ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2014; 9: 645655

Published online 3 March 2014 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/apj.1793

Research article

A CFD modeling of the gassolid two-phase ow in an FCC

riser under the electrostatic conditions
Li Jiang,2 Xiao Fang-Zhi2 and Luo Zheng-Hong1*
1

Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, P. R. China
Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, P. R. China

Received 10 October 2013; Revised 30 December 2013; Accepted 09 January 2014

ABSTRACT: Electrostatics is an inevitable phenomenon in uidization processes and granular ow, where collisions
between particulates and walls with different materials occur. In this work, a two-dimensional computational uid dynamics
model based on the EulerianEulerian approach was applied and coupled with a rst-principles electrostatic model to
describe the gassolid two-phase ow behavior in a uid catalytic cracking (FCC) riser reactor under the electrostatic
conditions. The coupled model was used to predict the main gassolid ow distribution parameters in the FCC riser, such
as electric potential, particle volume fraction, gas-phase temperature, and gas-phase component fractions. The simulation
results showed that the electrostatic had a signicant inuence on the particle distribution in the bottom dense region of
the FCC riser, whereas it had a weak inuence in the upper dilute region at the cold-ow conditions. The simulation results
also showed that the electrostatic had a weak inuence on the particle concentration, gas-phase temperature, and lump
concentration distributions when the cracking reaction was considered. 2014 Curtin University of Technology and John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEYWORDS: FCC riser; EulerEuler approach; electrostatic modeling; CFD simulation

INTRODUCTION
It is well-known that riser reactor is very important for
uid catalytic cracking (FCC) process.[14] An
FCC system in the FCC riser reactor can be treated as a
gassolid two-phase system.[5,6] The gas phase consists
of vacuum gas oil, by-products, and products, and the
solid phase consists of catalyst particles. Because the
fresh FCC catalyst particles enter the riser as a single
component and the FCC reactions occur within those
particles when they are exposed to the gas phase,[7]
continuous and frequent contacts and collisions of
particleparticle, particlewall and particlegas must
exist, which leads to the formation of electrostatics.[8,9]
The motion of charged particles in the riser would result
in nonuniform electric eld.[10,11] Meanwhile, the
commercial FCC catalyst particles (<100 m) are
generally fabricated with 12 m Y-zeolite crystals
dispersed in an amorphous silica-alumina matrix, and
only those hydrocarbon species can penetrate through
the zeolite pores,[11] which further leads to the increase
of the electrostatics phenomenon in the riser.
*Correspondence to: Luo Zheng-Hong, Department of Chemical
Engineering, School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, P. R. China.
E-mail: luozh@sjtu.edu.cn
2014 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology

The generation of electrostatic charges, also referred

to as triboelectrication, is an unavoidable and usually
undesirable phenomenon.[12] The generated charges
can alter gassolid hydrodynamics, causing
agglomeration and even creating the danger of
explosions. Besides, the buildup of electrostatic
charges within the riser reactor may cause deviation
in performance of the system from that in which it
was originally designed.[1315] Accordingly, it is
signicant to investigate the gassolid two-phase ow
behavior in a FCC riser reactor under the electrostatic
conditions for reducing or even eliminating the
triboelectrication effect, improving reactor operation
and design. Dynamics behaviors are also very complex
under the effect of electrostatic.[11] Our current study is
a preliminary computational uid dynamics (CFD)
modeling of the gassolid two-phase ow in an FCC
riser under the electrostatic conditions and concentrates
on the comparison between the dynamic behaviors in a
riser with and without the electrostatics.
So far, the hydrodynamics in FCC risers has been studied
numerically extensively,[1640] whereas the inuence of
electrostatics on hydrodynamics is seldom addressed in
the previous works.[16] For instance, Gao et al.[17]
suggested a 3D two-phase CFD ow-reaction model for
predicting the performance of FCC riser reactors. Gao
et al.[18,19] further investigated the hydrodynamics of binary

