‫ﺑﺳم ﷲ اﻟرﱠ ﺣْ َﻣ ِن اﻟرﱠ ﺣِﯾ ِم‬

Sudan University of Science & Technology

College of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Petroleum Transportation & Refining Engineering
Department

Graduation Project about:

MODELING AND DESIGN OF FLUIDIZED CATALYTIC CRACKING

RISER
‫ﻧﻤﺬﺟﺔ وﺗﺼﻤﯿﻢ ﻣﻔﺎﻋﻞ وﺣﺪة اﻟﺘﻜﺴﯿﺮ اﻟﺤﻔﺰي‬
Submitted to College of Petroleum Engineering & Technology in Sudan
University partial fulfillment for one of requirement to take the degree of
B.Sc. in Petroleum Transportation & Refining Engineering Department.
Prepared by:
1- Alfadel Ali Saeed Abdalla
2- Hamza Mohammed Elnour
3- Kamal El-din Fayez Sayed

Supervisor:
Nihad Omer Hassan

October, 2016
 ‫‪MODELING AND DESIGN OF FLUIDIZED‬‬
‫‪CATALYTIC CRACKING RISER‬‬
‫ﻧﻤﺬﺟﺔ وﺗﺼﻤﯿﻢ ﻣﻔﺎﻋﻞ وﺣﺪة اﻟﺘﻜﺴﯿﺮ اﻟﺤﻔﺰي‬
‫ھﺬا اﻟﻤﺸﺮوع ﻣﻘﺪم إﻟﻰ ﻛﻠﯿﺔ ھﻨﺪﺳﺔ وﺗﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﯿﺎ اﻟﻨﻔﻂ –ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺴﻮدان ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻮم واﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﯿﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺈﻧﺠﺎز ﺟﺰﺋﻲ ﻷﺣﺪ اﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت اﻷﺳﺎﺳﯿﺔ ﻟﻨﯿﻞ درﺟﺔ اﻟﺒﻜﺎﻟﻮرﯾﻮس ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ اﻟﺸﺮف ﻓﻲ ھﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﻧﻘﻞ‬
‫وﺗﻜﺮﯾﺮ اﻟﻨﻔﻂ‪.‬‬
‫إﻋﺪاد اﻟﻄﻼب‪:‬‬
‫‪.1‬اﻟﻔﺎﺿﻞ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺳﻌﯿﺪ ﻋﺒﺪﷲ‪.‬‬
‫‪.2‬ﺣﻤﺰة ﻣﺤﻤﺪ اﻟﻨﻮر اﻹﻣﺎم‪.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬ﻛﻤﺎل اﻟﺪﯾﻦ ﻓﺎﺋﺰ ﺳﯿﺪ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻌﺰﯾﺰ‬

‫ﻣﺸﺮف اﻟﻤﺸﺮوع‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﻮﻗﯿﻊ‪.......................................‬‬ ‫‪ ‬أ‪ .‬ﻧﮭﺎد ﻋﻤﺮ ﺣﺴﻦ‬

‫رﺋﯿﺲ ﻗﺴﻢ ھﻨﺪﺳﺔ اﻟﻨﻘﻞ واﻟﺘﻜﺮﯾﺮ‪:‬‬

‫اﻟﺘﻮﻗﯿﻊ‪.......................................‬‬ ‫‪ ‬أ‪ .‬ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻘﺎدر‬

‫ﻋﻤﯿﺪ اﻟﻜﻠﯿﺔ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﺘﻮﻗﯿﻊ‪.........................................‬‬ ‫‪ ‬د‪.‬ﺗﻘﻮى‬

‫اﻟﺘﺎرﯾﺦ ‪2016 / 10 / 16‬‬

 ‫اﻹﺳ ﻼل‬

‫ﻗﺎل ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﷲُ اﻟﱠﺬِﯾﻦَ آ َﻣﻨُﻮا ﻣِﻨ ُﻜ ْﻢ وَاﻟﱠﺬِﯾﻦَ أُوﺗُﻮا اﻟْﻌِ ْﻠ َﻢ‬
‫" ﯾَﺮْ ﻓَ ِﻊ ﱠ‬
‫ﷲُ ﺑِﻤَﺎ ﺗَ ْﻌ َﻤﻠُﻮنَ ﺧَ ﺒِﯿ ٌﺮ "‬
‫ت وَ ﱠ‬
‫دَرَ ﺟَ ﺎ ٍ‬

‫ﺳﻮرة اﻟﻤﺠﺎدﻟﺔ اﻵﯾﺔ رﻗْﻢ ‪.11‬‬

‫‪i‬‬
 Dedication

To our parents
we just want to thank you for all the sacrifices you
have made, all the support you have given us, all
the guidance you have given when we needed it
most and molding into persons we have become
today.

We love you with all our hearts and we are proud to

be yours
our brothers and sisters
our friends
our teachers
In memory of AMAR DIRAR. You left fingerprints
of grace on our lives, you shan’t be forgotten.

Thank you all

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In the name of ALLAH, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

First of all, praise be to Allah almighty for his welfare, kindness and great mercy.
We are pleased to seize this opportunity to express our gratitude to everyone who
supported us throughout this project. We would like to express our acknowledgment
to College of Petroleum Engineering for giving us an opportunity to do this research
Work and providing all materials and facilities.

We would like to express our deepest gratitude to our supervisor Nihad Omer
Hassan for her voluble comments, encouragements, guidance and support. Our
great thankfulness to Isra Osman for her support and inspiring guidance
throughout the research.

iii
Abstract
In the present research, Material and Energy balance, and modeling for the fluid
catalytic cracking was developed to obtain conversion 92% by using Runge-kutta order
implemented in MATLAB with suitable zeolite weight. And also, comparison between
them in the yield of gasoline, light gases, and coke was made. The riser of the fluid
catalytic cracking was considered as a plug flow reactor incorporating the four lumps
model for kinetics of cracking reactions. The model which consisted of ordinary
differential equations was solved in order to get the yield patterns. Also, partial design
of FCC take into account.

