See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237527753

A new catalytic cracking process to maximize refinery propylene

Article  in  ARABIAN JOURNAL FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING · December 2008

CITATIONS READS
11 1,214

7 authors, including:

Y. Fujiyama Halim Redhwi

JX Energy King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
9 PUBLICATIONS   48 CITATIONS    76 PUBLICATIONS   925 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammad Abul-Hamayel Abdullah M. Aitani

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
28 PUBLICATIONS   206 CITATIONS    154 PUBLICATIONS   1,384 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Catalytic Cracking of Hydrocarbons View project

1. Enhancement ... View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdullah M. Aitani on 20 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ‫‪A. Maadhah, Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, M. Saeed, and C. Dean‬‬

‫‪A NEW CATALYTIC CRACKING PROCESS TO MAXIMIZE‬‬

‫‪REFINERY PROPYLENE‬‬
‫‪Ali G. Maadhah‬‬
‫‪Chemical Engineering Department‬‬
‫‪King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals‬‬
‫‪Dhahran, Saudi Arabia‬‬
‫‪Yuuichirou Fujiyama‬‬
‫‪Refinery Integration R&D Group‬‬
‫‪Fuel Research Laboratory, Nippon Oil Corporation‬‬
‫‪8, Chidoricho, Naka-ku, Yokohama, 231-0815, Japan‬‬
‫‪Halim Redhwi and Mohammed Abul-Hamayel‬‬
‫‪Chemical Engineering Department‬‬
‫‪King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, 31261, Saudi Arabia‬‬
‫‪Abdullah Aitani* and Mian Saeed‬‬
‫‪Center for Refining and Petrochemicals, Research Institute‬‬
‫‪King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, 31261, Saudi Arabia‬‬
‫‪and Christopher Dean‬‬
‫‪Research & Development Center‬‬
‫‪Saudi Aramco, Dhahran, 31311, Saudi Arabia‬‬

‫اﻟﺨـﻼﺻــﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﻨﺎول هﺬﻩ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮع ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة ﻟﻠﺘﻜﺴﻴﺮ اﻟﺤﻔﺰي اﻟﻤﻤﻴﻊ )‪ (HS-FCC‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﺗ ﺸﻐﻴﻞ ﻣﺮﺗﻔﻌ ﺔ ﺑﻬ ﺪف زﻳ ﺎدة إﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴ ﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺒﺮوﺑﻴﻠﻴﻦ ﺑﻮﺳﺎﻃﺔ ﻓﺮﻳﻘﻲ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ واﻟﻴﺎﺑﺎن‪ .‬وﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺸﻐﻴﻞ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓ ﻲ ﻣ ﺼﻨﻊ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒ ﻲ ﺷ ﺒﻪ ﺻ ﻨﺎﻋﻲ ﺑﻄﺎﻗ ﺔ )‪(30‬‬
‫ﻼ ﺑﺎﻟﻴﻮم ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮب ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﻔﺎة أراﻣﻜﻮ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ‪ ،‬إﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ وﺣﺪة دﻓﻘﻴﺔ ﺑ ﺎردة )ﺑ ﺪون ﻟﻘ ﻴﻢ( ﺑﻄﺎﻗ ﺔ )‪ (500‬ﺑﺮﻣﻴ ﻞ ﺑ ﺎﻟﻴﻮم ﻓ ﻲ ﺷ ﺮآﺔ ﻧﻴﺒ ﻮن‬ ‫ﺑﺮﻣﻴ ً‬
‫ﻟﻠﺒﺘﺮول ﻓﻲ اﻟﻴﺎﺑ ﺎن‪ .‬وﻣ ﻦ ﻣﻼﻣ ﺢ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴ ﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﻳ ﺪة إﺿ ﺎﻓﺔ ﺗﻌ ﺪﻳﻼت ﻣﻴﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻴ ﺔ إﻟ ﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴ ﺔ اﻟﺘﻜ ﺴﻴﺮ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳ ﺔ )‪ (FCC‬ﻣ ﻊ ﺗﻐﻴ ﺮات ﻓ ﻲ ﻇ ﺮوف‬
‫اﻟﺘﺸﻐﻴﻞ وﺗﺮآﻴﺒﺎت اﻟﺤﻔ ﺎز‪ .‬وﺗﺘﻤﺜ ﻞ ﻣﻼﻣ ﺢ اﻟﺘ ﺸﻐﻴﻞ اﻟﺮﺋﻴ ﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻠﻴ ﺔ ﺑﻨﻈ ﺎم ﺗﻔ ﺎﻋﻠﻲ ذات دﻓ ﻖ ﻣ ﻦ أﻋﻠ ﻰ إﻟ ﻰ أﺳ ﻔﻞ ‪ ،‬وإرﺗﻔ ﺎع درﺟ ﺔ ﺣ ﺮارة‬
‫اﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ وﻗﺼﺮ زﻣﻦ ﺗﻼﻣﺲ اﻟﻠﻘﻴﻢ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺤﻔﺎز‪ ،‬إﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ارﺗﻔﺎع ﻣﻌﺪل اﻟﺤﻔﺎز ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺰﻳﺖ‪ .‬وﺗﻢ إﺟﺮاء اﻟﺘﺠ ﺎرب اﻟﻤﻌﻤﻠﻴ ﺔ ﻓ ﻲ وﺣ ﺪﺗﻴﻦ ذات‬
‫دﻓﻖ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ‪ ،‬إﺿﺎﻓﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻣﺼﻨﻊ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒ ـﻲ ﺷ ﺒﻪ ﺻ ﻨﺎﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﺳ ﺘﺨﺪام ﺣﻔ ﺎزات‪ ،‬وإﺿ ﺎﻓﺎت وﻟﻘ ﺎﺋﻢ زﻳ ﻮت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔ ﺔ‪ .‬وأﻇﻬ ﺮت ﻧﺘ ﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﻔﺤ ﺺ ﺗﻔﻮﻗ ًﺎ‬
‫ﻷداء اﻟﻤﻔﺎﻋﻞ ذات اﻟﺪﻓﻖ ﻣﻦ أﻋﻠﻰ إﻟﻰ أﺳﻔﻞ وذﻟﻚ ﻟﻤﻨﻌﻪ اﻟﺨﻠﻂ اﻟﻌﻜﺴﻲ ﻣﻤﺎ أدى إﻟﻰ زﻳﺎدة إﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ اﻷﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎت اﻟﺨﻔﻴﻔ ﺔ ) اﻹﻳﺜﻴﻠ ﻴﻦ واﻟﺒ ﺮوﺑﻴﻠﻴﻦ‬
‫واﻟﺒﻴﻮﺗﻴﻠﻴﻦ ( وﺗﻘﻠﻴﻞ إﻧﺘﺎج اﻟﻐﺎز اﻟﺨﻔﻴﻒ‪ .‬وﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪام زﻳﺖ اﻟﻐﺎز اﻟﻔﺮاﻏ ﻲ اﻟﻤ ﺸﺘﻖ ﻣ ﻦ ﺑﺘ ﺮول ﺧ ﺎم ﺑﺮاﻓﻴﻨ ﻲ وﺣﻔ ﺎز ﺧ ﺎص ﻧ ﻮع )‪ (USY‬ذات‬
‫ﺛﺒﺎت ﻋﺎل وﺻﻠﺖ إﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ اﻟﺒﺮوﺑﻴﻠﻴﻦ إﻟﻰ )‪ (%25‬وزن ‪ ،‬وإﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ اﻟﺠﺎزوﻟﻴﻦ إﻟﻰ )‪ (%30‬وزن ﻋﻨﺪ ﻇﺮوف ﺗﺸﻐﻴﻞ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪.‬‬

‫‪* To whom correspondence should be addressed‬‬

‫‪E-mail: maitani@kfupm.edu.sa‬‬
‫‪Phone 03 860-3007; Fax 03 860-4509‬‬

‫‪Paper Received 9 May 2006; Revised 11 December 2006; Accepted 20 December 2006‬‬

‫‪April 2008‬‬ ‫‪The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 1B‬‬
‫‪17‬‬
 A. Maadhah, Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, M. Saeed, and C. Dean

ABSTRACT
A novel high-severity FCC process that maximizes propylene production is under
development by research teams in Saudi Arabia and Japan. The process has been
proven in a 30-BPD demonstration plant at Saudi Aramco’s refinery, Saudi Arabia,
and at a 500-BPD cold flow model at Nippon Oil Corporation, Japan. The HS–FCC
process combines mechanical modifications to conventional FCC with changes in
process variables and catalyst formulations. The process main operating features are
a down-flow reactor system, high reaction temperature, short contact time, and high
catalyst to oil ratio. Experimental runs were conducted in a downer- and riser-type
pilot plants and a demonstration plant using various catalysts, additives and feed oils.
The experimental results demonstrated the advantage of downer in suppressing back-
mixing, thus increasing the yield of light olefins (ethylene, propylene, and butylenes)
and reducing dry gas. Using paraffinic crude base VGO feed and proprietary USY
FCC catalyst, propylene yield of 25 wt% (feed basis) and gasoline yield of 30 wt%
were obtained under HS-FCC reaction conditions.
Key words: aromatics, cracking, downer, FCC catalysts, gasoline, octane, olefins,
propylene, riser.

