Home Modelling of catalytic hydrocracking and fractionation of refinery vacuum residue
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Modelling of catalytic hydrocracking and fractionation of refinery vacuum residue

  • Eduard Manek EMAIL logo and Juma Haydary
Published/Copyright: November 4, 2014
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

The main objective of this work was to create a kinetic model of refinery vacuum residue hydrocracking and to monitor the impact of the operating conditions on the product yields. Data and yield measurements were gathered from a residual hydrocracking unit (RHC). Reaction temperature ranged from 401°C to 412°C at the pressure of 18–20 MPa. A simplified kinetic yield model was applied; where the feed and each product fraction are represented by one lump (reactant or product of cracking) represented by the number of pseudo-components. The product fractions were determined by fractional distillation of the output mixture from the reactor. The kinetic model includes eight reaction steps and the following six fractions: vacuum residue, vacuum distillate, gas oil, kerosene, naphtha, and gas. In addition, a model for hydrodesulphurisation has been proposed. The average relative deviation between model and experimental yields was 5.36 %, and that for the sulphur conversion model was 1.04 %. An Excel file with the kinetic model was implemented in the Aspen Plus program using a user-defined model of the reactor. This model allows to input/output data between the Aspen Plus and Excel programs. The Excel subroutine calculates the reaction kinetics of cracking from the set temperature and residence time, and distributes the products into 30 pseudo-components created in the Aspen Plus program. The remaining part of the RHC unit was simulated in the Aspen Plus environment. The effects of the reaction conditions such as temperature and residence time on the conversion of the feed and on the distillation curves of the output mixture from the reactor were investigated. The model was verified by comparison of the distillation curves of simulated and real products.

[1] Galiasso Tailleur, R. (2005). Effect of catalyst deactivation on mild hydrocracking reactions. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 29, 2404–2419. DOI: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2005.05.012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2005.05.01210.1016/j.compchemeng.2005.05.012Search in Google Scholar

[2] Lababidi, H. M. S., Chedadeh, D., Riazi, M. R., Al-Qattan, A., & Al-Adwani, H. A. (2011). Prediction of product quality for catalytic hydrocracking of vacuum gas oil. Fuel, 90, 719–727. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2010.09.046. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.09.04610.1016/j.fuel.2010.09.046Search in Google Scholar

[3] Liu, C. G., Zhou, J. S., Que, G. H., Liang, W. J., & Zhu, Y. J. (1994). Hydrocracking of Gudao residue with dispersedphase MO catalyst. Fuel, 73, 1544–1550. DOI: 10.1016/0016-2361(94)90077-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(94)90077-910.1016/0016-2361(94)90077-9Search in Google Scholar

[4] Martínez, J., Sánchez, J. L., Ancheyta, J., & Ruiz, R. S. (2010). A review of process aspects and modeling of ebullated bed reactors for hydrocracking of heavy oils. Cata lyst Reviews: Science and Engineering, 52, 60–105. DOI: 10.1080/01614940903238858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161494090323885810.1080/01614940903238858Search in Google Scholar

[5] Martínez, J., & Ancheyta, J. (2012). Kinetic model for hydrocracking of heavy oil in a CSTR involving short term catalyst deactivation. Fuel, 100, 193–199. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2012.05.032. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.05.03210.1016/j.fuel.2012.05.032Search in Google Scholar

[6] Morawski, I., & Mosio-Mosiewski, J. (2006). Effects of parameters in Ni-Mo catalysed hydrocracking of vacuum residue on composition and quality of obtained products. Fuel Processing Technology, 87, 659–669. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2006.01.006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2006.01.00610.1016/j.fuproc.2006.01.006Search in Google Scholar

[7] Pereira de Oliveira, L., Verstraete, J. J., & Kolb, M. (2014). Simulating vacuum residue hydroconversion by meansof Monte-Carlo techniques. Catalysis Today, 220–222, 208–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.cattod.2013.08.011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2013.08.01110.1016/j.cattod.2013.08.011Search in Google Scholar

[8] Puron, H., Arcelus-Arrillaga, P., Chin, K. K., Pinilla, J. L., Fidalgo, B., & Millan, M. (2014). Kinetic analysis of vacuum residue hydrocracking in early reaction stages. Fuel, 117, 408–414. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2013.09.053. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.09.05310.1016/j.fuel.2013.09.053Search in Google Scholar

[9] Ramírez, S., Martínez, J., & Ancheyta, J. (2012). Kinetics of thermal hydrocracking of heavy oils under moderate hydroprocessing reaction conditions. Fuel, 110, 83–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2012.03.051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.03.05110.1016/j.fuel.2012.03.051Search in Google Scholar

[10] Rodrigues Coelho, R., Hovell, I., de Mello Monte, M. B., Middea, A., & Lopes de Souza, A. (2006). Characterisation of aliphatic chains in vacuum residues (VRs) of asphaltenes and resins using molecular modelling and FTIR techniques. Fuel Processing Technology, 87, 325–333. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2005.10.010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2005.10.01010.1016/j.fuproc.2005.10.010Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2014-11-4
Published in Print: 2014-12-1

© 2014 Institute of Chemistry, Slovak Academy of Sciences

Downloaded on 4.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.2478/s11696-014-0620-0/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button