iv
 ‫اﻟﺘﺠﺮﯾﺪ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﺒﺤﺚ اﻟﻤﻘﺪم‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻮازﻧﺔ ﻣﺎدة وطﺎﻗﺔ وﻧﻤﺬﺟﺔ ﻟﻮﺣﺪة اﻟﺘﻜﺴﯿﺮ اﻟﺤﻔﺰي ﻟﮭﺪف اﻟﻮﺻﻮل اﻟﻲ ﺗﺤﻮﯾﻞ‬
‫‪ %92‬ﺑﺈﺳﺘﺨﺪام أﻣﺮ راﻧﺞ‪-‬ﻛﻮﺗﺎ اﻟﻤﻄﺒﻖ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺎﺗﻼب‪ .‬وأﯾﻀﺎ ﺗﻢ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﺑﯿﻨﮭﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻤﻨﺘﻮج اﻟﺒﻨﺰﯾﻦ‬
‫‪،‬اﻟﻐﺎزات اﻟﺨﻔﯿﻔﺔ‪ ،‬واﻟﻔﺤﻢ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻢ إﻋﺘﺒﺎر اﻟﻤﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻲ )‪ (plug flow reactor‬وأن اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﯾﻜﻮن ﺑﯿﻦ ھﺬه‬
‫اﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎت ﻓﻘﻂ وھﻲ اﻟﺘﻐﺬﯾﺔ )‪ ، (Feed‬اﻟﻐﺎزات اﻟﺨﻔﯿﻔﺔ )‪ ، (Light Gases‬اﻟﺒﻨﺰﯾﻦ )‪، (Gasoline‬واﻟﻔﺤﻢ‬
‫)‪ . (Coke‬ﯾﺤﺘﻮي اﻟﻨﻤﻮذج ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎدﻻت ﺗﻔﺎﺿﻠﯿﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺪرﺟﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ ﺗﻢ ﺣﻠﮭﺎ ﻹﯾﺠﺎد اﻟﻤﻨﺘﻮج‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻢ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﺼﻤﯿﻢ‬
‫ﺟﺰﺋﻲ ﻟﻮﺣﺪة اﻟﺘﻜﺴﯿﺮ اﻟﺤﻔﺰي‪.‬‬

‫‪v‬‬
 Table of Contents
‫اإلستهالل‬........................................................................................ i
Dedication ................................................................................ ii
Acknoledgements .................................................................... iii
Abstract ................................................................................... iv
‫ التجريد‬......................................................................................... v
Table of Contents.................................................................... vi
List of Figures ....................................................................... viii
List of Tables........................................................................... ix
Nonemuclater ......................................................................... x

Chapter One Introduction .................................................... - 1 -

1.1. Background.................................................................. - 2 -
1.2. Project Objectives ........................................................ - 5 -
Chapter Two Literature review ............................................ - 6 -
2.1. Fluidized Catalytic Cracking ....................................... - 7 -
2.1.1. Introduction ............................................................ - 7 -
2.1.2. FCC Feed Characterization .................................... - 8 -
2.1.3. FCC Products ....................................................... - 11 -
2.1.4. FCC Reactions ..................................................... - 11 -
2.1.5. FCC Catalyst ........................................................ - 12 -
2.2. Models of FCC .......................................................... - 14 -
Chapter Three Methodology ............................................. - 18 -
3.1. Introduction ............................................................... - 19 -
3.2. FCC Yield Correlations ............................................. - 20 -
3.3. Material and Energy Balances ................................... - 21 -
3.3.1. Material Balance .................................................. - 21 -
3.3.2. Energy Balance .................................................... - 22 -

-vi-
 3.4. Riser Model ............................................................... - 24 -
3.4.1. Model Assumptions.............................................. - 24 -
3.4.2. Cracking Reactions Kinetics ................................ - 25 -
3.4.3. Concentration and Coking Time Profiles in The Riser
....................................................................................... - 26 -
3.4.4. Model Solution ..................................................... - 27 -
3.5. FCC Design ............................................................... - 24 -
Chapter Four Results and Discussions .............................. - 31 -
4.1. Introduction ............................................................... - 32 -
4.2. Case Study ................................................................. - 32 -
4.2.1 Feed and process Data ........................................... - 33 -
4.3. Material and Energy Balance Results ...................... - 33 -
4.3.1. Yield Correlation Results ..................................... - 33 -
4.3.2. Material Balance Results ...................................... - 34 -
4.3.3. Energy Balance Results ........................................ - 34 -
4.4. Model Results ............................................................ - 35 -
Chapter Five Conclusion and Recommendations ............... - 39 -
5.1. Conclusion ................................................................. - 39 -
5.2. Recommendations for Future Work ........................... - 40 -
References .......................................................................... - 41 -

-vii-
 List of Figures

Figure (1.1)Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit ............................. - 3 -

Figure(2.1)Examples of Paraffins .......................................... - 9 -

Figure(2.2)Examples of Olefins .......................................... - 10 -

Figure (2.3)Structure of Y-faujasite ..................................... - 13 -

Figure(3.1)Input and output streams for reactor and

regenerator in FCC unit ....................................................... - 19 -

Figure (3.2)A volume element in the riser reactor ............... - 24 -

Figure (3.3)Schematic of four lumped reactions .................. - 25 -

Figure(4.1) Space time Vs. weight fractions ........................ - 35 -

Figure (4.2)Yield of Gasoline .............................................. - 36 -

Figure (4.3)Yield of Light gases .......................................... - 37 -

Figure (4.4)Yield of Coke.................................................... - 38 -

-viii-
 List of Tables

Table (2.1)FCC products .................................................... - 11 -

Table(2.2)Typical thermodynamic data for idealized reactions

of importance in catalytic cracking ...................................... - 12 -

Table (4.1)Kinetic parameters with Modified frequency factors

used in present model .......................................................... - 32 -

Table (4.2)Feed and Process Data used in the present model ......
............................................................................................ - 33 -

Table(4.3)Yield Results from excel software ...................... - 33 -

Table(4.4)Reactor Material Balance Results from excel ..... - 34 -

Table(4.5)Regenerator Material Balance Results from excel

software ............................................................................... - 34 -

Table(4.6)Reactor Energy Balance Results from excel software

............................................................................................ - 34 -

Table(4.7)Reactor Material Balance Results from excel

software .......................................................................................
............................................................................................ - 35 -

Table(4.8) Comparison of the yield between the Modeling &

Material Balance software ...........................................................
............................................................................................ - 35 -

-ix-
 NOMENCLATURES

mf oil feed
sin injection steam
mcat mscat regenerated catalyst
spent catalyst circulation rate
sout steam presented in cracked products
p total number at vapor products
mair air for coke burning
ni flue gases
Qf heat of feed oil
Qs heat of steam in injected
Qcat heat of regenerated catalyst
Qp heat of vapor product
Qs,out heat of exit steam
Qscat heat of spent catalyst
qcoke heat of coke combustion
Qfg heat of flue gas
Y1 weight fraction of vacuum gas oil
Y2 weight fraction of gasoline
Y3 weight fraction of light gases
Y4 weight fraction of coke

-x-
Ej activation energy
Koj frequency factor
TR reactor temperature
dp gas constant
umf particle diameter
ut minimum fluidization velocity
db terminal velocity
ub bubble diameter
fb fc bubble rise velocity
fw fraction occupied by the bubble
fe fraction occupied by the cloud
fraction occupied by the wake
fraction occupied by the emulsion

Greeks

µ feed viscosity
εmf porosity at minimum fluidization
τ space time
ρp feed density
φ deactivation

-xi-
Abbreviation

FCC Fluidized Catalytic Cracking

VGO Vacuum Gas Oil
RFCC Residue Fluidized Catalytic Cracking
DCC Deep Catalytic Cracking
HPLC High-Pressure Liquid Chromatography
NIR Near-infrared spectroscopy
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
PNAs Poly-nuclear Aromatics
HCO Heavy Cycle Oil
LCO Light Cycle Oil
KRC Khartoum Refinery Company
LV Target conversion
LPG Liquefied petroleum gas
ODE Ordinary Deferential Equation

