Nigerian Journal of Tropical Engineering

Vol. 7, No. 2, 2011, PP. 73 -86, ISSN 1595-5397.

MODELING AND SIMULATION OF SOME PARTS OF A FLUIDIZED

BED COMBUSTOR
I.I.Ozigis*, H. Dandakouta** and G. Egbo**

*Department of Mechanical Engineering,

University of Abuja
Abuja
idris.ozigi@yahoo.com
**Mechanical/Production Engineering Programme,
The Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University,
Bauchi.
dandakuta@yahoo.co.uk gegbo2000@yahoo.co.uk.
ABSTRACT
This work presents comparative analysis of theoretical and experimental bed, steam, tube
surface and wall temperatures of a fluidized bed combustor. The simulated and experimental
data were run in Predictive Analyst Soft Ware (PASW Statistic 18) for the comparative
regression output. Bed shows R-Square of 0.998 with an error of O.8% when single fuel
(lignite) was fired in the combustor at maximum experimental, simulated and improved bed
temperatures of 1201 K, 1168 K and 1195 K respectively. Steam shows R-Square of 0.886
with an error of 2.4 % when fuel mix ratio of 90:10 (lignite: poultry droppings) was fired in
the combustor at maximum experimental, simulated and improved steam temperatures of 452
K, 612 K and 559 K respectively. Tube surface shows R-Square of 0.938 with an error of
3.84 % when fuel mix ratio of 70:30 (lignite: poultry droppings) was fired at maximum
experimental, simulated and improved tube surface temperatures of 482K, 665K and 525K
respectively. Combustor wall shows R-Square of 0.978 with an error of 1.02% when fuel mix
ratio of 50: 50 (lignite: poultry droppings) was fired at maximum experimental, simulated and
improved combustor wall temperatures of 335 K, 331 K and 338 K respectively.

1. INTRODUCTION In this work, we present modified

Theoretical models are important link
between combustion processes and several
aspects of fluidized bed combustor in
preliminary equipment design. Integrating
experimental works to predicted model
behaviours of some parts of the fluidized
bed combustor is critical to any further
advanced design. Comparative analysis is
probably the avenue for this integration.
Fluidized bed combustion processes are
vey complex that continuous tuning of
modeling with actual plant conditions is
best done with comparative analysis.
Comparison always provides insight for
designers and plant operators, because
many variables that define the limits of
operation are represented by variables (e.g.
failure, production and fuel rates).
models for predicting bed, steam, tube
surface and wall temperatures of a
fluidized bed combustor. These modified
models were generated from an arithmetic
technique for adjustment of comparative
analysis outputs for parts of the combustor
mentioned above. Theoretical and
experimental results were compared to
improve the simulation by incorporating
the errors that arose from the experimental
work. Multiple regressions and
correlations were used for analyzing the
relationship between the theoretical and
experimental values by determining the
best mathematical expressions that
describe their relationship and measuring
the strength of this relationship [1].

73
 Modeling and Simulation of some Parts of a Fluidized Bed Combustor
Comparative statistical analysis has
become a ready tool for prediction in
several engineering practices. Regression
analysis was used to validate the clinker
and cement mill in the production line of
Ashaka cement PLC. The resulting models
were to predict effects of failure and
production rates on electrical energy index
in Ashaka cement production [2]. Models
were validated for implicit and explicit
Runge-Kutta methods to solve combustion
problems such as heat losses to the walls,
influence of complex chemistry of flames
and turbulence interactions [3]. Dynamic
models for a bubbling fluidized bed bioler
were validated in an operational 260 MW
thermal power plant. The boiler process
data were used as input to the model and
then compared the computer signal with
measured output [4]. A group of
researchers solved a set of three models
(simplified model, simulator and improved
model) for some parameters of bubbling
fluidized bed combustor [5]. The
simplified model had air flow rate, fuel
flow rate, ambient air temperature and wall
pipe temperature while char mass, solid
temperature and solid mass were the
steady state variables [5]. In order to
improve the estimation of steady state
variables and overcome the problem of
running the model according to operating
conditions, an Extended Kalman Filter
(EKF) was employed to obtain an
improved steady state estimation of
nonlinear systems [5]. The applicable
theory is discussed in the next section.
2. THEORY OF COMPARATIVE
STATISTICAL VALIDATION
Multiple regression analysis is a statistical
tool that allows several factors to enter the
analysis separately so that the effect of
each can be estimated and to investigate
the relationship between the variables in a
system [6,7]. Independent variables are
variables that change at start of a process.
The dependent variable is a variable that is
observed [8]. Some of these factors that
affect steam temperature are water, air and
fuel flow rates as well as bed temperature
74
(Tb) wall temperature (Tw) and tube
surface temperature (Tt). The definitions of
these variables are:
• Bed temperature (Tb), is the value
of temperature taken inside
bubbling bed of combustor using
thermocouple and temperature
meter.
• Steam temperature (Ts), is the
average temperature of steam
produced which is collected
periodically via steam exit pipe.
• Tube surface temperature (Tt), is
the average temperature of tube
surface obtained.
• Combustor wall temperature (Tw),
is the value of temperature taken at
wall surface.
The hypothesized relationship
between steam temperature as dependent
variable while bed, wall and tube surface
temperature as independent variables may
be written as:
Ts = bo + b1Tb + b2Tt + b3Tw + α …1
where;
b0 is coefficient intercept of model that
gives steam temperature at ambient
condition .
b1 is coefficient that shows effect in
steam temperature due to increase in bed
temperature
b2 is coefficient of Ts associated with Tt
while holding Tb and Tw constant.
b3 is coefficient of Ts associated with Tw
while holding Tb and Tt constant.
α is other factors that influences steam
temperature.
The assumptions used in our
application of regression analysis are:
i. There exist a linear relationship
between steam temperature on one
hand and the variables such as bed,
tube surface and combustor wall
temperatures on the other.
ii. Multicolinearity not present
between the independent variables
(bed, tube surface and combustor
wall temperatures).
 I. I.Ozigis, H. Dandakouta and G. Egbo
iii. The random errors ( α ) is
independent and randomly
distributed with constant variables
and zero mean.
The measure of strength in
statistics includes R-square (R2) with
critical values within the range of 0 to 1
and F-statistics at 95% confidence level
with critical value (σ ) below 0.05 were
used to establish the trustworthy or
otherwise of models [9]. The relative
importance of each variable in a model
was evaluated by T-statistic (T-stat) at
values of for preferential impression
and a large regression sum of squares in
comparison to residual sum of squares
indicates that the model accounts for most
of the variation in the dependent variable
[8]. The statistical results of R2, Sig.F and
standard error indicate performance
evaluation criteria in assessment of the
combustor [8, 9]. The data generation and
statistical analysis in which the above
tests allowed the drawing of conclusions
from statistical results are found in
methodology of this work.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data Generation
The simulations data were obtained for
parts of fluidized bed combustor in which
mass and energy balances had been
established. These various parts constitute
the constructed structure and process flow
of fluidized bed combustor. The four
model equations were then numerically
presented in form of Runge-Kutta
simultaneous equations based on which a
Matlab program was developed. The
Runge-Kutta method of first order
ordinary differential equations was
numerically integrated over time. Initial
assigned values for the bed temperature
(Tb=303 K), tube surface temperature
(Tt=300 K), combustor wall temperature
(Tw=303 K) and steam temperature
(Ts=303 K) were the inputs. The end
points are 0-120 mins with twenty (20)
steps. For each time step, an iterative
procedure is adopted for equating energy
75
balance equation of combustion zone,
evaporator, super heater and combustor
wall respectively. The simulated bed,
steam, tube surface and combustor wall
temperatures which dependent on time
were then obtained when Matlab program
was run (see data on Appendices I-V).
The experimental data used in this
work were generated from fluidized bed
steam generator while burning various fuel
mix ratios as shown in Appendices (VI-X).
The bed temperature (Tb) was controlled
by adjustment of air, water-steam and fuel
flow valves. The bed temperatures at
various points were measured by means of
K-type thermocouple and temperature
meter. Thermocouples were also mounted
on the combustor wall (Tw) to measure the
wall temperature and on the steam exit
pipe to measure steam temperature (Ts).
The tube surface temperature was
calculated by temperature difference (Tt).
The measurements were at an average of
15 minutes interval and each experiment
last for an hour (t).
3.2. Statistical Model Building
From Appendices (I-X), the numerator has
four independent variables namely: bed,
steam, wall and tube represented as p.
Hence, the number of independent
variables is:
p=4
The denominator is on side of the sample
size and was calculated as follows [9]:
n1 = n − p − 1 …2
where;
n is sample size =8
∴ n1 = 8 − 4 − 1 = 3
From critical values of F in statistical
table, F0.05= 9.12 [9].
Then compare 9.12 to obtained values for
F-statistic in each analysis of variance.
T-test for individual significance of
coefficients is based on T-
distribution given as:
n2 = n − p − 1
…3
 Modeling and Simulation of some Parts of a Fluidized Bed Combustor

