Paper No.

FBC99-0054

Scaling Parameters for PFBC Cyclone Separator System Analysis

Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion May 16 - 19, 1999 Savannah, Georgia

Copyright 1999 by ASME

SCALING PARAMETERS FOR PFBC CYCLONE SEPARATOR SYSTEM ANALYSIS

Antonia Gil, Luis M. Romeo and Cristbal Corts CIRCE, Centro de Investigacin del Rendimiento de Centrales Elctricas Centro Politcnico Superior. Mara de Luna, 3. 50015 Zaragoza (Spain) email: antgilma@posta.unizar.es, luismi@posta.unizar.es, tdyfqdb@posta.unizar.es

ABSTRACT
Laboratory-scale cold flow models have been used extensively to study the behaviour of many installations. In particular, fluidized bed cold flow models have allowed developing the knowledge of fluidized bed hydrodynamics. In order for the results of the research to be relevant to commercial power plants, cold flow models must be properly scaled. Many efforts have been made to understand the performance of fluidized beds, but up to now no attention has been paid in developing the knowledge of cyclone separator systems. CIRCE has worked on the development of scaling parameters to enable laboratory-scale equipment operating at room temperature to simulate the performance of cyclone separator systems. This paper presents the simplified scaling parameters and experimental comparison of a cyclone separator system and a cold flow model constructed and based on those parameters. The cold flow model has been used to establish the validity of the scaling laws for cyclone separator systems and permits detailed room temperature studies (determining the filtration effects of varying operating parameters and cyclone design) to be performed in a rapid and cost effective manner. This valuable and reliable design tool will contribute to a more rapid and concise understanding of hot gas filtration systems based on cyclones. The study of the behaviour of the cold flow model, including observation and measurements of flow patters in cyclones and diplegs will allow characterising the performance of the full-scale ash removal system, establishing safe limits of operation and testing design improvements.

INTRODUCTION
Hot gas cleaning plays an essential role in the development of new power generation technologies such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) or Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC). The removal of solid particles from the combustion flue gases is essential in order to maintain gas turbine working conditions and particle emissions in safe limits. In particular, in PFBC power stations the entrainment of bed particles may lead to erosion and fouling in downstream equipment. Special importance is the damage of gas turbine blades. In addition, fly ash can also produce corrosion due to metal alkali compounds. Cyclone separator systems offer nowadays one of the best solution for removing particles from high temperature high pressure installations. Combustion gases from pressurized beds are an example of this harsh environment, and cyclones are, nowadays, the only solution commercially available for these power stations. These systems are simple, low cost and maintenance with relatively high collection efficiency. Its main disadvantages are the complex hydraulic behaviour and a efficiency decrease for small particles (below 5 m). In Escatrn PFBC power plant, the hot gas filtration equipment is a two-stage process performed in nine streams between the fluidized bed and the gas turbine. The cyclones are high efficiency, Van Tongerens type, with a tangential inlet, cylindrical body, conical base, and an axial outlet for clean gases and outlet port for solid particles in the lower part. The solid extraction bin has been replaced by a dipleg (similar to those found in catalytic cracking) and a suction nozzle through which collected particles are evacuated along with some amount of transport gas. In contrast with other devices, such as series of pressure-tight lockhooppers, the solid extraction by pneumatic conveying improves cyclone efficiency and allows reliable handling and cooling of ash particles with low cost. Ash and combustion gases exit the pressurized bed at nearly 800 C and 11 bar(g). The gas and solid mass flow rates depend on load, coal and sorbent characteristics and other operating variables, in particular those related with fluidisation. These parameters have a strong influence on the separation efficiency of the cyclones, and there are not well established theories able to achieve an accurate and complete prediction. Operating experience at Escatrn have shown sintered deposits and unsteadiness in the dipleg and the suction nozzle that modify cyclone separation efficiency and affect the cyclone performance and the capacity of ash conveying lines. The possibility of achieving analyses to establish the influence of different variables in a real installation is limited due to a non-controlled operating conditions and a lack of data to