-xii-
Chapter One [INTRODUCTION]

Chapter 1

Introduction

-1-
Chapter One [INTRODUCTION]

1.1. Background
Fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) technology is a technology with more than 60 years of
commercial operating experience. The process is used to convert higher-molecular-
weight hydrocarbons to lighter, more valuable products through contact with a powdered
catalyst at appropriate conditions. The primary purpose of the FCC process has been to
produce gasoline, distillate, and C3/C4 olefins from low-value excess refinery gas oils
and heavier refinery streams. FCC is often the heart of a modern refinery because of its
adaptability to changing feedstocks and product demands and because of high margins
that exist between the FCC feedstocks and converted FCC products. As oil refining, has
evolved over the last 60 years, the FCC process has evolved with it, meeting the
challenges of cracking heavier, more contaminated feedstocks, increasing operating
flexibility, accommodating environmental legislation, and maximizing reliability. In the
environmental protection field, FCC unit-play a significant role by producing the
gasoline. Refineries use fluid catalytic cracking to correct the imbalance between the
market demand for gasoline and the excess of heavy high boiling range products resulting
from the distillation of crude oil.(Meyers, 2004)
The fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit consists of a reaction section and a
fractionating section that operate together as an integrated processing unit. The reaction
section includes two reactors, the riser reactor, where almost all the endothermic cracking
reactions and coke deposition on the catalyst occur, and the regenerator reactor, where air
is used to burn off the accumulated coke. The regeneration process provides, in addition
to reactivating the catalyst powders, the heat required by the endothermic cracking
reactions, (Figure 1.1).

-2-
Chapter One [INTRODUCTION]

Figure (1.1) Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit

A modern FCC unit comprises different sections such as a riser reactor, a stripper, a
disengager, a regenerator, a main fractionator, catalyst transport lines (spent catalyst
standpipe and regenerated catalyst standpipe) and several other auxiliary units such as:
cyclones, air blower, expander, wet gas compressor, feed pre-heater, air heater, catalyst
cooler, etc. The proprietary new designs and technologies that have been developed by
the major FCC designers and licensors.(Fernandes et al., 2005)

-3-
Chapter One [INTRODUCTION]

Because of the importance of FCC unit in refining, a construction of mathematical

model that can describe the dynamic behavior of FCC unit equipment’s in steady state is
very important. Accurate model can be used as a powerful tool to study the effect of
process variables on the performance and productivity of the system.(Fernandes et al.,
2005).
Simulation studies also provide guidance in the development of new processes and can
reduce both time and investment.(Rao et al., 2004). The effective simulation of the fluid
catalytic cracking operation requires knowledge of reaction kinetics, fluid dynamics, feed
and catalyst effects.(Bollas et al., 2007).
The riser reactor is probably the most important equipment in a FCC unit. The
modeling of a riser reactor is very complex due to complex hydrodynamics and unknown
multiple reactions, coupled with mass transfer resistance, heat transfer resistance and
deactivation kinetics. A complete model of the riser reactor should include all the
important physical phenomena and detailed reaction kinetics(Gupta et al., 2010).

-4-
Chapter One [INTRODUCTION]

1.2. Project Objectives

The main objectives of the present work are:
 A short literature review of previous FCC riser modeling and simulation studies.

 Formulation of a mathematical model that can describe the reaction kinetics in the
riser section of FCC unit by using four lump model to get suitable catalyst weight
that leads to target conversion.

 Description of the physical properties of flow in the riser of the reactor.

-5-
Chapter Two [LITERATURE REVIEW]

Chapter 2

Literature review

-6-
Chapter Two [LITERATURE REVIEW]

2.1. Fluidized Catalytic Cracking

2.1.1. Introduction
The fluidized catalytic cracking (FCC) unit is the heart of the refinery and is where
heavy low-value petroleum stream such as vacuum gas oil (VGO) is upgraded into higher
value products, mainly gasoline and C3/C4 olefins, which can be used in the alkylation
unit for production of ultraclean gasoline (C7-C8 alkylates). The FCC process has been in
operation for over 60 years during which, a great deal of developments has occurred.
Major developments have occurred in two areas: new catalysts and new reactor and
regenerator designs. Recently, new processes have been developed, such as petro-FCC,
residue FCC (RFCC) and olefin production, by a variety of means, including deep
catalytic cracking (DCC). The original FCC has also been developed to improve yield,
emission control and adaptability for different crude. The FCC unit mainly depends on
circulating a zeolite catalyst with the vapor of the feed into a riser-reactor for a few
seconds. The cracked products are disengaged from the solids and taken out to a
distillation column for separation of the desired products. The catalyst is circulated back
into the regenerator where coke is burned and the catalyst regenerated. The combustion
of the coke generates the heat required to carry out the generally endothermic reaction in
the riser(Fahim et al., 2009).

-7-
Chapter Two [LITERATURE REVIEW]

2.1.2. FCC Feed Characterization

Refiners process many different types of crude oil. As market conditions and crude
quality fluctuate, so does cat cracking feedstock. Often the only constant in FCC
operations is the continual change in feedstock quality. Feed characterization is the
process of determining the physical and chemical properties of the feed. Two feeds with
similar boiling point ranges may exhibit dramatic differences in cracking performance
and product yields. FCC feed characterization is one of the most important activities in
monitoring the cat cracking operation. Understanding feed properties and knowing their
impact on unit performance are essential. Troubleshooting, catalyst selection, unit
optimization, and subsequent process evaluations all depend on the feedstock. Feed
characterization relates product yields and qualities to feed quality. By knowing the
effects of a feedstock on unit yields, a refiner can purchase the feedstock that maximizes
profitability. It is not uncommon for refiners to purchase raw crude oils or FCC
feedstock’s without knowing their impact on unit operations. This lack of knowledge can
be expensive. Sophisticated analytical techniques, such as mass spectrometry, high-
pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC), near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR), and
chemometrics, can be used to measure aromatic and saturate contents of the FCC
feedstock.. Unfortunately, only a few refinery laboratories either directly or indirectly use
any of the methods to characterize their FCC feedstock. This is largely because these
analysis techniques are time consuming, costly, and do not provide practical insight that a
unit can use on a daily basis to evaluate and improve its performance. Consequently,
simpler empirical correlations are more often used. They require only routine tests
commonly performed by the refinery’s laboratory. These empirical correlations are good
alternatives to determine total paraffin, naphthene, and aromatic molecules, plus they
provide practical tools for monitoring the FCC unit’s performance. As with the
sophisticated analytical techniques, the empirical correlations assume an olefin-free
feedstock.(Sadeghbeigi, 2012)
The two primary factors that affect feed quality are:
 Hydrocarbons Classification
 Impurities

-8-
Chapter Two [LITERATURE REVIEW]

