Introduction to

Gas-solid Fluidized Bed Reactors

Professor M. H. Al-Dahhan

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Outline/Contents
 Introduction.
 Fluidization Flow Regimes.
 Overall Gas (Voidage) and solids Hold-up.
 Radial and Axial Solids Hold-Up Profiles.
 Radial and Axial voidage distribution.
 Gas and Solid Mixing.
 Scale-Up.
 Reactor Modeling.

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 INTRODUCTION

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Fluidized Bed Reactor Components
Inlet to cyclone

The material fluidized is a solid (catalyst).

The fluidizing medium is either

a gas or a liquid.

Gas distributor

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Advantages Disadvantages

 It has the ability to  Broad residence time

process large volumes distribution of the gas
of fluid. due to dispersion and
 Excellent gas-solid bypass in the form of
contacting. bubbles.
 Heat and mass transfer  Broad residence time
rates between gas and distribution of solids due
particles are high when to intense solids mixing.
compared with other
modes of contacting.  Erosion of internals.
 No hot spot even with  Attrition of catalyst
highly exothermal particles.
reaction.  Difficult Scale-up due to
 Ease of solids handling. complex hydrodynamics.

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Industrial Applications of Fluidized Bed Reactor
 Acrylonitrile by the Sohio Process. Yang 2003
 Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis.
 Phthalic anhydride synthesis.
 Methanol to gasoline and olefin processes.
 Cracking of Hydrocarbons (Fluid Catalytic Cracking, etc).
 Coal combustion.
 Coal gasification
 Cement clinker production.
 Titanium dioxide production.
 Calcination of AL(OH)3.
 Granulation drying of yeast.
 Heat exchange
 Absorption
 Nuclear energy (Uranium processing, nuclear fuel fabrication,
reprocessing of fuel and waste disposal).

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Fluidization Flow Regimes

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Geldart's Classic Classification of Powders
 Group A (Aeratable) :- (e.g.,
Ammoxidation of propylene) small
mean particle size and/or low particle
density (<~1.4 g/cm3), gas bubbles
appear at minimum bubbling velocity Kunii and Levenspiel (1991)
(Umb).

 Group B (Sand-Like) :- (e.g.,Starch)

particle size 40 μm to 500 μm and
kg^ 3

density 1.4 to 4 g/cm3, gas bubbles

appear at the minimum fluidization
velocity (Umb).

 Group C (Cohesive) :- very fine

particle, particle size < 30 μm, difficult
to fluidize because inter-particle
forces are relatively large, compared
to those resulting from the action of
gas.

 Group D (Spoutable) :- (e.g., Roasting Diagram of the Geldart classification of

coffee beans) large particle, stable particles, Geldart (1973 ).
spouted beds can be easily formed in
this group of powders.
 Flow Regimes in Fluidized Beds
J. Ruud van Ommen, 2003

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Minimum Fluidization Velocity
This equation can be used to calculate the minimum fluidization velocity
U if the void fraction emf at incipient fluidization is known.
mf

 f u mf
2
1501   mf  
 p   f g    1.75
 s D p mf
3
  s D p u mf  f 
Experimentally, the most common method of measurement requires that pressure drop
across the bed be recorded as the superficial velocity is increased stepwise through Umf
and beyond, Umf is then taken at the intersection of the straight lines corresponding to
the fixed bed and fluidized bed portions of the graph obtained when Pbed is plotted
against U on log-log coordinates.

Kunii and Levenspiel (1991)

 Bubbling Fluidization

 This type of fluidization has

been called ‘aggregative
fluidization’, and under
these conditions, the bed
appears to be divided into
two phases, the bubble
phase and the emulsion
phase.

 The bubbles appear to

be very similar to gas
bubbles formed in a
liquid and they behave
in a similar manner. The
bubbles coalesce as
they rise through the
bed.

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Turbulent Fluidization

Turbulent regime has the following features:-

 High solid hold-ups (typically 25-35 %

by volume).
 Limited axial mixing of gas.
 Suitable for exothermic and fast
reactions.
 Good gas-solid contact and hence,
favors reactant conversion.
 high gas flow-rates operation and good
for isothermal operation.
 Favorable bed to surface heat transfer.

Canada et al. 1978

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Some commercial processes in turbulent
fluidization
Process Particle classification Typical gas velocity
(m/s)
FCC regenerators Group A 0.5-1.5

Acrylonitrile Group A ~0.5

Maleic anhydride Group A ~0.5

Phthalic anhydride Group A ~0.5

Ethylene dichloride Group A ~0.5

Roasting of zinc sulfide Group A ~1.5

Bi et al. 2000

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Fast Fluidized Bed
 The fast fluidization occurs as a result of
continuing increasing in operating velocity
beyond that required at turbulent
fluidization, a critical velocity, commonly
called the transport velocity (Utr), will be
reached where a significant particle
entrainment occurs.

 The CFB has significant industrial

applications because of its efficiency,
operational flexibility, and overall
profitability (Berruti et al., 1995).

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Transition between Fluidization Regimes.
 Grace (1986a) summarized the effects of particles properties and operating conditions
on fluidization behavior and prepared a flow regime diagram. The flow regime diagram
was further modified by Kunii and Levenspiel (1997).

 For given particles and operating velocity, the gas-solid contact pattern can be
determined using this diagram. Likewise, for a given flow regime, this diagram could
provide available combinations of particle properties and gas velocity.

Yang 2003
 Fluidization diagram

U Gs
Us   Solid hold-up
  av
Yerushalmi and Cankurt, 1970
 Methods for Regime Transition Identification

Several measurement methods have been utilized to

determine the transition from bubbling or slugging to
turbulent fluidization which can be classified into three
groups:-

 Visual Observation,.
 Pressure Drop-versus Velocity diagram.
 local and overall bed expansion.
 Based on signals from pressure transducers, capacitance
probes, optical fiber probes, X-ray facilities.

Bi et al. 2000

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

Generalized effect of operating and design parameters on
flow regime transition
Parameter Effect on flow regime transition
Pressure In general, pressure accelerates the flow regime transition, thereby decrease
transition velocity (Lanneau , 1960, Cai et al. 1989, Yates 1996).
Temperature Transition velocity increases as the temperature is increased, (Peeler et al.,
1999, Cai et al., 1989 and Foka et al., 1996).
The transition velocity was almost independent of the static bed height, which
Static Bed Height varied from 0.4 to 1.0 m (Grace and Sun 1990). Similar results were reported by
Cai (1989) and Satija and Fan (1985) with (Hmf/Dt) > 2. On the other hand, for
a shallow fluidized bed of (Hmf/Dt) < 2 with Group B and D particles, Canada et
al. (1978) and Dunham et al. (1993) found that Uc increased with static bed
height. This could be related to the undeveloped bubble flow in shallow beds
before transition to turbulent fluidization can occur (Bi et al. 2000).

Particle Size and Uc increases with increasing mean particle size and density (Cai et al. 1989, Bi
Density et al. 2000).
Column Diameter Transition velocity decreases with increasing column diameter for small column,
becoming insensitive to column diameter for Dt > 0.2 m, (Cai, 1989). Similar
trends were observed by (Zhao and Yang, 1991) with internals.

Internals Transition to turbulent fluidization tends to occur at lower gas velocities in the
presence of internals which usually restrict bubble growth and promote bubble
breakup.
 Effect of column diameter Cai (1989)

 Uc decreases with increasing column diameter for small columns

(less than 2 m), becoming insensitive to column diameter for Dt >
0.2 m.
 Similar trends were observed by Zhao and Yang (1991) in
columns with internals.

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Some Selected References

 Cai et al., 1989, “Effect of operating temperature and pressure on

the transition from bubbling to turbulent fluidization”, AICHE
Symposium series, 85, 37-43.

 Chehbouni et al., (1994), “Characterization of the flow transition

between bubbling and turbulent fluidization”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
33, 1889-1896.

 Bi et al., (2000), “A state-of-art review of gas-solid turbulent

fluidization”, Chemical engineering science, 55, 4789-4825.

 Andreux et al. (2005), “New description of fluidization regimes”,

AICHE Journal, 51, No.4, 1125-1130.