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 1B April 2008
18
 A. Maadhah, Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, M. Saeed, and C. Dean

A NEW CATALYTIC CRACKING PROCESS TO MAXIMIZE REFINERY PROPYLENE

1. INTRODUCTION
Increasing the yield of the valuable light olefins, especially propylene and butylenes, remains a major challenge for
many integrated refineries. As global petrochemical demand for propylene continues to grow, opportunities for
improved production routes will emerge. Propylene is used as a feedstock for a wide range of polymers, product
intermediates, and chemicals. Major propylene derivatives include polypropylene, acrylonitrile, propylene oxide, oxo-
alcohols, and cumene. These derivatives account for almost 90% of global propylene demand. In 2005, global demand
for propylene reached about 67 million tons and its annual demand is expected to increase by 4.8% during 2005–2010
[1,2]. The processing of propylene to polypropylene improves refinery margins and increases revenues because of the
high value of polypropylene.
Propylene has been considered a by-product of ethylene production via steam cracking of naphtha or other
feedstocks. However, this route has not been able to keep up with propylene demand. To make up this shortfall,
refineries capture propylene from fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) units and purify it to either chemical grade or polymer
grade propylene. Currently, FCC supplies 30 wt% of the world’s propylene and the remainder is co-produced from
steam cracking.
FCC continues to be the dominant conversion process for gasoline and light olefins production with a global capacity
of 14.2 million BPD. While refiners are under pressure to process heavier crudes, the FCC product slate is increasingly
shifting towards light olefins production (mainly propylene). More stringent specifications for gasoline are needed in the
future, for which the current FCC product slate is not optimal, because of high aromatics and olefins content.
2. FCC OPTIONS TO MAXIMIZE REFINERY PROPYLENE
The conventional FCC unit is typically operated at low to moderate severity with flexibility to swing between
maximum distillate and maximum gasoline mode [2,3]. This unit yields 3–4 wt% propylene. Improvements in FCC
catalysts, process design, hardware, and operation severity can boost propylene yield up to 25 wt% or higher. In FCC
practice, there are several options to increase the selectivity to light olefins [2]. The major options are as follows:
• Dedicated FCC catalysts
• ZSM-5 additives
• Higher severity operation (higher cracking temperature)
• Naphtha recycle and
• Dedicated new petrochemical FCC processes
Conventional FCC catalyst compositions contain a catalytic cracking component and amorphous alumina which is
necessary to provide the bottoms conversion. Catalytic cracking components are crystalline compounds such as
faujasite-type Y zeolite. Amorphous alumina may also be used as a binder to provide a matrix with enough binding
function to properly bind the crystalline cracking component when present. ZSM-5 based additive containing a small
pore zeolite (5.5 to 7.5 Å) is commonly added to the cracking catalyst in FCC to enhance gasoline octane and LPG
olefins production, especially propylene.
One cost effective way to increase the propylene yield from the FCC unit is the use of specialized catalysts that
contain ZSM-5 zeolite. An increasing number of refiners use as much as 10 wt% of ZSM-5 additives to obtain more than
9 wt% propylene. Because of its unique pore structure, ZSM-5 limits access to only linear or slightly branched
hydrocarbon molecules within the gasoline boiling point range. ZSM-5 based additive acts mainly by cracking C6+
gasoline olefins to smaller olefins such as propylene and butylenes [4]. These catalysts and additives increase the yield
of propylene and other light olefins at the expense of gasoline and distillate products.
The cracking of light hydrocarbons is another excellent option for an FCC-based refiner to produce and recover
propylene. Naphtha is the most common feedstock used in FCC cracking units for the incremental production of
propylene. Various process schemes for naphtha cracking in the FCC unit have been suggested and the simplest option
consists of feeding and cracking naphtha together with gas oil feed. Naphtha may also be injected at the bottom of the
fluidized riser reactor, before regenerated catalyst contacts gas oil feed, where it may be cracked at higher temperature
and catalyst/oil (C/O) ratio [5].

April 2008 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 1B
19
 A. Maadhah, Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, M. Saeed, and C. Dean

The need for a higher cracking temperature, a shorter contact time, and a higher C/O ratio lead to the conclusion that
the mechanical restrictions of existing FCC units prevent the optimization of the conventional process for maximum
olefin production [6]. Despite the various FCC technologies available to increase propylene yield, intense research
activity in this field is still being conducted. Table 1 presents a summary of emerging FCC processes for enhancing
refinery propylene [2].

Table 1. Emerging FCC-Based Propylene Technologies [2]

Propylene
Process Name Developer/Licensor Remarks
Yield, wt%
Deep Catalytic RIPP-Sinopec/Stone Webster 14.6-28.8 Commercialized, several
Cracking (DCC-I and plants in and outside
DCC-II) China.
Catalytic Pyrolysis RIPP-Sinopec/Stone Webster 24.6 VGO and heavy feeds,
Process (CPP) commercial trials in China.
High-Severity FCC Nippon/KFUPM/JCCP/Saudi 17-25 Downer, high severity
(HS–FCC) Aramco (temperature, C/O), 500
BPD cold flow model.
Indmax Indian Oil Co./ABB Lummus 17-25 Upgrades heavy cuts at
high C/O 15-25.
Maxofin ExxonMobil and KBR 18 Variations with Superflex
to increase propylene
NEXCC Fortum 16.1 High C/O, short contact
time, multi-port cyclones.
PetroFCC UOP 22 Additional reaction
severity along with RxCat
design.
Selective Component ABB Lummus 24 High Severity operation
Cracking (SCC) (temperature, C/O)
High-Olefins FCC Petrobras 20-25 Downer, high temperature,
C/O.
Ultra Selective IFP/Stone Webster/Total NA 200 BPD downer Demo
Cracking unit

3. FEATURES OF HS–FCC
The main objective of the high-severity FCC process is to produce significantly more propylene and high octane
number gasoline. The conceptual process and preliminary feasibility study of the HS–FCC process started in the mid
1990s [7]. For a 36 000 BPD conceptual unit and depending on the operating mode (gasoline mode operates at 550 ºC),
the HS–FCC doubles the amount of light olefins. At high-olefins mode (600 ºC), the unit provides three times more light
olefins accompanied with a minimum loss in gasoline as shown in Figure 1. The production of propylene is 2 to 4 times
higher than in the conventional FCC process. The study showed the high feasibility of HS–FCC even though the olefin
yield was not so high during the forepart of the development.
The special features of this new process (Table 2) include rapid feed vaporization, down-flow reactor, high severity,
short contact time, and high C/O ratio. Since the FCC process involves successive reactions, the desired products such as
olefins and gasoline are considered intermediate products. A suppression of back-mixing by using the downer reactor is
the key to achieving maximum yield of these intermediates. Compared to conventional FCC processes, the HS–FCC has
modifications in the reactor/regenerator and stripper sections [8–12]. An efficient product separator suppresses side
reactions (oligomerization and hydrogenation of light olefins) and coke formation accelerated by condensation.

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 1B April 2008
20
 A. Maadhah, Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, M. Saeed, and C. Dean

Table 2. Main Features of HS–FCC Process

Main Feature Remarks
• Minimizes back-mixing
Down-flow Reactor
• Reduces undesirable by-products
• Operates at high temperatures (550 to 650°C)
High Reaction Temperature
• Enhances thermal and catalytic cracking
• Compensates reduced conversion
High C/O Ratio
• Enhances catalytic cracking
• Reduces thermal cracking
Short Contact Time
• Reduces undesirable successive reactions

100 Ethylene
Propylene
80
Product yields, (wt%)

Butylenes

60

Gasoline
40

20 Others

LCO+HCO
0
Conventional HSFCC Gasoline HSFCC Light
FCC Mode Olefin Mode
Figure 1. Comparison of typical product yields of conventional and HS–FCC processes

3.1. Down-Flow Reactor

A down-flow reactor system has been adopted for the HS–FCC process. The downer permits higher C/O ratios
because the lifting of catalyst by vaporized feed is not required. As with most reactor designs involving competing
reactions and secondary product degradation, there is a concern over catalyst-feed contacting, back-mixing, and control
of the reaction time and temperature. The down-flow reactor would ensure plug flow without back-mixing.
3.2. High-Reaction Temperature
The HS–FCC unit is operated under considerably higher reaction temperatures (550 to 650°C) than conventional
FCC units. Operating conventional FCC units at these temperatures degrades products, reduces yields, and makes excess
light gases which often limit the production capability of a FCC unit. Under these reaction temperatures, two competing
cracking reactions, thermal cracking and catalytic cracking, take place. Thermal cracking contributes to the formation of
lighter products, mainly dry gas and coke, while catalytic cracking increases propylene yield. HS–FCC yields of
undesirable dry gas, coke, and 1,3-butadiene are much lower confirming reduced thermal cracking.

