Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Powder Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

CFD prediction of scale-up effect on the hydrodynamic behaviors of a

pilot-plant uidized bed reactor and preliminary exploration of its
application for non-pelletizing polyethylene process
Yu Che a, Zhou Tian b,, Zhen Liu a, Rui Zhang c, Yuxin Gao c, Enguang Zou c, Sihan Wang c, Boping Liu a,
a
State Key Laboratory of Chemical Engineering, East China University of Science and Technology, Meilong Road 130, Shanghai 200237, PR China
b
Key Laboratory of Advanced Control and Optimization for Chemical Processes, Ministry of Education, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, PR China
c
Daqing Petrochemical Research Center, Petrochemical Research Institute of PetroChina, Chengxiang Road 2, Daqing City, Heilongjiang Province 163714, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work aims to explore the scale-up effect on the hydrodynamic natures in a pilot-plant gas phase ethylene
Received 11 July 2014 polymerization uidized bed reactor (FBR) based on two-dimensional (2D) transient Eulerian model integrating
Received in revised form 20 November 2014 the kinetic theory of granular ow (KTGF). Unlike lab scale FBR, signicant differences in the coreannulus
Accepted 14 February 2015
structures caused by the scale-up effect are revealed. The core region in pilot-plant scale FBR is much broader,
Available online 6 March 2015
and the distribution is nearly at for two phases. The annulus structure is thin, and exhibits a very small particle
Keywords:
velocity uctuation. The bed expanding section could reduce the solid velocity and improve the ow patterns of
Computational uid dynamic (CFD) gas and polymer particles. Simulations are also performed to assess the effects of polymer particle size and gas
Non-pelletizing polyethylene process (NPPP) velocity on the hydrodynamics for the non-pelletizing polyethylene process. With the increase of polymer
Pilot-plant uidized bed reactor particle diameter (446 m to 1338 m), the supercial gas velocity should be increased from 0.60 m/s to
Coreannulus structure 0.90 m/s to achieve better steady uidized state. The results are helpful for understanding how the local mean
Scale-up effect two phases' velocities and volume fractions vary in pilot-plant reactor for PE production caused by scale-up
effect.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction phases as interpenetrating continua with the kinetic theory of

Polyethylene (PE) is one of the most widespread resins for its versa-
tile physical and chemical properties, and can be produced by various
technologies [1,2]. Gas phase uidized bed reactor (FBR) is commonly
used for polyolen production due to its simple construction, excellent
solid mixing and effective heat and mass transfer [3]. An efcient
reacting gas and solid particle ow and mixing are of prime importance
for FBR operation [4]. Yet, the two phases' ow behaviors exhibit intri-
cate hydrodynamic natures at different scales for the interactions
between the gas and solid phases via viscous drag or particle collisions.
A better understanding of the complicated ow behaviors is necessary
for improving the reactor performance.
Two different categories of computational uid dynamics (CFD)
model are often applied to simulate the gassolid ow in FBRs,
namely the EulerianLagrangian model and the EulerianEulerian
model [3,510]. The Lagrangian model solves the equation of each
particle motion, taking into account the particleparticle collisions
and forces. Because of high numerical effort to calculate individual
particles, the model is limited to lab scale FBRs [5,9,11]. On the
contrary, the EulerianEulerian model dealing the gas and solid
Corresponding authors. Tel.: +86 21 64253627.
E-mail addresses: tianzhou@ecust.edu.cn (Z. Tian), boping@ecust.edu.cn (B. Liu).
granular ow (KTGF) needs fairly less computational cost [8,
1214]. Based on the EulerianEulerian model, Dudukovic compre-
hensively reviewed the CFD models validated by experimental data
[15], and Taghipour et al. compared the effect of drag models
(Gidaspow, WenYu and SyamlalO'Brien) on the ow patterns
and hydrodynamics of two phases in a lab scale FBR [16].
Considerable attention has been devoted to modeling and simu-
lating the hydrodynamic characteristics of ethylene polymerization
FBR. Most of the studies mainly focused on the prediction of gas
and solid holdups, bubble behaviors, etc. in lab scale FBRs [8,
1723]. The discussions concerning hydrodynamic parameters in
pilot-plant FBRs for PE production are relatively scarce. Fan et al.
used the EulerianEulerian model to predict the hot spots in a
pilot-plant ethylene polymerization FBR [24,25]. More recently,
Rokkam et al. developed a CFD model incorporating the effect of
electrostatics on particle dynamics, and it was applied to investigate
the particles segregation in pilot-plant FBR [26]. However, the effect
of scale-up on the hydrodynamic behaviors in pilot-plant beds has
not been concerned exclusively. Furthermore, the restitution coef-
cients, specularity coefcient, and interphase drag coefcients for
modeling of pilot-plant FBRs should also be veried in detail.
Non-pelletizing polyethylene process (NPPP) has acquired rapid
development and wide application. Terano et al. developed a new

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2015.02.022
0032-5910/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110
highly active catalyst with larger particle size and in-situ stabilization
technologies to omit the pelletizing step in polypropylene production
[27]. Spherilene technology is another example, and it is a gas-phase
process for full density range of PE production [28]. The polymer particle
size is a critical factor that affects the ow and mixing for NPPP.
However, there are no open literatures regarding the applications of
NPPP to pilot-plant FBR, especially for the hydrodynamic natures.
The main objective of this work is to provide a deep insight into
predicting the effect of scale-up on the hydrodynamic characteristics
of the gas and PE particles in pilot-plant FBR, and to anticipate how
different parameters respond to the changes in different operating
conditions for applications. An EulerianEulerian model combining
KTGF was applied to describe the two phases' ow behaviors, and vali-
dated by industrial data. The effects of scale-up and the bed expanding
section were discussed in terms of uidization features, volume fraction
proles, and axial solid velocity. Then, the impacts of particle size and
operating velocity on the reactor performance for NPPP were also
evaluated.
2. Pilot-plant reactor description
In this work, a pilot-plant ethylene polymerization FBR in a Chinese
chemical plant shown in Fig. 1a is studied. The FBR fabricated from
special stainless steels consists of three zones given in Fig. 1b, a uidized
zone, a transition zone and a disengagement zone. The whole bed is
4.347 m in height, and the uidized zone and disengagement zone are
0.7 m and 1.4 m in diameter, respectively. A stainless steel perforated
gas distributor containing sixty-one 10-mm-diameter holes is installed
between the inlet plenum and bed chamber. The holes are approxi-
mately equally spaced in triangular manner to ensure evenly gas distri-
bution and low-pressure drop. The open area ratio of the gas distributor
is 2.1%. The reacting gas components are introduced into the system by
Fig. 1. Sketch of the pilot-plant uidized bed reactor (a. the reactor photo; b. the equipment drawing; c. the computational domain).
95
a single inlet at the bottom of the plenum, and dispersed uniformly
through the gas distributor. The pressure gauges and thermometric
instruments are all connected to the Distributed Control Systems (DCS).
Table 1 presents the preferred process operating conditions. The
operating parameters are also selected in simulations to investigate
the effects of scaling-up and applying NPPP on the hydrodynamic
behaviors.
In ethylene polymerization, each catalyst particle will eventually
become a single polymer particle that acts as a polymerization micro-
reactor based on the Reactor Granule Technology (RGT) [29]. There
are two types of applications for RGT: development of new polymers,
and economic polyolen processes [29,30]. For the latter, it aims to
reduce energy consumption and waste handling [28,3032]. It is
known that the pelletizing step could consume more than 40% of total
production energy [27]. Fig. 2 shows the differences between TPPP
(the traditional pelletizing polyethylene process) and NPPP, and both
the pelletizing and compounding steps have been skipped. Two crucial
technologies are required for NPPP: the large particle size catalyst
technology, and in-reactor stabilization technology [27]. Plenty of
experimental efforts have been paid to investigation the in-reactor
stabilization technology [27,33]. At present, the study of large particle
size catalyst related technology is only limited to the development of
catalysts [34]. There have been few open reports on exploring the effects
of large catalyst and polymer particle on the ow eld and operating
performance in reactor for NPPP.
3. Mathematical modeling
3.1. EulerianEulerian two-uid model equations
The CFD model used in this study is based on the EulerianEulerian
two-uid model. The hydrodynamic model uses the conservation of
96 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110