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 OVERALL GAS (VOIDAGE)
AND SOLID HOLDUP

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

Overall gas holdup
It is an important hydrodynamic parameter which is defined as the fraction
of reactor dynamic volume occupied by the gas. Typical relationship
between overall gas (voidage) holdup and superficial gas velocity in where
is shown in following schematic

Avidan and Yerushalmi, 1970

 Effect of operating and design parameters on gas holdup or bed
density
Inertial bed It is independent on initial bed height (Hilal et al., 2002).
height
Particle size The dimensionless density (/mf) decreases as the particle
size is reduced. The bed expansion is larger for a wide than
a narrow distribution of particles. (Grace and Sun, 1991).
Particle /mf decreases as the particle density decreases.
density
Column The bed expansion increases with increasing bed diameter.
diameter
Temperature The voidage increases with increasing temperature.

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Hilal et al. 2002
Effect of column diameter

 The bed expansion

increases with increasing
bed diameter (Volk et al.
1962, Xavier et al., 1978).

 The bed expansion

decreases with increasing
beds, a condition he
attributed to the
development of bubble
channeling in the larger Matsen 1996
beds (De-Groot 1967).

 The bed density is greatest

for the smaller diameter
bed at the same excess
velocity (Hilal et al., 2002).
Effect of pressure

 Higher operating pressures reduced the bed expansion (H/Hmf)

(Miller et al., 1981) .

 The increase of bed expansion with pressure (Chiba et al., 1986,

and Chitester et al., 1984) .

 The physical properties of the fluidizing gas, density and viscosity

did not have any significant effect on bed expansion (Denloye, 1982),
and Knowlton,1977).

 Bed expansion increased significantly with pressure but this

influence, very strong at low pressures, seemed to reach a
maximum at approximately 800kPa and decreased thereafter up to
1200kPa (Llop et al., 1995; 2000, and Olowson and Almstedt, 1990) .

Some conflict !!!!!!!!!

 Some Selected References

 Avida and Yerushalmi (1982), “Bed expansion in high velocity

fluidization”, Powder technology, 32, 223-232.

 Meller et al., (1984), “The effect of particle density on the hold-up in

a fast fluid bed”, AICHE Symposium series, No.234, 80, 52-59.

 Lee and Kim (1990), “Bed expansion characteristics and transition

velocity in turbulent fluidized beds”, 62, 207-215.

 Hilal et al., (2002), “Solid hold-up in gas fluidized beds”, Chemical

engineering and processing, 41, 373-379.

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Radial and Axial Solids Hold-Up Profiles

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Radial Profile
 Although, overall gas holdup Mabrouk et al. 2005
has been traditionally used
for characterization of
hydrodynamics of fluidized
bed columns, it is a single
lumped parameter. Hence, U=0.53 m/s,
for detailed characterization, sand particle (250 microns, 2.5 g/cm^3)
one need to look at the way Bubbling regime, Fiber optical needle probe
solid is distributed across the
reactor.

 The local solid holdup was

greater near the wall
compared to that near the
centerline and that the radial
particle velocity was nearly
parabolic (Van Zoonen, 1962;
Mabrouk et al. 2005).

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Axial Profile
The axial solid hold-up obtained by fiber optical needle probe and CARPT
shows a quasi linear profile (Mabrouk et al. 2005).

Mabrouk et al. 2005

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Measurement techniques of Radial and Axial Solids Hold-Up Profile

CARPT
Mabrouk et al. 2005

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Some Selected References

 Bi et al., (2000), “A state-of-art review of gas-solid turbulent

fluidization”, Chemical engineering science, 55, 4789-4825.

 Mabrouk et al., “Scale effects on fluidized bed hydrodynamics”

Inter. J. of Chemical Reactor Eng, 2005.

 Schweitzer et al., (2001), “Local gas hold-up measurement in

fluidized bed and slurry bubble column.

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Gas and Solid Mixing

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 (a) Axial Solid Mixing

Lee and Kim 1990

Du et al. 2002

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

(b) Radial Solid Mixing

Du et al. 2002

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Gas Mixing
(a) Axial Gas Mixing

Foka et al. 1996

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

Selected gas mixing studies
Investigators Model Tracer dp (µm) D(m) U (m/s) Uc (m/s) Dzg (m2/s)
injection
Lee and Kim (1989b) Diffusion process with Steady state 362 0.1 0.8 0.85 0.22
(Air-CO2) axial and radial 0.88 0.235
dispersion coefficients 1.00 0.230
1.08 0.245
1.20 0.215
Li and Weinstein (1989) One dimensional Steady state 59 0.152 0.1 0.43 0.1
(Air-He) dispersion 0.5 0.55
1.3 0.60
Li and Wu (1991) 1D pseudo- Non-ideal pulse 58 0.09 1.0 0.44 0.45
(Air-H2) homogeneous 1.0 0.51
diffusion 1.0 0.56
Foka et al. (1994) One dimensional Pulse 75 0.1 0.417 0.47 0.080
(Air-Ar) dispersion 0.516 0.102
0.614 0.11
0.691 0.195
0.792 0.130
0.892 0.167
0.977 0.097
1.051 0.060
1.142 0.075
Foka et al. (1996) Two-phase model of Pulse (less than 75 0.1 0.21 0.55 0.09
(Air-Ar) van 0.5 s) 0.4 0.16
Deemter (1980) 0.5 0.19
0.6 0.175
0.7 0.14
0.8 0.13
0.94 0.14
Zhang et al. (1996) Pseudo-homogeneous Steady state 77.6 0.19 0.392 0.5 0.374
(Air-O2) model with axial and 0.588 0.514
radial dispersion 0.784 0.619
1.078 0.783
Wei et al. (1993) One dimensional Steady state 58 5.76 1.26 0.41 3.05
(Air-flue gas) dispersion 1.41 3.4
Warsito et al. (2002) 2-D Dispersion model Unsteady state 60 0.203 0.21-1.5 0.5 Plotted in Fig.
(helium and phosphor)
(b) Radial Gas Mixing

For turbulent fluidized beds, almost all gas mixing studies have been
concentrated on the axial mixing, very limited information is available regarding
the radial gas mixing (Du et al. 2002).

Lee and Kim 1989 Du et al. 2002

Solids flow pattern and mixing
Radioactive particle tracking technique for solids mixing investigations

Mostoufi and Chaouki,

2001

152 mm ID, 1500

mm in height

Experimental setup and the used detectors configuration

 Radioactive particle tracking
selected results

Mostoufi and Chaouki,

2001
Solids diffusivities Mostoufi and Chaouki, 2001
Velocity field, velocity gradient
and axial solid diffusivity

Mostoufi and Chaouki,

2001
 Some Selected References

 Lee and Kim (1989), “Gas mixing in slugging and turbulent fluidized
beds”, Chem. Eng. Comm., 86, 91-111.

 Foka et al., (1996), “Gas phase hydrodynamics of a gas-solid

turbulent fluidized bed reactor”, Chemical engineering science,
No.5, 51, 713-723.

 Du, B., Fan, L.-S., Wei, Fan, Warsito, W., “Gas and solids mixing in
a turbulent fluidized bed”, AIChE Journal, 48, No.9, 1896-1909.

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Fluidized Bed Scale-up

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Scale-up criteria
Sanderson and Rhodes,
Glicksman et al, 1993, 1998 2005

Horio et al., 1986

van den Bleek and Schouten, 1996

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Sanderson and Rhodes, 2005

Properties of the Silica Sand Bed Materials Used in the Similarity Experiments

Vertical distance from top surface of distributor plate to each pressure

tapping point.
The tapping point heights correspond to the same dimensionless probe height
(h/Hs) at each scale.
 Scale-up criteria evaluation in small scale fluidized beds

Results for the average absolute deviation

of dimensionless pressure for correct and
misscaled beds.
Materials A and B in the 146- and 300-mm
beds, respectively, are correctly scaled.
Materials A* and B* in the 146- and 300-mm
beds, respectively, are also correctly scaled,
but different from the A–B pair.
Comparison of the dimensionless
average cycle frequency for the pressure
fluctuation data for all preliminary
experiments.
Sanderson and Rhodes, 2005

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Scale-up criteria evaluation in large scale fluidized beds

Ranges of Superficial and Dimensionless

Superficial Gas Velocities and Particle
Reynolds Number for the Hydrodynamic
Similarity Experiments*

Comparison of the normalized ensemble-

averaged amplitude spectra for the
dimensionless pressure fluctuations
from the 146-mm bed with material A and
the 300-mm bed with mismatched bed
material B* at low gas velocity.
Sanderson and Rhodes, 2005

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY


Comparison of the dimensionless average
absolute deviation of pressure measured
from pressure probes located at h/Hs=0.77
and r/R=0 in all five fluidized beds for a
range of dimensionless gas velocities.
All beds, with the exception of the 600-mm
bed with material D, have been scaled using
the simplified scaling criteria.
CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
Sanderson and Rhodes, 2005
Comparison of the dimensionless average
cycle frequency of pressure measured
from pressure probes located at h/Hs=0.46
and r/R = 0 in all five fluidized beds for a
range of dimensionless gas velocities.
All beds, with the exception of the 600-mm
bed with material D, have been scaled using
the simplified scaling criteria.
 Sanderson and Rhodes, 2005

Agreement map showing qualitatively how well the pressure fluctuations

from the various probe locations and superficial gas velocities from 1.25
to 3.5Umf match for the scaled fluidized beds.
Black dots indicate the location of the probe tips in the actual measurement
runs; the results have been extended across the bed width assuming the
behavior to be axisymmetric (excellent agreement trends are
indistinguishable; good agreement trends are similar with some scatter; poor
agreement trends are only marginally better than for the misscaled scenario).

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY


Comparison of the normalized probability
distributions for the correctly scaled beds
(300 mm, material B; 1560 mm, material D)
with the mismatched bed (600 mm, material
D) at low gas velocity for the probe located
at r/R=0 and h/H=0.2.
CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
Sanderson and Rhodes, 2005
Comparison of the normalized probability
distributions for the correctly scaled beds
(146 mm, material A; 300 mm, material B;
1560 mm, material D) at high gas velocity
for the probe located at r/R=0 and
h/H=0.77.
 Additional evaluation for scale-up criteria, Glicksman et al., 1993

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Low velocity

High velocity

Solid fraction profiles, glass particles Solid fraction profiles, plastic particles
 Selected References
1. Sanderson, John, and Rhodes, Martin, Bubbling Fluidized Bed Scaling Laws:
Evaluation at Large Scales, AIChE Journal, 2005;51 (10): 2686-2694.
2. Glicksman LR, Hyre M, Woloshun K. Simplified scaling relationships for
fluidized beds. Powder Technol. 1993;77:177-199.
3. Horio M, Nonaka A, Sawa Y, Muchi I. A new similarity rule for fluidized bed
scale-up. AIChE J. 1986;32:1466-1482.
4. Glicksman LR. Scaling relationships for fluidized beds. Chem Eng Sci.
1988;43:1419-1421.
5. van den Bleek CM, Schouten JC. Deterministic chaos: A new tool in fluidized
bed design and operation. Chem Eng J. 1993;53:75-87.
6. Schouten JC, van der Stappen MLM, van den Bleek CM. Scale-up of chaotic
fluidized bed hydrodynamics. Chem Eng Sci. 1996;51:1991- 2000.
7. Glicksman LR, Hyre MR, Farrell PA. Dynamic similarity in fluidization. Int J
Multiphase Flow Suppl. 1994;20:331-386.
8. Glicksman LR. Fluidized bed scale-up. In: Yang W-C, ed. Fluidization Solids
Handling and Processing—Industrial Applications. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes;
1999.

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Reactor Modeling

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Review of Fluidized bed reactor modeling
(Mahecha and Grace et al. 2006).
Predicting the behavior of a gas-solid fluidized-bed reactor requires information on the
stoichiometry, thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, reaction rates and flow pattern of
the different phases in the reactor (Kunii, Levenspiel, 1990).

Many reactor models have been proposed for fluidized bed reactors.

 In addition to those reviewed by Yates (1983), Crace (1986) and Ho (2003), more recent
ones include (Thompson, Bi et al. 1999), (Abba, Grace et al. 2003) and (Chen, Yang et al.
2004).

 Each of these incorporate a different set of assumptions leading to a different set of

mathematical expression to simulate the reactor.

 Most models are developed for a specific process, or else so simplified that they cannot
adequately describe all important features of reactors and processes of real practical
interest. Moreover, the available models are overwhelmingly restricted to steady state
operation.

 While progress has been made in adding some of the complexities encountered in practice,
e.g. allowance for gradual transitions between flow regimes (Thompson, Bi et al., 1999;
Abba, Grace et al., 2003), volume change due to reaction (Abba, Grace et al., 2002),
membranes to selectively introduce or remove one species (Chen, Prasad et al., 2003),
and use of a sorbent to selectively capture one product component (Prasad, Elnashaie,
2004).

 Until 2005 there are no models general enough to incorporate all of these features. Recent
work has been done to handle and include all these features (Mahecha and Grace et al.
2006), while also facilitating the analysis of dynamic behavior.
 FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENTIAL DYNAMIC MODEL FOR
CATALYTIC SYSTEMS

 “The model is initially developed in rectangular coordinates for simplicity, but can be
transformed to any other coordinate system (e.g. cylindrical curvilinear) using
elementary vector calculus theory of vector operators (Mahecha and Grace et al.
2006).

 This model includes most existing fluid bed reactor models as special cases, allowing
clear connections to be established among the models and showing the significance
and implications of each simplifying assumption. This will lead to a more systematic
approach to fluidized-bed reactor modeling, facilitating what has been called the
“optimum degree of sophistication” (Aris, 1961).

 Once the more general model has been developed and debugged, we will be in a
position to apply it to important and potentially viable industrial processes such as
partial oxidation reactions and hydrogen production processes (Mahecha and Grace
et al. 2006).”

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Generalization of Models
(Mahecha and Grace et al. 2006).
The set of generalizations for the model is as follows:

1) “The dynamic equations take into consideration in a rigorous manner the heat and mass
capacities of the gases and solids in each pseudo-phase (Elnashaie, Elshishini, 1993).

2) The model equations can be written in any coordinate system.

3) The development is for a system of “NC” components and “NR” reactions, depending on the
feedstock/reactions.

4) The model is not restricted to a single flow regime. Its hydrodynamic parameters can be
calculated as proposed by (Abba, Grace et al., 2003) for several adjacent flow regimes.

5) Both mass and heat dispersion are included along all coordinate axes (Bird, Stewart et al.,
2002).

6) The model deals with anisotropic mass diffusion and heat conduction.

7) The model takes into consideration three-dimensional convective velocities (Bird, Stewart et
al., 2002).

8) The convective velocities can be calculated using any function (e.g. accounting for changes in
the number of moles and gas volumetric flow (Abba, Grace et al., 2002)). Changes with time,
temperature, pressure and chemical reaction are also covered.”

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Generalization of Models (cont.)
(Mahecha and Grace et al. 2006).
9) “The model accounts for catalyst chemisorption (Elnashaie, Elshishini, 1993) and
solid capture of any species.

10) Hydrodynamic parameters are obtained from appropriate correlations and

equations relevant to the different flow regimes (Grace, Abba et al., 1999).

11) The model accounts for deactivation of catalyst (Chen, Yan et al., 2004).

12) The model considers the use of membranes to remove certain products (i.e. to
break the thermodynamic barrier) or to supply certain reactants (i.e. to improve the
system selectivity to a desired product). Membrane deactivation fuctions can also
be included (Raich & Foley, 1995).

13) The catalyst effectiveness factor may differ from “1” (Elnashaie, Elshishini, 1993).

14) In the energy balance, different expressions for calculating the internal energy
(Smith, Van Ness et al., 1996) can be used including, where appropriate, sensible
and latent heats (in case of change of phase).

15) The reactor cross-sectional area can vary along the height of the reactor. The
model does not need to be modified when using different geometries.”

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Pseudo-phase approach

Control volumes for the conservation balances include both gas and solid
phases, without ignoring the effect of the solids on the system dynamics (Gas
carried inside the solids and the heat and mass capacitances of the solids are
included in the mole and energy balances).

Solid sorbent (seq)

Terms are included for any non-catalytic solid phase, which sorbs/captures any
of the species in the reactor (i.e. for carbon dioxide capture to enhance steam
reforming and separate CO2 for subsequent sequestration).

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Mole and Energy Fundamental balances

Mahecha and Grace et al. 2006).

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Mole Balance
The molar rate balance over a differential element for phase (p) is given by:

The number of mole balance equations is NC .N(P) where NC is the number of

chemical species and N(P) is the number of pseudo-phases. The generalized mole
balance of each compound in phase (p) is as follows:-

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Energy Balance
The differential energy balance for phase (p) is given by:

Energy dissipation due to viscous effects is neglected. The number of energy balance
equations is N(P) where N(P) is the number of pseudo-phases. The generalized energy
balance for phase (p) is as follows:-

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Pressure Balance

A simplified differential pressure balance in the z direction for phase (p) is given by:

The density of phase (p) can be calculated using the void fraction as:

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Boundary and Initial Conditions
 The differential control volume of pseudo-phase (p) has no external exchange with the surroundings.
The interaction of the pseudo-phase with its surroundings should thus be included in the boundary
conditions.
 The boundary conditions should be specified according to the geometric arrangement of the system,
and may vary from case to case.
 The boundary conditions (i.e. for the simplest single-phase case) may assume axial symmetry, zero flux
at the walls and Danckwerts criteria when the diffusion in the fore and aft sections is negligible
(Danckwerts, 1953). A base set of boundary conditions is displayed in Table 1. Other details of the
model can be found elsewhere (Mahecha-Botero, Grace et al., 2005).

(Mahecha and Grace et al. 2006).

 CASE STUDY: APPLICATION OF MODEL TO AN
OXYCHLORINATION FLUIDIZED-BED REACTOR
(Mahecha and Grace et al. 2006)

“Here, as an example of application of the comprehensive model, it

simulates an industrial scale fluidized bed reactor which is carried out with
special emphasis on the oxychlorination process as a means of producing
ethylene dichloride (EDC) from ethylene (ETY). While this represents a
simplified special case of the full model, it demonstrates many of the
features of the model, while also facilitating verification of the numerical
code (written in Matlab 7), since this case has already been solved
previously (Abba et al., 2002) using g-PROMS.
The ethylene oxychlorination process involves complex reactions with
non-linear temperature dependence (Abba, Grace et al., 2002). Despite
the great industrial impact of oxychlorination reactions, few studies are
available in the literature (Carrubba, Spencer, 1970) and detailed studies
(e.g. (Ellis, Abba et al., 2000) are proprietary.”

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 CASE STUDY: APPLICATION OF MODEL TO AN
OXYCHLORINATION FLUIDIZED-BED REACTOR (Cont’d)
The reaction network was simplified as suggested by (Abba,
Grace et al., 2002). We assume that the main product is EDC.
Byproducts include a few percent of carbon oxides (COx) and less
than one percent chlorinated hydrocarbons (IMP) that exclude
EDC.

Reactor parameters

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY

 Results
(Mahecha and Grace et al. 2006).

Predicted steady-state ETY molar flows in the Predicted steady-state HCl molar flows in the
high- and low-density pseudo-phases vs height in high- and low-density pseudo-phases vs height.
the reactor.

Predicted steady-state oxygen molar flows in Predicted steady-state EDC molar flows in
the high- and low-density pseudo-phases vs the high- and low-density pseudo-phases vs
height. height.
Mahecha and Grace et al. 2006).
 Results (Cont’d)
(Mahecha and Grace et al. 2006).

Predicted steady-state H2O molar flows in Predicted steady-state COx molar flows in
the high- and low-density pseudo-phases the high- and low-density pseudo-phases vs
vs height. height.

Predicted steady-state impurity Pressure vs reactor height. Predicted axial profile of steady-
molar flows in the high- and low- state overall ETY conversion.
density pseudo-phases vs height.
 Remarks
(Mahecha and Grace et al. 2006).

• The generalized dynamic model provides a new approach for simulating

complex fluidized–bed catalytic systems.
• The model is able to describe fluidized bed reactor systems relying on fewer
assumptions than other models in the literature. When different combinations
of assumptions are incorporated in the model, it simplifies to a number of fluid
bed reactor models previously presented in the literature.

CHEMICAL REACTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY