Proceedings of the ASME 2013 Heat Transfer Summer Conference

HT2013
July 14-19, 2013, Minneapolis, MN, USA

HT2013-17527

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF AN INDUSTRIAL FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING REGENERATOR

Guangwu Tang, Armin Silaen, Bin Wu, Chenn Q. Zhou

Center for Innovation through Visualization and Simulation (CIVS), Purdue University Calumet
Hammond, IN, USA
Dwight Agnello-Dean, Joseph Wilson, Qingjun Meng, Samir Khanna
BP Refining and Logistics Technology, Naperville, IL, USA

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) is one of the most important

conversion processes in petroleum refineries, and FCC
regenerator is a key part of an FCC unit to recover the solid
catalyst activity by burning off the deposited coke on the
catalyst surface. In modern FCC units, regenerator is a
cylindrical vessel. Carrier gas transports the solid catalyst
from the stripper and feeds the catalyst into the regenerator
through catalyst distributors. The catalyst is fluidized by the air
that is injected into the regenerator through air rings in the
bottom part of the cylindrical vessel. A three-dimensional
multi-phase, multi-species reacting flow computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) model was established to simulate the flow
inside an FCC regenerator. The two phases involved in the
flow are gas phase and solid phase.
The Euler-Euler
approach, where the two phases are considered to be
continuous and fully inter-penetrating, is employed. The
model includes gas-solid momentum exchange, gas-solid heat
exchange, gas-solid mass exchange, and chemical reactions.
Chemical reactions incorporated into the model simulate the
combustion of coke which is present on the catalyst surface.
The simulation results show a good agreement with plant data.

Fluidization is one of the most important phenomena in gassolid two phase flow, which is widely used in some industries
like nuclear, chemical, gasification and petroleum [1-2], mainly
because of its continuous powder handling ability, vigorous
gas-solid contact and fast heat and mass transfer [3]. FCC units
play a pivotal role in petroleum refining industry, which
converts petroleum into lower molecular-weight hydrocarbon
products such as gasoline [4]. The gas-solid two-phase flow
in a regenerator directly influences the productivity and quality
of light products. Although the air-catalysts two-phase flow in a
regenerator is well controlled and reached commercial status
many years ago, better understanding of the hydrodynamics can
further improve the efficiency [5]. With a good theoretical
understanding of the gas-solid two phases flow hydrodynamics,
numerical simulation can be used as a tool for detailed study,
design and further optimization of regenerators [6]. Ye-Mon
Chen [7] proposed that shorter reaction time, heavier feedstock
and high regenerator temperature should be responded by
modern engineering innovation. Computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) technique is derived from the partial differential
equations based on the conservation of mass, momentum and
energy. It offers a new approach to study the hydrodynamics
and transfer mechanisms in gas-solid two phases flow with
good efficiency and accuracy [3,6].

Key words: Regenerator, CFD, Eulerian, Kinetic theory, Drag

model, Hydrodynamics, Combustion.

Geldart [8] classified particles into four groups: A, B, C, D.

Particles in group A have a small mean size and a low particle

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77268/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

density (less than about 1.4g/cm3), while particles in group B

have mean size that ranges between 40m and 500m and
density that ranges between 1.4 g/cm3 and 4g/cm3. Powders
which in any way are cohesive belong to group C and are very
difficult to be fluidized. Group D particles are confined to large
and very dense particles. FCC catalysts belong to groups A and
B, which can be easily fluidized.

that flow is more sensitive to the restitution coefficient than to

the flow model and kinetic theory. Hosseini et al. [18]
simulated the FCC particles bubbling fluidized bed using a state
of the art two-fluid model integrating the kinetic theory of
granular flow for particulate phase stresses. The study showed
that the method was appropriate in simulating a gas-solid
fluidized bed of Geldart A particles at high velocities (0.3 to
0.61m/s). Hossieni et al. [19] also applied a 2D Eulerian
model including kinetic theory for the particulate phase.
Parameters such as drag function, algebraic and transport
equations of granular temperature, frictional stress, turbulence
and discretization scheme were studied. The results showed
that the drag model is an important hydrodynamics parameter
for gas-fluidized bed, and frictional stresses play an important
role for the bed containing partial sparging (different
distributors). Benyahia et al. [20] simulated the particles and
gas flow behavior in the riser section of a circulating fluidized
bed using kinetic theory approach. The flow profiles obtained
showed a good agreement with experimental data. Benyahia et
al. stated that the inlet and outlet designs have significant
effects on the overall flow pattern while the initial condition did
not have any significant affects. Li et al. [21] used EulerianEulerian (two-fluid) model based on the kinetic theory of
granular flow to simulate the gas-solid two-phase flow. Li et al.
studied the influence of all the applicable drag laws and
proposed their four-zone drag model. Their model was showed
satisfactory agreement with experimental data. Li et al
concluded that the Eulerian model with kinetic theory of
granular flow based on proper drag model and particle collision
parameters can offer good predictions of the gas-solid twophase flow hydrodynamics.