Table 1 3.2. Kinetic theory of granular ow

The pilot-plant FBR operating conditions in the ethylene polymeriza-
tion plant.
Closure of the solid phase momentum equation requires a descrip-
Description Value tion for the solid phase stress. When the particle motion is dominated
Operating pressure 2 106 Pa by collisional interactions, concepts from the gas kinetic theory can be
Operating temperature 361 K used to describe the effective stresses in the solid phase resulting from
Inlet gas velocity 0.61 m/s particles streaming (kinetic contribution) and direct collisions (colli-
Initial bed height 1.137 m
sional contribution) [36]. The kinetic theory of granular ow (KTGF) is
Bulk density 320 kg/m3
proposed based on similarities between the ow of granular material
and gas molecules. It is possible to describe the behavior of molecules
mass and momentum of each phase, and is represented by correspond- or particles with well-dened properties and interactions using KTGF.
ing conservation equations. The interaction force between two phases is It introduces a granular temperature (), which represents the uctua-
expressed as additional source terms added to the conservation tion of the particle velocity. Analogous to the thermodynamic tempera-
equations which can be written as [35], ture for gases, the granular temperature of solid phase is dened as one
third of the mean square velocity of particle's random motion [17],
Continuity equations
1 02



!
 v 7
g g  g g v g 0 1 3 s
t
where vs is the uctuating particle velocity.


! The granular temperature is proportional to the granular energy. The
s s  s s v s 0 2
t solid phase granular energy equation must be solved to calculate the
granular temperature. Since the solid phase stress depends on the mag-
Momentum equations nitude of these particle velocity uctuations, a balance of the granular
 
energy 32 associated with these particle velocity uctuations is

!


!!

v  g g v g v g required to supplement the continuity and momentum conservation
t g g g

! ! for both phases. This balance equation is given as [37],
g p  g K gs v s v g g g g 3



3 ! !
s s  s s v s ps I s v s

!


!!

2 t
s s v s  s s v s v s s pps 
s
t
  ks s gs 8
! !
K gs v g v s s s g 4
where the rst term on the right side represents the generation of uc-
tuating energy due to shear in the solid phase, the second term is the
The gas and solid phases' stress tensors are given by, diffusion of uctuating energy along gradients in , s denotes the
dissipation for inelastic particle and particle collisions, and gs accounts

 2
 for the dissipation or creation of granular energy resulting from the
! !T !
g g g v g v g g g   v g I 5 working of the uctuating force exerted by the gas through the uctuat-
3
ing velocity of the particles [36].

  
 The diffusion coefcient for granular energy (ks), is given by Syamlal
! !T 2 !
s s s v s v s s s s   v s I 6 et al. [38],
3
p 
15s ds s 12 2 16
ks 1 43 s g 0 4133 s g 0 9
where s is the solid shear viscosity and s is the solid bulk viscosity. 4133 5 15

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of TPPP and NPPP for PE production.

 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110 97

where for the investigated system for its solid volume fraction limitation
(b 20%). Thus, the drag correlations of Gidaspow and SyamlalO'Brien
1=21 es 10 are investigated in this study.

The collision dissipation of energy (s), is modeled using the correla- 3.4.1. Gidaspow model
tion by Lun et al. [39], Gidaspow model combines Wen and Yu model (1966) for gas

 volume fraction larger than 0.8 with the Ergun equation (1952) for
12 1e2s g 0 2 1:5 gas volume fraction lower than 0.8, and cover the whole range of void
s p s s 11
ds fraction,

s g ! ! 
2
gs 3K gs 12 Ergun s g
K gs 150 1:75  v s v g ; g b 0:8 21
g d2s ds
Rather than solving the complete granular energy balance given in
the equation, some researchers assume that the granular energy is in a WenYu 3 s g g ! !  2:65
K gs C  v s v g  g ; g b 0:8 22
steady state and dissipated locally, and neglect the convection and diffu- 4 D ds
sion terms. Thus, the equation can simplify to an algebraic expression,

 where
!
0 ps
I
s v s s 13 8 
0:687
<
24
1 0:15 g Res ; Res b1000
C D g Res 23
:
0:44; Res N1000
3.3. Solid phase stress tensor
g ds ! ! 
Constitutive relations for the solid phase stress based on the kinetic Res  v s v g  24
g
theory concepts have been derived by Lun et al. [39]. The solids pressure
represents the normal solid phase forces for particle and particle inter-
To resolve the inherent discontinuity of the model, Gidaspow
actions, and it can be calculated by,
considered a switch function for rapid transition from one regime to
2 the other [42],
ps s s 2s g 0 s 1 es 14
1
tan 150  1:750:2 s 
The solids bulk viscosity describes the resistance of the particle gs 0:5 25

suspension against compression, and it can be written as [39],
r Accordingly, the following model was proposed,
4 2
s s s ds g0 1 es 15

3 Ergun WenYu
K gs 1gs K gs gs K gs 26
where

1 3.4.2. Syamlal and O'Brien model

g0 v
! 16
u
u s
1 t
3

s;max  
! ! 
3 C D g  v s v g 
K gs g s 27
4 v2r;s ds
The models for concerning the solid phase dynamic viscosity in this
work are listed as follows [40,41], 0 12

s s;col s;kin s; f r 17 B 4:8 C

C D @0:63 qA 28
Res
vr;s
where
 
r ! ! 
g ds  v s v g 
4 Res 29
s;col s s ds g 0 1 es 18 g
5
p  2
10ds s 4 The model applied an analytical formula for the terminal velocity
s;kin 1 1 es s g 0 19
96 s 1 es g 0 5 correlation for solid phase (vr,s) from the velocityvoidage correlation
proposed by Garside and Aldibouni as follows,
p sin 
s; f r sp 20 q
2 I2D vr;s 0:5 A0:06Res 0:06Res 2 0:12Res 2BA A2 30

3.4. Drag models where

4:14
A g 31
In the EulerianEulerian model, the transfer of forces between the


! !
gas and particle phases is done by the drag forceK gs v g v s . Different 8
>
<
C
g 1 ; g 0:85
drag models are reported for calculating the drag coefcient Kgs, and the
most widely used drag models in gassolid FBRs are Gidaspow model, B 1:28
C 2 g ;
g b0:85 32
>
:
SyamlalO'Brien model and WenYu model. WenYu model is not t C 1 2:65 and C 2 0:8
98 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110

3.5. Turbulence model top of cylindrical riser. The 2D physical models and their meshes are
both constructed in Gambit 2.4.6 (Ansys Inc., USA), and the computa-
Disperse phase RNG k turbulence model is used to solve the trans- tional domain used in the simulation is shown in Fig. 1c. Mesh indepen-
port equations for k and . It is based on the Tchen theory of dispersion dence tests had been performed, and the simulation results showed that
of discrete particles by homogeneous turbulence [43]. The turbulence increasing the cell numbers from 237,500 to 314,000 resulted in less
equations are solved for the gas phase, and the turbulence parameters obvious changes in solid volume fraction proles. Thus, 237,500 quadri-
for the solid phase are deducted using dispersion rules. According to lateral cells could provide mesh independent results.
Hartge et al. [44], the disperse phase RNG k turbulence model
shows better agreement with the experimental data than per-phase 4.1. Simulation parameters
turbulence model in the FBRs modeling.
The transport equation associated to the turbulence parameters k 4.1.1. Physical properties of gas and solid phases
and are shown as follows [35,44], Because the growth rate of PE particles is very slow, the particle size
mainly depends on the residence time in the reactor [12]. Thus, when


m k  m vm k  k t;m k Gk;m m 33 the stable state situation is achieved, the integration of the gas and
t solid ow system with ethylene polymerization in the FBR is simulated.

