International Journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and Development ISSN 2249-6149

Issue 2, Vol.3 (April-2012)

Modelling and Optimization of Fluid Catalytic Cracking

Unit (FCCU) Using Hysys
Olabode Yusuf Raji*, Usman Aliyu El-Nafaty, Mohammed Jibril, Baba Yahya Danjuma.

Chemical Engineering Programme, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi,

P. M. B. 0248, Bauchi-Nigeria. bode2000eh@gmail.com, elnafaty@yahoo.com,

jibrilmuhammad@yahoo.com, ydbdanjuma@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to obtain a computer based model that can simulate and
optimize the performance of an existing industrial fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit in
steady state. The objective of this unit is to convert residues into high added value products
(Fuel gas and Gasoline). The cracking reactions in the riser reactor occur in a transported bed
with the fluid (nC25) and the solids catalyst (Magnesiev-370) in regenerator flow under
operating conditions. One of the main advantages of this model is that it uses HYSYS
software that is robust, flexible and versatile. This model is particularly suitable for control
studies that facilitate good performance of FCC. To simulate the FCC, the model was based
on these products: gas oil, flue gas, gasoline (C5+) and bottom oil and thus has been
developed based on operational data of FCC. The simulation studies were performed to
optimize the unit by manipulating various process variables such as the molar flow rate of
recycle bottom oil and reflux ratio, which were subject to constraint Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP) of gasoline. The objective function was to maximize net profit of the desired products.
The net profit calculation was done successfully upon applying the Sequential Quadratic
Programming (SQP) method to optimize the process, the results show tremendous
improvement from N21.521Trillion to N25.214 Trillion, about 17.16% increase and reflux
ratio showed an inverse proportionality with respect to net profit while both desired products
showed good performance outputs.

Keywords: Optimization, Modeling, FCCU, Hysys.

*
Corresponding Author: Olabode Yusuf Raji bode2000eh@gmail.com

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) is one of the most important process units in the
petroleum refineries. The main objective of this unit is to obtain products of premium value
such as gasoline and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from low commercial value gas oil of
either atmospheric or vacuum distillation unit. The first catalytic cracking process known was
developed by Eugene Houdry in the 1920s in France, which was a spin-off from research into
sulphur removal processes (Agoro, 2006). FCC units were built up before the early 1970‟s;
when energy costs were considerably lower than today. Low capital costs were the primary
investment objective and efficient energy utilization was not considered as important issue.

Page 1
International Journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and Development ISSN 2249-6149
Issue 2, Vol.3 (April-2012)

Kaduna Refining and Petrochemical Company Limited (KRPC) is a subsidiary of Nigeria

National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) that was established in 1980 to efficiently and
profitably process crude oil into refined petroleum products and manufacture of linear alkyl
benzene (LAB) for domestic consumption and export (Abubakar, 2005). The Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Unit (FCCU) of the KRPC converts high molecular weight gas oils into more
valuable hydrocarbon products in a pure, safe, cost effective manner (KRPC user Guide
2008). FCCU, which is often referred to as the workhorse of the refinery contributes about
40% of the gasoline (PMS) pool. It augments the gasoline produced in the atmospheric
distillation crude unit. Since the FCCU is capable of converting large quantities of feed into
more valuable products in a matter of seconds, efficient operation of the FCCU is essential to
the optimum efficiency of a refinery. The FCC process poses a challenging control and
optimization problem since it is multivariable, nonlinear and encounters a variety of process
disturbances. In an attempt to increase unit profitability, many refiners have replaced
conventional process control schemes with advanced multivariable systems (Elamurugan,
2010). Having gained the economic benefits of advanced control schemes, many companies
around the world are considering process optimization to further increase FCCU profitability.
Increased unit profitability provides the impetus to develop a process optimization strategy
for the FCCU. The Analysis and control of FCC process have been known as challenging due
to the following process characteristics; (i) very complicated and little known
hydrodynamics; (ii) complex kinetics of both cracking and coke burning reactions; (iii) strong
interaction between the reactor and regenerator; and (iv) many operating constraints
(Elamurugan, 2010). Literature reveals a number of research done on modeling, simulation
and optimization of FCCU. These include the optimization of model IV fluidized catalytic
cracking unit by www1 (2007); A two – dimensional model for simulation, control and
optimization of FCC unit by www2 (2006); Time optimal control of fluid catalytic unit
(www3, 2008), and multi-objective optimization of industrial FCC units using Elitist (Kasat,
2002). www4 (1998) was able to carry out one – layer optimization of LPG production in the
FCC Unit. The number of lumps of the proposed models for catalytic cracking reactions has
been consecutively increased to obtain a more detailed prediction of product distribution
(Bollas, 2007). However, relatively few publications were concerned and available on the use
of simulation software such as HYSYS, even though its use allows the entire flowsheet
calculation and representation, such as the thermodynamic and physical properties, unit
operations, pseudo- component calculation used for representing the petroleum composition,
controller functionality, facilitating and authenticating the robust data to be treated.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Process Simulation Procedure

