Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Powder Technology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p ow t e c

Detection of agglomeration and gradual particle size changes in circulating

fluidized beds
Malte Bartels, John Nijenhuis, Freek Kapteijn, J. Ruud van Ommen ⁎
Delft University of Technology - Department of Chemical Engineering, Delft Research Centre for Sustainable Energy, Julianalaan 136, 2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The monitoring of fluidized bed processes is valuable for the optimization of operational efficiency and
Received 21 May 2008 avoiding unscheduled shut-downs in industrial practice. We here focus on two important applications for
Received in revised form 13 February 2010 the industrially widely applied circulating fluidized beds (CFBs): the detection of small, gradual changes in
Accepted 26 March 2010
particle size and the early detection of agglomeration. Based on high-frequency (200 Hz) pressure
Available online 2 April 2010
fluctuation measurements we have applied the attractor comparison method in different CFBs to investigate
Keywords:
its suitability as a monitoring tool for the two proposed applications.
Circulating fluidized beds Attractor comparison has shown to be generally sensitive to small, gradual particle size changes in a lab-scale
Solid fuel conversion CFB. The sensitivity normally depends on the measurement location (downcomer, return system, riser) and
Agglomeration is often larger in the downcomer section. From the results, detection limits for the particle size have been
Particle size identified. In an industrial installation the sensitivity and applicability of the method for measurements in
Monitoring the riser has been confirmed. With the help of model agglomerates it has been shown that attractor
Early warning comparison can also detect the presence of small shares of agglomerates on lab-scale; here, filtering the
pressure fluctuation data before the analysis has shown to improve the method.
The suitability of the method for agglomeration detection has been confirmed with an agglomeration
incident in a hot lab-scale facility; in this case the approaching defluidization has been detected with an early
time of about 30 min based on measurements in horizontal return-leg and lower riser.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Fluidized bed reactors are applied in a wide variety of processes in
industry, comprising e.g. catalytic cracking, gas-phase polymerization
and drying. They are also used in solid fuel conversion, where
combustion is currently the most important application in terms of
capacity, but also gasification is becoming increasingly important.
Amongst other reasons especially geo-political considerations as well
as the strongly increasing crude oil price have made coal attractive
again lately. For the same reason, but also in light of environmental
considerations, biomass usage is currently quickly increasing. Fluid-
ized beds are generally very flexible with respect to the utilized fuel
(e.g. [1]), which makes changes to other solid fuel sources as well as
co-combustion of biomass and other fuels relatively easy to
implement. Consequently, fluidized beds have become widely
applied, mainly in rapidly developing countries in south-east Asia [2].
Still, solid fuel conversion in fluidized bed processes is facing
technical difficulties; specifically agglomeration can be a major
operational problem. Usually, the conversion of the solid fuel is carried
out with silica sand as the bed material. Inorganic alkali components
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.bartels@tudelft.nl (M. Bartels), j.r.vanommen@tudelft.nl
(J. Ruud van Ommen).
from the fuel, especially potassium (K) but also sodium (Na), can be a
source of agglomeration. The content of this critical inorganic material
can vary much between fuels; especially in the case of certain types of
biomass (e.g. straw) as well as some low-rank coal types their content is
often rather high. When both alkalis and silica are present in the bed
they can form alkali silicates that are characterized by a lower melting
point than the individual components. This lower melting point is often
lower than the operating temperature. As a consequence, the sand
particles become coated with an adhesive layer. Sand particles with a
sticky surface will then form agglomerates due to the formation of
permanent bonds upon collisions (e.g. [3,4]). If this agglomeration
process is not recognized, it will eventually result in partial or total
defluidization of the reactor, and as a consequence a lengthy and
expensive unscheduled shutdown.
The detection of agglomeration with commonly available process
measurement frequencies of 1 Hz or less has shown to be not reliable
and, more important, detection is not early enough to take corrective
measures in time. Various different measurements and analysis
methods have been proposed in the literature; for a review see Ref.
[5]. Here, we focus on the “attractor comparison” method, briefly
described in the following; for a more detailed description of the
method, see Ref. [6]. The state of a fluidized bed at a certain time can
be determined by projecting all variables governing the system into a
set of delay-vectors in a multidimensional space (“state space”). The

0032-5910/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2010.03.035
 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38
Fig. 1. Reconstruction of an attractor from a pressure fluctuation time series.
subsequent delay vectors can be regarded as points in an m-
dimensional state space yielding a reconstructed “attractor” (Fig. 1).
In the actual implementation of the method first a reference attractor
is constructed based on pressure fluctuation data from a well-
fluidized bed, called the reference state. Subsequently, the attractor
of the current pressure fluctuation data from the fluidized bed is
reconstructed and compared to the reference attractor. This compar-
ison is based on a statistical test developed by Diks et al. [7], which
evaluates the dimensionless squared distance S between both
attractors: S = pQ̂ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi, where Q̂ is the estimator of the squared
Vc ðQ̂ Þ
distance between two smoothed distributions of the two attractors
and Vc(Q̂ ) is its variance. For stationary hydrodynamics, S has an
expectation of zero and a standard deviation of one. An S-value larger
than 3 indicates with at least 95% confidence that the two attractors
have been generated by a different system, meaning that the
hydrodynamics has changed, e.g. because of agglomeration. Attractor
comparison has been shown to be sensitive to agglomeration in
bubbling fluidized beds on lab-scale as well as on industrial scale [6,8].
However, the S-value is a global measure of the hydrodynamics of the
fluidized bed and the change in hydrodynamics obviously does not
necessarily have to originate from agglomeration, but could also
originate from changes in the operating parameters or other process
disturbances. With respect to operating conditions, attractor compar-
ison was shown to be insensitive to relative changes of ±10% in bed
mass and fluidization velocity in bubbling fluidized beds [6].
Agglomeration detection in fluidized beds with attractor comparison
has been focussed on bubbling fluidized beds (BFBs) in the past. However,
especially for large-scale energy conversion processes circulating
fluidized beds (CFBs) are frequently applied in industry, mainly because
of their larger capacity. The share of CFBs on worldwide installed capacity
of fluidized bed energy conversion has increased to an estimated 85% in
2004 according to the International Energy Agency, mainly due to a
dramatic capacity increase in Asia in the beginning of this century [9].
This development also motivates the investigation on whether and how
attractor comparison can be applied for monitoring CFBs.
Besides the early warning of agglomeration also the monitoring of
particle size is considered an important application in practice. In
Table 1
Overview of the experimental setups and operating conditions.
Setup Diameter Riser height Fluidization velocity riser
[m] [m] [m/s]
Cold lab-scale CFB, 0.083 ∼4 5 40
L-valve configuration
Cold lab-scale CFB, 0.083 ∼4 5 40; 65
loop seal configuration
Hot lab-scale CFB, 0.083 ∼ 5.5 ∼4.4
L-valve configuration
Hot industrial CFB, 4.2 ∼ 33 ∼3
loop seal configuration
25
contrast to agglomeration, where avoiding unnecessary shut-downs is
the motivation, on-line particle size monitoring can be used to keep
the bed parameters within tighter limits, e.g. for optimized heat
transfer, increasing the overall efficiency of the process. We consider
on-line particle size monitoring as an important application, also with
opportunities in many other fluidized bed processes.
The goal of this paper is to present how the attractor comparison
method can be applied for the early detection of agglomeration and as a
particle size monitoring tool in circulating fluidized beds. In order to
obtain a general picture on the applicability of this method, we have
included several setups of different size and with different solids return
mechanisms in our work. Furthermore, we address some of the important
issues regarding the implementation of attractor comparison in practice.
2. Experimental
Three different setups are used (Table 1). The cold lab-scale setup
was operated with two different downcomer configurations.
The cold-flow lab-scale CFB is located at the Product & Process
Engineering section of Delft University of Technology. The lower part
of the setup with L-valve and a CFB schematic are shown in Fig. 2, also
indicating the measurement positions for pressure fluctuations.
With a moving bed downcomer and L-valve configuration the
setup has been operated with 30 kg bed material (d50 = 235 μm).
Table 2 gives an overview of the experiments with the L-valve
configuration, including the operating conditions. To evaluate the
influence of mass changes, 3 and 6 kg bed material of the same particle
size have been added (run L 1). This corresponds to a relative bed mass
increase of 10% and 20%, respectively. Material has been added
through a hopper into the downcomer, thereby slightly increasing the
solids bed height in the downcomer. Subsequently, experiments with
the addition of 3 and 6 kg particles of a larger particle size
(d50 = 400 μm) have been carried out (run L 2). This corresponds to
an averaged particle size increase from 235 μm to 242 μm and 249 μm,
respectively. For a lower reflux two additional experiments have been
carried out, in which a certain share of the bed material has been
substituted by particles of d50 = 400 μm (run L3) and very large
particles of d50 = 1900 μm, i.e. model agglomerates (run L 4). For all
calculations of the attractor comparison method, the initial bed mass
of 30 kg (100%) bed mass has been taken for the reference attractor.
The lower part of the setup with loop seal configuration is shown
in Fig. 3. With the loop seal configuration the setup has been operated
with 35 kg bed material due to the increased volume of the modified
downcomer. The relative mass changes of 10 and 20%, however, are
kept the same here. In this case, 20% bed mass have ultimately been
removed again after the addition in two steps, thereby returning to
the original amount of bed mass. Bed mass addition is carried out as in
the L-valve configuration. The same two sand types have been used as
for the CFB in Fig. 2. The reflux has been measured during operation at
specific times. The measurement has been carried out with a separate
valve and transparent section in the upper downcomer, for which the
Mass reflux Particle size Load Experiments
[kg/(m2s)] [μm] [MWth]
235 (d50) n/a Increase of particle size by mixture of 2
different sized sand types:
235 (d50) n/a 1) 235 + 400 μm
2) 235 + 1900 μm (only L-valve)
Not measured 500–800 ∼ 0.1 (max.) Forced to agglomerate by adjustment of
(range) fuel type and temperature
Not measured ∼ 250 (d50) 75–100 Monitoring of particle size during operation
(max. = 109) and simultaneous bed sampling
26 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38

Fig. 2. Photo and schematic drawing of the cold-flow setup with L-valve for solids return. Locations of pressure fluctuation sensors are indicated in white (DC = Downcomer,
RD = Return-Leg (Riser/Downcomer), R = Riser; numbers refer to distance (mm) from distributor plate). Black arrows indicate solids flow.

material building up in that section for a short time after closing the adjusted to its normal value in case it had changed significantly. For
valve has been determined (after that the valve is opened again). This experiment LS 3 and LS 4 the operating conditions were changed to a
measurement did not affect the results of the attractor comparison larger reflux and lower bubbling bed velocity to investigate whether
method. In certain cases the mass reflux has been re-adjusted by the performance of the method changes for a different operating
adapting the gas flow to the according value as given in Table 2. For condition.
the gas flows in this configuration, the total riser gas flow has been Note that for both the moving bed configuration and the loop seal
corrected for the gas flow coming from the bubbling bed as this gas configuration a small stagnant zone in the lower downcomer is
also enters the riser due to the pressure conditions; the total riser flow present and estimated to contain 2–3% of the total bed mass. This
including the bubbling bed gas flow results in a velocity of 5 m/s. effect has not been taken into account here, the true changes in bed
Table 3 gives an overview of the experiments with the loop seal mass and particle size therefore will be slightly higher. For both
configuration, including the operating conditions. In all experiments configurations, a dense bed was present in the lower section of the
two times 10% bed material has been added and subsequently 20% has riser (up to approx. 0.25 m height).
been removed again to return to the original bed mass. The resulting The hot lab-scale CFB (Fig. 4) is located at the Energy Technology
median particle size changed from d50 = 235 μm to d50 = 242 μm and section of Delft University of Technology. With regard to the
d50 = 249 μm upon the addition. Next, the mass reflux has been re- dimensions this setup is very similar to the cold lab-scale setup and
also has a moving bed downcomer with an L-valve for the solids
return. Pressure fluctuations have been measured at different
Table 2 locations in riser and downcomer; however, many positions got
Overview of the experiments for the lab-scale CFB with L-valve configuration. blocked during operation due to insufficient purging. Only the two
Run Riser velocity Mass reflux Imposed change Steps [wt.%] positions used in this study, in the horizontal return-leg and lower
[m/s] [kg/(m2s)] riser, are indicated in Fig. 4. The lower riser position is within a dense
L1 5 40 Addition of 235 μm +10/+ 20 bed region, with some tendency for slugging. The hot lab-scale CFB
particles (total excess) has been operated as a gasifier. Bed agglomeration has been forced by
L2 5 40 Addition of 400 μm the choice of fuel containing relatively high amounts of alkali, in
particles
combination with operating temperatures sufficiently high for sticky
L3 5 25 Substitution of 1.4/2.9/5.7/8.6/14.3
bed material with (total substitution) low-melting silicates to be formed. In this case straw in pelletized
400 μm particles form was used, operating the setup in the range of 750–760 °C.
L4 5 ∼25 Substitution of 1.4/2.9/5.7 The industrial CFB boiler is operated by Sachtleben Chemie GmbH,
(changing) bed material with (total substitution) located in Duisburg, Germany. It has a loop seal for solids return. Two
1900 μm particles
measurement positions were located in the riser (diameter 4.2 m) at a
 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38 27

Fig. 3. Cold-flow setup with loop seal configuration. Locations of the pressure fluctuation sensors are indicated in white (DC = downcomer, BB = bubbling bed, R = Riser; numbers
refer to distance (mm) from distributor plate). Black arrows indicate solids flow.

height of ∼900 mm from the distributor plate within the lower, dense 3. Results and discussion
bed region. Both measurement locations were located at the wall,
separated 90° relative to each other in radial direction. Measurements 3.1. Cold lab-scale CFB with L-valve configuration
in the downcomer/loop seal were not possible in this case. During the
course of several weeks the pressure fluctuations have been recorded In Fig. 5 a short representative pressure time series from the
and simultaneously the particle size has been determined three times downcomer and the riser are shown. The pressure fluctuations from
per day by sampling and sieving. both riser positions look very similar, with the higher position (R625)
Pressure fluctuations were measured using piezoelectric sensors of having a slightly smaller amplitude due to the signal attenuation along
type Kistler 7261 in all cases. For the cold-flow setup the 4 mm ID the flow upwards in the riser. The downcomer is operated as a moving
measurement tubes were covered with wire mesh gauze (mesh bed and does therefore not show any bubbling behavior. The visual
diameter 144 μm), for combustion and gasification the measurement inspection of the pressure time series shows that the downcomer
tubes were purged with nitrogen to avoid blockage by particles. The pressure fluctuations resemble the riser pressure fluctuations in shape.
pressure signal was low-pass filtered at 200 Hz and recorded at They are significantly decreased in amplitude and have a small time
400 Hz to avoid aliasing effects according to the Nyquist criterion delay as compared to the riser pressure fluctuations. For this reason,
(sampling frequency ≥ 2 lowest present frequency). Here, this the pressure fluctuations measured in the downcomer are suspected
frequency range is generally considered a “high-frequency” range, to mainly originate from the riser pressure fluctuations, which are
compared to the usual sampling frequencies of process data of about attenuated by the moving sand bed between riser and downcomer as
1 Hz or lower. The parameterization of attractor comparison based the pressure waves propagate from the riser to the downcomer.
on these measurements has been optimized for each experimental
setup and is presented in Table 4. For a detailed description of the 3.1.1. Bed mass changes
parameters see Ref. [6]. In order to investigate the sensitivity of the attractor comparison
method to changes in particle size, we decided to gradually increase
the particle size by adding larger sized sand to the downcomer during
Table 3 operation. In order for this to be a valid approach, the influence of
Overview of the experiments for the lab-scale CFB with loop seal configuration.
changes in total mass on the attractor had to be investigated by adding
Run Riser Mass reflux Bubbling Imposed Steps bed material of the same size (d50 = 235 μm). The S-value has then
velocity [kg/(m2s)] bed velocity change [wt.%] been calculated for the comparison between the reference case
[m/s] [Multiple of
(100%) and each of the cases with increased bed mass (110% and
Umf, fine
(5.3 cm/s)] 120%) with same particle size, as shown in Fig. 6. Adding 10% and 20%
relative bed mass does not significantly influence the S-value. Only for
LS 1 5 40 5 Addition of +10/+20/0
235 μm (total excess)
the measuring position R189 in the riser, the S-value occasionally but
particles not structurally exceeds the threshold value of 3.
LS 2 5 40 5 Addition of
400 μm 3.1.2. Gradual particle size changes
particles
In the next step, sand with a bigger particle size (d50 = 400 μm)
LS 3 5 65 3 Addition of +10/+20/0
235 μm (total excess) has been added to the system (Fig. 7 a–c). Also here, 3 kg and 6 kg, or
particles 10% and 20% relative bed mass, have been added in one experiment,
LS 4 a/b 5 65 3 Addition of resulting in mean particle sizes of 242 μm and 249 μm, respectively.
(duplicating) 400 μm Again, 100% bed mass with d50 = 235 μm has been taken as the
particles
reference.
28 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38

Fig. 4. Schematic of the hot lab-scale CFB. Locations of the pressure fluctuation sensors are indicated in white. Black arrows indicate solids flow.

The S-values from the downcomer and riser measuring positions fluctuations measured in the downcomer are originating from the
are sensitive to the changing particle size; the sensitivity is clearly riser and have been altered, or filtered, in some way. Pressure
strongest for the measurements in the downcomer. The minimal fluctuation measurements in the downcomer can therefore also yield
change in particle size that can be reliably detected is estimated information about the hydrodynamic state of the riser.
approximately 10 μm for the riser and below 7 μm for the downcomer, Subsequently, a measurement location in the horizontal return-
based on a median particle size of 235 μm. Please note that the mass pipe between downcomer and riser been added and the response of
reflux has not been monitored during these experiments and could
have changed slightly upon the addition of larger size sand (and same
size sand in the previous case), although this has not been visually
observed. Note that for the loop seal configuration (see subsequent
sections) the mass reflux has been measured.
The reason for the greatly differing sensitivities between riser and
downcomer is not yet clear. The downcomer is operated as a moving
bed where no bubble-formation takes place. Together with the raw
pressure fluctuation data (Fig. 5) it is suspected that the pressure

Table 4
Attractor comparison parameterization for the different setups (bandwidth d = 0.5 in
all cases).

Setup Reference Evaluation Embedding Segment

time window time window dimension length [s]
[min] [min] [# points]

Cold lab-scale CFBs 10 5 40/20 2

Hot lab-scale CFB 4 2.5 100 2
Fig. 5. Example pressure time series at different positions for the cold lab-scale CFB with
Industrial CFB 15 15 20 3
L-valve solids return.
 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38 29

Fig. 6. Influence of bed mass changes on the S-value. The reference is taken at 100% bed
mass in both cases; the S-values are shown for an increase of 10% (a) and 20% (b) in bed
mass for the downcomer DC126, riser R189 and R625 (run L 1).

the S-value on incased particle size has been investigated. In contrast

to the previous experiments, the particle size increase has not been
carried out by addition of larger particles, but by substituting shares of Fig. 7. Response of the S-value towards changing particle size for the downcomer
the bed material with larger particles to rule out any influence of a DC126, riser R189 and R625 (run L 2). 100% bed mass (Reference): d50 = 235 μm, 110%
bed mass: d50 = 242 μm, 120% bed mass: d50 = 249 μm.
changing bed mass. The results of attractor comparison are shown in
Fig. 8. Interestingly, the horizontal return-pipe (position RD126) has
shown to be the most sensitive position, even more sensitive than the
downcomer position; the detection limit for the increase in particle
size would in this case be around 2 μm. The riser is hardly sensitive to
the particle size changes.

