REFINING

FCCU Optimization:
A Minimum Capital Approach
An account of a crude vacuum unit revamp in which detailed calculation of
the true performance of existing equipment, plus a realistic calculation of the
benefits a revamp would bring, raised diesel production by 14.5 vol% on crude

Scott W. Golden Process Consulting Services Inc.

Dennis Kowalczyk Refining Process Services, Inc.

O
ptimizing the current performance Effectively prioritizing potential unit oper- necks that can be circumvented by a
of an FCCU or identifying poten- ating changes and technology modifica- global optimization (Photo 1). The major
tial revamp programs requires that tions based on a return-on-investment equipment system optimization issues are
existing unit catalyst system and equip- requires baseline testing. While appropri- shown below:
ment constraints be accurately estab- ate computer models are important to pre- • Reactor-regenerator performance.
lished. Understanding the real equipment dict future performance, there is no substi- • Pressure balance: air blower to wet
limitations, whether catalyst fluidization, tute for accurate plant data. gas compressor.
main fractionator pumparound exchanger
• Main fraction/gas plant heat
surface area, wet gas compressor, or Baseline Testing - Why Is It Important? integration.
recovery section column hydraulic bottle- Plant testing and data gathering are • Gas plant product recovery and
necks requires good plant data. While required to establish the baseline opera- fractionation.
sophisticated computer programs can gen- tional performance of the FCCU. If feed-
erate theoretical performance numbers, While the reactor-regenerator pressure
stock changes occur frequently, then balance is a major operating issue, the
the current plant operation can yield hard representative light, average, and heavy
performance data from a complex reaction relationship between the four areas above
feedstock baselines should be estab- will be qualitatively established. For
system. Many times, real unit bottlenecks, lished. Some of the testing requires instance, better estimates of the air blow-
differ from calculational-based perform- specialized equipment and procedures, er surge line allow closer operation to
ance. Comprehensive baseline testing will while the majority is basic field data surge and higher main fractionator over-
establish the unit bottlenecks. collection using pressure gauges and head receiver pressure. This reduces wet
Baseline plant testing and optimization portable thermocouples. gas production. Alternately, adjusting the
can be used for the following: The FCCU reactor-regenerator and pro- main fractionator heat balance can
• Operations optimization. duct recovery sections may have bottle- decrease wet gas production by lowering
• Minor capital improvements.
• Major technology modifications.
Optimizing the existing catalyst system
and product recovery system equipment
can yield immediate revenue increases.
For instance, lowering or eliminating
sponge oil will reduce wet gas production
and possibly increase FCCU charge rate.
Minor capital modifications such as
improved feed mixing can have a large
return on investment. Major capital
improvements using modern FCC tech-
nology, such as feed injection, riser termi-
nation devices, catalyst strippers, catalyst
lift gas, and air grid technology can
improve unit performance. Baseline test-
ing can be used to establish priorities for
short, medium, and long term FCCU opti-
mization.
Minimizing capital investment and
maximizing revenue from the FCCU
requires an accurate assessment of the
unit’s baseline performance. Proper testing
can determine the efficacy of various short
or long-term technology improvements. Photo 1 FCC Optimization : Minimize Capital

Reprinted from FUEL TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT® March/April 1996 issue, pgs. 37-45.