obtain conclusions. Laboratory-scale cold flow models have been used extensively to study the behaviour of many installations. In particular, fluidized bed cold flow models have allowed developing the knowledge of fluidized bed hydrodynamics. In order for the results of these researches to be relevant to commercial power plant, cold flow models have to be properly scaled. In the present study, scaling parameters have been developed to build a dipleg and cyclone cold flow model of a PFBC power plant. The cold flow model permits detailed room temperature studies, such as determining the filtration effects of varying operating parameters and cyclone designs. The study of the behaviour of the cold flow model, including observation and measurements of flow patterns in cyclone and dipleg, will allow characterising the performance of the full-scale ash removal system, establishing safe limits of operation, testing design improvements and determining the filtration effects of varying operating parameters. This paper presents the most relevant scaling parameters for a cyclone separator system and an experimental comparison of a PFBC cyclone separator system and a cold flow model constructed based on those parameters.

CYCLONE SCALING PARAMETERS

Collection efficiency and cyclone pressure drop are the most important variables in cyclone behaviour. Criteria for cyclone scaling parameters, based on maintain collection efficiency, have been proposed by several researchers (Cheremisinoff and Cheremisisnoff, 1986; Dirgo and Leith, 1986; Svarovsky, 1981, 1986; Leith and Litch, 1972; Abrahanson et al., 1978). It is generally assumed the necessity of maintain, at least, Stokes number in order to maintain collection efficiency. Cheremisinoff and Cheremisinoff (1986) developed the scaling parameters by analysing the forces that influence a particle within the cyclone. They
2 proposed to maintain Froude, Fr = gD v in , and Reynolds numbers, Re = dv s g , and a

ratio between densities and lengths, equation 1.

D = f Fr , Re, s g d p

(1)

For the laminar regime of flow (Re<2), they suggested ignoring the inertia of the medium and hence they concluded that the main variables affecting collection efficiency were Froude and Stokes numbers, Stk =
g d p v D g

. Svarovsky (1981) has also proposed to maintain Froude

and Stokes numbers. He has developed these parameters from the equation for accelerated, three-dimensional particle motion with the main assumption of Stokes regime, equation 2:
Re p = d p g vr g <1

(2)

Other authors only mention the importance of maintaining Stokes number especially at low solid concentrations (Dirgo and Leith, 1986), or suggest that is the Stokes number the main variable in cyclone efficiency (Svarovsky, 1981; Leith and Licht, 1972). Finally, Chao (1982) for a dilute flow as the freeboard of a PFBC power plant, has suggested as scaling parameters the Stokes and Froude number and a particle Reynolds number. The last number is necessary when the flow regime is different from Stokes regime. Although these authors have proposed different theories for cyclone scaling, none of them has verified their proposals in a real installation. So, as first approximation cyclone behaviour depends on the following variables, figure 1
f ( g , s , g , d p 50 ,Vin , D , g ,C s _ in )

(3)

1-

D Vin Cs s g g dp Figure 1. Parameters affecting cyclone behaviour g

Where dp50 has been selected as variable to take into account the particle size distribution at cyclone inlet. Selecting vin, g and dp50 as independent variables in order to identify dimensionless groups: 4

 gD g DVin D s C s _ in f 2 , , , , V g d p 50 g s in

(4)

2 where Fr = Vin gD is the Froude number. With the approximation of a flow regime with low

relative velocity for the particles in the cyclone and considering the influence of the aerodynamic forces by means of the Stokes number (which is a combination of three of the previous numbers, equation 5).
2 g DVin d p 50 s s d p 50Vin Stk = = g D g D g 2

(5)

Finally, equation (4) is rearranged to read:

C s _ in f Fr , Re, St , s , g s

(6)

Froude number takes into account the relation between gravitational and inertia forces. When particle diameter is small, less than 10 m, some authors neglect this number due to the fact that gravitational forces are small compared with inertia forces (Mothes and Lffler, 1985). In our case, more than 80% of the particles are bigger than 10 m so, it seems necessary to maintain Froude number. Reynolds number is not considered to analyse cyclone collection efficiency. Generally, its influence is near negligible due to Reynolds number is high enough. According to experiments at different temperatures and pressures, from 1 to 6 bars, and from 293 to 1123C, Reynolds influence is significant for values from 103 to 105. The tendency observed is that Reynolds higher than 105 does not influence cyclone behaviour (Morweiser and Bohnet, 1996). Most of the authors take into account Stokes number to analyse cyclone collection efficiency. Stokes number relates the inertia forces with aerodynamic forces in a flow field. Stokes number and cyclone efficiency are closely related. Generally, researchers consider laminar flow or assume Stokes law (Rep<1) for particle resistance. Also they assume constant particle diameter and low particle concentration (< 5g/m3) in order to neglect the influence between particles. There are several problems related with Stokes conservation between real cyclone and cold flow model. Firstly, there is a particle interaction when solid concentration is bigger than 5 g/m3. Secondly, there is a particle size distribution (PSD) at real cyclone inlet, so the maintenance of Stokes is difficult, due to it would be necessary to maintain Stokes for each particle size and scale the whole PSD. To solve this problem, researchers usually work