 The properties of the gas and solids used in the simulations at any
particular polymerization time are listed in Tables 2 and 3.
 m vm  t;m
t m


C 1 Gk;m C 2 m R 34 4.1.2. Boundary conditions and model parameters
k
The minimum uidization velocity (Umf) and particle terminal
where the mixture properties are described as, velocity (UT) can be estimated by using Wen and Yu's equations [12,52],

m g g s s 35 82
 30:5 9
> >
g < ds 3 g s g g =
Um f 433:7 0:0434
2 5 33:7 43
g g vg s s vs ds g > g 2 >
vm 36 : ;
g g s s

2
 30:5
The eddy viscosity for the mixture phase is calculated as, 3:1 s g gds
UT 4 5 44
k2 g
t;m m C 37

ds g U T
The production of the turbulent kinetic energy (Gk,m) is calculated Re 45
using the following relation, g

h i
T
Gk;m t;m vm vm : vm 38 The reactor must be operated between the values of Umf and UT, and
the supercial gas velocity can vary from 3 to 7 times of Umf [53].
The terms k and are the inverse effective Prandtl numbers, which According to the industrial operating conditions, the incoming gas
are obtained by, velocity in rst simulation part is 0.61 m/s. When NPPP is applied, the
gas velocity will be set to 57 times of Umf to optimize the operating
k 39 conditions. Initially, the solid particle velocity is set as zero, and the
    gas inlet velocity is assumed to have the same value everywhere in
 k 1:39290:6321  k 2:39290:3679 the bed cross section. Table 4 lists the values of model parameters and
    m 40
 1:3929  2:3929 t;m related computational conditions that applied in the simulations.
0 0

0 1 41 4.2. Solution procedure

C 1 1:42 and C 2 1:68 42 EulerianEulerian two-uid model has been used to simulate and
investigate the ow characteristics in the FBR. The RNG k model is
applied to take into account the turbulence, meanwhile, KTGF is used
4. Simulation scheme to close the momentum balance equation for the solid phase. The simu-
lation is implemented by the commercial CFD software Fluent 14.0
In this work, a two dimensional physical model of the reactor system (Ansys Inc., USA), in double precision mode. The phase-coupled
must be available to study the pilot-plant FBR. Although Reuge et al. [45] SIMPLE algorithm is used to couple the pressure and velocity. The
point out the differences between 2D and 3D simulated void fractions, rst-order upwind is applied as the spatial discretization scheme for
2D model is still recommended to reduce the cost of calculation while its better convergence and less computational effort [40]. For transient
maintaining accuracy [40,46]. In addition, 2D simulation has always
been applied for much cheaper numerical cost and less computational
time [4750]. Herein, a Cartesian coordinate system is adopted for the Table 2
Gas composition and solid size distribution.
2D mesh generation, and applied to simulate and predict the hydrody-
namic natures. The comparisons between 2D and 3D simulations have Description Items
been performed in this work. As mentioned [25,26], gas distributor Gas Ethylene 1-Butylene Hydrogen Nitrogen
can be excluded in the computational region for the complicated struc- Mass fraction 0.35 0.14 0.065 0.445
ture and enormous computation cost, and the ow parameters can be Solid particle size 74 99 165 250 590 830
accurately simulated compared with experimental data [40]. Therefore, (m)
Percentage 2.57 5.26 5.03 48.59 38.09 0.46
the simulated domain is selected between the gas distributor and the
 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110 99

Table 3 pressure drop, one of the few data directly measured from the plant, it
Properties of the gas and solid phases. was found that the results were almost insensitive to most of model
Description Value Unit Comment parameters, except the drag models. Hence, the only results from the
Gas density, g 20.2 kg/m3 Experimental measurement
drag model investigation are demonstrated below.
Gas viscosity, ug 1.72 105 Pas Experimental measurement
Solids density, s 918 kg/m3 Experimental measurement 5. Results and discussion
Mean particle 446, 892a, 1338b m Calculated [51]
diameter, ds
a
5.1. Scale-up effect on the hydrodynamics of gas and solid particles
Data from considering the effect of large particle size for NPPP (446 2).
b
Data form considering the effect of large particle size for NPPP (446 3).
5.1.1. Instantaneous solid volume fraction
In the pilot-plant FBR, hydrodynamic features are related to the
presence of smaller bubbles, which are mainly induced by the scaling-
formulation, the rst order implicit scheme is used as it is usually more up effect. Fig. 3 illustrates the bubble formation, development and
stable for solving stiff equations [10]. breakup with representation of the instantaneous solid volume fraction
The simulations are carried out with 2D Cartesian frameworks, and in a vertical plane versus the ow time at two types of drag models. In
the computational domain was discretized by 237,500 quadrilateral contrast to lab scale FBRs [16], the observed axisymmetry gives way to
cells. In the radial direction of each parts shown in Fig. 1c except the chaotic transient generation of bubble formation after only 1 s in the
bed expanding section where the mesh spacing is increasing to stress initial uidization stages. But for the lab scale FBR, the axisymmetric
the structure effect, the mesh spacing was distributed uniformly. ow pattern changes more than 2 s due to the relative simple ow
However, non-uniform mesh spacing was used in the axial direction structure. Then promptly, the bubbles start to coalesce when they
for capturing the complex ow behavior in this large region. The size move upward generating bigger bubbles. Finally, they become
of the cells used in the CFD simulations for different parts of the bed stretched, deformed and broken because of the effects between the
are summarized in Table 5. bed and the wall, and the interactions with other bubbles. In addition,
In this work, the convergence criterion is set as 1 103 according the visual results indicate that the bubbles formed at the bottom of
to literatures [40,41,58], and the time step is set from 1 10 4 s to the reactor are relatively small and concentrated, and they grow up
1 10 3 s to ensure the numerical stability. All the simulations are slowly until they rise up to the top surface with coalescence. Because
performed for a period of 60 s of real simulation time. The time- of the existence of bed expanding section, the rising granules entrained
averaged parametric values are taken from 10 s (by which a dynamic in the bubble wake drop back to the wall and collide with other granules
steady state is achieved) to 60 s of the simulation results. The CFD or bubbles, and it leads to relative uniform distribution of solid volume
simulations of the pilot-plant FBR are executed using a Supermicro fraction in the bed.
server platform with two Intel Xeon E5-2600 series CPUs and 32 GB of By comparison of Fig. 3a and b, it is found that the bed expansion
RAM on the High Performance Computing Cluster at East China Univer- heights at two drag models increase equally before 1 s, and the generat-
sity of Science and Technology. ed bubbles can accelerate the motions of other bubbles. Therefore, the
To determine the sensitivity of the simulation data to the parame- total uidized velocity is fairly fast, and it gives rise to stable ow eld
ters, a large series of calculations were carried out with the related in the reactor after a very short ow time [12]. Initially, the bed expan-
model parameters for the mean solid particle size. Compared with the sion height continuously increases until it levels off at a steady-state bed
height after 5 s, and the time-averaged simulations are taken from 10 s
to 60 s.
Fig. 3 also presents obvious differences between Gidaspow model
Table 4
and SyamlalO'Brien model to predict the bed expansion height and
Model parameters and computational conditions used in the simulations.
solid volume fraction for t = 60 s. For the solid volume fraction
Description Value Comment contours, it can be easily seen that Gidaspow model shows a relatively
Turbulence model k (RNG, Shi et al. [12] stable bed surface and uniform solid volume fraction, and it also holds
dispersed) a smooth and steady bed expansion height.
Granular viscosity Gidaspow Gidaspow [42]
Granular bulk viscosity Lun Lun et al. [54]
Frictional viscosity Schaeffer Shi et al. [12] 5.1.2. Mean volume fraction of gas and solid
Angle of internal friction 30 Fixed value The variations of mean gas and solid volume fractions as a function
Granular temperature Algebraic Johnson et al. of the axial and radial positions in the FBR can be represented by
[55]
the contour plots shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 4a and b depicts the comparison
Drag law model Gidaspow Vejahati et al.
[56] of time-averaged gas volume fraction in the radial direction at different
Coefcient of restitution for 0.9 Fixed value height of reaction zone with different drag models. The coreannulus
particleparticle collisions ow structure is apparently predicted by Gidaspow and Syamlal
Solid pressure Lun et al. Lun et al. [54]
O'Brien models. It consists of a central region in which the polymer
Radial distribution Lun et al. Lun et al. [54]
Inlet boundary condition Velocity Fan [24]
Outlet boundary condition Pressure outlet Fan [24]
Wall boundary condition No slip for gas Fan [24]
phase Table 5
Free slip for solid Mesh sizes used for the 2D CFD simulations.
phase
Parts Max interval size Min interval size Total nodes
Initial bed height 1.137 m Calculated value
[57] a 3.5 3.5 201
Initial volume fraction of the solid phase 0.63 Calculated value b 3.5 3.5 451
[57] c Radial 6.46 4.94 301
Outlet pressure 1.01325 105 Pa Wei et al. [58] Axial 1.33 1.02 201
Maximum iterations 40 Specied d 14.11 8.49 61
Convergence criteria 1 103 Specied e 7 7 201
Time step 1 103 s Specied The FBR 237,500
100 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110
Fig. 3. Instantaneous volume fraction proles of the PE particles as a function of time at different drag models (Ug = 0.61 m/s, ds = 446 m).
particles travel upwards by the reacting gas and an annular area where
the particles fall downwards along the wall.
Compared with lab scale FBR [59], due to the effects of scale-up and
bed expanding section, the coreannulus ow structures and shapes
present apparent differences. Firstly, the core region in large scale FBR
is rather broad and distinct, and the gas volume fraction distribution is
almost at not concave. Secondly, in the wall area, the gas holdup has
an apparent change rather than a small peak. To demonstrate quantita-
tively, the ratio of core region and annulus area has been used to repre-
sent the scale up effect. From the lab scale to the pilot-plant scale FBR,
the ratio changes from 1/1 to 5/2, which means that the coreannulus
ow structures have undergone a through transformation. The possible
reason is that the gas and solid particles could ow and mix uniformly
with intensive interactions of numerous small bubbles in large scale
FBR.
In comparison, the proles of mean gas volume fractions predicted
by Gidaspow model are relatively at and stable throughout the radial
direction at each height of the reaction zone in the core region. On the
contrary, the proles calculated by SyamlalO'Brien model are almost
chaotic, especially at the height of 2 m where the bed expanding section
is equipped. One can easily conjecture that the ow proles and
patterns have clearly changed, and it can be visually depicted in Fig. 3.
The mean solid volume fractions with different drag models are
plotted in Fig. 4c and d, and it is shown the opposite behavior as the
gas holdup. The coreannulus structure of the ow is also existed, and
it is clearly predicted by both drag models. Just as mentioned before,
the ratio of core region and annulus area in pilot-plant FBR also shows
an obvious difference compared to lab scale bed, the value changes
from 5/2 to 1/1, which conrms that the coreannulus ow structures
indeed have changed [49]. The structure is distinct and orderly in the
case of Gidaspow model, and the changes in different height of the reac-
tion zone from the wall to the core region seem to be physically reason-
able. The solid volume fraction decreases from the wall to the center,
and then remains horizontal in the core region. Yet, there is still an
obvious change at the height of 2 m; a more likely reason is that the
ow pattern has been clearly changed because of the impact of the
bed expanding section on the solid velocity. In contrast, the case of
applying SyamlalO'Brien model seems to be disorderly and unsystem-
atic. Compared with the coreannulus pattern of gas and solids ow in
lab scale reactor [35,49], by reason of the scale-up effect, it is shown a
thin dense annular region in the wall, and relative thick dense core
region.
5.1.3. Mean velocity of solid
Fig. 5a and b illustrates the comparisons of time-averaged axial solid
velocity proles along radial direction at different height using two drag
models. The velocity varies from negative at wall to positive at central
region, and two regions are easy to be distinguished in the gure. The
coreannulus ow structures are clearly predicted by Gidaspow
model and SyamlalO'Brien model. Compared with lab scale FBR [35],
the coreannulus ow structures and shapes have distinct changes for
the effects of scaling-up and bed expanding section. Firstly, the core
region in large scale FBR is rather thick, and the axial solid velocity has
a smooth and stable variation. Secondly, in the wall region, the annulus
structure is rather thin and a very small axial velocity change can be
clearly observed. In order to present quantitatively, the ratio of core
region and annulus area can still be used to represent the scale up effect.
For the lab scale FBR, the ratio is 1/1, instead, in the pilot-plant scale bed,
 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110
Fig. 4. Time-averaged gas and solid volume fraction variation along the radial direction at different height of reaction zone (t = 60 s).
the ratio changes to a relative large value of 5/2, which means that the
ow structures inside the large scale reactor have changed thoroughly
compared to lab scale reactor.
The preferable reason is that the reacting gas and polymer particles
fully undergo ow and mixing for the interactions of bubbles and
particles. However, the results show obvious difference between
(a) and (b) in the gure. The axial velocity distribution in the case of
SyamlalO'Brien model is relative disorderly, especially near the wall
area, and the value of velocity has a large change at each height of
reaction zone. It will lead to a bad ow and mixing behaviors of two
phases.
The mean solid velocity proles demonstrated in Fig. 5c and d show
a very similar situation. Due to the existence of bed expanding section,
signicant differences are depicted in the height of 2 m of reaction
zone between (c) and (d) in the gure. It indicates that Gidaspow
model shows outstanding performance in modeling and predicting
the hydrodynamic characteristics of the pilot-plant FBR.
From the comparisons of the instantaneous solid volume fraction,
mean gas and solid holdups and solid velocity, it can be proven that
the CFD model applying Gidaspow drag model is feasible and reliable
to investigate the hydrodynamic characteristics caused by the scale-up
effect in the pilot-plant bed. Therefore, in the following section,
Gidaspow drag model is chosen as drag model in the CFD model.
5.2. Model evaluation
5.2.1. Comparison of the simulated and the plant data
Owing to the difculty of data measurement in industrial plant, the
pressure drop distribution is the only reliable and favorable approach
for the model verication and evaluation. It is known that the pressure
101
drop in FBR is a signicant parameter in process scaling-up, controlling
and operating. Fig. 6 shows the difference of pressure drop in the bed
height direction between the simulated results and experimental data.
It is shown that the pressure drop distribution is nearly linear in the
bed axial height. The simulated result is in good agreement with the
measured pressure drop data. The errors incurred in the simulation
derive from several sources, such as ow patterns, numerical treatment
of initial and boundary conditions.
The velocity distribution proles of the gas and solid phases in the
reactor play a vital role in the overall pressure drop, and they are
closely related to the existing ow patterns and behaviors in FBRs.
Table 6 shows the overall pressure drop in the pilot-plant reactor
at different operation conditions, and it will be discussed in detail
below.
5.2.2. Solid velocity vector
In Fig. 7, vector plots of time-averaged solid velocity and contour of
solid velocity are shown together at an initial ow velocity of 0.61 m/s.
The circular upow in the bed is apparently depicted as a result of the
enormous bubbles and polymer particles motions. The granules are
lifted up from the middle position and come back along with the break-
up of the bubbles due to gravitation and effect of bed expanding section.
Visibly, in the core region, the gases carry upwards granules along
the vertical axis; meanwhile, the granules can ow down along the
wall. It can lead to the formation of bigger circular upows. At the
bottom of the bed, because of the intensive interactions of gas and
polymer particles, numerous small circulations are easily formed. The
vortexes appearing among the circulations have a great impact on the
hydrodynamics.
102 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110