From eqn. (2), the degree of freedom in
denominator n2= 3.
The critical values of T in statistical table,
T0.025 = 3.182 [9].
Then compare 3.182 to obtained values for
T-statistic in each analysis of variance.
3.3 Computation Technique
The data as shown in Appendices (I-X) for
simulated and experimental results of the
fluidized bed combustor were entered into
computer when PASW [10] window was
opened. The variables were entered based
on simulated and experimental data, and
the program run for the comparative
regression output using the raw data. The
experimental work extends the theoretical
model to obtain an improved model that
addresses errors observed in the
experiments. The new theoretical model
serves as reference data and a set of guess
values for experiments were made for
computation until a satisfactory
convergence is achieved for the modified
model. The modified models will improve
the estimation of the variables in both
simulation and experimental
measurements of bed, steam, tube surface
and wall temperatures. The comparative
analysis for bed, steam, tube surface and
wall are shown in Appendices XI-XIV.
The new models equations were built by
summations of coefficients as shown in
Tables (1-8) and equations (4 to 11) which
are similar to equation 1.

Table 1: Statistical Analysis for 100:0 Bed Temperatures (Theoretical)

Parameter Value ANOVA Collinearity Diagnostic Residual
Parameter Sum Coefficient T-Stat Sig. Parameter Mean
of F Square
Squa
re
R2 0.99 Regression 7593 Constant -3531.95 -20.31 0.00 Regression 25312
83.5 7
F-Statistic 247365 Residual 0.40 Time 11.13 164.22 0.00 Residual 0.41
0.4 9
Sig.F 0.00 Steam -1.19 -11.71 0.00
Std error 0.32 Tube -1.61 0.21
Wall 13.849 20.48 0.00
Simulated Statistical Model Tb = −3531.95 + 11.13t − 1.19Ts + 13.85Tw …4
Table 2: Statistical Analysis for 100:0 for Bed Temperature (Experimental).
Parameter Value ANOVA Collinearity Diagnostic Residual
Parameter Sum of Coefficient T-Stat Sig. F Parameter Mean
Square Square
R2 0.98 Regression 575241.5 Constant 137.6 0.66 0.55 Regression 143810.
3
F-Statistic 2069.1 Residual 208.5 Time -0.56 -1.01 0.38 Residual 69.51
Sig.F 0.00 Steam -30.35 -22.03 0.00
Std error 8.34 Tube 32.28 31.97 0.00
Wall -1.18 -1.30 0.28
Experimental Statistical Model Tb = 137.6 − 0.56t − 30.35Ts + 32.28Tt − 1.18Tw …5

Table 3: Statistical Analysis of 90:10 for Steam Temperature (Theoretical)

Parameter Value ANOVA Collinearity Diagnostic Residual
Parameter Sum of Square Coefficient T-Stat Sig. F Parameter Mean Square
R2 0.985 Regression 32812.2 Constant 1865.99 1.47 0.22 Regression 10937.4
F-Statistic 87.08 Residual 502.4 Time -2.01 -3.03 0.04 Residual 125.6
Sig.F 0.00 Bed -0.09 0.94
Std error 11.21 Tube 1.421 3.10 0.04
Wall -6.562 -1.42 0.23
Simulated Statistical Model Ts = 1865.99 − 2.01t + 1.42Tt − 6.56Tw …6

76
 I. I.Ozigis, H. Dandakouta and G. Egbo

Table 4: Statistical Analysis of 90:10 for Steam Temperature (Experimental). .

Paramete Value ANOVA Collinearit Diagnostic Residual
r y
Parameter Sum of Square Coefficient T-Stat Sig. F Parameter Mean
Square
R2 0.99 Regression 21491.6 Constant 0.81 0.009 0.99 Regression 5372.89

F- 931.8 Residual 17.3 Time 0.13 0.79 0.48 Residual 5.76

Statistic
Sig.F 0.00 Bed -0.014 -1.82 0.19

Std error 2.40 Tube 0.89 10.37 0.002

Wall 0.12 0.37 0.735

Experimental Statistical Model Ts = 0.81 + 0.13t − 0.014Tb + 0.89Tt + 0.12Tw …7

Table 5: Statistical Analysis of 70:30 Tube for Temperature (Theoretical)

Parameter Value ANOVA Collinearit Diagnosti Residual
y c
Parameter Sum of Square Coefficien T-Stat Sig. F Parameter Mean
t Square
R2 1.00 Regressio 36832.2 Constant -1583.76 -3.31 0.03 Regressio 10937.4
n n
F-Statistic 60408.1 Residual 0.61 Time 0.42 2.39 0.075 Residual 125.6
Sig.F 0.00 Steam 0.847 2.986 0.04
Std error 0.78 Bed -2.39 0.096
Wall 5.38 2.88 0.045
Simulated Statistical Model Tt = −1583.76 + 0.42t + 0.847Ts + 5.38Tw …8

Table 6: Statistical Analysis of 70:30 for Tube Temperature (Experimental).

Parameter Value ANOVA Collinearity Diagnostic Residual
Parameter Sum of Coefficient T-Stat Sig. F Parameter Mean
Square Square
R2 1.00 Regression 25010.66 Constant 33.31 1.67 0.19 Regression 6252.62
F-Statistic 15477.2 Residual 1.21 Time 0.004 0.087 0.94 Residual 0.404
Sig.F 0.00 Bed 0.018 7.68 0.005
Std error 0.64 Steam 1.08 34.96 0.00
Wall -0.211 -2.42 0.094
Experimental Statistical Model Tt = 33.31 + 0.004t + 0.018Tb + 1.08Ts − 0.21Tw `` …9

Table 7: Statistical Analysis of 50:50 for Wall Temperature (Theoretical)

Parameter Value ANOVA Collinearity Diagnostic Residual
Parameter Sum of Coefficient T-Stat Sig. F Parameter Mean
Square Square
R2 1.00 Regression 722.85 Constant 282.3 38.69 0.00 Regression 240.95
F-Statistic 19870.5 Residual 0.049 Time -0.034 -1.07 0.344 Residual 0.012
Sig.F 0.00 Bed -0.60 0.59
Std error 0.11 Steam -0.071 -1.14 0.318
Tube 0.139 3.645 0.022
Simulated Statistical Model Tw = 282.3 − 0.034t − 0.071Ts + 0.139Tt … 10

77
 Modeling and Simulation of some Parts of a Fluidized Bed Combustor

Table 8: Statistical Analysis of 50:50 for Wall Temperature (Experimental).

Parameter Value ANOVA Collinearity Diagnostic Residual
Parameter Sum of Coefficient T-Stat Sig. F Parameter Mean
Square Square
R2 0.969 Regression 1791.8 Constant 524.71 2.14 0.122 Regression 447.97
F-Statistic 23.32 Residual 57.62 Time 2.006 1.39 0.259 Residual 19.21
Sig.F 0.013 Bed 0.034 0.86 0.453
Std error 4.4 Steam -1.84 -1.13 0.34
Tube 1.015 1.23 0.31
Experimental Statistical Model Tw = 524.71 + 2.006t + 0.034Tb − 1.84Ts + 1.015Tt …11

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 0.015 kg/s. Experimental bed temperature

i. Comparative Bed Temperature
The comparative bed temperatures for
theoretical, modified and experimental
results against time while burning single
fuel (lignite) in the fluidized bed
combustor are shown in Fig.1. The
corresponding bed temperature is required
within limits of 923-1123 K for an
efficient combustion processes [11]. The
experimental bed is an extension of
theoretical bed to obtain an improved bed
temperature that accommodates noticeable
differences. The highest experimental and
simulated bed temperature values were
found to be 1202 K and 1168 K
respectively, at an average steam flow rate
of 0.016 kg/s and fuel burning rate of
indicated a higher value when compared
with simulated value; this is as a result of
spontaneous combustion of lignite due to
its associated volatile content when fired
during the test inside the combustor. The
regression analysis carried out for the
experimental and simulated bed
temperature showed R2 of 0.998 and
standard error of 0.8 % [7] (Appendix XI).
The improved model gave a maximum bed
temperature of which is 1195 K closer to
the practical value. The improved model is
given as:
Tb = 91101.6 + 28.36t + 27.43Ts − 327.06Tw
… 12

1400
1200
Temperature(K)

1000
800
600 Experimental Bed(K)
Simulated Bed(K)
400
Improved Bed(K)
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time(mins)

Fig.1: comparative bed temperature against time for burning single fuel (lignite)

ii. Comparative Steam simulated value (Fig.2). Appreciable

Temperature temperature is expected from vapour
(steam) generated to transfer heat to a
Comparing the theoretical with process. The experimental and simulated
experimental results, it could be seen that steam temperature was found to have
experimental steam temperature indicated reached maximum values of 452 K and
a lower value when compared with 612 K respectively, at an average fuel feed