with Stokes number for dp50, but it does not give an exact idea of the PSD conservation. It is possible to have a wide PSD, and a narrow PSD with the same dp50 and the cyclone behaviour would be completely different. Finally, from a practical point of view, it is impossible to achieve a scaled PSD. In Escatrn PFBC less than 1% of particles are smaller than 0.4 m, that is the limit for Rep<1. In the scaled model, only 20% of the particles are smaller than 10m that is the limit for Rep<1 in this case so, not to maintain Stokes number will introduce a small error for scaling cyclone efficiency. The error comes from the difference between the scaled and real dp50 in cold flow model, instead of 16.5 m, it is 23 m. Moreover, the influence of this error is smaller due to the high particle concentration (near 300 g/m3). In the case of high particle concentrations, the assumptions of considering Stokes influence are not realistic (i.e. isolated particle, Stokes law or laminar flow) because of particle interactions so, its influence is reduced. Also, according Cheremisinoff and Cheremisinoff (1986) the influence of Stokes is important in laminar regime of flow where the inertia of the medium may be ignored. In other case, they concluded the influence of Reynolds and a ratio of densities, equation (1). Up to now, the cyclone studies have been based on small particle concentrations. According Abrahamson et al. (1978) for high particle concentration, bigger than 10 g/m3, the effect of particle agglomeration is dominant. Hoffman et al. (1991 and 1992) studied the effect of solid concentration, up to 150 g/m3, on cyclone behaviour. They strengthen that there were no theories that could explain the effect of concentration and they concluded the influence of solid concentration in collection efficiency and cyclone behaviour. Finally, Wheeldon and Burnard (1987) in experiments in Grimethorpe (6-12 bar, 640-910C) observed its influence when collection efficiency increased with solid concentration. As a conclusion, it seems reasonable to consider solid concentration in cyclone behaviour, especially for high solid loads, due to the interaction between particles and agglomeration, that modify the theoretical influence. Escatrn PFBC particle concentration at cyclone inlet is 290 g/m3, much bigger than 10 g/m3 considered as high particle concentration and bigger than 150 g/m3 of Hoffman et al. (1991 and 1992) tests. For these reasons, it is reasonable to maintain particle concentration as a scaling parameter. Moreover, the high particle concentration and particle diameter support the influence of gravitational forces by means of Froude number. Scaling parameters reduce to Froude number and particle concentration. It could be also desirable include the Stokes number although scaling particle size distribution could be impossible to achieve from a practical point of view. Table 1 lists the geometric and operating

parameters that were used to calculate the values of the cyclone scaling parameters, and the dimensions of the 1/5 scaled cyclone. The real cyclone mean particle diameter, dp50, has been taken from design data, since to it is not possible to obtain a particle sample from the cyclone inlet. Table 2 shows a comparison between the values of the dimensionless scaling parameters for the two cyclone systems.

Table 1. Comparison between Escatrn PFBC and laboratory cold flow model parameters of the cyclone separator system
REAL CYCLONE SEPARATOR SYSTEM D (mm) T (K) P (bar a) g (kg/m s) g (kg/m3) s (kg/m3) dp50 (m) Vin (m/s) Cs_in (g/m3) Mair (kg/s) Mash (g/s) 1000 1030 11.14 4.25e-5 3.8 2800 40 30 290 10.6 800 LABORATORY COLD FLOW MODEL SYSTEM 200 293 3.22 1.82e-5 3.8 2800 23 13.4 290 0.19 14

Table 2. Comparison of Escatrn PFBC and cold flow dimensionless scaling parameters
REAL CYCLONE SEPARATOR SYSTEM Froude number Reynolds number Stokes number Density ratio Solid concentration
2 Fr = vin gD

LABORATORY COLD FLOW SYSTEM 91.79 5.60 e+5 5.45 736.8 104 e-6

91.74 2.68 e+6 3.16 736.8 104 e-6

Re =

g Dv in

Stk =

2 s d p 50 vin

D g

g s

C s _ in

DIPLEG SCALING PARAMETERS

The collected particles removed from the PFBC cyclone system flow down a dipleg and are transported by means of pneumatic conveying thought a suction nozzle in the bottom of the dipleg. There are no specific models of this flow inside the dipleg, so an approximate analysis, resorting to reasonable and simple models of the physical situation, is appropriate. Flow patterns inside the dipleg may be expected to possess the following features: Particles slid down on the dipleg wall, following a helical path of variable pitch. The gas flow generally follows two paths: near the wall, it moves downwards, with tangential and axial velocity components, whereas it is reversed at the leg core, forming an upward flow. As first approximation dipleg behaviour depends on the following variables
f ( g , s , g , Ddl , L ,Vax ,Vt , g , C sol )

(7)

In this case, selecting, L, g and Vax as independent variables in order to identify dimensionless groups and rewriting
2 Ddl s Vax Vax L gVax , , , ,C , f L g sol Vt gL

(8)

A 1/5 scaled model has been built for the dipleg. This factor has been chosen to simulate the whole PFBC cyclone system. First dimensionless group is a ratio between dipleg dimensions and it is maintained. Particle-solid densities ratio is also conserved since it was also a dimensionless group in cyclone scaling. Solid concentration as solid- air flow through dipleg is maintained with the assumption of cyclone efficiency is similar. Velocities ratio dimensionless number is equal to the tangent of the sliding particle velocity. Particles tangential velocity is supposed to be proportional to the tangential velocity calculated with Alexander equation (Alexander, 1949):
Vt r n = cte
0.3 1 0.67 D 0.14 * T n = 1 dl 283

(9a)

(9b)

Particle axial velocity is proportional to the gas velocity though the dipleg and could be estimated as
Vax = ma _ nozzle g Asn

(10)

The conservation of the transport air flow makes the sliding angle to be conserved. This takes into account the effects of vortex extending due to suction. This effect could modify the dipleg flow patterns, so it is important to maintain it constant:

Vax m sn 1 Ddl m A D = = sn in dl g Asn Vin D Vt mair Asn D

(11)

The small difference in the values of exponent n in Alexander equation modifies slightly the sliding angle between PFBC cyclone and cold flow model. This difference could be estimated as a 1.6 % and can not be reduced since n depends on the temperature. Froude number is calculated as a relation between axial velocity, dipleg length and gravity. Because of the conservation of transport air, Froude number is maintained. Finally, Reynolds number could not be conserved due to gas viscosity is fixed by the cold flow model temperature. Table 3 lists the dipleg geometric and operating variables. They have been used to calculate the dipleg scaling parameters and dipleg erection. Table 4 summarised the dimensionless parameters of the dipleg, the values of the scaling parameters were closely matched between the cold flow model and the Escatrn PFBC except for Reynolds number.

Table 3. Comparison between Escatrn PFBC and laboratory dipleg cold flow model parameters
REAL DIPLEG LABORATORY COLD FLOW MODEL DIPLEG Ddl (mm) L (m) T (K) P (bar a) g (kg/m )
3

400 9.15 1030 11.14 3.8 2800 10.6 163 800

80 1.83 293 3.22 3.8 2800 0.19 2.9 14.0

s (kg/m3) Mair (kg/s) Mnozzle (g/s) Mash (g/s)

Table 4. Comparison of dipleg Escatrn PFBC and cold flow model dimensionless scaling parameters
ESCATRON PFBC REAL DIPLEG Dipleg dimensions Density ratio Solid concentration Velocities ratio Froude number Reynolds number LABORATORY COLD FLOW MODEL DIPLEG 22.0 736.8 74 e-3 0.559 105.4 4.08 e+4