646

Asia-Pacic Journal of Chemical Engineering

L. JIANG, X. FANG-ZHI AND L. ZHENG-HONG

mixture of particles in a turbulent FCC riser by experiment

and CFD method. Wang et al.[20,21] proposed an Energy
Minimization Multi-scale (EMMS-based) two-uid model
to simulate heterogeneous gassolid riser ows. Shah
et al.[22] evaluated the effect of cluster diameter
correlations on the drag coefcient and simulation
predictions using an EMMS-based CFD modeling for
low solid ux FCC risers. Vegendla et al.[23] developed
a hybrid solution algorithm to simulate an FCC riser
under reactive conditions. Nayak et al.[24] applied the
EulerianLagrangian approach to simulate the inuence
of some key operation parameters on the FCC riser
performance. Recently, Dutta et al.[25] simulated the
dispersed gassolid ow in an industrial-scale FCC riser
using the CFD approach. Li et al.[26] applied a 3D
heterogeneous reactor model to simulate the turbulent
gassolid ow and reaction in a polydisperse FCC riser
reactor. Unfortunately, none of the aforementioned
simulation works addressed the electrostatics effect in
FCC reactors. The authors have not found any published
works on the CFD investigating FCC riser or process
with the electrostatics conditions taken into account.
There are also reports regarding the CFD and/or
discrete element method modeling incorporating the
electrostatics/triboelectrication model for other
uidized bed reactors (FBRs) instead of FCC
risers.[4148] Recently, Cheng et al.[41] investigated the
electrostatic performance in the downer reactor of a
triple-bed combined circulating FBR via experiments
and numerical simulations. Rokkam et al.[42] developed
a rst-principles electrostatic model and incorporated it
into a multiuid CFD model to understand the effect of
electrostatics in a polymerization FBR in their
works.[42,43] However, although these reports do not
regard the FCC riser, corresponding studies can still
throw some light on this work.
In this work, a two-dimensional (2D) Eulerian
Eulerian CFD model is applied and coupled with a
rst-principles electrostatic model developed by
Rokkam et al.[42] to describe the gassolid two-phase
ow behavior in an FCC riser reactor under the
electrostatic conditions. The electrostatic force acting
on the particle phase is calculated by solving the
electrical governing equation and added on the solid
momentum equations. The coupled model is used to
predict the distributions of system parameters in the
complex gassolid ow in the riser, such as electric
potential, particle volume fraction and gas-phase
temperature. The effect of the electrostatics on the ow
behavior in the FCC riser is simulated preliminarily.

based on the EulerianEulerian approach was applied

to describe the gassolid two-phase ow behavior in an
FCC riser reactor under the electrostatic conditions. A
14-lump reaction kinetic model for describing the FCC
reaction was also incorporated. It was also assumed that
all of the feed oil was completely vaporized at the feed
inlet, which had been demonstrated by Hany et al.[6] at
typical FCC operating conditions.
The governing equations of the CFD model were
described in many open reports,[2,36,49,50] as shown in
Table 1. In order to describe the governing equations
completely, the particulate-phase properties were
derived on the basis of the kinetic theory of granular
ow.[51,52] In addition, the gassolid two-phase
interaction can be characterized by a gassolid drag
coefcient.[53] In this work, a four-zone drag model
(dense phase, subdense phase, subdilute phase, and
dilute phase) suggested by Gao et al.[53] was adopted
(the main equations obtained by Gao et al. please see
the work by Li et al.[53]) to calculate the gassolid
exchange coefcient. The modied Syamlal particle
particle drag model suggested by Fan and Fox[54] was
used to account for the interphase drag (the main
equations can be seen in the work by Gao et al.[19]).
On the other hand, the 14-lump reaction kinetics
model[55] was used to represent the FCC reaction,
which was the same as that reported in our previous
Table 1. Main governing equations.[2,36,49,50]

1. Continuity equations of gas and solid phase






0
g
g
g
g
g
t

tsm sm sm sm vsm 0

2. Momentum equations of gas and solid phase






v
v

g g g g  g g g g  g P
t g g g
M

 f gm
1

sm sm vsm sm sm vsm vsm  sm sm sm g

t
sm P  Ps f gm

1;m

f m F qsm

fgm = (vg  vsm)

fm = m(vs  vsm)
3. Energy equation of gas and solid phase








Cp
T

Cp
v
T


grad
T
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
t
Qr Q

MATHEMATICAL MODEL SAND SIMULATION

METHOD
A 2D CFD model coupled with a rst-principles
electrostatic model developed by Rokkam et al.[42]
2014 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

tsm sm Cpsm T sm sm sm Cpsm vsm T sm Q

4.Component transport equation of gas phase








v
Y

Dgrad

Wj
g
j
g
g
j
g
S
g
g
g
t
Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2014; 9: 645655
DOI: 10.1002/apj

MODELING THE GASSOLID FLOW IN

AN FCC RISER AT ELECTROSTATIC CONDITIONS

Asia-Pacic Journal of Chemical Engineering

work.[26] Because of the limited space, the 14 lumps

and the reaction scheme are not listed herein; only the
reaction paths and their kinetic parameters are shown
in Tables 23. Furthermore, a rst-principles
electrostatic model developed by Rokkam et al.[42]
was incorporated into the CFD model, which was not
reported in our previous works.[26,49,50] Herein, the
electrostatic model is described briey.

Electrostatic model
Rokkam et al.[42] have developed a rst-principles
electrostatic model to compute the electrostatic force
in olen polymerization FBRs. Herein, the suggested
electrostatic model is extended into the FCC riser.
The force acted on a charged particle in the
electromagnetic eld can be described as Lorentz force
equation, which is described as
F qE  B

Table 2. Lumps of the 14-lump kinetic model.

Lump symbol

Lump
Heavy parafnics
Medium parafnics
Light parafnics
Heavy naphthenics
Medium naphthenics
Light naphthenics
Heavy aromatics in resin
and asphaltene
Heavy aromatics expert
FAh
Medium aromatics
Light aromatics
Gasoline
Liquid petroleum gas
Dry gas
Coke

Ph
Pm
Pl
Nh
Nm
Nl
FAh
Ah
Am
Al
GO
LPG
DG
CK

(1)

in addition, it is obvious that the particle velocity in the

riser is much less than the speed of light. Thus,
the effect of the magnetic eld can be neglected, and
the result takes the form:

Boiling
range ( C)
500
350-500
221350
500
350-500
221350
500+

F qE

(2)

On the basis of the aforementioned analysis, in order

to solve Eqn (2), the electric eld needs to be solved
rst. Therefore, the Gausss law will be used.

500+
350500
221350
C5221
C3 + C4
C1 + C2 + H2

D qv

(3)
N

where qv is the charge density and qv qsm sm .

m1

The relation between the electric displacement and

the electric eld is

Table 3. Kinetic parameters of the 14-lump kinetic model.

Path no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Path

k01 (m3/kgcat/s)

E2 (kJ/kmol)

Path no.

Path

k01 (m3/kgcat/s)

E2 (kJ/kmol)

Ph Pm
Nh Nm
Ah Am
FAh Am
Ph Pl
Nh Nl
Ah Al
FAh Al
Ph GO
Nh GO
Ah GO
FAh GO
Ph LPG
Nh LPG
Ph DG
Nh DG
Ph CK
Nh CK
Ah CK
FAh CK
Pm Pl
Nm Nl
Am Al
Pm GO

18.77
19.25
1.817
0.5514
16.38
17.05
1.617
0.4342
0.2266
0.1374
0.0136
0.0054
5.77
6.20
63.18
64.99
3.366
4.754
41.82
40.50
833.90
944.00
773.80
1.263

7.21e+4
7.21e+4
7.21e+4
7.21e+4
7.21e+4
7.21e+4
7.21e+4
7.21e+4
3.04e+4
3.04e+4
3.76e+4
3.76e+4
4.32e+4
4.32e+4
6.32e+4
6.32e+4
5.00e+4
5.00e+4
5.44e+4
5.44e+4
7.21e+4
7.21e+4
7.21e+4
3.04e+4

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Nm GO
Pm LPG
Nm LPG
Am LPG
Pm DG
Nm DG
Am DG
Pm CK
Nm CK
Am CK
Pl GO
Nl GO
Pl LPG
Nl LPG
Al LPG
Pl DG
Nl DG
Al DG
Pl CK
Nl CK
Al CK
GO LPG
GO DG
GO CK

0.4092
1.506
0.5742
0.0438
5.491
2.013
0.0324
1.704
1.061
5.611
1.257
1.986
2.258
1.506
0.033
15.20
10.14
0.0498
0.1363
0.1491
0.8254
1374.00
343.40
0.066

3.04e+4
4.32e+4
4.32e+4
2.76e+4
6.32e+4
6.32e+4
3.76e+4
5.00e+4
5.00e+4
5.44e+4
3.04e+4
3.04e+4
4.32e+4
4.32e+4
2.76e+4
6.32e+4
6.32e+4
3.76e+4
5.00e+4
5.00e+4
5.44e+4
1.18e+5
1.18e+5
5.61e+4

Frequency factor.
Activation energy.

2014 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2014; 9: 645655

DOI: 10.1002/apj

647

648

Asia-Pacic Journal of Chemical Engineering

L. JIANG, X. FANG-ZHI AND L. ZHENG-HONG

D 0 E P

(4)

where 0 is the permittivity of a vacuum and P is the

induced polarization, and it can be resolved by the
following equation:
P 0 e E

(5)

From the aforementioned analysis, the electric eld

can be represented as a function of charge density:
N

0 m E qsm sm

(6)

m1

where m = 1 + e, which represent the relative

permittivity, and its value can be obtained according
to the following equation:[42,43]


2:17
m 0:97 1:20s g
 1:20
(7)
g
In the riser reactor, the inuence of magnetic eld
arose from the change of the electric eld can be
overlooked. Thus, the Faradays law can be expressed
as  E = 0, and the scalar potential is dened as
E

(8)

Incorporating Eqns (7) and (8) into Eqn (6), the

following equation can be obtained:
M

 
 
sm qsm
2:17
m1
 g
 1:20 
0
g

(9)

Because the gradient of the electric potential can be

obtained by solving Eqn (9), the electrostatic force
acting on the mth solid phase can be solved, expressed
as a function of particle volume fraction, particle
charge, and the gradient of the electric potential.
F qsm qsm sm

(10)

Note that the electrostatic force evolves dynamically

with the solid phase because of the charge-dependent
terms on the right-hand side of the Poisson equation
for . In the meantime, the electrostatic force is a
function of particle charge and solid volume fraction,
which leads to the CFD model (Table 1), and Eqn (9)
must be solved in a fully coupled way.
Coupling procedure and simulation method
Simulations of the coupled model were performed with
FLUENT 6.3.26 (Ansys Inc., United States). A
commercial grid-generation tool, GAMBIT 2.3.16
(Ansys Inc., United States), was adopted to generate
the geometries and the grids. The source terms in
different governing equations were specied by
2014 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

user-dened functions code in C programming

language. The source term codes were then coupled
and hooked into the FLUENT solver. The brief
coupling and solving procedure are listed as follows:
Step 1: Solve the CFD model (Table 1) at every grid
point to obtain the volume fractions of the
gas and solid phases.
Step 2: Solve the Poisson equation [Eqn (9)] for the
electric potential on the basis of the obtained
volume fractions from Step 1 and the userdened specied charges.
Step 3: Calculate the electrostatic force via Eqn (10)
using the gradient of the electric potential.
Step 4: Add the electrostatic force to each of the solid
phase momentum equations and repeat steps
14 for the next iteration.

RISER REACTOR AND SIMULATION

CONDITIONS
The selected FCC riser is the same as that reported in the
works by Li and Fan et al.[56,57] Different from the 3D
physical model reported in the work by Li,[56] a 2D
physical model for the selected riser reactor is adopted
herein. The selected riser and its geometry are illustrated
in Fig. 1(a), its diameter and height are 0.186 and 14 m,
respectively, and four feedstock nozzles are evenly
distributed around the riser with an angle of 30 (relative
to the riser axis, the same as in the succeeding text) at
the position with the height of 4.5 m above the gas
distributor. Herein, a 2D model is used, which is different
from that used in the work by Li[56] [also see Fig. 1(b)].
On the other hand, appropriate inlet and boundary
conditions are crucial for solving the coupled model.
Some necessary input parameters must also be obtained
in advance. These conditions and parameters for the
numerical simulation were summarized in Tables 25,
most of which are the same as those adopted in our
previous works.[26,56,57] Unless otherwise noted, the
parameters used in the following simulations were
exactly as listed in Tables 25.
To the aforementioned riser reactor, a structured gird
was used both in the axial and radial directions, and
more cells were placed at the bottom of the bed. In
addition, grid sensitivity analyses were performed for
ve mesh densities in advance in the works by Li
et al.[56,58] The simulated results demonstrate that for
the 2D model, the mesh size of 24 000 is sufciently ne
to provide reasonably mesh-independent results.[56]
Therefore, the mesh size of 24 000 is selected as a base
case and applied in the rest of this work. In addition,
because the CFD model and electrostatic model[42,43]
have been validated in our previous works[56,58] and the
work by Rokkam et al.,[42,43] respectively, the coupling
of the two models can be implemented via the transports
Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2014; 9: 645655
DOI: 10.1002/apj

MODELING THE GASSOLID FLOW IN

AN FCC RISER AT ELECTROSTATIC CONDITIONS

Asia-Pacic Journal of Chemical Engineering

Figure 1. Conguration and schematic of the 2D uid catalytic cracking riser used in

this study [(a) the whole riser and (b) the simulated 2D riser]. This gure is available in
colour online at www.apjChemEng.com

of the gas and solid volume fractions from the CFD model
to the electrostatic model as well as the electrostatic force
from the electrostatic model to the CFD model without
any assumptions for these transportations; the coupled
model is effective for describing the effect of the
electrostatic on the hydrodynamics in the FCC riser.

Instantaneous electric potential distribution

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In our simulations, because t = 15 s, the gassolid ow eld
in the FCC riser can reach the steady state. Furthermore, as
described earlier, this work focuses on studying the
electrostatic inuence preliminary. Therefore, only the
instantaneous ow eld distribution in the FCC riser at
t = 30 s (at the steady state) is recorded, and four cases
Table 4. Operation conditions used in the cold-model
simulations.

Description

Value
3

FCC particle density (kg m )

Small FCC particle diameter (m)
Small FCC particle charge amount (C  m 2)
Large FCC particle diameter (m)
Large FCC particle charge amount (C  m 2)
Inlet volume fraction of small FCC particle
Inlet volume fraction of large FCC particle
Inlet velocity of catalysts
Inlet velocity of air (m s1)
Air density (kg m3)
Air viscosity (kg m-3 s1)

involving without electrostatics and FCC reaction (case 1),

with electrostatics and without FCC reaction (case 2), with
electrostatics and FCC reaction (case 3) as well as without
electrostatics and with FCC reaction (case 4), are
designed to investigate the effect of the electrostatics
on the gassolid ow eld in the FCC riser rector.

1560
6.0 105
0.14
1.2 104
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.38
4.5
1.255
1.732 105

2014 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The predicted instantaneous electric potential

distributions in the FCC riser obtained via the coupled
Table 5. Operation conditions used in the hot-model
simulations.

Description

Value

Inlet temperature of catalysts (K)

Inlet velocity of catalysts (m s1)
Inlet volume fraction of small FCC particle
Inlet volume fraction of large FCC particle
FCC particle density (kg m3)
Small FCC particle diameter (m)
Small FCC particle charge amount
(C  m 2)
Large FCC particle diameter (m)
Large FCC particle charge amount
(C  m 2)
Flux of feed oil (kg s1)
Temperature of the gaseous feed oil (K)
Molecular weight of feed oil
CPm
CNm
CAm

840.5
0.2625
0.2
0.1
1560
6.0 105
0.14
1.2 104
0.1
1.3932
733
420.0
0.5588
0.2663
0.1749

Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2014; 9: 645655

DOI: 10.1002/apj

649

650

L. JIANG, X. FANG-ZHI AND L. ZHENG-HONG

model are shown in Fig. 2. From Fig. 2, the electric

potential distributions in two cases (cases 23) are both
inhomogeneous because of the hydrodynamic
segregation in the riser. In cases 23, the minimum
and maximum potential values are observed at the
bottom (near the catalyst entrance) and top (near the
gas exit) of the riser, respectively. In addition, when
adding the FCC reaction to the riser, the electric
potentials are less than those without the FCC reaction
(Fig. 2). For clarity, the mean electric potential proles
along the riser axial direction in cases 23 are also
recorded (Fig. 3), which further proves the
inhomogeneity of the electric potential distributions in
cases 23. A Z prole along the axial direction can
be seen in Fig. 3. However, the gradients in the two
cases decrease with the increase of height along the
riser axial direction (Fig. 3). In practice, according to
Eqn (3), the electric potential is a function of particle

Asia-Pacic Journal of Chemical Engineering

charge and particle volume fraction. Because we

postulate that the charge on each solid phase is a
constant, the electric potential will show different
patterns with the change of the particle volume
fraction. Generally, a higher particle phase fraction
gradient can be generated at the bottom of the FCC
riser because of hydrodynamic segregation.
Furthermore, the particle phase fraction gradient
decreases with the uid owing along the riser, which
will be discussed in the next section. As a whole, the
coupling of the CFD model and the electrostatics
model leads to the iterative inuences between the ow
hydrodynamics and the electrostatics.
Instantaneous solid fraction distribution
Figure 4 shows the medium axial bed density proles
in the FCC riser in cases 14. From Fig. 4, the bed

Figure 2. Instantaneous contour of electric potential of the riser reactor at t = 30 s.

This gure is available in colour online at www.apjChemEng.com

Figure 3. Mean axial electric potential distribution of the riser reactor.

2014 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2014; 9: 645655

DOI: 10.1002/apj

Asia-Pacic Journal of Chemical Engineering

Figure 4. Mean axial bed density distribution of the riser

reactor. This gure is available in colour online at www.
apjChemEng.com

can be divided into two zones on the basis of the bed

density data for the four cases, i.e. the dense phase
region at the bottom and the dilute region zone at the
top. Furthermore, because of the hydrodynamic
segregation, the particle concentration at the riser
bottom is higher especially under the cold-ow
condition (i.e. cases 12), and that leads to a higher
frequency of collisions between particles and then
forms a high electrostatic distribution eld (Fig. 3). In
addition, we also nd that the particle concentration
at the riser bottom calculated coupled with electrostatic
model is higher than that without coupled with
electrostatic model (Fig. 4), especially near the riser
wall. This phenomenon shows that existence of
electrostatic force will reduce the efciency of the
gassolid contact efciency and increase the particle
phase concentration at the riser bottom. Nevertheless,

MODELING THE GASSOLID FLOW IN

AN FCC RISER AT ELECTROSTATIC CONDITIONS

the particle concentration gradient at the top is lower

(Fig. 4), which means that nearly identical contact
efciencies with the electrostatics and without the
electrostatics can be obtained. Therefore, as illustrated
in Fig. 4, the bed density at the riser bottom with the
electrostatics (case 2) is obviously higher than that
without the electrostatics (case 1), and the bed densities
at the top of the riser in cases 12 are nearly identical
with that in the cold-ow condition. On the other hand,
when considering the FCC reaction (cases 34), the
gaseous molar number in the riser increases because
of the FCC reaction with the increase of the total molar
number, which leads to the increase of the gas-phase
velocity. The increase of the gas velocity can carry
more particles, which leads to a lower particle
concentration with the FCC reaction than that without
the FCC reaction. Namely, the frequency of collisions
between particles with the FCC reaction is less than
that without the FCC reaction. It means that the
inuence of the electrostatics with the FCC reaction on
the bed density is weaker than that without the FCC
reaction (Fig. 4). As a whole, the addition of the FCC
reaction is not obvious. Accordingly, the inuence of
the electrostatics on the ow eld in the riser with the
FCC reaction is especially discussed (Fig. 5).
Because two different FCC catalyst particles are
involved in the FCC riser, the solid fraction proles
in the riser with two different particles at heat-model
condition are predicted. The predicted results are
shown in Fig. 5. From Fig. 5, there are similar particle
fraction distribution shapes at the two particle sizes.
With the addition of the electrostatics, only the particle
fractions at the entrance of the catalyst and near the

Figure 5. Particle volume fraction proles in the riser at hot-model condition [(a) 60 m
and (b) 120 m]. This gure is available in colour online at www.apjChemEng.com
2014 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2014; 9: 645655

DOI: 10.1002/apj

651

652

L. JIANG, X. FANG-ZHI AND L. ZHENG-HONG

Asia-Pacic Journal of Chemical Engineering

Figure 6. Mean radial uid catalytic cracking particle volume fraction distributions at various axial

planes. This gure is available in colour online at www.apjChemEng.com

riser wall are higher than those without the

electrostatics. For clarity, the radial particle fraction
proles at four typical axial positions are recorded
(Fig. 6), which further demonstrates that only the
particle fractions at the entrance of the catalyst and near
the riser wall are higher than those without the
electrostatics in the riser.