Fig. 5. Time-averaged axial velocity of solid (a, b) and mean solid velocity (c, d) variation along the radial direction at different height of reaction zone (t = 60 s).

Compared to the lab scale FBR [12], the action of the circulations and
the motion of vortexes lead to a good ow and mixing in the pilot-plant
reactor, and it is very helpful in providing more uniform temperature
and concentration distributions in PE production. In addition, the bed
expanding section in the pilot-plant FBR is an essential part to operate
and run the reactor properly and easily. The wall of bed expanding
section can clearly reduce the solid velocity and collect the polymer
particles, and the gure clearly shows the granules motion state and
velocity magnitude.
5.2.3. Comparison of monodisperse and polydisperse cases for 2D and 3D
simulations
Fig. 8 demonstrates the comparisons of time-averaged particles
volume fraction in the bed height direction for the cases (2D monodis-
perse, 2D polydisperse, 3D monodisperse and 3D polydisperse). As
shown in the gure, the coreannulus ow structure can be clearly
observed with different values of mean solid holdups in the core area
and wall region. A more detailed description of the ow structure in
the FBR is provided with the axial and radial proles of solids volume
fraction in Fig. 9.
In Fig. 9a, the quantitative comparisons of the mean solid volume
fraction along the bed height direction are presented from 2D to 3D
simulations for monodisperse and polydisperse cases. Both 2D and 3D
simulated results demonstrate very good solid holdup distribution
behaviors. However, the proles indicate that PE particles near the
inlet region of the bed in 2D and 3D monodisperse simulations show
clear oscillation created due to the particles inlet effect. Instead, the
2D and 3D polydisperse simulations predict slightly different and
uniform proles for their accurate capture of the quantitative ow

Table 6
The pilot-plant FBR overall pressure drop at different operation conditions [12,60].

Description Items Pressure drop (Pa)

0.61 m/s 446 m 6585

892 m 6622
1338 m 6660
1338 m 0.75 m/s 11,503
0.90 m/s 12,637
Fig. 6. Comparison of time-averaged pressure drop versus FBR bed height between simu-
1.05 m/s 14,219
lated and experimental data at a gas velocity of 0.61 m/s.
 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110 103

Fig. 7. Time-averaged solid velocity vector and velocity magnitude distribution inside the computational domain.

characteristics in the FBR. The trends of distribution are nearly main-
tained, in the middle-upper region of the reactor, all the cases demon-
strate relatively uniform distribution proles. Fig. 9b shows the mean
solid volume fractions along the radial direction in the bed height of
1 m. The coreannulus ow structures are clearly presented for all
cases with the nearly identical thickness of each sections (0.5 m for
core region, 0.2 m for annulus area), which means that the effect of
scale up on the coreannulus ow structure can be investigated by
any of the cases.
It should be noted that the main objective of this work is to explore
the scale up effect on the coreannulus ow structures and hydrody-
namic features between the large and lab scale FBRs. The above discus-
sions show that the 2D monodisperse is acceptable and reliable to
predict the effect of scale up in the pilot-plant scale reactor for
its lower numerical cost and less computational time. It must be
mentioned that the 2D and 3D polydisperse cases are being performed
to study the effects of ethylene polymerization and particle kinetics
(particle growth, aggregation and breakage) on PE particle behaviors

Fig. 8. The visual representations of mean solid volume fraction along the bed height direction in a (2D monodisperse case), b (2D polydisperse case), c (3D monodisperse case) and d (3D
polydisperse case).
104 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110
Fig. 9. The mean volume fractions of PE particles along the axial (a) and radial (b) direction in A (2D monodisperse case), B (2D polydisperse case), C (3D monodisperse case) and D
(3D polydisperse case).
and to evaluate the operating performance of the large FBR under TPPP
and NPPP in our research group now.
5.3. Model application to NPPP
5.3.1. Effect of the polymer particle size
Fig. 10 illustrates the solid volume fraction proles for different PE
particle sizes (446 m, 892 m and 1338 m) under the gas velocity of
0.61 m/s. During the uidization process, an obvious increase of solid
holdups can be observed with the increase of polymer particle size,
and then decreases with the uidization proceeding. The bubble
behaviors are also depicted in the gure, it is shown that with the
increase of polymer particle size, the number of bubbles becomes less
and the size gets larger. That may cause abnormal operation of the
bed. Correspondingly, the bed expansion ratio gets smaller. It is indicat-
ed that the gas velocity (0.61 m/s) is only applicable for describing a
specic range of PE particle size (446 m). Moreover, it takes less time
to arrive at the steady uidization state for smaller particles. Once the
particle size becomes larger by applying NPPP, the uidization and
operation state will get worse, and it is extremely difcult to optimize
and control of the reactor. According to the correlation of Gidaspow
drag model, the particle size shows a dominant factor to affect the
drag force. For the given gas velocity, with the increase of the polymer
particle size, the drag force acting on the solid particles decreases.
Conversely, it is easier to generate bubbles, the smaller particles ow
towards the middle-upper region of the bed with less uidization time
and higher bed expansion height. The gure also shows the solid
volume fraction distribution at t = 60 s for three different PE particle
sizes. When the bed arrives at steady state, with the increase of PE
particle size, the solid holdups present together near the wall and
bottom regions, and the FBR expansion height decreases obviously.
The results also prove that the polymer particles are extensively gath-
ered near the bottom of the bed, it could result in the occurrence of
the deuidization phenomenon. The most likely reason is that the su-
percial gas velocity is too small to make larger polymer particles fully
uidized.
Gas and solid velocities are important parameters to affect the ow
behavior in FBR, and it can highly inuence the solid volume fraction
distribution. In Fig. 11, mean solid velocity and volume fraction varia-
tion along the radial direction under several PE particle sizes are
depicted at different height of reaction zone. As mentioned above,
a(1) and a(2) demonstrates a relative uniform and favorable ow
pattern and structure, and it is conceivable that the operation in the
reactor is stable and reliable. At the same axial direction in reaction
zone, the solid volume fractions near the wall are much larger than
those values at the center region, and it indicates that the radial solid
volume fraction exhibits a typical coreannulus ow structure shape.
The solid holdups distribution trends predicted in a(2), b(2) and
c(2) of Fig. 11 are very similar, but the distribution varies clearly as a
result of the effect of polymer particle size on the ow pattern and struc-
ture. For the radial proles, the distribution behaviors are almost identi-
cal at the center area, and signicant differences are easily found near
the wall region in the reaction zone. These different phenomena could
be explained by the ow behaviors described in Fig. 10, and the changes
of overall pressure drop under different particle sizes shown in Table 6.
5.3.2. Effect of operation conditions
In this section, the hydrodynamic features under NPPP will be
explored, preliminarily. When the polymer particle size increases to
1338 m, the gas velocity can vary from 3 to 7 times of Umf [53]. Three
different gas inlet velocities of 0.75 m/s (= 5Umf), 0.90 m/s (= 6Umf)
and 1.05 m/s (= 7Umf) are selected in the simulations, and the corre-
sponding simulated results are shown in Figs. 12 and 13.
Fig. 12a, b and c depicts the solid volume fraction proles at different
operating gas velocities. As indicated in the gure, it is clear that an
escalation of gas velocity leads to rising trend of the bed expansion
height and increase of the bubble size. The bubbles grow as they rise
to the top surface with coalescence, and the elongation of the bubbles
is induced by the bed wall effects and interactions with other bubbles
[16]. The most likely reason is that with the increase of the gas inlet
velocity, the particle movement in the bed is sharply strengthened. It
will result in the increase of the forces between the gas and solid phases
(including drag force) acting on the particles. At the lower gas velocity
(0.75 m/s), the particles are accumulated in the lower portion of the
bed. As the gas velocity raised, the solid volume fraction at the bottom
of the bed declines gradually. Thus, the bubble size and bed expansion
height apparently increase. However, excessively high gas velocity
(N7Umf) may lead to the continuous coming out of PE particles from
the top of the bed, and it could destroy the normal operation of the
reactor. Besides, the increasing gas inlet velocity can induce to occur
and enhance entrainment of particles. Thus, it can be concluded that
the operating gas inlet velocity for 1338 m is 0.90 m/s, and further
quantitative validation will be shown in Fig. 13.
The greater variation of the time-averaged solid volume fraction
near the core region in the reaction zone can be observed in Fig. 13,
and the calculated mean solid velocity proles are all depicted. The
trends of solid velocities in b(1) and c(1) are very similar, yet, because
of the effects of gas velocity and bed expanding section, the solid veloc-
ities in c(1) have changed denitely in the wall and core regions near
the height of 2 m. It could be explained by the contour obtained in
Fig. 12c. For Fig. 13a(1), the gas inlet velocity is too low to uidize the
particles fully, the formed bubbles cause the uctuation of the bed.
The velocity of solid phase is controlled simultaneously by lots of factors,
such as the interactions between two phases, granules gravitation,
 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110 105

Fig. 10. The visual representations of solid volume fraction at different polymer particle sizes (ug = 0.61 m/s): (a) 446 m, (b) 892 m, and (c) 1338 m.

particle friction and collision. All of the factors contribute to the solid ve-
locity proles described in a(1), b(1) and c(1). As depicted in
Fig. 13b(2), the solid volume fractions become uniformly distributed
in the core region across the bed, and signicant differences are found
near the wall region in the reactor. It means that after the gas carries
the granules to the top of the bed, it jets out and the polymer particles
are circulated back down along the walls for the impact of bed
expanding section. Lower mean solid volume fraction in the core region
can be observed in c(2), and it could cause the entrainment of particles.
For the given solid particles and reactors, the entrainment is very sensi-
tive to the gas inlet velocity.
The comparison and analysis of the hydrodynamic natures in Figs. 12
and 13 show that, when the polymer particle size changes from 446 m
to 1338 m, the supercial gas velocity should increase from 0.61 m/s to
0.90 m/s to achieve fully uidization state in the bed. However, an
apparent change in the average bubble size induced by the increase of
gas velocity will lead to enhancement of the particles mixing along the
bed height, and it may give rise to unstable operation state. In addition,
as shown in Table 6, with the increase of gas inlet velocity, the overall
pressure drop will increase remarkably, and the pressure drop is
directly related to the reactor operating state. Thus, the higher overall
pressure drop results in higher energy consumption, and it is not
considered economically sustainable.
For industrial operation, when NPPP (1338 m) is adopted, the
operating gas velocity must be increased to a specic value (0.90 m/s)
to attain and sustain a more stable and better uidized state in the
106 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110

Fig. 11. Time-averaged solid velocity (1) and solid volume fraction (2) variation along the radial direction at different particle size (a. 446 m, b. 892 m, c. 1338 m) (ug = 0.61 m/s, t = 60 s).

bed, rapidly. As mentioned above, an apparent increase of the average
bubble size will result in increase of the polymer particles ow and
mixing along the bed axial and radial direction, but it leads to an
unstable operating state. Fig. 12b shows obvious changes of the bubble
behaviors and solid holdups in exploring the hydrodynamics and
uidized state. The reactor is becoming more sensitive to operating
conditions, and the bubbles become unstable, even in the optimized
gas velocity. The conclusion can be safely drawn that, when the polymer
particle size increased under NPPP, as a critical operating parameter, the
supercial gas velocity will make the bed operation become more
sensitive. It indeed presents a great challenge to operate and run the
pilot-plant scale FBR, which needs further investigation on the reactor
performance. It should be noted that more detailed investigations are
being implemented to explore the effects of ethylene polymerization
and particle kinetics on the polymer particle behaviors and to assess
the operating state of the FBR under TPPP and NPPP in our research
group now.
6. Conclusion
In the present paper, the scale-up effect on the hydrodynamic
characteristics of gas and PE particles in a pilot-plant FBR was predicted
through CFD modeling and simulating. A 2D EulerianEulerian CFD
model integrating KTGF was established, and validated by the industrial
pressure drop data.
Due to the effect of the scale-up, the hydrodynamic issues show
remarkable differences. Firstly, during the initial uidization process,
the observed axisymmetry turns to chaotic transient uidization state
after only 1 s. Secondly, signicant differences in the coreannulus
structures and shapes of both gas and solid volume fractions are
 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110 107

Fig. 12. The visual representations of solid volume fraction at different operating gas velocities (ds = 1338 m): (a) 0.75 m/s, (b) 0.90 m/s, and (c) 1.05 m/s.

found. The core region in large scale FBR is much broader, and the distri-
bution is nearly at for both of the phases. Meanwhile, an apparent
change rather than a small peak for gas phase and a thin dense solid
annular region in the wall is revealed, the ratio of core region and
annulus area in pilot-plant FBR is 5/2. For the axial solid velocity, the
core area is relatively thick, and the velocity varies slightly. The annulus
structure is thin and exhibits a very small particle velocity uctuation,
the ratio has the same value with solid holdups. Finally, the bed
expanding section could reduce the solid velocity and improve the
ow pattern of gas and polymer particles. From the comparisons of 2D
and 3D simulations, the scale up effect on the ow structure can be
observed with the same distribution situation in both monodisperse
and polydisperse cases. The results are helpful for understanding how
the local two phases' mean velocities and volume fractions vary in the
pilot-plant reactor for PE production caused by scale-up effect.
To explore the operating stability of applying NPPP preliminarily,
simulations are performed to assess the effects of particle sizes and
operating conditions. The results indicate that the gas velocity pro-
vided by the plant is only applicable for PE particle size conned to
approximately 446 m. With the increase of polymer particle diam-
eter (from 446 m to 1338 m), the supercial gas velocity should
be increased from 0.61 m/s to 0.90 m/s to achieve better steady u-
idized state and maintain good ow eld distribution. Meanwhile, the
gas velocity will make the bed operation become more sensitive, and
it presents a great challenge to operate and run the pilot-plant scale
FBR under NPPP.
108 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110

Fig. 13. Time-averaged solid velocity (1) and solid volume fraction (2) variation along the radial direction at different gas velocity (a. 0.75 m/s, b. 0.90 m/s, c. 1.05 m/s) (ds = 1338 m, t =
60 s).

Nomenclature Res particle Reynolds number

Cd drag coefcient Re Reynolds number
ds particle diameter, m t ow time, s
D diameter, m Umf minimum uidization velocity, m/s
es particleparticle restitution coefcient UT particle terminal velocity, m/s
ew particlewall restitution coefcient Ug gas inlet velocity, m/s
!
g gravitational acceleration, m/s2 vg gas velocity, m/s
!
h bed height, m vs solid velocity, m/s
I identity matrix vr,s terminal velocity correlation for the solid, m/s
I2D second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor vs the uctuating particle velocity, m/s
Kgs momentum exchange coefcient, kgm2/s
k turbulence kinetic energy tensor Greek symbols
p pressure, Pa g volume fraction of the gas phase
ps solid phase pressure, Pa s volume fraction of the solid phase
Pg gas phase pressure, Pa s,max maximum volume fraction of the solid phase
 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110
granular temperature, m2/s2
g stressstrain tensor of gas phase, N/m2
s stressstrain tensor of solid phase, N/m2
g viscosity of the gas phase, Pas
s solids shear viscosity, Pas
s,col solids collisional viscosity, Pas
s,kin solids kinetic viscosity, Pas
s,fr solids frictional viscosity, Pas
s solid bulk viscosity, Pas
g gas density, kg/m3
s solid density, kg/m3
turbulence dissipation rate, m2/s3
voidage
s the collision dissipation of energy, m2/s2
gs the dissipation or creation of granular energy, m2/s2
Acknowledgments
This work is nancially supported by the National High Technology
Research and Development Program 863 (No. 2012AA040306),
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (21406061), and the
Shanghai Municipal Natural Science Foundation (14ZR1410600).
The authors also express thanks to Prof. Huanxin Lai for his valuable
suggestions and help.
References
[1] J.T. McCoy, J.B.P. Soares, R. Rawatlal, Analysis of slurry-phase co-polymerization of
ethylene and 1-butene by ZieglerNatta catalysts part 1: experimental activity
proles, Macromol. React. Eng. 7 (2013) 350361.
[2] T. Xie, K.B. McAuley, J.C.C. Hsu, D.W. Bacon, Gas phase ethylene polymerization:
production processes, polymer properties, and reactor modeling, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 33 (1994) 449479.
[3] M.J.H. Khan, M.A. Hussain, Z. Mansourpour, N. Mostou, N.M. Ghasem, E.C. Abdullah,
CFD simulation of uidized bed reactors for polyolen production a review, J. Ind.
Eng. Chem. 20 (2014) 39193946.
[4] G.N. Ahuja, A.W. Patwardhan, CFD and experimental studies of solids hold-up
distribution and circulation patterns in gassolid uidized beds, Chem. Eng. J. 143
(2008) 147160.
[5] Z. Mansourpour, S. Karimi, R. Zarghami, N. Mostou, R. Sotudeh-Gharebagh, Insights
in hydrodynamics of bubbling uidized beds at elevated pressure by DEM-CFD
approach, Particuology 8 (2010) 407414.
[6] M.A. van der Hoef, M. van Sint Annaland, J.A.M. Kuipers, Computational uid
dynamics for dense gassolid uidized beds: a multi-scale modeling strategy,
Chem. Eng. Sci. 59 (2004) 51575165.
[7] M.A. van der Hoef, M. van Sint Annaland, N.G. Deen, J.A.M. Kuipers, Numerical
simulation of dense gassolid uidized beds: a multiscale modeling strategy,
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40 (2008) 4770.
[8] J. Sun, Y. Zhou, C. Ren, J. Wang, Y. Yang, CFD simulation and experiments of dynamic
parameters in gassolid uidized bed, Chem. Eng. Sci. 66 (2011) 49724982.
[9] S. Karimi, Z. Mansourpour, N. Mostou, R. Sotudeh-Gharebagh, CFD-DEM study of
temperature and concentration distribution in a polyethylene uidized bed reactor,
Part. Sci. Technol. 29 (2011) 163178.
[10] J.J. Wang, Y. Han, X.P. Gu, L.F. Feng, G.H. Hu, Effect of agitation on the uidization
behavior of a gassolid uidized bed with a frame impeller, AIChE J. 59 (2013)
10661074.
[11] Y. Kaneko, T. Shiojima, M. Horio, DEM simulation of uidized beds for gas-phase
olen polymerization, Chem. Eng. Sci. 54 (1999) 58095821.
[12] D.-P. Shi, Z.-H. Luo, A.-Y. Guo, Numerical simulation of the gassolid ow in
uidized-bed polymerization reactors, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49 (2010) 40704079.
[13] C. Amornsirirat, B. Chalermsinsuwan, L. Mekasut, P. Kuchonthara, P. Piumsomboon,
Experiment and 3D simulation of slugging regime in a circulating uidized bed,
Korean J. Chem. Eng. 28 (2011) 686696.
[14] O. Ashra, N. Mostou, R. Sotudeh-Gharebagh, Two phase steady-state particle size
distribution in a gas-phase uidized bed ethylene polymerization reactor, Chem.
Eng. Sci. 73 (2012) 17.
[15] M.P. Dudukovic, Opaque multiphase ows: experiments and modeling, Exp.
Thermal Fluid Sci. 26 (2002) 747761.
[16] F. Taghipour, N. Ellis, C. Wong, Experimental and computational study of gassolid
uidized bed hydrodynamics, Chem. Eng. Sci. 60 (2005) 68576867.
[17] M.A. Dehnavi, S. Shahhosseini, S.H. Hashemabadi, S.M. Ghafelebashi, CFD simulation
of hydrodynamics and heat transfer in gas phase ethylene polymerization reactors,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 37 (2010) 437442.
[18] I. Hulme, A. Kantzas, Determination of bubble diameter and axial velocity for a
polyethylene uidized bed using X-ray uoroscopy, Powder Technol. 147 (2004)
2033.
109
[19] G. Price, B. Chandrasekaran, I. Hulme, A. Kantzas, Comparison of 2-D and 3-D CFD
simulations of bubbling uidized beds with X-ray uoroscopy and imaging experi-
ments, AIChE Ann. Meet. (2004) 84478473.
[20] I. Hulme, E. Clavelle, L. van der Lee, A. Kantzas, CFD modeling and validation of
bubble properties for a bubbling uidized bed, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 44 (2005)
42544266.
[21] B.K. Chandrasekaran, L. van der Lee, I. Hulme, A. Kantzas, A simulation and experi-
mental study of the hydrodynamics of a bubbling uidized bed of linear low density
polyethylene using bubble properties and pressure uctuations, Macromol. Mater.
Eng. 290 (2005) 592609.
[22] L. van der Lee, B.K. Chandrasekaran, I. Hulme, A. Kantzas, A non-invasive hydrody-
namic study of gassolid uidised bed of linear low density polyethylene, Can. J.
Chem. Eng. 83 (2005) 119126.
[23] M.A. Dehnavi, S. Shahhosseini, S.H. Hashemabadi, S.M. Ghafelebashi, CFD based
evaluation of polymer particles heat transfer coefcient in gas phase polymerization
reactors, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 13751379.
[24] R. Fan, Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation of Fluidized Bed Polymerization
ReactorsChem Eng-New York Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 2006.
[25] R. Fan, R.O. Fox, Segregation in polydisperse uidized beds: validation of a multi-
uid model, Chem. Eng. Sci. 63 (2008) 272285.
[26] R.G. Rokkam, R.O. Fox, M.E. Muhle, Computational uid dynamics and electrostatic
modeling of polymerization uidized-bed reactors, Powder Technol. 203 (2010)
109124.
[27] M. Terano, K. Suehiro, T. Sagae, E. Tobita, 2 Japanese national project for the
innovation of industrial polypropylene process technology, Stud. Surf. Sci. Catal.
(2006) 712.
[28] P. Galli, G. Vecellio, Technology: driving force behind innovation and growth of
polyolens, Prog. Polym. Sci. 26 (2001) 12871336.
[29] P. Galli, The reactor granule technology: a revolutionary approach to polymer blends
and alloys, Macromol. Symp. 78 (1994) 269284.
[30] P. Galli, G. Collina, P. Sgarzi, G. Baruzzi, E. Marchetti, Combining ZieglerNatta and
mettalocene catalysis: new heterophasic propylene copolymers from the novel
multicatalyst reactor granule technology, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 66 (1997) 18311837.
[31] Z. Li, Y. Ma, W. Yang, A facile, green, versatile protocol to prepare polypropylene-
g-poly (methyl methacrylate) copolymer by watersolid phase suspension
grafting polymerization using the surface of reactor granule technology
polypropylene granules as reaction loci, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 129 (2013)
31703177.
[32] Z. Fu, X. Wang, N. Li, Z. Fan, Synthesis of high toughness and stiffness polyolen
In-reactor alloys by reactor granule technology, J. Polym. Mater. 22 (2005) 153158.
[33] B. Rotzinger, M. Brunner, In-reactor stabilization of polypropene, Polym. Degrad.
Stab. 93 (2008) 316320.
[34] L. Wu, S.E. Wanke, MgCl2-supported TiCl4 catalysts for production of morphology-
controlled polyethylene, Handbook of Transition Metal Polymerization Catalysts,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2010, pp. 231259.
[35] C. Loha, H. Chattopadhyay, P.K. Chatterjee, Assessment of drag models in simulating
bubbling uidized bed hydrodynamics, Chem. Eng. Sci. 75 (2012) 400407.
[36] B.G.M. van Wachem, J.C. Schouten, C.M. van den Bleek, R. Krishna, J.L. Sinclair,
Comparative analysis of CFD models of dense gassolid systems, AIChE J. 47
(2001) 10351051.
[37] J. Ding, D. Gidaspow, A bubbling uidization model using kinetic theory of granular
ow, AIChE J. 36 (1990) 523538.
[38] M. Syamlal, W. Rogers, T.J. O'Brien, MFIX documentation: theory guide, Technical
Note, DOE/METC-94/1004, NTIS/DE94000087, National Technical Information
Service, Springeld, VA, 1993.
[39] C.K.K. Lun, S.B. Savage, D.J. Jeffrey, N. Chepurniy, Kinetic theories for granular ow:
inelastic particles in Couette ow and slightly inelastic particles in a general ow
eld, J. Fluid Mech. 140 (1984) 223256.
[40] J. Sun, J. Wang, Y. Yang, CFD investigation of particle uctuation characteristics of
bidisperse mixture in a gassolid uidized bed, Chem. Eng. Sci. 82 (2012) 285298.
[41] W.-C. Yan, Z.-H. Luo, Y.-H. Lu, X.-D. Chen, A CFD-PBM-PMLM integrated model for
the gassolid ow elds in uidized bed polymerization reactors, AIChE J. 58
(2012) 17171732.
[42] D. Gidaspow, Multiphase Flow and Fluidization, Continuum and Kinetic Theory
Descriptions with Application, Academic Press, Inc., California, 1994.
[43] J.O. Hinze, Turbulence, McGraw-Hill College, New York, 1975.
[44] E.-U. Hartge, L. Ratschow, R. Wischnewski, J. Werther, CFD-simulation of a
circulating uidized bed riser, Particuology 7 (2009) 283296.
[45] N. Reuge, L. Cadoret, C. Coufort-Saudejaud, S. Pannala, M. Syamlal, B. Caussat,
Multiuid Eulerian modeling of dense gassolids uidized bed hydrodynamics:
inuence of the dissipation parameters, Chem. Eng. Sci. 63 (2008) 55405551.
[46] L. Cammarata, P. Lettieri, G.D. Micale, D. Colman, 2D and 3D CFD simulations of
bubbling uidized beds using EulerianEulerian models, Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 1
(2003) A48.
[47] H.P. Kuo, H.Z. Zhang, R.C. Hsu, CFD modelling of a countercurrent staged uidised
bed, Chem. Eng. J. 137 (2008) 664676.
[48] A. Busciglio, G. Vella, G. Micale, L. Rizzuti, Analysis of the bubbling behaviour of 2D
gas solid uidized beds: part II. Comparison between experiments and numerical
simulations via Digital Image Analysis Technique, Chem. Eng. J. 148 (2009)
145163.
[49] S.H. Hosseini, G. Ahmadi, R. Rahimi, M. Zivdar, M.N. Esfahany, CFD studies of solids
hold-up distribution and circulation patterns in gassolid uidized beds, Powder
Technol. 200 (2010) 202215.
[50] T. Li, C. Guenther, MFIX-DEM simulations of change of volumetric ow in uidized
beds due to chemical reactions, Powder Technol. 220 (2012) 7078.
[51] L.-S. Fan, C. Zhu, Principles of GasSolid Flows, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
110 Y. Che et al. / Powder Technology 278 (2015) 94110
[52] C.Y. Wen, Y.H. Yu, Mechanics of uidization, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 62 (1966).
[53] G. Dompazis, V. Kanellopoulos, V. Touloupides, C. Kiparissides, Development of a
multi-scale, multi-phase, multi-zone dynamic model for the prediction of particle
segregation in catalytic olen polymerization FBRs, Chem. Eng. Sci. 63 (2008)
47354753.
[54] N. Chepurniy, Kinetic theories for granular ow: inelastic particles in Couette ow
and slightly inelastic particles in a general oweld, J. Fluid Mech. 140 (1984)
223256.
[55] P. Johnson, R. Jackson, Friction akollisional constitutive relations for granular
materials, with application to plane shearing, J. Fluid Mech. 176 (1987) 6793.
[56] F. Vejahati, N. Mahinpey, N. Ellis, M.B. Nikoo, CFD simulation of gassolid bubbling
uidized bed: a new method for adjusting drag law, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 87 (2009)
1930.
[57] D. Kunii, O. Levenspiel, Fluidization Engineering, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston,
1991.
[58] L.-H. Wei, W.-C. Yan, Z.-H. Luo, A preliminary CFD study of the gassolid ow elds
in multizone circulating polymerization reactors, Powder Technol. 214 (2011)
143154.
[59] J. Min, J.B. Drake, T.J. Heindel, R.O. Fox, Experimental validation of CFD simulations of
a lab.-scale uidized-bed reactor with and without side-gas injection, AIChE J. 56
(2010) 14341446.
[60] Y.-C. Li, Introduction to Fluidization Process Engineering, Science Press, Beijing,
2008.