There are two different approaches that can be used in CFD to

model the gas-solid two-phase flows that involve particles of
groups A or B: (a) Lagrangian approach and (b) Eulerian
approach [5,9-10]. Lagrangian approach solves the Newtonian
equations of motion for each particles, and takes into
consideration the effects of particle collisions and forces acting
on the particles by gas. Particle collision laws are applied for
the solid-solid collision based on the energy dissipation by
means of restitution coefficient and friction [11-12]. In the
Eulerian approach, all the phases are considered to be
continuous and fully interpenetrating, which is described by
generalized Navier-Stokes equations.
Eulerian approach
requires additional closure laws to describe the particle-particle
and particle-wall interactions. Recently, continuum models
used kinetic theory of granular flow which provided explicit
closures that included energy dissipation by means of
restitution coefficient.
Since Lagrangian approach can track each particle and offer
particle distributions in the calculation, which is different from
the Eulerian approach, some researchers use Lagrangian
approach to simulate the hydrodynamics of the gas-solid twophase fluidized bed flow. Hoomans et al. [13] used a discrete
particle model to simulate the bubble and slug formation in a
two-dimensional fluidized bed.
The collision model
employed was based on the conservation laws for linear and
angular momentum and was specified as restitution coefficient
and friction coefficient two parameters. Hoomans et al. also
studied the sensitivity of the two parameters on the
hydrodynamics of the flow. Furthermore, validation against
experimental data was conducted successfully. Tsuji et al. [1415] also simulated the two dimensional fluidized bed by using
discrete particle model which is based on the DEM (Discrete
Element Method). The experiment conducted by Tsuji et al.
validated the simulation results.

A few researchers employed Eulerian approach with the kinetic

theory to model flow inside industrial FCC regenerators. Cao et
al. [22] simulated the hydrodynamics and coke combustion
inside a regenerator. The results show that the hydrodynamics
cannot be described completely when a uniform mean particle
diameter was used in the model. But, the predicted axial
temperature and compositions of gas phase and solid phase
showed good agreement with data obtained from the industrial
regenerator. Sapre et al. [23] studied the effects of Reynolds
number in the recirculating regions inside a regenerator. The
simulation showed the non-uniformities of coke content on
catalyst and oxygen concentrations. However, there are not
many CFD models that include both the hydrodynamics and the
chemical reactions inside real complicated industrial
regenerators. A CFD model of an industrial regenerator which
includes both the hydrodynamics and the chemical reactions
can provide great help in guiding the real operating parameters
and solving any existing problems and even educating
engineers.

However, the Lagrangian approach also requires more

computation resources compared to Eulerian approach and
most of the applications are limited to big particles (d>500m)
[13-16]. Therefore, for the Geldert A and B particles,
Lagrangian approach needs more research efforts to get better
results compared to Eulerian approach. Nowadays, a great
amount of attentions are paid to the Eulerian approach by
applying the kinetic theory of granular flow for Geldart A and
B particles, such as FCC catalysts. And most of the simulations
are validated against experimental or industrial operation data.
Gao et al. [3,17] combined experimental and computational
approaches to study the hydrodynamics of the FCC particles in
a turbulent fluidized bed based on the kinetic theory of granular
flow within Eulerian model. A modified drag model was used
and the results agree with the experimental data well and show

The main tasks for regenerator are to remove the carbon and
hydrogen from the catalyst surface and to heat the catalyst to a
high temperature (about 1003C), which are achieved by
burning the carbon and the hydrogen. Therefore, including
the chemical reactions in the model would be beneficial. Bai et
al. [24] developed a comprehensive one dimensional model to
simulate hydrodynamics and chemical reactions. Bai et al.

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77268/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

considered the carbon and the hydrogen as carbonaceous

reactants. The results showed that many factors influence the
complicated reactions and most attention should be paid to the
temperature. Dimitriadis et al. [25] used experimental method
to calculate the coke combustion kinetics and compared the lab
experiment results to the real operation data. Dimitriadis et al.
found that metals like Pt in the real operating FCC regenerator
act as a reaction catalyst. Faltsi-Saravelou et al. [26] used four
reactions to describe the carbon and hydrogen combustions
with reaction kinetics from several literatures. The results
were in good agreement with data from the industry. Sotirchos
et al. [27] and Liang-Sun et al. [28] treated carbon and
hydrogen as hydrocarbon products with certain ratio of C to H,
and took gas products CO/CO2 ratio as an important bridge to
specify the reaction ratio of each product.