RMS
Riser
termination
device
RMS
Stripper
RMS
RMS
RMS
RMS
Feed
Injector
Oil Feed
Figure 1 Reactor mix sampling (RMS)
the overhead receiver temperature.
Another example could be increasing the
primary absorber C3= recovery to de-
crease wet gas production by reducing the
recycled gas in the rich sponge oil. The
sum of several small changes can result in
immediate unit revenue.
Complete FCC plant testing requires
the following data be collected during sta-
ble operation:
• Reactor mix sampling (RMS).
- Reactor effluent line sampling.
- Riser termination device
evaluation.
- Riser reaction progress.
- Catalyst stripping efficiency.
• Reactor/regenerator/main column
pressure survey.
• Reactor/regenerator heat balance.
• Recovery section heat and mass
balance.
• Recovery section pressure survey.
The RMS testing, data collection, and
various analyses establishes the FCCU
baseline performance. Testing may re-
quire meter calibration and additional
stream sampling and analysis.
A considerable amount of field pressure
profile data must be gathered. For exam-
ple, fluidization problems at the regenera-
tor catalyst standpipe may be limiting
catalyst circulation. Minor hopper me-
chanical changes may allow higher cata-
lyst circulation. Pressure profiles on the
regenerated catalyst standpipe or main
fractionator overhead system may identify
low-cost revamp options. Minimal
pumparound heat exchanger surface area
Reprinted from FUEL TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT® March/April 1996 issue, pgs. 37-45.
REFINING
PC
RMS REACTOR MIX SAMPLING
additions can also reduce system pressure
drop and wet gas production, thereby
removing a bottleneck in the unit.
Plant testing requires that all heat and
material balance flow meters be zeroed
and calibrated. While overall unit mass
balances are routine, a baseline test
requires accurate assessment of intermedi-
ate flows and heat inputs. The de-ethaniz-
er (or stripper) system is a common recov-
ery section limit in many units. The strip-
per reboiler(s) heat input measurements
from the main fractionator pumparound
and gas plant product streams are very
important to establish column efficiency
and loadings. Even though the stripper is
an intermediate tower in the recovery sec-
tion (no end products), it is necessary to
collect this data. The C2 content in the
debutanizer overhead impacts the debu-
tanizer operating pressure, downstream
processing, or saleable product specifica-
tions like mixed C3. Plant baseline testing
is more comprehensive than an overall
unit mass balance.
If the refiner is interested in debottle-
necking by optimizing the performance of
each piece of equipment in the entire
FCCU complex, it is necessary to decou-
ple the FCCU reactor systems from the
recovery section. RMS testing can isolate
FCCU yield profiles across the various
sections of the reactor (Figure 1). The total
reaction mixture is sampled from the sys-
tem at the appropriate location. This mix-
ture is then analyzed off-line and reactor
yields are calculated.
Reactor effluent testing is often used to
characterize FCC reactor performance
over a series of process variable changes.
During optimization studies, it is critical
to know the sensitivity of the unit to vari-
ous potential changes in operation or
equipment that are being considered. The
RMS technique has been adapted to eval-
uate various system components of the
reaction system. Simultaneous testing of
the riser outlet relative to the reactor out-
let has been done to study potential riser
termination revamps. Results of the RMS
testing have shown that significant incre-
mental conversion can be achieved across
an open reactor vessel. Therefore, careful
consideration must be given regarding
impact on unit conversion when consider-
ing the use of direct-connected riser termi-
nation devices.
RMS testing techniques have also been
used to perform riser sampling to measure
the impact of catalyst/oil mixing above the
injection zone. The degree of conversion,
as the catalyst/oil mixture progresses up
the riser, is directly measured so the rela-
tionship between time and conversion (or
selectivity) can be quantified. This tech-
nique can also be used to study the effec-
tiveness of the stripper design or impact of
steam rate on the stripper performance.
Additional catalyst system flow evalua-
tion studies involving tracer testing can
help develop a “snapshot” of FCCU base-
line performance. This type of evaluation
procedure involves introducing a suitable
gas and particulate solid tracer material
into the reactor-generator loop. A series of
detectors monitor the relative position
and/or velocity of these tracer compo-
nents to determine the characteristic of
catalyst flow, mixing, and unit retention.
Tracer studies can provide insight into
gas/solid flow in standpipes, catalyst/feed
mixing conditions, catalyst/vapor relative
velocities, catalyst/air distribution in
regenerators, stripper performance, and
cyclone operation.
While sophisticated tools are impor-
tant, an accurate catalyst system pressure
profile should be included in the baseline
performance testing. The information col-
lected can be used to determine the sys-
tem’s ultimate catalyst circulation poten-
tial. It will also help pinpoint potential
problem areas. Regenerated catalyst
standpipe hoper design or aeration modi-
fications can also be determined using
results from the pressure survey.
During the reactor system baseline test-
ing, the recovery section heat and mass
balance and complete unit pressure sur-
vey should be conducted. Stream flow
rates, stream properties, process tempera-
tures, utility system conditions, intermedi-
ate stream analysis, pump motor amps,
pumping system pressure drops, and
 REFINING

PC
Flue
Gas
Riser
termination
device PC

Quench

Stripper
Steam

Air
distributor
Air
Feed
Injector
Oil feed
PRESSURE

Air blower

Figure 2 FCCU reactor-regenerator pressure profile

basic equipment data such as control
valve positions should be gathered. Field
observations are critical; for instance, is
water being drawn from the absorber-
stripper system and at what locations?
Water removal from the absorber system
can impact stripper capacity and corro-
sion.
Feedstock variability is important when
establishing the unit testing program.
Some units operate with basically the
same gas oil or resid feedstocks, Others
change feedstocks every 36 hours. In the
current refinery environment, variability
is an increasingly important issue as refin-
ers try to take advantage of opportunity
feedstocks. It is critical during baseline
testing to evaluate a range of feedstocks.
If possible, it is beneficial to perform unit
surveys using several feedstocks of vary-
ing quality ranging from poor to best that
are anticipated for future operation.
Determining the impact of feedstock
differences on the unit operation, equip-
ment performance, product yields, and
product quality is time consuming but
identifies real system limitations that may
be critical.
Evaluating Baseline Data-
Where And Why Are There Bottlenecks?
Once the unit baseline performance is
established, the next step in the optimiza-
tion process involves identifying exactly
what causes the process and equipment
limitations. A constrained piece of equip-
ment should be carefully evaluated to
determine the exact nature of the limita-
tion. As an example, it is important to
know that the wet gas compressor capac-
ity is a limitation.
Understanding what causes the wet gas
compressor limitation such as high dry-
gas production, fouled fin-fans, low cool-
ing water flow rate, or low compressor
suction pressure is even more important
and requires a complete picture of the
operating data. Often it is possible to
make minor modifications (or operating
changes) in a constraining piece of equip-
ment to gain a 5% incremental feed rate.
While performing the baseline testing,
all feed and product streams from the unit
are sampled as part of the unit heat and
material balance. Many refiners feed
external streams to the FCC gas plant.
Evaluating the impact of external feed-
stocks on gas plant performance is impor-
tant. Many times refiners process coker
and hydrotreater gas and liquids through
the FCCU absorber system. These gases
have low molecular weight (20 or less)
with high hydrogen and methane content
and their impact on C3/C4 recovery can
be significant. For instance, when evalu-
ating increased propylene production
from the FCC reactor, it is important that
the absorber system be able to recover the
incremental propylene. These outside
gases may actually strip propane/propy-
lene in the absorber. Overall FCCU opti-
mization requires evaluating the impact of
external feedstocks on the unit perform-
ance.
The reactor/regenerator/main column
pressure profile (Figure 2) is one of the
most critical aspects of the system and
requires accurate operating data for the
purpose of system evaluation. Small sys-
tem pressure drops can be extremely
important. Accurate pressure profiles,
appropriate utility data (fan motor amps
and cooling water return temperatures),
and equipment knowledge can be used
for future system modifications to
debottleneck major pieces of equipment.
For example, the wet gas compressor
might be debottlenecked by eliminating
excessive pressure drop in the air blower
line (flapper check valve pressure drop),
adjusting the main fractionator heat
balance, tightening loose fin-fan motor
fan-belts, or increasing the cooling water
supply to the overhead trim coolers.
A listing of key FCCU limiting con-
straints are outlined below for the
reactor-regenerator and product recovery
systems:
Reactor-Regenerator
• Air blower flow rate.
• Air blower discharge pressure.
• Maximum reactor temperature.

Reprinted from FUEL TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT® March/April 1996 issue, pgs. 37-45.

• Minimum/maximum feed
temperature.
• Maximum catalyst circulation rate.
• Maximum feed charge pump capacity.
• Maximum reactor/regenerator
superficial velocity.
• Maximum stripping/dispersion steam.
• Minimum/maximum operating pressure.
• Maximum flue gas CO, NOX, and SOX.
Product Recovery
• Maximum wet gas volume.
• Maximum wet gas compressor
driver-motor or turbine.
• Main fractionator pumparound/con-
densing heat removal.
• Absorber-stripper C3 /C4 recovery.
• Debutanizer capacity.
• Main fractionator/gas plant heat
integration.
The FCCU pressure balance is a key
operating parameter. The most obvious
considerations are slide valve minimum
pressure drop, catalyst circulation limita-
tions, and safe operating margins.
However, there are several potential bot-
tlenecks that can be easily circumvented.
In one unit, a single pumparound section
in the main fractionator would flood,
thereby increasing the column pressure
drop by about 1.5 psi. While the unit was
still operable, the added pressure drop
reduced the wet gas compressor suction
pressure by 1.5 psi. When the wet gas
compressor suction pressure normally
operates at 5 psig, the compressor capac-
ity is reduced by about 10%. Also, high
column reflux can increase the overhead
pressure drop in some systems by 1.0 psi.
Pressure profile optimization can be used
at either the air blower or wet gas com-
pressor to increase unit capacity.
Main fractionator and gas plant heat
balance adjustments can be used to lower
existing overhead condenser system pres-
sure drop. A heavily loaded main frac-
tionator overhead condensing system
pressure drop can be 8-10 psi. Reducing
or eliminating wet reflux and yielding
heavy naphtha sidecut can reduce the
overhead system pressure drop by 2-4 psi
(Figure 3). Yielding a main fractionator
heavy naphtha product sidecut will mar-
ginally reduce propylene recovery in the
absorber. However, the propylene loss
can be offset by higher debutanizer bot-
tom lean oil rates. In any revamp there
are tradeoffs. Minimizing capital invest-
ment requires a clear understanding of
these tradeoffs.
As noted earlier, the gas plant stripper is
a bottleneck on many units. Many older
units only have 10-15 trays and one
reboiler. Debottlenecking the stripper col-
umn can be done in several ways depend-
ing on the specific unit flow scheme and
Reprinted from FUEL TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT® March/April 1996 issue, pgs. 37-45.
REFINING
existing equipment designs. Some of the
ways to debottleneck the stripper are list-
ed below:
• Add a second reboiler - additional
column efficiency.
• Add a feed preheater.
• Eliminate stripper overhead vapor
recycle to the compressor’s high stage
drum.
• Produce a heavy naphtha side draw
from the main fractionator.
While the benefits of these options are
process and unit dependent, they may
present tradeoffs in absolute optimum
unit performance, and can lower capital
investment, increase feed rate, conver-
sion, or product selectivity. It is relatively
simple to replace major pieces of equip-
ment that are undersized. However, this is
an expensive approach. Modifying the
process flow scheme and/or operating
conditions to debottleneck major equip-
ment is more involved but considerably
more cost effective.
Optimization Goals -
Capital Investment Tradeoffs
Optimization of the FCCU operation is
critically linked to both the quantity and
quality of the various feedstock compo-
nents available. This issue is further com-
plicated by variations within the feedstock
components which are available to the
refiner. In order to optimize the FCCU to
achieve maximum profitability, it is neces-
sary to study the impact of the FCCU on
other refinery operating units. A listing of
possible FCC feed-related objectives
include:
• Maximum gas oil feed rate.
• Maximum residual (1000+) material
in feed blend.
MINIMIZE
WET REFLUX
ADDED
SURFACE
AREA
HEAVY
NAPHTHA
Figure 3 Reducing condenser system pressure drop
• Maximum coker gas oil in feed blend.
• Segregated injection of feed
components.
In order to achieve optimization on a
plant-wide basis, it is necessary to com-
plete LP model studies. Using these indi-
vidual process models in the areas of
alkylation, coking and hydrotreating can
determine the impacts on these units. The
FCCU serves as a feedstock producer for
the alkylation unit and often receives feed
from the coker. Understanding gas plant
debutanizer limitations when evaluating
the potential for C5 olefin processing in
the alky is important. High boiling C5
dienes and cyclopentene cause ASO pro-
duction in a HF alkylation unit. Having a
clear picture of the existing debutanizer
constraints or process design problems
helps identify the optimization options.
The quantity and quality of product
streams plays a significant role in the opti-
mization study. A number of product
related issues include:
• Gasoline quality and impact on
blending pool.
• Light cycle oil (LCO) quality and
impact on diesel fuel quality.
• Reformulated Fuels issues (sulfur,
olefins, and aromatics content, and
TBP 90% point).
• Maximum charge rate for the
alkylation unit.
• Maximum propylene production for
recovery or sales.
• Shifting gasoline to alkylation feed.
• Maximum conversion to light
products.
When setting the optimization objec-
tives, the reactor-regenerator and product
recovery section limitations must be clear-
ly established. Some objectives may be
AIR
CW
WET
GAS
OVERHEAD
RECEIVER
PRIMARY
ABSORBER

extremely costly due to existing limita-
tions; therefore, prioritization of objec-
tives should not be made solely on prod-
uct revenue enhancements alone.
Optimizing the catalyst system separate
from the recovery system leads to false
economies. Once the baseline FCCU
operation is defined and the operating
constraints are established, it is time to
establish a set of realistic goals to pursue
in the optimization. For instance, one goal
may be increasing the production of
propylene for outside sales. Establishing
reactor system yield shifts may include
ZSM-5 addition to the catalyst system.
As reactor yields are shifted, it is impor-
tant to consider that significant decreases
in reactor effluent molecular weight have
the following impacts:
• Higher reactor superficial velocity.
• Increased wet gas production.
• Lower C3= recovery (percent basis)
in the absorber.
• Higher compressor inter-condenser
loading.
• Higher debutanizer and C3 /C4 splitter
heat inputs.
Producing higher olefins impacts the
reactor-to-wet gas compressor system sig-
nificantly. The first major system evalua-
tion is the unit pressure balance. Baseline
testing and analysis helps determine
adjustment benefits and costs. Knowing
the the air blower is limiting and needs to
be replaced or a supplemental air blower
is required may suggest a shift to higher
regenerator pressure operation. If reactor
superficial velocity is marginal, raising
system pressure becomes a good option.
Alternately, the reactor superficial velocity
may be low but the reactor-regenerator
maximum allowable working pressures
LC
HIGH
TEMPERATURE
HEAT
Figure 4 FCCU stripper reboiler
Reprinted from FUEL TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT® March/April 1996 issue, pgs. 37-45.
REFINING
may preclude pressure increases. In this
case, decreasing main fractionator pres-
sure drop may be warranted. A third pos-
sibility is that the main fractionator over-
head condenser pressure drop is high and
the main fractionator heat balance can be
adjusted by the addition of a
pumparound. All of these options are
viable means of debottlenecking a wet gas
compressor. Baseline testing and analysis
makes the cost/benefit analysis of various
optimization goals easier to ascertain.
FCCU Optimization
Once the refiner establishes parameters
and constraints for the FCCU baseline
operation (both reactor and recovery sec-
tions), begin identifying what needs to be
done to improve the operation. There are
three distinct levels to an optimization:
• Current plant performance -
immediate.
• Minor plant equipment modifications -
short to medium term.
• Major technology changes -
medium to long term.
Baseline testing establishes whether
there are immediate process variable
changes that can improve current opera-
tional performance. Over a longer term,
the baseline can be used to establish a
program of minor or major equipment
modifications.
Current Operation
The first step in the optimization is to
examine the potential for adjusting unit
operating variables in both the reactor and
recovery sections to shift the relative
impact of (or eliminate) various equipment
limitations. Examples of changes on the
reactor side could include fluidization
LOW
TEMPERATURE
HEAT
BOTTOM
PRODUCT
parameters (aeration) to maximize catalyst
flow. Adjustments of the reactor-regenera-
tor pressure balance may also be possible.
Additionally, accurately being able to pre-
dict the axial blower surge line can allow
the regenerator operating pressure to be
increased. With most refiners using some
kind of DCS control, curve fitting a surge
line is relatively simple. Understanding
equipment performance details is critical
to remove unit bottlenecks.
The reactor-regenerator optimization
requires a reliable heat balanced model to
predict reactor side performance. The
reactor yield shifts can then be used in a
rigorous recovery section model to predict
the impact on various systems. An opti-
mization may show that higher olefins
production is economic but the existing
plant has limitations preventing such a
change. Depending on the existing flow
scheme and unit constraints, recovery
section operating changes can be consid-
ered. Some examples targeted at improv-
ing propylene recovery include:
• Increase gas plant system pressure to
compressor surge.
• Minimize high pressure receiver
temperature.
• Maximize intercooler duty.
• Increase lean oil rate.
• Decrease lean oil temperature.
• Decrease stripper heat input to
minimum acceptable.
Catalyst system selection is one of the
most important FCCU performance opti-
mization variables. FCC catalyst proper-
ties and addition rate can be modified to
move the unit conversion and product
selectivity to alleviate a unit bottleneck.
In studying the existing and future con-
straints of the FCCU, adjustments in the
catalyst formulation or use of a complete-
ly different catalyst can be used to shift
the relative amounts of a given compo-
nent in the product slate.
Minor Equipment Modifications
A second step in the optimization
involves evaluating minor equipment
modifications that can increase incremen-
tal revenue. An example of such a revamp
could be the modification of an existing
air blower. Fixed stator blade modifica-
tions on many blowers can be used to add
incremental blower discharge pressure
and flow rate. Figure 5 shows an axial
blower curve with the blower perform-
ance. During scheduled turnaround the
air blower casing is normally open for rou-
tine maintenance. Replacing the fixed sta-
tors is a low cost option.
There are numerous potential revamps
that can be implemented to debottleneck
recovery section equipment. The specific
recovery section process flow scheme and

unit limitations will dictate the appropri-
ate system modifications. A few recovery
section minor equipment modifications
that can add incremental revenue by
increasing unit capacity or product recov-
ery include:
• Adding surface area to existing main
fractionator pumparound to reduce
wet gas load.
• Converting sponge oil from LCO to
heavy naphtha to add incremental
heat removal in top of column and
debottleneck sponge oil system.
• Adding series reboiler to stripper to
increase C3= recovery in the gas
plant having a stripper with a low
number of trays (Figure 4).
• Adding absorber intercooler surface
area to increase C3 recovery.
• Moving pumparound series heat
exchanger to parallel to improve
gasoline recovery from LCO.
Major Technology Modifications
If optimization of the operating variables
and/or implementation of minor equip-
ment modifications are not sufficient to
reach the refiner’s goals, then it is appro-
priate to consider new process and hard-
ware technologies. Recent advancement
in the areas of feed injection, riser termi-
nation, catalyst/oil disengagement, reactor
quench, regenerator catalyst/air distribu-
tion, catalyst cooling, and stripper design
offer improvements in unit performance to
the refiner compared to older less efficient
technologies.
Baseline testing establishes existing
equipment limitations such as fractionator
flooding, heat exchanger surface limita-
tions, pumping systems limits, and com-
pression system performance. Knowing
the wet gas compressor is limited to
18,860 acfm, a main fractionator with a
maximum operating flood of 70%, and a
stripper column at maximum flood, estab-
lishes the unit constraints during baseline
testing. Some of these limitations can be
circumvented by various changes to the
process system. Knowing what the major
equipment (defined as expensive to
replace) limitations are establishes where
the redesign effort should be focused.
Optimizing existing column capacity
with fundamental system changes and
advances in separation technology allows
more flow through a given column. Many
times the column can be revamped.
Changing feed tray location, feed preheat
increases, feed preheat reduction, tray
spacing changes, and lower feed tempera-
ture can be used to increase column
capacity. While there are improvements in
mass transfer devices that allow higher
capacity and lower pressure drop, the new
Reprinted from FUEL TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT® March/April 1996 issue, pgs. 37-45.
REFINING
ADIABATIC HEAD X 10 3
INE
GEL
SUR
ICFM X 10
3
Figure 5 Axial blower fixed stator blade modifications
technology has increased risks. Structured propylene production or more gasoline
packing has been used with good results production the target? Minimum capital
in the recovery section main fractionator. profit improvement revamps require a
It also has caused many serious problems clear understanding of a unit’s baseline
because it was either applied incorrectly performance, capabilities, and limita-
or designed wrong. High capacity trays tions. While it is important to perform
and high efficiency random packing have equipment calculations to determine unit
been used successfully in many FCCU gas bottlenecks, understanding global opti-
plant columns. In contrast, structured mization issues is essential to minimize
packing use in gas plant columns has capital investment.
resulted in a very high incidence of failure.
Conclusion Scott W. Golden is a chemical engineer with
Catalyst system and hardware technology Process Consulting Services, Inc., Houston,
has changed significantly in the last ten Texas. The company provides revamp and
years. These reactor technologies produce field troubleshooting for the refinery industry
a varying product slate that must be ade- worldwide.
quately fractionated and efficiently recov-
Dennis Kowalczyk is a consultant with
ered by the downstream equipment.
Refining Process Services, specializing in FCC
There are many different recovery system
process optimization and performance
designs, each having differing types of
improvement. Dennis has been involved in
equipment limitations. Having a good
the development of several new technologies
baseline test which includes a complete
for enhancing the performance of resid
unit heat and material balance, compre-
cracking units. He is currently serving as
hensive unit pressure profile, and detailed
chief consultant for TheFCCNetwork.com,
understanding of existing equipment limi-
an internet site providing FCC news and
tations allows potential charge rate and
information.
yield shift improvements to be reliably
assessed.
Analyzing reactor-regenerator limita-
tions without regard to the FCCU recovery
section performance gives an incomplete
picture of the unit optimization.
Understanding how each individual piece
of equipment performs and how the inte-
grated system responds to various Process Consulting Services, Inc.
changes is important. Simple changes to 3400 Bissonnet, Suite 130
an FCCU like adding a main fractionator
Houston, Texas 77005
condenser cooling water booster pump
can drop the overhead receiver tempera- ☎ [1]-(713)-665-7046
ture by 10°F, thereby reducing wet gas
production by 8%-10%. How this lower ✉ [1]-(713)-665-7246
wet gas production is used is a function of ✉ info@revamps.com
the optimization objective. Is increased ✉ www.revamps.com