78
 I. I.Ozigis, H. Dandakouta and G. Egbo
and steam flow rates of 0.014 kg/s and
0.012 kg/s, respectively when burning fuel
mix ratio of 90:10 (lignite: poultry
droppings) in the combustor. Comparative
analysis carried out for the validation of
the model indicated a very good fitting of
the data (R2 = 0.988) and standard error of
the estimate of 2.4 % as shown in
700
600
Temperature(K)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30
Time(mins)
Fig.2: comparative steam temperature against time for burning fuel mix 90:10.
iii. Comparative Tube Surface
Temperature
Figure 3 shows the relationship between
the experimental and simulated tube
surface temperature when burning fuel mix
ratio of 70:30 (lignite: poultry droppings)
in the fluidized bed combustor.
Experimental work extends theoretical
model for an improved model that reduces
the noticeable errors for efficient heat
extraction from combusting bed by
immersed heat exchanger tube similar to
the functions of EKF in combustor [5].
Simulated curve also had a slugish rise
until 30 mins when it began to rise rapidly
through to the end of the simulation.
Conversely, the experimental value was
474 K burning the same fuel mix ratio and
the tube surface temperature had a
sluggish rise throughout the experiments
for most of the fuel mix ratios considered
.The maximum values of the experimental
and simulated tube surface temperature
Appendix XII. The improved model for
the steam temperature gave a maximum
value of 559 K. The correction factor
obtained through arithematic procedures
results in an improved model as:
Ts = −2056 .1 + 0.4t − 0.023Tt + 7.81Tw
… 13
Experimental Steam(K)
Simulated Steam(K)
Improved Steam(K)
40 50 60 70
were found to be 482 K and 665 K
respectively, at an average steam flow rate
of 0.015 kg/s and fuel burning rate of
0.012 kg/s. Experimental tube surface
temperature indicated a lower value when
compared with the simulated value; this is
as a result of possible errors in
measurement and excessive cooling due to
water flow by gravity from water tank to
the heat exchanger tube. Comparative
statistical analysis carried out for the
validation of the simulated tube surface
temperature showed R2 of 0.938 and error
of 3.84 % (see Appendix XIII). The
improved model for the tube surface
temperature was found to reach 525 K
(maximum). The arithmetic procedures
describe earlier for adjustment of
experimental data was used to obtain an
improved model as:
Tt = −12690.53 − 2.122t − 7.03Ts + 49.93Tw
… 14
79
 Modeling and Simulation of some Parts of a Fluidized Bed Combustor

700
600

Temperature(K)
500
400 Experimental Tube Surface (K)

300
Simulated Tube  Surface(K)
200
100 Improved Tube  Surface(K)
0
0 20 40 60 80

Time(mins)

Fig.3: comparative tube surface temp against time for burning fuel mix 70:30.
iv. Comparative Combustor Wall
Temperature
Figure 4 shows comparison between the
experimental and simulated combustor
wall temperature when burning fuel mix
ratio of 50:50 (lignite: poultry droppings)
in the fluidized bed combustor. The data
obtained from theoretical model forms the
bases of experimentation. The noticeable
variations in experiment were then
incorporated for an improved model. Wall
temperature is needed for combustion
control, restart process and evaluation of
heat losses to the walls. The experimental
and simulated combustor wall temperature
were found to have reached maximum
values of 335 K and 331.4 K respectively,
at an average steam flow rate of 0.016 kg/s
and burning rate of 0.015 kg/s.
Experimental combustor wall temperature
indicated a higher value when compared
with simulated value; this is because of
over simplification of parameters of
refractory brick lining of the combustor.
Comparative statistical analysis carried out
between the experimental and simulated
combustor wall temperature shows R2 of
0.978 and error of 1.02 % [8] (see
Appendix XIV). The modified model for
the combustor wall temperature was found
to reach 338 K (maximum). The improved
model given as:
Tw = 324.95 + 1.64t − 0.077Tb − 0.005Tt
… 15

345
340
335
330
Temperature(K)

325
320
315 Experimental Combustor  Wall(K)
310 Simulated Combustor  Wall(K)
305
300 Improved Combustor  Wall(K)
295
290
0 20 40 60 80

Time(mins)

Fig.4: comparative wall temperature against time for burning fuel mix ratio (50:50).

6. CONCLUSIONS out for the validation of the simulated and

In this paper, the models for some parts of
fluidized bed combustor are presented.
The model equations were corrected by
arithmetic adjustments to agree with
experimental errors. The conclusions for
comparative regression analysis carried
experimental data for some parts of the
fluidized bed combustor are as follows:
1. Bed shows R-Square of 0.998 with an
error of O.8% when single fuel
(lignite) was