L
s

Ddl
g

22.0 736.8 75 e-3 0.568 105.3 1.96 e+5

C sol = M ash Vax Vt

M air

2 Fr = Vax gL

Re =

L gV ax

CYCLONE AND DIPLEG COLD FLOW MODEL

Figure 1 shows cyclone and dipleg built with the similarity criteria aforementioned and have linear dimensions which are one-fifth those of the real PFBC dimensions. Figure 2 shows the cold flow model device that is made up of the following components: - Two air-pressure supplies: main (L1) and a secondary line (L10) for fluidisation of the particle-discharging hopper. - Pressurized solid storage tank (T1) and variable speed rotary valve connected to a Venturi nozzle (L3). - Primary cyclone inlet (L4), air with a design solid concentration of 290 g/m3. - Experimental primary cyclone (T2), equipped with a PMMA dipleg (T4). - Secondary cyclone (T3) with a solids-collecting bin (T7). - Two sedimentation chambers with fabric filters for complete collection of particles and cleaning of the exhaust air (T5 and T6). - Control of airflow by flow meters and valves downstream the sedimentation chambers (I1 and I2)

10

Figure 1. Scaled cyclone dimensions

S h De D H

Dimensions a/D 0.460 b/D 0.203 De/D 0.307 S/D 0.891 h/D 1.310 H/D 3.795 B/D 0.399 L/D 9.022

Figure 2. Laboratory cold flow model cyclone separator system

ash hopper

T P

clean air

hopper fluidisation

P
rotary feeder

P
secondary cyclone

filter 2

control pressure valve

Pin = 2.21 bar(g) Tin = 20 C

ash flow= 50 kg/h air flow= 680 kg/h

primary cyclone

T P

clean air

ash extraction dipleg

P
suction nozzle

filter 1

11

CYCLONE AND DIPLEG EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON

Experimental scaling verification is based on a comparison of pressure drop. Cyclone pressure drop has a strong influence on collection efficiency. The impossibility to take data of collection efficiency at PFBC power station to compare with cold flow model has made us to validate the scaling parameters based on cyclone pressure drop. For pneumatic transport as in dipleg, pressure drop plays an essential role in its analysis. Probes have been placed in several points though dipleg, and partial and total dipleg pressure drop have been obtained for verification. The data used in the following scaling comparisons were taken at operating conditions after a periodic overhaul of the Escatrn PFBC, with cyclones revised and cleaned of sintered deposits. The data used in the scaling comparison were taken at a single operating condition and in steady- state operation. The PFBC power plant load was approximately 90% of the full load with a standard deviation of 1 MW. Cold flow model pressure drop data were taken using pressure transducers with a range of 0/62 mbar for cyclone pressure drop and 62/+62, 37/+37, -37/+37 and 5/5 mbar for dipleg. The data from Escatrn PFBC were obtained with pressure transducer with a range of 0/490 mbar for cyclone pressure drop, ad 98/+98 mbar for dipleg pressure drop. Data uncertainty is about 0.4% of span. PFBC cyclone pressure drop transducers are installed in five of the nine cyclones. Data from pressure drop varies from a maximum of 199.2 mbar to a minimum of 141.0 mbar. Table 5 shows the PFBC data and its comparison with cold flow model data. PFBC pressure drop data shows discrepancies between real cyclones. Most probably, a combination of ashes and gases non-homogeneity at cyclone inlet could cause these discrepancies. Another cause to explain this effect is cyclone fouling. As it will be proved in a next paper (Romeo et al., 1999), fouling causes a reduction in cyclone pressure drop. A different fouling between cyclones could be the cause of discrepancies in real data. In order to compare and validate the cold flow model, it is necessary to scale down the Escatrn PFBC cyclone pressure drop data or scale up the cold flow model data. The dimensionless variable for the pressure drop is P
2 1 Vin 2

C s _ in = f Fr , s , g s

(12)

The right-hand term of the equation (12) is conserved due to the maintenance of dimensionless numbers that affect cyclone behaviour. So, to scale pressure drop data it is

12

necessary take in account the velocity ratio to the power of two, it means to operate by a factor of five. The agreement between Escatrn PFBC pressure drop data and cold flow model data scaled up is excellent, as indicated in table 5. For the PFBC cyclones, the pressure drop has an average of 168.0 mbar and a standard deviation of 20.3 mbar, the 99% of the data would be in the range of 127.4/208.6 mbar. In the cold flow model, the average is 148.5 mbar with a standard deviation of 9.0 mbar, so the 99% of the data would be in the range of 124.0/166.5 mbar. The latter range of data is approximately inside the former one. This agreement provides a verification of the scaling proposed above.