Solid-phase momentum equation,

(

)
(5)

Solid-phase turbulent fluctuating energy equation,

[

]
)

)
)(

(
)

(6)

Gas-phase stress tensor,

(

(7)

(8)

Solid-phase stress tensor,

This paper employs Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to

simulate a commercial regenerator. Based on the multiphase
Eulerian model with kinetic theory of granular flow, the aircatalyst two phases flow hydrodynamics inside the regenerator
was firstly obtained, and a modified drag model was used to
calculate the gas-solid interaction drag force. Restitution
coefficient was applied to define the solid-solid collision forces.
A reaction model which includes carbon and hydrogen
combustions to simulate the gas phase reactions and interphase
reactions in the regenerator were added to the model. The
simulation results are in good agreement with the plant data.

Solid-phase pressure,
[

(9)

Radial distribution function,

[

) ]

(10)

Granular temperature,

CFD MODEL AND METHODOLOGY

(11)

Solids phase shear viscosity (Gidaspow kinetic theory),

The Eulerian model with kinetic theory of granular flow was

used in this simulation, and the Reynolds number in this
simulation is about 4x105. The laminar viscous model was used
to describe the flow with low Reynolds number. The species
transport model was used to calculate the species. The modified
drag model was used to calculate the gas-solid interphase drag
force. The Gunn model [29] was used for the heat transfer
coefficient between the gas and solid phase. P1 radiation model
was chosen to take into account the thermal radiation.
Heterogeneous reaction model was used for the gas phase
reactions and interphase reactions.

(12)

Solids phase shear viscosity (Syamlal-OBrien kinetic theory),

[
]

(13)

(14)

Solids bulk viscosity,

Governing equations
Conservation of Mass
Gas-phase continuity equation,

Diffusion coefficient (Gidaspow kinetic theory),

(1)

(2)

Solid-phase continuity equation,

(

(15)

Diffusion coefficient (Syamlal-OBrien kinetic theory),

Conservation of Momentum
Gas-phase momentum equation,
)

(3)

*
+

(16)

Collisional dissipation of energy fluctuation,

(4)

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77268/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

where
is the net rate of production of homogeneous
species i by chemical reaction for gas phase.
is the mas
transfer source between species i and j from solid phase to gas
phase. Rate is the heterogeneous reaction rate. ag is the volume
fraction for gas phase.
is the rate of creation by addition
from the dispersed phase plus any user-defined sources.

(17)

Conservation of Energy
(

(18)

The heterogeneous phase interaction reaction rates used for the

reactions [30] are:

where hg is the specific enthalpy of the gas phase, is the

heat flux, Sg is a source term that includes sources of enthalpy
(such as radiation), Qgp is the intensity of heat exchange
between gas and solid phases. hgp is the interphase enthalpy.

The computational geometry of the regenerator being studied is

shown in Figure 1. The regenerator cylindrical vessel includes
nine two-stage cyclones, one upper air ring, one lower air ring,
two spent catalyst inlets, and two regenerated catalyst outlets.
The spent catalyst from the riser with certain amount of
transport air is fed into the regenerator through the spent
catalyst inlets. Air needed to fluidized the catalyst bed and to
combust the coke on the catalyst surface is injected into the
regenerator through the upper and lower air ring distributors
located in the bottom. The catalysts that are carried by the gas
to the top are separated from the gas in the two-stage cyclones,
and are recycled back into the catalyst bed. The
cleaned/regenerated catalysts are removed from the regenerator
through the regenerated catalyst outlets.

)
(21)

P1 Radiation Model
In regenerator, another heat transfer form is radiation due to the
combustion occurred inside with high temperature around
1000K. Therefore, thermal radiation should be considered. The
radiative heat flux as function of incident radiation intensity in
P1 model is,

(22)

(23)
The expression for
can be directly substitute into the
energy equation to account for the heat sources due to the
radiation.
Species Transport Equations
In ANSYS FLUENT, for each phase k, predict the local mass
fraction of each species,
, through the solution of a
convection-diffusion equation for i species, when applied to
multiphase mixture can be expressed in the following form:

+ Rate

Rege

BOUNDARY AND INITIAL CONDITIONS

The air inlets and catalyst inlets are defined and mass flow
inlets. In order to have a constant the amount of the
regenerated catalyst extracted from the regenerator, the
regenerated catalyst outlets were defined as mass flow inlet, but
with a directional vector pointed outward of the outlet surface.
The cyclone inlets were defined as pressure outlet with outside

Nine

Simulation code and solution method

This simulation was carried out using the commercial CFD
solver FLUENT 13.0. FLUENT uses the Finite Volume
Method (FVM) [31] to solve the partial differential equations
by discretizing the equations over finite volumes. The Phase
Coupled SIMPLE algorithm was used to adjust the pressure and
velocities after each iteration when solve the gas-solid
momentum equations. Each simulation for hydrodynamics flow
was performed 60 seconds flow time, to make sure the flow had
reached quasi-steady state. For cases which include chemical
reactions, quasi-steady state was reached approximately 20
minutes of flow time. The calculations were run on a High
Performance Computer (HPC) cluster in Purdue University
Calumet.

where a is the absorption coefficient,

is the scattering
coefficient, G is the incident radiation, C is the linearanisotropic phase function coefficient.

(25)

Simulation domain

Kg is the thermal conductivity of gas phase.

For Gunn heat transfer model [29],

(25)

GEOMETRY AND SIMULATION METHOD

(20)

)(

k=

(19)
Cgp is the volumetric heat transfer coefficient between gas and
solid phase, which related to the gas phase Nusselt number,
Nup.

Rate = k

(24)

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77268/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

Table 1 Boundary Conditions

pressure of 1 atm. The walls were set as no-slip wall boundary

conditions for both solid and gas phase. The boundary
conditions are shown in Table 1.
The catalyst particles were set as the solid phase. Air is used as
gas phase to fluidize the catalyst particles. The gas superficial
velocities range from 0.6 m/s to 0.7m/s. The detailed simulation
parameters used in FLUENT 13.0 are listed in Table 2. The
phase properties are shown in Table 3.
A certain amount catalyst patched bed with solid and gas
velocity zero were used as the initial condition. The catalyst
bed at t = 0s is 0.3 of the total regenerator height with a volume
fraction of 0.505. The initial conditions are shown in Figure
2.

Upper
Air Ring

Lower
Air Ring

Velocity (m/s)

Spent
Catalyst
Inlet
5.6

12.9

15.7

Regenerated
Catalyst
Outlet
1.1

Temperature (K)

810.8

433

433

Gas volume
fraction

Solid volume
fraction

Table 2 Detailed Simulation Parameters

Parameters
Gas-solid two phase flow model
Solver
Flow type
Wall boundary condition
Time step used
Maximum number of iteration
per time step
Residual convergence criteria
Pressure
velocity
coupling
scheme
Under-relaxation Factors
Maximum solid packing volume
fraction
Discretization Scheme
Air density
Superficial velocity
Air Viscosity
Catalyst particle density
Catalyst particle mean diameter
Solid volume fraction in the bed
Gas and solid velocity

Value and methods

Eulerian-Eulerian model with
kinetic theory (granular)
Pressure based and transient
Laminar
No slip
0.01s
100
10-3
Phase Coupled SIMPLE
Pressure 0.3, momentum 0.7,
volume fraction 0.5, granular
temperature 0.2.
0.6
First-order upwind
1.225 kg/m3
0.6~0.7m/s
1.7810 -5 kg/(m*s)
1440 kg/m3
75m
0.6
0

Figure 1 Computational domain

Table 3 Phase Properties

Material HydroWith
dynamics reactions
Gas
O2, N2
O2, N2,
CO, CO2,
H2O
Solid
Catalyst
Catalyst
Coke
Hydrogen

Density

Viscosity

Incompressible
ideal gas law

Mixing
law

Volume
weighted
mixing law

Gidaspow

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Grid sensitivity study
Since governing equations are discretized using finite volume
method, the quality and quantity of the finite volume (cells)
directly influence the results. To reduce the error created by

Plotted Plane
Figure 2 Solid Bed at t = 0s

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77268/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

coarse grid, a grid sensitivity study was conducted. Two grids

with 2 million cells and 4.5 million cells were compared.
Figure 3 shows the comparison of the solid volume fraction
profiles obtained using both grids at flow time of 30s. The 4.5
million cells mesh has a better mesh quality compared to the 2
million one, but the solid volume fraction profiles along the
regenerator height are almost the same, which means the 2
million cells mesh can catch the flow hydrodynamics
characteristics very well. By using the 2 million cells mesh, a
lot of computational time and resources can be saved.
Therefore, the 2 million cells mesh was used for this study.

Table 4 shows the flow zone classification and accordingly

drag force coefficient. The drag model sensitivity study was
carried out by applying each existing drag model into the
regenerator CFD model, then comparing the results of phase
density with plant data to decide which one to be used. Through
comparison, the modified drag model can give the best result
compare to the other drag models for this gas-solid two-phase
flow.
By using a mean effective cluster diameter
= 300m [3,36]
in the fluidized bed and effective diameter
= 150m in the
dilute phase, it is obvious that there are four zones in the
computational domain: dense phase, sub-dense phase, dilute
phase and sub-diluter phase, which agree with research by Gao
et al. [3, 17].
The flow hydrodynamics of gas-solid two-phase flow in the
regenerator was simulated with the modified drag model
incorporated to it. The contour of solid (catalyst) volume
fraction on the center plane is plotted in Figure 4. The average
solid volume fractions at different regenerator heights over time
are plotted in Figure 5. The average solid volume fraction and
total pressure distribution along the regenerator height are
plotted in Figure 6.
As observed in Figure 5, there are four zones along the
regenerator height: dense zone, sub-dense zone, dilute zone and
sub-dilute zone. This shows good agreement with both
literature and plant data. The red color area indicates dense
catalyst bed with solid volume fraction around 0.6, while the
blue shows a low solid volume fraction below 0.1. The green
area between red and blue shows a solid volume fraction
approximately 0.35 represents the fluidized bed.