April 2008 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 1B
21
 A. Maadhah, Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, M. Saeed, and C. Dean

3.3. Short Residence Time

The short residence time (less than 0.5 sec) of feed and product hydrocarbons in the downer should be favorable for
minimizing thermal cracking. Undesirable secondary reactions such as polymerization reactions and hydrogen-transfer
reactions, which consume olefins, are suppressed. In order to attain the short residence time, the catalyst and the
products have to be mixed and dispersed at the reactor inlet and separated immediately at the reactor outlet. For this
purpose, a high efficiency product separator has been developed capable of suppressing side reactions (oligomerization
and hydrogenation of light olefins) and coke formation accelerated by condensation [11].
3.4. High C/O Ratio
In order to compensate for the decrease in conversion due to the short contact time, the HS–FCC process can be
operated at high C/O ratios, in the range of 15 to 40. As mentioned earlier, the other advantage of operation at high C/O
is the enhanced contribution of catalytic cracking over thermal cracking. By increasing the C/O ratio, the effects of
operating at high reaction temperature (thermal cracking) are minimized. High C/O maintains heat balance thereby
achieving high reaction temperature. It also increases conversion and maximizes light olefins production.
4. EXPERIMENTAL
The HS–FCC process has successfully passed several phases of testing at pilot plant level (0.1 BPD), demonstration
plant level (30 BPD), and cold flow models (30 and 500 BPD). The chronology of various testing stages and units used
are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Stages of HS–FCC Process Development

Riser Pilot Downer Pilot Demonstration
Parameters Cold Flow Model
Plant Plant Plant
Capacity, BPD 0.1 0.1 30 30 500
Location Yokohama Dhahran Ras Tanura Yokohama Yokohama
Engineering
Xytel Xytel Chiyoda Chiyoda Chiyoda
Contractor
Completion Date 1999 2001 2005 2000 2007
Davison’s Modified Various feed oils, fluidization, feed injection
Remarks Circulating DCR-catalyst catalysts, and and catalyst-product
Riser (DCR) with hopper additives separation

Table 4. Operating Conditions of Downer and Riser Pilot Plants

Type of Reactor
Parameter
Downer Riser
Reactor Outlet Temperature °C 600 600
Pressure (Stripper Top) kPa 98 98
Feed Rate kg/h 0.4-1.2 0.7-1.0
Feed Preheat °C 280 280
Catalyst Inventory L 8 2
Steam Pretreatment for 6h °C 810 810
Circulation rate kg/h 13-40 13-18
Cat/Oil ratio kg/kg 13-40 13-30

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 1B April 2008
22
 A. Maadhah, Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, M. Saeed, and C. Dean

4.1. Pilot Plant

Experiments were conducted in a 0.1 BPD downer pilot plant and a similar conventional riser type pilot plant. Both
pilot plants were operated at similar conditions, catalyst (low-activity USY) and hydrotreated VGO. Typical operating
conditions of the two pilot plants are presented in Table 4. The base catalyst was a low cracking activity catalyst
containing H-USY type zeolite with low acid site density. In some experiments, the catalyst was blended with 10 wt%
commercial ZSM-5 additive (supplied by Grace, USA). The base catalyst and additive were deactivated with 100%
steam at 810°C for 6h before evaluation in a fluid-bed steamer. Typical properties of catalyst and additive are presented
in an earlier publication [13].
The 0.1 BPD pilot plant consists of a downer reactor, stripper, regenerator, and catalyst hopper. Feed oil is charged
into the upper part of the downer reactor together with dispersion steam. Regenerated catalyst is also charged to the top
of the reactor from the catalyst hopper. At the outlet of the downer, product hydrocarbons are separated immediately
from catalyst in the stripper, where heavy oil adsorbed on the spent catalyst is stripped by steam, and then spent catalyst
is sent to the regenerator. Catalyst circulation rate was calculated from the delta coke and coke yield.
4.2. Demonstration Plant
The 30 BPD demonstration plant was constructed by Chiyoda at a site near Saudi Aramco’s refinery in Ras Tanura
(Figure 2). The plant was operated for a period of 18 months including several planned shutdowns for inspection and
modification. The main purpose of operation was to confirm the operability of feed nozzle and injection systems.

Flue Gas

Hopper

Feed Combustion air

as lift medium
Downer
Product
Lift Line

Stripper
Steam

Regenerator
Air

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of 30 BPD HS-FCC demonstration plant

The first stage product-catalyst separator of the Demo plant was also a new design different from conventional
cyclone separator. The demonstration plant consists of the following sections:
• Feed oil and catalyst mixer
• Reaction section (downer reactor)
• Product and catalyst separator
• Stripper
• Regenerator with a riser-type lift line, and
• Catalyst hopper.