2.1.2.1. Hydrocarbons Classification

 Paraffin’s
Paraffin’s are straight- or branched-chain hydrocarbons having the chemical formula
CnH2n+2. The name of each member ends with _ ane; examples are propane, isopentane,
and normal heptane’s.(Sadeghbeigi, 2012)

Figure (2.1) Examples of Paraffin’s

 Naphthenes
Naphthenes (CnH2n) have the same formula as olefins, but their characteristics are
significantly different. Unlike olefins, which are straight-chain compounds, naphthene’s
are paraffin’s that have been “bent” into a ring or a cyclic shape. Naphthenes, like
paraffin’s, are saturated compounds. Examples of naphthene’s are cyclopentane,
cyclohexane, and methylcyclohexane.(Sadeghbeigi, 2012)

 Aromatic
Aromatics (CnH2n-6) are similar to naphthene’s, but they contain a resonance-stabilized
unsaturated ring core. Aromatics are compounds that contain at least one benzene ring.
The benzene ring is very stable and does not crack to smaller components. Aromatics are
not a preferred feedstock because few of the molecules will crack. The cracking of
aromatics mainly involves breaking off the side chains resulting in excess fuel gas yield.
In addition, some of the aromatic compounds contain several rings (polynuclear
aromatics, PNAs) than can “compact” to form what is commonly called “chicken wire.”
illustrates three examples of a PNA compound. Some of these compacted aromatics will
end up on the catalyst as carbon residue (coke), and some will become slurry product. In
comparison with cracking paraffin’s, cracking aromatic stocks results in lower

-9-
Chapter Two [LITERATURE REVIEW]

conversion, lower gasoline yield, and less liquid volume gain, but with higher gasoline
octane.(Sadeghbeigi, 2012)

 Olefins
Olefins are unsaturated hydrocarbons with a formula of Cn H2n. The names of these
compounds end with _ene, such as ethane (ethylene) and propene (propylene).
(Figure 2.2) shows typical examples of olefins. Compared to paraffin’s, olefins are
unstable and can react with themselves or with other compounds such as oxygen and
bromine solution. Olefins do not occur naturally; they show up in the FCC feed as a
result of preprocessing the feeds elsewhere. These processes include thermal cracking
and other catalytic cracking operations. Olefins are not the preferred feedstocks to an
FCC unit. This is not because olefins are inherently bad, but because olefins in the FCC
feed indicate thermally produced oil. They often polymerize to form undesirable products
such as slurry and coke. The typical olefin content of FCC feed is less than 5 wt.%,
unless un-hydrotreated cocker gas oils are being charged.(Sadeghbeigi, 2012)

Figure (2.2) Examples of Olefins

 Impurities
The concentration of impurities in the FCC feedstock largely depends on the crude oil
quality, gas oil EP, and the severity of hydrotreating. The cat cracker, as the main
conversion unit, is designed to handle a variety of feedstock’s. However, these impurities
have negative effects on unit performance. Understanding the nature and effects of these
contaminants is essential in feed and catalyst selection as well as troubleshooting the unit.

- 10 -
Chapter Two [LITERATURE REVIEW]

Most of the impurities in the FCC feed exist as components of large organic molecules.
The most common contaminants are:

• Nitrogen
• Sulfur
• Metals (nickel, vanadium, potassium, iron, calcium, copper).

2.1.3. FCC Products

The cat cracker converts less valuable gas oil feedstock to a more valuable product. A
major objective of most FCC units is to maximize the conversion of gas oil to gasoline
and LPG, though recently the trend has been in maximizing diesel production. The
typical products produced from the cat cracker are:
 Dry gas (hydrogen, methane, ethane, ethylene)
 LPG (propane, propylene, isobutane, normal butane, butylene’s)
 Gasoline
 LCO
 HCO (in few FCC units)
 Decanted (or slurry) oil
 Combustion coke.
Table shows the FCC products and the percentages of its yield

Table (2.1) FCC products

Product Characteristics Yield
(wt%)
Dry gas + H2S H2S must be removed 3-5
(C1+C2+C3+H2) +H2S
LPG: C3, C3’’, C4, C4’’ Petrochemical feedstock 8-20
Gasoline Main product, good 35-60
octane number
Light cycle oil (LCO) Rich in aromatics & High 12-20
sulfur content
Heavy cycle oil (HCO)+ Very rich in aromatics 10-15
Slurry
Coke Consumed in regenerator 3-5

- 11 -
Chapter Two [LITERATURE REVIEW]

2.1.4. FCC Reactions

The main reaction in the FCC is the catalytic cracking of paraffin, olefins, naphthene’s
and side chains in aromatics. A network of reactions occurring in the FCC is illustrated in
The VGO undergoes the desired ‘primary cracking’ into gasoline and LCO. A secondary
reaction also occurs, which must be limited, such as a hydrogen transfer reaction which
lowers the gasoline yield and causes the cycloaddition reaction. The latter could lead to
coke formation (needed to provide heat for catalyst regeneration).(Fahim et al., 2009)

Table (2.2) Typical thermodynamic data for idealized reactions of importance in catalytic cracking

2.1.5. FCC Catalyst

The main catalyst which is used in a FCC reactor is the zeolite type. Compared to
amorphous silica-alumina catalyst, the zeolite catalysts are more active and more
selective. The higher activity and selectivity translates to more profitable liquid product
yields and additional cracking capacity.(Fahim et al., 2009)

2.1.5.1. Catalyst Components

FCC catalysts are in the form of fine powders with a typical particle size of 75 μm. A
modern cat cracking catalyst has four major components:

- 12 -
Chapter Two [LITERATURE REVIEW]

 Zeolite
Zeolite is in a powder-form with an average particle size of 75 mm and an average
surface area of 800 m2/g. It has a crystalline structure of aluminosilicates. A matrix is
added to the zeolite which acts as a binder and filler. The main active component in the
catalyst is the Y-Zeolite. It is a crystalline structure of aluminosilicates which has the Y-
faujasite structure. The highest pore size in the Y-faujasite structure is 8 A which is
called the super cage. It can allow some C18-C25 mono-, di- and tri-nuclear aromatics
present in the VGO to pass. In the cracking of long chain paraffin’s, another type of high
silica zeolite is added. This zeolite is called ZSM-5 and is used to improve octane
number.

Figure (2.3) Structure of Y-faujasite

 Matrix
Matrix refers to the catalyst binder. It means components of the catalyst other than
zeolite, and the term active matrix means the components of the catalyst other than
zeolite having catalytic activity. Alumina is the source for an active matrix. Most active
matrices used in FCC catalysts are amorphous. However, some of the catalyst suppliers
incorporate a form of alumina that also has a crystalline structure.

