Hydrocracking Lumped Kinetic Model with Catalyst Deactivation in Arak Refinery Hydrocracker Unit

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Arak University, Arak, Iran

2 Center of R&D, ShazandArak Oil Refinery, Arak, Iran

3 Department of Chemical Engineering, Tarbiat Moalem University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

A kinetic model of a fixed bed tubular reactor incorporating catalyst deactivation was developed for the ISOMAX unit of Arak refinery. The kinetic parameters for the hydrocracking reactions over the commercial catalyst were determined using initial activity plant data i.e. when the catalyst is fresh. Catalyst deactivation was then taken into account by means of deactivation function based on plant data. The catalyst deactivation function is defined in terms of normalized time (BPP) of operation. Effect of catalyst deactivation on the product yield has been investigated. Steady state material and energy balances were then developed for an extended four lumped kinetic network. To determine the effect of reaction types on the rate, we calculate frequency factor for each individual bed with constant activation energy and heat of reaction. Furthermore, we calculate the frequency factor for individual beds, for the first one to estimate the rate of reactions in the different beds. The results show that the reactions in the first and second bed are faster than those in the 3rd and 4th beds. The comparison between model conversion and experimental conversion of the unit indicates that the model is capable of predicting product yield with an error of less than 5%.

Keywords

References

[1] Weekman V.W.Jr., “Lumps, models and kinetics in practice”, Chem. Eng. Prog. Monogr. Ser. 75, pp. 3-29, 1979.
[2] Weekman V.W.Jr. and Nace D.M., “Kinetics of Catalytic Cracking Selectivity in Fixed, Moving and Fluid Bed Reactors”, AIChE J., 16 (3), pp. 397-404, 1970.
[3] Koseoglu R.O. and Philips C.R., “Kinetic model for the noncatalytic hydrocracking of Athabasca bitumen”, Fuel, 67, pp. 906-915, 1988.
[4] Ramdoss P.K. and Tarrer R.C., “High temperature liquification of waste water”, Fue. 77, pp. 293-299, 1998.
[5] Liguras D.K. and Allen D.T., “Structural models for catalytic cracking (2) Reactions of simulated oil                   mixtures”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 28, pp. 665-673, 1989.
[6] Zarkesh J., Akbarnejad M., Badakhshan A. and Khorasheh F., “Kinetic study on Iranian paraffin hydrocracking”, Petro. and Coal. 41, pp. 77, 1999.
[7] Khorasheh F., Zainali H., Chan E.C. and Gray M.R., “Kinetic modeling of bitumen hydrocracking reactions”, Petro. and Coal. 43, pp. 208-218, 2001.
[8] Cicarelli P., Astarita G. and Gallifuoco A., “Continuous Kinetics Lumping of Catalytic Cracking Processes”, AIChE J. 38, pp. 1038-1044, 1992.
[9] Laxminarasimhan C.S., Verma R.P. and Ramachandran P.A., “Continuous Lumping Model for Simulation of Hydrocracking”, AIChE J. 42, pp. 2645-2653, 1996.
[10] Froment G.F. and Bischoff K.B., “Chemical Reactor analysis and Design”, pp. 284, Willy, New York, 1979.
[11] Hughes R., “Deactivation of Catalysts,” 184,              Academic Press, London, 1984.
[12] Moghadassi A.R., Amini N., Fadavi O. and Bahmani M., “Investigation and parametric study of                                                 hydrocracker catalyst activity in Iran-Arak Shazand Refinery Company”, in “The 6th Int. Chem. Eng. Cong. and exhibit.,” Kish Island, Iran, November 16-20, 2009.
[13] Yan T.Y., “Dynamics of a trickle bed hydrocracker with a quenching system”, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 58, pp. 259, 1980.
[14] Qader S.A. and Hill G.R., “Coal liquefaction in a slurry system”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. DeV.8, pp. 98-105, 1969.
[15] El-Kady F.Y., “Hydrocracking of Vacuum Distillate Fraction over Bifunctional Molybdenum Nickel/Silica-Alumina Catalyst”, Ind. J. of Tech. 17, pp. 176-183, 1979.
[16] Wojciechowski B.W., “A Theoretical treatment of catalyst decay”, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 46, pp. 48-52, 1968.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics