Buell Division of

Fisher-Klosterman, Inc.®

CYCLONES

FACT AND FICTION

BY

EDWIN D. TENNEY

BUELL DIVISION FISHER-KLOSTERMAN, INC.

LEBANON, PENNSYLVANIA, U.S.A.

Revised February 2004

 CYCLONES - FACT AND FICTION

This paper was originally written in 1983. While one would expect little change in the “facts”,
one would think that most of the “fictions” would have been deleted from the general concepts
about cyclones, particularly those used in fluid bed service, but this has not happened.

Cyclones have been used in Fluid Catalytic Crackers (FCC) for over 60 years. Therefore, one
might question the need for another paper about fluid cat cracker cyclone systems. Actually,
there have been many changes in cyclone designs over the years and changes are still occurring.
New FCC designs and more severe operating conditions demand modifications to prevailing
cyclone system designs. The constant striving of refiners to increase the length of runs, requires
that the reliability of cyclone systems be continually improved.

This paper points out some of the things which will influence the serviceability and longevity of
a cyclone system. The format used for this paper is the presentation of statements made by
refiners and/or engineers which contain errors or omit items which should be considered. The
errors and/or omissions are discussed following each statement.

For an FCC reactor or regenerator one should purchase the cyclone system with the lowest
“guaranteed” catalyst losses. Even if the cost of this system is more, the additional cost will
soon be offset by catalyst savings.

This statement is not correct.

It is true that any premium paid for the cyclone system with the lowest losses should be offset by
catalyst savings, even when catalyst is withdrawn from the unit to maintain activity. However,
“guarantees” regarding losses from reactor and regenerator cyclones are meaningless.
Guarantees for cyclones will be based on operation at specific conditions, including a catalyst
inlet loading to the cyclones.

First, we know of no one who has been able to measure the inlet loadings to reactor cyclones,
other than “riser” or “rough cut” cyclones, or to regenerator cyclones with any repeatable degree
of accuracy.

Second, we do not know of any refinery in which the hydrocarbon gases leaving the reactor were
sampled to determine the quantity and particle size distribution of the escaping catalyst.

Third, operating a unit precisely at the specified design conditions is nearly impossible, but such
operation is normally a requirement of any loss guarantee.

Fourth, cyclone losses from any fluidized bed process are fine particles which have been
generated by attrition of the fluidized particles. While some attrition occurs in the cyclones,

1
most attrition occurs at other places in the system and are beyond the control of the cyclone
supplier.
Most venders will base any “guaranteed losses” on loss data from many operating cyclone
systems in FCC units. However, when specifications list inlet loadings to the cyclones or other
conditions which can not be measured, some venders will “guarantee” very low losses, believing
the bid evaluator will not understand that the “guarantee” is meaningless and favor them with the
order. Unfortunately, in many cases these vendors are correct.

We have received a number of inquiries that ask for “guaranteed losses” and “a statement that
the guaranteed losses can be achieved”. One writing such a specification certainly does not want
to be told that “guaranteed losses” are meaningless.

In order to obtain the lowest losses from a cyclone system one must have a high rate of
refractory erosion in parts of the cyclone system.

This statement is not correct.

At the same time the catalyst is eroding the refractory, the catalyst is being attrited by the
refractory. This generates fine catalyst particles, mostly less than 10 microns. These fines will
constitute a portion of the losses from the unit. Thus, erosion in cyclones is a contributing, rather
than a reducing, factor in unit losses.

A major cause of erosion in cyclones and other areas of a fluid catalytic cracker is gas velocity.
Literature reports that erosion rates are a function of velocity to the third through the fifth power.
Thus, a small change in gas velocity will significantly change the rate of erosion. Long time
observations of erosion rates in FCC cyclones with inside diameters between 48” (1.2 m) and
60” (1.5 m) suggest that the velocities in these cyclones should be less than the following:
First Stage Cyclone Inlet 72 ft/s (22 m/s)
Second Stage Cyclone Inlet 82 ft/s (25 m/s)
First Stage Gas Outlet 100 ft/s (30 m/s)
Second Stage Gas Outlet when the length
of the cyclone and hopper is less than:
4.5 times the cyclone diameter 130 ft/s (40 m/s)
5.3 times the cyclone diameter 145 ft/s (44 m/s)

While these velocities apply to both reactor and regenerator cyclones, the velocities in reactor
cyclones will generally be lower in order to minimize the pressure drop across the cyclone
system. When one is preparing specifications for a new cyclone system, it is suggested that the
specified design velocities be 5% to 10 % less than the above velocities to allow for probable
future increased gas rates.

2
Several cyclones, each with different proportions, were comparatively tested in a
laboratory under controlled conditions. Multiples of each of the tested cyclones are then
installed and tested one after the other in a fluid catalytic cracker vessel. The system with
the cyclone design having the highest efficiency in the laboratory will have the lowest losses
when install in the FCC vessel.

One may find that this is not correct.

At first glance, the above statement will appear to be true to people who have studied cyclones
and their applications. However, there are at least two significant details that have not been
considered.

First, there must be adequate dipleg height in the FCC vessel. The “most efficient system” could
require more dipleg height than the other systems. If the vessel is not tall enough to
accommodate this dipleg requirement, this “most efficient system” will have very high losses.

Second, the probable catalyst attrition within each of the cyclone systems must be considered. If
the “most efficient system” utilizes higher velocities in the gas inlet and/or outlet to achieve its
high test efficiency, catalyst attrition in the system will probably be higher than the catalyst
attrition in the other systems. Since losses from an FCC vessel are the catalyst fines that have
been generated by attrition, the cyclone system that has highest rate of catalyst attrition in the
cyclones will most likely be the system with the highest losses.

If there is adequate dipleg height in the vessel for all of the cyclone systems and if the rate of
catalyst attrition in each system is essentially the same, then the cyclone system with the highest
test efficiency will have the lowest losses. This occurs because, as the cyclone system efficiency
increases, the average particle size of the equilibrium catalyst decreases and, the finer a given
material is, the more difficult it becomes to further grind or attrite this material. Therefore, any
cyclone system that achieves higher efficiency without increasing catalyst attrition in the cyclone
system will cause a reduction in catalyst attrition throughout the unit. This will lower catalyst
losses from the unit.

If one compares two cyclones and finds that each of the following are equal, the cyclones
are equal:
Cyclone Diameter Gas Inlet Height and Width
Diameter of Gas Outlet Tube Overall Length of Cyclone and Hopper
Hopper Diameter Dipleg Diameter
Plate Thickness Lining Type and Thickness

While the items listed above are the ones that an evaluator can readily determine from the
proposal text and attached drawings, there are several very significant items not considered. The

3
following items, shown on Figure 1, should also be compared to ensure that the performance and
life of the two cyclones will be similar.

4
First, one should ensure that the penetration of the gas outlet tube into each cyclone is at least
80% of the height of the inlet.

Second, one should ensure that in each cyclone the apex of the projection of the inside walls of
the cyclone cone is at least 0.1 times the cyclone diameter above the weld line between the
hopper cone and the top of the dipleg. Many refiners prefer to have the apex at least 12” (0.3 m)
above this weld line.

Third, one should determine if there is a section of dipleg immediately below the cyclone hopper
that is expanded and internally lined with hex mesh and refractory. This section will usually be
between 2 ft (0.6 m) and 3 ft (0.9 m). Some venders my only install this lining in the second
stage cyclone diplegs, but most refiners prefer to have this lining installed in the diplegs on both
stages of cyclones.

Fourth, one should determine to what extent each cyclone has an inlet scroll. The purpose of the
scroll is to keep the entering gases and catalyst away from the cyclone gas outlet tube until the
gases begin to spiral down the cyclone wall and centrifugal forces concentrate the catalyst
against the cyclone wall. This concentration occurs after the catalyst has traveled approximately
180° around the scroll wall or cyclone wall. Most first stage cyclones will have scrolls that
become tangent with the cyclone wall after an arc of 90° to 180°. However, some venders
provide second stage cyclones, usually in regenerators, which do not have inlet scrolls. The
inlets to these cyclones enter tangentially into the cyclone cylinders as shown on Cyclone ‘B’ in
Figure 1 and in Figure 2. Usually the gas outlet tube diameter is small so that the distance from
the outside of the tube to the cyclone wall is equal to or greater than the width of the inlet. In
some tangential inlet cyclones the distance from the outside of the tube to the cyclone wall is less
than the width of the inlet. However, even when the distance between the outlet tube and the
cyclone wall is greater than the width of the inlet, the gases will expand, when they enter the
cyclone, so some of the gases and catalyst particle will impinge on the outside of the gas outlet
tube. Figure 2 shows some catalyst particles impinging on the outlet tube, ricocheting off the
tube and impinging on the cyclone wall. The result, as reported by several oil companies, is
significantly more erosion in tangential inlets cyclones on both impacted areas. This impaction
also breaks up the catalyst particles.

While reducing the diameter of a gas outlet tube (within limits) will increase the efficiency of a
cyclone, the cyclone pressure drop and the required dipleg length will both increase. A portion
of the higher efficiency in a scroll inlet cyclone can be attributed to the greater distance that a
particle in entering gas stream must travel before it can enter the gas outlet tube. When a tangent
inlet is used instead of a scroll inlet, the distance that a particle in entering gas stream must travel
to enter the gas outlet tube is much shorter. Therefore, the efficiency of a tangential inlet
cyclone is less than the efficiency of a scroll inlet cyclone.

5
6
With these disadvantages one may ask why use tangential inlet cyclones. The two reasons
frequently given are:
• In Plan View less area is required
• When a process licensor specifies a cyclone cylinder area to inlet area ratio,
tangential inlet cyclone are the lowest cost cyclones that meet this requirement
However, Figure 3 shows a comparison of two scroll inlet cyclones and a tangential inlet
cyclone. All cyclones have the same inlet dimensions, the same outlet tube dimensions and the
same size diplegs. The tangential inlet cyclone and one scroll inlet cyclone have the same
cylinder, cone and hopper dimensions. The second scroll inlet cyclone is slightly smaller in
diameter and the cylinder, cone and hopper dimensions are proportionally smaller. One will find
that, when compared to the tangential inlet cyclone, the smaller scroll inlet cyclone has:
• A lower capital cost
• A lower maintenance cost (less erosion)
• A higher efficiency (less losses)
• A lower pressure drop
• A lower hopper suction (requires less dipleg length)
• A slightly larger space requirement in Plan View
From this detailed comparison, it can be seen that an installation of cyclones with scroll inlets
can have less losses and lower costs than an installation of cyclones with tangential inlets.

Epilogue
There are a number of other details that one must consider when preparing specifications for a
cyclone system. Listed below are items that one should define when planning for the installation
of a new or replacement cyclone system in a Fluid Catalytic Cracker Reactor or Regenerator.
• The number of cyclone stages (sometimes less is better)
• The number of cyclones in each stage (when determining this one should consider
future inspection and maintenance requirements)
• The metallurgy of the cyclone shells and the metallurgy of the lining anchors
• The type and thickness of the lining anchors and refractory (consider thicker
linings in areas that are know to have high erosion)
• The opening through which the cyclones will be installed in the vessel and the
splices required in the cyclones for passage through this opening
• The access means to be used for future inspection and maintenance

7
• The type of supports to be used for hanging the cyclones in the vessel (the support
systems must be designed to compensate for differential expansions from ambient
to operating temperatures)
• The dipleg sizes, wall thicknesses and discharge elevations
• The types of dipleg termination devices: splash plates, trickle valves or
counterweighted valves
• The types of bracing and the number of bracing levels required

8
9