80
 I. I.Ozigis, H. Dandakouta and G. Egbo
fired in the combustor at maximum
experimental, simulated and improved bed 4.
temperatures of 1201 K, 1168 K and 1195
K respectively.
2. Steam shows R-Square of 0.886 with
an error of 2.4 % when fuel mix of 90:10
(lignite: poultry droppings) was fired in
the combustor at maximum experimental,
simulated and improved bed temperatures
of 452 K, 612 K and 559 K respectively. 5.
3. Tube surface shows R-Square of 0.938
with an error of 3.84 % when fuel mix of
70:30 (lignite: poultry droppings) was
fired at maximum experimental, simulated
and improved tube surface temperatures of
482K, 665K and 525K respectively.
4. Combustor wall shows R-Square of
0.978 with an error of 1.02 % when fuel
mix of 50: 50 (lignite: poultry droppings) 6.
was fired at maximum experimental,
simulated and improved combustor wall
temperatures of 335 K, 331 K and 338 K
respectively.
REFERENCES 7.
1 Childers, D.L.; Sklar, F.H.&
Hutchinson, S.E.(1994) Statistical
treatment and comparative
analysis of scale-dependent aquatic
transect data in estuarine
landscapes, Landscape Ecology, 8.
Vol9 No.2, pp127-141.
9.
2. Olorunnishola, A.A. G & Egbo,
G(2007). Models to predict the
effect of failure and production
rates on electrical energy
consumption in Ashaka Cement
PLC, Gombe State. J.Pure and
Applied Science. 10(1), 77-84. 10.
3. Linblad, E.;Valiev, D.M.; Muller,
B.; Rantakokko, J.; Lotstedt, P. and
Liberman, M.A. (2006) Implicit- 11.
Explicit Runge-Kutta Method for
Combustion Simulation, European
Conference on Computational
Fluid Dynamics, TU Delft, The
Netherlands.
81
Kataja, M and
Majanne,Y(2007).Dynamic model
of a bubbling fluidized bed boiler,
Tampere University of
Technology, Institute of
Automation and control, Box 692,
Fi-33101,Tampere.
Bittanti, S.; Bolzem, P,;Campi,
M,C.; Marco, D.A.;Poncia, G. &
Prandoni, W.(2000) A Model of a
bubbling Fluidized Bed Combustor
Oriented to Char Mass Estimation,
IEEE Transactions on Control
Systems Technology, Vol. 8 No.2,
March, 247.
Orlov, M.L.(1996), Multiple
Regression Analysis using
Microsoft Excel, Chemistry
Department, Oregon State
University.
Sykes, A.O.( 2000 ), An
introduction to regression analysis,
The Inaugural Case Lecture
Chicago Working paper in law and
economics.
Gupta, V.(1999). SPSS for
Beginners www.vgupta.com
Anderson, D.R., Sweeney, D.J. &
Williams, T.A. (2002). Statistics
for Business and Economics
(Workbook), 8th Ed., S-Western,
Thomas learning, Canada, pp457-
551.
PASW(2010) Predictive Analyst
Soft Ware Statistics, Manual
Version18.0;www.spss.com.
Nag, P.K. (2009). Power Plant
Engineering. 3nd Edition, 15th
Reprint, Tata McGraw Hill
publishing Co. Ltd, New Delhi.
 Modeling and Simulation of some Parts of a Fluidized Bed Combustor

Appendices
Appendix I: Predicted Combustion of 100:0 (Lignite: Poultry Droppings).
S/ Time Air, Fuel, Steam, Improved Bed Steam Wall Tube
N (min) kg/s kg/s kg/interval Bed (K) (K) (K) (K) (K)
1 0 0.11 0.009 8 314.24 303 303 303 303
2 5 0.112 0.0095 8.5 452.84 361.6 303.3 303.2 305.4
3 10 0.1135 0.0095 9.05 621.79 423.5 304.9 303.8 312.2
4 20 0.1164 0.010 10.3 777.28 557.0 314.8 306.3 339.3
5 30 0.12 0.010 11.5 931.25 703.0 335.9 310.6 385.1
6 40 0.1230 0.012 12.6 993.55 860.9 370.2 316.9 452.2
7 50 0.127 0.013 13.95 1044.43 1029.7 419.4 325.3 543.7
8 60 0.13 0.015 15 1194.96 1208.6 485.7 335.9 665.4

Appendix II: Predicted Combustion of 90: 10 (Lignite: Poultry Droppings)

S/ Time Air, Fuel, Steam, Bed Steam Improved Wall Tube
N (min) kg/s kg/s kg/interval (K) (K) Steam (K) (K) (K)
1 0 0.11 0.009 8 303 303 280 303 303
2 5 0.112 0.0095 8.5 363. 303.3 286 303.2 305.5
3 10 0.1135 0.010 9.05 426.2 305.0 291 303.4 312.4
4 20 0.1165 0.010 10.5 562.0 315.3 299 303.8 340.2
5 30 0.12 0.012 11.5 709.7 317.6 344 310.7 386.9
6 40 0.1230 0.013 12.55 868.9 336.6 422 317.2 455.1
7 50 0.127 0.014 13.55 1038.4 421.6 533.5 325.7 548.1
8 60 0.13 0.015 15 1217.5 489.1 559 336.3 671.7