3.1.3. Filtering
Previously, the hypothesis has been stated that the pressure
fluctuations measured in the downcomer basically are a modified
version of the pressure fluctuation signal from the riser, i.e. both are
correlated. Given the stronger sensitivity of the attractor comparison
method based on pressure fluctuations measured in the downcomer,
it could be possible to modify the pressure fluctuation signal from the
riser so that the attractor comparison method will exhibit a larger
sensitivity. Therefore, it has been investigated whether or not an
increased sensitivity to particle size changes could also be realized by Fig. 8. Response of the S-value for increasing particle size via the substitution of bed
applying some numerical filter to the pressure fluctuation data from material with larger sized sand of d50 = 400 μm. Operating conditions: Riser velocity
the riser before carrying out attractor comparison. 5 m/s, constant mass reflux of 25 kg/(m2s) (run L 3).
30 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38
We have observed that the difference in signal power (amplitude)
between riser and downcomer is getting larger with increasing
frequency in the frequency range of 0 to about 20 Hz. This implies that
the sand bed between the riser and the downcomer attenuates
(damps) the pressure waves travelling from riser to downcomer,
particularly for those higher frequencies, i.e. it behaves as a low-pass
filter. Several low-pass filters with cut-off frequencies in the range of
2–10 Hz were applied to the riser data (run L 2) before carrying out
attractor comparison, to see whether it is possible to “imitate” this
hypothesized hardware filter of the bed and increase sensitivity to
particle size changes. However, the sensitivity only decreased, which
shows that the higher-frequency signal components (above 10 Hz)
indeed contribute to the sensitivity of the method. Although this does
not disprove the low-pass filter character of the bed, it can be
concluded that the sensitivity of attractor comparison based on the
riser measurements cannot be increased using a simple (single-band)
low-pass filter. Also different band-pass filters of 10 Hz band widths
(in the range from 0 to 100 Hz) did not increase sensitivity. High-pass
filters (based on similar experimental data) have shown to be not
suitable either [10]. High-pass filters have the disadvantage that the
attractor comparison analysis on such data yields often very erratic
results, i.e. much less reproducibility and consistency, despite
generally higher sensitivities. This effect is not surprising, considering
the fact that the total power of the pressure fluctuation signal is
dominated by lower frequency components (up to 10 Hz). Therefore
also the capability of the pressure sensor to resolve the higher
frequency components is limited by definition which in turn means
that noise and other physical effects (e.g. column vibration) will then
play a more dominant role. It could be worthwhile to investigate
whether is it possible to design a more sophisticated filter that can
achieve an increased sensitivity. One possible starting-point would be
to experimentally investigate or model the filter-characteristics of a
slowly moving sand bed in order to design a filter, potentially a multi-
band frequency filter.
We have also investigated the effect of low-pass filtering for run L
3 and several other experiments (not shown here). In general, we
observed that low-pass filtering generally decreases the sensitivity to
particle size changes, although that decrease is often just very small.
More important, however, it also has shown to reduce the sensitivity
to changes in bed mass and changes in riser gas velocity at the same
time. This is an important factor when considering that the method
should be robust against distortions in these parameters during
operation. This effect of sensitivity reduction has shown to be
strongest for the horizontal return-pipe. Overall, applying a 30 Hz
low-pass filter to the riser positions and a 10–40 Hz band-pass filter
(or alternatively a 30 Hz low-pass filter) to the downcomer and
return-pipe has shown to be optimal. An example for the return leg
for an increase in particle size is shown in Fig. 9 and a change in riser
gas velocity is shown in Fig. 10.
Fig. 9. Response of the S-value in the return leg for increasing particle size via the
substitution of bed material with larger sized sand of d50 = 400 μm. Low-pass filtering
(cut-off 30 Hz) only slightly decreases the sensitivity to particle size. Operating
conditions: Riser velocity 5 m/s, constant mass reflux of 25 kg/(m2s) (run L 3).
Fig. 10. Response of the S-value in the horizontal return-leg for changing riser gas
velocities. Low-pass filtering (cut-off 30 Hz) can significantly reduce the sensitivity to
velocity changes, here for decreased velocities. (Operating conditions: Riser velocity
5 m/s, constant mass reflux of 25 kg/(m2s)).
For very low mass refluxes, and therefore lean riser densities,
attractor comparison often yielded erratic results and cannot be
reliably applied to detect particle size changes. This phenomenon can
be expected since the pressure fluctuation amplitude decreases with
decreased riser density. Therefore the contribution of the pressure
fluctuations from the voids/clusters in the riser to the overall signal is
becoming smaller relative to other undesired effects, such as e.g.
temperature or relative humidity changes or vibrations of the column
itself. For very lean riser densities we have indeed observed that the
analysis can be completely dominated by a large high-frequency peak
(∼80 Hz) observed in the power spectrum of the pressure fluctua-
tions, which we suspect to originate from a characteristic column
vibration.
3.1.4. Bi-modal particle size changes (model agglomerates)
Besides the gradual mono-modal particle size changes we have
also investigated the replacement of fractions of the bed material with
much larger particles with a mean diameter of 1900 μm. The resulting
particle size distribution is bi-modal and is therefore seen as a
simulation of the formation of small agglomerates. The results for the
substitution of bed material in three steps are shown in Fig. 11. Upon
each substitution of a share of the bed mass with the model
agglomerates characteristic steps in the S-value are observed,
especially for the riser. This shows that the method is also sensitive
to the presence of the model agglomerates. However, also another
effect is present here, which results in strong changes in S and is
clearly visible for the first ∼90 min in the riser. We have observed a
relatively strong peak in the power spectrum at about 80 Hz that is
slowly shifting, potentially from a changing mass reflux. This shift is
Fig. 11. Response of S-value for increasing particle size via the substitution of bed
material with model agglomerates of d50 = 1900 μm. Mass reflux plotted with 95%
confidence intervals. (Operating condition: Riser velocity 5 m/s).
 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38
Fig. 12. Response of the S-value for increasing particle size via the substitution of bed
material with model agglomerates of d50 = 1900 μm, based on 30 Hz low-pass filtered
pressure fluctuation data (Operating conditions: Riser velocity 5 m/s).
considered to be the reason for the strong, unexpected changes in S.
We applied a 30 Hz low-pass filter to the data before the attractor
comparison, the results as shown in Fig. 12. After filtering, the
unknown effect is not observed anymore and for the second and third
substitution with model agglomerates the method clearly follows the
increasing presence of model agglomerates. The sensitivity of the riser
obviously decreased, as the influence of the unknown effect is now
removed. The detection limit for the added model-agglomerates
appears to be around 2–3 wt.%. For the downcomer, there is a spike
observed upon addition, as for the unfiltered data, but the S-values
only minimally decreased as compared to the unfiltered data. For the
return-leg, the S-values did decrease somewhat. This generally shows
that low-pass filtering is very beneficial for improving the selectivity
of the method in the riser and the return-leg, specifically in this case
where another overlaid disturbing effect is present. In contrast with
the gradual increase of particle size, the sensitivities of all measuring
positions now are very similar. It therefore appears that the
hydrodynamic effect from the presence of agglomerates is different
from the gradually increased particle size; the mechanism for this
effect has not been investigated.
3.2. Cold lab-scale CFB with loop seal configuration
The cold lab-scale setup has been modified with a loop seal
replacing the L-valve for solids recirculation for two reasons. First, we
wanted to obtain a stronger decoupling between riser and down-
comer as compared to the L-valve configuration to investigate the
previously proposed hypothesis of the moving sand bed acting as a
hardware filter for pressure fluctuations originating from the riser and
thereby increasing the sensitivity of attractor comparison to small
particle size changes. Second, a loop seal configuration mimics large
industrial installations better than a moving bed L-valve configuration
and is therefore more relevant for the application of the method in an
industrial environment.
3.2.1. Bed mass changes
The loop seal configuration is compared to the L-valve configura-
tion for the same operating conditions, at a riser velocity of 5 m/s and
a mass reflux of 40 kg/(m2s). During this experiment (run LS 1), the
mass reflux did not change. For the addition of two times 10% bed
mass of the same particle size and subsequent removal of 20% bed
mass, the responses of attractor comparison for the downcomer and
bubbling bed positions are shown in Fig. 13. S does not react on the
changes in bed mass in the downcomer and the bubbling bed. The
only exception is the downcomer position at a height of 850 mm,
where one can see a spike in the S-value during the actual addition. As
this peak quickly disappears, it is clearly related to the moment of
31
Fig. 13. Response of the S-value to changes in the total mass in the downcomer and
bubbling bed (run LS 1). Mass addition and removal are indicated with vertical bars.
addition (similar as in Fig. 12) and does not indicate sensitivity to the
increased total mass. For the riser positions the S-value is shown in
Fig. 14. Also for the riser positions the S-value stays around zero; only
the position at 189 mm occasionally increases above the value of 3,
but this is also the case before the addition and there is no correlation
with the mass changes in the system. Higher S-values are observed at
the very beginning of the measurements and are related to the start-
up. Moreover, one can again see that during the removal of bed mass
all measuring positions show a temporary increase of the S-value, but
this is no permanent effect. This effect is assumed to originate from a
temporary drop in the riser density due to the decreased amount of
material transported into the riser during mass removal from the
lower downcomer. This is confirmed by a temporary decrease in the
pressure drop in the riser at the same time.
These results confirm that attractor comparison is not sensitive to
relative changes of the bed mass of up to 20%. Only relatively quick
mass changes, here about 10% of the bed mass within a few minutes,
can temporarily increase the S-value at certain measurement
positions.
3.2.2. Gradual particle size changes (2 different operating conditions)
The increase in particle size has been realized via the addition of
larger size sand together with subsequent removal of excess bed
mass. The mass reflux had actually changed due to the increase of the
particle size but has been re-adjusted, as shown in Fig. 15. This
decrease in mass reflux is suspected to either originate from the lower
moving bed downcomer compartment, where the sand flow can be
hindered as a result of some unfavourable settlement of larger
particles with the gas flows being constant, or from the bubbling bed,
where the increased particle size could slow down transport through
the bed. Other experiments (not presented here) showed a clear
variation in mass reflux changes upon addition of larger sized sand;
Fig. 14. Response of the S-value to changes in the total mass in the riser (run LS 1). Mass
addition and removal is indicated with vertical bars.
32 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38
Fig. 15. Development of the mass reflux G(s) with 95% confidence intervals during
particle size changes from d50 = 235 μm to d50 = 242 μm and d50 = 249 μm (run LS 2).
Additions and removal of bed mass and adaptation of G(s) are indicated with vertical
bars.
this indicates that the resulting hydrodynamics upon the addition is
not necessarily well reproducible.
The resulting S-values for the particle size increase related to the
location in the downcomer and in the bubbling bed are shown in
Fig. 16. The S-value obtained from the highest downcomer position
DC850 increases with increasing particle size. However, one can also
notice that the S-value changes due to the final re-adjustment of the
mass reflux. A similar qualitative trend is observed for DC350, but at
much lower S-values; for DC100 the S-value does not change.
Therefore, the sensitivity of the S-value increases with increasing
height of the measuring location in the downcomer. For the bubbling
bed the S-value also does not change, which is consistent with
findings from van Ommen et al. [6] that in bubbling beds such small
changes in particle size are not detected.
The S-values for the riser location pressure measurements are
shown in Fig. 17. The S-values obtained from the riser respond weakly
to the increased particle size (average S ∼ 2); there is no trend of the
sensitivity with respect to the measurement position observed.
In general, a correlation between the S-value and increasing
particle size is observed. In the riser the sensitivity is very small for all
locations. In the downcomer the sensitivity increases with higher
measurement location. Moreover, one can also observe some
sensitivity to mass reflux changes, considering the changes in the S-
value due to re-adjustment of the mass reflux. It should be noted that
this effect could in principle also have occurred in the L-valve
configuration (mass reflux not measured). However, the L-valve
Fig. 16. Response of the S-values for changing particle size (from d50 = 235 μm to d50 = 242 μm and d50 = 249 μm), obtained for different locations in the downcomer (run LS 2).
construction is principally clearly less prone to such settlement effects
and subsequent mass reflux changes.
The influence of gradual particle size changes has also been
investigated for a second set of operating conditions, at increased
mass reflux and decreased fluidization velocity in the bubbling bed.
Visual observations of the previously presented operating conditions
(LS 1 and 2) showed that the riser density was lower and that the riser
showed less tendency for slugging compared to the L-valve
configuration at the same set riser velocity and mass reflux. Here,
the mass reflux has been adapted to compensate this effect and
operate at higher riser densities, in the range of the experiments with
L-valve configuration.
The reason for this difference in riser density is suspected to
originate from the different reflux mechanisms for L-valve and loop
seal. For the loop seal configuration a share of ∼10% of the total riser
gas flow is delivered by the bubbling bed. This results in a secondary
gas injection in the dense part of the riser, centered at a height of
12.5 cm from the distributor plate. In bubbling fluidized beds it has
been shown that secondary gas injection in the bed increases the
Peclet number, corresponding to a decreased back-mixing [11],
although is not clear if this effect is also applicable in a circulating
bed where gas voids are much less distinct. From the definition of Pe
this effect is equivalent to an increase in gas velocity, which would
lead to a decreased density and a lower tendency for slugging.
Another reason for this difference in riser densities could lie in the
physical connection between bubbling bed and riser. The space above
the bubbling bed surface including the connection to the riser could
buffer temporarily higher pressures in the riser, which would
otherwise result in more slugging-like behavior with increased riser
densities.
For the adapted operating conditions it has been confirmed that S
is not sensitive to an increase of 10% and 20% in bed mass (run LS 3,
not shown here). In contrast to the previous set of operating
conditions, there are no temporary spikes during mass addition.
For the addition of larger sized sand (runs LS 4 a/b) the response of
the S-values for two independent experiments is shown in Fig. 18. We
here compare the S-values before the addition of larger sized sand and
after the final adaptation of the mass reflux, and therefore compare
two situations with the same overall mass and mass reflux, but larger
particle size. First of all, Fig. 18 shows a good reproducibility for both
experiments. The bubbling bed again shows no significant response
whereas all the downcomer positions ultimately react similarly
sensitive with S-values of around 6. In the previous case with a
lower mass reflux (run LS 2) there was a strong difference between
the sensitivities of the upper and the lower downcomer positions.
 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38 33

Fig. 17. Response of the S-values for changing particle size (from d50 = 235 μm to d50 = 242 μm and d50 = 249 μm), obtained for different locations in the riser (run LS 2).

Here, no vertical dependency for the sensitivity of the S-value to velocity in the bubbling bed (run LS 4) causes less interference with
particle size is present; moreover, the lower positions DC100 and the downcomer; in addition, the riser pressure fluctuations have a
DC350 are now sensitive enough to detect the applied particle size higher amplitude here due to a higher density/reflux and therefore
changes. A possible explanation for this phenomenon is that the lower propagate stronger into the downcomer. In contrast to the lower

Fig. 18. Response of the S-values for changing particle size (from d50 = 235 μm to d50 = 242 μm and d50 = 249 μm), obtained for different locations in the downcomer and the
bubbling bed. Duplicating experiment, Top: run LS 4 a, Bottom: run LS 4 b.
34 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38
downcomer positions, the upper position DC850 strongly decreased
in sensitivity as compared to run LS 2; the reason for this decrease is
not clear. It is also important to notice that in combination with a
lower mass reflux, i.e. before its final adaptation (G(s) b 65 kg/(m2s) in
Fig. 18), the vertical dependence of the sensitivity is indeed still
observed. It is only after the re-adjustment back to 65 kg/(m2s) that
this vertical dependence disappears.
For the riser the S-values for two independent experiments are
shown in Fig. 19. Also for the riser, the reproducibility for both
experiments is good. The S-values are in the range of approx. 5–10.
The sensitivity has increased as compared to the previous case of
lower mass reflux and riser density (run LS 2, Fig. 17). Again, there is
no clear dependency of the sensitivity with respect to height, only
R128 is somewhat less sensitive here. This decreased sensitivity could
have to do with entrance-effects of the recycling bed material from
the downcomer, with R128 being directly opposite to the riser inlet.
The S-values in the riser now roughly correspond with the S-values
observed in the riser of the L-valve configuration (Fig. 7 b and c) with
the same riser velocity but a reflux of 40 kg/(m2s). The riser densities,
however, are roughly similar in both cases. In contrast, for the loop
seal configuration at a reflux of 40 kg/(m2s) both the resulting riser
density and sensitivity to particle size changes were lower. This
indicates that the absolute S-values are related to the resulting riser
density rather than the chosen mass reflux. This is understandable due
to the direct relation of more intense pressure fluctuations (increased
Fig. 19. Response of the S-values for changing particle size (from d50 = 235 μm to d50 = 242 μm and d50 = 249 μm), obtained for different locations in the riser. Duplicating
experiment, Top: run LS 4 a, Bottom: run LS 4 b.
amplitude) with increased bed density. The sensitivity of the method
increases with higher mass reflux / riser density, with the highest
downcomer position being the only exception to this rule.
The reductions in mass reflux in these two experiments after addition
and removal of sand were both approximately 10–12%. In comparison,
the reduction in mass reflux for the case of adding the same sized
material as a reference case (not shown) has been maximal approxi-
mately 7%; however, in that case there was no change in the S-value.
Overall, as already the case for the previous operating conditions
one can observe a sensitivity of the S-value to particle size changes
and to mass reflux changes. The resulting S-values in case of a
changing mass reflux here are higher than for the case of adding same
sized particles (run LS 3, not shown), but the relative change in mass
reflux is also higher here. The sensitivity to particle size has also
increased for the riser and the lower downcomer part, only exception
is the upper downcomer with a sensitivity decrease.
In light of the observed sensitivity of attractor comparison with
particle size changes, it is worthwhile to have a physical interpreta-
tion. For increased particle size at a constant mass reflux the average
absolute deviation (AAD), a measure of the pressure fluctuation
amplitude, increases in the riser whereas in the downcomer and the
bubbling bed it remains constant or only slightly increases. The
average cycle time (ACT), a measure for the characteristic time scale of
the hydrodynamics, increases for all positions with increasing particle
size. In light of these trends, one can view the resulting riser
 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38
Fig. 20. Typical raw pressure fluctuations for the lower downcomer position (DC100),
bubbling bed (BB) and riser opposite to the solids return (R189) (run LS 4b). Note the
different vertical scale for the bubbling bed.
hydrodynamics as somewhat more moving into the direction of
“slugging”. This effect would also be expected due to the presence of
larger particles (having a larger minimum fluidization velocity) in the
riser in combination with a relatively small diameter riser.
3.2.3. The decoupling effect of the loop seal
With the L-valve configuration, the pressure fluctuations in the
lower part of the downcomer appeared to be strongly related to the
riser fluctuations, resembling them in a dampened form (Fig. 5). The
time shift in the pressure signals shows that for both L-valve and loop
seal the pressure waves are travelling against the solids flow direction
upwards the downcomer.
The loop seal was anticipated to “decouple” the riser from the
downcomer in order to gain more insight in the big difference in
sensitivities to changes in particle size (L-valve) and to see how the
application of the method would change. We consider the lower
downcomer (DC100), the bubbling bed (BB) and the lower riser
(R189) for the investigation of this effect. The remaining positions in
the riser are very similar to the lower riser; the positions higher in the
downcomer resemble the lower downcomer in a dampened form. An
example of a pressure time series for the three locations for the operating
condition with higher riser density and lower gas velocity in the bubbling
bed (run LS 4b, Figs. 18 and 19) is shown in Fig. 20. The pressure
fluctuations from the downcomer positions resemble those of the
bubbling bed and the riser to some degree. For a quantitative comparison
we use the coherence (see e.g. Ref. [12]) here. The coherence is a
dimensionless measure that quantifies to which degree two signals are
Fig. 21. Coherence between pressure fluctuations from the lower downcomer (DC100), bubbling bed (BB) and riser (R189) (run LS 4).
35
correlated, i.e. having a constant phase shift, as a function of frequency. A
coherence of 1 means that the two signals have the same shape and a
constant time shift, although their amplitudes can be different. A
coherence of 0 means that both signals are independent from each
other. With the signals from the three measuring positions the three
different coherences are shown in Fig. 21. The pressure fluctuations from
the different locations of the CFB are strongly correlated at frequencies
below 5 Hz. The high coherence at this lower frequency range generally
can be attributed to global phenomena in the system with a high
propagation velocity, such as gas flow fluctuations, bubble formation,
bubble coalescence, bubble eruption, and bed oscillations [13]. Compared
to the other two combinations, the coherence between the downcomer
and the bubbling bed is higher and decreases only slowly with increasing
frequency. This effect can be expected because of the direct physical
coupling of downcomer moving bed and bubbling bed. In contrast, both
the downcomer and the bubbling bed are more decoupled from the riser
by the gas volume between bubbling bed and riser. One can therefore
generally conclude a frequency-dependent decoupling effect: a strong
decoupling holds for frequencies N5 Hz, for lower frequencies riser and
downcomer are still coupled well.
For run LS 2 with a lower riser density and higher gas velocity in
the bubbling bed (experiment 2) visual inspection of the raw pressure
fluctuations (Fig. 22) already indicates a different situation. The
resemblance between the pressure fluctuation signals is much less
compared to the previous case (Fig. 20). The riser signals look
qualitatively similar, with slightly decreased amplitude. The bubbling
bed and downcomer signals, however, look rather different: the
downcomer signal resembles to a certain degree that of the bubbling
bed, but has no resemblance with the riser signal anymore.
The coherences (Fig. 23) confirm the observations from the raw data
concerning the more decoupled behavior between riser and down-
comer. As compared to run LS 4 one can observe a decreased coherence
between the riser and both other positions at low frequencies of
approximately 0–3 Hz. Moreover, one can observe a clear peak at
around 5 Hz in all coherence plots; in case of coherence between
downcomer and bubbling bed this effect appears somewhat masked by
an overall high coherence, in the other cases it is clearly visible. From the
power spectra (not shown) this 5 Hz peak is identified to correspond to
the dominant frequency in the bubbling bed, but not in the riser at this
frequency. Together with the high correlation, this means that the 5 Hz
signal originates from the bubbling bed and is strongly attenuated as it
propagates into the riser (the coherence is not dependent on
amplitude). The coherence between downcomer and bubbling bed
has not significantly changed as compared to run LS 4 and is still high
due to the more direct coupling via the moving sand bed.
One should keep in mind that the setup with a loop seal does not
simply decouple the riser pressure fluctuations from the downcomer
to a higher degree, but also introduces the bubbling bed as an
additional source for pressure fluctuations.
A change in the degree of decoupling between riser and down-
comer could explain the increased sensitivity to particle size changes
36 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38
Fig. 22. Typical raw pressure fluctuations for the lower downcomer position (DC100),
bubbling bed (BB) and riser opposite to the solids return (R189) (run LS 2). Note the
different vertical scale for the bubbling bed.
for the lower downcomer positions at the high riser density and low
bubbling bed velocity (run LS 4a/b). The pressure fluctuations
measured in the downcomer are more coupled with those in the
riser in that case; therefore hydrodynamic changes in the riser will
have a more significant contribution in the downcomer. This also
implies that the riser is still the main source for information from
pressure fluctuations regarding the changing particle size.
Comparing the L-valve configuration (Fig. 7) with the loop seal
configuration (Figs. 18 and 19) the sensitivity to particle size changes in
the riser is very similar in both cases (S-values around 6), whereas the
very high sensitivity in the lower downcomer with L-valve configuration
(S-values around 40) is greatly reduced for the loop seal configuration
(S-values around 6). This strengthens the hypothesis that the very high
sensitivity to particle size changes in the downcomer with L-valve
configuration is indeed a result of the riser pressure fluctuations that are
modified (filtered) as they travel from riser to downcomer.
Finally, the question remains how the decoupling effect would
change when going to larger-scale industrial CFBs. Measurements in an
industrial size CFB riser, loop seal and downcomer are therefore highly
desirable to check the scale-dependency of the decoupling hypothesis.
3.2.4. Monitoring average riser pressure drop
One could raise the question whether the average pressure drop –
often a readily available process variable in industrial installations –
would be sufficient for monitoring particle size and detect agglom-
eration. In the experiments with the loop seal we have also measured
the pressure drop over five consecutive vertical segments in the riser.
Generally, some correlation was observed with the changing mass
Fig. 23. Coherence between the pressure fluctuations from the lower downcomer (DC100), bubbling bed (BB) and riser (R189) (run LS 2).
Fig. 24. Development of the differential pressure and the S-value based on the
horizontal return-leg and the lower riser. The vertical line at 1:22 h indicates the point
where the bed defluidized.
reflux as well as disturbances originating from addition and removal
of material. The sensitivity to mass reflux changes is to be expected
because they directly influence the riser density profile. However,
there was no correlation observed with particle size. It is concluded
that simple pressure drop measurements are not suitable for
monitoring particle size changes.
3.3. Hot lab-scale CFB with L-value configuration
For the cold-flow setup, attractor comparison is sensitive to small
changes in particle size and for the presence of larger particles (“model
agglomerates”). The next step is to investigate its application during
energy conversion under hot conditions. For this purpose we used a lab-
scale, hot circulating fluidized bed setup. The setup has been operated
with straw pellets in gasification mode; no recycling or refreshing of bed
material has taken place during the experiment. By slowly increasing
the temperature, agglomeration has been induced in the setup until the
bed defluidized. Given the fact that in the downcomer and the return-
leg the gas velocities are much lower and mixing is much less vigorous
than in the riser, it is most likely defluidization occurs in the moving bed.
Pressure fluctuation measurements have been carried out at various
positions in riser and downcomer. Unfortunately, many of the
measurement taps were blocked due to insufficient purging and were
not suitable for the analysis. However, the fact that they got blocked
confirms the problems related with the developing agglomeration
process. Only two positions were suitable for the analysis, the horizontal
return-leg as well as the lower riser 150 mm above the distributor
plate. Fig. 24 shows the pressure drop between the downcomer return-
leg and the lower riser as well as the calculated S-values from the return-
leg and the lower riser position. The differential pressure fluctuates
 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38
considerably, but does dot exhibit any clear trend. At 1:22 h it suddenly
drops to zero at the point of defluidization of the bed. The S-value has
been calculated based on a reference time window just before the
presented data. For the return-leg it first stays rather constant around
zero. At 0:48 h, roughly half an hour before the point of defluidization,
the S-value increases above 3 for the first time. This indicates the onset
of a change in the hydrodynamics, originating from the onset of the
agglomeration process. The S-values from the bottom of the riser are
generally higher once they have crossed 3. Although the strong increase
at 0:48 appears to correspond less to a gradual built-up of agglomerates,
the S-value still yields a correct early warning with the same lead time as
obtained from the S-value from the return-leg.
3.4. Hot industrial CFB with loop seal
Attractor comparison has also been implemented in an industrial
CFB boiler. The objective of this part of the work was not agglomeration
detection, but the detection of small changes in the particle size, as those
are relevant for the heat transfer. The particle size has not been
artificially modified, but the occurring changes in particle size during
regular operation have been monitored. Such changes can originate
from e.g. changing process conditions or gradual attrition of particles.
The particle size has been determined three times per day via bed
sampling and sieving.
The industrial CFB boiler has not been so tightly controlled as the
lab-scale setups. Especially the boiler load (i.e. the delivered power
expressed in MW) is changing in a range of about 30% and therefore
results in changing fluidization velocities. Attractor comparison has
been shown to be insensitive to changes in gas velocity within certain
limits (around 10% for bubbling beds [6], around 5% in a lab-scale
circulating bed riser (Fig. 10 and other unpublished results)). As the
relative changes in this case greatly exceed these limits, we have
chosen to work with several reference attractors, each covering a 5%
load range. In the actual attractor comparison we switched to the
appropriate reference according to the measured load; the load is
directly correlated to fluidizing velocity. Moreover, in this industrial
unit we have chosen to use “filtered” S-values, i.e. taking the minimum
of three consecutive S-values from both measuring positions. Reason
for this additional filtering is the occurrence of several process events
during the operation, such as bed mass addition, ash removal and soot
blowing; these events would otherwise cause S to temporarily
increase beyond 3 more frequently apart from the changes in particle
size. As the objective here was to remove temporary strong process
disturbances, we did apply this specific filtering strategy and not
frequency filtering, as done previously in the cold-flow CFBs.
First, the S-value has been determined for a period of about
2.5 weeks with rather constant median particle diameter of approx-
imately 240–250 μm according to the bed samples (Fig. 25). The S-
value does not exhibit any trend during this period. Occasional values
Fig. 25. The median particle size from sieving analysis (triangles) and the filtered S-value
(squares) during a period of stationary particle size in the industrial combustor.
37
Fig. 26. The median particle size from sieving analysis (squares) and the filtered S-value
(diamonds) during a period in which the particle size in the industrial combustor
increased.
larger than 3 are present, but are mostly explained by other
temporary process disturbances and were correlated to other effects
via logged process data. The filtering of S-values has shown to
significantly reduce the temporary peaks due to other irrelevant
process events.
During another operating period the particle size slowly increased
over the course of about three weeks. At the same time the S-value
gradually increased, following the trend in particle size (Fig. 26).
Within this correlation between the S-value and the median particle
size one can observe a significant change in S clearly crossing the value
of 3 around day 13–15, when the median particle diameter has
increased by approx. 20 μm compared to the reference median
particle diameter of approx. 240 μm. Please note that the most
important result here is a globally increasing trend in the S-value, i.e.