 Filler and Binder

The filler is a clay incorporated into the catalyst to dilute its activity. Kaoline
[Al2(OH)2, SI2O5] is the most common clay used in the FCC catalyst. One FCC catalyst

- 13 -
Chapter Two [LITERATURE REVIEW]

manufacturer uses kaoline clay as a skeleton to grow the zeolite in situ. The binder serves
as a glue to hold the zeolite, matrix, and filler together. Binder may or may not have
catalytic activity. The importance of the binder becomes more prominent with catalysts
that contain high concentrations of zeolite. The functions of the filler and the binder are
to provide physical integrity, a heat transfer medium, and a fluidizing medium in which
the more important and expensive zeolite component is incorporated.
In summary, zeolite will affect activity, selectivity, and product quality. An active
matrix can improve bottoms cracking and resist vanadium and nitrogen attacks. But a
matrix containing very small pores can suppress strippability of the spent catalyst and
increase hydrogen yield in the presence of nickel. Clay and binder provide physical
integrity and mechanical strength.

2.2. Models of FCC

Modeling of riser reactor is very complex due to complex hydrodynamics, unknown
multiple reactions coupled with mass transfer and heat transfer resistances. Also, the
conditions keep changing all along the riser height due to cracking which causes molar
expansion in the gas phase and influences the axial and radial catalyst density in the riser.
In the literature, numerous models of FCC riser are available with varying degrees of
simplifications and assumptions.
Theologos and Markatos (1993) proposed a three-dimensional mathematical model
considering two phase flow, heat transfer, and three lump reaction scheme in the riser
reactor. The authors developed the full set of partial differential equations that describes
the conservation of mass, momentum, energy and chemical species for both phases,
coupled with empirical correlations concerning interphase friction, interphase heat
transfer, and fluid to wall frictional forces. The model can predict pressure drop, catalyst
holdup, interphase slip velocity, temperature distribution in both phases, and yield
distribution all over the riser.
An integrated dynamic model for the complete description of the fluid catalytic
cracking unit (FCC unit) was developed by Bollas et al. (2002); the model simulates
successfully the riser and the regenerator of FCC and incorporates operating conditions,
feed properties and catalyst effects.

- 14 -
Chapter Two [LITERATURE REVIEW]

Erthal et al. (2003), developed a one dimensional, mathematical model, they

considered in their model gas-solid flow that occurs in FCC risers, two equations of
momentum conservation applied to the compressible gas flow and solid flow
respectively, the model considers also the drag force and heat transfer coefficient
between two phases; four lump model used for cracking reactions description.
Souzaa et al. (2003), combined a 2-D fluid flow field with a 6- lumps kinetic model
and used two energy equations (catalyst and gas oil) to simulate the gas oil cracking
process inside the riser reactor.
Das et al. (2003), performed the three-dimensional simulation of an industrial-scale
fluid catalytic cracking riser reactor using a novel density based solution algorithm. The
particle-level fluctuations are modeled in the framework of the kinetic theory of granular
flow. The reactor model includes separate continuity equations for the components in the
bulk gas and inside the solid phase.
Osman et al. (2010) developed a kinetic model to simulate the riser of a residue fluid
catalytic cracking unit (RFCC) at steady state. The model based on combination the
material and energy balance equations with seven lump model and a modified two-
dimensional hydrodynamic model. Simulation has been performed based on the data
from an operating unit at Khartoum Refinery Company (KRC). MATLAB environment
has been used to solve and analyze the kinetic model and process variables.
Ali et al. (1997); Arbel et al. (1995); Han et al. (2001), developed a mathematical
model of an industrial FCC unit, includes one dimensional mass, energy, and species
balance; their models were based on the assumption of instantaneous and complete
vaporization of the feed when contacted with hot regenerated catalyst assuming modern
high efficiency feed injection systems. These types of modeling are normally simple to
formulate and to solve. They are more suitable when the interest is to explore the
influence of operating conditions, test a kinetic model or when the simulation includes
not only the riser, but also other equipment’s like the regenerator and the stripper. The
simplest kind of these models is the homogeneous version, where both the vapor phase
(hydrocarbon feed & products vapors) and the solid phase (catalyst & coke) are moving
at the same velocity. The heterogeneous version considers different velocities for the two
phases, resulting in different residence times for each phase inside the riser.

- 15 -
Chapter Two [LITERATURE REVIEW]

The simplest hydrodynamic models assume steady state ideal plug flow reactor. Ali et
al. and Han et al. used the four-lump kinetic models to describe the behavior of cracking
reactions, while Arbel et al. used more complex ten-lump model.

An integrated dynamic model for the complete description of the fluid catalytic
cracking unit (FCC unit) was developed by Bollas et al. (2002); the model simulates
successfully the riser and the regenerator of FCC and incorporates operating conditions,
feed properties and catalyst effects.
Berry et al. (2004), modified the two-dimensional hydrodynamic model to make it
predictive by incorporating the slip factor for the calculation of the cross-sectionally
averaged voidage. The model has been coupled with the four-lump kinetic model to
predict the effect of operating conditions on profiles of conversion, yield, temperature
and pressure in the riser.

Hassan (2005), developed Material and energy balance calculations todesign Fluidized
catalytic cracking (FCC) unit from Iraqi crude oil. She used the visual basic program in
her work.

With regard to reaction and kinetics, Xu et al. (2006) proposed aseven-lump kinetic
model to describe residual oil catalytic cracking, in which products especially coke was
lumped separately for accurate prediction. Because in recent studies, kinetics was
developed accounting for coke formation leading to catalyst deactivation. The reactor
block is modeled as a combination of an ideal Plug Flow Reactor (PFR) and a
Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR).

On the other hand, Krishnaiah et al. (2007), a steady state simulation for the fluid
cracking was investigated, the riser reactor was modeled as a plug flow reactor
incorporating four lump model for cracking reactions; they studied the effect of the
operating variables on FCC unit performance, a catalyst to oil ratio, air rate and gasoil
inlet temperature have been chosen as operating variables.

- 16 -
Chapter Two [LITERATURE REVIEW]

Gupta et al. (2007) proposed a new kinetic scheme based on pseudo-components

cracking and developed a semi-empirical model for the estimation of the rate constants of
the resulting reaction network. Fifty pseudo-components (lumps) are considered in this
scheme resulting in more than 10,000 reaction possibilities. The model can be easily used
to incorporate other aspects of the riser modeling.

Ahari et al. (2008), a one dimensional adiabatic model for riser reactor of FCC unit was
developed, the chemical reaction was characterized by a four-lump kinetic model, in their
study, four cases of industrial riser operating conditions have been adopted and the
modified kinetic parameters are used to eliminate the deviations between calculated and
real values, also simulation studies are performed to investigate the effect of changing
process variables.

Based on Ahari et al. (2008) study, Heydari et al. (2010) performed an excessive
analysis to gasoline yield throughout the riser with respect to different inlet mixing
temperatures, different feed rates and different catalyst to oil ratios.

Shakoor (2010) developed a computer program using MATLAB 7software to

determine the rate constants of FCC unit cracking reactions represented by six lump
model and at any certain temperature.

Baurdez et al. (2010) proposed a method for steady-state/transient, two phase gas–solid
simulation of a FCC riser reactor. Authors used a simple four lump kinetic model to
demonstrate the feasibility of the method.

