This article was downloaded by: [Johns Hopkins University]

On: 13 January 2015, At: 08:24

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Petroleum Science and Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpet20

A Comparative Study of Different Kinetic

Lumps Models in the Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Unit Using COMSOL Multiphysics
a

D. Yousuo & S. E. Ogbeide

Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,

University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria
Published online: 22 Dec 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: D. Yousuo & S. E. Ogbeide (2015) A Comparative Study of Different Kinetic
Lumps Models in the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit Using COMSOL Multiphysics, Petroleum Science and
Technology, 33:2, 159-169, DOI: 10.1080/10916466.2014.958237
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2014.958237

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:24 13 January 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Petroleum Science and Technology, 33:159169, 2015

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright 
ISSN: 1091-6466 print / 1532-2459 online
DOI: 10.1080/10916466.2014.958237

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:24 13 January 2015

A Comparative Study of Different Kinetic Lumps Models

in the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit Using
COMSOL Multiphysics
D. Yousuo1 and S. E. Ogbeide1
1

Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Benin,

Benin City, Nigeria

The COMSOL Multiphysics computational fluid dynamics software was used to simulate the fluid
catalytic cracking (FCC) riser reactor of the FCC unit. The 4-, 5-, 10-, 20-, and 35-lump kinetic models
were used to describe the kinetics of the cracking reactions in the riser reactor. The results of the kinetic
lump models of the distributions of pressure, velocity, temperature, and yields of products were compared
using practical values from the Port Harcourt Refinery Company plant. The results showed that the higher
the kinetic lumps the better the accuracy of the prediction of the product yields and that the 10-, 20-, and
35-lump kinetic models could be used to predict the yield of various fractions of the riser reactor using
COMSOL Multiphysics.
Keywords: Fluid catalytic cracking, FCC, computational fluid dynamics, CFD, Riser reactor, lumping
schemes, product yields

1. INTRODUCTION
The kinetics modeling of fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) has been traditionally based on using a
lumping strategy: chemical species with similar behaviors are grouped together forming a similar
number of pseudo species. The lumping of species is important to make the kinetic modeling a
traceable exercise. Detail work on kinetic lumping has been reported previously (Weekman and Nace,
1970; Pitault et al, 1994; Gao et al., 1999; Gupta et al., 2005; Ahari et al., 2008; Hernandez-Barajas
et al., 2009; Heydari et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2013).
In this study, the COMSOL Multiphysics computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software was used
to simulate the FCC riser reactor of the FCC unit (FCCU). The 4-, 5-, 10-, 20- and 35-lump kinetic
models were used to describe the kinetics of the cracking reactions in the riser reactor to investigate
the kinetics of lumping scheme in the riser and to ascertain the comparative advantage of one lump
over the other.

Address correspondence to D. Yousuo, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of

Benin, P.M.B. 1154, Benin City, Nigeria. E-mail: digieneniyousuo@yahoo.com
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/lpet.

159

D. YOUSUO AND S. E. OGBEIDE

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:24 13 January 2015

160

FIGURE 1

The FCC reactor.

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 The Riser Kinetic Model
The modeling was based on the schematic flow diagrams of the riser reactor in the FCCU reactor
as presented in Figure 1. The FCCU reactor consists of the riser reactor, reactor catalyst stripper,
reactor separator or disengager, reactor cyclones, and other auxiliary parts. The riser reactor is 33 m

DIFFERENT KINETIC LUMPS MODELS IN THE FCC UNIT

161

HFOAh
HFONh

K7

K4

K3

K10

HFOPh

LFONh

K6

K5

LFOAh
LFORh

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:24 13 January 2015

G
LFOPh

HFORh

K11
K 19

K16

K12

K9

FIGURE 2

Ten-lump kinetic scheme.

long and the diameter is 0.8 m. The diagram for the 10-lump kinetic scheme of the FCCU is shown in
Figure 2 while that of the other lumps have been shown elsewhere (Yousuo, 2014). The lumps for the
10-lump kinetic scheme are the heavy fuel oils from the paraffins (HFOph ), the heavy fuel oils from
the naphtenes (HFONh ), the heavy fuel oils from the aromatic substituent groups (HFOAh ), the heavy
fuel oils of the carbons among the aromatic rings (HFORh ), the light fuel oils from the paraffins
(LFOph ), the light fuel oils from the naphthenes (LFONh ), the light fuel oils from the aromatic
substituent groups (LFOAh ), the light fuel oils of the carbons among the aromatic rings (LFORh ),
gasoline (G), and COKE (C). In this model COKE (C) represents 50% coke and 50% C1 -C4 gases.
The rate expressions of the 10-lump kinetic scheme and other details are shown elsewhere (Jacob
et al., 1976).

2.2 Plug-flow Reactor Equations

The reactor model is an ideal plug-flow reactor, described by the mass balance in Eq. (1). Assuming
constant reactor cross section and flow velocity, the species concentration gradient as fraction of
residence time ( ) is given in Eq. (2). The reaction rates are given by rf = Kj Ci and to account for
the different time scales, two different activity functions are used. For the non-coking reactions the
activity function is given in Eq. (3).

(1)

(2)
(3)

162

D. YOUSUO AND S. E. OGBEIDE

The reaction rates are modified by the activity according to Eq. (4). For the coking reactions, the
activity function is given by Eq. (5) where is a deactivation constant depending on the residence
time. The modified reaction rates are given by Eq. (6). The coke content is given by Eqs. (7) and (8).
The values of a, b, , and are obtained from Gupta et al. (2005), Ahari et al. (2008), and Yousuo
(2014) as shown in Eqs. (9) and (10).
(4)
(5)

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:24 13 January 2015

(6)
(7)

(8)
(9)

(10)
For the mass transport, the inlet and outlet concentrations are obtained from Eq. (11) and the velocity
and pressure for ideal gases are obtained from Eqs. (12) and (13), respectively. The static head of
the catalyst in the riser can be calculated using Eq. (14). The details on choosing the void fraction
variable, assumed gas velocity, slip factor, and the vaporization heat of the feed in the riser inlet have
been shown elsewhere (Gupta et al., 2005; Yousuo, 2014).
Inlet : c = cin , Outlet : c = cout

(11)

(12)
(13)
(14)
For momentum transport, the inlet and outlet pressure are obtained from Eq. (15)
(15)
For energy balance, neglecting pressure drop, the energy balance for an ideal reacting gas, as well as
an incompressible reacting liquid is given by Eqs. (16) and (17). The inlet temperature is calculated
putting into consideration the energy balance of the components. Equation (18) is used in calculating
the inlet temperature while Eq. (19) is used for calculating the outlet temperature.

(16)

DIFFERENT KINETIC LUMPS MODELS IN THE FCC UNIT

163

(17)
At z = z0 = 0, ws = 0, Qext = 0, Eq. (16) and (17) becomes


i

dT
Mi Cp,i dV
Q=0

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:24 13 January 2015

This implies that

That is

(18)

At z = h or z, ws = 0, Qext = 0, Eqs. (16) and (17) become


i

dT
Mi Cp,i dV
=Q

That is,

This implies that

That is,

By our correlation

is

hence

Outlet:

(19)

164

D. YOUSUO AND S. E. OGBEIDE

TABLE 1
Boundary Conditions
SETTING

BOUNDARY 3

BOUNDARY 4

BOUNDARIES 1 and 2

outlet
Temperature
Tn

wall
Thermal insulation

outlet
Concentration
cout for all species

wall
Insulation/Symmetry

Temperature
Boundary type
Boundary condition
Value

Inlet
Temperature
T0

Boundary type
Boundary condition
Value

Inlet
Concentration
cin for all species

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:24 13 January 2015

Concentration

Boundary type
Boundary condition
Value

w0 =

Velocity and pressure

Inlet
outlet
Velocity
Pressurre, no viscous stress
vs , uo = v0 = 0
P0 = Pn

wall
No slip

2.3 Boundary Conditions

The boundary conditions for the riser reactor are shown in Table 1.

3. MATERIALS, MESH GENERATION AND SIMULATION

3.1 Materials
The average molecular weight, the thermodynamic properties of the feed, the plant operating conditions and the properties of the catalyst used in this study, the specific heat of different lumps, and the
kinetic parameters for cracking reactions can be found elsewhere (Port Harcourt Refinery Company
Project, 1987; Gupta et al., 2005; Ahari et al., 2008).

3.2 Mesh Generation and Simulation

The extra fine mesh generator of the COMSOL Multiphysics software was used to produce grid
refinement in the riser reactor. The riser reactor was meshed into 77,358 triangular elements. Figure 3
shows the computational grid used to represent the computational domain of the riser reactor. The
simulations in this work used the three-dimensional model of the COMSOL multiphysics CFD
software in a Windows Vista Home Premium HP Pavilion dv 6500 Notebook PC (processor: Intel
Core 2 Duo CPU T5450 @ 1.661.67 GHz; memory [RAM]: 250 GB; and type: 32-bit operating
system).

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 4 shows the temperature in the reactor riser. Gas oil/heavy diesel oil, medium pressure steam,
and fresh catalyst enter the reactor riser at a temperature of 505, 464, and 1004 K, respectively. The
medium pressure steam atomizes the gas oil/heavy diesel oil as they travel up along the reactor riser
increasing catalysis and the rate of reaction. The hydrocarbons and catalyst mixture travel upward

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:24 13 January 2015

DIFFERENT KINETIC LUMPS MODELS IN THE FCC UNIT

FIGURE 3

Computational domain and grid.

165

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:24 13 January 2015

166

D. YOUSUO AND S. E. OGBEIDE

FIGURE 4

The temperature in the riser reactor.

and the temperature inside the FCC riser decreases because of the endothermic cracking reactions.
The mixture temperature of the riser falls sharply to 803 K for the Port Harcourt Refinery Company
(PHRC) plant because sensible heat of catalyst coming from the regenerator is utilized in providing
heat for raising the sensible heat of feed, for vaporizing the feed, and for further heating of the
vaporized feed.
Figure 5 shows the yield in the reactor riser of the PHRC plant of the 10-lump kinetic model.
HFOP h, HFONh, HFOAh , and HFORh are broken down and as a result their weight fraction decreased along the riser from the inlet to the outlet. LFOP i , LFONi , LFOAi , and LFORi lumps were
formed and later broken down to G and C lumps. The gasoline (G) yield was 51% and coke (C)

FIGURE 5

The yield in the riser reactor.

DIFFERENT KINETIC LUMPS MODELS IN THE FCC UNIT

167

TABLE 2
Kinetic Lumps, Predicted Values, and Deviation of Predicted Values From the Practical Values
Predicted Value
PHRC Plant Data
Gasoline yield, wt%
Coke yield, wt%
Outlet temperature, K

Practical Value

4-lump

5-lump

10-lump

20-lump

49.50
5.90
805

67
6
829

60
6
821

51
6.25
803

50.5
7
803

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:24 13 January 2015

Deviation of Predicted Values From the Practical Values

Gasoline yield, wt%
Coke yield, wt%
Outlet temperature, K

49.50
5.90
805

17.5
0.1
24

10.5
0.1
16

1.5
0.35
2

1
1.1
2

yield was 12.50%. For the 10-lump kinetic model, coke (C) represents 50% coke and 50% C1 C4
gases and therefore the actual coke yield was 6.25%.
Table 2 shows the predicted values of the 4-, 5-, 10-, 20-, and 35-lump kinetic models, which
were compared with the PHRC plant practical values and the deviations of the predicted values
from the PHRC plant values. From the tables it is observed that with four lumps, the deviation of
the predicted values from the PHRC plant values is 17.5% for gasoline yield and 0.1% for coke
yield, and outlet temperature is 24 K; with five lumps, the deviation is 10.5% gasoline yield and
0.1% for coke yield, and the outlet temperature is 16 K; with 10 lumps, the deviation is 1.5% for
gasoline yield and 0.35% for coke yield, and outlet temperature is 2 K; with 20 and 35 lumps, the
deviation is 1% for gasoline yield and 1.1% for coke yield, and outlet temperature is 2 K. This
implies that the predicted values and the practical values from the PHRC plant become closer as
the lumps increases and because the difference in the deviation of the predicted values of gasoline,
coke, and the temperature for 10, 20, and 35 lumps are very small, and any from the 10-lump kinetic
scheme could be used to predict the yield of gasoline, coke, and temperature of the riser reactor
using COMSOL Multiphysics.

5. CONCLUSION
The 4-, 5-, 10-, 20-, and 35- kinetic schemes were effectively used to describe the kinetics of the
cracking reactions in the FCCU. The results showed that the predicted values and the practical
values from the PHRC plant become closer as the lumps increased. The results also showed that for
gasoline, coke, and the temperature the difference in the deviation of the predicted values for 10, 20,
and 35 lumps are very small and this could mean that any from the 10-lump kinetic scheme could
be used to predict the yield of gasoline, coke, and temperature of the riser reactor using COMSOL
Multiphysics.

REFERENCES
Ahari, J. S., Farshi, A., and Forsat, K. (2008). A mathematical modeling of the riser reactor in industrial FCC unit. Pet. Coal
50:1524.
Gao, J., Xu, C., Lin, S., and Yang, G. (1999). Advanced model for turbulent gas-solid flow and reaction in FCC riser reactors.
AIChE J. 45:1095.

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:24 13 January 2015

168

D. YOUSUO AND S. E. OGBEIDE

Gupta, R., Kumar, V., and Srivastava, V. K. (2005). Modeling and simulation of fluid catalytic cracking unit. Rev. Chem. Eng.
21:95131.
Jacob, S. H., Gross, B., Voltz, S. E., and Weekman, V. M. (1976). A lumping and reaction scheme for catalytic cracking.
AICHE J. 22:701713.
Jiang, L., Zheng-Hong, L., Xing-Ying, L., Chun-Ming, X., and Jin-Sen, G. (2013). Numerical simulation of the turbulent
gas-solid flow and reaction in a polydisperse FCC riser reactor. Power Technol. 237:569580.
Hernandez-Barajas, J. R., Vazquez-Roman, R., and Felix-Flores, M. G. (2009). A comprehensive estimation of kinetic
parameters in lumped catalytic cracking reaction models. Fuel 88:169178.
Heydari, M., AleEbrahim, H., and Dabir, B. (2010). Study of seven-lump kinetic model in the fluid catalytic cracking unit.
Am. J. Appl. Sci. 7:7176.
Pitault, I., Nevicato, D., Foressier, M., and Bernard, J.-R. (1994). Kinetic model based on a molecular description for catalytic
cracking of vacuum gas oil. Chem. Eng. Sci. 49:42494262.
Port Harcourt Refinery Company Project. (1987). Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Process. Project 9465A: Area 3
FCCU 16.
Weekman, V. W., and Nace, D. M. (1970). Kinetics of catalytic cracking selectivity in fixed, moving and fluid-bed reactors.
AICHE J. 16:397404.
Yousuo, D. (2014). Application of COMSOL multiphysics in the simulation of the fluid catalytic cracking riser reactor and
cyclones. PhD thesis, Benin City, Nigeria: Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Benin.

NOMENCLATURE
c:
E:
g:
P:
R, r:
T:
t, :
v:
z:
CP cat
Cp ds(Cpds ):
CpL GO (CPLgo):
CpV GO (CPVgo):
Ci:
cin:
cout:
Kd :

Concentration, mol/m3
Activation energy for
rate constant, J/mol
Acceleration due to
gravity, m/sec2
The pressure of gases, pa
Rate expression value
Tempersature, K
Residence time, sec
Volume, m3
Axial distance from the
inlet, m
(Cpcat ): Specific heat of
catalyst, J/kgK
Specific heat of steam,
J/kgK
Specific heat of liquid
gas oil, J/kgK
Specific heat of gaseous
gas oil, J/kgK
Species molar concentrations, mol/m3
Inlet
concentration,
mol/m3
Outlet
concentration,
mol/m3
Deactivation constant

M go (Mgo ):
M ds (Mds ):
M ca (Mcat ):
Pin:
Rg (Ru ):
Tcat :
:
Tgo :
Tvap :
v0:
Tds :
V R, , V:
Ws:
Q:
Qext:
:
:
:

Mass flow rate of gas oil,

kg/sec
Mass flow rate of steam,
kg/sec
M cat (Mcat ): Mass flow
rate of catalyst, kg/sec
Inlet pressure, pa
Gas constant, J/(mol.K)
Temperature of the catalyst, K
Void fraction
Temperature of gas oil,
K
Gas oil vapourization
temperature, K
Outlet velocity, m/sec
Temperature of the
steam, K
Reactor volume, m3
Additional work term
Heat due to chemical reaction, J/m3.sec
Heat added to the system, J/m3.sec
Viscosity, N.S/m2
Density, kg/m3
Slip fact

DIFFERENT KINETIC LUMPS MODELS IN THE FCC UNIT

Subscripts

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:24 13 January 2015

j:
i:
p (or s):

Refers to lump j that is cracked

Refers to lump i that is formed
Particle/solid

a (or f):
cat:
c:

Air/fluid
Catalyst
Coke content

169