Figure 3 Solid volume fraction profiles along the regenerator height

for different mesh sizes

Gas-Solid Flow Hydrodynamics

Drag force between gas phase and particle phase plays an
important role in the gas-solid multiphase flow hydrodynamics
[21], thus modeling the drag force correctly in simulation to
predict the flow pattern is also of great significance. Many
researchers developed their drag models for the gas-solid two
phase interaction, such as Syamlal-OBrien drag model [32],
Gidaspow [33] drag model, Wen and Yu [34] drag model,
Mckeen drag model [35] and modified drag model [3,17,21].
Among all the gas-solid interphase drag models, the modified
drag model divided the void fraction into four zones ( <=0.8,
0.8< <0.933, 0.933< <0.990 and 0.990< <1.00) and
described the drag force coefficient according to the void
fraction of each zone. Therefore, the modified drag model is
also called four-zone drag model. Using a weighted average of
four scales equation [3,4,21],

Table 4 modified drag model with zone classification

Void
fraction
0.80

Drag
force
model
Ergun

0.80.933

the discontinuity in the drag coefficient can be avoided. The

,
,
are the switch factors when the void fractions
for the dividing criteria are 0.80, 0.933 and 0.990, respectively.

0.9901.00

Schiller
&
Naumann

Wen &
Yu [34]

ZP

0.9330.990

[37]

]}

Drag force coefficient

(
|

|
|

[38]
{

(
|

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77268/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

dilute zone. This perfectly predicted the profile in the

regenerator. The pressure drop was also plotted in Figure 6
which is one of the most important validations for the flow
hydrodynamics. The total pressure drop between h/H = 0.83
and h/H = 0.13 are calculated and compared to the real
measurement, which shows good agreement.

t=0s

t=5s

t = 20 s

t = 40 s

Gas-Catalysts Reacting Flow

As the main function of regenerator is to recover the reactivity
of the catalysts by removing the coke and hydrogen on the
surface, the gas-solid hydrodynamics multiphase model was
then modified to include the reaction model to simulate the
coke (with hydrogen)-air combustion reactions. Species
transport model was used to treat the species involved in the
reactions. Gunn model was used for the interphase heat
transfer, and P1 radiation model was used for the thermal
radiation. The reactions considered in this model are carbon
oxidization, hydrogen combustion, and CO combustion. The
reaction mechanisms are as follows and the kinetic constants
are listed in Table 5.

t = 60 s

Figure 4 Contour of solid (catalyst) volume fraction over time

C + O2 CO
C+ O2 CO2
CO + O2 CO2
H + O2 H2O

(R.1)
(R.2)
(R.3)
(R.4)

According to the plant measurement, the catalyst used for this

simulation contains 1 percent coke on its surface, with carbon
count for 92% and the remaining 8% is hydrogen. The reacting
flow model was developed by incorporating the reaction model
with the kinetic constants listed in Table 5 into the
hydrodynamics model. The results of the flow hydrodynamics,
temperature fields and species concentrations are presented in
Figures 7 through 9. Figure 7 shows the combustion model
reach steady state after 1000s real time, demonstrated by the
average gas temperature at five different normalized
regenerator heights. The contours of solid temperature and gas
temperature at different planes at the steady state are shown in
Figure 8. The profiles of each species concentration and
temperature along the regenerator height are plotted in Figure
9.

Figure 5 Average solid volume fractions over time

Figure 6 Average solid volume fraction and pressure drop profiles

along regenerator height

Figure 5 shows the average solid volume fractions on 5

different heights over time. It can be seen that the fluidized bed
has reached quasi steady state after 40s, which is a distinctive
characteristic of the bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) and
circulation fluidized bed (CFB) [39].
According to Figure 6, the average solid volume fraction along
the normalized regenerator height presents a four-region
regenerator, which has a high solid volume fraction dense bed,
sub-dense bed, low solid volume fraction sub-dense zone and a

Figure 7 Mass-weighted Average Temperature over Time

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77268/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

Table 5 Reaction heat and kinetics

Reactions Heat of
Pre-exponential factor ,
reaction (A)
(kJ/mol)
R.1
118
0.155x108 s-1 atm-1
R.2
403
0.376x108 s-1atm-1
R.3
283
0.149x1012 kg-1 m-3 atm-2
R.4
600
3.3x1007 kg-1s-1 atm-1

Activation
energy, E
(J/mol)
159,000
110,000
212,000
157,700

Figure 7 indicates that the temperature changes rapidly at the

first 500 seconds, then increases slowly and reaches a steady
state after 1000 seconds. In addition, the temperatures at
different heights indicate that the temperature in the dense bed
is lower than temperature in the dilute phase.