Table 5. Comparison between PFBC and cold flow model cyclone pressure drop data
Maximum Cyclone 1 Cyclone 3 Cyclone 5 Cyclone 7 Cyclone 9 Average of five PFBC Cyclones Cold flow Model Cyclone Cold flow Model Cyclone Scaled data 172.2 120.3 148.5 9.0 34.43 24.06 29.73 1.79 191.4 199.2 174.9 150.8 145.4 194.7 Minimum 175.7 190.3 167.7 142.9 141.0 143.1 Average 182.5 194.7 172.3 147.7 143.1 168.0 Standard deviation 7.00 3.83 2.95 2.89 1.72 20.5

Tables 6 and 7 show also a comparison between PFBC and cold flow model dipleg pressure drop data. Three zones are observed in the dipleg, an upper one where the pressure drops strongly. An intermediate region where the pressure drop is negative and particles are going down vertically. Finally, the last zone near the suction nozzle where the pressure drops due to pneumatic transport. These three zones are observed both, in the PFBC and the cold flow model, so that qualitatively the behaviour or the diplegs are similar, although a difference in values is also observed. Table 6 shows the data at real and cold flow model dipleg.

13

Table 6. Comparison between PFBC and cold flow model dipleg pressure drop data
Maximum PFBC dipleg pressure drop 1 PFBC dipleg pressure drop 2 PFBC dipleg pressure drop 3 Cold flow model dipleg pressure drop 1 Cold flow model dipleg pressure drop 2 Cold flow model dipleg pressure drop 3 63.2 - 3.44 22.3 Minimum 60.6 - 4.94 16.3 Average 61.8 - 3.94 18.1 2.50 - 0.18 0.04 Standard deviation 1.02 0.54 2.31

In table 7 the scaled data for the cold flow model is compared with real data. Scaling up has been done in the same manner as cyclone scaling up, i.e. the velocity ratio to the power of two. In spite of the similar tendencies in pressure drop, the scaling is not as good as the cyclone scaling. In this case the effect of varying Reynolds number is affecting the agreement. Taking into account the Reynolds influence and multiplying by 5 (PFBC and cold flow model Reynolds relation) the agreement of pressure drop in the two upper zones is excellent. Possibly, a combination of suction and ash deposition is the responsible of discrepancies in the lower zone pressure drop data. In addition, the effect of fluidisation air in PFBC dipleg bottom has not been taken into account in the cold flow model constructed, and it could modify the measurements or the behaviour in this zone. Further studies are necessary to explain this discrepancy.

Table 7. Comparison between PFBC and cold flow model dipleg pressure drop data
Scaled data and PFBC data Cold flow model data Pressure drop 1 Pressure drop 2 Pressure drop 3 61.8 - 3.94 18.1 2.50 - 0.18 0.04 12.5 - 0.9 0.2 Scaled data Reynolds influence 62.5 - 4.5 1.0

14

CONCLUSIONS
A 1/5-scale model of the Escatrn PFBC cyclone system has been constructed based on scaling parameters. Comparisons of cyclone pressure drop from the cold flow model and Escatrn PFBC indicates that the cyclone behaviour of the two cyclones is similar. Because of cyclone pressure drop is one of the most important parameters in collection efficiency, it is assumed the cyclone efficiency would be maintained in both systems. This point remains open due to the impossibility to validate the cold flow model results at the real system. An analysis of the main variables in PFBC cyclone dipleg has been done. This study has not been addressed before. It has been impossible to maintain all the scaling parameters that influence dipleg behaviour. Reynolds number has not been maintained due to cyclone scaling determinate the value of some variables in dipleg behaviour. Reynolds influence has been taken into account to validate the cold flow model data. Comparison of dipleg pressure drop from the cold flow model and Escatrn PFBC show a good agreement through the dipleg. In the suction nozzle some discrepancies has been observed. The reason for these discrepancies could be the different behaviour of the ash conveying lines in Escatrn PFBC and the sedimentation chamber in the cold flow model. Further studies are needed to fully understand fluid flow around suction nozzle. The cold flow model is revealed as an important tool to optimize and understand the cyclone system behaviour. It is also useful to know the influence of different operational variables. At present, these studies are being carried out.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research has been fully supported by ENDESA, S.A. Mr Alfonso Ruiz, director of Escatrn PFBC power station, Dr. Emilio Menndez, head of the R&D department of ENDESA, S.A., and Mr. Diego Martnez, head of the R&D department at Escatrn are gratefully acknowledged for making possible the project and for all the facilities provided. Escatrn power plant personnel are also acknowledged for their useful assistance.

