0.0709
6.33
288.3
533*
79/74
!
5.49
1.14
1.14
2.3
0.5/12
13.27
6840
7.47
Regenerator
76.7
16.2
558
557
0.01867
0.96195
5.977
21,518
165
39,172
17,654
560
16.5
0.0796
6.37
14.7
0.0709
7.13
Notaa
*Assuaad
tSaaple average
1-3
-------
Data
Bypass iPo (in. HjO)
Pj (lb/in2a)
Tj CR)
PFanExit(lb/ln2a)
TFan Exit ("R)
U (cp)
Y
WByp«s
Beds Amps
STot.l (lb/h)
^Fluidizing (lb/h>
^Plenum ("R)
^Plenum
^Plenum
^Plenum
PTop
Air (lb>
Air Rate (Ib/min)
iPAnnub.r (in' H20)
TAnnub«r ^
PAnnub.r (lb/in^
Bleed Air
(lb/ft3)
MBle.d Air
PSparg«r
Tiner (on/off)(»)
Volume (Air) (ift'/min)
Ilaterial Race (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft3)
Set: LS-4
Gaslfier
82.6
16.4
557
17.5
563
0.01864
0.95937
6.229
22,425
162
38,692
16,267
557
16.5
0.0800
5.83
14.7
0.0713
6.55
84
530
5
5.55
3.96
3.96
2.5
0.5/2.6
52.89
18,880
5.95
Regenerator
76.7
16.2
555
554
0.01859
0.96195
5.993
21,576
165
39,408
17,832
557
16.5
0.0800
6.40
14.7
0.0713
7.18
Note
tSaaple average
1-4
-------
Data Set: LS-4R
Bypass
iPQ (in. H,0)
P^ (lb/in:a)
(*R)
PFan Exit(lb/,in2a)
TFan Exit ( R)
U (cp)
Y
Vp.ss (lb/s>
*Bypa«
Beds
Amps
k
local
(Ib/h)
"Flatting
^Annubar <**>
?Annubar
* Bleed Air
"Bleed Air
^Pulae Air ("/ain)
^Sparger
Timer (on/of£)(s)
Voluae (Air) (sfe'/min)
Material Race (lb/h)
Transport Racio (air)(lb/sfc')
Gaslfler
82.6
16.4
538
17.5
563
0.01867
0.95937
6.224
22,405
170
40,962
18,557
559
16.7
0.0807
6.60
14.7
0.0710
7.50
91
530
5
5.55
3.66
3.66
2.5
0.5/2.6
48.82
19,560
6.68
Regenerator
76.7
16.2
558
557
0.01867
0.96195
5.977
21,518
160
38,552
17,034
560
16.7
0.0805
6.07
14..7
0.0709
6.90
Hote
tSampla average
1-5
-------
Data Set: LS-5
Bvpass
Beds
iP (in. H,0)
o I
Px (lb/in2a)
CR)
PF.n Exlt
Tlan Exit ( R)
u (cp)
Y
^Bypass (lb/s>
"^Bypass
Aaps
Sto«l
Ub/h)
^Plenum Ub/inJa)
^Plenum {lb/ft'>
^Plenum (ft/s>
PTop
PTop (lb/ft'>
VTcp «"*>
Display (start/end)
Bed Uc. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (In.)
cBe(j (start/end) (lb/ft3)
% <•>
5H2X2£» TIank (*R)
PTanlc (lb/in2g)
* PT*nk (lb/in'>
^Total Air (lb>
Air itste (lb/Bin)
iPAnnub.r (in" H2°>
TAnnubar ^ ^
Ptanub»r !lb/in2a)
°Bleed Air
^Bleed Air
*Pulse Air (lbMl0)
^Sparger
Tiaer (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) Uft'/min)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft?)
Gaslfler
83.19
16.4
557
17.5
563
0.01864
0.95908
6.249
22,498
170
41,198
18,700
557
16.7
0.0810
6.63
14.7
0.0713
7.53
114
530*
5
5.55
2.92
2.92
2.5
0.5/4.0
38.97
16,060
6.87
Regenerator
76.70
16.2
555
554
0.01859
0.96193
5.993
21,575
162
39,259
17,684
557
16.7
0.0810
6.27
14.7
0.0713
7.12
Notes
*A»»uned
tSanple average
1-6
-------
Data Set: LS-5R
aypa»a dfQ
Tfan Exic <°R)
U (cp)
Y
V««
•Vpa»
lEaiisr. TT,nk CR)
PTank j)
4 PTa«k
^Tocal Air
Air Rate CLb/mtn)
^Annub.r
*Annub»r ' ^
PAnnub«r
"Bleed Air
*aieed Air (lb/nln)
S?ul». Air <"»/¦«»>
p Sparger
Titter (on/off) (»)
Volume (Air) (sfcs'mln)
Material Rate" (lb/h)
7r»n»port Ratio (air)UVsfr1)
Gaaifier
92.6
16.4
358
17.J
563
0.01867
0.95937
6.224
22,405
170
40.962
18,557
559
16.7*
0.0907
6.60
14.7
0.0710
7.50
123
530
5
S.55
2.73
2.73
1.5
0.5/4.0
36.42
15,760
7.21
Regenerator
76.J
16.2
553
557
0.01867
0.96195
5.977
21,318
160
38,552
17,034
560
16.7*
0.0805
6.07
14.7
0.0709
6.90
Motea
*A*suned
tSaaple average
1-7
-------
Data Set: LS-6
Bvpass
iP (in. H-0)
o +
(lb/lnra)
t1 CR)
PF« Exit*1"'1"2*'
TFan Exit ("R)
L Ccp) .
Y
V... (lb/s)
fiByp.« (lb/h)
Beds
Aaps
M
Total
Ub/h)
*Fluldiring
TPlenun (°Ri
PPienua '"/i"2*)
"Plenum
(lb/ft3)
VPl«nun (f"s>
PTop ""/in2.)
°Top
VTop
Display (start/and)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Hr. (start/end) (in.)
SB«d (lb/ft5)
% <*5
!£«&«£. TTink fR)
sta
4 P (lb/in1)
PTank
Tank
\t.1 Air
TAnnubar '
P*m»b.T «f/Jnla>
cBle»d Air
*Bleed Air (lb/,,,in)
*Pulse Air
^Sparger
Tlner (on/off)(s)
Volume (Air) («ft!/»ir.)
•latarial Rat* (lb/h)
Trsnsport Ratio (alrHlb/att1)
Gaslfler
83.49
36.4
557
17.5
563
0.01864
0.95894
6.260
22,535
170
41,198
18,663
558
16.6
0.0803
6.67
14.7
0.0711
7.53
169
530
5
5.55
1.97
1.97
2.5
0.5/7.0
26.29
13,040
8.27
Regenerator
76.70
16.2
557
556
0.01864
0.96195
5.983
21,537
162
39,239
17,722
559
16.6
0.0802
6.34
14.7
0.0710
7.16
Seta
tSaapla average
1-8
-------
Data Set: LS-7
Gyliler
Bvpa»a
¦iPo (In. H20)
P, (lb/lnJa)
T; CW
PFan Exit^'1^
TFan Exit (*R)
(cp)
Sypaas
Ub/j)
Beds
\paSs <»"¦>
Amps
\ot1 (1S/h)
\iuidizing
Pl«nu»
'plenum
VpUnum
PTop (U/ia4.)
Top
(lb/ft3)
V
Display (jcart/tnd)
Bad He. Cscart/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (acare/and) tin.)
(start/and) (lb/ft3)
Bad
-Op
(a)
8eg«n«rator
Sattst ?Unk (¦•>
PT*nk <*:»"/«nd) (lb/ln:g)
~ PTatik.
^Tocal Air (I-b)
Air Rat» (lb/Bin)
iPArmubat (in" V
TAisnub»r * R'
PAnnub«r
331e.d Air W')
ft«lMd Air ab/alt0
Via. Air <"/¦*»>
PSparg.r «»>»»'•>
Tinar (on/off)(s)
Valusw (Air) (sftVoin)
?Uteriai R«c»~ (ib/h)
Transport Ratio (airHlb/»l?t>)
Nof
tSuplt &v«r&g«
1-9
-------
Data Set: LS-8
Bypass (in. H00)
Pj (lb/in:a)
Tj CR)
PFan Exit(lb/in2a)
TFan Exit <*R>
U (cp)
V
Va„
Vp.« ab/h)
Beds Anps
M
Total
(lb/h)
'Vluidizing (lb/h)
^Plenum ("R)
^Plenum (lb/lni<"
^Plenum (lb/ft>)
Vplenun
PTop (lb/m2.)
ctoP (lb/ft3)
VTop
Display (start/end)
Bed Wt. (start/end) (lb)
Bed Ht. (start/end) (In.)
0je(j (start/and) (lb/ft!)
op
(«)
SP"«"» TTank ('R)
PT«nk (»tart/end>
APulse Air
Timer (on/off)(a)
Volume (Air) (»ft!/ain)
Material Rate (lb/h)
Transport Ratio (air)(lb/sft8)
Gasifier
82.90
16.4
558
17.5
564
0.01867
0.95925
6.234
22,443
170
41,198
18,755
560
16.6
0.0800
6.72
14.7
0.0709
7.59
43
530*
5
5.55
7.74
7.74
1.3 to 2.3
Continuous
103.33
12,360
1.99
Re generator
76.70
16.2
558
558
0.01867
0.96195
5.977
21,518
162
39,259
17,741
561
16.6
0.0799
6.37
14.7
0.0707
7.19
Notes
*Assuaed
tSaaple average
1-10
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inunctions an the reverse before completing)
I. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/T-T7-1I4
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION- NO.
•J. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE
Chemically Active Fluid Bed (CAFB) Process
Solids-Transport Studies
s. report date
October 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORlS)
John A. Bazan
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORESS
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation
John Blizard Research Center
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE623A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2106
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOO COVERED
Topical: 8/75-10/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE
EPA/600/13
is. supplementary notes IERL-RTP project officer for this report is Samuel L. Rakes,
Mail Drop 61, 919/541-2825.
is. asstract rep0rt describes cold-modeling efforts directed toward the development
of a solids-transport system capable of transferring 40,000 lb/hr of bed material
between two operating fluidized beds of a chemically active fluidized bed (CAFB)
gasification/desulfurization commercial demonstration unit. Three completely
different configurations were tested, including at least one modification of each
design. The optimum system would: transfer the required amount of bed material per
unit time between the two fluidized beds; use the minimum quantity of activating gas;
maintain the minimum activating gas pressure; allow only minimal gas leakage back
into the supply bed; and provide an accurate and reliable control of transfer rate. A
modified version of the third configuration tested (consisting of vertical and horizontal
tubes with rectangular cross section and a multitube transport-gas sparger) was
selected as coming closest to these specifications.
17. KEY WOHQS AND OOCUMSNT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTlFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Fluidized Bed Processing
Fluidizing
Solids Flow Beds (Process
Gasification Engineer ing)
Desulfurization Transferring
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Chemically Active
Fluidized Bed
Solids Transport
Cold Modeling
Red Material Transfpr
13B
13H,07A
20D
07D 14B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SfiCUfttTY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. 0* PAGES
274
20. SECURITY CLASS mux paxc)
Unclassified
22. PfllCE
EPA farm 2210-1 (9-73)
J-l
-------
|