Appendix III: Predicted Combustion of 70: 30 (Lignite: Poultry Droppings)

S/ Time Air, Fuel, Steam, Bed Steam Wall Improved Tube
N (min) kg/s kg/s kg/interval (K) (K) (K) Tube (K) (K)
1 0 0.11 0.009 8 303 303 303 296 303
2 5 0.111 0.0095 8.05 360.6 303.3 303.2 310 305.4
3 10 0.1115 0.010 9.05 420.9 304.9 303.8 321 312.0
4 20 0.1165 0.010 10.3 550.2 314.6 306.2 337 338.5
5 30 0.12 0.012 11.5 690.2 335.0 310.4 389 382.7
6 40 0.1235 0.013 12.65 840.5 368.2 316.5 425 446.9
7 50 0.127 0.014 13.95 1000.0 415.1 324.5 510 533.4
8 60 0.13 0.015 15 1167.9 477.9 334.7 525 646.8

82
 I. I.Ozigis, H. Dandakouta and G. Egbo

Appendix IV: Predicted Combustion of 50:50 (Lignite: Poultry Droppings).

S Tim Air, Fuel, Steam, Bed Steam Wall Improved Tube
/ e kg/s kg/s kg/interv (K) (K) (K) Wall (K) (K)
N (min al
)
1 0 0.11 0.009 8 303 303 303 306 303
2 5 0.1115 0.0095 8.65 353.3 303.3 303.2 306 305.1
3 10 0.1135 0.010 9.15 406.1 304.6 303.7 309 310.9
4 20 0.1165 0.011 10.3 519.1 313.6 305.8 315 333.9
5 30 0.12 0.012 11.5 641.4 330.8 309.5 325 372.1
6 40 0.1235 0.013 12.65 772.6 359.4 314.8 333 426.9
7 50 0.1265 0.014 13.7 911.9 399.4 321.8 335 499.5
8 60 0.13 0.015 15 1058.5 452.1 330.7 338 592.6

Appendix V: Predicted Combustion of 0: 100 (Lignite: Poultry Droppings).

S/ Tim Air, kg/s Fuel, Steam, Bed, Steam, Wall, Tube,
N e kg/s kg/interval (k) (K) (K) (K)
(min
)
1 0 0.11 0.0037 8 303 303 303 303
2 5 0.1115 0.0038 8.5 323.8 303.1 303.1 303.9
3 10 0.1135 0.0040 9.2 346.0 303.7 303.3 306.2
4 20 0.1165 0.0042 10.3 394.6 307.2 304.2 315.8
5 30 0.12 0.0043 11.5 448.7 314.5 305.7 331.6
6 40 0.1235 0.0045 12.7 508.0 324.3 308.0 353.9
7 50 0.1270 0.0048 13.95 572.3 342.5 311.1 382.7
8 60 0.13 0.0050 15 641.0 363.4 315.1 418.0

Appendix VI: Experimental Combustion of 100:0 (Lignite: Poultry Droppings)

S/N Time Air, Fuel, Steam, Bed Steam Wall Tube
(min) kg/s kg/s kg/interval (K) (K) (K) (K)
1 0 0.11 0.009 2 293 295 296 293
2 5 0.11 0.009 2 923 328 301 344
3 10 0.12 0.009 3 1062 365 306 383
4 20 0.12 0.015 10 1078 391 320 409
5 30 0.12 0.015 13 1124 401 328 420
6 40 0.11 0.015 11 1027 407 333 423
7 50 0.11 0.015 10 1085 430 334 447
8 60 0.12 0.015 12 1204 439 335 459

83
 Modeling and Simulation of some Parts of a Fluidized Bed Combustor

Appendix VII: Experimental Combustion of 90:10 (lignite: Poultry droppings).

S/ Time Air, Fuel, Steam, Bed Steam Wall Tube
N (min) kg/s kg/s kg/interval (K) (K) (K) (K)
1 0 0.11 0.009 2 293 293 296 293
2 5 0.11 0.009 2 923 330 306 339
3 10 0.12 0.009 3 1048 369 309 387
4 20 0.12 0.015 6 1023 401 321 417
5 30 0.12 0.015 7 1123 411 327 430
6 40 0.11 0.015 13 973 424 333 438
7 50 0.11 0.015 12 1223 436 336 457
8 60 0.12 0.015 12 1073 455 336 470

Appendix VIII: Experimental Combustion of 70: 30 (Lignite: Poultry Droppings)

S/ Time Air, Fuel, Steam, Bed Steam Wall(K) Tube(K)
N (min) kg/s kg/s kg/interval (K) (K)
1 0 0.11 0.009 2 293 293 295 293
2 5 0.11 0.009 2 873 332 299 346
3 10 0.12 0.009 3 1094 374 302 393
4 20 0.12 0.010 11 1123 402 319 421
5 30 0.11 0.009 10 1013 414 325 430
6 40 0.11 0.009 10 973 421 331 435
7 50 0.12 0.010 13 1123 435 335 453
8 60 0.12 0.010 13 1223 453 336 474

Appendix IX: Experimental Combustion of 50:50 (Lignite: Poultry Droppings).

S/N Time(min) Air ,kg/s Fuel, kg/s Steam Bed(K) Steam(K Wall(K Tube(K)
,kg/interval ) )
1 0 0.11 0.009 2 293 293 295 293
2 5 0.11 0.009 2 762 321 299 323
3 10 0.12 0.009 3 1073 358 301 377
4 20 0.12 0.010 8 1173 381 318 402
5 30 0.12 0.010 10 1123 389 323 408
6 40 0.11 0.010 10 1023 403 330 424
7 50 0.11 0.009 10 973 415 333 430
8 60 0.11 0.009 15 923 430 335 443

Appendix X: Experimental Combustion of 0: 100 (Lignite: Poultry Droppings)

S/N Time(min) Air, kg/s Fuel, kg/s Steam, Bed (K) Steam (K) Wall (K) Tube (K)
kg/interval
1 0 0.11 0.0037 2 293 293 295 293
2 5 0.11 0.0037 2 943 318 297 334
3 10 0.12 0.0042 3 1023 335 300 353
4 20 0.11 0.0037 10 973 386 308 394
5 30 0.12 0.0042 10 1023 391 320 403
6 40 0.12 0.0042 10 1083 400 323 418
7 50 0.12 0.0042 10 1103 409 330 427
8 60 0.12 0.0042 15 1103 414 333 432

84
 I. I.Ozigis, H. Dandakouta and G. Egbo

Appendix XI: Comparative Analysis of Experimental and Simulated Bed Temperatures.

Parameter Value ANOVA Collinearit Diagnostic Residual
y
Paramete Sum of Coefficie T-Stat Sig. Paramete Mean
r Square nt F r Square
R2 0.998 Regressio 3338.69 Constant -20.58 - 0.00 Regressio 1669
n 12.07 n .35
F- 2607.5 Residual 8.18 Experime 0.004 1.77 0.13 Residual 1.64
Statistic nt 7
Sig.F 0.00 Simulatio 0.064 34.18 0.00
n
Std error 0.8

Appendix XII: Comparative Steam Temperature using Simulated and Experimental Results
Paramet Valu ANOVA Collineari Diagnostic Residual
er e ty
Paramete Sum Coefficie T- Sig. Parameter Mean
r of nt Stat F Square
Square
R2 0.98 Regressi 3301.5 Constant -99.89 -9.25 0.00 Regression 1650.7
8 on 6
F- 291. Residual 45.35 Experime 0.252 6.88 0.00 Residual 9.07
Statistic 8 nt 4 1
Sig.F 0.00 Simulatio 0.068 5.47 0.00
n 9 3
Std error 2.4

Appendix XIII: Comparative Tube Temperature using Simulated and Experimental Results
Parameter Valu ANOVA Collinearity Diagnostic Residual
e
Paramete Sum Coefficien T-Stat Sig. Paramete Mean
r of t F r Square
Square
R2 0.93 Regressi 3273.2 Constant -80.24 -7.833 0.00 Regressi 1636.6
8 on 1 on
F- 111. Residual 73.7 Experiment 0.172 4.906 0.00 Residual 14.7
Statistic 0 4
Sig.F 0.00 Simulation 0.090 5.359 0.00
3
Std error 3.84

85
 Modeling and Simulation of some Parts of a Fluidized Bed Combustor

Appendix XIV: Comparative Wall Temperatures using Simulated and Experimental Results
Paramet Value ANOVA Collinearit Diagnostic Residual
er y
Parameter Sum of Coefficien T- Sig. Paramete Mean
Square t Stat F r Square
R2 0.978 Regressio 3341.71 Constant -514.12 -39.1 0.00 Regressio 1670.8
n n
F- 1618. Residual 5.2 Experime 0.852 16.07 0.00 Residual 1.033
Statistic 2 nt
Sig.F 0.00 Simulatio 0.874 10.7 0.00
n
Std error 1.02

86