Collection of Data: Operating Data and Piping and Instrumentation Diagram of Fluid
Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCC) of Kaduna Refinery and Petrochemical Company (KRPC)
were collected from KRPC.

Page 2
International Journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and Development ISSN 2249-6149
Issue 2, Vol.3 (April-2012)

Constructing a FCC Model in a Process Simulator: Building the FCC model of KRPC in
Hysys using the data collected in 1 above.

Computer Simulation: Computer simulation of the model constructed in 2 was carried out
using Hysys.

2.2 Process Description

Figure 1 shows the modeled flowsheet for pre- heating, riser reactor, regenerator and main
fractionator of the FCCU. The modeling and optimization were performed using HYSYS
version 3.2. Simulations were performed using KRPC data to validate the whole simulation
procedure and subsequently optimize using the HYSYS optimizer. The procedures for
process simulation mainly involve defining chemical components, selecting a thermodynamic
model, determining plant capacity, choosing proper operating units and setting up input
conditions (flowrate, temperature, pressure, catalyst information and other conditions). Data
on most components, such as water, hydrocarbons, oxygen, CO, CO2, NO2, SO2, is available
in the HYSYS component library. Regarding gas oil feedstock, nC25 was assumed and
considered as the heavy hydrocarbon to the riser reactor because its normal boiling point is
averagely close to the feed specification obtained from KRPC FCC unit while the gasoline
specifications were input into the oil characterization of the HYSYS component library as
hypo-components, the flue gas library components were also added. The Y-Zeolite
(Magnesiev-370) was cloned using „‟ the hypo-manager as hypothetical component‟‟ tool in
HYSYS. Due to the presence of the highly polar and non-polar components thermodynamic
and activity models, Peng Robinson was recommended to predict the activity, densities
coefficients of the components in a liquid and vapor phase (www5, 2000).

Most of the heat utilities information was assumed in order to develop the model. The main
processing units include reactors- plug flow, continuous stirred tank, separator, distillation
column, valves, cooler and heaters. Because detailed information on the kinetics was not
available. Kinetics information was obtained for catalytic cracking gas oil and combustion of
coke (carbon and hydrogen) from open literatures. Single stage distillation was used as main
fractionators for vapor effluents and separation into end products recovery such as the flue
gases, gasoline (C5+) and bottom oil. After the input information and operating unit models
were set up, the process steady- state simulation was executed by Hysys. Mass and energy
balances of each unit, as well as operating conditions and model of FCC was obtained.

2.3 Process Optimization

2.3.1 Optimization of Modeled Base Case in the Optimizer

In this work, the following were the approaches to the optimization problem. The
optimization technique employed was the sequential quadratic programming (SQP) method.
This method handles inequalities and equality constraint. SQP is considered by many to be

Page 3
International Journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and Development ISSN 2249-6149
Issue 2, Vol.3 (April-2012)

the most efficient method for maximizing general linear and non linear constraint, provided a
reasonable initial point is used and the number of primary variables are small.

Figure 1 Process Flow Diagram (PFD) of the Modeled Optimized Case of FCC

(i) Objective function

The proposed optimization problem was the maximization of the net profit
considering
Net Profit (N/yr) = the main products (fuel gas and Gasoline i.e. C5+) productivities.
Equation for Objective function:

n = number of products

Flow rate of fuel gas, gasoline, and heat flow are (m3/d _ gas), (m3/h) and (kJ/h) respectively;

∑ (Utility costs) - sum of the costs related to heaters, cooler.

The above equation (1) takes into account the product recovery values (product flow rate
multiplied by the price of the products) and the operating costs. All these were put into
account in optimizer spreadsheet

Page 4
International Journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and Development ISSN 2249-6149
Issue 2, Vol.3 (April-2012)

Adjusted (primary variables)

These are variable in the process flow diagram (PFD) that is chosen to be adjusted to
maximize net profit in the FCC (objective function). These variables are imported from the
PFD. The lower and upper bounds for all of the primary variables set, and used to set the
search range, as well as normalization.

Table 1: The adjusted (primary) variables:

Object Variable description Current value

Bottom oil Molar flow (m3/yr) 2190000

Main fractionator Reflux ratio 6.76

Constraint function

These are inequality functions that were defined in the spreadsheet. The objective function is
set to a constraint. The constraint set on the primary variable is Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of
96.4kPa. This is a Cold property of product, which determines the volatility of the gasoline
(C5+)

Current value for RVP (kPa) < RVP (kPa) specification.

195.5 kPa < 96.4 kPa

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2 Variation of Bottom Oil Flow Rate on Net Profit

Molar Flowrate Net Profit Net Profit Change % Net Profit

(m3/yr) (N/yr) (N/yr) Change
2.52E+08 2.15E+13
2.70E+08 2.15E+13 7.00E+08 0.003253
2.88E+08 2.15E+13 4.00E+08 0.001859
3.06E+08 2.15E+13 5.00E+08 0.002323
3.24E+08 2.15E+13 4.00E+08 0.001859
3.42E+08 2.15E+13 -1.60E+09 -0.00743
3.56E+08 2.15E+13 1.00E+08 0.000465
3.60E+08 2.15E+13 0.00E+00 0

Page 5
International Journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and Development ISSN 2249-6149
Issue 2, Vol.3 (April-2012)

Table 3 Variation of Reflux Ratio on the Net Profit

NET PROFIT NET PROFIT CHANGE

REFLUX RATIO (N/yr) (N/yr) % NET PROFIT CHANGE
4 59791109600
4.5 59788254880 -2854720 -0.00477
5 59785628160 -2626720 -0.00439
5.5 59782957760 -2670400 -0.00447
6 59780124320 -2833440 -0.00474
6.5 59777343200 -2781120 -0.00465
6.76 59775715680 -1627520 -0.00272
7 59774363520 -1352160 -0.00226
7.5 59771792160 -2571360 -0.0043
8 59768844800 -2947360 -0.00493
8.5 59766007360 -2837440 -0.00475
9 59763479360 -2528000 -0.00423
9.5 59760672800 -2806560 -0.0047
10 59757846400 -2826400 -0.00473

Page 6
International Journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and Development ISSN 2249-6149
Issue 2, Vol.3 (April-2012)

Figure 3 Net Profit (N/yr) Vs Reflux Ratio

Table 4 Optimum Result

Base Case Optimized Case

Fuel gas product flow (m3/yr_ gas) 16.3 Million 327 Million

Gasoline product flow (m3/yr) 630000 1598400

Molar flow rate of bottom oil (m3/yr) 306Million 324 Million

Reflux Ratio (RR) 6.76 4.0

Net profit on flow rate (N/yr) 21.521Trillion 25.214 Trillion

Net profit on RR (N/yr) 1627520 2854720

4.0 DISCUSSIONS

This study, investigated a typical simulation results for base case operating conditions. It is
observed that the modeled prediction of flue gas and gasoline (C5+) yielded. Using SQP
method, convergence was attained to achieve the optimal results. Net profit analysis from
Table 2, showed molar flow rate of the bottom oil ranged from low bound of 253E+6 m3/ yr
to high bound of 360E+6 m3 /yr. The base net profit, $134, 507,040,800 /yr at N160 /$
exchange rate as at December 2011 is N21.512 Trillion. As the flow rate increased further
from the base flow rate of 306E+6 m3 /yr to 324E+6 m3 /yr, the net profit went up
N40Million/ yr. This is attributed to high production rate of desired products. However
further increase in the flow rate brought about an abrupt reduction in the net profit change as
shown in the Figure 2 above. However this reflected abnormal progress and may be attributed
to an increase in heating cost of heater 3.
Page 7
International Journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and Development ISSN 2249-6149
Issue 2, Vol.3 (April-2012)

In the case of reflux ratio, Table 3 showed that the reflux ratio (RR) increases inversely
proportional to the net profit change. This is also attributed to increase in distillate flow rate
(gasoline and reflux rate flow). From Table 6 the reflux ratio of 6.75 and 4.0 showed
percentage net profit change of 0.0027 and 0.0047 respectively. Figure 3 trend indicated that
RR decrease with an increase in net profit. Table 3 shows the summary comparing between
the base and optimized case of FCC. Fuel gas product flow 310.7 Million m3/yr_ gas shows
14.42% increase and gasoline product flow 968400 m3/yr shows 24% increase.

5.0 CONCLUSION

This work considered the modeling and simulating of FCC based on designed flow sheet,
then playing around with operational conditions to bring about optimization through the
application of Modular approach, such as sequential quadratic programming. Optimizing
FCC using HYSYS provided the detailed flow information that is related to the performance
of the system. Elucidating the performance of the fuel gas high output of about 22.5%
conversion, C5+ showed 40.49% yield. Utility costs; heaters, cooler, condenser, re-boiler are
quite lesser than the price of products. The optimal chart showed the net profit change of
N40Million /yr and N1.2 Million /yr. It is important to stress that optima is sharp as shown on
the charts. This outcome indicates and suggests that the company is operating efficiently and
model can provide an effective planning and operations tool. Hence the base case and
optimized case were evaluated. In view of the potential gains suggested by the results
modeling and optimization using computer simulation software could bring new insight in the
quest for better FCC plants. Therefore, a low computational time tool is made available for
simulation, control and optimization of FCC unit.

Acknowledgement
This research was supported by Kaduna Refining and Petrochemical Company (KRPC),
Nigeria through provision of useful operational data.

REFERENCES

[1].Agoro M. N; (2006) Zeolite Catalytic in Fluid Catalytic Cracking Operations in Kaduna

Refining & Petrochemical Company Ltd (KRPC)

[2]. Abubakar I. J (2005) Student Industrial Work Scheme (SIWES). „„A Technical Report at
NNPC‟‟

[3]. Bollas, G., (2007). „„Five-Lump Kinetic Model with Selective Catalyst Deactivation for
the Prediction of the Product Selectivity in the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Process‟‟. Catal. 127:
pp 31-43.

Page 8
International Journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and Development ISSN 2249-6149
Issue 2, Vol.3 (April-2012)

[4]. Chang S. L., Lottes S. A., Zhou C. Q., Golchert B., (1998). „„Computer Simulation of
FCC Riser Reactors‟‟. The 15th International Conference on Advanced Science and
Technology April 2-3, 1999, Argonne, IL

[5]. Elamurugan P; Dinesh Kumar D; (2010). „„Modeling and Control of Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Unit in Petroleum Refinery‟‟; Proceeding of the International Joint Journal
Conference on Engineering and Technology (IJJCET)

[6]. Himmeblau, D. M and Thomas, E; (2005). “Process Optimization and Simulation‟‟,

Prentice Hall, Pp-45-90. New Jersey.

[7]. Jibril M. (2008). „„Kaduna Refinery and Petrochemicals Company‟s (KRPC) Crude
Distillation Unit I (CDU I) Optimization Using HYSYS software‟‟.

[8]. Kasat R; (2003). „„Optimization of Industrial FCC Unit Using Elitist Non- Dominated
Sorting Generic Algorithm‟‟. Ind. Eng. Chem Res;

[9]. Mehran H., Habib A. and Bahram D. (2010). „„Modeling of an Industrial Riser in the
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit‟‟, American Journal of Applied Sciences 7 (2): pp221-226.

[10]. www1: Sundaraliagam R. (2001). „„Optimization of a Model IV Fluidized Catalytic

Cracking Unit”.www.ijietap.edu/../29/ Accessed on [July, 2009]

[11]. www2: Consegna V; et al; (2006) „„A Two – Dimensional Model for Simulation,
Control and Optimization of FCC
unit‟‟.www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/dio/10.1002/aic.10798/ Accessed on [May, 2009]

[12]. www3: Liao B; (2008). „„Time Optimal Control of Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit‟‟.
www.gradworks.umi.com/NR/39/NR39780.html Accessed on [September, 2010)

[13]. www4: Gouvea M. (1998). „„One- Layer Real Time Optimization of LPG Production in
the FCC Unit‟‟. www.mendeley.com/research/onelayer/ Accessed on [July, 2010]

[14]. www5: „Aspen HYSYS operation Guide‟, 2008, User‟s Manual, Aspen Technology,
Inc..
www./aspentech.com/Accessed on [May, 2009]

$1 = N160 (Nigeria Naira) exchange rate as at March, 2012.

Page 9