NOMENCLATURE
Asn Cs_in Csol D suction nozzle area (m2) solid concentration at cyclone inlet (g/m3) solid concentration at dipleg (g/m3) cyclone diameter (m) 15

Ddl dp dp50 Fr g L ma_nozzle Mair Mash P Re Rep Stk T Vax Vin vr Vt Greek Leters g g s

dipleg diameter (m) particle diameter (m) particle diameter at 50% of the PSD (m) Froude number gravity acceleration (m/s2) dipleg length (m) air flow through the suction nozzle (g/s) air flow at cyclone inlet (kg/s) ash flow at cyclone inlet (kg/s) pressure (bar) Reynolds number particle Reynolds number Stokes number temperature (K) axial velocity at dipleg (m/s) inlet cyclone velocity (m/s) relative velocity (m/s) tangential velocity at dipleg (m/s)

cyclone efficiency (%) gas density (kg/m3) gas viscosity (kg/m s) solid density (kg/m3)

REFERENCES
Abrahamson J, Martin CG, Wong KK (1978) The Physical Mechanisms of Dust Collection in a Cyclone. Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, Vol. 56, pp.168177. Alexander R (1949) Fundamentals of Cyclone Design and Operation. Procedures of the Australian Institute Min. Metall, n 152, pp.203-208. Chao BT (1982) Scaling and Modelling. Handbook of Multiphase Systems. Edited by Gad Hetsroni, Hemisphere Publishing Co, pp.(3)44-(3)48

16

Cheremisinoff NP, Cheremisinoff PN (1986) Particulate Capture from Process Gas Streams in Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechanics, edited by Cheremisinoff NP, Vol. 4, pp. 12171279 Dirgo J, Leith D (1986). Design of Cyclone Separators in Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechanics, edited by Cheremisinoff NP, Vol. 4, pp.1281-1306 Hoffman AC, Arends H, Sie H (1991) An Experimental Investigation Elucidating the Nature of the Effect of Solids Loading on Cyclone Performance. Proceedings of the Filtration Society, Filtration & Separation, Vol. 2, pp.188-193 Hoffman AC, van Santen A, Allen RWK, Clift R (1992) Effects of Geometry and Solid Loading on the Performance of Gas Cyclones. Powder Technology, Num. 70, pp.83-91. Leith D, Litch W (1972) The Collection Efficiency of Cyclone Type Particle Collectors. A New Theoretical Approach. Air Pollution and Its Control, AIChE Symposium Series, Num.26, Vol.68, pp.196-206 Morweiser and Bohnet (1996) Influence of Temperature and pressure on Separation Efficiency and Pressure Drop of Aerocyclones in High Temperature Gas Cleaning, edited by E.Schmidt. Institut fr Mechanishe Verfahrenstechnik und Mechanik. Mothes H, Lffler R (1985) Motion and Deposition of Particles in Cyclones. German Chemical Engineering, Num.8, pp.223-233 Romeo LM, Gil A, Corts C (1999) Improving Hot Gas Filtration Behaviour in PFBC Power Plants. Paper accepted to be presented at 15th International FBC Conferences Svarovsky L (1981) Solid Gas Separation in Handbook of Powder Technology, edited by Elsevier ,Vol 3, pp.33-52 Svarovsky L (1986) Solid-Gas Separation in Gas Fluidization Technology, edited by Geldart D, John Wiley & Sons, pp.197-217 Wheeldon JM, Burnard GK (1987) Performance of Cyclones in the Off-Gas Path of a Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustor. Proceedings of the Filtration Society, Filtration & Separation, Vol. 3, pp.178-187

17