Figure 9 Profiles of solid temperature and species mass fractions at

1000s

Catalyst temperature is very important to the crude oil cracking

process which occurs in the riser part of an FCC process.
Catalysts leaving the regenerator at low temperature can mean
the low coke removal efficiency and may not be able to
effectively crack crude oil in the riser part. However, high
temperatures in the dilute zone of the regenerator can
potentially damage the cyclones.

The gas temperature contours and average gas temperature

plots in Figure 8 clearly show the temperature above the dense
catalyst bed is higher than in the bed. The unburned CO
produced in the bed escapes the bed into the dilute zone where
it is burned. Unlike in the dense bed most of the energy
released from any combustion is absorbed by the solid due to
the high solid concentration, most of the heat released by any
combustion in the dilute zone goes to the gas. Temperature
contour plots in Figure 8(a) show a temperature imbalance,
higher on one side of the regenerator and lower on the other
side. This is due to the opening direction of the catalyst and air
inlets.
Figure 9 shows the profiles of mass-weighted average species
concentrations along the whole regenerator height. From Figure
9, the major species is CO2, which increases above the dense
bed. Oxygen decreases greatly above the lower air ring, and
decreases further to a very small percentage above the upper air
ring. The rapid decrease of O2 indicates that the reactions
occurred in the bed.
According to Table 6, the air-catalyst two-phase flow
hydrodynamics can be predicted well. The bed height and
total catalyst mass inside of the regenerator cannot be directly
measured, but they can be estimated by measuring the pressure
drop inside the regenerator. Pressure drop between two
locations at different heights (one is in the dense zone and the
other is in the dilute zone) inside the regenerator is measured
during the regenerator operation. The error of the pressure drop
calculated by the model relative to the time average pressure
drop of the actual regenerator is 4%.

(a)

The simulation results obtained are compared with the real

operation plant data. The validation data and simulation results
are shown in Table 6.
The temperatures calculated by the simulation agree well with
the temperature measured at the plant. The relative errors of the
temperatures in the dense zone and in the dilute zone are 0.50%
and 0.29%, respectively.

(b)
Figure 8 (a) Gas temperature contours and (b) average gas
temperature at time 1000s

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77268/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

Table 6 Relative errors of the simulation results when

compared to plant data
Relative error
Catalyst circulation
27.4%
Dense zone temperature
0.50%
Dilute zone temperature
0.29%
4.0%
P (inH2O)
C reduction rate (%)
1.7%
Volume fraction at outlets:
CO
CO2
O2 (vol%)

CD
Cfr
dp
d p*
dps
e
Tip
g
Yi
g0
h
H
g
mp
ms
m0
M
n
p
pC,ps
r
R
Re

8881.8%
1.2%
14.9%

The volume fraction of CO2 in the gas at the gas outlet (cyclone
inlets) predicted by the model is very close to the measured
value at the plant (1.2% relative error). However, the relative
error of CO is very high. This is due to the fact that, in the
operation of the actual regenerator, combustion promoters are
added into the catalyst bed to promote CO combustion inside
the dense bed. It is desired to have as much CO as possible
burned inside the dense bed thus the amount of CO that goes
CO combustion in the dilute zone can be minimized. As
mentioned earlier, any heat released in the dilute zone can
significantly increase the gas temperature which could
potentially damage the cyclones. The chemical kinetics for the
used in the model does not take into account any combustion
promoter.

R
S
T
u

umf

The C reduction rate is calculated as the ratio of the mass

fraction of C on the catalyst surface at the regenerated catalyst
outlets to that at the catalyst inlets.

ip

VOFip
MWi
st
Tref

CONCLUSIONS
A detailed study of gas-solid two-phase flow hydrodynamics
based on the Eulerian model with kinetic theory of granular
flow was conducted. A 3-dimensional industrial regenerator
simulation was carried out using the commercial CFD software
FLUENT. The drag force between FCC catalyst particles and
gas has a great influence on the two phase flow hydrodynamics.
The modified drag model was used to calculate the drag force
between the gas and solid. Based on the modified drag model,
the effective particle grouping size 300m in the dense phase
and 150m in the dilute phase offers an accurate result when
compared to the plant data.

Greek letters

void fraction
i
void fraction for the dividing criteria

inter-phase momentum exchange coefficient, kg/m3-s

dissipation of energy fluctuation, kg-s3/m

dil,
dilute diffusion coefficient for energy fluctuation, kgs/m

diffusion coefficient for the energy fluctuation, kg-s/m

mean void fraction of dense phase

bed voidage at minimum fluidization velocity

segregation efficiency

granular temperature, m2/s2

p,av
average granular temperature, m2/s2
dil,p
particle phase dilute viscosity, Pa-s
p
particle phase shear viscosity, Pa-s

solid bulk viscosity, Pa-s

density, kg/m3

mean bed density of dense phase, kg/3

stress tensor, Pa

The Eulerian multiphase model with two phase hydrodynamics

and heterogeneous combustion was developed to simulate the
chemical reactions inside of the regenerator. The developed
model can predict the flow field with species and temperature
details. The simulation results showed good agreement with
plant data.
NOMENCLATURE
A
C