Figure 7. Gas-phase temperature proles in the uid

catalytic cracking riser. This gure is available in colour
online at www.apjChemEng.com
2014 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Instantaneous two-phase reaction behavior

The iterative inuences between the ow
hydrodynamics and the electrostatics can change the
particle fraction distributions in the riser. Different
particle fraction distributions can generate different
reaction behaviors in the riser reactor. Accordingly, it
is necessary to investigate the effect of the
electrostatics on the FCC reaction. The simulated
inuence of the electrostatics on the FCC reaction is
illustrated in Figs. 79.
Because the FCC reaction is a highly endothermic
reaction, the addition of the electrostatics changes
the particle concentration distribution and further

Figure 8. Mean axial gas-phase temperature distribution

of the uid catalytic cracking riser. This gure is available

in colour online at www.apjChemEng.com
Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2014; 9: 645655
DOI: 10.1002/apj

Asia-Pacic Journal of Chemical Engineering

MODELING THE GASSOLID FLOW IN

AN FCC RISER AT ELECTROSTATIC CONDITIONS

Figure 9. Main mean gas-phase product yield distributions of the uid catalytic cracking riser. This
gure is available in colour online at www.apjChemEng.com

changes the gas-phase temperature distribution in the

riser. The predicted inuence of the electrostatics on
the gas-phase temperature distribution is illustrated
in Fig. 7. From Fig. 7, the two temperature
distribution shapes in cases 34 are identical, and
there is small temperature difference between cases
3 and 4, which is further demonstrated from Fig. 8.
Indeed, Fig. 8 illustrates that the gas-phase
temperature difference between cases 3 and 4 is
not obvious. Meanwhile, because of the small
particle fraction differences at the entrance of the catalyst
and near the riser wall in cases 34 (Figs. 5 and 6), both
the reaction rates and the next endothermic heats in cases
34 are different at these positions, which lead to
different gas-phase temperatures. Accordingly, the gasphase temperature only at the entrance of the catalyst
particles and near the riser wall in case 3 is slightly
higher than that in case 4 (Fig. 8).
Figure 9 describes the main product yield
comparisons between cases 3 and 4. Similar to that
shown in Fig. 8, all the product yield concentration
proles have similar patterns. Furthermore, there are
still weak differences in amount between cases 3 and
4 for all product yields, which mean that the
electrostatics has a weak inuence on the product
yields. In practice, many factors, including the particle
fraction, the gas-phase temperature as well as the
electrostatics, and so on, can inuence the FCC
reaction and then the product yields. Comparatively,
the effect of the electrostatics is not obvious. Therefore,
the predicted product yields via the CFD model and the
coupled model are basically identical.
2014 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

CONCLUSIONS
A 2D EulerianEulerian CFD model coupled with a
rst-principles electrostatic model was extended to
describe the gassolid two-phase ow behavior in an
FCC riser reactor under the electrostatic conditions.
The coupled model was used to predict the main gas
solid ow distribution parameters in the FCC riser,
such as electric potential, particle volume fraction,
gas-phase temperature, and gas-phase component
fractions. The following conclusions can be drawn on
the basis of the simulation results:
(1) Like other gassolid handling devices, obvious
electrostatic effects are found in FCC riser. The
electric potential distribution is inhomogeneous
because of the hydrodynamic segregation in the
riser when considering the electrostatics force.
(2) The simulation results also showed that the
electrostatic had a signicant inuence on the particle
distribution in the bottom dense region of the FCC
riser reactor, whereas it has a weak inuence in the
upper dilute region at the cold-ow conditions.
(3) The simulation results also showed that the
electrostatic has a weak inuence on the particle
concentration, gas-phase temperature, and main
product yields at the heat-model conditions.
As a whole, the coupling of the CFD model and the
electrostatics model leads to the iterative inuences
between the ow hydrodynamics and the electrostatics.
Further studies on the coupling modeling of the gassolid
Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2014; 9: 645655
DOI: 10.1002/apj

653

654

L. JIANG, X. FANG-ZHI AND L. ZHENG-HONG

two-phase ow in an FCC riser under the electrostatic

conditions are in progress in our group.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the National Ministry of Science and
Technology of China (No. 2012CB21500402), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
21076171), the Sate Key Laboratory of Coal Conversion
of China (No. J13-14-102), the State Key Laboratory of
Heavy Oil Processing (China University of Petroleum)
(No. 2012-1-08) and the State-Key Laboratory of
Chemical Engineering of Tsinghua University (No.
SKL-ChE-13A05) for supporting this work.

NOMENCLATURE
B
CD
Cp
ds
E
fgm
fm
Fqsm
g
M
P
PS
q
qsm
Qr
Q
T
t
v
Wj
Yj

m
0
g
s

Magnetic eld, Tesla

Drag coefcient
Specic heat capacity, kJ kg1 K1
Particle diameter, m
Electric eld, V/m
Momentum transfer from gas phase to mth solid
phase, N/m3
Momentum transfer between th and mth solid
phase, N/m3
Electrostatic force on mth solid phase, N/m3
Gravitational constant, m s2
Number of solid phase
Pressure, Pa
Particulate phase pressure, Pa
Charge on solid phase
Charge on mth solid phase, C/m3
Cracking reaction heat, J m3 s1
Interphase heat transfer, J m3 s1
Temperature, K
Time, s
Velocity vector, m s1
Reaction rate of lump j, kg m3 s1
Mass fraction of lump j
Volume fraction
Interphase exchange coefcient, kg m3 s1
Electric potential, V
Relative permittivity of mixture
Permittivity of vacuum, farads/m
Stress tensor for gas phase, N m2
Stress tensor for particle phase, N m2
Density, kg m3
Electric susceptibility

Subscripts
g Gas phase
s Solid phase
j Lump
2014 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Asia-Pacic Journal of Chemical Engineering

REFERENCES
[1] C.M. Xu, J.S. Gao, S.X. Lin, G.H. Yang. Analysis of
Catalytic Cracking Reaction Process, China Petroleum
Industry Press, Beijing, P. R. China, 2002.
[2] C. Zhu, Y. Jin, R. Patel, D.W. Wang, T.C. Ho. AIChE J.,
2011; 57, 31223131.
[3] C.K. Pashikanti, Y.A. Liu Fuel, 2011; 25, 52985319.
[4] J.W. Wang. Particuology, 2010; 8, 176185.
[5] C.N. Wu, Y. Cheng, Y.L. Ding, Y. Jin. Chem. Eng. Sci.,
2010; 65, 542549.
[6] A. Hany, R. Sohrab. Chem. Eng. Technol., 1997; 20,
118130.
[7] R. Sadeghbeigi. Fluid Catalytic Cracking: Design, Operation,
and Troubleshooting of FCC Facilities, Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston, USA, 2000.
[8] J. Ciborowski, A. Wlodarski. Chem. Eng. Sci., 1962; 17, 2332.
[9] Y.F. Zhang, Y. Yang, H. Arastoopour. AIChE J., 1996; 42,
15901599.
[10] E.W.C. Lim, Y. Zhang, C.H. Wang. Chem. Eng. Sci., 2006;
61, 78897908.
[11] G. Hendrickson. Chem. Eng. Sci., 2006; 61, 10411064.
[12] A.H. Park, H.T. Bi, J.R. Grace. Chem. Eng. Sci., 2002; 57,
153162.
[13] M. Kashyap, D. Gidaspow, M. Driscoll. Powder Technol.,
2008; 183, 441453.
[14] F. Wang, J.D. Wang, Y.R. Yang. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2008;
47, 95179526.
[15] C.L. Briens, M.A. Bergougnou, I.I. Inculet, T. Baron, J.D.
Hazlett. Powder Technol., 1992; 70, 5762.
[16] R.K. Gupta, V. Kumar, V.K. Srivastava. Int. J. Chem. React.
Eng., 2010; 8, 140.
[17] J.S. Gao, C.M. Xu, S.X. Lin, G.H. Yang. AIChE J., 1999; 45,
10951113.
[18] J.S. Gao, J. Chang, C.X. Lu, C.M. Xu. Particuology, 2008;
6, 5971.
[19] J.S. Gao, X.Y. Lan, Y.P. Fan, J. Chang, G. Wang, C.X. Lu,
C.M. Xu. Chem. Eng. Sci., 2009; 64, 43024316.
[20] J.W. Wang, Q. Zhou, K. Hong, W. Wang, J.H. Li. Chem.
Eng. Sci., 2012; 75, 349358.
[21] J.W. Wang, Y.B. Liu. Powder Technol., 2010; 197, 241246.
[22] M.T. Shah, R.P. Utikar, M.D. Tade, V.K. Pareek. Chem. Eng.
J., 2011; 168, 812821.
[23] S.P. Egendla, G.J. Heynderickx, G.B. Marin. AIChE J., 2012;
58, 268284.
[24] S.K. Nayak, S.L. Joshi, V.V. Ranade. Chem. Eng. Sci., 2005;
60, 60496066.
[25] A. Dutta, D. Constales, G.J. Heynderickx. Chem. Eng. Sci.,
2012; 83, 93109.
[26] J. Li, Z.H. Luo, X.Y. Lan, C.M. Xu, J.S. Gao. Powder
Technol., 2013; 237, 569580.
[27] I.S. Han, C.B. Chung. Chem. Eng. Sci., 2001; 56, 19731990.
[28] J.S. Gao, X.Y. Lan, Y.P. Fan, J. Chang, G. Wang, C.X. Lu,
C.M. Xu. AIChE J., 2009; 55, 16801694.
[29] J. Chang, F.D. Meng, L.Y. Wang, K. Zhang, H.G. Chen, Y.P.
Yang. Chem. Eng. Sci., 2012; 78, 128143.
[30] J. Chang, K. Zhang, F.D. Meng, L.Y. Wang, X.L. Wei.
Particuology, 2012; 10, 184195.
[31] A.K. Das, E. Baudrez, G.B. Marin, G.J. Heynderickx. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res., 2003; 42, 26022617.
[32] J.H. Li, M. Kwauk. Chem. Eng. Sci., 2003; 58, 521535.
[33] H.R. Nazif, H.B. Tabrizi. Appl. Math. Model., 2013; 37,
24452459.
[34] S. Wang, G.D. Liu, H.L. Lu, Y.C. Yang, P.F. Xu, L.Y. Sun.
Powder Technol., 2012; 228, 5668.
[35] G.C. Lopes, L.M. Rosa, M. Mori, J.R. Nunhez, W.P.
Martignoni. Comput. Chem. Eng., 2011; 35, 21592168.
[36] J.Q. Gan, H. Zhao, A.S. Berrouk, C.H. Yang, H.H. Shan. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res., 2011; 50, 1151111520.
[37] M.T. Shah, R.P. Utikar, M.O. Tade, V.K. Pareek, G.M.
Evans. Chem. Eng. Sci., 2011; 66, 32913300.
[38] Y. Behjat, S. Shahhosseini, M.A. Marvast. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des., 2011; 89, 978989.
[39] N. Ellis, M. Xu, C.J. Lim, S. Cloete, S. Amini. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res., 2011; 50, 46974706.
Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2014; 9: 645655
DOI: 10.1002/apj

Asia-Pacic Journal of Chemical Engineering

[40] F. Liu, F. Wei, G.L. Li, Y. Cheng, L. Wang, G.H. Luo, Q. Li,
Z. Qian, Q. Zhang, Y. Jin. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2008; 47,
85828587.
[41] Y.P. Cheng, D.Y.J. Lau, G.Q. Guan, C. Fushimi, A.
Tsutsumi, C.H. Wang. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2012; 51,
1425814267.
[42] R.G. Rokkam, R.O. Fox, M.E. Muhle. Powder Technol.,
2010; 203, 109124.
[43] R.G. Rokkam, A. Sowinski, R.O. Fox, P. Mehrani, M.E.
Muhle. Chem. Eng. Sci., 2013; 92, 146156.
[44] Y.P. Cheng, E.W.C. Lim, C.H. Wang, G. Guan, C.
Fushimi, M. Ishizuka, A. Tsutsumi. Chem. Eng. Sci.,
2012; 75, 435444.
[45] A. Sowinski, L. Miller, P. Mehrani. Chem. Eng. Sci., 2010;
65, 27712781.
[46] P. Mehrani, H.T. Bi, J.R. Grace. J. Electrostat., 2007;
65, 110.
[47] S.C. Liang, J.P. Zhang, L.S. Fan. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 1996;
35, 27482755.
[48] P. Jiang, H. Bi, S.C. Liang, L.S. Fan. AIChE J., 1994; 40,
193206.

2014 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

MODELING THE GASSOLID FLOW IN

AN FCC RISER AT ELECTROSTATIC CONDITIONS
[49] W.C. Yan, Z.H. Luo, Y.H. Lu, X.D. Chen. AIChE J., 2012;
58, 17171732.
[50] X.Z. Chen, Z.H. Luo, W.C. Yan, Y.H. Lu, I.S. Ng. AIChE J.,
2011; 57, 33513366.
[51] D. Gidaspow. Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum
and Kinetic Theory Descriptions, Academic Press, Boston,
U.S. A., 1994.
[52] A. Neri, D. Gidaspow. AIChE J., 2000; 46, 5267.
[53] P. Li, X.Y. Lan, C.M. Xu, G. Wang, C.X. Lu, J.S. Gao.
Particuology, 2009; 7, 269277.
[54] R. Fan, R.O. Fox. Chem Eng. Sci., 2008; 63, 272285.
[55] P. Zhang. Numerical simulation on catalytic cracking
reaction in two-stage riser reactors. Master Dissertation.
China University of Petroleum, Beijing, P. R. China, 2005.
[56] J. Li. CFD modeling of uid catalytic cracking riser reactor.
Master Dissertation, Xiamen University, Xiamen, P.R.
China, 2013.
[57] Y.P. Fan, S. Ye, Z.X. Zhao, C.X. Lu, G.G. Sun, M.X. Shi.
AIChE J., 2002; 48, 18691887.
[58] J. Li, Y.P. Fan, C.X. Lu, Z.H. Luo. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
2013; 52, 1108411098.

Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2014; 9: 645655

DOI: 10.1002/apj

655