4.7 Article

Investigation of the hydrodynamics of packed-fluidized beds: Characterization of solids flux

期刊

FUEL
卷 335, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.127010

关键词

Bubbling fluidized bed; Chemical-looping combustion; Packed-fluidized bed; Confined fluidization; Random packings

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the impact of Aluminum Silicate Balls (ASB) random packing on solid flux in packed-fluidized beds. The interaction of different packing and bed particle sizes, as well as superficial gas velocity, was studied. Experiments were conducted in a cylindrical cold-flow reactor using silica sand as bed material. The results showed that large particle and packing sizes, as well as low gas velocity, resulted in high solid flux.
This work investigates the impact on solid flux of applying Aluminum Silicate Balls (ASB) random packing in packed-fluidized beds. The interaction of different packing sizes, bed particle sizes and superficial gas velocity was studied. Experiments were conducted in a cylindrical cold-flow reactor with an inner diameter of 12 cm and a height of 1 m. The ASB packings were applied on a net grid in the middle of the reactor. Bed material was added from the top and temporarily formed a fluidized bed above the packed section. Bed particles then trickled downwards through the packed section during confined fluidization. The bed material was silica sand, with mean particle sizes of 119,181, and 303 mu m. ASB packings of two sizes (12.7 and 6.3 mm) were evaluated. Air was used as fluidizing gas, applied at the superficial gas velocities of 0.1 m/s, 0.2 m/s and 0.3 m/s. The measured solid flux was 1.2-13.6 kg.m(-2).s(-1). Large particle size, large packing size and low superficial gas velocity resulted in high flux, and vice versa. It was concluded that ASB packings constitutes a significant hindrance for solids through-flow in packed-fluidized bed applications. However, it could be interesting for counter-current flow applications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据