the S-value correlates with the increasing particle size on longer time-
scales. Particularly in industrial units there are various kinds of
process variations and disturbances, such as fuel feed and gas flow
variations, temporary usage of soot blowers and others. Many cases in
which the S-values vary unexpectedly can be explained by additional
process data (not shown here), but some cases cannot be explained
with the process data and knowledge available. For the actual
implementation of the method additional effort should be put in
increasing the robustness of the method to avoid taking unsuitable
measures. An important starting point for this will be incorporating
additional process data to account to significant process disturbances.
Keeping in mind that the S-value is a measure relative to the
chosen reference condition, one could actually not a-priori determine
whether the particle size increases or decreases as the S-value only
increases. To distinguish increasing and decreasing particle size
during operation without simultaneous sampling it is possible to
use several reference attractors (at least two), each at a different
particle size. One can then match the current attractor with the
corresponding reference from such a database to obtain the currently
present particle size.
4. Conclusions
The attractor comparison method can be used for the detection of
gradual particle size changes as well as the early detection of
agglomeration in various circulating fluidized beds.
In a cold-flow lab-scale circulating fluidized bed (CFB) with an
L-valve for solids return attractor comparison is sensitive to small
changes in particle size. For a median particle size of 235 μm the
detection limit in the riser is a size change of approx. 10 μm. For the
downcomer the method is much more sensitive, with a detection limit
of a size change well below 7 μm for the lower vertical downcomer
section and approx. 2 μm in the horizontal return-leg. Changes in bed
mass up to 20% do not disturb the method. Applying a low-pass filter can
be beneficial as it greatly reduces sensitivity to fluctuations in bed mass
38 M. Bartels et al. / Powder Technology 202 (2010) 24–38
and gas flow, but only marginally reduces sensitivity to particle size
changes. The method has also been shown to be sensitive to the
presence of model agglomerates (d50 = 1900 μm). Applying a 30 Hz
low-pass filter has shown to successfully remove sensitivity to changes
in mass reflux, especially in the riser. With such a filter, the sensitivities
from riser, downcomer and return-leg are very similar; the resulting
detection limit is approx. 2–3 wt.% of model agglomerates.
With a loop seal for the solids return, attractor comparison is
sensitive to changes in particle size of 14 μm relative to the median
particle size of 235 μm. For the downcomer, there can be a strong
sensitivity gradient, with higher sensitivities at higher measuring
positions; the lower positions in the downcomer do not detect the
imposed changes. At operating conditions with higher mass reflux
and riser density, however, this gradient in sensitivity disappears and
all positions become equally suitable. The bubbling bed does not
detect such small changes in particle size, consistent with [6]. The
riser is only slightly sensitive to particle size changes when operating
with a lower riser density, and more sensitive at higher riser densities.
Despite a large vertical density gradient in the riser, no significant
vertical sensitivity gradients were observed. The method is not
sensitive to mass changes up to 20% and not sensitive to relative
changes of about 7% in mass reflux. However, the method is sensitive
to a resulting 10–12% decreased mass reflux due to the addition of
larger sized sand, which is thought to originate from settling effects in
the moving bed.
In both the loop seal and L-valve configuration the pressure waves
are travelling against the solids flow direction in the downcomer. The
application of a loop-seal as compared to an L-valve leads to less
coupling between the downcomer pressure fluctuations and riser
pressure fluctuations. This coupling is quantified by the coherence
between riser and downcomer pressure fluctuations and is frequency
dependent: At higher frequencies the coherence is low, whereas for
low frequencies smaller than ∼ 5 Hz (global hydrodynamic phenom-
ena) it is generally high.
Under actual gasification conditions in a lab-scale CFB with very
similar geometry as the cold-flow setup, attractor comparison was
applied to a real agglomeration case. The S-values from the horizontal
return-leg as well as the lower downcomer can be used to detect the
developing agglomeration process and indicate the approaching
defluidization with an early warning time of about 30 min in advance.
In an industrial CFB boiler with gradually changing particle size
during regular operation, attractor comparison detects gradual
changes in the median particle size, based on measurements in the
lower dense bed riser. Here the method detects an increase of ∼ 20 μm
relative to the median bed particle diameter of ∼240 μm.
5. Recommendations for Implementation
Based on the results from the different experimental investiga-
tions, we propose the following guidelines for the implementation of
the attractor comparison method in CFBs.
5.1. Riser
Small particle size changes as well as agglomeration can be
detected, with increasing sensitivity at higher riser densities. It will
therefore be useful to measure in the lower, dense part of the riser;
very lean regions in the upper part should not be considered. The
sensitivity and detection limits therefore also improve with operation
conditions of higher riser densities.
5.2. Downcomer
The analysis based on measurements in the downcomer has shown
to be often more sensitive than in the riser. A vertical sensitivity
gradient can be present, depending on the operating conditions. It is
therefore recommended to measure low as well as high in the dense
bed downcomer, if possible, also to gain more insight on the optimal
position. In general, it is recommended to further investigate the
pressure fluctuation signals and the behavior of the attractor
comparison method on industrial scale, particularly the influence of
the measurement location (riser, downcomer, and return-pipe).
5.3. L-valve or loop seal
The solids return mechanism in CFBs can be carried out with
L-valve or loop seal. In case of an L-valve a measurement position in the
horizontal return-pipe is highly recommended; in addition low-pass
filtering before the analysis of the data might be necessary for robust
monitoring. In case of a loop seal configuration small particle size
changes were not detected in the bubbling bed. Nevertheless, this
measuring position is still recommended especially when agglomera-
tion should be detected, which is motivated by multiple positive
experiences of agglomeration detection in bubbling beds (e.g. [8]).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Roderik Bohlken for his work on the cold CFB
within his Master Thesis project, Marcin Siedlecki & Wiebren de Jong
for their assistance with the hot lab-scale CFB and the Sachtleben
Chemie GmbH for permission to use the presented data from their
plant.
References
[1] P. McKendry, Energy production from biomass (part 3): gasification technologies,
Bioresource Technology 83 (1) (2002) 55–63.
[2] J. Koornneef, M. Junginger, A. Faaij, Development of fluidized bed combustion —
an overview of trends, performance and cost, Progress in Energy and Combustion
Science 33 (1) (2007) 19–55.
[3] M. Öhman, A. Nordin, B.-J. Skrifvars, R. Backman, M. Hupa, Bed agglomeration
characteristics during fluidized bed combustion of biomass fuels, Energy & Fuels
14 (1) (2000) 169–178.
[4] H.J.M. Visser, The influence of fuel composition on agglomeration behaviour in
fluidised-bed combustion, ECN (Energy research Centre of the Netherlands)
report ECN-C–04-054, 2004.
[5] M. Bartels, W. Lin, J. Nijenhuis, F. Kapteijn, J.R. van Ommen, Agglomeration in
fluidized beds at high temperatures: mechanisms, detection and prevention,
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (5) (2008) 633–666.
[6] J.R. van Ommen, M.-O. Coppens, C.M. van den Bleek, J.C. Schouten, Early warning
of agglomeration in fluidized beds by attractor comparison, AIChE Journal 46
(2000) 2183–2197.
[7] C. Diks, W.R. van Zwet, F. Takens, J. DeGoede, Detecting the differences between
delay vector distributions, Physical Review E 53 (1996) 2169–2176.
[8] J. Nijenhuis, R. Korbee, J. Lensselink, J.H.A. Kiel, J.R. van Ommen, A method for
agglomeration detection and control in full-scale biomass fired fluidized beds,
Chemical Engineering Science 62 (1–2) (2007) 644–654.
[9] Energy technologies at the cutting edge, International Energy Agency (IEA), 2007.
[10] R. Bohlken, Dynamic Monitoring of Gas–Solid Circulating Fluidized Beds, M.Sc.
Thesis, Delft University of Technology (2007).
[11] D. Christensen, J. Nijenhuis, J.R. van Ommen, M.-O. Coppens, Residence times in
fluidized beds with secondary gas injection, Powder Technology 180 (3) (2008)
321–331.
[12] M.B. Priestley, Spectral analysis and time series, Academic Press LTD, London,
1981.
[13] J. van der Schaaf, J.C. Schouten, C.M. van den Bleek, Origin, propagation, and
attenuation of pressure waves in gas–solid fluidized beds, Powder Technology 95
(1998) 220–233.