April 2008 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 1B
23
 A. Maadhah, Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, M. Saeed, and C. Dean

4.3. Feedstock Oil and Product Analysis

Vacuum gas oil and atmospheric residue, both virgin and hydrotreated, were evaluated. Table 5 presents typical
properties of the various feed oils. The gaseous product containing C1 to C4, and some of the C5 hydrocarbons, hydrogen
and nitrogen was analyzed by TCD and FID gas chromatography. The liquid product was analyzed by simulated
distillation chromatography to determine the percentage of gasoline, LCO and HCO fractions. Coke deposited on spent
catalysts was determined by burning the coke in the presence of oxygen and analyzing the combustion gas by infrared
analyzer.
Table 5. Typical Properties of Various Feed Oils
Arabian Light Crude* Low-Sulfur Crude East Asia
Property
VGO* AR VGO AR
Density @15°C, g/cc 0.897 0.914 0.862 0.877
Viscosity @100°C, mm²/sec 8.31 15.91 5.22 9.56
Conradson Carbon, wt% 0.15 2.74 0.18 4.73
C wt% 85.9 86.5 85.9 86.2
Composition H wt% 14.0 13.4 14.0 13.6
H/C ratio 1.94 1.85 1.94 1.88
Basic Nitrogen, ppm 18 160 170 400

* Hydrotreated vacuum gas oil (VGO) and atmospheric residue (AR)

5. RESULTS
5.1. Pilot Plant Results
The results of downer pilot and riser pilot plant are compared in Figure 3. Dry gas formation was suppressed due to
the elimination of back-mixing in the downer and the total yield of useful products is higher at all conversion levels as
compared to riser.

9 75
Light Olefins+Gasoline, (wt%)

Riser Downer
Dry Gas, (wt%)

7 70

Downer Riser
5 65

3
60
70 75 80 85 90
70 75 80 85 90
Conversion
Conversion (wt%)

Figure 3. Comparison of product yields from riser and downer pilot plants

The advantage of downer operation over riser is clearly shown in Figure 4. The downer, operated at HS–FCC
conditions, offers more gasoline at the same yield of light olefins compared to the riser. At the same gasoline yield, the
downer offers higher light olefins yield. Several studies were conducted with different feed oils, catalysts, and olefin
boosting additive combinations.

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 1B April 2008
24
 A. Maadhah, Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, M. Saeed, and C. Dean

60
More gasoline at Downer
50 same light olefins

Gasoline (wt%)
40
Riser
30
20
More light olefins at
10 same gasoline

0
0 10 20 30 40
Light Olefins (wt%)

Figure 4. Advantage of downer versus riser for light olefins

The quality of feed also has an impact on the cracking activity and yield structure. Aromatic base feeds are difficult
to crack and produce more coke, whereas paraffinic base feeds are easily cracked and can produce more light olefins. A
set of experiments were conducted using different feed oils of various origins. VGO and AR obtained from paraffinic
low-sulfur crude of East Asia showed high reactivity. The results are presented in Table 6 [14].
Table 6. Effect of Feed Oil Type on Product Yields
Low Sulfur Crude East
Arabian Light Crude
Yields Asia
VGO AR VGO AR
C2 4.3 3.8 5.4 5.1
Light olefins C3 20.7 19.2 25.0 23.8
(wt% feed basis) C4 17.4 16.6 19.5 18.5
Total 42.4 39.5 49.9 47.4
Dry gas 6.5 6.2 7.8 7.9
LPG 42.4 39.7 49.8 46.7
Others
Gasoline 33.6 35.1 29.0 29.2
(wt% feed basis)
LCO+ 14.5 14.6 11.0 11.9
Coke 2.9 4.5 2.3 4.3
Hydrotreated feed oils gave high propylene and gasoline yield even when hydrotreated AR was used. At low C/O
ratios, the performance of Arabian Light VGO was better, whereas at higher C/O ratios, the conversion of paraffinic
VGO was higher. In terms of light olefins yield, paraffinic VGO gave the best performance. At a C/O ratio of 40,
paraffinic VGO yielded 50 wt% light olefins (25 wt% propylene). The gasoline yield was found higher for hydrotreated
VGO compared to paraffinic VGO. A similar trend was also observed for the two atmospheric residue feed oils.
Figure 5 shows the features of the developed proprietary catalyst for HS–FCC. The proprietary catalyst with an
additive gave higher propylene yield compared to a conventional catalyst mixed with 10% of the same additive. Table 7
compares the yields of light olefins, LPG, gasoline, LCO, HCO, and coke make for a base catalyst and with and without
10 wt% ZSM-5 additive. The base catalyst yielded about 29 wt% olefins and 45 wt% gasoline compared to 39 wt% light
olefins and 34 wt% gasoline in catalyst blended with additive.

April 2008 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 1B
25
 A. Maadhah, Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, M. Saeed, and C. Dean

25

P ropylene yield, m ass%

20

15
Additive C onventional
10 10% C atalyst
P roprietary
5 C atalyst
0
75 80 85 90
C onversion (221℃), m ass%
Figure 5. Advantage of proprietary catalyst

Table 7. Comparison of ZSM-5 addition in a 0.1 BPD Downer Pilot Plant

Product Yields wt% Base Catalyst Base +10wt% ZSM-5
Dry Gas 4.6 5.5
Propylene 10.7 18.4
Butylenes 16.1 17.8
Total C3-C4 Olefins 28.7 39.3
LPG 30.9 40.5
Gasoline 45.4 34.0
Light Cycle Oil (LCO) 9.4 9.3
Heavy Cycle Oil (HCO) 6.6 7.1
Coke 3.1 3.5

The rise in propylene was accompanied with a drop in gasoline yield since the additive is effective in catalytic
systems where the catalyst have low-hydrogen transfer activity. While fresh ZSM-5 is sufficiently active to crack
gasoline paraffins, ZSM-5 in the FCC, which has been subjected to severe hydrothermal conditions, is not active enough
to crack gasoline paraffins [13, 15,16].
5.2. Demonstration Plant versus Pilot Plant
The operation of the demonstration plant was very successful and the obtained results were very close to those of the
0.1 BPD pilot plant. The two plants were operated using conventional FCC catalyst and untreated VGO to compare the
difference of the scale. The yields of light olefins, gasoline, LCO, HCO, and coke in the pilot and demonstration plants
are compared in Table 8. At a C/O ratio of 30, the conversion in both plants was high about 80 wt %. Gasoline yields
were similar in both plants; and a small decrease in the yield of light olefins occurred in the demonstration plant. Coke
make was also higher in the demonstration plant. The results in Table 8 confirm that the pilot plant and demonstration
plant performed similarly. It also confirmed that scaling up the process was successful.
The experimental results of demo plant operation using a catalyst (a blend of conventional catalyst, developed
proprietary catalyst and ZSM-5 based additive) and feed oil (obtained from the bottom of the first stage of hydrocracker)
are shown in Table 9. The propylene yield was 20 wt% accompanied with a drop in gasoline yield. This drop was likely
due to ZSM-5 accelerating the catalytic cracking of the gasoline lighter components to produce low molecular weight
olefins.

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 1B April 2008
26
 A. Maadhah, Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, M. Saeed, and C. Dean

Table 8. Effect of ZSM-5 Addition on HS–FCC Product Yields at 600°C Using Untreated VGO
Conventional FCC HS–FCC Pilot Plant HS–FCC Demo Plant
Product
Base Base Base +
Base Base Base
Yields wt% +10wt% +10wt% 8wt% ZSM-
Catalyst Catalyst Catalyst
ZSM-5 ZSM-5t 5*
Dry Gas 5.3 5.8 4.6 5.5 5.4 10.4
Propylene 7.5 13.0 10.7 18.4 10.6 20.4
Butylenes 8.8 13.6 16.1 17.8 13.4 19.0
Total C3-C4
16.3 26.6 28.7 39.3 25.7 43.9
Olefins
Gasoline 43.4 34.1 45.4 34.0 36.0 35.7
Light Cycle
15.0 15.4 9.4 9.3 10.5 1.1
Oil
Heavy Cycle
14.3 13.4 6.6 7.1 7.7 4.4
Oil
Coke 2.3 2.1 3.1 3.5 9.1 2.3

*Feed oil used was a hydrotreated VGO

The analysis of gasoline showed an octane number of 99 RON and 71% aromatics, 14% olefins, 5% n-paraffins, and
4% naphthenes. The gain of gasoline octane results from the combined effects of reducing low octane compounds
together with the relative increase in concentration of desirable high-octane hydrocarbons (i.e., aromatics and
naphthenes). Isomerization of light C5 – C6 linear olefins is also claimed to play a role in overall octane enhancement.
Table 9. Performance of HS–FCC with Hydrotreated Feed in Demo Plant
Feed Oil 1st Stage Hydrocracker Bottom
Proprietary 32%
Catalyst System Conventional 60%
Additive 8%
H2-C2 10.4
LPG 46.0
(Propylene) (20.4)
Product Yields, wt%
Gasoline 35.7
LCO + 5.5
Coke 2.3

5.3. Cold Flow Model

A 500 BPD cold-flow circulating fluidized-bed apparatus made out of plexiglass is currently being operated to study
the hydrodynamics of catalyst dispersion, product separation and catalyst pattern in downer reactor. A relatively new
electrical capacitance tomography (ECT) technology is used to study the gas-solid mixing patterns in the feed injector
and reactor [17]. The parts were designed using fluid dynamics simulation models. The results of the cold-flow model
will be used to confirm the accuracy of the simulation model and in scale–up to commercial capacity. The total catalyst
inventory of the model is about 21 tons at a catalyst circulation rate of 1.2 tons/min. Refinery equilibrium FCC catalyst
and air are used to simulate the vaporized feed and cracked oil. The total height of the model reaches 35 meters
comprising catalyst feed hopper, collection hopper, and cyclones.

April 2008 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 1B
27
 A. Maadhah, Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, M. Saeed, and C. Dean

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Stand-alone fuel refinery is not any more profitable and FCC is no more a fuel producer only. With proper design
and operation, the HS–FCC process is in best position to produce light olefins for petrochemicals usage along with fuel
products. Catalytic cracking under high severity in a downer-type reactor boosts overall conversion and enhances the
production of gasoline and light olefins. Based on the intrinsic features of HS–FCC, maximum propylene yield and
aromatics can be obtained by the combination of an optimized catalyst system and operating conditions. The recovery of
propylene and paraxylene enhances the economics of an upgraded refinery with HS–FCC option.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support of NOC, Saudi Aramco, KFUPM, and Japan Cooperation Center, Petroleum
(JCCP) in publishing this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Walther, “Refinery Sources Will Fill the Future Propylene Gap”, Oil & Gas Journal, January 27, 2003, pp. 52–54.
[2] A. Aitani, “Propylene Production”, in :Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing. New York : Taylor & Francis, 2006, pp.
2461–2466.
[3] T. Chan and K. Sundaram, “SCC: Advanced FCCU Technology for Maximum Propylene Production”, Presented at the
AIChE 1999 Spring Meeting 2nd International Conference in Refinery Processing, Houston, March 14-18, 1999.
[4] J. Fu and M. Xu, “Using ZSM-5 Additive with DMS Based FCC Catalyst for Increased Propylene Production”,
Presented at the 7th International Symposium on Advances in FCC, ACS 232nd Meeting, San Francisco, September
2006.
[5] A. Corma, F. Melo, L. Sauvanaud, and F. Ortega, “Different Process Schemes for Converting Light Straight Run and
FCC Naphthas in a FCC Unit for Maximum Propylene Production”, Applied Catalysis A: General, 265 (2004), pp.195–
206.
[6] J. Jakkula, “A Novel Catalytic Cracking Technology for Olefins Production”, Presented at the European Refining
Technology Conference, London, November 1997.
[7] Y. Fujiyama, H. Redhwi, A. Aitani, R. Saeed, and C. Dean, “Demonstration Plant for New FCC Technology Yields
Increased Propylene”, Oil & Gas Journal, September 26, 2005, pp. 62–67.
[8] Y. Fujiyama, “Process for Fluid Catalytic Cracking of Oils”, US Patent 5,904,837, May 18, 1999.
[9] T. Ino and S. Ikeda, “Process for Fluid Catalytic Cracking of Heavy Fraction Oil”, US Patent 5,951,850, September 14,
1999.
[10] Y. Fujiyama, et al., “Process for Fluid Catalytic Cracking of Heavy Fraction Oils”, US Patent 6,045,690, April 4, 2000.
[11] S. Nishida and Y. Fujiyama, “Separation Device”, US Patent 6,146,597, November 14, 2000.
[12] T. Ino, T. Okuhahra, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Aitani, and A. Maghrabi, “Fluid Catalytic Cracking Process for Heavy Oil”,
US Patent No. 6,656,346, December 2, 2003.
[13] A. Aitani, T. Yoshikawa, and T. Ino, “Maximization of FCC Light Olefins by High Severity Operation and ZSM-5
Addition”, Catalysis Today, 60 (2000), pp. 111–117.
[14] M. Saeed, M. Siddiqui, A. Aitani, M. Abul-Hamayel, T. Okuhara, and T. Ino, “Impact of Downer Reactor and High
Severity Conditions on the Product Slate of FCC Process”, Proceedings of the Middle East Petrotech 2003, Manama,
Bahrain, September 29-October 01, 2002.
[15] J. Buchanan, “Gasoline Selective ZSM-5 FCC Additives”, Applied Catalysis A: General 171 (1998), pp. 57–64.
[16] T. Okuhara, T. Ino, M. Abul-Hamayel, A. Maghrabi, and A. Aitani, “Effect of ZSM-5 Addition on Product Distribution
in a High Severity FCC Mode”, Petroleum Science and Technology, 19 (2001), pp. 685–695.
[17] F. Kuhn, J. Schouten, R. Mudde, C. van den Bleek, and B. Scarlett, “Analysis of Chaos in Fluidization Using Electrical
Capacitance Tomograpgy”, Measurement Science and Technology, 7 (1996), pp. 361–368.

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 33, Number 1B April 2008
28

View publication stats