A control system of a fluidized-bed catalytic cracking unit has been developed by AL-
Niami (2010). In this work the dynamic and control system based on basic energy
balance in the reactor and regenerator systems have been carried out. For the control
system, the important input variables were chosen to be the reactor temperature and the
regenerator temperature.

- 17 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

Chapter 3

Methodology

- 18 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

3.1. Introduction
In this chapter, a mathematical model for the riser of an industrial FCC is developed,
based on the reactor/regenerator configuration presented in the (Figure 3.1). Feed and
steam are mixed and injected through the feed nozzles distributors. At the distributors,
the riser diameter increases to allow for the expansion of hydrocarbon vapors as the oil is
vaporized when it meets the catalyst. As a result of feed vaporization, the cracking
reactions start and the density of the oil decreases causing an increase in the velocity of
the vapor/gas phase. The increasing gas phase velocity accelerates the velocity of the
catalyst and the riser behaves as a transport bed reactor. The Gasoil is converted to
gasoline range hydrocarbons, light gases and coke. The cracking reactions by product
(coke) gets deposited on the catalyst surface and decreases its activity as the catalyst
moves toward the exit of the riser. Because the riser volume is small, it limits the contact
time between the catalyst and hydrocarbon to 5 seconds or less, and prevents over
cracking of the feed.

Figure (3.1) Input and output streams for reactor and regenerator in FCC unit

- 19 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

3.2. FCC Yield Correlations

The yields of the products involved in fluid cracking are obtained by the regression of
plant data. The correlations given in Table (3.1) require target conversion (LV%), feed
API and Sulphur in the feed. Conversion is defined as the percentage of the oil fed that
has been cracked into lighter fractions than gasoline and lighter products:

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 − 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑘

𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉% = ( ) ∗ 100
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
(3.1)

Table (3.1) FCC Yield Correlations

- 20 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

3.3. Material and Energy Balances

The material and energy balance around the reactor and regenerator can be calculated
by defining the input and output streams.

3.3.1. Material Balance

3.3.1.1. Reactor Material Balance
The input and output streams to the reactor (Figure 3.1) are:
Reactor input:
 Oil feed (VGO) to the riser: F (BPD) or mf (Ib/h)
 Injection steam: Sin (Ib/h)
 Regenerated catalyst: mcat(Ib/h)
Reactor output:
 Masses of products m as calculated from FCC yield correlations. These
correlations require some feed properties such as: API, Sulphur content and
degree of severity expressed as conversion.
 Spent catalyst circulation rate: mscat(Ib/h)
 Steam present in cracked products: Sout(Ib/h)
Thus, a material balance around the reactor is

(3.2)

where p is the total number of vapor products and assuming Sin does not condense and is
present in the exiting vapor products at the same rate (S in = Sout). Mi is the mass of each
product that can be calculated using the FCC correlations. The produced coke is present
in spent catalyst. Thus

m coke  mscat  mcat (3.3)

- 21 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

3.3.1.2 Regenerator Material Balance

Regenerator input:
 Spent catalyst circulation rate mscat (Ib/h)
 Air for cock burning mair(Ib/h)
Regenerator output:
 Flue gases ni (Ib/h)
 Regenerated catalysts mcat (Ib/h)
Thus, the material balance around the regenerator produces:

(3.4)

where ni is the mass of each gas produced from the coke burning which may contain
CO2, CO, H2O, SO2, N2 and O2 (from excess air).

3.3.2. Energy Balance

3.3.2.1. Reactor Heat Balance
Heat input:
 Heat of feed oil QF (Btu/h) at inlet feed temperature (TF)
 Heat of steam injected Qs (Btu/h) at TS
 Heat of regenerated catalyst QCat (Btu/h) at regenerator outlet temperature
(TReg)
Heat output:
 Heat in vapor products Qp (Btu/h) at reactor outlet temperature (T R)
 Heat of spent catalyst QScat (Btu/h) at (TR)
 Heat of exit steam QS, OUT (Btu/h) at (TR)

Then the energy balance can be expressed as

(3.5)

- 22 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

3.3.2.2. Regenerator Heat Balance

Heat input:
 Heat of spent catalyst QScat (Btu/h) at (TR)
 Heat of input air for coke burning QAir (Btu/h) at (TAir)
 Heat of coke combustion qcoke (Btu/h)
Heat output:
 Heat of flue gas Qfg (Btu/h) at (TRg)
 Heat of regenerated catalyst QCat(Btu/h) at (TR)
Thus, the heat balance around the regenerator can expressed as

(3.6)

- 23 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

3.4. Riser Model

For numerical computation, riser is divided into equal sized segments of thickness (dz),
forming sequential equal sized volume elements (see Figure 3.4).

Figure (3.2) A volume element in the riser reactor

3.4.1. Model Assumptions

In order to develop a mathematical model for the riser reactor, the following
assumptions are introduced:
 One dimensional transported plug flow reactor prevails in the riser without radial
and axial dispersion
 Steady state operation
 The riser wall is adiabatic.
 Viscosities and heat capacities for all components in vapor phase are constant
along the riser.
 The coke deposited on the catalyst does not affect the fluid flow.
 Catalyst activity constant along the riser.

- 24 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

3.4.2. Cracking Reactions Kinetics

The FCC process involves a network of reactions producing a large number of
compounds. Therefore, lumping models can be used to describe the reaction system in
terms of the feed and a defined number of products, the agglomeration of many chemical
compounds into a single compound (called a lump), should exhibit some or several
common properties (i.e. boiling point, molecular weight, reactivity). In this work four
lump model scheme has been selected (Figure 3.4). This scheme consists of (VGO feed,
Light gases, Gasoline, and Coke), it is more realistic and simple to solve, with more
lumps, the mathematic becomes more complicated.

Figure (3.3) Schematic of four lumped reactions

According to this scheme, a part of gasoline is also converted to light gases and coke. It is
assumed that cracking reaction rate is second order with respect to Gasoil, and first order
with respect to Gasoline, and the reactions take place only in the vapor phase. Rate
constants (Kj) for cracking reactions follow the Arrhenius dependence on temperature
(equation 3.6).

(3.7)

- 25 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

In order to fit the predicted gasoline, yield with industrial gasoline yield, the selected
frequency factors can be scaled linearly by dividing each one by the modified frequency
factor (Ko1) of the reaction feedstock → gasoline:

3.4.3. Concentration, and Coking Time Profiles in The Riser

In order to calculate the concentration profile for each lump throughout the riser height,
a differential material balance can be applied along the riser, the following set of
equations is:
For VGO lump:

(3.8)
For gasoline lump:

(3.9)
For light gases lump:

(3.10)

For coke lump:

(3.11)

- 26 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

where Y is the weight fraction and subscripts 1, 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the pseudo
components as the Gas Oil, gasoline, gases, and coke, and Շ indicates residence time
W/F (Weight of Catalyst/feed rate) and Փ is the deactivation factor of the catalyst.

3.4.4. Model Solution

MATLAB software version 7 used for solve presented model, based on the scorned
order Runge – Kutta method numerical technique; and a sequential approach has been
chosen in this solution. the sequence of calculation steps is listed below, and the model
results and discussions are presented in chapter four.

 Step 1: Create the m.file 1

- 27 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

 Step 2: Create the m.file 2

 Step 3: Use the ODE45 function in the command window

[IVsol, DVsol] = ode45('DEdef', domain, IC);
 Step 4: plot the results

3.5. FCC Design

 Data and Assumption
 The bubbles are all of one size.
 The solids in the emulsion phase flow smoothly downward, essentially in
plug flow.
 The emulsion phase exists at minimum fluidizing conditions. The gas
occupies the same void fraction in this phase as it had in the entire bed at
the minimum fluidization point.
 ψ = 0.33, ρp = 2500 kg m-3, Dp = 0.05 mm = 0.05*10-3m, α = 0.6,
Dm = 0.14 m2 h-1 = 0.4*10-4 m2 S-1, μf = 1.44 kg h-1 m-1

 The Porosity at minimum fluidization εmf:

1
0.071 3
𝜀mf = [ ] (3.12)
𝛹

= (0.071/0.33)1/3 = 0.6

- 28 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

 The minimum fluidization velocity is obtained from Equation

(3.13)

umf = 0.005 m/s

 The terminal velocity UT

(3.14)

Where:
Ƞ = g (ρp – ρf)
Ƞ = g (ρp – ρf) = 9.81 (2500 – 899) = 1601

Ut = 0.31 m s-2

 The bubble diameter, db

(3.15)

Db = 0.001 cm

 The bubble rise velocity, Ub

Ubr = (0.71) (gdb)1/2 (3.16)
Ub = Uo – Umf + (0.71) (gdb)1/2 (3.17)

Ubr = 0.71 * (9.81*0.1)1/2 = 0.704 m S-1

Ub = 0.2 - 0.005 + (0.71) (9.81*0.1) = 0.9 m S-1

- 29 -
Chapter Three [METHODOLOGY]

 The region fractions in the reactor bed

 Fraction occupied by bubbles fb

Fb = u0/ub (3.18)

Fb = 0.2/0.9 = 0.222

 Fraction occupied by cloud fc

(3.19)

3∗0.005∗0.222
Fc = = 0.007
0.6∗0.704−0.005

 Fraction occupied by wake fw

Fw = αfb
Fw = 0.6*0.222 = 0.133 (3.20)

 Fraction occupied by Fraction occupied by emulsion fe

fe = 1- fb – fc – fw (3.21)
fe = 1- 0.222 - 0.007 - 0.133 = 0.638

- 30 -
Chapter Four [RESULTS & DISCUSSION]

Chapter 4

Results and
Discussions

- 31 -
Chapter Four [RESULTS & DISCUSSION]

4.1. Introduction
As discussed in previous chapter, the material and energy balance equations were
combined with reaction kinetics equations to obtain a model capable to predicting the
yield pattern along the riser height. Model results are plotted in the following figures with
a brief discussion. An Excel worksheet and MATLAB software was developed for
modeling.

4.2. Case Study

For model validation, commercial FCC unit (5008 TPSD) designed to handle
hydrotreated VGO feed was selected. The unit operates for maximum gasoline mode,
therefore, no recycle occurs at normal operation. (Table 1.1) shows the kinetic parameters
for cracking reactions with adjustable frequency factors utilizing the productivity of
studied case.

Table (1.1) Kinetic parameters with Modified frequency factors used in present model
Frequency factor koj Activation energy Ej
(kJ/kmol)
Gas oil to gasoline 7.978 * 106 -68,250
Gas oil to gases 4.549 *106 -89,216
Gas oil to coke 3.765 *104 -64,575
Gasoline to gases 3.255 *103 52,718
Gasoline to coke 7.957 *103 63,458

- 32 -
Chapter Four [RESULTS & DISCUSSION]

4.2.1 Feed and process Data

Table (4.2) Feed and Process Data used in the present model
Feed API 20.02
Sulfur in feed wt% 0.266
Conversion % 75
Specific Gravity of feed 0.9339
Feed Temperature (K◦) 850
Regenerator Temperature (K◦) 973
Reactor Temperature (K◦) 823
Steam Temperature (K◦) 518
Air Temperature (K◦) 473
-∆H (kj/kmol) 393000
Steam In (ton/h) 2500
4.3. Material and Energy Balance Results
4.3.1. Yield Correlation Results
Table (4.3) Yield Results from excel software
Products Corellations Ib/h
Coke wt% 7.1711754 29891.8471
LCO LV% 14.568 65672.468
Gases wt% 5.6754 23656.9571
Gasoline LV% 70.559 244070.983
iC4 LV% 7.76244 19402.0811
nC4 LV% 3.4884 9061.73367

C4 olefin LV% 8.98 24048.59

C3 LV% 3.1398 7147.17132
C3 olefin LV% 8.3771 19293.2518
HCO -6.568 -27377.611
S in Gases wt% 1.2792348 302.628028
S in LCO wt% 0.27941404 183.498096
S in HCO wt% 0.5149765 -140.98826
S in Coke wt% 369.7748074 110532.52
Gasoline API 48.53013548
LCO API 2.6606943

- 33 -
Chapter Four [RESULTS & DISCUSSION]

4.3.2. Material Balance Results

Table (4.4) Reactor Material Balance Results from excel
Reactor Side

Mf (Ib/h) 416833.3
Mcat (Ib/h) 166733.32
Mcoke (Ib/h) 29891.84707
∑Mi (Ib/h) 384975.6252
Mscat 196625.1671
Sin 208416.65

Table (4.5) Regenerator Material Balance Results from excel

software Regenerator Side
Mair (Ib/h) 141982.9
∑ ni (kmol/h) 141982.9

4.3.3. Energy Balance Results

Table (4.6) Reactor Energy Balance Results from excel software

Reactor Side
Cp (Btu /
Hydrocarbons API° Ib.F)
Feed 20.01515152 0.885548852
Gasoline 48.53013548 0.905595741
LCO 2.6606943 0.873348148
ic4 121.1785714 0.956669771
nc4 111.6271478 0.949954834
C4 olefin 104.3333333 0.944827063
C3 145.9509804 0.974085518
C3 olefin 142.7248062 0.971817421

Table (4.7) Regenerator Energy Balance Results from excel

software Side
Regenerator
Cp,co2 (Kj/Kmol.k) 46.9
Cp,N2 (Kj/Kmol.k) 32.6
Cp,air (kj/kmol.k) 28.84
coke (kmol/h) 1129.127
Cp,cat (kj/kg.k) 1.11
q (kj/h) 443746911
Cp,s (KJ/Kg.K) 2.182

- 34 -
Chapter Four [RESULTS & DISCUSSION]

4.4. Model Results

In order to validate the model, the results obtained by solving the model by using the
given data from the plant. The results obtained and the deviation in the results is reported
in the next figures. By trial and error, we get the suitable weight of catalyst that give
conversion 92%.
Figure (4.1) shows the consumption of gasoline and the yields of gasoline, light gases,
and coke in the riser reactor. Where Space time (Շ) represented by T.

Figure (4.1) Space time Vs. weight fractions

Table (4.8) Comparison of the yield between the Modeling & Material Balance

Weight fraction Weight fraction Deviation

from Material from Modeling
Balance (wt.%) (wt.%)
Gasoline 71 78 +7%

Gases 5.6 4 -1.6%

Coke 7 9 +2%

- 35 -
Chapter Four [RESULTS & DISCUSSION]

And figures (4.2), (4.3), (4.4) show the yields of gasoline, light gases, and coke
respectively.

Figure (4.2) Yield of Gasoline

- 36 -
Chapter Four [RESULTS & DISCUSSION]

Figure (4.3) Yield of Light gases

Figure (4.4) Yield of Coke

- 37 -
Chapter Five [CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS]

Chapter 5

Conclusion and
Recommendations

- 38 -
Chapter Five [CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS]

5.1. Conclusion
In this work an Isothermally model for FCC unit riser reactor was developed, that
combines material and heat balance of model for a four- lump kinetic scheme in order to
predict the yield patterns. It was observed that the yield of gasoline increases with an
increase in catalyst temperature as the rate of reaction is known to decrease with a
decrease in catalyst temperature. After a certain level the production of coke is increased
and hence due to deactivation of catalyst the gasoline yield starts decreasing.

- 39 -
Chapter Five [CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS]

5.2. Recommendations for Future Work

The following suggestions for future work can be considered:
 Developing the model to include the cyclone, VSS, and regenerator
performance as well.
 Developing the model using more lumps for kinetics, multi- dimensions for the
riser, and multi-phase system.
 Developing the model to taking account the friction effects between phases
with the wall of the riser and between phases itself.
 Study the effect of change of any operating conditions variables on unit
performance, i.e. feed temperature, feed type and C/O ratio.

- 40 -
Chapter Five [CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS]

References

 AHARI, J. S., FARSHI, A. & FORSAT, K. 2008. A mathematical

modeling of the riser reactor in industrial FCC unit. Petroleum and
Coal, 50, 15-24.
 AHMED, A. O. M., MAULUD, A. S., RAMASAMY, M. & MAHADZIR, S.
2010. Steady State Modeling and Simulation of the Riser in an
Industrial RFCC Unit. Journal of Applied Sciences(Faisalabad), 10,
3207-3214.
 BAUDREZ, E., HEYNDERICKX, G. J. & MARIN, G. B. 2010. Steady-
state simulation of Fluid Catalytic Cracking riser reactors using a
decoupled solution method with feedback of the cracking
reactions on the flow. Chemical Engineering Research and Design,
88, 290-303.
 BERRY, T. A., MCKEEN, T. R., PUGSLEY, T. S. & DALAI, A. K. 2004.
Two-dimensional reaction engineering model of the riser section
of a fluid catalytic cracking unit. Industrial & engineering chemistry
research, 43, 5571-5581.
 BOLLAS, G., LAPPAS, A., IATRIDIS, D. & VASALOS, I. 2007a. Five-
lump kinetic model with selective catalyst deactivation for the
prediction of the product selectivity in the fluid catalytic cracking
process. Catalysis Today, 127, 31-43.
 BOLLAS, G., VASALOS, I., LAPPAS, A., IATRIDIS, D., VOUTETAKIS, S.
& PAPADOPOULOU, S. 2007b. Integrated FCC riser—regenerator
dynamics studied in a fluid catalytic cracking pilot plant. Chemical
engineering science, 62, 1887-1904.
 CHAUDHURI, U. R. 2016. Fundamentals of petroleum and
petrochemical engineering, CRC Press.
 DAS, A. K., BAUDREZ, E., MARIN, G. B. & HEYNDERICKX, G. J. 2003.
Three-dimensional simulation of a fluid catalytic cracking riser
reactor. Industrial & engineering chemistry research, 42, 2602-
2617.
 ERTHAL, R. H., NEGRãO, C. O. & ROSSI, L. F. MODELING THE RISER
OF A FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING UNIT.
 FAHIM, M. A., AL-SAHHAF, T. A. & ELKILANI, A. 2009.
Fundamentals of petroleum refining, Elsevier.

- 41 -
Chapter Five [CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS]

 FERNANDES, J., PINHEIRO, C., OLIVEIRA, N. & RIBEIRO, F. R.

Modeling and Simulation of an Operating Industrial Fluidized
Catalytic Cracking (FCC) Riser. Book of abstracts and Full Papers
CD of the 4th Mercosur Congress on Process Systems
Engineering—ENPROMER 2005, 2005. 38.
 GUPTA, R. K., KUMAR, V. & SRIVASTAVA, V. 2007. A new generic
approach for the modeling of fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) riser
reactor. Chemical engineering science, 62, 4510-4528.
 GUPTA, R. K., KUMAR, V. & SRIVASTAVA, V. 2010. Modeling of
fluid catalytic cracking riser reactor: a review. International
Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, 8.
 HEYDARI, M., EBRAHIM, H. A. & DABIR, B. 2010. Modeling of an
industrial riser in the fluid catalytic cracking unit. American
Journal of Applied Sciences, 7, 221.
 KARTHIKA, V., BRIJET, Z. & BHARATHI, N. 2012. Design of optimal
controller for fluid catalytic cracking unit. Procedia Engineering,
38, 1150-1160.
 MEYERS, R. A. 2004. Handbook of petroleum refining processes.
 RAO, R. M., RENGASWAMY, R., SURESH, A. & BALARAMAN, K.
2004. Industrial experience with object-oriented modelling: FCC
case study. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 82, 527-
552.
 SADEGHBEIGI, R. 2012. Fluid catalytic cracking handbook: An
expert guide to the practical operation, design, and optimization of
FCC units, Elsevier.
 SOUZA, J. A., VARGAS, J. V. C., MEIEN, O. F. V. & MARTIGNONI, W. P.
2003. Numerical simulation of FCC risers.
 SOUZA, J. A., VARGAS, J. V. C., MEIEN, O. F. V. & MARTIGNONI, W. P.
2007. Modeling and simulation of industrial FCC risers.
 THEOLOGOS, K. & MARKATOS, N. 1993. Advanced modeling of
fluid catalytic cracking riser‐type reactors. AIChE Journal, 39,
1007-1017.
 THEOLOGOS, K., NIKOU, I., LYGEROS, A. & MARKATOS, N. 1997.
Simulation and design of fluid catalytic-cracking riser-type
reactors. AIChE Journal-American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
43, 486-494.

- 42 -
Chapter Five [CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS]

 XU, O.-G., SU, H.-Y., MU, S.-J. & CHU, J. 2006. 7-lump kinetic model
for residual oil catalytic cracking. Journal of Zhejiang University
SCIENCE A, 7, 1932-1941.

- 43 -