drag coefficient
friction coefficient
diameter of particle, m
particle effective mean diameter in dense bed, m
average diameter of particle, m
restitution coefficient
phase temperature
gravity acceleration, m/s2
species i mass fraction
radial distribution function
height
regenerator height
mass, kg
single particle mass of phase p, kg
single particle mass of phase s, kg
total mass, kg
phase number
volumetric particle number
pressure, Pa
collision part of particle phase pressure, s
radial coordinate
bed radius, m
Reynolds number
cluster Reynolds number
bed expansion number
number of solid phase
time, mean residence time of binary mixture, s
velocity, m/s
superficial gas velocity, m/s
minimum fluidization velocity, m/s
bulk density of phase ip
volumetric fraction of phase ip
molecular weight of species i
stoichiometric coefficient of reactants
reference temperature (298K)

cross-sectional area, m2
correction coefficient

Subscripts
i, j, k
direction coordinate

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77268/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

g
m
p
s
S
NR

slug formation in a two-dimensional gas-fluidised bed: A

hard-sphere approach. Chemical Engineering Science.
1996;51(1):99-118.
14. Y. Tsuji, T. Kawaguchi and T. Tanaka. Discrete particle
simulation of two-dimensional fluidized bed. Powder
Technology.1933;77:79-87.
15. Y. Tsuji, T. Tanaka and T. Ishida. Lagrangian numerical
simulation of plug flow of cohesionless particles in a
horizontal pipe. Powder Technology. 1992;71:239-250.
16. B.H. Xu and A.B. Yu. Numerical simulation of the gassolid flow in a fluidized bed by combining discrete particle
method with computational fluid dynamics. Chemical
Engineering Science. 1997;52(16):2785-2809.
17. Jinsen Gao, Xingying Lan, Yiping Fan, Jian Chang, Gang
Wang, Chunxi Lu and Chunming Xu. Hydrodynamics of
gas-solid fluidized bed of disparately sized binary
particles, Chemical Engineering Science. 2009;64 :43024316.
18. Seyyed Hossein Hosseini, Rahbar Rahimi, Mortaza Zivdar
and Abdolreza Samimi. CFD Simulation of gas-solid
bubbling fluidized bed containing FCC particles. Korean J.
Chem. Eng. 2009;26(5):1405-1413.
19. Seyyed Hossein Hosseini, Goodarz Ahmadi, Rahbar
Rahimi, Mortaza Zivdar, Mohsen Nasr Esfahany. CFD
studies of solids hold-up distribution and circulation
patterns
in
gas-solid
fluidized
beds.
Powder
technology.2010;200:202-215.
20. S. Benyahia, H. Arastoopour, T.M. Knowlton, H. Massah.
Simulation of particles and gas flow behavior in the riser
section of a circulating fluidized bed using the kinetic
theory approach for the particulate phase. Powder
Technology. 2000; 112:24-33
21. Peng Li, Xingying Lan, Chunming Xu, Gang Wang, Chunxi
Lu, Jinsen Gao. Drag models for simulating gas-solid flow
in the turbulent fluidization. Particuology. 2009; 7: 269277.
22. B. Cao, P. Zhang, X. Zheng, C. Xu and J.Gao. Numerical
Simulation of Hydrodynamics and Coke Combustions in
FCC
Regenerator.
Petroleum
Science
and
Technology.2008; 26: 256-269.
23. A.V. Sapre, T.M. Leib and D.H. Anderson. FCC
regenerator flow model. Chemical Engineering
Science.1990;45(8):2203-2209.
24. D. Bai, J-X. Zhu, Y. Jin, Z. Yu. Simulation of FCC
catalyst regeneration in a riser regenerator. Chemical
Engineering Journal. 1988; 71: 97-109.
25. Vasilios D. Dimitriadis, Angelos A. Lappas and lacovos A.
Vasalos. Kinetics of combustion of carbon in carbonaceous
deposits on zeolite catalysts for fluid catalytic cracking units
(FCCU). Comparison between Pt and non Pt-containing
catalysts. Fuel. 1998;77(12):1377-1383.
26. O. Faltsi-Saravelou, A. Vasalos and G. Dimogiorgas.
FbSim: A model for fluidized bed simulation II.
Simulation of an industrial fluidized catalytic cracking
regenerator. Computers Chem. Engng. 1991; 15(9):647656.
27. Atratis V. Sotirchos, Eduardo Mon, Neal R. Amundson.
Combustion of coke deposits in a catalyst pellet.
Chemical Engineering Science. 1983 ; 38(1): 55-68.

gas phase
phase m
particle phase
solid phase
solid phase number
total number of reactants

REFERENCES
1. V. Mathiesen, T. Solberg, B.H. Hjertager. An
Experimental and Computational study of multiphase flow
behavior in a circulating fluidized bed, International
Journal of Multiphase Flow. 2000; 26: 387-419.
2. F. Hernandez-jimenez, J.R. Third, A. Scosta-Iborra, C.R.
Muller. Comparison of bubble eruption models with twofluid simulations in a 2D gas-fluidized bed, Chemical
Engineering Journal. 2011; 117: 328-339.
3. Jinsen Gao, Xingying Lan, Yiping Fan, Jian Chang, Gang
Wang, Chunxi Lu and Chunming Xu. CFD Modeling and
validation of the turbulent fluidized bed of FCC particles,
Particle technology and fluidization. 2009; 55(7): 16801694.
4. Lu Huilin, Dimitri Gidaspow. Hydrodynamics of binary
fluidization in a riser: CFD Simulation using granular
temperatures. Chemical Engineering Science. 2003; 58:
3777-3792.
5. Shuyan Wang, Huilin Lu, Xiang Li, Long Yu, Jianmin,
Ding,Yunhua Zhao. CFD simulations of bubbling beds of
rough spheres. Chemical Engineering Science. 2008; 58 :
5653-5662.
6. Matteo Chiesa, Vidar Mathiesen, Jens A. Melheim, Britt
Halvorsen. Numerical simulation of particulate flow by the
Eulerian-Lagrangian and the Eulerian-Eulerian approach
with opplication to a fluidized bed. Computers&Chemical
Engineering. 2005; 29: 291-304.
7. Ye-Mon Chen. Recent advances in FCC technology.
2006; 163: 2-8.
8. D. Geldart. Types of Gas Fluidization. Powder
Technology. 1973;7:285-292.
9. M.J.V. Goldschmidt, J.A.M.Kuipers, W.P.M. van Swaaij.
Hydrodynamic modeling of dense gas-fluidized beds using
the kinetic theory of granular flow: effect of coefficient of
restitution on bed dynamics. Chemical Engineering
Science. 2001; 56: 571-578.
10. M.J.V. Goldschmidt, J.A.M. Kuipers, R. Beetstra.
Hydrodynamic modeling of dense gas-fluidized beds:
comparison and validation of 3D discrete particle and
continuum models. Powder Technology. 2004; 142: 23-47.
11. Hoomans, B. P., Kuipers, J. A. M. Briels. W.J., and van
Swaaij, W.P.M. Discrete particle simulation of bubble and
slug formation in a two-dimensional gas-fluidized bed.
Chemical Engineering Science. 1996; 51:99-108.
12. Xu, B. H., &Yu, A.B. Numerical simulation of the gassolid flow in a fluidized bed by combining discrete particle
method with computational fluid dynamics. Chemical
Engineering Science. 1997;52:2785-2908.
13. B. P. B. Hoomans, J.A.M. Kuipers, W.J. Briels and W.P. M.
Van Swaaij. Discrete particle simulation of bubble and

10

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77268/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

28. Liang-Sun Lee, Shuh-Woei Yu and Chung-Tien Cheng.

Fluidized-bed catalyst cracking regenerator modeling and
analysis. The Chemical Engineering Journal. 1989;40:7182.
29. D.J. Gunn. Transfer of Heat or Mass to Particles in Fixed
and Fluidized Bed. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer. 21. 467476.1978.
30. FLUENT 13.0, Users Guide, FLUENT, Inc.
31. H K Versteeg & W Malalasekera. An introduction to
Computational Fluid Dynamics, the finite volume method.
ISBN-13: 978-0-582-21884-0
32. Syamlal, M., OBrien, T.J. Computer simulation of
bubbles in a fluidized bed. AIChE Symposium Series.
1989; 85:22-31.
33. Yuan P. Tsuo, D. Gidaspow. Computation of Flow
Patterns in Circulating Fluidized Beds. AIChE
Journal.2004; 36(6):885-896.
34. Wen, C.Y., Yu, Y.H. Mechanics of fluidization. Chemical
Engineering Progress Symposium Series. 1966;62:100-111.
35. Tim Mckeen, Todd Pugsley. Simulation and experiment
validation of a freely bubbling bed of FCC catalyst.
Powder Technology.2003;129:139-152.
36. P. Lettieri, D. Newtone, J.G. Yates. Homogeneous bed
expansion of FCC catalysts, influence of temperature on the
parameters of the Richardson-Zaki equation. Powder
Technology. 2002; 123: 221-231.
37. Ergun S. Fluid flow through packed columns. Chem Eng
Progr. 1952;48:89-94.
38. Schiller, L., Naumann, A. A drag coefficient correlation
VDI Zeits. 1933;77:318-320.
39. Meire Pereira de Souza Braun, Andreza Tangerino Mineto,
Helio Aparecido Navarro, Luben Cabezas-Gomez, Renato
Cesar da Silva. The effect of numerical diffusion and the
influence of computational grid over gas-solid two-phase
flow in a bubbling fluidized bed. 2010;52:1390-1942.

11

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77268/ on 01/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo